11.07.2015 Views

Technologies and Costs for Removal of Arsenic From Drinking Water

Technologies and Costs for Removal of Arsenic From Drinking Water

Technologies and Costs for Removal of Arsenic From Drinking Water

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Basis. An old activated alumina design manual <strong>for</strong> fluoride removal recommends that the beddiameter be equal to or greater than the bed depth to prevent “wall effects” (5). This sourcealso states that good practice dictates that the bed depth be a minimum <strong>of</strong> three feet <strong>and</strong> amaximum <strong>of</strong> six feet. The <strong>Water</strong> Model assumed a bed depth <strong>of</strong> 5 feet <strong>for</strong> all conceptualdesigns (6). Many <strong>of</strong> the conceptual designs in the cost estimating manual had bed depths thatexceeded the diameter, so the recommendation in the design manual was not strictly appliedto all designs. For design flows less than 50,000 gallons per day, the bed depth is greater thanthe bed diameter. The data from the three case studies where activated alumina is beingoperated without regeneration, the bed depth is greater than the bed diameter (2, 3).7. The vessel cost has been sized based on 50% bed expansion during backwash even thoughbackwashing may not be necessary on a routine basis <strong>for</strong> smaller systems. The vessel volumewas calculated as (1.5)(media volume).Basis. The old design manual <strong>and</strong> the <strong>Water</strong> Model used 50% bed expansion to size the vessel(5, 6). Both <strong>of</strong> these designs are based on regeneration <strong>of</strong> the media rather than disposableoperation. The bed expansion <strong>for</strong> the one case study where it could be calculated was 30%(3). The design approach used as the basis <strong>for</strong> the case studies in the AwwaRF report used80% expansion (7). However, this design was also based on regeneration <strong>of</strong> the media ratherthan disposable media operation <strong>and</strong> was based on designs greater than 1 mgd. Since theexpansion is only necessary <strong>for</strong> backwashing, 50% expansion was assumed <strong>for</strong> all sizes.Backwashing is not per<strong>for</strong>med on a routine basis at any <strong>of</strong> the three small systems operatingactivated alumina without regeneration.8. The vessel cost is based on the following equation:Cost = 63.288 * (Vessel Volume in gallons) ^ 0.679Basis. Quotes were obtained from two manufacturers <strong>for</strong> glass-lined carbon steel vessels withworking pressure rating between 75 <strong>and</strong> 150 psi <strong>and</strong> meeting American Society <strong>of</strong> MechanicalEngineers (ASME) Code Section VIII requirements. Sizes ranging from 140 gallons to 6764gallons were used to develop the equation. Vessel costs <strong>for</strong> sixteen different sizes wereD-4

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!