*»EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Technologies and Costs for Treating
Perchlorate-Contaminated Waters
-------
Office of Water (4607M)
EPA 816-R-19-005
December 2018
www. epa. gov/ safewater
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Disclaimer
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
Table of Contents
DISCLAIMER I
TABLE OF CONTENTS I
LIST OF EXHIBITS IV
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS V
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Organization and Overview 1
1.3 Information Sources 2
2 ION EXCHANGE 3
2.1 Operating Principle 3
2.2 Effectiveness for Perchlorate Removal 6
2.3 Raw Water Quality Considerations 11
2.3.1 Strong-base Polyacrylic Resins 13
2.3.2 Strong-base Polystyrenic Resins 13
2.3.3 Nitrate-Selective Resins 14
2.3.4 Perchlorate-Selective Resins 14
2.3.5 Weak-base Resins 15
2.3.6 Raw Water Quality Considerations other than Sulfate and Nitrate Competition 15
2.4 Pre- and Post-Treatment Needs 16
2.5 Waste Generation and Residuals Management Needs 17
2.5.1 Disposal 17
2.5.2 Regeneration 17
2.6 Critical Design Parameters 21
2.6.1 Resin Type 23
2.6.2 Vessel Configuration 23
2.6.3 Empty Bed Contact Time 23
2.6.4 Surface Loading Rate 24
2.6.5 Resin Bed Life 24
2.6.6 Regeneration Parameters 24
3 BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT 25
3.1 Operating Principle 25
3.2 Effectiveness for Perchlorate Removal 28
3.2.1 Biological Treatment for Municipal Drinking Water Supply 30
3.2.2 Other Large-Scale Biological Treatment Systems 31
3.3 Raw Water Quality Considerations 33
3.4 Pre- and Post-Treatment Needs 33
3.5 Waste Generation and Residuals Management Needs 34
3.6 Critical Design Parameters 35
3.6.1 Support Media Type 35
3.6.2 Empty Bed Contact Time or Hydraulic Residence Time 35
3.6.3 Bed Expansion 36
3.6.4 Electron Donor Type and Dosage 36
3.6.5 Nutrient Addition 37
3.6.6 Backwash and Biomass Separation Design 37
i
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
3.6.7 Recycle Rate 37
3.6.8 Post-treatment Requirements 37
4 MEMBRANE TECHNOLOGIES 38
4.1 Operating Principle 38
4.2 Effectiveness for Perchlorate Removal 40
4.3 Raw Water Quality Considerations 42
4.4 Pre- and Post-Treatment Needs 42
4.5 Waste Generation and Residuals Management Needs 43
4.6 Critical Design Parameters 43
4.6.1 Feed Water Quality 45
4.6.2 Membrane Type and Feed Water Pressure 45
4.6.3 Recovery Rate 46
4.6.4 Flux Rate 46
4.6.5 Pretreatment Requirements 47
5 POINT-OF-USE TREATMENT 48
5.1 Operating Principle 48
5.2 Effectiveness for Perchlorate Removal 48
5.3 Raw Water Quality Considerations 49
5.4 Pre- and Post-Treatment Needs 49
5.5 Waste Generation and Residuals Management Needs 49
5.6 Critical Design Parameters 49
6 NONTREATMENT ALTERNATIVES 50
6.1 Application Principle 50
6.2 Compliance Effectiveness 50
6.3 Raw Water Quality Considerations 51
6.4 Pre- and Post-Treatment Needs 51
6.5 Waste Generation and Residuals Management Needs 51
6.6 Critical Design Parameters 51
7 COSTS FOR TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND NONTREATMENT OPTIONS 52
7.1 Introduction 52
7.1.1 Overview and Cost Modeling Approach 52
7.1.2 Work Breakdown Structure Models 53
7.1.3 WB S Model Accuracy 54
7.2 Costs for Ion Exchange 57
7.2.1 Model Components and Assumptions 57
7.2.2 Cost Estimates 60
7.3 Costs for Biological Treatment 63
7.3.1 Model Components and Assumptions 63
7.3.2 Cost Estimates 65
7.4 Costs for Reverse Osmosis 69
7.4.1 Model Components and Assumptions 69
7.4.2 Cost Estimates 71
7.5 Costs for Point-of-use Technologies 73
7.5.1 Model Components and Assumptions 73
7.5.2 Cost Estimates 75
7.6 Costs for Nontreatment Options 77
7.6.1 Overview 77
7.6.2 Model Components and Assumptions for New Wells 77
7.6.3 Model Components and Assumptions for Interconnection 78
7.6.4 Cost Estimates 80
ii
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
8 REFERENCES 82
APPENDIX A: RESIDUALS TREATMENT 92
A. 1 Biological Treatment of Residuals 92
A.2 Physical/Chemical Reduction of Residuals 93
APPENDIX B: COST EQUATIONS 95
B. 1 Capital and O&M Cost Curve Parameters for Anion Exchange Treatment Scenarios 97
B.2 Capital and O&M Cost Curve Parameters for Biological Treatment Scenarios 101
B.3 Capital and O&M Cost Curve Parameters for Reverse Osmosis Treatment Scenarios.. 110
B.4 Capital and O&M Cost Curve Parameters for Point-of-Use Treatment Scenarios (Flow
Basis) 112
B.5 Capital and O&M Cost Curve Parameters for Point-of-Use Treatment Scenarios
(Household Basis) 112
B.6 Capital and O&M Cost Curve Parameters for Non-Treatment Scenarios 113
APPENDIX C: EXAMPLE WBS MODEL OUTPUTS 115
iii
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 2-1. Perchlorate Affinity by Resin Type 4
Exhibit 2-2. Typical Schematic Layout for Perchlorate Removal by Ion Exchange with Brine
Regeneration 5
Exhibit 2-3. Typical Schematic Layout for Perchlorate Removal by Ion Exchange with Resin Disposal... 6
Exhibit 2-4. Perchlorate Effectiveness Results for Ion Exchange 7
Exhibit 2-5. Full-scale Ion Exchange Installations for Perchlorate 9
Exhibit 2-6. Perchlorate Capacity by Resin Type and Competing Anions 12
Exhibit 2-7. Critical Design Parameters for Ion Exchange Systems 22
Exhibit 3-1. Biological Perchlorate Reduction Pathway 26
Exhibit 3-2. Typical Schematic Layout for Fixed Bed Biological Treatment 27
Exhibit 3-3. Typical Schematic Layout for Fluidized Bed Biological Treatment 28
Exhibit 3-4. Perchlorate Effectiveness Results for Biological Treatment 29
Exhibit 4-1. Particle Sizes and Membrane Process Ranges 38
Exhibit 4-2. Typical Schematic Layout for a Reverse Osmosis (or Nanofiltration) Treatment Facility .... 40
Exhibit 4-3. Perchlorate Effectiveness Results for Membranes 41
Exhibit 4-4. Critical Design Parameters for Reverse Osmosis (and Nanofiltration) 45
Exhibit 7-1. Model Size Categories Based on EPA's Flow Characterization Paradigm 54
Exhibit 7-2. Cost Elements Included in All WBS Models 56
Exhibit 7-3. Mid Cost Results for Removal of Perchlorate from Groundwater Using Perchlorate-Selective
Ion Exchange with 250,000 BV to Breakthrough (2017 dollars) 61
Exhibit 7-4. Mid Cost Results for Removal of Perchlorate from Groundwater Using Perchlorate-Selective
Ion Exchange with 170,000 BV to Breakthrough (2017 dollars) 62
Exhibit 7-5. Mid Cost Results for Removal of Perchlorate from Groundwater Using Biological Treatment
with Fixed Bed Pressure Vessels (2017 dollars) 66
Exhibit 7-6. Mid Cost Results for Removal of Perchlorate from Groundwater Using Biological Treatment
with Fixed Bed Gravity Basins (2017 dollars) 67
Exhibit 7-7. Mid Cost Results for Removal of Perchlorate from Groundwater Using Biological Treatment
with Fluidized Bed Pressure Vessels (2017 dollars) 68
Exhibit 7-8. Mid Cost Results for Removal of Perchlorate from Groundwater Using Reverse Osmosis
(2017 dollars) 72
Exhibit 7-9. POU Model Assumptions for Perchlorate 73
Exhibit 7-10. Cost Results for Removal of Perchlorate from Groundwater Using POU Treatment (2017
dollars) 76
Exhibit 7-11. Mid Cost Results for New Wells at Groundwater Systems (2017 dollars) 80
Exhibit 7-12. Mid Cost Results for Interconnection of Groundwater Systems (2017 dollars) 81
iv
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
List of Abbreviations and Symbols
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
BAT
best available technology
BPOU
Baldwin Park Operable Unit
BV
bed volumes
CDPH
California Department of Public Health1
C104-
perchlorate anion
DO
dissolved oxygen
EBCT
empty bed contact time
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GAC
granular activated carbon
gfd or gpd/ft2
gallons per day per square foot
gfd/psi
gallons per day per square foot per pounds per square inch
gpm
gallons per minute
gpm/ft2
gallons per minute per square foot
gpm/ft3
gallons per minute per cubic foot
HRT
hydraulic residence time
LSI
Langelier saturation index
MCL
maximum contaminant level
^g/L
micrograms per liter
mg/L
milligrams per liter
MGD
million gallons per day
MWH
Montgomery Watson Harza
NDMA
N-nitrosodimethylamine
NF
nanofiltration
NSF
NSF International, The Public Health and Safety Company
O&M
operation and maintenance
ORNL
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
PNDM
Perchlorate and Nitrate Destruction Module
POTW
publicly-owned treatment works
POU
point-of-use
PRB
perchlorate-reducing bacteria
RO
reverse osmosis
SDI
silt density index
SSCT
small system compliance technology
T&C
technology and costs
TDP
Technology Design Panel
TOC
total organic carbon
UF
ultrafiltration
voc
volatile organic compound
WBS
work breakdown structure
1 Formerly, the California Department of Health Services
v
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The perchlorate anion (CIO4") is an inorganic ion that consists of a tetrahedral array of oxygen
atoms around a central chlorine atom. Perchlorate is primarily an anthropogenic contaminant that
generally occurs as a perchlorate salt. These salts are used in a wide range of applications,
including pyrotechnics and fireworks, blasting agents, matches, lubricating oils, textile dye
fixing, and so on. Common salts of perchlorate ion are ammonium, potassium, and sodium
perchlorate. Ammonium perchlorate, used in rocket and missile propellant, accounts for
approximately 90 percent of perchlorate salts production (Xu et al., 2003). These salts are highly
soluble in water, and dissociate completely to their cations and anions (perchlorate).
Perchlorate can persist in the environment for many decades under typical groundwater and
surface water conditions because of its resistance to reaction with other mutually occurring
compounds or elements. The physiochemical properties of perchlorate limit its treatment
alternatives. For example, conventional treatment (coagulation and filtration) does not remove
perchlorate because it is a poor complexing anion and does not form any complexes easily with
other chelating ligands or cations, making it harder to remove perchlorate by chemical
precipitation or complexation process.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to regulate perchlorate in
drinking water distributed by certain public water systems. In 2011, EPA determined that a
national primary drinking water regulation for perchlorate would result in a meaningful
opportunity to reduce health risks (USEPA, 2011). Based on the best available scientific
information on the health effects of perchlorate, EPA is proposing a maximum contaminant level
goal of 56 |ig/L and an enforceable MCL of 56 |ig/L. EPA is also requesting comment on 18
|ig/L for the MCL.
To assist in this evaluating the national costs associated with removing perchlorate, this
document describes treatment technologies that have the potential to remove or destroy
perchlorate in drinking water. It also presents estimated costs associated with the installation and
operation of these technologies. The technologies evaluated here can achieve very high
perchlorate removal efficiencies (e.g., 95 percent or greater). Given the high efficiencies, EPA
assumes systems will blend treated water and untreated water to meet the MCL. Accordingly, the
costs presented here reflect systems designed and operated to take advantage of the technologies'
high removal effectiveness and the cost curves should be applied to design and average flows
adjusted for blending, as discussed in Chapter 7.
1.2 Organization and Overview
This report is organized as follows:
• Evaluation of technologies (or other options) for complying with potential perchlorate
standards (Chapters 2 through 6)
• Costs for treatment technologies (Chapter 7).
1
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
The technology evaluations in Chapter 2 through 5 describe treatment technologies with the
potential to remove or destroy perchlorate in drinking water. Specifically, they address treatment
effectiveness for the following:
• ion exchange (Chapter 2)
• biological treatment (Chapter 3)
• membrane technologies (Chapter 4)
• point-of-use (POU) treatment (Chapter 5).
For each technology, the corresponding chapter provides an overview of how the technology
operates and summarizes its effectiveness for removal or destruction of perchlorate. Each
technology summary also incorporates available findings with respect to variability under
different source water conditions. Information on process waste characterization and
management is also provided. Each summary concludes with a compilation of the engineering
design specifications available from the documents reviewed.
Chapter 6 discusses alternative, nontreatment options that might be used in lieu of treatment to
comply with potential perchlorate standards. Chapter 7 (in combination with Appendices B and
C) presents estimated costs for installing and operating each of the technologies or options
discussed in Chapters 2 through 6. Appendix A presents available information on the potential
treatment of residuals from perchlorate removal, a topic that is relevant to several of the
technologies. Appendix B provides complete cost equations for the technologies and
nontreatment options evaluation. Appendix C presents example cost model outputs for selected
flow rates, allowing review of individual cost line items.
1.3 Information Sources
The information presented in this document is a summary of EPA's literature search to evaluate
the state of science with respect to treatment alternatives for perchlorate-contaminated drinking
source water. The objectives of the literature review were to:
• identify what technologies are being studied and tested
• summarize the evidence regarding effectiveness
• characterize other factors relevant for drinking water treatment (e.g., pre- and post-treatment
requirements and waste characterization and management options)
• identify key research gaps.
2
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
2 Ion Exchange
2.1 Operating Principle
Ion exchange is a physical/chemical separation process in which an ion such as perchlorate in the
feed water is exchanged for an ion (typically chloride) on a resin generally made of synthetic
beads or gel. Feed water passes through a bed of resin in a vessel or column. The operation
typically continues until the resin does not have sufficient exchange sites available for
perchlorate. At this point, the resin may be disposed and replaced or regenerated. Regeneration
occurs when the exhausted resin is rinsed with a concentrated chloride solution. Because of the
overwhelming concentration, the chloride in the regenerant replaces the adsorbed ions on the
resin, returning the resin to its original state.
The fate of perchlorate treated through ion exchange depends on how the spent resin is managed.
If the resin is disposed after exhaustion, the perchlorate remains bound to the spent resin. If the
resin is regenerated, the perchlorate becomes concentrated in the spent regenerant solution.
Perchlorate will be destroyed only if the spent regenerant is further treated (e.g., through
physical, chemical, or biological reduction).
Because it is a large, poorly hydrated, hydrophobic anion (see, for example, Batista et al., 2003;
Gu et al., 2001), perchlorate interacts readily with certain types of anion exchange resins,
particularly those described as strong-base resins. Several types of resins have the potential to
remove perchlorate effectively, at least initially. The key differences among the resins are in their
long-term capacity, particularly in the presence of competing anions, and their ease of
regeneration. These differences can be significant in terms of the type and quantity of waste
generated from the treatment process.
The resin types studied for perchlorate removal include strong-base and weak-base anion resins
with polystyrenic, polyacrylic, and polyvinylpyridine matrices, with the most extensive study of
strong-base polystyrenic and polyacrylic resins (see, for example, Batista et al., 2000; Tripp et
al., 2003). The category of strong-base polystyrenic resins includes those typically used for
removal of nitrate (i.e., "nitrate-selective" resins). In addition, in the early 2000s, researchers at
the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) developed a specialized
perchlorate-selective resin. Investigators describe this resin as "Afunctional," because it contains
two functional groups, one to enhance selectivity and the other to aid kinetics (Batista et al.,
2003; Gu et al., 2002). More recently, a number of new, competing perchlorate-selective resins
have become available. These include an updated version of the original bifunctional resin, along
with other single functional group (often tributylamine) resin formulations (Blute et al., 2006;
Russell et al., 2008; Wu and Blute, 2010).
There are significant differences among the strong-base polyacrylic, strong-base polystyrenic,
nitrate-selective, and perchlorate-selective resins in terms of their relative affinity for perchlorate
(Batista et al., 2003; Boodoo, 2003; Darracq et al., 2014; Tripp et al., 2003). Exhibit 2-1
categorizes these resins in order of their perchlorate affinity. Although certain resin types have
higher relative affinity than others, all of the types shown in Exhibit 2-1, along with weak-base
resins, are able to remove perchlorate. The key differences among the resins are in their long-
term capacity, particularly in the presence of competing anions, and their ease of regeneration.
3
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Because of these differences, the recent literature indicates a trend toward the increased use of
perchlorate-selective resins, which are generally disposed of, rather than regenerated. Section 2.2
discusses the removal rates achieved by different resin types in more detail. Section 2.3 discusses
resin capacity in light of raw water quality and Section 2.5 covers regeneration needs.
Exhibit 2-1. Perchlorate Affinity by Resin Type
Perchlorate Affinity
Resin Type
Lowest affinity
Strong-base polyacrylic
Lower affinity
Strong-base polystyrenic
Higher affinity
Nitrate-selective
Highest affinity
Perchlorate-selective
Conventional ion exchange systems use a fixed resin bed where, after exhaustion of the resin,
operators will take a vessel out of service temporarily to either remove and dispose of the spent
resin or regenerate the resin.
Exhibit 2-2 provides a schematic drawing for a conventional ion exchange system with brine
regeneration. With resin disposal, instead of regeneration, as is common for perchlorate-selective
resin, the schematic layout becomes simpler. Designs with disposable resin do not require brine
storage, eductors, or brine piping. As discussed in Section 2.5, another possible option (instead
of disposal) for selective resins is to use a novel procedure involving a tetrachloroferrate solution
for regeneration. Exhibit 2-3 provides a schematic drawing for an ion exchange system using
disposable resin (i.e., without regeneration).
4
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 2-2. Typical Schematic Layout for Perchlorate Removal by Ion Exchange
with Brine Regeneration
.
Residuals
Management
Optional equipment
not shown:
- Corrosion control
{X-
Treated Water
PHMriaf BHHHH
tMSmUMENTATION
©Flow Meter wl ©Temperature
Pressure Gaijqe © Tumidity
Head Loss ©
Sensor Alafm
LINES
Influent
Brine^ Bypas^
Backwash
X)
N4
E&I
Valve
Check
Control
Valve
Anion Exchange
Typical Schematic Layout
AnionExchange-6-3'20l2.vsd
5
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 2-3. Typical Schematic Layout for Perchlorate Removal by Ion Exchange
with Resin Disposal
2.2 Effectiveness for Perchlorate Removal
The State of California has identified ion exchange (along with fluidized bed biological
treatment) as one of two BATs for achieving compliance with its standard for perchlorate in
drinking water (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 15, Section 64447.2).
Researchers have demonstrated that ion exchange is capable of removing perchlorate to levels
below 2 to 4 |.ig/L, even given very high influent perchlorate concentrations. This result
corresponds, generally, to a removal efficiency in the 90 percent range, depending on the influent
concentration. Exhibit 2-4 summarizes the removal efficiencies reported in the literature. It
includes results from studies conducted in the laboratory, in the field at pilot scale, and in full-
scale application.
6
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 2-4. Perchlorate Effectiveness Results for Ion Exchange
Resulting
Study
Resin Type
Removal
Concentration
Scale
(a)
Efficiency
(M9/L)
(b)
Data Source(s)
SB
>77% to >94%
<4
P
GWRTAC, 2001; Venkatesh et al„ 2000
>95.7% to >97%
<4
F
Berlien, 2003; GWRTAC, 2001; Praskins, 2003
>97.5% to >98.1%
<2,000
F
GWRTAC, 2001; Praskins, 2003; Wagner and Drewry, 2000
>98%
<4
P
ITRC Team, 2008
>98% and >99.6%
<4
P
GWRTAC, 2001; Venkatesh et al„ 2000
SB-S, SB-A,
WB-S, WB-A
>99.9%
<20
L
Batista et al., 2003; 2000
NS
>44%
<4
F
CalEPA, 2004
>60%
<4
F
CalEPA, 2004
>60%
<4
F
CalEPA, 2004
>76%
<4
F
ITRC Team, 2008
>85% and >96%
<4
P
Burge and Halden, 1999
>99.3%
<3
P
Gu et al., 1999; Gu et al., 2002
PS
Not specified
<4
F
ITRC Team, 2008
>60%
<4
F
ITRC Team, 2008
>60% to >73%
<4
F
Hayward and Gillen, 2005; Siemens Water Technologies,
2009b
>75% to >80%
<2
L, P
Bluteet al., 2006
>82%
<2
P
Lutes et al., 2010
>83% to >95%
<2
P
Russell et al., 2008
>84%
<4
P
ITRC Team, 2008
>92%
<4
F
ITRC Team, 2008
>93.3% to >97.8%
<1
F
Membrane Technology, 2006; Siemens Water Technologies,
2009c
>94%
<2
P
Wu and Blute, 2010
>97.5%
<0.35
F
ITRC Team, 2008
>98%
<1
P
ITRC Team, 2008
>98.6%
<4
F
ITRC Team, 2008
>97.6% to >99.2%
<0.5
F
Drago and Leserman, 2011
>99.3%
<3
P
Gu et al., 1999; Gu et al., 2002
>99.7%
<3
L
Gu et al., 1999
WB-S
>98.5%
<0.1
P
U.S. DoD, 2008b
>99.7%
<4
P
U.S. DoD, 2007
Not specified
>60%
<4
F
CalEPA, 2004
>60% to >98%
<4
F
ITRC Team, 2008
>71%
<4
F
ITRC Team, 2008
>73%
<4
F
Fontana Water Company, 2010; ITRC Team, 2008
>75%
<5
F
Santschi, 2010
>90%
<2
F
ITRC Team, 2008
>96% to >99.7%
<4
L
GWRTAC, 2001
>99%
<4
F
Siemens Water Technologies, 2009a
Motes:
a. SB = strong-base; SB-S = strong-base polystyrenic; SB-A = strong-base polyacrylic; WB-S = weak-base
polystyrenic; WB-A = weak-base polyacrylic; NS = nitrate-selective strong-base polystyrenic; PS = perchlorate
selective
b. L = laboratory study; P = field pilot study; F = full-scale
7
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 2-4 also shows the variety of resin types that have been tested for perchlorate removal.
These resin types include strong-base polyacrylic, strong-base polystyrenic (including nitrate-
selective), weak-base polyacrylic, weak-base polystyrenic, and perchlorate-selective.2 All of
these resin types can attain very high perchlorate removals, at least initially. While Batista et al.
(2003; 2000) have suggested that weak-base resins may have certain advantages in terms of
regenerant treatment (see Section 2.5.2 and Appendix A), tests of these resins have been limited,
with only a few studies documented in the reviewed literature (Batista et al., 2003; 2000;
Boodoo, 2006; U.S. DoD, 2007; 2008b). Furthermore, the use of weak-base resins could require
pH adjustment.
Additional support for the effectiveness of ion exchange for perchlorate removal is evident from
the number of full-scale facilities that are currently using the technology. As shown in Exhibit
2-5, the literature identifies 44 full-scale facilities applying ion exchange for perchlorate
removal. Exhibit 2-5 also demonstrates the increasing use of perchlorate-selective resins. These
installations include both remediation sites and facilities producing drinking water.
Currently, the majority of the identified full-scale facilities (18 of 23 facilities where information
on resin type is available) currently use perchlorate-selective resins. An additional two facilities
are reportedly planning to switch to perchlorate-selective resin (Blute, 2012; Wu and Blute,
2010). Thus, perchlorate-selective resin appears to have become the technology of choice for
perchlorate ion exchange facilities.
2 While Tripp et al. (2003) also examined strong base polyvinylpyridine resins, comparable quantitative data on their
removal efficiency are not available.
8
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 2-5. Full-scale Ion Exchange Installations for Perchlorate
Location
Flow rate (gallons
per minute [gpm])
Resin
Type1
Resin
Fate2
Start Date
Kerr-McGee, Henderson, Nevada
300 to 600
-
D
November 19993
LaPuente Valley County Water District, California
2,500
PS9
D9
February 2000
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
California
0.7 to 3.5
NS
R
November 2000
Kerr-McGee, Henderson, Nevada
200 to 560
-
R
March 2002 4
California Domestic Water Company, Whittier,
California
5,000
PS8
D
July 2002
Gage 51-1, City of Riverside, California
2,000
SB-S
D
October 2002
Tippecanoe, City of Riverside, California
5,000
SB-S
D
December 2002
R&H System, La Verne, California
-
-
R
2003 or earlier
City of Pomona, California
10,000
NS10
Rio
2003 or earlier
Baldwin Park, California
7,000 and 7,500
-
R
2003 or earlier
Edwards Air Force Base, Site 285, California
30
PS
R
2003
West San Bernadino Water District, Rialto, California
2,000
PS
D
May 2003
West Valley Water District, San Bernadino, California
2,000
-
D
June 2003
Aerospace Manufacturer, Maryland
20
-
D7
October 2003
Wells 15,17, and 24, City of Colton, California
3,600
PS
D
August 2003
Airport Treatment Plant, City of Rialto, California
2,000
PS
D
August 2003
Delta Treatment Plant, City of Monterey Park,
California
4,050
-
D
July 2003
Santa Clara Valley Water District
-
-
D
Prior to December
2003
Colony and County Wells, West San Martin Water
Works, West San Martin, California
800
NS
D
2004 or earlier
Texas Street, City of Redlands, California
1,100
PS
D
2004
Fontana Union Water Co., Fontana, California
6,000
PS
D
January 2004
Castaic Lake Water Agency, Whittaker, California
300
PS 11
D11
Prior to March 2004
City of Morgan Hill, California
400 to 1,000
-
D
Prior to March 20045
Big Dalton Well, San Gabriel Water Quality
Association, Baldwin Park, California
3,000
-
-
Prior to March 2004
Camping World, San Martin County Water District,
California
2,000
-
-
Prior to March 2004
Southern California Water Co., South San Gabriel,
California
750
-
-
Prior to March 2004
Fontana (F17 site), San Gabriel Valley Water
Company, El Monte, California
5,000
PS
D
Prior to March 2004
B6 Well Site, San Gabriel Valley Water Company, El
Monte, California
7,800
.. 6
R6
May 2004
Valley County Water District, Baldwin Park, California
7,800
.. 6
R6
June 2004
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California
1,400
-
D
July 2004
9
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Location
Flow rate (gallons
per minute [gpm])
Resin
Type1
Resin
Fate2
Start Date
Aerojet, Sacramento, California
400 to 2,000
PS
D7
August 2004
Lincoln Avenue Water Co., Altadena, California
2,000
PS
D7
August 2004
Frank Perkins Road Treatment System,
Massachusetts Military Reservation, Cape Cod,
Massachusetts
300
-
-
September 2004
B5 Well Site, San Gabriel Valley Water Company, El
Monte, California
7,800
PS
D
December 2004
Phoenix Goodyear Airport North, City of Goodyear,
Arizona
440
-
D
2005
Aquarion Water Co., Millbury, Massachusetts
1,500
PS
D7
June 2005
California Water Services Company, Porterville,
California
-
-
D
April 2006
Camp Edwards portion of the Massachusetts Military
Reservation, Cape Cod, Massachusetts
1,000
PS
D
2007
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, McGregor,
Texas
-
-
D
2008 or earlier3
Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, Colton, California
600
-
-
January 2010
Saugus Perchlorate Treatment Facility, Castaic Lake
Water Agency, Santa Clarita, California
2,200
PS
D
May 2010
Richardson Treatment Plant, Loma Linda, California
1,200
-
-
October 2010
Monk Hill Water Treatment Plant, Pasadena Water and
Power, Pasadena, California
7,000
PS
D
July 2011
Golden State Water Service
2,000
PS
D
2011 or earlier
Sources: Berlien, 2003; Blute, 2012; Blute etal., 2006; Bull etal., 2004; California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA),
2004; City of Redlands, California, 2004; Coppola, 2003; Croft, 2004; Drago and Leserman, 2011; Faccini etal., 2016;
GWRTAC, 2001; Hayward and Gillen, 2005; Min et al., 2003; Lu, 2003; Membrane Technology, 2006; NASA, 2011; Pollack,
2004; Praskins, 2003; Purolite, 2011; Roefer, 2013; Russell etal., 2008; Santschi, 2010; Siemens Water Technologies, 2006;
2009a; 2009b; 2009c; 2009d; 2009d; ITRC Team, 2008; USEPA, 2005; Wagner and Drewry, 2000; Water & Wastes Digest,
2010; Xiong and Zhao, 2004
Notes:
- = Not reported
1. SB-S = strong-base polystyrenic; SB-A = strong-base polyacrylic; NS = nitrate-selective strong-base polystyrenic; PS =
perchlorate-selective
2. D = Disposed; R = Regenerated
3. No longer in operation (replaced with biological reactor).
4. Discontinued after 6 months due to operational issues.
5. Inactive as of March 2004.
6. Reportedly planning to switch to use of perchlorate-selective resin with disposal instead of regeneration (Wu and Blute,
2010).
7. Specifically, spent resin at this facility is incinerated.
8. Switched from strong-base polystyrenic resin to perchlorate-selective resin as of 2011 (Purolite, 2011; Wu and Blute, 2010).
9. Switched from strong-base polyacrylic resin to perchlorate-selective resin with disposal instead of regeneration in July 2010
(Blute, 2012).
10. Currently installing perchlorate-selective resin in addition for part of the treatment train (Blute, 2012).
11. Installed perchlorate-selective resin beginning in 2011 (Blute, 2012).
10
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
2.3 Raw Water Quality Considerations
The most significant raw water quality consideration in ion exchange perchlorate treatment is the
concentration of competing anions (particularly sulfate, nitrate, bicarbonate, and chloride). The
effect of these anions is to decrease a resin's longer-term capacity to adsorb perchlorate, as they
compete with perchlorate for exchange sites. Resin capacity (also termed resin life or run length)
typically is measured by the number of bed volumes (BV) of water that can be treated before
breakthrough of perchlorate. Competing anions take up available exchange sites, reducing
perchlorate capacity. In addition, these anions may break through or peak3 before perchlorate,
affecting finished water quality and limiting the practical life of the resin more than perchlorate
capacity alone. For example, Case et al. (2004) reported that a strong-base polyacrylic resin
could treat 750 BV before perchlorate breakthrough. Nitrate peaking, however, would limit the
use of the resin to 425 BV. In practice, however, systems can limit the impact of peaking by
using multiple treatment trains in parallel. Also, the full-scale facility studied in Drago and
Leserman (2011) eliminated chloride peaking by converting the resin from a chloride to a
bicarbonate form prior to installation.
There are significant differences among resin types in terms of the relative impact of competing
anions. This impact is related to the relative affinity of the resin for each anion present. Exhibit
2-6 shows quantitative data from the literature on BV to perchlorate breakthrough for different
resin types in the presence of differing concentrations of the major competing anions. The data
shown in Exhibit 2-6 are for initial detection of perchlorate (at detection limits between 1 and 4
|ig/L, depending on the specific study) using a single resin column. After perchlorate
breakthrough, most resins still have the capacity to continue adsorbing perchlorate before the
resin is completely saturated. In practice, using two columns in series (a "lead-lag"
configuration) can capture this extra capacity (Boodoo, 2003). For example, Gu et al. (1999)
found breakthrough in a lead column after 8,500 BV for a nitrate-selective resin and 40,000 BV
for a perchlorate-selective resin. Using a second (lag or polishing) column increased the resins'
capacities to approximately 22,000 BV and 104,000 BV, respectively.
Precise, quantitative comparisons of the data in Exhibit 2-6 are difficult because of variations
among studies (e.g., influent concentrations of perchlorate and other constituents, definition of
breakthrough, and specific resin manufacturer). The data, however, when combined with general
conclusions in the literature, do allow for some general observations about differences among
resin types.
3 Peaking occurs when competing anions adsorbed early in a resins life are displaced by perchlorate, resulting in an
effluent concentration of the competing anions greater than the influent concentration. See Boodoo (2003) for an
example of peaking behavior.
11
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 2-6. Perchlorate Capacity by Resin Type and Competing Anions
Resin
Type1
Data Source(s)
Perchlorate Capacity
(BV to breakthrough)
Competing Anions (mg/L)
Sulfate
Nitrate2
Bicarbonate
Chloride
SB-A
Batista et al., 2003; 2000
1,800 to 2,100
None
None
None
None
SB-A
Case et al., 2004
750
Present
Present
Present
No data
SB-A
Tripp et al., 2003
700
50
6
122
30
SB-A
Min et al., 2003
700
55
27
155
15
SB-A
Boodoo, 2003
500
44
40
170
13
SB-A
Lehman et al., 2008
650
56
63
300
25
SB-A
Batista et al., 2003; 2000
03
>2,000
>40
No data
No data
SB-S
Batista et al., 2003; 2000
3,750
None
None
None
None
SB-S
Tripp et al., 2003
6,000
50
6
122
30
SB-S
Boodoo, 2003
5,000
44
40
170
13
SB-S
Batista et al., 2003; 2000
6003
>2,000
>40
No data
No data
NS
Batista et al., 2000
1,300
None
None
None
None
NS
Gu et al., 2002
14,000
173
3.2
226
356
NS
Tripp et al., 2003
25.0004
50
6
122
30
NS
Gu et al., 1999
8,500
14.9
61.2
No data
7.0
PS-Old
Gu et al., 2002
40,000
173
3.2
226
356
PS-Old
Tripp et al., 2003
35.0003
50
6
122
30
PS-Old
Min et al., 2003
20,700
266
14
229
40
PS-Old
Gu et al., 1999
40,000
14.9
61.2
No data
7.0
PS-Old
Gu et al., 2007
37,000
16
10
No data
10
PS-Old
Lutes et al., 2010
97,000
14.8
32.8
192
10.7
PS-Old
Bluteet al., 2006
-75,000
46.4
1.6
No data
No data
PS-New
Bluteet al., 2006
-160,000
46.4
1.6
No data
No data
PS-New
Russell et al., 2008
-130,000 to 170,000
37
25
No data
23
PS-New
Russell et al., 2008
-125,000 to 140,000
44
33
No data
27
PS-New
Russell et al., 2008
-105,000 to 130,000
53
61
No data
47
PS-New
Wu and Blute, 2010
-130,000
45
33
No data
No data
PS-New
Drago and Leserman, 2011
-30,000 to 60,000
130 to 220
18
No data
17 to 29
WB-S
Batista et al., 2000
500
None
None
None
None
WB-S
U.S. DoD, 2007
3,000 to 4,000
3
4
No data
4
WB-S
U.S. DoD, 2008b
9,700
14
31
150
11
WB-S
Boodoo, 2006
15,000
No data
No data
No data
No data
WB-A
Batista et al., 2003; 2000
2,700 to 2,800
None
None
None
None
WB-A
Batista et al., 2003; 2000
800 to 1,000
100
100
None
100
Notes:
1. SB-S = strong-base polystyrenic; SB-A = strong-base polyacrylic; WB-S = weak-base polystyrenic; WB-A = weak-base
polyacrylic; WB = weak-base (type not specified); NS = nitrate-selective strong-base polystyrenic; PS-Old = original
perchlorate-selective resin developed by ORNL; PS-New = more recently developed perchlorate-selective resins.
2. as N03.
3. The presence of humic substances caused reduced resin capacity.
4. Column fouling (due to experimental design) may have caused reduced resin capacity.
12
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
2.3.1 Strong-base Polyacrylic Resins
The order of affinity of strong-base polyacrylic resins is as follows (Boodoo, 2003; Gu et al.,
2001):
sulfate > perchlorate > nitrate > chloride > bicarbonate
Accordingly, Tripp et al. (2003) and Boodoo (2003) conclude that the capacity of strong-base
polyacrylic resins is most significantly affected by sulfate concentration. Using computer
modeling, Tripp et al. (2003) predicted an 88 percent decrease in strong-base polyacrylic
capacity as influent sulfate increased from 1 to 250 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The decrease in
capacity was rapid as sulfate increased (see Tripp et al., 2003, Figure 4.61). The cross-study data
in Exhibit 2-6 are consistent with this prediction. For this resin type, Batista et al. (2003; 2000)
found a perchlorate capacity of 1,800 to 2,100 BV for a laboratory solution with no sulfate. In
comparison, sulfate concentrations in the range of 40 to 60 mg/L reduced capacity to 500 to 700
BV in other studies (Boodoo, 2003; Case et al., 2004; Min et al., 2003; Lehman et al., 2008;
Tripp et al., 2003). Batista et al. (2003; 2000) found that very high sulfate concentrations (greater
than 2,000 mg/L) prevented a polyacrylic resin from removing any perchlorate (i.e., a capacity of
0 BV), although the investigators suggest fouling of the resin as a contributing factor to the
decreased capacity.
Tripp et al. (2003) predicted that strong-base polyacrylic resins are not as sensitive to increasing
nitrate concentrations (see Tripp et al., 2003, Figure 4.62). Capacity decreased linearly by 36
percent as influent nitrate increased from 0.1 to 20 mg/L as N (Tripp et al., 2003). Again, the
cross-study data support this conclusion, finding similar capacities (500 to 700 BV) for nitrate
concentrations from 6 to 63 mg/L as NO3 (Boodoo, 2003; Case et al., 2004; Min et al., 2003;
Lehman et al., 2008; Tripp et al., 2003).
2.3.2 Strong-base Polystyrenic Resins
The order of affinity of strong-base polystyrenic resins is as follows (Boodoo, 2003; Gu et al.,
2001):
perchlorate > sulfate > nitrate > chloride > bicarbonate
Therefore, the capacity of strong-base polystyrenic resins should be affected by sulfate
concentration, but to a lesser degree than that of polyacrylic resins. Using computer modeling,
Tripp et al. (2003) predicted a 94 percent decrease in strong-base polystyrenic capacity as
influent sulfate increased from 1 to 250 mg/L. The decrease in capacity, however, was not as
rapid as for the polyacrylic resin. Interpolation of Figure 4.61 in Tripp et al. (2003) shows a
capacity decrease of approximately 60 percent for the polystyrenic resin at 50 mg/L sulfate,
compared to a decrease of nearly 80 percent for the polyacrylic resin. Similarly, the cross-study
data in Exhibit 2-6 show a relatively high perchlorate capacity (5,000 to 6,000 BV) for strong-
base polystyrenic resins at moderate sulfate concentrations (40 to 50 mg/L) (Boodoo, 2003;
Tripp et al., 2003).
Tripp et al. (2003) predicted that strong-base polystyrenic resins, like polyacrylic resins, are not
as sensitive to increasing nitrate concentrations (see Tripp et al., 2003, Figure 4.62). Capacity
decreased linearly by 26 percent as influent nitrate increased from 0.1 to 20 mg/L (Tripp et al.,
13
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
2003). The cross-study data are consistent with this observation, finding similar capacities (5,000
to 6,000 BV) for nitrate concentrations from 6 to 40 mg/L (Boodoo, 2003; Tripp et al., 2003).
2.3.3 Nitrate-Selective Resins
The order of affinity of nitrate-selective resins is as follows (Boodoo, 2003; Burge and Halden,
1999):
perchlorate > nitrate > sulfate > chloride > bicarbonate
Accordingly, computer modeling performed by Tripp et al. (2003) found these resins affected by
both sulfate and nitrate, with the greater effect caused by nitrate. Nitrate-selective capacity for
perchlorate decreased by 76 percent as nitrate increased from 0.1 to 20 mg/L, compared to 64
percent for a sulfate increase from 1 to 250 mg/L (Tripp et al., 2003). The cross-study data in
Exhibit 2-6 appear consistent, if one ignores an anomalous data point from Batista et al. (2000).
Capacities shown are 25,000 BV for moderate sulfate and moderate nitrate (Tripp et al., 2003),
14,000 BV for high sulfate and low nitrate (Gu et al., 2002), and 8,500 BV for low sulfate and
high nitrate (Gu et al., 1999)
2.3.4 Perchlorate-Selective Resins
As discussed in Section 2.1, researchers at ORNL developed the first perchlorate-selective resin
in the early 2000s. This original, bifunctional resin was known as "BiQuat" and licensed to
Purolite for sale under the name Purolite A530E (Boodoo, 2003). More recently, a number of
new, competing perchlorate-selective resins have become commercially available. These include
(Blute et al., 2006; Darracq et al., 2014; Drago and Leserman, 2011; Russell et al., 2008; U.S.
Filter, 2004; Wu and Blute, 2010):
• Purolite A532E (an updated version of the old A530E resin)
• Purolite MCG-P2
• Resin Tech SIR-110-HP
• Rohm & Haas PWA2
. Dow PSR2
• Calgon CalRes 2109.
The order of affinity of the original perchlorate-selective resin was the same as that for nitrate-
selective resins (i.e., perchlorate > nitrate > sulfate > chloride), but the perchlorate affinity
relative to nitrate affinity was nearly an order of magnitude greater (Boodoo, 2003). Boodoo
(2003) suggested that this original resin would be negatively affected by high nitrate
concentrations. The cross-study data in Exhibit 2-6, however, suggest that the resin was not, in
fact, very sensitive to competing anions. Capacity remained high (20,700 to 97,000 BV) for a
wide range of nitrate and sulfate concentrations (1.6 to 61.2 mg/L and 14.8 to 266 mg/L,
respectively) (Blute et al., 2006; Gu et al., 1999; 2007; 2002; Min et al., 2003; Lutes et al., 2010;
Tripp et al., 2003).
For the more recently developed perchlorate-selective resins, the data in Exhibit 2-6 generally
show significantly greater perchlorate capacity than the original resin. In the presence of
moderate levels of both sulfate and nitrate, the new resins showed capacities of approximately
105,000 to 170,000 BV (Blute et al., 2006; Russell et al., 2008; Wu and Blute, 2010). Even at
14
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
higher sulfate levels, at least one of the new resins showed equal or greater capacity than the
older resin (Drago and Leserman, 2011). The differences in capacity among the individual new
resins appear to be less significant than the difference between the new resins as a group and the
old resin. In the studies shown in Exhibit 2-6 (Blute et al., 2006; Drago and Leserman, 2011;
Russell et al., 2008; Wu and Blute, 2010), different resins performed better depending on
variations in specific competing anions and other site-specific conditions (i.e., none of the new
resins was consistently superior to the others in all of the studies).
2.3.5 Weak-base Resins
As shown in Exhibit 2-6, researchers have conducted only limited study on the effect of
competing anions on the perchlorate capacity of weak-base resins. Sulfate and nitrate reduce the
capacity of weak-base polyacrylic resins when they are present at relatively high levels (100
mg/L each) (Batista et al., 2003; 2000). Data are not available, however, on the effect of more
moderate levels of competing anions. Batista el al. (2000) reported that weak-base polystyrenic
resins have a relatively low capacity (500 BV) even absent competing anions. Pilot tests at
Redstone Arsenal in Alabama used a weak-base polystyrenic resin produced by Purolite. This
resin achieved 15,000 BV (Boodoo, 2006), 3,000 to 4,000 BV (U.S. DoD, 2007), or 9,700 BV
(U.S. DoD, 2008b) capacity, depending on the test conditions. U.S. DoD (2008b) suggested that
competing ions such as nitrate would reduce the capacity of this resin, but data are not available
on the magnitude of such competitive effects.
2.3.6 Raw Water Quality Considerations other than Sulfate and Nitrate
Competition
Although most investigators identify bicarbonate and chloride as other major competing anions,
the affinity of ion exchange resins for these anions is less than that for perchlorate, sulfate, and
nitrate. Therefore, their impact on resin perchlorate capacity would be expected to be less than
that of sulfate and nitrate. There are, however, no quantitative data in the literature on the effects
of these major anions. Similarly, U.S. DoD (2002) indicates that raw water pH can strongly
influence treatment effectiveness, but no quantitative data are available.
Other co-contaminants that may affect perchlorate capacity include arsenic (Berlien, 2003; Tripp
et al., 2003), uranium (Min et al., 2003; Tripp et al., 2003), and chromium (Min et al., 2003).
Based on the high affinity of most resins for perchlorate, direct competition from these co-
contaminants would be expected to be low. Accumulation of these contaminants in high
concentrations on the resin or in regenerant solution may affect disposal (see Section 2.5),
limiting the practical life of a resin. For example, Tripp et al. (2003) suggests that a perchlorate-
selective resin would require regeneration every 10,000 BV to prevent arsenic and uranium
build-up. Recent studies of various perchlorate-selective resins, however, have shown that build-
up of metals results in concentrations that are below regulatory limits that would require disposal
as a hazardous waste, both under federal requirements and California's more stringent limits
(Blute et al., 2006; Russell et al., 2008; Wu and Blute, 2010). The same studies found that
uranium build-up might require special handling as a radioactive waste in only one of the 12
samples tested (total across all three studies). In some cases, however, incineration facilities have
facility-specific restrictions on uranium concentrations that are more stringent that the regulatory
thresholds for radioactive waste.
15
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
2.4 Pre- and Post-Treatment Needs
Suspended solids and organic substances in source water can cause clogging or fouling of ion
exchange resins (Batista et al., 2003; Gu et al., 2002; U.S. DoD, 2002). For example, Batista et
al. (2003) found that high concentrations of humic substances (as measured by total organic
carbon [TOC]) caused fouling of both strong-base polyacrylic and polystyrenic resins, interfering
with perchlorate removal. In spite of earlier conclusions that the perchlorate-selective
bifunctional resin would require no pre-treatment (Gu et al., 1999; Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, 2002), in pilot testing of the resin, Gu et al. (2002) found that precipitation and/or
deposition of iron oxyhydroxides and microbial biomass caused significant clogging and fouling
of the resin columns. The addition of a fine in-line filter resolved the problem. Similarly, the full-
scale system studied in Drago and Leserman (2011) included pre-treatment bag filters and
sulfuric acid addition to minimize scaling. Therefore, the presence of suspended solids and
organic matter may require the use of filtration and/or chemical addition as pretreatment.
Although the literature reviewed for this report does not identify the specific conditions under
which filtration is needed (e.g., concentration of total suspended solids), these conditions are
expected to be similar to those documented in application of ion exchange treatment for other
contaminants. For perchlorate-selective resins, pre-filtration (bag or cartridge filters) may be
required regardless of water quality because the long run lengths (see Section 2.3.4) can result in
greater solids accumulation.
Batista et al. (2000) indicates that weak-base resins require carbonation to treat perchlorate.
Carbonation can be accomplished by adding carbon dioxide or bicarbonate (generated by feeding
sodium bicarbonate through a strong-acid cationic resin) to the feed. Thus, carbonation may
constitute a pre-treatment step required for the use of weak-base resins. More information is
required on the need for and practicality of this step to evaluate the use of weak-base resins. The
weak-base resin piloted in Alabama requires pH reduction with carbon dioxide or acid as a pre-
treatment step, carbon dioxide removal as a post-treatment step, and pH adjustment, if needed, as
a post-treatment step (Boodoo, 2006; U.S. DoD, 2007; 2008b). An operational pH between 3 and
5, with a target of 4, is required for this resin to operate effectively (U.S. DoD, 2007; 2008b).
Ion exchange treatment can increase the corrosivity of treated water (Berlien, 2003; Betts, 1998;
USEPA, 2005) because of the addition of chloride ions and/or removal of carbonates and
bicarbonates. Berlien (2003) reports this problem with a full-scale application of ion exchange
for perchlorate treatment. Treated water had a pH of approximately 7 and created red water
problems in older homes with galvanized steel pipe. The operators corrected this problem by
adding sodium hydroxide to raise the pH to approximately 8.2 and adding polyphosphates as an
additional protection measure. For applications of weak-base resins where pre-treatment pH
adjustment would be required, increasing the pH after treatment would also be necessary for
corrosion control.
Tripp et al. (2003) and Min et al. (2003) indicate that N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) may
form within certain polystyrenic resins and leach into the treated water. Recent studies of
perchlorate-selective resins (Blute et al., 2006; Drago and Leserman, 2011; Russell et al., 2008;
Wu and Blute, 2010) have shown leaching of various nitrosamines at first flush or soon after
startup, with levels that decline to below detection over time (four hours to one week, depending
on the specific resin and nitrosamine). Thus, nitrosamine leaching appears to occur periodically
16
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
and temporarily (e.g., after installation of new resin). Issues with nitrosamine leaching might be
avoided if resins are sufficiently flushed prior to use. For example, the full-scale system studied
in Drago and Leserman (2011) minimized nitrosamine leaching with changes to the
manufacturer's pre-delivery rinsing and preparation procedures. For one resin, however, Wu and
Blute (2010) suggest that rinsing longer than manufacturer recommendations may be required to
eliminate leaching concerns. Blute et al. (2006) also hypothesize that nitrosamines could be
eliminated by downstream processes such as ultraviolet light treatment, if present.
2.5 Waste Generation and Residuals Management Needs
After a resin reaches its perchlorate capacity (see Section 2.3), the operator must either dispose
and replace the resin or regenerate the resin using a chemical solution to remove the adsorbed
anions. The former option, commonly termed "throwaway" operation, generates solid waste in
the form of spent resin loaded with perchlorate and other anions. The latter option generates a
liquid waste in the form of spent regenerant with concentrated perchlorate and other anions. Both
options can also generate liquid waste in the form of spent wash water when initial flushing is
required upon installation of new resin (e.g., to prevent nitrosamine leaching, see Section 2.4).
As shown in Exhibit 2-5, almost 79 percent (30 of 38) of full-scale facilities for which waste
management data are available dispose of spent resin. This statistic includes all but one of the
full-scale facilities using perchlorate-selective resin. An additional two facilities are reportedly
planning to switch away from regeneration to disposal of spent resin (Blute, 2012; Wu and Blute,
2010).
2.5.1 Disposal
In systems using resin disposal without regeneration, calculation of the quantity of solid waste
generated would be straightforward, based on the quantity of resin used and the life of the resin.
Spent resin characteristics depend on resin type, influent water quality, and the life of the resin.
As discussed in Section 2.3, studies of metals build-up in perchlorate-selective resins have found
that these resins are not likely to meet regulatory definitions of hazardous waste (Blute et al.,
2006; Russell et al., 2008; Wu and Blute, 2010). Because of the shorter life of conventional
resins, metals accumulation in these resins likely would be even lower and, thus, the same result
should hold true. A typical destination for non-hazardous spent resin would be disposal in an off-
site landfill. Based on the data in Exhibit 2-5, however, at least four of the full-scale facilities
appear to be sending their spent resin to incineration facilities.
2.5.2 Regeneration
In systems using regeneration, the characteristics and quantity of spent regenerant depend on the
type of regenerant solution used. The type of regenerant solution selected depends, in turn, on the
type of resin used. In addition, the quantity of spent regenerant can be reduced if the regenerant
is treated and reused. Appendix A discusses regenerant treatment.
In conventional ion exchange processes using strong-base resins (i.e., for removal of arsenic),
operators regenerate spent resin using a brine solution of concentrated sodium chloride or
potassium chloride. For resins loaded with perchlorate, however, regeneration with brine is more
difficult because of the high relative affinity of most resins for perchlorate. In general, the higher
the perchlorate affinity of a resin (see Exhibit 2-1), the more difficult it is to regenerate using
conventional brine solutions. For example, Tripp et al. (2003) found that regeneration required a
17
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
significantly greater quantity of brine solution for strong-base polystyrenic resins than for strong-
base polyacrylic resins. Similarly, Batista et al. (2000) were able to successfully regenerate a
perchlorate-loaded strong-base polyacrylic resin with 12 percent sodium chloride, removing 96
percent of the loaded perchlorate. In comparison, they found regeneration of a nitrate-selective
resin using the same solution very ineffective, removing only 17.3 percent of the loaded
perchlorate. Investigators, therefore, suggest that highly perchlorate-selective resins cannot be
regenerated at all using conventional regenerant solutions (Batista et al., 2000; Boodoo, 2003;
Darracq et al., 2014; Gu et al., 2001; 2002).
Regeneration of Non-selective Strong-Base Resins
It appears that, while regeneration of non-selective resins using brine solutions is feasible, large
quantities of spent regenerant may result. Although polyacrylic resins regenerate easily, they
have relatively short run lengths (see Section 2.3) and, therefore, more frequent regeneration. On
the other hand, while polystyrenic resins have longer run lengths, they require more regenerant.
Based on computer modeling, Tripp et al. (2003) conclude that the polyacrylic resins are more
efficient in terms of quantity of spent regenerant as a percentage of water treated. In practice,
regeneration may be accomplished using partial exhaustion-partial regeneration. In this scenario,
operators regenerate the resin well before perchlorate breakthrough (e.g., at the point of sulfate
or nitrate breakthrough) and regenerate using smaller quantities of brine than would be required
for complete perchlorate removal. This practice allows operation for a number of cycles until
perchlorate builds up on the resin and complete regeneration is required, and may result in lower
overall generation of spent regenerant.
Tripp et al. (2003) suggest partial exhaustion-partial regeneration operation for pilot testing of
non-selective resins. Results of tests of this approach reported by Case et al. (2004) suggest that
partial exhaustion-partial regeneration is effective, at least for the strong-base polyacrylic resin,
with no change in performance for over 20 cycles.
Based on the designs reported in Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH) and University of Houston
(2003) and Case et al. (2004), spent regenerant generation in the pilot tests would be 1.5 to 1.6
percent of treated water (6.4 BV of regenerant/400 to 425 BV of treated water) for the
polyacrylic resin and 1.4 percent of treated water (9 BV of regenerant/625 BV of treated water)
for the polystyrenic resin. Data on spent regenerant generation are not available for the full-scale
operations using conventional treatment configurations, although Betts (1998) reports that
conventional processes (for contaminants other than perchlorate) typically generate 2 to 5
percent brine waste.
One option for increasing the efficiency of regenerating strong-base polystyrenic resins may be
heating the regenerant brine. Based on laboratory experiments, Tripp et al. (2003) found that
perchlorate affinity decreases with increasing temperature for these resins. Based on these results
and computer modeling, they concluded that heating the brine to 40 degrees centigrade would
make the polystyrenic resins equivalent to the polyacrylic resins in terms of quantity of spent
regenerant as a percentage of water treated. Heating to 60 degrees centigrade would make the
polystyrenic resins more efficient than the polyacrylic resins.
Spent brine generated from the regeneration of perchlorate-loaded resins contains high
concentrations of perchlorate. Spent brine might be expected to contain 1.5 to 3.0 mg/L of
18
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
perchlorate (Case et al., 2004). The high perchlorate concentrations may mean that the waste
must be treated prior to disposal. Regenerant treatment can have an additional advantage in that
it may allow for reuse of the regenerant multiple times, reducing the quantity of waste generated.
Appendix A discusses regenerant treatment in more detail.
Spent brine also contains high levels of the competing anions present in the influent water
(nitrate, sulfate, and bicarbonate) (Batista et al., 2003; Berlien, 2003; Montgomery Watson Harza
and University of Houston, 2003). The presence of bicarbonate, in particular, can have practical
implications for waste management. A full-scale system in LaPuente, California, experienced
scaling problems in the waste line due to elevated levels of carbonates and bicarbonates. The
operator began adding hydrochloric acid to the line to lower pH from approximately 8.5 to
approximately 7 and remedy the problem (Berlien, 2003). Case et al. (2004) also reported that
regular maintenance to prevent the build-up of scale was needed in pilot tests.
Regeneration of Selective Resins4
Selective resins are difficult to regenerate and are generally disposed of, rather than regenerated.
As discussed above and shown in Exhibit 2-5, the majority of the full-scale ion exchange
systems, including all but one of those using perchlorate-selective resin, operate on a throwaway
basis. Because of the difficulty regenerating selective resins using conventional brine solutions,
researchers at ORNL have developed a regeneration process for these resins. The process uses
tetrachloroferrate anions (FeCU"), formed in a ferric chloride solution in the presence of an
excess amount of hydrochloric acid or chloride. Because it also has a strong relative affinity, the
tetrachloroferrate anion readily displaces perchlorate from the resin. The tetrachloroferrate anion,
however, also decomposes rapidly as the chloride concentration in solution decreases, converting
to positively charged iron species. The positively charged iron species desorb from the resin by
charge repulsion, leaving the resin in its original state with chloride as the counter anion. After
tetrachloroferrate regeneration, the resin must be rinsed with dilute hydrochloride acid to wash
sorbed ferric ions and excess regenerant off the bed (Gu et al., 2001; 2002). This rinse is
necessary to ensure complete removal of the ferric ions to prevent precipitation of iron
oxyhydroxides that may clog the bed when the resin is reused for treatment after regeneration
(Guetal., 2001).
Gu et al. (2001; 2002) conducted laboratory-scale and small-scale field pilot tests of this
regeneration technology for two types of resin: a commercial nitrate-selective resin and the
perchlorate-selective bifunctional resin. They found that nearly complete regeneration could be
achieved with as little as two BV of regenerant solution (Gu et al., 2002). They also found no
significant deterioration in resin performance after repeated loading and regeneration cycles (Gu
et al., 2001). On the basis that the perchlorate-selective bifunctional resin could treat 40,000 BV
before breakthrough, they calculated spent regenerant generation at less than 0.005 percent of
water treated (Gu et al., 2002). For the nitrate-selective resin, the comparable generation rate
would be 0.014 percent (based on the 14,000 BV to breakthrough they reported for this resin).
Note that these generation rates do not include the dilute acid rinse required following
4 Note that, because it is an emerging technology with as yet limited full-scale application, the novel
tetrachloroferrate regeneration approach discussed in this section is not among the scenarios modeled for cost
estimating purposes in Chapter 7.
19
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
regeneration, which the investigators report requires 20 to 30 BV of less than 0.01 percent
hydrochloric acid (Gu et al., 2001; 2002).
Like conventional brine solutions, spent tetrachloroferrate regenerant is expected to contain high
concentrations of perchlorate. Gu et al. (2002) found that perchlorate concentration peaked at
6,000 mg/L in the regenerant from the nitrate-selective resin and 60,000 mg/L in the regenerant
from the perchlorate-selective bifunctional resin. As for conventional brine solutions, these high
concentrations indicate that treatment of the spent regenerant may be required before disposal or
reuse. Batista et al. (2003) expect that the spent tetrachloroferrate regenerant would also contain
other competing anions, low pH, and high concentrations of iron in the form of Fe+3, which
could have implications for treatment. Appendix A discusses regenerant treatment. Gu et al.
(2002) did not detect perchlorate in the dilute hydrochloric acid rinse solution. They suggest that
this solution could be neutralized with dilute sodium hydroxide and readily mixed with the
treated water or discharged to a publicly owned treatment works.
The ORNL researchers have examined this novel regeneration technology in small-scale field
pilot tests (Gu et al., 2002; 2005). Full-scale application reportedly began at Edwards Air Force
Base in January 2003 (U.S. DoD, 2002), but no data are available on results at this installation.
More recently, Lutes et al. (2010) reported on a field demonstration of the tetrachloroferrate
regeneration approach using full-scale vessel. This study not only involved a larger scale
application than the previous work by Gu et al. (2002; 2005), but also slightly different
parameters (e.g., more bed volumes of tetrachloroferrate, fewer bed volumes of dilute acid).
More recently, laboratory studies have examined the use of biological treatment to remove
perchlorate from exhausted ion exchange resins. Although these studies suggest that
bioregeneration has the potential to be effective for selective resins, the research has not yet
progressed beyond batch experiments (Faccini et al., 2016; Sharbat and Batista, 2013).
Regeneration of Weak-base Resins
Batista et al. (2003; 2000) state that the primary advantage of weak-base resins is that they can
potentially be regenerated using caustic solutions (sodium hydroxide or ammonium hydroxide),
instead of conventional brine solutions. They suggest that this is an advantage because such
solutions may be more amenable to biological treatment. In laboratory tests, they demonstrated
that, while a caustic solution was ineffective in regenerating a weak-base polystyrenic resin,
weak-base polyacrylic resins could be regenerated easily using 1 percent sodium hydroxide,
removing more than 76.5 percent of loaded perchlorate (Batista et al., 2000). Although Batista et
al. (2003) suggest that caustic solutions used for regenerating weak-base resins would have high
pH (greater than 11) and high ammonium concentration (if ammonium hydroxide is used), they
have not published further data on the quantity or characteristics of these spent regenerant
solutions.
Boodoo (2006) indicates that the weak-base resin piloted in Alabama could be regenerated using
a caustic solution, followed by neutralization/protonation of the resin bed with an acid solution.
The quantity of spent caustic solution was estimated to be less than 0.004 percent of water
treated. Later tests showed that the weak-base resins were effectively regenerated using volumes
of regenerant equal to less than 0.03 percent to less than 0.05 percent of water treated (U.S. DoD,
2007; 2008b).
20
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
2.6 Critical Design Parameters
Critical design parameters that are specific to ion exchange systems removing perchlorate are:
• Resin type
• Vessel configuration (i.e., number of vessels in series)
• Empty bed contact time (EBCT)
• Resin bed life
• Surface loading rate
• Regeneration parameters.
Exhibit 2-7 shows values for these parameters used in pilot- and full-scale systems removing
perchlorate. Design data are available in the literature for only a few of the many full-scale
conventional ion exchange applications. Therefore, much of the data presented in Exhibit 2-7
are from pilot-scale tests or are for proposed scale-up units.5
The paragraphs below discuss each of the parameters listed Exhibit 2-7 in more detail. Values
for other ion exchange design parameters (e.g., resin density, resin expansion during backwash,
resin loss during backwash and regeneration), while not specifically addressed in the literature
reviewed here, are well documented for ion exchange treatment in general. EPA has no reason to
expect a significant difference in these parameters for ion exchange systems treating perchlorate.
This section provides a general discussion of the design parameters and the range of values
reported in the literature for these parameters. Chapter 7 identifies the specific values for each
parameter used in EPA's cost estimates.
5 The data shown are for conventional (rather than ISEP) treatment configurations only. Because of its proprietary
nature, available design data for ISEP are limited. Furthermore, facilities developed since 2004 are not using ISEP
for perchlorate removal. Finally, data for ISEP systems would not be applicable in models that simulate
conventional ion exchange configurations.
21
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 2-7. Critical Design Parameters for Ion Exchange Systems
Ion Exchange Critical
Design Parameter
Value from the References
Resin Type
See text.
Vessels
Configuration
Lead-lag configuration in all full-scale applications for which data are available (Drago and Leserman,
2011; Fontana Water Company, 2010; Lu, 2003; Siemens Water Technologies, 2009a; 2009b; 2009d).
Lead-lag configuration in pilot tests and field demonstrations (Boodoo, 2006; Lehman et al., 2008;
ITRC Team, 2008; U.S. DoD, 2007; 2008b).
Gu et al. (1999) recommend lead-lag configuration in proposed scale-up unit.
Tripp et al. (2003) assume parallel operation in model plant designs for cost estimation, but
recommend lead-lag design for nitrate-selective or perchlorate-selective resins.
Empty Bed Contact
Time
Conventional Resins:
6 minutes per vessel in full-scale application at the City of Riverside (Lu, 2003).
2.5 to 4.2 minutes per vessel in model plant designs used for cost estimation (Tripp et al., 2003).
1.5 minutes per column in field pilot tests (Lehman et al., 2008; Montgomery Watson Harza and
University of Houston, 2003).
4 to 6 minutes per column in laboratory column tests (Batista et al., 2000).
Nitrate-selective and Perchlorate-selective Resins:
One resin manufacturer recommends 1.5 minutes per vessel for nitrate-selective resin in full-scale
applications (Boodoo, F. Personal communication. March 2, 2006).
1 minute per column in small-scale field pilot tests of perchlorate-selective resins (Gu et al., 2002).
45 seconds per vessel in proposed scale-up unit for perchlorate-selective resins (Gu et al., 1999).
1.5 minutes per column in pilot tests of perchlorate-selective resins (Blute et al., 2006; Russell et al.,
2008; Wu and Blute, 2010).
Resin bed life
Dependent on resin type and competing anion concentrations. See text.
Surface loading rate
Conventional Resins:
Maximum 9 to 15 gpm per square foot (gpm/ft2) in model plant designs used for cost estimation (Tripp
et al., 2003).
19 gpm/ft2 in field pilot tests (Montgomery Watson Harza and University of Houston, 2003).
9.7 gpm/ft2 in pilot tests (U.S. DoD, 2008b).
Perchlorate-selective Resins:
40 to 50 gpm/ft2 in proposed scale-up unit (Gu et al., 1999).
12 gpm/ft2 in pilot tests (Blute et al., 2006; Russell et al., 2008; Wu and Blute, 2010).
22
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Ion Exchange Critical
Design Parameter
Value from the References
Regenerant loading
rate and application
time
Strong-base Polyacrylic Resins:
3 to 6% sodium hydroxide at 25 lbs/ft3 for 45 minutes followed by 3 BV of rinse in field pilot tests
(Montgomery Watson Harza and University of Houston, 2003).
30 lbs/ft3 in model plant designs used for cost estimation (Tripp et al., 2003).
6% sodium hydroxide at 25 lbs/ft3 in pilot tests (Lehman et al., 2008).
Strong-base Polystyrenic Resins:
6% sodium hydroxide at 35 lbs/ft3 for 63 minutes followed by 3 BV of rinse in field pilot tests
(Montgomery Watson Harza and University of Houston, 2003).
36 lbs/ft3 for partial regeneration and 400 lbs/ft3 for full regeneration in model plant designs used for
cost estimation (Tripp et al., 2003).
Perchlorate-selective Resins:
2 to 4 BV of tetrachloroferrate followed by 20 to 30 BV of dilute hydrochloric acid followed by rinse with
water or dilute bicarbonate (no data on loading rates) in small-scale field pilot tests (Gu et al., 2002).
6 BV of tetrachloroferrate, 14 BV of dilute hydrochloric acid, 21 BV rinse with water/ dilute bicarbonate
in field demonstration (Lutes et al., 2010).
2.6.1 Resin Type
As discussed in Section 2.1, a variety of resin types have been tested for perchlorate removal.
The selection of resin type will affect most other critical design parameter values. Exhibit 2-7
and the paragraphs below present data for all major resin categories. As discussed in Section 2.2
and shown in Exhibit 2-5, however, perchlorate-selective resin appears to have become the
technology of choice for modern perchlorate ion exchange facilities when perchlorate is the only
contaminant of concern. Thus, where possible, the discussion focuses on parameters specific to
perchlorate-selective resins.
2.6.2 Vessel Configuration
Ion exchange vessels can be configured in series or in parallel. In a parallel configuration, one or
more vessels are in use, while other vessels are being regenerated or are on standby (Clifford,
1999). Influent water to be treated is divided equally among the operational vessels. Systems set
in parallel are generally used to increase throughput. For contaminants that are difficult to
remove (such as perchlorate), however, a series configuration can be effective to achieve a
greater resin bed life (Boodoo, 2003; Gu et al., 1999). A series configuration allows for operation
of the first vessel to a later point on the breakthrough curve because the second vessel can
capture the initial breakthrough concentrations from the first vessel, keeping the final treated
water from the system below a specified target concentration. As discussed above, series
configurations are also known as "lead-lag" designs. As shown in Exhibit 2-7, series (lead-lag)
operation is generally recommended for perchlorate removal.
2.6.3 Empty Bed Contact Time
EBCT is defined as the volume of resin, including voids, divided by the flow rate. The minimum
EBCT required varies depending on the specific contaminant treated, the required contaminant
removal percentage, the type of resin used, and other influent water characteristics (e.g., the
presence of competing chemical species). In general, the EBCT for ion exchange removal of
23
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
conventional anions (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, arsenic) usually ranges between 1.5 and 7 minutes
per vessel. As shown in Exhibit 2-7, recommended EBCTs for perchlorate removal using
conventional resins span this range, mostly falling in the middle to upper end of the range.
Selective resins (particularly perchlorate-selective resins), however, remain effective at higher
flow rates, which correspond to shorter EBCTs. For example, perchlorate-selective resins can be
employed at flow rates of 0.5 to 4 BV per minute (Gu et al., 1999; 2001; 2002).
Correspondingly, recommended EBCTs for perchlorate-selective resins shown in Exhibit 2-7
are 1.5 minutes per vessel and less.
2.6.4 Surface Loading Rate
Loading rate is the velocity of flow through the resin measured in units of flow rate per unit area
(e.g., gpm/ft2). The surface area of the treatment pressure vessels must be selected to maintain
loading rates within reasonable bounds. As shown in Exhibit 2-7, perchlorate-selective resins
may have the potential to remain effective at higher maximum loading rates than conventional
resins, although the data remain somewhat uncertain.
2.6.5 Resin Bed Life
Section 2.3 provides a detailed discussion of resin capacity (or bed life), which varies depending
on resin type and water quality. Exhibit 2-6 in that section shows detailed data from the
literature on resin life. The capacities presented in Exhibit 2-6 can be extended by series (lead-
lag) operation. On the other hand, these capacities can be limited by breakthrough or peaking of
co-contaminants.
2.6.6 Regeneration Parameters
Regeneration parameters determine the concentration and quantity of chemicals (i.e., chloride
brine or tetrachloroferrate solution) required to restore a resin's capacity to remove perchl orate.
They also determine the quantity of waste regenerant generated. As discussed in Section 2.5,
regeneration requirements depend on the type of resin used. Exhibit 2-7 shows the available data
on regeneration parameters that might be applicable if a system chose to regenerate its resin. As
discussed in Section 2.5 and shown in Exhibit 2-5, however, the majority of full-scale ion
exchange systems operate on a throwaway basis.
24
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
3 Biological Treatment
3.1 Operating Principle
Biological treatment of perchlorate is the process by which bacteria are used to reduce
perchlorate to chlorate, chlorite, chloride, and oxygen. Biological treatment offers complete
destruction of the perchlorate ion, eliminating the need for management of perchlorate-bearing
waste streams. While there have been a wide variety of laboratory and pilot-scale tests exploring
perchlorate treatment using bioreactors, the number of full-scale designs is still very limited.
The fundamental physical and chemical nature of perchlorate complicates the biological
treatment process. Common reducing agents do not reduce perchlorate, and common cations do
not precipitate it (Urbansky, 1998). Despite its strength as an oxidizing agent, the perchlorate ion
is slow to react due to the presence of the highly-oxidized central halogen atom, chlorine (VII).
This low reactivity, however, is a matter of kinetics rather that thermodynamics. Urbansky
(1998) reports the standard half reactions for reductions to chloride (Eq 1) and chlorate (Eq 2)
are favorable processes from a thermodynamic standpoint:
Eq 1 CIO4 + 8 H+ + 8 e <-» CI- + 4 H20 E° = 1.287 V
Eq 2 CIO4 + 2 H+ + 2 e <-» CIO3 + H20 E° = 1.201 V
Therefore, the key to reducing perchlorate is finding the right catalyst. Coates et al. (2000) report
that the scientific literature has evidence of the microbially-catalyzed reduction of chlorine
oxyanions (a group to which perchlorate belongs) dating back over half a century. More recently,
Coates et al. (2000), Logan (2001), and others have enumerated perchlorate-reducing bacteria
(PRB) in a broad spectrum of environments nationwide, and demonstrated that the microbial
reduction of perchlorate is a much more ubiquitous and diverse metabolism than previously
considered.
According to Xu et al. (2003), researchers have isolated and characterized many PRB. These
microorganisms are all facultative anaerobes and are capable of reducing both perchlorate and
chlorate to chloride for energy and growth. Although reduction does not take place (or at least
not very quickly) in the presence of a high concentration of dissolved oxygen (DO), most PRB
isolates can use oxygen as a terminal electron acceptor. Many PRB partially or completely
reduce nitrate. The presence of nitrate usually decreases the rate of perchlorate reduction (until
the nitrate is depleted). Most PRB do not reduce sulfate, and none (thus far) use Fe(III), another
common component of ground water, as an electron acceptor. Marqusee (2001) presented a
summary of electron acceptor use in groundwater samples collected from several locations with
varying levels of nitrate (<1.2 to 59 mg/L), perchlorate (9.8 to 666 mg/L), and sulfate (15 to
1,620 mg/L). Generally, the microbial consortia preferred these electron acceptors in the
following order:
nitrate > perchlorate > sulfate
Researchers have isolated both heterotrophic and autotrophic PRB (Xu et al., 2003). Many
studies have used acetate or ethanol as a single substrate (also referred to as the electron donor or
"food") for heterotrophic perchlorate reduction; however, optimal substrate use is strain-
25
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
dependent. Many studies have also used supplemented nitrogen and phosphorus as necessary
nutrients for the growth of PRB. There is no definitive information on what trace nutrients or
metals are needed for growth. In one instance reported in Xu et al. (2003), researchers found
iron, molybdenum, and selenium in purified perchlorate reductase. Chaudhuri et al. (2002)
established that the PRB Dechlorosoma suillum did not reduce perchlorate without the presence
of molybdenum. Several field studies presented later in this chapter achieved perchlorate
degradation simply through the addition of an oxidizable substrate (e.g. acetate or ethanol) and
nitrogen and phosphorous.
Exhibit 3-1 represents the three-step mechanism now widely accepted for bacterial respiration
using perchlorate, which sequentially produces chlorate, chlorite, and chloride and oxygen (Xu et
al., 2003). While researchers believe perchlorate reductase and chlorite dismutase are the central
enzymes catalyzing the reactions, they are not sure if PRB use these enzymes exclusively or use
a broader range of enzymes for perchlorate and chlorate reduction.
Exhibit 3-1. Biological Perchlorate Reduction Pathway
Electron donor
COz> H20, Biomass
Electron donor
C02, H20, Biomass
Electron donor
C02, HzO, Biomass
Aerobic Pathway
Biological treatment technologies that take advantage of the mechanism shown in Exhibit 3-1
include:
• heterotrophic fixed bed (or packed bed) reactors
• fluidized bed reactors
• membrane biofilm reactors
• autotrophic hydrogen reactors
• continuously-stirred tank reactors
• in situ permeable biological barrier
• in situ electron donor delivery
• phytoremediation.
The most promising designs for biological treatment of perchlorate at drinking water facilities
are those that operate either in a fixed bed or fluidized bed configuration. The California
Department of Public Health (CDPH) also has identified membrane biofilm reactors as a
CIO3"
P
CI02"
I
CI" + 02
26
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
"promising" technology for perchlorate treatment (Meyer, 2012). The first approved, full-scale
membrane biofilm system for nitrate removal began operation in California in 2011 (Friese et al,
2013). Full-scale experience with the technology for perchlorate treatment, however, is limited.
The literature indicates that in situ and other technologies are not currently used with the intent to
create potable water supplies. Therefore, the remainder of this chapter focuses on the first two
technologies listed above (fixed bed and fluidized bed reactors).
Both fixed bed and fluidized bed designs involve a media bed that provides a surface on which
the PRB grows. The PRB can be initially introduced to the reactor with cell cultures, or the
system can rely on natural populations of PRB. Drinking water systems typically rely on natural
populations. Lab studies have used a variety of media in effectively reducing perchlorate,
including granular activated carbon (GAC), anthracite, sand, and plastic media. Full-scale
designs for perchlorate treatment have primarily used GAC. For fixed bed reactors, influent
water is typically passed under pressure through a static media bed located in a vessel. An
alternative fixed bed design is to use a gravity-fed concrete basin to hold the biologically active
media. Fluidized bed bioreactor designs use vessels where flow, including a recycled portion, is
pumped into the reactor at high rates in an up-flow design, fluidizing the media bed and allowing
for more surface area for biomass growth. Exhibit 3-2 and Exhibit 3-3 provide schematic
drawings for fixed bed and fluidized bed biological treatment, respectively.
Exhibit 3-2. Typical Schematic Layout for Fixed Bed Biological Treatment
27
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 3-3, Typical Schematic Layout for Fluidized Bed Biological Treatment
3.2 Effectiveness for Perchlorate Removal
The State of California has identified fluidized bed biological treatment (along with ion
exchange) as one of two BATs for achieving compliance with its standard for perchlorate in
drinking water (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Chapter 15, Section 64447.2). The
literature contains substantial evidence of biologically-based technologies capable of reducing
perchlorate to low levels in water. Exhibit 3-4 summarizes the removal efficiencies reported in
the literature. It shows that fixed and fluidized bed reactors have consistently achieved removal
efficiencies greater than 90 percent, reducing perchlorate to levels that are usually below
detection.
28
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 3-4. Perchlorate Effectiveness Results for Biological Treatment
Removal
Efficiency
Resulting
Concentration
(M9/L)
Scale and
Reactor Type
Other Analytes
(mg/L)
Media / Electron
Donor
Data Source(s)
>99%
<4
Bench-scale fixed
bed
None
Sand / Acetate
Kim and Logan, 2000
>99%
<4
Bench-scale fixed
bed
Nitrate (0.02),
sulfate (0.04)
Celite / Acetate
Losi etal., 2002
>98%
<3
Bench-scale fixed
bed
Nitrate (13),
sulfate (9.3
to16.8)
GAC / Acetic acid or
proprietary
carbohydrate
solution
Upadhyaya etal., 2015
>94%
<4
Bench-scale fixed
bed
Nitrate (4)
Sand, plastic media
/ Acetic acid
Min et al., 2004; Case et al.,
2004
>93%
<5
Full-scale fixed
bed (a)
Nitrate
GAC / Acetic acid
U.S. DoD, 2008a
>92%
<4
Bench-scale fixed
bed
Sulfate (0 to 220)
GAC/ Acetate or
ethanol
Brown etal., 2003
92% to
99%
<4
Field-scale fixed
bed (d)
Sulfate (140 to
250), Nitrate (6 to
29), DO (4 to 8)
GAC / Acetic acid
Brown etal., 2005; ITRC
Team, 2008
>99%
<0.5
Full-scale fluidized
bed (a)
Various
GAC / Acetic acid
U.S. DoD, 2009; Webster
and Crowley, 2010; 2016;
Webster and Litchfield, 2017
>99%
<5
Bench-scale
fluidized bed
Nitrate, metals,
volatile organics
GAC / Acetic acid
Polk etal., 2001
>99%
220 to 280
Bench-scale
fluidized bed
Nitrate (15.4),
sulfate (12.5)
GAC / Acetate or
proprietary glycerol
solution
Kotlarzet al., 2016
>99%
350 to <4
Full-scale fluidized
bed (b)
Nitrate (1.9),
sulfate (300)
GAC / Acetic acid,
ethanol
Polk etal., 2001
>99%
<2
Bench-scale
fluidized bed
Sulfate (5 to 10)
GAC, sand /
Ethanol, methanol,
or mix
Greene and Pitre, 2000
>99%
<4
Full-scale fluidized
bed (c)
Not reported
GAC / Ethanol
Greene and Pitre, 2000
>97%
<6
Bench-scale
fluidized bed
Nitrate (13),
sulfate (9.3 to
16.8)
GAC / Acetic acid or
proprietary
carbohydrate
solution
Upadhyaya etal., 2015
92 to 98%
<4
Field-scale
fluidized bed (e)
Various
GAC / Ethanol
Gilbert etal., 2001; Harding
Engineering and
Environmental Services,
2001
Motes:
a. Rialto Well #2 site in Rialto, California
b. Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant in Karnak, Texas
c. Aerojet facility in Rancho Cordova, California
d. Six-month field test in Santa Clarita, California
e. Eight-month field test in Rancho Cordova, California, supplying water for potable use
29
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
The two full-scale systems identified in Exhibit 3-4 are perchlorate remediation projects.
Treated water from these facilities is not used as drinking water. One of the pilot-scale studies in
Exhibit 3-4, however, was an eight-month field test that supplied potable water to local water
companies (Gilbert et al., 2001; Harding Engineering and Environmental Services, 2001).
Furthermore, the success of the demonstration studies in Rialto led to the design and installation
of a full-scale fluidized bed system supplying drinking water to the West Valley Water District
and the City of Rialto (Webster and Crowley, 2010; 2016; Webster and Litchfield, 2017).
Section 3.2.1 provides additional details regarding the two systems designed to produce
municipal drinking water (the permanent full-scale Rialto and West Valley facility and the
Aerojet demonstration). Section 3.2.2 discusses several other large-scale treatment systems.
3.2.1 Biological Treatment for Municipal Drinking Water Supply
Rialto Well #6 and West Valley Well #11, Rialto, California. As a result of the successful
full-scale demonstration at Rialto Well #2 (see Section 3.2.2), Envirogen installed a full-scale
fluidized bed treatment system designed to supply drinking water from two other nearby wells to
West Valley Water District and the City of Rialto. The system is sited on a former landfill and
initially designed to treat 3 million gallons per day (MGD), with an ultimate capacity of 6 MGD
so that water from additional wells might be treated in the future.
Envirogen completed construction in 2013 and the system underwent extensive testing before
receiving its operating permit and beginning to produce drinking water in 2016. The system
includes two 14-foot diameter, 24-foot tall bioreactor vessels followed by two 12-foot diameter,
24-foot tall aeration vessels. The bioreactors include a unique system of biomass separators at
the surface of the vessels. The separators remove excess biomass that detaches from the media
with air scour and agitation.
Additional post-treatment includes two multimedia filters with a dissolved air floatation system
for removing solids from filter backwash, followed by chlorination. This additional post-
treatment is designed to replicate the surface water treatment process that West Valley Water
District operates at another location and satisfy the permit requirement that the biological
treatment system meet the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment rule. The permit requirements
also include instrumentation and controls (chlorine, pH, nitrate, sulfide, total organic carbon, and
turbidity) to monitor performance (Webster and Crowley, 2016; Webster and Litchfield, 2017).
Aerojet Field Test, Rancho Cordova, California. Aerojet conducted an eight-month field test
at its facility in Rancho Cordova, California (where the company also operates the full-scale
fluidized bed-based system described in 3.2.2) of a treatment system that included a fluidized
bed biological reactor. The system removed perchlorate, nitrate, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), NDMA, and 1,4-dioxane from contaminated groundwater and supplied the treated
water to local water companies for potable use (Harding Engineering and Environmental
Services, 2001).
In addition to the fluidized bed reactor (designed to remove perchlorate and nitrate), the other
components of the system were a multimedia filter (to remove biomass and GAC fines), an air
stripper (for VOC removal), ultraviolet light/chemical oxidation (for other contaminant removal),
liquid phase GAC adsorption (for other contaminant removal), disinfection (for potable water
30
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
supply requirements), and clarification (for filter backwash) (Harding Engineering and
Environmental Services, 2001).
The bioreactor component of the treatment system targeted perchlorate and nitrate. The total
design flow rate of the fluidized bed reactor used during the field study was 1,800 gpm, which
was the flow rate required to maintain the required fluidization of the GAC media. Bioreactor
forward flow was variable depending on the desired recycle rate. For example, a forward flow
rate of 1,200 gpm results in a recycle rate of 600 gpm (Harding Engineering and Environmental
Services, 2001). To control fluidized bed level, a biofilm control system sheared excess biomass
from the GAC and discharged cleaned GAC and biomass back into the reactor.
A panel of treatment experts convened by Aerojet to review results from the study concluded the
following about the performance of the Aerojet Baldwin Park Operable Unit (BPOU) system
(Gilbert et al., 2001):
• This combination of treatment processes removed all target chemicals below regulatory
standards needed to meet potable water requirements.
• Each of the treatment processes met desired removal efficiencies in a reliable manner.
• The overall process was stable when the optimum ethanol dosage was maintained.
Investigators sampled water quality throughout the post-treatment process to evaluate the fate of
excess biomass leaving the bioreactor. Specifically, they examined assimilable organic carbon,
biodegradable dissolved organic carbon, and heterotrophic plate counts. Based on these analyses,
they concluded that bacterial re-growth in the water distribution system would not be significant.
The expert panel noted, however, that researchers did not solve the problem of cleaning
excessive biomass from the GAC media. The episodic nature of the current cleaning process
created problems of excessive biosolids loading on the subsequent filter that impacted water
quality (Gilbert et al., 2001).
3.2.2 Other Large-Scale Biological Treatment Systems
Rialto Well #2, Rialto, California. Basin Water Inc. and Carollo Engineers Inc. both installed
bioreactors as part of a perchlorate treatability field study Rialto, California. These reactors
treated water from Well #2, which had been abandoned because of perchlorate contamination
(Webster and Litchfield, 2017). Carollo Engineers installed and operated two parallel fixed-bed
bioreactors for nitrate and perchlorate removal in a study, conducted over a 10 month period
starting in February 2007, with the goal of producing treated water that met all drinking water
standards. The treatment process consisted of parallel packed bed bioreactors with a 2 foot
diameter and 4.7 foot bed-depth, followed by hydrogen peroxide dosing and biofiltration. The
final step of the treatment process included chlorine disinfection. The bioreactor was subjected to
various perchlorate spiking tests and consistently was able to treat to below detection limits for
perchlorate for spiking concentrations up to 930 |ig/L. The study showed that fixed-bed reactors,
in combination with post-treatment processes, are a cost-effective way to produce potable water
with perchlorate concentrations below detectable levels (U.S. DoD, 2008a).
Basin Water installed a full-size fluidized bed bioreactor at the same Rialto well location and
tested the reactor under various operating conditions between 2007 and 2008. The purpose of the
31
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
study was to test and validate the following items as they pertain to drinking water treatment
(U.S. DoD, 2009; Webster and Crowley, 2010; Webster and Litchfield, 2017):
• ex situ bioremediation of nitrate and low concentrations of perchlorate though a fluidized bed
reactor
• the short-term and long-term performance effects in allowing the system to be self-inoculated
with incoming groundwater versus manually inoculating with a non-pathogenic microbial
consortium
• short-term performance effects in the simulation of both a feed pump failure and an electrical
shutdown
• the use of a post aeration vessel, multimedia filter, and GAC to produce to produce potable-
like effluent water stream
• operational effectiveness of on-line nitrate and perchlorate analyzer systems
• long-term monitoring of system robustness and performance under steady-state and spiking
perchlorate concentrations.
The Basin Water field study utilized acetic acid as the electron donor for a single fluidized bed
reactor. The average flow rate into the reactor was 50 gpm. In steady-state operation, the system
consistently treated perchlorate to less than 0.5 |ig/L at varying influent concentrations and flow
rates (Webster and Litchfield, 2017). Spiking studies showed that the maximum perchlorate
concentration that could be consistently treated through the fluidized bed at a flow rate of 25
gpm was 4,000 |ig/L of perchlorate, with 99.65 percent removal. The study also examined
various system shut-down scenarios and proved that the fluidized bed reactor, in combination
with other post-treatment processes, could treat perchlorate-contaminated groundwater to meet
drinking water quality standards. The fluidized bed reactor system was able to effectively clean
biosolids and maintain a consistent fluidized bed height, though the process was not described in
detail (U.S. DoD, 2009). Operating costs were demonstrated to be $125 to $150 per acre foot
treated. The success of the study led to the design and installation of the full-scale system
producing drinking water from Rialto Well #6 and West Valley Well #11 (see Section 3.2.1)
(Webster and Crowley, 2010; Webster and Litchfield, 2017).
Aerojet Facility, Rancho Cordova, California. Aerojet installed four fluidized bed reactors
with GAC media designed and supplied by Envirogen, Inc. Envirogen designed the system to
treat up to 8 mg/L of perchlorate with a loading rate of 44 pounds per day per 1,000 cubic feet of
reactor volume. Each reactor has a design capacity of 1,800 gpm. Since its installation in 1998,
Aerojet has operated this system at about 3,500 gpm (less than 900 gpm per reactor), treating
concentrations of about 3,500 |ig/L perchlorate to non-detect levels (less than 4 |ig/L). Aerojet
uses ethanol as the electron donor, and they re-inject the treated water into an underlying aquifer.
Envirogen selected GAC media (versus sand) on the basis of pilot-testing results (Greene and
Pitre, 2000).
Longhorn Army Ammunitions Plant, Karnack, Texas. U.S. Filter/Envirex and Envirogen
developed and supplied a full-scale 50 gpm fluidized bed reactor with GAC media and acetic
acid/nutrients addition to treat perchlorate-contaminated groundwater. After start up and
acclimation, the system treats perchlorate concentrations of up to 35 mg/L (16.5 mg/L on
average), reducing them to at least the target goal of 350 |ig/L, and routinely to below the 5 |ig/L
32
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
analytical reporting limit. The system discharges treated water to a nearby stream (Polk et al.,
2001).
Kerr-McGee and Pepcon Facilities, Henderson, Nevada. Full-scale fluidized bed reactors
were installed to remove perchlorate at these two nearby remediation sites. The system at the
Kerr-McGee site began operation in 2004, replacing ion exchange systems, and was expanded in
2006 to remove approximately 3,000 pounds per day of perchlorate from groundwater. The
system at the Pepcon site began operation in 2012, replacing an in-situ bioremediation system. It
is designed to remove approximately 1,000 pounds per day of perchlorate (Roefer, 2013).
3.3 Raw Water Quality Considerations
As shown in Exhibit 3-4, biological treatment remains effective even in the presence of certain
co-occurring contaminants. Nitrate and sulfate were present in nearly all of the studies and did
not appear to interfere with the removal efficiency of the process. Biological treatment also has
been shown effective in the presence of metals, volatile organic compounds, and other
contaminants including NDMA and 1,4-dioxane (Harding Engineering and Environmental
Services, 2001; Polk et al., 2001; U.S. DoD, 2000).
Nevertheless, raw water quality plays a role in the design of a biological treatment system. In
identifying design criteria for use in full-scale treatment plant designs, the Harding Engineering
and Environmental Services (2001) authors included expected raw water dissolved oxygen,
nitrate, perchlorate, and total phosphorous concentrations as necessary considerations, along with
water temperature. In particular, temperature plays an important role in determining the rate of
biomass growth. Electron donor dose requirements increase with decreasing temperature. At
temperatures below 10 degrees C, biomass growth is inhibited and bioremediation becomes
unfeasible (Dugan et al., 2011; Dugan et al., 2009).
In addition, bacteria in bioreactors require macro- and micro-nutrients in order to grow and
effectively reduce perchlorate. Thus, concentrations of these nutrients in the raw water are a
consideration in bioreactor effectiveness. Macro-nutrients include phosphorous and nitrogen, and
necessary micro-nutrients include sulfur and iron. While source water typically contains
sufficient micro-nutrients, it often has insufficient amounts of phosphorous or nitrogen to allow
for bacterial growth. As a result, some full-scale designs have required supplemental addition of
one or both of these nutrients (Harding Engineering and Environmental Services, 2001; U.S.
DoD, 2008a; 2009).
3.4 Pre- and Post-Treatment Needs
Although the literature did not contain any studies that examine pre-treatment of source waters
prior to biological treatment, certain groundwater conditions require pre-conditioning. For
example, acidic ground water is not compatible with either robust microbial growth or common
metallic system construction materials. In such cases, operators must raise the pH level prior to
treatment. Consequently, some carbonates, sulfides, and oxides less soluble at neutral a pH might
precipitate out and require filtration.
To produce drinking water from an impacted source, some form of multi-barrier system,
beginning with biological treatment, may be necessary. For example, the treatment train used at
33
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
the Aerojet BPOU to create potable water consists of seven different unit processes, as described
in Section 3.2. Furthermore, biological treatment itself results in the production of soluble
microbial organic products that become part of the treated water. Some of this material is
biodegradable, and the microorganisms (at least in the case of perchlorate and nitrate reduction)
tend to be the normal soil bacteria that are involved in the natural nitrogen cycle and common in
all agricultural soils (Gilbert et al., 2001). In addition, the biological treatment process also
depletes the levels of oxygen in the treated water. Therefore, post-treatment will typically be
required for production of drinking water. Typical post-treatment processes include
(Dordelmann, 2009; Harding Engineering and Environmental Services, 2001; U.S. DoD, 2008a;
Webster and Crowley, 2016; Webster and Litchfield, 2017):
• reoxygenation or aeration for saturation with oxygen, using hydrogen peroxide addition or an
aeration tank
• a polishing filter (using GAC or mixed media) for removal of turbidity, sulfide, and/or
dissolved organic content, possibly including coagulant addition before filtration
• disinfection via ultraviolet light or chlorination.
3.5 Waste Generation and Residuals Management Needs
Because biological treatment offers complete destruction of the perchlorate ion, the technology
does not generate a perchlorate-bearing waste stream. An active bioreactor, however, will have a
continuous growth of biomass resulting from consumption of dissolved oxygen, nitrates, and
perchlorate. In most bioreactor designs, excess biomass must be removed periodically. This
removal results in one or more residual streams, the characteristics of which depend on the
removal process used.
In fixed bed bioreactors, biomass removal typically is accomplished using a backwash process,
which generates spent backwash water containing the excess biosolids (and some lost media).
This backwash water is non-toxic and can typically be discharged to a local sewer. For facilities
without the option of sewer disposal, a clarification and recycle process would be needed (U.S.
DoD, 2008a). For fluidized bed reactors, one case study describes the use of a continuously
operated separation device that uses supplied air to remove media and biomass from the top of
the bed and direct it to a separation chamber. This arrangement was used in combination with an
in-bed eductor to intermittently remove biomass growth from deeper in the bed. After treatment
through an adsorption clarifier and multimedia filter, the study reports that the remaining
residuals were "dilute enough that no special handling or pretreatment requirements should be
necessary for most/all publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) to accept" (U.S. DoD, 2009).
Downstream polishing through filtration (see Section 3.4), when used as post-treatment, can also
generate residual wastes in the form of backwash water and separated solids. The authors of the
Harding ESE (2001) report suggest that clarifier solids could be discharged directly to sewer or
filter pressed to reduce volume prior to ultimate disposal. The full-scale drinking water treatment
facility in Rialto uses dissolved air floatation, followed by a sludge press, to treat backwash from
post-treatment filtration (Webster and Litchfield, 2017). Backwash water from downstream
polishing would be expected to have characteristics similar to water from direct backwash of a
fixed bed reactor.
34
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
In addition, biological treatment can itself be a treatment technology for residuals from other
perchlorate removal technologies, such as spent ion exchange regenerant or membrane reject.
Appendix A discusses this use of biological treatment.
3.6 Critical Design Parameters
Critical design parameters for biological treatment systems removing perchl orate are:
• Support media type
• EBCT or hydraulic residence time (HRT)
• Bed expansion (for fluidized bed reactors)
• Electron donor type and dosage
• Nutrient addition
• Backwash and biomass separation design
• Recycle rate (for fluidized bed reactors)
• Post-treatment requirements.
The paragraphs below discuss each of these parameters in more detail. As noted in Section 3.1,
fixed bed and fluidized bed reactors are the most promising approaches for drinking water
treatment. Therefore, this section focuses on design parameters specific to these two types of
biological treatment system. Three of the full-scale studies (Harding Engineering and
Environmental Services, 2001; U.S. DoD, 2008a; 2009) identified critical design criteria for
these types of reactors and were instrumental in guiding the discussion here. This section
provides a general discussion of the design parameters and the range of values reported in the
literature for these parameters. Chapter 7 identifies the specific values for each parameter used in
EPA's cost estimates.
3.6.1 Support Media Type
As discussed in Section 3.1, in both fixed and fluidized bed reactors, PRB require a media
surface on which to grow. As shown in Exhibit 3-4, studies have used a variety of media in
effectively reducing perchlorate, including GAC, anthracite, sand, and plastic media. Full-scale
designs for perchlorate treatment, however, have primarily used GAC (Greene and Pitre, 2000;
Harding Engineering and Environmental Services, 2001; Polk et al., 2001; U.S. DoD, 2008a;
2009).
3.6.2 Empty Bed Contact Time or Hydraulic Residence Time
EBCT is defined as the volume of support media divided by the flow rate. Minimum EBCT
needed in order for perchlorate to be fully reduced is the primary design parameter in sizing
fixed bed bioreactor vessels. For fluidized bed bioreactors, HRT is the more accurate term for the
primary design parameter. HRT is the time required for treated water to move through the
fluidized media bed. For larger flows, multiple bioreactors will be operated in parallel. Typical
full-scale bioreactor designs have an EBCT or HRT in the range of 10 to 12 minutes for both
fixed bed (U.S. DoD, 2008a) and fluidized bed reactors (Harding Engineering and
Environmental Services, 2001).
35
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
3.6.3 Bed Expansion
For fluidized bed bioreactors, an additional important vessel sizing consideration is bed
expansion. Target bed expansions are used to determine the height of the vessels. Peer review of
EPA's biological treatment cost model (see Chapter 7) provided information on typical bed
expansion values. Typically, the vessel is filled with a fixed bed depth of media and initially
fluidized to 40 to 50 percent. As the biomass grows, the fluidized media bed expands to 70
percent of the initial fixed bed depth. Biomass separation maintains expansion at this target level.
Additional space at the top of the vessel provides a safety factor to prevent fluidized media from
exiting the reactor.
3.6.4 Electron Donor Type and Dosage
As discussed above, bioreactor designs require the presence of an electron donor (or substrate)
for the reduction of perchlorate. For fixed bed bioreactors, electron donors are injected into the
influent water prior to entering the bioreactor. In fluidized bed bioreactors, injection typically
occurs in the recycle stream. As shown in Exhibit 3-4, a wide variety of electron donors have
been tested, including acetate, acetic acid, lactate, ethanol, methanol, carbohydrate by-product,
hydrogen, propane, and proprietary glycerol- or carbohydrate-based solutions. Full-scale designs
for perchlorate treatment, however, have typically used acetic acid or ethanol (Greene and Pitre,
2000; Harding Engineering and Environmental Services, 2001; Polk et al., 2001; U.S. DoD,
2008a; 2009).
Determining the correct electron donor dose is critical in the effectiveness of perchlorate
reduction in the bioreactor. Since oxygen and nitrates will be reduced prior to perchlorate
reduction, the electron donor dose must be large enough to fully reduce all three. However, the
dose cannot be too large or sulfides might form and be present in the effluent along with excess
organic carbon, requiring additional post-treatment (Harding Engineering and Environmental
Services, 2001).
Electron donor dose is dependent on site-specific conditions, including raw water characteristics.
Therefore, determining the dose requirements for the electron donor typically requires pilot study
tests, along with stoichiometric and thermodynamic calculations. The following site-specific
relationships were developed for two full-scale treatment designs using ethanol and acetic acid:
Ce = 0.903 02 + 2.229 N03"-N + 0.581 C104"
(Harding Engineering and Environmental Services, 2001)
Caa = 02 + 2.86 NO3--N + 0.64 CIO4-
(U.S. DoD, 2008a)
where:
Ce = required ethanol concentration (mg/L)
Caa = required acetic acid concentration (mg/L)
N03"-N = influent nitrate-nitrogen concentration (mg/L)
O2 = influent DO concentration (mg/L)
CIO4" = influent perchlorate concentration (mg/L)
36
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
As can be seen in these stoichiometric equations, influent concentrations of oxygen, nitrate-
nitrogen, and perchlorate need to be available to determine the electron dose. Tests have proven
that the electron donor dose is dependent on temperature and that decreasing the water
temperature will result in an increase in necessary electron donor dose. However, these small
changes are in the range of 3 percent change of dose for a 5 degrees C change (Harding
Engineering and Environmental Services, 2001).
3.6.5 Nutrient Addition
As discussed in Section 3.3, bacteria in bioreactors require nutrients. Although these nutrients are
sometimes present in source water, full-scale designs have required addition of macro-nutrient
such as nitrogen and/or phosphorous. While there are a number of methods for adding nitrogen
and phosphorous to the influent, the typical options are addition of ammonium chloride for
supplemental nitrogen addition and/or addition of phosphoric acid for supplemental phosphorous
(Harding Engineering and Environmental Services, 2001; U.S. DoD, 2008a).
3.6.6 Backwash and Biomass Separation Design
As discussed in Section 3.5, bioreactors require periodic removal of accumulated biomass.
Removal of the biomass is achieved in different ways depending on the bioreactor design type.
For fixed bed bioreactors, an air scour is used followed by water flush to remove biomass from
the media. A backwash basin and pump is needed to supply the water for backwashing. This
backwash design is similar to that used in other treatment technologies, such as GAC and
greensand filtration. Typical fixed bed bioreactors have a backwash interval in the range of 17 to
24 hours, determined based on target head across the media bed (U.S. DoD, 2008a).
For fluidized bed bioreactors, the expanded bed volume within the fluidized bed reactor will
continue to expand as biomass accumulates. This expansion occurs because the specific density
of the media plus biomass is less than that of the media alone. It becomes necessary to dislodge
biomass growth from the media, thus increasing the specific density and decreasing the fluidized
bed volume. Effective methods and equipment for biomass separation include mechanical
separation of biomass using eductors or using air scour to sheer the biomass from the media.
The amount of air required for biomass separation is around 0.3 cubic feet per hour per gpm of
treated water (U.S. DoD, 2009).
3.6.7 Recycle Rate
Designs of fluidized bed reactors use high pumping rates to keep the media in the bioreactor
fluidized. A recycle stream is typically used to provide enough water to satisfy these pumping
rates. Since feed pumping rates also determine the expansion height of the media bed, the recycle
rate must be limited so that the feed pumping rate doesn't expand the fluidized media past the
target height. A typical recycle rate, based on peer review comments on EPA's biological
treatment cost model (see Chapter 7), is 50 percent.
3.6.8 Post-treatment Requirements
Section 3.4 identifies post-treatment processes typically required for biological treatment, which
can include reoxygenation, filtration, and disinfection.
37
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
4 Membrane Technologies
4.1 Operating Principle
Membrane filtration processes physically remove perchlorate ions from drinking water. This
technique does not destroy the perchlorate ion and, therefore, creates a subsequent need for
disposal or treatment of perchlorate-contaminated waste. Membrane filtration technologies
evaluated for perchlorate treatment include reverse osmosis (RO), nanofiltration (NF), and
ultrafiltration (UF).
These processes separate a solute such as perchlorate ions from a solution by forcing the solvent
to flow through a membrane at pressure. RO depends on applying high pressures across the
membrane in the range of roughly 100 to 1,000 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) in order to
overcome the osmotic pressure differential between the saline feed and product waters. The NF
process uses pressures in the range of 75 to 150 psig, while pressures for UF typically range from
3 to 40 psig (USEPA, 2003).
In all three processes, the membrane is semi-permeable, transporting different molecular species
at different rates. Water and low-molecular weight solutes pass through the membrane and are
removed as permeate, or filtrate. Dissolved and suspended solids are rejected by the membrane.
Along with a portion of the feed water, these solids are removed as concentrate, or reject. The
size range of the rejected solids varies by the type of membrane used, as shown in Exhibit 4-1.
Exhibit 4-1. Particle Sizes and Membrane Process Ranges
-Aqueous salts
Viruses
-Metal ions
-Giardia cyst
Bacteria
A
10°
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
A0
|am
1(M
10-3
10-2
10-1
10°
101
102
103
|am
mm
1(F
10-6
10-f
104
10-3
10-2
10"1
10°
mm
ATOMIC RANGE
COLLOIDAL RANGE
MACROSCOPIC RANGE
Reverse
Osmosis
Ultrafiltration
Particle Filtration
Nano-
filtration
Microfiltration
After Dow (2005) and AWWA (2011)
Membranes may remove ions from feed water by a sieving action (called steric exclusion), or by
electrostatic repulsion of ions from the charged membrane surface. RO membranes, which have
an effective pore size of 0.001 microns or less, primarily remove perchlorate by the steric
mechanism. UF membranes, with a pore size of roughly 0.01 to 0.1 microns, remove perchlorate
primarily by electrostatic repulsion. NF membranes have effective pore sizes of roughly 0.001 to
0.01 microns. Various NF membranes may operate by both mechanisms to varying degrees
(Amy et al., 2006; J. Yoon, Amy, et al., 2005; J. Yoon, Yoon, et al., 2005; Nam et al., 2005;
USEPA, 2005; Y. Yoon et al., 2005).
38
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
As discussed below in Section 4.2, of the membrane processes, RO has shown the most promise
for removing perchlorate. Therefore, this chapter focuses primarily on the technical details of the
RO treatment process. It discusses UF and NF mainly in terms of the available data on their
effectiveness, with less discussion of their operating principle and relevant design parameters.
Note, however, that practical operation of an NF system is very similar to that of an RO system.
For municipal drinking water treatment, RO membranes are most often used in a spiral-wound
configuration. A spiral wound membrane consists of several membrane envelopes, layered with
feed spacers and rolled together in a spiral around a central permeate collection tube. Each
envelope consists of a flat membrane sheet folded in half over a porous membrane permeate
carrier, and glued on the remaining three sides to completely enclose the carrier. The envelopes
are connected to a central permeate collection tube. After the envelopes and feed spacers are
rolled around the tube, the assembly is enclosed in a shell to form a membrane element. Different
RO elements are manufactured for different scenarios, including seawater desalination (seawater
RO), treatment of brackish water with dissolved solids roughly in the range of thousands of mg/L
(brackish water RO), and treatment of less saline water (low-pressure RO). Elements that are
intended for higher feed salinity have smaller effective pore sizes. They therefore offer higher
rejection of dissolved ions, and require higher pressures for operation.
Multiple RO or NF elements are placed within a pressure vessel. To achieve the target removal
efficiency and water recovery, these pressure vessels often are arranged in sequential stages,
typically up to three depending on the recovery to be achieved (American Water Works
Assocation and American Society of Civil Engineers (AWWA/ASCE), 2005; The Dow
Chemical Company, 2005). When multiple stages are used, the number of pressure vessels
decreases from stage to stage. Permeate or finished water is collected from each pressure vessel.
The concentrate from the first membrane stage serves as the feed to the second and the
concentrate from the second stage serves as the feed to the third. Consequently, each successive
stage of the process increases the total system recovery. As the feed water travels through the
membrane system and becomes more concentrated, its osmotic pressure increases. The feed
pressure must overcome this osmotic pressure. The final concentration in the concentrate water
therefore has a major effect on the required feed pressure and energy use.
The membrane stages in combination make up an RO treatment train. A treatment system may
have multiple trains. Exhibit 4-2 provides a schematic drawing for an RO treatment facility;
each rectangular box within a train represents a pressure vessel that contains multiple membrane
elements. An NF treatment facility would be nearly identical, with the primary difference being
the type of membranes used and the operating pressures.
39
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 4-2. Typical Schematic Layout for a Reverse Osmosis (or Nanofiltration)
Treatment Facility
4.2 Effectiveness for Perchlorate Removal
Although the literature pertaining to perchlorate removal using membrane technologies is
limited, pilot and bench-scale studies have demonstrated that perchlorate can be substantially
removed by RO. The studies also demonstrate widely varying removal of perchlorate with NF
and LJF processes, and have investigated favorable conditions for its removal (J. Yoon, Amy, et
al., 2005; J. Yoon et al., 2003; J. Yoon, Yoon, et al., 2005; Liang et al., 1998; Sanyal et al,, 2015;
Y. Yoon et al., 2002; 2005). There is no large-scale demonstration study of membrane use for
perchlorate removal.
Pilot-scale treatability work at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California showed
that NF and RO membranes consistently removed greater than 80 percent of the perchlorate (up
to 98 percent for RO and 92 percent for NF) depending on influent concentration (Liang et al.,
1998). Recycling 50 percent of the concentrate had no effect on overall perchlorate rejection.
Exhibit 4-3 summarizes effectiveness results for this pilot-scale work, along with results from
additional, smaller scale bench studies.
40
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 4-3. Perchlorate Effectiveness Results for Membranes
Technology/Source
Removal Efficiency
Raw Water
Concentration
Location and Source
Water
Study Scale
RO and NF (Liang et
al„ 1998)
RO up to 98%
NF up to 92%
20 to 2,000 [jg/L
(some trials used
perchlorate-spiked
source water)
Metropolitan Water
District of Southern
California, La Verne
Treatment Plant, CA;
Pretreated Colorado
River Water
Pilot study
(12 gpm)
Surfactant modified UF
(J.Yoon et al., 2003)
Up to 80%
100 [jg/L
(perchlorate-spiked)
Synthetic water and a
blend of Colorado
River Water and State
Project Water from
the Metropolitan
Water District, CA
Bench study
(225 milliliters per
minute)
NF and UF (Y. Yoon et
al., 2002)
Up to 75%
100 [jg/L
(perchlorate-spiked)
Synthetic water with
pure component
perchlorate, also
combined with other
salts
Bench study
(no flow given)
NF and UF(Y. Yoon et
al., 2005)
NF up to 80% (natural
water) or 89%
(synthetic water)
UF up to 5% (natural
water) or 66%
(synthetic water)
100 [jg/L
(perchlorate-spiked)
Synthetic water and
Colorado River Water
from the Metropolitan
Water District, CA,
spiked with
perchlorate
Bench study
(100 to 225 milliliters
per minute)
RO and NF (Nam et al.,
2005)
RO up to 95%
NF up to 70%
100 [jg/L
(perchlorate-spiked)
Ground waters from
the Castaic Lake
Water Agency, CA
Bench study
(no flow given)
RO (USEPA, 2005)
From 125-2,000 |jg/L
to 5-80 |jg/L
125 to 2,000 [jg/L
Unspecified
perchlorate-
contaminated ground
water
Bench study
(no flow given)
RO and NF (J. Yoon,
Yoon, et al., 2005)
RO up to 95%
NF up to 55%
100 [jg/L
(perchlorate-spiked)
Blend of Colorado
River Water and State
Project Water from
the Metropolitan
Water District, CA,
spiked with
perchlorate
Bench study
(20 milliliters per
minute)
RO, NF, and UF (J.
Yoon, Amy, et al., 2005)
RO up to 95%
NF up to 78%
UF up to 29%
100 [jg/L
(perchlorate-spiked)
Synthetic water
Bench study
(no flow given)
RO, NF, and surface
modified NF (Sanyal et
al., 2015)
RO up to 95.8%
NF up to 70.1%
Surface modified NF
up to 93%
10,000 [jg/L
(perchlorate-spiked)
Perchlorate-spiked
deionized water
Bench study (0.26
gpm)
Bench-scale studies show the effects of steric/size exclusion and electrostatic exclusion on
perchlorate transport through membranes to varying degrees. RO, while removing perchlorate,
also removes most other salts, requires high operating pressures, and is prone to significant flux
decline. Membrane processes that operate at lower pressures, such as NF or UF, may be effective
for perchlorate removal through selectivity based on size and/or charge. However, bench studies
41
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
show significant variability in these membranes' ability to remove perchlorate, depending on
other constituents of the source water. See Section 4.3 for further discussion. One bench study
modified commercial NF membranes using layer-by-layer surface deposition of polyelectrolytes.
This study showed that the modified NF membranes could achieve perchlorate removal nearly
equal to that of RO membranes. The study, however, did not examine the effect of differing
source water quality on the membranes and research on the modified membranes does not yet
appear to have progressed beyond the lab (Sanyal et al., 2015).
4.3 Raw Water Quality Considerations
High levels of alkaline earth cations (Ca2+ or Mg2+) can cause membrane scaling (Yoon et al.,
2003), leading to a decline in product water flux. One study showed that calcium carbonate
scaling was also associated with a decline in perchlorate rejection, likely because the scale
reduced the surface charge of the membrane (J. Yoon, Amy, et al., 2005). Other substances, such
as silica, may also cause flux decline; however, there are no studies of the resulting effect on
perchlorate rejection.
Membrane fouling may be reduced either by reducing the pH of the feed water or by adding an
antiscalant chemical. However, for membranes that reject perchlorate electrostatically (primarily
NF and UF membranes), studies of several synthetic waters show that a reduced feed pH reduces
the rejection of perchlorate (J. Yoon, Amy, et al., 2005; J. Yoon, Yoon, et al., 2005; Y. Yoon et
al., 2005). The lower pH has been shown to diminish the negative surface charge of the
membranes, inhibiting the electrostatic rejection mechanism. One study (J. Yoon, Amy, et al.,
2005) demonstrated that a phosphonate-based antiscalant improved both product water flux and
perchlorate rejection. In these studies, perchlorate rejection by RO membranes was much less
sensitive to the feed water pH.
The same studies demonstrated that a high concentration of other ions, particularly divalent
cations, in the membrane feed water can reduce perchlorate rejection. Again, the studies
attributed the reduced rejection to a diminished membrane surface charge. One study that
included one natural water and several synthetic waters (Y. Yoon et al., 2005) found that the
natural water had worse perchlorate rejection than the most similar synthetic water for NF and
UF membranes.
4.4 Pre- and Post-Treatment Needs
In general, pretreatment requirements for membrane technologies depend on influent water
quality as well as the type of membrane used. RO and NF membranes are often used after media
filtration, or more recently, after UF or microfiltration membranes. Membrane filtration
processes often include a prescreen or cartridge filter to remove sediment that could damage the
membranes. RO and NF membranes often require pH adjustment or antiscalant.
The pilot study of RO and NF membrane elements (Liang et al., 1998) included prechlorination
and conventional filtration (rapid mix, flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration). Pretreatment
requirements, however, typically are independent of the specific contaminant targeted for
removal. Calculations such as the silt density index (SDI), found in ASTM standard D3739-94,
can provide insight into the fouling problems that are inherent in any membrane system. SDI
measures the fouling potential of suspended solids. Manufacturers typically specify maximum
42
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
SDIs of 3 to 5 for RO and NF elements. In addition, it is important to model and conduct pilot
studies to assess the potential for fouling from substances such as calcium carbonate, silica,
calcium fluoride, barium sulfate, calcium sulfate, strontium sulfate, and calcium phosphate. The
Langelier saturation index (LSI), described in ASTM standard D4189-94, characterizes the
potential for CaCCte scaling. The LSI is used to indicate the tendency of water to precipitate,
dissolve, or be in equilibrium with calcium carbonate, and what pH change is required to bring
the water back to equilibrium. The scaling potential of other substances may be determined from
a saturation calculation.
Although the perchlorate literature does not address post-treatment requirements, the permeate
from RO filtration is essentially deionized water, and generally requires post treatment for
corrosion control before it enters a distribution system (American Water Works Assocation and
American Society of Civil Engineers (AWWA/ASCE), 2005). In other drinking water treatment
applications using groundwater, the permeate is often blended with untreated water to produce a
less corrosive finished water. If the source water has a sufficiently low concentration of
perchlorate and other contaminants, higher rates of blending will be possible, likely reducing
post-treatment requirements.
4.5 Waste Generation and Residuals Management Needs
Membrane filtration produces a waste stream called the concentrate (or reject). This waste stream
contains all removed dissolved and suspended solids, and must be further treated and/or disposed
of. Membrane system designs generally set a recovery rate (i.e., the ratio of permeate to feed
flow) based on the scaling potential of the resulting concentrate water. The presence of a
particular target contaminant has little or no effect on the selected recovery rate. Therefore, it is
likely that the concentrate flow would represent a substantial share of influent flows. In other
applications, concentrate flows can account for 15 to 30 percent of influent, which implies a
fairly large perchlorate-contaminated waste stream for subsequent treatment or disposal.
In general, full-scale RO systems handle concentrate using surface water discharge or discharge
to sanitary sewer, with a small number using deep well injection, evaporation ponds, or spray
irrigation (U.S. Dol, 2001). The large volume of residuals is a well-known obstacle to adoption
of RO technology. In the case of perchlorate removal by centralized treatment plants, the high
perchlorate concentration in the residuals might limit the disposal options or require additional
treatment prior to disposal, depending on state and local discharge regulations. Studies of
treatment of perchlorate-bearing RO residuals are limited to a few laboratory-scale studies.
These include biological (Giblin et al., 2002) and thermal treatment (Applied Research
Associates, 2000) of RO concentrate, discussed in more detail in Appendix A.
In addition, periodic cleaning of the membrane system is necessary to recover productivity lost
to fouling. This cleaning may include cycles of acid and caustic wash, depending on the nature of
the fouling. Since the spent cleaning solution is generated infrequently and in small amounts, it is
typically diluted by and handled with the concentrate.
4.6 Critical Design Parameters
As discussed in Section 4.2, pilot and bench-scale studies have demonstrated that perchlorate can
be substantially removed by RO. The studies demonstrate widely varying removal of perchlorate
43
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
with NF and UF processes. Therefore, this section focuses on critical design parameters for RO.
For comparison, it notes available data for NF, but does not discuss UF.
Critical design parameters for RO systems removing perchlorate are:
• Feed water quality
• Membrane type and feed water pressure
• Recovery rate
• Flux rate
• Pretreatment requirements.
Exhibit 4-4 shows design information from the pilot-scale work performed at the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California, La Verne Treatment Plant, which used RO and NF to
remove perchlorate from pretreated Colorado River Water (Liang et al., 1998). The paragraphs
below discuss each of the parameters listed above in more detail. Values for other RO design
parameters (e.g., cleaning procedures, residuals discharge options), while not specifically
addressed in the literature reviewed here, are well documented for RO treatment in general. EPA
has no reason to expect a significant difference in these parameters for RO systems treating
perchlorate. This section provides a general discussion of the design parameters and the range of
values reported in the literature for these parameters. Chapter 7 identifies the specific values for
each parameter used in EPA's cost estimates.
44
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 4-4. Critical Design Parameters for Reverse Osmosis (and Nanofiltration)
Membrane Filtration
Critical Design
Parameter
Value from the Reference (Liang et al., 1998)
Feed water quality
TOC = 2.40 - 3.50 mg/L
UV254 = 0.024-0.032/cm
Conductivity = 969 - 1030 micro-ohm/cm
Temperature = 26 °C
pH = 8.09-8.24
Turbidity = 0.12-0.18 NTU
Particle count = 113 -1590 /milliliter
Membrane type
One membrane element, 4-inch diameter, 40 inches long, thin-film composite with negative surface
charge
RO: 72 square foot active area, specific flux 0.14 gallons per day per square foot (gpd/ft2 or gfd) per
pound per square inch (gfd/psi)
NF: 82 square foot active area, specific flux 0.17 gfd/psi, molecular weight cutoff 300 Daltons
Average feed water
pressure
RO: 106 psig
NF: 87 psig
Recovery rate
No data is given.
Flux rate
15 gfd for both RO and NF
Pretreatment
The raw water was treated via prechlorination, rapid mix, flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration prior
to passing through the membranes. The prechlorination dose was adjusted to maintain an effluent
free-chlorine residual of 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L. The coagulation step used 5 mg/L alum and 1 mg/L polymer.
Six column-type filters were used: four dual-media filters with 20 inches of anthracite coal and 8 inches
of silica sand; and two tri-media filters with 8 inches of silica sand and 3 inches of ilmenite. The filter
effluent was passed through a dechlorination unit.
4.6.1 Feed Water Quality
As discussed in Section 4.4, feed water quality can determine pretreatment and cleaning
requirements. Furthermore, as discussed below, it affects the values achievable for other relevant
design parameters, such as recovery and flux rate. Finally, higher levels of total dissolved solids
correspond to higher osmotic pressure in the membrane concentrate, and thus increase energy
requirements. Feed water quality parameters that are crucial include temperature, pH, SDI, total
dissolved solids, and concentrations of ions that can lead to the over saturation of scaling salts,
such as those listed in Section 4.4.
4.6.2 Membrane Type and Feed Water Pressure
Membrane elements from different manufacturers, and different elements from the same
manufacturer, may have widely varying water and ion permeabilities. Effective pore size and
maximum feed pressure determine whether a membrane is characterized as RO or NF. As
discussed in Section 4.1, RO membranes have pore sizes of 0.001 microns or less and operate at
pressures in the range of roughly 100 to 1,000 psig. NF membranes have pore sizes of roughly
0.001 to 0.01 microns and use pressures in the range of 75 to 150 psig. Membrane elements also
are characterized by their diameter (usually 4 to 18 inches), active area (in square feet), and
45
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
specific flux rate (measured in gfd per psi of net driving pressure6). Other relevant operating
specifications include maximum recovery in one element, minimum concentrate flow, maximum
feed SDI, minimum operating pH, maximum operating temperature, and maximum pressure drop
permitted in a single element and a complete pressure vessel.
Exhibit 4-4 shows data on the specific membranes tested for perchlorate by Liang et al. (1998).
The RO membranes (which showed higher perchlorate removal efficiency than the NF
membranes) operated at the low end of the typical range for that technology (106 psig).
4.6.3 Recovery Rate
As discussed above, RO produces a permeate flow (water with most dissolved solids removed)
and a concentrate flow (residual water rejected by the membrane). The recovery rate is the
percentage of the influent flow that is recovered as permeate. Increasing the recovery rate will
increase the concentration of dissolved solids in the membrane reject water, and will thus
increase the required feed pressure and the potential for membrane scaling. Thus, the achievable
recovery rate depends on the quality of the source water as well as the pretreatment of the water
(American Water Works Assocation and American Society of Civil Engineers (AWWA/ASCE),
2005), and systems with high levels of total dissolved solids in their feed water will typically
operate at lower recovery rates than systems with lower levels.
For a given membrane and feed water, a higher recovery rate will require the use of more
elements in series. The model accomplishes this by increasing the number of elements per
pressure vessel and/or by increasing the number of stages in the system. For NF membrane
elements, the target recovery will typically be between 80 and 90 percent. For RO elements, the
target recovery will typically be between 50 and 85 percent. Although Liang et al. (1998) did not
report recovery rates achieved in their pilot studies, recovery rate is driven by overall feed water
quality, not the specific contaminant being targeted. Therefore, EPA has no reason to expect a
significant difference in recovery rate for RO systems treating perchlorate from the values
typically documented for RO systems in general.
4.6.4 Flux Rate
The flux of the system is the rate of permeate water per unit of membrane area, typically
measured in gfd. While each stage of a membrane system will have a different flux, the average
flux over all elements is a fundamental design parameter. In general, the higher the quality of the
feed water, the higher the flux that may be achieved. Operating with excessively high flux,
however, leads to fouling of the membrane elements. Depending on the nature of the fouling, it
may be reversed by cleaning, or may require replacement of the elements.
For many ground waters, systems can operate successfully with fluxes between 16 and 20 gfd.
Surface waters require lower fluxes, typically between 12 and 17 gfd, depending on the SDI of
the source water. Pretreatment will usually permit the use of a higher flux. The pilot studies by
Liang et al. (1998) used a flux rate of 15 gfd, in the typical range for surface water.
6 Net driving pressure is equal to the feed pressure at a particular point in the pressure vessel minus the osmotic
pressure of the feed water.
46
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
4.6.5 Pretreatment Requirements
As discussed in Section 4.4, to reduce fouling of the membrane, some type of pretreatment is
usually required. The pilot studies by Liang et al. (1998) used extensive pretreatment, the
equivalent of conventional filtration. Conventional filtration, however, would likely already be
present at surface water sources that require additional treatment to remove perchlorate. The
types of pretreatment that would more likely need to be added to an existing treatment train for
implementation of RO include those identified in Section 4.4, such as cartridge filtration and acid
and/or anti seal ant addition.
47
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
5 Point-of-Use Treatment
5.1 Operating Principle
A POU device uses a miniaturized version of a centralized treatment process to meet water
quality standards for consumption at individual taps (e.g., a kitchen sink). When a system
installs, controls (i.e., owns), and maintains POU devices at all customer locations where water is
consumed (e.g., residences), it can forego centralized treatment (USEPA, 2006b). Because POU
devices treat a small fraction of the water delivered by a system, a compliance program that
relies on POU devices may be more cost-effective for smaller systems.
For perchlorate removal, the NSF Joint Committee on Drinking Water Treatment Units has
added a protocol to NSF/ American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard 58: Reverse
Osmosis Drinking Water Treatment Systems that requires an RO unit to be able to reduce
perchlorate from a challenge level of 130 |ig/L to a target level of 4 |ig/L (NSF International,
2019). Several organizations (e.g., NSF International, Underwriters Laboratories, Water Quality
Association) provide third-party testing and certification that POU devices meet drinking water
treatment standards. There are no perchlorate certification standards for other types of POU
devices such as those using ion exchange media. Therefore, the discussion in this section focuses
on POU RO devices.
The operating principle for POU RO devices is the same as centralized RO: steric exclusion and
electrostatic repulsion of ions from the charged membrane surface. In addition to an RO
membrane for dissolved ion removal, POU RO devices often have a sediment pre-filter and a
carbon filter in front of the RO membrane, a 3- to 5-gallon treated water storage tank, and a
carbon filter between the tank and the tap.
To meet a perchlorate drinking water standard, a system would need to purchase, install, and
maintain certified POU RO devices for all customers. Usually, a system would install a single
POU RO device at the kitchen tap for each residential customer. Nonresidential customers might
require multiple devices (e.g., for drinking fountains). Installation requires retrofitting the device
into existing plumbing fixtures (e.g., tapping into the water supply line to insert a treated water
line with a dedicated tap and adding a wastewater connection for the RO membrane concentrate
or reject). Maintenance primarily consists of filter replacement, often on a fixed schedule that
varies by filter type. Monitoring water quality at individual treated water taps will also be
necessary to demonstrate compliance with a perchlorate drinking water standard.
5.2 Effectiveness for Perchlorate Removal
There are no perchlorate removal case studies that use POU RO. Nevertheless, bench-scale and
pilot testing indicates that RO membranes should be able to effectively remove perchlorate ions.
Furthermore, devices certified under NSF/ANSI Standard 58 have a demonstrated 97 percent
perchlorate reduction capability based on reducing perchlorate from challenge level of 130 |ig/L
to a target level of 4 |ig/L.
Boodoo (2003) provides an assessment of possible configurations for POU or point-of-entry ion
exchange devices that achieve high removal rates. There are, however, no certification standards
for such devices.
48
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
5.3 Raw Water Quality Considerations
Because the POU RO devices will be installed at service taps that are downstream of a system's
entry point to the distribution system, EPA assumes that the raw water entering a POU RO
device will be water that is suitable for consumption except for an exceedance of the proposed
perchlorate regulatory standard. As noted in the next section, POU RO devices include pre-filters
to address potential interference of delivered water quality with RO performance.
5.4 Pre- and Post-Treatment Needs
POU RO devices include various filters to address pre- and post-treatment concerns. Most
devices include a sediment filter for solids removal to prevent membrane fouling and a pre-RO
carbon filter to remove chlorine and organic compounds that could impair membrane function.
They also include a carbon filter after the membrane and storage tank to remove any organics
that may remain or bacterial growth that occurs during storage. Because the POU device is
installed at the tap, there are no potential adverse impacts on the distribution system.
5.5 Waste Generation and Residuals Management Needs
The treatment process waste comprises wastewater and used filter cartridges. Waste disposal
methods must comply with state and local requirements. The wastewater connection is generally
plumbed to the household sewer system, which uses either an on-site septic system or a
centralized wastewater collection system for disposal. Depending on state and local regulations,
the used cartridge filters may be included in household solid waste (USEPA, 2006b).
5.6 Critical Design Parameters
In addition to the POU devices themselves, there are several components to the design of a POU
program that are primary cost drivers. These include the following:
• POU RO device installation
• Public education program development
• POU device monitoring
• POU device maintenance.
Chapter 7 discusses each of these parameters in more detail and identifies the specific values for
each used in EPA's cost estimates.
49
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
6 Nontreatment Alternatives
6.1 Application Principle
For small water utilities that lack the financial and/or technical capacity to implement a new
treatment-based compliance strategy, nontreatment options may offer a more cost-effective path
to compliance. Nontreatment options essentially replace the contaminated water source with
water that meets drinking water standards, including a new standard for perchlorate.
Nontreatment solutions for drinking water compliance include the following: well rehabilitation;
contaminant source elimination; new well construction; and interconnecting with another system
to purchase water (USEPA, 2006c). The feasible nontreatment options will depend on site-
specific circumstances such as system size, source water type, contaminant reduction needs, and
proximity to alternative water sources. For small systems, neither well rehabilitation for
contaminated ground water sources nor source elimination (e.g., remediation of perchlorate-
contaminated sediments or ground water) is likely to be feasible and cost-effective solutions.
Another option - blending water from existing wells - may be a feasible, low-cost option for
systems with multiple wells including some for which perchlorate does not exceed the proposed
perchlorate standard. For systems that cannot blend source water to comply with the proposed
standard, two feasible nontreatment options include a new well to replace the contaminated
source water and an interconnection to purchase water from a supplier. These two options (new
wells and interconnection) are likely to have higher costs than the other options (well
rehabilitation and source elimination) (USEPA, 2006c)..
The costs associated with drilling a new well include the initial hydrological assessment, pilot
hole drilling, developing the final well design, drilling the well bore, installing well casings,
screens, and filters, development of the well, and installation of the pump and power source
(Harter, 2003). A hydrological assessment identifies ground water sources of suitable quality and
adequate long-term supply. When replacing an existing well, the costs will also include
connecting the well to the existing water distribution system.
The interconnection option involves laying a pipeline to connect the affected system to the
distribution network of a neighboring system that can provide adequate water that meets all
applicable drinking water standards. Costs include the cost of purchased water as well as
construction and maintenance of the interconnection pipeline. Pipeline costs will depend on
proximity of the neighboring system, topography of the distance to be covered, and right-of-way
requirements for pipes and booster pump stations.
6.2 Compliance Effectiveness
Nontreatment options achieve compliance by replacing a perchlorate-contaminated water source
with an alternative water source that meets a perchlorate standard. This strategy is inherently
compliant as long as the new water source is not at risk for perchlorate contamination. If the
wholesale supplier of purchased water has perchlorate contamination, it must implement an
effective treatment process because the water it sells must comply with the perchlorate standard
before it can be distributed to the purchasing system.
50
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
6.3 Raw Water Quality Considerations
A system will need to determine whether the change in source water may affect other existing
treatment processes (e.g., chlorination), or if changes in water quality may affect the distribution
system (e.g., purchased water has a different pH). Changes in delivered water chemistry that
result in major process additions or changes could diminish the cost-effectiveness of
nontreatment options.
6.4 Pre- and Post-Treatment Needs
By definition, there are no pre-treatment needs to consider with a change in source water. All
treatment adjustments to account for differences in source water quality would necessarily occur
after the point of source water connection. If the alternative water source has chemical
parameters that differ substantially from the original source water and may affect water quality
elsewhere in the system, then there may be "post-treatment" needs to adjust water chemistry.
6.5 Waste Generation and Residuals Management Needs
An interconnection or new well should not have incremental wastes or residuals requiring
management.
6.6 Critical Design Parameters
For new wells, key design parameters are the following:
• Total flow rate requirements and flow per well
• Well depth (and screened depth)
• Pump type
• Distance from well to distribution system.
For an interconnection option, key design parameters include:
• Flow rate requirements
• Distance to interconnection water supply
• Pressure at water supply source
• Cost of purchased water.
Chapter 7 discusses each of these parameters in more detail and identifies the specific values for
each used in EPA's cost estimates.
51
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
7 Costs for Treatment Technologies and Nontreatment
Options
Note: The technologies evaluated here can achieve very high per chlorate removal efficiencies
(e.g., 95percent or greater). Given the high efficiencies, EPA assumes systems will blend treated
water and untreated water to meet the MCL. Accordingly, the costs presented here reflect
systems designed and operated to take advantage of the technologies' high removal effectiveness
and the cost curves should be applied to design and average flows adjusted to account for the
blending rate, as discussed in the following paragraphs.
A blending rate is the proportion of influent water that has to be treated. For example, a
blending rate of 0.6 means 60 percent of the water is treated and then blended with 40 percent
untreated water. This rate depends on baseline perchlorate concentration, the treatment target
concentration, and the removal efficiency of the treatment process (i.e., the percent of baseline
perchlorate removed during treatment). For a treatment efficiency of 95 percent (or 0.95), the
following equation defines the treatment target concentration of perchlorate (Pt) as a weighted
average of the baseline concentration (Pb) and the treated water concentration [Pb x (1-0.95)]
where the weights - based on the blending rate, B - are (1-B) for the untreated water and B for
the treated water:
Pt = (l-B)xPb+ Bx(PjX(l-0.95)).
Rearranging terms to solve for B (the blending rate) shows that the blending rate increases when
the baseline concentration increases or the treatment target concentration decreases.
B= (Pb ~ Pt)
Pb x 0.95
The cost curves presented here use the treatment process flow as the independent variable.
Treatment process flow can be calculatedfrom entry point flow by incorporating the blending
rate (B) as follows:
Treatment Process Flow = B x Entry Point Flow.
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 Overview and Cost Modeling Approach
This chapter presents estimated costs for installing and operating the technologies and
nontreatment options discussed in Chapters 2 through 6. Based on the information in those
chapters, particularly the data on engineering design specifications, EPA developed work
breakdown structure (WBS) cost estimating models for each of the perchlorate treatment
technologies. The WBS models are spreadsheet-based engineering models for individual
treatment technologies, linked to a central database of component unit costs. EPA developed the
WBS model approach as part of an effort to address recommendations made by the Technology
Design Panel (TDP), which convened in 1997 to review the Agency's methods for estimating
52
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
drinking water compliance costs (USEPA, 1997).7 In general, the WBS approach involves
breaking a process down into discrete components for the purpose of estimating unit costs. The
WBS models represent improvements over past EPA cost estimating methods by increasing
comprehensiveness, flexibility, and transparency. By adopting a WBS-based approach to identify
the components that should be included in a cost analysis, the models produce a more
comprehensive assessment of the capital and operating requirements for a treatment system. The
documentation for the individual WBS models (USEPA, 2007; 2017a; 2017b; 2017c; 2019)
provides complete details on the structure, content, and use of the models. EPA used the WBS
models to develop the costs presented in this chapter. The models and their documentation can
be accessed at: https://www.epa.gov/dwregdev/drinking-water-treatment-technology-unit-cost-
models-and-overview-technologies.
The remainder of this section provides a brief overview of the common elements of all the WBS
models and information on the anticipated accuracy of the resulting cost estimates. Subsequent
sections describe how EPA used each individual technology-specific WBS model to estimate
costs for perchlorate treatment and present the resulting cost estimates.
7.1.2 Work Breakdown Structure Models
Each WBS model contains the work breakdown for a particular treatment process and
preprogrammed engineering criteria and equations that estimate equipment requirements for
user-specified design requirements (e.g., system size and influent water quality). Each model
also provides unit and total cost information by component (e.g., individual items of capital
equipment) and totals the individual component costs to obtain a direct capital cost. Additionally,
the models estimate add-on costs (permits, pilot study, and land acquisition costs for each
technology), indirect capital costs, and annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, thereby
producing a complete compliance cost estimate.
Primary inputs common to all of the WBS models include design flow and average flow in
MGD. Each WBS model has default designs (input sets) that correspond to the eight standard
flow sizes in EPA's flow characterization paradigm for public water systems (see Exhibit 7-1),
but the models can generate designs for many other combination of flows. To estimate costs for
perchlorate compliance, EPA fit cost curves to the WBS estimates for up to 49 different flow
rates.8 Thus, the cost estimates in Sections 7.2 through 7.6 and Appendix B are in the form of
equations.
7 The TDP consisted of nationally recognized drinking water experts from U.S. EPA, water treatment consulting
companies, public and private water utilities and suppliers, equipment vendors, and Federal and State regulators in
addition to cost estimating professionals.
8 Specifically, for each scenario modeled and separately for total capital and for O&M costs, EPA fit up to three
curves: one covering small systems (less than 1 MGD design flow), one covering medium systems (1 MGD to less
than 10 MGD design flow), and one covering large systems (10 MGD design flow and greater). For each curve fit,
EPA chose from among several possible equation forms: linear, quadratic, cubic, power, exponential, and
logarithmic. EPA chose the form that resulted in the best correlation coefficient (R2), subject to the requirement that
the equation must be monotonically increasing over the appropriate range of flow rates (i.e., within the flow rate
category, the equation must always result in higher estimated costs for higher flow systems than for lower flow
systems).
53
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 7-1. Model Size Categories Based on EPA's Flow Characterization
Paradigm
Size Category
Population Served
Design Flow (MGD)
Average Flow (MGD)
1
25 to 100
0.030
0.007
2
101 to 500
0.124
0.035
3
501 to 1,000
0.305
0.094
4
1,001 to 3,300
0.740
0.251
5
3,301 to 10,000
2.152
0.819
6
10,001 to 50,000
7.365
3.200
7
50,001 to 100,000
22.614
11.087
8
Greater than 100,000
75.072
37.536
Another input common to all of the WBS models is "component level" or "cost level." This
input drives the selection of materials for items of equipment that can be constructed of different
materials. For example, a low cost system might include fiberglass pressure vessels and PVC
piping. A high cost system might include stainless steel pressure vessels and stainless steel
piping. The component level input also drives other model assumptions that can affect the total
cost of the system, such as building quality and heating and cooling. The component level input
has three possible values: low cost, mid cost, and high cost. To estimate costs for perchlorate
compliance, EPA generated separate cost curves for each of the three component levels, thus
creating a range of cost estimates for use in national compliance cost estimates.
The third input common at all of the WBS models is system automation, which allows the design
of treatment systems that are operated manually or with varying degrees of automation (i.e., with
control systems that reduce the need for operator intervention). The cost estimates in the
technology-specific sections below are for systems that are fully automated, minimizing the need
for operator intervention and reducing operator labor costs.
The WBS models generate cost estimates that include a consistent set of capital, add-on, indirect,
and O&M costs. Exhibit 7-2 identifies these cost elements, which are common to all of the WBS
models and included in the cost estimates below. The exhibit also provides references for further
information on the methods and assumptions used in the WBS models to estimate the costs for
each of these cost elements.
7.1.3 WBS Model Accuracy
Costs for a given system can vary depending on site-specific conditions (e.g., raw water quality,
climate, local labor rates, and location relative to equipment suppliers). The costs presented here
are based on national average assumptions and include a range (represented by low, mid, and
high cost curves) intended to encompass the variation in costs that systems would incur to
remove perchlorate. To validate the engineering design methods used by the WBS models and
increase the accuracy of the resulting cost estimates, EPA has subjected the individual models to
a process of external peer review by nationally recognized technology experts.
The anion exchange model underwent peer review in 2005, during an early stage of its
development. One peer reviewer responded that resulting cost estimates were in the range of
budget estimates (+30 to -15 percent). The other two reviewers thought anion exchange estimates
were order of magnitude estimates (+50 to -30 percent), with an emphasis on the estimates being
54
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
high. The anion exchange model has since undergone extensive revision, both in response to the
peer review and to adapt it for perchlorate treatment (see Section 7.2, below).
The RO/NF model underwent peer review in 2007. The majority of peer reviewers who
evaluated the model expressed the opinion that resulting cost estimates would be in the range of
budget estimates (+30 to -15 percent). The RO/NF model has since undergone substantial
revision in response to the peer review comments.
The biological treatment model underwent peer review in early 2012. One reviewer thought the
model underestimated O&M costs by 20 to 30 percent (which would be in the range of an order
of magnitude estimate), but overestimated capital costs by about 25 percent (which would be in
the range of a budget estimate). A second reviewer responded that direct capital costs were at the
fringes of a budget estimate (+30 to -15 percent), while total capital costs were in the order of
magnitude range (+50 to -30 percent) or possibly even better, in the budget estimate range. This
reviewer's conclusions about total capital costs were based on comparison to preliminary costs
for a plant currently under construction, for which the model underestimated costs. The final
reviewer responded that costs were budget estimates (+30 to -15 percent). The biological
treatment model has since undergone revision in response to the peer review comments.
The POU model underwent peer review in 2006. Reviewers felt that the default assumptions may
tend to overstate "out-of-pocket" costs to systems because very small systems could use
volunteers to perform some tasks. While this may be true, EPA's model is designed to estimate
the opportunity costs for a successful POU program that is consistent with EPA POU Guidance,
which does not include volunteers. The POU model has since been revised in response to the
peer review comments.
EPA received peer review comments on the nontreatment model in May 2012. The first reviewer
responded that cost estimates resulting from the nontreatment model were in the range of budget
estimates (+30 to -15 percent). The second reviewer thought the cost estimates were order of
magnitude estimates (+50 to -30 percent). The third reviewer felt the cost estimates were
definitive (+15 to -5 percent), except for land costs, which were difficult to assess due to regional
variations. Revision of the nontreatment model in response to the peer review comments was
recently completed.
55
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 7-2. Cost Elements Included in All WBS Models
Cost Category and Components Included
For Further Information
Direct Capital Costs
• Technology-specific equipment (e.g., vessels, basins, pumps,
blowers, treatment media, piping, valves)
Technology-specific sections below
• Instrumentation and system controls
USEPA (2017a; 2017b; 2017c; 2019), Appendix A
• Buildings
USEPA (2017a; 2017b; 2017c; 2019), Appendix B
• Residuals management equipment
USEPA (2017a; 2017b; 2017c; 2019), Appendix C
Add-on Costs
• Land
USEPA (2017a; 2017b; 2017c; 2019), Chapter 2
• Permits
• Pilot testing
Indirect Capital Costs
• Mobilization and demobilization
USEPA (2017a; 2017b; 2017c; 2019) Appendix D
• Architectural fees for treatment building
• Equipment delivery, equipment installation, and contractor's
overhead and profit
• Sitework
• Yard piping
• Geotechnical
• Standby power
• Electrical infrastructure
• Process engineering
• Contingency
• Miscellaneous allowance
• Legal, fiscal, and administrative
• Sales tax
• Financing during construction
• Construction management
O&M Costs
• Operator labor for technology-specific tasks (e.g., managing
regeneration, backwash, or media replacement)
• Materials for maintenance and operation of technology-specific
equipment
• Replacement of technology-specific equipment that occurs on an
annual basis (e.g., treatment media)
Technology-specific sections below
• Energy for operation of technology-specific items of equipment
(e.g., blowers, mixers)
• Operator labor for operation and maintenance of process
equipment
• Operator labor for building maintenance
• Managerial and clerical labor
• Materials for maintenance of booster or influent pumps
USEPA (2017a; 2017b; 2017c; 2019), Appendix E
• Materials for building maintenance
• Energy for operation of booster or influent pumps
• Energy for lighting, ventilation, cooling, and heating
• Residuals management operator labor, materials, and energy
• Residuals disposal and discharge costs
USEPA (2017a; 2017b; 2017c; 2019), Appendix C
56
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
7.2 Costs for Ion Exchange
7.2.1 Model Components and Assumptions
USEPA (2017b) provides a complete description of the engineering design process used by the
WBS model for perchlorate ion exchange. The perchlorate ion exchange model can estimate
costs for removing perchlorate using any of the following resin types described Chapter 2:
strong-base polyacrylic, strong-base polystyrenic, nitrate-selective, and perchlorate-selective.9 In
addition to the common WBS direct capital cost items listed in Exhibit 7-2, the ion exchange
model for perchlorate includes the following technology-specific equipment:
• Booster pumps for influent water
• Pressure vessels that contain the anion resin bed
• Tanks and pumps for backwashing the vessels
• Tanks, mixers, and eductors for delivering the solution used in regenerating the resin (if
regeneration is used)
• Pre-treatment cartridge filters
• Tanks and pumps for post-treatment corrosion control (optional)
• Equipment for managing residuals (spent backwash, spent resin, and, potentially, spent
regenerant)
• Associated piping, valves, and instrumentation.
The ion exchange model for perchlorate also adds the following technology-specific O&M
elements:
• Operator labor for resin changeouts
• Operator labor for regeneration (if regeneration is used)
• Spent resin replacement and disposal
• Labor and replacement cartridges for pre-treatment filters
• Chemical usage (if corrosion control or regeneration is used).
For small systems (less than 1 MGD), the ion exchange model for perchlorate assumes the use of
package treatment systems that are pre-assembled in a factory, mounted on a skid, and
transported to the site. The model estimates costs for package systems by costing all individual
equipment line items (e.g., vessels, interconnecting piping and valves, instrumentation, and
system controls) in the same manner as custom-engineered systems. This approach is based on
vendor practices of partially engineering these types of package plants for specific systems (e.g.,
selecting vessel size to meet flow and treatment criteria). The model applies a variant set of
design inputs and assumptions that are intended to simulate the use of a package plant and that
reduce the size and cost of the treatment system. USEPA (2017b) provides complete details on
the variant design assumptions used for package plants.
The paragraphs below describe the specific inputs and assumptions that EPA used to generate the
costs in Section 7.2.2. These inputs assume treatment with perchlorate breakthrough defined so
9 The input also allows for selection of an alternative resin type, by entering appropriate design assumptions for their
resin and selecting "Alternative resin (user defined)" for this input.
57
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
that the treatment process maintains a minimum of 95 percent removal. Other inputs and
assumptions not discussed below (e.g., number of booster pumps, treated water corrosion
control, bed expansion) remained as described in USEPA (2017b).
Resin Type
As noted above, the perchlorate ion exchange model can estimate costs for removing perchlorate
using several different resin types. Based on the information in Section 2.2 and Exhibit 2-5,
however, EPA believes that any new ion exchange facilities removing perchlorate will use
perchlorate-selective resin. Therefore, the cost estimates below assume the use of perchlorate-
selective resin and, accordingly, the paragraphs below describe the inputs and assumptions
associated with perchlorate-selective resins only.
Regeneration or Throwaway Operation
The perchlorate ion exchange model has an option to design and estimate costs for a system
either with or without regeneration capability. As discussed in Section 2.5, nearly all of the full-
scale facilities using perchlorate-selective resin rely on disposal instead of regeneration.
Therefore, the cost estimates below assume throwaway operation.
Number of Bed Volumes before Regeneration/Throwaway
The perchlorate ion exchange model requires entry of the number of bed volumes before
perchlorate breakthrough. System configuration (i.e., parallel or series operation) can have a
significant effect on bed volumes to breakthrough. As discussed below, the model default
assumption is series (lead-lag) operation. The data shown in Exhibit 2-6 are for initial
perchlorate breakthrough using a single resin column. Studies of the capacity of the older
perchlorate-selective resin (Gu et al., 1999) found breakthrough in a lead column after 40,000
BV. Using a second (lag or polishing) column increased the resin's capacity to approximately
104,000 BV. Similar studies of the performance of the new resins in a lead-lag configuration are
not available.
Given the lack of precise data on the performance of the new resins in a lead-lag configuration
and given expected site-specific variations in water quality (e.g., concentrations of competing
anions), the cost estimates below consider two scenarios for bed life. Although one of the
scenarios assumes a longer bed life than the other (meaning better performance and lower costs),
both scenarios are designed to be conservative (erring on the site of higher costs).
The first scenario assumes an increase in capacity of the new resins from lead-lag operation
similar to that observed for the older resin. This scenario starts from the lowest single-column
capacity (about 100,000 BV) observed for any of the new resins in several pilot studies (Blute et
al., 2006; Russell et al., 2008; Wu and Blute, 2010). It multiplies this capacity by 2.5 (the
approximate increase observed for the older resin in Gu et al., 1999) to account for lead-lag
operation. This calculation results in 250,000 BV to breakthrough. The second scenario starts
from the highest single-column capacity (about 170,000 BV) observed for any of the new resins
the pilot studies, but assumes no increase in capacity from lead-lag operation. Thus, the second
scenario assumes 170,000 BV to breakthrough.
58
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Number of Vessels in Series (parallel or series operation)
As discussed in Section 2.6, series (lead-lag) operation is generally recommended for perchlorate
removal. Therefore, the cost estimates below assume two vessels in series.
Theoretical Total Empty Bed Contact Time
As discussed in Section 2.6, recommended EBCTs for perchlorate-selective resins are 1.5
minutes per vessel and less. Therefore, the cost estimates below assume a total EBCT of 3
minutes (which corresponds to 1.5 minutes per vessel, given two vessels in series).
Backwash System Design
The perchlorate ion exchange model assumes that periodic backwashing during operation is not
required when throwaway operation is chosen. It does, however, assume an initial rinse is
required during resin installation. Therefore, for systems of 1 MGD design flow and larger the
cost estimates below include the cost of equipment (pumps and storage tanks) to accomplish this
initial rinse. For small systems, the cost estimates assume the initial rinse can be accomplished
using existing equipment.
Residuals Management
The perchlorate ion exchange model includes the option to dispose of spent resin by
incineration.10 As discussed in Section 2.5.1, a number of full-scale facilities dispose of their
spent perchlorate-selective resin by incineration. Although incineration is a more expensive
option than landfill disposal, the overall impact on operating costs is small. Incineration
increases model cost estimates by approximately $0.01 per thousand gallons of treated water
produced, which is less than 3 percent of the total cost of treatment even for the largest systems.
Therefore, the cost estimates below assume disposal by incineration, although some systems
might have the slightly cheaper option of landfill disposal available. They assume that spent
rinse water from the initial resin rinse is discharged to a POTW.
Surface Loading Rate
As discussed in Section 2.6, maximum surface loading rates vary by resin type. Based on the
data presented in Section 2.6 and comments from the experts who reviewed initial drafts of this
document (Blute, 2012; Drago, 2012; Meyer, 2012), EPA chose a maximum surface loading rate
of 12 gpm/ft2 for perchlorate-selective resin. The cost estimates below incorporate this
assumption.
Regeneration Solution Type and Assumptions
The perchlorate ion exchange model incorporates the option to regenerate selective resins using
the novel tetrachloroferrate regeneration solution discussed in Section 2.5.2. Specifically, when
regeneration is chosen for nitrate- or perchlorate-selective resins, the model assumes the use of
10 This option is activated by entering the cost of incineration under "Alternate media disposal cost (including
transportation)" in the O&M assumptions module of the perchlorate version of the ion exchange model. When a
value is present for this assumption, the model uses this unit cost in estimating total non-hazardous waste disposal
cost. If this assumption is left blank, the model uses the default unit cost from the central WBS database, which
reflects disposal in an off-site non-hazardous waste landfill.
59
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
tetrachloroferrate solution. When regeneration is chosen for non-selective strong-base
polyacrylic or polystyrenic resins, the model assumes the use of conventional brine solution. The
selection of resin type also controls the values of a number of critical design assumptions
relevant to each regeneration process (e.g., brine concentration, tetrachloroferrate solution
strength, regeneration time). The cost estimates below, however, assume throwaway operation
and, therefore, do not incorporate these assumptions.
7.2.2 Cost Estimates
The graphs below plot WBS cost model results in 2017 dollars at the mid cost level for removal
of perchlorate from groundwater using perchlorate-selective ion exchange, assuming 250,000
BV to breakthrough (Exhibit 7-3) and 170,000 BV to breakthrough (Exhibit 7-4). The costs
assume treatment with perchlorate breakthrough defined so that the treatment process maintains
a minimum of 95 percent removal. The flow rates shown on the x-axes and as independent
variables in the equations are treatment process flows. To account for blending, treatment
process flows should be calculated from entry point flows by incorporating a blending rate as
discussed in the introduction to this chapter.
In these exhibits, note that costs increase at 1 MGD design flow (0.355 MGD average flow)
because of the transition from package systems (used by small systems) to custom-engineered
systems (used by large systems). Appendix B provides complete cost equations for both bed life
scenarios, including the high, mid, and low cost levels and for treatment of groundwater and
surface water. Appendix C presents example WBS model outputs at selected flow rates, allowing
review of individual cost line items.
60
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 7-3. Mid Cost Results for Removal of Perchlorate from Groundwater Using
Perchlorate-Selective Ion Exchange with 250,000 BV to Breakthrough (2017
dollars)
—
—
—_
—
|—
i—
-
y = 94815.4066X + 50288.0306
K
= 1.UUUU
= -793.0138x2 + 109785.9654X +27443.6982
I
y
. J
r
K — U
.yyy
b
*
—
-A-
0
•.
~~
-6
A
A
—
y -
+ yD4U!.04/DX -*-4JD0.10iy
R2 = 0.9996
0.001 0.01 0.1 Average flow (mgd) 1 10 100
61
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 7-4. Mid Cost Results for Removal of Perchlorate from Groundwater Using
Perchlorate-Selective Ion Exchange with 170,000 BV to Breakthrough (2017
dollars)
—
"
y =
287995.2658X
+
1130875.7885
i
0.9998
|
y = 802.1603x3
17543.4018x2 + 455922.7261x
R2 = 0.9972
U 01
4
*
A
'
K
*
'*¦
213209.9002X2 + 435508.3073X
R2 = 0.9973
125329 6749
y -
1—
iiil
0.01 0.1 1 Design size (mgd) 10 100 1000
62
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
7.3 Costs for Biological Treatment
7.3.1 Model Components and Assumptions
USEPA (2017a) provides a complete description of the engineering design process used by the
WBS model for biological treatment. The biological treatment model can estimate costs for three
types of bioreactor designs:
• Fixed media bed pressure vessels
• Fixed media bed gravity basin
• Fluidized bed pressure vessels.
In addition to the common WBS direct capital cost items listed in Exhibit 7-2, the biological
treatment model includes the following technology-specific equipment:
• Booster pumps for influent water
• Equipment (e.g., tanks, pumps) for electron donor addition
• Equipment (e.g., tanks, pumps) for nutrient addition
• Bioreactors (either pressure vessels or concrete basins) that contain the GAC media bed
• Tanks, pumps, and blowers for backwashing the bioreactors (fixed bed designs only) and
post-treatment filters (if used)
• Pumps for recycled water (fluidized designs only)
• Blowers for biomass separation (fluidized designs only)
• Equipment for post-treatment aeration or hydrogen peroxide addition (optional)
• Post-treatment coagulant addition and mixed media filtration (optional)
• Equipment for managing residuals (spent backwash)
• Associated piping, valves, and instrumentation (including online perchlorate and nitrate
analysis instruments).
The biological treatment model also adds the following technology-specific O&M elements:
• Operator labor for managing backwashes
• Operator labor and materials for maintaining concrete basins (gravity designs only)
• Operator labor and materials for maintaining backwash pumps and air scour blowers (and
biomass removal blowers for fluidized bed designs)
• Chemical usage for electron donor and nutrient addition (and post-treatment hydrogen
peroxide addition, if used)
• Coagulant and polymer usage for spent backwash treatment (and post-treatment filtration, if
used)
• Attrition loss replacement for bioreactor media (and post-treatment filter media, if used)
• Consumables used in online perchlorate and nitrate analysis.
For small systems (less than 1 MGD), the biological treatment model applies a set of design
inputs and assumptions that reduce the size and cost of the treatment system relative to larger
systems. Some of these small system assumptions are similar to those used for package plants in
the ion exchange model (e.g., skid-mounted pressure vessels, reduced need for booster
pumping). Because package plants are not currently available for biological treatment, however,
the biological treatment model assumptions do not differ as greatly between small and large
63
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
systems. USEPA (2017a) provides complete details on the variant design assumptions used for
small systems.
The paragraphs below describe specific inputs and assumptions that EPA used to generate the
costs in Section 8.3.2. Other inputs and assumptions not discussed below (e.g., number of
booster pumps, bioreactor dimensions) were as described in USEPA (2017a).
Electron Donor Type
The biological treatment model allows the user to select between acetic acid and ethanol as the
electron donor type. As discussed in Section 3.6, these are the most common electron donors
used in full-scale biological systems treating perchlorate. The cost estimates below assume acetic
acid as the electron donor.
Electron Donor Dose
As discussed in Section 3.6, electron donor dose is typically determined using pilot studies along
with stoichiometric calculations. The biological treatment model requires the user to input the
electron donor dose. For comparison purposes, the user can enter raw waster quantities of
perchlorate, nitrate, and dissolved oxygen and the model will display the results of stoichiometric
calculations using the site-specific equations discussed in Section 3.6. The cost estimates below
assume 10 mg/L of acetic acid.
Nutrient Requirements
The biological treatment model includes four options for nutrient addition:
• no additional nutrients required
• additional nitrogen required
• additional phosphorous required
• both nitrogen and phosphorous required.
For designs that require additional nutrients, the model prompts the user to input doses for
ammonium chloride and/or phosphoric acid. Based on comments from the peer review of the
biological treatment model, the cost estimates below assume additional phosphorous is required
and achieved using 1 mg/L (measured as phosphorus) of phosphoric acid.
Empty Bed Contact Time/Hydraulic Residence Time
The biological treatment model uses EBCT in sizing fixed bed bioreactors and HRT in sizing
fluidized bed bioreactors. As discussed in Section 3.6, typical full-scale bioreactor designs have
an EBCT/HRT in the range of 10 to 12 minutes for both fixed bed (U.S. DoD, 2008a) and
fluidized bed reactors (Harding Engineering and Environmental Services, 2001). The cost
estimates below assume an EBCT/HRT value of 12 minutes.
64
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Interval between Backwashes
For fixed bed bioreactors, the biological treatment model requires the user to input the interval
between backwashes.11 For designs that include post-treatment filters (see below), the model
requires a separate backwash interval for these filters. The cost estimates below assume
backwash intervals of 24 hours for fixed bed bioreactors and 36 hours for post-treatment filters.
Post-Treatment Options
Biological treatment results in the production of soluble microbial organic products that become
part of the treated water. The biological treatment process also depletes the levels of oxygen in
the treated water. Therefore, based on peer review comments, post-treatment will be required for
production of drinking water. The biological treatment model allows users to choose whether to
include post-treatment coagulant addition and filtration for removal of turbidity, sulfide, and/or
dissolved organic content. It also allows users to choose from aeration or hydrogen peroxide
addition for post-treatment oxidation. The cost estimates below include post-treatment filtration
with coagulant addition and aeration for post-treatment oxidation.
Although post-treatment disinfection typically is needed following biological treatment,
disinfection is required for most water systems regardless of whether perchlorate treatment is
present. Therefore, the costs of disinfection are not attributable exclusively to perchlorate
compliance. Accordingly, the cost estimates below do not include post-treatment disinfection;
they assume that existing disinfection facilities are sufficient and located appropriately.
Fluidized Bed Expansion
Based on peer review comments on the biological treatment model, the cost estimates below
assume bed expansion of 70 percent for fluidized beds. They also include freeboard above the
expanded bed of 4 feet for small systems (less than 1 MGD design flow) and 7 feet for larger
systems (1 MGD and greater).
Fluidized Bed Recycle Rate
Based on peer review comments on the biological treatment model, the cost estimates below
assume a recycle rate of 50 percent for fluidized beds.
7.3.2 Cost Estimates
The graphs below plot WBS cost model results in 2017 dollars at the mid cost level for removal
of perchlorate from groundwater using biological treatment with fixed bed pressure vessels
(Exhibit 7-5), fixed bed gravity basins (Exhibit 7-6), and fluidized bed pressure vessels
(Exhibit 7-7). In the exhibits, note that costs increase at 1 MGD design flow (0.355 MGD
average flow) because of the change in assumptions used for small systems versus those for large
systems. Appendix B provides complete cost equations for all three design types, including the
high, mid, and low cost levels and for treatment of groundwater and surface water. Appendix C
11 For fluidized bed bioreactors, the model uses a continuous biomass separation device consisting of a blower to
agitate excess biomass and send it out of the bioreactor in the effluent, so no such interval is needed.
65
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
presents example WBS model outputs for selected flow rates, allowing review of individual cost
line items.
Exhibit 7-5. Mid Cost Results for Removal of Perchlorate from Groundwater Using
Biological Treatment with Fixed Bed Pressure Vessels (2017 dollars)
66
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 7-6. Mid Cost Results for Removal of Perchlorate from Groundwater Using
Biological Treatment with Fixed Bed Gravity Basins (2017 dollars)
|
/
V
-1
42
8363x2
«- 40<
W8
? F
1f
X
*¦ 7189477.15
/
R2 = 0.9994
>
r"
1
44
&
-¦
y = 2931011.5960x0 534
Rz - n Q7RR
o -
rT
C
i
A
(k
y = -243851.4201x2 + 1460419.7659x + 1052522.9569
R2 = 0.9991
i i i 1 i i i i i i i i 1 i i i i i i i i
0.01
0.1
1 Design size (mgd) 10
100
1000
67
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 7-7. Mid Cost Results for Removal of Perchlorate from Groundwater Using
Biological Treatment with Fluidized Bed Pressure Vessels (2017 dollars)
y = -199.5054X2 + 571178.1483x +3627131.0106
R2 = 1.0000
j
-
X
I
r~ i~i
r
V
—
-1
020
4755x3 + 546
3.6
5
R2
2x2
= C
+ 8(
.99
57095 76
95
64x
+ 1
93
73
34
1
241
J
• -
A
J
A
J
y = -362080.7841x2 + 1369255.0560X + 997173.17
R2 = 0.9959
12
J
0.01 0.1 1 Design size (mgd) 10 100 1000
68
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
7.4 Costs for Reverse Osmosis
7.4.1 Model Components and Assumptions
USEPA (2019) provides a complete description of the engineering design process used by the
WBS model for RO/NF. The model can estimate costs for a multistage RO installation, based on
an input water quality analysis and treatment parameters. Although it is also capable of
estimating costs for NF, the model was used here specifically for RO, because that membrane
technology showed the most promise for removing perchlorate. As discussed in Chapter 4, NF
(and UF) demonstrated widely varying removal of perchlorate.
In addition to the common WBS direct capital cost items listed in Exhibit 7-2, the RO model
includes the following technology-specific equipment:
• Pressure vessels, membrane elements, piping, valves, connectors, and steel structure for the
membrane racks
• High-pressure pumps for influent water and (optionally) interstage pressure boost
• Valves for concentrate control and (optionally) per-stage throttle
• Cartridge filters for pretreatment
• Tanks, pumps, and mixers for pretreatment chemicals
• Tanks, pumps, screens, cartridge filters, and heaters for membrane cleaning
• Equipment for managing RO concentrate and spent cleaning chemicals
• Associated pipes, valves, and instrumentation.
The RO model also includes the following technology-specific O&M elements:
• Operator labor and replacement elements for pretreatment cartridge filters
• Chemical usage for pretreatment
• Labor and materials for routine operation and maintenance of membrane units
• Energy for high-pressure pumping
• Replacement of membrane elements
• Labor, materials, and chemical usage for membrane cleaning
• Disposal costs for spent cartridge filters and membrane elements
• Fee for disposal of concentrate at a POTW (if POTW disposal is selected).
The paragraphs below describe specific inputs and assumptions that EPA used to generate the
costs in Section 8.4.2. Other inputs and assumptions not discussed below (e.g., cleaning interval,
permeate throttling and interstage boost, membrane life) were as described in USEPA (2019).
Water Type
As described in Section 4.6, the composition of the feed water affects pretreatment and cleaning
requirements, the range of permissible RO train design parameters, and energy usage for
pumping. The WBS model includes three default ground waters and three default surface waters,
ranging from high to low quality (i.e., from low to high total dissolved solids and scaling
potential). The particular water parameters are based on a survey of membrane feed water
characteristics in the literature. The cost estimates below and in Appendix B are intended to
reflect the incremental cost of removing perchlorate from otherwise deliverable water using RO.
Therefore, they use the default high quality water parameters built in to the WBS model. Total
69
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
dissolved solids for the high quality surface water is approximately 360; for high quality ground
water, total dissolved solids is approximately 500 mg/L. USEPA (2019) documents the other
relevant characteristics of these default waters.
Membrane Element
The WBS model includes the option of NF, low-pressure RO, or brackish water RO membrane
elements, with a diameter of 4 inches, 8 inches, or 16 to 18 inches. (Not all manufacturers use the
same size for their largest diameter elements, but the model is independent of the exact
diameter.) Since not all NF membranes are effective for perchlorate treatment, the cost estimates
below assume use of low-pressure RO membrane elements, consistent with the type of elements
shown to be effective by Liang et al. (1998). For very small systems, the cost estimates use 4-
inch diameter elements; above that point they use 8-inch elements. The switch from 4-inch to 8-
inch elements takes place at about 75,000 gallons per day.
Recovery and Flux Rates
The WBS model takes target recovery and flux rates, and designs the reverse osmosis train to
come as close as possible to them. The flux rate, in combination with the system design flow,
determines the total membrane area in the system, and therefore the total number of membrane
elements to be used. The recovery rate affects the number of membrane elements in series. For
instance, two stages of seven elements each would give fourteen elements in series, while three
stages of six elements each would give eighteen. To maintain adequate crossflow, each
individual element is limited in the recovery it can achieve. Therefore, a higher recovery rate
requires more elements in series.
In general, the cost estimates use recovery rates of 80 to 85 percent. At small flows, the small
number of membrane elements limits flexibility in the system design; therefore, estimates up to
about 500,000 gallons per day may use recovery rates as low as 70 percent.
Flux rates are based on the recommendations of various manufacturers for waters of different
challenge. For ground water, the estimates use flux rates of 19 gfd. For surface water, the rates
are 15 to 16 gfd.
Pretreatment
The RO model always includes 5-micron cartridge filters to protect the membrane elements from
suspended solids. The cost estimates also include the addition of sulfuric acid and scale inhibitor
to prevent fouling of the membrane elements.
The cost estimates include the addition of enough sulfuric acid to ensure that at least 1.5 mol/L
of inorganic carbon is present in the RO permeate, to be available for alkalinity recovery; the
resulting dose ranges from 16 to 45 mg/L.
While there are many scale inhibitors available, the model includes two general classes, which it
calls basic antiscalant (to address calcium carbonate scaling) and premium antiscalant (to address
sulfate salts and silica scaling). The cost estimates below include the addition of basic
antiscalant. The antiscalant doses are sufficient to provide a dose of 15 mg/L in the concentrate,
assuming that all antiscalant is retained on the feed/concentrate side of the membrane. This
requirement corresponds to a feed water dose from 2.25 to 4.5 mg/L.
70
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Residuals Discharge
Residuals discharge is usually a major contributor to the cost of an RO facility. The RO/NF
process generates two residuals streams: the membrane concentrate and spent cleaning solution.
Since the spent cleaning solution is generated infrequently and in small amounts, the model
assumes that it will be diluted and discharged with membrane concentrate. The cost estimates
below assume the combined residuals are sent to a POTW. Although it might be impractical for
most POTWs to treat very large concentrate flows, this scenario results in more conservative
estimates (i.e., erring on the side of higher costs) than surface water (ocean) discharge or deep
well injection.
7.4.2 Cost Estimates
The graphs below plot WBS cost model results in 2017 dollars at the mid cost level for removal
of perchlorate from groundwater using RO (Exhibit 7-8). Appendix B provides complete cost
equations, including the high, mid, and low cost levels and for treatment of groundwater and
surface water. Appendix C presents example WBS model outputs for selected flow rates,
allowing review of individual cost line items.
71
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 7-8. Mid Cost Results for Removal of Perchlorate from Groundwater Using
Reverse Osmosis (2017 dollars)
72
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
7.5 Costs for Point-of-use Technologies
7.5.1 Model Components and Assumptions
The document Cost Evaluation of Point-of-Use and Point-of-Entry Treatment Units for Small
Systems: Cost Estimating Tool and User Guide (USEPA, 2007) provides a complete description
of the WBS model for POU technologies. The POU model is capable of estimating equipment
costs for a variety of POU devices, including POU RO devices and replacement filters. The POU
model also includes the cost of the following other components of a complete POU program:
• POU RO device installation
• Public education program development
• POU device monitoring
• POU device maintenance.
Because only small systems would be expected to use POU programs, the POU model covers
only the first four size categories shown in Exhibit 7-1. Also, the POU model does not include
assumptions or materials of construction that vary based on a "component level" or "cost level"
input. Therefore, unlike the other models, it does not generate separate estimates for low-, mid-,
and high-cost scenarios.
To use the POU model in estimating costs for perchlorate, EPA selected a program using RO
devices. Exhibit 7-9 identifies the values used for parameters (other than equipment costs) that
drive the costs of a POU RO program. EPA developed these assumptions based on EPA
Guidance (USEPA, 2006b) and case study data, as discussed in detail in the paragraphs below.
Exhibit 7-9. POU Model Assumptions for Perchlorate
Parameter Category
Value
Installation labor time
Plumber installation time: 2 hours per POU device (NSF International, 2005)
Scheduling time: 0.5 hours per household (USEPA, 2006b)
Public education program
Public meeting-related time: 20 hours
Other outreach time (e.g., program updates in a billing mailer): 4 hours
Monitoring requirements
Initial monitoring for all units; annual monitoring for 1/3 of units (USEPA, 2006b)
Sampling time: 0.25 hours per sampling event (NSF International, 2005)
Filter replacement
Replacement schedule: RO element (3 years); post-RO carbon filter (1 year); pre-RO filters
(9 months) (manufacturer recommendations)
Filter replacement time: 0.5 hour per change-out (NSF International, 2005)
Scheduling time: 0.5 hours per household (USEPA, 2006b)
POU RO Device Installation
Installation of the POU RO devices will be the responsibility of the water system. The utility can,
however, hire a licensed plumber or representative of the product manufacturer to install the
devices. Based on the variety of plumbing issues encountered among older housing units in a
rural community, NSF International (2005) recommends using an experienced plumber to
perform the installations.
73
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
The POU model contains a default estimate of two hours per household to install the POU RO. A
variety of factors such as existing plumbing conditions and travel distance will affect installation
times across sites. The estimate is consistent with case study data. In a Grimes, California,
arsenic demonstration program (NSF International, 2005), POU adsorptive filter installation
times ranged from 15 minutes to 3 hours depending on the accessibility of piping and the need
for additional lines (e.g., to provide treated water to ice-makers). The mean device installation
time was one hour, but total plumber billing records indicated that twice as much time was spent
on all installation-related activities (e.g., additional time to obtain special plumbing fittings and
return visits to homes when residents missed their appointments).
Installation costs also include administrative time for system staff to contact homeowners to
schedule an installation appointment. EPA assumed an average of 30 minutes (0.5 hours) per
household to schedule an appointment. Scheduling effort is likely to vary across customers, with
some being relatively easy to schedule while others may require multiple calls to identify and
contact the correct homeowners or to handle situations such as homeowner reluctance to
participate or language barriers (USEPA, 2006b).
Public Education Program
EPA Guidance (2006b) recommends that systems implement a public education program to
obtain and maintain customer participation and long-term customer satisfaction with the POU
program. The two main program elements recommended in USEPA (2006b) are: public
meetings prior to installing any POU devices to educate customers about the regulatory
compliance requirements and the role of the POU devices; and POU program updates in billing
mailers and on information flyers posted in public locations such as a post office, a public
library, or a website. The POU model includes labor costs for the following program elements:
• preparing information for one public meeting
• attending the meeting
• preparing an additional billing mailer with program updates.
Public education program costs are not available from POU case studies. USEPA (2007)
provides a detailed breakdown of the assumptions used to generate the time estimates shown in
Exhibit 7-9. It also describes the costs for materials such as information flyers for the public
meeting, meeting announcements, and billing mailers.
POU Device Monitoring
A system that implements a POU compliance strategy will need to monitor the quality of water
produced by the treatment devices to demonstrate compliance with a perchlorate standard. The
system will need to work with the appropriate regulatory agency to establish an approved
compliance-monitoring schedule (USEPA, 2006b). The resulting monitoring schedule may have
sampling rates in initial year that differ from sampling rates in subsequent years. EPA Guidance
(2006b) provides an example of a monitoring schedule in which samples are taken from every
unit during the first year to confirm that the units are working properly, and then monitoring
frequency declines to one-third of units each subsequent year. EPA's cost estimates incorporate
these monitoring frequencies.
74
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Monitoring costs include sampling time, shipping fees, and laboratory analysis fees. The average
sampling is 15 minutes (0.25 hours). To minimize the burden on households as well as system
resources, EPA assumes that sampling occurs during installation or maintenance trips. The
assumption is consistent with the Grimes case study cost analysis (NSF International, 2005) used
an estimate of 15 minutes per sampling event.
POU Device Maintenance
Maintenance for the POU RO device primarily includes replacing the four filters: RO membrane,
two carbon filters, and the sediment filter. Replacement schedules reflect average useful lives
based on vendor recommendations. On average, the RO membrane is replaced once every three
years based on average replacement schedules across vendors, and the other filter cartridges are
changed once per year.
In addition to replacement filter costs, maintenance costs include scheduling time and time to
change filters. The Grimes case study cost analysis (NSF International, 2005) used an estimate of
15 minutes per filter change out. EPA assumed the average length of a maintenance call 30
minutes (0.5 hours) because the most frequent type of visit involves changing two filters. EPA
used the same 30-minute scheduling time assumption that it used for initial installation.
7.5.2 Cost Estimates
Exhibit 7-10 plots WBS cost model results in 2017 dollars for removal of perchlorate from
groundwater using POU treatment. Note that this exhibit is plotted based on the number of
households served, rather than the system flow, because number of households is the more
relevant parameter for POU treatment. EPA limits the POU model to a maximum of
approximately 1,000 households served because implementing and maintaining a POU program
for a greater number of households is likely to be impractical. Therefore, the exhibit does not
extend beyond this maximum. As discussed above, the POU model also does not generate
separate high, mid, and low cost estimates. Appendix B contains complete cost equations for
POU treatment, including for groundwater and surface water. For use in national cost estimating,
it also contains equations on the basis of design and average flow, in addition to those on the
basis of households served. Appendix C presents example WBS model outputs for selected flow
rates, allowing review of individual cost line items.
75
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 7-10. Cost Results for Removal of Perchlorate from Groundwater Using
POU Treatment (2017 dollars)
V
.
- y - 607 2278x°987
0
R2 = 1.0000
^ I
j*r__
10 100 1000
Households
Households
76
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
7.6 Costs for Nontreatment Options
7.6.1 Overview
USEPA (2017c) provides a complete description of the engineering design process used by the
WBS model for nontreatment options. The model can estimate costs for two nontreatment
options: interconnection with another system and drilling a new well to replace a contaminated
one. EPA based the model components, design parameters, and default user input values on
information available for nontreatment case studies and cost analyses for prior regulations
(American Water Works Association, 2005; Lucey, 2008; USEPA, 1995; 2006a; 2006c). These
studies involved compliance via nontreatment options for contaminants such as arsenic, volatile
organic contaminants, and radionuclides. The case studies are for systems that range in size from
serving small communities with fewer than 100 connections to systems distributing 2.5 MGD.
Although EPA does not have nontreatment case studies specific to perchlorate, the design and
cost information contained in the case studies for other contaminants is transferable.
Nontreatment options are less likely to be available for larger systems because of the quantity of
water required. Therefore, EPA's WBS nontreatment cost model generates costs only for
systems serving less than 10,000 people.
As discussed in Section 7.1, the two options covered by the WBS nontreatment model (new
wells or interconnection) are likely to have higher costs than other nontreatment options
available for perchlorate. The sections below identify the specific cost elements included under
each option. They also describe the specific inputs and assumptions that EPA used to generate
the costs for each option in Section 8.6.4. For both options, the cost estimates assume that
systems choosing a nontreatment option do so because they have an alternative source that will
not require additional water treatment to address changes in raw water quality (i.e., no post-
treatment). Because of this, they further assume no incremental waste or residuals management
costs.
7.6.2 Model Components and Assumptions for New Wells
In addition to the common WBS direct capital cost items listed in Exhibit 7-2, the WBS
nontreatment model includes the following direct capital cost items specific to the new well
option:
• Well casing, screens, and plugs
• Well installation costs including drilling, development, gravel pack, and surface seals
• Well pumps
• Piping (buried) and valves to connect the new well to the system.
It includes the following option-specific O&M elements:
• Operator labor for operating and maintaining well pumps and valves
• Materials for maintaining well pumps
• Energy for operating well pumps.
The option includes a small shed or other low cost building at the well site along with materials
and labor for maintenance of this building. In calculating land costs, it incorporates a 100 foot
buffer on all sides of the new well building to allow for a sanitary control area around the well,
77
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
as recommended in the peer review comments on the model. For new wells, the model includes
all of the indirect capital costs shown in Exhibit 7-2, except for yard piping. The paragraphs
below describe specific inputs and assumptions used to generate costs for perchlorate under the
new well nontreatment option.
Total Flow Rate Requirements and Flow per Well
As with other WBS models, design and average flow are inputs to the nontreatment model. In the
case of nontreatment approaches, however, "design" flow is actually the peak flow required by
the system, rather than the design capacity of a treatment plant. In the new well nontreatment
option, the flow rate requirements determine the number of new wells required. The cost
estimates below assume one new well would be installed per 500 gpm of water production
capacity required.
Well Depth
Well depth will vary for each site depending on the geological formations and aquifer depths.
Geophysical studies prior to well installation will provide guidance on optimum well depths. The
model has pumps available to serve wells up to 1,350 feet in depth. The cost estimates below
assume a 250-foot well depth. The estimates assume 50 percent of this depth is screened,
allowing for sections of casing both above and below the well screen.
Pump Type
The size of the well will depend on the diameter of the pump used to draw water from the
aquifer. The model contains three sizes of submersible pumps: 4-, 6-, and 8-inch diameter. Each
size can serve a range of flows and depths, so the default size varies across system flows. The
cost estimates below assume 4-inch pumps for systems in the smallest size category (25 to 100
people) and 6-inch pumps for larger systems.
Distance from Well to Distribution System
The distance between a new well and the distribution system affects pipe installation costs. No
case studies provided distance information. The cost estimates below assume a default value of
500 feet.
7.6.3 Model Components and Assumptions for Interconnection
In addition to the common WBS direct capital cost items listed in Exhibit 7-2, the WBS
nontreatment model includes the following direct capital cost items specific to the
interconnection option:
• Booster pumps or pressure reducing valves (depending on pressure at supply source)
• Concrete vaults (buried) for booster pumps or pressure reducing valves
• Interconnecting piping (buried) and valves.
It includes the following option-specific O&M elements:
• Cost of purchased water
• Operator labor for operating and maintaining booster pumps or pressure reducing valves
(depending on pressure at supply source) and interconnecting valves
78
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
• Materials for maintaining booster pumps (if required by pressure at supply source)
• Energy for operating booster pumps (if required by pressure at supply source).
The option does not include any buildings. It includes all of the indirect capital costs shown in
Exhibit 7-2, except for yard piping, site work, and architectural fees. The paragraphs below
describe specific inputs and assumptions used to generate costs for perchlorate under the
interconnection nontreatment option.
Flow Rate Requirements
As with other WBS models, design and average flow are inputs to the nontreatment model. In the
case of nontreatment approaches, however, "design" flow is actually the peak flow required by
the system, rather than the design capacity of a treatment plant. In the interconnection
nontreatment option, the flow rate requirements determine a number of system and equipment
parameters, including pipeline and valve size and pump capacity and energy use (if required by
pressure at the supply source).
Distance to Interconnection Water Supply
For utilities that have the ability to purchase water from a neighboring system, the capital cost of
the interconnection project will depend on the distance between the two systems. If the systems
are far apart geographically, the cost of installing a pipeline may be too high to make an
interconnection project feasible. Also, a larger booster pump will be required to overcome
friction losses along longer pipelines. The cost estimates below assume an average
interconnection distance of 10,000 feet, based on comments from the peer review of the
nontreatment model.
Pressure at Supply Water Source
The water pressure of purchased water may require adjustment prior to entering the purchasing
system's distribution network (e.g., to account for elevation differences). If the wholesale
supplier does not have enough pressure to meet the distribution needs of the interconnection
project, then booster pumps are needed to move water from the supply source into the
distribution system. The booster pump size is based on flow rate as well as distance and grade to
the distribution system. If the supply source has more pressure than necessary then pressure
reducing valves are needed. Based on comments from the peer review, the cost estimates below
assume that differences in pressure between the supplier and the purchasing system are minimal,
so that neither booster pumps nor pressure reducing valves are needed.
Cost of Purchased Water
An interconnection project will include one or more water rates paid to the wholesale system by
the purchasing system. The model assumption is a single water rate for the average cost in
dollars per thousand gallons of purchased water. Based on data in USEPA (2009), the mean
revenue per thousand gallons among all wholesale systems is $1.85. The cost estimates below
assume a higher cost of purchased water of $2.00 per thousand gallons, based on comments from
the peer review.
79
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
7.6.4 Cost Estimates
The graphs below plot WBS cost model results in 2017 dollars at the mid cost level for the two
nontreatment options for systems using groundwater: new wells (Exhibit 7-11) and
interconnection (Exhibit 7-12). The exhibits do not extend beyond 3.536 MGD design flow,
because the nontreatment model does not generate costs for larger systems. Appendix B provides
complete cost equations for both nontreatment options, including the high, mid, and low cost
levels and for interconnection of groundwater and surface water systems. Appendix C presents
example WBS model outputs for selected flow rates, allowing review of individual cost line
items.
Exhibit 7-11. Mid Cost Results for New Wells at Groundwater Systems (2017
dollars)
10,000,000
y =-161442.7605X3 + 1076348.5527X2 - 1656547.1206X + 1554345.9348
R2 = 0 9617
100,000
0.01
y = -139539.1316x3 + 747490.2819x2 - 167748.3142X +373330.4020
R2 = 0.8744
0.1
Design size (mgd)
10
1,000,000
¦ -
J 1
....
R2 = 0.9703
ki
R2 - n Q79^
A
r
~
"A
J 00,000
tn
V
O
¦ 10,000
1,000
0.001
0.01
Average (Jktw (mgd)
10
80
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Exhibit 7-12. Mid Cost Results for Interconnection of Groundwater Systems (2017
dollars)
1.000,000
100,000
y = -31684.5250x2 + 230842.8534X +127845.8226
R2 = 0 8133
y = 351692.4792x°1415
R> = 0.9485
A A
10,000
1,000
y = 802914.0164x +20.9820
R2 = 1.0000
0.001
0.01
Average Cfiibw (mgd)
10
81
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
8 References
American Water Works Assocation and American Society of Civil Engineers (AWWA/ASCE).
2005. Water Treatment Plant Design (4th ed.). Denver, CO: AWWA.
American Waterworks Association. 2005. Water Utility Management. Denver, CO: AWWA.
Amy, G. L., Kim, T.-U., Yoon, J., Drewes, J. E., Bellona, C., Pellegrino, J., and Heberer, T.
2006. Fundamental Insights into Micropollutant Rejection by High Pressure Membranes
(RO & NF). In Proceedings of the American Water Works Association Annual
Conference and Exposition (ACE).
Applied Research Associates. 2000. Final Report: Hydrothermal/Thermal Decomposition of
Perchlorate. Investigators: L. Li, E.N. EPA Small Business Innovation Research, EPA
Grant Number 68D99032.
Batista, J. R., Gingras, T. M., and Vieira, A. R. 2003. Combining Ion-Exchange (IX) Technology
and Biological Reduction for Perchlorate Removal. Remediation, 13( 1), 21-38.
Batista, J. R., McGarvey, F. X., and Vieira, A. R. 2000. The Removal of Perchlorate from Water
Using Ion-Exchange Resins. In E.T. Urbansky (Ed.), Perchlorate in the Environment.
New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Berlien, M. J. 2003. LaPuente Valley County Water District's Experience withlSEP
(Presentation of Carollo Engineers, Inc. and Association of California Water Agencies).
Betts, K. S. 1998. Rotation ion-exchange system removes perchlorate, 32, 454A-455A.
Blute, N. K. 2012. Comments submitted during External Expert Review of the Perchlorate
Technologies and Cost Document.
Blute, N. K., Seidel, C. J., McGuire, M. J., Qin, D., and Byerrum, J. 2006, June. Bench and Pilot
Testing of High Capacity, Single-Pass Ion Exchange Resins for Perchlorate Removal.
Presented at the 2006 AWWA Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, TX.
Boodoo, F. 2003. POU/POE removal of perchlorate. Water Conditioning and Purification, 45(8).
Boodoo, F. 2006. Advances in Arsenic, Nitrate, and Perchlorate Remediation (Purolite company
presentation).
Brown, J. C., Anderson, R. D., Min, J. H., Boulos, L., Prasifka, D., and Juby, G. J. G. 2005.
Fixed-bed biological treatment of perchlorate-contaminated drinking water. Journal
AWWA, 97(9).
Brown, J. C., Snoeyink, V. L., Raskin, L., and Lin, R. 2003. The sensitivity of fixed-bed
biological perchlorate removal to changes in operating conditions and water quality
characteristics. Water Research, 37(1), 206-214.
82
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Bull, R. J., Chang, A. C., Cranor, C. F., Shank, R. C., and Trussell, R. 2004. Perchlorate in
Drinking Water: A Science and Policy Review. University of California, Irvine, CA:
Urban Water Research Center.
Burge, S., and Halden, R. 1999. Nitrate and Perchlorate Removal from Groundwater by Ion
Exchange: Pilot Testing and Cost Analysis (No. UCRL-ID-135639). University of
California, Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2004, January. Perchlorate
Contamination Treatment Alternatives.
Case, T., Cannon, F., Clifford, D., Rittman, B., Logan, B., Evans, P., Adham, S., and Aldridge,
L. 2004. Perchlorate Research Partnership - Overview and Technology Review. Denver,
CO: American Water Works Association Research Foundation.
Chaudhuri, S. K., O'Connor, S. M., Gustavson, R. L., Achenbach, L. A., and Coates, J. D. 2002.
Environmental factors that control microbial perchlorate reduction. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 68(9), 4425-4430.
City of Redlands, California. 2004. Lockheed-Martin Installs New Ion-Exchange System at
Redlands Well. City of Redlands, California, Municipal Utilities Department.
Clifford, D. A. 1999. Chapter 9: Ion Exchange and Inorganic Adsorption. In Water Quality and
Treatment. New York, NY: American Water Works Association-McGraw Hill.
Coates, J. D., Michaelidou, S. M., O'Connor, R. A., Bruce, R. A., and Achenbach, L. A. 2000.
The Diverse Microbiology of Perchlorate Reduction. In E.T. Urbansky (Ed.), Perchlorate
in the Environment. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Coppola, E. N. 2003. Available and Emerging Perchlorate Treatment Technologies for Drinking
Water and Wastewater (Presentation). Applied Research Associates, Inc.
Croft, T. 2004. Overview of Las Vegas Valley Perchlorate Remedial Efforts (Prepared for
Perchlorate Task Force Meeting). Nevada Division of Environmental Protection.
Darracq, G., Baron, J., and Joyeux, M. 2014. Kinetic and isotherm studies on perchlorate
sorption by ion-exchange resins in drinking water treatment. Journal of Water Process
Engineering, 3, 123-131.
Dordelmann, O. 2009, November. Full-Scale BiologicalDenitrification Plants in Germany,
Austria and Poland. Presented at the 2009 AWWA Water Quality Technology
Conference & Exposition, Seattle, WA.
Drago, J. A. 2012, December. Comments submitted during External Expert Review of the
Perchlorate Technologies and Cost Document.
83
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Drago, J. A., and Leserman, J. R. 2011. Castaic Lake Water Agency Operating Experience with
Lead-Lag Anion Exchange for Perchl orate Removal. In Proceedings of the American
Water Works Association Water Quality Technology Conference.
Dugan, N. R., Williams, D. J., Meyer, M., Schneider, R. R., Speth, T. F., Kelty, K., and Metz, D.
H. 2011. The Impact of Temperature on Anaerobic Biological Per chlorate Removal and
Aerobic Polishing of the Effluent. Presented at the 2011 AWWA Annual Conference and
Exposition.
Dugan, N. R., Williams, D. J., Meyer, M., Schneider, R. R., Speth, T. F., and Metz, D. H. 2009.
The Impact of Temperature on Anaerobic Biological Perchlorate Treatment. Presented at
the 2009 AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference & Exposition, Seattle, WA.
Faccini, J., Ebrahimi, S., and Roberts, D. J. 2016. Regeneration of a perchlorate-exhausted
highly selective ion exchange resin: Kinetics study of adsorption and desorption
processes. Separation and Purification Technology, 755(28), 266-274.
Fontana Water Company. 2010. Water Treatment. Retrieved from www.fontanawater.com
Friese, D., Hills, R., Overstreet, R., and Pittman, B. 2013, November. Demonstration and
Commercialization of ARoNite, a Noval Hydrogen-Based Membrane Biofilm Biological
Reduction Process. Presented at the AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference.
Giblin, T., Losi, M. E., Hosangadi, V., and Frankenberger, W. T. 2002. Bacterial Perchlorate
Reduction in Simulated Reverse Osmosis Rejectate. Bioremediation Journal, 6(2), 105—
112.
Gilbert, J. B., Clark, R., Kavanaugh, M., McCarty, P., and Trussell, R. R. 2001. Review of Phase
2 Treatibility Study: Aerojet Facility, Rancho Cordova, California (Expert Panel Final
Report prepared for Aerojet).
Gingras, T. M., and Batista, J. R. 2002. Reduction of perchlorate in ion exchange regenerant
solutions containing high salinity and ammonium. Journal of Environmental Monitoring,
4, 96-101.
Greene, M. R., and Pitre, M. P. 2000. Treatment of Groundwater Containing Perchlorate using
Biological Fluidized Bed Reactors with GAC or Sand Media. In E.T. Urbansky (Ed.),
Perchlorate in the Environment. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Ground-Water Remediation Technologies Analysis Center (GWRTAC). 2001. Technology
Status Report: Perchlorate Treatment Technologies, First Edition (Technology Status
Report TS-01-01).
Gu, B., Brown, G. M., Alexandratos, S. D., Ober, R., and Patel, V. 1999. Selective Anion
Exchange Resins for the Removal of Perchlorate (C104) from Groundwater (Publication
No. 4863. ORNL/TM-13753). Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Environmental Sciences Division.
84
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Gu, B., Brown, G. M., and Chiang, C.-C. 2007. Treatment of perchlorate-contaminated
groundwater using highly selective, regenerable ion exchange technologies.
Environmental Science & Technology, Ą7(17), 6277-6282.
Gu, B., Brown, G. M., Maya, L., Lance, M. J., and Moyer, B. A. 2001. Regeneration of
perchlorate (C104-)-loaded anion exchange resins by a novel tetrachloroferrate (FeC14-)
displacement technique. Environmental Science & Technology, 35, 3363-3368.
Gu, B., Ku, Y.-K., and Brown, G. M. 2002. Treatment of perchlorate-contaminated groundwater
using highly selective, regenerable ion-exchange technology: a pilot-scale demonstration.
Remediation, 12(2), 51-68.
Harding Engineering and Environmental Services. 2001. Final: Phase 2 Treatibility Study
Report, Aerojet GET E/F Treatment Facility, Sacramento, California (Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region IX and Baldwin Park Operable Unit
Cooperating Respondents, San Gabriel Basin,California).
Harter, T. 2003. Water Well Design and Construction. University of California, Division of
Agricultural and Natural Resources.
Hayward, R. J., and Gillen, D. F. 2005. Do your homework! Careful research helps solve
perchlorate problems. Opflow, 31(4).
Kim, K., and Logan, B. E. 2000. Fixed-bed bioreactor treating perchlorate-contaminated waters.
Environmental Engineering Science, 17(5).
Kotlarz, N., Upadhyaya, G., Togna, P., and Raskin, L. 2016. Evaluation of electron donors for
biological perchlorate removal highlights the importance of diverse perchlorate-reducing
populations. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology, 2, 1049-1063.
Lehman, S. G., Badruzzaman, M., Adham, S., Roberts, D. J., and Clifford, D. A. 2008.
Perchlorate and nitrate treatment by ion exchange integrated with biological brine
treatment. Water Research, 42(4-5), 969-976.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.09.011
Liang, S., Scott, K. N., Palencia, L. S., and Bruno, J. 1998. Investigation of Treatment Options
for Perchlorate Removal. Presented at the AWWA Water Quality Technology
Conference, San Diego, CA: La Verne, CA: Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California.
Logan, B. E. 2001. Assessing the outlook for perchlorate remediation. Environmental Science &
Technology, 35(23), 482A-487A.
Losi, M. E., Giblin, T., Hosangadi, V., and Frankenberger, W. T. 2002. Bioremediation of
perchlorate-contaminated groundwater using a packed bed biological reactor.
Bioremediation Journal, 6(2), 97-104.
85
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Lu, 0. 2003. Experiences with Fixed Bed Ion Exchange and Toss-Away Resin (Presentation of
Carollo Engineers, Inc. and Association of California Water Agencies).
Lucey, B. 2008. EPA Rad. Compliance Program. Presented at the New Hampshire Department
of Environmental Services Conference.
Lutes, C., Henderson, T., Singer, C., Garcia, D., Pollack, N., Chiang, C., and Gu, B. 2010. Final
Report: Integrated Ion Exchange Regeneration Process for Drinking Water (U.S.
Department of Defense Environmental Security Technology Certification Prgoram
(ESTCP). ESTCP Project ER-0545).
Marqusee, J. 2001, May. In Situ Bioremediation of Perchlorate in Groundwater. Presented at the
Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, General Meeting.
Membrane Technology. 2006, April. News: Ion-Exchange System Removes Perchlorate.
Membrane Technology.
Meyer, K. J. 2012, December. Comments submitted during External Expert Review of the
Perchlorate Technologies Cost Document.
Min, B., Evans, P. J., Chu, A. K., and Logan, B. E. 2004. Perchlorate removal in sand and plastic
media bioreactors. Water Research, 35(1), 47-60.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.watres.2003.09.019
Min, J., Boulos, L., and Brown, J. 2003. Process Train Selection: Membrane, Ion Exchange,
Biological (Presentation of Carollo Engineers, Inc. and Association of California Water
Agencies).
Montgomery Watson Harza and University of Houston. 2003. Treatibility of Perchlorate in
Groundwater Using Ion-Exchange Technology (Project 2805, Phase II, Progress Report
No. 4). Denver, CO: AWWA Research Foundation.
Nam, S., Kim, S., Choi, H., Yoon, Silverstein, J., and Amy, G. 2005. Perchlorate Rejection by
High-Pressure Membranes and Brine Stream Treatment by Chemical and Biological
Processes. Presented at the American Water Works Association Membrane Technology
Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
NASA. 2011, December. Groundwater Cleanup: A Newsletter on NASA 's Cleanup Efforts at the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Retrieved
from https://cercla.hq.nasa.gov/jpl%20newsletter%20201 l.pdf
NSF International. 2005. Feasibility of Economically Sustainable Point-of-Use/Point-of-Entry
Decentralized Public Water System. Ann Arbor, MI: NSF International.
NSF International. 2019. Water Treatment System Certification Process. Retrieved from
http://www.nsf.org/consumer-resources/water-quality/water-filters-testing-
treatment/water-treatment-system-certification-process
86
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 2002. Bi-Functional Resin for Removal of Contaminants from
Groundwater (DOE/EM-0634). DOE Office of Science and Technology. Retrieved from
http ://apps.em.doe. gov/O S T/pub s/itsr s/itsr25 5. pdf
Polk, J., Murray, C., Onewokae, D. E., Tolbert, D. E., Togna, A. P., Guarini, W. J., Frisch, S.,
and Del Vecchio, M. 2001, June. Case Study of Ex-Situ Biological Treatment of
Perchlorate-Contaminated Groundwater. Presented at the 4th Tri-Services
Environmental Technology Symposium, San Diego, CA.
Pollack, N. 2004. Evolution of Ion Exchange Based Perchlorate Treatment Solutions. Calgon
Carbon Corporation.
Praskins, W. 2003, May. Treatment of Per chlorate in Water. Presented at the EPA Region 9.
Purolite. 2011. Purolite Ion Exchange Resins: Purolite Perchlorate References California List:
August.
Roefer, P. 2013, November. Addressing Perchlorate Contamination in the Las Vegas Valley:
The Rocket Science Behind Dealing with Rocket Fuel. Presented at the AWWA Water
Quality Technology Conference.
Russell, C. G., Qin, G., Blute, N. K., McGuire, M. J., and Williams, C. 2008, November. Pilot
Testing of Single Pass Perchlorate-Selective Ion Exchange Resins at Three Utilities in the
Main San Gabriel Basin. Presented at the AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference
& Exposition, Cincinnati, OH.
Santschi, D. R. 2010, November 14. Loma Linda: New Water Treatment Plant Online. Retrieved
October 13, 2018, from https://www.pe.eom/2010/ll/25/loma-linda-new-water-
treatment-plant-online/
Sanyal, O., Sommerfeld, A. N., and Lee, I. 2015. Design of ultrathin nanostructured
poly electrolyte-based membranes with higher perchlorate rejection and high
permeability. Separation and Purification Technology, I45(\ 13-1 19).
Sharbat, A., and Batista, J. R. 2013, November. Mass Transfer Studies of Ion-Exchange Resin
Bio-Regeneration Usedfor Treatment of Perchlorate in Drinking Water. Presented at the
AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference.
Siemens Water Technologies. 2006. Nitrate and Perchlorate Contamination in a Public
Drinking water Supply - California Water Services Company, Porterville, California.
Siemens Water Technologies. 2009a. Case Study: East Coast Aerospace Manufacturer.
Siemens Water Technologies. 2009b. Case Study: Lincoln Avenue Water Company, Altadena,
California.
Siemens Water Technologies. 2009c. Case Study: Municipality in the State of Massachusetts.
87
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Siemens Water Technologies. 2009d. Case Study: West Valley Water District, San Bernardino,
California.
The Dow Chemical Company. 2005, July. Dow Liquid Separations FILMTEC Reverse Osmosis
Membranes Technical Manual. Retrieved from
http://www.dow.com/liquidseps/lit/techman.htm
The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) Team. 2008, March.
Technical/Regulatory Guidance: Remediation Technologies for Perchlorate
Contamination in Water and Soil. Retrieved from
http://www.eosremediation.com/download/Perchlorate/ITRC%20PERC-2.pdf
Tripp, A. R., Clifford, D., Roberts, D. J., Cang, Y., Aldridge, L., Gillogly, T., and Boulos, L.
2003. Treatment of perchlorate in groundwater by ion exchange technology. AWWA
Research Foundation.
Upadhyaya, G., Kotlarz, N., Togna, P., and Raskin, L. 2015. Carbohydrate-Based Electron
Donor for Biological Nitrate and Perchlorate Removal From Drinking Water. Journal -
American Water Works Association, 707(12), E674-E684.
https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2015.107.0143
Urbansky, Edward T. 1998. Perchlorate Chemistry: Implications for Analysis and Remediation.
Bioremediation Journal, 2(2), 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/10889869891214231
U.S. DoD. 2000. Ammonium Perchlorate Biodegradation for Industrial Wastewater Treatment
(ESTCP Cost and Performance Report). U.S. Department of Defense.
U.S. DoD. 2002. Perchlorate Treatment Technology Fact Sheet: Ion Exchange. U.S. Department
of Defense. Retrieved from
www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/products/techtrans/perchloratetreatment/ionexchange.pdf
U.S. DoD. 2007. Perchlorate Removal, Destruction, and Field Monitoring Demonstration
(ESTCP Cost and Performance Report (ER-0312)). U.S. Department of Defense.
U.S. DoD. 2008a. Direct Fixed-bed Biological Perchlorate Destruction Demonstration (ESTCP
Final Report (ER-0544)). U.S. Department of Defense.
U.S. DoD. 2008b. Perchlorate Removal, Destruction, and Field Monitoring Demonstration
(Drinking Water - Pilot Scale) (ESTCP Cost and Performance Report (ER-0312)). U.S.
Department of Defense.
U. S. DoD. 2009. Demonstration of a Full-Scale Fluidized Bed Bioreactor for the Treatment of
Perchlorate at Low Concentrations in Groundwater (Environmental Security Technology
Certification Program (ESTCP) Final Report (ER-0543)). U.S. Department of Defense.
U.S. Dol. 2001. Membrane Concentrate Disposal: Practices and Regulation (Desalination and
Water Purification Research and Development Program Report No. 69). U.S. Department
of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Water Treatment
88
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Engineering and Research Group. Retrieved from
http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/water/media/pdfs/report069.pdf
U. S. Filter. 2004, October. Development of a Highly Selective Ion Exchange Resin for Removal
of Perchlorate from Groundwater. Presented at the East Valley Water District 2004
Water Quality Conference, Ontario, CA.
USEPA. 1995. Restructuring Small Drinking Water Systems: Options and Case Studies. USEPA
Division of Drinking Water.
USEPA. 1997. Discussion Summary: EPA Technology Design Workshop. Washington, D.C.:
USEPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
USEPA. 2003. Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual, June 2003 Draft. Prepared by: Malcolm
Pirnie, Inc., Separation Processes, Inc., and The Cadmus Group, Inc. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
USEPA. 2005, May. Perchlorate Treatment Technology Update: Federal Facilities Forum Issue
Paper. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA 542-R-05-015.
USEPA. 2006a. Economic Analysis for the Final Ground Water Rule. EPA-815-R-06-014.
USEPA. 2006b. Point-of-Use or Point-of-Entry Treatment Options for Small Drinking Water
Systems (EPA-815-R-06-010). Washington, D.C.: USEPA, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, Standards and Risk Management Division.
USEPA. 2006c. Technology and Cost Document for the Final Ground Water Rule. EPA-815-R-
06-015.
USEPA. 2007. Cost Evaluation of Point-of-Use and Point-of-Entry Treatment Units for Small
Systems: Cost Estimating Tool and User Guide (EPA 815-R-07-001).
USEPA. 2009, May. 2006 Community Water System Survey - Volume II: Detailed Tables and
Survey Methodology. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/dwstandardsregulations/community-water-system-survey
USEPA. 2011. Drinking Water: Regulatory Determination on Perchlorate. Federal Register
Notice. 76 FRNo. 29. Pages 7762-7767. (February 11, 2011) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R
pt. 141). Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/02/ll/2011-
2603/drinking-water-regulatory-determination-on-perchlorate
USEPA. 2017a. Work Breakdown Structure-Based Cost Model for Biological Drinking Water
Treatment. Office of Water. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/dwregdev/drinking-
water-treatment-technology-unit-cost-models-and-overview-technologies
USEPA. 2017b. Work Breakdown Structure-Based Cost Model for Ion Exchange Treatment of
Perchlorate in Drinking Water. Office of Water. Retrieved from
89
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
https://www.epa.gov/dwregdev/drinking-water-treatment-technology-unit-cost-models-
and-overview-technologies
USEPA. 2017c. Work Breakdown Structure-Based Cost Model for Nontreatment Options for
Drinking Water Compliance. Office of Water. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/dwregdev/drinking-water-treatment-technology-unit-cost-models-
and-overview-technologies
USEPA. 2019. Work Breakdown Structure-Based Cost Model for Reverse
Osmosis/Nanofiltration Drinking Water Treatment. Office of Water. Retrieved from
https://www.epa.gov/dwregdev/drinking-water-treatment-technology-unit-cost-models-
and-overview-technologies
Venkatesh, K. R., Klara, S. M., Jennings, D. L., and Wagner, N. J. 2000. Removal and
Destruction of Perchlorate and Other Anions from Ground Water Using the ISEP+™
System. In E.T. Urbansky (Ed.), Perchlorate in the Environment. New York, NY:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Wagner, N., and Drewry, C. 2000, August. Commercial Systems Treating Both High and Low
Strength Perchlorate Applications Utilizing Ion Exchange. Presented at the Perchlorate
Treatment Technology Workshop, 5th Annual Joint Services Pollution Prevention &
Hazardous Waste Management Conference & Exhibition, San Antonio, TX.
Water & Wastes Digest. 2010, January 15. Envirogen Technologies Brings New Treatment
System Online for California Hospital Facility. Retrieved from www.wwdmag.com
Webster, T. D., and Crowley, T. J. 2010, November. Full-Scale Implementation of a Biological
Fluidized Bed Drinking Water Treatment Plant for Nitrate and Perchlorate Treatment.
Presented at the 2010 Water Education Foundation Water Quality and Regulatory
Conference, Ontario, CA.
Webster, T. D., and Crowley, T. J. 2016, June. Biological treatment of perchlorate in
groundwater. Presented at the AWWA Annual Conference and Exposition.
Webster, T. D., and Litchfield, M. H. 2017. Full-scale biological treatment of nitrate and
perchlorate for potable water production. Journal AWWA, 109(5), 30-40.
Wu, X., and Blute, N. K. 2010, March. Perchlorate Removal Using Single-Pass Ion Exchange
Resin - Pilot Testing Purolite A532E at the San Gabriel B6 Plant. Presented at the 2010
California-Nevada AWWA Spring Conference, Hollywood, CA.
Xiong, Z., and Zhao, D. 2004, September. Removal of Perchlorate from Water Using a New
Class of Reusable Ion Exchangers. Environmental Engineering Program, Department of
Civil Engineering, Auburn University.
Xu, J., Song, Y., Min, B., Steinberg, L., and Logan, B. E. 2003. Microbial Degradation of
Perchlorate: Principles and Applications. Environmental Engineering Science, 20(5),
405-422. https://doi.org/10.1089/109287503768335904
90
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Yoon, J., Amy, G., and Yoon, Y. 2005. Transport of target anions, chromate (Cr (VI)), arsenate
(As (V)), and perchlorate (C104), through RO, NF, and UF membranes. Water Science
and Technology, 57(6-7), 327-334.
Yoon, J., Yoon, Y., Amy, G., Cho, J., Foss, D., and Kim, T. 2003. Use of surfactant modified
ultrafiltration for perchlorate (Cl(0)(4-)) removal. Water Research, 37(9), 2001-2012.
https ://doi. org/10.1016/S0043 -13 54(02)00600-0
Yoon, J., Yoon, Y., Amy, G., and Her, N. 2005. Determination of perchlorate rejection and
associated inorganic fouling (scaling) for reverse osmosis and nanofiltration membranes
under various operating conditions. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 726-733.
Yoon, Y., Amy, G., Cho, J., Her, N., and Pellegrino, J. 2002. Transport of perchlorate (C104-)
through NF andUF membranes. Desalination, 147(1), 11-17.
https ://doi. org/10.1016/S0011 -9164(02)00564-7
Yoon, Y., Amy, G., Cho, J., and Pellegrino, J. 2005. Systematic Bench-Scale Assessment of
Perchlorate (C104 -) Rejection Mechanisms by Nanofiltration and Ultrafiltration
Membranes. Separation Science and Technology, 39(9), 2105-2135.
https ://doi. org/10.1081 /S S-12003 93 04
91
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Appendix A: Residuals Treatment
For certain residuals from technologies removing perchlorate from drinking water, additional
treatment may be desirable or required. Specifically, residuals from both ion exchange (see
Chapter 2) and membrane technologies (see Chapter 4) may be amenable to treatment prior to
their disposal, discharge, or reuse. One form of residuals treatment that has received considerable
research attention uses biological treatment (see Chapter 3). Thus, the topic of residuals
treatment is relevant to several of the technologies discussed in this document. Because of its
cross-technology applicability, residuals treatment research is summarized here in an appendix.
Treatment technologies for residuals from technologies removing perchlorate from drinking
water include biological treatment and physical/chemical reduction.12 This appendix provides an
overview of the status of each residuals treatment technology.
A.1 Biological Treatment of Residuals
Biological treatment of concentrated waste streams from ion exchange processes can be difficult
due the microbial toxicity associated with the high salt content of the brine. In the case of an
anion exchange process, the regeneration of the resin typically generates a 7 to 12 percent
sodium hydroxide brine solution enriched in perchlorate. Gingras and Batista (2002) were unable
to adapt a PRB culture to degrade perchlorate in an ion exchange brine. As little as 1 percent
sodium hydroxide reduced perchlorate reduction rates by their perchlorate-degrading culture by
half (Gingras and Batista, 2002). Batista et al. (2003) indicate that the use of halotolerant
microbes that can reduce perchlorate in the presence of high levels of salinity would be required
for effective biological brine treatment.
Pilot tests conducted by MWH and the University of Houston, however, evaluated biological
treatment of spent brines with promising initial results. A biological system based on a marine
sediment inoculum was shown to successfully and consistently remove perchlorate at
concentrations of 1.5 to 3.0 mg/L from the brine to below 0.2 mg/L, the goal established for
effective reuse of the brine. Investigators observed that as the treated brine was recycled to
regenerate the exhausted ion exchange resin, the resin maintained its ability to remove
perchlorate to less than 4 |ig/L. After 30 reuse cycles, various constituents accumulated within
the brine, including bicarbonate, sulfate, uranium, arsenic, chromium, fluoride, barium, and
silica. These accumulated chemicals are site specific and depend upon raw water quality. Control
of this accumulation through additional treatment might be required depending on site-specific
concentrations. The researchers identified mixing and maintaining an anoxic environment as key
operational requirements. Regular maintenance to remove scale build-up prevents system
clogging. The researchers noted that the potential for precipitation and clogging is high under
standard operating conditions (Case et al., 2004).
12 In addition, several sources (Boodoo, 2006; U.S. DoD, 2007; 2008b) present information on a potential treatment
approach for spent caustic regenerant from an ion exchange system using weak-base resin. This approach uses a
small, strong-base resin scavenger bed, with the spent resin from the scavenger bed ultimately disposed by
incineration. Because study of this approach has been limited to weak-base resin regenerant, this appendix does not
include further discussion of this residuals treatment method.
92
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
The literature does not include any detailed evaluation of the feasibility of biological treatment of
spent tetrachloroferrate regenerant. Batista et al. (2003) suggest that such a system could be used
if pH adjustment were applied to raise the pH of the regenerant. Recent studies of
tetrachloroferrate regeneration (Gu et al., 2007; Lutes et al., 2010) do not include examination of
biological treatment of spent regenerant.
Batista et al. (2003; 2000) have suggested that a primary advantage of weak-base resins is that
caustic solutions used to regenerate these resins may be more amenable to biological treatment
than conventional brine solutions. Instead of containing sodium chloride, which can be toxic to
some microorganisms, these solutions could contain ammonium hydroxide, which can be used as
a nutrient by microbes (Batista et al., 2000). On the other hand, the caustic solutions would
require pH adjustment to lower the pH. Also, high levels of ammonium (greater than 0.3 percent)
could be toxic to anaerobic biological systems. Ammonium might need to be air stripped or
biologically oxidized to nitrate (Batista et al., 2003). Recent studies of regenerated weak-base
resins (U.S. DoD, 2007; 2008b) do not include examination of biological treatment of spent
regenerant.
Xu et al. (2003) notes that the waste stream containing perchlorate produced from a RO process
contains much lower amount of salts (less than 1 percent) than the sodium hydroxide brine
generated using an ion exchange process. Giblin et al. (2002) inoculated a PBR with the pure
culture perclace and tested its ability to remove perchlorate from a simulated RO rejectate. The
researchers found that this system removed 98 percent of perchlorate from a twice-concentrated
rejectate (total dissolved solids of 0.4 percent) with an influent perchlorate concentration of 8
mg/L and a residence time of 2 hours. The system removed nitrate simultaneously with
perchlorate from an initial concentration as high as 900 mg/L to below 4 mg/L. Despite the
efficiency of perchlorate removal, the system suffered from clogging due to precipitation of the
high total dissolved solids of the twice-concentrated rejectate.
A.2 Physical/Chemical Reduction of Residuals
Calgon Carbon has developed a proprietary physical/chemical brine treatment system called the
Perchlorate and Nitrate Destruction Module (PNDM). The PNDM is a high-pressure and high-
temperature catalytic process that uses ammonia as a chemical reductant to reduce the nitrate and
perchlorate in spent brine (Montgomery Watson Harza and University of Houston, 2003). In
pilot tests that incorporated a nanofiltration unit to remove sulfate from the brine after PNDM
treatment, Venkatesh et al. (2000) found that the PNDM system was able to reduce perchlorate
in the spent brine from 60,000 to 70,000 |ig/L to less than the detection limit of 125 |ig/L. This
reduction allowed reuse of the brine and reduced overall waste generation from 1.75 percent of
water treated to 0.17 percent of water treated. The remaining waste consisted of the sulfate-laden
reject from the nanofiltration step. With 70 mg/L chloride and 50 mg/L sulfate in this reject, the
study suggests that blending with treated water is a feasible option (Venkatesh et al., 2000).
The pilot tests conducted by MWH and the University of Houston evaluated the PNDM system
for treatment of spent brine from a conventional ion exchange configuration. The biological
treatment initial results were promising. PNDM was able to reduce perchlorate in brine to below
0.2 mg/L and allowed reuse of the brine for up to 30 cycles (Case et al., 2004).
93
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
The MWH and University of Houston pilot tests also evaluated an electrolytic treatment process
to reduce perchlorate in brine. This process, developed by Ionex for the treatment of nitrate
contaminated water, is called IXL (Montgomery Watson Harza and University of Houston,
2003). Initial results, however, demonstrated minimal perchlorate reduction with this system
(Case et al., 2004).
Applied Research Associates has proposed an Integrated Thermal Treatment Process for treating
spent brine. This process would concentrate the spent brine using reverse osmosis, thereby
rejecting sulfate and nitrate salts, and concentrating the perchlorate. The concentrated perchlorate
would then be thermally destroyed. The treated brine would be suitable for reuse and Applied
Research Associates estimates that the quantity of brine waste for disposal would be reduced by
95 to 99 percent. This thermal treatment approach, however, has been tested only in the
laboratory for synthetic spent brine (Applied Research Associates, 2000).
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory researchers have developed a proprietary methodology for
reducing perchlorate in spent tetrachloroferrate regenerant solution. Reportedly, in this
methodology, perchlorate decomposes into chloride under certain catalytic conditions within a
few hours to one day with an initial perchlorate concentration of about 7,000 mg/L. The process
does not otherwise alter the properties of the regenerant solution and allows it to be reused (Gu et
al., 2002). More recently, Lutes et al. (2010) reported on a process in which tetrachloroferrate
regenerant is reduced with ferrous chloride in a thermoreactor. In this process, they observed
perchlorate destruction efficiency from 73.6 to greater than 99.7 percent, a median efficiency of
greater than 99.2 percent. The process has been patented and licensed exclusively to Calgon
Carbon (Lutes et al., 2010).
94
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Appendix B: Cost Equations
Notes:
• Cost equations presented here take one of the following forms, identified by which
coefficients (CI through CIO) are nonzero:
Cost = CI QC2
or = C3 Ln(Q) + C4
or = C5 e(C6Q)
or = C7 Q3 + C8 Q2 + C9 Q + CIO
where Q is design flow in MGD for total capital costs, or average flow in MGD for
annual O&M costs.
• Equations are designated as for small, medium, or large systems. These equations apply as
follows:
Small system equations apply where design flow (Q) is less than 1 MGD
Medium system equations apply where design flow (Q) is 1 MGD or greater, but
less than 10 MGD
Large system equations apply where design flow (Q) is 10 MGD or greater
• For Point of Use/Point of Entry, alternative equations also are included where:
Cost = CI HC2
or = C3 Ln(H) + C4
or = C5 e(C6H)
or = C7 H3 + C8 H2 + C9 H + CIO
where H is number of households served for both total capital costs and annual O&M
costs.
• EPA developed each equation using the method described in Section 8.1.2.
• Equations are derived from the following data files, with columns rearranged for ease of
reference:
o Results_Summary_GW_082817 for groundwater systems
o Results_Summary_SW_082817 for surface water systems.
• For Anion Exchange for Perchlorate, the Perchlorate-selective 170,000 BV scenario
corresponds to the Alternative resin (user defined) option in the source data files.
• For Point of Use/Point of Entry, costs do not vary by component level input (high, mid, low);
equations are not presented for medium and large systems.
95
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
• For Non-treatment, medium system size curves are valid only up to 3.536 MGD design flow
(1.417 MGD groundwater average flow and 1.345 MGD surface water average flow);
equations are not presented for systems of greater size.
• For Non-treatment, equations are not presented for New Wells for surface water systems,
because this option is not likely to be available for surface water systems.
96
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
B.1 Capital and O&M Cost Curve Parameters for Anion Exchange Treatment Scenarios
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
GW
Small
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
165188.3006
-319172.535
472901.5875
81055.1941
17.74117647
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
GW
Medium
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
814.5718
-15685.9444
419749.9937
596924.4296
32.34
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
GW
Large
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
281010.0818
993827.2688
33.97647059
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
GW
Small
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
111665.366
-213209.9
435508.3073
125329.6749
17.69411765
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
GW
Medium
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
802.1603
-17543.4018
455922.7261
687296.3603
31.74
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
GW
Large
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
287995.2658
1130875.789
33.95882353
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
GW
Small
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
186840.2446
-375907.224
708990.975
171244.269
20.24705882
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
GW
Medium
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
2804.3789
-52743.211
810631.6507
852108.8158
33.78
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
GW
Large
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
444429.0529
1729726.784
34.71764706
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
GW
Small
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
60323.2954
-52499.9905
95401.6475
4355.1619
17.74117647
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
GW
Medium
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-749.5103
107314.0049
25199.9683
32.34
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
GW
Large
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
94348.8299
54918.7765
33.97647059
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
GW
Small
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
60323.2954
-52499.9905
95401.6475
4355.1619
17.69411765
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
GW
Medium
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-793.0138
109785.9654
27443.6982
31.74
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
GW
Large
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
94815.4066
50288.0306
33.95882353
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
GW
Small
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-22144.6512
92551.7336
4510.6253
20.24705882
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
GW
Medium
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-864.5234
111139.9758
27196.8415
33.78
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
GW
Large
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27.2244
93568.467
64877.4787
34.71764706
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
GW
Small
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
165188.3006
-319172.535
472901.5875
81055.1941
17.74117647
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
GW
Medium
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
814.5718
-15685.9444
419749.9937
596924.4296
32.34
November 2018
97
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
GW
Large
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
281010.0818
993827.2688
33.97647059
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
GW
Small
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
111665.366
-213209.9
435508.3073
125329.6749
17.69411765
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
GW
Medium
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
802.1603
-17543.4018
455922.7261
687296.3603
31.74
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
GW
Large
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
287995.2658
1130875.789
33.95882353
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
GW
Small
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
186840.2446
-375907.224
708990.975
171244.269
20.24705882
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
GW
Medium
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
2804.3789
-52743.211
810631.6507
852108.8158
33.78
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
GW
Large
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
444429.0529
1729726.784
34.71764706
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
GW
Small
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
56351.5026
-50187.5062
122627.1429
4364.8149
17.74117647
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
GW
Medium
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
131580.5513
27443.0764
32.34
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
GW
Large
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
122034.7577
53803.0803
33.97647059
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
GW
Small
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
56351.5026
-50187.5062
122627.1429
4364.8149
17.69411765
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
GW
Medium
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
133861.2533
29816.6188
31.74
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
GW
Large
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
122526.36
48879.5863
33.95882353
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
GW
Small
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
57937.7322
-51428.4226
123700.2943
4441.0268
20.24705882
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
GW
Medium
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
-751.2236
4495.5752
128358.2051
31778.107
33.78
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
GW
Large
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
123508.7003
38942.7634
34.71764706
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
SW
Small
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
165274.688
-319329.202
472978.9565
81058.2965
17.74117647
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
SW
Medium
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
839.1878
-16075.29
421154.5885
595626.0307
32.34
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
SW
Large
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
280265.6113
1007900.297
33.98823529
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
SW
Small
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
111750.4602
-213363.524
435584.8953
125332.7918
17.69411765
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
SW
Medium
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
830.5377
-17999.3282
457555.6503
685792.943
31.74
November 2018
98
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
sw
Large
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
287250.061
1144962.062
33.97058824
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
SW
Small
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
186942.4138
-376095.796
709087.0242
171247.8793
20.24705882
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
sw
Medium
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
2838.7252
-53286.93
812529.4756
850397.7787
33.78
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
sw
Large
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
443634.4238
1743834.45
34.72941176
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
sw
Small
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-18741.0467
90566.6107
4395.0332
17.74117647
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
sw
Medium
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-598.7219
109065.4542
24276.2342
32.34
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
sw
Large
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
95522.9118
71724.5663
33.98823529
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
sw
Small
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-18741.0467
90566.6107
4395.0332
17.69411765
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
sw
Medium
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
109075.9181
28101.0967
31.74
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
sw
Large
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
96019.7175
67473.7023
33.97058824
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
sw
Small
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-19036.6668
91488.2917
4470.8681
20.24705882
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
sw
Medium
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1039.9695
6031.209
101107.6527
31206.5711
33.78
Perchlorate-selective
250,000 BV
sw
Large
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
97012.5603
58878.3927
34.72941176
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
sw
Small
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
165274.688
-319329.202
472978.9565
81058.2965
17.74117647
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
sw
Medium
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
839.1878
-16075.29
421154.5885
595626.0307
32.34
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
sw
Large
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
280265.6113
1007900.297
33.98823529
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
sw
Small
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
111750.4602
-213363.524
435584.8953
125332.7918
17.69411765
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
sw
Medium
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
830.5377
-17999.3282
457555.6503
685792.943
31.74
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
sw
Large
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
287250.061
1144962.062
33.97058824
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
sw
Small
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
186942.4138
-376095.796
709087.0242
171247.8793
20.24705882
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
sw
Medium
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
2838.7252
-53286.93
812529.4756
850397.7787
33.78
November 2018
99
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
sw
Large
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
443634.4238
1743834.45
34.72941176
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
SW
Small
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-18636.7959
118095.4167
4401.0983
17.74117647
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
sw
Medium
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-594.8003
136645.3404
24283.6711
32.34
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
sw
Large
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
123198.8697
70820.6621
33.98823529
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
sw
Small
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-18636.7959
118095.4167
4401.0983
17.69411765
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
sw
Medium
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
136673.7625
28097.7332
31.74
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
sw
Large
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
123719.8582
66316.3849
33.97058824
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
sw
Small
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-18919.6285
119009.5802
4477.345
20.24705882
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
sw
Medium
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1038.7155
6027.6327
128706.7892
31207.6465
33.78
Perchlorate-selective
170,000 BV
sw
Large
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124761.0668
57213.3622
34.72941176
Cost = C1 * Q A C2 + C3 * Ln(Q) + C4 + C5 * Exp (C6 * Q) + C7 * QA3 + C8* QA2 +C9 * Q + C10
Where Q is design flow in MGD for total capital costs and average flow in MGD for annual O&M costs
November 2018
100
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
B.2 Capital and O&M Cost Curve Parameters for Biological Treatment Scenarios
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Small
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
360664.2489
-719515.71
1107604.628
643541.8543
24.46470588
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Medium
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1230.8188
4236.7079
740451.7857
1652605.61
31.79333333
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Large
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-33.3723
558954.1451
2437567.235
31.31764706
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Small
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
492476.6413
-1025849.33
1436856.86
715106.4333
23.12941176
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Medium
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-15229.9667
887780.101
1850883.189
31.34
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Large
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
564980.0264
3622086.493
31.35882353
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Small
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
770133.6573
-1683703.84
2371838.543
836853.9079
25.47647059
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Medium
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2465.7652
13844.2369
1241563.686
2576024.887
33.52
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Large
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.225
-1535.1083
1011253.121
3406280.863
33.12352941
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Small
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-45961.3314
158156.0739
27926.5161
24.46470588
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Medium
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
1184.1123
-14333.9198
180043.52
62255.524
31.79333333
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Large
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
126538.9848
104543.6316
31.31764706
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Small
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-76492.4588
176417.3995
27695.5647
23.12941176
November 2018
101
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Medium
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-6827.1527
173032.9405
75031.6456
31.34
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Large
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
129201.3891
88438.183
31.35882353
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Small
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
91643.6805
-120401.753
185483.6022
28225.6213
25.47647059
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Medium
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-7136.1131
175890.2434
75595.8595
33.52
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Large
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2.6058
349.0829
122625.9002
143270.435
33.12352941
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
GW
Small
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-199338.503
108033.2323
1102079.756
943520.528
28.67058824
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
GW
Medium
Low
Total
Capital
2610057.586
0.5365
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32.84
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
GW
Large
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
369737.988
7037405.771
31.62352941
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
GW
Small
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-243851.42
1460419.766
1052522.957
27.42941176
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
GW
Medium
Mid
Total
Capital
2931011.596
0.534
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32.36666667
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
GW
Large
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-142.8363
409982.8163
7189477.16
31.61764706
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
GW
Small
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
202978.9468
-743201.86
2218774.508
1232771.998
29.86470588
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
GW
Medium
High
Total
Capital
3735296.534
0.5134
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.99333333
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
GW
Large
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-127.9367
472526.5562
9035136.284
32.77058824
November 2018
102
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
GW
Small
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
-244584.565
45607.9876
217316.197
33588.7142
28.67058824
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
GW
Medium
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-6559.4032
186687.2639
75555.8157
32.84
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
GW
Large
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
118304.6266
225492.918
31.62352941
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
GW
Small
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
-185910.722
21574.4589
226502.4065
35193.5095
27.42941176
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
GW
Medium
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-7143.548
194111.8555
77654.2262
32.36666667
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
GW
Large
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
120590.8015
210480.3335
31.61764706
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
GW
Small
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-76893.7765
246083.0756
36218.5012
29.86470588
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
GW
Medium
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-7101.1547
196805.7999
79557.3458
33.99333333
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
GW
Large
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1.6021
227.8999
115719.1797
264822.2223
32.77058824
Fluidized
Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Small
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-165867.923
-28166.6787
1025869.936
861046.6691
27.07647059
Fluidized
Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Medium
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1758.0291
18962.1919
649400.0564
1694269.883
31.5
Fluidized
Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Large
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-184.9186
540273.6829
2881509.567
30.98823529
November 2018
103
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
Fluidized
Total
Capital
Bed
Pressure
GW
Small
Mid
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-362080.784
1369255.056
997173.1712
25.97058824
Vessel
Fluidized
Total
Capital
Bed
Pressure
GW
Medium
Mid
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1020.4755
5469.6152
807095.7564
1937384.124
31
Vessel
Fluidized
Total
Capital
Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Large
Mid
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-199.5054
571178.1483
3627131.011
30.94705882
Fluidized
Total
Capital
Bed
Pressure
GW
Small
High
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-575922.439
2258409.846
1191761.253
28.81764706
Vessel
Fluidized
Total
Capital
Bed
Pressure
GW
Medium
High
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2245.5247
23231.221
1173986.54
2689612.461
33.32
Vessel
Fluidized
Total
Capital
Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Large
High
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.0713
-750.9524
958369.9281
4502384.894
33.18823529
Fluidized
Annual
O&M
Bed
Pressure
GW
Small
Low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-61439.932
156677.6914
37218.503
27.07647059
Vessel
Fluidized
Annual
O&M
Bed
Pressure
GW
Medium
Low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-4273.302
151726.0086
77431.6855
31.5
Vessel
Fluidized
Annual
O&M
Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Large
Low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
118931.5849
156492.319
30.98823529
Fluidized
Annual
O&M
Bed
Pressure
GW
Small
Mid
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-66125.2755
165892.0237
42644.1251
25.97058824
Vessel
November 2018
104
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
Fluidized
Annual
O&M
Bed
Pressure
GW
Medium
Mid
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-4768.8748
158659.8589
83835.7669
31
Vessel
Fluidized
Annual
O&M
Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Large
Mid
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
121214.2539
142830.8114
30.94705882
Fluidized
Annual
O&M
Bed
Pressure
GW
Small
High
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-69019.5329
173487.8271
46943.947
28.81764706
Vessel
Fluidized
Annual
O&M
Bed
Pressure
GW
Medium
High
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-5090.8845
161873.9793
83364.5317
33.32
Vessel
Fluidized
Annual
O&M
Bed
Pressure
Vessel
GW
Large
High
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
125753.2694
116080.0404
33.18823529
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
SW
Small
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
376530.23
-743505.873
1116042.748
643296.522
24.46470588
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
SW
Medium
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1306.1553
5435.3388
734513.1972
1657773.704
31.79333333
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
SW
Large
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1.3562
301.9828
536580.3031
2719357.571
31.31764706
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
SW
Small
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
376530.23
-743505.873
1116042.748
643296.522
24.46470588
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
SW
Medium
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1306.1553
5435.3388
734513.1972
1657773.704
31.79333333
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
SW
Large
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1.3562
301.9828
536580.3031
2719357.571
31.31764706
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
SW
Small
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
787557.8629
-1711551.3
2382625.539
836532.0821
25.47647059
November 2018
105
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
sw
Medium
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2509.418
14699.0305
1235969.914
2580751.403
33.52
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
SW
Large
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.2587
-1541.3548
1010264.132
3400477.674
33.11764706
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
sw
Small
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-30006.0913
151948.7891
27786.4856
24.46470588
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
sw
Medium
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-6472.2083
171959.0723
65214.7013
31.79333333
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
sw
Large
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-50.0737
133952.7487
116880.3955
31.31764706
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
sw
Small
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-47426.4264
167113.6865
27582.7544
23.11764706
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
sw
Medium
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-7571.6831
182100.1207
70400.4121
31.33333333
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
sw
Large
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-48.638
136680.3001
104187.003
31.35882353
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
sw
Small
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-54988.4534
172649.2074
28155.967
25.47647059
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
sw
Medium
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-7944.4304
185272.3046
70814.7398
33.52
Fixed Bed
Pressure
Vessel
sw
Large
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-47.6434
142797.7639
76278.2943
33.11764706
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
sw
Small
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-194555.784
103163.0231
1100879.375
944940.1123
28.66470588
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
sw
Medium
Low
Total
Capital
2611597.865
0.5352
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32.84
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
sw
Large
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-97.4647
385856.916
6442653.679
31.6
November 2018
106
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
sw
Small
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-241076.609
1455779.615
1054413.219
27.42941176
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
SW
Medium
Mid
Total
Capital
2932533.852
0.5325
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32.36666667
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
sw
Large
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.4957
-485.1302
428334.3343
6915717.611
31.59411765
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
sw
Small
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-437897.61
2100725.869
1242829.494
29.86470588
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
sw
Medium
High
Total
Capital
3737297.463
0.5121
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.98666667
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
sw
Large
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2.2055
429.0556
433942.163
9481048.78
32.74117647
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
sw
Small
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
-295094.821
107422.9682
200339.6042
33528.7699
28.66470588
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
sw
Medium
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-7078.7184
196694.4742
70481.3509
32.84
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
sw
Large
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-53.1455
125332.4549
225578.8415
31.6
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
sw
Small
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-39781.1639
225091.591
34770.0602
27.42941176
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
sw
Medium
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-7922.9458
205415.3033
71952.8472
32.36666667
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
sw
Large
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-49.281
127203.5984
221133.0458
31.59411765
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
sw
Small
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
-265504.07
96891.6626
214451.7462
36419.1032
29.86470588
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
sw
Medium
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-7678.6964
207592.0873
74095.0996
33.98666667
November 2018
107
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
Fixed Bed
Gravity
Basin
sw
Large
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
127770.6593
245595.9535
32.74117647
Fluidized
Total
Capital
Bed
Pressure
SW
Small
Low
0
0
0
0
0
0
-175859.574
-15604.5734
1022532.417
861605.1699
27.08235294
Vessel
Fluidized
Total
Capital
Bed
Pressure
sw
Medium
Low
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1853.4978
20390.6304
642914.6996
1699906.968
31.5
Vessel
Fluidized
Total
Capital
Bed
Pressure
sw
Large
Low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-184.3819
539381.2799
2877427.798
30.99411765
Vessel
Fluidized
Total
Capital
Bed
Pressure
sw
Small
Mid
0
0
0
0
0
0
97225.5085
-508869.031
1424987.278
993856.3133
25.97647059
Vessel
Fluidized
Total
Capital
Bed
Pressure
sw
Medium
Mid
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-11461.5583
883976.9293
1850411.667
30.99333333
Vessel
Fluidized
Total
Capital
Bed
Pressure
sw
Large
Mid
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-197.1765
569947.5394
3626369.958
30.95294118
Vessel
Fluidized
Total
Capital
Bed
Pressure
sw
Small
High
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-579364.841
2261637.972
1192128.15
28.81764706
Vessel
Fluidized
Total
Capital
Bed
Pressure
sw
Medium
High
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2497.6049
26750.0461
1159072.431
2703008.262
33.32
Vessel
Fluidized
Total
Capital
Bed
Pressure
sw
Large
High
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-236.2879
924354.1605
4920097.242
33.19411765
Vessel
November 2018
108
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
Fluidized
Annual
O&M
Bed
Pressure
sw
Small
Low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-48119.3527
151722.3833
37060.3885
27.08235294
Vessel
Fluidized
Annual
O&M
Bed
Pressure
SW
Medium
Low
0
0
0
0
0
0
683.1623
-8992.2086
166147.0816
70692.5368
31.5
Vessel
Fluidized
Annual
O&M
Bed
Pressure
sw
Large
Low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-77.7363
127503.5199
136708.2479
30.99411765
Vessel
Fluidized
Annual
O&M
Bed
Pressure
sw
Small
Mid
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-51241.3715
160339.9151
42473.2257
25.97647059
Vessel
Fluidized
Annual
O&M
Bed
Pressure
sw
Medium
Mid
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-5128.5574
165688.954
80177.5823
30.99333333
Vessel
Fluidized
Annual
O&M
Bed
Pressure
sw
Large
Mid
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-76.4289
129834.5381
126303.1959
30.95294118
Vessel
Fluidized
Annual
O&M
Bed
Pressure
sw
Small
High
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-52938.0151
167468.4034
46763.9136
28.81764706
Vessel
Fluidized
Annual
O&M
Bed
Pressure
sw
Medium
High
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-5503.3764
169209.2828
79563.3081
33.32
Vessel
Fluidized
Annual
O&M
Bed
Pressure
Vessel
sw
Large
High
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-69.7757
134187.4415
107314.9692
33.19411765
Cost = C1 * Q A C2 + C3 * Ln(Q) + C4 + C5 * Exp (C6 * Q) + C7 * QA3 + C8* QA2 +C9 * Q + C10
Where Q is design flow in MGD for total capital costs and average flow in MGD for annual O&M costs
November 2018
109
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
B.3 Capital and O&M Cost Curve Parameters for Reverse Osmosis Treatment Scenarios
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
High Qual
GW
GW
Small
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
419730.7281
-788209.698
1051419.014
442510.3593
24.25882353
High Qual
GW
GW
Medium
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2786.1614
27165.9297
609019.2816
834956.3855
30.08666667
High Qual
GW
GW
Large
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
501464.6241
2255690.684
29.34117647
High Qual
GW
GW
Small
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
922912.2899
-1682538.35
1663351.386
507008.18
21.88823529
High Qual
GW
GW
Medium
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2109.8121
15519.4438
693094.0443
1122924.536
28.22
High Qual
GW
GW
Large
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
512376.9598
2510945.991
29.54705882
High Qual
GW
GW
Small
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
766189.679
-1380227.98
1525573.733
570809.2307
24.37058824
High Qual
GW
GW
Medium
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-2107.3138
14031.7866
729255.4764
1165183.835
29.69333333
High Qual
GW
GW
Large
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43.302
528875.1103
2776676.683
29.88823529
High Qual
GW
GW
Small
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
6656243.564
-3786089.15
1334035.193
36717.6114
24.25882353
High Qual
GW
GW
Medium
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
14623.6692
-136584.824
1095617.882
-57620.9392
30.08666667
High Qual
GW
GW
Large
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
665521.2229
522284.0316
29.34117647
High Qual
GW
GW
Small
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
6656243.564
-3786089.15
1334035.193
36717.6114
21.88823529
High Qual
GW
GW
Medium
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
14623.6692
-136584.824
1095617.882
-57620.9392
28.22
High Qual
GW
GW
Large
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
665521.2229
522284.0316
29.54705882
High Qual
GW
GW
Small
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
6656243.564
-3786089.15
1334035.193
36717.6114
24.37058824
High Qual
GW
GW
Medium
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
14623.6692
-136584.824
1095617.882
-57620.9392
29.69333333
High Qual
GW
GW
Large
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
665521.2229
522284.0316
29.88823529
High Qual
SW
SW
Small
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
149193.1749
-494226.186
1100191.755
425799.664
24.38235294
High Qual
SW
SW
Medium
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-20031.7053
832358.7573
712738.9352
30.41333333
November 2018
110
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
High Qual
SW
SW
Large
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
471323.5873
2660282.067
30.1
High Qual
SW
SW
Small
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
710187.6349
-1479543.01
1773005.169
482742.038
22.09411765
High Qual
SW
SW
Medium
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
992.0306
-36548.5993
935963.6527
986641.0663
28.54666667
High Qual
SW
SW
Large
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
482545.7284
2941963.972
30.31764706
High Qual
SW
SW
Small
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
521778.1744
-1165763.6
1665430.871
535877.9142
24.41764706
High Qual
SW
SW
Medium
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-22177.6296
904905.0085
1106566.125
30.02666667
High Qual
SW
SW
Large
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
506185.1909
3060324.078
30.66470588
High Qual
SW
SW
Small
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
6589736.981
-3985129.69
1508433.457
36750.2247
24.38235294
High Qual
SW
SW
Medium
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
57128.2822
-406859.935
1486200.795
-119209.519
30.41333333
High Qual
SW
SW
Large
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
11.5056
-1617.309
643746.394
390169.1403
30.1
High Qual
SW
SW
Small
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
6589736.981
-3985129.69
1508433.457
36750.2247
22.09411765
High Qual
SW
SW
Medium
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
57128.2822
-406859.935
1486200.795
-119209.519
28.54666667
High Qual
SW
SW
Large
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
11.5056
-1617.309
643746.394
390169.1403
30.31764706
High Qual
SW
SW
Small
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
6589736.981
-3985129.69
1508433.457
36750.2247
24.41764706
High Qual
SW
SW
Medium
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
57128.2822
-406859.935
1486200.795
-119209.519
30.02666667
High Qual
SW
SW
Large
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
11.5056
-1617.309
643746.394
390169.1403
30.66470588
Cost = C1 * Q A C2 + C3 * Ln(Q) + C4 + C5 * Exp (C6 * Q) + C7 * QA3 + C8* QA2 +C9 * Q + C10
Where Q is design flow in MGD for total capital costs and average flow in MGD for annual O&M costs
November 2018
111
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
B.4 Capital and O&M Cost Curve Parameters for Point-of-Use Treatment Scenarios (Flow Basis)
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
POU Reverse
Osmosis
GW
Small
n/a
Total
Capital
552638.6724
1.0352
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
POU Reverse
Osmosis
GW
Small
n/a
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-99260.9973
496421.4345
1775.6587
10
POU Reverse
Osmosis
SW
Small
n/a
Total
Capital
555487.2438
1.0462
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
POU Reverse
Osmosis
SW
Small
n/a
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
460080.1825
688.6075
10
Cost = C1 * Q A C2 + C3 * Ln(Q) + C4 + C5 * Exp (C6 * Q) + C7 * QA3 + C8* QA2 +C9 * Q + C10
Where Q is design flow in MGD for total capital costs and average flow in MGD for annual O&M costs
B.5 Capital and O&M Cost Curve Parameters for Point-of-Use Treatment Scenarios (Household
Basis)
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
POU Reverse
Osmosis
GW
Small
n/a
Total
Capital
607.2278
0.987
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
POU Reverse
Osmosis
GW
Small
n/a
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
163.7089
782.86
10
POU Reverse
Osmosis
SW
Small
n/a
Total
Capital
608.0877
0.9868
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
POU Reverse
Osmosis
SW
Small
n/a
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
163.7627
788.7267
10
Cost = C1*HAC2 + C3* Ln(H) + C4 + C5 * Exp (C6 * H) + C7 * HA3 + C8 * HA2 + C9 * H + C10
Where H is number of households served
November 2018
112
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
B.6 Capital and O&M Cost Curve Parameters for Non-Treatment Scenarios
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
Interconnection
GW
Small
Low
Total
Capital
338077.9484
0.1356
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
Interconnection
GW
Medium
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-31084.5197
227314.1808
118001.2476
21.98888889
Interconnection
GW
Small
Mid
Total
Capital
351692.4792
0.1415
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.92941176
Interconnection
GW
Medium
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-31684.525
230842.8534
127845.8226
21.74444444
Interconnection
GW
Small
High
Total
Capital
353452.9305
0.1363
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
Interconnection
GW
Medium
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-32984.1112
240477.5383
121870.7095
21.9
Interconnection
GW
Small
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
802914.0164
20.982
17
Interconnection
GW
Medium
Low
Annual
O&M
803045.6827
0.9999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21.98888889
Interconnection
GW
Small
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
802914.0164
20.982
16.92941176
Interconnection
GW
Medium
Mid
Annual
O&M
803045.6827
0.9999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21.74444444
Interconnection
GW
Small
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
802914.0164
20.982
17
Interconnection
GW
Medium
High
Annual
O&M
803045.6827
0.9999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21.9
New Well
Construction
GW
Small
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
293739.0823
-56575.0209
187426.9077
17.1
New Well
Construction
GW
Medium
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-7446.9958
329941.3709
82930.8255
22.41111111
New Well
Construction
GW
Small
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-139539.132
747490.2819
-167748.314
373330.402
33.86470588
New Well
Construction
GW
Medium
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-161442.761
1076348.553
-1656547.12
1554345.935
39.21111111
New Well
Construction
GW
Small
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-186326.987
850714.244
-198767.813
384792.9094
34.31764706
New Well
Construction
GW
Medium
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
-170156.492
1136151.351
-1756631.22
1640223.951
39.38888889
New Well
Construction
GW
Small
Low
Annual
O&M
158503.4629
0.7043
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17.1
New Well
Construction
GW
Medium
Low
Annual
O&M
183632.3328
0.8641
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22.41111111
November 2018
113
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Design
GW/
SW
Size
Category
Comp
Level
Cost
Type
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
Useful Life
New Well
Construction
GW
Small
Mid
Annual
O&M
158503.4629
0.7043
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.86470588
New Well
Construction
GW
Medium
Mid
Annual
O&M
183632.3328
0.8641
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39.21111111
New Well
Construction
GW
Small
High
Annual
O&M
158503.4629
0.7043
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34.31764706
New Well
Construction
GW
Medium
High
Annual
O&M
183632.3328
0.8641
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39.38888889
Interconnection
SW
Small
Low
Total
Capital
338077.9484
0.1356
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
Interconnection
SW
Medium
Low
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-31084.5197
227314.1808
118001.2476
21.98888889
Interconnection
SW
Small
Mid
Total
Capital
351692.4792
0.1415
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.92941176
Interconnection
SW
Medium
Mid
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-31684.525
230842.8534
127845.8226
21.74444444
Interconnection
SW
Small
High
Total
Capital
353452.9305
0.1363
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
Interconnection
SW
Medium
High
Total
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-32984.1112
240477.5383
121870.7095
21.9
Interconnection
SW
Small
Low
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
802695.4
116.2102
17
Interconnection
SW
Medium
Low
Annual
O&M
803045.4022
0.9999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21.98888889
Interconnection
SW
Small
Mid
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
802695.4
116.2102
16.92941176
Interconnection
SW
Medium
Mid
Annual
O&M
803045.4022
0.9999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21.74444444
Interconnection
SW
Small
High
Annual
O&M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
802695.4
116.2102
17
Interconnection
SW
Medium
High
Annual
O&M
803045.4022
0.9999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21.9
Cost = C1 * Q A C2 + C3 * Ln(Q) + C4 + C5 * Exp (C6 * Q) + C7 * QA3 + C8 * QA2 + C9 * Q + C10
Where Q is design flow in MGD for total capital costs and average flow in MGD for annual O&M costs
November 2018
114
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Appendix C: Example WBS Model Outputs
Notes:
• Example outputs presented here correspond to treatment of groundwater.
• To show the variations among both system size and cost level, the examples chosen for each
scenario modeled typically include a low cost small system, a mid cost medium system, and
a high cost large system.
• Each of the examples is among the individual flow rate-specific estimates used to generate
the cost equations presented in Appendix B (see Section 8.1.2 for details on the method used
to develop the equation).
November 2018
115
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Anion Exchange for Perchlorate, design 0.500 mgd, average 0.162 mgd, Low-Cost Components, Resin
type: Perchlorate-selective 250,000 BV
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
1.1
Pressure Vessels - Carbon Steel - Plastic Internals
35,590
30
2.1
Ion Exchange Resin - Perchlorate-selective
40,858
N/A
3.4.1
Caustic Storage Tanks - Plastic/XLPE
844
7
3.4.2
Caustic Storage Tanks - Heat Tracing
1,454
7
3.4.3
Caustic Storage Tanks - Insulation
163
7
4.1
Cartridge Filters - Cartridge Filters
24,784
30
5.1.1
Backwash Piping - PVC
205
17
5.3.1
Process Piping - PVC
311
17
5.5.1
Inlet and Outlet Piping - PVC
311
17
5.7.1
Caustic Piping - PVC
60
17
5.8.1
Residuals Piping - PVC
198
17
5.8.2
Residuals Piping - Excavation
1,064
17
5.8.3
Residuals Piping - Bedding
61
17
5.8.4
Residuals Piping - Backfill and Compaction
493
17
5.8.5
Residuals Piping - Thrust Blocks
96
17
6.1.1
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Process -
Polypropylene/PVC
9,580
20
6.1.2
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Backwash -
Polypropylene/PVC
4,218
20
6.2.1
Valves and Fittings - Manual - Inlet and outlet - Polypropylene/PVC
1,282
20
6.2.2
Valves and Fittings - Manual - Process - Polypropylene/PVC
1,282
20
6.3.2
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Inlet and Outlet - Polypropylene/PVC
2,705
20
6.3.7
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Residuals - Polypropylene/PVC
243
20
8.2.1
Mixers for Caustic Storage Tanks - Mounted
1,656
22
11.1.1
Instrumentation and Controls - Flow Meters - Inlet and Outlet - Propeller
4,141
14
11.3.1
Instrumentation and Controls - Flow Meters - Backwash - Propeller
3,227
14
11.4.1
Instrumentation and Controls - Flow Meters - Residuals - Propeller
2,625
14
11.9
Instrumentation and Controls - High/Low Alarm (for caustic tanks)
593
14
11.12
Instrumentation and Controls - Head loss sensors
4,242
14
11.13.1
Instrumentation and Controls - Sampling Ports - Stainless Steel
250
30
12.1.1
System Controls - PLC Units - PLC racks/power supplies
340
8
12.1.2
System Controls - PLC Units - CPUs
1,256
8
12.1.3
System Controls - PLC Units - I/O discrete input modules
307
8
12.1.4
System Controls - PLC Units - I/O discrete output modules
375
8
12.1.5
System Controls - PLC Units - I/O combination analog modules
1,958
8
12.1.6
System Controls - PLC Units - Ethernet modules
1,730
8
12.1.9
System Controls - PLC Units - UPSs
563
8
12.2.1
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Drive controllers
1,072
14
12.2.2
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Operator interface units
3,911
8
13.1.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 1 - Small Low Cost Shed
11,961
20
13.3
Building Structures and HVAC - Concrete Pad
2,592
37
Indirect
Indirect and Add-On Costs (contingency from model)
96,284
20
Process Cost
168,600
System Cost
264,884
O&M Cost
18,351
Totals are computed before component costs are rounded
November 2018
116
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Breakdown of indirect and add-on costs
Total Cost ($)
Construction Management
4,102
Process Engineering
33,720
Site Work
3,332
Yard Piping
2,810
Geotechnical
0
Standby Power
0
Electrical (including yard wiring)
15,405
Mobilization and Demobilization
0
Architectural Fees for Treatment Building
0
Permits
24
Pilot Study
15,573
Land Cost
1,086
Installation, Transportation, and O&P (0.0%)
0
Instrumentation and Control (0.0%)
0
Contingency (0.0%)
0
Miscellaneous Allowance (10.0%)
16,860
Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative (2.0%)
3,372
Sales Tax (0.0%)
0
Financing during Construction (0.0%)
0
Breakdown of O&M costs
Annual Cost ($/year)
Manager (8 hrs/yr @ $45.2396/hr)
371
Clerical (8 hrs/yr @ $30.4776/hr)
250
Operator (82 hrs/yr @ $31.9149/hr)
2,616
Cartridge filter replacement (7 filters/yr @ $191.6015/sf/yr)
1,380
Facility maintenance (materials and labor) (260 sf @ $5.7866/sf/yr)
1,505
Sodium Hydroxide - Small Qty (5268 Ibs/yr @ $0.302/lb)
1,591
Perchlorate-selective (32 cf/yr @ $256.5165/cf)
8,111
Energy for backwash/rinse pumps (0 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
0
Energy for lighting (0 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
3
Energy for ventilation (0 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
7
POTW discharge fees (953 gal/yr @ $0.3881/gal)
370
Spent resin disposal (1 ton/yr @ $697.6744/ton)
474
Spent cartridge filter disposal (0 ton/yr @ $74.9152/ton)
6
Miscellaneous Allowance (0 @ $)
1,668
November 2018
117
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Anion Exchange for Perchlorate, design 5.809 mgd, average 2.455 mgd, Mid-Cost Components, Resin
type: Perchlorate-selective 250,000 BV
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
1.1
Pressure Vessels - Carbon Steel - Plastic Internals
264,172
35
2.1
Ion Exchange Resin - Perchlorate-selective
487,390
N/A
3.1.1
Backwash/Rinse Tanks - Fiberglass
11,822
25
3.4.1
Caustic Storage Tanks - Fiberglass
5,578
10
3.4.2
Caustic Storage Tanks - Heat Tracing
1,573
10
3.4.3
Caustic Storage Tanks - Insulation
947
10
3.5.1
Caustic Day Tanks - Fiberglass
4,749
10
3.5.2
Caustic Day Tanks - Heat Tracing
1,455
10
3.5.3
Caustic Day Tanks - Insulation
182
10
4.1
Cartridge Filters - Cartridge Filters
166,640
35
5.1.1
Backwash Piping - CPVC
7,502
22
5.3.1
Process Piping - CPVC
9,549
22
5.5.1
Inlet and Outlet Piping - CPVC
19,446
22
5.7.1
Caustic Piping - CPVC
1,119
22
5.8.1
Residuals Piping - CPVC
2,590
22
5.8.2
Residuals Piping - Excavation
1,187
22
5.8.3
Residuals Piping - Bedding
70
22
5.8.4
Residuals Piping - Backfill and Compaction
550
22
5.8.5
Residuals Piping - Thrust Blocks
409
22
6.1.1
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Process - Cast Iron
53,747
25
6.1.2
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Backwash - Cast Iron
44,639
25
6.1.6
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Caustic - Stainless Steel
2,072
25
6.2.1
Valves and Fittings - Manual - Inlet and outlet - Cast Iron
5,215
25
6.2.2
Valves and Fittings - Manual - Process - Cast Iron
11,357
25
6.3.1
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Backwash - Cast Iron
3,857
25
6.3.2
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Inlet and Outlet - Cast Iron
10,467
25
6.3.7
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Residuals - Cast Iron
1,082
25
7.1
Pumps - Booster
69,732
20
7.2
Pumps - Backwash/Rinse
23,885
20
8.2.1
Mixers for Caustic Storage Tanks - Mounted
1,802
25
8.3.1
Mixers for Caustic Day Tanks - Mounted
1,658
25
11.1.1
Instrumentation and Controls - Flow Meters - Inlet and Outlet - Venturi
17,176
15
11.3.1
Instrumentation and Controls - Flow Meters - Backwash - Venturi
12,496
15
11.4.1
Instrumentation and Controls - Flow Meters - Residuals - Venturi
9,686
15
11.6
Instrumentation and Controls - High/Low Alarm (for backwash tanks)
593
15
11.9
Instrumentation and Controls - High/Low Alarm (for caustic tanks)
1,185
15
11.11
Instrumentation and Controls - Temperature meters
593
15
11.12
Instrumentation and Controls - Head loss sensors
23,332
15
11.13.1
Instrumentation and Controls - Sampling Ports - Carbon Steel
500
25
11.17
Instrumentation and Controls - Turbidity meters
5,223
15
12.1.1
System Controls - PLC Units - PLC racks/power supplies
680
10
12.1.2
System Controls - PLC Units - CPUs
1,256
10
12.1.3
System Controls - PLC Units - I/O discrete input modules
614
10
12.1.4
System Controls - PLC Units - I/O discrete output modules
375
10
12.1.5
System Controls - PLC Units - I/O combination analog modules
5,221
10
12.1.6
System Controls - PLC Units - Ethernet modules
1,730
10
12.1.7
System Controls - PLC Units - Base expansion modules
118
10
12.1.8
System Controls - PLC Units - Base expansion controller modules
86
10
12.1.9
System Controls - PLC Units - UPSs
563
10
12.2.1
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Drive controllers
6,435
15
12.2.2
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Operator interface units
920
10
12.2.3
System Controls - Operator Equipment - PC Workstations
1,006
10
12.2.4
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Printers - laser jet
627
10
November 2018
118
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
WBS#
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
12.2.5
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Printers - dot matrix
642
10
12.3.1
System Controls - Controls Software - Operator interface software
366
10
12.3.2
System Controls - Controls Software - PLC programming software
474
10
12.3.3
System Controls - Controls Software - PLC data collection software
690
10
12.3.4
System Controls - Controls Software - Plant intelligence software
11,480
10
13.1.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 1 - Medium Quality
390,703
40
13.1.3.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 1 - Heating and Cooling System -
Heat pump
5,957
25
13.3
Building Structures and HVAC - Concrete Pad
53,134
40
Indirect
Indirect and Add-On Costs (contingency from model)
1,073,196
40
Process Cost
1,770,308
System Cost
2,843,504
O&M Cost
284,473
Totals are computed before component costs are rounded
Breakdown of indirect and add-on costs
Total Cost ($)
Construction Management
115,738
Process Engineering
212,437
Site Work
60,232
Yard Piping
26,287
Geotechnical
0
Standby Power
21,078
Electrical (including yard wiring)
132,051
Mobilization and Demobilization
87,480
Architectural Fees for Treatment Building
35,984
Permits
24
Pilot Study
69,717
Land Cost
11,216
Installation, Transportation, and O&P (0.0%)
0
Instrumentation and Control (0.0%)
0
Contingency (0.0%)
0
Miscellaneous Allowance (10.0%)
177,031
Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative (2.0%)
35,406
Sales Tax (0.0%)
0
Financing during Construction (5.0%)
88,515
November 2018
119
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Breakdown of O&M costs
Annual Cost ($/year)
Manager (47 hrs/yr @ $57.6375/hr)
2,733
Clerical (47 hrs/yr @ $39.3563/hr)
1,866
Operator (474 hrs/yr @ $35.9445/hr)
17,043
Materials for booster pumps (calculated as a percentage of capital)
697
Materials for backwash/rinse pumps (calculated as a percentage of capital)
239
Cartridge filter replacement (58 filters/yr @ $197.9583/sf/yr)
11,402
Facility maintenance (materials and labor) (4700 sf @ $5.9929/sf/yr)
28,166
Sodium Hydroxide - Small Qty (79132 Ibs/yr @ $0.302/lb)
23,895
Perchlorate-selective (479 cf/yr @ $256.5165/cf)
122,919
Energy for booster pumps (216 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
26,226
Energy for backwash/rinse pumps (0 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
0
Energy for lighting (4 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
540
Energy for ventilation (4 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
444
Heat pump (cooling mode) (39 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
4,732
Heat pump (62 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
7,516
POTW discharge fees (16757 gal/yr @ $0.1762/gal)
2,953
Spent resin disposal (10 ton/yr @ $697.6744/ton)
7,188
Spent cartridge filter disposal (1 ton/yr @ $74.9152/ton)
52
Miscellaneous Allowance (0 @ $)
25,861
November 2018
120
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Anion Exchange for Perchlorate, design 56.271 mgd, average 28.136 mgd, High-Cost Components,
Resin type: Perchlorate-selective 250,000 BV
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
1.1
Pressure Vessels - Stainless Steel
6,247,920
35
2.1
Ion Exchange Resin - Perchlorate-selective
4,672,704
N/A
3.4.1
Caustic Storage Tanks - Stainless Steel
20,040
35
3.4.2
Caustic Storage Tanks - Heat Tracing
2,341
10
3.4.3
Caustic Storage Tanks - Insulation
4,613
10
3.5.1
Caustic Day Tanks - Stainless Steel
5,461
35
3.5.2
Caustic Day Tanks - Heat Tracing
1,544
10
3.5.3
Caustic Day Tanks - Insulation
794
10
4.1
Cartridge Filters - Cartridge Filters
1,280,742
35
5.1.1
Backwash Piping - Stainless Steel
68,948
45
5.3.1
Process Piping - Stainless Steel
65,361
45
5.5.1
Inlet and Outlet Piping - Stainless Steel
127,977
45
5.7.1
Caustic Piping - Stainless Steel
27,579
45
5.8.1
Residuals Piping - Stainless Steel
29,507
45
5.8.2
Residuals Piping - Excavation
1,334
45
5.8.3
Residuals Piping - Bedding
79
45
5.8.4
Residuals Piping - Backfill and Compaction
618
45
5.8.5
Residuals Piping - Thrust Blocks
1,070
45
6.1.1
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Process - Stainless Steel
1,247,412
25
6.1.2
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Backwash - Stainless
Steel
405,104
25
6.1.6
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Caustic - Stainless Steel
8,267
25
6.2.1
Valves and Fittings - Manual - Inlet and outlet - Cast Iron
22,996
25
6.2.2
Valves and Fittings - Manual - Process - Stainless Steel
337,430
25
6.3.1
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Backwash - Stainless Steel
9,128
25
6.3.2
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Inlet and Outlet - Stainless Steel
75,474
25
6.3.7
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Residuals - Stainless Steel
3,068
25
7.1
Pumps - Booster
412,163
20
7.2
Pumps - Backwash/Rinse
42,669
20
8.2.1
Mixers for Caustic Storage Tanks - Mounted
3,221
25
8.3.1
Mixers for Caustic Day Tanks - Mounted
1,765
25
11.1.1
Instrumentation and Controls - Flow Meters - Inlet and Outlet - Orifice Plate
12,366
15
11.3.1
Instrumentation and Controls - Flow Meters - Backwash - Magnetic
8,824
15
11.4.1
Instrumentation and Controls - Flow Meters - Residuals - Magnetic
6,832
15
11.9
Instrumentation and Controls - High/Low Alarm (for caustic tanks)
1,185
15
11.11
Instrumentation and Controls - Temperature meters
593
15
11.12
Instrumentation and Controls - Head loss sensors
95,449
15
11.13.1
Instrumentation and Controls - Sampling Ports - Carbon Steel
1,300
25
11.17
Instrumentation and Controls - Turbidity meters
5,223
15
12.1.1
System Controls - PLC Units - PLC racks/power supplies
1,361
10
12.1.2
System Controls - PLC Units - CPUs
1,256
10
12.1.3
System Controls - PLC Units - I/O discrete input modules
1,227
10
12.1.4
System Controls - PLC Units - I/O discrete output modules
375
10
12.1.5
System Controls - PLC Units - I/O combination analog modules
14,359
10
12.1.6
System Controls - PLC Units - Ethernet modules
1,730
10
12.1.7
System Controls - PLC Units - Base expansion modules
355
10
12.1.8
System Controls - PLC Units - Base expansion controller modules
257
10
12.1.9
System Controls - PLC Units - UPSs
563
10
12.2.1
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Drive controllers
9,652
15
12.2.2
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Operator interface units
920
10
12.2.3
System Controls - Operator Equipment - PC Workstations
1,006
10
12.2.4
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Printers - laser jet
627
10
12.2.5
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Printers - dot matrix
642
10
November 2018
121
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
WBS#
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
12.3.1
System Controls - Controls Software - Operator interface software
366
10
12.3.2
System Controls - Controls Software - PLC programming software
474
10
12.3.3
System Controls - Controls Software - PLC data collection software
690
10
12.3.4
System Controls - Controls Software - Plant intelligence software
11,480
10
13.1.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 1 - High Quality
1,555,399
40
13.1.2.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 1 - Heating System - Natural gas
condensing furnace
64,314
25
13.1.3.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 1 - Cooling System - Air conditioner
25,745
25
13.2.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 2 - High Quality
412,924
40
13.2.3.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 2 - Heating and Cooling System -
Heat pump
34,649
25
13.3
Building Structures and HVAC - Concrete Pad
236,511
40
Indirect
Indirect and Add-On Costs (contingency from model)
9,150,973
40
Process Cost
17,635,986
System Cost
26,786,959
O&M Cost
2,713,642
Totals are computed before component costs are rounded
Breakdown of indirect and add-on costs
Total Cost ($)
Construction Management
749,880
Process Engineering
1,410,879
Site Work
262,459
Yard Piping
195,489
Geotechnical
32,795
Standby Power
147,274
Electrical (including yard wiring)
1,530,645
Mobilization and Demobilization
431,365
Architectural Fees for Treatment Building
144,432
Permits
1,731
Pilot Study
69,717
Land Cost
91,577
Installation, Transportation, and O&P (0.0%)
0
Instrumentation and Control (0.0%)
0
Contingency (6.2%)
1,084,613
Miscellaneous Allowance (10.0%)
1,763,599
Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative (2.0%)
352,720
Sales Tax (0.0%)
0
Financing during Construction (5.0%)
881,799
November 2018
122
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Breakdown of O&M costs
Annual Cost ($/year)
Manager (195 hrs/yr @ $71.8488/hr)
14,034
Clerical (195 hrs/yr @ $39.3563/hr)
7,688
Operator (1953 hrs/yr @ $43.8427/hr)
85,639
Materials for booster pumps (calculated as a percentage of capital)
4,122
Materials for backwash/rinse pumps (calculated as a percentage of capital)
427
Cartridge filter replacement (960 filters/yr @ $207.2477/sf/yr)
198,958
Facility maintenance (materials and labor) (20480 sf @ $5.9929/sf/yr)
122,734
Sodium Hydroxide - Large Qty (906405 Ibs/yr @ $0.1254/lb)
113,672
Perchlorate-selective (5492 cf/yr @ $256.5165/cf)
1,408,734
Energy for booster pumps (2480 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
300,573
Energy for backwash/rinse pumps (0 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
3
Energy for lighting (160 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
19,397
Energy for ventilation (28 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
3,376
Air conditioning (67 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
8,167
Heat pump (cooling mode) (283 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
34,319
Heat pump (82 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
9,947
Natural gas condensing furnace (25251 therms/yr @ $0.7941/therm)
20,051
POTW discharge fees (189467 gal/yr @ $0.1682/gal)
31,868
Spent resin disposal (118 ton/yr @ $697.6744/ton)
82,377
Spent cartridge filter disposal (12 ton/yr @ $74.9152/ton)
863
Miscellaneous Allowance (0 @ $)
246,695
November 2018
123
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Biological Treatment, design 0.500 mgd, average 0.162 mgd, Low-Cost Components, Design Type:
Fixed Bed Pressure Vessel
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
1.1.1
Bioreactors - Pressure Vessels - Carbon Steel - Plastic Internals
61,436
30
1.3.1
Bioreactors - Media - GAC
30,950
N/A
2.1.1
Post-Treatment Filters - Filter Basins - Concrete
14,675
37
Post-Treatment Filters - Filter Basins - Internals (Underdrain/Backwash
2.1.2
System)
121,148
37
2.1.3
Post-Treatment Filters - Filter Basins - Aluminum Railing
1,795
35
2.1.4
Post-Treatment Filters - Filter Basins - Aluminum Stairs
8,435
35
2.1.5
Post-Treatment Filters - Filter Basins - Excavation
8,987
37
2.1.6
Post-Treatment Filters - Filter Basins - Backfill and Compaction
3,334
37
2.3.1
Post-Treatment Filters - Media - Anthracite
7,920
8.5
2.3.2
Post-Treatment Filters - Media - Sand
3,608
20
3.2.1
Tanks - Electron Donor Storage Tanks - Plastic/XLPE
1,171
7
3.5.1
Tanks - Electron Donor Day Tanks - Plastic/XLPE
911
7
3.8.1
Tanks - Residuals Holding Tanks/Basins - Plastic/XLPE Tanks
12,401
20
3.11.1
Tanks - Aeration Tanks - Plastic/XLPE
1,596
20
3.11.2
Tanks - Aeration Tanks - Diffusers
53
10
3.12.1
Tanks - Polymer Storage Tanks - Plastic/XLPE
1,045
7
3.13.1
Tanks - Coagulant Mix Tank - Plastic/XLPE Tanks
1,571
20
4.1.1
Piping - Backwash Piping - PVC
1,134
17
4.2.1
Piping - Electron Donor Piping - PVC
101
17
4.4.1
Piping - Phosphoric Acid Piping - PVC
101
17
4.5.1
Piping - Process Piping - PVC
408
17
4.7.1
Piping - Inlet and Outlet Piping - PVC
622
17
4.8.1
Piping - Residuals Piping - PVC
219
17
4.11.1
Piping - Polymer Addition Piping - PVC
101
17
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Process -
5.1.1
Polypropylene/PVC
10,434
20
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Backwash -
5.1.2
Polypropylene/PVC
21,987
20
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Electron Donor -
5.1.3
Polypropylene/PVC
3,470
20
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Phosphoric Acid -
5.1.5
Polypropylene/PVC
2,974
20
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Residuals -
5.1.7
Polypropylene/PVC
1,654
20
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Air Scour-
5.1.8
Polypropylene/PVC
2,087
20
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Aeration-
5.1.12
Polypropylene/PVC
2,531
20
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Polymer-
5.1.13
Polypropylene/PVC
2,478
20
5.2.1
Valves and Fittings - Manual - Inlet and outlet - Polypropylene/PVC
1,282
20
5.2.2
Valves and Fittings - Manual - Process - Polypropylene/PVC
905
20
5.3.1
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Backwash - Polypropylene/PVC
2,262
20
5.3.2
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Residuals - Polypropylene/PVC
227
20
5.3.3
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Inlet and outlet - Polypropylene/PVC
1,353
20
5.3.5
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Electron Donor - Polypropylene/PVC
283
20
5.3.7
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Phosphoric Acid - Polypropylene/PVC
424
20
5.3.8
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Polymer - Polypropylene/PVC
141
20
6.4
Pumps and Blowers - Residuals Pump
13,958
17
6.5.1
Pumps and Blowers - Electron Donor Metering - PVC - Electric
1,850
15
6.7.1
Pumps and Blowers - Phosphoric Acid Metering - PVC - Electric
111
15
6.8.1
Pumps and Blowers - Blowers - Air Scour - Positive Displacement
23,134
20
November 2018
124
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
6.8.3
Pumps and Blowers - Blowers - Aeration - Positive Displacement
20,390
20
6.10.1
Pumps and Blowers - Polymer Metering - PVC - Electric
5,165
15
7.1.1
Mixers - Mixers for Electron Donor Storage Tanks - Mounted
1,720
22
7.2.1
Mixers - Mixers for Electron Donor Day Tanks - Mounted
1,669
22
7.5.1
Mixers - Mixers for Phosphoric Acid Storage Tanks - Mounted
1,650
22
7.11.1
Mixers - Mixers for Polymer Storage Tanks - Mounted
1,695
22
7.12.1
Mixers - Coagulant Mix Tank Mixers - Mounted
1,752
22
8.1
Solids Transfer - Eductors for Holding Tanks
1,690
40
Solids Transfer - Dry Feeders for Filter Coagulant Addition - Volumetric
8.2.1
Feeder
15,177
20
9.1.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Inlet and Outlet - Propeller
4,141
14
9.3.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Backwash - Propeller
4,544
14
9.4.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Residuals - Propeller
1,786
14
9.7
Instrumentation - High/Low Alarm (for holding tanks)
593
14
9.8
Instrumentation - Temperature meters
2,373
14
9.9
Instrumentation - Head loss sensors
4,242
14
9.10.1
Instrumentation - Sampling Ports - Stainless Steel
350
30
9.12
Instrumentation - ORP sensor
5,265
14
9.14
Instrumentation - Turbidity meters
20,893
14
9.15
Instrumentation - Perchlorate/Nitrate Analyzer
24,574
14
9.17
Instrumentation - Dissolved Oxygen Analyzer
2,941
14
10.1.1
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - PLC racks/power supplies
680
8
10.1.2
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - CPUs
1,256
8
10.1.3
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - I/O discrete input modules
614
8
10.1.4
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - I/O discrete output modules
375
8
10.1.5
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - I/O combination analog modules
5,874
8
10.1.6
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - Ethernet modules
1,730
8
10.1.7
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - Base expansion modules
118
8
10.1.8
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - Base expansion controller modules
86
8
10.1.9
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - UPSs
563
8
10.2.1
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Drive controllers
15,014
14
10.2.2
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Operator interface units
3,911
8
11.1.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 1 - Low Quality
86,721
37
11.3
Building Structures and HVAC - Concrete Pad
9,072
37
14.1
Solids drying pad
1,296
37
Indirect
Indirect and Add-On Costs (contingency from model)
425,303
37
Process Cost
627,852
System Cost
1,053,155
O&M Cost
52,275
Totals are computed before component costs are rounded
November 2018
125
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Breakdown of indirect and add-on costs
Total Cost ($)
Mobilization and Demobilization
0
Architectural Fees for Treatment Building
0
Site Work
15,507
Yard Piping
3,375
Geotechnical
4,736
Standby Power
0
Electrical (including yard wiring)
53,206
Contingency
0
Process Engineering
125,570
Construction Management and GC Overhead
11,913
Permits
903
Pilot Study
132,669
Land Cost
2,082
Installation, Transportation, and O&P (0.0%)
0
Instrumentation and Control (0.0%)
0
Miscellaneous Allowance (10.0%)
62,785
Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative (2.0%)
12,557
Sales Tax (0.0%)
0
Financing during Construction (0.0%)
0
Breakdown of O&M costs
Annual Cost ($/year)
Manager (45 hrs/yr @ $45.2396/hr)
2,049
Administrative (45 hrs/yr @ $31.9149/hr)
1,446
Operator (321 hrs/yr @ $30.4776/hr)
9,776
Materials for residuals pumps (calculated as a percentage of capital)
140
Materials for backwash air scour blowers (calculated as a percentage of capital)
231
Materials for aeration blowers (calculated as a percentage of capital)
204
Materials for filter basins (calculated as a percentage of capital)
1,404
Facility maintenance (materials and labor) (1100 sf @ $5.7866/sf/yr)
6,365
Acetic Acid (24657 Ibs/yr @ $0.0978/lb)
2,412
Phosphoric Acid - Small Qty (2086 Ibs/yr @ $0.5492/lb)
1,145
Ferric Chloride - Small Qty (4931 Ibs/yr @ $0.9961/lb)
4,912
Polymers - Large Qty (2521 Ibs/yr @ $0.8113/lb)
2,045
GAC annual attrition replacement - Bioreactor (1701 Ibs/yr @ $1.9176/lb)
3,262
Sand annual attrition replacement- Filter (15 cuft/yr @ $23.5561/cuft)
361
Anthracite annual attrition replacement- Filter (1555 Ibs/yr @ $0.5093/lb)
792
Consumables for online perchlorate analysis (NA)
10,117
Energy for backwash pumps (2 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
230
Energy for residuals pumps (0 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
15
Energy for blowers (1 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
100
Energy for lighting (0 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
60
Energy for ventilation (1 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
74
Holding basins solids disposal (5 ton/yr @ $74.9152/ton)
381
Miscellaneous Allowance (0 @ $)
4,752
November 2018
126
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Biological Treatment, design 5.809 mgd, average 2.455 mgd, Mid-Cost Components, Design Type:
Fixed Bed Gravity Basin
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
1.2.1
Bioreactors - Gravity Basins - Concrete
106,224
40
1.2.2
Bioreactors - Gravity Basins - Internals (Underdrain/Backwash System)
492,141
40
1.2.3
Bioreactors - Gravity Basins - Aluminum Railing
8,526
40
1.2.4
Bioreactors - Gravity Basins - Aluminum Stairs
8,435
40
1.2.5
Bioreactors - Gravity Basins - Excavation
48,763
40
1.2.6
Bioreactors - Gravity Basins - Backfill and Compaction
11,850
40
1.3.1
Bioreactors - Media - GAC
406,254
N/A
2.1.1
Post-Treatment Filters - Filter Basins - Concrete
96,486
40
Post-Treatment Filters - Filter Basins - Internals (Underdrain/Backwash
2.1.2
System)
413,581
40
2.1.3
Post-Treatment Filters - Filter Basins - Aluminum Railing
7,068
40
2.1.4
Post-Treatment Filters - Filter Basins - Aluminum Stairs
8,435
40
2.1.5
Post-Treatment Filters - Filter Basins - Excavation
41,825
40
2.1.6
Post-Treatment Filters - Filter Basins - Backfill and Compaction
10,826
40
2.3.1
Post-Treatment Filters - Media - Anthracite
110,417
10
2.3.2
Post-Treatment Filters - Media - Sand
50,308
20
3.1.1
Tanks - Backwash Tanks - Fiberglass
57,627
25
3.2.1
Tanks - Electron Donor Storage Tanks - Fiberglass
10,837
10
3.4.1
Tanks - Phosphoric Acid Storage Tanks - Fiberglass
4,705
10
3.5.1
Tanks - Electron Donor Day Tanks - Fiberglass
5,874
10
3.7.1
Tanks - Phosphoric Acid Day Tanks - Fiberglass
4,705
10
Tanks - Residuals Holding Tanks/Basins - Concrete Basins (includes
3.8.1
Excavation, Backfill, and Compaction)
150,286
40
3.11.1
Tanks - Aeration Tanks - Fiberglass
12,202
25
3.11.2
Tanks - Aeration Tanks - Diffusers
413
10
3.12.1
Tanks - Polymer Storage Tanks - Fiberglass
9,932
10
3.13.1
Tanks - Coagulant Mix Tank - Fiberglass Tanks
11,769
25
4.1.1
Piping - Backwash Piping - CPVC
32,516
22
4.2.1
Piping - Electron Donor Piping - CPVC
352
22
4.4.1
Piping - Phosphoric Acid Piping - CPVC
352
22
4.5.1
Piping - Process Piping - CPVC
17,733
22
4.7.1
Piping - Inlet and Outlet Piping - CPVC
36,114
22
4.8.1
Piping - Residuals Piping - CPVC
4,003
22
4.11.1
Piping - Polymer Addition Piping - CPVC
480
22
5.1.1
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Process - Cast Iron
231,488
25
5.1.2
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Backwash - Cast Iron
114,008
25
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Electron Donor -
5.1.3
Stainless Steel
4,163
25
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Phosphoric Acid -
5.1.5
Stainless Steel
4,163
25
5.1.7
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Residuals - Cast Iron
5,311
25
5.1.8
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Air Scour- Cast Iron
6,822
25
5.1.12
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Aeration- Cast Iron
7,440
25
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Polymer-
5.1.13
Polypropylene/PVC
2,614
25
5.2.1
Valves and Fittings - Manual - Inlet and outlet - Cast Iron
5,215
25
5.3.1
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Backwash - Cast Iron
7,911
25
5.3.2
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Residuals - Cast Iron
2,164
25
5.3.3
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Inlet and outlet - Cast Iron
5,234
25
5.3.5
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Electron Donor - Stainless Steel
1,032
25
5.3.7
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Phosphoric Acid - Stainless Steel
1,547
25
5.3.8
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Polymer - Polypropylene/PVC
180
25
6.1
Pumps and Blowers - Booster Pump
69,732
20
November 2018
127
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
6.3
Pumps and Blowers - Backwash Pump
83,511
20
6.4
Pumps and Blowers - Residuals Pump
20,314
20
6.5.1
Pumps and Blowers - Electron Donor Metering - Stainless Steel - Electric
5,993
20
6.7.1
Pumps and Blowers - Phosphoric Acid Metering - PVC - Electric
1,612
20
6.8.1
Pumps and Blowers - Blowers - Air Scour - Positive Displacement
58,928
25
6.8.3
Pumps and Blowers - Blowers - Aeration - Positive Displacement
34,152
25
6.10.1
Pumps and Blowers - Polymer Metering - Stainless Steel - Motor Driven
14,614
20
7.1.1
Mixers - Mixers for Electron Donor Storage Tanks - Mounted
2,681
25
7.2.1
Mixers - Mixers for Electron Donor Day Tanks - Mounted
1,853
25
7.5.1
Mixers - Mixers for Phosphoric Acid Storage Tanks - Mounted
1,706
25
7.6.1
Mixers - Mixers for Phosphoric Acid Day Tanks - Mounted
1,651
25
7.11.1
Mixers - Mixers for Polymer Storage Tanks - Mounted
2,534
25
7.12.1
Mixers - Coagulant Mix Tank Mixers - Mounted
2,781
25
8.1
Solids Transfer - Eductors for Holding Tanks
9,084
45
Solids Transfer - Dry Feeders for Filter Coagulant Addition - Volumetric
8.2.1
Feeder
15,180
25
9.1.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Inlet and Outlet - Venturi
17,176
15
9.3.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Backwash - Venturi
15,837
15
9.4.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Residuals - Venturi
9,686
15
9.5
Instrumentation - Level Switch/Alarm (for vessels)
2,963
15
9.6
Instrumentation - High/Low Alarm (for backwash tanks)
593
15
9.7
Instrumentation - High/Low Alarm (for holding tanks)
593
15
9.8
Instrumentation - Temperature meters
5,933
15
9.9
Instrumentation - Head loss sensors
10,605
15
9.10.1
Instrumentation - Sampling Ports - Carbon Steel
700
25
9.12
Instrumentation - ORP sensor
5,265
15
9.14
Instrumentation - Turbidity meters
57,455
15
9.15
Instrumentation - Perchlorate/Nitrate Analyzer
24,574
15
9.17
Instrumentation - Dissolved Oxygen Analyzer
2,941
15
10.1.1
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - PLC racks/power supplies
1,361
10
10.1.2
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - CPUs
1,256
10
10.1.3
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - I/O discrete input modules
921
10
10.1.4
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - I/O discrete output modules
375
10
10.1.5
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - I/O combination analog modules
11,748
10
10.1.6
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - Ethernet modules
1,730
10
10.1.7
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - Base expansion modules
355
10
10.1.8
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - Base expansion controller modules
257
10
10.1.9
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - UPSs
563
10
10.2.1
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Drive controllers
20,376
15
10.2.2
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Operator interface units
920
10
10.2.3
System Controls - Operator Equipment - PC Workstations
1,006
10
10.2.4
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Printers - laser jet
627
10
10.2.5
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Printers - dot matrix
642
10
10.3.1
System Controls - Controls Software - Operator interface software
366
10
10.3.2
System Controls - Controls Software - PLC programming software
474
10
10.3.3
System Controls - Controls Software - PLC data collection software
690
10
10.3.4
System Controls - Controls Software - Plant intelligence software
11,480
10
11.1.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 1 - Medium Quality
479,622
40
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 1 - Heating and Cooling System -
11.1.3.1
Heat pump
3,812
25
11.2.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 2 - Medium Quality
748,150
40
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 2 - Heating and Cooling System -
11.2.3.1
Heat pump
13,213
25
11.3
Building Structures and HVAC - Concrete Pad
183,377
40
14.1
Solids drying pad
7,128
40
November 2018
128
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
Indirect
Indirect and Add-On Costs (contingency from model)
2,835,055
40
Process Cost
4,551,427
System Cost
7,386,482
O&M Cost
511,935
Totals are computed before component costs are rounded
Breakdown of indirect and add-on costs
Total Cost ($)
Mobilization and Demobilization
226,694
Architectural Fees for Treatment Building
88,547
Site Work
206,712
Yard Piping
51,461
Geotechnical
62,238
Standby Power
28,054
Electrical (including yard wiring)
312,325
Contingency
0
Process Engineering
546,171
Construction Management and GC Overhead
286,932
Permits
7,622
Pilot Study
212,082
Land Cost
32,474
Installation, Transportation, and O&P (0.0%)
0
Instrumentation and Control (0.0%)
0
Miscellaneous Allowance (10.0%)
455,143
Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative (2.0%)
91,029
Sales Tax (0.0%)
0
Financing during Construction (5.0%)
227,571
November 2018
129
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Breakdown of O&M costs
Annual Cost ($/year)
Manager (199 hrs/yr @ $57.6375/hr)
11,493
Administrative (199 hrs/yr @ $35.9445/hr)
7,167
Operator (1365 hrs/yr @ $39.3563/hr)
53,734
Materials for booster pumps (calculated as a percentage of capital)
697
Materials for backwash pumps (calculated as a percentage of capital)
835
Materials for residuals pumps (calculated as a percentage of capital)
203
Materials for backwash air scour blowers (calculated as a percentage of capital)
589
Materials for aeration blowers (calculated as a percentage of capital)
342
Materials forbioreactor basins (calculated as a percentage of capital)
6,153
Materials for filter basins (calculated as a percentage of capital)
4,709
Facility maintenance (materials and labor) (15560 sf @ $5.9929/sf/yr)
93,249
Acetic Acid (373663 Ibs/yr @ $0.0978/lb)
36,551
Phosphoric Acid - Small Qty (31607 Ibs/yr @ $0.5492/lb)
17,359
Ferric Chloride - Small Qty (74733 Ibs/yr @ $0.9961/lb)
74,442
Polymers - Large Qty (48210 Ibs/yr @ $0.8113/lb)
39,113
GAC annual attrition replacement - Bioreactor (19440 Ibs/yr @ $1.8038/lb)
35,065
Sand annual attrition replacement- Filter (178 cuft/yr @ $23.5561/cuft)
4,192
Anthracite annual attrition replacement- Filter (18067 Ibs/yr @ $0.5093/lb)
9,201
Consumables for online perchlorate analysis (NA)
10,117
Energy for booster pumps (216 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
26,226
Energy for backwash pumps (14 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
1,754
Energy for residuals pumps (9 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
1,108
Energy for blowers (10 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
1,188
Energy for lighting (62 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
7,522
Energy for ventilation (6 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
698
Heat pump (cooling mode) (54 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
6,509
Heat pump (99 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
12,003
Holding basins solids disposal (42 ton/yr @ $74.9152/ton)
3,175
Miscellaneous Allowance (0 @ $)
46,540
November 2018
130
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Biological Treatment, design 56.271 mgd, average 28.136 mgd, High-Cost Components, Design Type:
Fluidized Bed Pressure Vessel
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
1.1.1
Bioreactors - Pressure Vessels - Stainless Steel
16,981,071
35
1.3.1
Bioreactors - Media - GAC
2,776,373
N/A
2.1.1
Post-Treatment Filters - Filter Basins - Concrete
509,517
40
Post-Treatment Filters - Filter Basins - Internals (Underdrain/Backwash
2.1.2
System)
1,692,172
40
2.1.3
Post-Treatment Filters - Filter Basins - Aluminum Railing
25,802
40
2.1.4
Post-Treatment Filters - Filter Basins - Aluminum Stairs
8,435
40
2.1.5
Post-Treatment Filters - Filter Basins - Excavation
236,337
40
2.1.6
Post-Treatment Filters - Filter Basins - Backfill and Compaction
41,320
40
2.3.1
Post-Treatment Filters - Media - Anthracite
1,039,884
10
2.3.2
Post-Treatment Filters - Media - Sand
473,789
20
3.2.1
Tanks - Electron Donor Storage Tanks - Stainless Steel
115,623
35
3.4.1
Tanks - Phosphoric Acid Storage Tanks - Fiberglass
4,944
10
3.5.1
Tanks - Electron Donor Day Tanks - Stainless Steel
19,303
35
3.7.1
Tanks - Phosphoric Acid Day Tanks - Fiberglass
4,944
10
3.8.1
Tanks - Residuals Holding Tanks/Basins - Steel Tanks
139,334
35
3.11.1
Tanks - Aeration Tanks - Steel
87,651
35
3.11.2
Tanks - Aeration Tanks - Diffusers
3,636
10
3.12.1
Tanks - Polymer Storage Tanks - Stainless Steel
25,447
35
3.13.1
Tanks - Coagulant Mix Tank - Steel Tanks
84,632
35
4.1.1
Piping - Backwash Piping - Stainless Steel
141,470
45
4.2.1
Piping - Electron Donor Piping - Stainless Steel
3,657
45
4.4.1
Piping - Phosphoric Acid Piping - Stainless Steel
3,657
45
4.5.1
Piping - Process Piping - Stainless Steel
88,253
45
4.7.1
Piping - Inlet and Outlet Piping - Stainless Steel
204,762
45
4.8.1
Piping - Residuals Piping - Stainless Steel
9,102
45
4.9.1
Piping - Fluidized Bed Recycle Piping - Stainless Steel
70,544
45
4.11.1
Piping - Polymer Addition Piping - Stainless Steel
7,801
45
5.1.1
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Process - Stainless Steel
1,355,857
25
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Backwash - Stainless
5.1.2
Steel
785,358
25
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Electron Donor -
5.1.3
Stainless Steel
27,895
25
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Phosphoric Acid -
5.1.5
Stainless Steel
27,895
25
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Residuals - Stainless
5.1.7
Steel
2,012
25
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Air Scour- Stainless
5.1.8
Steel
16,535
25
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Fluidized Bed Recycle -
5.1.9
Stainless Steel
269,670
25
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Air Biomass Removal-
5.1.11
Stainless Steel
6,007
25
5.1.12
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Aeration- Stainless Steel
70,204
25
5.1.13
Valves and Fittings - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Polymer- Stainless Steel
3,353
25
5.2.1
Valves and Fittings - Manual - Inlet and outlet - Cast Iron
22,996
25
5.2.2
Valves and Fittings - Manual - Process - Stainless Steel
459,469
25
5.3.1
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Backwash - Stainless Steel
26,164
25
5.3.2
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Residuals - Stainless Steel
868
25
5.3.3
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Inlet and outlet - Stainless Steel
37,737
25
5.3.5
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Electron Donor - Stainless Steel
1,032
25
5.3.7
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Phosphoric Acid - Stainless Steel
1,547
25
5.3.8
Valves and Fittings - Check Valves - Polymer - Stainless Steel
868
25
November 2018
131
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
6.1
Pumps and Blowers - Booster Pump
412,163
20
6.2
Pumps and Blowers - Recycle Pump
302,373
20
6.3
Pumps and Blowers - Backwash Pump
158,883
20
6.4
Pumps and Blowers - Residuals Pump
30,540
20
Pumps and Blowers - Electron Donor Metering - Stainless Steel - Motor
6.5.1
Driven
11,689
20
6.7.1
Pumps and Blowers - Phosphoric Acid Metering - PVC - Motor Driven
5,938
20
6.8.1
Pumps and Blowers - Blowers - Air Scour - Positive Displacement
59,261
25
6.8.2
Pumps and Blowers - Blowers - Biomass Removal - Positive Displacement
15,178
25
6.8.3
Pumps and Blowers - Blowers - Aeration - Positive Displacement
143,920
25
6.10.1
Pumps and Blowers - Polymer Metering - Stainless Steel - Motor Driven
15,347
20
7.1.1
Mixers - Mixers for Electron Donor Storage Tanks - Impeller
24,687
25
7.2.1
Mixers - Mixers for Electron Donor Day Tanks - Mounted
3,156
25
7.5.1
Mixers - Mixers for Phosphoric Acid Storage Tanks - Mounted
2,309
25
7.6.1
Mixers - Mixers for Phosphoric Acid Day Tanks - Mounted
1,692
25
7.11.1
Mixers - Mixers for Polymer Storage Tanks - Mounted
3,668
25
7.12.1
Mixers - Coagulant Mix Tank Mixers - Impeller
18,263
25
8.1
Solids Transfer - Eductors for Holding Tanks
15,000
45
Solids Transfer - Dry Feeders for Filter Coagulant Addition - Volumetric
8.2.1
Feeder
15,205
25
9.1.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Inlet and Outlet - Orifice Plate
12,366
15
9.3.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Backwash - Magnetic
21,398
15
9.4.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Residuals - Magnetic
3,868
15
9.7
Instrumentation - High/Low Alarm (for holding tanks)
593
15
9.8
Instrumentation - Temperature meters
73,569
15
9.9
Instrumentation - Head loss sensors
131,508
15
9.10.1
Instrumentation - Sampling Ports - Carbon Steel
3,950
25
9.12
Instrumentation - ORP sensor
5,265
15
9.14
Instrumentation - Turbidity meters
396,960
15
9.15
Instrumentation - Perchlorate/Nitrate Analyzer
24,574
15
9.17
Instrumentation - Dissolved Oxygen Analyzer
2,941
15
10.1.1
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - PLC racks/power supplies
4,082
10
10.1.2
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - CPUs
1,256
10
10.1.3
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - I/O discrete input modules
2,455
10
10.1.4
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - I/O discrete output modules
750
10
10.1.5
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - I/O combination analog modules
49,604
10
10.1.6
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - Ethernet modules
1,730
10
10.1.7
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - Base expansion modules
1,302
10
10.1.8
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - Base expansion controller modules
942
10
10.1.9
System Controls - PLC Unit(s) - UPSs
563
10
10.2.1
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Drive controllers
30,028
15
10.2.2
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Operator interface units
920
10
10.2.3
System Controls - Operator Equipment - PC Workstations
1,006
10
10.2.4
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Printers - laser jet
627
10
10.2.5
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Printers - dot matrix
642
10
10.3.1
System Controls - Controls Software - Operator interface software
366
10
10.3.2
System Controls - Controls Software - PLC programming software
474
10
10.3.3
System Controls - Controls Software - PLC data collection software
690
10
10.3.4
System Controls - Controls Software - Plant intelligence software
11,480
10
11.1.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 1 - High Quality
3,785,520
40
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 1 - Heating System - Natural gas
11.1.2.1
condensing furnace
186,719
25
11.1.3.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 1 - Cooling System - Air conditioner
127,120
25
11.2.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 2 - High Quality
927,051
40
November 2018
132
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
11.2.2.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 2 - Heating System - Natural gas
condensing furnace
97,694
25
11.2.3.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 2 - Cooling System - Air conditioner
280,408
25
11.3
Building Structures and HVAC - Concrete Pad
664,821
40
14.1
Solids drying pad
9,720
40
Indirect
Indirect and Add-On Costs (contingency from model)
19,972,073
40
Process Cost
36,019,163
System Cost
55,991,236
O&M Cost
3,636,058
Totals are computed before component costs are rounded
Breakdown of indirect and add-on costs
Total Cost ($)
Mobilization and Demobilization
880,869
Architectural Fees for Treatment Building
321,675
Site Work
730,092
Yard Piping
255,323
Geotechnical
203,370
Standby Power
238,619
Electrical (including yard wiring)
2,994,983
Contingency
3,243,958
Process Engineering
2,881,533
Construction Management and GC Overhead
1,510,943
Permits
32,593
Pilot Study
347,913
Land Cost
206,944
Installation, Transportation, and O&P (0.0%)
0
Instrumentation and Control (0.0%)
0
Miscellaneous Allowance (10.0%)
3,601,916
Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative (2.0%)
720,383
Sales Tax (0.0%)
0
Financing during Construction (5.0%)
1,800,958
November 2018
133
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Breakdown of O&M costs
Annual Cost ($/year)
Manager (540 hrs/yr @ $71.8488/hr)
38,763
Administrative (540 hrs/yr @ $43.8427/hr)
23,653
Operator (4578 hrs/yr @ $39.3563/hr)
180,188
Materials for booster pumps (calculated as a percentage of capital)
4,122
Materials for backwash pumps (calculated as a percentage of capital)
1,589
Materials for recycle pumps (calculated as a percentage of capital)
3,024
Materials for residuals pumps (calculated as a percentage of capital)
305
Materials for backwash air scour blowers (calculated as a percentage of capital)
744
Materials for aeration blowers (calculated as a percentage of capital)
1,439
Materials for filter basins (calculated as a percentage of capital)
19,627
Facility maintenance (materials and labor) (56180 sf @ $5.9929/sf/yr)
336,679
Acetic Acid (4282440 Ibs/yr @ $0.0978/lb)
418,894
Phosphoric Acid - Small Qty (362238 Ibs/yr @ $0.5492/lb)
198,943
Ferric Chloride - Small Qty (856488 Ibs/yr @ $0.9961/lb)
853,160
Polymers - Large Qty (123761 Ibs/yr @ $0.8113/lb)
100,407
GAC annual attrition replacement - Bioreactor (83034 Ibs/yr @ $1.6718/lb)
138,819
Sand annual attrition replacement- Filter (1724 cuft/yr @ $23.5561/cuft)
40,610
Anthracite annual attrition replacement- Filter (175011 Ibs/yr @ $0.5093/lb)
89,133
Consumables for online perchlorate analysis (NA)
10,117
Energy for booster pumps (2480 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
300,573
Energy for recycle pumps (1240 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
150,286
Energy for backwash pumps (36 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
4,343
Energy for blowers (150 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
18,183
Energy for lighting (1212 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
146,962
Energy for ventilation (117 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
14,167
Air conditioning (685 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
82,991
Natural gas condensing furnace (142420 therms/yr @ $0.7941/therm)
113,090
Holding basins solids disposal (196 ton/yr @ $74.9152/ton)
14,695
Miscellaneous Allowance (0 @ $)
330,551
November 2018
134
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Reverse Osmosis / Nanofiltration, design 0.500 mgd, average 0.162 mgd, Low-Cost Components, Feed
Water: High Quality GW
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
1.1
Membrane Process - Membrane Elements
42,359
N/A
1.2
Membrane Process - RO Pressure Vessels
15,339
17
1.3.1
Membrane Process - Feed Line Connectors - Victaulic, Painted
1,341
20
1.5.1
Membrane Process - Piping On Rack - Feed - Stainless Steel
7,454
40
1.5.2
Membrane Process - Piping On Rack - Permeate - PVC
245
40
1.5.3
Membrane Process - Piping On Rack - Concentrate - Stainless Steel
5,573
40
1.6
Membrane Process - Vessel Support Rack - Steel Beams
13,663
20
1.7
Membrane Process - Markup for Rack Assembly
30,343
22
2.1.1
Pretreatment Acid Tanks - Plastic (HXLPE)
1,015
7
2.2.1
Pretreatment Antiscalant Tanks - Plastic (XLPE)
823
7
2.3.1
Cleaning Solution Makeup Tanks - Plastic (XLPE)
2,274
7
2.4.1
Cleaning Chemical Storage Tanks - Acid storage - Plastic (XLPE)
799
7
2.4.2
Cleaning Chemical Storage Tanks - High pH storage - Plastic (XLPE)
799
7
2.8.1
Acid Day Tanks - Plastic/XLPE
814
7
2.10.1
Mixers for Antiscalant Storage Tanks - Mounted
1,652
22
3.1.1
Inlet and Outlet Piping - PVC
622
17
3.2.1
Cleaning System Piping - PVC
204
17
3.3.1
Residuals Piping - PVC
612
17
3.3.2
Residuals Piping - Excavation
1,187
17
3.3.3
Residuals Piping - Bedding
70
17
3.3.4
Residuals Piping - Backfill and Compaction
550
17
3.3.5
Residuals Piping - Thrust Blocks
409
17
Motor/Air Operated (on/off) Valves - Pretreatment acid -
4.1.1
Polypropylene/PVC
1,983
20
4.1.2
Motor/Air Operated (on/off) Valves - Antiscalant - Polypropylene/PVC
1,983
20
4.1.3
Motor/Air Operated (on/off) Valves - Feed line - Polypropylene/PVC
4,174
20
4.1.4
Motor/Air Operated (on/off) Valves - Concentrate control - Cast Iron
2,770
20
4.1.10
Motor/Air Operated (on/off) Valves - Cleaning - Polypropylene/PVC
25,042
20
4.2.1
Manual Valves - Inlet and outlet - Polypropylene/PVC
1,282
20
4.3.1
Check Valves - Residuals - Polypropylene/PVC
680
20
4.3.2
Check Valves - Inlet - Polypropylene/PVC
1,353
20
4.3.4
Check Valves - Feed pumps - Polypropylene/PVC
1,360
20
4.3.5
Check Valves - Cleaning - Polypropylene/PVC
2,040
20
5.1.1
Acid Metering Pumps for Pretreatment - PVC - Electric
1,582
15
5.2.1
Antiscalant Metering Pumps for Pretreatment - PVC - Electric
887
15
5.4
Pumps - Feed Water
34,730
17
5.7
Pumps - Cleaning Pumps (separate for acid and caustic)
2,901
17
6.1
Screens and Filters - Cartridge Filters for Feed
32,089
30
6.2.1
Screens and Filters - Security Screens for Cleaning - Simplex Basket Screens
11,080
30
6.3
Screens and Filters - Cartridge Filters for Cleaning
16,481
30
8.1
Teflon Immersion Heaters for Cleaning Tanks
3,321
14
9.1.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Inlet and Outlet - Propeller
8,283
14
9.2.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Membrane Trains - Feed Line - Propeller
7,289
14
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Membrane Trains - Permeate Line -
9.3.1
Propeller
7,289
14
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Membrane Trains - Concentrate Line -
9.3.1
Propeller
5,905
14
9.4.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Cleaning - Propeller
12,424
14
9.5.1
Instrumentation - Propeller
3,645
14
9.6
Instrumentation - Level Switches/Alarms (for cleaning tanks)
1,185
14
9.7
Instrumentation - High/Low Alarms (for pretreatment chemical tanks)
1,185
14
9.8
Instrumentation - High/Low Alarms (for cleaning chemical storage tanks)
1,185
14
9.1
Instrumentation - pH meters
10,530
14
November 2018
135
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
9.11
Instrumentation - Temperature meters
1,780
14
9.12
Instrumentation - Conductivity meters
12,927
14
9.13
Instrumentation - Head loss sensors
8,484
14
9.14.1
Instrumentation - Sampling ports - Carbon Steel
900
22
10.1.1
System Controls - PLC Units - PLC racks/power supplies
680
8
10.1.2
System Controls - PLC Units - CPUs
1,256
8
10.1.3
System Controls - PLC Units - I/O discrete input modules
614
8
10.1.4
System Controls - PLC Units - I/O discrete output modules
375
8
10.1.5
System Controls - PLC Units - I/O combination analog modules
5,874
8
10.1.6
System Controls - PLC Units - Ethernet modules
1,730
8
10.1.7
System Controls - PLC Units - Base expansion modules
118
8
10.1.8
System Controls - PLC Units - Base expansion controller modules
86
8
10.1.9
System Controls - PLC Units - UPSs
563
8
10.2.1
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Drive controllers
9,652
14
10.2.2
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Operator interface units
3,911
8
11.1.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 1 - Low Quality
118,890
37
11.4
Building Structures and HVAC - Concrete Pad
18,143
37
Indirect
Indirect and Add-On Costs (contingency from model)
305,971
37
Process Cost
518,789
System Cost
824,760
O&M Cost
198,657
Totals are computed before component costs are rounded
Breakdown of indirect and add-on costs
Total Cost ($)
Mobilization and Demobilization
31,613
Construction Management and GC Overhead
41,579
Contingency
0
Process Engineering
103,758
Site Work
19,992
Yard Piping
3,418
Geotechnical
0
Standby Power
0
Electrical (including yard wiring)
38,176
Architectural Fees for Treatment Building
0
Pilot Study
1,330
Land Cost
2,444
Permits
1,407
Installation, Transportation, and O&P (0.0%)
0
Instrumentation and Control (0.0%)
0
Miscellaneous Allowance (10.0%)
51,879
Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative (2.0%)
10,376
Sales Tax (0.0%)
0
Financing during Construction (0.0%)
0
Breakdown of O&M costs
Annual Cost ($/year)
Manager (116 hrs/yr @ $45.2396/hr)
5,269
Administrative (116 hrs/yr @ $30.4776/hr)
3,550
Operator (1165 hrs/yr @ $31.9149/hr)
37,173
Materials for pretreatment (calculated as a percentage of capital)
346
Cartridge filter replacement (19 filters/yr @ $173.693/filter)
3,275
Materials for membrane process (calculated as a percentage of capital)
424
Membrane replacement (10 element/yr @ $564.7907/element)
5,809
Materials for cleaning (calculated as a percentage of capital)
305
Materials for feed water and booster pumps (calculated as a percentage of capital)
347
November 2018
136
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Breakdown of O&M costs
Annual Cost ($/year)
Facility maintenance (materials and labor) (1560 sf @ $5.7866/sf/yr)
9,027
Sulfuric Acid - Small Qty (23565 Ibs/yr @ $0.3087/lb)
7,274
Antiscalant - Basic (2468 Ibs/yr @ $1.8447/lb)
4,552
Membrane Cleaner - Low pH Sulfate Control (13 gal/yr @ $27.5474/gal)
349
Membrane Cleaner - High pH Detergent (13 gal/yr @ $31.6028/gal)
400
Energy for feed water and booster pumps (119 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
14,385
Energy for lighting (2 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
220
Energy for ventilation (3 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
363
POTW discharge fees (19757898 gal/yr @ $0.0044/gal)
87,493
Spent cartridge filter disposal (0 ton/yr @ $74.9152/ton)
23
Spent membrane element disposal (0 ton/yr @ $74.9152/ton)
14
Miscellaneous Allowance (0 @ $)
18,060
November 2018
137
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Reverse Osmosis / Nanofiltration, design 5.809 mgd, average 2.455 mgd, Mid-Cost Components, Feed
Water: High Quality GW
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
1.1
Membrane Process - Membrane Elements
679,514
N/A
1.2
Membrane Process - RO Pressure Vessels
224,291
22
1.3.1
Membrane Process - Feed Line Connectors - Victaulic, Galvanized
23,514
25
1.5.1
Membrane Process - Piping On Rack - Feed - Stainless Steel
121,348
45
1.5.2
Membrane Process - Piping On Rack - Permeate - PVC
5,132
45
1.5.3
Membrane Process - Piping On Rack - Concentrate - Stainless Steel
102,499
45
1.6
Membrane Process - Vessel Support Rack - Steel Beams
56,866
25
1.7
Membrane Process - Markup for Rack Assembly
299,601
29
2.1.1
Pretreatment Acid Tanks - Fiberglass
7,338
10
2.2.1
Pretreatment Antiscalant Tanks - Fiberglass
5,085
10
2.3.1
Cleaning Solution Makeup Tanks - Fiberglass
17,704
10
2.4.1
Cleaning Chemical Storage Tanks - Acid storage - Fiberglass
4,785
10
2.4.2
Cleaning Chemical Storage Tanks - High pH storage - Fiberglass
4,785
10
2.8.1
Acid Day Tanks - Fiberglass
4,891
10
2.9.1
Antiscalant Day Tanks - Fiberglass
4,710
10
2.10.1
Mixers for Antiscalant Storage Tanks - Mounted
1,717
25
2.11.1
Mixers for Antiscalant Day Tanks - Mounted
1,651
25
3.1.1
Inlet and Outlet Piping - CPVC
29,641
22
3.2.1
Cleaning System Piping - CPVC
3,430
22
3.3.1
Residuals Piping - CPVC
13,641
22
3.3.2
Residuals Piping - Excavation
1,508
22
3.3.3
Residuals Piping - Bedding
89
22
3.3.4
Residuals Piping - Backfill and Compaction
699
22
3.3.5
Residuals Piping - Thrust Blocks
2,153
22
4.1.1
Motor/Air Operated (on/off) Valves - Pretreatment acid - Stainless Steel
1,665
25
4.1.2
Motor/Air Operated (on/off) Valves - Antiscalant - Stainless Steel
1,665
25
4.1.3
Motor/Air Operated (on/off) Valves - Feed line - Cast Iron
36,483
25
4.1.4
Motor/Air Operated (on/off) Valves - Concentrate control - Stainless Steel
15,983
25
4.1.10
Motor/Air Operated (on/off) Valves - Cleaning - Stainless Steel
202,457
25
4.2.1
Manual Valves - Inlet and outlet - Cast Iron
6,852
25
4.3.1
Check Valves - Residuals - Cast Iron
2,870
25
4.3.2
Check Valves - Inlet - Cast Iron
6,754
25
4.3.4
Check Valves - Feed pumps - Cast Iron
15,822
25
4.3.5
Check Valves - Cleaning - Cast Iron
5,786
25
5.1.1
Acid Metering Pumps for Pretreatment - PVC - Electric
2,963
20
5.2.1
Antiscalant Metering Pumps for Pretreatment - Stainless Steel - Electric
3,304
20
5.4
Pumps - Feed Water
213,062
20
5.7
Pumps - Cleaning Pumps (separate for acid and caustic)
8,294
20
6.1
Screens and Filters - Cartridge Filters for Feed
203,680
35
Screens and Filters - Security Screens for Cleaning - Simplex Basket
6.2.1
Screens
53,718
35
6.3
Screens and Filters - Cartridge Filters for Cleaning
123,757
35
8.1
Teflon Immersion Heaters for Cleaning Tanks
23,304
15
9.1.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Inlet and Outlet - Venturi
37,666
15
9.2.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Membrane Trains - Feed Line - Venturi
47,512
15
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Membrane Trains - Permeate Line -
9.3.1
Venturi
43,235
15
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Membrane Trains - Concentrate Line -
9.3.1
Venturi
37,488
15
9.4.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Cleaning - Venturi
56,499
15
9.5.1
Instrumentation - Venturi
14,412
15
9.6
Instrumentation - Level Switches/Alarms (for cleaning tanks)
1,185
15
9.7
Instrumentation - High/Low Alarms (for pretreatment chemical tanks)
1,185
15
November 2018
138
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
9.8
Instrumentation - High/Low Alarms (for cleaning chemical storage tanks)
1,185
15
9.1
Instrumentation - pH meters
10,530
15
9.11
Instrumentation - Temperature meters
1,780
15
9.12
Instrumentation - Conductivity meters
17,775
15
9.13
Instrumentation - Head loss sensors
14,848
15
9.14.1
Instrumentation - Sampling ports - Stainless Steel
8,700
35
10.1.1
System Controls - PLC Units - PLC racks/power supplies
1,020
10
10.1.2
System Controls - PLC Units - CPUs
1,256
10
10.1.3
System Controls - PLC Units - I/O discrete input modules
2,455
10
10.1.4
System Controls - PLC Units - I/O discrete output modules
375
10
10.1.5
System Controls - PLC Units - I/O combination analog modules
7,832
10
10.1.6
System Controls - PLC Units - Ethernet modules
1,730
10
10.1.7
System Controls - PLC Units - Base expansion modules
237
10
10.1.8
System Controls - PLC Units - Base expansion controller modules
171
10
10.1.9
System Controls - PLC Units - UPSs
563
10
10.2.1
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Drive controllers
16,087
15
10.2.2
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Operator interface units
920
10
10.2.3
System Controls - Operator Equipment - PC Workstations
2,013
10
10.2.4
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Printers - laser jet
627
10
10.2.5
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Printers - dot matrix
642
10
10.3.1
System Controls - Controls Software - Operator interface software
366
10
10.3.2
System Controls - Controls Software - PLC programming software
947
10
10.3.3
System Controls - Controls Software - PLC data collection software
1,380
10
10.3.4
System Controls - Controls Software - Plant intelligence software
22,960
10
11.1.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 1 - Medium Quality
419,822
40
11.1.2.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 1 - Heating System - Natural gas
condensing furnace
61,640
25
11.4
Building Structures and HVAC - Concrete Pad
73,869
40
Indirect
Indirect and Add-On Costs (contingency from model)
1,857,320
40
Process Cost
3,455,924
System Cost
5,313,244
O&M Cost
2,017,479
Totals are computed before component costs are rounded
Breakdown of indirect and add-on costs
Total Cost ($)
Mobilization and Demobilization
150,269
Construction Management and GC Overhead
192,949
Contingency
0
Process Engineering
360,983
Site Work
65,230
Yard Piping
13,803
Geotechnical
0
Standby Power
115,996
Electrical (including yard wiring)
252,677
Architectural Fees for Treatment Building
38,513
Pilot Study
64,004
Land Cost
11,857
Permits
3,530
Installation, Transportation, and O&P (0.0%)
0
Instrumentation and Control (0.0%)
0
Miscellaneous Allowance (10.0%)
345,592
Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative (2.0%)
69,118
Sales Tax (0.0%)
0
Financing during Construction (5.0%)
172,796
November 2018
139
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Breakdown of O&M costs
Annual Cost ($)
Manager (634 hrs/yr @ $57.6375/hr)
36,534
Administrative (634 hrs/yr @ $39.3563/hr)
24,946
Operator (6338 hrs/yr @ $35.9445/hr)
227,834
Materials for pretreatment (calculated as a percentage of capital)
2,083
Cartridge filter replacement (130 filters/yr @ $203.4792/filter)
26,510
Materials for membrane process (calculated as a percentage of capital)
6,795
Membrane replacement (165 element/yr @ $529.4913/element)
87,366
Materials for cleaning (calculated as a percentage of capital)
1,858
Materials for feed water and booster pumps (calculated as a percentage of capital)
2,131
Facility maintenance (materials and labor) (5090 sf @ $5.9193/sf/yr)
30,129
Sulfuric Acid - Small Qty (253899 Ibs/yr @ $0.3087/lb)
78,367
Antiscalant - Basic (28052 Ibs/yr @ $1.8447/lb)
51,749
Membrane Cleaner - Low pH Sulfate Control (203 gal/yr @ $27.5474/gal)
5,592
Membrane Cleaner - High pH Detergent (203 gal/yr @ $31.6028/gal)
6,415
Energy for feed water and booster pumps (1872 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
226,892
Energy for lighting (32 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
3,911
Energy for ventilation (13 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
1,547
Natural gas condensing furnace (23911 therms/yr @ $0.7941/therm)
18,987
POTW discharge fees (224932839 gal/yr @ $0.0044/gal)
994,106
Spent cartridge filter disposal (2 ton/yr @ $74.9152/ton)
154
Spent membrane element disposal (2 ton/yr @ $74.9152/ton)
165
Miscellaneous Allowance (0 @ $)
183,407
November 2018
140
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Reverse Osmosis / Nanofiltration, design 56.271 mgd, average 28.136 mgd, High-Cost Components,
Feed Water: High Quality GW
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
1.1
Membrane Process - Membrane Elements
4,612,457
N/A
1.2
Membrane Process - RO Pressure Vessels
1,522,459
22
1.3.1
Membrane Process - Feed Line Connectors - Victaulic, Galvanized
159,611
25
1.5.1
Membrane Process - Piping On Rack - Feed - Stainless Steel
823,697
45
1.5.2
Membrane Process - Piping On Rack - Permeate - PVC
34,835
45
1.5.3
Membrane Process - Piping On Rack - Concentrate - Stainless Steel
695,752
45
1.6
Membrane Process - Vessel Support Rack - Steel Beams
379,103
25
1.7
Membrane Process - Markup for Rack Assembly
2,026,759
29
2.1.1
Pretreatment Acid Tanks - Fiberglass
28,524
10
2.2.1
Pretreatment Antiscalant Tanks - Stainless Steel
11,510
35
2.3.1
Cleaning Solution Makeup Tanks - Stainless Steel
22,264
35
2.4.1
Cleaning Chemical Storage Tanks - Acid storage - Fiberglass
4,878
10
2.4.2
Cleaning Chemical Storage Tanks - High pH storage - Stainless Steel
4,710
35
2.8.1
Acid Day Tanks - Fiberglass
6,716
10
2.9.1
Antiscalant Day Tanks - Stainless Steel
4,880
35
2.10.1
Mixers for Antiscalant Storage Tanks - Mounted
2,412
25
2.11.1
Mixers for Antiscalant Day Tanks - Mounted
1,700
25
3.1.1
Inlet and Outlet Piping - Stainless Steel
136,508
45
3.2.1
Cleaning System Piping - Stainless Steel
24,848
45
3.3.1
Residuals Piping - Steel
74,713
35
3.3.2
Residuals Piping - Excavation
2,871
22
3.3.3
Residuals Piping - Bedding
144
22
3.3.4
Residuals Piping - Backfill and Compaction
1,331
22
3.3.5
Residuals Piping - Thrust Blocks
15,674
22
4.1.1
Motor/Air Operated (on/off) Valves - Pretreatment acid - Stainless Steel
1,665
25
4.1.2
Motor/Air Operated (on/off) Valves - Antiscalant - Stainless Steel
1,665
25
4.1.3
Motor/Air Operated (on/off) Valves - Feed line - Stainless Steel
685,694
25
4.1.4
Motor/Air Operated (on/off) Valves - Concentrate control - Stainless Steel
106,556
25
4.1.10
Motor/Air Operated (on/off) Valves - Cleaning - Stainless Steel
745,892
25
4.2.1
Manual Valves - Inlet and outlet - Cast Iron
22,996
25
4.3.1
Check Valves - Residuals - Stainless Steel
15,845
25
4.3.2
Check Valves - Inlet - Stainless Steel
37,737
25
4.3.4
Check Valves - Feed pumps - Stainless Steel
195,726
25
4.3.5
Check Valves - Cleaning - Stainless Steel
9,203
25
5.1.1
Acid Metering Pumps for Pretreatment - PVC - Motor Driven
8,099
20
5.2.1
Antiscalant Metering Pumps for Pretreatment - PVC - Motor Driven
6,078
20
5.4
Pumps - Feed Water
2,900,895
20
5.7
Pumps - Cleaning Pumps (separate for acid and caustic)
8,352
20
6.1
Screens and Filters - Cartridge Filters for Feed
1,569,824
35
Screens and Filters - Security Screens for Cleaning - Simplex Basket
6.2.1
Screens
54,857
35
6.3
Screens and Filters - Cartridge Filters for Cleaning
126,670
35
8.1
Teflon Immersion Heaters for Cleaning Tanks
23,855
15
9.1.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Inlet and Outlet - Orifice Plate
24,731
15
9.2.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Membrane Trains - Feed Line - Magnetic
225,534
15
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Membrane Trains - Permeate Line -
9.3.1
Magnetic
225,534
15
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Membrane Trains - Concentrate Line -
9.3.1
Magnetic
136,649
15
9.4.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Cleaning - Orifice Plate
13,941
15
9.5.1
Instrumentation - Magnetic
25,692
15
9.6
Instrumentation - Level Switches/Alarms (for cleaning tanks)
1,185
15
9.7
Instrumentation - High/Low Alarms (for pretreatment chemical tanks)
1,185
15
November 2018
141
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
9.8
Instrumentation - High/Low Alarms (for cleaning chemical storage tanks)
1,185
15
9.1
Instrumentation - pH meters
10,530
15
9.11
Instrumentation - Temperature meters
1,780
15
9.12
Instrumentation - Conductivity meters
100,186
15
9.13
Instrumentation - Head loss sensors
99,691
15
9.14.1
Instrumentation - Sampling ports - Stainless Steel
58,450
35
10.1.1
System Controls - PLC Units - PLC racks/power supplies
4,422
10
10.1.2
System Controls - PLC Units - CPUs
1,256
10
10.1.3
System Controls - PLC Units - I/O discrete input modules
13,195
10
10.1.4
System Controls - PLC Units - I/O discrete output modules
750
10
10.1.5
System Controls - PLC Units - I/O combination analog modules
35,897
10
10.1.6
System Controls - PLC Units - Ethernet modules
1,730
10
10.1.7
System Controls - PLC Units - Base expansion modules
1,420
10
10.1.8
System Controls - PLC Units - Base expansion controller modules
1,028
10
10.1.9
System Controls - PLC Units - UPSs
563
10
10.2.1
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Drive controllers
45,042
15
10.2.2
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Operator interface units
920
10
10.2.3
System Controls - Operator Equipment - PC Workstations
4,026
10
10.2.4
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Printers - laser jet
627
10
10.2.5
System Controls - Operator Equipment - Printers - dot matrix
642
10
10.3.1
System Controls - Controls Software - Operator interface software
366
10
10.3.2
System Controls - Controls Software - PLC programming software
1,895
10
10.3.3
System Controls - Controls Software - PLC data collection software
2,761
10
10.3.4
System Controls - Controls Software - Plant intelligence software
45,920
10
10.3.5
System Controls - Controls Software - Early warning software
13,395
10
11.1.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 1 - High Quality
640,174
40
11.1.2.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 1 - Heating System - Natural gas
condensing furnace
170,293
25
11.1.3.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 1 - Heating and Cooling System -
Air conditioner
1,104,140
25
11.2.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 2 - High Quality
362,372
40
11.2.3.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 2 - Heating and Cooling System -
Heat pump
4,053
25
11.3.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 3 - High Quality
1,286,225
40
11.3.2.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 3 - Heating System - Natural gas
condensing furnace
27,051
25
11.3.3.1
Building Structures and HVAC - Building 3 - Cooling System - Air
conditioner
7,126
25
11.4
Building Structures and HVAC - Concrete Pad
384,249
40
Indirect
Indirect and Add-On Costs (contingency from model)
10,347,182
40
Process Cost
22,207,784
System Cost
32,554,965
O&M Cost
19,273,680
Totals are computed before component costs are rounded
November 2018
142
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Breakdown of indirect and add-on costs
Total Cost ($)
Mobilization and Demobilization
508,239
Construction Management and GC Overhead
858,411
Contingency
0
Process Engineering
1,620,601
Site Work
291,037
Yard Piping
88,455
Geotechnical
0
Standby Power
1,039,493
Electrical (including yard wiring)
1,709,688
Architectural Fees for Treatment Building
195,959
Pilot Study
132,875
Land Cost
110,762
Permits
16,337
Installation, Transportation, and O&P (0.0%)
0
Instrumentation and Control (0.0%)
0
Miscellaneous Allowance (10.0%)
2,220,778
Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative (2.0%)
444,156
Sales Tax (0.0%)
0
Financing during Construction (5.0%)
1,110,389
Breakdown of O&M costs
Annual Cost ($/year)
Manager (2379 hrs/yr @ $71.8488/hr)
170,939
Administrative (2379 hrs/yr @ $39.3563/hr)
93,634
Operator (23791 hrs/yr @ $43.8427/hr)
1,043,082
Materials for pretreatment (calculated as a percentage of capital)
15,790
Cartridge filter replacement (885 filters/yr @ $207.2116/filter)
183,293
Materials for membrane process (calculated as a percentage of capital)
46,125
Membrane replacement (1120 element/yr @ $529.4913/element)
593,030
Materials for cleaning (calculated as a percentage of capital)
1,899
Materials for feed water and booster pumps (calculated as a percentage of capital)
29,009
Facility maintenance (materials and labor) (22710 sf @ $5.9929/sf/yr)
136,098
Sulfuric Acid - Large Qty (2902863 Ibs/yr @ $0.1107/lb)
321,406
Antiscalant - Basic (320728 Ibs/yr @ $1.8447/lb)
591,654
Membrane Cleaner - Low pH Sulfate Control (1378 gal/yr @ $27.5474/gal)
37,958
Membrane Cleaner - High pH Detergent (1378 gal/yr @ $31.6028/gal)
43,546
Energy for feed water and booster pumps (21420 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
2,596,501
Energy for lighting (199 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
24,115
Energy for ventilation (90 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
10,902
Air conditioning (1878 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
227,680
Heat pump (15 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
1,760
Heat pump (43 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
5,236
Natural gas condensing furnace (80713 therms/yr @ $0.7941/therm)
64,091
POTW discharge fees (2553033230 gal/yr @ $0.0044/gal)
11,281,363
Spent cartridge filter disposal (11 ton/yr @ $74.9152/ton)
832
Spent membrane element disposal (21 ton/yr @ $74.9152/ton)
1,585
Miscellaneous Allowance (0 @ $)
1,752,153
November 2018
143
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Point of Use/Point of Entry, design 0.500 mgd, average 0.162 mgd, Contaminant: Perchlorate,
Treatment Technology: POU Reverse Osmosis
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
23.1.1
Installed Treatment Equipment - POU/POE Unit Purchase
116,781
10
23.1.2
Installed Treatment Equipment - POU/POE Installation
41,270
10
23.1.3
Installed Treatment Equipment - Scheduling Time
7,330
N/A
23.2.1.1
Public Education - Technical Labor - Develop materials
319
N/A
23.2.1.3
Public Education - Technical Labor - Meetings
64
N/A
23.2.1.4
Public Education - Technical Labor - Post-meeting
64
N/A
23.2.2.1
Public Education - Clerical Labor - Develop materials
183
N/A
23.2.2.3
Public Education - Clerical Labor - Meetings
61
N/A
23.2.2.4
Public Education - Clerical Labor - Post-meeting
61
N/A
23.2.3.1
Public Education - Printed Material - Meeting flyers
8
N/A
23.2.3.2
Public Education - Printed Material - Meeting ads
60
N/A
23.2.3.4
Public Education - Printed Material - Meeting handouts
173
N/A
23.2.3.5
Public Education - Printed Material - Billing mailers
115
N/A
23.3.1
Initial Year Monitoring 1 - Sampling time
2,561
N/A
23.3.3
Initial Year Monitoring 1 - Analysis
35,074
N/A
23.3.4
Initial Year Monitoring 1 - Analysis (total coliform)
8,780
N/A
23.3.5
Initial Year Monitoring 1 - Shipping
598
N/A
Indirect
Indirect and Add-On Costs (contingency from model)
56,229
10
Process Cost
213,501
System Cost
269,730
O&M Cost
79,513
Totals are computed before component costs are rounded
Breakdown of indirect and add-on costs
Total Cost ($)
Permitting
4,961
Pilot Testing
4,961
Legal
4,961
Engineering
24,807
Contingency
16,538
Breakdown of O&M costs
Annual Cost ($/year)
POU/POE Maintenance
9,978
Information updates
383
Maintenance Scheduling
9,529
Information updates
366
Sediment Pre-Filter
4,541
Pre-GAC Filter Cartridge
11,742
Post-GAC Filter Cartridge
6,785
RO Membrane
12,577
Billing mailers
173
Sampling time
1,277
Analysis
17,483
Shipping
304
November 2018
144
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Non-Treatment, design 0.500 mgd, average 0.162 mgd, Low-Cost Components, Design Type:
Interconnection
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
3.1.1
Piping - Interconnect - PVC
59,800
17
3.1.2
Piping - Interconnect - Excavation
91,114
17
3.1.3
Piping - Interconnect - Backfill and Compaction
42,241
17
3.1.4
Piping - Interconnect - Asphalt Patch
12,713
17
4.1.1
Valves - Isolation (PRV) and Street - Ductile Iron
8,217
20
6.1.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Interconnect - Propeller
4,141
14
Indirect
Indirect and Add-On Costs (contingency from model)
106,490
17
Process Cost
218,225
System Cost
324,716
O&M Cost
130,125
Totals are computed before component costs are rounded
Breakdown of indirect and add-on costs
Total Cost ($)
Contingency
0
Process Engineering
43,645
Construction Management and GC Overhead
24,656
Site Work
0
Yard Piping
0
Geotechnical
0
Standby Power
0
Electrical (including yard wiring)
0
Mobilization and Demobilization
12,002
Architectural Fees for Treatment Building
0
Permits
0
Pilot Study
0
Land Cost
0
Installation, Transportation, and O&P (0.0%)
0
Instrumentation and Control (0.0%)
0
Miscellaneous Allowance (10.0%)
21,823
Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative (2.0%)
4,365
Sales Tax (0.0%)
0
Financing during Construction (0.0%)
0
Breakdown of O&M costs
Annual Cost ($/year)
Manager (0 hrs/yr @ $45.2396/hr)
4
Administrative (0 hrs/yr @ $31.9149/hr)
3
Operator (1 hrs/yr @ $30.4776/hr)
28
Purchased Water (59130 K gal @ $2K gal)
118,260
Miscellaneous Allowance (0 @ $)
11,830
November 2018
145
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Non-Treatment, design 0.500 mgd, average 0.162 mgd, Low-Cost Components, Design Type: New Well
Construction
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
1.1.1
Well Items - Well Casing - PVC
9,383
17
1.2.1
Well Items - Well screen - PVC Schedule 40
8,354
17
1.3.1
Well Items - Plugs - PVC
172
17
1.4
Well Items - Well Drilling
22,988
N/A
1.5
Well Items - Gravel Pack
14,275
N/A
1.6
Well Items - Well Development
875
N/A
1.7
Well Items - Surface seal well, concrete fill
5,125
N/A
3.2.1
Piping - Well - PVC
615
17
3.2.2
Piping - Well - Excavation
4,556
17
3.2.3
Piping - Well - Backfill and Compaction
2,112
17
4.2.2
Valves - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Well Pump - Polypropylene/PVC
1,282
20
5.2
Pumps - Well Pump
14,343
17
6.2.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Well - Propeller
4,141
14
8.1.1
Building Structures - Building 1 - Small Low Cost Shed
9,200
20
Indirect
Indirect and Add-On Costs (contingency from model)
110,111
17
Process Cost
97,419
System Cost
207,530
O&M Cost
38,061
Totals are computed before component costs are rounded
Breakdown of indirect and add-on costs
Total Cost ($)
Contingency
0
Process Engineering
19,484
Construction Management and GC Overhead
12,509
Site Work
2,563
Yard Piping
0
Geotechnical
27,008
Standby Power
0
Electrical (including yard wiring)
8,822
Mobilization and Demobilization
7,278
Architectural Fees for Treatment Building
0
Permits
0
Pilot Study
0
Land Cost
20,757
Installation, Transportation, and O&P (0.0%)
0
Instrumentation and Control (0.0%)
0
Miscellaneous Allowance (10.0%)
9,742
Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative (2.0%)
1,948
Sales Tax (0.0%)
0
Financing during Construction (0.0%)
0
Breakdown of O&M costs
Annual Cost ($/year)
Manager (4 hrs/yr @ $45.2396/hr)
193
Administrative (4 hrs/yr @ $31.9149/hr)
136
Operator (43 hrs/yr @ $30.4776/hr)
1,298
Facility maintenance (materials and labor) (200 sf @ $5.7866/sf/yr)
1,157
Well pump (calculated as a percentage of capital)
143
Energy for well pumps (261 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
31,674
Miscellaneous Allowance (0 @ $)
3,460
November 2018
146
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Non-Treatment, design 1.000 mgd, average 0.350 mgd, Mid-Cost Components, Design Type:
Interconnection
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
3.1.1
Piping - Interconnect - PVC
59,800
22
3.1.2
Piping - Interconnect - Excavation
91,114
22
3.1.3
Piping - Interconnect - Backfill and Compaction
42,241
22
3.1.4
Piping - Interconnect - Asphalt Patch
12,713
22
4.1.1
Valves - Isolation (PRV) and Street - Ductile Iron
8,217
25
6.1.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Interconnect - Venturi
12,496
15
Indirect
Indirect and Add-On Costs (contingency from model)
101,239
22
Process Cost
226,580
System Cost
327,819
O&M Cost
281,089
Totals are computed before component costs are rounded
Breakdown of indirect and add-on costs
Total Cost ($)
Contingency
0
Process Engineering
27,190
Construction Management and GC Overhead
25,561
Site Work
0
Yard Piping
0
Geotechnical
0
Standby Power
0
Electrical (including yard wiring)
0
Mobilization and Demobilization
9,970
Architectural Fees for Treatment Building
0
Permits
0
Pilot Study
0
Land Cost
0
Installation, Transportation, and O&P (0.0%)
0
Instrumentation and Control (0.0%)
0
Miscellaneous Allowance (10.0%)
22,658
Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative (2.0%)
4,532
Sales Tax (0.0%)
0
Financing during Construction (5.0%)
11,329
Breakdown of O&M costs
Annual Cost ($/year)
Manager (0 hrs/yr @ $51.7408/hr)
5
Administrative (0 hrs/yr @ $34.0506/hr)
3
Operator (1 hrs/yr @ $30.4776/hr)
28
Purchased Water (127750 K gal @ $2K gal)
255,500
Miscellaneous Allowance (0 @ $)
25,554
November 2018
147
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Non-Treatment, design 1.000 mgd, average 0.350 mgd, Mid-Cost Components, Design Type: New Well
Construction
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
1.1.1
Well Items - Well Casing - Stainless Steel
246,420
45
1.2.1
Well Items - Well screen - PVC Schedule 40
16,708
22
1.3.1
Well Items - Plugs - PVC
343
22
1.4
Well Items - Well Drilling
45,975
N/A
1.5
Well Items - Gravel Pack
28,550
N/A
1.6
Well Items - Well Development
1,750
N/A
1.7
Well Items - Surface seal well, concrete fill
10,250
N/A
3.2.1
Piping - Well - PVC
1,230
22
3.2.2
Piping - Well - Excavation
9,111
22
3.2.3
Piping - Well - Backfill and Compaction
4,224
22
4.2.2
Valves - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Well Pump - Cast Iron
9,920
25
5.2
Pumps - Well Pump
28,686
20
6.2.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Well - Venturi
12,496
15
8.1.1
Building Structures - Building 1 - Small Low Cost Shed
18,401
25
Indirect
Indirect and Add-On Costs (contingency from model)
380,036
45
Process Cost
434,064
System Cost
814,100
O&M Cost
76,202
Totals are computed before component costs are rounded
Breakdown of indirect and add-on costs
Total Cost ($)
Contingency
0
Process Engineering
52,088
Construction Management and GC Overhead
35,031
Site Work
5,126
Yard Piping
0
Geotechnical
54,017
Standby Power
51,369
Electrical (including yard wiring)
41,566
Mobilization and Demobilization
25,182
Architectural Fees for Treatment Building
1,656
Permits
0
Pilot Study
0
Land Cost
40,210
Installation, Transportation, and O&P (0.0%)
0
Instrumentation and Control (0.0%)
0
Miscellaneous Allowance (10.0%)
43,406
Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative (2.0%)
8,681
Sales Tax (0.0%)
0
Financing during Construction (5.0%)
21,703
Breakdown of O&M costs
Annual Cost ($/year)
Manager (9 hrs/yr @ $51.7408/hr)
441
Administrative (9 hrs/yr @ $34.0506/hr)
290
Operator (85 hrs/yr @ $30.4776/hr)
2,596
Facility maintenance (materials and labor) (400 sf @ $5.7866/sf/yr)
2,315
Well pump (calculated as a percentage of capital)
287
Energy for well pumps (523 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
63,347
Miscellaneous Allowance (0 @ $)
6,927
November 2018
148
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Non-Treatment, design 3.536 mgd, average 1.417 mgd, High-Cost Components, Design Type:
Interconnection
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
3.1.1
Piping - Interconnect - PVC
177,500
22
3.1.2
Piping - Interconnect - Excavation
103,262
22
3.1.3
Piping - Interconnect - Backfill and Compaction
47,873
22
3.1.4
Piping - Interconnect - Asphalt Patch
14,408
22
4.1.1
Valves - Isolation (PRV) and Street - Ductile Iron
20,394
25
6.1.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Interconnect - Magnetic
11,277
15
Indirect
Indirect and Add-On Costs (contingency from model)
173,295
22
Process Cost
374,714
System Cost
548,009
O&M Cost
1,137,900
Totals are computed before component costs are rounded
Breakdown of indirect and add-on costs
Total Cost ($)
Contingency
17,763
Process Engineering
44,966
Construction Management and GC Overhead
30,378
Site Work
0
Yard Piping
0
Geotechnical
0
Standby Power
0
Electrical (including yard wiring)
0
Mobilization and Demobilization
16,487
Architectural Fees for Treatment Building
0
Permits
0
Pilot Study
0
Land Cost
0
Installation, Transportation, and O&P (0.0%)
0
Instrumentation and Control (0.0%)
0
Miscellaneous Allowance (10.0%)
37,471
Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative (2.0%)
7,494
Sales Tax (0.0%)
0
Financing during Construction (5.0%)
18,736
Breakdown of O&M costs
Annual Cost ($/year)
Manager (0 hrs/yr @ $57.6375/hr)
5
Administrative (0 hrs/yr @ $35.9445/hr)
3
Operator (1 hrs/yr @ $39.3563/hr)
36
Purchased Water (517205 K gal @ $2K gal)
1,034,410
Miscellaneous Allowance (0 @ $)
103,445
November 2018
149
-------
Technologies and Costs for Treating Perchlorate-Contaminated Water
Non-Treatment, design 3.536 mgd, average 1.417 mgd, High-Cost Components, Design Type: New
Well Construction
WBS #
Item
Total Cost ($)
Useful Life (yrs)
1.1.1
Well Items - Well Casing - Stainless Steel
616,050
45
1.2.1
Well Items - Well screen - PVC Schedule 40
41,769
22
1.3.1
Well Items - Plugs - PVC
858
22
1.4
Well Items - Well Drilling
114,938
N/A
1.5
Well Items - Gravel Pack
71,375
N/A
1.6
Well Items - Well Development
4,375
N/A
1.7
Well Items - Surface seal well, concrete fill
25,625
N/A
3.2.1
Piping - Well - PVC
3,075
22
3.2.2
Piping - Well - Excavation
22,778
22
3.2.3
Piping - Well - Backfill and Compaction
10,560
22
4.2.2
Valves - Motor/Air Operated (on/off) - Well Pump - Stainless Steel
53,278
25
5.2
Pumps - Well Pump
85,420
20
6.2.1
Instrumentation - Flow Meters - Well - Magnetic
6,832
15
8.1.1
Building Structures - Building 1 - Low Quality
79,569
40
Indirect
Indirect and Add-On Costs (contingency from model)
948,179
45
Process Cost
1,136,501
System Cost
2,084,680
O&M Cost
236,470
Totals are computed before component costs are rounded
Breakdown of indirect and add-on costs
Total Cost ($)
Contingency
58,752
Process Engineering
136,380
Construction Management and GC Overhead
75,554
Site Work
12,815
Yard Piping
0
Geotechnical
135,042
Standby Power
101,216
Electrical (including yard wiring)
105,693
Mobilization and Demobilization
64,197
Architectural Fees for Treatment Building
7,161
Permits
854
Pilot Study
0
Land Cost
57,309
Installation, Transportation, and O&P (0.0%)
0
Instrumentation and Control (0.0%)
0
Miscellaneous Allowance (10.0%)
113,650
Legal, Fiscal, and Administrative (2.0%)
22,730
Sales Tax (0.0%)
0
Financing during Construction (5.0%)
56,825
Breakdown of O&M costs
Annual Cost ($/year)
Manager (21 hrs/yr @ $57.6375/hr)
1,227
Administrative (21 hrs/yr @ $35.9445/hr)
765
Operator (213 hrs/yr @ $39.3563/hr)
8,380
Facility maintenance (materials and labor) (1000 sf @ $5.7866/sf/yr)
5,787
Well pump (calculated as a percentage of capital)
854
Energy for well pumps (1633 Mwh/yr @ $0.1212/kwh)
197,960
Miscellaneous Allowance (0 @ $)
21,497
November 2018
150
------- |