Laserfiche WebLink
Feasibility Evaluation of the Arkansas Valley Pipeline <br />Water Works! Committee <br />June 2003 <br />pipeline would check continuously for chlorine residuals, as well as other important water <br />quality parameters. <br />The opinion of probable cost for the upstream central WTP is presented in Table 3.7 as <br />Scenario 1 and includes: <br />• A conventional water treatment plant with rapid-sand filtration <br />• Nominal purchase price for land <br />• Building, equipment, treatment units, chemical feed, electrical, and site preparation <br />• A 20 percent contingency and estimated costs for engineering and construction <br />observation <br />The capital cost fora 20 mgd WTP has historically approximated $1.00 per gallon of water <br />treatment capacity, which is considered typical for a conventional water treatment plant <br />employing rapid-sand filtration. This unit cost for treatment capacity is similar to the actual <br />project costs for the recently completed Sherard WTP in Cheyenne, Wyoming. <br />Annual operating costs, including chemicals, power, labor, equipment replacement, and <br />repair for this treatment plant option, are estimated at 5 percent of capital costs. <br />3.4.3 Options 2 and 3 -Local and Regional Water Treatment Plants <br />Our review of alternatives to a central water treatment plant concluded that there is not a <br />clear advantage for either local water treatment plants (Option 2) or regional treatment plants <br />(Option 3). Our evaluation included a survey of existing water treatment plants and a review <br />of planning reports prepared for some of the water providers. The use of regional water <br />treatment facilities could provide economy-of--scale benefits for construction and operation <br />and maintenance, while the use of local treatment plants would allow more flexibility in the <br />use of demand management to reduce the amount of Fry-Ark water required to be treated. <br />Site-specific capabilities and preferences related to water supply, water rights, and financing <br />will likely dictate whether local or regional water treatment plants are preferred. It is <br />possible that local water treatment would be preferred along one segment of the pipeline and <br />regional water treatment would be preferred for a separate segment of the pipeline. <br />The total costs (initial capital costs plus annual operation and maintenance) for local or <br />regional water treatment plants are estimated to be approximately equal to the costs for a <br />central water treatment plant. The economy-of--scale benefits for construction of a central <br />water treatment plant would be offset by the savings that could be realized if existing, local <br />treatment facilities are modified to serve as new treatment facilities for the pipeline. <br />Additionally, the operation and maintenance cost benefits of a central water treatment plant <br />33 <br />GEI Consultants, Inc. 01284 03-06-30 Feasibility Evaluation Final <br />