Spotlight

Financial
Reality
Check
A Critical
Step in
Choosing
an

A 10-gpm arsenic removal system in series configuration

in New Hampshire

Arsenic
Treatment
System

A successful US EPA project: 100-gpm arsenic removal

system in series configuration in Arizona

especially true when treating contaminants

ore and more communities and
By Beth Thomas
that have serious health effects (like arsenic)
individuals are in the process
that may have coverage exclusion clauses in
of selecting arsenic treatment
the liability policy.
systems to meet US EPA standards. A critical and often frustrating
Once the system is in operation, maintenance expenses occur.
step is answering the question, How much will a system cost,
These expenses are not covered in the
and what will the on-going maintenance
system warranty. Frequency depends on
and operating expenses be?
the amount of water used and the quality
As owners of many arsenic treatment
of water being treated. Failure to perform
systems are discovering, initial system
these services may result in poor water
capital cost is only one part of the total cost
quality or system failure.
equation. Most items of analysis will apply
The price and schedule for these
to systems of any size, from POU systems to
services and components might have been
those for community water companies.
discussed in the original sales proposal or
The approach is not much different than
listed in the operations and maintenance
the questions one would ask for any other
manual. If not, the water treatment
type of water treatment system. The initial
company from whom the system was
price of the system, including the design,
purchased can provide the information.
pilot testing (if required), permitting costs,
For residential units, this will mean
equipment, site preparation, installation
filter cartridges, membrane or media
and start-up and commissioning costs,
replacements and control-valve service.
are usually known from bids or sales
Larger systems may have chemical-feed
proposals.
costs, media replacements and equipment
These costs will vary depending on the
maintenance schedules to be considered.
size of the unit, the treatment technology
Periodic water analyses should be
chosen and the degree of complexity based
performed to verify that the system is
on the features that are added. Other costs
A 50-gpm arsenic, iron and manganese removal
performing as required, and that the
at the time of purchase include the cost system in parallel configuration in Maryland
arsenic is being removed. This may be
of financing the purchase and liability
done by an in-house maintenance person, or contracted to a
insurance for community systems, whether private or public.
water treatment professional. These maintenance and laboratory
costs should be considered and budgeted when totaling the true
Risk and maintenance
cost of a system.
Thorough risk management assessments need to be included
For community systems, a state-licensed operator is required
for commercial, industrial and community systems. This is
Water Conditioning & Purification

December 2009

to maintain the system and perform

routine system field tests and laboratory
sampling. These operations must be
logged and reported to the appropriate
state agency. The level of operator license
and sampling frequency depends on the
complexity of the system and number of
people served.
Maintenance tools, testing equipment and laboratory tests, consumables
like chlorine, pH adjustment chemicals,
coagulation additives, filters, media replacement expenses and the operators
salary are part of the on-going expenses
of the system.
These expenses need to be calculated
and budgeted as part of the selection
decision for any system. Failure to do so
can have serious consequences for the
communitys budget and the people being served.

A 450-gpm arsenic
and iron removal
system in parallel
configuration in
Michigan
A residential POE arsenic
removal system

exhaustion (in bed volumes) than higher

performing granular ferric oxide media.It
also requires a longer empty-bed contact
Demonstration process
time to perform, which means larger vesThe US EPA has conducted two
sel design, more media to accomplish the
rounds of demonstration projects throughsame result and higher capital costs and
out the country to prove the efficacy of
footprint.
various arsenic treatment media and techFor each site visit to replace media,
niques. These demonstrations succeeded
the labor, material and disposal costs can
in their goal of identifying emerging
easily equal the cost of the media itself.To
treatment technologies and vendors who
make the process more economically feahave been successful.
sible, AA can be regenerated onsite.HowAn arsenic treatment technology deever, this requires caustic and acid which
cision tree was created and posted on the
are expensive, add complexity, create
agencys website as a selection tool. Howpotential safety concerns, and require a
ever, it does not adequately
higher level operator.
Thorough risk
address all of the concerns
In contrast, the second
management
covered here. Treatment
site nearby (also north of
assessments need
selection will impact both
Phoenix, AZ) with higher
to be included
capital and operating costs
arsenic concentrations averfor commercial,
of the system.
aging near 60 ppb, employed
industrial and
Part of the US EPAs
a high-capacity granular
community systems.
analysis on these projects
ferric oxide media that exThis is especially
is the cost of on-going ophibited both higher removal
true when treating
erations. Two systems in
efficiency (consistently treatcontaminants that
Arizona demonstrate the
ing to below the MCL) and
have serious health
need to consider these costs.
total adsorption capacity,
effects like arsenic
One system began the test
which resulted in signifithat may have
using an iron-impregnated
cantly lower life-cycle costs
coverage exclusion
activated alumina-based
when considering all factors
(AA) media as the media clauses in the liability such as frequency of media
policy.
of choice.
replacement, media costs,
While AA is low cost
transportation and disposal.
and does remove arsenic (V), the throughMedia pricing per cubic foot for the iron
put capacity is not nearly as high as other
media was higher, but the greatly longer
media. Therefore, multiple change-outs of
run length resulted in significantly lower
the product were needed over time, and
total O&M cost. This system has been in
the operating expense became too costly
operation since June 2004, with only a
to be a feasible option for the community.
single media replacement.
The AA media was subsequently replaced
with another, higher-capacity, iron-based
SCWS problems
media that had more than five times the
According to Dustin Hardwick of the
capacity.
California Rural Water Association, some
Activated alumina-based media,
small community water systems have
while suitable for a few applications,
been forced into receivership or closed
has only 10-15 percent of the capacity to
down and taken offline due to operational
Water Conditioning & Purification

Important questions
to ask a vendor when
choosing an arsenic
system
Feasibility
What are the water quality limitations
of this media/treatment technology?
Is my water quality a good match with
the capabilities of this treatment option?
What kind of pre-treatment is needed?
Can the technology reliably achieve less
than 10 ppb?
Is the technology likely to be permitted
(or has it been)?
Experience
Is the product commercially and readily
available?
How many installations or similar
systems does this company have
operating?
Does the media or process meet
certifications or standards such as
NSF/ANSI?
Are there other installations or case
studies with similar water profile
available for reference?
Is the technology proven, and can a
performance guarantee be provided?
Space, residuals, other
What are the space requirements to
house this equipment?
How flexible is the system? Easy to
update or add-on?
What type of waste streams and
quantities are associated with this
treatment? Hazardous waste?
Costs
What are the capital costs of this
treatment?
What are the typical O&M costs based
on the specific water profile? ($/1000
gallons for comparisons)
How much operator time will be required
to operate and maintain the system?
What warranties are offered?

December 2009

failures that put the health of the population in jeopardy. In some

cases, this has been due to operating costs that exceeded the
budget or special funding.
Owners may be unwilling or unable to raise the water rates
to cover the total expenses of the system, or simply unaware of
all of the costs. A small community in Californias Central Valley
is currently out of compliance because proper maintenance
and media replacement has not occurred as scheduled, placing
residents health at risk.
Driven by affordability issues, the community is facing
consequences of their MCL violation, including potential fines
from California DPH that can be as high as $3,000 (USD) per day,
when systems are out of compliance. In places like California, it
has also resulted in systems being forcibly merged with nearby
communities, which means original owners investment was lost
and the homeowner has to pay higher water rates.
A small community US EPA demonstration site in Texas,
successfully operating since 2006, is now non-compliant in 2009
because the media needs to be replaced and there is no money
escrowed in the communitys budget to accomplish it. Money
was not, unfortunately, set aside for this expense over the months
since the system was put into service, and loans or other financing
are not available for a consumable item like media.
Based on the expected lifetime of the media, the average
monthly operating cost per homeowner for media replacement
and maintenance was less than $20 per household. At the time of
the start-up, this extra cost was deemed by their board to be too
much to pass onto the systems one hundred customers.
A similar community in northern Illinois was able to avoid
this situation by amortizing the media replacement costs over
the life expectancy of that media. This amount has been added
to monthly billing rates since the system was brought on-line.
The extra money collected was set-aside in a special account for
when media has to be replaced.
Based on the 190 connections in the subdivision, an
assessment of approximately $7/month per connection was
figured to cover this ongoing incremental expense. When
properly planned, this cost is reasonable and affordable for the
average homeowner in the community.

Selection process

There are other issues to consider during the selection

process that are not directly related to costs, but will affect those
costs in the long run. The number of media providers for arsenic
treatment has decreased as some have gone out of business, or
the media have not proved effective over time.
As an example, certain ion exchange resins impregnated
with iron are no longer viewed acceptable by regulatory agencies
in some areas due to concerns about poor performance, odors,
arsenic leakage, changes in water chemistry or sudden release
of contaminants from the media. Others have simply proven to
be too expensive to operate, mostly due to lower capacity than
predicted.
This may mean higher media replacement costs and
equipment modifications. In some cases, the availability of grants
or other free money led owners to make quick decisions without
adequate due diligence on optional treatments.
Many community water systems have applied for stimulus
funds for new systems or for additional equipment to meet the
arsenic requirements. They have learned that much of this money
is in the form of low-interest loans or a combination of loans and
grants. That means the cost of the loan should be considered in
the total cost analysis.
It is also true that it is not as easy for small systems to obtain
this money as it is for larger municipal systems, so other sources
Water Conditioning & Purification

should also be considered. Part of the evaluation of funding must

be a consideration of what happens when that money runs out
and operational costs continue.

Experience and stability

An evaluation of the experience and stability of the treatment

system provider is a way to determine the proposed system is
the best available technology for the conditions at hand and
that the supplier will be there when media replacement is due.
Treatment system suppliers need to be very conscience of all costs
and maintenance schedules, and clearly communicate them in
their proposals.
Water treatment vendors for community water systems
should be aware of the costs in relation to a clients situation to
know when the costs will require a large rate increase to cover
them. Suppliers may offer alternate technologies or provide
assistance in finding funding sources.
Selecting a company with this experience is paramount to
navigating through this process. Selection of an engineer is also
critically important when dealing with regulatory agencies for
permits, doing pilot testing and reports when required, managing
site and building preparation and construction, and evaluating
treatment system proposals for the water system owner.
The lessons to be learned about the financial aspects when
choosing arsenic treatment water systems are critical to the
long-term success of any system. It is important to compare the
operating costs as well as capital costs of each technology.
According to the US EPA website, over 4,100 community and
non-community systems (schools, churches, factories) serving
up to 13 million people have arsenic levels above the maximum
contaminant level of 10 parts per billion arsenic. The budget
planning process for small water systems having less than 500
connections (which represents the majority of communities dealing
with this issue in the US) must include preventive-maintenance
expenses and media replacement costs,and have money set aside
for scheduled and unexpected events. Homeowners that are
served by these systems need to be aware of these issues so that
they (or their engineer, board or representatives) can select the
appropriate technology, make good business decisions, engage
with the system suppliers, and understand total life-cycle costs of
any new systems that are considered for their community. These
considerations will improve the long-term success of systems, the
owners, the residents and the suppliers.

About the author

S Beth Thomas is a Project Manager at AdEdge Technologies in Buford,

GA, a company specializing in design, development, manufacturing and
supply of technologies that remove contaminants from process or aqueous streams, including adsorbent-based products, coagulation/filtration,
oxidation/filtration, ion exchange and membrane filtration. She earned
a Bachelors Degree in science from Metropolitan State University in
Denver, CO where she majored in biology and chemistry.

Send Us Your Technical Articles

Your products and processes are being
used in new and unique applications
across the US and around the world.
Send us your white papers/case studies
and share the information with WC&P
readers! Be sure to include photos,
graphs, and all the datainquiring
minds want to know!

Contact Editorial
Call (520) 323-6144
or email:
Denise Roberts
droberts@wcponline.com

December 2009