EPAM30/9-80-003
April 1980
FRD-11
Technical Report
Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Plants:
1973-1978
Contract No. 68-01-4798
Prepared For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Facility Requirements Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
Project Officer: Dr. Wen H. Huang
-------
This report (FRD-11) was prepared under the direction of:
James A. Chamblee, Chief
Priorities & Needs Assessment Branch (WH-595)
Facility Requirements Division
Office of Water Program Operations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 426-4443
Copies of this report are available from the address below,
When ordering, please include the title and FRD number.
General Services Administration (8BRC)
Centralized Mailing Lists Services
Bldg. 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
Cover Photo Courtesy: Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 COST INFORMATION COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
Data Collection
Cost Updating and Data Analysis
Description of the Data Base
3.0 RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSIS
Nonconstruction Costs
First Order Costs
Second Order Costs
Third Order Costs
4.0 SIMPLIFIED TREATMENT COST ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES
Introduction
Cost Estimating Techniques
Examples
Page
1
3
3
4
9
13
29
77
89
89
90
APPENDIX A - COST UPDATING AND NORMALIZATION TECHNIQUES
APPENDIX B - DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA BASE
A-l
B-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2.1 Distribution of Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects 6
by Projected Flow and Level of Treatment
2.2 Distribution of Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects 7
by Treatment Process
3.1 Average Nonconstruction Cost Ratios for Wastewater 10
Treatment Plants - New Construction
3.2 Average Nonconstruction Cost Ratios for Wastewater 12
Treatment Plants - Enlarge, Upgrade, Enlarge and
Upgrade
3.3 Definition of Levels of Treatment 13
3.4 EPA Definitions for Levels of Treatment 14
3.5 Total Project Costs - Secondary Treatment 15
3.6 Total Construction Costs - Activated Sludge Secondary 31
Treatment
3.7 Total Project Costs - Activated Sludge Secondary 32
Treatment
4.1 Area Multipliers - Wastewater Treatment Plant 93
Construction
A.I EPA Large City Advanced Treatment (LCAT) Indexes A-5
A.2 EPA Small City Conventional Treatment.(SCCT) Indexes A-6
B.I Wastewater Treatment Plant Projects in Data Base
B-2
ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
FIRST ORDER COST CURVES
Total Construction Cost Vs. Design Flow
3.1 Secondary Treatment - New Construction
3.2 Secondary Treatment With Phosphorus Removal
3.3 Advanced Secondary Treatment - New Construction
3.4 Advanced Secondary Treatment With Nitrification
3.5 Advanced Wastewater Treatment - New Construction
3.6 Advanced Wastewater Treatment With Nitrification
3.7 Advanced Wastewater Treatment With Phosphorus Removal
3.8 Advanced Wastewater Treatment With Nitrification and
Phosphorus Removal
3.9 Stabilization Pond
3.10 Stabilization Pond - Nondischarging
3.11 Aerated Lagoon - Discharging
3.12 Aerated Lagoon With Filters - Discharging.
3.13 Aerated Lagoon or Stabilization Pond With Land
Treatment
SECOND ORDER COST CURVES
Process Cost Vs. Design Flow
3.14 Flow Equalization
3.15 Influent Pumping
3.16 Comminutors
3.17 Preliminary Treatment
3.18 Primary Sedimentation
3.19 Activated Sludge
16
17
18
19
20
2.1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
33
34
35
36
37
38
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page
3.20 Oxidation Ditch 39
3.21 Rotating Biological Contactor 40
3.22 Trickling Filter 41
3.23 Stabilization Pond 42
3.24 Aerated Lagoon 43
3.25 Chemical Additions 44
3.26 Secondary Microscreens 45
3.27 Mixed Media Filters 46
3.28 Sand Filters 47
3.29 All Filtrations 48
3.30 Chlorination for Disinfection 49
3.31 Land Treatment of Secondary Effluent 50
3.32 Effluent Outfall - Outfall to Non-Ocean Surface Water 51
3.33 Effluent Outfall - Ocean Outfall 52
3.34 Control/Laboratory/Maintenance Building 53
3.35 Land Spreading of Sludge 54
3.36 Land Application of Liquid Sludge 55
3.37 Gravity Thickening 56
3.38 Sludge Drying Beds 57
3.39 Sludge Lagoons 58
3.40 Anaerobic Digestion 59
3.41 Aerobic Digestion 60
3.42 Heat Treatment 61
3.43 All Incineration 62
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Cost of Component Vs. Design Flow
3.44 Mobilization
3.45 Sitework Including Excavation
3.46 Sitework Without Excavation
3.47 Excavation
3.48 Pilings, Special Foundations, Dewatering
3.49 Electrical
3.50 Controls and instrumentation
3.51 All Piping
3.52 Yard Piping
3.53 Process Piping
3.54 Equipment
3.55 Concrete
3.56 Steel
3.57 HVAC
THIRD ORDER COST CURVES
Cost of Process Component Vs. Design Flow
3.58 Raw Wastewater Pumping
3.59 Preliminary Treatment
3.60 Primary Sedimentation
3.61 Activated Sludge
3.62 Oxidation Ditch
3.63 Pure Oxygen Activated Sludge
3.64 Rotating Biological Contactor
Page
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Concluded)
3.65 Chiorination
3.66 Air Flotation Thickening
3.67 Aerobic Digestion
3.68 Control/Laboratory/Maintenance Building
Page
85
86
87
88
4.1 Wastewater Treatment Plants - Construction Costs 91
(January 1979 Dollars)
4.2 Aerated Lagoons and Stabilization Ponds - New 92
Construction (January 1979 Dollars)
4.3 EPA Municipal Construction Cost Index Map, Wastewater 94
Treatment Plants - Area Multipliers (1980 Needs
Survey)
A.I EPA Municipal Construction Cost Index Map For Large A-3
City Advanced Treatment (LCAT) Plant Indices
A.2 EPA Municipal Construction Cost Index Map For Small A-4
City Conventional Treatment (SCCT) Plant Indices
vi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by Sage Murphy & Associates, Inc., Denver,
Colorado under the direction of Dr. Wen H. Huang of the EPA Head-
quarters, Facility Requirements Division.
Sincere appreciation is extended to EPA Construction Grants personnel
in each of the ten Regions. Specific appreciation is extended to the
following personnel without whose cooperation and assistance this study
could not have been conducted.
Mr. Charles Bishop, EPA Region I
Mr. Robert Olson, EPA Region II
Mr. Ken Pantuck, EPA Region III
Mr. James Andrews, EPA Region IV
Mr. E. C. (Ted) Horn, EPA Region V
Mr. Richard McDermott, EPA Region VI
Mr. Walter Robohn, EPA Region VII
Mr. Jerry Burke, EPA Region VIII
Mr. Robert Rock, EPA Region IX
Mr. John Osborne, EPA Region X
Inquiries concerning this report should be directed to:
Dr. Wen H. Huang
Facility Requirements Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (WH-595)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 426-4443
vfi
-------
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the costs associated with the construction of
publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities. These costs are all
derived from the actual winning bid documents for treatment plants
eligible to receive monies from the Construction Grants Program of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Only plants funded under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500) and its amended ver-
sion, (PL 95-217), are a part of the data base. All data were obtained
from the Construction Grants files at the ten EPA Regional offices.
The EPA published in January, 1978 a report entitled "Construction
Costs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants: 1973-1977," EPA
430/9-77-013, MCD-37. The MCD-37 report was the initial effort by EPA
to gather actual construction costs and empirically derive cost func-
tions for complete plants, unit processes, and component costs for
those facilities granted Federal funds. All treatment plants in that
data base were for PL 92-500 projects only.
The data base used in this report makes use of as much of the MCD-37
data as is consistent with the analysis techniques. A large quantity
of new data, collected during 1978 and 1979, has been added to the base
and is reported herein. A total of 737 individual projects are now
part of the files analyzed. These include projects involving 469
secondary treatment plants, 111 advanced secondary treatment (AST)
plants, and 157 advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) plants. These can
be further differentiated as 353 new construction, 48 enlargements, 55
upgrades, 267 enlargement and upgrades, five replacements, and nine as
other projects.
These 737 projects represent approximately 5.8 billion dollars of grant
eligible treatment plant construction expenditures adjusted to fourth
quarter 1978 dollars. It is estimated this represents 4.3 billion
dollars of Federal grant funds. Considering inflation and other
factors, the data used in this study account for over one-half of the
treatment projects which have gone to the construction stage (Step III)
since the inception of the program.
This study, therefore, is certainly the most complete empirical
analysis of construction costs developed to date for municipally
owned wastewater treatment plants. It can be used, applying engi-
neering judgment, for preliminary estimation of construction costs for
individual processes and/or complete facilities. The reader is cau-
tioned, however, that this report and the costs shown should not be
used as a substitute for normal engineering estimating procedures. The
results herein are statistical averages for the nation and dp not
necessarily reflect the site specific conditions which can drastically
change the final costs. Local labor and material costs have been
normalized.
-------
This report discusses the method used to collect and analyze the data,
after which the results are presented. Descriptions of how to use the
cost curves, along with examples, are part of the main body of this
report. Procedures to estimate costs for future years and to translate
them to various sections of the country are presented. Kansas City,
Missouri and St. Joseph, Missouri were chosen as the locations to which
all costs were normalized. A section is also presented detailing a
simplified method to estimate costs. The latter was developed for EPA
for use in the 1980 Needs Survey.
The Appendix lists all the treatment plant construction projects used
in the data base; a summary table, by state, of the size and types of
projects used; and an explanation of the cost indexing procedures
utilized.
Construction costs have been analyzed and reported by three levels of
detail. The most general, called First Order costs, is for complete
treatment plants of various types. All construction costs are in-
cluded. The second level of detail, the Second Order costs, is for
specific unit processes, such as clarifiers, chlorination, etc.
The last level, the Third Order costs, is for the costs of various
components required: excavation, electrical, instrumentation, etc.
As would be expected, bidding procedures and available documents vary
considerably by location and size and type of project. Unit process
and/or component costs are often not itemized on the bid documents, but
were collected when they were available or could be deduced from
the grant files. The data were analyzed for all types of plants,
processes, and components which were collected. However, if the
statistical analysis indicated the resulting curves were not reliable
within a predetermined level, they were not reported herein.
The data collection effort is continuing as this report is being
published. An additional 400-600 projects will be added to the data
file during the next 18 months and an updated report will be pub-
lished. All cost data will be updated. Additional unit processes and
component costs should be available as the data base becomes larger.
Readers are encouraged to replace their copies of MCD-37, referenced
above. Since this report contains virtually the same data base
plus fifty percent more facilities, EPA feels the added information has
significantly added to the statistical significance of the results. In
addition, some new and different analysis techniques were utilized to
develop the results presented. An increased accuracy is evident in
this report when compared to its predecessor.
-------
2.0 COST INFORMATION COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
DATA COLLECTION
Project cost data from wastewater treatment plant construction projects
were collected in all ten Regional offices of EPA. All data were taken
directly from the project files of active Step III construction pro-
jects. The newly acquired data are from projects which included
wastewater treatment plants for which competitive bids were received
after January 1, 1977. All information was collected on specially
designed forms using a coding system where necessary.
Following a quality assurance check, the data were keypunched and
entered into an ADP file.; The format of the data base used in the
original MCD-37 report was made to conform with the new data, after
which the two were merged.,; All discrepancies in format and logic were
eliminated.
COST UPDATING AND DATA ANALYSIS
! ' • • ' '
The first step in the analysis updated all cost information to fourth
quarter of 1978 dollars. Step III cost data were updated from the
calendar quarter in which the projects were actually bid, and Step I
and Step I.I costs were updated from the date in which the respective
grants were awarded. A more complete description of the Updating
process is presented in Appendix A.
Data analyses were conducted for construction and associated costs of
wastewater treatment plants in order to provide the following levels of
cost information: i
1. Nonconstruction Costs \- Total Step III nonconstruction costs, as
well as Step I and Step II planning and engineering costs.
2. First Order - Total plant construction costs.
i • •- • • •
3. Second Order - Unit process construction costs and total plant
construction component costs.
4. Third Order - Unit process component costs.
NOTE: Nonconstruction costs were not included in the Firsts Second, or
Third Order relationships, but were analyzed separately as
discussed in Section 3.0. They are to be added to the other
costs as a separate item.
-------
Linear regression relationships of design flow versus cost, and other
parameters, in a few cases, were determined for each of the above
levels of construction cost data. A computerized statistics package
(The BMD Biomedical Computer Program developed by the University of
California, Los Angeles) was utilized to determine the significance of
the relationships and to plot the resulting linear regression equations.
Only those relationships with a sample correlation coefficient > 0.70
are presented in this report. The sample correlation coefficient
r is an indicator of the degree of linearity of the relationship
between two variables. This may vary from zero (no relationship
between the variables) to ± 1 (completely linear relationship).
Furthermore, the value r2 x 100% indicates the amount of the varia-
tion in the dependent variable y which may be accounted for by dif-
ferences in the independent variable x. Thus, an r value of 0.70 for a
cost curve in this report would indicate that a 49 percent variation
in cost is accounted for by differences in flow. Values of r for all
First Order and Second Order plots are included on each plot.
The F-test values, which are also presented, may be useful in evalu-
ating these relationships. The F-value can be compared with standard
tables to test the hypothesis that the sample correlation coefficient
versus zero against the alternative that the equation as a whole
defines a significant relationship between the two variables - in this
case, design flow versus cost. The F-value is the ratio of the mean
square due to regression to the deviation's mean square as follows:
F-value = SSF.E/K
f a UG RSS/(N-K-1)
The ratio is compared to the corresponding value from an F-table with K
and (N-K-1) degrees of freedom, where N is the total number of points,
K is the degree of freedom due to regression, and N-K-1 is the degree
of freedom due to deviations. SSFE means sum of squares due to fitted
equation; RSS means residual sum of squares.
DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA BASE
As noted in the Introduction, there are 737 wastewater treatment plants
in the data base utilized for this report. It was also pointed out
that 353 projects were construction of entirely new plants, 48 projects
were enlargements of existing facilities, 55 projects were upgrading
existing facilities, 267 were enlarging and upgrading of existing
facilities, five were replacing projects, and nine were classified as
"other." Enlargement is defined as increasing the design flow capacity
of a facility of the same level of treatment. Upgrading is defined as
an increase in the design treatment efficiency of a facility at the
same flow capacity.
-------
Table 2.1 presents a distribution of the projects used in. this report
by projected flow and level of treatment. Although there was no
attempt to acquire a statistically valid sample of the total population
.of construction grants, the data is believed to reflect the trends of
the program. It can be seen from Table 2.1 that 568 of the projects,
or 77 percent of the total, were for plants of 5.0 mgd or less.
Additionally, 469 projects, or 64 percent of the total, involved
secondary treatment plants. Approximately 52 percent of these secon-
dary plants were 5.0 mgd or less.
Table- 2.2 summarizes the projects by type of secondary wastewater
treatment process employed. It can be seen that 347, or 47 percent of
the projects, were activated sludge facilities. Also 209 projects, or
28 percent, involved other types of processes. It should be noted,
however, that "other" includes unit processes not listed on the table,
as well as combinations of any of the listed unit processes.
-------
TABLE 2.1
DISTRIBUTION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PUNT PROJECTS
BY PROJECTED FLOH AND LEVEL OF TREATMENT
<
1.00
MGD
1.00-5.00 MGD
Projected
Level of Treatment*
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Hew York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
A
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
•o
0
6
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
1
1
B
3
3
6
1
11
3
1
0
0
3
2
4
7
8
7
9
0
6
1
7
2
4
7
0
11
1
11
1
2
0
1
14
0
22
8
3
5
14
2
0
1
0
1
1
6
5
7
1
6
1
C_
0
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
2
4
6
0
1
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
D
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
18
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
5
2
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
Total
3
3
8
5
12
4
1
1
0
4
2
5
18
27
10
11
0
6
1
9
2
8
10
1
11
2
11
7
2
0
1
17
0
22
15
7
14
22
2
1
7
1
7
6
6
6
9
1
10
2
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Projected
Level of Treatment*
B
0
1
3
1
9
3
1
0
0
1
1
2
2
2
4
3
0
3
2
3
2
8
4
0
4
1
4
2
3
3
2
6
3
2
•4
1
1
11
2
1
3
0
3
0
1
4
9
3
4
0
C
3.
0
0
3
2
0
0
1
0
3
0
1
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
. 1
0
3
3
0
6
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
D
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
11
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
0
3
1
2
2
0
0
' 1
0 .
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
Total
3
1
3
4
12
6
1
1
0
8
1
3
17
8
6
3
0
3
2
5
2
10
6
0
5
1
4
2
3
3
4
11
7
2
10
5
. 3
19
2
1
4
1
8
2
1
5
9
4
7
0
5.01-25.00 MGD >
Projected
Level of Treatment*
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'o
0
0
B
0
1
2
1
7
2
2
0
0
1
0
1
2
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
3
1
1
0
3
1
2
0
0
6
1
3
0
1
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
2
1
C
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
1
1
6
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
6
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
4
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
Total
0
1
3
3
14
3
2
0
3
2
0
1
10
4
2
1
0
0
1
1
3
2
. 1
1
3
1
3
0
0
7
1
3
4
1
9
1
4
6
0
1
0
0
5
3
0
4
1
0
2
1
25.00 MGD '
Projected
Level of Treatment*
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B
0
0
0
o
5
o
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
o
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
1
0
0
0
1
4
0
2
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
0
C
0
0
0
0
1
o
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
o
0
o
o
5
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
o
o
0
o
0
o
2
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
Total
o
0
o
o
11
o
o
o
2
0
0
o
1
1
1
o
o
0
o
0
1
2
3
0
1
0
0
1
1
4
0
2
1
0
4
1
1
2
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
4
1
0
2
0
TOTALS
29 219 37 55
340
0 132 48 48
228
0 59 23 36
118
0 30
18
Total
6
5
14
12
49
13
4
2
5
14
3
9
46
40
19
15
0
9
4
15
22
20
2
20
4
18
10
6
14
6
33
12
25
38
14
22
49
4
3
11
4
22
11
7
19
20
21
3
737
' Levels of Treatment: A - Less Than Secondary Treatment and No Discharge
B - Secondary Treatment
C - Advanced Secondary Treatment
D - Advanced Wastewater Treatment
-------
TABLE 2.2
DISTRIBUTION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS
BY TREATMENT PROCESS
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida '
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts •
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Activated
Sludge
4
2
5
6
15
7
2
2
2
7
1
5
18
22
3
6
0
7
3
14
7
8
7
2
13
Trickling
Filter
0
. 1
0
1
6
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
2
0
1.
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
Stabilization
Ponds
1
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
1
3
5
0
0
0
1
0
2
4
0
1
Aerated
Lagoons
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Rotating
Biological
Contactor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
Other
1
2
7
4
23
6
1
0
2
4
2
1
24
14
7
3
0
1
0
0
1
5
8
0
4
Totals
6
5
14-
12
49
13
4
2
5
14
3
9
46
40
19
15
0
9
' 4
15
8
22
20
2
20
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
• Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1
7
0
5
9
4
23
3
0
21
5
8
32
4
2
2
4
15
3
3
10
6
.1
10
1
TOTALS
347
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
2
0
2
1
2
7
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
47
1
4
2
1
0
0
0
0
20
3
4
5
0
0
0
7
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
2
85
0
0
2
0
0
0
3
0
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
2
0
3
0
29
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
20
7
4
8
4
7
8
0
1
1
0
3
1
1
6
7
2
5
0
209
4
18
10
6
14 .
6 .
33
12
25
38
14
22
49
4
3
11
4
22
11
7
19
20
5
21
3
737
-------
-------
3.0 RESULTS OF THE DATA ANALYSIS
The results of all statistically valid relationships discernible from
the existing data base are presented in this section. Nonconstruction
costs are presented first since these costs are associated with all
projects and all orders of cost equations presented. First, Second,
and Third Order cost information follows. Examples of the use of these
curves follow at the end of each section.
NONCONSTRUCTION COSTS
Nonconstruction costs include grant eligible Step I and Step II plan-
ning costs, as well as the nonconstruction costs associated with the
Step III construction effort: administration, architect/engineer fees,
contingency allowances, etc. These costs were nearly always discern-
ible from the EPA grant files.
Table 3.1 presents the average ratios of all Step III nonconstruction
cost categories to total construction costs for new construction
projects. Total construction costs are defined as the grant eligible
construction costs for the Step III portion of the project, excluding
nonconstruction items. In most cases total construction costs are
those directly related to the bid documents as submitted by the con-
tractor(s). In addition to these costs must be added the noncon-
struction categories listed in Table 3.1. Fifteen categories of
nonconstruction costs are identified in this table. It should be noted
that only five of these nonconstruction cost categories were found in
the majority of the projects: administrative/legal costs, architect/
engineering basic fees, other architect/engineering fees, project
inspection costs, and contingencies. These five categories equal
approximately 20 percent of the construction costs as a national
average. The other ten categories of nonconstruction costs listed in
the table can be a part of any particular project, yet they must be
considered atypical as can be seen by their small sample size as
compared to the five prime characteristics.
The total project costs for facilities constructed using
tion Grant funds are a total of the construction costs,
nonconstruction costs outlined above, and the Step I and
(preliminary and detailed design). Step I and II costs
for all projects having Steps I, II, and III grants.
calculated as a fraction of the total construction cost
presented at the bottom of Table 3.1. They are 2.33 and
for Steps I and II, respectively.
EPA Construc-
the Step III
Step II costs
were analyzed
These were
(TCC) and are
5.55 percent
A few projects also had significant ineligible costs. These are also
presented in Table 3.1. Although present in only a few projects, these
costs tended to be a significant percentage of the total construction
costs when they were present - 10.8 percent on a national average,
and as high as 26.2 percent in Region VIII.
-------
to
1—
o.
jg
p
LU
C£
Of
LU
1—
3
h-
3
rH g
• LU
CO
to
LU O
_J I-H
H §
(—
to
CD
g
1—4
1—
O
ra
os
r-
to
g
o
CD
LU
CD
s
LU
•^
to
CO
o
°
z
o
1— 1
1—
CJ
£§
§s
I-H O
53°
rs —i
os-a:
|°.
CJ P^
to
3 CD
LU O
z
z
o
o
o;
I—
to
z
o
g
z
LU
_J LU O
0- M CM
3EI I-H CO
CM
(31
CD
CD 0
LU •
C£.
in
o co
CD O
LU .
C£
«*
0 8
• o
CD O
LU .
C£
CO
O rH
O
CM
CD CD
1 1 1 ,
ce
CM
o i~.
to
• rH
CD O
LU
C£
rH
O O1
rH
rH
CD O
LU
Of
r—
a
cn
053 0)
_1
^* ^^
0 ^
JH >- O
0 CD '43
cc LU s-
I-H 1 — I -fJ
i-l to et Ul
I-H Z O •!-
CD C
O. CJ K- M-
LU Z 10 £
1— CD O -0
to z o «c
in co
CM CO
O CM
CM «d-
0 CD
rH CO
«*• co
rH CO
0 0
*
CM O
CD CO
0 O
to in
0 rH
rH rH
0 rH
CO O
in to
CD ^
o o
rH
i m
1 CO
1 CM
to •*•
rH tO
rH CO
0 0
1 CO
1 rH
1 0
00
i cn
1 rH
1 CD
i-H tO
CD cn
rH CM
o o
to «j-
i-H «3-
OO rH
O O
•» .
Ul
2J >,
» l=f
S- 3 tr-
io s- o
C 4J 1
•r- tO •<->
E JC
•i— •* 01
01 c cc:
Q- _I
O CO CO
o r^. oo
CO rH rH
01 r~ in
CO CO O
t-~ CM «d-
O O 0
CM CO O
•-H in •*
O O CD
•
in to to
CM CO CO
O) CM in
o o o
r-~ CM co
in in co
1^ CM ^t-
o o o
co to to
CM in rH
000
rH tO i-H
CO to to
^1- rH CM
O O O
01 to «=j-
in co m
1^. CO CM
o o o
rH tO 1^.
t^ OO CM
in CM CM
0 O O
in CM «*
OO i— 1 •*
I— I rH ^1*
rH 0 0
CM O1 •*
in O rH
to in to
000
CO CM £
CM
£Z
o
CD 4->
O n]
-o 8
(3 01
—1 a:
rH CM
01 r^
CD CM
o o
^t"
i in
1 O
*
1 1
1 1
I 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 t
1 1
t 1
1 1
o
1 CD
1 rH
1 O
01
o !
0 I
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 t
1 1
t 1
1 1
1 I
t/1 (O
•!-> >
£= O
01 E
§> §L
-t->
O r^
^ i
s. &
CM i-H
i-H CM
oo
^J* CD
CM r^
CM •*
0 0
oo
1 to
1 OO
1 CD
"
oo
1 CM
i to
1 O
^N» ^3
OO CM
CNJ Lf)
0 0
(^
1 t-H
I LO
1 O
to co
O^ f^»
O CO
O CD
*
VD
00
1 CN
! °
CO OO
in cn
CM to
CD O
l-H 1*^
rH O1
oo «*
CD O
" *
oo
1 O
i to
1 O
•* •*
rH IO
CM in
o o
-t-J
Ul
CD >,
S- U
ai c
4J CU
c cn
"-H C
•a '43
c c
o o
CO O
i^ in
CM
co ai
O CM
o o
JS.^
! CO
I ^t*
1 O
*
CT» CO
LO i— 1
O «3-
O 0
rH
i in
I O
1 0
ir>
1 OO
1 CO
1 CD
CM
1 !*>•
1 0
*
1 1
I |
r-f
I *d~
I 0
CM
CM I
O 1
0 !
"
CO
0 1
O l
i to
1 i-H
1 O
(0
tj 1 —
<1> I—
C-- Q)
TD Ul
C •!-
l-H S
CO 1
CM 1
1
01 r*^
O CO
co cn
O CO
CO CM
to co
O CO
o oo
cn p^
o «*
o oo
rH 1^
01 CO
s s
0 I-H
in oo
CM O
O CO
in CM
to to
o <*
O "*
CD ^^
CO CO
rH tO
O CM
0 CO
1^ CO
0 OO
O CM
t-^ CO
rH CM
rH i-H
O CO
in
i cn
i cn
1 CM
S
1 to
1 CO
_i
•=C
o
CO
to
4->
C LU
01 — J
E ca
S. l-H
•r- CD
3 I-H
CT —1
LU LU
rH OO
in 01
^*
rH
co o
CO CM
0 0
rH in
CM «*
!^ O
•=S- CM
o <*
co
1 OO
rH CO
CM O
to in
CM tO
CM OO
01 CM
CM CO
I-H ^J-
CM «*
01 in
CM 1^
O "tf-
1 OO
i to
1 CM
o co
o oo
<3- CM
o co
CO tO
to cn
rH CM
*
oo co
CM i-H
CD OO
oo h*«
h-» h^
CM CO
o oo
Ul
Ul
0
o
01
r—
• fn.
en to
•1- _1
i— -a:
01 r—
c p
I-H 1—
co in
co in
CM in
o tj
o o
h- f—
rH CM
a. o.
LU LU
1— h-
to to
-------
Table 3.2 presents nonconstruction data corresponding to Table 3.1 for
enlargement, upgrading, and enlargement and upgrading type treatment
plant construction. In these cases the five most common nonconstruc-
tion costs equal approximately 22 percent of the total construction
costs. Step I and Step II percentages equaled 5.00 percent and
7.41 percent, respectively, indicating that preliminary planning and
plant design are somewhat more expensive for this type of project.
Ineligible costs were significantly less on a percentage basis when
they were present.
11
-------
LU
__) LU
Cu Ni
CM
CO
CM
CO
CO
CO
en
t-H
CTi
O
O
I-H
fe
o •fl-
ea oo
t-H O
O CD
LO co
CD co
co co
O O
01
O
co
CM
o
O
LO
o
CD
0
CO
en
O 0
LO i-H
0 0
CO
CM
O
to CD
1^-- ^f*
co o
O
O
«d-
r-.
01 oo
o o
CD CD
r —
LO
CD CD
CO LO
ID CS1
o o
CM
O
in
CM
CM
o
LO
I-H
0
IO
CO
to
CO
O
O
O
O
O CM
i-H O
t-H O
O O
CO
LO
en
CD
CO
CO
LO
10
o co co
t-H CD O
o
O
co
o
O
O
I— to
01 t-H
CO O
LU
(S>
CM
CO
S
£
LU
I
g
LU
g
CO
o
CJ
co
i-H
o
to
LO
CD
0
CD
CM
O
O
CO
S
CM «d-
CM CM
§ g
10
CD
§
CD
CD
CD
O
CT) 1-^
in LO
CD CO
CD O
in
CO
O
CM
«3
Crt
to
co
i-H
CD
CM
O
r~^ I-H CM en
CM i-H LO CO
•* OO ** CM
CD 0 O O
to
01
to
LO
S
to
to
in
o
CO
O
o
•*
i-H
o
o
O
CM
O
in
«d-
O
CD
en
o
o
00
CM
o
O
in
CO
CM
^h
CM
to
1^
t-H
r-.
CO
in
CM
O)
0
00
CM
0
O
o
en
CM
LO
CO
CM
CM
OO
CO
LO
CM
s
CD
LU
a:
en
CM
§
O
O
CO
•=)-
CM CM
0 0
OO
«3-
CO
CM
O
0
LO *i-
CD i-H
O 0
0 O
S
t-H
CM
0
O
O)
en
o
CD
CD
CD
•*
•*
oo
O
CM
CO i-H
CO CO
«3- in
I-H 0
CM
to
O
O
LO
CO
O
O
0
"S-
O
to
CM
S
O
CM
CD
0
to
0
to
1^
LO
r~-
O
co
LO
CO
CO
CM
CM
to
CO
oo
to
o
§
00 LO
LO en
to o
o o
LO
o
o
CO
CO
co
CM
CO
O
CD
"*
O
O
«d- CO
CM O
CD CM
i-H O
to
O
in
O
in
in
O
co
CO
CD
o
in
CM
o
O
co
to
oo
CM
O
O
CO
CO
CO
CM
CO
en
cu
tration
Ad
>,
S-
ro
U)
CD
^
+-> 3
O I
S- O
to +•>
J=
" en
c az
tu
0)
U)
cu
0)
s-
c
01
Q.
a
-a
co
o
o
-------
FIRST ORDER COSTS
New Construction Costs
First Order curves are presented in Figures 3.1 through 3.13 for the
construction cost versus design flow (in mgd) for entirely new treat-
ment facilities (grass roots or new construction). All grant eligible
construction costs incurred in constructing the entire treatment
facility are included. Only those relationships judged to be statis-
tically significant were plotted. Statistical information concerning
each relationship is shown on each plot.
Figures 3.1 through 3.8 present the total construction cost relation-
ships for eight different levels of mechanical treatment plants from
secondary treatment through advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) with
nitrification and phosphorus removal. The levels of treatment are
defined in Table 3.3.
TABLE 3.3
DEFINITION OF LEVELS OF TREATMENT
Treatment Level
Secondary Treatment
Advanced Secondary Treatment
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Nitrification
Phosphorus Removal
Definition
BOD5 = 30 mg/1
(BOD5 = 25 mg/1 where a State
definition is more stringent
than the EPA definition)
BOD = 24 mg/1 - 11 mg/1
BOD < 10 mg/1
Reduction of ammonia nitrogen
to 5.0 mg/1 or less
Reduction of total phosphorus
to 3.0 mg/1 or less.
The definitions of the treatment levels applied in this report are
slightly different from those identified by EPA in the Construction
Grants Program Requirements Memorandum 79-7 (March 9, 1979). The PRM
79-7 definitions are provided in Table 3.4.
13
-------
TABLE 3.4
EPA DEFINITIONS FOR LEVELS OF TREATMENT
Treatment Level
Definition
Secondary Treatment
Advanced Secondary Treatment
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
BOD5 and Suspended Solids of
30/30 mg/1 on a maximum monthly
average or 85 percent removal,
whichever is more stringent
BOD5 and Suspended Solids of
29/29 mg/1 to 10/10 mg/1 on a
maximum monthly average
BOD5 and Suspended Solids
less than 10/10 mg/1 or total
nitorgen removal greater than
50 percent
Figures 3.9 through 3.13 present the construction cost curves for
stabilization pond and aerated lagoon facilities. As with the pre-
ceding mechanical plant curves, the costs represented include the grant
eligible costs for the entire facility including such costs as influent
pumping, pretreatment, and effluent structures where they were found in
the projects collected.
Other Types of Construction
Many projects which consist of enlargements, upgrading, and enlargement
and upgrading of treatment facilities are also present in the data
base. Due to the greater variation in technical considerations and
costs associated with such projects, no cost curves could be produced
at a level of statistical confidence great enough for inclusion
as First Order curves.
Two other methods are suggested for the user to derive such costs. The
first method is to use a summation of the Second Order curves to ap-
proximate the modifications to be made at a given facility. Alter-
natively, the user can refer to the simplified cost estimating tech-
niques found in Section 4.0.
Total Project Costs
The user may derive total grant eligible project cost estimates by
adding nonconstruction costs and Step I and Step II planning costs to
the construction costs from the First Order cost curves. Table 3.5
below summarizes total project costs for mechanical secondary treatment
at three design capacities.
14
-------
TABLE 3.5
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS - SECONDARY TREATMENT
Design Flow (mgd)
1.0
10.0
20.1)
Total Construction Costs $2,240,000 $12,030,000 $19,953,000
Step III Nonconstruction
Costs (20%)*
Step I Costs (2.33%)
Step II Costs (5.55%)
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
448,000 2,406,000 3,991,000
52,000 280,000 465,000
124,000 668.000 1,107,000
$2,864,000 $15,384,000 $25,516,000
* These costs include only the five most common nonconstruction costs
from Table 3.1. Administrative/ Legal, Basic Architect/Engineering,
Other Architect/ Engineering, Inspection, and Contingency costs.
The user should use his own discretion concerning other categories
of nonconstruction costs to be included.
. • . 5 . f - < • s, : 3 . f - . % t ••
Cost Updating
The costs in this report are all national average costs which have been
indexed to Kansas City/St. Joseph, Missouri during the fourth calendar
quarter of 1978. The use of Kansas City/St. Joseph, Missouri $s base
cities for the costs results from the use of a combination of tHe EPA
Large City Advanced Treatment (LCAT) and Small City Conventional
Treatment Indexes as discussed in Appendix A. Costs may be updated to
other geographical areas by using the following procedure:
Latest LCAT or SCCT Index
Total Project Cost x for Desired Area
from this Report
4th Quarter 1978 LCAT or
SCCT Index for Desired Area
= Updated Cost,
The desired LCAT or SCCT Index city may be determined by using the
maps, Figures A.I or A.2 in Appendix A. The LCAT and SCCT Indexes are
published quarterly by EPA. Costs for plants at or above 15 mgd should
be updated using the LCAT Index, While those for plants below 15 mgd
should be updated using the SCCT Index.
15
-------
Q
O
O
to
UJ
CJ
(SHvnoa jo SNomiw) ISOD NioiiDrmsNco ivioi
-------
o
0
0
_J • -
. — .... _ _
-n
° s m *
§"2 " § l:~5
— . »- o- • : ' ' Z
< X ^ III II 1 w>
^ . ' ••" FfffrT S
O «o n o
•"*..• W4^=t u
2 - o, u. - - z
n u " " " : O
II || . _ - . W
. - -. [_
u = : : :: ^
• Q£
. . tO
z
= = === : : : = = = :'•-'. - - O
= = -z^: : ; = = = : : __-.-„-_. U
--"T, - - ----'. ': ' '- i = E:E5 Z
|| |z
Ijilli jmlm iiMi!!^ fi
= !•=! 11 IEEE ;;E; EEEEI O
— -- :::: :::: : : : : :::i: Z
:-:E :::! j::: :::::: ::::::zzz
|^
:iz:= : ::: ::;= : : ::: ; ; : «
: : : uJ
: L :_:_:::: - - - oc
- - — - - 1- r>
::::_ : : :::: : : : : : : o
. . . _ U.
o q o o <
00 "O ~* CM •-
0
o"
o
^"
__q
d
«n
0
o
o
«o
0
ut
d
o
'
O
i
O
Z
o
to
S
(savnoa do SNomiwi ISOD
ivioi
-------
o
o
o
o
LLI
( savnoa do sNomiw ) isco NoiiDrmsNco wioi
-------
: Z : : E E: 1 E = -
: O = = ::::::
: > i— : - - 1 . - _ _
> < - - :!::;-
; o u : : : - I - - -
-r1 u* . - - . . i
UL. _ '
5TRUCTION COST VS. DESIGN
)NDARY TREATMENT WITH NITR
: n: :::::::::;::' •- -^
O UJ - - • .. : ~. ~ ~
.-- u "> : : -
m o • -7 1UWI fK+H-
Ffffl i- • < ft##ft$titfTh^^
- : > : : :: : : : : ; -
Bffl Q I-I-I4-I-IHIIIIHIIII 1 1 1 1 1 h
E E < : = " i E : E E =
000 q o
o o o o o
O 09 « ^ ^ g
mlm-g « " 8
1 1 nun i *" °° o u. u
— :: : u „ O
H*
LI: : u c ^
- - a:
r- : - [[|||[[l||[|||||||||||||||||||j| fe
V n .
— I E :- i : 1 i 1 E : : : : : = = Z
=-| EEE=;; = - = = : : ; o
-- : ::=- : : : : : : : : : : : : : Z
IflllllHIIIIIIIIIIII^B o
i *
— ~ — - ~ — i . —
~ = --::::: :::--- -• "^
Illl |-[.| 1 1 1 1 I: . rt •
- - - _ L . . . : :::::: tu
- - ---• T "• °*
-:::::::: : : : : :: o
- - - - J-- u!
q q q q o <
2 «> o ^
O
O
g
LU
Q
do SNomiw) ISOD
wioi
-------
Q
O
O
u_
Z
O
t/>
LU
do sNomiw) ISOD NoiiDnyisNOD ivioi
-------
Q
O
o
o
yj
(s»vnoa jo SNomiw) ISOD NOiiDnaisNOD ivioi
-------
O
Q
LL.
O
CO
Z
O
CO
O
U
Z
h-
CO
Z
O
O
100.0-rr
nn n...
y u.u
60.0-
40.0-
20.0—
inn
1 VJ . VJ
8f\
.VJ —
6.0-
4.0-
2.0-
1 0
00
.0
0.6-
0.4-
0.2—
. 1
0
--
=
—
_,
^-J
••"— •
^
4^
^— • —
~
i-h
-
-
)
.
I
' ••
i — i — <
r-t-l
^_
i
' ) t
! ' ' '
'
H
T^
1
F
K
TOTA
1
'
P"
[ ! ] - 4-j-
Mttt
I t i
i r
1 [
t
i t
if • ;
j
i 1 1 i 1 li
3URE
" • ' •
L CON
ADVA
W
::r-"+3±
I j
°*""T T
t£ it
i i [
i
1 i '
b t • J
! r ' !
1 i
T T
h rpl r
1 • 1^
t . -^ ^r
i|* ^j^] ( i
' I ' i
i , i <
1 • ill -
±::::::|
I
37
.f ^
t
!
-4-
/
T
J-^-
STRL
NCE
MTH
_j_
--T-- 4
j
•1
;
1
' ' r
T--J
f4
,
''II
-i4-4
IT:::
i
0
u
ICT
D
PH
tT-
•
Hi
j i
H
»!=
K
\
C
t
.4.1.
T
or
w
>s
^
^
s|
AJ
PK
C
>TE
10
C
\
R
^
),
V
U
^
5
/
S
—
T
p*
r
i
f
VS. DESK
ER TREATA/
REMOVAL
. 1
, 1
j j'
?-- --
EQUATIOf
C = (3.06 X
n = 4 r
F =516.!
-IKJ FLOW -
IENT -:
V
1 1
, r
• i
j l
^ P
.>
4 --
A n 09 --
106)Q°'92 = =
f\ f\ f^
58 ::
NOTE: NONCONSTRUCTION ::
COSTS NOT INCLUC
kCPl
'CL/
5 1.0 5.0 1
0.0
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
-------
•I)
iTT^B
* K. o ; ; : ^
IS w s Illllllllllllllllff
w> |"J to : : : .---
U4 ••<•") -
0 uj £ : : :: = -
£ 0 : i = = E~
m °> I t
> « ft : : :: EEEE
uj X : : :: :_;z
ESH •- "- ' 9 TmrnTTmTmTrT
to < 3T .
0 £ *• :::::-
. o u o : : ::
.,,< :::::: ~
. . z:
O CO *O ^
>
1
>
5
;
b
C
|PM
O
•
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
m
o
o
>
O
o
g
CO
UJ
(swnoa jo SNomiw) ISOD NoiiDrmsNOD ivioi
-------
to
o
Q
u_
O
z
o
O
U
z
o
p
u
to
Z
O
U
O
10-° LUJIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItffl
8.0 HM|||||||IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIiM
TOTA1 rOW^TR
6.0-=-== = "":
rzEEEEEEEi STABILIZAT
A.n--- "::::::|||||||||[||||||||||||||| IIIIIH
2.o-=EEEEE;E;;;;;;:;! ; E;;;;:;;;; ;;: EEEE;E;
1.0- :
0.8-Er:::::::::::::: "I::::::::::::::::::
o.4-EEEEEEiE;;;;:;:: : :EE::::::::::: EEEE;;;
1 1 1 ! 1 1 II 1 Illillilllil 1 1 1 1 ll!lllll!irJ 1 HIT!
o.2-EEEEEEEE;:;;;;;:;:;EEEi;!;:;: iii E — ii1 ~" "
;E^h::iEE; ii!!;:; EEEI;;;;;: ; : EE;E;;;;=-:EEE;EE;:;;;;;;:: EE;
:j«'-E" ;i:;i: ::::::::: ::: ::::.::: ::::::::::::::: :::
==* HE !: = = :: ^ii;;; =EEEE!i;;=;!;!;=EEEEEi; =====E=EE=Ei;!i;;;;;EEE
* a _ . . . ... ... ____.-..- ..... — ~ — ..,.,., — ,
--z:::::::: :::::::::::::::::: EQUATION
:= = = =:::r:: :: :::::::::::::::::::===: C = (1.31 X 1
: :::::: :.::.: n = 44 r *
;EEEEEEEE;E; ii: ;; EEE;;;;;;; ;; EEEE F - 67.2
. KIOTF- MOfslCONSTRUCTIOKI COSTS NIC
1 1
1 0.5 1.0
i un
°6" °p;77 1
* 0.78
1 :::::
)T INCLUDED
5.0 10.0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
6
O
O
u
z
O
u
1.0-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0.1-
0.08-
0.06-
0.04-1
.02-4
0
001—1
0.
f
-
—i:: TOTAL COh
p= = " STABILIZA
-H !--•+•*•?•
L^-—
^--:-i:::±:::::: -----
*" !' *
— 1 . -|_4.^.l^ _^___c
-M--I j 1 'ill ll 1
II' ~ M
_^.-M--U-,,._M-i.: :^..
_^.___j^^...::£i,
— i_i_— ulffi^sS:
-1 -i -^--Lt-Hj^S^-f!-
^"^-t^^^f
• • 1 !' jf "T ;i ritf> i
— T "ra^ ?q? 3+E s==s:
• — |-ai^ -; — ^-r ' ' ! ' -^- - ' ' ; 1 —
: ^ -ft-H--* :--rt7 — H—
^^— r-^^tf^
r_4 __| -— •' f »t- 1-^ j ' { 1
-1 . . H-t j>H-" "-] r^-
•>-
F
-_| -j. JJ^L^t^L I 1 ,
•IG11RF T TO ! : • i
01
•4STRUCTION COST VS. DESIGN 1
TION POND - NONDISCHARC
:- l\-~ --------- ::ji!:: :::::
j:::ffp = EEEEEEl==EEEEEjii!!;;;;;;EE = EE
;;;::;::: «'jj[=|
1 1 | \\\\\\[\#t ll IlllilJUl
::::4:: == 4: = : :-^j= = r:i; :::::::::::: !i^::
iilffi I
-]>J*tr^--j:r-J--T- "-H
ic.jj. JLS: ::" —
|4~==EEE!iSE==EE::E=;;;;;;illl!
aii^EEssi ' "iii'iHimiummii
^4^4=^^ EQUATION
r-ij — EESEE C » ( 1.18 X
— I — p ! if ' " — i- n ^ . oc ~
-T^^I- — j T " ~ *••* r
-^-TT^T;:: F = 27.
^^^±^±-4
H-I ' rt j_""rt NOTE- NONCON
•' • •' ! : ^^^TC" KI/^1
i ' i _j_ * CWOIO NW
0.05 0.1
=LOW:"::::::
5ING ::::::::
| ;..
6 075 +
10 ) Q ::
.74
11 .' i
STRUCTION
riK.1^1 1 ir\cr\
INLLUDkU
0.5 1.0
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
-------
D
D
^
. i L ......
*^ i . «
CTION COST VS. DESIGN FLOW
LAGOON — DISCHARGING
-- is |' —
:— - = = :::::::::::::::: = ":::::::::::3::i(!::-
:~"-E:Eii;ii;;;;i!;s>EEi;iii;;;!!i??EEEEi?
* * ,i *
*y - j 1
U
oc. _ ::::i~~ —
I— Ci
05 UJ
i § <
3 *-* in 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 M 1 1 i 1 1 1 ! i I 1 ] — — |
E < :::::::::::::::::::: = =
h-
:::::::::::::::::::: ::: : ._ -
o o p p c
CO «O *"* CJ »•
...T~t"TtT---5-E£...-i2; -gT*^- c
rrri" " c
t
o °°. KM 2
^ o EH; ~
_ ^o II p;T: C
1 - ' ^m-
I st • !I!I! £
uJ o>i ^ u. '-+•- ' '- -j
^^ i— ^
:::t: C
• II II -4-4-- C
C
(J c T _
::p:~: o
-4---- 1-
-- + it XL — ' — ^
EEEEEEEE; EEEEEEEEEE ;EEEEE:::=:=: c
..| u
BB
„ ......._.__.---..- ..-..-_- . ~"~ ^
;•;;;;;;:;; ;;:;;:;:; :;i:; : C
u
:::":: ~~:::::::::: ::: :::::::: :: : c
:::::- — ::::::::::::::: :::::::: :::::: c
"- -••T" — T' C
^ oo 'O ^t c*i
- d d d p
i
>
i
i
)
9
b
>
r
>
>
>
)
I
)
>
g
>
)
;
)
^
*
)
r
Mt
0
u
£
D
D
I
•
r
<
O
o
o
0
o
o
o
d
D
O
o
o
u.
z
o
co
UJ
Q
(savnoa
SNomiw) ISOD
ivioi
-------
o
O
CO
LLJ
O
(savnoa do SNomiw) ISOD NoiiDnaisNOD wioi
-------
10.0 i i i i iiiiiiiiiiiiiini
8.0 : TOTAI <
OO 6.0 =:
&> = : AERATE
-J 4.0 EEi
o ========= =
u. 2.0 EEEEEE; E ; \
O EEEEEEEEE;
0 1'°
2 o.8-EEEEE::::i;;;;:;;;i
DNSTRUCTION COST ( *
I 0 0 P P P
w o co _j ro j^.
^^ U.U» : I 1 t ' 1 Ml'
o 1 1 1 I |||i
o hit ill liil Ili
F- — niiHii.ii'i.iii
FIGURE 3.13
.01
0.01
1 i I i . | iiiinin | 1 1 [ 1 1 I) I i M 1 1 1 1 1 1 II IIIIIIU 1 1 1 1 1
:ONSTRUCTION C<
D LAGOON OR
WITH LAND
r " " " |!''~~~Z~-di —
=i|;|;;; ;;: *|==EEEE-
4- —
J_L 1 4...
1 ' I i i '•''"'
±:_|_ r_. . 4 _i_
_j__5- J-t- ' - -•-
D
1
t
it
S
S
n
T VS. DESIGN FL
TABILIZATION 1
IEATMENT
p:::::::::::::::::::];
mini i^iii iiii i_ij!
=::::::::::::;;! !::::
S!=EEEEEEEEE|;;EEEEE
---: ::: ; : :: :~i::
-:::::::::ii:: :::::
EQUATION
( 1.45 X 10 )
|j| ||.lii||l|l||| n = 10 r -
EE8iE:ll F " 5-42
t;:::^ :::±" NOTE: NONCONSTRUC1
' i i ' COS!
1 1 ' ' ' 1 1 1 !
'S NOT INCLUDED
0.05 0.1
|,,,|.|.mi||| | | iqffffl
OW ::: : :
'OND ;
0.61
Q EEEt •*•
0.63 --->--
ION -^1
j
0.5 1.0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
SECOND- ORDER COSTS
Unit Process Construction Costs
Second Order plots of construction cost versus design flow for 30
commonly used unit processes are included as Figures 3.14 through
3.43. These costs are derived from data for newly constructed unit
processes even though some of these processes were constructed as a
part of a project to enlarge and/or upgrade an existing plant. Costs
for the enlargement and/or upgrading of unit processes were too vari-
able and have not been included.
In order to insure that costs for identical types of unit processes
were comparable, the definitions of all unit processes with respect to
their construction components were determined. The following construc-
tion components were included in the costs for all unit processes:
1. Concrete
2. Equipment
3. Process Piping
4. Steel
The following unit processes include excavation costs in addition to
the components listed above: ]
1. Aerated Lagoons
2. Flow Equalization
3. Sludge Drying Beds
4. Sludge Lagoons
5. Stabilization Ponds
Unit process costs which included other component costs not in the
above lists or which did not contain all of the above cost elements
were not eligible for inclusion into this analysis.
Figure 3.33, Effluent Outfall - Ocean Outfall, is significant in that
the equation has an exponent of greater than 1.00. This would imply
that there is no economy of scale for ocean outfalls. In order to
verify this, more data were collected for 11 of the 13 data points
included in Figure 3.33. As a result, it was found that the larger
treatment plants tended to require the longer ocean outfalls and a
bigger pipe.
Second Order Component Costs
Component costs for total plant construction were often bid on a lump
sum basis and could be easily separated from the total bid price.
These are referred to as total plant component costs and should not be
confused with the Third Order component costs.
29
-------
The total plant component costs most commonly available were:
1. Controls and Instrumentation
2. Electrical
3. Excavation
4. Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
5. Mobilization
6. Pilings, Special Foundations, and Dewatering
7. Sitework
8. Yard Piping
Figures 3.44 through 3.57 present the plots of the total plant com-
ponent cost versus design flow for new construction of all levels of
treatment. The component cost analysis includes both labor and ma-
terials. These "in place" costs are in addition to the second order
unit process costs.
Use of the Second Order Curves
Unit process Second Order costs and total plant component costs may be
combined to yield complete treatment plant construction costs as shown
by the example in Table 3.6 for a typical activated sludge treatment
plant.
30
-------
TABLE 3.6
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS - ACTIVATED SLUDGE SECONDARY TREATMENT
Process Name
Design Flow (mgd)
Preliminary Treatment
Influent Pumping
Primary Sedimentation
Conventional Activated
Sludge
Effluent Chiorination
Effluent Outfall
Gravity Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Drying Beds
Control/Lab/Mai ntenance
Building
$
TH5
64,000
131,000
120,000
519,000
63,000
61,000
69,000
199,000
69,000
10.0
$ 370,000
559,000
601,000
2,919,000
283,000
359,000
346,000
1,199,000
374,000
20.0
$ 627,000
865,000
977,000
4,908,000
444,000
613,000
563,000
2,059,000
618,000
193,000
734,000 1,097,000
TOTAL UNIT PROCESS COSTS $1,488,000 $ 7,744,000 $12,771,000
Mobilization
Sitework
Excavation
Electrical
Controls and
Instrumentation
Yard Piping
Heating, Ventilating,
& Air Conditioning
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
COMPONENT COSTS
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
63,000
111,000
133,000
167,000
78,000
115,000
311,000
412,000
581,000
897,000
469,000
590,000
501,000
612,000
905,000
1,488,000
805,000
965,000
48,000
312,000
547,000
$ 715,000 $ 3,572,000 $ 5,823,000
$2,203,000 $11,316,000 $18,594,000
The above total construction costs correspond to the First Order
construction costs. When combined with Step I and II, plus Step III
nonconstruction costs, total project costs are determined. Table 3.7
below presents the total project costs resulting from the above sample
activated sludge facilities.
31
-------
TABLE 3.7
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS - ACTIVATED SLUDGE SECONDARY TREATMENT
Design Flow (mgd)
Total Construction Costs
Step III Nonconstruction
Costs * (20%)
Step I Costs *
Step II Costs *
TOTAL PROJECTED COSTS
* From Table 3.1.
T70
10.0
20.0
$2,203,000 $11,315,000 $18,594,000
440,000
51,000
122,000
2,263,000
264,000
628,000
3,719,000
433,000
1,032,000
$2,816,000 $14,470,000 $23,778,000
These costs agree well with the total project costs determined from the
First Order cost curves (see Table 3.5). Some divergence of costs
between the two levels of estimating is apparent, however, as design
flow increases. This could be due to the fact that more complex
unit process schemes than the one chosen in this example are commonly
utilized for the larger facilities.
32
-------
PROCESS COST VS. DESIGN FLOW
FLOW EQUALIZATION
NOTE: NONCONSTRUCTION COSTS NOT INCLUDED
0.001
0.
0.5
5.0 10iO
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
100.0
500.0 1000.0
-------
PROCESS COST VS. DESIGN ROW
INFLUENT PUMPING
I
EQUATION
C - (1.31 X 105) Q
n - 70 r = 0.77
F • 102.50
NOTE: NONCONSTRUCTION COSTS NOT INCLUDED
0.001
0.01
005
0
1.0
5.0 10.0
50.0 100.0
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
-------
u.
O
\i/ -
Vo. UtolON PLOW . . . : : • ••
^INUTORS '-'•'•'• :: : ::
:3^= = r = : = = ::::::: : :EEiE::: E | =E= E !E
~EEEEiEi;;iiii!!![EEEl!l;;;EEEE= !
L .
| EQUATION '•#&
§ C * (1.98 X 10^)Q°'56 HJji
3 n - 9 r = 0.72 i '.
1 F = 7*69 rrrn
i NOTE: NONCONSTRUCTION
COSTS NOT INCLUDED
•0 5.0 100
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
O
Q
to
O
u
to
is
I
PROCESS COST VS. DESIGN FLOW
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT *
C- (6.43 X 104) Q°'7
n * 6.1' " r - 0.80
F • 104.58
* INCLUDES: BAR SCREEN, AND/OR [COMMINUTOR.
AND/OR GRIT REMOVAL.
NOTE: NONCONSTRUCTION COSTS NOT INCLUDED
0.001
001
005
0.1
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
-------
CO
o
Q
CO
O
CO
o
U
CO
CO
LLJ
U
O
BfZ
a.
lo.o— p-pi iiiniiimiiiiiniiii!|i|i'iiii i NIMH i '
' 8.0— EiEi :: 5:::i:::Jrlffi--±l--?
6.0- £=J jjlllmllillll.ili. Jill Ullttrlxi
- ="| :$ PROCESS COST VS. E
4.0 —- -
--.- - PRIMARY SEDIMEt
2.0-EEEEEE E|| 1 i| E : lip IE|: ^EE
i.o :::::::{ ::: : ::::
0.8— = = -::;!: \ [ \\ [ j • ! ™:: :~
o.6-ii=n=lJE = i ;=jj±i i i====l;;==
Oi4_= = = = :::::: : EEEE Eel I EEEEE iiEE
0.2 = - =:::: : ~ll\\\^
------ : :• ; iili; E?:I:;^-
^-EEEEE = ;=; -E ;: E|| j=i
0.08 ;:::::::::£ !:;: f -.--
0.06-EJ =i E M 11 li?i: : Z = ;E = = = =
0.04—= = : - \ ' ! '• -- '• '• • : I- : :~
— — - - < . . . x . : : : __:_ : : — z
0.02— tEjEjEEjEE :•.[•. E 1 1 ! i EE E ! !EE
FIGURE 3 18 - ...
0.01— i IHIII Illl - - . .__
0.1 05 10
>ESIGN FLOW 1 1 ^1 = 1^^"^-^—-^^=^=-
4TATION :||:: = : j] " qrr^ T^ = P - =ri ^J—
h- : : : : : : : : f T "i^^~ ; ; i | -j-l-H- li-Uitljt ^±f± zp: j
EM; :;;::;
in;::; -i;Si=3|~tI|iiiSi
:::::: : : : : — : : j+^^jzp:::^^ p:T-±t±^T-i
Hill 11 ijii
liiiS-i" * " ' ~ - — — — ---C--- --"- -i:miz T5i
g- -; - • Lj-- -H--T"
'^ = [::s : ;::^ f : -::: : : :±j:: ::::j::::::j-i:"|
._.. . J. . |; j Ji j I 1 j : .-
E:-- '-•••• --T : : EQUATION
= :~ =:j::| ::: ==:{! C=(1.20 X 105)G
::::::::::: i : : i: : ;| n = 36 r = 0.8
EEE = ^ = : : ^ i = : = i F = 77.59
K . — k ^_ ^ .^Vfc. l^>^s.k 1A.—
NOTE: NONCONSTRUCTION COSTS, NOT INC
5.0 10.0 500
=B=i "
^ _1
U": : •
S:z:: :
Si::::
4-
p.70 '
3
LUDED
10 .0
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
-------
PROCESS COST VS. DESIGN ROW
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
C » 15.19 X 105) Q '
n - 43 r -.0.84
f * 97.36
NOTE: NONCONSTRUCTION COSTS NOT INCLUDED
0.01
01
50.0
100.0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
6
O
u_
o
00
o
o
u
to
00
LU
u
o
8.0- -I::::::::::::::::::::::::::..-::::
6.o-= j::::::;IH II Hill III Hill III 1 Im
- — = = = = = :: PROCESS COST VS.
4.0 "=::||
— = :::::: OXIDATIOh
2.0— ====E:EEEE!!E;i: : ::::::: : : = = = -
.0— -------- -
0.2 = rE-EE: • E i iEEEEEJ! ! E E -EEEE:
jit ' - - ( 3 '
*" cir-i IDC oort -----
-------
CO
§
fe
CO
o
U
CO
CO
8
o
on
a.
b:
"Z.
loo.o 1 1 1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiini IIIIIHI 1 1 IIIIIIIIIH
80.0--":::::::::: ::::::: "::::::--:::::::::::
60.0- =-====;=;; illllllllllHIIIIIIIIIHI IIIIIHI 1 1 illllllflll
= = = = = = = = = = PROCESS COST VS. DESIGN
40'° = = :::::::: ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CO!
20.0- EEEEEE;E :;;;;;;i;ii EEE=!::;;!;;;; EEEEEE ;:-========;;;=
10.0-"-:::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: = -:::::::::::
8.0 = ::::::::::::::: :::::::::: ::: i:::::::i_:::::::::::
4.o-=EEEEEEE;;;;;; :: E;EE;;;;;; :;; EEEEE:;;--EEEEEEE;;;;
2.0- EEEEE :.i:, :E::;;; ;i EEEE;;;^ ; EE- :-: -=-"::::::::
Hiiiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 1 11 Hill wn
1.0-;--;::::::::::: :::::::::: ::: ---. :: :: ----- .--,' '••.:
0.8 Illlllllllllllllllllllllllll
0.6. [£™^n^^^i^^^^^^^^^^^™
a4-==E:E:;E:;;;=;:i iEEE::;;;::;i ^EE;;;;|IEEEEEEE;;;;
----•;•;•;••;• ::;:: ::::i ':: i ::::::: :::::::::
1 t t I I 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 Uiffl 1 1 till 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-°-2 ^BB[B
FIGURE 3.21
t | ... _^__— ^ ,.,., .,
01 05 1.0
FLOW .E==EEEE;EEEEEEEEEE;;E;;;;;;;EEEE;;;;;;;;;;;E=EE
vlTACTQR ::::::::- — ::::::::::: :::::::::::::::
EiiEEEIIiliii-EEEIiilEEEEEEEEElllli EEEEiEEEE: ::Jp[!
: .,,!',:;! --.-
i !EE:™!iiiiiEEEEI!!;EEEEE = IEE!;;;; ;i!!Eiii! EE:!
- ":::::::: ::::"::::::""""":;;!!!:::"""":::::::""
;::;:; \^\\\\\\\\\\i EEEEE:;;-- \i\-.\--\\\\\\\ •.,, -"••:::: •.•.:•.:--.-.
: :::::::::: :: n:: :::.?* — ::::::::::: ::: :::::::::: ::: ::::
* -* .... ... - 1 ____-..-.. ,,, — — _ .
:: :: ::::: jill: :::-::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::'.---:
E!;;!;ji!!!;;;;; ;;;EEEE:EE;-EEEE:::::;;::;;:::EEEE;!:;:::::I:::
-•ji|!--- --- ::;;~"i:
i '
EQUATION [
: ::::::::: =::::::: n = 10 r = 0.92
NOTE: NONCONSTRUCTION COSTS NOT INCLUDE
50 100 50.0
D
100.0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
40 1Q-0.-TTTrn|| mi|||||||l| ||||||||||||||| I IIIIHI | | | IIIIITTTTTTT
5£ 8.0-EEEEE! E;!E;;;;;;;EEEE;;;;;;EEEE:::::-"::::::::::::
§ = " = EEEE: PROCESS COST VS. DESIGN FLC
40 = ::::
g -- 1 ::::::: TRICKLING FILTER
Z 2.0. EEEEEEEEEEEE!!E!EEEEE!! i iEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEiE E
\J _- = :::::::::::: ::::::: :::::::::
^ .~::::::::::::: ::EEE!!i;; iiEEEEIEE EEE::!!:;; !
*- 1-0— =r = "::::::::::::: ::::::::: -r:::::: = ^:t:::::::::
f^j 0.8 = :::::::::::::: ::::::::::: ::::::::_; = :::::::: ::
0 0.6 iiiiii;:;; ;;;;;;;::::;;;;; ;; :::::;;;:=::::::;;;;;;;
8 ^••^^Ilillillii
gf 0.2 EjEEJEE ! = iJ i !!'' = := : i i=i: EEEEEEEEEEEEE E!
I— ::::: : ::::::::--;:::::: ::
Z FIGURE 3.22 -- — ::::::: ::
01 05 10
.,[:::: ;• ::::::::_ EQUATION ::
:.::::::::_::: _ n = 8 r = 0.78 - F
[[I 1 j |[[ 1 F = 9.32 H
--- - -- NOTE: NONCONSTRUCTION
•---•• - - — COSTS NOT INCLUDED
5.0 10.0 50.0 100.0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
10.0
CXL
o
o
LL.
O
O
u
uu
U
O
PROCESS COST VS. DESIGN FLOW
STABILIZATION POND
EQUATION
5 ,0.67
C « (7.08 X 10 ) Q
n = 18 r = 0.76 F = 22.25
NOTE: NONCONSTRUCTION
COSTS NOT INCLUDED
FIGURE 3.23
005 0.1
0.02
0.01
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
1Q.Q i i niiii'iriiiiiiiiiiininiiiii i mini i 1 1 1 mnmm-m
8.0-=--::-t- -r l''-IHiH HHI.iHllHll 1 1 1 llhl 1 1 1 1 1 ., llllllllltl
60 -EE +• PROCESS COST VS. DESK
= = = = = :|: AERATED LAGOOh
4.0-r±p:I : mmuM . . | . |,;n|ip| | ||||m | | . j | | , . . m |im
Zj 2.0- — EEEE::f : ! I- -1 :1| : --::|^ — ^i:: : ' ': \ ':
O • =~=:™i||JEE::J;i|=EEEE|E=EEE=E::! ..
S ^O-EEEE|E;E::;|:|:J|:| J|EE :========;:;;;
O illiEEmH|Ml = = = = :iMplEEEEJ!EE = iEpi! 1
--J __^::::::^:| : ;:::::::: : :;::::::___:;;:;::;:
^ == = »»::: :::::|:| : :::::;:: = i::::::::; il
1— 0.2 ="- = ::-:: ::::::::: :E : ~: ::::::- = ;:;:::;; J!
C>> U^ rzi::::: ::;::: ;::::J: ----.-..—----...,!..
O -. WM 1 iHTmil
...,,
U ==::: :: : : i :::::: ::ff :::::: •-- :: :
O. = :: : : : :::: : :=:i : : = = = : = : - i : I
1— =:::::::::::::::-::: :---i:: : : :
Z. ="== EE!; !!i m | == = === ======== = = ;! II
o.o2-==EE E i ; ; i j E E i ;; ; -EE E I===EE E :. ; i M
FIGIJRF o o^ ..... _ . k.irs
0.01 0,05 0.1
3N FLOW :---:::::: : : : :::: ::::::::
j :-= = EEEEEE; ; ; ; EEEE ; ; i ; ; EEE \ :
ri"1 "
:::::: i::: --EQUATION : :
1 j| [ || 1 n - 12 r = 0.82 ffift
E E E E ; i EE E F = 20.03 : -
TE: NONCONSTRUCTION COSTS NOT INCLUDED
0.5 1.0 5.0 100
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
V)
o
u
in
V)
UJ
PROCESS COST VS. DESIGN FLOW
CHEMICAL ADDITIONS
C - (5.46 X 104)Q°'91
H - 22, r - 0.72
f - 21.73
^INCLUDES LIME ADDITION, ALUM ADDITION,
, AND POLYMER ADDITION ,
NOTE: NONCONSTRUCTION COSTS NOT INCLUDED
0.001
001
005 0.1
05 1.0
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
10.0
50.0
100.0
-------
at.
CO
o
=1
CO
o
U
CO
co
LU
i.o I 1 1 1 1'ljiijijiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiini IIIIIIH 1 1 nun-Hi
0.8- ' ' niiiiHtini i i i IHIIHIHH IIIIIIH i i i i t i i i in
PROCESS COST VS. DESIGN FLOV\
U.O~ : - . . ...
--- = : SECONDARY MICROSCREENS
0.4-~":^||||||||||||||||||[||||j||||||i|||||| i 1 jlljlijii
o.2-=MEMIM!;;i;;;;;: ^^^ EEEEE;;;EEEEEEEEEE:
mil I""!!!!!!!!! '"".'.'.'. '.'. '.'.'. '. III! !!! !! II ^i* "~ I! ".
:i::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::;i*:::::::::
0.1-—-:::::: :: !i3,<"
0.08-- — -:::::: ::: ::::::;, '•'•• :::::::: — i:::::::::
0.04-EE = EEE::!EEE;;E!!!;;! I:!;;;;;;; = = ::::::--. = = ::: = ::::
0.02-EEEr:::Ei:;;;;!; :::::::=:::::: :::::::: = = ::::::::::
Fir^llRF ** OA - -- -
Om— • _ _
01 0.5 - 1 0
t :::::::::: : ::::li;;EEE:™;ii!i!|;!!!! iililll!; !!! EEEEE
1 liiiii ----'..:.. '.'.'. -:z~tll.~—~~z~~~~::'.'.i:::.. :::::::::: ;:: 1:1;:
::::;; ::::::::: ::; !?:::: ::__i:::::::::::::::: ::::::::: :: n::;
i!.:::: :::::::::: ::: ~ii~ ~: :: zzrr::::::::::::: :::::::::: ::: r;i::
:: :::::::::: :::::::: . EQUATION- :
5 0.58 •
:: ::::::=:: === = ::- C » (1.22 X 10 ) Q • • '.
::::::: :::::::::: :_::::::: n = 5 r = 0.97 :
:: ::: ::::::!f; iEEEEEME F = 44.98 E
NOTE: NONCONSTRUCTION COSTS NOT INCLUDED
5.0 10.0 50JO 1
» •
00.0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
a
o
§
CO
o
U
B
o
8f
lo.o [ I iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiui 1 1 1 IIIIIIII1HH
8.0— -::::::::-••::::::• ::•;:::::::: ::::::::— •-:::::::::::::
6.0— =-======= JIIIHIIII ii ii iiiiiiiiiii ii nun in i minium
= = EE:EE = E; PROCESS COST VS. DESIGN FL<
4'° --"-."-:: MIXED MEDIA FILTERS
2.0--EEEEEEEE;;;;;;;; \ EEE;;;;;;;:;;; EEEE;;;;--EEE;;;;;;;;;;
1.0-±:::::::::-::":' ::::::::: ::::::::- — ::::::::::::
0.8_ = n£::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: = _=::::::::::::
0.4— EEEEEE:::::::::!: iEEEIiiiii !iii EEEEEE;;--EEE EEji! [\\\]
-- j»!
0.2— EEEEEE:::::::::::: EEEI::!!: :::! EE \\ l\ !E- — = :::::: \\\\
-._--__._.= ,,.., ,. -- | ! !
«^_». ......... ,::t,i ___=....
1 '
--- 1'}- --,*>
0.1-= = "::::::::::!!:: ji\:::::: ::::::::— = ::::::::::::
0.08-rir:;:::::::::: ': :::::::::: ::: ::::::::-- = ::::::::::::
0.06-^^=|-::i:::::: : = ::::::::::::
o.04-«EEE IE;; ;;;;;;;:: EEEE^^^^-EEE^J-^^EEEEE;;;;;;;
0.02— = = = "|:::::::::: ::::::::::•::: = = E: ;; '•': --EEE EEE;;;;;!;
FIGURE 3.27 --- N
.01 — "••
01 0510
__ ___ - !
... .. ^B — ._ —
... ._ __ jj ___...
-'• — g"-
j*
,i! ,, __- ______ ______
- 1
::::::::: :::::::: EQUATION ::
::::::::: :::::::: c -(2.42 X 105)Q°'79 ::
[Hlliiiiiiiillllll 1 II Hill n * 4 r ~= °-97 s
OTE: NONCONSTRUCTION COSTS NOT INCLUDED
1 i i
5.0 10.0 50.0 10
00
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
o
u_
o
to
O
u
to
CO
LLJ
u
o
10.0-n-r-'iiHii!;!iiini'ili-H'ilii'i ii'imi ' i 1 1 1 1 nTrmTm-
8.0- -j-U|- ^:::^fi::|£i±:":|h:::::::!|:-i:::::|::::::
6.0- ^^iai"1"'"^'' '''"WH" 1 rill HI 1 1 H 1 1 1 JlilJiillll
Piplti! .. PROCESS COST VS. DESIGN FLO
4.0 ErEF - - - - .
-H"::±: SAND FILTERS
2.0-EEEEEE I | ! ! ==iiil ! i EEEEJ \ EEEE!!;E! MM
-\ i- • - . -i .|±. .c . ....
1.0- jUj::::: :: :::::i| ::::::::: ::::::::: ::::
0.8-tp-£ :::: : :: : ---••-• • ---:::.: __::::::: ::::
o.4-EEFE!E;!!;;i!:; ;=|l; 1 ;=====!= ==E===i==i: M
-- .'t'.'.Li , ~~i r"
''-Eiillil i !?::: = = = = ::=: = = = iiii!!i; i !!
0.08 g : :--+: : -:::::::z = :::::: : : ::
0.06-j = = = " E = = : == = ==== ::-==:::: — = ==::::: :
0.04-E = EEE : -- i : --1 1= • • " = --- F==----:= : : : :
0.02-EEE:: E : ! i ! E : E! M :M: : E = ^EEEE = : ^
FIGURE 1 98 - -- • • - - Kir1
001 ......
01 OS 10
W ;iEEE ! =E=E==JH; i i '•'• '-'-'-•- E : : ; IE E ;
:jj !:" =:::::: = ::::: ::: : : i:::: : : : : : =E=::: :
::::: : :::: : EQUATION : :
= = = = : : : i i ===: : C - (2.14 X 10^ G?'^ -. :
:::::::: i: : : n = 15 r = 0.72
III F = 13.98 ' HH
>TE: NONCONSTRUCTION COSTS NOT INCLUDED
5.0 10.0 50.0 10 .Oi
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
0.01
s:o 10:0
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
500.0 1000.0
-------
10.0
to
Of
O
Q
u.
O
to
g
u
O
PROCESS COST VS. DESIGN ROW
CHIORINATION FOR DISINFECTION
A 065
C - (6.33 . X . 10 ) Q '
n « 92 r m 0.82
f = 192.50
NOTE: NONCONSTRUCTION-COSTS NOT INCLUDED
0.001
001
005
10.0
50.0
100.0
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
-------
Q
O
o
o
LU
o
(swnoa do SNomiw) ISOD
-------
Q
1
I
O
to
LLJ
do SNomiw) ISOD ss3Doad
-------
6
UL
o
to
O
O
u
to
LLJ
u
O
ss
PROCESS COST VS. DESIGN FLOW
EFFLUENT OUTFALL — OCEAN OUTFALL
C » <3.01 X 10 ) Q1*06
n = 13 r = 0.82
F = 23.19
FIGURE 3.33
05 1.0
50 10.0
500 100.0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
i
I
u-:
Z
g
to
(savnoa jo SNomiwj ISOD ss3Doyd
-------
O
of
0.1-
_ 0.08-
< 0.06 —
0 (\
Q 0.04-^
u.
Z
O 0.02—
(
Om
0
Itt PROCE
-mt: LAN
'. , i
1 ' 'ill!' * ' '
- — . • 1 i "h ,'lii. -it^-
- ''-•-
1
SS COST VS. DESIGN FLOW
D SPREADING OF SLUDGE
: m i | •
-ffiT +— -
T-J--.I 4. :::::: (!;::::::::::;;!•!
^l||l[444j]^q^'r^
ti«*si=E::::3 EQUATION
^*f +_L J_T;
|;SE!==PEE= C » (4.48 X 10
^::Et±z= = :|- n = 7 r = 0.92 '
j_-. .-„., 1 i 1 t i i i__ i i in m r i tn
*-f4- J-p— — p • 1^v^l^t^^ V^INO f i\ wv« t ix
-Hrr--4- COSTS NOT INCLUD
0.5 1.0 5
:::::::-flj::
:;; i *---*.: ::
4>Q0-39
F = 27.54
JN j
ED |-t-
.0 10.0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
vy
o 5
u o
8
Of.
a.
u.
0.1-
OrtO
.Uo
0.06—
0.04-
Ono
,UZ
c
Om —*
.U 1
0
«*
|
*
1
£
Fl
" " " PRC
- - - - 1 AMD
— i — I::-;M!!: ::
1 1 11 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 - -
/•»! ipp 1 If.
OUKu \5.oO
1
CESS COST VS. DESIG
APPLICATION OF LIQU
• W
^
05
/
V
-- a
^
*
h
*
4<
C
n
NFLOW
ID *5LlJDf5E
.»,. t\
1C -('
._ ,,ii ___
EQUATIC
'- (4.19 X 1<
«5 r«0.93
1 III MhlMI |ll
OTE: NONCONS1
COSTS NOT
1 0
• '
>N
/> Q0'45
F-18.02
limn i i MI
'RUCTION
NCLUDED
5.0 100
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
-------
to
O
o
u.
O
to
z
O
O
u
to
-------
t/5
on
O
Q
O
1 • w
o
to
LJLJ
8
70.0-, i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiini 1 llllllllillHlllllH
8.0 r — •
6.0-=====, =: HmmimnnmiinmiiHiii i IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJIH
---EEE E; PROCESS COST VS. DESIGN FLO\A
4.0 --::
- - - : : : : : : SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
2.0 EEEEEi i : i i :::i : ': iiEE:::: --EEEEEEE :::::
I
i.o — 1 1 1 i||||||iHj|||||||||i|||||||i| "TnTT — ::::::Tf:f T
0.8 : = ::::: :::::::::- -":::::: :::::
0.4 :::::::: EEEE! E \\[-^^\\\\ E::EI! \\\\ \ll E
- - -- - - r [ ~
0.2 :-:::::: :::::::::: f ::::_::::::: ___::::::::::: :: :
; |
0.1--- - — = :::!•:!; ::: ::: :
0.08 ::::::::-:::::::---:::::::::::::
0.06- = =====-:;::;;; MM!M!!! M ^==M!!lghl = = = M!;!!;;!!! =
0.04 ::::::::::: EEE;;::;:: : : _::::;;;__.:::::......, ... .
::::::::: :::::::::::: ~: :::: i:^ :::::::::: :
EEEEEE::;;;;::::;:::E::::::::::: == \ \\\ |;g| EEE E! I Ei i i |i i ! ll!
0.02 -":EEE!;;;^i •••[[::::: :: :::::::!— EEEEEEEjii:: -.]•'. :
zn:::::::::::::: ::::::::::::: :: ::::: : 3EEE:ii!!;;;;;; :::
EEEEEiiiiiiiEiiilllEiiiEiiiji ^!EEEE!;E!;:
0.01--:-::::::::::: ::: ::::::::::: =; 5,, | !. — -.--. .......... .
0.008 :-::::::::::::::::::::: f::::::: --i:;;::::::::
Hi iii^ 1 11 Hill 1 1 1 1 III IlllliUiiiil
0.004 EEE:::i;;;jj I;:::::::;; ': l'--\ ::::— = ::::::::::::: :
0.002: EEE;EEE I! : : : ::::::::: ;: "::::::-- = ":::::: ::: ::
CirlT IDP •* **Q - - -- KIOTI
•
0.001—
001 005 01
r-- r : r h "
111 llllllll 1 1 ! ill li/ 1
r----: - ;
— ir:i:: :::::::: :_::::::::j ! _^::::
— , i .- ._._
^-- ••• ....
i illfltl Illiiiill^
zizi----. | S "'!' ' — " ' "~'
:::::::;! i-ii----.- — -------:i\i ::::::::: ":::;::
— .- . — ••
:::::::: : ~~:: ::::z;5~:~::::: :: ;: :::::: :: ~:::::::
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M"*! Mill H"H
JJ-UJJ EQUATION ||i||
::::::: i :::::::: 4 0.73 :::
---;: ::: :: n = 42 r = 0.75 :::
:::::::: = = = ::::: f , 53.94 ::::
:: NONCONSTRUCTION COSTS NOT INCLUDED
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
s
O
u
CO
O
1.0-pmO[|[|||[|||[[|[[||||||||||[|||J[||||||| I I 1 I J I - 1 1 rTTTTTTjT
0.8- I — ;:;] | :.::::::__::::::::::::::::
0.6-==="-= JIHItllliiiiiiiiiiiiHH llllllll 1 1 1 IIIIIIIIIHHII
EEEEEEEE i PROCESS COST VS. DESIGN FLOV
0.4-: = :::::: :
— :::::: : SLUDGE LAGOONS
0.2-= = :::::Ei: \\\\ EEE! E 1 M ::EEJ-; = = = = = ::: = '• '• 1
0.1 I::::;;:;::::;::;::::: ::;::::::: :Si:::;;« :
0.08- -"jjj""::::: :::::: : : : ::::::::ii^f:::: : : ::
0.02-EEE:::iE: ':: [ ^^^ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEiiiEE
0.01- =±::: ; :: : - L,
0.008- =i:--- - -• ::-::::: :::--:::::--::::::::::::
0.006-^^iE= = = = ;|= = | ::::= = = ===::====::: = ::: | ::
0.004-^EEE: = :::::-:: ::::= = ::::: = = ::::::::::::
0.002-E = ::E : : j i i i EEEE EE iiEEEEE :EEEEEEEE E E E i
F1O1ICF T ^9 - - . . . NirVTI
n nm •
0.1 05 1.0
1 :. _. l;
---- • • i -- i i --- •
V ! i i i EEEEE i — EEE ji?EEE!liiE i EEEEE:E! i i ; = = E E
,: : : : ': =EEEE ; = = S
-------
p
o
o o <
o od
1 Illllj
^^
o
LU
o o
B 6
\*J
" tO
>
vr
H* CQ
O LU
8 <
LU ^
X
D O
o •*
^
1
1,
'l
.
-
',
. _l . —
. , s
q
k
i
s
s
J
s
S
1
N
c
*"•
<
i
1
.J
1 •
--!
i
2
i
1 L
<
= 1
00
o
L
c
If
f
1
-
; c*>
b <*.
o
'o »
X
~" M
N.
c
«|:::::i:::~~
.1 __ _
! .
•» |.
* J~ ^
° ^
r— -i ^
T _
, T
J_
j
f |
i '
•o -*
c> c>
o
oo
•^ - --
n
!i, _._
i_ i .
! ..
:\.- ..
! j_
I:::::: ... .,_.:
T-- - - -- -
t r
_|_
tM
O
C
U
/•
f
j
- o
- h
- c
t <
w
K
C
C
<.
c
i C
^*
J *
..
c
u
u
^
1
^
J
J
)
^
>
T
>>
^
o
>
)
r
j
»
>
r
)
J
•>
>
r
|
—
-
—
3
t
9
J
J
«
r
t"
C
0
o
o
q
o
o
o
,0
1 —
o
O
O
LU
Z
g
CO
LU
do SNomiw) ISOD ssaDOiid UNO
-------
• u.u — • 1 ' 1 ~" ""'i'!"1 "r"TTTT 1 i i 1 1 1 1 in linn
6.0— -r— H-= = lTFlllllillllllilllllllll llllllll 1 1 1 IIIHIIIIHmi
EgjEEEpEEJEEEj: PROCESS COST VS. DESIGN FLO
4.0— =ii: ::
zm::x: AEROBIC DIGESTION
|
O 1.0-zS::::: :: ::::::!: :: :::::::
M °'8 mfflr^ i^^l^^^^^l •
?C 0.6— ^^ = = : = ||" ::: J":":|: | = = = =: = : === = ^^\ :•[ ; :
fe mfll^^
O 0.2— = E3E = ::::| ::;:: •-'--•£•••• f z::::;:jg| = ii::::::::: ;
(J :-i::::::: i: J E" :: :
«/> . - t- • 1) iB
m -j — I'-M
O 0.08-1- i!":| ::-::::::--:::::::::::
°" 0.06-J= = =|S <| M== = ::i= ::| = =: = : [-- = = =::: = :: = :::
Plf^l IPP *5>(1- --. _. Klf^TG
A AT ^ ,
0.1 05 10
W i EEEE E : = = EEEEEEEE: E! ! ij;|E! i i ! i EEE E !
---"- : : : :~; : : :: : r:ii::::::::j ! : ::::::: : : zi :: : :
- -. . . _- :::: : : : : : _::::: :
••
::::: : : : ; __::: : EQUATION : :
r 50 78 "
::==: = === = = : C - (1.99 X 10 ) Q = =
n = 21 r 8 0.86 :
EE E •• ; ':"- '- -- F = 55.68 E !
t NONCONSTRUCTION COSTS NOT INCLUDED
5.0 10.0 50.0 IOC
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
o
u_
o
o
CO
111
10.0-,
o n—
6.0-
4.0-
2.0-
1.0-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2—
F
PRf"V~F
-:::::::::::::::::(:
+ - ---,
Ifil IDF ^ At
\\y\tKii O.4Z
0.1 |
1.0
SS COST VS. Dl
HEAT TREATA/
iMIIIIIIlllfe
5::::i:;ii *?:[:;:::-
• ' T
:<
IE
^
(i
>l
N
«
!>
G
n
*
_
c
r
h-
KJ El OW
jf ji»!--
-------
to
02
o
Q
s
tf>
to
O
u
to
-------
10.0 i i |||||||||||||||||||||||||||]|||||i |i|||||| I iiiiiiiiiiiniiii
8.0— — • iiiHHi'iimiiiifiimi i mini 1 1 1 minimum
COST OF COMPONENT VS. DES
O.U~~ -:::::
E=EEEE~! MOBILIZATION *
4.0 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIII IIHIIII I I IIIIIIIIIIH-Htt
< ="::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::-==:::::::::::
I . -- -•- :
-_l
0 1-°"" mimintffliiiininiiiiiimii=^::::====:::::::::::;::
O 0.8 - :;::::::- — :::::::::::::
O miiEEiEEiEE!!JJiJimEE!JEiiiiiiiiiEEEE!llIimM!!!!!N!!
t/) _-_::::;::::::::::: :::::::::::.:: ;;;::::: ::::::::::
Z ™::::::::::::::::::::::::!!;>:::::::::::™:::::::::::::::
• iiEEEEEEE!!;!;;:::: JiiJMM;::- EEEEE:;;EEEEEEEE--;;;:I
^j 0.2— EEEEEEEEE; ;;;;;;;;; EEEEEII;:;:: EEEEEEIEEEEEEEEE;; ;;:;;:
— - (,.: ___ — :.,,!
Z 0.08^-- • — r'5 - rg<----=!
LU - - ...s.L.j::!,, -^ 1
^ 0.04 - = = = :-t::::::::::: ::::::::::;. ! !: = :::::: 1^ = ::::::: :::::
O iiiiiiEiiiiiiijii|iiiii[!ii!i!iiiiiiiiiiii!hiiii:iHiiiiiii
0 ^^iiiHiihN:::::::::^::::::^^!;;!;^
, ' ^_|. ^^....
0.01 ^-: __—-::
: :::::::::::::
.. 0.008- i:. :::::::: :::: ::::::::: ::::::::___:::::::::::
0.004— ^ = ":"::::::::::: :::»::::::::: ::::::::—- = = :::::::::::::
0.002— = = = = = :: = ::::::::::::::::::i::::::: EEEE Ei !! EEEEE II II
-- MOBI
• : •
PICillDP 1AJI - _- UAIf
OO01— i ... . '
::::::::::::::: — :::::: = - = :::::::::::: : :::::::::: |—::::T
GN FLOW - :::.:::
HI iffi [•I
Ilililfl I I IllllHi
^ Hi=;;;i
= ;^iiii EE|; EQUATION = = = =
:::::: : :::: C - (6.34 X 104/)Q°'69 :::
]| || n = 58 r = 0.80 |j||]
F - 10486 —
LIZATION Or THE GENERAL- CONTRACTOR AND
>R SUBCONTRACTORS AT THE JOB SITE
II 1
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0 10.0
50.0 100.0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
i
O
z
O
<75
t savnoa jo SNomiw) iN3NOdwoD jo ISOD
-------
CO
Q
CO
o
=J
OJ
O
o.
O
u
u.
O
CO
8
COST OF COMPONENT VS. DESIGN FLOW
SITEWORK WITHOUT EXCAVATION
0.001
001
005
0.1
SO.O
100.0
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
-------
CO
OS
u-
o
CO
g
O
U
u,
O
8
O
COST OF COMPONENT VS. DESIGN FlOW
EXCAVATION
0.001
001
005 0.1
1 0
50 10.0
500
100.0
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
-------
COST OF COMPONENT VS. DESIGN FLOW
PILINGS, SPECIAL' FOUNDATIONS, DEWATERING
o.ooi
o.oi
s o 10:0
500
100.0
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
-------
COST OF COMPONENT VS. DESIGN FLOW
ELECTRICAL
3
s
CO
g
3 IE
o
o.
o
u
fe
8
0.001
001
005
500
100.0
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
-------
to
o
a
o
_l
1
LU
•z
o
Q.
o
u
to
o
u
10.0 H-H-II ii imiiiiniiii Minimum i mini 1 1 1 im+i+mm+w
8.0 -::::: IHHillHIIHIIIHImll Mil Illl 1 1 1 NlW-Wti-WW
COST OF COMPONENT VS. DESIGN
O.O — = = = = = :::::.
= ==EEEEE:!; CONTROLS AND INSTRUMENTAT
4.0 — """"TTTMOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i iiiiiii i M i iiii'iiiuiiniii
2.0-= = = EEE = : = -;;;;;ii ::::::: ::: = = :: = ::: = = = = = :::::::::: :
1.0 - ---
0.8 :: :::::::::: ::: :;::3:__i:::::::::::::: :
0.4- = "E"::::::::::::: --------::::::::::: — :".: :: = = = = ::::^j::::::::
--_ '.'.'. 1 1 1 1 1 II I !! .'.'.'.. Z~-~~~ ~\ i!iZIIIIIIII_!j~!t!!];
0.2 ::::::::::::::::: ::::::::: |; ;;:::: = ::;;::::::::::::;:
• ji1-
i::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::--::::i!j ::;
-------
s
to
O
O
O
to
O
O
COST OF COMPONENT VS. DESIGN FLOW
ALL PIPING*
*INCLUDES PROCESS PIPING AND YARD PIPING
0.001
001
005 01
OS
1.0
10.0
50.0 100.0
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
-------
COST OF COMPONENT VS. DESIGN FLOW
YARD PIPING
0,001
001
005 0.1
50.0 100.0
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
-------
t/>
u.
O
to
Z
O
0
1—
to
8.0-
6.0-
2.0
0.6
Z 0.06-
o
0.008-
0.006-
0.004-
0.002-
0.001-
COST OF COMPONENT VS. DESIGN FLOW
PROCESS PIPING
FIGURE 3.53
0.1
05 10
EQUATION
C - ( 1.51 X 105) Q°'82
n = 43 r = 0.77
F ss 57.94
5.0 100
500 100.0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
o
Q
o
1
O
a-
O
u
-------
to
O
p
u.
O
2
Q
O.
8
O
8
u
COST OF COMPONENT VS. DESIGN FLOW
CONCRETE
0.02
0.01
001
0 05 0.1
1 0
50
10.0
500
100.0
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
-------
5!
U.
O
tO
O
10.0' 11 |[H|[TTT -
.0— ----•_ nmiini 1 1 1 iiiiiiiniii 11111111 i M i ni i iiiimij
60_- - - COST OF COMPONENT VS. Dl
= = I -- - STEEL
4-OHE : E E E |||||||||| | nnmnm , -.-++-,-+++-
2.0-EEE E E E ; ; ; E E E i ;;i E E E = E I \ '• ; : ;
•. ' •=== : - : :: : : : : :: :::: : : : ::::::::•
0.8 -:::::::::::::::: |p ::::::
0.2-EEEEE E i i E E i i EE E E = = EEE j E :
0.08- = :: - :: : ::;: ?_i::: : :
==:: : : - 3--- --
O.OOS-nr r :::::: : ; i ;: ^ --:---- ^ ::::
0.006-== = E = : ; ;:::;; = = E : =^ = 1 I \ i j I
0,004- r E E E i ! : : - • • -:::==-:::::
0.002- EEEE iiEEii :EEEEEEElM!
• FIGURE 3.56 H 1 1 IIIIIIIIIIH
o.ooi HJIIIIIHIHHI Illlllll 1 1 HIHHIHHIIHII
0.1 0.5 1.
:SIGN FLOW yj4jjjjjl irFml
hH"H"HIIIIIIIII 1 ^ 1 1 II 1-irHjH-IJJ 1 Illlllll 1 1 1 1 II 1 Illlllll | 1 | 1 | 1
- - -- III ~ ' ' i •
: : j • :: : ::
: : : : : -- : --f: : : - • - - - • • -- -
: : :: = - - - EQUATION :
= = == = = : ^ : C = ( 8.22 X 104) Q°'9° =
- : : - n = 47 r - 0.79 :
: : : '• '• = '- '- ' f = 73.97 \
5.0 10.0 50.0 10 0
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
-------
o
8
CO
o
13
o
0_
o
u
(O
8
COST OF COMPONENT VS. DESIGN FLOW
HVAC
0.001
01
005
5 1.0
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
so
10.0
500
100.0
-------
THIRD ORDER COSTS
As data were collected from the grant files, it was often possible to
define several component costs for unit processes. A total of five
component costs were collected in sufficient quantity to attempt a
statistical analysis for certain unit processes. These are-
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Concrete
Equipment
Electrical
Piping
Excavation
As with the total plant component costs discussed under Second Order
curves, these are "in place" costs including all labor and materials
necessary to install or construct each component. Additionally the
component costs for unit processes which include a reactor basin
followed by a clarifier, such as activated sludge, include the costs
for both structures.
Figures 3.58 through 3.68 present the Third Order unit process costs
for ten commonly used unit processes, as well as the control/lab/
maintenance building. As more data becomes available, it is antici-
pated that more such analyses will be possible.
77
-------
q
..
CO
o
*-,
t
u
u
c
V
%1
J;
2
U
f
C
o
o
(.
C
0
o
z
H
C
C
V,
_:![:::::: ::::
- •• •
"" : " '
•
> ..,__-
)
5 :::::-
9 ::::. :
> *m
i I iiEiii
2 :::=:
r : .
J irf
> K
J < :::::
•> ^ F™
r>
3 ^
> < EEEEE;
^ ^ tttu
> B
0 :::i:
J :::::
•o ••»
0 0
. -
-.{-"- — ------"---"--'. ::::::
""' ir " "
'["" " "
^" "
"•.-•T.-\-----=.------—- : :::--
-.b-— — — —..-----— -i
:::::::::^ — :::::::: :::::::::1
:S" . . _
k
n HI |||||||p[||||||||||||||||||||
— — -
.-i — -
\l 1 III
::::::: ::::-r :::-: 1 -- ::: :::::::
::::::::::::;-=--:::::: \~ :: :::::::
tfffffl Hill INI II II III
:;::::: oo ,
2 ' •::::::
0
o. _ .. ' .1.
§ o --
::::::: 5 - :::::::: :: :::::
• • - • • Q. ^*
!;;!!!! 5 nEE=l=Ei!! :;!EE
i;;!!:! 2 % !!!==!!= ;;;!!:;
H : ::::
;;;==;E u ; ==""=; ; ; -EEE
...... . ______ . . ----
jsl •— GO O ^
«* d § § §
== ::: : : = : ===—=
. '
--- :::::::::i_: _
!
::' : :::::: :: = : = = = = = :
:--: 1 : ::::::-: :
IIP
EEE ;;EE|EE=EEE -q
EEE::; ;|EEEEE_: «
:- - - LU
Q_
— o
. . .. u.
CM
O
0
O
o
— o
c>
-o
o
0
0
tn
o
~C5
""*
O
O
0
o
O
O
o
CO
(savnoa do
iN3NOdwoD do J.SOD
-------
CO
0£
<
d
o
LL_
o
CO
O
O
a.
O
u
co
8
---:---' -----'"' IIHII I M II |~n~
I-i:jCOST OF PROCESS COMP
u.o = '
[Hill PRELIMINARY
04 — [ 1 1 1 1 1 M i m i M i
— E= 1. EQUIPMENT
0.2 AC
----- C » (3.81 X 10 J Q
2. CONCRETE
0<1 — zzE C = (1.38 X 104) Q(
0.08-—-" niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinii i iiiini
n_nA-..[jJ - 1 1 IHIIIIIIIIII Nil Itltl
0.04- JEEEEEEEEiiEEiiiiiEEEEji;;;;:;; 1. *
0.02 =::|::::::::: ::=Eji»!!;;;;; ==EEEEEE =
I 7 " "11 --.—
1 1 1 1 HIHIIIHmi:|T - W
FIGURE 3.59 ----'-+•- ::~:::H^
o.oi .'IHH HI mil lUllIlT
0.1 0.5 10
DNENT VS. DESIGN FLONA ~ '-
TREATMENT '•'- '- •
1.69 •-'---"• • • • '•-- : -- : . ----.. 1
x94(jlB
= = = EE ~-\ E ; i EEE M i I : "= '- '- '--
5.0 10.0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
o
o
to
I
1
O
O
(J
te
o
u
10.0 I i , i|l||||||[|||||||||
8.0- = = : : ItWtt
6.0
4.0- = : : Trmnnrr
S : : 1. C
2-0 El =: (
- 2, f
'•° fffflffiffl «
0.8--;::: E :
::::: c 3. I
0.6-= = = - = h
=E=iE: : : <
0.4-E = EEEE :: :
•'
0.2-*-:: : .,....,,,.
0.1--": ::::::::
0.08-II = : : : :::::::::
0.06-=:== |= =;p:; i
0.04- == E : E i;;::: ':':
0.02- =: IE ;;i:!i 1
FIGURE 3.60
o.oi- l
1
OF PROCESS COMPONENT VS. DESIGN FLOW - -
PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION = =
:ONCRETE E;;;; = E:;- =
4 0.83 : : : : : : = = ::" =
: « (5.85 X 10 ) Q ::::: = ;::==:
EQUIPMENT : : : : [ : : : :
:* (5.10x i64)Qa60 j =M ME i E i EEEE
:XCAVATION - — - h
C - (5.72 X 1(T )Q' ; E E : ; EE= E E =^=
>IPING ..... : :: : : "{^ ---'
c - «i.33 x 1.0 ) Q IfTT^iMTrn 1 1 i \&
-"'-••'•'- - z1-;. ' :::: : !*i
:::::::ji ! :-:::::: :::::::::: : : . i . ..j- - - ---
I!!!!! ill!! II
: :i!::: ::::!:: :_::_-
~--^'!-:::: :::(::: :: - - - - -
05 10 5.0 10.0
MM i'iJ^m
• - : : : :,i ! :: : :
- - - - ; i. - ~ 1 .'.•'- II -
L._..., -^ -- -
: . , ! ... 7^ .- -
Illll^
= --- \.\ :^{\\\i*\
-:-.:.. t "j: --- -
. . i . . —
. . . i — •
- \\ . \ :•:':: EE: :
500 100.0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
to
u_
O
to
O
UJ
o
u
s
to
O
u
10.0-TTrTllllllliiimiiiiimiiiimi||| MHIIII i i iTTTTTTmTm
8.0- = E j : iMllMIIIIIIIIIII 1 1 1 1 Illl 1 1 1 1 1 II IIIIIIIH
6 0 - - - - - COST OF PROCESS COMPONENT VS
= E E - •-• ACTIVATED SLUDGE
4'°~E ~ : : :'||||||||||NIIIIHIIIIIII r_|_L| TTTTTTTTTTTTr
--- E - : 1. CONCRETE
2.0 - - • v n 7n
-ii : : ! C - (2.54 X 10 ) Q 7°
rommjl 2. EQUIPMENT
nfl ----- - -- C » (1.80 X 105) Q0>5°
u.a -
0.6-iii=jr !==;==:::: = = l\\\ = = = = l l'-l':\\ \ '•••:
°'4 ^TOllllllllliilllllll^^^'^tJTi^^ 2
0.2 ==- : = :; : Hi :: :==ii! ! i=Hi!=!l!!!!
-•4mlffllB Itl^fl
0.08- =r : : : !!:: :::::: 1 i::!?:!:EEE::::::| : :
0.06- == = : ;; ;.zr, :: \= = l'-'-l\'-. = ==~-'-'='-~-\\\'- ':
0.04- - : ; ; ;; ; :: = ; : : =-=: : ===EEE E;;;;; ;
0.02- r E E 1 i;;; E •:=::: : = = = E| E^i ! ! :
FIGURE 3.61 - - - - - : --- : :: : : :
o.oi : — — — imiLiiiiiiH i nun 1 1 1 iiiiiiiiiniiiiiii
0.1 05 1.0
. DESIGN FLOW " - : - • : : : : : : : : -
;; ; • ••---. !....__ :
-_.. ~" 4* ~~" " .--.. !<_..
-- - • p *- I
I 1 ! \* '! = = = = = = = :•= = EEE
:: : :-::-h: :l!i! E[ ;
:: : : : : : - t - - 4 - -
" : : --.):- - - :::: - - -
:: : : ~ z : : - - - •
--- • i! 3. PIPING
ml C = '9-2-* X 104> Q°'68 Bffl
: : : 4. ELECTRICAL
: C = (9.88 X 103)QQ'98
5.0 10.0 50.0 100
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
co
CO
o
LLJ
O
Q.
O
u
1.0—
On.
.U
0.6-
OA
02—
0 1
0.08—
0.06—
0,04—
0.02—
0.01—
0
1
F
:l
f*r\cT f\c D
v-VJoi \Jr r
II"" 1 "...'.'.'. 4*.
1. ,, '
+ ^"'I'l'
4 *
g*
L«'
-~i* —
„ __,_, , ^
4
t '
-:a?5::::::::::i-i
EEE:! 2.]i!EEE:
GURE 3.62 —
ROCESS COMPONENT VS. DESIGN
OXIDATION DITCH
-ji"
::::::::::ji?~--::::-
__ ... 1 1 !.,.._. — --._.._
»i!
j ^
1 '
^ V
4 ^
;;;^
__ jl'---
_..(!' .
zf±:::::::: — :: '•
^
*
::::;:; ;;EEEE 2.
05 1 0
t
-^
0*
^
^
*11.
j*
1 '
P??EE;;;E;^;;EEEE;
|-||||[||H
-:-::;ii!::::::— ::
_- 1 !. .._ ___ . .
^B-
CONCRETE
C s (3.34 x 1
EQUIPMENT
C « (1.43 X 1C
pi O\A/ "-III"
rLW W ^r
!!!:::::: — ::::::
::
5 068 --
0 ) Q -
ft Q°'62 •»
5.0 10.0
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
i
o
g
LU
(savnoa jo SNomiw) iN3NOdwoD jo ISOD
-------
COST OF COMPONENT (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
C/)
O
z
I
0 P P P P
L, ro ^ o co
o 1 . . inulininini'iinliiiiiiiiil in
2!., ....- - --
c : : : : : : .
U tiiHi iliili 1 IIIIB
EE! EE ;; : EE ::: : I :
P -- :::::£:::::: - -
^ll!!!!!!!!ME!
- - -- • • - - - - i — -
-'"'" p - - - •
Oi ---ziEE E :::;:: : : =--
O i ; ::::::: : :: : ---
O ...... L ......
- i : : : : i ~
Oi ---- :::::::::: _ -
O -- -;::::: : : _ :
P
o
b o b b b b
E :::::: O
a o ™^=H^ o |K
= w : :
:::::: ::np: :::::: — "::::: -- -- ---:::__
F OF PROCESS COMPONENT VS. DESIGN FLOW ==
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR ||
EQUIPMENT ::::::::::::::::::::::: ii:::;ji_:
= (4.56 X 105) Q°'57 1 liffltll III
m ..,.!!.,,, , -
: EEEEEEEEE; E E ;! E E EEEE : E EEE E ;
. .... . i — - -
;; : : : : : : I;::: •'•'•'-• ~-- - :
-H+l- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-------
tf
a
u_
O
to
I
LU
I
§
COST OF PROCESS COMPONENT VS. DESIGN FLOW
CHLORINATION
1. CONCRETE
4, 0.80
C « (3.26 X 10 ) Q
2. EQUIPMENT
C « (2.28 X W4) Q0'48
3.: ELECTRICAL
C « (9.04 X 103) Q0'81
C « (7.75 X 103/> Q°-75
5. EXCAVATION
C a (6.32 X 10)
FIGURE 3.65
0.02
0.01
5.0 10.0
50.0 100.0
DESIGN FLOW (MOD)
-------
1
O
LLJ
O
JO SNOmiW) lN3NOdWOD dO 1SOD
-------
hfc
5
o
O
UJ
o
o
u
.8
10.0-1 , , ||n .
60_ COST OF PROCESS COMPONENT VS.
EEE = = = ; AEROBIC DIGESTION
4.0-EEEE : E : |||||||||jm|||[|||||||| |'| I Mill | | , , , minimum
E = = = '- E : 1. CONCRETE
IIIIH :c « n.34 x i(n crcz mm
----- I I : 2. PIPING f - •
.!-<>- ====== = = c . (2.60 x io4> a0'69 :
0.8 1 1 1 inn in • - - -....-; [ntHi
06 3- EXCAVATION : : :
EEEEE: E: C » (9.54 X lO3) Q°'83 \ =
0.4------:--- iiiiiiiiiiininimnin mihl, , , ,linn: '• '-
__ L ' ~" rf1
<"-====! HP --•••• ^!;^™;;;;; ; ;
0.08- - = E ::::::::: ::::-J!il!ii r::::::: =rr::::::: :
0.04-EE E : 1 -El I! :E:-;;;; :;EE:EE:!i = E = E = E4i« i;E
0.02-- =::::::::=::::: :-i^:E;;= = EEEEEEE;!:: JE
~ : :::::::::: :: :,*_: — •;! - -
1 [ HHIHHIHHm.::: :: ::;:::: ::--:::::::;••- ;3.
FIGURE 3.67 — - -'.---" :::'.'.: : ::
o.o i—l — ^ •Illlllllili Hill Illlllll 1 1 IIIIIIIIHIHttHH-
0 0.5 10
DESIGN FLOW :::::: : : : : : : : :
• • -- - ~~- ~ ~ '.'.~ i i i i iii:
.... _i_ i
iii iinii iiii iili
1^- ...i_ . ___!
I ' ^^ •• -- • — --
5.Q 10.0 SO 1000)
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
-------
O
O
to
LU
O
(suvnoa do SNomiw) iN3NOdwoD do ISOD
-------
4.0 SIMPLIFIED TREATMENT COST ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES
INTRODUCTION
This section presents simplified techniques for the estimation of the
project costs for the construction, enlargement, and upgrading of
municipal wastewater treatment facilities. These procedures are
intended for the use of State and municipal officials, as weir as
concerned laymen in determining the approximate capital costs of
wastewater treatment alternatives.
These cost estimating procedures were developed for use in the 1980
Needs Survey by EPA. Needs Surveys are conducted biennially by the
agency in order to assess the cost of providing sewage collection and
treatment as required by Public Law 95-217, and to report these costs
to Congress. Previous Needs Surveys have been conducted in 1973, 1974
1976, and 1978.
COST ESTIMATING TECHNIQUES
The curves shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.2 have been developed to estimate
costs of mechanical plants and lagoons respectively. These curves were
developed from the same data base utilized in developing the plotted
relationships in Section 3.0. These curves present the entire project
costs for wastewater treatment plant projects including the construc-
tion costs; Step III nonconstruction costs such as administration/
legal, architect/engineer fees, and contingencies; and Step I and Step
II planning costs. Thus, the curves differ significantly from those
presented in Section 3.0 which only include construction costs.
Figure 4.1 may be used to estimate the construction costs for mechan-
ical wastewater treatment plants. All costs represented by the curves
have been adjusted to Kansas City/St. Joseph, Missouri and are in
fourth quarter 1978 dollars. To adjust costs for another geographical
New construction costs may be determined by reading directly from one
of the cost curves 1 through 4, whichever is appropriate for the level
of treatment sought. Likewise, enlargement costs for a given level of
treatment may be determined by using curves 1 through 4 and the flow
to which the facility is projected to be enlarged.
For instances in which existing facilities must be upgraded or enlarged
and upgraded from one level of treatment to a higher level, costs are
determined by estimating the new construction cost for the projected
design flow and level of treatment from the appropriate curve and then
deducting an allowance for usable portions of the existing facility.
Curves A and B provide estimates of the deduct values for existing
PrJmuaJ7uand secondary plants, respectively. No curves have been
established for estimating the salvage value of existing facilities
greater than secondary.
89
-------
The costs for aerated lagoons and stabilization ponds designed to meet
secondary treatment requirements may be estimated from Figure 4.2.
Costs include the costs for a complete lagoon facility including
nominal pretreatment, pumping, and laboratory/maintenance facilities.
Costs from both aerated lagoon and stabilization pond projects have
been combined in this curve. Costs at the lower end of the curve
tend to represent the costs for stabilization pond projects while those
at the upper end of the curves are generally aerated lagoon projects.
EXAMPLES
The following examples are provided to illustrate treatment plant cost
estimates using procedures outlined in this section.
Example 1
Estimate the total project cost for a new 2.0 mgd activated sludge
secondary treatment plant in Columbia, Missouri.
Curve 1 (Figure 4.1) at 2.0 mgd $4,382,000
Columbia, Missouri Area Multiplier
from Figure 4.3 and Table 4.1 x 0.71
Columbia, Missouri Project Cost $3,111,000
Example 2
Estimate the cost of enlarging an existing advanced secondary treatment
(AST) plant in Billings, Montana from 4.0 mgd to 5.5 mgd.
Curve 2 (Figure 4.1) at 1.5 mgd $3,741,000
Denver, Colorado Area Multiplier
from Figure 4.3 and Table 4.1 x 0.93
Billings, Montana Project Cost $3,479,000
Example 3
Estimate the cost of enlarging and upgrading an existing 2.0 mgd
primary treatment plant in Gainesville, Florida to a 5.0 mgd advanced
wastewater treatment (AWT) plant.
New Construction Cost for 5.0 mgd
AWT Plant
Curve 3 (Figure 4.1) at 5.0 mgd
Curve A at 2.0 mgd
Birmingham, Alabama Area Multiplier
from Figure 4.3 and Table 4.1
Gainesville, Florida Project Cost
$10,397,000
- 702,000
$ 9,695,000
x 0.75
$ 7,271,000
90
-------
savnoa do SNomih NI isoo
8 2 g g s
NononaiSNOO HVJ.OI
o
o'
-------
to
o
to
O
u
"Z.
o
t—
u
O
(J
10.0 i i i )||l||||||||l|i|||l|
8jO_i:::::::::IIIIHIIIIII
A PD AT
6i0 :::::::::: AERA1
4.0-EEEE:i:E;;
2.0-EEEEEEiE;;;;;;;:;;: ;E
1.0--:::::::::::::: ::
0.8--=="»»:::::::::: -
0.6-= = = = : = : = ::!:::! !!! = =
0.4-E = EEE:::::::::::::: ::
0.2-=====:::::;;;;!!!!! '-'-
- »«
0.1- = = = ::::::;.!!! ::
.08 i::;i?::::::: :::.::
.o4-=EEEEEEEE;;;;;:::i -.-.
.02-==EEEE:EE;;;;!;;;;: EE
FIGURE 4.2
.01 W
•prv i Arir^nKic A kin ^TARII ITATIOW Pf^Kin^
NEW CONSTRUCTION •===
(JANUARY 1979 DOLLARS)
' ----....- -- —-21
• -- '^ ---•
::::::: : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::;;!:!: :::::::::::
_....... . __.„.. ............ — -! — — _._.
. ,...._ Ji . .
,,'•
--•••••• • — P ••- ....
_.,.,.., , . — __.__. —ft .-.
il<- -- --- —
_ . . . g i ! ,, , . ...........
::::::: ;:;;:::::::: zzi::::::::::: ;::;::::: CURVE EQUA
._.!..... . ._._ ....
riON , 1 1 1 III 1 1 II
Q0.80 ; :::;:;;;: ;:::::;
.01
.05 0.1
).5 1 0
5.0 10.0
PLANT CAPACITY (MOD)
-------
TABLE 4.1
AREA MULTIPLIERS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION
1 Albany, NY 1.17
2 Albuquerque, NM 0.85
3 Appleton, WI 1.04
4 Atlanta, GA 0.83
5 Baltimore, MD 1.03
6 Binghamton, NY 1.10
7 Birmingham, AL 0.75
8 Boston, MA 1.22
9 Buffalo, NY 1.14
10 Chicago, IL 1.31
11 Charlotte, NC 0.77
12 Cincinnati, OH 1.12
13 Cleveland, OH 1.15
14 Columbia, MO 0.71
15 Dallas, TX 0.79
16 Davenport, IA 0.83
17 Denver, CO 0.93
18 Des Moines, IA 0.84
19 Detroit, MI 1.12
20 Duluth, MN 1.34
21 Evansville, IN 0.95
22 Grand Rapids, MI 0.96
23 Harrisburg, PA 1.19
24 Houston, TX 0.87
25 Huntington, WV 0.84
26 Indianapolis, IN 1.23
27 Kansas City, MO 1.00
28 Lafayette, LA 0.67
29 Lafayette, IN 1.20
30 Lake Charles, LA 0.89
31 Lansing, MI 1.06
32 Los Angeles, CA 1.06
33 Louisville, KY 0.77
34 Lynchburg, VA 0.89
35 Miami, FL 0.88
36 Milwaukee, WI 1.04
37 Minneapolis, MN 1.12
38 Mobile, AL 0.78
39 New Orleans, LA 0.93
40 New York, NY 1.35
41 Philadelphia, PA 1.18
42 Pittsburgh, PA 1.04
43 Portland, ME 1.21
44 Portland, OR 0.95
45 Providence, RI 1.21
46 Rochester, NY 1.12
47 St. Louis, MO 1.07
48 San Diego, CA 0.98
49 San Francisco, CA 1.32
50 Seattle, WA 1.05
51 Springfield, MA 1.19
52 Springfield, MO 0.76
53 Syracuse, NY 1.13
54 Wheeling, WV 1.04
55 Wilkes-Barre, PA 0.95
STATE AND TERRITORIAL MULTIPLIERS
Alaska
Guam
Hawaii
Puerto Rico
Trust Territories
2.
1,
.74
.40
1.71
0.98
1.40
93
-------
a.
S
X
UJ
Q
(0
8
55 s
!
u>
"• S
t- S
o
00
DC
111
ul
-------
APPENDIX A
COST UPDATING AND NORMALIZATION TECHNIQUES
The data base used in this report includes costs from construction
projects in many geographical areas of the U.S. They range in time
from 1973 through 1978. In order to achieve a meaningful analysis of
the data, it was necessary to index all dollar values to a specific
time and location.
To accomplish this, the EPA Large City Advanced Treatment (LCAT)
Small City Conventional Treatment (SCCT) Indexes were used. These
indexes have been calculated quarterly by EPA since the third quarter
of 1973 for a total of 50 U.S. cities. The LCAT Index is based
hypothetical 50.0 mgd advanced wastewater treatment facility
base city of Kansas City, Missouri. The SCCT Index is
hypothetical 5.0 mgd activated sludge secondary treatment facility
with a base city of St. Joseph, Missouri. The base value for both
the indexes is 100 for third quarter 1973.
and
on a
with a
based on a
AREAS OF INFLUENCE
EPA publishes the LCAT and SCCT Indexes as indicators of cost trends
over time and for comparative purposes by relating one city to an-
other. The areas of cost influence for each of the 50 indexed cities
are not defined. Therefore, prior to using the indexes, the area of
influence for each of the index cities was assessed and mapped. Two
sources of information were employed in this -effort: Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) labor rate history for 102 U.S. cities and the Bureau
of Economic Analysis (BEA) map of U.S. economic areas.
The BLS data consists of union labor rates for various skills, recorded
quarterly for 102 U.S. cities. In order to apply this information, a
weighted average of four construction crafts - carpenter, electrician,
laborer, and plumber - were calculated for 22 calendar quarters
from third quarter 1973 to the fourth quarter 1978. Data from each
city were then statistically correlated with the 101 other BLS cities.
Since the EPA SCCT and LCAT Index cities were included in the list of
BLS cities, this process defined the area of economic influence for
each of the EPA index cities.
The BEA map of economic areas was used to set the exact boundaries of
economic influence surrounding the EPA index cities. A BEA economic
area is composed of a central city and the surrounding counties that
are economically related to the central city as determined by BEA.
Each of these areas includes both the place of work and place of
residence of the labor force. The.resulting maps for the LCAT and SCCT
Index city areas of influence are presented in Figures A.I and A.2.
A-l
-------
LCAT - SCCT CLASSIFICATION
In order to utilize the above maps, all projects in the data base were
classified as either LCAT or SCCT Index related. The following cri-
teria were used for that classification:
1. A mechanical treatment plant project with a projected design flow
less than 15.0 mgd was related to the SCCT Index.
2. A treatment plant project with a projected design flow of 15.0 mgd
or greater was related to the LCAT Index.
3. A lagoon project was related to the SCCT Index.
COST UPDATING
After a project was related to either the LCAT or SCCT Index, Figure
A.I or A.2 was utilized to relate the project to a specific LCAT or
SCCT Index city. Using the indexes contained in Tables A.I and A.2,
the costs were then normalized to fourth quarter 1978 at Kansas City/St.
Joseph, Missouri according to the following procedure:
Kansas City/St. Joseph, MO
Cost of Construction at (Place x)(Time t) x 4th Quarter 1978 Index =
(Place x, Time t) Index
Cost of Construction at Kansas City/St. Joseph, MO 4th Quarter 1978
Thus, the data base was normalized to the base cities for the indexes.
The effects on the results of the analyses of a large or small quantity
of data from different areas of the U.S., or from a particular time
period, were thus minimized. Cost relationships resulting from an
analysis of the data are indeed national averages in this report.
A-2
-------
a.
<
•»
UJ
i
_
M
i s
s
u
-------
Q. ffi
< Q
I *
i 2
II
Q:
Ul
O
g
-------
cocoencot1-. o CM t-n o cn cn i—i r*-^ co *—i »-H cr> o cn cn
CM" LO CM" f*^ O CO to r-s. co co LO «st- LO h-» co LD «^-LO cn r^
CM CM CM LO LO CO
LO co co r-^ o cri o LO
LO LO LO CM CM
LO O LO ,
LO CO •* LO CM
CO CO CO LO LO
•=)• co co co r--
«5j- Cn O O CO LO
LO LO P^ LO LO «5f
. *tf- cn LO co r--. o LO CM COLOLOCMP-.
• LO r-H CM LO CM «* LO CM •=}- CO CO CO LO
O LO l~--=i- CM
LO ID IO IT) LO
<3- 00 CM r^ CM CM co CM LO co CM co r^. o cn f—i t-H cn t-H LO [•*•* t-n co t-n co CD
t-H CO r-l LO Cn LQ «3- LO T-H CM LO CM CO LO T-H «tf* CO CM CO LO *=J-LO LO LO-stf* «*
co (^ t—i «^t- LO OT-HOCOCM ocoi^cncn cnococnco vocncncni^ co
CO T-HCOt-HLOCO VO IT> *& *3~ CM
o«Nt-r^.cnco co«5t'f^.»-HO Locncot-Hco cor^coLocn cocococn^j-
CM t-HCOO«^-CO LOCO* CO CM CO
< s
C£
UJ h-
_l
m o
*CMOOt-H coOt-H«3-Lo ^f-
CM cnt-icncMco cOi-HCMcncn cMcnt-Ht-HO t-HOO«^-«cJ- CMCOCMt-HCM ^H
t-HOCnt-HCM LOCOLOr-^t-H t-HCn^l^LO lOCnLOT-HLO t-HCO*^-LOr^. LO
— - cMOr-Hcocn t-Hcooocn oencn^t-cM r-icMt-iOr-i o
t-Ht-Ht-H t—1 t—It—1 t-H t-Hr-H f-Ht-Ht-Ht-Hr-H t-H
r-H] Cn t—t CO CM <
r^. «3 co co co
co o co *-H LO
p^ to «3- co r
CO CD CO «— t L
t-I^OCOCO CMLOCMCOCM COr^Ot-H<5j- CM
r-Hcooocn ocncncocM or-it-nOi-H o
t-H t-Ht-H t—I t-Ht-H t-Ht-Ht—It-Ht—I t-H-
t-HLOCOCMI1^ CncOO^CM CMLO«=}-CnCM
cMOt-Hcoco ocooocn ocncncocM
!r-> t-H O LO CM
t-H t-H O t-H O
1 r-H r-H t-H t-H r-H
n3 o
•f-5 E
IS +J
i — i —
4J <8 -
«C CD
4-> XI
to c
O C IO
Cn E r—
CO *i— <1>
CJ O >
•i- E <1)
4-> CU
o 'oj
-jj c: cn
tO S- *r- O LO C
fO s- ui to H
to OJ d) O tO O -i-
~ ~ a 3C ^ _J s:
IO
Vt V) *r-
••- £= -C
CU i — ro Q-
01 0 CO -S^r—
^£ Q-i— i. CU
Z3 rtl i- O T3
rtj CD CD >- rO
^ -r- O
S- -r- =
3 3 IO
+J +-> C
-t-> • C CO CO i.
D. OO OO tO h-
C3
s
«-HCMCO«5j-LO LOP-^COCnO t-HCMCO^LO LOr^-COCnO r-)CMCO<^J-LO
t-H t—I i-H t-H t-H t-H t-H r-H t-H t-H CM CM CM CM CM CM
-------
0
V)
a:
LU
O CM CO O Cn rH *=J- Cn «^t- C7i f^ rH ^Q O «=J- Cn CM IO «tf- CM CM CO LO
*d- r** co co «*3- cn r*% «xt- «3- **• co co co «* LO <3- r-* co CM LO *tf-
. CM r^. LO co «tf- «tf- ^ o cn co LO cn LO t-H co cn <^t- r--^ co LO o LO co r-^ «=d- cn
co ^o CM CM co cn LO co ^o r-n <3- mvo«^-«^-co CM CM CM «tf- «*• «3- vo CM r-j LO co
po
| co CM o cn CM o «d- ^o vo CM «-H co rH co r-^ «* r-* *d- cn co r-*. o «3- CM co «3-
CM [ LO CM CM CM Cn LO CO LO rH "^l- LO LO •* CO CM CM rH CM CO CO CO ^O CM t—t -5j- CO
CO O O CO CO O «3" rH CO Cn O IO Cn ^O «d* «3- «* CM CO ** (JD Cn O CO CM CM
r-l *3- CM CM CM CO LOCO LO.rH CO LO LO CO CO CM CMrHCMCOCO COmCMO^ CO
CMioioojr^» tOi-HLocnco r-^co«3-c\jo CMOO^OO^ •^J-^OWD*—»co co
^J- «-H *—t r-1 CO «tf-CO«3-OCO -^-LnCOCOOJ CMt-HC\JCOCM COLOrHOCM OJ
^•CM^hCO1^ LOOCOCT»OJ ^OO^COOCT. OCOCOtO^O COLO«=J-t-HO1 <£>
CO *^-i-H*-(»-ICO *tf-CO«a-OCO ^-«^COCO^H CMOt-iCOCS] COLD^HOCO CM
P-".
o>
t cococor^co co co *—i r--. t—i •cj-cMr^.r^^o cn^or^-cOLo OO«-HCT^CM co
CM CO O O «—< CO ^CM^OCO «* «3- CM CM t—C t-HOrHCMCM COLOt-HO^CO CM-
CO CO CO in CM CO «3" t-H 1^t-T-HLn CT>
CO COOOr-ll1^. COt-ICOpCM CO CO CSJ CSI i-H »-HO*-lCMCM t-H«=fOCT»CM r-t
"^
-_ - - o t£> r^. r-H CM in o CD r-.. o o CM «3- o r^ r^ co co t-n ^f LO
CM CMOOOr^. COrHCOOCM COCOt-Hr-Hr-H f-HOr-HCMt—f r-H«^-OCT»CM r-H
r^cM^oo^t- oicM co.t—i air*-.ococo O^LOLOCOCO r^oicococM o
r-iooor^. CMOCMcncM CMCMCMI-HO cncrtOt-Ht-H ococrtcocM »-H
«-H rH rH rH i-H. t—| t—I rH t-H rH t—( rH rH rH rH rH t-H rH rH t-H
. cncot-HrHr^. *£>crjcr»r^cTi IO^OCOCMLO co-^-CMr-co r^cor^r-rn o>
CO rHCJ>OOr> CMOrHCttrH CvJCMrHrHO CnOlOt-Ht-H OCOCT>COCM O
I r-l t-H i—I rH rH rH rH i-H rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH
LO
cn
I CO^r-lrHOI ^Ot-^COCQCn CMOir--rH«tf- COCMCOLOCO r^h^'^t-^.CO CO
CM rHCnOO^D CMOrHOIrH CMrHrHt-HO OlCJlOi-HrH OCOCnCOt-* O
rH rHrH rHrHrH rH rHt-HrHrHrH trHrHrH rHrH rH r-C
rH^O-=d-CMCM ^DO1rHCJ>CO CTtrHrHCMCO LO^^OCOl-O tOP-^CT»Cr>O CT^
rH CMCT>OC3r^ CMOCMCTiOJ r-HCMCMr-HO OCTtOr-HrH OCOO^COCM O
rH rHrH rHrHrH rH rHt-HrHrHrH rH r-HrHrH t-HrH rH rH
COOICOtO^O COCO^CMCM CM^CO^LO ^J- CO CO O O> COOr-HCMCM CM
C\ICJ»OOr*>. CMrHCMOCM CMCMCMrHO OOlOCMrH O«^-OCT>CM rH
CM f** IO ^* CM I*"*. CM CO t-N. O*i O CT> rH *d" ^S*
cn «d- «i- o co
ocn oco o
O LO CM O CO
I-H en o co o
LO i-H i— 1 LD CO
o o cn cn co
CM CM CM LO «±
o CD cn cn co
r-. cn o «sj- CM
co r~~ co o o
r-^ cn r*-. LO o
co r-. co CD o
O LO CM CO LO
CD CM CO !-- CD
O «3- rH «3- LO
cn CM co i-~ o
-a
r—
01
ui s- c s- E i— a. i-
.ii U) £. (/) (TJ
tO •!- 3 fO -C
ca ca ca t_j c_>
(O -i- IO
r— >CQ
S- -C CD W
0) 4-> E O. 4->
•r- V) C
O ^£ (O O r3 -i-
i— 'OOC'-D XOfO r—
XJ T- C *P- Z3 tG V) O Q)
o> o. • os-i— oo>
=3n3On34-> *r->^rjn3jc:
o-oicticoco oo co H- 33:
«3 r^ co cn CD t-i CM co <3- LO
rHt-Ht-Ht-HCM CMCMCMCMCM
-------
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA BASE
Data included in this study were collected from 737 Federally funded
wastewater treatment plant projects in all ten EPA Regions. Forty-nine
of the fifty states are represented in the data base - the exception
being the State of Kentucky.
Table B.I lists the grant number, facility name, State, projected
design flow, treatment level, and change for each of the projects
included. The treatment levels are defined as follows:
Code Level of Treatment
First Digit 2 Advanced Primary Treatment
3 Secondary Treatment
4 Advanced Secondary Treatment
5 Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Second Digit 0 No Nutrient Removal Processes
1 Ammonia Conversion or Removal
2 Total Nitrogen Removal
3 Phosphorus Removal
4 Both 01 and 03
5 Both 02 and 03
The change code refers to the type of change made to the treatment
facility. The codes are defined as follows:
Code . Type of Change
01 Enlargement of treatment capacity
02 Upgrading level of treatment
03 Enlargement and upgrading
04 New construction
05 Replacement
08 Other modifications
09 Special situation
B-l
-------
GRANT NO
TABLE-B.l-
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS IN DATA BASE
FACILITY NAME STATE PROJECTED FLOW TREATMENT LEVEL CHANGE
010350
010254
010256
010289
010296
010313
020039
020043
020046
020047
020074
040125
040134
040138
040138
040140
040141
040150
040151
040176
040183
040189
040214
040220
040222
050305
050332
050339
050346
050347
050347
050350
050367
050369
050395
050397
050399
060669
060696
060731
060763
060767
060771
060772
060775
060778
060779
060786
060787
060790
MONROEVILLE-DOUBLE BRANCH
RUSSELLVILIE STP
NEW HOPE
WALNUT CREEK WWTP
TOWN CREEK SEWER SYSTEM
GROVE HILL STP
FAIRBANKS WWTP
HAINES STP & COLL
SKAGWHY STP S. COLLECTION
PETERSBURG WWTP
KOOIAK SYSTEM
SUPERIOR WWTP
RANDOLPH PARK STP
IRON SPRINGS WWTF #B
IRON SPRINGS WWTF #A
LAKE HAVASU STP
CASA GRANDE STP
CLARKOALE
INA ROAD STP
WINSLOW
JOSEPH CITY STP
WINKELMAN STP
SOMERTON STP
COLORADO CITY/HILDALE STP
YUMA WWTP
HOT SPRINGS REGIONAL WWTP
BATESVILLE STP
SPRINGDALE WWTP
PAPAGOULD WWTP
PATE CREEK STP
BOIS D'ARC STP
GREENBPIER WWTP
WEST SIDE WWTRT WORKS
CONWAY STP
BULL SHOALS STP
HATFIF.LD STP
HUNTINGTON STP
TERMINAL ISLAND STP
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA STP
AVALON STP
KERMAN WWTP
MAIN WOCF
PALM DESERT WRP
SCOTTS VALLEY STP
VISALIA WCP
ANGELS CAMP STP
ORANGE CO. WvuRP 41
BOLINAS STP
LIVERMORE
LAGUNA WWTP
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AK
AK
AK
AK
AK
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
1.00
1.13
0.25
3.00
0.15
0'.3Q
8ioo
0.30
0.30
0.80
2.13
0.75
1.50
0.10
0.03
0.20
3.00
0.25
25.00
1.55
0.33
0.12
0.80
0.30
12.10
12.00
4.50
16.00
2.20
0.80
1.20
0.12
3.00
6.00
0.57
0.07
0.11
30.00
30.00
1.00
0.41
67.00
2.10
0.40
8.30
0.32
46.00
0.07
6.00
l-i.OO
40
40
30
40
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
30
40
30
50
40
30
30
40
40
50
40
40
40
20
30
30
54
30
30
53
30
30
30
30
30
30
50
30
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
03
03
04
05
04
01
03
04
01
04
03
01
01
04
04
04
03
04
04
04
04
03
03
04
03
03
01
01
01
03
01
03
01
03
-------
TABLE B.l (Continued)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS IN DATA BASE
GRANT NO FACILITY NAME STATE PROJECTED FLOW TREATMENT LEVEL CHANGE
060796
060797
060800
060801
060804
060810
060813
060816
060818
060833
060833
060835
060837
060840
060880
060882
060897
060913
060915
060925
060938
060947
060Q50
060956
060964
060967
060991
061023
061048
061063
061076
061121
061218
061220
061275
061355
OS0322
080329
080330
080333
080334
080336
080338
080344
080349
080352
080354
080357
030401
090153
ROSEVILLE WWTF
SANTA BARBARA STP
BASS LAKE STP
CALEXICO STP
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA STP
FAIRFIELD-5UISUN WWTF
INYO CA WWTF
NORTHWEST CLEAR LAKE REG.
LOMPOC REGIONAL WWTF
MT. SHASTA WPCF
SOLVANG STP
TULARE TREATMENT PLANT
VALLEJO STP
SOUTH WWTF
HOLLISTER STP
IMPERIAL STP
TERMINAL ISLAND
MODESTO STP
NAPA VALLEY-AMERICAN CANY
PACIFICA WPCF
SACRAMENTO REGIONAL WWTF
SAN JOSE/SANTA CLARA WPCF
SAN MATEO SUBREGIONAL STP
SHASTA DAM AREA STP
TRACY WWTF
SONORA STP
8LYTHE STP
HANFORD STP
JOINT WPCP
MOOESTO STP
PALO ALTO STP
TAHOE-TRUCKEE STP
SIMI VALLEY STP
HILL CANYON STP
KETTLEMAN CITY STP
HILTON CREEK STP
UPPER THOMPSON WWTP
LITTLETON-ENGLEWOOD WWTP
W. JEFFERSON COUNTY WWTP
FRISCO STP
SILVESTHORNE DILLON STP
GLENWOOD STP
LOVELAND STP
ASPEN STP
SNQWMASS STP
LONGMONT WWTP S, SEWER SYS
EATON WWTP
LYONS WWTP
WESTMINSTER STP
KILLINGLY WWTP
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CT
5.75
11.00
0.50
2.20
30.00
10.35
0.85
2.45
5.00
0.70
0.54
4.50
13.00
7.00
1.73
0.70
30.00
45.00
15.00
4.30
136.00
143.00
13.60
0.50
5.50
2.6'0
1.50
3.00
100.00
25.00
30.60
4.83
9.10
10.00
0.12
0.08
1.50
20.00
0.50
0.50
2.00
2.30
7.70
3.00
1.60
8.20
0.34
0.29
2.40
8.00
40
30
30
30
50
50
30
30
40
30
30
30
30
30
41
30
30
30
50
30
43
51
50
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
51
53
50
50
30
40
33
30
30
53
53
30
40
51
51
31
30
30
30
30
03
03
04
01
02
04
04
04
03
04
03
01
03
03
05
03
08
02
03
02
03
02
03
04
02
03
04
03
02
02
02
04
02
02
04
04
04
04
01
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
01
03
01
04
-------
TABLE B.I (Continued)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS IN DATA BASE
C.RANT NO FACILITY NAME STATE PROJECTED FLOW TREATMENT LEVEL CHANGE
090155
090155
090175
100061
100088
120428
120433
120474
120523
120574
130315
130341
130357
130333
1303B5
130395
130399
130*03
130404
130435
130425
130430
1304R9
130496
150050
150Q54
150057
160144
160171
l£0]«53
1601R5
1601B*
1601Q4
160P04
16020B
160209
170508
170561
170660
170*^0
170749
17076o
170665
170H7*.
170924
1709™
170W56
170070
170^73
170979
STONINGTON WPCF
PAWCATUCK WPCF
NEW LONDON WPCF
DELAWARE CITY WWTP
S. COASTAL REGIONAL STP
PENSACOLA WTW
SOUTH CROSS BAYOU WTW
FORT LAUDEHDALE STP
NW STP & EFFLUENT HISPOSA
BROWARD COUNTY STP NO. 2
RICHMOND HILL SEWERAGE SY
ROCKMftRT STP
ALMA
VIOALIA NOMTHEAST STP
GUM CREEK WWTF
DALLAS STP
GWINNETT COUNTY STP
FAYETTEVILLF STP
AOFL WWTP
WITHLACOOCHfrE WWTP
MUD CREEK WWTP
SOUTH COBB STP
FLAT CREEK STP
SHFLLMAN STP
HAMAPEPE-ELEtLE WWTF
LAHAINA STP
KULAlMANO STP
PA^IS SEWEPAGE
PAYETTE STP
MERIDIAN STP
SOUTH FORK COEIJR D'AIENE
POCATELLO STP
WEST BOISE (GARDEN CITY)
GUI DESAC WWTP
GOkEM FIELD WWTP
HAGERMAN bTP
8USHNELL STP
klflGEWAY
RICHMOND
SPARTA
TAYLOHVILLF SAsMlTAHY OliT
MT CAftMKL WWTP
MOMENCE
AL'iOWQUIN
SAI EM
OLMSTED
STOCKTON
0« FALLOW
OOWNEKS CiKOVE SANITARY U.
LENA
CT
CT
CT,
DE
DE
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
. GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
HA
HA
HA
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
0.66
1.31
10.00
0.50
3.00
20.00
27.00
22.00
16.00
60.00
0.50
1.20
0.75
1.90
5.00
0.25
3.60
1.25
1.30
4.00
2.20
24.00
7.00
0.15
0.40
3.20
0.50
0.10
2.40
2.20
0.13
7.50
S.OO
0.05
0.26
0.08
0.70
0.14
0.38
0.65
1.92
2.00
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.07
0.30
3.00
9.60
0.30
30
30
30
50
40
54
30
40
50
40
30
30
30
51
41
40
54
51
41
41
50
44
33
30
30
30
30
60
30
41
30
30
30
30
30
30
50
50
33
50
50
40
40
33
40
30
40
30
50
30
04
04
03
02
04
03
01
03
03
01
04
03
04
03
03
04
04
04
03
04
04
03
02
04
04
04
04
04
03
04
04
03
04
04
04
04
03
03
03
03
03
02
03
02
03
03
03
03
03
01
-------
TABLE B.l (Continued)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS IN DATA BASE
GRANT NO FACILITY NAME
STATE PROJECTED FLOW TREATMENT LEVEL CHANGE
170983 8REESE STP
170992 GRAYVILLE
171001 GALVA
171001 GALVA
171006 BLOOMINGTON-NORMAL STP
171023 BELLEVILLE STP NO. 2
171061 COWDEN
171105 8ARTLETT
171118 MOLINE
171156 MINONK STP
171172 ELGIN
171182 ALTON
171202 MATOON
171215 GRANITE CITY STP
171218 BENSENVILLE
171226 STILLMAN VALLEY STP
171279 CENTRALIA
171294 WOODRIDGE WWTP
171310 MT VERNON STP
171332 EAST MOLINE
171335 SYCAMORE STP
171341 FULTON
171365 ARTHUR
171397 HINSDALE SO STP
171399 SALT CREEK SANITARY OIST.
171412 CARPENTERSVILLE WWTP
171420 8LOOM TOWNSHIP STP
171462 VILLAGE OF BARRINGTON STP
171584 LI6ERTYVILLE WWTP
171639 LAKE CO DPW-GRANDWOOD PK
171840 WHEATON SO STP
175111 OHARE WATER RECLAM PLANT
180260 NORTH WEBSTER
180295 LOGANSPORT
180295 LOGANSPORT
180329 LINDEN WWTP
180335 ELNORA STP
180346 BIRDSEYE STP
180350 HAMLET STP
180354 WILLIAMSPORT STP
180375 ROME CITY LAGOONS
180400 BROOKLYN WWTP
180410 GREENSBURG
180434 CLARKS HILL WWTP
180445 CARMEL WWTP
180467 SEYMOUR WWTP
180470 PARAGON STP
180473 LAUREL
180484 CLAY CITY
180488 RISING SUN WWTP
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
. IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
. IN
IN
IN
0.63
0.30
0.42 .
0.41
16.00
0.45
0.08
1.54
5.50
0.34
17.00
10.50
4.50
23.00
4.00
0.20
3.00
4.00
3.80
11.10
3.50
0.47
0.50
12.00
5.00
5.00
12.10
3.68
4.00
0.50
8.90
72.00
0.28
9.00
9.00
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.10
0.22
0.45
0.24
1.60
0.15
3.00
4.30
0.07
0.15
0.12
0.36
50
30
. 50
50
51
50
30
50
40
50
53
30
50
30
40
30
50
50
53
40
50
30
50
51
51
53
51
54
50
50
51
50
53
30
30
50
50
30
50
30
53
30
50
50
43
33
50
30
50
30
04
03
03
03
03
02
03
04
03
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
02
03
03
03
03
09
04
09
09
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
03
04
01
03
04
04
04
03
-------
TABLE B.I (eoiitinued)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS IN DATA BASE
GRANT NO FACILITY NAME STATE PROJECTED FLOW TREATMENT LEVEL CHANGE
180494
180495
180499
180502
180509
180515
180518
180520
180526
180528
180532
180533
180534
180555
180574
180576
180591
180595
180614
180627
180760
180840
190568
190579
190584
190587
190592
190594
190598
190603
190605
190608
190617
190637
190645
190664
190672
190763
190800
190882
190890
200365
200429
200467
200478
200505
200510
200523
200527
200530
COVINGTON WWTP
OUGGER
SALEM
SUNMAN
HYMERA STP
BROOKVILLE
TIPTON STP
NEW PROVIDENCE WWTP
STAUNTON STP
MARTINSVILLE WWTP
MUNCIE WWTP
PRINCETON WWTP
WESTVILLE WWTP
PENNVILLE STP
BOSWELL
DEMOTTE
CONVERSE WWTP
FREMONT STP
FRANKFORT STP
CROWN POINT WWTP
COLUMBUS
GARY STP
WEST LIBERTY STP
MASON CITY WWTP
SIOUX CITY WWTP
JEFFERSON STP
MUSCATINE WWTP
KEOKUK WWTP
SAC STP
WEBSTER STP
HARLAN WWTP
EAGLE GROVE STP
WOOLSTOCK SEWERS 6, LAGOON
SPENCER WWTP
SHELDON STP
IDA GROVE STP
WALFORD LAGOON
JANESVILLE LAGOON
WAVERLY STP
WASHTA LAGOON
CASCADE STP
LEAVENWORTH WWTP
ATLANTA LAGOONS
LAKIN LAGOON
JUNCTION CITY WWTP
BALDWIN STP
TOOLEY CREEK MDS#1
VALLEY CENTER STP
MINNEAPOLIS LAGOON
WINFIELD STP
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
0.35
0.13
0.90
0.18
0.25
0.60
2.00
0.14
0.09
2.20
24.00
2.00
0.35
0.16
0.13
0.40
0.25
0.30
4.68
3.60
12.40
60.00
1.37
6.50
30.00
1.10
13.00
5.00
0.70
2.90
0.72
0.60
0.04
3.70
0.87
0.39
0.04
0.17
1.24
0.04
0.25
6.88
0.21
0.30
3.60
0.43
0.50
0.50
0.21
2.00
30
50
50
50
50
30
53
40
53
30
43
50
50
50
50
50
33
53
50
53
44
54
30
51
30
30
30
30
31
41
51
31
30
51
41
40
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
60
30
04
04
03
04
04
03
03
04
04
03
03
03
03
04
04
04
04
03
03
03
03
02
03
03
03
04
03
02
04
03
04
03
04
04
03
04
04
04
04
03
03
03
04
04
03
03
03
03
04
01
-------
TABLE B.I (Continued)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS IN DATA BASE
GRANT NO FACILITY NAME STATE PROJECTED FLOW TREATMENT LEVEL CHANGE
200534 FREEDONIA STP
200576 LA HARPE WwTP
200646 GALVA LAGOON
200648 DERBY STP
200653 BLUE RAPIDS LAGOON
200661 TOWANDA STP
220265 CITY OF KENNER WWTP
220292 JEANERETTE WWTP
220295 TOWN OF BASILE WWTP
220305 CITY OF RUSTON WWTP
220307 GILBERT WWTP
220314 VILLAGE OF ROSEPINE WWTP
220321 TOWN OF LIVINGSTON WWTP
220430 YOUNGSVILLE STP
220561 MERRYVILLE STP
230102 FORT FAIRFIELD WWTP
230114 OLD ORCHARD BEACH STP
230117 SOUTH PORTLAND STP
230122 PORTLAND Wf) WPCF
240152 CALVERT CO SANITARY DIST
240180 FRIENDSVILLE STP
240243 ACCIDENT TOWN OF
240255 WILLARDS WWTF
240294 BALLEN6ER CREEK WTW
240298 SAVAGE STP
340311 FREEDOM DIST PROJECT
240311 FREEDOM DISTRICT STP
240318 CLEAR SPRING STP
240346 ABERDEEN STP
240393 TYLERTOWN STP
240393 EWELL RHODES POINT STP
240409 COX CREEK STP
240422 FREDRICK CNTY METRO STP
240467 CHERRY HILL
250253 UPPER BLACKSTONE WPCF
250255 ROCKPORT STP
250266 REGIONAL STP
250270 ORANGE STP
250279 PALMER STP
250298 SOUTH HADLEY WWTP
250300 HULL WWTP «, SEWERS
250318 HARDWICK WWTP
262034 HARBOR SPRINGS LAGOONS
262041 LANSING WWTP
262053 CHATHAM WWTP
262073 BRONSON WWTP
262127 FLINT WWTP
262142 GRAND LEDGE WWTP
262148 GRATIOT CO.-FULTON DPW
262301 CHESANING
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
ME
ME
ME
ME
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
0.75
0.14
0.06
1.64
0.16
0.19
5.00 '
1.32
0.28
4.60
0.10
0.15
0.30
0.19
0.25
0.88
1.50
5.50
4.54
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.08
2.00
5.00
1.80
1.80
0.20
4.00
0.02
0.07
15.00
0.23
0.08
56.00
0.80
18.10
1.10
5.60
5.10
3.07
0.04
0.45
40.50
0.25
0.50
50.00
1.50
0.70
0.58
30
30
30
30
60
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
50
45
30
30
30
30
50
30
30
30
30
33
30
30
30
30
53
60
33
54
30
60
33
04
04
03
03
04
03
01
04
04
01
04
04
04
04
04
04
03
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
01
04
04
04
05
04
04
01
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
03
04
04
04
03
04
02
03
03
04
03
-------
TABLE B.I (Continued)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS IN DATA BASE
GRANT NO FACILITY NAME
STATE. PROJECTED FLOW TREATMENT LEVEL CHANGE
262314
262326
262349
262353
262491
262501
262503
262516
262535
262541
262543
262640
263271
263279
270663
270664
270720
270725
270741
270747
270748
270816
270818
270*21
270837
270838
270844
270845
270845
270854
270871
270949
270970
276743
280373
280540
290480
290524
290560
290587
290603
290629
290634
290646
290655
290658
290662
290669
290673
290683
CHFBOYGAN AREA WW MANAG
IRON MOUNTAIN-KINGSFORD
DOWAGIAC WWTP
EATON RAPIDS
MT. CLEMENS 5. CLINTON AREA
OWOSSO
BIG RAPIDS WWTP
CALEDONIA STP
MASON
IONIA WWTP
LUCE CO. DPW
GLADWIN
JONESVILLE STP
MARQUETTE CNTY
MSB OF TC-PRELIMINARY TMT
PRELIMINARY TMT FACILITIE
VIRGINIA
TWO HARBORS WWTP
ROGERS
ST CLOUD
WESTERN LAKE SUPERIOR SAN
HOYT LAKES STP
STOCKTON LAGOONS
MOUNTAIN IRON STP
TAUNTON WWTP
ZIMMERMAN LAGOONS
ALEXANDRIA LAKE» ETAL.
BREEZY POINT STP
BREEZY POINT LAGOONS
ELK RIVER STP
FAPIBAULT WWTP
MARSHALL WWTP
MADISON LAKE
DOVER-EYOTA ST CHARLE STP
MERIDIAN STP
MANTACHIE STP
ST. JOSEPH WWTP
MONETT WWTP
WENTZVILLE STP
WESTSIDE STP
NEVADA WWTP
INDEPENDENCE (ROCK CREEK)
CHARLESTON STP
WYATT LAGOON 8. SEWERS
WARRENSBURG STP
CURA STP
BEUIER LAGOON
QULIN STP
JEFFERSON STP
TIPTON STP
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MS
MS
MO
MO
MO
MO'
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
2.00
3.00
2.50
1.20
4.50
6.00
2.40
0.14
1.00
2.85
1.00
0.65
0.32
6.20
345.00
290.00
2.00
1.20
0.15
13.00
43.60
0.50
0.07
0.55
0.02
0.08
2.55
0.12
0.12
1.04
3.50
4.30
0.09
0.80
13.00
0.12
32.85
3.07
1.10
22.50
2.11
7.50
0.75
O.Ob
1.70
0.46
0.01
0.10
6.20
0.44
33
33
43
33
30
54
33
60
54
33
33
33
54
33
30
30
53
33
30
30
33
33
30
33
30
30
33
30
60
30
30
50
50
50
42
42
30
30
40
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
03
03
02
03
03
03
02
04
02
03
03
02
02
03
09
09
03
03
04
04
04
02
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
01
03
03
04
04
03
04
03
03
04
02
04
04
02
04
04
04
04
04
02
04
-------
TABLE B.I (Continued)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS IN OATA BASE
GRANT NO FACILITY NAME
STATE PROJECTED FLOW TREATMENT LEVEL CHANGE
290701 ST. JAMES STP
290711 BOURBON STP
290747 BUFFALO STP
290751 WAYNESVILLE STP
290782 CROCKER STP
290794 BUSHY CREEK STP
300163 KALISPELL WWTP
300194 FLAXVILLE LAGOONS
300197 GREAT FALLS STP
300204 POPLAR WWTP
310393 WAKEFIELO LAGOON
310398 FREMONT WWTP
310407 BLAIR WWTP
310421 SPRINGFIELD WWTP
310433 YORK WWTP
310435 ARLINGTON WWTP
310453 GRAND ISLAND STP
310466 HEBRON WWTP
310472 NEBRASKA CITY STP
310476 VALLEY STP
310493 NORTHEAST STP
310497 HICKMAN STP
310500 WILBER STP
310547 OSHKOSH STP
310550 BLUE HILL STP
310567 MCCOOK STP
310574 ARNOLD STP
310575 THEDFORD LAGOON
320076 YERINGTON STP
320078 RENO-STEAD STP
3200H5 FALLON WWTF
3200*6 MINDEN-GARDNFRVILLE STP
320091 BEATTY STP
320097 MCDERMITT STP
320107 OVERTON STP
320108 SEARCHLIGHT STP
320111 WEST WQ CONTROL PLANT
320120 LOVELOCK STP
330093 MANCHESTER WWTP
330104 ALLENSTOWN STP
330111 BERLIN STP
330119 WARNER VILLAGE STP
330137 LISBON LAGOONS
330161 DURHAM STP
340299 LINOEN-ROSELLE SEWERAGE A
340333 PARSIPPANY-THOY HILL STP
340340 JOINT MFG UNION8.ESSEX CO.
340344 ATLANTIC COUNTY S.A.
340350 LIVINGSTON WTW UPGRADE
340354 PFQUANNOCK,LINCOLN PARK
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MT
MT
MT
MT
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
0.46
0.22
0.46
1.25
0.20
0.40
2.70
0.01
21.00
0.60
0.27
10.50
2.00
0.22
2.30
0.17
10.00
0.25
2.11
0.48
8.00
0.17
0.29
0.13
0.09
2.03
0.08
0.03
0.54
1.00
0.64
1.50
0.10
0.05
0.18
0.03
32.00
0.50
26.00
1.05
4.10
0.17
0.29
2.50
17.00
16.00
75.00
40.00
3.50
7.50
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
60
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
41
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
60
30
60
30
60
60
60
60
40
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
51
04
04
04
03
04
04
02
04
03
04
03
03
04
04
03
03
01
03
03
03
04
' 04
04
04
04
03
04
04
03
03
03
01
04
01
04
04
02
04
04
04
04
04
04
03
03
01
03
04
01
04
-------
GRANT NO FACILITY NAME
TABLE B.I (Continued)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS IN DATA BASE
STATE PROJECTED FLOW TREATMENT LEVEL CHANGE
340356
340358
340372
340377
340383
340386
340388
340550
350171
350188
351004
351015
351029
351034
360384
360389
360433
360446
360485
360534
360567
360621
360640
360644
360646
360650
360652
360659
360661
360680
360691
360711
360728
360732
360742
360747
360750
360771
360783
360786
360812
360824
360843
360854
360859
360914
360922
370364
370377
370377
OCEAN CO SEWERAGE AUTH(N)
PEMBERTON M Y A
OCEAN COUNTY S.A CENTRAL
S MONMOUTH S.A.
HAMILTON TOWNSHIP
BEPGEN CO SEWER AUTHORITY
HANOVER SEWER AUTHORITY
CUMBERLAND CO. SEWERAGE A
LAS CRUCES WWTP
CITY OF LORDSBURG WWTP
HOBBS STP
RATON WWTP
CITY OF PORTALES WWTP
LAS VEGAS SS
MARION STP
RENSSELAER COUNTY S.D.
SAG HARBOR SEWAGE SYS
CLAYTON STP
ONTARIO TOWN SEWERAGE SYS
SACKETS HARBOR STP
NEW ROCHELLE S.O.
GREENPORT
WALTON STP «, SEWERS
WATERFORD SEWERAGE SYSTEM
CORLESKILL WTW
GROTON WTW
ADAMS STP
SYRACUSE METRO
MASSENA STP
CHAUTAUQUA LAKE SO
ORANGE CO. S.D #1
GRAND ISLAND WWTP
CANAJOHARIE STP
MINETTO STP
LISHAKILL COLONIE
NIAGARA FALLS AWT
CHAMPLAIN PK S.D.
WESTFIELD SEWER IMPROVEM
OCEAN BEACH STP
WATKINS GLEN STP
SODUS POINT STP
ALBION AWT
STONY POINT STP
DEPOSIT SEWERAGE SYSTEM
MARATHON SEWER SYSTEM
SHERMAN STP
SOMERSET-BARKER STP
TARBORO WTW
IRWIN CREEK STP
MALLARD STP
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NC
NC
NC
28.00
2.50
24.00
8.00
16.00
75.00
3.00
7.00
6.00
0.80
4.00
1.20
1.14
2.50
0.13
24.00
0.10
0.30
1.00
0.60
13.60
0.50
1.17
1.50
0.75
0.25
0.45
80.00
2.50
4.10
2.00
3.50
2.85
0.60
5.00
48.00
0.16
2.60
0.50
0.70
0.57
2.00
8.00
0.40
0.20
0.14
0.28
3.00
10.00
3.00
30
33
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
30
30
40
51
30
30
30
54
30
30
30
40
30
30
30
41
33
30
30
51
53
30
30
30
33
30
33
32
30
30
53
30
30
30
50
30
30
50
51
04
04
04
04
03
01
01
03
01
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
09
04
02
02
04
04
03
03
04
03
02
04
04
03
03
04
04
03
03
04
02
03
04
04
01
04
04
04
04
03
02
04
-------
TABLE B.I (Continued)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS IN DATA BASE
-*5£!:III_!!!!!!. !IATE PROJECTED FLOW TREATMENT LEVEL CHANGE
370377 MCALPINE STP
370382 CONCORD WTW
370383 FARMVILLE WTW
370385 EAST BURLINGTON STP
370386 WILSON BAY STP
370417 DUNN STP
370425 CLINTON STP
370433 RED SPRINGS STP
370441 MOORE COUNTY REG. WTW
380294 ENDERLIN WTW 8. SS
380313 SHELDON LAGOON AND CS
380321 BISMARCK WWTP
380324 HARVEY LAGOONS
380325 MANDAN STP
380326 NEW TOWN LAGOON
380329 . DICKINSON LAGOONS
380332 CRARY WWTP
380334 MINNEWAUKAN LAGOONS
380335 WAHPETON STP
380342 DOUGLAS LAGOON
380370 PETERSBURG LAGOON
380375 VERONA LAGOON
380376 GRANVILLE LAGOON
380377 MUNICH LAGOON
380379 SOURIS LAG.OON
380380 STARKWEATHER LAGOON
380387 NEW ENGLAND LAGOON
380389 REYNOLDS LAGOON
380390 RUTLAND LAGOON
3Q0394 WOODWORTH LAGOON
380395 BERTHOLD LAGOON
380399 LIGNITE LAGOON
380453 EDMORE LAGOON
380465 BEULAH LAGOON
390464 VAN WERT
390514 RAVENNA
390556 LITTLE MIAMI WWTP
390586 MINERAL CITY
390589 OAK HARBOR WWTP
390590 PLEASANT HILL
390591 EUCLID
390593 MOUNT VERNON WWTP
390599 URBANA WWTP
390622 CANTON
390626 LIMA WWTP
390627 MASSILLON
390630 BURTON WWTP
390644 CIRCLEVILLE
390648 OREGON WWTP
390654 HAMILTON
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NO
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
30.00
24.00
3.50
12.00
4.46
2.28
3.00
1.50
6.70
0.25
0.03
5.04
0.28
2.00
0.20
1.49
0.02
0.06
0.83
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.12
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.53
2.75
2.80
38.00
0.15
0.74
0.20
22.00
5.00
3.00
33.00
18.50
12.00
0.27
3.50
8.00
24.70
51
40
51
40
30
40
50
32
51
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
53
44
30
30
30
30
43
43
34
51
54
43
40
33
43
33
03
04
04
03
03
04
02
03
04
01
04
03
04
03
03
03
04
03
03
03
03
04
03
03
04
03
03
03
03
04
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
03
03
03
03
03
03
02
03
03
04
04
01
-------
GRANT NO FACILITY NAME
TABLE B.I (Continued)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS IN DATA BASE
STATE PROJECTED FLOW TREATMENT LEVEL CHANGE:
390657
390663
390680
390683
390684
390686
390702
390717
390740
390741
390746
390753
390754
390R44
390902
390957
390982
390996
390999
391001
391005
391E59
400537
400584
400618
400630
400638
400639
400640
400644
400648
400662
400674
400682
400743
400779
410320
410323
410341
410355
410365
410371
410411
410416
410417
410423
410424
410427
410434
410436
-* *m mm — v "
MEDINA COUNTY REGIONAL TP
HASKINS WWTP
NEW KNOXVILLE WWTP
FRENCH CREEK STP
MEAWDER WATERSHED* ETAL.
FAIRFIELD
MONTGOMERY CO WEST REG PT
PROSPECT
CLARK COUNTY STP
CLEVELAND RSD-SOUTHERLY
ERIE COUNTY STP
BLOOMING8URG
SHERWOOD WWTP
MALVERN STP
WARSAW STP
SWANTON WWTP
SOUTH POINT WWTP
CANTON STP
LIVERPOOL WWTP
PREBLE COUNTY WWTP
ASHLEY
PERRYSVILLE STP
WEWOKA WWTP
BETHANY STP
YUKON STP
MCALESTER STP
.AMBER LAGOONS
CHICKASHA STP
KINGSTON STP
COTTON COUNTY RWD LAGOON
ALTUS WWTP
LAVERNE STP
STILLWATER WWTP
PERRY WWTP
MARTHA LAGOONS
NO CANADIAN WWTP
WILLOW LAKE STP
NETARTS-OCEANSIDE STP
TRYON CREEK STP
COPVALLIS STP
DEPOE BAY STP
DURHAM WWTP
REDWOOD SANITARY DISTRICT
CLOVERDALE STP
PACIFIC CITY STP
CAVE JUNCTION STP
BOARDMAN LAGOON
AUMSVILLE LAGOONS
GLENDALE STP
SUTHERLIN STP
OH '
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
2.00
0.10
0.12
7.50
4.00
6.00
20.00
0.12
2.00
200.00
1.20
0.16
0.16
0.35
0.17
0.92
1.20
33.00
10.00
0.60
0.19
0. 13
0.75
5.00
3.00
2.50
0.04
3.00
0.25
0.05
2.00
0.22
6.00
0.75
0.03
40.00
35.00
0.24
10.50
9.70
0.80
20.00
0.50
0.04
0.30
0.15
0.40
0.32
0.25
1.30
53
50
51
54
43
•a A.
J4
54
30
54
33
33
50
30
30
30
40
30
53
53
54
44
i ft
JU
30
54
30
40
o n
30
40
40
60
43
30
A A
40
A A *
40
60
30
30
40
40
51
30
41
30
50
50
40
30
EZ A
50
50
50
04
04
A /
04
04
A /i
0*t-
f\ Q
V J
A /•
0*f
04
A A
1)4
A O
OB
A O
03
A /.
04
04
04
04
03
03
02
A *3
03
ft /,
04
t\/i
OH
AA
v*r
03
ft O
03
A /•
04
03
AA
V*r
AC
Ob
04
04
A A
04
A A.
04
AQ
U J
A A
v*r
04
A /.
04
A 1
01
A />
04-
03
A *3
03
04
A /i
04
04
04
04
03
04
AO
U J
A /i
04
04
-------
TABLE B.I (Continued)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS IN DATA BASE
GRANT NO FACILITY NAME
STATE PROJECTED FLOW TREATMENT LEVEL CHANGE
410438 JOHN DAY STP
410444 MOLALLA STP
410446 LEBANON STP
410475 LA GRANDE STP
410485 ROCK CREEK AWTP
410508 AMITY STP
410510 JEFFERSON STP
410528 COVE STP
420573 HICKORY TWP MUNIC.AUTH.
4205B5 LOCK HAVEN STP
420600 VALLEY FORGE SEWER AUTH
420622 PORTAGE JOINT SEWER AUTH
420643 ELIZABETHVILLE
420657 TRI-BORO MUNICIPAL AUTH
420701 MOSHANNON VALLEY J.S.A.
420704 OIL CITY GENERAL AUTH.
420707 MC CANDLESS TWP SAN.AUTH
420711 HAMILTON8AN TWP AUTH
420712 OLEY TWP MUNICIPAL AUTH
420715 MIODLETOWN BOROUGH AUTH
420718 • SHOEMAKERSVILLE MWWTF
420719 ALEXANDRIA STP
420720 MONTGOMERY W S, S AUTHOR1T
420723 ADAMS TOWNSHIP
420724 UPPER STONyCREEK J.M.A.
420728 MILTON MUNICIPAL AUTHORIT
420733 THOMPSONTOWN MUNICIPAL A.
420735 EAST NORRITON STP
420737 NEW KENSINGTON M.S.A.
420738 YORK CITY SEWER AUTHORITY
420739 POINT MARION MUNICIPAL AU
420742 TRF.MONT MUNICIPAL AUTH
420749 CORAOPOLIS STP
420760 SYKESVILLE MUNICIPAL AUTH
4?0775 CARMICHAELS-CUMBERLANO ST
430781 SCHUYLKILL HAVETN MUNIC.A
420783 BROWN TWP MUNICIPAL AUTH
420793 FREEDOM TWP. STP.
420f»10 SHIPPENSBUPG STP
420820 MOUNTAINTOP AREA
420841 GROVE CITY STP
420R45 MYERSTOWN STP
420861 LATROBE STP
420901 80YERTOWIM STP
420917 PORTER-TOWFK JOINT M.A.
420938 ALLEGHENY TOWNSHIP STP
420980 .BETHEL STP
420997 WEST GOSHfM STP
42ioo? LYNN TWP STP
421004 HARRISBURG SEWERAGE AUTH.
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
0.60
0.80
3.00
2.60
15.00
0.14
0.40
0.06
2.50
3.75
8.00
1.00
0.28
0.50
1.50
4.00
3.00
0.03
0.25
2.20
0.35
0.12
0.60
0.03
0.27
2.60
0.11
9.30
7.00
26.00
0.30
0.33
3.00
0.20
0.60
2.00
0.25
0.20
2.75
1.83
3.00
1.40
5.00
0.75
0.43
0.10
4.10
4.50
0.08
30.90
40
50
50
30
53
30
40
30
40
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
33
40
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
30
50
30
43
30
30
30
33
30
40
44
30
44
44
51
53
33
40
40
41
44
33
01
04
03
03
04
01
03
04
03
03
04
04
02
04
04
03
04
04
04
03
03
04
02
04
04
03
04
03
02
03
04
04
03
04
04
03
04
04
03
04
03
03
03
02
04
04
03
03
04
03
-------
GRANT NO FACILITY NAME
TABLE B.I (Continued)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS IN DATA BASE
STATE PROJECTED FLOW TREATMENT LEVEL CHANGE,
421020
421042
421048
421071
421074
421188
421270
440074
440079
440086
440087
450P65
450321
450366
460222
460231
460P34
460238
460259
460272
460276
460288
460293
460310
460472
470352
470355
470384
470385
480799
480856
480878
480938 '
480952
480981
481017
481021
481030
481048
481062
481084
481088
481110
481112
481123
481124
481169
481191
481216
481244
AMBLER STP
VANPORT STP
UNITY TWP STP
BUTLER AREA STP
CHAMBERSBURG STP
FRANKLIN STP
EXETER STP
BLOCK ISLAND WWTP
BURRILLVILLE STR
SMITHFIELD. REGIONAL WWTF
JAMESTOWN STP
SANTEE PUBLIC SERVICE DIS
HORSE CREEK STP
OCONEE COUNTY STP
VIVIAN LAGOON 5. COLL. SYS.
LEAD-DEADWOOD STP
MITCHELL WWTP
RAMONA WWT PONDS
HENRY WWT POND
BROOKINGS STP
BLUNT LAGOON
PIERRE STP
FLANDREAU STP
MARION LAGOON
BRUCE LAGOON & COLL. SYS.
GATLINBURG WWTP
MCEWEN STP
CENTRAL STP
THIRD CREEK STP
BLOOMING GROVE WWTP
CROCKETT WWTP
MERTZON WWTP
KERRVILLE CITY WWTP
SULFUR SPRINGS WWTP
CROSBY WWTP
VILLAGE CREEK WWTP
LONGVIEW WWTP
GREENVILLE STP
BAYTOWN CITY WWTP
BURKBURNETT WWTP
CLEAR LAKE CITY WWTP
BEVIL OAKS STP
SILVER LAKE WWTP
WILLIS STP
TEXAS CITY STP
DALLAS SOUTHSIDE STP
ALVORD STP
LUMBERTON MUD STP
BROADWAY STP
BELL CNTY STP
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA-
PA
PA
RI
RI
RI
RI
SC
sc
SC
so
so
so
so
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
TN
TN
TN
TN
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
6.50
1.56
0.50
10.00
5.20
0.50
2.40
0.28
1.50
3.50
0.73
0.30
20.00
5.00
0.02
2.33
3.00
0.03
0.02
2.99
0.04
1.58
0.35
0.10
0.03
3.00
0.50
95.50
40.00
0.10
1.00
0.05
2.05
2.50
0.25
96.00
15.60
5.29
3.00
2.20
4.50
0.20
1.00
0.40
7.50
30.00
0.11
1.50
10.00
15.00
51
30
41
54
51
f- i
51
51
30
33
30
30
40
30
33
60
31
30
60
60
51
60
30
60
30
60
41
51
50
31
40
30
30
30
40
40
51
51
43
40
30
43
40
40
40
53
50
40
40
40
51
03
A 1
01
A /«
O**
A O
03
A 1
03
A A
0*
03
04
04
04
04
04
A A
04
04-
04
04
08
04
04
A /*
04
04
03
04
A "3
0 3
04
04
03
A *3
03
A O
03
A *S
03
04
04
A 1
01
03
04
A 1
03
03
03
A 1
01
01
03
04
03
04
A A
0*>
A 1
01
04
04
02
03
-------
TABLE B.I (Continued)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS IN OATA BASE
GRANT NO FACILITY NAME STATE PROJECTED FLOW TREATMENT LEVEL CHANGE
481271
490142
490152
490170
490171
490175
490180
490181
490194
490197
490207
490244
500079
500081
500083
500089
500105
500115
500117
510259
510314
510331
510355
510356
510357
510370
510375
510383
510384
510396
510442
510485
510490
510498
510500
510509
510515
510517
530466
530488
530504
530513
530516
530530
530549
530553
530560
530568
530578
530580
SOMERSET STP
CEDAR CITY WWTP
HYRUM CITY WWTP S, COLL.
GRANGER - HUNTER IMP DIST
WELLSVILLE STP
TROPIC TOWN OF
MYTON LAGOON
EMERY TOWN PONDS & COLL.
PROVO CITY WWTP
SNYDERVILLE BASIN STP
TIMPANOGOS STP
CASTLE VALLEY STP
BRANDON WWTP
HARTFORD WWTP
NORTH BRANCH F.D. STP
ENOSBORG FALLS
MANCHESTER STP
READSBORO STP
ROYALTON STP
UPPER SMITH RIVER WWTP
GALAX STP
UPPER OCCOQUAN REGIONAL
CLIFTON FORGE STP
ALEXANDRIA STP
ARLINGTON COUNTY
ROANOKE STP
STUART STP
ROUND HILL
WAVERLY STP
LEXINGTON STP
ROANOKE STP
CULPEPER STP
MCKENNEY STP
BLACKBURG-VPI SAN.AUTH
REEDVILLE STP.
RIVANNA STP
POUND STP
MARTINSVILLE STP
BIRCH 8AY(WHATCOM CO WD#8
WESTPORT WWTF
OLYMPIA STP
ARLINGTON STP
BURLINGTON STP
WEST LONGVIEW STP
STEVENS PASS-YODELIN STP
WHITE SWAN WS.S
ENUMCLAW STP
GINKGO STP
VADER STP
SPOKANE WWTF
TX
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
VT
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
WA
WA
WA
• WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
0.18
2.26
0.88
7.30
0.20
0.04
0.12
0. 03
*/ • V tj
21.00
2.00
7.60
0.70
0.70
1 nn
1 . U V
0.82
0.26
0.60
0.10
0.07
4.nn
*T . V \J
1.50
22.50
2.00
54.00
30.00
35.00
0.30
0.10
n 3**i
2.00
35.00
3. on
. v U
0.10
6. 00
0.20
15.00
0. 1 H
. 4. O
6.00
1.60
1.00
9.10
1. A A
• V I/
1.20
0.20
0.06
0.10
2.50
A 1A
V * X V
0-71
• ' JL
40.00
40
C A
DO
50
&A
•rv
f./\
OU
On
JO
An
50
on
JO
en
DO
30
"3 A
JO
30
on
JU
30
on
O v
on
JO
o. A
JO
30
54
30
54
33
30
O A
JU
3U
30
30
54
30
30
50
30
30
on
JO
30
*a A
JO
30
30
50
o. A
JO
O A
JO
on
JO
33
04
04
04
no
02
04
04
A/.
04
04
03
A/.
04
04
04
03
04
04
04
04
A /
04
04
04
03
04
03
03
02
01
04
04
03
03
02
04
04
04
04
04
04
03
04
03
03
03
04
03
04
04
05
04
03
03
-------
TABLE B.I (Continued)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS IN DATA BASE
FACILITY NAME STATE PROJECTED FLOW TREATMENT LEVEL CHANGE;
530582
530600
530604
530613
530724
530740
530812
530829
540198
540208
540213
540336
540424
550488
550518
550548
550552
550573
550625
550631
550648
550649
550662
550665
550686
550686
550687
550689
550706
550734
550787
550790
550794
550820
560104
560109
560110
f. «
WASHOUGAL STP
WAPATO STP
SHELTON STP
WINLOCK STP
RYDERWOOD STP
GLENWOOD STP
------- |