January 27, 2015 TODAY’S TOPIC - United States ...€™S TOPIC: EPA 2015 Monthly Webinar Series Treatment Technologies for Small Drinking Water and Wastewater Systems January 27,

TODAY’S TOPIC:

EPA 2015 Monthly Webinar SeriesTreatment Technologies for Small Drinking Waterand Wastewater Systems

January 27, 2015

Webinar Support Phone Number: 1-800-263-6317

Audio Controls: Your audio is muted by the organizer

To Ask a Question: Type your question in the text box located in the lower section of your screen

Presented by EPA’s Office of Research and Development and Office of Water

Highlights

Continuing Education Credit: 1 Contact Hour

To receive credit, send email to [email protected] or

respond to your registration confirmation email

Next month’s webinar:

February 24 – Biological Treatment, Ammonia and Nitrates/Nitrites

1/27/2015

1

Barriers to Arsenic Compliance for

Small Public Water Systems

Jamie Harris, Environmental Scientist

U.S. EPA

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

January 27, 20151

Overview

• Arsenic Rule

• Compliance Status

• Treatment Options

• Barriers to Compliance

• Possible Actions to Overcome Barriers

2

1/27/2015

2

Arsenic Rule

• In 2001 EPA reduced the arsenic MCL from

50 µg/L to 10 µg/L.

• The new MCL became effective January 23,

2006.

• Ground water and surface water systems

monitor according to the Standard Monitoring

Framework.

• Only applies to CWS and NTNCWS.

• If running annual average greater than the

MCL then MCL violation. 3

Arsenic Exemptions

• All exemptions expired January 23, 2015.

• Exemptions allowed water systems additional time to

achieve and maintain compliance with the new MCL.

• Systems with exemptions were not considered to be

in violation of the arsenic MCL.

4

1/27/2015

3

FY2014 Compliance Status• There are 68,228 active CWS and NTNCWS subject to

the Arsenic Rule.

• The total number of systems with an arsenic MCL

violation peaked in 2008 to 967, declining to 538 systems

in 2014.

• As of January 2015, approximately 195 exemptions had

been issued to small water systems and 4 became MCL

violations or enforcement actions.

• 63,914 systems serve ≤ 10,000 persons.

– 526 of all arsenic MCL violations in FY14 were from CWS &

NTNCWS serving ≤ 10,000 persons.

– 404 of those MCL violations were from systems serving ≤ 500

persons.5

FY2014 Compliance Status

6

• 45,417 active CWS and NTNCWS with one or

more of the treatment processes that apply to

arsenic.

• 296 systems with arsenic MCL violations

have one or more bilateral compliance

agreements or administrative orders.

1/27/2015

4

Non-Treatment Compliance Options

• Non-Treatment

– Find a new source

– Consolidate with another PWS

– Blending

• Temporary fix

– Bottled water (SDWA restriction as permanent fix)

– Water vending machine (considered NTNCWSs

and subject to the drinking water regulations)

7

Treatment Compliance Options

• Treatment

– Point of Use Device (POU)

– Point of Entry Device (POE)

– Centralized Treatment

• Iron assisted coagulation/filtration,

• Adsorptive media and

• Ion exchange

8

1/27/2015

5

Barriers to Compliance - POU/POE

9

• Barriers:

– Customer participation and access to private property

– Monitoring requirements

– Limited expertise or adequate information

• Potential Solutions:

– Increase outreach to customers

– Clarify requirements through training or guidance

– Collaborate with technical service providers for help on

costs and device selection9

Barriers to Compliance - Centralized Treatment

10

• Barriers:

– Limited expertise or adequate information

– Waste Disposal

– Limited number of experienced operators

• Potential Solutions:

– Collaborate with technical service providers to develop more training

– Work with State and Federal agencies to help streamline processes for waste disposal

– Develop on-line training, and encourage knowledge sharing between operators 10

1/27/2015

6

Barriers to Compliance – Funding

• Barriers:

– O&M costs unclear to small systems

– Inadequate rate structure to cover treatment

– Small systems lacking financial capacity

• Potential Solutions:

– Share best practices from Federal Agencies and States

that currently coordinate funding to better assist the needs

of small systems.

– Educate small systems on how to apply for State and

Federal funding 11

Possible Actions to Overcome Barriers

• Develop and deliver training to states on best

practices from existing state POU primacy

programs

• Re-initiate outreach and communication on

existing arsenic rule compliance assistance

tools for small systems

• Summarize lessons learned from the EPA

Arsenic Demonstration Program

12

1/27/2015

7

Resources

• Arsenic in Drinking Water Webpage

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/

arsenic/index.cfm

• Arsenic Research Webpage

http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/dw/arsenic/in

dex.html

13

Questions?

Jamie Harris

[email protected]

202-564-6956

14

An Overview of the Performance and

Cost Effectiveness of Small Arsenic

Removal Technologies

Tom Sorg, PEU.S. EPA Office of Research and Development

January 27, 2015

Arsenic Technologies

Source of Performance and Cost Information

USEPA Arsenic Demonstration Program Projects

Arsenic Chemistry

Arsenic species- pH dependent

As (III) - H3AsO30, H2AsO3

-1, HAsO3-2

As (V) - H3AsO40, HAsO4

-1, AsO4-2

What is the significance of arsenic speciation?

As (V) more effectively removed than As (III)

by most treatment technologies

System Performance

Regions

East Midwest West Farwest

Nu

mb

er

of

Wells

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

As(III) 0 - 20%

As(III) 21 - 80%

As(III) 81-100%

3

1

10

0

12

2

24

1 1

9

1 1

Arsenic Species

Arsenic III Oxidation

Effective!

• Free Chlorine

• Potassium Permanganate

• Ozone

• Solid Oxidizing Media (MnO2 solids)

Ineffective

• Aeration

• Chloramine

• Chlorine Dioxide

• UV Radiation + Sulfide

Technologies – Arsenic Demo Program Number

Adsorptive Media (26 sites) 28

Iron Removal 10

Iron Removal w/ Adsorptive Media 4

Coagulation/ Filtration 4

Ion Exchange 2

Reverse Osmosis 1

POU – RO 1

POE – Adsorptive Media 1

System/Process Modification 1

Arsenic Demonstration Program

System Designs – As Demonstration Program

IXFeCl3

Iron Removal

+ Adsorptive Media System

IR

AM

IR

AM

Cl2

Adsorptive Media Systems

Series Parallel

Optional Items

•pH Adjustment

•Backwash Tank

AM

AM

AM AM

Iron Removal System

Cl2

Filters

Coagulation/ Filtration

System

Cl2

Contactor

Fe3

Optional

Filters

System Performance

IR & C/F Systems

Iron Removal System (60 gpm - School)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

10/4/2008 11/3/2008 12/3/2008 1/2/2009 2/1/2009 3/3/2009 4/2/2009 5/2/2009 6/1/2009 7/1/2009 7/31/2009 8/30/2009 9/29/2009

As

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

µg/

L)

At Inlet (IN) After Chlorination (AC) After Tank A (TA) After Tank B (TB) After Tank C (TC) After Tank D (TD) Total Combined Effluent (TT)

MCL

Raw Water Quality

Iron = 1.4-2.3 mg/L

Arsenic = 24-39 ug/L Filtration

Media

Filters

C/F System (750 gpm – CWS)

Raw Water Quality

Arsenic + 15-23 ug/L

Iron Addition = 0.7 mg/LIron Removal System

750 gpm

Filter

Cl2

Contact

Tank

Climax, MN Iron Removal Process

Date Aug Dec Apr Aug

Ars

en

ic c

on

ce

ntr

atio

n -

ug/L

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Iro

n c

on

ce

ntr

atio

n -

mg/L

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Raw Water Arsenic

Treated Water Arsenic

Raw Water Iron

2004 2005

MCL

0.8 mg/L Fe added

2005 2005

Raw Water – As III

Iron Removal Process Converted to C/F

FeCl3

Iron Removal – C/F System

140 gpm

C

F

C

F

Cl2

AM Systems

SU System

KF System

WS System BL System

BR SystemBW System

VV System

AM System Performance

Arsenic III Removal by Adsorptive Media (E33) at Brown City, MI(May, 2004 to May, 2007)

Bed Volumes X 1000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

Ars

en

ic c

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

- u

g/ L

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MCL

Cl2 moved to before

treatment system

Raw Water

Treated Water

Parallel

Design

AM System Performance

22

cu ft

22

cu ft

A

B

A bed

5.3 min

EBCT

A+B bed

10.6 min

EBCT

Series Design

31 gpm

System Costs

• Capital

• O/M

Systems Capital Costs

Capital Costs – EPA Funds

Equipment

Engineering

Installation

Capital Costs – Utility Funds

Site Improvements - Building

Residual Disposal Items – Sewer, pond, etc.

Capital Cost Funding Sources

Arsenic Demo Program - System Funding

Capital Costs -Total

Design Flow Rate - gpm

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

To

tal

Cap

ital

Co

st

- $ x

10

00

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

AM Systems

IR Systems

IR AM

CF

IX

R2 = 0.74

Total Cost = Equipment, Engineering, & Installation/start up

Capital Costs - > 100 gpm Systems

Design Flow Rate - gpm

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

To

tal

Cap

ital

Co

st

- $ x

10

00

0

100

200

300

400

500

AM Systems

IR & CF

IR AM Systems

IX Systems

R2 = 0.76

R2 = 0.63

Capital Costs - < 100 gpm Systems

Design Flow Rate - gpm

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

To

tal C

ap

ita

l C

ost

- 4 x

$1

00

0

0

50

100

150

200

250

AM Systems

IR Systems

IR + AM Systems

R2

= 0.25

R2 = 0.87

VV

BR

BW

Total Capital Costs – EPA Funds

• Equipment

• Engineering

• Installation

Total Capital Cost Categories

Cost Categories - Percentages

Systems Equipment

%

Engineering

%

Inst & Start Up

%

AM (All) 67 15 18

AM - <100 gpm 64 17 18

AM - >100 gpm 72 11 17

Other (All) 61 14 24

All Systems 65 14 20

Approximately 2/3 of Total System Cost is for Equipment

or

Total Cost = 1.5 (Equipment Cost)

Equipment Costs: Total vs Size (gpm)

Design Flow Rate - gpm

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Eq

uip

me

nt

Co

st

- $

x1

00

0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

IR System

IR + AM Systems

C/F Systems

IX Systems

AM Systems

Equipment Costs: $/ gpm vs Size ($/gpm)

Design Flow Rate - gpm

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Eq

uip

men

t C

ost

- $/g

pm

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

IR Systems

IR AM Systems

C/F Systems

IX Systems

AM Systems

System Cost Variables Range/Number

System design Series vs parallel

Tank size/number

Tank material 4 – FRP, CS, SS, Polyglass

Media products (Costs) 9 ($40 - $559/cf)

EBCT min/tank 1 - 16

Instrumentation

Valves Automatic vs manual

pH adjustment 7

Backwash holding tanks 3

AM Equipment Cost

Water Systems – Tanks Cost

KF System BR SystemBW System

RFP Carbon Steel Stainless Steel

AM System – EBCT Variable

Well

gpm

Storage

Treated Water

Distribution System

Treatment

System

Adsorptive Media System

Design based on EBCT

100 gpm System

EBCT = V (media)

Flow (gpm)

EBTC (Minutes) --- Media Required (Cu Ft)

1.5 Min --------------- 20

3.0 Min --------------- 40

5.0 Min --------------- 67

10. 0 Min ------------- 133

AM System – Serves 480 people

Well

90 gpm

Pressure

Tank

12,000 gal

Pressure

Tank

9,000 gal

Distribution System

Cl2As = 25 ug/L

Fe = 0.25 mg/L

Five proposals to treat 90 gpm

$35-115K

Pressure tank

AM System – Serves 480 people

Well

250 gpm

Pressure

Tank

12,000 gal

Pressure

Tank

9,000 gal

Distribution System

Cl2As = 25 ug/L

Fe = 0.55 mg/L

Treatment

System

Series system reconfigured to parallel system to handle a

State required 165 gpm peak flow.

On demand flow

Decision – Place system after storage/pressure tanks to

treat on demand flow where average flow was 32 gpm.

O/M System Costs

O/M Costs

Based upon data collected during performance evaluation

studies that lasted from 1 to 5 years

O/M Costs - $/1000 gal treated water

Design Flow - gpm

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Sys

tem

O/M

Co

st

- $

/10

00

ga

l

0

5

10

15

20

25

AM Systems

Other Systems

Comparison of O/M Costs of All Demo Systems

Technology

Total O&M

(Avg)

Media

Replacement

Cost

Chemical

Cost

Electricity

Cost

Labor

Cost

Systems<100 gpm

AM 6.47 5.58 0.08 0.03 0.78

IR/CF 1.39 NA 0.14 0.10 1.15

Systems>=100 gpm

AM 1.76 1.57 0.01 0.01 0.17

IR/CF 0.28 NA 0.04 0.05 0.19

IX 0.49 NA 0.39 0.06 0.04

Note: O/M cost of AM systems based upon 15 systems having

to replace media during performance evaluation studies

Cost Categories % of Total

(Avg)

Min % Max %

Media Replacement 81 49 98

Chemical (Cl2, pH Adj.) 2 0 9

Power ( Electricity) <1 <1 8

Labor 8 1 41

O/M Costs of Systems w/ Media Change Out(15 Systems)

AM O/M Cost ($/1000) vs BV Treated Water

BV Treated X 1000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

To

tal O

/M C

ost

- $/1

000 g

al

0

5

10

15

20

25Adsorptive media systems

AM Media Cost

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

$5.00

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Media Life (x1,000 Bed Volumes)

Co

st

($/1

,00

0 g

al)

$500/cf

$400/cf

$300/cf

$200/cf

$100/cf

Reducing Media Cost

System Media Runs

WA 1 WA 2 WA 3 VV 1 VV 2 VV 3

To

tal

O/M

Co

st

- $/1

000 g

al

0

5

10

15

20

25

5,100 BV 11,600 BV 15,300 BV 25,717 BV23,031BV10,364 BV

Media$517 cf

Media$595 cf

Media$320 cf

Media$99 cf Media

$99 cf

Media$500 cf

pH 8.5

pH 6.8pH 7.8 pH 7.8

pH 8.5

pH 8.5

Impact of Media Performance

Bed Volumes Treated X 1000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

To

tal O

/M C

ost

- $/1

000 g

al

0

5

10

15

20

25

Available media

NA media

Regeneration of Media

Extend life of media replacement

by

on-site regeneration of exhausted media

AM Regeneration

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0

As C

on

cen

trati

on

(µ

g/L

)

Bed Volume 103

Twentynine Palms, As vs. Bed Volume

IN TA TB TT

As MDL = 10 µg/L

Tank B

media

regenerat

Regeneration saving around $10,000

Summary – Capital Costs

System Capital Costs

• Total capital costs varied widely for all sizes and types, but particularly

for the very small (< 100 gpm) AM systems. The AM equipment costs

are impacted by many design features including tank material, EBCT,

media cost, valving and instrumentation.

• Equipment is a major cost component (2/3) of total capital cost of a

treatment system.

• For > 100 gpm systems, total capital cost of adsorptive media

systems slight low than other types of arsenic removal systems.

O/M Costs – Summary

O/M Costs

• O/M costs of AM systems are generally higher than IR, C/F and IX

technology.

• Media change out of AM systems accounts for around 80% of O/M cost.

Thus, media performance and cost is the major factor in determining total

O/M of AM system.

• AM systems have reduced their O/M costs by switching to a lower cost,

higher performance AM media product.

• Some AM systems have converted to C/F system that have lower O/M costs.

• Regeneration of media has potential to lower O/M cost for larger systems.

Questions?

Thomas Sorg

[email protected]

513-569-7370

Tuesday, January 27, 20152:00 to 3:00 EST

ion of

EPA’s Office of Research and Development and Office of Water invite you to a free webinar

Research and ImplementatArsenic Removal Technologies at Small Community Water Systems

Presented by Thomas Sorg, PE, BCEE – EPA’s Office of Research and Development. Tom has over 51 years of experience with federal environmental programs. His experience includes the past 42 years with the drinking water research and development program of EPA, and 25 years as Chief of the Inorganics and Particular Control Branch of the Drinking Water Research Division. Tom’s research emphasis has been on drinking water treatment technology for the removal of inorganic and radionuclide contaminants from water supplies, including the removal of arsenic. During the past 12 years, his research has focused mainly on treatment technologies to remove arsenic from drinking water in support of the revised arsenic MCL of 10 µg/L. This effort has included oversight of the EPA Arsenic Removal Full-Scale Demonstration Program.

Performance and cost effectiveness of arsenic removal technologies for small drinking water systems

This presentation will provide a general overview of the effectiveness of arsenic removal technologies and their cost, including capital and operating costs. Emphasis will be placed on the three technologies that are most commonly utilized by small systems: adsorptive media, iron removal, and coagulation/filtration.The major source of information provided will be from EPA’s Arsenic Demonstration Program. This program collected performance and cost data from 50 full scale arsenic removal systems installed in 26 different states.

This presentation will provide an overview of the wide variety of challenges faced by small water systems to implementing arsenic treatment for compliance with the Arsenic Rule of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Arsenic treatment implementationPresented by Jamie Harris – EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Jamie has been in the field of hydrology for more than 20 years. Her experience is related to water quality, water supply and regulatory issues both related to the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Jamie has worked as an environmental consultant overseas as well as in Maryland. She has also worked for the Southern Nevada Water Authority and Maryland Environmental Service at Maryland Department of the Environment. At the U.S. EPA Jamie oversees the implementation of a number of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations including the Chemical Phase Rules which includes over 65 Inorganic and Organic Contaminants, one of which is arsenic.

State primacy agencies, tribes, community planners, technical assistance providers,

academia, and water systems interested in issues facing community water systems and

solutions to help solve them.

Who should attend? In 2015, EPA’s Office of Research and Development and Office of Water

will host monthly webinars to discuss various treatment

technology topics for small community drinking water and

wastewater systems.

Webinar Registration: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/118343202