United States ,
Environmental Protection Office of Water EPA 812-R-94-002
Agency 4601 June 1994
&EPA SMALL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY
INITIATIVE: EVALUATION OF
DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES
Freestone, California Water System
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
FINAL REPORT (REVISED):
SMALL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE:
EVALUATION OF DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES
Freestone, California Water System
Prepared By:
Wade Miller Associates, Inc.
1911 North Fort Myer Drive
Arlington, VA 22209 ;
Prepared For: , 1
• '
Ms. Elizabeth Hall, EPA Work Assignment Manager
; Mr. Craig Damron, EPA Project Officer i
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency j
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water"
Washington, DC 20460 ' " i
EPA Contract No. 68-C2-0113 i/
Work Assignment 2-14
June 17, 1994
-------
-------
FINAL REPORT (REVISED):
SMALL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE:
EVALUATION OF DEMONSTRATION TECHNOLOGIES
Freestone, California Water System \
Prepared By:
Wade Miller Associates, Inc.
1911 North Fort Myer Drive
Arlington, VA 22209
Prepared For:
Ms. Elizabeth Hall, EPA Work Assignment Manager
Mr. Craig Damron, EPA Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Washington, DC 20460
EPA Contract No. 68-C2-0113
Work Assignment 2-14
June 17, 1994
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The successful completion of this technology demonstration project required the
commitment and cooperation of numerous individuals. Those persons whose contributions should
be noted include: Mr. Peter Shanaghan, the USEPA Small Systems Coordinator; Dr. David
Schnare, former leader of the Small System Technology Initiative; Efr. Frank Brigano, Donna
Cirolia, William Soucie, Robert Padera, and Michael Pederson, Culligan International Company;
Levi Gurule, Terry Anderson and Dave Grundeman, Department of Public Works, County of
Sonoma; Bruce Burton and Leah Walker, Drinking Water Field Operations Branch, California
Department of Health Services, State of California; Donald Mafalstedt, Chairman of the
Technology Demonstration Committee; James Fisher, James Fisher, & Sons, Inc.; Hal Woods,
Russian River Utility; Bruce Mackler, USEPA Region 9; James McFarland, Jeffrey Mosher, and
Barry Liner, Wade Miller Associates, Inc.; and Terry Teach, Autotrol Corporation;
WMA, Inc. • Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY , . . . . . . . i
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...... ... . . ! 4 1
1.1 Small Systems Technology Initiative '..... ... ..... 1
1.2 Organization of the Report ;'•••'• • • • • 3
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE FREESTONE, CA WATER SYSTEM ................ 4
2.1 System Description 1 , . . 4
2.2 Influent Water Quality and Treatment Objectives . 7
3.0 PERFORMANCE OF DUAL-STAGE FILTRATION SYSTEM .. .... . .'.. 8
3.1 Performance Requirements .................. ,1 8
3.2 Process Description ; . i 8
3:3 Finished Water Quality .....,!... 13
3.4 Operation and Maintenance Requirements ...,...,, 23
4.0 PROJECT COSTS , . . . . . ... ..... ... . . . . . 27
* : ' • -
4fl Baseline Costs '..."..-,•...-... i ......... — ....... 27
4.2 Cost of the Dual-Stage Filtration System 27
4.3 - Customer/Household Costs . ..........:....... 34-
4.4 Comparative Cost Analysis .....; . 34
5.0 EVALUATION OF INSTITUTIONAL AND PROGRAMMA'TIC ARRANGEMENTS 37
5.1 Role of the Principal Players 37
5.2 Consideration of Alternative Treatment Configuration; '...... 39
5.3 Post-Demonstration System Improvements ... '. . . . 39
6.0 CONCLUSIONS .... . . .'...". . . /L . ...... ...... 41
7,0 REFERENCES . . . ( . 43
APPENDIX A - Cumulative Frequency Distributions of Recorded NTU Levels
APPENDIX B - Small Systems Technology Initiative: Cost Reporting Format
WMA, Inc. , . '... • -I Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Page
2-1 Freestone, California Site : . 6
3-1 ' Culligan Multi-Tech Filtration System , . 10
3-2 Freestone, CA Water System: Operational and Maintenance Summary 12
3-3 Freestone, CA Water System: Water Quality Summary 14
3-4 Influent Water Turbidity 15
3-5 Effluent Water Turbidity . . . . . . 16
3-6 Influent and Effluent Water Turbidity . 17
3-7 Summary of Turbidity Measurements ....'........ 19
3-8 Effluent Turbidity for the Month of December (1992) . . , 20
3-9 Chlorine Residual Entering Distribution System:
Monthly Averages (1992-93) '. ;; . . . . . . 22
3-10 Freestone, CA Water System: Additional Water Quality Summary 24
3-11 O&M Labor Hours by Month , .'. 26
4-1 Operating Costs Prior to Installation of the DSF: Fiscal Year 1990-1991 28
4-2 Cost Breakdown for Freestone Water Treatment System 29
4-3 Projected Unit Treatment Costs . 35
4-4 Cost Comparison of Alternative Treatment Systems 36
WMA, Inc. Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The community of Freestone in northern California is serviced by a typical small water
system. The system currently provides water to roughly 30 connections and 70 persons, there
is no full time operator, the income of the residents is modest at best.! Prior to this technology
demonstration, the system was also in violation of one or more drinking water quality regulations.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recognized the technicjfl and financial challenges
confronting these small water systems and has sought to address these problems through its Small
Water System Technology Initiative. . ' , |
/ - • - -.
The Freestone Water-System was selected for this technology demonstration project
because of its water quality problems, an unfiltered surface source with high effluent turbidity
and iron, and because of the technology proposed to address these problems, a pre-engineered
dual-stage pressure filtration unit. The system was experiencing daily influent turbidity levels
during the demonstration period averaging from 4.25 to 22.97 NTU. High and low values for
turbidity were recorded at 0.17 and 86.75 NTU. ; ,
For this technology demonstration, the performance requirements were as follows: 1)
turbidity had to be reduced to levels hi accordance with the state Surface Water Filtration and
Disinfection requirement of 0.5 NTU hi 95 percent of samples taken; 2) the concentration of iron
which is also present hi the source water had to be reduced to improve taste and odor problems;
and, 3) the treatment system must be able to accommodate an increasie hi production to supply
a maximum of 16,560 gallons per day and 30 connections. s
The dual-stage pressure filtration treatment technology is designed to operate automatically
with minimal operational requirements. In fact, the system was designed to be monitored off site
through a telemetry system by a certified California Water Treatment Operator, Grade 2 thereby
reducing the time and costs associated with full tune operator support. The treatment process is
comprised of four steps: coagulation and flocculation by chemical addition; floe removal by a
clarifier; filtration; and disinfection by post-chlorination. Chlorine is also used to oxidize soluble
iron for subsequent removal. This process proved effective hi reducing effluent turbidity levels
during the evaluation period to a daily average of 0.11 NTU. ;
The total capital cost for the installed treatment unit is estimated to be $62,726. The
annual 6&M expense is estimated to be $9,961 which includes the coirt of a contract O&M firm
operating the facility and chemicals. The total anriualized cost "is estimated to be $15,882 which
translates to a cost of $7.56 per thousand gallons delivered water. The estimated cost of the dual-
stage filtration unit compares favorably to unit costs estimated by the USEPA for a conventional
treatment plant (i.e., coagulation/filtration) for a comparably sized system"($13.13 per thousand
gallons).
WMA, Inc. i Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
-------
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
' , . - ". ,' • i '
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is responsible for the development,
implementation, and enforcement of regulations mandated under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). For many water systems, compliance with these regulations will require the installation
of new treatment processes or modifications of existing facilities to remove a variety of drinking
water contaminants. The installation of custom engineered treatment facilities can be problematic
for smaller systems due to cost and operational complexity. Therefore, small water systems are
increasingly in need of treatment technologies that provide a simple,] cost-effective solution to
water quality problems that fit easily into existing treatment and operational configuration.
There are approximately 60 thousand community water supplies nationally, of which
nearly two-thirds (roughly 37 thousand) serve populations of 500 or fewer persons. Further,
approximately 90 percent of all community water supplies (51 thousand systems) serve
populations of 3,300 persons or fewer. These small water systems, especially those serving fewer
than 500 persons, are typically comprised simply of a single source (usually a well), a pump, and
perhaps, a chlorinator and storage tank. These systems usually do not have a full-time operator
to regularly service and maintain the equipment. In addition, the small customer base inhibits
the system's ability to generate sufficient financial capital to acquire necessary treatment
technologies. In fact, many of these systems are simply not operated as utilities because they are
an ancillary part of another business (such as a mobile home park).
The challenge confronting USEPA is how best to induce small water supplies with limited
operational and financial capabilities to comply with these regulations and provide their customers
with a safe and reliable supply of water. USEPA has estimated the po'st to households served by
small water systems that must comply with new Federal drinking :vvater regulations may be
several hundred dollars per year (USEPA, 1993a). Many small water systems are seeking more
cost-effective treatment technologies that will bring them into compliance while minimizing cost
increases to then- customers.
' • . . • r . ^ ^
. . ' . • " . , i ' -
. , r • ' . i
The Small Systems Technology Initiative described below was instituted by USEPA and
the water treatment equipment industry to identify and evaluate alternative technologies that may
prove to be cost-effective and practical alternatives to conventionally «?ngineered and constructed
treatment systems typically used and considered affordable by larger i water supplies.
'' • J • '•
1.1 Small Systems Technology Initiative
The 1986 amendments to the SDWA mandate USEPA to develop drinking water standards
or treatment techniques for 83 different contaminants. In establishing drinking-water standards,
USEPA is required to designate a best available technology (BAT) for controlling each
contaminant regulated under SDWA. A technology must meet certain criteria to be designated
as BAT. Specifically, a treatment technology must be: j.
WMA, Inc. Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
• demonstrated at field scale;
• compatible with other treatment technologies;
• cost-effective for contaminant removal; and
• affordable to large drinking water utilities.
Best available technologies for small systems, however, may vary from those of large systems.
To stimulate the development of affordable treatment systems for small water systems,
the USEPA established an initiative in 1989 to look for innovative, low-cost solutions for
complying with Federal and state drinking water regulations. The Small Systems Technology
Initiative was designed to build public/private partnerships to promote the identification,
development, marketing, approval, and application of simple and inexpensive drinking water
treatment technologies for use by water systems serving less than 3,300 persons. Representatives
from the American Water Works Association, Water Quality Association, National Association
of Water Companies, National Rural Water Association, Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators, and a number of equipment manufacturers participated hi the initiative.
The demand for quality water hi various residential, commercial, and industrial
applications such as food processing and metal plating has created a sector of the water treatment
industry dedicated to developing smaller scale, packaged technologies. The USEPA felt that
these technologies could potentially serve as low Cost, low maintenance alternatives for small
public water supplies hi complying with SDWA-mandated drinking water standards. One
significant advantage of packaged systems is the convenience of having the manufacturer or
distributor provide an array of services including the delivery and installation of the treatment
equipment, providing operational and technical support, and in some circumstances, serving as
a source for financing of the purchased equipment.
The USEPA's Small Systems Technology Initiative sought to promote packaged systems
through the evaluation of a series of one-year technology demonstration studies involving central
and household treatment units at various sites around the country. Only small water systems
serving fewer than 500 persons were considered as possible demonstration sites. Selection was
based on obtaining sites with a variety of specific contaminant problems and located in different
geographic regions in the country. Requests for proposal from water treatment equipment
companies to donate process equipment and operational assistance were solicited to identify
available treatment technologies. .The demonstration studies were conducted under the
supervision of USEPA and state regulatory personnel. The objective of these demonstration
studies was to evaluate the efficacy and costs of the packaged treatment equipment in removing
various drinking water contaminants at typical small systems. Further, the demonstration studies
were needed to increase state familiarity with, and willingness to approve these alternative
treatment processes. '
The village of Freestone, California in Sonoma County Was selected as one of these
technology demonstration sites. The Freestone Water System was selected in part due to the
nature of its water quality, high turbidity and elevated iron and manganese levels, and the
technology proposed to remediate this problem, a prefabricated dual-stage pressure filtration
system.
WbtA, Inc. . Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
In response to the USEPA request for a technology demonstration at the Freestone Water
System, Culligah International Company agreed to participate hi the installation of a water
treatment system. To address the turbidity and microbiological needs of the Freestone Water
System, Culligan proposed the installation of its Multi-Tech™ system1, a dual-stage filtration
(DSF) system, which is a pre-engineered, low-cost, packaged water treatment plant. The
treatment process installed at Freestone included a telemetry system to provide performance data
to the operator situated off-site. .The combination of the fully automatic dual-stage filtration
system arid the telemetry system allowed for limited on-site operator supervision.
1.2 Organization of the Report •','.'..,
This report provides a review of the Freestone technology demonstration project. Section
2, which follows this introduction, provides an overview of the j water quality problems
confronting the Freestone Water System and the treatment objectives pn which this technology
was evaluated. Section 3 summarizes the performance data that were collected during the
technology demonstration period. Section 4 provides estimates of the cost of the DSF system
installed at Freestone. The cost to the consumers as well as a comparative cost analysis of other
small system treatment technologies is provided. Finally, Section 5 discusses the institutional
arrangements that facilitated the installation of this technology and the roles .that key agencies and
individuals provided in executing this demonstration.
1 Multi-Tech™ Filtration System Model MT 24/30. Culligaul International Company.
Northbrook, IL 60062.
• ' • ' , •' '• -. -" ' ' 3 .• •.. • '•:' ' ' :
WMA, Inc. ', . Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
-------
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE FREESTONE, CA WATER SYSTEM
: . ' .| .''.'.. • •" '
This section of the report provides ah overview of the Freestoine Water System, water
quality conditions before the installation of the DSF system, and a description of the existing
treatment facilities and treatment objectives for the technology demonstration.
• . • ' ' 1 ' . "
2.1 System Description ,
Freestone is a historic village located in rural Sonoma County! approximately 50 miles
riorthwest of San Francisco and 15 miles southwest of the city of Santa Rosa. The village itself
was created as a railroad water stop and shipping point for lumber used to build the city of San
Francisco in the 1860s. The water system was developed by the railroad to supply the steam
engines with water and consisted initially of a spring and a storage tank; Other components of
the system were added over tune, including the distribution system that services the village which
was installed sometime around ,the 1920s. However, there has been no significant rehabilitation
of the facilities since its initial development. For the most part, the village has retained its rustic
charm, but it now confronts the modern challenges posed by environmental and public health-
regulations such as those mandated by SDWA. As a result, this small community, as numerous
others around the country, must adapt to the changing regulatory climate and find cost-effective
and innovative solutions to their water quality .problems. ' ,
Ownership and responsibility for the Freestone Water System has changed hands since its
development. As indicated above, the system was initially capitalizedjby the. railroad company
that'developed the supply. Control of this system was then assumed by the residents and.
customers of Freestone who operated the system as an association. However, the declining water
quality became problematic for the association which subsequently turned control of the system
over to the county in 1989. Sonoma County now has primary responsibility for the operation and
maintenance of the water system in Freestone. • ' ;
The county manages the system as a county service area (CSAJ#33) and hired a contract
operations and maintenance (O&M) firm, Russian River Utility (RRU), to perform routine
operation of the system. Improvements and upkeep of the physical structures and distribution
system and customer billing activities, however, are performed by county personnel, prior to the
demonstration period, RRU was responsible for activities such as the periodic inspection of the
spring collection area and the well, pumps, and storage tanks. In addition, RRU also performed
routine servicing to the.' chlorination facilities and was responsible for ^he collection of required
monitoring samples. ; ,
The Freestone Water System presently serves 28 connections and a population of
approximately 70, mostly modest income, people. Due to the size of the customer base, the
system is classified as a publiq (i.e., municipal) community water system. During the
demonstration period, from April 1, 1992 through March 31, 1993, there were 16 connections,
12 of which served residential customers. The remaining four connections served commercial
customers of which three were higher volume users including a restaurant, a nursery, and a spa.
The total production requirements of this system averaged approximately 6,000 gallons per day.
Freestone customers have also used bottled water for drinking and cooking because of taste (iron)
and odor problems. . ,
WMA, Inc.
Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
The primary water supply for this system is a surface spring. The watershed for the
spring is essentially wilderness, although a local goat population frequents the spring area. The
spring water percolates up through the ground where it collects in a natural trough, and flows
down a hillside to a small fabricated dam. The water from the dam is funneled through a halved
bleach bottle into a two-inch plastic pipe. The water is then delivered to a series of covered
horse troughs where debris is allowed to settle.
Prior to the demonstration project, the water, after leaving the troughs, travelled through
a two-inch pipe to a 50,000 gallon concrete storage tank where settling of solids and chlorination
took place. The raw water is now diverted to a separate storage tank. This storage tank was
covered by a wooden structure, worn and badly in need of repair.
A well, located on private, commercial property (i.e., the nursery) is used as a secondary
water source. This groundwater supply is accessed when customer demand exceeds the
production of the spring during low flow periods, and when the spring becomes infiltrated with
mud and debris during the rainy season. As a result, the well is used more frequently hi the
winter months when rainfall increases and contributes to water quality problems. The well
pumped water upgrade directly into the concrete tank.
The well is typically run for one week each month. The operator starts the well'pump
during the weekly visit and shuts it down the following week. The well also shuts .down
automatically when the storage ,tank is full. Because of the location of the well, adjacent to a
pond, it is considered to be a ground water source under the influence of surface water as far as
the state regulatory requirements are concerned. Therefore, the ground water source is subject
to all requirements of the California Surface, Water Filtration and Disinfection Rule (CSWFDR).2
• The two water sources combined can produce up to 12 gallons per minute (gpm). The
spring produces two to five gpm and the well produces from six to eight gpm.
Exhibit 2-1 is a sketch of the present Freestone Water System, and as it appeared during
the demonstration project. The water system consisted of the spring and well sources, the
concrete storage tank that is now used as the finished water storage reservoir, and the distribution
system. A 10 thousand gallon above-ground redwood tank now serves as a raw water storage
reservoir, and is also used to fill the local fire truck since there are no fire hydrants hi Freestone.
Prior to the demonstration project, there was no treatment plant or underground backwash water
storage. The only treatment was a chlorinator that was located adjacent to the 50 thousand gallon
concrete storage tank, but has since been removed. Chlorination is incorporated in the new
treatment process as a pretreatment for soluble iron and as the final disinfection step post-
treatment.
2 Request for Proposal - CSA #33 (Freestone) Water System, Santa Rosa, CA; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Low-Cost Small Systems Technology Development Committee
(October, 1990). ,
5 ' . ' - • - ' ' •
WMA, Inc. Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
LU
-------
The county had planned to repair the storage facilities prior to the demonstration project;
however, due to funding constraints, these repairs were not undertaken. Since the demonstration
project, the county has made repairs and improvements to the facilities.
The water from the concrete storage tank is supplied to Freestone customers through a
gravity-fed distribution system, the composition of which is believed to be mainly galvanized
steel pipe. The distribution system is relatively old and generally in need of repair and
replacement. Flow through much of the system is constricted by accumulated sediment in the
pipes. There is also some production loss as a result of leaks in the distribution system, the
actual amount of loss could not be accurately gauged until recently since the customers were not
metered. Meters have now been installed at each service connection since the end of the
demonstration period.
2.2 Influent Water Quality and Treatment Objectives
The factors described above, including the unfiltered surface source, the age of the system,
the declining state of the storage and distribution facilities, as well as naturally occurring
contaminants, have contributed to the overall quality of water delivered to the Freestone
customers. The water system did not comply with the CSWFDR standard for turbidity of 0.5
nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). Because of the high turbidity reported in the system and
the unprotected watershed,, the potential existed for microbiological contamination, including
Giardia lamblia.
Extensive influent turbidly data were not available for the Freestone system prior to the
demonstration period. However, during the performance evaluation period, influent turbidity
levels were monitored on almost a continuous basis, with readings being taken every 15 minutes.
These turbidity readings (summarized in Chapter 3) show that during the evaluation period the
influent water turbidity levels ranged from a low of 0.17 to a high of 86.8 NTU. The monthly
averages (i.e., the mean of the daily averages for each month) for influent turbidity levels ranged
from a low of 4.25 NTU to a high of 23.0 NTU with an overall average pf 9.29 NTU.
These influent turbidity levels posed a challenge to the unfiltered Freestone Water System.
The data available for effluent turbidity levels for the Freestone system, prior to the
demonstration period, indicated that the finished water turbidity ranged from 6 to 40 NTU, well
above the CSWFDR standard for turbidity of 0.5 NTU. The poor condition of the concrete
storage tank housing allowed small animals and birds access to the finished water supply. As a
result, the water system did not meet state standards for coHform bacteria regardless of the
constant chlorine treatment. In fact, the townspeople were frequently under boil water orders.
Further compounding these water quality conditions were the elevated levels of iron in local
groundwaters that contributed to taste and odor problems when the well source was used.
Given these water quality conditions, the solution the county chose was to add a filtration
system at Freestone that would address both the high turbidity and iron levels hi the source water.
The county would also upgrade both the storage and distribution systems to prevent
contamination of the treated water.
WMA. Inc. . Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
3. PERFORMANCE OF DUAL-STAGE FILTRATION SYSTEM
This section of the report provides an overview of the DSF system, including the water
quality requirements and ability of this technology to meet the treatment objectives. In addition,
the operation and maintenance requirements of this treatment technology are discussed.
3.1 Performance Requirements
A treatment system at Freestone was required to satisfy the CjOmmunity's turbidity and
microbiological requirements. The Freestone Water System did not comply with the CSWFDR
and Federal SWTR requirements (40 CFR 141.73) since it was an unfiltered surface water source
and the finished water did not meet the standard for turbidity. Prior tp this project, the finished
water turbidity ranged from 6 to 40 NTU. The system did not meet ithe standards for coliform
bacteria regardless of constant chlorine treatment. As a result, the tovrasp'ebple were constantly
under boil water orders. Given the turbidity levels at Freestone, Giardia lamblia and other
microbiological contamination were a legitimate concern. ; .
For the Freestone technology demonstration, Sonoma County jhad several requirements,
specifically: :
• the treatment system not only provide production capatcity to meet the demands
of the 16 connections for 6 gpm maximum and 8,640 gpd, but the system had to
be expandable to accommodate the projected need of 30 [connections and 11.5 gpm
maximum and 16,560 gpd; \
• constant monitoring of finished water turbidity and chlorine residual; and
• the system had to operate with 100 percent conservation of water in .accordance
with state regulation. . - ,
3.2 Process Description r
The DSF system, a prefabricated pressure, filtration process, wks designed as a treatment
for turbidity. The DSF system is a pre-engineered, packaged plant that (performs the process steps
used in a conventional water treatment plant, including: coagulation^ Iflocculation, clarification,
filtration, and disinfection. The DSF system is designed for small communities that do not have
full-time operators. DSF units have been installed for filtration in municipal, commercial, and"
industrial water treatment. ' . . { .
In the DSF system, filtration with proper coagulants has been demonstrated to remove
Giardia effectively. Colorado State University conducted an independent study of the efficiency
of the DSF system for the removal of Giardia cysts. In a series of tests (Horn et al., 1988), the
DSF system was found to be effective in removing up to 99 perceibt of Giardia cysts under
several conditions including low turbidity (i.e., 0.3 to 0.6 NTU), low temperature (0.2°C) samples.
Further, these tests found the DSF filtration system to be effective in removing 90 percent of
turbidity and 98 percent of coliform bacteria. ; .
WMA, Inc.
Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
The DSF system was installed at Freestone and went on-line on April 1, 1992. The
system was designed to meet the water quality needs with 100 percent conservation of water, as
well as the current and future water consumption needs of the Freestone community. The DSF
system was capable of achieving a maximum flow of 35 gpm or 50,340 gpd.
The DSF system configured for the Freestone Water System started with the diversion of
incoming raw water into the raw water storage tank located next to the treatment plant (Exhibit
2-1). The primary source of water was a surface water spring that was gravity fed.into the raw
water storage tank. The secondary source was well water presumed to be under the influence of
surface water since it was a shallow well located near a pond. The well water was pumped into
the storage tank and was chlorinated to oxidize the soluble iron and manganese for removal in
the DSF system. In addition to the surface and well water, clarified backwash water and rinse
water, resulting from compliance with the 100 percent conservation of water requirement, may
have been hi the.raw water storage tank. .
From the raw water storage tank, water was gravity fed to a pressure pump on the inlet
side of the DSF treatment system. The DSF system used a four-step approach to reduce turbidity.
The four steps were as follows: - . .
• coagulation and flocculation of smaller particles by chemical addition;
• floe removal in the clarifier;
• final filtration in the depth filter; and
• disinfection by post-chlorination._
The coagulation and flocculation process involved the injection of chemical aids into the
flow stream by chemical feeders. The chemical used hi this process was an alum-cationic
polymer blend. The chemical feeders were controlled by an in-line flow switch that cycled them
on and off based on the water flow. The flow continued through an in-line mixer that mixed the
chemicals with the water before entering the clarifier. The flow then passed through the clarifier
which is designed to remove suspended solids and reduce turbidity. Clarification occurred as the
flocculated particles collided with the media. Exhibit 3-1 presents a cross-sectional view of the
DSF system, including a cut away view of the clarifier.
After treatment by the contact flocculator-clarifier, the water passed through a mixed
media filter. The water from the clarifier entered the depth filter, as shown hi Exhibit 3-1, hi
which suspended solids were reduced. After this treatment^ the water was disinfected with
chlorine and forwarded to a concrete water storage tank. An in-line flow switch controlled the
cycling of the post-chlorination feeder.
The DSF system backwashes either when the pressure drop across the filters reaches 10
psi or when the finished water turbidity reaches 0.5 NTU. Backwashing was accomplished by
flowing finished water back through the DSF system with the water first flowing through the
mixed media filter and then through the contact flocculator-clarifier. ^The contact flocculator-
clarifier used an air-assisted backwash to vigorously scour the media.' To Conserve water, the
system was equipped with underground storage tanks in-which all backwash and;rinse waters
were collected and recycled back through the system.
WMA, Inc. • Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
WMA, Inc.
Final Report
-------
Solids from the backwash and rinse waters were allowed to settle in the underground
storage tanks. The clarified liquid was fed back through to the raw water storage tank and the
settled solids are removed from the underground tanks on a periodic basis for disposal hi
approved landfills. /
Several operational and water quality parameters were monitored during the water
treatment process, including: raw and finished water turbidity, chlorine residual, pressure drop,
storage tank levels, chemical feed tank levels, flow rate, and total gallons produced. The
Freestone Water System was equipped with a telemetry system3 that enabled these operational
and water quality parameters to be transmitted via modem to a facsimile ("fax") machine or to
a computer. Transmission of data was scheduled at 12 hour intervalS'Or on alarm. The telemetry
system transmitted alarms when operational limits or water quality parameters were exceeded to
provide for immediate response by the plant operator. The telemetry process allowed for
monitoring of the treatment process without a person on site and reduced the frequency of site
visits to verify plant operation.
Influent and finished water turbidities were monitored continuously using on-line turbidity
monitors'1. Data were recorded continuously on chart recorders. In addition, 15 minute interval
turbidity data were captured and stored for later transmission via the telemetry systems. The data
were transmitted to the local independent Culligan dealer and present operators of the system..
The turbidity meters were calibrated in accordance with manufacturer's instructions on a monthly
basis and were also validated by comparing samples to laboratory standards on a weekly basis.
Residual chlorine was also monitored continuously via a chlorine analyzer5. Fifteen
minute interval data were captured and stored for later transmission via the telemetry device. An
alarm was sent to the operator if the chlorine residual fell below 0.5 ppm or rose above 3.0 ppm
total chlorine at the discharge of the treatment system. The chlorine analyzer was calibrated in
accordance with the manufacturer's instructions on a quarterly basis. . s
As detailed in Exhibit 3-2, the DSF system operated over three thousand hours (181,930
minutes) between April 1, 1992 and March 31, 1993, which was an average of about 250 hours
per month. The service flow rate during this time averaged 12 gpm. During the first year of
operation, over 2.1 million gallons were produced by the DSF system which averages to about
179 thousand gallons per month. The amount of water used to backwash the system, due to the
pressure drop across the filters reaching 10 psi or the finished water turbidity measuring 0.5
NTU, totaled over 235 thousand gallons for the 12 month period.
3Aqua-Status® Telemetry System manufactured for Culligan International Company by
Autotrol, Inc.
4Hach Model 1720C manufactured by Hach Company
5Hach Model CL17 manufactured by-Hach Company -
11 . ,
WMA, Inc. Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
03
it
1/3
r* \«
I
u
u
.8.
o.
«5 "2
«ll
£73^
00
en en
O O O O' O O O' O O\ -^ •<— *
sj •_
•S 2"
<5 n»n o «n
moo O «n >n >n o O O «n O
cj
cs
'— ics-«sts
-------
Chemical usage was also monitored during the demonstration period. As shown in Exhibit
3-2, alum/polymer feed for the coagulation and flocculation process averaged 32.9 ppm and
during the 12 month period 49.5 gallons was consumed. Chlorine usage totaled 53.5 gallons for
the first year for both iron reduction and disinfection.
3.3 Finished Water Quality
After start-up, the DSF system was operated and maintained for a full yean The water
quality was monitored continuously during this performance period. Influent turbidity, effluent
turbidity, and chlorine residual were monitored every fifteen minutes of operation with the results
recorded on strip charts. More extensive monitoring was also performed for a variety of water
quality parameters on a monthly basis.
Turbidity -
Influent and effluent turbidity data for the first year of operation are summarized in
Exhibit 3-3. The influent turbidity data demonstrate the variation and magnitude of the raw water
turbidity levels. Monthly averages were calculated as the means of the daily averages. Monthly
averages of influent turbidity ranged from 4.25 to 23.0 NTU with an overall average of 9.29
NTU. The low and high values are included to provide the range of influent turbidity levels
observed for each month. The monthly averages and high and low values are displayed
graphically hi Exhibit 3-4. Average influent turbidity fluctuated, slightly between the months of
April and December 1992. The influent turbidity monthly averages and high values for January
to March 1993, however, were substantially higher since this period of the year corresponds to
the rainy season in which run-off carried debris and silt into the raw .water collection area. The
well water may also have been affected during the rainy season since it is under the influence of
the surface pond.
Monthly averages of effluent turbidity, presented in Exhibit 3-3, ranged from 0.01 to 0.21
NTU with an overall average of 0.11 NTU. Median values ranged from 0.04 to 0.13 NTU. Low
and high values illustrate the range of effluent turbidity and are displayed graphically with the
monthly averages hi Exhibit 3-5. The monthly averages and medians were consistent throughout
the first year of operation with a slight rise during the last four months of the demonstration
period resulting from the higher than average influent turbidity levels. A graphical comparison
of average influent and effluent turbidity levels is presented in Exhibit 3-6.
A higher than expected effluent turbidity level of 3.44 NTU was measured during the,
month of February, as seen hi Exhibit 3-5. 'The monthly summary report indicated that an
operational problem resulted hi this higher than expected value. Apparently, a malfunction of
the float valve hi the finished water storage reservoir resulted hi a lower than normal finished
water level. The low water level hi the finished water tank prevented the system from
performing backwashes until sufficient finished water was produced. Since backwashing could
not take place, the system was operated hi manual mode, overriding safety features and producing
finished water with turbidity levels above 0.5 NTU. The effluent turbidity, however, did not
exceed the maximum turbidity standard of 5 NTU. The float valve problem was corrected during
this episode.
13
WMA, Inc. Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
it
w
« cn
.c
3
111
O • *• Qa
3 S &
u B!
u
H
i
H
4>
»5
03
DJD
2
C5 p O p O p 00 0 p 0 O
OO.CJOOOCJCJOOPCJ
\f} 1^1 ^^^ ^^5 CO "Vj l^J ON C^l v~^
OOOOOOOO'-i'-'
C3OCJOC5OC5C5OO-OC5
oo m o o co in o
O O »—i r—i i—i o ^-!
1-1 en
VO
«n
CS
co co en
III
rt ctf cxt
14
Final Report
-------
* I
2 -
g £
X >
UJ *.
0)
5=
o
<
o
CO
8
(niN)
a
WMA. Inc.
15
Final Report
-------
tt>
CO
X
LU
o
I
CD
3l Turbidity Val
5
p
T3
CD
_i
-D
CD
al Turbidity Va
3
T3
">
b
•65
0
D>
' <
CD
Averages fort
^
-S- :
D
|€
11
.'„ ;
, 3
O CJ
&> ^o
o
"p'-t-
n ^?
2o E
£
-•<] =>.
O T
o
«P 5
a
<
to
CN
(fUN)
16
WMA, Inc.
' 'Final Report
-------
1
I
5
•P I
m -
TJ
O
•C—
O
m ® m ®
.£ D> .£> P>
D P DP
•E^
0) >H
H 5
CD Q
o
o
0)
O
Q. '£
(D C
CO O
D>
<
C
>-
O
Q.
<
IO
CM
COIN)
17
Inc.
Fi/za/ Report
-------
The data presented so far has been summaries hof monthly averages. These monthly
averages, however, do not adequately address the concern for compliance with turbidity standards
which are based on percent of total samples. The Federal turbidity standard requires that "the
turbidity level of representative samples of a system's filtered water must be less than or equal
to 0.5 NTU in at least 95 percent of the measurements taken each month" and "at no time exceed
5 NTU." (40 CFR 141.73) As shown in Exhibit 3-3, during the demonstration period, no single
value exceeded 5 NTU.
_' •' "•> '
Exhibit 3-7 presents the turbidity data as percent of samples hi each month exceeding the
0.5 NTU standard. During the demonstration period there were four months where the system
did not comply with the turbidity regulation. Those months where less than 95 percent of the
recorded turbidity levels were greater than 0.5 NTU are August, October, January, and February.
In these four months, non-compliance with the turbidity standard was '(he result of five episodes
of operational and mechanical difficulty, four of which were associated with the faulty float
valve. As described above, in the month of February the system experienced mechanical
problems involving a float value on the finished water tank which resulted hi several consecutive
turbidity measurements above 0.5 NTU. Similarly, the other months were characterized by other
mechanical and operational complications, including scheduled construction involving process and
facility improvements which necessitated manual operation of the system until sufficient
.backwash water was produced.
The detailed turbidity data were analyzed for these four months! to describe the range and
frequency of observed turbidity levels. The results of this analysis are summarized graphically
as cumulative frequency distributions (i.e., ogives) and are included as Appendix A to this report.
The analysis shows that the majority of observed effluent turbidity levels fall well below the 0.5
NTU threshold. The mean NTU for these four months ranged from Oil 1 to 0.22 NTU. Median
effluent NTU ranged from 0.01 to 0.03 , 1 • ."
Despite these exceedances of the turbidity standard, the DSF system was able to
consistently reduce influent turbidity levels to well within the prescribed 0.5 NTU level. To
further illustrate the performance of the DSF system, the effluent turbidity for the month of
December is plotted versus tune hi Exhibit 3-8. The month of December was chosen since it had
one the of highest monthly averages of influent and effluent turbidity without any mechanical
problems or scheduled construction. In the graph, lines are drawn between data points that are
taken in secession during the operation of the DSF system. Gaps without points or lines indicate
periods When the system was not in operation. The graph shows the ;cycles of the DSF system
which is not provided by averages, medians, or ranges. The graph demonstrates the rise of
effluent turbidity levels during operation and as the turbidity reaches 0.5 NTU the unit shuts
down to perform the backwashing. After this process, the unit starts back on-line with turbidity
levels in the range of 0.01 NTU. "'•' \
During the period of December 26 to 27, the unit performed multiple backwashing steps
as the effluent turbidity continued to climb towards 0.5 NTU. On December 4 and 7, the effluent
turbidity levels exceeded 0.5 NTU, reaching 0.56 and 0.54 NTU, respectively. Discussions with
the manufacturer's engineers involved in the design of the DSF system; noted that these levels are
within the tolerance of the instrumentation used to monitor the turbidity levels and that the system
may be in the process of backwashing as these data were being recorded.
. . .. .
WMA, Inc. - - Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
Exhibit 3-7
Summary of Turbidity Measurements
Month
April 1992
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January 1993
February
March
Totals
Number
Samples
639
556
1,109
759
»' "738 '-'"•
678
, ,% 857 : ~.
595
859
''1,039 ' ~
; 1,626 - "
1,773
11,228
No. Samples
>0.5NTU
0
1
34
25
' 56 ' I
1
" > .* 7$
2
5
~: 84 ;
144 1
18
450
% Samples
<0.5 NTU
100.0%
99.8%
96.9%
96.7%
92,1%
99.9%
90.9%
99.7%
99.4%
'- 91,9% "•
""91x1%
" 99.0%
'"' 96.0%
% Samples
>0.5 NTU
0.0%
0.2%
3.1%
3.3%
7,9%
0.1%
: 9*1%
0.3%
0.6%
: --. «'', 8,1%
- - 8.9%
""1.0%
4.0%'
19
Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
a
12
a>
o
-------
The influent and effluent turbidity levels during the demonstration period, for those
months where there were no mechanical or operational difficulties, demonstrated the ability of
the DSF system to reduce turbidity levels below 0.5 NTU during periods of low and high influent
turbidity levels. With adequate water quality control mechanisms hi place (i.e., alarms), the
system proved to be effective in controlling effluent turbidity levels without the presence of a
full-time operator.
! -
Chlorine Residual
The Freestone Water System used chlorine as a disinfectant. A chlorine residual was
maintained for residence tune in the distribution system. During the demonstration period, the
chlorine residual leaving the treatment plant and entering the distribution system were recorded
at 15 minute intervals. As shown in Exhibit 3-3, monthly averages ranged from 0.71 to 4.23 ppm
with an overall average of 1.56 ppm. Exhibit 3-9 presents graphically the monthly averages for
chlorine residual. The increased levels of chlorine residual during the months of January to
March, at the request of county and state officials, reflect the concern of microbiological
contamination during the period of high turbidity, high surface water usage, and the general
condition of the finished water tank and the distribution system.
Chlorine residual was also monitored in the distribution system by Russian River Utility
during the demonstration period. Grab samples were tested on-site for chlorine residual using
test kits. Chlorine residual was measured 94 tunes hi the distribution system during the
demonstration period with levels ranging from less than detection to 3.0 ppm." Of the 94 samples,
83 had chlorine residuals above 0.1 ppm. The chlorine residual levels leaving the treatment plant
and maintained hi the distribution system have diminished the threat of microbiological
contamination in the Freestone distribution system.
The condition of the distribution system, including the finished water storage tank, was
the primary reason for maintaining elevated levels of chlorine residual during the demonstration
period. Specifically, the poor condition of the finished water storage tank provided opportunities
for surface water run-off into the tank during a rainfall. Further, small annuals were able to gain
entry into the tank housing. Since the demonstration period, improvements have been made to
the Freestone Water System which include the relining of the concrete storage tank and
replacement of the storage tank housing. As a result, the threat of microbiological contamination
was reduced and the chlorine residual is now able to be maintained at lower, more consistent
levels in the distribution system.
Microbiologicals
Russian River Utility had primary responsibility for the distribution system serving the
townspeople of Freestone during the demonstration period and was responsible for monitoring
the microbiological contaminants. Total coliforms and Escherichia coli are indicator organisms
of fecal pollution. Total coliforms and E. coli levels were monitored in the distribution system
throughout the first year of operation. Grab samples were taken on-site and sent to a state
laboratory for analysis. '
21 '.
WMA,lnc. Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
I
o
I
c
O
D)
,0)
c
Ul
"5
i
"5/5
' o.
JC
O
(uidd) pnpisea sui
22
WMA, Inc.
Final Report
-------
Total coliforms were found to be absent in 25 analyses and present in 5 analyses. E. coll
was absent in all 14 analyses conducted. These levels of microbiological contamination were a
large improvement over the levels prior to the installation of the DSF system. The reduction of
turbidity levels, the presence of a chlorine residual, and the absence of fecal coliforms resulted
in the reduction of the threat of microbiological contamination. As a result, the boil water orders
that the townspeople of Freestone were almost constantly under, were lifted shortly after the DSF
system went into operation. The improvements made to the Freestone Water System since the
demonstration period, including the replacement of the finished water storage tank housing,
should help to further reduce the threat of microbiological contamination.
Other Effluent Water Quality Parameters , ,
As part of the technology demonstration, monitoring of additional water quality parameters
was perfprmed. These analyses were conducted 11 tunes during the demonstration period by the
manufacturer's laboratory which is certified by the State of Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Certification Number 100213 for inorganic analyses). All analyses followed the methods
outlined in the USEPA's document: Method for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (EPA
600/4-79-020). Additional parameters analyzed and summarized in Exhibit 3-10, included: iron,
manganese, pH, calcium, magnesium, sulfate, conductivity, sodium, chloride, nitrate/nitrite, and
bicarbonate.
Iron was the only other water quality parameter measured that was substantially affected
during the demonstration period. Influent iron levels ranged from 0.37 to 1.27 ppm with an
average of 0.65 ppm. Effluent iron levels were all below the detection limit of 0.05 ppm. The
DSF system did not have a substantial effect on any of the other water quality parameters
analyzed.
Waste Handling
Two underground storage tanks collected the backwash waters where solids were allowed
to settle. After settling, the clarified water was returned to the raw water storage tank. These
tanks were examined after the one year demonstration period and not enough solids were present
to justify removal. When removal is warranted, the solids will be disposed of in an approved
landfill.
3.4 Operation and Maintenance Requirements '
The Freestone Water System was operated and maintained during the demonstration period ,
by Russian River Utility under a contract with Sonoma County. Russian River was responsible
for the operation and maintenance of the water system outside of the treatment facility, including
the collection of required microbiological samples. The manufacturer's responsibilities were
limited to the operation and maintenance of the DSF process and the collection and review of the
telemetry readings from the turbidimeters and chlorine analyzer. The actual operation and
maintenance of the DSF system during the demonstration period was performed by Mr. James
Fisher, an independent dealer for the manufacturer in Santa Rosa. Mr. Fisher is a certified State
of California Water Treatment Plant Operator Grade 2 .and is factory-trained in the operation and
23
WMA, Inc. ' ." Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
I
"
a
<;pppppppppp
"~ T—i.t—< t—i es •—' •—< es es es •—>
O o O' O O O o p p o
o-»
g'«n2.r~r~t~r~r~ost^^
vc52
vo en r- •-< c— r~ o v~> o oo
cs
p— • vo
\oc~-c-~r--t--c--c~c-~t~t~r—
Zooo^oocspod
O O O C5 O,O O 1-1 O »H O
tS OS OS O\ PS 5
oo
ds
o
• 6
0"
.«
Z
fe
o "^ vo as os ON o oo es
- >H Jg in vd \d vd cs r~- co 5 •
>o S r~ t~ f~ t^- - c- oo r~ S
•<* oq **} r-; vq os t-; vo. es_ en ^t
uS :vS S rJ 06 vd •-< oo >ri os £2
oo vo S °° f> f~ °° °° °^ *" i-i
W
Os
-.os r-
es <-< vi en vd in Os en t~- n vo os o >n en os
c<-i o o o o >n cs o
-------
service of the DSF system. In addition to the services provided by Mr. Fisher, the manufacturer
of the DSF system, provided background support and expertise during this demonstration period.
Mr. Fisher has now assumed full operational responsibility for the entire Freestone Water
System having recently entered into a contract with Sonoma County. In addition to maintaining
the DSF system, Mr. Fisher's contract with Sonoma County requires the following services be
provided: ,
• routine servicing of the treatment facilities;
• maintenance of wells, pumps, tanks, and supply facilities; ,
• testing and monitoring of water sources, and performing weekly checks on
chlorine residuals; - ,
• maintain customer accounts and prepare budget requests to county;
• • recordkeeping, reporting, and public notification;
• handling of customer service complaints;
• emergency service and repairs;
• leak detection; and v ,
• microbiological testing.
The DSF system installed at Freestone is designed to operate automatically and is
maintained as needed and in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. System
backwashing is automatic and conducted according to pre-set guidelines. The telemetry system
allows transmission of operational and monitoring information to Mr. Fisher's office in Santa
Rosa. Parameters monitored include raw and finished water turbidity, chlorine residual, pressure
drop, storage tank levels, chemical feed tank levels, flow rate, and total gallons produced. If
parameter limits are exceeded, notification is automatically sent over the telemetry system as an
alarm to Mr. Fisher's office.
The combination of the automated features of the DSF and the use of the telemetry system
allowed for less frequent visits to-the water system by the operator. During the demonstration
period, weekly site visits were adequate to perform maintenance, fill chemical tanks, and examine
the condition of the system.
Exhibit 3-11 displays the operation and maintenance (O&M) labor hours for the 12 month
demonstration period. The number of hours for the first year totaled 187.1 hours, including travel
time, with monthly totals ranging from 9.5 to 44.8 hours (Exhibit 3-2). The latter amount,
however, reflects start-up hours during the first month of operation. Round trip travel time to
and from the site requires 40 minutes per visit. The average of the monthly totals was 15.6
hours. The number of operator hours per month has since been reduced and is currently
averaging only 6.5 "to 8, including travel time.
25 ' - •.'.••.
WMA, Inc. , Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
£ •=•
x
a
00
IO
WMA, Inc.
in
CD
co
iq
O
CO
CM
•**~,}
A i: ^v?
* •*£"* ^~ v
» *K?^
s-s; v-r?*,,„-
<
C:
Q.
<
10
CO
10
CM
26
Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
-------
4. PROJECT COSTS
;- • ,.!"'l"
This section summarizes the total capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs
to the Freestone Water System to install and operate the DSF system,, The estimated costs for
the DSF system are based on the reasonable market value, since the equipment was donated to
the citizens of Freestone. The costs to the Freestone customers for tiiis treatment facility were
also estimated and summarized below.
4.1 Baseline Costs
- I' ' ' •
As previously discussed, prior to the installation of the DSF system, the Freestone Water
System consisted of little more man chlorination of water collected frpm a natural spring and a
well which was stored in a concrete tank for subsequent distribution.! The O&M requirements
were minimal because of the rudimentary nature of the facilities, and involved mainly cleaning
of the collection area, inspection of the chlorinator, bacteriological monitoring, arid general
upkeep of the treatment and distribution systems. The Freestone Wateir System was operated by
an outside contractor, Russian River Utility, under an O&M contract! with Sonoma County.
Exhibit 4-1 is a summary of O&M expenses for the year immediately preceding the
installation of the DSF system. These expenses exceeded $6,600 for the 1990-1991 Fiscal Year.
Of this total, routine maintenance by the contractor accounted for $6,2,0$, while $200, $140, and
$115 were spent on laboratory fees, chemicals, and miscellaneous expenditures, respectively.
The cost of service to the individual Freestone customer wajs $35 per month which is
collected by the county. The customers were also billed an annual debt service fee of
approximately $300 per connection, irrespective of water consumption!. This surcharge was used
to cover payment on a $85,000 low-interest loan the community undertook for general system
rehabilitation and repair, developing a new well source, and other construction activities which
had occurred prior to this demonstration project. The .combination of these two costs translates
to an effective water rate of about $60 per month per connection. This flat-rate fee structure has
been in effect for over four years since the county assumed control of the operation and
management of the system. '
4.2 , Cost of the Dual-Stage Filtration System !
Comparing the cost of water treatment across small systems is complicated by site specific
factors, raw water quality, and the general condition of each system [prior to the installation of
a treatment process. These system-specific factors can contribute jto wide variations MI the
ultimate cost a system incurs for treatment. In addition, there are a variety of accounting
procedures employed by water systems. Some systems may report cost elements as fixed and
variable, while other systems report elements as capital and O&M. j Often an expense that is
reported as a capital expense by one system may be considered an 0[&M expense by another.
' • . " . • . ' 27 * •_ ; ' *
WMA, Inc. . • •' 'Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
Exhibit 4-1
Operating Costs Prior To Installation of DSF1
Fiscal Year 1990-1991
Month
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
Annual Total
Standard
Contract
fees "' ''•
$550
$550
$550
$550
$550
$550
$550
$550
$450.
$450
$450
$450
$6;20Q
Additional
Services by
Contractor
$115
-.. $1*5.
Chemicals
$37
$25
$28
'
$43
,... $139
Laboratory
, Fees
$192
• - :'•
$192
TtffaJ
$778
$550
$550
$665
$575
$578
$550
$550
$450
$450
" $450
$498
$6,646
1 Electrical Costs are not included due to unavailability of data
28
WMA. Inc.
Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
Exhibit 4-2
Cost Breakdown for Freestone Water Treatment System
In Current Dollars
m
Cost Components
t
I
Freestone
Configuration
'.„.••- ; \-*: Capital Costs '"•* - ' . • :"--" - - =' '• • V '.
Building
Treatment Equipment
Freight
Installation
StartUp
Other Includes telemetry system ,
air compressor, chemical feed well
supply, chlorine monitor, and
flowmeter package
Water Storage Raw and finished
Waste Handling includes tank and pump
Engineering
Total Capital
Annualized capital @ 7% over 20
years
i
$5,000
$21,625
$864
$2,755
$3,500
$10,843
$6,294
$6,845
$5,000
$62,726
$5,921
• ,, ; Operation and Maintenance Costs
Routine O&M
Service contract -.-"•.
Telephone
Electrical .
Water sampling and analysis
Parts , ' * :'
Total Annual Routine O&M
Variable O&M
Chemicals (disinfectant and coagulant)
Replacement Costs (annual contribution)
Component
Anthracite
Cullsorb
Feed Pumps
Raw Water Pump
Backwash Pump
Turbidimeter
Chlorine Monitor
Estimated
Replacement
Cost
$320
$260
$2,080
$2,080
$2,232
$4,660
$3,190
Estimated
Life '
(Years)
4
8
5
5
5
: 5
5
Total Annual Replacement Costs i
' ; • '..- • • v- ..'... |
Total Annual O&M and Replacement Costs
> \
Total Annual Costs (Capital + O&M)
M, Inc.
29
1
'' , f*
$4,080
$960
$1,416
$348
$400
$7,204
$531
$64
$26
. $312
$312
$335
$699
$479
$2,226
,$9,961
$15,882
Raised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
To compare cost elements across water systems and accounting procedures, the USEPA Small
Systems Initiative Cost Reporting Committee has developed a standard cost reporting framework
which is presented as Appendix B. The cost of the DSF system, as displayed hi Exhibit 4-2 and
discussed in the following paragraphs, are presented within the outlines of this framework. Cost
estimates are presented for the specific treatment system designed and installed at Freestone.
Capital Costs
The standard DSF package treatment plant is comprised of the following capital
equipment:
• a dual-stage pressure filtration package treatment plant;
• a chemical feed system for disinfection and coagulation chemicals;
• a continuous monitoring turbidimeter, equipped with a strip chart recorder set to
monitor and record effluent quality; and
• an in-line mixer.
In addition to the standard configuration, the Freestone treatment configuration required
various equipment upgrades and support equipment to meet system-specific water quality, waste'
disposal, and aesthetic objectives. The additional components of the installed treatment system
at Freestone included:
• a constructed building to shelter the DSF; .
• an additional chemical-feed system for the backup raw water supply well;
• an air compressor; ' ,
• a telemetry system; :
• a continuous monitoring chlorine meter;
• a fiowmeter package;
• level control systems for the raw water and finished water storage tanks; and :,
• and a backwash storage tank and control system.
Below is a detailed discussion of these individual components and the associated capital
cost as defined by the USEPA's Cost Reporting Committee. ,
Building - The treatment plant is located next to the .fire station which was built to
resemble an old-tune fire house. The typical physical structure necessary to house a DSF or other
packaged treatment system is a simple prefabricated metal shed with electrical and plumbing
connections and a concrete slab foundation. For the Freestone site, the DSF system required a
10 by 20 foot structure to house the system. Since Freestone is an historic district with strict
architectural design and aesthetic standards, the county constructed a wooden residential-looking
building, complete with drywall and a shingled roof. In addition, the building was soundproofed
at the residents request to suppress noise that might emanate from the treatment equipment.
These additional architectural features were erected at additional expense to the county. Since
.these architectural requirements are beyond those required to house a typical DSF system, the
manufacturer contributed $5,000 towards the cost of construction for this upgraded facility, which
is the equivalent cost of a prefabricated steel structure. Sonoma County covered the additional
,30
WMA. Inc. ' - i . . • Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
expense for the design and construction of the upgraded facility. Therefore, $5,000 for building
construction was used in this cost estimation. ?. • .
Treatment Equipment - The standard DSF packaged plant and associated equipment
donated by the manufacturer totaled $21,625. The components arid associated costs are as
follows: DSF ($12,500), chemical feed for surface' supply ($3,065), influent and effluent
turbidimeters and recorders ($5,760 total, or $2,880 each), and in-line mixer ($300).
1 I ' - • ' ' - •
Freight - The cost to ship all associated components to the job site from the
manufacturer's headquarters hi Northbrook, Illhiois was $864.
Installation - Installation for the standard system and components totaled $2,755. The
bulk of these charges ($2,000) were associated with the installation of the DSF system; while the
chemical feed surface supply, turbidity meters and recorders, and in-line mixer accounted for
$480, $500, and $25, respectively.
Start Up- A. flat fee of $3,500 was required for system start up. Start up. usually consists
of a visit by a representative of the manufacturer to ensure the equipment is installed correctly
and the process is operating according to design specifications. Typical tasks performed as part
of system start up are training sessions for operators, including an explanation of the equipment's
capabilities and a demonstration of operational requirements, as well i as a general inspection to
ensure a quality installation. '
. • •' . • ' ' • l .
Other Treatment Equipment - The installation at Freestone contained numerous upgrades
to the standard package plant. These upgrades and associated installation fees amounted to
$10,843. The breakdown of the individual costs of the upgrades are! as follows: chemical feed
for well supply (valued at $825 plus $160 for installation labor), air compressor ($905 plus $125),
chlorine monitor ($3,190 plus $125), flowmeter package ($2,995 pips $60), telemetry system
($770 plus $187.50), and telemetry software ($1,500). \ ,
'• " ' I
The telemetry system and software were donated by Auto^rol, Inc. As with all other
contributed items, costs were calculated at fair market value (i.e., at the manufacturer's list price).
A second telemetry system was also installed at Freestone for the purpose of sending the water
quality information to the manufacturer's headquarters in Illinois. However, since the end of the
demonstration, the extra line was redirected to the local system operator. Since the data were
required only for research purposes and not plant operation, the coist of the second telemetry
system is not included. .
1 .- i ..
Water Storage - The cost for water storage improvements totaled $6,294. Improvements
to the raw water storage tank amounted to $5,010. The raw water puinp and control system cost
$2,730 plus $250 for installation. The level control system for the raw water tank amounted to
$1,780 plus $250 for installation. The finished water storage tank level control accounted for
$1,284 ($1,034 for the components and $250 for installation). An ibxisting raw water storage
tank, while riot required to operate the DSF system, was upgraded from its previous use for fire
protection to a storage tank suitable for incorporation into the treatment system. Because water
storage requirements are site specific, the costs associated with purchasing a new tank were not
included in this report. j
••;.-. ' ' 31 :•• • ' '
WMA, Inc. .-'•'• , :: Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
Waste Handling - Freestone is required by county law to maintain a "zero water waste"
operation, that is, a treatment process where there is 100 percent water conservation, -and
therefore, no waste of treated water. The only waste is the sludge from the settling and backwash
operations. To maintain this "zero water waste" operation, a backwash holding tank was needed.
A standard above-ground tank is normally required. Again, for aesthetic reasons, Freestone chose
to install an underground waste storage system consisting of septic tanks. The manufacturer
contributed $3,600, an. amount sufficient to cover the cost of an above-ground tank, which was
used for this cost estimation. In addition, a backwash reclaim pump was installed at a cost of
$2,995 plus $250 for installation labor. Thus, the total costs for waste handling was $6,845.
Engineering - Culligan personnel expended time and effort for the various site specific
design engineering needs of Freestone which has been valued at $5,000. Compared to custom
designed and constructed treatment plants, the design costs of packaged plants are relatively low.
The design costs for packaged plants are incorporated into the overall cost of the technology and
can be spread over a large number of production units, thereby reducing the per unit design cost.
As a result, this off-the-shelf technology represents a cost savings .to the water system. A
consulting engineer can be used to prescribe an operationally sound and complete treatment
process that is essentially pre-designed and pre-built.
For the Freestone demonstration site, engineering costs for the treatment decision are
difficult to discern because they are grouped together with distribution system improvements and
the feasibility studies. However, Sonoma County estimated that $100,000 was saved in water
treatment equipment and related costs due to the use of the package plant.
Total Capital Costs - The total capital costs for the Freestone installation were estimated
to be $62,726.
Annualized Capital Costs - Assuming a 20 year system life and a 7 percent annual
interest rate, the annualized capital cost for installation of the complete Freestone treatment
system amounts to $5,921.
\
Operation and Maintenance (O&MD Costs
The estimated cost to operate and maintain this facility are detailed below according to
the specifications of the USEPA's Cost Reporting Committee.
Routine O&M- The annual expense for routine O&M was estimated to total $7,204 and
includes the cost of the service contract between Sonoma County and the current operator which
is fixed at $340 per month, or $4,080 per year.
The independent Culligan dealer and operator of the DSF system made weekly visits to
the plant, even though these visits are not required for operation of the treatment plant. The
purpose of the visits was to collect grab samples for turbidity and chlorine residual. The
telemetry system provides sufficient information regarding the system's performance to enable
the operator to monitor the water quality offrsite and therefore spend less tune conducting site
visits. On average 13 labor hours per month (excluding system start-up) were spent during the
demonstration period^ which included-th& travel-tune between-the operators .office.iri,Santa,.Rosa™
32
WMA, Inc. Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
and Freestone of approximately 40 minutes per trip. Since the demonstration period, only 8
hours per month (including travel time) have been needed to maintain the system. Therefore,
labor costs are calculated to range from $26 to $43 per hour. It is important to note that this
figure also includes the costs of the chemicals and instruments for the chlorine and turbidity grab
samples, which are typically passed through to the county.
Additional water sampling and analysis costs amount to $348 per year. Monthly samples
for microbiological contaminants are analyzed at the state lab at a cost of $19 each, while
quarterly tests for iron are $30 each. Electrical costs averaged $118 per month during the
demonstration period, totalling $1,416 for the year. Costs for items such as buffer solution for
the chlorine monitor, light sources for the turbidimeters, and other sin^ilar items are estimated to
be $400 per year. ' ,
The telephone line for the telemetry system costs $80 per month, or $960 per year, that
is due to the long distance call from Freestone to the manufacturer's independent dealer in Santa
Rosa. The telephone line costs were paid for by the manufacturer j during the demonstration
period and are now passed through to the county. '
Variable O&M (Treatment Chemicals) - Chemical costs were $531 for the demonstration
period. Coagulant usage averaged approximately 4 gallons per montii at a cost of $9 per gallon.
Chlorine usage averaged around 4.5 gallons per month at a cost of $1.60 per gallon. Since the
demonstration period, chemical usage has decreased slightly to 2.5 gallons per month for the
coagulant, and 3.5 gallons per month for chlorine. '•
Replacement Costs - The cost to replenish filter media or replacementof worn equipment
is estimated to be approximately $2,226 per year for the Freestone system. Exhibit 4-2 lists the
estimated replacement cost and life expectancy of each major component. Average annual costs
in current dollars were calculated by averaging the total expected coslt for each component over
twenty years. For example, Anthracite, with an expected life of 4 years, would be replaced 4
times (in years 5, 9, 13, and 17). This value was multiplied by the replacement cost, $320, to
yield a total expenditure of $1,280 over the life of the system. Averaging over the 20 year
expected life yields an annual value of $64.
Total Annual O&M Costs - Routine O&M, variable (chemical), and replacement costs
total $9-,961 for the Freestone installation.
Other Unaccounted Costs > "! •-•-•/
A major need for the Freestone Water System is an upgradejof the distribution system.
Although the condition of the distribution system ultimately affects water qualify, it is considered
to be an additional infrastructure expense that would ;be required in the absence of treatment and
is not included in this presentation. Only the capital and O&M expense for the DSF system were
taken into, account. The county is, however, currently renovating the distribution system.
33
WMA, Inc.
Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
Total Annual Costs
The total annual capital and O&M expense for installation and operation of the Freestone
treatment plant is estimated to be $15,882.
4.3 Customer/Household Costs ,
During the demonstration period, 16 connections were served and consumed approximately
2.1 million gallons of water. The specifications for the demonstration site required a system that
could meet the future demands of 30 connections and treat approximately 6 million gallons per
year. Prior to the installation of the DSF system, customers paid an effective rate of $60 per
month for water. However, the residents purchase bottled water for their drinking and cooking
needs at additional household expense. For example, a two-person household consuming two
liters of drinking water per day, at an assumed average cost of one dollar per gallon bottle, would
spend over $30 per month on bottled water.
For the 16 connections served during the demonstration period, the total annual cost of
$15,882 translates to a cost per connection of approximately $83 per month, or almost $1,000
per year. With the system expansion to 30 connections, the monthly cost per connection would
decrease to $44.
**• ' • .
Exhibit 4-3 summarizes the cost per unit production (i.e., per 1,000 gallons of delivered
water). Production costs are calculated by dividing the total annual cost of the Freestone Water
System ($15,882) by the annual volume (actual and projected) of water treated. The reported
consumption for the Freestone Water- System of 2.1 million gallons per year yields a total cost
of $7.56 per 1,000 gallons delivered. These costs will decrease to $3.20 per 1,000 gallons
delivered water assuming the future demand of 6 million gallons annually is reached. •
4.4 Comparative Cost Analysis
Demonstrating the effectiveness of pre-designed packaged treatment .plants hi niinimizing
the capital and O&M expense to small systems was a critical element of this technology
demonstration. For compliance purposes, small system technologies must be as effective as other
approved technologies hi removing drinking water contaminants while also providing a lower cost
alternative to conventionally design-constructed plants. Exhibit 4-4 shows the results of a
comparative analysis of the cost of the Freestone dual-stage filtration system to recent USEPA
cost estimates for two very small (i.e., serving fewer than 500 people) system filtration options.
The USEPA estimates represent the costs for conventionally engineered and constructed
coagulation/filtration and slow sand filtration plants with production capability sufficient to meet
the requirements of a system serving 25 to 100 people. Comparisons to coagulation/filtration and
slow sand filtration were made because they are two technologies regarded as effective treatment
alternatives for small systems.6 Additionally, this comparison allows examination of the potential
cost differences between design-constructed facilities and packaged treatment plants. ,
6 The high influent turbidity recorded at Freestone may have obviated the use of slowsand
filtration; however, it is still considered a common treatment alternative for small water systems
and was included as a point of comparison.
34 ' • ' .
WMA, Inc. • Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
8-.
'rr
•M
2
•
2
T3
88.
I
oo r-- vo >o -^ in
psjaAnap suonBS OOO'i/s-renod
(73
O
oq
vo"
.
vo
vo
oo
'-a
g
T3
-I
VD
00
-------
Exhibit 4-4
Cost Comparison of Alternative Treatment Systems
Cost Component
Capital Costs
Annual O&M Costs
Total Annual Costs
Production Costs
($71000 gal. delivered)
Manufacturer
Estimates
Freestone DSF
System
$62,726
$9,961
$15,882
7.56
EPA Estimates for
Constructed Facility
Coagulation/
Filtration
$79,557
$20,058
$27,568
13.13
Slow Sand
Filtration
$58,475
$14,630
$20,150
9.59
It should be noted, however, that slow sand filtration was never considered in any of the
feasibility studies prepared for Freestone because of the variability hi turbidity levels and the need
to reduce iron and manganese concentrations hi the source water. .
The comparative cost analysis was performed assuming yearly production of 2.1 million
gallons, the amount recorded during the demonstration period. Compared to the USEPA
estimates, the capital cost for the Freestone system are about 30 percent lower than that estimated
for a coagulation/filtration system, and approximately seven percent greater when compared to
the slow sand filtration plant. However, hi both cases, the O&M costs for the DSF system were
significantly lower (50 to 100 percent) than the USEPA's estimates for the constructed facilities.
On an annual cost basis, the USEPA's estimates for the constructed facility filtration
alternatives (annualization performed assuming a 20 year life of the equipment and a 7 percent
discount rate), and corresponding production costs, are 10 to 75 percent greater than the Freestone
packaged treatment system. As previously mentioned, Sonoma County estimated that over
$100,000 was saved hi water treatment equipment and related costs due to the use of the package
plant instead of the custom designed system originally planned for this small community.
36
WMA, Inc.
Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
5. EVALUATION OF INSTITUTIONAL AND PROGRAMMATIC ARRANGEMENTS
This section describes the role that the manufacturer, the O&M firm, arid each of the
various government agencies played in facilitating the successful completion of the technology
demonstration at the Freestone Water System. Other regulatory and programmatic issues are
presented and discussed. .
5.1 Role of the Principal Players
The principal parties involved hi this technology demonstration project included: the
USEPA; the California Department of Public Health; the Sonoma County Department of Public
Health; the manufacturer, Culligan International Company; and the independent Culligan dealer
hi Santa Rosa that operated the DSF system during the demonstration period. The principal
contributions that each made to this project are described below.
Federal and State Regulatory Agencies
The role of the USEPA in the Freestone Water System technology demonstration was
primarily to organize the demonstration project and to analyze and report on the results. Within
the State of California, the Department of Health Services (DHS) has regulatory enforcement
responsibility for public water supplies. Freestone, which uses an uniiltered surface source with
high turbidity levels, was in violation of the CSWFDR. The role of the DHS, therefore, was to
ensure that approved technologies were applied to address the water quality problems and to
provide technical assistance as necessary to achieve system compliance. •
The DHS district office was familiar with the special problems presented by Freestone.
This small community is similar to many others across the state that aire in need of financial and
technical assistance. Mr. David Clark and Ms. Leah Walker of DHS had knowledge of USEPA's
Small Systems Technology Demonstration Initiative, the latter while employed with Sonoma
County, and recommended that Freestone participate as a demonstration site. .Both the county
and customers of Freestone agreed to serve as a test site. i
• I
The primary obstacle to the application of a pressure filtration treatment system at
Freestone was that California did not list this technology as one of the four state-approved
technologies for compliance with the CSWFDR requirements. The four approved technologies
included: conventional treatment (i.e., coagulation/sedimentation/filtration); direct filtration;
diatomaceous earth; and slow sand filtration. California law requires one year of successful
demonstration and reporting, to develop a history of performance, before the technology can be
considered approved and applied within the state, For a small community like Freestone, using
an unapproved technology, would represent a severe financial risk if the technology is ultimately
deemed unsuccessful. The state allowed the use of the DSF system in this instance since the
manufacturer's proposal was accepted on the basis of their no-cost guarantee. Specifically, if the
treatment was determined to be ineffective, the manufacturer would have been responsible for the
cost to dismantle and remove the equipment.
37
WMA, Inc.
Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
The state also showed flexibility in accepting the experience of the manufacturer's
independent dealer, but did stipulate that the operator of this treatment facility must be certified
Grade 2 before granting approval. The operator was able to obtain the required certification after
successfully completing instruction at a local community college. Further state involvement was
apparently limited to normal review of the operational plan.
Sonoma County
The Sonoma County Department of Public Works (DPW) had responsibility for the
overall operation of the water system in Freestone. For this demonstration project, the county's
primary function was to facilitate the connection of the DSF system to the existing system
configuration. As indicated above, Freestone's water quality problems stem in part from the poor
condition of the system's ageing infrastructure, which made the supply vulnerable to
bacteriological intrusion. The county was responsible for providing infrastructure improvements
to the collection, storage, and distribution systems to provide a reasonable set of baseline water
quality conditions for evaluating the performance of the DSF system. During the demonstration
period, the county was not able to make all the necessary improvements. As a result, operational
problems resulted and higher than average effluent turbidity and chlorine residual levels were
recorded in four months during the demonstration period. Recently, county work crews have
completed improvements to the finished water storage tank. These improvements are expected
to result hi reduced threat of microbiological contamination.
In addition, the county had the responsibility for coordinating activities between,the
operator of the water system, Russian River Utility, the operator of the treatment facility, the
manufacturer, the DHS, and USEPA. As indicated above, it was county staff (Leah Walker) that
recommended this site for the technology demonstration.
Manufacturer and Operator
During the demonstration period, the manufacturer was responsible for the design and
installation of the treatment technology and the collection and analysis of the system performance
data. The operation and maintenance of the DSF unit was performed by the manufacturer's
independent dealership in Santa Rosa. As indicated above, the state required a Grade 2
certification to operate the Freestone Water System and the DSF unit. Before this demonstration
project, Mr. Fisher was not certified at that grade, although he had 15 years of experience in the
installation and maintenance of water treatment equipment: Initially, Mr. Fisher attempted to
obtain a concession from the state to substitute years of experience for formal training. However,
the state did not grant the concession. Mr. Fisher was able to attend classes at a local community
college that provided the requisite technical training. He was able to fulfill the state certification
requirements and receive his Grade 2 certification prior to the April 1992 start-up date for this
demonstration project.
The manufacturer and operator also prepared the Operations Plan for the treatment facility
which is required by the state for approval and permitting. The manufacturer .also provided
monthly summary documentation of the performance of the DSF system to the appropriate
county, state, and Federal agencies involved in this technology demonstration.
38
WMA, Inc. . Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
The principle contributions of the manufacturer involved tionating staff time and
equipment and assuming the risk of performance. Since the DSF system was not a state approved
technology, the equipment contribution provided an opportunity to collect the necessary
monitoring and performance data to demonstrate the effectiveness of small scale, packaged
technologies. This technology is now more likely to be approved for application in numerous
other communities with similar water quality and financial and operational problems throughout
the state. .The current operator of the Freestone system has been able to forge a successful
relationship with the county and customers of Freestone which will lead to a greater confidence
,in the water supply.
'' " - ' = ' • " !
The contribution of the Aqua-Status telemetry system was alsii) a unique feature of this
technology demonstration. This telemetry equipment and computer software, which transmits
performance data to the off-site operator via computer modem, allowed both the operator and the
manufacturer to continuously monitor the performance of the DSF system and to identify and
resolve problems quickly without having to maintain a full-time presence at the facility. The
telemetry system provide an affordable technological alternative to having a full tune operator
which is costly for small systems.
5.2 Consideration of Alternative Treatment Configuration
Demonstrating the effectiveness of pre-designed packaged treatment plants, and
specifically pressure filtration units, in minimizing the capital and O&M expense to small systems
is a critical element of this technology evaluation. For compliance purposes, these small system
technologies must be as effective as other approved technologies. For uhfiltered surface systems
with high turbidity, conventionally engineered treatment facilities such; as a coagulation/filtration
system are an accepted alternative since these processes have been field tested and shown to be
effective. One drawback to conventional treatment plants, however^ is the level of operator
training and skill required to adequately maintain this ;type of treatment: process. This technology
requires operator experience that is typically above the capabilities of many small systems.
Slow sand filtration is another commonly used treatment alternative for small systems.
This technology, however, is more suited to higher quality source water with turbidity levels of
5 NTU or less (USEPA, 1993). The turbidity levels observed in the Freestone water supply
exceeded 5 NTU. As a result slow sand filtration was not considered for Freestone.
•i ' • . ' - "*•
5.3 Post-Demonstration System Improvements !
The demonstration period for this technology was April 1, 1992 to March 31, 1993.
During this period there were problems with the existing Freestone Water System infrastructure
and operational procedures that affected the quality of water both entering the treatment plant and
delivered to the customers. The three major components of the system, the spring source
collection area, the finished water storage tank, and the distribution system required substantial
rehabilitation. The county has recently" completed repairs to the spring collection area. The
finished water tank has also been relined and new housing was constructed to prevent the
possibility of microbiological contamination from small animals and birds. The distribution
system is also undergoing repair. ;
39 .. ,; ;../•.'•
WMA, Inc. . • Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
The county has installed meters at each connection to monitor customer usage. The
application of meters also allowed the county to revise its flat rate structure to a rate that is now
based on consumption. The use of metering and a consumption-based rate will provide the
county with an improved capability to monitor system demand and to develop better estimates
of future production and revenue requirements which is integral to proper system planning.
Finally, because of the improvements to the system, the county has now been able to
connect more residents to the system as demonstrated by the increase in the number of
connections since the demonstration period from 16 to 30. This increase in the customer base
will allow for greater sharing of the cost burden across customers which should contribute to a
lower cost per household for these water quality improvements.
40
WhU, Inc. Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
6. CONCLUSIONS
This technology demonstration has provided an opportunity for both government
regulatory agencies and the regulated community to observe the performance of the dual-stage
pressure filtration system provided by Culligan International Company. The DSF system proved
successful in reducing effluent turbidity to levels below the required 0.5 NTU standard. There
were four months in which the system would have been determined to be out of compliance with
fewer than 95 percent of turbidity readings below 0.5 NTU. In each of these months, the'trouble
could be traced to a faulty float valve on the finished water storage reservoir preventing
backwashing of the filter media or to construction at the finished water storage reservoir. These
operational and mechanical problems have been addressed since there have been no reported
violations of the turbidity requirements since the demonstration period ended. .
The reduction hi effluent turbidity and the presence of a chlorine residual has substantially
reduced the risk of microbiological contamination. The DSF system has also proved to be
effective in reducing concentrations of iron present hi the water which unproved the taste and
odor of the water. !
This demonstration has also, provided Sonoma County the opportunity to make further
drinking water infrastructure improvements. The spring raw water collection area and reservoir
have been rehabilitated, the finished water storage tank has been drained, cleaned, relined.and
new housing provided to protect the tank from natural elements and animal infestation. The
distribution system is also being upgraded which will reduce the meed to maintain elevated
chlorine residual levels to ensure that finished water is not subject 1:o further microbiological
contamination; !
The DSF system, compared to a fully constructed engineered treatment system, has shown
to have minimal O&M requirements and is designed to operate automatically. The telemetry
system allows the performance of the treatment system to be monitored! off site reducing the need
for a full time, on-site operator which significantly reduces the
-------
This cost comparison showed that the total annual expense for the DSF system was considerably
lower compared to the coagulation/filtration system despite the upgraded components that were
included in the final Freestone treatment package. The cost of installation and operation of a
coagulation/filtration process is estimated to be $13.13 per thousand gallons delivered water
compared to the DSF system that was estimated to cost Freestone $7.56 per thousand gallons.
The efforts of staff from the California Department of Health Services and the Sonoma
County Department of Public Works demonstrated that solving the problems of small water
systems requires a planned and concerted effort to adequately address the specific needs of the
water supply. The manufacturer provided invaluable technical assistance, hi addition to the risk
incurred in donating both time and equipment to this technology demonstration. - The
manufacturer was sensitive to the needs of the community and the requirements of state arid
county regulations and procedures and demonstrated that addressing water quality problems
requires more than simply the application of technology. .
The State of California showed great flexibility hi allowing this demonstration project to
take place since the technology involved had not yet received state approval. Typically, the state
requires a period of pilot testing prior to approving full scale installation. In this case, however,
the state recognized the tremendous potential that this technology offers to address the filtration
needs of small systems. Based on the data collected during this demonstration, the state has
decided to include the DSF on the list of "acceptable" alternative technologies and will be granted
credit for 2-log removal for giardia. The list will,be provided to state district engineers for
general circulation. The DSF, however, will be included on the list with a restriction placed on
the quality of the source water. Specifically, a turbidity limit will be imposed on the DSF that
allows for its application hi situations where influent turbidity is no greater than that observed
for Freestone. .
In conclusion, this technology demonstration project provided USEP A the opportunity to
observe a successful and integrated approach to solving small water system compliance problems
that involved both the application of an innovative technology and the restructuring of the water
system. In assuming control of the system, the county was in a better position to negotiate an
O&M contract to attract a technically qualified firm to operate the system since there are several
other small systems in Sonoma County with similar financial or technical problems. The
manufacturer was able to demonstrate the effectiveness of the DSF treatment process in
improving Freestone's water quality. The net result of this demonstration project is that small
systems such as Freestone are now able to access technologies which provide operationally sound
and cost-effective alternatives to achieve compliance with water quality standards.
42
WMA. Inc.
Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
7. REFERENCES
Horn et al., 1988. Horn, J.B., Hendricks, D.W., Scanlan, J.M., Rozelle, L.T., Trnka, W.C
"Removing Giardia Cysts and Other Particles from Low Turbidity Waters Using Dual-
Stage Filtration"; Journal AWWA, February 1988, pp. 68-77.
' ' '!•' '' ' ' '"
USEPA, 1990. "Request for Proposal - CSA #33 (Freestone) Water System, Santa Rosa, CA";
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water;
October 1990. \
• , ]•' ;• , - •
USEPA, 1993a. "Technical and Economic Capacity of States and Public Water Systems to
Implement Drinking Water Regulations"; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report
to Congress, July 1993a.
USEPA, 1993b. "Very Small Systems Best Available Technologies Cost Document"; USEPA
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, September 1993b. v
USEPA, 1993c. "Evaluation of Demonstration Technologies - Quiail Creek Water Supply
System"; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Grpund Water and Drinking
Water, February 1993.
' • '. : -"• - . •'• . 43 . ' ' . ; . .
WMA, Inc. ' ' • Revised Final Report: 6/17/94
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
OF RECORDED NTU LEVELS
-------
-------
FREESTONE, C A Technology Demonstration
Exhibit A-l
Ogive of the Distribution of Turbidity Levels
Recorded Effluent Levels - August 1992
NTU Q.5
Summary
No. Observations
No. Obs. > 0.5 NTU
% Obs. > 0.5 NTU
Mean Turbidity
Median Turbidity
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
Statistics
738 J
58
7.9% i .
0.11 NTU
0.03 NTU
0.01 NTU
0.81 NTU I
A-1
-------
Freestone, CA Technology Demonstration
Exhibit A-2
Ogive of the Distribution of Turbidity Levels
Recorded Effluent Levels - October 1992
100%
95%
90%
•§. 80%
"o 70%
§ 50%
g 40%
S
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.0
0.2
0.4
NTU
0.5
0.6
.0.8
1.0
Summary Statistics
No. Observations
No. Obs. > 0.5 NTU
% Obs. > 0.5 NTU
Mean Value
Median Value <
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
857
78
9:1 %
0.12 NTU
0.03NTU
0.01 NTU
0.95 NTU
A-2
-------
Freestone, CA Technology Demonstration
Exhibit A-3
Osive of the Distribution of Turbidity Levels
0 Recorded Effluent Levels • January 1993 i -
100%
95%
90%
a
I 80%
?
1 70%
1? 60%
I '
I 50%
•5 40%
I -
30%
20%
10%
0.0 ,
0.2
0.4
0.5
,0.6
0.8
1.0
Summary Statistics
No. Observations
No. Obs. > 0.5 NTU
% Obs. > 0.5 NTU
Mean Value
Median Value
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
1039
84
8.h %
0.16 NTU
0.02 NTU
0.02 NTU
0.90 NTU
A-3
-------
Freestone, CA Technology Demonstration
Exhibit A-4
Ogive of the Distribution of Turbidity Levels
Recorded Effluent Levels-February 1993
100%
95%
90%
I
0.
C/3
"5 70%
60%
50%
i
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.0
0.5
1.0
NTU
2.0
3.0
4.0
Summary Statistics
No. Observations
No. Obs. > 0.5 NTU
% Obs. > 0.5 NTU
Mean Value
Median Value
Minimum Value
Maximum Value
1626
144
8.9 %
0.22 NTU
0.01 NTU
'0.01 NTU
3-.44 NTU
-------
APPENDIX B
SMALL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE:
COST REPORTING FORMAT
-------
-------
Alternate Treatment Technology Costs
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
1. Please remember that this cost survey requests information relative only to alternative
treatment technology. Please do not include capital or operation and maintenance costs for other
estimate them to the best
portions of your water system. If separate costs are not available, please
of your ability and denote "est." next to the appropriate costs.
2. If a requested item was not part of your project, please write "NA"
after the item.
3. Please include under "other" any additional items in each category; that are not specifically
listed. ' . ' •,
4, If specific costs for each item within a given category are not available, but total costs are
available, please list the total .cost anyway. If possible, please indicate under "other" the items
that are included in the lump sum amount. „ !
•. ' - i ; -
5. If you do not have the information available in the cost units that are indicated, please provide
any cost information that you may have. For example, if you^do not know the cost of a treatment
chemical per thousand gallons of water treated, please provide the momjhly or annual cost for the
chemical and the unit cost for that chemical. -I
6. Please add additional information on other sheets if necessary. ;
B-l
-------
GENERAL QUESTIONS
1. How many hours per day does your treatment system operate?
; average
maximum
2. What is the capacity of your treatment system in gallons per minute?
3. Please indicate how much time
a. your operator(s) spends operating and maintaining the treatment equipment
(hours/month):
__ average
__ _ maximum
b. a contracted service person spends operating and maintaining the treatment equipment
(hours/month): ,
_ _ average
_ _ maximum
Alternate Treatment Technology Costs
"CAPrrAL COSTS .,
t
I Sitework
Land acquisition .............. , ..... $ ' .
Excavation & clearing .......... $
Roads ..... . ............................... $ _ _
Permits ............ . .................. ... $ _
Sewer $
Other (please describe)
.$.
TOTAL SITEWORK COSTS $
B-2
-------
II Building •
Physical structure ....,.'$
Landscaping $ _
Furniture $
Permanent fixtures ........$_
Painting . \. $ •
Other (please describe)
$
TOTAL BUILDING COSTS $
III Process piping, HVAC, plumbing and electrical
Process & interconnecting piping
(if not included in IV, V & VI
below) $
HVAC ...... $ • • .
Plumbing (other than process
piping) $ _,
Electrical $
. Other (please describe)
$
TOTAL PIPING, HVAC, PLUMBING AND i
ELECTRICAL COSTS $. _j
B-3
-------
IV Treatment equipment
Equipment and instrumentation ... $
Equipment warranty (if not
, included above) $
Freight $
Installation $
Start-up costs $
Lab apparatus $ _
Safety apparatus $
Other (please describe)
$
TOTAL TREATMENT EQUIPMENT COSTS ...... $
V Water storage (materials and installation/construction)
Raw water $
Finished water $
Other (please describe) '
$
TOTAL STORAGE COSTS $
B-4
-------
VI Waste handling (materials and installation/construction)
Backwash ..: $ :
Sludge (if separate from back-
wash) $
Other (please describe)
$
TOTAL WASTE HANDLING COSTS ....i $.
> , '
VII Contractor (costs other than those included above)
Project coordinator $ . -- |
- Other (please describe) • -' ' '' |
$
TOTAL CONTRACTOR COSTS .... $
VIII Engineering ;
Survey • $ .
Studies and reports $x
Plans .-. $ ,
Other (please describe) .
$,
TOTAL ENGINEERING COSTS $
B-5
-------
IX Miscellaneous
Legal $,
Insurance $
Title $
Acquisition of financing ....... $.
Supervision of construc-
tion by owner $,
Other (please describe)
$.
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS COSTS $
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS..... $
TOTAL GRANT FUNDS RECEIVED
(if applicable) $_
TOTAL ANNUAL PAYMENTS ........................ $,
What is the interest rate and term of your loan?
% for years
B-6
-------
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
I Fixed treatment costs (average annual costs unless otherwise iniiicated. These are routine
costs that can be expected each year. Please do not include replacement of major components
such as pumps, chemical feed equipment, filter sand etc. Replacement of minor treatment
components like cartridge filters or replacement/ regeneration of activated carbon should be
included, however. Chemical costs are not included here, they are listed later under variable
treatment costs). i " ,
A. Routine O & M
• -*•
Operator salaries + fringe $ , •
Average operator sal-
ary + fringe . $/hr
Office supplies $
Telephones $ . •. .
Insurance $ _____
Electrical $ _____
i Fuel, : $
Travel $
Training $
Building maintenance $
Service contracts $
Water sampling & analysis ......$
Parts :, $
Lubricants ...'... $ '
Other (please describe) ,
$
TOTAL ANNUAL ROUTINE O&M COSTS .]: $
' B-7 ' . -! :;
-------
B. Replacement.
(Please list the estimated life of major treatment equipment components such as
filter sand and anthracite, process pumps, chemical feed equipment, ion exchange
media, instrumentation etc. Please also estimate the cost of repair or replacement.)
Component Est. life Est. renl. cost
1. • - ' ;" ' • ;
2. • .'•."•"' '
3.
4. • • ,
5. ... •
6. . . '• .'".'•'
If possible, please indicate the total annual replacement cost below. What interest
rate was used? %
TOTAL ANNUAL REPLACEMENT COSTS , $
II Variable costs (Variable costs are those that vary with the amount of water treated, e.g.
treatment chemicals, power costs for pumping and disposal of sludge. Please include
whatever costs are available if you cannot provide the ^specific information requested.)
A. Chemical costs ' • •
Chemical Average . Size of Average Cost
Name Dose Containers . per year
(ppm) (100 bags etc.)
Total chemical costs per
thousand gallons (if avail-
able) $
B-8
-------
B. Power costs
What is your current unit
power cost for your treatment
and pumping equipment ($/kwh etc.)?
Is there a demand charge? (yes/no)
If yes, how much?
What is your average monthly
(or annual) cost for power
for your treatment and pump-
ing equipment?
$ per month/year
C. Waste disposal (sludge, brine etc.) . ' •
Please describe the estimated volume or weight of sludge prpduced annually and any
costs associated with treatment if those costs are not included elsewhere.
•B-9
-------
------- |