EPA/600/R-04/201
December 2004
Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal Technologies
U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology
Demonstration Program
Round 1
by
Abraham S.C. Chen
Lili Wang
Jeffrey L. Oxenham
Wendy E. Condit
Battelle
Columbus, OH 43201
Under Contract No. 68-C-00-185
Task Order No. 0019
For
Task Order Manager
Thomas J. Sorg
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work reported in this document is funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under Task Order (TO) 0019 of Contract No. 68-C-00-185 to Battelle. It has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication as an EPA document.
Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not, necessarily, reflect the official
positions and policies of the EPA. Any mention of products or trade names does not constitute
recommendation for use by the EPA.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the Nation's
land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPA's research program is
providing data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building a science
knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect
our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for investigation
of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that
threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on
methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and
subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster technologies that
reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides
solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve
the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of
environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan. It is
published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the user
community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Acting Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
ABSTRACT
On January 18, 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the maximum
contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.01 mg/L. EPA subsequently revised the rule text to express the
MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L). The final rule requires all community and non-transient, non-community
water systems to comply with the new standard by February 2006. In October 2001, the EPA announced
an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective technologies to help small
community water systems (< 10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard, and to provide technical
assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs.
As part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, long-term, on-site
demonstrations of arsenic removal technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches
applicable to small systems in order to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of arsenic removal
systems at meeting the new arsenic MCL. For the Round 1 demonstration study, the selected arsenic
treatment technologies include nine adsorptive media systems, one ion exchange system, one
coagulation/filtration system, and one process modification. The adsorptive media systems use four
different adsorptive media, including three iron-based media, i.e., ADI's G2, Severn Trent and AdEdge's
E33, and USFilter's GFH, and one iron-modified activated alumina media, i.e., Kinetico's AAFS50 (a
product of Alcan). Since the inception of the project, 10 of 12 systems have been installed, with flowrates
at all systems ranging from 37 to 640 gpm.
A key objective of the long-term demonstration project is to determine the cost-effectiveness of the
technologies. This report provides a brief description of each of the 12 Round 1 demonstration sites and
the respective technologies being evaluated. Capital costs were organized into three categories—
equipment, engineering, and installation—and then summed to arrive at a total capital investment cost for
each system. Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the treatment systems are not yet
available; however, vendor-supplied estimates on media replacement costs also are provided in this
report.
Excluding the cost for one system modification site, the total capital investment costs range from $90,757
to $305,000, and vary by flowrate, system design, material of construction, monitoring equipment, and
specific site conditions. Based on a 3% interest rate and a 20-year return period, the unit costs of the total
capital investment range from $0.03 to $0.79 per 1,000 gallons of water treated. In general, the unit cost
decreases as the size of a treatment system increases. The equipment costs for the treatment systems
range from $66,235 to $218,000, representing 54 to 80% of the total capital investment cost. Engineering
costs for the treatment systems range from $4,907 to $50,659, accounting for 5 to 22% of the total capital
investment with an average of 12%. Installation costs for the treatment systems range from $13,150 to
$77,574, which accounts for 12 to 34% of the total capital investment with an average of'22%.
Finally, building cost information obtained from the host facilities also is provided in the report. Building
costs range from $3,700 to $186,000, varying according to differences in location, size, design, material
of construction, and choice of construction contractor.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER ii
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES vii
TABLES vii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose and Scope 1
1.2 Background 1
2.0 ADSORPTIVE MEDIA PROCESSES 3
2.1 G2 Adsorptive Media 4
2.1.1 Bow, NH Site Background 4
2.1.2 Treatment System Description 5
2.1.3 Treatment System Operation 5
2.1.4 Capital Investment 6
2.2 E33 Adsorptive Media 6
2.2.1 Desert Sands MDWCA (APU-300 System) 7
2.2.1.1 Site Background 7
2.2.1.2 Treatment System Description 7
2.2.1.3 Treatment System Operation 8
2.2.1.4 Capital Investment 8
2.2.2 Brown City, MI (APU-300 System) 9
2.2.2.1 Site Background 9
2.2.2.2 Treatment System Description 9
2.2.2.3 Treatment System Operation 9
2.2.2.4 Capital Investment 9
2.2.3 Queen Anne's County (APU-300 System) 10
2.2.3.1 Site Background 10
2.2.3.2 Treatment System Description 11
2.2.3.3 Treatment System Operation 11
2.2.3.4 Capital Investment 11
2.2.4 Nambe Pueblo, NM (APU-150 System) 12
2.2.4.1 Site Background 12
2.2.4.2 Treatment System Description 12
2.2.4.3 Treatment System Operation 13
2.2.4.4 Capital Investment 13
2.2.5 Rimrock, AZ (APU-100 System) 14
2.2.5.1 Site Background 14
2.2.5.2 Treatment System Description 14
2.2.5.3 Treatment System Operation 14
2.2.5.4 Capital Investment 15
2.2.6 Rollinsford, NH (APU-100 System) 16
2.2.6.1 Site Background 16
2.2.6.2 Treatment System Description 17
2.2.6.3 Treatment System Operation 17
-------
2.2.6.4 Capital Investment 17
2.3 AAFS50 Adsorptive Media 18
2.3.1 Valley Vista, AZ Site Background 18
2.3.2 Treatment System Description 19
2.3.3 Treatment System Operation 19
2.3.4 Capital Investment 19
2.4 GFH Adsorptive Media 20
2.4.1 STMGID Site Background 21
2.4.2 Treatment System Description 21
2.4.3 Treatment System Operation 21
2.4.4 Capital Investment 21
3.0 COAGULATION/FILTRATION PROCESS 23
3.1 Climax, MN Site Background 23
3.2 Treatment System Description 23
3.3 Treatment System Operation 24
3.4 Capital Investment 24
4.0 ION EXCHANGE PROCESS - FRUITLAND, ID 26
4.1 Fruitland, ID Site Background 26
4.2 Treatment System Description 27
4.3 Treatment System Operation 27
4.4 Capital Investment 27
5.0 SYSTEM MODIFICATION - LIDGERWOOD, ND 29
5.1 Lidgerwood, ND Site Background 29
5.2 Treatment System Description 29
5.3 Treatment System Operation 30
5.4 Capital Investment 30
6.0 COST SUMMARY 32
6.1 Total Capital Investment 32
6.2 Equipment Costs 37
6.3 Engineering Costs 37
6.4 Installation Costs 37
6.5 Building Costs 41
6.5.1 Bow,NH 41
6.5.2 Desert Sands MDWCA, NM 41
6.5.3 Brown City, MI 41
6.5.4 Queen Anne's County, MD 42
6.5.5 Nambe Pueblo, NM 42
6.5.6 Rimrock, AZ 42
6.5.7 Rollinsfbrd, NH 42
6.5.8 Valley Vista, AZ 42
6.5.9 STMGID, NV 42
6.5.10 Climax, MN 42
6.5.11 Fruitland, ID 43
6.5.12 Lidgerwood, ND 43
7.0 REFERENCES 44
VI
-------
FIGURES
Figure 6-1. Total Capital Investment Cost vs. System Flowrate (All Systems) 35
Figure 6-2. Total Capital Investment Cost vs. System Flowrate (Iron-Based Adsorptive Media
Systems Only) 35
Figure 6-3. Unit Cost of Total Capital Investment vs. System Flowrate (All Systems) 36
Figure 6-4. Unit Cost of Total Capital Investment vs. System Flowrate (Iron-Based Adsorptive
Media Systems Only) 36
Figure 6-5. Equipment Cost vs. System Flowrate (All Systems) 38
Figure 6-6. Equipment Cost vs. System Flowrate (Iron-Based Adsorptive Media Systems
Only) 38
Figure 6-7. Unit Equipment Cost vs. System Flowrate (All Systems) 39
Figure 6-8. Unit Equipment Cost vs. System Flowrate (Iron Based Adsorptive Media Systems
Only) 39
Figure 6-9. Engineering Cost vs. System Flowrate 40
Figure 6-10. Installation Cost vs. System Flowrate 40
TABLES
Table 1 -1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Technologies and Source Water Quality Parameters 2
Table 2-1. Physical and Chemical Properties and Costs of the Adsorptive Media 3
Table 2-2. Summary of the Design and Components of the Adsorptive Media Systems 4
Table 2-3. Summary of Capital Investment for the Bow, NH Treatment System 6
Table 2-4. Summary of Capital Investment for the Desert Sands MDWCA Treatment System 8
Table 2-5. Summary of Capital Investment for the Brown City, MI Treatment System 10
Table 2-6. Summary of Capital Investment for the Queen Anne's County Treatment System 12
Table 2-7. Summary of Capital Investment for the Nambe Pueblo Treatment System 13
Table 2-8. Summary of Capital Investment for the Rimrock, AZ Treatment System 16
Table 2-9. Summary of Capital Investment for the Rollinsford, NH Treatment System 18
Table 2-10. Summary of Capital Investment for the Valley Vista, AZ Treatment System 20
Table 2-11. Summary of Capital Investment for the STMGID Treatment System 22
Table 3-1. Physical Properties of 40/60 Mesh Macrolite® Media 23
Table 3 -2. Summary of Capital Investment for the Climax, MN Treatment System 25
Table 4-1. Physical and Chemical Properties of Purolite A-520E Resin 26
Table 4-2. Summary of Capital Investment forthe Fruitland, ID System 28
Table 5 -1. Summary of Capital Investment for the Lidgerwood, ND System Modification 31
Table 6-1. Capital Investment Costs of the 12 Round 1 Arsenic Demonstration Systems 33
Table 6-2. Annualized and Unit Costs of Total Capital Investment for the 12 Round 1 Arsenic
Demonstration Systems 34
Table 6-3. Summary of Cost Equations 34
Table 6-4. Summary of Building Costs 41
vn
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AA activated alumina
ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
AM adsorptive media (process)
APU arsenic-package-unit
AWC Arizona Water Company
C/F coagulation/filtration (process)
CO2 carbon dioxide
CRF capital recovery factor
CS carbon steel
EBCT empty bed contact time
EPA (United States) Environmental Protection Agency
FRP fiberglass reinforced plastic
GFH granular ferric hydroxide
GFO granular ferric oxide
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
HOPE high-density polyethylene
HTA Hoyle, Tanner, and Associates
IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
IHS Indian Health Service
IX ion exchange (process)
KMnO4 potassium permanganate
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDE Maryland Department of Environment
MDEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
MDH Minnesota Department of Health
MDWCA (Desert Sands) Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association
N/A not available
NHDES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
NSF NSF International
O&M operations and maintenance
ORD Office of Research and Development
PE Professional Engineer
P&ID Piping and Instrumentation Diagram
PLC programmable logic controller
psi(g) pounds per square inch (gauge)
Vlll
-------
PVC polyvinyl chloride
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SM system modification
SS stainless steel
STMGID South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
TO Task Order
UST underground storage tank
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by Battelle with input from Thomas J. Sorg, EPA's Task Order Manager.
Jeffery Adams of EPA and Richard Brown and Nancy McTigue of Environment Engineering and
Technology, Inc. reviewed the manuscript and provided valuable suggestions and comments. The 12 host
facilities are acknowledged for providing the building cost information.
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
Battelle, under a contract with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is conducting
full-scale demonstration studies on the removal of arsenic from drinking water supplies at 12 water
treatment facilities throughout the United States. These demonstration studies evaluate the efficiency and
effectiveness of the systems in meeting the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 0.010
mg/L (10 ng/L). One of the objectives of the studies is to determine the cost-effectiveness of the
technologies using the cost information (including equipment, site engineering, installation, operation,
and maintenance costs) provided by the vendors and/or obtained during the demonstration studies.
This report provides a brief description of each of the 12 demonstration sites and the respective
technologies being evaluated and summarizes the capital investment made in the treatment systems.
Building cost information obtained from the host facilities also is provided. The operations and
maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the treatment systems will be reported in a separate document
at the end of the demonstration project.
1.2 Background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates that EPA identify and regulate drinking water
contaminants that may have adverse human health effects and that are known or anticipated to occur in
public water supply systems. In 1975 under the SDWA, EPA established an MCL for arsenic at 0.05
mg/L. The SDWA was amended in 1996 and required that EPA develop an arsenic research strategy and
publish a proposal to revise the arsenic MCL by January 2000. On January 18, 2001, EPA finalized the
arsenic MCL at 0.01 mg/L (EPA, 2001). In order to clarify the implementation of the original rule, EPA
revised the rule text on March 25, 2003 to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 (ig/L) (EPA, 2003). The
final rule requires all community and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the
new standard by February 2006.
In October 2001, EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective
technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard,
and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As
part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal
technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems. Shortly
thereafter, an announcement was published in the Federal Register requesting water utilities interested in
participating in the EPA-sponsored demonstration program to provide information on their water systems.
In June 2002, EPA selected 17 sites from a list of 115 sites to be the host sites for the demonstration
studies.
In September 2002, EPA solicited proposals from engineering firms and vendors for commercially
available cost-effective arsenic removal treatment technologies for the 17 potential host sites. The
objective of this solicitation was to select treatment technologies for the demonstration project, which will
evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of drinking water treatment technologies to meet the new MCL
under varying source water quality conditions. For the purposes of this solicitation, "treatment
technologies" included process modifications and engineering approaches as well as new or add-on
treatment technologies.
-------
EPA received 70 technical proposals for the 17 host sites, with each site receiving from one to six
proposals. In April 2003, an independent technical review panel reviewed the proposals and provided its
recommendations to EPA on the technologies that it determined were acceptable for the demonstration at
each site. Because of funding limitations and other technical reasons, only 12 of the 17 sites were
selected for the demonstration project. Using the information provided by the review panel, EPA in
cooperation with the host sites and the drinking water programs of the respective states selected one
technical proposal for each site.
The technologies selected for evaluation include nine adsorptive media systems, one anion exchange
system, one coagulation/filtration system, and one process modification with iron addition. The nine
adsorptive media systems use four different media products, including ADI's G2, Severn Trent's and
AdEdge's E33, USFilter's granular ferric hydroxide (GFH), and Kinetico's AAFS50 (a product of Alcan).
Table 1-1 summarizes the locations (sorted geographically from the Northeast to the Southwest),
technologies, vendors, and key source water quality parameters (including arsenic, iron, and pH) of the 12
demonstration sites. Since the inception of the project, ten treatment systems have been installed and
their performance is currently being evaluated. The systems for the Nambe Pueblo and STMGID sites are
to be installed and expected to be operational before the end of 2004.
Table 1-1. Summary of Arsenic Removal Technologies and Source Water Quality
Parameters
State
NH
NH
MD
MI
MN
ND
NM
NM
AZ
AZ
ID
NV
Demonstration Site
Bow
Rollinsford
Queen Anne's County
Brown City
Climax
Lidgerwood
Desert Sands MDWCA
Nambe Pueblo
Rimrock
Valley Vista
Fruitland
STMGID
Technology
AM(G2)
AM(E33)
AM(E33)
AM (E33)
C/F
SM
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (E33)
AM (AAFS50)
IX
AM (GFH)
Vendor
ADI
AdEdge
Severn Trent
Severn Trent
Kinetico
Kinetico
Severn Trent
AdEdge
AdEdge
Kinetico
Kinetico
USFilter
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
70(a)
100
300
640
140
250
320
145
90(a)
37
250
350
Source Water Quality
As
(HS/L)
39
36(b)
19(b)
14(b)
39(b)
146(b)
23(b)
33
50
41
44
39
Fe
(HS/L)
<25
46
270(c)
127(o)
546(c)
l,325(c)
39
<25
170
<25
<25
<25
PH
7.7
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.2
7.7
8.5
7.2
7.8
7.4
7.4
AM = adsorptive media process; C/F = coagulation/filtration process; IX = ion exchange process;
SM = system modification; MDWCA = Mutual Domestic Water Consumer's Association;
STMGID = South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District
(a) Due to system reconfiguration from parallel to series operation, the design flowrate is reduced by 50%.
(b) Arsenic exists mostly as As(III).
(c) Iron exists mostly as soluble Fe(II).
-------
2.0 ADSORPTIVE MEDIA PROCESSES
Nine of the 12 demonstration sites use adsorptive media (AM) processes in their arsenic removal
treatment systems. These systems use four different adsorptive media: two of the media are iron
products, either ferric oxide (E33) or ferric hydroxide (GFH), and the other two are iron-modified media
(G2 and AAFS50). The key physical and chemical properties and costs of the four adsorptive media are
presented in Table 2-1.
Because of varying site conditions and source water quality, the design and basic components of the AM
systems vary among the demonstration sites. Three systems configure the AM vessels in series, whereas
the other six in parallel. Also, some systems require pH adjustment because of high source water pH
values. These variations in design have an impact on the total investment costs and must be taken into
consideration when attempting to compare the costs of different systems. Table 2-2 summarizes the
design and basic components of the AM systems.
Table 2-1. Physical and Chemical Properties and Costs of the Adsorptive Media
Parameter
G2
E33
AAFS50
GFH
Physical and Chemical Properties
Matrix/ Active Ingredient
Physical Form
Color
Bulk Density (g/cm3)
Bulk Density (lb/ft3)
BET Area (m2/g)
Particle Size Distribution/
Effective Size (mm)
Diatomaceous
earth (Si-based)
impregnated with
a coating of
ferric hydroxide
Dry powder
Dark brown
0.75
47
27
0.32
Iron oxide composite
(90.1%FeOOH)
Dry granular media
Amber
0.45
28
142
10 x 35 mesh
83% A12O3 +
proprietary
additive
Dry granular
media
Light amber
0.91
57
220
28 x 48 mesh
52-57%
Fe(OH)3 and (3-
FeOOH
Moist granular
media
Dark brown
1.22-1.29
76-81
127
0.32-2
Media Cost
Vendor
Cost ($/ft3)
Cost ($/lb)
ADI
35
0.75
Severn Trent
150
5.36
AdEdge
245
8.75
Kinetico
82
1.44
USFilter
238
3.03
Media Replacement Cost^
Vendor
Cost ($/ft3)
Cost ($/lb)
ADI
40
0.85
Severn Trent
167.5
5.98
AdEdge
295-329
10.54-11.75
Kinetico
252
4.42
USFilter
244
3.12
(a) Cost includes material, freight, labor, travel expense, and media profiling and disposal fees, except for the cost
of G2 which includes material and freight only.
N/A = not available.
-------
Table 2-2. Summary of the Design and Components of the Adsorptive Media Systems
Media
Type
G2
E33
E33
E33
E33
E33
E33
AAFS50
GFH
Site
Bow,NH
Desert Sands
MDWCA, NM
Brown City, MI
Queen Anne's
County, MD
Nambe Pueblo,
NM
Rimrock, AZ
Rollinsford, NH
Valley Vista, AZ
STMGID, NV
Media Vessels
No.
2
2
4
2
3
2
2
2
3
Configu-
ration
Series
Parallel
Parallel
Parallel
Parallel
Series
Parallel
Series
Parallel
Material
SS
FRP
FRP
FRP
FRP
FRP
FRP
FRP
CS
Media
Volume
per
Vessel
(ft3)
85
80
80
80
27
27
27
22
80
EBCT
at
Design
Flow
(min)
18(a)
3.7
3.7
4.0
4.2
4.5(a)
4.0
4.4(a)
5.1
Pre/Post-Treatment
Pre-
C12
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Pre-
pH
Adjust
ment
H2SO4
No
No
No
C02
No
C02
H2SO4
No
Post-
C12
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Post-
pH
Adjust
ment
NaOH
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
EBCT = empty bed contact time; SS = stainless steel; FRP = fiberglass reinforced plastic; CS = carbon steel
(a) EBCT is for one vessel only.
2.1
G2 Adsorptive Media
The G2 media is an iron oxide-modified adsorptive media developed by ADI, Inc. specifically for arsenic
adsorption. The media consists of a substrate of granular, calcined diatomite on which a ferric hydroxide
coating is bonded. The physical and chemical properties of the G2 media are shown in Table 2-1. The
media has NSF Standard 61 listing for use in drinking water. ADI markets G2 media for both As(V) and
As(III) removal. As with most iron media products, G2 has a higher removal capacity for As(V) than
As(III). Thus, a pre-chlorination step often is employed to oxidize As(III) in source water to As(V) prior
to filtering the water through the G2 media.
The ADI G2 media process is being demonstrated at Bow, NH. The arsenic removal system is a fixed
bed adsorption system consisting of two downflow pressure vessels in series. O&M of the system
involves routine sampling and mechanical maintenance, monthly manual backwashing (to "fluff media),
and media replacement as necessary once the media reaches its adsorption capacity. Spent media, which
is expected to pass the EPA's Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test, will be disposed
of as non-hazardous waste. G2 media can be regenerated with 1% sodium hydroxide up to four times
before the media needs to be replaced; however, for small systems, regeneration is generally not practiced
because disposal of the regenerate (hazardous ) is problematic.
2.1.1 Bow, NH Site Background. The 40-gpm Bow, NH water treatment system is owned and
operated by C&C Water Services. The system supplies water to 96 homes in the community. The source
water is groundwater drawn from three on-site wells (No. 1, 2, and 3). The well pumps are controlled by
the water levels in two 15,000-gallon storage tanks. Based on the water demand, the system runs
approximately 6 hours per day providing approximately 14,500 gpd.
Historically, the arsenic level in the source water ranges from 35 to 45 |o,g/L. An arsenic speciation test
conducted on the source water in April 2004 found the arsenic (39.2 |o,g/L) to be predominately As(V)
(38.7 ng/L). The iron level of the source water is relatively low, ranging from <25 to 60 |o,g/L. Based on
-------
the vendors' past experience, the level of iron in the source water is low enough that pretreatment for iron
removal is not considered necessary. G2 media adsorbs arsenic most effectively at a pH value within the
5.5 to 7.5 range. Because the historic pH value of the source water ranges from 7.7 to 7.8, lowering the
pH value to 6.5 is included as part of the demonstration study treatment system to extend the media life.
Prior to the installation of the G2 system, the treatment at Bow included addition of a dilute sodium
hypochlorite solution for disinfection, and of sodium hydroxide to control corrosion via pH adjustment.
In addition, about 10 to 15% of the flow was treated through an activated alumina (AA) system that had
been used at the site for several years.
2.1.2 Treatment System Description. The G2 adsorption system was originally designed for the
Allenstown, NH site at a flowrate of 70 gpm with two vessels operating in parallel. The system was
subsequently reconfigured for series operation at the Bow, NH site after the Allenstown, NH site decided
to withdraw from the demonstration study. The major components of the G2 treatment system are
described as follows:
• Pre-chlorination. Injection of sodium hypochlorite was previously employed for
disinfection at the site and is continued for both disinfection and As(III) oxidation,
although arsenic in the source water exists predominately as As(V).
• Pre-pH adjustment. The pH of the source water is adjusted to approximately 6.5 ± 0.2
using a 50% sulfuric acid solution.
• G2 media adsorption. The G2 media system consists of two 72-inch-diameter, 72-inch-
tall, 304 stainless steel (SS) pressure vessels in series, each containing about 85 ft3 of G2
media. The filter vessels are rated for 50 psi working pressure and can be reversed in the
lead/lag positions manually using a series of valves.
• Post-pH adjustment. After adsorption, the pH of the treated water is adjusted with
sodium hydroxide to approximately 7.5 ± 0.2 before the water enters the distribution
system for corrosion control.
2.1.3 Treatment System Operation. The G2 media system is operated in downflow mode
through the SS adsorption vessels. Flow to each vessel is measured and totalized to record the volume of
water treated. Pressure differential through each vessel also is monitored to track the pressure loss.
Based on a set time or a set pressure differential, the adsorption vessels are taken off-line and backwashed
one at a time using treated water from the storage tank. The purpose of the backwash is to remove media
fines built up in the beds and to "fluff the compacted media bed. The backwash water is discharged to
an on-site surface drainage field for disposal.
The G2 media in the lead vessel is replaced when the effluent arsenic concentration from the lead vessel
reaches the influent concentration or when the effluent concentration from the lag vessel reaches 10 (ig/L.
After the spent media in the lead vessel is replaced, this vessel becomes the lag vessel. Based on the
average daily use rate of 15,000 gpd, the size of adsorption vessels, and the chemistry of the source water,
it is expected that the G2 media in the lead vessel has an estimated working capacity of 10,300 bed
volumes and will last for more than 14 months before change-out is necessary. The estimated G2 media
replacement cost is $6,800 per change-out (or $40/ft3 for 170 ft3 of media). This cost, however, does not
include the cost for spent media off-loading and disposal or virgin media re-loading.
-------
2.1.4 Capital Investment. The capital investment costs for equipment, site engineering, and
installation at the Bow, NH Site are $154,700 (see Table 2-3). The equipment costs include the costs for
two SS adsorption vessels, G2 media, a backwash booster pump, and associated piping, valving, and
system instrumentation. The costs of the adsorption package unit are $76,100, which is approximately
74% of the total equipment costs or 49% of the total capital investment. The media cost (4,000 Ib or 85
ft3 in each vessel) is $6,000. The equipment costs also include $3,900 for a backwash booster pump and
$16,600 for vendor's field services.
Table 2-3. Summary of Capital Investment for the Bow, NH Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
Adsorption System
G2 Media
Backwash Booster Pump
Field Services (Vendor Labor and Travel)
Equipment Total
1 unit
170 ft3
1
-
-
$76,100
$6,000
$3,900
$16,600
$102,600
-
-
-
-
66%
Engineering Costs
Vendor Labor
Engineering Total
-
-
$12,500
$12,500
-
8%
Installation Costs
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
$32,500
$3,550
$3,550
$39,600
$154,700
-
-
-
26%
100%
The site engineering costs include the costs of preparing and submitting the required engineering plans to
obtain system permits from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) Water
Supply Engineering Bureau. The engineering plans include the process flow diagrams of the treatment
system, system layout and footprint, mechanical and electrical tie-ins, and construction plan for the
treatment building. Lewis Engineering, a local civil engineering firm, performed the site engineering
design for the treatment system; C&C Water Services, the owner/operator of the water system, provided
the construction plan for the treatment building. The engineering costs are $12,500, which is
approximately 8% of the total capital investment.
Installation costs are $39,600, including costs for equipment and labor to unload and install the adsorption
unit, perform the piping tie-ins and electrical work, and load and condition the media. The installation
was conducted by Lewis Engineering and C&C Water Services.
2.2
E33 Adsorptive Media
Bayoxide® E33 media is a granular ferric oxide (GFO) developed by Bayer AG for the removal of arsenic
from drinking water supplies. The physical and chemical properties of E33 media are shown in Table 2-
1. E33 media is provided in a dry crystalline form and has received NSF Standard 61 listing for use in
drinking water applications. Severn Trent markets the media in the United States as Sorb-33, and offers
several arsenic-package-units (APUs) with flowrates ranging from 150 to 300 gpm. Another company,
-------
AdEdge, Inc., provides similar systems using the same media (marketed as AD-33) with flowrates
ranging from 5 to 150 gpm.
Each Severn Trent APU system consists of one or more fixed-bed pressure vessels, piping,
instrumentation controls, and E33 media. The vessels are operated in downflow mode and can be
configured in series or parallel. E33 media cannot be regenerated and the media is removed and disposed
of after reaching its capacity. The media life depends on the influent arsenic concentration, water pH
value, and concentrations of interfering ions that compete for the adsorption sites. Spend media is
expected to pass the EPA's TCLP test and will be disposed of as non-hazardous waste. The APU system
is designed to perform manual or automated backwash on a monthly or as-needed basis to remove iron
oxide fines and to re-expand the compacted bed.
One of the Severn Trent treatment systems, APU-300, was installed at three demonstration sites: Desert
Sands Mutual Domestic Water Consumer's Association (MDWCA) near Anthony, NM; Brown City, MI;
and Queen Anne's County near Stevensville, MD. Raw water is pumped to the APU-300 system via 4-
inch-diameter piping to two parallel 63-inch-diameter, 86-inch-tall fiberglass reinforced plastic (FRP)
vessels. The system capacity is 150 gpm per vessel for a total rated capacity of 300 gpm.
Another similar, but smaller system, APU-100, was supplied by AdEdge and installed at three other
demonstration sites: Nambe Pueblo, NM; Rimrock, AZ; and Rollinsford, NH. Raw water enters the
APU-100 system via 2-inch-diameter piping to two parallel 36-inch-diameter and 72-inch-tall FRP
vessels. The APU-100 system is designed for 50 gpm through each vessel. Each vessel has a dedicated
instantaneous flow totalizer.
During the backwash cycle, raw water is directed to the laterals at the bottom of the FRP vessel via either
the bottom opening of the APU-300 system or the top opening of the APU-100 system through a
controller valve. The backwash water exits the top of the vessel and flows down to a discharge line, a
clear sight tube (which allows for visual observation of the turbidity of the backwash water), and a
backwash flow totalizer prior to discharge.
2.2.1 Desert Sands MDWCA (APU-300 System)
2.2.1.1 Site Background. The Desert Sands MDWCA serves 1,886 community members near
Anthony, NM using an existing supply, storage, and distribution network that covers an area of
approximately four square miles of unincorporated area in southern Dona Ana County. The water system
consists of two production wells (Wells No. 2 and 3 with a combined capacity of 320 gpm), two steel
water storage tanks with capacities of 99,000 and 240,000 gallons, and approximately 30 miles of
distribution piping. The water production and consumption have fluctuated over the past several years
with the peak production occurring in 1998 at 63.5 million gallons.
Total arsenic concentrations in Well No. 3 source water range from 17.0 to 22.7 |o,g/L. An arsenic
speciation test conducted on the water in August 2003 found the arsenic (22.7 |o,g/L) to be predominately
As(III) (21.6 (ig/L). A small amount of arsenic exists as As(V) (0.7 |o,g/L) and particulate As (0.4 ng/L).
Prior to the installation of the APU-300 system, the well water was treated with sodium hypochlorite (0.4
to 0.5 mg/L as C12) for disinfection and the oxidation of trace amounts of hydrogen sulfide. Source water
pH values range from 7.6 to 7.7, so pH adjustment is not required. The concentrations of iron (38.9 to
73.0 (ig/L) and other ions in the source water are sufficiently low as to not require any pretreatment other
than chlorine.
2.2.1.2 Treatment System Description. The Severn Trent APU-300 system has a design flowrate of
320 gpm, but can be operated at 350 gpm. The major components of the treatment system are as follows:
-------
• Pre-chlorination. Sodium hypochlorite is added to raw water for disinfection, hydrogen
sulfide control, and As(III) oxidation. The target chlorine level in treated water is 0.3
mg/L.
• E33 media adsorption. The system consists of two parallel 63-inch-diameter, 86-inch-
tall FRP pressure vessels, each containing about 80 ft3 of E33 media.
2.2.1.3 Treatment System Operation. The APU-300 system is programmed to perform an automated
backwash every 45 days or on a pressure differential of 10 psi, using untreated well water. The vessels
are taken off-line one at a time for backwash. While one vessel is backwashed, the other remains in
service.
Based on an average daily use rate of about 345,600 gpd, the size of adsorption vessels, and the chemistry
of the source water, it is expected that E33 media has an estimated working capacity of 132,000 bed
volumes, and will last for approximately 15 months before change-out is necessary. The estimated E33
media replacement cost is $26,800 per change-out (or $167.5/ft3 for 160 ft3 of media). This cost includes
material, freight, labor, travel expense, and media profiling and disposal fee.
2.2.1.4 Capital Investment. The capital investment costs for equipment, site engineering, and
installation are $153,000 (see Table 2-4). The equipment costs are $112,000 (or 73% of the total capital
investment), which includes $72,000 for the APU-300 skid-mounted unit, $24,000 for E33 media (i.e.,
$150/ft3 or $5.34/lb to fill two vessels), and vendor's labor and travel for the system shakedown and
startup.
Table 2-4. Summary of Capital Investment for the Desert Sands MDWCA Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
APU-300 Skid-Mounted System
Sorb-33 Media
Miscellaneous Equipment and Materials
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Equipment Total
1 unit
160 ft3
-
-
-
-
$72,200
$24,000
$2,500
$9,500
$3,800
$112,000
-
-
-
-
-
73%
Engineering Costs
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Engineering Total
—
—
—
$16,300
$6,700
$23,000
—
—
15%
Installation Cost
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
—
—
—
—
-
$9,000
$5,600
$3,400
$18,000
$153,000
—
—
—
12%
100%
The engineering costs include the costs for the preparation of the system layout and footprint, design of
the piping connections up to the distribution tie-in points, design of the electrical connections, and
assembling and submission of the engineering plans for the permit application. The engineering costs are
$23,000, which is 15% of the total capital investment.
-------
The installation costs include the costs for the equipment and labor to unload and install the APU-300
system, perform the piping tie-ins and electrical work, and load and backwash the media. The installation
was performed by Severn Trent and the Desert Sands MDWCA utility staff subcontracted to Severn
Trent. A variety of elevated pressure and flow restriction issues caused the actual system start-up date to
be delayed, and these problems forced Severn Trent to redesign the system's piping, valving, and
instruments and controls. The costs for the system retrofitting are not included in this cost analysis. The
installation costs are $18,000, or 12% of the total capital investment.
2.2.2 Brown City, MI (APU-300 System)
2.2.2.1 Site Background. Brown City supplies water to approximately 1,334 people and has 630
service connections. The water source is groundwater from wells at three locations. Prior to the
installation of the APU-300 system, the only treatment provided to the groundwater was chlorination for
disinfection. Two wells (Wells No. 3 and 4) are located at the demonstration site. The water from Well
No. 4 is treated by the APU-300 system and currently is operated on an intermittent basis for
approximately 4-8 hours per day.
Based on historic sampling results at the site, the total arsenic level in the groundwater ranges from 10 to
36 |o,g/L. An arsenic speciation test conducted on water from Well No. 4 in July 2003 indicated that the
arsenic (14.2 |og/L) is primarily As(III) (11.2 |o,g/L). The ability of E33 mediate remove both As(III) and
As(V) is currently being tested. Chlorine for disinfection is added after water passes through the APU-
300 treatment system. The level of iron in the source water ranges from 127 to 263 |o,g/L, which is low
enough not to require any pretreatment for iron removal. Because the source water pH values range from
7.3 to 7.5, pH adjustment was determined to be unnecessary. Other water quality parameters also were
determined to have no adverse impact on the E33 arsenic adsorption.
2.2.2.2 Treatment System Description. The Severn Trent APU-300 system has a design flowrate of
300 gpm, but can be operated at 350 gpm. Because the Brown City water supply wells are rated at 640
gpm, two APU-300 units were installed. The major components of the treatment system are as follows:
• E33 media adsorption. The units consist of four parallel 63-inch-diameter, 86-inch-tall
FRP pressure vessels, each containing about 80 ft3 of E33 media.
• Post-chlorination. Sodium hypochlorite is added to treated water for disinfection. The
target residual levels are 0.3 mg/L (as C12) for free chlorine and 0.4 mg/L (as C12) for total
chlorine in the distribution system.
2.2.2.3 Treatment System Operation. Similar to the Desert Sands MDWCA system, the Brown City
system is backwashed automatically every 45 days using untreated source water. The backwash also can
be initiated manually by the operator. The vessels are taken off-line one at a time for backwash. While
one vessel is backwashed, the other three remain in service.
Based on the average daily use rate of about 192,000 gpd, the size of adsorption vessels, and the source
water chemistry, E33 media has an estimated working capacity of 80,000 bed volumes and will last for
approximately 33 months before change-out is necessary. The estimated E33 media replacement cost for
the Brown City system is $53,600 per change-out (or $167.5/ft3 for a total of 320 ft3 of media).
2.2.2.4 Capital Investment. The capital investment costs for the Brown City system are $305,000
(see Table 2-5). The equipment costs include the costs for the two skid-mounted APU-300 units
($144,400), Sorb-33 media ($150/ft3 or $5.34/lb to fill four vessels with a total cost of $48,000),
-------
Table 2-5. Summary of Capital Investment for the Brown City, MI Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
APU Skid-Mounted System
Sorb-33 Media
Miscellaneous Equipment
and Materials
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Equipment Total
2
320 ft3
—
—
—
$144,400
$48,000
$3,400
$17,500
$4,700
$218,000
—
—
—
—
—
71%
Engineering Costs
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Engineering Total
—
—
—
—
$27,740
$6,680
$1,080
$35,500
—
—
—
12%
Installation Costs
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
—
—
—
—
-
$42,000
$5,600
$3,900
$51,500
$305,000
—
—
—
17%
100%
miscellaneous materials and supplies ($3,400), and vendor's labor and travel ($22,200) for the system
shakedown and startup activities. The equipment costs are 71% of the total capital investment.
The engineering costs include the costs for the design work necessary to develop the final system layout
and footprint within the building, design of the piping connections up to the distribution tie-in points in
the building, and the design of the electrical connection and conduit plan. The engineering plans were
prepared by Boss Engineering of Michigan and included an existing site conditions plan, a floor plan, a
process flow diagram, and other site-specific details. The engineering costs also include the cost for the
submission of the plans to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) for permit
review and approval. Engineering costs amount to $35,500 or 12% of the total capital investment.
The installation costs include the cost for labor, equipment, and materials to unload and install the skid-
mounted units, perform the piping tie-ins and electrical work, and load and backwash the media. All of
the piping tie-ins were completed using ductile iron pipe, valves, and fittings. Installation costs are
$51,500 or 17% of the total capital investment.
2.2.3
Queen Anne's County (APU-300 System)
2.2.3.1 Site Background. The Queen Anne's County facility supplies water to approximately 300
connections (900 people) in the community of Prospect Bay. The source water is extracted from two
wells that alternate operation for 3-4 hours every other day. However, for the purpose of the
demonstration study, Well No. 1, which is connected to the APU-300 system, operates for about 7 hours
every day at a rate of 300 gpm.
The total arsenic concentrations in the groundwater range from 17 to 20 |o,g/L. An arsenic speciation test
conducted in August 2003 indicated that arsenic (18.8 |o,g/L) exists predominately as As(III) (18.4 ng/L).
10
-------
Historic source water sampling has shown that total iron levels range from 50 to 1,660 |o,g/L; however, the
most recent data indicate that iron levels are below 300 |og/L. The iron level is low enough that
pretreatment for iron removal would not be required. Moreover, because the pH values of the source
water range from 7.0 to 7.5, pH adjustment also would not be necessary. No other water quality
parameters have been found to have a potential adverse impact on the media performance.
Prior to the demonstration project, the only treatment included chlorination using chlorine gas and the
addition of a corrosion inhibitor (polyphosphate). Treated water was sent to a 300,000-gallon storage
tank before the distribution system.
2.2.3.2 Treatment System Description. The major components of the Queen Anne's County's APU-
300 treatment system are described as follows:
• E33 media adsorption. The APU-300 system is identical to that installed at Desert
Sands MDWCA.
• Post-polyphosphate addition. A polyphosphate chemical is added to treated water for
corrosion control.
• Post-chlorination. Chlorine gas is added to the treated water for disinfection. The target
total chlorine level in distributed water is 0.5 mg/L (as C12). The APU-300 system is
monitored closely during the course of the study to determine if chlorination should be
moved upstream of the E33 vessels in order to oxidize As(III) to improve the removal
efficiency and the life of E33 media.
2.2.3.3 Treatment System Operation. Backwash of the E33 vessels follows the same procedures as
performed at the Desert Sands MDWCA and Brown City.
According to Severn Trent, the estimated working capacity of the media is 114,000 bed volumes, which is
equivalent to 63 months of useful media life when operating the system on an average use rate of
72,000 gpd. As mentioned above, the system will be closely monitored to determine if E33 media is
effective for As(III) removal. The estimated media replacement cost for the Queen Anne's County
system is identical to the cost for the Desert Sands MDWCA system, i.e., $26,800 per change-out.
2.2.3.4 Capital Investment. The capital investment for the Queen Anne's County system is
$211,000 (see Table 2-6), which includes $129,500 for equipment, $36,700 for site engineering, and
$44,800 for system installation. The equipment costs include the costs for a skid-mounted APU-300
system ($72,200), E33 media ($150/ft3 or $5.36/lb for a total media cost of $24,000 to fill two vessels),
miscellaneous materials and supplies ($19,800), and vendor's labor and travel for the system shakedown
and startup ($13,500). The equipment costs are about 62% of the total capital investment.
The engineering costs include costs for the relevant process flow diagrams of the treatment system,
system layout and footprint (supplied by Severn Trent), and mechanical details of the treatment
equipment and piping connections. Stearns and Wheeler, LLC, a local engineering firm, performed the
engineering design for the treatment system, as well as the design for the treatment building. The costs
also cover the labor to compile the design package, including the system information and construction
plans for the treatment building, for submission to the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
for review and approval. The engineering costs of $36,700 are 17% of the capital investment.
11
-------
Table 2-6. Summary of Capital Investment for the Queen Anne's County Treatment System.
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
APU Skid-Mounted System
E33 Media
Misc. Equipment and Materials
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Equipment Total
1 unit
160 ft3
1
—
—
—
$72,200
$24,000
$19,800
$10,000
$3,500
$129,500
—
—
—
—
—
62%
Engineering Costs
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Engineering Total
—
—
—
—
28,940
$6,680
$1,080
$36,700
—
—
—
17%
Installation Costs
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
—
—
—
—
$35,800
$5,600
$3,400
$44,800
$211,000
—
—
—
21%
100%
The installation costs include costs for the equipment and labor to unload and install the skid-mounted
units, perform the piping tie-ins and electrical work, and load and backwash the media. The installation
work and the construction of the treatment building were conducted by Stearns and Wheeler and their
construction subcontractor. Installation costs of $44,800 are 21% of the capital investment.
2.2.4
Nambe Pueblo, NM (APU-150 System)
2.2.4.1 Site Background. The existing water system at Nambe Pueblo, NM supplies drinking water
to approximately 500 community members with 150 service connections. The system consists of a 145-
gpm well in a pump house containing a chlorine feed system and a 17-ft-diameter, 24-ft-high, 40,000-
gallon water storage tank. The well pump is operated for 3 to 4 hours per day and produces
approximately 34,000 gpd. A peristaltic pump injects chlorine into the water upstream of the water
storage tank to maintain a residual chlorine level of 0.2 mg/L in distributed water. Water in the storage
tank is gravity-fed through the distribution system to the community.
The total arsenic concentrations of the well water range from 29 to 33.2 |og/L. An arsenic speciation test
conducted in August 2003 found arsenic (33.2 |o,g/L) to be primarily As(V) (31.2 (ig/L) with 1.8 |o,g/L as
particulate and 0.2 |o,g/L as As(III). The pH values of the raw water range from 8.5 to 8.8, so pH
adjustment using carbon dioxide (CO2) is recommended by AdEdge to lower the pH to approximately 7.0
upstream of the arsenic treatment system. The concentration of iron (<30 to 138 (ig/L) and other ions in
the source water are low enough not to interfere significantly with the adsorption of arsenic by the E33
media.
2.2.4.2 Treatment System Description. The AdEdge APU-150 system has a design flowrate of
145 gpm, and consists of an APU-100 and an APU-50 unit, with the components programmed to run
cooperatively. The major components of the complete water treatment system are as follows:
12
-------
• Pre-pH adjustment. The pH will be adjusted from above 8 to 7.0 by adding CO2 to the
water upstream of the APU-150 treatment system.
• Pre-chlorination. The existing chlorine addition system will continue to be used to
achieve a target residual chlorine level of 0.2 mg/L (as C12).
• E33 media adsorption. The adsorptive media system consists of three parallel 36-inch-
diameter, 72-inch-tall FRP pressure vessels, each containing about 27 ft3 of E33 media.
2.2.4.3 Treatment System Operation. The APU-150 system will be programmed to perform an
automated backwash with untreated well water either once a month or when the pressure drop across each
vessel reaches 10 psi. The vessels will be taken off-line one at a time for backwash. While one vessel is
backwashed, the other two will remain in service. CO2 will be added to the water upstream of the APU-
150 to lower the pH to approximately 7.0.
Based on the average daily use rate of about 34,000 gpd, the size of adsorption vessels, and the raw water
chemistry, the E33 media has a working capacity of approximately 76,000 bed volume, and will last
approximately 35 months before change-out is necessary. The estimated media replacement cost is
$24,196 per change-out (or $295/ft3 for 82 ft3 of media to fill all three vessels).
2.2.4.4 Capital Investment. The capital investment for the APU-150 system is $139,251 (see Table
2-7). The equipment costs are $112,211, which includes the costs for one APU-100 and one APU-50
skid-mounted unit ($54,380), a CO2 injection (i.e., pH adjustment) module ($16,250), 82 ft3 of E33 media
($20,090), and vendor labor and shipping ($21,491). The equipment costs are 80% of the capital
investment.
Table 2-7. Summary of Capital Investment for the Nambe Pueblo Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
APU-150 Skid-Mounted System
pH Adjustment Module
E33 Media
Vendor Labor
Shipping
Equipment Total
2 skids
1 unit
82ft3
-
-
-
$54,380
$16,250
$20,090
$19,230
$2,261
$112,211
-
-
-
-
-
80%
Engineering Costs
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Material
Engineering Total
-
-
2 days
-
-
$6,300
$3,420
$993
$75
$10,788
-
-
-
-
8%
Installation Costs
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Material
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
4 days
4 days
-
-
-
$11,522
$3,040
$1,290
$400
$16,252
$139,251
-
-
-
-
12%
100%
13
-------
The engineering cost includes costs for the preparation of a set of documents related to the process
equipment, including specification sheets, mechanical drawings, equipment configurations, and piping
and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs). A formal engineering design package is not required for the
Nambe Pueblo site, as the Pueblo's political status obviates the need for state permitting. The Indian
Health Service (IHS) prepares the majority of the site engineering drawings. The engineering costs
incurred by AdEdge are $10,788, or 8% of the capital investment.
The installation costs include the costs for the equipment, travel, and labor to unload and install the APU-
150, perform the piping tie-ins and electrical work, and load and backwash the media. The installation
will be performed by a local firm subcontracted to AdEdge. The installation costs are $16,252, or 12% of
the capital investment.
2.2.5 Rimrock, AZ (APU-100 System)
2.2.5.1 Site Background. The Rimrock, AZ water system is owned and operated by the Arizona
Water Company (AWC). The source water is extracted from Montezuma Haven Wells No. 1 and No. 2
that have a combined capacity of 90 gpm. In the summer of 2003, both wells were taken out of service
due to exceedance of the arsenic levels over the old 50 |o,g/L MCL. A new well, Well No. 3, was drilled
nearby Wells No. 1 and No. 2 with a production capacity of 315 gpm. During the site cleanup in
September 2003, Wells No. 1 and No. 2 were refurbished and developed for the demonstration study.
Later, it was discovered that Well No. 1 went dry and that Well No. 2 only produced about 40 gpm.
Total arsenic concentrations in the blended well water range from 51 to 61 |o,g/L. An arsenic speciation
test conducted on Well No. 2 water in October 2003 showed arsenic (64 |o,g/L) exists entirely as As(V).
The iron level is 170 |o,g/L in the blended water and 36 |o,g/L in Well No. 2 water. At these levels, iron
removal is not required. The pH is 7.1 to 7.2, which is within the effective removal pH range and,
therefore, pH adjustment is not required. Concentrations of competing ions, such as silica (27.8 mg/L)
and phosphate (<0.1 mg/L), are not high enough to significantly impact the arsenic adsorption on the
media.
2.2.5.2 Treatment System Description. The AdEdge APU-100 system was originally designed for a
flowrate of 90 gpm, having two E33 vessels arranged in parallel. The system design was later modified to
a lead/lag configuration because of the loss of Well No. 1, thus resulting in a reduced system capacity to
45 gpm. The major components of the treatment system are as follows:
• Bag filter. A bag filter is installed before the APU-100 system to remove any sediment
from the well water.
• Pre-chlorination. A sodium hypochlorite solution is added to raw water to prevent
biological growth and for disinfection. The target residual chlorine level is 0.4 mg/L (as
C12) for free chlorine.
• E33 media adsorption. The APU-100 system consists of two 36-inch-diameter, 72-
inch-tall FRP pressure vessels in series, each containing about 27 ft3 of E33 media.
• Backwash recycling. Because of a lack of a sewer system for the backwash water
discharge, a 3,000-gallon high-density polyethylene (HDPE) holding tank was installed
to store the backwash water. The recycling of the backwash water is accomplished by
metering the water back to the APU-100 system at a rate of 0.5 gpm.
2.2.5.3 Treatment System Operation. For the purpose of the demonstration study, Well No. 2 is
operated at about 30 gpm for 12 hours per day from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm and is controlled by a timer. The
14
-------
system operates at about 30 gpm. During the system operation, the E33 vessels are backwashed
automatically every 28 to 29 days using raw water. The backwash water is filtered through a set of dual
bag filters to remove particulates and filtered water is stored in the 3,000-gallon holding tank. The tank is
equipped with high- and low-level sensors, which control the recycle pump to recirculate the backwash
water into the raw water feed.
The media replacement for this lead/lag-configured APU-100 system is similar to that of the Bow G2
system (see Section 2.1.3). After the spent media in the lead vessel is replaced, the vessel is moved to the
lag position. Based on the average daily use rate of 23,760 gpd, the size of adsorption vessels, and the
raw water chemistry, the E33 media has an estimated working capacity of 66,000 bed volumes, and will
last for about 19 months in the lead vessel before change-out is necessary. The estimated media
replacement cost is $17,780 per change-out (or $329/ft3 for 54 ft3 of media).
2.2.5.4 Capital Investment. The total capital investment for the Rimrock system is $90,757 (see
Table 2-8), including $66,235 for the equipment, $11,372 for the site engineering, and $13,150 for the
system installation. The equipment costs accounted for 73% of the total capital investment, and include
the costs for two FRP vessels, 54 ft3 of E33 media, piping and valving, instrument and controls, field
services (including operator training, technical support, and system shakedown), and miscellaneous
materials and supplies. The media cost is $245/ft3 or $8.73/lb with atotal cost of $13,230 to fill both
vessels. In addition, a change order of $4,840 is included for system reconfiguration from parallel to
series operation.
The engineering costs include the costs for preparation and submission of engineering plans for obtaining
necessary permits from the state and local regulatory agencies. Fann Environmental, LLC, a local
engineering firm, provided support to AdEdge to prepare the engineering plans and submittals. The
engineering plans include the system P&ID, control panel schematics, and drawings of a site plan, a
treatment plan, and a piping plan. A design report and ancillary equipment cut sheets also are included in
the permit submittal package. The submittals were certified by a State of Arizona-registered Professional
Engineer (PE) and submitted to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) for review
and approval. After the Certificate of Approval to Construct was received, a construction permit was
applied to and approved by Yavapai County. Following the system reconfiguration, updated information
was submitted to ADEQ for a second Approval of Construction. The engineering costs for the project
were $11,372, or 13% of the capital costs.
The installation costs include the costs for the labor for equipment unloading and plumbing, as well as
mechanical and electrical connections. The activities include setting and anchoring the vessels,
completing system plumbing and tie-ins to the distribution system, and performing vessel hydraulic
testing and media loading. The installation activities were performed by AdEdge and Fann
Environmental. System reconfiguration added $2,070 to the installation cost, bringing the total cost for
installation to $13,150, or 14% of the capital investment.
The costs associated with the backwash recycle system are not reflected in the capital investment shown
in Table 2-8. AWC contracted AdEdge to design and install the backwash recycle system for handling
the backwash water. The total costs for the backwash recycle system is $11,546, including material,
engineering, and installation costs.
15
-------
Table 2-8. Summary of Capital Investment for the Rimrock, AZ Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
Adsorptive Media Vessels
E33 Media
Piping and Valves
Instrumentation and Controls
O&M Manual, Operator Training, Technical Support
Procurement, Assembly, Labor, Shakedown
Freight Costs
Change Order for System Reconfiguration
Equipment Total
2
54ft3
1
1
1
1
1
1
—
$21,800
$13,230
$7,520
$4,575
$3,800
$12,575
$1,855
$880
$66,235
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
73%
Engineering Costs
Materials, Submittals, FedEx, Postage, Supplies
AdEdge PM Oversight, Specification Preparation
Design, Drawings, Coordination
Review Meeting, Airfare, Lodging and Meals
Change Order for System Reconfiguration
Engineering Total
1
1
1
1
-
-
$75
$3,420
$4,970
$1,017
$1,890
$11,372
-
-
-
-
-
13%
Installation Costs
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Change order for System Reconfiguration
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment*3'
1
4 days
4 days
-
-
-
$6,750
$3,040
$1,290
$2,070
$13,150
$90,757
-
-
-
-
14%
100%
(a) Estimated costs of $ 11,546 for a backwash recycle system not included.
2.2.6
Rollinsford, NH (APU-100 System)
2.2.6.1 Site Background. The Rollinsford, NH water system services about 450 connections. The
source water is supplied by three bedrock wells, two of which, Wells No. 3 and No. 4, are located at
Porter well house. Water from these two wells is combined before passing through the distribution
system and is used for the demonstration study. Both wells are operated at near 50 gpm for about 8 to 10
hours per day, depending on the water demand.
Historical water sampling test results show that total arsenic levels range from 34 to 56 |o,g/L. An arsenic
speciation test conducted in August 2003 indicated that the arsenic (36.2 |o,g/L) exists mainly as As(III)
(20.1 ng/L). The well water has total iron levels ranging from 46 to 206 |o,g/L, which is low enough not to
require iron pretreatment. The pH values of raw water range from 7.4 to 8.4; therefore, pH adjustment to
near 7.0 would increase the arsenic adsorption capacity. The presence of other ions in the source water is
not likely to affect the arsenic adsorption by the E33 media.
The existing treatment system consists of disinfection using a dilute sodium hypochlorite solution fed at a
rate of approximately 1.3 gpd. Treated water is sent directly to the looped distribution system and stored
in a nearby storage tank.
16
-------
2.2.6.2 Treatment System Description. The AdEdge APU-100 system has a design flowrate of 100
gpm. The major components of the complete water treatment system are described as follows:
• Pre-chlorination. Chlorination was initially applied as a post-chlorination process for
the disinfection purposes. After approximately one month of system operation, a rise in
arsenic concentration in treated water was noted and, therefore, the chlorine injection
point was moved to upstream of the adsorption vessels to facilitate the As(III) oxidation
and improve arsenic adsorption.
• Pre-pH adjustment. After pre-chlorination, the water pH is adjusted to about 7.0 with
CO2 via a controlled injection loop located upstream of the E33 vessels.
• E33 media adsorption. The adsorption media system consists of two parallel 36-inch-
diameter, 72-inch-tall FRP pressure vessels, each containing about 27 ft3 of E33 media.
2.2.6.3 Treatment System Operation. Since the startup of the APU-100 system in January 2004,
high pressure differential readings (over 30 psi at times) have been observed across the adsorption
vessels. Several courses of actions, including retrofitting of some system piping and valving and
aggressive backwashing, have been taken by AdEdge to address the problems. Backwash is performed
manually by the operator using untreated well water with a schedule ranging from a few days to a couple
of weeks.
Based on the source water chemistry and the average daily use rate of about 72,000 gpd, the E33 media
has an estimated working capacity of 74,000 bed volumes, which will allow the media to last for 14
months before media change-out is necessary. The estimated media replacement cost for the Rollinsford
system is similar to that for the Rimrock system, i.e., $17,558 per change-out, or $325/ft3 for 54 ft3 of
media.
2.2.6.4 Capital Investment. The capital investment for the Rollinsford system is $106,568 (see
Table 2-9). The equipment costs include the costs for a skid-mounted APU-100 unit ($23,781), a CO2
injection module ($16,600), E33 media ($245/ft3 or $8.75/lb with a total cost of $13,230 to fill two
vessels), and miscellaneous materials, supplies, and labor ($28,470). The equipment costs represent 77%
of the total capital investment.
The engineering costs are $4,907 (or 5% of the capital investment), which include the costs for preparing
the required engineering plans for permit applications. The plans comprise process flow diagrams of the
treatment system, mechanical drawings of the treatment equipment (supplied by AdEdge), and a
schematic of the building footprint and equipment layout. As part of the site engineering work, Hoyle,
Tanner, and Associates (HTA) designed a subsurface leach bed for disposal of the system backwash
water. The design of this leach system was submitted along with an application to discharge to
groundwater for review and approval by the NHDES Water Supply Engineering Bureau. This portion of
the site engineering was provided by the facility and the cost for this work is not reflected in the
engineering costs shown in Table 2-9.
Installation costs are $19,580, or 18% of the capital investment. System installation was completed by
Waterline Services, LLC, a local water and wastewater service firm. The installation costs include the
equipment and labor to unload and install the skid-mounted unit and CO2 injection loop and module,
perform the piping tie-ins and electrical work, and load and backwash the media.
17
-------
Table 2-9. Summary of Capital Investment for the Rollinsford, NH Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
APU Skid-Mounted System
E33 Media
Miscellaneous Equipment and Materials
pH Adjustment Module
Vendor Labor
Equipment Total
1 unit
54ft3
—
1
—
—
$23,781
$13,230
$15,895
$16,600
$12,575
$82,081
—
—
—
—
—
77%
Engineering Costs
Material
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Engineering Total
—
—
—
—
$75
$3,800
$1,032
$4,907
—
—
—
5%
Installation Costs
Material
Subcontractor
Vendor Labor
Vendor Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
—
—
—
—
—
-
$400
$14,850
$3,040
$1,290
$19,580
$106,568
—
—
—
—
18%
100%
2.3
AAFS50 Adsorptive Media
Alcan's Actiguard AAFS50 media is an iron-modified AA media and is used in Kinetico's arsenic
adsorption systems. AAS50 is engineered with a proprietary additive to enhance its arsenic adsorption
performance over standard-grade AA media. The physical and chemical properties of the AAFS50 media
are shown in Table 2-1. The AAFS50 media has NSF Standard 61 listing for use in drinking water.
Kinetico recommends that the raw water pH be adjusted to less than 7.7 and that As(III) be oxidized to
As(V) to maximize arsenic removal. The adsorption capacity of the AAFS50 media can be impacted by
both high levels of phosphate (>1 mg/L) and silica (>40 mg/L as SiO2).
The Kinetico AAFS50 system uses a single or multiple fixed bed pressure vessels, operating in downflow
mode, to remove dissolved arsenic. The AAFS50 system is designed with a lead/lag tank configuration.
Spent media is expected to pass the EPA's TCLP test, and will be disposed of as non-hazardous waste.
The system backwash is initiated by an operator on a monthly or as-needed basis. The backwash water is
stored in a 1,800-gallon holding tank, which is part of the AAFS50 package system. The stored
backwash water can be reclaimed with a recycle pump after passing through a bag filter assembly.
2.3.1 Valley Vista, AZ Site Background. The Valley Vista water system is privately owned by
AWC. Raw water is supplied by Well No. 2 with a capacity of 37 gpm. Prior to this demonstration
project, the treatment consisted of only a sodium hypochlorite feed to reach a target residual chlorine
level at 0.6 mg/L (as C12). The operation of the well is controlled by water levels in two 20,000-gallon
storage tanks. On average, Well No. 2 is operated for approximately 8 hours per day.
Historically, total arsenic concentrations in the Well No. 2 water range from 34 to 47 |o,g/L. An arsenic
speciation test conducted in July 2003 showed that of the 41.0 |o,g/L total arsenic measured, 92% is As(V)
(37.8 ng/L). The historical pH values vary from 7.6 to 7.9. The July 2003 analysis of the Well No. 2
water found 0.2 mg/L of fluoride, 8.7 mg/L of sulfate, 18.5 mg/L of silica (as SiO2), and less than 0.1
18
-------
mg/L of orthophosphate. These concentrations appear to be low enough that the media life would not be
affected by adsorption of these ions. The same analysis found 16.2 |o,g/L of vanadium, but less than
detectable levels of iron, aluminum, manganese, molybdenum, and antimony. The adsorption of
vanadium by AAFS50 has not been reported and is not expected to reduce the arsenic removal capacity of
the media.
2.3.2 Treatment System Description. The Kinetico AAFS50 system has a design flowrate of 37
gpm and consists of two pressure vessels configured in series. The major components of the complete
treatment process include the following:
• Pre-chlorination. Sodium hypochlorite was initially applied after the adsorption vessels
for disinfection purposes. After approximately one month of the system operation, algae
growth on the vessel view glass was noted. Therefore, the chlorine injection point was
moved to before the adsorption vessels to control the biological growth. The chlorine
residual is maintained at 0.4 to 0.6 mg/L (as C12) throughout the treatment train.
• pH adjustment. The system has the capability to adjust the pH of the feed water to pH
7.0 using a 37% sulfuric acid. The pH control system consists of a solenoid-driven
chemical metering pump, a 2-inch-diameter inline static mixer, an acid draw assembly
with a low-level float, a pH meter, and a 55-gallon drum containing 37% sulfuric acid.
• Adsorptive media vessels. The treatment system consists of two 36-inch-diameter, 72-
inch-tall FRP vessels, each containing 22 ft3 of the AAFS50 media. The empty bed
contact time (EBCT) is 4.4 minute per vessel.
2.3.3 Treatment System Operation. AAFS50 media is normally backwashed with treated water
once a month. While one vessel is backwashed, the other is temporarily out of service. Backwash is
semi-automatic and needs to be initiated by an operator. The backwash water produced is stored in a
1,800-gallon holding tank equipped with high/low level sensors. After solids are settled in the tank for a
preset time period, the recycle pump is turned on and the water in the holding tank is filtered through a
bag filter before being blended with the raw water at a maximum ratio of 10%.
When the arsenic removal capacity of the AAFS50 media in the lead tank is exhausted, the spent media
will be removed and virgin media will be loaded into the vessel. Based on the water quality of Well No.
2, Kinetico estimates that the AAFS50 media has a capacity of 18,680 bed volumes, which will last for
173 days, assuming that the system operates 8 hours a day and that the pH of the raw water is adjusted to
pH 7.0. For the purposes of the demonstration study, the system operates for 24 hours a day without pH
adjustment. Under these conditions, the media in the lead tank will last for only 56 days before change-
out is necessary. The estimated media replacement cost for two vessels is $11,073 per change-out,
including $7,447 for subcontractor and $3,626 for media. The unit cost is $252/ft3, two times higher than
the unit media cost (i.e., $82/ft3, see Table 2-1).
2.3.4 Capital Investment. The capital investment for the Valley Vista, AZ system is $228,309
(see Table 2-10). The equipment costs include the costs for two skid-mounted pressure vessels, 44 ft3 of
AAFS50 media, instrumentation and controls, a backwash recycle system, a chemical injection system,
labor (for operator training, technical support, and system shakedown), warranty, and miscellaneous
supplies. The total equipment costs are $122,544, or 54% of the capital investment.
The engineering costs include the costs to prepare and submit the engineering plans to obtain necessary
permits from the relevant state and local regulatory agencies. Kinetico and its subcontractor, Fann
Environmental, LLC, prepared the engineering plans, which include general arrangement and process and
instrumentation diagrams of the AAFS50 system, a site plan, a treatment plan, and a piping plan. A
19
-------
process design report and ancillary equipment cut sheets also are included in the submittal package. The
PE-certified submittal package was sent to ADEQ for review and approval. After the Certificate of
Approval to Construct was received, a construction permit was submitted to Yavapai County for
approval. After the system was installed, another package was submitted to ADEQ for an Approval of
Construction. The engineering costs for the project are $50,659 or 22% of the total capital investment.
The installation costs include the costs to unload and setup the equipment and to perform mechanical and
electrical connections. The activities involve setting and anchoring the adsorption vessels, completing
system plumbing and tie-ins to the distribution system, performing vessel hydraulic testing, and loading
media. The installation activities were performed by Kinetico and Fann Environmental. The installation
costs total $55,106 or 24% of the total capital investment.
2.4
GFH Adsorptive Media
GFH is a granular ferric hydroxide media produced by GEH Wasserchemie Gmbh of Germany and
marketed by USFilter under an exclusive marketing agreement. The physical and chemical properties of
the GFH media are shown in Table 2-1. The GFH media that has received NSF Standard 61 listing for
use in drinking water applications is capable of removing both As(V) and As(III) and has a pH operating
range of 5.5 to 9.0 with the removal capacity increasing with decreasing pH. Competing ions such as
silica and phosphate are known to adsorb onto the GFH media and reduce the arsenic removal capacity of
the media.
Table 2-10. Summary of Capital Investment for the Valley Vista, AZ Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
Media Skid and Tanks
Air Compressors
Instrumentation and Controls
Backwash Recycle System
Media Educator Kit
Chemical Injection
Labor
Warranty
Change Order for Adding a Flow Totalizer
Equipment Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
—
$30,134
$2,602
$13,211
$13,486
$943
$11,197
$39,736
$10,610
$625
$122,544
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
54%
Engineering Costs
Material
Labor
Travel
Subcontractor
Engineering Total
-
-
-
-
-
-
$40,021
-
$10,638
$50,659
-
-
-
-
22%
Installation Costs
Material
Labor
Travel
Subcontractor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$15,213
$10,319
$29,574
$55,106
$228,309
-
-
-
-
24%
100%
20
-------
The USFilter GFH arsenic removal system consists of pressure vessels in parallel, piping, instrumentation
and controls, and the GFH media. The GFH media cannot be regenerated and the spent media must be
removed and disposed of. The media life depends on the influent arsenic concentration, pH, and
operating hours per day. According to USFilter, the spent GFH media will pass EPA's TCLP test and be
classified as a non-hazardous waste. Backwash of the system may be triggered automatically based on
differential headless through the pressure vessels or on a set time period. The system also may be
backwashed manually.
2.4.1 STMGID Site Background. The STMGID water system is operated by the Washoe County
Department of Water Resources to supply water to a population of 8,285 in Washoe County, Reno, NV.
The demonstration project was selected for treating the groundwater from its 350-gpm Well No. 9. The
existing treatment system consists of only sodium hypochlorite to provide a free chlorine residual level of
1.0 mg/L (as C12). The chlorinated water from this well is blended with other source waters with lower
arsenic concentrations prior to supplying the distribution system. Well No. 9 is normally operated
between March 1 and October 31 during periods of high demand. It is usually turned off about November
1 every year.
The total arsenic concentrations of the source water range from 18 to 93 |o,g/L. An arsenic speciation test
conducted on August 20, 2003 showed arsenic (87.9 |o,g/L) to be almost entirely As(V) (i.e., 99.7%). The
pH of the source water ranges from 6.9 to 7.9. The test results also found less than 0.1 mg/L of
orthophosphate, 68.6 mg/L of silica (as SiO2), and 8.0 mg/L of sulfate. Antimony ranges from 7 to 18
Hg/L (MCL is 6 ng/L), and the concentrations of iron, aluminum, manganese, and molybdenum are at less
than detectable levels. Removal of antimony by GFH media will be monitored during the demonstration
study.
2.4.2 Treatment System Description. The USFilter GFH system has a design flow of 350 gpm
and consists of three pressure vessels in parallel configuration. The major components of the treatment
process include the following:
• GFH media adsorption. The GFH arsenic removal system is composed of three 66-
inch-diameter and 72-inch-tall vertical carbon steel (CS) pressure vessels, each
containing 80 ft3 of GFH media. The skid-mounted filter vessels are rated for 100 psi of
working pressure.
• Post-chlorination. Post-chlorination with sodium hypochlorite will be used for
disinfection to provide a chlorine residual of 1.0 mg/L.
2.4.3 Treatment System Operation. GFH media is backwashed on a headless or elapsed time
basis. The vessels will be taken off-line one at a time for backwash with treated water from the other two
vessels. The backwash water produced will be discharged to a sanitary sewer.
When the GFH media adsorption capacity is exhausted, the spent media will be removed and replaced
with virgin media. Based upon the water quality characteristics and a 75% usage rate, USFilter projects
that the media change-out will take place once every 182 days. The actual run length of the media will be
determined based on the results of the one-year performance evaluation study. The estimated media
replacement cost is $58,500/ft3 per change-out (or $244/ft3 for 240 ft3 of media).
2.4.4 Capital Investment. The total capital investment for the STMGID system is $232,147 (see
Table 2-11). The total capital investment includes $157,647 for equipment (68%), $16,000 for
engineering (7%), and $58,500 (25%) for installation. The equipment costs include the costs for three
21
-------
skid-mounted CS pressure vessels ($45,500), 240 ft3 of GFH media ($238/ft3 or $3.03/lb for a total cost of
$57,000), process piping and valving ($11,000), instrumentation and controls ($9,500), and field services,
labor, and travel ($27,000). The equipment costs also include a change order of $7,647 for three flow
meters and three differential pressure gauges.
STMGID prepared engineering plans and permit submittals for the project using input, such as system
specifications and P&IDs, from USFilter. The plans include site engineering drawings, equipment tie-ins,
and site plans. The submittals were certified by a State of Nevada-registered PE and sent to the Washoe
County Department of Health for review and approval; costs incurred by STMGID for the plans
preparation and submittals are not included in the $16,000 charged by USFilter (see Table 2-11).
The installation costs include labor and material costs for equipment off-loading, and mechanical and
electrical connections. The installation activities include off-loading the equipment at the site, placement
of the equipment on an existing concrete pad, field assembly of the equipment, media loading, completion
of system plumbing and tie-ins to the raw water line and the distribution line, and painting of the exterior.
The installation activities will be performed by USFilter. The installation cost of $58,500 is 25% of the
total capital investment.
Table 2-11. Summary of Capital Investment for the STMGID Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
GFH Media
Tanks
Process Valves and Piping
Instrumentation and Controls
Field Services and Misc.
Labor
Travel
Change Order for Adding Three Flow Meters and
Three Differential Pressure Gauges
Equipment Total
240 ft3
3 tanks
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
$57,000
$45,500
$11,000
$9,500
$12,000
$10,000
$5,000
$7,647
$157,647
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
68%
Engineering Costs
Material
Labor
Travel
Subcontractor
Engineering Total
—
—
—
—
—
—
$16,000
—
—
$16,000
—
—
—
—
7%
Installation Costs
Material
Labor
Travel
Subcontractor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
—
—
—
—
—
-
$13,500
$30,000
$10,000
$5,000
$58,500
$232,147
—
—
—
—
25%
100%
22
-------
3.0 COAGULATION/FILTRATION PROCESS
Kinetico's Macrolite® arsenic removal system uses coagulation and pressure filtration to remove arsenic-
bearing iron solids with a ceramic filtration media called Macrolite®. This low-density, spherical media is
manufactured by Kinetico, and is designed to allow for higher filtration rates (i.e., up to 10 gpm/ft2) than
those commonly used for conventional filtration processes. Macrolite® is chemically inert and compatible
with chemicals such as acids, caustics, oxidants, and coagulant chemicals such as ferric chloride.
Macrolite® media is listed under NSF Standard 61 for drinking water applications. The physical
properties of the media are summarized in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1. Physical Properties of 40/60 Mesh Macrolite® Media
Property
Color
Thermal Stability
Sphere Size Range
Bulk Density
Specific Gravity
Collapse Strength (for 30/50 mesh)(a)
Value
Taupe, Brown to Grey
2,000 °F
0.0 14 to 0.009 inch
0.86 g/cm3 or 54 lb/ft3
2.05 g/cm3 or 129 lb/ft3
7,000 to 8,000 psi
3.1
(a) Data not available for 40/60 mesh
Climax, MN Site Background
The City of Climax supplies drinking water to 264 people. The source water is supplied by two 141 ft-
deep wells, each having a flow capacity of 160 and 140 gpm. However, only one well is in use at any one
time with the two wells alternating on a monthly basis. Both wells can be used during fire emergencies
with a full capacity of 300 gpm. Prior to this demonstration project, the treatment system consisted of
only a chlorine gas feed to reach a target residual chlorine level of 0.6 mg/L. The water also is fluoridated
to a target level of 1.8 mg/L.
The total arsenic concentrations range from 31 to 41 |o,g/L. An arsenic speciation test conducted in July
2003 showed that arsenic (38.7 (ig/L) is present predominately as As(III) (34.8 ng/L). Iron levels in
source water range from 546 to 850 |o,g/L, and pH values range from 7.4 to 7.9. The iron levels are 13 to
27 times higher than the arsenic levels.
3.2
Treatment System Description
The Kinetico's coagulation/filtration system is a skid-mounted system consisting of two coagulation
contact tanks and two pressure filtration tanks. The major components are described as follows:
• Pre-chlorination. The existing chlorine gas system is used to provide disinfection and
oxidation of As(III) and Fe(II).
• Coagulation. Two 345-gallon, 42-inch-diameter, 72-inch-tall FRP contact tanks
arranged in parallel provide 5 minutes of contact time each to facilitate the formation of
iron floes prior to filtration.
23
-------
• Macrolite filtration. Two pressure filtration vessels are arranged in parallel. Both FRP
filtration vessels are 36 inches in diameter and 72 inches in height, with 6-inch top and
bottom flanges and are mounted on a polyurethane coated, steel frame. Each vessel is
filled with approximately 24 inches (14 ft3) of 40/60 mesh Macrolite® media, which is
underlained with a fine garnet fill layered 1 inch above the 0.006-inch slotted SS wedge-
wire underdrain. The flow through each vessel is regulated to 70 gpm using a flow-
limiting device to prevent filter overrun or damage to the system. The normal system
operation with both tanks on-line provides a total system flow of 140 gpm.
3.3 Treatment System Operation
The system is fully automated with an operator interface, programmable logic controller (PLC), and a
modem housed in a central NEMA 4 control panel. The control panel is connected to various instruments
used to track system performance including inlet and outlet pressure after each filter, system flowrate,
backwash flowrate, and backwash turbidity.
At a 10 gpm/ft2 loading rate and 24 inches of depth, the pressure drop across a clean Macrolite® filter bed
is usually about 15 psi. The filters are automatically backwashed in upflow mode when the pressure drop
across the bed reaches 25 to 30 psi. The backwash process involves multiple steps: the water is first
drained from the filtration vessel and the filter is then sparged with air at 100 psig. After a brief settling
period, the filtration vessel is backwashed with treated water at a flowrate of approximately 55 gpm. The
backwash is accomplished through one vessel at a time and the resulting wastewater is sent to the sanitary
sewer through a 2-inch-diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) line. After backwash, the filtration vessel
undergoes a filter-to-waste cycle before returning to feed service.
3.4 Capital Investment
The capital investment for the Climax system is $249,081 (Table 3-2), which includes $137,970 for
equipment, $39,344 for engineering, and $71,767 for installation. The equipment costs include the costs
for the Macrolite® media, contact tanks, filtration skid, instrumentation and controls, labor (including
activities for the system shakedown), and system warranty. The equipment costs are 55% of the total
capital investment.
The engineering cost include the costs for preparing a process design report and the required engineering
plans, which include a general arrangement drawing, P&IDs, interconnecting piping layouts, tank fill
details, a schematic of the PLC panel, an electrical on-line diagram, and other associated drawings. After
certified by a Minnesota-registered PE, the plans were submitted to the Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH) for permit review and approval. The engineering costs are 16% of the total capital investment.
As discussed above, the installation costs include the costs for equipment and labor for system unloading
and setup, plumbing, and mechanical and electrical connections. The installation costs are 29% of the
total capital investment.
24
-------
Table 3-2. Summary of Capital Investment for the Climax, MN Treatment System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
Media, Filter Skid, and Tanks
Air Compressor
Control Panel
Additional Flow Meter/Totalizers
Labor
Warranty
Equipment Total
1
1
1
1
-
-
-
$66,210
$2,346
$11,837
$2,622
$43,005
$11,950
$137,970
-
-
-
-
-
-
55%
Engineering Costs
Labor
Subcontractor
Engineering Total
-
-
-
$38,094
$1,250
$39,344
-
-
16%
Installation Costs
Labor
Travel
Subcontractor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
$12,914
$6,163
$52,690
$71,767
$249,081
-
-
-
29%
100%
25
-------
4.0 ION EXCHANGE PROCESS
A Kinetico IX-248-AS/N Ion Exchange Arsenic-Nitrate Removal System was selected for the Fruitland,
ID demonstration site. The system uses a macroporous strong base resin, Purolite A-520E, to remove
arsenic and nitrate from water. Purolite A-520E is listed for use in drinking water applications under NSF
Standard 61. The Purolite resin is formed in amatrix of opaque, cream-colored spherical beads. The
physical properties of this resin are summarized in Table 4-1.
The anion exchange process is a fixed-bed process using an anion exchange resin in the chloride form to
remove arsenic from drinking water by exchanging arsenic for chloride. The process also removes
nitrate, sulfate, uranium, and bicarbonate. The efficiency of the IX process for arsenic and nitrate
removal is strongly affected by sulfate that is preferred over both arsenic and nitrate. Unlike adsorptive
media processes, IX resins are not sensitive to the pH value of raw water. Once it reaches its capacity, the
resin is regenerated with a sodium chloride brine solution. The regeneration process produces a liquid
waste that is high in sulfate, nitrate, and arsenic.
Table 4-1. Physical and Chemical Properties of Purolite A-520E Resin
Parameter
Polymer Matrix Structure
Physical Form and Appearance
Whole Bead Count
Functional Groups
Ionic Form, as Shipped
Shipping Weight (approximate)
Screen Size Range (U.S. Standard Screen)
Particle Size Range
Moisture Retention, Cl" form
Reversible Swelling, Cl" to SO427NO3~
Total Exchange Capacity, Cl" form
Wet, volumetric
Dry, weight
Operating Temperature, Cl" form
pH Range, Stability
pH Range, Operating
Value
Macroporous styrene-divinylbenzene
Opaque cream-colored spherical beads
95% minimum
Quaternary ammonium
Cl"
680 g/L (42.5 lb/ft3)
16 to 50 mesh, wet
+1200 mm <5%, -300 mm <1%
50 to 56%
Negligible
0.9 meq/mL min.
2.8 meq/g min.
100°C (212°F) max.
Otol4
4.5 to 8.5
4.1
Fruitland, ID Site Background
The Fruitland water system supplies drinking water to approximately 4,000 people. Well No. 6 has a
flow capacity of 250 gpm and high arsenic and nitrate concentrations, and was selected for the
demonstration project. Because of the high nitrate level, this well was taken off-line several years ago.
During the hydraulic testing of the new anion exchange system, the well produced a large quantity of
sediment due to a damaged casing. Because of the problem, a new well, Well No. 6-2004, was drilled
near Well No. 6 as a replacement. The new well also operates at 250 gpm and has the same high levels of
arsenic and nitrates as the abandoned well.
The total arsenic concentrations of the raw water sampled from the old well range from 32 to 46 |o,g/L.
An arsenic speciation test conducted on the August 2003 shows arsenic (43.4 (ig/L) to be present
26
-------
predominately as As(V) (39.2 (ig/L). The water also contains 3.4 (ig/L of participate arsenic and 0.8 (ig/L
of As(III). Nitrate concentrations show an increasing trend from 5.2 mg/L in July 1986 to 13.9 mg/L in
November 2001. When the nitrate level began to exceed the MCL of 10 mg/L, the well was shut down
and not used. Sulfate concentrations range from 57 to 64 mg/L. Total iron concentrations range from less
than detection to 744 |og/L, which is present mostly as Fe(III). The uranium concentration measured on
December 6, 2002 was 22.4 ng/L, which is below the new U.S. EPA MCL of 30 ng/L. Because the IX
process can remove uranium (Clifford, 1999), samples will be collected for uranium analyses during the
one-year performance evaluation study. The pH values of the raw water range from 7.4 to 7.6.
4.2 Treatment System Description
The Kinetico IX-248-AS/N ion exchange arsenic and nitrate removal system consists of the following
components:
• Pre-filtration. The source water passes through a skid-mounted cartridge filtration
system equipped with five 20-|om bag filters. This filtration step prevents the resin bed
from being fouled by particulates.
• Ion exchange system. The Kinetico ion exchange arsenic/nitrate removal system
consists of two parallel 4 8-inch-diameter, 72-inch-tall FRP pressure vessels. Each vessel
contains 50 ft3 (in 4-ft depth) of Purolite A-520E strong base anion exchange resin, 3 ft3
of flint gravel support media, and 3 ft3 of polypropylene filler beads. The skid-mounted
vessels are rated for 150 psi working pressure, and piped to a valve rack mounted on a
welded steel frame. Each vessel is equipped with a 125-gpm flow-limiting device. A 2-
hp, 60-gallon vertical air compressor also is provided with the system.
4.3 Treatment System Operation
The Kinetico arsenic/nitrate removal system is a fully automated system that has an operator interface,
PLC, and a modem housed in a control panel. The control panel is connected to various instruments used
to track the system performance, including flowrate and the volume of water treated since the last
regeneration.
The IX system is regenerated based upon nitrate breakthrough, which is estimated to be at 400 to 500 bed
volumes of water treated. Regeneration occurs one vessel at a time, thus temporarily reducing the service
flowrate to 125 gpm. Regeneration is performed in a co-current mode using aNaCl brine solution stored
in a nearby holding tank. A brine saturator is included with the system. The regeneration process is
controlled by the system PLC, which is programmed to initiate the regeneration sequence after a given
volume throughput (this volume is determined by sampling the process effluent during the system
startup). The regeneration process includes three consecutive steps: brine draw, slow rinse, and fast rinse.
The salt usage rate is estimated to be 3.19 lb/1,000 gallons of water treated.
4.4 Capital Investment
The total capital investment for the Fruitland, ID system is $290,521 (see Table 4-2). The primary
equipment costs include the costs for a Purolite A-520E resin, ion exchange vessel skid ($63,673), a brine
system ($35,388) and initial salt fill ($4,133 for 15 tons of salt), abag filter unit ($3,540), air compressor
($1,295), and a PLC control panel ($11,524). The equipment costs also include $32,870 for the system
fabrication, shakedown, and startup, operator's training, and technical services. The total equipment costs
for the package treatment system are $177,328, or 61% of the total capital investment.
27
-------
The engineering costs include the costs for the preparation and submission of an engineering submittal
package, including a general arrangement drawing, P&IDs, tank fill details, control panel schematics,
piping tie-in drawings, and other associated drawings. The engineering submittal was prepared by
Holladay Engineering, a local firm subcontracted to Kinetico. The engineering package was reviewed
and approved by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). The total engineering costs are
$35,619, or 12% of the total capital investment.
The installation costs include the costs for equipment and labor for system unloading, setup, and
plumbing, as well as mechanical and electrical connections. The activities include setting and anchoring
the vessels, completing system plumbing and tie-in to the distribution system, performing vessel
hydraulic testing, and loading resins. The installation activities were performed by Kinetico and its
subcontractor. System installation began on March 8, 2004, and was nearly complete when the failure of
Well No. 6 was discovered. The delay caused by the replacement of the well necessitated an unscheduled
trip by Kinetico that was covered by a change order. The change order also includes a sand filter to be
installed downstream of the salt saturator tank. The installation costs are $77,574, or 27% of the total
capital investment.
Table 4-2. Summary of Capital Investment for the Fruitland, ID System
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
Resin, IX Skid, and Tanks
Pretreatment Filter Unit
Brine System
Initial Salt Fill
Air Compressor
Instrumentation and Controls
Engineering Subcontractor
Labor
Warranty
Equipment Total
1
1
1
15 tons
1
1
-
-
-
-
$63,673
$3,540
$35,388
$4,133
$1,295
$11,524
$8,000
$32,870
$16,905
$177,328
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
61%
Engineering Costs
Labor
Engineering Total
1
-
$35,619
$35,619
-
12%
Installation Costs
Labor
Travel
Subcontractor
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
$11,524
$4,095
$61,955
$77,574
$290,521
-
-
-
27%
100%
28
-------
5.0 SYSTEM MODIFICATION
In many Midwestern states, it is common to have high levels of arsenic in water supplies along with high
levels of iron and manganese. Many drinking water systems have installed iron/manganese removal
processes to remove arsenic along with iron and manganese. In some cases, depending on the iron-to-
arsenic ratio of the raw water, the iron removal process can reduce arsenic to below the 10 (ig/L MCL.
However, it is also common to find that the iron/manganese removal process does not reduce arsenic to
below the MCL, probably because of a low iron-to-arsenic ratio or the presence of As(III) in the source
water. In such cases, low-cost system modifications may be made to the process to increase arsenic
removal by adding a pre-oxidation step to convert As(III) to As(V), adding iron to the feed water, or a
combination of both. If carried out properly, these modifications can reduce arsenic concentrations to
below the MCL, thereby eliminating the need for adding new and possibly expensive treatment steps to
the existing processes.
The Lidgerwood, ND facility, unlike the other 11 demonstration sites, has a coagulation/filtration
treatment system in place for the removal of elevated levels of iron, manganese, and arsenic in
groundwater. The existing system reduces the arsenic concentration from approximately 140 to 30 (ig/L.
The system was selected for the arsenic demonstration project to evaluate the performance of a low-cost
system modification to further remove arsenic to below 10 (ig/L. The system modification is being
undertaken using a phased approach: Phase I involves the installation and testing of an iron addition
system. Depending on the performance of the filtration system to handle the increased iron load onto the
filters, a Phase II modification may be included to retrofit the existing gravity filtration cells with
Kinetico's Macrolite® media.
5.1 Lidgerwood, ND Site Background
The Lidgerwood water treatment system supplies drinking water to approximately 750 people. The
system capacity is 250 gpm for a peak daily demand of 180,000 gpd. The source water is pumped from
two wells with the wells alternating every month. The total arsenic concentrations of the source water
range from 38 to 146 |o,g/L. An arsenic speciation test performed in July 2003 found arsenic (146.2 ng/L)
to be predominately As(III) (82%). The current treatment process relies on the oxidation of As(III) to
As(V) and the adsorption and co-precipitation of As(V) onto iron solids. The source water has iron levels
ranging from 1,310 to 1,620 (ig/L. Historic analytical results indicate that iron levels typically are 9 to 11
times higher than the arsenic levels in the source water. The treated water results confirm that incomplete
arsenic removal is occurring, with arsenic concentrations in the gravity filtration cell effluent being
measured at 25 to 31 (ig/L.
Treated water is stored in a clearwell before distribution. Two clearwells are located underneath the
treatment building, including the original 16,000-gallon clearwell installed in 1984, used as a source of
clean backwash water, and the second 30,000-gallon clearwell installed in 1989 and used for distribution
water. A 50,000-gallon water tower is included as part of the distribution for water storage.
5.2 Treatment System Description
The Lidgerwood treatment system consists of pre-chlorination, forced-draft aeration, potassium
permanganate (KMnO4) oxidation, polymer coagulant addition, detention, gravity filtration, post-
chlorination, and fluoridation. A brief description of each treatment step is provided below:
• Pre-chlorination. A chlorine gas feed system is used for pre-chlorination of the
source water to 1.8 mg/L as C12. Pre-chlorination helps prevent biological
29
-------
growth in the filters and other system components. Chlorine also oxidizes iron,
manganese, and arsenic in the groundwater.
• Aeration. Forced-draft aeration is used to promote the transfer of oxygen in air
to the extracted groundwater to oxidize iron and manganese.
• KMnO4 oxidation. A supplementary oxidation step is provided by the addition
of KMnO4, which is stored in a 50-gallon tank and added at a dosage of
approximately 0.6 to 0.7 mg/L. The potassium permanganate is used to
continuously regenerate the MnO2-coated anthrasand in the filter cells.
• Mixing and detention. Polymer coagulant is stored in a 50-gallon tank and
added to the rapid mix tank just prior to the baffled detention tank. The baffled
detention tank has a capacity of 15,000 gallons, allowing for about 60 minutes of
contact time before gravity filtration.
• Filtration. The particulate matter in the water is removed using four gravity
filter cells with a total cross-sectional area of 120 ft2 that are filled with 20 x 40
mesh MnO2-coated anthrasand. The hydraulic loading to the filters is
approximately 2 gpm/ft2. The anthrasand was most recently changed out in
October 2002.
• Post-chlorination and fluoridation. For post-chlorination, the free chlorine is
targeted at 0.08 mg/L and the total chlorine residual is targeted at 1.9 mg/L. In
addition, fluoride also is added to treated water prior to distribution.
5.3 Treatment System Operation
The treatment system operates 5 to 6 hours per day depending on water usage and backwashing of the
filters is performed on a regular schedule every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday or more frequently as
needed. The system is equipped with a backwash recycling system. The backwash flowrate is about
240 gpm with an air scour pressure of 3.5 Ib. Each backwash cycle usually lasts for 15 minutes per cell
with 5 minutes of air and water supply and 10 minutes of water supply only. The backwash water
produced from each backwash cycle is allowed to settle in the 18,000-gallon backwash recovery basin for
about 6 hours before the supernatant is reclaimed to the mixing tank at a flowrate of 50 gpm. The sludge
accumulated in the bottom of the backwash tank is pumped to a 20-ft-diameter by 9-ft, 5-inch-tall sludge
holding tank and then collected for landfill disposal once every other year.
5.4 Capital Investment
The system modification is planned in two phases. Phase I involves the installation of an iron addition
system where ferric chloride is added at approximately 1.0 mg/L to enhance arsenic removal. Phase II
with the Macrolite® retrofit will only be implemented if the Phase I system modifications are not
sufficient to reach the 10 |o,g/L arsenic MCL in the plant effluent. The Phase I capital investment for the
iron chemical feed system and monitoring equipment is $55,740 (see Table 5-1). The Phase II capital
investment costs will be provided in a final summary report for the project if the Phase II work is
implemented at a later date.
The primary equipment for the iron addition system includes a 60-gallon chemical day tank with
secondary containment skid, a tank mixer, a chemical metering pump, and associated materials such as
30
-------
tubing and fasteners. In addition, supplemental on-line instrumentation was installed at the plant to track
filtration cell performance under baseline conditions and after the start-up of iron addition. This
instrumentation included a Scaletron low-profile drum scale, four Hach 1720D low-range turbidimeters, a
Foxboro differential pressure cell, and a Telog data logging system. The equipment costs are $31,154, or
56% of the total capital investment.
The engineering cost ($5,786, or 10% of the total capital cost) includes the costs for labor for the
preparation of a process design report and the system plans including a P&ID, assembly drawing, control
panel layout, turbidity meter interconnect, and an interconnect schematic.
The installation costs include the costs for equipment and labor to ship, install, and shakedown the ferric
chloride addition system. The primary installation activities include placing the ferric chloride tank on
the drum scale and spill containment deck, mounting the tank mixer and pump to a wall bracket, and
connecting the tubing from the chemical metering pump to the injection point at the rapid mix tank. The
installation labor also includes all electrical connections, and connection and calibration of the associated
instrumentation including the drum scale, turbidimeters, and differential pressure cell. The installation
costs are $18,800, or 34% of the total capital cost.
Table 5-1. Summary of Capital Investment for the Lidgerwood, ND System Modification
Description
Quantity
Cost
% of Capital
Investment Cost
Equipment Costs
Chemical Feed System
Turbidimeter
dP Transmitter
Data Logger
Drum Scale
Other Miscellaneous
Labor
Warranty
Equipment Total
1
4
1
1
1
-
-
-
-
$5,570
$9,567
$1,894
$3,703
$3,940
$1,177
$2,020
$3,283
$31,154
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
56%
Engineering Costs
Engineering Total
-
$5,786
10%
Installation Costs
Material
Labor
Travel
Installation Total
Total Capital Investment
-
-
-
-
-
$1,493
$12,307
$5,000
$18,800
$55,740
-
-
-
34%
100%
31
-------
6.0 COST SUMMARY
Section 6 begins with a review of the total capital investment costs, and then breaks the discussion down
into three cost categories: equipment, engineering, and installation. Building construction costs provided
by host facilities also are tabulated and described at the end of the section. However, the building cost
information does not have any direct bearing on the cost analysis presented in this section.
6.1 Total Capital Investment
Total capital investment costs for the 12 arsenic demonstration systems are summarized in Table 6-1; this
total cost is the sum of the costs for equipment, engineering, and installation. Capital investment costs
range from $90,757 for the Rimrock system to $305,000 for the Brown City system (excluding the
Lidgerwood system modification cost, which is $55,740). Annualized costs for the 12 systems also were
calculated using a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.06722 based on a 3% interest rate and a 20-year
return period, and are presented in Table 6-2.
Throughout this analysis, cost data for all 12 systems were plotted against system flowrate data for all
systems, and curve fitting was performed on the results. Separate plots also were generated for just those
systems that involve iron-based adsorptive media. Figure 6-1 shows total capital cost plotted against
flowrate data for all 12 arsenic treatment systems. These data were fitted with a linear regression curve
(R2 of 0.2300), and resulted in a poor correlation; this result was not unexpected, and is likely due to the
wide variety of technologies evaluated by the EPA demonstration study. A much stronger correlation
resulted when cost and flowrate data for just the iron-based adsorptive media treatment systems were
plotted (R2 of 0.8247; see Figure 6-2); this result was expected due to the similarity of the technologies
evaluated.
The water industry often uses the unit cost to compare water treatment system costs, so for this analysis,
unit cost for the total capital investment of each treatment system, as expressed as cost per 1,000 gallons
of water treated, was calculated by dividing the annualized cost by the annual water production at the
system design flowrate. The calculation assumed that the system was operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week. The unit costs of the 12 systems range from $0.06 per 1,000 gallons for the Desert Sands
MDWCA and Brown City systems, to $0.79 per 1,000 gallons for the Valley Vista system (excluding the
Lidgerwood system modification; see Table 6-2).
Unit cost data also were plotted against system flowrate data; Figure 6-3 shows the curve for all 12
treatment systems, and Figure 6-4 shows the curve for just the iron-based systems. The results indicate
that the unit cost decreases as the size of a system increases.
Based on the fits of all four cost curves, a strong correlation seems to exist between total capital cost and
size of the arsenic treatment system, but just for iron-based media systems. Also, results generally
indicate that the E33 adsorptive systems are the lowest cost systems; however, this conclusion may not be
a valid one because the wide variations in system designs, materials of construction, monitoring
equipment, and site-specific conditions also may impact the costs of the treatment systems. The full
results of the curve fitting are summarized in Table 6-3.
32
-------
Table 6-1. Capital Investment Costs of the 12 Round 1 Arsenic Demonstration Systems
OJ
OJ
Facility
System
Design
Flowrate
(gpm)
Total
Capital
Investment
Equipment
Cost
%of
Total
Capital
Investment
Engineering
Cost
%of
Total
Capital
Investment
Installation
Cost
%of
Total
Capital
Investment
G2 Media System
Bow, NH
70
$154,700
$102,600
66%
$12,500
8%
$39,000
26%
E33 Media Systems
Desert Sands MDWCA, NM
Brown City, MI
Queen Anne's County, MD
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Rimrock, AZ
Rollinsford, NH
320
640
300
145
90
100
$153,000
$305,000
$211,000
$139,251
$90,757
$106,568
$112,000
$218,000
$129,500
$112,211
$66,235
$82,081
73%
71%
62%
80%
73%
77%
$23,000
$35,500
$36,700
$10,788
$11,372
$4,907
15%
12%
17%
8%
13%
5%
$18,000
$51,500
$44,800
$16,252
$13,150
$19,580
12%
17%
21%
12%
14%
18%
AAFS50 Media System
Valley Vista, AZ
37
$228,309
$122,544
54%
$50,659
22%
$55,106
24%
GFH Media System
STMGID, NV
350
$232,147
$157,647
68%
$16,000(b)
7o/o(b)
$58,500
25%
Coagulation/Filtration System
Climax, MN
140
$249,081
$137,970
55%
$39,344
16%
$71,767
29%
Anion Exchange System
Fruitland, ID
250
$290,521
$177,328
61%
$35,619
12%
$77,574
27%
System Modification
Lidgerwood, ND
250
$55,740
$31,154
56%
$5,786
10%
$18,800
34%
Statistics
Minimum
Maximum
Average
37
640
-
$90,757(a)
$305,000
-
$66,23 5(a)
$218,000
-
54%
80%
66%
$4,907
$50,659
-
5%
22%
12%
$13,150
$77,574
-
12%
34%
22%
(a) Excluding the Lidgerwood, ND system.
(b) Engineering work performed by STMGID and its costs not reflected herein.
-------
Table 6-2. Annualized and Unit Costs of Total Capital Investment for the 12
Round 1 Arsenic Demonstration Systems
Facility
System
Flowrate
(gpm)
Annualized Cost
-------
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000 -
o $200,000
1
'a.
$ $150,000
$
o
$100,000
$50,000 --
$0
Brown City, I
Fruitland, ID
Climax, MN
STMGID, NV
Valley Vista, AZ
Bow, NH
y=227.63x+133933
R2 = 0.23
Rollinsford, NH
Rimrock, AZ
Jueen Anne's
County, MD
mbe Pueblo, NM «
• Desert Sands
MDWCA, NM
Lidgerwood, ND
100 200 300 400 500
System Flowrate (gpm)
600
700
Figure 6-1. Total Capital Investment Cost vs. System Flowrate (All Systems)
$350,000
$300,000 -
$250,000 -
o $200,000
1
'a.
& $150,000
$
o
$100,000
$50,000 --
$0
Brown City, Ml
Bow, NH
STMGID, NV
Queen Anne's *
County, MD ^
Desert Sands
Nambe Pueblo, NM MDWCA, NM
y = 333.84X + 90455
R2 = 0.8247
• Rollinsford, NH
Rimrock, AZ
100 200 300 400
System Flowrate (gpm)
500
600
700
Figure 6-2. Total Capital Investment Cost vs. System Flowrate
(Iron-Based Adsorptive Media Systems Only)
35
-------
1.00
0.10 --
I
Q.
$
o
0.01
Valley Vista, AZ *
10
Bow, NH
Rollinsford, Nh)
Rimrock,
Climax, MN
y = 9.8221 x'085'
R2 = 0.6527
Fruitland, ID
Queen Anne's
CguntyLMD
* » STMGID, NV
Desert Sands
MDWCA, NM
Lidgerwood, ND
Brown City, Ml
100
System Flowrate (gpm)
1000
Figure 6-3. Unit Cost of Total Capital Investment vs. System Flowrate (All Systems)
1.00
3
'a.
3
$
o
0.01
Bow, NH
Ro linsford, NH
Rimrock, AZ *
o o.10 -] Nam|be_Pueblo, NUT-
= 2.2543x057
R2 = 0.8022
Queen Anne's
County, MD
v±»STMGID, NV
Desert Sands Brown City,
MDWCA, NM
10
100
System Flowrate (gpm)
Figure 6-4. Unit Cost of Total Capital Investment vs. System Flowrate
(Iron-Based Adsorptive Media Systems Only)
1000
36
-------
6.2 Equipment Costs
Equipment costs for the treatment systems range from $66,235 for the Rimrock system to $218,000 for
the Brown City system (excluding the Lidgerwood system modification equipment cost, which is
$31,154), as shown in Table 6-1. Figure 6-5 shows equipment cost plotted against flowrate data for all 12
arsenic treatment systems. These data were fitted with a linear regression curve (R2 of 0.3938), and
resulted in a poor correlation; like the capital investment cost analysis, this result is likely due to the wide
variety of technologies evaluated for the EPA demonstration study. A much stronger correlation again
resulted when cost and flowrate data for just the iron-based adsorptive media treatment systems were
plotted (R2 of 0.8751; see Figure 6-6). Also, because equipment cost makes up the highest percentage of
the total capital investment cost (i.e., 54 to 80%), the curves on the equipment cost plots were expected to
be similar to those on the capital investment plots.
Unit equipment costs for the treatment systems range from $0.04 to $0.42 per 1,000 gallons of water
treated (excluding the Lidgerwood system modification; see Table 6-2). In general, the unit equipment
cost increases as the size of a system decreases. The treatment systems with the lowest unit equipment
costs are the E33 media systems with higher flowrates; for example, both the 640-gpm Brown City
system and the 320-gpm Desert Sands MDWCA system have a unit cost of $0.04 per 1,000 gallons.
Conversely, the most expensive treatment option based on the unit equipment cost is the 37-gpm Valley
Vista system, which has a unit equipment cost of $0.42 per 1,000 gallons. However, the Valley Vista
system is equipped with a backwash recycle system and extra monitoring and control devices, which are
not included in the other systems.
Unit equipment cost data also were plotted against system flowrate data; Figure 6-7 shows the curve for
all 12 treatment systems (R2 of 0.647), and Figure 6-8 shows the curve for just the iron-based systems (R2
of 0.8633). Results are similar to those for unit total capital investment, and show a stronger correlation
for the iron-based systems between equipment cost and size of system.
6.3 Engineering Costs
Engineering costs for the treatment systems range from $4,907 for the Rollinsford system to $50,659 for
the Valley Vista system. These engineering costs represent from 5 to 22% of the total capital investment
costs, with an average percentage of 12% (see Table 6-1). Engineering cost data for all 12 systems are
plotted against system flowrate data on Figure 6-9. The lowest engineering-related costs were associated
with the 100-gpm E33 media system at Rollinsford, NH, followed closely by the system modification at
Lidgerwood, ND. Annualized engineering costs for all 12 systems were calculated using a CRF value of
0.06722, and range from $330 to $3,405 (Table 6-2).
6.4 Installation Costs
Installation costs for the treatment systems range from $13,150 for the Rimrock system to $77,574 for the
Fruitland system. These installation costs represent from 12 to 34% of the total capital investment costs,
with an average percentage of 22% (see Table 6-1). Installation cost data for all 12 systems are plotted
against system flowrate data on Figure 6-10. Relatively low installation costs were associated with all
three sites using E33 media systems (Nambe Pueblo, NM; Rimrock, AZ; and Rollinsford, NH).
Annualized installation costs for all 12 systems were calculated using a CRF value of 0.06722, and range
from $884 to $5,214 (Table 6-2).
37
-------
$250,000
$200,000 -
r $150,000 -
to
o
O
HI
Q.
. $100,000 -
$50,000 --
$0
Fruitland, ID
Climax, MN
»
\Xalley Vista, AZ
* Nambe Pueblo, NIV
Bow, NH
STMGID, NV
•
v Queen Anne's
County, MD
•
Desert Sands
MDWCA, NM
Rollinsford, NH
Rimrock, AZ
Lidgerwood, ND
100 200 300 400
System Flowrate (gpm)
Brown City, Ml
y=186.29x +78982
R2 = 0.3938
500
600
700
Figure 6-5. Equipment Cost vs. System Flowrate (All Systems)
$250,000
$200,000 --
r $150,000 --
to
o
O
Q.
'= $100,000
LU
$50,000 --
$0
100 200 300 400
System Flowrate (gpm)
^rownCity, Ml
500
600
700
Figure 6-6. Equipment Cost vs. System Flowrate (Iron-Based
Adsorptive Media Systems Only)
38
-------
1.00
§ 0.10
o
'c
HI
o.
'
0.01
Valley Vista, AZ
Bow, NH
Rollinsford, NH
Rimrock,
y = 5.5075X'0 81
R2 = 0.647
Climax, MN
Nambe Pueblo, NM
AZ ^^^ Lidgerwood, ND
STMGID, NV
Queen Anne's
County, MD •"
Desert Sands
MDWCA, NM
Lidgerwood, ND
Brown City, Ml
10
100
System Flowrate (gpm)
1000
Figure 6-7. Unit Equipment Cost vs. System Flowrate (All Systems)
1.00
u>
o
0.10 --
HI
Q.
0.01
10
Bow, NH
Rollinsford, Nl
_ _
Rimrock,
y=1.768x0597:
R2 = 0.8633
Nambe Pueblo, NM
AZ
STMGID, NV
Queen Anne's
County, MD
Brown City, Ml
Desert Sands
MDWCA, NM
100
System Flowrate (gpm)
1000
Figure 6-8. Unit Equipment Cost vs. System Flowrate (Iron Based Adsorptive
Media Systems Only)
39
-------
$60,000
$50,000 -
$40,000 -
o
o
.c $30,000
$20,000
$10,000 --
$0
Valley Vista, AZ
Climax, MN
Bow, NH
Queen Anne's
County, MD
Fruitland, ID
Desert Sands
MDWCA, NM
STMGID, NV
Nambe Pueblo, NM
Lidgerwood, ND
Rollinsford, NH
100 200 300 400
System Flowrate (gpm)
500
Brown City, Ml
600
700
Figure 6-9. Engineering Cost vs. System Flowrate
•4>^i\j, \J\J\J
$80,000 -
$70,000 -
_ $60,000 -
<§ $50,000
c
o
« $40,000 -
w
- $30,000 -
$20,000 -
* -i pi nnn
3> 1 U,UUU
tn
Fruitland, ID
Climax, MN
*
STMGID, NV
Valley Vista, AZ •
* Queen Anne's Brown City,
County.MD Ml
Bow, NH
Desert Sands
Rollinsford, NH MDWCA, NM
* » «
* Lidgerwood, ND
Rimrock, AZ* Nambe Pueblo, NM
100 200 300 400
System Flowrate (gpm)
500
600
700
Figure 6-10. Installation Cost vs. System Flowrate
40
-------
6.5
Building Costs
All buildings and building modifications are paid for by the water systems. Building costs range from a
low of $3,700 (the Desert Sands MDWCA site) to a high of near $186,000 (the STMGID site). Costs
vary according to differences in building design (size and materials of construction) and choice of
construction contractor. A summary of the building costs associated with each facility is provided in
Table 6-4; details on the building construction for each site are provided in the following subsections.
Table 6-4. Summary of Building Costs
Facility
Bow, NH
Desert Sands MDWCA, NM
Brown City, MI
Queen Anne's County, MD
Nambe Pueblo, NM(a)
Rimrock, AZ
Rollinsford, NH
Valley Vista, AZ
STMGID, NV00
Climax, MN
Fruitland, ID
Lidgerwood, ND
Type of Building/Material of
Construction
Concrete foundation/wood frame
Concrete foundation/steel frame
Concrete block
Concrete block with brick siding
Concrete block
Sun shade with steel frame
Concrete foundation and floor/ wood
frame with vinyl siding
Sun shade with steel frame
Concrete block
Concrete foundation and floor/ wood
frame with metal wall panels
Concrete foundation and floor/ wood
frame, steel siding and roof
Building Size
20 ft x 22 ft
15 ft x 15.5 ft
28 ft x 28 ft
16 ft x 23 ft
28 ft x 36 ft
12 ft x 15 ft
33 ft x 13 ft
12 ft x 25 ft
32 ft x 18 ft
22 ft x 24 ft
360 ft2
Building Cost
($)
-$25,000
$3,700
$62,602
$92,630
-$150,000
$25,223
$57,000
$22,078
$186,000
$88,256
$18,000
Building already exists, a new building not needed
(a) Building not yet completed.
6.5.1 Bow, NH. The cost of building an addition on the existing structure at this site was
approximately $25,000. Construction included placement of a steel support on top of the existing
concrete structure, and construction of a wooden frame building on this steel support to house the ADI G2
arsenic adsorption system. The new building is roughly the same size as the existing concrete structure,
with a footprint of 20 ft x 22 ft.
6.5.2 Desert Sands MDWCA, NM. The Desert Sands MDWCA in Anthony, NM built an
addition onto their existing pump house in order to shelter the APU-300 treatment system equipment and
inlet/outlet plumbing. The structure was built by MDWCA staff, with the exception of the electrical tie-
in. The total cost for the building was $3,700, with $2,700 for material and $1,000 for labor. The
addition measures 15 ft x 15.5 ft at the base (232.5 ft2), with a total height of 12 ft, and consists of a
concrete floor, steel frame, and insulated steel siding and roofing, with a walk-through door.
6.5.3 Brown City, MI. The total cost for the addition to the existing concrete block well house at
the Brown City Site was $62,602. The addition is a 28 ft x 28 ft concrete block structure with a 10-ft-
wide roll-top metal door and access hatches in the roof for media loading. The primary construction costs
totaled $41,468, and included excavation, masonry, carpentry, and concrete floor pouring. The overhead
door cost was $1,400. The building costs also included $13,048 for the roof deck work and roofing
including the overhead roof hatches. The building was finished with a wood and aluminum trim and
41
-------
painted white. The cost for painting was $2,135, and the heating and electrical work for the building
totaled $4,550.
6.5.4 Queen Anne's County, MD. Total construction cost for the Queen Anne's County addition
was $92,630, including about $18,000 for the building design and $75,000 for construction. The 16 ft x
23 ft treatment area is an addition to the original 8 ft x 16 ft well house. The building was constructed
using concrete block and has brick siding. Construction took approximately one month to complete
including placement and setting of the vessels within the building, which were put into place before the
roof was installed.
6.5.5 Nambe Pueblo, NM. The IHS plans to construct a free-standing building to house the APU-
150 treatment system, near the existing well pump house. The concrete block building will be 28 ft x 36
ft (1,008 ft2), with a wall height of 14 ft, and a corrugated steel roof. The building will have both a walk-
through door and a!2ftx 12 ft roll-up door. The building will be constructed by a contractor known to
the HIS, and the estimated cost for labor and materials, including grading and utilities, is approximately
$150,000.
6.5.6 Rimrock, AZ. Total construction cost for the Rimrock building was $25,223, including
design and installation ofa!2ftxl5ft concrete pad, a sunshade structure, and a backwash recycle
system. The sunshade structure is 12 ft x 15 ft with a height of 9.5 ft, and is manufactured by Versa-
Tube. The sunshade is constructed with a galvanized steel frame anchored to the concrete pad and
sheeted with a 29-gauge steel that has a specially coated surface. The shades are pre-engineered with a
90-mph wind load and a 30-lb/ft2 snow loading capacity. This sunshade structure can be completely
closed to resemble a metal building if the building needs to be heated in the winter. The cost for materials
and labor to assemble the shade is approximately $3,500.
6.5.7 Rollinsford, NH. The Rollinsford building cost approximately $57,000, including design
and construction of the subsurface leach field directly adjacent to the building which is used for disposing
of the backwash water from the system. The building itself measures 33 ft x 13 ft. It has a wood frame
with vinyl siding and a concrete foundation and floor. It includes two 10-ft roll-up doors on the front side
allowing access to the treatment equipment and one walk-through door on the end of the building.
6.5.8 Valley Vista, AZ. The Valley Vista building cost was $22,078, including design and
installation of a 12 ft x 25 ft concrete pad and a sunshade structure. The sunshade structure is similar to
the one at the Rimrock site but larger, at 12 ft x 25 ft, with a height of 11.5 ft. Manufactured by Versa-
Tube, the sunshade is constructed with a galvanized steel frame anchored to the concrete pad and sheeted
with a 29-gauge steel that has a specially coated surface. The shades are pre-engineered with a 90-mph
wind load and a 30-lb/ft2 snow loading capacity. This structure can be completely closed to resemble a
metal building if the building needs to be heated in the winter. The cost for materials and labor to
assemble the shade is approximately $4,500.
6.5.9 STMGID, NV. STMGID plans to construct a free-standing building to house the GFH
system. The CMU block building will measure 32 ft x 18 ft, with an interior wall height of 12 ft and a 3
tab asphalt shingle roof. The building will have one walk-through door and an 8-ft x 11-ft roll-up door.
The estimated cost of the building, water system improvements (i.e., system connection and backwash
line), utilities, landscaping, and labor is $186,000.
6.5.10 Climax, MN. A 22-ft x 24-ft building was built as an addition onto the existing concrete
block well house, and cost $88,256. The building walls are constructed with a wood stud frame and 24
gauge pre-fabricated metal wall panels and set on a 6-inch-thick concrete slab floor with footings. The
building also is equipped with an insulated, 10-ft-wide overhead door. The building construction cost
42
-------
includes all of the required insulation, mechanical, and electrical work. The building is heated with a
60,000 BTUH heater. The connection to the existing water main requires 16 linear ft of 6-inch-diameter
C900 pipe and costs $4,650. The initial budget called for $6,730 for connection to the sanitary sewer
with 145 ft of 6-inch-diameter PVC pipe. However, after plan review by the MDH, a code requirement
was identified to complete the sanitary sewer connection at a distance greater than 50 ft from the
wellhead. An underground storage tank was placed at a distance of 50 ft from the well house to hold the
backwash water prior to pumping to the sewer. The cost estimate for this change order was
approximately $12,000.
6.5.11 Fruitland, ID. The City of Fruitland constructed an addition to their existing pump house to
house the anion exchange system. The addition covers 360 ft2 of floor space, and is 17 ft high, with a
wood frame and steel siding and roofing, and a roll-up door. The total cost for the material and electrical
is approximately $18,000.
6.5.12 Lidgerwood, ND. There are no building costs for the Lidgerwood site because the system
modification does not require any modifications to the existing building that houses the existing
coagulation/filtration system.
43
-------
7.0 REFERENCES
Clifford, D. 1999. "Ion Exchange and Inorganic Adsorption." In American Water Works Association
(Eds.), Water Quality and Treatment: A Handbook of Community Water Supplies, 5th ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
U.S. EPA, see United States Environmental Protection Agency.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations:
Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring. Fed.
Register, 66:14:6975. January 22.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Minor Clarification of the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulation for Arsenic. Federal Register, 40 CFR Part 141. March 25.
44
------- |