UPDATE OF:
TECHNOLOGIES AND COSTS FOR THE REMOVAL
OF RADIONUCLIDES FROM POTABLE WATER SUPPLIES
TARGETING AND ANALYSIS BRANCH
STANDARDS AND RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION
OFFICE OF GROUND WATER AND DRINKING WATER
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
TASK ORDER PROJECT OFFICER: BILL LABIOSA
JUNE 2000
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC.
11832 Rock Landing Dr.
Newport News, VA 23606-4206
Under Cadmus Group, Inc. Contract 68-C-99-206
Work Assignment 1-28
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water under the guidance of the Standards and Risk Management
Division, Targeting and Analysis Branch. The Task Order Project Officer was Mr. Bill Labiosa.
This document was prepared in collaboration with the technical consultant Malcolm Pimie,
Inc. The Project Manager was Tim Brodeur. The Malcolm Pirnie technical support team was led
by Chris Hill, Deputy Project Manager, and included Kira Sobczak and Stephane Jousset.
i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page Number
Acknowledgements i
Table of Contents ii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
List of Acronyms ix
Executive Summary xii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Background and Purpose 1-1
1.2 Document Organization 1-3
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF RADIONUCLIDES 2-1
2.1 Background 2-1
2.1.1 Radioactive Decay 2-1
2.1.2 Daughter Products 2-2
2.1.3 Radionuclide Measurement 2-3
2.2 Specific Radionuclides 2-4
2.2.1 Radium-226 and-228 2-4
2.2.2 Uranium-238, -235, and -234 2-5
2.2.3 Polonium-210 2-7
2.2.4 Lead-210 2-7
2.2.5 Alpha Particle Activity 2-8
2.2.6 Beta Radiation 2-8
3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS 3-1
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 Basis for Cost Estimates 3-1
3.2.1 Cost Modeling 3-1
3.2.2 Technology Design Panel Recommendations 3-2
3.2.3 Implementing TDP Recommended Costing Upgrades 3-7
3.2.3.1 VSS Model 3-7
3.2.3.2 Water Model 3-8
3.2.3.3 WAV Cost Model 3-8
3.2.4 Cost Indices and Unit Costs 3-8
3.2.5 Re-Basing Bureau of Labor Statistics Cost Indices 3-11
3.2.6 Flows Used in the Development of Costs 3-12
ii
-------
3.3 Costs for Multiple Removal Percentages 3-13
3.3.1 Removal and Accessory Costs 3-14
3.3.2 Use of Blending in Cost Estimates 3-15
3.4 Additional Capital Costs 3-15
3.5 Applicability of Technologies 3-19
4.0 COAGULATION / FILTRATION 4-1
4.1 Process Description 4-1
4.2 Applicability 4-2
4.2.1 Radium 4-2
4.2.2 Uranium 4-2
4.2.3 Polonium 4-3
4.2.4 Lead 4-3
4.2.5 Gross Alpha Particle Activity 4-4
4.2.6 Beta Particle Activity 4-4
4.3 Design Criteria 4-4
4.3.1 Design Criteria for Enhanced Coagulation/Filtration 4-5
4.3.2 Design Criteria for Direct Filtration and In-Line Filtration 4-6
4.4 Treatment Cost 4-6
5.0 LIME SOFTENING 5-1
5.1 Process Description 5-1
5.2 Applicability 5-1
5.2.1 Radium 5-2
5.2.2 Uranium 5-2
5.2.3 Polonium 5-2
5.2.4 Lead 5-2
5.2.5 Gross Alpha Particle Activity 5-3
5.2.6 Beta Particle Activity 5-3
5.3 Design Criteria 5-4
5.3.1 Design Criteria for Enhanced Lime Softening 5-5
5.4 Treatment Cost 5-5
6.0 ION EXCHANGE 6-1
6.1 Process Description 6-1
6.2 Applicability 6-2
6.2.1 Radium 6-2
6.2.2 Uranium 6-3
6.2.3 Polonium 6-4
6.2.4 Lead 6-4
6.2.5 Gross Alpha Particle Activity 6-4
6.2.6 Beta Particle Activity 6-4
6.3 Design Criteria 6-5
6.4 Treatment Costs 6-5
iii
-------
7.0 REVERSE OSMOSIS 7-1
7.1 Process Description 7-1
7.2 Applicability 7-1
7.2.1 Radium 7-2
7.2.2 Uranium 7-2
7.2.3 Polonium 7-3
7.2.4 Lead 7-3
7.2.5 Gross Alpha Particle Activity 7-3
7.2.6 Beta Particle Activity 7-3
7.3 Design Criteria 7-3
7.4 Treatment Costs 7-4
8.0 ELECTRODIALYSIS REVERSAL 8-1
8.1 Process Description 8-1
8.2 Applicability 8-2
8.2.1 Radium 8-2
8.2.2 Uranium 8-2
8.2.3 Polonium 8-2
8.2.4 Lead 8-3
8.2.5 Gross Alpha Particle Activity 8-3
8.2.6 Beta Particle Activity 8-3
8.3 Design Criteria 8-3
8.4 Treatment Costs 8-4
9.0 GREENSAND FILTRATION 9-1
9.1 Process Description 9-1
9.2 Applicability 9-1
9.2.1 Radium 9-2
9.2.2 Uranium 9-2
9.2.3 Polonium 9-2
9.2.4 Lead 9-2
9.2.5 Gross Alpha Particle Activity 9-2
9.2.6 Beta Particle Activity 9-3
9.3 Design Criteria 9-3
9.4 Treatment Costs 9-3
10.0 ACTIVATED ALUMINA 10-1
10.1 Process Description 10-1
10.2 Applicability 10-2
10.3 Design Criteria 10-2
10.4 Treatment Cost 10-3
iv
-------
11.0 POINT-OF-USE / POINT-OF-ENTRY 11-1
11.1 Introduction 11-1
11.2 POU Reverse Osmosis 11-2
11.2.1 Design Criteria and Treatment Costs 11-3
11.3 POU Ion Exchange 11-5
11.3.1 Design Criteria and Treatment Costs 11-5
11.4 POE Cation Exchange 11-8
11.4.1 Design Criteria and Treatment Costs 11-8
12.0 RESIDUALS HANDLING AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS 12-1
12.1 Introduction ' 12-1
12.1.1 Factors Affecting Residuals Handling and Disposal Costs 12-1
12.1.2 Methods for Estimating Residuals Handling and Disposal Costs .... 12-2
12.2 Residuals Handling Options 12-2
12.2.1 Gravity Thickening 12-2
12.2.2 Chemical Precipitation 12-3
12.2.3 Mechanical Dewatering 12-3
12.2.4 Evaporation Ponds and Drying Beds 12-4
12.2.5 Storage Lagoons 12-5
12.3 Disposal Options 12-6
12.3.1 Direct Discharge 12-6
12.3.2 Indirect Discharge 12-7
12.4 Residuals Characteristics 12-8
12.4.1 Coagulation/Filtration 12-8
12.4.2 Lime Softening 12-9
12.4.3 Ion Exchange Processes 12-10
12.4.4 Reverse Osmosis 12-11
12.5 Disposal Costs 12-12
13.0 REFERENCES 14-1
APPENDIX A VERY SMALL SYSTEMS CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN
SUMMARIES
APPENDIX B WATER MODEL CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN SUMMARIES
APPENDIX C WAV COST MODEL CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN SUMMARIES
APPENDIX D COST EQUATIONS AND CURVE FITS FOR REMOVAL AND
ACCESSORY COSTS
APPENDIX E ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COSTS
V
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page Number
Table 1-1 Proposed Radionuclide MCLs " 1-1
Table 1-2 Best Available Technologies Examined in This Document 1-2
Table 2-1 Applicable Technologies for Radium Removal 2-5
Table 2-2 Applicable Technologies for Uranium Removal 2-6
Table 2-3 Characteristics of Additional Alpha-Emitting Radionuclides 2-8
Table 3-1 TDP Capital Cost Factors 3-3
Table 3-2 VSS Capital Cost Breakdown for Membrane Processes (Including
Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration) 3-4
Table 3-3 Water Model Capital Cost Breakdown for Package Conventional
Treatment (Coagulation/Filtration) 3-5
Table 3-4 Water Model Capital Cost Breakdown by Percentage for Package
Conventional Treatment (Coagulation/Filtration) 3-5
Table 3-5 WAV Cost Model Capital Cost Breakdown for Sedimentation Basins 3-6
Table 3-6 W/W Cost Model Capital Cost Breakdown by Percentage for
Sedimentation Basins 3-6
Table 3-7 Costs Indices Used in the Water and WAV Cost Models 3-9
Table 3-8 Costs Used in the Water and WAV Cost Models 3-9
Table 3-9 Amortization Factors 3-10
Table 3-10 Bureau of Labor Statistics Rebase Information 3-11
Table 3-11 Flows Used in the Cost Estimation Process 3-12
Table 3-12 Permitting Scenarios 3-17
Table 3-13 Technology and Contaminant Removal Efficiency Matrix 3-19
Table 4-1 Enhanced coagulation/filtration - Radionuclides removal percentages 4-6
Table 5-1 Lime softening - Radionuclides removal percentages 5-4
Table 6-1 Anion exchange - Radionuclides removal percentages 6-1
Table 6-2 Cation exchange - Radionuclides removal percentages 6-2
Table 7-1 Reverse osmosis - Radionuclides removal percentages 7-4
Table 8-1 Electrodialysis reversal - Radionuclides removal percentages 8-4
Table 9-1 Greensand filtration - Radionuclides removal percentages 9-4
Table 11-1 Cost Assumptions 11-3
Table 12-1 Coagulation/Filtration Residuals Characteristics 12-9
Table 12-2 Lime Softening Residuals Characteristics 12-10
Table 12-3 Ion Exchange Residuals Characteristics 12-11
Table 12-4 Reverse Osmosis Residuals Characteristics 12-12
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page Number
Figure 4-1 Enhanced Coagulation/Filtration - Capital Costs 4-7
Figure 4-2 Enhanced Coagulation/Filtration - O&M Costs 4-8
Figure 5-1 Lime Softening - Capital Costs 5-5
Figure 5-2 Lime Softening - O&M Costs 5-6
Figure 6-1 Anion Exchange - Capital Costs 6-7
Figure 6-2 Anion Exchange - O&M Costs 6-8
Figure 6-3 Cation Exchange - Capital Costs 6-29
Figure 6-4 Cation Exchange - O&M Costs 6-30
Figure 7-1 Reverse Osmosis - Capital Costs 7-5
Figure 7-2 Reverse Osmosis - O&M Costs 7-6
Figure 9-1 Greensand Filtration - Capital Costs 9-5
Figure 9-2 Greensand Filtration - O&M Costs 9-6
Figure 11-1 POU Reverse Osmosis for Radium and Uranium Removal 11-4
Figure 11-2 POU Anion Exchange for Uranium Removal 11-6
Figure 11-3 POU Cation Exchange for Radium Removal 11-7
Figure 11-4 POE Cation Exchange for Radium Removal 11-9
Figure 12-1 Mechanical Dewatering and Non-Hazardous Landfill - Coagulation/Filtration
Disposal Capital Costs 12-14
Figure 12-2 Mechanical Dewatering and Non-Hazardous Landfill - Coagulation/Filtration
Disposal O&M Costs 12-15
Figure 12-3 Non-Mechanical Dewatering and Non-Hazardous Landfill - Coagulation/Filtration
Disposal Capital Costs 12-16
Figure 12-4 Non-Mechanical Dewatering and Non-Hazardous Landfill - Coagulation/Filtration
Disposal O&M Costs 12-17
Figure 12-5 Non-Mechanical Dewatering and Dewatered Sludge Land Application
- Coagulation/Filtration - Disposal Capital Costs 12-18
Figure 12-6 Non-Mechanical Dewatering and Dewatered Sludge Land Application
- Coagulation/Filtration - Disposal O&M Costs 12-19
Figure 12-7 Liquid Sludge Land Application - Sprinkler System - Coagulation/Filtration
Disposal Capital Costs 12-20
Figure 12-8 Liquid Sludge Land Application - Sprinkler System - Coagulation/Filtration
Disposal O&M Costs 12-21
Figure 12-9 Liquid Sludge Land Application - Trucking System - Coagulation/Filtration
Disposal Capital Costs 12-22
Figure 12-10 Liquid Sludge Land Application - Trucking System - Coagulation/Filtration
Disposal O&M Costs 12-23
Figure 12-11 Mechanical Dewatering and Non-Hazardous Landfill - Lime Softening
Disposal Capital Costs 12-24
Figure 12-12 Mechanical Dewatering and Non-Hazardous Landfill - Lime Softening
Disposal O&M Costs 12-25
Figure 12-13 Non-Mechanical Dewatering and Non-Hazardous Landfill - Lime Softening
vii
-------
Disposal Capital Costs 12-26
Figure 12-14 Non-Mechanical Dewatering and Non-Hazardous Landfill - Lime Softening
Disposal O&M Costs 12-27
Figure 12-15 Non-Mechanical Dewatering and Dewatered Sludge Land Application
- Lime Softening - Disposal Capital Costs 12-28
Figure 12-16 Non-Mechanical Dewatering and Dewatered Sludge Land Application
- Lime Softening - Disposal O&M Costs 12-29
Figure 12-17 Liquid Sludge Land Application - Sprinkler System - Lime Softening
Disposal Capital Costs 12-30
Figure 12-18 Liquid Sludge Land Application - Sprinkler System - Lime Softening
Disposal O&M Costs 12-31
Figure 12-19 Liquid Sludge Land Application - Trucking System - Lime Softening
Disposal Capital Costs 12-32
Figure 12-20 Liquid Sludge Land Application - Trucking System - Lime Softening
Disposal O&M Costs 12-33
Figure 12-21 Chemical Precipitation - Ion Exchange - Disposal Capital Costs 12-34
Figure 12-22 Chemical Precipitation - Ion Exchange - Disposal O&M Costs 12-35
Figure 12-23 Direct Discharge (500* of Pipe) - Ion Exchange - Disposal Capital Costs 12-36
Figure 12-24 Direct Discharge (500' of Pipe) - Ion Exchange - Disposal O&M Costs 12-37
Figure 12-25 Direct Discharge (1000' of Pipe) - Ion Exchange - Disposal Capital Costs ... 12-38
Figure 12-26 Direct Discharge (1000' of Pipe) - Ion Exchange - Disposal O&M Costs 12-39
Figure 12-27 Evaporation Pond and Non-Hazardous Landfill - Ion Exchange
Disposal Capital Costs 12-40
Figure 12-28 Evaporation Pond and Non-Hazardous Landfill - Ion Exchange
Disposal O&M Costs 12-41
Figure 12-29 POTW Discharge (5001 of Pipe) - Ion Exchange - Disposal Capital Costs ... 12-42
Figure 12-30 POTW Discharge (500' of Pipe) - Ion Exchange - Disposal O&M Costs .... 12-43
Figure 12-31 POTW Discharge (1000' of Pipe) - Ion Exchange - Disposal Capital Costs .. 12-44
Figure 12-32 POTW Discharge (1000' of Pipe) - Ion Exchange - Disposal O&M Costs ... 12-45
Figure 12-33 Chemical Precipitation - Reverse Osmosis - Disposal Capital Costs 12-46
Figure 12-34 Chemical Precipitation - Reverse Osmosis - Disposal O&M Costs 12-47
Figure 12-35 Direct Discharge (500' of Pipe) - Reverse Osmosis - Disposal Capital Costs . 12-48
Figure 12-36 Direct Discharge (500' of Pipe) - Reverse Osmosis - Disposal O&M Costs .. 12-49
Figure 12-37 Direct Discharge (1000' of Pipe) - Reverse Osmosis - Disposal Capital Costs 12-50
Figure 12-38 Direct Discharge (1000' of Pipe) - Reverse Osmosis - Disposal O&M Costs . 12-51
Figure 12-39 POTW Discharge (500' of Pipe) - Reverse Osmosis - Disposal Capital Costs 12-52
Figure 12-40 POTW Discharge (500' of Pipe) - Reverse Osmosis - Disposal O&M Costs . 12-53
Figure 12-41 POTW Discharge (1000' of Pipe) - Reverse Osmosis - Disposal Capital Costs 12-54
Figure 12-42 POTW Discharge (1000' of Pipe) - Reverse Osmosis - Disposal O&M Costs 12-55
viii
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AA activated alumina
AWWA American Water Works Association
AX anion exchange
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
Bq Bequerel
BV bed volume
C/F coagulation/filtration
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Ci curie
CX cation exchange
DF direct filtration
EBCT empty bed contact time
ED electrodialysis
EDR electrodialysis reversal
EDTA ethylenediaminetetracetic acid
ENR Engineering News Record
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
fCi femtocurie
ft feet
GAC granular activated carbon
gpd gallons per day
gpg grams per gallon
gpm gallons per minute
HDPE high-density polyethylene
ILF in-line filtration
IX ion exchange
kgal thousand gallons
kgpd thousand gallons per day
kWh kilowatt hour
LS lime softening
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
ix
-------
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
mg/L milligrams per liter
MGD or mgd million gallons per day
MWCO molecular weight cut-off
MWDSC Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NRC National Research Council
NTU nephelometric turbidity units
O&M operations and maintenance
OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
pCi picocurie
POE point-of-entry
POTW publicly-owned treatment works
POU point-of-use
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
PPI Producer Price Index (for Finished Goods)
psi pounds per square inch
psig pounds per square inch gauge
rad radiation absorbed dose
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
rem roentgen equivalent man
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RO reverse osmosis
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
sf square feet
SI International System (of units)
sq ft square feet
TBLL Technically Based Local Limits
T&C Technologies and Costs
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TDP technology Design Panel
TDS total dissolved solids
TOC total organic carbon
TSS total suspended solids
VSS Very small system
X
-------
WET Whole Effluent Toxicity
wk week
yr year
//g/L micrograms per liter
xi
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
This document is an update of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
document, Technologies and Costs for the Removal ofRadionuclides from Potable Water Supplies
(EPA, 1999). Its purpose is to provide updated costs for applicable drinking water treatment
technologies. These costs are needed to develop the national regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for
radionuclide removals designed to meet proposed maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) of the
proposed radionuclide regulation for drinking water, which is scheduled for promulgation in 2001.
This document includes summaries of various treatment options, the applicability of
treatment techniques to the radionuclides of concern, and costs for the implementation of the
treatment options. The radionuclides addressed here include:
Radium-226 and-228
Uranium-238, -235, and -234
Polonium-210
Lead-210
Gross alpha particle activity, especially plutonium-239 and thorium-232
Gross beta particle activity, in particular strontium-90, iodine-131, and tritium.
The radionuclide removal treatment technologies discussed in this document include:
Coagulation/filtration, including direct filtration and in-line filtration
Lime softening
Ion exchange, including anion and cation exchange
Reverse osmosis
Electrodialysis reversal
Greensand filtration
Activated alumina.
Technologies applicable to point-of-entry (POE) and point-of-use (POU) treatment are also
discussed.
xii
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
This document is an update of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
document, Technologies and Costs for the Removal ofRadionuclides from Potable Water Supplies
(EPA, 1999). The purpose of this document is to provide updated cost estimates for implementing
water treatment technologies applicable to the removal of target radionuclides from drinking water.
These cost estimates are needed to develop the national regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for
radionuclide removals designed to meet proposed maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The EPA
is currently examining new proposed MCLs and national primary drinking water regulations
(NPD WRs) for radium, uranium, gross alpha, and gross beta. The primary focus of the examination
is to set the proposed MCLs as close as possible to the maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs),
taking into consideration both economical and technical factors. The proposed rule will reduce the
level of public exposure to these various radionuclides by requiring that public water supply systems
meet the MCLs shown in Table 1-1. It should be noted that the proposed MCLs listed below are
subject to revision and may not represent the final regulatory levels. The final radionuclide rule is
scheduled for promulgation in 2001.
Table 1-1
Proposed Radionuclide MCLs
¦ CONTAMINANT
^ PROPOSED MCt
Radium-226
5 pCi/L
Radium-228
3, 2.5, 2, and 1 pCi/L
Radium-226/228 (combined)
5 pCi/L
Uranium
20 ^g/L or 20 pCi/L
Gross Alpha radiation
15 pCi/L including Ra-226;
10 pCi/L excluding Ra-226
Gross Beta radiation
4 mrem per/ yr
l-i
-------
The best available technologies (BATs) addressed in this document for removal of the target
contaminants are shown in Table 1-2.
Table 1-2
Best Available Technologies Examined in This Document
PROCESS.
~"'
-------
1.2 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This document is organized according to the following sections:
Chapter 2 - DESCRIPTION OF RADIONUCLIDES: provides updated
background information on the specific radionuclides.
Chapter 3 - DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS: provides the basis for cost
development including discussion of cost indices, amortization factors, and curve
fitting analysis.
Chapters 4 through 11 - TECHNOLOGIES FOR RADIONUCLIDE
REMOVAL: provides a short summary including background information, process
descriptions, and case studies as outlined in the 1999 and 1992 T&C documents, and
any updated information. Also included in these sections are cost curves and
equations for selected treatment technologies.
Chapter 12 - RESIDUALS HANDLING AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS: provides
background information, design criteria, and cost equations for the disposal options
outlined in the technology sections, plus information and cost equations for additional
disposal options.
Chapter 13 - REFERENCES: provides the references used in the preparation of this
addendum.
Appendices - Includes supporting documentation used in the development of this
Technology and Cost document.
1-3
-------
BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATES
The three cost models used in this document for cost development include: the Very Small
Systems Best Available Technology Cost Document (Malcolm Pimie, 1993), hereafter referred to as
the VSS model; the Water Model (CulpAVesner/Culp, 1984); and the WfW Cost Model
(Culp/Wesner/Culp, 1994). Curve fitting analysis was conducted on the modeled cost estimates, and
included transition flow regions to provide better cost estimates within the breakpoints between the
models. The following flow ranges were used:
VSS - 0.015 to 0.100 mgd
Transition 1 - 0.100 to 0.270 mgd
Water Model - 0.27 to 1.00 mgd
Transition 2 - 1 to 10 mgd
W/W Cost Model - 10 to 200 mgd
Total capital costs consist of three elements: process, construction, and engineering costs.
Process costs include manufactured equipment, concrete, steel, electrical and instrumentation, pipes
and valves, and housing costs. Construction costs include sitework and excavation, standby power,
land, contingencies, and interest during construction. Engineering costs include general contractor
overhead and profit, engineering fees, and legal, fiscal, and administrative fees.
TREATMENT COSTS
The costs for implementing treatment technologies for the removal of radionuclides are based
on design parameters published in the 1999 radionuclides T&C document (EPA, 1999), the 1992
radionuclides T&C document (EPA, 1992), the November 1999 arsenic T&C document, and
assumptions provided in the cost models (i.e., VSS, WATER Model, and WAV Cost Model). In
addition, assumptions were made regarding the feasibility of the various technologies for the
removal of the target radionuclides, based on available published data. A maximum percent removal
was assigned to each target radionuclide for each treatment technology, and estimated costs were
developed for each radionuclide at this maximum percent removal. If a target radionuclide cannot
be feasibly removed by a given technology, or if there is no published information on its removal
XUl
-------
feasibility, no cost estimate is made for that radionuclide using that technology.
In this document, costs are provided for:
Enhanced coagulation: uranium, lead, beta emitters.
Lime softening: radium, uranium, lead, beta emitters.
Ion exchange: radium, uranium, polonium, alpha emitters, beta emitters.
Reverse osmosis: radium, uranium, polonium, lead, alpha emitters, beta emitters.
Greensand filtration: radium.
The following technologies were not costed, but are nonetheless discussed:
Coagulation/filtration, including direct filtration, and in-line filtration.
Enhanced lime softening.
Electrodialysis reversal.
Activated alumina.
POINT-OF-USE / POINT-OF-ENTRY
Centralized treatment is not always a feasible treatment option, for example, in areas where
each home has a private well or where centralized treatment is cost prohibitive. In these instances,
POE and POU treatment options may be acceptable treatment alternatives. These systems may also
reduce engineering, legal, and other fees typically associated with centralized treatment options.
This document discusses three applicable POU and POE treatment techniques for removal of
radionuclides from drinking water:
POU reverse osmosis for radium and uranium remo.val
POU ion exchange for radium and uranium removal
POE cation-exchange for radium removal.
RESIDUALS HANDLING AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS
Each of the treatment technologies presented in this document will produce residuals, either
solid or liquid streams, containing elevated levels of radionuclides. The characteristics of this waste,
and appropriate handling and disposal options, are discussed in this document. Capital and O&M
xiv
-------
costs for residuals handling and disposal options are also presented, along with references which
contain appropriate cost information, for determining costs for additional options.
A number of factors can influence capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs
associated with residuals handling and disposal. The primary factor affecting capital cost is the
amount of residuals produced, which is dependent upon the design capacity of the water treatment
plant and the treatment process used. The amount of waste generated plays a significant role in
determining the handling and disposal method to be utilized. Many residuals-handling methods
which are suitable for smaller systems are impractical for larger systems because of the significant
land requirements. For larger systems that process residuals on-site (as opposed to direct or indirect
discharge), mechanical methods are typically used because of the limited land requirements.
Operations and maintenance costs for handling and disposal methods include labor,
transportation, process materials and chemicals, and maintenance. Many handling and disposal
methods require extensive oversight which can be a burden on small water systems. Generally, labor
intensive technologies are more suitable to large water systems. Transportation can also play a
significant role in determining appropriate handling and disposal options.
Residuals handling and disposal costs can be difficult to estimate. Two EPA manuals are
recommended for estimating costs: (1) Small Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost
Document (DPRA, 1993a); and (2) Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost
Document (DPRA, 1993b). Both present a variety of handling and disposal options, applications
and limitations of those technologies, and capital and O&M cost equations.
xv
-------
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF RADIONUCLIDES
2.1 BACKGROUND
Radionuclides are elements which undergo spontaneous nuclear decay by emitting various
forms of radiation energy, or "nuclear decay products." The occurrence of radionuclides in drinking
water is a concern mostly because of the tissue damage that may occur in the human body as a result
of exposure to this radiation energy, and the subsequent carcinogenic effects.
The 1992 T&C document (EPA, 1992) provides a description of the radionuclides of concern
with regard to drinking water. Much of the descriptive information on radionuclides provided in this
section is summarized from the 1992 T&C document.
Radionuclides generally fall into two broad categories: naturally occurring and man-made.
Naturally occurring radionuclides, including uranium and radium, are common in crystalline rocks
and are usually present mostly in ground water sources, but also can be found in surface waters. In
contrast, man-made radionuclides are found mostly in surface waters. The most widespread delivery
of man-made radionuclides to the environment occurred as a result of fallout from nuclear weapons
testing. Man-made radionuclides also are released, either planned or inadvertently, from defense-
related industrial activities; nuclear power plants; institutions such as hospitals, research foundations,
and universities; and other commercial/industrial users of radioisotopes.
2.1.1 Radioactive Decay
The decay of radionuclides results in the release of a number of possible decay products,
including alpha particles, beta radiation, gamma radiation, and fission products. Alpha particles are
emitted during the transformation of the parent nucleus in the alpha decay process. Alpha particles
have the same atomic number and atomic mass as a helium atom, consisting of two protons and two
neutrons. Therefore, emission of an alpha particle produces a progeny atom which has an atomic
number two less than that of the parent element (two less protons) and an atomic mass four less than
the parent element (removal of two protons and two nuetrons). Alpha particles do not have a long
range or high penetration ability, and therefore pose little harm by external exposure. However,
2-1
-------
when allowed to enter the body via ingestion, inhalation, or an open wound, alpha emitters
potentially constitute a health threat, depending on the levels present.
Beta radiation is characterized by the emission of electrons from the nucleus. A neutron
decays into a proton which remains in the nucleus, and an electron which is ejected as the beta
particle. Neutron decay produces a daughter element whose atomic number is one greater that the
parent element (because of the extra proton); the atomic weight of the element does not change.
Energetic beta particles can pass through skin, however the primary hazard from beta radiation is
internal deposition by ingestion or inhalation of beta emitters.
Gamma rays are high-energy photons which are released when the nucleus moves to a lower
energy state. They are similar to ordinary X-rays, but are higher in energy. Gamma ray emission
does not change the atomic number or weight of the parent element. Gamma rays are highly
penetrating, and are able to irradiate the human body from an external source.
Fission occurs when an atomic nucleus is split into two approximately equal parts. Fission
can occur spontaneously, or it may be induced by the capture of bombarding particles. In addition
to the fission products, neutrons and gamma rays are usually emitted during fission.
2.1.2 Daughter Products
The natural radionuclides that are of most interest in drinking water are found within the
decay series of uranium-238 (U-238), uranium-235 (U-235), and thorium-232 (Th-232). Because
of its relative abundance and the longevity of many of its daughter products, the U-238 decay series
is of primary concern in terms of health effects (Lowry et al., 1988). U-238, with a half-life of 4.5
billion years, begets a series of 13 linear radioactive decay products, as well as several secondary
radionuclides. Each atom of U-238 undergoes a series of successive radioactive transformations
which produce a total of eight alpha and six beta emissions before ultimately evolving into one
nonradioactive stable isotope of lead-206 (Pb-206). Half-lives of the intermediate daughter products
range from a few minutes to thousands of years. The more persistent products of decay are uranium-
234 (U-234), radium-226 (Ra-226), radon-222 (Rn-222), polonium-210 (Po-210), and lead-210 (Pb-
210), which are the U-238 daughter products that present the greatest health concerns in drinking
water. Radium-228, a product of the Th-232 decay series, is also a potential health concern in
drinking water, and is included in the discussions that follow.
2-2
-------
2.1.3 Radionuclide Measurement
Contaminant concentrations in the environment are typically measured in terms of mass per
unit volume, such as milligrams per liter (mg/L) or parts per million (ppm). However, the activity,
rather than the mass, of a radionuclide causes its carcinogenic effect; therefore, units that define
radiological activity are generally used for radionuclide measurements. The common units used to
quantify radioactivity are: curie (Ci), picocurie (pCi), femtocurie (fCi), becquerel (Bq), rad, rem,
and sievert (Sv).
The curie is equal to a nuclear transformation rate of 3.7 x 10'° disintegrations per second.
One gram of radium has 1 Ci of activity (by definition), and one gram of U-238 has an activity of
3.6 x 10'7 Ci. A picocurie is equivalent to 10"12 Ci, and a femtocurie is 10'15 Ci. The International
System (SI) units for activity is the becquerel, which is equivalent to one disintegration per second.
The effective dose of radioactivity also depends on the type of radiation, which is usually
described as the dosage absorbed by tissue or matter. The rad (radiation absorbed dose) is the unit
most commonly used to describe the absorbed dosage. One rad is equivalent to deposition of 100
ergs of energy in one gram of matter; 10 million ergs per second is equivalent to one watt of power.
Due to the difference in mass and charge, one rad of alpha particles does more damage than
one rad of gamma rays. The rem, which is a unit of dosage equivalent (roentgen equivalent man),
reflects this additional impact. The rad and rem are related as follows:
rem = Q x rad
Where:
Q = 1 for beta particles and all electromagnetic radiation (gamma rays and X-rays);
Q = 10 for neutrons from spontaneous fission, and protons;
Q = 20 for alpha particles and fission fragments.
The quality factor, Q, describes the relative harm caused by various types of radiation. The SI unit
corresponding to the rem is the sievert; one Sv equals 100 rem.
2-3
-------
2.2 SPECIFIC RADIONUCLIDES
The following radionuclides and decay products are addressed in this document:
Radium-226 and Radium-228
Uranium-238, -235, and -234
Polonium-210
Lead-210
Gross Alpha Particle Activity
Beta Particle Activity
Radium, uranium, alpha particle activity, and beta particle activity were addressed in the
1992 T&C document, and are summarized here from that document. Although Po-210 is a relatively
short-lived isotope (half-life of 13 8 days) and is rarely a concern in most drinking water sources, it's
occurrence in some ground waters warrants its special treatment here. Pb-210, a daughter product
of the U-23 8 decay series, is also treated separately in this document because of its radioactive nature
and the chemical toxicity of lead. Although radon is a concern in natural waters, it is addressed
separately in a companion document prepared by EPA (Technologies and Costs for the Removal of
Radon from Drinking Water - Draft, October 1998), and is not discussed here.
2.2.1 Radium-226 and -228
Radium-226 and -228 are decay products of the U-23 8 and Th-232 decay series, respectively.
Because they occur naturally in a variety of rock types and have relatively long half-lives (1600
years for Ra-226 and 5.8 years for Ra-228), these isotopes are commonly found in ground waters.
Radium is the largest of the group IIA alkaline earth metals. Because of its size and its
tendency to be a non-hydrolyzing divalent ion, radium is easily removed from ground water,
especially when competing ions like calcium and barium are absent or in low concentrations.
Radium also tends to form radium sulfate (RaS04), which is easily removed by adsorption (Clifford,
1990).
Several potential technologies are available for the effective removal of radium, as shown
in Table 2-1. These include lime softening, ion exchange,'reverse osmosis, electrodialysis reversal
2-4
-------
(EDR), manganese dioxide adsorption/filtration, and radium selective complexers. Technologies
and performance characteristics are discussed in detail in subsequent chapters.
Table 2-1
Applicable Technologies for Radium Removal
Treatment Method
Percent Removal0'
Comments
Lime Softening
80-95
- Limited Studies
- Highest removals at pHs > 10.6
Ion Exchange
90-99
- Cationic resins achieve best results
- Disposal of regenerant waste is a
problem due to radioactivity
- Hardness may affect removals
Reverse Osmosis
90-99
- Pretreatment required
- Higher removals at higher operating
pressures
Electrodialysis Reversal(:)
>99
- Based on one study
- Radium accumulates on stacks
Mn02 Adsorption / Filtration
-------
Enhanced coagulation/filtration can provide the required removals of uranium at relatively
low costs. Ion exchange and reverse osmosis can also obtain high removals, but may be more
applicable for small and medium-sized systems because of their high costs. Table 2-2 provides a
summary of applicable technologies for uranium removal. Detail on these technologies is provided
in subsequent chapters.
Table 2-2
Applicable Technologies for Uranium Removal
Treatment Method ."¦*
Percent Removal ^
= Comments ' -
Coagulation / Filtration
80-95
- Highest removals achieved at pHs 6
and 10.
- Enhanced coagulation/filtration is a
cost-effective alternative
Lime Softening (Large Systems Only)
85-99
- Limited Studies
- Presence of magnesium may enhance
or reduce removals depending on pH
and concentration of Mg.
Ion Exchange
90-99
- Anion resins achieve highest
percentage removals
- Pre-filtration may be required
- Regenerant waste may be low level
radioactive
Reverse Osmosis
90-99
- Pretreatment required
Electrodialysis Reversal
>99
- Based on one study
- Uranium accumulates on stacks
Activated Alumina
90-99
- Limited Studies
- Limited Capacity
(1) Removals as high as these ranges have been reported in the literature
(Source: 1992 T&C document)
2-6
-------
2.2.3 Po!onium-210
Po-210 occurs in nature as a result of the radioactive decay of isotopes of the U-238 decay
series. Po-210 has a half-life of 138 days, decaying through alpha emission to stable Pb-206. The
isotope has been found in ground water in different parts of the country, though rarely at levels high
enough to require treatment of the water. However, a statewide reconnaissance of radioactivity in
water samples from domestic wells in Florida revealed several shallow wells in which the main
contributor to high gross alpha activity was Po-210. Investigation of the distribution of Po-210 in
ground water and the mechanisms of its mobilization suggests a possible association between high
Po-210 activity and acidic waters containing sulfide (Harada et al., 1988). No instances of high Po-
210 levels have been reported in surface waters.
2.2.4 Lead-210
Lead-210 is a naturally-occurring daughter product of the U-238 decay series. With a half-
life of 21 years, a Pb-210 atom decays through two beta emissions to Po-210, which in turn decays
to stable Pb-206. In addition to its radioactivity, Pb-210, like all isotopes of lead, is toxic to humans,
accumulating in bone and tissue when ingested or inhaled. The major chronic effects of lead
poisoning are produced in the hematopoietic system, the central and peripheral nervous systems, and
the kidneys.
The most significant forms of lead in water are carbonate (PbC03), hydroxide (Pb(OH)2), and
hydroxycarbonate (Pb3(0H)2(C03)2) forms. The carbonate form occurs in the pH range of 5 to 8,
the hydroxide form occurs mostly above pH 8.5, and the hydroxycarbonate form is stable between
pH 7.5 and 8.5. The hydroxycarbonate form occurs over so narrow a pH range that its significance
in water treatment is minimal (Sorg and Logsdon, 1978).
Several investigations have studied lead removal from drinking water by conventional
coagulation and lime softening. Alum and iron coagulation are very effective for lead removal
because lead is easily adsorbed by turbidity and forms insoluble complexes in the normal pH range
for coagulation treatment. In lime softening tests, greater than 99 percent removals of 0.15 mg/L
of lead were achieved throughout the pH range 8.8 to 11.0 (Sorg and Logsdon, 1978). These and
other treatment processes are discussed in detail in subsequent chapters.
2-7
-------
2.2.5 Alpha Particle Activity
Most alpha-emitting radionuclides in water are naturally occurring. Since gross alpha
particle activity is a measure of the total alpha emissions in a sample, different radionuclides,
including those described above, can contribute to this activity. Therefore, if a specified gross alpha
activity is exceeded in a drinking water, testing must be performed to identify the specific
contaminants which are contributing to the activity. Table 2-3 provides characteristics of two
additional alpha-emitting radionuclides, plutonium-239 and thorium-232, that may be of concern in
some ground waters.
Table 2-3
Characteristics of Additional Alpha-Emitting Radionuclides
'4S^Plui^unfci39^^
^fe^'Thorium-232-^^'
Half-life:
2.44 x 10E4 years
1.41 x 10E10 years
Principal Mode of
Decay:
Alpha (100%)
Alpha (100%)
Sources:
Produced in thermal
reactors by neutron
irradiation of Uranium-238.
Used in nuclear weapons
and as fuel.
Naturally occurring
Special Chemical
Characteristics:
Member of actinide series
of rare-earth elements.
Forms insoluble fluorides,
hydroxides, and oxides.
Forms soluble complexes
with citrate.
Hydroxides and oxides are
insoluble; nitrates,
sulphates, chlorides, and
perchlorate salts are readily
soluble.
Critical Organs
Affected:
Bone and lung
Bone and liver
(Source: Eisenbud, 1973)
2.2.6 Beta Radiation
Beta radiation is emitted during the radioactive decay of some naturally occurring and man-
made radionuclides. Several daughter products of the U-238, U-235, and Th-232 decay series are
beta emitters, although most are relatively short-lived. An exception is Pb-210 (half-life of 21 years)
which is discussed in Section 2.2.4. Man-made radionuclides which emit beta particles include three
2-8
-------
that may be significant in some drinking waters: strontium-90 (Sr-90), iodine-131 (1-131), and
tritium (T or H-3). Man-made radionuclides enter drinking water from nuclear weapons production
and testing, nuclear power plant accidents and normal operational discharge, discharges from
medical facilities, and leaching from radioactive waste facilities. Beta emitters affect mostly surface
water because of their source from surface (i.e., human) activities.
Strontium-90
Sr-90 is a man-made radionuclide resulting from nuclear power generation, defense-related
industrial activities, nuclear weapons testing, and natural fission of uranium nuclei. The isotope has
a half-life of 29 years, decaying via beta emission to yttrium-90. Sr-90 has an affinity for bone
marrow when ingested, resulting in increased risks of bone cancer and leukemia. Conventional
coagulation alone is unsatisfactory for the removal of strontium from drinking water. To accomplish
removals above 90 percent, iron coagulant doses of more than 500 mg/L at pH of 11 is required
(Ciccone, 1987).
Iodine-131
1-131 is a man-made radionuclide resulting from nuclear fission in weapons and power
plants. 1-131 is also used in nuclear medicine applications, and can enter surface water supplies
through contamination from hospital wastes. The isotope has a half-life of eight days, decaying to
xenon-131 via beta emission. Iodine tends to concentrate in the thyroid gland when ingested, and
the presence of radioactive iodine can cause thyroid disease, including cancer. Iodine is only slightly
removed from drinking water by conventional alum or iron coagulation, but the addition of small
amounts of copper sulfate, activated carbon, or silver nitrate has been shown to increase removal
appreciably (EPA, 1986).
Tritium
Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen, containing one proton and two neutrons in the nucleus
(i.e., hydrogen-3). The isotope has a half-life of 12.26 years, decaying to stable helium-3 through
beta decay. Tritium is produced in nuclear reactors, and is used in the production of fusion nuclear
weapons. Although minor amounts of tritium are produced naturally in the atmosphere from cosmic
2-9
-------
ray-induced nuclear reactions, most of the tritium contamination in drinking water is from
atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. Tritium is also used to make luminous paints and as a tracer
element, and can enter the water cycle from these sources. Being chemically identical to hydrogen,
tritium occurs in water as water molecules, making its removal from drinking water impractical by
standard means.
2-10
-------
3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
A primary objective of this document is to determine estimated costs for the removal of
radionuclides from drinking water. The purposes of this chapter are to:
Identify applicable removal technologies for each of the contaminants discussed in
Chapter 2;
Develop design criteria and assumptions associated with these alternatives; and
Develop estimated capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with
each removal technology identified.
3.2 BASIS FOR COST ESTIMATES
3.2.1 Cost Modeling
The three cost models used in cost development include: the Very Small Systems Best
Available Technology Cost Document (Malcolm Pimie, 1993), hereafter referred to as the VSS
model; the Water Model (Culp/Wesner/Culp, 1984); and the WAV Cost Model (Culp/Wesner/Culp,
1994). Curve fitting analysis was conducted on the modeled cost estimates including the utilization
of transition flow regions to provide better estimates within the breakpoints between models. The
following flow ranges have been established for each model and transition flow region:
VSS
Transition 1
Water Model
Transition 2
. WAV Cost Model -
0.015 to 0.100 mgd
0.100 to 0.270 mgd
0.27 to 1.00 mgd
1 to 10 mgd
10 to 200 mgd
All three models require flow to calculate direct capital and O&M costs. In addition to the
3-1
-------
flow, the Water and WAV Cost models require several other user-specified variables to generate
direct capital cost. These additional user inputs include design factors, cost indices (Table 3-7), and
other various unit costs (Table 3-8).
3.2.2 Technology Design Panel Recommendations
Since the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) reauthorization, EPA has relied mainly
on the previously mentioned unit cost models to estimate compliance costs for drinking water
regulations. Following the reauthorization of the SDWA in 1996, EPA has critically evaluated its
tools for estimating the costs and benefits of drinking water regulations. As part of this evaluation,
EPA solicited technical input from national drinking water experts at the Denver Technology
Workshop (which was sponsored by EPA and held November 6 and 7,1997) to improve the quality
of its compliance cost estimating process for various drinking water treatment technologies. The
Technology Design Panel (TDP) formed at the workshop for this purpose recommended several
modifications to existing cost models to improve the accuracy of EPA's compliance cost estimates.
The TDP developed guidelines for estimating capital costs using the three cost models. The
guidelines are discussed in detail in Guide for Implementing Phase I Water Treatment Upgrade
(EPA, 1998a) and Water Treatment Costs Development (Phase I): Road Map to Cost Comparisons
(EPA, 1998b).
Total capital costs are comprised of three elements: process, construction, and engineering
costs. Process costs include manufactured equipment, concrete, steel, electrical and instrumentation,
pipes and valves, and housing costs. Construction costs include sitework and excavation, subsurface
considerations, standby power, land, contingencies, and interest during construction. Engineering
costs include general contractor overhead and profit, engineering fees, and legal, fiscal, and
administrative fees (including permitting).
The TDP recommended that total capital cost estimates be generated based upon process
costs. That is, the models can be used to estimate total capital costs, but process costs are then
generated using the capital cost breakdowns presented in Appendices A through C of this document,
and applying an appropriate factor for construction and engineering costs. These factors are based
upon system size and are presented in Table 3-1.
3-2
-------
Table 3-1
TDP Capital Cost Factors
System Size
Process Cost
Factor
^Percent of Total)
Construction Cost
Factor
(Percent of Total)
Engineering Cost
Factor
(Percent of Total)
Total Cost
Factor1
(Percent of Total)
Very Small
1.00(40%)
1.00 (40%)
0.50 (20%)
2.50 (100%)
Small
1.00 (40%)
1.00 (40%)
0.50 (20%)
2.50(100%)
Large
1.00(30%)
1.33(40%)
1.00 (30%)
3.33 (100%)
1 - This factor can be multiplied by the process cost to obtain the total capital cost.
Table 3-2 presents a sample capital cost breakdown for the VSS model membrane equations,
i.e., microfiltration and ultrafiltration. The table also lists the capital costs assumptions associated
with the VSS model. Capital cost breakdowns for all technologies costed using the VSS model are
presented in Appendix A.
The Water and W/W Cost assumptions for capital cost components vary by design and
average flow. This is due to changes in sizing requirements. Supporting documentation was used
to develop capital cost breakdown summaries for the Water and W/W Cost models. Estimation of
Small System Water Treatment Costs (CulpAVesner/Culp, 1984) and Estimating Treatment Costs,
Volume 2: Cost Curves Applicable to 1 to 200 mgd Treatment Plants (Culp/Wesner/Culp, 1979)
were used for the Water and W/W Cost models, respectively. These documents present the design
assumptions used in developing the cost models, as well as associated costs. The percent of total
cost for each component cost was calculated for each design condition. These percentages were then
averaged to arrive at a universal capital cost breakdown which could be applied for developing the
Phase I capital costs. Tables 3-3 through 3-6 demonstrate the methodology described here.
3-3
-------
Table 3-2
VSS Capital Cost Breakdown for
Membrane Processes (Including Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration)
Cost Component
Model
Assumption
Cost Factor
Percent of
Total Capital
Capital Cost
Category
Manufactured Equipment
100%
1.000
56.97%
P
Installation
25%
0.2500
14.24%
c
Sitework and Interface Piping
6%
0.0750
4.27%
c
Standby Power
5%
0.0625
3.56%
c
General Contractor Overhead & Profit
12%
0.1665
9.49%
e
Legal, Fiscal and Administrative Fees
3%
0.0416
2.37%
e
Engineering
10%
0.1596
9.09%
e
Miscellaneous and Contingencies
0%
0.000
0.00%
c
TOTAL
1.7552
100.00%
p = process, c = construction, e = engineering
Output from the Water and WAV Cost models includes construction costs and additional
capital costs, which together make up the total capital cost. Additional capital costs include sitework
and interface piping; standby power; overhead and profit; and engineering, legal, fiscal, and
administrative fees. There are no process costs associated with the additional capital costs. As a
result, cost breakdowns only need to consider the construction cost output from these two models.
Tables 3-4 and 3-6 present sample capital cost breakdowns for the Water and WAV Cost models,
respectively. Capital cost breakdowns for each technology and unit process are presented in
Appendices A, B, and C for the VSS, Water, and W/W Cost models, respectively.
3-4
-------
Table 3-3
Water Model Capital Cost Breakdown for
Package Conventional Treatment (Coagulation/Filtration)
Cost Component
Filter Area (ft2)
Capital
Cost
Category
2
12
20
40
112
150
Excavation and Sitework
$3,500
53,500
54,700
55,800
57,000
59,300
c
Manufactured Equipment
S31,000
544,900
553,500
5111,300
5176,600
5190,500
P
Concrete
51,000
51,000
51,500
54,500
55,700
56,800
P
Labor
S9.900
514,700
517,500
536,400
557,800
562,400
c
Pipes and Valves
54,200
58,300
510,400
520,900
529,200
541,700
p
Electrical
53,200
54,500
55,300
511,100
517,600
519,000
p
Housing
518,600
518,600
523,400
545,000
547,500
552,500
p
Subtotal
571,400
595,500
5116,300
5235,000
5341,400
5382,200
Contingencies
510,700
514,300
517,400
535,300
551,200
557,300
e
Total
582,100
5109,800
5133,700
5270,300
5392,600
5439,500
Igggggg
Table 3-4
Water Model Capital Cost Breakdown by Percentage for
Package Conventional Treatment (Coagulation/Filtration)
Cost Component
Filter Area (ft1)
Average
Percent
2
12
20
40
112
150
Excavation and Sitework
4.26%
3.19%
3.52%
2.15%
1.78%
2.12%
2.84%
Manufactured Equipment
37.76%
40.89%
40.01%
41.18%
44.98%
43.34%
41.36%
Concrete
1.22%
0.91%
1.12%
1.66%
1.45%
1.55%
1.32%
Labor
12.06%
13.39%
13.09%
13.47%
14.72%
14.20%
13.49%
Pipes and Valves
5.12%
7.56%
7.78%
7.73%
7.44%
9.49%
7.52%
Electrical
3.90%
4.10%
3.96%
4.11%
4.48%
4.32%
4.15%
Housing
22.66%
16.94%
17.50%
16.65%
12.10%
11.95%
16.30%
Contingencies
13.03%
13.02%
13.01%
13.06%
13.04%
13.04%
13.03%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
3-5
-------
Table 3-5
WAV Cost Model Capital Cost Breakdown for Sedimentation Basins
Cost Component
Area (A = ft2) and Length x Width (LW = ft x ft)
Capital
Cost
Category
A=240
L\V»
30j8
A=600
LW=60xI0
As1260
LW=90xl4
A=2240
LW=140xl«
A=3600
LW-200xl8
A=4800
LW=240x20
Excavation and Sitework
$1,060
$2,000
$3,060
$4,680
$6,670
$8,090
c
Manufactured Equipment
$8,540
$12,080
$24,470
$32,020
$53,110
$63,440
P
Concrete
$2,970
$5,490
$84,430
$12,820
$19,190
$22,070
P
Steel
$6,400
$13,110
$19,440
$32,620
$51,250
$39,680
P
Labor
$6,220
$11,260
$17,320
$26,390
$37,570
$45,300
c
Pipes and Valves
$6,960
$7,400
$9,100
$12,500
$16,100
$21,450
p
Electrical
$1,510
$1,760
$1,860
$2,020
$2,110
$2,400
p
Subtotal
$33,660
$53,100
$83,680
$123,050
$190,000
£232,430
Contingencies
$5,050
$7,970
$12,550
$18,460
$27,750
$34,860
e
Total
$38,710
$61,070
$96,230
$141,510
$212,750
$267,290
SSII
Table 3-6
WAV Cost Model Capital Cost Breakdown by Percentage for Sedimentation Basins
Cost Component
Area (A = ft2) and Length x Width
[LW = ft x ft)
Average
Percent
A=240
LW e
30x8
A=60C
LW=60xI0
A-1260
LW=90xl4
A"£240
LW-140xI6
A°3tiOO
LW-200il8
A°4800
LW=240x20
Excavation and Sitework
2.74%
3.27%
3.18%
3.31%
3.14%
3.03%
3.11%
Manufactured Equipment
22.06%
19.78%
25.43%
22.63%
27.96%
23.73%
23.10%
Concrete
7.67%
8.99%
8.76%
9.06%
8.55%
8.26%
8.55%
Steel
16.53%
21.47%
20.20%
23.05%
24.09%
26.07%
21.90%
Labor
16.07%
18.44%
18.00%
18.65%
17.66%
16.95%
17.63%
Pipes and Valves
17.98%
12.12%
9.46%
8.83%
7.57%
8.02%
10.66%
Electrical
3.90%
2.88%
1.93%
1.43%
0.99%
0.90%
2.01%
Contingencies
13.05%
13.05%
13.04%
13.05%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
3-6
-------
3.2.3 Implementing TDP Recommended Costing Upgrades
The capital cost breakdowns presented above and in the appendices of this document can be
used to estimate the modified capital cost (i.e., the capital cost estimate developed using the TDP
recommendations). The following sections briefly demonstrate how the capital cost breakdowns are
applied, and how modified capital cost estimates are generated.
3.2.3.1 VSS Model
1. The VSS model presents capital and O&M costs as functions of design and average flow,
respectively. Accordingly, the capital cost equation for package microfiltration units is:
CAP = 0.86[DES] + 41.1
Where: CAP = Total Capital Cost, $ 1,000s
DES = Design Treated Flow, kgpd
2. Thus, for a 0.024 mgd (24 kgpd) plant the capital cost is:
CAP = 0.86[24] + 41.1
CAP = 61.74 or $61,740
3. The VSS model equations produce estimates in 1993 dollars. To escalate to September
1998, multiply the equation-generated capital cost by the ratio of the Engineering News
Record (ENR) Building Cost Index for September 1998 to the 1993 index value.
$61,740 x (3375/3009) = $69,250
The escalated capital cost for a 0.024 mgd package microfiltration plant is $69,250.
4. Using the capital cost breakdown in Table 3-2, the total process cost is:
$69,250 x 0.5697 = $39,452
5. The modified capital cost can then be calculated using the total cost factor presented in
Table 3-1.
$39,452 x 2.5 = $98,629
Thus, the modified capital cost is $98,629.
3.2.3.2 Water Model
3-7
-------
1. Assume the Water model output for a 0.27 mgd (270,000 gpd) package conventional
treatment (coagulation/flocculation/filtration) plant is $692,066 (escalated to 1998
dollars).
2. Using the capital cost breakdown in Table 3-4, the total process cost is:
$692,066 x (0.4136 + 0.0132 + 0.0752 + 0.0415 + 0.1630) = $488,945
3. The modified capital cost can then be calculated using the total cost factor presented in
Table 3-1.
$488,945x2.5 = $1,222,362
4. This approach must be applied to each unit process separately, then totaled for the entire
treatment process to estimate the modified capital cost.
3.2.3.3 WAV Cost Model
1. Assume the WAV Cost model output for a 1 mgd (1250 sq ft.) rectangular sedimentation
basin is $416,574 (escalated to 1998 dollars).
2. Using the capital cost breakdown in Table 3-6, the total process cost is:
$416,574 x (0.2311 + 0.0855 + 0.2190 + 0.1066 + 0.0201) = $275,897
3. The modified capital cost can then be calculated using the total cost factor presented in
Table 3-1.
$275,897x3.33 = $918,737.
4. This approach must be applied to each unit process separately, then totaled for the entire
treatment process to estimate the modified capital cost.
3.2.4 Cost Indices and Unit Costs
Both the Water Model and the WAV Cost Model require a number of standard indices and
various unit costs from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Engineering News Record, and other
referenced sources. The values used in conjunction with the development of cost estimates are
reported in Tables 3-7 and 3-8.
3-8
-------
Table 3-7
Costs Indices Used in the Water and W/W Cost Models
COST INDICES
Description
Index Reference
Numerical Value
General Purpose:
BLS 114(,)
-Machinery
445.1(3'
-Concrete
BLS 132(,)
448.813'
Steel
BLS 1017(l>
405.1(,)
Skilled Labor
ENR<:)
5317.36
Pipes & Valves
BLS 1I49(I)
521.5<3)
Electrical
BLS U7*0
281.8(3)
Buildings
enr(2)
3375.31
PPI Finished Goods
BLS(,)
364<3)
(l BLS - Bureau of Labor Statistics
(2) ENR - Engineering News Record
(J) BLS numerical values were re-based to 1967 base year (see Section 3.2.5)
Table 3-8
Costs Used in the Water and WAV Cost Models
CHEMICAL COSTS
OTHER COSTS
Chemical
Cost
($/ton](I)
Description
Costs
Alum
$300.00/ton
Electricity (S/KWH)
0.080(2)
Ferrous Sulfate
$350.00/ton
Land ($/Acre)
Various<3)
Hexametaphosphate
$1276.00/ton
Natural Gas ($/cu.ft.)
0.0060(:)
Lime, Quicklime
$116.00/ton
Diesel Fuel ($/gal)
0.66U)
Sodium Chloride
$99.00/ton
Labor ($/hr)
30.00'4'
Sodium Hydroxide
(50% Solution)
$371.00/ton
Large System Labor
Rate(51
$40.00/hour
Sulfuric Acid
$116.00/ton
Small System Labor
Rate'5'
$28.00/hour
to
escalated to 1998 dollars using the BLS, Chemical & Allied Products Index.
Energy Information Administration Survey, U.S. Department of Energy
1,1 Land costs are not included.
ENR - Engineering News Record
151 Technical Design Panel (EPA, 1998a)
Chemical costs are based on the values reported in the 1992 T&C document for Radionuclides
3-9
-------
This document presents total capital costs and annual O&M costs. Annual O&M costs
include the costs for materials, chemicals, power and labor. Annualized costs can be determined
using the following equations:
Total annual cost (fi/kgal) = Annualized Capital Cost (0/kgal) + O&M Cost (£/kgal)
Where:
Annualized Capital Cost = Capital Cost fS) * Amortization Factor * 100 i!$
Average Daily Flow (mgd) * 1000 kgal/mgal * 365 days/year
O&M Cost (0/kgal) = Annual O&M ($)* 100 (£1$)
Average Daily Flow (mgd) * 1000 kgal/mgal * 365 days/year
Amortization, or capital recovery, factors for interest rates of 3,7, and 10 percent for 20 years
are reported in Table 3-9. Alternative capital recovery factors can be calculated using the formula
presented below.
Capital Recovery Factor = i(l + i)N / (1 + i)N - 1
Where: i = interest rate
N = number of years
Table 3-9
Amortization Factors
Iiiterest Rate (%) .
¦ Amortiza tionPeriod
>r Amortization,
-V-i Factor -
3
20
0.0672157
7
20
0.0943929
10
20
0.1174596
3-10
-------
3.2.5 Re-Basing Bureau of Labor Statistics Cost Indices
The Water Model and WAV Cost Model uses BLS cost index information based to 1967.
In 1986, the BLS conducted a comprehensive overhaul of the industrial price methodology resulting
in a re-basing of all index information to a 1982 = 100 base year. This requires a re-basing of BLS
index information to 1967 prior to use in the models for the development of cost estimates. Table
3-10 provides the re-base factors. A sample re-base calculation is presented below.
Sample Rebase Calculation:
Machinery = 1982 Base Factor / Rebase Factor = 1967 Base Factor
147.8/0.32895016 = 449.3
Table 3-10
Bureau of Labor Statistics Rebase Information
S'Referencef
«pj@i
:#Number^g
.^Re-base^^
illFartor
te7=ioqS
^Number.
IfDate?
Machinery
BLS 114
147.8
0.32895016
449.3
9/98
Concrete
BLS 132
148.8
0.32261652
461.2
9/98
Steel
BLS 1017
113.3
0.28608856
396.0
9/98
Pipes & Valves
BLS 1149
162.2
0.30909034
524.8
9/98
Electrical
BLS 117
120.8
0.43185069
279.7
9/98
PPI Finish Goods Index
BLS 3000
130.6
0.35633299
366.5
9/98
l" Provided by the BLS
3.2.6 Flows Used in the Development of Costs
Flow categories were developed to provide adequate characterization of costs across each of
the flow regions presented in Section 3.2.1. A minimum of four data points were generated for each
of the flow regions, with the exception of the transition regions, where cost estimates are based upon
a linear regressions between the last data point of the previous region and the first data point of the
following region. Table 3-11 presents the design and average flows, and cost models used in this
process.
3-11
-------
Table 3-11
Flows Used in the Cost Estimation Process
Design Flow
(mgd)
Average Flow
(mgd)
Cost Model
0.010
0.0031
vss
0.024
0.0056
vss
0.087
0.024
vss
0.10
0.031
vss
0.27
0.086
Water
0.45
0.14
Water
0.65
0.23
Water
0.83
0.30
Water
1.0
0.36
Water
1.8
0.7
WAV Cost
4.8
2.1
WAV Cost
10
4.5
WAV Cost
11
5
WAV Cost
18
8.8
WAV Cost
26
13
WAV Cost
51
' 27
WAV Cost
210
120
WAV Cost
430
270
WAV Cost
Shaded rows represent data used in the estimation of costs with the transition regions.
3-12
-------
3.3 COSTS FOR MULTIPLE REMOVAL PERCENTAGES
Capital and O&M cost estimates are presented for the maximum achievable removal in this
document. Table 3-13 presents a removal technology matrix which identifies maximum removal
percentages for each radionuclide and technology combination. Costs for facilities requiring less
than the maximum removal to meet individual radionuclide MCLs can be estimated using the
blending approach discussed in Section 3.3.2.
3.3.1 Removal and Accessory Costs
Costs for each of the removal technologies discussed in this document can be separated into
two categories: removal and accessory. Accessory costs include raw and finished water pumping,
and clearwell storage. Removal costs include any process item directly associated with the removal
of a particular contaminant, e.g., the ion exchange bed in ion exchange processes.
Accessory costs are independent of the desired removal percentage. For example, a one mgd
treatment plant must still pump one million gallons of raw water into the plant, pump one million
gallons of finished water, and have adequate storage (10% of daily production). Conversely,
removal costs are dependent upon the desired removal. If contaminant levels are such that the plant
need only remove 30 percent of the contaminant to reach the treatment goal, then the treatment
process can be scaled to treat a portion of the flow. The treated flow is then blended with the
untreated portion prior to distribution. Section 3.3.2 discusses the blending approach used in the
development of cost estimates.
Cost estimates presented in the body of this document do not include accessory capital
and O&M. Cost curves and equations for accessory costs (i.e., raw and finished water pumping,
and clearwell storage) are presented in Appendix D.
3-13
-------
3.3.2 Use of Blending in Cost Estimates
Capital and O&M costs were estimated using the VSS, Water, and WAV Cost models. If raw
water contaminant levels are sufficiently low, a utility may not need to achieve maximum removal
to achieve a treatment goal. For example, assume a facility is considering installation of a
coagulation/filtration facility for uranium removal. The maximum achievable removal is expected
to be 80 percent. If the raw water uranium concentration is 40 pCi/L and the treatment objective is
a finished water concentration of 20 pCi/L, the utility need only remove 50% of the uranium in the
raw water. In this scenario, the facility could treat a portion of the raw water and blend with
untreated water and still achieve its treatment objective. The portion of the total process flow to be
treated can be calculated using the following equation:
Qtreated
Where:
Qtotal
c
^max
^desired
If 1 is substituted for the total daily flow (Q,^) in the above equation, the treated portion of
the flow (Qtreued) is expressed as a fraction of the total flow. Multiplying that fraction by the total
plant flow will result in design and average operating flows that can be used to estimate capital and
O&M costs for the treated portion of the flow, using the cost curves and equations presented in this
document.
3.4 ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COSTS
The cost models discussed in the previous sections are good tools for estimating capital and
O&M costs associated with various drinking water treatment technologies. There are additional
capital costs, however, which the models do not account for and which may be a very real expense
for public water utilities. The need for additional capital costs can be affected by a number of
factors, including: contaminants present, quality of the source water, land availability, retrofit of
existing plants, permitting requirements, piloting issues, waste disposal issues, building or housing
Qtotal
K(C max ~ ^"'desiredV^-'desired)
= Treated portion of the total process flow, mgd
= Total daily process flow, mgd
= Maximum achievable removal efficiency, %
= Desired removal efficiency, %
3-14
-------
needs, and redundancy. Tables with additional capital cost estimates for each technology discussed
in this document are presented in Appendix E.
Contaminants
The radionuclides with which this document is concerned are uranium, radium, polonium-
210, lead-210, and alpha and beta emitters. A number of technologies have been proven to be
effective in removing radionuclide contamination from source waters, and are discussed in detail in
this document as well as in the 1992 T&C document (EPA, 1992). The presence of other
contaminants (e.g., metals, pathogens, organics) can raise additional treatment concerns and result
in decreased process performance.
Water Source
Uranium, radium, lead, polonium, and other alpha emitters are more common in ground
waters, while beta emitters axe found in surface waters. Surface waters generally contain higher
levels of suspended and dissolved solids which can affect removal efficiency. Facilities combining
plant influent from multiple sources also can affect source water quality.
Land
Land requirements were calculated based upon TDP recommendations (EPA, 1997) and
engineering judgement. Appendix E presents two scenarios for land costs. The low cost scenario
assumes land costs to be $1,000 per acre for small systems (i.e., less than 1 mgd) and $10,000 per
acre for large systems. All land costs are $ 100,000 per acre for the high cost scenario (EPA, 1998b).
Retrofitting
All costs presented in this document are for new construction, with the exception of the
enhanced coagulation and enhanced lime softening processes. All processes contained in the cost
models include pipes and valves, electrical and instrumentation, and other costs associated with
retrofitting. It was assumed that the costs included are sufficient for the retrofit of existing
coagulation/filtration and softening plants. As a result, costs for retrofitting are excluded from
Appendix E.
3-15
-------
Permitting
Permitting costs follow the recommendations of the TDP as presented in the Technology
Design Conference Information Package (EPA, 1997). A technology-specific summary of low and
high cost permitting scenarios is presented in Table 3-12. The number of permits required can vary
by location, depending upon State and local regulations, as well as technology. Some technologies
may require permitting for storage tanks used for process chemicals, while others may necessitate
NPDES permits if the disposal option for process residuals is to discharge to a nearby surface water.
Piloting
Piloting costs are neglected in this document and are not included in Appendix E.
Waste Disposal
Costs associated with the disposal of radionuclide-containing waste streams are presented
in Chapter 12 of this document. Residuals handling and disposal methods for waste from each
treatment process are discussed and cost estimates are presented in tabular format. EPA has
published two manuals, Small Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost Document
(DPRA, 1993a) and Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost Document (DPRA,
1993b), which present cost equations for each disposal option discussed in this document, as well
as others not discussed. These documents are the basis for the cost estimates provided here.
Storage/Building
All of the cost models used in preparing this document include costs for housing of
equipment. It is assumed that the costs included in the model output are sufficient. As a result,
additional building costs are not included in Appendix E. It is also assumed that source water
production is consistent and storage for raw waters is not necessary.
3-16
-------
Table 3-12
Permitting Scenarios
l'crmit Type 1 CF1
MCF' I LS1 | MLS1 | AE1
CE' | RO' | EDR3 | GF: | DF!
l-LFJ
AA:
Possible Permits for All Technologies1
Land Development
II
II
II
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Stormwater
Management
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Soil Erosion &
Sediment Control
II
H
II
H
H
H
H
H
II
II
H
H
Building
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Potable Water
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Technology Specific Permits'
Sludge Disposal
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Air Quality
NPDES
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
UIC
Site Dependent Permits'
OSIIA
UST/AST Registration
Slormwater NPDES
II
H
H
II
H
II
H
H
H
II
H
H
SI'CC Plan
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Highway Occupancy
II
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
II
H
H
H
Rodent & Insect
Control
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
II
EA/PIS
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
II
H
II
Building Occupancy
H
H
H
II
II
H
H
II
H
II
>1
H
Wetlands
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
II
H
H
H
1 Based upon Technical Design Conference Information Package (EPA, 1997)
2 CI-" - Coagulation/Filtration, MCF - Modified Coagulation/Filtration, LS- Lime Softening, MLS - Modified Lime Softening, AE - Anion Exchange, CE - Cation Exchange, RO -
Reverse Osmosis, EDR - Electrodialysis Reversal, GF- Greensand Filtration, DF- Direct Filtration, l-LF- ln-Line Filtration, AA - Activated Alumina
3 L - Low Cost Scenario, H - High Cost Scenario, B - Both Low and High Cost Scenario
-------
Redundancy
The cost models include standby pumps for some of the unit processes used in generating the
cost estimates presented in this document (e.g., raw and finished water pumping). Further, it is good
design practice to include additional filtration structures and sedimentation basins to allow continued
operation during maintenance of one or more of the structures. Backup pumps are not included for
chemical feed systems. As a result, there may be some additional capital costs associated with
redundancy for these items. Recommended Standards for Water Works (Great Lakes Upper
Mississippi River Board of State Public Health and Environmental Managers, 1997), often referred
to as the Ten State Standards, presents a comprehensive discussion of redundancy and recommended
redundant items. The Ten State Standards was used for presenting costs for redundant items in
Appendix E.
3.5 APPLICABILITY OF TECHNOLOGIES
This document presents capital and O&M cost estimates for six radionuclide removal
technologies (enhanced coagulation, lime softening, anion and cation exchange, reverse osmosis, and
greensand filtration) for drinking water. It also discusses the relative effectiveness of six additional
technologies (coagulation/filtration, direct and in-line filtration, enhanced lime softening,
electrodialysis reversal and activated alumina). The effectiveness of each technology was evaluated
with respect to each of the contaminants discussed in Chapter 2. Table 3-13 summarizes the
technologies presented, the contaminants for which the technology has demonstrated effectiveness,
and the removal percentages for which costs are presented in this document.
3-18
-------
Table 3-13
Technology and Contaminant Maximum Removal Efficiency Matrix
Technology
Radium
Uranium
Poionium-210
Lead-210
Alpha Emitters
Beta Emitters
Coagulation/Filtration
NA
80
NA
95
NA
80
Enhanced Coagulation1
NA
30
NA
45
NA
30
In-Line Filtration
NA
70
NA
NA
NA
NA
Lime Softening
85
85
NA
95
NA
90
Enhanced Lime Softening'
35
35
NA
45
NA
40
Anion Exchange
NA
95
70
NA
NA
NA
Cation Exchange
80
NA
NA
NA
80
90
Reverse Osmosis
80
95
90
95
90
90
Electrodialysis Reversal
80
95
NA
95
NA
NA
Greensand Filtration
70
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Direct Filtration
NA
70
NA
NA
NA
NA
Activated Alumina
NA
95
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not applicable, or no data was found to support the effectiveness of this technology for removing the specified contaminant.
I - Removal efficiencies for enhanced coagulation and enhanced lime softening are based upon additional removals. These processes typically remove 50 percent of the specified contaminant
prior to
enhancement. Thus, the 30 percent removal estimates are for a total 80 percent removal (50 from existing operation, 30 resulting from the enhancement).
-------
4.0 COAGULATION/FILTRATION AND ENHANCED COAGULATION
4.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Coagulation/Filtration (C/F) is a treatment process that alters the physical or chemical
properties of colloidal or suspended solids, enhancing agglomeration, and enabling these solids to
settle out of solution by gravity or to be removed by filtration. Coagulants change the surface charge
of solids to enable agglomeration or enmesh particles into a flocculated precipitant. The final
products are larger particles, or floe, that settle more readily under the influence of gravity, or are
more easily removed by filters. Coagulants commonly used include aluminum sulfate (alum), ferric
and ferrous sulfate, ferric chloride, and polyelectrolytes.
Processes included in a conventional C/F plant are rapid mix, flocculation, sedimentation,
filtration, surface wash, and clearwell storage. Removal efficiency is dependent on the type and
dosage of preoxidant (if used), the type and dosage of coagulant, the pH, and the influent
contaminant characteristics and concentration. Enhanced coagulation involves modifications to the
typical C/F process such as increasing the coagulant dosage, reducing the pH, or both. The process
is nearly identical to that of conventional C/F with those two exceptions.
Direct filtration (DF) operates under the same principles, as coagulation/filtration, and
includes all the components of C/F except sedimentation/clarification prior to filtration. DF may be
more suited for waters containing lower levels of contaminants (e.g., solids, color) because lower
amounts of floe are produced which can be removed by filtration without a
sedimentation/clarification stage. For DF to be effective for removal of radionuclides, the raw water
turbidity should not exceed 10 NTU. According to the Small System Compliance Technology List
for the Surface Water Treatment Rule (EPA, 1997), the National Research Council (NRC) has
suggested that small systems not use DF for waters with average turbidities above 10 nephelometric
turbidity units (NTU) or maximum turbidities above 20 NTU. Also, the performance of DF is
extremely sensitive to the ability of a skilled operator to properly manage the coagulation chemistry,
and EPA suggests that only systems with access to a full-time operator utilize DF.
In-line filtration (ILF) is the simplest form of DF, consisting of filters preceded by chemical
feed and mixing. Chemicals are introduced into the filter influent pipeline and mixed with a static
4-1
-------
mixer. Influent pipeline turbulence satisfies flocculation requirements. The major components of
a basic ILF system include: chemical feed systems, static (in-line) mixing, filtration, surface wash
facility, backwash, and clearwell storage. Like DF, ILF normally requires less coagulant than C/F.
For effective utilization of in-line filtration, raw water must be of seasonally uniform quality with
turbidity less than 10 NTU.
4.2 APPLICABILITY
Radionuclides occurring as suspended particles in water may be removed effectively by
coagulation and filtration processes. However, the removal of soluble radionuclides is governed
by the reaction between the radionuclides and the chemicals added in treatment. Laboratory studies
suggest that coagulation is more effective for removal of soluble cations of valence 3, 4, or 5 than
for lower valence cations (EPA, 1986).
4.2.1 Radium
Chemically, radium exists principally as a cation of valence 2, making it similar to calcium
in its chemical affinities. For this reason, C/F treatment is not expected to be effective for the
removal of radium-226 and -228. On the other hand, lime softening, ion exchange, reverse osmosis,
and electrodialysis reversal have been effective for radium. These treatment technologies are
discussed in Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively.
4.2.2 Uranium
The 1992 T&C document (EPA, 1992) reviewed numerous studies indicating that C/F is
capable of removing between 80 and 95 percent of influent uranium levels, the effectiveness being
highly dependent on the raw water pH and the coagulant type and dosage. High removals of
uranium (95 percent) were achieved with alum dosages greater than 10 mg/L at a pH of 10. Iron
coagulant also resulted in higher uranium removals at pH 10, with removals of 80 percent and 93
percent for ferric and ferrous sulfate, respectively (EPA, 1986).
If uranium removal is required for a water that is already treated using C/F, modification of
the existing process to accommodate coagulant dosage and pH adjustment (i. e. enhanced
4-2
-------
coagulation) may be a cost-effective alternative. However, because higher removals are apparently
achieved only at high pH levels, when greater than 95 percent uranium removal is required C/F may
not be a good choice. C/F is more appropriate when less than 80 percent removal is required.
Engineered C/F treatment (i.e. in which individual unit processes must be designed) is
generally not suitable for smaller water systems due to the relatively high costs and technical
complexity of operation and maintenance (EPA, 1997). Package conventional treatment plants are
available which makes this technology viable for small systems. A high-rate sedimentation or solids
removal process and the use of filtration rates of 12 to 17 m/h (5 to 7 gpm/sf) is key to an affordable
C/F system for small systems (NRC, 1996).
4.2.3 Polonium
Due to the lack of data and case studies for the removal of polonium-210 (Po-210) by C/F,
polonium-210 was not included in the capital and O&M cost estimates.
4.2.4 Lead
Studies have indicated that the removal of lead (Pb) by C/F can be as high as 99 percent
throughout a pH range of 6 to 8, depending on the raw water source (Sorg and Logsdon, 1978). Both
alum and iron coagulants are very effective in removing lead from raw water sources with high
turbidity; however, alum coagulant is less effective in the removal of lead from ground water (low
turbidity). Alum doses of 10,20,30,50, and 100 mg/L with ground water achieved 52,72,79,86,
and 92 percent removals, respectively (Sorg and Logsdon, 1978). Ferric sulfate is more effective
than alum in removing lead from raw waters when initial lead concentrations are high. Due to the
high percentage removals of lead in conventional C/F plants, it is assumed that modifications to an
existing C/F plant should result in similar removals (Sorg and Logsdon, 1978).
4.2.5 Gross Alpha Particle Activity
In addition to the alpha-emitting radionuclides discussed above, gross alpha particle activity
may be caused by the radionuclides plutonium-239 (Pu-239) and thorium-232 (Th-232), among
others. Because of their tendency to be high-valence cations, Pu-239 and Th-232 may be amenable
to removal by C/F methods. However, definitive studies of their removal by C/F are scarce. The
4-3
-------
removal of plutonium was studied at three water treatment facilities that use Savannah River water,
one upstream and two downstream from the Savannah River Nuclear Power Plant (Corey and Boni,
1975). The treatment facility upstream of the power plant used sand and anthracite filters, and
achieved a plutonium removal efficiency of 79 percent. Both downstream treatment facilities used
a combination of coagulation, sedimentation, and filtration to reduce their initial plutonium
concentrations of 0.99 fCi/L and 2.25 fCi/L by 92 percent and 96 percent, respectively. In these
three cases, the treatment efficiency increased with higher plutonium concentrations in the raw
water.
4.2.6 Beta Particle Activity
Beta particle activity may be caused by the radionuclides strontium-90 (Sr-90), tritium, and
iodine-131 (1-131) among others. More than 90 percent removal of strontium is accomplished by
iron coagulant dosages greater than 500 mg/L and at a pH of 11 (EPA, 1986). With alum used as
a coagulant and silica for enhancing coagulation, the removal efficiencies of 1-131 ranged from 28
to 87% (EPA, 1986). Iron, copper sulfate, and silver nitrate were also effective as coagulants for
the removal of I-131.
4.3 DESIGN CRITERIA
The major design criteria and assumptions used to estimate costs for enhanced coagulation
treatment systems are summarized below. These criteria were based upon the April 1999
Radionuclides T&C document, the November 1999 Arsenic T&C documents and the cost models
used to estimate treatment costs: (1) the Very Small Systems Best Available Technology Cost
Document (Malcolm Pimie, 1993) for small systems; (2) the Water Model (Culp/Wesner/Culp,
1984) for intermediate systems; and (3) the W/W Cost Model (Culp/Wesner/Culp, 1994) for large
systems. The VSS and Water Models assume package treatment plants are available. Details of the
design criteria can be found in these documents.
4-4
-------
Coagulation Feed System: Ferric chloride is dosed at 35 mg/L.
Polymer feed system: Polymer is dosed at 0.4 mg/1 for small systems. 2mg/l for
intermediate and large systems.
Rapid Mix: Detention time is 1 minute at design flow.
Flocculation: Design detention time is 20 minutes.
Sedimentation: Rectangular sedimentation basins with an overflow rate of l,000gpd/ft2.
Gravity Filtration System: Filters operate at a loading rate of 2.5 gpm/ft2 for small
systems, 5.0 gpm/ft2 for intermediate and large systems.
Filtration Media: Dual media filters are used.
pH Adjustment: Lime is dosed at 35 mg/L.
4.4 TREATMENT COST
From a general perspective, coagulation/filtration as a newly installed technology is less
effective than other technologies, and can be cost prohibitive, particularly for small and very small
systems. However, if a facility already utilizes coagulation/filtration, process enhancement (i.e.
enhanced coagulation) is very effective and more cost efficient than installation of additional
treatment processes, such as ion exchange. Consequently, capital and O&M costs estimates in this
document were generated for enhanced coagulation only.
For the purpose of estimating costs of enhanced coagulation, it was assumed that a typical
C/F treatment plant could remove 50 percent of the influent radionuclide prior to modification, i.e.,
enhancement. It was also assumed that the only added O&M burden would result from power and
materials costs, and no additional labor was assumed to be required. Costs presented are for the
enhancement only, and are in addition to any current annual debt incurred by the utility.
The treatment costs presented in this section are based on the design criteria provided in
section 4.3 above, using the cost models described in Section 3.2. Figures 4-1 and 4-2 represent the
capital and O&M costs estimates associated with the maximum removal percentage of each of the
radionuclide groups in question, as shown in Table 4-1.
4-5
-------
Table 4-1
Enhanced coagulation/filtration
Radionuclides maximum removal percentages
Radionuclide group
Maximum removal
percentage (%)
Radium
NA
Uranium
80
Polonium
NA
Lead
95
Alpha emitters
NA
Beta emitters
80
NA: This technology is either unsuitable, or has been insufficiently evaluated
as to provide a maximum removal percentage.
Curve fitting analysis was conducted on the modeled cost estimates, and include the use of
transition flow regions to improve the estimates within the breakpoints between models.
4-6
-------
Figure 4-1
Enhanced Coagulation/Filtration
Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 4-2
Enhanced Coagulation/Filtration
O&M Costs
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
5.0 LIME SOFTENING
5.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
In most waters, hardness is caused by the presence of calcium and magnesium ions. The
addition of lime or lime and soda ash will partially remove these ions, thereby softening the water.
The use of lime and soda ash for softening is dependent upon several raw water quality parameters,
including calcium hardness, magnesium hardness, carbonate alkalinity, and pH. The addition of
lime to water increases pH and causes a shift in carbonate equilibrium, which in turn causes calcium
to precipitate as calcium carbonate. Soda ash (sodium bicarbonate) is added if insufficient alkalinity
is present in the water to precipitate calcium to the desired levels. For magnesium removal, excess
lime is added to increase pH, which results in the precipitation of magnesium hydroxide.
A typical lime softening (LS) plant includes chemical addition, upflow contactor,
recarbonation (if necessary), and filtration. Modifications to an existing LS system by increasing
lime dose and pH (i.e. enhanced softening) may improve the removal of specific contaminants,
including radionuclides, present in the source water. Lime softening is not widely used by small
systems because the process requires full-time personnel and is generally more expensive than
automated ion exchange softening systems. However, small package plants with labor-saving
features are becoming more feasible, making LS more applicable for small community systems.
5.2 APPLICABILITY
Construction of a lime softening plant is not considered a cost effective solution for the
removal of radionuclides. However, lime softening can be a cost effective alternative when required
for the reduction of hardness of source waters (EPA, 1986).
5-1
-------
5.2.1 Radium
Radium removal by LS treatment is significantly affected by pH. Brink et al. (1978)
evaluated the results of Ra-226 removal conducted at an EPA lime softening pilot plant in
Cincinnati, Ohio. Lime softening at pH 9.5 resulted in radium removals of 79 percent for settled
water and 84 percent for filtered water. Enhanced lime softening to pH 10.6 achieved 92 to 93
percent radium removal in the settled water, and 93 to 96 percent removal in the filtered water.
Increased radium removals at higher pH levels were also noted in full-scale LS treatment plants
(Brink et al., 1978).
5.2.2 Uranium
Treatability studies have shown that LS is capable of removing 85 to 90 percent uranium in
the pH range of 10.6 to 11.5. LeeandBondietti(1983)performedjartestsonpondwaterwitha U-
238 concentration of 56 pCi/L (0.083 mg/L) as uranyl tricarbonate; total alkalinity was 100 mg/L
and magnesium concentration was 13 mg/L. The effects of various lime dosages alone, and lime
dosages combined with magnesium carbonate, were evaluated at a variety of pH levels. 85 to 90
percent removal of uranium was achieved with lime dosages between 50 and 250 Mg/L and an
increase in pH from 10.6 to 11.5. The addition of magnesium carbonate, however, produced
removals of over 95 percent at pH levels of 10.6 to 11.2 (Lee and Bondietti, 1983).
5.2.3 Polonium
Due to the lack of data and case studies for the removal of polonium-210 (Po-210) by LS,
capital and O&M cost estimates were not generated.
5.2.4 Lead
At a pH level of 7 to 8.5, greater than 95 percent lead removal can be achieved by using lime
softening (A WW A, 1990). Additional studies have indicated that the removal of lead by LS can
reach as high as 99 percent throughout the pH range of 8.8 to 11 (Sorg and Logsdon, 1978). An
increase in the amount of calcium carbonate hardness in the raw water source will increase the
percentage of lead removal.
5-2
-------
5.2.5 Gross Alpha Particle Activity
Very little research has been done on the removal by LS of the additional alpha emitters
included in this document, Pu-239 and Th-232. Plutonium is a member of the actinide series of rare-
earth elements. In water, plutonium forms low-solubility fluorides, hydroxides, and oxides, and
forms relatively soluble complexes with citrate. Thorium forms relatively insoluble hydroxides and
oxides, and readily soluble nitrates, sulfates, chlorides, and perchlorate salts. Because of their
typically low valences, Pu-239 and Th-232 may be amenable to C/F removal, as discussed in Section
4.2.5. Other removal technologies, including cation exchange (Chapter 6) and reverse osmosis
(Chapter 7), may also be appropriate for the removal of these radionuclides from drinking water.
5.2.6 Beta Particle Activity
Various studies have indicated that LS is a very effective measure for the removal of Sr from
water. A combined dosage of lime and soda is needed to achieve Sr removals of 90 percent or better.
The dose of 5 grams of lime and 5 grams of soda per gallon of raw water (gpg) has been shown to
achieve 7 5 percent removal of Sr. A 7:9 grams lime:soda dose per gallon of raw water achieved 90
percent Sr removal, and a 20:20 grams lime:soda dose per gallon of raw water achieved 95 percent
Sr removal (Lassovszky and Hathaway, 1983). Lime and soda-ash appear to be ineffective in the
removal of 1-131 (EPA, 1986).
5.3 DESIGN CRITERIA
The major design criteria and assumptions used to estimate costs for LS treatment systems
are summarized below. These criteria were based upon the April 1999 Radionuclides T&C
document, the November 1999 Arsenic T&C document, and the cost models used to estimate
treatment costs: (1) the Very Small Systems Best Available Technology Cost Document (Malcolm
Pimie, 1993) for small systems; (2) the Water Model (CulpAVesner/Culp, 1984) for intermediate
systems; and (3) the W/W Cost Model (CulpAVesner/Culp, 1994) for large systems. The VSS and
Water Models assume package treatment plants are available. Details of the design criteria can be
found in these documents.
Lime Feed: Lime is dosed at 250 mg/L.
5-3
-------
Carbon Dioxide Feed: Carbon dioxide is dosed at 35 mg/L.
Gravity Filtration System: Filtering loading rate = 5 gpm/ft2.
Filtration Media: Dual media.
5.4 TREATMENT COST
The treatment costs presented in this section are based on the design criteria provided in
Section 5.3 above, using the cost models described in Section 3.2. Figures 5-1 and 5-2 represent the
capital and O&M costs estimates associated with the maximum removal percentage of each of the
radionuclide groups in question, as shown in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1
Lime softening
Radionuclides maximum removal percentages
Radionuclide group
Maximum removal
percentage (%)
Radium
85
Uranium
95
Polonium
NA
Lead
95
Alpha emitters
NA
Beta emitters
90
NA: This technology is either unsuitable, or has been insufficiently evaluated
as to provide a maximum removal percentage.
Curve fitting analysis was conducted on the modeled cost estimates, and include the use of
transition flow regions to improve the estimates within the breakpoints between models.
5-4
-------
Figure 5-1
Lime Softening
Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 5-2
Lime Softening
O&M Costs
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
6.0 ION EXCHANGE
6.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Ion exchange (IX) uses synthetic resins or natural zeolites to replace ions in the feed water
with ions of similar charge initially fixed to the resin/zeolite matrix. Exchange resins are generally
insoluble solids with fixed cations or anions capable of exchanging with similarly-charged mobile
ions in the feed water. Cation exchange (CX) removes positively charged ions from the feed water,
and anion exchange (AX) removes negatively charged ions. Ion selectivity, resin capacity,
regeneration requirements, and mode of operation are important design parameters.
Ion selectivity refers to the preference for resins to exchange with specific ions. The most
significant factor influencing ion selectivity is the magnitude of charge, or valence state, of the ion:
an exchange resin has a greater preference for higher valence ions. For example, if cation A(2+) and
cation B(4+) are both present in a raw water source, cation B is preferred over cation A. A second
factor influencing ion selectivity is the hydrated radius of the ion: the resin has greater preference
for ions of smaller hydrated radius. Because of the ion selectivity of IX resins, an IX system must
be selected specifically to remove the contaminants of concern.
Resin capacity is the total quantity of ions that can be exchanged per unit of mass or volume
of resin when the resin bed has been completely exhausted or has reached a selected breakthrough
level. Resin capacity is a function of the type of resin, the composition and concentrations of the
feed solutes, ion selectivity, the flow rate through the bed, the amount of regenerant used,
temperature, and the desired quality of the product water. The resin capacity for a contaminant of
concern is important because of its effect on process efficiency and system cost. A high exchange
capacity resin permits the use of smaller resin beds and requires less frequent regeneration.
When the resin capacity is exhausted, the exchanger is removed from service and the resin
is regenerated with a concentrated solution. Regeneration displaces ions exchanged during the IX
process and returns the resin to near its original exchange capacity. Regeneration requirements are
driven by four factors: regenerant volume, flow rate, concentration, and regeneration frequency. A
typical regeneration operation includes: (1) an upflow backwash cycle to fluidize the resin bed and
remove suspended solids; (2) a downflow regeneration cycle to replace the ions removed from the
6-1
-------
feed water with ions of the type originally attached to the resin; and (3) a downflow rinse cycle to
remove excess regenerant from the resin bed.
There are two common modes of regeneration operation in IX systems: fixed-bed and
continuous. In the continuous regeneration system, a portion of the resin is continuously
regenerated, and a portion is continuously producing finished water. In a fixed-bed system, the IX
process is interrupted while the resin bed is regenerated. Fixed bed ion exchangers are more
commonly used for water treatment than continuous regeneration systems because they are simpler
in both design and operation.
If the IX bed is operated beyond its exhaustion point for a specific contaminant, more
strongly adsorbed compounds can displace the contaminant from the resin, and the bed effluent will
contain a higher concentration of the contaminant than the raw water.
6.2 APPLICABILITY
Ion exchange processes can be effective tools for the removal of radionuclides from drinking
water. However, because of the ion selectivity of exchange resins, the radionuclide(s) contributing
to the radioactive emissions must be identified prior to treatment.
6.2.1 Radium
Cation exchange has been shown to be effective in the removal of radium in pilot and full-
scale studies. In pilot studies, Lauch (1987) reported 99 percent removal of radium in a CX process
using a strong acid cation resin. The influent water had a hardness of 200 mg/L as CaC03 and a
radium concentration of 20 pCi/L. Radium effluent concentrations were less than 5 pCi/L when
hardness breakthrough occurred. Brink et al. (1978) surveyed several cities that use sodium CX
(zeolite) to remove radium from drinking water. His survey indicated that radium removals between
93 and 97 percent were achieved in five of the six systems investigated; the sixth system had a
removal of 81 percent. Influent concentrations of radium ranged from 5.1 pCi/L to 43 pCi/L in these
systems.
6-2
-------
(Tamburini and Habenicht, 1992).
6.2.3 Polonium
Studies performed by Lowry in 1990 indicate that 70 percent removal of polonium (Po) by
anion exchange is anticipated. The 70 percent removal assumes that regeneration should occur every
3700 bed volumes. According to the same study, removal of Po by means of a cation resin
performed poorly.
6.2.4 Lead
There are limited data and case studies available for the removal of lead-210 (Pb-210) by IX,
capital and O&M cost estimates were not generated. However, studies have indicated that lead is
a highly preferred cation by strong-acid cation ion exchange resin, and ion exchange should be an
effective method for lead removal (Sorg and Logsdon, 1978). Resins with chelating functional
groups such as phosphoric acid or ethylenediaminetetracetic acid (EDTA) have been manufactured
that have extremely high affinities for metals such as lead (Pb2+) (AWWA, 1990). Additional
research is needed to determine the efficiency of lead removal by ion exchange, and if the percent
removal is pH dependent.
6.2.5 Gross Alpha Particle Activity
Few studies have been conducted to specifically assess the effectiveness of IX for the
removal of the additional alpha-emitting radionuclides (Pu-239 and Th-232) addressed in this
document. However, implications from related studies suggest that these alpha emitters may be
effectively removed by CX technologies (EPA, 1992).
6.2.6 Beta Particle Activity
In a standard ion exchange softening reaction, sodium ions are exchanged for the hardness
ion strontium (Sr2*), thus allowing for Sr removal by cation exchange. Sources from the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory indicate a 99.1-99.8 percent removal of Sr using a cation exchange resin, a 5-7
percent Sr removal by using an anion exchange resin, and a 99.95-99.97 percent Sr removal by using
mixed-bed resins (Lassovszky and Hathaway, 1983).
6-4
-------
6.2.2 Uranium
The effectiveness of IX for uranium removal has been assessed in numerous studies, which
included small full-scale plants. A bench-scale study was conducted by Hathaway (1983) for the
evaluation of uranium removal by AX resins. The resins evaluated included Donex 2 IK and Ionac
A641 in source water with a pH between 7.4 and 7.7, and uranium concentrations between 175 and
300 jug/L. Removals greater than 96 percent were achieved at bed volumes treated between 5,980
and 34,500. Hathaway (1983) also conducted column tests to evaluate the uranium removal
capabilities of two AX mini-columns. The results showed a consistent 63 percent removal of an
influent uranium concentration of 204 pCi/L (0.3 mg/L) after treating 28,000 bed volumes. EPA
(1982) reported 99 percent uranium removal after 48 bed volumes for a mini-column test at an
influent concentration of 40 pCi/L (0.06 mg/L).
Jelinek and Correll (1987) evaluated AX using Donex 21K, Ionac A641, and Donex SBR-P
resins at two sites. The influent uranium concentrations at one site ranged from 86 pCi/L to 120
pCi/L, and 13 pCi/L to 18 pCi/L at the other. The study showed that both Donex 2IK and Ionac
A641 resins produced superior results with over 90 percent uranium removal while treating larger
bed volumes. A second study was conducted by Jelinek and Correll (1987) utilizing small AX
systems treating influent water containing 22 ^g/L to 104 /^g/L uranium, 166 mg/L to 1200 mg/L
total dissolved solids (TDS), and 5 mg/L to 408 mg/L sulfate. This study demonstrated that AX,
despite varying raw water qualities, can remove high percentages of uranium.
Studies of uranium removal by ion exchange conducted at Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(Lee et al., 1982; Lee and Bondietti, 1983) included both cation and anion exchange resins.
Although not as effective as AX, the CX process was able to remove consistently 70 percent of the
uranium contamination in the pond waters. The best removals were accomplished using the sodium-
form resin at a low sample pH (5.6 to 4.0). Although the authors concluded that uranium removal
by CX is probably not practical for drinking water, when CX is implemented for other contaminants
(e.g., radium), reasonable uranium removals can also be achieved under the right conditions.
Ion exchange processes are readily adaptable to small treatment plants (NRC, 1996). An IX
system serving a population of around 400 has been used for uranium removal in the Blue Mountain
subdivision near Denver, Colorado. The source water uranium level has been as high as 135 pCi/L.
The IX system produces finished water with uranium levels of 1.5 pCi/L (up to 99 percent removal)
6-3
-------
6.3 DESIGN CRITERIA
The major design criteria and assumptions used to estimate costs for enhanced coagulation
treatment systems are summarized below. These criteria were based upon the April 1999
Radionuclides T&C document, the November 1999 Arsenic T&C documents and the cost models
used to estimate treatment costs: (1) the Very Small Systems Best Available Technology Cost
Document (Malcolm Pirnie, 1993) for small systems; (2) the Water Model (CulpAVesner/Culp,
1984) for intermediate systems; and (3) the WAV Cost Model (Culp/Wesner/Culp, 1994) for large
systems. The VSS and Water Models assume package treatment plants are available. Details of the
design criteria can be found in these documents.
Anion Exchange
Ion Exchange Bed: Sized on the basis of hydraulic considerations. The regeneration
frequency of the bed is determined by the NRC limit of 3000 pCi/L on the uranium
concentration in wastewater being disposed to a sanitary sewer. The number of bed
volumes (BV) before regeneration is estimated to be approximately 300 bed volumes.
The total regeneration time required is 50 minutes. In-place resin costs of $70/cubic foot
are utilized. NaCl is used as the regenerant, at a cost of $99/ton.
Cation Exchange
Ion Exchange Bed: Sodium form of CX resin is used at a capacity of 20 Kgr
(CaC03)/ft3. The total regeneration time required is 54 minutes. A 6-ft bed depth is
utilized, with tanks sized for up to 80% resin expansion during backwash. In-place resin
costs of $125/cubic foot are utilized. NaCl is used as the regenerant, at a cost of $99/ton.
Regeneration facilities are sized on the basis of 150 bed volumes treated before
regeneration and a regnerant requirement of 0.275 lb NaCl/kg of exchange capacity.
6.4 TREATMENT COSTS
The treatment costs presented in this section are based on the design criteria provided in
section 6.3 above, using the cost models described in Section 3.2. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 represent the
anion exchange capital and O&M costs estimates associated with the maximum removal percentage
of each of the radionuclide, as shown in Table 6-1. Figures 6-3 and 6-4 represent the cation
exchange capital and O&M costs estimates associated with the maximum removal percentage of
each of the radionuclide groups, as shown in Table 6-2.
6-5
-------
Table 6-1
Anion exchange
Radionuclides maximum removal percentages
Radionuclide group
Maximum removal
percentage (%)
Radium
NA
Uranium
95
Polonium
70
Lead
NA
Alpha emitters
NA
Beta emitters
90
NA: This technology is either unsuitable, or has been insufficiently evaluated
as to provide a maximum removal percentage.
Table 6-2
Cation exchange
Radionuclides maximum removal percentages
Radionuclide group
Maximum removal
percentage (%)
Radium
80
Uranium
70
Polonium
NA
Lead
NA
Alpha emitters
80
Beta emitters
NA
NA: This technology is either unsuitable, or has been insufficiently evaluated
as to provide a maximum removal percentage.
Curve fitting analysis was conducted on the modeled cost estimates, and include the use of
transition flow regions to improve the estimates within the breakpoints between models. The cost
curves for IX treatment (both AX and CX) are provided in the remainder of this chapter.
6-6
-------
Figure 6-1
Anion Exchange
Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 6-2
Anion Exchange
O&M Costs
100000000
10000000
^ 1000000
CO
o
o
00
o
100000
10000
1000
0.001
1 10
Design Flow (mgd)
100
1000
-------
Figure 6-3
Cation Exchange
Capital Costs
100000000
10000000
1000000
100000
10000
0.01
1 10
Design Flow (mgd)
100
1000
-------
Figure 6-4
Cation Exchange
O&M Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
7.0 REVERSE OSMOSIS
7.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Reverse osmosis (RO) uses a semipermeable membrane that permits the flow of water
through the membrane, while selectively rejecting the passage of dissolved salts in the feed water.
Hydraulic pressure on the feed water side produces a pressure gradient that allows water flow across
the membrane. This pressure gradient must be greater than the osmotic pressure of the feed water
and resistance of the membrane. The portion of feed water that passes through the membrane is
referred to as the permeate. The remaining water flushes rejected salts from the membrane surface
and is discharged as a concentrate. RO does not selectively remove dissolved contaminants, and is
therefore very effective for removing multiple contaminants in one step. RO is adaptable to all size
systems and is especially cost effective for small systems.
The performance of an RO system for radionuclide removal depends on a number of factors,
including pH, turbidity, iron, and manganese content of the raw water, and membrane type.
Pretreatment of the source water may be necessary. The design of a pretreatment system is
dependent on the quality and quantity of the feed water source, and may include one or more of the
following: pH adjustment, filtration, iron and manganese reduction, and additives for scale
prevention. Existing treatment plants may already provide much of the pretreatment required for
RO.
The major components of an RO system are provision for prefiltration, including polymer
feed system, and provisions for backwashing and backwash water storage (surface water supplies),
storage and feed facilities for pH and scale control, reverse osmosis unit, provisions for concentrate
or water storage and disposal or treatment; and disinfection.
7.2 APPLICABILITY
Reverse osmosis has been demonstrated to be highly effective in the removal of radioactive
contaminants from water. A number of studies have shown that RO is capable of removing 99
percent of the uranium level and over 98 percent of the radium and alpha particle activity level under
7-1
-------
certain influent conditions. RO also is highly effective (greater than 99 percent) in the removal of
radioactive strontium, cesium, and iodine from water (EPA, 1986).
RO systems have little economies of scale and are applicable to both small and large systems.
In addition, many RO operations can be automated, reducing both labor and O&M costs.
7.2.1 Radium
In a pilot-scale study of the performance of three different RO modules, Clifford et al. (1988)
reported radium removals of more than 90 percent. The three RO membranes were: (I) a thin-film
polyamide hollow-fiber membrane; (2) a low pressure composite spiral-wound membrane; and (3)
a thin film composite membrane. The first two membranes achieved a 99 percent radium removal
at feed pressures of350 and 125 psi, respectively. The third membrane achieved a 91 percent radium
removal at a feed pressure of 70 psi. Hardness removal was also over 90 percent for each of the
membranes, and tended to mimic the radium removals. Lauch (1987) summarized the evaluation
of several full-scale RO plants with regard to the removal of radium, reporting that each plant
provided effective radium removal from drinking water.
7.2.2 Uranium
Huxstep and Sorg (1988) conducted a series of RO pilot studies to assess the effectiveness
of RO in removing organics, as well as radionuclides, from drinking water. Four different
membranes were tested on a ground water supply with influent uranium concentrations of300 /zg/L.
Each membrane removed approximately 99 percent of the uranium from the source water.
Sastri and Ashbrook (1976) reported the results of a study in which an RO unit using a
cellulose acetate membrane treated a source water containing uranyl sulfate concentrations of
between 100 and 8000 mg/L. The RO unit operated at a feed pressure of 250 psi. The process
achieved uranium removals between 98 and 99.4 percent.
7.2.3 Polonium
Based on a treatability study conducted in Maine, over 90 percent removal of polonium (Po)
was achieved by RO (EPA, 1991), suggesting that RO is an effective technology for Po-210
removal.
7-2
-------
7.2.4 Lead
Based on a study performed by Dixon (1973), the removal of lead (Pb) by RO exceeded 99.5
percent using three types of cellulose membranes. For the purpose of estimating capital and O&M
costs, 95 percent removal of lead by RO is assumed.
7.2.5 Gross Alpha Particle Activity
Pilot scale tests were conducted by Flock and Travis (1981) at a defense plant, using a
laboratory RO unit containing a spiral wound membrane. Creek water spiked with plutonium was
tested at various pH levels. The RO unit achieved 99.9 percent reduction in the level of plutonium.
7.2.6 Beta Particle Activity
A study conducted to determine the ability of RO to remove dissolved strontium (Sr) and
iodine (I) from raw water resulted in 90 to 95 percent removal on the first pass (Thomson and
Hollandsworth, 1978). The study used two parallel RO units with spiral-wound elements, one
polyaxnide and one cellulose, treating 2400 liters per hour. Radioisotopes in the amount of 2 x 105
pCi were added to the raw water. The study also demonstrated that polyamide membranes removed
higher fractions of the radioisotopes than did cellulose acetate membranes.
7.3 DESIGN CRITERIA
The major design criteria and assumptions used to estimate costs for reverse osmosis
treatment systems are summarized below. These criteria were taken from the April 1999
Radionuclides T&C document, the November 1999 Arsenic document, and the cost models used to
estimate treatment costs: (1) the Very Small Systems Best Available Technology Cost Document
(Malcolm Pimie, 1993) for small systems; (2) the Water Model (Culp/Wesner/Culp, 1984) for
intermediate systems; and (3) the WfW Cost Model (Culp/Wesner/Culp, 1994) for large systems.
Details of the design criteria can be found in these documents.
Reverse osmosis units: Units are single pass with 400 to 500 psi operating pressure.
RO package unit (small systems): Spiral wound or hollow fiber cellulose acetate,
polyamide, or thin film composite membranes.
7-3
-------
Caustic feed system: Caustic soda is dosed at 100 mg/1; finished water pH is adjusted
to 8.
Both the VSS Model and the W/W Cost Model include cost estimation for RO. However,
RO spiral-wound membrane module costs have decreased by approximately 50 percent since the
models were developed. Accordingly, the membrane module portion of the capital costs and
replacement O&M costs was reduced by 50 percent. The WAV Cost Model for RO is only valid up
to a capacity of200 mgd, and no economies of scale were assumed for plants with a capacity larger
than the boundary condition of200 mgd. The model assumes that recovery is 80% for systems of
1 to 10 mgd, and 85% for systems larger than 10 mgd. Costs were adjusted to 75% recovery.
7.4 TREATMENT COSTS
The treatment costs presented in this section are based on the design criteria provided in
Section 7.3 above, using the cost models described in Section 3.2. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 represent the
capital and O&M costs estimates associated with the maximum removal percentage of each of the
radionuclide groups in question, as shown in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1
Reverse osmosis
Radionuclides maximum removal percentages
Radionuclide group
Maximum removal
percentage (%)
Radium
95
Uranium
95
Polonium
90
Lead
95
Alpha emitters
90
Beta emitters
90
Curve fitting analysis was conducted on the modeled cost estimates, and include the use of
transition flow regions to improve the estimates within the breakpoints between models.
7-4
-------
Figure 7-1
Reverse Osmosis
Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 7-2
Reverse Osmosis
O&M Costs
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
8.0 ELECTRODIALYSIS REVERSAL
8.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Electrodialysis (ED) is an electrochemical separation process in which ions are transferred
through membranes from a less concentrated to a more concentrated solution as a result of the flow
of a direct current. The membranes are selectively permeable towards cations and anions. The
membranes are arranged in an array, or stack, placed between opposite electrodes, with alternating
cation and anion exchange membranes. The movement of the cations or anions is restricted to the
direction of the attracting electrodes by membranes of the same charge. This results in alternating
sets of compartments containing water with low and high concentrations of the ions. An ED system
in which ionic movement is only in one direction is known as unidirectional ED. Control of scaling
and fouling material is critical to the operation of unidirectional ED units, and typically requires the
use of chemical feed systems, increasing capital and O&M costs.
The electrodialysis reversal (EDR) process is an ED process with periodic reversal of the
travel direction of the ions, caused by reversing the polarity of the electrodes. The principal
advantage of polarity reversal is a decreased potential for fouling of the membranes, which also
minimizes the pretreatment requirements. The polarity of the electrodes is typically reversed three
to four times each hour.
EDR is designed specifically for each application based on the desired quantity and quality
of product water. Equipment at an EDR plant, in addition to the stack itself, includes feedwater
pumps, recycle pumps, and valving including automated motorized valves for feedwater, stream
switching, product water diversion, pressure regulation, and electrode stream control. Modem EDR
systems are fully automated and require little operator attention beyond data gathering and routine
maintenance. For this reason the EDR process is particularly well-suited for small systems.
8-1
-------
8.2 APPLICABILITY
Treatability studies have demonstrated that radium and uranium removals of greater than 90
percent can be achieved with EDR under certain circumstances. However, because few EDR studies
have been conducted on radionuclide removal, conservative removal assumptions have been made
for the radionuclides discussed in this document. The major concern with uranium and radium
removal using EDR was the accumulation of contaminants on the membranes, requiring an
additional acid wash process for their removal (Clifford and Zhang 1991).
8.2.1 Radium
A treatability study conducted by Clifford and Zhang (1991) demonstrated the effectiveness
of EDR for achieving radium removals of up to 94 percent. Radium does not accumulate on the
stacks as much as uranium, but periodic acid cleaning was not as effective for removing accumulated
radium as it was for uranium. Nineteen percent of the radium removed from the water accumulated
on the membrane, and acid washing removed only 5.6 percent of this accumulation.
8.2.2 Uranium
The treatability study conducted by Clifford and Zhang (1991) also showed that up to 95
percent uranium removal can be achieved with EDR. The EDR system was also successful in
removing 95, 92, and 87 percent of the conductivity, hardness, and alkalinity, respectively. The
principal drawback with this technology was the accumulation of uranium on the stack and the need
for acid cleaning to remove it, which is not normally required for most EDR operations. 83 percent
of the uranium accumulated on the membrane, and acid cleaning removed 35 percent of this
accumulation.
8.2.3 Polonium
Due to the lack of data and case studies for the removal of Po-210 by EDR, capital and O&M
cost estimates were not generated.
8-2
-------
8.2.4 Lead
Although no specific information was found in the literature on lead removal from drinking
water by electrodialysis, the technique should be as effective as RO (Sorg and Logsdon, 1978).
Based on a study performed by Mixon (1973), the removal of lead (Pb) by reverse osmosis exceeded
99.5 percent. For the purpose of estimating capital and O&M costs, 95 percent removal of lead by
EDR is assumed.
8.2.5 Gross Alpha Particle Activity
Due to the lack of data and case studies for the removal of gross alpha emitters by EDR,
capital and O&M cost estimates were not generated.
8.2.6 Beta Particle Activity
Due to the lack of data and case studies for the removal of strontium and iodine by EDR,
capital and O&M cost estimates were not generated.
8.5 TREATMENT COSTS
The estimated maximum removal percentages for EDR are summarized in Table 8-1 for each
radionuclide group.
While EDR appears to be an effective removal technology, there are operational and cost
issues which make application of EDR unlikely. For example, radium and uranium removals were
generally good. However, the necessity of a periodic acid wash results in higher treatment costs
when compared with traditional EDR operation. These additional costs include: acid solution, acid
wash feed system, time and labor associated with acid wash, disposal of membranes as they
eventually accumulate undesirable levels of radionuclides, and replacement membranes.
Furthermore, when compared with other removal technologie, EDR is less cost effective. For the
previous reasons, EDR was not selected as a removal technology for radionuclides, and costs
estimates were not provided.
8-3
-------
Table 8-1
Electrodialysis reversal
Radionuclides maximum removal percentages
Radionuclide group
Maximum removal
percentage (%)
Radium
80
Uranium
95
Polonium
NA
Lead
95
Alpha emitters
NA
Beta emitters
NA
NA: This technology is either unsuitable, or has been insufficiently evaluated
as to provide a maximum removal percentage.
8-4
-------
9.0 GREENSAND FILTRATION
9.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The active material in "greensand" is glauconite, a green, iron-rich, clay-like mineral that has
ion exchange properties. Glauconite often occurs in nature as small pellets mixed with other sand
particles, giving a green color to the sand. The glauconite is mined, washed, screened, and
chemically treated to coat the grains with manganese dioxide, resulting in durable, greenish-black,
sand-sized particles.
Impurities in the water are removed'through a combination of oxidation, ion exchange, and
particle entrapment. As water is passed through the greensand filter, soluble iron and manganese
(and other metals) are pulled from solution through ion exchange, and react to form insoluble oxides
which are then trapped by the filtration medium.
The greensand is regenerated by washing with a permanganate solution, which re-coats the
grains with manganese dioxide. The regeneration can be continuous or intermittent. The latter
requires the intermittent passage of potassium permanganate through the greensand bed.'The filter
medium is also backwashed and rinsed during regeneration. Continuous regeneration involves the
constant feeding of potassium permanganate solution and other oxidizing chemicals to the raw water
ahead of the filters. The filters are periodically taken off line for backwashing and rinsing.
Intermittent regeneration generally allows a higher flow rate and longer runs between regeneration.
The major components of a greensand filtration process are the greensand filtration medium,
backwash facilities, and potassium permanganate feed systems.
9.2 APPLICABILITY
Although greensand filtration is used principally for the removal of iron and manganese from
drinking water, the sorptive capacity of radium to manganese dioxide makes greensand filtration a
potentially effective technique for the removal of radium. The applicability of this technique to the
removal of other radionuclides has not yet been explored.
9-1
-------
9.2.1 Radium
Ciccone and Associates (1987) surveyed six small treatment plants in Virginia that use
manganese greensand filtration. The plants typically achieved radium removals of 60 percent or
higher. The multi-media filter consisted of effective-size layers of anthracite coal, manganese-
treated glauconitic greensand, and gravel. The typical system was continuously regenerated by
feeding potassium permanganate and chlorine directly to the raw water prior to the contact tank.
Ficek (1996) examined the radium removal ability of greensand filtration in pilot-scale
studies. He reported that radium removal efficiencies ranging from 80 to 97 percent were achieved
with the addition of 1.26 mg/L of manganese dioxide prior to the multimedia filter. This suggests
that an oxidation step may be required for improved radium removal. The water demand for
potassium permanganate dictates the time between regeneration, and poses the greatest challenge
to the operation of a greensand unit. The greater the potassium permanganate demand due to higher
concentrations of iron and manganese, the better the radium removal.
9.2.2 Uranium
Definitive studies on the effects of greensand filtration on the removal of soluble uranium
from drinking water have not been conducted.
9.2.3 Polonium
Due to the lack of data and case studies for the removal of Po-210 by greensand filtration,
capital and O&M cost estimates were not generated.
9.2.4 Lead
Due to the lack of data and case studies for the removal of lead by greensand filtration,
capital and O&M cost estimates were not generated.
9.2.5 Gross Alpha Particle Activity
Definitive studies on the effects of greensand filtration on the removal of soluble plutonium
and thorium from drinking water have not been conducted.
9-2
-------
9.2.6 Beta Particle Activity
Due to the lack of data and case studies for the removal of iodine by greensand filtration,
capital and O&M cost estimates were not generated for this contaminant. However, data collected
by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory indicate up to 99.8 percent removal of strontium by greensand
filtration (Lassovszky and Hathaway, 1983).
9.3 DESIGN CRITERIA
The major design criteria and assumptions used to estimate costs for greensand filtration
treatment systems are summarized below. These criteria were taken from the April 1999
Radionuclides T&C document, the November 1999 Arsenic, and the cost models used to estimate
treatment costs: (1) the Very Small Systems Best Available Technology Cost Document (Malcolm
Pimie, 1993) for small systems; (2) the Water Model (CulpAVesner/Culp, 1984) for intermediate
systems; and (3) the W/W Cost Model (CulpAVesner/Culp, 1994) for large systems. Details of the
design criteria can be found in these documents. Part of these criteria are also based upon vendor
supplied data.
Potassium permanganate dosage: KMnO410mg/l.
Filtration rate: 4gpm/ft2.
9.4 TREATMENT COST
The treatment costs presented in this section are based on the design criteria provided in
Section 9.3 above. Figures 9-1 and 9-2 represent the capital and O&M costs estimates associated
with the maximum removal percentage of each of the radionuclide groups in question, as shown in
Table 9-1.
9-3
-------
Table 9-1
Greeensand filtration
Radionuclides maximum removal percentages
Radionuclide group
Maximum removal
percentage (%)
Radium
70
Uranium
NA
Polonium
NA
Lead
NA
Alpha emitters
NA
Beta emitters
NA
NA: This technology is either unsuitable, or has been insufficiently evaluated
as to provide a maximum removal percentage.
Curve fitting analysis was conducted on the modeled cost estimates, and includes the use of
transition flow regions to improve the estimates within the breakpoints between models.
9-4
-------
Figure 9-1
Greensand Filtration
Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 9-2
Greensand Filtration
O&M Costs
$100,000 1
vo
I
On
8 $10,000
o
s
v>
O
$1,000
y = 1574.2x2 51439x + 5514.1
R2= 1
-»¦
0.001
0.01
0.1
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
10.0 ACTIVATED ALUMINA
10.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Activated alumina (AA) is an inorganic adsorbent that adsorbs specific cations and anions
above and below a pH value of 8.2, respectively. The major components of an AA system are
activated alumina column, sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid storage tanks, day tanks and mixing
facilities, and finished water storage.
The alumina capacity is the total quantity of ions that can be exchanged per unit of mass or
volume of alumina when the bed has become completely exhausted or has reached a selected
breakthrough level. Capacity is a function of the composition and concentrations of the feed solutes,
ion selectivity, the flow rate through the bed, the amount of regenerant used, temperature, and the
desired finished water quality. Pretreatment of the raw water will also affect the alumina capacity.
Suspended solids and precipitated iron can clog the AA bed, and prefiltration of the raw water may
be required.
Activated alumina exhibits a degree of selectivity. The presence of more strongly adsorbed
compounds can decrease the available exchange capacity for the specific contaminant to be removed
(Clifford 1990). If the alumina is operated beyond its exhaustion point for a specific contaminant,
compounds with a higher affinity for AA can displace this contaminant from the alumina, and the
column effluent will contain a higher concentration of the contaminant than the raw water.
In a fixed-bed system, the alumina is regenerated when all the capacity has been exhausted.
During regeneration, the bed is backwashed, regenerated, rinsed, neutralized, and placed back in
operation. The regeneration cycle consists of an upflow regeneration, an upflow rinse, and a
downflow regeneration. Sodium hydroxide is the most widely used regenerant. In the downflow
regeneration cycle, sulfuric acid is used to adjust the pH of the effluent to about 5.5.
10-1
-------
10.2 APPLICABILITY
AA is most commonly applied to fluoride removal, but has also been used to remove arsenic
and selenium from drinking water. Limited studies have been conducted demonstrating the potential
of AA for the removal of uranium, selenium, beryllium, and thallium. Bench scale tests (Sorg, 1988)
demonstrated uranium removals of more than 99 percent using AA, with an average of 1600 BVs
treated prior to breakthrough. The applicability of AA to removals of other radionuclides has not
been studied. Therefore, only AA for uranium removal is considered in this chapter, and the
maximum achievable uranium removal is assumed to be 95 percent.
10.3 TREATMENT COST
Although bench studies indicate AA may be an effective removal technology (e.g. for
uranium), the data are inconclusive. AA is presented in this document as a possible treatment
option, however the scarcity of data makes it inappropriate for inclusion as a compliance technology
at this time. For this reason, costs estimates are not provided.
10-2
-------
11.0 POINT-OF-USE / POINT-OF-ENTRY
11.1 INTRODUCTION
Centralized treatment is not always a feasible treatment option, for example, in areas where
each home has a private well or centralized treatment is cost prohibitive. It is estimated that more
than 20 million households in the U.S. draw water from private wells (DeSilva, 1996). In these
instances, point-of-entry (POE) and point-of-use (POU) treatment options may be acceptable
treatment alternatives. POE and POU systems offer ease of installation, simplify operation and
maintenance, and generally have lower capital costs (Fox, 1989). These systems may also reduce
engineering, legal and other fees typically associated with centralized treatment options. Use of POE
and POU systems does not reduce the need for a well-maintained water distribution system. In fact,
increased monitoring may be necessary to ensure that the treatment units are operating properly.
Other potential disadvantages associated with POU and POE treatment include: the lack of a
required standardized testing and certification program; concern for possible bacterial colonization
in the treatment devices; the inability to optimize process operating parameters, such as pH; and
increased operation and maintenance costs.
Home water treatment can consist of either whole-house or single faucet treatment. Whole-
house, or POE treatment is necessary when exposure to the contaminant by modes other than
consumption is a concern. POU treatment is preferred when treated water is needed only for
drinking and cooking purposes. POU treatment usually involves single-tap treatment.
Section 1412(b)(4)(E) of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments requires
the EPA to issue a list of technologies that achieve compliance with MCLs established under the act.
This list must contain technologies for each NPDWR and for each of the small public water systems
categories listed below:
Population of more than 50, but less than 500;
Population of more than 500, but less than 3,300; and
Population of more than 3,300, but less than 10,000.
The SDWA identifies POE and POU treatment units as potentially affordable technologies,
ll-l
-------
but stipulates that POE and POU treatment systems "shall be owned, controlled and maintained by
the public water system, or by a person under contract with the public water system to ensure proper
operation and compliance with the maximum contaminant level or treatment technique and equipped
with mechanical warnings to ensure that customers are automatically notified of operational
problems."
This chapter discusses three applicable POU and POE treatment techniques for removal of
radionuclides from drinking water:
POU reverse osmosis for radium and uranium removal;
POU ion exchange for radium and uranium removal; and
POE cation-exchange for radium removal.
11.2 POU REVERSE OSMOSIS
POU RO devices can remove both radium and uranium, as well as many other inorganic
contaminants. The system is usually installed under a kitchen sink and provides water through a
separated tap or faucet. Systems include a pre-filter for removal of particulate matter which may
cause membrane fouling. A connection to the sink drain is required for brine disposal. Usually, a
GAC contactor is installed before the RO system to remove chlorine, and taste- and odor-causing
compounds. Water is stored in a pressurized plastic-lined steel chamber. No electricity is required
for the process because water pressure delivered to the home is usually sufficient for operation of
the RO unit.
11-2
-------
11.2.1 Design Criteria and Treatment Costs
Costs for POU RO systems are based upon the costs presented in the 1992 T&C document
(EPA, 1992). Costs in the 1992 document are based upon the following criteria:
Pretreatment is provided with a 5 micron filter;
The unit includes a membrane unit, a pressure reservoir, a small GAC post-contactor,
a special faucet, and all required tubing, fittings, and adaptors;
Cellulose acetate membranes are used. Pressure is provided by the distribution
system;
O&M costs include collecting samples, replacing the prefilter and GAC contactor,
replacing the RO membrane module, and repairs.
Costs were originally presented on an aggregate, rather than a per household, basis. Costs
from the 1992 T&C document were based upon the assumptions in Table 11-1. Costs from the
original document were escalated to 1998 dollars using the PPI. The assumptions were then used
to calculated costs on a per household basis. Costs are presented in Figure 11-1.
Table 11-1
Cost Assumptions
Median
Population
Average
Production (gpd)
Units
POU Production
Per Unit (gpd)
POE Production Per
Unit (gpd)
57
24,000
19
5
1,270
225
87,000
75
5
1,160
750
270,000
250
5
1,080
1,910
650,000
637
5
1,030
11-3
-------
FIGURE 11-1
POU Reverse Osmosis for Radium and Uranium Removal
100
200
300 400
Number of Households
500
600
700
-------
11.3 POU ION EXCHANGE
Desi 1 va (1996) examined POU ion exchange systems as a means for removal of uranium and
radium from drinking water. POU ion exchange systems use salt-regenerated cation and anion
exchange resins. Uranium is present in water with pH levels of 6.0 and higher as a carbonate
complex. As a result, POU strong-base anion exchange is most effective for uranium removal.
Strong-acid cation exchange is most effective for removal of radium.
Waste disposal and influent water parameters, including the presence of oxidants, suspended
solids, manganese, and iron, must be taken into account when evaluating POU ion exchange as an
effective treatment alternative. Further consideration must be given to the corrosive impact of the
treated water on the plumbing to avoid copper, iron, or lead leaching into the water.
Monitoring and maintenance of a POU ion exchange system is extremely critical to ensure
proper operation. The influent water needs to be tested at least annually. It is also important to
periodically monitor the target contaminants and pH in the influent and effluent water and overall
resin performance. Certain specific area requirements may call for increased levels of testing and
monitoring.
11.3.1 Design Criteria and Treatment Costs
Current literature contains little data on costs associated with POU ion exchange for removal
of uranium and radium. Cost Evaluation of Small System Compliance Options: Point of Use and
Point-of Entry Treatment Units (Cadmus Group, 1998) presents costs for POU anion exchange units
for removal of arsenic, and costs for POU cation exchange units for removal of copper. Because
POU treatment units are typically "off-the-shelf," these costs should be similar to POU anion and
cation exchange costs for removal of uranium and radium. Figures 11-2 and 11-3 present costs
associated with POU anion and cation exchange, respectively.
11-5
-------
FIGURE 11-2
POU Anion Exchange for Uranium Removal
5.00 n
JZ
a>
(0
| 2.50
u.
i)
a.
¦5; 2.00
o
o
15
o 1.50 ¦
1.00
0.50
0.00 , , , , , -t
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Number of Households
Cadmus Group, 1998
-------
FIGURE 11-3
POU Cation Exchange for Radium Removal
1y = 4.12x
-0.06 k
20
40
60 80 100
Number of Households
POU (Cadmus Group, 1998)
120
140
160
-------
11.4 POE CATION EXCHANGE
POE cation exchange devices are effective for removal of radium from drinking water. The
chemical composition of the water and the concentration of radium impact the actual quantity of
water that can be treated prior to regeneration. This may cause variations in actual operation and
maintenance costs. No electricity is required to operate the system.
11.4.1 Design Criteria and Technology Costs
The design criteria for cation exchange presented in Section 6.3 were used for development
of POE cation exchange system design criteria. It is worth noting that regeneration will occur less
frequently than with central treatment. The regeneration frequency will depend upon the quality of
the source water and the influent radium concentration. POE cation exchange assumes a sodium-
form resin is used at a rate of 10 kg (CaCOjVft3.
Costs were originally presented on an aggregate, rather than a per household, basis. Costs
from the 1992 T&C document were based upon the assumptions in Table 11-1. Costs from the
original document were escalated to 1998 dollars using the PPI. The assumptions were then used
to calculated costs on a per household basis. Costs are presented in Figure 11-4.
11-8
-------
FIGURE 11-4
POE Cation Exchange for Radium Removal
Number of Households
-------
12.0 RESIDUALS HANDLING AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS
12.1 INTRODUCTION
Each of the treatment technologies presented in this document will produce residuals, either
solid or liquid streams, containing elevated levels of radionuclides. It is the purpose of this chapter
to present the characteristics of the waste generated by each of the treatment technologies and
discuss appropriate handling and disposal options. Costs for residuals handling and disposal for
selected processes also are presented. References are noted which contain appropriate cost
information for other treatment processes.
12.1.1 Factors Affecting Residuals Handling and Disposal Costs
There are a number of factors which can influence capital and O&M costs associated with
residuals handling and disposal. Capital costs include equipment, construction, installation,
contractor overhead and profit, administrative and legal fees, land, and other miscellaneous costs.
The primary factor affecting capital cost is the amount of residuals produced, which is dependent
upon the design capacity of the water treatment plant, raw water quality, and the treatment process
utilized (e.g. coagulation/filtration vs. lime softening).
The amount of waste generated plays a significant role in determining the handling and
disposal method to be utilized. Many handling methods which are suitable for smaller systems are
impractical for larger systems because of the significant land requirements. For larger systems that
process residuals on-site (as opposed to direct or indirect discharge), mechanical methods are
typically used because of the reduced land requirements associated with them.
Operations and maintenance costs include labor, transportation, process materials and
chemicals, and maintenance. Many handling and disposal methods require extensive oversight
which can be a burden on small water systems. Generally, labor intensive technologies are more
suitable to large water systems. Transportation can also play a significant role in determining
appropriate handling and disposal options. If off-site disposal requires extensive transportation,
alternative disposal methods should be evaluated. Complex handling and disposal methods usually
require more maintenance.
12-1
-------
12.1.2 Methods for Estimating Residuals Handling and Disposal Costs
Residuals handling and disposal costs can be difficult to estimate. There are a number of
factors which affect capital and O&M costs, and disposal costs can be largely regional. EPA has
published two manuals for estimating residuals handling and disposal costs: Small Water System
Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost Document (DPRA, 1993a), and Water System Byproducts
Treatment and Disposal Cost Document (DPRA, 1993b). Both present a variety of handling and
disposal options, applications and limitations of those technologies, and capital and O&M cost
equations.
12.2 RESIDUALS HANDLING OPTIONS
The following information is from the Small Water System Byproducts Treatment and
Disposal Document (DPRA, 1993 a) and Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal
Document (DPRA, 1993b). The information presented is a short summary; more detailed
explanations of each residuals handling option are presented in the DPRA documents.
12.2.1 Gravity Thickening
Gravity thickening increases the solids content of filter backwash, sedimentation basin
residuals and treatment process sludges. It is generally used as a pre-treatment for mechanical
dewatering processes, evaporation ponds, and storage lagoons.
Filter backwash streams are high volume, low solids slurries generated during the cleaning
of granular filter media. Backwash volume depends upon the number of filters and cleaning
frequency. Typical volumes range from 0.5 to 5 percent of the processed water flow with larger
plants creating less backwash per million gallons produced than small systems due to increased plant
efficiency (DPRA, 1993a). The solids concentration of backwash water can range between 0.01 and
0.15 percent, compared to coagulation sludges which are typically 0.5 to 2.0 percent (DPRA, 1993a).
When possible, backwash waters are recycled to the treatment process. In gravity thickening,
backwash water and sedimentation residuals are fed to a tank where settling occurs naturally.
Sludges are withdrawn and further treated for ultimate disposal, and the decant is either recycled or
12-2
-------
discharged to a surface water or publicly-owned treatment works (POTW). Gravity thickening
reduces the quantity of water lost due to backwashing, as well as the total volume of sludge
generated (DPRA, 1993a). When recycling is not feasible, backwash waters may be discharged to
a surface water or a POTW, or treated by other mechanical or non-mechanical dewatering processes.
When backwash slurries cannot be recycled or discharged to a surface water or POTW, they must
be treated and disposed.
12.2.2 Chemical Precipitation
Chemical precipitation is applicable to brine waste streams generated by cation exchange and
reverse osmosis treatment processes. Anion exchange residuals are generally not treated with
chemical precipitation because dissolved sodium, chloride, and sulfate are not readily precipitated
by lime (DPRA, 1993a,b). The process involves adding a precipitant (e.g. lime) to the brines in a
stirred-reactor vessel, resulting in a conversion of dissolved metals to an insoluble form. A clarifier
is then used to separate the suspended solids from the aqueous phase. Flocculation may be used to
enhance this process. The supernatant may be discharged to a sanitary sewer or to surface water, or
recycled to the head of the plant. Additional dewatering may be required prior to the disposal of
clarifier sludge. The process is relatively expensive compared to other handling alternatives, such
as evaporation ponds and drying beds.
12.2.3 Mechanical Dewatering
Mechanical dewatering processes include centrifuges, vacuum-assisted dewatering beds, belt
filter presses, and plate and frame filter presses (DPRA, 1993a). Such processes generally have high
capital (excluding land) and O&M costs compared to similar capacity non-mechanical dewatering
processes (e.g., storage lagoons). Due to the high costs, such processes are generally not suitable
for application at very small water systems.
Filter presses have been used in industrial processes for years, and their use has been
increasing in the water treatment industry over the past several years. These devices have been
successfully applied to both lime and alum sludges. Prior to pressure filtration, alum sludges may
require the addition of lime to lower the resistance of the sludge to filtration. This is generally done
by adjusting the pH to approximately 11. Pre-conditioning with lime also increases the dewatered
sludge volume by as much as 20 to 30 percent. Lime sludges can attain final solids concentrations
12-3
-------
of 40 to 70 percent, while alum sludges may reach 35 to 50 percent total solids. Filter presses
require little land, have high capital costs, and are labor intensive (DPRA, 1993a). Capital and O&M
costs are generally higher than comparable non-mechanical dewatering alternatives. As a result,
pressure filtration is most applicable to larger water systems.
Centrifuges have also been used in the water industry for years. They are capable of
producing alum sludges with final solids concentrations of 15 to 30 percent and lime sludges with
65 to 70 percent total solids, based upon an influent solids concentration of 1 to 10 percent.
Centrifugation is a continuous process requiring minimal time (8 to 12 minutes) to achieve the
optimal sludge solids concentration. Centrifuges have low land requirements and high capital costs.
They are more labor intensive than non-mechanical alternatives, but less intensive than filter presses.
Again, due to the capital and O&M requirements centrifuges are more suitable for larger water
systems.
12.2.4 Evaporation Ponds and Drying Beds
Evaporation ponds and drying beds are non-mechanical dewatering technologies wherein
favorable climatic conditions are used to dewater waste brines generated by treatment processes such
as reverse osmosis and ion exchange (DPRA, 1993a). Brine waste is discharged to a pond for
storage and evaporation. Ponds and drying beds are not generally suitable for alum and lime
sludges. Typically, such ponds are designed with large surface areas to allow the sun and wind to
effectively evaporate residual water. Size is determined by waste flow and storage capacity
requirements.
Evaporation ponds and drying beds are used primarily for brine wastes generated by reverse
osmosis and ion exchange processes. Such processes produce large volumes of high TDS waste
streams and make mechanical dewatering processes, such as filter presses, impractical. Depending
upon the solids concentration of the brine waste stream, intermittent removal of solids may be
required. For brines with a total dissolved solid (TDS) content ranging from 15,000 to 35,000 mg/L,
solids will accumulate in the pond at a rate of Zi to 1 'A inches per year (DPRA, 1993a). When the
depth of the solids reaches a predetermined level, flow to the pond is halted and evaporation
continues until the solids concentration is suitable for disposal.
Evaporation is an extremely land intensive option requiring shallow basins with large surface
areas. This can be an important consideration in densely populated regions. Reverse osmosis
12-4
-------
produces a very large volume reject stream which increases the land requirement and ultimately
construction costs. As a result, evaporation ponds may not be suitable for large water systems
utilizing reverse osmosis. Evaporation ponds and drying beds have few operations and maintenance
requirements, but are only feasible in regions with favorable climatic conditions, i.e., high
temperatures, low humidity, and low precipitation (DPRA, 1993a). Waste streams with low TDS
concentrations can allow a pond to operate for several years before solids accumulation warrants
removal.
12.2.5 Storage Lagoons
Lagoons are the most common, and often least expensive, method to thicken or dewater
treatment sludges; however, they are land intensive (DPRA, 1993a). Lagoons are lined ponds
designed to collect and dewater sludge for a predetermined period of time. Dewatering occurs by
evaporation and decanting of the supernatant. Lagoon size is determined by the volume of sludge
produced and the storage time desired. As with evaporation ponds, when a lagoon reaches the
design capacity solids can be removed with heavy equipment and shipped for disposal.
Storage lagoons are best suited for dewatering lime softening process sludges, though they
have been applied with some success to coagulation/filtration process sludges. They can operate
under a variety of sludge flows and solids concentrations, and do not require chemical conditioning
of alum sludges (DPRA, 1993a). Typically, lime sludges enter the lagoon at three percent solids,
and can be dewatered to 50 to 60 percent solids, whereas alum sludges enter at one percent solids
and can be dewatered to 7 to 15 percent solids (DPRA, 1993a). Alum sludges do not typically
dewater well in storage lagoons. When the top layer of sludge is allowed to dry, it hardens, sealing
moisture in the layers below. Even after several years, alum sludges may require additional
dewatering to achieve the 20 percent solids content required at most landfills (DPRA, 1993a).
Further, thickened alum sludges can be difficult to remove from lagoons, and often require dredging
or vacuum pumping.
As previously stated, lagooning is a land intensive process with limited applicability in
densely populated areas, or areas with limited land availability. Such areas need to compare the cost
of regular lagoon cleaning and disposal with land acquisition costs. Lagoons are best suited for areas
with favorable climatic conditions, i.e., high temperatures, low humidity and low precipitation. In
northern climates, winter freezing can help dehydrate alum sludges.
12-5
-------
12.3 DISPOSAL OPTIONS
The following information is from the Small Water System Byproducts Treatment and
Disposal Document (DPRA, 1993a) and Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal
Document (DPRA, 1993b). The information presented is a short summary; more detailed
explanations of each disposal option are presented in the DPRA documents.
12.3.1 Direct Discharge
Direct discharge to a surface water is a common method of disposal for water treatment
byproducts. No pretreatment or concentration of the byproduct stream is necessary prior to
discharge, and the receiving water dilutes the waste concentration and gradually incorporates the
sludge or brine (DPRA, 1993a).
Discharge of liquid residuals containing radionuclides to a surface water will be subject to
compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). EPA has
established criteria and guidelines for surface water discharge through the NPDES in 40 CFR125.
NPDES establishes limits based upon a variety of factors, including ambient contaminant levels, low
flow condition of the receiving water, and design flow of the proposed discharge. Most NPDES
limits for solids discharge are around 30 mg/L.
EPA has established methods for determining water quality criteria under authority of the
Clean Water Act (40 CFR 131). These criteria will be used by state regulatory agencies to determine
discharge limitations for radionuclides depending upon the classification of the receiving water. The
allowable discharge is therefore affected by the ability of the receiving water to assimilate the
radionuclides without exceeding the water quality criteria.
The primary cost associated with direct discharge is that of the piping. Accommodations
must be made for washout ports to prevent clogging because of sedimentation in pipelines. Valving
is necessary to control waste flow in the event of pipe bursts, and pipe must be laid at a sufficient
depth to prevent freezing in winter months. Direct discharge requires little oversight, and operator
experience and maintenance requirements are minimal. This method has been used to successfully
dispose of alum and lime sludges, as well as brine streams generated at reverse osmosis and ion
exchange water plants (DPRA, 1993a).
12-6
-------
12.3.2 Indirect Discharge
In some cases, water treatment process sludges, slurries, and brines may be discharged to a
POTW. This most often occurs when the treatment plant and POTW are under the same
management authority. This may require addition of a conveyance system to access the sanitary
sewer if an adequate system is not already in place (DPRA, 1993a).
Indirect discharge is a commonly used method of disposal for filter backwash and brine
waste streams. Coagulation/filtration and lime softening sludges have also been successfully
disposed of in this manner. However, the POTW must be able to handle the increased hydraulic and
solids loading. The capacity of the sewer system must also be considered when selecting indirect
discharge as a disposal option.
The residuals generated from radionuclide treatment processes will be classified as an
industrial waste since it contains contaminants (uranium, radium, etc.) which may impact the POTW.
As a result, discharge to a POTW is only acceptable when radionuclide concentrations fall within
the established Technically Based Local Limits (TBLL) of the current Industrial Pretreatment
Program. The Industrial Pretreatment Program serves to prevent NPDES violations, as well as
unacceptable accumulation of contaminants in POTW sludges and biosolids. TBLLs are
individually determined for each POTW, and take into account background levels of contamination
in the municipal wastewater. TBLLs for radionuclides will typically be limited by the contamination
of biosolids rather than effluent limitations or process inhibition.
The primary cost associated with indirect discharge is that of the piping. Accommodations
must also be made for washout ports to prevent clogging because of sedimentation in pipelines.
Valving is necessary to control waste flow in the event of pipe bursts, and pipe must be laid at a
sufficient depth to prevent freezing in winter months. Additional costs associated with indirect
discharge may include lift stations, additional piping for access to the sewer system, or other
surcharges to accommodate the increased demands on the POTW.
12.4 RESIDUALS CHARACTERISTICS
The Spreadsheet Program to Ascertain Residual Radionuclide Concentrations (SPARRC
Model) (EPA, 1990) was used to estimate waste volumes and concentrations for each of the
treatment technologies presented in this document. These waste volumes were then corroborated,
12-7
-------
where possible, using waste projections contained in the Small Water System Byproducts Treatment
and Disposal Cost Document (DPRA, 1993a)and Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal
Cost Document (DPRA, 1993b).
12.4.1 Coagulation/Filtration
Residuals generated by coagulation/filtration consist of alum sludges with an average volume
of 0.11 percent of the treated water flow rate (DPRA 1993a,b). Residuals generated by direct
filtration and in-line filtration will have similar characteristics to those produced by
coagulation/filtration. Sludge volumes will be slightly less because of the reduced coagulant dosage.
The concentration of uranium in the sludge ranges from 10,000 to 30,000 pCi/L for uranium raw
water concentrations in the range of 30 to 50 pCi/L (EPA, 1994). Residuals characteristics were
estimated by the SPARRC Model and verified by data reported by DPRA (1993b). Table 12-1
presents typical sludge volumes produced by coagulation/filtration treatment plants. Characteristics
are presented for the maximum achievable removal percentage. Volumes for percent removals less
than the maximum can be estimated by multiplying the volumes presented in the table by the fraction
of the flow treated, which can be calculated using the equation presented in Section 3.3.2.
The following handling and disposal options may be used for coagulation/filtration residuals.
Indirect discharge options are subject to the constraints discussed in Section 12.3.2.
Mechanical Dewatering
Non-Mechanical Dewatering
Indirect Discharge
12-8
-------
Table 12-1
Coagulation/Filtration Residuals Characteristics
Design
Flow
(mgd)
Average
Flow
(mgd)
Solids Production
Waste Production
Design
(lb/day)
Average
(lb/day)
Design
(mgd)
Average
(mgd)
0.024
0.0056
4
1
0.000048
0.000012
0.087
0.024
14
3
0.00017
0.000036
0.27
0.086
43
12
0.0005
0.00014
0.65
0.23
105
34
0.0013
0.00041
1.8
0.7
291
108
0.0035
0.0013
4.8
2.1
815
351
0.0098
0.0042
11
5
1,773
792
0.0212
0.0095
18
8.8
2,921
1,418
0.0349
0.0017
26
13
4,220
2,105
0.0505
0.0252
51
27
8,277
4,421
0.0991
0.0529
210
120
34,083
19,878
0.4084
0.2381
430
270
69,789
45,261
0.8358
0.5421
12.4.2 Lime Softening
Residuals generated by lime softening are generally sludges with an average volume of 1.2
percent of the design water flow rate (DPRA 1993 a,b). The typical radium concentration in sludge
ranges from 1,980 to 2,500 pCi/L (EPA, 1994). Table 12-2 presents estimated residuals volumes,
as calculated by the SPARRC Model and verified using data reported by DPRA (1993b).
Characteristics are presented for the maximum achievable removal percentage. Volumes for percent
removals less than the maximum can be estimated by multiplying the volumes presented in the table
by the fraction of the flow treated, which can be calculated using the equation presented in Section
3.3.2.
The following handling and disposal options may be appropriate for lime softening residuals.
Use of indirect discharge is subject to the constraints presented in Section 12.3.2.
Mechanical Dewatering
Non-Mechanical Dewatering
12-9
-------
Indirect Discharge
Table 12-2
Lime Softening Residuals Characteristics
Design
Flow
(mgd)
Average
Flow
(mgd)
Solids Production
Waste Production
Design
(lb/day)
Average
(lb/day)
Design
(mgd)
Average
(mgd)
0.024
0.0056
98
23
0.00011
0.000026
0.087
0.024
357
98
0.0004
0.00011
0.27
0.086
1,107
335
0.0012
0.00038
0.65
0.23
2,665
940
0.003
0.0011
1.8
0.7
7,381
2,865
0.0083
0.0032
4.8
2.1
19,720
8,622
0.022
0.0097
11
5
45,098
20,486
0.051
0.023
18
8.8
73,808
36,079
0.083
0.041
26
13
106,615
53,307
0.12
0.060
51
27
209,158
110,765
0.23
0.12
210
120
861,218
492,516
0.97
0.55
430
270
1,780,000
1,068,000
2.0
1.2
12.4.3 Ion Exchange Processes
The residuals generated from ion exchange processes are generally brines produced during
the regeneration of the ion exchange bed (DPRA, 1993a,b). The byproduct volume from ion
exchange ranges from 1.5 to 10 percent of the treated water depending on raw water conditions (e.g.,
hardness). Table 12-3 presents estimated brine volumes for ion exchange processes. The estimates
are based upon average brine production reported by six operating ion exchange water treatment
plants (DPRA, 1993a,b). Characteristics are presented for the maximum achievable removal
percentage. Volumes for percent removals less than the maximum can be estimated by multiplying
the volumes presented in the table by the fraction of the flow treated, which can be calculated using
the equation presented in Section 3.3.2.
The following handling and disposal options may be used for ion exchange residuals.
Indirect discharge is subject to the limitations presented in Section 12.3.2.
12-10
-------
Evaporation Pond
Indirect Discharge
Chemical Precipitation (Cation Exchange Only)
Direct Discharge
Table 12-3
Ion Exchange Residuals Characteristics
Design
Flow
(mgd)
Average
Flow
(mgd)
Brine Production
Design
(mgd)
Average
(mgd)
0.024
0.0056
0.0012
0.0003
0.087
0.024
0.0044
0.0012
0.27
0.086
0.0135
0.0043
0.65
0.23
0.0325
0.0115
1.8
0.7
0.090
0.035
4.8
2.1
0.240
0.105
11
5
0.550
0.250
18
8.8
0.900
0.440
26
13
1.300
0.650
51
27
2.550
1.350
210
120
10.500
6.000
430
270
21.500
13.500
12.4.4 Reverse Osmosis
Residuals generated by reverse osmosis are brines with volumes of reject water ranging from
25 to 50 percent in systems with less than 1 mgd capacity, and 15 to 20 percent for systems with
capacities larger than 1 mgd (DPRA, 1993a,b). The concentration of radionuclides in the reject
stream is dependent upon the removal efficiency and the influent concentration (EPA, 1994). Table
12-4 presents residuals characteristics as estimated by the SPARRC Model and verified using data
reported by DPRA (1993a,b). Characteristics are presented for the maximum achievable removal
percentage. Volumes for percent removals less than the maximum can be estimated by multiplying
12-11
-------
the volumes presented in the table by the fraction of the flow treated, which can be calculated using
the equation presented in Section 3.3.2.
Table 12-4
Reverse Osmosis Residuals Characteristics
Design
Flow
(mgd)
Average
Flow
(mgd)
Reject Stream Volume
Design
(mgd)
Average
(mgd)
0.024
0.0056
0.011
0.003
0.087
0.024
0.042
0.011
0.27
0.086
0.13
0.042
0.65
0.23
0.32
0.11
1.8
0.7
0.30
0.12
4.8
2.1
0.80
0.35
11
5
1.84
0.84
18
8.8
3.01
1.47
26
13
4.35
2.17
51
27
8.53
4.51
210
120
35.1
20.1
430
270
71.9
45.1
The following handling and disposal options may be used for reverse osmosis residuals.
Direct and indirect discharge are subject to the limitations presented in Sections 12.3.1 and 12.3.2.
Direct Discharge
Indirect Discharge
Chemical Precipitation
12.5 DISPOSAL COSTS
The disposal costs presented in this section are based on the residual handling and disposal
options presented in Sections 12.2 and 12.3, and on the residuals characteristics presented in Section
12.4. Cost models are from the Small Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost
12-12
-------
Document (DPRA, 1993a) and the Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost
Document (DPRA, 1993b).
Costs are estimated for four water treatment processes: (1) coagulation/filtration, (2) lime
softening, (3) ion exchange, and (4) reverse osmosis. The disposal options assumed for each of these
treatment processes are shown below:
Coagulation/Filtration:
- Mechanical dewatering and non-hazardous landfill disposal
- Non-mechanical dewatering and non-hazardous landfill disposal
- Non-mechanical dewatering and dewatered sludge land application
- Liquid sludge land application - sprinkler system
- Liquid sludge land application - trucking system
Lime Softening:
- Mechanical dewatering and non-hazardous landfill disposal
- Non-mechanical dewatering and non-hazardous landfill disposal
- Non-mechanical dewatering and dewatered sludge land application
- Liquid sludge land application - sprinkler system
- Liquid sludge land application - trucking system
Ion Exchange:
- Chemical precipitation
- Direct discharge
- Evaporation pond and non-hazardous landfill disposal
- Discharge to POTW
Reverse Osmosis:
- Chemical precipitation
- Direct discharge
- Discharge to POTW
The cost estimates are illustrated in Figures 12-1 through 12-42. The assumptions used in these cost
estimates include:
For options involving landfill disposal, 100 percent of the solids are sent to a landfill.
Ion exchange brine concentration is 25,000 mg/L TSS, based on DPRA (1993a,b)
estimates of 15,000 to 35,000 mg/L TSS.
Land costs are $1,000 per acre for systems less than 1 mgd.
Land costs are $10,000 per acre for systems greater than 1 mgd.
For coagulation/filtration, sedimentation basin solids were assumed to be 1 %.
For lime softening, clarifier solids were assumed to be 10%.
12-13
-------
Figure 12-1
Mechanical Dewatering and Non-Hazardous Landfill
Coagulation Filtration
Disposal Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-2
Mechanical Dewatering and Non-Hazardous Landfill
Coagulation Filtration
Disposal O&M Costs
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-3
Non-Mechanical Dewatering and Non-Hazardous Landfill
Coagulation Filtration
Disposal Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-4
Non-Mechanical Dewatering and Non-Hazardous Landfill
Coagulation Filtration
Disposal O&M Costs
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-5
Non-Mechanical Dewatering and Dewatered Sludge Land Application
Coagulation Filtration
Disposal Capital Costs
-------
Figure 12-6
Non-Mechanical Dewatering and Dewatered Sludge Land Application
Coagulation Filtration
Disposal O&M Costs
$10,000,000
I
$1,000,000
ro
0)
>.
V)
o
o
5
00
o
$100,000
$10,000
$1,000
$100
0.01
0.1
1
Average Flow (mgd)
10
100
-------
Figure 12-7
Liquid Sludge Application - Sprinkler System
Coagulation Filtration
Disposal Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-8
Liquid Sludge Application - Sprinkler System
Coagulation Filtration
Disposal O&M Costs
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-9
Liquid Sludge Application - Trucking System
Coagulation Filtration
Disposal Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-10
Liquid Sludge Application - Trucking System
Coagulation Filtration
Disposal O&M Costs
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-11
Mechanical Dewatering and Non-Hazardous Landfill
Lime Softening
Disposal Capital Costs
$10,000,000
hJ
to
o
a
Q.
ra
a
$1,
o c
o c
o c
»
-- 1
I
I
1
|
1
I
y
=
7
5<
32
6x + 885
53
000 -
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
= -21.9520x2 + 16426.2602X + 115523.1111
R2 = 0.9985
000 -
=r
y
1
1
41
I
1
]
\
1
1
\-
iH
y = -30t>oi.i5aix + /4fe3.y9i8x + 22339.9348
R2 = 1.0000
1
1
1
¦
000
1
1
1
I
1
1
0.01
0.1
1 10
Design Flow (mgd)
100
1000
-------
Figure 12-12
Mechanical Dewatering and Non-Hazardous Landfill
Lime Softening
Disposal O&M Costs
? IUU,UUU,UUU
i
_
1
>
$10,000,000
1
l
i
-
i
¦
i
¦
$1,000,000
y =
194363x+ 16818
-
1
1
$100,000 -
1
* Q
no
CO
n
rn
V
l. 4QQ7r
one
c
>
K
I
l.UUUU
|
$10 000 -
1
y = -57503.7287x + 264130.8798x + 3813.1362
|
r2 =
1.0000
|
$1,000 -
1-
H
¦
i
$100
i
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-13
Non-Mechanical Dewatering and Non-Hazardous Landfill
Lime Softening
Disposal Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-14
Non-Mechanical Dewatering and Non-Hazardous Landfill
Lime Softening
Disposal O&M Costs
$10,000,000
K>
$1,000,000
n
o
W
o
o
5
<4
O
$100,000
$10,000
100
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-15
Non-Mechanical Dewatering and Dewatered Sludge Land Application
Lime Softening
Disposal Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-16
Non-Mechanical Dewatering and Dewatered Sludge Land Application
Lime Softening
Disposal O&M Costs
-------
Figure 12-17
Liquid Sludge Application - Sprinkler System
Lime Softening
Disposal Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-18
Liquid Sludge Application - Sprinkler System
Lime Softening
Disposal O&M Costs
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-19
Liquid Sludge Application - Trucking System
Lime Softening
Disposal Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-20
Liquid Sludge Application - Trucking System
Lime Softening
Disposal O&M Costs
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-21
Chemical Precipitation
ion Exchange
Disposal Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-22
Chemical Precipitation
Ion Exchange
Disposal O&M Costs
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-23
Direct Discharge - 500' of Pipe
Ion Exchange
Disposal Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-24
Direct Discharge - 500' of Pipe
Ion Exchange
Disposal O&M Costs
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-25
Direct Discharge -1000' of Pipe
ion Exchange
Disposal Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-26
Direct Discharge -1000' of Pipe
Ion Exchange
Disposal O&M Costs
OJ
vo
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
re
41
V)
o
o
s
o
$100,000
$10,000
$1,000
$100
0.001
y = 375
0.01
y =
1330X + 69
i2-
111!
y = 1000
0.1 1
Average Flow (mgd)
10
100
1000
-------
Figure 12-27
Evaporation Pond and Non-Hazardous Landfill
Ion Exchange
Disposal Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-28
Evaporation Pond and Non-Hazardous Landfill
ion Exchange
Disposal O&M Costs
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-29
POTW Discharge - 500' of Pipe
Ion Exchange
Disposal Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-30
POTW - 500' of Pipe
ion Exchange
Disposal O&M Costs
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-31
POTW Discharge -1000" of Pipe
Ion Exchange
Disposal Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-32
POTW-1000' of Pipe
ion Exchange
Disposal O&M Costs
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-33
Chemical Precipitation
Reverse Osmosis
Disposal Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-34
Chemical Precipitation
Reverse Osmosis
Disposal O&M Costs
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-35
Direct Discharge - 500' of Pipe
Reverse Osmosis
Disposal Capital Costs
$100,000
N>
-k
00
o
$10,000
(0
'5.
ra
O
$1,000
1
i
|
I
¦
1
1
y
=
!3
x + 4048
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
¦
1
1
1
1
y = -0.0055X2 + 318.1547X + 4595.5688
RJ= 1.0000
1
1
y = 4
011.2212x2 - 1213.4355X + 3546.21
R2 = 0.9980
16
1
1
I
0.01
0.1
1
Design Flow (mgd)
10
100
-------
Figure 12-36
Direct Discharge - 500' of Pipe
Reverse Osmosis
Disposal O&M Costs
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-37
Direct Discharge -1000' of Pipe
Reverse Osmosis
Disposal Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
$1,000,000
$100,000
$10,000
$1,000
$100
O.I
-------
Figure 12-39
POTW Discharge - 500' of Pipe
Reverse Osmosis
Disposal Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-40
POTW Discharge - 500' of Pipe
Reverse Osmosis
Disposal O&M Costs
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-41
POTW Discharge -1000' of Pipe
Reverse Osmosis
Disposal Capital Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
-------
Figure 12-42
POTW Discharge -1000" of Pipe
Reverse Osmosis
Disposal O&M Costs
Average Flow (mgd)
-------
13.0 REFERENCES
AWWA (1990). Water Quality and Treatment - A Handbook of Community Water Systems.
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York.
Brink, W.L., R.J. Schliekelman, D.L. Bennett, C.R. Bell, and I.M. Markwood (1978). "Radium
Removal Efficiencies in Water Treatment Process." J. AWWA 70 (1), 31-35.
Cadmus Group, Inc. (1998). Cost Evaluation of Small System Compliance Options - Point-of-Use
and Point-of-Entrv Treatment Units. Prepared for USEPA Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water.
Ciccone, V.J., & Associates, Inc. (1987). "Analysis of Occurrence, Control and/or Removal of
Radionuclides in Small Drinking Water Systems in Virgina."
Clifford, D. (1990). "Removal of Radium from Drinking Water." in Radon. Radium, and Uranium
in Drinking Water; (Cothem and Roberts, Editors); Lewis Publishing.
Clifford, D., W. Vijjeswarapu, and S. Subramonian (1988). "Evaluating Various Adsorbents and
Membranes for Removing Radium from Ground Water." J. AWWA, 80 (7), 94-104.
Clifford, D., and Z. Zhang (1991). "Evaluation of Electrodialysis Reversal Process for Radium and
Uranium Removal." University of Texas.
Corey, J.C., and A.L. Boni (1975). "Removal of Plutonium from Drinking Water by Community
Water Treatment Facilities." Symposium on Transuranic Nuclides in the Environment, San
Francisco, November, 1975.
Culp/Wesner/Culp (1979). Estimating Water Treatment Costs. Volume 2: Cost Curves Applicable
to 1 to 200 mad Treatment Plants. CWC Engineering, San Clemente, California.
Culp/Wesner/Culp (1984). Estimation of Small System Water Treatment Costs. CWC Engineering
Software (for USEPA), San Clemente, California.
Culp/W esner/Culp (1994). WATERCOST Model - A Computer Program for Estimating Water and
Wastewater Treatment Costs fVersion 2.0). CWC Engineering Software, San Clemente,
California.
Davis, S-, and J.C. Bumstead (1982). "Nuclear Power Reactor Accidents and the Role of Water
System Managers." J. A WWA, 74 (8).
DeSilva, F. (1996). "At the Heart of POU-Ion Exchange Resins." Water-Technology, 19 (2)40-46.
DPRA, Inc. (1993a). Small Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost Document.
14-1
-------
Prepared for USEPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
DPRA, Inc. (1993b). Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost Document. Prepared
for USEPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
Eisenbud, M. (1973). Environmental Radioactivity. 2nd Edition. Academic Press, New York and
London.
EPA (1986). Technologies and Costs for the Removal of Man-Made Radionuclides from Potable
Water Supplies. Washington D.C., March, 1986.
EPA (1990). Spreadsheet Program to Ascertain Residual Radionuclide Concentrations (SPARRO.
EPA (1991). Technologies and Cost for the Removal of Alpha Emitters from Potable Water
Supplies. Draft, 1991.
EPA (1992). Technologies and Cost for the Removal of Radionuclides from Potable Water
Supplies.
EPA (1994). Suggested Guidelines for Disposal of Drinking Water Treatment Wastes Containing
Radioactivity.
EPA (1997). Small System Compliance Technology List for the Surface Water Treatment Rule.
USEPA Office of Water, EPA 815-R-97-002.
EPA (1998a). Guide for Implementing Phase I Water Treatment Upgrade. USEPA Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water.
EPA (1998b). Water Treatment Costs Development (Phase IV. Road Map to Cost Comparisons.
USEPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
EPA (1999). Technologies and Cost for the Removal of Radionuclides from Potable Water
Supplies.
Ficek.K. (1996). "Remove Heavy Metals with Greensand/Permanganate." Water-Technology, 19
(4), 84-88.
Flock, C.E. and T.N. Travis (1981). "Purification and Decontamination of a Caustic Water by
Reverse Osmosis." RFP-313 and DOE HIC-4500 (Rev. 69), Rockwell International.
Fox, K.R. (1989). "Field Experience with Point-of-Use Treatment Systems for Arsenic Removal."
J.AWWA, 81 (2), 94-101.
Harada, K., W.C. Burnett, P.A. LaRock, and J.B. Cowart (1988). Polonium in Florida Ground
Water and its Possible Relationship to the Sulfur Cvcle and Bacteria. Pergamon Press,
October 20,1988.
14-2
-------
Hathaway, S.W. (1983). "Process for Removing Uranium from Drinking Water". Presented at the
1983 AWWA Annual Convention, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Huxstep, M.R., and T.J. Sorg, (1988). Reverse Osmosis Treatment to Remove Inorganic
Contaminants from Drinking Water. EPA Report 600/S2-87/109.
ICF, Inc. and ISSI, Inc. (1998). Evaluation of Full-Scale Treatment Technologies at Small Drinking
Water Systems. Prepared for USEPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
ICI (1998). Actual Costs for Compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act Standards for Radium-
226 and Radium-228 (Draft). Prepared for USEPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water.
Jelinek, R.T., and R.J. Correll (1987). "Operation of Small Scale Uranium Removal Systems." in
Proceedings AWWA Seminar on Radionuclides in Drinking Water. Denver, p. 99-117.
Jelinek, R.T., and T.J. Sorg (1988). "Operating a Small Full-Scale Ion Exchange System for
Uranium Removal". J. AWWA, 80, 79-83.
Kempic, J.B. (1994). Basis for Revised Anion Exchange Costs. USEPA, Drinking Water Standards
Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, December 1994.
Lassovszky, P., and S. Hathaway (1983). "Treatment Technologies to Remove Radionuclides from
Drinking Water." National Workshop on Radioactivity in Drinking Water, May, 1983.
Lee, S.Y., S.K. Hall, and E.A. Bondietti (1982). "Methods of Removing Uranium from Drinking
Water: n. Present Municipal Water Treatment and Potential Removal Methods." USEPA
Office of Drinking Water, 570/9-82/003.
Lee, S.Y., and E.A. Bondietti (1983). "Removing Uranium from Drinking Water by Metal
Hydroxides and Anion-Exchange Resin." J. AWWA, 75 (10), 563-570.
Logsdon, G.S., T.J. Sorg, and J.M. Symons (1974). "Removal of Heavy Metals by Conventional
Treatment." Proc. 16th Water Quality Conference - Trace Metals in Water Supplies:
Occurrence, Significance, and Control, University Bulletin No. 71, U. of Illinois.
Lowry, J.D., S.B. Lowry, et al. (1988). "Radionuclides in Drinking Water." J. AWWA, 80 (7), 50.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (1993). Very Small Systems Best Available Technology Cost Document.
USEPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Drinking Water Technology Branch.
McKelvey, G.A, et al. (1993). "Ion Exchange: A Cost-Effective Alternative for Reducing Radium."
J. AWWA, 85 (6), 61-66.
Mixon, F.O. (1973). "Removal of Toxic Metals from Water by Reverse Osmosis." R&D Progress
Report No. 889, DOI Office of Saline Water.
14-3
-------
Morin, O.J. (1994). "Membrane Plants in North America." J.AWWA, 86 (12), 42-54.
Myers, A.G., V.L. Snoeyink, and D.W. Snyder (1985). "Removing Barium and Radium Through
Calcium Cation Exchange." J.AWWA, 77(5), 60-66.
NRC (1996). Safe Water From Every Tap: Improving Water Service to Small Communities.
Committee on Small Water Supply Systems, Water Science and Technology Board.
Raucher, R.S. (1994). Estimating the Cost of Compliance With Drinking Water Standards: A User's
Guide. AWWA, Washington.
SAIC(1997). Evaluation of Central Treatment Options as Small System Treatment Technologies -
Technology Cost Estimates. Prepared for USEPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water.
SAIC (1998). Technologies and Costs for the Removal of Radon from Drinking Water. Draft
Report, Prepared for USEPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
SAIC (1999). Evaluation of Central Treatment Options as Small System Treatment Technologies.
Prepared for USEPA Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, January, 1999.
Sethi, S.y and M.R. Wiesner (1995). "Performance and Cost Modeling of Ultrafiltration." J. Env.
Eng., 121 (12), 883.
Sorg, T.J. (1988). "Methods for Removing Uranium from Drinking Water." J. AWWA, 80 (7).
Sorg, T.J. (1990). Methods of Removing Drinking Water Contaminants and Their Limitations:
Inorganics and Radionuclides. USEPA Drinking Water Research Division, Cincinnati, Ohio,
PB91-162792.
Sorg, T.J. and G.S. Logsdon (1978). "Treatment Technology to Meet the Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for Inorganics: Part 2." J. AWWA, 7, 379-392.
Straub, C. P. (1971). Radioactivity: Water Quality and Treatment. A Handbook of Public Water
Supplies. AWWA, Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.
Subramanian, K.S., T. Viraraghavan, T. Phommavong, and S. Tanjore (1997). "Manganese
Greensand for Removal of Arsenic in Drinking Water." Water Quality Research Journal
Canada, 32 (3), 551-561.
Tamburini, J.U., and W.L. Habenicht (1992). "Volunteers Integral to Small System's Success."
J.AWWA, 84 (5), 56-61.
Thomson, B.M., and M. O'Grady (1998). Evaluation of Point-of-Use Water Treatment Systems. San
Ysidro. New Mexico. Final Report to USEPA, February 1998.
14-4
-------
Thomson, G.E. and C.E. Hollandsworth (1978). "Use of Reverse Osmosis Techniques for Large
Scale Removal of Radioactive Contaminants Dissolved in Natural Water." Abstract. Bulletin
of American Physical Society, 23 (4), 558-559.
Vickers, J.C., A. Braghetta, and R.A. Hawkins (1997). "Bench Scale Evaluation of Microfilitration
for Removal of Particles and Natural Organic Matter." Proceedings Membrane Technology
Conference, February 23-26, 1997, New Orleans, LA.
Westerhoff, G., and Z.K. Chowdhury (1996). "Water Treatment Systems." in Water Resources
Handbook. (L.M. Mays ed.), McGraw Hill, New York, 1996.
Wiesner, M.R., S. Sethi, J. Hackney, J. Jacangelo, and J.M. Laine (1994). "A Comparison of Cost
Estimates for Membrane Filtration and Conventional Treatment,"/ A WW A, 86 (12), 33-41.
14-5
-------
APPENDIX A
VERY SMALL SYSTEMS
CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN SUMMARIES
-------
Table A1 - VSS Document Capital Cost Breakdown for Membrane Processes
Component
Capital Cost
Factor
Percent of Total
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Breakdown
Category
Equipment
1.0000
56.97%
P
Installation
0.2500
14.24%
c
Sitework/Interface Piping
0.0750
4.27%
c
Standby Power
0.0625
3.56%
c
OH&P
0.1665
9.49%
e
Legal & Admin
0.0416
2.37%
e
Engineering
0.1596
9.09%
e
Contigencies
0.0000
0.00%
c
Total
1.7552
100.00%
Table A2 - VSS Document Capital Cost Breakdown for Ion Exchange Processes
Component
Capital Cost
Factor
Percent of Total
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Breakdown
Category
Equipment
1.0000
54.78%
P
Installation
0.3000
16.43%
c
Sitework/Interface Piping
0.0780
4.27%
c
Standby Power
0.0650
3.56%
c
OH&P
0.1732
9.49%
e
Legal & Admin
0.0433
2.37%
e
Engineering
0.1659
9.09%
e
Contigencies
0.0000
0.00%
c
Total
1.8254
100.00%
Table A3 - VSS Document Capital Cost Breakdown for Chlorination
Component
Capital Cost
Factor
Percent of Total
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Breakdown
Category
Equipment
1.0000
61.93%
P
Installation
0.1500
9.29%
c
Sitework/Interface Piping
0.0690
4.27%
c
Standby Power
0.0575
3.56%
c
OH&P
0.1532
9.49%
e
Legal & Admin
0.0383
2.37%
e
Engineering
0.1468
9.09%
e
Contigencies
0.0000
0.00%
c
Total
1.6148
100.00%
A-1
-------
Table A4 - VSS Document Capital Cost Breakdown for Potassium Permanganate Feed
Component
Capital Cost
Factor
Percent of Total
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Breakdown
Category
Equipment
1.0000
64.74%
P
Installation
0.1000
6.47%
c
Site work/Interface Piping
0.0660
4.27%
c
Standby Power
0.0550
3.56%
c
OH&P
0.1465
9.49%
e
Legal & Admin
0.0366
2.37%
e
Engineering
0.1404
9.09%
e
Contigencies
0.0000
0.00%
c
Total
1.5446
100.00%
Table A5 - Typical VSS Document Capital Cost Breakdown
Component
Capital Cost
Factor
Percent of Total
Capital Cost
Capital Cost
Breakdown
Category
Equipment
1.0000
54.78%
P
Installation
0.3000
16.43%
c
Sitework/Interface Piping
0.0780
4.27%
c
Standby Power
0.0650
3.56%
c
OH&P
0.1732
9.49%
e
Legal & Admin
0.0433
2.37%
e
Engineering
0.1659
9.09%
e
Contigencies
0.0000
0.00%
c
Total
1.8254
100.00%
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B
WATER MODEL
CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN SUMMARIES
-------
Table Bl.I - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Activated Alumina
Cost Component
Contactor Volume (ft3)
Capital Cost
Category
32
71
126
283
385
502
754
Excavation & Sitework
$4,700
$4,700
$4,700
$4,700
$4,700
$4,700
$4,700
c
Manufactured Equipment
$12,800
$23,900
$39,100
$50,600
$64,500
$72,900
$101,000
P
Activated Alumina
$1,400
$3,100
$5,400
$11,900
$15,400
$19,600
$29,400
P
Concrete
$400
$1,200
$1,800
$2,000
$2,500
$3,200
$4,100
P
Labor
$1,200
$1,500
$2,000
$2,800
$3,300
$3,400
$4,200
c
Pipes and Valves
$5,200
$6,500
$6,500
$8,400
$12,800
$13,300
$20,100
p
Electrical
$6,400
$6,400
$6,400
$8,000
$8,000
$8,500
$9,600
p
Housing
$8,700
$14,400
$16,900
$17,900
$24,800
$34,400
$43,900
p
Subtotal
$40,800
$61,700
$82,800
$106,300
$136,000
$160,000
$217,000
Contingencies
$6,100
$9,300
$12,400
$15,900
$20,400
$24,000
$32,600
c
Total
$46,900
$71,000
$95,200
$122,200
$156,400
$184,000
$249,600
Table B1.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Activated Alumina
Cost Component
Contactor Volume (ft3)
Average
Percent
32
71
126
283
385
502
754
Excavation & Sitework
10.02%
6.62%
4.94%
3.85%
3.01%
2.55%
1.88%
4.70%
Manufactured Equipment
27.29%
33.66%
41.07%
41.41%
41.24%
39.62%
40.46%
37.82%
Activated Alumina
2.99%
4.37%
5.67%
9.74%
9.85%
10.65%
11.78%
7.86%
Concrete
0.85%
1.69%
1.89%
1.64%
1.60%
1.74%
1.64%
1.58%
Labor
2.56%
2.11%
2.10%
2.29%
2.11%
1.85%
1.68%
2.10%
Pipes and Valves
11.09%
9.15%
6.83%
6.87%
8.18%
7.23%
8.05%
8.20%
Electrical
13.65%
9.01%
6.72%
6.55%
5.12%
4.62%
3.85%
7.07%
Housing
18.55%
20.28%
17.75%
14.65%
15.86%
18.70%
17.59%
17.62%
Contingencies
13.01%
13.10%
13.03%
13.01%
13.04%
13.04%
13.06%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
B-1
-------
Table B2.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Anion Exchange
Cost Component
Resin Volume (ft3)
Capital Cost
Category
4
17
54
188
280
520
Excavation & Sitework
$2,100
$2,100
$4,400
$4,400
$4,400
$5,300
c
Manufactured Equipment
$3,100
$8,600
$23,100
$64,100
$96,800
$164,800
P
Concrete
S300
$400
$5,500
$5,800
$6,000
$8,400
P
Steel
$0
$0
$7,800
$7,800
$7,800
$10,900
P
Labor
$400
$1,100
$12,100
$12,800
$12,900
$17,200
c
Pipes and Valves
$800
$800
$1,000
$2,600
$2,600
$3,100
p
Electrical
$3,100
$3,100
$3,100
$3,100
$3,100
$3,100
p
Housing
$5,600
$9,600
$11,100
$16,600
$19,200
$25,000
p
Subtotal
$15,400
$25,700
$68,100
$117,200
$152,800
$237,800
Contingencies
$2,300
$3,900
$10,200
$17,600
$22,900
$35,700
c
Total
$17,700
$29,600
$78,300
$134,800
$175,700
$273,500
Table B2.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Anion Exchange
Cost Component
Resin Volume (ft3)
Average
Percent
4
17
54
188
280
520
Excavation & Sitework
11.86%
7.09%
5.62%
3.26%
2.50%
1.94%
5.38%
Manufactured Equipment
17.51%
29.05%
29.50%
47.55%
55.09%
60.26%
39.83%
Concrete
1.69%
1.35%
7.02%
4.30%
3.41%
3.07%
3.48%
Steel
0.00%
0.00%
9.96%
5.79%
4.44%
3.99%
4.03%
Labor
2.26%
3.72%
15.45%
9.50%
7.34%
6.29%
7.43%
Pipes and Valves
4.52%
2.70%
1.28%
1.93%
1.48%
1.13%
2.17%
Electrical
17.51%
10.47%
3.96%
2.30%
1.76%
1.13%
6.19%
Housing
31.64%
32.43%
14.18%
12.31%
10.93%
9.14%
18.44%
Contingencies
12.99%
13.18%
13.03%
13.06%
13.03%
13.05%
13.06%
| Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
B-2
-------
Table B3.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Basic Chemical Feed
Cost Component
Maximum Feed Rate (lb/day)
Capital Cost
Category
0.1-10
25
50
100
250
500
1000
Dissolving Tank
$290
$430
$640
$910
$1,830
$2,200
$4,400
P
Mixer
$180
$200
$200
$240
$410
$620
$620
P
Metering Pump
$430
$700
$750
$1,230
$1,600
$1,670
$1,820
P
Pipes and Valves
$180
$180
$220
$220
$280
$280
$420
P
Labor
$180
$180
$240
$260
$300
$330
$400
c
Electrical
$80
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$400
P
Subtotal
$1,340
$1,790
$2,200
$3,060
$4,670
$5,400
$8,060
Contingencies
$200
$270j
$330
$460
$700
$810
$1,210
c
Total
$1,540
$2,060
$2,530
$3,520
$5,370
$6,210
$9,270
Table B3.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Basic Chemical Feed
Cost Component
Maximum Feed Rate (lb/day)
Average
Percent
0.1-10
25
50
100
250
500
1000
Dissolving Tank
18.83%
20.87%
25.30%
25.85%
34.08%
35.43%
47.46%
29.69%
Mixer
11.69%
9.71%
7.91%
6.82%
7.64%
9.98%
6.69%
8.63%
Metering Pump
27.92%
33.98%
29.64%
34.94%
29.80%
26.89%
19.63%
28.97%
Pipes and Valves
11.69%
8.74%
8.70%
6.25%
5.21%
4.51%
4.53%
7.09%
Labor
11.69%
8.74%
9.49%
7.39%
5.59%
5.31%
4.31%
7.50%
Electrical
5.19%
4.85%
5.93%
5.68%
4.66%
4.83%
4.31%
5.07%
Contingencies
12.99%
13.11%
13.04%
13.07%
13.04%
13.04%
13.05%
13.05%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
B-3
-------
Table B4.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Chlorination
Cost Component
Cost
Capital Cost
Category
Excavation & Sitework
$1,200
c
Manufactured Equipment
$2,700
P
Concrete
$300
P
Labor
$400
c
Pipes and Valves
$500
p
Electrical
$2,200
p
Housing
$7,800
p
Subtotal
$15,100
Contingencies
$2,300
c
Total
$17,400
Table B4.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Chlorination
Cost Component
Cost
Average
Percent
Excavation & Sitework
6.90%
6.90%
Manufactured Equipment
15.52%
15.52%
Concrete
1.72%
1.72%
Labor
2.30%
2.30%
Pipes and Valves
2.87 %
2.87%
Electrical
12.64%
12.64%
Housing
44.83%
44.83%
Contingencies
13.22%
13.22%
Total
L 100.00%
100.00%
B-4
-------
Table B5.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Underground Clearwell Storage
Cost Component
Design Capacity (gpd)
Capital Cost
Category
5,000
10,000
50,000
100,000
500,000
Excavation & Sitework
$3,300
$5,700
$16,500
$25,300
$75,400
c
Concrete
$9,800
$16,500
$37,000
$64,000
$216,400
P
Steel
$300
$400
$500
$500
$600
P
Electrical
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
$2,600
P
Subtotal
$16,000
$25,200
$56,600
$92,400
$295,000
Contingencies
$2,400
$3,800
$8,500
$13,900
$44,300
c
Total
$18,400
$29,000
$65,100
$106,300
$339,300
Table B5.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Underground Clearwell Storage
Cost Component
Design Capacity (gpd)
Average
Percent
5,000
10,000
50,000
100,000
500,000
Excavation & Sitework
17.93%
19.66%
25.35%
23.80%
22.22%
21.79%
Concrete
53.26%
56.90%
56.84%
60.21%
63.78%
58.20%
Steel
1.63%
1.38%
0.77%
0.47%
0.18%
0.88%
Electrical
14.13%
8.97%
3.99%
2.45%
0.77%
6.06%
Contingencies
13.04%
13.10%
13.06%
13.08%
13.06%
13.07%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
B-5
-------
Table B6.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Package Conventional Treatment
Cost Component
Filter Area (ft2)
Capital Cost
Category
2
12
20
40
112
150
Excavation & Sitework
$3,500
$3,500
$4,700
$5,800
$7,000
$9,300
c
Manufactured Equipment
$31,000
$44,900
$53,500
$111,300
$176,600
$190,500
P
Concrete
$1,000
$1,000
$1,500
$4,500
$5,700
$6,800
P
Labor
$9,900
$14,700
$17,500
$36,400
$57,800
$62,400
c
Pipes and Valves
$4,200
$8,300
$10,400
$20,900
$29,200
$41,700
p
Electrical
$3,200
$4,500
$5,300
$11,100
$17,600
$19,000
p
Housing
$18,600
$18,600
$23,400
$45,000
$47,500
$52,500
p
Subtotal
$71,400
$95,500
$116,300
$235,000
$341,400
$382,200
Contingencies
$10,700
$14,300
$17,400
$35,300
$51,200
$57,300
c
Total
$82,100
$109,800
$133,700
$270,300
$392,600
$439,500
Table B6.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Package Conventional Treatment
Cost Component
Filter Area (ft2)
Average
Percent
2
12
20
40
112
150
Excavation & Sitework
4.26%
3.19%
3.52%
2.15%
1.78%
2.12%
2.84%
Manufactured Equipment
37.76%
40.89%
40.01%
41.18%
44.98%
43.34%
41.36%
Concrete
1.22%
0.91%
1.12%
1.66%
1.45%
1.55%
1.32%
Labor
12.06%
13.39%
13.09%
13.47%
14.72%
14.20%
13.49%
Pipes and Valves
5.12%
7.56%
7.78%
7.73%
7.44%
9.49%
7.52%
Electrical
3.90%
4.10%
3.96%
4.11%
4.48%
4.32%
4.15%
Housing
22.66%
16.94%
17.50%
16.65%
12.10%
11.95%
16.30%
Contingencies
13.03%
13.02%
13.01%
13.06%
13.04%
13.04%
13.03%
; Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
L 100.00%
100.00%
B-6
-------
Table B7.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water IV^odel Tor Ferric Chloride Feed
Cost Component
Maximum Feed Rate (lb/day)
Capital Cost
Category
1
10
25
50
100
250
750
Storage Tank
$0
$0
$0
$0
$360
$780
$2,040
P
Wooden Stairway
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$300
$300
P
Metering Pump
$390
$390
$390
$390
$390
$1,090
$1,100
P
Pipes and Valves
$180
$180
$180
$180
$220
$280
$280
P
Labor
$120
$120
$130
$130
$210
$360
$410
c
Electrical
$80
$80
$80
$80
$100
$120
$120
P
Subtotal
$770
$770
$780
$780
$1,280
$2,930
$4,250
Contingencies
$120
$120
$120
$120
$190j
$440
$640
c
Total
$890
$890
$900
$900
$1,470
$3,370
$4,890
Table B7.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Ferric Chloride Feed
Cost Component
Maximum Feed Rate (lb/day)
Average
Percent
1
10
25
50
100
250
750
Storage Tank
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
24.49%
23.15%
41.72%
12.76%
Wooden Stairway
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8.90%
6.13%
2.15%
Metering Pump
43.82%
43.82%
43.33%
43.33%
26.53%
32.34%
22.49%
36.53%
Pipes and Valves
20.22%
20.22%
20.00%
20.00%
14.97%
8.31%
5.73%
15.64%
Labor
13.48%
13.48%
14.44%
14.44%
14.29%
10.68%
8.38%
12.74%
Electrical
8.99%
8.99%
8.89%
8.89%
6.80%
3.56%
2.45%
6.94%
Contingencies
13.48%
13.48%
13.33%
13.33%
12.93%
13.06%
13.09%
13.24%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
B-7
-------
Table B8.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Package Lime Softening
Cost Component
Design Capacity (gpd)
Capital Cost
Category
15,000
150,000
430,000
750,000
1,000,000
Excavation & Sitework
$3,500
$5,800
$6,700
$8,400
$9,800
c
Manufactured Equipment
$33,200
$49,800
$66,300
$86,200
$103,800
P
Concrete
$1,100
$2,500
$3,200
$5,900
$7,000
P
Labor
$14,000
$18,200
$28,000
$36,400
$43,800
c
Pipes and Valves
$5,200
$10,400
$14,100
$16,700
$45,900
p
Electrical
$8,500
$12,200
$17,000
$18,900
$26,700
p
Housing
$8,800
$16,400
$19,800
$30,000
$33,000
p
Subtotal
$74,300
$115,300
$155,100
$202,500
$270,000
- at V
Contingencies
$11,100
$17,300
$23,300]
$30,400
$40,500
c
Total
$85,400
$132,600
$178,400
$232,900
$310,500
Table B8.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Package Lime Softening
Cost Component
Design Capacity (gpd)
Average
Percent
15,000
150,000
430,000
750,000
1,000,000
Excavation & Sitework
4.10%
4.37 %
3.76%
3.61%
3.16%
3.80%
Manufactured Equipment
38.88%
37.56%
37.16%
37.01%
33.43%
36.81%
Concrete
1.29%
1.89%
1.79%
2.53%
2.25%
1.95%
Labor
16.39%
13.73%
15.70%
15.63%
14.11%
15.11%
Pipes and Valves
6.09%
7.84%
7.90%
7.17%
14.78%
8.76%
Electrical
9.95%
9.20%
9.53%
8.12%
8.60%
9.08%
Housing
10.30%
12.37%
11.10%
12.88%
10.63%
11.46%
Contingencies
13.00%
13.05%
13.06%
13.05%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
B-8
-------
Table B9.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Permanganate Feed
Cost Component
Maximum Feed Rate (lb/day)
Capital Cost
0.5-5
12.5
25
50
125
250
Category
Dissolving Tank
$290
$430
$640
$910
$1,830
$2,200
P
Mixer
$180
$200
$200
$240
$410
$620
P
Metering Pump
$430
$700
$750
$1,230
$1,600
$1,670
P
Pipes and Valves
$180
$180
$220
$220
$280
$280
P
Labor
$180
$180
$240
$260
$300
$330
c
Electrical
$80
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
P
Subtotal
$1,340
$1,790
$2,200
$3,060
$4,670
$5,400
Contingencies
$200
$270
$330
$460
$700
$810
c
Total
$1,540
$2,060
$2,530
$3,520
$5,370
$6,210
Table B9.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Permanganate Feed
Cost Component
Maximum Feed Rate (lb/day)
Average
0.5-5
12.5
25
50
125
250
Percent
Excavation & Sitework
18.83%
20.87%
25.30%
25.85%
34.08%
35.43%
26.73%
Manufactured Equipment
11.69%
9.71%
7.91%
6.82%
7.64%
9.98%
8.96%
Concrete
27.92%
33.98%
29.64%
34.94%
29.80%
26.89%
30.53%
Labor
11.69%
8.74%
8.70%
6.25%
5.21%
4.51%
7.52%
Pipes and Valves
11.69%
8.74%
9.49%
7.39%
5.59%
5.31%
8.03%
Electrical
5.19%
4.85%
5.93%
5.68%
4.66%
4.83%
5.19%
Contingencies
12.99%
13.11%
13.04%
13.07%
13.04%
13.04%
13.05%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
B-9
-------
Table B10.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Polymer Feed
Cost Component
Maximum Feed Rate (lb/day)
Capital Cost
Category
0.6
1
2.1
4.2
10.4
Mixing Tank
$290
$430
$640
$910
$1,830
P
Mixer
$850
$850
$200
$1,050
$1,050
P
Metering Pump
$640
$700
$750
$1,230
$1,600
P
Pipes and Valves
$180
$180
$220
$220
$280
P
Labor
$180
$180
$240
$260
$300
c
Electrical
$80
$100
$150
$200
$250
P
Subtotal
$2,220
$2,440
$2,200
$3,870
$5,310
Contingencies
$330
$370
$330
$580
$800
C
Total
$2,550
$2,810
$2,530
$4,450
$6,110
Table B10.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Polymer Feed
Cost Component
Maximum Feed Rate (lb/day)
Average
Percent
0.6
1
2.1
4.2
10.4
Mixing Tank
11.37%
15.30%
25.30%
20.45%
29.95%
20.47%
Mixer
33.33%
30.25%
7.91%
23.60%
17.18%
22.45%
Metering Pump
25.10%
24.91%
29.64%
27.64%
26.19%
26.70%
Pipes and Valves
7.06%
6.41%
8.70%
4.94%
4.58%
6.34%
Labor
7.06%
6.41%
9.49%
5.84%
4.91%
6.74%
Electrical
3.14%
3.56%
5.93%
4.49%
4.09%
4.24%
Contingencies
12.94%
13.17%
13.04%
13.03%
13.09%
13.06%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
B-10
-------
Table Bll.l - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Raw Water Pumping
Cost Component
Design Capacity (gpd)
Capital Cost
Category
28,800
144,000
504,000
720,000
1,008,000
Excavation & Sitework
$11,700
$11,700
$12,300
$12,300
$12,800
c
Manufactured Equipment
$6,600
$7,800
$11,800
$12,600
$16,500
P
Concrete
$500
$500
$1,100
$1,100
$1,500
P
Labor
$3,700
$3,800
$5,800
$6,200
$8,500
c
Pipes and Valves
$1,500
$1,800
$2,700
$3,600
$4,500
P
Electrical
$800
$800
$1,400
$1,600
$2,100
P
Subtotal
$24,800
$26,400
$35,100
$37,400
$45,900
Contingencies
$3,700
$4,000
$5,300
$5,600
$6,900
c
Total
$28,500
$30,400
$40,400
$43,000
$52,800
Table B11.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Raw Water Pumping
Cost Component
Design Capacity (g
id)
Average
Percent
28,800
144,000
504,000
720,000
1,008,000
Excavation & Sitework
41.05%
38.49%
30.45%
28.60%
24.24%
32.57%
Manufactured Equipment
23.16%
25.66%
29.21%
29.30%
31.25%
27.72%
Concrete
1.75%
1.64%
2.72%
2.56%
2.84%
2.30%
Labor
12.98%
12.50%
14.36%
14.42%
16.10%
14.07%
Pipes and Valves
5.26%
5.92%
6.68%
8.37%
8.52%
6.95%
Electrical
2.81%
2.63%
3.47%
3.72%
3.98%
3.32%
Contingencies
12.98%
13.16%
13.12%
13.02%
13.07%
13.07%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
B-11
-------
Table B12.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Package Reverse Osmosis
Cost Component
Plant Capacity (gpd)
Capital Cost
Category
2,500
10,000
50,000
100,000
500,000
1,000,000
Manufactured Equipment
$20,300
$30,000
$69,600
$123,000
$454,800
$877,400
P
Labor
$800
$1,200
$1,500
$2,800
$7,500
$14,600
c
Electrical
$3,200
$4,600
$10,700
$18,700
$45,900
$62,100
P
Housing
$11,900
$13,900
$16,400
$18,500
$38,400
$52,500
P
Subtotal
$36,200
$49,700
$98,200
$163,000
$546,600
$1,006,600
Contingencies
$5,400
$7,500
$14,700
$24,500
$82,000
$151,000
c
Total
$41,600
$57,200
$112,900
$187,500
$628,600
$1,157,600
Table B12.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Package Reverse Osmosis
Cost Component
Plant Capacity (gpd)
Average
Percent
2,500
10,000
50,000
100,000
500,000
1,000,000
Manufactured Equipment
48.80%
52.45%
61.65%
65.60%
72.35%
75.79%
62.77%
Labor
1.92%
2.10%
1.33%
1.49%
1.19%
1.26%
1.55%
Electrical
7.69%
8.04%
9.48%
9.97%
7.30%
5.36%
7.98%
Housing
28.61%
24.30%
14.53%
9.87%
6.11%
4.54%
14.66%
Contingencies
12.98%
13.11%
13.02%
13.07%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
L 100.00%
B-12
-------
Table B13.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Sodium Hydroxide Feed
Cost Component
Maximum Feed Rate (lb/day)
Capital Cost
Category
0.8
4
8
42
83
417
834
Storage and Feed Tanks
$60
$60
$90
$970
$2,040
$3,560
$6,940
P
Heating and Insulation
$0
$0
$0
$200
$410
$950
$1,620
P
Mixer
$0
$0
$0
$180
$240
$620
$640
P
Stairway
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$300
$600
P
Man. Transfer Pump
$100
$100
$100
$0
$0
$0
$0
P
Pipes and Valves
$310
$310
$310
$470
$470
$530
$790
P
Metering Pump
$390
$390
$390
$390
$410
$1,090
$1,100
P
Containment Wall
$120
$120
$150
$270
$400
$600
$880
P
Labor
$280
$280
$280
$420
$480
$650
$860
c
Electrical
$80
$80
$80
$100
$100
$120
$120
P
Subtotal
$1,340
$1,340
$1,400
$3,000
$4,550
$8,420
$13,550
Contingencies
$200
$200
$210
$450
$680
$1,260
$2,030
c
Total
$1,540
$1,540
$1,610
$3,450
$5,230
$9,680
$15,580
Table B13.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Sodium Hydroxide Feed
B-13
-------
Cost Component
Maximum Feed Rate (lb/day)
Average
Percent
0.8
4
8
42
83
417
834
Storage and Feed Tanks
3.90%
3.90%
5.59%
28.12%
39.01%
36.78%
44.54%
23.12%
Heating and Insulation
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5.80%
7.84%
9.81%
10.40%
4.84%
Mixer
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
5.22%
4.59%
6.40%
4.11%
2.90%
Stairway
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.10%
3.85%
0.99%
Man. Transfer Pump
6.49%
6.49%
6.21%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.74%
Pipes and Valves
20.13%
20.13%
19.25%
13.62%
8.99%
5.48%
5.07%
13.24%
Metering Pump
25.32%
25.32%
24.22%
11.30%
7.84%
11.26%
7.06%
16.05%
Containment Wall
7.79%
7.79%
9.32%
7.83%
7.65%
6.20%
5.65%
7.46%
Labor
18.18%
18.18%
17.39%
12.17%
9.18%
6.71%
5.52%
12.48%
Electrical
5.19%
5.19%
4.97%
2.90%
1.91%
1.24%
0.77%
3.17%
Contingencies
12.99%
12.99%
13.04%
13.04%
13.00%
13.02%
13.03%
13.02%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Table B14.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Package Ultrafiltration
B-14
-------
Cost Component
Membrane Area (ft2)
Capital Cost
Category
30
424
1,431
3,604
7,155
14,310
Excavation & Sitework
$1,300
$2,400
$4,100
$5,700
$10,200
$14,900
c
Manufactured Equipment
$5,500
$25,300
$65,600
$129,800
$23,900
$415,100
P
Concrete
$1,800
$3,700
$5,800
$10,200
$16,700
$28,800
P
Labor
$1,100
$5,200
$13,500
$26,900
$49,500
$85,900
c
Pipes and Valves
$500
$1,100
$2,200
$3,800
$4,500
$6,200
p
Electrical
$1,500
$5,600
$13,300
$25,800
$48,100
$85,300
p
Housing
$7,800
$14,600
$21,700
$29,000
$40,800
$56,000
p
Subtotal
$19,500
$57,900
$126,200
$231,200
$193,700
$692,200
Contingencies
$2,900
$8,700
$18,900
$34,700
$29,100
$103,800
c
Total
$22,400
$66,600
$145,100
$265,900
$222,800
$796,000
Table B14.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Package Ultrafiltration
Cost Component
Membrane Area (ft2)
Average
Percent
30
424
1,431
3,604
7,155
14,310
Excavation & Sitework
5.80%
3.60%
2.83%
2.14%
4.58%
1.87%
3.47%
Manufactured Equipment
24.55%
37.99%
45.21%
48.82%
10.73%
52.15%
36.57%
Concrete
8.04%
5.56%
4.00%
3.84%
7.50%
3.62%
5.42%
Labor
4.91%
7.81%
9.30%
10.12%
22.22%
10.79%
10.86%
Pipes and Valves
2.23%
1.65%
1.52%
1.43%
2.02%
0.78%
1.60%
Electrical
6.70%
8.41%
9.17%
9.70%
21.59%
10.72%
11.05%
Housing
34.82%
21.92%
14.96%
10.91%
18.31%
7.04%
17.99%
Contingencies
12.95%
13.06%
13.03%
13.05%
13.06%
13.04%
13.03%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
B-15
-------
APPENDIX C
W/W COST MODEL
CAPITAL COST BREAKDOWN SUMMARIES
-------
Table Cl.l - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Activated Alumina
Cost Component
Plant Capacity (mgd)
Capital Cost
Category
0.7
2.0
6.8
27
54
135
Manufactured Equipment
$26,760
$44,580
$138,330
$522,210
$1,031,270
$2,564,560
P
Activated Alumina
$8,300
$14,770
$83,080
$332,310
$664,610
$1,661,530
P
Labor
$10,280
$13,490
$48,010
$192,020
$384,060
$1,282,370
c
Pipes and Valves
$16,260
$19,320
$69,030
$273,210
$542,650
$1,368,060
P
Electrical
$10,050
$11,360
$22,300
$60,300
$119,030
$284,750
P
Housing
$6,960
$27,630
$62,120
$210,980
$374,840
$744,320
P
Contingencies
$11,790
$19,670
$63,430
$238,650
$467,470
$1,185,840
c
Total
$90,400
$150,820
$486,300
$1,829,680
$3,583,930
$9,091,430
Table C1.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Activated Alumina
Cost Component
Plant Capacity (mgd)
Average Percent
0.7
2.0
6.8
27
54
135
Manufactured Equipment
29.60%
29.56%
28.45%
28.54%
28.77%
28.21%
28.86%
Activated Alumina
9.18%
9.79%
17.08%
18.16%
18.54%
18.28%
15.17%
Labor
11.37%
8.94%
9.87%
10.49%
10.72%
14.11%
10.92%
Pipes and Valves
17.99%
12.81%
14.19%
14.93%
15.14%
15.05%
15.02%
Electrical
11.12%
7.53%
4.59%
3.30%
3.32%
3.13%
5.50';;.
Housing
7.70%
18.32%
12.77%
11.53%
10.46%
8.19%
11.49%
Contingencies
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
L 100.00%
100.00%
C-1
-------
Table C2.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Ammonia Feed Systems
Cost Component
Feed Capacity (lb/day)
Capital Cost
Category
250
500
1,000
2,500
5,000
Manufactured Equipment
$13,260
$19,520
$30,450
$38,830
$59,200
P
Labor
$3,990
$5,680
$9,250
$10,620
$13,870
c
Pipes and Valves
$2,390
$3,520
$5,500
$7,000
$10,670
P
Electrical
$3,250
$3,770
$6,180
$8,480
$10,990
P
Housing
$4,500
$4,500
$4,500
$4,500
$6,430
P
Contingencies
$4,110
$5,550
$8,380
$10,410
$15,170
c
Total
$31,500
$42,540
$64,260
$79,840
$116,330
Table C2.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Ammonia Feed Systems
Cost Component
Feed Capacity (lb/day)
Average Percent
250
500
1,000
2,500
5,000
Manufactured Equipment
42.10%
45.89%
47.39%
48.63%
50.89%
46.98%
Labor
12.67%
13.35%
14.39%
13.30%
11.92%
13.13%
Pipes and Valves
7.59%
8.27%
8.56%
8.77%
9.17%
8.47%
Electrical
10.32%
8.86%
9.62%
10.62%
9.45%
9.77%
Housing
14.29%
10.58%
7.00%
5.64%
5.53%
8.61%
Contingencies
13.05%
13.05%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-2
-------
Table C3.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the VVATERCOST Model for Backwash Water Pumping
Cost Component
Pumping Capacity (mgd(gpm))
Capital Cost
Category
1,260
(1.8)
3,150
(4.5)
6,300
(9.1)
18,000
(25.9)
22,950
(33)
Manufactured Equipment
$11,400
$14,600
$38,380
$76,780
$95,970
P
Labor
$3,050
$4,410
$4,880
$9,290
$12,440
c
Pipes and Valves
$9,780
$17,690
$17,690
$33,390
$44,780
P
Electrical
$13,350
$16,040
$16,740
$28,070
$33,250
P
Contingencies
$5,640
$7,910
$11,650
$22,130
$27,970
c
Total
$43,220
$60,650
$89,340
$169,660
$214,410
Table C3.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Backwash Water Pumping
Pumping Capacity (mgd(gpm))
Cost Component
1,260
3,150
6,300
18,000
22,950
Average Percent
(1.8)
(4.5)
(9.1)
(25.9)
(33)
Manufactured Equipment
26.38%
24.07%
42.96%
45.26%
44.76%
36.68%
Labor
7.06%
7.27%
5.46%
5.48%
5.80%
6.21%
Pipes and Valves
22.63%
29.17%
19.80%
19.68%
20.89%
22.43%
Electrical
30.89%
26.45%
18.74%
16.54%
15.51%
21.63%
Contingencies
13.05%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.05%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-3
-------
Table C4.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Chemical Sludge Pumping
Cost Component
Capacity (gpm)
Capital Cost
Category
20
100
500
1,000
5,000
10,000
Excavation & Sitework
$470
$600
$810
$970
$1,840
$2,220
c
Manufactured Equipment
$4,370
$6,230
$8,210
$10,390
$23,320
$38,440
P
Concrete
$1,500
$2,210
$3,220
$4,100
$9,270
$12,310
P
Steel
$1,510
$2,130
$3,120
$3,940
$8,640
$11,070
P
Labor
$5,280
$8,060
$12,880
$17,400
$47,850
$64,720
c
Pipes and Valves
$2,560
$4,570
$10,870
$18,190
$42,810
$79,060
p
Electrical
$6,290
$7,390
$7,880
$9,380
$10,380
$12,510
p
Housing
$5,880
$5,880
$5,880
$8,100
$8,100
$11,700
p
Contingencies
$4,180
$5,560
$7,930
$10,870
$22,830
$34,800
c
Total
$32,040
$42,630
$60,800
$83,340
$175,040
$266,830
Table C4.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Chemical Sludge Pumping
Cost Component
Capacity (gpm)
Average Percent
20
100
500
1,000
5,000
10,000
Excavation & Sitework
1.47%
1.41%
1.33%
1.16%
1.05%
0.83%
1.21%
Manufactured Equipment
13.64%
14.61%
13.50%
12.47%
13.32%
14.41%
13.66%
Concrete
4.68%
5.18%
5.30%
4.92%
5.30%
4.61%
5.00%
Steel
4.71%
5.00%
5.13%
4.73%
4.94%
4.15%
4.78%
Labor
16.48%
18.91%
21.18%
20.88%
27.34%
24.26%
21.51%
Pipes and Valves
7.99%
10.72%
17.88%
21.83%
24.46%
29.63%
18.75%
Electrical
19.63%
17.34 %
12.96%
11.26%
5.93%
4.69%
11.97%
Housing
18.35%
13.79%
9.67%
9.72%
4.63%
4.38%
10.09%
Contingencies
13.05%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
v Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-4
-------
Table C5.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model Tor Chlorination
Cost Component
Chlorine Feed Capacity (lb/day)
Capital Cost
Category
10
500
1,000
2,000
5,000
10,000
Manufactured Equipment
$6,760
$21,630
$41,630
$65,950
$76,780
$114,360
P
Labor
$820
$2,610
$5,030
$7,960
$9,270
$13,810
c
Pipes and Valves
$540
$1,710
$3,300
$5,230
$6,080
$9,060
P
Electrical
$770
$2,450
$4,710
$7,460
$8,690
$12,940
P
Housing
$2,430
$18,360
$27,760
$46,550
$100,440
$186,490
P
Contingencies
$1,700
$7,010
$12,360
$19,970
$30,190
$50,500
c
Total
$13,020
$53,770
$94,790
$153,120
$231,450
$387,160
Table C5.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Chlorination
Cost Component
Chlorine Feed Capacity (lb/day)
Average Percenl
10
500
1,000
2,000
5,000
10,000
Manufactured Equipment
51.92%
40.23%
43.92%
43.07%
33.17%
29.54%
40.31%
Labor
6.30%
4.85%
5.31%
5.20%
4.01%
3.57%
4.87%
Pipes and Valves
4.15%
3.18%
3.48%
3.42%
2.63%
2.34%
3.20%
Electrical
5.91%
4.56%
4.97%
4.87%
3.75%
3.34%
4.57%
Housing
18.66%
34.15%
29.29%
30.40%
43.40%
48.17%
34.01%
Contingencies
13.06%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-5
-------
Table C6.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Circular Clarifiers
Cost Component
Surface Area (SA=ft2) and Diameter (D=ft)
Capital Cost
Category
SA=707
D=30
SA=1,590
D=45
SA=5,027
D=80
SA=10,387
D=1I5
SA=15,393
D=140
SA=22,698
D=170
S A=31,416
D=200
Excavation & Sitework
$1,530
$2,430
$4,900
$7,860
$10,280
$13,520
$17,130
c
Manufactured Equipment
$28,740
$34,410
$69,580
$97,180
$132,350
$189,060
$226,980
P
Concrete
$4,860
$7,710
$15,480
$24,800
$32,400
$42,560
$53,860
P
Steel
$14,160
$21,090
$67,240
$129,250
$188,720
$249,570
$335,140
P
Labor
$10,770
$16,180
$30,960
$46,980
$60,110
$77,640
$96,320
c
Pipes and Valves
$8,090
$8,420
$11,540
$15,660
$21,590
$26,590
$42,520
p
Electrical
$5,940
$5,940
$7,560
$8,270
$10,870
$12,370
$13,060
p
Contingencies
$11,110
$14,430
$31,090
$49,500
$68,450
$91,700
$117,750
c
Total
$85,200
$110,610
$238,350
$379,500
$524,770
$703,010
$902,760
Table C6.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Circular Clarifiers
Cost Component
Surface Area (SA=ft2) and Diameter (D=ft)
Average Percent
SA=707
D=30
SA=1,590
D=45
SA=5,027
D=80
SA=:10,387
D=115
SA=15,393
D=140
SA=22,698
D=170
SA=31,416
D=200
Excavation & Sitework
1.80%
2.20%
2.06%
2.07%
1.96%
1.92%
1.90%
1.99%
Manufactured Equipment
33.73%
31.11%
29.19%
25.61%
25.22%
26.89%
25.14%
28.13%
Concrete
5.70%
6.97%
6.49%
6.53%
6.17%
6.05%
5.97%
6.27%
Steel
16.62%
19.07%
28.21%
34.06%
35.96%
35.50%
37.12%
29.51%
Labor
12.64%
14.63%
12.99%
12.38%
11.45%
11.04%
10.67%
12.26%
Pipes arid Valves
9.50%
7.61%
4.84%
4.13%
4.11%
3.78%
4.71%
5.53%
Electrical
6.97%
5.37%
3.17%
2.18%
2.07%
1.76%
1.45%
3.28%
Contingencies
13.04%
13.05%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
: Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-6
-------
Table C7.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Clearwell Storage
Cost Component
Capacity (gal)
Capital Cost
Category
10,000
50,000
100,000
500,000
1,000,000
7,500,000
Excavation & Silework
$140
$190
$410
$2,030
$19,440
$30,020
c
Concrete
$8,250
$14,430
$23,280
$66,330
$105,520
$622,500
P
Steel
$5,700
$9,240
$14,550
$32,670
$113,050
$350,700
P
Labor
$13,050
$21,480
$35,040
$84,090
$109,290
$394,160
P
Electrical
$1,270
$1,270
$6,010
$6,010
$9,800
$9,800
P
Contingencies
$4,260
$6,990
$11,890
$28,670
$53,570
$211,080
c
Total
$32,670
$53,600
$91,180
$219,800
$410,670
$1,618,260
Table C7.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Clearwell Storage
Cost Component
Capacity (gal)
Average Percent
10,000
50,000
100,000
500,000 .
1,000,000
7,500,000
Excavation & Sitework
0.43%
0.35%
0.45%
0.92%
4.73%
1.86%
1.46%
Concrete
25.25%
26.92%
25.53%
30.18%
25.69%
38.47%
28.67%
Steel
17.45%
17.24%
15.96%
14.86%
27.53%
21.67%
19.12%
Labor
39.94%
40.07%
38.43%
38.26%
26.61%
24.36%
34.61%
Electrical
3.89%
2.37%
6.59%
2.73%
2.39%
0.61%
3.10%
Contingencies
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-7
-------
Table C8.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Ferric Chloride Feed Systems*
Cost Component
Feed Capacity (Ib/hr)
Capital Cost
Category
10.7
107
1,070
5,350
Manufactured Equipment
$7,500
$13,100
$33,560
$160,940
P
Labor
$420
$1,130
$2,430
$12,160
c
Pipes and Valves
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$15,000
P
Electrical
$1,110
$2,260
$4,960
$19,000
P
Housing
$6,000
$13,300
$51,270
$174,590
P
Contingencies
$2,550
$4,840
$14,280
$57,250
c
Total
$19,580
$37,130]
$109,500
$438,940
Numbers were unavailable for feme chloride. However, numbers presented for ferrous sulfate and femcsulfate were identical.
It was assumed that these same relationships apply to ferric chloride
Table C8.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Ferric Chloride Feed Systems*
Cost Component
Feed Capacity (Ib/hr)
Average Percent
10.7
107
1,070
5,350
Manufactured Equipment
38.30%
35.28%
30.65%
36.67%
35.22%
Labor
2.15%
3.04%
2.22%
2.77%
2.54%
Pipes and Valves
10.21%
6.73%
2.74%
3.42%
5.78%
Electrical
5.67%
6.09%
4.53%
4.33%
5.15%
Housing
30.64%
35.82%
46.82%
39.78%
38.27%
Contingencies
13.02%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
'Numbers were unavailable for ferric chloride. However, numbers presented for ferrous sulfate and femcsulfate were identical.
It was assumed that these same relationships apply to ferric chloride
C-8
-------
Table C9.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the VVATERCOST Model for Finished Water Pumping
Cost Component
Plant Capacity (mgd)
Capital Cost
Category
1.5
15
150
300
Manufactured Equipment
$15,410
$89,700
$567,600
$1,142,350
P
Labor
$3,880
$11,580
$80,400
$158,840
c
Pipes and Valves
$5,200
$16,570
$139,200
$270,100
P
Electrical
$7,180
$38,450
$210,490
$400,230
P
Contingencies
$4,750
$23,450
$149,650
$295,730
c
Total
$36,420
$179,750
$1,147,340
$2,267,250
Table C9.2 - NVATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Finished Water Pumping
Cost Component
Plant Capacity (mgd)
Averaee Percent
1.5
15
150
300
Manufactured Equipment
42.31%
49.90%
49.47%
50.38%
48.02%
Labor
10.65%
6.44%
7.01%
7.01%
7.78%
Pipes and Valves
14.28%
9.22%
12.13%
11.91%
11.89%
Electrical
19.71%
21.39%
18.35%
17.65%
19.28%
Contingencies
13.04%
13.05%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-9
-------
Tabic C10.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Gravity Filtration
Cost Component
Total Filter Area (FA-ft2
and Plant Flow (Q=mRd)
Capital Cost
Category
FA=140
Q=1
FA=700
Q=5
FA=1,400
Q=10
FA=7,000
Q=50
FA=14,000
Q=100
FA=28,000
Q=200
Excavation & Sitework
$1,950
$3,620
$5,520
$16,220
$25,590
$43,410
c
Manufactured Equipment
$26,360
$56,960
$78,300
$305,170
$529,360
$982,390
P
Concrete
$13,400
$27,040
$41,660
$95,490
$154,790
$275,570
P
Steel
$11,550
$19,960
$30,120
$73,530
$123,160
$209,960
P
Labor
$40,580
$88,490
$150,870
$356,380
$508,980
$1,000,670
c
Pipes and Valves
$20,580
$79,020
$127,340
$420,670
$590,150
$1,125,500
P
Electrical
$13,390
$38,410
$38,410
$99,140
$168,840
$265,310
P
Housing
$17,400
$40,480
$70,590
$291,940
$514,330
$968,520
P
Contingencies
$21,780
$53,100
$81,420
$248,780
$392,280
$730,700
c
Total
$166,990
$407,080
$624,230
$1,907,320
$3,007,480
$5,602,030
Table CI 0.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Gravity Filtration
Total Filter Area (FA-ft2
and Plant Flow (Q=mgd)
Cost Component
FA=140
FA=700
FA=1,400
FA=7,000
FA=14,000
FA=28,000
Average Percent
Q=1
Q=5
Q=10
Q=50
Q=100
Q=200
Excavation & Sitework
1.17%
0.89%
0.88%
0.85%
0.85%
0.77%
0.90%
Manufactured Equipment
15.79%
13.99%
12.54%
16.00%
17.60%
17.54%
15.58%
Concrete
8.02%
6.64%
6.67%
5.01%
5.15%
4.92%
6.07%
Steel
6.92%
4.90%
4.83%
3.86%
4.10%
3.75%
4.72%
Labor
24.30%
21.74%
24.17%
18.68%
16.92%
17.86%
20.61%
Pipes and Valves
12.32%
19.41%
20.40%
22.06%
19.62%
20.09%
18.98%
Electrical
8.02%
9.44%
6.15%
5.20%
5.61%
4.74%
6.53%
Housing
10.42%
9.94%
11.31%
15.31%
17.10%
17.29%
13.56%
Contingencies
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%j
100.00%
C-10
-------
Table CI 1.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Horizontal Paddle, G=50
Cost Component
Total Basin Volume (ft3)
Capital Cost
Category
1,800
10,000
25,000
100,000
500,000
1,000,000
Excavation & Sitework
$470
$2,550
$4,290
$9,970
$40,080
$77,640
P
Manufactured Equipment
$12,140
$28,250
$35,410
$74,400
$220,800
$433,640
P
Concrete
$1,400
$7,610
$12,740
$29,770
$120,280
$232,960
P
Steel
$2,360
$12,550
$20,440
$46,500
$175,290
$339,510
P
Labor
$7,080
$20,220
$29,420
$75,460
$221,200
$439,770
c
Electrical
$6,980
$28,320
$28,320
$28,320
$141,610
$283,220
P
Contingencies
$4,560
$14,930
$19,590
$39,660
$137,890
$271,010
c
Total
$34,990
$114,430
$150,210
$304,080
$1,057,150
$2,077,750
Table CI 1.2 - WATEltCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Horizontal Paddle, G=50
Cost Component
Total Basin Volume (ft3)
Averaee Percent
1,800
10,000
25,000
100,000
500,000
1,000,000
Excavation & Sitework
1.34%
2.23%
2.86%
3.28%
3.79%
3.74%
2.87%
Manufactured Equipment
34.70%
24.69%
23.57%
24.47%
20.89%
20.87%
24.86%
Concrete
4.00%
6.65%
8.48%
9.79%
11.38%
11.21%
8.59%
Steel
6.74%
10.97%
13.61%
15.29%
16.58%
16.34%
13.26%
Labor
20.23%
17.67%
19.59%
24.82%
20.92%
21.17%
20.73%
Electrical
19.95%
24.75%
18.85%
9.31%
13.40%
13.63%
16.65%
Contingencies
13.03%
13.05%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-11
-------
Table C12.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCO$T Model for Horizontal Paddle, G=80
Cost Component
Total Basin Volume i
ft3)
Capital Cost
Category
1,800
10,000
25,000
100,000
500,000
Excavation & Sitework
$470
$2,550
$4,290
$9,970
$40,080
c
Manufactured Equipment
$12,140
$34,210
$44,360
$115,770
$427,670
P
Concrete
$1,400
$7,610
$12,740
$29,770
$120,280
P
Steel
$2,360
$12,550
$20,440
$46,500
$175,290
P
Labor
$7,080
$22,190
$32,370
$90,170
$289,520
P
Electrical
$6,980
$28,320
$28,320
$28,320
$141,610
P
Contingencies
$4,560
$16,110J
$21,380
$48,080
$179,170
c
Total
$34,990
$123,540
$163,900
$368,580
$1,373,620
Table CI2.2 - NVATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Horizontal Paddle, G=80
Cost Component
Total Basin Volume i
ft3)
Average Percent
1,800
10,000
25,000
100,000
500,000
Excavation & Sitework
1.34%
2.06%
2.62%
2.70%
2.92%
2.33%
Manufactured Equipment
34.70%
27.69%
27.07%
31.41%
31.13%
30.40%
Concrete
4.00%
6.16%
7.77%
8.08%
8.76%
6.95%
Steel
6.74%
10.16%
12.47%
12.62%
12.76%
10.95%
Labor
20.23%
17.96%
19.75%
24.46%
21.08%
20.70%
Electrical
19.95%
22.92%
17.28%
7.68%
10.31%
15.63%
Contingencies
13.03%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-12
-------
Table C13.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Hydraulic Surface Wash
Cost Component
Total Filter Area (ft2)
Capital Cost
Category
140
700
1,400
7,000
14,000
28,000
Manufactured Equipment
$9,170
$12,050
$35,090
$82,010
$172,440
$401,200
P
Labor
$1,3Q0
$2,770
$5,170
$14,710
$29,430
$66,600
c
Pipes and Valves
$2,570
$5,100
$7,020
$13,390
$32,290
$59,870
P
Electrical
$12,670
$17,920
$20,440
$37,900
$61,120
$92,360
P
Contingencies
$3,860
$5,680
$10,160
$22,200
$44,290
$93,000
c
Total
$29,570
$43,520
$77,880
$170,210
$339,570
$713,030
Table C13.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Hydraulic Surface Wash
Cost Component
Total Filter Area (ft2)
Average Percent
140
700
1,400
7,000
14,000
28,000
Manufactured Equipment
31.01%
27.69%
45.06%
48.18%
50.78%
56.27%
43.16%
Labor
4.40%
6.36%
6.64%
8.64%
8.67%
9.34%
7.34%
Pipes and Valves
8.69%
11.72%
9.01%
7.87%
9.51%
8.40%
9.20%
Electrical
42.85%
41.18%
26.25%
22.27%
18.00%
12.95%
27.25%
Contingencies
13.05%
13.05%
13.05%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.05%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-13
-------
Table C14.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for In-Plant Pumping
Cost Component
Pumping Ca
pacity (mgd)
Capital Cost
Category
1
5
10
50
100
200
Excavation & Sitework
$100
$100
$130
$360
$600
$1,030
c
Manufactured Equipment
$6,300
$9,110
$14,780
$48,650
$83,400
$152,900
P
Concrete
$970
$970
$1,510
$4,770
$8,030
$14,090
P
Steel
$1,610
$1,610
$2,450
$7,630
$12,500
$21,330
P
Labor
$5,570
$10,410
$24,070
$63,330
$129,130
$331,030
c
Pipes and Valves
$5,090
$12,330
$16,300
$60,230
$114,200
$222,080
P
Electrical
$3,170
$4,930
$7,390
$25,760
$47,240
$89,360
P
Housing
$1,500
$1,500
$3,000
$14,520
$28,830
$58,080
P
Contingencies
$3,650
$6,140
$10,440
$33,790
$63,590
$133,490
c
Total
$27,960
$47,100
$80,070
$259,040
$487,520
$1,023,390
Table C14.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for In-Plant Pumping
Cost Component
Pumping Ca
pacity (ingd)
Average Percent
1
5
10
50
100
200
Excavation & Sitework
0.36%
0.21%
0.16%
0.14%
0.12%
0.10%
0.18%
Manufactured Equipment
22.53%
19.34%
18.46%
18.78%
17.11%
14.94%
18.53%
Concrete
3.47%
2.06%
1.89%
1.84%
1.65%
1.38%
2.05%
Steel
5.76%
3.42%
3.06%
2.95%
2.56%
2.08%
3.31%
Labor
19.92%
22.10%
30.06%
24.45%
26.49%
32.35%
25.89%
Pipes arid Valves
18.20%
26.18%
20.36%
23.25%
23.42%
21.70%
22.19%
Electrical
11.34%
10.47%
9.23%
9.94%
9.69%
8.73%
9.90%
Housing
5.36%
3.18%
3.75%
5.61%
5.91%
5.68%
4.92%
Contingencies
13.05%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-14
-------
Table C1S.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the NVATERCOST Model for Ion Exchange
Cost Component
Plant Capacity (mgd)
Capital Cost
Category
1.1
3.7
6.1
12.3
Excavation & Sitework
$740
$1,140
$1,470
$1,970
c
Manufactured Equipment
$39,960
$89,580
$137,770
$258,230
P
Media
$92,790
$313,160
$521,940
$1,043,880
P
Concrete
$2,410
$3,580
$4,750
$6,320
P
Steel
$3,830
$5,680
$7,530
$9,950
P
Labor
$17,420
$33,510
$61,460
$125,080
c
Pipes and Valves
$14,040
$38,780
$69,740
$139,480
p
Electrical
. $27,700
$38,510
$60,820
$120,210
p
Housing
$21,920
$35,660
$57,440
$79,820
p
Contingencies
$33,120
$83,940
$138,440
$267,740
c
Total
$253,930
$643,540
$1,061,360
$2,052,680
Table CI 5.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Ion Exchange
Cost Component
Plant Capacity (mgd)
Averaee Percent
1.1
3.7
6.1
12.3
Excavation & Sitework
0.29%
0.18%
0.14%
0.10%
0.18%
Manufactured Equipment
15.74%
13.92%
12.98%
12.58%
13.80%
Media
36.54%
48.66%
49.18%
50.85%
46.31%
Concrete
0.95%
0.56%
0.45%
0.31%
0.57%
Steel
1.51%
0.88%
0.71%
0.48%
0.90%
Labor
6.86%
5.21%
5.79%
6.09%
5.99%
Pipes and Valves
5.53%
6.03%
6.57%
6.80%
6.23%
Electrical
10.91%
5.98%
5.73%
5.86%
7.12%
Housing
8.63%
5.54%
5.41%
3.89%
5.87%
Contingencies
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-15
-------
Table CI6.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Lime Feed with Recalciuation
Cost Component
Feed Capacity (Ib/hr)
Capital Cost
Category
1,000
10,000
Manufactured Equipment
$48,870
$80,660
P
Labor
$1,510
$3,060
c
Pipes and Valves
$3,120
$6,250
P
Electrical
$6,880
$12,320
P
Housing
$9,450
$26,250
P
Contingencies
$10,470
$19,280
c
Total
$80,300
$147,820
Table CI 6.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Lime Feed with Recalcination
Cost Component
Feed Capacity (lb/hr)
Average Percent
1,000
10,000
Manufactured Equipment
60.86%
54.57%
57.71%
Labor
1.88%
2.07%
1.98%
Pipes and Valves
3.89%
4.23%
4.06%
Electrical
8.57%
8.33%
8.45%
Housing
11.77%
17.76%
14.76%
Contingencies
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
T
C-16
-------
Table C17.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Permanganate Feed Systems
Cost Component
Feed Capacity (lb/day)
Capital Cost
Category
1
10
100
500
Manufactured Equipment
$2,340
$2,600
$3,380
$5,220
P
Labor
$480
$480
$540
$770
c
Pipes and Valves
$970
$970
$970
$970
P
Electrical
$3,190
$3,190
$3,190
$3,190
P
Housing
$1,260
$1,580
$1,950
$2,940
P
Contingencies
$1,240
$1,320
$1,500
$1,960
c
Total
$9,480
$10,140
$11,530
$15,050
Table CI7.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Permanganate Feed Systems
Cost Component
Feed Capacity (lb/day)
Average Percent
1
10
100
500
Manufactured Equipment
24.68%
25.64%
29.31%
34.68%
28.58%
Labor
5.06%
4.73%
4.68%
5.12%
4.90%
Pipes and Valves
10.23%
9.57%
8.41%
6.45%
8.66%
Electrical
33.65%
31.46%
27.67%
21.20%
28.49%
Housing
13.29%
15.58%
16.91%
19.53%
16.33%
Contingencies
13.08%
13.02%
13.01%
13.02%
13.03%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-17
-------
Table C18.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Polymer Feed Systems
Cost Component
Feed Capacity (Ib/hr)
Capital Cost
Category
1
10
100
200
Manufactured Equipment
$11,670
$11,670
$14,730
$18,970
P
Labor
$700
$700
$700
$760
c
Pipes and Valves
$280
$280
$280
$300
P
Electrical
$1,290
$1,290
$1,290
$1,290
P
Housing
$3,600
$3,600
$4,050
$4,500
P
Contingencies
$2,630]
$2,630
$3,160
$3,870
c
Total
$20,170
$20,170
$24,210
$29,690
Table C18.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Polymer Feed Systems
Cost Component
Feed Capacity (Ib/hr)
Average Percent
1
10
100
200
Manufactured Equipment
57.86%
57.86%
60.84%
63.89%
60.11%
Labor
3.47%
3.47%
2.89%
2.56%
3.10%
Pipes and Valves
1.39%
1.39%
1.16%
1.01%
1.24%
Electrical
6.40%
6.40%
5.33%
4.34%
5.62%
Housing
17.85%
17.85%
16.73%
15.16%
16.90%
Contingencies
13.04%
13.04%
13.05%
13.03%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-18
-------
Table C19.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Rapid Mix, G=900
Cost Component
Basin Volume (ft3)
Capital Cost
Category
100
500
1,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
Excavation & Sitework
$220
$380
$490
$1,360
$2,720
$5,460
c
Manufactured Equipment
$4,310
$9,830
$14,760
$66,840
$133,670
$267,340
P
Concrete
$390
$870
$1,280
$3,610
$7,220
$14,450
P
Steel
$570
$1,350
$2,010
$5,600
$11,180
$22,360
P
Labor
$1,230
$2,300
$3,410
$13,140
$26,280
$52,550
c
Electrical
$6,980
$6,980
$7,180
$7,470
$8,760
$16,100
P
Contingencies
$2,060
$3,260
$4,370
$14,700
$28,470
$56,740
c
Total
$15,760
$24,970
$33,500
$112,720
$218,300
$435,000
Table C19.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Rapid Mix, G=900
Cost Component
Basin Volume (ft3)
Averaee Percent
100
500
1,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
Excavation & Sitework
1.40%
1.52%
1.46%
1.21%
1.25%
1.26%
1.35%
Manufactured Equipment
27.35%
39.37%
44.06%
59.30%
61.23%
61.46%
48.79%
Concrete
2.47%
3.48%
3.82%
3.20%
3.31%
3.32%
3.27%
Steel
3.62%
5.41%
6.00%
4.97%
5.12%
5.14%
5.04%
Labor
7.80%
9.21%
10.18%
11.66%
12.04%
12.08%
10.50%
Electrical
44.29%
27.95%
21.43%
6.63%
4.01%
3.70%
18.00%
Contingencies
13.07%
13.06%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.05%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-19
-------
Table C20.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Recarbonation, Liquid Carbon Dioxide
Cost Component
Installed Capacity (lb/day)
Capital Cost
Category
380
750
1,500
3,750
7,500
15,000
Manufactured Equipment
$27,000
$31,000
$35,250
$49,250
$73,000
$141,000
P
Labor
$7,650
$8,780
$12,170
$17,330
$28,990
$58,010
c
Pipes and Valves
$1,530
$2,340
$4,620
$8,710
$16,940
$37,540
P
Housing
$7,360
$7,360
$7,360
$7,360
$8,450
$8,900
P
Contingencies
$6,530)
$7,420
$8,910
$12,400
$19,110
$36,820
c
Total
$50,070
$56,900
$68,310
$95,050
$146,490
$282,270
Table C20.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Recarbonation, Liquid Carbon Dioxide
Cost Component
Installed Capacity (lb/day)
Averaee Percent
380
750
1,500
3,750
7,500
15,000
Manufactured Equipment
53.92%
54.48%
51.60%
51.81%
49.83%
49.95%
51.93%
Labor
15.28%
15.43%
17.82%
18.23%
19.79%
20.55%
17.85%
Pipes and Valves
3.06%
4.11%
6.76%
9.16%
11.56%
13.30%
7.99%
Housing
14.70%
12.93%
10.77%
7.74%
5.77%
3.15%
9.18%
Contingencies
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.05%
13.05%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-20
-------
Table C21.1 - Base Cos(s Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Recarbonation Basins
Cost Component
Single Basin Volume
(«3)
Capita) Cost
Category
770
1,375
2,750
5,630
8,800
17,600
35,200
Excavation & Sitework
$520
$620
$980
$1,390
$1,790
$3,050
$5,570
c
Concrete
$1,380
$1,860
$2,820
$4,050
$5,190
$8,570
$15,320
P
Steel
$2,250
$3,010
$4,670
$6,560
$8,320
$13,960
$25,240
P
Labor
$2,830
$3,800
$5,730
$8,090
$10,240
$16,740
$29,730
c
Pipes and Valves
$90
$130
$250
$480
$680
$1,360
$3,360
p
Contingencies
$1,060
$1,410
$2,170
$3,090
$3,930
$6,550
$11,880
c
Total
$8,130
$10,830
$16,620
$23,660
$30,150
$50,230
$91,100
Table C21.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Recarbonation Basins
Cost Component
Single Basin Volume (ft3)
Averaee Percent
770
1,375
2,750
5,630
8,800
17,600
35,200
Excavation & Sitework
6.40%
5.72%
5.90%
5.87%
5.94%
6.07%
6.11%
6.00%
Concrete
16.97%
17.17%
16.97%
17.12%
17.21%
17.06%
16.82%
17.05%
Steel
27.68%
27.79%
28.10%
27.73%
27.60%
27.79%
27.71%
27.77%
Labor
34.81%
35.09%
34.48%
34.19%
33.96%
33.33%
32.63%
34.07%
Pipes and Valves
1.11%
1.20%
1.50%
2.03%
2.26%
2.71%
3.69%
2.07%
Contingencies
13.04%
13.02%
13.06%
13.06%
13.03%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-21
-------
Table C22.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Rectangular Clariflers
Cost Component
Area (A=ft2) and Lens
th x Width (LW=ftxft)
Capital Cost
Category
A=240
LW=30x8
A=600
LW=60xl0
A=1260
LW=90xl4
A=2240
LW=140xl6
A=3600
LW=200xl8
A=4800
LW=240x20
Excavation & Sitework
$1,060
$2,000
$3,060
$4,680
$6,670
$8,090
c
Manufactured Equipment
$8,540
$12,080
$24,470
$32,020
$53,110
$63,440
P
Concrete
$2,970
$5,490
$8,430
$12,820
$18,190
$22,070
P
Steel
$6,400
$13,110
$19,440
$32,620
$51,250
$69,680
P
Labor
$6,220
$11,260
$17,320
$26,390
$37,570
$45,300
c
Pipes and Valves
$6,960
$7,400
$9,100
$12,500
$16,100
$21,450
P
Electrical
$1,510
$1,760
$1,860
$2,020
$2,110
$2,400
p
Contingencies
$5,050
$7,970
$12,550
$18,460j
$27,750
$34,860
c
Total
$38,710
$61,070
$96,230
$141,510
$212,750
$267,290
Table C22.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Rectangular Clarifiers
Cost Component
Area (A=ft2) and Lens
th x Width (LW=ftxft)
Average Percent
A=240
LW=30x8
A=600
LW=60xl0
A=1260
LW=90xl4
A=2240
LW=140xl6
A=3600
LW=200xl8
A=4800
LW=240x20
Excavation & Sitework
2.74%
3.27%
3.18%
3.31%
3.14%
3.03%
3.11%
Manufactured Equipment
22.06%
19.78%
25.43%
22.63%
24.96%
23.73%
23.10%
Concrete
7.67%
8.99%
8.76%
9.06%
8.55%
8.26%
8.55%
Steel
16.53%
21.47%
20.20%
23.05%
24.09%
26.07%
21.90%
Labor
16.07%
18.44%
18.00%
18.65%
17.66%
16.95%
17.63%
Pipes and Valves
17.98%
12.12%
9.46%
8.83%
7.57%
8.02%
10.66%
Electrical
3.90%
2.88%
1.93%
1.43%
0.99%
0.90%
2.01%
Contingencies
13.05%
13.05%
13.04%
13.05%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-22
-------
Table C23.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Reverse Osmosis
Cost Component
Plant Capacity (mgd)
Capital Cost
Category
1.0
10
100
200
Manufactured Equipment
$474,210
$3,458,480
$29,174,260
$56,438,930
P
Labor
$70,420
$346,850
$2,312,340
$2,837,870
c
Electrical
$65,740
$486,270
$3,635,690
$6,947,480
P
Housing
$64,260
$462,650
$2,409,660
$4,176,740
P
Contingencies
$101,190
$713,140
$5,629,790
$10,560,150
c
Total
$775,820
$5,467,390
$43,161,740
$80,961,170
Table C23.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Reverse Osmosis
Cost Component
Plant Capacity (mgd)
Average Percent
1.0
10
100
200
Manufactured Equipment
61.12%
63.26%
67.59%
69.71%
65.42%
Labor
9.08%
6.34%
5.36%
3.51%
6.07%
Electrical
8.47%
8.89%
8.42%
8.58%
8.59%
Housing
8.28%
8.46%
5.58%
5.16%
6.87%
Contingencies
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-23
-------
Table C24.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Sodium Hydroxide Feed Systems
Cost Component
Feed Capacity (lb/day)
Capital Cost
Category
10
100
1,000
10000
Manufactured Equipment
$6,440
$7,010
$5,720
$19,450
P
Labor
$640
$640
$790
$4,120
c
Pipes and Valves
$850
$850
$850
$850
P
Electrical
$3,190
$3,190
$3,190
$3,460
P
Housing
$1,010
$2,100
$8,400
$48,380
P
Contingencies
$1,820
$2,070
$2,840
$11,440
c
Total
$13,950
$15,860
$21,790
$87,700
Table C24.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Sodium Hydroxide Feed Systems
Cost Component
Feed Capacity (lb/day)
Average Percent
10
100
1,000
10,000
Manufactured Equipment
46.16%
44.20%
26.25%
22.18%
34.70%
Labor
4.59%
4.04%
3.63%
4.70%
4.24%
Pipes and Valves
6.09%
5.36%
3.90%
0.97%
4.08%
Electrical
22.87%
20.11%
14.64%
3.95%
15.39%
Housing
7.24%
13.24%
38.55%
55.17%
28.55%
Contingencies
13.05%
13.05%
13.03%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-24
-------
Table C25.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the VVATERCOST Model for Sulfuric Acid Feed Systems
Cost Component
Feed Capacity (gpd)
Capital Cost
Category
10
100
1000
5000
Manufactured Equipment
$1,560
$3,440
$12,400
$41,000
P
Labor
$640
$820
$2,840
$11,840
c
Pipes and Valves
$1,090
$1,090
$2,150
$2,150
P
Electrical
$1,670
$2,920
$2,920
$2,920
P
Housing
$2,520
$1,560
$1,560
$1,560
P
Contingencies
$1,120
$1,470
$3,280
$8,920
c
Total
$8,600
$11,300
$25,150
$68,390
Table C25.2 - NVATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Sulfuric Acid Feed Systems
Cost Component
Feed Capacity (gpd)
Average Percent
10
100
1000
5000
Manufactured Equipment
18.14%
30.44%
49.30%
59.95%
39.46%
Labor
7.44%
7.26%
11.29%
17.31%
10.83%
Pipes and Valves
12.67%
9.65%
8.55%
3.14%
8.50%
Electrical
19.42%
25.84%
11.61%
4.27%
15.28%
Housing
29.30%
13.81%
6.20%
2.28%
12.90%
Contingencies
13.02%
13.01%
13.04%
13.04%
13.03%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-25
-------
Table C26.1 - Base Costs Obtained from tlic WATERCOST Model for Tube Settling Modules
Cost Component
Tube Module Area (ft2)
Capital Cost
Category
280
2,800
14,000
28,000
56,000
Manufactured Equipment
$4,200
$31,000
$147,000
$282,000
$504,000
P
Steel
$2,000
$19,500
$95,000
$155,000
$300,000
P
Labor
$2,500
$11,200
$49,000
$95,000
$224,000
c
Contingencies
$1,300
$9,300
$43,700
$79,800
$154,200
c
Total
$10,000
$71,000
$334,700
$611,800
$1,182,200
Table C26.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Tube Settling Modules
Cost Component
Tube Module Area (ft2)
Average Percent
280
2,800
14,000
28,000
56,000
Manufactured Equipment
42.00%
43.66%
43.92%
46.09%
42.63%
43.66%
Steel
20.00%
27.46%
28.38%
25.34%
25.38%
25.31%
Labor
25.00%
15.77%
14.64%
15.53%
18.95%
17.98%
Contingencies
13.00%
13.10%
13.06%
13.04%
13.04%
13.05%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-26
-------
Table C27.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCOST Model for Wash Water Surge Basins
Cost Component
Capacity (gal)
Capital Cost
Category
10,000
50,000
100,000
500,000
Excavation & Sitework
$200
$520
$1,250
$4,400
c
Concrete
$11,560
$39,310
$71,480
$143,680
P
Steel
$7,990
$25,170
$44,680
$70,770
P
Labor
$18,270
$58,500
$107,590
$182,150
c
Pipes and Valves
$5,500
$7,500
$11,000
$16,000
P
Electrical
$1,300
$1,300
$6,000
$6,000
P
Contingencies
$6,720
$19,850
$36,300
$63,450
c
Total
$51,540
$152,150
$278,300
$486,450
Table C27.2 - WATERCOST Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Wash Water Surge Basins
Cost Component
Capacity (gal)
Average Percent
10,000
50,000
100,000
500,000
Excavation & Sitework
0.39%
0.34%
0.45%
0.90%
0.52%
Concrete
22.43%
25.84%
25.68%
29.54%
25.87%
Steel
15.50%
16.54%
16.05%
14.55%
15.66%
Labor
35.45%
38.45%
38.66%
37.44%
37.50%
Pipes and Valves
10.67%
4.93%
3.95%
3.29%
5.71%
Electrical
2.52%
0.85%
2.16%
1.23%
1.69%
Contingencies
13.04%
13.05%
13.04%
13.04%
13.04%
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
C-27
-------
APPENDIX D
COST EQUATIONS AND CURVE FITS
FOR REMOVAL AND ACCESSORY COSTS
-------
Figure D-1
Capital Costs for Enhanced Coagulation/Filtration
Design Flows (mgd), x
Accessories Costs
y = 0
Removal Costs
a. y = 89662X - 71592
1.y = 7027 + 14922x-3879x2
R2 = .99
2.y = 756410 + 6937x - 7.55x2
R2 = .99
Applicable Flow Range
0.01 - 430 mgd
1 -10 mgd
0.01 -1 mgd
10 - 430 mgd
D-1
-------
1.E+07
1.E+02
0.001
Figure D-2
O&M Costs for Enhanced Coagulation/Filtration
0.01
0.1 1 10
Average Flow (mgd), x
100
Accessories Costs
y = 0
Removal Costs
a. y = 17479x-3483
1. y = -302.31 x2 + 7299x + 220
R2 = 1
2. y = -0.3972x2 + 14950x + 7906
R2=1
Applicable Flow Range
0.003 - 270 mgd
0.36 - 4.5 mgd
0.003 - 0.36 mgd
4.5 - 270 mgd
1000
D-2
-------
Figure D-3
Capital Costs for Lime Softening
1e+9
1e+8 J
1e+7
1e+6
1e+5
0.01
1000
Design Flows (mgd), x
Accessories Costs
a. y = 331477x + 52533
1. y = 104084 + 380454x - 100528X2
R2 = .99
2. y = 1967171 + 140479x - 46.61X2
R2 = .99
Removal Costs
b.y = 1199712x-519736
3. y = 204540 + 421712x + 53724x2
R2 = 0.99
4. y = 8187348 + 330434x - 143x2
R2 = 0.99
Applicable Flow Range
1-10 mgd
0.01 -1 mgd
10 - 430 mgd
1-10 mgd
0.01 -1 mgd
10 - 430 mgd
D-3
-------
Figure D-4
O&M Costs for Lime Softening
1e+8
1e+7
1e+6
1e+5
1e+4
1e+3
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Average Flows (mgd), x
Accessories Costs
a.y = 21470x + 1762
1. y = 2931 + 20690X - 6849x2
R2 = .99
2. y = 31465 + 14869X + 0.0082x2
R2 = .99
Removal Costs
b.y = 101406X +68702
3. y = 62903 + 128682x - 38736x2
R2 = 0.99
4.y = 161285 + 80863x - 6.96x2
R2 = 0.99
Applicable Flow Range
0.36 - 4.5 mgd
0.003 - 0.36 mgd
4.5 - 270 mgd
0.36 - 4.5 mgd
0.003 - 0.36 mgd
4.5-270 mgd
D-4
-------
1e+9
Figure D-5
Capital Costs for Reverse Osmosis
100
1000
Design Flows (mgd), x
Equation
a. y = 587713x+ 104772
b.y = 187950x +258005
1.y = 34570+ 1289740X
R2 = 0.94
2. y = 197258 + 243872x + 4825.19x2
R2 = 0 99
3. y = 7682317 + 1836106x - 648.7x2
R2 = 0.99
Applicable Flow Ranee
1. 0.01 - 0.1 mgd
2. 0.27 -1 mgd
3. 10 - 430 mgd
4. 0.01 - 0.1 mgd
Removal Cost
o Accessories Cost
c. y = 1395912x +240744
d. y = 2686316x- 884650
4.y = 80395 + 2999395x
R2 = 0.94
5. y = 182042 + 1610996x + 8628.2x2
R2 = 0.99
6. y = 745567 + 138955x + 23.86x2
R2 = 0.99
5. 0.27 - 1 mgd
6. 10 - 430 mgd
a. 0.1 - 0.27 mgd
b. 1 - 10 mgd
c. 0.1 - 0.27 mgd
d. 1 - 10 mgd
D-5
-------
Figure D-6
O&M Costs for Reverse Osmosis
1e+8 ,
1000
Average Flows (mgd), x
Equation
Removal Costs
a. V = 27350 + 641036.8x
b.y = 78049.5+ 481380.9x
1. y = 157604x0'3476
R2 = 0.99
2. y = 558613.5x0-7817
R2 = 0.99
3. y = 580418.4 + 369743.5x
R2 = 0.99
Applicable Flow Range
1.0.003 -0.03 mgd
2. 0.09 - 0.36 mgd
3.4.5 - 270 mgd
4. 0.003 - 0.03 mgd
Removal Cost
o Accessories Cost
Accessories Costs
c. y = 2742 + 66502.2x
d.y = 13998 + 13572.1x
4. y = 1965 + 92397.3x
R2 = 0.99
5. y= 33 353.8x°5568
R2 = 0.99
6. y = 30485 + 9908.3xx
R2 = 0.99
5. 0.09 - 0.36 mgd
6. 4.5 - 270 mgd
a. 0.03 - 0.09 mgd
b. 0.36 - 4.5 mgd
c. 0.03 - 0.09 mgd
d. 0.36 - 4.5 mgd
D-6
-------
APPENDIX E
ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COSTS
-------
Table Ft Coagulation Filtration Additional Capital Costs
Line Hem
Design Flow (mgd)
0.01
0.024
0.087
0.1
0.27
0.45
0.65
0.83
1
1.8
4.8
10
11
18
26
51
210
430
Disinfection of Finished Water
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
£4.872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$14,683
$22,925
$37,259
$40,016
$59,104
$79,295
$124,395
$218,160
$300,098
Additional Filtration Structures
$21,154
$21,934
$25,442
$26,166
$34,851
$46,150
$57,547
$67,047
$75,603
$103,411
$192,515
$298,330
$316,679
$437,974
$574,353
$942,611
$2,464,267
$4,007,457
Additional Backwash Pumps
$10,407
$10,798
$11,373
$11,436
$11,870
$12,118
$12,264
$12,377
$12,456
$47,975
$82,394
$137,237
$147,784
$163,744
$163,744
$163,744
$163,744
$163,744
Additional Raw Water Pumps
$11,822
$11,974
$12,656
$12,797
$14,814
$16,542
$18,529
$20,544
$22,788
$39,606
$61,756
$99,396
$106,635
$152,031
$203,913
$366,044
$1,393,594
$2,772,069
Additional Finished Water Pumps
$11,822
$11,974
$12,655
$12,797
$14,814
$16,542
$18,529
$20,544
$22,768
$68,150
$122,496
$216,695
$234,810
$344,021
$442,018
$748,261
S2.726.588
$5,519,520
Backup Coagulant Feed System
$1,359
$1,610
$2,310
$2,423
$3,904
$4,928
$5,578
$5,852
$5,953
$41,947
$57,813
$68,323
$70,344
$62,997
$97,458
$142,651
$301,048
$519,313
Backup Sulfuric Add Feed System
$1,359
$1,610
$2,310
$2,423
$3,904
$4,928
$5,578
$5,852
$5,953
$87,423
$161,514
$253,673
$271,396
$369,366
$464,947
$708,793
$1,718,647
$2,691,389
Backup Sodium Hydroxide Feed
System
$1,480
$1,848
$3,344
$6,361
$7,073
$7,826
$8,356
$8,427
$8,637
$15,148
$23,928
$39,148
$42,072
$61,837
$77,251
$116,143
$273,522
$422,055
Land (Low Estimate)
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$10,000
$10,000
$15,798
$26,892
$29,025
$43,958
$61,025
$114,358
$453,558
$922,892
Land (High Estimate)
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$157,983
$268,917
$290,250
$439,583
$610,250
$1,143,583
$4,535,583
$9,228,917
Permiltmg (Low Estimate)
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
Permitting (Hioh Estimate)
$85,242
$85,242
$85,242
$85,242
$65,242
$85,242
$85,242
$85,242
$85,242
$85,242
$85,242
$85,242
$85,242
$85,242
$65,242
$85,242
$85,242
$85,242
Table F2 »Enhanced Coagulation Additional Capital CosU
Lme Item
Design Flow (mgd
'
001
0 024
0.087
0.1
0.27
0.45
0.65
0 63
1
1.8
4.8
10
11
16
26
51
210
430
Backup Coagulant Feed System
SI.359
$1,610
$2,310
$2,423
$3,904
$4,928
$5,578
$5,652
$5,953
$41,947
$57,813
$68,323
$70,344
$82,997
$97,458
$142,651
$301,046
$519,313
Backup Sulfuric Add Feed System
$1,359
$1,610
$2,310
$2,423
$3,904
$4,928
$5,578
$5,852
$5,953
$87,423
$161,514
$253,673
$271,396
$369,366
$464,947
$708,793
$1,718,647
$2,691,369
Backup Sodium Hydroxide Feed
System
$1,480
$1,848
$3,344
$6,361
$7,073
$7,826
$8,356
$8,427
$8,637
$15,148
$23,928
$39,148
$42,072
$61,837
$77,251
$116,143
$273,522
$422,055
Table F3 »Direct Filtration Additional Capital Costa
Line Hem
Design Flow (mgd
0.01
0.024
0.087
0.1
0.27
0.45
0.65
0.83
1
1.8
4.8
10
11
18
26
51
210
430
Disinfection of Finished Water
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$14,663
$22,925
$22,926
$40,016
$59,104
$79,295
$124,395
S218,168
$300,098
Additional Filtration Structures
$20,597
$20,597
$20,597
$20,597
$34,851
$46,150
$57,547
$67,047
$75,603
$103,411
$192,515
$192,525
$318,679
$437,974
$574,353
$942,611
$2,464,267
$4,007,457
Additional Backwash Pumps
$10,798
$11,373
$11,436
$11,879
$11,870
$12,118
$12,284
$12,377
$12,456
$47,975
$82,394
$82,399
$147,784
$163,744
$163,744
$163,744
$163,744
$163,744
Additional Raw Water Pumps
$11,714
$11,714-
$11,714
$11,714
$14,814
$16,542
$18,529
$20,544
$22,788
$39,606
$81,756
$61,760
$106,635
$152,031
$203,913
$366,044
$1,393,594
$2,772,069
Additional Finished Water Pumps
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$14,814
$16,542
$18,529
$20,544
$22,788
$66,150
$122,496
$122,505
$234,810
$344,021
$442,018
$748,261
$2,726,586
$5,519,520
Backup Coaoulant Feed Syslem
$1,359
$1,610
$2,310
$2,423
$3,904
$4,928
$5,578
$5,652
$5,953
$41,947
$57,813
$57,814
$70,344
$82,997
$97,458
$142,651
$301,046
$519,313
Backup Sulfuric Add Feed System
$1,359
$1,610
$2,310
$2,423
$3,904
$4,928
$5,578
$5,852
$5,953
$87,423
$161,514
$161,523
$271,398
$369,366
$464,947
$708,793
$1,718,647
$2,691,389
Backup Sodium Hydroxide Feed
System
$1,480
$1,848
$3,344
$6,381
$7,073
$7,826
$8,358
$8,427
$8,637
$15,148
$23,928
$23,929
$42,072
$81,837
$77,251
$116,143
$273,522
$422,055
Land (Low Estimate)
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$10,000
$10,000
$14,776
$24,761
$26,682
$40,124
$55,486
$103,493
$406,820
$831,265
Land (High Estimate)
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$147j757
$247,613
$266,816
$401,236
$554,860
$1,034,933
$4,088,200
$8,312,847
Permitting (Low Estimate)
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
Permitting (High Estimate)
$85,244
$85,244
$85,244
$85,244
$85,244
$85,244
$85,244
$85,244
$85,244
$85,244
$85,244
$85,244
$85,244
$85,244
$85,244
$65,244
$85,244
$65,244
E-1
-------
Tabic F4 ~ In-Llne Filtration Additional Capital Costs
Line Item
Design Flow (mgd)
0 01
0.024
0 087
0.1
0 27
0.45
0.65
0.83
1
1.8
48
10
11
18
26
51
210
430
Disinfection of Finished Waier
$4,072
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$14,663
$22,925
$22,926
$40,016
$59,104
$79,295
$124,395
$218,168
$300,098
Additional Filtration Structures
520.597
$20,597
$20,597
$20,597
$34,851
$46,150
$57,547
$67,047
$75,603
$103,411
$192,515
$192,525
$318,679
$437,974
$574,353
$942,611
$2,464,267
54,007,457
Additional Backwash Pumping
Capacuty
$10,796
$11,373
$11,436
$11,879
$11,870
$12,118
$12,284
$12,377
$12,456
$47,975
$82,394
$82,399
$147,784
$163,744
$163,744
$163,744
$163,744
5163,744
Additional Raw Water Pumptng
Capacity
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$14,814
$16,542
$18,529
$20,544
$22,738
$39,606
$61,756
$61,760
$106,635
$152,031
$203,913
$366,044
$1,393,594
$2,772,069
Additional Finished Water Pumping
Capacity
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$14,814
$16,542
$18,529
$20,544
$22,788
$68,150
$122,496
$122,505
$234,810
$344,021
$442,018
$748,261
$2,726,588
$5,519,520
Backup Coagulant Feed System
$1,359
$1,610
$2,310
$2,423
$3,904
$4,923
$5,578
$5,652
$5,953
$41,947
$57,813
$57,814
$70,344
$82,997
$97,458
$142,651
$301,048
$519,313
Backup Sulfuric Acid Feed System
$1,359
$1,610
$2,310
$2,423
$3,904
$4,923
$5,578
$5,652
$5,953
$87,423
$161,514
$161,523
$271,396
$369,366
$464,947
$708,793
$1,716,647
$2,691,389
Backup Sodium Hydroxide Feed
System
$1,480
$1,848
$3,344
$6,361
$7,073
$7,826
$8,356
$8,427
$8,637
$15,148
$23,928
$23,929
$42,072
$61,837
$77,251
$116,143
$273,522
$422,055
Land (Low Estimate)
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$10,000
$10,000
$14,605
$24,406
$26,291
$39,484
$54,562
$101,682
$401,360
$816,009
Land (High Estimate)
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$146,052
$244,062
$262,908
$394,842
$545,623
$1,016,816
$4,013,599
$8,160,091
Permitting (Low Estimate)
530.572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
Permitting (High Estimate)
$65,245
$85,245
$85,245
$85,245
$85,245
$85,245
$85,245
$85,245
$85,245
$85,245
$85,245
$85,245
$85,245
$85,245
$85,245
$85,245
$85,245
$85,245
Table FS - Lime Softening Additional Capital Costs
Line Item
Design Flow (mgd
001
0.024
0.087
0.1
0.27
0.45
0 65
0.03
1
1 8
4 8
10
11
18
26
51
210
430
Disinfection of Finished Water
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$14,663
$22,925
$22,926
$40,016
$59,104
$79,295
$124,395
$218,168
$300,098
Additional Filtration Structures
$20,597
$20,597
$20,597
$20,597
$34,851
$46,150
$57,547
$67,047
$75,603
$103,411
$192,515
$192,525
$318,679
$437,974
$574,353
$942,611
$2,464,267
$4,007,457
Additional Backwash Pumps
$10,798
$11,373
$11,436
$11,679
$11,870
$12,118
$12,264
$12,377
$12,456
$47,975
$82,394
$62,399
$147,784
$163,744
$163,744
$163,744
$163,744
$163,744
Additional Raw Water Pumps
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$14,814
$16,542
$18,529
$20,544
$22,788
$39,606
$61,756
$61j760
$106,635
$152,031
$203,913
$366,044
$1,393,594
$2,772,069
Additional Finished Water Pumps
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$14,814
$16,542
$18,529
$20,544
$22,788
$68,150
$122,496
$122,505
$234,810
$344,021
$442,018
$748,261
$2,726,588
$5,519,520
Backup Polymer Feed System
$2,679
$3,273
$5,348
$5,556
$8,298
$9,922
$11,727
$12,842
$13,895
$49,585
$69,378
$69,380
$91,163
$107,213
$121,013
$151,070
$240,751
$304,829
Backup Fenous Sulfate Acid Feed
Syslem
$1,359
$1,610
$2,310
$2,423
$3,904
$4,928
$5,578
$5,852
$5,953
$16,167
$22,756
$22,757
$30,115
$36,440
$43,676
$66,267
$213,415
$405,794
Backup Lime Feed Syslem
$1,814
$2,445
$4,494
$4,474
$4,209
$5,233
$5,789
$5,973
$6,046
$156,862
$203,202
$203,206
$252,893
$269,338
$285,858
$337,474
$550,597
$665,186
Backup Liquid CO} Feed Syslem
$1,359
$1,610
$2,310
$2,423
$3,904
$4,928
$5,578
$5,852
$5,953
$58,997
$74,485
$74,488
$110,850
$152,728
$215,763
$409,728
$1,566,384
$3,089,003
Land (Low Estimate)
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$10,000
$10,000
$15,862
$26,963
$29,098
$44,078
$61,198
$114,698
$454,957
$925,293
Land (High Estimate)
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$158,623
$269,634
$290,983
$440,782
$611,962
$1,146,981
$4,549,571
S9.252.929
Permitting (Low Estimate)
$24,624
$24,624
$24,624
$24,624
$24,624
$24,624
$24,624
$24,624
$24,624
$24,624
$24,624
$24,624
$24,624
$24,624
$24,624
$24,624
$24,624
$24,624
Peimittlnq (High Estimate)
$79,295
$79,295
$79,295
$79,295
$79,295
$79,295
$79,295
$79,295
$79,295
$79,295
$79,295
$79,295
$79,295
$79,295
$79,295
$79,295
$79,295
$79,295
Table F6 - Enhanced Lime Softening Additional Capital Costs
Line Item
Design Flow (mgd
001
0.024
0.087
0 1
0.27
0.45
0.65
0 83
1
1.8
4.8
10
11
18
26
51
210
430
Backup Ferrous Sulfate Acid Feed
System
$1,359
$1,610
$2,310
$2,423
$3,904
$4,928
$5,578
$5,852
$5,953
$16,167
$22,756
$22,757
$30,115
$36,440
$43,676
$66,267
$213,415
$405,794
Backup Lime Feed System
$1,814
$2,445
$4,494
$4,474
$4,209
$5,233
$5,789
$5,973
$6,046
$156,882
$203,202
$203,206
$252,893
$269,338
$265,858
$337,474
$550,597
$665,186
Backup Liquid CO? Feed System
$1,359
$1,610
$2,310
$2,423
$3,904
$4,928
$5,578
$5,852
$5,953
$58,997
$74,485
$74,488
$110,850
$152,728
$215,763
$409,728
St.566,384
$3,089,003
E-2
-------
Tabta F7 ¦ Anion Exchange Additional Capital Costa
Design Flow (mgd)
0.01
0.024
0.087
0.1
0.27
0.45
0.65
0.63
1
1.8
4.8
10
11
18
26
51
210
430
Disinfection of Finished Water
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$14,663
$22,925
$22,926
$40,016
$59,104
$79,295
$124,395
$218,168
$300,098
Additional Raw Water Pumps
SI 1,714
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$14,814
$16,542
$16,529
$20,544
$22,768
$39,606
$61,756
$61,760
$106,635
$152,031
$203,913
$366,044
$1.393.594
$2,772,069
Additional Finished Water Pumps
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$14,814
$16,542
$18,529
$20,544
$22,788
$68,150
$122,496
$122,505
$234,810
$344,021
$442,018
$748,261
$2,726,588
$5,519,520
Backup Sodium Hydroxide Feed
System
$1,480
$1,848
$3,344
$6,361
$7,073
$7,826
$8,356
$8,427
$8,637
$15,148
$23,928
$23,929
$42,072
$61,037
$77,251
$116,143
$273,522
$422,055
Land (Low Estimate)
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$12,748
$23,850
$94,463
$192,166
Land (High Estimate)
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$127,478
$238,505
$944,633
$1,921,665
Permiltina (Low Estimate)
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
Permitting (High Estimate)
$79,599
$79,599
$79,599
$79,599
$79,599
$79,599
$79,599
$79,599
$79,599
$79,599
$79,599
$79,599
$79,599
$79,599
$79,599
$79,599
$79,599
$79,599
Table F8 »Cation Exchange Additional Capital Costs
Line hem
0.01
0.024
0.087
0.1
0.27
0.45
0.65
0.83
1
1.8
4.8
10
11
18
26
51
210
430
Disinfection of Fmished Water
$4,872
54.872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$14,663
$22,925
$37,259
$40,016
$59,104
$79,295
$124,395
S218.168
$300,098
Additional Raw Water Pumps
$11,822
$11,974
$12,656
$12,797
$14,814
$16,542
$16,529
$20(544
$22,766
$39,606
$61,756
$99,396
$106,635
$152,031
$203,913
$366,044
$1,393,594
$2,772,069
Additional Finished Water Pumps
$11,822
$11,974
$12,656
$12,797
$14,814
$16,542
$18,529
$20,544
$22,788
$68,150
$122,496
$216,695
$234,810
$344,021
$442,018
$748,261
$2,726,588
$5,519,520
lackup Sodium Hydroxide Feed
Jystem
$1,480
$1,848
$3,344
$6,361
$7,073
$7,826
$6,356
$8,427
$8,637
$15,146
$23,928
$39,146
$42,072
$61,837
$77,251
$116,143
$273,522
$422,055
.and (Low Estimate)
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$12,748
$23,850
$94,463
$192,166
.and (High Estimate)
5100.000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$127,478
$238,505
$944,633
$1,921,665
'errrettino (Low Estimate)
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
$24,924
Smutting (High Estimate)
$79,600
$79,600
$79,600
$79,600
$79,600
$79,600
$79,600
$79,600
$79,600
$79,600
$79,600
$79,600
$79,600
$79,600
$79,600
$79,600
$79,600
$79,600
Table F9 - Reverse Osmosis Additional Capital Costs
Line Hem
Design Flow (mgd
0.01
0 024
0.087
0.1
0.27
0.45
0.65
0 83
1
1.8
4.6
10
11
18
26
51
210
430
>tsinfecllon of Finished Water
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$14,663
$22,925
$22,926
$40,016
$59,104
$79,295
$124,395
$218,168
$300,098
tdditionai Backwash Pumps
$10,798
$11,373
$11,436
$11,879
$39,608
$40,365
$40,919
$41,229
$41,492
$47,975
$82,394
$62,399
$147,784
$163,744
$163,744
$163,744
$163,744
$163,744
.ddillonal Raw Waler Pumps
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$14,814
$16,542
$18,529
$20,544
$22,788
$39,606
$61,756
$61,760
$106,635
$152,031
$203,913
$366,044
$1,393,594
$2,772,069
.dditionai Finished Waler Pumps
$11,714
$11.714
$11,714
$11,714
$14,814
$16,542
$16,529
$20,544
$22,788
$68,150
$122,496
$122,505
$234,810
$344,021
$442,018
$748,261
52.726.588
$5,519,520
ackup Sodtum Hydroxide Feed
ystem
SI.480
$1,848
$3,344
$6,361
$7,073
$7,626
$6,356
$8,427
$8,637
$15,148
$23,928
$23,929
$42,072
$61,837
$77,251
$116,143
$273,522
$422,055
and (Low Estimate)
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$4,000
$1,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,136
$13,768
$25,116
$97,290
$197,154
and (High Estimate)
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$101,362
$137,676
$251,158
$972,900
$1,971,537
ermitting (Low Estimate)
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
S30.572
$30,572
ermilUng (High Estimate)
$85,252
$85,252
$85,252
$85,252
$85,252
$85,252
$85,252
$85,252
$85,252
$85,252
$65,252
$85,252
$85,252
$85,252
$65,252
$85,252
$85,252
S85.252
Table F10 Electrodlalysls Reversal Additional Capital Costs
Line Item
Design Flow (mgd)
001
0 024
0.087
0.1
0.27
0.45
0.65
083
1
isinfection of Finished Water
S4.072
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
$4,872
JdiUonal Raw Water Pumps
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$14,6t4
$16,542
$18,529
$20,544
$22,768
jditional Finished Water Pumps
$11.714
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$14,814
$16,542
$18,529
$20,544
$22,788
ackup Sulfuric Acid Feed System
$1,359
$1,610
$2,310
$2,423
$3,904
$4,928
$5,576
$5,852
$5,953
ind (Low Estimate)
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$10,000
>nd (High Estimate)
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
smutting (Low Estimate)
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
smutting (High Estimate)
$85,253
$85,253
$85,253
$85,253
$85,253
$85,253
$85,253
$85,253
$85,253
E-3
-------
Tfble F11»Greenland Filtration Additional Capital Co«U
Line Item
Design Flow (mgd)
0.01
0.024
0 087
0.1
0.27
Disinfection of Finished Water
$4,872
$4,872
$4,072
$4,872
$4,872
Additional Filtration Structures
$20,597
$20,597
$20,597
$20,597
$34,851
Additional Backwash Pumps
$10,798
$11,373
$11,436
$11,879
$11,870
Additional Raw Water Pumps
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$14,814
Additional Finished Water Pumps
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$11,714
$14,814
Backup Potassium Permanganante
Feed System
$1,359
$1,610
$2,310
$2,423
$3,904
Land (Low Estimate)
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
Land (High Estimate)
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
Permitting (Low Estimate)
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
$30,572
Permitting (High Estimate)
$85,254
$65,254
$85,254
$05,254
$85,254
E-4
------- |