january 27, 2015 today’s topic - united states ...€™s topic: epa 2015 monthly webinar series...
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
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 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
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
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 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
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.
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