Technologies and Costs
Document for the
Final Long Term 2 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule
and Final Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule
-------
Office of Water (4606-M) EPA 815-R-05-013 December 2005 www.epa.gov/safewater
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Executive Summary ES-1
ES.l Introduction ES-1
ES.2 Alternative Disinfection and Precursor Reduction Strategies ES-1
ES.3 Development of Design Criteria and Upgrade Costs ES-2
ES.4 Summary of Technology Cost Estimates ES-3
Chapter 1: Introduction
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of Technology and Cost Document
1.2 Existing Regulations
1.4
.2.1 Surface Water Treatment Rule
.2.2 Information Collection Rule
.2.3 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
.2.4 Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
.2.5 Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule .
.2.6 Filter Backwash Recycling Rule
1.3 Public Health Concerns
.3.1 Pathogenic Microorganisms
.3.2 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts
Regulations
.4.1 Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
.4.2 Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule . .
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3
-3
-3
-4
-4
-4
-4
-5
-5
-5
-6
-6
1.5 Technologies Evaluated for the Control of Pathogens and Disinfection Byproducts . . .
1.6 Document Organization
Chapter 2: Technologies for DBF and Microbial Contaminant Control
2. Technologies for DBP and Microbial Contaminant Control 2-1
2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.2 Alternative Disinfection Strategies 2-1
2.2.1 Chloramination 2-2
2.2.1.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens 2-2
2.2.1.2 DBP Formation 2-3
2.2.1.3 Factors Affecting Performance 2-4
2.2.2 Chlorine Dioxide 2-5
2.2.2.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens 2-5
2.2.2.2 DBP Formation 2-7
2.2.2.3 Factors Affecting Performance 2-7
2.2.3 Ultraviolet Light 2-7
2.2.3.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens 2-9
2.2.3.2 DBP Formation 2-10
2.2.3.3 Factors Affecting Performance 2-11
2.2.4 Ozone 2-12
2.2.4.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens 2-14
LT2ESWTR T&C Document ~i December 2005
-------
2.2.4.2 DBF Formation 2-16
2.2.4.3 Factors Affecting Performance 2-17
2.2.5 Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration 2-18
2.2.5.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens 2-19
2.2.5.2 Factors Affecting Performance 2-22
2.2.6 Bag and Cartridge Filtration 2-23
2.2.6.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens 2-24
2.2.6.2 Factors Affecting Performance 2-26
2.2.7 Bank Filtration 2-27
2.2.7.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens 2-27
2.2.7.2 Factors Affecting Performance 2-28
2.2.8 Second Stage Filtration 2-28
2.2.8.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens 2-28
2.2.8.2 Factors Affecting Performance 2-29
2.2.9 Pre-Sedimentation 2-30
2.2.9.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens 2-30
2.2.9.2 Factors Affecting Performance 2-30
2.2.10 Watershed Control 2-31
2.2.10.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens 2-31
2.2.10.2 Factors Affecting Performance 2-32
2.2.11 Combined Filter Performance 2-32
2.2.11.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens 2-33
2.2.11.2 Factors Affecting Performance 2-33
2.3 DBP Precursor Removal Strategies 2-34
2.3.1 Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption 2-34
2.3.1.2 DBP Precursor Removal 2-35
2.3.1.3 Factors Affecting Performance 2-36
2.3.2 Nanofiltration 2-38
2.3.2.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens 2-38
2.3.2.2 DBP Precursor Removal 2-40
2.3.2.3 Factors Affecting Performance 2-42
Chapter 3: Technology Design and Criteria
3. Technology Design and Criteria 3-1
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 Base Treatment Plant 3-1
3.3 Alternative Disinfection Strategies 3-2
3.3.1 Chloramination 3-2
3.3.2 Chlorine Dioxide 3-3
3.3.3 Ultraviolet Light 3-5
3.3.4 Ozone 3-6
3.3.5 Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration 3-8
3.3.6 Bag and Cartridge Filtration 3-9
3.3.7 Bank Filtration 3-10
3.3.8 Second Stage Filtration 3-10
3.3.9 Pre-Sedimentation 3-11
3.3.10 Watershed Control 3-11
3.3.11 Combined Filter Performance 3-12
3.4 DBP Precursor Removal Technologies 3-15
LT2ESWTR T&C Document Ti December 2005
-------
3.4.1 Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption 3-15
3.4.2 Nanofiltration 3-16
Chapter 4: Technology Costs
4. Technology Costs 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 Approach for Cost Estimates 4-2
4.2.1 Cost Components and Capital Cost Multipliers 4-3
4.2.2 Cost Indices and Unit Cost Inputs 4-5
4.2.3 Cost Build-up Approach 4-7
4.2.4 Lump Sum Estimates 4-7
4.2.5 Cost Modeling Approach 4-7
4.2.5.1 VSS Model 4-8
4.2.5.2 Water Model 4-8
4.2.5.3 WAV Cost Model 4-9
4.2.6 Indirect Capital Costs 4-9
4.3 Estimation of Annualized Costs 4-12
4.4 Alternative Disinfection Strategies 4-13
4.4.1 Chloramination 4-13
4.4.1.1 Summary of Chloramine Capital Cost Assumptions 4-13
4.4.1.2 Summary of Chloramine O&M Cost Assumptions 4-14
4.4.2 Chlorine Dioxide 4-20
4.4.2.1 Summary of Chlorine Dioxide Capital Cost Assumptions 4-20
4.4.2.2 Summary of Chlorine Dioxide O&M Cost Assumptions 4-21
4.4.3 Ultraviolet Light 4-25
4.4.3.1 Summary of UV Disinfection Capital Cost Assumptions 4-25
4.4.3.2 Summary of UV Disinfection O&M Cost Assumptions 4-26
4.4.4 Ozone 4-34
4.4.4.1 Summary of Ozonation Capital Cost Assumptions 4-34
4.4.4.2 Summary of Ozonation O&M Cost Assumptions 4-39
4.4.5 Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration 4-46
4.4.5.1 Summary of MF/UF Capital Cost Assumptions 4-46
4.4.5.2 Summary of MF/UF O&M Cost Assumptions 4-51
4.4.6 Bag and Cartridge Filtration 4-56
4.4.6.1 Summary of Bag and Cartridge Filter Capital Cost Assumptions 4-56
4.4.6.2 Summary of Bag and Cartridge Filter O&M Cost Assumptions 4-58
4.4.7 Bank Filtration 4-62
4.4.8 Second Stage Filtration 4-62
4.4.9 Pre-Sedimentation 4-62
4.4.10 Watershed Control 4-63
4.4.11 Combined Filter Performance 4-64
4.4.11.1 Installing Backwash Polymer Feed 4-66
4.4.11.2 Installing Additional Coagulant Feed Points 4-67
4.4.11.3 Filter Media Addition 4-67
4.4.11.4 Filterto Waste 4-67
4.4.11.5 Filter Rate-of-Flow Controller Replacement 4-68
4.4.11.6 Increase Plant Staffing 4-69
4.4.11.7 Update Plant Staff Qualifications 4-69
4.4.11.8 Purchase Turbidimeter 4-69
LT2ESWTR T&C Document lit December 2005
-------
4.4.11.9 Purchase Jar Test Apparatus 4-70
4.4.11.10 Purchase Particle Counters 4-70
4.4.11.11 StaffTraining 4-70
4.4.11.12 Average Plant Cost 4-72
4.5 DBP Precursor and Microbial Removal Technologies 4-74
4.5.1 Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption 4-74
4.5.1.1 Summary of GAC Capital Cost Assumptions 4-75
4.5.1.2 Summary of GAC O&M Cost Assumptions 4-79
4.5.2 Nanofiltration 4-90
4.5.2.1 Summary of NF Capital Cost Assumptions 4-90
4.5.2.2 Summary of NF O&M Cost Assumptions 4-93
4.6 Annualized Costs 4-99
Chapter 5: References
LT2ESWTRT&C Document iv December 2005
-------
List of Exhibits
Figure ES.l Cost Comparison for Alternative Chemical Disinfection Strategies ES-4
Figure ES.2 Cost Comparison for Alternative Physical Removal Technologies ES-5
Figure ES.3 Cost Comparison for DBF Precursor Removal Technologies ES-5
Table ES. 1 Technology Total Annual Costs ($/kgal) for the Stage 2 D/DBP and LT2ESWT Rules
ES-6
Exhibit 2.1: Comparison of CT Values for Free Chlorine and Chloramine 2-3
Exhibit 2.2: Comparison of CT Values for Free Chlorine and Chlorine Dioxide 2-6
Exhibit 2.3: Summary of Chlorine Dioxide CT Values for Cryptosporidium Inactivation 2-6
Exhibit 2.4: Comparison of UV Lamps 2-8
Exhibit 2.5: UV Dose Requirements for Inactivation of Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Viruses
During Validation Testing 2-9
Exhibit 2.6: Comparison of Air and Liquid Oxygen Systems 2-13
Exhibit 2.7: Comparison of CT Values for Free Chlorine and Ozone 2-14
Exhibit 2.8: Reported Ozonation Requirements for 2 log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium Oocysts .2-15
Exhibit 2.9: CT Considerations for Cryptosporidium Inactivation 2-18
Exhibit 2.10: Pressure-Driven Membrane Separation Spectrum 2-19
Exhibit 2.11: MF and UF Studies Documenting Bacteria Removal 2-20
Exhibit 2.12: MF and UF Studies Documenting Giardia Removal 2-21
Exhibit 2.13: MF and UF Studies Documenting Cryptosporidium Removal 2-21
Exhibit 2.14: MF and UF Studies Documenting Virus Removal 2-22
Exhibit 2.15: Summary of Bag Filter Performance 2-25
Exhibit 2.16: Bank Filtration Studies Measuring Coliform and Spore Removal 2-27
Exhibit 2.17: NF Studies Documenting Microbial Removal 2-39
Exhibit 2.18: NOM Removal Through NF Processes 2-41
Exhibit 2.19: Bromide Removal Through NF Processes 2-42
Exhibit 3.1: Base Plant 3-2
Exhibit 3.2: Plant Schematic for Chloramines for Secondary Disinfection 3-3
Exhibit 3.3: Plant Schematic for Disinfection with Chlorine Dioxide 3-4
Exhibit 3.4: Plant Schematic for UV Disinfection 3-5
Exhibit 3.5: Water Quality Assumptions for UV Disinfection 3-5
Exhibit 3.6: Number of Assumed UV Reactors 3-6
Exhibit 3.7: Plant Schematic for Ozone Disinfection 3-7
Exhibit 3.8: Plant Schematic for Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration 3-8
Exhibit 3.9: Plant Schematic for Bag and Cartridge Filtration 3-10
Exhibit 3.10: Plant Schematic for GAC Filtration 3-15
Exhibit 3.11: Plant Schematic for Nanofiltration 3-17
Exhibit 4.1: Technologies Costed and Methodology Used 4-2
Exhibit 4.2: Summary of Capital Cost Multiplier Components 4-4
Exhibit 4.3: Costs Indices Used in the Water and WAV Cost Models 4-5
Exhibit 4.4: Unit and General Cost Assumptions 4-6
Exhibit 4.5: Chemical Costs 4-6
Exhibit 4.6: Summary of Piloting Cost Assumptions 4-10
Exhibit 4.7: Summary of Land Cost Assumptions (as a percentage of Capital Cost) 4-11
LT2ESWTR T&C Document vDecember 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.8: Determining an Amortization Factor based on Discount Rates over 20 years 4-12
Exhibit 4.9: Costs of Chloramines as Secondary Disinfectant Cost Summary -
Ammonia Dose = 0.15 mg/L 4-16
Exhibit 4.10: Costs of Chloramines as Secondary Disinfectant Cost Summary -
Ammonia Dose = 0.55 mg/L 4-18
Exhibit 4.11: WAV Cost Model Electricity Usage and Required Labor for Chlorine Dioxide 4-22
Exhibit 4.12: Chlorine Dioxide Cost Summary 4-23
Exhibit 4.13: UV Disinfection Cost Summary (40 mJ/cm2 Without UPS) 4-28
Exhibit 4.14: UV Disinfection Cost Summary (200 mJ/cm2 Without UPS) 4-30
Exhibit 4.15: UV Disinfection Cost Summary (40 mJ/cm2 with UPS) 4-31
Exhibit 4.16: UV Disinfection Cost Summary (200 mJ/cm2 with UPS) 4-33
Exhibit 4.17: Ozone Piloting Cost Assumptions 4-38
Exhibit 4.18: Ozonation O&M Cost Assumptions 4-39
Exhibit 4.19: Ozonation Cost Summary (0.5 log Cryptosporidium Inactivation) 4-40
Exhibit 4.20: Ozonation Cost Summary (1.0 log Cryptosporidium Inactivation) 4-42
Exhibit 4.21: Ozonation Cost Summary (2.0 log Cryptosporidium Inactivation) 4-44
Exhibit 4.22: Summary of MF/UF Vendor Estimates 4-47
Exhibit 4.23: Summary of MF/UF Interstage Pumping Assumptions 4-47
Exhibit 4.24: MF/UF Land Cost Assumptions 4-49
Exhibit 4.25: Summary of MF/UF Operator Training Cost Assumptions 4-50
Exhibit 4.26: Summary of Backwash Disposal Pipeline Assumptions 4-51
Exhibit 4.27: Summary of Membrane Replacement Costs 4-52
Exhibit 4.28: Summary of MF/UF Labor Assumptions 4-53
Exhibit 4.29: Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration Cost Summary 4-54
Exhibit 4.30: Design Criteria for Bag and Cartridge Filters 4-57
Exhibit 4.31: Summary of Bag and Cartridge Filter Pump Cost Data 4-57
Exhibit 4.32: Bag Filter Cost Summary 4-60
Exhibit 4.33: Cartridge Filter Cost Summary 4-61
Exhibit 4.34: Bank Filtration Cost Estimates for Three System Sizes 4-62
Exhibit 4.35: Second Stage Filtration Cost Estimates for Three System Sizes 4-62
Exhibit 4.36: Pre-Sedimentation Cost Estimates for Three System Sizes 4-63
Exhibit 4.37: Watershed Cost Categories for Three System Sizes 4-64
Exhibit 4.38: Summary of Filtration Improvement Design Assumptions 4-66
Exhibit 4.39: Valve Actuator Horsepower Assumptions 4-69
Exhibit 4.40: Capital Unit Costs for Combined Filter Performance Components 4-71
Exhibit 4.41: O&M Unit Costs for Combined Filter Performance Components 4-71
Exhibit 4.42: Percentages of Plants Using Each Filter Improvement Option 4-72
Exhibit 4.43: Capital Cost Estimates for the Combined Filter Performance 4-73
Exhibit 4.44: O&M Costs for the Combined Filter Performance 4-74
Exhibit 4.45: GAC Contactor Assumptions 4-75
Exhibit 4.46: Summary of GAC Costs (EBCT = 10 minutes, 360 day reactivation frequency) 4-84
Exhibit 4.47: Summary of GAC Costs (EBCT = 20 minutes, 90 day reactivation frequency) 4-86
Exhibit 4.48: Summary of GAC Costs (EBCT = 20 minutes, 240 day reactivation frequency) 4-88
Exhibit 4.49: Percent Distribution of NF Equipment Cost 4-91
Exhibit 4.50: Summary of NF Housing Cost Assumptions 4-92
Exhibit 4.51: NF Land Cost Assumptions 4-93
Exhibit 4.52: NF Operator Training Cost Assumptions 4-93
Exhibit 4.53: Summary of NF Technical Labor Assumptions 4-95
Exhibit 4.54: Nanofiltration Cost Summary 4-97
Exhibit 4.55: Annualized Cost Summary 4-99
LT2ESWTR T&C Document ~i December 2005
-------
List of Appendices
Appendix A Very Small Systems Model Capital Cost Breakdown Summaries
Appendix B Water Model Capital Cost Breakdown Summaries
Appendix C WAV Cost Model Capital Cost Breakdown Summaries
Appendix D Technology Cost Curves
LT2ESWTRT&C Document vii December 2005
-------
List of Acronyms
AWWA
AWWARF
AWWSC
BAT
BCI
BDOC
BLS
BV
°C
CAP
CDC
CFE
CFR
CIP
cm
CT
CWS
D/DBP
DBF
DBPR
DES
DNA
DOC
E&I
EA
EA
EBCT
American Water Works Association
American Water Works Association Research Foundation
American Water Works Service Company
Best Available Technology
building cost index
biodegradable organic carbon
Bureau of Labor Statistics
bed volume
degrees Celsius
total capital costs
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
combined filter effluent
Code of Federal Regulations
clean-in-place
centimeter
measured disinfectant residual x contact time
community water system
disinfectant/disinfection byproduct
disinfection byproduct
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
designated flow
deoxyribonucleic acid
dissolved organic carbon
electrical and instrumentation
economic analysis
environmental assessment
empty bed contact time
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
vm
December 2005
-------
EIS environmental impact statement
ENR Engineering News Record
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ES effective size
ESWTR Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act
FBRR Filter Backwash Recycling Rule
fps feet per second
ft feet
ft2 (sf or sq ft) square feet
FTW filter to waste
GAC granular activated carbon
gfd gallons of filtrate per day per square foot of membrane area
gpd gallons per day
gpm gallons per minute
GWUDI ground water under the direct influence of surface water
HAA haloacetic acid
HAAS sum of five haloacetic acids
HAA6 sum of six haloacetic acids
HIV human immunodeficiency virus
Hp horsepower
HPC heterotrophic plate count
hr hour
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
i discount rate
I&C instrumentation and controls
ICR Information Collection Rule
IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
in inch
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
IX
December 2005
-------
kgal thousand gallons
kgpd thousand gallons per day
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt hour
Ib pound
LOX liquid oxygen
LP low pressure
LPHO low pressure high output
LPUV low pressure ultraviolet light
LT1ESWTR Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
LT2ESWTR Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
MCL maximum contaminant level
MCLG maximum contaminant level goal
M-DBP microbial-disinfection Byproduct
MF microfiltration
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
jig/L micrograms per liter
mg/L milligrams per liter
mgal million gallons
MGD or mgd million gallons per day
mJ milliJoules
mJ/cm2 milliJoules per square centimeter
jim micrometer
mm millimeter
MP medium pressure
MRDL maximum residual disinfectant level
MRDLG maximum residual disinfectant level goal
MWCO molecular weight cut-off
MWDSC Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
LT2ESWTR T&C Document x
December 2005
-------
N
NDWAC
NF
NIPDWR
nm
NOM
NPDWR
NSF
NTNCWS
NTU
O&M
OGWDW
OH&P
OSHA
P&V
PAC
PLC
POTW
ppb
ppm
PPI
PSA
psi
psig
PUV
PVC
PWS
RIA
RNA
number of years
National Drinking Water Advisory Council
nanofiltration
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation
nanometers
natural organic matter
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
National Science Foundation
nontransient noncommunity water system
nephelometric turbidity units
operations and maintenance
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
overhead and profit
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
pipes and valves
powder activated carbon
programmable logic controller
publicly owned treatment works
parts per billion
parts per million
Producer Price Index (for Finished Goods)
pressure swing absorption
pounds per square inch
pounds per square inch gauge
pulsed ultraviolet
polyvinyl chloride
public water supply
regulatory impact analysis
ribonucleic acid
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
XI
December 2005
-------
RO
SAB
SCADA
scf
SDS
SDWA
sf (ft2 or sq ft)
soc
soc
sq ft (or sf or ft2)
SWAT
SWTR
TDK
TOP
TDS
THM
THMFP
TMP
TNCWS
TOC
TOX
TOXFP
TSS
TTHM
TWG
UC
UF
UPS
uv
reverse osmosis
Science Advisory Board
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
standard cubic feet
simulated distribution system
Safe Drinking Water Act
square feet
soluble organic carbon
synthetic organic chemical
square feet
surface water analytical tool
Surface Water Treatment Rule
total dynamic head
Technology Design Panel
total dissolved solids
trihalomethane
trihalomethane formation potential
transmembrane pressure
transient noncommunity water system
total organic carbon
total organic halide
total organic halide formation potential
total suspended solids
total trihalomethane
Technical Work Group
uniformity coefficient
ultrafiltration
uninterrupted power supply
ultraviolet
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
xn
December 2005
-------
UVT ultraviolet transmittance
UV254 ultraviolet absorbance at 254 nm
VSS Very Small Systems Best Available Technology Cost Document
wk week
WTP water treatment plant
W/W water and wastewater
yr year
LT2ESWTRT&C Document xiii December 2005
-------
Executive Summary
ES.l Introduction
This document provides information on costs and performance characteristics of treatment
technologies that EPA projects public water systems (PWSs) will use to comply with the Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR) and the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR). The unit costs are based on design criteria relevant to compliance
with these rules. EPA developed these costs as part of making a regulatory impact assessment.
The Stage 2 DBPR will require PWSs that produce high concentrations of trihalomethanes
(THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs) to reduce the levels of those species. Specifically, PWSs would
have to comply with a locational running annual average (LRAA) of 80 and 60 i-ig/L for TTHM and
HAAs, respectively. THMs and HAAs form primarily through reactions between chlorine, which is
applied as a disinfectant, and natural organic matter in water. Systems can reduce the formation of THMs
and HAAs by either of two general approaches: (1) reduce the concentration of dissolved organic carbon
prior to disinfection through processes like enhanced coagulation, activated carbon, or nanofiltration, or
(2) use pathogen removal/inactivation processes that do not form, or form low concentrations of, THMs
and HAAs. Such processes include disinfection via chloramines, ozone, chlorine dioxide, ultraviolet
(UV) light, and the use of membranes.
The LT2ESWTR will require certain PWSs to provide additional removal or inactivation of
Cryptosporidium. The amount of required additional treatment for a PWS is dependent upon the results
of source water Cryptosporidium monitoring and the existing level of treatment. Systems can treat for
Cryptosporidium by: (1) removing Cryptosporidium through filtration processes, like granular media
filtration, cartridge filters, or membranes; or (2) using disinfectants that are effective against
Cryptosporidium, such as chlorine dioxide, UV, and ozone. Chlorine and chloramines are largely
ineffective at inactivating Cryptosporidium.
Because many of the technologies systems can use to treat for Cryptosporidium are also effective
in reducing formation of THMs and HAAs, EPA has chosen to address technologies for both the Stage 2
DBPR and LT2ESWTR in a single document. Chapter 1 of this document provides a brief overview of
the microorganisms and DBFs of concern, along with a synopsis of existing regulatory requirements.
Chapter 2 describes the technologies that were evaluated in this document for pathogen
removal/inactivation and DBP control. Chapter 3 contains design criteria for these technologies, and
Chapter 4 presents unit costs. Additional cost information is provided in the appendices.
ES.2 Alternative Disinfection and Precursor Reduction Strategies
This document evaluates the following pathogen removal and inactivation strategies
* Chlorine dioxide
* Chloramines
> UV light
* Ozone
* Micro/Ultrafiltration
* Bag/cartridge filtration
LT2ESWTRT&C Document ES-1 December 2005
-------
Pre-sedimentation
Second Stage Filtration
Watershed Management
As noted above, chlorine dioxide, UV light, ozone, micro/ultrafiltration, and bag/cartridge
filtration are considered as available technologies for systems needing additional treatment for
Cryptosporidium. Chlorine dioxide, chloramines, UV light, ozone, micro/ultrafiltration, bag/cartridge
filtration, pre-sedimentation, second stage filtration, and watershed management are all disinfection
strategies considered for systems to reduce THM and HAA formation.
While most of these alternative disinfection strategies are feasible for a wide range of system
sizes, many considerations affect the choice of appropriate strategy for an individual system. While
ozone, chlorine dioxide, and chloramines form lower concentrations of THMs and HAAs than free
chlorine, these disinfectants form other regulated disinfection byproducts. Ozone reacts with naturally
occurring bromide to form bromate, and can potentially increase formation of brominated THMs and
HAAs. Chlorine dioxide is reduced to form chlorite. Chloramination increases the risk of nitrification in
the distribution system. UV, and physical processes used for microbial treatment like microfiltration and
cartridge filtration, do not result in DBF formation. However, verifying adequate process performance
with these technologies may be a concern. Moreover, UV and these physical processes are less effective
against viruses than chlorine, and do not have the oxidizing properties of chemical disinfectants. The
alternative disinfection strategies also differ substantially with regard to how they are impacted by water
quality; how they can fit into existing infrastructure; their use of materials, energy, and labor; their impact
on other unit processes and treatment goals; and cost.
Many of these considerations also apply to selection of technologies for reducing DBF
precursors. This document evaluates the following DBF precursors removal options
* Granular activated carbon adsorption
* Nanofiltration
Economical use of granular activated carbon may necessitate on-site thermal reactivation
(particularly at large facilities), which has multi-media impacts (e.g., air emissions). Nanofiltration is
expensive, particularly for small systems, and disposal of residuals can be an issue. Further,
nanofiltration may produce a reject stream of as much as 30 percent of the daily plant flow. These issues
illustrate a few of the many factors that a system must consider when determining whether these
technologies are feasible.
ES.3 Development of Design Criteria and Upgrade Costs
Process design criteria were developed for alternative disinfection strategies and DBF precursor
removal technologies using water quality data gathered under the Information Collection Rule (ICR) and
best engineering judgment. The ICR data were used to generate water quality statistics for parameters
(e.g., turbidity, alkalinity, total organic carbon) that affect technology performance. Generally, 10th, 50th
and 90th percentile data were evaluated and design criteria are developed for these scenarios to provide
low, medium, and high estimates of cost. When ICR data were not appropriate, engineering judgment
and practical experience are used to develop a range of design criteria for which costs were estimated.
The design criteria and methodology used to determine the criteria are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document ES-2 December 2005
-------
The Federal Advisory Committee convened a Technical Work Group (TWO) to assist with the
regulatory development process. The TWG consisted of consulting engineers, scientists, utility
representatives, EPA personnel, representatives of water equipment manufacturers, and other experts.
One of the goals of the TWG was to ensure that the many inputs to the regulatory development process
were reasonable, both scientifically and practically. As a result the TWG played a significant role in
reviewing the design criteria and upgrade costs presented in this document.
Capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs are provided for each of the alternative
disinfection strategies and DBF precursor removal technologies discussed in this document. Costs are
provided for design flows ranging from 0.007 to 520 mgd. Previous drafts of this and similar EPA
technology cost documents relied on various cost models. However, costs presented in this document
were primarily developed using manufacturer quotations and cost estimating guides, though cost models
were used for a few technologies.
Capital costs are presented in 2003 dollars. Appropriate Engineering News Record (ENR) and
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) cost indices were used for capital cost computation. The Producer's
Price Index for Finished Goods was used in adjusting operations and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates.
Capital and O&M costs are presented in Chapter 4 for each technology discussed in Chapter 2.
ES.4 Summary of Technology Cost Estimates
This document presents total capital ($) and total annual O&M ($/year) costs for each of the
alternative disinfection strategies and precursor removal technologies discussed. These costs are
presented in tabular format in Chapter 4.
There can be a significant disparity in costs from technology to technology for a given plant
capacity. As plant flows become larger, though, the differences in cost between technologies tend to
decrease. Figure ES.l compares total costs (discounted at 3 percent over 20 years) for alternative
chemical (and UV) disinfection strategies. Figure ES.2 compares total costs (discounted at 3 percent over
20 years) for disinfection technologies involving physical removal of microbial contaminants. Depending
on the technology, either inactivation or physical removal can be the more economical option. In these
cases, other factors, such as formation of other DBFs (e.g., bromate) and ease of operation, may
ultimately influence the final technology decision. Figure ES.3 compares total costs (discounted at 3
percent over 20 years) for DBP precursor removal technologies. Collectively, these costs are comparable
with alternative disinfectants and microbial removal technology costs presented in Figures ES.l and ES.2.
However, these technologies may involve more significant plant modifications. Costs for all technologies
are summarized in tabular format in Table ES. 1.
It should be noted that many systems have more than one treatment plant. For those systems the
total cost impact will be the sum of the costs for each treatment plant, a cost which is generally greater
than if the system had only one plant.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document ES-3 December 2005
-------
Figure ES.1 Cost Comparison for Alternative Chemical Disinfection Strategies1
1 10
Design Flow (mgd)
100
nChloramines
Chlorine Dioxide
DUV(40mJ/cm2)
DUV(200mJ/cm2)
Ozone 0.5 log
D Ozone 1.0 log
Ozone 2.0 log
Note: Chloramines are costed at two different doses; however, because the difference in costs between the two
doses is insignificant on the scale shown, only the 0.55 mg/L dose is shown in Figure ES.1.
1 EPA updated the 40 mJ/cm2 UV unit costs based on data obtained for recent installations of this technology.
Similar data for 200 mJ/cm2 UV systems were not available within the time frame required to include in this analysis.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
ES-4
December 2005
-------
Figure ES.2 Cost Comparison for Alternative Physical Removal Technologies
$12
$10
&
(A
O
O
"(5
c
1
QBag Filters
Cartridge Filters
n Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration
DPre-Sedi mentation
Second Stage Filtration
DBank Filtration
Watershed Control
1 10
Design Flow (mgd)
100
Figure ES.3 Cost Comparison for DBP Precursor Removal Technologies
6-i
5-
re
O)
o 4
o
o
o
O
a
o
0.1
1 10
Design Flow (mgd)
100
DGAC(10minEBCT, 360d
regeneration)
GAC(20minEBCT, 90d
regeneration)
DGAC(20minEBCT, 240d
regeneration)
D Nanofiltration
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
ES-5
December 2005
-------
Table ES.1 Technology Total Annual Costs ($/kgal) for the Stage 2 D/DBP and
LT2ESWT Rules
Technology
Design Flow (mgd)
0.1
1
10
100
Alternative Chemical Disinfection Strategies2
Chloramines (NH4 dose = 0.55mg/l)
Chlorine Dioxide
UV (40 mJ/cm2)
UV (200 mJ/cm2)*
Ozone (0.5-log Cryptosporidium inactivation)
Ozone (1 .0-log Cryptosporidium inactivation)
Ozone (2. 0-log Cryptosporidium inactivation)
$0.36
$1.69
$0.66
$1.84
$8.30
$8.55
$8.72
$0.06
$0.17
$0.23
$0.64
$1.05
$1.20
$1.25
$0.01
$0.03
$0.05
$0.32
$0.37
$0.47
$0.01
$0.01
$0.02
$0.21
$0.23
$0.31
Alternative Physical Disinfection Strategies
Bag Filters*
Cartridge Filters*
Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration
Pre-sedimentation
Second stage filtration
Bank filtration
Watershed control
$0.17
$0.28
$3.96
$3.22
$3.74
$0.28
$10.05
$0.07
$0.17
$1.38
$0.41
$0.48
$0.04
$1.50
$0.72
$0.14
$0.17
$0.04
$0.36
$0.52
$0.10
$0.07
$0.03
$0.14
DBP Precursor Removal Technologies
GAG (EBCT = 10, 360 day regeneration)
GAG (EBCT = 20, 90 day regeneration)
GAG (EBCT = 20, 240 day regeneration)
Nanofiltration
$2.78
$5.95
$3.61
$2.61
$0.86
$1.99
$1.42
$1.36
$0.28
$0.59
$0.44
$1.04
$0.13
$0.32
$0.23
$0.83
Note: * considered options only for small systems.
EPA updated the 40 mJ/cm2 UV unit costs based on data obtained for recent installations of this
technology. Similar data for 200 mJ/cm2 UV systems were not available within the time frame required to
include in this analysis.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
ES-6
December 2005
-------
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of Technology and Cost Document
This document provides information on costs and treatment effectiveness of technologies and
treatment strategies available to public water systems (PWSs) to remove or inactivate pathogenic
microorganisms, specifically Cryptosporidium, and/or reduce the formation of disinfection byproducts
(DBFs). This information is developed solely for use in conducting Economic Analyses (EAs) for the
Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR) and Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR). Please note that the information provided by this document is of a
general nature. It is not intended to guide PWSs in selecting or designing technologies for compliance
with existing or proposed rules.
The LT2ESWTR will require systems to provide additional Cryptosporidium treatment if
Cryptosporidium concentrations in their source waters exceed specified levels. Cryptosporidium is
resistant to chlorine but can be inactivated with certain alternative disinfectants or can be physically
removed through filtration processes.
The Stage 2 DBPR will require PWSs to reduce the formation of trihalomethanes (THMs) or
haloacetic acids (HAAs) if they exceed specified levels. THMs and HAAs form primarily through
reactions between chlorine and natural organic matter (NOM). Their formation can be reduced with
alternative disinfectants or disinfection practices or through increases in NOM removal prior to chlorine
application.
Issues associated with microbial disinfection and the formation of DBFs are interwoven; PWSs
should not undercut microbial protection in their efforts to reduce DBP levels. Several of the alternative
disinfectants that systems could choose to reduce the formation of THMs and HAAs can provide
increased protection against chlorine-resistant pathogens like Cryptosporidium. For these reasons, PWSs
should have the ability to make decisions regarding compliance strategies for the Stage 2 DBPR and
LT2ESWTR at the same time. Consequently, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is developing these regulations as a paired rulemaking and is addressing compliance technologies for both
rules in a single document.
The EAs for the LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR evaluate the total impact of a regulation in terms
of costs associated with additional treatment requirements and benefits associated with reduced risk. This
evaluation requires the following types of information:
National occurrence of the regulated contaminant(s)
Existing level of treatment for the contaminant provided by PWSs
Unit costs and efficacy of treatment strategies available for compliance with the regulation
Number and sizes of PWSs that will select a particular treatment strategy for regulatory
compliance
Benefits and costs resulting from changes to existing treatment
This document supports the EA by describing the design criteria necessary for a technology to achieve a
desired level of treatment and the cost associated with that technology as a function of the design criteria.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document ~\ December 2005
-------
Information on unit costs and treatment performance is critical to projecting technology usage stemming
from a regulation and to evaluating national compliance costs and benefits. No information is given here
on the national compliance costs (that information is provided in the EA) or on the numbers of PWSs that
will adopt various treatment strategies to comply with the regulations.
Process design criteria for alternative disinfection strategies and DBF precursor removal
technologies were developed in large part using water quality data gathered under the Information
Collection Rule (ICR) and best engineering judgement. Where appropriate, EPA used ICR data to
generate statistics regarding water quality parameters that affect technology performance. These water
quality statistics were used to estimate costs for technology options presented in this document. Costs
were developed using EPA cost models, manufacturer price data, and recent literature. Unit prices and
cost indices for model input were based upon vendor information, prevailing rates, and published values
in the trade literature (e.g., Engineering News Record, Bureau of Labor Statistics). These costs were
reviewed by the Technical Work Group (TWG), a group of industry experts convened during the M/DBP
FACA process. The TWG reviewed the costs and provided suggestions for design parameters.
Subsequent revisions have also been made to respond to comments from outside reviewers, particularly
the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) and EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB).
1.2 Existing Regulations
The following are existing regulations that address risks posed by microorganisms and DBFs in
public water systems.
1.2.1 Surface Water Treatment Rule
Under the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), finalized in 1989, EPA set Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) of zero for Giardia lamblia, viruses, and Legionella; and
promulgated National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) for all PWSs using surface water
or ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI). Unfiltered systems were required
to comply with the SWTR by 1991 and filtered systems by 1993. The SWTR includes treatment
technique requirements for filtered and unfiltered systems that are intended to protect against the adverse
health effects of exposure to Giardia, viruses, and Legionella, as well as other pathogenic
microorganisms (63 FR 69478 December 1998b). Briefly, those requirements include the following:
Maintenance of a disinfectant residual in the distribution system
Removal/inactivation of 3 log (99.9 percent) for Giardia and 4 log (99.99 percent) for viruses
Combined filter effluent turbidity performance standards
Watershed protection and raw water quality requirements for unfiltered systems
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 1-2 December 2005
-------
1.2.2 Information Collection Rule
The ICR is a monitoring and data reporting rule that was promulgated in 1996. The purpose of
the ICR was to collect occurrence and treatment information to help evaluate the need for possible
changes to the SWTR and microbial treatment practices and to help evaluate the need for future
regulation of DBFs. The ICR provided EPA with information on the occurrence of pathogenic
microorganisms, including Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and viruses, as well as the occurrence of DBFs and
water quality parameters that impact DBF formation. The ICR also provided engineering data on how
PWSs control such contaminants (65 FR 19046 April 2000).
1.2.3 Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) was finalized in December 1998
and applies only to surface water and GWUDI PWSs serving 10,000 or more people. The purposes of the
IESWTR were to improve control of microbial pathogens, specifically Cryptosporidium and to address
risk trade-offs between pathogens and disinfection byproducts (65 FR 19046 April 2000). Key provisions
of the rule include the following:
MCLG of zero for Cryptosporidium
2 log (99 percent) Cryptosporidium removal requirements for systems that filter
Strengthened combined filter effluent turbidity standards
Requirements for individual filter turbidity monitoring
Disinfection benchmark provisions to ascertain the level of microbial protection provided as
systems take steps to comply with new DBF standards
Inclusion of Cryptosporidium in the definition of GWUDI and in the watershed control
requirements for unfiltered systems
Requirements for covers on new finished water reservoirs
Requirements for sanitary surveys for all surface water and GWUDI systems, even those
serving fewer than 10,000 people
1.2.4 Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
The Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule was promulgated in December 1998.
The Stage 1 DBPR applies to all PWSs that are community water systems (CWSs) or non-transient non-
community water systems (NTNCWSs) and that treat their water with a chemical disinfectant for either
primary or secondary disinfection. In addition, certain requirements for chlorine dioxide apply to
transient non-community water systems (TNCWSs). Surface water and GWUDI systems serving at least
10,000 people were required to comply with the Stage 1 DBPR by January 2002. All ground water
systems, as well as surface water and GWUDI systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, were required
to comply with the Stage 1 DBPR by January 2004.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 1-3 December 2005
-------
The Stage 1 DBPR established the following provisions:
Maximum residual disinfectant level goals (MRDLGs) for chlorine, chloramines, and
chlorine dioxide
MCLGs for three trihalomethanes (bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and
bromoform), two haloacetic acids (dichloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic acid), bromate, and
chlorite
Maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDL) for chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine
dioxide
MCLs for total trihalomethanes (TTHM), five haloacetic acids (HAAS), bromate, and
chlorite
The rule also includes monitoring, reporting, and public notification requirements for the listed
compounds. EPA estimates that the rule will provide public health protection for an additional 20 million
households not previously covered by drinking water rules for DBFs (65 FR 19046 April 2000).
1.2.5 Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR) (67 FR 1812 January
2002), finalized in January 2002, extends the requirements of the lESWTRto surface water and GWUDI
systems serving fewer than 10,000 people.
1.2.6 Filter Backwash Recycling Rule
The Filter Backwash Recycling Rule (FBRR) (66 FR 31086 June 2001) regulates systems in
which filter backwash is returned to the treatment process. The rule, promulgated in June 2001, applies to
surface water and GWUDI systems that use direct or conventional filtration and recycle spent filter
backwash water, sludge thickener supernatant, or liquids from dewatering processes. The rule requires
that these recycled liquids be returned to a location such that all steps of a system's conventional or direct
filtration process are employed. The rule also requires systems to notify the state that they practice
recycling. Finally, systems must collect and maintain information for review by the state.
1.3 Public Health Concerns
1.3.1 Pathogenic Microorganisms
In 1990, EPA's SAB, an independent panel of experts established by Congress, cited drinking
water contamination as one of the most important environmental risks and indicated that disease-causing
microbial contaminants (e.g., bacteria, protozoa, and viruses) are probably the greatest remaining health
risk management challenge for drinking water suppliers (EPA/SAB 1990). Information on the number of
waterborne disease outbreaks from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
underscores this concern. CDC indicates that, between 1991 and 2000, 145 drinking water-related
disease outbreaks were reported, with more than 431,000 associated cases of disease (This includes
outbreaks in individual water systems, which are not PWSs. About 400,000 cases of illness were from
one outbreak.) During this period, a number of agents were implicated as the cause, including protozoa,
viruses, and bacteria.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document M December 2005
-------
Waterborne diseases are usually acute (i.e., sudden onset and typically lasting a short time in
healthy people), and most waterborne pathogens cause gastrointestinal illness, with diarrhea, abdominal
discomfort, nausea, vomiting, and/or other symptoms. Some waterborne pathogens cause, or are
associated with, more serious disorders such as hepatitis, gastric cancer, peptic ulcers, myocarditis,
swollen lymph glands, meningitis, encephalitis, and other diseases.
Cryptosporidium, a protozoan parasite, is of particular concern as a waterborne pathogen because
it is highly resistant to inactivation by chlorine and chloramines. In addition, no therapeutic treatment
currently exists for cryptosporidiosis, the infection caused by Cryptosporidium. Cryptosporidiosis
usually causes 7-14 days of diarrhea, sometimes accompanied by a low-grade fever, nausea, or abdominal
cramps in healthy individuals (Juranek 1995). It may, however, cause the death of individuals with
compromised immune systems. In 1993, Cryptosporidium caused more than 400,000 people in
Milwaukee to experience intestinal illness. More than 4,000 were hospitalized, and at least 50 deaths
were attributed to the cryptosporidiosis outbreak. Nevada, Oregon, and Georgia have also experienced
cryptosporidiosis outbreaks over the past several years.
Despite filtration and disinfection, Cryptosporidium oocysts have been found in filtered drinking
water (LeChevallier et al. 1991, Aboytes et al. 2004), and many of the individuals affected by
waterborne disease outbreaks caused by Cryptosporidium were served by filtered surface water supplies
(Solo-Gabriele and Neumeister 1996). Surface water systems that filter and disinfect may still be
vulnerable to Cryptosporidium, depending on the source water quality and treatment effectiveness.
1.3.2 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts
While the use of chemical disinfectants is highly effective in reducing the risk of waterborne
disease, disinfectants are known to react with NOM to form byproducts that may pose a public health
risk. In addition, the disinfectants themselves may pose a public health risk at high concentrations.
The assessment of public health risks from chlorination of drinking water currently relies on
inherently difficult and incomplete empirical analysis. Nevertheless, while recognizing these
uncertainties and taking into account the large number of people exposed to DBFs and the different
potential health risks that may result from exposure to DBFs (e.g., cancer and adverse reproductive and
developmental effects), EPA believes that the weight of evidence represented by the available
epidemiology and toxicology studies support a hazard concern and a protective public health approach to
regulation.
1.4 Regulations
1.4.1 Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
In September 2000, an Agreement in Principle was reached by EPA and members of the Stage 2
Microbial-Disinfection Byproduct (M-DBP) Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Committee
regarding the requirements of the LT2ESWTR (65 FR 83015 December 2000). Under the agreement, the
LT2ESWTR will require all surface water systems, including GWUDI, that serve at least 10,000 people
to conduct two years of source water monitoring for Cryptosporidium. Conventional systems whose
annual average Cryptosporidium concentrations are at least 0.075, 1.0, or 3.0 oocysts per liter would be
required to achieve an additional 1, 2, or 2.5 logs, respectively, of Cryptosporidium removal or
inactivation beyond conventional treatment. Systems could meet these additional treatment requirements
through the use of various options including: enhanced filtration performance, watershed control,
LT2ESWTR T&C Document ~5 December 2005
-------
alternative disinfectants, membranes, various types of filters, and demonstrations of performance.
Systems required to provide 2 or more log inactivation must achieve at least 1-log of the required
treatment using ozone, chlorine dioxide, UV, membranes, bag filtration, cartridge filtration, or bank
filtration.
1.4.2 Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule
The Stage 2 DBPR, which was proposed along with the LT2ESWTR, will apply to all CWSs and
NTNCWSs that add a disinfectant other than ultraviolet (UV) light or deliver disinfected water. Under
the Stage 2 M-DBP Agreement in Principle (65 FR 83015 December 2000), the Stage 2 DBPR will retain
the MCLs of 80 |ig/L for TTHM and 60 |ig/L for HAA5 established by the Stage 1 DBPR. However, the
Stage 2 DBPR will change the way compliance with these MCLs is determined. Under Stage 1,
compliance with the TTHM and HAA5 MCLs is based on a running annual average of all monitoring
points within a distribution system. Under the Stage 2 DBPR, compliance would be based on a locational
running annual average, which means that the running annual average at each monitoring point within a
distribution system would have to be less than the MCL. The Stage 2 DBPR would also require systems
to conduct an initial distribution system evaluation which would identify the areas with the highest
concentrations of TTHM and HAA5; compliance monitoring will be conducted at those locations.
1.5 Technologies Evaluated for the Control of Pathogens and Disinfection Byproducts
Systems required to provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium under the LT2ESWTR can
use two basic mechanisms: inactivation and physical removal. While chlorine and chloramines are not
effective against Cryptosporidium at doses used in drinking water treatment, chlorine dioxide, ozone, and
UV light have been demonstrated to inactivate this pathogen. Chlorine dioxide and ozone generally
require higher doses to inactivate Cryptosporidium than those necessary for Giardia and viruses; the use
of these disinfectants is limited by the formation of regulated byproducts like chlorite and bromate. UV
has been shown to achieve high levels of Cryptosporidium inactivation at relatively low doses but is
currently not widely used in the United States for drinking water treatment. Nevertheless, EPA believes
that ozone, chlorine dioxide, and UV are available to PWSs to inactivate Cryptosporidium.
Consequently, EPA has evaluated these technologies in this document.
PWSs can increase the physical removal of Cryptosporidium in their treatment plants by using
additional physical barriers like microfiltration (MF), bag filtration, and cartridge filtration. These
technologies have been shown to achieve high log reductions of Cryptosporidium when properly
designed and operated. This document addresses Cryptosporidium removal achieved by MF, bag
filtration, and cartridge filtration.
Utilities can also take steps to reduce the concentration of Cryptosporidium entering the treatment
plant through strategies such as watershed control, pre-sedimentation basins, and bank filtration. Costs
for these technologies were obtained from design experts from the Technical Work Group (TWO) are
provided in Chapter 4. However, these costs were too uncertain to use in the EA for the LT2ESWTR.
Systems required to reduce the formation of TTHM and HAA5 for compliance with the Stage 2
DBPR can use two approaches. One approach is to reduce the use office chlorine by switching to
disinfectants that do not form, or form only low concentrations of, TTHM and HAA5. Such disinfectants
include: chloramines, ozone, chlorine dioxide, and UV. Systems may also reduce free chlorine doses by
using physical barriers like microfiltration; microfiltration removes more microorganisms so that less
disinfection is needed. This document evaluates chloramines, ozone, chlorine dioxide, UV, and MF as
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 1^6 December 2005
-------
alternative disinfection strategies for reducing TTHM and HAAS formation. (Note that several of these
disinfection strategies were also evaluated for Cryptosporidium treatment as described above.)
The second approach for systems to reduce TTHM and HAAS formation is to increase the
removal of DBF precursors (i.e., NOM) priorto disinfection. Systems can remove precursors by
increasing coagulation dosages in a process termed enhanced coagulation, or softening, or by installing
granular activated carbon (GAC) or nanofiltration (NF). For the purposes of this document, it was
assumed that utilities will have already optimized coagulation or softening practices to meet the
requirements of the Stage 1 DBPR. As a result, this document evaluates only GAC and NF as precursor
removal strategies.
In summary, this document provides an analysis of the following technologies:
Alternative disinfection strategies
Chloramination
Chlorine dioxide
Ultraviolet (UV) light
Ozone
Microfiltration and ultrafiltration
Bag and cartridge filters
Bank filtration
Second stage filtration
Pre-sedimentation basins
Watershed control
Combined Filter Performance
Alternative DBP precursor removal strategies
Granular activated carbon adsorption
Nanofiltration
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 1-7 December 2005
-------
1.6 Document Organization
This remainder of this document contains the following sections:
Chapter 2 - Technologies for DBF and Microbial Contaminant Control: Presents comprehensive
discussions of all disinfection, Cryptosporidium removal, and DBF precursor removal strategies
considered in this document. Includes technology descriptions, effectiveness of technologies for
DBF precursor and/or microbial control, and factors affecting the performance of each
technology.
Chapter 3 - Technology Design Criteria: Discusses the rationale behind development of the
design criteria for which costs are presented in Chapter 4. Includes design approach, assumptions
and additional factors (e.g., residuals handling) which may impact design.
Chapter 4 - Technology Costs: Presents capital, operations and maintenance, and total annualized
costs for each disinfection strategy and DBF precursor removal technology considered. Also
includes discussion of estimation methods (e.g., cost models and vendor information).
Chapter 5 - References: Provides a comprehensive bibliography of all literature used in the
compilation of this document.
Appendices: Contain capital cost breakdown summaries for technologies for which cost models
were used.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 1-8 December 2005
-------
2. Technologies for DBF and Microbial Contaminant Control
2.1 Introduction
Public water systems may employ various treatment strategies to reduce chlorinated DBFs and to
provide better physical removal or inactivation of Cryptosporidium for compliance with the Stage 2
DBPR and LT2ESWTR. EPA considers the following treatment strategies as being available for
compliance with these two regulations1:
Alternative disinfection strategies
Chloramination (section 2.2.1)
Chlorine dioxide (section 2.2.2)
Ultraviolet light (section 2.2.3)
Ozone (section 2.2.4)
Microfiltration and ultrafiltration (section 2.2.5)
Bag and cartridge filtration (section 2.2.6)
Bank filtration (section 2.2.7)
Second stage filtration (section 2.2.8)
Pre-sedimentation (section 2.2.9)
Watershed control (section 2.2.10)
Combined filter performance (section 2.2.11)
DBP precursor removal strategies
Granular activated carbon adsorption (section 2.3.1)
Nanofiltration (section 2.3.2)
2.2 Alternative Disinfection Strategies
The following section discusses the alternative disinfection strategies available, their efficacy
against pathogens, and factors affecting performance. DBP formation is also discussed for the chemical
disinfectants and UV. It is not discussed for the other technologies, as they do not produce DBFs and
generally do not remove DBP precursors to a significant extent.
treatment strategies are classified based on their primary removal ability and their proposed use for the
Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document ~l December 2005
-------
2.2.1 Chloramination
Chloramines are formed by reactions of ammonia with aqueous chlorine. These reactions may
result in the formation of monochloramine (NH2C1), dichloramine (NHC12) and trichloramine (NC13). The
relative concentrations of these species depend upon the pH of the water and the relative proportion of
chlorine and ammonia. At chlorine-to-ammonia mass ratios of 3:1 to 5:1 (C12:NH3-N) and neutral pHs,
conditions common to drinking water treatment, the principal chloramine species formed is
monochloramine (USEPA 1999b).
One of the least expensive methods for controlling DBF formation is the use of monochloramine,
instead of free chlorine, to maintain a distribution system residual. After the appropriate free chlorine
contact time, ammonia is added to quench the residual free chlorine and to retard DBF formation. This
reduces the free chlorine contact time and, thus, DBF formation, without compromising microbial
protection. The initial free chlorine contact time and chloramine together provide sufficient disinfection.
A survey conducted by the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF) has
shown that most of the utilities that changed disinfection practices to lower distribution system THM
levels have done so by switching to chloramine as the secondary disinfectant (McGuire 1989).
Systems that do not use free chlorine for primary disinfection (e.g., that use ozone or UV light)
must add chlorine prior to ammonia addition. For most systems, the free chlorine residual needs to be
increased prior to the point of ammonia addition to maintain the desired chloramine residual in the
distribution system. This can be accomplished by: 1) simultaneous addition of chlorine and ammonia
(after primary disinfection with free chlorine or ozone) or 2) the addition of ammonia after chlorine
addition.
Further information, including case studies of systems converting from free chlorine to
chloramine, is summarized in Optimizing Chloramine Treatment (Kirmeyer et al. 1993). This reference
supplies additional information on the reason(s) for switching to chloramine and contains information on
chloramination changeover and start-up procedures, nitrification, and impact on taste and odor.
2.2.1.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens
Chloramine is less effective than free chlorine for the disinfection of most pathogenic
microorganisms. At pH 7 and below, monochloramine is approximately 200 times less effective than free
chlorine for coliform inactivation under the same contact time, temperature, and pH conditions. For
viruses and cysts, the combined chlorine forms (e.g., monochloramine and dichloramine) are considerably
less effective than free chlorine (USEPA 1999b). Historical studies have found time factors
(monochloramine contact time:free chlorine contact time) from 20:1 to 80:1 for the same bacterial
inactivation efficiency. For the same conditions of contact time, temperature, and pH, combined chlorine
(monochloramine) doses are approximately 25 times higher than free chlorine for the same bacterial
inactivation efficiency (White 1999). There is evidence that dichloramine may be twice as effective as
monochloramine; however, dichloramine is generally avoided because it contributes to taste and odor
problems.
The Guidance Manual for Compliance with the Filtration and Disinfection Requirements for
Public Water Systems Using Surface Water Sources (SWTR Guidance Manual-USEPA 1990) presents
CT (contact time multiplied by residual disinfectant concentration) values for multiple disinfectants,
pathogens, pH and temperature ranges. Exhibit 2.1 compares CT requirements for chloramine with those
of free chlorine over a range of temperature and pH values.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 2-2 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 2.1: Comparison of CT Values for Free Chlorine and Chloramine
Log
Removal
0.5
1
2
3
Giardia
<1°C
Cl
40
79
158
237
NH2CI
635
1270
2535
3800
10° C
Cl
21
42
83
125
NH2CI
310
615
1230
1850
20° C
Cl
10
21
41
62
NH2CI
185
370
735
1100
Viruses
<1°C
Cl
-
-
6
9
NH2CI
-
-
1243
2063
10° C
Cl
-
-
3
4
NH2CI
-
-
643
1067
20° C
Cl
-
-
1
2
NH2CI
-
-
321
534
Note: - Data not available.
Source: USEPA1990.
Exhibit 2.1 demonstrates that chloramine is relatively ineffective compared to free chlorine for
Giardia and virus inactivation. In addition, chloramine is ineffective for inactivation of Cryptosporidium
(Peeters et al. 1989, Korichetal. 1990). Several studies have evaluated whether disinfection with ozone
followed by chloramination (Liyanage et al. 1997a, Driedger et al. 1999) has a synergistic effect on
Cryptosporidium inactivation (i.e., the inactivation achieved using both disinfectants combined is greater
than what is expected for each of the disinfectants separately). Although the results of these studies are
inconclusive, they do indicate that some synergism may exist for ozone/chloramine applications.
2.2.1.2 DBF Formation
The byproducts formed by chloramination, for the most part, are identical to those produced
during chlorination and include THMs, HAAs, haloacetonitriles, and cyanogen chloride. With the
possible exception of cyanogen chloride, chloramination does not preferentially form any of the
halogenated DBFs compared to free chlorine. In fact, studies have demonstrated that chloramines
produce much lower levels of DBFs than free chlorine (Kirmeyer et al. 1993, Symons et al. 1996). This
is the primary reason water systems implement chloramines for secondary disinfection rather than free
chlorine.
The formation of DBFs resulting from chloramination is influenced by the following treatment
variables (Kirmeyer et al. 1993, Carlson and Hardy 1998):
Contact time and chloramine dosage
Point of ammonia application
pH and temperature
Total organic carbon
Chlorine-to-ammonia ratio
Mixing and reaction time for chloramine formation
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
2-3
December 2005
-------
The point of ammonia application after chlorine addition generally impacts the length of time free
chlorine reacts with NOM. For most plants using chlorine as a primary disinfectant, the point of
ammonia application depends on disinfection requirements and goals. Once ammonia is added, the rate
of DBF formation is significantly reduced (Kirmeyer et al. 1993).
Within the range of chloramine residuals commonly used in the water industry (1 to 5 milligrams
per liter (mg/L)), chloramine dose does not appear to be a significant factor in DBF formation; the
chlorine-to-ammonia ratio appears to be more significant. TTHM concentrations remain quite low at
chlorine-to-ammonia weight ratios less than 5:1, then increase dramatically above the 5:1 ratio (Kirmeyer
et al. 1993). Most utilities use chlorine-to-ammonia ratios of 3:1 to 5:1 because dichloramine and
trichloramine form at higher ratios. These species are unstable and cause taste and odor problems.
2.2.1.3 Factors Affecting Performance
When chlorine and ammonia are added simultaneously, good mixing can reduce the time free
chlorine has to react with NOM. With complete mixing at neutral pHs (7 to 9) and temperatures of 20 to
25 degrees Celsius (°C), the reaction of ammonia and chlorine to form monochloramine takes less than 3
seconds. This eliminates the free chlorine almost immediately and reduces the potential for DBF
formation (Kirmeyer et al. 1993). At lower temperatures, the reaction can take longer and mixing
becomes more important. Efficient mixing and dispersion of chemicals (chlorine and ammonia) at the
point of addition determines the extent of free chlorine contact and, thus, substantially impacts the
formation of DBFs.
As noted above, pH is important for rapid formation of chloramine. Symons et al. (1996) showed
that DBF formation decreased with increasing pH. Exceptions to the trend are noted in some instances at
pH 8, where Symons et al. noted that the complexity of chloramine chemistry may cause water-specific
responses.
Carlson and Hardy (1998) evaluated the effects of various water quality variables, such as pH,
temperature, chlorine dosage, and total organic carbon on THM and F£AA formation for waters from five
utilities. Of the variables studied, the free chlorine contact time was found to be the most important in
forming chlorinated DBFs. Chlorine contact time must be balanced to provide disinfection and to control
byproduct formation. The type of DBF precursor was also found to be important. Based on this study,
the authors proposed the concept of two sets of precursors: those that form DBFs quickly and those that
form DBFs slowly. The precursor material that rapidly reacts with chlorine to form DBFs (i.e., the quick
formers) are of greater importance when chloramine is used to maintain a residual. These quick formers
are less affected by reaction conditions than are the slow formers. Relatively consistent THM and HAA
concentrations formed quickly after the addition of chlorine. Temperature, chlorine dosage, and pH had a
greater effect on precursor materials that formed DBFs slowly.
White (1999) summarizes the effect of contact time and dose on the disinfection properties of
chloramines. Generally, chloramines require much longer contact times than other chemical disinfectants
(e.g., free chlorine and ozone). This is one reason they are more suitable for secondary disinfection in the
distribution system, where residence times can be several days. Chloramines are a less powerful oxidant
than many other chemical disinfectants and can require substantially higher doses to achieve the same
level of disinfection (White 1999). Because longer contact times and higher doses are required for
effective chloramine disinfection, residual stability is of major importance. Monochloramine, the
preferred chloramine form, is the dominant species at pH levels greater than 5.5 and is essentially the only
species present at pH levels around 7.5 (Kirmeyer et al. 1993). Systems using chloramines for secondary
disinfection should try to maintain a distribution system pH between 7.5 and 9.0.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 2-4 December 2005
-------
A primary concern for systems using chloramines is nitrification in the distribution system.
Nitrification is a microbiological process by which free ammonia is converted to nitrite and nitrate.
Nitrosomonas and nitrobacter, which are naturally present in distribution system biofilms and may
infiltrate leaking or corroding pipes, convert free ammonia to nitrite and (in the presence of sufficient
dissolved oxygen) nitrate, respectively. Among the effects of nitrification are a depletion of the
chloramine residual and an increase in heterotrophic plate counts (HPC) (Kirmeyer et al. 1995). To
prevent nitrification, it is important to optimize the chlorine:ammonia ratio and minimize free ammonia in
the distribution system. Nitrification is most likely to occur in distribution system dead ends, areas of low
demand, and storage tanks. As a result, the potential for nitrification can also be minimized by improving
distribution system piping configurations (e.g., looping to eliminate dead ends and increasing flow in low
demand areas) and by increasing storage tank turnover.
2.2.2 Chlorine Dioxide
Chlorine dioxide has been used for drinking water treatment in the United States for more than 50
years, primarily to control taste and odor problems. However, chlorine dioxide has received attention
lately because of its potential application for Cryptosporidium inactivation (Finch et all 995, Li et al.
1998) and for reduced formation of THMs or HAAs during disinfection (White 1999). However, chlorine
dioxide degrades to form chlorite and chlorate. Chlorite is considered to have public health implications
and is a regulated DBF.
Chlorine dioxide cannot be transported because of its instability and explosiveness. Therefore, it
is generated on-site. The five common methods for producing chlorine dioxide are as follows: 1) sodium
chlorite reaction with acid, 2) chorine solution reaction with chlorite solution, 3) chlorine gas reaction
with chlorite solution, 4) reduction of sodium chlorate using hydrogen peroxide and concentrated sulfuric
acid, and 5) chlorine gas reaction with solid chlorite (White 1999). The yield, purity, and production
capacities of chlorine dioxide vary for the five types of methods. The most common chlorine dioxide
generation technique is chlorine solution reaction with chlorite solution. Chlorine dioxide dosages that
can be used in drinking water treatment are constrained by regulatory limits on the production of chlorite
and chlorine dioxide residual.
2.2.2.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens
The SWTR Guidance Manual presents CT values for inactivation ofGiardia and viruses for both
free chlorine and chlorine dioxide. The values indicate that chlorine dioxide is approximately four times
more effective that chlorine for the inactivation of Giardia at most conditions. Chlorine, however, is
more effective for the inactivation of viruses. Exhibit 2.2 summarizes CT values contained in the
guidance manual.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 2-5 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 2.2: Comparison of CT Values for Free Chlorine and Chlorine Dioxide
Log
Removal
0.5
1
2
3
Giardia
<1°C
Cl
40
79
158
237
CIO2
10
21
42
63
10° C
Cl
21
42
83
125
CIO2
4
7.7
15
23
20° C
Cl
10
21
41
62
CIO2
2.5
5
10
15
Viruses
<1°C
Cl
-
-
6
9
CIO2
-
-
8.4
25.6
10° C
Cl
-
-
3
4
CIO2
-
-
4.2
12.8
20° C
Cl
-
-
1
2
CIO2
-
-
2.1
6.4
Note: - Data not available.
Source: USEPA1990.
Chlorine dioxide has been compared to other oxidants for inactivating Cryptosporidium (Korich
et al. 1990); chlorine dioxide and ozone are found to be more effective in inactivating Cryptosporidium
compared to chlorine and monochloramine. However, unlike ozone, the degradation byproducts of
chlorine dioxide do not contribute to the inactivation of Cryptosporidium (Liyanage et al. 1997b).
The American Water Works Service Company (AWWSC) evaluated the effectiveness of chlorine
dioxide for the inactivation of Cryptosporidium (AWWSC 1998). AWWSC found that chlorine dioxide
is effective for warm, high pH waters (pH of approximately 8 and temperature around 20 degrees
Celsius). Finch et al. (1995) summarized the chlorine dioxide research regarding the inactivation of
Cryptosporidium. Chlorine dioxide has also been proven effective for the inactivation of selected bacteria
over a pH range of 3.0 to 8.0 (Junli et al. 1997, White 1999) and is a stronger disinfectant than chlorine
for bacteria, requiring lower CT values. Some of the bacteria evaluated in Junli et al. (1997) are E. coll
(A and B), Stctphylococcus ctureus, Sarcinct, Chloropseudomonas, Bacillus subtilis, and Shigella
dysenteriae.
In 2003, EPA developed CT values for Cryptosporidium inactivation by chlorine dioxide, which
are presented in Exhibit 2.3 below.
Exhibit 2.3: Summary of Chlorine Dioxide CT Values for Cryptosporidium
Inactivation
Log Inactivation
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Chlorine Dioxide at Temperature (°C)
1 °
305
610
915
1220
1525
1830
15°
89
179
268
357
447
536
20°
58
116
174
232
289
347
Note: Stage 2 and LT2ESWTR only use the 0.5 log inactivation as a possible treatment option.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
2-6
December 2005
-------
2.2.2.2 DBF Formation
Studies have demonstrated that chlorine dioxide does not produce THMs (White 1999); under
proper generation conditions (i.e., no excess chlorine), halogen-substituted DBFs are not formed. The
application of chlorine dioxide produces only a small amount of total organic halide (TOX) (Werdehoff
and Singer, 1987). The use of chlorine dioxide aids in reducing the formation of TTHMs and HAAs by
oxidizing precursors. By moving the point of chlorination downstream in the plant after coagulation,
sedimentation, and filtration, the quantity of NOM is reduced. This results in a lower chlorine dosage
during post-chlorination of the water which, in turn, results in fewer THMs.
In normal pH ranges (6 to 9), chlorine dioxide undergoes a variety of oxidation reactions with
NOM to form oxidized organic species, such as chlorinated, brominated, or polysubstituted organic
byproducts and chlorite (C1O2~)- Chlorite concentrations can account for up to 70 percent of the chlorine
dioxide consumed (American Waterworks Association (AWWA) 1999; Werdehoff and Singer 1987).
Chlorite, and chlorate (C1O3~) are formed when chlorine dioxide is added to water. All three oxidized
chlorine species (chlorine dioxide, chlorite, and chlorate) are considered to have adverse health effects
and are of concern in finished water (AWWA 1999).
Chlorine dioxide may also facilitate a number of chlorine substitution reactions. Studies
evaluating drinking water and NOM have shown that TOX concentration increases upon application of
chlorine dioxide at normal treatment dosages (AWWA 1999).
2.2.2.3 Factors Affecting Performance
Temperature dramatically affects Cryptosporidium inactivation by chlorine dioxide (Li et al.
1998). At 1 °C, a 0.5 log inactivation is observed at a CT of 150 milligrams * minutes / liter (mg-min/L),
compared to a 2.0 log inactivation for the same CT at 22°C. Chlorine dioxide can effectively inactivate
bacteria over apH range of 3.0 to 8.0. Because it is amore effective disinfectant for bacteria than free
chlorine, lower CT values are required. Caution must be taken, however, when selecting the appropriate
dose, as excessive dosages can lead to chlorite formation above permissible levels. Purity and generator
yields are two of the most critical factors that effect chlorine dioxide use. Chlorine and the oxychlorine
species (i.e., chlorite and chlorate) are typically present in the impurities of chlorine dioxide (White
1999). Therefore, the purity of the chlorine dioxide generated should be considered to avoid a violation
of the chlorite maximum contaminant level (MCL).
2.2.3 Ultraviolet Light
The use of UV light for disinfection of drinking water has recently received much attention
because of new developments regarding Cryptosporidium inactivation at low UV light doses (Bukhari et
al. 1999) and because it creates very few known DBFs. Disinfection is accomplished by irradiating water
with UV light, which alters the structure of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of the microorganisms in
the treated water and thereby prevents the proper replication of the DNA strands. However, because
microbes exposed to UV light still retain metabolic functions, some microbes are able to repair the
damage done by the UV light and regain infectivity.
UV light is electromagnetic radiation between wavelengths of 100 and 400 nanometers (nm).
The specific range of UV wavelengths and the level of irradiance depend on the type of UV lamp system
used. The effective germicidal wavelength range for most microorganisms is generally considered to be
between 200 and 300 nm (Malley 1998).
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 2-7 December 2005
-------
UV systems consist of UV reactors with an associated control panel. Commercial UV reactors
used for drinking water applications are closed reactors containing UV lamps, quartz sleeves, UV
intensity sensors, quartz sleeve wipers, and temperature sensors. UV lamps are housed within the quartz
sleeves, which protect and insulate the lamps. Some reactors include automatic cleaning mechanisms to
keep the quartz sleeves free of deposits that may form due to contact with the water. UV intensity
sensors, flow meters, and in some cases, UV transmittance monitors are used to monitor dose delivery by
the reactor.
UV lamps can be divided into two categories: continuous wave and pulsed wave. Currently,
continuous wave UV lamps are most widely used for drinking water treatment. The types of continuous
wave lamps are low pressure mercury vapor (LP), low pressure high output (LPHO), and medium
pressure mercury vapor (MP). "Pressure" refers to the pressure of mercury vapor within the lamp casing.
A comparison of the LP, LPHO, and MP lamps is shown in Exhibit 2.4.
Exhibit 2.4: Comparison of UV Lamps
Parameter
Germicidal UV light
Mercury Vapor Pressure
(torr)
Operating Temperature
(°C)
Electrical Input
(W/centimeter (cm))
Germicidal UV Output
(W/cm)
Electrical to Germicidal
UV Conversion Efficiency
(%)
Arc Length (cm)
Relative Number of
Lamps Required for a
Given Dose
Lifetime (hours(hrs))
LP
Monochromatic at
254 nm
Optimal at 0.007
Optimal at 40
0.5
0.2
35-38
10-150
High
8,000-10,000
LPHO
Monochromatic at
254 nm
Optimal at 0.007
130-200
1.5-10
0.5-3.5
30-40
10-150
Intermediate
8,000-12,000
MP
Polychromatic,
including germicidal
range (200 - SOOnm)
100-10,000
600 - 900
50- 150
5-30
10-20
5-75
Low
3,000 - 5,000
Source: EPA UV Disinfection Guidance Manual (USEPA 2003).
The light emitted by LP and LPHO lamps is essentially monochromatic at 253.7 nm, which is in
the range of the most germicidal wavelengths for microorganisms. MP lamps emit at a higher intensity
than LP lamps but at a wide range of wavelengths. Therefore, LP and LPHO lamps convert power to
germicidal light more efficiently than MP lamps. Theoretically, LPHO lamps have the same efficiency as
LP lamps because they operate at similar vapor pressures. However in practice, LPHO lamp efficiency
can be significantly lower when operating at different power settings. The main differences between LP
and MP lamps, as shown in Exhibit 2.4, are the vapor pressure, operating temperatures, electrical input,
and germicidal UV output.
Pulsed ultraviolet (PUV) systems irradiate a high intensity UV light in flashes at approximately
50 flashes per second. PUV systems have limited operating experience on the full-scale and are not
costed in this document.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
2-8
December 2005
-------
The UV lamp ballast controls the amount of electricity supplied to the lamp and should ensure a
consistent and constant power delivery. Power supplies and ballasts can be supplied in many different
configurations and are tailored to a unique lamp type and application. UV systems may use electronic
ballasts, magnetic ballasts, or transformers.
UV intensity sensors are photosensitive detectors that measure the UV intensity at a point within
the UV reactor. This intensity information is used to indicate dose delivery. Intensity sensors can be
classified as wet or dry. Dry sensors monitor UV light through a monitoring window whereas wet UV
intensity sensors are in direct contact with the water flowing through the reactor. Monitoring windows
and the wetted ends of the wet sensors can become fouled overtime and require cleaning, similar to
quartz sleeves.
The lamp cleaning mechanism used for a UV system depends on the lamp type, system size, and
fouling potential of the water. Both manual and automatic cleaning regimes have been developed.
Manual cleaning is primarily used for smaller systems with relatively few sleeves and lower fouling
potential. Automatic cleaning approaches may be classified as flush and rinse systems, mechanical
wipers, or physical-chemical wipers. LPHO systems typically use flush and rinse systems, and MP
systems typically use wipers because the higher lamp temperatures accelerate fouling under certain water
qualities. The cleaning frequency of the lamps is a function of the lamp temperature and the
concentration of dissolved organic and inorganic species that can cause lamp fouling.
2.2.3.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens
When UV light is applied to a microorganism, the genetic material of a cell absorbs the light
energy and its structure is altered, thereby interfering with replication of the microbe. The UV dose
necessary for inactivation of microorganisms varies from species to species and across microorganism
classifications. Inactivation of microorganisms increases with increasing UV dose, although it does not
always follow the typical log-linear relationship.
Of the pathogens of interest in drinking water, viruses are most resistant to UV disinfection,
followed by bacteria and protozoa. Exhibit 2.5 presents UV dose requirements for inactivation of
Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and viruses (as derived in the USEPA UV Disinfection Guidance Manual,
Appendix B). The UV dose requirements presented in Exhibit 2.5 are the minimum required; operational
UV doses will likely be two to four times higher after application of a safety factor.
Exhibit 2.5: UV Dose Requirements for Inactivation of Cryptosporidium, Giardia,
and Viruses During Validation Testing
Cryptosporidium
Giardia
Virus
Log Inactivation
0.5
1.6
1.5
39.4
1.0
2.5
2.1
58.1
1.5
3.9
3.0
79.1
2.0
5.8
5.2
100.1
2.5
8.5
7.7
120.7
3.0
11.7
10.8
142.6
3.5
-
-
163.1
4.0
-
-
186.0
Note: All values presented in mJ / cm2
Source: USEPA UV Disinfection Guidance Manual, Appendix B.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
2-9
December 2005
-------
Based on the analysis presented in Appendix B of the EPA UV Disinfection Guidance Manual,
the sensitivities of Giardia and Cryptosporidium to UV disinfection are very similar; viruses, however,
are more difficult to inactivate. Battigelli et al. (1993) performed bench scale UV collimated beam
experiments to determine the relationship between UV dose and inactivation of Hepatitis-A virus (strain
HM-175), coxsackievirus type B-5, rotavirus strain SA-11, and bacteriophages MS-2 and fX174. MS-2
bacteriophage required the highest dose of 25 milliJoules per square centimeter (mJ/cm2) for less than 1
log inactivation. With the other viruses, 4 log inactivation is achieved at doses ranging between 16 and
42 mJ/cm2. The most UV-resistant viruses of concern in drinking water are adenovirus Type 40 and Type
41. Meng and Gerba (1996) report a dose of 23.6 to 30 mJ/cm2 for a 1 log inactivation in adenovirus and
a dose of 111.8 to 124 mJ/cm2 for 4 log inactivation.
Because microbes that have been exposed to UV light still retain metabolic functions, some are
able to repair the damage done by UV light and regain infectivity. Repair of UV light-induced DNA
damage includes photoreactivation and dark repair (Knudson 1985). Photoreactivation (or photorepair)
is an enzymatic DNA repair mechanism wherein the DNA damage is repaired when exposed to light
between 310 and 490 nm. Dark repair is an enzymatic repair mechanism that does not require light. Not
all microorganisms contain the necessary cellular mechanisms to repair UV-damaged DNA. One study
has shown that Cryptosporidium contains the capability to undergo some DNA repair. However, even
though the DNA was repaired, infectivity was not restored (Oguma et al. 2001). Another study, by Shin
et al. (2001), did not observe photorepair with Cryptosporidiumparvum. Linden et al. (2002a) did not
observe photoreactivation or dark repair of Giardia at UV doses typical for UV disinfection applications
(16 and 40 mJ/cm2). However, unpublished data from the same study showed Giardia reactivation in
light and dark conditions at very low UV doses (0.5 mJ/cm2; Linden 2002a). Shaban et al. (1997) found
that viruses also lack the repair enzymes necessary for photoreactivation. However, photorepair of viral
DNA can occur using the enzyme systems of their host cells. Knudson (1985) found that bacteria were
able to repair in light and dark conditions after exposure to a dose of 2.4mJ/cm2 for up to 30 seconds,
suggesting that bacteria may have the enzymes necessary for photorepair and dark repair. As such,
photoreactivation is generally limited to bacteria.
E. coll and HPC inactivation by UV light are well documented, particularly with respect to
wastewater disinfection (Chang et al.1985, Wilson et al. 1992). Photoreactivation of bacteria has been
documented with E. coll, S. aureus, and coliphage, while dark repair has been documented with S.
aureus and coliphage (Shaban et al. 1997). One study (Knudson, 1985) examined two different strains of
E. coll: one that had the enzymes necessary for repair (B/R strain) and one that lacked the necessary
repair enzymes (recA" uvr" strain). The difference in UV dose needed for 1-log inactivation of the strain
capable of repair was over two orders of magnitude higher than the dose needed for 1-log inactivation of
the repair deficient strain, indicating that dark repair impacts the UV dose-response of microorganisms.
Unlike bacteria, viruses do not have the enzymes necessary for dark repair. However, viruses can repair
in the host cell using the host cells' enzymes (Rauth 1965).
2.2.3.2 DBF Formation
Several studies have been conducted to determine if DBFs are formed as a result of UV light
irradiation. Zheng et al. (1999) found that TTHM and HAA9 formation did not increase when UV light
was applied to chlorinated water at a dose of 100 mJ/cm2. Linden et al. (1998) investigated DBF
formation in wastewater secondary effluent that is irradiated with LP and MP UV lamps and found no
evidence of photochemical reactions or DBF formation. Malley et al. (1996) examined the effects of
post-UV disinfection (chlorination and chloramination) on DBF formation and found no significant
impact by UV on DBF levels formed by chemical disinfection. Malley et al. (1995) also observed no
significant change in THM, HAA, bromate, or other halogenated DBF concentrations following
disinfection with UV light. A study performed with filtered drinking water indicated no significant
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 240 December 2005
-------
change in aldehydes, carboxylic acids, or TOX (Kashinkunti et al., 2003). However, a low conversion
rate (about one percent) of nitrate to nitrite by UV light has been observed (von Sonntag and Schuchman,
1992). Conversion of nitrate to nitrite is lower with LP lamps than with MP lamps because the UV
absorbance of nitrate is higher below 240 nm than it is at 254 nm. Due to the low conversion rate of
nitrate to nitrite by UV light, it is of minimal concern in drinking water applications. Several studies have
shown low-level formation of non-regulated DBFs (e.g., aldehydes) as a result of applying UV light to
wastewater and raw drinking water sources. The difference in results can be attributed to the difference in
water quality, most notably the higher concentration of organic material in raw waters and wastewaters.
2.2.3.3 Factors Affecting Performance
Particle content can impact UV disinfection performance. Particles may absorb and scatter light,
thereby reducing the UV intensity delivered to the microorganisms. Particle-associated microbes also
may be shielded from UV light, effectively reducing disinfection performance. Particles in source waters
are diverse in composition and size and include large molecules, microbes, clay particles, algae, and floes.
Recent research by Linden et al. (2002b) indicates that the UV dose-response of microorganisms
added to filtered drinking waters was not altered by variation in turbidity that met regulatory
requirements. For unfiltered raw waters, Passantino and Malley (2001) found that source water turbidity
up to 10 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) did not impact the UV dose-response of separately added
(seeded) organisms. In these experiments, however, organisms were added to waters containing various
levels of treated or natural turbidity. Therefore, it was not possible to examine microbes associated with
particles in their natural or treated states. Consequently, these drinking water studies can only suggest the
impact of turbidity on dose-response as it relates to the impact of UV light scattering by particles. The
studies cannot predict the effect on UV disinfection of microbes attaching to particles.
UV absorbance, often exerted by dissolved organic matter in drinking water applications, affects
the design of the UV system. Water that absorbs a significant amount of UV light (i.e., high UV
absorbance and low transmittance) will need a higher UV irradiance or longer exposure to achieve the
same level of inactivation as water with lower UV absorbance. As UV absorbance increases, the intensity
throughout the reactor decreases for a given lamp configuration. This results in a reduction in delivered
dose and measured UV intensity for a given lamp output. In a situation with a fixed UV output, lower
UV absorbance values result in more UV energy being available in the water column, causing a higher
log-inactivation of microorganisms than a water with a higher UV absorbance. For systems with high
levels of dissolved organic matter (high UV absorbance), it is more efficient to apply UV light after unit
processes that remove organic matter.
Several chemicals used in water treatment processes can increase the UV absorbance of water
(e.g., Iron (Fe+3)). However, some oxidants (including ozone) can reduce the UV absorbance (APHA et
al. 1998). Water treatment processes upstream of the UV reactors can be operated to control and reduce
UV absorbance, thereby optimizing the design and costs of the UV system.
Depending on the water quality (e.g., dissolved ions, hardness, alkalinity, and pH levels) and
lamp temperature, scale can form on the UV lamps. MP lamps tend to scale more easily than LP and
LPHO lamps because the operating temperature of MP lamps is considerably higher. Scale can reduce
the UV energy being transmitted through the lamp sleeve into the water and potentially compromise
disinfection. Lamp cleaning is an important consideration for the design of UV systems to control lamp
scaling and to ensure consistent disinfection performance. Water pH may also affect lamp scale
formation, but inactivation of microorganisms with UV light is not pH dependent (Malley 1998).
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 2-11 December 2005
-------
UV inactivation of microorganisms is not directly affected by water temperature. However, the
performance of UV lamps is dependent on the lamp temperature. Most UV lamps have sleeves (usually
made of quartz) that insulate the lamps, maintain optimal temperature, and provide maximum irradiance.
If the lamp temperature deviates from optimal, the lamp irradiance will be reduced. This is especially true
with LP UV lamps in cold waters (Mackey et al. 2000). Therefore, the water temperature variation
should be considered when designing a low pressure system. However, MP lamps have a significantly
higher operating temperature compared to the water temperature. Thus, as long as an insulating quartz
sleeve is in place, the water temperature has little effect on the operating temperature of the MP lamp and
MP lamp performance.
Hydraulics are an important part of the UV equipment. Ideally, the UV reactor should exhibit
plug-flow characteristics. In plug flow, water that enters the reactor is completely mixed axially and
moves through the reactor as a single plug with no dispersion in the direction of flow. However, "real
world" hydraulics in a full-scale reactor are never plug flow. UV reactors are typically equipped with
baffles to reduce the amount of short-circuiting through the reactor and to encourage plug flow, although
these baffles can increase head loss through the reactor. Staggered lamp arrays also promote mixing
within the reactor and minimize short-circuiting of flow. Alternatively, vortex mixers can be used to
increase lamp spacing, thereby reducing head loss through the reactor.
Inlet and outlet conditions can have a significant impact on reactor hydrodynamics. Straight inlet
conditions with gradual changes in cross sectional area can be used to develop flow for optimal dose
delivery. Straight inlets with no sharp bends or sudden changes in cross sectional area optimize dose
deliveries.
It may be necessary to characterize the reactor flow regime in order to determine the level of
disinfection provided. Tracer tests are typically not feasible because the hydraulic residence time in the
reactor is too short (i.e., on the order of seconds or fractions of a second). However, hydraulic models,
such as computational fluid dynamics and light intensity distribution, are available to understand the
behavior of the UV reactor.
For more details on factors affecting the efficacy of UV disinfection, see the UV Disinfection
Guidance Manual (USEPA 2005).
2.2.4 Ozone
In recent years, the use of ozone technology in water treatment has dramatically increased. In
1991, approximately 40 water treatment plants in the United States, each serving more than 10,000
people, utilized ozone (Langlais et al. 1991). As of April 1998, this number had grown to 264 operating
plants (Rice et al. 1999). The main reasons for the escalating use of ozonation are the strong oxidizing
properties of ozone and the absence of the formation of chlorinated DBFs during disinfection (however,
bromated DPBs are formed).
In water, ozone reacts with hydroxide ions (OH") to form hydroxyl free radicals (HO'). Because
the decay of the hydroxyl radicals is pH dependent, pH is a very important parameter in determining the
concentration of ozone and hydroxyl radicals in solution and therefore the oxidation rates. Oxidation
with ozone is also influenced by other water quality characteristics, such as temperature, alkalinity, and
the concentration of reduced chemical species (i.e., iron and manganese). Other important considerations
include ozone dose and contact time.
Ozone is commonly added to raw water (pre-ozonation) or settled water. To take advantage of
ozone's ability to improve flocculation and NOM removal, ozone may be applied to raw water.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 242December 2005
-------
Application of ozone to raw or settled water is considered to be equally effective for primary disinfection.
However, larger doses may be necessary for raw water application due to the higher NOM and particulate
matter concentrations.
There are two basic types of ozone generation equipment: liquid oxygen-based systems and air-
based systems. Liquid oxygen feed systems are relatively simple (e.g., there is no air pretreatment
equipment), less capital intensive, and yield a higher ozone concentration than air-based systems. The
liquid oxygen feed system components include a storage tank, an evaporator to convert the liquid to a gas,
filters to remove impurities, and pressure regulators to limit the gas pressure to the ozone generators.
Air-fed systems require air pretreatment equipment to prevent damage to the ozone generator.
Air needs to be dry, free of contaminants, and with a dew point between -50° and -60°C. Air
pretreatment equipment consists of compressors, after coolers (optional), refrigerant dryers, desiccant
dryers, air filters, and pressure regulators. Power consumption is higher for air feed systems (8-12
kWh/lb O3) than for oxygen feed systems (4-8 kWh/lb O3). Exhibit 2.6 presents a comparison of the
advantages and disadvantages of the two types of ozonation systems (USEPA 1999b).
Exhibit 2.6: Comparison of Air and Liquid Oxygen Systems
System
Advantages
Disadvantages
Air
Commonly used equipment
Proven technology
Suitable for small and large systems
More energy consumed per ozone
volume produced
Extensive gas handling equipment
required
Maximum ozone concentration of 1-5 %
Higher power consumption
Fairly complicated technology
Liquid
Oxygen
Less equipment required
Simple to operate and maintain
Suitable for small and large systems
Can store excess oxygen to meet peak
demands
Higher ozone concentration (14-18%)
Approximately doubles ozone production
for same generator
Lower power consumption
Variable liquid oxygen costs
Storage of oxygen onsite (i.e., safety
concerns)
Loss of liquid oxygen in storage when
not in use
Oxygen-resistant materials required
Ozone is usually applied in one of three flow configurations: 1) co-current (ozone and water
flowing in the same direction), 2) counter-current (ozone and water flowing in the opposite direction), or
3) alternating co-current/counter-current. Ozone application systems include fine bubble diffusers,
injectors/static mixers, and turbine mixers (Langlais et al. 1991). The fine bubble diffuser system is the
most common and offers high ozone transfer rates, process flexibility, operational simplicity, and no
moving parts. The injector/static mixer system applies ozone in an in-line or a sidestream configuration.
Ozone is injected under negative pressure, created by a venturi section, and then mixed to enhance
dispersion of ozone in the water stream. The turbine mixer systems feed ozone in the contactor and mix
ozone with the water in the contactor. The turbine mixer can either project outside of the ozone contactor
or be submerged.
Hoigne and Bader (1976) described ozone decomposition in water. Once ozone enters solution, it
follows one of two reaction pathways: 1) direct oxidation, which is slow and selective in its oxidation of
organic compounds, and 2) autodecomposition to the hydroxyl free radical (HO'), which is extremely fast
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
2-13
December 2005
-------
and nonselective. The hydroxyl free radical is scavenged by carbonate and bicarbonate ions, commonly
measured as alkalinity, to form carbonate and bicarbonate free radicals. These radicals do not affect the
organic reactions. The hydroxyl radicals produced by the autodecomposition react with organics and
other radicals to reform hydroxyl radical in an autocatalytic process.
The stability of dissolved ozone is affected by pH, ultraviolet light, ozone concentration, and the
concentration of radical scavengers (Langlais et al. 1991). Conditions of low pH favor the direct
oxidation pathway, and high pH conditions favor the autodecomposition pathway described earlier. At
pH levels between 3 and 6, the ozone is present primarily in its molecular form (O3), and direct oxidation
dominates. However, as the pH rises, the autodecomposition of ozone to produce the hydroxyl free
radical (HO') becomes increasingly rapid. At pH levels greater than 10, the conversion of molecular O3 to
HO' is virtually instantaneous. In general, better disinfection would be expected at lower pHs, since free
hydroxyl radicals are short-lived compared to molecular ozone. Studies have shown that increasing the
temperature from 0° to 30° C reduces the solubility of ozone and increases its decomposition rate
(Kinman 1975).
2.2.4.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens
Ozone is one of the most potent biocides used in water treatment. It is effective against a wide
range of pathogenic microorganisms including bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. Ozone shows greater
efficiency inactivating most types of pathogenic microorganisms than chlorine, chloramine, and chlorine
dioxide (Clark et al. 1994). This is demonstrated by the CT values found in the SWTR Guidance Manual
presented in Exhibit 2.7. The resistance of pathogenic microorganisms to ozone increases in the
following order: bacteria, viruses, protozoa (Camel and Bermond 1999).
Exhibit 2.7: Comparison of CT Values for Free Chlorine and Ozone
Log
Removal
0.5
1
2
3
Giardia
<1°C
Cl
40
79
158
237
03
0.48
0.97
1.9
2.9
10° C
Cl
21
42
83
125
03
0.23
0.48
0.95
1.43
20° C
Cl
10
21
41
62
03
0.12
0.24
0.48
0.72
Viruses
<1°C
Cl
-
-
6
9
03
-
-
0.9
1.4
10° C
Cl
-
-
3
4
03
-
-
0.5
0.8
20° C
Cl
-
-
1
2
03
-
-
0.25
0.4
Note: Data not available
Source: USEPA(1990)
Small concentrations of ozone are usually effective against bacteria. E. Coll levels were reduced
by 4 log (99.99 percent removal) in less than one minute at an initial ozone concentration of 9
micrograms per liter ((ig/L) (Wuhrmann and Meyrath 1955). Legionella pneumophila levels were
reduced by 2 log (99 percent removal) in less than five minutes at an initial ozone concentration of 0.21
milligrams per liter (mg/L) (Domingue et al. 1988).
Typically, viruses are more resistant to ozone than bacteria, although ozone is still effective
against viruses. Ozone dosages of 0.2 to 1.5 mg/L consistently achieved 2 log inactivation of
poliomyelitis viruses with a contact time of 40 seconds (Katzenelson et al. 1974). Katzenelson et al.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
2-14
December 2005
-------
(1974) also observed that poliomyelitis inactivation increased to nearly 5 log at a dose of 1.5 mg/L and a
contact time of approximately 100 seconds. Coxsackie virus inactivation is more than 5 log with an
initial ozone dosage of 1.45 mg/L (Keller et al. 1974). The sensitivity of human rotavirus to ozone was
found to be similar to that of coxsackie virus (Vaughn et al. 1987).
Protozoan cysts are more resistant to ozone than bacteria and viruses. Data available for
inactivation of Cryptosporidium oocysts suggest that, among protozoans, this pathogen is the most
resistant to ozone (Peeters et al. 1989; Langlais et al. 1990).
Ozone inactivation kinetics of Cryptosporidium are evaluated by Gyurek et al. (1999). The
observed inactivation behavior of Cryptosporidium by ozone is characterized by a "tailing-off' effect. At
22°C and a 5 minute contact time, an initial ozone residual of 1.2 mg/L was required to provide 2 log
inactivation. For contact times less than 5 minutes, a relatively small increase in the applied contact time
significantly decreases the required initial ozone residual; however, for contact times greater that 10
minutes an increase in the applied contact time provides a negligible decrease in the required initial ozone
residual. Hence, the influence of contact time on the inactivation kinetics decreases as Cryptosporidium
is progressively exposed to ozone.
Initial studies have demonstrated that CT values may be as much as 25 times higher than those
required for Giardia (Rennecker et al. 1999). These preliminary studies also demonstrate that CT
requirements for Cryptosporidium inactivation increase by an average factor of approximately three for
every 10° C decrease in temperature. A summary of reported ozonation requirements for 2 log
inactivation of Cryptosporidium oocysts is presented in Exhibit 2.8.
Exhibit 2.8: Reported Ozonation Requirements for 2 log Inactivation of
Cryptosporidium Oocysts
Experimental
Protocol
Batch liquid,
batch ozone
Batch liquid,
continuous
gas
Batch liquid,
batch ozone
Flow through
contactor,
continuous
gas
Batch liquid,
batch ozone
Initial Ozone
Residual
(mg/L)
0.77
0.51
1.0
0.50
0.50
1.0
Temperature
(°C)
Ambient
25
7
22
22-25
22
Contact
Time
(min)
6
8
5-10
18
7.8
7.4
3.2
CT
(mg-min/L)
4.6
4.0
5-10
9.0
3.9
5.5
3.2
Reference
Peeters et al.
1989
Korich et al. 1990
Finch etal. 1993
Owens etal. 1994
Gyurek etal. 1999
Note: Owens et al. do not report residual dose.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
2-15
December 2005
-------
2.2.4.2 DBF Formation
Ozone does not produce chlorinated DBFs. Through the oxidation of natural organic precursor
materials, however, ozone can alter the reactions between chlorine and NOM and affect the formation of
chlorinated DBFs when chlorine is added downstream. Additionally, if bromide is present in the water
supply, ozonation will create bromate, which is regulated chemical. Ozonation of natural waters produces
aldehydes, haloketones, ketoacids, carboxylic acids, and other types of biodegradable organic material
which must be adequately controlled (often with a granular media biofilter).
Ozonation often increases the biodegradability of NOM in the treated water. Increasing
biodegradability could be beneficial if a biological filtration process follows the ozonation step. A
biological filtration step can remove the biodegradable fraction of NOM, increasing organic precursor
removal. Biological filters remove NOM by using it as a substrate. Biological filtration can be employed
on adsorptive media, such as GAC, and/or non-adsorptive media, such as sand and anthracite.
Conversely, if the biodegradable fraction is not removed, it can increase the regrowth of microorganisms
in the distribution system.
Haag and Hoigne (1983) have shown that ozone oxidizes bromide to form hypobromous acid and
hypobromite (HOBr and OBr") under water treatment conditions. Hypobromite was found to be further
oxidized to bromate or to a species that regenerates bromide, whereas HOBr reacts with NOM to form
brominated organic byproducts in waters containing bromide.
Changes in pH can have a dramatic effect on the concentrations of HOBr and OBr" and, therefore,
the species of byproducts formed. An increase in pH increases the relative concentration of Br", which, in
turn, leads to increased bromate formation. Reduced pH levels are often accompanied by a reduction in
bromate concentrations; the lower pH enhances formation of bromoform and other organic brominated
DBFs.
Krasner et al. (1989) found that an ozone residual is necessary to produce detectable levels of
bromate. Siddiqui and Amy (1993) found that the bromoform concentration first increased then
diminished at higher dosages. Song et al. (1995) demonstrated that lower ozone dosage and longer
contact time should produce less bromate than higher dosages and shorter contact times.
Halogenated organic compounds are formed when NOM reacts with free chlorine or free
bromine. Free bromine can be formed in ozone disinfection whenever bromide is present in the raw water
source. The level of brominated byproducts formed during oxidation is dependent on the concentration of
bromide in the raw water source and/or the relative amount of bromide present compared to organic
precursors.
Ozonation followed by chlorination has been observed to produce higher levels of haloketones
than chlorination alone (Jacangelo et al. 1989b). Chloral hydrate occurs primarily as a result of
chlorination, although ozonation followed by chlorination has been observed to increase levels beyond
those observed with chlorination only. Ozonation followed by chlorination or chloramination can
increase chloropicrin levels above those observed with chlorination or chloramination alone. Ozonation
followed by chloramination has been observed to increase cyanogen chloride levels beyond those
observed with chloramination only. Cyanogen bromide, the brominated analog of cyanogen chloride, has
been detected after ozonation of water containing high bromide levels (McGuire et al. 1990).
Much less is known about non-halogenated disinfection byproducts than the halogenated organic
compounds. Among the major ozonation byproducts, aldehydes and carboxylic acids have the highest
concentrations (Glaze et al. 1993). Ozonation followed by chlorination has been found to yield the
highest levels of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde. In addition, ozonation prior to chloramination is shown
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 246 December 2005
-------
to produce more of these aldehydes than chloramination alone. Najm and Krasner (1995) report that the
formation of ketoacids is proportional to the amount of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in the water.
Ketoacid concentrations are largely unaffected by bromide concentration.
Ammonia addition has been used to limit the formation of some ozonation byproducts. In one
study (Siddiqui and Amy 1993), bromoform concentrations decrease by approximately 30 percent when
ammonia is added at a NH3-to-ozone ratio of 0.25 mg/mg. The reason for this reduction is because HOBr
reacts with ammonia to form bromamines, presumably making HOBr unavailable for reaction with NOM.
Conflicting results of ammonia addition on bromate formation have been observed (Glaze et al.
1993, Krasner et al. 1993). Siddiqui et al. (1995) explained the percentage of bromate reduction upon
adding ammonia is more dependent upon pH and bromide concentration than on ammonia concentration
(Siddiqui et al. 1995). High bromide levels trap more oxidizing equivalents to give higher bromine yields
and scavenge more radicals, thus reducing the radical processes that may cause bromate formation.
Siddiqui et al. (1995) demonstrated that (at similar ammonia concentrations) bromate formation decreased
by more than 80 percent upon increasing the bromide concentration from 0.1 to 1.0 mg/L.
2.2.4.3 Factors Affecting Performance
Ozone decays rapidly at high pH and warm temperatures. Krasner et al. (1993) noted that as the
ozonation pH decreases, the required dose to meet inactivation requirements of the IESWTR drops and
less bromate is formed. For one of the waters evaluated during bromide spiking experiments, bromate
concentrations ranged from 24 to 68 (ig/L at pH 8. For the same water, bromate concentrations ranged
from less than 5 to 7 (ig/L when the pH was decreased to 6. Better disinfection is expected at pH levels
between 6 and 8 where molecular ozone dominates.
Temperature and alkalinity also affect formation of byproducts during ozonation. Increased
temperature will increase the levels of bromate, bromoform, and total organic bromide. It also increases
the decomposition of ozone. Conversely, increasing alkalinity has been shown to reduce the formation of
bromoform and total organic bromide and increase the formation of bromate. Bicarbonate scavenges OH
radicals, suggesting that the OH radical may play a role in the formation of brominated species by
affecting the level of HOBr, which is presumed to be an active species for total organic bromide
formation (Glaze et al. 1993).
Total organic carbon (TOC) concentration can have significant impacts on Cryptosporidium CT
requirements. It has been demonstrated that ozone-to-TOC ratios greater than 1 are required for
Cryptosporidium inactivation; whereas ozone-to-TOC ratios are typically less than 0.5 for Giardia
inactivation. As previously discussed, temperature can also drastically affect the solubility,
decomposition rate and biocidal effectiveness of ozone. Exhibit 2.9 presents CT requirements for
Cryptosporidium inactivation at multiple temperatures and for inactivation ranging from 0.5 to 3 log.
Exhibit 2.9 also compares the Cryptosporidium CT requirements with those of Giardia and presents the
ratio of the Cryptosporidium requirement to the Giardia requirement.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 2-17 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 2.9: CT Considerations for Cryptosporidium Inactivation
Log
Inactivation
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Crypto CT at Temperature
(C)1
1°
12
24
36
48
60
72
13°
3.1
6.2
9.3
12
16
19
22°
2.0
3.9
5.9
7.8
9.8
12
Giardia CT at Temperature (C)2
1°
0.48
0.97
1.50
1.90
2.40
2.90
13°
0.19
0.38
0.58
0.76
0.95
1.14
22°
0.10
0.21
0.31
0.42
0.52
0.62
Multiplier at Temperature (C)3
1°
25.0
24.7
24
25.3
25.0
24.8
13°
16.3
16.3
16.0
15.8
16.8
16.7
22°
20.0
18.6
19.0
18.6
18.8
19.4
1 Values reported to be acceptable for a pH range of 6 to 9, and are based CT on values developed by
EPA in 2003.
2 Giardia CT required numbers are based upon the CT table included in the SWTR Guidance Manual.
3 Multiplier = Crypto CT at a given temperature / Giardia CT at the same temperature.
2.2.5 Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration
Membranes act as selective barriers, allowing some constituents to pass through while blocking
the passage of others. The movement of these constituents across a membrane requires a driving force
(i.e., to overcome the potential difference across the membrane). Only pressure-driven processes are
discussed in this document due to their feasibility for DBF precursor and microbial control and their
popularity in the drinking water field.
There are four categories of pressure-driven membrane processes: microfiltration, ultrafiltration
(UF), nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis (RO). Low-pressure membrane processes, MF and UF, are
typically applied for the removal of particulate and microbial contaminants and can be operated under
positive or negative (i.e., vacuum) pressure. Positive pressure systems typically operate between 3 and 40
pounds per square inch (psi), whereas vacuum systems operate between -3 and -12 psi. RO and NF are
typically applied for the removal of dissolved contaminants, including both inorganic and organic
compounds. These processes operate at pressures significantly greater than the applied pressure in MF
and UF processes, between 100 and 150 psi. Desalination applications can operate at pressures as high as
1,200 to 1,500 psi.
The ability of a membrane to remove a particular contaminant is influenced by its molecular
weight cut-off (MWCO) or pore size. MWCO is a manufacturer specification that refers to the molecular
mass of a macrosolute (e.g., glycol or protein) for which a membrane has a retention capacity greater than
90 percent. The pore size refers to the diameter of the micropores on the membrane surface. The true
pore size is difficult to measure, and, as a result, membrane manufacturers typically use some measure of
performance to categorize the pore size of a membrane. The nominal pore size is typically based upon a
given percent removal of a marker (e.g., microsphere) of a known diameter. The absolute pore size is
typically characterized as the minimum diameter above which 100 percent of a marker of a specific size is
removed by the membrane. Exhibit 2.10 presents the MWCO/pore size ranges for membrane processes,
as well as the relative size of common drinking water contaminants.
MF and UF are primarily used for particle and microbial removal, either following granular
media filtration or as a replacement for media filters. Chemical disinfection may be required, depending
upon the approach of the State regulatory agency and the class of membrane used (i.e., MF or UF). MF
pore sizes are generally too large for virus removal and many States require a minimum 0.5 log chemical
inactivation as part of a multiple barrier approach to disinfection.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
2-18
December 2005
-------
The major components of a typical MF or UF membrane system include cartridge filters, low
pressure feed pumps, membrane modules, high-pressure backwash pumps, a chemical cleaning system, a
chlorination feed system, and a concentrate handling and disposal system.
Exhibit 2.10: Pressure-Driven Membrane Separation Spectrum
0.001 |J 0.01 M 0. 1|J 1.0|J 10|J 100|J
I I I I I I
Dissolved Organics
I I I
Bacteria
I I
Viruses
Salts Colloids
III I
1000M
I
Sand
i
Media Filtration |
I I I Microfiltration
I I I Ultrafiltration
I I Nanofiltration
| Reverse Osmosis
Note: p = Microns.
2.2.5.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens
MF and UF have shown excellent capabilities in turbidity, particulate matter, and microbial
removal. MF and UF processes remove contaminants through physical straining of the feed water as it
passes through the membrane. In this respect, microbial contaminants that are larger than a given
membrane pore will be retained and prevented from entering the treated water. Since the size and shape
of microorganisms varies among species and since the size and shape of membrane pores varies among
membrane types, the removal of a particular microorganism by MF and UF may vary. Many States have
adopted disinfection log removal credits for MF and UF processes. States grant removal credits on a
case-by-case basis for up to 3 log Giardia removal and 4 log virus removal. However, virus removal
credits are typically 0.5 log or less due to the smaller size of viruses relative to MF/UF pores.
MF and UF offer disinfection capabilities that are much improved over conventional media
filtration. Exhibits 2.11 through 2.14 summarize observed removals of bacteria, Giardia,
Cryptosporidium, and viruses, respectively.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 2-19 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 2.11: MF and UF Studies Documenting Bacteria Removal
Reference
Hofmann et al.
(1998)
Jacangelo et al.
(1997)
Jacangelo et al.
(1997)
Jacangelo et al.
(1997)
Jacangelo et al.
(1997)
Jacangelo et al.
(1997)
Clairetal. (1997)
Clairetal. (1997)
Glucina et al. (1997)
Glucina et al. (1997)
Jacangelo et al.
(1997)
Jacangelo et al.
(1997)
Luitweiler(1991)
Jacangelo et al.
(1991)
Heneghan and Clark
(1991)
Jacangelo et al.
(1989a)
Process
MF
MF
MF
MF
MF
MF
MF
MF
MF
UF
UF
UF
MF
UF
UF
UF
Membrane Pore
Size
150,000 to 200,000
Daltons
100,000 Daltons
0.2 |jm
0.2 |jm
0.2 |jm
0.2 |jm
0.2 |jm
0.2 |jm
0.2 |jm
100,000 Daltons
100,000 Daltons
100,000 Daltons
-
-
-
-
Bacteria Type
HPC, conforms,
thermotolerant
conforms, SSRC
P. Aeruginosa
P. Aeruginosa
Conforms
E. Coli
HPC
HPC
Total Conforms
HPC and total Conforms
Total Conforms
Conforms
E. Coli
HPC
Total Conforms
HPC
HPC
Log Removal
2.5 to 3.5
>8.7*
>8.2*
>1.8*
>7.8*
>1.8*
2.4
>3
>3
>3
>2.1*
>7.8*
1.7
>3
>3.4
2.8
Note: "Indicates removal to detection limit.
- Data not available.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
2-20
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 2.12: MF and UF Studies Documenting Giardia Removal
Reference
Scheider et al. (1999)
Scheider et al. (1999)
Scheider et al. (1999)
Trussel et al. (1998)
Jacangelo et al. (1997)
Jacangelo et al. (1997)
Hagen(1998)
Trussel et al. (1998)
Jacangelo et al. (1997)
Jacangelo et al. (1997)
Jacangelo et al. (1991)
Jacangelo et al. (1989a)
Process
MF
MF
MF
MF
MF
MF
UF
UF
UF
UF
UF
UF
Membrane Pore Size
0.2 |jm
0.1 |jm
0.1 |jm
0.2 |jm
0.2 |jm
0.2 |jm
100,OOODaltons
100,000 Daltons
100,OOODaltons
100,000 Daltons
-
100,000 Daltons
Log Removal
>4.8
>4.8*
>4.8*
>5.1*
>5.2*
>6.8*
>8*
>5.1*
>5.2*
>6.8*
>4*
>5*
Note: *lndicates removal to detection limit.
-Data not available.
Exhibit 2.13: MF and UF Studies Documenting Cryptosporidium Removal
Reference
Scheider et al. (1999)
Scheider et al. (1999)
Scheider et al. (1999)
Trussel et al. (1998)
Jacangelo et al. (1997)
Jacangelo et al. (1997)
Trussel et al. (1998)
Hagen(1998)
Jacangelo et al. (1997)
Jacangelo et al. (1997)
Jacangelo et al. (1989a)
Jacangelo et al. (1997)
Jacangelo et al. (1997)
Process
MF
MF
MF
MF
MF
MF
UF
UF
UF
UF
UF
UF
UF
Membrane Pore Size
0.2 urn
0.1 urn
0.1 urn
0.2 urn
0.2 urn
0.2 urn
100,000 Daltons
100, 000 Daltons
100,000 Daltons
100,000 Daltons
100,000 Daltons
100,000 Daltons
100,000 Daltons
Log Removal
4.2
>4.2
>4.2
>4.7*
>4.9*
>6.4*
>5.1*
>8*
>4.9*
>6.4*
>5*
>6.4*
>6.4*
Note: Indicates removal to detection limit.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
2-21
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 2.14: MF and UF Studies Documenting Virus Removal
Reference
Scheider et al. (1999)
Scheider et al. (1999)
Scheider et al. (1999)
Trussel et al. (1998)
Jacangelo et al. (1997)
Jacangelo et al. (1997)
Kruithofetal. (1997)
Trussel et al. (1998)
Jacangelo et al. (1997)
Kruithofetal. (1997)
Jacangelo et al. (1989a)
Jacangelo et al. (1989a)
Process
MF
MF
MF
MF
MF
MF
MF
UF
UF
UF
UF
UF
Membrane Pore Size
0.2 urn
0.1 urn
0.1 urn
0.2 urn
0.2 urn
0.2 urn
-
100,000 Daltons
1 00,000 Daltons
-
100,000 Daltons
-
Log Removal
0.5
1.1
2.3
0.4 to 3.1
>1
>1.5
0.7 to 2.3
>6.9*
>6
>5.4
>8*
>6
Note: Indicates removal to detection limit.
Data not available.
As shown in Exhibits 2.11 through 2.14, both MF and UF systems are capable of significant log
removal of bacteria, Giardia cysts, and Cryptosporidium oocysts. The data presented indicate that
MF/UF are capable of bacteria removals of nearly 9 log and Giardia and Cryptosporidium removals in
excess of 8 log. In fact, in nearly all cases, the log removal demonstrated is simply a function of the
influent microbe concentration, since bacteria and cysts are typically removed to detection limits. As
shown in Exhibit 2.14, however, MF and UF are differentiated by virus removal. The maximum virus
removal reported for MF membranes is approximately 3 log, but the average reported removal is nearer to
1 log. UF membranes typically remove viruses to detection limits.
Note that the studies summarized in Exhibits 2.11 through 2.14 are conducted with intact
membranes (i.e., the membranes are not compromised). Had a fiber from one of these membranes been
broken, either deliberately or accidentally, the results could be significantly different, since the potential
would exist for microorganisms to pass into the treated water. For this reason, it is important to include
membrane integrity testing when assessing the ability of a membrane to act as a barrier against
microorganisms. Many types of membrane integrity tests exist. These tests fall into two categories: 1)
direct methods and 2) indirect methods. Indirect methods include monitoring the treated water for
parameters such as particle counts or turbidity. Direct methods include tests, such as air pressure decay
and diffusive airflow, that directly assess the integrity of the membrane itself. Integrity testing represents
an important aspect of a membrane system from a regulatory perspective, as it is the only way to prove
the membrane is intact and functioning as designed. Commercial manufacturers have recognized this,
and most systems are now provided with automatic integrity testing that can be conducted frequently
(e.g., hourly).
2.2.5.2 Factors Affecting Performance
Membrane pore size greatly affects microorganism removal. To illustrate this, Exhibit 2.10
shows the size of several microbes of concern against different membrane filtration options. As shown in
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
2-22
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 2.10, cysts (including Giardia and Cryptosporidium) are larger than essentially all MF and UF
pore sizes. Consequently, these processes are capable of large log removal of cysts. On the other hand,
as shown in Exhibit 2.10, viruses are larger than most UF pore sizes, but smaller than most MF pore sizes.
For this reason, UF is capable of removing viruses while MF typically is not.
Membrane pores are typically a distribution of sizes (Mallevialle et al. 1996), only as accurate as
the manufacturing process allows. At the present time, no precise techniques for membrane pore size
determination are available. For these reasons, a membrane of a given MWCO may have pores that are
larger and smaller than the given MWCO. Imperfections in the membrane module or membrane system
may result in passage of microorganisms into the treated water.
Imperfections can arise through manufacturing imprecision, allowing microbes to penetrate o-
rings, end seals, or spacers. Conversely, microbial contaminant removal may be increased by the cake
layer, which forms on the membrane surface during a filtration cycle. This cake layer consists of
contaminants rejected by the membrane, including particles, organic matter, and microorganisms. As this
layer builds, it can aid filtration of suspended particulates, such as microorganisms, as water passes across
the membrane. In this way, microorganisms that might normally pass through a membrane pore can be
filtered from the feed water stream.
One of the critical design parameters for a membrane process is flux, which is typically expressed
in gallons of filtrate per day per square foot of membrane area (gfd). The design flux determines the
membrane area required for a specific plant capacity. Thus, flux has a significant impact on capital cost
and results in a competitive motivation for design engineers to use a higher membrane flux, thereby
reducing the area requirements. Although increasing the membrane flux can reduce the capital cost, it
will increase operational costs due to higher operating pressure, more frequent chemical cleaning, and a
potential increase in membrane replacement costs.
Another important design parameter is recovery, the ratio of feed water to product water.
Recovery for MF and UF systems is typically 85 to 97 percent, and a function of the backwash method
and frequency. Recovery can play a significant role in the design of membrane facilities, particularly in
water-scarce regions.
Feed water quality can also have a significant impact on membrane system design, operation, and
performance. Suspended solids and other contaminants (e.g., iron, calcium, barium, or silica) can result
in more rapid fouling of the membrane, decreases in flux, and increases in transmembrane pressure
(TMP). TMP is the pressure applied to drive water through the membrane. As a result, most membrane
systems include some level of pretreatment to reduce the concentration of these foulants, with the level of
pretreatment dependent upon raw water quality.
2.2.6 Bag and Cartridge Filtration
Like MF and UF, bag and cartridge filters act as selective barriers and are used to remove
particles, including pathogens, in water treatment. As water passes through the bag or porous cartridge,
particulate matter and organisms whose size exceeds the largest pore size are retained on the filter. The
nature of the filter material and the direction of flow are two features that differentiate bag from cartridge
filtration (AWWA 1999).
Bag filters can be either woven or felt and made of materials such as polypropylene, polyester,
nylon, or teflon. Typically, only felt filters will display nominal pore size ratings as low as 0.5 to 1 ^im,
which are values likely to be associated with high removal of pathogens. Bag filters can also comprise a
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 2-23 December 2005
-------
sealing system on their open end in order to ensure flow integrity between the water inlet and the bag
filter.
The bag is housed in a pressure vessel and supported by a mesh basket. The pressure vessel is
made of carbon steel or stainless steel. The water flow is from inside the bag filter to outside. As filtered
material (i.e., suspended solids) accumulates on the filter surface, head loss increases, and a pressure
differential develops between both sides of the filter.
A number of bag filter configurations are commercially available. Pressure vessels exist in
single, duplex or four-plex, series or parallel modules, or as multi-filter vessels. Manufacturers claim that
a single vessel can filter flow rates from 10 to approximately 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm), depending
on its configuration. The standard pressure-rating for vessels has been observed to be 150 psi.
Cartridge filters are typically composed either of fiberglass or ceramic membranes supported by a
rigid core or are made from strings of polypropylene, acrylics, nylon, or cotton wrapped around a filter
element. Nominal pore size ratings generally range from 0.3 to 200 microns. With regard to membranes,
the number of pleats in a cartridge filter is typically larger relative to a bag filter, thus providing greater
surface area. The cartridge is housed in a pressure vessel made of carbon steel or stainless steel, similar to
the bag filter, but the direction of the flow is from the outside to the inside of the cartridge. Accumulation
of particulate matter on the surface and in the depth of the cartridge element leads to increased pressure
loss across the cartridge. Operation of the cartridge filter beyond the recommended maximum pressure
drop would result in the structural failure of the cartridge and potential damage to the cartridge filter
vessel.
Commercially available cartridge filter single vessels allow for housing of 1 to approximately 200
cartridges. It is possible to connect these vessels in series (for multiple-stage filtration) or parallel (for
treatment capacity increase and/or continuous operation). Because of the large number of units required
to achieve high flows, bag and cartridge filtration is best suited for smaller systems.
2.2.6.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens
Because their mode of operation is based on a size-exclusion mechanism, bag and cartridge filters
with the proper pore size rating can remove Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and other pathogens, depending
on their size. Available studies assessing the efficacy of bag and cartridge filters against pathogens have
frequently utilized polystyrene beads as surrogates for the Cryptosporidium oocysts and Giardia cysts (Li
et al. 1997, Goodrich et al. 1995, Long 1983). Cysts and oocysts are suspected to fold and deform,
eventually passing through filtration pores that are smaller than their nominal diameter. In an effort to
account for this flexibility, investigators have used polystyrene beads smaller than the pathogens they
represent.
In a study by Li et al. (1997), log removals of Cryptosporidium oocysts and 4-6 (im polystyrene
microspheres by bag filters were determined and compared. The investigators concluded a linear
correlation: 1 log removal of 4-6 (im polystyrene microspheres is equivalent to 1.040 log removal of
Cryptosporidium. This is attributed to similar size distributions between the microspheres and the
Cryptosporidium oocysts.
The EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory assessed the ability of bag filtration to remove
Cryptosporidium and surrogates under various flow (12.5 and 25 gpm) and pressure drop (0, 7, 15, and 25
psi) conditions (Li et al. 1997). The study evaluated three polypropylene bag filters. The surrogates
tested were turbidity, 1-25 ^m particle counts, 4-6 |^m particle counts, and 4-6 |^m polystyrene
microspheres. The study found the polystyrene microspheres to be "accurate and precise" indicators of
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 2-24 December 2005
-------
filter performance with respect to Cryptosporidium. The results of this study are summarized in Exhibit
2.15.
Exhibit 2.15: Summary of Bag Filter Performance
Filter Type
Multi-layer
polypropylene
Single-layer
polypropylene
Multi-layer
polypropylene
Nominal Pore Size
1-um
1-um
99% removal of 2. 5
urn particles,
95% removal of 1 .5
urn particles
Contaminant
4.5-um microspheres
Cryptosporidium
4.5-um microspheres
Cryptosporidium
4.5-um microspheres
Cryptosporidium
Log Removal (Average)
1.14-1.88(1.39)
1.35-1.48(1.41)
0.14-0.72(0.46)
0.26 - 0.64 (0.42)
0.93 - 3.42 (2.08)
3.00 - 3.63 (3.29)
Source: Li etal. (1997).
The results presented in Exhibit 2.15 may indicate a benefit in removal efficiency associated with
multi-layering of the filter fabric. Based on this study, a multi-layer fabric bag filter can achieve 1 to 2
log Cryptosporidium removal under proper operation conditions. One interesting result of these tests is
that experimental controls performed with Cryptosporidium showed that 0.1 to 0.2 log removal can be
attributed to the pressure vessels alone without bag filters. This is assumed to reflect the ability of
Cryptosporidium oocysts to adhere to the surface walls of the vessel.
Another study by the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (Goodrich et al. 1995) evaluated
cartridge filters for the removal of 4-6 |im polystyrene spheres. The results of this study indicate that a
single cartridge filter, with a 2 |^m rating, achieved an average microsphere removal of 3.6 log.
A study conducted by Long (1983) evaluated the log removal of 17 different cartridge filters for
Giardia surrogates. These cartridge filters were tested using the same pressure vessel at a pressure of 45
psi and a flow rate of 0.5 gpm. The microspheres used as surrogates for Giardia cysts had an average
diameter of 5.7 |im, with a standard deviation of 1.5 i^m. The filters were made of a variety of materials
(cotton, cellulose, glass fiber, polypropylene, polyester) and configurations (majority pleated or spirally
wound). The pore ratings ranged from 0.2 to 10.0 |^m.
According to a scanning electron microscopy analysis that allowed visual counting of the
microspheres passing through the filter, ten cartridge filters out of seventeen had a microsphere removal
of 99.99 percent (4 log reduction). The lower performances seemed to be associated with the absence of
end seals on the cartridges and the use of cotton or polyester as the main filtering material (Long 1983).
Note that the tests were conducted at a flow rate of 0.5 gpm, which is significantly lower than the
expected operation flow rate (typically 20 gpm per unit). The impact of this reduced flow rate on removal
performance is unclear.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
2-25
December 2005
-------
2.2.6.2 Factors Affecting Performance
Feed water quality is the primary factor affecting the performance of both bag and cartridge
filters. Although these filters can operate at turbidity levels from 0.1 to 10 NTU, it is recommended that
turbidity be minimized to extend the filter lifetime. If turbidity of the feed water is above 1 NTU, bag
filters may operate properly for only a few hours (USEPA 1998). Thus, use as a secondary barrier
following conventional treatment is a preferred mode of operation. Granular media filters can reduce feed
water turbidity to less than 0.1 NTU and provide a feed water stream of appropriate quality for bag and
cartridge filters.
Feed water should also contain very low levels of sand, silt, or algae to prevent clogging of the
filters. If raw water quality is such that the concentrations of these parameters are high, pretreatment,
such as sand, multimedia filters, or preliminary bag or cartridge filters with larger pore size (e.g., 10 |^m),
is encouraged.
The appropriate choice of the pore size rating is an important issue. Giardia cysts and
Cryptosporidium oocysts are suspected to deform and fold, enabling them to pass through pores that are
nominally smaller than the pathogen. The selected pore size should be sufficient to achieve significant
removal of microorganisms while maximizing the expected filter lifetime, based upon raw water quality
and filter loading. Likewise, the quality of the system's seals will greatly impact the level of
performance. The most critical seals appear to be between the filter and the pressure vessel and within the
structure of the filter itself. A faulty seal is a way for pathogens to partially or completely bypass
filtration.
Pilot testing (i.e., challenge studies) is frequently recommended to assess the performance of bag
and cartridge filters. However, the costs associated with pilot testing, particularly for small systems, can
represent a significant portion of the installation costs. As a result, pilot testing may not be affordable for
small systems and may limit the use of these technologies where pilot testing is necessary. Some States
(e.g., Oregon) accept manufacturer data regarding removal efficiency and permit systems to operate in a
demonstration mode, with additional monitoring requirements.
The skill level required to operate bag or cartridge filters is typically described as basic (AWWA
1999, Campbell et al. 1995a). Turbidity, head loss, and total number of gallons filtered should be
monitored daily to evaluate the need to replace the bag or cartridge (AWWA 1999). For example,
cartridges are generally replaced when the pressure differential reaches 35 psi, after one to six months of
operation (Malcolm Pirnie 1993). The maximum allowable pressure differential is typically
recommended by the manufacturer.
Cartridges and bags are easily damaged at the time of installation. Bags should be replaced with
caution to prevent tearing of the material. Likewise, the operator should carefully install new cartridges,
as the filter seal can be damaged and induce leakage.
Because of their rigid structure and multi-layer design, cartridge filters are generally more sturdy
and offer more operational flexibility than bag filters. However, this higher performance is typically
associated with higher cost. As mentioned previously, cysts and oocysts can adhere to and accumulate on
the surface walls of the system. As a consequence, the inward flow of water in the cartridge filter
requires that the housing be cleaned entirely when replacing the cartridge, which is not the case with bag
filters.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 2-26 December 2005
-------
2.2.7 Bank Filtration
Bank filtration is a water treatment process that uses a river bed or the bank of a river or lake as a
natural filter. Water from a river or stream flows through the bank and draws from one or more wells.
Microorganisms and other particles are removed by contact with the aquifer materials as the water travels
through the subsurface, either horizontally or vertically. High removal occurs when ground water
velocity is slow and the aquifer consists of granular materials with open pore space, allowing water flow
around the grains. In these granular porous aquifers, the flow path is very tortuous, thereby providing
ample opportunity for the microorganism to contact and attach to a grain surface. Although detachment
from the grains can occur, it typically occurs at a very slow rate. When ground water velocity is
exceptionally slow, or when little or no detachment occurs, most microorganisms become inactivated
before they can enter a well. Thus, bank filtration provides physical removal and, in some cases,
inactivation to protect wells from pathogen contamination.
2.2.7.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens
Due to the low recovery rate of Cryptosporidium oocysts in influent and effluent samples, full
scale treatment data are of limited utility for assessing removal of Cryptosporidium via bank filtration.
However, measurement of other parameters indicate the potential for pathogen removal. Exhibit 2.16
summarizes bank filtration studies that measured coliform and spore removal. Cryptosporidium removal
is site-specific and highly dependent on the aquifer characteristics; therefore, these data are only an
indication of contaminant removal that can be achieved by bank filtration.
Exhibit 2.16: Bank Filtration Studies Measuring Coliform and Spore Removal
Reference
Havelaaret al.
(1995)
Havelaaret al.
(1995)
Medema et al.
(2000)
Wang et al.
(2000)
Travel
Distance (m)
30
25
13
25
150
0.6
1.6
3.0
16
Travel Time
(days)
15
63
7
18
43
N/A
Log Removal
Total
Coliform
>5.0
>5.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thermotolerant
Coliform
>4.1
>4.1
4.1
4.5
6.2
N/A
Spores1
>3.1
>3.6
3.3
3.9
5.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
1 Spore data are sulphite-reducing clostridium for all references except Wang et al. (2000), where spore data
are aerobic endospores.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
2-27
December 2005
-------
2.2.7.2 Factors Affecting Performance
The main factor affecting the performance of bank filtration is the type of aquifer material
through which the water is filtered. Granular media is the most effective, while fractured rock or gravel
with large pore sizes may be the least effective and allow Cryptosporidium to pass through without
contacting a grain surface. The flow rate is also an important factor in determining performance. Too
high a flow rate can cause oocysts to detach from the aquifer material. Low flow rates, however, may
make it difficult to meet volume demands.
2.2.8 Second Stage Filtration
Second stage, or secondary, filtration requires the use of rapid sand, dual media, GAC, or other
fine grain media in a separate stage following rapid sand or dual media filtration. A cap, such as GAC, on
a single stage of filtration is not considered second stage filtration.
Filtration processes are standard in the water treatment process, and much design and operational
information is available. However, the use of a second filtration stage is not as common, and little
information is available.
2.2.8.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens
There is relatively little published data on the removal of Cryptosporidium by second stage
filtration. Results based on a number of single stage filtration studies demonstrate that rapid sand
filtration, when preceded by coagulation, can achieve significant removal of Cryptosporidium. While
these studies evaluated only a single stage of filtration, the same mechanisms of removal would occur
with a second filtration stage. Studies have also shown that Cryptosporidium breakthrough occurs after
the first stage of filtration (Hall and Croll 1996, Emelko et. Al 2000); therefore, a second stage of
filtration is likely to provide a barrier to these oocysts.
Many studies (Dugan et al. 2001 and Emelko et al. 1999) have demonstrated that aerobic spores
are a conservative indicator of Cryptosporidium removal by granular media filtration when preceded by
coagulation. Consequently, EPA believes that data on spore removal by a second stage filtration process
are indicative of the capacity of this process to remove Cryptosporidium.
Between 1999 and 2000, the Cincinnati Water Works collected spore and turbidity removal data
from their GAC system. The specifics of their system are provided below.
11-foot deep GAC filter following dual media filter
Loading Rate = 3.4-3.9 gpm/ft2 (average); 7.1 gpm/ft2 (design)
12*40 mesh
d10 = 0.5 - 0.75 millimeters (mm); dlO is the diameter through which 10 percent of the media
will pass
Uniformity Coefficient (UC) < 2; UC is the uniformity coefficient of the media
Media age ~ new to 7 years old; carbon reactivation two times per year
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 2^28 December 2005
-------
Empty Bed Contact Time (EBCT) = 22 minutes at 120 million gallons per day (mgd)
(average flow); 12 minutes at 220 mgd (design flow)
A median incremental spore removal of 0.92 log was observed in their GAC filter. Additionally,
the secondary GAC filters were observed to dampen or eliminate turbidity spikes from preceding dual
media filters that occurred during ripening, breakthrough, etc. These data indicate that 0.5 log or greater
removal of Cryptosporidium can be achieved by a secondary filtration process like GAC contactors.
Based on information presented by Hall et al. (1994), up to a 50 percent improvement in turbidity
removal was observed when using a second stage filter. However, no improvement in Cryptosporidium
removal was observed due to the second stage filter. This information was collected after spiking 500
oocysts/L into the raw water of a conventional filter followed by a secondary filter consisting of GAC.
2.2.8.2 Factors Affecting Performance
Filter Type
There are several types of filters. Fine sand filters, dual media filters, and multimedia filters are
the main types of filters used in conventional filtration plants. In order to encourage penetration of solids
into the depth of the bed, the dual media filter, consisting of a layer of coarser anthracite coal on top of a
layer of finer silica sand, was developed. Studies conducted by many researchers (Conley and Pitman
1960a, Conley 1961, Tuepker and Buescher 1968) showed the benefits of dual media filters in reducing
the rate of head loss development, which lengthened the filter run. Although dual media is presumed to
improve the quality of the filtrate, this benefit has not been well demonstrated (AWWA1999). Research
conducted by Robeck, Dostal, and Woodward (1964) demonstrated that the head losses in dual media
filters were lower than the head losses in traditional fine sand filters. When a typical dual media filter and
a fine sand filter are operated at the same filtration rate on the same influent water, the head loss
development rate for the typical dual media filter should be about half the rate of the fine sand filter
(AWWA 1999). Multimedia filters add a layer of garnet to the media which allows for a finer layer of
media at the bottom of the filter.
Filter Media
As with all filters (first or second stage), various properties of a filter medium, such as size,
shape, density, and hardness, affect filtration performance. Filter media are defined by their uniformity
coefficient (UC) and effective size (ES). The porosity of the filter bed formed by the grains is also
important (AWWA 1999). Filter media should be coarse enough to retain large quantities office, yet fine
enough to prevent passage of suspended solids. The filter bed should also be deep enough to allow long
filter runs and graded to permit backwash cleaning. In order to obtain high rates of filtration, coarse
sands and dual media beds of anthracite overlying sand have been used in the recent past (Viessman et al.
1993).
The bed porosity and the ratio of the bed depth to media grain diameter affect the filter efficiency.
The larger the depth of the filter bed (L), the more opportunities exist for particle capture; the larger the
average diameter of the media (d), the more of the media is available to capture particles over the depth of
the filter bed. The ratio of L/d is often used as a design parameter, balancing filter size and cost with
removal efficiency. The two most commonly used methods in selecting the optimal filter bed depth and
media size are pilot plant studies and existing data from filtration facilities treating similar waters.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 2-29 December 2005
-------
Filter Hydraulics
Hydraulic surges occur when the flow through a filter changes rapidly (e.g., during either filter
backwashing or servicing of valves). Hydraulic shifts can lead to significant particle detachment, above
normal detachment rates. To ensure that the second stage filtration unit is unaffected by any hydraulic
surges caused by the backwashing of the first stage filtration unit, the first stage filters should be
hydraulically isolated during backwashing and servicing.
2.2.9 Pre-Sedimentation
Pre-sedimentation is a preliminary treatment process used to remove particulate material from the
source water before the water enters the main treatment plant. Because pre-sedimentation reduces particle
concentrations, it is also expected to reduce Cryptosporidium levels. In addition, by reducing variability
in water quality of the source water, pre-sedimentation may improve the performance of subsequent
processes in the treatment plant. To remove pathogens through floculation and sedimentation, it is
necessary to add coagulant.
Sedimentation processes are standard in the water treatment process, and much design and
operational information is available. However, the use of a pre-sedimentation basin is not as common,
and little information is available.
2.2.9.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens
There is relatively little published data on the removal of Cryptosporidium by pre-sedimentation.
Consequently, EPA analyzed studies that investigated Cryptosporidium removal by conventional
sedimentation basins. The removal efficiency in conventional sedimentation basins may be greater than
in pre-sedimentation due to differences in surface loading rates, coagulant doses, and other factors. To
supplement these studies, EPA reviewed data provided by utilities on removal of other types of particles,
primarily aerobic spores, in the pre-sedimentation processes of full-scale plants. Studies have shown that,
in the presence of a coagulant, spore removal is a conservative indicator of Cryptosporidium removal
(Duganetal. 2001).
The literature studies reviewed by EPA show Cryptosporidium log removals of 0.6 to 3.8 (Dugan
et al. 2001, Payment and Franco 1993) and mean Bacillus subtilis and total aerobic spores log removals of
0.6 to 1.1 (data collected independently by the Cincinnati, OH, and St. Louis, MO, water utilities) by
sedimentation processes. The removal of aerobic spores through sedimentation basins in full-scale plants
demonstrate that pre-sedimentation is likely to achieve mean reductions of greater than 0.5 log
Cryptosporidium removal under routine operating conditions and over an extended time period.
2.2.9.2 Factors Affecting Performance
Short Circuiting
Short circuiting in the sedimentation tank occurs when a portion of the influent flow reaches the
outlet of the sedimentation basin much faster than the designed detention time of the basin. Short
circuiting increases the operational surface loading rate since the true settling area available for a portion
of the flow is reduced. If short circuiting causes the basin to operate at an effective loading rate greater
than 1.6 gpm/ft2, the basin would not receive Cryptosporidium removal credit. High wind velocities and
density and temperature differentials between the influent water and the water in the sedimentation basin
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 2^30 December 2005
-------
cause short circuiting. Additionally, the design or configuration of both the inlet and outlet are important
factors that can affect short-circuiting and turbulence. Systems can minimize short circuiting by adding
baffles or making other modifications to the flow pattern.
Coagulant Dose
The principle goal of coagulation is to destabilize the particles so that they can be more easily
aggregated into floes. The commonly used coagulants are alum, ferric chloride, polyaluminum chloride
(PAC1), activated charcoal, and activated silica. The coagulant dose required to treat an influent stream
depends on the chemical composition of the influent, the characteristics of the colloids and suspended
matter in the influent, the water temperature, and mixing conditions. The use of a coagulant improves the
pathogen removal capabilities of the pre-sedimentation process, although some pathogen removal is
expected without coagulant addition. Optimizing a coagulation scheme for a two-stage sedimentation
process is site-specific and not simple. It is therefore not possible to prescribe the type of coagulant and
appropriate dose for an aggregate of source waters. To account for an additional sedimentation process,
the standard jar test can be modified to a two-stage process reflecting the two stages of sedimentation.
2.2.10 Watershed Control
A well-designed watershed control program can reduce overall microbial risk. The risk reduction
would be associated with the implementation of practices that reduce Cryptosporidium, as well as other
pathogens. Knowledge of the watershed and factors affecting microbial risk, including sources of
pathogens, fate and transport of pathogens, and hydrology can also help a system reduce microbial risk.
2.2.10.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens
No data are available on the ability of watershed control programs to reduce Cryptosporidium
loading to surface water. This is partly because, until recently, most watershed programs have focused on
improving water quality for recreational and ecological uses rather than for drinking water protection.
Thus, studies of the success of such programs frequently monitor parameters such as phosphorus and
sediment levels. Watershed programs that do have drinking water protection as a goal frequently track
fecal coliform bacteria levels but do not regularly monitor Cryptosporidium. Fecal coliform
concentrations do not always correlate with Cryptosporidium, but better indicator data are not usually
available. E. coll may be a better indicator of fecal contamination than fecal coliform bacteria, but
monitoring for E. coli is not common practice.
Most water systems that do monitor Cryptosporidium have been doing so for only a few years
and would not have enough data to show a change in water quality resulting from watershed management.
In addition, because Cryptosporidium occurs in such low concentrations and is often undetected,
reductions in microbiological contamination are difficult to demonstrate.
Regardless of the constituents monitored, it is difficult to show that a watershed control program
in its entirety has improved water quality. Often, reductions in contamination from one source can be
overshadowed by increases from other sources, especially in urban areas. However, various components
of a watershed control program have been shown to have a positive effect on microbiological water
quality at a local level, at least for fecal coliform. Combined, these components should theoretically
contribute to an overall decrease in microbiological contamination.
For instance, Thurston et al. (2001) showed that a constructed wetland could reduce fecal
coliform levels in wastewater treatment plant effluent by 98 percent (where effluent had previously
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 2^31 December 2005
-------
received secondary treatment). Cryptosporidium reductions of 64 percent were also achieved through this
study. A similar pilot-scale study with untreated wastewater indicated an overall removal of
microorganisms of 90 percent by constructed wetlands (Quinonez-Diaz et al. 2001). Preliminary results
of a watershed restoration program in Vermont showed that streambank stabilization, fencing of riparian
zones to prevent grazing, and protected stream crossings reduced bacterial levels (Meals 2001). A
fencing program in Virginia suggested some reduction in fecal coliform levels, and the proportion of fecal
streptococci strains traced to livestock was reduced (Hagedorn et al. 1999).
Another way to reduce microbiological contamination of an urban watershed is to upgrade
wastewater collection systems. The Fairfax County, Virginia, Wastewater Collection Division decreased
inflow and infiltration into its sewers and increased the sewers' capacity through a rehabilitation and
maintenance program. Between 1995 and 2001, the utility reduced the number of sanitary sewer
overflows throughout the county by 67 percent and reduced the peak flow to one of its wastewater
treatment plants by 35 mgd (USEPA 2001). Similar programs throughout the United States are
contributing to reduced effluent volumes from sanitary sewer overflows and combined sewer overflows.
2.2.10.2 Factors Affecting Performance
A combination of interventions such as those described above is expected to result in an overall
decrease of Cryptosporidium in source water. However, many factors can negatively affect the success of
a watershed control program. The interventions a system implements depend on the types of
contamination sources in the watershed. Control of point source discharge (e.g., waste water treatment
plants and industrial discharges) can be straightforward. Agricultural and urban nonpoint sources are the
most difficult to control. Reduction of Cryptosporidium from these sources generally depends on the
voluntary cooperation of urban residents and farmers.
Urban watersheds are subject to increasing development, which increases surface imperviousness
and the amount of runoff entering surface waters, along with the pollutant load. Acquisition of
undeveloped land, particularly that closest to the source water and its tributaries, is one of the best ways
to prevent degradation of the water quality, but it may not be feasible in some watersheds. Other
restrictions on development, such as zoning requirements, can also control urban runoff to some extent,
but, again, these may not be feasible or may not have the support of the public or other government
agencies.
Another problem facing PWSs is that the watershed may extend beyond the municipal boundaries
into other jurisdictions. A higher authority (e.g., State or county government) may be needed to regulate
activities outside a PWS's jurisdiction that could affect water quality.
2.2.11 Combined Filter Performance
Combined filter performance reduces Cryptosporidium levels by enhancing filter performance to
produce very low turbidity water. It is defined specifically as producing 0.15 NTU turbidity water in the
combined filter effluent (CFE) 95 percent of the time. Methods that systems may use to improve filter
performance and lower turbidity include adding polymer, optimizing the filtration process by adding
media or installing filter-to-waste capabilities, and improving staff ability to optimize the process by
additional training, hiring new operators, and buying new laboratory equipment.
Systems likely to use this technology are those which operate conventional filtration or softening
plants and which are already operating well below the current turbidity limits of 0.3 NTU. These systems
more than likely target their effluent under 0.15 NTU already but are not currently hitting that target more
than 95 percent of the time. These plants are assumed to be able to reach the target 95 percent of the time
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 2^32 December 2005
-------
with relatively minor adjustments to their process. Because several of the components recommended for
combine filter performance are also applicable to individual filter performance, EPA has not provided a
separate analysis for individual filter performance.
2.2.11.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens
There have been a number of studies examining the removal of pathogens by conventional
filtration. Several of these studies have examined the relationship between finished water turbidity and
protozoa removal. Studies by Dugan et al. (2001) and Patania et al. (1995) showed that turbidity is an
adequate indicator of pathogen removal. Although the correlation between turbidity removal and
pathogen removal is not one to one, removal of turbidity is a conservative indicator of pathogen removal.
Under the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR, conventional and direct filtration plants may claim 2.0 log
Cryptosporidium removal credit if their CFE turbidity never exceeds 1 NTU and is less than or equal to
0.3 NTU in 95 percent of samples taken. Under the LT2ESWTR, systems using conventional filtration
treatment or direct filtration treatment may claim an additional 0.5 log Cryptosporidium removal credit
for any month that a plant demonstrates CFE turbidity levels less than or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95
percent of the measurements taken each month, based on sample measurements collected under
§§141.73,141.173(a) and 141.551.
EPA expects plants that rely on complying with a 0.15 NTU standard to consistently operate
below 0.1 NTU. Results from studies conducted by Patania et al. (1995), Emelko et al. (1999), and
Dugan et al. (2001) show that plants consistently operating below 0.1 NTU can achieve at least an
additional 0.5 log of Cryptosporidium than when operating between 0.1 and 0.2 NTU.
2.2.11.2 Factors Affecting Performance
Many factors can affect removal of pathogens through sedimentation and filtration and hinder a
plant's ability to achieve 0.15 NTU in its CFE. In order to achieve 0.15 NTU 95 percent of the time,
plants will need to have tight control of their process. The areas which require specific attention include:
control of coagulant dosing and mixing, control of dosing of other chemical additions, filter hydraulics
and media, and backwashing procedures.
Coagulant Dose
Insufficient coagulant can lead to colloidal particles remaining in suspension, while too much
coagulant can lead to inefficient settling. Therefore, coagulation must be optimized for the entire plant. It
must also be adjusted as influent water quality varies or if there are other major changes in plant
operation.
Filter Ripening
During the period immediately after a backwash, the lack of particles on the filter media can
make capture of the particles by the media more difficult and lead to breakthrough of particles and
turbidity. Hall and Croll (1996) studied Cryptosporidium removal in a pilot plant and saw peaks in both
turbidity and oocysts in the filtered water for an hour after backwashing. West et al. (1994) found that
Cryptosporidium removal increased from 2 log to 3 log once the filters had ripened, and the turbidity had
dropped from an initial value of 0.2 NTU to a value less than 0.1 NTU.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 2-33 December 2005
-------
Filter Breakthrough
During filter runs, particles can collect in the filter and, if not backwashed, will reach the point
where an increased amount of particles pass through (referred to as breakthrough). Emelko et al. (2000)
studied the performance of filters throughout a typical run cycle. They found that Cryptosporidium and
microsphere removal was 5.5 log when the filters were operating at 0.04 NTU. When the turbidity began
to climb, removal dropped to 2.1 log even while turbidities were still less than 0.1 NTU. By the time
turbidity had reached 0.3 NTU, the removal had dropped to 1.4 log.
Filtration Rate
If the filtration rate is too high, filtration effluent water quality can suffer. McTigue et al. (1998)
found that particle removal dropped by 2 log when the filtration rate was doubled. West et al. (1994),
however found no difference in Cryptosporidium removal between filtration rates of 6 and 14 gpm/ft2.
Backwashing
The flow rate used for backwashing is important in maintaining effluent quality. Too low a rate
can leave the media dirty and lead to mudballs and eventual particle breakthrough. Too high a rate can
cause loss of filter media and also lengthen filter ripening times. Various means have been developed for
improving backwashing. These include surface washes and collapse pulsing with air scour during
backwashing.
2.3 DBF Precursor Removal Strategies
2.3.1 Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Removal of undesired compounds, such as DBF precursors, from water supplies can be achieved
through adsorption onto solids. GAC is used in water treatment to adsorb a variety of organic and
inorganic compounds. Important properties of GAC that determine its effectiveness include particle size,
specific surface area, pore size distribution, and chemical nature of the surface. GAC adsorption, as
practiced in water treatment, is a non-steady state process, with the effluent concentration of the
contaminant increasing with time. Once the effluent concentration meets the maximum allowable
concentration for a contaminant, the GAC column must be taken off-line, and the GAC must be replaced
with reactivated or fresh GAC. The operation time to reach this maximum allowable concentration is
termed the reactivation or replacement interval.
The Empty Bed Contact Time (EBCT) is defined as the volume of media divided by the flow
rate, and is an important design parameter. GAC contactors should be used when longer EBCTs are
required, while sand filters with a GAC cap, where the top portion of the sand is replaced by GAC, can be
used when shorter EBCTs are feasible. These GAC-capped filters are often called filter-adsorbers. Filter-
adsorbers can also be filtration units which contain GAC alone. Because of their shorter EBCTs, filter-
adsorbers meet desired water quality goals for a much shorter period of time than GAC contactors. For
the purpose of treating short term changes in water quality, filter-adsorbers may have an economic
advantage over post-filter GAC contactors. One disadvantage of filter-adsorbers is that GAC losses are
high during backwashing, and reactivation and equipment separating GAC from sand may be required
before reactivation.
GAC contactors operate in either downflow or upflow configurations. Downflow fixed-bed
contactors offer the simplest and most common contactor configuration for drinking water treatment.
Upflow beds are typically used in situations where very long contact times (greater than 120 minutes) are
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 2^34 December 2005
-------
required and/or where the level of suspended solids is high. Flow through GAC contactors can be either
gravity or pressure driven.
The hydraulic constraints of a given system govern the selection between pressure or gravity
contactors. Pressure contactors may be more applicable for ground water systems, since these systems
already are pumping their water. Gravity contactors are generally found in surface water systems, if
sufficient head is available. Downflow contactors are typically placed downstream of the plant filters to
minimize the solids loading to the contactor.
The GAC in a contactor is usually replaced when the effluent concentrations exceed the treatment
objective. At this point, however, only a portion of the GAC is fully utilized, and replacement of the
media will result in unnecessarily high carbon usage rates. Operating multiple GAC contactors in either
series or parallel configurations are the two common methods to reduce GAC usage rates.
For contactors configured in series, the GAC in the first contactor is reactivated when the effluent
from it no longer meets the treatment objective. Once the first contactor is reactivated, the position of the
two contactors is reversed, with what was originally the second contactor becoming the first contactor and
vice versa. To achieve efficient operation each contactor should be capable of achieving the necessary
removal by itself. While this is often accomplished with reasonable bed length for microcontaminants, it
can lead to unwieldy bed lengths for TOC. The use of two contactors in series does not result in
significantly longer run times over single contactor operation (USEPA 1999a).
For contactors configured in parallel, multiple GAC beds are operated with a staggered
reactivation pattern. The effluent from individual contactors may contain contaminants at concentrations
higher than the treatment objective, since they may be blended with effluent from other contactors with
little or no breakthrough. The combined effluent concentration, from all the GAC beds, can thus be
maintained below the specified treatment objective, further reducing carbon usage rates. For DBF
precursor removal, contactor effluents should be blended prior to disinfection.
The choice between a single contactor and contactors in series or parallel is site specific and
depends on the type and concentration of the contaminant to be removed and its rate of adsorption. This
choice also depends on the type, concentration, and adsorption rate of competing contaminants.
2.3.1.1 Pathogen Removal
GAC if used as a filter cap is not likely to result in additional removal over what would be
expected from conventional treatment. If it is used as a secondary filter in series with conventional
filtration, additional removal can be obtained. The efficacy of secondary filters in removing pathogens is
discussed in full in Section 2.2.8.1.
2.3.1.2 DBF Precursor Removal
In many circumstances, GAC is an effective process for the removal of NOM from drinking
water sources. The removal will depend on a number of factors which are more fully discussed in the
following section.
It is important to note that, GAC will reduce TOC levels but may not significantly lower bromide.
This can cause the bromide-to-TOC ratio to increase and can cause a net shift in speciation of DBFs to the
more brominated compounds. The bromide-to-TOC ratio will continually change through the adsorption
process, so the concentration of brominated DBFs may spike and then fall.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 2-35 December 2005
-------
2.3.1.3 Factors Affecting Performance
The removal of NOM by GAC adsorption depends on a large number of factors including the
following:
Molecular size, polarity, and concentration of NOM entering the GAC process
Water quality characteristics such as pH and ionic strength
GAC characteristics such as pore size distribution and surface chemistry
Operational characteristics such as EBCT and GAC usage rate
Treatment processes used prior to the GAC process
Configuration of GAC contactors
This section briefly describes the impacts of these factors as seen in several GAC studies.
Constituents of NOM are adsorbed within the GAC bed in a manner proportional to their
adsorption potential. Weakly adsorbing components of NOM may irreversibly preload the GAC at the
downstream end of the bed and may, therefore, reduce the capacity of the bed for stronger adsorbing
components at the end of the bed.
The impacts of pH on adsorption of NOM and humic extracts have been well documented in
equilibrium studies using powdered activated carbon (Weber et al. 1983, Randtke and Jepsen 1982,
McCreary and Snoeyink 1980, Summers 1986). All of these studies showed increased removal of TOC
with decreased pH levels. Unfortunately, some of the work has been done with different initial TOC
concentrations, and the increased performance attributed to low pH may be because of the lower initial
TOC. A relationship between the relative adsorption capacity for TOC at the same initial TOC and pH
has been established for 13 different source waters and a bituminous coal-based GAC (Hooper et al.
1996b). Within the pH range of 5 to 10, a decrease in the pH of one unit yielded a six percent increase in
adsorption capacity. However, the number of continuous flow evaluations of pH impacts is limited. The
improved effiiciency is probably due to an increased positive charge on the GAC at lower pH, leading to
a higher absorption of negatively charged organic species.
The relationship between GAC pore size distribution and NOM molecular size distribution has
been shown to be important (Summers and Roberts 1988, Lee et al. 1983, Semmens and Staples 1986, El-
Rehaili and Weber 1987, Chadik and Amy 1987). In general, investigators have found the GAC process
to favor removal of NOM molecules of low to moderate size even though the adsorption process was
expected to favor removal of large molecules. This phenomenon occurs because small GAC pores
physically exclude large NOM molecules from adsorbing. Thus, GAC with a greater quantity of large
pores can be expected to remove more NOM than GAC with a smaller quantity of large pores.
The impacts of EBCT on GAC usage rate for NOM removal have been studied in numerous
continuous flow evaluations. The trend observed in all studies is that increasing EBCT can reduce the
carbon usage rate. One study (Miller and Hartman 1982) saw significant reduction in usage rates as the
EBCT is increased from 2.8 to 15.2 minutes. Summers et al. (1997) evaluated EBCTs of 10 and 20
minutes for a number of water sources and concluded that EBCT had a definite effect in prolonging the
bed life of a GAC contactor. However, the carbon usage rate is relatively unaffected by EBCTs at the
ranges evaluated. They also noted that the balance between EBCT and the frequency of GAC
replacement or reactivation is primarily a choice between larger capital investment (i.e., longer EBCTs)
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 2^36 December 2005
-------
and greater operational complexities (i.e., more frequent reactivation). Another study indicated that GAC
usage rate decreased with an increase in EBCT from 7.5 to 30 minutes. However, a further increase in
EBCT from 30 to 60 minutes did not influence the GAC usage rate (McGuire et al. 1989).
GAC systems may require some kind of pretreatment to prevent build-up of solids in the GAC
bed, to minimize the organic loading on the GAC, and to improve cost effectiveness. Build-up of solids,
which can cause poor filter performance, could be caused by suspended solids in the raw water or by
precipitation of calcium carbonate, iron, and manganese on the GAC. Suspended solids typically cause
problems in surface water systems, while carbonate scaling, iron, and manganese precipitation may occur
in both surface and ground waters. When the GAC bed life is long, clogging may also be caused by
biological growths. Pretreatment methods include coagulation, filtration, or softening ahead of the GAC
system. Conventional coagulation, clarification, and filtration processes may be optimized for the
removal of organic material to reduce natural organic loading to the GAC bed.
The impacts of coagulation on NOM adsorption have also been well documented in batch
experiments studying adsorption equilibria (Weber et al. 1983, Randtke and Jepsen 1981, Lee et al. 1981,
El-Rehaili and Weber 1987, Harrington and DiGiano 1989). Coagulation processes, as a pretreatment to
GAC, can both reduce influent TOC concentration and decrease the influent pH to the adsorber, thus
leading to improved GAC performance.
Several investigators have reported better GAC performance for TOC control after coagulation or
after increasing the coagulant dose (i.e., enhanced coagulation). Hooper et al. (1996a, 1996b, 1996c)
have shown that the increase in GAC run time after enhanced coagulation can be attributed to the lower
pH and lower initial TOC concentration associated with the enhanced coagulated water. This
improvement is most often attributed to a decrease in solubility of NOM at lower pH (Symons et al.
1998).
In most GAC applications of any significant size, multiple contactors are operated in a parallel
configuration. Parallel GAC contactors are operated in a staggered mode wherein each contactor has
been in operation for different lengths of time. In this mode of operation, one contactor at a time is taken
off-line when the blended effluent exceeds the target effluent concentration, and a column with fresh or
reactivated GAC is then placed on-line. The effluent from the contactor in operation the longest can be
higher than the target breakthrough concentration, as it is blended with water from the contactors that
have effluent concentrations much lower than the target concentrations. Consequently, the effluent of
parallel contactors are blended prior to disinfection. Thus, parallel operation in a multiple contactor
configuration will result in longer GAC bed-life and the time between reactivation will be longer. Under
ideal conditions, staged blending with multiple parallel contactors leads to near steady-state effluent
concentration (Roberts and Summers 1982).
Experimental and modeling methods for predicting the blended effluent concentration from GAC
contactors were developed by Summers et al. (1997). The authors observed during this study that the
time to GAC performance goals can be significantly extended by blending the effluent from multiple
contactors. For the three waters examined, blending increased the run time by an average of 150 percent
for both TOC and TTHM.
The research described above demonstrates how the performance of GAC systems can be
influenced by many process variables. In general, the process can be modified to provide the same level
of NOM removal at lower GAC usage rates by the following:
Maintaining low pH conditions through the process
Increasing NOM removal in processes that precede GAC adsorption
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 2^37 December 2005
-------
Using an EBCT greater than or equal to 10 minutes
Ozonation prior to GAC does not guarantee improved NOM removals because it can either
decrease or increase the ability to adsorb and increase the biodegradability of NOM. The overall impact
of preozonation on NOM removal in GAC contactors depends on the efficiency of biotreatment to
remove the weakly adsorbing hydrophilic fraction.
2.3.2 Nanofiltration
Nanofiltration is a high-pressure membrane process that has been traditionally used as a softening
process to remove hardness ions. Generally, NF membranes reject divalent ions (e.g., Mg2+, Ca2+), but
pass monovalent ions (e.g., Na+, Cl"). Recently, NF has been used more extensively for removal of DBF
precursors and color, particularly in brackish waters, as well as other surface waters. Although NF
processes remove nearly all turbidity in feed water, they cannot be used for turbidity removal in the same
manner as MF and UF due to smaller pore sizes (Mallevialle et al. 1996). Smaller pore size makes NF
membranes more prone to fouling. The application of NF for surface waters is generally not
accomplished without extensive pretreatment for particle removal and possibly pretreatment for dissolved
constituents.
The percentage of treated water that can be produced from the feed water is known as the
recovery. Recovery is an important factor for cost of membrane processes and is one measure of the
efficiency of a system. Recovery for NF systems is typically 75 to 90 percent and is impacted by feed
water characteristics, membrane properties, and operating conditions, such as TMP. Since treatment and
disposal of the reject stream (i.e., waste stream) can be a significant portion of the overall cost of a
system, recovery can greatly affect cost efficiency.
2.3.2.1 Efficacy Against Pathogens
As would be expected based on MF and UF microbial removal efficiencies, NF processes are
capable of excellent disinfection by removing nearly all microbial contaminants in feed water, including
Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and viruses. Historically, NF processes have not been used as a primary
means of disinfection, since, in large part, they have been used to treat ground water or have been coupled
with pretreatment processes such as MF or UF. When only disinfection is required, MF and UF processes
are typically used instead of NF, since they are less costly and can achieve the required level of
pathogenic rejection (Mallevialle et al. 1996). Because of this, relatively few studies documenting
microbial removal with NF membranes have been conducted in comparison to MF and UF processes.
Because NF and RO processes represent systems that are very similar in terms of disinfection capabilities,
available studies documenting microbial removal with RO as well as NF membranes are presented in
Exhibit 2.17.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 2-38 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 2.17: NF Studies Documenting Microbial Removal
Reference
Gagliardo et al. (1999)
Gagliardo et al. (1999)
Gagliardo et al. (1999)
Gagliardo et al. (1998)
Seydeetal. (1999)
Colvinetal. (1999)
Colvinetal. (1999)
Trussel et al. (1998)
Trusseletal. (1998)
Trussel et al. (1998)
Trusseletal. (1998)
Gagliardo et al. (1997)
Gagliardo et al. (1997)
Process
RO
RO
RO
RO
NF
(Pilot)
RO
(bench)
RO
(bench)
RO
(MF
pretreat)
RO
(MF
pretreat)
RO
(MF
pretreat)
RO
(MF
pretreat)
RO (pilot)
RO (pilot)
Membrane
HR
DOW
ESPA
ULP
Acumem-
4040
FilmTec
BW30
FilmTec
BW30
FilmTec
BW30
Hydranautics
4040
UHA
Fluid
Systems
TFLC/M48
20HR
Fluid
Systems
TFCL/ULP
TFC
CA
Giardia Log
Removal
-
-
-
-
>51
-
-
-
-
-
-
>5.7
>5.7
Crypto Log
Removal
-
-
-
-
>61
-
-
-
-
-
-
>5.7
>5.7
MS2 Virus Log
Removal
3.0
5.4
4.7
3.4
4.2 to 5.0
>42
>71
4.1 to 5.9
3.7 to 5.7
2.1 to 3.3
2.9 to 4.3
3.0 to 4.0
3. 3 to 5.1
Note: -Data not available
1 Indicates removal to detection limit.
2 0.02 |jm Fluospheres
As shown in Exhibit 2.17, NF and RO processes are capable of significant removal of cysts and
viruses. However, the data in Exhibit 2.17 show that NF and RO systems are not an absolute barrier; they
can allow microorganisms to pass through the membrane into the treated water. For this reason, it is
important to consider membrane integrity testing when assessing the ability of a membrane to act as a
barrier to microorganisms. Although no standard NF integrity testing method exists, some tests that have
been proposed include vacuum testing and monitoring effluent water quality parameters such as chloride,
UV-254 absorbance, microorganisms, and particle counts (Spangenberg et al. 1999). Vacuum testing
entails taking the membrane off-line. This has the disadvantage of being unable to provide on-line
integrity monitoring. Should a system become compromised, it would not be realized until the module is
taken off-line and tested. Effluent water quality monitoring does provide real-time results. However, the
parameters being monitored must be sensitive enough to provide an alert if the system is compromised.
Sensitivity of various parameters will depend on the influent level of that particular parameter along with
the amount of removal accomplished by the membrane. The parameter acting as a surrogate for
membrane integrity must be removed to a significant degree such that a noticeable increase in effluent
concentration would be seen if the membrane system were compromised.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
2-39
December 2005
-------
NF processes are also capable of reducing biodegradable organic carbon (BDOC) (Escobar and
Randall 1999). Since BDOC serves as substrate for microorganisms in the distribution system, reducing
BDOC can reduce the potential for regrowth in a distribution system, disinfectant doses, and DBFs. A
recent full-scale study was performed to document the microbiological and disinfection benefits derived
from implementing NF where conventional treatment had previously been practiced (Laurent et al. 1999).
The results of this study showed significant decreases in chlorine residual fluctuations, microbiological
counts, DOC, and BDOC in treated water and in the distribution system. In effect, this created greater
water quality stability in all areas of the distribution system, particularly in areas with high residence
times. In addition, the finished water chlorine dose required was lowered from about 1 mg/L to 0.2 mg/L
by the use of NF.
2.3.2.2 DBF Precursor Removal
Membrane processes can remove DBF precursors through filtration and adsorption of organics.
Membranes remove NOM through filtration (i.e., sieving) when NOM molecules are larger than a given
membrane pore size, causing them to be rejected. Size, however, is only one factor that influences NOM
rejection. Shape of the NOM molecules and membrane pores, along with chemical characteristics of the
NOM molecules and membrane also play important roles in the permeation of NOM across a membrane
(Mallevialle et al. 1996). Membranes may also remove NOM through adsorption of organics directly on
the membrane surface. The level of adsorption to the membrane surface depends on the chemical
characteristics, particularly charge and hydrophobicity, of both the membrane material and the NOM.
Unfortunately, organic adsorption is generally undesirable since it has proven to be a primary cause of
irreversible fouling of membranes, thereby shortening membrane life.
Without pretreatment, NF processes remove NOM to varying degrees. NOM removals for NF
and RO processes are typically on the order of 50 to 99 percent. NOM removal depends on many factors,
including membrane MWCO and hydrophobicity, characteristics of the NOM, and membrane system
operating parameters such as recovery and operating pressure. Results from several studies on NOM
removal by NF processes are provided in Exhibit 2.18.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 2-40 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 2.18: NOM Removal Through NF Processes
Reference
Taylor et al.
(1987 and
1989)
Conlon and
McClellan
(1989)
Allgeier and
Summers
(1995)
Lozier et al.
(1997)
Chellam et al.
(1997)
Mulford et al.
(1999)
Fu et al.
(1995)
Yoon et al.
(1999)
Legube et al.
(1995)
Design Criteria
Operating pressure: 98-141
psi
Flux: 8.9-1 6.4 gpd/sf
Recovery: 50-79%
Operating pressure: 90-100
psi
Recovery: 75%
Operating pressure: 95 psi
Flux: 15-24 gpd/sf
Recovery: 30-87%
Operating pressure: 70 psi
Flux: 10 gpd/sf
Recovery: 85%
Operating pressure: 70 psi
Flux: 10 gpd/sf
Recovery: 85%
Operating pressure: 100 psi
Flux: 15 gpd/sf
Recovery: 82%
Operating pressure: 80 psi
Flux: 15-20 gpd/sf
Recovery: 75-90%
Not reported
Not reported
Conclusions of Study
MWCO of 1 00 to 500 are needed for DOC
removal up to 90%.
MWCOs of 1 000 to 3000 may achieve 50%
DOC removal.
Trihalomethane formation potential (THMFP)
and total organic halide formation potential
(TOXFP) reductions up to 95% could be
achieved with 300 MWCO.
Operating pressure had a negligible impact on
NOM removal.
IDS1 and hardness rejection are increased by
increased operating pressure.
NOM removal greater than 90% for 200 MWCO.
66-94% TOC removal for 200 MWCO.
TOC removal decreased by up to 15% as
recovery approached 90%.
69-98% TOC removal using MF pre-treated
water.
90-95% TOC removal with 200 MWCO on MF
and UF pretreated water.
95-99% SDS THM precursor removal.
96-99% SDS HAA6 precursor removal.
96% DOC removal with 200 MWCO.
85-97% TOC removal with 1 00 to 500 MWCO.
60-90% TOC removal with 200 to 8,000 MWCO.
Slightly higher NOM removal is achieved at pilot-
scale than at bench-scale.
79-91% DOC removal.
91 -95% TOXFP reduction.
93-94% THMFP reduction.
1TDS = total dissolved solids
In addition to NOM removal, NF processes are capable of some DBF and DBF precursor
removal, although little work has been performed in the area. Bromide is a precursor for brominated
DBFs, so its removal can be beneficial. NF membranes are capable of significant bromide removal.
Several studies documenting the use of NF processes for bromide removal are summarized in Exhibit
2.19.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
2-41
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 2.19: Bromide Removal Through NF Processes
Reference
Amy and Siddiqui (1999)
Mulford et al. (1999)
Allgeier and Summers (1995)
Fuetal. (1995)
Prados-Ramirez et al. (1993)
Conlon and McClellan;
Taylor etal. (1989)
Conclusions of Study
38-41% bromide removal with 150 to 300
MWCO.
50-63% bromide removal with 200 MWCO.
40-61% bromide removal with 200 MWCO.
24-38% bromide removal with 1 00 to 500
MWCO.
63% bromide removal.
60-70% chloride removal, with bromide
removal expected to be nearly identical.
As shown by the data in Exhibit 2.19, NF is capable of high percentage bromide removal.
Overall, however, bromide removal using NF would probably not be cost effective if used only for that
purpose. If the process were incorporated into a treatment train and used for other contaminant removal,
membrane removal of bromide may become cost effective (Amy and Siddiqui 1999). It is important to
note that, if bromide is not removed sufficiently but TOC levels are reduced, the bromide-to-TOC ratio
will increase considerably and will cause a net shift in speciation of DBFs to the more brominated
compounds. In the worst case, such a scenario could cause a net increase in the absolute level of
brominated DBFs (i.e., bromoform) after chlorination (Amy and Siddiqui 1999).
2.3.2.3 Factors Affecting Performance
NF is gaining popularity as a DBF precursor removal process, since production costs are
comparable with competing processes (Mallevialle et al. 1996). Due to the small pore size associated with
NF, other feed water constituents will also be removed. For example, divalent salts, some metals, and
some synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs) may be rejected by these membranes and, therefore, be
concentrated in the waste stream. This may increase the cost associated with disposing of the waste
stream compared to disposal costs associated with MF, UF, and conventional treatment processes. If
regulatory limits prohibit sending the waste stream to a receiving body, costs for waste handling and
disposal can be a substantial portion of the overall treatment cost.
MWCO is a key characteristic affecting membrane performance. Membranes with MWCOs in
the 100 to 500 range appear to be very effective as a means of DBF precursor removal. TOC, THMFP,
and TOXFP reductions of 70 to 95 percent are commonly achieved in systems using such membranes.
These processes can effectively remove bromide as well, with reductions up to 95 percent. Larger
MWCO membranes (i.e., MWCO near and above 10,000), however, will not be as effective for NOM
reduction.
Commercial NF (as well as MF and UF) membranes are available in many types of material (e.g.,
cellulose acetate and polysulphone) and in various configurations (e.g., spiral wound and hollow fiber).
The chemistry of the membrane material, particularly surface charge and hydrophobicity, can play an
important role in rejection properties, since membranes can remove contaminants through adsorption on
the membrane surface as well as through sieving across the membrane pores. These factors must be taken
into consideration to accommodate source water characteristics and removal requirements.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
2-42
December 2005
-------
Source water quality can also dictate pretreatment requirements. The small pore size of NF and
RO membranes makes them more prone to fouling than UF or MF membranes, necessitating higher
quality feed water. The application of NF and RO for surface water treatment is generally not
accomplished without extensive pretreatment for particle removal and possibly pretreatment for dissolved
constituents. For example, the rejection of scale-forming ions, such as calcium and silica, can lead to
precipitation on the membrane surface since these ions are concentrated on the feed side of NF and RO
membranes. Organic constituents and metal compounds, such as iron and manganese, can promote
fouling through precipitation and adsorption as well. Precipitation and adsorption can result in
irreversible fouling and must be avoided through appropriate pretreatment, including anti-scaling
chemical and/or acid pretreatment and possibly pretreatment for organics removal.
In terms of contaminant removal, membrane performance can also be influenced by the operating
pressure and percent recovery, depending on the mechanism of rejection. (This is true for NF and RO
systems, but generally not true for MF and UF systems.) Contaminant rejection by NF and RO systems
generally increases with decreasing operating pressure and with decreasing recovery. Thus, rejection can
be enhanced by changing operating parameters, but not without corresponding increases in operating
costs. To increase recovery, membranes are often staged (i.e., the concentrate of one stage of membranes
is treated by another stage of membranes). Two to three stages are common for NF and RO systems.
(Staging, however, is generally not used for MF and UF.) Staging is also used to keep the fluid velocity
across the membranes at a specified rate. The maximum attainable percent recovery is usually governed
by the degree to which the water can be concentrated without the occurrence of precipitation for NF and
RO.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 2-43 December 2005
-------
3. Technology Design and Criteria
3.1 Introduction
This Chapter provides assumptions related to the overall design for each technology addressed in
this document. Section 3.2 describes the assumed base treatment plant used for all technology
modifications. Sections 3.3 and 3.4 describe the design approach for alternative disinfectant and DBF
precursor removal technologies, respectively. These sections include the following types of information
for each technology:
Assumed water quality conditions (e.g., median filter water quality assumptions for UV
design)
Chemical doses (e.g., ozone dose for Cryptosporidium inactivation)
Equipment type (e.g., types of UV lamps for various system sizes)
Plant layout
Chapter 4 builds on this Chapter by providing more detailed design assumptions for technology
components and presents the costs for each technology.
3.2 Base Treatment Plant
The base treatment plant is assumed to represent the existing treatment configuration. All
modifications with alternative disinfection strategies and removal of DBF precursors are assumed to be
retrofitted from this base treatment plant. The base plant is represented by a conventional treatment plant,
employing the basic processes of coagulant addition and mixing, flocculation, clarification, granular
media filtration, and chlorination for both primary disinfection and maintenance of a distribution system
residual. EPA realizes that the base treatment plant does not and cannot represent every treatment plant.
Instead the base plant is intended to represent a national average plant for the purposes of determining
what equipment is available and what will need to be added. Even though they are not exactly the same,
many smaller package plants are very similar to the base plant. In addition, many of the technologies in
this document are modular in nature and can be added to other treatment schemes just as easily as to the
base plant. In cases where such a base plant is absolutely necessary to install the technology, that
technology is not considered for small systems. A schematic of the base plant is shown in Exhibit 3.1.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 3-1 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 3.1: Base Plant
1 >
Coagulant
2
f
' ^
Caustic
Rapid Mix
Flocculation/
Sedimentation
3.3 Alternative Disinfection Strategies
Pertinent to compliance with the Stage 2 DBPR and the LT2ESWTR, alternative disinfection
strategies may be selected to provide additional treatment for Cryptosporidium and/or to limit the
formation of DBFs. This section describes the overall design approach used for costing a number of
alternative disinfection strategies capable of achieving these goals.
3.3.1 Chloramination
Chloramines can be used for secondary disinfection to limit DBF formation in the distribution
system. Chloramines are less effective for microbial inactivation than chlorine and are typically
ineffective as a primary disinfectant; however, they may be used in combination with other technologies
discussed in this section (e.g., ozone for primary disinfection) to reduce DBF formation in the distribution
system. Typically, ammonia is added after filtration (or possibly after storage) to quench the chlorine
residual and form chloramines. A schematic of a chloramine system is shown in Exhibit 3.2
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
3-2
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 3.2: Plant Schematic for Chloramines for Secondary Disinfection
Coagulant
Caustic
I^-~
IMI
'3
>
1 \
^
Rapid Mix
Flocculation/
Sedimentation
Filtration
Storage
Description of Process: Pre-chlorination for primary disinfection; add ammonia
after filtration at a residual chlorine to ammonia ratio of 4:1.
A range of finished water chlorine residuals were derived using the ICR database. The 10th and
90th percentile finished water chlorine residuals from the ICR database are approximately 0.6 and 2.2
mg/L, respectively. From these residuals, the ammonia dosages of 0.15 and 0.55 mg/L were derived
assuming a 4:1 chlorine to ammonia ratio (typical chlorine to ammonia ratios are between 3:1 and 5:1 to
ensure monochloramine formation). Upgrade costs were generated only for ammonia storage and feed
systems (the base plant is assumed to provide the necessary chlorine). It is assumed that all
chloramination can be accomplished at the plant and that no distribution system booster stations are
required.
Aqueous ammonia is assumed for small systems (<1 mgd), and anhydrous ammonia is assumed
for large systems (>1 mgd). Anhydrous ammonia is generally more cost effective for larger utilities;
however, safety and handling issues with anhydrous ammonia also need to be considered. The aqueous
ammonia system consists of a chemical storage container, metering pumps, an on-line process analyzer,
piping, and valves. The anhydrous ammonia system consists of bulk storage pressure vessels, a vacuum
feed system, an on-line process analyzer, piping, and valves: The larger systems may also include a
vaporizer and an emergency scrubber system.
3.3.2 Chlorine Dioxide
Chlorine dioxide is an effective oxidant/disinfectant that is frequently used to control THM
formation. It has also been shown to inactivate Cryptosporidium, as described in Chapter 2. Thus,
chlorine dioxide can replace chlorine (or other oxidants) as the primary disinfectant and potentially
achieve a greater level of pathogen inactivation while decreasing THM and HAA formation. However,
controlling the formation of chlorite ions can be a considerable challenge in chlorine dioxide treatment
implementation.
Because of the significant operator attention required to monitor and control chlorite formation
as well as to address safety concerns, it is assumed that systems serving fewer than 500 people will not
have the expertise necessary to use this technology. Therefore, costs are only developed for systems with
a design flow of 0.091 mgd or greater.
Many plants add chlorine dioxide as a pre-oxidant, but it can also be added after filtration. For
the analysis presented here, it is assumed that chlorine dioxide can be added at any point in the process
train. (A schematic of the chlorine dioxide system is shown in Exhibit 3.3.) Chlorine dioxide costs do not
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
3-3
December 2005
-------
include construction of a basin for additional chlorine dioxide contact time. It is assumed that plants can
achieve adequate contact time with their existing configuration.
Exhibit 3.3: Plant Schematic for Disinfection with Chlorine Dioxide
Coagulant
>
' *>
V ^
^
*^
>
' >
'^
Caustic
Rapid Mix
Flocculation/
Sedimentation
Filtration
Storage
Description of Process: Replace chlorination with chlorine dioxide addition.
Point of addition may be
1) prior to rapid mix, or
2) prior to flocculation, or
3) prior to filtration, or
4) post filtration
All chlorine dioxide cost analyses presented in this document are based on an applied dose of
1.25 mg/L. This is close to the maximum dosage of chlorine dioxide that can be added while remaining
in compliance with a 1.0 mg/L MCL for chlorite, conservatively assuming a 70 percent conversion of
chlorine dioxide to chlorite and a safety factor to account for impurities, such as unreacted chlorine, in the
chlorine dioxide feed. This analysis evaluated chlorine dioxide costs at the maximum dosage because
chlorine dioxide is being considered here for inactivation ofGiardia and Cryptosporidium. Protozoa
inactivation by chlorine dioxide typically requires high CT values as described in Chapter 2.
Additionally, evaluating the maximum chlorine dioxide dose provides a degree of conservatism to these
cost estimates. The level of Cryptosporidium inactivation that would be achieved by this dose depends on
water quality and contact time and is not assessed in this cost analysis. Higher doses would necessitate
the removal of chlorite and are not evaluated at this time due to uncertainty about the applicability and
efficacy of chlorite removal processes.
For all systems, the use of an automatic generator is assumed. Key design assumptions for large
systems are presented below.
Chlorine dioxide generation is accomplished through addition of sodium chlorite to a chlorine
solution created by dissolution of chlorine gas in water.
A sodium chlorite metering and mixing system is provided.
A chlorine dioxide generator (detention time = 0.2 minutes) is provided.
A polyethylene day tank and mixer are provided to store chlorine dioxide prior to its addition
to the process.
A dual head metering pump is provided to add chlorine dioxide to the process.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
3-4
December 2005
-------
A 1:1 mass ratio of chlorine gas to sodium chlorite is assumed to ensure that the sodium
chlorite is completely utilized. (The additional chlorine serves to lower the pH for reaction
through creation of hypochlorous acid.)
It is assumed that small systems (<2 mgd) will rent the C1O2 generation equipment and only incur capital
costs for instrumentation and piping and valves.
3.3.3 Ultraviolet Light
UV light is an effective disinfectant for bacteria, viruses, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium and does
not form THMs or HAAs (see Chapter 2). For cost estimates in this document, a conceptual design for
retrofitting the base plant with a UV disinfection system was developed based on plant flow (i.e., system
size category) and water quality. Because particulate matter may affect the performance of UV systems,
the cost estimates assume that the UV system is installed downstream from the filter. Exhibit 3.4 presents
a schematic of a conventional water treatment plant (WTP) with UV disinfection. As shown in the
schematic, interstage pumping is assumed because many utilities will not have sufficient hydraulic head
to support the addition of UV disinfection facilities without significantly affecting plant operation.
Exhibit 3.4: Plant Schematic for UV Disinfection
Coagulant
Caustic
Rapid Mix Flocculation/ Filtration Interstage UVLjght
Sedimentation Pumping
Storage
Description of Process: Replace chlorination with UV light for disinfection.
The filtered water quality conditions assumed for all UV costs are based on median values
reported in the ICR, as indicated in Exhibit 3.5.
Exhibit 3.5: Water Quality Assumptions for UV Disinfection
Parameter
UV 254 absorbance1 (crrr1)
UVT (%)1
Turbidity (NTU)
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)2
Hardness (mg/L as CaCO,)2
Value
0.051
89
0.1
60
100
1 Median of maximum filtered water UVT (minimum UV absorbance) from the ICR data
2 Median of all ICR filtered water data
Source: ICR Data
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
3-5
December 2005
-------
Cost estimates for UV are provided for two UV doses: 40 and 200 mJ/cm2.1 As discussed in
Chapter 2, a UV dose of 40 mJ/cm2 has been shown to be sufficient for 3 log inactivation of
Cryptosporidium and Giardia and 1 to 2 log inactivation of viruses. Studies have shown that a UV dose
of 200 mJ/cm2 is adequate for 4 log inactivation of viruses. It is, however, not possible to validate a UV
reactor for 4 log virus inactivation. Therefore, it was assumed that two 200 mJ/cm2 reactors would be
used in series.
Low pressure UV lamp based systems have been used for small treatment plants but are not
typically installed at larger facilities due to the high number of lamps that would be required. Medium
pressure lamp systems are not typically used for smaller utilities due to higher capital costs in comparison
to LP systems at low flow rates. Therefore, UV reactors utilizing LP lamps are assumed for the small
system (<1 mgd) designs. Depending upon the manufacturer, LPHO and/or MP reactors are provided in
the large system (>1 mgd) cost estimates.
All UV systems are designed with an equipment redundancy of one extra UV reactor (n+1) or 15
percent capacity above design flow, whichever is greater. The number of reactors costed for each system
size is shown in Exhibit 3.6 below. The number of reactors for each design flow is based on currently
available UV reactor sizes and flows.
Exhibit 3.6 Number of Assumed UV Reactors
Design Flow (mgd)
0.022-3.5
17
76
210
430
Duty UV
Reactors
1
2
4
11
22
Standby UV
Reactors
1
1
1
2
4
Total Number of UV
Reactors
2
3
5
13
26
UV disinfection systems are sensitive to power interruptions and fluctuations. When a UV
reactor goes down, it can take from four to ten minutes for the UV lamps to regain full power. A utility
with poor power quality might have problems with their UV systems going down too frequently. One
way to prevent this problem is to install a uninterruptible power supply (UPS), which is essentially a
battery that smooths out the power interruptions and fluctuations. Because some systems may need UPS
systems, cost estimates in Chapter 4 are completed at UV doses of 40 and 200 mJ/cm2, with and without
UPS systems.
3.3.4 Ozone
Ozone can be used to replace chlorine for primary disinfection and can provide a higher level of
inactivation of certain pathogens, such as Cryptosporidium, while reducing formation of THMs and
HAAs. Ozone is one of the most powerful oxidants available for water treatment (second only to the
hydroxyl free radical). Disinfection with ozone is influenced by water quality characteristics such as pH,
temperature, alkalinity, TOC, and certain inorganic compounds like iron and manganese. The use of
EPA updated the 40 mJ/cm2 UV unit costs based on data obtained for recent installations of this technology.
Similar data for 200 mJ/cm2 UV systems were not available within the time frame required to include in this
analysis.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
3-6
December 2005
-------
ozone can be limited by raw water bromide levels and consequent bromate formation. These factors, in
conjunction with the CT necessary for the desired level of pathogen inactivation, impact the design and
operation of the ozone system.
A schematic of the ozone configuration is shown in Exhibit 3.7. The costing process allows for
ozone application to either raw or settled water (settled water application is depicted in Exhibit 3.7). To
control bromate formation during ozonation, it may be necessary to lower the pH in certain waters.
Separate costs are estimated for pH adjustment so that this cost may be added to the costs of ozonation,
where appropriate. The pH adjustment costs include addition of a chemical feed system. To reduce the
pH, sulfuric acid is used and caustic (after ozonation) is used to raise pH.
Exhibit 3.7: Plant Schematic for Ozone Disinfection
Coagulant
Caustic
Rapid Mix Flocculation/ Ozone Generator &
Sedimentation Contact Basin
Filtration
Storage
Description of Process: Replace chlorination with ozonation.
Costs for ozone treatment systems are directly related to the dose applied. For the purposes of the
LT2ESWTR and the Stage 2 DBPR, three ozone doses are costed based on the three levels of
Cryptosporidium inactivation: 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 log. The Surface Water Analytical Tool (SWAT) model
is used to calculate the ozone dose required for each inactivation level, based on CT tables in Chapter 2
(Exhibit 2.13) and assuming an ozone CT of 12 minutes. For each plant in the ICR survey, and for each
month with data, the SWAT model was used for raw water characteristics and existing plant
configurations to determine the dose required to achieve the desired Cryptosporidium inactivation. Mean
and maximum doses were then determined for each ICR plant.
For costing purposes, two doses were established for each of the three Cryptosporidium
inactivation levels (0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 logs). The median of all plant-mean ozone doses (1.78, 2.75, and
3.91 mg/L, respectively) were used to calculate operation and maintenance costs. This is the dose which
will be the most common for all plants achieving the given inactivation and the dose most representative
of daily plant flows. To determine capital costs, the median of the plant-maximum doses (3.19, 5.0, and
7.0 mg/L, respectively) are used, as systems will be designed to meet the maximum dose that could be
required under typical conditions.
The primary components of the ozone process include in-plant pumping, ozone generation
system, ozone contactor, off-gas destruction facilities, effluent ozone quench, stainless steel piping
(including valves and ductwork), electrical and instrumentation (E&I), and chemical storage facilities.
Components not related directly to the process (e.g., for which indirect costs are calculated) include
piloting, permitting, land, operator training, and housing.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
3-7
December 2005
-------
3.3.5 Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration
Microfiltration or ultrafiltration can be added to the base plant process train to enhance particle
and microbial removal, including removal ofCryptosporidium. MF/UF may also allow treatment plants
to reduce DBF formation by decreasing the disinfectant dose required to meet plant CT requirements.
MF/UF can be added to the treatment process following conventional media filtration, or, in some cases,
may be added as a replacement for media filtration. In certain applications (e.g., low total suspended
solids (TSS) surface waters or groundwaters), MF/UF can replace the entire conventional treatment
process. However, the design assumptions and costs presented in this document assume addition of
MF/UF to an existing conventional treatment plant for enhanced removal of Cryptosporidium and/or DBF
control. Consequently, the costs presented in Chapter 4 do not include all of the components that would
be required to replace a conventional treatment train. A schematic of the MF/UF treatment process is
shown in Exhibit 3.8
As discussed in section 2.2.5, flux is a critical design parameter for membrane applications and is
often used in membrane procurements as a specification. However, the configuration of one membrane is
often very dissimilar to that of another. Membrane fiber diameter, pore size, flow configuration (i.e.,
cross-flow vs. dead-end, pressure vessels vs. submersible membranes), and other membrane-specific
factors can impact flux and other design and operating parameters. As a result, membrane feed water
quality is used as the basis of design for the membrane portion of the costs presented.
Exhibit 3.8: Plant Schematic for Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration
Coagulant
-CL
Caustic
Rapid Mix
Flocculation/
Sedimentation
Filtration Interstage
Pumping
Micro/Ultrafiltration Storage
Description of Process: Addition of microfiltration or ultrafiltration following
granular media filtration. It may be necessary to move the point of chlorination to
after MF/UF, as some membranes can be damaged by chlorine.
Cost estimates are based upon a design feed water temperature of 10°C. As previously discussed,
temperature can have a significant impact on membrane system design. As the water temperature
decreases, water viscosity increases. This, coupled with temperature effects on the membranes
themselves, can result in the need for increased membrane area and/or increased operating pressures to
maintain the desired level of production. It is important to note that this effect can vary from membrane
to membrane, and many manufacturers have developed membrane-specific correction factors.
Membrane system costs were approximated using estimates provided by four manufacturers (all
pressure vessel systems). The only criteria given to the manufacturers was the feed water temperature of
10°C. Since the design assumes a post-filtration retrofit, the effect of solids loading on the membrane is
considered minimal and was not specified for manufacturer estimates. Each manufacturer then used its
own flux specifications and temperature correction factor to provide cost estimates for design flows
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
December 2005
-------
ranging from 0.01 to 430 mgd. Estimates for design flows of 0.007 and 520 mgd were extrapolated from
these estimates.
The membrane costs from the manufacturers include skid-mounted membrane modules with
associated piping, feed pumps, backwash and recirculation pumps (where appropriate), chemical cleaning
feed tanks and pumps, and instrumentation and control for proper operation. Additional instrumentation
and control and pipes and valves were included in process costs for interconnection with existing plant
control systems and processes. Interstage pumping was also added based on the assumption that the
existing plant may not have sufficient hydraulic head to accommodate the membrane process. O&M
costs include replacement membranes (membrane life is 5 years), process power, chemicals for cleaning,
and labor.
For the purposes of design, it was assumed backwash and reject water could be discharged to a
sanitary sewer for treatment at a publicly owned treatment works (POTW). This assumes the sanitary
sewer has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increase in flow, and the POTW is able to handle the
increase in daily flow. However, in many cases, the reject and backwash water can be recycled to the
head of the treatment plant. In some instances, recycle may be a lower cost option than discharge to a
POTW. In other cases, recycle may require additional pumping and site piping, modification or addition
of chemical feed systems, installation of equalization basins, or expansion of other process components.
Therefore, the costs associated with POTW discharge represent a conservative estimate in some cases
(i.e., where recycle requires few process improvements) and may underestimate costs in others (i.e.,
where extensive improvements are necessary). However, for the purposes of approximating treatment
costs, POTW discharge represents an approximate average cost per utility.
3.3.6 Bag and Cartridge Filtration
Bag and cartridge filters may be an attractive, low cost option for small systems to improve
microbial removal. Filter bags and cartridges are available in a number of different materials and a wide
range of pore sizes. The removal efficiency can be affected by the filter material, pore size distribution,
and filter durability. Filter durability affects how a filter stands up to routine cleaning and affects
replacement frequency.
It is assumed, for the purposes of this document, that bag or cartridge filters are installed
downstream of existing granular media filters. Exhibit 3.9 presents a schematic of bag and cartridge
filtration.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 3-9 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 3.9: Plant Schematic for Bag and Cartridge Filtration
I Coagulant
Caustic
Rapid Mix Flocculation/ Filtration Interstage Bag or Cartridge Storage
Sedimentation Pumping Filters
Description of Process: Addition of bag filters OR cartridge filters
following granular media filtration.
Costs for different bag and cartridge filter construction materials were used to develop a range of
costs. The frequency of replacement depends upon the durability of construction and water quality and
can vary from a few weeks to as long as a year. This can have a significant impact on O&M costs. Filter
housings are available in carbon steel for approximately half the cost of a stainless steel unit. However,
for drinking water application, stainless steel is more likely to be the material of choice. As a result, only
stainless steel housing was considered in development of costs.
3.3.7 Bank Filtration
Bank filtration may be advantageous for systems that currently have surface intake from a stream
which is underlain by a granular media. Such a system would essentially drill a well below the water
table created by the surface water source. The well would replace the existing surface water intake.
Particles and other contaminants would be trapped in the pores of the river bed material or adsorb onto
the river bed material. The river bed material thus acts as a pre-filtration step for the treatment process.
3.3.8 Second Stage Filtration
Second stage filtration may be a desirable option for systems with frequent fluctuations in
hydraulics and turbidity. Second stage filtration, like single stage filtration, operates by depth removal.
Depth filtration is when the solids are removed within the granular media. The surface area of the media
provides attachment sites for the particles suspended in the influent water.
To meet EPA's proposed 0.5 log credit for Cryptosporidium removal, second stage filtration must
have the following characteristics:
First stage of filtration must be preceded by a coagulation step.
Both filtration stages must treat 100 percent of plant flow.
Other design characteristics would be similar to those of primary filtration.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
3-10
December 2005
-------
3.3.9 Pre-Sedimentation
Pre-sedimentation basins will be useful for systems with high influent turbidities and high particle
counts. EPA is proposing to give pre-sedimentation basins with coagulant addition 0.5 log credit if the
following criteria are met:
All flow must pass through basin.
Continuous flow through basin and coagulant addition near the influent of the pre-
sedimentation basin while plant is in operation.
Maximum day settling surface loading rate of 1.6 gpm/ft2.
Annual mean influent turbidity > 10 NTU or maximum daily influent turbidity > 100 NTU.
Systems with existing pre-sedimentation basins may monitor after the pre-sedimentation basin
and prior to the main treatment plant for the purpose of determining LT2ESWTR bin assignment. Costs
in Chapter 4 were determined assuming that the basin met all the above specifications.
3.3.10 Watershed Control
Each PWS's watershed control program plan is expected to be site-specific and will depend on
the hydrology and land use in the watershed, the location and type of Cryptosporidium sources in the
watershed, the population served, size of the watershed, funding, and other issues. Watershed programs
may include the following:
Monitoring for Cryptosporidium or indicator organisms throughout the watershed
Fencing or otherwise restricting access to the source water
Land acquisition
Managing land owned by the PWS
Working with sewer or stormwater utilities to develop plans to upgrade treatment or
otherwise reduce pollutant loads
Working with municipal governments to regulate land use and development,
Conducting outreach to other stakeholders
To receive credit for removal of Cryptosporidium, a watershed control program must have the following
elements:
It must be reviewed and approved by the primacy agency.
It must include an analysis of the system's source water vulnerability to the different sources
of Cryptosporidium identified in the watershed. The vulnerability assessment must include a
characterization of the watershed hydrology and identification of an "area of influence on
source water quality" (i.e., the area to be considered in future watershed surveys). The
assessment must also address sources of Cryptosporidium, seasonal variability, and the
LT2ESWTR T&C Document ~l December 2005
-------
relative impact of the sources of Cryptosporidium on the system's source water quality. It is
likely that water systems will obtain much of the information to be provided in the
vulnerability assessment from the source water assessment performed as part of the State
source water assessment program.
It must present an analysis of sustainable interventions and an evaluation of their relative
effectiveness in reducing Cryptosporidium in source water. Interventions may include
anything from outreach to point source elimination.
It must address goals and define and prioritize specific actions to reduce source water
Cryptosporidium levels. The plan must 1) explain how actions are expected to contribute to
specified goals, 2) identify partners and their roles, resource requirements and commitments,
and 3) include a schedule for plan implementation.
It must include submission of an annual report performance of a watershed survey, and
submission of a request for review and reapproval.
A watershed control program could include interventions such as 1) the elimination, reduction, or
treatment of discharges of contaminated wastewater or storm water, 2) treatment of Cryptosporidium
contamination at the site of generation or storage, and 3) prevention of Cryptosporidium migration from
the source (e.g., farms or wastewater treatment plants). The feasibility and sustainability of various
interventions may depend on the cooperation of other stakeholders in the watershed. Stakeholders that
have some level of control over activities that could contribute to Cryptosporidium contamination include
municipal government, private operators of wastewater treatment plants, livestock farmers, and other
government and commercial organizations.
The LT2ESWTR does not specifically mandate any interventions that must be included in a
watershed control program plan. The only required elements are those submitted with an application for
approval of the watershed control program plan. These are the delineation of an "area of influence on
water quality" and a vulnerability assessment. Watershed delineation and susceptibility analyses are
already required under the Source Water Assessment Program; data gathered under this program can, in
many cases, be used in preparing information required for the application.
3.3.11 Combined Filter Performance
Combined filter performance is not a single technology but many different activities that can
improve existing filtration processes to enhance performance. Plants, which can operate their filters in
such a way to produce 0.15 NTU or lower turbidity water 95 percent of the time, will receive a 0.5 log
Cryptosporidium reduction credit under the LT2ESWTR. Because several of the components
recommended for combine filter performance are also applicable to individual filter performance, EPA
has not provided a separate analysis for individual filter performance.
The Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) for the IESWTR and LT1SWTR identified 35 actions
that facilities could take to lower the finished water turbidity from the SWTR standard of 0.5 NTU to the
IESWTR standard of 0.3 NTU. These tasks were examined and professional judgement was applied to
determine which of these actions would be helpful in further lowering turbidity from 0.3 to 0.15 NTU.
In determining processes that could further reduce filtered water turbidity, systems that would
select this Cryptosporidium removal option were assumed to be conventional filtration or softening plants
which were already operating well within the 0.3 NTU standard currently. These plants would likely
have to make only minor modifications to the treatment process to meet the 0.15 NTU standard. These
LT2ESWTR T&CDocument 342 December 2005
-------
plants were also assumed to be operating under 0.15 NTU less than 95 percent of the time or to be
capable of achieving 0.15 NTU.
Based on these assumptions, the filter improvements listed in the IESWTR were reviewed for
applicability to this treatment option. The following were considered as possible actions that systems
may take to implement this option:
Installing backwash polymer feed capability
Installing coagulant feed points
Adding filter media
Adding filter to waste capabilities
Replacing the filter rate-of-flow controller
Increasing plant staffing
Increasing staff qualifications
Purchasing or replacing bench-top turbidimeters
Purchasing or replacing jar test apparatus
Purchasing or replacing a particle counter or streaming potential meter
Staff training
It is not assumed that each system using this technology will use all eleven tasks. Instead, it is
assumed that each system would have to use at least one of these tasks and, most likely, two or more to
meet the turbidity target of 0.15 NTU 95 percent of the time. To develop costs for this technology, the
percentage of the plants choosing each action was determined. The percentage of systems choosing a
particular task was then multiplied by the unit cost for that task to arrive at an average unit cost for all
plants. Further details of the percentages and costs are given in Chapter 4 of this document.
The assumptions for each filter improvement action is discussed below.
Installing Backwash Water Polymer/Coagulant Feed Capability
Adding coagulant to backwash water aids in filter ripening and helps to reduce post backwash
turbidity spikes. Systems choosing backwash polymer to lower turbidity were assumed to not have this
capability currently. Costs were for a dry polymer feed system that can be loaded with a seven-day
polymer supply.
Installing Additional Coagulant Feed Points
Installing additional coagulant feed points can help to improve coagulation of particles and their
removal by settling. Capital costs were based on feeding an additional 5 parts per million (ppm) dose of
primary coagulant. The primary coagulant is assumed to be ferric chloride, ferric sulfate, or alum. Thirty
days of bulk storage are assumed for ferric chloride or ferric sulfate (equivalent to approximately fifteen
days of storage for alum).
LT2ESWTR T&CDocument 343 December 2005
-------
Adding Filter Media
Often during routine operation of filters, media is lost either through attrition and passage out the
underdrains or through the backwash. If too much media is lost, filter performance will suffer.
Therefore, adding additional media on a regular basis can often improve turbidity in the effluent.
Adding Filter to Waste Capabilities
Filter turbidity often spikes immediately after backwashing. Installing filter to waste capabilities
allows water to be wasted after a backwash instead of sending the high turbidity water to the CFE. Costs
included piping, valves, and fittings.
Installing or Replacing Filter Rate-of-Flow Controllers
Flow surges can cause spikes in filter turbidity. Installing a rate-of-flow controller or replacing a
faulty one can improve performance. Costs were for replacing a unit and were based on assumed 24-hour
operation.
Increasing Plant Staffing
Systems which only have part time staff or are understaffed may have trouble controlling filter
conditions closely enough to meet the 0.15 NTU turbidity target. Hiring additional staff or extending
current staffs hours may help systems to more finely control filter operations.
Increasing Staff Qualifications
Better trained staff may be able to recognize conditions which lead to filter turbidity
breakthrough and to prevent it. Costs for this option were based on the cost of sending an operator to a
training class. Costs include class registration fees to attend an operator certification class.
Purchasing or Replacing Bench-Top Turbidimeters
Typically, every plant has at least one bench-top or on-line turbidimeter. However, some of these
units may be obsolete to meet the monitoring requirements of the LT2ESWTR for combined and
individual filter effluents. Bench-top turbidimeters do not appear to be suited to fulfill these monitoring
tasks. Therefore the purchase of up-to-date on-line turbidimeters with electronic data acquisition
interface was costed.
Purchasing or Replacing Jar Testing Apparatus
A jar testing apparatus is necessary for optimizing coagulant and polymer dosing. Old units will
need to be replaced, and new units purchased if a facility does not have one. Systems serving greater than
100,000 people were assumed to buy two units, and those serving more than 1,000,000 people were
assumed to purchase three units.
Purchasing or Replacing a Particle Counter
Instruments such as particle counters, zetameters, and streaming current monitors can be used to
optimize filter processes. The cost for this option assumes the purchase of one of these instruments for
use in troubleshooting and optimizing individual filters. The cost of a particle monitor was used as a
surrogate for any one of these three instruments.
LT2ESWTRT&CDocument 3-14 December 2005
-------
Staff Training
Better trained staff will be better able to spot and fix problems in filter performance. The costs
for this option were based on hiring a consultant to provide on-the-job training for 10 to 140 hours.
3.4 DBF Precursor Removal Technologies
A strategy for reducing DBF formation is removal of DBF precursors (e.g., natural organic
matter). The technologies discussed in this section may not be applicable for all systems. Each
technology section presents the approach and assumptions used to develop the costs presented in Chapter
4.
3.4.1 Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
GAC filters reduce DBF formation by removing organic carbon. For the purposes of this
document, installation was assumed after the existing filters. A schematic of the GAC process is shown
in Exhibit 3.10.
Exhibit 3.10: Plant Schematic for GAC Filtration
Coagulant
Caustic
Rapid Mix Flocculation/ Filtration Interstage GAC Filter storage
Sedimentation Pumping
Description of Process: Install GAC filter following granular media filter.
The application of GAC adsorption involves the following process design considerations:
Empty bed contact time, volume of empty contactor divided by flow rate
Reactivation interval or frequency, which affects the GAC usage rate (pounds of GAC used
per gallon of water treated)
Pre-treatment
Contactor configuration (e.g., downflow versus upflow, pressure versus gravity, single-stage
versus multi-stage or parallel, filter adsorber versus post-filter GAC contactor)
Method of GAC reactivation (e.g., on-site versus off-site)
Interstage pumping
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
3-15
December 2005
-------
Performance monitoring (for TOC)
EBCTs often and twenty minutes were chosen for the cost evaluation based upon an analysis of EBCTs
and NOM removal. This analysis indicated that EBCTs lower than 10 minutes do not remove sufficient
NOM to warrant installation as a control for DBF precursors. Similarly, EBCTs in excess of 20 minutes
do not provide significant improvements in NOM removal. Accordingly, 10 minutes and 20 minutes
were selected to represent the upper and lower bounds of appropriate EBCTs for NOM removal.
Reactivation/replacement frequencies vary based on water quality and the number of contactors
in parallel. For the purposes of this document frequencies of 90, 240, and 360 days were evaluated.
Ninety days was selected as a minimum value based upon best professional judgement that reactivating at
intervals lower than 90 days is impractical from an operational standpoint. Three hundred and sixty days
was selected as the maximum reactivation frequency since the cost of GAC technology increases
insignificantly for reactivation frequencies of greater than 1 year. High operating costs were captured by
considering 90-day regeneration frequency for the GAC facility with EBCT of 20 minutes. Low
operating costs were captured by considering 360-day regeneration frequency for the GAC facility with
EBCT of 10 minutes. An intermediate operating cost was also captured by considering 240-day
regeneration frequency for the GAC facility with EBCT of 20 minutes.
Based upon best professional judgement, it was decided that small systems are unlikely to
regenerate on-site, since it requires more substantial capital investment and operator attention. As a
result, small systems (less than 1 mgd) were assumed to operate on a replacement basis (i.e., when the
carbon is spent, it is discarded and replaced with new carbon). While regional regeneration facilities do
exist, many plants are not located near one of these facilities, so replacement is assumed. Large systems
(greater than 1 mgd) were assumed to regenerate on-site using multiple hearth furnaces.
Very small system GAC installations (< 0.1 mgd) include: pressure GAC contactors, virgin GAC,
pressure booster pumps, pipes and valves, and instrumentation and controls. O&M is a function of
regeneration frequency.
Small system GAC installations (>0.1 mgd and <1 mgd) include: pressure vessels designed for
working pressure of 50 psi; factory assembled units mounted on steel skid 12 feet high and varying
diameter depending on the EBCT; access for filling and removing carbon; pressure booster pump, valves,
piping and pressure gauges, initial charge of activated carbon, supply and backwash pump, and electrical
control panels.
Large system GAC installations (> 10 mgd) include: concrete gravity contactors 8.3 feet high;
loading rate 5 gpm/ft2; troughs and pipes for carbon removal as a slurry; other pipe gallery; pressure
booster pump; flow measurement and instrumentation; master operations control panel; building; initial
virgin carbon; single multiple-hearth furnace for carbon regeneration-loading rate of 50 pounds per square
foot per day; and two TOC analyzers.
3.4.2 Nanofiltration
Nanofilters remove NOM, thereby reducing DBF formation. NF is an advanced treatment
process which typically requires higher levels of pre- and post-treatment than traditional water treatment
processes. For this cost analysis, nanofilters were assumed to be located downstream of existing filters.
A schematic of the NF technology is shown in Exhibit 3.12.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 3-16 December 2005
-------
I Coagulant
Exhibit 3.11: Plant Schematic for Nanofiltration
Caustic
Rapid Mix Flocculation/ Filtration Interstage Nanofiltration Storage
Sedimentation Pumping
Description of Process: Addition of nanofiltration following granular
media filtration, OR replacement of granular media filters with nanofiltration
Typically, NF requires both physical and chemical pre-treatment. Pre-treatment is usually
required for NF treatment of all surface waters and some ground waters. Physical pre-treatment often
includes a component to remove particles, typically multi-media filtration, microfiltration, or cartridge
filtration. Chemical pre-treatment often includes acid or anti-sealant addition to reduce the fouling
potential of the feed water. Particle removal and softening with chemical addition are also used as pre-
treatments. Attention should be paid to the compatibility of coagulant and the membrane for such
situations.
Post-treatment may also be required, depending on the characteristics of the product water. NF
product waters usually have low pH and total dissolved solids levels. This creates the potential for an
unstable and corrosive finished water. Chemical post-treatment may be required to create a more stable
and non-corrosive water. Commonly used post-treatments include addition of caustic (to raise the pH),
soda ash (to raise pH and alkalinity), and poly/ortho phosphates for stabilizing the water. Blending a
portion of raw water with finished water can also be used to stabilize the finished water.
The design criteria in this document assume that the NF system is an "add-on" process to an
existing treatment plant which is generating a water that can be fed directly to the NF process without
further pre-treatment. It is assumed that 100 percent of the design flow is passing through the NF
membranes and that no raw water blending is done. Recoveries of 85 percent and operating pressures of
90-110 psi were assumed. Costs were developed assuming a design feed water temperature of 10 degrees
Celsius. Like MF, the cost of a NF system can vary significantly with temperature because the membrane
productivity, or flux (gallons/ft2-day), is strongly dependent on feed water temperature. Empirical
relations are available to estimate the flux at a design temperature using the flux at a reference
temperature (i.e., 10 degrees Celsius). These relations are available both in published literature and with
membrane manufacturers.
NF system cost quotations were obtained from manufacturers for all NF equipment items,
including membrane elements, online instruments, booster pumps, clean-in-place systems and acid/anti-
scalant addition systems. Unlike other treatment processes, membrane systems are typically supplied by
the equipment vendor as package, skid-mounted units; therefore, smaller multipliers are assumed. Capital
cost multipliers of 1.67 and 2.0 were used respectively for small and large systems to estimate total
capital cost. It was assumed that a unit NF skid can produce up to 2 mgd of product water. NF systems
smaller than 2 mgd were assumed to have fewer membrane modules and membranes.
The O&M costs include chemical usage, membrane replacement (assumed membrane life of five
years), process/building power, additional labor hours, and process monitoring. Efforts were made to
capture the drop in prices of the membranes, modules, and associated equipment over the past few years
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
3-17
December 2005
-------
due to increasing use of the NF systems. Where necessary, the costs for retrofitting and operating an NF
plant were verified with data from various surveys, including Florida's softening plants (Bergman 1996)
and the Bureau of Reclamations (BOR 1997) surveys. The cost curves presented in Chapter 4 were
verified with real-plant data for different flow levels.
NF design criteria developed here include handling of the brine stream generated by the NF
process. This handling assumes direct discharge of the brine to a receiving body, ocean outfall, sanitary
sewer, storm drain, or a salinity interceptor. The costs presented in Chapter 4 pertain only to plants
located in areas where brine can readily be discharged to either a receiving water body, a sewer/storm
drain, or a salinity interceptor. Plants located in areas where this is not an option will have significantly
higher waste stream treatment and handling costs.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 3-18 December 2005
-------
4. Technology Costs
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the estimated capital and O&M costs for the alternative disinfection
strategies and DBF precursor removal technologies identified as potential compliance options for the
LT2ESWTR and the Stage 2 DBPR. Previous technology cost estimates were primarily developed using
three models: the Very Small Systems Best Available Technology Cost Document (Malcolm Pirnie 1993),
hereafter referred to as the VSS model; the Water Model (Culp/Wesner/Culp 1984); and the Water and
Wastewater (WAV) Cost Model (Culp/Wesner/Culp 2000). The estimates provided in this document,
however, were developed largely using information from manufacturers and other sources that are
believed to be more accurate and more reflective of current practices than the models. For example, the
use of manufacturer information is believed to be more appropriate for technologies where costs of
process components have decreased since the models were developed (e.g., microfiltration/ultrafiltration,
nanofiltration, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide). Manufacturer information was also necessary for
processes that are not included in the models (i.e., UV disinfection and bag and cartridge filters).
Exhibit 4.1 shows technologies for which costs were developed and summarizes the methodology
used to develop costs (i.e. cost model, cost build-up, lump sum estimate, or a combination). Sections 4.2
and 4.3 describe these methodologies and explain the assumptions used for all cost estimates. Subsequent
sections (as indicated in Exhibit 4.1) describe the detailed assumptions used for each technology and
present cost estimates in tabular format.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-1 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.1: Technologies Costed and Methodology Used
Technology (Section in which technology is
costed)
Costing Methodology Used
Alternative Disinfection Strategies
Chloramination (section 4.4.1)
Chlorine dioxide (section 4.4.2)
UV disinfection (section 4.4.3)
Ozone (section 4.4.4)
Microfiltration and ultrafiltration (section 4.4.5)
Bag and cartridge filtration (section 4.4.6)
Bank filtration (section 4.4.7)
Second stage filtration (section 4.4.8)
Pre-sedimentation (section 4.4.9)
Watershed control (section 4.4.10)
Combined filter performance (section 4.4.1 1)
W/W model for P&V1, I&C2, cost build-up for all
other process and O&M costs
W/W model for all costs except CLO2 generation
equipment leasing costs
Cost build-up approach
Cost build-up approach
Water and W/W cost model for some O&M
parameters, cost build-up for all other costs
Cost build-up approach
Lump sum estimate using best professional
judgement
Lump sum estimate using best professional
judgement
Lump sum estimate using best professional
judgement
Lump sum estimate using best professional
judgement
Cost build-up approach
DBP Precursor Removal Technologies
GAG adsorption (section 4.5.1)
Nanofiltration (section 4.5.2)
Water model costs for systems > 0.1 mgd, VSS
model for systems < 0.1 mgd, TOC analyzers by
vendor quotes.
Cost build-up approach
1 P&V = Pipes and valves.
2 I&C = Instrumentation and controls.
Notes:
VSS is the Very Small Systems Best Available Technology Cost Document (Malcolm Pirnie 1993)
Water Model (Culp/Wesner/Culp 1984)
W/W Model (Culp/Wesner/Culp 2000)
4.2 Approach for Cost Estimates
Following the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1996, EPA critically evaluated
its tools for estimating the costs and benefits of drinking water regulations. As part of this evaluation,
EPA solicited input from national drinking water experts at the Denver Technology Workshop, which
was sponsored by EPA and held November 6 and 7, 1997, to improve the quality of its compliance cost
estimating process for various drinking water treatment technologies. The Technology Design Panel
(TOP), formed at the workshop for this purpose, recommended several modifications to existing cost
models to improve the accuracy of EPA's compliance cost estimates (USEPA 1998a).
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-2
December 2005
-------
In 2001, the NDWAC convened the Arsenic Cost Working Group to review the cost
methodologies, assumptions, and information underlying the system-size cost estimates presented in the
December 2000 technologies and costs document, as well as the aggregated national cost estimate, for the
Arsenic Rule. As part of the review, NDWAC made several recommendations that have since been
incorporated into the cost approach applied for the Arsenic Rule. This document incorporates both the
TOP and NDWAC recommendations, as appropriate. For each technology, costs were developed for a
range of design criteria corresponding to different implementation scenarios and treatment goals and for
design flows generally ranging from 0.007 to 520 mgd.
4.2.1 Cost Components and Capital Cost Multipliers
Capital Costs
For the purposes of this document, capital costs are divided into three main components:
Process costs, which include manufactured equipment, concrete, steel, E&I (sometimes
referred to as instrumentation and controls [I&C]), and pipes and valves (P&V).
Construction and engineering costs. Construction costs include installation, sitework
and excavation, subsurface considerations, standby power, contingencies, and interest
during construction. Engineering costs include general contractor overhead and profit,
engineering fees, and legal, fiscal, and administrative fees.
Indirect costs, which include housing, permitting, land, operator training, piloting, and
public education (these are not needed for all technology types).
The sum of process and construction and engineering costs is often referred to as "direct" capital
costs. The TOP recommended that total capital cost estimates be based on process costs, which are then
multiplied by a specific cost factor to estimate direct capital costs. The NDWAC recommendations were
similar; however, the factors recommended by the two groups varied to some degree. This document
primarily utilizes cost factors recommended by NDWAC, slightly modified as follows:
A cost factor of 2.5 is used for systems less than 1.0 mgd
A cost factor of 2.0 is applied for systems greater than 1.0 mgd
The cost factor for systems greater than 1.0 mgd is different from the 1.8 value recommended by
NDWAC in order to account for installation. For some small package technologies (e.g., GAC or
MF/UF), a revised multiplier of 1.67 or 1.2 is used instead of 2.5. The basis for the revised multipliers is
that the 2.5 multiplier is applicable to relatively inexpensive technologies that require proportionally
greater engineering and design effort than small package systems. In addition, many of the package
technologies considered in this document are significantly more expensive than conventional
technologies, yet installation is typically much less complicated than traditional non-packaged
technologies. These alternate cost multipliers were developed using vendor quotes and experience with
similar systems. Exhibit 4.2 summarizes the components of each of the capital cost multipliers used in
this document.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-3 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.2: Summary of Capital Cost Multiplier Components
Component
Site work
Contractor OH&P*
Contingencies
Engineering and design
Mobilization and bonding
Legal and administrative
Interest during
construction
Installation
Permitting
Standby Power
1.20
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20%
~
-
1.67
10%
10%
15%
10%
5%
-
7%
10%
-
-
1.76
15%
12%
10%
20%
-
11%
-
-
3%
5%
2.0
15%
10%
20%
15%
3%
10%
7%
20%
-
-
2.51
25%
20%
30%
25%
5%
15%
10%
20%
~
-
*OH&P = overhead and profit
Source: 2.5 factor based on NDWAC recommendations. Other factors adjusted based on best professional
judgement.
Note: A capital cost factor of 1.36 is used for large UV systems for surface water. This value is based on
empirical data and cannot be broken out as in the above table.
Indirect capital costs are added to direct capital costs to produce total capital costs. The following
equation indicates how total capital costs are calculated.
Total Capital Costs = Direct Costs + Indirect Costs
Where:
Direct Costs = Process Costs * Capital Cost Multiplier
Indirect Costs = Additional items developed by the cost build-up approach that
are not multiplied by the capital cost multiplier, such as land, housing, operator
training, and piloting.
O&M Costs
O&M costs represent the annual costs required to operate the technology. O&M costs include
items such as labor, chemicals, power, and replacement parts. Each item is added (without multipliers) to
produce total O&M costs.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-4
December 2005
-------
4.2.2 Cost Indices and Unit Cost Inputs
To compare the estimated national costs to monetized benefits (for EPA proposed drinking water
rules), it is necessary to use a consistent time value of money for all cost estimates. All capital and O&M
costs are presented in year 2003 dollars. In order to adjust all costs to the same year, cost indices are
used. Several different indices are used in the cost models and are listed in Exhibit 4.3. For all costs not
developed using the models, the Engineering News Record (ENR) Building Cost Index (BCI) is used
(BCI for year 2000 is also shown in Exhibit 4.3). The BCI is developed to reflect the cost of building
across the country. It represents costs of labor, steel, concrete, and wood averaged across 20 different
cities. To use it to adjust costs, the cost is multiplied by the ratio of the index in the year desired to the
year in which the cost was developed. For example if a cost was developed using year 2001 vendor
quotes it would be multiplied by the BCI index for year 2003 (3,693) and divided by the index for year
2001 (3,574). Thus if the cost were $2,500 dollars in year 2001 it would be $2,500*(3,693/3,574) =
$2,583.24 in year 2003 dollars.
Exhibit 4.3: Costs Indices Used in the Water and W/W Cost Models
Description
Concrete Ingredients and Related Products
Electrical Machinery and Products
General Purpose Machinery and Equipment
Metals and Metal Products (Steel)
Miscellaneous General Purpose Equipment
(Pipes &Valves)
Chemicals and Allied Products
Producer Price Index (PPI) Finished Goods
Index
ENR Building Cost Index2
Index
Reference
BLS132
BLS117
BLS114
BLS1017
BLS1149
BLS06
BLS 3000
Numerical
Value1
474.6
351.1
455.8
375.2
504.1
457.8
392.0
3539
1 BLS numerical values were re-based to 1967 base year.
2 ENR BCI value for other years are available at vwwv.enr.com
Energy and labor are required to operate most technologies. Exhibit 4.4 displays costs used for
energy and labor in this document. Chemicals are also required for some technologies. Exhibit 4.5
displays costs for chemicals required to operate the technologies costed in this document.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-5
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.4: Unit and General Cost Assumptions
Unit
Electricity12
Diesel Fuel1
Natural Gas1
Building Energy Use
Cost*
$0.076/kWh
$1.48/gallon
$0.009/scf
102.6kWh/ft2/yr
Note -variable labor rates are used, based on the system size
1 Energy Information Administration, 2003. EPA is aware that DOE has updated its 2003
average national cost of electricity per kilowatt hour per year from $0.076kWhr/yr to
$0.074kWhr/yr. However, EPA continues to use the $0.076kWhr/yr value in order to maintain
consistency with Stage 2 DBPR and LT2ESWTR analyses.
2 Includes public street and highway lighting, other sales to public authorities, sales to railroads
and railways, sales for irrigation, and interdepartmental sales.
* Where kWh = kilowatt hour; scf = standard cubic feet; hr = hour; ft = feet; and yr = year.
Exhibit 4.5: Chemical Costs
Chemical
Alum, Dry Stock
Alum, Liquid Stock
Carbon Dioxide, Liquid
Chlorine, 1 ton cylinder
Chlorine, 150-pound cylinder
Chlorine, bulk
Ferric Chloride
Hexametaphosphate
Lime, Hydrated
Lime, Quick Lime
Phosphoric Acid
Polymer
Potassium Permanganate
Sodium Hydroxide, 50%
Sodium Hypochlorite, 12%
Sodium Chlorite
Sodium Chloride
Sulfuric Acid
Surfactant, 5%
Cost
$300
$230
$340
$280
$600
$280
$400
$1300
$110
$100
$650
$1.00
$2900
$350
$1100
$325
$100
$100
$0.15
Units
per ton
per ton
per ton
per ton
per ton
per ton
per ton
per ton
per ton
per ton
per ton
per Ib
per ton
per ton
per ton
per ton
per ton
per ton
per gal
Source: Vendor quotes, 2000
Note: Ammonia costs vary depending on plant size and are not shown. See Section 4.4.1.2 for
details
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-6
December 2005
-------
4.2.3 Cost Build-up Approach
To estimate capital costs for those technologies where cost model estimates were found to be
inaccurate based on professional engineering judgement or when modeled costs were not available, a cost
build-up approach was used. Process components were identified and sized using engineering design
principles and were costed using estimates from manufacturers, vendors, and field engineers. Several
vendor quotes were used when possible, and regressions were developed to identify the best fit curves
from these quotes in many cases when they reflect different design flows. In some cases (e.g., NF)
manufacturer's estimates were checked against real-world installations to verify cost reasonableness.
Vendor quotes were discounted from the year in which they were obtained back to year 2003 dollars,
using the methodology described in section 4.2.2.
For other process cost items (e.g., E&I, P&V) engineering principles were used in conjunction
with engineering cost estimating guides such as RS Means. Such guides contain nationwide averages for
costs of common items such as housing, pumps, and tanks. For some items, vendor quotes or cost
estimating guides were not useful in determining costs. In these cases professional engineering
judgement was used. Costs for which best professional judgement was used are generally a small portion
of the total overall cost of a technology.
4.2.4 Lump Sum Estimates
For some relatively new or untraditional technologies a large data set of cost data is not available.
Using a cost build-up approach for these technologies was not possible. A single lump sum figure
representing all process costs was estimated for these technologies which include, bank filtration,
secondary filtration, presedimentation, and watershed control.
4.2.5 Cost Modeling Approach
When one or more of the cost models was used to estimate costs, process costs were determined
based upon the breakdown of capital costs provided in the original model documentation. Process costs
were then multiplied by the appropriate cost multipliers (as discussed in section 4.2.1) to estimate total
direct costs. Capital cost breakdowns for all technologies costed using the VSS model are presented in
Appendix A. The reports Estimation of Small System Water Treatment Costs (Culp/Wesner/ Gulp 1984)
and Estimating Treatment Costs, Volume 2: Cost Curves Applicable to 1 to 200 mgd Treatment Plants
(Culp/Wesner/Culp 1979) were used to develop capital cost breakdown summaries for the Water and
WAV Cost models. These summaries are presented in Appendix B and C, respectively.
Sections 4.2.5.1, 4.2.5.2, and 4.2.5.3 briefly demonstrate how the capital cost
breakdowns are applied and how total direct capital cost estimates are generated.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-7 December 2005
-------
4.2.5.1 VSS Model
The VSS model presents capital and O&M costs as functions of design and average flow,
respectively. Accordingly, the capital cost equation for a package GAC plant is:
0.54 mCClO.54
CAP=1.7[EBCT]054[DES]
Where: CAP = Total Capital Cost, $ 1,000s
EBCT = Empty Bed Contact Time, minutes
DES = Design Treated Flow, kgpd (thousand gallons per day)
Thus, for a 0.037 mgd (37 kgpd) plant with an EBCT of 10 minutes, the capital cost is:
CAP=1.7[10]054[37]054
CAP = 41.4 or $41,400
The VSS model equations produce estimates in year 1993 dollars. To escalate to year 2003
dollars, the equation-generated capital cost is multiplied by the ratio of the ENR BCI for year 2003 to the
1993 index value.
$41,400 x (3693/3009) = $50,800
The escalated capital cost for a 0.037 mgd package GAC plant is $50,800.
Using the capital cost breakdown in Appendix A, the total process cost is:
$50,800 x 0.5478 = $27,800
The total direct capital cost can then be calculated using the capital cost multiplier presented in
Exhibit 4.2 (1.67 in this case).
$27,800 x 1.67 = $46,400
4.2.5.2 Water Model
The Water model output for a 0.27 mgd (270,000 gpd) GAC plant with an EBCT of 10 minutes is
$267,000 (escalated to year 2003 dollars). To make costs equivalent to the cost buildup approach, the
following method was used. The costs for process equipment, pipes and valves and electrical are broken
out using the capital cost breakdown shown in Appendix B:
$267,000 x (0.3331 + 0.052) = $102,800 (equipment)
$267,000 x (0.0324) =$8,650 (pipes and valves)
$267,000 x (0.1034) =$27,600 (electrical)
The total process cost is $139,100.
This approach must be applied to each unit process (e.g., interstage pumping) separately, then
totaled for the entire treatment process to estimate the total process cost. Pipes and valves and electrical
equipment from various processes are totaled and included as a single line item in estimates presented in
this document.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-8 December 2005
-------
The total direct capital cost can then be calculated by multiplying the process cost by the
appropriate capital cost factor (1.67 in this case).
$139,100 x 1.67 = $232,300
4.2.5.3 WAV Cost Model
The WAV Cost model output for a 10 mgd gravity carbon contactor (EBCT =10 minutes) is
$2,293,600 (year 2003 dollars). Using the capital cost breakdown shown in Appendix C, the process costs
associated with process equipment, pipes and valves, and electrical are:
$2,293,600 x (0.1463 + 0.0595 + 0.0455)= $576,400(equipment)
$2,293,600 x (0.2353) =$539,700 (pipes and valves)
$2,293,600 x (0.0612) =$140,400 (electrical)
The total process cost is $1,256,500.
This approach must be applied to each unit process (e.g., interstage pumping) separately, then
totaled for the entire treatment process to estimate the total process cost. Pipes and valves and electrical
equipment from various processes are totaled and included as a single line item in estimates presented in
this document.
The total direct capital cost is then calculated by multiplying the process cost by the capital cost
factor (2.0 in this case).
$1,256,500x2.0 = $2,513,000.
4.2.6 Indirect Capital Costs
At the recommendation of the TDP and NDWAC cost working groups, total capital cost estimates
include not only direct costs (process, construction, and engineering), but also the costs associated with
permitting, piloting, land, housing, operator training, and public education, when applicable.
Permitting
Permitting costs can be highly variable. Some permits can require extensive studies, (e.g.,
Environmental Assessments (EAs) or Environmental Impact Statements (Els)). Others may require
extensive legal assistance. Costs also are affected by whether a utility has the in-house expertise to
develop and submit the necessary permits or if additional consulting is required. Permitting cost
estimates in this chapter are assumed to be three percent of the total process cost. The minimum cost
assigned for permitting is $2,500, and costs do not exceed $500,000 for any system for which permitting
costs are included. Permitting costs are assumed to be included as a part of the engineering fees (included
in the capital cost factor) for those processes requiring minor process modifications (e.g., chloramination).
Piloting
NDWAC recommended that the costs of pilot tests be included for all technologies. For the
purposes of this document, it is assumed that piloting would not be necessary for technologies requiring
relatively minor process modifications (e.g., chloramination). For these technologies, in-house DBP
formation potential tests would be sufficient. Piloting costs are also not included for technologies where
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-9 December 2005
-------
manufacturer studies (e.g., the National Science Foundation (NSF) Environmental Technology
Verification reports) may satisfy regulatory agency technology verification requirements (e.g., bag and
cartridge filters). All other technologies include the costs associated with bench- or pilot-scale tests. For
systems less than 1 mgd, bench-scale tests are assumed. Pilot-scale tests are assumed for all systems
larger than 1 mgd. Costs are based on best professional judgement and experience with similar systems.
Exhibit 4.6 summarizes the piloting cost assumptions used in this document.
Exhibit 4.6: Summary of Piloting Cost Assumptions
Technology
Chlorine Dioxide
Ozone
Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration
Granular Activated Carbon
Nanofiltration
Design Flow (mgd)
<0.1
$5,000
$5,000
$1,000
$5,000
$1,000
0.1 to <1
$10,000*
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
>1
$50,000
$65,000
$60,000
$50,000
$60,000
Note: Piloting costs for chloramination, and bag and cartridge filtration were assumed to be $0 for all
design flows evaluated. Piloting costs for UV are broken out differently from the presentation in Exhibit
4.6, and therefore are presented in section 4.4.3.1.
* piloting cost of $10,000 applies to design flows of 0.1 -1 mgd.
Land
The majority of the technologies discussed in this document will likely fit in existing plant
footprints, and additional land will not be required. However, several of the processes (i.e., ozone,
MF/UF, GAC, and NF) will not likely fit in existing footprints and may require utilities to purchase
additional land.
Exhibit 4.7 summarizes the land cost assumptions used in this document. The NDWAC cost
working group recommended that land costs be included at two to five percent of total capital costs. This
recommendation is based on new treatment plant construction and is determined to be excessive for the
purposes of this document. As a result, land costs are included at percentages ranging from 0.5 to 2
percent, depending on the technology. The percentage varies from technology to technology because of
the relative capital cost of each technology. For example, the total capital cost for a 210 mgd GAC plant
with an EBCT 10 mins is approximately $38 million, whereas the capital cost for a 210 mgd MF/UF plant
is $153 million. Using identical percentages, the land costs for the MF/UF plant would be significantly
higher than those for a GAC plant; however, the footprint associated with a GAC facility is larger than
that of a MF/UF system. Land cost percentages were adjusted to account for this discrepancy.
Percentages were also adjusted based on the estimated footprint of the technology. That is, if the land
cost per acre were considered unreasonable, the percentage was adjusted accordingly. For example,
assuming two percent of the capital cost, the land cost per acre for a 520 mgd MF/UF system is nearly
$500,000, which is unreasonable based on best professional judgment, and the land cost percentage is,
therefore, adjusted.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-10
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.7: Summary of Land Cost Assumptions
(as a percentage of Capital Cost)
Technology
Ozone
Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration
Granular Activated Carbon
Nanofiltration
System Size (mgd)
<1
0.8%
1%
2%
2%
1 -10
1%
1%
2%
1%
>10
1%
0.5%
2%
0.5%
Source: Best professional judgement
Housing
In many instances, additional building space will be constructed at the treatment plant to house a
new technology. For the purposes of this document, all housing costs were calculated by multiplying the
estimated technology footprint size (ft2) by a unit housing cost ($/ft2). The footprint size for each
technology was derived from the cost models or was based on best professional judgement and
experience with similar systems. The unit housing cost is taken from the year 2000 RS Means building
construction data, for the construction of a "factory" type building. The median value of $48.95/ft2 is
assumed for all technologies1, which includes site work, plumbing, HVAC, and electrical.
Operator Training
A system that adds a significantly different technology will have to train its operators in the use
of the new technology. Costs for this largely represent the operator's time, as most manufacturers will
provide free training with their products. The amount of time will vary depending on the complexity of
the technology installed. Some technologies (e.g., chloramines) may require no additional training
because they are very similar to existing systems. Large systems also often have regularly scheduled
training sessions and will be able to include training for new technologies into these sessions. For this
reason, no additional cost is included for large systems for some technologies that work on similar
principles to existing technologies. Costs assumed in this document for operator training range from $0
to $25,000.
Public Education
If adding a technology will significantly affect the properties of the water delivered to customers,
systems will need to spend money to notify their customers of the changes. In the case of chloramines,
the chloramine residual can have an adverse effect on dialysis patients and owners of aquariums.
Therefore costs are included to notify the public of the change. Costs include preparing material such as
bill inserts and employee time to either call or visit specifically affected customers.
For surface water UV systems a value of $150 per square foot is used. The value was based directly on data for UV
installations and represents some of the special requirements of UV installations.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-11
December 2005
-------
4.3 Estimation of Annualized Costs
The models and other cost estimation methods are used to develop total capital costs and annual
O&M costs. Capital costs can be annualized and converted into cents per thousand gallons (0/kgal)
treated using the following formula:
Annualized Capital Cost =
Capital Cost ($) * Amortization Factor x 1QQ eVS
Average Daily Flow (mgd)x(lOOO kgal/mgal)x 365 days/year
Where: kgal = thousand gallons
mgal = million gallons
Factors that correspond to discount rates of 3, and 7, and 10 percent over 20 years are shown in
Exhibit 4.8. Alternative capital recovery factors can be calculated using the formula presented below.
Amortization Factor = i( 1 + i)N
Where: i = discount rate
N = number of years
Exhibit 4.8: Determining an Amortization Factor based on Discount Rates over 20
years
Discount Rate
(%)
A
3
7
10
Period (years)
B
20
20
20
Amortization
Factor
C = a(1+a)b
(1+a)b-1
0.0672157
0.0943929
0.1174596
Annual O&M costs include the costs for materials, chemicals, power, and labor. The annual
O&M costs can be converted into cents per thousand gallons treated using the following formula:
O&M Cost (0/kgal)
Annual O&M ($) * 100 (07$)
Average Daily Flow (mgd)* 1000 kgal/mgal*365 days/year
Total annualized costs for the treatment process can then be determined by:
Total annualized cost (0/kgal) = Annualized Capital Costs (0/kgal) + O&M (0/kgal)
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-12
December 2005
-------
4.4 Alternative Disinfection Strategies
This section presents capital and O&M cost estimates for a number of alternative disinfection
strategies capable of removing/inactivating Cryptosporidium and/or reducing DBF formation. Each
technology section presents costs in tabular format, and provides a detailed discussion of how costs were
developed for that technology.
4.4.1 Chloramination
As explained in Chapter 3, the 10th and 90th percentile finished water chlorine residuals from the
ICR database (0.6 and 2.2 mg/L, respectively) were used to establish two ammonia dosages of 0.15 and
0.55 mg/1 NH3-N based on a 4:1 chlorine-to-ammonia ratio. The base plant is assumed to provide the
necessary chlorine.
Aqueous ammonia is assumed for small systems (<1 mgd), and anhydrous ammonia is assumed
for large systems (>1 mgd). Capital and O&M costs are based primarily on discussion with vendors and
typical industry equipment and chemical unit costs. Some capital process costs (P&V; E&I, and controls)
are generated from the WAV model.
4.4.1.1 Summary of Chloramine Capital Cost Assumptions
Process Costs
Capital cost estimates for conversion to chloramines are presented in Exhibits 4.9 and 4.10 for
ammonia doses of 0.15 and 0.55 mg/L, respectively. Estimates were based on June 2001 dollars and were
adjusted to 2003 dollars using the ENR BCI. Assumptions for ammonia systems are as follows:
Chemical metering pumps for aqueous ammonia: tube pumps for very small systems (< 0.1
mgd), diaphragm pumps for small systems (0.1-1 mgd). Redundant pumps were assumed.
Vacuum feed systems for anhydrous ammonia: the system included redundant vacuum
regulators, a flow-proportioning dosing system, a water softening system and an ejector.
Costs for feed systems with different feed capacities are used (0 to 100 Ib/day, and 0 to 1,000
b/day), as determined by the system size and dose. A vaporizer is also included for large
systems using more than 1,000 Ib/day of ammonia.
Storage tanks for aqueous ammonia: due to the small storage volumes, tank costs were not
included. Aqueous ammonia are assumed to be pumped directly from the portable drum
container provided by the chemical supplier. A minimum 30-day storage capacity was
assumed.
Storage tanks for anhydrous ammonia: based on discussions with anhydrous ammonia
suppliers, it is common for water treatment plants to lease the anhydrous ammonia pressure
vessels from the chemical supplier. Hence, capital costs are not included for storage tanks
(they are accounted for as a tank lease cost in the O&M costs). A minimum 30-day storage
capacity was assumed.
Emergency scrubber system: the cost of an emergency scrubber system was included for
large systems (>1 mgd) storing more than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous ammonia, as would be
required by a Process Safety Management Plan.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 443 December 2005
-------
Analyzers: On-line total chlorine analyzer for small systems and on-line chloramine analyzer
for large systems. Hand-held analyzer for small systems for ammonia and nitrate analysis of
distribution system samples. Desktop analyzer for large systems for ammonia and nitrate
analysis of distribution system samples.
Additional process costs were based on percentage of equipment costs.
P&V costs were estimated to represent 18 percent of the sum of the previous process costs,
based on capital cost breakdowns used in the WAV cost model.
E&I and control costs were estimated at 20 percent of the sum of all previous costs (including
pipes and valves), based on capital cost breakdowns used in the WAV cost model.
Capital Cost Multipliers
Total direct capital costs were obtained by applying capital cost multipliers to the sum of all
process costs. For large systems, a factor of 2.0 was used. For small systems, NDWAC recommended a
factor of 2.5. This factor is applicable to conventional treatment processes that involve significant
engineering, design and installation efforts. It was for this document the ammonia storage and feed
systems for very small and small systems were assumed to be relatively less complex, require minimal
design effort, and comparably easier to install. As a result, the 2.5 multiplier was considered excessive
for conversion to chloramines, and a 1.67 multiplier was used instead.
Indirect Capital Costs
Indirect capital costs include the following:
Public education costs of $500 to $50,000, based on system size and budget figures obtained
from systems that implemented chloramine conversion. The estimated costs include the
creation of informative brochures, visits to customers most affected by a conversion to
chloramines (i.e., pet stores, hospitals), as well as ad publication in the local newspapers.
Housing costs were included for large systems storing more than 10,000 pounds of anhydrous
ammonia, as would be required by a Process Safety Management Plan. The housing costs
were calculated by multiplying the assumed footprint for the anhydrous ammonia storage
building by a unit cost of $48.95/ft2 based on RS Means data (see section 4.2 for more details
on this unit cost). Building area ranged from 300 to 1200 square feet.
Piloting and permitting costs were not explicitly costed; these costs were assumed to be
negligible and were included in the engineering cost (capital cost factor).
4.4.1.2 Summary of Chloramine O&M Cost Assumptions
Exhibits 4.9 and 4.10 summarize O&M costs for ammonia doses of 0.15 and 0.55 mg/L,
respectively. The following assumptions were used to estimate O&M costs associated with ammonia
storage and feed systems:
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-14 December 2005
-------
Chemical costs were developed based on vendors' quotations.
Aqueous ammonia: $l,069/ton as NH3 in 15-gal drum
$l,027/ton as NH3 in 55-gal drum
$646/ton as NH3 in 300-gal drum
Anhydrous ammonia: $840/ton as NH3 for first large system category (1.2 mgd design
flow)
$400/ton as NH3 for large system storing >10,000 Ib
Costs are interpolated between these systems based on flow.
Tank lease cost was included only for large systems (anhydrous ammonia). Based on
chemical suppliers' information and assuming that plant operators perform maintenance of
the tanks, the annual tank lease costs varied from $500 per 1,000-gal tank to $800 per 4,000-
gal tank.
Part replacement costs were estimated based on vendors' quotations for parts anticipated to
fail or be consumed (i.e., tube or diaphragm for chemical metering pumps, reagents for on-
line chloramine analyzer).
Electricity costs were estimated based on metering pump power requirements for small
systems and on vacuum feed system and vaporizer power requirements for large systems.
Due to high energy consumption from heating, vaporizers represent a significant increase in
electricity cost for systems using > 1,000 Ib ammonia/day. The electricity unit cost is
$0.076/kWh (from Exhibit 4.4).
Labor costs were estimated as the sum of maintenance labor cost and monitoring labor cost.
Total labor costs vary from 58 to 1,472 hours per year. The distribution system was assumed
to monitor for nitrate and free ammonia, with an average sampling and analytical time of 0.25
hours per analyte; the number of sampling locations ranges from one location each month for
very small systems to 72 sampling locations each month for the largest systems. Labor rates
used varied based on system size.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-15 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.9: Costs of Chloramines as Secondary Disinfectant Cost Summary -
Ammonia Dose = 0.15 mg/L
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Capital Cost
Subtotal Indirect Capital Costs
Public education
Housing
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
Chemical Feed System
Scrubber
Analyzer
Pipes and Valves
E&l and controls
Annual O&M Summary
Total Annual O&M Cost
Chemicals
Tank Lease
Part Replacement
Electricity
Labor$
0.007
0.0015
29,104
500
500
-
28,604
17,128
7,857
-
4,239
2,177
2,855
1,361
0
-
50
67
1,244
0.022
0.0054
29,104
500
500
-
28,604
17,128
7,857
-
4,239
2,177
2,855
1,362
2
-
50
67
1,244
0.037
0.0095
29,104
500
500
-
28,604
17,128
7,857
-
4,239
2,177
2,855
1,363
3
-
50
67
1,244
0.091
0.025
29,104
500
500
-
28,604
17,128
7,857
-
4,239
2,177
2,855
1,463
7
-
50
67
1,339
0.18
0.054
30,604
2,000
2,000
-
28,604
17,128
7,857
-
4,239
2,177
2,855
1,472
16
-
50
67
1,339
0.27
0.084
37,939
2,000
2,000
-
35,939
21,520
10,959
-
4,239
2,736
3,587
2,949
24
-
80
124
2,721
0.36
0.11
38,858
2,000
2,000
-
36,858
22,071
1 1 ,348
-
4,239
2,806
3,678
2,956
31
-
80
124
2,721
0.68
0.23
42,127
2,000
2,000
-
40,127
24,028
12,730
-
4,239
3,054
4,005
2,966
41
-
80
124
2,721
1
0.35
53,396
10,000
10,000
-
43,396
25,985
14,112
-
4,239
3,303
4,331
4,274
62
-
80
124
4,008
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Source: Section 4.4.1
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-16
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.9 (continued): Costs of Chloramines as Secondary Disinfectant Cost Summary -
Ammonia Dose = 0.15 mg/L
Design Flow(mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Capital Cost
Subtotal Indirect Capital Costs
Public education
Housing
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
Chemical Feed System
Scrubber
Analyzer
Pipes and Valves
E&l and controls
Annual O&M Summary
Total Annual O&M Cost
Chemicals
Tank Lease
Part Replacement
Electricity
Labor$
1.2
0.41
83,772
10,000
10,000
-
73,772
36,886
14,474
-
11,575
4,689
6,148
5,743
94
-
1,284
200
4,165
2
0.77
83,772
10,000
10,000
-
73,772
36,886
14,474
-
11,575
4,689
6,148
6,266
177
-
1,284
200
4,604
3.5
1.4
83,772
10,000
10,000
-
73,772
36,886
14,474
-
11,575
4,689
6,148
7,231
321
-
1,284
200
5,425
7
3
83,772
10,000
10,000
-
73,772
36,886
14,474
-
11,575
4,689
6,148
8,688
686
-
1,284
200
6,518
17
7.8
98,772
25,000
25,000
-
73,772
36,886
14,474
-
11,575
4,689
6,148
11,333
1,761
500
1,284
200
7,587
22
11
98,772
25,000
25,000
-
73,772
36,886
14,474
-
11,575
4,689
6,148
12,887
2,468
500
1,284
200
8,435
76
38
98,772
25,000
25,000
-
73,772
36,886
14,474
-
11,575
4,689
6,148
23,579
7,950
500
1,284
200
13,645
210
120
158,907
50,000
50,000
-
108,907
54,454
26,881
-
11,575
6,922
9,076
46,355
20,583
1,000
1,284
300
23,188
430
270
428,047
70,265
50,000
20,265
357,782
178,891
26,881
87,879
11,575
22,740
29,815
73,620
29,604
1,200
1,284
300
41,232
520
350
428,047
70,265
50,000
20,265
357,782
178,891
26,881
87,879
11,575
22,740
29,815
87,174
38,376
1,200
1,284
300
46,015
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Source: Section 4.4.1
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-17
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.10: Costs of Chloramines as Secondary Disinfectant Cost Summary -
Ammonia Dose = 0.55 mg/L
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Capital Cost
Subtotal Indirect Capital Costs
Public education
Housing
Direct Capital Cost
Subtotal Process Cost
Chemical Feed System
Scrubber
Analyzer
Pipes and Valves
E&l and controls
Annual O&M Summary
Total Annual O&M Cost
Chemicals
Tank Lease
Part Replacement
Electricity
Labor$
0.007
0.0015
29,104
500
500
-
28,604
17,128
7,857
-
4,239
2,177
2,855
1,362
2
-
50
67
1,244
0.022
0.0054
29,104
500
500
-
28,604
17,128
7,857
-
4,239
2,177
2,855
1,366
6
-
50
67
1,244
0.037
0.0095
29,104
500
500
-
28,604
17,128
7,857
-
4,239
2,177
2,855
1,370
10
-
50
67
1,244
0.091
0.025
29,104
500
500
-
28,604
17,128
7,857
-
4,239
2,177
2,855
1,483
27
-
50
67
1,339
0.18
0.054
30,604
2,000
2,000
-
28,604
17,128
7,857
-
4,239
2,177
2,855
1,515
59
-
50
67
1,339
0.27
0.084
37,939
2,000
2,000
-
35,939
21,520
10,959
-
4,239
2,736
3,587
3,014
88
-
80
124
2,721
0.36
0.11
38,858
2,000
2,000
-
36,858
22,071
1 1 ,348
-
4,239
2,806
3,678
3,041
115
-
80
124
2,721
0.68
0.23
42,127
2,000
2,000
-
40,127
24,028
12,730
-
4,239
3,054
4,005
3,077
152
-
80
124
2,721
1
0.35
53,396
10,000
10,000
-
43,396
25,985
14,112
-
4,239
3,303
4,331
4,443
231
-
80
124
4,008
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Source: Section 4.4.1
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-18
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.10 (continued): Costs of Chloramines as Secondary Disinfectant Cost Summary -
Ammonia Dose = 0.55 mg/L
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Capital Cost
Subtotal Indirect Capital Costs
Public education
Housing
Direct Capital Cost
Subtotal Process Cost
Chemical Feed System
Scrubber
Analyzer
Pipes and Valves
E&l and controls
Annual O&M Summary
Total Annual O&M Cost
Chemicals
Tank Lease
Part Replacement
Electricity
Labor$
1.2
0.41
83,772
10,000
10,000
-
73,772
36,886
14,474
-
11,575
4,689
6,148
6,000
351
-
1,284
200
4,165
2
0.77
83,772
10,000
10,000
-
73,772
36,886
14,474
-
11,575
4,689
6,148
6,747
659
-
1,284
200
4,604
3.5
1.4
83,772
10,000
10,000
-
73,772
36,886
14,474
-
11,575
4,689
6,148
8,102
1,193
-
1,284
200
5,425
7
3
83,772
10,000
10,000
-
73,772
36,886
14,474
-
11,575
4,689
6,148
10,536
2,534
-
1,284
200
6,518
17
7.8
98,772
25,000
25,000
-
73,772
36,886
14,474
-
11,575
4,689
6,148
15,491
6,420
-
1,284
200
7,587
22
11
133,907
25,000
25,000
-
108,907
54,454
26,881
-
11,575
6,922
9,076
18,954
8,936
-
1,284
300
8,435
76
38
397,173
39,391
25,000
14,391
357,782
178,891
26,881
87,879
11,575
22,740
29,815
31,538
15,509
800
1,284
300
13,645
210
120
492,039
75,699
50,000
25,699
416,340
208,170
47,558
87,879
11,575
26,462
34,695
80,340
48,975
1,600
1,284
5,293
23,188
430
270
590,780
98,314
50,000
48,314
492,467
246,233
74,439
87,879
11,575
31,301
41,039
161,502
110,193
3,200
1,284
5,593
41,232
520
350
736,773
109,621
50,000
59,621
627,151
313,576
121,997
87,879
11,575
39,861
52,263
204,728
142,843
4,000
1,284
10,586
46,015
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Source: Section 4.4.1
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-19
December 2005
-------
4.4.2 Chlorine Dioxide
Chlorine dioxide costs were evaluated at an applied dose of 1.25 mg/L. As explained in Chapter
3, this is a conservative maximum dose for compliance with the chlorite MCL of 1 mg/L, assuming 70
percent conversion of chlorine dioxide to chlorite and allowing for impurities in chlorine dioxide
generation. This cost analysis did not assess the level of Cryptosporidium inactivation that would be
achieved by this dose, which would depend on water quality and contact time. The chlorine dioxide costs
presented assume the existing plant has sufficient contact time (i.e., basin volume) to provide the required
CT. All costs are for automatic generation systems. Because of the level of operator attention and
knowledge required to ensure compliance with the chlorite MCL and the safety concerns surrounding
chlorine dioxide generation, this technology was assumed to be inappropriate for systems serving fewer
than 500 people. Therefore no costs were developed for flows less than 0.091 mgd.
For systems treating less than 2 mgd, vendor quotations for rental of chlorine generation
equipment were used (these are shown as an O&M item). The remainder of the capital cost line items for
small systems were estimated using the WAV Cost model. Capital costs for the systems treating at least 2
mgd were also generated using the WAV Cost model. In addition, O&M costs for all systems were
estimated using the WAV Cost model.
Costs for chlorine dioxide addition are presented in Exhibit 4.12. Detailed summaries of the
capital and O&M costs assumptions are presented below.
4.4.2.1 Summary of Chlorine Dioxide Capital Cost Assumptions
Process Costs
Capital costs were estimated based on cost estimating models and vendor information. Vendor
quotes were obtained in June 2001 and adjusted to year 2003 dollars using the ENR BCI. This section
presents line item costs for the various components that contribute to the total capital costs.
Feed Equipment
Feed equipment costs for systems with design capacities above 2 mgd were estimated using the
WAV Cost model. Assumptions for feed equipment in the model include a sodium chlorite mixing and
metering system, a chlorine dioxide generator (0.2 minute detention time), a polyethylene day tank and
mixer, and a dual head metering pump.
For design capacities less than 2 mgd, utilities can lease the equipment for less money than they
would spend constructing their own systems. As a result, vendor quotations for equipment leasing were
used instead of capital equipment costs for these plants. These leasing costs were included in annual
O&M estimates rather than capital costs. Note that, although feed equipment is leased for systems
treating less than 2 mgd, they still incur capital costs for instrumentation and controls.
Instrumentation & Controls, and Pipe & Valves
The WAV Cost model was used to estimate these line item capital costs for all plant design
capacities. The calculation method for these capital cost line items is not explicitly stated in the WAV
Cost model documentation; however, the costs developed in the model were based on quantity takeoffs
from actual and conceptual designs and information from actual plant construction projects as well as
equipment supplier quotations.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 4^20 December 2005
-------
Capital Cost Multipliers
The feed equipment, I&C, and P&V capital cost items were added to obtain a subtotal
representing process costs. The process cost subtotal was multiplied by the capital cost factor (2.5 for
small systems <1 mgd or 2.0 for large systems > 1 mgd) to produce total direct capital costs. A complete
discussion of capital cost factors, including the components that make up the costs, is presented in section
4.2.1.
Indirect Capital Costs
Permitting
Significant process improvements will likely require coordination with the appropriate regulatory
agency. As such, permitting costs were included at three percent of the process cost. A minimum of
$2,500 for permitting costs was assumed.
Pilot/Bench Testing
The necessity for pilot- or bench-scale testing was assumed to ensure that chlorine dioxide use
would be compatible with the current treatment process at a given plant. The level of testing required was
estimated based on system size. For systems less than 0.1 mgd, a lump sum of $5,000 was assumed for
testing. For systems from 0.1 to 1 mgd, a lump sum of $10,000 was assumed for testing. For systems
greater than 1 mgd, a lump sum $50,000 was assumed for testing.
Chlorine Dioxide System Housing
Housing costs for a chlorine dioxide system include the cost for a building to house the
equipment and associated appurtenances (i.e., heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), etc.).
The footprint (area) required to house the equipment for each size system is calculated in the WAV Cost
model. The areas, calculated in square feet, were then priced using the RS Means median price of
$48.95/ft2 for a factory building.
4.4.2.2 Summary of Chlorine Dioxide O&M Cost Assumptions
Chlorine dioxide operations and maintenance costs were estimated using the WAV Cost model.
Cost factors for chemicals ($/ton), electricity ($/kWh), and labor ($/hour), as shown in Exhibit 4.4, were
used to calculate line item O&M costs. The sections below address specifics of the line O&M costs.
Feed Equipment (systems smaller than 2.0 mgd)
As previously mentioned, it is more cost effective for systems with design capacities less than 2
mgd to lease rather than purchase chlorine dioxide feed equipment. An equipment lease fee of $6.50 per
day was included for systems less than 2 mgd based on vendor quotes. This estimate was based on
information provided by chlorine dioxide equipment manufacturers that lease feed equipment. Feed
equipment costs for systems larger than 2 mgd were included as capital cost items.
Chemical Usage
Chlorine dioxide costs were evaluated at an applied dose of 1.25 mg/L. Chemical usage was
calculated within the WAV Cost model assuming a 1:1 mass ratio of sodium chlorite to chlorine. The
theoretical ratio of sodium chlorite to chlorine is 2.68:1. However, chlorine is normally overdosed to
ensure complete conversion of sodium chlorite; the remaining chlorine, when in solution, is converted to
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 4~3lDecember 2005
-------
hypochlorous acid and lowers the pH, which improves the chlorine dioxide production efficiency.
Materials, Electricity, and Labor
The materials costs, kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity, and labor hours were calculated within
the WAV Cost model. Material costs include all supplies necessary for routine maintenance on the
system, such as gaskets, oil for pumps, spare fittings, etc. Exhibit 4.11 presents the values calculated by
the model.
Exhibit 4.11: W/W Cost Model Electricity Usage and Required Labor for Chlorine
Dioxide
Average Flow
(MGD)
0.025
0.054
0.084
0.11
0.23
0.35
0.41
0.77
1.4
3.0
7.8
11.0
38.0
120.0
270.0
350.0
Materials
Costs
($/year)
1,708
2,026
2,239
2,320
2,542
2,748
2,866
3,499
3,952
4,315
5,444
5,954
7,463
11,157
13,957
15,451
Electricity Usage/Year
(kWh)
3,437
3,437
3,437
3,437
3,437
3,437
3,443
3,457
3,504
3,638
3,917
4,163
7,241
15,165
24,749
29,766
O&M Labor/Year
(hours)
421
454
475
482
500
517
526
577
619
667
816
897
1,356
2,548
3,835
4,521
O&M Labor/Day
(hours)
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.2
2.5
3.7
7.0
11
12
Source: W/W model
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-22
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.12: Chlorine Dioxide Cost Summary
Design Flow(mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Capital Cost
Subtotal Indirect Capital Costs
Piloting
Permitting
Land
Operator Training
Housing
Other Indirect Costs
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
Pipes and Valves
Instrumentation and controls
Pumping
Chlorine Dioxide Generator
Storage Tanks
Process Monitoring Equipment
Feed Equipment
Annual O&M Summary
Total Annual O&M Cost
Feed Equipment
Chemicals
Part Replacement
Performance monitoring
Materials
Electricity
Labor $
0.091
0.025
32,427
12,827
5,000
2,500
-
-
5,327
-
19,600
7,840
1,701
6,139
-
-
-
-
-
14,093
2,373
30
-
-
1,708
261
9,721
0.18
0.054
38,370
17,827
10,000
2,500
-
-
5,327
-
20,543
8,217
1,900
6,317
-
-
-
-
-
15,204
2,373
61
-
-
2,026
261
10,483
0.27
0.084
39,172
17,827
10,000
2,500
-
-
5,327
-
21,344
8,538
2,073
6,465
-
-
-
-
-
16,721
2,373
97
-
-
2,239
261
11,752
0.36
0.11
40,066
17,827
10,000
2,500
-
-
5,327
-
22,239
8,895
2,265
6,630
-
-
-
-
-
16,999
2,373
121
-
-
2,320
261
11,925
0.68
0.23
43,005
17,827
10,000
2,500
-
-
5,327
-
25,177
10,071
2,898
7,173
-
-
-
-
-
17,812
2,373
266
-
-
2,542
261
12,370
1
0.35
40,035
17,827
10,000
2,500
-
-
5,327
-
22,208
11,104
3,454
7,650
-
-
-
-
-
18,571
2,373
399
-
-
2,748
261
12,791
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Note: Based on CIO2 dose = 1.25 mg/L
Source: Section 4.4.2
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-23
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.12 (continued): Chlorine Dioxide Cost Summary
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Capital Cost
Subtotal Indirect Capital Costs
Piloting
Permitting
Land
Operator Training
Housing
Other Indirect Costs
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
Pipes and Valves
Instrumentation and controls
Pumping
Chlorine Dioxide Generator
Storage Tanks
Process Monitoring Equipment
Feed Equipment
Annual O&M Summary
Total Annual O&M Cost
Feed Equipment
Chemicals
Part Replacement
Performance monitoring
Materials
Electricity
Labor $
1.2
0.41
80,585
58,098
50,000
2,500
-
-
5,598
-
22,487
11,243
3,462
7,781
-
-
-
-
-
18,984
2,373
471
-
-
2,866
262
13,013
2
0.77
82,054
58,821
50,000
2,500
-
-
6,321
-
23,233
11,617
3,484
8,132
-
-
-
-
-
21,638
2,373
883
-
-
3,499
263
14,621
3.5
1.4
191,088
60,177
50,000
2,500
-
-
7,677
-
130,911
65,456
3,526
8,790
-
-
-
-
53,140
22,001
-
1,658
-
-
3,952
266
16,125
7
3
211,473
63,520
50,000
2,500
-
-
11,020
-
147,954
73,977
3,627
10,413
-
-
-
-
59,937
25,392
-
3,425
-
-
4,315
276
17,375
17
7.8
268,223
70,424
50,000
2,967
-
-
17,457
-
197,799
98,899
4,968
14,743
-
-
-
-
79,189
35,939
-
8,941
-
-
5,444
298
21,257
22
11
296,568
73,503
50,000
3,346
-
-
20,157
-
223,065
111,532
5,824
16,868
-
-
-
-
88,841
42,336
-
12,699
-
-
5,954
316
23,367
76
38
603,425
106,839
50,000
7,449
-
-
49,390
-
496,587
248,293
15,084
39,866
-
-
-
-
193,343
87,061
-
43,724
-
-
7,463
550
35,324
210
120
897,449
168,220
50,000
10,938
-
-
107,281
-
729,229
364,614
22,541
59,146
-
-
-
-
282,928
216,813
-
138,128
-
-
11,157
1,153
66,375
430
270
1,245,987
262,882
50,000
14,747
-
-
198,135
-
983,105
491,553
30,324
79,948
-
-
-
-
381,281
446,533
-
310,813
-
-
13,957
1,881
119,882
520
350
1,368,982
299,288
50,000
16,045
-
-
233,243
-
1,069,694
534,847
32,976
87,050
-
-
-
-
414,820
561,934
-
402,894
-
-
15,451
2,262
141,326
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplierv
Note: Based on CIO2 dose = 1.25 mg/L
Source: Section 4.4.2
Subtotal Process Cost)
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-24
December 2005
-------
4.4.3 Ultraviolet Light
UV disinfection is a potential alternative to chemical disinfection. Costs were estimated for
median post-filter water quality based on data collected during the ICR. See Chapter 3 for the water
quality conditions assumed for all UV costs.
LP UV lamp-based systems were assumed for all systems treating <1 mgd. For systems treating
>1 mgd, cost estimates reflect either LPHO or medium pressure lamp systems. Manufacturer/vendor
supplied information was used to determine equipment costs, replacement parts costs, and estimates of
labor and power requirements2. Best professional judgement and engineering estimates were used to
assess other associated costs. Costs for UV disinfection are summarized in Exhibits 4.13 through 4.16.
4.4.3.1 Summary of UV Disinfection Capital Cost Assumptions
Capital costs were developed from manufacturer/vendor supplied information and best
professional judgment. Equipment costs were obtained from vendors in February 2002 and adjusted to
year 2003 dollars using the ENR BCI. For large systems (serving >1 mgd), UV equipment costs
represent only a portion of the total process costs. Additional process costs were estimated for
instrumentation and controls, interstage pumping, piping and valves, and housing. For small systems
(flows <1.0 mgd), additional process costs were assumed to be captured in the capital cost multiplier.
Indirect capital costs (for both large and small systems) include pilot testing, training, and spare parts.
Pilot testing cost assumptions for UV are presented below.
For design flows:
<0.1-1.2mgd $1,000
2 - <17 mgd $5,000
17-<76mgd $10,000
>76 mgd $200,000
Process Costs
Manufacturers were asked to provide UV equipment cost estimates based on the anticipated UV
system layout (based on the specified number of reactors as show in Exhibit 3.6, building size, piping,
etc.) and a given water quality (see Exhibit 3.5). In addition, actual construction and design costs for 18
facilities were submitted to EPA during the proposal comment period. The actual costs were used to
check and in some cases revise the vendor quotes. System validation costs were included in the UV
equipment cost line item in Exhibits 4.13 through 4.16.
EPA updated the 40 mJ/cm2 UV unit costs based on data obtained for recent installations of this
technology. Similar data for 200 mJ/cm2 UV systems were not available within the time frame required
to include in this analysis. For large systems, UV process costs include estimates for interstage pumping
of filter effluent to UV facilities prior to storage because some plants will not be able to retrofit the UV
system into the existing hydraulic grade line. It was assumed that 35 percent of systems would need to
install additional pumping, based on an AWWARF survey of "average" facilities. Costs for the pump
2Two manufacturers' estimated costs for LP lamp systems. These quotes were averaged to estimate the
equipment and components of the O&M costs. Four manufacturers' quotes were averaged to estimate the equipment
and O&M costs for large systems (>1 mgd).
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 4^25 December 2005
-------
equipment were supplied by pump vendors. Instrumentation and controls (including HVAC and
electrical) were assumed to be $20,000 per reactor for larger systems, based on the data from actual
facilities. Pipes and valving were calculated from vendor quotes.
Costs were developed with and without a UPS that could be used to prevent UV system shut
downs. To determine the costs of the UPS system, three manufacturers were contacted. Their costs were
based on the power supply (i.e., 3 phase 240 volt), total kilowatts (kW) necessary, and the minutes of
backup necessary if a total power outage occurred. The power supply and the total kW needed were
determined based on manufacturer information and an assumed battery backup time of five minutes.
Capital Cost Multipliers
Capital cost multipliers used for UV disinfection differ from those recommended by NDWAC.
For flows less than 1 mgd, the capital cost multiplier is 1.2. For flows greater than or equal to 1 mgd, the
capital cost multiplier is 1.36 for systems using a dose of 40 mJ/cm2, and 1.76 for a dose of 200 mJ/cm2.
Systems less than 1 mgd require a smaller capital cost multiplier than other treatment technologies
because small UV systems do not need significant area (i.e., new building not needed), equipment
installation is not complex, and plant modifications are minor compared to other technologies. The
capital cost multiplier of 1.36 used for 40 mJ/cm2 systems is a revised multiplier based on actual data
from facilities. The lower cost multiplier was used because lower installation costs and less site work are
necessary compared to other treatment technologies.
Indirect Capital Costs
For systems using a dose of 40 mJ/cm2, pilot testing, operator training, housing, and a spare parts
inventory are included as indirect capital costs. Pilot testing was assumed to be $1,000 for systems with a
design flow of less than 2 mgd, $5,000 from 2 to 10 mgd, $10,000 for 10 to 25 mgd, and $200,000 for
systems with a design flow greater than 25 mgd. See section 4.3 for a more detailed discussion of
piloting assumptions. Operator training was assumed to be $1,000 for small systems and ranges from
$3,000 to $25,000 for larger systems. Housing costs were based on the estimated UV system footprint
size multiplied by a median housing unit costs of $150/ft2 based on actual UV costs (see Section 4.3 for
details). Footprint sizes ranged from 335 square feet to 22,000 square feet. Also, based on data reported
from 18 actual UV facilities, it was assumed that 39 percent of facilities would not require an additional
building, therefore the housing costs were reduced by this percentage to reflect a national average cost.
The spare parts inventory costs were based on a ten percent back-up of system equipment including
lamps, sleeves, and sensors, with the exception of ballasts and ultraviolet transmittance (UVT) monitors
that were based on a five percent and one unit back-up of system equipment, respectively.
4.4.3.2 Summary of UV Disinfection O&M Cost Assumptions
The O&M costs reflect labor hours, replacement parts, and lamp operating information provided
by the manufacturer. The number of lamps, sensors, and ballasts are different, depending on the different
manufacturer. Costs for replacement parts for each manufacturer were based on the following
replacement intervals:
LP lamps replaced annually.
MP lamps replaced every six months.
Sleeves replaced every eight years.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 4^26 December 2005
-------
Intensity sensors and reference sensors replaced every five years.
Ballasts and UVT monitors replaced every ten years.
The calculated costs for each for each manufacturer were averaged to estimate the average UV
replacement parts costs.
For systems treating less than 2 mgd, one hour of labor per month plus an additional two hours
per lamp replacement was assumed. For systems treating more than 2 mgd, labor hours were estimated
by manufacturers for the following tasks: daily operation, lamp replacement (annually for low pressure
lamps and every 6 months for medium pressure lamps), quarterly sensor calibration, and cleaning once
per month for UV systems that do not use automatic cleaning. Labor costs were derived from the labor
hours estimate and assumed labor rate. (See section 4.2 for a discussion of the operator labor rate used in
this document.)
Power requirements were estimated from manufacturer-supplied information regarding the
number of lamps in a given system, the kilowatt draw of each lamp, the warranty power setting, and the
average number of UV reactors needed. The total kilowatt draw from each manufacturer was then
determined, and the average power consumption (kW) was calculated. The average power consumption
was used to calculate the total power costs by multiplying the total power requirements by the assumed
power rate of 0.076$/kWh (see Exhibit 4.4).
For the cost estimates that included a UPS system, the power efficiency of the UPS was assumed
to be 90 percent and was factored into the power costs. In addition, UPS systems need to replace the
batteries and electronics; the battery and electronics life expectancy varied depending on the manufacturer
and were between 4 and 15 years. The replacement costs were determined for each manufacturer, and
then the three manufacturers' replacement costs were averaged and added to the cost estimates.
EPA updated the 40 mJ/cm2 UV unit costs based on data obtained for recent installations of this
technology. However, similar data for 200 mJ/cm2 UV systems were not available within the time frame
required to include in this analysis. For the 2, 200 mJ/cm2 reactors in series, costs for a single reactor
were obtained from vendors and then multiplied by two to account for the second reactor. Some costs
were not doubled as they would not likely be directly proportional to the number of reactors because of
economies of scale. Training and pilot testing were not increased at all. Pumping, housing, and labor
were increased by 50 percent and instrumentation was increased by 80 percent.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-27 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.13: UV Disinfection Cost Summary (40 mJ/cm2 Without UPS)
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Capital Cost
Indirect Capital Costs
Training
Treatability Testing
Spare Parts
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
I&C (incl.HVAC)
Pipes and Valves
Adjusted Pumping
Adjusted Housing
UV reactors
Electrical
Annual O&M Cost Summary
Total O&M Cost
Replacement Parts
Power/Electricity
Labor $
0.007
0.0015
10,195
3,686
1,000
1,000
1,686
6,509
5,424
-
-
-
-
5,424
-
3,350
3,000
50
300
0.022
0.0054
13,034
3,704
1,000
1,000
1,704
9,330
7,775
-
-
-
-
7,775
-
3,380
3,000
80
300
0.037
0.0095
15,834
3,722
1,000
1,000
1,722
12,112
10,094
-
-
-
-
10,094
-
3,769
3,377
91
300
0.091
0.025
25,596
3,794
1,000
1,000
1,794
21,802
18,168
-
-
-
-
18,168
-
4,549
4,000
180
369
0.18
0.054
40,597
3,934
1,000
1,000
1,934
36,662
30,552
-
-
-
-
30,552
-
4,736
4,000
320
416
0.27
0.084
54,386
4,102
1,000
1,000
2,102
50,284
41,903
-
-
-
-
41,903
-
6,115
5,200
420
495
0.36
0.11
66,790
4,296
1,000
1,000
2,296
62,493
52,078
-
-
-
-
52,078
-
6,493
5,400
524
569
0.68
0.23
99,661
5,200
1,000
1,000
3,200
94,461
78,717
-
-
-
-
78,717
-
8,152
6,400
960
792
1
0.35
310,154
6,206
1,000
1,000
4,206
303,947
223,491
40,000
17,717
1,564
20,210
128,000
16,000
9,016
6,800
1,400
816
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Source: Section 4.4.3
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-28
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.13 (continued): UV Disinfection Cost Summary (40 mJ/cm2 Without UPS)
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Capital Cost
Indirect Capital Costs
Training
Treatability Testing
Spare Parts
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
I&C (incl.HVAC)
Pipes and Valves
Adjusted Pumping
Adjusted Housing
UV reactors
Electrical
Annual O&M Cost Summary
Total O&M Cost
Replacement Parts
Power/Electricity
Labor $
1.2
0.41
313,662
7,161
1,000
1,000
5,161
306,501
225,368
40,000
19,442
1,716
20,210
128,000
16,000
9,450
7,100
1,509
841
2
0.77
333,331
16,980
3,000
5,000
8,980
316,351
232,61 1
40,000
25,898
2,502
20,210
128,000
16,000
11,512
8,200
2,400
912
3.5
1.4
362,965
24,141
3,000
5,000
16,141
338,824
249,135
40,000
41,127
3,798
20,210
128,000
16,000
13,979
9,689
3,300
990
7
3
544,728
24,449
3,000
5,000
16,449
520,279
382,558
60,000
86,822
7,526
20,210
192,000
16,000
16,183
10,166
4,975
1,042
17
7.8
1 ,342,022
37,823
10,000
10,000
17,823
1,304,199
958,970
60,000
187,514
15,174
107,282
573,000
16,000
22,908
1 1 ,605
10,000
1,303
22
11
1 ,933,041
38,510
10,000
10,000
18,510
1 ,894,532
1 ,393,038
80,000
230,497
18,403
126,124
764,000
174,014
27,531
13,704
12,331
1,496
76
38
3,367,751
235,927
10,000
200,000
25,927
3,131,825
2,302,812
100,000
694,725
55,075
255,472
955,000
242,540
66,755
31 ,629
32,000
3,126
210
120
8,074,450
269,332
25,000
200,000
44,332
7,805,118
5,739,058
260,000
1 ,846,699
160,326
576,446
2,483,000
412,586
188,219
80,143
100,000
8,076
430
270
15,798,603
299,549
25,000
200,000
74,549
15,499,054
1 1 ,396,363
520,000
3,738,000
377,179
1,103,419
4,966,000
691 ,766
422,455
174,324
230,000
18,131
520
350
18,601,681
311,910
25,000
200,000
86,910
18,289,771
13,448,361
600,000
4,511,714
481 ,673
1,318,998
5,730,000
805,976
551,123
246,358
283,182
21 ,584
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Source: Section 4.4.3
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-29
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.14: UV Disinfection Cost Summary (200 mJ/cm2 Without UPS)
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Capital Cost
Indirect Capital Costs
Training
Treatability Testing
Spare Parts
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
I&C (incl.HVAC)
Pipes and Valves
Pumping
Housing
UV reactors
Annual O&M Cost Summary
Total O&M Cost
Replacement Parts
Power/Electricity
Labor $
0.007
0.0015
39,390
3,045
1,000
1,000
1,045
36,345
30,287
-
-
-
-
30,287
7,595
6,509
410
675
0.022
0.0054
47,873
3,555
1,000
1,000
1,555
44,318
36,932
-
-
-
-
36,932
7,864
6,649
540
675
0.037
0.0095
56,357
4,066
1,000
1,000
2,066
52,291
43,576
-
-
-
-
43,576
8,999
7,647
677
675
0.091
0.025
86,898
5,903
1,000
1,000
3,903
80,995
67,496
-
-
-
-
67,496
1 1 ,583
9,938
813
831
0.18
0.054
137,234
8,932
1,000
1,000
6,932
128,303
106,919
-
-
-
-
106,919
14,000
10,905
2,160
935
0.27
0.084
188,136
1 1 ,994
1,000
1,000
9,994
176,142
146,785
-
-
-
-
146,785
17,316
13,228
2,976
1,113
0.36
0.11
239,038
15,056
1,000
1,000
13,056
223,982
186,651
-
-
-
-
186,651
18,019
13,420
3,318
1,280
0.68
0.23
420,021
25,945
1,000
1,000
23,945
394,077
328,397
-
-
-
-
328,397
20,936
14,019
5,135
1,781
1
0.35
889,941
28,099
1,000
1,000
26,099
861 ,842
489,683
75,525
19,952
2,041
15,208
376,956
22,359
14,360
6,162
1,837
1.2
0.41
966,625
28,313
1,000
1,000
26,313
938,312
533,132
82,275
23,215
2,512
17,825
407,305
24,308
15,620
6,795
1,893
2
0.77
1 ,372,981
148,311
3,000
118,143
27,168
1 ,224,671
695,836
107,355
31,162
4,045
24,571
528,702
30,142
18,040
10,049
2,053
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Note: EPA updated the 40 mJ/cm2 UV unit costs based on data obtained for recent installations of this technology. Similar data for 200 mJ/cm2 UV systems were
not available within the time frame required to include in this analysis.
Source: Section 4.4.3
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-30
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.15: UV Disinfection Cost Summary (40 mJ/cm2 with UPS)
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Capital Cost
Indirect Capital Costs
Training
Treatability Testing
Spare Parts
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
I&C (incl.HVAC)
Pipes and Valves
Adjusted Pumping
Adjusted Housing
UV reactors
Electrical
UPS
Annual O&M Cost Summary
Total O&M Cost
Replacement Parts
Power/Electricity
Labor $
0.007
0.0015
10,566
3,686
1,000
1,000
1,686
6,880
5,733
-
-
-
-
5,424
309
3,350
3,000
50
300
0.022
0.0054
13,453
3,704
1,000
1,000
1,704
9,749
8,124
-
-
-
-
7,775
349
3,380
3,000
80
300
0.037
0.0095
16,304
3,722
1,000
1,000
1,722
12,582
10,485
-
-
-
-
10,094
391
3,769
3,377
91
300
0.091
0.025
26,268
3,794
1,000
1,000
1,794
22,473
18,728
-
-
-
-
18,168
559
4,549
4,000
180
369
0.18
0.054
41,668
3,934
1,000
1,000
1,934
37,734
31,445
-
-
-
-
30,552
893
4,736
4,000
320
416
0.27
0.084
55,949
4,102
1,000
1,000
2,102
51 ,846
43,205
-
-
-
-
41,903
1,302
6,115
5,200
420
495
0.36
0.11
68,929
4,296
1,000
1,000
2,296
64,632
53,860
-
-
-
-
52,078
1,782
6,493
5,400
524
569
0.68
0.23
104,547
5,200
1,000
1,000
3,200
99,347
82,789
-
-
-
-
78,717
4,072
8,152
6,400
960
792
1
0.35
317,091
6,206
1,000
1,000
4,206
310,884
228,591
40,000
17,717
1,564
20,210
128,000
16,000
5,101
9,016
6,800
1,400
816
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Source: Section 4.4.3
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-31
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.15 (continued): UV Disinfection Cost Summary (40 mJ/cm2 with UPS)
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Capital Cost
Indirect Capital Costs
Training
Treatability Testing
Spare Parts
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
l&C(incl.HVAC)
Pipes and Valves
Adjusted Pumping
Adjusted Housing
UV reactors
Electrical
UPS
Annual O&M Cost Summary
Total O&M Cost
Replacement Parts
Power/Electricity
Labor $
1.2
0.41
321,473
7,161
1,000
1,000
5,161
314,312
231,112
40,000
19,442
1,716
20,210
128,000
16,000
5,744
9,450
7,100
1,509
841
2
0.77
344,641
16,980
3,000
5,000
8,980
327,661
240,927
40,000
25,898
2,502
20,210
128,000
16,000
8,316
11,512
8,200
2,400
912
3.5
1.4
380,834
24,141
3,000
5,000
16,141
356,693
262,274
40,000
41,127
3,798
20,210
128,000
16,000
13,139
13,979
9,689
3,300
990
7
3
577,903
24,449
3,000
5,000
16,449
553,454
406,951
60,000
86,822
7,526
20,210
192,000
16,000
24,393
16,183
10,166
4,975
1,042
17
7.8
1,418,926
37,823
10,000
10,000
17,823
1,381,104
1,015,517
60,000
187,514
15,174
107,282
573,000
16,000
56,547
22,908
1 1 ,605
10,000
1,303
22
11
2,019,884
38,510
10,000
10,000
18,510
1,981,375
1,456,893
80,000
230,497
18,403
126,124
764,000
174,014
63,855
27,531
13,704
12,331
1,496
76
38
3,569,168
235,927
10,000
200,000
25,927
3,333,242
2,450,913
100,000
694,725
55,075
255,472
955,000
242,540
148,101
66,755
31,629
32,000
3,126
210
120
8,617,465
269,332
25,000
200,000
44,332
8,348,133
6,138,333
260,000
1 ,846,699
160,326
576,446
2,483,000
412,586
399,275
188,219
80,143
100,000
8,076
430
270
17,079,543
299,549
25,000
200,000
74,549
16,779,995
12,338,231
520,000
3,738,000
377,179
1,103,419
4,966,000
691,766
941,868
422,455
174,324
230,000
18,131
520
350
20,247,943
311,910
25,000
200,000
86,910
19,936,033
14,658,848
600,000
4,511,714
481 ,673
1,318,998
5,730,000
805,976
1,210,487
551,123
246,358
283,182
21 ,584
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Source: Section 4.4.3
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-32
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.16: UV Disinfection Cost Summary (200 mJ/cm2 with UPS)
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Capital Cost
Indirect Capital Costs
Training
Treatability Testing
Spare Parts
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
I&C (incl.HVAC)
Pipes and Valves
Pumping
Housing
UV reactors
UPS
Annual O&M Cost Summary
Total O&M Cost
Replacement Parts
Power/Electricity
Labor $
0.007
0.0015
61 ,339
3,045
1,000
1,000
1,045
58,294
48,578
-
-
-
-
30,287
18,291
7,595
6,509
410
675
0.022
0.0054
70,807
3,555
1,000
1,000
1,555
67,252
56,043
-
-
-
-
36,932
19,111
7,864
6,649
540
675
0.037
0.0095
79,593
4,066
1,000
1,000
2,066
75,527
62,939
-
-
-
-
43,576
19,363
8,999
7,647
677
675
0.091
0.025
1 1 1 ,222
5,903
1,000
1,000
3,903
105,319
87,766
-
-
-
-
67,496
20,270
1 1 ,583
9,938
813
831
0.18
0.054
163,352
8,932
1,000
1,000
6,932
154,421
128,684
-
-
-
-
106,919
21 ,765
14,000
10,905
2,160
935
0.27
0.084
216,068
11,994
1,000
1,000
9,994
204,074
170,061
-
-
-
-
146,785
23,276
17,316
13,228
2,976
1,113
0.36
0.11
268,783
15,056
1,000
1,000
13,056
253,727
21 1 ,439
-
-
-
-
186,651
24,788
18,019
13,420
3,318
1,280
0.68
0.23
456,216
25,945
1,000
1,000
23,945
430,271
358,559
-
-
-
-
328,397
30,162
20,936
14,019
5,135
1,781
1
0.35
952,484
28,099
1,000
1,000
26,099
924,385
525,219
75,525
19,952
2,041
15,208
376,956
35,536
22,359
14,360
6,162
1,837
1.2
0.41
1,035,080
28,313
1,000
1,000
26,313
1 ,006,767
572,027
82,275
23,215
2,512
17,825
407,305
38,895
24,308
15,620
6,795
1,893
2
0.77
1,465,082
148,311
3,000
118,143
27,168
1,316,771
748,166
107,355
31,162
4,045
24,571
528,702
52,330
30,142
18,040
10,049
2,053
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Note: EPA updated the 40 mJ/cm2 UV unit costs based on data obtained for recent installations of this technology. Similar data for 200 mJ/cm2 UV systems were
not available within the time frame required to include in this analysis.
Source: Section 4.4.3
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-33
December 2005
-------
4.4.4 Ozone
Costs are estimated based on ozone dosages required to achieve 0.5, 1, and 2 log
Cryptosporidium inactivation. Required doses to meet this inactivation level were based on ozone CT
values presented in Chapter 2 (Exhibit 2.13) and SWAT model runs for all ICR plants. (See Chapter 3 for
a more detailed description of SWAT runs used to develop ozone dose estimates.) The design dosages
used to meet the inactivation requirements are 4.5 mg/L, 8.25 mg/L and 10.88 mg/L. These values were
factored into capital costs and used to size facilities. Corresponding average values assumed for day-to-
day operations are 2.43 mg/L, 4.22 mg/L, and 5.84 mg/L. These values were used to determine O&M
costs.
To control bromate formation during ozonation, it may be necessary to lower the pH in certain
waters. Separate costs were estimated for pH adjustment so that this cost could be added to the costs of
ozonation, where appropriate. The pH adjustment costs include addition of a feed system and chemical
costs to reduce the pH using sulfuric acid and to raise the pH using caustic (after ozonation). Costs for
pH adjustment were included as an indirect capital cost and were not multiplied by a capital cost factor.
Ozone costs were based primarily on vendor quotes from ozone manufacturers. Exhibits 4.19
through 4.21 summarize the capital and O&M costs associated with ozone.
4.4.4.1 Summary of Ozonation Capital Cost Assumptions
Process Costs
Process costs for ozone include in-plant pumping, ozone generation system, ozone contactor, off-
gas destruction facilities, effluent ozone quench, stainless steel piping (including valves and ductwork),
electrical and instrumentation, and chemical storage. Process costs were mostly provided by equipment
vendors in June 2001 and were adjusted to year 2003 dollars using the ENR BCI.
In-plant Pumping
The in-plant pumping costs in Exhibits 4.19 through 4.21 include costs for a concrete wet-well,
vertical turbine constant-speed pumps, piping, valving, manifolding, and all E&I associated with the in-
plant pumping only. No corrosion-resistant materials (e.g., stainless steel) are required for the pumps.
The in-plant pumping was designed so that it can take place either near the ozone system or at some other
location somewhat removed from the generator and/or contactor. Other details are provided below.
A vertical turbine pump vendor was contacted and provided the range of flow rates and total
dynamic head (TDH) requirement of 15 feet. They provided budgetary costs for a set of
pumps (one duty, one standby) to meet the requirements. The costs quoted included bowls,
column, shaft, pump discharge head, and motor.
Wet-well tankage costs were estimated using the same unit cost curve (cost vs. volume of
wet-well) developed for the ozone contactors (without concrete baffles). Details of this cost
curve development are provided in the section labeled "Ozone Contactor Costs" below.
Pipes, valves, and E&I were estimated as a percentage of the manufactured equipment (i.e.,
pump cost), based on the percentages provided in the WAV Cost model for in-plant pumping.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-34 December 2005
-------
Ozone Generation System
Ozone generation costs include costs for the ozone generators, feed gas delivery system, ozone
dissolution system, ambient air ozone monitors, and process monitoring equipment necessary to verify
generation rates and dosing. These costs were developed through contacting suppliers of ozone
generation equipment. The vendors were contacted and given the oxygen generation rates required
(Ibs/day); they responded with complete system costs for all components.
All ozone generation equipment costs include N+l redundancy; thus, a minimum of two ozone
generators would be provided. The type of feed gas delivery system is dependant on the size of the
system and, more specifically, the amount of ozone required each day. For systems requiring less than
100 Ibs/day of ozone, oxygen is generated onsite via pressure swing absorption (PSA). PSA requires feed
gas equipment such as an air compressor, air chiller, and air dryer. For systems requiring more than 100
Ibs/day of ozone, oxygen is provided via liquid oxygen stored in an onsite tank. (The liquid oxygen tank
is included in the ozone generation equipment heading.)
The ozone dissolution system can consist of venturi-type injector devices or porous diffusers in
the ozone contacting tank. Vendors providing cost estimates universally preferred venturi-type injectors
and therefore the costs are based on that type of ozone dissolution. Ozone generation systems are sized
based on a transfer efficiency of 90 percent. As an example for a design dose of 4.5 mg/L (to meet CT at
0.5 log removal), the actual ozone generation requirement is estimated as:
Ozone generation requirement (Ibs/day) =
(4.5 mg/L) x (design flow) * (conversion factor) x (1.1)
Ozone Contactor Costs
The ozone contactor is a concrete tank with a total hydraulic detention time of 12 minutes. N+l
redundancy also applies to the ozone contactor design. Baffles are included to segregate the reactor into
five chambers flowing in an over/under configuration. The tank has a concrete top to ensure capture of
any ozone that may off-gas from the reactor. Specific design criteria applied are as follows.
Wall thickness = 18 inches, bottom slab and cover thickness = 12 inches
Length-to-width ratio = 2.5
Water depth inside the tank ranges from 5 to 20 feet.
Design volume = 1.2 x required volume for freeboard and odor control connections
Stainless steel baffles for contactors <10,000 gallons (<1 mgd design flow); concrete baffles
for contactors > 10,000 gallons (> 1 mgd)
Concrete baffle thickness = 8 inches
Ozone contactor costs include all costs related to installing reinforced concrete tankage. These
costs include excavation, formwork, rebar, concrete, backfill, tank coatings, and miscellaneous hardware
relating directly to the tank (e.g., railings, hatches, pipe supports, and additions). The cost does not
include costs for connecting process lines or ductwork to the exterior of the tank or connecting
instrumentation cabling or required electrical cabling to the tank. (These costs are included in the piping
and valves and E&I process line items.) With a given tank volume estimate (per design criteria above)
unit costs measured in terms of $/cubic yard of concrete were applied. The unit costs used for concrete
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 4^35 December 2005
-------
are as follows.
$525/cubic yard for floors and slabs
$675/cubic yard for walls and baffles
$825/cubic yard for decks
These unit costs were based on best professional judgment where each of the above unit costs is
1.5 times a base cost for concrete work only (i.e., to perform only the concrete work with no excavation,
backfill, miscellaneous fittings, coatings, etc.). Values of $350, $450, and $550 per cubic yard are
commonly used as budgetary values for installation of floors, walls, and decks, respectively. The value of
$525 used here for slabs results from (1.5) x ($350). The 1.5 multiplier represents approximately 25
percent for excavation and backfill costs and 25 percent for miscellaneous hardware related directly to the
tank. Using these unit costs and the tankage design assumptions, cost vs. contactor volume relations were
developed for both concrete baffled (> 1 mgd) and nonconcrete baffled tanks. This relation was then
applied to the various flow categories, noting that contactor volume is a function of design flow, contact
time, and tank geometry design assumptions.
Off Gas Destruction
Ozone contactors must be covered and have systems for the collection of the ozone off-gas
because ozone is toxic and must be kept within Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
allowable limits. A negative pressure is maintained in the headspace of the contacting basin. Blowers are
used to convey the gas to catalytic ozone off-gas destruction devices that destroy the remaining ozone and
release the treated gas to the atmosphere. Off-gas facilities include a thermal-catalytic destruct unit,
blowers, and ductwork necessary to convey off-gas to the destruct unit.
Ductwork for conveying the off-gas from the contactors to the unit and E&I for the unit were not
included in this line item cost. (They are covered by the stainless steel piping and E&I line items.) Off-
gas destruction facility costs were based on vendor estimates.
Effluent Ozone Quench
Ideally, the ozone dose provides the treatment necessary in the contactor and no ozone residual is
left as the treated stream leaves the contactor. However, this situation is not always achieved, and some
ozone residual usually leaves the reactor. To eliminate downstream reactions outside of the contactor, the
residual ozone must be quenched (destroyed) prior to the next unit process. The ozone quenching was
assumed to be conducted with hydrogen peroxide fed from a storage facility into the effluent stream by
chemical feed pumps. The quench system includes peroxide storage, chemical feed pumps, and a liquid
phase ozone analyzer. Design assumptions are outlined below.
Peroxide is stored and used as 35 percent solution (by weight).
Peroxide quenches ozone 1:1 by weight.
Ten percent of design transferred dose remains as residual and requires peroxide quench.
Peroxide storage facilities must allow for 30 days of storage without new deliveries.
Costs were based on calls to vendors; some package delivery systems were costed as well as the
individual components to build a complete system. The following three quenching systems, based on
dosing requirements, were costed.
Very small quenching systems are those systems dosing less than 100 gallons per month.
These systems were assumed to store peroxide in 55 gallon drums and dose directly from the
drums with chemical feed pumps. The pump controls are skid- or frame-mounted near the
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 4-36 December 2005
-------
drums and pumps. No capital cost for tankage is incurred; the drums were assumed to be
changed by a chemical supplier (O&M cost only). Cost does not include piping or valving
necessary to convey peroxide to the injection location or E&I beyond the purchase of the
ozone analyzer. The system cost is the sum of the individual components as quoted by
vendors.
Small quenching systems are those required to dose between 100 and 1000 gallons of
peroxide per month. These systems were assumed to maintain permanent stainless steel
storage tanks on site in addition to the chemical feed pumps and analyzer. The system cost is
the sum of the individual components as quoted by vendors.
Large quench systems are associated with doses in excess of 1000 gallons of peroxide per
month. The costs were based on package systems from a peroxide supply vendor. The cost
includes a 9,600 gallon stainless steel storage tank, skid-mounted dosing pumps, some
controls between the pumps and the tanks, and all suction piping between the tank and the
chemical feed pump.
Chemical Storage
A concrete pad was assumed as a capital cost for the LOX tank and the peroxide tanks at the
larger dose and quench requirements. The concrete was assumed to be 12-inch-thick reinforced concrete
with an installed slab on grade cost of $350/cubic yard.
Stainless Steel Piping (Including Valves and Duct Work)
A cost addition of 25 percent of the sum of the costs for the ozone generation system, ozone
contactor, off-gas destruction facilities, and effluent quench system was included as a process cost line
item. This addition captures the material cost of all piping, valves, fittings, ductwork, and dampers to
convey the liquid and air streams to or from one unit process to the next. New piping and appurtenances
for the liquid stream can be expected before and after the in-plant pumping facilities, ozone generation
system, ozone contactors, and effluent ozone quench system.
Budgetary cost estimates for these components in water and wastewater treatment facilities range
widely with values from 10 to 35 percent of the process costs being commonly referenced. In the Water
model documentation, pipes and valves range from 7 to 20 percent of the cost of the manufactured
equipment, depending on the ozone feed rate (Ib/day). A recent cost estimate for a full scale ozone
retrofit in Southern California has piping (including valves and appurtenances) at 24 percent of total
equipment cost and 27 percent of the ozone equipment cost. Ozone is very corrosive; therefore, all
process piping that may come into contact with ozone must be made of a corrosion-resistant metal such as
stainless steel. The value of 25 percent was selected to represent the premium paid for the corrosive
resistant piping that will be required in much of the process.
Electrical and Instrumentation (E&I)
A cost addition of 20 percent of the sum of the costs for the ozone generation system, ozone
contactors, off-gas destruction facilities, and effluent quench system was included as a process cost line
item to capture the cost of electrical and instrumentation equipment (e.g., cabling, motor control centers,
programmable logic controllers (PLCs), additional ozone analyzers, flow meters, communications cable,
software, and standby power) beyond that provided with the ozone generation system or effluent quench
system. This addition includes instrumentation to ensure the housing around the ozone generator is
monitored for ambient ozone levels (alarm systems are typically part of a monitoring program).
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-37 December 2005
-------
Like stainless steel piping, budgetary numbers for E&I range widely depending on the process
and the source. The Water model documentation suggests that E&I costs as a percentage of manufactured
equipment range from 41 to 56 percent. When applied to the other components of the process not solely
to the generation equipment the value of 20 percent was determined to be representative. The ozone
generation system costs include much of the monitoring devices needed in and around the ozone
generation systems.
pHAdjustment
To control bromate formation during ozonation, it may be necessary to lower the pH in certain
waters. Separate costs were estimated for pH adjustment so that this cost could be added to the costs of
ozonation, where appropriate. The pH adjustment costs include addition of a feed system and chemical
costs to reduce the pH using sulfuric acid and to raise the pH using caustic (after ozonation). Capital
costs for pH reduction were developed based on calls to vendors for significant components that make up
an acid feed system. Since the acid feed may or may not be used depending on the system, percentages
for pipes and valves, E&I, and capital cost multipliers were estimated separately and included as a line
item under "indirect costs" in Exhibits 4.19 through 4.21.
Capital Cost Multipliers
Process costs were estimated and added, resulting in a total process cost at each
flow rate. This value was then multiplied by the appropriate capital cost multiplier (either 2.0 for large
systems treating >1 mgd or 2.5 for small systems treating <1 mgd), resulting in a value that represents
constructed process facilities.
Indirect Capital Costs
Indirect costs assumed for the ozone system include housing, operator training, land, permitting,
and piloting. Housing costs were based on the estimated footprint of the ozone generation equipment
(minimum 100 ft2), multiplied by an average housing cost of $48.95/ft2 based on RS Means factory
building estimates. Operator training was assumed as a capital cost for systems with flows less than 1
mgd. Forty hours were assumed for training; the technical labor rate used varied by system size.
Exhibit 4.17 shows the piloting assumptions for ozone.
Exhibit 4.17: Ozone Piloting Cost Assumptions
Flow range
<0.1 mgd
0.1 to < 1.0 mgd
>1.0 mgd
Pilot Cost ($)
5,000
10,000
65,000
Source: Exhibit 4.6
The pilot costs for the smaller systems (<1.0 mgd) assume limited testing of the water in an off-site
laboratory or possibly at the ozone generation system vendor's facility. The cost for larger systems was
based on a detailed cost estimate of an existing pilot system. The piloting assumptions for the larger
systems include equipment necessary to perform the testing (using a small clear polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
contactor), enough labor to run the test four different times for a week each time (to capture seasonal
variability), and labor to write up the findings in the report. No off-gas destruction or ozone quenching is
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-38
December 2005
-------
provided. The objective of such a pilot test is to develop design criteria for ozone dose and reactor sizing.
The costs above do not capture the effort required to understand how ozone treatment may impact other
plant unit processes or the stability of the treated water in the distribution system. Such a piloting effort
for a large treatment system would cost significantly more than the numbers shown in Exhibit 4.20.
4.4.4.2 Summary of Ozonation O&M Cost Assumptions
O&M costs include liquid oxygen (LOX) (when used), quenching agent, part replacement,
performance monitoring, electricity, and labor. Exhibit 4.18 details the O&M assumptions. Exhibits 4.19
through 4.21 show the O&M costs.
Exhibit 4.18: Ozonation O&M Cost Assumptions
Cost Item
LOX (where used)
Quench (H2O2)
Part Replacement
Electricity
Performance Monitoring
pH reduction (when
used)
Basis
$80/ton for LOX
Chemical suppliers contacted for chemical costs.
Vendor provided estimates as a percentage of ozone equipment costs.
Pumps and ozone generation. $0.08/kWh, 1 1 .3 kWh/lb ozone for smaller
systems (<100 Ibs/day), includes generator, destruct, and PSA. 5.2 kWh/lb
ozone for LOX systems, includes generator and destruct.
1 sample/week/reactor for biological dissolved organic carbon,
$100/sample.
Assuming 50th percentile alkalinity (78 mg/L as CaCOS) and pH (7.7) from
the ICR database, acid and caustic O&M costs were estimated. The unit
costs for chemicals were based on bulk shipments from chemical suppliers.
Source: Section 4.4.3
The labor costs are a function of the cost category and the assumptions on the level of effort for
each system. Assumptions for systems at the technical rate are as follows:
3 hr/week for monitoring plus 4 hr/month maintenance (<100 mgd design flow)
6 hr/week for monitoring plus 8 hr/month maintenance (>100 mgd design flow)
Assumptions for systems at the managerial rate are as follows:
1 hr/week (< 100 mgd design flow)
4 hr/week (> 100 mgd design flow)
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-39
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.19: Ozonation Cost Summary (0.5 log Cryptosporidium Inactivation)
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Unit Capital Cost Summary
Total Unit Capital Cost (no pH adj.)
Indirect Capital Costs (no pH adj.)
Total Unit Capital Cost (with pH adj.)
Indirect Capital Costs (with pH adj.)
Piloting
Permitting
Land
Operator Training
Housing
pH adjustment (if used)
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
Stainless pipes, valves, ductwork
Ozone process E&l
Off-Gas Destruction
Effluent Ozone Quench
Ozone Contactor
Ozone Generation System
In-plant pumping
Chemical Storage
Annual O&M Summary
Total Annual O&M Cost (no pH adj.)
Total Annual O&M Cost (with pH adj.)
Chemicals O2
Chemicals H2O2
Part Replacement
Performance monitoring
Electricity
Labor
pH adjustment (when used)
0.091
0.025
322,787
17,416
345,519
40,147
5,000
3,664
2,443
924
5,385
22,732
305,371
122,149
15,954
12,763
6,528
4,908
8,164
44,215
29,617
-
55,520
56,513
-
36
946
10,400
306
43,832
993
0.18
0.054
382,874
23,496
425,999
66,620
10,000
4,313
2,875
924
5,385
43,124
359,379
143,752
19,483
15,586
7,712
4,955
13,027
52,238
30,750
-
55,884
58,029
-
79
1,118
10,400
456
43,832
2,145
0.27
0.084
438,785
24,657
483,484
69,356
10,000
4,970
3,313
990
5,385
44,699
414,128
165,651
23,061
18,449
8,910
5,003
17,982
60,351
31,895
-
59,391
62,728
-
123
1,292
10,400
611
46,966
3,337
0.36
0.11
493,394
25,727
539,668
72,001
10,000
5,612
3,741
990
5,385
46,274
467,667
187,067
26,556
21,245
10,108
5,051
22,603
68,463
33,040
-
59,737
64,107
-
161
1,465
10,400
746
46,966
4,370
0.68
0.23
675,951
29,307
727,824
81,180
10,000
7,760
5,173
990
5,385
51,873
646,644
258,657
38,593
30,875
14,366
5,221
37,476
97,309
34,817
-
61,152
70,289
-
336
2,082
10,400
1,368
46,966
9,137
1
0.35
804,614
88,293
862,086
145,765
65,000
10,745
7,163
-
5,385
57,472
716,322
358,161
54,321
43,457
18,625
5,391
67,114
126,155
43,097
-
62,566
76,470
-
511
2,700
10,400
1,990
46,966
13,904
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Note: Design Dose = 4.5 mg/L, Average Dose = 2.43 mg/L
Source: Section 4.4.4
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-40
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.19 (continued): Ozonation Cost Summary (0.5 log Cryptosporidium Inactivation)
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Unit Capital Cost Summary
Total Unit Capital Cost (no pH adj.)
Indirect Capital Costs (no pH adj.)
Total Unit Capital Cost (with pH adj.)
Indirect Capital Costs (with pH adj.)
Piloting
Permitting
Land
Operator Training
Housing
pH adjustment (if used)
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
Stainless pipes, valves, ductwork
Ozone process E&l
Off-Gas Destruction
Effluent Ozone Quench
Ozone Contactor
Ozone Generation System
In-plant pumping
Chemical Storage
Annual O&M Summary
Total Annual O&M Cost (no pH adj.)
Total Annual O&M Cost (with pH adj.)
Chemicals O2
Chemicals H2O2
Part Replacement
Performance monitoring
Electricity
Labor
pH adjustment (when used)
1.2
0.41
902,391
90,677
963,363
151,649
65,000
12,176
8,117
-
5,385
60,971
811,714
405,857
61,756
49,405
21,287
5,497
76,058
144,184
47,671
63,350
79,638
-
598
3,086
10,400
2,301
46,966
16,287
2
0.77
1,226,541
104,174
1,301,510
179,143
65,000
16,836
11,224
-
11,114
74,969
1,122,367
561,184
85,853
68,682
29,525
5,922
107,982
199,982
63,238
67,621
98,210
-
1,124
4,280
10,400
4,166
47,652
30,589
3.5
1.4
1,595,373
121,302
1,696,587
222,516
65,000
22,111
14,741
-
19,450
101,215
1,474,071
737,035
111,868
89,494
36,307
6,719
158,526
245,920
86,184
2,018
77,719
133,334
4,557
1,605
5,263
10,400
7,431
48,463
55,616
7
3
2,357,412
158,864
2,519,866
321,318
65,000
32,978
21,985
-
38,900
162,454
2,198,548
1,099,274
167,219
133,775
52,132
8,578
255,057
353,108
126,461
2,944
95,346
214,522
9,764
3,439
7,557
10,400
15,722
48,463
119,177
17
7.8
3,946,957
270,284
4,284,381
607,708
65,000
55,150
36,767
-
113,367
337,424
3,676,673
1,838,337
280,370
224,296
82,171
13,889
468,843
556,575
206,601
5,592
145,700
455,559
25,387
8,943
11,911
10,400
40,596
48,463
309,859
22
11
4,546,365
317,434
4,971,274
742,343
65,000
63,434
42,289
-
146,710
424,909
4,228,931
2,114,466
322,289
257,831
91,729
16,545
559,567
621,315
238,274
6,915
177,752
614,733
35,802
12,611
13,296
10,400
57,179
48,463
436,981
76
38
12,628,950
865,894
13,998,697
2,235,641
65,000
176,446
117,631
-
506,817
1,369,747
11,763,056
5,881,528
811,823
649,458
251,298
72,638
1,221,228
1,702,128
1,151,745
21,211
464,832
1,974,401
123,681
43,567
36,426
15,600
197,096
48,463
1,509,569
210
120
26,317,852
1,947,368
30,032,197
5,661,713
65,000
365,557
243,705
-
1,273,106
3,714,345
24,370,484
12,185,242
1,542,432
1,233,946
425,249
121,238
2,742,878
2,880,363
3,182,452
56,684
1,377,320
6,144,381
390,570
137,580
61,640
31,200
622,028
134,302
4,767,061
430
270
44,918,178
3,430,304
52,481,863
10,993,989
65,000
500,000
414,879
-
2,450,426
7,563,685
41,487,874
20,743,937
2,433,201
1,946,560
594,031
201,029
4,914,161
4,023,582
6,516,449
114,924
2,871,997
13,597,884
878,783
309,554
86,105
52,000
1,399,343
146,212
10,725,886
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Note: Design Dose = 4.5 mg/L, Average Dose = 2.43 mg/L
Source: Section 4.4.4
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-41
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.20: Ozonation Cost Summary (1.0 log Cryptosporidium Inactivation)
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Unit Capital Cost Summary
Total Unit Capital Cost (no pH adj.)
Indirect Capital Costs (no pH adj.)
Total Unit Capital Cost (with pH adj.)
Indirect Capital Costs (with pH adj.)
Piloting
Permitting
Land
Operator Training
Housing
pH adjustment (if used)
Direct Capital Cost1
Subtotal Process Cost
Stainless pipes, valves, ductwork
Ozone process E&l
Off-Gas Destruction
Effluent Ozone Quench
Ozone Contactor
Ozone Generation System
In-plant pumping
Chemical Storage
Annual O&M Summary
Total Annual O&M Cost (no pH adj.)
Total Annual O&M Cost (with pH adj.)
Chemicals O2
Chemicals H2O2
Part Replacement
Performance monitoring
Electricity
Labor
pH adjustment (when used)
0.091
0.025
351 ,943
17,987
374,675
40,719
5,000
4,007
2,672
924
5,385
22,732
333,956
133,582
17,925
14,340
7,537
4,948
8,164
51 ,051
29,617
-
55,827
56,820
-
63
1,092
10,400
440
43,832
993
0.18
0.054
440,546
24,626
483,670
67,751
10,000
4,991
3,327
924
5,385
43,124
415,919
166,368
23,382
18,706
9,709
5,035
13,027
65,759
30,750
-
56,438
58,583
-
137
1,407
10,400
662
43,832
2,145
0.27
0.084
525,292
26,353
569,991
71 ,052
10,000
5,987
3,992
990
5,385
44,699
498,939
199,576
28,910
23,128
1 1 ,904
5,122
17,982
80,633
31 ,895
-
60,197
63,534
-
213
1,726
10,400
893
46,966
3,337
0.36
0.11
608,737
27,989
655,01 1
74,263
10,000
6,969
4,646
990
5,385
46,274
580,748
232,299
34,355
27,484
14,100
5,210
22,603
95,506
33,040
-
60,781
65,150
-
279
2,044
10,400
1,092
46,966
4,370
0.68
0.23
893,979
33,737
945,852
85,610
10,000
10,323
6,882
990
5,542
51 ,873
860,242
344,097
53,324
42,659
21 ,908
5,522
37,476
148,390
34,817
-
63,138
72,274
-
583
3,176
10,400
2,013
46,966
9,137
1
0.35
1,043,133
96,809
1,100,605
154,281
65,000
14,195
9,463
-
8,151
57,472
946,324
473,162
74,149
59,319
28,771
5,833
67,114
194,878
43,097
-
65,357
79,261
-
887
4,170
10,400
2,934
46,966
13,904
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Note: Design Dose = 8.25 mg/L, Average Dose = 4.22 mg/L
Source: Section 4.4.4
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-42
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.20 (continued): Ozonation Cost Summary (1.0 log Cryptosporidium Inactivation)
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Unit Capital Cost Summary
Total Unit Capital Cost (no pH adj.)
Indirect Capital Costs (no pH adj.)
Total Unit Capital Cost (with pH adj.)
Indirect Capital Costs (with pH adj.)
Piloting
Permitting
Land
Operator Training
Housing
pH adjustment (if used)
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
Stainless pipes, valves, ductwork
Ozone process E&l
Off-Gas Destruction
Effluent Ozone Quench
Ozone Contactor
Ozone Generation System
In-plant pumping
Chemical Storage
Annual O&M Summary
Total Annual O&M Cost (no pH adj.)
Total Annual O&M Cost (with pH adj.)
Chemicals O2
Chemicals H2O2
Part Replacement
Performance monitoring
Electricity
Labor
pH adjustment (when used)
1.2
0.41
1,119,608
100,264
1,180,580
161,236
65,000
15,290
10,193
9,781
60,971
1,019,344
509,672
79,655
63,724
30,429
6,028
76,058
206,107
47,671
-
66,210
82,498
1,039
4,411
10,400
3,395
46,966
16,287
2
0.77
1,416,784
117,850
1,491,753
192,819
65,000
19,484
12,989
20,376
74,969
1,298,934
649,467
100,718
80,575
37,060
6,807
107,982
251,024
63,238
2,062
75,885
106,474
4,352
1,951
5,372
10,400
6,158
47,652
30,589
3.5
1.4
1,922,483
145,093
2,023,698
246,308
65,000
26,661
17,774
35,659
101,215
1,777,390
888,695
137,883
110,306
49,494
8,268
158,526
335,243
86,184
2,790
87,731
143,347
7,913
2,787
7,174
10,400
10,993
48,463
55,616
7
3
2,912,264
204,024
3,074,718
366,478
65,000
40,624
27,082
71,318
162,454
2,708,240
1,354,120
210,891
168,713
74,206
11,676
255,057
502,626
126,461
4,489
115,823
234,999
16,957
5,973
10,756
10,400
23,274
48,463
119,177
17
7.8
4,697,222
380,751
5,034,646
718,175
65,000
64,747
43,165
207,840
337,424
4,316,471
2,158,235
334,878
267,902
109,252
21,414
468,843
740,003
206,601
9,342
194,432
504,291
44,088
15,530
15,836
10,400
60,115
48,463
309,859
22
11
5,517,296
460,391
5,942,205
885,300
65,000
75,854
50,569
268,969
424,909
5,056,904
2,528,452
392,829
314,263
126,775
26,283
559,567
858,692
238,274
11,769
245,991
682,971
62,175
21,901
18,376
10,400
84,675
48,463
436,981
76
38
15,011,417
1,294,845
16,381,164
2,664,592
65,000
205,749
137,166
886,930
1,369,747
13,716,572
6,858,286
977,339
781,871
333,513
95,608
1,221,228
2,259,005
1,151,745
37,977
694,758
2,204,327
214,787
75,659
48,343
15,600
291,906
48,463
1,509,569
210
120
30,378,296
2,967,593
34,092,641
6,681,938
65,000
411,161
274,107
2,217,326
3,714,345
27,410,702
13,705,351
1,796,532
1,437,226
547,838
184,708
2,742,878
3,710,705
3,182,452
103,011
2,083,382
6,850,443
678,274
238,924
79,409
31,200
921,272
134,302
4,767,061
430
270
55,716,052
5,369,742
63,279,737
12,933,427
65,000
500,000
503,463
4,301,279
7,563,685
50,346,310
25,173,155
3,180,504
2,544,403
961,858
330,991
4,914,161
6,515,004
6,516,449
209,785
4,473,882
15,199,769
1,526,117
537,580
139,421
52,000
2,072,552
146,212
10,725,886
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Note: Design Dose = 8.25 mg/L, Average Dose = 4.22 mg/L
Source: Section 4.4.4
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-43
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.21: Ozonation Cost Summary (2.0 log Cryptosporidium Inactivation)
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Unit Capital Cost Summary
Total Unit Capital Cost (no pH adj.)
Indirect Capital Costs (no pH adj.)
Total Unit Capital Cost (with pH adj.)
Indirect Capital Costs (with pH adj.)
Piloting
Permitting
Land
Operator Training
Housing
pH adjustment (if used)
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
Stainless pipes, valves, ductwork
Ozone process E&l
Off-Gas Destruction
Effluent Ozone Quench
Ozone Contactor
Ozone Generation System
In-plant pumping
Chemical Storage
Annual O&M Summary
Total Annual O&M Cost (no pH adjust.)
Total Annual O&M Cost (with pH adjust)
Chemicals O2
Chemicals H2O2
Part Replacement
Performance monitoring
Electricity
Labor
pH adjustment (when used)
0.091
0.025
372,391
18,388
395,123
41,120
5,000
4,248
2,832
924
5,385
22,732
354,003
141,601
19,308
15,446
8,245
4,976
8,164
55,845
29,617
-
56,096
57,089
-
88
1,195
10,400
581
43,832
993
0.18
0.054
480,993
25,420
524,117
68,544
10,000
5,467
3,645
924
5,385
43,124
455,573
182,229
26,117
20,894
11,109
5,091
13,027
75,242
30,750
-
56,900
59,046
-
189
1,610
10,400
869
43,832
2,145
0.27
0.084
585,963
27,543
630,662
72,242
10,000
6,701
4,467
990
5,385
44,699
558,420
223,368
33,013
26,410
14,004
5,206
17,982
94,857
31 ,895
-
60,858
64,195
-
295
2,030
10,400
1,167
46,966
3,337
0.36
0.11
689,631
29,575
735,905
75,849
10,000
7,921
5,280
990
5,385
46,274
660,056
264,022
39,825
31,860
16,900
5,322
22,603
114,473
33,040
-
61,627
65,997
-
386
2,450
10,400
1,425
46,966
4,370
0.68
0.23
1,069,196
38,905
1,121,069
90,778
10,000
12,363
8,242
990
7,309
51 ,873
1,030,292
412,117
65,052
52,041
27,916
5,733
37,476
189,082
34,817
-
64,836
73,973
-
807
4,046
10,400
2,617
46,966
9,137
1
0.35
1,107,713
100,919
1,165,185
158,391
65,000
15,102
10,068
-
10,749
57,472
1 ,006,794
503,397
79,362
63,490
31,414
6,144
67,114
212,776
43,097
-
66,956
80,860
-
1,227
4,553
10,400
3,809
46,966
13,904
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Note: Design Dose = 10.88 mg/L, Average Dose = 5.84 mg/L
Source: Section 4.4.4
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-44
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.21 (continued): Ozonation Cost Summary (2.0 log Cryptosporidium Inactivation)
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Unit Capital Cost Summary
Total Unit Capital Cost (no pH adj.)
Indirect Capital Costs (no pH adj.)
Total Unit Capital Cost (with pH adj.)
Indirect Capital Costs (with pH adj.)
Piloting
Permitting
Land
Operator Training
Housing
pH adjustment (if used)
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
Stainless pipes, valves, ductwork
Ozone process E&l
Off -Gas Destruction
Effluent Ozone Quench
Ozone Contactor
Ozone Generation System
In-plant pumping
Chemical Storage
Annual O&M Summary
Total Annual O&M Cost (no pH adjust.)
Total Annual O&M Cost (with pH adjust)
Chemicals O2
Chemicals H2O2
Part Replacement
Performance monitoring
Electricity
Labor
pH adjustment (when used)
1.2
0.41
1,200,916
105,289
1,261,887
166,261
65,000
16,434
10,956
-
12,899
60,971
1,095,627
547,813
85,911
68,729
33,600
6,401
76,058
227,585
47,671
1,859
68,079
84,366
-
1,438
4,870
10,400
4,405
46,966
16,287
2
0.77
1,547,877
127,385
1,622,846
202,354
65,000
21,307
14,205
-
26,872
74,969
1,420,493
710,246
111,144
88,915
42,346
7,428
107,982
286,821
63,238
2,371
74,291
104,880
-
2,122
6,138
10,400
7,980
47,652
30,589
3.5
1.4
2,151,897
161,779
2,253,111
262,994
65,000
29,852
19,901
-
47,026
101,215
1,990,118
995,059
156,128
124,903
58,743
9,354
158,526
397,889
86,184
3,332
85,473
141,088
-
3,858
8,515
10,400
14,237
48,463
55,616
7
3
3,124,381
231,378
3,286,835
393,832
65,000
43,395
28,930
-
94,053
162,454
2,893,004
1,446,502
226,633
181,306
82,027
13,849
255,057
555,597
126,461
5,572
211,156
330,332
102,009
8,266
11,890
10,400
30,128
48,463
119,177
17
7.8
5,223,408
458,226
5,560,832
795,650
65,000
71,478
47,652
-
274,096
337,424
4,765,182
2,382,591
373,107
298,485
128,245
26,692
468,843
868,647
206,601
11,972
424,479
734,338
247,736
21,492
18,589
10,400
77,799
48,463
309,859
22
11
6,291,141
562,918
6,716,050
987,827
65,000
85,923
57,282
-
354,713
424,909
5,728,222
2,864,111
450,115
360,092
151,354
64,365
559,567
1,025,172
238,274
15,173
541,290
978,271
320,600
30,309
21,939
10,400
109,580
48,463
436,981
76
38
16,720,757
1,634,118
18,090,504
3,003,865
65,000
226,300
150,866
-
1,191,953
1,369,747
15,086,639
7,543,319
1,093,421
874,736
391,174
111,718
1,221,228
2,649,562
1,151,745
49,735
1,710,724
3,220,293
1,107,526
104,704
56,701
15,600
377,730
48,463
1,509,569
210
120
34,225,903
3,781,084
37,940,248
7,495,429
65,000
456,672
304,448
-
2,954,963
3,714,345
30,444,819
15,222,410
2,052,492
1,641,994
673,823
229,221
2,742,878
4,564,047
3,182,452
135,502
4,846,200
9,613,261
3,060,270
330,644
97,671
31,200
1,192,113
134,302
4,767,061
430
270
63,362,091
6,803,065
70,925,776
14,366,750
65,000
500,000
565,590
-
5,672,474
7,563,685
56,559,026
28,279,513
3,704,612
2,963,690
1,219,827
422,138
4,914,161
8,262,322
6,516,449
276,314
10,067,081
20,792,968
6,266,268
743,949
176,814
52,000
2,681,838
146,212
10,725,886
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Note: Design Dose = 10.88 mg/L, Average Dose = 5.84 mg/L
Source: Section 4.4.4
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-45
December 2005
-------
4.4.5 Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration
Microfiltration and ultrafiltration can be effective for the control of microbial contaminants,
including Cryptosporidium. The costs presented in this section assume an MF/UF system is either an
addition to an existing conventional treatment plant, or a replacement for granular media filters. In the
latter case, it is assumed the settled water is of sufficient quality (i.e., low total suspended solids) that
additional pretreatment is not required. Costs are provided for a design feed water temperature of 10°C.
As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, water temperature can impact system flux. The design feed water
temperature was selected as an approximate average condition for systems that might consider MF/UF
treatment. Systems with lower feed water temperatures may require additional membrane area or
increased operating pressure to maintain the desired level of production. Systems with warmer feed water
temperatures may require smaller membrane areas and lower operating pressures.
MF/UF processes will generate a liquid residual stream that must be disposed of or recycled. For
the purposes of this document, it was assumed that backwash and reject water would be discharged to a
sanitary sewer for treatment at a POTW. The costs presented assume an average system recovery of 93
percent (i.e., the residuals volume equals seven percent of the average daily plant flow).
4.4.5.1 Summary of MF/UF Capital Cost Assumptions
Process Costs
Capital costs were estimated based on vendor data, cost estimating guides (RS Means), and best
professional judgment. Process costs were obtained in 2002 adjusted to year 2003 dollars using the ENR
BCI. Exhibit 4.29 presents a summary of line item capital costs for MF/UF, based on a design flow of
10°C, and assuming discharge of backwash water to a sanitary sewer for treatment at a POTW. This
section discusses the methodology used for estimating capital costs.
Membrane System
For a range of flows, vendors were asked to provide costs for skid-mounted membrane modules
that included prefilters (about 200 micron), associated piping, feed pumps, backwash and recirculation
pumps (where appropriate), chemical cleaning feed tanks and pumps, and direct integrity testing
instrumentation. A maximum skid size of 2 mgd was required. Exhibit 4.22 plots the cost estimates
received from the vendors for different design flows, as well as the resulting cost equations that are used
to estimate membrane system costs.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-46 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.22: Summary of MF/UF Vendor Estimates
$1,000,000,000
$100,000,000
$10,000,000
o
u
. $1,000,000
w
u
$100,000 jt
$10,000
y = 341615x+345942
for 1 10
Interstage Pumping Requirements (TDH)
30 feet
50 feet
75 feet
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-47
December 2005
-------
Costs for interstage piping and pumping were estimated based upon vendor data and RS Means
(1999). Pump and piping costs were totaled and a regression line was fit through the data to estimate the
costs for each of the required flow categories. The resulting equations are presented below.
For design flow <1 mgd:
Interstage pumps and piping ($) = 28023 x (Design Flow)117265
For design flow >1 mgd:
Interstage pumps and piping ($) = 30918 x (Design Flow)08103
An additional 20 percent was added for the cost of electrical and instrumentation associated with the
interstage pumping.
Process Monitoring Equipment
Membrane skids are generally equipped to conduct periodic, direct integrity tests (e.g., pressure-
hold test or bubble-point test). While these methods are the most sensitive to breaches in membrane
integrity, they do not provide a real-time measure of membrane integrity (USEPA 2001). As a result, on-
line integrity testing may be required for use of MF/UF to remove microbial contaminants. Accordingly,
one turbidimeter ($2,500 each) was assumed per skid for systems less than 1 mgd, and one particle
counter ($5,000 each) was assumed per skid for systems larger than 1 mgd. (A maximum skid size of 2
mgd was assumed for all system sizes.)
Membrane I&C
Costs for membrane system I&C were estimated based upon vendor data and input from industry
experts. For systems less than 1 mgd, membrane I&C was included in the cost of the membrane system.
For systems larger than 1 mgd, the cost of membrane I&C was assumed to be $102,000 for the first skid
and $77,000 for each additional skid. These costs include interconnection between skids and tie-in to
existing plant control (e.g., SCADA) systems.
Capital Cost Multipliers
The capital costs previously discussed (membrane system, interstage pumping and piping,
membrane E&I, and process monitoring equipment) were totaled to arrive at a total process cost, and
multiplied by a capital cost factor of 1.67 (for flow <2 mgd) or 2.0 (for flow >2 mgd). The result of this
multiplication was then added to the indirect capital costs (discussed later in this section) to arrive at the
total capital cost. The capital cost factors were intended to account for items not included in vendor
estimates. A complete discussion of capital cost factors, including the components, is presented in section
4.2.1.
Indirect Capital Costs
The total permitting, piloting, membrane housing, land, operator training, and backwash pipeline
costs are referred to as indirect capital costs for the purposes of this document.
Permitting
Significant process improvements will likely require coordination with the appropriate regulatory
agency. As such, permitting costs were included at three percent of the process cost. A minimum
permitting fee of $2,500 and a maximum of $500,000 was assumed.
Pilot Testing
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 4^48 December 2005
-------
It was assumed that pilot- or bench-scale tests would be necessary to ensure compatibility of
membrane materials with process chemicals (e.g., coagulants or polymers), as well as to determine critical
design parameters, such as design flux. Bench-scale flat sheet tests were assumed for systems less than
0.1 mgd, at a cost of $1,000. Single-element tests ($10,000) were assumed for systems between 0.1 and 1
mgd, and three-month pilot tests were assumed for systems 1 mgd and larger ($60,000).
Membrane Housing
Membrane housing costs include the cost for a building to house the membrane skids and any
associated appurtenances (e.g., building electrical, HVAC, and lighting). For this document, size was
based on an industry rule of thumb for MF/UF processes: 1,100 ft2 per mgd for systems with design flows
less than 10 mgd and 1,300 ft2 per mgd for design flows greater than 10 mgd. A minimum size of 200 ft2
was also assumed. The footprint was multiplied by a housing unit cost of $48.95, based on RS Means
values for a factory type building.
Land
MF/UF requires significantly larger footprints than other technologies for which costs are
provided. MF/UF is also likely to be able to be incorporated into existing process footprints. Land cost
assumptions for MF/UF are listed in Exhibit 4.24.
Exhibit 4.24: MF/UF Land Cost Assumptions
Design Flow (mgd)
<10
>10
Land Cost (% of Capital)*
1%
0.5%
Note: * Capital = Total Process Cost * Capital Cost Multiplier
Source: Exhibit 4.7
As discussed in section 4.2.4, the NDWAC cost working group recommended a factor of two to
five percent for land. Previous technology cost efforts (USEPA 2001) adopted land costs at factor of five
percent for systems less than 1 mgd and 2 percent for systems greater than 1 mgd; however, previous
cases assumed new plant construction, as opposed to a retrofit as was assumed in this document. To
measure the appropriateness of the NDWAC recommendations, an analysis of the land cost (per acre) was
conducted based upon the footprint of the MF/UF process. The land cost (as a percent of capital) was
adjusted based upon this analysis and best professional judgment. A list of assumptions used in this
analysis is listed below.
Minimum land purchase - 0.5 acres
Building area - 1300 ft2 per mgd for systems < 10 mgd
- 1100 ft2 per mgd for systems > 10 mgd
Building is square
50-foot perimeter around building
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-49
December 2005
-------
The land area was compared to the land costs at various percentages, and a "reasonableness"
valuation was made based on best professional judgment. Under the final scenario, estimates of land
costs gradually increased from $2,200 per acre for the smallest system size to $92,500 per acre for the
largest.
Operator Training
The NDWAC cost working group also recommended inclusion of operator training. Based upon
system size, this training could last a few hours or a few days. Exhibit 4.25 summarizes the operator
training cost assumptions used in this document. Costs are based on experience with similar systems and
best professional judgement.
Exhibit 4.25: Summary of MF/UF Operator Training Cost Assumptions
Design Flow (mgd)
<0.3
0.3-1
1 -10
10-100
>100
Training Cost ($)
included in membrane system price
$1,000
$3,000
$10,000
$25,000
Backwash Pipeline
Capital costs for a 500-foot pipeline to discharge backwash and reject water to a sanitary sewer
were estimated based on cost equations presented in Small Water System Byproducts Treatment and
Disposal Cost Document (DPRA 1993a) and Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost
Document (DPRA 1993b). These costs are shown as an indirect cost (after the application of the capital
cost multiplier) because they already include factors for engineering, contractor overhead and profit, and
installation.
Exhibit 4.26 summarizes the pipe diameter assumptions used in the DPRA documents. The
equations used to estimate pipeline costs follow the exhibit.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-50
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.26: Summary of Backwash Disposal Pipeline Assumptions
Backwash Volume (mgd)
< 162,500
162,500-500,000
500,000 - 750,000
750,000-10,000,000
10,000,000-25,000,000
> 25, 000,000
Pipeline Diameter
(inches)
2
3
4
6
24
36
Pipe Material
Sch-40 PVC
Sch-40 PVC
Sch-40 PVC
Sch-40 PVC
Reinforced concrete
Reinforced concrete
Source: DPRA (1993a and 1993b).
For systems < 1 msd CDPRA 1993a)
Backwash volume <150,000 gpd:
Pipeline cost ($) = 3,500
Backwash volume > 150,000 gpd:
Pipeline cost ($) = 27,000 + (3.1 x (Backwash Volume)05)
For systems > 1 msd (DPRA 1993b)
Backwash volume < 150,000 gpd:
Pipeline cost ($) = 4,500
Backwash volume > 150,000 gpd:
Pipeline cost ($) = 4,600 + (0.0019 x Backwash Volume)
Costs in the DPRA documents are presented in year 1992 dollars. The ENR BCI (average 1992
value = 2,834) was used to escalate costs to year 2003 (index = 3,693). Consequently, the results of the
previous equations were multiplied by a factor of 1.30 (3,693 + 2,834) to obtain the final pipeline cost
estimates.
4.4.5.2 Summary of MF/UF O&M Cost Assumptions
MF/UF operations and maintenance costs were based on vendor estimates, industry guidelines,
and cost models. Exhibit 4.28 presents a summary of line item O&M costs. This section discusses the
assumptions regarding O&M estimates presented in this document.
Membrane Replacement
Membrane replacement costs for all flows were derived from typical, or average, replacement
cost estimates provided by manufacturers. The manufacturer estimates as shown in Exhibit 4.27 were
plotted and liner regressions were used to develop the following best fit equation for the full range of
design flows:
Membrane replacement ($/yr) = (0.5647 x Design Flow2) + (13,152 x Design Flow) + 304.49
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-51
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.27: Summary of Membrane Replacement Costs
Design Flow (mgd)
0.01
0.1
1
10
50
430
Average Membrane
Replacement Cost ($/year)
$436
$1620
$13,457
$131,881
$659,316
$5,760,078
Source: Vendor estimates
Performance Monitoring
In addition to continuous turbidity or particle count monitoring (included in the process
monitoring equipment line item), the costs for periodic HPC monitoring were included in the O&M
estimates. HPC is monitored to detect biological activity on the finished water side of the membrane.
HPC tests are available for approximately $1 per test, and require one hour of labor. One test per
membrane skid per week was assumed.
Clean-in-Place Chemicals
MF/UF systems will require periodic (typically, quarterly or semi-annually) chemical cleaning to
remove biological and colloidal foulants. This is referred to as a clean-in-place (CIP) operation. CIP
practices can include the use of detergents, acids, bases, oxidizing agents (e.g., chlorine for removal of
biofilm), chelating agents, or enzymatic cleaners. Because of the variability in CIP practices, a standard
rule-of-thumb of $0.01 per 1000 gallons of water produced was applied to estimate CIP chemical costs.
Thus, CIP chemical costs can be estimated as follows:
CIP chemicals ($/yr) = 0.01 x Average Flow (mgd) x 1000 x 365
Materials
Materials include replacement parts for interstage piping and pumping and were estimated based
on output from the Water and WAV Cost models. The resulting material cost equations are presented
below:
For average flow up to 0.35 mgd
Materials ($/yr) = (-283.6 x Average Flow2) + (283.77 x Average Flow) + 107.62
For average flow greater than 0.35 to 4.5 mgd
Materials ($/yr) = (547.62 x Average Flow) - 24.122
For average flow >4.5 mgd
Materials ($/yr) = (-0.3794 x Average Flow2) + (394.56 x Average Flow) + 672.35
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-52
December 2005
-------
Power
Power costs include electricity for interstage pumps, membrane skids, and instrumentation.
Interstage pumping power costs were estimated based on annual kWh estimates provided by the Water
and WAV Cost models and membrane skid power requirements provided by vendors. The equations used
for annual power costs are provided below.
For average flow < 0.36 mgd:
Power ($/yr) = 16561 x (Average Flow)1 °113
For average flow 0.36-4.5 mgd:
Power ($/yr) = (5096.5 x Average Flow) + 4058.8
For average flow > 4.5 mgd:
Power ($/yr) = (5356.9 x Average Flow) + 2666.3
Labor
Labor estimates include operation and maintenance of interstage pumping and membrane skids,
as well as labor associated with repair of process equipment. Technical labor rates varied based on
system size. Labor hours are based on vendor estimates and experience with similar systems. No
additional managerial labor was assumed. A summary of labor hour assumptions is provided in Exhibit
4.28.
Exhibit 4.28: Summary of MF/UF Labor Assumptions
System Size (mgd)
<0.1
0.1 -1
1 -5
5-10
10- 100
>100
Technical Labor (hrs/week)
4
12
24
40
80
160
POTWSurcharge
The reject and backwash volume is assumed to be at a volume of seven percent of the feed flow
(i.e., 93 percent recovery). The discharge of reject and backwash water to a POTW assumed the
following (DPRA 1993):
POTW surcharge of $0.00183/1,000 gallons discharged
Base charge of $375/year for small systems, $l,000/year for large systems
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-53
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.29: Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration Cost Summary
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Unit Capital Cost
Indirect Capital Costs
Membrane housing
Bench/pilot-scale testing
Permitting
Land
Operator Training
500' backwash discharge pipeline
Direct Capital Cost"
Subtotal Process Cost
Interstage piping and pumping
Membrane equipment
Process monitoring equipment
Electrical
Instrumentation and controls
Annual O&M Summary
Total Annual O&M Cost
Membrane Replacement
Performance monitoring
CIP Chemicals
Materials
Electricity
Technical labor
POTW surcharge
0.007
0.0015
131,478
18,759
9,790
1,000
2,500
1,127
-
4,342
112,719
67,496
783
63,990
2,567
157
-
6,230
397
1,167
5
108
23
4,460
70
0.022
0.0054
214,432
20,553
9,790
1,000
3,483
1,939
-
4,342
193,878
116,095
1,798
111,370
2,567
360
-
6,686
594
1,167
20
109
84
4,460
252
0.037
0.0095
270,819
22,087
9,790
1,000
4,468
2,487
-
4,342
248,732
148,941
2,623
143,226
2,567
525
-
7,156
791
1,167
35
110
149
4,460
444
0.091
0.025
409,983
25,873
9,790
1,000
6,900
3,841
-
4,342
384,110
230,006
5,044
221 ,385
2,567
1,009
-
9,329
1,501
1,253
91
115
397
4,803
1,169
0.18
0.054
628,117
92,942
63,635
10,000
9,614
5,352
-
4,342
535,174
320,464
8,280
307,960
2,567
1,656
-
22,042
2,672
1,253
197
122
865
14,408
2,525
0.27
0.084
748,563
96,219
63,635
10,000
11,719
6,523
-
4,342
652,345
390,626
11,116
374,719
2,567
2,223
-
26,348
3,856
1,338
307
129
1,353
15,438
3,928
0.36
0.11
850,970
99,977
63,635
10,000
13,491
7,510
1,000
4,342
750,992
449,696
13,700
430,688
2,567
2,740
-
29,272
5,039
1,338
402
135
1,777
15,438
5,143
0.68
0.23
1,133,988
107,676
63,635
10,000
18,437
10,263
1,000
4,342
1,026,312
614,558
21,747
585,894
2,567
4,349
-
41,522
9,248
1,338
840
158
3,746
15,438
10,754
1
0.35
1,594,911
172,007
63,635
60,000
25,561
14,229
3,000
5,582
1,422,904
852,038
31,752
706,103
5,135
6,350
102,697
69,214
13,457
1,338
1,278
172
5,728
30,876
16,365
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplierv
Note: Based on Temperature=10°C
Assume discharge to sanitary sewer
Source: Section 4.4.5
Subtotal Process Cost)
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-54
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.29 (continued): Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration Cost Summary
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Unit Capital Cost
Indirect Capital Costs
Membrane housing
Bench/pilot-scale testing
Permitting
Land
Operator Training
500' backwash discharge pipeline
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
Interstage piping and pumping
Membrane equipment
Process monitoring equipment
Electrical
Instrumentation and controls
Annual O&M Summary
Total Annual O&M Cost
Membrane Replacement
Performance monitoring
CIP Chemicals
Materials
Electricity
Technical labor
POTW surcharge
1.2
0.41
1,738,505
188,294
76,362
60,000
27,848
15,502
3,000
5,582
1,550,211
928,270
36,807
776,269
5,135
7,361
102,697
75,317
16,088
1,338
1,497
200
6,148
30,876
19,170
2
0.77
2,720,593
257,431
127,270
60,000
36,947
24,632
3,000
5,582
2,463,162
1,231,581
55,680
1,056,933
5,135
11,136
102,697
106,798
26,611
1,370
2,811
398
7,983
31,624
36,003
3.5
1.4
4,142,559
385,922
222,723
60,000
56,350
37,566
3,000
6,283
3,756,637
1,878,319
87,625
1,583,178
10,270
17,525
179,721
164,173
46,343
2,813
5,110
743
11,194
32,510
65,459
7
3
7,382,351
682,795
445,445
60,000
100,493
66,996
3,000
6,861
6,699,556
3,349,778
153,658
2,811,083
20,539
30,732
333,767
324,393
92,396
5,626
10,950
1,619
19,348
54,184
140,270
17
7.8
15,991,348
1,287,944
915,365
60,000
220,551
73,517
10,000
8,511
14,703,405
7,351,702
315,358
6,208,177
46,214
63,072
718,882
786,427
224,052
12,659
28,470
3,727
44,450
108,368
364,701
22
11
20,058,196
1,632,441
1,184,590
60,000
276,386
92,129
10,000
9,335
18,425,756
9,212,878
388,630
7,817,110
56,484
77,726
872,928
1,034,793
289,922
15,473
40,150
4,967
61,592
108,368
514,322
76
38
61,150,358
4,961,409
4,092,220
60,000
500,000
280,945
10,000
18,244
56,188,949
28,094,475
1,061,193
23,673,367
195,125
212,239
2,952,551
3,301,730
1,003,118
53,451
138,700
15,118
206,229
108,368
1,776,747
210
120
153,184,031
12,635,544
11,307,450
60,000
500,000
702,742
25,000
40,351
140,548,488
70,274,244
2,418,050
58,720,324
539,162
483,610
8,113,098
9,888,387
2,787,128
147,693
438,000
42,556
645,494
216,736
5,610,780
430
270
293,759,889
25,158,006
23,153,350
60,000
500,000
1,343,009
25,000
76,646
268,601,883
134,300,942
4,321,858
111,425,078
1,103,997
864,372
16,585,637
21,519,157
5,760,078
360,667
985,500
79,545
1,449,029
260,083
12,624,255
520
350
349,252,221
30,270,801
27,999,400
60,000
500,000
1,594,907
25,000
91,494
318,981,420
159,490,710
5,041,369
132,054,324
1,335,067
1,008,274
20,051,675
27,300,426
6,992,039
436,155
1,277,500
92,292
1,877,581
260,083
16,364,775
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Note: Based on Temperature=10°C
Assume discharge to sanitary sewer
Source: Section 4.4.5
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-55
December 2005
-------
4.4.6 Bag and Cartridge Filtration
The costs presented in this section assume installation of bag or cartridge filters following
conventional treatment (i.e., granular media filtration). This level of pre-treatment reduces the suspended
solids concentration delivered to the filters, which in turn allows for longer run times and reduced
maintenance demands. As a result, costs for installation of bag or cartridge filters as the sole treatment
technology may be different than those presented here.
Costs for bag and cartridge filters were only estimated for systems with a design flow of 2 mgd
or less. These technologies are not typically used in large systems due to poor economies of scale and
difficulties with design for high flow rates.
4.4.6.1 Summary of Bag and Cartridge Filter Capital Cost Assumptions
Process Costs
Capital costs for bag and cartridge filters were estimated using vendor quotes and cost estimating
guides (RS Means). Vendor quotes were received in July 2002 and adjusted to year 2003 dollars using
the ENR BCI. Bag and cartridge filter vendors were screened based on anticipated Cryptosporidium
removal credits granted under the LT2ESWTR and on demonstrated Cryptosporidium removal efficiency.
Bag filters are eligible for up to 1 log removal credit and must have been capable of 1.5 log removal
(includes 0.5-log safety factor). Cartridge filters are eligible for up to 2 log removal credit and must have
been capable of 2.5 log removal (includes 0.5 log safety factor). Two bag filter and three cartridge filter
vendors were identified that met these criteria. Exhibits 4.32 and 4.33 present line item summaries of
capital costs for bag and cartridge filters. This section presents the methodology by which line item costs
are estimated.
Filter Housing
Estimates for bag and cartridge filter housing were estimated based on quotes provided by
vendors. Vendors provided estimates for stainless steel filter housing at each of the flows for which costs
were provided. Vendor quotations were averaged at each flow to develop estimates for filter housing
costs.
Initial Bag and Cartridge Filters
The initial cost of bag and cartridge filters was estimated using vendor quotes. As previously
mentioned, vendors were pre-screened based on demonstrated Cryptosporidium removal efficiency.
Vendors provided estimates for a variety of bag and cartridge types and sizes. Exhibit 4.30 is a summary
of the design criteria provided by the vendors for bag and cartridge filtration.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-56 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.30: Design Criteria for Bag and Cartridge Filters
Criteria
Nominal Pore Size
Material
Dimensions
Housing Construction
Loading Rate
Bag Filters
1 micron
polyester or polypropylene
7 inches by 16 inches,
and 7 inches by 32 inches
304 Stainless Steel
45 gpm per 16 inches equivalent
length
Cartridge Filters
1 micron
pleated polyester, pleated
polypropylene, spun bonded
polypropylene, and absolute
rated polypropylene
1 inch ID by 2.5 inches OD,
lengths of 10, 20, and 30 inches
304 Stainless Steel
10 gpm (pleated construction
only),
5 gpm per 10 inches equivalent
length
Source: Vendor quotes
Vendors provided estimates at each of the flows for which costs are provided. Vendor quotations were
averaged at each flow to develop the estimates for initial bags or cartridges.
Interstage Pumping
Costs for centrifugal in-line vertical-mount single-stage pumps were estimated using RS Means
(1999). A summary of the data used for estimating the line item cost for pumping is presented in Exhibit
4.31. The resulting equation is listed here.
Interstage pumping ($) = ((-2,245.4 x Design Flow2) + (8,127.7 x Design Flow) + 149.26)* 1.03
Exhibit 4.31: Summary of Bag and Cartridge Filter Pump Cost Data
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.024
0.087
0.27
0.65
1.8
Max Pumping Rate
(gpm)
50
75
200
750
1500
Pump Rating
(Hp)
3
5
7.5
25
50
Pump Cost
($)
$445
$755
$2,125
$4,525
$7,500
Source: RS means
Instrumentation and Controls. Pipes and Valves
Estimates for P&V and I&C, which primarily include tie-ins to existing electrical and pressure
gauges, were based on vendor estimates. Vendors provided estimates for these items at each of the flows
for which costs were provided. The quotations were averaged at each flow to estimate the costs presented
in Exhibits 4.32 and 4.33.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-57
December 2005
-------
Capital Cost Multipliers
Filter housing, initial filters, pumps, electrical, and P&V were totaled to arrive at the total
process cost. For systems treating less than 2 mgd, the process cost was multiplied by a capital cost factor
of 1.2, assuming that these are package systems which only require an installation cost. A capital cost
factor of 1.67 was used for the 2 mgd systems.
Indirect Capital Costs
Indirect capital costs include permitting, operator training, and housing. Permitting fees were
estimated at $2,500 for all system sizes. Operator training was assumed to be $500 for all system sizes.
Housing represents the cost associated with a building for the bag or cartridge filters. Many
facilities may be able to incorporate these systems into the existing plant footprint. However, it was
assumed that, in half or more cases, this would not be possible. In such cases, bag or cartridge filters
would be installed near the plant high-service pump station, which may not have sufficient space
available to accommodate these processes. Based on housing area requirements for membrane processes
(e.g., 1,300 ft2 per mgd for MF/UF less than 10 mgd), a housing area of 500 ft2 per mgd was assumed.
This was based on best professional judgment as to the relative size of bag and cartridge filter systems
and membrane systems. A minimum housing area of 50 ft2 was assumed. Housing costs were generated
by multiplying the footprint area by an average housing cost of $48.95 per square foot (factory building
in RS Means).
4.4.6.2 Summary of Bag and Cartridge Filter O&M Cost Assumptions
O&M costs for bag and cartridge filters were estimated using vendor data and cost estimating
guides. Line item summaries of O&M costs are presented in Exhibits 4.32 and 4.33. This section
discusses the assumption used to estimate the costs presented in the tables.
Bag and Cartridge Replacement
The average cost of a single bag or cartridge, as well as the average number of bags or
cartridges, was determined based on vendor estimates. Cartridges are typically more durable than bags
and require less frequent replacement. For the purposes of this document, it was assumed that cartridges
would be replaced every six months and that bags would be replaced every three months.
Power
Power requirements were based solely on the additional power required for the interstage
pumping. Costs were estimated based on pump horsepower ratings (see Exhibit 4.31) and a unit cost of
$0.076 per kWh. A linear regression was completed to develop the following equation and estimate line
item costs:
Power ($/yr) = (-286.6 x Average Flow2) + (545.48 x Average Flow) + 7.4011
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-58 December 2005
-------
Labor
Labor requirements are considered a function of the durability of the bag or cartridge filter and
the size of the system. For systems less than 2 mgd, one hour of labor per month plus 15 minutes per bag
or cartridge per replacement was assumed. For systems 2 mgd and larger, one hour of labor per week
plus 15 minutes per bag or cartridge per replacement was assumed. Technical labor rates used to produce
labor costs varied by system size.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-59 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.32: Bag Filter Cost Summary
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Total Unit Capital Cost
Indirect Capital Costs
Operator Training
Housing
Permitting
Direct Capital Cost'
Subotal Process Cost
Pipes and Valves
I&C
Pumping
Bag Filters
Filter Housing
Annual O&M Summary
Total Annual O&M Cost
Bag Replacement
Electricity
Labor
0.007
0.0015
10,280
5,448
500
2,448
2,500
4,832
4,027
969
969
200
48
1,841
479
192
8
279
0.022
0.0054
10,420
5,448
500
2,448
2,500
4,973
4,144
969
969
317
48
1,841
481
192
10
279
0.037
0.0095
12,828
5,448
500
2,448
2,500
7,380
6,150
969
969
433
97
3,682
701
388
13
300
0.091
0.025
13,320
5,448
500
2,448
2,500
7,872
6,560
969
969
843
97
3,682
732
388
21
323
0.18
0.054
19,487
7,406
500
4,406
2,500
12,082
10,068
969
969
1,492
145
6,493
962
580
36
346
0.27
0.084
23,424
9,608
500
6,608
2,500
13,816
11,513
969
969
2,113
194
7,268
1,223
776
51
396
0.36
0.11
28,771
11,811
500
8,811
2,500
16,960
14,133
969
969
2,698
291
9,206
1,673
1,164
64
445
0.68
0.23
42,479
19,643
500
16,643
2,500
22,836
19,030
969
969
4,494
485
12,113
2,602
1,940
118
544
1
0.35
65,653
27,475
500
24,475
2,500
38,178
31,815
1,938
1,938
5,845
775
21,319
3,956
3,100
163
693
1.2
0.41
75,01 1
32,370
500
29,370
2,500
42,641
35,534
1,938
1,938
6,463
969
24,226
4,851
3,876
183
792
2
0.77
136,788
51,950
500
48,950
2,500
84,838
50,801
2,907
2,907
7,193
1,454
36,340
8,151
5,816
257
2,078
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Source: Section 4.4.6
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-60
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.33: Cartridge Filter Cost Summary
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Total Unit Capital Cost
Indirect Capital Cost
Operator Training
Housing
Permitting
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
Pipes and Valves
I&C
Pumping
Cartridge Filters
Filter Housing
Annual O&M Summary
Total Annual O&M Summary
Cartridge Replacement
Electricity
Labor
0.007
0.0015
10,465
5,448
500
2,448
2,500
5,017
4,181
969
969
200
202
1,841
680
404
8
268
0.022
0.0054
10,605
5,448
500
2,448
2,500
5,158
4,298
969
969
317
202
1,841
682
404
10
268
0.037
0.0095
13,196
5,448
500
2,448
2,500
7,748
6,457
969
969
433
404
3,682
1,099
808
13
279
0.091
0.025
17,256
5,448
500
2,448
2,500
1 1 ,808
9,840
969
969
843
566
6,493
1,465
1,132
21
312
0.18
0.054
24,024
7,406
500
4,406
2,500
16,619
13,849
969
969
1,492
1,213
9,206
2,808
2,426
36
346
0.27
0.084
31 ,479
9,608
500
6,608
2,500
21 ,871
18,226
969
969
2,113
2,062
12,113
4,596
4,124
51
421
0.36
0.11
43,699
11,811
500
8,811
2,500
31 ,888
26,573
969
969
2,698
2,556
19,381
5,621
5,112
64
445
0.68
0.23
73,535
19,643
500
16,643
2,500
53,892
44,910
969
969
4,494
4,561
33,917
9,821
9,122
118
581
1
0.35
111,151
27,475
500
24,475
2,500
83,676
69,730
1,938
1,938
5,845
6,711
53,298
14,315
13,422
163
730
1.2
0.41
136,393
32,370
500
29,370
2,500
104,023
86,686
1,938
1,938
6,463
8,513
67,834
18,075
17,026
183
866
2
0.77
265,089
51 ,950
500
48,950
2,500
213,139
127,628
2,907
2,907
7,193
12,870
101,751
28,189
25,740
257
2,192
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Source: Section 4.4.6
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-61
December 2005
-------
4.4.7 Bank Filtration
Because bank filtration has not been a widely used technology, little cost data are available to be
able to give a detailed cost breakout. In 2000, design experts from the Technical Work Group (TWG)
were asked to estimate a cost for three plant sizes: 0.6, 6.5, and 55 mgd. Costs for other plant sizes were
derived from these estimates. Plants less than 0.6 mgd in design flow were assumed to incur the same
costs as a 0.6 mgd plant. Costs for plants with greater than 0.6 mgd were calculated assuming a linear
cost versus design flow function. The costs provided by the TWG are given in Exhibit 4.34.
Exhibit 4.34: Bank Filtration Cost Estimates for Three System Sizes
Design Flow (mgd)
0.6
6.5
55
Capital Cost ($)
150,000
1,625,000
13,750,000
O & M Cost ($)
0
0
0
Source: TWG
4.4.8 Second Stage Filtration
Chapter 3 provides design criteria for systems to receive 0.5 log credit for Cryptosporidium
inactivation using second stage filtration. Because second stage filtration has not been a widely used
technology, little cost data are available to provide a detailed cost breakout. Design experts from the
TWG were asked to estimate a cost for three second stage filtration plant sizes that meet the criteria in
Chapter 3: 0.6, 6.5, and 55 mgd. Costs for other size plants were derived from these estimates. Plants
less than 0.6 mgd in design flow were assumed to incur the same costs as a 0.6 mgd plant. Costs for
plants with greater than 0.6 mgd were calculated by assuming a linear cost versus design flow function.
The costs provided by the TWG are given in Exhibit 4.35.
Exhibit 4.35: Second Stage Filtration Cost Estimates for Three System Sizes
Design Flow (mgd)
0.6
6.5
55
Capital Cost ($)
1,106,000
5,550,000
20,600,000
0 & M Cost ($)
62,300
148,500
393,000
Source: TWG
4.4.9 Pre-Sedimentation
Chapter 3 provides design criteria for systems to receive 0.5 log credit for Cryptosporidium
inactivation using pre-sedimentation basins. Because pre-sedimentation basins have not been a widely
used technology, little cost data are available for this technology to provide a detailed cost breakout.
Design experts from the TWG were asked to estimate a cost for three plant sizes, which met the design
criteria in Chapter 3: 0.6, 6.5, and 55 mgd. Costs for other plant sizes were derived from these estimates.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-62
December 2005
-------
Plants less than 0.6 mgd in design flow were assumed to incur the same costs as a 0.6 mgd plant. Costs
for plants with greater than 0.6 mgd were calculated by assuming a linear cost versus design flow
function. The costs provided by the TWG are given in Exhibit 4.36.
Exhibit 4.36: Pre-Sedimentation Cost Estimates for Three System Sizes
Design Flow (mgd)
0.6
6.5
55
Capital Cost ($)
1,200,000
3,700,000
25,500,000
O & M Cost ($)
37,000
119,000
560,000
Source: TWG
4.4.10
Watershed Control
Chapter 3 provides criteria for systems to receive Cryptosporidium inactivation credit for
watershed control. Because each watershed control program will be site-specific, it is difficult to estimate
detailed costs for such programs. However, the TWG provided EPA with rough estimates of capital and
O&M costs, based on flow for a program that meets the criteria outlined in Chapter 3. Capital costs are
assumed to include development of an oocyst loading model, as well as associated validation monitoring.
These capital costs are $250,000 for small systems, $500,000 for medium systems, and $1,000,000 for
large systems. O&M costs are divided into three categories: agreements and legal mechanisms to mitigate
sources, staff and resources to mitigate sources in the watershed, and public health surveillance for
Cryptosporidium. O&M costs for these categories and for three system sizes are shown in Exhibit 4.37.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-63
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.37: Watershed Cost Categories for Three System Sizes
Watershed Program Component
Agreements and Legal
Mechanisms to Mitigate Sources
Demonstrated Staff/Resource
Commitment to Mitigate Sources
Public Health Surveillance for
Cryptosporidium
O&M Cost ($)
Small (0.6 mgd)
150,000
100,000
100,000
Medium (6.5 mgd)
500,000
250,000
250,000
Large (55 mgd)
1,000,000
1,000,000
500,000
Source: TWG
4.4.11 Combined Filter Performance
Combined filter performance is not a single technology, but a variety of actions that a system
can take to achieve 0.15 NTU combined filter effluent concentration 95 percent of the time. Chapter 3
provides a list of actions or steps that a plant could take to reduce effluent turbidity. The actions are:
Chemical Addition
- Installing backwash polymer feed capability
- Coagulant improvement
- Adding primary coagulant feed points
Filter Improvements
- Filter media addition
- Post backwash filter-to-waste
- Filter rate-of-flow controller
Process Management Changes
- Plant staffing increase
- Staff qualifications
Laboratory Modifications
- Turbidimeter purchase
- Jar test apparatus purchase
- Purchase a particle counter or other alternative process control testing equipment
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-64
December 2005
-------
Process Control Testing Modification
- Staff Training
Each action was costed individually. Then the proportion of plants selecting each action was estimated.
Percentages were multiplied by the individual unit costs to arrive at an average unit cost. Because several
of the components recommended for combine filter performance are also applicable to individual filter
performance, EPA has not provided a separate cost analysis for individual filter performance.
Similar assumptions were used for all of the steps involving filtration. The assumptions
regarding filter size and flow were the same for filter media addition, filter-to-waste, and filter rate-of-
flow controller replacement. Exhibit 4.38 summarizes the design assumptions used in estimating capital
and O&M costs for filtration improvements. A conservative filter design loading rate (2.5 gpm/ft2) was
used to estimate the number of filters. The number of filters was based on a maximum filter area125
ft2, 250 ft2, 700 ft2, or 1,000 ft2determined by system size. The total number of filters was based on the
number of filters required to produce the design flow at the design loading rate plus one (n+1). Filter
piping diameters were determined using the criteria below (Water Treatment Plant Design, AWWA,
1969).
Filter effluent piping velocity = 3-6 feet per second (fps)
Filter to waste (FTW) piping velocity = 6-12 fps
Drain piping velocity = 3-8 fps
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-65 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.38: Summary of Filtration Improvement Design Assumptions
Population
Avg. Flow (mgd)
Design Flow (mgd)
Design Filter Loading Rate
(gpm/sf)
Total Filter Area (sf)
Max filter area (sf)
Number of Filters
Pipe Sizing Loading Rate
(gpm/sf)
Flow per Filter (gpm)
Effluent Piping Diameter
(inches)
Filter Effluent Pipe Velocity
(fps)
FTW Diameter (in)
FTW Pipe Velocity (fps)
Backwash Rate (gpm/sf)
Backwash Flow (gpm)
Drain Diameter (inches)
Drain Pipe Velocity (fps)
500-
1.000
0.093
0.245
2.5
68
125
2
5
340
6
3.9
4
8.7
20
1,361
10
5.6
1,001 -
3.300
0.250
0.633
2.5
176
125
3
5
440
6
5.0
6
5.0
20
1,758
12
5.0
3,301 -
10.000
0.626
1.511
2.5
420
250
3
5
1049
10
4.3
8
6.7
20
4,197
16
6.7
10,001-
50.000
2.758
6.277
2.5
1744
700
4
5
2906
16
4.6
12
8.2
20
1 1 ,624
30
5.3
50,001-
100.000
5.082
11.040
2.5
3067
700
6
5
3067
16
4.9
12
8.7
20
12,267
36
3.9
100,001-
1.000.000
23.671
48.429
2.5
13453
700
21
5
3363
20
3.4
14
7.0
20
13,453
36
4.2
>
1.000.000
109.707
205.503
2.5
57084
1000
59
5
4921
20
5.0
16
7.9
20
19,684
36
6.2
Source: Section 4.4.11
Because of the operator attention required to produce such low turbidity water and because few
very small plants are conventional, it was assumed that systems serving fewer than 500 people would not
use this technology. Also construction, engineering, and indirect costs, such as housing or permitting, are
not typically included in the cost estimates. This is because most of these actions are either operational
changes or involve very little capital modifications. Therefore, costs for items such as engineering and
site work are not appropriate.
The assumptions behind each filter improvement action are given in section 4.4.11.1 to 4.4.11.11.
Unit capital and O&M costs for each action are summarized in Exhibits 4.40 and 4.41.
4.4.11.1 Installing Backwash Polymer Feed
Capital costs were based on feeding a 0.5 ppm dose of polymer from a 0.25 percent, by weight,
solution. The backwash duration was assumed to be 15 minutes per filter at a backwash rate of 20
gpm/ft2, with an average filter run of three days. Conceptual design assumed a dry polymer feed system
that can be loaded with a seven-day polymer supply. Extra storage capacity for dry polymer bags was
assumed within the plant. Equipment includes mixing tank, solution tank, secondary dilution mixer, and
metering pumps.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-66
December 2005
-------
Capital costs include equipment, installation (25 percent of equipment), electrical (10 percent of
equipment), instrumentation and control (10 percent of equipment), contingencies (30 percent of
equipment, installation, electrical, and instrumentation and control), contractor overhead and profit (15
percent of equipment, installation, electrical, and instrumentation and control), and engineering (20
percent of equipment, installation, electrical, and instrumentation and control).
O&M costs for the backwash water polymer feed system include polymer cost ($2.25 per pound),
additional maintenance labor, and parts and materials (10 percent of equipment cost per year).
4.4.11.2 Installing Additional Coagulant Feed Points
Capital costs were based on an additional 5 ppm dose of primary coagulant. The primary
coagulant was assumed to be ferric chloride, ferric sulfate, or alum. Thirty days of bulk storage were
assumed for ferric chloride or ferric sulfate (equivalent to approximately 15 days of storage for alum).
Equipment includes bulk storage tanks, day tanks, metering pumps, pipes, and valves.
Capital costs include equipment, installation (25 percent of equipment), electrical (10 percent of
equipment), instrumentation and control (10 percent of equipment), contingencies (30 percent of
equipment, installation, electrical, and instrumentation and control), contractor overhead and profit (15
percent of equipment, installation, electrical, and instrumentation and control), and engineering (20
percent of equipment, installation, electrical, and instrumentation and control).
O&M costs for expansion of the coagulant feed system include coagulant cost ($350 per ton),
additional maintenance labor, and parts and materials (10 percent of equipment cost per year).
4.4.11.3 Filter Media Addition
Individual filter area and number of filters were based on a design filter loading rate of 2.5 gpm/sf
as listed in Exhibit 4.38. It was assumed that only anthracite media needs to be replaced (i.e., no sand
media losses in dual-media filters) and that only anthracite media is added to increase the total media
depth. Topping off existing media was assumed to require 2 inches to 6 inches of anthracite and average
4 inches of anthracite per filter. It was also assumed that an additional 6 inches of anthracite media is
added to each filter to increase the total media depth, giving a total required depth of 10 inches.
Capital costs were based on a total of 10 inches additional anthracite media annually. Costs
include anthracite media, transportation ($2/mileassumed 1,000 milesplus $0.50/lb), installation (25
percent of media cost), contingencies (30 percent of media, transportation, and installation), contractor
overhead and profit (15 percent of media, transportation, and installation), and engineering (20 percent of
media, transportation, and installation). O&M costs for this task were assumed to be zero.
4.4.11.4 Filter to Waste
The number of filters was based on design filter loading rate of 2.5 gpm/ft2' and pipe sizing was
based on a filter loading rate of 5 gpm/ft2, as listed in Exhibit 4.38. Filter effluent piping, filter-to-waste
piping, and drain piping sizes are also listed in Exhibit 4.38. Installing filter-to-waste capability requires
modification of existing filter effluent piping and connection of the new filter-to-waste piping to the filter
drain piping. The extent of modifications required to complete these modifications can vary significantly
depending on plant size and existing piping configuration. The cost estimates presented were based on
the following assumptions:
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 4^67 December 2005
-------
Cutting existing pipe
Replacing 10 feet of filter effluent pipe per filter
Replacing two filter effluent valves (control valve and isolation valve) per filter
Installing one tee in filter effluent piping for FTW piping per filter
Installing one filter-to-waste isolation valve per filter
Installing 25 feet of filter-to-waste piping and four 90 degree elbows per filter
Connecting FTW, including conical reducers and tees, into existing drain piping
Capital costs include equipment, installation (25 percent of equipment), electrical (10 percent of
equipment), instrumentation and control (10 percent of equipment), contingencies (30 percent of
equipment, installation, electrical, and instrumentation and control), contractor overhead and profit (15
percent of equipment, installation, electrical, and instrumentation and control), and engineering (20
percent of equipment, installation, electrical, and instrumentation and control).
O&M costs for addition of filter-to-waste capabilities include additional labor associated with
longer backwash/filter-to-waste/return-to-service duration (15 minutes per filter per backwash), additional
maintenance labor (1 hour per filter per month), and parts and materials (10 percent of equipment cost per
year). Filter run time between backwashes was assumed to be 72 hours.
4.4.11.5 Filter Rate-of-Flow Controller Replacement
Number of filters was based on a design filter loading rate of 2.5 gpm/ft2, and pipe sizing was
based on a filter loading rate of 5 gpm/ft2, as listed in Exhibit 4.38. Filter effluent piping sizes are also
listed in Exhibit 4.38. Installing or replacing the filter rate-of-flow controller requires replacement of
existing filter effluent piping and valves. The extent of modifications required to complete these
modifications can vary significantly depending on plant size and existing piping configuration. The cost
estimates presented were based on the following assumptions:
Cutting existing pipe
Replacing 10 feet of filter effluent pipe per filter
Replacing two filter effluent valves (control valve and isolation valve) per filter
Installing/Replacing a venturi meter
Capital costs include equipment, installation (25 percent of equipment), electrical (10 percent of
equipment), instrumentation and control (10 percent of equipment), contingencies (30 percent of
equipment, installation, electrical, and instrumentation and control), contractor overhead and profit (15
percent of equipment, installation, electrical, and instrumentation and control), and engineering (20
percent of equipment, installation, electrical, and instrumentation and control).
O&M costs for addition or replacement of filter rate-of-flow controllers include additional
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 4^68 December 2005
-------
maintenance labor (1 hour per filter per month), electricity (based on valve actuator horsepower and a
motor efficiency of 70 percent), and parts and materials (10 percent of equipment cost per year). Exhibit
4.39 shows the assumptions for valve actuator horsepower. Horsepowers are based on experience with
similar systems and vender quotes.
Exhibit 4.39: Valve Actuator Horsepower Assumptions
Valve Diameter (in)
<8
<14
<24
>24
Actuator Horsepower (Hp)
1/50
1/6
1/4
1
4.4.11.6 Increase Plant Staffing
A capital cost of $6,000 per new staffer fraction thereof for office and field fixtures, computer
hardware, and training was assumed. The O&M costs were developed assuming labor increases between
10 and 120 hours per week, depending on system size. Systems serving fewer than 3,300 people were
assumed to increase labor by ten hours per week (0.25 operator). Systems serving between 3,300 and
49,999 people were assumed to hire one half-time operator. Systems serving between 50,000 and 99,999
people were assumed to hire one additional operator. Systems serving between 100,000 and 999,999
people were assumed to hire two additional operators. Systems serving 1,000,000 or more people were
assumed to hire three operators.
4.4.11.7 Update Plant Staff Qualifications
No capital costs were associated with this estimate. The O&M costs were calculated including
an annual allowance for training staff members. The best means of continuing the education of staff is
through local or state operator certification training. Using March 2003 AWWA prices, class fees per
operator were assumed to be $260 for systems serving fewer than 10,000 people and $400 for systems
serving 10,000 or more people. Systems serving fewer than 10,000 people were assumed to send one
operator. Systems serving between 10,000 and 99,999 people were assumed to send two operators.
Systems serving between 100,000 and 999,999 people were assumed to send four operators. It was
assumed that systems serving 1,000,000 or more people would send six operators to the training course.
4.4.11.8 Purchase Turbidimeter
This step involves replacing obsolete bench-top or on-line turbidimeters with new on-line units
with electronic data acquisition interface. Based on vendor quotes, the cost for a conventional
turbidimeter, including shipping and installation, was estimated to be $3,242, and the cost of a laser
turbidimeter, including shipping and installation, was estimated to be $5,449.
For systems serving 10,000 or more people, it was assumed that laser turbidity meters will be
purchased. For systems serving fewer than 10,000 people it was assumed that standard on-line
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-69
December 2005
-------
turbidimeters will be purchased. It was assumed that systems serving 1,000,000 or more people would
purchase six additional laser turbidimeters. Systems serving between 100,000 and 999,999 people were
assumed to purchase four additional laser instruments. Systems serving between 50,000 and 99,999
people were assumed to purchase two additional laser instruments. Systems serving between 10,000 and
49,999 people were assumed to purchase one additional instrument (laser). Systems serving fewer than
10,000 people were assumed to purchase one additional standard on-line instrument.
The O&M costs were calculated considering annual maintenance material and labor required for
general maintenance and monthly calibration of the equipment. For each additional instrument, twenty
hours per year were assumed to be required for labor.
4.4.11.9 Purchase Jar Test Apparatus
Based on vendor quotes the cost of a six-paddled stirrer with two liter jars, including shipping,
was estimated to be $2,722. Systems serving fewer than 100,000 people were assumed to purchase one
apparatus. Systems serving between 100,000 and 999,999 people were assumed to purchase two
apparatuses. It was assumed that systems serving 1,000,000 or more people would purchase three
apparatuses.
More frequent jar testing may be required to optimize chemical addition during coagulation. It
has been assumed that seven hours per week will be required to operate each jar testing apparatus.
4.4.11.10 Purchase Particle Counters
Based on vendor quotes, the cost of a particle counter with interface for data acquisition system
was estimated to be $6,024. It was assumed that only systems serving 1,000 or more people would
purchase the instrument. Systems serving between 1,000 and 99,999 people were assumed to purchase
one instrument. Systems serving between 100,000 and 999,999 people were assumed to purchase two
particle counters. Systems serving 1,000,000 or more people were assumed to purchase three particle
counters. It was assumed that 20 hours per unit would be required for installation and initial calibration
of each unit. It was assumed that 40 hours of labor per year would be required for the calibration and
maintenance of each instrument.
4.4.11.11 Staff Training
No capital costs were associated with this estimate. The costs associated with this estimate were
assumed to be an annual O&M commitment for training all staff members and were based on an average
consultant hourly wage of $100/hour. The O&M costs were developed assuming between 14 and 140
hours of consultant time, depending on the size of the system. The hours budgeted for consultants include
time spent on site conducting training and time for customizing the training.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-70 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.40: Capital Unit Costs for Combined Filter Performance Components
System Population Size Categories
Chemical Addition
501-
1,000
1,001-
3,300
3,301-
10,000
10,001 -
50,000
50,001 -
100,000
100,001 -
1,000,000
>1,000,000
Install backwash water polymer feed capability | $1 13,000| $1 13,000| $118,300| $126,200| $126,200| $210,300| $323,300
Coagulant Improvements
Primary coagulant feed points, control, measurement
Filtration Improvements
Filter media additions (10" typical)
Post backwash filter-to-waste
Filter rate-of-flow controller replacement
Process Managament Changes
Plant staffing increase
Staff qualifications
Laboratory Modifications
Purchase on-line turbidimeter with data acquisition interface
Jar test apparatus purchase
Alternative process control testing equipment, particle counter
Process Control Modifications
Staff training (consultant as trainer)
$36,300| $37,400| $57,500| $116,000| $128,400| $207,900| $703,300
$5,900
$18,900
$21,360
$9,500
$38,100
$38,079
$19,800
$70,700
$94,418
$67,800
$243,900
$233,728
$106,100
$434,600
$479,684
$401,600
$1,906,300
$2,749,255
$1,644,900
$5,436,900
$9,801,092
$1,500
$0
$1,500
$0
$3,000
$0
$3,000
$0
$6,000
$0
$12,000
$0
$18,000
$0
$3,243
$2,722
$0
$3,243
$2,722
$6,523
$3,243
$2,722
$6,523
$5,449
$2,722
$6,523
$21,796
$2,722
$6,523
$87,184
$5,444
$13,046
$196,164
$8,166
$19,570
$0| $0| $0| $0| $0| $0| $0
Source: Section 4.4.11
Exhibit 4.41: O&M Unit Costs for Combined Filter Performance Components
System Population Size Categories
Chemical Addition
Install backwash water polymer feed capability
Coagulant Improvements
Primary coagulant feed points, control, measurement
Filtration Improvements
Filter media additions (10" typical)
Post backwash filter-to-waste
Filter rate-of-flow controller replacement
Process Managament Changes
Plant staffing-increase
Staff qualifications
Laboratory Modifications
Purchase on-line turbidimeter with data acquisition interface
Jar test apparatus purchase
Alternative process control testing equipment-
Particle counter
Process Control Modifications
Staff training (consultant as trainer)
501-
1,000
1,001-
3,300
3,301-
10,000
10,001 -
50,000
50,001 -
100,000
100,001 -
1,000,000
>1,000,000
$6,000| $6,1 00| $6,700| $8,000| $8,300| $16,300| $36,700
$2,000| $2,300| $3,200| $8,800| $14,100| $54,000| $199,800
$0
$2,300
$2,500
$0
$3,600
$3,800
$0
$3,900
$5,400
$0
$6,600
$8,700
$0
$10,500
$13,100
$0
$40,700
$47,800
$0
$116,200
$134,300
$12,979
$460
$12,979
$460
$25,958
$659
$25,958
$1,199
$51,917
$1 ,599
$103,834
$3,197
$155,750
$4,796
$684
$9,085
$0
$684
$9,085
$1,239
$684
$9,085
$1,239
$724
$9,085
$1,239
$1,223
$9,085
$1,239
$2,447
$18,171
$2,238
$3,445
$27,256
$3,236
$1,400| $1,600| $2,800| $5,000| $7,000| $10,000| $14,000
Source: Section 4.4.11
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-71
December 2005
-------
4.4.11.12 Average Plant Cost
Percentages of plants using each of the filter performance options described in 4.4.11.1 through
4.4.11.11 were determined using best professional judgement. The percentages do not add to 100 as
many systems will have to use more than one of the steps to achieve the desired reduction in CFE
turbidity. Exhibit 4.42 shows the percentages used.
Exhibit 4.42: Percentages of Plants Using Each Filter Improvement Option
System Population Size Categories
Chemical Addition
Install backwash water polymer feed capability
Coagulant Improvements
Primary coagulant feed points, control, measurement
Filtration Improvements
Filter media additions (10" typical)
Post backwash filter-to-waste
Filter rate-of-flow controller replacement
Process Managament Changes
Plant staffing-increase
Staff qualifications
Laboratory Modifications
Bench top turbidimeter purchase-replace obsolete units
Jar test apparatus purchase
Alternative process control testing equipment, particle counter
Process Control Modifications
Staff training (consultant as trainer)
501-
1,000
1,001-
3,300
3,301-
10,000
10,001-
50,000
50,001-
100,000
100,001-
1,000,000
>1, 000,000
10%
10%
10%
10% | 10% | 10% | 10%
0%
5%
10%
10% | 10% | 10% | 10%
5%
5%
15%
10%
5%
15%
15%
5%
15%
20%
5%
15%
20%
5%
15%
20%
5%
15%
20%
5%
15%
100%
100%
1 00%
100%
100%
100%
1 00%
1 00%
100%
100%
1 00%
1 00%
1 00%
100%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
20%
10%
10%
20%
10%
10%
20%
10%
10%
20%
80%
80%
80%
80% | 80% | 80% | 80%
Source: Section 4.4.11
To compute an average capital and O&M cost for all plants using the combined filter
performance toolbox option, the percentages were multiplied by the capital and O&M costs for each of
the processes from Exhibits 4.40 and 4.41. Exhibits 4.43 and 4.44 show the final capital and O&M costs
used for plants using combined filter performance to achieve LT2ESWTR compliance.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-72
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.43: Capital Cost Estimates for the Combined Filter Performance
System Population Size Categories
Chemical Addition
Install backwash water polymer feed capability
Coagulant Improvements
Primary coagulant feed points, control, measurement
Filtration Improvements
Filter media additions (10" typical)
Post backwash filter-to-waste
Filter rate-of-flow controller replacement
Process Managament Changes
Plant staffing increase
Staff qualifications
Laboratory Modifications
Purchase on-line turbidimeter with data acquisition interface
Jar test apparatus purchase
Alternative process control testing equipment, particle counter
Process Control Modifications
Staff training (consultant as trainer)
501-
1,000
1,001-
3,300
3,301-
10,000
10,001 -
50,000
50,001 -
100,000
100,001 -
1,000,000
>1,000,000
$11,300|$1 1,300
$11,830
$12,620
$12,620
$21,030
$32,330
$0| $1,870| $5,750| $11,600| $12,840| $20,790| $70,330
$295
$945
$3,204
$950
$1 ,905
$5,712
$2,970
$3,535
$14,163
$13,560
$12,195
$35,059
$21,220
$21,730
$71 ,953
$80,320
$95,315
$412,388
$328,980
$271,845
$1,470,164
$1,500
$0
$1 ,500
$0
$3,000
$0
$3,000
$0
$6,000
$0
$12,000
$0
$18,000
$0
$324
$272
$0
$324
$272
$652
$324
$272
$652
$545
$272
$1,305
$2,180
$272
$1 ,305
$8,718
$544
$2,609
$19,616
$817
$3,914
$0| $0| $0| $0| $0| $0| $0
Total| 17,840| 24,486| 42,497| 90,156| 150,119| 653,715| 2,215,996|
Source: Capital costs from Exhibit 4.40 multiplied by percentages in Exhibit 4.42. "Total" represents the average cost
per plant.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-73
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.44: O&M Costs for the Combined Filter Performance
System Population Size Categories
Chemical Addition
Install backwash water polymer feed capability
Coagulant Improvements
Primary coagulant feed points, control, measurement
Filtration Improvements
Filter media additions (10" typical)
Post backwash filter-to-waste
Filter rate-of-flow controller replacement
Process Managament Changes
Plant staffing-increase
Staff qualifications
Laboratory Modifications
Purchase on-line turbidimeter with data acquisition interface
Jar test apparatus purchase
Alternative process control testing equipment-
Particle counter
Process Control Modifications
Staff training (consultant as trainer)
501-
1,000
1,001-
3,300
3,301-
10,000
10,001 -
50,000
50,001 -
100,000
100,001 -
1,000,000
>1, 000,000
$600| $61 0| $670| $800| $830| $1,630| $3,670
$0| $11 5| $320| $880| $1,410| $5,400| $19,980
$0
$115
$375
$0
$180
$570
$0
$195
$810
$0
$330
$1,305
$0
$525
$1,965
$0
$2,035
$7,170
$0
$5,810
$20,145
$12,979
$460
$12,979
$460
$25,958
$659
$25,958
$1,199
$51,917
$1,599
$103,834
$3,197
$155,750
$4,796
$68
$909
$0
$68
$909
$124
$68
$909
$124
$72
$909
$248
$122
$909
$248
$245
$1,817
$448
$345
$2,726
$647
$1,1 20| $1,280| $2,240| $4,000| $5,600| $8,000| $11,200
Total
16,626| 17,295| 31,954| 35,702| 65,124| 133,775] 225,069]
Source: O&M costs from Exhibit 4.41 multiplied by the percentages in Exhibit 4.42. "Total" represents the average
O&M cost per plant.
4.5 DBF Precursor and Microbial Removal Technologies
This section presents capital and O&M estimates for new or enhanced technologies employed for
the removal of DBF precursors. It should be noted that all of the technologies discussed in this section
may not be applicable for all systems.
4.5.1 Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Costs for GAC adsorption were estimated for two EBCTs: 10 minutes and 20 minutes.
Installation of the GAC contactors was assumed to be after filtration. The number of contactors (n) varies
by system size, with a minimum of two operating contactors to take advantage of blending. Exhibit 4.45
presents the number of contactors assumed for each system size for which costs are presented.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-74
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.45: GAC Contactor Assumptions
Number of
Contactors
n
n+1
Design Flow (mgd)
0.024
2
3
0.087
2
3
0.1
4
5
0.27
4
5
0.45
5
6
0.65
5
6
0.83
5
6
1
5
6
10
10
11
11
10
11
18
10
11
26
10
11
51
10
11
210
20
21
430
20
21
520
20
21
Note: n = number of operating contactors
n+1 = number of contactors including redundant contactors, which are used for costing
Source: Calculated based on flow and reactor size.
Costs are also presented for a range of reactivation frequencies (90, 240, and 360 days) to account
for variability in source water quality. For an EBCT of 10 minutes, costs are presented for reactivation
frequency of 360 days. For an EBCT of 20 minutes, costs are presented for reactivation frequencies of 90
and 240 days. The reactivation frequency is a function of the number of contactors and system size. The
reactivation frequency identified (e.g., 90 days) represents the reactivation frequency of the largest system
for which costs are provided (430 mgd). The frequency for systems with fewer than 20 contactors (i.e.,
the number of operating contactors assumed for the largest system) is actually a fraction of the frequency
identified. The correlation between « and blended run time is based upon results presented in Analysis of
GAC Effluent Blending During the ICR Treatment Studies (USEPA 1999a), which includes an analysis of
the incremental increase in blended run time attributable to the addition of a contactor in parallel. The
true reactivation frequencies for each system size are presented in Exhibits 4.46 through 4.48.
4.5.1.1 Summary of GAC Capital Cost Assumptions
Costs were generally obtained from the Water model. Some cost components were based on
vendor quotes; these were discounted to year 2003 dollars using the ENR BCI. The original regression
equations provided costs in 2001 year dollars. The ENR BCI index was used to update these values to
2003 year dollars.
Process Costs
At least two contactors were assumed to be in service with one stand-by. Exhibit 4.45
summarizes the number of contactors or pressure vessels assumed for each flow category. Systems with
design flows of less than 1 mgd were assumed to use package plants.
GAC Contactor. Media, and Regeneration Furnace Costs (large systems)
For large systems (>1 mgd design flow), the capital costs for GAC contactor, initial media, and
regeneration furnace were obtained from the Water model. The model was used to calculate the capital
costs, based on design flow, average operating flow, EBCT, and regeneration frequency. Capital costs
include concrete gravity contactors operated at a loading rate 5 gpm/ft2, troughs and pipes for carbon
removal as a slurry, initial virgin carbon.
Large systems regenerate on-site utilizing a multiple-hearth furnace. The size of the furnace is
affected by the carbon usage rate, which is affected by the reactivation frequency. A loading rate of 50
lb/ft2 per day was assumed for all systems.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-75
December 2005
-------
For EBCT10 min and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
GAC Contactor and Regeneration Furnace ($) = (194516 x (Design Flow)0751)* 1.033
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
GAC Contactor and Regeneration Furnace($) = (298015 x (Design Flow)07876)* 1.033
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
GAC Contactor and Regeneration Furnace ($) = (370226 x (Design Flow)07562)* 1.033
Package GAC System Costs (Small Systems)
For small systems (0.1-1.0 mgd design flow), the capital costs for package units were estimated
using the Water model. Capital costs include pressure vessels, factory-assembled contactors mounted on
steel skid, initial charge of activated carbon, supply and backwash pump, valves, piping, and pressure
gauges, and electrical control panels.
For very small systems (< 0.1 mgd design flow), the capital costs for GAC package units were
estimated using the VSS Model. Capital costs include GAC pressure contactor vessels, virgin GAC,
pipes and valves, and instrumentation and controls.
Because small and very small systems operate on a replacement basis, capital costs are unaffected
by reactivation frequency or carbon usage rate. As a result, capital costs for small systems vary only by
EBCT and design flow.
For EBCT 10 min and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
GAC Package Plant ($) = (-33425 x (Design Flow)2+ 332500 x (Design Flow) + 17765)* 1.033
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
GAC Package Plant ($) = (-129710 x (Design Flow)2+ 640704 x (Design Flow) + 10721)* 1.033
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
GAC Package Plant ($) = (-129710 x (Design Flow)2+ 640704 x (Design Flow) + 10721)* 1.033
Piping and Valves Costs
For large systems, the capital costs for pipes and valves were obtained from the Water model.
The costs include the pipes and valves associated with GAC contactors, regeneration furnace, and booster
pumps.
For EBCT 10 min and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
Pipes and Valves ($) = (81744 x (Design Flow)07327)* 1.033
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
Pipes and Valves ($) = (104596 x (Design Flow)07701)* 1.033
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
Pipes and Valves ($) = (106594 x (Design Flow)07674)* 1.033
For small and very small systems, the capital costs for pipes and valves were included in the GAC
package costs.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 4^76 December 2005
-------
Electrical Costs
For large systems, the electrical capital costs are obtained from the Water model. These costs
included flow measurement and instrumentation, and master operations control panel.
For EBCT10 mm and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
Electrical ($) = (25862 x (Design Flow)07329)* 1.033
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
Electrical ($) = (32569 x (Design Flow)07623)* 1.033
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
Electrical ($) = (34188 x (Design Flow)07554)* 1.033
For small and very small systems, the capital costs for electrical control panels were included in
the GAC package costs.
Process Monitoring Equipment Costs
The performance of GAC in removing DBF can be measured by monitoring the amount of TOC
or DOC removed by the GAC column. Regular monitoring for TOC will also enable the detection of any
unexpected breakthrough. For large systems, it was assumed that TOC monitoring will be conducted in-
house; therefore, two TOC analyzers will be purchased. For small systems, it was assumed that samples
will be sent to contracted laboratories for TOC measurement; therefore, TOC analyzers will not be
purchased. Costs were obtained from vendor quotes.
Booster Pump Costs
A booster pump system is included to overcome additional head loss introduced by the GAC
system. For design flows greater than 1 mgd, the capital costs for the booster pump system were obtained
from the Water model. These costs were projected to 0.1 mgd using a straight line. The assumption in
the model was a horizontal centrifugal pump capable of providing up to 100 feet of head. For design
flows less than 0.1 mgd, estimates from vendors were used to determine capital costs for an in-line
centrifugal pump.
For design flow >0.1 mgd:
Booster Pump ($) = (20913 x (Design Flow)07543)* 1.033
For design flow <0.1 mgd:
Booster Pump ($) = (665970 x (Design Flow)2 - 13682 x (Design Flow) + 829.1)* 1.033
Capital Cost Multipliers
The total direct costs were estimated by multiplying the subtotal of process costs by 1.67 for
small systems (design flow less than 1 mgd) and 2.0 for large systems (design flow greater than 1 mgd).
The capital cost multiplier includes percentages for process installation, site work, contractor overhead
and profit, contingencies, engineering and design, mobilization and bonding, legal and administrative, and
interest during construction. See Exhibit 4.2 for the percentages of each that make up the multiplier.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-77 December 2005
-------
Indirect Capital Costs
The indirect capital costs for all systems include housing, piloting, permitting, land, and operator
training.
Housing Costs
For design flows greater than 1 mgd, a building cost was assumed to house the process
equipment. The process costs estimated in the previous steps do not include the cost of the building. The
building cost was assumed to be a function of the process area. The process area was obtained from the
Water model.
For EBCT10 min and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
Process Area (sq ft) = (681.18 x (Design Flow)0612)* 1.033
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
Process Area (sq ft) = (925.83 x (Design Flow)06631)* 1.033
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
Process Area (sq ft) = (1210.4 x (Design Flow)06297)* 1.033
Housing ($) = 48.95 x Process Area
Additional housing was not assumed to be needed for small systems.
Piloting Costs
It was assumed that pilot-scale or bench-scale tests would be necessary to determine the capacity
of GAC to remove DBP precursors (TOC or DOC) for a particular type of water. Piloting costs were
assumed to be $5,000 for design flow less than 0.1 mgd, $10,000 for design flow greater than 0.1 mgd but
less than 1.0 mgd, and $50,000 for design flow greater than 1.0 mgd.
Permitting Costs
Permitting costs were assumed for all system sizes. Permitting was estimated at three percent of
the total process cost (i.e., pre-capital cost multiplier). A minimum permitting cost of $2,500 and a
maximum of $500,000 was also assumed. For further details about these costs, refer to section 4.2.
Land Costs
Land costs were assumed to be two percent of the total capital cost for all system sizes. For
further details about these costs, refer to section 4.2.
Operator Training Costs
While the operators from large systems generally undergo regular training, the operators from
small systems may require additional training. For design flow less than 1 mgd, it was assumed that one
operator will be trained on GAC treatment process for three days at a cost of approximately $500 ($25
per hour).
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-78 December 2005
-------
4.5.1.2 Summary of GAC O&M Cost Assumptions
GAC Usage Rate and Replacement Costs
For design flows greater than 10 mgd and in the 0.1-1 mgd range, the annual GAC usage rate
(Ibs/year) was calculated from average flow, EBCT, and number of regenerations per year. The annual
GAC replacement costs were based on a unit cost that declines with higher quantities of GAC. The unit
cost ranged from $1.00 to $1.20 per pound. For design flows between 1 and 10 mgd, the annual GAC
replacement costs were obtained by linear interpolation between the costs for 1 mgd and 10 mgd systems.
For design flows less than 0.1 mgd, the annual GAC replacement costs were not listed separately but were
included in the total O&M costs obtained from the VSS model.
For design flow < 1 mgd
For EBCT 10 min and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
GAC Replacement (Ib/yr) = 33034 x (Average Flow) + 111.2
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
GAC Replacement (Ib/yr) = 98716 x (Average Flow) + 344.55
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
GAC Replacement (Ib/yr) = 260881 x (Average Flow) + 795.77
For design flow >1 mgd and < 10 mgd
For EBCT 10 min and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
GAC Replacement (Ib/yr) = 926.57 x (Average Flow) + 11693
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
GAC Replacement (Ib/yr)) = 2774.2 x (Average Flow) + 34957
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
GAC Replacement (Ib/yr) = 7266.7 x (Average Flow) + 92267
For design flow > 10 mgd
For EBCT 10 min and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
GAC Replacement ($/yr) = 3146.3 x (Average Flow) + 4073.3
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
GAC Replacement (Ib/yr) = 9440.3 x (Average Flow) + 11853
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
GAC Replacement (Ib/yr) = 25190 x (Average Flow) + 27754
GAC Replacement ($/yr) = (-0.0541*LN(Usage Rate (Ib/yr)) + 1.9172)*Usage Rate (Ib/yr)
Labor Costs
For design flows greater than 10 mgd, the annual labor hours were obtained from the Water
model. The labor hours include the requirements associated with operation of GAC contactors, media
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 4^79 December 2005
-------
replacement, regeneration furnace, and booster pumps.
For design flows between 0.1-1 mgd, the annual labor hours were obtained from the Water
model. For this model, the labor hours included requirements associated with operation of the GAC
package unit, media replacement, and booster pumps. For design flows between 1 and 10 mgd, the
annual labor hours were obtained by linear interpolation between the labor hours for 1 mgd and 10 mgd
systems.
For the very small systems (design flows <0.1 mgd), labor requirements were assumed to be one
hour per week plus an additional 8 hours per reactivation. However, the annual labor hours were not
listed separately but were included in the total O&M costs obtained from the VSS model.
The annual labor costs for all flow rates were obtained by multiplying the labor hours by the
labor costs per hour.
For design flow < 1 mgd
For EBCT10 min and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
Labor ($/yr) = ((858.36 x Average Flow) + 402.56) x labor($/hr)
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
Labor ($/yr) = ((1503.2 x Average Flow) + 433.84) x labor($/hr)
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
Labor ($/yr) = ((1503.2 x Average Flow) + 433.84) x labor($/hr)
For design flow >1 mgd and < 10 mgd
For EBCT 10 min and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
Labor ($/yr) = ((551.97 x Average Flow) + 533.12 ) x labor($/hr)
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
Labor ($/yr) = ((683.86 x Average Flow) + 709.64) x labor($/hr)
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
Labor ($/yr) = ((810.91 x Average Flow) + 663.91) x labor($/hr)
For design flow > 10 mgd
For EBCT 10 min and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
Labor ($/yr) = (143.15 x Average Flow) + 2538.7) x labor($/hr)
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
Labor ($/yr) = ((-0.2147 x Average Flow2) + (343.74 x Average Flow) + 2100) x labor($/hr)
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
Labor ($/yr) = (1297.2 x Average Flow07536) x labor($/hr)
Power (Electricity) Costs
For design flows greater than 10 mgd, the annual power requirements (kWh/year) were obtained
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 4^80 December 2005
-------
from the Water model. For this model, the power requirements included those associated with operation
of GAC contactors, media replacement, regeneration furnace, and booster pumps.
For design flows between 0.1-1 mgd, the annual power requirements were obtained from the
Water model. For this model, the power requirements included those associated with operation of GAC
package unit and booster pumps.
For design flows between 1 and 10 mgd, the annual power requirements were obtained by linear
interpolation between the power requirements for 1 mgd and 10 mgd systems.
For the very small systems (design flows < 0.1 mgd), the annual power costs were not listed
separately but were included in the total O&M costs obtained from the VSS model.
The annual power costs were obtained by multiplying the energy requirements (kWh/year) by
unit energy costs of $0.076 per kWh. Note, the unit energy cost value is rounded to $0.08 per kWh in the
regression equations below.
For design flow <1 mgd
For EBCT10 min and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
Power ($/yr)) = (240221 x Average Flow) + 71518) x 0.08
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
Power ($/yr) = (276311 x Average Flow03872) x 0.08
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
Power ($/yr) = (276311 x Average Flow03872) x 0.08
For design flow >1 mgd and < 10 mgd
For EBCT 10 min and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
Power ($/yr)) = ((74235 x Average Flow) + 127519) x 0.08
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
Power ($/yr) = ((99122 x Average Flow) + 149023) x 0.08
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
Power ($/yr) = ((127743 x Average Flow) + 138719) x 0.08
For design flow > 10 mgd
For EBCT 10 min and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
Power ($/yr) = ((73380 x Average Flow) + 215530) x 0.08
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
Power ($/yr) = ((75925 x Average Flow) + 329950) x 0.08
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
Power ($/yr) = ((79096 x Average Flow) + 410520) x 0.08
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-81 December 2005
-------
Natural Gas Costs
For design flows greater than 1 mgd, the natural gas requirements (cubic feet/year) associated
with the regeneration furnace were obtained from the Water model. The annual costs for natural gas were
obtained by multiplying the gas requirements (cubic feet/year) by unit gas costs of $0.006 per cubic feet.
For EBCT10 min and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
Natural Gas ($/yr) = (510552 x Average Flow084) x 0.006
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
Natural Gas ($/yr) = (1000000 x Average Flow0853) x 0.006
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
Natural Gas ($/yr) = (3000000 x Average Flow08702) x 0.006
Performance Monitoring Costs
For design flows less than 1 mgd, the number of TOC samples were based on analyzing one
sample every two weeks per GAC pressure vessel. Performance monitoring costs were based on the
assumption that the samples will be sent to contract laboratories and that the cost of TOC analyses are $65
per sample.
For design flows greater than 1 mgd, it was assumed that the TOC samples will be analyzed in-
house using the automated TOC analyzers. Therefore, no additional performance monitoring costs were
assumed for this system size.
Maintenance Materials Costs
For design flows greater than 10 mgd, the maintenance materials costs were obtained from the
Water model. For this model, the maintenance materials included those associated with operation of
GAC contactors, media replacement, regeneration furnace, and booster pumps.
For design flows between 0.1-1 mgd, the maintenance materials costs were obtained from the
Water model. For this model, the maintenance materials requirements included those associated with
operation of GAC package units and booster pumps.
For design flows between 1 and 10 mgd, the maintenance materials costs were obtained by linear
interpolation between the power requirements for 1 mgd and 10 mgd systems. For the very small systems
(design flows < 0.1 mgd), the maintenance materials costs were not listed separately but included in the
total O&M costs obtained from the VSS model.
For design flow < 1 mgd
For EBCT 10 min and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
Materials ($/yr) = (6702.4 x Average Flow) + 626.84
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
Materials ($/yr) = (12444 x Average Flow) + 898.16
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
Materials ($/yr) = (12444 x Average Flow) + 898.16
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 4^82 December 2005
-------
For design flow >1 mgd and < 10 mgd
For EBCT10 mm and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
Materials ($/yr) = 3458.7 x Average Flow06551
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
Materials ($/yr) = (2708.8 x Average Flow) + 4333.4
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
Materials ($/yr) = (3529.2 x Average Flow) + 4038
For design flow > 10 mgd
For EBCT 10 min and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
Materials ($/yr) = 3458.7 x Average Flow06551
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
Materials ($/yr) = 6202.7 x Average Flow0641
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
Materials ($/yr) = 7750.8 x Average Flow06105
VSSModel Costs
For the very small systems (design flows <0.1 mgd), the total O&M costs were obtained from the
VSS model. These costs include operation of GAC pressure vessels and booster pumps, material
replacement, labor, and power.
For EBCT 10 min and Reactivation Frequency = 360 days:
VSS Model ($/yr) = 144625 x Average Flow05907
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 240 days:
VSS Model ($/yr) = 231094 x Average Flow06421
For EBCT 20 min and Reactivation Frequency = 90 days:
VSS Model ($/yr) = 607295 x Average Flow07075
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-83 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.46: Summary of GAC Costs (EBCT =10 minutes, 360 day reactivation frequency)
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Capital Cost
Indirect Capital Costs
Housing
Piloting
Permitting
Land
Operator Training
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
GAC Contactor, Media, & Regeneration Furnace
GAC Package Unit (for small systems)
Pipes and Valves
Electrical (Instrumentation & Controls)
Process Monitoring Equipment (TOG Analyzer)
Booster Pumps
Annual O&M Summary
Total O&M Cost per Year
GAC Replacement ($/yr)
Labor ($/yr)
Power ($/yr)
Natural Gas ($/yr)
Performance Monitoring ($/yr)
Maintenance Materials ($/yr)
Total O&M costs (from VSS Model) - ($/yr)
0.007
0.0015
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.022
0.0054
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.037
0.0095
63,046
9,079
-
5,000
2,500
1,079
500
53,966
32,315
31,039
-
1,276
12,360
-
3,120
-
9,240
0.091
0.025
101,302
10,062
-
5,000
2,737
1,825
500
91,240
54,635
49,363
-
5,272
19,485
-
3,120
-
16,365
0.18
0.054
159,645
17,602
-
10,000
4,261
2,841
500
142,043
85,056
79,125
-
5,931
27,213
2,859
10,365
6,759
6,240
989
-
0.27
0.084
215,163
20,246
-
10,000
5,848
3,898
500
194,917
116,717
108,664
-
8,053
30,798
4,289
11,743
7,336
6,240
1,190
-
0.36
0.11
269,400
22,829
-
10,000
7,397
4,931
500
246,572
147,648
137,643
-
10,005
34,808
5,513
12,295
7,835
7,800
1,364
-
0.68
0.23
452,926
31,568
-
10,000
12,641
8,427
500
421,358
252,310
236,147
-
16,164
46,000
11,047
14,844
10,142
7,800
2,168
-
1
0.35
783,808
85,419
-
50,000
20,952
13,968
500
698,388
349,194
327,573
-
21,621
57,078
16,466
17,392
12,448
7,800
2,973
-
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Source: Section 4.5.1
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-84
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.46 (continued): Summary of GAC Costs (EBCT =10 minutes, 360 day reactivation frequency)
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Capital Cost
Indirect Capital Costs
Housing
Piloting
Permitting
Land
Operator Training
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
GAC Contactor, Media, & Regeneration Furnace
GAC Package Unit (for small systems)
Pipes and Valves
Electrical (Instrumentation & Controls)
Process Monitoring Equipment (TOG Analyzer)
Booster Pumps
Annual O&M Summary
Total O&M Cost per Year
GAC Replacement ($/yr)
Labor ($/yr)
Power ($/yr)
Natural Gas ($/yr)
Performance Monitoring ($/yr)
Maintenance Materials ($/yr)
Total O&M costs (from VSS Model) - ($/yr)
1.2
0.41
999,248
130,707
37,280
50,000
26,056
17,371
-
868,541
434,271
230,615
-
96,592
30,561
51,694
24,809
51,809
17,007
18,788
12,636
1,449
-
1,929
2
0.77
1,385,099
162,111
50,962
50,000
36,690
24,460
-
1,222,988
611,494
338,452
-
140,439
44,438
51,694
36,471
61,887
17,459
24,279
14,774
2,459
-
2,914
3.5
1.4
2,014,217
211,893
71,777
50,000
54,070
36,046
-
1,802,324
901,162
515,250
-
211,623
66,970
51,694
55,626
79,158
18,248
34,018
18,516
4,064
-
4,312
7
3
3,258,534
307,265
109,702
50,000
88,538
59,025
-
2,951,268
1,475,634
867,145
-
351,663
111,302
51,694
93,830
120,100
20,246
57,024
28,018
7,709
-
7,104
17
7.8
6,140,593
519,857
188,821
50,000
168,622
112,415
-
5,620,735
2,810,368
1,688,458
-
673,711
213,268
51,694
183,236
227,710
38,974
95,220
63,032
17,201
-
13,284
22
11
7,400,352
610,583
221,094
50,000
203,693
135,795
-
6,789,769
3,394,885
2,049,192
-
813,798
257,627
51,694
222,574
280,625
52,056
107,153
81,817
22,959
-
16,639
76
38
18,311,317
1,361,145
472,142
50,000
500,000
339,003
-
16,950,172
8,475,086
5,198,933
-
2,018,347
639,114
51,694
566,998
709,287
158,605
207,837
240,318
65,044
-
37,483
210
120
38,194,366
2,150,334
879,453
50,000
500,000
720,881
-
36,044,032
18,022,016
11,153,467
-
4,250,244
1,346,122
51,694
1,220,490
1,952,120
466,311
513,620
721,690
170,885
-
79,613
430
270
64,571,358
3,142,215
1,363,632
50,000
500,000
1,228,583
-
61,429,143
30,714,571
19,105,482
-
7,185,650
2,276,140
51,694
2,095,605
4,368,760
1,005,806
1,287,574
1,602,250
337,704
-
135,425
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Source: Section 4.5.1
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-85
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.47: Summary of GAC Costs (EBCT = 20 minutes, 90 day reactivation frequency)
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Capital Cost
Indirect Capital Costs
Housing
Piloting
Permitting
Land
Operator Training
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
GAC Contactor, Media, & Regeneration Furnace
GAC Package Unit (for small systems)
Pipes and Valves
Electrical (Instrumentation & Controls)
Process Monitoring Equipment (TOC Analyzer)
Booster Pumps
Annual O&M Summary
Total O&M Cost per Year
GAC Replacement ($/yr)
Labor ($/yr)
Power ($/yr)
Natural Gas ($/yr)
Performance Monitoring ($/yr)
Maintenance Materials ($/yr)
Total O&M Cost (from VSS or Water Model) - ($/yr)
0.007
0.0015
36,117
8,551
-
5,000
2,500
551
500
27,566
16,506
-
15,714
-
-
-
792
9,222
-
-
-
-
3,120
-
6,102
0.022
0.0054
53,091
8,884
-
5,000
2,500
884
500
44,207
26,471
-
25,592
-
-
-
879
18,223
-
-
-
-
3,120
-
15,103
0.037
0.0095
70,491
9,225
-
5,000
2,500
1,225
500
61,266
36,686
-
35,410
-
-
-
1,276
25,644
-
-
-
-
3,120
-
22,524
0.091
0.025
137,932
1 1 ,806
-
5,000
3,784
2,523
500
126,126
75,524
-
70,253
-
-
-
5,272
47,782
-
-
-
-
3,120
-
44,662
0.18
0.054
241 ,793
21,514
-
10,000
6,608
4,406
500
220,279
131,904
-
125,973
-
-
-
5,931
47,639
20,798
1 1 ,892
7,140
-
6,240
1,570
-
0.27
0.084
340,528
26,216
-
10,000
9,429
6,286
500
314,313
188,211
-
180,158
-
-
-
8,053
61,728
31,216
13,857
8,472
-
6,240
1,943
-
0.36
0.11
435,155
30,722
-
10,000
12,133
8,089
500
404,433
242,176
-
232,171
-
-
-
10,005
74,417
40,122
14,824
9,404
-
7,800
2,267
-
0.68
0.23
739,387
45,209
-
10,000
20,825
13,884
500
694,178
415,676
-
399,512
-
-
-
16,164
123,691
80,331
19,287
12,513
-
7,800
3,760
-
1
0.35
1,228,620
106,601
-
50,000
33,661
22,440
500
1,122,019
561 ,009
-
539,388
-
-
-
21,621
171,149
119,625
23,749
14,721
-
7,800
5,254
-
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Source: Section 4.5.1
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-86
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.47 (continued): Summary of GAC Costs (EBCT = 20 minutes, 90 day reactivation frequency)
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Capital Cost
Indirect Capital Costs
Housing
Piloting
Permitting
Land
Operator Training
Direct Capital Cost1
Subtotal Process Cost
GAC Contactor, Media, & Regeneration Furnace
GAC Package Unit (for small systems)
Pipes and Valves
Electrical (Instrumentation & Controls)
Process Monitoring Equipment (TOG Analyzer)
Booster Pumps
Annual O&M Summary
Total O&M Cost per Year
GAC Replacement ($/yr)
Labor ($/yr)
Power ($/yr)
Natural Gas ($/yr)
Performance Monitoring ($/yr)
Maintenance Materials ($/yr)
Total O&M Cost (from VSS or Water Model) - ($/yr)
1.2
0.41
1,551,122
184,775
66,457
50,000
40,990
27,327
1,366,348
683,174
439,351
-
126,755
40,565
51,694
24,809
177,242
123,533
24,651
15,287
8,285
5,485
-
2
0.77
2,203,728
239,866
91,673
50,000
58,916
39,277
1,963,862
981,931
646,508
-
187,591
59,668
51,694
36,471
199,489
126,783
32,646
18,966
14,338
6,755
-
3.5
1.4
3,275,153
327,770
130,401
50,000
88,421
58,948
2,947,383
1,473,691
987,095
-
288,216
91,061
51,694
55,626
237,836
132,460
46,869
25,405
24,123
8,979
-
7
3
5,411,638
497,471
201,762
50,000
147,425
98,283
4,914,168
2,457,084
1,667,239
-
490,601
153,719
51,694
93,830
330,703
146,831
80,667
41,756
46,823
14,626
-
17
7.8
10,411,502
879,379
352,773
50,000
285,964
190,642
9,532,123
4,766,062
3,261,371
-
969,275
300,485
51,694
183,236
656,235
280,444
158,890
82,198
107,541
27,163
-
22
11
12,611,714
1,043,376
414,959
50,000
347,050
231,367
11,568,338
5,784,169
3,963,463
-
1,181,342
365,096
51,694
222,574
863,063
376,193
205,877
102,446
145,042
33,506
-
76
38
31,503,622
2,044,968
905,795
50,000
500,000
589,173
29,458,653
14,729,327
10,120,594
-
3,058,701
931,340
51,694
566,998
2,448,311
1,153,011
524,010
273,293
426,580
71,417
-
210
120
67,096,117
3,538,984
1,717,842
50,000
500,000
1,271,143
63,557,133
31,778,567
21,827,148
-
6,672,241
2,006,994
51,694
1,220,490
6,727,479
3,384,412
1,246,481
792,163
1,160,315
144,108
-
430
270
114,813,572
5,435,163
2,697,595
50,000
500,000
2,187,568
109,378,409
54,689,205
37,528,708
-
11,564,432
3,448,765
51,694
2,095,605
14,362,281
7,278,711
2,755,952
1,741,315
2,349,878
236,425
-
520
350
132,437,789
6,116,944
3,040,527
50,000
500,000
2,526,417
126,320,844
63,160,422
43,328,784
-
13,380,169
3,981,168
51,694
2,418,608
18,123,898
9,302,877
3,351,240
2,247,530
2,945,239
277,013
-
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Source: Section 4.5.1
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-87
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.48: Summary of GAC Costs (EBCT = 20 minutes, 240 day reactivation frequency)
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Capital Cost
Indirect Capital Costs
Housing
Piloting
Permitting
Land
Operator Training
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
GAC Contactor, Media, & Regeneration Furnace
GAC Package Unit (for small systems)
Pipes and Valves
Electrical (Instrumentation & Controls)
Process Monitoring Equipment (TOG Analyzer)
Booster Pumps
Annual O&M Summary
Total O&M Cost per Year
GAC Replacement ($/yr)
Labor ($/yr)
Power ($/yr)
Natural Gas ($/yr)
Performance (TOG) Monitoring ($/yr)
Maintenance Materials ($/yr)
Total O&M costs (from VSS Model) - ($/yr)
0.007
0.0015
36,117
8,551
-
5,000
2,500
551
500
27,566
16,506
15,714
-
792
6,673
-
3,120
3,553
0.022
0.0054
53,091
8,884
-
5,000
2,500
884
500
44,207
26,471
25,592
-
879
11,206
-
3,120
8,086
0.037
0.0095
70,491
9,225
-
5,000
2,500
1,225
500
61,266
36,686
35,410
-
1,276
14,742
-
3,120
11,622
0.091
0.025
137,932
11,806
-
5,000
3,784
2,523
500
126,126
75,524
70,253
-
5,272
24,752
-
3,120
21,632
0.18
0.054
241,793
21,514
-
10,000
6,608
4,406
500
220,279
131,904
125,973
-
5,931
35,068
8,227
11,892
7,140
6,240
1,570
-
0.27
0.084
340,528
26,216
-
10,000
9,429
6,286
500
314,313
188,211
180,158
-
8,053
42,835
12,323
13,857
8,472
6,240
1,943
-
0.36
0.11
435,155
30,722
-
10,000
12,133
8,089
500
404,433
242,176
232,171
-
10,005
50,123
15,828
14,824
9,404
7,800
2,267
-
0.68
0.23
739,387
45,209
-
10,000
20,825
13,884
500
694,178
415,676
399,512
-
16,164
75,023
31,664
19,287
12,513
7,800
3,760
-
1
0.35
1,228,620
106,601
-
50,000
33,661
22,440
500
1,122,019
561,009
539,388
-
21,621
98,679
47,154
23,749
14,721
7,800
5,254
-
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Source: Section 4.5.1
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-8
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.48 (continued): Summary of GAC Costs (EBCT = 20 minutes, 240 day reactivation frequency)
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Capital Cost
Indirect Capital Costs
Housing
Piloting
Permitting
Land
Operator Training
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
GAC Contactor, Media, & Regeneration Furnace
GAC Package Unit (for small systems)
Pipes and Valves
Electrical (Instrumentation & Controls)
Process Monitoring Equipment (TOG Analyzer)
Booster Pumps
Annual O&M Summary
Total O&M Cost per Year
GAC Replacement ($/yr)
Labor ($/yr)
Power ($/yr)
Natural Gas ($/yr)
Performance (TOG) Monitoring ($/yr)
Maintenance Materials ($/yr)
Total O&M costs (from VSS Model) - ($/yr)
1.2
0.41
1,351,323
160,676
51,143
50,000
35,719
23,813
1,190,648
595,324
355,688
124,440
38,693
51,694
24,809
96,623
48,709
24,493
15,173
2,805
-
5,444
2
0.77
1,931,036
207,918
71,762
50,000
51,694
34,462
1,723,117
861,559
531,860
184,419
57,115
51,694
36,471
110,575
50,002
31,326
18,028
4,801
-
6,419
3.5
1.4
2,894,585
284,509
104,005
50,000
78,302
52,202
2,610,076
1,305,038
826,445
283,772
87,501
51,694
55,626
134,831
52,261
43,426
23,024
7,995
-
8,126
7
3
4,844,129
435,140
164,690
50,000
132,270
88,180
4,408,989
2,204,494
1,426,610
483,942
148,419
51,694
93,830
193,396
57,980
71,930
35,711
15,316
-
12,460
17
7.8
9,491,603
782,092
296,616
50,000
261,285
174,190
8,709,512
4,354,756
2,869,509
958,411
291,906
51,694
183,236
367,103
111,376
124,209
73,773
34,603
-
23,143
22
11
11,561,478
933,328
351,920
50,000
318,845
212,563
10,628,150
5,314,075
3,515,589
1,168,914
355,305
51,694
222,574
469,818
148,839
152,527
93,210
46,394
-
28,848
76
38
29,712,377
1,906,778
800,666
50,000
500,000
556,112
27,805,599
13,902,799
9,333,290
3,036,669
914,148
51,694
566,998
1,294,938
453,404
386,897
257,208
133,569
-
63,859
210
120
64,708,727
3,348,109
1,570,896
50,000
500,000
1,227,212
61,360,618
30,680,309
20,781,931
6,642,385
1,983,810
51,694
1,220,490
3,624,295
1,330,667
1,048,698
755,276
356,199
-
133,455
430
270
112,528,561
5,222,719
2,526,602
50,000
500,000
2,146,117
107,305,842
53,652,921
36,544,812
11,534,984
3,425,826
51,694
2,095,605
7,945,037
2,865,233
2,477,610
1,666,376
711,385
-
224,432
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Source: Section 4.5.1
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-89
December 2005
-------
4.5.2 Nanofiltration
Nanofiltration can be effective for the control of DBF precursors (i.e., NOM), as well as
microbial contaminants. NF is an advanced treatment process that typically requires higher levels of pre-
and post-treatment than traditional water treatment processes. The costs provided in this section assume
that the NF system is an "add-on" polishing treatment process for an existing conventional treatment plant
generating water of desired quality for NF. These costs do not include any additional post-treatments that
may be necessary. Costs were developed assuming a feed water temperatures of 10°C. (Costs of a NF
system can vary with temperature.)
The cost estimates assume that 100 percent of the flow will be treated by the NF membranes (i.e.,
no blending). Recovery was assumed to be 85 percent. In some regions, an additional cost for purchased
water may be incurred as a result of the 15 percent water loss. The costs associated with these losses were
not included in the estimates provided.
4.5.2.1 Summary of NF Capital Cost Assumptions
Process Costs
Capital costs were estimated based on vendor quotations, cost estimating guides, and best
professional judgment and were adjusted to year 2003 dollars using the ENR BCI. Exhibit 4.54 presents
a summary of line item capital costs for retrofitting NF into an existing treatment plant for design flows
ranging from 0.007 mgd to 520 mgd. Costs were based on a feed water temperature of 10°C and a
recovery of 85 percent. The spent brine was assumed to be directly discharged to a sewer, storm drain,
ocean outfall, or a salinity interceptor. The methodology used for estimating capital costs is discussed in
this section.
Membrane System Costs
Unlike other treatment processes, NF systems are typically supplied by equipment vendors as
package skid-mounted units. Vendors, contacted to provide cost estimates, provided a single cost
estimate that included the following items:
Membrane skid with filter housings
NF membrane elements (initial batch)
Cartridge pre-filtration
System feed pumps
Acid and anti-sealant feed systems
Clean-in-place system
Instrumentation and controls
Pipes and valves
The typical percent distribution of the above components in the NF equipment cost is shown in
LT2ESWTR T&C Document 4^90 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.49. The NF skids are equipped with all necessary instrumentation and controls and pipes and
valves; therefore, these costs were included as part of the NF equipment cost.
Exhibit 4.49: Percent Distribution of NF Equipment Cost
Capital Cost Item
Membrane skid with filter housings
NF membrane elements (initial batch)
Cartridge pre-filtration
System feed pumps
Acid and anti-sealant feed systems
Clean-in-place system
Instrumentation and controls
Pipes and valves
Sub-Total NF Equipment Cost
NF Equipment Cost (as %)
20%
20%
10%
12%
3%
5%
20%
10%
100%
Source: Vendor quotes
Online Process Monitoring Equipment
Additional process monitoring for pH and turbidity was assumed for all NF systems. Process
monitoring equipment includes an on-line conductivity/pH meter ($2,500 for meter and probe) and a
turbidimeter ($2,500 for meter and probe). For systems smaller than 2 mgd capacity, one
conductivity/pH meter and one turbidimeter were assumed. For systems larger than 2 mgd, the number of
meters was based on one instrument per train/skid. Costs were obtained from vendor quotes and were
adjusted to the year 2003 dollars using the ENR BCI.
Brine Discharge Pipeline
Costs for brine discharge include construction of a 500-foot pipeline from the NF process to an
appropriate sanitary sewer connector. Pipe material was assumed to be PVC or reinforced concrete with
diameters varying from 2 to 24 inches depending on the quantity of water to be discharged. Costs for the
pipeline were obtained from Small Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost Document
(DPRA 1993a) and Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost Document (DPRA 1993b).
For more details on pipeline costs refer to section 4.4.5.
Capital Cost Multipliers
Total direct capital costs were obtained by applying a capital cost multiplier to the sum of all
process costs. The capital cost multipliers of 1.67 and 2.0 were used respectively for small (<2 mgd) and
large (>2 mgd) systems. Unlike other treatment processes, membrane systems are typically supplied by
the equipment vendor as package, skid-mounted units; therefore, smaller multipliers were used compared
to those recommended by NDWAC. For more discussion on the multipliers refer to section 4.2.1.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-91
December 2005
-------
Indirect Capital Costs
Costs for permitting, piloting, membrane housing, land, and operator training were totaled and are
referred to as indirect capital costs for the purposes of this document. Indirect capital costs were added to
the direct capital costs to obtain total capital costs.
Permitting
Incorporating NF treatment will likely require coordination with the appropriate regulatory
agencies. To account for this, permitting costs were included at three percent of the process cost. A
minimum permitting fee of $2,500 and a maximum of $500,000 was assumed.
Pilot Testing
It was assumed that pilot- or bench-scale tests would be necessary to ensure compatibility of
membrane materials with process chemicals (e.g., coagulants or polymers), as well as to determine critical
design parameters, such as design flux and cleaning frequency. Bench-scale flat sheet tests were assumed
for systems less than 0.1 mgd, at a cost of $1,000. Single-element tests at a one-time cost of $10,000 was
assumed for systems between 0.1 and 1 mgd. For systems 1 mgd and larger, three-month pilot tests at a
cost of $60,000 were assumed.
Membrane Housing
Membrane housing costs include the cost for a building to house the membrane skids and any
associated appurtenances (e.g., building electrical, HVAC, and lighting). Housing costs will vary
depending on size of the system. Exhibit 4.50 summarizes the membrane housing cost assumptions used
for NF costs. A range of housing areas from 900 to 1,100 ft2 per mgd was assumed with a minimum of
100 ft2. Housing areas are based on experience with similar systems. A unit cost of $48.95/ft2 was taken
from RS Means. The $48.95/ft2 unit cost assumes a factory type building.
Exhibit 4.50: Summary of NF Housing Cost Assumptions
System Size (mgd)
< 10 mgd
> 10 mgd
Housing Area1
1,100ft2 per mgd
900 ft2 per mgd
Note: 1A minimum housing area of 100 ft2 was also assumed for very small systems.
Land
Land cost assumptions for NF treatment are listed in Exhibit 4.51. The NDWAC cost working
group recommended a factor of two to five percent of capital cost for land. Previous technology cost
efforts (USEPA 2001) adopted land costs at a factor of five percent for systems less than 1 mgd and two
percent for systems greater than 1 mgd; however, previous cases assumed new plant construction, instead
of a retrofit which was assumed in this document. Using a two to five percent factor for land resulted in
unrealistic costs for land acquisition ($/acre). Therefore, the land cost factors were adjusted, as discussed
under MF cost assumptions, to obtain reasonable costs.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-92 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.51: NF Land Cost Assumptions
System Design Flow
(mgd)
< 1
1 -10
>10
Land Cost (% of Total
Direct Cost)
2%
1%
0.5%
Source: Exhibit 4.7
Operator Training
The NDWAC cost working group also recommended inclusion of operator training. The operator
training costs were based on the number of hours required per system size to train an operator. Training
hours are based on experience with similar systems. Based upon system size, this training could last a
few hours or a few days. Exhibit 4.52 summarizes the operator training cost assumptions used in this
document.
Exhibit 4.52: NF Operator Training Cost Assumptions
System Design Flow
(mgd)
<0.3
0.3 -< 1
1 -10
10-50
>50
Training Cost ($)
included in membrane system price
$1,000
$3,000
$10,000
$25,000
4.5.2.2 Summary of NF O&M Cost Assumptions
NF O&M costs were estimated using current plant operational data and industry guidelines.
Exhibit 4.54 presents a summary of line items of O&M costs. This section discusses the assumptions
regarding O&M estimates presented in this document.
Clean-in-Place Chemicals
NF systems will require periodic (typically quarterly or semi-annually) chemical cleaning to
remove biological/particulate foulants and sealants from the membrane surfaces. Membrane cleaning is
performed using manufacturer-recommended cleaning agents, and costs can vary. Based on discussions
with manufacturers and experience with similar systems, atypical costs of $0.01 per 1,000 gallons of
water produced was assumed for all system sizes to account for cleaning chemical costs. Thus, cleaning
chemical costs can be estimated by the following equation:
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-93
December 2005
-------
Cleaning Chemicals ($/yr) = 0.01 x Average Flow (mgd) x 1,000 x 365
A minimum cost of $50/year was assumed for cleaning chemicals; this accounts for the cost of
purchasing a 15-gallon pail of cleaning chemical.
Acid/Anti-Sealant and Caustic Chemicals
Addition of acid and anti-sealant is necessary to reduce the fouling and scaling of NF membranes.
Caustic may be necessary to raise pH and lower the corrosiveness of the product water. The dosages of
acid, anti-sealant, and caustic are a function of the feed water quality. Based on conversations with
manufacturers and experience with similar NF systems, atypical cost for all three chemicals is $0.04 per
1,000 gallons of water produced for average flows less than 0.35 mgd, and $0.03 per 1,000 gallons for
average flows above 0.35 mgd. Therefore, acid, anti-sealant, and caustic chemical costs can be estimated
by the following equations:
For average flows less than 0.35 mgd
Acid, Anti-Sealant, and Caustic Chemicals ($/yr) = 0.04 x Average Flow (mgd)
x 1,000 x 365
For average flows greater than or equal to 0.35 mgd
Acid, Anti-Sealant, and Caustic Chemicals ($/yr) = 0.03 x Average Flow (mgd)
x 1,000 x 365
A minimum cost of $50 was assumed for acid/anti-scalants and caustic to account for purchasing these
chemicals in small quantities of five gallons.
NF Membrane Replacement
NF membranes were assumed to have a life of five years, which is typical for this type of
membrane. Therefore, the annual cost for NF membrane replacement was assumed to be 20 percent of
the NF membrane purchase cost.
NF Membrane Replacement ($/yr) = 0.20 x NF Membrane Element Process Cost
Cartridge Filter Replacement
Cartridge filters collect particles and keep them from depositing on to the NF membranes. These
cartridge filters must be replaced more frequently for turbid waters. Cost for cartridge filter replacement
was assumed to be $0.002 per 1,000 gallons of water produced for systems with average flows less than
0.35 mgd and $0.02 per 1,000 gallons produced for systems with flows above 0.35 mgd. Costs were
obtained from a study of Florida NF plants (Bergman 1996).
For average flows less than 0.35 mgd
Cartridge Filter Replacement Cost ($/yr) = 0.0002 x Average Flow (mgd)
x 1,000 x 365
For average flows greater than or equal to 0.35 mgd
Cartridge Filter Replacement Cost ($/yr) = 0.02 x Average Flow (mgd)
x 1,000 x 365
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-94 December 2005
-------
Repair, Maintenance and Replacement
NF systems require periodic maintenance and repair. The O&M costs for repair, maintenance,
and purchase of replacement parts is typically about $0.01 per 1,000 gallons produced (Bergman 1996)
for existing systems. A minimum cost of $100 per year was assumed for repair and replacement for small
systems. The cost equation for repair, maintenance, and replacement is:
Repair, Maintenance & Replacement Cost ($/yr) = 0.01
Performance Monitoring
Average Flow (mgd)
x 1,000 x 365
In addition to on-line conductivity, pH, and turbidity meters (included in capital cost estimates),
periodic HPC tests are typically performed to monitor biological activity on the finished water side of the
membrane. Field HPC tests cost approximately $1 per test and require one hour of labor. The frequency
of HPC testing was assumed to be one test per membrane skid per week. As mentioned earlier, the NF
skid size of 2 mgd was assumed for all system sizes.
Power
Power costs include power for NF feed pumps, instrumentation and controls, and building
maintenance. The power requirements for process pumping and building maintenance were assumed to
be 1.2 kWh/1,000 gallons and 0.6 kWh/1,000 gallons, respectively. Additional power for instruments and
controls was assumed to be negligible. Unit power cost of $0.076 per kWh was used to estimate the
power cost. The equation for power cost is given below.
Power Cost ($/yr) = 1.8 x 0.076 x Average Flow (mgd) x 1,000 x 365
Labor
Technical labor estimates for operation and maintenance of the membrane systems include
periodic data logging, repair of process equipment, and sampling. Hours are based on experience with
similar systems. Technical labor rates used varied with system size. No additional managerial labor was
assumed. A summary of labor hour assumptions is provided in Exhibit 4.53.
Exhibit 4.53: Summary of NF Technical Labor Assumptions
System
Size (mgd)
<0.1
0.1
1
5-
10
>
-<1
-<5
<10
- 100
100
Technical Labor
(hrs/week)
4
12
24
40
80
160
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-95
December 2005
-------
POTW Surcharge
A fee of $0.00183 per 1,000 gallons discharged to the sanitary sewer was assumed. This rate was
based upon data provided in the DPRA reports (1993a and 1993b). The discharge volume was based on
an average system recovery of 85 percent; therefore, the waste volume is 0.15 x average daily flow. The
surcharge for brine discharge can be calculated using the equation below.
Surcharge for Brine Discharge ($/yr) = 1.83 x 0.15 x Average Flow (mgd)
x 1,000 x 365
Costs for concentrate handling included the following components:
Direct discharge of 15 percent of the feed flow to a sewer/storm/salinity interceptor or ocean
outfall, located 500 feet or less from the NF plant (at 85 percent recovery, 15 percent would
be the brine stream).
No additional pumping is necessary, assuming that the brine stream is leaving the NF system
at 30 psi residual pressure.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 4-96 December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.54: Nanofiltration Cost Summary
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Unit Capital Cost
Indirect Capital Costs
Piloting
Permitting
Land
Operator Training
Housing
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
Pipes and Valves
Instrumentation and Controls
Cartridge Prefiltration
Acid and Anti-Scalent Feed Systems
System Feed Pumps
Nanofilter Membrane Elements
Membrane Skid with Filter Housing
Clean-ln-Place (CIP) System
Online Conductivity/pH and Turbidity
Meters
Brine Discharge Pump (Not Included in
Subtotal Process Cost)
Annual O&M Summary
Total Annual O&M Cost
Acid, Anti-Sealant Caustic Chemicals
Clean-ln-Place Chemicals
NF Membrane Replacement
Cartridge Filter Replacement
Repair, Maintenance and Replacement
Process monitoring (HPCs)
Power
Labor
Surcharge for Brine Discharge
(Sewer/Storm Drain/Brine Interceptor)
0.007
0.0015
51 ,894
9,248
1,000
2,500
853
-
4,895
42,646
25,537
2,068
4,135
1,654
620
2,585
4,135
4,135
1,034
5,169
258
6,909
50
50
827
30
100
1,167
75
4,460
150
0.022
0.0054
69,241
9,588
1,000
2,500
1,193
-
4,895
59,653
35,720
3,102
6,203
2,481
930
3,877
6,203
6,203
1,551
5,169
388
7,937
79
50
1,241
30
100
1,167
270
4,460
541
0.037
0.0095
86,588
9,928
1,000
2,500
1,533
-
4,895
76,660
45,904
4,135
8,271
3,308
1,241
5,169
8,271
8,271
2,068
5,169
517
9,025
139
50
1,654
30
100
1,167
474
4,460
952
0.091
0.025
156,079
1 1 ,393
1,000
2,599
2,894
-
4,900
144,687
86,639
8,271
16,542
6,617
2,481
10,339
16,542
16,542
4,135
5,169
1,034
13,703
365
91
3,308
30
100
1,253
1,248
4,803
2,505
0.18
0.054
222,829
27,122
10,000
3,516
3,914
-
9,692
195,707
117,190
1 1 ,373
22,745
9,098
3,412
14,216
22,745
22,745
5,686
5,169
1,422
29,539
788
197
4,549
39
197
1,253
2,696
14,408
5,410
0.27
0.084
315,937
35,196
10,000
5,043
5,615
-
14,538
280,740
168,108
16,542
33,084
13,234
4,963
20,677
33,084
33,084
8,271
5,169
2,068
37,904
1,226
307
6,617
61
307
1,338
4,194
15,438
8,416
0.36
0.11
357,087
42,334
10,000
5,654
6,295
1,000
19,384
314,754
188,475
18,610
37,219
14,888
5,583
23,262
37,219
37,219
9,305
5,169
2,326
43,223
1,606
401
7,444
80
401
1,338
5,493
15,438
11,021
0.68
0.23
663,375
70,136
10,000
10,657
1 1 ,865
1,000
36,615
593,239
355,233
35,539
71 ,079
28,432
10,662
44,424
71 ,079
71 ,079
17,770
5,169
4,442
70,725
3,358
839
14,216
168
839
1,338
1 1 ,484
15,438
23,044
1
0.35
912,423
138,487
60,000
13,903
7,739
3,000
53,845
773,935
463,434
46,524
93,049
37,219
13,957
58,155
93,049
93,049
23,262
5,169
5,816
112,309
3,832
1,277
18,610
2,555
1,277
1,338
17,476
30,876
35,067
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Note: Assume temperature = 10°C, discharge to sewer
Source: Section 4.5.2
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-97
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.54 (continued): Nanofiltration Cost Summary
Design Flow (mgd)
Average Flow (mgd)
Capital Cost Summary
Total Unit Capital Cost
Indirect Capital Costs
Piloting
Permitting
Land
Operator Training
Housing
Direct Capital Cost'
Subtotal Process Cost
Pipes and Valves
Instrumentation and Controls
Cartridge Prefiltration
Acid and Anti-Scalent Feed Systems
System Feed Pumps
Nanofilter Membrane Elements
Membrane Skid with Filter Housing
Clean-ln-Place (CIP) System
Online Conductivity/pH and Turbidity
Meters
Brine Discharge Pump (Not Included in
Subtotal Process Cost)
Annual O&M Summary
Total Annual O&M Cost
Acid, Anti-Sealant Caustic Chemicals
Clean-ln-Place Chemicals
NF Membrane Replacement
Cartridge Filter Replacement
Repair, Maintenance and Replacement
Process monitoring (HPCs)
Power
Labor
Surcharge for Brine Discharge
(Sewer/Storm Drain/Brine Interceptor)
1.2
0.41
1,080,532
153,537
60,000
16,653
9,270
3,000
64,614
926,996
555,087
55,829
111,658
44,663
16,749
69,787
111,658
111,658
27,915
5,169
6,979
126,572
4,489
1,496
22,332
2,993
1,496
1,338
20,472
30,876
41,079
2
0.77
2,018,579
215,760
60,000
27,042
18,028
3,000
107,690
1,802,819
901,409
90,464
180,928
72,371
27,139
113,080
180,928
180,928
45,232
10,339
11,308
205,817
8,431
2,810
36,186
5,621
2,810
2,739
38,448
31,624
77,148
3.5
1.4
3,404,129
328,352
60,000
46,137
30,758
3,000
188,458
3,075,777
1,537,888
155,081
310,162
124,065
46,524
193,851
310,162
310,162
77,541
10,339
19,385
343,298
15,329
5,110
62,032
10,219
5,110
2,813
69,905
32,510
140,270
7
3
6,745,258
593,704
60,000
92,273
61,516
3,000
376,915
6,151,554
3,075,777
310,162
620,325
248,130
93,049
387,703
620,325
620,325
155,081
20,677
38,770
710,894
32,848
10,949
124,065
21,899
10,949
5,626
149,796
54,184
300,578
17
7.8
15,456,118
1,105,939
60,000
215,253
71,751
10,000
748,935
14,350,179
7,175,090
723,712
1,447,424
578,970
217,114
904,640
1,447,424
1,447,424
361,856
46,524
90,464
1,780,761
85,405
28,468
289,485
56,936
28,468
12,659
389,470
108,368
781,502
22
11
19,862,964
1,408,303
60,000
276,820
92,273
10,000
969,210
18,454,661
9,227,331
930,487
1,860,974
744,390
279,146
1,163,109
1,860,974
1,860,974
465,244
62,032
116,311
2,429,844
120,442
40,147
372,195
80,295
40,147
16,879
549,252
108,368
1,102,118
76
38
57,558,238
4,199,971
60,000
500,000
266,791
25,000
3,348,180
53,358,267
26,679,134
2,688,074
5,376,148
2,150,459
806,422
3,360,092
5,376,148
5,376,148
1,344,037
201,606
336,009
7,914,024
416,073
138,691
1,075,230
277,382
138,691
54,857
1,897,416
108,368
3,807,315
210
120
129,659,099
10,432,682
60,000
500,000
596,132
25,000
9,251,550
119,226,417
59,613,208
5,996,473
11,992,945
4,797,178
1,798,942
7,495,591
11,992,945
11,992,945
2,998,236
547,954
749,559
23,845,168
1,313,916
437,972
2,398,589
875,944
437,972
149,100
5,991,840
216,736
12,023,100
430
270
265,356,059
20,751,672
60,000
500,000
1,223,022
25,000
18,943,650
244,604,387
122,302,193
12,303,108
24,606,215
9,842,486
3,690,932
15,378,884
24,606,215
24,606,215
6,151,554
1,116,585
1,537,888
52,975,344
2,956,311
985,437
4,921,243
1,970,874
985,437
362,344
13,481,640
260,083
27,051,975
520
350
318,914,577
24,963,356
60,000
500,000
1,469,756
25,000
22,908,600
293,951,221
146,975,610
14,784,406
29,568,813
11,827,525
4,435,322
18,480,508
29,568,813
29,568,813
7,392,203
1,349,206
1,848,051
68,097,181
3,832,255
1,277,418
5,913,763
2,554,836
1,277,418
437,833
17,476,200
260,083
35,067,375
1 Direct Capital Cost = (Capital Cost Multiplier * Subtotal Process Cost)
Note: Assume temperature = 10°C, discharge to sewer
Source: Section 4.5.1
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-98
December 2005
-------
4.6 Annualized Costs
To compare technologies' cost to one another, it is helpful to annualize the capital costs and add
them to the O&M costs to obtain an average annual expenditure for each technology. The annualization
is done according to the methodology described in section 4.3. Expressing the annualized costs in cents
per thousand gallons allows costs to be expressed in similar units for all size plants so economies of scale
and other factors can be seen. Exhibit 4.55 shows the annualized cost for each of the technologies
discussed above for all size ranges. Costs are annualized using a three percent discount rate over a twenty
year period, which is the assumed lifetime of the equipment.
Exhibit 4.55: Annualized Cost Summary
Design Flow
Average Flow
Bag Filters
Cartridge Filters (filter loading 30 pgm/filter)
Convert to Chloramines (NH4 dose = 0.55mg/l)
Convert to Chloramines (NH4 dose = 0.15mg/l)
GAC (EBCT = 10, 360 day regeneration)
GAC (EBCT = 20, 90 day regeneration)
GAC (EBCT = 20, 240 day regeneration)
Nanofiltration (100% flow treated, 10C)
Chlorine Dioxide (CIO2 dose = 1 .25 mg/l, no
additional contact time)
Ozone (0.5 log dose, 12 minute contact time)
Ozone (1.0 log dose, 12 minute contact time)
Ozone (2.0 log dose, 12 minute contact time)
UV (dose = 40 mJ/cm2, UV254 = 0.05, turbidity =
0.1 NTU, Alk = 60 mg/l, Hardness = 100 mg/l)
UV (dose = 200 mJ/cm2, UV254 = 0.05, turbidity =
0.1 NTU, Alk = 60 mg/l, Hardness = 100 mg/l)
UV with UPS (dose = 40 mJ/cm2, UV254 = 0.05,
turbidity = 0.1 NTU, Alk = 60 mg/l, Hardness = 100
mg/l)
UV with UPS (dose = 200 mJ/cm2, UV254 = 0.05,
turbidity = 0.1 NTU, Alk = 60 mg/l, Hardness = 100
mg/l)
Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration (T = 10C, sewer
discharge)
Ozone w/ pH adj (0.5 log dose, 12 minute contact
time)
Ozone w/ pH adj (1 .0 log dose, 1 2 minute contact
time)
Ozone w/ pH adj (2.0 log dose, 12 minute contact
time)
Combined Filter Performance
In Bank Filtration
Secondary Filters
Watershed Control
Presedimentation Basins
0.007
0.0015
213.7
252.7
606.0
605.8
0.022
0.0054
59.9
70.8
168.6
168.3
Data Not Used
2,127.8
1,662.2
1,899.0
1,105.6
749.6
638.8
0.037
0.0095
45.1
57.3
95.9
95.7
478.7
876.2
561.8
428.1
Data Not Used
737.1
1,870.7
129.7
2,140.2
2,752.0
215.9
562.2
45.9
640.5
1,070.5
139.4
368.8
31.6
413.8
731.3
Data Not Used
0.091
0.025
17.8
28.8
37.7
37.5
288.2
625.2
372.9
265.1
178.3
846.2
871.1
889.1
68.7
190.9
19.3
208.9
404.2
873.8
898.7
916.7
0.18
0.054
11.5
22.4
18.1
17.9
192.5
324.2
260.4
225.9
90.2
414.1
436.6
452.7
37.9
117.8
14.2
126.7
326.0
439.7
462.2
478.3
0.27
0.084
9.1
21.9
18.1
17.9
147.6
276.0
214.4
192.9
63.1
289.9
311.5
327.0
31.9
97.7
12.3
103.8
250.0
310.6
332.2
347.6
58.1
0.36
0.11
9.0
21.3
14.1
13.9
131.8
258.2
197.7
167.4
49.0
231.4
253.3
268.9
27.4
84.9
11.5
89.9
215.4
250.0
271.9
287.6
0.68
0.23
6.5
17.6
7.0
6.9
91.1
206.5
148.6
137.4
24.7
127.0
146.8
162.8
17.7
58.6
8.4
61.5
140.3
142.0
161.8
177.9
22.6
1
0.35
6.6
17.1
6.3
6.2
85.9
198.6
141.9
135.9
16.6
91.3
106.0
110.7
23.4
64.3
16.7
67.6
138.1
105.2
120.0
124.6
Source: Derived from sections 4.4 and 4.5
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-99
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 4.55 (continued): Annualized Cost Summary
Design Flow
Average Flow
Bag Filters
Cartridge Filters (filter loading 30 pgm/filter)
Convert to Chloramines (NH4 dose = 0.55mg/l)
Convert to Chloramines (NH4 dose = 0.15mg/l)
GAC (EBCT = 10, 360 day regeneration)
GAC (EBCT = 20, 90 day regeneration)
GAC (EBCT = 20, 240 day regeneration)
Nanofiltration (100% flow treated, 10C)
Chlorine Dioxide (CIO2 dose = 1 .25 mg/l, no
additional contact time)
Ozone (0.5 log dose, 12 minute contact time)
Ozone (1.0 log dose, 12 minute contact time)
Ozone (2.0 log dose, 12 minute contact time)
UV (dose = 40 mJ/cm2, UV254 = 0.05, turbidity =
0.1 NTU, Alk = 60 mg/l, Hardness = 100 mg/l)
UV (dose = 200 mJ/cm2, UV254 = 0.05, turbidity =
0.1 NTU, Alk = 60 mg/l, Hardness = 100 mg/l)
UV with UPS (dose = 40 mJ/cm2, UV254 = 0.05,
turbidity = 0.1 NTU, Alk = 60 mg/l, Hardness = 100
mg/l)
UV with UPS (dose = 200 mJ/cm2, UV254 = 0.05,
turbidity = 0.1 NTU, Alk = 60 mg/l, Hardness = 100
mg/l)
Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration (T = 10C, sewer
discharge)
Ozone w/ pH adj (0.5 log dose, 1 2 minute contact
time)
Ozone w/pH adj (1.0 log dose, 12 minute contact
time)
Ozone w/ pH adj (2.0 log dose, 1 2 minute contact
time)
Combined Filter Performance
In Bank Filtration
Secondary Filters
Watershed Control
Presedimentation Basins
1.2
0.41
6.6
18.2
7.8
7.6
79.5
188.1
125.3
133.1
16.3
82.9
94.5
99.4
20.4
59.7
14.4
62.7
128.4
96.5
108.2
113.1
4.6
62.4
115.3
49.6
2
0.77
6.2
16.4
4.4
4.2
55.1
123.7
85.5
121.5
9.7
53.4
60.9
63.5
12.1
43.6
8.2
45.8
103.1
66.1
73.6
76.1
12.4
3.51 7
1.4 3
171 221 76
7.8| 1l| 38
210
120
4301 52C
270| 350
Data Not Used
2.7
2.5
42.0
89.6
64.5
112.0
6.8
36.2
42.5
45.0
7.5
1.5
1.3
31.0
63.4
47.4
106.3
3.6
23.2
28.5
38.5
4.8
0.8
0.6
22.5
47.6
35.3
99.0
1.9
14.4
17.9
27.2
4.0
0.7
0.5
19.4
42.6
31.1
93.8
1.6
12.0
15.4
24.0
3.9
0.4
0.2
14.0
32.9
23.7
85.0
0.9
9.5
12.3
20.4
2.1
0.3
0.1
10.3
25.7
18.2
74.3
0.6
7.2
9.4
16.3
1.7
0.2
0.1
8.8
22.4
15.7
71.9
0.5
6.0
8.3
14.5
1.5
0.2
0.1
8.3
21.2
14.6
70.1
0.5
5.7
8.0
13.7
1.4
Data Not Used
5.0
3.5
3.3
3.4
1.7
1.3
1.2
1.1
Data Not Used
86.6
48.4
54.7
57.2
74.9
35.1
40.3
50.3
3.8
65.4
26.1
29.6
38.9
2.6
4.6
22.0
43.6
15.5
59.4
23.6
27.0
35.6
53.4
21.0
23.8
32.0
1.3
4.6
8.9
12.8
11.3
46.1
18.6
20.9
27.8
41.9
17.4
19.7
25.9
39.7
17.0
19.3
25.1
0.3
Source: Derived from sections 4.4 and 4.5
Note: Costs are in cents/1000 gallons and at 3% discount rate over 20-year period
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
4-100
December 2005
-------
5. References
Aboytes, Ramon; Di Giovanni, George D.; Abrams, Felicia A.; Rheinecker, Corey; McElroy,
Wyndi;Shaw, Nancy; LeChevallier, Mark W. 2004. "Detection of Infectious Cryptosporidium in
Filtered Drinking Water" J. AWWA, 95:9:88-98
Adham, Samer S., Snoeyink, V. J., Clark, M. M. and C. Anselme. 1993. "Predicting and Verifying
Organics Removal by PAC in Pilot-scale UF Systems." J. AWWA, 85:12:58.
Adham, Samer S., Snoeyink, V. J., Clark, M. M. and Bersillon, Jean-Luc. 1991. "Predicting and
Verifying Organics Removal by PAC in an Ultrafiltration System." J. AWWA, 83:12:81.
Allgeier, S.A. and R.S. Summers. 1995. "Evaluating Nanofiltration for DBP Control with the RBSMT,"
J. AWWA, 86:3:87-99.
Amy, G.L. and M.S. Siddiqui. 1999. Strategies to Control Bromate and Bromide. Report No. 90751,
AWWARF, Denver, CO.
Anselme, C. and Charles, P. 1990. "The Use of Powdered Activated Carbon for the Removal of Specific
Pollutants in Ultrafiltration processes." Laboratoire Central, Lyonnaise des Eaux, Le Pecq, France.
APHA-AWWA-WEF. 1998. Standard methods for the examination of water andwastewater, 20th ed.
Washington, DC.
Arora, H., M.W. LeChevallier, and K.L. Dixon. 1997. "DBP Occurrence Survey." J. AWWA, 89:6:60-68.
AWWA. 1969. Water Treatment Plant Design. First Edition, American Water Works Association, Inc.
AWWA. 1999. Water Quality and Treatment. Fifth Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
AWWA and ASCE. 1998. Water Treatment Plant Design. Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
AWWSC. 1998. Evaluation of Chlorine Dioxide for Inactivation of Cryptosporidium and Byproduct
Control. AWWSC, Voorhees, NJ.
Babcock, D. B. and Singer, P. C. 1979. "Chlorination and Coagulation of Humic and Fulvic Acids." J.
AWWA, 71:3:149.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-1 December 2005
-------
Battigelli, D.A., M.D. Sobsey and D.C. Lobe. 1993. "The Inactivation of Hepatitis A Virus and Other
Model Viruses by UV Irradiation." Wat. Sci. Tech., 27:3-4:339-342.
Benedek, A., Bancsi, J. J., Malaiyandi, M. and Lancaster, E. A. 1979. "The Effect of Ozone on the
Biological Degradation and Activated Carbon Adsorption of Natural and Synthetic Organics in
Water. Part II. Adsorption." Ozone Sci. Eng., 1:4:347.
Bergman R. A. 1996. "Cost of Membrane Softening in Florida", J. AWWA, 88:5:32.
Bolton, J. R. 1999. Ultraviolet Applications Handbook. Bolton Photosciences, Inc., Ayr, Ontario, Canada.
Bouwer, E. J. and Crowe, P. B. 1988. "Biological Processes in Drinking Water Treatment." J. AWWA,
80:9:82.
Bukhari, Z.; Hargy, T.H.; Bolton, J.R, Dussert B., and Clancy J.L. 1998. "Inactivation of
Cryptosporidium Parvum Oocysts Using Medium-Pressure Ultraviolet Light." Proceedings,
1998 Annual AWWA Conference, Dallas, TX.
Bukhari, Z., T.M. Hargy, J.R. Bolton, B. Dussert and J.L. Clancy. 1999) "Medium-Pressure UV Light
for Oocyst Inactivation." J. AWWA, 91:3:86-94.
Cairns, B. 1999. "Ultraviolet Water Disinfection." USEPA Workshop on UV Disinfection of Drinking
Water, April 28-29, 1999, Arlington, VA.
Camel, V., and Bermond, A. 1999. "The Use of Ozone and Associated Oxidation Processes in Drinking
Water Treatment." Water Research, 32:11:3208-3222.
Campbell, A. T., Robertson, L. J., and Smith, H. V. 1995b. "Inactivation of Oocysts of
Cryptosporidiumparvum by Ultraviolet Irradiation." Wat. Res., 29:2583.
Campbell, S., B.W. Lykins, J.A. Goodrich, D. Post and T. Lay. 1995a. "Package Plants for Small
Systems: A Field StoAyrJ.AWWA, 87:11:39-47.
Carlson, M. and D. Hardy. 1998. "Controlling DBFs with Monochloramine." J. AWWA, 90:2:95- 105.
CH2MHill. 1986. Pilot Plant Report for Department of Public Utilities, Newport News, Virginia.
Vol. 1, Newport News, VA.
Chadik, P. A. and Amy, G. L. 1983. "Removing Trihalomethane Precursors from Various Natural
Waters by Metal Coagulants." J. AWWA, 75:10:532.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-2 December 2005
-------
Chadik, P. A. and Amy, G. L. 1987. "Molecular Weight Effects of THM Control by Coagulation and
Adsorption." J. Env. Eng., 113:6:1234.
Chang, J.C.H., S.F. Osoff, D.C. Lobe, M.H. Dorfman, C.M. Dumais, R.G. and J.D. Johnson. 1985.
"UV Inactivation of Pathogenic and Indicator Organisms." Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 49:6:13 61.
Chang, S. D. and Singer, P. C. 1991. "The Impact of Ozonation on Particle Stability And The
Removal of TOC And THM Precursors." J. AWWA, 83:3:71.
Chellam, S., Jacangelo, J., Bonacquisti, T., Schauer, B. 1997. "Effect of Pretreatment on Surface Water
Nanofiltmtion" J. AWWA, 89:10:77.
Chen, A. S. C., V. L. Snoeyink and F. Fiessinger. 1987. "Activated Alumina Adsorption of
Dissolved Organic Compounds Before and After Ozonation." Environ. Sci. Technol., 21:1:83.
Cho, J, Amy, G., Pellgrino, J. 1999. "Membrane Filtration of Natural Organic Matter: Initial
Comparison of Rejection and Flux Decline Characteristics with Ultrafiltration and Nanofiltration
Membranes." Water Resources, 33:11:2517-2526.
Chowdhury, Z.K., J. A. Roberson and D.M. Owen. 1997. "A National Evaluation of Enhanced
Coagulation and Enhanced Softening." AWWA Annual Conference Proceedings, Atlanta, GA.
Clair, D., S. Randtke, P. Adams, and S. Shreve. 1997. "Microfiltration of a High-Turbidity Surface Water
with Post- treatment by Nanofiltration and Reverse Osmosis," AWWA Membrane Technology
Conference Proceedings, February 23 - 26, 1997, New Orleans, LA.
Clancy, J. 1999. "Watershed Monitoring for Determining Variability ofGiardia and Cryptosporidium
Concentrations." 1999 AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference Proceedings, Tampa Bay,
FL.
Clancy, J., Hargy, T., and Dyksen, J. 1998. UV Light Inactivation of Cryptosporidium Oocysts. J.
AWWA, 90:9:92.
Clancy, J.L., Z. Bukhari, T.M. Hargy, J.R. Bolton, B.W. Dussert, and M.M. Marshall. 2000. "Using
UVto Inactivate Cryptosporidium." J.AWWA,. 92:9:97.
Clark et al. 1994. "DBP Control in Drinking Water: Cost and Performance." J. of Environmental
Engineering, 120:4:759.
Clark, R M. 1987. "Modeling TOC Removal by GAC: The General Logistic Function." J. AWWA,
79:1:33.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document ~3 December 2005
-------
Clark, R.M., J.Q. Adams, V. Sethi and M. Sivaganesan. 1998. "Control of Microbial Contaminants and
Disinfection Byproducts for Drinking Water in the US: Cost and Performance. "Aqua, 47:6:255-
265.
Clesceri, L. S., Greenberg, A. E. and Trussell, R. R. eds. 1989. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater. 17th Edition, AWWA, WPCF, APHA.
Collins, M. R., Amy, G. L. and King, P. H. 1985. "Removal of Organic Matter in Water Treatment."
J.Env.Eng., 111(6), p. 850.
Colvin, C., C. Acker, B. Marinas, and J. Lozier. 1999. "Mechanisms Responsible for the Passage of
Microorganisms through RO and NF Membranes," AWWA Membrane Technology Conference
Proceedings, February 28 - March 3, 1999, Long Beach, CA.
Conley, W.R. 1961. "Experiences with Anthracite Sand Filters." J. AWWA, 53 (12): 1473.
Conley, W.R., and R.W. Pitman. 1960. "Test Program for Filter Evaluation at Hanford." J. AWWA, 52(2):
205.
Conlon, W.J. and S.A. McClellan. 1989. "Membrane Softening: A Treatment Process Comes of Age," J.
AWWA, 81:11:47.
Cotton , C. A., Linden , K. G., Schmelling , D. C., Bell, C. F., and Darnault, C. 2001. "The
Development, Application, and Cost Implications of the UV Dose Tables for LT2ESWTR
Compliance." Proceedings, Water Quality Technology Conference, Nashville, TN November 11-
14,2001.
Cowman, G.A. and P.C. Singer. 1996. "Effect of Bromide Ion on Haloacetic Acid Speciation Resulting
from Chlorination and Chlorimination of Aquatic Humic Substances." Env. Sci. Tech 30(1): 16-
24.
Crozes, G., Seacord, T. 1999. "Ultrafiltration to Meet Multiple Treatment Objectives in Lime
Softening Plants." AWWA Membrane Technology Conference Proceedings, Long Beach, CA.
Culp/Wesner/Culp. 1979. Estimating Water Treatment Costs, Volume 2: Cost Curves Applicable to 1 to
200 mgd Treatment Plants, CWC Engineering, San Clemente, CA.
Culp/Wesner/Culp. 1984. Estimation of Small System Water Treatment Costs, CWC Engineering
Software, San Clemente, CA.
Culp/Wesner/Culp. 1994. WATERCO$T Model - A Computer Program for Estimating Water and
Wastewater Treatment Costs, Version 2.0, CWC Engineering Software, San Clemente, CA.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document ~4 December 2005
-------
Culp/Wesner/Culp. 2000. WATERCO$T Model - A Computer Program for Estimating Water and
Wastewater Treatment Costs, Version 3.0, CWC Engineering Software, San Clemente, CA.
Dempsey, B. A., Ganho, R. M. and O'Melia, C. R. 1984. "The Coagulation of Humic Substances by
Means of Aluminum Salts." J. AWWA, 76:4:141.
Dempsey, B. A. and O'Melia, C. R. 1983. "The Protonation and Complexation of Four Fulvic Acid
Fractions." in Aquatic and Terrestrial Humic Materials, R.F. Christman and E.T.Gjessing eds.,
Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor Sciences.
Dominngue, E.L., et al. 1988. "Effects of Three Oxidizing Biocides on Legionella Pneumophila
Serogroup 1. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 40:11-30.
DPRA. 1993a. Small Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost Document, Prepared for
USEPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water.
DPRA. 1993b. Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost Document, Prepared for USEPA
Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water.
Driedger, A.M., S.A. Rubin, J.L. Rennecker and B.J. Marinas. 1999. "Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
parvum Oocysts with Free Chlorine and Monochloramine in Single-step and Sequential
Disinfection Schemes." 1999 AWWA Annual Conference Proceedings, Chicago, IL.
Driedger, A.M., S.A. Rubin, J.L. Rennecker and B.J. Marinas. 2000. "Sequential Inactivation of
Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts with Ozone and Free Chlorine." Wat. Res. 34:14:3591-3597.
Dryfuse, M. J., Miltner R. J., Summers, R. S. 1995. "The Removal of Molecular Size and
Humic/Nonhumic Fractions of DBP Precursors by Optimized Coagulation." Amer. Waterworks
Assoc. Annual Conference Proceedings, Anaheim, CA.
Dugan, N.R., Fox, K.R., Owens, J.H., and R.J. Miltner. 2001. "Controlling Cryptosporidium Oocysts
Using Conventional Treatment." J. AWWA 93.12: 64-76.
Dugan, N.R, K.R. Fox, R.J. Miltner, D.A. Lytle, D.J. Williams, C.J. Parrett, C.M. Feld, and J.H. Owens.
1999. "Control of Cryptosporidium oocysts by steady-state conventional treatment." EPA Water
Supply and Water Resources Division, Cincinnati. Annual Conference Proceedings of the
American Waterworks Association. #ACE99567.
Duguet, J. P., Dussert, B., Mallevialle, J. and Fiessinger, F. 1987. "Polymerization Effects of Ozone:
Applications to the Removal of Phenolic Compounds From Industrial Wastewaters." Water Sci.
Tech., 19:919.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-5 December 2005
-------
Dulin, B. E. and Knocke, W. R. 1989. "The Impact of Incorporated Organic Matter on the Dewatering
Characteristics of Aluminum Hydroxide Sludges." J.AWWA, 81:5:74.
Duranceau, S., Thorner, K., McAleese, P. 1998. "The Olivenhain Water Supply Project and Integrated
Membrane Systems." Microfiltration II Conference of the National Water Research Institute
Proceedings, San Diego, CA.
Edwards, M. 1997. "Predicting DOC Removal during Enhanced Coagulation." J. AWWA, 89:5:78.
Edwards, M., M. Boiler., M.M. Benjamin. 1993. "Effect of Pre-Ozonation on Removal of Organic
Matter during Water Treatment Plant Operations." Water Science Technology, 27:11:37-45.
Edzwald, J. K. 1984. Removal of 'Trihalomethane Precursors by Direct Filtration and Conventional
Treatment. USEPA Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. Rpt. No.
EPA/600/2-84/068, NTIS Publ. No. PB84-163278.
Edzwald, J. K. 1990. "Aluminum Coagulation of Natural Organic Matter," 4th International Guthenburg
Symposium on Chemical Treatment Proceedings, Madrid, Spain.
El-Rehaili, A. M. and Weber, W. J. 1987. "Correlation of Humic Substance Trihalomethane Formation
Potential and Adsorption Behavior to Molecular Weight Distribution in Raw and Chemically
Emelko, M.B., Huck P.M, Douglas, I.P, and J. Van Den Oever. 2000. "Cryptosporidium and Microsphere
Removal During Low Turbidity End-Of-Run and Early Breakthrough Filtration." Proceedings
fromAWWA Water Quality Technology Conference. Treated Waters." Water Research.,
21:5:573.
Emelko, M.B., Huck, P.M., and R. M. Slawson. 1999. "Design and Operational Strategies for Optimizing
Cryptosporidium Removal by Filters." Conference proceedings of the AWWA Water Quality
Technical Conference.
Escobar, I., Randall, A. 1999. "Influence ofNF on Distribution Systems Biostability." J. AWWA, 91:9:76.
Faust, S.D and O.M Aly. 1999. Chemistry of Water Treatment, Second Edition, Lewis Publishers, CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Finch, G. 1999. "Inactivation of C. parvum and G. muris with Medium Pressure Ultraviolet Radiation."
USEPA Workshop on UV Disinfection of Drinking Water, April 28-29, 1999, Arlington, VA.
Finch, G.R. 1997. "Control of Cryptosporidium Through Chemical Disinfection: Current State-of-the-
Art." AWWARF Technology Transfer Conference, Portland, OR.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document Td December 2005
-------
Finch, G.R., Black, E.K., and Gyurek, L.L. 1994. "Ozone and Chlorine Inactivation of
Cryptosporidium.'" WQTC, San Francisco, CA.
Finch, G.R., L.R.J. Liyanage, and M. Belosevic. 1995. "Effects of Chlorine Dioxide on Cryptosporidium
and Giardia" Third International Symposium on Chlorine Dioxide: Drinking Water, Process
Water, and Wastewater Issues Conference Proceedings, AWWA and AWWARF, New Orleans,
LA.
Fronk, C. A. 1987. "Destruction of Volatile Organic Contaminants in Drinking Water By Ozone
Treatment." Ozone Sci. Eng^, 9:265.
Fu, L.F., Dempsey, B. 1997. "Effects of Charge and Coagulant Dose on NOM Removal and Membrane
Fouling Mechanisms." AWWA Membrane Technology Conference Proceedings, New Orleans,
LA.
Fu, P. Ruiz, H., Lozier, J., Thomspon, K., Spangenberg, C. 1995. "A Pilot Study on Groundwater Natural
Organics Removal by Low-Pressure Membranes." Desalination, 102:47-56.
Gagliardo, P., S. Adham, Y. Chambers, B. Gallagher, M. Sobsey, and R. Trussel. 1999. "Development of
an Innovative Method to Monitor the Integrity of a Membrane Water Repurifiation System,"
AWWA Membrane Technology Conference Proceedings, February 28 - March 3, 1999, Long
Beach, CA.
Gagliardo, P., S. Adham, and R. Trussel. 1997. "Water Repurification Using Reverse Osmosis: Thin Film
Composite vs. Cellulose Acetate Membranes," AWWA Membrane Technology Conference
Proceedings, February 23 - 26, 1997, New Orleans, LA.
Glaze, W. H. et al. 1982. Pilot-Scale Evaluation of Biological Activated Carbon for the Removal of
THMPrecursors. USEPA Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. Rpt.
No. EPA/600/S2-82/046.
Glaze, W. H., Peyton, G. R, Huang, F. Y., Burleson, J. L. and Jones, P. C. 1980. Oxidation of Water
Supply Refractory Species By Ozone With Ultraviolet Radiation. USEPA, Cincinnati, OH, EPA-
600/2-80-110.
Glaze, W.H., H.S. Weinberg, and J.E. Cavanagh. 1993. "Evaluating the Formation of Brominated DBFs
During Ozonation," J. AWWA, 85:1:96-103.
Glucina, K., J-M. Laine, and C. Robert. 1997. "Integrated Multi-Objective Membrane Systems for
Surface Water Treatment," AWWA Membrane Technology Conference Proceedings, February
23 - 26, 1997, New Orleans, LA.
LT2ESWTRT&CDocument 5-7 December 2005
-------
Goodrich, J.A, S.Y. Li, and B.W. Lykins. 1995. "Cost and Performance of Alternative Filtration
Technologies for Small Communities." Proceedings of the 1995 American Waterworks
Association Annual Conference.
Grasso, D. and Weber, W. J. 1988. "Ozone Induced Particle Destabilization." J. AWWA, 80:8:73.
Gurol, M. D. and Singer, P. C. 1983. "Dynamics of Ozonation of Phenol. I. Experimental Observations."
Water Research, 17(9): 1173.
Gurol, M. D. and Singer, P. C. 1983. "Dynamics of Ozonation of Phenol. II. Mathematical
Simulation." Water Research, 17(9): 1173.
Gyurek, L.L., Li, H., Belosevic, M., and Finch, R,G. 1999. "Ozone Inactivation Kinetics of
Cryptosporidium in Phosphate Buffer." J. of Environmental Engineering, 125(10):913.
Haag, W.R. and J. Hoigne (1983). "Ozonation of Bromide Containing Waters: Kinetics of Formation of
Hypobromous Acid and Bromate," Environmental Science and Technology, 17:5:261.
Hagedorn, C., S.L. Robinson, J.R Filtz, S.M. Grubss, T.A. Angier, and RB. Reneau, Jr. 1999.
"Determining sources of fecal pollution in a rural Virginia watershed with antibiotic resistance
patterns in fecal streptococci." Appl. Env. Micorbiology, 65(12):5522-31.
Hagen, K. 1998. "Removal of Particles, Bacteria, and Parasites with Ultrafiltration for Drinking Water
Treatment," Desalination, 119:85-91.
Hall, T. and B. Croll. 1996. "The UK Approach to Cryptosporidium Control in Water Treatment."
Proceedings AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference. Boston: AWWA.
Hall, T., Pressdee, J., and E. Carrington 1994. "Removal of Cryptosporidium Oocysts By Water
Treatment Processes." Foundation for Water Research.
Hargy, T.M. 2000. "UV Equipment Proven Against Cryptosporidium" Water Conditioning and
Purification. March, p. 36-38.
Harrington, G. W. and DiGiano, F.A. 1989. "Adsorption Equilibria of Natural Organic Matter After
Ozonation." J. AWWA, 81:6:93.
Havelaar, A.H., M. van Olphen, and J.F. Schijven. 1995. "Removal and inactivation of viruses by
drinking water treatment processes under full-scale conditions." Wat. Sci. Technol^, 31:55062.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-8 December 2005
-------
Heneghan, K. and Clark, M. 1991. "Surface Water Treatment by Combined Ultrafiltration/PAC
Adsorption/Coagulation for Removal of Natural Organics, Turbidity, and Bacteria. AWWA
Membrane Technology Conference Proceedings, Orlando, FL.
Hofman, J.A., M.M. Beumer, E.T. Baars, J.P. van der Hoek and H.M.M. Kopers. 1998. "Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment by Ultrafiltration," Desalination, 119:113-125.
Hoigne J., and H. Bader. 1976. Role of Hydroxyl Radical Reactions in Ozonation Processes in Aqueous
Solutions, Water Res. 10: 377.
Hooper, S. M., Summers R. S., Hong S. 1996b. "A Systematic Evaluation of the Role of Influent TOC
and pH on GAC Performance After Enhanced Coagulation." American Water Works Assoc.
Water Quality Technology Conference Proceedings, Boston, MA.
Hooper, S. M., Summers R. S., Solarik G., Hong S. 1996a. "GAC Performance for DBP Control: Effect
of Influent Concentration, Seasonal Variation, and Pretreatment." AWWA Conference
Proceedings, Toronto, Canada.
Hooper, S. M., Summers R. S., Solarik G., Owen D. M. 1996c. "Improving GAC Performance by
Optimized Coagulation" J. AWWA, 88:8:107-120.
Hubel, R. E. and Edzwald, J. K. 1987. "Removing Trihalomethane Precursors by Coagulation."
J.AWWA^ 79:7:98.
Huber, C. 1984. Adsorption and Biologischer Abbau van Huminstoffen in Activkohlfiltern. Dissertation
(in German), Univ. Karlsruhe, West Germany.
Huck, P. M., Anderson, W. B., Rowley, S. M. and Daignault, S. A. 1990. "Formation and Removal of
Selected Aldehydes in a Biological Drinking Water Treatment Process." Presented at the 1990
Spring Conference of the International Ozone Association, Shreveport, LA.
Huey, B., Heckler, J., Joost, R., Crozes, G., Gallier, T. 1999. "Combination of Powdered Activated
Carbon and Low Pressure Membrane Filtration: A Process Alternative for SRP Water
Treatment." AWWA Membrane Technology Conference Proceedings, Long Beach, CA.
Jacangelo, J.G., S. Adham, J-M. Laine. 1997. Membrane Filtration for Microbial Removal. Report No.
90715. AWWARF, Denver, CO.
Jacangelo, J.G, M.E. Aeita, K.E. Cams, E.W. Cummings, and J. Mallevialle. 1989a. "Assessing
Hollow-Fiber Ultrafiltration for Particle Removal," J. AWWA, 81:11:68.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-9 December 2005
-------
Jacangelo, J.G., J.M. Laine, K.E. Cams, E.W. Cummings and J. Mallevialle. 1991. "Low-Pressure
Membrane Filtration for Removing Giardia and Microbial Indicators," J. AWWA, 83:9:97.
Jacangelo, J.G., J. M. Laine, E. W. Cummings, S.S. Adham. 1995. "UF with Pretreatment for
Removing DBP Precursors." J. AWWA, 87:3:100.
Jacangelo, J.G., N.L. Patania, K.M. Reagan, E.M. Aieta, S.W. Krasner, and M.J. McGuire. 1989b.
Ozonation: Assessing Its Role in the Formation and Control of Disinfection By-Products," J.
AWWA, 81:8:74.
Jack, A.M. and Clark, M.M. 1998. "Using PAC-UF to Treat a Low-Quality Surface Water." J. AWWA,
90(11):83.
Jekel, M. R., and B.U. Ernst. 1981. "Einfluss von huminstoffen und ihrer ozonten produkte auf die
electrotykoagulation von polystyrolatex." Vom Wasser, 57:123-126.
Jodellah, A. M. and Weber, W. J. 1985. "Controlling Trihalomethane Formation Potential by
Chemical Treatment and Adsorption." J. AWWA, 77:10:95.
Johnson, D. E. and Randtke, S. J. 1983. "Removing Non-Volatile Organic Chlorine and Its
Precursors by Coagulation and Softenin." J. AWWA, 75:5:249.
Joret, J.C., V. Mennecart, C. Robert, B. Campagnon and P. Cervantes. 1997. "Inactivation of Indigenous
Bacteria in Water by Ozone and Chlorine." Wat. Sci. Tech, 35:11-12:81-86.
Junli, H., W. Li, R. Nanqi, M. Fang, and Juli. 1997. "Disinfection Effect of Chlorine Dioxide on Bateria
in Water." Water Research, 31:3:607-613.
Juranek, D. "Cryptosporidiosis: Sources of infection and guidelines for prevention." Clin. Infect. Dis.
21(Suppl. 1)(1995):S57-S61.
Kaastrup, E. 1985. Activated Carbon Adsorption ofHumic Substances and the Influence ofPreozonation
on Such. Dissertation, Univ. Trondheim, Norwegian Inst. Technol., Trondheim, Norway.
Karimi, A., Vickers, J., Harasick, R. 1999. "Microfiltration goes Hollywood: the Los Angeles
Experience." J. AWWA, 91:6:90-103.
Kashinkunti, R., K.G. Linden, G. Shin, D.H. Metz, M.D. Sobsey, M. Moran, and A. Samuelson. 2003.
Achieving multi-barrier inactivation in Cincinnati: UV, byproducts, and biostability. J.
AWWA. Submitted January 9, 2003.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-10 December 2005
-------
Katzenelson, E., Kletter, E., Schechter, H., and Shuval, H. 1974. "Inactivation of Viruses and Bacteria by
Ozone." J. AWWA, 66:725-729.
Kavanaugh, M. C. 1978. "Modified Coagulation for Improved Removal of Trihalomethane Precursors."
J.AWWA, 70:11:613.
Kawamura, S. 2000. Integrated Design and Operation of Water Treatment Facilities. 2nd Edition, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Keller, J.W., Morin, R.A., and Scaffernoth, T.J. 1974. "Ozone Disinfection Pilot Plant Studies at
Laconia, NH." J. AWWA, 66:7:30.
Kinman, R.N. (1975). "Water and Wastewater Disinfection With Ozone," Crit. Rev. Environ. Control,"
5:1:141-152.
Kirmeyer, G.J., G.W. Foust, G.L. Pierson, J.J. Simmler, M.W. LeChevallier. 1993. Optimizing
Chloramine Treatment, Report No. 90620. AWWARF, Denver, CO.
Kirmeyer, G.J., L.H. Odell, J.G. Jacangelo, A. Wilczak, and R. Wolfe. \995.Nitrification Occurrence
and Control in Chloraminated Water Systems. Report No. 90669. AWWARF, Denver, CO.
Kittridge, D., Beaurivage, R. and Paris, D. 1983. Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption and Fluid-Bed
Reactivation at Manchester, New Hampshire. USEPA Rpt. No. EPA/600/2-83/104.
Cincinnati, OH.
Knocke, W. R. West, S. and Hoehn, R. C. 1986. "Effects of Low Temperature on the Removal of
Trihalomethane Precursors by Coagulation." J. AWWA, 78:4:189.
Knudson, G.B. 1985. Photoreactivation of UV-irradiated Legionella Pneumoplila and other Legionella
species. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 49, No. 4: 975-980.
Koffskey, W. E. 1987. Alternative Disinfectants and Granular Activated Carbon Effects on Trace
Organic Contaminants. USEPA Rpt. No. EPA/600/2-87/006, Cincinnati, OH.
Korich, D.G., J.R Mead, M.S. Madore, N.A. Sinclair, and C.R Sterling. 1990. "Effects of Ozone,
Chlorine Dioxide, Chlorine, and Monochloramine on Cryptosporidium parvum Oocyst
Viability." Applied Engineering and Microbiology. 56:5:1423-1428.
Kornegay, B. H. 1979. "Control of Synthetic Organic Chemicals of Activated CarbonTheory,
Application and Regeneration Alternatives." Presented at the Seminar on Control of Organic
Chemicals in Drinking Water, sponsored by USEPA.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-11 December 2005
-------
Krasner, S. et al. 1996. Issue paper prepared during USEPA Technologies Working Group Meetings.
Krasner, S.W., et al. 1989. "The Occurrence of Disinfection By-Products in U.S. Drinking Water, " J.
AWWA, 81:8:41.
Krasner, S.W., W.H. Glaze, H.S. Weinberg, P.A. Daniel, and I.N. Najm. 1993. "Formation and Control of
Bromate During Ozonation of Waters Containing Bromide," J. AWWA, 85:1:73.
Kruithof, J.C. P. Hiemstra, P. Kamp, J. van der Hoek, and J.C. Schippers. 1997. "Integrated
Multi-Objective Membrane Systems for Control of Microbials and DBP-Precursors," AWWA
Membrane Technology Conference Proceedings, February 23-26, 1997, New Orleans, LA.
Laine, J. M., Clark, M. M. and Mallevialle, J. 1990. "Ultrafiltration of Lake Water: Effect of Pretreatment
On The Partitioning Of Organics, THMFP Flox." J. AWWA, 82:12:82.
Langlais, B. et al. 1990. "New Developments: Ozone in Water and Wastewater Treatment. The CT Value
Concept for Evaluation of Disinfection Process Efficiency; Particular Case of Ozonation for
Inactivation of Some Protozoa, Free-Living Amoeba and Cryptosporidium" IOA Pan-American
Conference, Shreveport, LA.
Langlais, B.; Reckhow, D.A.; Brink, D.R. (Editors). 1991. Ozone in Drinking Water Treatment:
Application and Engineering. AWWARF, Compagnie Generale Des Eaux, Lewis Publishers,
Chelsea, MI.
Laurent, P., Servais, P., Gatel, D., Randon, G., Bonne, P., Cavard, J. 1999. "Microbiological Quality
Before and After Nanofiltration." J. AWWA, 91:10:62.
Lebeau, T., Lelievre, C., Buisson, H., Cleret, D., Van de Venter, L., Cote, P. 1998. "Immersed
Membrane Filtration for the Production of Drinking Water: Combination with PAC for NOM and
SOCs Removal" Desalination, 117:219-231.
LeChevallier, M.W. 1998. "Benefits of Employing a Disinfectant Residual in Distribution Systems,"
Water Supply, 16:3-4:61-73.
LeChevallier, M.W., W.D. Norton, and R.G. Lee. 1991. "Evaluation of a Method to Detect Giardia and
Cryptosporidium in Water." From Monitoring Water in the 1990's: Meeting New Challenges.
ASTM STP 1102 J.R. Hall and G.D. Glysson, eds. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia.
Lee, M. C., Crittenden, J. C., Snoeyink, V. L. and Ari, M. 1983. "Design of Carbon Beds to Remove
Humic Substances." J. Env. Eng^, 109:3:631.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-12 December 2005
-------
Lee, M. C., Snoeyink, V. L. and Crittenden, J. C. 1981. "Activated Carbon Adsorption of Humic
Substances." J. AWWA, 73:8:440.
Lee, Y. and Hunter, J. V. 1985. "Effect of Ozonation and Chlorination on Environmental Protection
Agency Priority Pollutants." Water Chlorination: Chemistry, Environmental Impact and Health
Effects. Vol. 5. R. L. Jolley, R. J. Bull, W. P. Davis, S. Katz, M. H. Roberts and V. A. Jacobs(
eds). Lewis Publishers, p. 1515.
Legube, B., Agbekodo, K., Cote, P., Bourbigot, M. 1995. "Removal of Organohalide Precursors by
Nanofiltration." Water Supply, 13:2:171-181.
Leinhard, H. and Sontheimer, H. 1979. "Influence of Process Conditions on the Effect of Ozone
Treatment of Organic Substances in Water." Ozone Sci. Eng., 1:1:61.
Li, H., G.R. Finch, N. Neumann, and M. Belosevic. 1998. "Inactivation of Cryptosporidium by Chlorine
Dioxide at 1°C." Water Quality Technology Conference Proceedings, AWWA, San Diego, CA.
Li, S.Y., J.A. Goodrich, J.H. Owens, G.E. Willeke, F.W. Schaefer and R.M. Clark. 1997. "Reliability
of Surrogates for Determining Cryptosporidium Removal," J. AWWA, 89:5:90-99.
Liao, M. Y. and Randtke, S. J. 1985. "Removing Fulvic Acid by Lime Softening." J. AWWA, 77:8:78.
Linden, K.G. 2002. Personal email communication by Laurel Passantino. April 24-May 6.
Linden, K.G., L. Batch, and C. Schulz. 2002b. UV Disinfection of filtered water supplies: water quality
impacts on MS2 dose-response curves. Proceedings of the AWWA Annual Conference, June 16-
20, New Orleans, LA.
Linden, K.G., G.A. Shin, G. Faubert, W. Cairns, and M.D. Sobsey. 2002a. UV disinfection ofGiardia
lamblia cysts in water. Environmental Science and Technology 36, No. 11: 2519-2522.
Linden, K. G., G.S. Soriano, and J.L. Darby. 1998. "Investigation of Disinfection Byproduct Formation.
Following Low and Medium Pressure UV Irradiation of Wastewater." WEF Disinfection
Conference Proceedings.
Lindenauer K. and J. Darby. 1994. "Ultraviolet disinfection of wastewater: Effect of Dose on Subsequent
Photoreactivation." Water Research, 28:4:805-817.
Liyanage, L.R.J., G.R. Finch, and M. Belosevic. 1997a. "Synergistic Effects of Sequential Exposure of
Cryptosporidium Oocysts to Chemical Disinfectants," 1997 International Symposium on
Waterborne Cryptosporidium Proceedings, March 2-5, 1997, Newport Beach, CA, AWWA,
Denver, CO.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document ~3 December 2005
-------
Liyanage, L.R.J., G.R. Finch, and M. Belosevic. 1997b. "Sequential Disinfection of Cryptosporidium
parvum by Ozone and Chlorine Dioxide," Ozone Sci. Eng^, 19:409-423.
Long, W.R. 1983. "Evaluation of Cartridge Filters for the Removal ofGiardia lamblia Cyst Models
from Drinking Water Systems." J. Env. Health, 45:5:220-225.
Lozier, J. 1998. "Implementation of Integrated Membrane Treatment: Lessons Learned from Three years
of Operation in Barrow, Alaska." Microfiltration II Conference of the National Water Research
Institute Proceedings, San Diego, CA.
Lozier, J., Jones, G., Bellamy, W. 1997. "Integrated Membrane Treatment in Alaska." J. AWWA,
89:10:50.
Luitweiler, J.P., T.L. Yohe, E. Crist, and X. Sun. 1991. "Performance Testing of Hollow-Fiber
Membranes on a Groundwater," AWWA Membrane Technology Conference, Proceedings,
Orlando, FL.
Lykins, B. W. and Griese, M. H. 1986. "Using Chlorine Dioxide for Trihalomethane Control." J AWWA,
78:6:88.
Mackey, E.D.; Gushing, R.S.; & G.F. Crozes. 2000. UV Disinfection Systems for the Inactivation of
Cryptosporidium: Evaluating Practical Implementation Issues. Proceedings, 2000 Annual
AWWA Conference, Denver, CO.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 1988. Unpublished data.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 1989. Water Quality Master Plan. Prepared for City of Phoenix, AZ.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 1990. City of San Diego Water Quality Report, August 1990.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 1993. Very Small Systems Best Available Technology Cost Document. Prepared for
USEPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
Mallevialle, J., P.E. Odendaal, and M.R. Weisner, ED. 1996. Water Treatment Membrane Processes.
AWWARF. Lyonnaise des Eaux, Water Research Commission of South Africa. McGraw Hill.
Malley, J.P., J.P. Show, and J.R. Ropp. 1996. Evaluation of Byproducts Produced by Treatment of
Groundwaters with Ultraviolet Irradiation. Report No. 90685. AWWARF & AWWA, Denver,
CO.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document TT4 December 2005
-------
Malley, J.P, J.P. Shaw and J.R. Ropp. 1995. Evaluation of by-products produced by treatment of
groundwaters with ultraviolet irradiation. Denver, CO.: AWWA Research Foundation.
Malley, J.R. 1999. "UV Disinfection's Emerging Role in Drinking Water TreatmentTheories and
Practical Questions." USEPA Workshop on UV Disinfection of Drinking Water, April 28-29,
1999, Arlington, VA.
Malley, J.R. 1998. Control of Microbes in Drinking Water, Chapter 13: Ultraviolet Disinfection. Draft
Chapter from ASCE Manual.
Maloney, S. W., Suffet, I. H., Bancroft, K. andNeukrug, H. M. 1985. "Ozone-GAC Following
Conventional US Drinking Water Treatment." J. AWWA, 77:8:66.
Marinas, J.B., Rennecker, L.J., Teefy, S., and Rice W.E. 1999. "Assessing Ozone Disinfection."
J.AWWA, 91:10:79.
Marriott, W. D., M. M. Clark, J. M. Laine. 1997. "Piloting for Optimal Operation of Ultrafiltration."
Annual AWWA Membrane Conference Proceedings, New Orleans, LA.
McCreary, J. J. and Snoeyink, V. L. 1980. "Characterization and Activated Carbon Adsorption of
Several Humic Substances." Water Research, 14:1:151.
McGuire, M. J., Davis, M. K., Liang, S., Tate, C. H., Aieta, E. M., Wallace, I. E., Wilkes, D. R.,
Crittenden, J. C. and Vaith, K. 1989. Optimization and Economic Evaluation of Granular
Activated Carbon for Organic Removal, AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
McGuire, M.J.; Krasner, S.W.; Gramith, J.T. 1990. Comments on Bromide Levels in State Project Water
and Impacts on Control of Disinfection Byproducts.
McGuire, M. J., Krasner, S. W., Reagan, K. M., Aieta, E. M., Jacangelo, J. G., Patania, N. L. and
Gramith, K. M. 1989. Disinfection By-Products in United States Drinking Waters. Final Report
for the USEPA and AMWA.
McTigue, N. E., M. LeChevallier, H. Arora, J. Clancy. 1998. National Assessment of Particle Removal by
Filtration. Denver: American Water Works Association Research Foundation and AWWA. p. 266
Meals, D.W. 2001. "Water quality response to riparian restoration in an agricultural watershed in
Vermont, USA." Water Sci. Technology, 43(5): 175-82.
Medema, G.J., M.H.A. Juhasz-Hoterman, and J.A. Luitjen. 2000. "Removal of microorganisms by bank
filtration in a gravel-sand soil." Proceedings, International Riverbank Filtration Conference,
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-15 December 2005
-------
November 2-4, Diisseldorf. W. Julich and J. Schubert, eds. Internationale Arbeitgemeinschaft der
Wasserwerke im Rheineinzugsgebiet, Amsterdam, pp. 161-168.
Meng, Q and C. Gerba. 1996. "Comparative Inactivation of Enteric Adenoviruses, Poliovirus and
Coliphages by Ultraviolet Irradiation." Water Research, 30:11:2665-2668.
Miller, R. and Hartman, D. J. 1982. Feasibility of Granular Activated Carbon and On-Site Reactivation.
USEPA Rpt. No. EPA/600/2-82/087, Cincinnati, OH.
Miltner, R., Rice E. W. and Stevens, A. A. 1990. "A Study of Ozone's Role in Disinfection By-Product
Control." Presented at the 1990 Spring Conference of the International Ozone Association,
Shreveport, LA.
Mofidi, A. 1999. "Inactivation of Cryptosporidium parvum with Polychromatic UV Systems Water
Quality Monitoring." USEPA Workshop on UV Disinfection of Drinking Water, April 28-29,
1999, Arlington, VA.
Montgomery, James M., Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1992. Effect of Coagulation andOzonation on
the Formation of Disinfection Byproducts. Prepared for the AWWA.
Mulford, L., Taylor, J., Nickerson, D., Chen, S-S. 1999. "NF Performance at Full and Pilot Scale."
J. AWWA, 91:6:64.
Najm, I.N and S.W. Krasner. 1995. "Effects of Bromide and Natural Organic Matter on the Formation of
Ozonation By-Products," J. AWWA, 87:1.
Nakatsuka, S., Nakate, I., Miyano, T. 1996. "Drinking Water Treatment by Using Ultrafiltration Hollow
Fiber Membranes." Desalination, 106:55-61.
Neukrug, H. M., et al. 1983. Removing Organics From Philadelphia Drinking Water by Combined
Ozonation and Adsorption. USEPA Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
OH. Rpt. No. EPA/600/S2-83/048, NTIS Publ. No. PB83-223370.
Neukrug, H. M., Smith, M. G., Maloney, S. W. and Suffet, I. H. 1984. "Biological Activated Carbon
-At What Cost?" J. AWWA, 76:4:158.
Nowack, K.O., F.S. Cannon, and H. Arora. 1999. "Ferric Chloride plus GAC for Removing TOC." J.
AWWA, 91:2:65-78.
Oguma K., H. Katayama, H. Mitani, S. Morita, T. Hirata, and S. Ohgaki. 2001. Determination of
pyrimidine dimers in Escherichia coli and Cryptosporidium parvum during UV light inactivation,
photoreactivation and dark repair. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 67, No. 10: 4630-
4637.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-16 December 2005
-------
Olivieri, V., Parker Jr., D., Willinghan, G., Vickers, J. 1991. "Continuous Microfiltration of Surface
Water." AWWA Membrane Technology Conference Proceedings, Orlando, FL.
Owens, J.H. et. al. 1994. "Pilot-Scale Ozone Inactivation of Cryptosporidium and Giardia" WQTC, San
Francisco, CA.
Parrotta, M.J. and F. Bekdash. 1998. "UV Disinfection for Small Groundwater Supplies." J. AWWA,
90:2:71-81.
Passantino, L.B. and J.P. Malley. 2001. Impacts of turbidity and algal content of unfiltered drinking water
supplies on the ultraviolet disinfection process. Proceedings of the 2001 AWWA Annual
Conference, Washington, DC.
Patania, N.L., J.G. Jacangelo, L. Cummings, A. Wilczak, K. Riley, and J. Oppenheimer. 1995.
"Optimization of Filtration for Cyst Removal." Denver: AWWA Research Foundation and
AWWA.
Payment, Pierre, and E. Franco. 1993. "Clostridiumperfringens and somatic coliphages as indicators
of the efficiency of drinking water treatment for viruses and protozoan cysts." Applied and
Environmental Microbiology. 59 (8): 2418-2424.
Peeters, J.E. et al. 1989. "Effect of Disinfection of Drinking Water with Ozone or Chlorine Dioxide
on Survival of Cryptosporidium Parvum Oocysts." Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
55:6:1519-1522.
Pontius, F.W. and W.R. Diamond. 1999. "Complying with the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule." J. AWWA, 91:3:16-
32.
Prados-Ramirez, M., Ciba, N., Bourbigot, M. 1993. "Available Techniques for Reducing Bromate in
Drinking Water." International Water Supply Association International Conference Proceedings:
Bromate and Water Treatment, Paris, France.
Prengle, H. W., Mauk, C. E. and Payne, J. E. 1976. "Ozone/UV Oxidation of Chlorinated Compounds in
Water." Presented at the International Ozone Institute Forum on Ozone Disinfection. Chicago,
IL.
Quinonez-Diaz, M.J., M.M. Karpiscak, E.D. Ellman, and C.P. Gerba. 2001. "Removal of pathogenic and
indicator moicroorganisms by a constructed wetland receiving untreated domestic wastewater."
Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, Toxic/Hazardous Substances and
Environmental Engineering, 36(7): 1311-20.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-17 December 2005
-------
Randtke, S. J. 1988. "Organic Contaminant Removal by Coagulation and Related Process Combinations."
J.AWWA,m.5:40.
Randtke, S. J., Thiel, C. E., Liao, M. Y. and Yamaya, C. N. 1982. "Removing Soluble Organic
Contaminants by Lime-Softening." J. AWWA, 74:4:192.
Randtke, S. J. and Jepsen, C. P. 1981. "Chemical Pretreatment for Activated Carbon Absorption." J.
AWWA, 73:8:411.
Randtke, S. J. and Jepsen, C. P. 1982. "Effects of Salts on Activated Carbon Adsorption of Fulvic
Acids." J.AWWA, 74:2:84.
Rauth, A.M. 1965. The physical state of viral nucleic acid and the sensitivity of viruses to ultraviolet
light. BiophysicalJournal 5: 257-273.
Reckhow, D.A. and Singer, P.C. 1984. "The Removal of Organic Halide Precursors by Preozonation and
Alum Coagulation." J. AWWA, 76:4:151.
Reckhow, D. A. and Singer, P. C. 1990. "Chlorination By-Products in Drinking Waters: From
Formation Potentials to Concentrations in the Finished Water." J. AWWA, 82:4.
Reed, G.D. 1983. "Effects of Prechlorination on THM Formation and Microbial Growth in Pilot-Plant
Units." J. AWWA, 82:4:426.
Rennecker, J.L., B. Corona-Vasquez, A.M. Driedger and B.J. Marinas. 2000. "Synergism in Sequential
Disinfection of Cryptosporidium parvum " Wat. Sci. Tech., 41:7:47-52.
Rennecker, J.L., Marinas, J.B., Owens, H.J., and Rice, W.E. 1999. "Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
Parvum Oocysts With Ozone." Water Resources, 33:11:2481-2488.
Rice, E.W. and J.C. Hoff 1981. "Inactivation ofGiardia lamblia Cysts by Ultraviolet Irradiation."^/?/)/.
and Environ. Microbiol. 42:3:546-547.
Rice, R.G., P.K. Overbeck and K.O. Larson. 1999. "Ozone, an Effective and Affordable Choice for
Small Water Systems." 1999 AWWA Annual Conference Proceedings, Chicago, IL.
Robeck, G.G., K. A. Dostal and R.L. Woodward. 1964. "Studies of Modifications in Water Filtration." J.
AWWA, 56:2:198-213.
R.S. Means Company Inc. 1999. RSMeans Facilities Construction Cost Data, 14th annual ed. Kingston,
MA.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-18 December 2005
-------
SAB and USEPA. 1990. Reducing risk: setting priorities and strategies for environmental protection.
Washington, DC.: U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board. SAB-EC-90-021.
Scanlan, P., Pohlman, B., Freeman, S., Spillman, B., Mark, J. 1997. "Membrane Filtration for the
Removal of Color and TOC from Surface Water." AWWA Membrane Technology Conference
Proceedings, New Orleans, LA.
Schneider, O.D., E. Acs, Leggerio, and S. Nickols (1999). "The Use of Microfiltration for Backwash
Water Treatment," AWWA Annual Conference Proceedings, June 20 - 24, 1999, Chicago, IL.
Semmens, M. J. and Ayers, K. 1985. "Removal by Coagulation of Trace Organics from Mississippi
River Water." J. AWWA, 11:5:19.
Semmens, M. J., Norgaard, G. E., Hohenstein, G. and Staples, A. B. 1986. "Influence of pH on the
Removal of Organics by Granular Activated Carbon." J. AWWA, 78:5:89.
Semmens, M. J. and Staples, A. B. 1986. "The Nature of Organics Removed During Treatment of
Mississippi River Water. "J. AWWA, 78:2:76.
Semmens, M. J. and T. K. Field. 1980. "Coagulation: Experiences in Organics Removal." J. AWWA,
72:8:476.
Seyde, V., D. Clark, E. Akiyoshi, A. Kalinsky, and C. Spangenberg. 1999. "Nanofiltration Process
Microbial Challenge Studies," AWWA Membrane Technology Conference Proceedings,
February 28 - March 3, 1999, Long Beach, CA.
Shaban, A.M., G.E. El-Taweel, and G.H. Ali. 1997. UV Ability to Inactivate Microorganisms Combined
with Factors Affecting Radiation. Wat. Sci. Tech., 35:11-12:107-112.
Shin G.A., K.G. Linden, M.J. Arrowood, G. Faubert, and M.D. Sobsey. 2001. DNA repair of UV-
irradiated Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts and Giardia lamblia cysts. Proceedings of the First
International Ultraviolet Association Congress, June 14-16, Washington, D.C.
Shin, G., K.G. Linden, G. Faubert, M. Arrowood, and M.D. Sobsey. 2000a. "Inactivation of
Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts and Giardia lamblia Cysts by Monochromatic UV Radiation."
Proceedings of the IWA First International Congress, Health Related Microbiology, Paris, July 1-
4, 2000.
Shin, G.A., Linden, K.G., and Sobsey, M.D. 2000b. Comparative Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
Parvum Oocysts and Coliphage MS-2 by Monochromatic UV Radiation. Proc.. Disinfection
2000, WEF Specialty Conference, New Orleans, LA. March 15-17, 2000.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-19 December 2005
-------
Shukairy, H. M. and Summers, R. S. 1990. "The Impact of Preozonation and Biodegradation on the
Formation of Halogenated Organic Compounds After Chlorination And Chloramination."
AWWA Annual Conference, Cincinnati, OH.
Siddiqui, M.S., G.L., Amy, and McCollum, L.J. 1996. "Bromate Destruction by UV Irradiation and
Electric Arc Discharge." J. Ozone S&E, 18:271-290.
Siddiqui, M.S., G.L. Amy and R. Rice. 1995. "Bromate Ion Formation in Drinking Water: A Critical
Review." J. AWWA, 87:10:58.
Siddiqui, M.S. and G.L. Amy. 1993. "Factors Affecting DBF Formation During Ozone-Bromide
Reactions." J. AWWA, 85:1:63-72.
Singer, P.C. 1988. Alternative Oxidant and Disinfectant Treatment Strategies for Controlling
Trihalomethane Formation. USEPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory,Cincinnati, OH.
Rpt. No. EPA/600/2-88/044, NTIS Publ. No. PB88-238928.
Singer, P.C. and Chang, S.D. 1988. "Characterization of the Impact of Pre-Ozonation of Raw Drinking
Water." Presented at the 1988 Spring Technical Conference of the International Ozone Assoc.,
Monroe, MI.
Sinsabaugh, R.L., Hoehn, R.C., Knocke, W R. and Linkins, A.E. 1986a. "Removal of Dissolved Organic
Carbon by Coagulation with Iron Sulfate." J. AWWA, 78:5:74.
Sinsabaugh, R.L., Hoehn, R.C., Knocke, W.R. and Linkins, A.E. 1986b. "Precursor Size and Organic
Halide Formation Rates in Raw and Coagulated Surface Waters." J. Env. Eng., 111:6:850.
Solarik G., Hooper S.M., Summers R.S., Owen D.M. 1996. "The Impact of Ozonation and Biotreatment
on GAC Performance for NOM Removal and DBP Control." American Water Works Association
Conference Proceedings, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Solo-Gabriele, H., and S. Neumeister. 1996. "U.S. Outbreaks of Cryptosporidiosis." J. AWWA 88:76-86.
Somiya, I., Yamada, H., Nozawa, E. and Mohri, M. 1986. "Biodegradability and GAC Adsorbability
of Micropollutants by Preozonation." Ozone Sci. Eng, 8:1:11.
Song, R., R. Minear, P. Westerhoff, and G. Amy (1995). "Bromate Formation and Minimization in Water
Treatment," AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference Proceedings, New Orleans, LA.
Soroushian, F. and W.D. Bellamy. 2000. "Assessment of Ultraviolet Technology for Drinking Water
Disinfection: Facts of Light." Proceedings of the 2000 AWWA Annual Conference, Denver, CO.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-20 December 2005
-------
Spangenberg, C., E. Akiyoshi, A. Kalinsky, V. Seyde, D. Clark and J. Taylor. 1999. "Insights on Recent
Membrane Integrity Testing of an Organic Selective Nanofiltration and Hybrid Membrane
Arrangement," AWWA Membrane Technology Conference Proceedings, February 28 - March 3,
1999, Long Beach, CA.
Speitel, G.E., Turakhia, M.H. and Lu, C.J. 1989. "Initiation of Micropollutant Biodegradation in Virgin
GAC Columns." J. AWWA, 81:4:168.
Speitel, G. E., Patterson, A. M., Lu, C. J. and Thompson, R.C. 1989. "Aerobic Biodegradation of
Chloroform and Trichloroethylene in Drinking Water Treatment." AWWA Annual Conference
Proceedings, Los Angeles, CA.
Spencur, C. M. and Collins, M. R. 1990. "Modifications of Precoat Filter with Crushed Granular
Activated Carbon and Amiona Resin Improves Organic Precursor Removal." 1990 AWWA
Annual Conference Proceedings, p. 509.
Staehlin, J. andHoigne, J. 1983. Vom Wasser. 61:337.
Staehlin, J. and Hoigne, J. 1985. "Decomposition of Ozone in the Presence of Organic Solutes Acting as
Promoters and Inhibitors of Radical Chain Reactions." Environ. Sci. Tech., 19:1206.
Stevens, A.A., Moorek, L.A. and Miltner, R J. 1989. "Formation and Control of Non-Trihalomethane
By-Products." J. AWWA, 81:8:54.
Summers, R.S. 1986. Activated Carbon Adsorption ofHumic Substances: Effect of Molecular Size and
Heterodispersity. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA.
Summers, R.S. et al. 1997. "Removal of DBP Precursors by Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption."
AWWA Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Summers, R.S., Hong, S., Hooper, S., Solarik ,G. 1994. "Adsorption of Natural Organic Matter and
Disinfection By-Product Precursors." American Water Works Association Annual Conference
Proceedings, New York, NY.
Summers, R.S. and Roberts, P.V. 1988. "Activated Carbon Adsorption ofHumic Substances. II. Size
Exclusion and Electrostatic Interactions." J. Colloid Interface Sci., 122:2:382.
Summers, R.S. and Roberts, P.V. 1982. "Performance of Granular Activated Carbon for Total
Organic Carbon Removal." J. AWWA., 74:2:113-118.
Symons, J.M., G.E. Speitel, C. Hwang, S.W. Krasner, and S.E. Barrett. 1998. Factors Affecting
Disinfection Byproduct Formation During Chloramination. AWWARF, Denver, CO.
LT2ESWTR T&C Document ~1 December 2005
-------
Symons, J.M, G.E. Speitel, C.J. Hwang, S.W. Krasner, S.E. Barrett, A.C. Diehl, and R. Xia. 1996.
"Factors Affecting Disinfection By-Product Formation During Chloramination," AWWA Water
Quality Technology Conference Proceedings, Boston, MA.
Taylor, J.S., L.A. Mulford, S.J. Duranceau and W.M. Barret. 1989. "Cost and Performance of a
Membrane Pilot Plant." J. AWWA, 81:11:52.
Taylor, J.S. D.M. Thompson and J.K Carswell. 1987. "Applying Membrane Processes to Groundwater
Sources for Trihalomethane Precursor Control." J. AWWA, 79:8:72
Thurston, J.A., C.P. Gerba, K.E. Foster, M.M. Karpiscak. 2001. "Fate of indicator microorganisms,
Giardia, and Cryptosporidium in subsurface flow constructed wetlands." Wat. Res., 35:6(1547-
51).
Trussel, R., P. Gagliardo, S. Adham, amd A. Olivieri. 1998. "Membranes as an Alternate to
Disinfection," Microfiltration II Conference of the National Water Research Institute
Proceedings, November 12 - 13, 1998, San Diego, CA.
Trussell, RR 1999. "Safeguarding Distribution System Integrity." J. AWWA, 91:1:46-54.
Tuepker, J.L., and C.A. Buescher, Jr. 1968. "Operation and Maintenance of Rapid Sand Mixed-Media
Filters in a Lime Softening Plant." J. AWWA, 60 (12), 1377.
United States Bureau of Reclamation. 1997. "Survey of U.S. Costs and Water Rates for Desalination and
Membrane Softening Plants," Water Treatment Technology Program Report No. 24, U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation, Denver, CO.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. In-House Pilot Studies for Control of Chlorination By-
Products. Organics Control Branch, Drinking Water Research Division, Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Guidance Manual for Compliance with the Filtration and
Disinfection Requirements for Public Water Systems Using Surface Water Sources. Science and
Technology Branch Criteria and Standards Division Office of Drinking Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Ultraviolet Light Disinfection Technology in Drinking
Water Application. An Overview. EPA 81 l-R-96-002, EPA Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998a. Small System Compliance Technology List for the Surface
Water Treatment Rule and Total Coliform Rule, EPA-815-R-98-001.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-22 December 2005
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Interim
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment; Final Rule. Federal Register 63(241):69477-69521.
December 16, 1998.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999a. Analysis ofGAC Effluent Blending During the ICR
Treatment Studies, EPA 815 -C-99-002, EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,
Technical Support Center.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999b. Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance
Manual, EPA 815-R-99-014, EPA Office of Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999c. Enhanced Coagulation and EnhancedPrecipitative
Softening Guidance Manual, EPA 815-R-99-012, Office of Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long
Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment and Filter Backwash Rule: Proposed Rule. Federal
Register 65(69): 19046-19094.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000b. Stage 2Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts Federal
Advisory Committee Agreement in Principal. Federal Register 65(251): 83015. December 29,
2000.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001a. Low-Pressure membrane Filtration for Pathogen
Removal: Application, Implementation, and Regulatory Issues, EPA 815-C-01-001, Office of
Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 200 Ib. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Filter
Backwash Recycling Rule; Final Rule. Federal Register 66(111): 31085-31105. June 8, 2001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long
Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment and Filter Backwash Rule: Final Rule. Federal
Register 67(9): 1811-1844.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002b. "SSO Case Study: Fairfax County, Virginia CMOM
Program." www.epa.gov/npdes/sso/virginia/index.htm. Last updated January 2002. Downloaded
January 22, 2002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. UVDisinfection Guidance Manual, EPA. Office of Water.
Van der Kooij, D., Hijnenk, W.A.M. and Kruithof J.C. 1989. "The Effects of Ozonation, Biological
Filtration, and Distribution on the Concentration of Easily Assimilable Organic Carbon (AOC) in
Drinking Water." Ozone Sci. Engr., 11:3:297.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-23 December 2005
-------
Vaughn, J.M. et al. 1987. "Inactivation of Human and Simian Rotaviruses by Ozone." Appl. Env.
Microbiology 53:2218-2221.
Viessman, Warren Jr., and M.J. Hammer. 1993. Water Supply and Pollution Control, Fifth Edition,
HarperCollins College Publishers, New York, NY.
Vik, E.A., Carlson, D.A., Eikum, A.S. and Gjessing, E.T. 1985. "Removing Aquatic Humus from
Norwegian Lakes." J. AWWA, 77:3:58.
von Sonntag, C. and H-P. Schuchmann. 1992. UV disinfection of drinking water and by-product
formationsome basic considerations. Journal of Water Supply Research and Technology 41,
No 2: 67-74.
Vrijenhoek, E.M., A.E. Childress, M. Elimelech, T.S. Tanaka and M.D. Beuhler. 1998. "Removing
Particles and THM Precursors by Enhanced Coagulation." J. AWWA, 90:4:139-150.
Wallace, J.L., Vahadi, B., Fernandes, B.L. and Boyden, B.H. 1988. "The Combination of Ozone/
Hydrogen Peroxide and Ozone/UV Radiation for Reduction of Trihalomethane Formation
Potential in Surface Water." Ozone Sci. Eng., 10:1:103.
Wang, B., Tian, J., Yin, J. and Shi, G. 1989. "Ammonia, Nitrite, and Nitrate Nitrogen Removal from
Polluted Source Water with Ozonation and BAC Processes." Ozone Sci. Engr., 11:2:227'.
Wang, J.Z., R. Song and S.A. Hubbs. 2000. "Particle removal through riverbank filtration process."
Proceedings, Water Quality Technology Conference, November 5-9, 2000; Salt Lake City, Utah.
American Waterworks Association, Denver, Colorado.
Wang, J.Z., R. Song and S.A. Hubbs. 2000. "Particle removal through riverbank filtration process."
Proceedings of International Riverbank Filtration Conference, November 2-4, Diisseldorf. W.
Julich and J. Schubert, eds., Internationale Arbeitgemeinschaft der Wasserwerke im
Rheineinzugsgebiet, Amsterdam, pp. 127-138.
Wang, J. Z., R.S. Summers, R.J. Miltner. 1995. "Biofiltration Performance Part 1, Relationships to
Biomass." J. AWWA, 87:12:55.
Weber, W. J. 1972. Physicochemical Processes for Water Quality Control, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, NY.
Weber, W.J. and A.M. Jodellah. 1985. "Removing Humic Substances by Chemical Treatment and
Adsorption." J. AWWA, 77:(4):132.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-24 December 2005
-------
Weber, W.J., Voice, T.C. and Jodellah, A. 1983. "Adsorption of Humic Substances: The Effects of
Heterogeneity and System Characteristics."./. AWWA, 75:12:612.
Werdehoff, K.S. and P.C. Singer. 1987. "Chlorine Dioxide Effects on THMFP, TOXFP, and the
Formation of Inorganic By-Products," J.AWWA, 79:9:107.
West, T., P. Daniel, P. Meyerhofer, A. DeGraca, S. Leonard, and C. Gerba. "Evaluation of
Cryptosporidium Removal Through High-Rate Filtration."/'roc. AWWA 1994 Annual
Conference, Water Quality. New York: AWWA, June 19-23, 1994.
Westerhoff, G. and Chowdhury, Z.K. 1996. "Water Treatment Systems." Chapter in Water
Resources Handbook, L.M. Mays ed., McGraw Hill, New York.
White G.C. 1999. Handbook ofChlorination and Alternative Disinfectants, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
New York, NY.
White, M.C., Thompson, J.D., Harrington, G.W., and Singer, P.C. 1997. "Evaluating Criteria for
Enhanced Coagulation Compliance." J. AWWA, 89:5:64.
Wiesner, M, Schroelling, D., Pickering, K. 1991. "Permeate Behavior and Filtrate Quality of Tubular
Germanic Membranes Used for Surface Water Treatment." AWWA Membrane Technology
Conference Proceedings, Orlando, FL.
Wiesner, M., Veerapaneni, R., Brejchova, D. 1992. "Improvements in Membrane Microfiltration Using
Coagulation Pretreatment." Chemical Water and Wastewater Treatment II. Springer-Verlag,
New York, p. 281.
Wilson, B.R.; P.P. Roessler, E. Van Dellen, M. Abbaszadegan and C.P. Gerba. 1992. "Coliphage MS-2 as
a UV Water Disinfection Efficacy Test Surrogate for Bacterial and Viral Pathogens."
Proceedings of 1992 Water Quality Technology Conference, Nov 15-19, Toronto, pp. 219.
Wood, P.R, Jackson, D.F., Gervers, J.A., Waddell, D.H. and Kaplan, L. 1980. Removing Potential
Organic Carcinogens and Precursors From Drinking Water. USEPA Rpt. No. EPA/600/2-
80/130 Cincinnati, OH.
Wright, H.B and W.L. Cairns. 1998. "Ultraviolet Water Disinfection." Technical literature distributed by
Trojan Technologies, Inc., London, Ontario, Canada.
Wuhrmann, K. and Meyrath, J. 1955. "The Bactericidal Action of Ozone Solution." J. Allgen. Pathol.
BakterioL, 18:1060.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-25 December 2005
-------
Yoon, Y., Amy, G., Pellegrino, J., Cho, Jaeweon, C. 1999. "NOM Rejection by, and Flux-decline of,
Nanofiltration (NF and Ultrafiltration (UF) Membranes: Scale-up Effects and Optimal Operating
Conditions." AWWA Membrane Technology Conference Proceedings, Long Beach, CA.
Young, J. S. and Singer, P. C. 1979. "Chloroform Formation in Public Water Supplies: A Case Study."
.740^4,71:12:87.
Zheng, M, S.A. Andrews, and J.R. Bolton. 1999. Impacts of medium pressure UV on THM and F£AA
formation in pre-UV chlorinated drinking water. Water Quality Technology Conference, October
31-November 3, Tampa, FL.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document 5-26 December 2005
-------
Appendix A
Very Small Systems Model
Capital Cost Breakdown Summaries
-------
Appendix A Contents
Exhibit Name
VSS Document Capital Cost Breakdown for Membrane Processes
VSS Document Capital Cost Breakdown for Ion Exchange Processes
VSS Document Capital Cost Breakdown for Chlorination
VSS Document Capital Cost Breakdown for Potassium Permanganate Feed
Typical VSS Document Capital Cost Breakdown
Exhibit Number
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
Below is an explanation of the abbreviations used in this appendix:
p - The cost belongs to the process cost category of capital cost breakdown
c - The cost belongs to the construction cost category of the capital cost breakdown
e - The cost belongs to the engineering cost category of the capital cost breakdown
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
A-l
December 2005
-------
Exhibit A1 - VSS Document Capital Cost Breakdown for Membrane Processes
Component
Equipment
Installation
Sitework/lnterface Piping
Standby Power
OH&P
Legal & Admin
Engineering
Contigencies
Capital Cost
Factor
1.0000
0.2500
0.0750
0.0625
0.1665
0.0416
0.1596
0.0000
Percent of Total
Capital Cost
56.97%
14.24%
4.27%
3.56%
9.49%
2.37%
9.09%
0.00%
Capital Cost
Breakdown
Category
P
c
c
c
e
e
e
c
Total] 1.7552 1 100.00%|
Exhibit A2 - VSS Document Capital Cost Breakdown for Ion Exchange Processes
Component
Equipment
Installation
Sitework/lnterface Piping
Standby Power
OH&P
Legal & Admin
Engineering
Contigencies
Total
Capital Cost
Factor
1.0000
0.3000
0.0780
0.0650
0.1732
0.0433
0.1659
0.0000
1.8254
Percent of Total
Capital Cost
54.78%
16.43%
4.27%
3.56%
9.49%
2.37%
9.09%
0.00%
100.00%
Capital Cost
Breakdown
Category
P
c
c
c
e
e
e
c
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
A-2
December 2005
-------
Exhibit A3 - VSS Document Capital Cost Breakdown for Chlorination
Component
Equipment
Installation
Sitework/lnterface Piping
Standby Power
OH&P
Legal & Admin
Engineering
Contigencies
Capital Cost
Factor
1.0000
0.1500
0.0690
0.0575
0.1532
0.0383
0.1468
0.0000
Percent of Total
Capital Cost
61.93%
9.29%
4.27%
3.56%
9.49%
2.37%
9.09%
0.00%
Capital Cost
Breakdown
Category
P
c
c
c
e
e
e
c
Total] 1.6148| 100.00%|
Exhibit A4 - VSS Document Capital Cost Breakdown for Potassium Permanganate Feed
Component
Equipment
Installation
Sitework/lnterface Piping
Standby Power
OH&P
Legal & Admin
Engineering
Contigencies
Total
Capital Cost
Factor
1.0000
0.1000
0.0660
0.0550
0.1465
0.0366
0.1404
0.0000
1.5446
Percent of Total
Capital Cost
64.74%
6.47%
4.27%
3.56%
9.49%
2.37%
9.09%
0.00%
100.00%
Capital Cost
Breakdown
Category
P
c
c
c
e
e
e
c
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
A-3
December 2005
-------
Exhibit A5 - Typical VSS Document Capital Cost Breakdown
Component
Equipment
Installation
Sitework/lnterface Piping
Standby Power
OH&P
Legal & Admin
Engineering
Contigencies
Total
Capital Cost
Factor
1.0000
0.3000
0.0780
0.0650
0.1732
0.0433
0.1659
0.0000
1.8254
Percent of Total
Capital Cost
54.78%
16.43%
4.27%
3.56%
9.49%
2.37%
9.09%
0.00%
100.00%
Capital Cost
Breakdown
Category
P
c
c
c
e
e
e
c
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
A-4
December 2005
-------
Appendix B
Water Model
Capital Cost Breakdown Summaries
-------
Appendix B Contents
Exhibit Name
Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Activated Alumina
Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Activated Alumina
Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Anion Exchange
Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Anion Exchange
Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Basic Chemical Feed
Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Basic Chemical Feed
Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Chlorination
Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Chlorination
Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Underground Clean/veil Storage
Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Underground Clean/veil Storage
Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Package Conventional Treatment
Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Package Conventional Treatment
Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Ferric Chloride Feed
Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Ferric Chloride Feed
Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Package Lime Softening
Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Package Lime Softening
Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Permanganate Feed
Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Permanganate Feed
Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Polymer Feed
Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Polymer Feed
Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Raw Water Pumping
Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Raw Water Pumping
Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Package Reverse Osmosis
Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Package Reverse Osmosis
Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Sodium Hydroxide Feed
Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Sodium Hydroxide Feed
Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Package Ultrafiltration
Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Package Ultrafiltration
Exhibit
Number
Exhibit B1.1
Exhibit B1 .2
Exhibit B2.1
Exhibit B2.2
Exhibit B3.1
Exhibit B3.2
Exhibit B4.1
Exhibit B4.2
Exhibit B5.1
Exhibit B5.2
Exhibit B6.1
Exhibit B6.2
Exhibit B7.1
Exhibit B7.2
Exhibit B8.1
Exhibit B8.2
Exhibit B9.1
Exhibit B9.2
Exhibit B1 0.1
Exhibit B1 0.2
Exhibit B1 1.1
Exhibit B1 1 .2
Exhibit B12.1
Exhibit B1 2.2
Exhibit B1 3.1
Exhibit B1 3.2
Exhibit B1 4.1
Exhibit B1 4.2
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
B-l
December 2005
-------
Below is an explanation of the abbreviations used in this appendix:
p - The cost belongs to the process cost category of capital cost breakdown
c - The cost belongs to the construction cost category of the capital cost breakdown
e - The cost belongs to the engineering cost category of the capital cost breakdown
LT2ESWTRT&C Document B-2 December 2005
-------
Exhibit B1.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Activated Alumina
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Activated Alumina
Concrete
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Subtotal
Contingencies
Total
Contactor Volume (ft3)
32
$4,700
$12,800
$1,400
$400
$1,200
$5,200
$6,400
$8,700
$40,800
$6,100
$46,900
71
$4,700
$23,900
$3,100
$1,200
$1,500
$6,500
$6,400
$14,400
$61,700
$9,300
$71,000
126
$4,700
$39,100
$5,400
$1,800
$2,000
$6,500
$6,400
$16,900
$82,800
$12,400
$95,200
283
$4,700
$50,600
$11,900
$2,000
$2,800
$8,400
$8,000
$17,900
$106,300
$15,900
$122,200
385
$4,700
$64,500
$15,400
$2,500
$3,300
$12,800
$8,000
$24,800
$136,000
$20,400
$156,400
502
$4,700
$72,900
$19,600
$3,200
$3,400
$13,300
$8,500
$34,400
$160,000
$24,000
$184,000
754
$4,700
$101,000
$29,400
$4,100
$4,200
$20,100
$9,600
$43,900
$217,000
$32,600
$249,600
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
P
c
P
P
P
c
Exhibit B1.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Activated Alumina
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Activated Alumina
Concrete
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Contactor Volume (ftj)
32
10.02%
27.29%
2.99%
0.85%
2.56%
11.09%
13.65%
18.55%
13.01%
71
6.62%
33.66%
4.37%
1.69%
2.11%
9.15%
9.01%
20.28%
13.10%
126
4.94%
41.07%
5.67%
1.89%
2.10%
6.83%
6.72%
17.75%
13.03%
283
3.85%
41.41%
9.74%
1.64%
2.29%
6.87%
6.55%
14.65%
13.01%
385
3.01%
41.24%
9.85%
1.60%
2.11%
8.18%
5.12%
15.86%
13.04%
502
2.55%
39.62%
10.65%
1.74%
1.85%
7.23%
4.62%
18.70%
13.04%
754
1.88%
40.46%
11.78%
1.64%
1.68%
8.05%
3.85%
17.59%
13.06%
Average
Percent
4.70%
37.82%
7.86%
1.58%
2.10%
8.20%
7.07%
17.62%
13.04%
Total | 100.00%| 100.00%| 1 00.00% | 1 00.00% | 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
B-3
December 2005
-------
Exhibit B2.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Anion Exchange
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Subtotal
Contingencies
Resin Volume (ft3)
4
$2,100
$3,100
$300
$0
$400
$800
$3,100
$5,600
$15,400
$2,300
17
$2,100
$8,600
$400
$0
$1,100
$800
$3,100
$9,600
$25,700
$3,900
54
$4,400
$23,100
$5,500
$7,800
$12,100
$1,000
$3,100
$11,100
$68,100
$10,200
188
$4,400
$64,100
$5,800
$7,800
$12,800
$2,600
$3,100
$16,600
$117,200
$17,600
280
$4,400
$96,800
$6,000
$7,800
$12,900
$2,600
$3,100
$19,200
$152,800
$22,900
520
$5,300
$164,800
$8,400
$10,900
$17,200
$3,100
$3,100
$25,000
$237,800
$35,700
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
P
c
P
P
P
c
Total | $17,700| $29,600| $78,300| $134,800| $175,700| $273,500|
Exhibit B2.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Anion Exchange
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Resin Volume (ft3)
4
11.86%
17.51%
1.69%
0.00%
2.26%
4.52%
17.51%
31.64%
12.99%
17
7.09%
29.05%
1.35%
0.00%
3.72%
2.70%
10.47%
32.43%
13.18%
54
5.62%
29.50%
7.02%
9.96%
15.45%
1.28%
3.96%
14.18%
13.03%
188
3.26%
47.55%
4.30%
5.79%
9.50%
1.93%
2.30%
12.31%
13.06%
280
2.50%
55.09%
3.41%
4.44%
7.34%
1.48%
1.76%
10.93%
13.03%
520
1.94%
60.26%
3.07%
3.99%
6.29%
1.13%
1.13%
9.14%
13.05%
Average
Percent
5.38%
39.83%
3.48%
4.03%
7.43%
2.17%
6.19%
18.44%
13.06%
Total] 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
B-4
December 2005
-------
Exhibit B3.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Basic Chemical Feed
Cost Component
Dissolving Tank
Mixer
Metering Pump
Pipes and Valves
Labor
Electrical
Subtotal
Contingencies
Maximum Feed Rate (Ib/day)
0.1-10
$290
$180
$430
$180
$180
$80
$1,340
$200
25
$430
$200
$700
$180
$180
$100
$1,790
$270
50
$640
$200
$750
$220
$240
$150
$2,200
$330
100
$910
$240
$1,230
$220
$260
$200
$3,060
$460
250
$1,830
$410
$1,600
$280
$300
$250
$4,670
$700
500
$2,200
$620
$1,670
$280
$330
$300
$5,400
$810
1000
$4,400
$620
$1,820
$420
$400
$400
$8,060
$1,210
Capital Cost
Category
P
P
P
P
c
P
c
Total | $1,540| $2,060| $2,530| $3,520| $5,370| $6,210| $9,270|
Exhibit B3.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Basic Chemical Feed
Cost Component
Dissolving Tank
Mixer
Metering Pump
Pipes and Valves
Labor
Electrical
Contingencies
Maximum Feed Rate (Ib/day)
0.1-10
18.83%
11.69%
27.92%
11.69%
11.69%
5.19%
12.99%
25
20.87%
9.71%
33.98%
8.74%
8.74%
4.85%
13.11%
50
25.30%
7.91%
29.64%
8.70%
9.49%
5.93%
13.04%
100
25.85%
6.82%
34.94%
6.25%
7.39%
5.68%
13.07%
250
34.08%
7.64%
29.80%
5.21%
5.59%
4.66%
13.04%
500
35.43%
9.98%
26.89%
4.51%
5.31%
4.83%
13.04%
1000
47.46%
6.69%
19.63%
4.53%
4.31%
4.31%
13.05%
Average
Percent
29.69%
8.63%
28.97%
7.09%
7.50%
5.07%
13.05%
Total] 100.00%! 100.00%! 100.00%! 100.00%! 100.00%! 100.00%! 100.00%! 100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
B-5
December 2005
-------
Exhibit B4.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Chlorination
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Subtotal
Contingencies
Total
Cost
$1,200
$2,700
$300
$400
$500
$2,200
$7,800
$15,100
$2,300
$17,400
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
c
P
P
P
c
Exhibit B4.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Chlorination
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Cost
6.90%
15.52%
1.72%
2.30%
2.87%
12.64%
44.83%
13.22%
Average
Percent
6.90%
15.52%
1.72%
2.30%
2.87%
12.64%
44.83%
13.22%
Total | 100.00%| 100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
B-6
December 2005
-------
Exhibit B5.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Underground Clean/veil Storage
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Concrete
Steel
Electrical
Subtotal
Contingencies
Design Capacity (gpd)
5,000
$3,300
$9,800
$300
$2,600
$16,000
$2,400
10,000
$5,700
$16,500
$400
$2,600
$25,200
$3,800
50,000
$16,500
$37,000
$500
$2,600
$56,600
$8,500
100,000
$25,300
$64,000
$500
$2,600
$92,400
$13,900
500,000
$75,400
$216,400
$600
$2,600
$295,000
$44,300
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
P
c
Total | $18,400| $29,000| $65,100| $106,300| $339,300|
Exhibit B5.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Underground Clean/veil Storage
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Concrete
Steel
Electrical
Contingencies
Design Capacity (gpd)
5,000
17.93%
53.26%
1.63%
14.13%
13.04%
10,000
19.66%
56.90%
1.38%
8.97%
13.10%
50,000
25.35%
56.84%
0.77%
3.99%
13.06%
100,000
23.80%
60.21%
0.47%
2.45%
13.08%
500,000
22.22%
63.78%
0.18%
0.77%
13.06%
Average
Percent
21.79%
58.20%
0.88%
6.06%
13.07%
Total] 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
B-7
December 2005
-------
Exhibit B6.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Package Conventional Treatment
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Subtotal
Contingencies
Filter Area (ft^)
2
$3,500
$31,000
$1,000
$9,900
$4,200
$3,200
$18,600
$71,400
$10,700
12
$3,500
$44,900
$1,000
$14,700
$8,300
$4,500
$18,600
$95,500
$14,300
20
$4,700
$53,500
$1,500
$17,500
$10,400
$5,300
$23,400
$116,300
$17,400
40
$5,800
$111,300
$4,500
$36,400
$20,900
$11,100
$45,000
$235,000
$35,300
112
$7,000
$176,600
$5,700
$57,800
$29,200
$17,600
$47,500
$341,400
$51,200
150
$9,300
$190,500
$6,800
$62,400
$41,700
$19,000
$52,500
$382,200
$57,300
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
c
P
P
P
c
Total | $82,100| $109,800| $133,700| $270,300| $392,600| $439,500|
Exhibit B6.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Package Conventional Treatment
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Filter Area (ft^)
2
4.26%
37.76%
1.22%
12.06%
5.12%
3.90%
22.66%
13.03%
12
3.19%
40.89%
0.91%
13.39%
7.56%
4.10%
16.94%
13.02%
20
3.52%
40.01%
1.12%
13.09%
7.78%
3.96%
17.50%
13.01%
40
2.15%
41.18%
1.66%
13.47%
7.73%
4.11%
16.65%
13.06%
112
1.78%
44.98%
1.45%
14.72%
7.44%
4.48%
12.10%
13.04%
150
2.12%
43.34%
1.55%
14.20%
9.49%
4.32%
11.95%
13.04%
Average
Percent
2.84%
41.36%
1.32%
13.49%
7.52%
4.15%
16.30%
13.03%
Total] 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
December 2005
-------
Exhibit B7.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Ferric Chloride Feed
Cost Component
Storage Tank
Wooden Stairway
Metering Pump
Pipes and Valves
Labor
Electrical
Subtotal
Contingencies
Maximum Feed Rate (Ib/day)
1
$0
$0
$390
$180
$120
$80
$770
$120
10
$0
$0
$390
$180
$120
$80
$770
$120
25
$0
$0
$390
$180
$130
$80
$780
$120
50
$0
$0
$390
$180
$130
$80
$780
$120
100
$360
$0
$390
$220
$210
$100
$1,280
$190
250
$780
$300
$1,090
$280
$360
$120
$2,930
$440
750
$2,040
$300
$1,100
$280
$410
$120
$4,250
$640
Capital Cost
Category
P
P
P
P
c
P
c
Total | $890| $890| $900| $900| $1,470| $3,370| $4,890|
Exhibit B7.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Ferric Chloride Feed
Cost Component
Storage Tank
Wooden Stairway
Metering Pump
Pipes and Valves
Labor
Electrical
Contingencies
Maximum Feed Rate (Ib/day)
1
0.00%
0.00%
43.82%
20.22%
13.48%
8.99%
13.48%
10
0.00%
0.00%
43.82%
20.22%
13.48%
8.99%
13.48%
25
0.00%
0.00%
43.33%
20.00%
14.44%
8.89%
13.33%
50
0.00%
0.00%
43.33%
20.00%
14.44%
8.89%
13.33%
100
24.49%
0.00%
26.53%
14.97%
14.29%
6.80%
12.93%
250
23.15%
8.90%
32.34%
8.31%
10.68%
3.56%
13.06%
750
41.72%
6.13%
22.49%
5.73%
8.38%
2.45%
13.09%
Average
Percent
12.76%
2.15%
36.53%
15.64%
12.74%
6.94%
13.24%
Total] 100.00%! 100.00%! 100.00%! 100.00%! 100.00%! 100.00%! 100.00%! 100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
B-9
December 2005
-------
Exhibit B8.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Package Lime Softening
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Subtotal
Contingencies
Design Capacity (gpd)
15,000
$3,500
$33,200
$1,100
$14,000
$5,200
$8,500
$8,800
$74,300
$11,100
150,000
$5,800
$49,800
$2,500
$18,200
$10,400
$12,200
$16,400
$115,300
$17,300
430,000
$6,700
$66,300
$3,200
$28,000
$14,100
$17,000
$19,800
$155,100
$23,300
750,000
$8,400
$86,200
$5,900
$36,400
$16,700
$18,900
$30,000
$202,500
$30,400
1,000,000
$9,800
$103,800
$7,000
$43,800
$45,900
$26,700
$33,000
$270,000
$40,500
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
c
P
P
P
c
Total | $85,400| $132,600| $178,400| $232,900| $310,500|
Exhibit B8.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Package Lime Softening
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Design Capacity (gpd)
15,000
4.10%
38.88%
1.29%
16.39%
6.09%
9.95%
10.30%
13.00%
150,000
4.37%
37.56%
1.89%
13.73%
7.84%
9.20%
12.37%
13.05%
430,000
3.76%
37.16%
1.79%
15.70%
7.90%
9.53%
11.10%
13.06%
750,000
3.61%
37.01%
2.53%
15.63%
7.17%
8.12%
12.88%
13.05%
1,000,000
3.16%
33.43%
2.25%
14.11%
14.78%
8.60%
10.63%
13.04%
Average
Percent
3.80%
36.81%
1.95%
15.11%
8.76%
9.08%
1 1 .46%
13.04%
Total] 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
B-10
December 2005
-------
Exhibit B9.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Permanganate Feed
Cost Component
Dissolving Tank
Mixer
Metering Pump
Pipes and Valves
Labor
Electrical
Subtotal
Contingencies
Maximum Feed Rate (Ib/day)
0.5-5
$290
$180
$430
$180
$180
$80
$1,340
$200
12.5
$430
$200
$700
$180
$180
$100
$1,790
$270
25
$640
$200
$750
$220
$240
$150
$2,200
$330
50
$910
$240
$1,230
$220
$260
$200
$3,060
$460
125
$1,830
$410
$1,600
$280
$300
$250
$4,670
$700
250
$2,200
$620
$1,670
$280
$330
$300
$5,400
$810
Capital Cost
Category
P
P
P
P
c
P
c
Total | $1,540| $2,060| $2,530| $3,520| $5,370| $6,210|
Exhibit B9.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Permanganate Feed
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Contingencies
Maximum Feed Rate (Ib/day)
0.5-5
18.83%
11.69%
27.92%
11.69%
11.69%
5.19%
12.99%
12.5
20.87%
9.71%
33.98%
8.74%
8.74%
4.85%
13.11%
25
25.30%
7.91%
29.64%
8.70%
9.49%
5.93%
13.04%
50
25.85%
6.82%
34.94%
6.25%
7.39%
5.68%
13.07%
125
34.08%
7.64%
29.80%
5.21%
5.59%
4.66%
13.04%
250
35.43%
9.98%
26.89%
4.51%
5.31%
4.83%
13.04%
Average
Percent
26.73%
8.96%
30.53%
7.52%
8.03%
5.19%
13.05%
Total] 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
B-ll
December 2005
-------
Exhibit B10.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Polymer Feed
Cost Component
Mixing Tank
Mixer
Metering Pump
Pipes and Valves
Labor
Electrical
Subtotal
Contingencies
Maximum Feed Rate (Ib/day)
0.6
$290
$850
$640
$180
$180
$80
$2,220
$330
1
$430
$850
$700
$180
$180
$100
$2,440
$370
2.1
$640
$200
$750
$220
$240
$150
$2,200
$330
4.2
$910
$1,050
$1,230
$220
$260
$200
$3,870
$580
10.4
$1,830
$1,050
$1,600
$280
$300
$250
$5,310
$800
Capital Cost
Category
P
P
P
P
c
P
c
Total | $2,550| $2,810| $2,530| $4,450| $6,1 10|
Exhibit B10.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Polymer Feed
Cost Component
Mixing Tank
Mixer
Metering Pump
Pipes and Valves
Labor
Electrical
Contingencies
Maximum Feed Rate (Ib/day)
0.6
11.37%
33.33%
25.10%
7.06%
7.06%
3.14%
12.94%
1
15.30%
30.25%
24.91%
6.41%
6.41%
3.56%
13.17%
2.1
25.30%
7.91%
29.64%
8.70%
9.49%
5.93%
13.04%
4.2
20.45%
23.60%
27.64%
4.94%
5.84%
4.49%
13.03%
10.4
29.95%
17.18%
26.19%
4.58%
4.91%
4.09%
13.09%
Average
Percent
20.47%
22.45%
26.70%
6.34%
6.74%
4.24%
13.06%
Total] 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
B-12
December 2005
-------
Exhibit B11.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Raw Water Pumping
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Subtotal
Contingencies
Design Capacity (gpd)
28,800
$11,700
$6,600
$500
$3,700
$1,500
$800
$24,800
$3,700
144,000
$11,700
$7,800
$500
$3,800
$1,800
$800
$26,400
$4,000
504,000
$12,300
$11,800
$1,100
$5,800
$2,700
$1,400
$35,100
$5,300
720,000
$12,300
$12,600
$1,100
$6,200
$3,600
$1,600
$37,400
$5,600
1,008,000
$12,800
$16,500
$1,500
$8,500
$4,500
$2,100
$45,900
$6,900
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
c
P
P
c
Total | $28,500| $30,400| $40,400| $43,000| $52,800|
Exhibit B11.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Raw Water Pumping
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Contingencies
Design Capacity (gpd)
28,800
41.05%
23.16%
1.75%
12.98%
5.26%
2.81%
12.98%
144,000
38.49%
25.66%
1.64%
12.50%
5.92%
2.63%
13.16%
504,000
30.45%
29.21%
2.72%
14.36%
6.68%
3.47%
13.12%
720,000
28.60%
29.30%
2.56%
14.42%
8.37%
3.72%
13.02%
1,008,000
24.24%
31.25%
2.84%
16.10%
8.52%
3.98%
13.07%
Average
Percent
32.57%
27.72%
2.30%
14.07%
6.95%
3.32%
13.07%
Total] 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
B-13
December 2005
-------
Exhibit B12.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Package Reverse Osmosis
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Electrical
Housing
Subtotal
Contingencies
Plant Capacity (gpd)
2,500
$20,300
$800
$3,200
$11,900
$36,200
$5,400
10,000
$30,000
$1,200
$4,600
$13,900
$49,700
$7,500
50,000
$69,600
$1,500
$10,700
$16,400
$98,200
$14,700
100,000
$123,000
$2,800
$18,700
$18,500
$163,000
$24,500
500,000
$454,800
$7,500
$45,900
$38,400
$546,600
$82,000
1,000,000
$877,400
$14,600
$62,100
$52,500
$1,006,600
$151,000
Capital Cost
Category
P
c
P
P
c
Total | $41,600| $57,200| $112,900| $187,500| $628,600| $1,157,600|
Exhibit B12.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Package Reverse Osmosis
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Plant Capacity (gpd)
2,500
48.80%
1.92%
7.69%
28.61%
12.98%
10,000
52.45%
2.10%
8.04%
24.30%
13.11%
50,000
61.65%
1.33%
9.48%
14.53%
13.02%
100,000
65.60%
1.49%
9.97%
9.87%
13.07%
500,000
72.35%
1.19%
7.30%
6.11%
13.04%
1,000,000
75.79%
1.26%
5.36%
4.54%
13.04%
Average
Percent
62.77%
1.55%
7.98%
14.66%
13.04%
Total] 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
B-14
December 2005
-------
Exhibit B13.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Sodium Hydroxide Feed
Cost Component
Storage and Feed Tanks
Heating and Insulation
Mixer
Stairway
Man. Transfer Pump
Pipes and Valves
Metering Pump
Containment Wall
Labor
Electrical
Subtotal
Contingencies
Maximum Feed Rate (Ib/day)
0.8
$60
$0
$0
$0
$100
$310
$390
$120
$280
$80
$1,340
$200
4
$60
$0
$0
$0
$100
$310
$390
$120
$280
$80
$1,340
$200
8
$90
$0
$0
$0
$100
$310
$390
$150
$280
$80
$1,400
$210
42
$970
$200
$180
$0
$0
$470
$390
$270
$420
$100
$3,000
$450
83
$2,040
$410
$240
$0
$0
$470
$410
$400
$480
$100
$4,550
$680
417
$3,560
$950
$620
$300
$0
$530
$1,090
$600
$650
$120
$8,420
$1,260
834
$6,940
$1,620
$640
$600
$0
$790
$1,100
$880
$860
$120
$13,550
$2,030
Capital Cost
Category
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
c
P
c
Total | $1,540| $1,540| $1,610| $3,450| $5,230| $9,680| $15,580|
Exhibit B13.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Sodium Hydroxide Feed
Cost Component
Storage and Feed Tanks
Heating and Insulation
Mixer
Stairway
Man. Transfer Pump
Pipes and Valves
Metering Pump
Containment Wall
Labor
Electrical
Contingencies
Maximum Feed Rate (Ib/day)
0.8
3.90%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.49%
20.13%
25.32%
7.79%
18.18%
5.19%
12.99%
4
3.90%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.49%
20.13%
25.32%
7.79%
18.18%
5.19%
12.99%
8
5.59%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.21%
19.25%
24.22%
9.32%
17.39%
4.97%
13.04%
42
28.12%
5.80%
5.22%
0.00%
0.00%
13.62%
11.30%
7.83%
12.17%
2.90%
13.04%
83
39.01%
7.84%
4.59%
0.00%
0.00%
8.99%
7.84%
7.65%
9.18%
1.91%
13.00%
417
36.78%
9.81%
6.40%
3.10%
0.00%
5.48%
1 1 .26%
6.20%
6.71%
1.24%
13.02%
834
44.54%
10.40%
4.11%
3.85%
0.00%
5.07%
7.06%
5.65%
5.52%
0.77%
13.03%
Average
Percent
23.12%
4.84%
2.90%
0.99%
2.74%
13.24%
16.05%
7.46%
12.48%
3.17%
13.02%
Total] 100.00%! 100.00%! 100.00%! 100.00%! 100.00%! 100.00%! 100.00%! 100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
B-15
December 2005
-------
Exhibit B14.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the Water Model for Package Ultrafiltration
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Subtotal
Contingencies
Membrane Area (ft"')
30
$1,300
$5,500
$1,800
$1,100
$500
$1,500
$7,800
$19,500
$2,900
424
$2,400
$25,300
$3,700
$5,200
$1,100
$5,600
$14,600
$57,900
$8,700
1,431
$4,100
$65,600
$5,800
$13,500
$2,200
$13,300
$21,700
$126,200
$18,900
3,604
$5,700
$129,800
$10,200
$26,900
$3,800
$25,800
$29,000
$231,200
$34,700
7,155
$10,200
$23,900
$16,700
$49,500
$4,500
$48,100
$40,800
$193,700
$29,100
14,310
$14,900
$415,100
$28,800
$85,900
$6,200
$85,300
$56,000
$692,200
$103,800
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
c
P
P
P
c
Total | $22,400| $66,600| $145,100| $265,900| $222,800| $796,000||
Exhibit B14.2 - Water Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Package Ultrafiltration
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Membrane Area (ft"')
30
5.80%
24.55%
8.04%
4.91%
2.23%
6.70%
34.82%
12.95%
424
3.60%
37.99%
5.56%
7.81%
1.65%
8.41%
21.92%
13.06%
1,431
2.83%
45.21%
4.00%
9.30%
1.52%
9.17%
14.96%
13.03%
3,604
2.14%
48.82%
3.84%
10.12%
1.43%
9.70%
10.91%
13.05%
7,155
4.58%
10.73%
7.50%
22.22%
2.02%
21.59%
18.31%
13.06%
14,310
1.87%
52.15%
3.62%
10.79%
0.78%
10.72%
7.04%
13.04%
Average
Percent
3.47%
36.57%
5.42%
10.86%
1.60%
11.05%
17.99%
13.03%
Total] 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
B-16
December 2005
-------
Appendix C
WAV Cost Model
Capital Cost Breakdown Summaries
-------
Appendix C Contents
Exhibit Name
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Activated Alumina
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Activated Alumina
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Ammonia Feed Systems
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Ammonia Feed Systems
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Backwash Water Pumping
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Backwash Water Pumping
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Chemical Sludge Pumping
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Chemical Sludge Pumping
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Chlorination
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Chlorination
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Circular Clarifiers
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Circular Clarifiers
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Clean/veil Storage
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Clean/veil Storage
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Ferric Chloride Feed Systems
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Ferric Chloride Feed Systems
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Finished Water Pumping
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Finished Water Pumping
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Gravity Filtration
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Gravity Filtration
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Horizontal Paddle, G=50
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Horizontal Paddle, G=50
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Horizontal Paddle, G=80
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Horizontal Paddle, G=80
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Hydraulic Surface Wash
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Hydraulic Surface Wash
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for In-Plant Pumping
Exhibit
Number
C1.1
C1.2
C2.1
C2.2
C3.1
C3.2
C4.1
C4.2
C5.1
C5.2
C6.1
C6.2
C7.1
C7.2
C8.1
C8.2
C9.1
C9.2
C10.1
C10.2
C11.1
C11.2
C12.1
C12.2
C13.1
C13.2
C14.1
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
C-l
December 2005
-------
Exhibit Name
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for In-Plant Pumping
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Ion Exchange
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Ion Exchange
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Lime Feed with Recalcination
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Lime Feed with Recalcination
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Permanganate Feed Systems
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Permanganate Feed Systems
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Polymer Feed Systems
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Polymer Feed Systems
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Rapid Mix, G=900
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Rapid Mix, G=900
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Recarbonation, Liquid Carbon Dioxide
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Recarbonation, Liquid Carbon Dioxide
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Recarbonation Basins
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Recarbonation Basins
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Rectangular Clarifiers
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Rectangular Clarifiers
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Reverse Osmosis
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Reverse Osmosis
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Sodium Hydroxide Feed Systems
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Sodium Hydroxide Feed Systems
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Sulfuric Acid Feed Systems
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Sulfuric Acid Feed Systems
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Tube Settling Modules
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Tube Settling Modules
Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Wash Water Surge Basins
WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Wash Water Surge Basins
Exhibit
Number
C14.2
C15.1
C15.2
C16.1
C16.2
C17.1
C17.2
C18.1
C18.2
C19.1
C19.2
C20.1
C20.2
C21.1
C21.2
C22.1
C22.2
C23.1
C23.2
C24.1
C24.2
C25.1
C25.2
C26.1
C26.2
C27.1
C27.2
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
C-2
December 2005
-------
Below is an explanation of the abbreviations used in this appendix:
p - The cost belongs to the process cost category of capital cost breakdown
c - The cost belongs to the construction cost category of the capital cost breakdown
e - The cost belongs to the engineering cost category of the capital cost breakdown
LT2ESWTRT&C Document C-3 December 2005
-------
Exhibit C1.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Activated Alumina
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Activated Alumina
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Plant Capacity (mgd)
0.7
$26,760
$8,300
$10,280
$16,260
$10,050
$6,960
$11,790
2.0
$44,580
$14,770
$13,490
$19,320
$11,360
$27,630
$19,670
6.8
$138,330
$83,080
$48,010
$69,030
$22,300
$62,120
$63,430
27
$522,210
$332,310
$192,020
$273,210
$60,300
$210,980
$238,650
54
$1,031,270
$664,610
$384,060
$542,650
$119,030
$374,840
$467,470
135
$2,564,560
$1,661,530
$1,282,370
$1,368,060
$284,750
$744,320
$1,185,840
Capital Cost
Category
P
P
c
P
P
P
c
Total | $90,400| $150,820| $486,300| $1,829,680| $3,583,930| $9,091 ,430|
Exhibit C1.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Activated Alumina
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Activated Alumina
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Plant Capacity (mgd)
0.7
29.60%
9.18%
1 1 .37%
17.99%
11.12%
7.70%
13.04%
100.00%
2.0
29.56%
9.79%
8.94%
12.81%
7.53%
18.32%
13.04%
100.00%
6.8
28.45%
17.08%
9.87%
14.19%
4.59%
12.77%
13.04%
100.00%
27
28.54%
18.16%
10.49%
14.93%
3.30%
1 1 .53%
13.04%
100.00%
54
28.77%
18.54%
10.72%
15.14%
3.32%
10.46%
13.04%
100.00%
135
28.21%
18.28%
14.11%
15.05%
3.13%
8.19%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
28.86%
15.17%
10.92%
15.02%
5.50%
1 1 .49%
13.04%
100.00%
Exhibit C2.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Ammonia Feed Systems
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Feed Capacity (Ib/day)
250
$13,260
$3,990
$2,390
$3,250
$4,500
$4,110
$31,500
500
$19,520
$5,680
$3,520
$3,770
$4,500
$5,550
$42,540
1,000
$30,450
$9,250
$5,500
$6,180
$4,500
$8,380
$64,260
2,500
$38,830
$10,620
$7,000
$8,480
$4,500
$10,410
$79,840
5,000
$59,200
$13,870
$10,670
$10,990
$6,430
$15,170
$116,330
Capital Cost
Category
P
c
P
P
P
c
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-4
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C2.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Ammonia Feed Systems
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Feed Capacity (Ib/day)
250
42.10%
12.67%
7.59%
10.32%
14.29%
13.05%
100.00%
500
45.89%
13.35%
8.27%
8.86%
10.58%
13.05%
100.00%
1,000
47.39%
14.39%
8.56%
9.62%
7.00%
13.04%
100.00%
2,500
48.63%
13.30%
8.77%
10.62%
5.64%
13.04%
100.00%
5,000
50.89%
1 1 .92%
9.17%
9.45%
5.53%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
46.98%
13.13%
8.47%
9.77%
8.61%
13.04%
100.00%
Exhibit C3.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Backwash Water Pumping
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Contingencies
Total
Pumping Capacity (mgd(gpm))
1,260
(1.8)
$11,400
$3,050
$9,780
$13,350
$5,640
$43,220
3,150
(4.5)
$14,600
$4,410
$17,690
$16,040
$7,910
6,300
(9.1)
$38,380
$4,880
$17,690
$16,740
$11,650
$60,650| $89,340
18,000
(25.9)
$76,780
$9,290
$33,390
$28,070
$22,130
22,950
(33)
$95,970
$12,440
$44,780
$33,250
$27,970
$169,660| $214,410
Capital Cost
Category
P
c
P
P
c
Exhibit C3.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Backwash Water Pumping
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Contingencies
Total
Pumping Capacity (mgd(gpm))
1,260
(1.8)
26.38%
7.06%
22.63%
30.89%
13.05%
100.00%
3,150
(4.5)
24.07%
7.27%
29.17%
26.45%
13.04%
100.00%
6,300
(9.1)
42.96%
5.46%
19.80%
18.74%
13.04%
100.00%
18,000
(25.9)
45.26%
5.48%
19.68%
16.54%
13.04%
100.00%
22,950
(33)
44.76%
5.80%
20.89%
15.51%
13.05%
100.00%
Average
Percent
36.68%
6.21%
22.43%
21 .63%
13.04%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-5
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C4.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Chemical Sludge Pumping
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Capacity (gpm)
20
$470
$4,370
$1,500
$1,510
$5,280
$2,560
$6,290
$5,880
$4,180
$32,040
100
$600
$6,230
$2,210
$2,130
$8,060
$4,570
$7,390
$5,880
$5,560
$42,630
500
$810
$8,210
$3,220
$3,120
$12,880
$10,870
$7,880
$5,880
$7,930
$60,800
1,000
$970
$10,390
$4,100
$3,940
$17,400
$18,190
$9,380
$8,100
$10,870
$83,340
5,000
$1,840
$23,320
$9,270
$8,640
$47,850
$42,810
$10,380
$8,100
$22,830
$175,040
10,000
$2,220
$38,440
$12,310
$11,070
$64,720
$79,060
$12,510
$11,700
$34,800
$266,830
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
P
c
P
P
P
c
Exhibit C4.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Chemical Sludge Pumping
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Capacity (gpm)
20
1 .47%
13.64%
4.68%
4.71%
16.48%
7.99%
19.63%
18.35%
13.05%
100.00%
100
1.41%
14.61%
5.18%
5.00%
18.91%
10.72%
17.34%
13.79%
13.04%
100.00%
500
1 .33%
13.50%
5.30%
5.13%
21.18%
17.88%
12.96%
9.67%
13.04%
100.00%
1,000
1.16%
12.47%
4.92%
4.73%
20.88%
21 .83%
1 1 .26%
9.72%
13.04%
100.00%
5,000
1 .05%
13.32%
5.30%
4.94%
27.34%
24.46%
5.93%
4.63%
13.04%
100.00%
10,000
0.83%
14.41%
4.61%
4.15%
24.26%
29.63%
4.69%
4.38%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
1.21%
13.66%
5.00%
4.78%
21.51%
18.75%
1 1 .97%
10.09%
13.04%
100.00%
Exhibit C5.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Chlorination
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Chlorine Feed Capacity (Ib/day
10
$6,760
$820
$540
$770
$2,430
$1,700
500
$21,630
$2,610
$1,710
$2,450
$18,360
$7,010
1,000
$41,630
$5,030
$3,300
$4,710
$27,760
$12,360
2,000
$65,950
$7,960
$5,230
$7,460
$46,550
$19,970
5,000
$76,780
$9,270
$6,080
$8,690
$100,440
$30,190
10,000
$114,360
$13,810
$9,060
$12,940
$186,490
$50,500
Capital Cost
Category
P
c
P
P
P
c
Total | $13,020| $53,770| $94,790| $153,120| $231,450| $387,160|
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-6
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C5.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Chlorination
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Chlorine Feed Capacity (Ib/day
10
51 .92%
6.30%
4.15%
5.91%
18.66%
13.06%
100.00%
500
40.23%
4.85%
3.18%
4.56%
34.15%
13.04%
100.00%
1,000
43.92%
5.31%
3.48%
4.97%
29.29%
13.04%
100.00%
2,000
43.07%
5.20%
3.42%
4.87%
30.40%
13.04%
100.00%
5,000
33.17%
4.01%
2.63%
3.75%
43.40%
13.04%
100.00%
10,000
29.54%
3.57%
2.34%
3.34%
48.17%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
40.31%
4.87%
3.20%
4.57%
34.01%
13.04%
100.00%
Exhibit C6.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Circular Clarifiers
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Contingencies
Surface Area (SA=ft2) and Diameter (D=ft)
SA=707
D=30
$1,530
$28,740
$4,860
$14,160
$10,770
$8,090
$5,940
$11,110
SA=1,590
D=45
$2,430
$34,410
$7,710
$21,090
$16,180
$8,420
$5,940
$14,430
SA=5,027
D=80
$4,900
$69,580
$15,480
$67,240
$30,960
$11,540
$7,560
$31,090
SA=1 0,387
D=115
$7,860
$97,180
$24,800
$129,250
$46,980
$15,660
$8,270
$49,500
SA=1 5,393
D=140
$10,280
$132,350
$32,400
$188,720
$60,110
$21,590
$10,870
$68,450
SA=22,698
D=170
$13,520
$189,060
$42,560
$249,570
$77,640
$26,590
$12,370
$91,700
SA=31,416
D=200
$17,130
$226,980
$53,860
$335,140
$96,320
$42,520
$13,060
$117,750
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
P
c
P
P
c
Total | $85,200| $110,610| $238,350| $379,500| $524,770| $703,010| $902,760|
Exhibit C6.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Circular Clarifiers
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Contingencies
Total
Surface Area (SA=ft2) and Diameter (D=ft)
SA=707
D=30
1 .80%
33.73%
5.70%
16.62%
12.64%
9.50%
6.97%
13.04%
100.00%
SA=1,590
D=45
2.20%
31.11%
6.97%
19.07%
14.63%
7.61%
5.37%
13.05%
100.00%
SA=5,027
D=80
2.06%
29.19%
6.49%
28.21%
12.99%
4.84%
3.17%
13.04%
100.00%
SA=1 0,387
D=115
2.07%
25.61%
6.53%
34.06%
12.38%
4.13%
2.18%
13.04%
100.00%
SA=1 5,393
D=140
1 .96%
25.22%
6.17%
35.96%
1 1 .45%
4.11%
2.07%
13.04%
100.00%
SA=22,698
D=170
1 .92%
26.89%
6.05%
35.50%
1 1 .04%
3.78%
1 .76%
13.04%
100.00%
SA=31,416
D=200
1 .90%
25.14%
5.97%
37.12%
10.67%
4.71%
1 .45%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
1 .99%
28.13%
6.27%
29.51%
12.26%
5.53%
3.28%
13.04%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-7
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C7.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Clean/veil Storage
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical
Contingencies
Total
Capacity (gal)
10,000
$140
$8,250
$5,700
$13,050
$1,270
$4,260
$32,670
50,000
$190
$14,430
$9,240
$21,480
$1,270
$6,990
100,000
$410
$23,280
$14,550
$35,040
$6,010
$11,890
$53,600| $91,180
500,000
$2,030
$66,330
$32,670
$84,090
$6,010
$28,670
1,000,000
$19,440
$105,520
$113,050
$109,290
$9,800
$53,570
$219,800| $410,670
7,500,000
$30,020
$622,500
$350,700
$394,160
$9,800
$211,080
$1,618,260
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
P
P
c
Exhibit C7.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Clean/veil Storage
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical
Contingencies
Total
Capacity (gal)
10,000
0.43%
25.25%
17.45%
39.94%
3.89%
13.04%
100.00%
50,000
0.35%
26.92%
17.24%
40.07%
2.37%
13.04%
100.00%
100,000
0.45%
25.53%
15.96%
38.43%
6.59%
13.04%
100.00%
500,000
0.92%
30.18%
14.86%
38.26%
2.73%
13.04%
100.00%
1,000,000
4.73%
25.69%
27.53%
26.61%
2.39%
13.04%
100.00%
7,500,000
1 .86%
38.47%
21 .67%
24.36%
0.61%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
1 .46%
28.67%
19.12%
34.61%
3.10%
13.04%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-8
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C8.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Ferric Chloride Feed Systems*
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Feed Capacity (Ib/hr)
10.7
$7,500
$420
$2,000
$1,110
$6,000
$2,550
$19,580
107
$13,100
$1,130
$2,500
$2,260
$13,300
$4,840
$37,130
1,070
$33,560
$2,430
$3,000
$4,960
$51,270
$14,280
$109,500
5,350
$160,940
$12,160
$15,000
$19,000
$174,590
$57,250
Capital Cost
Category
P
c
P
P
P
c
$438,940|
"Numbers were unavailable for ferric chloride. However, numbers presented for ferrous sulfate and ferric sulfate were identical.
It was assumed that these same relationships apply to ferric chloride
Exhibit C8.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Ferric Chloride Feed Systems*
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Feed Capacity (Ib/hr)
10.7
38.30%
2.15%
10.21%
5.67%
30.64%
13.02%
100.00%
107
35.28%
3.04%
6.73%
6.09%
35.82%
13.04%
100.00%
1,070
30.65%
2.22%
2.74%
4.53%
46.82%
13.04%
100.00%
5,350
36.67%
2.77%
3.42%
4.33%
39.78%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
35.22%
2.54%
5.78%
5.15%
38.27%
13.04%
100.00%
"Numbers were unavailable for ferric chloride. However, numbers presented for ferrous sulfate and ferric sulfate were identical.
It was assumed that these same relationships apply to ferric chloride
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-9
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C9.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Finished Water Pumping
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Contingencies
Total
Plant Capacity (mgd)
1.5
$15,410
$3,880
$5,200
$7,180
$4,750
$36,420
15
$89,700
$11,580
$16,570
$38,450
$23,450
$179,750
150
$567,600
$80,400
$139,200
$210,490
$149,650
$1,147,340
300
$1,142,350
$158,840
$270,100
$400,230
$295,730
$2,267,250
Capital Cost
Category
P
c
P
P
c
Exhibit C9.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Finished Water Pumping
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Contingencies
Total
Plant Capacity (mgd)
1.5
42.31%
10.65%
14.28%
19.71%
13.04%
100.00%
15
49.90%
6.44%
9.22%
21 .39%
13.05%
100.00%
150
49.47%
7.01%
12.13%
18.35%
13.04%
100.00%
300
50.38%
7.01%
11.91%
17.65%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
48.02%
7.78%
1 1 .89%
19.28%
13.04%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-10
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C10.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Gravity Filtration
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Total Filter Area (FA-ft2) and Plant Flow(Q=mgd)
FA=140
Q=1
$1,950
$26,360
$13,400
$11,550
$40,580
$20,580
$13,390
$17,400
$21,780
$166,990
FA=700
Q=5
$3,620
$56,960
$27,040
$19,960
$88,490
$79,020
$38,410
$40,480
$53,100
$407,080
FA=1,400
Q=10
$5,520
$78,300
$41,660
$30,120
$150,870
$127,340
$38,410
$70,590
$81,420
$624,230
FA=7,000
Q=50
$16,220
$305,170
$95,490
$73,530
$356,380
$420,670
$99,140
$291 ,940
$248,780
$1,907,320
FA=14,000
Q=100
$25,590
$529,360
$154,790
$123,160
$508,980
$590,150
$168,840
$514,330
$392,280
$3,007,480
FA=28,000
Q=200
$43,410
$982,390
$275,570
$209,960
$1,000,670
$1,125,500
$265,310
$968,520
$730,700
$5,602,030
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
P
c
P
P
P
c
Exhibit C10.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Gravity Filtration
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total Filter Area (FA-ff) and Plant Flow(Q=mgd)
FA=140
Q=1
1.17%
15.79%
8.02%
6.92%
24.30%
12.32%
8.02%
10.42%
13.04%
FA=700
Q=5
0.89%
13.99%
6.64%
4.90%
21 .74%
19.41%
9.44%
9.94%
13.04%
FA=1,400
Q=10
0.88%
12.54%
6.67%
4.83%
24.17%
20.40%
6.15%
11.31%
13.04%
FA=7,000
Q=50
0.85%
16.00%
5.01%
3.86%
18.68%
22.06%
5.20%
15.31%
13.04%
FA=14,000
Q=100
0.85%
17.60%
5.15%
4.10%
16.92%
19.62%
5.61%
17.10%
13.04%
FA=28,000
Q=200
0.77%
17.54%
4.92%
3.75%
17.86%
20.09%
4.74%
17.29%
13.04%
Average
Percent
0.90%
15.58%
6.07%
4.72%
20.61%
18.98%
6.53%
13.56%
13.04%
Total | 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-ll
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C11.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Horizontal Paddle, G=50
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical
Contingencies
Total
Total Basin Volume (ft3)
1,800
$470
$12,140
$1,400
$2,360
$7,080
$6,980
$4,560
$34,990
10,000
$2,550
$28,250
$7,610
$12,550
$20,220
$28,320
$14,930
$114,430
25,000
$4,290
$35,410
$12,740
$20,440
$29,420
$28,320
$19,590
$150,210
100,000
$9,970
$74,400
$29,770
$46,500
$75,460
$28,320
$39,660
$304,080
500,000
$40,080
$220,800
$120,280
$175,290
$221 ,200
$141,610
$137,890
$1,057,150
1,000,000
$77,640
$433,640
$232,960
$339,510
$439,770
$283,220
$271,010
$2,077,750
Capital Cost
Category
P
P
P
P
c
P
c
Exhibit C11.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Horizontal Paddle, G=50
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical
Contingencies
Total
Total Basin Volume (ft3)
1,800
1 .34%
34.70%
4.00%
6.74%
20.23%
19.95%
13.03%
100.00%
10,000
2.23%
24.69%
6.65%
10.97%
17.67%
24.75%
13.05%
100.00%
25,000
2.86%
23.57%
8.48%
13.61%
19.59%
18.85%
13.04%
100.00%
100,000
3.28%
24.47%
9.79%
15.29%
24.82%
9.31%
13.04%
100.00%
500,000
3.79%
20.89%
1 1 .38%
16.58%
20.92%
13.40%
13.04%
100.00%
1,000,000
3.74%
20.87%
11.21%
16.34%
21.17%
13.63%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
2.87%
24.86%
8.59%
13.26%
20.73%
16.65%
13.04%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-12
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C12.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Horizontal Paddle, G=80
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical
Contingencies
Total
Total Basin Volume (ft3)
1,800
$470
$12,140
$1,400
$2,360
$7,080
$6,980
$4,560
$34,990
10,000
$2,550
$34,210
$7,610
$12,550
$22,190
$28,320
$16,110
$123,540
25,000
$4,290
$44,360
$12,740
$20,440
$32,370
$28,320
$21,380
$163,900
100,000
$9,970
$115,770
$29,770
$46,500
$90,170
$28,320
$48,080
$368,580
500,000
$40,080
$427,670
$120,280
$175,290
$289,520
$141,610
$179,170
$1,373,620
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
P
P
P
c
Exhibit C12.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Horizontal Paddle, G=80
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical
Contingencies
Total
Total Basin Volume (ft3)
1,800
1 .34%
34.70%
4.00%
6.74%
20.23%
19.95%
13.03%
100.00%
10,000
2.06%
27.69%
6.16%
10.16%
17.96%
22.92%
13.04%
100.00%
25,000
2.62%
27.07%
7.77%
12.47%
19.75%
17.28%
13.04%
100.00%
100,000
2.70%
31.41%
8.08%
12.62%
24.46%
7.68%
13.04%
100.00%
500,000
2.92%
31.13%
8.76%
12.76%
21 .08%
10.31%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
2.33%
30.40%
6.95%
10.95%
20.70%
15.63%
13.04%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-13
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C13.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Hydraulic Surface Wash
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Contingencies
Total Filter Area (ft2)
140
$9,170
$1,300
$2,570
$12,670
$3,860
700
$12,050
$2,770
$5,100
$17,920
$5,680
1,400
$35,090
$5,170
$7,020
$20,440
$10,160
7,000
$82,010
$14,710
$13,390
$37,900
$22,200
14,000
$172,440
$29,430
$32,290
$61,120
$44,290
28,000
$401 ,200
$66,600
$59,870
$92,360
$93,000
Capital Cost
Category
P
c
P
P
c
Total) $29,570) $43,520) $77,880) $170,210) $339,570) $713,030)
Exhibit C13.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Hydraulic Surface Wash
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Contingencies
Total
Total Filter Area (ft2)
140
31.01%
4.40%
8.69%
42.85%
13.05%
100.00%
700
27.69%
6.36%
1 1 .72%
41.18%
13.05%
100.00%
1,400
45.06%
6.64%
9.01%
26.25%
13.05%
100.00%
7,000
48.18%
8.64%
7.87%
22.27%
13.04%
100.00%
14,000
50.78%
8.67%
9.51%
18.00%
13.04%
100.00%
28,000
56.27%
9.34%
8.40%
12.95%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
43.16%
7.34%
9.20%
27.25%
13.05%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-14
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C14.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for In-Plant Pumping
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Pumping Capacity (mgd)
1
$100
$6,300
$970
$1,610
$5,570
$5,090
$3,170
$1,500
$3,650
$27,960
5
$100
$9,110
$970
$1,610
$10,410
$12,330
$4,930
$1,500
$6,140
$47,100
10
$130
$14,780
$1,510
$2,450
$24,070
$16,300
$7,390
$3,000
$10,440
$80,070
50
$360
$48,650
$4,770
$7,630
$63,330
$60,230
$25,760
$14,520
$33,790
$259,040
100
$600
$83,400
$8,030
$12,500
$129,130
$114,200
$47,240
$28,830
$63,590
$487,520
200
$1,030
$152,900
$14,090
$21,330
$331 ,030
$222,080
$89,360
$58,080
$133,490
$1,023,390
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
P
c
P
P
P
c
Exhibit C14.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for In-Plant Pumping
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Pumping Capacity (mgd)
1
0.36%
22.53%
3.47%
5.76%
19.92%
18.20%
1 1 .34%
5.36%
13.05%
5
0.21%
19.34%
2.06%
3.42%
22.10%
26.18%
10.47%
3.18%
13.04%
10
0.16%
18.46%
1 .89%
3.06%
30.06%
20.36%
9.23%
3.75%
13.04%
50
0.14%
18.78%
1 .84%
2.95%
24.45%
23.25%
9.94%
5.61%
13.04%
100
0.12%
17.11%
1 .65%
2.56%
26.49%
23.42%
9.69%
5.91%
13.04%
200
0.10%
14.94%
1 .38%
2.08%
32.35%
21 .70%
8.73%
5.68%
13.04%
Average
Percent
0.18%
18.53%
2.05%
3.31%
25.89%
22.19%
9.90%
4.92%
13.04%
Total | 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%| 100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-15
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C15.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Ion Exchange
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Media
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Plant Capacity (mgd)
1.1
$740
$39,960
$92,790
$2,410
$3,830
$17,420
$14,040
$27,700
$21,920
$33,120
$253,930
3.7
$1,140
$89,580
$313,160
$3,580
$5,680
$33,510
$38,780
$38,510
$35,660
$83,940
6.1
$1,470
$137,770
$521 ,940
$4,750
$7,530
$61,460
$69,740
$60,820
$57,440
$138,440
$643,540| $1,061,360
12.3
$1,970
$258,230
$1,043,880
$6,320
$9,950
$125,080
$139,480
$120,210
$79,820
$267,740
$2,052,680
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
P
P
c
P
P
P
c
Exhibit C15.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Ion Exchange
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Media
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Plant Capacity (mgd)
1.1
0.29%
1 5.74%
36.54%
0.95%
1 .51 %
6.86%
5.53%
10.91%
8.63%
13.04%
100.00%
3.7
0.18%
1 3.92%
48.66%
0.56%
0.88%
5.21 %
6.03%
5.98%
5.54%
13.04%
100.00%
6.1
0.14%
1 2.98%
49.18%
0.45%
0.71 %
5.79%
6.57%
5.73%
5.41 %
13.04%
100.00%
12.3
0.10%
1 2.58%
50.85%
0.31 %
0.48%
6.09%
6.80%
5.86%
3.89%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
0.18%
13.80%
46.31%
0.57%
0.90%
5.99%
6.23%
7.12%
5.87%
13.04%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-16
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C16.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Lime Feed with Recalcination
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Feed Capacity (Ib/hr)
1,000
$48,870
$1,510
$3,120
$6,880
$9,450
$10,470
$80,300
10,000
$80,660
$3,060
$6,250
$12,320
$26,250
$19,280
Capital Cost
Category
P
c
P
P
P
c
$147,820|
Exhibit C16.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Lime Feed with Recalcination
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Feed Capacity (Ib/hr)
1,000
60.86%
1 .88%
3.89%
8.57%
1 1 .77%
13.04%
100.00%
10,000
54.57%
2.07%
4.23%
8.33%
17.76%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
57.71%
1 .98%
4.06%
8.45%
14.76%
13.04%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-17
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C17.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Permanganate Feed Systems
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Feed Capacity (Ib/day)
1
$2,340
$480
$970
$3,190
$1,260
$1,240
10
$2,600
$480
$970
$3,190
$1,580
$1,320
$9,480| $10,140
100
$3,380
$540
$970
$3,190
$1,950
$1,500
$11,530
500
$5,220
$770
$970
$3,190
$2,940
$1,960
Capital Cost
Category
P
c
P
P
P
c
$15,050|
Exhibit C17.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Permanganate Feed Systems
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Feed Capacity (Ib/day)
1
24.68%
5.06%
10.23%
33.65%
13.29%
13.08%
100.00%
10
25.64%
4.73%
9.57%
31 .46%
15.58%
13.02%
100.00%
100
29.31%
4.68%
8.41%
27.67%
16.91%
13.01%
100.00%
500
34.68%
5.12%
6.45%
21 .20%
19.53%
13.02%
100.00%
Average
Percent
28.58%
4.90%
8.66%
28.49%
16.33%
13.03%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-18
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C18.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Polymer Feed Systems
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Feed Capacity (Ib/hr)
1
$11,670
$700
$280
$1,290
$3,600
$2,630
$20,170
10
$11,670
$700
$280
$1,290
$3,600
$2,630
$20,170
100
$14,730
$700
$280
$1,290
$4,050
$3,160
$24,210
200
$18,970
$760
$300
$1,290
$4,500
$3,870
Capital Cost
Category
P
c
P
P
P
c
$29,690|
Exhibit C18.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Polymer Feed Systems
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Feed Capacity (Ib/hr)
1
57.86%
3.47%
1 .39%
6.40%
17.85%
13.04%
100.00%
10
57.86%
3.47%
1 .39%
6.40%
17.85%
13.04%
100.00%
100
60.84%
2.89%
1.16%
5.33%
16.73%
13.05%
100.00%
200
63.89%
2.56%
1.01%
4.34%
15.16%
13.03%
100.00%
Average
Percent
60.11%
3.10%
1 .24%
5.62%
16.90%
13.04%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-19
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C19.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Rapid Mix, G=900
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical
Contingencies
Total
Basin Volume (ft3)
100
$220
$4,310
$390
$570
$1,230
$6,980
$2,060
$15,760
500
$380
$9,830
$870
$1,350
$2,300
$6,980
$3,260
$24,970
1,000
$490
$14,760
$1,280
$2,010
$3,410
$7,180
$4,370
$33,500
5,000
$1,360
$66,840
$3,610
$5,600
$13,140
$7,470
$14,700
$112,720
10,000
$2,720
$133,670
$7,220
$11,180
$26,280
$8,760
$28,470
$218,300
20,000
$5,460
$267,340
$14,450
$22,360
$52,550
$16,100
$56,740
$435,000
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
P
c
P
c
Exhibit C19.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Rapid Mix, G=900
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical
Contingencies
Total
Basin Volume (ft3)
100
1 .40%
27.35%
2.47%
3.62%
7.80%
44.29%
13.07%
100.00%
500
1 .52%
39.37%
3.48%
5.41%
9.21%
27.95%
13.06%
100.00%
1,000
1 .46%
44.06%
3.82%
6.00%
10.18%
21 .43%
13.04%
100.00%
5,000
1.21%
59.30%
3.20%
4.97%
1 1 .66%
6.63%
13.04%
100.00%
10,000
1 .25%
61 .23%
3.31%
5.12%
12.04%
4.01%
13.04%
100.00%
20,000
1 .26%
61 .46%
3.32%
5.14%
12.08%
3.70%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
1 .35%
48.79%
3.27%
5.04%
10.50%
18.00%
13.05%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-20
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C20.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Recarbonation, Liquid Carbon Dioxide
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Installed Capacity (I b/day)
380
$27,000
$7,650
$1,530
$7,360
$6,530
$50,070
750
$31,000
$8,780
$2,340
$7,360
$7,420
$56,900
1,500
$35,250
$12,170
$4,620
$7,360
$8,910
$68,310
3,750
$49,250
$17,330
$8,710
$7,360
$12,400
$95,050
7,500
$73,000
$28,990
$16,940
$8,450
$19,110
$146,490
15,000
$141,000
$58,010
$37,540
$8,900
$36,820
$282,270
Capital Cost
Category
P
c
P
P
c
Exhibit C20.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Recarbonation, Liquid Carbon Dioxide
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Installed Capacity (I b/day)
380
53.92%
15.28%
3.06%
14.70%
13.04%
100.00%
750
54.48%
15.43%
4.11%
12.93%
13.04%
100.00%
1,500
51 .60%
17.82%
6.76%
10.77%
13.04%
100.00%
3,750
51.81%
18.23%
9.16%
7.74%
13.05%
100.00%
7,500
49.83%
19.79%
1 1 .56%
5.77%
13.05%
100.00%
15,000
49.95%
20.55%
13.30%
3.15%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
51 .93%
17.85%
7.99%
9.18%
13.04%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-21
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C21.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Recarbonation Basins
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Contingencies
Total
Single Basin Volume (ft3)
770
$520
$1,380
$2,250
$2,830
$90
$1,060
$8,130
1,375
$620
$1,860
$3,010
$3,800
$130
$1,410
$10,830
2,750
$980
$2,820
$4,670
$5,730
$250
$2,170
$16,620
5,630
$1,390
$4,050
$6,560
$8,090
$480
$3,090
$23,660
8,800
$1,790
$5,190
$8,320
$10,240
$680
$3,930
$30,150
17,600
$3,050
$8,570
$13,960
$16,740
$1,360
$6,550
$50,230
35,200
$5,570
$15,320
$25,240
$29,730
$3,360
$11,880
$91,100
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
c
P
c
Exhibit C21.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Recarbonation Basins
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Contingencies
Total
Single Basin Volume (ft3)
770
6.40%
16.97%
27.68%
34.81%
1.11%
13.04%
100.00%
1,375
5.72%
17.17%
27.79%
35.09%
1 .20%
13.02%
100.00%
2,750
5.90%
16.97%
28.10%
34.48%
1 .50%
13.06%
100.00%
5,630
5.87%
17.12%
27.73%
34.19%
2.03%
13.06%
100.00%
8,800
5.94%
17.21%
27.60%
33.96%
2.26%
13.03%
100.00%
17,600
6.07%
17.06%
27.79%
33.33%
2.71%
13.04%
100.00%
35,200
6.11%
16.82%
27.71%
32.63%
3.69%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
6.00%
17.05%
27.77%
34.07%
2.07%
13.04%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-22
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C22.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Rectangular Clarifiers
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Contingencies
Area (A=ft2) and Lent
A=240
LW=30x8
$1,060
$8,540
$2,970
$6,400
$6,220
$6,960
$1,510
$5,050
A=600
LW=60x10
$2,000
$12,080
$5,490
$13,110
$11,260
$7,400
$1,760
$7,970
A=1260
LW=90x14
$3,060
$24,470
$8,430
$19,440
$17,320
$9,100
$1,860
$12,550
th x Width (LW=ftxft)
A=2240
LW=140x16
$4,680
$32,020
$12,820
$32,620
$26,390
$12,500
$2,020
$18,460
A=3600
LW=200x18
$6,670
$53,110
$18,190
$51,250
$37,570
$16,100
$2,110
$27,750
A=4800
LW=240x20
$8,090
$63,440
$22,070
$69,680
$45,300
$21,450
$2,400
$34,860
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
P
c
P
P
c
Total | $38,710| $61,070| $96,230| $141,510| $212,750| $267,290|
Exhibit C22.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Rectangular Clarifiers
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Contingencies
Total
Area (A=ft2) and Lent
A=240
LW=30x8
2.74%
22.06%
7.67%
16.53%
16.07%
17.98%
3.90%
13.05%
100.00%
A=600
LW=60x10
3.27%
19.78%
8.99%
21 .47%
18.44%
12.12%
2.88%
13.05%
100.00%
A=1260
LW=90x14
3.18%
25.43%
8.76%
20.20%
18.00%
9.46%
1 .93%
13.04%
100.00%
th x Width (LW=ftxft)
A=2240
LW=140x16
3.31%
22.63%
9.06%
23.05%
18.65%
8.83%
1 .43%
13.05%
100.00%
A=3600
LW=200x18
3.14%
24.96%
8.55%
24.09%
17.66%
7.57%
0.99%
13.04%
100.00%
A=4800
LW=240x20
3.03%
23.73%
8.26%
26.07%
16.95%
8.02%
0.90%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
3.11%
23.10%
8.55%
21 .90%
17.63%
10.66%
2.01%
13.04%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-23
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C23.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Reverse Osmosis
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Plant Capacity (mgd)
1.0
$474,210
$70,420
$65,740
$64,260
$101,190
$775,820
10
$3,458,480
$346,850
$486,270
$462,650
$713,140
$5,467,390
100
$29,174,260
$2,312,340
$3,635,690
$2,409,660
$5,629,790
$43,161,740
200
$56,438,930
$2,837,870
$6,947,480
$4,176,740
$10,560,150
$80,961,170
Capital Cost
Category
P
c
P
P
c
Exhibit C23.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Reverse Osmosis
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Plant Capacity (mgd)
1.0
61.12%
9.08%
8.47%
8.28%
13.04%
100.00%
10
63.26%
6.34%
8.89%
8.46%
13.04%
100.00%
100
67.59%
5.36%
8.42%
5.58%
13.04%
100.00%
200
69.71%
3.51%
8.58%
5.16%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
65.42%
6.07%
8.59%
6.87%
13.04%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-24
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C24.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Sodium Hydroxide Feed Systems
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Feed Capacity (Ib/day)
10
$6,440
$640
$850
$3,190
$1,010
$1,820
$13,950
100
$7,010
$640
$850
$3,190
$2,100
$2,070
1,000
$5,720
$790
$850
$3,190
$8,400
$2,840
$15,860| $21,790
10000
$19,450
$4,120
$850
$3,460
$48,380
$11,440
Capital Cost
Category
P
c
P
P
P
c
$87,700|
Exhibit C24.2 -WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Sodium Hydroxide Feed Systems
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Feed Capacity (Ib/day)
10
46.16%
4.59%
6.09%
22.87%
7.24%
13.05%
100.00%
100
44.20%
4.04%
5.36%
20.11%
13.24%
13.05%
100.00%
1,000
26.25%
3.63%
3.90%
14.64%
38.55%
13.03%
100.00%
10,000
22.18%
4.70%
0.97%
3.95%
55.17%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
34.70%
4.24%
4.08%
15.39%
28.55%
13.04%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-25
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C25.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Sulfuric Acid Feed Systems
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Feed Capacity (gpd)
10
$1,560
$640
$1,090
$1,670
$2,520
$1,120
100
$3,440
$820
$1,090
$2,920
$1,560
$1,470
$8,600| $11,300
1000
$12,400
$2,840
$2,150
$2,920
$1,560
$3,280
$25,150
5000
$41,000
$11,840
$2,150
$2,920
$1,560
$8,920
Capital Cost
Category
P
c
P
P
P
c
$68,390|
Exhibit C25.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Sulfuric Acid Feed Systems
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Housing
Contingencies
Total
Feed Capacity (gpd)
10
18.14%
7.44%
12.67%
19.42%
29.30%
13.02%
100.00%
100
30.44%
7.26%
9.65%
25.84%
13.81%
13.01%
100.00%
1000
49.30%
1 1 .29%
8.55%
11.61%
6.20%
13.04%
100.00%
5000
59.95%
17.31%
3.14%
4.27%
2.28%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
39.46%
10.83%
8.50%
15.28%
12.90%
13.03%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-26
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C26.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Tube Settling Modules
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Steel
Labor
Contingencies
Total
Tube Module Area (ft2)
280
$4,200
$2,000
$2,500
$1,300
$10,000
2,800
$31,000
$19,500
$11,200
$9,300
$71,000
14,000
$147,000
$95,000
$49,000
$43,700
$334,700
28,000
$282,000
$155,000
$95,000
$79,800
$611,800
56,000
$504,000
$300,000
$224,000
$154,200
$1,182,200
Capital Cost
Category
P
P
c
c
Exhibit C26.2 - WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Tube Settling Modules
Cost Component
Manufactured Equipment
Steel
Labor
Contingencies
Total
Tube Module Area (ft2)
280
42.00%
20.00%
25.00%
13.00%
100.00%
2,800
43.66%
27.46%
15.77%
13.10%
100.00%
14,000
43.92%
28.38%
14.64%
13.06%
100.00%
28,000
46.09%
25.34%
15.53%
13.04%
100.00%
56,000
42.63%
25.38%
18.95%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
43.66%
25.31%
17.98%
13.05%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-27
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C27.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATER Model for Wash Water Surge Basins
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Contingencies
Capacity (gal)
10,000
$200
$11,560
$7,990
$18,270
$5,500
$1,300
$6,720
50,000
$520
$39,310
$25,170
$58,500
$7,500
$1,300
$19,850
100,000
$1,250
$71,480
$44,680
$107,590
$11,000
$6,000
$36,300
500,000
$4,400
$143,680
$70,770
$182,150
$16,000
$6,000
$63,450
Capital Cost
Category
c
P
P
c
P
P
c
Total | $51,540| $152,150| $278,300| $486,450|
Exhibit C27.2 -WATER Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Wash Water Surge Basins
Cost Component
Excavation & Sitework
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipes and Valves
Electrical
Contingencies
Total
Capacity (gal)
10,000
0.39%
22.43%
15.50%
35.45%
10.67%
2.52%
13.04%
100.00%
50,000
0.34%
25.84%
16.54%
38.45%
4.93%
0.85%
13.05%
100.00%
100,000
0.45%
25.68%
16.05%
38.66%
3.95%
2.16%
13.04%
100.00%
500,000
0.90%
29.54%
14.55%
37.44%
3.29%
1 .23%
13.04%
100.00%
Average
Percent
0.52%
25.87%
15.66%
37.50%
5.71%
1 .69%
13.04%
100.00%
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
C-28
December 2005
-------
Appendix D
Technology Cost Curves
-------
Appendix D
Unit Costs Graphs
Costs for independent flows are presented in the main text of this document. This appendix
provides graphs of those points and displays the lines that were used to predict costs for flows other than
those costed. This appendix provides the following information:
Capital unit cost estimates for a wide range of design flows (in tabular and graphical forms)
O&M unit cost estimates for a wide range of average daily flows (in tabular and graphical forms)
The range of design and average flows is intended to cover all possible system flows. When flows fall in
between the design or average daily flows used to estimate unit costs, straight line interpolation can be
used to estimate the capital or O&M cost. Design costs were calculated for points ranging between 0.007
MOD and 520 MOD. For plants with flows less than 0.007 MOD the value for 0.007 MOD was used. For
plants with flows greater than 520 MOD, the costs are calculated by extrapolating a straight line between
the last two calculated cost points. Points are included in the graphs at 0.0001 MGD and 1500 MGD to
show these assumptions. Likewise for average daily flows, points were calculated between 0.0015 MGD
and 350 MGD. Points outside this range show the assumptions used to extrapolate costs.
The Appendix D Contents (shown on the next page) describes the exhibits in this appendix. Each
exhibit lists the constraints and design criteria for the technology, presents a table showing the unit cost
estimates for each design or average flow point, and graphically displays each point to illustrate the way
in which the costs increase with flow. All graphs are in Log-Log scale.
LT2ESWTRT&C Document D-l December 2005
-------
Appendix D Contents
Technology
Chloramines (Ammonia dose =
0.55 mg/L)
Chloramines (Ammonia dose =
0.15 mg/L)
Chlorine Dioxide
(CIO2Dose= 1.25 mg/L)
UV (40 mJ/cm2)
UV (200 mJ/cm2)
Ozone, 0.5-Log Inactivation of
Cryptosporidium
Ozone, 1.0-Log Inactivation of
Cryptosporidium
Ozone, 2.0-Log Inactivation of
Cryptosporidium
Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration(MF/UF)
Bag Filters
Cartridge Filters
Bank Filtration
Second Stage Filtration
Pre-Sedimentation with Coagulant
Watershed Control
Combined Filter Performance
GAC 10-360
GAC20-90
GAC20-240
Nanofiltration
Cost Type
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Exhibit
Number
D.1
D.2
D.3
D.4
D.5
D.6
D.7
D.8
D.9
D.10
D.11
D.12
D.13
D.14
D.15
D.16
D.17
D.18
D.19
D.20
D.21
D.22
D.23
D.24
D.25
D.26
D.27
D.28
D.29
D.30
D.31
D.32
D.33
D.34
D.35
D.36
D.37
D.38
D.39
LT2ESWTR T&C Document
D-2
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.1 - Capital Costs for Switching to Chloramines
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: It can be used alone or in conjunction with the other technologies
Design Criteria:
1) Ammonia dose = 0.55 mg/L
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1 ,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$29,104
$29,104
$29,104
$29,104
$29,104
$30,604
$37,939
$38,858
$42,127
$53,396
$83,772
$83,772
$83,772
$83,772
$98,772
$133,907
$397,173
$492,039
$590,780
$736,773
$2,326,467
Capital Costs for Switching to Chloramines
(Ammonia dose 0.55 mg/L)
(M n nnn nnn
«A
""" $1 nnn nnn
in
O
O
1
E. "Sinn nnn -
(0
O
-------
Exhibit D.2 - O&M Costs for Switching to Chloramines
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: It can be used alone or in conjunction with the other technologies
Design Criteria:
1) Ammonia dose = 0.55 mg/L
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
1 1 .00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M cost
($)
$1 ,362
$1 ,362
$1 ,366
$1 ,370
$1 ,483
$1,515
$3,014
$3,041
$3,077
$4,443
$6,000
$6,747
$8,102
$10,536
$15,491
$18,954
$31 ,538
$80,340
$161,502
$204,728
$420,859
O&M Costs for Switching to Chloramines
(Ammonia dose 0.55 mg/L)
$1,000,000
^ $100,000
ti)
o
o
s
o« $10,000
$1,000
0.00001 0.00010 0.00100 0.01000 0.10000 1.00000 10.00000 100.00000 1,000.0000
0
Average Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-4
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.3 - Capital Costs for Switching to Chloramines
Ground Water Plants
Constraints: It can be used alone or in conjunction with the other technologies
Design Criteria:
1) Ammonia dose = 0.15 mg/L
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1 ,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$29,104
$29,104
$29,104
$29,104
$29,104
$30,604
$37,939
$38,858
$42,127
$53,396
$83,772
$83,772
$83,772
$83,772
$98,772
$98,772
$98,772
$158,907
$428,047
$428,047
$428,047
Capital Costs for Switching to Chloramines
^ $1,000,000-1
^
₯
0
o
5 $100,000 -
& ;
o !
$10,000-
(Ammonia Dose 0.15 mg/L)
r
t
t
t
200.0000 400.0000 600.0000 800.0000 1,000.0000 1,200.0000 1,400.0000 1,600.0000
Design Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-5
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.4 - O&M Costs for Switching to Chloramines
Ground Water Plants
Constraints: It can be used alone or in conjunction with the other technologies
Design Criteria:
1) Ammonia dose = 0.15 mg/L
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$1 ,361
$1 ,361
$1 ,362
$1 ,363
$1 ,463
$1 ,472
$2,949
$2,956
$2,966
$4,274
$5,743
$6,266
$7,231
$8,688
$11,333
$12,887
$23,579
$46,355
$73,620
$87,174
$154,948
O&M Costs for Switching to Chloramines
(Ammonia Dose 0.15 mg/L)
$1,000,000
IS. $100,000
X
o
o
^
08 $10,000
o
$1,000
100.00000 200.00000 300.00000 400.00000 500.00000 600.00000 700.00000 800.00000
Average Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/CDocument
D-6
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.5 - Capital Costs for Chlorine Dioxide
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving 500 or fewer people
Design Criteria:
1) CIO2dose = 1.25mg/L
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1 ,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
$32,427
$38,370
$39,172
$40,066
$43,005
$40,035
$80,585
$82,054
$191,088
$21 1 ,473
$268,223
$296,568
$603,425
$897,449
$1 ,245,987
$1 ,368,982
$2,708,268
Capital Costs for Chlorine Dioxide
(CIO2Dose = 1.25mg/L)
$10,000,000
^T $1,000,000
I/)
o
o
Q-
re
o
$100,000
$10,000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Design Flow (mgd)
1000
10000
T/C Document
D-7
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.6 - O&M Costs for Chlorine Dioxide
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving 500 or fewer people
Design Criteria:
1)CIO2dose = 1.25mg/L
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
1 1 .00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
$14,093
$15,204
$16,721
$16,999
$17,812
$18,571
$18,984
$21,638
$22,001
$25,392
$35,939
$42,336
$87,061
$216,813
$446,533
$561,934
$1,138,937
O&M Costs for Chlorine Dioxide
(CIO2dose1.25mg/L)
-------
Exhibit D.7 - Capital Costs for UV (40 mJ/cm2
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) UV 254 = 0.051 cm"1, Turbidity = 0.1 NTU, Alkalinity = 60 mg/L CaCO3, Hardness = 100 mg/L CaCO3
2)UVdose = 40mJ/cm2
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$10,195
$10,195
$13,034
$15,834
$25,596
$40,597
$54,386
$66,790
$99,661
$310,154
$313,662
$333,331
$362,965
$544,728
$1,342,022
$1,933,041
$3,367,751
$8,074,450
$15,798,603
$18,601,681
$49,124,085
Capital Costs for UV
$100,000,000 -i
5 $10,000,000-
+J
in
O
° $1,000,000-
3
a.
g $100,000 -
$1 0,000 <
0.0
(UV dose 40 mJ/cm2, UV 254 = 0.051 cm'1, Turbidity = 0.1 NTU)
^
S^"
*+-+-+^*'
/* ^^
_^^
301 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000 100.0000 1,000.0000 10,000.0000
Design Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-9
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.8 O&M Costs for UV (40 mJ/cm2)
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) UV 254 = 0.051 cm"1, Turbidity = 0.1 NTU, Alkalinity = 60 mg/L CaCO3, Hardness = 100 mg/L CaCO3
2)UVdose = 40mJ/cm2
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$3,350
$3,350
$3,380
$3,769
$4,549
$4,736
$6,115
$6,493
$8,152
$9,016
$9,450
$11,512
$13,979
$16,183
$22,908
$27,531
$66,755
$188,219
$422,455
$551,123
$1,194,464
O&M Costs for UV
$1 0,000,000 -|
$1,000,000-
5
to
o
O $100,000
s
ofl
0
$10,000-
$1,000-
o.oc
(UV dose 40 mJ/cm2, UV 254 = 0.051 cm'1, Turbidity = 0.1 NTU)
>
/
/
^~^_
^--+***~~^*
«
001 0.00010 0.00100 0.01000 0.10000 1.00000 10.00000 100.00000 1,000.00000
Average Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-10
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.9 Capital Costs for UV (200 mJ/cm2
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1)UV 254 = 0.051 cm'1, Turbidity = 0.1 NTU
2) Alkalinity = 60 mg/L CaCO3, Hardness = 100 mg/L CaCO3
3)UVdose = 200mJ/cm2
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$39,390
$39,390
$47,873
$56,357
$86,898
$137,234
$188,136
$239,038
$420,021
$878,383
$953,078
$1,354,307
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Capital Costs for UV
(UV dose 200 mJ/cm2, Turbidity 0.1 NTU,
$10,000,000-,
5
*; $1,000,000-
o
o
8
0. $100,000
TO
o ,
$10,000-
0.0
UV254 0.051 cm'1)
^/*
^r^^
^*---*~-~~~~~~*r^
» »
301 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000
Design Flow (mgd)
Note: EPA updated the 40 mJ/cm2 UV unit costs based on data obtained for recent installations of this technology. Similar data for 200 m J/cm2 UV systems were not available within the
time frame required to include in this analysis.
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-ll
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.10 - O&M Costs for UV (200 mJ/cm2
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) UV 254 = 0.051 cmA-1, Turbidity = 0.1 NTU
2) Alkalinity = 60 mg/L CaCO3, Hardness = 100 mg/L CaCO3
3)UVdose = 200mJ/cm2
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
1 1 .00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$6,919
$6,919
$7,189
$8,324
$10,751
$13,065
$16,203
$16,739
$19,155
$20,522
$22,415
$28,089
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
O&M Costs for UV
(UV dose 200 mJ/cm2, Turbidity 0.1 NTU,
UV254 0.051 cm'1)
$100,000
(0
$10,000
$1,000
0.00001
0.00010
0.00100 0.01000
Average Flow (mgd)
0.10000
1.00000
Note: EPA updated the 40 mJ/cm2 UV unit costs based on data obtained for recent installations of this technology. Similar data for 200 m J/cm2 UV systems were not available within the
time frame required to include in this analysis.
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-12
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.11 -Capital Costs for Ozone
0.5-Log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving 100 or fewer people
Design Criteria:
1) Contact time = 12 minutes
2) Ozone maximum dose = 3.19 mg/L
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1 ,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
$322,787
$382,874
$438,785
$493,394
$675,951
$804,614
$902,391
$1 ,226,541
$1 ,595,373
$2,357,412
$3,946,957
$4,546,365
$12,628,950
$26,317,852
$44,918,178
$53,248,978
$143,962,124
5
+j
i/)
0
o
i
Q.
TO
O
Capital Costs for Ozone
0.5-Log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
(Max
$1 ,000,000,000 -i
$100,000,000
$10,000,000 -
$1 ,000,000 -
$100,000-
0.
imum Dose = 3.19 mg/L, Contact Time = 12 minutes)
^»
^^
^^^
^^~
31 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-13
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.12 - O&M Costs for Ozone
0.5-Log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving 100 or fewer people
Design Criteria:
1) Contact time = 12 minutes
2) Ozone average dose = 1.78 mg/L
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
$55,520
$55,884
$59,391
$59,737
$61,152
$62,566
$63,350
$67,621
$77,719
$95,346
$145,700
$177,752
$464,832
$1,377,320
$2,871,997
$3,662,456
$7,614,752
O&M Costs for Ozone
0.5-Log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
(A
$10,000,000 -,
& $1 ,000,000 -
to
o
o
08 $100,000-
o
$10,000 -
0.
verage Dose = 1.78 mg/L, Contact Time = 12 minutes)
^
^^
^ -*
D1 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Average Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-14
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.13 - Capital Costs for Ozone
1.0-Log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving 100 or fewer people
Design Criteria:
1) Contact time = 12 minutes
2) Ozone maximum dose = 5.00 mg/L
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1 ,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
$351 ,943
$440,546
$525,292
$608,737
$893,979
$1,043,133
$1,119,608
$1,416,784
$1 ,922,483
$2,912,264
$4,697,222
$5,517,296
$15,011,417
$30,378,296
$55,716,052
$66,369,920
$182,378,707
5
+j
i/)
0
o
i
Q.
TO
O
Capital Costs for Ozone
1.0-Log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
(Max
$1 ,000,000,000 -i
$100,000,000
$10,000,000 -
$1 ,000,000 -
$100,000-
0.
imum Dose = 5.00 mg/L, Contact Time = 12 minutes)
s*
^^
^^^
^^
31 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-15
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.14 - O&M Costs for Ozone
1.0-Log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving 100 or fewer people
Design Criteria:
1) Contact time = 12 minutes
2) Ozone average dose = 2.75 mg/L
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
$55,827
$56,438
$60,197
$60,781
$63,138
$65,357
$66,210
$75,885
$87,731
$115,823
$194,432
$245,991
$694,758
$2,083,382
$4,473,882
$5,734,314
$12,036,475
5
0
o
o
O&M Costs for Ozone
1.0-Log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
(Average Dose = 2.75 mg/L, Contact Time = 12 minutes)
tinn nnn nnn -,
$10,000,000-
$1,000,000-
$100,000 -
-------
Exhibit D.15 - Capital Costs for Ozone
2.0-Log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving 100 or fewer people
Design Criteria:
1) Contact time = 12 minutes
2) Ozone maximum dose = 7.50 mg/L
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1 ,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
$372,391
$480,993
$585,963
$689,631
$1,069,196
$1,107,713
$1,200,916
$1 ,547,877
$2,151,897
$3,124,381
$5,223,408
$6,291,141
$16,720,757
$34,225,903
$63,362,091
$75,616,293
$209,050,936
5
+j
i/)
0
o
i
Q.
TO
O
Capital Costs for Ozone
2.0-Log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
(Max
$1 ,000,000,000 -i
$100,000,000
$10,000,000 -
$1 ,000,000 -
$100,000-
0.
imum Dose = 7.50 mg/L, Contact Time = 12 minutes)
S
^^
^^^
^
31 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-17
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.16 - O&M Costs for Ozone
2.0-Log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving 100 or fewer people
Design Criteria:
1) Contact time = 12 minutes
2) Ozone average dose = 3.91 mg/L
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
1 1 .00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
$56,096
$56,900
$60,858
$61 ,627
$64,836
$66,956
$68,079
$74,291
$85,473
$211,156
$424,479
$541 ,290
$1,710,724
$4,846,200
$10,067,081
$12,436,352
$24,282,705
5
+j
i/)
o
o
^
o3
O
O&M Costs for Ozone
2.0-Log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
(Av
$100,000,000-,
$10,000,000 -
$1 ,000,000 -
$100,000-
$10,000 -
0.
erage Dose = 3.91 mg/L, Contact Time = 12 minutes)
^^
^^
4 - +~~
31 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Average Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-18
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.17 - Capital Costs for Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration (MF/UF)
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) Water temp. 10 degrees C
2) Sanitary Sewer Discharge
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1 ,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$131,478
$131,478
$214,432
$270,819
$409,983
$628,117
$748,563
$850,970
$1,133,988
$1 ,594,91 1
$1 ,738,505
$2,720,593
$4,142,559
$7,382,351
$15,991,348
$20,058,196
$61,150,358
$153,184,031
$293,759,889
$349,252,221
$953,502,064
Capital Costs for MF/UF
$1 nnn nnn nnn *
* $1 nn nnn nnn
yy_
+j
t/)
0
O
-------
Exhibit D.18 - O&M Costs for Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration (MF/UF)
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) Water temp. 10 degrees C
2) Sanitary Sewer Discharge
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$6,230
$6,230
$6,686
$7,156
$9,329
$22,042
$26,348
$29,272
$41,522
$69,214
$75,317
$106,798
$164,173
$324,393
$786,427
$1,034,793
$3,301,730
$9,888,387
$21,519,157
$27,300,426
$56,206,770
O&M Costs for MF/UF
$100,000,000
$10,000,000
0
o
1,000,000
$100,000
$10,000
$1,000
0.00001 0.00010 0.00100 0.01000 0.10000 1.00000
Average Flow (mgd)
10.00000 100.00000 1000.00000
LT2ESWTR T/CDocument
D-20
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.19 - Capital Costs for Bag Filtration
Design Criteria:
1) Nominal pore size = 1 micron
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1 ,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$10,280
$10,280
$10,420
$12,828
$13,320
$19,487
$23,424
$28,771
$42,479
$65,653
$75,01 1
$136,788
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Capital Costs for Bag Filtration
$1,000,000
o
Q.
TO
o
$100,000
$10,000
0.0001
0.001 0.01 0.1
Design Flow (mgd)
10
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-21
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.20 - O&M Costs for Bag Filtration
Design Criteria:
1) Nominal pore size = 1 micron
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
1 1 .00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$479
$479
$481
$701
$732
$962
$1 ,223
$1 ,673
$2,602
$3,956
$4,851
$8,151
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
O&M Costs for Bag Filtration
$10,000
I/)
o
$1,000
$100
0.00001
0.0001 0.001 0.01
Average Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-22
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.21 - Capital Costs for Cartridge Filtration
Design Criteria:
1) Nominal pore size = 1 micron
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1 ,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$10,465
$10,465
$10,605
$13,196
$17,256
$24,024
$31,479
$43,699
$73,535
$111,151
$136,393
$265,089
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Capital Costs for Cartridge Filtration
$1,000,000
I/)
o
^ $100,000
Q.
TO
o
$10,0004=
0.0001
0.001 0.01 0.1
Design Flow (mgd)
10
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-23
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.22 - O&M Costs for Cartrige Filtration
Design Criteria:
1) Nominal pore size = 1 micron
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
1 1 .00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$680
$680
$682
$1 ,099
$1 ,465
$2,808
$4,596
$5,621
$9,821
$14,315
$18,075
$28,189
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
O&M Costs for Cartridge Filtration
_/
<'
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Average Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-24
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.23 - Capital Costs for Bank Filtration
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1 ,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$150,000
$224,684
$271 ,361
$458,070
$808,149
$1 ,625,000
$3,382,246
$4,260,870
$13,750,000
$37,297,101
$75,956,522
$91 ,771 ,739
$263,981,884
Capital Costs for Bank Filtration
$1 nnn nnn nnn _,~~~~~~~~~~----~~~~~~~~---~---~~~~~^^
o
O
/
/
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-25
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.24 - Capital Costs for Secondary Filters
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1 ,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$1,106,000
$1,106,000
$1,106,000
$1,106,000
$1,106,000
$1,106,000
$1,106,000
$1,106,000
$1,106,000
$1,331,013
$1 ,471 ,646
$2,034,177
$3,088,924
$5,550,000
$7,731,159
$8,821 ,739
$20,600,000
$49,827,536
$97,813,043
$117,443,478
$331,197,101
Capital Costs for Secondary Filters
$1,000,000,000
^T $100,000,000
I/)
o
o
$10,000,000
o
$1,000,000
0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000 100.000 1,000.0 10,000.
0 000 0000
Design Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-26
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.25 - O&M Costs for Secondary Filters
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$62,300
$62,300
$62,300
$62,300
$62,300
$62,300
$62,300
$62,300
$62,300
$66,034
$67,901
$79,104
$98,709
$148,500
$182,031
$204,386
$393,000
$965,829
$2,013,686
$2,572,543
$5,366,829
O&M Costs for Secondary Filters
$10,000,000
«£ $1,000,000
I/)
o
o
$100,000
$10,000
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Average Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-27
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.26 - Capital Costs for Pre-sedimentation with Coagulant
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1 ,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$1 ,200,000
$1 ,200,000
$1 ,200,000
$1 ,200,000
$1 ,200,000
$1 ,200,000
$1 ,200,000
$1 ,200,000
$1 ,200,000
$1 ,326,582
$1 ,405,696
$1,722,152
$2,315,506
$3,700,000
$6,859,420
$8,439,130
$25,500,000
$67,836,232
$137,343,478
$165,778,261
$475,401,449
Capital Costs for Pre-sedimentation with Coagulant
$1,000,000,000 -i
^T $100,000,000
(/)
o
o
o
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
» » » »»*
0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000 100.000 1,000.0 10,000.
0 000 0000
Design Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-28
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.27 - O&M Costs for Pre-sedimentation with Coagulant
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$37,000
$37,000
$37,000
$37,000
$37,000
$37,000
$37,000
$37,000
$37,000
$40,552
$42,329
$52,986
$71,635
$119,000
$179,480
$219,800
$560,000
$1,593,200
$3,483,200
$4,491,200
$9,531,200
O&M Costs for Pre-sedimentation with Coagulant
$10,000,000-
<*. $1,000,000
o
o
$100,000
$10,000
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Average Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/CDocument
D-29
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.28 - Capital Costs for Watershed Control
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1 ,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
$262,658
$270,570
$302,215
$361 ,551
$500,000
$572,464
$608,696
$1 ,000,000
$1,971,014
$3,565,217
$4,217,391
$11,318,841
Capital Costs for Watershed Control
$100,000,000
^T $10,000,000
I/)
o
o
°- $1,000,000
o
$100,000
0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000 100.000 1,000.0 10,000.
0 000 0000
Design Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-30
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.29 - O&M Costs for Watershed Control
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$350,000
$350,000
$350,000
$350,000
$350,000
$350,000
$350,000
$350,000
$350,000
$378,159
$392,238
$476,715
$624,549
$1,000,000
$1,205,714
$1,342,857
$2,500,000
$6,014,286
$12,442,857
$15,871,429
$33,014,286
O&M Costs for Watershed Control
$100,000,000
«£ $10,000,000
+J
I/)
o
o
$1,000,000
$100,000
0.00001 0.0001
0.001
0.01 0.1 1
Average Flow (mgd)
100
1000
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-31
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.30 -Capital Costs for Combined Filter Performance
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving fewer than 500 people
Design Criteria:
1) See Technologies and Costs for Control of Microbial Contaminants and Disinfection Byproducts ch. 3.3.11
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2500
0.3600
0.6300
1 .0000
1 .2000
1.8100
3.5000
6.9000
17.0000
19.8700
77.5000
210.0000
430.0000
575.4100
1,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
$9,986
$17,840
$19,764
$24,486
$30,133
$33,186
$42,497
$58,321
$90,156
$136,850
$150,119
$653,715
$1 ,069,457
$1 ,759,746
$2,215,996
$5,117,060
Capital Costs for Combined Filter Performance
$10,000,000
^T $1 ,000,000
I/)
o
o
i
0-
o
$100,000
$10,000
0.1
10 100
Design Flow (mgd)
1000
10000
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-32
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.31 - O&M Costs for Combined Filter Performance
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving fewer than 500 people
Design Criteria:
1) See Technologies and Costs for Control ofMicrobial Contaminants and Disinfection Byproducts ch. 3.3.11
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.09300
0.11000
0.25000
0.35000
0.41000
0.75000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
9.10000
37.90000
120.00000
270.00000
307.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
Data Not Used
$7,090
$16,626
$16,698
$17,295
$20,227
$21 ,986
$31 ,954
$33,036
$35,702
$58,854
$65,124
$133,775
$161,628
$212,517
$225,069
$375,359
O&M Costs for Combined Filter Performance
(M nnn nnn ^
5? "Kinnnnn
+-
(A
0
O
s
°fl
-------
Exhibit D.32 - Capital Costs for GAC10
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving 10,000 or fewer people
Design Criteria:
1) Reactivation frequency = 360 days
2) Onsite generation
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1 ,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
$63,046
$101,302
$159,645
$215,163
$269,400
$452,926
$783,808
$999,248
$1 ,385,099
$2,014,217
$3,258,534
$6,140,593
$7,400,352
$18,311,317
$38,194,366
$64,571 ,358
$74,261 ,694
$179,778,692
s
o
o
3
5.
n
O
Capital Costs for GAC1 0
(Reactivation frequency 360 days, onsite regeneration)
£1 nnn nnn nnn ^
-------
Exhibit D.33 - O&M Costs for GAC10
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving 10,000 or fewer people
Design Criteria:
1) Reactivation frequency = 360 days
2) Onsite generation
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
$12,360
$19,485
$27,213
$30,798
$34,808
$46,000
$57,078
$51,809
$61,887
$79,158
$120,100
$227,710
$280,625
$709,287
$1,952,120
$4,368,760
$5,584,876
$11,665,453
O&M Costs for GAC10
(Reactivation frequency 360 days, onsite regeneration)
, , ,
100.00000 200.00000 300.00000 400.00000 500.00000 600.00000 700.00000 800.00000
Average Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-35
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.34 - Capital Costs for GAC20
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) Reactivation frequency = 90 days
2) Onsite generation for systems serving more than 10,000 people
3) Media replacement for systems serving 10,000 or fewer people
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1 ,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$36,117
$36,117
$53,091
$70,491
$137,932
$241 ,793
$340,528
$435,155
$739,387
$1 ,228,620
$1,551,122
$2,203,728
$3,275,153
$5,411,638
$10,411,502
$12,611,714
$31 ,503,622
$67,096,117
$114,813,572
$132,437,789
$324,345,925
Capital Costs for GAC20
(Reactivation frequency 90 days)
$1 nnn nnn nnn -,
$1 nn nnn nnn -
^^
+-
!2 tin nnn nnn
O
ro «i nnn nnn '-
& i
O
-------
Exhibit D.35 - O&M Costs for GAC20
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) Reactivation frequency = 90 days
2) Onsite generation for systems serving more than 10,000 people
3) Media replacement for systems serving 10,000 or fewer people
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$9,222
$9,222
$18,223
$25,644
$47,782
$47,639
$61,728
$74,417
$123,691
$171,149
$177,242
$199,489
$237,836
$330,703
$656,235
$863,063
$2,448,31 1
$6,727,479
$14,362,281
$18,123,898
$36,931 ,984
$100,000,000
o
o
S
03
o
$10,000,000
$1 ,000,000
$100,000;
$10,000
$1,000
O&M Costs for GAC20
(Reactivation frequency 90 days)
100.00000 200.00000 300.00000 400.00000 500.00000 600.00000 700.00000 800.00000
Average Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-37
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.36 - Capital Costs for GAC20
Ground Water Plants
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) Reactivation frequency = 240 days
2) Onsite regeneration for systems serving more than 10,000 people
3) Media replacement for systems serving 10,000 or fewer people
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1 ,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$36,117
$36,117
$53,091
$70,491
$137,932
$241 ,793
$340,528
$435,155
$739,387
$1 ,228,620
$1 ,351 ,323
$1 ,931 ,036
$2,894,585
$4,844,129
$9,491 ,603
$11,561,478
$29,712,377
$64,708,727
$112,528,561
$130,362,039
$324,548,797
5
i/)
0
O
i
Q.
TO
O
Capital costs for GAC20
(Reactivation frequency 240 days)
1 nnn nnn nnn -,
-------
Exhibit D.37 - O&M Costs for GAC20
Ground Water Plants
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) Reactivation frequency = 240 days
2) Onsite regeneration for systems serving more than 10,000 people
3) Media replacement for systems serving 10,000 or fewer people
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$6,673
$6,673
$11,206
$14,742
$24,752
$35,068
$42,835
$50,123
$75,023
$98,679
$96,623
$110,575
$134,831
$193,396
$367,103
$469,818
$1 ,294,938
$3,624,295
$7,945,037
$9,865,622
$19,468,547
$100,000,000
^ $10,000,000
to $1,000,000
o
o
g $100,000
03
° $10,000
$1,000
O&M Costs for GAC20
(Reactivation frequency 240 days)
100.00000 200.00000 300.00000 400.00000 500.00000 600.00000 700.00000 800.00000
Average Flow (mgd)
LT2ESWTR T/C Document
D-39
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.38 - Capital Costs for Nanofiltration
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) Water temp. 10 degrees C
2) Ocean discharge
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1 .0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1 ,500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$51 ,894
$51 ,894
$69,241
$86,588
$156,079
$222,829
$315,937
$357,087
$663,375
$912,423
$1 ,080,532
$2,018,579
$3,404,129
$6,745,258
$15,456,118
$19,862,964
$57,558,238
$129,659,099
$265,356,059
$318,914,577
$902,107,327
Capital Costs for Nanofiltration
(Temp. 10 degrees C)
$1 nnn nnn nnn -, -
-------
Exhibit D.39 - O&M Costs for Nanofiltration
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) Water temp. 10 degrees C
2) Ocean discharge
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$6,909
$6,909
$7,937
$9,025
$13,703
$29,539
$37,904
$43,223
$70,725
$112,309
$126,572
$205,817
$343,298
$710,894
$1,780,761
$2,429,844
$7,914,024
$23,845,168
$52,975,344
$68,097,181
$143,706,367
5
0
o
<*
o
O&M Costs for Nanofiltration
(Temp. 10 degrees C)
£1 nnn nnn nnn -<~~^^
$1 nn nnn nnn
Km nnn nnn
.
^* ^ "
PI nnn nnn I*
$1 nn nnn
«1 n nnn
------- |