Technologies and Costs for Removal of Arsenic From Drinking Water

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table C10.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCO$T Model for Gravity FiltrationCost ComponentFA=140Q=1Total Filter Area (FA-ft2) and Plant Flow (Q=mgd)FA=1,400 FA=7,000Q=10 Q=50FA=700Q=5FA=14,000Q=100FA=28,000Q=200Excavation & Sitework $1,950 $3,620 $5,520 $16,220 $25,590 $43,410 cManufactured Equipment $26,360 $56,960 $78,300 $305,170 $529,360 $982,390 pConcrete $13,400 $27,040 $41,660 $95,490 $154,790 $275,570 pSteel $11,550 $19,960 $30,120 $73,530 $123,160 $209,960 pLabor $40,580 $88,490 $150,870 $356,380 $508,980 $1,000,670 cPipes and Valves $20,580 $79,020 $127,340 $420,670 $590,150 $1,125,500 pElectrical $13,390 $38,410 $38,410 $99,140 $168,840 $265,310 pHousing $17,400 $40,480 $70,590 $291,940 $514,330 $968,520 pContingencies $21,780 $53,100 $81,420 $248,780 $392,280 $730,700 cTotal $166,990 $407,080 $624,230 $1,907,320 $3,007,480 $5,602,030Table C10.2 - WATERCO$T Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Gravity FiltrationCost ComponentFA=140Q=1Total Filter Area (FA-ft2) and Plant Flow (Q=mgd)FA=1,400 FA=7,000Q=10 Q=50FA=700Q=5FA=14,000Q=100FA=28,000Q=200Capital CostCategoryAveragePercentExcavation & Sitework 1.17% 0.89% 0.88% 0.85% 0.85% 0.77% 0.90%Manufactured Equipment 15.79% 13.99% 12.54% 16.00% 17.60% 17.54% 15.58%Concrete 8.02% 6.64% 6.67% 5.01% 5.15% 4.92% 6.07%Steel 6.92% 4.90% 4.83% 3.86% 4.10% 3.75% 4.72%Labor 24.30% 21.74% 24.17% 18.68% 16.92% 17.86% 20.61%Pipes and Valves 12.32% 19.41% 20.40% 22.06% 19.62% 20.09% 18.98%Electrical 8.02% 9.44% 6.15% 5.20% 5.61% 4.74% 6.53%Housing 10.42% 9.94% 11.31% 15.31% 17.10% 17.29% 13.56%Contingencies 13.04% 13.04% 13.04% 13.04% 13.04% 13.04% 13.04%Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%International Consultants, Inc.Contract 68-C6-0039 C-10February 1999W/W Cost Model Capital Cost Breakdown
Table C11.1 - Base Costs Obtained from the WATERCO$T Model for Horizontal Paddle, G=50Cost ComponentTotal Basin Volume (ft3)Capital Cost1,800 10,000 25,000 100,000 500,000 1,000,000 CategoryExcavation & Sitework $470 $2,550 $4,290 $9,970 $40,080 $77,640 pManufactured Equipment $12,140 $28,250 $35,410 $74,400 $220,800 $433,640 pConcrete $1,400 $7,610 $12,740 $29,770 $120,280 $232,960 pSteel $2,360 $12,550 $20,440 $46,500 $175,290 $339,510 pLabor $7,080 $20,220 $29,420 $75,460 $221,200 $439,770 cElectrical $6,980 $28,320 $28,320 $28,320 $141,610 $283,220 pContingencies $4,560 $14,930 $19,590 $39,660 $137,890 $271,010 cTotal $34,990 $114,430 $150,210 $304,080 $1,057,150 $2,077,750Table C11.2 - WATERCO$T Model Base Construction Cost Analysis for Horizontal Paddle, G=50Cost ComponentTotal Basin Volume (ft3)Average1,800 10,000 25,000 100,000 500,000 1,000,000 PercentExcavation & Sitework 1.34% 2.23% 2.86% 3.28% 3.79% 3.74% 2.87%Manufactured Equipment 34.70% 24.69% 23.57% 24.47% 20.89% 20.87% 24.86%Concrete 4.00% 6.65% 8.48% 9.79% 11.38% 11.21% 8.59%Steel 6.74% 10.97% 13.61% 15.29% 16.58% 16.34% 13.26%Labor 20.23% 17.67% 19.59% 24.82% 20.92% 21.17% 20.73%Electrical 19.95% 24.75% 18.85% 9.31% 13.40% 13.63% 16.65%Contingencies 13.03% 13.05% 13.04% 13.04% 13.04% 13.04% 13.04%Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%International Consultants, Inc.Contract 68-C6-0039 C-11February 1999W/W Cost Model Capital Cost Breakdown
Page 1:
United StatesEnvironmental Protecti
Page 5:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis document was pr
Page 8 and 9:
2.5.7 Reverse Osmosis .............
Page 10 and 11:
5.0 POINT-OF-ENTRY/POINT-OF-USE TRE
Page 12 and 13:
LIST OF FIGURES2-1 Pressure Driven
Page 14 and 15:
LIST OF ACRONYMSAAAWWAAWWARFBLSBVC/
Page 16 and 17:
POUpoint-of-useppbparts per billion
Page 18 and 19:
# Alternative treatment processes s
Page 20 and 21:
This page was intentionally left bl
Page 23 and 24:
ends up as ferric hydroxide. In alu
Page 25 and 26:
Optimization Hierarchy for Coagulat
Page 27 and 28:
Substantial arsenic removal has bee
Page 29 and 30:
Vickers et al. (1997) reported that
Page 31 and 32:
was reduced to 0.05 mg/L when the i
Page 33 and 34:
Field StudiesSurveys of lime soften
Page 35 and 36:
Effect of pHpH may have significant
Page 37 and 38:
RegenerationRegeneration of AA beds
Page 39 and 40:
een developed provide important inf
Page 41 and 42:
applicability of IX at a particular
Page 43 and 44:
TABLE 2-1Typical IX Resins for Arse
Page 45 and 46:
solution strength. Arsenic elutes r
Page 47 and 48:
2.4.12 Typical Design ParametersThr
Page 49 and 50:
2.5.2 Important Factors for Membran
Page 51 and 52:
arsenic size distribution to correl
Page 53 and 54:
AWWARF (1998) also performed UF pil
Page 55 and 56:
presumably due to changes in electr
Page 57 and 58:
RO performance is adversely affecte
Page 59 and 60:
TABLE 2-10Arsenic Removal with RO a
Page 61 and 62:
eversal is the decreased potential
Page 63 and 64:
2.6 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES2.6.1 I
Page 65 and 66:
20 mg As per gram of iron was remov
Page 67 and 68:
The most significant weakness of th
Page 69 and 70:
3.0 TECHNOLOGY COSTS3.1 INTRODUCTIO
Page 71 and 72:
included in the estimates presented
Page 73 and 74:
Table 3-3Water Model Capital Cost B
Page 75 and 76:
3.2.3 Implementing TDP Recommended
Page 77 and 78:
sources. The September 1998 index v
Page 79 and 80:
Amortization, or capital recovery,
Page 81 and 82:
3.3 ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COSTSThe cos
Page 83 and 84:
PilotingThe Technology Design Panel
Page 85 and 86:
The 1993 Technology and Cost Docume
Page 87 and 88:
cause disinfection by-product (DBP)
Page 89 and 90:
Figure 3-1Pre-oxidation - 1.5 mg/L
Page 91 and 92:
3.6 PRECIPITATIVE PROCESSES3.6.1 Co
Page 93 and 94:
enhanced coagulation treatment plan
Page 95 and 96:
Figure 3-4Enhanced Coagulation/Filt
Page 97 and 98:
Small Systems (Less than 1 mgd)The
Page 99 and 100:
Figure 3-6Coagulation Assisted Micr
Page 101 and 102:
3.6.6 Enhanced Lime SofteningEnhanc
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 3-8Enhanced Lime SofteningO&
Page 105 and 106:
3. Empty Bed Contact Time (EBCT) is
Page 107 and 108:
For design flows greater than 1 mgd
Page 109 and 110:
Figure 3-9Activated AluminaCapital
Page 111 and 112:
Figure 3-11Activated Alumina (pH 8
Page 113 and 114:
Figure 3-13Activated Alumina (pH Ad
Page 115 and 116:
3.7.2 Granular Ferric HydroxideGran
Page 117 and 118:
6. The capital costs include a redu
Page 119 and 120:
Figure 3-15Bed Volumes to Arsenic B
Page 121 and 122:
Figure 3-17Anion Exchange (< 20 mg/
Page 123 and 124:
Figure 3-19Anion Exchange (20-50 mg
Page 125 and 126:
quality feed stream and often requi
Page 127 and 128:
Figure 3-20Greensand FiltrationCapi
Page 129 and 130:
3.11 COMPARISON OF COSTSThe April 1
Page 131 and 132:
4.0 RESIDUALS HANDLING AND DISPOSAL
Page 133 and 134:
mechanical dewatering processes. Wh
Page 135 and 136:
Storage lagoons are best suited for
Page 137 and 138:
the current Industrial Pretreatment
Page 139 and 140:
4.3.3 Dewatered Sludge Land Applica
Page 141 and 142:
usually determined by the Paint Fil
Page 143 and 144:
for arsenic toxicity by a substanti
Page 145 and 146:
The solids content of the backwash
Page 147 and 148:
carbonate hardness removal produces
Page 149 and 150:
Domestic sewage means untreated san
Page 151 and 152:
4.4.10 Reverse OsmosisReverse osmos
Page 153 and 154:
Figure 4-1Anion Exchange (< 20 mg/L
Page 155 and 156:
Figure 4-3Anion Exchange (20-50 mg/
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Figure 4-9Activated Alumina (pH 7 -
Page 163 and 164:
Figure 4-11Activated Alumina (pH Ad
Page 165 and 166:
Figure 4-13Greensand FiltrationWast
Page 167 and 168:
5.0 POINT-OF-ENTRY/POINT-OF-USE TRE
Page 169 and 170:
chromatographic peaking, which occu
Page 171 and 172: 5.3.1 Case Study 1: Fairbanks, Alas
Page 173 and 174: Manufacturer and laboratory data su
Page 175 and 176: Figure 5-2POU Reverse OsmosisO&M Co
Page 177 and 178: # Installation time - 1 hour unskil
Page 179 and 180: Figure 5-3POU Activated AluminaTota
Page 181 and 182: 6.0 REFERENCESAmy, G.L. and P. Bran
Page 183 and 184: Cooperative Research Centres for Wa
Page 185 and 186: Fuller, C.C., J.A. Davis, G.W. Zell
Page 187 and 188: Le, X.C., and M. Ma (1998). “Dete
Page 189 and 190: Scott, K., J. Green, H.D. Do and S.
Page 191: Appendix AVery Small Systems Capita
Page 194 and 195: Table A4 - VSS Document Capital Cos
Page 197 and 198: Table B1.1 - Base Costs Obtained fr
Page 207 and 208: Table B11.1 - Base Costs Obtained f
Page 209 and 210: Table B13.1 - Base Costs Obtained f
Page 211: Appendix CW/W Cost Model Capital Co
Page 214 and 215: Table C2.1 - Base Costs Obtained fr
Page 224 and 225: Table C12.1 - Base Costs Obtained f
Page 240 and 241: This page was intentionally left bl
Page 243 and 244: APPENDIX D: BASIS FOR REVISED ACTIV
Page 245 and 246: Company case study is 18 minutes (2
Page 247 and 248: egressed against their respective v
Page 249 and 250: costs for small systems is as follo
Page 251 and 252: were based on $40/sq ft). The proce
Page 253 and 254: Basis. Capital cost components incl
Page 255 and 256: The source water at Plant D has the
Page 257 and 258: equation y = (2*10 -8 )x 2 + 0.0002
Page 259 and 260: The maximum run length is 18,500 be
Page 261 and 262: Since the available arsenic capacit
Page 263 and 264: If the first column can be operated
Page 265 and 266: which includes lighting, ventilatio
Page 267 and 268: disposal costs, if needed, are cove
Page 269: Appendix EBasis for Revised Anion E
Page 272 and 273:
2. The estimated cost of the anion
Page 274 and 275:
9. The capital costs have been esti
Page 276 and 277:
Thus, the cost of a road and fence
Page 278 and 279:
length when sulfate is at or below
Page 280 and 281:
the labor rates for both large and
Page 282 and 283:
2. US EPA. Technologies and Costs f
Page 284:
This page was intentionally left bl
show all

Technologies and Costs for Removal of Arsenic From Drinking Water

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?