&ER&
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Drinking Water
Washington, DC 20460
Water
Guidance for Planning the
Location of Water Supply
Intakes Downstream from
Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Facilities
-------
GUIDANCE FOR PLANNING THE LOCATION
OF WATER SUPPLY INTAKES
DOWNS TREAN FROM MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Contract No. 68—01—4473
Project Officer
Patrick Tobin
Office of Water Supply
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
April, 1978
-------
This report has been reviewed by
Cuip/Wesner/Cuip, EPA, and approved
for publication. Approval doeè not
signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the
Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to present information and guidelines
relevant to the location of surface water supply intakes downstream from
municipal wastewater discharges. The report makes no attempt to provide
standards or rules to be used in all situations. Decisions on the location
of water supply intakes must be made by informed professionals at the local
level after careful consideration of all factors and this report is intended
to provide information that will be useful to local professionals and review
officials. The report reviews the. data required for evaluating intake
location, available stream modeling techniques, capability and costs of
water and wastewater treatment processes and the public health implications
of upstream was tewater discharges.
PROJECTING RAW WATER SUPPLY QUALITY
The many natural and human factors which affect stream water quality
cause large variations in the concentrations of trace contaminants as well
as constituents commonly found in waters such as chloride, sulfate, calcium,
and sodium. Variations can occur within relatively short distances in
streams and such variations often occur in an unsystematic and nonpredictable
manner. The concentrations of contaminants in streams are affected by
reactions such as precipitation, complexation, oxidation—reduction, ion
exchange, adsorption and/or absorption, flocculation, and biological uptake
and/or release. Stream physical characteristics which affect the fate
of contaminants include velocity, depth, turbulence, degree of mixing,
temperature, turbidity, changes in cross section and bottom characteristics
such as slope, type of material and sorptive capacity. The effects of some
of these parameters are so interrelated that their relative importance is
difficult to determine.
Despite the complexity of surface water systems, mathematical models
have been developed which provide useful insights into the fate of various
contaminants. The models generally fall into three categories: (1) steady—
state models in which the variables involved are unchanging with time, (2)
dynamic—equilibrium models that vary with time but only in a cyclically
repetitious manner, and (3) dynamic models in which the inputs and outputs
may vary freely with time. Available models are briefly described and their
limitations and data requirements are presented. All of the models contain
constants that deal with dispersion, sorption, reaeration and diffusion rates.
The values of these constants should be obtained through experimental work
for the river basin being modeled.
i
-------
The U.S. Geological Survey operates a water quality network that obtains
data from 345 stream monitoring stations in the United States. The Environ—
mental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently completed a survey of the quality
of raw water supplies, including 35 surface supplies, to determine the presence
of trihalomethanes and the effects of water treatment processes. The study
found that 35 surface supplies had a median chloroform concentration of
less than 0.2 iig/l and that chlorination of these supplies resulted in forma-
tion of trihalomethanes. Based on a review of the data collected in the
EPA survey and other available surface water data, the following background
stream concentrations of organics were used in analyzing the effects of
wastewater discharges on downstream water supplies: biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) = 5 milligrams per liter (mg/i); chemical oxygen demand (COD) = 30
mg/i; total organic carbon (TOC) = 10 mg/i.
With the exception of turbidity and coilform bacteria, most raw surface
supplies do not exceed the Federal Primary and Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations. Although secondary municipal effluents also do not normally
exceed Drinking Water Regulations limits for inorganic chemicals, they do
contain turbidity, organic compounds, and pathogens of concern in downstream
water supplies. Trace organics are the most important concern because of
their largely unknown long term health effects: in drinking water.
The public policy adopted by EPA’s Office of Drinking Water has been
that the Drinking Water Regulations are applicable to tap water whose water
supply source is relatively free from pollution. This public policy is
further interpreted by the public health agencies that these standards are
not comprehensive for determining the adequacy for the reuse of municipal
wastewaters for potable purposes. This policy is based upon public health
prudence. Until scientific evidence can assure that there is no present
or potential adverse effects from the use of wastewaters for potable purposes,
this public policy will probably continue.
CAPABILITY OF TREATMENT PROCESSES FOR CONTAMINANT REMOVAL
Several levels of wastewater and water treatment may be used to achieve
varying removals of the contaminants specified in the Drinking Water Regula—
tions. These contaminants are divided into the following categories:
microbiological, turbidity, organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals and
radioactive materials.
Microbiological — Conventional wastewater treatment processes (primary and
biological secondary treatment plus chlorination) may achieve at least 90
percent reductions of virus and bacteria but cannot provide a completely
disinfected effluent. Conventional water treatiffent and advanced wastewater
treatment AWT) processes such as chemical clarification, and filtration
coupled with chlorination or ozonation can provide complete removal of
vi.ruses and coliform bacteria.
Turbidity — Modern water treatment methodè can routinely producewater to
meet the drinking water requirements for turibidity. Typical secondary
effluent turbidities of 10—30 turbidity units (ITTJ) can be reduced to 0.1—
1.0 TU by AWT processes.
11
-------
Organic Chemicals — Some trace organics, many of which are by—products of
the chlorination process, are potential carcinogens. In general, the
formation of these compounds can be minimized by chlorinating at the point
in the water treatment process with the highest quality water. Other control
methods include: (1) use of disinfectants which do not generate trihalometh—
anes, (2) treatment to reduce precursor concentration prior to chlorination,
and (3) treatment to reduce the trihalomethane concentrations after formation.
Typical secondary effluent COD levels of 60—100 mg/i have been reduced
to as low as 3 mg/l by AWT processes, including granular activated carbon
adsorption. However, COD values of 10—12 mg/l appear to represent a more
practical level achievable in full—scale, continuous treatment of municipal
wastewaters. Reverse osmosis treatment of effluent from the carbon adsorption
process can reduce the COD level to 1 mg/i or less in both water and wastewater
treatment systems.
Inorganic Chemicals — Chemical clarification is the most generally applicable
method for removal of inorganic chemicals in water and wastewater treatment
systems. Although toxic inorganic chemicals are not normally present in
raw surface waters dr municipal secondary effluent, in concentrations that
exceed the Drinking Water Regulations, the efficiencies of specific water
and wastewater unit processes for removal of arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, fluoride, lead, mercury, nitrate, selenium, silver, copper, iron,
manganese, zinc, hardness and total dissolved solids are examined in the
report.
Radioactive Material — Radioactive materials are not normally present in
surface water supplies or municipal wastewaters at levels that exceed the
Drinking Water Regulations. Treatment of water containing radioactive
materials may present special problems that are not considered in this
report.
FACTORS IN LOCATING WATER INTAKES
Exclusive of wastewater discharges, there are many factors to be consid-
ered in locating an intake, such as, quality difference between potential
sources, adequacy of quantity, accessability, siltation potential, navigation
needs, flood levels and foundation conditions. Rural and urban runoff and
accidental spills can contribute to public health problems even in the absence
of upstream wastewater discharges and intake locations should be selected
to minimize these potential problems.
There is a lack of raw water quality standards applicable to both
polluted water supply sources and to relatively unpolluted sources on which
drinking water regulations are now based. This lack causes many uncertain-
ties for water supplies downstream of wastewater discharges when such discharges
constitute a significant portion of the supply. Although. there are many
water plants which now produce biologically safe drinking water from streams
and rivers containing substantial amounts of wastewater, there is uncertain-
ty about the long term effects of the organic materials which. may survive
both natural purification processes in the stream and water and wastewater
treatment processes. Current standards for inorganic compounds appear
adequate. Although there are questions about the adequacy of the coliform
111
-------
bacteria standards, there i.s a lack of water—borne viral diseases in coimnuni—
ties with water supplies meeting coliforin standards. Standards for organi.cs
are the greatest unanswered question.
Of great practical importance is the effect that was.tewater discharges
have on the distance that should be maintained between an intake and the
wastewater discharge. Clearly, some significant separation should be provided
to take advantage of natural purification processes and to allow time for
adequate monitoring and detection of upstream wastewater plant malfunctions.
It appears that at least 24 hours of combined time in travel and storage
should be provided to allow for reaction time to emergencies. Greater
separation to allow, more treatment through natural processes may or may
not be more economical than equal removal by improved treatment. Many toxic
materials are not effectively removed by natural processes and added separation
primarily provides increased time for detection. Increased separation provides
more time for die—off of pathogens but complete removal of pathogens. can
be provided by treatment processes. Time of stream travel probably has
little effect on any health hazards from synthetic organics.
Several studies document the fact that wastewater treatment plants
often do not operate at their design efficiency. Such inefficiencies or
periodic failures may be particularly significant to downstream water supplies.
Conventional plant designs can be modified to greatly increase reliability,
although at increased cost.
ALTERNATIVES IN WATER INTAKE LOCATIONS
In order to compare the effects of several variables that must be
considered when evaluating potential water intake locations, a-wastewater
discharge—water intake and supply model system was established. The system
variables include: (1) level of wastewater treatment, (2) separation time
between the point of wastewater discharge and the water intake, (3) quantity
of wastewater as a percentage of total stream flow, (4) level of wastewater
treatment, and (5) relative sizes of the wastewater and water treatment
plants. In addition to secondary wastewater treatment, AWT (iniuding lime
clarification, filtration, and carbon adsorption) was considered. Levels
of water treatment considered were “conventional,”upgr .aded” (Chemical clarif i—
cation, mixed media filtration, and granular carbon adsorption), and “upgraded plus
reverse osmosis”. The following average organic concentrations and percentage
removals are used in the cases evaluated:
Concentration, mg/i Percentage Removal
____ COD TOC BOD COD TOC
St ream Flow 5 30 10
Effluents
Secondary 30 100 40
Advanced Wastewater Treatment 2 20 8 93 80 80
Conventional Water Treatment <1 10 5 >80 67 50
Upgraded Water Treatment None 2 1 100 93 90
Upgraded Water Treatment & None <1 <1 100 >97 >90
Reverse Osmosis
iv
-------
A detailed analysis of the unit costs for the various treatment processes
was conducted and is included in Appendix B. The Summary Table presents the
costs and finished water qualities of a Base Case and eight other cases
for different combinations of treatment. The following conclusions are
based on data in the table:
1. Given the alternatives of providing AWT upstream of a conventional
water treatment plant (Case 4) or continuing secondary treatment
and instituting upgraded water treatment (Case 1), it is significantly
lower in cost to upgrade the water treatment plant rather than
the wastewater plant. This alternative (Case 1) also produces higher
quality finished water. The larger the wastewater plant in relation
to the water treatment plant, the more significant are the savings.
2. Upgrading the water treatment plant, even with effluent from a
secondary plant 1—day upstream (Case 1) constituting 20 percent
of the stream flows, results in higher finished water quality than
would be produced by conventional treatment of typical stream water
without a nearby municipal effluent discharge (see footnote 3 in
Summary Table).
3. Upgrading the level of water treatment (Case 1) results in only a
2 to 14 percent increase in the Base Case wastewater plus water
treatment costs but a very significant improvement in finished
water quality.
4. Effects of the wastewater discharge on the ecosystem in the stream,
eutrophication potential, and aesthetic consideratIons are more
pertinant to whether secondary or advanced wastewater treatment
should be provided than is the effect on quality of the downstream
water supply.
5. The gain in finished water quality per unit cost by the addition of
reverse osmosis to upgraded water treatment is much less than the
gain per unit cost by the addition of the upgrading process to
conventional water treatment.
An analysis of the costs to provide increased wastewater and water
treatment plant reliability was also made. To provide essentially 100
percent reliability with standby treatment units and standby power, the
total annual costs for wastewater treatment would increase by about 25
percent at 5 mgd and 13 percent at 25 and 50 mgd; the costS for water treatment
would increase by 19 percent at 5 mgd, 8 — 12 percent at 25 mgd, and 4 — 8
percent at 50 mgd.
CASE HISTORIES
Three instances involving wastewater discharges above water supply
intakes were reviewed. These case histories are included to illustrate
the judgements that were made by local officals in evaluating the merits
of each case 0 In one case, Occoquan, Virginia, the evaluation is still
in progress.
V
-------
SUMMARY TABLE
TOTAL COST AND WATER TREATMENT PLANT PRODUCT. WATER QUALITY
Wastewater Treatment plus Water Treatment Costs Water Treatment Plant Product Water Quality 3
Level of Level of ( $11,000 gallons water produced) ( Concentration, mg/i )
Wastewater Water Separation 50 mgd WWTP & 5 mgd WWTP & 25 mgd WWTP & For 20% Wastewater Reuse’ For 5% Wastewater Reuse&
Case Treatment Treatment Time (Days) 5 mgd WTP 2 50 mgd WTP 25 mgd WTP BUD COD TOC BUD COD TOC
Base Secondary Conventional 1.0 3.30 0.191 0.526 2 14 8 1.2 11 5.8
1 Secondary Upgraded 1.0 3.36 0.217 0.560 ND 3.1 1.6 ND 2.3 1.2
2 Secondary Upgraded plus 1.0 4.01 0.785 1.15 ND 1.3 <1.6 ND 1.0 <1.2
Reverse Osmosis
3 Secondary Conventional 2—30k 3.34 0.192 0.530 2 14 8 1.2 11 5.8
4 Advanced Conventional 1.0 6.62 0.250 0.906 0.9 9.2 4.8 1.0 9.7 5.0
5 Advanced Upgraded 1.0 6.67 0.277 0.940 ND 2.0 1.0 ND 2.1 1.0
6 Advanced Conventional 2—3O 6.65 0.251 0.911 0.9 9.2 4.8 1.0 9.7 5.0
7 Advanced Upgraded 2_301 6.71 0.277 0.944 ND 2.0 1.0 ND 2.1 1.0
8 Advanced Upgraded plus 2—3& 7.37 0.845 1.54 ND 0.8 <1.0 ND 0.9 <1.0
Reverse Osmosis
1 Costs are included for 1—day storage at the wastewater treatment plant.
Wastewater Treatment Plant, WTP — Water Treatment Plant, ND — None Detected.
3 with no nearby upstream wastewater plant and with the assumed background stream quality, the water treatment plant product qualitywould be
SOD <1 mg/i, COD — 10 mg/l, and TOC 5 mg/i.
Represents 20 percent or 5 percent of wastewater in total stream flow at the water intake.
-------
Occoguan, Virginia — Several small secondary was tewater plants discharged
their effluent for several years into the Occoquan Reservoir, a water supply
reservoir for the Washington, D.C. area. The reservoir became highly
eutrophic with the secondary effluents identified as the primary cause.
It was expected that wastewater flows would eventually constitute 12 percent
of the annual inf low to the reservoir and 46 percent of the July low flow.
The alternative of exporting the secondary effluents below the water intakes
was proposed but encountered public and agency opposition, primarily due
to the high cost. A study by the State Water Control Board (SWCB) concluded
that with AWT and continued discharge to the reservoir, the quantities of
pollutants would be substantially reduced even at wastewater flows 10 times
those then being experienced. The AWT alternative also offered substantial
cost savings over the export alternative. The downstream water utility
and the State Department of Health initially opposed this plan because of
concerns about viruses; however, a supplemental review by the SWCB of the
virus issue caused the opposition to be dropped. The SWCB adopted a policy
calling for abandoning the 25-secondary plants in the basin and for AWT
in a regional 10 mgd plant with discharge of the effluent to the water supply
reservoir. The rigid weekly average effluent quality requirements include:
BOD = 1 mg/i, COD = 10 mg/i, suspended solids = 0 mg/i, nitrogen = 1 mg/l,
phosphorus = 0.1 mg/i, and coliform bacteria less than 2 per 100 milliliters.
The policy requires specific treatment processes and backup treatment units
to insure reliability. Regional review agencies. concluded that the travel
distance of 20 miles (travel time of 100—190 days) and effective downstream
water treatment were adequate. The regional. AWT plant was scheduled for
start—up in early 1978.
Huron River, Michigan — In this case involving the Huron River, a 41 mgd
wastewater dise arge (nitrified, filtered effluent) was proposed about 14
miles upstream of the 4 mgd Flat Rock, Michigan water treatment plant.
An environmental assessment concluded that at 7 day, 10 year dry flow condi-
tions, the nitrate concentration in the Huron River would reach 10.25 mg/i,
which is 0.25 mg/i above the drinking water standard, due to the wastewater
discharge. The assessment also concluded that the combination of discharged
organic material and chlorination could cause taste and odor problems.
The wastewater flow constituted nearly 40 percent of the 7 day, 10 year
dry flow. Any plant malfunctions were expected to cause serious water
quality problems at the water intake and pose the threat of inadequately
disinfected finished water. The Michigan Department of Health stated that
if the wastewater project proceeded, the Flat Rock water plant would no
longer be permitted to use the Huron River as a supply and the funding of
an alternate supply for Flat Rock, including retirement of the existing
bonds, should be included in the cost of the wastewater project. The proposed
wastewater project was abandoned.
Passaic Basin, New Jersey — There are some 115 municipal and industrial
waste discharges totaling 50 mgd, which constitutes about 60 percent of
the flow at the Little Fails water supply intake for a 100 mgd plant serving
15 northern New Jersey communities. The water plant utilizes conventional
treatment with powdered carbon additions during times, of particularly poor
water quality or upstream waste spills. The water utility admittedly depends
vii
-------
upon the wastewater discharges to meet its quantity requirements. Although
one of the most polluted rivers in the east, the Passaic is still serving
satisfactorily as a major water supply. No viral diseases have been traced
to the water supply. One of the main concerns of the water utility is the
potential for significant trihaloniethane concentrations. Consideration
is being given to construction of granular carbon filters at the water
treatment plant and use of AWT upstream, although neither appeared to be
imminent in early 1978.
viii
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary I
Tables xi
Figures xiii
List of Abbreviations and Symbols xiv
Acknowledgement xv
1. INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose and Scope 1
Background 1
2. BACKGROUND WATER QUALITY 5
Stream Water Quality 5
Wastewater Effluent Quality 15
Summary — Background Water Quality 20
3. FATE OF CONTAMINANTS IN STREAMS 22
Physical Factors 22
Precipitation and Complexation 23
Importance of Clay Minerals and Other Suspended Material 24
4. STREAM MODELING TECHNIQUES 26
Steady State Models 27
Dynamic Equilibrium Models 27
Dynamic Models 30
Other Models 30
5. CAPABILITY OF TREATMENT PROCESSES FOR CONTAMINANT REMOVAL 32
General 32
Microbiological Contaminants 33
Turbidity 35
Organic Chemicals 35
Measures of Organic Pollution 37
Activated Carbon 40
Reverse Osmosis 44
Ion Exchange 44
Inorganic Chemicals 45
Arsenic 50
Barium 54
Cadmium 54
Chromium 57
Fluoride 58
Lead 61
Mercury 62
Nitrate 63
Selenium 64
Silver 66
ix
-------
Contents (Cont’d)
Page
Copper 67
Iron and Manganese 68
Zinc 69
Total Dissolved Solids 71
Hardness 72
6. FACTORS IN THE LOCATION OF WATER INTAKES 74
General Considerations 74
Stream Characteristics 80
Treatment Process Capability 82
Treatment Plant Reliability Considerations 82
Health Considerations 96
Biological Agents 96
Chemical Agents 97
Identification and Dose 97
Host Contact 99
Dose Response 100
7. ALTERNATIVES IN WATER INTAKE LOCATIONS 106
Alternative Treatment Systems 106
Cost Estimates 111
Comparison of Alternatives 112
8. CASE STUDIES 119
Occoquan, Virginia 119
Huron River, Michigan 128
Passaic Basin, New Jersey 132
References 137
Appendix A — Wàstewater Reclamati n System Reliability Criteria —
State of California
Appendix B —. Water and Wastewater Treatment System Costs
x
-------
TABLES
Page
1. Mean Composition of Surface Waters of New. Jersey 6
2. Composition of Big Flat Brook Water at Two Sites 8
3. Summary of Surface Water Qyality in the United States 9
4. Water Quality Summary, Cuyahoga and St. Mary’s Rivers 10
5. Time Variation of Concentration of Several Trace Elements 11
in the Allegheny (A) and Monongahela (N) Rivers at Pittsburgh
6. National Organics Reconnaissance Survey, Raw Water Quality 14
Data
7. Average Carbon and Nitrogen Concentrations in Water and 16
Suspended Sediment During 1969—70
8. Secondary Effluent Quality . 17
9. Organics in Secondary Effluent 19
10. Background water Quality 21
11. Stream Model Features, Aquisition and Costs 28
12. Stream Model Data Requirements 29
13. Removal of Toxic Materials by Carbon Adsorption 41
14. Typical Quality of Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant 43
Product Water
15. Most Effective Methods for Removal of Inorganic Chemicals 46
in Primary Drinking Water Regulations
16. Trace Metal Occurrance and Removal of Twelve Water 47
Treatment Plants in Colorado and California
17. Removal of Heavy Metals by Lime Clarification 48
18. Removal of Heavy Metals by Alum and Iron Clarification 49
19. Removal of Metals at Dallas AWE Plant 51
20. Arsenic Treatment Methods 53
21. Barium Treatment Methods 55
22. Summary of Fluoride Treatment Processes and Levels of 60
Treatment Achieved
xi
-------
Tables (Cont’d)
Page
23. Iron and Manganese Removal Efficiency by Ion Exchange 70
Treatment
24. Typical Levels of Organic Constituents in Water and 85
Was tewater
25. Tr ckiing Filter Summary, EPA Region Data 88
26. Trickling Filter Summary, Plant Visits 89
27. Activated Sludge Summary, EPA Region Data 90
28. South Lake Tahoe Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant 94
Effluent
29. Categories of Known or Suspected Organic Chemical 98
Carcinogens Found in Drinking Water
30. OrganIc Contaminants in Drinking Water Concentrations 102
Toxicity, ADI and Suggested No Adverse Effect Levels.
31. Cost Summary — Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems 114
32. Total Cost and Water Treatment Product Water Quality 115
Water and Was tewater Treatment Systems.
33. Cost Summary — For Increased Reliability Water and 116
Wastewater Treatment Systems
34. Total Cost and Water Treatment Product Water Quality 117
increased Reliability Water and Wástewater Treatment Systems.
xii
-------
FIGURES
Page
1. TOC Concentrations in Stream Flow and Wastewater Blends 81
2. Wastewater Treatment Systems 83
3. Water Treatment Systems 84
4. Activated Sludge Effluent Quality 91
5. Filtered Activated Sludge Effluent ROD 93
6. System Schematic Wastewater Discharge — Water Intake 107
7. Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems 108
8. Treatment System Alternatives 110
9. Location of Occoquan Watershed 120
10. Discharges to Occoquan Reservoir with Secondary Treatment 122
and AWT
11. Location Map, huron River, Michigan 129
12. Watersheds of the Passaic River and Tributaries 134
xl ii
-------
LIST OF ABB EVIATIONS AND SYNBOLS
AWT —— advanced wastewater treatment
BOB — biochemical oxygem demand
Btu — british thermal unit
COD —— chemical oxygem demand
CT —— conventional water treatment
cu ft —— cubic feet
ft — feet (foot)
gal — gallon (s.)
gpm —— gallons per minute
hr — hour (s)
kg —— kilogram (s)
kw —— kilowatt
kwh — kilowatt-hour
mg — milligrams
mg/i —— milligrams per liter
mil —— million
mil gal —— million gallons
mgd —— million gallons per day
mm —— minute Cs)
ml --- milliliter
MPN —— most probable number
lb — pound (.s)
RO — reverse osmosis
SS —— suspended solids
ST —— secondary treatment
TDS —— total dissolved solids
TOC —— total organic carbon
TU -— turbidity unit
micrograms per liter
UT —— upgraded water treatment
yr — year (a)
xi v
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared under the direction of Mr. Patrick Tobin,
EPA Office of Water Supply, Washington, D.C. by Russell L. Cuip, George
H. Wesner, Gordon L. Cuip, Bruce E. Burns, Thomas S. Lineck, and
Nancy Folks Helm of Culp/Wesner/Culp.
The material in Section 6 of this report on health considerations
was prepared by Dr. Robert C. Cooper, School of Publi.c Health, University
of California, Berkeley, California.
xv
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this report is to present information and guidelines for
the location of proposed water supply intakes or proposed wastewater treatment
facilities which may affect present or future water supply sources. The
document is intended for use primarily by local planning and health officials.
The purpose is not to provide a “cook book” for use in all situations.
The material presented herein does not usurp the local decision making processes
nor the need for careful evaluation by informed professionals at the local
level on a case by case basis.
This study is limited to municipal wastewater discharges to surface
waters upstream of water supply intakes. Water supply intakes from ground
water sources or from lakes and reservoirs are not covered and ground water,
industrial pollution and non point pollution are considered only as they
affect stream water quality. Specific tasks are to define the items which
should be considered in evaluating the location of water supply intakes
including: (1) identification of data requirements, (2) identification
of available stream modeling techniques, (3) capabilities and costs of water
and wastewater treatment processes, and (4) health risks.
BACKGROUND
The Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93—523) enacted on December 16, 1974
empowered the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to control the quality of the drinking water in public water systems through
regulation and other means. The Act specified a three stage mechanism for
the establishment of comprehensive regulations for drinking water quality.
1. Promulgation of National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations.
2. A study to be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) within two years of enactment on the human health effects
of exposure to contaminants in drinking water.
3. Promulgation of Revised National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
based upon the NAS report.
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations were promulgated
on December 24, 1975 and July 9, 1976 and became effective on June 24, 1977.
These regulations were based on the Public Health Service Drinking Water
Standards of 1962, as revised by the EPA Advisory Committee on the Revisions
and Application of the Drinking Water Standards. The regulations contain
1
-------
maximum contaminant levels (MCL) and monitoring requirements for microbiologi-
cal contaminants (coliform bacteria), 10 inorganic chemicals, 6 organic
chemicals, radionuclides and turbidity. Secondary Drinking Water Regulations
were proposed by EPA on March 31, 1977.
The Interim Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations established
maximum contaminant levels for the following:
Interim Primary Regulations SecOndary Regulations
Arsenic Endrin Chloride pH
Barium Lindane Color Sulfate
Cadmium Nethoxychlor Copper TDS
Chromium Toxaphene Corrosivity Zinc
Fluoride 2, 4.-D Foaming Agents
Lead 2, 4, 5—TP Silvex Hydrogen Sulfide
Mercury Turhidity Iron
Nitrate (.as N) Coliform Bacteria Manganese
Selenium Radionuclides Odor
Silver
The primary regulations are devoted to constituents affecting the health
of consumers, while secondary regulations include those constituents which
primarily deal with aesthetic qualities of drinking water. The primary
regulations are applicable to all public water systems and are enforceable
by EPA or the States which have accepted primacy. Secondary regulations
are not Federally enforceable and are intended as guidelines for the States.
The secondary regulations probably will be finalized by EPA during 1978.
The NAS summary report was delivered to Congress on May 26, 1977 and
the full report was delivered on June 20, 1977. The summary report was
also published in the Federal Register, Monday, July 11, 1977. The report’
is available from the National Technical Information Service.* Based on
the completed National Academy of Sciences Report and the findings of the
Administrator, EPA will publish:
1. Recommended MCL’s (health goals) for substances in drinking
water which may have adverse effects on humans. ‘These recommended
levels will be selected so that no known or anticipated adverse
effects would occur, allowing an adequate margin of safety. A
list of contaminants which may have adverse effects, but which
cannot be accurately measured in water, will also be published.
2. Revised National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. These will
specify MCL’s or require the use of treatment techniques. MCL’s
will be as close to the recommended levels for each contaminant
as is feasible. Required treatment techniques’ for those substances
which cannot be measured will reduce their concentrations to a
*The NAS report is available from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Technical Information Service, “Drinking Water and Health’. Part I Chapters
1—5. A report of the Safe Drinking Water Committee”, PB 270—422
Drinking Water and Health. Part II, Chapters 6 and 7. A report of the
Safe Drinking Water Committee”, PB 270—420
2
-------
level as close to the recommended level as is feasible. Feasibility
is defined in the Act as use of the best technology, treatment tech-
niques and other means which the Administrator finds are generally
available (taking costs into consideration).
EPA proposes to amend the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations by
adding requirements for other organic chemical contaminants. The proposed
amendment was published in the Federal Register, Thursday, February 9, 1978
and consists of two parts:
1. The establishment of a MCL of 0.10 mg/i for total trihalomethane.
(TIN), and
2. Treatment with granular activated carbon or equivalent for water
systems serving populations greater than 75,000 and vulnerable
to contamination by synthetic organic chemicals.
The principal concerns in the use of reclaimed wastewater for drinking
are the potential adverse affects of small amounts of organics in the water.
The volume, types, and associated long term health effects of the variety
of constituents which may be found in small concentrations in municipal
wastewater effluents is largely unknown. The Federal Drinking Water Regula-
tions are minimum standards applicable to finished water from the tap; and
are intended to apply to raw water derived from an essentially uncontaminanted
source. State standards may be more stringent. There are no drinking water
standards or criteria for the planned direct or indirect reuse of municipal
wastewater for potable purposes.
The findings and recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences
are pertinent to the subject of this report and frequent reference is made
to the NAS study. However, as noted above, there are no requirements for
reuse of reclaimed wastewater for potable purposes and the findings of
the NAS study are not directly applicable to the reuse of wastewater.
The NAS study findings on biological indicators of pollution include
the following statements relative to the reuse of wastewater:
“Bacteriological testing and observance of bacteriological standards are
adjuncts to, not substitutes for, good—quality raw water, proper water
treatment, and integrity of the distribution system. Application of the
present coliform standards appears adequate to protect public health when
raw water is obtained from a protected source, is appropriately treated,
and is distributed in a contamination—free system.
Current coliform standards are not satisfactory for water reclaimed
directly from wastewater. Meeting current coliform standards for water
reclaimed directly from wastewater, or for water containing several
percent of fresh sewage effluent, is insufficient to protect public
health. For such raw water supplies, new microbiological standards
should be developed and applied as supplementary to coliform standards.
There are federal funds available under Public Law 92—500, to aid
communities in the construction of municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
3
-------
Federal funds to support the construction of water supply facilities are
limited to special circurrn;tances, such s Farmers Borne Administration loans
for small communities. However, in recent months there has been considerable
attention at the Federal level regarding financial supoort for water treatment
systems. It should be noted that the water treatment industry has been a
!tpay as you go” concern and several industry leaders advocate continuing
this process.
4
-------
SECTION 2
BACKGROUND WATER QUALITY
It is. necessary to establish some typical, or general, water quality
conditions in streams and treated wastewater effluent before considering
other factors In locating water supply intakes. Stream and wastewater
quality vary from one location to another and vary with time at any given
location. The intent of the following discussion is to review some of the
available data on stream and treated effluent quality and to determine a
general range of quality conditions.
STREAM WATER QUALITY
Stream water quality is affected by many natural and human factors.
The climate, geological, soil and vegetative characteristics in the watershed
all affect the quality of runoff to a stream. The type of rocks and soil
affect both flowing stream water quality and the quality of ground water
contributed to streams as base flow. Man’s activities affect stream water
quality through agricultural, industrial and municipal waste discharges
and runoff from urban areas. There are also a variety of dynamic physical,
chemical and biological processes at work in streams that affect water
quality. All of these factors contribute in varying degrees to cause stream
quality and flow rate to vary from one stream to another; and vary widely
in some streams from one time to another throughoutany particular period.
Longitudinal and seasonal variations of copper, chromium, lead and
zinc in water, and sediments were measured in the 70 mile long Skeleton
Creek, Oklahoma 2 . Samples were collected in February and August 1973.
Turbidity increased downstream from 18.5 to 88 turbidity units (TU) in
winter, and from 11.5 to 75 TU in summer. Copper, chromium and zinc concen-
trations in water varied as follows:
Concentration, pg/l
Copper Chromium Zinc
Winter 2.9 — 13.9 ND — 3.0 6.7 — 31.1
Summer 0.3 — 3.5 ND — 1.0 ND — 3.6
ND = None Detected
Data collected and reported by Toth 3 illustrates the quality variations
in four major streams in New Jersey. Table 1 shows water quality data for
summer and winter in four New Jersey areas. The four areas vary in chemical
composition of the soil. The effect of soils on water quality is further
5
-------
TABLE I
MEAN COMPOSITION OF SURFACE WATERS OF NEW JERSEY
(after Toth 3 )
SPRING FLOW
CONCENTRATION, Tug/i
Southern
North Central Inner Outer
S1Th MER FLOW
Southern
North Central Inner Outer
CONS TITIJENT
Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Chloride
Aluminum
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Silicon
Strontium
Zinc
n = No Data
18.3
11.7
11.0
1.0
31.3
15.8
11.5
0.90
9.0
4.6
3.5
0.6
15.3
6.5
2.9
0.40
1.0
1.3
2.6
0.7
1.3
2.6
3.6
0.60
n
n
n
n
6.1
9.0
9.6
3.0
20.0
13.0
16.0
8.5
12.8
15.5
15.4
6.7
0.09
0.21
0.29
0.33
0.09
0.08
0.31
0.26
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.011
0.013
0.013
0.025
0.013
0.020
0.018
0.018
0.024
0.030
0.022
0.024
0.07
0.26
0.54
0.51
0.12
0.72
2.0
0.60
0.020
0.052
0.055
0.013
0.022
0.056
0.034
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.009
0.002
0.008
0.016
0.017
0.011
3.5
8.2
11.2
3.6
3.7
9.3
12.1
4.5
0.040
0.026
0.027
0.004
0.129
0.065
0.021
0.002
0.010
0.019
0.014
0.014
0.010
0.085
0.032
0.013
6
-------
illustrated in Table 2. The Big Flat Brook flows through a calcareous soil
area at site 1 while site 2 is in an area of acidic soIls.
Table 3 summarizes the results of analyses reported by Kroner for 1500
samples collected from surface waters in the United States during a five year
period in the mid 1960’s. Table 4 compares the quality of the St. Mary’s and
Cuyahoga Rivers from this data base. The St. Mary’s River connects Lake
Superior and Lake Huron and is considered a relatively clean stream that carries
a heavy traffic of shipping but little or no industrial discharge. The Cuyahoga
River receives numerous industrial discharges, especially from several metals
industries, as it flows from Akron through Cleveland, Ohio to Lake Erie.
Samples were collected from 25 points along the 150 mile Neuse River in
North Carolina in an attempt to correlate water quality with regional ground
water and lithology. 5 The authors concluded that there were no correlations
between the concentrations of major elements, sodium, chloride, calcium, and
silica and the trace elements, barium, cobalt, silver. Also, there was no
systematic change with location in the stream nor correlation with prevailing
ground water lithology. It was concluded that the changes in concentrations
were probably due to ground water variations and removal by biological and
inorganic processes.
Another important consideration in assessing trace elements in natural
waters is their variability in concentration with time. If this variability
is large, it has implications for the number and frequency of samples required
to determine average concentrations or loads. Some indication of this time
variability is found in the analyses of samples collected from several points
along the Ohio River. -The ratio of the maximum to minimum concentration values
obtained over a 5—year time span varied considerably from one point to another.
The time variability was similar in the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers at
Pittsburgh to that encountered along the Ohio. 6 The average values obtained
for alternate monthly periods for these two sampling points are shown in
Table 5. These data show the differences in the two rivers just before they
join to form the Ohio and indicate the changes in concentration of various
inorganic constituents with time. It should be noted that there is no
readily apparent systematic relationship between variations in concentration
and season.
The data in Tables 1 through 5 illustrate the level and variability of
inorganic chemicals in streams. The data on organic chemicals in streams
is much more limited. Because of the public health implications of organics
in drinking water, EPA initiated the National Organics Reconnaissance Survey
(NORS) in November 1974 with three major objectives.
1. Determine the extent of the presence of the four trihalomethanes——
chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochioromethane and bromo—
form——in finished water, and to determine whether or not these
compounds are formed by chlorination.
2. Determine the effect that raw water source and water treatment
practices other than chlorination could have on the formation of
these compounds.
3. Characterize, as completely as possible using existing analytical
techniques, the organic content of 10 drinking waters. These 10
utilities represent five major categories of raw water sources
used in the United States.
7
-------
TABLE 2
COMPOSITION OF BIG FLAT BROOK WATER AT TWO SITES
(after Toth 3 )
CONCENTRATION, mg/i
Site 1 Site 2
Constituent ( Caicareous) ( Acidic )
Calcium 35.0 11.2
Magnesium 7.5 2.4
Potassium 6.6 0.6
Sodium 3.7 2.5
Chloride 11.5 4.0
Aluminum 0.07 0.10
Chromium 0.002 0.002
Copper 0.016 0.002
Iron 0.08 0.03
Manganese 0.016 0.008
Nickel 0.006 0.001
Silicon 2.5 4.0
Strontium 0.500 0.030
Zinc 0.010 0.010
8
-------
TABLE 3
SUNNARY OF SURFACE WATER QUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES*
(after Kroner )
Frequency of
Constituent Concentration, mg/i Detection %
MCL Maximum Mean
Primary Standards
Arsenic 0.05 0.336 0.064 5.5
Barium 1.0 0.340 0.043 99.4
Cadmium 0.01 0.120 0.0095 2.5
Chromium 0.05 0.112 0.0097 24.5
Fluoride Varies n n fl
Lead 0.05 0.140 0.023 19.3
Mercury 0.002 n n n
Selenium 0.01 n n n
Silver 0.05 0.038 0.0026 6.6
Secondary Standards
Copper 1.0 0.280 0.015 74.4
Iron 0.3 4.600 0.052 75.6
Manganese 0.05 3.230 0.058 51.4
Zinc 5.0 1.183 0.064 76.5
Chloride 250.0 n n n
Hydrogen Sulfide 0.05 n n
Sulfate 250.0 n fl
TDS 500.0 n n
Other
Aluminum 2.760 0.074 31.2
Beryllium 0.001 0.0019 5.4
Boron 5.0 0.101 98.0
Cobalt 0.0028 0.048 2.8
Phosphorus 5.040 0.120 47.4
Molybdenum 1.500 0.068 32.7
Vanadium 0.300 0.044 3.4
Strontium 5.000 0.217 99.6
*Based on 1500 samples collected in the mid 1960’s.
n = No Data
9
-------
TABLE 4
WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
CUYAHOGA AND ST. MARY’S RIVERS*
(after Kroner’ )
CUYAHOGA RIVER ST. MARY’S RIVER
Frequency Frequency
MCL Maximum Mean of Detection Maximum Mean of Detection
CONSTITUENT gj mg/i mg/i mg/i
Primary Standards
Arsenic 0.05 n n n n n
Barium 1.0 0.140 0.050 100 0.034 0.011 100
Cadmium 0.01 0.120 0.064 19 <0.010 <0.010 15
Chromium 0.05 0.015 0.011 19 0.007 0.003 20
Fluoride fl n n n n n n
Lead 0.05 0.030 0.028 12 0.007 0.005 53
Mercury 0.002 n n n ii n n
Selenium 0.01 n n n n n n
Silver 0.05 <0.0045 <0.045 n <0.004 <0.004 n
Secondary Standards
Chloride 250 n n n n
Copper 1.0 0.014 0.009 31 0.028 0.006 100
Hydrogen Sulfide 0.05 n n n n n n
Iron 0.3 0.312 0.059 69 0.168 0.024 80
Manganese 0.05 0.900 0.285 88 0.285 0.004 60
Sulfate 250 n n n n n ii
TDS 500 n n n n n n
Zinc 5.0 1.183 0.423 100 0.423 0.406 100
Other
Aluminum 0.038 0.027 19 0.010 0.006 71
Boron 0.645 0.302 100 0.019 0.010 100
Molybdenum 0.030 0.027 12 0.012 0.009 33
Nickel 0.120 0.070 69 0.024 0.011 20
Strontium 0.245 0.148 100 0.022 0.015 100
* Data collected in mid 1960’s
n = No Data
10
-------
TABLE 5
TIME VARIATION OF CONCENTRATION (jig/i) OF SEVERAL
TRACE ELEMENTS IN THE ALLEGHENY (A) AND
MONONGA}IELA (N) RIVERS AT PITTSBURGH
(after Shapiro, et a1. 6 )
1964 1965 1965 1965 1965
Nov Jan March Nay July Sept
Element A N A NA M A MA MA N
Barium 27 34 59 15 40 19 30 25 22 12 30 24
Boron 100 129 118 74 111 130 100 105 155 205 69 85
Copper 21 29 97 6 28 27 27 50 27 25 24 32
Nickel 20 <8 <8 <8 <13 <10 25 15 40 20 44 20
Strontium 118 143 45 53 28 47 50 65 100 90 120 130
Zinc 74 118 50 26 81 44 140 120 180 160 120 150
11
-------
Eighty water utilities were chosen to determine the presence of six
specific organics of particular concern: the four trihalomethanes, (chloroform,
bromodichioromethane, dibromochloromethane and bromoform), carbon tetrachioride,
and 1,2—dichloromethane. Selected in consultation with State water supply
officials, these 80 utilities provide a reasonably representative sample of
the Nation’s community drinking water utilities that chlorinate their water,
representing a wide variety of raw water sources, treatment techniques,
and geographical locations. Survey findings indicate that chlorination
results in the formation of the four trihalomethanes.
Results from the analysis of the raw waters are summarized below:
RAW WATER ANALYSIS
(Based on 80 samples)
No. of Locations Detected Range of Concentrations (pg/i )
Chloroform 49 <0.2 — 0.9 (16)*
Bromodichloromethane 7 <0.2 — 0.8 (11)*
Dibromochioromethane 1
Bromoforni 0
Carbon Tetrachioride 4 <2 — 4
1,2—Dichioroethane 11 <0.2 — 3
* e location received raw water prechiorinated by a nearby industry. This
water contained 16 pg/i of chloroform, 11 pg/i bromodichloromethane, and
3 pg/i dibromochloromethane. In 30 of the 80 locations surveyed, none of the
six compounds were detected.
The NORS also involved selecting 10 of the 80 water utilities as sites
representing five major categories of raw water sources for a more comprehen-
sive survey of the organic content of their finished water. Two.cities
were selected for each basic type of water source: ground water, uncontamin-
ated upland water, raw water contaminated with agricultural runoff, raw
water contaminated with municipal waste, and raw water contaminated with
industrial discharges. Three different analytical techniques were used
to identify as broad a range of organic compounds as possible. The following
summary shows the data for five utilities using streams as a raw water source.
Type of Raw No of Compounds No of Compounds
City and Source Water Source Identified quantified
Seattle, WA Uncontaminated Upland 31 13
Cedar River Water
System
Ottumwa, IA Raw Water Contaminated 35 17
Des Moines with Agricultural Runoff
River
Philadelphia, Raw Water Contaminated 59 22
Penn. with Municipal Waste
Delaware River
12
-------
Table Continued
Type of Raw No of Compounds No of Compounds
City and Source Water Source Identified Quantified
Cincinnati, OH Raw Water Contaminated 63 21
Ohio River with Industrial Discharges
Lawrence, MA Raw Water Contaminated 30 14
Merrimack River with Industrial Discharges
Samples collected in the NORS were also analyzed for nonvolatile total
organic carbon, and the 10 inorganics in the Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
Some of these data were reported by Syinons, et al.,” and the inorganic data
are included in a report to Congress. 8 Thirty—five of the 80 locations
surveyed use streams as a raw water source. The survey data for these 35
locations are summarized in Table 6.
EPA then expanded the organics monitoring effort and conducted the
National Organics Monitoring Survey (NOMS) during March—July, 1976 and
November 1976 — January 1977. The NOMS was a study of finished water quality
conducted in 113 community water systems representing various types of
sources and treatment processes. In several cases, additional studies were
made of raw water sources to obtain background information. The following
compounds and parameters were selected for study in the NOMS:
COMPOUNDS
Chloroform 1,2, 4—Trichlorobenzene
1. 2—Dichioroethane 2 ,4—Dichlorophenol
Carbon Tetrachloride Pentachiorophenol
Bromodichloromethane Polychiorinated Biphenyls
Trichioroethylene Fluoranthene
Dibromochioromethane 11, 12—Benzofluoranthene
Bromoform 3, 4—Benzofluoranthene
Benzene 1, 12—Benzoperylene
Vinyl Chloride 3,4—Benzopyrene
Bis (2—chioroethyl) ether Indeno (1,2,3—cd)Pyrene
—Dichlorobenzene
PARAMETERS
Total Organic Carbon (Nonpurgeable)
Carbon Chloroform Extract
Ultraviolet Absorbance
Emission Fluorescence Scan
Results of the NOMS showed that the occurrences and concentrations of
trihalomethanes in finished water were greater than for any other specific
compounds or classes of compounds. The mean total trihalomethane concentra-
tion ranged from 0.068 to 0.120 mg/i and the median from 0.038 to 0.087 mg/l
for the different sampling periods. Raw water contaminants occurred frequently
at low concentrations in many supplies but the regularity of occurrence was
13
-------
Location
Table 6
NATIONAL ORGANICS RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY
Raw Water Quality Data
Inora nic
a., I
APenic Marina Cad.ina C o ..iua Cyaoid. Ploorid. ad flNPopry pitr. $oienj,m Silver
Chloroform
1
-------
not nearly as great as for trihalomethanes. The general parameters (total
organic carbon, carbon chloroform extract, ultraviolet absorbance and emissions
fluorescence scan) did not correlate with the occurrences of specific organic
compounds.
The U.S. Geological Survey 9 collected samples during 1969—1970 for
organic carbon and nitrogen analysis from the following six streams: (1)
Neuse River near Goldsboro, N.C., (2) Brazos River at Richmond, Texas,
(3) Ohio River at Metropolis, Ill., (4) Mississippi River near Luling Ferry,
La., St. Francisville, La., and Belle Chasses, La., (5) Missouri River at
Nebraska City, Nebr., and (6) Sopchoppy River near Sopchoppy, Fla.
Results of analyses of water and suspended sediment samples are summarized
in Table 7. Average dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentrations in the
Brazos, Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio Rivers are of similar magnitude
(between 3 and 4 mg/i), but the Neuse River is somewhat higher at 7.1 mg/i.
DOC concentrations in the Mississippi, Neuse, and Ohio Rivers are relatively
constant throughout the year, whereas DOC concentrations for the Sopchoppy
River are highly variable and show no definite trends within each season
of the year. DOC concentrations show a definite trend to increase during
the winter months in the Brazos and Missouri Rivers.
DOC concentrations were found to be independent of stream discharge.
Based on the sampling program, the authors concluded that: 8 (1) DOC concen-
tration at any given time is a result of several dynamic processes within
a given stream. Sorption, desorption, scouring of the bed material, growth
of organisms, decomposition of organic litter, seasonal sources of organic
substances, point sources of organic contamination, and other factors are
important considerations in evaluating dissolved and suspended organic carbon
concentrations, (2) the concentration of DOC within a given stream varies
with season and sources of contamination in a repeating pattern which is
somewhat characteristic of the stream.
Based on a review of several investigations, the concentrations of organic
carbon as measured by TOC in natural surface waters was reported to vary
from 1.0 to 50 mg/i with average concentrations in the 10 to 15 mg/i range. 10
All of these studies and data indicate that there can be large differences
in the concentrations of trace organic and inorganic contaminants as well
as constituents commonly found in waters such as chloride, sulfate, calcium,
and sodium. Variations can occur within relatively short distance in streams
and such variations often occur in an unsystematic and nonpredictable manner.
WASTEWATER EFFLUENT QUALITY
The quality of municipal wastewater effluent is influenced by several
factors including:. (1) type of treatment system, (2) quality of water supply
(primarily affects TDS), (3) water use, (4) quantity and quality of industrial
waste discharges, and (5) infiltration into collection system.
The concentrations of inorganic chemicals in several secondary treatment
plants are summarized in Table 8. These data indicate that some secondary
effluents contain inorganic chemicals that exceed MCL ’S specified in the
Drinking Water Regulations. However, the higher values are in plants that
receive significant industrial discharges. Many municipal treatment plants
receive a significant percentage of industrial wastewater. Industrial waste
ordinances and pretreatment requirements in force or being established by
municipal treatment systems will reduce the impact of industrial discharges.
15
-------
TABLE 7
AVERAGE CARBON AND NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS
IN WATER AND SUSPENDED SEDIMENT DURING 1969—70
(after Malcolm and Durum 9 )
Percentage Percentage SOC/RN ratio Percentage
DOC SOC SOC in RN in or SIC in
Stream ( mg/i) ( mg/i) Sediment Sediment C/N ratio Sediment
Brazos 3.3 3.6 4.67 0.65 7.2 1.30
Mississippi 3.4 3.8 2.28 .28 8.1 .15
Missouri 4.6 20 3.12 .35 8.9 .34
Neuse 7.1 2.8 9.00 1.30 6.9 0
Ohio 3.1 1.8 3.93 .49 8.0 .20
Sopchoppy 27 1.6 35.3 4.04 8.7 0
DOC = Dissolved Organic Carbon
SOC = Suspended Organic Carbon
KN = Kjeidahl Nitrogen
SIC = Suspended Inorganic Carbon
C = Carbon
N = Nitrogen
16
-------
TABLE 8
Total Organic Carbon None 35
TF = Trickling Filter
AS Activated Sludge
11 thru 19 References
SECONDARY EFFLUENT QUALITY
MCL
Primary Regulations 9 g/j
Colorado
YE 11 AS 11
ii L ) i i&Li
Denver 12
AS
s LL
Los
Angeles 13
AS
Los
Angeles 14
AS
. .o igLi_
Orange
County, CA 15
TF
mg/i
San
Franciscolk
AS
. . .
Pennsylvania 17
AS
mg/i
Indians 17
AS
New
York 18
AS
. . .!gL )
Massachusetts’ 9
AS & TF
mg/i
TF and AS
Effluent
Range
JS&LL.
Arsenic 0.05
0.003
0.02
0.002
0.002 — 0.02
Barium 1.0
0.192
0.18
0.082
0.082 — 0.192
Cadmium 0.01
0.0014
0.0012
<0.001
0.01
0.007
0.009
0.0026
0.018
0.016
0.001 — 0.018
Chromium 0.05
0,049
0.060
0.050
0.08
0.050
0.204
0.209
0.031
0.04
0.16
0.031 — 0.209
Fluoride 1.4 — 2.4
0.5
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.5 - 1.1
Lead 0.05
0.12
0.056
0.082
0.013
0.056
0.036
0.019
0.022
0.2/
0.017 — 0.082
Mercury 0.002
Nitrate (as N) 10
<1
<0.0001
3.5
0.0004
ci
<0.0001 — 0.0004
<1 — >10
Selenium 0.01
0.008
0.018
0.0002
0.007
0.0002 — 0.018
Silver 0.05
0.004
0.005
0.008
0.004
0.05
0.004
0.070
0.004 — 0.070
S eulations
Copper 1.0
Iron 0.3
0.112
0.764
0.123
0.773
0.21
0.02
0.015
0.058
0.291
0.190
0.019
0.597
0.056
0.06
0.27
0.013 — 0.053
0.02 — 1.33
Manganese 0.05
Zinr 5.0
0.038
0.193
0.0 1
0.20
<0.05
0.10
0.026
0.102
0.038
0.308
0.087
0.298
0.229
0.09
0.27
0.41
0.026 0.122
0.10 — 0.583
Other
25
II — 50
10 — 50
-------
Industrial discharges and the local requirements for pretreatment are
important considerations in any waste discharge—water intake case. Wastewater
from strictly residential areas does not normally contain inorganic chemicals
or radioactive material that exceed the Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
The organic material in municipal wastewater is a mixture of a multitude
of compounds that are only partially known. The three main broad classes
of organics in municipal wastewater——fats, carbohydrates and proteins——are
usually considered removable by primary and secondary biological treatment,
protein being somewhat less readily removed than fats and carbohydrates.
A properly operating biological treatment plant is capable of producing
secondary effluent from residential wastewater with a soluble COD of 30
to 50 mg/l and a soluble BOD of 1 to 2 mg/l. The data on TOC levels in
wastewater is scarce but the available information indicates that secondary
effluent concentrations are in the 30 to 50 mg/l range. Concentration of
foaming agents, as indicated by tests for MBAS, in secondary effluent is
typically in the 2 to 4 mg/l range.
There is little data reported for wastewater on the six organic compounds
in the Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Recent tests in Orange County,
California on trièkling filter effluent that contains about 20 percent
industrial wastes, found that concentrations of all six compounds were below
detectable limits.
A study in 1961 of secondary effluent from five treatment plants in
the United States did not identify 65 percent of the average COD of 100
mg/i. 20 Trickling filter effluent from the Haifa, Israel municipal waste—
water treatment plant was analyzed for total organic content and the results
reported as percent of total COD. 21 The total COD was about 180 mg/i and
the organics were classified as: 40 to 50 percent humic substances (hutnic,
fulvic and hyniathomelanic acids); 8.3 percent ether extractables; 13.9 percent
anionic detergents; 11.5 percent carbohydrates; 22.5 percent proteins; and
1.7 percent tannins. A later, more extensive study including activated
sludge effluents was conducted 22 and the results are summarized in Table
9. Another study found 60 percent of the organics in secondary effluent
had molecular weights less than 7OO and 25 percent had apparent molecular
weights greater than 5,000.23
In one study of municipal wastewater, 77 organic compounds were detected
in the primary effluent and 38 in the secondary effluent and apparently
some additional compounds were being produced during secondary treatment.
The concentrations of individual compounds in the secondary effluent were
estimated to be less than 20 pg/i. It was found in another study 25 that
soluble organics are produced in biological treatment that are more refractory
to further treatments than the organics in raw sewage. It was hypothesized
by these same investigators that the residual organics not removed by activated
carbon are intermediate breakdown products of protein and that these are
most likely the protein that originates from the cell walls of microorganisms
present in biological treatment processes.
The fate of the organf cs in the chlorination process is of particular
concern. A study published in 1973 found that chlorine—containing stable
organic constituents are present after chlorination of effluents from domestic
sewage treatment plants. 2 b Over 50 chlorine—containing organic compounds
were separated from chlorinated secondary effluents. Seventeen of these
compounds were tentatively identified and quantified at the 0.5 to 4.3 pg/i
level. The chlorination yield (the portion of the chlorine dose associated
18
-------
TABLE 9
ORGANICS IN SECONDARY EFFLUENT
(after Manka, et al. 22 )
DISTRIBUTION OF ORGANIC GROUPINGS
Percent of totalCOD
Domes tic
Municipal waste ater
wastewater Municipal extended
high rate wastewater aeration
Organic groupings trickling stabilization activated
and fractions filter pond sludge
Proteins 21.6 21.1 23.1
Carbohydrates 5.9 7.8 4.6
Tannins and lignins 1.3 2.1 1.0
Anionic detergents 16.6 12.2 16.0
Ether extractables 13.4 11.9 16.3
Fulvic acid 25.4 26.6 24.0
Huinic acid 12.5 14.7 6.1
Hymathomelanic acid 7.7 6.7 4.8
MOLECULAR WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION
OF HUMIC SUBSTANCES
of hümic Lompound_present
Hyinatho-
Molecular
Fulvic
Hurnic
melanic
weight range
acid
acid
acid
<500
27.5
179
45
500-1000
7.8
6.2
12.2
1000-5000
35.7
29.4
48.0
5000—10,000
15.3
7.8
28.0
10,000—50,000
9.4
36.7
7.5
>50,000
4.3
2.0
0
19
-------
with chlorine—containing stable organic compounds at the end of the chlorination
reaction period) was approximately 1.0 percent for secondary effluents which
had been chlorinated with 3.2 mg/i chlorine to a residual of 1 mg/l at contact
times of 15 to 45 minutes. The chlorination yield was approximately constant
with respect to chlorine dosage (in the range studied) but increased with
increasing reaction time. Chlorination yields were approximately the same
for both primary and secondary effluents. Essentially the same effects
were obtained by chlorination with either gas or hypochiorite solution.
In addition to the 17 chlorine—containing compounds that were identified,
32 stable organic constituents were identified and 23 of these were quantified
at 2 to 190 pg/i levels in the effluents from domestic primary sewage treatment
plants. Nine stable organic constituents were identified and eight of these
were quantified at 5 to 90 pg/i levels in the effluents from domestic secondary
sewage treatment plants.
Some 30 chlorinated compounds, primarily aromatic derivatives, have
been attributed to chlorination of secondary effluent with chlorine dosages
of 1,500 mg/i. 27 Preliminary data indicated total organic—bound chlorine
to be 3,000 to 4,000 pg/i with these large chlorine dosages.
Another study found that when chlorine was added to activated sludge
effluent in excess of the ratio to achieve breakpoint chlorination, chloroform
was formed in less than two minutes, and the concentration increased with
reaction time. 2 For example, at the end of two minutes reaction time,
the chloroform concentration was 30 pg/i and increased to 262 pg/i; at the
end of 24 hours. When chlorine was added at or below the ratio required
to achieve breakpoint, only small amounts of chloroform were formed with
little or no increase in concentration with reaction time: chloroform concen-
tration increased from 6.0 pg/i after two minutes reaction time to 10.8 pg/i
after 24 hours.
SUMMARY - BACKGROUND WATER QUALITY
The U.S. Geological Survey operates a National Stream Quality Accounting
Network (NSQAN) that involves the collection of data from 345 stream sampiing
stations in the United States. Typical concentrations of the constituents
in the Drinking Water Regulations are shown in Table 10 for streams and
secondary effluent. These values are based on a review of the data discussed
in this section and data from the NSQAN system. The typical values shown for
streams and secondary effluent are considered representative of unpolluted
streams and municipal wastewater, and of course, may vary due to local
conditions.
These data summarized in Table 10 indicate that typical stream water
quality is well below the Drinking Water Regulations MCL for all inorganic and
organic chemicals. Typical municipal secondary effluent is also expected to
be at or below the MCL for specific inorganic and organic chemicals listed
in the regulations. However, organic contaminants in wastewater as measured
by color, foaming and odor, exceed the regulations. Also, although there is
no MCL for organics as measured by chemical oxygen demand (COD) or total
organic carbon (TOC), the levels of these organic parameters are usually
substantially higher in municipal wastewater than in streams. Therefore,
the primary area of concern is the effect of municipal wastewater on the
content of organic material in streams.
20
-------
TABLE 10
BACKGROUND WATER QUALITY
(mg/i except as noted)
SECONDARY
PARANETERS DRINKING STREAN EFFLUENT
WATER
Primary Regulations MCL Low High Typical Typical
Arsenic 0.05 <0.005 0.340 ó.005 0.005
Barium 1 0.03 0.340 0.15 0.1
Cadmium 0.010 <0.002 0.120 0.002 0.001
Chromium 0.05 <0.005 0.120 0.005 0.05
Fluoride 1.4 to 2.41 0.1 1.6 0.2 0.7
Lead 0.05 <0.005 0.140 0.015 0.02
Mercury 0.002 <0.0005 0.005 0.0005 0.0002
Nitrate (as N) 10 <1 3.4 1 1
Selenium 0.01 <0.001 0.060 0.001 0.001
Silver 0.05 <0.001 0.038 0.003 0.005
Endrin 0.0002 ND 0.00006 KO.00001 ND
Lindane 0.004 ND 0.0002 <0.00001 ND
Methoxychlor 0.1 ND 0.0001 <0.00001 ND
Toxaphene 0.005 ND ND ND ND
2, 4—D 0.1 ND 0.0031 <0.00005 ND
2, 4, 5—TP Silvex 0.01 ND 0.0017 <0.00003 ND
Turbidity, TU 12 <15 1 x 50 25
Coliform Bacteria <100 1.5 x i0 5 1,000 1 x
(colonies/100 ml)
Secondary Regulations
Copper 1 <0.0002 3.8 <0.0003 0.1
Iron 0.3 <0.05 7.8 0.12 0.2
Manganese 0.05 <0.1 36.0 0.25 0.05
Zinc 5 <0.02 6.5 0.07 0.5
Color, units 15 60
Foaming Agents 0.5 1.5
(as MBAS)
Odor, TON 3 40
Other
Trihalomethane O.1O ND 0.0011 ND 0.005
COD None 2.5 125 30 100
TOC None 1 50 10 40
1 Varies with average annual maximum daily air temperature
2 Monthly average
Monthly average, membrane filter technique
Proposed MCL
ND = one Detected
21
-------
SECTION 3
FATE OF CONTAMINANTS IN STREAMS
There are many factors that can affect the concentration of contaminants
in streams. These factors are discussed in several books’ and reports in-
cluding the following: “Environmental Chemistry”, by Manahan, 29 “Aquatic
Chemistry”, by Stumm and Morgan, 30 ’ Trace Metals and Metal—Organic Inter-
actions in Natural Waters”, edited by Singer, 31 and “Aqueous. Environmental
Chemistry of Metals”, edited by Rubin. 32
Contaminants may be contributed to streams from several sources including:
(1) soil and rock, (2) waste discharges, (3) storm runoff, (4) precipitation
and atmospheric fallout, and. (5) biological organisms. Flowing streams
are dynamic systems and the chemical and biochemical reaction rates are
such that equilibrium conditions are only slowly, if ever, attained. The
organic and inorganic chemicals of concern in water supply interact with
one another and with other materials and organisms in various chemical and
biochemical reactions. Reactions that can take place in streams to decrease,
or in some cases increase, the concentration of contaminants include: (1)
precipitation, (2) complexation, (.3) oxidation—reduction, (4) ion exchange,
(5) adsorption and/or absorption, often termed “sorption”, (6) flocculation,
and (.7) hiological uptake and/or release.
Contaminants and other material are present in water in suspended,
colloidal or dissolved form. Generally, material less than 0.45 micron
in size is considered to be dissolved. This is a somewhat arbitrary division
and colloidal particles range from less than 0.45 micron to about 1 micron.
Most chemical reactions affecting natural water systems occur at the solution—
solid interface or within the cells of bacteria or algae. Becaus.e of their
large surface to volume ratio colloidal particles suspended in water are
particularly important i.n chemical reactions. Colloidal particles are capable
of changing contaminant concentrations through sorption, exchange and floccula-
tion actions. Clay minerals are important colloids in many streams.
PHYSICAL FACTORS
The important stream physical characteristics include velocity, depth,
turbulence, degree of mixing, temperature, turbidity, changes in cross section
and bottom characteristics such as slope, type of material and sorptive
capacity. The effects of some of these parameters are so interrelated that
their relative importance is difficult to determine. For example, the bottom
slope affects the depth and the velocity of the stream, and turbulence is
affected by all three.
The degree of mixing in a stream is a very important parameter and is
determined by the physical characteristics. Mixing in a stream can occur
vertically, laterally or longitudinally. Vertical mixing normally occurs
22
-------
within a few tenths of a mile. Density gradients from temperature differences
in the stream tend to overcome vertical mixing but this rarely occurs. Lateral
mixing is normally complete within miles and increases with the number of
relatively sharp reverse bends in the stream reach. Longitudinal mixing,
caused by variations in cross section and changes in direction that permit
areas of quiet water and eddy currents, may require tens of miles as compared
to miles for laterial and tenths of miles for vertical mixing.
Other parameters determined by the physical characteristics of the stream
are the reaeration rate and solids deposits. The reaeration rate is a function
of velocity and depth and increases with increasing velocity. Sedimentation
of suspended particles is dependent on the degree of turbulence in the
stream. Settled solids can be scoured off the bottom and resuspended during
periods of increased flow. This raises the stream turbidity and increases
oxygen demand.
PRECIPITATION AND COMPLEXATION
In general, all the constituents of a natural chemical system including
trace metals, ions, and inorganic and organic compounds are related to each
other through complex formation and solid precipitation reactions. The
variation of any constituent will give rise to variations in at least some
of the other constituents. The organic component of fresh natural water
is poorly known analytically; its complexing properties are under investiga-
tion and are only hypothesized in many cases.
The complexation of metal ions with either naturally occuring organic
material or organics in waste discharges may be important reactions. Complex
formation is the combination of metal cations. with molecules or anions to
form a coordination or complex compound. There is some indirect evidence
that complexing agents play an important role in the form of the metal
concentration in treated wastewater. It is possible that pollutant complexing
agents in flowing streams play an important role in transporting heavy metals
and preventing their removal by conventional water treatment.
Many of the metal ions found in natural waters, particularly those
found at trace levels form strong complexes with a variety of chemical species.
The formation of complex compounds may have several effects such as: (1)
the formation of insoluble compounds may remove metal ions from solution,
(2) complexation may also solubilize metal ions from otherwise insoluble
metal compounds, and (.3) strong complexation may shift oxidation—reduction
potentials. Little data has been reported regarding levels of complexing
agents and stable metal complexes in natural waters. Complexing agents
are not normally determined in water analyses.
Humic and fulvic acids are probably the most important naturally occuring
complexing agents. These acids are rather loosely defined and refer to
a family of compounds, similar in structure and chemical properties, formed
during the decomposition of vegetation. They have the ability to strongly
bind metal ions and they are found in both water and soil. Synthetic com—
plexing agents such as sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium ethylenediaminetetra—
acetate (EDTA), sodium citrate and sodium nitrilotriacetate (NTA) are produced
in large quantities and almost certainly find their way into streams through
waste discharges. NTA may also solubilize heavy metals from sediments on
stream bottoms depending on pH, bicarbonate concentration, calcium concentra-
tion and nature of the sediments.
23
-------
In addition to their phosphorus content, one of the factors which
contributes to the fertilizer value of polyphosphate fertilizers is their
capacity to act as complexing agents, thus solubilizing inicronutrient ions
from soils and making essential metals more available to plants. Therefore,
it is possible that polyphosphates present in runoff from fertilized soils
may act as complexing agents in some waters prior to hydrolysis of the
polyphosphates to orthophosphate.
IMPORTANCE OF CLAY MINERALS AND OTHER SUSPENDED MATERIAL
Clay minerals are among the most common suspended matter found in natural
waters. In many streams, clays are probably the most important mineral
solids present in colloidal suspension or as sediments because:
1. Clay minerals can fix dissolved chemicals in water and therefore
exert a purifying action. The ability of clays to exchange cations
is an important phenomenon having an impact on the availability
of trace level metal nutrients in water.
2. Because of their high surface area and other properties., clays
also may sorb organic compounds such as pesticides, herbicides,
and are important in the transport and removal of organic pollutants
in streams.
3. It is also believed that some microbiological processes occur at
clay mineral surfaces, thus clays may participate in the degrada-
tion process for organic materials.
The sorption of organic compounds by montmorillonite has been investi-
gated in some detail; the sorption of the herbicide, 2, 4—D, on montmorillon—
ite, kaolinite, and illite was studied. The sorption process was found
to be relatively slow, requiring several hundred hours to reach equilibrium.
It was concluded that the overall process must be relatively complicated
involving sorption onto the clay surface and subsequent diffusion of the
herbicide into the clay.
One study found that there are regional differences in the concentrations
of chromium, silver, molybdenum, nickel, cobalt and manganese and suspended
sediments in streams. 33 The sediments of the Mississippi and the rivers
west of it draining into the Gulf of Mexico resembled average shale in
composition, while the rivers east of the Mississippi are considerably higher
in metals concentration. The suspended material in the central rivers is
rich in montmorillonite, whereas eastern rivers carry more organic matter,
illite and kaolinite. The cation exchange capacity (CEC) of suspended clays
in eastern streams is generally in the range of 14 to 28 milliequivalents
per 100 grams, whereas the CEC of central streams ranges from 25 to 65 mull—
equivalents per 100 grams. Although the central streams have the higher
CEC, they carry a relatively lower load of most trace metals than do the
eastern streams. Therefore, the degree of trace metal transport is not
strictly a function of CEC, but perhaps is due to a greater amount of trace
element rich soil and industrial discharges. The correlation between sus-
pended organic material and suspended trace metal levels was found to be
quite low. Therefore, it appears that suspended trace metals are carried
primarily by suspended mineral materials. Generally, high levels of sus—
pended manganese were found to be associated with high levels of other
24
-------
suspended trace metals. A wide range of values for the various metals
was found in he study. Of the 20 rivers examined, the suspended solids
load ranged from 12 to 954 mg/i and the following ranges of specific trace
metals were found:
Constituent Concentration range, mg/l
Chromium 37 — 460
Silver 0.3 — 14
Molybdenum 5 — 44
Nickel 6 — >500
Manganese 320 — 1500
Another study 3 investigated the sorption of lindane by untreated lake
sediments. It was found that the degree of lindane adsorption was determined
by the following factors of decreasing effect:
Sediment Concentration
Sediment and Organic Content
Lindane Concentration
Sediment Clay Content
Lindane to Sediment Ratio
Lindane is a non—ionic compound, therefore its sorption by sediments
probably involves phenomenon such as Ven der Waals forces and hydrogen bonding.
25
-------
SECTION 4
STREAM MODELING TECHNIQUES
A stream model is a set of mathematical equations that are used to
represent the relationships that exist between various elements of the
system. Depending on the information desired, the mathematical model may
range from a few simple equations that can be solved by hand computation
to hundreds of complex equations that can he solved only through the use
of a digital computer.
The previous section discussed the variety and complexity of reactions
that occur in streams and Indicated several stream mechanisms that impact
the concentration of pollutants. The dynamic nature of streams and complexity
of the reactions make stream modeling a difficult task. It is impossible
to describe the chemistry of a natural aquatic system based on acid base
relationships, solubility and complexation, equilibrium constants, oxidation—
reduction potential, pH, and other chemical parameters; therefore, models must
be simplified; nevertheless, some models may provide a general understanding
of aquatic systems and give some insight into the conditions that determine
chemical reactions and products in flowing streams.
Many of the first models developed were concerned only with dissolved
oxygen (DO) and BOB concentrations at various distances from the pollution
source. 35 1 The well—known Streeter-Pheips equation is of this type 35 and
many of the subsequent models have followed the same empirical form. 3639
Kenkel and Orlob’” attempted to explain reaeration in terms of longitudinal
dispersion and Thackston and Kenkel incorporated hydraulic slope as an
additional influencing factor. In an attempt to verify or test these niodels,
Tsivoglou and Neal’+ 2 used a gaseous tracer procedure to measure stream aeration
capacity. Their results include a number of suggestions and considerations
concerning stream modeling. Since none of the models tested were capable
of predicting reaeration capacity within acceptable limits of error, Tsivoglou
and Neal presented an energy dissipation model based on the usual one—dimensional
energy equation that gave good results for the rivers studied.
Hoover and Arnoldi 3 developed a computer model which simulates the BOB
distribution in the Connecticut River by incorporating the best information
available that describes physical conditions such as flow volumes and sounding
depths, and the latest pollution data describing DO, BOD and temperature.
Gundelach and Castillo’ developed a model that includes the possibility
of anaerobic conditions in polluted waters. The equations used attempt
to describe mathematically the aerobic decay of oxygen—demanding substances
(mainly organic matter) under anaerobic conditions. The results of the
computer simulations for this model indicate more realistic levels for BOD
removal throughout the anaerobic reach than those computed by the unrestricted
application of a general aerobic model.
26
-------
A model developed by Haith and Chapman 5 evaluates costs and water quality,
in terms of DO concentration, for the screening of wastewater treatment alter-
natives. The objective of this model is to identify cost—effective wastewater
management combinations that meet the requirements of Best Practicable Waste
Treatment Technology. The model can provide simulation of discharge alterna-
tives to rivers or can be used to identify treatment strategies with cost—
effective potential.
A paper by Bath, et al.,kG presents a model that describes dispersion
of conservative contaminants injected into streams. The model is based
on mass—transport mechanisms that pertain to open—channel flow in streams
and represents quite accurately the concentration profile downstream from
instantaneous pollution loadings. The model contains terms to describe
molecular diffusion, due to concentration gradients, eddy diffusion, due to
the gross corrective motion of the fluid, and sorptive interactions with the
stream bed or quiescent pools. Experimental results obtained from Soldier
Creek, Kansas showed good correlation with model predictions.
Several models were summarized and described by Grimsrud, et al., 7
as a good sampling of the type of models recently available for use in
stream water quality studies. The documentation corresponding to these
models is, or soon will be, available to the public through government agencies.
The models were separated into 3 types: (1) steady—state models in which the
variables involved are unchanging with time, (2) dynamic—equilibrium models
that vary with time but only in a cyclically repititious manner, and (3)
dynamic models in which the inputs and outputs may vary freely with time. It
was also noted that none of these models are applicable to frozen conditions.
The following discussion briefly describes several of the models and model
characteristics are summarized in Tables 11 and 12.
STEADY STATE MODELS
Three models were evaluated in this category: Simplified Stream Model,
DOSAC—1 and SNOSCI.
The Simplified Stream Model was developed by Hydroscience, Inc., for
the EPA Water Programs Office. Various tables, charts, nomographs, figures
and technical data are incorporated into the model and may be used to analyze
water quality and to estimate treatment levels needed to meet specific
receiving water quality standards. Calculations with a slide rule or small
calculator are intended to assist in interim planning only and complex river
systems or water quality problems cannot be analyzed.
DOSAG—I is a computer program model prepared by the Texas Water Quality
Board. The Streeter—Phelps oxygen sag equation is used to simulate BOD and
DO variations. It is useful for rapid evaluation of a number of varying
stream conditions. SNOSCI is a modification of DOSAG—I, prepared by Systems
Control, Inc. The major modification is the added capability to simulate
many more water quality parameters than just BOD and DO.
DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM MODELS
The models evaluated in this category are QUAL—I and QTJAL—II. Both
are computer programs.
27
-------
- a $
STUAM PIATU1 , dQUISITION AID CODSI
Pallet..
or
Li.it otic’ea
I4ad .iad
tit .al ?es.tbia . 5th
Medal Si.t.or MediA icattec
I .taroai Decoy
sod/ar
Cro .ttb Precaeae .
liadol Eqcip.aat h Staff Modal Coat.
Mquilitioo D.4ticnasta E! ! ! hl ! _
I4 ljft.d
tr n a
S t a n dy Stste
poj .o,.rce.
ealy
oo.ec,.tjovs
Coliforo, IDO,
Utrlv.t.
oopiod DOD-DO
cAttlE
—
let Order decoy, DOD —DO
ao.44it% r0 50r.tioo,
t affect.
H..db ok fry
EPA Pl 500iag
oai.taoaa
coach
elcolatar, ooa j.mior
level cogiosor .5th
v .a eoperieeca I.
odeitag
0
1—2
Iata.
guAM—I
St..dy SEnt.
Polat oaf 0 1st.
Ibated lea—
paiot saorcs.
0. 500 (C.rbo—
scsav. sod
itro e.oas)
—
let ,rdor docay, DOD-DO
apliag, rss.rotioe,
t affect.
iaa1 cast
ry EPA Plea—
lag Aoaistanc.
roach. D.C.
. otar, FOETRA IV
o.pliar, toe
ogi.eer failler
itt . pregroiog
Si — 55
2—4
n ae.Me
iCI
Steady Stot .
As above pita
poser ploat
OPtiO far
aorta. t ara-
l I fe.
.
D i, DOD, T
ccl i. 7 tOil..
cites. AM 3 .
NOT. 503,
OPO,. Co. Pb,
IaflturS
nave; pita
4 roosarva—
t t v e e
Lay 4 cetaeryti
aed soy 4 a..-.. ., .-
sotis. .5th A teat
otdar decay
let ..d lad ardnr yia.i cast
decay, rasarattoa, Coo. Saaeo.ieb
itatiag of eatitae .t esoty aaoi.ng
T . effect., Do.thsi apt. • Ifs., or
c.i .a ... sod de.a .d. C I , Calif.
. .ater. FODUM IV
t l1or. a.,.
.giaeer fiat
5th ptogc.ta$
$2—$lO 4—S
3%a. e.
—
24
L —1
dt.ndy itse.
(nather is-
pat. as. A.
dy e ..ic)
Potet loan..
asp
3, 500, t..p
ad soy EAt..
ooosrvstt,.
oo.titaveta
—
DOD lat ardor decoy.
300-DO coepliog, reset
sti t .
alesl coat fat
A plnaoiog
,.isE 5000
coach, D.C
Co ot.r. POITVMI IV
Co.pilvr. a ..
a ..gia.ar Co.iii.r
ith proganateg
15-530.
•iightiy
ighor
thea
ho..
Meea e
I*L-
Stesdy Stat.
(sesther En-
pats can be
dy.aic)
vEnt IotOrt t a
a .ly
-
50, NOD, T .
AM 3 , 2. 503
alga.. pho.—
photo. boothS
dead,coli—
foota. c adtO
active., aba.
cmt..rvstin
Cai I etitueUtS
Srata Al $SIatrie.
t.tac.ttiata, 500-00
teapliog, 1.1 order
decay, re..rsttoe,
t . affects
o.insl cost
free IDA
leaviog Last.—
tsac. Irnoch , DC
at .r . PODINAJI TV
t1.r, ao .
.tnar f.niltnr
itt. pvo$rnaio$
4—IS
‘fsnaás
,.aic
adios tidal
fist., te
land. tay be
dia a sa
Lay 6 tnat5-
toaet. tacit,-
diotg toeaar.
vativa coast—
it,aat. .5th
lot order
decoy
D.c ardor decay, DOD-
00 asaplta, rs.s rs ’,;
Slav
IDA. laio. ...v.- t(astOt, P011 561 IV
iii Sssssrcb Lab ..ptiar, ova aegiaaof
Car.. 11 ., Ota.ca a ead.itas sad ass
,porieoc.d tO 5tOt
-
-___________________
Qv.attt 1-25
(15—510 Na...abp
0-slit.
$ Q $5Q
—
isodi.. tidsi
fist., oasis
load. asy ho
dynaSt
tote.. t. . •
DO, 500, 1.
colt. feral
colt, NH ,
NO 2 , 503,
?O , Ca, Pb
ad tee
a sflntL..S
Lap 2 ea.—ca...rvs-
El . .. . 5th let order
decoy, or 2 ear.
aea.eavati,n, La
plot. of C nod AM
Above pita 2ed ardor
d.csy, votrisot sJ sp
cycla, nod l .
.ff.cE.
Dpi, Eeviro ..o- vepotar, P0 510 511 IV
Eel. Ss555rch Lab o.pti c. on. eogle.er
aavni.ts, 01agoa a eadeliag sad eta
zp.rtaot.d rogrsr
A. above
5th in—
crass.
coat as
a .b. c
A coos-
iE a s cE.
acres..
5—20
28
-------
TAStE 12
ETREAM MODEL DATA RER )UIRDSENTh
DATA REOUIRED FOR MODEL inPUTS
Model
Rydrodyoanfn
( including
ygir ic000try )
Water Quulity Effluent
Decay Rates
Other
Required for
Model
Cnlibrotton &
Verification
Model
Output
Simplified
Stream
Net river flow Depths, voloci—
ties; distance
fcc’s outfallo.
Countituect
concentration
(constant) or
headwetero and
tributaries;
water tesporaturt
plc’s backgronod
DO deficit
005 loading lleonygrnation coef-
rate. (may fOrRest.
be obtained
from Chart.)
— nosti tuenic000en—
trarione within
cdt ci area
DO deficit and
DO coucentrationfl
DOSA&,I
Indenter flows,
tributary and dio
charge tiny .,
withdr.eal Ole, ...
groundwater flows
( .11 Constant)
.
oath lengths Constituent
cnncrntnstiun
(constant) an
beadwaters .ini
tnibuasrirn;
water taper.tsre
Flow rates Rearrutien and two
and t000ti— deoxygenstint ccci—
tnenncOncen — ficienta, tempera—
tr.tiona ture correction
factor.
Irsaimeni
fartoro
treaw flows, stream
elocitlea end
onnvituenrconcec—
rations within
:deled area
Descriptive tumpu—
nor listing of:
input data. DO.
ClOD and 14805 at
start and end of
each reach.
mOnies. DO and
location in each
roach
S SCI
heedenten flows,
tributary and dia
charge flows.
ujthdusoal Ole . ..
groundwater flown
(.11 tnoarasn)
MeanS lengths
Ccn.ultuer .t
concentration
(constant) an
beadaunera and
tributaries;
rater Eesperatsre
a above, pin
noliog water
eaperature
ins
Rate coefficients.
temperature rorree—
tine fatter.
Treatment
factors
cream flows. atren
elncitiea and
onatttuentcnncen—
rations within
:deled are.
Descriptive compu—
nor listing of:
input duta. DO.
ClOD and 1101 at
etact end end of
each reach.
mtntsue DO and
lncotina in each
QOAL—l
eadwatoc finn.
ributary floes.
jnislrawsl flows,
ceundeater flown.
(all constast)
Depths and widths
bottom roughness
(Manning. o)
afl throughoo
eteta.
:nonituent
oncentratinn
(constant) an
tradwaner..sd
ributarie.
Constant fir
mud cotees—
eroSions
SOD decay -rates
.
eanher • lan—
ong nf baai:
sy of year,
vapnratiuv
oefficients
treoo finn. stream
ejcciiies and
ncstituentcnnceo—
rotions within
ndeied ores
Computer listing ci
conaOiinent ounce.
stations at apeci—
f fed tieestepa.
man., nOn. • asiA
one, concentration
or each reach
Qua—IS
Seadwaner flows,
tributary flows,
withdrawal flown.
groundwater flow
(all t000tsnn)
-
Depths and width..
onto. rnsghness
(Manning’s a)
all threughnur
stream
Cnnarituesn
coneentratias
(tnn.Eaot) at
hesdwaters end
tributaries
Connate flow
and onsces—
tratlonu
Numerous parameter
decay rates and
sennllsg cneffic—
icons
-
Weather. len -
lung &basio
day of year.
evaporation
coefficients
ltreae Fin n, streas
oelociries end
constituent conceo—
traticts within
modeled aree
Computer hating
ci onnutituents
at spec Riled
tisestept. final
conetinoeet cue—
centrationa and
ove. reach re—
efficteota us-ed
DED
Constant head—
water flown; con—
stunt or dynamic
tributary and
cii isaac din—
charge floe.;
constant ground—
water flows;
seaward tides
in estsary
Chatnel depths and
idiha. bottom
roughness, Initial
velocities
nnutant or
ynacoic ennotitu—
-or wamieloada
from tributaries
headwatere,
canard eachangs
neff iciest.
Constant or
dyne’s
stituest
loads from
affluent.
irst order decay
locon—atenaroll son—
onservative con—
lIbeRia
Windspeed A
rain. fer
rstuariea:
seaward ow—
chungo curt—
ficient
n above plc’s entuar—
iet require salinity
or dye data for colt—
ration of seaward
bounisry inputs
Conputor liatitg
nf nan, loin, ariA
ace concentration
an each junction
at pooncnihed
cisc intervals,
noary on each
iidul cycle ion—
loding nun, and
etc flows, velo-
cities. head.,
ret flows and
junction deptha
iR1 CI
Cosatsnn head—
wsner flows; cot,—
slant an dynasin
tributary and
effluent di.—
charge floes;
nostant ground—
ater flows;
easard tide.
Is estuary
Channel depths and
n-lAth., borne.
roughufes, Initial
velocities
Crastane or
dneaade conanit:c-
cot wautelnadi
from sribsnaeie.
headwanere.
eaaard exchange
nefftoiento
Con.tast or
dynamic ram—rate.
stitueus
loads fm.
effluents
fat or 2nd dso.y
nr LU
no—consec-e.tlvo
000 5titoents
Witsdspeed &
rats, fur
estuarieS
ceawarden—
change coot—
ficlent
As above plus eatuar—
ten require sslinity
ur dye datu for call—
bc.tion uf me.eard
bnundsry inputs
Computer listing
nf man, .Rc, and
coo concentration
an each junction
at preecribed
tine interval,,
aumary of each
nodal cycle Roe—
ladivg nan, ned
sin floes, velo—
due., hasda,
en flows end
unction depth.
29
-------
QTJAL—I was developed by W.A. While, and others in collaboration with the
Texas Water Development Board. It is capable of simulating temporal and
longitudinal variations of temperature, BOD, DO and conservative constituents
in a one—dimensional, vertically well—mixed, branching river with multiple
waste inputs, withdrawals and incremental runoff within the basin. Differential
mass—transport equations form the basis for the model with terms f or longitud-
inal advection and dispersion included. It is more accurate and provides a
more precise definition of the stream conditions than DOSAG—I described above.
The two programs can be used together. DOSAG—I can provide the user with a
rapid evaluation of a number of alternative conditions while QUAL—I gives a
more detailed analysis of the physical phenomena of the stream.
QUAL—Il, prepared by Water Resources Engineers, is a modification of
QUAL—I that principally adds the capability to simulate eight more water
quality constituents.
DYNANIC MODELS
The two models reviewed in this category are RECEIV and SRNSCI.
R.ECEIV is the name of the receiving water module of the Storm Water
Management Model developed by Metcalf and Eddy, Water Resources Engineers,
and the University of Floride. RECEIV was developed, principally by WRE,
by incorporating into a previous dynamic equilibrium model the capability
to simulate the transient behavior (toward a dynamic equilibrium) and
associated problems cased by dunamic storm water inflows. This model can
also simulate estuaries including a tidal cycle at the seaward boundary.
SRNSCI is a modification of RECEIV, prepared by Systems Control, Inc.,
and first applied to the Snohomish and Stillaguaiuish River estuaries of
Washington. The principal modification was the added capability to simulate
many more water quality constituents.
Both of these models accept transient inputs, such as dynamic (non—steady
and non—cyclic) storm water inf low (quantity and quality), resulting in a
dynamic transient solution which tends back to the pre—storm dynamic
equilibrium.
OTHER MODELS
There are many models that are not described herein nor summarized in
Tables 11 and 12. Most of the models not discussed herein are intended for
very specific situations. For example, the Hydrocomp Simulation Model,
available from Hydrocomp International, Palo Alto, California, models
temperature, BOD coliforms, algae, zooplankton, sediment, organic nitrogen,
DO, TDS, nutrients and conservative constituents. It is particularly useful
for its capability to preduct water runoff and the resulting stream quality
as a function of varying weather conditions. RECEIV—II, available from EPA,
Planning Assistance Branch, Washington, D.C., includes multiple tidal inlets,
upstream dams and storm water flows.
A major consideration in the use of any model is the type, amount and
accuracy of data needed to carry out meaningful computations. It should be
noted that all of these models contain constants that deal with dispersion,
sorption, reaeration and diffusion rates. The values of these constants
should be obtained through experimental work for the river basin being
modeled.
30
-------
The report by Grimsrud, et al.,’ 7 is specifically designed as a handbook
for water resource planners and managers and is an excellent guide for
evaluation, selection and integration of modeling with planning activities.
This report, “Evaluation of Water Quality Models, A Management Guide for
Planners”, is available from the U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIS PB—256 412,
July 1976.
31
-------
SECTION 5
CAPABILITY OF TREATMENT PROCESSES FOR
CONTAMINANT REMOVAL
GENERAL
Many of the contaminants in the Primary and Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations are removed by conventional water and wastewater treatment
processes. It is possible with existing treatment technology to remove
any contaminant and produce virtually any desired level of effluent quality.
In general, the costs and complexity of treatment systems are greater to
reduce contaminants to very low concentration levels.
The following terms are used in this report to describe treatment
systems.
• Conventional Wastewater Treatment . Primary and biological secondary
treatment plus chlorination. Biological secondary processes com-
monly used are activated sludge, trickling filter and oxidation pond.
• Advanced Wastewater Treatment (ANT) . ANT is a broad term that implies
treatment in addition to conventional secondary wastewater treatment.
ANT may involve one or several treatment steps such as chemical
clarificatIon (coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation),
filtration, activated carbon adsorption, nitrogen removal and other
processes.
• Conventional Water Treatment . Chemical clarification, filtration
and disinfection.
• Upgraded Water Treatment . themical clarification, mixed media filtra-
tion, with turbidity monitoring and polymer feed systems, carbon
adsorption and disinfection.
• Physical—Chemical Processes . These processes are similar for water
or wastewater treatment and include: chemical clarification, filtra-
tion, chlorination, activated carbon adsorption, reverse osmosis,
and ion exchange. The design of the units, unit loadings and chemical
dosages may vary between water and wastewater treatment systems,
but the basic process and removal mechanisms are similar.
The contaminants of concern in the primary and secondary drinking water
regulations are divided into the following general categories:
32
-------
Microbiological contaminants (coliform bacteria)
Turbidity
Organic chemicals
Inorganic chemicals
Radioactive material
Public Law 93—523 provided for the establishment of the Primary Drinking
Water Regulations and also stated that EPA should identify treatment tech-
nology that could be used to achieve the maximum contaminant levels (MCL).
Accordingly, in May, 1977 EPA published a report entitled “Manual of Treatment
Techniques for Meeting the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations”. 8
This manual is based on a literature review and research conducted by the
Water Supply Research Division of EPA. The EPA water treatment data are
summarized herein and supplemented with other appropriate information.
MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS
Coliform bacteria are an indicator of pollution because they are always
present in the intestinal tract of humans and warm blooded animals and are
eliminated in large numbers in fecal wastes. The detection of disease causing
bacteria, virus and other pathogenic organisms is much more difficult and
time consuming than are tests for coliforms. However, several studies have
indicated that some pathogenic organisms survive longer than coliforms in
water, and are not as efficiently removed by treatment, including chlorination.
Water and wastewater can be disinfected with chlorine, chlorine dioxide
and ozone. Chlorine dioxide and ozone are powerful disinfectants but have
not been used to any extent in the United States because they cannot be
transported and must b.e generated at the treatment plant site. In addition,
there is little scientific knowledge currently available regarding the health
effects of by—products of these disinfectants. Chlorine is by far the most
widely used disinfectant in the United States. However, studies in recent
years have revealed that chlorination creates organic by—products that may
be hazardous to human health. One method of minimizing the chlorine—organic
by—products is to chlorinate at the point in the treatment process with
the best quality water.
Disinfection efficiency increases, with water clarity. Treatment processes
that remove suspended material usually remove some bacteria and virus and
greatly increase the efficiency of downstream disinfection, Turbidity in
the disinfection process should be below 1 TU and preferably below 0.1 TU. 9
In addition to water turbidity, other factors influencing disinfection
with chlorine include chlorine form (free or combined), water temperature
and pH. Other factors being equal, chlorination efficiency is directly
related to chlorine concentration and contact time.
Conventional wastewater treatment processes coupled with chlorination
provide substantial reductions but not complete removal of bacteria and
virus. Primary and secondary treatment processes may provide bacteria and
virus reduction of about 90 percent and also enhance the efficiency of down-
stream disinfection processes by removing solids and other materials which
would interfere with disinfection. With efficient secondary treatment and
maintenance of adequate chlorine residual and contact time, reduction of
over 99 percent of virus and bacteria have been achieved. However, in most
33
-------
normal operating facilities expected c.oliform levels are 106 — 1O per 100 ml
and viruses are on the order of 100 per gallon.
AWT processes also provide significant reductions in virus and bacteria
as well as improving the efficiency of disinfectants by further removal
of solids and other interfering substances. Chemical clarification (and
also filtration is some cases) has been found by several researchers 959 to
provide high degrees of removal of viruses. Alum clarification was found
to remove 95 to 99 percent of coxsackie virus and ferric chloride clarification
was found to remove 92 to 94 percent of the same virus. 50 Good virus removal
with both alum and ferric chloride, was contingent upon good floc formation
and the absence of interfering substances. The presence of organic material
was shown to decrease the amount of virus removed by alum or ferric chloride.
In one study it was observed that polio virus Type I was removed by
flocculation and filtration with about the same efficiency as coliforms. 51
If a low but well mixed dose of alum was fed just ahead of the filters and
operated in the range of 2 to 6 gallons per minute per square foot, more
than 98 percent of the viruses were removed by 16 inches of coarse coal
on top of 8 inches of sand. If the alum dose was increased and conventional
flocculators and settling iere used, the removal was increased to over 99
percent. Large scale pilot studies at Dallas, Texas 52 demonstrated removals
of bacterial virus of over 99 percent for chemical clarification and over
99.9 percent for chemical clarification with alum followed by filtration.
Lime clarification has demonstrated the ability to effectively remove
and inactivate virus at high pH values. The mechanism of inactivation under
alkaline conditions is probably caused by denaturation of the protein coat
and disruption of the virus. In some cases complete loss of structural
integrity of the virus may occur under high pH conditions. The pH reached
in lime treatment is a critical factor in determining the degree of virus
inactivation with marked increases In virus inactivation as the pH is in-
creased from 10.1 to 10.8 and then to 11.1.
The pilot plant at Dallas, Texas 52 also found that only a few gram
positive rods could survive high pH lime treatment (pH of 11.2 to 11.3 with
contact times of 1.6 to 2.4 hours). The virucidal effect of the pH treat-
ment is reflected by the fact that ‘no viable polio virus were recovered
from the sludge resulting from the high pH treatment.
The AWWA Committee report on virus in water 9 concluded that “... in
the prechiorination of raw water, any enteric virus- so far studied would
be destroyed by a free chlorine residual of about 1.0 ppm, provided this
concentration could be maintained for about 30 minutes and that the virus
was not erabeded in particulate material. In postchlorination practices
where relatively low chlorine residuals are usually maintained, and, in
water about 20°C and pH values not more than 8.0—8.5, a free chlorine residual
of 0.2-0.3 ppm would probably destroy in 30 minutes- most viruses so far
examined.”
In general, ozone has been found to equal or exceed chlorine in its
germicidal effects under a wide variety of circumstances. 60 Measurements
of the virus kill in secondary effluent found that seeded coliphage F 2 was
totall ’ destroyed in five minutes In secondary effluent by 15 mg/i of
ozone.b 1 Another study found that only 0.006 percent of polio vIrus’ in
secondary effluent survived one minute of contact with an initial ozone
concentration of 5 mg/i. 62 It was found that a threshold value for initial
ozone concentration of about 1 mg/i had to be surpassed before extremely
high (greater than 99.9 percent) virus kills resulted.
34
-------
The overall pathogen removal capability of primary and secondary treat-
ment followed by chemical clarification, mixed media filtration, granular
activated carbon adsorption, and chlorination is reflected by the data from
two full scale wastewater reclamation plants.
1. South Lake Tahoe, California, 7.5 mgd AWT plant following activated
sludge secondary treatment. Of 1,731 final effluent samples examined
from 1972—1976, 1,677 (97 percent) had coliform concentrations
of less than 2.2/100 ml and only 2 samples exceeded 38/100 ml.
Although virus tests were limited, no viruses were detected in
the final effluent.
2. Orange County California, 15 mgd AWT plant following trickling
filter secondary treatment. Chemical clarification with lime and
polymer raises the pH to about 11.2. Viruses in the secondary
effluent average 100 plaque forming units per gallon and are reduced
to an average of 2 plaque forming units per gallon by lime clarifi-
cation. No viruses or bacteria were detected in the final AWT
plant effluent after more than one year of operation. Treatment
after chemical clarification includes ammonia stripping, recarbona—
tion, mixed media filtration, granular activated carbon adsorption
and chlorination.
TURBIDITY
The MCL for turbidity is 1 TTJ in most circumstances. Primary wastewater
treatment commonly removes 60 to 65 percent of the influent suspended solids.
A well operated secondary wastewater treatment plant can produce effluent
with a turbidity of 10 to 30 TU. Chemical clarification of secondary effluent
can reduce turbidity to a range of 1 to 5 TU. Filtration of chemically
clarified water or wastewater with filter aids (polymer and alum) can produce
effluent with turbidity of 0.1 to 1 TU. Direct filtration of secondary
effluent (without chemical clarification) is capable of reducing turbidity
to 1 to 5 TU, depending upon the degree of flocculation achieved in the
secondary biological process.
ORGANIC CHEMICALS
The Primary Drinking Water Regulations established NCL’ s for six organic
chemicals: endrin, lindane, methoxychlor, and toxaphene — which are chlorinated
hydrocarbons — and two chiorophenoxys, 2,4—D and 2,4,5—TP (Silvex). These
six specific organic contaminants can be grouped under the general term
“pesticides”. It is proposed by EPA to add to t’he Primary Regulations
a MCL of 0.10 mg/i for total trihalomethanes. It is also proposed by EPA to
specify MCL’s for additional organic compounds. Raw water supplies that are
vulnerable to significant contamination with synthetic organic chemicals will
be required to provide granular activated carbon, or equivalent, treatment.
The Secondary Drinking Water Regulations established MCL’s for three contamin-
ants that are most often caused by organic chemicals: foaming agents, color
and odor.
In addition to the specific organic compounds in the Drinking Water
Regulations, organics are of concern that are (1) not removed by primary
secondary and advanced wastewater treatment, and (2) not removed by conventional
35
-------
water treatment. Regarding organics in drinking water, the National Academy
of Sciences study 1 states:
“The organic compounds that have been identified in drinking water
make up a small fraction of the total organic matter present. About 90
percent of the volatile organic compounds have been identified and
quantified, but these represent no more than 10 percent by weight of
the total organic material. Only 5 — 10 percent of the non—volatile
organic compounds, that comprise the remaining 90 percent of the total
organic material, has been identified. (In this context, volatile
signifies that the compound is detectable by gas chromotography.)”
Organic compounds studied by the National Academy of Sciences were
selected according to the following criteria.
“The compounds selected for the review in this study included 74 non—
pesticides of the approximately 309 volatile organic compounds so far
identified in drinking water, and 55 pesticides. Some of the pesticides
studied have not yet been detected in drinking water, but were included
because they are or have been used in large quantities. A compound
was selected for consideration if any of the following criteria applied:
1. Experimental evidence of toxicity in man or animals, including
carcinogenici ty, mutagenicity, teratogenici ty.
2. Identified in drinking water at relatively high concentration.
3. Molecular structure closely related to that of another compound
of known toxicity.
4. Pesticide in heavy use; potential contaminant of drinking water
supplies.
5. Listed in the Na -tie viaL In te,’ Jn Pn ma/Ly V’ int ing Wa..tex ReguLa -t- on4.”
Studies by EPA have shown that chloroform is the principal trihalomethane
present in municipal finished water supplies. 63 Bromodichioromethane, dibro—
mochioromethane and tribromomethane were also frequently found and dichioro—
iodomethane was detected in some finished waters. The Secondary Drinking
Water Regulations contain limits for three contaminants (foaming agents, color
and odor) that are most often caused by organic chemicals.
Because the analysis for chloroform is a gas chromatographic procedure
requiring skilled operators and about one hour to complete, EPA conducted
studies in search for a surrogate or substitute measurement that would predict
chloroform concentrations. 63 Three general organic tests were studied as
substitute parameters: (1) non—purgeable total organic carbon, (2) ultra-
violet absorbance and (3) emission fluorescence scan. The correlation between
these potential substitute parameters and chloroform was not consistent and it
was concluded that the best method of determining the chloroform concentration
is to obtain the necessary equipment and technical staff to perform the analysis
directly. Special equipment and skilled operators are also required to make
the substitute measurements and therefore, little can be gained by their use .
There are three basic ways of controlling trihalomethanes in drinking
water:
36
-------
1. Use of a disinfectant that does not generate trihalomethanes in
water.
2. Treatment to reduce the precursor concentration prior to
chlorination.
3. Treatment to reduce the trihalomethane concentration after
formation.
Each of these general approaches can be further divided into other
control options, depending upon individual circumstances. However, these
should not be considered as distinct options. Indeed, in many cases some
combination of all three may be necessary to simultaneously minimize organic
and optimize pathogen control.
Since any of the disinfectants or their corresponding by—products may
have some undesirable properties, a fundamental principle should be to apply
whatever treatment is needed to produce water of high quality and low chemical
content prior to the application of the disinfectant. Thus the chemical
disinfectant demand of the water will be minimized and disinfection will be
maintained while disinfectant use and by—product formation will be minimized.
Measures of Organic Pollution
The current state of water analysis technology requires that the presence
of trihalomethanes and the six pesticides contained in the Primary Drinking
Water Regulations be determined by direct measurement. Although measurement
of the organic contaminants in the Primary Drinking Water Regulations must
be made directly, there is much interest in measuring the general organic
quality of raw and finished water. The pesticides and trihalomethanes included
in the Primary Drinking Water Regulations will represent only a small fraction
of the organic material present in most waters; therefore, some other parameter
must be used to monitor the remaining organics. Determination of foaming
agents, color and odor included in the Secondary Drinking Water Regulations
may also be monitored by measurement of a more general organic parameter.
There are three general measures of organic pollutants that are used
to varying degrees at the present time: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
chemical oxygen demand (COD), and total organic carbon (TOC). Most waste—
water treatment studies and operating plants do not test for specific
organic constituents but rather monitor organics by measuring BOD, COD or
TOC. Measurements of gross organic concentrations have limitations. For
example, the COD procedure fails to detect many straight—chain aliphatic
and aromatic hydrocarbons, and pyridine . However, these measurements do give
an indication of the total amount of organics present and make up the bulk
of the available data.
BOD — This parameter has been used over the longest period of time
to measure organic pollution and is included in the EPA definition
of secondary treatment. The BOD test measure the amount of oxygen
consumed by bacteria and other organisms during the stabilization of
organic wastes. The standard test requires five days to complete.
37
-------
COD — This parameter was developed as a substitute or supplement to
the BOD analysis. Whereas the BOD test relies on biological activity
to oxidize organic matter, the COD analysis utilizes a powerful
chemical oxidizing agent. One advantage of the COD test is that it
can be performed in about two hours as opposed to a minimum of five
days for the BOD test.
TOC — This test was developed relatively recently and requires more
expensive equipment and skilled operation than either BOD or COD.
TOC is measured with an instrument that converts all carbon in the
sample to carbon dioxide and the carbon dioxide is then measured by
an infrared analyzer. No organic chemicals have been found that will
resist oxidation in the analyzer. The TOC analysis can be performed
in about five minutes or less.
Some organic compounds are biologically oxidized but resist chemical
oxidation; other organics are oxidized chemically but not biologically;
and there are no known organic compounds that will resist the catalytic
oxidation in the TOC analyzer. Because of th.e vastly different methods
of oxidizing organic material, there is no inherant correlation between the
three different methods of analysis. However, it is sometimes possible
in specific locations to establish an empirical relationship between BOB
or COD and TOC. Eckenf elder notes that the BOB/COD ratio of wastewater
changes through treatment and gives a ratio of 0.5 to 0.7 for raw biodegrad-
able wastewaters and 0.03 to 0.2 for biologically treated effluents. 6
There have been several studies that attempted to correlate the
instrumental TOC results with the more traditional parameters of BOD and
COD. In many wastewaters, a reliable correlation has been found and, in
general, these are wastes that are fairly consistent in composition.
Municipal wastewaters and industrial wastes that contain the same relative
constituents but variable concentrations have shown a consistent correlation
between BOB and TOC. Data from three studies 6 5—67 gives the following
correlations between BOB, COD and TOC.
Relationship Water Type
BOD/TOC 1.35 to 2.62 Raw ciomestic sewage
BOD/TOC 1.31 to 1.63; mean = 1.46 R w domestic sewage
BOD/TOC 1.00 to 1.33; mean = 1.11 Primary effluent
BOD/TOC 0.31 to 0.61; mean = 0.46 Secondary etfluent
COD/TOC mean = 2.92; standard City of Midland, Michigan
deviation 0.292 Primary effluent
COD/TOC mean 2.76; standard City of Midland, Michigan
deviation = 0.275 Secondary effluent
38
-------
One study measured BOD, COD and TOC for various stream waters and
wastewaters and concluded that: 68
1. There is a significant correlation between BOD and TOG for
domestic wastewater samples which have been collected from a
specific location within a treatment process.
2. For a treated domestic wastewater secondary effluent, the DOD
to TOC correlation was stronger than the COD to TOG relationship.
3. While major variation in BOD and TOG concentrations were observed
in the river study portion of this investigation, the correlation
between BOD and TOG was significant at the 0.01 level when all
river samples were considered.
4. A sharp decrease in BOD to TOG correlation was evident as the
river approached higher flow conditions.
The report on this study 68 notes that the expected stoichiometric COD:TOC
ratio of wastewater will approximate the molecular ratio of oxygen to carbon
of 2.67. However, this ratio can range from below 2.67 for organics resistant
to chemical oxidation to over 2.67 for some organic compounds or when inorganic
reducing agents are present. The estimated relationship between 5—day BOD
and TOC for domestic wastes is as follows:
= - (0.90) (0.88) = 1.85
where the ultimate BOD exerts 90 percent of the theoretical oxygen demand and
the 5—day BOD is 77 percent of the ultimate BOD. Actual BOD and TOC data
from the study 68 are summarized as follows:
Source BOD, mg/i TOC, mg/i BOD/TOC
Raw sewage (7 samples) 56 to 450 76 to 175 0.67 to 2.53
Secondary Effluent 2 to 40 9 to 51 0.22 to 0.78
(7 samples)
River water (9 samples) 4 to 9 2 to 24 0.29 to 0.56
The results indicated that the river flow had a pronounced effect on
the BOD:TOC relationship. The BOD:TOC correlation was much better at low
flow than high flow conditions.
Activated carbon is the most effective and widely used treatment method
for removal of dissolved organic material from water and wastewater. Reverse
osmosis and ion exchange are also effective for the removal of many organic
compounds. Chemical clarification and oxidation with chlorine ozone or
potassium permanganate have also been effective for removal of some organics
in some waters. The EPA report on water treatment techniques 8 discusses
methods of removing the six pesticides in the Primary Drinking Water
Regulations and concludes that carbon adsorption is more effective than
conventional treatment or oxidation for pesticide removal.
39
-------
Activated Carbon
Adsorption of specific organic compounds from municipal wastewaters is
a complex problem. Even if data are available on the adsorption of a specific
organic from a pure solution, the data are of limited value in predicting the
removal of this compound from the heterogenous mixture of organics found in
municipal wastewaters. Two different materials may enhance the adsorption of
one another or they may interfere. One study found that the capacity of carbon
is enhanced in the presence of several compounds as compared to that obtained
in single—solute solutions. 69
The literature contains information on removal of specific organic
compounds, 7 0—76 but unfortunately these studies have been made with single
solutes or mixtures of solutes in pure water rather than in municipal waste—
waters. These studies do indicate that molecules having highly branched
structures are removed much more slowly than those of identical molecular
weight but with configurations that permit coiling and compactness which
result in high rates of diffusion into the pores of the carbon.
The ability of carbon to remove organics from water has been reported
in several articles, 778 and a report published in August, 1977 reviews
the state of the art of granular activated carbon in water treatment.
An activated carbon column providing 14 minutes contact time reduced
6.3 pg/i of eridrin in lake water to 0.006 — 0.085 pg/i. 77 Dieldrin (3.5
mg/l) and lindane (8 mg/i) have been reported to be removed by powdered
carbon dosages of 35 to 40 mg/l. 78 Table 13 presents data collected in
isotherm tests on aldrin dieldrin, endrin, DDD DDE, DDT, toxaphene, and
Arochior 1242 and 1254 7 b The first seven are pesticides and the last two
are mixtures of PCB’s containing 42 percent and 54 percent chlorine by weight.
The isotherm data were collected on solutions of the material added ço distil-
led water. This data illustrates the capability of activated carbon for
removal of these contaminants.
Removals of chloroform and bromodichioromethane, formed by chlorination
of wastewater, in carbon columns providing only 2.5 minutes of contact time
have been reported. 28 Enfluent chloroform concentrations were 11 to 96
mg/i and bromodichioromethane concentrations: were 0.1 to 19 mg/i. Chloroform
was reduced to less than 1 pg/i during the first day’s operation and increased
in concentration until complete breakthrough occured on the eighth day.
Carbon effectively reduced bromodichloromethane to nondetectable concentrations
except for the eighth day when a single value of 0.3 pg/i was observed.
All other compounds were absent in the carbon effluent. Carbon capacity
for chloroform was determined to be 0.073 mg chloroform per gram carbon
with 2.5 minutes contact time.
The removal of organics by activated carbon treatment of secondary
municipal wastewater effluents is affected by many variables such as the
degree of pretreatment, the contact time in the carbon column, the frequency
with which carbon is removed f or regeneration, and the nature of the organics
present. One of the early studies on carbon treatment 73 found that provision
of chemical clarification and filtration prior to adsorption provided a
marked improvement in activated carbon effluent COD over that obtained with
activated carbon treatment of secondary effluent. On the same wastewater,
isotherms showed that COD values of 5 mgJl were achievable with chemically
clarified and filtered secondary effluent while 20 mg/i was the best achieved
40
-------
TABLE 13
REMOVAL OF TOXIC MATERIALS
BY CARBON ADSORPTION
(after HaBer and Rizzo 7 6)
- Residial, AR/i
Carbon t sage - Toxa— Arochior Axochlor
( mg/i) Aidriri nrIu .- Dieldrin DDT DOD DDE phene 1242 1254
Control 48 62 19 41 56 38 155 45 49
1.0 — — — 41 — 34 147 — —
2.0 26 15 6.3 — 6.9 — 80 7.3 37
2.5 — . . 21 . 29 — — —
5.0 15 3.4 2.4 3.7 3.7 12 31 1.6 17
10.0 12 1.5 1.1 — 2.2 — 2.7 1.1 4.2
12.5 — — — <1 — 3.3 — — —
25.0 6.3 0.56 — — 0.45 1.1 — — 1.6
50.0 4.4 0.22 — — 0.35 0.9 — - L2
41
-------
with secondary effluent with no pretreatment. Pilot column tests at several
locations showed that effluent TOC values with chemical clarification and
filtration as pretreatment were 0.1 mg/i, while with filtration as the only
pretreatment, TOC values were 2 to 5 mg/i.
The Pomona pilot plant has achieved COD values of less than 10 mg/i
by carbon treatment of secondary effluent with no pretreatment. 87 The review
of granular activated carbon use for water treatment also noted the effect
of pretreatment on activated carbon treatment efficiency and concluded
that the use of granular activated carbon for reduction of TOC should be
preceded by good clarification because many organics are removed by this
step. 85 Chemical clarification and filtration will remove many color causing
humic substances. Some trace organics such. as pesticides may be associated
with silt and particulate humic substances.
Middletotf’ 8 states that COD values can be reduced to less than 3 mg/i
with carbon treatment of a well—treated secondary effluent and that a TOC
of less than 1 mg/l can be achieved at contact times of 15 minutes or more.
Middleton also reports achieving TOC values of 1.2 mg/i with powdered carbon
treatment at Lebanon, Ohio.
COD values of less than 3 mg/i have been produced in pilot tests and
in the full—scale plant at Lake Tahoe. 89 The Orange County, California
full—scale plant achieved an average COD of 15 mg/l (with a standard devia-
tion of 6 mg/i) over the period of February, 1976 to March, 1977.90 Minimum
values of 4 mg/i were achieved during this period. Data on organic removals
in full—scale AWT plants in Colorado Springs, Colorado, South Lake Tahoe
and Orange County, California, are summarized in Table 14.
Although the data indicates that there may only be 2 to 3 mg/i of COD
that is typically resistant to carbon adsorption, it is often impractical
to continuously produce such a value. For example, analysis of the South
Tahoe data from January—November, 1974 indicates that only 7 percent of
the measured COD values were less than 5 mg/i with 66 percent being less
than 15 mg/i. In previous years, the COD has typically been 10 mg/i or less
for 80 percent of the time with 20 percent of the values being between 10
and 22 mg/i.
One of the reasons that effluent COD values show variability is that
it is not practical to maintain carbon contactors continuously full of
freshly regenerated carbon . Minimum values of COD (3 mg/l) are typically
achieved with a column filled largely with fresh carbon. As the carbon
becomes saturated, the effluent COD increases. When some of the spent carbon
is replaced with regenerated carbon, the COD value drops . It appears that
COD values of 10 to 12 mg/i are practical goals for full—scale AWT plants
for activated carbon effluent. Unfortunately, there are few data on the
specific organic compounds which are likely to comprise the 10 to 12 mg/i
COD escaping an efficient carbon adsorption system.
One study reported that the major organic fraction adsorbed in activated
carbon columns is a fulvic acid—like material with a molecular weight fraction
ranging from approximately 100 to iO,000. 91 Both the low molecular weight
fraction consisting of mostly polar organic compounds and the high molecular
weight humic carbohydrate—like material, with a molecular weight above 50,000
were poorly adsorbed. The total COD passing the carbon column in these
tests was 6 mg/i.
42
-------
TABLE 14
TYPICAL QUALITY OF ADVANCED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT PRODUCT WATER
(mg/l except as noted)
PARAMETERS DRINKING FULL SCALE AWl PLANT
WATER South Tahoe Orange County Colorado Springs
Primary Regulations MCL California _ California — Colorado
Arsenic 0.05 0.005 0.001 0.003
Barium 1 — — 0.03 ——
Cadmium 0.010 —— 0.002 0.000
Chromium 0.05 0.0005 0.05 0.022
Fluoride 1.4 to 2.41 1.2
Lead 0.05 0.02 0.07
Mercury 0.002 0.0005 0.0
Nitrate (as N) 10 <1
Selenium 0.01 0.0005 0.007
Silver 0.05 0.0004 0.001
Endrin 0.0002 <0.0001
Lindane 0.004 <0.0001
Methoxychior 0.1 <0.0001
Toxaphene 0.005 ——
2, 4—D 0.1 — —
2, 4, 5—TP Silvex 0.01 ——
Turbidity 12 0.5 0.4 0.8
Coliform Bacteria ND ND
Secondary Regulations
Copper 1 0.01 0.02 0.02
Iron 0.3 0.0003 0.14 0.012
Manganese 0.05 0.002 0.004 0.020
Zinc 5 0.005 0.13 0.12
Color, units 15 <1 2
Foaming Agents (as MBAS) 0.5 0.05 0.1
Odor, TON 3 <1 3
Other
Trihalomethane 0.101 0.02
COD None 20 20 15
TOC None 8 10
Varies with average annual maximum daily air temperature
2 Monthly average
Monthly average, membrane filter technique
Proposed MCL
ND = None Detected.
43
-------
Analyses of carbon column effluent from the full scale AWT plant in
Orange County found chloroform concentrations of 0.7 to 4.5 pg/i, much less
than the 10 to 300 pg/l found in drinking waters.’ 5 Concentrations of endrin,
lindane and methoxychior were less than 0.1 pg/i. The haloforms 1, 2 dichior—
ethane, carbon tetrachloride, bromodichioromethane, dibromochioromethane,
and tribromomethane, if present, were found in very low concentrations (0.1
to 5 pg/l).
Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis CR0) is best known forits use in the removal of in-
organic chemicals — desalting or demineralization; however, RO is effective
for the removal of many organics present in water andwastewater. RO removes
some refractory and toxic organics of intermediate size and almost all high
molecular weight (greater than 2,000) organics are removed very effectively. 92
Removal of low to intermediate,molecular weight organics by RO is not always
effective but in many cases partial removal is achieved. Another study 93
notes that: (1) RO removals increase with increasing molecular weight and,
at constant molecular weight, with increasing branching, and (2) in the
absence of experimental data, removal of organic compounds with molecular
weights of less than 100 should not be assumed.
RO reduced the COD of secondary effluents from 39 mg/i to less than
1 mg/i at Pomona. The COD of activated carbon effluent was reduced from
11.4 mg/i to 0.3—1.0 mg/i. Activated carbon effluent at Hemet, California
was reduced from 7.6 mg/i to 0.5—0.8 mg/i by RO. With chemical ciarification
and filtration as pretreatment of the secondary effluent, the Hemet unit
reduced the COD from 35.2 mg/l to 1.5 — 3.4 mg/i.
A five ingd RO plant began operation in Orange County, California in
July 1977 but water quality data are not yet available. The RO plant will
receive secondary effluent treated by lime clarification, ammonia stripping,
recarbonation, mixed media filtration and granular carbon adsorption. In
RO pilot tests at Orange County, COD was reduced from 25 mg/i to 1.2 mg/i;
however, the low molecular weight, relatively volative haloforms and other
chlorinated organics were not removed. 90
There are several RO plants in the United States that desait ground
water used for municipal water supplies. However, the largest RO plant
operating in this country is used to treat wastewater in Orange County,
California. The disadvantages of RO are its relatively high initial and
operating costs. RO costs are, covered in a following section on treatment
costs.
RO produces a very high quality product water and when considering the
total water resource system it would appear to be more appropriate to utilize
RO in most situations as a water treatment process rather than an AWT process.
The use of RO f or water treatment is generally a more reliable less costly
system that would make more direct use of the product water.
Ion Exchange
There has been some effort in recent years by ion exchange resin manu-
facturers to develop resins that will adsorb organics from water. The process
has the potential to remove organics that are not removed by activated carbon
or reverse osmosis.
44
-------
A laboratory study at the University of Minnesota evaluated the ability
of several anion exchange resins to adsorb organics from filtered Mississippi
River water .’° It was found that strongly basic anion exchange resins in
column reactors could remove organics to below the 0.5 mg/i level detectable
by the TOC analyzer. The resins could be easily regenerated with sodium
chloride.
Ion exchange for removal of organics has not been used in a full scale
water or wastewater treatment plant. The efficiency and costs must be
demonstrated before this process can be considered an alternative to activated
carbon or reverse osmosis.
INORGANI C CHEMI CALS
A summary of the best treatment methods for removal of 9 of the 10
inorganic chemicals (excluding fluoride) i.n the Primary Drinking Water
Regulations is presented in the EPA report on water treatment methods 1 8
and is shown in Table 15. This data indicates that chemical clarification,
with iron salts, alum or lime is the most generally applicable method for
removal of inorganic chemicals. Chemical clarification can be used for
treatment of either water or secondary effluent.
Results of a study on raw and treated water at 12 plants in California
and Colorado were reported by Zemansky 9 and data on six metals, chromium,
copper, iron, lead, manganese, and zinc are summarized in Table 16. Concen-
trations of metals in the raw. waters are higher than might be expected be-
cause supplies known to be contaminanted with industrial discharges were
purposely selected for the study. However, cadmium and silver were below
detectable concentrations at the 12 plants studied.
Chemical clarification of secondary effluent provides significant reduc-
tion of most heavy metals. Many of the trace metals form insoluble hydroxides
at pH 11; therefore, lime clarification results in a reduction of these
metal concentrations. It appears possible to reduce some of the metal
concentrations below that predicted by the solubility products. This may
be due to adsorption of the metal ions by the chemical floc. On the other
hand, when any of the metals exist in organic form, the concentration reduc-
tion during lime clarification may be less than expected from s.olubility
calculations. Table 17 summarizes data from several sources on metal removal
from wastewater by lime clarification. Some of these data were collected
on industrial metal wastes which have metal concentrations much higher than
occur in domestic wastewater. Clarification with alUm or iron salts also
will remove some metals as shown in the data summarized in Table 18.
There have been several studies in recent years on the use of activated
carbon to remove inorganic chemicals from water. Smith 97 and Sigworth and SmitF
Smith 98 report that arsenic, chromium, copper, mercury, and silver may
be significantly removed by adsorption on activated carbon. Lead and iron
in the oxidized state also may be adsorbed to some extent by activated carbon.
The removal of mercury by powdered activated carbon has been investigated
in several studies; the work by Thiem and others 99 is summarized in the
EPA report. 8
A pilot plant treatment study on trickling filter effluent achieved
good removals of silver, cadmium, chromium and selenium on 14 x 40 mesh
granular activated carbon.’ 00 The data from this study are summarized as
follows:
45
-------
TABLE 15
MOST EFFECTIVE METHODS FOR REMOVAL OF
INORGANIC CHEMICALS IN PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
(from information in Reference 48)
Contaminant Most Effective Methods
Arsenic Chemical Clarification (Oxidation Prior
to Treatment Required)
Ferric Sulfate, pH 6—8
Alum, pH 6—7
Lime
Arsenic +5 Chemical Clarification
Ferric Sulfate Coagulation, pH 6—8
Alum Coagulation, pH 6-7
Lime
Barium Lime Clarification, pH 10—11
Ion Exchange
Cadmium Ferric Sulfate Clarification, Above pH 8
Lime Clarification
Chromium Chemical Clarification
Ferric Sulfate, pH 6—9
Alum, pH 7—9
Lime
Chromium +6 Ferrous Sulfate Clarification, pH 7—9.5
Lead Chemical Clarification
Ferric Sulfate, pH 6—9
Alum, pH 6-9
Lime
Mercury, Inorganic Ferric Sulfate Clarification, pH 7—8
Mercury, Organic Granular Activated Carbon
Nitrate Ion Exchange
Selenium Ferrous Sulfate Clarification, pH 6—7
Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Selenium +6 Ion Exchange
Reverse Osmosis
Silver Chemical Clarification
Ferric Sulfate. pH 6—9
Alum, pH 6-8
Lime
46
-------
TABLE 16
TRACE METAL OCCURRANCE AND REMOVAL OF TWELVE WATER
TREATMENT PLANTS IN COLORADO AND CALIFORNIA
(after Zemansky )
Raw Water Concentration, mg/i Average Percent Removals Average Effluent
Metal Average High Microstrainer* Clarifier Filter Plant Concentration, mg/i
Chromium 0.022 0.084 25 35 15 31 0.015
Copper 0.030 0.160 14 26 37 49 0.015
Iron 0.381 1.704 47 51 49 65 0.13
Lead 0.012 0.042 3 27 29 32 0.008
Manganese 0.128 0.963 36 30 55 65 0.045
Zinc 0.078 0.538 30 36 37 48 0.041
* Only four of the 12 plants
equipped with microstrainers
47
-------
TABLE 17
R ’10VAL OF HEAVY METALS BY LIME CLARIFICATION
Concentration Concentration
Before After
Treatment, Treatment, Final Percent
Metal mg/l mg/l pH Removal
Arsenic 23 23 9.5 0
5 1.05 10.0 79(1)
5 1.35 11.5 73
Barium 5 0.03 10 99(1)
5 0.94 11.5 80
Cadmium Trace 11 abt 50
0.0137 0.0075 >11 94.5
0.10 10
Chromium (+6) 0.56 0.50 ‘11 11
Chromium (+3) 7,400 2.7 8.7 99.9+
15 0.4 9.5 97
Lead 15 0.5 9.5 97
5 0.017 11.5 99.9+
Selenium 0.0123 0.0103 11 16.2
Silver 0.546 0.0164 >11 97
91 0.4 11 99.6
91 12 10 87
Copper 15,700 0.79 8.7 99.9+
7 1 8 86
7 0.05 9.5 93
302 Trace 9.1 99+
15 0.6 9.5 97
5 0.35 11.5 93
Iron 13 2.4 9.1 82
17 0.1 10.8 99+
2.0 1.2(2) 10.5 40
Manganese 2.3 <0.1 10.8 96
2.0 1 • 1 (U 10.5 45
94 17 9 82
94 0.15 10 99.8
94 <0.1 11 99.9+
Zinc 17 0.3 9.5 98
&1) 20 mg/i ferric sulfate also added in addition to lime.
(2) These data were from experiments using iron and manganese in the organic form.
48
-------
TABLE 18
REMOVAL OF HEAVY METALS BY ALUM
AND IRON CLARIFICATION
(after Nilsson 95 and Patterson 96 )
Concentration, mg/i
Constituent Coagulant Influent Effluent
Arsenic Alum 0.31 — 0.35 0.06
Arsenic Ferric Sulfate 5 0.06
Barium Ferric Sulfate 5 0.15
Chromium (+3) Alum 15 0.2
Chromium (+6) Alum 3 2.3
Copper Alum 15 1.7
Copper Ferrous Sulfate 5 0.16
Lead Alum 17 1.3
Lead Ferric Sulfate 5 0.03
Zinc Alum 17 11.0
49
-------
Trace Metal Percent RemOval
Ag (Ag+) 85.5
Cd (Cd-H-) 92.3
Cr (Cr 2 0 v——) 94.1
Se (Se0 3 — 3 ) 33.7
Concentrations of these metals in the trickling filter effluent varied
from about 13 to 55 ig/l.
The overall efficiencies for removal of inorganic chemicals in full
scale AWT plants at Colorado Springs, Colorado, South Lake Tahoe, California
and Orange County, California are also summarized in Table 14 in the previous
section on activated carbon. These three plants all treat secondary effluent
by lime clarification, filtration and granular activated carbon adsorption
and all three produce effluent with inorganic chemical concentrations less
than the drinking water MCL.
The results of several years study at Dallas, Texas 101 are summarized.
Typically, the incoming concentrations for the metals listed are low, consis-
tent with ranges of metals in municipal wastewater. The activated sludge
process reduces these concentrations by 21 to 69 percent. Activated sludge
is followed by AWT: lime clarification (.at pH 11.5), filtration and activated
carbon. The cumulative removals range from 39 to 96 percent, producing
the residuals shown in the last column of Table 19.
Reverse osmosis is effective for the removal of most inorganic chemicals.
Typically 95 to over 99 percent of metals and other inorganic chemicals
listed in the Drinking Water Regulations can be removed by reverse osmosis.
Also, as mentioned previously, bacteria, turbidity, color and many organic
chemicals are efficiently removed in this process.
Arsenic
The principal forms of arsenic in water are the anions arsenite (AsO ,
arsenic valence 4-3) and arsenate (AsO 3 , arsenic valence +5). The inge tion
of as little as 100 mg of arsenic can result in severe poisoning. In general,
inorganic arsenic is more toxic to humans and animals than organic arsenic
compounds and the trivalent form (arsenite) is more toxic than the pentavalent
form (arsenate). Chronic arsenic exposure results in various kidney, liver
and bone disorders. There is some evidence that arsenic is carcinogenic. In
many cases where arsenic has been detected in natural waters, it was present
in concentrations exceeding the MCL of 0.05 mg/l. Arsenic concentrations have
exceeded the MCL is streams far more than any other potentially toxic consti-
tuent.
Arsenic is present in the environment in several forms and from several
sources. Arsenic is present in rocks in several forms including arsenides,
in some mineral veins as native arsenic and as oxides of arsenic. Other
sources of arsenic In the environment Include: (1) combustion of fossil
fuel, (2) pesticides, herbicides and Insecticides, (3) mine tailings, (4)
by—product of copper, gold and lead refining, (5) several other industrial
processes, and (6) as a constituent in some phosphate detergent builders
and presoaks.
50
-------
TABLE 19
REMOVAL OF METALS AT DALLAS AWT PLANT
(after Cohen 101 )
Removal (percent)
Plant Activated
Influent Activated Sludge Effluent
Metal mg/i Sludge plus AWT mg/i
Cadmium 0.013 39 39 0.008
Chromium 0.215 57 96 0.009
Copper 0.092 33 56 0.041
Mercury 0.00051 69 86 0.00007
Nickel 0.073 21 74 0.019
Lead 0.095 56 53 0.045
Zinc 0.320 65 91 0.029
Note:
1. AWT consists of lime ciarification,
filtration and activated carbon
adsorption.
2. Effluent is after both activated
sludge and AWT processes.
51
-------
The. soluble concentration of arsenic depends upon its chemical form
and pH. Elemental arsenic is essentially insoluble in water, but many of
the arsenates are highly soluble. It h’às been suggested that arsenic may
be oxidized from 0 to +3 to +5, that ligand exchange reactions with OH—,
H 2 0 and S 2 may occur, and that removal may occur through precipitation,
sorption and biological uptake. 102 In a particular water, arseni.c may be
present in various chemical forms that will react differently in treatment
processes.
It is believed that chemical oxidation of arsenite is not an important
process in natural waters but that rapid oxidation is catalyzed by bacteria.
In fresh surface waters there is likely to be a partitioning of arsenic
between the oxidation states. Depending on the arsenic sources, the relative
rates of chemical and bacterial oxidation of As+ 3 , the rate of bacterial
reduction of and the presence or absence of an anaerobic zone, the
content could be large or small. Although the concentrations. of the
species are important, there is little information on the forms present
in water and wastewater. No measurements in freshwaters are reported, and
information about the rates of the reactions is insufficient to make pre-
dictions. 102
Water Treatment — Pentavalent arsenic can be removed from water by
conventional chemical clarification with lime, alum or iron salts as coagu—
lants. Trivalent arsenic is not effectively removed by chemical clarification;
therefore, it must be oxidized to the pentavalent form with agents such
as chlorine, ozone or potassium perinanganate prior to clarification. Based
on laboratory and pilot tests, a small 40,000 gpd (150 cu rn/day) water
treatment plant was constructed in Taiwan to remove arsenic from ground
water. During a four month period in 1969, a range in raw water arsenic
concentrations of 0.36 to 0.56 mg/l was reduced to trace levels by a treat-
ment system consisting of chlorination, chemical clarification with ferric
chloride and filtration. 103
It is possible to obtain nearly complete removals of anionic forms
of arsenic (arsenite and arsenate) by ion exchange resins. Laboratory
experiments also indicate that arsenic can be removed by activated alumina.
Arsenic also may be removed by reverse osmosis and adsorption on activated
carbon although quantitative data are lacking. Activated carbon is reported
to have high adsorption potential for pentavalent arsenic. 98
Wastewater Treatment — Arsenic removals averaged 51 percent in four
California activated sludge plants. :l 6 Arsenic concentrations in raw waste—
water at two San Francisco plants were 0.0037 and 0.0031 mg/land corres-
ponding levels in the activated sludge effluent were 0.0016 (57 percent
removal) and 0.0021 (32 percent removal).
The physical—chemical treatment methods used for removal of arsenic
from both water and wastewater are similar. Treatment methods reported
by Patterson 96 include: (1) sulfide precipitation as the sulfide or ferris—
ulfide and (2) complexation with polyvalent heavymetals such as ferric
iron and coprecipitation with the metal hydroxide, plus adsorption into
coagulant floc, with enmeshment of particulate arsenic. This second process
is typical of the chemical clarification process used in water treatment.
Other processes used, with varying degrees of success include adsorption
onto activated carbon and alumina and ion exchange. Treatment methods and
removal efficiencies, based on data from Patterson, 96 are summarized in
Table 20.
52
-------
Table 2.0
ARSENIC TREATMENT METHODS
(after Patterson 96 )
Arsenic Concentration, mg/i Percent
Treatment Method Influent Effluent Removal
Chemical Clarification
Lime 0.2 0.03 85
Lime 0.5 0.03 95
Lime plus Iron 0.05
Alum 0.35 0.003 — 0.005 85 — 92
Ferric Sulfate 0.31 — 0.35 0.003 — 0.006 98 — 99
Ferric Sulfate 25.0 5 80
Ferric Chloride 3.0 0.05 98
Ferric Chloride 0.58 — 0.90 0.0 — 0.13 81 — >99
Activated Carbon Adsorption 0.2 0.06 70
53
-------
Physical—chemical treatment by chemical clarification and activated
carbon adsorption studied at the EPA research laboratory in Cincinnati 101 ’ 104
reduced arsenic in raw wastewater from 5.0 mg/i to 0.145 — 0.800 mg/i.
Barium
Barium has toxic effects on the heart, blood vessels and nerves. Soluble
barium salts are very toxic whereas the insoluble compounds are generally
non—toxic. There is no information available on the chronic effects of low
levels of barium ingested over a prolonged period of time. Barium is included
in the Drinking Water Regulations because of the seriousness of its toxic
effect. Barium generally is not a problem in most water supplies, but there
have been occasions when concentrations have exceeded the MCL of 1 mg/i. In
most surface water supplies and ground waters, only traces of barium are
present but up to 10 mg/i have been found in some water supplies.
In mineral form, barium often occurs as barium sulfate (barite), which has
a low solubiity. Because most natural waters contain sulfate, barium will
dissolve only in trace amounts. However, barium becomes increasingly soluble
in the presence of chloride and other anions and cations in dilute solutions. 105
Barium as barite (barium sulfate) principally is used in drilling muds
for oil and gas well—drilling operations. Barite and other barium compounds
also are used in the production of glass, paints, rubber, ceramics, and
many chemicals. However, very little is known with respect to actual concen-
trations of barium in various industrial effluents. 106
Water Treatment — Barium can be removed effectively from water either
by lime softening or by ion exchange. Lime softening pilot plant tests
on water containing 10—12 mg/i of barium at pH 9.2, 10.5, and 11.6 resulted
in removals of 84, 93 and 82 percent, respectively. Samples from two
full—scale lime softening plants showed removals of 88 and 95 percent, where
the raw water contained barium concentrations of 7.5 and 17.4, respectively.
A full—scale ion exchange softening plant achieved a barium reduction from
11.7 to 0.18 mg/i, (98 percent removal). 107
Wastewater Treatment — In explosives manufacturing, barium was removed
by precipitation as barium sulfate upon addition of sodium sulfate. Other
wastewater treatment techniques cited by Patterson 96 are summarized in
Table 21 and include ion exchange and precipitation as barium carbonate
at pH 10 to 10.5 with lime used for pH adjustment.
At the Orange County Water District advanced wastewater treatment plant
in California, secondary effluent with a barium concentration of .082 mg/i
was reduced to .040 mg/i by lime clarification. The concentration was
further reduced to .030 mg/i by filtration which resulted in an overall
removal of 65 percent.
Cadmium
Cadmium in the body is believed to be a non—beneficial, nonessential
element of high acute and chronic toxic potential. The concentration and not
the absolute amount is believed to determine the acute toxicity and equivalent
cadmium concentrations in water are considered more toxic than in food. The
USGS data for various streams in the United States indicates that cadmium
concentrations may range from less than 0.002 mg/i to a high of 0.120 mg/i.
54
-------
TABLE 21
BARIUM TREATMENT METHODS
(after Patterson 9 )
Barium Concentration, mg/i
Percent
Method Initial Final Removal
Precipitation
Sulfate 6.0 5.0 0.27 95
Sulfate 10.0 5.0 0.03 99
Sulfate —— 0.5 ——
Sulfate 7.5 — 8.0 7.0 — 8.6 2.1 — 2,6 70
Carbonate 10.5 7.0 — 8.0 0.15 98
Hydroxide 11.5 5.0 0.94 81
Ion Exchange 11.7 0.17 98
Ion Exchange 99.9+
Ion Exchange 99
55
-------
A typical value for cadmium, however, is expected to be near 0.002 mg/i
as compared to the drinking water MCL of 0.010 mg/i. Consequently, cadmium
generally should not present a major problem in most water supplies.
Although only trace quantities of cadmium are likely to be found in
natural waters, significant quantities of cadmium may be introduced into
a water supply through a number of sources. The electroplating industry
is the largest user of cadmium metal and currently is the major source of
cadmium waste. 106 Other principal sources of cadmium wastewaters include
waste sludges from paint manufacturing, paint residue left in used paint
containers, and wash water used in battery manufacturing. Other industrial
processes which constitute potential sources of cadmium wastewater include
metallurgical alloying, ceramic manufacturing, textile printing, chemical
industries, and mine drainage.
Water Treatment — Waters containing up to 0.50 mg/i cadmium can be
treated by lime softening to achieve the NCL of 0.010 mg/i. Laboratory
experiments and pilot plant studies showed that greater than 98 percent
removal in the 8.5 to 11.3 pH range could be achieved on ground water con-
taming 0.3 mg/i of cadtnium. 8
Cadmium removal by ferric sulfate and alum clarification are effective,
but somewhat lower than removal by lime softening. For ferric sulfate
clarification, 90 percent removal is possible at pH values above 8. Data
on alum clarification indicate that cadmium removal is dependent on both
the turbidity and pH of the raw water.
At initial cadmium concentrations ranging from 0.010 to 0.10 mg/i,
cadmium may be removed coincidently in treatment of high. coliform waters,
and waters with moderate to high turbidity. However, proper pH conditions
must be maintained and sufficient coagulant must be used to achieve satis-
factory results.
Wastewater Treatment — Five activated sludge plants in the United States
achieved an average cadmium removal of 61 percent. Cadmium concentrations
in the raw influent at two of these plants were .0059 and .0039 mg/i. After
activated sludge treatment the concentrations were reduced to 0.0011 mg/i
(81 percent removal) and 0.0026 mg/i (33 percent removal). 16
The most common method of cadmium removal from wastewater is chemical
clarification followed by filtration. Cadmium forms soluble complexes with
chemicals such as a ionia and cyanide, making precipitation of cadmium
impossible. When such complexing agents are present in the wastewater,
pretreatment to remove these agents is required. Other methods of treatment
involve ion exchange, solvent extraction, and electrolytic deposition,.
although use of these methods generally is confined to situations where
recovery of the metal is desired.
Patterson 96 and Sittig’° 6 cite studies that indicate effective cadmium
hydroxide precipitation occurs between p11 9.5 and 12.5. Coprecipitation
with iron hydroxide or aluminium hydroxide also is effective in cadmium
removal. In pilot plant studies of metals in municipal wastewater, three
techniques were studied: (1) ferrous sulfate addition at pH 6, (2) low
lime plus ferrous sulfate at pH 10, and (3) high lime at pH 11.5. In each
of the three techniques, flocculation and settling were followed by mixed—
media filtration and carbon adsorption. Of the three techniques investigated,
the high lime process achieved the best results with 99.7 percent removal
of cadmium. 10 ’ There have been cases where lime clarification has provided
56
-------
sufficient cadmium removal, without the need for filtration. 96 ’ 106 However,
it is also evident that lime clarification followed by filtration and activated
carbon achieves progressively higher removal rates for cadmium. 106 ”° 8
At the Orange County Water District plant in California, cadmium concen-
trations in the influent ranged from 0.011 to 0.022 mg/i. Following lime
clarification, ammonia stripping, recarbonation, filtration, activated
carbon adsorption and chlorination, the effluent concentration was 0.00
to 0.005 mg/i. The removal efficiencj varied between 74 and 100 percent,
with the average being 89 percent. 10
Chromium
Chromium has not been proved to be an essential or beneficial element
in the body but some studies indicate it may be essential in minute quantities.
Chromium can exist in water as both the trivalent (Cr+ 3 ) and hexavalent (Cr+ 6 )
ion and the hexavalent state is more toxic to humans.
Naturally occurring chromium usually is found in the form of chromite
(Cr20 3 ), or as chrome iron ore (Fe0 Cr2O 3 ). In natural waters, only traces
of chromium in the trivalent state normally occur unless the pH is very
‘ow. However, under strong oxidizing conditions, chromium can be converted
to the hexavalent state and can occur as chromate (CrO 2 ) or dichromate
(Cr 2 O 2 ), both of which normally indicate pollution by industrial waste.
Because of its broad industrial applications, chromium has been introduced
into natural waters from a number of sources. The major source of waste
chromium is from the metal plating industry, with the automobile parts manu—
facturers being one of the largest producers. Other major applications
of chromium include alloy preparation; tanning; corrosion inhibition; wood
preservation; electroplating; and pigments for inks, dyes, and paints.
The hexavalent form of chromium is more toxic and also is more difficult
to remove from water and wastewater. Because hexavalent chromium is more
difficult to treat than the trivalent form, hexavalent chromium treatment
often involves reduction to the trivalent state prior to removal.
Water Treatment — Research by Zemansky 9 involving 12 water treatment
plants indicates that chromium is slightly removed by microstraining and
clarification, but generally not removed by the filtration process. The
study showed that an average 31 percent chromium removal occurred for the
12 water treatment plants.
Methods available specifically to treat water for trivalent chromium
include chemical clarification with alum, iron salts or lime. Laboratory
studies show that chromium removal by lime clarification is highly dependent
on pH.k 8 Optimum removal (greater than 98 percent) occurs in the pH range
of 10.6 to 11.3. The same removal efficiency is possible over a larger
pH range (6.5 to 9.3) using ferric sulfate. Alum coagulation in the same
study achieved 90 percent removal in the 6.7 to 8.5 pH range. Greater than
99 percent removal of hexavalent chromium is possible using a special ferrous
sulfate coagulation process in which pH adjustment to the 6.5 to 9.3 range
is made several minutes after coagulation. This H adjustment procedure
following coagulation provides time to reduce Cr to Cr+ 3 prior to floc
formation.
Other methods of chromium removal suggested in the literature include
reverse osmosis and adsorption by activated carbon, although no actual pilot
57
-------
plant or full—scale plant operation data are available. Activated carbon
is reported to have the ability to reduoe hexavalent chromium to the tn-
valent form 9 8
Wastewater Treatment — Conventional activated sludge systems at six
wastewater treatment plants averaged 78 percent removal of chromium. 16
Actual removals for the plants ranged from 62 to 93 percent. Another study
of conventional secondary treatment plants showed that chromium removal
averaged 19 percent and 36 percent, respectively, for trickling filter and
activated sludge systems. 11
Physical—chemical systems using three different chemical clarification
systems were studied for metal removal: (1) ferrous sulfate addition at
pH 6, (2) low lime plus ferrous sulfate at pH 10, and (3) high lime at pH
11.5. Approximately 99 percent Cr+ 3 removal was achieved following filtra—
tion. 10 Activated carbon increased removals to as high as 99.9 percent.
The same processes achieved hexavalent chromium removal ranging from 25
to 63 percent following filtration. Activated carbon with any one of the
three processes increased hexavalent chromium removal to the 98—99 percent
level.
Influent with a Cr+G concentration of 0.204 mg/i was reduced to .096
mg/l by lime clarification at the Orange County Water District plant in
California. After filtration followed by activated carbon adsorption, the
final effluent concentration was 0.048 mg/l, resulting tn 76.5 percent
removal for the entire plant.
Amon the treatment techniques for hexavalent chromium identified by
Patterson ’ 6 and Sittig 106 are (1) reduction to the trivalent state followed
by precipitation, (2) ion exchange, (3) evaporative recovery, and (4) reverse
osmosis. Reduction normally is accomplished by lowering the pH to 3.0 or
less using sulfuric acid, and converting the hexavalent chromium to the
trivalent state with a chemical reducing agent such. as sulfur dioxide, sodium
bisulfite, or ferrous sulfate. This process is then followed by precipitation,
usually with lime, to remove the trivalent chromium. These methods have
been used to treat industrial wastes, however, no data are available on
municipal treatment applications.
Fluoride
Fluoride is a normal constituent of all diets and is an essential nutrient.
The only harmful effect of excessive fluoride in drinking water observed in
the United States is spotting or mottling of the enamel of teeth. The optimum
level of fluoride in the diet will prevent tooth decay. The optimum fluoride
level in drinking water depends on the climate because the amount of water
consumed is affected by the air temperature.
Most fluorides are low in solubility; consequently, naturally occurring
fluorides in a water supply usually are quite limited. As a salt, fluoride
is moderately insoluble. There are a considerable number of fluoride—
bearing minerals which constitute a source for fluoride in some waters of
the United States, but in general, fluoride is not often foundin excessive
concentrations. Soluble fluorides from industrial wastewaters, however,
are much more coimnon. Industries that discharge significant quantities
of fluoride are listed below, together with the corresponding form of fluoride
typically found in the effluent: 6
58
-------
Glass and Plating Industry HF or F, depending on the pH
of the. waste.
Fertilizer Manufacturing SiFt
Aluminum Processing Na 3 A1F 6
Other industrial sources of fluoride wastewater include: electronics manu-
facturing, ceramics manufacturing, aircraft industries, and mineral and
mining operations. 109
Water Treatment — There are a variety of treatment methods available
for removing fluorides from water. These methods include ion exchange,
chemical precipitation with alum and/or lime, electrodialysis, and reverse
osmosis. Waters containing excessive fluoride ion can be treated for reduc-
tion to the NCL by ion exchange using syntheti.c resins, activated alumina
or bone char. Efficiency of fluoride removal using these materials, however,
is pH dependent: the lower the H, the more effective the removal of
fluoride. Harmon and Kaiichman 1 ’ 0 report several successful full—scale
treatment plants in California using these media. Activated alumina has
been used successfully in a 500 cu ft bed in Bartlett, Texas since 1952.
In this plant, fluoride is reduced from 8 mg/i to 1 mg/i. 96
Fluoride may be removed coincidently in lime softening of high magnesium
water. The actual fluoride reduction accomplished by this technique is
dependent upon both the initial fluoride concentration and the amount of
magnesium removed in the softening process.
Electrodialysis and reverse osmosis were among the treatment techniques
evaluated for the removal of fluoride from ground water in Arizona. Based
on small—scale tests, it was estimated that a four—stage electrodialysis
system could reduce the TDS from 1,100 mg/i to about 50 mg/i and reduce
the fluoride concentration from 6 mg/i to 1 mg/l. For the same raw water,
reverse osmosis would produce water with higher TDS (100 mg/i) but lower
fluoride concentration (0.6 mg/i) than water treated by electrodialysis.
Wastewater Treatment — Removal of fluoride generally is accomplished
by precipitation or by adsorption. Chemicals used for precipitation methods
include lime, alum, and magnesium compounds. Removal by adsorption has
been accomplished successfully using activated alumina, bone char and ion
exchange resins. Table 22 summarizes these treatment techniques and their
respective removal efficiencies.
Lime addition is the most commonly used treatment method for the removal
of fluoride from wastewater. Patterson 96 reports several successful lime
treatment plants, including one where fluoride was reduced from 200 to
3 mg/i at a pH ahove 12. Findings by Parker and Fong 109 indicate that
fluoride removal is dependent on both pH and the presence of other dissolved
ions. A minimum fluoride concentration point occurs- at p11 8, while a second,
somewhat lower residual i.s achieved in a pH range from 12 to 12.5. For
waters of low hardness, simple alum addition pius s-mall amounts of lime
for pH control can be used to reduce residual fluoride concentrations to
1—4 mg/i.
59
-------
TABLE 22
SUMMARY OF FLUORIDE TREATMENT PROCESSES
AND LEVELS OF TREATMENT ACHIEVED
(after Patterson 96 )
Fluoride Concentration (mg/i ) Current
Treatment Process Initial Final Application
Lime Addition 10 Industrial
Lime Addition 1000 — 3000 20 Industrial
Lime Addition 1000 — 3000 7—8 (after 24—hr Industrial
settling)
Lime Addition 500 — 1000 20 — 40 Industrial
Lime Addition 200 — 700 6 ( 16—hr Industrial
settling)
Lime Addition 45 8 Industrial
Lime Addition 4 — 20 5.8 (ave.) Industrial
Lime Addition 590 80 Industriai
Lime + Calcium Chloride 12 Industrial
Lime + Alum —— 1.5 Industrial
Alum 3.6 0.6 — 1.5 Municipal
Alum 60 2 Lab Scale
Hydroxylapatite Beds
synthetic 12 — 13 0.5 — 0.7 Municipal
synthetic 10 1.6 Municipal
bone char 6.5 1.5 Municipal
bone char 9 — 12 0.6 Municipal
Alumina Contact Beds 8 1 Municipal
Alumina Contact Beds 9 1.3 Industrial
(lab scale)
Alumina Contact Beds 20 — 40 2 — 3 Industrial
(pilot scale)
60
-------
Lead
Lead is toxic in both acute and chronic exposures. The major risk of
lead in water is to small children resulting in brain and kidney damage and
other disorders. Because of its widespread presence in the environment, the
MCL in drinking water was established as low as practicable.
Lead occurs in rocks primarily as sulfide or oxide forms, and lead
concentrations of 0.4 to 0.8 mg/i can occur in natural waters as the result
of solution of lead—bearing minerals. 105 The extensive use of lead compounds.
as gasoline additives has greatly increased the availability of lead for
solution in natural waters through automobile exhaust emissions-. Studies.
by Hem and Duruni 1 suggest that geographic pattern for lead in rain water
has a significant effect on the lead content of surface waters.
Major industrial sources of lead include storage battery manufacture,
printing, pigments, fuels, photographic materials, and matches and explosives
manufacturing. The storage. battery industry is the single largest consumer
of lead, followed by the petroleum industry in providing lead compounds:
for gasoline additives. Lead mines, mining, and smelting also are sources
of lead wastewater.
Lead hydroxide and carbonate solubilities tend to control the concentra—
ti.on of lead that may be present in natural waters; the solubilit r limit
is low for more alkaline and moderately mineralized waters. 105 ’ 11 -’ Lead
concentrations in drinking water are more likely to comply- with the regulations
in water having a pH near 8 and bicarbonate concentration in excess of 100
ing / 1.
Water Treatment — Because of the insolubility of lead in the carbonate
or hydroxide form, it is relatively easy to remove from water by conventional
treatment methods. 111 In a study of 12 conventional water treatment plants,
detectable concentrations of lead were found in 95 percent of the plants. 94
The efficiency of lead removal achieved by these plants averaged 32 percent.
Ferric sulfate and alum clarification are capable of achievirg 80 to 95
percent removal on raw water containing up to 10 mg/i of lead in the pH
range of 6 to 10. Lead can also be removed effectively- by lime clarification.
Solutions of lead nitrate and lead acetate showed ,poor adsorption on activated
carbon at pH 2, but fairly good removal at pH 5 9
Wastewater Treatment — Lead was reduced by an average of 82 percent
in six activated sludge plants. 16 Actual removal efficiencies ranged from
a low of 71 percent to a high of 92.
Treatment of soluble lead in wastewater often involves the formation
of a lead precipitate followed by sedimentation. Precipitation chemicals
used include lime, soda—ash, and phosphate. In one plant, lead was reduced
from 0.31 mg/i down to 0.1 mg/i by lime treatment and settling. 96 Other
methods of lead treatment reported in the literature include ion exchange,
and coagulation using ferrous and ferric sulfate.
Chemical clarification with lime, ferric sulfate, alum, and ferric
chloride followed by filtration accounted for approximately 99 percent removal
of lead in several physical—chemical pilot plants treating raw wastewater. 101 ’ 104
Activated carbon treatment in these plants increased removal to as high
as 99.6 percent.
Lead removal at two advanced w-astewater treatment facilities were 50
percent at the full scale plant in Orange County, California and 53 percent
at the Dallas, Texas pilot plant. The removal efficiencies for these plants
61
-------
appear to be low in comparison to removals in physical—chemical systems
treating raw wastewater; however, the lead concentrations entering the AWT
systems are much lower (i.e. typical values ranging from 0.035 to 0.095
mg/i at the AWT plants and 5.0 mg/i at the pilot plants treating raw waste—
water).
Mercury
Mercury poisoning may be acute or toxic. Sublethal dosages result in
several disorders including a cerebral palsy—like disease. The toxicity
of mercury varies considerably with its chemical form. Monovalent mercury
is quite non—toxic since its salts have a low solubility. Inorganic mercury
compounds which form water—soluble inorganic salts are among the least toxic
forms of mercury occurring in water. Divalent, organic, and elemental
mercury, on the other hand, are highly toxic. As previously shown in Table 10
normal background levels of mercury in natural waters range from less than
0.5 to 5.0 pg/i. The risk from mercury in fish is much greater than from
mercury in water.
Elemental mercury is soluble in oxygenated waters and may form mercuric
oxide salts. These salts, in turn may be adsorbed by minerals- and bottom
sediments of lakes and streams which tends to prevent natural waters from
carrying excessive concentrations of mercury except under unusual conditions. 105
The principal industrial user and discharger of mercury is in chioralkali
manufacturing. 106 i12 Other major sources of mercury wastewaters include
the electrical and electronics industry, explosives: manufacturers, the photo-
graphic industry, chemical processing, the agricultural industry, the pulp
and paper industries, the pharmaceutical industry, and paint manufacturers.
There are several treatment methods available for the removal of mercury
from water and wastewaters and the form of mercury must be determined before
a proper treatment method can be selected. In general, the organic form
of mercury is more difficult to remove from water and wastewater.
Water Treatment — Inorganic mercury can b.e removed from drinking water
by ion exchange, chemical clarification, lime softening and activated carbon
adsorption.
Chemical clarification using alum or ferric sulfate is effective in
removing inorganic mercury. Research by Logsdon and SymonsH 3 demonstrated
that mercury removal percentages were relatively constant for varying concen-
trations of mercury in the range of 3 to 16 pg/l. The research further
indicated that inorganic mercury removals using alum, steadily increased
as turbidity increased, while coagulation with ferric sulfate was independent
of turbidity. T pical removal percentages using alum or ferric sulfate
are as follows:’
Percent Removal
Coagulant Inorganic Mercury
7 Ferric Sulfate 66
7 Alum 47
8 Ferric Sulfate 97
8 Es lum 38
62
-------
For alum clarification, inorganic mercury removal increased from 10 percent
on a water with turbidity of 2 TU to 60 percent on water with 100 TU.
Lime softening in the pH range of 10.6 to 11.0 can remove 60 — 80 percent
inorganic mercury. However, at a lower pH (9.4), removal drops to only
30 percent.
Several studies of powdered activated carbon indicate that removal
of inorganic mercury increases as carbon dosage and contact time are
increased. Research by Thiem 99 showed that mercury removal using activated
carbon is enhanced by the presence of calcium ion, or with the addition
of a chelating agent such as EDTA or tannic acid. These chemicals increased
mercury removal 10 to 30 percent over removals obtained by carbon alone.
Logsdon and Symons 113 found that mercury removal by alum alone was only
40 percent, but the addition of activated carbon increased removals to
greater than 70 percent. Other studies show that 80 percent removal of
20 — 29 jig/i of inorganic mercury is possible with a 3.5 minute contact
time with granular activated carbon beds. 48
Ion exchange and activated carbon adsorption are effective methods
for organic mercury removal. Removals of 98 percent have been achieved
with ion exchange and 80 percent using granular actIvated carb.on. Research
by Sigworth and Smith 98 indicates that removals of 90 to over 99 percent
are possible in the low concentration range using beds of granular activated
carbon.
Wastewater Treatment — The activated sludge process can provide sub—
stantial removals of mercury from wastewater. Data from three plants
averaged 72 percent mercury removal. 16
The most common methods of treatment for removal of mercury from waste-
water include chemical clarification, ion exchange, adsorption and reduction
of ionic mercury to the elemental form and removal by filtration. For high
initial concentrations of mercury, sulfide addition to precipitate mercury
sulfide will achieve greater than 99.9 percent removal at alkaline pH. 96
However, this method does not appear to be capable of producing effluent
mercury concentrations below 10 to 20 jig/i. Ion exchange treatment for
inorganic mercury can achieve effluent concentrations of 1 to 5 iig/l.
Physical—chemical treatment processes are effective in removing mercury
from wastewaters. In pilot plant studies, lime coagulation at a dosage
of 600 mg/l, followed by clarification and filtration-achieved 70 percent
mercury removal where the initial concentration was 0.5 mg/i, and activated
carbon adsorption increased removal to approximately 91 percent. 104 Studies
show that activated carbon preceded by coagulation with ferric chloride
or alum can reduce initial concentrations of mercury- at 0.5 mg/i by 98 and
98.3 percent respectively for the two coagulants. 10 ’
Several other treatment processes have been developed by various
industries for the removal of mercury from wastewater, but removal efficiency
data for these processes are limited.
Nitrate
Nitrate in drinking water can cause methemoglobinemia in infants less
than three months old. Serious and sometimes fatal poisonings have occurred
in infants consuming water containing more than 10 mg/i nitrate nitrogen.
Older children and adults are apparently not affected. Nitrate (N0 3 ) is
63
-------
the principal form of nitrogen found in most natural waters. Nitrate also
is the most highly oxidized form of nitragen and usually is very stable in
both ground and surface waters when there is a sufficient quantity of oxygen
available.
High concentrations of nitrate normally are not found in most surface
waters, unless such supplies have been contaminated from sewage or other
sources. In surface waters, nitrate concentrations seldom exceed 3 mg/i and
often are less than 1 mg/i. In ground waters, nitrate concentrations may
range from near zero to 1,000 mgll. In some cases, the high concentrations
can be traced to barnyard pollution or water percolating through soil which
has been repeatedly fertilized.
Small quantities of nitrogen contained in igneous rock provide a minor
source for the nitrate found in water supplies. More significant sources
of nitrate in both surface and ground water include nitrogen in plant debris,
animal excrement and fertilizers. Also, ammonia nitrogen present in wastewater
effluent may be oxidized to nitrate when discharged to receiving waters.
Water Treatment — The methods currently available for removing nitrate
from water are ion exchange and reverse osmosis. A full scale plant in
Long Island, New York using a strong anion exchange resin reduces nitrate
levels from 20—30 mg/l in the ground water to 0.5 mg/i achieving a removal
efficiency of 97.5 to 98.3 percent.’ 8 Nitrate can be reduced by 60—SO percent
by reverse osmosis.
Was tewater Treatment — Ammonia nitrogen present in wastewater effluent
may be oxidized to nitrate in the receiving stream. Then, denitrification
may occur in bottom sediments in the receiving stream reducing nitrate to
nitrogen gas. However, should nitrogen removal from wastewater be required
to insure satisfactory downstream nitrate concentrations , either biological
or physical—chemical nitrogen removal processes should be used. These
processes are capable of producing effluents with less than 2 mg/i total
nitrogen — substantially less than the 10 mg/i nitrate—nitrogen concentration
specified in the Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Nitrogen can be
removed from wastewater by several processes including:
1. Biological nitrification — denitrification
2. Selective ion exchange
3. Ammonia stripping
4. Breakpoint chlorination
All of these processes are described in detail in the EPA Process Design
Manual for Nitrogen Control 11 ’ and other publications. 115
Selenium
There are very few documented cases of poisoning from selenium in drinking
water and the maximum allowable concentration of selenium is complicated by
several factors including: (1) selenium may be an essential element in
nutrition, (2) the chemical form of selenium, the protein, vitamin E and trace
element content of the diet all apparently affect whether selenium has
beneficial or adverse effects. The MCL of 0.01 mg/i is based on the total
selenium content and provides a factor of safety to prevent even minor toxic
effects in humans. As previously shown in Table 10, selenium concentrations
64
-------
in rivers and streams range from less than 0.001 mg/i to 0.060 mg/i. Typical
values normally are about 0.001 mg/i as compared to the drinking water MCL
of 0.01 mg/i.
Selenium is chemically similar to sulfur and often occurs with sulfur
in mineral veins of rocks. In water, selenium may occur as selenite (Se0 3 2 )
or in its most oxidized state as selenate (Se0i 2 ). In the quadravalent
form (valence +4), selenium may appear in ground water, while in the hexava-
lent form (valence +6), it may occur naturally in both ground and surface
waters. Both forms are quite stable and appear to act independently of
one another when present in the same water. Selenium may be sorbed on
hydroxide precipitates such as Fe(OH) 3 or on sediments, so that concentrations
found in natural waters normally are very low. 111
Industries using selenium which may produce selenium wastewaters include
paint, pigment and dye producers, electronics, glass manufacturers, and
insecticide industries.
Water Treatment — Chemical clarification with lime, ferric sulfate
or alum and activated carbon adsorption are ineffective in removing Se+ 6 ,
and only moderately effective in removing Se from water. Of these methods,
clarification with ferric sulfate at low p 1 1 (less than 7) is the most
effective in removing the quadravalent form. 107 In one study, initial concen-
tration of selenium (.0.1 mg/l) were reduced by approximately 85 percent
using 100 mg/i of ferric sulfate at a pH of 5.5. Other research shows that
the same removal efficiency is possible using 30 tng/l of coagulant for Se
concentrations of 0.03 mgIl. Limited laboratory research also indicates
that both Se+ 4 and Se+ 6 may be removed by ion exchange and reverse osmosis,
although no actual full scale or pilot plant data are available. 6
Wastewater Treatment — Selenium present in wastewater treatment plant
effluents may be reduced by several methods including chemical clarification,
activated carbon adsorption and a sequence of tertiary treatment processes.
Cohen 101 reported 67 percent selenium removal by lime clarification
followed by activated carbon when the initial concentration of selenium
was 0.06 mg/i. A removal efficiency of 95 percent was reported for higher
initial concentrations (0.5 mg/i). Ferric chloride clarification followed
by activated carbon resulted in somewhat lower removal efficiencies, 75
and 80 percent respectively, for initial concentrations of 0.05 and 0.1
mg/i. Research cited by Patterson 96 and Culp 108 indicates that activated
carbon treatment of secondary effluent could reduce selenium concentrations
from 9.3 to 5.9 .ig/l, achieving a removal efficiency of 37 percent.
Patterson 96 reports the following removals using bench—scale treatment of
secondary effluent containing 2.3 iig/l of selenium.
Process Removal
Lime coagulation — settling 16.2
Cation exchange 0.9
Cation plus anion exchange 99.7
Process. sequence*
1st Sand Filtration 9.5
2nd Activated Carbon 43.2
3rd Cation Exchange 44.7
4th Anion Exchange 99.9
*Cumulative removal after indicated process
65
-------
Silver
The primary effect on humans of ingesting silver is the permanent blue—
gray discoloration of the skin, eyes and mucuous membranes. There are no
known toxic effects. The MCL of 0.05 mg/l was established because of the
permanent and irreversible nature of the silver discoloration effect.
Although it appears to be relatively uncommon for silver to occur
in natural waters, silver in excess of .038 mg/i has been found in some
U.S. surface waters. Because many silver salts such asAgCl and Ag 2 S are
highly insoluble, low levels of soluble silver should be expected in most
waters. Silver nitrate is the most common soluble silver salt which could
be a significant industrial source of silver in wastewater. This compound
is used in porcelain, photographic, electroplating and ink manufacturing
industries. Of these sources, the photographic and electroplating industries
are the major contributors of soluble silver wastes.
Water Treatment — Laboratory tests show that chemical clarification
with ferric sulfate or alum in the 6 to 8 p11 range can achieve greater than
70 percent removal with an initial silver concentration of 0.15 mg/l.’ 8
Settling alone, without the addition of a coagulant achieved 50 percent
removal in river water with 30 JTU and 0.15 mg/i of silver. Lime clarifica-
tion will also remove silver; removal efficiency increases from 70 to 90
percent when the pH is Increased from about 9 to 11.5.
Reverse osmosis and adsorption by activated carbon also have been
reported to remove silver from water supplies. Laboratory studies indicate
that there Is a high potential for good adsorbability of silver on activated
carbon. 9 8
Wastewater Treatment Four activated sludge plants in the U.S. achieved
an average silver removal of 86 percent. 16 The success of activated sludge
treatment in removing substantial concentrations of silver from wastewater
is supported by Zemansky, 11 who reported an average removal of 71 percent.
The AWT plant in Orange County, California, achieved greater than 68 percent
removal of silver, reducing silver concentrations in the secondary effluent
from 4.0 to 1.3 pg/l. The following summary of pilot plant research by Cohen
shows excellent removal of silver by physical—chemical treatment processes.’ 0 ’
Initial Residual
Chemical Clarification Concentration Concentration Percent
Followed by Carbon Adsorption ( mg/i) ( pg/i) Removal
Coagulant
Lime 0.5 10 98
Ferric Chloride 0.5 5 99.1
Alum 0.6 5 99.2
Other treatment methods identified by Patterson 96 include precipitation
(using chlorine, sulfide, lime, or magnesium sulfate), ion exchange, reductive
exchange and electrolytic recovery. Very low residual silver concentrations
are possible using ion exchange. Patterson cites one study in which greater
than 85 percent removal of trace levels of silver were achieved from an
extremely dilute secondary effluent by cation exchange. The same study
showed that 91.7 percent removal could be achieved by combined cation and
anion exchange.
66
-------
Copper
Copper is a fairly common trace element in natural water. Copper salts
such as sulfate and chloride are very soluble in low pH waters, but, in
water of normal alkalinity, these salts hydrolyze and copper may be precipi-
tated. In rocks, copper occurs most commonly as a sulfide which may be
oxidized in the process of weathering. Some of the copper may go into
solution as sulfate, although a significant amount would be precipitated
as carbonate if there is sufficient carbon dioxide in the water. Small
quantities may enter the water supply by solution of copper and brass water
pipes in contact with water. Copper salts added to open reservoirs for
algae control may provide another source of copper in water supplies.
The principal source of industrial copper wastewater is metal cleaning
and plating baths. Copper mining wastes and acid mine drainage also contri-
bute significant quantities of dissolved copper to waste streams. Other
sources of copper wastewater include pulp and paper mills, wood preserving,
fertilizer manufacturing, petroleum refining, paints and pigments, steel
works and foundaries, and non—ferrous metal works and foimdaries.
Water Treatment — Research by Zemansky 94 indicates that copper is
slightly removed by microstraining and that increased removal occurs with
clarification and filtration. In plants where copper was removed signif 1—
cantly in the clarification process, no appreciable increase in removal
was evident when clarification was followed by filtration. The study showed
that an average of 49 percent copper removal occurred in 12 plants using
these treatment techniques.
Laboratory tests on water with low concentrations of copper show some
adsorption on activated carbon at pH greater than 6.98 Removal efficiency,
however, Is reduced as the pH is lowered to a point where no copper removal
is achieved at pH 3.
Ion exchange and reverse osmosis are effective methods for removal
of copper. Research reported by Furukawa 6 indfrated that 99 percent
copper removal could be achieved by reverse osmosis.
Was tewater Treatment — Conventional activated sludge systems at six
wastewater treatment plants achieved copper removals ranging from 56 to
94 percent. 16 Average removal for the six plants was: 80 percent.
Physical—chemical treatment processes are effective in removing copper
from wastewaters. In pilot plant studies, chemical clarification with ferric
sulfate and filtration achieved 95.6 percent removal of copper and lime
clarification followed b activated carbon adsorption reduced copper concen-
trations by 90 percent) Chemical clarification with ferric chloride
or alum used as the coagulant can achieve 96 and 98.3 percent removal for
the two coagulants respectively, when followed by activated carbon adsorption.
Copper removal at two advanced wastewater treatment plants were 56
percent at the Dallas, Texas plant, 101 and 91.6 percent in Orange County,
California. The copper concentrations in the effluent at the two plants
were 41 ugh and 25 ugh, respectively.
Other treatment processes cited by include ion exchange,
evaporative recovery, and electrolytic recovery. A pilot scale reverse
osmosis plant achieving greater than 99 percent copper removal also was
reported.
67
-------
Iron and Manganese
Iron is one of the most abundant constituents of soils and rocks, but
is found in much lower concentrations in natural waters. Iron exists in
water either in the bivalent ferrous or the trivalent ferric form, depending
on the pH and dissolved oxygen content of the water. Although the chemical
behavior of the two states is somewhat different, both may be present
simultaneously in the same water. At neutral pH and in the presence of
oxygen, ferrous iron (Fe+ 2 ) usually is oxidized to the ferric (Fe+ 3 ) state
which is a much more stable condition. Soluble iron found in many waters,
usually occurs in the form of some complex ion which presents considerable
difficulty in treatment.
In addition to solution from natural sources, iron may be added to
ground water from contact with well casing, piping and other iron objects.
In surface waters, suspended sediments also may contain iron. Other sources
of iron in water are acid mine drainage, ore milling,-chemical industries,
metal processing, textile mills, canneries, tanneries, fertilizers, and
petroleum refining.
Manganese resembles Iron in Its chemical behavior and occurrence in
natural waters, but is found less frequently and usually at lower concentra-
tions. The solubility of the +2, +3, and +4 oxidation states of manganese
depends upon pH, dissolved oxygen and the presence of complexing agents.
Occasionally, deep lakes or reservoirs that contain organic sediments under
anaerobic reducing conditions can distribute considerable +2 throughout
the water during turnover mixing. Normally, however, the concentration
of manganese In natural surface waters is less than 0.25 mg/i as previously
Indicated in Table 10.
Treatment Methods — The treatment methods for removal of iron and
manganese fromwater and wastewater are similar. Although ion exchange
and reverse osmosis are effective in removing iron and manganese, the pre-
dominant treatment process for both metals is oxidation from the soluble
form, to the insoluble form followed by precipitation.
Most commonly used water treatment methods in the control of iron and
manganese include (1) precipitation followed by filtration, (2) ion exchange,
and (3) stabilization with polyphosphates. The precipitation and filtration
process normally involves aeration, detention (or clarification) and filtra-
tion. In many cases, chlorine, potassium permanganate, or lime are added
following the aeration process to aid in oxidation. 117 Research by Zemansky 9
involving 12 conventional water treatment plants, indicates that generally
high removals (an average of 65 percent) of iron and manganese are achieved.
Lime and potassium permanganate additions were considered significant factors
in the high removal efficiencies achieved for both metals. Relatively high
percentage removals in the clarifier were followed by higher percentage
removals in the filters. Patterson 96 reports the following removals of
iron at municipal water treatment plants:
Iron Concentration, mg/i
Process Influent Effluent
Chlorination, alum—lime—sodium 1.5 0.05
silicate precipitation, sand
filtration
Aeration, lime, sand filtration 2.4 0.0
68
-------
Iron Concentration, mg/i
Process (Cont’d) Influent Effluent
Aeration, sand filtration 2.5 0.13
Aeration, coke bed filtration 5.7 0.13
sedimentation, sand filtration
Lime, aeration, diatomite filtration 10 0.1
Although it is doubtful that activated carbon adsorption can compete
with precipitation for the removal of iron, studies indicate that ferrous
sulfate and ferrous chloride are adsorbed to some extent. 98 Activated carbon
displays strong reduction properties, converting ferric salts to the ferrous
state in the absence of air. With large concentrations of dissolved ox en,
activated carbon will act as a catalyst for the oxidation of Fe+ 2 to Fe ,
which is easily precipitated at pH above •98 Purukawa 116 reports that
reverse osmosis can reduce iron and manganese concentrations by 99 and 98
percent, respectively. Research cited by Patterson 96 indicates excellent
removal of iron and manganese by ion exchange. Table 23 summarizes treatment
data for one ion exchange unit operating over a three—year perIod.
The activated sludge process is very effective in removing iron and
slightly effective in removing manganese. A study of six activated sludge
plants showed total iron to be reduced by an average of 87 percent, and
ferrous iron by 61 percent; manganese was reduced by an average of 32
percent. 16 Physical—chemical treatment studies indicate that Mn+ 2 j
effectively removed by lime clarification, but removals with iron as the
coagulant are very poor.lO’+ Line clarification followed by activated carbon
adsorption achieved greater than 98 percent removal, while ferric chloride
reduced manganese by only 17 percent.
At the advanced wastewater treatment plant in Orange County, California,
secondary effluent with an iron concentration of 190 pg/i and manganese
concentration of 38 pg/i was reduced to 16 pg/i and 2 pg/i respectively,
by lime clarification.
Zinc
The chemical behavior of zinc is very similar to cadmium, with both
metals occurring in water in the +2 oxidation state. Zinc chloride and
sulfate are very soluble in water, but hydrolyze in solution to reduce
the pH. With an excess of carbon dioxide present in solution, it is unlikely
that the proper pH will occur to allow zinc to precipitate as hydroxide.
Because zinc is readily adsorbed on sediments and soils, only trace
amounts of zinc normally are found in natural ground and surface waters.
Significant quantities of zinc, however, may be discharged in industrial
waste streams such as plating and metal processing, stainless steel and
silver tableware manufacturing, yarn and fabric production, pulp and paper
production, and the pigment industry. High concentrations of zinc also
are known to occur in acid mine drainage water.
Water Treatment — In a study of 12 conventional water treatment
plants, the average zinc removal efficiency was 48 percent. 9 Results of
the study indicated that actual removals varied significantly from a low
of near zero, to a high of 90 percent.
69
-------
TABLE 23
IRON MID MANGANESE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
BY ION EXCHANGE TREATMENT
(after Patterson 96 )
Raw Well Water Treated Water
Concentration Concentration
Constituent mg/i mg/i
EIGHT
MONTHS
OF
OPERATION
Total
Total
Iron
Manganese
37
1.7
0.5
0.1
FIF]EEN
MONTHS
OF
OPERATION
Total
Total
Iron
Manganese
53
1.0
0.3
0.0
THIRTY-SIX MONTHS
OF
OPERATION
Total Iron 52 0.1
Total Manganese 1.3 0.0
70
-------
Wastewater Treatment — Conventional activated sludge systems at six
treatment plants averaged 72 percent zinc removal. 16 The lowest removal
efficiency noted for the six plants was 54 percent while the highest removal
was 88 percent. Cohen 101 reported similar removal efficiencies by biological
treatment: zinc removal ranged from 35 to 80 percent.
Chemical clarification with ferric chloride, ferric sulfate and lime
followed by activated carbon adsorption provides effective removal of zinc
from wastewater. In one pilot plant study, 63 percent of the zinc was
removed using ferric sulfate, and activated carbon increased removal to
approximately 95 percent. 104 The same study demonstrated 85 percent removal
using a combination of lime and ferric sulfate, act ivated carbon providing
only a slight increase in overall removal. Zinc removal using lime as the
coagulant achieved 76 to 94 percent removal, while ferric chloride resulted
in 94 percent removal.
Excellent removal of zinc has been achieved at the advanced wastewater
treatment facilities in Dallas, Texas and Orange County, California. In
the Texas plant, zinc concentrations of 0.320 mg/i were reduced to 0.029
mg/i, achieving 91 percent removal. 101 Although the California plant
provided only 59 percent removal, final effluent concentrations of 0.127
mg/l were still very low in comparison to the drinking water standard of
5 mg/l.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS )
The inclusion of TDS in the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations
is intended to deal with the aesthetic, or non—health related qualities
of drinking water. Inorganic constituents that affect the health of consumers
are measured in laboratory tests for TDS, but, except fluoride and nitrate,
they are normally present in trace concentrations- (less than I mg/l). The
potentially toxic constituents normally present in trace concentrations
are included in the Primary Regulations and are discussed separately in the
preceding sections of this report.
Inorganic constituents present in relatively large concentrations that
comprise TDS in most natural waters include: calcium, magnesium, sodium,
bicarbonate, chloride and sulfate. These ions are ubiquitous constituents
of natural waters. They enter water supplies naturally from the leaching
of salts such as sodium chloride present in surface and subsurface deposits
and from the decomposition of geologic formations. Occasionally, potassium,
fluoride and nitrate are present in concentrations above the 1 to 10 mg/i
range. Calcium and magnesium are the principal constituents- that cause
hardness in water, as discussed in the following section.
A TDS limit of 500 mg/i is included in the Secondary Regulations because
of taste effects and the fact that drinking water containing a high concen-
tration of TDS is likely to contain an excessive concentration of some
specific substance that would be aesthetically objectionable to the consumer.
Chloride in reasonable concentrations is not harmful to humans, but in
concentrations above 250 mg/i, chloride causes a salty taste in water which
is objectionable to many people. Sulfate may cause detectable tastes at
concentrations of 300 to 400 mg/i, but some are able to detect as little
as 200 mg/i; at concentrations above 600 mg/i, it may have a laxative effect.
High concentrations of sulfate also contribute to the formation of scale
in boilers and heat exchangers.
71
-------
The principal concern with respect to sodium relates to its potential
health significance rather than to aesthetic effects. However, existing
data did not support the establishment of a Maximum Contaminant Level for
sodium in the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. It is recommended
by EPA that the States institute programs for regular monitoring of the
sodium content of drinking water served to the public, and for informing
physicians and consumers of the sodium concentration in drinking water.
By this means, those affected by high sodium concentrations can make adjust-
ments to their diets, or seek alternate sources of water to be used for
drinking and food preparation.
Treatment Methods — Chloride, sulfate and sodium cannot be significantly
removed from water or was tewater by conventional biological treatment or
by the physical—chemical processes of chemical clarification, filtration
or carbon adsorption. The only demonstrated methods currently available
to remove these constituents are reverse osmosis, electrodialysis and ion
exchange. Both reverse osmosis and electrodialysis are being used to treat
municipal water supplies and reverse osmosis is being used to treat waste—
water. Ion exchange has been used for many years to produce low TDS waters
for various industrial purposes.
Hardness
Hardness is caused by the divalent metal ions calcium, magnesium,
strontium, iron and manganese. Calcium and magnesium are the only ions
present in most waters in large enough concentrations to cause significant
amounts of hardness. Hardness in natural waters is derived primarily from
contact with soil and rock formations such as limestone and dolomite which
contain calcium carbonate. Hardness is expressed as equivalent calcium
carbonate, and waters commonly are classified in terms of the degree of
hardness as follows: 118
0 — 75 mg/l Soft
75 — 150 mg/i Moderately hard
150 — 300 mg/i Hard
over 300 mg/i Very hard
There have been several studies that indicated a correlation between
water hardness and heart disease. Most of the studies indicate an inverse
correlation between the incidence of cardiovascular disease and the hardness
concentration, i.e., as water hardness decreased, the incidence of heart
disease increased. There are uncertainties in the studies conducted to
date and no causal relationship between hardness and heart disease has been
identif led. The study by the National Academy of Sciences considered the
potential effect of hardness on human health and the report 1 concludes as
follows:
“Despite these uncertainties, the evidence is sufficiently compel—
ling to treat the hard water hypothesis as plausible, particularly
when the number of potentially preventable deaths from cardiovascular
diseases is considered. In the United States, cardiOvascular diseases
account for more than one—half of about two million deaths that occur
each year. On the assumption that water factors- are causally implicated,
72
-------
it is estimated that optimal conditioning of drinking water could
reduce this annual cardiovascular disease mortality rate in the United
States by as much as l5 .
In view of this potential health significance, it is essential
to ascertain whether water factors are causally linked to the induc-
tion of cardiovascular or other diseases and, if so, to identify the
specific factors that are involved. Much more definitive information
is needed in order to identify what kinds of remedial water treatment,
if any, can be considered.”
Treatment Methods — Calcium and magnesium can be removed from water
by chemical precipitation, ion exchange, reverse osmosis and electrodialysis.
Lime or lime and soda ash have been used in many full scale water
treatment plants in the United States to soften municipal water supplies
by chemical precipitation. The processes are well developed and are capable
of producing water with a hardness of 100 ing/l or less.
Ion exchange has been used in several large water treatment plants
in the United States. Small ion exchange units also are used throughout
the United States to produce soft water in individual residences. Many
of these home water softeners are regenerated on site and the brine is dis—
charged to the sewer. Ion exchange softening produces water with essentially
zero hardness. Municipal ion exchange softening plants blend softened and
unsoftened water to achieve a hardness of about 100 mg/i f or distribution.
Reverse osmosis and electrodialysis are capable of achieving high,
but non—selective removals of calcium and magnesium; i.e., reverse osmosis
will remove 95 percent or more of most inorganic ions, including calcium
and magnesium, present in municipal water or wastewater. The process is
somewhat more efficient in the removal of multivalent ions such as calcium
and magnesium than monovalent ions such as sodium.
73
-------
SECTION 6
FACTORS IN THE LOCATION OF WATER INTAKES
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The purpose of this report is to present rationale for interim guidance
in the location of new water supply intakes when there is a municipal waste—
water discharge upstream. This rationale also applies when a new municipal
wastewater treatment plant is to be located upstream from an existing water
works intake.
There are a great many factors to be considered regarding intake locations.
Many of these factors apply even in the absence of upstream discharges of
municipal wastewater. Raw water duality may vary greatly from stream to
stream; it is assumed that a preliminary selection among various streams
has been made on the basis of best available raw water quality from a public
health standpoint and adequate quantity. The problem then becomes one of
locating the intake or wastewater treatment plant along a given stream.
For the moment, the question of upstream wastewater discharge is set
aside and the other factors are considered. This is done in order to help
place the potential hazards of wastewater contaminants in perspective with
the risks involved in all water systems even when there is no pollution
from wastewater.
Important items in the location of intakes which take into account
reliability, safety, and cost include:
1. Adequacy of supply.
2. Channel changes, shoal and bar formation, and silting.
3. Availability of water to intake ports at all river stages
and at all stream flows.
4. Accessibility to intake for maintenance at all river stages
and at all seasons
5. Location of the intake with respect to the city to be served.
6. Navigation requirements.
7. 100—year flood level.
8. Need for storage dam, either in—channel or off—channel, and
detention provided.
9. Foundation conditions.
10. Structural stability and safety.
11. Protection from rapid currents, wind, ice, boats, floating
material, waves, and bottom sediment.
12. Water depth, and ability to draw water from different depths.
13. Distance from service roads and a source of electric power.
14. Protection from vandalism.
74
-------
Even in the absence of upstream discharges of municipal wastewater,
there are public health factors to be considered in intake location. Storm
runoff which makes up stream flow may contain almost any of the substances
which are limited by the Drinking Water Regulations. The concentrations
of these substances can be restricted by proper location and operation of
intakes. Runoff from urban areas should be avoided when possible because
it is likely to be higher in contaminants than runoff from rural areas .
Ability to draw off water from a stream at different depths may give some
control over the amounts of turbidity, color, iron, manganese, algae, and
other substances in the raw water. Rivers and streams fed by rural and
urban runoff can contain many substances of public health significance.
Most streams are subject to accidental spills in the watershed of
agricultural chemicals and hazardous materials being transported by truck,
rail, or air regardless of whether or not there are planned municipal
wastewater discharges. Metals which are picked up from distribution and
service piping as a result of corrosion are also independent of water
supply source and the question of wastewater content.
Additional hazardous material which may be contributed to raw water
in streams by municipal wastewater discharge are principally organics
(especially synthetic organics) and some heavy metals which have their
only origin of consequence in wastewater. Also, many substances. present
in streams receiving no wastewater may be present in higher concentrations
in streams which do receive municipal wastewater, particularly pathogenic
bacteria, virus and other organisms from the intestines of man. In the
absence of wastewater discharge, control of treated water quality supplied
to the public depends upon monitoring of raw and finished water quality
and upon the degree and reliability of water treatment provided.
With the discharge of municipal wastewater upstream of a water intake,
another control must be provided in the form of wastewater treatment prior
to discharge and the monitoring of effluent quality. The resulting effluent
quality depends upon the degree and reliability of wastewater treatment
provided. With wastewater discharge to a water source, then, there are
three primary forces at work which affect finished water quality: (1) waste—
water treatment, (2) purification i.n the stream, and (3) water treatment.
The end product of these three forces must be water of sufficient quality
for drinking. The intermediate force, stream purification, may play an
important role as compared to the other two where the stream provides great
dilution, high rates of reaeration, long travel distance, or prolonged
storage. However, the situation of greatest interest is the limiting condi-
tion, which, in a particular stream with given flow, dilution and reaeration
characteristics, becomes the minimum allowable distance between the points
of waste discharge and water supply withdrawal under prevailing conditions.
This minimum separation is not a fixed distance for all situations,
but, rather, one which varies widely depending on many local factors, and
is a distance which must be decided on a case—by—case basis by qualified
local authorities . At present there is an important unresolved question
which has a vital impact on whether certain impurities contributed by waste—
water are to be removed at their source in the wastewater treatment plant
or later in the water purification process. This- question arises from the
uncertainty as to the minimum raw water quality which. can be permitted in
streams which are supply sources receiving municipal wastewater and the
maximum safe load which can be placed on the water plant. The Drinking
75
-------
Water Regulations are based on accumulated experience-treating waters from
relatively unpolluted sources. There a’re no minimum stream quality standards
for water at supply system intakes .
The lack of standards for minimum raw water quality from polluted sources
places a considerable restraint on water reuse. Water and wastewater treatment
techniques for production of high quality water are quite similar, actually
almost identical in many cases. In general it is more economical overall
to apply the required treatment process in the water treatment plant rather
than the wastewater plant. However, the uncertainty as to the safe load
which may be placed on water treatment processes may dictate the use of
additional wastewater treatment rather than (or in addition to) additional
water treatment.
In making case—by--case judgements of the minimum distance between the
points of wastewater discharge and water supply intake, some of the items
to be considered include:
1. Stream flow and quality.
2. Quantity and quality of treated wastewater to be discharged.
3. Potential water quality improvement by stream purification
processes including dilution, reaeration, adsorption, sedimenta-
tion, and biological die away.
4. Pollution from sources other than municipal wastewater including
industries, storm runoff, agriculture, and miscellaneous non—point
sources.
5. Raw water quality at intake under most adverse conditions.
6. Water treatment provided.
7. Relationship between wastewater effluent characteristics and
safe drinking water requirements.
8. Risk assessment of intake siting options.
Historically, one of the basic principles of sanitary engineering has
been to locate a city’s water supply intake upstream from its own wastewater
discharge. This principle has been followed almost without exception.
However, the concept of how far downstream a City’S water intake must be
from a neighboring city’s wastewater discharge has changed over the years.
Ancient adages persist to our day in statements like “running water purifies
itself” and “a river purifies itself every 20 miles” and so forth.
The USPHS Manual of Recommended Water — Sanitation Practice 1946,
states that: 119
“Waters containing more than 20,000 coliform bacteria per 100 ml. are
unsuitable for use as a source of water supply, unless they can be
brought into conformance (co1iform reduOed to less than 20,000/100
ml) by means of prolonged preliminary storage, or some other means
of equal permanence and reliability.”
Many cities located on the Ohio, Mississippi, Missouri, Kansas and
other rivers have successfully produced biologically safe water from raw
river water containing from 50,000 to 2,000,000 coliforms/100 ml. This
has been accomplished by use of pre—chiorination, pre—sedimentation, storage,
double coagulation—sedimentation, and other means. A later USPHS study
reported by Walton in 1956120 concluded that the routine successful treat-
ment of high coliform raw waters indicated that:
76
-------
“The current USPHS recommendations with respect to the density of
coliform organisms in raw water acceptable for treatment in modern
well operated plants are no longer applicable”.
By effective disinfection of water free from suspended material in
a modern water treatment plant, rivers can be deactivated with certainty.
In 1969 AWWA Committee Report on Viruses in Water 121 concluded that:
“There is no doubt that water can be treated so that it is always free
from infectious microorganisms - it will be biologically safe”.
One of the factors which is currently receiving much attention and
which is being given much weight is the matter of trace organics. Trihalo—
methane production during chlorination may be rather high even with relatively
low total concentrations of organics. Further, sufficient of these organics
will survive natural purification, regardless of time and distance between
outfall and intake, to remain a potential problem. The methods of treatment
in the wastewater and water treatment plants, particularly in the water
treatment plant, appear to be much more important than intake location in
the case of trace organics. With contribution of wastewater to water supply
streams there is also concern about the organics which have yet to be identi-
fied and evaluated for possible health effects. This is true even in cases
where the total quantity of all the unidentified organics is low (less than
0.5 mg/i). In this instance, the question is not distance from the point
of wastewater introduction, but the complete exclusion of organics originating
in municipal wastewater from water supply sources until this potential hazard
is better evaluated.
The technical capability of water and wastewater treatment processes
for removal of most of the substances of concern was discussed in Section
5 of this report. Despite this capability, the location of a water intake
immediately below a municipal wastewater plant outfall should not be consid-
ered. Similarly, new sewer lines should not be constructed so as to discharge
immediately above an existing water works intake. No serious proposal by
even the most avid promoters of wastewater reclamation have ever been made
which did not include either surface or underground storage of treated
wastewater prior to withdrawal for subsequent water treatment. It would
be foolish not to take advantage of natural purification processes in any
rational plan of either direct or indirect water reuse. The natural purifi-
cation processes of dilution, time of travel, separation by distance, sedimen-
tation, bacterial die-away, adsorpti.on, storage and loss—of—identity have
many advantages, the most important of which is the time afforded to learn
the results of water quality monitoring, to detect accidental spills, and
to correct wastewater treatment plant malfunctions.
Thus, it can be said without fear of serious question that zero distance
between sewer outfall and water intake is not sufficient. What is adequate?
As stated previously, this determination is a judgemental decision to be
made by local public health experts and other informed professionals on
a case—by—case basis supported by an adequate background of facts and
circumstances concerning local conditions. However, in all cases, reaction
time to emergencies is a major consideration. From this standpoint it would
appear that 24 hours of combined time in travel and storage between wastewater
discharge and water supply intake would be a minimum . This, then, is one
criterion for intake location.
77
-------
This may very well be the governing criteria, if it is accepted by
health authorities as being sufficient to serve the intended purpose of
reaction time. Greater separation in order to obtain more treatment through
natural purification would have to be justified on an economic basis. That
is, the cost of additional pipeline would have to be less than providing
equal removal of the affected contaminants in water treatment, which is
doubtful in most situations.
Once the intake location is selected, the question remains as to whether
removals of certain substances are to be provided in wastewater or water
treatment. There are the items of total costs, local costs, equity of who
pays the costs, and incidental benefits of treatment in the upstream location.
As shown in the next section, it is cheaper in most cases to minimize waste—
water treatment and to maximize water purification. However, it seems more
equitable for the city which produces the wastewater to pay for the costs
of removing substances which have adverse effects on downstream water supplies,
particularly in view of the fact that State and Federal grants may be available
for wastewater treatment but not for water treatment. In addition, greater
overall protection of the environment, especially of the public health aspects
of recreational use of the stream, is provided by removal of undesirable
materials nearest their source in the wastewater treatment plant.
The general types of risks involved in drinking water fall into four
main categories; toxicological, microbiological, aesthetics, and possible
chronic effects of trace organics. The degree of risk with and without
wastewater in supply sources and the effects of separation between discharge
and intake for these four risk categories are given in the following tabulation.
All of these risks can be substantially reduced by providing a high degree
of treatment for wastewater prior to release to a stream.
General types of hazards in
drinking waters
1. Toxicological
(pesticides, residues, mine
drainage, accidental spills
of chemicals in transport,
municipal, industrial, and
agricultural wastewaters,
urban and rural runoff)
Degree of risk, with and without
wastewater in supply source and
effects of separation between
discharge and intake.
Many surface waters throughout the
country are subject to contamination
from accidential spills of toxic
materials in transport, and some are
so contaminated from urban and agri-
cultural runoff and other non—point
pollution sources as to make the
health risks only slightly different
than those involved with use of river
water receiving treated municipal
wastewater. Increased distance
between points of discharge and intake
provides more time for detection of
toxic materials which have not been
removed in treatment. Removal of
toxic materials by stream self
purification is not as important or
effective as that in water or waste—
water treatment. AWT processes
78
-------
can remove nearly all the dissolved
and suspended contaminants in waste—
water and can provide a high degree
of protection against possible toxic
Contaminants.
2. Microbiological
(bacteria, virus, fungit,
and other organisms from
human wastes.
Raw municipal wastewater is the
principal source of the organisms
transmitting water borne disease.
Increased distance between wastewater
outfall and water intake provides
more time for natural die—away of
the pathogens. However, in cases of
limited separation, any necessary
removal up to complete disinfection
can b.e obtained by advanced waste—
water treatment prior to effluent
discharge. The minimum separation
required then, depends upon the
degree of removal of pathogens
provided prior to discharge and
to the reliability in treatment which
the plant affords. Because micro-
biological tests require several days
for completion, time in travel or
storage in the stream is not a
monitoring advantage unless four
days or more are available.
3. Aesthetics
(acceptance, taste,
and odor and color)
4. Possible Chronic Effects
of Trace Organics
(carcinogens, mutagens,
tetratogens)
Water from streams which do not
receive treated wastewater are more
desirable esthetically than water
obtained from streams receiving
wastewater, and greater separation
between outfall and intake, up to
a point at least, probably provides
greater public acceptance. Physical
problems of taste, odor and color
may arise from the discharge of waste—
waters to water sources, although
these problems can be avoided if
proper water and wastewater treatment
are provided.
Many water supply sources contain
trace organics which in themselves,
or from the products of their reac-
tions with chlorine, ozone, or other
oxidants, may have adverse health
effects following long term ingestion
of trace amounts (less than 1 mg/i)
of such impurities. These organics
79
-------
may originate in nature or be present
in wastewater. Wastewater may contain
synthetic organics which are not found
in nature. Until more is known, it
is assumed, that there may be more
risks involved in the wider variety
of organics found in wastewater.
Even though the concentration of
total organics is reduced to 1 mg/l
or less by adsorption or stream
sediments or activated carbon there
may still be a health hazard. The
extent of the hazard probably is not
affected to any practical extent by
time of stream travel or storage.
Removals of organics by AWT or upgraded
water treatment are more important
than separation distance between
outfall and intake .
STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
Stream flow characteristics and background water quality are discussed
In Sections 2 and 3. It is the general conclusion of this review that
secondary effluent from municipal treatment plants that receive sewage from
residential areas (no industrial wastes) do not contain specific inorganic
or organic chemicals in concentrations that exceed the Primary or Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations. However, secondary effluent does exceed the
regulations for turbidity, coliform bacteria and unspecified organics as
measured by foaming agents, color and odor. Although there are no drinking
water regulations for the general organic content as measured by COD or
TOC, there is concern about the health effects of these organics. There
is particular concern when the organics are contributed by wastewater.
The typical concentration of TOC in unpolluted streams is about 10 mg/i
and about 40 mg/i in secondary effluent from municipal treatment plants
with no organic industrial wastes . Using these levels of organics gives
the TOC concentration at various percentages of wastewater in stream flow
Is shown in Figure 1. This figure shows that the TOC concentration is 25
mg/i when the treated wastewater discharge is equal to the stream flow,
or 50 percent of the total flow, decreasing to 13 mg/i when the wastewater
Is 10 percent of total flow. Also shown in Figure 1 is a curve for the
case if the treated wastewater TOC eoncentration is reduced to 20 mg/i by
chemical clarification and filtration after secondary treatment. This
illustrates graphically the improvement in stream quality that can be
achieved by wastevater treatment.
The effect of reduced stream flow during dry periods would be to increase
the TOC concentration . The exception to this occurance would be the case
where sufficient advanced treatment is provided to produce wastewater effluent
with a TOC concentration below 10 mg/i. Of course, these are average values
and both stream flow and effluent quality will vary.
80
-------
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, mg/I
Figure 1.
TOC CONCENTRATIONS IN STREAM FLOW & WASTEWATER BLENDS
0
0
a
0
4-
0
C
‘p
U
‘p
0.
LU
I-
4
LU
I-
(1)
0
LU
LU
20
0
a
0
4-
4O -
0
4-
C
‘p
U
•1
0.
6O
0
-J
4
LU
I —
U)
0
10 20 30
100
40
81
-------
TREATMENT PROCESS CAPABILITY
The capabilities of water and wastewater treatment processes to remove
contaminants listed in the Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations
are discussed in detail in Section 5 of thisreport. Based on this review
of treatment capabilities, it is concluded that municipal wastewater that
contains little or no industrial waste can be treated to meet all regulations
for drinking water. However, the Drinking Water Regulations were not develop-
ed to cover wastewater and the regulations were based on the premise that the
water source is free of contamination from municipal and industrial wastes.
The standards were not intended to be sufficient to insure that water con—
taming substantial quantities of wastewater is safe f or drinking.
The public health effects of the organics remaining in wastewater after
treatment are largely unknown. All of the known contaminants, and those
specified in the Drinking Water Regulations, are either not present in unsafe
concentrations or can be removed by wastewater treatment; therefore, the
primary concerns are the potentially adverse effects of the remaining organics.
Currently, the only generally available methods of measuring the remaining
organics are BOD, COD and TOC tests. Wastewater treatment processes con-
sidered are shown in Figure 2 and include:
1. Secondary treatment (activated sludge).
2. Secondary treatment and filtration, commonly termed direct
filtration.
3. Secondary treatment, lime clarification and filtration.
4. Advanced wastewater treatment.
Water treatment processes shown in Figure 3 include:
1. Conventional water treatment.
2. Upgraded water treatment.
3. Upgraded water treatment and reverse osmosis.
Based on the data reviewed in Section 5, typical levels of organic consti-
tuents, as measured by BOD, COD, TOC and trihalomethanes, are shown in Table
24 for the wastewater and water treatment systems shown in Figures 2 and
3 and for stream flow. The chemical clarification-system shown in Figure
2 indicates lime as the primary coagulant; however, it would be possible
to use alum or other coagulants to achieve the results shown in Table 24.
The typical levels of organic constituents shown in Table 24 assume a properly
operating treatment system. The effect of treatment plant reliability is
discussed in the following section.
TREATMENT PLANT RELIABILITY CONSIDERATIONS
Water and wastewater treatment plants may fail to meet design efficiency
and/or discharge requirements because of (1) significant changes in the
influent quality or quantity, (2) upsets in treatment processes resulting
in the production of poor quality effluent and (3) power--outages or equipment
breakdowns that cause treatment process-es to be bypassed.
82
-------
SECONDARY TREATMENT
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Figure 2. WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
WASTEWATE
TO
DtSPO SAL
S CR S E N I 6S
AND GRIT
TO ARD
DISPOSAL
TO LAND
DISPOSAL
DISPOSAL
WAS CE WATER
SOLIDS
8i
-------
CONVENT ciNAL WATER TREATMENT
U GPACEL WATER TREATMENT
UPGRA EO WATER TREATMENT
AND REVERSE OSMOSIS
Figure 3.
WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
RAW
WATER
SCREENINGS
TO LAND
DISPOSAL
WAT(R
TO LAND
DISPOSAL
Sc R EENINGS
TO LAND
DISPOSAL
POTALE
WATER
SCREENINGS
To LAND
SPO$AL
SWINE
DISPOSAl.
WET (A
SOLIDS
84
-------
TABLE 24
TYPICAL LEVELS OF ORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
IN WATER AND WASTEWATER
Concentration, mg/i
BOD COD TOC Trihalomethanes
Stream Flow 5 30 10 ND
Effluents **
Secondary 30 100 40 0.005
Direct Filtration 10 75 30 *
Chemical Clarification & 5 50 20 *
Filtration
Advanced Wastewater Treatment 2 20 8 *
Conventional Water Treatment <1 10 5 *
Upgraded Water Treatment ND 2 1 *
Upgraded Water Treatment & ND <1 <1 *
Reverse Osmosis
ND = None Detected
* Trihalomethane (chloroform) concentration depends on the
point of chlorination. Chloroform concentrations are
minimized by chlorinating the highest quality water.
** See text and Figures 2 and 3 for description of treatment systems.
85
-------
The variability of effluent quality from wastewater treatment facilities
was discussed by Ford 122 and he defined the term “inherant variability”
as the effluent quality variability attributable to the basic nature of
the unit process and the pattern of the raw waste loads. It is an unalterable
characteristic of any treatment system. The raw waste load impact, process
effects of water temperature and dissolved solids, and other process idiosyn—
crasies.which cannot be altered to enhance overall stability are the primary
factors responsible for inherant variability.
Section 210 of PL 92—500 requires the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to conduct annual surveys and report to Congress on the efficiency
of federally funded wastewater treatment facilities. The results of the
surveys conducted in 1973, 1974 and 1975 were reported by Gilhert. 23 A
major finding of the surveys was that about one third of the nation’s
municipal treatment facilities constructed with federal grant assistance
were not operating at their designed efficiency level . These EPA surveys
attempted to identify the causes of poor performance and concluded that
the causes are many and varied and depend on several factors related to
each specific treatment facility. The following summary shows data on
trickling filter and activated sludge plants not meeting design criteria
for BOD removal.
Number and Percentage of
Plants Not Meeting Design
Criteria for BOD Removal
Activated Trickling
Sludge Filters
Plant Capacity, mgd No. No.
0—1 99 22 102 42
39 23 100 42
5—15 23 37 32 65
over 15 16 67 3 20
The results of the performance efficiency surveys over the three year
period revealed a continuing trend of significant deficiencies in a large
number of municipal treatment facilities with respect to the actual perf or—
mance compared with design criteria. Gilbert 123 concluded the following
based on analysis of the surveys.
1. About one—third of the plants are not meeting original design
criteria for removal of BOD .
2. About one—half of the plants are not meeting original design
criteria for SS removal .
3. Activated sludge plants meet BOD and SS design removals more
frequently than other process types; trickling filters have the
poorest record .
4. The ability to evaluate plant operational performance is seriously
affected by inadequate laboratory facilities and/or inadequate
laboratory testing programs.
86
-------
5. Plants with good maintenance management programs, as evidenced
by adequate routine maintenance schedules, spare parts inventories,
and records of maintenance repairs and replacement, perform
better than plants with inadequacies in these areas.
6. Plants that are performing efficiently more often have operation
and maintenance manuals written specifically for them than do
plants that perform poorly.
7. Inadequate attention has been given to assuring routine attendance
at short courses, schools, and other training programs for plant
operations personnel. This problem occurs more frequently at
those plants that do not have sufficient performance data to
assess operational efficiencies.
8. The need for follow—up actions to correct operational, mechanical,
or manpower deficiencies has remained high.
Performance data from trickling filter plants collected from EPA region
inspection and technical assistance reports are summarized in Table 25.
One to three years data were obtained from inspection of 13 trickling filter
plants of various designs. 12 These data summarized in Table 26 indicate
that in most cases, the trickling filter process does not produce effluent
which will meet secondary treatment requirements as defined by EPA , i.e.,
effluent concentration of less than 30 mg/i for both BOD and SS, and a
minimum of 85 percent removal for both parameters based on the plant influent
concentration.
Activated sludge plant performance data from EPA region inspection and
technical assistance reports are summarized in Table 27. These data are
for conventional, contact stabilization and extended aeration variations
of the activated sludge process. Daily data presented in the form of return
frequency are shown on Figure 4 and were developed from nine activated
sludge plants: four Austin, Texas contact stabilization plants and activated
sludge plants at Grand Island, Nebraska; Dallas, Texas; High Point, North
Carolina; Chicago, Illinois; and Ypsilanti, Michigan. The data in each
case were from an entire year of operation. The plants selected for data
presentation were those where good analyses are known to be performed, a
variety of activated sludge processes are used and a range of loadings are
experienced. The conclusions which may be made from these data are:
1. Two of the activated sludge plants treat significant industrial
waste flows. The High Point, North Carolina, Eastside plant
receives textile dye wastes and the Grand Island, Nebraska plant
receives slaughterhouse wastes. Both plants perform as well as
the other domestic waste plants. Therefore, activated sludge
plants can he designed and operated to treat certain types of
industrial wastes and perform as well as plants treating little
or none of these industrial wastes.
2. The plant loadings range from 20 to 80 pounds of BOD per 1,000
cubic feet of aeration tank volume. The performance of the plants
is not related to unit aeration basin organic loading.
3. Whereas all of the plants from which data are used are considered
to have good operational control and design, the Grand Island
plant, for one year, produced an effluent BOD significantly
87
-------
TABLE 2-5 TRICKLING FI LTER SUM!IARY, EPA REGION DATA.
Organic
loading, Influent, Effluent, Removal,
lb 80D 5 / Flow, mg d mg/i mg/i __________
Location 1,000 cu ft Average Design BOD5 TSS BODç TSS .
Frederick, MD High rate 4.6 7.0 351 161 100 40 72 76
Chapel Hill, NC 35 2.8 3.0 179 247 36 36 80 85
Marlboro, MA 74 2.22 2.0 134 112 62 32 54 71
Pichardsori, TX 13 1.5 3.0 166 159 20 15 88 90
Allentown, PA 18 24.0 24.0 190 215 40 40 79 81
Pueblo, CO 42 14.6 14.0 148 163 39 29 74 82
Madera, CA Del Pak 2.2 7.0 137 121 30 27 78 78
Mt. Vernon, CA High rate 2.4 3.0 116 155 22 35 81 78
Santa Maria, CA Two stage 4.4 6.5 200 280 33 45 84 84
Chinook, MT High rate 0.22 0.5 168 179 71 59 58 6-7
Bountiful, UT Std. rate 5.3 5.4 170 175 22 22 87 88
Englewood, CO 8.5 12.0 258 207 32 29 88 86
Murray, UT 4.9 8.0 193 193 36 35 81 82
Ft. Morgan, CO Two stage 1.5 3.6 917 645 43 44 95 93
Average removal 79 82
BOD 5 5—day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
TSS Total Suspended Solids
-------
TABLE 26,, TRICKLING FILTER SUMMARY, PLANT VISITS
Average effluent
Design Average BOD 5
flow, flow, BOD 5 Removal, TSS, TSS
Location mgd mgd mg/i ________ mg/i removal, %
Iowa:
Shellsburg 0.0825 0.0609 47 70
Center Pt. 0.200 0.141 43 72
Monticello 0.800 0.412 39 80
Cascade 0.220 0.081 48 76
Independence 0.750 0.889 85 87
Lakeview 0.175 0.153 69 69
Georgia:
Westside,
1975 1.00 1.059 25 75 30 70
Westside,
1976 1.00 0.971 35 72 38 68
Kenne saw,
1974 0.30 0.27 24 85 28 87
Sand town,
1976 1.00 1.222 51 70 50 60
Newman,
1975 0.40 0.328 30 88 28 88
Newman,
1976 0.400 0.346 23 88 29 86
Intr. Cr.,
1975 20.0 13.9 40 82 26 78
Intr. Cr.,
1976 20.0 13.1 35 83 31 74
College Pk.,
1976 1.2 1.36 43 90 35 76
Athens #1,
1975 5.00 5.60 80 69 64 73
Athens #1,
1976 5.00 5.14 64 73 47 80
Athens #2,
1975 2.00 2.90 46 73 58 68
Athens *2,
1976 2.00 2.60 47 75 40 78
Cedartown,
1974 1.00 0.82 46 77 40 80
Cedartown,
1975 1.00 0.92 17 89 18 90
Cedartown,
1976 1.00 1.06 23 88 22 88
Average removal 79 78
89
-------
TABLE 27. ACTIVATED SLUDGE SUMMARY, EPA REGION DATA
Influent,
mq/ 1
Effluent,
mq/l
Location
Flow,
mgd
Removal,
SOD 5
%
TSS
Ave
Desigp
SOD 5
TSS
ç’pJ >
TSS
CONVENTIONAL
1.1
2.0
336
298
19
20
94
93
Aspen, CO
Missoula, MT
5.5
10.0
133
129
54
48
59
63
Snowmass, CO
0.8
0.8
185
180
34
53
82
71
Havre, MT
1.3
1.8
275
275
31
30
89
87
Barstow, CA
1.7
4.5
150
250
16
25
89
90
W. Sacramento, CA
3.5
2.5
140
130
20
27
86
79
Carmel, CA
2.5
3.0
200
300
20
30
90
90
Monterey, CA
3.5
4.6
250
250
35
70
86
72
Zephur Cove, NV
1.0
3.0
334
237
12
11
96
95
Fairfield, OH
1.3
1.0
173
172
26
26
85
85
Grand Rapids, ND
38
—
100
140
18
Average
40
removal
82
85
71
81
CONTACT STABILIZATION
0.39
0.5
89
94
30
33
67
65
Richwood, WV
Pen Argyl, PA
1.1
0.95
162
75
16
26
90
62
Lob, MT
0.15
0.25
233
172
17
12
93
93
Baden, PA
0.55
0.5
206
202
22
21
89
90
Lancaster, PA
9.24
12.0
168
227
32
35
81
85
Manteca, CA
1.3
3.2
200
180
50
25
75
86
Savage, MD
5.9
—
158
206
22
41
86
80
Coralville, IA
0.9
135
150
26
Average
24
removal
81
83
84
81
EXTENDED AERATION
0.15
0.25
129
258
14
33
88
84
Athens, WV
Follansbee, WV
0.5
0.5
200
190
16
48
92
75
Cheyanne, WY
0.43
0.8
262
272
—
Elizabeth, CO
—
0.065
441
341
30
96
93
72
Elbert, CO
0.007
0.025
208
125
16
Average
27
removal
92
91
78
77
-------
50
CONTACT STABILIZATION
40-50 Ib/I,000 cu ft
I I I
7/
45
40
35
30
>-
I-
-J
° 25
z
U i
-J
20
U i
15
I0
5
0
CONVENTIONAL
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
0 Ib/I,000 cu ft
2 5 10 20 30 40506070 80 90 95 98 99
Figure 4.
PERCENT OF TIME VALUE WAS LESS THAN
ACTIVATED SLUDGE EFFLUENT QUALITY
91
-------
better than 10 mg/i 70 percent of the time. Four of the plants
produced BOD effluent better than 35 mg/i, 90 percent of the time.
The potential for the activated sludge process is exemplified by the
Grand Island plant which produced BOD better than 5 mg/i, 50 percent of
the time and 20 mg/i, 90 percent of the time.
Polishing of activated sludge effluent using filtration can produce
a high quality effluent. Soluble BOD from the activated sludge process
is low and the majority of the remaining BOD results from the solids escaping
the final clarifier.
When no coagulants are used, the filterability of solids in a biological
plant effluent is dependent upon the degree of flocculation achieved in
the biological process. A trickling filter achieves a poor degree of floc-
culation and efficient filtration of the effluent will usually provide
only about 50 percent removal, or less, of the suspended solids normally
present.
The activated sludge process is capable of much higher degrees of biologi-
cal flocculation than is the trickling filter process. In unreported tests
by Cuip and Hansen from the authorts firm, it was found that up to 98 percent
of the suspended solids in an extended aeration plant effluent, with 24
hour aeration of domestic sewage, could be removed by filtration to produce
turbidities as low as 0.3 TU without the use of coagulants. Pilot plant
studies by Culp and Hansen showed that the degree of biological flocculation
achieved in an activated sludge plant is directly proportional to the aeration
time and inversely proportional to the ratio of the amount of organic material
added per day to the amount of suspended solids in the aeration chamber
(F/M ratio). Variation of mixed liquor suspended solids in the normal
operating range of 1,500 to 5,000 mg/l did not significantly affect the
filterability of the effluent at a given aeration time and load factor.
For domestic wastes, aeration times of 10 hours or more were found to provide
flocculation adequate to permit an efficient downstream filter to remove
90—98 percent of the effluent suspended solids. The flocculation provided
by aeration times of 6—8 hours with domestic wastes enabled 70—85 percent
suspended solids removal from the secondary effluent.
Data from four activated sludge plants with effluent filtration are
shown in Figure 5. The data represent periods from 20 days to one year
of operation. The data are fairly consistent, indicating an effluent BOD
of less than 5 mg/i, 50 percent •of the time, and less than 10 mg/i, 90 to
95 percent of the tine.
Plant performance data from 30 existing activated sludge plants of
varying size were evaluated to determine the relationship between plant
performance and plant performance stability as a function of plant size. 125
Effluent suspended solids concentration was used to measure plant performance
and variability of effluent suspended solids concentration was used to
measure performance stability. It was concluded that: (1) no reiationship
exists between plant size and plant performance for the plants studied,
and (2) single plant treatment systems exhibit no apparent advantages over
multiplant treatment systems .
Daily data from one year of plant operation were studied for 28 activated
sludge plants in the United States. 126 The average design flow of the plants
varied from 0.6 to 333 mgd and the median flow was 28 mgd. Based on an
92
-------
PERCENT OF TIME VALUE WAS LESS THAN
Figure 5. FILTERED ACTIVATED SLUDGE EFFLUENT BOD
analysis of BOD and suspended solids data, it was concluded that (1) treatment
efficiency decreased with increasing design capacity, and (2) the optimum
size treatment plant could not be determined from the data analyses.
Six years of daily operating data (1968—74) at the South Lake Tahoe
AWT plant were statistically analyzed 127 and the results are summarized
in Table 28. The data analysis included calculation of correlations between
pairs of parameters. No significant correlation between parameters was
found and it was concluded that random fluctuation account for most of
the variations in the data including: errors in sampling, recording and
analytical procedures as well as process changes that primarily influence
a single variable. It was also concluded that: (1) the plant was obviously
operated under good control, and (2) to improve the reliability of a plant
like South Lake Tahoe, it would be necessary to alter the design. The
variability in performance is much less than for secondary treatment plants
and, of course, the overall level of performance is much better.
Federal guidelines published in 1970 identify eight design provisions
and four other significant factors related to treatment plant reliability. 128
Design Factors Other -Factors
Duplicate power sources Engineering report
Stand—by power Qualified personnel
Multiple units and equipment Effective monitoring program
Emergency storage Effective maintenance and
Piping and pumping flexibility process control program
93
E
>-
I-
-J
a
I-
z
l U
-J
U-
U.
U i
‘C,
0
0
20
15
I0
5
0
I
SPRING VALLEY) IL _ >
DALLAS) /
I
ADDISON IL—N .
. /__
L --
— — — PHILOMATH, OR. 1 —
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99
-------
TABLE 28
SOUTh LAKE TAHOE ADVANCED
WAS TEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT
1968 — 1974
(after Dean and Forsythe 121 )
Percent of Time That Parameter
Was Less Than Indicated Value
50%
Parameter ( Median ) 22
MBAS, mg/i 0.18 0.54 0.64
BOD, mg/i 1.3 5.4 6.4
COD, tug/i 9.6 24.5 30.7
Suspended Solids 0 0 0
Turbidity, JTIJ 0.3 1.2 1.5
Phosphorus, mg/l 0.19 0.91 1.22
Chlorine Residual, mg/i 0.90 3.0 3.6
Coliform, NPN/ 100 ml (0.025) 5.1 13.0
94
-------
Design Factors (Cont’d )
Dual chlorination
Automatic chlorine residual control
Automatic alarms
The California State Department of Public Health conducted a study
of wastewater treatment plants operating in California during 1964. This
study and other performance data collected by the Health Department revealed
a lack of reliability in many wastewater treatment plants.’ 29 Subsequently,
the State of California developed wastewater treatment reliability criteria, 3 °
that are now State law. 131 The law applies to wastewater treatment plants
that produce effluent for reuse and contains specific reliability requirements
for design and operation. These requirements are contained in Appendix A.
Reliability considerations were a major factor in the policy adopted
by the State of Virginia concerning the design of wastewater treatment
facilities that discharge to raw drinking water supplies. 132 Major design
factors in this policy for a specific project (This is the Occoquan project
and is described in Section 8 of this report on case studies.) proposed
to discharge treated wastewater to a raw water supply serving 500,000 people
include the following:
• The initial backup capacity within the plant shall be 100 percent
for the initial increments of the plant. If after the initial few years
of operation, the plant’s reliability has been satisfactorily demonstrated,
additional treatment trains can be added up to a ratio of four treatment
units or one stand—by train.
• The design shall be such that expansions and maintenance of any
unit can be accomplished without by—passing wastes or degrading
treatment.
• The mechanical and fluid system design shall be such that a single
failure of a component or unit shall not interrupt plant operations
which are required to meet the final effluent requirements.
• There shall be two sources of outside power and one on—site power
supply. Both the off—site and on—site electrical distributions shall
be such that the failure of any given components (mechanical or elec-
trical) in the distribution system shall not cause an interruption
of electrical service to parts of the plant which are essential to
meet the effluent requirements.
• Retention basins to handle an unpredictable set of events which
might temporarily overload the plant and to provide a margin of safety
in the event of operator error. The total required retention capacity
can be provided at the treatment plant proper or on the interceptor
system some distance away front the plant, depending on the availability
of land. However, at least one—day capacity should be available at
the plant.
• Backup capacity of 100 percent for raw waste pumps.
• Duplicate treatment facilities for primary and secondary treatment,
chemical clarification units and chlorination. Adequate backup facili—
ties for filtration and activated carbon contactors.
95
-------
• A sampling basin to determine water quality before release.
Effluent not meeting the required quality to be returned to the plant
for treatment by the AWT processes.
• Continuous operator attendance with at least five people per shift
(Initial plant capacity is 10.9 ingd).
• Failure mode and effects analysis on mechanical and electrical
systems.
The design factors developed by the State of Virginia go beyond the
reliability features of the South Lake Tahoe plant and would provide a super-
ior degree of reliability; but, the added features will increase costs.
This review of treatment plant performance indicates that it is possible
to routinely achieve the average results shown in Table 24 for activated
sludge secondary treatment and AWT. The cost effects of providing essentially
100 percent reliable treatment processes are discussed in the following
Section 7 on alternative treatment systems.
HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS
It is well understood among public health workers that domestic sewage
contains agents of human disease. Thus the location of drinking water intakes
downstream from the discharge of wastewater, treated or untreated, is of concern
to health authorities because of the potential for disease transmission.
In considering the transmission of disease one must take the following
factors into account: (1) the presence of agents of disease, (2) the concen-
tration of the agent or the dose, (3) the dose response, and (4) the host
contact.
The agents of disease present in domestic wastewater may most conveniently
be divided into two large groups. One group includes those agents of an
infectious nature and the other the chemical or non—infectious toxins.
Biological Agents
A number of bacterial diseases have been associated with the consumption
of sewage contaminated water including typhoid fever, salmoneilosis, shigeilosis,
cholera, and infections due to enterocytopathic Escherichia coil and Yersina
entercolitica . During the 13 year period 1969—74 the majority of waterborne
outbreaks of bacterial disease in the United States were due to Shiegeila sp.
followed by Salmonella sp., typhoid fever and pathogenic Escherlchia coli .
Less than 10 percent of the cases of these diseases in the United States
were waterborne. 133
The two waterborne parasitical diseases commonly associated with
contaminated water are amoebic dysentary and giardiasis, both protozoan
diseases. Less. than 1.5 percent of waterborne disease outbreaks are due
to these parasites.
There are at least 101 types of viruses that may find their way into
water via fecal contamination. Of these the most serious threat to the
public health (in terms of disease severity) is the virus of infectious
hepatitis (Hepatitis A). Less than one percent of the reported cases of
hepatitis in the United States are attributable to contaminated drinking
96
-------
water. A large proportion of cases were associated with the consumption
of contaminated shellfish.
The low incidence of infectious disease transmission via finished
drinking water is a testimony to present drinking water sanitation technology.
However, the potential presence of these agents in waters receiving waste
discharge must be assumed and may therefore be found at the intake of
downstream water treatment plants.
Chemical Agents
Chemical agents of disease, either actual or potential, found in water
and wastewater are most conveniently divided into inorganic and organic
categories. The chemicals of an inorganic nature that impact upon health
are the best understood because of a long history of recognizing their
health importance and well developed analytical technology. Even so, there
are still many gaps in understanding the health implications of the consump—
tion of some of these compounds present in water. This is particularly so
when chronic disease is involved, as for example, the case of the observed
statistical association between water hardness and heart disease. The
inorganic chemicals that appear to be most important to health are those
for which NCLs have been established in the Primary Drinking Water
Regulations.
For many years a number of specific organic compounds, particularly
chlorinated hydrocarbons, have been recognized as hazardous in drinking water
and have been listed in US. drinking water standards. During the last few
years increased interest and activity has taken place concerning the occurrance
of trace organic chemicals in U.S. drinking water supplies. Nore than 700
such compounds have been identified from various water supplies. One of the
most prevalent groups of compounds present in finished drinking water is the
trihalomethanes and particularly chloroform.
This latter arises as the resnlt of the chemical interaction of chlorine
with organic precursors such as humic substance, many of which are naturally
present in water. There are many questions concerning the human health
effects, if any, produced by the presence of these compounds in drinking
water particularly in reference to the cancer morbidity of exposed populations.
Known and suspected carcinogens reportedly found in finished water are
listed in Table 29. The list is not exhaustive particularly as regards
suspected animal carcinogens. Perhaps the brominated trihalomethane, bromoform,
should be included under the suspended animal carcinogen category.
Identification and Dos.e
The second factor to consider in the transmission of disease via water
is the concentration of disease agent present. If the nature of an agent is
sufficiently understood then methods can be developed to quantitatively
determine its presence in water. In certain instances because of the technical
difficulty in measuring an agent or agents it may be possible to monitor a
surrogate parameter rather than the actual, agents. This is’ particularly true
when a large variety of agents may be present and the measurement of each would
present a monumental task.
97
-------
TABLE 29
CATEGORIES OF KNOWN OR SUSPECTED ORGANIC CHEMICAL
CARCINOGENS FOUND IN DRINKING WATER
(from reference 1)
Highest Observed
Concentrations In
Finished Water
Compound pg/i
Human Carcinogen
Vinyl Chloride* 10
Suspected Human Carcinogens
Benzene 10
Benzo (a) pyrene*
Animal Carcinogens
Dieldrin 8
Heptachlor D
Chlordane 0.1
DDT/DDE D
Lindate (y—BHC) 0.01
c -BHC D
B-BHC D
PCB (Arocior 1260) 3
Chloroform 336
Carbontetrachioride 5
Trichioroethylene 0.5
Diphenyihydrazine 1
Aldrin D
Suspected Animal Carcinogens
0.42
Bix (2—chioroethyl) ether
0.08
Endrin
Heptachior epoxide D
* Also an animal carcinogen
D = Detected but not quantified
98
-------
Infectious disease agents have traditionally been monitored in water
using a surrogate parameter, the coliform—fecal coliform test. The presence
of these bacteria in water is indicative of the presence of fecal material
and thus the potential presence of pathogenic enteric organism. Through
the years this test has been effectively used in the quality control of
finished drinking water. More recently some shadow of doubt has been cast
upon the efficiency of the coliform test. As there is evidence that certain
of the enteric viruses are more resistant to chlorination than are the
coliform bacteria. Thus the absence of the latter organisms in finished
drinking water may not guarantee the absence of enteric. viruses. However,
epidetniologically there is very little evidence that coliform standards
for drinking water have been ineffective in protecting the public from
infectious disease including that of viral origin.
To date no simple method has been devised to routinely test for the
presence of animal viruses in drinking water.
The determination of the dose of inorganic chemical agents for the
most part is relatively straight forward analytical water chemistry. Many
of these agents have been recognized for years and suitable detection methods
developed. The identification and quantification of small concentrations of
organic compounds in water can be relatively straight forward for certain well
established compounds such as many of the chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides.
However, the identification and quantification of the myriad organic compounds
that might be present can be extremely complicated, time consuming and in
many cases, with the present state of the art, impossible. This is a situation
wherein a surrogate parameter would prove extremely useful. Unfortunately
no such parameter exists at present.
Measuring the presence of various organic compounds in water may be
very difficult, but an even more difficult task, is to establish whether or
not such compounds are also toxic to humans. At present most estimates of
the disease potential of these materials are based on long term laboratory
studies with animals and extrapolating the results to men, or are based upon
epidemiological evidence, usually gained in the occupational setting, that an
assocjation exists between exposure to a given chemical and human disease.
The carcinogenic properties of organic compounds are of great concern but
are difficult to determine.
A promising test for measuring the mutagenic potential of chemicals
(or unknown mixtures such as wastewater using special bacterial strains)
has been developed by Mies and his co—workers. 1 This test system appears
to be relatively simple, quite sensitive to most known carcinogens and
results are obtained fairly rapidly. This type of test will prove valuable
in screening for the presence of material with mutagenic/carcinogenic
properties. However, there will still be the problem of associating such
information with the incidence of human disease in the exposed community,
i.e., although these substances cause increased mutations in microorganisms
will they be mutagenic in man?
Host Contact
The manner in which the exposed population comes into contact with a
disease agent is a most important factor in evaluating the health risk
from such exposure. In the case of drinking water the exposure v a ingestion
99
-------
is mot intimate and implies a greater risk to the population than would a
less personal exposure such as might o&ur while boating or fishing. Thus,
in considering the public health implications of the siting of drinking
water intake below wastewater discharges, it must be assumed that the host
contact with any agent that might be present is a critical one.
Dose Response
The last criterion to he examined is dose response, i.e. what
concentration of agent is required to bring about illness in the exposed
population. This is one of the most important aspects in considering the
impact of wastewater discharge upstream from community drinking water intakes.
What concentrations of agents can be present and not unduly affect the
consumer? How will the treatment of wastewater, the hydraulic characteristics
of the intervening water course, and the treatment of the drinking water
prior to distribution affect the concentration of disease agents present in
the finished drinking water?
The most fundamental concept in toxicology is the dose response relation-
ship. The following figure. is a generalized dose response curve.
100
1 1
C)
U
C)
50
0
C)
a.
This curve assumes a normal distribution in the frequency of response and
indicates that there is some level of dose at which there is no measureable
response, or a threshold concentration.
Ideally the concentration of disease agents present in drinking water
delivered to the consumer should be below the threshold dose. Unfortunately,
th.e dose response characteristics of the disease agents that might be
present in water are frequently now known, and, in the case of carcinogenic
agents, there is disagreement as to whether a threshold concentration exists.
Because of this lack of understanding, public health authorities have tradi-
tionally relied upon elimination of the agent by use of that treatment method
that appears to give the greatest reduction in agent concentration or by
reducing contact of susceptibles with the suspect material by prohibiting
its use. With increasing pressure for more contact with these materials,
0
DOSE
100
-------
and recognition that total elimination of various disease agents is impossible
or impractical, the assessment of the risk of disease in exposure to various
concentrations of these agents is essential.
Some information exists concerning the dose response relationships
between humans and certain bacterial and parasitical diseases. There is
a notable deficiency in dose response data involving enteric viruses. In
the case of bacteria and certain parasites, it is evident that there is a
threshold dose below which few cases of clinical disease occur. In order
to illicit a response in 25 to 75 percent of humans challenged, it required
1 x 102 to 1 x i0 3 shigella; 1 x 106 to 1 x 10 salmonella; 1 x 10’ to 1 x iü
typhoid bacilli; 1 x 106 to 1 x 10 Eseherichia coil ; and, 1 x 10 to 1 x icP
cholera vibrios, per dose. 135
The two enteric pathogens Entainoeba histolyti.ca (amoebic dysentary) and
Giardia evidence similar dose response relationships. It should be pointed
out that, in a number of instances, infections without clinical diseases were
recorded at lower exposure doses. As stated previously, data for enteric
virus dose response is not well established. There are proponents that feel
that one unit of virus is an infective dose and others who feel that a
threshold dose exist.
The dose of infectious agents present in water is routinely measured
using the coliform and fecal coliform index and there is little epidemiological
evidence to suggest that the procedures is ineffective, i.e., when coliforin
levels that meet presently established drinking water standards are met,
enteric infectious disease transmission is low. Thus, any combination of
detection and treatment which meets these coliform levels will protect the
population from disease, including enteric viruses, to a degree accepted by
present day health jurisdictions..
The public health implications of trace amounts of many of the organic
compounds found in water is uncertain at the present time. The uncertainty
is the result of several factors: (1) the chronic nature of disease suspected
to be associated with these chemicals (such as cancer), (2) health risk data
is usually generated using animals receiving relatively high doses of suspect
compounds, (3) health risk data must be extrapolated to estimate dose response
to much lower concentrations, and (4) the extrapolated health rIsk data must
be further extrapolated from animal to man.
The National Academy of Sciences report 1 deals in part with the question
of toxic organic chemicals in water and their dose response. The list of
pesticides and other toxic chemicals in water presented in Table 30 is from
the NAS report. The table shows estimates of the acceptable daily intake
(ADI) of these compounds based upon available human and animal data. It
should be noted that 27 of the 39 AfT values listed were treated with an
uncertainty factor of 1000 and only four with a factor of 10 which illustrates
the doubt involved in making human dose response predictions. However, this
data can be used to give a first estimate for allowable concentrations in
drinking water. This list of compounds in Table 30 is quite incomplete as
there are many more organic chemicals for which either there is no information
available or the information is so limited that no estimates of dose response
can be made.
The evaluation of the impact upon the morbidity of cancer in populations
exposed to low concentrations of known or suspected carcinogens present in
drinking water is subject to th.e same dIfficulties and uncertainties noted
above for toxic organic chemicals. Added to the problem is the question as
101
-------
TABLE 30
ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS IN DRINKING WATER CONCENTRATIONS
TOXICITY, ADI AND SUGGESTED NO ADVERSE EFFECT LEVELS
(from reference 1)
Maximum Maximum Dose
Observed Producing No Suggested No Adverse Effect
Concentrations Observed Ai3I(2 ) Level From Water, Micro—
In Water Adverse Effect (milligram gram per Liter Assump-
(micorgram (milligram per Uncertainty per kilogram ti ( )
Compound per liter) kilogram per day) Factor( 1 ) p day) 1 2
2, 4—0 0.04 12.5 1,000 0.0125 87.5 4.4
2, 4, 5—T 10.0 100 0.1 700 35
TCDD j 5 100 7 x 1Q ’ 3.5 x 1O
2, 4, 5—TP (i ’) 0.75 1,000 0.00075 5.25 0.26
MCPA 1,25 1,000 0.00125 8.75 0.44
Amiben 250 1,000 0.25 1,750 87.5
Dicamba 1.25 1,000 0.001125 8.75 0.44
Alachior 2.9 100 1,000 0.1 700 35
Butachior 0.06 10 1,000 0.01 70 3.5
Propachior 100 1,000 0.1 700 35
Propanil 20 1,000 0.02 140
Ald icarb 0.1 100 0.001 7 0.35
Stomach 12.5 1,000 0.0125 87.5 4.4
Paraqust 8.5 1,000 0.0085 59.5 2.98
Trifluralin (also for
Nitralin and Benefin) 10 100 0.1 700 35
Methoxychior 10 100 0.1 700 35
Toxaphene 1.25 1,000 0.00125 8.75 0.44
Azinphoaaethyl 0.125 10 0.0125 87.5 4.4
Diazinon 0.02 10 0.002 14 0.7
Phorate (also for Disulfoton) 0.01 100 0.0001 0.7 0.035
Carbaryl 8.2 100 0.082 574 28.7
Ziram (and ferbam) 12.5 1,000 0.0125 87.5 — —
Captan 50 1,000 0.05 350 17.5
Folpet 160 1,000 0.16 1,120 56
6 1 1,000 0.001 7 0.35
POE 1 13.4 1,000 0.0134 93.8 4.7
Parathion (and methyl
parathion) 0.43 10 0.0043 30 1.5
Malathion 0.2 10 0.02 140 7
l4aneb (and zineb) 5 1,000 0.005 35 1.75
Thiram 5 1,000 0.005 35 1.75
Atrazine 5.0 21.5 1,000 0.215 150 7.5
prop azine ( ) 46.4 1,000 0.464 325 16
Simazine (1) 215 1,000 0.215 1,505 75.25
Di—n—butyl phthalate . . 5 110 1,000 0.11 770 38.5
Di (2—ehtyl hexyl)
pbthalate 30 60 100 0.6 4,200 210
Hexachiorophene . . . . 0.01 1 1,000 0.001 7 0.35
Methyl methacrylate . . . 1 100 1,000 0.1 700 35
Pentachiorophenal . . . . 1.4 3 1,000 0.003 21 1.05
Styrene 1 133 1,000 0.133 931 46.5
(1) Uncertainty Factor — the factor of 10 was used where good chronic human exposure data was available and supported
by chronic oral toxicity data in other species, the factor of 100 was used where good chronic oral toxicity data were
available in soma animal species, and the factor of 1,000 was used with limited chronic toxicity data or when the only
data available were from inhalation studies.
(2 Acceptable Daily Intake (ANT) — maximum dose producing no observed advserae effect divided by the uncertainty factor.
(3) Msus tions: Average weight of human adult 70 kg; Average daily intake of water for man 2 liters;
1.20 pct of total ANT assigned to water, 80 pct from other sources; 2.1 pct of total AOl assigned to water,
99 pct from other sources.
(‘) Detected but not quantified.
(S ) Detected
102
-------
to whether or not the concept of threshold dose is valid. This question
arises because of: (1) the self replicating nature of the cancer cell,
(2) the probability that the tumor causing event is irreversible, and
(3) the possible occurance of cancer long after the disappearance of the
carcinogen from the body. 136
In a recent article Stokinger 137 stated the belief that threshold
concentrations do exist for carcinogenic compounds and that drinking water
standards should be developed from that point of view. Most of the supporting
data is taken from industrial exposures and animal experimentation. Stokinger
concludes that toxic response is frequently much different at low concentration
of toxic chemicals and therefore extrapolation from “high” dose experiments
to estimate “low” dose response is invalid.
Others such as Mantel and Bryan 138 believe that a no response dose of
carcinogen may not exist; rather, there is some risk of contracting disease
regardless of dose and that risk increases with increased exposure, i.e., is
dose related. Such risks are determined using a variety of statistical
methods. Mantel and Bryan suggest extrapolation from high dose response
data to an appropriate risk level using a probit slope of 1 to 1.5 probit
per 10 fold increase in dose. This assumes that response frequency is
normally distributed. Probits are calculated as standard deviations about
the mean of normal distribution giving zero deviation (the 50 percent
response point) a value of 5. This method is commonly used and is considered
to give conservative values because it does not include: (1) the probabilities
that the individual involved will be overshadowed by some competing health
risk, (2) the probability that an individual will receive a given exposure,
and (3) the age of the individual when the cancer will occur.
The approach taken by the National Academy of Sciences’ in the assessment
of human health risks, from exposure to environmental chemicals is explained
in the following four principles:
Principle 1 — Effects in animals, properly qualified, are applicable
to man . This premise underlies all of experimental biology and
medicine. But, because it is continually questioned with regard
to human cancer, it is desirable to point out that cancer in men
and animals is strikingly similar. Virtually every form of human
cancer has an experimental counterpart; and every form of multicel—
lular organism is subject to cancer, including insects, fish, and
plants. Although there are differences in susceptibility between
different animal species, and between individuals’ of the same strain,
carcinogenic chemicals will affect most test species; also large
bodies of experimental data indicate that many chemicals that are
carcinogenic to animals are likel j to be carcinogenic to man, and
vice versa...
Principle 2 — Methods do not now exist to establish a threshold for
long term effects of toxic agents . With respect to carcinogenesis,
it seems plausible at first thougI t, and it has often been argued,
that a threshold must exist, below which even the most toxic substance
would be harmless. Unfortunately, a threshold cannot be-established
experimentally that can be applied to a total population. A time—
honored practice of classical toxicology is’ to establish maximal
tolerated (no-effect) doses in humans on the basis of finding a
103
-------
no—observed—adverse-effect dose in chronic experiments i.n animals
and to divide this dose by a “safety factor” of say, 100, to designate
a “safe” dose in humans. There is no scientific basis for such
estimations of safe doses in connection wi th carcinogenic effects.
Experimental biossays in which even relatively large numbers of animals
are used are likely to detect only strong carcinogens. Even when
negative results are obtained in such biossays, it is not certain
that the agent tested is unequivocally safe for man. Therefore,
we must accept and use possibly fallible measures of estimating
hazard to man....
Principle 3 — The exposure of experimental animals to toxic agents
in high doses is a necessary and valid method of discovering possible
carcinogenic hazard in man . The most commonly expressed objection
to regulatory decisiQns based on carcinogenesis observed in animal
experiments is that the high dosages to which animals are exposed
have no relevance in assessment of human risks. It is therefore
important to clarify this crucial issue.
Practical considerations i.n the design of experimental model systems
require that the number of animals used in experiments on long—term
exposure to toxic materials will always be small compared with the
size of the human population similarly at risk. To obtain statistically
valid results from such small groups of animals requires the use of
relatively large doses so that the effect will occur frequently enough
to be detected. For example, an incidence as low as 0.01 percent
would represent 20,000 people in a population of 200 million and
would be considered unacceptably high, even if benefits were sizable.
To detect such a low incidence in experimental animals directly would
require hundreds of thousands of animals. For this reason, we have
no choice but to give large doses to relatively small experimental
groups and then to use biologically “reasonable” models in extrapolating
the results to estimate risk at low doses. Several methods-for making
such calculations have been considered and used, but we think that
the best method available to use today is to assume that there is
no threshold and that a direct proportionality exists between the
size of the dose and the incidence of tumors. However, it is. important
to recognize that such a calculation may give either too small or
too large an estimate of risk. The actual risk to humans might be
even greater over a human lifetime, because it is about 35 times
that of a mouse; and there is evidence that the risk of cancer increases
rapidly with the length of exposure. Moreover, experimental assays are
conducted under controlled dietary and environmental conditions with
genetically homogeneous animals, whereas humans live under diverse
conditions, are genetically heterogeneous , and are likely to include
subpopulations of unusual susceptibility.
Principle 4 — Material should be assessed in terms of human risk,
rather than as “safe” or “unsafe” . The limitations- of the current
experimental techniques do not allow us to establish safe doses,
but with the help of statistical methods we may be able to estimate
104
-------
an upper limit of the risk to human populations. To calculate such
a risk, we need data to estimate population exposure; a valid, accurate,
precise, and reproducible assay procedures in animals; and appropriate
statistical methods....
Most of the toxicological information on chemicals has been accumulated
from studies conducted on animals in high dose rate test conditions.
Some epidemiological information from human exposure has also been
gathered, usually from occupational exposures, but these cannot be
relied upon as the primary means of assessing human risks. Some
recent preliminary epidemiological studies imply a possible relationship
between some drinking water variables and the risk of certain types
of cancer in the population. The tragedy of identifying actual cases
of cancer (and deaths) attributable to specific chemical exposure
demonstrates that sufficient testing i.n animals had not been conducted
in advance to determine risks prior to human exposure.
The risk of developing cancer during a lifetime of exposure (70 years)
to known or suspected carcinogens listed in Table 29 that might be found in
water was reported by the National Academy of Sciences. 1 The following
values were determined using a mathematical risk model which estimates that
increment of risk of disease due to consumption of suspect compounds in
water.
Upper 957. Confidence Estimate
Compound of Lifetime Cancer Risk per gIl
Vinyl Chloride 5.1 x i0
Dieldrin 2.6 x 10
Heptachlor 4.2 x i0
DDT/DDE 1.2 x i0 5
Lindane 9.3 x 106
Chloroform 3.7 x
Trichioroethylene 1.3 x i0 7
Thus, based upon these calculations, there would be one excess death
from cancer per 37 million people who drink water containing 1 mg/i of
chloroform. If these are accurate estimates, then as the level of compound
increased to 100 mg/i it could mean an increase of about 600 excess deaths
among the 220 million people in the United States due to chloroform in
drinking water.
Tardiff estimated the cancer risk from the daily consumption of 0.01
tug of chloroform per pound of body weight using a variety of risk models
including probit log, linear and two step methods. 139 A dose of 100 tug
chloroform per liter per day to a 22 pound infant would be equivalent to
0.01 mg/kg which, from human data, should not cause any liver damage.
Using such models it was calculated that the incidence of cancer could
be increased by 1.6 per million population per year, or, of the approxi—
mately 300,000 cancer deaths annually, in the United States, 252 might
be attributable to chloroform in tap water. Tardiff concludes that the
risk lies somewhere between zero and 252 at a chloroform concentration
of 100 mg/I.
105
-------
SECTION 7
ALTERNATIVES IN WATER INTAKE LOCATIONS
The location of a water intake downstream of a wastewater discharge is
an integral part of the overall wastewater discharge—water treatment system
and various combinations of wastewater treatment, storage, effluent discharge,
stream flow, water intake and water treatment may be used. The purpose of
this section is to consider some of these combinations by evaluating the
performance of several alternatives, or cases, in terms of expected water
quality, costs and reliability.
A schematic diagram of the overall wastewater discharge—water intake
system is shown in Figure 6. This overall system includes the following:
1. River flow above the wastewater discharge (point 0).
2. Wastewater discharge (point E). Wastewater is treated with
a minimum of secondary treatment before discharge. Additional
treatment and storage may also be provided before discharge.
Separation time between wastewater discharge and water intake
may be achieved in a storage basin or in the stream Itself.
3. Flow of blended stream water—wastewater to the water intake
(point I).
4. Water is withdrawn from the stream and treated with a minimum
of conventionsi treatment and discharged to the distribution
system (point W).
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Flow diagrams for alternative water and wastewater treatment systems
shown in Figure 7 include the following:
Secondary Treatment (ST ) — Aerated grit removal, primary sedimentation,
mechanical aeration, secondary sedimentation, chlorination, gravity
thickening of primary sludge, air flotation thickening of waste
activated sludge, anaerobic digestion, sludge drying beds and land
disposal.
Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT ) Secondary treatment followed by
lime clarification and two—stage recarbonation, mixed-media filtration,
upflow granular carbon adsorption with on—site carbon regeneration,
chlorination, gravity thickening of lime sludge, centrifugation,
lime recalcination and land disposal of primary, secondary and
waste lime sludges.
106
-------
RAW WASTEWATER o
SECONDARY TREATMENT
L SECONDARY TREATMENT I STREAM
& FILTRATION
I SECONDARY TREATMENT, CHEMICAL 1
[ LARIFICATION a FILTRATION
AWT I
_______________ RE ATE D
WA STE WATER
STORAGE E T
DISCHARGE
STREAM
WATER
DISTRIBUTION
WATER SYSTEM
INTAKE
CONVENTIONAL ____
[ _WATER TREATMENT
UPGRADED
NOTE; SEE FIGURE 7 FOR FLOW WATER TREATMENT
UPGRADED TREATME
a REVERSE OSMOSIS
DIAGRAM OF EACH TREATMENT ___________________
SYSTEM.
Figure 6. SYSTEM SCHEMATIC WASTEWATER DISCHARGE — WATER INTAKE
107
-------
CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT
UPGRADED WATER TREATMENT
Figure 7.
I CNENIC*L MINED CARSON
INAT IO$ I
AOSORPTI
_____________ ___________j WAlER
I PO1ANL.t
CLARIFICATION FOIl CARSON
I FILTER
ACKSADIL SAcAWI.SN
SCREENINGS 3
TO LAND
CARSON
iREGENERATI ! I
I
;EN
LAND
INSPOSAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
FILTER
bACKWASH
WATER
RAW
RAW
SCREENINGS
AND GRIT
TO LAND
DISPOSAL
I TO LAND
$ DISPOSAL
DISPOSAL
WAS 1€ WA T E N
SOLIDS
108
-------
Conventional Water Treatment (CT ) — Alum clarification, rapid sand filtra-
tion, chlorination, gravity thickening, centrifugation and land disposal
of alum sludge.
Upgraded Water Treatment (UT ) — Alum clarification, mixed—media filtration,
granular carbon adsorption with on—site carbon regeneration, chlorination,
gravity thickening of alum sludge, centrifugation and land disposal.
The capabilities of these alternative systems are discussed in Sections 5
and 6. The typical concentrations of organics in treated effluent shown in
Table 24 imply the following percentage removals:
Concentration, ing/l Percentage Removal
BOD COD 1 OC BUD COD TOC
Stream Flow 5 30 10
Effluents
Secondary 30 100 40 —— —— ——
Advanced Wastewater Treatment 2 20 8 93* 80 80
Conventional Water Treatment <1 10 5 >80** 67 50
Upgraded Water Treatment ND 2 1 100** 93 90
Upgraded Water Treatment & ND <1 <1 100** >97 >90
Reverse Osmosis
ND = None Detected
*Removal from secondary effluent
**Removal from stream flow
The above results for water treatment assume a quality at the intake within
20 percent of that shown for stream flow. It would not be possible to achieve
a BOD of less than 1 mg/i by conventional water treatment if the stream water
contained high levels of dissolved BOD.
The minimum system that should be considered is secondary wastewater
treatment, stream flow of 24 hours and conventional water treatment . This
minimum system is designated the Base Case in Figure 8 along with eight other
cases. The cases involve various combinations of treatment and storage as
follows:
Storage/Stream
Wastewater Flow
Case Treatment ( days) Water Treatment
Base Secondary 1 Conventional
1 Secondary 1 Upgraded
2 Secondary 1 Upgraded and Reverse Osmosis
3 Secondary >1 Conventional
4 AWT 1 Conventional
5 AWT 1 Upgraded
6 AWT >1 Conventional
7 AWT >1 Upgraded
8 AWT >1 Upgraded and Reverse Osmosis
109
-------
CASE I
CASE 2
CASE 3
CASE 4
CASE 5
CASE 6
CASE 7
CASE 8
ST — SECONDARY WASTEWATER TREATMENT
AWT — ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
CT —CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT
UT —UPGRADED WATER TREATMENT
RO —REVERSE OSMOSIS
SEE FIGURE 7 FOR FLOW DIAGRAM OF EACH SYSTEM
Figure 8. TREATMENT SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
BASE CASE
SI
CT
RIVER
RIVER
ST UT+RO
RIVER
ST CT
c ,S TORAGE
RIVER
Awl CT
RIVER
W
AWT UT
RIVER
p
AWT CT
y— STORAGE
RIVER
AWl UT
— STORAGE
RIVER%
AWT UT+RO
y— STORAGE
RIVER
110
-------
The cases were selected because they (1) incorporate technically feasible
treatment processes that could be used in full scale systems, and (2) illustrate
a range of product water quality and costs.
Detailed costs for the unit treatment processes are contained in Appendix B.
COST ESTIMATES
The construction costs are based on January 1977 information and were
developed from equipment cost data supplied by manufacturers, cost data from
actual plant construction, unit takeoffs from actual and conceptual designs,
and published data. The costs should be particularly useful for estimating
the relative economics of alternative treatment systems and in the preliminary
evaluation of general cost level to he expected for a proposed project.
Construction costs were developed by determining and then aggregating
the cost of the following eight principal components: (1) excavation and
sitework, (2) manufactured equipment, (3) concrete, (4) steel, (5) labor,
(6) pipe and valves, (7) electrical and instrumentation, and (8) buildings.
These eight categories, were utilized to facilitate accurate cost updating.
The separation of cost components will also be helpful when costs are being
adjusted for site specific, geographic and other special conditions. The
eight categories Include the following general items:
Excavation and Sitework —. Work related only to the applicable process
and does not include any general sitework such as sidewalks, roads,
driveways, or landscaping.
Manufactured Equipment — Estimated purchase cost of pumps, drives,
process equipment, specific process controls and other items which
are factory made and sold with equipment.
Concrete — Delivered cost of ready mix concrete and concrete forming
materials..
Steel — Reinforcing steel for concrete and miscellaneous sleel not
Included within the Manufactured Equipment category.
Labor — Labor associated with installing manufactured equipment,
piping and valves, constructing concrete forms and placing concrete
and reinforced steel.
Pipe and Valves . — Cast iron pipe, steel pipe, valves, fittings and
associated support devices are combined into a single category.
Electrical and Instrumentation — Process electrical equipment, wiring
and general instrumentation associated with the process equipment.
Buildings — In lieu of segregating building costs into several components
this category represents all material.and labor costs associated with
the building, including heating, ventilating, air conditioning, lighting,
normal convenience outlets, and slab and foundation.
111
-------
The subtotal of the costs of these eight categories includes the cost of
material and equipment purchase and installation, and subcontractor’s overhead
and profit. To this subtotal, a 15 percent allowance has been added to cover
miscellaneous items not included in the cost takeoff as well as contingency
items. Experience at many treatment facilities has indicated that this 15
percent allowance is reasonable.
Construction costs are not the final capital costs, because they do not
include costs for engineering, legal, fiscal, and administrative and interest
during construction. These items are added to construction cost to obtain
capital cost as shown in Appendix B.
Operation and maintenance data were developed for: (1) energy requirements,
(2) maintenance material requirements, (3) labor requirements, and (4) total
operation and maintenance cost. The requirements were determined from operating
data at existing plants, at least to the extent possible. Where such information
was not available, assumptions were made based upon the author’s and equipment
manufacturer’s. experience.
Energy requirements were-developed for both process energy and building
related energy, and are presented in terms of kwh and/or Btu per year. This
approach was used to allow ready adjustment for geographical influence upon
energy cost.
Maintenance material costs include the cost of periodic replacement of
component parts necessary to keep the process operable and functioning.
Examples of maintenance material items included are valves, motors, instrumen-
tation, and other process items of similar nature. The maintenance material
requirements do not include the cost of chemicals required for process operation.
The labor requirement includes both operation and maintenance labor, and
is presented in terms of hours per year.
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
A cost comparison is included for each case with two different percentages
of wastewater reuse and three different wastewater plant—water plant size
combinations:
• Wastewater reuse percentages of 5 and 20 percent, that is, wastewater
discharge constitutes. 5 and 20 percent, respectively, of the total
wastewater—stream flow mixture. These percentages were arbitrarily
selected to represent a range of conditions that may encompass actual
conditions in many locations.
• The plant capacities used for the comparison are:
Treatment Plant Capacity, mgd
Wastewater Water
50 5
5 50
25 25
These capacities were selected to illustrate a range from large
wastewater discharge above a small intake to small discharge above
a larger intake.
112
-------
In determining water quality, it was assumed that dilution is the only
effect on organics removal caused by the use of differing percentages of waste—
water reuse. In addition, the estimated organic removals do not consider any
beneficial effect from storage time at the wastewater treatment plant.
Capital, operation and maintenance, and total annual costs for each water
and wastewater treatment system are summarized in Table 31. These costs are
taken from the detailed breakdown in Appendix B. Total annual costs for
finished water (in dollars per year and dollars per thousand gallons of water
produced) are shown in Table 32 for the Base Case and each of the eight cases
for three combinations of wastewater and water treatment plant capacities.
Also shown in Table 32 is the estimated finished water quality for each case
with blends of 5 and 20 percent wastewater at the water intake.
Similar costs were prepared for treatment systems with increased reliability
and are summarized in Tables 33 and 34. These cost estimates are for treatment
plants which are virtually 100 percent reliable. Increased reliability for
treatment systems in these estimates is achieved by including standby units
for most treatment processes, including grit chambers, clarifiers, aeration
basins and equipment, filters, chemical feed systems, chemical clarification
units, recarbonation systems and granular carbon contactors. Also included
are costs for standby power at both water and wastewater treatment plants.
Covered concrete storage basins with one day holding capacities are included
at water treatment plants. A more detailed summary of the treatment processes
for which standby units are included is given with the design criteria and
cost data in Appendix B. Water quality from the increased reliability system
is assumed to be the same as from conventional systems.
Increased reliability wastewater treatment system capital costs range
from 16 to 37 percent higher and increased reliability water treatment system
capital costs range from 11 to 59 percent higher.
CAPITAL COST TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Standard Standard
Capacity Design Reliable Difference Design Reliable Difference
( mgd) ( $4,000) ( $1,000) ( percent) ( .7,000/yr) ( $1,000) ( percent )
WWTP —
Secondary
1 2,050 2,812 37 313 394 26
10 10,934 13,064 19 1,556 1,823 17
50 35,443 40,995 16 5,528 6,218 12
WTP —
Conventional
1 1,451 2,310 59 213 288 35
10 5,895 7,344 25 774 911 18
50 18,042 19,949 11 2,605 2,815 8
Case 1 (secondary wastewater treatment and upgraded water treatment) is
the lowest cost case that produces finished water with TOC concentration
below 2 mg/l ($O.56/1,000 gallons for standard design systems and $0.71/1,000
gallons for increased reliability systems). A comparison between Case 1 and
113
-------
TABLE 31
COST SUMMARY - WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(See Text and Figure 7 for Description of Systems and Appendix B for Cost Details)
PLANT CAPACITY, mgd
TREATMENT SYSTEM 1 5 10 25 50
Secondary (Activated Sludge )
Capital, $1,000 2,050 6,239 10,934 21,443 35,443
O & M, $1,000/year 145 370 660 1,524 2,617
Total Annual Cost, $1,000/year* 313 883 1,556 3,285 5,528
AWT
Capital, $1,000 4,782 14,005 23,309 45,948 76,302
0 & N, $1,000/year 333 813 1,358 2,982 5,317
Total Annual Cost, $1,000/year* 723 1.963 3,273 6,756 11,583
Conventional Water Treatment
Capital, $1,000 1,451 3,766 5,895 11,033 18,042
O & N. $1,000/year 93 183 290 609 1,122
Total Annual Cost, $1,000/year* 213 494 774 1,515 2,605
Upgraded Water Treatment
Capital, $1,000 2,412 4,347 6,745 13,039 20,971
0 & M, $1,000/year 131 237 369 752 1,362
Total Annual Cost, $1,000/year* 329 596 923 1,823 3,084
Upgraded Water Treatment and Reverse Osmosis
Capital, $1,000 3,715 9,379 16,277 34,568 60,945
0 & H, $1,000/year 323 1,025 1,889 4,388 8,446
Total Annual Cost, $1,000/year* 629 1,797 3.226 7,228 13,449
Earthen Wastewater Storage Reservoir
Capital, $1,000, for:
1 day storage 42 113 197 418 697
4 day storage 96 349 596 1,075 2,230
10 day storage 197 697 1,075 —— ——
30 day storage 481 1,478 —— —— ——
Earthen Wastewater Storage Reservoir
C n’ t)
O & H, $1000/year 0 0 0 0 0
Total Annual Cost, $1,000/year*
1 day storage 4 11 19 39 66
4 day storage 9 33 56 101 210
10 day storage 19 66 101 —— ——
30 day storage 45 140 —— —— — —
*Construct ion costs amortized for 20 years at 7 percent interest.
114
-------
TABLE 32
TOTAL COST AND WATER TREATMENT PRODUCT WATER QUALITY
WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Case
Base Case (ST + CT)
Case 1 (ST ÷ UT)
Case 2 (ST+UT+RO)
Case 3 (ST, Storage*,
+ CT)
Case 4 (AWT + CT)
Case 5 (AWT + UT)
Case 6 (AWT, Storage*,
+CT)
Water Treatment Plant Product Water Quality
(Concentration, mg/i)
Wa8tewater Reuse** For 5% Wastewater
_____ COD TOC BOD COD _____
14 8 1.2 11
3.1 1.6 ND 2.3
1.3 <1.6 ND 1.0
14 8 1.2 11
Note: WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant, WTP = Water Treatment Plant, ND None Detected, ST Secondary Wastewater Treatment,
AWT Advanced Wastewater Treatment, CT Conventional Water Treatment, UT Upgraded Water Treatment, RO Reverse Osmosis.
*Costs include 1 day storage at the wastewater treatment plant.
*percent wastewater In the total stream flow.
Total Costs
$/yr ($/1,000 gal water produced)
50 mgd WWTP & 5 mgd WWTP & 25 mgd WWTP &
5 mgd WTP 50 mgd WTP 25 mgd WTP
6,022,000 (3.30) 3,488,000 (0.191) 4,800,000 (0.526)
6,124,000 (3.36) 3,967,000 (0.217) 5,108,000 (0.560)
7,325,000 (4.01) 14,332,000 (0.785) 10,513,000 (1.15)
6,088,000 (3.34) 3,499,000 (0.192) 4,839,000 (0.530)
12,077,000
12, 179,000
12, 143,000
For 20%
NOD
2
ND
ND
2
(6.62)
(6.67)
(6.65)
4,568,000
5,047,000
4,579,000
(0.250)
(0.27 7)
(0.25 1)
Case 7 (AWl, Storage*, 12,245,000 (6.71)
i-UT)
Case 8 (AWT, Storage*, 13,446,000 (7.37)
4- UT & RO)
8,271,000
8,579,000
8,310,000
(0.906)
(0.940)
(0.911)
0.9
ND
0.9
Reuse**
TOC
5.8
1.2
<1.2
5.8
9.7 5.0
2.1 1.0
9.7 5.0
9.2
2.0
9.2
5,058,000 (0.277) 8,618,000 (0.944)
15,423,000 (0.845) 14,023,000 (1.54)
4.8 1.0
1.0 ND
4.8 1.0
MD 2.0 1.0 ND 2.1 1.0
MD 0.8 <1.0 ND 0.9 <1.0
-------
TABLE 33
COST SUMMARY - FOR INCREASED RELIABILITY WATER
AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
(See Text and Figure 7 for Description of Systems and Appendix B for Cost Details)
PLANT CAPACITY, MCD
INCREASED RELIABILITY TREATMENT SYSTEM 1 5 10 25 50
Secondary (Activated Sludge
Capital, $1,000 2,812 8,232 13,064 24,841 40,995
O & N, $1,000/year 164 442 752 1,680 2,853
Total Annual Cost, $1,000/year * 394 1,118 1,823 3,719 6,218
AWT
Capital, $1,000 6,747 18,115 28,786 54,861 90,277
O & M, $1,000/year 354 912 1,497 3,247 5,739
Total Annual Cost, $1,000/year * 906 2,398 3,860 7,751 13,150
Conventional Water Treatment
Capital, $1,000 2,310 4,795 7,344 12,805 19,949
O & M, $1,000/year 97 191 306 646 1,176
Total Annual Cost, $1,000/year * 288 586 911 1,698 2,815
0•’
Upgraded Water Treatment
Capital, $1,000 3,191 5,603 8,458 15,336 23,217
0 & M, $1,000/year 134 251 393 804 1,436
Total Annual Cost, $1,000/year * 398 712 1,087 2,064 3,344
Upgraded Water Treatment & Reverse Osmosis
Capital, $1,000 4,972 11,614 19,419 37,505 62,957
O & M, $1,000/year 399 1,183 2,128 4,750 8,809
Total Annual Cost, $1,000/year * 809 2,138 3,723 7,830 13,976
Concrete Water Storage Reservoir
1 day capacity
Capital, $1,000 589 1,759 3,160 6,976 12,247
0 & N, $1,000/year 0 0 0 0 0
Total Annual Cost, $1,000/year * 56 166 298 658 1,156
Concrete Water Storage Reservoir
4 day capacity
Capital, $1,000 1,471 5,765 10,283 20,143 36,545
0 & N, $1,000/year 0 0 0 0 0
Total Annual Cost, $1,000/year * 139 544 971 1,901 3,450
*Construction costs amortized over 20 years at 7 percent interest.
-------
TABLE 34
TOTAL COST AND WATER TREATMENT PRODUCT WATER QUALITY
INCREASED RELIABILITY WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Case
Base Case (ST + CT)
Case 1 (ST + UT)
Case 2 (ST+TJT+RO)
Case 3 (ST, Storage*,
+ CT)
$/yr
50 mgd WWTP &
5 mgd WTP
Total Costs
( $/1 OOO gal water produced )
5 mgd WWTP &
50 mgd WTP
5,089,000 (0.279)
5,618,000 (0.308)
16,250,000 (0.890)
5,100,000 (0.279)
Note: WWTP — Wastewater Treatment Plant, WTP — Water Treatment Plant, ND — None Detected, ST’ — Secondary Wastewater Treatment,
AWT — Advanced Wastewater Treatment, CT — Conventional Water Treatment, UT — Upgraded Water Treatment, RO — Reverse Osmosis.
Costs for all cases include 1 day storage at the water treatment plant.
*Costs include 1 day storage at the wastewater treatment piatit.
6,970,000
7,096,000
8,522,000
7,036,000
13,902,000
14,028,000
13,968,000
(3.82)
(3.89)
(4.67)
(3.86)
(7.62)
(7.69)
(7.65)
Case 4 (AWT + CT)
Case 5 (AwT + UT)
Case 6 (AWT, Storage*,
+ CT)
25 mgd WWTP &
25 mgd WTP
6,075,000 (0.666)
6,441,000 (0.706)
12,207,000 (1.34)
6,114,000 (0.670)
Water Treatment Plant Product Water Quality
(Concentration, mg/i)
For 20% Wastewater Reuse** For 5% Wastewater Reus#*
BOD COD TOC BOD COD TX
2 14 8 1.2 11 5.8
ND 3.1 1.6 ND 2.3 1.2
ND 1.3 <1.6 ND 1.0 <1.2
2 14 8 1.2 11 5.8
6,369,000
6,898,000
6,380,000
(0. 349)
(0. 378)
(0.350)
Case 7 (AWT, Storage*, 14,094,000 (7.72)
1- UT)
Case 8 (AWT, Storage*, 15,520,000 (8.50)
+ UT & RO)
10,107,000
10,473,000
10,146,000
(1.11)
(1.15)
(1.11)
0.9
ND
0.9
9.2 4.8
2.0 1.0
9.2 4.8
6,909,000 (0.379) 10,512,000 (1.15)
17,541,000 (0.961) 16,278,000 (1.78)
1.0 9.7 5.0
ND 2.1 1.0
1.0 9.7 5.0
ND 2.0 1.0 ND 2.1 1.0
ND 0.8 <1.0 ND 0.9 <1.0
**Percent wastewater in the total stream flow.
-------
Case 4 (AWT and conventional water treatment) indicates that the total cost
for Case 4 ranges from 15 to 97 percent higher, depending upon the size
combination, while the organic quality of the finished water, in terms of
BOD, COD and TOC concentrations, is much better ,for Case 1 than Case 4.
Thus, it is more expensive and less efficient, with regard to finished water
quality, to provide AWT for the wastewater discharge upstream than to provide
upgraded treatment at the water treatment plant.
Since some water treatment must be provided, whether or not there is any
upstream wastewater discharge, it may be desirable in some instances to provide
the most intensive treatment at the water treatment plant rather than at the
wastewater treatment plant. Effects of the wastewater discharge on the stream
ecosystem, eutrophication potential, and aesthetic considerations are
probably more pertinant to whether secondary or advanced wastewater treatment
should be provided than is the effect on quality of the downstream water
supply.
118
-------
SECTION 8
CASE STUDIES
The purpose of this section is. to discuss three cases. that involve the
indirect reuse of wastewater through location of wastewater treatment plant
discharges into streams above water supply intakes.
1. Occ quan, Virginia. This project, scheduled to begin operation
in April 1978, is to discharge highly treated wastewater to a
storage reservoir on Bull Run that serves as a water supply source
for about 500,000 people in the Washington, D.C. area.
2. Huron River, Michigan. The project discussed in this case was not
implemented. It involves the proposed discharge of 41 mgd of
nitrified and filtered secondary effluent about 12 miles above a
4 mgd water supply intake.
3. Passaic Basin, New Jersey. The Passai.c River is an existing situation
that involves a long history of indirect wastewater reuse.
The intent is to present an objective, non—judgemental discussion of the
facts prepared from a review of available information on each case. On—site
investigations or extensive interviews with individuals involved were not
conducted.
The case studies illustrate considerations involving the planned
discharge of wastewater to water supply sources in three different areas in
the United States. These cases also highlight the thought processes which
have progressed over the past several years. For example, at Occoquan the
main concern appeared to be reliability and viruses while in the Passaic
Basin biological contaminants/viruses’ were the primary concern initially
and now trihalomethanes and organics are receiving more attention.
OCCOQTJAN, VIRGINIA
The Occoquan watershed drains, some 600 square miles southwest of Washington,
D.C., and is the source of drinking water for about 500,000 people in the
Washington, D.C. area. The general location of the watershed is shown in
Figure 9. The first storage of runoff from the watershed for water supply
occured in 1950 when the Alexandria Water Company’ built a small dam near
the town of Occoquan. The current 1,700 acre, 9.8 billion gallon reservoir
was created in 1958 by the construction of the Upper or High dam. Concurrent
with construction of the dam were rapidly increasing pressures for development
in the watershed. From 1940 to 1960, the population in the Washington, D.C.
area nearly doubled. Most of the growth since the late 1950’s has occurred
in Northern Virginia and suburban Maryland.
119
-------
FAUQUIER
COUNTY
1
/
Ic
%WARRENTc N
LEGEND
OCCOQUAN
WATERSHED BOUNDARY
COUNTY
______UPPER OCCOOUAN
SEWAGE AUTHORITY
Figure 9. LOCATION OF OCCOQUAN WATERSHED
SCALE IN UtLES
/
LOUDOUN
COUNTY
WASHING TO N
D.C.
FAX
FAIRFAX
‘I
I
‘I
/
/
C-,
0 5 10 15
120
-------
The development in the watershed caused increasing concern by the Virginia
State Health Department and State Water Control Board (SWCB) over the potential
effects of wastewater discharges and urban runoff on the reservoir water
quality. In December, 1959, requirements of 90 percent BOD removal and
15 days detention in holding ponds were established for standard treatment
plants in the watershed. In early 1960, the State Health Department added
effluent limits of 20 rag/i ROD and suspended solids and algae removal for
discharges to the reservoir. Although the concerns- of the Health Department
continued to increase, by 1970 there were 25 wastewater treatment plants
in the Occoquan basin with a certified capacity of 5.95 mgd. Population
was projected to increase 10—fold to 800,000 by the year 2000.
The SWCB commissioned studies of the Occoquan Reservoir quality and
the basin pollution problems by Metcalf and Eddy in 1969. The Reservoir
was found to be highly eutrophic in summer and early fall, with heavy growths
of blue—green algae and anaerobic below a depth of 10 feet. It was. concluded
that sewage effluents were a major cause of the-highly eutrophic conditions;
that natural runoff from the watershed contains, at times, enough inorganic
phosphorus to contribute the entire allowable load to the reservoir; and
that treatment plant effluents should not be discharged to the reservoir
during the algal growth season. The solution proposed was: construction
of secondary plants, with export of the secondary effluents to a tributary
to the Potomac River. The cost of such an export system was found to be
less than abandoning the Reservoir and providing comparable water supply
facilities elsewhere.
Public hearings were held on the export proposal in the fall of 1970
with several citizen groups expressing oppos:ition based upon concerns about
the cost of the proposed treatment and export system, the potential Impacts
on growth in previously underdeveloped areas, and the need for a solution
which would not merely transport the problem to the Potomac River. A special
bond election was held on September 22, 1970 with the result that the funds
for the export system were defeated by a 2:1 margin. -At the-same election,
$153,000,000 of bonds for other facilities- (libraries, parks, schools, etc.)
were approved. The portion of the sewer bonds associated with the export
system ($9,000,000) were deleted from the total sewer bonds proposed
(39,000,000) which included $30,000,000 for upgrading existing plants in
the basin and subjected to a vote in the November, 1970 election. The revised
$30,000,000 bond proposal (without export) pass-ed by a 4:1 margin.
A significant development In mid—1970 was the appointment of Noman Cole
as Chairman of the SWCB. Cole, a nuclear engineer, perceived the Occoquan
situation as a major environmental issue. Taking actions- somewhat unique
in the pollution control field, Cole personnally- made an independent analysis
of alternative approaches to handling the wastewaters in the Occoquan basin,
including a trip to California to evaluate advanced wastewater treatment
at the South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District. Cole drafted a report
which compared AWT and discharge to the Occoquan Reservoir with the export
alternative and reviewed his report in December, 1970,- with the four- jurisdic-
tions involved (Fairfax County, Prince William County, Manassas Park, and
Manassas). -- --
The report, which was finalized in January-, 1971, first reviewed conven-
tional wastewater treatment, the performance of the Tahoe AWT plant, existing
discharges to the Occoquán Reservoir, and the export alternative. A chart
similar to Figure 10 was presented which compared the quantities of BOD,
121
-------
I200
1210
300
200
[ i w!Th SECONDARY TREATMENT
L 1 WITH AWT
I gure LU. D1striAiwr. TO OCCOQUAN !SERV0IR WITH SECONDARY TREAT ENi
AND AWT
1100
000
900
BOO
600
400
440
332
100
332
E
o
a
a
0
BOO 5 LOAD PHOSPHORUS LOAD NITROGEN LOAD
122
-------
phosphorus, and nitrogen being discharged to the reservoir at the—then—existing
flow of 4.3 nigd of secondary effluent to those quantities which would be
discharged at flows of 10 mgd and 40 mgd of AWT effluent. The 40 mgd flow
would represent 12 percent of the annual inflow to the reservoir and 46
percent of the July low flow to the reservoir. This analysis concluded
that even if flows should eventually reach 10 times the existing wastewater
flows, the quantities of pollutants discharged to the reservoir would be
substantially reduced by AWT.
A cost analyses indicated that the capital cost savings for the four
jurisdictions would be at least $20,000,000 if the AWT alternative were
adopted. The actual savings were expected to be even greater because AWT
standards had been adopted for discharges to the Potomac while the original
cost estimate for export were based on export of secondary effluent. Although
the costs of the export system were a prime factor motivating the evaluation
of the AWT alternative, the SWCB report also concluded:
Hopefully, this will help kill the archaic and technically out-
of-date philosophy that the “solution to the control of water
pollution is export and dilution”-—or more simply and clearly
stated, “Do not dump it in my yard — but it is all right to dump
it in my neighbors.”
We would have a valuable asset (e.g., a 10 to 40 mgd clean water
source between now and 1985). This clean water source will help
stretch our water supply as well as protect our valuable park
land investments on the Occoquan.
In summary, we will have preserved the Occoquan Reservoir water
quality as well as provide a major source of its water supply.
Further, in this approach, we will have spent our efforts, energy,
talent, and financial resources for treatment of water, rather
than for expensive export pipes which do not clean up any water
but just move the problem elsewhere!
This approach of thoroughly cleaning up waste is equivalent to
developing a new water supply resource.
The report also presented an outline of administrative considerations
that would be a part of the in—basin reuse concept. These considerations
later were the nucleus of a formal State of Virginia policy for the Occoquan
Watershed (which is discussed later). As reflected in newspaper articles,
the initial response of the jurisdictions involved was- positive:
It is kind of refreshing to see the State Water Control Board take
a positive position of leadership in the field of pollution.
Chairman Prince William, County Board of Supervisors, Potomac News,
12/2/70.
We feel that this concept is a breakthrough — Warrenton Town
Manager Edward Brower. The Fauquier Democrat, 12/10/70.
123
-------
The whole thing was a breath of fresh air — Jason Paige, Chairman,
the Fauquier Plater and Sanitation Authority . The Fauquier Democrat,
12/10/70.
If you’re wondering where that gale—force sigh of relief came from,
it’s just us, pleased to have something to be positive about regarding
the Occoquan Reservoir.
And positive we are about the report State Water Control Board
Chairman Noman M. Cole, Jr. released Wednesday in which he concludes
it would be both better and cheaper to treat sewage in the Occoquan
Watershed ala-Lake Tahoe than to export the effluent from the basin.
Editorial, Northern Virginia Sun, 12/4/70.
A preliminary State policy for the Occopian Watershed based on the
in—basin reuse concept was issued in late January, 1971 and a public hearing
was scheduled for March 31, 1971. Concurrently, the four jurisdictions
involved formed the Upper Occoquan Sewage Authority (UOSA) to implement
a regional wastewater system.
At the public hearing on the reuse concept, the Virginia State Health
Department and the downstream water supply utility (the airf ax County Water
Authority — IFcWA) attacked the proposed plan on the basis that viruses
discharged in the AWT effluent present a health threat. Both agencies
urged that the wastewaters be exported from the basin. The SWCB conducted
a further evaluation of the virus question in April, 1971 and issued a report
on this issue. This evaluation concluded that:
(1) The 25 existing discharges of marginally treated secondary
effluent were discharging significant quantities of virus to
the Occoquan Reservoir.
(2) The existing discharges constituted 2 percent of the annual
water supply and 10 percent in low flow months.
(3) There were no apparent virus health problems related to the
water supply.
(4) The lack of virus problems was due to a combination of the facts
that there were 20 to 25 miles of travel between the points of
wastewater discharge and water intakes and 100 to 190 days travel
time between these points, and that the FCWA downstream water
treatment processes provided the conditions: needed to assure
kill of any surviving virus — turbidity of 0.1—1 JTIJ and
effective chlorination.
(5) There were cases in the world where water supplies contained
a higher percentage of wastewater than would be the case for
.Occoquan and yet no water supply related virus health problems
were apparent.
(6) The discharge of AWT effluent should substantially reduce the
existing level of discharges of virus to the Occoquan Reservoir.
(7) The virus issue was not one of substance based on available
evidence.
124
-------
After further review of uie issue, the FC A concluded “...that the
upgrading and replacement of the present treatment plants with an advanced
waste treatment facility will not result in any increase in risk and will
most probably reduce the current level of pollutants.”
The U.S. EPA wrote in response to the controversy:
.AWT processes utilized provide a substantial improvement in
virus removal over conventional secondary processes and- additionally
allow more effective chlorination of the final effluent. There
is no doubt that the provision of a Tahoe-type AWT treatment facility
in the Upper Oceoquan Watershed, even with a discharge twice that
of the present secondary plants, will provide for an improvement
of water quality, including public health aspects. In the reservoir.
The Virginia Department of Health stated:
While this Department still has- reservations about the proposed
policy the above cited circumstances. or evidence indicates the risk
is a minimal or accepted one provided all the safety features are
included in the design and a meaningful management and surveillance
program is included. Therefore, this Department will cease its
opposition to the policy and will work with the Water Control
Board in establishing the requirements for management and surveil-
lance program.
With the virus issue resolved, the SWCR adopted a formal policy for
the Occoquan watershed on July 26, 1971.
The SWCP policy called for AWT of all wastewaters in the basin with
discharge of a high quality effluent to the Occoquan Reservoir. The SWCB
stated that this approach offered several advantages over that of export,
including (1) solution of the sewage—related Occoquan water quality problems,
while preventing further degradation of the Potomac estuary; (12) elimination
of a very costly export system; (3) preservation of the water supply resources
of the watershed and (4) minimized the possibility of a major siltation
problem from the construction of the export lime. The policy also established
a total yearly wastewater flow allocation f or the watershed through 1985—
1990, as well as suggesting allotments to each jurisdiction. It also called
for establishment of a monitoring program to provide data on plant operation
and the effect of discharge on the quality- of the Reservoir and monitoring
of siltation problems.- -
Until the regional AWT plant was available, the SWCB policy required
the removal of “maximum amounts” of BOD, COD, suspended solids, and phos—
phorus at existing plants. “Modest” expansion of existing plants- was
permitted provided they were abandoned when the regional facility- became
available, and if no increased loading to the stream resulted.
The policy presented detailed requirements for the AWT facility and
collection system. No more than three, and preferably only two, plants
were specified for the watershed area. All plants were required to be at
least 15 miles (preferably 20 miles) above the Fairfax County Water Authority’s
water intake.
125
-------
The major treatment processes specified by the policy to meet these
standards were:
1. Primary settling.
2. Activated sludge.
3. Lime coagulation and settling for phosphorus removal.
4. Two stage recarbonation with intermediate settling.
5. Mixed media filtration.
6. Nitrogen removal (Selective ion exchange was. later selected by
the designer as the process to be used for nitrogen removal.)
7. Granular carbon adsorption.
8. Chlorination.
9. Storage, on site.
The policy specified the following effluent quality as measured on
a weekly average basis: ROD = 1.0 mg/i, COD = 10.0 mg/i, suspended solids
= 0 mg/i, nitrogen = 1 mg/i, phosphorus = 0.1 mg/i as P, methylene blue
active substances (MBAS) = 0.1 mg/i, turbidity = 0.4 TIJ, and coliform
bacteria of less than 2 per 100 ml.
The initial wastewater flow allocation was established as 10 mgd, with
5 mgd incremental increases in flow being licensed only if the monitoring
program showed that the AWT effluent was not creating a water quality or
public health hazard in Reservoir. A maximum watershed allotment of 39.3
mgd was specified for 1985—1990.
The policy required that the initial plant must have 100 percent backup
capacity, but after the success of the concept was established, the ratio
of on—line treatment to standby capacity could be as high as 4:1. The plant
was to be designed so that the failure of a single component would not
interrupt plant operations necessary to meet the final effluent requirements.
In a similar vein, the policy also specified two independent sources of
outside power and one on—site power supply to minimize the risk of treatment
interruption due to power failure. Changes from the plant design require-
ments were permitted only with written approval from the SWCB, which reserved
the right to hold public hearings on any proposed design changes. The plant
must be staffed 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, with a minImum of five
people per shift.
In addition to the design reqjuirements: for the plant, the policy also
presented specific requirements concerning the design of pumping stations.
These dealt with minimum standards for standby pumps, on—site power supply,
dual off—site power sources designed so that failure of a single component
would not degrade pumping capacity, flow measuring and recording, and
provision of retention basins of a minimum one—day capacity.
The recently formed UOSA had begun the process of selecting a design
consultant and retained the firm of CH2M/Hhll in August, 1971 to prepare
a facility plan. The four member jurisdiction of UOSA then began the process
of drawing up a service agreement which would define the allocations of
capacity and distribution of costs for the regional system. Although the
facility plan was completed on schedule in January, 1972, the completion
of the service agreement was delayed for several months due to disagreements
among the jurisdictions concerning allocation of capacity and funding of
•the Authority. Any concerns over the indirect reuse concepts inherent in
the project were completely overshadowed by these disagreements over capacity
126
-------
and funding. The reuse issue simply did not surface again as an obstacle
to process implementation after the virus question was settled in May, 1971.
The Authority was on the edge of politic destruction by one or more
of the member jurisdictions throughout early 1972. A key factor in the
eventual implementation of the project was the provision in the Occoquan
policy that the existing plants in the watershed could be expanded only
modestly in the interim period until the regional plant was available.
s all of the jurisdictions were facing pressures for development, the threat
of restraint of available sewage capacity proved to be a major incentive
in the ultimate adoption of a service agreement on June 21, 1972 — just
9 days before the grant funds for the project would have been lost.
In August, 1972 the Regional Council of Governments (COG) reviewed
the facility plan for the Occoquan project. The review addressed only two
points related to reuse — (1) nutrient control and (2) virus removal. The
COG review of the nutrient question concluded that the. AWT process proposed
would “go a long way toward abating the pollution problem in the Occoquan
Reservoir”. In regard to virus, the COD review concluded that the travel
distance of 20 miles, travel time of 100—190 days, and effective water
treatment downstream were an adequate combination to provide control of
viruses. COG approved the project with the reuse aspect receiving relatively
minor consideration among factors such as effects on jurisdictions’ ability
to control growth, conformance to regional plans, air pollution, etc.
En accordance with the schedule approved by the State and EPA, the
plans and specifications for the total project with an initial rated capacity
of 10.9 mgd were submitted in May, 1973. Subsequent to submission of the
plans, the State and EPA advised VOSA that funding limitations would not
permit award of one contract for the total project. The project had to
be split for funding in 2 fiscal years and EPA required that each split
must result in an operable unit. Instead of splitting the project into
logical construction phases, such as earth work, concrete, buildings, etc.,
VOSA had to award contracts for total operable unit processes in the treatment
plant. For example, the first plant contract was for construction of the
filtration units and carbon adsorption system. This change, delays in plan
review and approvals, delays from protests over bid awards, delays in EPA
approvals due to new grant regulations which required all VOSA jurisdictions.
to comply with infiltration/inflow, user change, and industrial cost regula-
tions, and the unprecedented rate of inflation in 1974 caused the total
project costs., including a regional collection system, tO- increase from
the originally estimated $43,600,000 to about $76,000,000.
Each jurisdiction may select its own method of recovering its share
of the local capital costs. However, the 0 & N costs must he allocated
to each customer in proportion to his usage. The UOSAoperation• and mainten-
ance costs at 10.9 mgd are projected to be 65 per 1,000 gallons. Assuming
an average usage per connection of 8,000 gallons-per month, the UOSA operation
and maintenance costs per connection would be $5.20 per month.
127
-------
HURON RIVER, MICHIGAN
The Huron River serves as a water supply for the City of Flat Rock,
Michigan. The Flat Rock water treatment plant was designed for an ultimate
capacity of 4 mgd, but at present only about 25 percent of the design
capacity is being utilized.
In February, 1976 a proposal was considered to construct a 41 mgd
wastewater treatment facility that would discharge the the Huron River at
French Landing, about 14 miles upstream froni the Flat Rock water treatment
plant. Figure 11 is a general location map of the area. The new wastewater
treatment plant would serve the City of Ypsilanti and portions of Wayne
County and permit abandonment of existing treatment plants- serving Ypsilanti
and Ypsilanti Township. The proposed plant included secondary treatment
plus nitrification, rapid sand filtration and chlorination. Daily discharge
limits, developed jointly by the Water Resources Commission and the State
Department of Public Health were a maximum of 10 mg/l BOD and 2 mg/i ammonia.
The following excerpts are from an environmental assessment and indicate
some of the concerns associated with the proposed wastewater treatment plant
at French Landing:
Nitrates — in 1995 the proposed French Landing plant will discharge
about 5,800 pounds per day of N0 3 -N under average daily flow conditions.
At a 7 day dry weather flow of 102 cfs over Belleville Dam, this nitrate
load (5,800 pounds per day) from the French Landing plant will result
in a nitrate concentration in the Huron River of approximately 10.25
mg/i. This level of nitrate nitrogen in the Huron River is quite
close to the EPA drinking water standard of 10 mg/i. Hence, the EPA
drinking water standard for N0 3 —N may be exceeded at the river water
intake for the City of Flat Rock should this alternative be implemented.
This potential problem could possibly be solved by restricting the
concentration of nitrate nitrogen in the French Landing wastewater
effluent, regulating- the flow over Beileville Dame, applying denitrifi
cation treatment at the French Landing plant or removing the City of
Flat Rock’s water supply from the Huron River. Before this alternative
• could possibly be implemented the nitrate nitrogen problem in the Huron
River at Flat Rock must be addressed.
Phosphorus — •..it is estimated that the total phosphorus concentration
of the Huron River below Fiat Rock will be about 0.8 mg/i under 10
year 7 day dry weather flow conditions in 1995. As a point for comparing
the significance of this projected level of phosphorus it should be
pointed out that at the present time the maximum reported total phosphorus
concentration in the Huron River at its mouth has- been 0.7 rag/i. There-
fore, under this alternative slightly- higher (10-15%) concentrations
of total phosphorus may be expected tn the Huron River at drought flow
than has been experienced to date.
ChioramineS - In 1995 the French Landing treatment facility will be
discharging an effluent containing approximately 1.0 mg/i of residual
chlorine. All of this residual chlorine will be in the form of mono-
chloramine due to the amzrtnia nitrogen concentrations in the effluent.
Therefore, the concentration of monochioramines in the Huron River
128
-------
MAP
— —
ONEW
PLANT
WILLED
LAKE
I ®PI.ANT
I OVI TWP
_LIVINGSTON CO
WATER QUALiTY MANAGEMENT PL 1 k ]
I FORTHE
L!PUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN AR J
OAKLAND CO
WASHTEN*IV CO.
fCAD.TON
TERIM DISCHARGE TO
ROUGE VALLEY SYSTEM
LEGEND :
ABANDON PLANT
PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SEWER u
0 EXISTING PLANT — -
FLAT ROCK WATER
SUPPLY INTAKE
0 NEW PLANT
rigure ii. LIUL tLIULN ii r, nuitur tcivrat, i iIChIGAN
129
-------
below the French Landing plant will, be about 0.4 mg/i at 10 year 7
day dry weather flow. .. . the estima ted residual chlorine concentration
in the Huron River at the Flat Rock water supply intake will be approxi-
mately 30 ppb. This concentration of chioramines combined with the
12 mg/i of ultimate carbonaceous BOD also projected at this point in
the river raises serious questions concerning potential taste and odor
problems at the Flat Rock water intake under this alternative should
it be implemented.
Biological Water Quality — ...due to the free flowing nature of this
river reach and the optimum ‘levels of nutri!ents at present it is specu-
lated that this alternative will not alter the existing biological
water quality of this reach of the river to any significant degree.
The fish and invertebrate communities between French Landing and Flat
Rock would be adversely affected under low river flow conditions’, due
to high residual chlorine levels (30 ppb) caused by the French Landing
treatment plant effluent. Reduction in diversity of warm water fishes
and absence of trout nd áold water species could be expected.
Other Waste Constituents — Toxic substances, including trace metals,
refractory organic compounds, and chlorinated organic compounds formed
during was tewater chlorination will be discharged under all proposed
alternatives. The downstream use at Flat Rock of Huron River water
for water supply merits special mention. The discharge at French
Landing (63 cfs) is diluted with 102 cfs in the stream during the 10
year low flow period. Such a system nearly constitutes direct reuse
of wastewater as a potable water supply . Neither the wastewater or
the water treatment systems are planned for the degree of control,
process relibili ty, and monitoring for potentially toxic substances
for such reuse. The downstream use of water for water supply at Flat
Rock is not compatible with the proposed wastewater treatment facility
at French Landing.
Impact of Treatment Plant Failure on Ptater Quality - The probability
of a total plant failure of the French Landing wastewater treatment
facility is considered to he very 1ow However, since this possibility
does exist an evaluation of the environmental impacts of a treatment
plant failure on the Huron River is deemed advisable.
For the purposes of this assessment analysis a plant failure is defined
as the loss of all treatment processes except primary sedimentation.
Under this condition the raw wastewater entering the treatment facility
would pass through the primary clarifiers and receive no further treatment.
In this case it is’ assumed that 40 percent of the suspended solids and
35 percent of the BOD 5 in the wastewater would he removed before being
discharged to the river. There essentially would be no removal of
nitrogen or phosphorus under these conditions and no disinfection would
take place....
...A treatment plant failure will result in the discharge of increased
amounts of carbonaceous and nitrogeneous’ oxygen demanding materials to
130
-------
the Huron River. . . .A mathematical simulation of a plant failure of
this magnitude shows that the dissolved oxygen level in the river below
French Landing will approach zero. In addition the B0D 20 at Flat Rock
would be about 25 mg/i if the failure occurred at drought flow. This
condition would pose serious taste and odor problems in the Flat Rock
water supply.
...A failure in the disinfection process at the French Landing wastewater
treatment facility will result in the discharge of massive amounts of
bacteria to the river system... .If the French Landing treatment facility
failed under 1995 drought flow conditions, the expected bacterial
concentrations in the river immediately below the plant’s outfall would
be on the order of 1.1 x io iioo ml and 1.4 x 106 /100 ml for total
and fecal coliform bacteria, respectively. It is obvious that these
bacterial levels would violate stream standards and would pose a
definite health hazard in the river immediately downstream from the
treatment plants....
.Under these conditions contamination of the Flat Rock water supply
source would be inevitable. Therefore, should this alternative be
implemented an alternate emergency source of water and/or increase
in system water storage for the Flat Rock community should be developed.
The position of the Michigan Department of Public Health is illustrated
in the following memorandum dated March 5, 1976 from William A. Kelley,
Chief of the Water Supply Section:
I attended the February 26, 1976 meeting of the Water Resources
Commission to discuss the recent proposals for the installation of
a large waste treatment plant on the Lower Huron River with the outfall
located below Belleville Lake at French Landing. I informed the
Commission and staff during the discussion that the Flat Rock water
plant would be adversely affected by such a waste discharge.
....I indicated to the Commission that we did not feel water reuse
was an acceptable alternative in Michigan and this is exactly what
we would be facing in this particular situation. It was indicated
that the department would have concerns relative to the possibility
of virus, chemicals originating from industrial spills, etc. as well
as the possibility of research indicating the. need of a maximum con tam-
inant level for organohalides i.n the future. .. .1 also raised the point
of potential overflows from the wastewater plant or simple operator
error.... (A staff member of the Commission) made a comment about being
able to design around any difficulties- that would be involved but I
disputed this idea by saying that practical operation of even a theoreti-
cally perfect plant would still not be desirable at this particular
point. The Water Resources Commission seemed to appreciate our position
and concerns.
I concluded the statement that I made relative to this particular
problem by indicating that if the decision is made to proceed with
131
-------
a large wastewater discharge at French Landing, the city of Flat Rock
would not be able to utilize their water treatment plant with the
water supply source from the Huron River. I pointed out that there
seemed to be several alternatives to solving the problem with three
that would come to mind immediately being:
1. Abandon the Flat Rock water plant and make the necessary connections
to the Detroit water supply system to serve the city of Flat Rock.
2. Continue to use the Flat Rock water plant but provide a new source
by pumping raw water from an approved location in Lake Erie up
to the Flat Rock plant, and
3. Continue to use the Flat Rock water plant but pipe the treated
wastewater effluent to a point below the Flat Rock water supply
intake.
An important component in the position of the Health Department was
the conclusion that funding for the alternate water supply for Flat Rock,
including retirement of outstanding bonds for the water plant, should be
included in the financing of the proposed wastewater treatment project.
The proposed alternative of the French Landing plant was only one of
many alternatives which were considered for the area. The proposal was
abandoned, in part due to the impact of wastewater discharges on the quality
of the Flat Rock water supply. Other factors, including political considera-
tions associated with connecting another city’s water supply system were
considered unfavorable to this alternative. As of January, 1978, it appears
that the alternative of one large plant at French Landing will be replaced
by three separate plants: two much further upstream and one downstream
from the Flat Rock water supply intake.
PASSAIC BASIN, NEW JERSEY
The Passaic River, although one of the most polluted rivers in the
East, still serves satisfactorily as the major water supply source for north-
eastern New Jersey. Serving as a backbone for industrial development since
the 1790’s, the Passaic River has long been a source for water power, recrea-
tion, potable water supply, and a means for disposing of municipal and
industrial wastes.
Beginning in the 1850’s and continuing through 1890 the river served
without any treatment as a direct source of potable water. By 1890 the
river downstream from the City of Paterson was considered too polluted to
use, due to wastes discharged from the indus-trial centers. In 1902, the
first rapid sand filtration plant was built at Little Falls, New Jersey,
where i.t is still in use today. Over the years there have been many contro-
versies over water rights for uses such as power, flow maintenance in canals,
and private and public water supplies.
The Passaic Valley Water Commission serves over 600,000 people and
is the chief water supply agency for 15 northern New Jersey communities
including Paterson, Passaic and Clifton. Presently there are about 115
municipal and industrial w-astewater treatment plants locating within the
485 square mile area of watershed above the Little Falls water intake (see
132
-------
Figure 12). The total wastewater flow discharged in the watershed is about
55 mgd, which represents up to 60 percent of the total flow in the river
at Little Falls during drought years. In the past the wastewater treatment
plants have achieved between 75 and 95 percent removals of BOD, with an
average of about 85 percent removal. The BOD in the river at Little Falls
has averaged front 2 to 5 mg/i, but is as high as 10 mg/i during periods
of low flow.
The treatment processes used at the 100 mgd Little Falls plant include:
two—stage screening, addition of powdered activated carbon for taste and
odor control, free residual, or breakpoint chlorination with. rapid mixing,
alum coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, dechlorination, filtration,
pH adjustment with caustic soda and post—chlorination. In the past when
activated carbon costs were much lower than today, powdered activated carbon
was applied regularly. Presently it is used only during emergencies when
the water quality at the intake is poor due to high organics in waste
spills upstream.
In 1971 John Wilford, then Chief of the Bureau of Water Supply in the
State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, wrote:
..Notwithstanding the poor quality of the water in the river, the
Passaic Valley Water Commission has been consistently- able to produce
water from this source which meets the requirements of the New Jersey
Potable Water Standards....No studies have been conducted to determine
the incidence of viruses in either the river water or the treated water,
primarily because of the impracticability of conducting vital deter-
minations on a routine basis. it is reasonable to assume, however,
that the water treatment process must effectively remove any viruses
which may be present; otherwise there would have been epidemics of
infectious hepatitis, etc. among the consumers-....
That the situation constitutes indirect reuse of the wastewaters for potable
water supply is widely understood and accepted as indicated in the following
statement made in 1973 by Wendell R. Inhoffer, the General Superintendent
and Chief Engineer of the Passaic Valley Water Commission:
The Commission, with its rights to 75 mgd at Little Falls admittedly
depends upon this wastewater discharge to meet its requirements.
When the demand for potable water was increasing during World War II,
the quality of the water in the Passaic River had deteriorated such that
there were many complaints received about the drinking water treated by
the 1902 filtration plant. As reported by Wendell Inhoffer:
During this period, it was not unusual for the Coiranission to receive
800 complaints a day of phenolic and chemical taste and odors, primarily
due to the increase in industrial pollution created by wartime industry.
Soon after this, in 1948, the Commission added free residual, or breakpoint
chlorination, to control taste and odor causing materials, particularly
free ammonia. According to Wendell Inhoffer:
133
-------
It’: ‘N.:; :.•.
1j .,,...,. .
I :. AREA DIRECTLY TRIULITARY To
LITTLE FALLS INTAKE
Figure . rATE 5HEDS OF TILE PASSAIC RIVER
AND TRIBUTARIES
/
134
-------
It can be stated that without the use of breakpoint chlorination,
the Passaic River could not be safely used as a source of potable water
supply. However, the use of breakpoint chlorination is costly. ...it
•...(is)....apparent that the influence of sewage treatment plant
discharges resulting in free ammonia in the raw river water signifi-
cantly affects the cost of treatment....Commission experience indicates
that as long as one maintains a free chlorine residual of at least
50 percent after prechiorination, taste and odor standards will be
maintained.
Currently, the average chlorine dose, which depends mostly upon the
ammonia concentration in thc raw water, ranges from 15 to 25 mg/i. The
ammonia concentration, typically varies from 0.5 to 5 mg/i, with an average
of 1 to 2 mg/i.
In the mid—1960’s, while commercial and industrial development was
continuing to occur in the watershed, and with the realization that the
ultimate wastewater flow could approach 100 mgd, the Commission became
concerned about possible contaminants not normally identified in their
regular testing program. In 1968 the Commission undertook a pilot study
of possible means of treatment to remove soluble organics, after concluding
that their program which included powdered activated carbon treatment was
not adequate. In the study, a filter containing granular activated carbon
was found to remove substantial portions of dissolved organics.
After several more years of studies it was concluded that granular
activated carbon filters were not as effective as granular carbon adsorption
following filtration. At present, no regular program of activated carbon
treatment is provided at the plant. However, there does appear to be a
good chance in the future for the addition of a tertiary carbon adsorption
step and research toward this is continuing.
The similarity in regard to water reuse between the Passaic Valley
Water Commission water treatment plant and an advanced wastewater treatment
plant was noted by Wendell Inhoffer in 1973 when he wrote:
The 100 mgd treatment plant....ha s sometimes been characterized as
the tertiary sewage treatment plant for the Passaic Basin....
When also in 1973 Wendell Inhoffer wrote that:
Proposed regional sewage treatment faci1jtj es are being redesigned
to include tertiary treatment for plants located above the Commission’s
Little Falls inta.ke....It is anticipated that with the iniplernentation
of tertiary sewage treatment plants above the intake, the presence
of ammonia will be reduced.
it seemed that the construction of AWT plants upstream would soon become
quite common; however, this may til1 be several years away, sInce in early
1978 no AWT plants have been built and it appears only one is likely to
be built within the next four or five years.
No major move toward the construction of large regional wastewater
treatment plants has occurred either. This may in part be due to the position
of the Water Commission, who recently opposed a proposed expansion from
135
-------
16 to 50 mgd of a secondary wastewater treatment facility at Troy Hills.
The opposition was primarily due to the negative effect such. a large waste—
water discharge would have on the water quality downstream.
Presently one of the main concerns of the Water Commission is the
presence of trihalomethanes, and particularly for the potential for higher
concentratioma at the users tap because of the chance for long retention
times in the distribution system. Virus removal is not considered to be
a problem, primarily because of the large chlorine dosages and long reaction
times provided.
136
-------
REFERENCES
1. National Academy of Sciences, “Drinking Water and Health”, Part 1,
U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIS PB-.-270 422; Part II NTIS PB—270 423,
1977.
2. Natuminga, H. and Wilhm, J., “Heavy Metals in Water, Sediments and Chiro—
nomids”, Journal WPCF, PP. 1725—1731, July 1977.
3. Toth, S.J., “Metallic Elements in Inland Waterways”, Journal AWWA,
pp. 455—459, April 1968.
4. Kroner, R.C., “The Occurrence of Trace Metals in Surface Waters”, in
“Traces of Heavy Metals in Water Removal Processes and Monitoring”,
EPA — 902/9—74—001, Pp. 311—322, November 1973.
5. Teurikian, K. K., et al., “The Variations of Si, Cl, Na, Ca, Sr, Ba, Co,
Ag, in the Neuse River, North Carolina”, Limnol. Ocean., 12: 702, 1967.
6. Shapiro, M• A., et al., “Intensive Study of the Water at Critical Points
on the Monogahela, Allegheny, and Ohio Rivers in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania Area”, University of Pittsburgh, 1967.
7. Syinons, J.M., et al., “National Organics Reconnaissance Survey for
Halogenated Organics”, Journal AWWA, pp. 634—647, November 1975.
8. “Preliminary Assessment of Suspected Carcinogens in Drinking Water”,
Interim Report to Congress, EPA, Washington, D.C., June 1975.
9. Malcolm, R.J., and Durum, W.H., “Organic Carbon and Nitrogen Concentrations
and Annual Organic Carbon Load of Six Selected Rivers of the United States”,
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1817—F. (undated)
10. Anderson, C., and Maier, W.J., “The Removal of Organl.c Matter from Water
Supplies by Ion Exchange”, Water Resources Research Center, Bulletin 91,
University of Minnesota, February 1977.
11. Zeniansky, G.M., “Removal of Trace Metals in Conventional Water and Waste—
water Treatment”, N.S. Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado,
1973.
12. Lindstedt, K.D., et al., “Quality Considerations in Successive Water Use”,
Journal WPCF, p. 1681, 1971.
137
-------
13. “Report on Hyperion Pilot Plant No. 1 — Appendix A to the Los Angeles
Water Recycling Project Report”, City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and
Power, September 1972.
14. Chen, K.Y., et al., “Trace Metals in Wastewater Effluents”, Journal
WPCF, pp. 2665—2675, December 1974.
15. Argo, D.G., “Orange County’s Water Factory 21”, presented at the
Wastewater Treatment and Reuse Seminar, South Lake Tahoe, Stateline,
Nevada, October 27—29, 1976.
16. Hodam, R.H., “The Best Way to Remove Heavy Metals Night Turn Out To
Be.. .Activated Sludge!”, Bulletin CWPCA, pp. 54—55, April 1976.
17. Davis, J.A., III, And Jacknow, J., “Heavy Metals in Wastewater in Three
Urban Areas”, Journal WPCF, p. 2293, September 1975.
18. Klein, L. A., et al., “Sources of Metals in New York City Wastewater”,
Journal WPCF, p. 2754, December 1974.
19. Chandler, R. L., et al., “Pollution Monitoring With Total Organic
Carbon Analysis”, Journal WPCF, pp. 2791—2803, December 1976.
20. Bunch, R. L., et al., “Organic Materials in Secondary Effluents”,
Journal WPCF, pp. 122—126, 1961.
21. Rebbun, N., and Nanka, J., “Classification of Organics in Secondary
Effluents”, Environmental Science and Technology, p. 606, 1971.
22. Nanka, J., et al., “Characterization of Organics in Secondary Effluents”,
Environmental Science and Technology, p. 1017, November 1974.
23. Sachdev, D. R., et al., “Apparent Molecular Weights of Organics in
Secondary Effluents”, Journal WPCF, p. 570, 1976.
24. Katz, S., et al., “The Determination of Stable Organic Compounds in
Waste Effluents at Microgram Per Liter Levels by Automatic High—
Resolution Ion Exchange Chromatography”, Water Research, Vol. 6,
pp. 1029—1037, 1972.
25. Helfgott, T., et al., “Analytic and Process Classification of Effluents”,
Proc. ASCE, SA 3, pp. 779—803, June 1970.
26. Jolley, R. L., “Chlorination Effects on Organic Constituents in Effluents
from Domestic Sanitary Sewage Treatment Plants”, Oak Ridge National Lab.,
Publication No. 565, ORNL—TM—4290, October 1973.
27. Glaze, W. H., and Henderson, J. E., “Formation of Organochlorine Compounds
From the Chlorination of Municipal Secondary Effluent”, Journal WPCF,
p. 2511, 1975.
138
-------
28. “Interim Report on Montgomery Simulation — Study of Formation and Removal
of Volatile Chlorinated Organics”, Unpublished EPA Report, July 8, 1975.
29. Manahan, S. E., “Environmental Chemistry”, Willard Grant Press, Boston,
Mass., 1972.
30. Stunun, W. and Morgan, J. J.,, “Aquatic Chemistry”, Wiley — Interscience,
New York, 1970.
31. “Trace Metal and Metal—Organic Interactions in Natural Waters”, P.C.
Singer, editor, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1973.
32. “Aqueous Environmental Chemistry of Metals”, A. J. Rubin, editor, Ann
Arbon Science, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1974.
33• Turekein, K. K., and Scott, M. R., “Concentrations of Cr, Ag, Mo, Ni,
Co, and Mn and Suspended Material in Streams”, Environmental Science
and Technology, pp. 940—942, November 1967.
34. Lotse, E. G., et al., “Lindane Adsorption by Lake Sediments”,
Environmental Science and Technology, pp. 353-357, Nay 1968.
35. Streeter, H. W., and Phelps, E. B., “A Study of the Pollution and Natural
Purification of the Ohio River. III. Factors Concerned in the
Phenomena of Oxidation and Reaeration”, Public Health Bulletin No. 146,
U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, D.C., 1925.
36. O’Connor, D. J., and Dobbins, W. E. , “The Mechanism of Reaeration in
Natural Streams”, Journal San. Engr. Div., Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Engr.,
82, p. 1115, 1956.
37. Dobbins, W. E., “BOD and Oxygen Relationships in Streams”, Jour. San.
Eng. Div., Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Engr., 90 ,SA 3, p. 53, 1964.
38. Churchill, M. A., et al., ttPrediction of Stream Reaeration Rates t1 ,
Jour. San. Engr. Div., Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Engr., 88, p. 1, 1962.
39. Langbein, E. B., and Durum, W. J., “The Aeration Capacity of Streams”,
USDA, Geological Survey, Bulletin, p. 542, 1967.
40. Krenkel, P. A., and Orlob, G. T., “Turbulent Diffusion and the Reaeration
Coefficient”, Jour. San. Engr. Div., Proc. Amer. Civil Engr., 88, p. 53,
1962.
41. Thackston, E. L., and Krenkel, P. A., “Reaeration Prediction in Natural
Streams”, Jour. San. Engr. Div., Amer. Soc. Civil Engr., 95 p. 65, 1969.
42. Tsivoglou, E. C., and Neal., L. A., “Tracer Measurement of Reaeration:
III. Predicting the Reaeration Capacity of Inland Streams”, Jour. Water
Poll. Control Fed., Vol. 48, No. 12, 1976.
139
-------
43. Roover, T. C., and Arnoldi, R. A., “Computer Model of Connecticut River
Pollution”, Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed., p. 1970.
414• Gundelach, J. N., and Castillo, J. E., “Natural Stream Purification
Under Anaerobic Conditions”, Jour. WPCF, P. 1976.
45. Haith, D. A., and Chapman, D. C.-, “Best Practicable Waste Treatment
Screening Model”, Jour. of the Environmental Engr. Div., June 1977.
46. Bath, T. D., et al., “Concentration Profiles Downstream from
Instantaneous Pollution Loadings”, Jour. WPCF, p. 1970.
47. Griasrud., G. P., et al., “Evaluation of Water Quality Models, A Manage-
ment Guide for Planners”, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NTIS, PB—256 412
July, 1976.
48. “Manual of Treatment Techniques for Meeting the Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations”, EPA 600/8—77—005, May 1977.
49. Coniwittee Report, “Viruses in Water”, Journal AWWA, P. 491, Oct., 1969.
50. Berg, G., “Removal of Viruses from Water and Wastewater”, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, University of Illinois, 1971.
51. Robeck, G. C., et al., “Effectiveness of Water Treatment Processes in
Virus Removal”, Journal American Water Works Association, 54, p. 1275, 1962.
52. Wolf, H. W., et al., “Virus Inactivation During Tertiary Treatment”,
Journal AWWA, p. 526, 1974.
53. Berg, C., et al., “Removal of Poliovirus 1 from Secondary Effluent by
Lime Flocculation and Sand Filtration”, Journal AWWA, p. 193, Feb., 196a.
54. Hudson, H. E., Jr., “High Quality Water Production and Viral Disease”
Journal American Water Works Association, 54, p. 1265, 1962.
55. Walton, C., “Effectiveness of Water Treatment Processes as Measured
by Coliform Reduction”, U.S. Public Health Service Publication No. 898,
1962.
56. Sproul, 0. J., “Virus Inactivation by Water Treatment”, Journal AWWA,
P. 31, January, 1972.
57. Thorup, R. T., et al., “Virus Removal by Coagulation with Polyelectrolytes”,
Journal AWWA, P. 97, February, 1970.
58. Chaudhuri, N., and Englebrecht, R. S., “Removal of Viruses from Water by
Chemical Coagulation and Flocculation”, Journal AWWA, p. 563, Sept. 1970.
59. Manwaring, 3. F., et al., “Removal, of Viruses by Coagulation and Floc-
culation”, Journal AWWA, p. 298, May, 1971.
140
-------
60. Hann, V. A., “Disinfection of Drinking Water With Ozone”, Journal
AWWA, p. 1316, October, 1956.
61. Pavoni, J. L., et al., “Virus Removal From Wastewater Using Ozone”,
Water and Sewage Works, p. 59, December, 1972.
62. Majumdar, S. B., et al.., “Co unication Inactivation of Poliovirus in
Water by Ozonation”.
63. Syinons, J.M., et al., “Interim Treatment Guide for the Control of
Chloroform and Other Trihalomethanes”, EPA Water Supply Research
Division, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 1976.
64. Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr., “Boost Plant Efficiency”, Water and Wastes
Engineering, pp. E1—E6, September 1972.
65. Eckenf elder, W.W., Jr., “Water Quality Engineering for Practicing
Engineers”, Barnes and Nob’e, Inc., New York, N.Y., 1970.
66. Jones, R.H., “TOC: How Valid Is It?”, Water and Wastes Engineering
pp. 32—33, April 1972.
67. Stenger, V.A., and Van Hall, C.E., “Analysis of Municipal and Chemical
Wastewaters by an Instrumental Method for COD Determination”, Journal
WPCF, pp. 1755—1763, October 1968.
68. Chandler, R.L., et al., “Pollution Monitoring with Total Organic
Carbon Analysis”, Journal WPCF, pp. 2791—2803, December 1976.
69. Weber, W.J., Jr., and Morris, J.C., “Equilibria and Capacities for
Adsorption on Carbon”, Sanitary Engineering Division Journal ASCE, SA3
p . 79, June 1974.
70. Weber, W. J., Jr., “Physicochemical Processes for Water Quality Control”,
Wiley—Interscience, 1972.
n. Weber, W. J., Jr., and Norris, J. C., “Kinetics of Adsorption on Carbon
from Solution”, Sanitary Engineering Division Journal, ASCE, SA2,
p. 31, April, 1963.
72. Hassler, J. W., “Activated Carbon”, Chemical Publishing Co., New York
1974.
73. Joyce, R. S., and Sukenik, V. A., “Feasibility of Granular Activated
Carbon Adsorption for Wastewater Renovation”, U.S. Public Health Service,
Report AWTR—15, October 1965.
74. Weber, W. J., Jr., “Fluid—Carbon Columns for Sorption of Persiatent
Organic Pollutants”, Third International Conference on Water Pollution
Research, Munich, Germany, 1966.
141
-------
75. $orriE, J. C., and Weber, W. J., Jr., “Adsorption of Biochemically
Resistant Materials from Solution”, U.S. Public Health Service,
AWrR—9, May 1964.
76. Hager, D. G., and Rizzo, J., “Removal of Toxic Organics from Wastewater
by Adsorption with Granular Activated Carbon”, presented at EPA Technology
Transfer Session on Treatment of Toxic Chemicals, Atlanta, Georgia, 1974.
Stoltenberg, D. H., “How to Reclaim a Poisoned Lake”, Public Works,
p. 59, March, 1972.
78. Hyndshaw, A. Y., “Activated Carbon to Remove Organic Contaminants frau
Water”, Journal AWWA, p. 309, May 1972.
79. Hager, D. C., and Fulker, R. D., “Adsorption and Filtration with
Granular Activated Carbon”, Journal of the Society for Water Treatment
and Examination, 17, p. 41, 1968.
80. Dostal, K. A., et al., “Carbon Bed Design Criteria Study at Nitro, W. Va.”,
Journal AWWA, p. 663, May1965.
81. Flentje, N. E., and Hager,D. C., “Advance in Taste and Odor Removal
With Granular Carbon Filters”, Water and Sewage Works, February, 1964.
82.Rager, D. C., and Flentje, H. E., “Removal of Organic Contaminants by
Granular Carbon Filtration”, Journal AWWA, p. 1440, November 1965.
83. Hansen, R. E, “Granular Carbon Filters for Taste and Odor Removal”,
Journal AWWA, p. 176, March 1972.
84. Cameron, C. D., et al., “Organic Contaminants in law and Finished Water”,
Journal AWWA, p. 419, September 1974.
85. McCreary, J. L. and Snoeyink, V. L., “Granular Activated Carbon in
Water Treatment”, Journal JA JWA, pp. 437—444, August 1977.
86. Bishop, D. F., et al., “Studies on Activated Carbon Treatment”, Journal
WPCF, p. 188, February 1967.
87. Parkhurst, J. D., et al., “Pomona Activated Carbon Pilot Plant”, Journal
WPCF, p. RiO, October 1967.
88. Middleton, F. N., “Organic Residue Removal”, Symposiitm on Nutrient
Removal and Advanced Waste Treatment”, Tampa, Florida, November 1968.
89. Smith, C. E., and Chapman, R. L., “Recovery of Coagulant, Nitrogen
Removal, and Carbon Regeneration in Wastewater Reclamation”, FWPCA
Grant Report, Grant WPD—85, June 1967.
90. McCarty, P. L., et al., “Organics Removal by Advanced Waste Treatment”,
presented at the 1977 AWA Conference, May 1977.
142
-------
91. DeWalle, F.B., and Chain, E. S., “Removal of Organic Matter by Activated
Carbon Columns”, EED Journal, ASCE, p. 1089, October 1974.
92. Edwards, V.H., and Schubert, P.F.,, “Removal of 2, 4—D and Other Persistent
Organic Molecules From Water Supplies by Reverse Osmosis”, Journal AWWA,
pp. 610—616, October 1974.
93. Merten U., et al., “Organic Removal by Reverse Osmosis”, American
Chemical Society Symposium on Organic Residue Removal from Wastewaters,
Atlantic City, New Jersey, September 1968.
94. Zemansky, G.M., “Removal of Trace Metals During Conventional Water
Treatment”, Journal AWWA, pp. 606—609, October 1974.
95. Nilsson, R., “Removal of Metals by Chemical Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater”, Water Research, 5, p. 51, 1971.
96. Patterson, J.W., “Wastewater Treatment Technology”, Ann Arbor Science,
1975.
97. Smith., S.B., “Trace Metals Removal by Activated Carbon”, in “Traces
of Heavy Metals in Water Removal Processes and Monitoring”, EPA
902/9—74—001, pp. 55—70, November 1973.
98. Sigworth, E.A., and Smith, S.B., “Adsorption of Inorganic Compounds
by Activated Carbon”, Journal AWWA, pp. 386—391, July 1972.
99. Thiem, L., et al., “Removal of Mercury Prom Drinking Water Using Activated
Carbon”, Journal AWWA., pp. 447—451, August 1976.
100. Linstedt, K. D., et al., “Trace Element Removals in Advanced Wastewater
Treatment Processes”, Jouriial WPCF, Vol. 43, No. 7, pp. 1507—1513,
July 1971.
101. Cohen, 3. M., “Trace Metal Removal by Wastewater Treatment”, EPA Technology
Transfer, January 1977.
102. Ferguson, J. F., and Anderson, M. Q., “Chemical Forms of Arsenic in Water
Supplies and Their Removal”, pp. 137—158, in “Chemistry of Water Supply
Treatment and Distribution” by A. J. Rubin, Ann Arbor Science, 1974.
103. Shen, Y. S., “Study of Arsenic Removal From Drinking Water”, Journal
A$JWA, pp. 543—598, August 1973.
104. Maruyama, T., et al., “Metal Removal by Physical and Chemical Treatment
Processes”, Journal WPCF, pp. 962—975, May 1975.
105. Re*, J.D., “Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of
Natural Water”, Geological Survey Water - Supply Paper 1473, 1959.
143
-------
106. Sittig, M., “Toxic Metals, Pollution Control and Worker Protection”,
Noyes Data Corporation, 1976.
107. Logsdon, G.S., and Symons, J.M., “Removal of Heavy Metals by Conventional
Treatment”, in “Traces of Heavy Metals in Water Removal Processes and
Monitoring”, EPA—902/9—74—OO1, pp. 225—256, November 1973.
108. Cuip, G.L., and Cuip, R.L., “New Concepts in Water Purification”,
Van Nostrand Reinhold Environmental Engineering Series, 1974.
109. Parker, C.L., and Fong, C.C., “Fluoride Removal: Technology and Cost
Estimates”, Industrial Wastes, pp. 23—27, 1975.
110. Harmon, J.A., and Kalichman, SB., “Defluoridation of Drinking Water in
Southern California”, Journal AWWA, pp. 245—254, 1965.
111. Hem, J.D., and Durutn, W.H., “Solubility and Occurrence of Lead in Surface
Water”, Journal AWWA, pp. 562—568, August 1973.
112. Humenick, M.J., and Schnoor, J.L., “Improving Mercury (II) Removal by
Activated Carbon”, Journal AWWA, pp. 1249—1262, December 1974.
113. Logsdon, G.S., and Symons, J.M., “Mercury Removal by Conventional Water
Treatment Techniques”, Journal AWWA, pp. 554—562, August 1973.
114. “Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control”, EPA, October 1975.
115. CtUp, R.L., et al., “Advanced Wastewater Treatment”, 2nd Edition,
Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1978.
116. Furukawa, D.H., “Removal of Heavy Metals From Water Using Reverse O nosis”,
in “Traces of Heavy Metals in Water Removal Processes and Monitoring”,
EPA -902/9—74—001, pp. 179—188, November 1973.
117. “Water Quality and Treatment”, American Water Works Association, 3rd
EditIon, 1971.
118. Sawyer, C.N., and McCarty, P.L., “Chemistry for Sanitary Engineers”,
2nd Edition, McGraw—Hill, 1967.
119. United States Public Health Service, “Manual of Recommended Water—
Sanitation Practice:, 1946.
120. Walton, G., “Relation of Treatment Methods to Limits for Coliform
Organisms In Raw Waters”, Journal AWWA, pp. 1281—1289, October 1956.
121. Clarke, N.A., et al., “AWWA Committee Report on Viruses in Water”,
Journal AWWA, pp. 491—494, October 1969.
122. Ford, D.L., “Factors Affecting Variability from Wastewater Treatment
Plants”, Progress in Water Technology, v. 8, no. 1, pp. 91—111,
Permagon Press 1976.
144
-------
123. Gilbert, W.G., “Relation of Operation and Maintenance to Treatment
Plant Efficiency t ’, Journal WPCF, pp. 1822—1833, July 1976.
124. Ettlich, W.F., “A Comparison of Oxidation Ditch Plants to Competing
Processes for Secondary and Advanced Treatment of Municipal Wastes”,
Contract No. 68—03—2186, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977.
125. Grovhong, T.R., “Plant Size Influence on Performance in Activated
Sludge Systems with Application to Regional Wastewater Treatment
Planning”, University of California, Davis, OWRT—B—173—CAL(1), 1973.
126. Hovey, W.H., et al., “Optimal Size of Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plants”, University of California, Davis, OWRT Project—B—173—CAL,
August 1976.
127. Dean, R.B. and Forsythe, S.L., “Estimating the Reliability of Advanced
Waste Treatment”, Water and Sewage Works, pp. 87—89, June 1976 and
pp. 57—60, July 1976.
128. “Federal Guidelines: Design, Operation, and Maintenance of Wastewater
Treatment Facilities”, U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water
Quality Administration, September 1970.
129. Jopling, W.F., et al., “Fitness Needs for Wastewater Reclamation Plants”,
Journal AWWA, pp. 626—629, March 1971.
130. “Development of Reliability Criteria for Water Reclamation Operations”,
California State Department of Health, Water Sanitation Section,
August 1973.
131. “Wastewater Reclamation Criteria”, An excerpt from the California
Administrative Code, Title 22, Division 4, Environmental Health, 1975.
132. Culp, G.L., “Fail—Safe Plant Slated for Virginia”, Water and Wastes
Engineering, p. 51, November 1972.
133. Craun, G.F., et al., “Water Borne Disease Outbreaks in the U.s., 1971—74”,
Journal AW .YA, pp. 420—424, August, 1976.
134. Ames, B..N., et al., “Methods for Detecting Carcinogens and Mutagens with
the Salmonella/Mammalian—Microsome Mutagenicity Test”, Mutation Research
pp. 347—364, 1975.
135. Bryan, F.L., “Disease Transmitted by Foods Contaminated with Wastewater”,
In EPA Document No. 660/2—74—041, pp. 16—45, June 1974.
136. World Health Organization, “Assessment of the Carcinogenicity and
Nutagenicity of Chemicals”, W.H.O. Technical Report Series 566, pp. 19, 1974.
137. Stokinger, H.E., “Toxicology and Drinking Water Contaminants”, Journal
AWWA, pp. 399—402, July, 1972
145
-------
138. Mantel, N. and Bryan, LR., “Safety Testing of Carcinogenic Agents”,
Journal National Cancer Institute, pp. 455—470, 1961.
139. Tardiff, R.G., “Health Effects of Organics: Risk and Hazard Assessment
of Ingested Chloroform”, Journal AWWA, pp. 658—661, December 1977.
146
-------
A E III1X A
WASTEWATER RECLAMATION SYSTEM RELI ABI LIlY CRITERIA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
-------
WASTE WATER
RECLAMATION CRITERIA
An Excerpt from the
CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
TITLE 22, DIVISION 4
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
1975
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Water Sanitation Section
2151 Berkeley Way. Berkeley 94704
Al
-------
INTENT OF REGULATIONS
The intent of these regulations is to establish acceptable levels of
constituents of reclaimed water and to prescribe means for assurance
of reliability in the production of reclaimed water in order to ensure
that the use of reclaimed water for the specified purposes does not
impose undue risks to health. The levels of constituents in combination
with the means for assurance of reliability constitute reclamation crite-
ria as defined in Section 13520 of the California Water Code.
As affirmed in Sections 13510 to 13512 of the California Water Code,
water reclamation is in the best public interest and the policy of the
State is to encourage reclamation. The reclamation criteria are intend-
ed to promote development of facilities which will assist in meeting
water requirements of the State while assuring positive health protec-
tion. Appropriate surveillance and control of treatment facilities, distil-
bution systems, and use areas must be provided in order to avoid health
hazards. Precautions must be taken to avoid direct public contact with
reclaimed waters which do not meet the standards specified in Article
5 foz nonrestricted recreational impoundments.
A2
-------
Article 6. Sampling and Analysis
60321. Sampling and Analysis. (a) Samples for settleable solids
and coliform bacteria, where required, shall be collected at least daily
and at a time when wastewater,tharacteristics are most demanding on
the treatment facilities and disinfection procedures. Turbidity analysis,
where required, shall be performed by a continuous recording tur-
bidimeter.
(b) For uses requiring a level of quality no greater than that of
primary effluent, samples shall be analyzed by an approved laboratory
method of settleable solids.
(c) For uses requiring an adequately disinfected, oxidized waste-
water, samples shall be analyzed by an approved laboratory method for
coliform bacteria content.
(d) For uses requiring an adequately disinfected, oxidized, coagulat-
ed, clarified, filtered wastewater, samples shall be analyzed by ap-
proved laboratory methods for turbidity and coliform bacteria content.
Article 7. Engineering Report and Operational Requirements
60323. Engineering Report. (a) No person shall produce Or supply
reclaimed water for direct reuse from a proposed water reclamation
plant unless he files an engineering report.
(b) The report shall be prepared by a properly qualified engineer
registered in California and experienced in the field of wastewater
treatment, and shall contain a description of the design of the proposed
reclamation system. The report shall clearly indicate the means for
compliance with these regulations and any other features specified by
the regulatory agency.
(c) The report shall contain a contingency plan which will assure
that no untreated or inadequately-treated wastewater will be delivered
to the use area.
60325. Personnel. (a) Each reclamation plant shall be provided
with a sufficient number of qualified personnel to operate the facility
effectively so as to achieve the required level of treatment at all times.
(b) Qualified personnel shall be those meeting requirements estab-
lished pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 13625) of the
Water Code.
60327. Maintenance. A preventive maintenance program shall be
provided at each reclamation plant to ensure that all equipment is kept
in a reliable operating condition.
60329. Operating Records and Reports. (a) Operating records
shall be maintained at the reclamation plant or a central depository
within the operating agency. These shall include: all analyses specified
in the reclamation criteria; records of operational problems, plant and
equipment breakdowns, and diversions to emergency storage or cbs-
posal; all corrective or preventive action taken.
A3
-------
(b) Process or equipment failures triggering an alarm shall be re-
corded and maintained as a separate record file. The recorded inforrna-
hon shall include the time and cause of failure and corrective action
taken.
(c) A monthly summary of operating records as specified under (a)
of this section shall be filed monthly with the regulatory agency.
(d) Any discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater to
the use area, and the cessation of same, shall be reported immediately
by telephone to the regulatory agency, the State Department of Health,
and the local health officer.
60331. Bypass. There shall be no bypassing of untreated or par-
tially treated wastewater from the reclamation plant or any intermedi-
ate unit processes to the point of use.
Article 8. General Requirements of Design
60333. flexibility of Design. The design of process piping, equip-
ment arrangement, and unit structures in the reclamation plant must
allow for efficiency and convenience in operation and maintenance and
provide flexibility of operation to permit the highest possible degree of
treatment to be obtained under varying circumstances.
60335. Alarms. (a) Alarm devices required for various unit proc-
esses as specified in other sections of these regulations shall be installed
to provide warning of:
(1) Loss of power from the normal power supply.
(2) Failure of a biological treatment process.
(3) Failure of a disinfection process.
(4) Failure of a coagulation process.
(5) Failure of a filtration process.
(6) Any other specific process failure for which warning is re-
quired by the regulatory agency.
(b) All required alarm devices shall be independent of the normal
power supply of the reclamation plant.
(c) The person to be warned shall be the plant operator, superin-
tendent, or any other responsible person designated by the manage-
ment of the reclamation plant and capable of taking prompt corrective
action.
(d) Individual alarm devices may be eonnected to a master alarm to
sound at a location where it can be conveniently observed by the at-
tendant. In case the reclamation plant is not attended full time, the
alarm (s) shall be connected to sound at a police station, fire station or
other full-time service unit with which arrangements have been made
to alert the person in charge at times that the reclamation plant is
unattended.
60337. Power Supply. The power supply shall be provided with
one of the following reliability features:
(a) Alarm and standby power source.
(b) Alarm and automatically actuated short-term retention or dis-
posal provisions as specified in Section 60341.
(c) Automatically actuated long-term storage or disposal provisions
as specified in Section 60341.
A4
-------
Article 9. Alternative Reliability Requirements for
Uses Permitting Primary Effluent
60339. Primary Treatment. Reclamation plants producing re
claimed water exclusively for uses for which primary effluent is permit-
ted shall be provided with one of the following reliability features:
(a) Multiple primary treatment units capable of producing primary
effluent with one unit not in operation.
(b) Long-term storage or disposal provisions as specified in Section
Article 10. Alternative Reliability Requirements for Uses Requiring
Oxidized, Disinfected Wastewater or Oxidized, Coagulated,
Clarified, Filtered, Disinfected Wastewater
60341. Emergency Storage or Disposal. (a) Where short-term re-
tention or disposal provisions are used as a reliability feature, these shall
consist of facilities reserved for the purpose of storing or disposing of
untreated or partially treated wastewater for at least a 24-hour period.
The facilities shall include all the necessary diversion devices, provi-
sions for odor control, conduits, and pumping and pump back equip-
ment. All of the equipment other than the pump back equipment shall
be either independent of the normal power supply or provided wjth a
standby power source.
(b) Where long-term storage or disposal provisions are used as a
reliability feature, these shall consist of ponds, reservoirs, percolation
areas, downstream sewers leading to other treatment or disposal facili-
ties or any other facilities reserved for the purpose of emergency stor-
age or disposal of untreated or partially treated wastewater. These
facilities shall be of sufficient capacity to provide disposal or storage of
wastewater for at least 20 days, and shall include all the necessary
diversion works, provisions for odor and nuisance control, conduits, and
pumping and pump back equipment. All of the equipment other than
the pump back equipment shall be either independent of the normal
power supply or provided with a standby power source.
(c) Diversion to a less demanding reuse is an acceptable alternative
to emergency disposal of partially treated wastewater provided that the
quality of the partially treated wastewater is suitable for the less de-
manding reuse
(d) Subject to prior approval by the regulatory agency, diversion to
a discharge point which requires lesser quality of wastewater is an
acceptable alternative to emergency disposal of partially treated waste-
water.
(e) Automatically actuated short-term retention or disposal provi-
sions and automatically actuated long-term storage or disposal provi-
sions shall include, in addition to provisions of (a), (b), (c), or (d of
this section, all the necessary sensors, instruments, valves and other
devices to enable fully automatic diversion of untreated or partially
treated wastewater to approved emergency storage or disposal in the
event of Failure of a treatment process, and a manual reset to prevent
automatic restart until the failure is corrected.
AS
-------
60343. Primary Treatment. All primary treatment unit processes
shall be provided with one of the following reliability features:
a) Multiple primary treatment units capable of producing primary
effluent with one unit not in operation.
(b) Standby primary treatment unit process.
(c) Long-term storage or disposal provisions.
60345. Biological Treatment. M I biological treatment unit proc-
esses shall be provided with one of the following reliability features:
(a) Alarm and multiple biological treatment units capable of produc-
ing exidized wastewater with one unit not in operation.
(b) Alarm, short-term retention or disposal provisions, and standby
replacement equipment.
(c) Alarm and long-term storage or disposal provisions.
(d) Automatically actuated long-term storage or disposal provisions.
60347. Secondary Sedimentation. All secondary sedimentation
unit processes shall be provided with one of the following reliability
features:
(a) Multiple sedimentation units capable of treating the entire flow
with one unit not in operation.
(b) Standby sedimentation unit process.
(è) Long-term storage or disposal provisions.
60349 Coagulation.
(a) All coagulation unit processes shall be provided with the follow-
ing mandatory features for uninterrupted coagulant feed:
(1) Standby feeders,
(2) Adequate chemical storage and conveyance facilities,
(3) Adequate reserve chemical supply, and
(4) Automatic dosage control.
(b) All coagulation unit processes shall be provided with one of the
following reliability features:
(1) Alarm and multiple coagulation units capable of treating the
entire flow with one unit not in operation;
(2) Alarm, short-term retention or disposal provisions, and stand-
by replacement equipment;
(3) Alarm and long-term storage or disposal provisions;
(4) Automatically actuated long-term storage or disposal provi-
sions; or
(5) Alarm and standby coagulation process.
60351. Filtration. All filtration unit processes shall be provided
with one of the following reliability features
(a) Alarm and multiple filter units capable of treating the entire flow
with one unit not in operation.
(b) Alarm, short-term retention or disposal provisions and standby
replacement equipment.
A6
-------
(c) Alarm and long-term storage or disposal provisions.
(d) Automatically actuated long-term storage or disposal provisions.
(e) Alarm and standby filtration unit process.
60353. Disinfection.
(a) All disinfection unit processes where chlorine is used as the disin-
fectant shall be provided with the following features for uninterrupted
chlorine feed:
(1) Standby chlorine supply,
(2) Manifold systems to connect chlorine cylinders,
(3) Chlorine scales, and
(4) Automatic devices for switching to full chlorine cylinders.
Automatic residual control of chlorine dosage, automatic measuring
and recording of chlorine residual, and hydraulic performance studies
may also be required.
(b) All disinfection unit processes where chlorine is used as the disin-
fectant shall be provided with one of the following reliability features:
(1) Alarm and standby chlorinator;
(2) Alarm, short-term retention or disposal provisions, and stand-•
by replacement equipment;
(3) Alarm and long-term storage or disposal provisions;
(4) Automatically actuated long-term storage or disposal provi-
sions; or
(5) Alarm and multiple point chlorination, each with independent
power source, separate chlorinator, and separate chlorine supply.
60355. Other Alternatives to Reliability Requirements. Other al-
ternatives to reliability requirements set forth in Articles 8 to 10 may
be accepted if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the State
Department of Health that the proposed alternative will assure an
equal degree of reliability.
Article 11. Other Methods of Treatment
60357. Other Methods of Treatment. Methods of treatment other
than those included in this chapter and their reliability features may be
accepted if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the State
Department of Health that the methods of treatment and reliability
features will assure an equal degree of treatment and reliability.
A7
-------
A EEJ I IX II
WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM COSTS
-------
S LU1.t AR1
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
SECONDARY TREATMENT
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Bi
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
TOTAL
CHEM O$M/YR
TN/YR THOU S
THE FOLLOWING 16 PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS OF SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT SLUDGE
*TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTOR$*
THOU CTS/ S PER $ PER
S K GAL CAPITA HOME
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT FUEL
FLOW COST COST THOU NAT’L LABOR NIL
MGI ’ THOU S THOU S KWH/YR KS/YR HR/YR STU/YR
t’ .)
1 RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING
1.0
215
258
70
0.6 1030
0
0.0
13
37
10.1
3,70
1 RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING
5.0
720
864
269
1.4 1195
0
0.0
21
103
5,6
2.06
7.21
I RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING
10.0
1284
1541
516
2.6 1458
0
0.0
33
178
4.9
1.78
6.23
1 RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING
23.0
2462
2954
1231
7.0 2308
0
0.0
67
346
3.8
1.38
4.84
1 RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING
50.0
3911
4693
2347
13.0 3648
0
0.0
120
563
3.1
1.13
3.94
2 AERATED GRIT CHAMBER
1.0
107
128
4
2.1 954
0
0.0
12
24
6.6
2.40
8.40
2 AERATED GRIT CHAMBER
5.0
201
241
19
3.0 1869
0
0.0
22
45
2.5
0.90
3.15
2 AERATED GRIT CHAMBER
10.0
312
374
36
4.4 3013
0
0.0
36
71
1.9
0.71
2,49
2 AERATED GRIT CHAMBER
25.0
558
670
79
10.0 6445
0
0.0
77
140
1.5
0,56
1.96
2 AERATED GRIT CHAMBER
50.0
826
991
136
18.0 12165
0
0.0
144
238
1.3
0.48
1.67
3 CIRCULAR PRIMARY CLARIFIER
1.0
160
192
10
0.5 287
0
0.0
4
22
6.0
2.20
7.70
3 CIRCULAR PRIMARY CLARIFIER
5.0
358
430
12
1.3 582
0
0.0
8
49
2,7
0.98
3.43
3 CIRCULAR PRIMARY CLARIFIER
10.0
715
858
24
2.6 1163
0
0.0
15
96
2.6
0.96
3.36
3 CIRCULAR PRIMARY CLARIFIER
25.0
1421
1705
31
5.4 2.065
0
0.0
27
188
2,1
0.75
2.63
3 CIRCULAR PRIMARY CLARIFIER
50.0
2490
2988
42
9.3 3130
0
0.0
42
324
1.8
0.65
2.27
4 AERATION BASIN
1.0
165
198
0
0.0 0
0
0.0
0
19
5,2
1,90
6.65
4 AERATION BASIN
5.0
617
740
0
0.0 0
0
0.0
0
70
3.8
1.40
4.90
4 AERATION BASIN
10.0
1147
1376
0
0.0 0
0
0.0
0
130
3.6
1.30
4.55
4 AERATION BASIN
25.0
2497
2996
0
0.0 0
0
0.0
0
283
3,1
1.13
3,96
4 AERATION BASIN
50.0
3956
4747
0
0.0 0
0
0.0
0
448
2.5
0.90
3.14
5 MECHANICAL AERATION EQUIPMENT
1.0
135
162
400
5.3 1882
0
0.0
36
51
14.0
5.10
17.85
5 MECHANICAL AERATION EQUIPMENT
5.0
463
556
2000
8.6 3654
0
0.0
105
157
8.6
3.14
10.99
5 MECHANICAL AERATION EQUIPMENT
10.0
833
1000
4000
12.3 5659
0
0.0
189
283
7.8
2.83
9.91
S MECHANICAL AERATION EQUIPMENT
25.0
1705
2046
10000
20.4 10271
0
0.0
423
616
6.8
2,46
8.62
5 MECHANICAL AERATION EQUIPMENT
50.0
2565
3078
20000
26.3 13279
0
0.0
759
1050
5.8
2.10
7.35
6 CIRCULAR SECONDARY CLARIFIER
1.0
177
212
10
0.6 313
0
0.0
4
24
6,6
2.40
8,40
6 CIRCULAR SECONDARY CLARIFIER
6 CIRCULAR SECONDARY CLARIFIER
6 CIRCULAR SECONDARY CLARIFIER
5.0
10.0
25.0
438
876
1792
S26
1051
2150
13
26
35
1.7 693
3.3 1385
6.8 2470
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9
18
33
59
127
236
3,2
3.2
2.6
1.18
1.17
0.94
4.13
4.10
3.30
6 CIRCULAR SECONDARY CLARIFIER
50.0
3396
4075
60
12.7 4393
0
0.0
58
443
2,4
0.89
3.10
7 CHLORINE FEED SYSTEMS
7 CHLORINE FEED SYSTEMS
1.0
S,0
20
57
24
68
4
11
1.8 410
2.4 749
0
0
15.3
76.3
9
27
11
33
3.0
1.8
1.10
0.66
3.85
2.31
7 CHLORINE FEEL’ SYSTEMS
10,0
92
110
18
3.1 1129
0
152.4
48
58
1.6
0.58
2.03
7 CHLORINE FEED SYSTEMS
7 CHLORINE FEED SYSTEMS
2S.0
50,0
142
173
170
210
33
43
4.6 2020
5.4 2907
0
0
381.1
761.9
110
203
126
223
1.4
1.2
0.50
0.45
1.76
1.56
-------
9 RETURN ACT SLUDGE PUMPING
9 RETURN ACT SLUDGE PUMPING
9 RETURN ACT SLUDGE PUMPING
9 RETURN ACT SLUDGE PUMPING
9 RETURN ACT SLUDGE PUMPING
1.0
5.0
10,0
25 • 0
50.0
86 103 11 0.5
203 244 43 0.9
312 374 81 1.4
457 548 193 3.1
556 667 365 8.4
108
128
151
2i 6
306
0 0.0 8 18 4.9
0 0.0 11 34 1.9
0 0.0 15 50 1.4
0 0.0 26 78 0.9
0 0,0 39 102 0.6
0 0.0
0 0.0
o o.o
o o.o
0 0.0
3.15
1.33
0.98
0.62
0.36
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
8 CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN
8 CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN
8 CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN
8 CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN
11 CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN
AVE CONSIN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L
MGI THOU $ THOU $ KWH/YR KS/YR
FUEL.
LABOR NIL
HR/YR BTU/YR
29
811
149
263
410
1.0
5.0
10. C)
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
35 0 0.0
106 0 0.0
179 0 0.0
316 0 0.0
492 0 0.0
TOTAL *TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORS*
EllEN O$M/YR THOU CTS/ $ PER $ PER
TN/YR THOU $ $ N GAL CAPITA HOME
0 0 0,0 0 3 0.11
0 0 0.0 0 10 0.5
0 0 0.0 0 17 0,5
0 0 0.0 0 30 0.3
0 0 0.0 0 46 0.3
733
921
1154
1691
2168
10 WASTE SLUDGE PUMPING
10 WASTE SLUDGE PUMPING
10 WASTE SLUDGE PUMF’ING
10 WASTE SLUDGE PUMPING
10 WASTE SLUDGE PUMPING
GRAVITY THICKENER
GRAVITY THICKENER
GRAVITY THICKENER
GRAVITY THICKENER
GRAVITY THICKENER
11
11
11
11
11
0.30
0.20
0,17
0.12
0.09
1.80
0.68
0,50
0.31
0.20
64 77 0 1.3
141 169 1 1.8
216 259 2 2.4
331 397 5 4,3
359 431 10 7.3
1.05
0.70
0.59
0.42
0.32
6.30
2.38
1.75
1.09
0,71
2 9 2.5 0.90
3 19 1.0 0.38
4 28 0.8 0.28
7 44 0.5 0.18
11 52 0.3 0,10
67 80
142 170
164 197
227 272
321 385
PROCESS
239 287
292 350
411 493
615 738
12 FLOTATION
12 FLOTATION
12 FLOTATION
12 FLOTATION
12 FLOTATION
13 ANAEROBIC
13 ANAEROBIC
1 ANAEROBIC
13 ANAEROBIC
13 ANAEROBIC
THICKENER
THICKENER
THICKENER
THICKENER
THICKENER
DIGESTER
DIGESTER
DIGESTER
DIGESTER
DIGESTER
3 0.1 300
6 0.2 606
6 0.3 623
8 0.5 676
10 0.8 765
NOT INCLUDED FOR THIS
214 0.1 919
396 0.2 1678
878 0.3 3643
1553 0.6 6271
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
3 11 3.0
6 22 1.2
•7 26 0,7
B 34 0.4
9 45 0.2
0 0.0
o o.o
0 0.0
o 0,0
0 0.0
PLANT CAPACITY
0 0.0
0 0.0
o 0.0
0 0.0
1.10
0.44
0.26
0,14
0.09
3.85
1.54
0.91
0.48
0. 2
14 SAND DRYING BEDS
14 SAND DRYING BEDS
14 SAND DRYING BEDS
14 SAND DRYING BEDS
14 SAND DRYING BEDS
31
156
313
782
1563
2.0
3,7
5.6
10.1
14.9
189
506
853
1661
2859
77
352
683
1619
3250
16 43 2.4 0.86 3.01
29 62 1.7 0.62 2.17
63 210 1.2 0.44 1.54
110 180 1.0 0.36 1.26
227
607
1024
1993
3431
92
422
820
2943
3900
2116
10580
21160
52900
105800
1093
1745
2560
4991
8934
688
3854
9329
29793
39901
0.0 20 41
0.0 58 115
0,0 104 201
0.0 242 430
0.0 469 793
0 2.6
0 13.0
0 26.0
0 65.1
0 130.1
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0,0
11.2
6.3
5,5
4,7
4,3
4.9
5.0
5,4
6.0
4,9
4.10
2.30
2.01
1.72
1.59
1.80
1.84
1.96
2.18
1.79
9
119
363
529
14.35
8.05
7.03
6.02
5.55
6.30
6,44
6.86
7.64
6.28
18
92
196
546
897
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT FUEL
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L LABOR NIL
MOD THOU $ THOU $ KWH/YR KS/YR HR/YR BTU/YR
TOTAL *TDTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORS*
CHEM OLM/YR THOU CTS/ S PER $ PER
TN/YR THOU $ S K GAL CAPITA HONE
16 YARD MAINTENANCE
16 YARD MAINTENANCE
16 . YARD MAINTENANCE
16 YARD MAINTENANCE
16 YARD MAINTENANCE
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
THE FOLLOWING 7 PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS OF MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION—SEC EFF
18 FILTRA—HYB AULIC SURFACE WASH
18 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
10 F.ILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
18 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
18 FILTRA-HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
12 14 4 0.0 56
39 47 17 0.0 175
62 74 33 0.0 241
117 140 81 0.1 312
211 253 162 0.1 375
23 23 6.3 2.30
26 26 1.4 0.52
32 32 0.9 0,32
50 50 0.5 0.20
68 68 0.4 0.14
0.70
0.42
0.35
0.27
0 • 23
15 SLUDGE HAULING
15 SLUDGE HAULING
15 SLUDGE HAULING
15 SLUDGE HAULING
15 SLUDGE HAULING
1.0
5,0
10.0
25.0
50.0
0 0 0 0.7
0 0 0 1.7
0 0 0 3.1
0 0 0 7.3
0 0 0 14,5
102
408
799
2024
4172
0 0,0
0 0,0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0 0 1.6 2100
0 0 0 1,9 2385
0 0 0 2.5 2985
0 0 0 4,1 4557
0 0 0 5.2 6311
2 2 0.5 0.20
6 6 0.3 0.12
11 11 0,3 0.11
28 28 0.3 0.11
56 56 0.3 0.11
SECONDARY TREATMENT-ACT
SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT
SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT
SECONDARY TREATMENT-ACT
SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT
17 GRAVITY FILTRATION
17 GRAVITY FILTRATION
17 GRAVITY FILTRATION
17 GRAVITY FILTRATION
17 GRAVITY FILTRATION
TOTAL COST FOR COMPONF. 4TS I THRI) 16 SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT SLUDGE
SLUDGE 1.0 1710 2050 543 19,5 10000 2116 15.3 145
SLUDGE 5.0 5197 6239 2744 41.7 19708 10580 76.3 370
SLUDGE 10.0 9109 10934 5418 69,9 33086 21160 152,4 660
SLUDGE 25.0 17871 21443 13275 149,0 73170 52900 381.1 1524
SLUDGE 50.0 29535 35443 26129 264,6 108350 105800 761.9 2617
STRUC TURE
STRUCTURE
S TRUCTU RE
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
0 .70
0.42
0.39
0.39
0.39
8.05
1.82
1.12
0.70
0.48
109.55
61.81
54.46
45,99
38.70
14,35
6.58
5,36
4.23
3,37
313
883
1556
3285
5528
85,8
48,4
42.6
36.0
30.3
175
545
956
1919
2896
31,30
17.66
15.56
13,14
11.06
210
654
1147
2303
3475
15
48
87
184
297
1.6
6.0
11.0
23.5
38.2
1904
2422
3127
5621
10710
1.0
5,0
10.0
25.0
50 ,0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50,0
19 FILTRA—BACKUASH PUMPING SYSTEM
19 •FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
19 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
19 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
19 FILTRA-DACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
0 0.0 21 41 11.2 4,10
0 0.0 32 94 5.2 1,138
0 0,0 45 153 4,2 1.53
0 0.0 85 302 3,3 1.21
0 0.0 154 482 2.6 0.96
0 0.0 1 2 0.5 0.20
0 0.0 2 6 0.3 0.12
0 0.0 3 10 0.3 0.10
0 0.0 6 19 0.2 0,08
0 0.0 9 33 0.2 0.07
93
368
601
960
1441
112
442
721
1152
1729
6
20
55
138
277
0.0 6 0 0.0 0 11 3.0 1.10
0.1 18 0 0.0 1 43 2.4 0,136
0.2 26 0 0.0 2 70 1.9 070
0.4 40 0 0.0 5 114 1.2 0.46
0.? 5? 0 0,0 10 173 0.9 0.35
3.85
3.01
2.45
1 .60
1,21
-------
22 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
22 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
22 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
22 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
22 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
22 26 23 0.2
23 28 23 0.2
26 31 23 0.3
33 40 23 0.3
67 80 46 0,6
TOTAL COST FOR COMPONENTS 17 THRU 23 MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION-SEC EFF
THE FOLLOWING 14 PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS OF LIME CLARIFICATION
TOTAL *TOTAL ANI IUAL COST FACTORS*
CHEM OSM/YR THOU CTS/ S PER S PER
TN/YR THOU S * K GAL CAPITA HOME
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L
MOD THOU S THOU S KWH/YR KS/YR
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
20 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
20 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
20 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
20 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
20 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
21 SUPPLY PUMPING
21 SUPPLY PUMPING
21 SUPPLY PUMPING
21 SUPPLY PUMPING
21 SUPPLY PUMPING
FUEL
LABOR MIL
HR/YR BTU/YR
11
37
68
152
273
30
47
69
132
234
13
44
82
182
328
36
56
83
158
281
0 0.0 0 0 0,0
0 0.0 0 0 0.0
0 0.0 0 0 0.0
0 0.0 0 0 0,0
0 0.0 0 0 0,0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10,0
25.0
50,0
45
0.3
520
0
0.0
226
0.9
623
0
0.0
451
1.6
747
0
0.0
1128
3.7
1096
0
0.0
2254
7.6
1618
0
0.0
O 1 0.3
0 4 0.2
O 8 0.2
0 17 0.2
0 31 0.2
7 10 2.7
14 19 1.0
23 31 0.8
49 64 0.7
91 118 0,6
23
23
LI’ 23
23
23
ALUM FEED SYSTEM
ALUM FEED SYSTEM
ALUM FEED SYSTEM
ALUM FEED SYSTEM
ALUM FEED SYSTEM
198 0 0.2 4 6 1.6
198 0 0.8 6 9 0.5
199 0 1.5 9 12 0.3
201 0 3,8 18 22 0.2
403 0 7.6 36 44 0.2
22 26 9 0.2
31 37 10 0.2
41 49 11 0.2
69 83 15 0.2
106 127 21 0.2
284 0 15.3
293 0 76.2
304 0 152.4
341 0 381.1
405 0 762.1
4 6 1.6
9 12 0.7
15 20 0,5
33 41 0.4
62 74 0.4
0.10
0,08
0.08
0.07
0.06
1.00
0.38
0.31
0.26
0.24
0.60
0.18
0.12
0.09
0.09
0,60
0.24
0.20
0.16
0.15
7.70
3.74
3.04
2.32
1,91
2.50
0.66
0,42
0.20
0.11
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION—SEC EFF
1.0
416
498
102
2.3
2968
0
15.5
37
77
21.1
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION—SEC EFF
5.0
1250
1502
352
7,4
3729
0
77.0
64
187
10,2
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION-SEC EFF
10.0
2094
2513
660
13.2
4644
0
153.9
97
304
8.3
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION—SEC EFF
25.0
3885
4664
1569
28.1
7611
0
384.9
196
579
6.3
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION—SEC EFF
50.0
6009
7212
3057
47,4
13568
0
769.7
362
955
5.2
0.35
0.28
0.28
0.24
0.22
3.50
1 .33
1.09
0.90
0.83
2,10
0.63
0,42
0.31
0,31
2.10
0.84
0.70
0,57
0.52
26.95
13.09
10,64
8,11
6.69
8.75
2.31
1.47
0.71
0.39
24 LIME FEEDING
24 LIME FEEDING
24 LIME FEEDING
24 LIME FEEDING
24 LIME FEEDING
1,0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
98 118 20 1.2 1189
136 163 20 1.2 1639
164 197 21 1,2 2092
173 208 27 1.3 2878
177 212 45 1.6 3208
O 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0,0
0 0.0
14 25 6.8
18 33 1.8
23 42 1.2
31 51 0.6
35 55 0.3
-------
25 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
25 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
25 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
25 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
25 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
22 26 23 0,2
23 28 23 0.2
26 31. 23 0.3
33 40 23 0.3
67 80 46 0.6
TOTAL *TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORS*
CHEM OEM/YR THOU CTS/ $ PER S PER
TN/YR THOU * $ K GAL CAPITA HOME
10
22
37
80
150
198 0 0.2 4 6 1.6
198 0 0.8 6 9 0.5
199 0 1.5 9 12 0.3
201 0 3.8 18 22 0.2
403 0 7.6 36 44 0.2
12 32
26 157
44 315
96 787
180 1574
0.2
0.5
0.8
1,8
3.3
0.60
0.18
0.12
0.09
0.09
2.10
0,63
0.42
0.31
0.31
0• ’
470 0 0.0
468 0 0.0
469 0 0.0
499 0 0.0
617 0 0.0
41
111
187
342
417
49
133
224
410
500
6 7 1.9
10 12 0.7
15 19 0.5
30 39 0.4
57 74 0.4
9 0.4
47 1.0
94 1,8
234 3.5
468 5,3
0.70
0.24
0.19
0.16
0.15
2.45
0.84
0.66
0.55
0.52
152
319
521
1240
2172
COMPONENT
AVE
CONSTN
CAPITAL
ELEC MAINT
FUEL
OR
FLOW
COST
COST
THOU MAT’L
LABOR
NIL
SYSTEM
MOD
THOU $
THOU $
KWH/YR KS/YR
HR/YR
BTU/YR
1.0
5.0
10.0
25,0
50.0
26 RAPID MIX
1.0
26 RAPID MIX
5.0
26 RAPID MIX
10,0
26 RAPID MIX
25.0
26 RAPID MIX
50.0
27 FLOCCULATION
1.0
27 FLOCCULATION
5.0
27 FLOCCULATION
10.0
27 FLOCCULATION
25.0
27 FLOCCULATION
50.0
28 CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
1.0
2$ CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
5,0
28 CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
10,0
28 CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
25.0
28 CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
50.0
29 RE CARBONATION BASIN
1.0
29 RECARBONATION BASIN
5.0
29 RECARBONATION BASIN
10.0
29 RECARBONATION BASIN
25.0
29 RECARBONATION BASIN
50.0
30 RECARB WITH SUBMERGED
BURNERS
1.0
137
164
4.1
160
13815 0.0
56
71
19.5
7.10
24.$
30 RECARB WITH SUBMERGED
BURNERS
5,0
PROCESS
NOT INCLUDED
FOR THIS
PLANT CAPACITY
30,RECARB WITH SUBMERGED
BURNERS
10.0
PROCESS
NOT INCLUDED
FOR THIS
PLANT CAPACITY
30 RECARD WITH SUBMERGED
BURNERS
25.0
PROCESS
NOT INCLUDED
FOR THIS
PLANT CAPACITY
30 RECARB WITH SUBMERGED
BURNERS
50.0
PROCESS
NOT INCLUDED
FOR THIS
PLANT CAPACITY
31 RECARS WITH STACK GAS
1.0
PROCESS
NOT INCLUDED
FOR THIS
PLANT CAPACITY
31 RECARB WITH STACK GAS
5.0
77
92
2542 4.2
333
0 0.0
84
93
5,1
1.86
6.51
31 RECARB WITH STACK GAS
10,0
155
186
5084 6.2
558
0 0,0
164
182
5.0
1.82
6,37
31 RECARB WITH STACK GAS
25.0
389
467
12707 10.1
1014
0 0.0
401
445
4.9
1.78
6.23
31 RECARB WITH STACK GAS
50.0
773
928
25419 13.3
1631
0 0.0
792
880
4.8
1.76
6,16
105 0 0.0 2 7 1.9
161 0 0.0 4 17 0.9
218 0 0.0 7 28 0.8
312 0 0.0 14 53 0.6
349 0 0,0 23 70 0.4
182
383
625
1488
2606
10 0.5
11 1.2
14 2.0
29 4.7
39 8.2
0.70
0.34
0.28
0,21
0,14
274
527
802
1851
2844
2.45
1.19
0.9$
0,74
0.49
0 0,0
0 0,0
0 0 ,0
0 0.0
0 0.0
19
56
85
148
297
23
67
102
178
356
3 20 5.5
7 43 2.4
10 69 1.9
24 164 1.8
3B 284 1.6
0 0,0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
2.00
0.86
0,69
0.66
0,57
7.00
3.01
2.42
2.30
1,99
O 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
O 0 0.0
285
0 2 0.5
0 6 0.3
0 10 0.3
0 17 0.2
0 34 0.2
0.20
0.1.2
0,10
0.07
0.07
0.70
0.42
0.35
0.24
0.24
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
33 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE
33 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE
33 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING-DILUTE
33 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING-DILUTE
33 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE
1,0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
MAINT
PIATL
KS/YR
51 61 1 2.5
74 89 7 3.4
102 122 13 4.1
166 199 33 5.8
218 262 66 8.5
PROCESS
1220 1464
1590 1908
2556 3067
3682 4418
FUEL
LAEOR NIL
HR/YR BTU/YR
NOT INCLUDED FOR THIS
301 5.6 2708
421 7.9 4188
688 13.9 7966
1025 22.0 12539
84 0 0.0 3 9 2.5
142 0 0.0 5 13 0.7
177 0 0.0 6 18 0.5
275 0 0.0 10 29 0.3
412 0 0.0 15, 40 0.2
PLANT CAPACITY
25903 0.0
34334 0.0
66490 0.0
138002 0.0
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC
FLOW COST COST THOU
MOD THOU $ THOU S KWH/YR
32 RECTANGULAR CLARXFXERS
32 RECTANGULAR CLARIFIERS
32 RECTANGULAR CLARIFIERS
32 RECTANGULAR CLARIFIERS
32 RECTANGULAR CLARIFIERS
44
53
3
0.3
160
192
8
0.8
263
316
10
1.0
535
642
21
2.1
1070
1284
42
4.1
177
434
569
93,
1877’
TOTAL *TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTOMIS
CHEM OSM/YR THOU, CTS/ S PER S PER
TN/YR THOU S $ K GAL CAPITA HOME
0 0.0 2 7 1.9
0 0.0 5 23 1.3
O 0.0 7 37 1.0
O 6,0 12 73 0.8
O 0.0 24 145 0.8
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
34 GRAVITY THICKENER
34 GRAVITY THICKENER
34 GRAVITY THICKENER
34 GRAVITY THICKENER
34 GRAVITY THICKENER
35 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE
35 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE
35 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE
35 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE
35 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE
36 MULTIPLE HEARTH RECALCINATION
36 MULTIPLE HEARTH RECALCINATION
36 MULTIPLE HEARTH RECALCINATION
36 MULTIPLE HEARTH RECALCINATION
36 MULTIPLE HEARTH RECALCINATION
65 78 3 0.1
70 84 3 0.1
80 96 3 0.1
171 205 6 0.3
219 263 8 0.5
150 180 38 1.5
156 187 45 1.7
179 215 71 2.6
241 289 146 5.2
313 376 252 8.3
298 0 0.0
302 0 0.0
310 0 0.0
629 0 0.0
669 0 0.O
0.70
0.46
0.37
0.29
0.29
0.90
0,26
0,18
0.12
0.08
1.00
0.22
0.12
0.10
0.06
2.70
0.58
0.34
0.20
0.14
2.45
1.61
1.30
1.02
1.02
3.15
0, 1
0.63
0.41
0.28
3.50
0.77
0.42
0.36
0.22
9.45
2.03
1, 1
0.70
0.4
729
772
936
1383
1906
3 10 2.7
3 11 0.6
3 12 0.3
7 26 0.3
7 32 0.2
10 27 7.4’
11 29 1.6
14 34 0.9
23 50 0.5
35 70 0,4
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
O 0.0
119 257 14.1 5.14 17,99
165 345 9.5 3.45 12.08
314 604 6.6 2.42 8.46
592 1009 5.5 2.02 7.06
37 SLUDGE HAULING
1.0
0 0
0
0.9 163 0
0.0
2
2
0.5
0.20
0.70
37 SLUDGE HAULING
5.0
0 0
0
1.0 198 0
0.0
3
3
0.2
0.06
0.21
17 8LUDGE HAULING
10.0
0 0
0
1.6 371 0
0.0
5
5
0.1
0.05
0.18
37 SLUDGE HAULING
25.0
0 0
0
3.4 ‘ 903 0
0.0
12
12
0.1
0.05
0.17
37 SLUDGE HAULING
50.0
0 0
0
6.6 1824 0
0,0
25
25
0.1
0.05
0.18
TOTAL
COST FOR
COMPONENTS 24
THRU
37
LIME CLARIFICATION
LIME CLARIFICATION
1.0
901 1082
424
11.9 3847 13815
0.2
105
193
52.9
19.30
67.55
LIME CLARIFICATION
5.0
2783 3338
3164
21.1 7882 25903
0,8
275
549
30.1
10.98
38.43
LIME CLARIFICATION
10.0
3892 4670
6069
29.6 10889 34334
1.5
428
813
22.3
8.13
28.45
LIME CLARIFICATION
25.0
6980 8378
14701
52.4 18850 66490
3.8
896
1585
17.4
6.34
22.19
LIME CLARIFICATION
50.0
10981 13180
28984
82,4 28279 138002
7.6
1679
2762
15.1
5,52
19.33
-------
THE FOLLOWING 7 PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS OF MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION-AWT
43 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
43 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
43 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
43 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
43 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
22 26 23 0.2
23 28 23 0.2
26 31 23 0.3
33 40 23 0.3
67 00 46 0.6
44 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
44 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
44 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
44 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
44 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
1.0
5.0
10,0
25.0
50.0
22 26 9 0.2
31 37 10 0.2
41 49 Ii. 0.2
69 83 15 0.2
106 127 21 0.2
284 0 15.3
293 0 76.2
304 0 152.4
341 0 301.1
405 0 762.1
4 6 1.6
9 ‘12 0.7
15 20 0.5
33 41 0.4
62 74 0.4
0.60 2.10
0.24 0.84
0.20 0.70
0.16 0.57
0.15 0.52
COMPONENT
AVE
CONSTN
CAPITAL
ELEC
MAINT
FUEL
TOTAL
*TOTAL
ANNUAL
COST
FACTORS*
OR
SYSTEM
FLOW
MOD
COST
THOU $
COST
THOU $
THOU
KWH/YR
MAT’L LABOR NIL CHEM O M/YR
KS/YR HR/YR 811$/YR TN/YR THOU $
THOU
S
CTS/
K GAL
$ PER
CAPITA
S PER
HOME
136
364
631
1321
2165
163
437
757
1585
2598
11
32
56
122
211
1.1
3.8
7.0
15.6
26.9
1856
2157
2558
3903
6560
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
11 13
25 30
42 50
77 92
135 162
20 35 9.6
26 67 3.7
34 105 2.9
58 208 2.3
99 344 1.9
38 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
38 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
38 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
38 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
38 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
39 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
39 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
39 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
39 FILTRA-HYORAULIC SURFACE WASH
39 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
40 FXLTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
40 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
40 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
40 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
40 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
41 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
41 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
41 MEDIA-MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
41 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
41 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
42 SUPPLY PUMPING
42 SUPPLY PUMPING
42 SUPPLY PUMPING
42 SUPPLY PUMPING
42 SUPPLY PUMPING
71
232
404
707
1009
3.50
1.34
1 .05
0,83
0.69
0,20
0.08
0,07
0.05
0,04
85
278
485
848
1211
1.0
5,0
10.0
25,0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50,0
1,0
5.0
10.0
25,0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50,0
1.0
5,0
10,0
25.0
50 .0
1.0
5,0
10.0
25.0
50,0
2 0.0
10 0.0
20 0.0
49 0.0
97 0.1
3 0.0
17 0.1
33 0,1
83 0.2
166 0.4
0 0.0
0 0,0
0 0.0
0 0,0
0 0.0
54 0 0.0 1 2 0.5
115 0 0,0 1 4 0.2
178 0 0.0 2 7 0.2
248 0 0.0 4 13 0.1
311 0 0.0 6 21 0,1
5 0 0,0 0 8 2.2 0.80
12 0 0,0 1 27 1.5 0,54
19 0 0.0 1 47 1.3 0.47
29 0 0.0 3 83 0.9 0.33
43 0 0,0 6 120 0.7 0.24
0 0 0.0 0 1 0.3 0.10
0 0 0.0 0 3 0,2 0.06
0 0 0.0 0 5 0.1 0.05
0 0 0.0 0 11 0.1 0.04
0 0 0,0 0 20 0.1 0.04
8 10
24 29
44 53
98 118
178 214
30 36
47 56
69 83
132 158
234 281
12.25
4,69
3.67
2.91
2,41
0.70
0.28
0.25
0.18
0.15
2.80
1,89
1.65
1,16
0.84
0,35
0,21
0.18
0,15
0.14
3,50
1.33
1.09
0.90
0,83
2,10
0.63
0.42
0.31
0,31
.45
226
451
1128
2254
0.3
0.9
1.6
3,7
7.6
520
0
0.0
7
10
623
0
0.0
14
19
747
0
0.0
23
31
1096
1618
0
0
0.0.
0.0
49
91
64
118
2.7 1,00
1.0 0.38
0,8 0.31
0.7 0.26
0.6 0.24
198 0 0.2 4 6 1.6
198 0 0.8 6 9 0.5
199 0 1.5 9 12 0.3
201 0 3.8 18 22 0,2
403 0 7.6 36 44 0.2
0.60
0.18
0.12
0,09
0.09
-------
C l M l ‘(JOE, N
OR
S Y s’r N
0
CHF.M 0*0/YR
10/YR 100(1 $
‘*1(1 1 Al. ( (NN(lA ( . (‘(,0 t A(’i ()r 5*
I tll:n,t 1: tU/ I F•’(:l I if. (1
1. 0 SAL LA 1,1 A HOME
AVF C(JNSJN LOll 141 UI II. tIATN F 111:1
1 1 OW Cl i Ii I C (JR I I HIll i4 I 1 l.A 14 (JR M .11
MIlfi 10(31.1 1 10(3(1 KWH/YR 0$/YR HR/YR S lu/YR
123
222
348
746
1470
ACT IVAT E II
ACTIVATED
ACTIVATED
ACTIVATED
ACTIVATED
1.5
4,3
7.7
17.6
13,2
2001
2640
3406
5501
8479
1.0
5. 0
10.0
25 • 0
50,0
1.0
15.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
15.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1) 0,0
0 0.0
1) 0,0
o o.o
) 0.0
276
1:332
2594
6069
11306
49
239
4751
1169
2278
577
095
1262
2015
25181
331
1598
3113
7203
13567
59
287
570
1403
2734
692
1074
1514
2418
3097
CARBON REGENERAT ION
CARBON REGENERATION
CARBON REGENERATION
CARBON REGENERATION
CARBON REGENERATION
0 0.0 0 1) 0.0
0 0,0 0 0 0.0
0 0.0 0 1) 0.0
0 0.0 0 0 0,0
0 0,1) C) 0 0.0
21. 56
37 11111
52 346
91, 7112
.Ie,:: 1443
1) 6
0 2’?
0 54
I) 132
lHioi cost
t’t’tp I HfiPl lNl 015 313 1001.1 44; MixtI ) MEL ’IA (‘.11 ‘ERATi(’ (N ’AWT
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION—AWl’ 1.0
342 408 93 1.9 2917 0 15.0 36 613
1 (1,6
6.130
23.80
MIXED MEDIA fILTRATION-AWl 5.0
1354 1026 318 0.2 3398 0 77.0 17 141
7.7
2,132
9.132
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION-AWT 10.0
1442 1730 1594 9.1 4005 0 153,9 134 227
6.2
2.27
7.95
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION-AWl 25,0
2799 3359 1420 20.1 5818 0 38 .9 165 442
4.8
1.77
6.19
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION—AWl 50.0
4475 5372 2795 35.8 9340 0 769.7 300 741
4.1
1,48
5.19
THE FOLLOWING 3
PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENIS OF ACTIVATEE) CARBON ALISURP’lIl:N
45 UPFLOW (JOAN CARBON CONTACTORS
15,3
15,60
19.60
45 IJPFLOW GRAN CARBON CONTACTORS
10.3
3.76
13.16
40 UPFLOW GRAN CARBON CONTACraRs
9.5’
3,46
(2.11
45 EWFLOW (IRAN CARBON CUNTACT005
13.6
3.13
10,95
45 UF’FLOW (3RAN CARBON (::IJN’rAcloRiI
7,9
2,139
.10. :1.0
46 GRANULAR CARBON
1.6.
0.60
2.10
46 GRANULAR CARBON
1.5
0.54
1.09
46 GRANULAR CARBON
1.15
0,54
:1.139
46 GRANULAR CARBON
1.4
0,53
1.. 85
46 GRANULAR CARBON
1.4
0.52
1.81
47 GRAN ACT
8.70
30.45
47 (IRAN ACT
3,50
12.25
47 GRAM ACT
2,77
9.70
47 GRAN ACT
2,12
7.42
47 GRAN ACT
1,70
5.96
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
14.90
52.15
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
7.00
27.30
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
6.77
23.70
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
5.78
20,22
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
1,10
17.86
***** TREATMENT SYSTEM
COST SUMMARIES INCLUDING YARD PIPING AT 15 PER(::ENJ’ or C()NSTRIJCTION Cost
4*4*4
SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT SLUDGE 1.0
1710 2050 543 19.5 10000 2116 115.3 1415 313
135.8
31.30
109.55
SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT SLUDGE 5,0
5197 6239 2744 41.7 19708 10580 76.3 370 8133
48.4
17,66
61.81
SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT SLUDGE 10.0
9109 10934 5418 69.9 33086 21160 152.4 660 1556
42,6
15,56
54.46
SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT SLUDGE 25.0
17871 21443 13275 149.0 73170 52900 301.1 :1524 :32135
36.0
13,14
45.99
SECONDARY TREATMENT-ACT SLUDGE 50,0
29535 35443 26129 264.6 108350 105800 761.9 2617552(1
30.3
11.06
38.70
182
261
297
401
560
1.8
3,9
5.1
7 .8
10.0
410
1380
2585
5560
8880
1508
6400
11549
26245
413933
4.6
.8
45.6
1.14,1
228.1
TOTAL COST FOR COMPONENTS 45 THRU 47: ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
‘7,
/4
134
302
1559
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
E l? 23.8
1/5 9.6
277 7.6
530 5.8
8151 4.7
1036
2834
4980
10640
185138
1242
3402
5975
12768
22307
305
483
645
1147
2030
3.3
8,2
12.8
25.4
43,2
2411
4020
5991
11061
17359
11508
6400
11549
262455
48933
4.6
22.13
45,6
114.1
228,1
47
111
186
397
721
149
390
677
1444
2552
40,8
21,4
113,5
15.13
14.0
-------
AVE C JNS’ N CAPITAL ELEC PlAINT FUEL TO’!’AL *TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORS*
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L LABOR MIL CHEM O&M/YR THOU CTS/ 3 PER S PER
MGI’ THOU $ THOU $ KWH/YR KS/YR HR/YR BTU/YR TN/YR THOU 8 $ < 3AL CAPITA HOME
0
AGVANCEO WASTEWATER TREATMENT
AL1VANCEJI WASTEWA ICR TREATMENT
ADVANCEG WASTEWATER TREATMENT
AIIVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
ADVANCEI’ WASIEWATER TREATMENT
1.0 3989 4782 1365 36.6 19175 17439 35.5
8,0 11668 14008 6709 76.2 35008 42883 176,8
10.0 19423 23309 12726 121.8 53971 67043 353.5
25,0 38290 45948 30543 246,8 108899 145635 083,8
80,0 63579 76302 89938 426,1 163328 292738 1767.4
333 723 198,1 72.30 253,05
813 1963 107,6 39.26 137.41
1358 3273 89.7 32.73 114,86
2982 6756 74.0 27.02 94,58
5317 115133 63.5 23.17 81.08
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
-------
1 11 5 1GM HIll 010 ANTI UN.I. /15
IkO:F51; ui< CIJMFONP.N I L’ [ .SlON F I 00,11011
AV lJ if OiF. ; l. i .0 100 :•.‘o,o
2,1 10,0 20.u 40,0 80.0
1. MAW WASIEWAFIR PUMr’iNr, , FIRM CAiAi Ei Y, MOE ’ . 0 10.0 20.0 40.0 1 10.0
FIRM CAFICI ‘ EC 1UIVAL.F Ni Ill lEAK EIEIIIIiN i LOW
2 ALFffiIEIJ 11111 F I .HAM F.k, VOi..I.IMF , C i i FT 4 4.0 .31 . 4642,0 10445.0 : [ 0 06ll,0
I1 E F4T iO N IME 7.5 MINU1LS Al PEAls I1ESTLIF4 FLOW
3 i:iro’UL Fi uiiiM i y I :1AMIFIER, SURFACE AREA/UNIT, SI) I 615.0 31 / .0 i.125.0 7 131.0.1) :1.5625.0
NUMIIF 0 lit LINt iS 2 2 4 4 4
UVF. ME I. 01.1 3011 000 IIAL,’LIAY/0i1 FT
4 AERAiIu ) 80 51N, VOlUME, Ui FT 44o00, ,, ;,3u00. , ’ 446o00 .01110000.0 2230000,0
HYIIRAUJIC [ ‘1 IFN1 ION TIME . L i FIRS
MECHANI co AERATION ELIIJIPMENI , INL3TAL.LE11 HOFISE:lUWLR 00.0 400.0 1:100.0 2000.0 4000,0
MAX Mlii i (IXYI3EN ljF’TAKIT RAil .:: 70 MO/I ,. /HR
6 cr ciii. oo . , ‘:UNIIAIiY CLAE (XFIER. 50 1310Cr: AREA/UNI1 SI) FT 11:13.0 4,’ ‘.1, 4 1 ’ , ’/,O ‘10411.0 13 ( 191.0
N1I111 IE:o liE UN,i IS .‘ 4 6
OvEl ir i_ow io ir 60) soi...ii:oyisu ii
7 I;HLOIIINI , H /I Li OyF;TLMS , F ’r:r ’rI CAI•’Al;IiY, LFl/i: ’AY 16 1. 0 11:1.0 1670.0 3/513.0 6600.0
‘111,1 (3010 hO/I 0(1111 Al (:.. (A . 1II:.:0.IiN ELLIS
11 CIII ((MINE CONTACT 0Ai,IN, voi.. cii ru 55/0,0 .‘IC2,o ‘s:’oi,o 125334.0 2221:116.0
LI/TINT ow i.i i: . o MINU1ES Al lEAN l: IEs.IIIN FlOW
9 01 TURN , r;I WIlT’ “ I I 111101: E ’I.IMF ’INII , I1:I1M I ’:AF’AC:IlY , MI II ’ 1.0 ‘,. i ‘10.0 40.0
so r’ I;o 1; iiI iii’’ EF: \ oi:s 1or “low
10 WoIjil: (IJ I loT i ’urir I NI,, IFIM FI.IEWIN(i cAFA(; :iiy, OFM 6 .o 3 (0.0 660.0 1 600.0 3300,0
s i / IA, iii’ iwrr::oiii i li: ’Ni UI ’I :..RATI ON OF 10 M1N/Hil AT A 1Th [ “I. ow
I I ( /RAVI’A( Hlcor’NI:I’ . coclAU c ,RI:c,uNli, ‘‘1 ii: ,.o 16 ,3.0 1 5,0 :1.13.0 1625.0
NUMEF Ii ‘(015 1 2 2 2
I 11011100 21) I, rI/ SO 1,/DAY I (JR l’ ’R.I’MAIiY
i: 1 1.0101 r1: (N IHICOENIR, lOiAI.. OHIO. ACE ARiA, IL l F I ’ .IOO. 0 .1 200.0 7500.0
Sill, 1.1. 11; p. UA I ’.IN ,; ‘‘‘‘1) 1 1/1( 1 1 1 I/jiciY flEA WAITI:: o.: ii vAu :rI sI.upoc
II ANAi”I 1(Oi( 11114 S1L0 ,V ,lI (JEll ,Cu I i, :FNCI..UL’i ’..; ‘‘ i i IIIoI:Y I S [ t:c)NIIARY 19000.0 ‘69250., I ‘ ‘ ,Is0o.O ‘196750,0 992500,,>
TIliAl I II I i li i 1110 ii iii. :io TinY;
14 SANI’ IIRY1NFI 11:110, SURFACE AREA, :113 FT 22000,0 111)000.0 22000 (1.0 530000.0 110000(1.0
301, :110 LOOt’ 1 1411 ‘ 5 I. El/SO ii roii
I ‘‘‘‘IUIIIF’ 00111. 114(3, ANNUAL. VIII.. 11111:, CU Yl’ ,‘30.0 3651).0 73(10,1) 1(1200,0 36000,0
13(00(0’ 111311)1 10 4121 501 .11.0 Wi 30N1. 11:1,1;
I , yt ,R! ’ MAINTFNANI::E ’: , AREA OF I I. ANi sI: ir: , SI) t 2711100,0 3221)01) • 1) 43060(1,1) 740500 • (1 1002000,0
AREA IIEOIJTEiEMFNTS ArAPTEI. ’ 101.111 EIL.o1::Is I VEATCI’I 11101 , 197:1
-------
DESIGN CRI1ERIA AND UNIT pu1I:ICESS SIZES
PROCESS 08 cOMPONENT LESI ON FLOW,IIOD
AvERAGE I 1.0 0.0 . o.o . ,.o 0 0 0
FEAK: 2,0 10.0 20.0 40.0 80.0
1’? IIRAVITY FILTRAT) ON STRUCTURE., TOTAl.. FIlTER ANEA SC) Fl 231.0 I. 160-0 23:10,0 IiO.() .1. .600.0
MIxEr;’ MEI:IIA F ILTER , FIL IRA IION RAW 3 I:FM/SC ) Fr, SEC El ’ FL
10 FILTRA •HYL ’RA IJE_ic SURFACE WA5H.IND.I:’)IrjuAL FILlER ARE:A 5Ii FE 116.0 193.0 2119 ,0 0711.0
NUMBER OF ONuS 2 6 11 10 i S
MIXEI) MEDIA FILTER, FILTRATION RATE: 3 l3F’M/ :;li Fl , SEC FEEL
:19 F IL TRA—BACEWASH PUMPING SYSTEMS FIRM PUMFINC) CAPACITY, 6PM 2090 • 0 3470.0 5200 • 0 :10400 • 0 1/400 • 0
NUMI’Cii OF lIMITS 2 6 I i 10 12
MIXED MEDIA FILTER SEC EFFL BACKWASH CAFAc;I tY 1I3 LIFM/SC ) “1
2o MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILIRATION , 1O IAL. F I LiFli AKEA, SO f ’ : o i , 0 1160.0 2311) • 0 071:10.0 .11600,0
MIXED MEDIA F IL 1ER , SEC EFEL., FILTRATION RATE: 3 lIEN/SO FT
21 SUPPLY Pl.IMF ’144G, PUMPING RAW, MOD :1, .1) 5,0 .1.0.0 20,0 5o 0
GRAVITY FILTER OR ANT UPFLOI4 CARIICIN CONIACICIN SUF’FLY
22 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMSP FEED CAPACITY/UNIT , l...F lS/DAY 0,3 42.0 1:13.0 208.0 2013.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 1 1 1 1 2
FILTRATION AND COAGULANT AID.i MU/i. CAPACIIYvO.i MG/L AUG
23 ALUM FLED SYSTEM—DRY ACUM, CAPACITY LOS/HR 7,0 34.0 69.6 174.0 ‘348.1)
MIXED MEDIA FILTER A lE’, 21) MG/I... CAFACII Y, iC) MI:;/i.. AYE)
24 LIME FEED SYSTEM, CAO FEED CAPACITY I. DO/FIR 21)8.0 11)40.0 201:10.0 4690.1) 8:340,0
SIZED FOR 300 MG/L 110SF AT PEAK FLOW
23 POLYMER FEED SYSTEM. FEED CAPACITY/UNIT, i. E’S/PAY 8,3 42.0 1:13. 0 2011 .0 2013.1)
NUMBER OF UNITS :1. .1 1 :1 2
i. MO/i. CAPACITY, 0.1 MG/L AVG FEEl) RATE
26 RAPIL ’ MIX BASIN, VOLIJME ClJ FT 93.0 464, (1 2321) .0 4640,0
NUMBER OF UNiTS 1 1 1 ‘I.
DETENTION ‘TIME = 60 SEC AT AVG FLOW
27 FLOCCULATION BASIN, TOTAL. VOLUME, CLI FT 27130.0 13900.0 2/1:100.0 69500.1) 1.39000.0
HORIZONTAL PADDEEP l3 80 DETENTION TIME=30 MIN Ar AVG FLOW
28 CIRI:;LJLAR CLARIF lEN, SURFACE AREA/lIMIT, 511 FT 526.1) 2630,0 5260.0 6580.1) 1321)0.1)
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 2 2 4 4
OVERFLOW RATE 930 GAL/DAY/SO FT
29 RECARBONATION BASIN, VOL.IJME/UNIT , Cli FT 7/0.0 1740.0 3480.1) 13700.0 11700.1)
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 4 4 4
15 MIN DETENTION AT AVG FLOW
30 RECARBONATION--SLIBMERGED OIJRNERS,CAPACITY/UNIT ,LDS 002/lAY 219(1.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 0 0 0 0
FOR 1 MOD PLANT ONLY , MAXIMUM FEED RATE 023 MG/I... CO2
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA AND UNIT PROCESS SIZES
PROCESS OR COMPONENT DESIGN FLOW.MGD
AVERAGE 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
PEAKS 2.0 10.0 20.0 45.0 80.0
31 RECARBONATION—STACK GAS. CAPACITY. LBS C02/DAY 0.0 21900.0 43800.0 110000.0 219000.0
AVG FEED RATE — 350 MG/L. MAX RATE • 525 MO/L
32 RECTANGULAR CLARIFIER. SURFACE AREA/UNIT, SQ FT 333,0 833.0 1670.0 4170.0 4170.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 1 2 2 2 4
RECARS—INTERMEDIATE SETTLING .OVERFLOW RATE.3000 GPO/SQ FT
33 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING, FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY, GPM 83.0 416.0 833.0 2080.0 4160.0
SIZED FOR 600 MO/L DOSE AND 0.SX SOLIDS ,AVO—300 MO/L S 1.0%
34 GRAVITY THICKENER, SURFACE AREA/UNIT, SQ FT 78.0 150.0 300.0 375.0 750,0
NUMBER OF UNITS 1 1 1 2 2
LIME SLUDGE V IX SOLIDS, OVERFLOW RATE—bOO GPO/SQ FT
35 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE, FEED CAPACITYv OPM 10.0 13.0 25.0 63.0 125.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 1 1 1 1 1
LIME SLUDGE, 8% SOLIDS AS INFLUENT
36 MULTIPLE HEARTH RECALCINATION. EFFECTIVE HEARTH AREA.SQ FT 0.0 149.0 297.0 746.0 1490.0
WET FEED OF 7.0 LB/SQ FT/HR AT 50% SOLIDS
37 SLUDGE HAULING. ANNUAL VOLUME, CU YD 1320.0 1650.0 3300.0 8250.0 16500.0
LIME SLUDGE AT 50% SOLIDS, 25% WASTED FOR PLANTS OVER 1 MOD
38 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE, TOTAL FILTER AREA, SQ FT 139.0 694,0 1390.0 3470,0 6940.0
MIXED MEDIA FILTER, FILTRATION RATE—S GPM/SQ FT. WATER & AWT
39 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH, INDIVIDUAL FILTER AREA. SQ FT 69.0 174,0 231.0 434.0 694.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 4 6 8 10
MIXED MEDIA FILTER. FILTRATION RATE—S OPM/SQ FT. WATER I AWT
40 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM. FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY, GPM 1240.0 3130.0 4160.0 7810.0 12500.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 4. 6 8 10
MIXED MEDIA FILTER.WATERSAWT, BACKWASH CAPACITY—18 GPM/SQ FT
41 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION, TOTAL FILTER AREA, SQ FT 139.0 694.0 13S’0.O 3470.0 6940.0
MIXED MEDIA FILTER. WATER S AWl ’, FILTRATION RATE-S OPM/SQ FT
42 SUPPLY PUMPING.PUMPING RATE, MOD 1.0 5 .0 10,0 25.0 50.0
GRAVITY FILTER OR AWl UPFLOW CARBON CONTACTOR SUPPLY
43 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS, FEED CAPACITY/UNIT, LBS/DAY 8.3 42.0 83.0 208.0 208.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 1 1 1 1 2
FILTRATION AND COAGULANT AID.1 MG/L CAPACITY,0.1 MO/L AVG
44 ALUM FEED SYSTEM—DRY ALUM, CAPACITY, LBS/HR 7.0 34.8 69.6 174,0 348.0
MIXED MEDIA FILTER AID. 20 MO/L CAPACITY, 10 MG/L AVG
4S UPFLOW GRAN CARSON CONTACTORS, AVG FLOW. MOD 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50,0
CONTACT TIME—30 MIN . HYDRAULIC LOADING — S OPM/SQ FT
-------
DESIGN FLOW,$GD
AVERAGE
PEAK
46 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON, TOTAL WEIGHT, LBS
CONTACT TflIE= 30 MIN, CARBON WEIGHT 30 LB/CU FT
47 GRANULAR CARBON REGENERATION, HEARTH AREA, 50 FT
40Z DOWNTIME,40 LB/SO FT/DAY; REMOVAL=0. 5 LB COD/LB CARBON
COST INFORMATION:
03600,0 418000.0 836000,0 2090000.0 4180000.0
27.0 104,0 208.0 521.0 1040.0
(PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST)
(PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST)
(PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST)
(PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST)
(ENR SXILLED LABOR)
(BLS $114>
(BLS *132)
(BLS *101.3)
(ENR SI(ILLED LABOR)
(BLS *114.901)
(ACTUAL BLDG COST,$/SO FT)
(BLS ALL COMMODITIES)
(NATIONAL INDEX VALUE>
(NATIONAL INDEX VALUE)
DESIGN CRITERIA AND UNIT PROCESS SIZES
PROCESS OR COMPONENT
1.0 5,0 10.0 25.0 50,0
2.0 10.0 20.0 45.0 80.0
OF JANUARY 1977
COSTS PRESENTED AS DOLLARS ARE CURRENT AS
CAFITAL COST FACTORS INTEREST RATE(7.) =7
NUMBER OF YEARS =20
ENGINEERING ) =10
LEGAL,FISCAL(X) =3
INT DURING CONST( )=7
YARD PIPING FACTOR 15
PER CAPITA COSTS GAL/PERSON/DAY =100
PEOPLE/HOME =3.5
UNIT COST FACTORS: ELECTRICITY ,$/NWH 0.03
LABOR,$/HR =10
FUEL,$/MIL BTU =3
CHEMICAL COSTS LIME ,$/TON “52
ALUM ,$/TON “75
CHLORINE ,3/TON “220
POLYMER ,$/LB =2
CONSTN COST INDEXES: EXCAVATION 220.6
MANUFACTURED EQUIP 195 ,7
CONCRETE =193.1
STEEL =221.3
LABOR =220.8
PIPES VALVES “209.4
HOUSING =30
WHOLESALE PRICE t88.0
EPA CONSTN INDEXESI SCCT(5 NOV PLANT) “121
LCAT(50 MGD PLANT) =132
-------
C.O. .I .tIE lt iAR1
WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT
UPGRADED WATER TREATMENT
UPGRADED TREATMENT AND REVERSE OSMOSIS
B15
-------
COMPONENT
OR
S TEM
TO TAL
CHEM O&M/YR
TN/YR THOU $
THE FOLLoWING 12 PROCEOSES ARE COOl COMPONENTS OF CL4RIFICATION ND CHLORINATION
*TOTAL ANNUAL COST EACTORS*
THOU CTS/ 8 PER $ PER
S K GAL CAPITA HOME
4 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
4 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
4 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
4 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
4 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
22 26 23 0.2 198
23 28 23 0.2 198
26 31 23 0.3 199
33 40 23 0.3 201
67 80 46 0.6 403
0 0.2 4 6 1.6 0.60
0 0.8 6 9 0.S 0,18
0 1.5 9 12 0.3 0,12
0 3.8 18 22 0.2 0.09
0 7.6 36 44 0.2 0.09
2.10
11.63
0.42
0.31
0.31
5 FLOCCULATION
5 FLOCCULATION
S FLOCCULATION
5 FLOCCULATION
5 FLOCCULATION
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
S0.0
AVE CONIITH CAPITAL ELEC MAINT FUEL..
FLOW COOl COST THOU MAT’L LABOR MIL
MOD THOU $ THOL.i $ KWH/YR KS/YR HR/YR BTU/YR
0 ’
1 RAW WATER PUMPING
1.0
140
178
70
0.6
1012
0 0.0
13
30
8.2
3.00
10.50
1 RAW WATER PUMPING
5.0
411
493
269
1.4
10117
0 0,0
2.0
67
3,7
1.34
4.69
1 RAW WATER PUMPING
10.0
724
869
516
2.6
1195
0 0,0
30
112
3.1
1.12
3,92
1 RAW WATER PUMPING
25.0
1571
1805
1231
7.0
1609
0 0.0
60
230
2.6
0.95
3,33
1 RAW WATER PUMPING
50.0
2784
3341
2347
13.0
2498
0 0,0
108
423
2.3
0.85
2.96
2 RAPID IX
1.0
10
12
32
0.2
470
0 0.0
6
7
1.9
0.70
2.45
2 RAPID MIX
5.0
22
26
157
0.5
468
0 0.0
10
12
0,7
0.24
0,84
2 RAPID MiX
10.0
37
44
315
0.8
469
0 0.0
15
19
0.5
0.19
0.66
2 RAPID MIX
25.0
80
96
787
1.8
499
0 0.0
30
39
0.4
0.16
0.55
2 RAPID MIX
50.0
150
180
1574
3.3
617
0 0.0
57
74
0.4
0.15
0.52
3 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
1.0
26
31
9
0.2
290
0 61.3
8
11
3.0
1.10
3.85
3 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
5.0
51
61
14
0,2
329
0 306.6
27
33
1.8
0,66
2.31
3 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
10.0
77
92
19
0.2
378
0 609.8
50
59
1 .6
0.59
2,07
3 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
25.0
132
158
32
0.2
548
0 1524,2
121
136
1 5
0,54
1,90
3 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
50.0
157
188
50
0.3
884
0 3044,1
239
257
1.4
0.51
1.80
41 49 9 0.4 105
111 133 47 1.0 161
187 224 94 1.8 218
342 410 234 3.5 312
417 500 468 5.3 349
6 CIRCULAR
6 CIRCULAR
6 CIRCULAR
6 CIRCULAR
6 CIRCULAR
7 CHLORINE
7 CHLORINE
7 CHLORINE
7 CHLORINE
7 CHLORINE
CLARIFIER
CLARIFIER
CLARIFIER
CLARIFIER
CLAR IF I ER
FEED SYSTEMS
FEED SYSTEMS
FEED SYSTEMS
FEED SYSTEMS
FEED SYSTEMS
0 0.0
0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
152
319
521
1240
2172
182
383
625
1488
2606
2 7 1.9
4 17 0.9
7 28 0.8
14 53 0.6
23 70 0.4
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0W
10.0
25.0
50,0
10 0.5 274
11 1.2 527
14 2,0 802
29 4.7 1851
39 8.2 2844
0 0.0 3 20 5.5
0 0.0 7 43 2.4
0 0.0 10 69 1.9
0 0.0 24 164 1.8
0 0.0 38 284 1.6
15 18 4 1.8 410
35 42 11. 2.4 749
57 68 18 3.1 1129
106 127 33 4.6 2020
148 178 43 5.4 2907
0.70
0.34
0.28
0.21
0.14
2.00
0.86
0.69
0.66
0.57
1 .10
0.62
0,54
0.49
0,44
2.45
1.1
0. 9,B
0.74
7.00
3.01
2.42
2.30
1 • 99
3.8
2.1
1.89
1.71
1.54
0 15.3
0 76.3
0 152.4
0 381.1
0 761.9
9
27
48
110
203
11 3.0
31 1.7
54 1.5
122 1.3
220 1.2
-------
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING-DILUTE
B CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING-DILUTE
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING-DILUTE
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING-DILUTE
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING-DILUTE
9 GRAVITY THICKENER
9 GRAVITY THICKENER
9 GRAVITY THICKENER
9 GRAVITY THICKENER
9 GRAVITY THICKENER
10 CHEMICAL
10 CHEMICAL
10 CHEMICAL
10 CHEMICAL
10 CHEMICAL
SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE
SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE
SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE
SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE
SLUDGE PUMPING-DILUTE
24 29 0 1.4
49 59 2 2.8
50 60 4 3.7
63 76 9 3,7
84 101 18 4.5
65 78 3 0,1
65 78 3 0.1
65 78 3 0.1
73 88 3 0.1
87 104 3 0.2
24 17 0 1,2
26 31 1 2.0
37 44 2 2,8
51 61 4 3,8
52 62 9 3,7
45 0 0.0 2 5 1.4
98 0 0.0 4 10 0.5
136 0 0.0 5 11 0.3
154 0 0.0 5 12 0.1
200 0 0.0 7 17 0.1
35 0 0.0 2 4 1.1
67 0 0.0 3 6 0.3
98 0 0,0 4 8 0.2
142 0 0.0 5 11 0.1
154 0 0,0 5 11 0.2
150
180
38
1.5
156
287
45
1,7
179
215
71
2,6
241
289
146
5,2
COMPONENT AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT FUEL TOTAL
*TOTAL.
ANNUAL
COST
FACTORS*
OR FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L LABOR MIL CHEM OSM/YR
THOu
CTS/
S PER
S PER
SYSTEM MOD THOU $ THOU $ KWH/YR Ks/YR HR/YR STU/YR TN/YR THOU S
S
( GAL
CAPITA
HOME
1.0
0.50
1.75
5.0
0.20
0.70
10.0
0.11
0.39
25.0
0.05
0.17
50.0
0.03
0.12
1.0 298 0 0.0 3
10
2,7
1.00
3.50
5.0 298 0 0.0 3
10
(>.5
0.20
0.70
10.0 298 0 0.0 3
10
0.3
0.10
0.35
25,0 305 0 0.0 3
Ii.
0.1
0.04
0.15
50,0 316 0 0.0 3
13
0.1
0.03
0.09
1.0
0.40
1.40
5,0
0,12
0.42
10,0
0.08
0.28
25.0
0.04
0.15
50.0
0.02
0.08
11 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE 1.0 10
27
7.4
2.70
9.45
11 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE 5.0 ii
!9
.1.6
0.58
2,03
11 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE 10.0 14
34
0.9
0.34
i.:19
11 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE 25.0 23
50
0.5
0.20
0.70
11 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE 50.0 35
70
0.4
0.14
0.49
12 SLUDGE HAULING 1.0 1
1
0.3
0.10
0.35
12 SLUDGE HAULING 5.0 3
3
0.2
0,06
0.21.
12 SLUDGE HAULING 10.0 6
6
0.2
0,06
0,21,
12 SLUDGE HAULING 25,0 14
14
0.2
0.06
0.20
12 SLUDGE HAULING 50,0 27
27
0.2
0.05
0.19
TOTAL COST FOR COMPONENTS 1 THRU 12: CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION
CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION 1.0 762 914 198 8.6 3930 0 76.8 63
139
38.1
13.90
48.65
CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION 5.0 1452 1743 583 14.7 4968 C) 383.7 125
270
14.8
5,40
18.90
CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION 10,0 2248 2697 1079 21.7 6262 0 762,7 201
422
1.1.6
4.22
1.4.77
CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION 25.0 4516 5422 2531 38.6 10012 0 1909.1 427
872
9.6
3,49
12.21
CLARIFICATION ANt ’ CHLORINATION 50.0 7390 8870 4849 59.9 15085 0 3813.6 781
1510
8.3
3.02
10.57
THE FOLLOWING 5 PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS OF RAPID SAND FILTRATION
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE 1.0 223 268 19 2,1 1966 0 0,0 22
47
12.9
4,70
16.45
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE 5.0 758 910 68 8.6 2769 0 0.0 38
124
6.8
2,48
8,68
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE 10.0 1321 1585 122 15.6 3903 0 0,0 58
208
5.7
2.08
7.28
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE 25.0 2479 2975 247 31.5 8047 0 0.0 119
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE 50,0 3S90 4308 370 49.7 16296 0 0.0 224
400
631
4,4
3.5
1.60
1,26
5.60
4.42
729
772
936
1383
1906
o o.o
0 0,0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0 0 0.5
0 0 0 1.0
0 0 0 1.7
0 0 0 3.7
0 0 0 7.2
64
214
404
988
2007
0 0.0
0 0.0
o o.o
0 0.0
0 0.0
-------
TOTAL *TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORS*
15 FILTRA ’-BACKWASH PUMF’ING SYSTEM
15 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMI ’TNG SYSTEM
15 FILTRA—DACNWASH F’UMPING SYSTEM
15 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
15 FILTRA—BACKWASH PEJMF’ING SYSTEM
0.0 6 (1 0,0 0 13 3.6
0,7 29 0 0.0 2 68 3.7
0,3 34 0 0.0 3 95 2.6
0.6 52 0 0.0 7 146 1.6
1,1 71 0 0.0 14 286 1.6
16 MEDIA—RAPID SANE’ FILTRATION
16 MEDIA—RAPID SAND FILTRATION
16 MEDIA—RAPID SANS FTP rr7ATIflN
1.6 MEDIA—RAPID SAND FILTRATION
16 MEDIA—RAPID SAND FILTRATION
1.0
5.0
10. (1
25.0
50.0
0.35
0.14
0.11
0.10
0. 10
COMPONENT
OR
S YS I EM
14 1TL.TRA—HYrPRAULIC SURFACE WASH
14 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE: WASH
14 FILTRA-HYr RAULIC SURFACE WASH
1,4 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
14 FILTRA—HYDRAIII. IC SURFACE WASH
AVE CONSTN
FLOW COST
MGI’ THOU S
C API TAL
ELEC MATNT
COST THOU MAT’L
THOU $ KWH/YR KS/YR
FUEL
LABOR MIL
HR/YF BTU/YR
13 16 5
64 77 26
85 102 49
167 200 121
298 358 246
CHEM 0 ,M/YR
TN/YR THOU $
1.0
10. 0
25.0
S0.0
1.0
5,0
10.0
25.0
50,0
THOU CTS/ 8 PER
$ K GAL. CAPITA
0.0
58
0
0,0
1
3
0.8
0,0
289
0
0,0
4
11
0.6
0,0
306
0
0,0
5
15
0.4
0,1
373
0
0,0
7
26
0.3
0.1
473
0
0.0
12
46
0.3
16
580
814
1225
2405
139
696
977
1470
2886
8
42
83
206
415
$ PER
hOME
1.05
0,52
0,36
0.32
4.55
4.76
3.33
2.04
2.00
0.30
0.22
0.15
0.10
0.09
1.30
.16
0.95
0.5 1 3
0.57
8 : 10 0 0,0 0 0 0,0 0 1 0,3 0.: 0
111 22 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 2 0.1 0.04
30 36 0 0,0 0 0 0,0 0 3 0.1 0.03
65 78 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 (1 7 0.1 0,03
‘121. 145 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 14 0.1 0.03
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
17 SUPF’I Y
17 SUPPLY
1.7 $UPPL.Y
17 SUPPLY
17 SUPPLY
RAPID SAND
RAPID SANE)
RAPID SAND
RAPIII SAND
RAF’ItI SANS
PUMPING
PUMPING
PUMP I NO
PUMPING
PUMPI. HG
FILTRATION
FILTRATION
FI lTRATION
FILTRATION
FILTRATION
‘30 36 45
47 56 226
70? 83 451
132 158 11211
234 281 2254
0,3 570
0.9 623
1.6 747
3.7 1096
7,6 1618
0 0.0 7 10 2.7
O 0.0 14 19 1,0
O 0.0 23 31 (IT 1
0 0.0 49 64 0.7
0 0.0 91 118 0,6
Ti:ITO : COST FOR COMPONENTS 13 THRU 17: RAPID SAND FILTRATION
1.0 446 537 77 2.5 2550 0 0.0
5.0 1685 2023 362 9,6 3710 0 0.0
10.0 2665 3198 705 17.4 4990 0 0.0
25.0 4675 5611 1702 35.9 9568 0 0.0
50.0 7643 9172 3285 58.5 18458 0 0.0
THE FOLLOWING 7 PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS PP ’ MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
18 GRAVITY FIlTRATION
18 GRAVITY FILTRATION
18 GRAVITY FILTRATION
18 GRAVITY FILTRATION
18 GRAVITY FILTRATION
S TRUC TURE
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
30
58
89
182
341
1.0
5,0
10.0
25.0
50.0
74
224
352
643
1095
136
364
631.
1321
2165
:‘ 0.3
12.3
9.6
7.0
6.0
163
437
.757
1585
2598
1,00
0,38
0.31
0.26
0.24
7,40
4.48
3,52
2.57
2, ‘1 9
3,50
1 • .14
05
0,83
0.69
3.50
1 .33
1.09
0,90
0.83
25.90
15.68
12.32
9.00
7.67
12.25
4,69
3.67
2.91
2.41
11
32
56
122
211
1.1
3,8
7 ,0
15 .6
26.9
1856
2157
2558
3903
6560
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0,0
0 0.0
20 35 9.6
26 67 3.7
34 105 2.9
58 208 2.3
99 344 1.9
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
19 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
19 FILTRA—HYDRAULXC SURFACE WA8H
19 FILTRA-HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
19 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
19 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
21 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
21 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
21 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
21 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
21 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
23 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
23 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
23 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
23 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
23 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
24 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
24 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
24 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
24 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
24 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT
FLOW COST COST THOU MAI’L
MOD THOU $ THOU $ XWH/YR k$/YR
1,0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
11 13 2 0.0 54
25 30 10 0.0 115
42 50 20 0,0 178
77 92 49 0.0 248
135 162 97 0.1 311
TOTAL COST FOR COMPONENTS 18 THRU 24: MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
0 0,0 1 2 0.5
0 0.0 1 4 0.2
O 0.0 2 7 0.2
O 0.0 4 13 0,1
0 0.0 6 21 0,1
FUEL
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
20 FXLTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
20 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
20 FILTRA—BACKUASH PUMPING SYSTEM
20 FILTRA-BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
20 FILTRA—BACIcWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
TOTAL *TOTAL. ANNUAL COST FACTORS*
71
232
404
707
1009
85
278
485
848
1211
3
17
33
83
166
w
‘ .0
LABOR
MIL
CHEM
O&M/YR
THOU
CTS/
$ PER
$ PEP
HR/YR
STU/YR
rN/YR
THOU $
$
K GAL..
CAPITA
HOME
0,2<)
0.70
0,08
0.28
0,07
0.25
0.05
0.18
0,04
0.15,
0.0
5
0
0.0
0
8
2.2
0,80
2.80
0.1
12
0
0.0
1
27
1.5
0.54
1.89
0.1
19
0
0.0
1
47
1.3
0.47
1,65
0.2
29
0
0.0
3
83
0.9
0.33
1.16
0.4
43
0
0,0
6
120
0.7
0,24
0.84
8
10
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
1
0,3
0.10
0.35
24
29
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
3
0.2
0.06
0,21
44
53
0
0,0
0
0
0.0
0
5
0.1
0.05
0.18
98
118
0
0,0
0
0
0.0
0
11
0.1
0,04
0.15
178
214
0
0,0
0
0
0,0
0
20
0.1
0,04
0.14
22 SUPPLY PUMPING
1.0
30
36
45
0,3
520
0
0,0
7
10
2.7
1,00
3.50
22 SUPPLY PUMPING
5.0
47
56
226
0.9
623
0,
0.0
14
19
1.0
0,38
1.33
22 SUPPLY PUMPING
10.0
69
83
451
1.6
747
0
0.0
23
31
0.8
0.31
1.09
22 SUPPLY PUMPING
25.0
132
158
1120
3.7
1096
0
0.0
49
64
0,7
0,26
0,90
22 SUPPLY PUMPING
50.0
234
281
2254
7,6
1618
0
0,0
91
118
0,6
0.24
0,83
22
23
26
33
67
26
28
31
40
80
23
23
23
23
46
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.6
198
198
199
201
403
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.8
1.5
3.8
7.6
4
6
9
18
3.
6
9
12
22
44
1. .6
0,5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.6<)
0.18
0,12
0,09
0.09
2,10
0.63
0.42
0.31
0.31
22
31
41
69
106
26
37
49
83
127
9
10
11
15
21
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
284
293
304
341
405
0
0
0
0
0
15.3
76.2
152.4
381.1
762.1
4
9
15
33
62
6
12
20
4 1
74
1,6
0,7
0.5
0,4
0,4
0.60
0,24
0.20
0,16
0,15
2.10
0.84
0.70
0.57
0.52
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
1.0
342
408
93
1.9
2917
0
15,5
36
68
18.6
6.80
23,80
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
5,0
854
1026
318
5.2
3398
0
77.0
57
141
7.7
2,82
9.87
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
10.0
1442
1730
594
9.1
4005
0
153.9
84
227
6,2
2.27
7.95
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
25,0
2799
3359
1420
20,1
5818
0
384.9
165
442
4,8
1.77
6,19
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
50.0
4475
5372
2795
35.8
9340
0
769,7
300
741
4.1
1.48
5.19
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
TOTAL
CHEM O M/YR
TN/YR THOU $
THE FOLLOWING 3 PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS OF ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
*TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORI$
THOU CTS/ $ PER $ PER
$ R GAL CAFITA HOI E
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT FUEL
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L LABOR MIt.
MOO THOU $ THOU $ ) WH/YR K$/YR HR/YR BTU/YR
0
5,0
10.0
25 • 0
25 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 1,0
4.7 2194
0 0.0 28 85
4.7
1.70
5. 5
25 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 5.0 503 604
38 135
3.7
1.35
4.73
25 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 10.0 959 1031 86 9.6 2640
0
0.0 61i 264
2.9
1.06
3,70
25 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 25.0 1761 2113 164 18.9 4081
25 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 50.0 2808 3370 265 32,0 6781
0 0.0 lOB 426
2.3
0.85
2.
26 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON 1.0 13 16 0 0.0 0
0 0.0 0 2
0.0 0 7
0.5
0.4
0.20
0.14
0.70
0,49
26 GRANULAR ACTIVATEE: CARBON 5.0 73 0 0.0 0
0 0.0 0 14
0.4
0.14
0.49
26 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON 10,0 121 145 0 0.0
0
0 0.0 0 34
0.4
0.14
0,48
26 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON 75.0 300 360 0
26 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON 50,0 595 714 0 0.0 0
0 0.0 0 67
0.4
0.13
0.47
27 GRAN ACT CARBON REGENERATION 1.0 581 697 161 1.2 188
458 1.2 11 77
27 93
21.1
5.1
7.70
1,96
26.95
6.51
27 GRAN ACT CARBON REGENERATION 5,0 501 697 191 2.1 509
27 (IRAN ACT CARBON REGENERATION 10.0 701 841 222 3.0 890
27 (IRAN ACT CARBON REGENERATION 25.0 1026 1231 273 4.4 1798
1978
3791 12.1 46 125
8145 30.5 95 211
173 340
3.4
2.3
1.9
1.25
0,84
0,68
4.38
2.95
2.38
27 (IRAN ACT CARBON REGENERATION 50.0 1473 1768 321 5.9 3327
14914
TOTAL. COST FOR COMPONENTS 25 THRU 27: ACTIVATED
CARBON ADSORPTION
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
32 122
55 185
33,4
10.1
12.20
3.70
42.70
12.95
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
84 274
7.5
2.74
9.59
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
160 509
5.6
2.04
7.13
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
281 833
4.6
1.67
5.83
ACTIVATED CARBON ABSORPTiON
***** TREATMENT SYSTEM COST SUMMARIES INCLUDING YARD FIRING AT
15 PERCENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST
*****
CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT 1,0 1208 1451 275 11.1 6480
CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT 5,0 3137 3766 945 24.3 8678
CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT 10.0 4913 5895 1784 39.2 11252
0 76.8 93 213
0 383.7 183 494
0 762.7 290 774
0 1909.1 609 1515
58.4
27.1
21.2
16.6
21.30
9.88
7.74
6.06
74.55
34,58
27.09
21.21
CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT 25.0 9191 11033 4233 74.5
CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT 50.0 15033 1042 8134 118.5 33543
0 3813.6 1122 2605
14.3
5.21
18.24
UPGRADED WATER TREATMENT 1,0 2012 2412 484 13.1 8886
UPGRADED WATER TREATMENT 5,0 3622 4347 1149 26.6 11069
UPGRADED WATER TREATMENT 10.0 5622 674S 1981 42.5 13797
UPGRADED WATER TREATMENT 25,0 10864 13039 4388 81.9 21709
UPGRADED WATER TREATMENT 50.0 17471 20971 8230 133.6 34533
458 93.5 131 329
1978 466,7 237 596
3791 928,9 369 923
8145 2324.4 752 1823
14914 4644.2 1362 3084
90.1
32.7
25.3
20.0
16.9
32.90
11.92
9.23
7.29
6.17
115.15
41.72
32.31
25.52
21.59
908
1316
1932
3549
5606
1090
1578
2318
4258
6729
193 2.6
248 6.8
308 11.6
437 23.2
586 37.8
2039
2703
3530
5879
10108
458
1978
3791
8145
14914
1,2
6,1
12.1
30.S
60.9
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA AND UNIT PROCESS SIZES
PROCESS OR COMPONENT DESIGN FLOW ,MGD
AVERAGES 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
PEAK 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
1 RAW WATER PUMPING, FIRM CAPACITY, MOD 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
INCLUDES SCREENING $ ONE STANDBY PUMP EGUAL TO LARGEST UNIT
2 RAPID MIX BASIN, VOLUME, CU FT 93.0 464.0 928.0 2320,0 4640.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 1 1 1 1 1
1 MIN DETENTION TIME AT AVERAGE FLOW
3 ALUM FEED SYSTEM—DRY ALUM, CAPACITY, LBS/HR 21.0 104.0 208.0 521.0 1040,0
ALUM COAGULATION, CAPACITY 60 MG/L, AVG=40 MG/L
4 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS, FEED CAPACITY/UNIT, LBS/DAY 8,3 42.0 83.0 208,0 208.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 1 1 1 1 2
COAGULANT AID, CAPACITY 1 MG/L, AVG 0.1 M0/L DOSE
5 FLOCCULATION, TOTAL BASIN VOLUME, CU FT 2780.0 13900.0 27800.0 69500.0 139000.0
HORIZONTAL PADDLE, G 80, DETENTION TIME 30 MIN AT AVG FLOW
6 CIRCULAR CLARIFIER, SURFACE AREA/UNIT, SO FT 526.0 2630,0 5260,0 6580.0 13200,0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 2 2 4 4
OVERFLOW RATE=950 GAL/DAY/SQ FT
7 CHLORINE FEED SYSTEMS, FEED CAPACITY, LB/DAY 84.0 418.0 835.0 2098.0 4175.0
CAPACITY 10 MG/L DOSE
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING, FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY, 6PM 12.0 56.0 112,0 278,0 555.0
CAPACITY=40 MG/L AT PEAK FLOW AND 0,5% SOLIDS
9 GRAVITY THICKENER, SURFACE AREA/UNIT, 50 FT 78.0 78.0 78.0 200.0 400.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 1 1 1 1 1
ALUM SLUDGE,OVERFLOW RATE=1000 GF’D/SO FT WITH 0.5% SOLIDS IN
10 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING, FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY, GPM 3.0 14.0 28,0 69.0 139,0
THICKENED ALUM SLUDGE, 1% SOLIDS
11 DECANTER CENTRUFUGEP CENTRIFUGE CAPACITY, 6PM 10.0 13.0 25.0 63.0 125.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 1 1 1 1 1
ALUM SLUDGE AT 1% SOLIDS INFLUF:NT CONCE:NTRArION
12 SLUDGE HAULING, ANNUAL VOLUME, ELi VI I 361.0 1810.0 3610.0 9030.0 18100.0
ALUM SLUDGE, CONCENTRATED TO 20Z SOLIDS
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE, TEl AL. FILTER AREA, SO FT 347.0 1740,0 3470.0 8680.0 17400.0
RAPID SAND FILTER, FILTRATION RATE 2 GPM/SO FT, WATER TREAT
14 FILTRA -HYtPRAUL1I: SURFACE WASH, INII 1VILIUAL. FILTER AREA, SO FT 174.0 174.0 347.0 723.0 1240,0
NUMBER OF uNITS 2 1<) 10 1 14
RAF’II;’ SAND rILTER, FILTRATION RATE=2 GPM/SC1 PT, WATER I REAl
1D F1LTRA—BACXWASH F’UMPING SYSTEM, FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY, 6PM 3130.0 3130,0 6250.0 13000,0 22300.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 10 10 12 14
RAPILI SANG FILTER, BACKWASH CAPACITY 18 GFM/SO FT
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA AND UNIT PROCESS SIZES
PROCESS OR COMPONENT IIESIGN FLOWrMGD
AVERAGE: 1.0 5.0 10.0 25,0 50,0
PEAK: 1.0 5.0 10,0 2 5.0 50.0
16 MEDIA—RAPID SANE’ FILTRATION, TOTAL FILTER AREA, SQ FT 347.0 1740.0 3470.0 8680,() 17400.0
RAPID SAND FILTER, WATER TREAT, FILTRATION RATE2 GPM/SQ FT
17 SUPPLY PUMPING, PUMPING RATE, MGI’ 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
GRAVITY FILTER OR AWl UPFLOW CARBON C0NTACTOR SUPPLY
18 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE, TOTAL FILTER AREA, 50 FT 139.0 694,0 1390,0 3470,0 6940,0
MIXED MEDIA FILTER, FILTRATION RATE=5 GEM/SO FT, WATER & AWT
19 FILTRA—HYLIRALJLIC SURFACE WASH INL ’:LvItiuAL FILTER AREA, SO FT 69.0 174.0 231.0 434,0 694,0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 4 6 8 10
MIXED MEDIA FILTER, FILTRATION RATE: 5 GPM/SO FT, WATER & AWT
20 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM, FIRM PUMFING CAPACITY, 6PM 1240.0 3130.0 4160.0 7810.0 12500.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 4 6 8 10
MIXED MEDIA FILTER,WATER&AdT, BACKWASH CAPACITY 1B GPM/SO FT
21 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION, TOTAL FILTER AREA, SQ FT 139,0 694.0 1390.0 3470.0 6940.0
MIXED MEDIA FILTER, WATER & AWT , FILTRATION RATE=5 GEM/SO FT
22 SUPPLY PUMPING,PUMPING RATE, MGI’ 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
GRAVITY FILTER OR AL4T UPFLOW CARBON CONTACTOR SUPPLY
ts
23 POLYMER FEEt’ SYSTEMS FEEEI CAPACITY/UNIT, LBS/DAY 8.3 42.0 83.0 208,0 208.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 1 1 1 1 2
FILTRATION AND COAGULANT AID,1 MG/L CAPACITY,O,1 MG/L AVG
24 ALUM FEED SYSTEM—DRY ALUM, CAPACITY, LBS/HR 7.0 34.8 69.6 174,0 348,0
MIXED MEDIA FILTER AID, 20 MG/L CAPACI’rY, 10 MG/L AVG
25 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS, TOTAL CONTACTOR AREAPSO FT 140,0 700,0 1400.0 3500.0 7000,0
GRAVITY DOWNFLOW, CONTACT TIME 7.5 MIN, RATE 5 GPM/SQ FT
26 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON, TOTAL WEIGHT OF CARBON, LBS 21000.0 105000.0 210000,0 525000.0 1050000.0
CONTACT TIME 7.5 MIN, CARBON WEIGHT 30 LB/ CU FT
27 GRANULAR CARBON REGENERATION, HEARTH AREA, 50 FT 28.0 28.0 56.0 139.0 2 8.0
40% DOWNTIME,40 LB/SQ FT/DAYS REMOVAL 0.5 LB COD/LB CARBON
-------
COST INFORMATION
COSTS PRESENTED AS DOLLARS ARE CURRENT AS OF JANUARY 1977
CAPITAL COST FACTORSZ INTEREST RATE(Z) 7
NUMBER OF YEARS —20
ENOINEERING(Z) —10
LEOAL,FISCAL(X) —3
INT DURING CONST( )=7
YARD PIPING FACTOR —15
GAL/PERSON/DAY -100
PEOPLE/HOME —3.5
ELECTRICITY,$/KWH =0.03
LABOR.$/HR —10
FtJEL,$/j4IL STU =3
LIME,$/TON =52
ALUM,$/TON -75
CHLORINE $/TON =220
POLYMER,$/LB
EXCAVATION =220.6
MANUFACTURED EGUIP —195.7
CONCRETE —193.1
STEEL -221.3
LABOR =220.6
PIPES * VALVES =209.4
HOUSING =30
WHOLESALE PRICE =1 8.0
SCCT(S MOD PLANT) =121
LCAT(S0 MOD PLANT> =132
PER CAPITA COSTSZ
UNIT COST FACTORS:
(PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST)
(PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST)
(PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST)
(PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST)
CHEMICAL COSTS(
CONSTN COST INDEXES>
EPA CONSTN INDEXES>
(ENR SKILLED LABOR)
(BLS *114)
(OLS $132)
(BLS $101.3)
(ENR SKILLED LABOR)
(BLS *114.901)
(ACTUAL BLDG COST.$/SQ Fl)
(BLS ALL. COMMODITIES)
(NATIONAL INDEX VALUE)
(NATIONAL INDEX VALUE)
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
TO TAL
CH M O&M/YR
TN/YR THOU $
*TOTfIL ANNUAl COST FACTORS*
THOU CTS/ $ PER $ PER
$ ic OAt. CAPITA HOME
2 RAFID MIX
2 RAPID MIX
2 RAPID MIX
2 RAPID MIX
2 RAPID MIX
1,0
5,0
10.0
• 0
50,0
22 26 39
51 61 197
88 106 394
185 222 926
348 418 1852
0.1 470
0.6 468
1.0 472
2.0 5:t4
3,9 675
2 .80
1 * 19
0.98
0.78
o • 74
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT FUEL
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L lABOR MIL
MII I ’ THOU $ THOU KWH/YR KS/YR HR/YR BTU/YR
1 RAW WATER
1 RAW WATER
1 RAW WATER
1 RAW WATER
1 RAW WATER
THE FOLLOWING 12 PROCERSES ARE; COST COMPONENTS OF CLARIFICATION AND CHL1)fiI 1JAi rUN
1.0
5 .0
10.0
25 • 0
50,0
I 65
491
874
1798
31.89
198
589
1049
2158
3827
82
331
637
1 43
2717
PUMPING
PUMP INS
PUMPING
PUMP I ND
PUMPING
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
S YS TEN
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
0.6
1.7
3*3
8.3
13,5
1017
1112
1255
1751
2839
3 ALUM FEEl’
3 ALUM FEED
3 ALUM FEED
3 ALUM FEED
3 ALuM FEED
(1 0.0 13 32 8.8 3.20
0 0.0 23 79 4.3 1.58
0 0.0 35 134 1,7 1.34
0 0.0 69 273 3.0 1.09
0 0.0 123 484 2,7 0.97
0 0.0 6 8 2.2 0,80
0 0.0 11 17 0.9 0.34
0 0.0 18 28 0,8 0.28
0 0.0 35 56 0.6 0.22
0 0.0 66 105 0.6 0.21
11 .20
5,53
4,69
3.82
3,39
SYSTEMS
SYSTEMS
SYSTEMS
SYSTEMS
SYSTEMS
4 POLYMER FEED
4 POLYMER FEED
4 POLYMER FEED
4 POLYMER FEED
4 POLYMER FEED
5 FLOCCULATION
5 FLOCCULATION
5 FLOCCULATION
5 FLOCCULATION
S FLOCCULATION
36 43 10 0.2 293
89 107 15 0.2 341
132 158 21 0.2 405
151 181 36 0.3 602
38 46 5S 0.3 1016
44 53 23 0.2 198
47 56 23 0.2 199
54 65 23 0.3 200
87 104 46 0.5 400
126 131 69 0.8 6.02
9 13
33 43
62 77
142 159
281 285
0 76.7
0 3113.2
0 762.1
0 1791.4
0 3582.8
0 0,4
0 1.9
0 3.8
0 6.8
0 11.9
3.6 1.30
2,4 0.86
2.1 0.77
i.;’ 0.64
1.6 0.57
1,0
5.0
10.0
25,0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10,0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10,0
25,0
50.0
1.0
5 ,0
10,0
2S.0
50,0
1.0
5.0
10,0
25.0
50,0
68 82 23
178 214 88
290 348 175
415 498 413
0 0 826
4 9 2.5
11 16 0.9
18 24 0.7
33 43 0.5
56 70 0.4
0,7 127
1,7 211
2.9 284
5.0 343
6,6 673
6 CIRCULAR
6 CIRCULAR
6 CIRCULAR
6 CIRCULAR
6 CIRCULAR
7 CHLORINE
7 CHLORINE
7 CHLORINE
7 CHLORINE
7 CHLORINE
CLARIFIER
CLARIFIER
CLARIFIER
CLARIFIER
CLARIFIER
FEED SYSTEMS
FEED SYSTEMS
FEED SYSTEMS
FEED SYSTEMS
FEED SYSTEMS
244
555
929
1057
18S8
0 0.0 3 i i 3.0
0 0.0 6 26 1.4
0 0.0 11 44 1,2
0 0,0 21 68 0.7
0 0.0 38 38 0.2
293
666
1115
1268
2230
10 0.5 291
12 1,4 600
15 2.4 925
16 2,7 1026
21 4,6 1560
4.SS
3,01
2.70
7,23
2.00
3. 1 5
1.12
0.84
0.60
0 • 49
3.85
1.82
1,S4
0• 9S
0.27
11 .20
4 • 97
4.10
1 .86
1.62
4.20
2.59
2.34
1. .96
1 .77
0.90
0.37
0.24
0.17
0.14
1.10
0.52
0.44
0.27
0,08
3.20
1.42
1.17
o .53
0.46
1 .20
0.74
0.67
0.56
0.51
16 19 4 1.8 432
41 49 13 2.6 849
67 80 21 3.4 1303
116 139 36 4.8 2221
156 187 43 5.5 3122
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
O 19,2
0 95,4
0 190.5
0 448.2
0 896,4
4 32 8.8
8 71 3.9
12 117 3.2
.13 133 1.5
21 231 1.3
10 12 3.3
32 37 2.0
59 67 1.8
127 140 1.5
235 253 1.4
-------
TOTAL *TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORS*
CHEM O&M/YR THOU CTS/ $ PER S PER
TN/YR THOU $ $ K GAL CAPITA HOME
a CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING-DILUTE
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING-DILUTE
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE
26 31 0 1.5
51 61 2 3,2
52 62 4 3.8
67 80 10 3.8
91 109 21 4,7
49 0 0.0 2 5 1.4
lii 0 0.0 4 10 0.5
143 0 0.0 5 11 0.3
162 0 0.0 6 14 0.2
216 0 0.0 8 18 0.1
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0,0
0 0,0
0 0.0
TOTAL COST FOR COMPONENTS 1 THRU 12 CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION
1,00
0.20
0,10
0.05
0,03
0,40
0,12
0.09
0.04
0.02
3.50
0.70
0.35
0.17
0.09
1.40
0.42
0,32
0.15
0.08
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L
MOD THOU S THOU $ KWH/YR KS/YR
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
FUEL
LABOR NIL
HR/YR STU/YR
9 GRAVITY THICKENER
9 GRAVITY THICKENER
9 GRAVITY THICKENER
9 GRAVITY THICKENER
9 GRAVITY THICKENER
10 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE
10 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING-DILUTE
10 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING-DILUTE
10 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE
10 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE
0.50
0.20
0.11
0.06
0.04
L u
1 .75
0.70
0.39
0.20
0.13
11 DECANTER
11 DECANTER
11 DECANTER
ii DECANTER
11 DECANTER
CENTRIFUGE
CENTRIFUGE
CENTRIFUGE
CENTRIFUGE
CENTRIFUGE
65
78
3
0.1
298
3
10
2.7
66
3
0,1
298
3
10
0,5
76
79
3
0.1
300
3
10
0.3
92
91
110
3
3
0.1
0.2
307
319
3
3
12
13
0.1
0.1
15
18
0
1.3
38
2
4
1.1
41
35
1
2.3
77
•
3
6
0.3
51
2
3.2
111
4
9
0.2
54
61
65
5
10
3.7
3.8
144
162
5
6
11
12
0.1
0.1
1.0
5.0
162
187
45
1.7
772
0
0.0
11
29
7.9
2.90
10.15
10.0
190
194
51
2.0
814
0
0.0
12
30
1.6
0.60
2.10
25.0
256
228
83
3.2
1014
0
0.0
16
38
1.0
0.38
1.33
50.0
332
307
398
166
285
5.8
9.2
1493
2041
0
0
0.0
0.0
26
38
55
76
0.6
0.4
0.22
0.15
0.77
0.53
1.0
0
5.0
0
0
0
0.5
73
0
0,0
1
1
0.3
0.10
0.35
10.0
0
0
1.2
262
0
0.0
4
4
0.2
0.08
0.28
25.0
0
0
0
2.0
500
0
0.0
7
7
0.2
0.07
0.25
0
0
4.3
1164
0
0.0
16
16
0.2
0.06
0.22
12 SLUDGE HAULING
12 SLUDGE HAULING
12 SLUDGE HAULING
12 SLUDGE HAULING
12 SLUDGE HAULING
CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION
CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION
CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION
CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION
CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
5.0
0 96.0
10.0
1992
706
16.6
5308
0 479.7
25.0
3153
1320
24.8
6868
0 954.3
6125
2969
43.1
11135
0 2244.2
THE FOLLOWING 7 PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS OF MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
1.0
5.0
20.0
25.0
50.0
151
432
758
1495
2392
181
518
910
1794
2870
12
38
68
140
237
67
145
240
495
905
20
28
38
65
113
1.3
4.6
8.5
17.8
30.2
148
310
500
999
1723
37
77
124
234
384
1874
2255
2768
4337
7598
40,5
17,0
13.7
10.9
9.4
10.2
4.2
3.4
2.6
2.1
14.80
6.20
5.00
4,00
3,45
3.70
1.54
1.24
0.94
0.77
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
51. eo
21.70
17.50
13.99
12.06
12.95
5.39
4.34
3.28
2.69
-------
*TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORI$
TOTAL COST FOR COMPONENTS 13 THRU 19 MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
AVE CONS N CAPITAL ELEC
FLOW COST COST THOU
MOD THOU $ THOU $ KWH/YR
MAINT
MAT’L
KS/YR
TOTAL
CHEM OSM/YR
TN/YR THOU $
13 3 0.0
32 13 0.0
55 25 0.0
103 57 0.0
184 114 0.1
FUEL
LABOR MIL
HR/YR BTU/YR
55
118
181
249
311
THOU CTS/ $ PER
$ K GAL CAPITA
11
27
46
86
153
79
261
451
743
1072
9
29
53
113
204
31
53
80
151
269
0 0.0 1 2 0.5 0.20
0 0.0 2 5 0.3 0.10
0 0.0 3 8 0.2 0.08
0 0.0 4 14 0,2 0.06
0 0.0 7 24 0.1 0.05
5 0 0.0 0 9 2,5 0,90
12 0 0.0 1 31 1.7 0.62
20 0 0.0 2 53 1.5 0.53
31 0 0.0 4 88 1.0 0.35
45 0 0.0 7 128 0.7 0.26
I . , ,
a..
4 0.0
21 0.1
41 0.1
98 0.3
195 0.5
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
95
313
541
892
1286
11
35
64
136
245
37
6
96
181
323
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
14 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
14 FILTRA-HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
14 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
14 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
14 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
15 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
15 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
15 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
15 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
15 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
16 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
16 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
16 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
16 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
16 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
17 SUPPLY PUMPING
17 SUPPLY PUMPING
17 SUPFLY PUMPING
17 SUPPLY PUMPING
17 SUPPLY PUMPING
18 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
18 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
18 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
18 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
18 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
19 ALUM FEED S.YSTEM
19 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
19 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
19 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
19 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
1.0
5,0
10.0
25.0
50,0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1,0
5.0
10,0
25.0
50.0
0 0 0,0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
o o 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
57
282
564
1326
2650
0.4
1.1
1.9
4.4
9.1
527
654
807
1192
1790
22 26
23 28
27 32
58 70
95 114
23 28
33 40
46 55
76 91
116 139
$ PER
HONE
0.70
0.35
0.20
0.20
0.17
3.15
2.17
1.86
1.23
0,90
0.35
0.21
0,21
0.10
0.16
3.50
1.54
1.26
1.02
0.95
2.10
0.70
0.49
0.43
0.39
2.80
1 .05
0.80
0.66
0.59
25.55
11.41
9.24
7.00
5,85
23 0.2
23 0.2
23 0.3
46 0.5
69 0.8
9 0.2
10 0.2
12 0.2
16 0.2
23 0,2
190 0 0.2
199 0 1.0
200 0 1.9
400 0 4.6
602 0 8.9
284 0 19.3
296 0 95.5
310 0 191.0
351 0 446.8
428 0 893.5
0 1 0.3
0 3 0.2
0 6 0.2
0 13 0.1
0 23 0.1
7 10 2.7
16 22 1.2
27 36 1.0
56 73 0.8
106 136 0.7
4 6 1.6
7 10 0,5
11 14 0,4
24 31 0.3
45 56 0.3
5 8 2.2
11 15 0.8
18 23 0.6
38 47 0.5
72 85 0.5
37 73 20.0
65 163 8.9
99 264 7.2
191 500 5.5
350 836 4,6
0.10
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
1.00
0.44
0.36
0.29
0.27
0.60
0,20
0 * 14
0.12
0.11
0.80
0.30
0.23
0.19
0 • 17
7 • 30
3.26
2 • 64
2.00
1.67
1.0 371
5.0 983
10.0 1676
25.0 3126
50.0 4942.
446
1181
2013
3754
5931
108 2.1 2943
387 6.2 3534
733 11.1 4286
1683 23.3 6560
3288 40.9 10774
0 19.5
0 96,4
0 192.9
0 451.3
0 902.4
-------
COMPONENT
OR
8YSTEP
TOTAL
CHEN GIN/YR
TN/YR THOU $
THE FOLLOWING 3 PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS OF ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
*TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORS*
THOU CTB/ I PER $ PER
* K GAL CAPITA HOME
21 GRANULAR
21 GRANULAR
21 GRANULAR
21 GRANULAR
21 GRANULAR
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
5*1*1 TREATMENT SYSTEM COST SUMMARIES INCLUDING YARD PIPING AT 15 PERCENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST *****
0.20
0.18
0.17
0.16
0.16
0 • 70
0.63
0.59
0.56
0.58
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAZHT FUEL
FLOW COST COST ThOU MAT’L LABOR MI t
MOD THOU S THOU $ KWH/YR KS/YR HR/YR BIU/YR
—S
20 GRANULAR ACT CARBON IONTACTORS 1.0
217 260
34 1.6 2872
0
0.0
21
46
12.6
4.60
26.10
20 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 5.0
595 714
64 5.7 2304
0
0.0
31
98
5.4
1.96
6.96
20 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 10,0
1026 1231
100 10.4 2870
0
0.0
42
158
4,3
1.58
5.53
20 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTOR8 25.0
1982 2378
184 21.5 4528
0
0.0
72
296
3.2
1.18
4.14
20 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 50.0
3071 3685
294 35.7 7808
0
0.0
123
471
2.6
0.94
3.30
ACTIVATED CARBON
16 19
0 0.0 0
0
0.0
0
2
0.5
ACTIVATED CARBON
76 91
0 0.0 0
0
0.0
0
9
0.5
ACTIVATED CARBON
151 181
0 0.0 0
0
0.0
0
17
0.5
ACTIVATED CARBON
352 422
0 0.0 0
0
0.0
0
40
0,4
ACTIVATED CARBON
698 838
0 0.0 0
0
0.0
0
79
0.4
22 GRAM ACT CARBON REGENERATION 1.0
581 697
163 1.2 208
553
1.5
12
78
21.4
22 GRAM ACT CARBON REGENERATION 5,0
612 734
199 2.3 607
2442
7.6
32
101
5.5
22 GRAN ACT CARBON REGENERATION 10.0
759 911
236 3.4 1074
4671
15.2
55
141
3,9
22 ORAN ACT CARBON REGENERATION 25.0
1115 1338
282 4.7 2083
9360
35.9
109
235
2,6
22 GRAN ACT CARBON REGENERATION 50.0
1604 1925
337 6.3 3821
17252
71.6
199
381
2.1
TOTAL COST FOR
COMPONENTS 20
THRU 22: ACTIVATED
CARBON
ADSORPTION
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION 1.0
935 1122
197 2.8 2080
553
1.5
33
126
34.5
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION 5.0
1474 1769
263 8.0 2911
2442
7.6
63
208
11.4
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION 10.0
2224 2670
336 13.9 3944
4671
15.2
97
316
8.7
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION 25.0
3965 4757
466 26.1 6611
9360
35.9
181
571
6.3
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION 50.0
6177 7413
631 42.0 11629
17252
71.6
322
931
5.1
23 REVERSE OSMOSIS 1.0
849 1019
2524 91.3 1938
0
0.0
186
282
77.3
23 REVERSE OSMOSIS 5.0
3216 3859
11993 369.2 2286
0
0.0
752
1116
61.2
23 REVERSE OSMOSIS 10.0
6117 7340
23823 711.4 2694
0
0.0
1453
2146
58.8
23 REVERSE OSMOSIS 25.0
14451 17341
59260 1705.6 3741
0
0.0
3521
5158
56.5
23 REVERSE OSMOSIS 50.0
27281 32737
118064 3277.2 5007
0
0.0
6869
9959
54.6
7.80
2.02
1,41
0.94
0.76
12.60
4.16
3.16
2.28
1.86
28.20
22.32
21.46
20.63
19.92
27.30
7.07
4.94
3.29
2.67
44.10
14 • 56
11.06
7.99
6.52
98.70
78.12
75.11
72.21
69.71
UPGRADED WATER TRT + R OSMOSIS
UPGRADED WATER IRT + R OSMOSIS
UPGRADED WATER TRT + R OSMOSIS
UPGRADED WATER TRT + R OSMOSIS
UPGRADED WATER TRT + R OSMOSIS
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
3096
7813
13562
28805
50786
3715
9379
16277
34568
60945
3057 105.5 11000
13349 400.0 14039
26212 761.1 17792
64378 1798.1 28047
127631 3425.4 44267
553
2442
4671
9360
17252
117.0
583.7
1162.6
2731.4
5462.3
323
1025
1889
4388
0446
629
1797
3226
7228
13449
172.3
98.5
88.4
79.2
73.7
62.90 220.15
35.94 125.79
32.26 112.91
28.91 101.29
26.90 94.14
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA AND UNIT FROCESS SIZES
PROCESS OR COMPONENT DESIGN FLOW,MGtI
AVERAGE: 1,0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
PEAK 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
1 RAW WATER PUMPING, FIRM CAPACITYr MOD 1.3 6.3 12.5 29.4 58.8
INCLUDES SCREENING & ONE STANDBY PUMP EQUAL TO LARGEST UNIT
2 RAPID MIX BASIN, VOLUME CU FT 116.0 580.0 1160,0 2729.0 5459.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 1 1 1 1
1 MIN DETENTION TIME AT AVERAGE FLOW
3 ALUM FEED SYSTEM—DRY ALUM’ CAPACITY LBS/HR 26.3 130,0 260.0 613.0 1224.0
ALUM COAGULATION, CAPACITY=60 MOlLy AVG40 MO/L
4 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMSY FEED CAPACITY/UNITS LBS/DAY 10.4 52,5 104.0 125.0 163.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 1 1 1 2 3
COAGULANT AID, CAPACITY 1 MG/LI AVGO.1 MG/L DOSE
5 FLOCCULATION, TOTAL BASIN VOLUME, CU FT 3475.0 17375.0 34750,0 81784.0 183529.0
HORiZONTAL PADDLE, 0=80, DETENTION TIME=30 MIN AT AVG FLOW
6 CIRCULAR CLARIFIER, SURFACE AREA/UNIT, 50 FT 658.0 3288,0 6575.0 7741.0 15529 O
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 2 2 4
OVERFLOW RATE=9 50 GAL/DAY/SO FT
7 CHLORINE FEED SYSTEMS, FEED CAPACITY, LB/DAY 105.0 523.0 1044.0 2456.0 4912.0
CAFACITY=10 MG/L DOSE
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING, FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY, 6PM *5.0 70.0 140,0 327.0 654.0
CAPACITY=40 MG/L AT PEAK FLOW AND 0.5% SOLIDS
9 GRAVITY THICKENER, SURFACE AREA/UNIT, SO FT 78,0 78.0 100.0 235.0 470.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 1 i 1 1 1
ALUM SLUDGE OVERFLOW RATE 1O00 GPD/SQ FT WITH 0.5% SOLIDS IN
10 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING, FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY, 6PM 4.0 18.0 35.0 81.0 164.0
THICKENED ALUM SLUDGE, 1% SOLIDS
11 DECANTER CENTRUFUGE CENTRIFUGE CAPACITY 6PM 13.0 16.0 31.0 74.0 147.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 1 1 1 1 1
ALUM SLUDGE AT 1% SOLIDS INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
12 SLUDGE HAULING ANNUAL VOLUME, CU YE ’ 451.0 2263.0 4513.0 10624.0 21294.0
ALUM SLUDGE CONCENTRATED TO 201 SOLIDS
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE, TOTAL FILTER AREAS SO FT 174,0 868.0 1738.0 4082.0 8165.0
MIXED MEDIA FILTER, FILTRATION RATE 5 GPM/SD FT. WATER I AWT
14 FILTRA-HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH, INDIVIDUAL FILTER AREA, SO FT 86.0 218.0 289.0 511.0 816.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 4 6 8 10
MIXED MEDIA FILTER, FILTRATION RATE 5 E3PM/SO FT , WATER I AWT
15 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM, FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY, 6PM 1550.0 3913.0 5200.0 9188.0 14706,0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 4 6 8 10
MIXED MEDIA FILTER,WATER&AWT, BACKWASH CAPACITY 18 GF ’M/SO FT
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA AND UNIT PROCESS SIZES
PROCESS OR COMPONENT DESIGN FLDU,MOD
AVERAGE 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
PEAI 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50,0
16 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION, TOTAL FILTER AREA, SQ FT 174.0 868.0 1738.0 4082.0 8165.0
MIXED MEDIA FILTER, WATER $ AWT, FILTRATION RATE—S GPM/BQ FT
17 SUPPLY PUMPINO PUMPING RATE, MOD 1.3 6.3 12.5 29.4 58.8
GRAVITY FILTER OR AWT UPFLOW CARBON CONTACTOR SUPPLY
18 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS, FEED CAPACITY/UNIT, LBS/DAY 10.4 52.5 104.0 125.0 163.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 1 1 1 2 3
FILTRATION AND CL AGULANT AID,1 MG/L CAPACITY ,0.1 I1G/L AVG
19 ALUM FEED SYSTEM—DRY ALUM, CAPACITY, LBS/HR 8.8 43.6 87,2 204.0 408,0
MIXED MEDIA FILTER AID, 20 MO/L CAPACITY, 10 MG/L AVG
20 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS, TOTAL CONTACTOR AREA ,SQ FT 175.0 875.0 1750.0 4112.0 8235.0
GRAVITY DOWNFLOW , CONTACT TIME 7.5 MINt RATE 5 GPM/SQ FT
21 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON, TOTAL WEIGHT OF CARBON, LBS 26250.0 131250.0 262500.0 617650,0 1235300.0
CONTACT TIME—7.5 MINt CARBON WEIGHT —3O LB/ CU FT
22 GRANULAR CARBON REGENERATION, HEARTH AREA, SQ FT 28.0 35.0 70.0 164.0 327.0
40X DOWNTIME,40 LB/SQ FT/DAYS REMOVAL O.5 LB COD/LB CARBON
23 REVERSE OSMOSIS, PRODUCT WATER FLOW RATE, MOD 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
WATER RECOVERY 1,5,10 MOD, 80Z 25,50 MOD, 85%
-------
COST INFoRMATIoN:
(PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST>
(PER CENT OF CONSTRuCT ION COST)
(PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COOT
(PER CENI (Jr CONSIRUCTJON COST)
(ENR SETLLED I,AF. UR)
(DES .111.4>
I }I.0 1132>
(0 >0 4101.3)
( C HR SE I I.E 0 AGIlE
>.I’ 1.114,901)
ALTI.lAi OL DI ) COST, /SU FT I
BLO All. COMMOIIITIES
(NAT IONAL INDEX VAI.. UC>
(NA’) (aNAL INDEX VALUE>
F’ER CAPITA COSIS
(JNII COST FACTORS I
CHEMICAL COSTS:
COSTS PRESENTED AS DOLLARS ARE CURRI >:NT AS OF JANUARY 197’?
CAPITAL COST FACTORS: IN’rEREs ’r RA’IE(Z) =7
NUMBER OF YEARS =20
ENGINEERING(X) =1(1
L.EGAL. ,FISCAL.(7.) -3
INT DURING CONST(Z)=7
YARD PIPING FAC’rOR =i.o
GAL/PERSON/DAY =100
PEOPLE/HOME =3,5
EI.EC’IRICJ’’I Y $/PWH =0.03
LABOR ,%/HR =10
FUEL , /MIL 010 =3
L1:ME ,$,’FUN >12
AI..UM ,$/TON
CHL_(’(R I NE, s/rON _7()
PaL YMF:’R ,$/LB
EXCAVA1 iON = 22(1 • 6
MANUFACTURED EOl ,IIF =195 • 7
CONCRETE ‘=193,1
S (EEl. =221.3
LABOR =220.6
PIPES VALVES =209,4
HOUSING =30
WHOLESALE’ PRICE =100.0
SCC1(5 MGI’ PLANT> =121
[ CAT (00 MG:J PLANt> =132
CONSTN COST .(Nr ,EXFS
L )
EPA CONSI’N INDEXES1
-------
I MAR1
WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS - INCREASED RELIABILITY
SECONDARY TREATMENT
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
EARTHEN STORAGE
B31
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
TOTAL
CHEM 02M/YR
TN/YR THOU S
*TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORS*
THOU CTS/ $ PER S PER
$ N GAL CAPITA HOME
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT FUEL
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L LABOR MIL
MOD THOU $ THOU S KWH/YR KS/YR HR/YR BTU/YR
THE FOLLOWING 16 PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS OF EC0NIIARY TREATMENT—ACT SLUDGE
1 RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING
1.0
215
258
70
0.6 1030
0
0.0
13
37
10.1
3.70
12.95
1 RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING
5.0
720
864
269
1,4 1195
0
0.0
21
103
5.6
2.06
7.21
I RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING
10.0
1284
1541’
516
2.6 1458
0
0.0
33
178
4.9
1.70
6.23
1 RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING
1 RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING
25.9
5O.
2462
3911
2954
4693
1231
2347
7.0 2308
13.0 3648
0
0
0.0
0.0
67
120
346
563
3.0
3.1
1.38
1.13
4.84
3.94
2 AERATED GRIT CHAMBER
1.0
131
157
4
2.1 954
0
0.0
12
27
7.4
2.70
9.45
2 AERATED GRIT CHAMBER
5.0
312
374
19
3,0 1869
0
0.0
22
57
3.1
1.14
3.99
2 AERATED GRIT CHAM8ER
10.0
416
499
36
4.4 3013
0
0.0
36
83
2.3
0.83
2.91
2 AERATED GRIT CHAMBER
25.0
740
888
79
10.0 6445
0
0.0
77
161
1.8
0.64
2.25
2 AERATED GRIT CHAMBER
50.0
1026
1231
136
18,0 12165
0
0.0
144
260
1.4
0.52
1,82
3 CIRCULAR PRIMARY CLARIFIER
1.0
240
288
10
0.5 287
0
0.0
4
31
8.5
3.10
10.85
3 CIRCULAR PRIMARY CLARIFIER
5.0
536
643
12
1.3 582
0
0.0
8
69
3.8
1,38
4,83
3 CIRCULAR PRIMARY CLARIFIER
10.0
894
1073
24
2.6 1163
0
0.0
15
116
3.2
1.16
4,06
3 CIRCULAR PRIMARY CLARIFIER
25.0
1776
2131
31
5.4 2065
0
0.0
27
228
2.5
0.91
3.19’
3 CIRCULAR PRIMARY CLARIFIER
50.0
3112
3734
42
9.3 3130
0
0.0
42
394
2.2
0.79
2.76
4 AERATION BASIN
1.0
223
268
0
0.0 0
0
0.0
0
25
6.8
2.50
0.75
4 AERATION BASIN
5.0
887
1064
0
0.0 0
0
0.0
0
100
5.5
2.00
7,00
4 AERATION BASIN
10.0
1397
1676
0
0,0 0
0
0,0
0
158
4.3
1.58
5.53
4 AERATION BASIN
25.0
2810
3372
0
0.0 0
0
0.0
0
318
3.5
1.27
4.45
4 AERATION BASIN
50.0
4223
5068
0
0.0 0
0
0.0
0
478
2.6
0.96
3.35
5 MECHANICAL AERATION EQUIPMENT
1.0
177
212
600
5.7 2111
0
0.0
45
65
17.8
6.50
22,75
5 MECHANICAL AERATION EQUIPMENT
5.0
654
785
3000
10.5 4686
0
0.0
147
221
12.1
4.42
15,47
5 MECHANICAL AERATION EQUIPMENT
10.0
1003
1204
5000
14.0 6574
0
0.0
230
344
9.4
3.44
12.04
5 MECHANICAL AERATION EQUIPMENT
25.0
1979
2375
12500
22,6 11571
0
0.0
513
737
8.1
2.95
10.32
5’ MECHANICAL AERATION EQUIPMENT
50.0
2748
3298
23350
26,9 12979
0
0.0
857
1168
6.4
2.34
9.18
6 CIRCULAR SECONDARY CLARIFIER
1.0
265
318
10
0,6 313
0
0.0
4
34
9.3
3,40
11.90
6 CIRCULAR SECONDARY CLARIFIER
5.0
657
788
13
1.7 693
0
0.0
9
83
4.5
1.66
5.81
6 CIRCULAR SECONDARY CLARIFIER
10.0
1095
1314
26
3.3 1385
0
0.0
18
142
3.9
1.42
4.97
6 CIRCULAR SECONDARY CLARIFIER
25.0
2240
2688
35
6.8 2470
0
0,0
33
287
3.1
1,15
4.02
6 CIRCULAR SECONDARY CLARIFIER
50.0
3962
4754
60
12.7 4393
0
0.0
58
507
2.8
1.01
3.55
7 CHLORINE FEED SYSTEMS
1.0
20
24
4
1.8 410
0
15.3
9
11
3,0
1,10
3.8S
7 CHLORINE FEED SYSTEMS
5.0
57
68
11
2.4 749
0
76,3
27
3
1.8
0,66
2.31
7 CHLORINE FEED SYSTEMS
10.0
92
110
18
3.1 1129
0
152,4
48
58
1.6
0.S8
2.03
7 CHLORINE FEED SYSTEMS
25.0
142
170
33
4.6 2020
0
381.1
110
126
1.4
0,50
1.76
7 CHLORINE FEED SYSTEMS
50.0
175
210
43
5.4 2907
0
761.9
203
223
1.2
0,45
1,56
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT
FLOW COST CO8T THOU MAT’L
MOD THOU * THOU $ KWH/YR KS/YR
FUEL
LABOR NIL
HR/YR ?TU/YR
TOTAL
CHEM O$M/YR
TN/YR THOU $
*TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORS$
THOU CTS/ $ PER $ PER
* K GAL CAPITA HOME
11 GRAVITY THICKENER
11 GRAVITY THICKENER
11 GRAVITY THICKENER
11 GRAVITY THICKENER
11 GRAVITY THICKENER
0 1.3 108 0 0.0
1 1.8 128 0 0.0
2 2,4 151 0 0.0
5 4,3 216 0 0.0
20 7.3 306 0 0.0
135 162 3 0.1
212 254 6 0.2
246 295 6 0.3
341 409 8 0.5
482 578 10 0.8
29 62 3.4 1,24 4.34
52 95 2.6 0.95 3.33
79 132 1.4 0.53 1.85
127 213 1.2 0,43 1.49
B CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN
8 CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN
8 CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN
8 CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN
8 CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN
9 RETURN ACT SLUDGE PUMPING
9 RETURN ACT SLUDGE PUMPING
9 RETURN ACT SLUDGE PUMPING
9 RETURN ACT SLUDGE PUMPING
9 RETURN ACT SLUDGE PUMPING
10 WASTE SLUDGE PUMPING
10 WASTE SLUDGE PUMPING
10 WASTE SLUDGE PUMPING
10 WASTE SLUDGE PUMPING
10 WASTE SLUDGE PUMPING
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
29
88
149
263
410
86
203
312
457
556
35
106
179
316
492
103
244
374
548
667
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 3 0.8
0 10 0.5
0 17 0.5
0 30 0.3
0 46 0.3
11
0.5
733
0
0.0
8
18
43
0.9
921
0
0.0
11
34
81
1.4
1154
0
0 0
15
50
193
365
3.1
6.4
1691
2168
0
0
0.0
0.0
26
39
78
102
64 77
141 169
216 259
331 397
359 431
4.9
1.9
1.4
0.9
0.6
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
0.30
0.20
0.17
0.12
0.09
1.80
0.68
0.50
0.32
0.20
0.90
0.38
0.28
0.18
0.10
1.80
0.60
0.35
0.19
0.13
1 .05
0.70
0.5,
0.42
0.32
6 • 30
2.38
1.75
1.09
0.71
3.15
1.33
0.?8
0.62
0.36
6,30
2.20
1.23
0.66
0.45
2 9 2.5
3 19 1.0
4 28 0.8
7 44 0.5
11 52 0.3
12 FLOTATION
12 FLOTATION
12 FLOTATION
12 FLOTATION
12 FLOTATION
13 ANAEROBIC
13 ANAEROBIC
13 ANAEROBIC
13 ANAEROBIC
13 ANAEROBIC
THICKENER
THICKENER
THICKENER
THICKENER
THICKENER
DIGESTER
DIGESTER
DIGESTER
DIGESTER
DIGESTER
300 0 0.0 3 18 4.9
606 0 0.0 6 30 1.6
623 0 0.0 7 35 1.0
676 0 0.0 8 47 0.5
765 0 0.0 9 64 0,4
PROCESS
NOT INCLUDED FOR THIS PLANT
CAPACITY
292
350
396
0.2
1678
0
0.0
376
451
726
0.3
3033
0
0.0
487
580
1112
0.4
4571
0
0.0
757
908
1907
0.7
7246
0
0.0
14 SAND DRYING BEDS
14 SAND DRYING BEDS
14 SAND DRYING BEDS
14 SAND DRYING BEDS
14 SAND DRYING BEDS
47
234
391
977
1824
231
686
1009
1943
3405
77
352
683
1619
3250
277
823
1211
2332
4088
92
422
820
1943
3900
2116
10580
22160
52900
105800
2,2
4.7
6.5
11.6
16.0
0 2.6
0 13.0
0 26.0
0 65.1
0 130.1
1174
2153
2967
5993
10200
688
3854
9329
29793
39901
13.2
7.8
6.2
5,3
4.8
0.0 22 48
0.0 65 143
0,0 111 225
0.0 260 480
0.0 490 876
0 0.0 9 18
0 0.0 52 92
0 0.0 119 196
0 0.0 363 546
0 0.0 529 897
4.80
2.86
2.25
1.92
1.75
16.80
10,01
7.88
6.72
6.13
6.30
8.44
6.86
7.64
6.20
4.9 1.00
5,0 1.84
5.4 1.96
6.0 2.18
4.9 1.79
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
TOTAL
CHEM O&M/YR
TN/YR THOU $
*TCITAL ANNUAL. (1351° FACTORS*
THOU Cr9/ $ PER $ F’ER
$ K GAL CAFITA HOME
16 YARD MAINTENANCE
16 YARD MAINTENANCE
16 YARD MAINTENANCE
16 YARD MAINTENANCE
16 YARD MAINTENANCE
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
THE FOLLOWING 7 PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS OF MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION-SEC EFF
1.0
5.0
10.0
25,0
50.0
23
53
77
141
246
28
64
92
169
295
15.1 s.S0 19.25
6.2 2,28 7.98
5.0 1.82 6.37
3.8 1.38 4.82
2.9 1,06 3.72
1.40
0,56
0.42
0.31
0.26
15 SLUDGE
15 SLUDGE
15 SLUDGE
15 SLUDGE
15 SLUDGE
HAULING
HAULING
HAULING
HAULING
HAULING
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT FUEL
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L LABOR MIL
MOlt THOU S THOU S KWH/YR KS/YR HR/YR BTU/YR
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
0 0
0
0.7 102
0 0.0
2
2
0.5
(>.20
0,70
0 0
0
1.7 408
0 0,0
6
6
0,3
0.12.
0,42
0 0
0
3.1 799
0 0.0
11
11
0.3
0.11
0,39
0 0
0
7.3 2024
0 0.0
28
28
0.3
0.11
0.39
0 0
0
14.5 4172
0 0.0
56
56
0,3
0.11
0.39
0 0
0
1,6 2100
0 0.0
23
23
6,3
2.30
8.05
0 0
0
1.9 2385
0 0.0
26
26
1,4
0.52
1.82
0 0
0
2.5 2985
0 0.0
32
32
0.9
0,32
1.12
0 0
0
4,1 4557
0 0,0
50
50
0.5
0,20
0,70
0 0
0
5.2 6311
0 0,0
68
68
0,4
0.14
0.48
TOTAL
COST
FOR
COMPONENTS
1 THRU
16:
SECONDARY
TREATMENT--ACT
GL.UIIGE
36,90
21,76
17,68
14.55
11,93
129.15
76.16
61.88
50.93
41.77
SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT SLUDGE
1.0
2171
2605
759
20.1 10310
2116
15.3
156
369
101.1
SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT SLUDGE
5.0
6660
7991
4004
44.6 21907
10580
76,3
432
1088
59.6
SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT SLUDGE
10.0
10541
12650
6826
72.5 35763
21160
152.4
731
1768
48,4
SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT SLUDGE
25.0
20200
24240
16204
152.7 76400
52900
381.1
1648
3638
39.9
SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT SLUDGE
50.0
32625
39151
29994
266.5 110291
105800
761.9
2753
5967
32,7
17 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
2030
0
0.0
24
55
17 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
2648
0
0.0
36
114
17 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
3507
0
0.0
52
182
17- GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
6560
0
0.0
99
344
17 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
12518
0
0.0
177
531
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50 .0
271
686
1144
2165
3125
325
823
1373
2598
3750
23 2,7
61 7.7
105 13.3
211 26.9
324 42.0
18 FILTRA-HYLtRAULIC SURFACE WASH
18 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
18 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
18 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
18 FILTRA-HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
19 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
19 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
19 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
19 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
19 FILTRA—BACKUASH PUMPING SYSTEM
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50,0
4 0.0 56 0 0.0 1 4 1.1 0,40
17 0.0 175 0 0.0 2 8 0.4 0,16
33 0.0 241 0 0.0 3 12 0.3 0.12
81 0.1 312 0 0.0 6 22 0.2 0.09
162 0.1 375 0 0.0 9 37 0.2 0.07
186
490
751
1152
1681
223
588
901
1382
2017
6 0.0
28 0.1
55 0.2
138 - 0.4
277 0.7
6 0 0.0 0 21
18 0 (1.0 :1 57
26 0 0.0 2 87
40 0 0.0 5 135
57 0 0.0 10 200
5,0 2.10
3.1 1.14
2,4 0,87
1,9 0,54
1.1 0.40
7,35
3.99
3.05
1.89
1.40
-------
TOTAL COST FOR COMPONENTS 17 THRU 23 MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION-SEC EFF
THE FOLLOWING 14 PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS OF LIME CLARIFICATION
2.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
98 228
136 163
164 197
173 208
177 212
20 1.2 1189
20 1,2 1639
21 1.2 2092
27- 1.3 2878
45 1.6 3208
8.75
2,31
1.47
0.71
0,39
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT
FLOW COST COST THOU MATL
MGD THOU $ THOU * KWH/YR K$/YR
FUEL
LABOR MIL
HR/YR STU/YR
18
48
83
178
311
30
47
69
132
234
TOTAL *TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTOR8*
CNEM 0*H/YR THOU CTS/ S PER * PER
TN/YR THOU $ $ K GAL CAPITA HOME
22
58
100
214
373
36
56
93
158
281
0 0.0 0 0 0,0
0 0.0 0 0 0.0
0 0.0 0 0 0.0
0 0.0 0 0 0.0
0 0.0 0 0 0.0
2.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50,0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5,0
10.0
25.0
50 • 0
45
226
451
1128
2254
0.3 520
0.9 623
1,6 747
3.7 1096
7.6 1618
U’
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
20 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
20 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
20 MEDIA-MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
20 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
20 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
21 SUPPLY PUMPING
21 SUPPLY PUMPING
21 SUPPLY PUMPING
21 SUPPLY PUMPING
21 SUPPLY PUMPING
22 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
22 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
22 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
22 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
22 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
23 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
23 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
23 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
23 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
23 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION—SEC EFF
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION—SEC EFF
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION-SEC EFF
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION—SEC EFF
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION—SEC EFF
24 LIME FEEDING
24 LIME FEEDING
24 LINE FEEDING
24 LIME FEEDING
24 LIME FEEDING
44 53 23 0.2 198
46 55 23 0.2 198
51 61 23 0.3 199
67 80 23 0.3 201
100 120 46 0.6 403
0 2 0.5
0 5 0.3
0 9 0.2
0 20 0.2
0 35 0.2
7 10 2.7
14 19 1.0
23 31 0.8
49 64 0.7
91 118 0.6
4 9 2.5
9 14 0.8
15 21 0.6
33 41 0.4
52 63 0.3
4 7 1.9
9 14 0.8
25 22 0.6
33 45 0.5
62 79 0.4
o o.o
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
o 0.3
0 1.5
0 3.0
O 7.6
0 11,4
0 25.3
0 76.2
o 152.4
0 381.1
O 762.1
24 29
41 49
60 72
106 127
149 179
9 0.2 284
10 0.2 293
11 0.2 304
15 0.2 341
22 0.2 405
0.20
0,10
0.09
0.08
0.07
1.00
0,38
0.31
0.26
0.24
0.90
0.28
0.21
0.16
0.13
0,70
0.28
0.22
0.18
0.16
-10.80
4.62
3.64
2.68
2.13
0.70
0.35
0.32
0.28
0.25
3.50
1.33
1.09
0.90
0.83
3.15
0.98
0.74
0.57
0.44
2.45
0,98
0,77
0.63
0. 15
37.80
16.17
12.74
,39
-7,44
1.0
5.0
10.0
25 • 0
50.0
681
1619
2567
4528
6720
820
1944
3081
5435
8064
110 3.5 3094
365 9.1 3955
678 15.5 5024
1596 31.6 8550
3084 51,2 15376
0 15.6 40 108
0 77.7 71 231
O 155.5 110 364
O 388.7 225 671
0 773.5 401 1063
29.6
12.7
10.0
7.4
5.8
0 0.0 14 25 6.9 2.50
0 0.0 18 33 1.8 0.66
0 0.0 23 42 1,2 0.42
0 0.0 31 51 0,6 0.20
0 0.0 35 55 0,3 0.11
-------
INCLUDED FOR
INCLUDED FOR
INCLUDED FOR
INCLUDED FOR
23
0.2
198
23
0.2
198
23
0.3
199
23
46
0.3
0.6
201
403
0 0.3
0 1.5
0 3.0
0 7.6
0 11.4
4 9 2.5
9 14 0.8
15 21 0,6
33 41 0.4
52 63 0,3
0.90
0.28
0.21
.0.16
0.13
0.2 470
0.5 468
0,8 469
1.8 499
3.3 617
0 ’
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
o 0.0
0 0.0
6 8 2.2
10 15 0.8
15 23 0.6
30 48 0,5
57 91 0.5
0.80
0,30
0.23
0.19
0.18
0.6 120
1.4 191
2.4 260
4.6 336
6.3 476
0 0,0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
COMPONENT
AVE
CONSTN
CAPITAL
ELEC MAINT
FUEL
TOTAL
*TOTAL
ANNUAL
COST
FACTORS*
OR
FLOW
COST
COST
THOU MAT’L
LABOR
MIL
CHEM
0th/YR
THOU
CTS/
$ PER
$ PER
SYSTEM
MOD
THOU $
THOU $
KWH/YR K$/YR
HR/YR
BTU/YR
TN/YR
THOU $
$
K GAL
CAPITA
HOME
25 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
1.0
44
53
3,15
25 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
5.0
46
55
0.98
25 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
10.0
51
61
0.74
25 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
25 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
25.0
50.0
67
100
80
120
0,57
0.44
26 RAPID MIX
1.0
21
25
32
2.80
26 RAPID MIX
5.0
44
53
157
1.05
26 ,RAPID MIX
26 RAPID MIX
10.0
2i.0
73
160
88
192
315
787
0.80
0.67
26 RAPID MIX
50.0
300
360
1574
0.64
27 FLOCCULATION
1.0
59
71
19
3.15
27 FLOCCULATION
27 FLOCCULATION
5.0
10.0
151
250
181
300
70
140
1.54
1.30
27 FLOCCULATION
25,0
403
484
351
0.90
27 FLOCCULATION
50,0
0
0
702
0,22
28 CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
28 CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
1.0
5.0
228
479
274
575
10.15
4.27
28 CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
10.0
782
938
28 CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
25.0
1549
1859
2.79
28 CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
50.0
2715
3258
2.42
29 RECARBONATION BASIN
29 RECARBONATION BASIN
29 RECARBONATION BASIN
29 RECARBONATION BASIN
29 RECARBONATION BASIN
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
38
84
127
223
371
46
101
152
268
445
1.40
0.70
0.49
0.35
0.29
30 RECARB WITH SUBMERGED
BURNERS
1.0
274
329
285 4,1
160
13815
0.0
56
87
23.8
8,70
30.45
30 RECARB WITH SUBMERGED
BURNERS
5.0
PROCESS
NOT
THIS
PLANT
CAPACITY
30 RECARS WITH SUBMERGED
BURNERS
10.0
PROCESS
NOT
THIS
PLANT
CAPACITY
30 RECARB WITH SUBMERGED
BURNERS
25.0
PROCESS
NOT
THIS
PLANT
CAPACITY
30 RECARB WITH SUBMERGED
BURNERS
50.0
PROCESS
NOT
THIS
PLANT
CAPACITY
31 RECARB WITH STACK GAS
31 RECARB WITH STACK GAS
1.0
5.0
155
PROCESS
186
NOT INCLUEIEEI
2542 4,2
FOR THIS
333
PLANT
0
CAPACITY
0,0
84
102
5.6
2.04
7.14
31 RECARB WITH STACK GAS
10.0
309
371
5084 6.2
558
0
0,0
164
199
5,5
1,99
6.97
31 RECARB WITH STACK GAS
31 RECARD Wi:TI-( STACK GAS
25.0
50.0
519
929
623
1115
12707 10.1
25419 13.3
1014
1631
0
0
0,0
0.0
401
792
460
897
5,0
4,9
1,84
1.79
6.44
6.28
2 9 2.5
5 22 1.2
9 37 1.0
18 64 0,7
32 32 0,2
10 0.5 274
11 1.2 527
14 2.0 802
29 4.7 1851
39 8.2 2844
0,90
0.44
0.37
0,26
0,06
O 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0,0
0 0,0
3 29 7.9
7 61 3.3
10 99 2.7
24 199 2.2
38 346 1,9
0 0.0
0 0,0
0 0,0
0 0,0
0 0,0
2,90
1 .22
0,99
0.80
0,69
0 0 0.0
0 0 0,0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0,0
0 4 1.1
0 10 0.5
0 14 0,4
0 25 0.3
0 42 0.2
0,40
0,20
0,14
0.10
0,08
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
37 SLUDGE HAULING
37 SLUDGE HAULING
37 SLUDGE HAULING
37 SLUDGE HAULING
37 SLUDGE HAULING
1.0
5.0
10.0
25,0
50.0
FUEL
LABOR NIL
HR/YR BTU/YR
TOTAL
CHEM O*M/YR
TN/YR THOU $
AVE CON8TN CAPITAL ELEC PlAINT
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L
MOE’ THOU $ THOU $ KWH/YR K$/YR
*TUTAL
ANNUAL
COST
FACTORS*
THOU ClEW
$ PER
$ PER
$ K (3AL
CAPITA
HOME
32 RECTANGULAR CLARIFIERS 1,0
88 106
3 0.3 177 0 0.0
2
12
3.3
1.20
4,20
32 RECTANGULAR CLARIFIERS 5.0
241 289
8 0.8 434 0 0.0
5
32
1.8
0.64
2.24
32 RECTANGULAR CLARIFIERS 20.0
395 474
10 1.0 569 0 0.0
7
52
1,4
0.52
1.82
32 RECTANGULAR CLARIFIERS 25.0
803 964
21 2.1 939 0 0.0
12
103
1.1
0.41
1.44
32 RECTANGULAR CLARIFIERS 50.0
1338 1606
42 4.1 1877 0 0.0
24
176
1.0
0.35
1.23
33 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE 1.0
51 61
1 2.5 84 0 0.0
3
9
2.5
0.90
3.15
33 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE 5.0
74 89
7 3,4 142 0 0.0
5
13
0.7
0.26
0.91
33 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE 10.0
102 122
13 4.1 177 0 0.0
6
18
0.5
0.18
0.63
33 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE 25.0
166 199
33 5.8 275 0 0.0
10
29
0,3
0.12
0.41
33 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE 50.0
218 262
66 8.5 412 0 0.0
15
40
0.2
0.08
0.28
34 GRAVITY THICKENER 1.0
130 156
3 0.1 298 0 0.0
3
18
4.9
1.80
6,30
34 GRAVITY THICKENER 5.0
140 168
3 0.1 302 0 0.0
3
19
1.0
0.38
1,33
34 GRAVITY THICKENER 10.0
160 192
3 0.1 310 0 0.0
3
21
0.6
0.21
0,74
34 GRAVITY THICKENER 25.0
256 307
6 0.3 629 0 0.0
7
36
0,4
0.14
0.50
34 GRAVITY THICKENER 50.0
329 395
8 0.5 669 0 0.0
7
44
0.2
0,09
0.31
35 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE 1.0
301 361
38 1.5 729 0 0.0
10
44
12.1
4.40
15.40
35 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE 5.0
313 376
45 1.7 772 0 0.0
11
46
2.5
0.92
3.22
35 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE 10.0
358 430
71 2.6 936 0 0.0
14
55
1,5
0.55
1.93
35 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE 25.0
481 577
146 5.2 1383 0 0.0
23
77
0.8
0.31
1.08
35 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE 50.0
625 750
252 8.3 1906 0 0.0
35
106
0.6
0.21
0,74
36 MULTIPLE HEARTH RECALCINATION 1.0
PROCESS
NOT INCLUDED FOR THIS PLANT CAPACITY
36 MULTIPLE HEARTH RECALCINATXON 5.0
1220 1464
301 5.6 2708 25903 0.0
119
257
14.1
5.14
17.99
36 MULTIPLE HEARTH RECALCINATION 10.0
1590 1908
421 7.9 4188 34334 0.0
165
345
9.5
3.45
12.08
36 MULTIPLE HEARTH RECALCINATION 25.0
2556 3067
688 13.9 7966 66490 0.0
314
604
6.6
2.42
8,46
36 MULTIPLE HEARTH RECALCINATION 50.0
3682 4418
1025 22.0 12539 138002 0.0
592
1009
5.5
2.02
7.06
0 0
0 0
0 0
O 0
0 0
0 0,9 163 0 0.0
0 2.0 198 0 0.0
0 1.6 371 0 0.0
0 3.4 903 0 0.0
0 6.6 1824 0 0.0
2
3
5
12
25
2
3
5
12
25
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0,20
0,06
0.05
0,05
0.05
0,70
0.21
0.18
0,17
0.18
FOTAL COST FOR
COMPONENTS 24
THRU 37: LIME CLARIFICATION
LIME CLARIFICATION 1.0
1527 1834
434 12.1 3862 13825 0.3
105
256
70,1
25.60
89.60
LIME CLARIFICATION 5.0
3540 4250
3187 21.4 7912 25903 1.5
279
627
34.4
12,54
43.89
LIME CLARIFICATION 10.0
5020 6013
6115 30.3 10931 34334 3.0
436
931.
25.5
9.31
32.59
LIME CLARIFICATION 25,0
8454 10147
14818 53.4 18874 66490 7.6
915
1749
19.2
7.00
24.49
LINE CLARIFICATION 50.0
12397 14877
29218 83.4 28406 138002 11.4
1704
2926
16.0
5.85
20.48
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC SIAINI
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L
MGI ’ THOU 3 THOU $ KWH/YR N$/YR
1,0
5.0
10.0
25,0
50.0
FUEL TOTAL
LABOR NIL. CHEM OIM/YR
HR/YR RIO/YR TN/YE IHOU $
0 0.0
0 0,0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
KIOTAL ANNUAL COOl rAc:IORS*
THOU CTSI $ FF:R $ ER
3 K HAL CAF’ I TA HOME.
0.30
0.10
0.08
0.06
0 • Oh
1,05
o • 35
0.28
o • 21
0.17
THE FOLLOWING 7 FROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS OF MIXEE’ MEDIA FILTRATION-Awl
1.0
5.0
10,0
25.0
50.0
194
499
797
1565
2420
233
599
956
1878
2904
16
44
72
147
240
1.8
5.4
9.0
18,7
30.6
1929
2353
.2837
4524
7741
0 0.0
0 (>.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
21 25 2 0.0 54
38 46 10 0.0 115
56 67 20 0.0 178
97 116 49 0.0 248
162 194 97 0.1 311
4,40
:1. • 74
1. 3()
0.98
0,78
.10.40
6.09
4,05
3.43
2.72
22 44 12.1
30 13? 4.13
40 130 3,6
68 240 2.?
liii 389 2.1
1 3 0,13
1 5 0.3
2 8 0.2
4 15 0.2
6 24 0.1
0 16 4.4
1 40 2.2
1 62 1.7
3 103 1.1
6 143 0.8
38 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
38 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
38 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
38 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
38 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
39 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
39 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
39 FILTRA-HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
39 FILTRA-HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
39 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
40 FILTRA—RACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
40 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
40 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
40 FILTRA—DACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
40 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
41 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
41 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
41 MEDM—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
41 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
41 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
42 SUPPLY PUMPING
42 SUPPLY PUMPING
42 SUPPLY PUMPING
42 SUPPLY PUMPING
42 SU ’PLY PUMPING
43 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
43 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
43 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
43 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
43 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
44 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
44 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
44 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
44 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
44 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
3 0.0 5 0 0.0
1? 0.1 12 0 0.0
33 0,1 19 0 0.0
83 0,2 29 0 0.0
166 0,4 43 0 0.0
170
418
647
1060
1453
14
41
67
143
250
36
56
83
158
281
1.0
5.0
10.0
25,0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50,0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50,0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0.3
O 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 4 0.2
0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 6 0.2
0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 13 0.1
0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 24 0.1
142
348
539
883
1211
12
34
56
119
208
30
47
69
132
234
44
46
51
67
100
24
41
60
106
149
1 .60
0,80
0.62
0 ,41
0,29
0,10
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.05
45
226
451
1128
2254
0.3 520
0.9 623
1,6 747
3.7 1096
7.6 1618
0 0.0 7 10 2.7 1,00
0 0.0 14 19 1.0 0.38
0 0.0 23 31 0.8 (3.31
0 0.0 49 64 0.7 0.26
0 0.0 91 118 0.6 0,24
53 23 0.2
55 23 0.2
61 23 0.3
80 23 0.3
120 46 0.6
198
198
199
201
403
5 , 60
2.80
2.17
1.44
1 .00
0.35
0.28
0.21
0.18
0.17
3.50
1.33
1.09
0.90
0.83
3.15
0.98
0.74
0.57
0.44
2.45
0.98
0.77
0.63
0 .5 5
0 0.3
0 1.5
0 3.0
0 7.6
0 11.4
29
49
72
127
179
9 0.2
10 0.2
11 0.2
15 0.2
21 0.2
284 0 15.3
293 0 76.2
304 0 152.4
341 0 381.1
405 0 762.1
4 9 2.5 0.90
9 14 0.8 0.28
15 21 0,6 0.21
33 41 0.4 0.16
52 63 0.3 0.13
4 7 1.9 0.70
9 14 0.8 0.28
15 22 0.6 0.22
33 45 0.5 0.18
62 79 0,4 0.16
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
TOTAL
CHEM O$M/YR
TN/YR THOU $
TOTAL COST FOR COMPONENTS 38 THRU 44 MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION-AWl
THE FOLLOWING 3 PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS OF ACTIVATED CARSON ADSORPTION
*TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTO S$
THOU CTS/ $ PER $ PER
$ K GAL CAPITA HOME
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT FUEL
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L LABOR NIL
MO !) THOU a THOU a KWH/YR K$/YR HR/YR BTU/YR
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION—Awl
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION—AWl
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION—Awl
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION—AWT
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATXON-AWT
1.0
5.0
10.0
29,0
50.0
534
1208
1869
3410
5155
640
1450
2244
4094
6185
98
330
610
1445
2824
2.6
6.8
11.2
23.2
39.6
2990
3594
4284
6439
10521
0 15.6
0 77,7
0 155.5
0 388.7
o 773.5
45 UPFLOW GRAM CARBON
45 UPFLOW GRAN CARBON
45 UPFLOW GRAN CARBON
45 UPFLOW GRAN CARBON
45 UPFLOW GRAM CARBON
46 GRANULAR AcrIVATED
46 GRANULAR ACTIVATED
46 GRANULAR ACTIVATED
46 GRANULAR ACTIVATELI
46 GRANULAR ACTIVATETI
38 90 24.7
64 183 10.0
96 280 7,7
190 526 5.8
332 840 4.6
L V
CONTACTORS
CONT ACT ORS
C DM1 AC 1 0 RS
CON TAC TOPS
C ON I AC TORS
CARBON
CARBON
CARBON
CARBON
CARBON
123
222
348
746
1470
2001
2640
3406
5501
8479
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
tO .0
25.0
50.0
1.5
4,3
7.7
17.6
33,2
0 0.0
0 0.0
O 0,0
0 0.0
0 0.0
410
1653
3203
7151
13393
73
298
592
1396
2704
577
895
1262
2015
2581
492
1984
3844
0581
16072
88
358
710
1675
3245
692
1074
1514
2418
3097
47 SPAN ACT
47 GRAM ACT
47 GRAN ACT
47 GRAM ACT
47 GRAM ACT
CARBON REGENERATION
CARBON REGENERATION
CARBON REGENERATION
CARBON REGENERATION
CARBON REGENERATION
0 0.0 25 71 19.5
0 0.0 37 224 12.3
0 0.0 52 415 11.4
0 0.0 95 905 9,9
0 0.0 162 1679 9.2
O 0 0.0 0 8 2.2
0 0 0.0 0 34 1.9
0 0 0.0 0 67 1.8
0 0 0.0 0 158 1.7
0 0 0.0 0 306 1,7
182 1.8 410 1508 4.6
261 3.9 1380 6400 22.8
297 5.1 2585 11549 45.6
401 7.8 5560 26245 114.1
560 10.0 8880 48933 228.1
TOTAL COST FOR COMPONENTS 45 THRU 47: ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
305 2411 1508 4.6
483 4020 6400 22.8
645 5991 11549 45.6
114? 11061 26245 114,1
2030 17359 48933 228.1
9.00
3.66
2.80
2.10
1.68
7,10
4.48
4.15
3.62
3.36
0.80
0.68
0 ,67
0.63
0,61
8,70
3 • 50
2.77
2 • 12
1 .70
16.60
8 • 66
7,59
6,37
.67
2 ,50
0 • 60
0.99
0.32
0,50
74
134
302
559
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORF’TION
ACTIVATEL’ CARBON ADSORPTION
ACTIVATED CARBON AI’SOPPTION
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
48 SrANL’BY POWER, SEC TRT
48 STANDBY POWER, SEC TRT
48 STANDBY POWER, SEC ‘ RT
48 STANDBY POWER, SEC TRT
48 STANDBY POWER, SEC TRT
31.50
12.81
9.80
7.36
5.86
24.85
15.68
14.53
12,67
11 .75
2.80
2.38
, 34
2.21
2.14
30.45
12.25
9.70
7.42
5.96
50.10
30.31
26.57
22.30
19.85
8.75
2.10
1.93
2.13
1 .76
87 23.8
175 9.6
277 7.6
530 5.8
851 4.7
1.0
5,0
10,0
25 • 0
50,0
1,0
5,0
10.0
25,0
50.0
1217
3271
5814
1 2145
21478
150
175
300
436
1337
1461
3927
6977
14574
25774
180
210
360
523
1604
3,3
8.2
12.8
25.4
43.2
0 0.1
0 0.1
0 0,1
0 0,2
0 0.6
47 166
111 433
186 759
397 1593
721 2836
45,5
23.7
20.0
17.5
15.5
8 2738
10 3427
20 6762
30 10339
96 32662
0.0 8 25 6.8
0.0 10 30 1.6
0.0 21 55 1,9
0.0 32 81 0.9
0.0 100 251 1.4
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
POWER, AUT
FOWER ’ ANT
POWER’ AUT
POWER, ANT
POWER’ ANT
STORAGE’ 1 DAY
STORAGE, 1 DAY
STORAGE, 1 DAY
STORAGE, 1 DAY
STORAGE, 1 DAY
FUEL
LABOR MIL
HR/YR BTU/YR
8 2738
24 8370
46 15910
94 31971
220 75070
TOTAL *TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORS*
CHEM O&M/YR THOU CTS/ $ PER $ PER
TN/YR THOU $ $ K GAL CAPITA HOME
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
49 STANDBY
49 STANDBY
49 STANDBY
49 STAIIDDY
49 ST DBY
50 EARTHEN
50 EARTHEN
50 EARTHEN
50 EARTHEN
50 EARTHEN
51 EARTHEN
51 EARTHEN
51 EARTHEN
51 EARTHEN
51 EARTHEN
52 EARTHEN
52 EARTHEN
52 EARTHEN
52 EARTHEN
52 EARTHEN
53 EARTHEN
53 EARTHEN
53 EARTHEN
53 EARTHEN
53 EAI THEN
U 25
26 67
48 122
97 245
229 581
6.8 2,50
3,7 1,34
3.3 1.22
2.7 0.98
3.2 1.16
0
2 DAYS
2 DAYS
2 DAYS
2 DAYS
2 DAYS
4 [ lAYS
4 DAYS
4 DAYS
4 DAYS
4 DAYS
STORAGE,
STORAGE,
STORAGE,
STORAGE,
STORAGE,
STORAGE,
STORAGE,
STORAGE,
STORAGE
STORAGE,
STORAGE, B
STORAGES 8
STORAGE, 8
STORAGE’ m
STORAGE B
0 0 0.0 0 4 1.1 0.40
0 0 0.0 0 11 0,6 0,22
0 0 0.0 0 19 0.5 0.19
o 0 0.0 0 39 0,4 0.16
0 0 0.0 0 66 0.4 0.13
o 0 0.0 0 6 1.6 0.60
O 0 0.0 0 19 1.0 0.38
0 0 0.0 0 33 0.9 0.33
0 0 0.0 0 66 0,7 0.26
0 0 0.0 0 101 0.6 0.20
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L
MG [ I THOU S THOU S KWH/YR KS/YR
1.0 150 180 0 0.1
5,0 361 433 0 0.2
10.0 654 785 0 0.3
25.0 1309 1571 0 0.6
50.0 3109 3731 0 1,4
1.0 35 42 0 0.0
5.0 94 113 0 0.0
10.0 164 197 0 0.0
25.0 348 418 0 0.0
50.0 581 697 0 0.0
1.0 50 60 0 0.0
5.0 164 197 0 0.0
10.0 291 349 0 0.0
25,0 ‘581 697 0 0.0
50.0 896 1075 0 0.0
1,0 80 96 0 0.0
5.0 291 349 0 0.0
10.0 497 596 0 0.0
25.0 896 1075 0 0,0
50.0 1858 2230 0 0,0
1.0 137 164 0 0.0
5.0 497 596 0 0.0
10.0 782 938 0 0.0
25.0 1858 2230 0 0,0
50.0 PROCESS NOT INCLUDED FOR
1,0 164 197 0 0.0
5.0 581 697 0 0.0
10.0 896 1075 0 0.0
25.0 PROCESS NOT INCLUDED FOR
50.0 PROCESS NOT INCLUDED FOR
1,0 230 276 0 0.0
5.0 753 904 0 0.0
10.0 1232 1478 0 0.0
25.0 PROCESS NOT INCLUDED FOR
50.0 PROCESS NOT INCLUDED FOR
8.75
4.69
4,27
3.43
4.07
1.40
0.77
0,66
0.5 5
0.46
2.10
1.33
1.16
0.92
0.71
3.15
2,31
1,96
1.41
1.47
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
0 0 0.0 0 9
0 0 0.0 0 33
0 0 0.0 0 56
o 0 0.0 0 101
0 0 0.0 0 210
54 EARTHEN STORAGE’
54 EARTHEN STORAGE’
54 EARTHEN STORAGE’
54 EARTHEN STORAGE,
54 EARTHEN STORA E
2.5 0.90
1.8 0.66
1.5 0,56
1.1 0.40
2.2 0.42
10 DAYS
10 DAYS
10 DAYS
10 DAYS
10 DAYS
55 EARTHEN
55 EARTHEN
55 EARTHEN
55 EARTHEN
55 EARTHEI
STORAGE, 15
STORAGE, 15
STORAGE, 15
STORAGE, 15
STORAGE, 15
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
0
0
0
0
THIS
0
0
0
THIS
THIS
0
0
0
THIS
THIS
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
PLANT CAPACITY
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
PLANT CAPACITY
PLANT CAPACITY
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
PLANT CAPACITY
PLANT CAPACITY
0 15 4.1 1.50 5,25
0 56 3.1 1.12 3.92
0 89 2.4 0.89 3.12
0 210 2.3 0.84 2.94
Q 19 5.2 1.90 6.65
0 66 3.6 1.32 4.62
0 101 2.8 1.01 3.54
0 26 7,1 2.60 9,10
0 85 4.7 1.70 3 ,9S
0 140 3.8 1.40 4.90
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
5*55* TREATMENT
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT FUEL
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L LABOR MIL
MOD THOU $ THOU $ KWH/YR KS /YR HR/YR BTU/YR
TOTAL *TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORS*
CHEN O&M/YR THOU CTS/ $ PER S PER
TN/YR THOU $ S K GAL CAPITA HOME
SYSTEM COST SUMMARIES INCLUDING YARD PIPING Af 1.5 PERCENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST *****
.1 : .
1 — ’
56 EARTHEN STORAGE’ 20 DAYS
56 EARTHEN STORAGE I 20 DAYS
1 ,0
5.0
291
896
349
1075
0 0.0 0
- 0 0.0 0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0
9.9
101 5.5
2.02 7.07
56 EARTHEN STORAGE. 20 DAYS
10.0
1858
2230
0 0.0 0
0 0.0
0
210 5.8
2.10 7.35
56 EARTHEN STORAGE’ 20 DAYS
25.0
PROCESS
NOT INCLUDED FOR THIS
PLANT CAPACITY
56 EARTHEN STORAGE, 20 DAYS
50.0
PROCESS
NOT INCLUDED FOR THIS
PLANT CAPACITY
57 EARTHEN STORAGE. 30 DAYS
1.0
401
481
0 0.0 0
0 0.0
0
45 12.3
4.50 15.75
57 EARTHEN STORAGE. 30 DAYS
5.0
1232
1478
0 0.0 0
0 0.0
0
140 7.7
2.80 9.80
57 EARTHEN STORAGE, 30 DAYS
10.0
PROCESS
NOT INCLUDED FOR THIS
PLANT’ CAPACITY
57 EARTHEN STORAGE. 30 DAYS
25.0
PROCESS
NOT INCLUDED FOR THIS
PLANT CAPACITY
57 EARTHEN STORAGE. 30 DAYS
50.0
•
PROCESS
NOT INCLUDED FOR THIS
PLANT CAPACITY
SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT SLUDGE
1 ,0
2343
2812
759 20.2 10318
4854 15.3
164
394 107.9
39.40 137.90
SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT SLUDGE
5.0
6861
8232
4004 44.7 21917
14007 76.3
442
1118 61.3
22.36 78.26
SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT SLUDGE
SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT SLUDGE
10.0
25.0
10886
20701
13064
24841
6826 72 ,6 35783
16204 152.9 76430
27922 152.4
63239 381.1
752
1680
1823 49.9
3719 40.8
18.23’ 63.81
14.88 52.07
SECONDARY TREATMENT—ACT SLUDGE
50.0
34162
40995
29994 267.1 110387
138462 761.9
2853
6218 34.1
2.44 43.53
SEC TRT ÷ STORAGE. 1 DAY
1,0
2383
2860
759 20.2 10318
4854 15.3
164
398 109.0
39.80 139.30
SEC TRT + STORAGE, 1 DAY
5.0
6969
8361
4004 44.7 21917
14007 76.3
442
1129 61.9
22.58 79.03
SEC TRT + STORAGE. 1 DAY
10.0
11074
13290
6826 72.6 35783
27922 152.4
752
1842 50.5
18.42
52.61
SEC TRT + STORAGE. 1 DAY
25.0
21101
25321
16204 152.9 76430
63239 381.1
1680
3758 41.2
15.03
SEC TRT + STORAGE. 1 ’ DAY
50.0
34830
41796
29994 267.1 110387
138462 761.9
2853
6284 34.4
12;57 43.99
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
1.0
5621
6747
1596 38.1 19581
20177 35.8
354
6 ’
906 248.2 90.60 317.10
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
ADVANCE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
5.0
10.0
15094
23986
18115
28786
8004 81,2 37457
14196 127.1 57015
51253 178.4
82953 356.5
912
1497
2398 131.4
3860 105.8
47.96 167.86
38.60 135.10
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
25.0
45714
54861
33614 255.4 112868
177606 891.4
3247
7751 84.9
31.00 108.51
92.05
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
50.0
75230
90277
64066 434.1 166797
367805 1775.0
5739
13150 72.1
AWT+ STORAGE. 1 DAY
1.0
5661
6795
1596 38.1 19581
20177 35.8
354
910 249.3
91.00 318.50
168.63
AWT+ STORAGE. 1 DAY
AWT+ STORAGE. 1 DAY
5.0
10.0
15202
24174
18244
29012
8004 81.2 37457
14196 127.1 57015
51253 178.4
82953 356.5
912
14 7
2409 132.0
3879 106.3
48.18
38.79 135.77
AWT+ STORAGE, 1 DAY
AWTt STORAGE. 1.DAY
25.0
50.0
46114
75898
55341
91078
33614 255.4 112868
64066 434.1 166797
177606 891.4
367805 1775.0
3247
5739
7790 85.4
13216 72,4
31.16
26.43 92.51
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA AND UNIT PROCESS SIZES
PROCESS OR COMPONENT DESIGN FLQW.MGB
AVERAGE: 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
PEAK 2.0 10.0 20.0 45.0 80.0
1 RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING, FIRM CAPACITY. MOD 2.0 10.0 20 ,0 45.0 80 ,0
INCLUDES SCREENING AND STANDBY PUMP EQUAL TO LARGEST UNIT
2 AERATED GRIT CHAMBER.VOLIIME.CU FT CINCL STNBY) 928.0 4642.0 6963.0 15668.0 27852.0
DETENTION TIME = 2,5 MINUTES AT PEAK DESIGN FLOW
3 CIRCULAR PRIMARY CLARIFIER, SURFACE AREA/UNIT’ SQ FT 625.0 3125,0 3125 ,0 7815 ,0 15625.0
NUMBEROFUNITS - 3 3
OVERFLOW RATE = 800 GAL/DAY/SQ FT tINCL STNBY UNIT)
4 AERATION BASIN.VOLUNE.CU FT (INCL STNBY CAPACITY) 66900.0 334500.0 557500 ,0 1301200.0 2602410.0
‘HYDRAULIC DETENTION TIME a 5 HRS
5 MECHANICAL AERATION EQUIPMENT, INSTALLED HP CINCL STNBY) 120.0 600.0 1000,0 2500.0 4670.0
MAXIMUM OXYGEN UPTAKE RATE = 70 MG/L/HR
6 C1RCULAR SECONDARY CLARIFIER’ SURFACE AREA/UNIT, SQ FT 833.0 4167,0 4167.0 10419.0 13891 ,0
NUMBEROFUNITS 3 3 5 5 7
OVERFLOW RATE = 600 GAL/DAY/SQ FT (INCL STNBY)
7 CHLORINE FEED SYSTE$StFEED CAPACITY, LB/DAY 167.0 835.0 1670.0 3758,0 6680.0
SIZED FOR 10 MG/L DOSE AT PEAK DESIGN FLOW
p a
8 CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN, VOLUME, CU FT 5570.0 27852.0 55704.0 125334,0 222816,0
DETENTION TIME = 30 MINUTES AT PEAK DESIGN FLOW
9 RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE PUMPING. FIRM CAPACITY, MOD 1.0 5.0 10.0 22.5 40,0
CAPACITY a 50 PER CENT OF PEAK DESIGN FLOW
10 WASTE SLUDGE PUMPING. ,FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY. GPM 66.0 330.0 660,0 1650.0 3300.0
SIZED FOR INTERMITTENt OPERATION OF 10 MIN/HR AT AVE FLOW
11 GRAVITY THICKENER.SURFACE AREA/UNIT.SQ FT CINCL STNBY) 115.0 163.0 325.0 813.0 1625,0
NUMBEROFUNITS 2 3 3 3 3
SOLIDS LOADING = 20 LB/SQ FT/DAY FOR PRIMARY SLUDGE
12 FLOTATION THICKENERiTOTAL SURFACE AREA,SQ FT CINCL SINBY) 0.0 500,0 1000.0 1662.0 3000.0
SOLIDS LOADING = 20 LB/SQ FT/DAY FOR WASTE ACTIVATED SLUDGE
13 ANAEROBIC BIGESTER.VOLUME.CU FT,INCLUDES PRIMARY & SECONDARY 29775.0 148875,0 248125.0 620310.0 1158250.0
TOTAL DETENTION TIME = 30 DAYS (INCL STNBY UNIT)
14 SAND DRYING BEDS. SURFACE AREA’ SQ FT 22000.0 110000 ,0 220000.0 550000.0 1100000.0
SOLIDS LOADING a 25 LB/SQ FT/YEAR
15 SLUDGE 4IAULING. ANNUAL VOLUME. CU YB 730.0 3650.0 7300,0 18250.0 36500.0
SLUDGE J)RIED TO 452 SOLIDS ON SAND BEDS
16 YARD MAINTENANCE. AREA OF PLANT SITE. SQ FT 271800.0 322000.0 435600.0 740500.0 1002000.0
AREA REQUIREMENTS ADAPTED FROM BLACK B VEATCH REPORT. 1971
-------
DESION CRITERIA AND UNIT PROCESS SIZES
PROCESS OR COMPONENT DESIGN FLOW ,PjOD
AVERAGE: 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
PEAK: 2.0 10.0 20.0 45.0 00.0
17 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE, TOTAL FILTER AREA, 80 FT 464.0 1540.0 2890.0 6940.0 *3500.0
(INCI . STNBY UNITS) FILTRATION RATE — 3 OPM/9Q FT. SEC EFFL
18 FIL’TRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH,INOIV!DUAL FILTER AREA .90 FT 116.0 193.0 299.0 578,0 964.0
NUNSER OF UNITS 4 8 10 12 14
(INCL STNBY UNITS) FILTRATION RATE — 3 GPM/SQ FT. SEC EFFL
19 F1LTRA—BACKl ASH PUMPING SYSTEM, FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY, OP$ 2090.0 3470.0 5200.0 10400.0 17400.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 4 9 10 12 14
(INCL STN8Y UNITS) SEC EFFL. BACK A8H CAFACITY*18 ØPI /9Q FT
20 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION, TOTAL FILTER AREA. 80 FT 464.0 1540.0 2090.0 6940.0 13500.0
(INCL STNBY UNITS) SEC EFFL, FILTRATION RATE — 3 GPM/8O FT
21 SUPPLY PUMPING. PUMPING RATE, MOD 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
GRAVITY FILTER OR AWT IJPFLOW CARBON CONTACTOR SUPPLY
22 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS, FEED CAPACXTY/UNIT,LBS/DAY 8.3 42.0 03.0 208.0 208.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 2 2 2 3
(INCL STNBY) COAGULANT AIDiI MG/L CAPACITY,O.* MG/L AVG
23 ALUM FEED SYSTEM—DRY ALUM, CAPACITY. LBS/HR 14.0 70,0 140,0 348.0 696.0
(INCL STNBY) FILTER AID, 20 MG/L CAPACITY, 10 MG/L AVG
24 LIME FEED SYSTEM, CAD FEED CAPACITY, LBS/HR 208.0 1040.0 2090,0 4690,0 8340,0
SIZED FOR 300 MG/L. DOSE AT PEAK FLOW
25 POLYMER FEED SYSTEM. FEED CAPACITY/UNIT, LBS/DAY 8,3 42.0 83.0 208,0 208.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 2 2 2 3
1 MO/t. CAPACITY. 0.1 MU/L AVG FEED RATE (XNCL STNBY)
26 RAPID MIX BASIN,VQLU$E,CU FT (INCL STNBY UNIT) 93,0 464.0 928,0 2320.0 4640.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 2 2 2 2
DETENTION TIME 60 SEC AT AVG FLOW
27 FLOCCULATION BASIN,T0TAL VOLUME,Cu FT (INCL SINBY) 5560.0 20850.0 41700.0 104250.0 208500,0
HORIZONTAL PADDLE, G 9O, DETENTION TZIE=30 MIN AT AVG FLOW
28 CIRCULAR CLARIFIER,SURFACE AREA/IJNIT,SQ FT (INOL STNBY) 526.0 2630,0 5260,0 6580.0 13200.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 3 3 3 5
OVERFLOW RATE 950 GAL/DAY/SO FT
29 RECARBONATION ?ASIN,VOLUME/UNIT,CU FT (INCL SINBY) 770.0 1740,0 34B0,() 8700,0 8700.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 4 6 6 6 10
15 MIN DETENTION AT AVG FLOW
30 RECARBONATION.-SUBMERGELI BURNERS,CAFACITY/UNXT,LBS C02,rAr 2190.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0 .0
NUMBER OF UNITS 4 0 0 0 0
(INCL STNBY UNITS) MAXIMUM FEED RATE = 52S MG/L C02
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA AND UNIT PROCESS SIZES
PROCESS OR COMPONENT DESIGN FLOW,MGtI
AvERAGE: 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
PEAK 2,0 10.0 20,0 45,0 80.0
31 RECARBONATIONSTACK GAS ,CAPACITYvLBS C02/DAY (INCL STNBY) 0.0 43800.0 87600.0 147000.0 263000,0
AVG FEED RATE 350 MG/L, MAX RATE = 525 MG/L
32 RECTANGULAR CLARIFXER ,SURFACE AREA/UNIT SQ FT (INCL STNBY) 333.0 833.0 1670.0 4170,0 4170.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 3 3 3 5
RECARB—INTERMEDIATE SETTLING,OVERFLOW RATE=3000 GPO/SO FT
33 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING, FIRM PUMPING CAPACITYt 6PM 83.0 416.0 833,0 2080.0 4160.0
SIZED FOR 600 MG/L [ lOSE AND 0.5% SOLIDS ,AV6300 MG/L 8 1,0%
34 GRAVITY THICKENER ,SURFACE AREA/UNIr,S0 FT (INCL STNBY) 78.0 150.00 300.0 375.0 750.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 2 2 3 3
LIME SLUDGE 8 1% SOLIDS, OVERFLOW RATE=1000 GPO/SO FT
35 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE ,FEED CAPACITY 0PM (INCL STNBY UNIT) 10,0 13.0 2 5.0 63.0 125.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 2 2 2 2
LIME SLUDGES 8% SOLIDS AS INFLUENT
36 MULTIPLE HEARTH RECALCINATION EFFECTIVE HEARTH AREA,SO FT 0.0 149.0 297.0 746.0 1490,0
WET FEED OF 7.0 LB/SQ FT/HR AT 50% SOLIDS
37 SLUDGE HAULING, ANNUAL VOLUME, CU Yr 1320.0 1650.0 3300.0 8250.0 16500,0
LIME SLUDGE AT 50% SOLIDS, 25% WASTED FOR PLANTS OVER 1 MGD
38 GRAVI1 ’Y, FILTRATION STRUCTURE, TOTAL FILTER AREA, SQ FT 278.0 1040,0 1850.0 4340.0 8330.0
(INCL STNBY.UNITS) FILTRATION RATE5 OPM/SQ FT, WATER & AWT
39 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH, INDIVIDUAL FILTER AREA, SO FT 69.0 174.0 231.0 434.0 694.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 4 6 8 10 12
(INCL STNBY UNITS) FILTRATION RATE 5 GPM/SQ FT, WATER & AWl
40 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM, FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY. 6PM 1240.0 3130.0 4160.0 7810.0 12500.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 0 4 6 8 10 12
(INCL STNBY UNITS) WATER&AWT , BACKWASH CAPACITY18 ORM/SO FT
41 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION, TOTAL FILTER AREA, 56 FT 278.0 1040.0 1850.0 4340.0 8330.0
(INCL STANBY UNITS) WATER & AWT, FILTRATION RATE 5 OPM/SQ FT
0 42 SUPPLY PUMPINO,PUMPING RATE, MOD 1.0 5.0 10.0 25,0 50.0
GRAVITY FILTER OR AWl UPFLOW CARBON CONTACTOR SUPPLY
43 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS, FEED CAPACITY/UNIT, LBS/DAY 9.3 42.0 83,0 208.0 208.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 2 2 2 3
(INCL STNBY) COAGULANT AID,1 MO/L CAPACITY,0.1 MG/L AVG
44 ALUM FEED SYSTEM—DRY ALUM,CAPACITY,LBS/HR (INCL STNBY) 14.0 70.0 140.0 348.0 696,0
MIXED MEDIA FILTER AID, 20 MG/L CAPACITY. 10 MG/L AVG
45 UPFLOW GRAN CARBON CONTACTORS, AVG FLOW,MGD (INCLSTNBY) 1.5 6,3 12.5 30.0 60.0
CONTACT TIME 30 MIN. HYDRAULIC LOADING = 5 OPM/SQ FT
-------
DEBION CRITERIA ARS UNIT P*OCESR SIZES
P OCEB8 OR COMPONENT DESIGN FLOW ,PiOD
AVERAOE 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
PEAKt 2.0 10.0 20.0 45.0 80.0
46 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON, TOTAL WEIGHT. LBS 125400.0 522500.0 1045000,0 2509000.0 5016000.0
CONTACT TINE— 30 MIN. CARBON WEIGHT — 30 LB/CU FT
47 GRANULAR CARBON REGENERATION, HEARTH AREA, 90 PT 27.0 104.0 208.0 521.0 1040.0
40X DOWNTIME .40 LB/SO FT/DAYS REMOVAL—0.5 LB COD/LB CARBON
48 STANDBY POWER,RATED CAPACZTY ,KILOWATTS 62.0 313.0 618,0 945.0 2983.0
SECONDARY TREATMENTiSIZED FOR AVG POWER USE
49 STANDBY POWER,RATED CAPACITY,KILOWATTS 158.0 765.0 1454.0 2920.0 6841.0
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT,SXZED FOR AVG POWER USE
50 EARTHEN STORAGE, I DAY, STORAGE CAPACITY, MOD 1.0 5,0 10.0 25.0 50.0
INCLUDES CONCRETE SLOPE PAVING OR MATERIAL LINERS
51 EARTHEN STORAGE, 2 DAYS, STORAGE CAPACITY, MOD 2.0 10,0 20.0 50.0 100,0
INCLUDES CONCRETE SLOPE PAVING OR MATERIAL LINERS
52 EARTHEN STORAGE. 4 DAYS, STORAGE CAPACITY. MOD 4.0 20.0 40.0 100.0 200.0
INCLUDES CONCRETE SLOPE PAVING OR MATERIAL LINERS
53 EARTHEN STORAGE, 8 DAYS, STORAGE CAPACITY. MOD 8.0 40.0 80.0 200.0 0.0
INCLUDES CONCRETE SLOPE PAVING OR MATERIAL LINERS
54 EARTHEN STORAGE, 10 DAYS. STORAGE CAPACITYP MOD 10.0 50.0 100.0 0.0 0.0
INCLUDES CONCRETE SLOPE PAVING OR MATERIAL LINERS
55 EARTHEN STORAGE, 15 DAYS, STORAGE CAPACITY, MOD 15.0 75.0 150.0 0.0 0.0
INCLUDES CONCRETE SLOPE PAVING OR MATERIAL LINERS
56 EARTHEN STORAGE, 20 DAYS, STORAGE CAPACITY, MOD 20.0 100.0 200.0 0.0 0.0
INCLUDES CONCRETE SLOPE PAVING OR MATERIAL LINERS
57 EARTHEN STORAGE, 30 DAYS, STORAGE CAPACITY, MOD 30.0 150.0 0.0 0.0 0,0
INCLUDES CONCRETE SLOPE PAVING OR MATERIAL LINERS
-------
COST INFORMATION:
(PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST)
(PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST)
(PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST)
(PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST)
(ENR Si(ILLED LABOR)
(BLS *114)
(BLS *132)
(BLS *101,3)
(ENR SKILLEE’ LABOR)
(BLS *114,901)
(ACTUAL BLDG COST,*/SQ FT)
(BLS ALL COMMODITIES>
(NATIONAL INDEX VALUE)
(NATIONAl.. INDEX VALUE>
PER CAPITA COSTS:
UNIT COST FACTORS:
CHEMICAL COSTS>
COSTS PRESENTEtI AS DOLLARS ARE CURRENT AS OF JANUARY 197?
CAPITAL COST FACTORS: INTEREST RATE(%) =7
NUMBER OF YEARS =20
ENGINEERING(7.> =10
LEGAL,FISCAL( ’/ .> =3
INT EIIJRINc3 CONST(7 .>=7
YARD PIPING FACTOR =15
GAL/PERSON/EIAY =100
PEOPLE/HOME =3.5
ELECTRICITY,$/KWH =0.03
LABOR,$/HR =10
FUEL */MIL Br>.> =3
LIME,$/TON =52
ALUM,$/TON =75
CHLORINE,$/TON =220
POLYMER,$ /LB =2
EXCAVATION =220.6
MANUFACTURED EQUIP =195.7
CONCRETE 193.1
STEEL =221.3
LABOR =220.6
PIPES g VALVES =209.4
HOUSING =30
WHOLESALE PRICE =188,0
SCCT(5 MOD PLANT) =121
LCAT(50 MOE’ PLANT) =132
CONSTN COST INDEXES
C’
EPA CONSTN INDEXES:
-------
c.Q I L i AR1
WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS - INCREASED RELIABILITY
CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT
UPGRADED. WATER TREATMENT
UPGRADED TREATMENT AND REVERSE OsMosis
CONCRETE STORAGE BASIN
B4 7
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
TOTAL
CHEM O M/YR
I N/YR THOU
tHE FOLLOWING 12 PROCESSES o E: cost COMPONENTS OF CLARIF:ICATION AND CHLORINATION
* I O1AL. ANNUAL COOT FACT URS*
1FIC)L) 3:15’ •o ;
It IMi
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL EL.EC MAINT FuE:L
FLOW COST COST 1MOU MAT’L LABOR Mu.,,
MILD THILLI THOU $ KWH/YR N$/YR HR/YR ITO/YR
1 RAW WATER PUMPING
1,0
1413
178
70
0,6
1012
0 0.0
13
30
13,2
3,00
10.50
1 RAW WATER PUMPING
5.0
411
493
269
1,4
1087
(> 0.0,
20
61
3.1
1.34
4.69
1 RAW WATER PUMPING
10.0
224
069
516
2.6
1195
0 0.0
30
112
3.1
1,12
3.92
I RAW WATER PUMPING
25.0
1571
1085
1231
7,0
1609
0 0.0
60
238
2.6
0.95
3.33
1 RAW WATER PUMPING
50.0
2784
3341
2347
13.0
2498
0 <>.0
1013
423
2,3
0,85
2.96
2 RAPID MIX
1,0
21
25
32
0,2
470
0 0.0
6
8
2.2
0.330
;. .E30
2 RAPID MIX
5.0
44
53
157
0.5
468
0 0,0
10
15
(>.8
0,30
1.05
2 RAPID MIX
10.0
73
1313
315
0,8
469
0 0.0
15
23
0.6
0.23
0,00
2 RAPID MIX
25.0
160
:192 -
787
1.8
499
0 0,0
30
48
0,5
0.19
0,67
2 RAPID MIX
50.0
300
360
1574
3.3
617
0. 0,0
57
91
0,5
0,18
0,64
3 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
1.0
33
40
9
0.2
290
0 61.3
8
12
3,3
1.20
4.20
3 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
5,0
77
92
14
0.2
329
0 306.6
27
:36
2.0
0 72
2.52
3 AlUM FEED
10,0
117
140
19
0,2
3713
0 608,8
50
63
1.7
0.63
2.21
3 ALUM FEEL’ SYSTEM
25,0
157
188
32
0,2
548
0 1524.2
121
139
1.5
0.56
1.95
3 ALUM FEEL’ SYSTEM
50,0
74
89
50
0.3
884
0 3044,1
239
247
1.4
0,49
1.73
4 POLYMER FEEL’ SYSTEMS
1,0
44
53
23
0,2
198
0 0.3
4
9
2.5
0,90
3.15
4 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
5.0
46
35
23
0.2
198
0 1.5
9
14
0.8
0,28
0,90
4 POLYMER FEEr SYSTEMS
10,0
51
61
23
0,3
199
0 3.0
iS
21
0.6
0,21
0.74
4 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
25,0
67
80
23
0.03
201
0 7,6
33
41
0,4
0.16
0.57
4 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
50.0
100
120
46
0,6
403
0 11,4
32
63
0.3
0.13
0,44
5 FLOCCULATION
1.0
59
71
19
0.6
120
0 0.0
2
9
2.5
0.90
3.13
S FLOCCULATION
5,0
151
181
70
1,4
191
0 0,0
5
22
1.2
0,44
1.54
5 FLOCCULATION
10.0
250
300
140
2.4
260
0 0.0
9
37
1.0
0.37
1.30
S FLOCCULAT;L ’ON
25.0
403
404
351
4,6
336
0 0,0
18
64
0.7
0.26
0.90
5 FLOCCULATION
50,0
0
0
701
6.3
474
0 0.0
32
32
0.2
0.06
0.22
6 CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
1,0
228
274
10
0,5
274
.
0 0.0
3
29
7.9
2.90
10.15
6 CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
5.0
479
575
ii
1.2
527
0 0.0
7
61
3.3
1.22
4.27
6 CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
10,0
782
938
14
2.0
802
0 0*0
10
99
2,7
0,99
3.47
6 CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
6 CIRCULAR CLARIFIER
25.0
50.0
1549
2.715
1859
3258
29
39
4.7
8.2
1851
2844
0 0.0
0 ‘0 .O
24
38
199
346
2.2
1,9
0,130
0.69
2.79
2,42
7 CHLORINE.FEED SYSTEMS
1.0
15
1 11
4
1.8
410
0 15.3
9
11
3.0
1.10
3.85
7 CHLORINE FEED SYSTEMS
5.0
35
42
11
2.4
749
0 76.3
27
31
1.7
0,62
2.17
7 CHLORINE FEE:D SYSTEMS
10,0
57
68
18
3.1
1129
0 1520.4
48
54
1.5
0,54
1.89
7 CHLORINE FEEL’ SYSTEMS
25,0
106
127
33
4.6
2020
0 381.1
110
122
1.3
0.49
1.71
CHLORINE FEED SYSTEMS
30,0
148
178
43
5.4
2907
0 761.9
203
220
1.2
0.44
1.54
-------
COIPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
AVE CONSIN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L LASOR
MGD THOU S THOU $ KWH/YR KS/YR HR/YR
TOTAL *TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACT0 S*
CHEM 0 5 1 1/YR THOU CTS/ S PER S PER
TN/YR THOU S S K GAL CAPITA HOME
12 SLUDGE HAULING
12 SLUDGE HAULING
12 SLUDGE HAULING
12 SLUDGE HAULING
12 SLUDGE HAULING
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
301 361 38 1.5
313 376 45 1,7
358 430 71 2.6
481 577 146 5.2
625 750 252 8,3
0 0 0 0.5
0 0 0 1.0
0 0 0 1.7
0 0 0 3.7
0 0 0 7.2
729
772
936
1383
1906
64
214
404
988
2007
TOTAL COST FOR COMPONENTS 1 THRU 12: CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION
FUEL
NIL
S lU/YR
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING-DILUTE 1.0
24
29
0 1.4 45
0 0,0
2
5
1.4
0.50
1.75
B CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE 5.0
49
59
2 2.8 98
0 0.0
4
10
0.5
0.20
0.70
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE 10.0
50
60
4 3.7 136
0 0.0
5
11
0.3
0.11
0.39
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE 25.0
63
76
9 3.7 154
0 0.0
5
12
0.1
0.05
0.17
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE 50.0
84
101
18 4.5 200
0 0.0
7
17
0.1
0.03
0.12
9 GRAVITY THICKENER 1.0
230
156
3 0,1 298
0 0.0
3
18
4.9
1.80
6.30
9 GRAVITY THICKENER 5.0
130
156
3 0.1 298
0 0.0
3
18
1.0
0.36
1.26
9 GRAVITY THICKENER 10.0
130
156
3 0.1 298
0 0,0
3
18
0.5
0.18
0.63
9 GRAVITY THICKENER 25.0
147
176
3 0.1 305
0 0.0
3
20
0.2
0,08
0.28
9 GRAVITY THICKENER 50.0
174
209
3 0.2 316
0 0.0
3
23
0.1
0.05
0.1,6
10 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING-DILUTE 1.0
14
17
0 1.2 35
0 0.0
2
4
1.1
0.40
1.40
10 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE 5.0
26
31
1 2.0 67
0 0.0
3
6
0.3
0.12
0.42
10 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE 10.0
37
44
2 2.8 98
0 0.0
4
8
0.2
0.08
0.28
10 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE 25.0
51
61
4 3.8 142
0 0.0
5
11
0.1
0.04
0.15
10 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING-DILUTE 50.0
52
62
9 3.7 154
0 0.0
5
11
0.1
0.02
0.08
11 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE 1.0
0 0.0
10
44
12,1
4.40
15.40
12 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE 5.0
0 0.0
11
46
2.5
0,92
3.22
11 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE 10.0
0 0.0
14
55
1.5
0.55
1.93
11 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE 25.0
0 0.0
23
77
0.8
0.31
1.08
11 DECANTER CENTRIFUGE 50.0
0 0.0
35
106
0,6
0.21
0.74
o o.o
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
1
3
6
14
27
1
3
6
14
27
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.10
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.35
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.19
CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION 1.0
1165
1400
208 8.8 3945
0 77.0
63
180
49.3
18,00
63.00
CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION 5.0
2018
2424
606 15.1 4998
0 384.4
129
329
18.0
6.58
23.03
CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION 10.0
3017
3624
1125 22.4 6304
0 764.2
209
507
13.9
5.07
17.75
CLARIFICATION ANt) CHLORINATION 25.0
5464
6556
2648 39.6 10036
0 1912.9
446
985
10.13
3.94
.13.79
CLARIFICATION ANti CHLORINATION 50.0
8111
9735
5082 60.9 15210
0 3817.4
806
1606
9.9
3.21
11.24
THE FOLLOWING 5
PROCESSES
ARE COST
COMPONENTS OF RAPID
SAND
FILTRATION
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE 1.0
364
437
32 3.8 2th8
0 0,0
26
67
10,4
6,70
23.45
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE 5.0
881
1057
80 10.1 2907
0 0,0
42
142
7.8
2,04
9.94
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE 10.0
1516
1819
142 18.1 4393
0 0,0
66
239
6.5
2.38
0.33
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE 2S,0
2698
32313
273 34.9 9338
0 0.0
137
443
4.9
1.77
6.20
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE: 50.0
3944
4733
396 54.9 18630
0 0.0
253
700
3,8
1.40
4.90
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L
MOE ’ THOU $ THOU $ KWH/YR K$/YR
TOTAL *TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORS*
CHEM O&M/YR THOU CTS/ $ PER $ PER
TN/YR THOU * $ N GAL CAPITA HOME
16 MEDIA—RAPID SAND FILTRATION
16 MEDIA—RAPID SAND FILTRATION
16 MEDIA—RAPID SAND FILTRATION
16 MEDIA—RAPID SAND FILTRATION
16 MEDIA—RAPID SAND FILTRATION
1.0
5.0
10 ,0
25,0
50,0
TOTAL COST FOR COMPONENTS 13 THRU 171 RAPID SAND FILTRATION
THE FOLLOWING 7 PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS OF MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
0.35
0.14
0.14
0.11
0.11
LABOR
HR/YR
14 FILTRA —HYEIRAULIC SURFACE WASH
14 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
14 FILTRA—HYORAULIC SURFACE WASH
14 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
14 FILTRA—HYEIRAULIC SURFACE WASH
15 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
15 FILTRA-BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
15 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
15 FILTRA-BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
15 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
FUEL
MI L
BTU/YR
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50,0
1.0
5.0
10,0
25.0
50.0
25
76
102
195
340
232
696
976
1430
2749
0.0 58
0,0 289
0.0 306
0,1 373
0,1 473
30
91
122
234
408
278
835
1171
1716
3299
S
26
49
121
246
8
42
83
206
415
0 0.0 1 4 1.1
0 0,0 4 13 0.7
0 0.0 5 17 0,5
o 0,0 7 29 0.3
0 0.0 12 51 0.3
0,40
0,26
0,17
0 • 12
0.10
U ’
0
0.0 6 0 0,0 0 26
0.2 29 0 0.0 2 81
0,3 34 0 0.0 3 114
0.6 52 0 0,0 7 169
1.1 71 0 0.0 14 325
1.40
0,91
0.99
0,41
0.36
9.10
5.67
3,99
2.37
7.28
7.1 2.60
4.4 1.62
3,1 1,14
1,9 0.68
1.8 0,65
11 13 0 0,0 0 0 0,0 0 1 0,3 0.10
21 25 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 2 0,1 0.04
35 42 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 4 0.1 0.04
75 90 0 0,0 0 0 0.0 0 8 0,1 0.03
136 163 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 15 0,1 0,03
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
30
47
69
132
234
36
56
83
158
281
45
226
451
1128
2254
0,3 520
0,9 623
1,6 747
3.7 1096
7.6 1618
2.7 1.00
1.0 0.:38
0,8 0.31
0.7 0,26
0.6 0,24
17 SUPPLY PUMPING
.
0
0,0
7
10
3.50
17 SUPPLY PUMPING
0
0,0
14
19
1.33
17 SUPFLY PUMPING
0
0.0
23
31
1.09
17 SUPPLY PUMPING
0
0.0
49
64
0.90
17 SUPPLY PUMPING
0
0.0
91
118
0.83
RAPID SAND FILTRATION
1,0
758
910
90
4.2 2742
0
0,0
34
108
29.6
10.80
37.80
RAPID SAND FILTRATION
5.0
1978
2371
374
11.1 3928
0
0.0
62
257
14,1
5.14
17.99
RAPID SAND FILTRATION
10.0
3101
3720
725
19.9 5480
0
0.0
97
404
11.1
4,04
14.14
RAPID SAND FILTRATION
25,0
5207
6249
1728
39.3 10859
0
0.0
200
713
7.8
2.85
9.98
RAPID SAND FILTRATION
50.0
8512
10214
3311
63,7 20792
0
0.0
370
1209
6.6
2.42
8,46
18 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
1,0
193
232
16
1,8 1928
0
0,0
22
44
12.1
4,40
15.40
18 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
5,0
501
601
44
5.4 2355
0
0.0
30
87
4,8
1,74
6.09
18 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
18 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
IP “TTY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
10.0
25,0
50,0
797
1565
2420
956
1878
2904
72
147
240
9.0 2836
18.7 4524
30.6 7740
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
40
68
115
130
245
389
3.6
2.7
2.1
1.30
0.98
0.78
4. 5
3.43
2,72
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
21 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
21 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
21 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
21 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
21 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50 • 0
MAINT
MAT’L
S/YR
FUEL
LABOR MIL
HR/YR STU/YR
AVE CONBTN CAPITAL ELEC
FLOW COST COST THOU
MGD THOU $ THOU $ KWH/YR
19 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
19 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
19 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
19 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
19 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
20 FILTRA—BACKUASH PUMPING SYSTEM
20 FZLTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
20 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
20 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
20 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
1.0
5.0
10.0
25,0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
TOTAL *TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORS*
CHEM O M/YR THOU CTS/ $ PER $ PER
TN/YR THOU $ $ K GAL CAPITA HOME
21
38
56
97
162
142
348
539
883
1211
25
46
67
116
194
170
418
64?
1060
1453
22 SUPPLY PUMPING
22 SUPPLY PUMPING
22 SUPPLY PUMPING
22 SUPPLY PUMPING
22 SUPPLY PUMPING
0.3
0.9
1.6
3.7
7.6
520
623
747
1096
1618
2
0.0 54
0 0.0
10
0.0 115
0 0.0
1
5
0.3
0.10
0.35
20
0.0 178
0 0.0
2
8
0.2
0.08
0.28
49
0.0 248
0 0.0
4
15
0.2
0.06
0.21
0.17
97
0.1 311
0 0.0
6
24
0.1
3
0.0 5
0 0.0
0
16
4.4
1,60
5.60
1?
0.1 12
0 0.0
1
40
2,2
0.80
2.80
33
0.1 19
0 0.0
1
62
1.7
0.62
2.17
83
0.2 29
0 0.0
3
103
1,1
0.41
166
0.4 43
0 0.0
6
143
0.8
0.29
1.00
12 14
0
0.0 o
0 0.0
0
1
0.3
0.10
0.35
34 41
0
0.0 0
0 0.0
0
4
0.2
0.08
0.28
56 67
0
0.0 o
0 0.0
0
6
0.2
0.06
0.21
119 143
0
0.0 0
0 0.0
0
23
0.1
0.05
0.18
208 250
0
0.0 0
0 0,0
0
24
0.1
0.05
0.17
30 36
45
7
10
2.7
1.00
3.50
1.33
47 56
226
14
19
1.0
69 83
P451
23
31
0.8
0.31
132 158
1128
49
64
0.7
0.26
0.90
234 281
2254
91
218
0.6
0.24
23 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
4
9
2.5
0.90
3.15
23 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
9
14
0.8
0.28
0.98
23 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
15
21
0.6
0.21
0,74
23 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
33
41
0,4
0.16
23 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
52
63
0.3
0.13
24 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
4
7
1.9
0.70
2.45
24 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
9
14
0.8
0,28
0.99
0.77
24 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
15
22
0.6
24 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
33
45
0.5
0.18
0.63
24 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
62
79
0,4
0,16
0,55
TOTAL
COST FOR
COMPONENTS 18
THRU
24
MIXED MEDIA
FILTRATION
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
1.0
532 639
98
2.6 2989
0 15.6
38
90
24.7
9.00
31,50
12.81
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
5.0
1211 1453
330
6.8 3596
0 77.7
64
183
10.0
3,66
9,80
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
10.0
1869 2244
610
11.2 4283
0 155,5
96
280
7.7
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
25.0
50.0
3410 4094
5155 6185
1445
2824
23.2 6439
39.6 10520
0 388,7
0 773.5
190
332
526
840
5.8
4.6
2.10
1,68
7.36
5.88
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
0 0.0
0 P0.0
0 0.0
0 0,0
0 0.0
53 23 0.2
55 23 0.2
61 23 0.3
80 23 0.3
120 46 0.6
44
46
51
67
100
24
41
60
106
149
29
49
72
127
179
198 0 0.3
198 0 1.5
199 0 3.0
201 0 7.6
403 0 11.4
284 0 15.3
293 0 76.2
304 0 152,4
341 0 381,1
405 0 762.1
9 0.2
10 0.2
11 0.2
15 0,2
21 0.2
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
TO TAL
CHEM O*M/YR
rN/YR THOU $
THE FOLLOWING 3 PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS OF ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
*TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTOR S
THOU CTS/ $ PER $ PER
$ K GAL CAPITA HOMt
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT FUEL
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L LABOR NIL
MOD THOU * THOU $ KWH/YR KS/YR HR/YR 8Th/YR
th
23 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 1.0
236 283
35
1.8 1893
0
0.0
22
49 13.4
4.90 17,15
23 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 5.0
595 714
64
5.7 2304
0
0.0
31
98 5,4
1,96 6.86
25 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 10.0
1026 1231
100
10,4 2870
0
0.0
42
158 4.3
1.58 5.53
25 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 25.0
2012 2414
187
21.8 4593
0
0.0
73
301 3.3
1.20 4.21
25 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 50.0
3103 3724
298
36.2 7947
0
0.0
125
477 2.6
0.95 3.34
26 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON 1.0
19 23
0
0.0 0
0
0.0
0
2 0,5
0.20 0.70
26 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON 5.0
76 91
0
0.0 0
0
0.0
0
9 0.5
0.18 0.63
26 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON 10.0
151 181
0
0.0 0
0
0.0
0
17 0.5
0.17 0.59
26 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON 25.0
359 431
0
0.0 0
0
0.0
0
41 0.4
0.16 0.57
26 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON 50.0
712 854
0
0,0 0
0
0.0
0
81 0.4
0.16 0.57
27 GRAN ACT CARBON REGENERATION 1.0
581 697
161
1.2 188
458
1.2
11
77 21.1
7,70 26.95
27 GRAN ACT CARBON REGENERATION 5.0
581 697
191
2,1 509
1978
6.1
27
93 5.1
1.86 6.52
27 GRAN ACT CARBON REGENERATION 10.0
701 841
222
3.0 890
3791
12.1
46
125 3,4
1.25 4.38
27 GRAM ACT CARBON REGENERATION 25.0
1026 1231
273
4.4 1798
8145
30.5
95
211 2.3
0.84 2,95
27 GRAN ACT CARBON REGENERATION 50.0
1473 1768
321
5.9 3327
14914
60.9
173
340 1.9
0.68 2.38
TOTAL COST FOR
COMPONENTS 25
THRU 27: ACTIVATED
CARBON
ADSORPTION
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION 1.0
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION 5.0
960 1152
1439 1726
196
255
3,0 2081
7.8 2813
458
1978
1.2
6,1
33
58
128 35,1
200 11.0
12.80 44.80
4.00 14.00
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION 10.0
2158 2590
322
13.5 3760
3791
12.1
88
300 8.2
3.00 10.50
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION 25.0
3904 4686
460
26.2 6391
8145
30,5
168
553 6.1
2.21 7.74
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION 50.0
6079 7297
619
42.0 11274
14914
60.9
298
898 4.9
1.80
28 CONCRETE STORAGE, 1 DAY 1.0
491 589
0
0,0 0
0
0.0
0
56 15.3
5.60 19.60
28 CONCRETE STORAGE’ 1 DAY 5.0
1466 1759
0
0.0 0
0
0.0
0
166 9.1
3.32 11.62
28 CONCRETE STORAGE, 1 DAY 10.0
28 CONCRETE STORAGE, 1 DAY 25,0
2633 3160
5813 6976
0
0
0.0 0
0.0 0
0
0
0.0
0,0
0
0
298 8.2
658 7.2
2.98 10.43
2.63 9.21
28 CONCRETE STORAGE, 1 DAY 50.0
10206 12247
0
0.0 0
0
0.0
0
1156 6.3
2,31 8.09
29 CONCRETE STORAGE, 2LIAYS 1.0
739 887
0
0,0 0
o
0.0
0
84 23.0
8,40 29.40
29 CONCRETE STORAGE, 2 DAYS 5.0
2633 3160
0
0.0 0
0
0,0
0
298 16.3
5,96 20.86
29 CONCRETE STORAGE, 2 DAYS 10.0
4804 5765
0
0.0 0
0
0.0
0
544 14.9
5,44 19.04
29 CONCRETE STORAGE, 2 DAYS 25.0
10206 12247
0
0,0 0
0
0,0
0
1156 12.7
4.62 16,18
29 CONCRETE STORAGE, 2 DAYS 50.0
16786 20143
0
0.0 0
0
0.0
0
1901 10.4
3.80 13.31
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
30
CONCRETE
STORAGE’ 3 DAYS
30
CONCRETE
STORAGE. 3 DAYS
30
CONCRETE
STORAGE’ 3 DAYS
30
CONCRETE
9TORAOE 3 DAYS
30
CONCRETE
STORAOE 3 DAYS
31
CONCRETE
STORAGES 4 DAYS
31
CONCRETE
STORAGE. 4 DAYS
31
CONCRETE
STORAGE, 4 DAYS
31
CONCRETE
STORAGE, 4 DAYS
31
CONCRETE
STORAGE. 4 DAYS
984
:3745
6776
13752
22646
1181
4494
8131
26502
27175
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
o 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
1226
4804
8569
16786
30454
1471
5765
10283
20143
36545
0 111
0 424
0 768
0 1558
0 2565
30.4
23.2
21.0
17.1
14,1
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0,0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 () 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0,0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
U’
0 139
0 544
0 971
0 1901
0 3450
38,1
29.8
26,6
20.8
18,9
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC
MAINT
FUEL
TOTAL *TOTAL
ANNUAL
COST
FACTORS*
FLOW COST COST THOU
MAT’L LABOR
NIL CHEM
0$M/YR THOU
CTS/
$ PER
$ PER
MOD THOU $ THOU $ KWH/YR
KS/YR HR/YR
8Th/YR TN/YR
THOU $ $
K GAL
CAPITA
HOME
1.0
11.10
38,85
5.0
8.48
29,68
10.0
7.68
26.88
25.0
6.23
21.01
50.0
5.13
17.95
1.0
13.90
48.65
5.0
10.88
38.08
10,0
9,71
33,99
25.0
7,60
26.61
50.0
6.90
24.15
***** TREATMENT
SYSTEM COST SUMMARIES INCLUDING
YARD PIPING AT
15 PERCENT OF
CONSTRUCTION COST
*5*5*
CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT
1.0 1923 2310 298
12,9 6687
0 77.0
97 288
78.9
28.80
100.80
CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT
5.0 3996 4795 980
26.2 8926
0 304.4
191 586
32.1
11,72
41,02
CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT
10.0 6118 7344 1850
42,3 11784
0 764.2
306 911
25.0
9,11
31,89
CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT
25.0 10671 12805 4376
79.0 20895
0 1912,9
646 1698
18.6
6.79
23.77
CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT
50.0 16623 19949 8393
124.6 36002
0 3817.4
1176 2815
:15.4
5.63
19.71
CONVEN WTR TRT STORAGE ,i DAY
1.0 2487 2987 298
12.9 6687
0 77.0
97 344
94.2
34,40
120.40
CONVEN WTR TRT + STORAGE,i DAY
5.0 5681 6817 980
26.2 8926
0 384,4
191 752
41.2
15,04
52.64
CONVEN WTR TRT + STORAGE ,1 DAY
10.0 9145 10978 1850
42,3 11784
0 764.2
306 1209
33.1
12,09
42,32
CONVEN WTR TRT + STORAOE ,1 DAY
25.0 17355 20827 4376
79,0 20895
0 1912.9
646 2356
25.8
9.42
32.98
CUNVEN WTR TRT + STORAGE ,1 DAY
50.0 28359 34033 8393
124.6 36002
0 3817.4
1176 3971
21.8
7,94
27,80
CONVEN WTR IRT + STORAOE .2 DAY
1.0 2772 3330 298
12,9 6687
0 77,0
97 372
101,9
37.20
130.20
CONVEN WTR TRT + STORADE .2 DAY
5,0 7023 8429 980
26,2 8926
0 384,4
191 884
411.4
17,68
61.88
CONVEN WTR TRT + STORAGE ,2 DAY
10,0 11642 13973 1850
42.3 11784
0 764.2
306 1455
39.9
14,55
50.93
CONVEN WTR TRT + STORAGE .2 DAY
25,0 22407 26889 4376
79.0 20895
0 1912,9
64.6 21354
31,3
11.42
39,96
CONVEN WTR TRT + STDRAGE ,2 DAY
50.0 35926 43113 8393
124,6 36002
0 3817.4
1176 4716
25,8
9.43
33.01
CONVEN WTR TRT + STORAOE ,3 DAY
1,0 3054 3668 290
12,9 6687
0 77,0
97 399
109.3
39.90
139,65
CONVEN WTR TRT + STORAGE,3 DAY
5.0 8302 9963 980
26,2 8926
0 384.4
191 1010
55,3
20.20
70.70
CONVEN WTR TRT + STORAGE,3 DAY
10.0 13910 16694 1850
42.3 11784
0 764.2
306 1679
46.0
16.79
58.77
CONVEN WTR TRT + STORAGE ,3 DA
25,0 26485 31782 4376
79.0 20895
0 1912,9
646 3256
35.7
13,02
45.58
CONVEN WTR TRT + STQRAOE ,3 DAY
50,0 42665 51200 8393
124.6 36002
0 3817.4
1176 5300
29,5
10.76
37.66
CONVEN WTR TRT + STORAGE ,4 DAY
1.0 3332 4001 298
12,9 6687
0 77,0
97 427
117,0
42.70
149.45
CONVEN WTR TRT + STORAGE .4 DAY
5.0 9520 11424 980
26.2 8926
0 384.4
191 1130
61,9
22.60
79.10
CONVEN WTR TRT + STORAGE ,4 DAY
10.0 15972 19169 1850
42.3 11784
0 764,2
306 1882
51,6
18,82
65.87
CONVEN WTR IRT + STORAGE ,4 DAY
25.0 29974 35969 4376
79,0 20895
0 1912.9
646 3599
39,4
14,40
50.39
CONVEN WTR TRT + STORAGE ,4 DAY
50,0 51645 61975 8393
124,6 36002
0 3817.4
1176 6265
34.3
12,53
43.86
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
AVE CONSIN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L
MOD THOU $ THOU $ KWH/YR KS/YR
TOTAL *TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORS*
CHEM OSM/YR THOU CTS/ $ PER S PER
TN/YR THOU $ $ K GAL CAPITA HOME
FUEL
LABOR
MIL
HR/YR
STU/YR
UPGRADED WATER TRE, iEN1
1.0
2657
3191
502
14.3
9015
458
93.8
134
390 109.0
39.00 139.30
UPGRADED WATER TREATMENT
5.0
4668
5603
1191
29.6
11407
1978
468.2
251
712 39.0
14,24 49.84
UPGRADED WATER TREATMENT
10.0
7044
8458
2057
47.0
14347
3791
931.8
393
1087 2 .8
10.37 38.05
UPGRADED WATER TREATMENT
25.0
12778
15336
4553
89.1
22866
8145
2332.0
804
2064 22.6
8.26 28.90
UPGRADED WATER TREATMENT
50.0
19345
23217
0525
142.5
37004
14914
4651,8
1436
3344 18.3
6,69 23.41
UPGRD WTR TRT + STORA6E 1 DAY
1.0
3221
3868
502
14,3
9015
458
93.8
134
454 124,4
45.40 158.90
UPORD WTR TRT + STORAGE 1 DAY
5.0
6353
7625
1191
29.6
11407
1978
468.2
251
878 48.1
17.56 61,46
UPORD WTR TRT + STORAGE 1 DAY
10.0
10071
12092
2057
-47,0
14347
3791
931.8
393
1385 37.9
13.85 48,48
UPORD WTR TAT + STORAOE 1 DAY
25,0
19462
23358
4553
89,1
22866
8145
2332.0
804
2722.29,0
10.89 38,11
UPGRD WTR TRT + STORAGE 1 DAY
50,0
31081
37301
8525
142,5
37004
14914
4651.8
1436
4500 24.7
9.00 31,50
UPORD WTR TRT + STORAGE,2 DAY
1.0
3506
4211
502
14.
9015
458
93,8
134
482 132.1
48,20 168.70
UPORD UTR TRT + STORAGE 2 DAY
5,0
7695
9237
1191
29.6
11407
1978
468.2
251
1010 55.3
20,20 70,70
UPGRD WTR TAT + STORAGE,2 DAY
10.0
12568
15087
2057
47.0
14347
3Y91
931.8
393
1631 44,7
16.31 57.09
UPORD WTR TAT + STORAOE,2 DAY
25.0
24514
29420
4553
89.1
22866
8145
2332.0
804
3220 35.3
12.88 45,08
UPGRD WTR TRT + STORAGE 2 DAY
50.0
38648
46381
8525
142.5
37004
14914
4651,8
1436
5245 28.7
10,49 36,72
UPORD WTR TAT 4 STORAGE,3 DAY
UPORD WTR TAT + STORAGE .3 DAY
UPGRD WTR TRT + STORAOE 3 DAY
UPGRD WTR TAT + STORAGE,3 DAY
1.0
5,0
10,0
25,0
3788
8974
14836
28592
4549
10771
17808
34313
502
1191
2057
4553
14.3
29,6
47.0
89.1
9015
11407
14347
22866
458
1978
3791
8145
93.8
468,2
931.8
2332,0
134
251
393
804
509 139,5
1136 62.2
1855 50.8
3622 39.7
50.90 178.15
22,72 79.52
18.55 64,93
14.49 50.71
UPORD WTR TAT + STORAGEp3 DAY
50.0
45387
54468
8525
142.5
37004
14914
4651.8
1436
5909 32.4
-11.82 41. 6
UPGRD WTR TRT + ST0RAOE,4 DAY
1.0
4066
4882
.502
14.3
9015
458
93,8
134
537 147,1
53.70 187,
UPGRD WTR TAT + STORAGE,4 DAY
5.0
10192
12232
1191
29.6
11407
1978
468.2
251
1256 68.8
25.12 87.92
UPORD WTR TAT + STORAGE,4 DAY
10.0
16898
20283
2057
47.0
14347
3791
931,8
393
2058 56.4
20,58 72.03
UPGRD UTA TAT + STORAGE 4 DAY
UPORD WTR TRY + STORAOE,4 DAY
25.0
50.0
32001
54367
38500
65243
4553
8525
89.1
142,5
22866
37004
8145
14914
2332.0
4651,8
804
1436
3965 43,5
6794 37.2
15.86 55.51
13.59 47,56
-------
ouiew cR!TE rA AND UNIT PROCEBS SIZES
PROCESS OR COMPONENT DESIGN FLOW.NOD
AVERAGES 1,0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
PEAKt 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 0.0
1 RAW WATER PUMPING, FIRM CAPACITYP MOD 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
INCLUDES SCREENING $ ONE STANDBY PUMP EQUAL TO LARGEST UNIT
2 RAPID MIX BASIN,VOLUMEpCU FT (INtL SINBY) 93.0 464.0 928.0 2320.0 4640.()
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 2 2 2 2
1 MIN DETENTION TIME AT AVERAGE FLOW
3 ALUM FEED SYSTEM—DRY ALUM,CAPACITY,L58/HR (INtL STNBY) 42.0 208.0 416.0 1042.0 2080,0
ALUM COAGULATION, CAPACITY 60 MG/L, AVG 40 MG/L
4 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS, FEED CAPACITY/UNIT, LBS/DAY 8,3 42.0 83.0 208.0 208.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 2 2 2 3
(INCL STANDBY) CAPACITY 1 MG/L , AVG 0.1 MG/L DOSE
5 FLOCCULATION,TOTAL BASIN VOLUME,CU FT (INtL STNBY) 5560.0 20850.0 41700,0 104250.0 208000,0
HORIZONTAL PADDLE, 08O, DETENTION TXME 30 MIN AT AVG FLOW
6 CIRCULAR CLARIFIERiSURFACE AREA/UNIT,SQ FT (INCL STNBY) 526,0 2630.0 5260.0 6580.0 13200.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 3 3 3 5 5
OVERFLOW RATE 950 GAL/DAY/SQ FT
7 CHLORINE FEED SYSTEMS, FEED CAPACITY, LB/DAY 84.0 418.0 835.0 2088,0 4175.()
CAPACITY 10 MO/L DOSE
S CHEMICAL SLUDGE DUMPING , FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY, 6PM 12.0 58.0 112.0 27B.0 555.0
CAPACITY 40 MG/L AT PEAN FLOW AND 0.5X SOLIDS
9 GRAVITY THICKENER,$URFACE AREA/UNIT SQ FT (INtL STNBY) 78,0 78.0 78.0 200,0 400.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 2 2 2 2
ALUM SLUDGE ,OVERFLOW RATE 100O GPO/SQ FT WITH 0.5Z SOLIDS IN
tOCHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING, FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY, 6PM 3,0 14.0 28.0 69.0 139.0
THICIcENED ALUM SLUDGE, 1X SOLIDS
11 DECANTER CENTRUFUGE,CENTRXFUGE CAPACITY.GPM (INtL STNBY> 10.0 13.0 25,0 63.0 125,0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 2 2 2 2
ALUM SLUDGE AT 1Z SOLIDS INFLUENT CONCENTRATION
12 SLUDGE HAULING, ANNUAL VOLUME, CU YII 361.0 1810.0 3610.() 9030.0 1E3100.()
ALUM SLUDGEP CONCENTRATED TO 20X SOLIDS
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE, TOTAL FILTER AREA, SQ FT 696,0 2090,0 4160.0 10120,0 19840,0
(INtL STNBY UNITS) FILTRATION RATE=2 GFM/S0 Ft, WATER TREAT
14 FILTRA—HYORAULIC SURFACE WASH, INDIVIDUAL FILTER AREA, SO FT 174.0 174.0 347.0 723.0 1240.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 4 12 12 14 16
(INtL SThBY UNITS) FILTRATION RATE=2 GPM/SQ FT. WATER TREAT
15 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM, FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY, 6PM 3130.0 3130.0 6250,0 13000.0 22300.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 4 12 12 14 16
(INCL STNBY UNITS) BACIcWASH CAPACITY 18 GPM/SQ FT
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA AND UNIT PROCESS SIZES
PROCESS OR COMPONENT DESIGN FLOW,MOD
AVERAGE: 1.0 5.0 10.0 25,0 50.0
PEAK: 1.0 5.0 10,0 25.0 50.0
16 MEDIA—RAPID SAND FILTRATION, TOTAL FILTER AREA, SQ FT 696.0 2090.0 4160,0 10120,0 19840.0
(INCL STNBY UNITS> WATER TREAT, FILTRATION RATE=2 GPN/SQ FT
17 SUPF’LY PUMPING, PUMPING RATE, MOD 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
GRAVITY FILTER OR AWT UPFL0W CARBON CONTACTOR SUPPLY
18 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE, TOTAL FILTER AREA, SD FT 276.0 1044.0 1848.0 4340.0 6328.0
(INCL STNBY UNITS) FILTRATION RATE=5 GPM/SD FT, WATER I AWl
19 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH, INDIVIDUAL FILTER AREA, SD FT 69.0 174.0 231.0 434.0 694.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 4 6 8 10 12
(INCL STNBY UNITS) FILTRATION RATE=5 GPM/SQ FT, WATER I AWT
20 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM, FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY, 6PM 1240.0 3130.0 4160.0 7810.0 12500,0
NUMBER OF UNITS 4 6 8 10 12
(INCL STNBY UNITS) WATER&AWT, BACKWASH CAPACITY ’.lo GFM/SQ FT
21 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION, TOTAL FILTER AREA, 90 FT 276.0 1044.0 1848.0 4340,0 8328.0
(INCL STNBY UNITS) WATER I AWT, FILTRATION RATE=5 GPM/SQ FT
22 SUPPLY PUMPING,PUMPINO RATE, MGD 1.0 5.0 10,0 25,0 50.0
GRAVITY FILTER OR AWl UPFLOWCARBON CONTACTOR SUPPLY
23 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS. FEED CAPACITY/UNIT, LBS/DAY 8,3 42,0 83.0 208,0 208.0
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 2 2 2 3
(INCL SINBY> COAGULANT AILI,1 MG/L CAPACITY ,0,1 MG/L AVG
24 ALUM FEED SYSTEM—DRY ALUM CAFACITY,LBS/HR (INCL STNBY) 14.0 70,0 140.0 348.0 696.0
MIXED MEDIA FILTER AID, 20 MG/L CAPACITY, 10 MG/L AVG
25 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS, TOTAL CONTACTOR AREA,SD FT 210.0 875.0 1750.0 4200.0 8400,0
(INCL STNBY) CONTACT TIME 7.5 MIN, RATE 5 GPM/SU FT
26 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON, ‘rOTAL WEIGHT OF CARBON, LBS 31500.0 131250.0 262500.0 630000.0 1260000.0
CONTACT TIME=7.5 MIN, CARBON WEIGHT=30 LB/ CU FT
27 GRANULAR CARBON REGENERATION, HEARTH AREA, SQ FT 28 ,0 28.0 56.0 139.0 278.0
40Z DOWNTIME,40 LB/SO FT/DAY; REMOVAL=0.5 LB COD/LB CARBON
28 CONCRETE STORAGE RESERVOIR,STORAGE CAPACITY,MGD 1 ,0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0
1 DAY STORAGE, INCLUDES COST OF COVER
29 CONCRETE STORAGE RESERVOIR,STORAGE CAPACITY,MGD 2.0 10.0 20,0 50,0 100,0
2 DAYS STORAGE, INCLUDES COST OF COVER
30 CONCRETE STORAGE RESERVOIR,STORAGE CAPACITY,MGD 3,0 15.0 30.0 75 ,0 150.0
3 DAYS STORAGE, INCLUDES COST OF COVER
31 CONCRETE STORAGE RESERVQIR,STORAGE CAPACITY ,MGD 4.0 20,0 40.0 100.0 200.0
4 DAYS STORAGE, INCLUDES COST OF COVER
-------
COST INFORMATIONI
GAL/PERSON/DAY =100
PEOPLE/HOME =3.5
ELECTRICITY,$/KWH =0.03
LABOR,$/HR =10
FUEL,$/MIL liTu “3
LIME,$/TON =52
ALUM,$/TON =75
CHLORINE $/TON =220
POLYMER,$/LB =2
EXCAVATION =220,6
MANUFACTURED EQUIP =195.7
CONCRETE =193,1
STEEL =221.3
LABOR =220.6
FIPES t VALVES =209.4
HOUSING =30
WHOLESALE PRICE =189.0
SCCT( 5 MOD PLANT) =121
LCAI(5O MOD PLANT) =132
COSTS PRISENTEG AS DOLLARS ARE CURRENT AS OF JANUARY 1977
CAPITAL. COST FACTORS) INTEREST IiArE(%) =7
NUMBER OF YEARS =20
ENGINEERING(X) =10 (PER CENT OF CONSTRUCIXON COST)
LEGAL FISCAL(%) “3 (PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST)
INT DURING CONST(X)=7 (PER CENT OF CONSIRUC1ION COST)
YARD PIPING FACTOR =15 (PER CENT OF CONSTRUC1ION COST)
PER CAPITA COSTS
UNIT COST FACTORs)
CHEMICAL COSTS)
CONSIN COST INDEXES)
EPA CONSTN INDEXES)
U I
-.4
(ENR SKILLED LABOR)
(BLO $114)
(BLS $132>
(BLS $101.3)
(ENR SKILLED LABOR)
(BLS $114,901)
(ACTUAL BLDG COST,$/SQ Fl)
(DLS ALL COMMODITIES)
(NATIONAL INDEX VALUE)
(NATIONAL INDEX VALUE)
-------
THE FOLLOWING 12 PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS OF CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION
2 RAPID MIX
2 RAPID MIX
2 RAPID MIX
2 RAPID MIX
2 RAPID MIX
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50,0
11 13 39
26 31 197
44 53 394
92 110 926
174 209 1852
470 0 0.0
468 0 0.0
472 0 0,0
514 0 0.0
675 0 0.0
6 7 1.9 0.70
11 14 0.8 0.28
18 23 0.6 0.23
35 45 0.5 0.18
66 86 0.5 0.17
2.45
O .90
0.00
0.63
0.60
• COMPOWENT
OR
AVE
FLOW
CONSIN
COST
CAPITAL
COST
ELEC
THOU
MAINT
MAT’L
LABOR
FUEL
MIL
CHEM
TOTAL
OSM/YR
*TOTAL
THOU
ANNUAL
CTS/
COST
S PER
F CTORSS
S PER
SYSTEM
MOD
THOU $
THOU $
)
-------
10 CHEMICAL
10 CHEMICAL
to CHEMICAL
10 CHEMICAL
10 CHEMICAL
SLUOI3E PUMPINI—DILUrE
SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE
SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE
SLUDGE PUiIPING-DILUTE
SLUDGE PUMPING-DILUTE
12 SLUDGE HAULING
12 SLUDGE HAULING
12 SLUDGE HAULING
12 SLUDGE HAULING
12 SLUDGE HAUL ING
1.0
5.0
10.0
25,0
50,0
15 18 0 1.3 38
29 35 1 2.3 77
41 49 2 3.2 111
51 61 5 3.7 144
54 65 10 3.8 162
THE FOLLOWING 7 PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS OF MIXEII MEDIA FILTRATION
TOTAL *TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORS*
CHEM O$M/YR THOU CTS/ $ PER * PER
TN/YR THOU 5 0 K GAL CAPITA HOME
0 0.0 2 4 1.1
0 0.0 3 6 0.3
o 0,0 4 9 0,2
o 0.0 5 11 0,1
o 0.0 6 12 0,1
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L
MOD THOU S THOU S KWH/YR KS/YR
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING-DILUTE
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING’-DILUTE
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING-DILUTE
8 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING—DILUTE
9 GRAVITY THICKENER
9 GRAVITY THICKENER
9 GRAVITY THICKENER
9 GRAVITY THICKENER
9 GRAVITY THICKENER
FUEL
LABOR NIL
HR/YR STU/YR
130
130
133
152
183
1.0
5.0
*0.0
25.0
50.0
1,0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50,0
11 DECANTER
11 DECANTER
11 DECANTER
11 DECANTER
11 DECANTER
CENTRIFUGE
CENTRIFUGE
CENTRIFUGE
CENTR I FUGE
CENTRIFUGE
313
324
380
511
664
376
389
456
613
797
26 31
0
1.5 49
0
0.0 2
5
1.4
0.50
51 61
2
3.2 111
0
0.0 4
10
0,5
0.20
0.70
52 62
4
3.8 143
0
0.0 5
11
0.3
0.11
0.39
67 80
10
3.8 262
0
0.0 6
14
0.2
0.06
0.20
91 109
21
4.7 216
0
0.0 8
18
0.1
0.04
0.13
156
3
0.1 298
0
0.0 3
18
4.9
2,80
6.30
156
3
0,1 298
0
0.0 3
18
1.0
0.36
1.26
160
3
0.1 300
0
0.0 3
18
0,5
0.18
0.63
182
3
0.1 307
0
0.0 3
20
0.2
0.08
0.28
220
3
0.2 319
0
0.0 3
24
0,1
0.05
0.17
0.40
1.40
0.12
0.42
0.09
0.32
0.04
0.15
0,02
0.08
45
1.7 772
0
0.0 11
46
12.6
4.60
16.10
51
2.0 814
0
0.0 12
49
2.7
0.98
3.43
83
3,1 1014
0
0,0 16
59
1,6
0,59
2.07
166
5,0 1493
0
0.0 26
84
0.9
0.34
1.18
285
9.2 2041
0
0,0 38
113
0.6
0,23
0.79
0 0
0
0,5 73
0
0.0 1
1
0.3
0.10
0.35
0 0
0
1.2 262
0
0,0 4
4
0.2
0.08
0.28
0 0
0
2.0 500
0
0.0 7
7
0.2
0.07
0,25
0 0
0
4.3 1164
0
0.0 16
16
0.2
0.06
0.22
0 0
0
8,5 2376
0
0.0 32
32
0.2
0.06
0.22
TOTAL
COST FOR
COMPONENTS 1 THRU
12:
CLARIFICATION
AND
CHLORINATION
CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION
1.0
1235 1482
68
191
52,3
19,10
66.85
CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION
5.0
2279 2737
250
376
20.6
7,52
26.32
CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION
10,0
3492 4191
250
595
16.3
5.95
20,83
CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION
25,0
5273 6327
496
1017
11.1
4,07
1.4.24
CLARIFICATION AND CHLORINATION
50,0
7708 9253
907
1665
9.1
3.33
11.66
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
1.0
222 266
19
2.1 1965
0
0.0 22
47
12.9
4.70
16.45
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
5.0
601 721
53
6.6 2509
0
0,0 33
101
5.5
2.02
7.07
23 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
10.0
956 1147
87
11.0 3128
0
0,0 45
153
4.2
1,53
5.36
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
25,0
1762 2124
167
21.3 5101
0
0,0 77
277
3.0
1,11
3.88
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE
50.0
2651 3181
267
34.2 9040
0
0.0 133
433
2.4
0.87
3.03
239
9.5
736
17.1
1378
25.5
3092
41.5
4058
5342
6912
10127
15602
0 96,2
0 480.6
0 956.4
0 2246,5
0 4491,2
-------
TOTAL COST FOR COMPONENTS 13 THRU 191 MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
C 0MPG NE NT
OR
SYSTEM
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL ELEC MAINT
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L
tIGO THOU S THOU S KWH/YR KS/YR
F UEL
LABOR tI lL
HR/YR BTU/YR
3
13
25
57
114
0.0 55
0.0 118
0,0 181
0.0 249
0.1 311
26
49
74
130
221
191
470
721
1114
1544
TOTAL *TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORSE
CHEM DIM/YR THOU CTS/ S PER $ PER
TN/YR THOU $ S K GAL CAPITA HOME
0 0.0 1 3 0.8 0.30
0 0.0 2 7 0.4 0.14
0 0,0 3 10 0.3 0.10
0 0.0 4 16 0.2 0.06
0 0.0 7 28 0.2 0.06
4 0.0
21 0.1
41 0.1
98 0.
195 0.5
a’
0
5 0 0.0 0 18
12 0 0.0 1 45
20 0 0.0 2 70
31 0 0.0 4 109
45 0 0.0 7 153
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10,0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50 • 0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
17 0 0.0
49 0 0.0
82 0 0.0
164 0 0.0
284 0 0.0
22
41
62
108
184
159
392
601
928
1287
14
41
68
137
237
31
53
80
151
269
44
47
54
87
126
25
46
69
116
155
4.9 1.80
2.5 0.90
1.9 0.70
1.2 0.44
0.8 0.31
0 0 0,0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
o o 0.0
o o,o
0 0.0
o o.o
0 0.0
0 0.0
37
57
0.4
527
64
282
1,1
654
96
564
1,9
807
181
1326
4,4
1192
323
2650
9,1
1790
14 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
14 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
14 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
14 FILTRA-HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
14 FILTRA—HYDRAULIC SURFACE WASH
15 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
15 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
15 FILTRA—BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
15 FILTRA—BACKUASH PUMPING SYSTEM
15 FILTRA-BACKWASH PUMPING SYSTEM
16 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
16 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
16 MEDIA-MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
16 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
16 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
17 SUPPLY PUMPING
17 SUPPLY PUMPING
17 SUPPLY PUMPING
17 SUPPLY PUMPING
17 SUPPLY PUMPING
18 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
18 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
18 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
18 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
18 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS
19 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
19 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
19 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
19 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
19 ALUM FEED SYSTEM
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
1.0
591
708
115
2.9
3034
0
19.7
39
97
26.6
9,70
33. 5
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
5.0
1401.
1681
402
8.2
3788
0
97.4
74
212
11.6
4,24
14.94
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
MIXEr’ MEDIA FILTRATION
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
10.0
25.0
50.0
2172
3780
5642
2606
4535
6770
752
1710
3318
13.5 4646
26.8 7324
44.9 12216
0
0
0
194.8
453.6
905.4
113
212
381
327
58
937
9.0
6.4
5,1
3.27
2,34
1.87
11.45
8,18
6.56
1,05
0.49
0.35
0.22
0.20
6.30
3.15
2.45
1.53
1 .07
0.70
0.35
0.28
0.21
0.1?
3.50
1 • 54
1.26
1.02
0.95
3.15
1.12
0.84
0.60
0.4,
2.80
1.12
0.91
0.11
0 • 63
0 2 0.5
0 5 0.3
0 8 0.2
0 15 0.2
0 27 0.1
7 10 2.7
16 22 1.2
27 36 1.0
56 73 0.8
106 136 0.7
4 9 2.5
11 16 0,9
18 24 0.7
33 43 0.5
56 70 0.4
0.20
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.05
1.00
0.44
0.36
0,29
0.27
0.90
0.32
0.24
0.17
0.14
198 0 0.4
199 0 1.9
200 0 3.8
400 0 6.8
602 0 11.9
53 23 0,2
56 23 0,2
65 23 0,3
104 46 0.5
151 69 0.8
30 9 0.2
55 10 0.2
83 12 0.2
139 16 0.2
186 23 0.2
284
296 0
310 0
351 0
428 0
19.3
95,5
191.0
446.8
893.5
5 8 2,2 0.80
11 16 0,9 0.32
18 26 0.7 0.26
38 51 0.6 0,20
72 90 0.5 0,18
-------
COMPONENT
OR
SYSTEM
TOTAL
CHEM O$M/YR
TN/YR THOU $
*TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTORS*
THOU CTS/ $ PER $ PER
$ 1< GAL CAPITA HOME
AVE CONSTP4 CAPITAL ELEC MAINT FUEL
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L LABOR MIL
MOD THOU $ THOU $ KWH/YR K$/YR HR/YR BTU/YR
THE FOLLOWING 3 PROCESSES ARE COST COMPONENTS OF ACTIVATED CARBON AD8ORPTION
20 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 266 319 38 2.1 1925 0 0.0 23
20 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 707 848 73 6.9 2443 0 0.0 34
20 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 1226 1471 117 12.7 3164 0 0.0 48
20 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 1982 2378 184 21.5 4528 0 0.0 72
20 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 3071 3685 294 35.7 7808 0 0.0 123
21 GRANULAR
21 GRANULAR
21 GRANULAR
21 GRANULAR
21 GRANULAR
22 GRAM ACT
22 GRAN ACT
22 GRAN ACT
22 ORAN ACT
22 GRAN ACT
1.0
5.0
10,0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
ACTIVATED CARBON
ACTIVATED CARBON
ACTIVATED CARBON
ACTIVATED CARBON
ACTIVATED CARBON
CARBON REGENERATION
CARBON REGENERATION
CARBON REGENERATION
CARBON REGENERATION
CARBON REGENERATION
24 29
95 114
188 226
422 506
835 1002
0’
I -
0 0.0 0 0 0.0
0 0.0 0 0 0.0
0 0.0 0 0 0.0
0 0.0 0 0 0.0
0 0.0 0 0 0.0
581 697 163 1.2 208 553 1.5
612 734 199 2.3 607 2442 7.6
759 911 236 3.4 1074 4671 15.2
1115 1338 282 4,7 2083 9360 35,9
1604 1925 337 6.3 3821 17252 71.6
TOTAL COST FOR COMPONENTS 20 THRU 22: ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
53 14.5
114 6.2
187 5.1
296 3.2
471 2,6
0 3 0,8
0 11 0.6
O 21 0.6
0 48 0.5
O 95 0.5
78 21.4
101 5.5
141 3.9
235 2.6
381 2.1
134 36,7
226 12.4
349 9.6
579 6.3
947 5.2
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
ACTIVATED CARBON ADSORPTION
23 REVERSE OSMOSIS
• 23 REVERSE OSMOSIS
23 REVERSE OSMOSIS
23 REVERSE OSMOSIS
23 REVERSE OSMOSIS
24 CONCRETE STORAGE RESERVOIR .1
24 CONCRETE STORAGE RESERVOIR
24 CONCRETE STORAGE RESERVOIR
24 CONCRETE STORAGE RESERVOIR
24 CONCRETE STORAGE RESERVOIR
553
2442
4671
9360
17252
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
1.0
5 ,0
10.0
25.0
50.0
DAY 1.0
‘ 5.0
10.0
25.0
‘ 50.0
‘5.30
2.28
1.87
1.18
0,94
0 • 30
0.22
0.21
0.19
0.19
7.80
2.02
1.41
0.94
0.76
13,40
4,52
3.49
2.32
1.89
38,70
26 ,49
24.52
22,60
20.95
.6 0
3 , 32
2,98
2.63
2.31
12
32
55
109
199
3 5
66
103
181
322
257
393
1662
3861
‘7199
1000
1625
2497
4046
6335
1147
3802
6975
15790
28502
491
1466
2633
5813
10206
18.55
7.98
6,55
4.14
3.30
1 .05
0.77
0,74
0.67
0.66
27.30
7.07
4,94
3.29
2 ,67
46.90
15.82
12.22
8.11
6.63
1 35.45
92.68
85 . 82
79.10
72,99
19,60
11 • 62
j. 0 . 43
9.21
9.09
2133
3050
4238
6611
11629
1982
2370
2810
3892
5108
1200
1950
2997
4853
7602
1376
4562
8370
18948
34202
589
1759
3160
6976
12247
201 3.4
272 9.2
353 16.1
466 26.1
631 42.0
3708 126.2
14360 438,1
27371 812.9
65157 1867.1
123921 3429.9
o o.o
0 0,0
0 0.0
0 0,0
0 0.0
1.5
7.6
15.2
35,9
71.6
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
387
1324
24S2
5650
10427
0 56
0 166
0 298
0 658
0 1156
0 0 0.0
o 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
106 , 0
‘72.5
67.2
61.9
57,1
15.3
9.1
8.2
7.2
6 ,3
-------
COMPONENT
CR
SYSTEM
AVE CONSTN CAPITAL
FLOW COST COST
MG I ’ THOU $ THOU $
ELEC
THOU
P 1 1 0/YR
MAINT FUEL
MA rt LABOR NIL
KS/YR HR/Y R BTU/YR
TOTAL
CHEM O&M/YR
TN/YR IHOU S
*TOTAL ANNUAL COST FACTOR S*
IHOU CTS/ $ PER S PER
S K GAL CAPITA HOME
25 CONCRE 1E SIORAGE RESERVOIR ,2
DAY 1.0
739
887
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
84
23.0
0,40
25 CONCRETE STORAGE RESERVOIR
• 5.0
2633
3160
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
298
16.3
5,96
CONCRETE STORAGE RESERVOIR
• 10.0
4804
5765
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
544
14.9
5.44
“5 CONCRETE STOPALIE RESERVOIR
25 0
10206
12247
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
liso
12 7
4 62
25 CONCRETE STORAGE RESERVOIR”
‘‘ 50.0
16786
0j43’
0.
0 ,0
0
0
0.0
0
1901
10.4
3.80
26’ ébi 1CRETE STORAGE. RESERVUTR,3
26 CONCRETE STORAGE RESERVOIR
DAY7 1.0
5 0
984,
3745’
1181
4494
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0
111
424
30.4
23.2
26 CONCRETE’ STORaGE ESERVOIR
26 tONC rTE STORAGE FESERVUIR
1.0 0
25 0
,., 6176
13 52
)8131
16502
0
0
0.C
0 0
.0
0
0
0
0.0
0 0
0
0
. 768
1556
21..Q
17 1
26 CQt CS1 IC STORdGE RESERVOIR
• 50.0
22646
22175
0
0.0
0
0
0.0
0
2565
14.1
27CçSCRtYE TORAUE RESERVOIR 4
27 CONCRE1E STORAGE RESERVO iR
DAY 1.0
5.0.
1226,
4804 ‘
1471
5765
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0
0
139
544
38.1 “ 13 ,90
29.8 10.88
27 CONCRETE ‘STORAGE. RESERVOIR
• 10.0
8569.
10283
0
0.0
0 . 0
0.0
0
971
26.6
9,71
27 COHC.REU- STORAGE RESERVOIR
25 0
16786
20143
0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
1901
20 8
7 aO
2;’ CONCRETE STORAGE RESERVOIR
50.0
30454’
36’545
0
0 ,0
. 0
0
0.0
0
3450
18.9
6.90
w
0”
11. 10
8.48
7.68
6.23
5.13
29,40
20.86
19 .04
16.18
13e3l
38.85
29 ,68
26 ,88
21,81
17.95
48.65
38.08
33.99
26 .61
24.15
283.15
149. 66
130.31
109, 62
97.83
302.75
161.28
140.74
118.63
105.92
4* 5 5* TREATMENT
SYS1EM COST SUMMARIES
INCLUDING YARD PIPING AT
15 PERCENT O€’CONSrRUCTZON COST
4*4*5
UPGRADED W TER TRT + H OSMOSIS
LPGRADED WATER .TRT 4 R OSMOSIS
•1.0
5.0
4145
9677
4972
11614.
4263 142.0
15770 472.6
11207
14550
553
2442
117.4
585.6 .
399
1183
809
2138
221,6
117.2
90.90
42,76
UPGRADED WATER TRT + P OSMOSIS’
UPGRADED WATER lET .4 R OSMOSIS
10,0
25.0
16192
31257
19419
37505
29854 868.0
70425 1961.5
18606
27954
4671
9360
1266,4
2745.9
2128
4750
3723
7830
102.0
85.8
37.23
31.32
UP3RAI’ED A1FR rR’T F k USM0EE
50.0
52462
62957
133772 3578.3
44554
17252
5468.2
8809
13976
76.6
77.95
UPGI1W T +R 0 ± 1 DAY STORAGE
u bD N 1 R U + 1 DAY STORAGE
1.0,
5 0
4709 .
11362
5649
13636
4263 142.0
15770 472 6
11207
14550
553
2442
117.4
585 6
399
1183
865
2304
237.0
126 2
86.50
46 08
UPOP W,T LR 0+ 1 DAY StORAGE
UF’GO 11 T I H 0 + 1 DAY STORAGE
UPGD,W T + R 0+ ‘1 DAY’ STORAGE
10.0
25.0
50.0
19209,,
37941
64198 ‘ ‘
23053
45527
77041
29854 868.0.
70425. 1961.5.
133772 3578,3
18606
27954
44554
4671
9360
17252
1166,4
2735,9
5468.2
2128
4750
880?.
4021
8488
15132
110.2
9.0
829 ,
40.21
33.95
30 ,26
!JPGD UT +R 0 + 2 DAY STORAGE
IJP0D W,r + R 0 4 2 DAY STORAGE
1,.O
5 0
4994
12704
5992
15248
4263 142.0,
15770 472 6
1,1207
14550
.553
2442
117 ,4.
585 6
399
1183
. 893
2436
133 5
s .ao.
48 72
312.55
170 52
UFSD W T + R 0 + 2 DAY STORAGE
10 0
21706
26048
29854 868 0
18606
4671
1166 4
2128
4267
116 9
42 67
149 35
(lOGO £4 T + R 0 + 2 DAY STORAGE
U SC !) W T’tR O+’/ DA STORAGE’.
25 0
50’.Ô
42993
717657
51589
86121
70425 1961 5
1337723 7O.3
27 54
44554
9360
‘7252
2735 9
546G.2
4750
‘ 8809
8986
15877.
98 5
07.0
35 94
31.75
1”9 80
.111.14
UEO1.’ N T ± R 0 1 3 DAY S JORAGE
1.0
5276
4330
4263 142.0
11207
553
117 ,4
399
920
252.1
92,00
322.00
.
UPOn N F 4 R 0 + 3 DAY STORAGE
5.0
13983
167G2
15770 472.6
14550
2442
585,6
1183
2562
140.4
51.24
179.34
UPSE’ N T + R (3 1 3 BAY STORAGE
10,0
23974
28769
29854 860,0
18606
4671
1166,4
2128
4491
123.0
44.91
157.19
UP0F N T + R 0 + 3 MY STORAGE
25.0
47071
56482
70425 1961.5
27954
9360
2735.9
4750
9308
102,9
37.55,
131.43
UPS!) N T ± P U + 3 MY STORAGE
50.0
78504
94208
133772 3578,3
44554
17252
5468,2
8809
16541
90,6
33.06’
115.79
-------
COMPONENt
OR
SYSTEM
tOTAL.
CHEM O8M/YR
TN/YR THOU 8
*8 OrAL ANNUAL COST FACTORS*
THOU CTS/ $ PER $ PER
$ K GAl... CAPITA HOME
tips!’ w I
IJPGD U I
liPS!) U I
uPon w T
tipso U r
+ H 1 ! + 4 flAy SJORAGE.
I R I) + 4 DAY STORAGE
+ 8 0 + 4 DAY STORASE
+ 8 0 + 4 bAY SIORAGE
4 8 0 4 4 DAY STORAGE
AVE CCJNST N CAPitAL. EL EC IAINT FUEL
FLOW COST COST THOU MAT’L LAROR NIL
MOE’ THOU 8 THOU $ KWH/YR K$/Yk HR/YR HTU/YR
1.0
• 0
:t C) • 0
2 5.()
50.0
1 5201
26036
50560
8 7404
6663
1 [ 1243
31 244
60669
:104983
4263
15770
29854
70425
133772
147.0 1120/
472.6 14550
868.0 18606
1961.5 27954
3578.3 44554
553
2442
46/1
9360
1 /2 2
11/,4
585 • 6
8 [ 66,4
2735 • 9
5468.2
:399
11833
2128
4 •75 0
8809
948 259./
26182147.0
4694 [ 28,6
9231 106.6
17426 95.5
‘14 . 180
53.64
46. 94
:38,92.
34.85
3:31 .80
187,74
164.29
136.23
171.98
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA AND UMIJ PROCESS SIZES -
PROCESS OR COMPONENT DESIGN FLOW,MGD
AVERAGE: 1.0 5. o 10 ,0 25.0
PEAK: 1 ,0 5 ,0 10 ,0 25.0 50+0
I RAW WATER PUMPING, FIRM CAPACITY, MOD 1.3 6.3 12.5 29.4 58,8
IMCLtJDES SCREENING I ONE STANDBY PUMP EQUAL TO LARGEST UNIT
2 RAPID MIX E l SIN, VOLUME, CU FT 1: 16,0 580,0 1160,0 2729,0 5451.0
• NUMBER OF UNITS 2 2 2 2 2
• 1 MIN DETENTION TINE AT AVERAGE FLOW (INCL STNE4YUNIT)
3 ALUM FEED SYSTEM—DRY ALUM,CAPACITY,LB5/HR (INCL STNBY) 52.6 260.0 520.0 1226,0 2448,0
• ALUM COA 1IULArION, CAPACITy 60 NG/L, AVG=40 MG/L
4 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMS, FEED C PACITY/1INIT, LBS/DAY 10 , 52.5 104.0 12S ,O i63.6 ’
• NUMBER OF UNITS - . -..• 2 2 2 3 4
(INCL S1ANDBU CAPACITY=ItNG/L, AVG=0 1 MG/ I 0061
5 t Q flJ ATION,TOTAL BASIN VOLUME,CU Pt ‘TNCL STNDBY CAPACITY) 6950,0 26060,0 52125.0 122650,0 246292.0
HORIZONTAL’ PADDLE, d=eo, DETENTION TIME=30 •MIN AT AVG FLOW
6 CI#CULAR..CLARIFIER.SORFACE AREA/UNIT,SO FT (INCL STNDBY) 658.0 3288,D 6575.0 1741,0 15529.0
NUMBER’OF•UNIT5 ,•‘*.• ,;.-:, ,, .3 3 3 3 3
OVERFLOW RATE=950 GAL/DAY/SO FT -
A CHLORINE FEED SYSTEMS, FEED CAPACITY, LB/DAY . 105.0 523,0 1044,0 2456.0 4912.0
CAPACIIY=1o MG /I DOSE
0 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING,; FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY, 6PM 15.0 70.0 140 ,0 327.0 654.0
CAPACITY=40 MG/L AT PEAK FLOW AND 0.5% SOLIDS
9 GRAVI1Y TFIICNENER,SURFACE ARFA/UNIT,SQ FT (INCL STNDL1Y UNIT) /8 0 /8 0 100 0 235 0 470 0
NUMBER OF UNITS ,. . • ‘ 2 2 2 2 ‘ 2
ALUM SLUDGE,OVERFLDU RATE=1000 GPB/SOFT WITH 0.5 1 SOLWS IN
10 CHEMICAL SLUDGE PUMPING, FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY, 6PM 4.0 18.0 ‘35.0 81.0 164.0
THIINENED ALUM bLUDGE, 11 SOLIDS
11 DECANTER CENTRUFUOE,CENTRIFUGE CAPACITY;GPM(INCLSTNDBY) 13.0 14.0 31.6 74.6 147.6
NUMBER OFJUNIT5Lt,.2i 1 ;..& . L • 2 2 2 2 2
ALUM SLUDGE AT. I X SOLIDS INFLUENT CONCENTRATION .
12 SLUDGE HAULING, ANNUAL VOLUME, CUrD . •‘ • •, . 451..O 2263.0 4513.0 10624.0 21294.0
ALUM SLUD0EVCONCENTRATED 10 205 SOLIDS • .
13 GRAVITY FILTRATION STRUCTURE, TOTAL FILTER AREA, SOFT . 344.0 1308.0 2312.0 -5110.0 9192.0
(INCLSTNBY UNITS) FILTRATION RATE=5 GFM/SO FT, WATER I ANT
14 FILTRA—HYORAUL 1C SURFACE WASH, INDIVIDUAL FIL lER AREA, SO FT 86.0 218.0 289.0 511.0 816 ,0
NUMBER OF UNITS 4 6 8 10 12
(INCL ETNBY UNITS) FILTRATION RATE-S GPM/SO FT, WATER & AI.JT
15 FILTRA-BACEWA SH PUMPING SYSTEM, FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY, 6PM 1550.0 3913.0 5200.0 9106,0 14 706 ,0
NUMBER OF UNITS . 4 6 8 10 12
(JNCL STNBY UNITS.’ WATER&AWT, BACKWASH CAPACITY=18 OPM/SO E l
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA ANti UNIT PROCE€1 SIZES
PROCESS OR COMPONENT DESIGN FLOW,MUI’
AUFRAOE 1.0 5.0 10,0 25 ,0
FEAKI 1,0 5.0 10.0 25.0
16 MEDIA—MIXED MEDIA FILTRArION TOTAL, FILlER AREA SO FT 344,0 1309.0 2312.0 i io.d 97c’2.0
(INCL STNBY UNITS) WATER 8 AWl, FILrRAIION RATE 5 UPM/SQ FT
17 SUPPLY PUMPING PUMPIN0 RATE, MGI ’ 1.3 6.3 12.5 29,4
GRAVITY FILTER OR AWl UPFL .OW CARBON CONIACTOR SUPPLY
18 POLYMER FEED SYSTEMSP FEED CAPACITY/UNITr LBS/DAY 10.4 52.5 104.0 12 5 .0 163 <)
NUMBER OF UNITS 2 2 2 3 4
(INCL STNBY) COAGULANT AItI ,1 MG/I. . CAPACXTY.0.1 MO/L AVG
19 ALUM FEED SYSTEM—DRY ALUM,CAPACXTY.LBS/HR (INCL. STNBY) 17.6 87.2 174.0 400,0 016.0
MIXED MEDIA FILTER AID, 20 MU/L CAPACITY, 10 MUlL AVG
20 GRANULAR ACT CARBON CONTACTORS 1OTAL CONTACTOR AREA,SO FT 263.0 1094.0 2110.0 4112.0 0235.0
(INCL STNBY) CONTACT lIME 7.5 MINI RATE 5 GPM/SO FT
21 GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBONS TOTAL WEIGHT OF CARBON, LBS 39375.0 164000.0 320125.0 741100.0 1482360.0
CONTACT TIME 7.5 MIN, CARBON WEIGHT ”30 18/ CU FT
22 GRANULAR CARBON REOENERATION HEARTH AREA, 88 FT 28.0 70.0 164.0
40Z DOWNTIME,40 LB/SQ ET/DAYI REMOVAL=0. 5 LB COD/LB CARBON
REVERSE osMosxs,r-RO DUCT WATER FLOW RAIF ,M1ID 1.5 6.0 :11.5 27.5
WATER RECOVERY 1,5,10 MOD, 80 25,50 MUll, 95 /
24 CONCRETE STORAGE RESERvOIR,STORAGE CAPAC1TY M0D 1.0 5.0 . 10.0 25.0
I DAY STORAGE, INCLUDES C01sT OF COVER
25 COHORE1I! STORAGE RESERVOIR,STORAGE CAFACITY ,MGti 2.0 l’).() 20.0 50.0 :100.0
2 DAYS STORAGE, INCLUDES COST OF COVER
26 CONCRETE STORAGE RESERVOIR ,STORAUE CAPACIFY MUEI 3.0 15,0 30.0 75.() 150.0
3 DAYS STORAGE, INCLUTIES COST OF COVE R
2/ CON1klTE STORAGE RESERVOIR, STORAGE CAIACI TY M0t’ 4,0 20.0 40 0 100 • 0 200 • 0
4 DAYS STORAGE, INCLUDES COST OF COVER
-------
COST INFORMATION
SCCT(5 MG I ’ PLANT)
LCAT(50 MOO PLANT)
(PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST)
(PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST)
(PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST)
(PER CENT OF CONSTRUCTION COST)
(ENR SKILLED LABOR)
(BLS *114)
(BLS *132)
(BLS *101.3)
(ENR SI
------- |