3-EPA
               United States
               Environmental Protection
               Agency
               Office of            Revised September 1979
               Water Program Operations (WH-547)  430/9-75-003
               Washington, D.C. 20460
               Water
Cost of Land
Treatment Systems
                                                  MCD-10

-------
                         DISCLAIMER STATEMENT

This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency

and approved for publication.  Approval does not signify that the

contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental

Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products

constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.  In this report there  '

is no attempt by EPA to evaluate the practices and methods reported.
                                 NOTES

To order this publication, MCD-10, "Cost of Land Treatment Systems,"
write to:
               General Services Administration (8BRC)
               Centralized Mailing List Services
               Building 41, Denver Federal Center
               Denver, Colorado  80225

Please indicate the MCD number and title of publication.
Multiple copies may be purchased from:

               National Technical Information Service
               Springfield, Virginia  22151

-------
EPA-430/9-75-003
                        Technical Report
            Cost of Land Treatment Systems
                                by

                         Sherwood C. Reed
                          Ronald W. Crjtes
                         Richard E. Thomas
                            Alan B. Hais
                             Revised
                          September 1979
                 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                  Office of Water Program Operations
                     Municipal Construction Division
                        Washington, DC 20460

-------

-------
                               ABSTRACT
     Cost information for planning is presented for the major land
treatment concepts including slow rate, rapid infiltration and overland
flow.  Cost categories include land, preapplication treatment, trans-
mission, storage, land application, and recovery of renovated water.
     Curves, tables and data are presented for cost components related
to either flow rate or field area.  Capital  costs are defined as
construction costs and other costs are divided into labor, materials,
and power where applicable.  In addition to the graphical presentations
equations are given for the land treatment cost components if greater
precision is desired.                                  "        '-
     Much of the cost information presented in this bulletin was first
issued in EPA 430/9-75-003  (MCD-10) dated June 1975.  Widespread use of
that document has confirmed the usefulness and accuracy of the infor-
mation presented therein.  There were 38 cost curves in the original
version  (Stage I plus Stage II).  This has been reduced, by deletion of
17 curves and addition of  5 completely new curves, to a total of 26 for
this report.  Other  changes and additions improve  the clarity and accuracy
of the curves.   In addition, an essentially new text has been prepared.
Actual construction  costs  were used  to modify or validate the cost curves
to the extent that they were available.
                                  in

-------
                           ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
     The original  version of this report was  written  under  Contract
68-01-0096 by Metcalf and Eddy Inc.  under the supervision of Mr.  F.  L.
Burton.  Authors were:  Mr. C. E. Pound, Mr.  R.  W.  Crites and D.  A.
Griffes with Dr. 6. Tchobanoglous a  contributing consultant.
Mr. Belford L. Seabrook was the project officer for EPA and was  assisted
in the review by an interagency work group.                               ;
     Dr. Y. Nakano of USA CRREL, Hanover, N.H. derived equations for the
graphical cost curves presented.in this report.  These equations
(Appendix A) can be used for a more precise determination of costs.
     Authors of this report were:
Sherwood Reed, Environmental Engineer, USA CRREL, on interagency assignment
to Office Water Program Operations (OWPO), US EPA.
Ronald Crites, Project Manager, Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.
Richard Thomas, Staff Scientist, Municipal Technology Branch (MTB), OWPO,
US EPA
Alan Hais,  Chief,  Municipal Technology  Branch, OWPO, US EPA

-------
                                CONTENTS
Section
1    INTRODUCTION
     Background
     Purpose,
 :  , .v.Ltmtta:ltipns , .  • • •-  , ^   _:.   ,    •••.
     Basis of Costs
;2,   :!LAND TREATMENT  SYSTEMS "     ;
     Introduction  .. -  -   .   -      .--
     Slow Rate Processes ...... ......
     Rapid  Infiltration
 ,.;.,  Qverland Flow .(    .t.,-..;^  .•      «--,-...
     Energy Considerations    ,    .    .  ,-.-
 3 '   .COST  CURVES •. ,:.  «    ,
     General Considerations
     Methodology
     Additional Costs'        .. ->
     Benefits:
     Cost  Curves
 4   SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
 APPENDICIES   .
 A    COST. EQUATIONS
 B    REVENUE  PRODUCING  BENEFITS
^C    NON REVENUE  PRODUCING BENEFITS
: D    REFERENCES
 E    COST  INDICIES AND  ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
 Page
  .. 1
   .1
   1.
'...
    4
  ,  4 ,
  ..,^
   11
  ..14i
   16
   21
   21
  .32
  ^36
   38
   40
   92
  108
  108
  118
  121
  123
  127

-------
                                FIGURES                                      :
No.                                                                         Page
 1.  Slow Rate Land Treatment                                                10
 2.  Rapid Infiltration                                                 '12
 3.  Overland Flow                                                        '15
 4.  Energy Requirements, Slow Rate vs Conventional  Treatment'                17
 5.  Energy Requirements, Rapid Infiltration vs Conventional Treatment        19
 6.  Energy Requirements, Over! and''Flow vs Conventional  Treatment	     19
 7.  Field Area Nomograph                                           '         23
 8.  Slow Rate - Relationship of Cost Curves                                 31
 9.  Rapid Infiltration - Relationship of Cost Curves              '          33
10.  Overland Flow - Relationship of Cost Curves                             34
11.  Preliminary Treatment - Screening and Grit Removal                       41
12.  Complete Mix Aeration Cell                                              43
13.  Partial Mix Aeration Pond                                               45
14.  Facultative Pond                                                        47
15.  Pumping                                                                 49
16.  Gravity Pipe              ,                                              51
17.  Open Channels                             "                              53
18.  Force Mains                                                             55
19.  Storage (.05 - 10 MG)                                                   57
20.  Storage (10 - 5,000 MG)                                                 59
21.  Site Clearing, Rough Grading                                            61
22.  Land Leveling for Surface Flooding                                      63
23.  Overland Flow Terrace Construction                                      65
                                     vi

-------
                          (Figures continued)
24.  Solid Set Sprinkling (Buried)
25.  Center Pivot Sprinkling
26.  Surface Flooding Using Border Strips
27.  Gated Pipe - Overland Flow or Ridge and Furrow Slow Rate
28.  Rapid Infiltration Basins
29.  Underdrains
30.  Tailwater Return
31.  .Runoff Collection for Overland Flow
32;  Recovery Wells
33.  Administrative and Laboratory Facilities
34.  Mo.nitpring Wells         ;
35.  Service Roads and Fencing
36.  Chlorination            ,
37.  Flow  Schematics for Sample Cost Calculations
 Page
   67
,  69
   71
   73,
   75
   77
   79
 . ,81
   83,
   85
-..... 87
   89
" • 91
  107,

-------
No.
  1.
  3.
  4.
  5.
  6.
E-l.
E-2.
E-3.
E-4.
E-5.
E-6.
E-7.
E-8.
E-9.
                          TABLES

Comparison of Design Features for Land Treatment
Processes
Comparison of Site Characteristics for Land Treatment
Processes
Expected Quality of Treated Water from Land Treatment
Guidance for Assessing Level of Preapplication Treatment
Total Annual Energy for Typical 1 mgd Systems
Sample Costs to Produce Crops in California
Sewage Treatment Plant Index
Sewer Construction Cost Index
Operation and Maintenance Cost Index
Cost Locality Factors
Power Cost Locality Factors
Materials Cost Index
Interest Formulas
Present Worth Factors (PWF)
Capital Recovery Factors (CRF)
Page
   6
   7
   8
  20
  39
 127
 128
 129
 130
 131
 132
 133
 134
 135

-------
                               Section 1
                           .-.INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
     This report is a revision of the Technical Report EPA 430/9-75-003,
with a similar title, published in June 1975.   A review was conducted,
during 1978, of selected construction grant project files and actual
construction cost data extracted.  In general, these limited data tend
to validate the accuracy of the cost curves in the 1975 report.
     Many of the original cost curves have been deleted, others  combined,
and some new ones drawn.  Essentially a completely new text has  been
written.  It reflects current EPA policy and guidance on land treatment
and presents a more clearly defined and somewhat simplified method for
estimating costs than the original 1975 report.
     Another revision and updating of this report will be undertaken
when the data base of actual costs from completed projects is more
extensive.  Until that time this report should be used in place of the
earlier version since only 10 of the original  38 cost curves are used
without change herein.  The other 16 cost curves in this report are
either completely new or a modification of the earlier version.
PURPOSE     .            ....•'."•
     The purpose of  this report  is to aid the planner and engineer in
evaluating monetary  costs .and benefits of land treatment systems.  The
three basic modes are slow rate  (formerly irrigation), rapid infiltra-
tion and overland flow.  Since November  1978  it has been mandatory
for any  facility plan under the  EPA  construction grants  program  to

-------
consider at least one slow rate and one rapid infiltration alternative  ,
while overland flow may be optional or mandatory, depending on regional
determinations.  Information on such determinations is available from
the EPA Regional offices.  Technical criteria for these alternatives are
specified in the "EPA Process Design Manual - Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater" (EPA 625/1-77-008).  This report is specified in the manual
as the source of cost data and estimating procedures.
SCOPE                  	                           •
     Cost curves, tables and other data are presented for estimating
capital and operation and maintenance costs for land application
systems, with information on revenue   producing benefits presented
in Appendix B.  The original report provided two sets of curves:
Stage I for preliminary screening of alternatives and Stage II for
detailed evaluation.  Experience with that report demonstrated that
the Stage II curves should be used in all situations.  As a result
only one set of curves are presented herein and these are based on
the original Stage II set.

LIMITATIONS
     The cost data cover average plant flow rates between 0.1 and
100 mgd although they are more applicable for flow rates between 0.5 and
50 mgd.    Systems with flow rates above or below these ranges generally
require special cost considerations.  For the general case it is expected
that the accuracy of the cost curves would be within about 15 percent of
the actual costs.  The design engineer should make adjustments where
necessary to reflect local conditions and site specific factors.

-------
 BASIS OF COSTS
? 4 ;  The original cost curves*were derivedI for a'base"date'of February
 T973.  Since many''of the'curves did not require  change they are re-'
 printed" directly'for this' report./'As a result the base date for all
 cost curves in this report remains"February 1973.  Recommended methods
 and cost indicies for updating the base costs are discussed in Section
 3 and. Appendix E.  These  indicies, allow,,updating of  both,.capital
 and other, costs  and ad jus tment for the general case  to ,a  specif tc,
 locality.  AS with the original version,  these :cost  curves are based
 on either the sewen .index or the  sewage treatment plant index, which^
 ever is most appropriate  for the  component of concern.  These,,ar,e
 clearly marked in the text  and the users  of..this report are  urged  .to,
 take special care to insure that  the  proper indicies and  .adjustment
 factors  are used. •          .   . .,-. .-,:.  ..  -,.^;  •    .<• t- •...-   , .-;..-• —•;? --;; •;
      The costs given in  this  report were  originally derived  from .
 published data,  surveys  of  existing  systems, consultation with
 construction  contractors, and hypothetical costs based on typical
 preliminary designs.   In preparation  for this revised version a survey
";;was  conducted of construction grant files in several TPA Regional
 Offices.  Completed projects and those in Step  III were examined  in
  detail  and unit'costs  for construction extracted;where available.
  Data from over 20 projects'were compiled and used as described pre-
  viously to validate or modify the basic cost curves.

-------
                               Section 2
                        LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS
INTRODUCTION
     This report defines the costs and monetary benefits of the three
basic land treatment modes:  slow rate, rapid infiltration and overland
flow.  Detailed planning and design information can be found in the
Land Treatment Process Design Manual (EPA 625/1-77-008).  A brief
descriptive summary of the three concepts is provided in this section
for information purposes, along with technical guidance which has been
developed since the design manual was published.
     Typical design features for the land treatment processes are
summarized in Table 1.  Important site characteristics for each pro-
cess are given in Table 2 and the expected quality of treated water
from each process is given in Table 3.  The criteria presented in
Tables 1 and 2 recognize the capability of the land treatment site
to serve as an active component in the treatment process and not as
just the final discharge or disposal point.  Unnecessarily stringent
preapplication treatment requirements usually result when the renovative
capabilities of the land treatment site are minimized or ignored.  Table
4 presents current EPA guidance for determining the level of preapplica-
tion treatment.  These treatment levels will be considered as grant
eligible for Federal EPA support without special justification on a case
by case basis.   These criteria recognize the treatment capacity of the
site and become increasingly stringent as public exposure and access
increases.  The process selection and cost analysis for preapplication
treatment should be done in accordance with the guidance in Table 4.

-------
CQ






•:;»' ',:*.



IO
ii I
CO

UJ
O. ; . •
|
Z
UJ
2^
H"*
UJ
o;
H-

Q
ZS '
t
"™*
ex;
p
lo-
co
UJ

— -i
1—

LLJ
Ll-
CS
i— i
CO
It!
a

• U. '
O
"Z..
o
co


CM


C
o

u

'o.
0.
«C
3 Ol
C 4->
c re
CC S.





0
s
CO






§
s





o

•*~
o
4_1

IO







vo
in
B
CM






g
in
o
in


•o
01
s-
3
cr
01
s. .
e.
*o
*O trt

d) i_
•r- O
lJu-fO






O
C\J
S
CNJ







eg
s
r"





0

O •—
o
in 4->
CM VO






O

o
^






' «*

">
C3

,
re •

•^"r"

1|

0.4->
^"3



0
o
T>
re
Primary.
sediment



0
•°

re
*j
1^
a. in




•a
c>—
10 re
0>Q
c E
'.c 2!
01 •!->

o si
i/> en



- c
Q

+J" '
3

II
!• 01
a. in



Ol -
c:
o
• S

II

C
o
4->
fO T3
o a> *'
•r- T3 t/1

Sola

OJ OLCO
L.
. E QJ *J

C QJ
•Ei-5
"• - ' 'o ;
"^
re
c cl
o in
••- 01 C
2I'B ;
o o
u jr o_
S- 4J IO
Ol -f- >
Q. s ai
. '
*o : :
1 »
re
o. c
in o **-
C-r- M-
re *J a
i£i §
o o s.
a. o
re t- -o
.> 01., C" .
LU o. re ' '
•a c
c o
re-rj
. 14^ re
t- s.
O-^
CO. C
3 in p

.: O JJ U) .1—
~re o - o
**-' O.JZ O
s- re +J i.
3 > t- Ol
y> 01 3f o-


,'.• : , ..


o
+3

•5'§- :•,.
is.
c
o
4-> C
«3 O
i. *r-
•r- 4->
C, O ,
03 :O
s- s-
4-> OJ
o ex
g-T, ,
> c •' •

'; *'., "'.'-,: '..-'
s.
, Ol "
+J

'O 01

c in
o re

i/> O.
5 re






. re
c
o
+J
o.
0' '•






•a
3
cr
&







•1
3
cr
cS






r_

s-

01
- • =











• o
f™*.
H-
_J
.00
CO
s.

'^. '
r—
a
cn
S .
r—

O
**~
in
0)
."Jf
•o
s-
«
in
-a
o

M
• IO
O- re
'«- s.
*J • 01

t- 3
ai -a

i- cn
o c
.O •!-
•o
, T3 3
C i—
re o

S- +J
s. o
«i
i in
• l-'C
re u
i re
S, c
•a i-

s. re

T3


re a






-,.,.-'..... ;



' • • , ,1 ~ , '"
_ ...


,.--•• . :; • , - r .







;;





•• .- ', : '.- •
• '-g"e
Ol O-

C "S

• a.
ii'i? ^
Ol re
+J -O 01
S iO 4-> i . i
S 'o •
4^ Ol T3 .
in in c
re re

: • c +•> - ' i '
•o re c
S -c S
8-.8-C • . •' •
s. cn n-
U IO Ol

01
t- >t- .e
o o *» •
o o o
+J - ^J '• • 01 ''••'-'•-
re re ' in
o o 3
i^ ,i— 01
o. a. .c • , re
O. OU .*> JC

s. il '§ u o

•a • co o
01 01 C CM •
cn cn 01 O il
c c a. n
. 10 , re « -ii 01

•r- it- re
o -0 .9 , — T-r-














>











1

.. • »


•


la
=5
CO

E
^3Y

C/)
O)



-------
CM

LU
_J
CQ
       CO
       LU
       co
       co
       LU
       o
       o
       CC
       CL.
       LU


       I
       LU
       o:


       o
       Q;
       CZ5
CO
o
       co
       o
       cC
       ce:
       o
       F-
       i—i
       00
       o
       co
       O
       CJ


Ol
CJ
tO

s_
CO 3
01 ' CO
CO -O
CO 3
Q) CO
O
e
Q.

j_
(U (/>
£ "2
O *O

4J
OJ
3=
S
o

1^^

T3
C
' ra

H

>.
o


in
QJ c:
CO O
in - •!-
03 +J
U 03
o t.

Q. r—


«3 C


c 5
•r- CL
t- ,(O
CL. o:












0)

to
s-

3
o

CO
CO
o
•r~
4->
CO
•r—
Ol

CJ
(O
I-

.C
O

"to
o

+J

J_
o

4J
O
sz

CO
CO
O)
1— •

>,»*
i— in

to cr
3 10
CO J=

CO
O>
CL
o

CO

t-* CO
CO ,
•i- O
C -U

tucvi
OJ
CO
CO J=
Ol CJ
CJ 3
X E
01
O)
•« I.
r— -r-
10 3
CJ CT
••- 01 ^4
+-> i. S-
•r- O
5- CO 3
CJ 01 J=
CL+J
+J 0 !-
O i — to

+J C
i — (O XI
3 J= 0)
CJ 4-> +->

C CO >
, O CO -f-
01 4-J

O 3
OJ •« CJ
XI C
CCO


+•> . C
X> O
CO O) XI
CO <-> S« C

_l > sf r—








0>
Q.
O

CO
XI
Q.
tO


O
+J

•s
o

CO





01
O 4J
+-> to
t.
3 01
O X)

CO &


CO O)

to C +J ,0.--^
1 	 IO T- fO CO
cj 3 O) i.
*— « E O)
co co £1 T-
3 +-> r— 01 i-
O r— V- CL t.
n- -r- 0 E (0
CO CO CO -i- J3


>j
E^
to
O


M
CO
XI

10
CO


XI CO
•r- X>
CL C
to to
C£. CO



o


3 T-
0 Q.
i — re
CO !~

^> ^">

Ol O)
+J +->
IO IO
l~ i-
01 O)
•a xi
o o
s: s
•r—
r— '
*^
IO
01
^
O)
Q.

i—

O
CO

IO
o
"r-


i.
U


0


r—
tO
CJ


'E
CJ


0
2:



CJ
•r-


S-
o

+J
o


CO Ol
^: f~
+J QJ

cu 3 co
XI T-
0)
1- r- O)
eu J3 cn
co to to
CO 4-> C
Ol OLT- ^-^
r- Ol 10 XI
- — U i. 01
U X) XI
+J 10 4- •!-
1-. O) >
0) X> O
O S- C S-
i — fO 3 O.


^— ^

3
E

c

'E


4J


CO

0


OJ



i.
Ol
4J
O tO

T3

^j 3
CL o
0) S-
C3 Ol








a>
c
o
2: j



IO
E XI
CU XI
Ol X! r- !- '
cn a) o 01
to 01 o jr
s- c +->
o I- to
4_> 0) O 0)
00 .0 1- 3
C '•
01 l-
4-> . CU
>*- I. J=
o o +->
CF- to. '
Ol Ol •
cnxi-3
to 0)
S- XI XI
O 01 r—
•4J 0) 0
CO C CJ

,J?
•r~ ' '
i XI
0 X)

o

r—

•r~ *r~
CO
CO C
O O-— ^
CLT-.S-
	 4-> CU
to ' j=
0) S- 4->
C CU tO
O CL 01
•Z. 0 3

XI X)
01 C
XI IO
Ol
OJ f.
C 01

C 4-> C
oj to o
4-> OJ -r-
•4- 3 -U
O to
X) 4J
OJ t— -r-
cn o CL
10 U -r-
S- CJ
O S- CU
+J O S-
CO H- CL


CO
C
o
CJ +J
•r- U
4-^ '!"
10 S-
E +->
•r-' CO
r— 0)
O S-































.-














































£
IT)
0
CO
0

II

•t_>
**-

.1— •
                                                                                     
-------








co
' UJ
CO
co
UJ
o
o
ex.
o.

i
p—
1 1 1
111
'S* '
p
5
UJ
a:
^"">
7~
1
in J
_.
SE?
oo a:
u_
i , i 'i
LJ.I HUM!
CD UJ en
-
h-
i—i
j
ii 1 1
s
Q
ni
.
i
UJ
o.
X
UJ




o
o

It

"]2
re

i_

o


3
,*^
X
re


cu
en
re
s-
cu
*^





J3
o
•r~
TD -P
•r- re
a. s_
re -P
•|M» .

c




^^
i
*r**
X
re
a>
en

»
cu
~ j*f
^^




Q)
^
O
CO


K
e
•r*
X
re
cu
en
re
cu






£
CU
t>
•^—
CO
s






If) O
i— CM
V V





O O







to to
V, V



CM CM






in if)
V V


CM i—
V V







t/1
•o
•r-

o
•o
cu
-o

cu
a.
Q CO
O 3
CQ co


CM
V




00
*
o







CM
V

in
*
o






CM
V


in
o
V




z

re
cu
en
o
•r-
c
re

g—
o
|


tn
V






co







O
CM
- V .


o






00
V


CO






. z:
co"
re
c
cu
en
o
•r-

p..
re
°


UD
V






**







m
V



•—





CO
CO
V


o
V




o.

CO
3
S-
o
Q.
O
Q.

,__
03
0

•
^—
•^
0

M—
O


E
LO
*
r"~


• "I-*
•*-
in

x:
en
o
j™
4_>
•p
c
a>
3

q_
CU
re
c
o

cu
CO
s-
o

>>
re
E,
*sZ
Q-
M-
O

O
•r-
re
o
cu
a_

re

r_
•r-
O
CO
4-
O

•""^

in
* ..
^^"
"*~*^
.

M-
in
r—

en
3
O
J^
•f«>
+J
- c
cu
3 .,
C
4—
CU
-o
0
o
O)
CO
, 0

£>
re
. E
s-
Q. .
0
'- C
o
•r-
-P
re
"o
s-
cu
. Q-

^
CU
a.
o
r^
CO
C|-
o

"^

in
*3*


-p


o
tn
t—

3
O
-Q
re

S-
cu
o

S-
cu
re
cu
W)
re
r—
re
a.
o
•r—
3
E
"O
f4
3
sz
•1—
o
o

4—
O
C|-
M-
O
c:
3
a:

o






























CO
3
C
re
s:.--
c
•r-'
CO
CU
a

c~
CO '

re"
cu
S-
f— .

•a
re
_i
UJ
o
• a:
o
co
.  r-.

-------
                                Table 4
       Guidance for Assessing Level of Preapplication Treatment*


I.   Slow-rate Systems (reference sources include Water Quality Criteria
     1972, EPA-R3-73-003, Water Quality Criteria EPA 1976, and various
     state guidelines).

     A.   Primary treatment - acceptable for isolated locations with
          restricted public access and when limited to crops not for
          direct human consumption.

     B.   Biological treatment by lagoons or inplant processes plus
          control of fecal coliform count to less than 1,000 MPN/100 ml
          acceptable for controlled agricultural irrigation except for
          human food crops to be eaten raw.

     C.   Biological treatment by lagoons or inplant processes with
          additional BOD or SS control as needed for aesthetics plus
          disinfection to log mean of 200/100 ml (EPA fecal coliform
          criteria for bathing waters) - acceptable for application in
          public access areas such as parks and golf courses.

II.  Rapid-infiltration Systems

     A.   Primary treatment - acceptable for isolated locations with
          restricted public access,

     B.   Biological treatment by lagoons or inplant processes - acceptable
          for urban locations with controlled public access.

III. Overland-flow Systems

     A.   Screening or comminution - acceptable for isolated sites with
          no public access.

     B.   Screening or comminution plus aeration to control odors during
          storage or application - acceptable for urban locations with
          no public access.
* From EPA Construction Grants Program Requirements Memorandum PRM 79-3,
  issued Nov. 15, 1978

-------
Slow Rate Process
     In several previous EPA reports slow rate land treatment was
referred to as irrigation.  The term slow rate land treatment is used
to focus attention on wastewater treatment rather than on irrigation
of crops.  However, in slow rate systems, vegetation is a critical com-
ponent for managing water and nutrients.  The applied wastewater is
treated as it  flows through the soil matrix, and a portion of the flow
percolates to  the groundwater.  Surface runoff of the applied water is
generally not  allowed.  Proper consideration of the need to provide
underdrainage  is a critical design  factor.  The importance of this con-
sideration cannot be  overemphasized for sites where subsoil or  shallow
geologic  conditions restrict  downward movement of water.  A schematic
view of  the  typical hydraulic pathway for  slow rate treatment is  shown
 in Figure 1   (a).  Typical  views  of slow rate land treatment  systems,
 using both  surface  and sprinkler  application  techniques, are  also shown
 in Figure l(b, c).  Surface application  includes  ridge-and-furrow and
 border strip flooding techniques.  The  term sprinkler application is
 correctly applied to  impact sprinklers  and the  term  spray  application
 should only be used to refer to fixed spray heads.   Slow rate-systems
 can be operated to achieve a number of objectives including:
      1.  Treatment of applied wastewater
      2.  Economic return from use of water and  nutrients to produce
          marketable crops (irrigation)             -
      3.  Water conservation, by replacing potable water with treated
          effluent, for irrigating  landscaped areas, such as golf courses
      4.  Preservation and enlargement of greenbelts and open space.
      For the  general  case, operation as a wastewater treatment system

-------
          FIGURE 1




   SLOW RATE LAND TREATMENT
                                 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
       PERCOLATION




 (a) HYDRAULIC  PATHWAY
(b) SURFACE DISTRIBUTION
  (c) SPRINKLER DISTRIBUTION
           10

-------
is the principal  objective.   Typical  final  effluent quality from a slow
rate system is given in Table 3.   A mechanical  process to achieve similar
quality might include activated sludge plus nitrogen removal plus
phosphous removal plus filtration plus granular carbon adsorption
plus disinfection.  Under favorable site conditions a slow rate system
can'achieve this quality at a cost less than that required for just
activated sludge and with very significant energy savings as shown
later in this section  (11, 39).  An activated sludge plant by itself
could not achieve effluent quality comparable to the slow rate process.

Rapi d Infi1trati on
      In  rapid infiltration land  treatment  (referred  to  in earlier EPA
reports  as infiltration-percolation), most of the  applied wastewater-
              "'•,../'.        .../..-.       .. ' .     \'
percolates   through'the .soil,  and  the treated effluent  if not recovered
eventually reaches  the groundwater.  The wastewater  is  applied  to;
rapidly  permeable soils,  such  as sands  and loamy  sands,, by  spreading  in
basins  or  by sprinkling,  and is  treated as it  travels through the soil
matrix.  'Vegetation is not usually used,  but there are  some exceptions.
      the schematic view in Figure 2(a)  shows the  typical hydraulic
 pathway for rapid infiltration.   A much greater portion of the applied
 wastewater percolates to the groundwater than with slow rate land
 treatment.  There is little or no consumptive use by plants and less
 evaporation.in proportion to the reduced surface area.
      In many cases, recovery of renovated water is an integral  part
 of the system.  This can be accomplished using underdrains or wells,
 as shown in Figure 2(b, c).
                                     11       -  ' .  '

-------
                  FIGURE  2

             RAPID  INFILTRATION

                     APPLIED
                   WASTEWATER
                                    EVAPORATION
                                   PERCOLATION
             (a)  HYDRAULIC PATHWAY
                        FLOODING BASINS
                                  PERCOLATION
                                 (UNSATURATED  ZONE)
(b) RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER  BY  UNDERDRAINS
                                                A   RECOVERED
                                                   WATER
                                  PERCOLATION
                               (UNSATURATED  ZONE)
(c)  RECOVERY  OF  RENOVATED WATER  BY  WELLS
                     12

-------
     The principal objective of rapid infiltration is wastewater
treatment.  Objectives for the treated water can include:        "
     1.  Groundwater recharge
     ~2:  Recovery of renovated water by wells or underdrainswith
         subsequent reuse or discharge
     3.  Recharge of-surface streams by natural interception of
         groundwater
     4.  Temporary storage of  renovated water  in the  aquifer.
 Final  effluent quality from  a  typical  rapid  infiltration system  is
 given  in Table 3.   In  the  general  case the nitrogen  content  in the
 percolate will not  always  be below the 10 mg/T drinking  water standard
 without special management practices.  In these situations  it is still
 possible to either  locate  the system over an aquifer not used for
 drinking purposes or to recover the percolate for surface reuse  or
 discharge.  A mechanical process to achieve  the,same quality as  defined
, in. Table 3 might include activated sludge,  nitrification and partial
 nitrogen removal, phosphorus removal, filtration, activated.carbon
 adsorption and disinfection.  Rapid infiltration is the most cost
 effective land treatment concept.  Even under somewhat unfavorable
 site  conditions a rapid infiltration system could produce the,quality
 cited in Table 3 at a lesser cost  than a conventional activated sludge
 plant.  The activated sludge plant by itself could not achieve  com-.
 parable effluent quality. ;Rapid  infiltration  is also the most  energy
 efficient land treatment'concept  as discussed  later  in  this section.
                                       13

-------
Overland Flow
     In overland flow land treatment, wastewater is applied over the
                                                       ••,.;•• v1"*       .      '
upper reaches of sloped terraces and allowed to flow across the
vegetated surface to runoff collection ditches.  The wastew.ater is
renovated by physical, chemical, and biological means as it flows in
a thin film down the relatively impermeable slope.  A schematic view
of overland flow treatment is shown in Figure 3(a), and a pictorial
view of a typical system is shown in Figure 3(b).  As shown in Figure
3(a), there is relatively little percolation involved either because
of an impermeable surface soil or a subsurface barrier to percolation.
Generally less than 20 percent of the applied liquid percolates, 20
percent or more is lost to evapotranspiration and approximately 60
percent or more appears as final effluent in the collection ditches.
Slopes range from 2 to 8% and from 100 to 200 feet wide in practice.
Hydraulic detehtion times under these conditions range from 20 to
45 minutes.
     Overland flow is a relatively new treatment process for municipal
wastewater in the United States.  There have been several research
efforts and pilot scale projects as well as a number of industrial
wastewater systems in various parts of the country.  As a result,
consideration of overland flow was made optional except for regionally
designated areas, rather than mandatory in EPA requirements for facility
planning.
     The objectives of overland flow are wastewater treatment and,
to a minor extent, crop production.  Treatment objectives may be

                                  14

-------
                       FIGURE 3


                      OVERLAND  FLOW
  APPLIED
WASTEWATER
                                       EVAPO'TRANSPiRAflON
GRASS AND
VEGETATIVE LITTER
                (a)  HYDRAULIC  PATHWAY
                           RUNOFF
                           COLLECTION
                           DITCH
       (b) PICTORIAL VIEW  OF SPRINKLER APPLI C:Al;lW;  -;




                         15

-------
either (1) to achieve secondary or better effluent quality from
screened and comminuted raw wastewater, or primary treated, or lagoon
treated wastewater, or (2) to achieve high levels of nitrogen and BOD
removals comparable to conventional advanced wastewater treatment from
secondary treated wastewater.  Treated water is collected at the toe of
the overland flow slopes and can be either reused or discharged to
surface water.  Overland flow can also be used for production of forage
grasses and the preservation of greenbelts and open space.
     Final effluent quality from a typical overland flow system is
given in Table 3.  If additional BOD, suspended solids, or phosphorus
removal are required the overland flow slope can be followed by rapid
infiltration in a combined system.  Chemical addition to precipitate
additional phosphorus on the slope has also been demonstrated in pilot
scale facilities.  A mechanical system to achieve the same effluent
quality as defined in Table 3 might include rotating biological con-
tactor, nitrogen removal, partial phosphorus removal, clarification and
disinfection.  Under favorable site conditions an overland flow system
could produce the specified effluent quality at a lesser cost than just
the biological component in the competing system (10, 11).  It is also
more energy efficient.  As shown in Table 4 screening or communition is
the only preapplication treatment required in many situations.

ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS
     Minimizing energy requirements is an increasingly important aspect
                                   16

-------
                        FIGURE 4
              ENERGY REQUIREMENTS *(12)
     SLOW RATE  VS  CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT
   7 -
   6 -
cc

I  6.J
to
o
—  4-
O
cc
LU
LU
   3H
   2-
    1 -
         ACTIVATED SLUDGE + AWT
         (N REMOVAL, P REMOVAL,
         FILTER, GAC, CHLORINE)
             1        2       3        4        5
                         PAPAQITY MGD
         * W/O BUILDING HEAT OR SECONDARY ENERGY FOR CHEMICALS
                            17

-------
of wastewater treatment facility planning.  It is possible to estimate
energy requirements for municipal wastewater systems using a recent
EPA report by Wesner, et al.  (39).  This consists of individual
                                                          v
curves for unit processes and operations and some selected process
comparisons.  For example the total annual energy for a 25 mgd slow
rate land treatment system is estimated at 12,433,000 kwh/yr while
an AWT system producing a comparable product would require an equivalent
of 86,919,000 kwh/yr.  These include primary energy for operation
of the systems as well as secondary energy for chemicals and fuel
all expressed as equivalent killowatt hours per year.  A related report
by Middlebrooks (12) discusses energy requirements for systems under 5
mgd, and compares land treatment concepts to a number of mechanical
systems.  The Wesner report (39) was the  basic data source for these
comparisons but Middlebrooks presents equations for all of the unit
processes so a more precise estimate of energy can be calculated.  The
estimated annual energy requirements for  a variety of treatment systems,
along with  their expected effluent quality are given in Table 5.  The
energy requirements of these basic land treatment modes are plotted on
Figures 4,  5 and 6 versus the energy required for a mechanical system
producing the same quality effluent.  These comparisons do not include
secondary energy for chemicals or  for building heat.  The slow rate curve
includes an allowance for pumping  to the  field and for adequate  line
pressure at the nozzle  (175 ft TDH), while the overland flow and  rapid
infiltration curves are  based on a TDH  of 10  ft. and 5 ft. respectively.
It is quite clear  from  these figures and  Table 5 that  land treatment
systems are the most energy efficient processes.
                                  18

-------
                     FIGURE 5
            ENERGY REQUIREMENTS *(12)
RAPID INFILTRATION VS CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT
           FACULTATIVE °™n 4-RAPID INFILTRATION
                     CAPACITY (MGD) '       ' •
       " W/0 BUILDING HEAT OR SECONDARY ENERGY FOR CHEMICALS
                       FIGURE 6
             ENERGY REQUIREMENTS *(12)
  OVERLAND FLOW VS CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT
 g 2-
                       CAPACITY (MGD! '
       * W/O BUILDING HEAT OR SECONDARY ENERGY FOR CHEMICALS
                           19

-------
                     Table 5              "

  Total  Annual Energy for Typical 1 mgd System
(electrical plus fuel, expressed as 1000 kwh/yr.) .[12]

Treatment system

Rapid infiltration (facultative pond)
Overland flow (facultative pond)
Facultative pond + interm. filter
Slow rate, ridge + furrow (fac. pond)
Facultative pond + microscreens
Aerated pond + interm. filter
Extended aeration + sludge drying
Extended aeration + interm. filter
Trickling filter + anaerobic digestion
RBC + anaerobic digestion
Trickling filter + gravity filtration
Trickling filter + N removal + filter
Activated sludge + anaerobic digestion
Activated sludge + an. dig. + filter
Activated sludge + nitrification + filter
Activated sludge + sludge incineration
Activated sludge + AWT
Physical chemical advanced secondary
Effl


BOD
5
5
15
1
30
15
20
15
30
30
20
20
20
15
15
20
<10
30
uent


SS
1
5
15
1
30
15
20
15
30
30
10
10
20
10
10
20
5
10
quality


P
2
5
-
0.1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
<1
1



N
10
3
10
3
15
20
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
-
-
<1
-
Energy
1000
kwh/yr
159
165
181
190
221
446
623
648
723
734
745
769
828
850
990
1,379
2,532
4,029
                    20

-------
                               Section 3
                              COST CURVES                          '
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
     The costs of land treatment systems have been grouped under 8
major categories which are common to all. systems.  These are:
     Preapplication Treatment
     Transmission
     Storage
     Pumping                                                .
     Field Preparation                                  ,    ;   • •
     Distribution
     Recovery  :                        .    •      ,  ,         -..: :     ,
     Additional Factors                     ,
     The 26 separate cost curves are grouped under these 8 categories
in a sequence that can vary with the treatment mode and site conditions.
The curves present c'apital and operation;:and maintenance costs of the
component of concern in terms of the most applicable parameter such as
storage volume, flow rate or field area.; A summary of assumptions,
                '         :    '    "    . -' f   ''•                ..'"','
conditions, and adjustment factors are also given for each curve..
 .    Once the cost of each component has been estimated it should
be updated using the appropriate index (Tables E-l, E-2) and adjusted
if necessary or desired for a particular location.  To obtain total
costs it is then necessary to include land costs and salvage values
as well as revenues, if any, from sale of crops and/or recovered water.
                                21

-------
Necessary factors for computing amortized costs or total  present
worth are given in Appendix E.  A sample calculation is also included
in Section 4 to demonstrate the step-by-step procedures.
Land
     The cost of land, by purchase or lease, can be a significant
portion of the total cost of the system.  The total land requirements
may include:
     Preapplication treatment site
     storage ponds
     field area
     buildings, roads and ditches
     future expansion
     buffer zones
     All of these components may not be necessary for a particular
system nor are they all eligible for federal funding under the EPA
Construction Grant Program.  All components that are applicable to
a particular system, whether grant eligible or not, should be in-
cluded in the analysis of total costs.  This should be based on a
specific plot of land and a preliminary layout of the system.  The
prevailing market price for land can be determined from a local
source such as the tax assessor or certified land appraisers.  Current
information on eligibility of land for federal funding is available
from all of the EPA Regional Offices.
Field Area
     The field area is that portion of the land treatment site to
which wastewater is actually applied, including the necessary dikes,

                                 22

-------
                             WNI  '31VH  NOIiVOMddV
1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ 1 -I 1 1 1 1 1 1- 1 1 1
n o \ 10 01
M CM \ •• «—
S5I33M '3NI1 9NllVU3dONON
•-' ' \ ..-".."••
\ ;
:."• •'••:. 1
\ .
- . ••- ; - \
\-
.
:; ^ ;; ; : •' - ' \ , -.\ '
' 1 1 1 1 1 i i — i — i 	 1 1 1 1 i i i — i — r~ \jiiiii i r
- '"O 0 0 0 ,00
o, ca CD ca o in .
CD o o in »-^
o* : « - S3HOV '¥3aV QiaiJ
| i . i i i |
n o
I •. ' • ! - -.'' V
- ' '-'*- "
•< : ' u
,..!=.•?,'.• £
• ".. •• je=. • • -- ^
= :i:- : g
" '. UI M
•.••."• » i O
* 2 " ^ 2
.z .". S uj
' to . a. .. fy-
^ ~J C3 B "5
eo a. z * : G
u> a. o uj
UJ
- ••' u.
— i 1 1 1 1 i i i i r^ I uj
1 DC
o in , «~ ^
2
u.
                                               \
                                               \
                                    3NI1 lOAId
                           TT~T—i—i—i—r—:—r
                                                       i i  i  i—i—i	1	r
i  i i  i—i—i	1	r
                                Q3H  'M01J N9IS3D
                                         23

-------
ditches, and berms.  Area requirements are based on the design
application rate which in turn is based on type of system,  soil  type,
climate, and other site conditions.   The land treatment design  manual
should be used to determine field area requirements.  The field area  for
the system is eligible for funding under the EPA Construction Grant
Program.  An estimate of field area can be obtained using Figure 7.

Buffer Zones
     Buffer zones are sometimes desirable for aesthetic purposes to
screen operations from the public.  Extensive buffer zones are  not
considered an effective method to contain aerosols or other potential
contaminants.  Pathogens can be reduced to acceptable levels via deten-
tion time in a storage pond and aerosols can be controlled via
selection of equipment and proper operational  management.  Buffer zones
of reasonable dimensions are eligible for funding under the EPA
Construction Grant Program.
Buildings,  Preapplication Treatment and Storage Jfonds
     Land required for these elements is not eligible for funding under
the  EPA Construction  Grant Program, with one exception.  In many
situations  it is  possible to use  a pond for preapplication treatment in
combination with  storage.  Under  these conditions  the  land required is
grant  eligible  as described in current EPA guidance on  eligibility of
land aquisition.   The Construction Grant  Program  staff  in the  EPA
Regional Offices  should  be contacted  for  this  information.
                                  24

-------
Salvage Value of Land
     Unlike other treatment components,  the land is assumed  to  have  a
salvage value at the end of the design life.  In addition, current EPA
guidance allows a credit for the appreciation in value of the land
during the design life of the system.   Using the rate of 3 percent per
year which became effective with issuance of revised regulations in
September 1978, the future salvage value would be:

     Salvage Value = Presej*FPr1ce

     PWF - Present Worth Factor =
                                  (1 + i)'
     for 3%, 20 years =
                        (1.03).
                              20
                      = .5537

     Salvage Value = (1.806)(Present Price)

     The present worth of this salvage value is based on the prevailing
 interest rate, not the 3 percent appreciation rate.  Information on
 any change in the appreciation rate will be available from EPA
 Regional Offices.
                                  25

-------
    Present Worth = (Salvage Value)(PWF)
    Assuming prevailing interest rate of 7% with 20 year life.

    PWF  (7%, 20 yr) =  .2584  (see Appendix E, Table E-8)

    Present Worth =  (.467)(Present Price)

    The  actual cost  of the land is then:
    Actual  Cost  = Present Price - Present Worth of Salvage Value
                 =  (.533)( Present Price)

     It is this cost  that  should be  included  in the analysis when
alternatives are  being compared.  However,  it is the  present price of
the land that is  grant eligible.  These  calculations  will  be demon-
strated for a specific example in Section  4.

Leasing of Land
     Leasing of land is permitted  under the EPA guidance and it is to  be
encouraged in many situations.  It is particularly applicable  for  the
slow rate process in existing agricultural  communities.  The costs for
the leases, of grant eligible lands, are eligible for funding  under  the
EPA Construction Grants Program.  A single payment is usually  made at
the start of the project  for the entire lease period.  This payment  is
equal  to the present worth of the annual cost for the lease over the
life of  the project:
     Cost of Lease = AnnualMtost

     CRF =  Capital Recovery  Factor (see Appendix E)
                                    26

-------
Preappli cati on Treatment
     It is beyond the scope of this report to include cost information
on all. the possible preappli cati on treatment systems. , To obtai.n  .
these costs, other publications should be consulted  (19, 36).  Cost
curves for various types of pond systems and for preliminary treatment
(i.e. screening, grit removal) are included since'in the general.case
these are the most cost effective way to achieve the preapplication
treatment levels given in Table 4.  Costs for disinfection using
                               • f -•-, •-" '.',''•---..-•••- t ''' ," ,  .  .  -    - - ' '
chlorine are also given since  some project objectives may require
chemical disinfection. 'Cost curves for primary  treatment are not given
since these costs are strongly dependent on the  siudge;management and ,
disposal operations selected..  The reference sources-cited above.should
be used to estimate the cost of primary treatment...  ,  .-^  .        ....   .
     The levels of preapplication  treatment listed in Table  4 are usually
appropriate for the project objectives described.   If more stringent
levels  are  imposed on a project they may not be  eligible for funding
under the EPA Construction Grant  Program.
     Experience has shown that significant renovation does occur  in
land treatment storage ponds.   This  includes reductions  in not  only
BOD and suspended solids but also  pathogens and  nitrogen.   It  is
possible  to design a pond as a combined treatment/storage  unit  and
    '- ••  '•••-•-  '-: ' '<<  	 :  , •:'  ••>•.••  • ,: :.::,  ,. ;/  '. .t ' •' '" • - , '  -  ,  " ;  , , .   ~  '  .......
still maintaih eligibility  of  land acquisition  under the Construction
Grant Program.   It is recommended that the top  3 feet  in a deep pond
be  considered  as  the treatment zone.   The  required storage time is
fixed by  the  land  treatment system because of  climate,  harvest  periods,
                                   2-7

-------
etc., as described in the design manual.  The renovative performance
to be expected in the treatment zone, during the specified detention
time, can be calculated using the conventional design equations for
facultative ponds.  For the general case, approximately 30 days
detention time, under summer conditions, will satisfy the 1000/100 ml
fecal coliform count listed in Table 4.  In some situations preliminary
aeration may be desirable for odor control or partial BOD reduction.
Costs for such a  unit can be obtained by assuming an aeration time
qf 2 to 6 hours and adjusting the  values from Figure 12 - Complete
Mix Aeration Cell.  It is recommended that treatment/storage ponds
be divided into at least three cells to control short circuiting and
thereby insure proper treatment  and die-off of bacteria and virus.

Additional Costs
     The category of  "Additional Costs" consists of  8 components,
and  cost curves are presented for  3 of  these.  The costs  for the
remaining components  are not readily presented by means of curves;
therefore, other  methods of cost computation  are described in  the
text that follows the curves.

Capital  Cost Curves
      A curve or  group of curves  is presented for each component which
represents  the total  capital  cost  to  the  owner,  including an allowance
for the contractor's  overhead  and  profit.   The  curves do  not include
 allowances  for contingencies,  administration, or engineering,  however.
      Each  of the costs  is  related  to either the  "EPA Sewer Construction
 Cost Index"  or the  "EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction  Cost  Index"

                                   28

-------
for February 1973.   For many components,  neither of these indicies
directly applies, in which case the index used is the one which is
considered to be the most applicable.  Capital costs read from the
curves should be trended by means of the specified index or other
method to reflect current costs for a particular locality.  Current
values for both indicies are published monthly in the Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation, and quarterly in the Engineering
News Record.
     For some components, a group of curves is presented that shows
a range of costs for some secondary parameter.  For example, a group
of  curves corresponding to  a range of depths  of cover is included for
"Gravity Pipe"  (Figure  16).  In  several other cases, additional curves are
included for significant  subcomponents or.auxiliary costs, as  in the
case of "Force  Mains"  (Figure  18), where  an, additional  curve, is included
for the cost of repaying.
Operation and Maintenance Cost Curves
      Operation  and maintenance costs are  divided,  where applicable,
 into  three  curves  or groups of curves:   labor,  power, and materials.
 They  are  each  expressed in terms of dollars per unit per year.
      The  labor cost is the estimated .annual cost for operating.and
 maintaining that component by  members  of the staff, and includes
 administration and supervision.  It is.based on an average staff labor
 rate, including fringe benefits, of $5.00 per hour and  may be adjusted
 to reflect actual  average rates when significant differences exist.
                                  29

-------
     The power cost is the estimated annual  cost for electrical  power
required to operate the particular component based on a unit cost of
$0.02 per kilowatt-hour.  It should be adjusted to reflect actual  unit
costs due to inflation.  The unit cost for power should be the same for
all treatment alternatives considered unless different rate schedules
exist.  For several components a group of power cost curves are shown
for a range of pumping heads.
     The materials cost is the estimated annual cost for normal
supplies, repair parts, and contracted repair or maintenance services.
An equivalent annual cost based on the sinking fund factor for an
interest rate of 5-5/8 percent is included for those materials costs
which are not incurred annually.

Wholesale Price Index
     The Wholesale Price Index for Industrial Comodities, which may be
used for trending the materials cost, was 120.0 for February 1973.

Detailed Information Relating to Cost Curves
Basis of Costs
     A summary of the bases of costs for which the curves were derived
is included on the upper portion of the left-hand page for each component.
These bases normally include:  (1) the selected construction cost index
for February 1973, (2) the average labor rate, and (3) the power cost.

Assumptions
     A list of assumptions concerning basic design features, and factors
either included in the costs or excluded, is presented on the left-
hand page for each component.  Generally it reflects typical designs
                                   30

-------
                                                                   >
                                                                   cc
                                                                   tn
                                                                   o
                                                                   o
                                                                   UJ



                                                                   >-
                                                                   cc
                                                                   3

                                                                   C9
31

-------
of each  component with  average conditions.   In many cases adjustment
factors  are  included  for assumptions involving important design         «
parameters that  are highly variable.
Adjustment Factors
     Adjustment  factors are included for many components to account
for significant  variation in designs.  These factors should be multiplied
by the cost  from the  indicated curve to obtain the adjusted cost.
For example, if  the adjustment factor for labor costs were 1.1, and the
labor cost for a given  field area were $1,000 per acre per year, then
adjusted labor cost would be $1,100 per acre per year.
Metric Conversion
     Metric  conversion factors are given for those parameters which
appear in the cost curves.

METHODOLOGY
     Flow charts that demonstrate the relationship of the component
cost curves  are  shown in Figures 8, 9 and 10.  A separate flow chart
is presented for each of the three land treatment concepts.   It is
usually necessary to include only one pathway in each of the major
categories to determine which components are to be considered in a
particular cost analysis.   The exception is the "Additional  Factors"
category where all  components are normally included in the analysis.
The disinfection component is shown as  an optional  item for special
cases in slow rate and overland flow systems.  The costs  for "Other"
                                  32

-------
                                                    te
                                                    O
                                                    cc
                                                    =

                                                    C9
33

-------
                                      1
34

-------
preapplication treatments must be obtained from the references previously
cited (36, 19).  The costs for combined systems,.(i.e.  overland flow   ,
followed by rapid infiltration) should be obtained by selecting components
from the two flow charts rather than repeating both sets.   The following
procedure is recommended for use of the cost curves and related in-
formation;
     1.  Identify applicable component cost curves from study of   ''
         flow charts.
     2.  List components in logical sequence and determine capital
         and other costs from curves.
     3.  Update component costs with applicable indicies and adjustment
         factors, to the time period desired.
     4.  Determine the additional costs and benefits, if any, for
         those factors not covered by curves:
          Planting, cultivating, harvesting
          Yardwork
          Relocation of residents
          Purchase of water rights
          Service and interest factors.
Some data on these additional costs can be found at the end of this
Section.             .
     5.  Operation and maintenance costs are subdivided where applicable
          in three categories:  labor, power and materials.  These three
          categories can  be updated using current labor and power rates
          and the WPI or  a quick estimate determined by adding the values
          from  the cost curve .and applying the overall O&M cost index   i
          given in Table  E-3.
                                    35

-------
ADDITIONAL COSTS
     The following components are not readily presented by means of
curves.  Alternative means of cost estimation are therefore discussed.
                                                                    t
Planting, Cultivation, and Harvesting
     Annual agricultural costs will generally be quite variable, de-
pending on the type of crop or vegetation grown and various local
conditions.  Costs should normally be determined from local sources;
however, as an aid, sample costs to produce crops in California are
given in Table 6. .  Similar cost information is available in most
states through local cooperative extension services or from land grant
universities.

Yardwork
     Yardwork includes a variety of miscellaneous items.  For con-
ventional treatment systems, these items would generally include:
General site clearing and grading, intercomponent piping, wiring,
lighting, control structures, conduits, manholes, parking, sidewalk
and road paving, landscaping and local fencing.  The suggested costs
for these items are (19):  (1) capital cost, 14 percent of total
construction cost; and (2) annual operation and maintenance cost,
$1,500 to $4,000 per mgd for labor and $80 to $400 per mgd for
materials.  These cost allowances are suggested for land application
systems if applied only to the cost of preapplication treatment
components when something other than ponds are used for preapplication
treatment.

                                 36

-------
Relocation of Residents
     The purchases of large quantities of land will often require
that some residents be relocated.  If the project is to be federally
funded, this must be conducted in accordance with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
The cost of relocation, which can be significant, should be estimated
on the basis of local conditions.  Assistance in estimating this
cost can often be obtained from  agencies which must frequently deal
with this problem, such as the U.S. Army. Corps of Engineers, the
Department of Transportation and State  highway agencies.

Purchase o'f'Water Rights                 '•               -
      In many cases,  particularly in the western  states,  the consumptive
use  of water may  require  the purchase of water rights.   This may be
either a  capital  or  annual  cost  and should  generally  be  determined
on the basis of prevailing  local practices.

 Service  and Interest Factor                             v      .    .-.
      A service and interest factor must be applied to the  capital,.cost
 of the system to account for the additional  cost of items  such  as:
      Contingencies
      Engineering
      Legal, fiscal, and administrative
      Interest during construction
      Generally, the cost for these items ranges from 35 percent of
 the nonland total construction  cost for $50,000 projects, to about
 25 percent for $100 million projects.                           .
                                   37

-------
BENEFITS (NEGATIVE COSTS)
     Benefits that may furnish revenue for land application systems
include the sale of crops grown, the sale of renovated,water the leasing
of land for secondary uses such as recreation.  Monetary or revenue-
producing benefits are discussed more fully in Appendix B,  and possible
nonrevenue producing benefits (social or environmental  factors)  are
described in Appendix C.
     Typically, an irrigation or overland flow treatment system would
have an economic benefit from the sale of the crop grown.
     Prices and crop yields will vary with the locality and should
be determined from local sources.  Data is available in most states
through local cooperative extension services or the land grant
universities.
                                   38

-------
                      Table 6 — SAMPLE  COSTS  TO  PRODUCE  CROPS  IN CALIFORNIA FOR 1979 [24]

E ected
Croo • _ i i
r yield, 	 :
per acre
Labor
Perennials
Alfalfa ' . "
hay 8.5 ton 40
Alfafa, ,' ' '
**r*f*A ^nn IK ______
seed ouu ID. _—_--_
^Clover, k
seed 3.5 cwt° 20
Pasture 10 aumc 80
Annuals
Bar! ey 1.5 tons 1 5
Corn,
silage 25 tons 40
Cotton 9 cwt 60
Grain
sorghum 50 cwt 50
C
Cultural cost

repairs

18 115 35

1 1 f\
.

'5 150 25
60 25 80d

55 30 50

15 100 30
, 20 125 60

25 80 50
lost, $/acre

Cash
Harvest over- Rent
head

150 25 155

cc ic • Tin
»J3 t %J 1 1 \J

no 120 100
20 "" 100 •

25 15 .65.

17 15 100
150 35 110

40 15 120



Management

25

15
1 •_*

20
10

.8 . .

'. 25 '-•-•
25

1.5



Total

563
>
305
«JU«J

550
375

263

342
585

395

Cost
per
unit
of
yield,
, t

66.24/ ton

1 02/lb
1 • \JC,/ I U t

157. 14/ cwt
37.50/aum

175. 337 ton

13.687ton
65. 007 cwt

7. 907 cwt
Note:  Expected yield -  Yields  attainable  under  good management.  Usually above average for the major producing area.
       Labor cost - Includes wages,  transportation," housing,  and  fringe benefits for farm workers.
       Fuel  and repairs  - Includes fuel, oil,  lubrication  plus  repairs  (parts and labor) of farm equipment.
       Material - Includes seed, fertilizer, water or  power,  spray, machine work hired, and other costs not included
                  in labor or fuel and repairs.
       Equipment overhead - Depreciation,  interest, property  taxes.
       Harvest - Total cost of harvest up  to  receiving payment  for  product.
       Cash overhead - Office, accounting, legal, interest on operating capital, and other costs of management.
       Rent - Actual rent or cost of taxes, interest on investment,  and depreciation of fixed  facilities if land
               is owned.              .     .           '
       Management - Usually calculated at 5 percent of the gross  income.
a.   Custom operations.                                                                                           ,•
b.   cwt =  100  Ib.
c.   aum =  animal unit months or forage eaten by one 1,000-lb cow in one  month.
d.   Includes  crop  stand.                          •    .     '
 Metric  conversion:
                     Ib  *  2.2  =  kg
                    acres x 0.405 = ha
                                                              39

-------
                        PREAPPLICATION  TREATMENT


     Preliminary Treatment -  Screening  and  Grit Removal  (Figure 11)


      The cost curves are developed  for a sequence  of bar  screens, grit
 chamber, and flow meter.

 Basis of Costs

      1.    EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction  Cost  Index = 177.5

      2.    Labor rate including fringe  benefits = $5.00/hr

 Assumptions

      1.    Capital  costs include flow channels and  superstructure, bar
racks, grinders (for screenings),  grit  chambers, grit handling equipment,
 and Parshall  flume with flow recording equipment.
                                                   o
      2.    Volume of screenings assumed to^be 1-3 ft /mgd  of flow and
 grit (including ground  screenings)  2-5 ft  /mgd.

      3.    The cost of grit disposal is not included in  the capital or
 0 & M costs.

 Metric Conversion

      1.   mgd X 43.8 = L/sec

 Sources

      EPA 430/9-75-002,  "A Guide to  the Selection of Cost  Effective
 Wastewater Treatment Systems"  [36]
                                     40

-------
   10,000
SS   1,000
C/5
o
o
_J
<
H;
Z
<
                                     FLOW, WIGD
 DC
 tn
 o
 u
    20,000
    10,000
     1,000
       300
                                        OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
                                                                      100
                                      FLOW, MGD


                                     FIGURE  11

                     PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT - PRELIMINARY

                    TREATMENT, SCREENING AND GRIT REMOVAL
                                        41

-------
                  PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT
           COMPLETE MIX AERATION CELL (Figure 12)

Basis of Costs
1.   EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index = 177.5
2.   Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
3.   Electrical power cost = $0.02/kwh
Assumptions
1.   Average detention time 1 day
2.   15-ft (4.6 m) water depth
3.   Complete mix = 100 hp/million gallons
4.   High speed surface aerators
5.   Capital cost includes
     a.   Excavation, embankment and lining of cell  with asphalt
     b.   Service road and fencing
     c.   Hydraulic control works
     d.   Aeration and electrical equipment
Adjustment Factor
     For detention times less than 1 day, multiply by 0.3 + 0.7 (-Jr)
     h = detention time in hours.
Metric Conversion
1.   mgd X 43.8 = I/sec.
Sources
     Derived from previously published information [19] and cost calculations
based on a seri.es of typical designs.
                                  42

-------
10,000
CO
z
s
o
JE 1,000
<»
CAPITAL COST
«A
O .-,:
o • -
10








^^^
**^ :































































































^




















- *
0









Ct
^m

	 • .y^






=F=
ftPIT
•B








AL
S

^







C(
B

•^







)S1
m

X '







r
•
,

















1 10 100
              FLOW, MGD
                 OPERATION & tJl AINTE NANCE COST
                                             100
               FLOW, MGD
FIGURE 12. COMPLETE MIX AERATION CELL
                 43

-------
                       PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT
                PARTIAL MIX - AERATION POND (Figure 13)
Basis of Cost
1.   EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index = 177.5
2.   Labor Rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr
3.   Electrical power cost = $0.02/kwh
Assumptions
1.   Average detention time 3 days
2.   10 ft (3.05 M) water depth
3.   Partial mix for aerobic surface = 10 hp/million gallons
4.   High speed surface aerators
5.   Capital cost includes
     a.   Excavation, embankment from native material
     b.   9 in (22.8 cm) rip rap on slope of dike                    ;
     c.   12 ft (3.7 m) service roads
     d.   Fencing, hydraulic control works
     e.   Aeration and electrical  equipment
6.   Capital cost does not include land
Adjustment Factors                                          '         '.
1.   Costs increase with detention time;  for 7 days  multiply by 1.5,
     for 15 days multiply by 2.8
2.   For asphalt liner add $9,800  per mgd
Sources
     Derived from previously published information [19]  and cost calculations
based on a series of typical  designs.
                                   44

-------
  10,000
CO
Q
z
35  1,000
o
X
co

8

<

a!
<
U
100
        0.1
30,000
10,000
L COST, S/MGD/YR
o
o
o
§
<
100
30
., : ,P
-i '






.1
.








^•S


















__ ^ Ji





•"^r
LABOR '



1
OP
*^





ER



' ^


AT

'^




ION!

^




& MAINTENANCE COSrlH
POWE


- MATER

10
R/
»--,

IALS

1

-«5^
4
I












100
                                      FLOW, MGD
                     FIGURE 13. PARTIAL MIX AERATION POND
                                      45

-------
                       PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT
                     FACULTATIVE POND (Figure 14)
Basis of Cost
1.   EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index = 177.5
2.   Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr
Assumptions
1.   Average detention time 30 days
2.   5 ft (1.53m) water depth
3.   No mechanical mixing or aeration
4.   Capital cost includes
     a.   Excavation, embankment from native material,  inside slopes  3:1,
          outside slopes 2:1, 3 ft (0.9m) free board.
     b.   9 in (22.8cm) of riprap on inside slope of dike
     c.   12 ft (3.7m) service roads
     d.   Fencing, hydraulic control works
5.   Capital cost does not include land
Adjustment Factors
1.   Costs increase with detention time; for 50 days multiply by  1.7,
     for 10 days multiply by 0.5.
2.   Costs decrease with depth; for 6 ft multiply by 0.8, for 4 ft
     multiply by 1.3 (30 day detention)
3.   For asphalt liner add $176,000 per mgd
Sources
     Derived from previously published information [19] and  cost
calculations based on a series of typical designs.
                                    46

-------
    10,000
M
Q
o
8
 a.
•3
     1,000
      100
       10
         0.1
1                    10

     FLOW, MGD
                                                                       100
     30,000
     10,000
 K


 I
 o
 CO

 8
 _I

 3

 Z
      1,000
                                       OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
       100
                       FIGURE 14.   FACULTATIVE POND
                                      47

-------
                               PUMPING

          PUMPING FACILITIES - RAW SEWAGE OR PREAPPLICATION
         TREATMENT EFFLUENT OR FINAL DISTRIBUTION (Figure 15)
Basis of Costs

1.   EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index = 177.5

2.   Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr

3.   Electrical power cost = $0.02/kwh

Assumptions

1.   Capital and power cost curves given for various total heads in feet.

2.   Capital costs are related to peak flow in mgd.  Operation and
     maintenance costs are related to average flow.

3.   Capital cost includes:

     a.   Fully enclosed wet well/dry well type structure

     b.   Pumping equipment with standby facilities

     c.   Piping and valves within structure

     d.   Controls and electrical work

4.   Labor cost includes operation, preventive maintenance, and minor
     repairs.

5.   Materials cost includes repair work performed by outside contractor
     and replacement of parts.

Adjustment Factors

1.   For structures built into dike of ponds, with continuously cleaned
     water screens and other elements as described in 3. above; multiply
     by the following factor.
          peak flow  (mgd)
            0.1 - 1.0
            1.0-10
            10  - 100
Factor
 .70
 .80
 .86
 2.   The  peak flow for distribution pumping is the maximum rate determined
     by system design.  It is not the peak rate for raw sewage flow in the
     municipality.

3.   The annual  labor and power costs  should be adjusted in proportion to
     the actual  number of days per year that pumping  occurs.

                                    48

-------
  5,000
o
u
Q.
g
  1,000
   100
                                                          ,
                                                        TOTAL HEAD I
                                                        IN FLEET
                           1                    10

                              PEAK FLOW, MGD
                                                                   100
 100,000
                                   OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
      0.1
                                                                   100
                             AVERAGE FLOW, MGD
                          FIGURE 15.  PUMPING
                                    49

-------
                        TRANSMISSION
GRAVITY PIPE (Figure 16)
Cost curves are given for gravity pipe that may be of use for any
applicable segment of the system, such as for conveying (1)  waste-
water from the collection area to preapplication treatment
facilities, (2) treated water from existing treatment facilities
to the land application site, or (3) recovered renovated water from
the land application site to a discharge point.
Basis of Costs
1.   EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2.   Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1.   Curves given for various depths of cover over crown of pipe
     in feet.
2.   Moderately wet soil conditions.
3.   All excavation in earth.
4.   Capital cost includes:
     a.   Pipe and fittings
     b.   Excavation
     c.   Laying and jointing
     d.   Select imported bedding and initial backfill
     e.   Subsequent backfill of native material
     f.   Manholes
     g.   Testing and cleanup
5.   Labor cost includes periodic inspection of line.
6.   Materials cost includes periodic cleaning by contractor.
Note:  For cost of repaving see Figure 18 "Force Mains."
ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
1.   SOIL CONDITIONS (CAPITAL COST):  FROM APPROXIMATELY 0.80
     FOR DRY TO APPROXIMATELY 1.20 FOR WET CONDITIONS.
Metric Conversion
1.   tn. x 2.54 = cm
2.   ft x 0.305 = m
Sources
Derived from previously published information [6].
                                      50

-------
     500
J    100
      1 0
                 DEPTHS OF  COVER IN FEET
                                      1 0



                               PIPE  SIZE, INCHES
                                                                    1 00
     100
<
•o.
      1 0
                                   OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
                                                                    ro o
                               PIPE SIZE, INCHES
                       FIGURE 16.  GRAVITY PIPE
                                    51

-------
                             TRANSMISSION


OPEN CHANNELS (Figure 17)

Cost curves are given for open channels that may be of use for, any
applicable segment of the system, such as for conveying (1)  wastewater
from the collection area to preapplication treatment facilities,  (2)
treated water from existing treatment facilities to the land.application
site, op (3) recovered renovated water from the land application  site
to a discharge point.                                  .  ...   ..

Basis of Costs

1.   EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.

2.   Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.

Assumptions

1.   Stable soil, predominantly flat terrain.

2.   Capital cost includes:

     a.   Slip-formed concrete-lined trapezoidal ditches with 1:1 side
          slopes           '
     b.   Earth berm
     c.   Simple drop structure every 1/2 mile (805 m)

3.   Labor cost includes periodic inspection, cleaning, and minor repair
     work,

4.   Materials cost includes major repair or ditch relining after 10 yr
     by contractor.                                                  \.

ADJUSTMENT FACTOR                                                    ".
                                                                      i
1.   IRREGULAR TERRAIN  (CAPITAL COST): 1.10 to 1.40.

Metric Conversion

1.   ft x 0.305 = m                                	

Sources_

Derived from cost calculations based on a series of  typical designs.
Unit costs based on price quotes from an  irrigation  contractor.
                                     52

-------
too

 '•
                                          z
                                1 0
                        CHANNEL PERIMETER,  FT
                                                             100
I 00
                             OPERATION & MAIHTEHAHCE COST]
                HATER IALS
 1 0
                                     LAIOR
                                10
                        CHANNEL PERIMETER,  FT
                                                             100
                    FIGURE 17. OPEN CHANNELS
                               53

-------
                             TRANSMISSION
FORCE MAINS (Figure 18)

Cost curves are given for force mains that may be of use for any
applicable segment of the system, such as for conveying (1)  wastewater
from the collection area to preapplication treatment facilities, (2)
treated water from existing treatment facilities to the land application
site, or (3) recovered renovated water from the land application site to
a discharge point.

Basis of Costs

1.   EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index =194.2.               '        ,

2.   Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.                 ;•"

Assumptions                                               ,           '

1.   Depth of cover over crown of pipe, 4 to 5 ft (1.2 to 1.5 m).

2.   Moderately wet soil conditions.

3.   AH excavation in earth.

4.   Capital cost includes:

     a.   Pipe and fittings
     b.   Excavation
     c.   Laying and jointing
     d.   Select  imported bedding and initial  backfill
     e.   Subsequent backfill of native material            '   '
     f.   Testing and cleanup

5.   Repaying cost included as separate curve.

6.   Materials cost includes periodic cleaning by contractor.

Note:  These curves should be used in conjunction with those in  Figure 14,
       Pumping.                                     -

ADJUSTMENT FACTOR

1.   SOIL CONDITIONS (CAPITAL COST): FROM APPROXIMATELY 0.80 FOR DRY  TO
     APPROXIMATELY 1.20 FOR WET CONDITIONS.

Metric Conversion

1.   in. x 2.54 = cm

2.   ft. x 0.305 = m

Sources

Derived from previously published information  [6].

                                      54

-------
   1 .000
     1 00
01
o
u     10
FORCE .MAINS-
                                      10
                               PIPE  SIZE,  INCHES
                                                                   1 00
     I 00
                                   OPERATIOH &  MAIHTEHANCE COST
                                   TIT
                                            MATERIALS
                                      10
                                PIPE SIZE.  INCHES
                                                                   1 00
                           FIGURE 18.  FORCE MAINS
                                    55

-------
STORAGE (0.05-10 MILLION GALLONS)  (Figure 19)

Basis of Costs

1.   EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.

2.   Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.

Assumptions

1.   Dikes formed from native excavated material.

2.   Inside slope of dike, 3:1; outside slope,  2:1.   12 ft (3.7  m)  wide
     dike crest.

3.   5-ft (1.5 m) depth of reservoirs less than 1  mil  gal.  (3,790  cu  m),
     increasing to 12-ft (3.7 m) depth of reservoirs  greater than 10 mil
     gal.  (37,900 cu m).

4.   3-ft (0.9 m) freeboard.

5.   Rectangular reservoir on level  ground.

6.   Cost of lining given for asphaltic lining  of entire inside  area of
     reservoir.  Must be added to reservoir construction curve to obtain
     cost of a lined reservoir.  For other types of lining see adjustment
     factors.  Unit cost of asphaltic lining $0.225/sq ft.

7.   Cost of embankment protection given for 9  in. (22.8 cm) of  riprap on
     inside slope of dike.

8.   Labor cost includes maintenance of dike.

9.   Materials cost includes bottom scraping and patching of lining by
     contractor after 10 yr.

Note:     The design and cost of storage reservoirs may be highly
          variable and will depend on the type  of terrain, type  of  earth
          material encountered, and other factors.  If the expected design
          differs significantly from the one summarized above, a cost
          estimate should be arrived at independently.

ADJUSTMENT FACTOR

1.   FOR LININGS OTHER THAN ASPHALTIC MEMBRANE:

     A.   BENTONITE - 0.86
     B.   PVC (10 MIL) WITH SOIL BLANKET - 1.21 '
     C.   SOIL CEMENT - 1.21
     D.   PETROMAT -1.24
     E.   BUTYL NEOPRENE  (30 MIL) - 1.97
     F.   LOCAL CLAY, SHORT HAUL DISTANCE - 0.65

Metric  Conversion

1.   mil gal. x 3,790 = cu m

Sources

Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical designs.
                                     56

-------
   1 .000
    1 00
     t 0
      0.4
      0.01
                            EMBANKMENT PROTECTION
          RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTION
                            0.1                    1
                         STORAGE VOLUME, MILLION GALLONS
   4. 000
   1 .009
at
o
      10
       0.01
                          MATERIALS
                                          	II
                                    OPERATION &  MAINTENANCE COST
                                                LABOR
                            0.1                   1
                         STORAGE VOLUME, MILLION GALLONS
               FIGURE 19. STORAGE (0.05-10 MILLION GALLONS)
                                  57

-------
                                STORAGE


STORAGE (10-5,000 MILLION GALLONS)  (Figure 20)

Basis of Costs

1.   EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.

2.   Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.

Assumptions

1.   Dikes formed from native excavated material.

2.   Inside slope of dike, 3:1; outside slope,  2:1.   12-ft (3.7 m)
     wide dike crest.

3.   12-ft (3.7 m) depth of reservoir with 3-ft (0.9 m)  freeboard.

4.   Rectangular reservoir on level ground.

5.   Reservoirs greater than 50 acres (20 ha) divided into multiple cells.

6.   Cost of lining given for asphaltic lining  of entire inside area of
     reservoir.  Must be added to reservoir construction curve to obtain
     cost of a lined reservoir.  For other types of lining see adjustment
     factors.  Unit cost of asphaltic lining $0.225/sq.  ft.

7.   Cost of embankment protection given for 9 in. (22.8 cm)  of riprap
     on inside slope of dike.

8.   Labor cost includes maintenance of dike.

9.   Materials cost includes bottom scraping and patching of lining by
     contractor after 10 yr.

Note:     The design and cost of storage reservoirs may be highly variable
          and will depend on the type of terrain, type of earch material
          encountered, and other factors.  If the expected design differs
          significantly from the one summarized above, a cost estimate must
          normally be arrived at independently.

ADJUSTMENT FACTOR

1.   FOR LININGS OTHER THAN ASPHALTIC MEMBRANE:

     A.   BENTONITE - 0.86
     B.   PVC (10 MIL) WITH SOIL BLANKET - 1.21
     C.   SOIL CEMENT - 1.21
     D.   PETROMAT -1.24
     E.   BUTYL NEOPRENE  (30 MIL) - 1.97
     F.   LOCAL CLAY, SHORT HAUL DISTANCE - 0.65

Metric Conversion

Sources
 Derived  from cost calculations based on a series of typical designs.
                                     58

-------
40,000
10,000
 t , 000
   100
    to
      to
                           LINING
                                           EMBANKMENT PROTECTION
                            I   I  I  I  I
                         \CAP1TAL  COSTl
 100                t,0 0 D
STORAGE VOLUME,'MILLION  GALLONS
                                                               10,000
   100
                                 OPERATION  & MAINTENANCE COST
   0 .4
                         too                i, ooo
                        STORAGE VOLUME, MILLION  GALLONS
                                                               t 0,000
            FIGURE 20. STORAGE (10-5, 000 MILLIONS GALLONS)
                                 59

-------
                          FIELD PREPARATION

SITE CLEARING, ROUGH GRADING (Figure 21)
Basis of costs
1.   EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index =  194.2.
Assumptions
1.   Heavily wooded—fields cleared and grubbed, includes rough grading.
2.   Brush and trees—mostly brush with few trees.   Cleared using
     bull dozer-type equipment, includes rough grading.
3.   Grass only—abandoned farmland requiring disking only.
4.   No capital return included for value of wood removed from site.
5.   All debris disposed of onsite.
Note:     In actual practice site conditions will be quite variable,  and
          interpolation between curves may be required.
ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
1.   DEBRIS DISPOSED OFFSITE: 1.8 TO 2.2.
2.   ROUGH GRADING OF OPEN FIELDS WITH SOME BRUSH,  USING BULLDOZER TYPE
     EQUIPMENT, MULTIPLY GRASS ONLY VALUE BY 8.
Metric Conversion
1.   acre x 0.405 = ha
Sources
Based on a survey of actual construction costs for existing systems.
                                      60

-------
100,000
 t a.
  1 ,000
    I 00

     10
     0.1
                HEAVILY WOODED:
                          i j ij
               X
IHlb
        10
             21
                                        -TOTAL

                                         BRUSH  AND  TREES:
                                                     X
                                               3RASS ONLY
   too                   1000

        FIELD  AREA, ACRES
                                                                     10.000
                 FIGURE 21. SITE CLEARING, ROUGH GRADING
                                      61

-------
                          FIELD PREPARATION


LAND LEVELING FOR SURFACE FLOODING (Figure 22)

Basis of Costs

1.   EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.

Assumptions

1.   Land previously cleared and rough leveled.

2.   Curves given for volumes of cut of 200, 500, 750 cy/acre
     (945 and 1,418 cu m/ha).

3.   Costs include:

     a.   Surveying
     b.   Earthmoving
     c.   Finish grading
     d.   Ripping two ways
     e.   Disking  ,
     f.   Landplanning
     g.   Equipment mobilization

4.   Clay loam soil.

Note:     In many cases, 200 cy/acre is sufficient, while the curve for,
          750 represents conditions requiring considerable earthmoving.
          The curves should generally be used in conjunction with those
          in Figure 21, "Field Preparation-Site  Clearing," and either
          Figure 26 "Distribution-Surface Flooding Using Border Strips,"
          or Figure 27, "Distribution-Gated Pipe."

ADJUSTMENT FACTOR

1.   VOLUME OF CUT: 0.2 + 0.016C WHERE C = VOLUME OF CUT, CY/ACRE.
     COST BASED ON 500 CY/ACRE CURVE.

Metric Conversion

1.   acre x 0.405 = ha
2.   cy/acre x 1.89 = cu m/ha

Sources

Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical  designs and
consultation, with the California Agricultural Extension, Service.
                                  62

-------
  10,000
   1,000
CO

o
fc
o
u
_l
<


51
         10
100                 1,000



    FIELD AREA, ACRES
                                                                  10,000
                                    FIGURE  22,


                     LAND LEVELING FOR SURFACE FLOODING
                                      63

-------
                          FIELD PREPARATION


OVERLAND FLOW TERRACE CONSTRUCTION (Figure 23)

Basis of Costs

1.   EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.

Assumptions

1.   Land previously cleared and rough leveled.

2.   Curves given for volumes of cut of 1,000 and 1,400 cy/acre (1,890
     and 2,646 cu m/ha).

3.   Costs include:

     a.   Surveying
     b.   Earthmoving
     c.   Finish grading
     d.   Ripping two ways
     e.   Disking
     f.   Landplanning
     g.   Equipment mobilization

4.   Clay soil with only nominal amount of hardpan.

5.   Final  slopes of 2.5%.

Note:     A cut of 500 cy/acre would correspond to nominal  construction
          on pre-existing slopes.   A cut of 500 cy/acre would correspond
          to terraces of approximately 150 foot (49.2m) width with a
          slope of 2.0% from initially level  ground, while  a cut of
          1,400 cy/acre would correspond to terraces of approximately
          250-foot (76.2m) width and 2.5% slope.   The curves should
          generally be used in conjunction with those in Figure 21, Site
          Clearing, and Figure 24,  Solid Set or Figure 27 Gated Pipe.

Adjustment Factor

1.   Volumes of cut: 0.2 + Q.0008C  where C = volume  of cut, cy/acre.
     Cost based on 1,000 cy/acre curve.

Metric Conversion

1.   acre x 0.405 = ha

2.   cy/acre x 1.89 = cu m/ha

Sources

Derived, from cost calculations based on a series  of  typical  designs.
                                   64

-------
40,000
10,000
CO
a


|

a
z





te
o
u
 1,000
   100
    10
      10
                                   VOLUMES OF

                               	CUT CY/ACRE
                   —44-
                         I
                                                       -X

                                                       A
                             100                  1,000


                                 FiELD AREA, ACRES




                                    FIGURE 23.


                    OVERLAND FLOW TERRACE CONSTRUCTION

                                                               10,000
                                 65

-------
                              DISTRIBUTION


 SOLID SET SPRINKLING (BURIED)  - Slow Rate and Overland  Flow  (Figure  24)

 Basis of Costs

 1.    EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index  =  194.2.
 2.    Labor rate including fringe benefits =  $5.00/hr.

 Assumptions - Slow Rate
 1.

 2.
 3.
 4.
 5.
 6.

 7.
     Lateral spacing, 100 ft  (30.5m).  Sprinkler spacing, 80 ft (24.4m)
     along  laterals.  5.4 sprinklers/acre (13.3 sprinklers/ha).
     Application rate 0.20 in./hr (0.51 cm/hr).
     16.5 gpm  (1.04 I/sec) flow to sprinklers at 70 psi (4.9 kg/sq cm).
     Flow to laterals controlled by hydraulically operated automatic valves,
     Laterals  buried 18 in. (46 cm).  Mainlines buried 36 in. (91  cm).
     All pipe  4 in. (10 cm) diam and smaller is PVC.  All larger pipe is
     asbestos  cement.
     Materials cost includes replacement of sprinklers and air compressors
     for valve controls after 10 yr.
Adjustment  Factors - Slow Rate
           Item
                              Capital cost
Labor
Materials
1.
2.
Irregular-shaped fields
Sprinkler spacing
1.15 to 1.30
0.68 + 0.06S 0.65 + 0.065S
0.1 + 0.1 7S
       S = Sprinklers/acre.

Assumptions - Overland Flow

1.   Terraces 250 ft (760m) wide and previously leveled to 2.5% slope.
2.   Application rate over field area 0.064 in.hr (0.16 cm/hr).
3.   13-gpm (0.83 I/sec) flow to sprinklers at 50 psi (3.5 kg/sq,cm).
     Laterals 70 ft (21.3m) from top of terrace.
     Flow to laterals controlled by hydraulically operated automatic valves,
     Same as 5, 6, 7, above.
4.
5.
6.
Adjustment Factors - Overland Flow
          Item
                              Capital  cost
Labor
Materials
1.   Irregular-shaped fields  1.15 to 1.30
2.   Terrace width            1.5 - 0.002T
                                              1.75  - 0.003T   2.5 - 0.006T
Note:  T = terrace width, ft.
                                     66

-------
10,000
                                              OVERLAND FLOW (OF)
                                            100
                                    FIELD AREA, ACRES
1,000
10,000
                                         OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
                               100                1,000
                                     FIELD AREA, ACRES

                      FIGURE 24.  SOLID SET SPRINKLING (BURIED)
     10,000
                                            67

-------
                             DISTRIBUTION
CENTER PIVOT SPRINKLING (Figure 25)
Basis of Costs
1.   EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2.   Labor rate including fringe benefits - $5.00/hr.
3.   Electrical power cost = $0.02/kwh.
Assumptions
1.   Heavy-duty center pivot rig with electric drive.
2.   Multiple units for field areas over.40 acres (16.2 ha).  Maximum
     area per unit, 132 acres (53.4 ha).
3.   Distribution pipe buried 36 in.  (91  cm).
4.   Materials cost includes minor repair parts and major overhaul  of
     center pivot rigs after 10 yr.
5.   Power cost based on 3.5 days/wk operation of each rig.
6.   Pumping and force main costs should be derived from Figures 15 and
     18.
7.   Center pivot sprinklers are normally used on slow rate  systems only.
8.   The force main requirements must include both the distance from the
     pond to the field area as well as a header pipe on site to connect
     each rig.  A distribution pipe from this main pipe to the center
     pivot connection is included in the cost curve (item 3  above).
Sources
Derived from a survey of existing systems  and cost calculations based
on a series of typical designs.
                                  68

-------
 20.000

 to.ooo
  I .'000
     10
        10
                           100                 1.000
                              FIELD AREA.  ACRES
                                                                 10.000
Ul
CJ

-------
                             DISTRIBUTION
 SURFACE  FLOODING USING  BORDER STRIPS  (Figure 26)
 Basis  of Costs
 1.   EPA Sewer Construction Cost  Index = 194.2.
 2.   Labor  rate including fringe  benefits = $5.00/hr.
 Assumptions
 1.   Border strips 40 ft (12 m) wide and 1,150 ft (350 m) long.
 2,   Concrete-lined trapezoidal distribution ditches with 2 slide gates
     per strip.
 3.   Rectangular-shaped fields previously leveled to a slope of approxi-
     mately 0.4%.                                                •
 4.   Clay loam soil.
 5.   Continuous operation for large systems and 5 days/wk for systems
     smaller than 50 acres (20 ha).
 6.   Materials cost includes rebordering every 2 yr and major relining
     of  ditches after 10 yr.
 Note: A  flatter slope or more permeable soil condition would require a
      reduction in strip length.
 Adjustment Factors
          Item
Capital  cost
Labor and materials
1.   Irregular-shaped fields
2.   Strip length
1.15 to 1.30
2.4 - 0.0012L
1.10 to 1.20
1.8 - 0.0007L
Note:L = length of border strip, ft.~
Metric Conversion
1.   acre x 0.405 = ha
2.   ft x 0.305 = m
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series  of typical  designs.
                                    70

-------
10.000
 I .ODD
   too
    10
      10
                         I   '   I I  II
                        CAPITAL COST\
                                                           -t-H-
100                1,000

    FIELD AREA, ACRES
                                                             10.000
   BOO
    i oo
                                 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COS1
                         100                 1,000


                             FIELD AREA,  ACRES
                                                              10.000
         FIGURE 26. SURFACE FLOODING USING BORDER STRIPS
                                 71

-------
                              DISTRIBUTION

 GATED PIPE - Overland Flow or Ridge and Furrow,  Slow Rate (Figure 27)
 Basis of Costs
 1.   EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
 2.   Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
 Assumptions
 1.   Gated aluminum pipe distribution with outlets  on  40-in.   (102 cm)
      centers.
 2.   Gated pipe spacing  based on 1,200-ft (366 m) long  furrows for ridge
      and furrow systems.  Adjustment factors  below  for  other  lengths and
      for overland flow.
 3.   Rectangular-shaped  fields previously constructed  to  finished grade
      (Figures  17, 18,  or 19)
 4.   Loam soils.
 5.   Continuous operation for large  systems and  partial operation for
      systems smaller than 50  acres  (20  ha).
 6.   Materials  cost includes  replacement  of gated pipe  after  10 yr.
 7.   Cost of furrows included in  planting  and harvesting.
 Note:  A flatter  slope or more permeable  soil condition would require a
       reduction  in  furrow  length.   Overland Flow slopes are  usually
       limited  to a  few  hundred feet in length.
 Adjustment Factors  - Ridge  and Furrow
          Item
1.   Irregular-shaped fields
2.   Furrow length
Capital cost
1.10 to 1.25
2.2 - 0.001L
                                                       Labor and materials
   1.10 to 1.20
   2.44 - 0.0012L
Note: L = length of furrow
Adjustment Factors - Overland flow
          Item
Capital cost
1.   Irregular-shaped fields
2.   Terrace width
Note:T = width of terrace
1.15 to 1.30
2.20 - .0024T
   Labor
                                                                 Materials
1.50 - .004T  1.50-.004T
                                        72

-------
 10,000
  1 .000
    100
     10
       10
                                                  CAPITAL COST
                          too
                                                               10.911
                              FIELD AREA, ACRES
   1.000
H."   100
CO
o
u
                                  OPERATI ON & MAINTENANCE  COST
                          100                1,000

                              FIELD AREA. ACRES
                                                               10,000
            FIGURE 27.  GATED PIPE-OVERLAND FLOW OR RIDGE
                        AND FURROW SLOW RATE
                                  73

-------
                             DISTRIBUTION                          '•.

RAPID INFILTRATION BASINS (Figure 28)
Basis of Costs
1.   EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2.   Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1.   Multiple unit infiltration basins with 4-ft (1.22 m) dike (a
     minimum of 2 basins for all cases, maximum site of individual
     basin 20 acres).
2.   Dikes formed from native excavated material.
3.   Inside slope of dike 3:1; outside slope, 2:1.   6-ft (1.83 m) wide
     dike crest.
4.   Deep sandy soil.
5.   Materials cost includes annual  rototilling of infiltration surface
     and major repair of dikes after 10 yr.
6.   Includes inlet and outlet systems, control valves, etc.
7.   The cost of gravity pipes or force mains to reach the site and
     to serve as a header pipe connecting sets of basins should be
     determined from Figure 16 or 18.
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical  designs.
                                74

-------
   I.000
v,  1,000
     100
      to
                            10                  100
                                FIELD AREA.  ACRES
                                                                  1,000
    i .000
 •-   too
 co
 o
 ta .
                                    OPERATION & MAINTENAHCE  COST
                            10                  100
                               FIELD AREA. ACRES
                                                                  ' 1.000
                 FIGURE 28.   RAPID INFILTRATION BASINS
                                      75

-------
                      RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER

UNDERDRAINS (Figure 29)
Basis of Costs
1.   EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2.   Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1.   Costs given for spacings of 100 and 400 ft  (30 and 122 m)  between
     drain pipes.
2.   Capital cost includes:
     a.   Drain pipes buried 6 to 8 ft (1.8 to 2.4 m).
     b.   Interception ditch along length of field
     c.   Weir for control of discharge
3.   Labor cost includes inspection and unclogging of  drain pipes  at
     outlets.
4.   Materials cost includes high pressure jet cleaning of drain pipes
     every 5 yr, annual cleaning of interceptor  ditch,  and major repair
     of ditches after 10 yr.
Note:   Spacings as small as 100 ft may be required for clayey  soils; a
        400-ft spacing is typical for sandy soil  conditions.
Metric Conversion
1.   ft x 0.305 = m
2.   mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series  of typical  designs.
                                  76

-------
20, 000
10.000

S-*
V)
o
3 i.ooo
0
z
*-
*»
H-
CO
a
o
< too
»-
a.
•<
o
10
!i





























X
X"













X

X





s
u






x"








PA
Nt





,,









CIN
IERD





"2. -


X






G BETWEE
RAINS IN




X
	 -^
,x^
^x







N '
FEE



X











T,


,/

/






-.;.





^


k











^,



x





-t-
— i —


— i— -
^4^ S



X








c^



*-1'
^X

S
10



^







P/T


x












41

X













c
^


x











Of



x











>7































   1 0
100                1,000
   FIELD AREA, ACRES
                                                           10,000
200
1 00
                              OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
                          FIELD AREA. AtiRES
                  FIGURE 29.  UNDERDRAINS
                                                           10,000
                              77

-------
                     RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER


TAILWATER RETURN (Figure 30)

Basis of Costs

1.   EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.

2.   Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.

3.   Electrical power cost = $0.02/kwh.

Assumptions

1.   Costs are given versus flow of recovered water.

2.   Capital cost includes:

     a.   Drainage collection ditches
     b.   Pumpi.ng station forebay, 1/3 acre (0.14 ha).
     c.   Pumping station with shelter and multiple pumps
     d.   Piping to nearest point of distribution mainline (200 ft or 61  m)

3.   Materials cost includes major repair of pumping station after 10 yr.

Note.     Generally, the flow of recovered water can be expected to be 10
          to 40 percent (an average would be 20 percent) of the flow of
          applied water, depending on soil conditions, application rate,
          slope, and type of crop or vegetation.  This range is based on
          irrigation practice where water is plentiful and soil-water
          quality conditions may dictate excess water application.  Should
          return piping lengths be significantly more than 200 ft (61 m),
          to the nearest distribution main, the additional costs could be
          Obtained from Figure 18, "Transmission-Force Mains."

Metric Conversion

1.   mgd x 43.8 = I/sec

Sources

Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical designs.
                                   78

-------
CO
o
u
       0.01
 0.1                   1
FLOW  OF RECOVERED WATER. MGD
  so.at*
  10,000
   1.000
     too
      80
                                   OPERATION & MAINTENANCE  COST
        0.01
 O.I                  1
FLOW OF RECOVERED WATER, MGD
                       FIGURE 30. TAILWATER RETURN
                                    79

-------
                     RECOVERY OF RENOVATED  WATER


RUNOFF COLLECTION FOR OVERLAND FLOW (Figure 31)

Costs are given for overland flow runoff collection  by  both  open  ditch
and gravity pipe.

Basis of Costs

1.   EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.

2.   Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.

Assumptions

1.   Cost of lateral collection ditches along bottom of terrace is
     included in Figure 23 - "Field Preparation-Overland Flow Terrace
     Construction."
     Open Ditches:

     a.

     b.
     c.
     d.
Network of unlined interception ditches sized for a  2-in./hr
storm
Culverts under service roads
Concrete drop structures at 1,000-ft (305 m)  intervals
Materials cost includes biannual  cleaning of  ditches with
major repair after 10 yr.
3.   Gravity Pipe:

     a.   Network of gravity pipe interceptors with inlet/manholes
          every 250 ft (76.3 m) along submains
     b.   Storm runoff is allowed to pond at inlets
     c.   Each inlet/manhole serves 1,000 (305 m) of collection ditch
     d.   Manholes every 500 ft along interceptor mains
     e.   Operation and maintenance cost includes periodic cleaning of
          inlets and normal maintenance of gravity pipe

Note:  Open ditches should be used where possible.  Gravity pipe systems
       may be required when unstable soil conditions are encountered, or
       when flow velocities are erosive.

Metric Conversion

1.   acre x 0.405 = ha

Sources

Derived  from cost calculations based on a series of typical designs.
                                  80

-------
20.000

10,000
 1 ,000
   100
    10
      10
             GRAVITY PIPE  SYSTEM:
                          J	1	1—MIL
                                        OPEN DITCH  SYSTEM
100                 1.000
   FIELD AREA.  ACRES
                                                              10.000
   1 00
   0. 4
                                 OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
      10
                         100                1.000
                            FIELD AREA.  ACRES
                                      1 0, 000
       FIGURE 31. RUNOFF COLLECTION FOR OVERLAND FLOW
                                81

-------
                      RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER

RECOVERY WELLS (Figure 32)
Basis of Costs
1.   EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index = 177.5.
2.   Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
3.   Electrical power cost = $0.02/kwh.
Assumptions
1.   Capital and power cost curves given for well depths of 50 and 100 ft
     (15 and 30 m).
2.   Total head equal to well depth.
3.   Capital cost includes:
     a.   Gravel-packed wells
     b.   Vertical turbine pumps
     c.   Simple shelter over each well
     d.   Controls and electrical work
4.   Labor cost includes operation, preventive maintenance, and minor
     repairs.
5.   Materials cost  includes repair work performed by outside contractor
     and replacement of parts.
Note:  The costs do  not include any piping away from the well.  The cost
       of discharge  piping can be obtained from Figure 18, "Transmission-
       Force Mains."
Metric Conversion
1.   ft x 0.305 = m
*2.   mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
Sources
Derived from previously published information [8].
                                    82

-------
   1 .000
-    100
      10

       6
       0. 1
                           1.0     	    .10
                          FLOW OF RECOVERED HATER.  MGD
                                                                   100
  eo, oeo
  10,000
                       •POWER
   1 , 000
     108
        0. 1
                                      1  I  I  I 111
                                   OPERATION & MAINTENANCE  COST,
                             HATER IALS
                                                -LABOR
                                                       100
                                                        50'
                            1                    to
                          FLOW OF RECOVERED WATER, MGD
                                                                   1 00
                        FIGURE 32.  RECOVERY WELLS
                                   83

-------
                           ADDITIONAL COSTS


ADMINISTRATIVE AND LABORATORY FACILITIES (Figure 33)

Basis of Costs

1.   EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index = 177.5.

2.   Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.

Assumptions

1.   Capital cost includes:

     a.   Administration and laboratory building
     b.   Laboratory equipment
     c.   Garage and shop facilities

2.   Labor cost ieludes:

     a.   Laboratory analyses and reporting
     b.   Collection of samples
     c.   Maintenance of buildings

3.   Labor cost does not include administrative supervision.
     Labor for supervision included under individual  components.

4.   Materials cost includes:

     a.   Chemicals and laboratory supplies
     b.   General administrative supply items

Note:  When the land application system is to be an addition to an
       already existing conventional treatment system, complete
       facilities (as described here) are not required, and the costs
       given  should be reduced accordingly.

Metric Conversion

1.   mgd x 43.8 = I/sec

Sources

Derived from  previously published cost  information [19].
                                    84

-------
  10.000
CO
ca


*  «."•
CO
o
o

—I
<

±    too
      10
       0.1
1                   10


      FLOW, MGD
                                                                100
  30.000
  10.100
CO
o
CJ
   1 .000
     390
              HATERIALS.
                                  OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
                    LABOR
       0. 1
                           1                  10

                                 FLOW.  MGD
                                                                100
       FIGURE 33. ADMINISTRATIVE AND LABORATORY FACILITIES
                                 85

-------
                          . ADDITIONAL COSTS

MONITORING WELLS (Figure 34)
Basis of Costs                    .
1.   EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2.   Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1.   Capital cost includes:
     a.   4-in. (10 cm) diam drilled wells
     b.   Vertical turbine pump, 10 gpm (0.63 I/sec)
     c.   Controls and electrical work
2.   Labor cost includes preventive maintenance and minor repairs by staff.
     Labor costs for sampling included in Figure 33, "Additional  Costs-
     Administrative and Laboratory Facilities."
3.   Materials cost includes repair work performed by outside contractor
     and replacement of parts.          .
Metric Conversion
1.   ft x 0.305 = m
Sources
Derived from previously published published cost information [8].
                                 86

-------
 100.000
-J 1 0. 000
S  i.ooo
     200
         10
                                     1 00
                                WELL DEPTH. FT
                                                    CAPITAL COST
                                                                 _L
                                                                 1.000
   1 . 0 00
                                                    I    I  I   I  I I
                                   OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
                                     1 00
                                •ELL DEPTH. FT
1 .000
                    FIGURE 34.  MONITORING WELLS
                                   87

-------
                           ADDITIONAL COSTS

SERVICE ROADS AND FENCING (Figure 35)
Basis of Costs
1.   EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
Assumptions
1.   Costs of service roads and fencing given versus field area based
     on typical system layouts.
2.   12-ft (3.67 m) service roads, with gravel surface,  around perimeter
     of area and within larger fields.
3.   4-ft (1.22 m) stock fence around perimeter of area.
4.   Materials costs includes major repair after 10 yr.
Metric Conversion
1.   acre x 0.405 = ha
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical designs.
                                  88

-------
   4,000
   1,108
     180
      to
        to
                                 SERVICE ROADS
                                                              cosr
                                                 'FENCING
                           100                 1,000
                               FIELD  AREA, ACRES
10.000
UJ
o
«:
                                    OPERATION  & MAINTENANCE COST
     0.2
                           100                 1,000
                               FIELD AREA,  ACRES
10.0SO
                  FIGURE 35. SERVICE ROADS AND FENCING
                                   89

-------
                           ADDITIONAL COSTS

CHLORINATION (Figure 36)
Basis of Costs
1.   EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index =177.5.
2.   Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
3.   Chlorine cost = $0.05/lb ($0.023/kg).
Assumptions^
1.   Capital cost includes:
     a.   Chiorination  facilities with flash mixing and contact basin
     b.   Chlorine storage
     c.   Flow measuring device
2.   Maximum dosage  capacity, 10 mg/1.  Average dosage, 5 mg/1.
3.   Chiorination contact  time, 30 min for  average flows.
Metric'Conversion
1.   mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
Sources
Derived from  previously published  information  [19].
Adjustment  Factor
 Chiorination  may  be required as the  final step prior to discharge  for
 overland flow systems.   In these cases,  the addition of a  stormwater
 overflow structure  will be required, multiply  capital  costs  by  1.4.
                                  90

-------
   1 . 000
     1 00
        0 . 1
                                                                  1 00
  10,000
ta  1 , 000
     1 00



' i
• i










\
.
x












V
x
>












X
"s







MATERIALS









N
S







IT







«







H






*
*








:i






^
s
S|














s







T






.LABOR
\

^_
•B^_M.W»
^



HAN CHI
• •:







OPERATION &






•"^» -

^«.






^^^




*^N

-ORINE-







N^





^







**i



}












S,









s


•N









S


>



























S
/
/


•^s^
^"•^

* ^^




HLOI


— •


S^^
"*X

^^^



UN





-->

^



E






"s.

*^


!


































'












        0.
                            1                   1 0
                                  FLOW.  MGD
                                                                  t 00
                       FIGURE 36. CHLORINATION
                                   91

-------
                               SECTION 4
                          SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
     These sample calculations are based on the design example pre-
sented in complete detail  in Chapter 8 of the Land Treatment Process
Design Manual.  A summary of design information is presented below.
     Site Conditions:  Northeastern U.S., 10 mgd design flow, soil
conditions would permit either slow rate, rapid infiltration or over-
land flow within reasonable distances.  Water quality requirements
for nitrogen and phosphorus could not be met by either overland flow
or rapid infiltration alone.  The systems to be considered in the
cost analysis are:  slow rate and an overland flow/rapid infiltration
combination.
     The land requirements described in Table 8-5 of the design
manual are:
     Storage  pond
     Slow rate,  field area
     Overland flow,  field area
     Rapid  infiltration field area
     These  could be  revised and  refined further since  the original
example  did not  include an  allowance  for accumulated  precipitation
falling  on  the storage pond  (correction would  increase field  area
requirements) or for nitrogen  losses  in the  storage pond  (correction
would  decrease slow  rate  field  area requirements).  Such  changes are
beyond the  scope of  this  report so  the original values will  be  used
to demonstrate cost  calculations.
            (140 days,
  360 acres  12 ft.  deep)
1,600 acres
  627 acres
   60 acres.
                                 92

-------
     One change will  be made to reflect current guidance on preapplication
treatment.  The original example provided a 7 day detention time
aerated lagoon for all cases.  Costs in this example will be based
on:  preliminary treatment (screening) followed by a combined treatment/
storage pond.
     Other site data are:
     Distance and elevation difference from pump station to preap-
plication treatment site are 2 miles and 100 ft., respectively.
     Preapplication treatment site is covered with brush and some
trees.
     Pump station for storage pond effluent constructed  in pond dike.
     Distance and elevation  difference from storage pond to slow rate
site, are  2.5 miles and  50 ft.
     Distance and elevation  difference from storage pond to overland
flow site are 0.5 mile  and  50 ft.
     Distance and elevation  difference from overland flow  to rapid
infiltration are  1.5  mile and  -100  ft. so  gravity flow  would be possible.
     Slow rate  site  is  grass covered,  overland  flow site has brush
and trees,  rapid  infiltration  site  is  grass,covered.
      Percolate  recovery via wells or underdrains  not required,
disinfection not  required.
      Storage detention time is  140  days.   For the slow  rate  alternative
 it is  necessary to  add additional detention time to assure desired
 treatment levels  when the pond is close  to empty.   An additional  30
                                  93

-------
days is assumed for this case.  That would require an additional 77
acres of pond surface at the design flow, so total area for this
alternative would be 437 acres (360 + 77).  This would provide about 2.5
ft. of permanent depth for treatment purposes.
     This additional area is not necessary for the overland flow
case.  During the application season the pond could be by passed and
the 10 mgd daily flow of screened raw sewage applied directly to the
overland flow slope.  It is necessary to withdraw 6.2 mgd from the
ponds during the application season.  This could be mixed with the
screened sewage prior to the overland flow slope or mixed with the
overland flow effluent prior to application to the rapid infiltration
basins.  The detailed cost analysis is based on applying the entire 16.2
mgd mixture to the overland flow slope.

COST ANALYSIS - SLOW RATE SYSTEM
(To nearest $1,000)
                                                            Capital
Calculation date:  Sept. 1977
Sewage Treatment Plant index update (Table E-l)
Sewer index update (Table E-2) f|f-4- = 1-525
                               J. »?H" • t—
0 & M update (Table E-3) •pgj- = 1.61
                                                OQ1
                                                   '
                                                      = 1.583
1.  Pumping, raw sewage, 20 mgd, 100 ft.
    (peak flow = 2 x average flow)
    (Figure 15)
     update: (500, 000) (1 .583)=$792,000
             ( 49,600) (1. 61 )=$80,000
                                                                           0 & M
                                        Updated
                                                            $500,000

                                                                    ,  Labor  7,500
                                                                      Power 40,000
                                                                      Mtls   2,100
                                                                            49,600
                                                            $792,000       $80,000
                                  94

-------
2.  Force Main, 30 inch, 2 miles-         ">> "
    no repaying, dry soils. (With  peak factor
    of 2, velocity 6 fps, force main required
    is 30 inches)
    (Figure 18)                    Updated
3.  Preliminary treatment, 10 mgd
    (Figure 11)
                                                 Capital        0 & M

                                                 $336,000

                                                        Mtls. $   900
                                                 $512,000     $1,400
                                                 $130,000
                                                        Labor   13,000
                                                        Mtls.    3,500
                                                                16,500    '
                 -.-•-               Updated       $206,000       27,000
4.  Treatment/Storage  Pond
    (437 acres)(43,560)(12)(7.48)  =1,710,000,000 gal.
    (Figure 20) local  clay liner
                                   Construction $1,000,000
                                   Liner         2,925,000
                                   Embankment      700,000
                                                $4,625,000
                                                         Labor   $2,000
                                                         mtls.   15,000
                                                                17,000
                                   Updated      $7,053,000      $28,000
5.  Pumping to application site, 16.2 mgd,
    150 ft., structure in side of dike.       •   $430,000
    (50 ft static head + 100 ft allowance to have 40 psi  at sprinkler nozzle
    ($500,000)(.86) =$430,000
                                  95

-------
                      Capital
Pumping only occurs 225 days per year
                        225
so annual  labor cost is 355-= 62% of
curve value: (10,500)(.62) = $6,500

    (Figure 15)                         Updated   681,000
6.  Force main, 30 inch, 2.5 mile, dry soils.
    (Figure 18), no repaving                     $420,000
    16.2 mgd and 5 fps, pipe = 30"
                                        Updated    665,000
7.  Site clearing, pond area, 437 acres
    brush and trees                               $175,000
    (Figure 21)
                                        Updated   $267,000
8.  Site clearing, slow rate area, 1,600 acres,
    grass.                                        $  7,000
    (Figure 21)
                                        Updated   $ 11,000
9.  Distribution, 1600 acres
    Option  1 - Solid Set                        $2,500,000
    (Figure 24)
                             Labor
                             Power
                             Mtls.
 0 & M
$  6,500
  63,000
   3,200
$ 73,000
$118,000
                             Mtls.
$  1,100
   1,800

 None

 None

      I
 None

 None
                              Labor
                              Mtls.
        Updated $3,812,000
$ 77,000
  14,000
$ 91,000
$147,000
96

-------
   Option  2  - Center Pivot
    (Figure 25)
              Capital
           $  750,000
        0 & M .

Labor  $ 88,000
Power     8,000
Mtls.    10,000
                                                                     106,000
                                        Updated      $1,144,000       $171,000
     Compare present worth Option 1  and 2 at 7%  interest  and  20 years.
CRF = .0944 (Table E-9).
     Option 1 $3,812,000 + ^q^= $5,369,000
     Option 2 $1,144,000 + $1°  = $2,955,000
     Option 2, lowest cost, use center pivot.
10,.  Administrative and lab, 10 mgd
     (Figure 33)
 11.  Monitoring wells, assume 6, each
     40 ft. deep
     (Figure  34)
            $  140,000
                      Labor  $  15,000
                      Mtls.      6,500
Updated     $  222,000
                                                                       21,500
                                                                     $ 35,000
            $   5,000
                                        Updated    $   8,000
                      Labor  $   500
                      Mtls.      100
                             $   600
                              .1,000
                                   97

-------
                                                       Capital
0 & M
12.  Roads and fence, 1,600 acre SR site.


     (Figure 35)
                                                                              ^
     Assume fencing around pond area    Road        $200,000    Mtls.   $ 9,600


     total = 2037 acres.                Fence        120,000    Mtls.       900


                                                    $320,000           $10,500


                                        Updated     $488,000           $17,000


13.  Planting and harvest, 1,600 acres, alfalfa hay


     1977 costs.  (Table 6)


     0 & M Labor (Table 6: Labor plus harvest)


                 (40 + 150)(1,600)                                    = $304,000


     0 & M Materials (Table 6:  Materials, fuel and repairs)


                     (115 + 18)(1,600)
14,  Annual, crop revenue, 1,600 acres, alfalfa hay


     local source: 6 ton/acre § $65/ton

                     (6)(65)(1,600)


15.  Yardwork

     Yardwork  items covered elsewhere on this project.


16.  Service and interest factors


                     30%
= $213.000


  $517,000
= $624,000
                                 98

-------
;.17..   Land Costs
      1977 current price $l,600/acre
      Pond area           437 acres
      Slow rate         1,600
      .15% roads, etc.     306
                        2,343 acres
      7%, 20 yr., Present Worth = (.533)(Present Cost)
      (2343)(.533) ($1,600)     = $1,998,000
                                  99

-------
                     SLOW RATE -  SUMMARY  OF  COSTS

 1.   Pumpi ng
 2.   Force Main
 3.   Preliminary Treatment
 4.   Treatment/Storage Pond
 5.   Pumping
 6.   Force Main
 7.   Site Clear (pond)
 8.   Site Clear (slow rate site)
 9.   Distribution, Center Pivot
10,   Admin, and Lab
11.   Monitoring wells
12.   Roads and Fencing
13.   Plant and Harvest
14.   Crop Revenue
15.   Yardwork  (included in other factors)
                                   subtotal
16.   Service & Interest @ 30%
                                   subtotal
17.   Land
                                Total  Costs
Total present worth Slow Rate system (7%, 20 yr,  CRF = .0944)
$17,662,000 +  (^0944)  = $21,614,000
Capital
$ 792,000
512,000
206,000
7,053,000
681,000
665,000
267,000
11,000
1,144,000
222,000
8,000
488,000
0
0
0
$12,049,000
3,615,000
$15,664,000
1,998,000
$17,662,000
0 & M
80,000
1,000
27,000
28,000
118,000
2,000
.0
0
171 ,000
35,000
1,000
17,000
517,000
-624,000
0
$373,000
0

0
$373,000
                                100

-------
                  OVERLAND FLOW -RAPID  INFILTRATION	
                             SYSTEM COSTS
                   ,                                   Capital
1.  Pumping (same as  slow rate)                   $   792,000
2.  Force main (same  as slow rate)                    512,000
3.  Prel. Treat,  (same as slow rate)                 206,000
4.  Treatment Storage Pond, 1,400 mg
    local clay liner                construction   $   850,000
                                   liner
                                   embankment
                                   Update
5.  Pumping (same as slow rate)
6.  Force main, 30  inch, 0.5 mile,
    dry soils, no repaying
    (Figure 18)
                                   Updated
7,   Site Clearing, pond area, 360 acres

8.  Site Clearing, overland flow,
    627 acres, brush and trees
    (Figure 21)
                                   Update
  2,015,000    Labor
    600,000    Mtls,
 $3,465,000
 $5,284,000
    681,000

   $ 84,000

   $128,000

    154,000

 $  250,000

' $  381,000
Mtls.
                    0 & M
                    $80,000
                      1,000
                     27,000
         2,000
        13.000
       $15,000
       $25,000
       116,000
 100
 200

None
       None
                                101

-------
                                                 Capital

                                            $  200,000
                                            $  305,000

                                            $  770,000
 9.  Terrace Construction,  overland flow
     627 acres,  500 cy cut/acre
     (Figure 23)                   Updated
10.  Distribution, overland flow
     Option 1  Solid Set, 627 acres
               terrace width 200 ft.
     (Figure 24)
                                   Updated    $1,174,000
     Option 2  Gated pipe,  627  acres
               terrace width 200 ft.          $   240,000
     (Figure 27)
                                   Updated   $   366,000
Compare present worth Option 1 and 2 at 7%,  20  years.
CRF = .0944 (Table E-9)        :
          Option 1  1,174,000 + 50^°  = 1,704,000
          Option 2    366,000 + 8°  = $1,235,000
Option 2 lowest cost, use gated pipe
11.  Gravity pipe, overland flow
     to rapid infiltration, 24 inch pipe,
     dry soil, 5 ft. cover, 1.5 mile         $ 185,000
                                                                0 & M
None
                                                          Labor
                                                          Mtls.
$ 29,000
   2.400
$ 31,400
$ 50,000
                                                           Labor
                                                           Mtls.
$ 44,000
   7,000
$ 51,000
$ 82,000
                                 102

-------
                                                  Capi tal

     (Figure 16)

                                   Updated   $   293,000
12.  Site Clearing, rapid infiltration
     site, 100 acres, grass                         750
 .  .  (Figure 21)
                                   Updated        1,000
13.  Rapid infiltration basins, 100 acres    $   210,000
     (Figure 28)
                                   Updated   $  320,000
14.  Overland Flow Runoff Collection
   .627 acres, open ditches                 $   60,000
     (Figure 31)
                                       ''  :
                                   Update    $   91,000
15,  Roads and fencing 727 acres. OF site and RI basins
     (Figure 35)
     plus fencing around           roads     $  110,000
     pond area                     .fence         80,000
     Total fenced area =                     $  190,000
       1164 acres                  Updated   $  290,000
       0  &  M
 Labor $    300
 Mtls.     500
       $    800
       $  1,000

       None
 Labor $18,000
 Mtls.   3,000
       $21,000
       $34,000

Labor  $ 2,000
Mtls.    8,000
       $10,000
       $16,000
Mtls.  $ 4,700
Mtls.      600
       $ 5,000
       $ 8,000
                                103.

-------
                                                  Capital
16.  Planting, 627 acres,  pasture                 $103,000
     type grasses (Table 6, labor, fuel,  material)
     1977 prices
17.  Grass harvest (Table 6, assume
     similar to harvest costs for
     corn silage) twice per season
18.  Crop revenue   (assume no revenue)
19.  Administrative and lab, same as slow rate
20.  Monitoring wells, same as slow rate
21.  Yardwork
22.  Service  and  Interest  Factor  30%
23.  Land Costs,  1977 price $1,600 per acre
           Pond  area
           Overland flow and
           rapid inf.
           15% roads,  etc.
  370 acres
  727

  165
1,262 acres
                None

                None
                $254,000
                8,000
      7%,  20 yr  Present worth  =  (.533)(Present  Cost)
                 (1262)(.533)($1,600)  =  $1,076,000
                               0 & M
                               None
$21,000

None
$35,000
1,000
    0
                                 104

-------
                  OVERLAND  FLOW -  RAPID  INFILTRATION
                           SUMMARY OF  COSTS
 1.   Pumping
 2.   Force Main
,3.   Preliminary Treatment
 4.   Ponds
 5.   Pumping
 6.   Force. Main
 7.   Site Clear (ponds)
 8.   Site Clear (overland flow)
 9.   Terrace Construction
10.   Distribution (.G-ated pipe)
11.   Gravity Pipe (to RI site)
12.   Site Clear (RI site)
13.   RI Basins
14.   Runoff Collection
15.   Roads and Fencing
16.   Planting
17.   Grass Harvest
18.   Crop Revenue
19.   Administration and Lab
20.  Monitoring wells
 Capital
 $   792,000
    512,000
    206,000
" 5,284,000
    681,000
     84,000
    154,000
    381,000
    305,000
    366,000
    293,000
      1,000
    320,000
     91,000
    290,000
 •   103,000
          0
          0
    254,000
      8,000
0 & M
$ 80,000
   1,000
  27,000
  25,000
 116,000
       0
       0
       0
       0
  82,000
   1,000
       0
  34,000
  16,000
   8,000
       0
  21,000
       0
  35,000
   1,000
                                  105 :

-------
                                                  Capital
                                                                0 & M
21.  Yardwork (included in other items)
Subtotal
Services & Interest
(30%)
Subtotal
Land
TOTAL COSTS
$10,121,000
3,036,000

13,157,000
1,076,000
14,233,000
$ 447,000
0

447,000
0
$ 447,000
Total Present Worth Overland Flow/Rapid Infiltration
(7%, 20 yr, CRF =  .0944, Table E-9)
14,233,000 +
                     = $18,968,000
      The  overland  flow/rapid  infiltration combination is the most cost
 effective alternative for  the conditions described above.  The cost
 advantage would be even  more  significant if  the  flow path of combining
 the 10 mgd overland flow effluent with  the 6.2 mgd pond  effluent for
 application on the rapid infiltration basins is  chosen.  This would
 reduce the pumping requirements from the  pond area to the overland
 flow slopes, from 16.2 mgd to 10 mgd plus  a  proportional reduction  in
 all costs associated with  the overland flow  area.  The  total  present
 worth cost for this alternative is approximately $17,400,000  making  it
 the most cost effective option.
                                 106

-------
CC

CO
                                                                                         a.
                                                                          I	._.
00
                                     ,
                              ccz  I
                              + O  o

                              "•'E  "
                              dfe
                                                                                                            CO

                                                                                                            g


                                                                                                            3

                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                            o


                                                                                                            to
                                                                                                            O
                                                                                                            o

                                                                                                            UJ
                                                                                                            _J
                                                                                                            Q.
                                                                                                            CC
                                                                                                            O
                                                                                                            CO
                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                            UJ
                                                                                                            x:
                                                                                                            u
                                                                                                            CO


                                                                                                            o
                                                                                                            UJ
                                                                                                            cc
                                                                                                            z>
                                                                                                            a
                                                                                                            u.
                                                     107

-------
               APPENDIX A
             COST EQUATIONS
(PREAPPLICATION TREATMENTS NOT INCLUDED)
TRANSMISSION
GRAVITY PIPE (Figure 16)
     Capital Costs ($/LF)
     w/5' backfill - 4.42 [10
     w/9' backfill = 4.83 [10
              '330
              '319
                              '232
'399
     w/15' backfill = 4.46 DO
     0 & M Costs ($/YR)
     Labor     - (L) 0.0245 [lO
     Materials = (L) 0.0229 [10'336
     L = length of pipe system in feet
     P = pipe size in inches
                                             '°59 (1°9 P)]
                                             -106 ^ P)
                                              "335
                                          ]
                                               «393
                                               J39
                                         P)]
                                          P>
                                    '948
OPEN CHANNELS (Figure 17)
     Capital Costs ($/LF) = 2.70 [10
     0 & M Costs ($/YR)
     Labor     = (L) .01 [10'164 Clog P)2 + .288 (log P)]
     Materials = (L) .138 [10"484 ]
                                            P>
                 108

-------
Repaying - 2.70 [10.2*> (log P)' - .341 (log P)j
0 & M Costs ($/YR)     , ... .                      .
Materials = (L) 0.0146 [10-279 0°g >)* + .121 (log P)]
P = pipe size in inches                            I
                                           " -  • - •    - - '
L = length of pipe system in feet              , ,   :.. .,
                                      '269 (1°9 V]  "
                                        -324 (log, Qp^
                                        -348 (log Qp)r
- °333
                                            ~ '379
PUMPING (Figure 15)
     Capital Costs $(thousands)
     W/501 head = 89.1 [TO'2
     w/150' head = 109.6 [10*184
     w/3001 head =117.5
     0 & M Costs ($/YR)
     Labor     = (QA) (1995) [10"
     Power     = (QA) (42}(H)            '  ' "
     Material  = (QA) (239.9) [TO'0032 (log QA)2 - .0618 (log
     Qp = peak flow in MGD:   .          ,
     QA = average flow in MGD
     H  = total head in feet

STORAGE                                 ; j  : ' L              >:
0.05-10 MILLION GALLONS (Figure 19)
     Capital Costs $(thousands)
     Reservoir Construction = 5.09 [10'°232 (1og V)  + >542
     Reservoir Lining       = 5.24 [10'
     Embankment Protection  = 7.92
                                  '0105      V)  +. 754 (log V)3
                                             V)^ +  .559
                                  V.)-
                            109

-------
     0 & M Costs (S/YR)
     Labor
     Materials - (V)  (70.8)  [10
     V = storage volume  in MG
                 -00305
- (V) (134.9) [10
                '0419
               '  «661  «<* V>]
        V)'-  .577  (log V)]
               V>  +  -814
                  +  '212 (1o9 v>]
                '  '643
               ~ -125
10-5000 MILLION GALLONS (Figure 20)
     Capital  Costs $( thousands)
     Reservoir Construction - 3.30 [10'0360 <1o9  V)2  +  -651  Hog V)'3
     Reservoir Lining        - 3.95 [10'             *
     Embankment Protection  = 12.6 [10'106
     0 & M Costs ($/YR)
     Labor     = (V) (151.3) [10-00637
     Materials = (V) (24.5) [10-00515
     V = storage volume in MG

FIELD PREPARATION
SITE CLEARING - ROUGH  GRADING (Figure 21)
     Capital  Costs $(thousands)
     Heavily Wooded   = 1 .58 [10'00533
     Brush-Some Trees  - 1.04 [10'°171
     Grass Only       - 0.022 [10'°168
     0 & M Costs - None
     A = field area in acres

LAND LEVELING FOR SURFACE FLOODING (Figure 22)
     Capital  Costs $(thousands)
                                 + '976
                            *? + -806
                                 + '734
                         A)
110

-------
Volume of, cut:     ';      ,  -
500: cy/acre .- 0.5V? {10'029, 0W
                       '°39      '
                            8
                                         * .732

                                         +  6Mi
                                          - + .801

      750 cy/acre = 0.80 [10'1""  v'uy  "'   +\'™2 (log
      0  & M Costs - None
      A  = field area in acres     <'-./.  •'• ••'•'•''•:  ' •"-..  -

..OVERLAND FLOW TERRACE CONSTRUCTION  (Figure 23)
-.•-.-••  ••    •   •*  >,,.-- .  •  - -  . ..._ -( ^;_;:,'  -•• /'. •  j ._.'•-  «•-..•
  .    Capital Costs $.(thousands)
,            ,           ^         '" >. .  v •*-..'•   -       ,; '
      Volume of cut:  ,     :=-,
      1,000 cy/acre =  1.39  [10
      1,400 cy/acre ^  2.11
      0 & M Costs -.None          ,. . .,.
      A = field area in acres

 DISTRIBUTION
 SOLID SET SPRINKLING  (BURIED) (Figure 24)
      Capital  Costs  $(thousands)
      Slow Rate Systems -
                     006  Flo"'167 (109 A)2  + 1.316 (log AJ-j'^-'
      30-10,000 acres  =,4.86 [1,0.0636/(log  A)2 +  .633 (log A)-j

      0  & M  Costs  ($/YR)                        ,             , „-
      Slow Rate                                       ,    .  .
Labor = (A) 676  [10
Mtls. = (A) 22.4'I1
                          -0999
                                   - "694
                                                A)
                                                   ]
                              Ill

-------
'156
     Overland Flow
     1-200 acres
     Labor - (A) (741)  [10
     Mtls. = (A) (28.8) DO'115 (10g
     200-10,000 acres
     Labor = (A) (83.1) [10'0024
     Mtls. = (A) (4.13) [10-0083
     A = field area in  acres
CENTER PIVOT SPRINKLING (Figure 25)
     Capital Costs $ (thousands)
     10-300 acres = 14.45 [10'24
     300-10,000 acres = 0.072 [1Q-056
     0 & M Costs ($/YR)
     Labor
     10-300 acres = (A) (6026)  [10'276
     300-10,000 acres = (A)  (251) [1Q-023
     Power
     10-300 acres = (A) (27.5)  [10
     300-10,000 acres = (A)  (5)
     Materials
     10-300 acres = (A) (1.52)  [10
     300-10,000 acres = (A)  (12) [10'0226
     A - field area in  acres
      ~  '883
                   A>
        - '625 (1°8 A)]
        ~  '118
'127
        '136
                     A)
            '°248 (log
          ~ -203
                  A6 (1°9 A>
               ' ] '48
               >' ' -290
               ' '614
              '  "743
                  ' *163
                           A)
112

-------
SURFACE FLOODING - BORDER STRIPS (Figure 26)
     Capital Costs,$(thousands) = 2.15 [10'0974 ^og A)2 + .336 (log Aj-j
     0 & M Costs ($/YR)
     Labor = (A) (3715) [lO'147 Clog" A)2'" - ,994 (log A)-,
     Mtls. -(A) (19.05) [10-0213 £°* A)2; -167 (109A)]
     A = field area In acres
GATED PIPE - OVERLAND FLOW OR RIDGE AND FURROW (Figure 27)
     Capital Costs $, (thousands) = .986 [10'°552 (^9 A)2 + .590 (log A)-,
     0 & M Costs ($/YR)
     Labor *.(.A)  (1862) [10
     Mtls. =JA)  (46.8) [10
.0816 (log A)2 - .681  (log A)-,
.0514 (log A)2 - .327  (log A)-,
                '0517
     A = field area in acres

RAPID INFILTRATION BASINS (Figure 28)
     Capital Costs, $(thousands) = 5,98 [10
     0 & M Costs ($/YR)
     •  K     /n^ rccr, -7\ nn-0682 (log A)  - .448 (log A)-,
     Labor = (A) (660.7) [10         3                   J
     Materials
     1-40 acres = (A) (223.9) [10'238 (log A)  " ;908
     40-1,000 acres = (A) (66.1) [10

RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER
UNDERDRAI.NS (Figure 29)
     Capital Costs $(thousands)
                                                      *    +  '674
         '°232
                                                    ~  '234 (1°9 A)]
                                113

-------
Drain Spacing:
100ft. =1.67 DO'0372 Oog A)2 + .812 (Tog A)]
400ft. =1.41 [1(r0653(l0gA)2+.567(log.A)]
0 & M Costs ($/YR)
Labor:
Drain Spacing:
100 ft. = (A) (354.8) CIO
                              '0702
                                             ~  '782
                                                    A)
                              '027
     400ft. = (A) (195)
     Materials:
     Drain Spacing:
     100 ft. = (A) (154.9) DO
     400 ft. = (A) (295) DO'0541
     A = field area in acres

TAILWATER RETURN (Figure 30)
     Capital Cost $(tnousands) =44.7 [lO
     0 & M Costs ($/YR)
     Labor = (Q) (309) [10'
     Power        ,
                             (log A)2 - . 872 (log A)-,
                                       - .328 (log A)]
                                      - '643 (1°g A)]
                                         '151
                                                  +  "514 (1°9 Q)]
                      '°516  (Io9 Q)  -  .543  (log Q)]
     0.01-0.3 MGD = (Q) (977) [10
                                 -16°
                                  -0001
     0.3-10 MGD   = (Q) (1202)- [10
     Materials    = (Q) (240) [10'°426
     Q = flow of recovered water in MGD

RUNOFF COLLECTION FOR OVERLAND FLOW (Figure 31)
     Capital Costs $( thousands)
                                           -  -239  (log Q)]
                                             +  -°132 (1°9 Q)]
                                           '  "384  (1°9 Q)]
                         114

-------
Gravity Pipe = (0.68)  .[10"'
Open Ditch - (1.08)  [10'°836 Oog  A)^ .395  (log fl)]
0 & M Costs ($/YR)
Labor
„    .'*  D-     m ttt\ hrr0974 Hog A)2 - .882 (log  A)-,
Gravity Pipe = (A) (55) [10                             J
n    n-. u   t*\  no^ nn-0702 (log A)  - '787 (1og A)l
Open Ditch = (A)  (195) [10       f, .                    J
Materials
Gravity'Pipe - (A) (11) I10-0552 •«<* '& ~ A3S (1°9  A)l
Open Ditch -  (A)  (347) [10'134 ««« »>2.- -893 (1°9 A)]
A  =  field area in acres        ,
RECOVERY WELLS (Figure 32)
     Capital  Costs $(thousands)
     Well Depth = 50'
     flow:  0.1-6 MGD = (11.2)
                                               '266
            6-100 MSD= (5.92)  DO'131  (log  Q)   +-274  (log Q^
     Well Depth = 100'
     Flow:  0.1-6 MGD = (15.1)  [10-131(log  Q)2 + .274  (log «j
            6-100 WD. (12.9)  [TO'198
     0 & M Costs ($/YR)
     tabor = (Q) (2.13) no-198 w
     Power = (Q) (41)  (H)            '
     Materials = (Q)  (245.5) [10-0064
     Q =  flow of recovered water, in MGD
     H =  head, in  feet
                                            +  :313(1°9 Q)]

                                     - -374;(1°9
                                      ..'.
                                        ^ '  -°563 (1°9  Q)
                           115

-------
ADDITIONAL FACTORS
ADMINISTRATIVE & LABORATORY FACILITIES (Figure 33)
     Capital Costs $(thousands)
     Flow:  0.1-1 MGD = (51.3) [10'307 (1°9 9>* + '366
            1.0-100 MGD - (51.3) DO'115 ]
                                                       Q>
Mtls. = (Q) (1820) [10
                           -0440
                                     - '497
     Q = average design flow in MGD

MONITORING WELL'S (Figure 34)
     Capital Costs $(thousands) = (N) (524.8) [10'244 (1og D)2 ' '284 (1°9 D)]
     0 & M Costs ($/YR)
     Labor
     Well depth
     10-40 ft. - (N) (70.8) DO'0212
     40-400 ft. = (N) (7.21) DO-'153
     Materials = (N) (2.44) [10'°522
     D = well depth in feet
     N = number of wells

SERVICE ROADS & FENCING (Figure 35)
     Capital Costs $(thousands)
                                           -0034
                                          + .093 (log D)]
                                           '503
Roads = (2.33) [10
Fence = (2.05) [10
                       '00984
                       '°645
                                    -474 (log A)
                                   -420
                           116

-------
                      '016*"
- .559 (log A)n
                                 A)   ~  '526
            A)-
     0 & M Costs ($/YR)
     Materials
     Roads = (A) (20.4)  [10
     Fence = (A) (56.2)  [10
     A = field area in acres
CHLORINATION (Figure 36)   .        ...
     Capital Costs $(thousands)  = (SS.ljJlO-0488 (log.Q)2 +  "434  (log Q)]
     0 & M Costs ($/YR)
     Materials
     Chlorine = (Q) (750)
Other Materials = (Q) (891)  [10
                               .0336 (log Q)2 - .535 (log  Q)-
Labor = (Q) (1585) [10'°375 ^Io9 Q)   ' '498 (1°9 ^]
Q = average design flow in MGD
                           117

-------
                              APPENDIX B
                      REVENUE-PRODUCING BENEFITS
     Revenue-producing benefits should be incorporated into the
cost-effectiveness analysis procedure as negative operation and
maintenance costs.  Possible monetary benefits include (l) sale of
crop grown, (2) sale of renovated water recovered, (3) sale of surplus
effluent to adjacent farmers or industries, (4) lease of purchased
land back to farmers for the purpose of land application, and (5) lease
of purchased lands to groups or individuals for secondary purposes,
such as seasonal recreation.  Additional benefits may arise in a specific
locality if secondary uses of the water or land are practical.  If
recreational or other social or environmental benefits can be quantified,
they should be incorporated into the monetary portion of the cost-
effectiveness analysis.

SALE OF CROP GROWN
     Data on case returns from crops grown using effluents for
irrigation are relatively scarce.  Some information is included in
Sullivan [32] and Pound and Crites [22].  Generally, the return from
the sale of crops will offset only a portion of the total operation
and maintenance cost.  The cost of planting, cultivation, soil amend-
ments (if necessary), and harvesting should be more than offset by the
crop sale for a well-operated system.  The relative costs and benefits
of crop production will depend on local farming practice, the local
economy, and the type of irrigation system.  Referring back to Table
                                118

-------
6, the returns from the sale of annual  crops, especially where two
or more crops can be raised in a year,  are generally higher than for
perennials.  On the other hand, operating costs are usually higher
and the needed degree of farming expertise may also be greater.
     For overland flow systems, the economic returns generally amount
to a small fraction of the total operating costs [-34, 45].

SALE OF RENOVATED WATER RECOVERED
     This  benefit is most applicable to overland flow and rapid infiltra-
tion systems.  The return Will  depend on the economic value of water in
the area and  the restrictions,  if any* placed on the use of the water.
This type  of  benefit is included in management plans for Phoenix, Arizona,
and El  Reno,  Oklahoma.

SALE OF SURPLUS  EFFLUENT                                          •'....,.
     This  has been practiced at many existing  land application  sites
 in Texas and California  to reduce  storage  costs,  raise  revenue,  or,
 in one case,  to  satisfy  a lawsuit.   In  Pomona, California,  effluent
 is purchased from  the  Los Angeles  County Sanitation Districts at $7
 per acre-foot ($0.006  per cu m) and sold to various users  at  $5 to
 $22 per acre-foot ($0.004 to 0.018 per cu m) [31].

 LEASE OF LAND FOR IRRIGATION
      As an alternative to the conduct of farming operations by cities
 or sanitary districts, the land owned by the city or sanitary district
 can be leased to a local farmer.  Such leases are prevalent in the western
                                 119

-------
states.  Variations exist on the length of the lease,  the requirements
for storing or applying effluent, and the responsibility for maintenance
of distribution facilities.

LEASE OF LAND FOR RECREATION
     This type of benefit has been realized at Woodland, California,
where land that is leased to a farmer for $23 per acre ($57 per ha)
for irrigation in the summer is leased to a duck club  for $6 per acre
($15 per ha) during the late fall for hunting privileges [22].   Other
recreational benefits may be feasible at other locations.
                               120

-------
             .,::         '•-     APPENDIX C
                     NONREVENUE-PRODUCING BENEFITS
     Nonrevenue-producing benefits including social  and environmental
benefits must be accounted for descriptively in the cost-effectiveness
analysis to determine their significance and impact.  Social  benefits
may include recreational activities, creation of greenbelts,  or pre-
servation of open space.  Environmental factors may include reclamation
of sterile soi,ls or repulsion of saline water intrusion into aquifers
by groundwater recharge.

SOCIAL BENEFITS
     Recreational benefits should be included in the descriptive
analysts, especially where parks or golf courses are to be irrigated.
The creation of greenbelts and the preservation of  open space are
planning concepts specifically encouraged in P.L. 92-500 and P.L. 95-217
for wastewater management systems.
     Where the social benefits identified can also  be  quantified,
they should  be incorporated  into  the monetary portion  of the cost-
effectiveness analysis.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
     Claims  of environmental  benefit  for recycling  of  nutrients  should
be scrutinized closely  to determine whether nutrients  are  being
recycled,  or whether nutrient problems are  only  being  transferred
from one area  to  another.   Energy savings resulting from use of
 fertilizing  agents  in effluents  in lieu of  commerical  fertilizer
                                121

-------
should be evaluated on the basis of actual  fertilizer value of the
effluent and local fertilizing practice.
     Reclamation of sterile or strip-mined soil  by applications of
wastewater is an environmental benefit that is difficult to quantify.
Similarly, groundwater recharge to reduce salinity intrusion is a
qualitative benefit.  The environmental benefits that can be achieved
through a specific wastewater management alternative should be enumerated
and evaluated to determine their significance.
                                 122

-------
                              APPENDIX D


                             'REFERENCES   '  .                .
          IL" .,.' .      •              ' v  •  - "•          t   " -     *. i-   '•"   •'-  *
    ™'     ,   '/  '. _'   ,    .',  ' 	 , ' i', - . -, . ,'„',-;'-''_ ,, „ ,',„•''. '„'''.,'" -J '',*'" f VJ -•- •' ^.' ' ',  ''.'**

1.   Ackerman, W.C.   Cost'of Municipal Sewage,Treatment.  Technical
2.
3.
4.
Letter'12, Illinois State Water Survey,  June 1969.

A Guide to Planning and Designing Effluent Irrigation,Disposal
Systems in Missouri.  University of Missouri Extension.Division.
March'1973.        (            -     .•  vr- ..-.•<: '•••;.  • \: > ..  "'•<•-

ATlender, G.C.-  The Cost of a Spray Irrigation System for the  •/•;
Renovation of Treated Municipal Wastewater.  Master's Thesis,
University Park, The Pennsylvania'State-University.  September.  '
1972.                   '    .

Bauer, W.J. and D. E. Matsche.  Large'Wastewater  Irrigation
Systems:  Muskegon County, Michigan and Chicago Metropolitan
Region.   In: • Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge
through Forest and Cropland, Sopper, W..E. and L.T.  Kardos,  (ed.).
University Park, The Pennsylvania; State University  Press.   1973.
pp.  345-365.

Bouwer, H., R.C. Rice, and  E.D. Escarcega.   Renovating Secondary
Sewage by Ground Water Recharge with  Infiltration Basins.   U.S.
.Water Conservation Laboratory, Office  of  Research and  Monitoring.'
Project No. 16060  DRV.  Environmental'Protection  Agency. March,,
1972.

Brown and Caldwell/Dewante  and Stowel!.   Feasibility  Study  for  •
the  Northeast-Central Sewerage Service Area, County of Sacramento,
California, November  1972.    .. .          •

Buxton, J.L.   Determination of a  Cost for Reclaiming  Sewage
Effluent  by Ground Water  Recharge in  Phoenix,,Arizona.   Master's
Thesis, Arizona  State University.   June 1969.
 9.'
 10.
      Campbell,  M.D.  and J.H.  Lehr.   Water Well  Technology.
      Hill  Book  Co.   New York.  1973.             •
                                                        McGraw-
 Consulting Engineering - A Guide for the Engagement of Engineering
 Services.  ASCE - Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice -  '
 No. 45.  New York, ASCE.  1972.       '

 Crites, R.W., M.J. Dean, and H.L. Selznick.  Cost Comparison of'Land
 Treatment and Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems.  Water and
 Wastes Engineering,.August and September 1979.
                                 .123
         'IL

-------
11.  Gulp, G., R. Williams, T.  Li neck,   Costs of Land Application
     Competitive with Conventional  Systems.   Water and Sewage Works.
     Oct. 1978.

12.  Middlebrooks, E.J., C.H.  Middlebrooks,   Energy Requirements  for
     Small Flow Wastewater Treatment Systems.  USACRREL Special
     Report, May 1979.

13.  National Canners Association.   Liquid Wastes from Canning and
     Freezing Fruits and Vegetables.  Office of Research and Monitoring,
     Environmental Protection  Agency.  Program No. 12060 EDK.
     August 1971.

14.  Nesbitt, J.B.  Cost of Spray Irrigation for Wastewater Renovation.
     In:  Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through
     Forest and Cropland, Sopper,  W.E. and L.T. Kardos, (ed.).
     University Park, The Pennsylvania State University Press.  1973.
     pp, 334-338.

15.  Pair, C.H., (ed.).  Sprinkler Irrigation.  Supplement to the
     3rd edition.  Silver Spring,  Sprinkler  Irrigation Association.
     1973.

16.  Pair, C.H., (ed.).  Sprinkler Irrigation, 3rd edition.
     Washington, D.C., Sprinkler Irrigation  Association.  1969.

17.  Parker, R.P.  Disposal of Tannery Wastes.  Proceedings of the
     22nd Industrial Waste Conference, Part  I.  Lafayette, Purdue
     University.  1967.  pp 36-43.

18.  Parson, W.C.  Spray Irrigation of Wastes from the Manufacture
     of Hardboard.  Proceedings of the 22nd  Industrial Waste
     Conference.  Lafayette, Purdue University.  1967.  pp 602-607.

19.  Patterson, W.L. and R.F.  Banker.  Estimating Costs and Manpower
     Requirements for Conventional  Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
     Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental  Protection
     Agency.  October 1971.

20.  Philipp, A.M.  Disposal of Insulation Board Mill  Effluent by
     La.n.d Irrigation.  Journal  WPCF, 43, No. 8, pp 1749-1754.  1971.

21.  Postlewait, J.C. and H.J.  Knudsen.  Some Experiennces in Land
     Acquisition for a Land Disposal System  for Sewage Effluent.
     Proceedings of the Joint  Conference of  Recycling Municipal
     Sludges and Effluents on  Land, Champaign, University of
     Illinois.  July 1973.  pp 25-38.
                                 124

-------
22.  Pound, C.E. and R.W. Crites.   Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by
     land Application, Volumes I and II.   Office of Research and
     Development, Environmental  Protection Agency.  EPA-660/2-73-006a,
     b.  August 1973.

23.' Powell, G.M. and G.L. Gulp.  AWT vs. Land Treatment:  Montgomery
     County, Maryland.  Water & Sewage Works, 120, No. 4, pp 58-67.
     1973.                                                    -
24-
25.
Reed, A.D., L.A. Horel.   Sample Costs to Produce Crops.
University of California, Division of Agricultural  Sciences,
Leaflet 2360.  January 1979.
Reed, S.C. and T.D. Buzzell.   Land Treatment of Wastewaters
for Rural Communities.  In:  Water Pollution Control  in Low
Density Areas, Jewell, W.J. and R. Swan, (ed.).
Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire.
pp. 23-40.
                                                      University
                                                    1975.
26.  Rowan, P.P., K.L. Jenkins, and D.W. Butler.  Sewage Treatment
     Construction Costs.  Journal WPCF, 32, No. 6, pp 594-604.  1960.

27,  Rowan^ P.P.> K.L. Jenkins, and D.H. Howells.  Estimating Sewage
     Treatment Plant Operations and Maintenance Costs.  Journal
     WPCF, 33, No, 2, pp 111-121.  1961.

28.  Schraufnagel, F.H.  Ridge-and-Furrow Irrigation for Industrial
     W.astes Disposal.  Journal WPCF, 34, No. 11, pp 1117-1132.; 1962.

29.  SCS Engineers.  Demonstrated Technology and Research Needs for
     Reuse of Municipal Wastewater.. Environmental Protection Agency.
     EPA-67Q/2-75-038.  1975.             '

30.  Smith, R.   Cost of Conventional and Advanced Treatment of Waste-
     water.  Journal WPCF, 40, No. 9, pp 1546-1574.  1968.

31.  Stevens, R.M.  Green Land-Clean Streams:  The Beneficial Use of
     Was,te Water through Land Treatment.  Center for the Study of
     Federalism.  Philadelphia, Temple University.  1972.

32.  Sullivan, R.H., et al.  Survey of Facilities using Land Application
  •  of Wastewater.  Office of Water Program Operations.  Environmental
     Protection  Agency.  EPA-430/9-73-006.  July 1973.

33.  Tchobanoglous, G.  Wastewater treatment for Small Communities.
     In:  Water  Pollution Control in Los Density Areas-, Jewell, W.J.
     and R. Swan, (ed.).  University Press of New England, Hanover,
     New Hampshire.  1975.  pp 389-428.                   -••'"-'.
                                 125
        •i?

-------
34.  C.W. Thornthwaite Associates.   An Evaluation of Cannery Waste
     Disposal by Overland Flow Spray Irrigation.   Publications  in
     Climatology, 22 No. 2,.  September 1969.

35.  Tihansky, D.P.  Cost Analysis  of Water Pollution Control:   An
     Annotated Bibliography.  Office of Research  and Monitoring.
     Environmental Protection Agency.  Washington, D.C.   April  1973.

36.  Van Note, R.H., P.V. Hebert, and R.M.  Patel.  A Guide to the
     Selection of Cost-Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems.
     Municipal Wastewater Systems Division, Engineering  and Design
     Branch'.  Environmental Protection Agency.   EPA-430/9-75-002.
     1975.

37.  Waste into Wealth.  Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works.
     Melbourne, Australia.  1971.

38.  Waste Water Reclamation.  California State Department of Public
     Health, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering.   California State Water
     Quality Control Board,  November 1967.

39.  Wesner, E.M., et al.  Energy Conservation in Municipal Wastewater
     Treatment.  EPA 430/9-77-011.   March 1978.

40.  Williams, T.C.  Utilization of Spray Irrigation for Wastewater
     Disposal in Small Residential  Developments.   In:  Recycling
     Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and
     Cropland, Sopper, W.E. and L.T. Kardos,  (ed.).  University
     Park, The Pennsylvania State University Press.  1973.  pp 385-395.

41.  Wilson, C.W.  The Feasibility of Irrigation Softwood and Hard-
     wood for Disposal of Papermill Effluent.  Paper No. 71-245,
     Annual Meeting, American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
     Pullman, Washington.  June 1971.

42.  Woodley, R.A.  Spray Irrigation of Fermentation Wastes.  Water
     and Wastes  Engineering, 6, B14-B18.  March 1969.

43.  Woodley, R.A.  Spray Irrigation of Organic Chemical Wastes.
     Proceedings of the  23rd Industrial Waste Conference.  Lafayette,
     Purdue University.  1968.  pp 251-261.
44.
45.
Zimmerman, J.P.
1966.
Irrigation.   New York,  John Wiley  &  Sons,  Inc.
Gilde L.C., et al.   A Spray Irrigation System for Treatment of
Cannery Wastes.  Journal WR-F, 43, No. 8,  pp 2011-2025.   1971.
                                126

-------
             APPENDIXJ


COST INDICIES AND ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
X
•o
1— 1
4J
CO
o
o
(0
O.
_j_,
C
0)
45
"
8
*
Si



is • "
o



3


m



3

at • -
0.


5


CO




•^


of tv 00
< m in
m 
0 O

S S



o

M
: 09
o

. ' CO

. . o

CM
r»
Q
- '.'•"' -4
f»
' 0

-4
p»
o

' "- . -
. .- .0

09
^
o



9» O *>4 CM *n
m 4) 4) 4> 4>
O " en ^
O CM I"
t*4 •*• *4
r- 09 «
O CM f-

S 2 5°



O CM 4>

CM m co
O CM 


r- CM en
a «4 -i
4] -1 -4
o> -< m
O -4 _<

in' — 09
^ ** ^
0 >4 -4

in o •«
O> «4 •*
2-^2

4] 0) ' •"•
O> O *
o -> -<



<• ir\ -o
•0 « 0
-4 CM CO
85 S
CM CM en

cu CM in



o en in
CM CM CO

« •» •*
o m CM
•4 CM rn

-4 in —

•4 ni m

en r> 0
CO >4 O
H CM m
CM -a o
to -" O
-4 CM m

•4 CM 00
00 M4 O*
^ CM CM

— CM -• «
00-4 O>
^ CM CM

OP -. r.
r- -4 oo
~4 CM CM



f- 0» O>
•a 4> 49
O> O> 0
4T
o>
•r

5





CM
4T
in
OD
en

CM
CD
CO

o> "
f-
m



i



M>
4)

4)
<5


in

en
in
•f
fi
ft •

m
en
m

. o
in

•a -

in



.4
o>
.Ml Ml . - . I....' , .. .. .. ,,:
' in . e ••- • • ..:•''.,. •-
S S

.en * .ox ni •* •* •.
r>. «B en «v 4} «a ^


^ Ok- .-£•;. -.-v ••-.--•'• -•.-!•.• •'-
m en . • :.,-.. "• .•'-',' -. : • • i •.•.';•
!»<•••• ' •

en i» , .
CM. m: •-." :< - -;..'•..•. -'


CM O» O> 0» 41 •«• «4

r- CD o -r m e*> o

* 4J CO .
f- « O>: . - . •.-•.', ' •...-•
0 4J -4 ., ,.- .
4? «o o* . >' : •• - •• ,. <^

CM e» .'O ' "* (-.'. O> •* ' .,
o» o -4 e» 4> o o
41 o O^ >^ ' m l^ 9
• '• • ' .:' '•''''"'
r» «• 'W ;' ' .••' • -,< -1 ".
o r> o



41 e» oo


•'...," .! • i '
CM en '4> in 4) r* OB
01 ey» o* ' o* O» o o*




















O
a.
3
*
0
«t
UJ
CO
=3

• •-
CU
o
fi.
. 3
O
CO
                                                        t—
                                                        evi

-------
CO    CM

•*•    -a
o    o
                                                                            -o

                                                                            •ft
CM


f-

«O
-4    in

in    rg
r-    o
CM    CM
                      O
                      >
                                  o
                                  O
      CO
      o
                   o
                   fM
             >*•
             CM
            c«
            fM
a>
en
in
co
o
m
rg
                                                                                                                                         in
                                                                                                                                         tv
O
IN
en
                                                                      O

                                                                      in
                                                                            o

                                                                            co
            CM


            CM
                                                           -M    -o
                                                             m    r—    o>    o
                                                             •-4    .-i    -4    rg
                                                                         •o    m    -4    in
                                                                         *    00    o    en
                                                                         CM    eg    en    tft
                                                                      o

                                                                      in
                                                                                  CM
                                                                                                     o

                                                                                                     rg
                                                                                                                 en
                                                                         •*•    r-

                                                                         o    en

                                                                         r-4    rg
                                                                                  CM
                                                                                  CM
                                                                                        •o
                                                                                        CM
                     o
                     O
                                                                      rg

                                                                      in
                                                                                  rg
                                                                                  rg
                                                                                        •o
                                                                                        rg
                                                 rg
                                                 en
                                                                                                                 en

                                                                                                                 en
                                                             CM
                                           m    r-    eo    o
                                           _(    _i    ,H    rg
 X
 ttJ
•o
                                                                                                           in
                                                                                                           m
                                                                                                           in
                                                                                                                 O


                                                                                                                 CM
                                                                         to
                                                                         to
                                                             rg
                                                             o
                                                             rg
                                                 O    en


                                                 CO    -4


                                                 CM    CM
                                          t>    -4

                                          •o    o>incn


                                                                      ft    —i    cv    rg    rn    *    in    g>    co    o
 O
-P
                     >-
                     _i
                                                                      rg
                                                                                               C7>

                                                                                               CM
                                                                                                           CM
                                                                                                           in
                                                                   •4-

                                                                   oo
                                                                         
CM CM CM
0 0
co     CM    -o
                                                 in    r*-    O    O
                                                 ••4    -H    .4    CM
                      CC.


                      Ul
                                  co
                                  in
O    •->
•o    >o
                                                          CM
en

-------
      TABLE E-3.  OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST INDEX  (1)(2)(3)
              YEAR

               73
               75
               76
                78
                79
QTR.
 1
 2
 3
 4

 1
 2
 3
 4
 2
 3
 4

 1
 2
 3
 4

 1
 2
 3
 4

 T
 2
 3
INDEX

 1.00

 1.09
 1.16
 1.22
 1.28

 1.33
 1.34
 1.38
 1.39

 1.42
 1.45
 1.49
 1.51

 1.54
 1.56
 1.61
 1.62

 1.67
 1.69
 1.72
 1.74
 1.78
 1.84
 1.90
(1)   Reference:  EPA O&M Cost Index, March 1978; R. L. Michel,
                EPA, Washington, DC

(2)   Base year = 1973; Index =1.00

(3)   Includes, power, chemicals, fuel, labor, administration,  etc.
                             129

-------
                              TABLE E-4

                        COST LOCALITY FACTORS
Construction (1)
Altanta
Baltimore
Birmingham
Boston
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cl evel and
Columbus
Dallas
Denver
Detroi t
Houston
Kansas City
Los Angeles
Memphis
Minneapolis
Milwaukee
New Orleans
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
Washington, D.C.
.98
1.06
1.00
.96
.93
1.06
.95
—
1.02
.96
.95
—
i.n
1.07
—
.93
	
1.06
.90
1.05
—
.97
.98
	
1.04
1.01
—
O&M
Labor(2)
.81
.66
—
.75
1.32
—
1.68
.82
—
.90
—
—
.75
1.21
.81
—
1.19
.57
1.11
.80
.83
.96
.78
.87
1.28
.90
.86
(1)   Calculated from ENR Skilled  Labor  Index,  Materials Cost Component
     Index,  and Construction Cost Index;  Engineering  News-Record;
     March 23, 1978.

(2)   Reference:  Operation,  Maintenance and  Repair  Cost Index  for Raw
     Wastewater Pumping Stations," Robert L. Michel,  April  1978.
     Calculated from Intercity Comparison Levels  of Municipal  Pay in
     1975, Department of Labor, Bureau  of Labor Statistics.
                              130

-------
            TABLE E-5

POWER COST LOCALITY FACTOR (1)(2)
 New England

 Mid-Atlantic

 East North Central

 West North Central

 South.Atlantic

 East South Central

 West South Central

 Mountain


 U.  S.  Average
1.23

1.17

1.09

1.00

1.00

 .93

 .84

 .72


1.00
 (1)   Basis:   BLS,  Jan.  1978
      Producers  Price Index

 (2)   Source:   "Operation, Maintenance,
      and Repair Cost Index for Raw  '•'"''
      Wastewater Pumping  Stations" EPA,
      Municipal  Construction  Division,
      R.  L. Michel,  April 1978   '
              131

-------
                       TABLE E-6



                 MATERIALS COST INDEX







USE:  Wholesale Price Index for Industrial  Commodities



      (120.0 for Base Date:  February 1973)
                        132

-------
                               TABLE  E-7
                          INTEREST FORMULAS

Symbols
i    interest rate per interest period
n    number of interest periods
Present Worth Factor
     PWF = -
             1
           0+i)n
Capital Recovery Factor
           i (1+1)"
     CRF =
(Table E-8)
(Table E-9)
           (1+1 )n -1
Examples
     Amortized construction costs = (construction  costs)  (CRF)
     Present worth of annual  O&M = (Annual  O&M)
     Salvage value of land that appreciates  in  value  =  (Present Cost)
     Present worth of salvage value = (Salvage  Value) (PWF)
                               133

-------
Table,  E-8   PRESENT WORTH FACTOR, PWF =
i = interest
rate, %
5.000
5.125
5.250
5.375
5.500
5.625
5.750
5.875
6.000
6'. 125
6.250
6.375
6.500
*6.625
6.750
6.875
7.000
7.125
7.250
7.375
7.500
7.625
7.7-50
7.875
8.000
•
10
0.6139
0.6067
0.5995
,0.5924
0.5854
0.5785
0.5717
0.5650
0.5584
0.5519
0.5454
0.5390
0.5327
0.5265
0.5204
0.5143
0.5083
0.5024
0.4966
0.4909
0.4852
0.4796
0.4741
0.4686
0.4632
N
15
0.4810
0.4725
0.4642
0.4560
0.4479'
0.4400
0.4323
0.4247
0.4172
0:4100
0.4028
0.3957
0.3888
0.3280
0.3754-
0.3689
0.3624'
0.3562
0.3500
0.3439
0.3380
0.3321
0.3264
0.3208
0.3152
= period,
20
0.3769
0.3680
0.3594
0.3510
0.3427
0.3347
0.3269
0.3193
0.3118
0.3045
0.2975
0.2905
0.2838
0.2772
.0.-2708
0.2645
0.2584
0.2525
0.2466
0.2410
0.2354
0.2300
0.2247
0.2196
0.2145
yr
25
0.2953
0.2866
0.2783
0.2701
0.2622
0.2546
0.2477
0.2400
0.2330
0.2262
0.2197
0.2133
0.2071
0.2012
0.1953
0.1897
0.1842
0.1789
0.1738
0.1688
0.1640
0.1593
0.1547
0.1503
0.1460

30
0.2313
0.2233
0.2154
0.2079
0.2006
0.1936
0.1869
0.1804
0.1741
0.1681
0.1622
0.1566
0.1512
0.1460
0.1409
0.1361
0.1314
0.1268
0.1225
0.1183
0.1142
0.1103
0.1065
0.1029
0.0994
                          134

-------
Table  .E-9    CAPITAL  RECOVERY FACTOR, CRF
                                                      (1  +  i)n -  1
i = interest
rate, %
5.000
5.125
5.250
5.375
5.500
5.625
5.750
5.875
6.000
6.125
6.250
6.375
6.500
6.625
6.750
6.875
7.000
7.125
7 . 250
7.375
,7.500
7.625
7.750
7.875
8.000

10
0.1295
0.1303
0.1310
0.1319
0.1326
0.133S
0.1343
0.1351
0.1359
0.1367
0.1375
0.1383
0.1391
0.1399
0.1407
0.1416
0.1424
0.1432
0.1440
0.1449
0.1457
0.1465.
0.1474
0.1482
0.1490
N
15
0.0963
0.0972
0.0980
0.0988
0.0996
0.1005
0.1013
0.1021
0.1030
0.1038
0.1047
0.1055
0.1064
0.1072
0.1081
0.1089
0.1098
0.1107
0.1115
0.1124
0.1133
0.1142
0.1151
0.1159
0.1.168
= period,
20
0.0802
0.0811
0.0820
0.0828
0.0837
0.0845
0.0854
0.0863
0.0872
0.0881
0.0890
0.0899
0.0908
0.0917
0.0926
0.0935
0.0944
0.0953
0.0962
0.0972
0.0981
0.0990
0.1000
0.1009
0.1019
years
25
0.0709
0.0718
0.0727
0.0736
0.0745
0.0755
0.0764
0.0773
0.0782
0.0792
0.0801
0.0810
0.0820
0.0829
0.0839
0.0848
0.0858
0.0868
0.0878
0.0887
0.0897
0.0907
0.0917
1.0927
0.0937

30
0.0650
0.0660
0.0670
0.0679
0.0688
0.0698
0.0707
0.0717
0.0726
0.0736
0.0746
0.0756
0.0766
0.0776
0.0786
0.0796
0.0806
0.0816
0.0826
0.0836
0.0847
0.0857
0.0867
0.0878
0.0888
                                135
                                   *  U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE - 1981 - 777-000/1110 Reg. 8

-------

-------

-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Postage and Fees Paid
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA 335
c/o GSA
Centralized Mailing Lists Services
Building 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver CO 80225
                                                                                    Fourth C
                                                                                    Book Rate

-------