You are here:
CAPITAL COSTS OF ARSENIC REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES, U.S. EPA ARSENIC REMOVAL TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ROUND 1
CHEN, A. S., L. WANG, J. L. OXENHAM, AND W. E. CONDIT. CAPITAL COSTS OF ARSENIC REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES, U.S. EPA ARSENIC REMOVAL TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ROUND 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/R-04/201 (NTIS PB2005-102046), 2004.
On January 18, 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.01 mg/L. EPA subsequently revised the rule text to express the MCL as 0.010 mg/L (10 μg/L). The final rule requires all community and non-transient, non-community water systems to comply with the new standard by February 2006. In October 2001, the EPA announced an initiative for additional research and development of cost-effective technologies to help small community water systems (<10,000 customers) meet the new arsenic standard, and to provide technical assistance to operators of small systems in order to reduce compliance costs. As part of this Arsenic Rule Implementation Research Program, EPA∍s Office of Research and Development (ORD) proposed a project to conduct a series of full-scale, long-term, on-site demonstrations of arsenic removal technologies, process modifications, and engineering approaches applicable to small systems in order to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of arsenic removal systems at meeting the new arsenic MCL. For the Round 1 demonstration study, the selected arsenic treatment technologies include nine adsorptive media systems, one ion exchange system, one coagulation/filtration system, and one process modification. The adsorptive media systems use four different adsorptive media, including three iron-based media, i.e., ADI's G2, Severn Trent and AdEdge's E33, and USFilter's GFH, and one iron-modified activated alumina media, i.e., Kinetico's AAFS50 (a product of Alcan). Since the inception of the project, 10 of 12 systems have been installed, with flowrates at all systems ranging from 37 to 640 gpm. A key objective of the long-term demonstration project is to determine the cost-effectiveness of the technologies. This report provides a brief description of each of the 12 Round 1 demonstration sites and the respective technologies being evaluated. Capital costs were organized into three categories; equipment, engineering, and installation, and then summed to arrive at a total capital investment cost for each system. Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the treatment systems are not yet available; however, vendor-supplied estimates on media replacement costs also are provided in this report. Excluding the cost for one system modification site, the total capital investment costs range from $90,757 to $305,000, and vary by flowrate, system design, material of construction, monitoring equipment, and specific site conditions. Based on a 3% interest rate and a 20-year return period, the unit costs of the total capital investment range from $0.03 to $0.79 per 1,000 gallons of water treated. In general, the unit cost decreases as the size of a treatment system increases. The equipment costs for the treatment systems range from $66,235 to $218,000, representing 54 to 80% of the total capital investment cost. Engineering costs for the treatment systems range from $4,907 to $50,659, accounting for 5 to 22% of the total capital investment with an average of 12%. Installation costs for the treatment systems range from $13,150 to $77,574, which accounts for 12 to 34% of the total capital investment with an average of 22%. Finally, building cost information obtained from the host facilities also is provided in the report. Building costs range from $3,700 to $186,000, varying according to differences in location, size, design, material of construction, and choice of construction contractor.