ATTACHMENT C3:

TREATMENT COST
METHODOLOGY DETAILS
Attachment to the State Water Resources Control Board
2021 Drinking Water Needs Assessment
Cost Assessment Methodology Appendix C
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/needs/2021_n
eeds_assessment.pdf

COST METHODOLOGY BY CONTAMINANT &

TREATMENT
GAC: GAC is the assumed treatment technology for organic contaminants, such as 1,2,3-
trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP), trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), or
dibromochloropropane (DBCP), as well as for Total Organic Carbon removal to address
disinfection by-products. Capital costs for GAC were derived using recently received vendor
quotes for water treatment pressure vessel pairs updated to 2020 dollars using Construction
Cost Indices published by Engineering News Record. The U.S. EPA Work Breakdown
Structure for Granular Activated Carbon cost model was considered for this purpose; however,
the resulting cost estimates were consistently well below both vendor supplied numbers and
recently bid projects in California. The vendor-supplied estimates were averaged by vessel
size and translated to an installed cost using an engineering multiplier of approximately 2.36x
equipment cost. The multiplier accounts for items such as installation, electrical and
instrumentation and controls, general civil, planning, engineering, legal and permitting,
construction administration services, and project contingency. The multiplier is detailed in
Table C3.1.
Table C3.1: GAC Engineering Multiplier Breakdown

Category Denotation Percentage Formula

Treatment Capital A
Installation B 20% A x 0.20
Electrical and I&C C 5% A x 0.05
General Site Civil D 15% A x 0.15
Subtotal E A+B+C+D
Overhead and Profit F 10% E x 0.10
 Category Denotation Percentage Formula

Contingency G 25% E x 0.25

Total Construction
H E+F+G
Capital Costs
Planning,
Engineering, Legal I 15% H x 0.15
& Administration
Construction
J 10% H x 0.10
Administration
TOTAL H + I +J

Treatment equipment was sized assuming lead-lag configuration with a minimum combined
empty bed contact time (EBCT) of 10-minutes. Lead-lag vessel pairs were assumed to have
diameters of either 6, 8, 10, or 12 feet which are readily commercially available. GAC bed
depths were fixed based on the standard weight of carbon for a given vessel size assuming
GAC with a specific gravity of 0.54. Note that the mass and therefore volume of carbon in the
10-ft and 12-ft vessels is the same. The benefit of 12-ft vessels is realized through lower
headloss and therefore lower operational cost and were selected for this reason. Table C3.2
shows the vessel diameter, accommodated flow ranges, and corresponding mass of GAC in
each vessel. In the cases where the flow rate is greater than can be accommodated by a
single pair of 12-ft vessels (e.g. > 875 gpm) a configuration with multiple vessel pairs is
considered for the capital cost estimate. The capital cost methodology was developed
specifically for 1,2,3-TCP, however it can be deployed for any source that requires treatment
for other organic contaminants by adjusting the assumption used to develop the operational
costs as summarized in Table C3.2.
Table C3.2: GAC vessel diameter, mass of carbon and flow range

Mass of GAC
Vessel Diameter (ft) Flow Range (gpm) Equipment Cost ($)
(lb/vessel)
6 6,000 0 – 250 $437,000
8 10,000 251 – 425 $536,000
12 20,000 426 – 875 $745,000
Two Pair - 12 20,000 876 – 1,750 $1,490,000

Total Organic Carbon Removal: Several systems are on the HR2W list as a result of violations
with the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR). The
violations are result of the formation of total trihalomethane and/or haloacetic acids as a result
of the requisite chlorine disinfection and its reaction with total organic carbon (TOC) in the
water source. TOC can readily be removed by GAC, thus reducing the extent of disinfection

Page | 2
byproduct formation. For systems with Stage 2 DBPR violations the GAC capital costs as
described above were applied along with an additional $30,000 for a pump station to overcome
the headloss caused by the GAC treatment.
Operational Cost Methodology for 1,2,3-TCP and other organic contaminants using
GAC: The primary driver for 1,2,3-TCP operational cost is the periodic replacement and
disposal of the spent GAC media. In this case, the throughput performance estimate of 38,200
bed volumes cited in the U.S. EPA Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) model was found to be
sufficiently adequate for this purpose of this analysis. The WBS also cites costs for virgin
carbon ($2.02/lb-GAC), transportation ($0.29/lb-GAC), and disposal ($0.004/lb-GAC). These
costs were normalized to a standard production cost equivalent to $0.28/1,000 gallons of water
produced. Additional costs were then applied analytical costs, and increased electrical costs
required to pump the water through the treatment system.
A summary of the of the estimated throughput that were used to develop operational costs
regression curves for other contaminants are provided in Table C3.3.
Table C3.3: GAC Operational Cost Regressions

Raw Water Estimated

Contaminant Treatment Objective
Concentration Throughput1 (BV)
1,1-DCE 7 µg/L 3.5 µg/L 10,000
DBCP 0.2 µg/L 0.1 µg/L 65,000
EDB 0.06 µg/L 0.03 µg/L 60,000
1,2,3-TCP 0.1 µg/L 0.005 µg/L 38,000
TOC 3 mg/L 2 mg/L 5,0002

Capital Cost Methodology for Nitrate using Anion Exchange: Nitrate capital cost estimates
were developed utilizing the Work Breakdown Structure-Based Cost Model for Anion
Exchange Drinking Water Treatment (Anion Model)3. The modeling effort assumed a minimum
empty bed contact time of 3 minutes and was standardized using pairs of 3-ft diameter
treatment vessels, each containing 27 cu.ft. of strong base anion exchange resin. The flow rate
for each vessel pair was constrained by providing at least 2.8 minutes of empty bed contact
time with a maximum hydraulic loading rate of 10 gpm/sq.ft with full-flow treatment. In this case
model inputs were adjusted to reflect recent bid costs for SBA-IX treatment systems in the
Central Valley (Kern and Tulare counties) by adding 20% contingency to the calculated. The

1
AdDesignS using isotherms from Speth, T. F, & Miltner, R.(1990) Technical Note: Adsorption Capacity of GAC
for Synthetic Organics. JournalAWWA, Vol. 82, Issue 2, 72-75: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1551-
8833.1990.tb06922.x
2
Zachman, B.A., & Summers, R. (2010). Modeling TOC Breakthrough in Granular Activated Carbon Adsorbers.
Journal of Environmental Engineering, 136, 204-210.
3
Drinking Water Treatment Technology Unit Cost Models
https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-treatment-technology-unit-cost-models

Page | 3
recent bid costs and contingency were used in place of an engineering multiplier for this
treatment method. The following parameters with the justification were adjusted in the Anion
Model:

· Model Input
o Component level = “High Cost” Ion exchange components are exposed to high
concentration salt solutions which is corrosive and as a result require materials of
better construction to defer maintenance costs
o System automation = “Fully automated” frequent regeneration of these systems
requires them to be fully automated
· Critical Design Assumptions
o “Flow meters for process line per vessel” value changed to 1. Flow balancing is
critical for optimizing ion exchange performance and reducing operational costs
o “Additional conductivity meters” value changed to 2. Assumes metering of
regenerant brine concentration, regenerant outlet, and finished water
o “Headloss sensors per vessel” value changed to 1. Pressure changes in an ion
exchange system alerts the operator to potential hydraulic issues that can
adversely impact performance.
o “Number of electrical enclosures” value changed to 1. An electrical enclosure is
necessary for a fully automated ion exchange system.
The flow rates and corresponding model developed installed capital costs are summarized in
Table C3.4.
Table C3.4: Installed Capital Cost Estimates for SBA-IX Nitrate Removal

Flow Rate (gpm) Installed Capital Cost

1-125 $764,000
126-275 $1,118,000
276-400 1,370,000
401-550 $1,656,000
551-700 $2,045,000
701-850 $2,753,000
851-1000 $2,972,000

Operational Cost Methodology for Nitrate using Anion Exchange: The primary operational
cost driver for SBA-IX nitrate treatment is the costs associated with spent regenerant brine
disposal and the associated consumables, namely salt. For this assessment it was assumed
that off-site disposal will be required with a unit cost of $0.20/gallon and a salt cost of $0.16/lb.
For each regeneration, 3 bed volumes of spent regenerant brine and 2 bed volume of rinse will
be directed to the spent brine waste tank and require offsite disposal. Applying these

Page | 4
assumptions results in the following Figure C3.1 illustrates the impact of throughput on the salt
and brine disposal costs as a function of water production.
Figure C3.1: SBA-IX salt and brine disposal costs for nitrate removal with SBA-IX

The throughput a given system will achieve is generally considered a function of the raw water
nitrate and sulfate concentrations with lower concentration of each resulting in greater
performance. To estimate the throughput for individual systems requiring nitrate treatment, a
range of water quality parameters, summarized in Table C3.5, were modeled using an
illustrative resin model.4 The outputs from the modeling effort are shown graphically in Figure
C3.2. Note the upper limits modeled for sulfate and nitrate are 200 mg/L and 25 mg/L,
respectively, however there are maximum observed significantly higher than both of these
concentrations and while included in this analysis, wells with these concentrations are not
likely feasible treatment solutions.
Table C3.5: Modeled water quality parameters for nitrate treatment performance with
SBA-IX

Sulfate Range Modeled Sulfate Nitrate Range Modeled Nitrate

Bin ID
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
1 0 - 25 12.5 10.1 - 14 12
2 26 - 50 27.5 14.1 - 18 16
3 50 - 100 75 18.1 - 22 20

4
Purolite, accessed October 8, 2020
https://www.purolite.com/resources

Page | 5
 Sulfate Range Modeled Sulfate Nitrate Range Modeled Nitrate
Bin ID
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
4 101 - 150 125 > 22.1 25
5 > 150 200

Figure C3.2: Modeled SBA-IX Throughput

Each system on the HR2W list requiring nitrate treatment was grouped by its raw water nitrate
concentration represented by one of the curves in Figure C3.2 and throughput was determined
by its corresponding sulfate concentration. The calculated throughput was then applied to the
curve shown in Figure C3.2 to estimate the production cost for salt and brine disposal. In
addition, electrical costs assuming a 10 psi headloss through the system and operator labor
costs will be included as a separate budgetary line item.
Capital Cost Methodology for Radium using Cation Exchange: The same capital cost
estimates that were developed for nitrate treatment with strong base anion exchange will be
used for radium cation exchange treatment with the exception of the cost of resin.
Operational Cost Methodology for Radium using Cation Exchange: The primary
operational cost driver for IX treatment is the costs associated with spent regenerant brine
disposal and the associated consumables, namely salt. For this instance, the costs for nitrate
disposal were applied.
Capital Cost Methodology for Uranium, Gross Alpha as a result of Uranium, and
Perchlorate using Ion Exchange: Uranium and perchlorate are typically treated via single
use strong base anion exchange. In concept, these are passive treatment systems much like

Page | 6
GAC, where water is passed through pressure vessels and the media, in this case ion
exchange resin is replaced when it is exhausted with respect to its target contaminant. For this
cost estimating effort, a lead-lag vessel configuration was assumed with a maximum hydraulic
loading rate of 8 gpm/ft.sq. Capital cost estimates were developed though an analysis of
recent bid costs for single use ion exchange vessels. In total, bid costs were reviewed for 6
systems, each with as many as five bidders for treatment vessel pairs with diameters of 4-ft, 6-
ft, 8-ft, 10-ft, and 2 x 10-ft pair. The average bid cost for each vessel size was adjusted to 2020
dollars and a standard engineering multiplier of 2.36 was applied to develop an estimate of the
installed capital costs as detailed in Table C3.1. In addition to the bid costs, it was assumed
each vessel would have a resin depth of 36” and with a corresponding cost of $300/cu.ft. The
capital cost estimate for single pass ion exchange treatment are summarized in Table C3.6.
Table C3.6: Installed Capital Cost Estimates for Single Use IX

Flow Rate (gpm) Installed Capital Cost

1-101 $357,000
102-225 $538,000
226-401 $713,000
402-627 $926,000
628-1256 $1,852,000

Operational Cost Methodology for Uranium, and Perchlorate using Ion Exchange: Spent
resin replacement and disposal represent the bulk of operational costs for uranium and
perchlorate removal with this technology. A review of service supplier cost estimates for these
services resulted in a unit cost of $0.56/kgal of water produced for uranium and $0.10/kgal for
perchlorate, with the primary difference being the disposal and handling of the uranium laden
waste. This unit cost assumes a throughput of approximately 100,000 BV prior to replacement
resin and reflects the cost for replacement, disposal, and associated services.
Capital Cost Methodology for Arsenic using Adsorption: Two technologies are generally
considered if arsenic is the sole contaminant of concern, adsorption and coagulation filtration.
Coagulation filtration is only considered for utilities with greater than 500 service connections.5
Ion exchange is also listed as a best available technology; however, this technology is
generally only applied in places that have a low-cost brine disposal option (i.e. brine line or
sewer access) or a co-occurring contaminant due to its relative complexity and high
operational costs.
Adsorption is a passive treatment approach where untreated water flows through pressure
vessels loaded with media, typically iron based, that has an affinity for arsenic. The pressure

5
California Regulations Related to Drinking Water, page 125
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/lawbook/dw_regulations_2019_0
4_16.pdf

Page | 7
vessels are typically oriented in a lead/lag configuration. Capital cost estimates for arsenic
adsorption systems reflect the methodology used for GAC capital costs and are based on
achieving a minimum EBCT of 10 minutes between the two vessels. Due to the relative
simplicity of this treatment approach, an installed capital multiplier of 2.36 was applied, as
shown in Table C3.1. The estimated installed capital costs are shown in Table C3.7.
Table C3.7: Arsenic Adsorption Installed Capital Costs

Treatment Flow Range (gpm) Installed Capital Cost

1-250 $437,000
251-425 $536,000
426-875 $745,000

Capital Cost Methodology for Arsenic using Coagulation Filtration: The coagulation
filtration (C/F) process involves the use of a chemical coagulant, typically ferric chloride or
ferric sulfate, to create iron particles and co-precipitate arsenic. The arsenic laden iron
particles are then removed via media filtration. Like adsorption, the process is more efficient at
lower pH values. C/F systems are periodically backwashed to remove the entrained particles.
Treatment equipment capital costs were solicited over a range of flow rates (500 – 2,500 gpm)
from two manufacturers. The costs include filter vessels, chemical feed and storage,
instrumentation and controls, and backwash water reclaim tank and pumps. The average
manufacturer costs were used to estimate treatment capital costs at a given treatment rate
based on the regression shown in Figure C3.3.
Figure C3.3: Installed Arsenic Coagulation Filtration Capital Costs

Page | 8
Operational Cost Methodology for Arsenic: A 2010 study6 surveyed the costs for arsenic
compliance including: media replacement, media disposal, chemicals, analytical testing, and
labor. The median reported costs of compliance, adjusted to 2021 dollars were reported as
follows

· Coagulation Filtration $1.07/kgal

· Adsorption $1.54/kgal
Capital Cost Methodology for Iron and Manganese using Filtration: For iron, the filtration
process involves the use of a chemical oxidant, typically hypochlorite, to create hydroxide
particles that are removed via media filtration. Manganese treatment relies on a catalytic
surface reaction using greensand or pyrolusite media where it is oxidized and subsequently
removed. The treatment systems are periodically backwashed to remove the entrained
particles. The arsenic coagulation filtration capital costs were used for iron and manganese
capital treatment costs. Treatment equipment capital costs were solicited over a range of flow
rates (500 – 2,500 gpm) from two manufacturers. The costs include filter vessels, chemical
feed and storage, instrumentation and controls, and backwash water reclaim tank and pumps.
The average manufacturer costs were used to estimate treatment capital costs at a given
treatment rate based on the regression shown in Figure C3.4.
Figure C3.4: Installed Iron and Manganese Filtration Capital Costs

6
Hilkert Colby, Elizabeth J., Thomas M. Young, Peter G. Green, and Jeannie L. Darby, 2010. Costs of Arsenic
Treatment for Potable Water in California and Comparison to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Affordability
Metrics. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 46(6):1238–1254. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752‐
1688.2010.00488.x

Page | 9
Operational Cost Methodology for Iron and Manganese using Filtration: The operational
costs for iron and manganese removal use arsenic removal with coagulation filtration as a
surrogate which are anticipated to be a conservative estimate.
Capital Cost Methodology for Fluoride using Activated Alumina: Fluoride removal can be
accomplished with the use of activated alumina, an adsorptive media. In this approach, pH
depression with sulfuric acid to approximately 5.5 is required to charge the functional sites of
the media. Following pH depression, the water flows through pressure vessels loaded with
activated alumina media where the fluoride is removed and then pH is readjusted, typically
with caustic soda. Periodically the media is either replaced or regenerated on-site to restore
the adsorptive capacity.
The capital cost estimates follow the approach used for arsenic adsorption with the addition of
two chemical feed and storage systems (sulfuric acid and caustic soda) and enhanced
instrumentation (pH and flow monitors) and a programmable logic controller (PLC), as shown
in Table C3.8.
Table C3.8: Activated Alumina Installed Capital Costs

Treatment Flow Range (gpm) Installed Capital Cost

1-250 $833,000
251-425 $949,000
426-675 $1,029,000
676-900 $1,199,000

Operational Cost Methodology for Fluoride using Activated Alumina: The costs for pH
adjustment were modeled assuming an initial pH of 7.9 and alkalinity of 160 mg/L as CaCO3.
The pH was assumed to be adjusted to 5.5 with sulfuric acid and back to 7.9 using caustic
soda following treatment. This results in a chemical cost of approximately $61/MG produced.
The periodic media regeneration or replacement costs are not currently considered.
Capital Cost Methodology for Surface Water Treatment using Package Plants: For
systems in consistent violation of the Surface Water Treatment Rules (SWTRs), a package
treatment system may be considered. Package systems can reduce the system footprint and
typically integrate the required treatment processes into a single skid for ease of operation and
remote access.
Capital costs for both conventional and membrane package systems were estimated using
recent vendor quotes. Equipment capital costs were averaged after units were grouped by
treatment capacity. An engineering multiplier of 3.06 was applied to the average cost for each
treatment capacity range to develop an estimate of the installed cost. The multiplier is detailed
in Table C3.9.

Page | 10
Table C3.9: Surface Water Package Plant Engineering Multiplier Breakdown

Category Denotation Percentage Formula % of Total

Treatment Capital A 33%

Installation B 30% A x 0.30 10%
Electrical and I&C C 25% A x 0.25 8%
General Site Civil D 20% A x 0.20 7%
Subtotal E A+B+C+D 57%
Overhead and Profit F 15% E x 0.15 9%
Contingency G 25% E x 0.25 14%
Total Construction
H E+F+G 80%
Capital Costs
Planning, Engineering,
Legal I 15% H x 0.15 12%
& Administration
Construction
J 10% H x 0.10 8%
Administration
TOTAL H + I +J 100%

Selection of a membrane or conventional package system will require a review of the unique
water quality parameters for individual systems. Costs for membrane and conventional
treatment package systems were comparable and grouped together for averaging. Installed
capital cost estimates are summarized in Table C3.10.
Table C3.10: Installed Capital Cost Estimates for Package Treatment Systems

Flow Rate (gpm) Installed Capital Cost

1-175 $703,000
175-300 $983,000
301-700 $1,461,000
701-1,400 $1,951,000
1,401-2,100 $3,012,000

Operational Cost Methodology for Surface Water Treatment using Package Plants:
Operations and maintenance cost estimates for surface water treatment technologies are not
included, except for operator labor.

Page | 11
Capital Cost Methodology for 4-Log Virus Inactivation: Surface waters and groundwater
under the influence of surface water need to achieve 4-log virus inactivation in addition to
filtration. Inactivation will be met using chlorine contact time and the following conservative
water quality assumption: a free chlorine of 1.0 mg/L, a water temperature of 15 C, and a pH of
8. For MDD flow conditions of 300 gpm or less, a 12-inch diameter pipeline, with length as
necessary to provide required contact time was assumed. A baffling factor of 0.9 was be used
for the pipeline.
For MDD flow of 301 gpm and greater, a combination of 12-inch diameter pipeline and storage
tanks (baffling factor 0.3) will be assumed to achieve the required inactivation. At these flows,
the required length of pipe alone to achieve inactivation may become unreasonable for smaller
treatment facilities. The capital cost estimates for 4-log virus inactivation are shown in Table
C3.11 and were estimated conservatively using the high end of each flow range. 4-log virus
inactivation costs can also be utilized to address water systems with bacteriological problems
that may not rise to the level of surface water treatment but require 4-log inactivation under the
Groundwater Rule.
Table C3.11: Installed Capital Cost Estimates for 4-Log Virus Inactivation

Flow Rate (gpm) Installed Capital Cost7

1-175 $23,000
176-300 $38,000
301-700 $196,000
701-1,400 $416,000
1,401-2,100 $627,000

7
Costs for the major capital improvements (including pipeline installation) provided by QK, Incorporated, which is
an engineering design firm in the Central Valley.

Page | 12