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
------- |