EPA-600/2-76-286
December 1976
Environmental Protection Technology Series
COST ESTIMATING MANUAL-
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
STORAGE AND TREATMENT
[Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory]
Office of Research and Development!
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
EPA-600/2-76-286
December 1976
COST ESTIMATING MANUAL — COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
STORAGE AND TREATMENT
Henry H. Benjes, Jr.
Gulp, Wesner, Gulp
El Dorado Hills, California 95630
Contract No. 68-03-2186
Project Officers
Frank L. Evans III
Municipal Treatment Reuse Section
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
and
Richard Field
Storm and Combined Sewer Section
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory (Cincinnati)
Edison, New Jersey 08817
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commerical products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health and
welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul'water, and spoiled land are
tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment. The com-
plexity of that environment and the interplay between its components require a
concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution
and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for
solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and
improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and management
of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from munici-
pal and community sources, for the preservation and treatment of public
drinking water supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social, health,
and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of the products
of that research; a most vital communications link between the researcher and
the user community.
This report presents data from which construction costs and operating and
maintenance requirements may be estimated for combined sewer overflow treat-
ment and storage facilities. The use of the information contained in this re-
port facilitates making cost analyses for alternative solutions to proposed
proj ects.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
Data for estimating average construction costs and operation and maintenance
requirements are presented for combined sewer overflow treatment plants rang-
ing from about 5 to 200 million gallons per day in capacity, and storage fa-
cilities ranging in size from 1 to 240 million gallons. Estimating data are
Included for 14 separate process functions associated with stormwater treat-
ment plants and storage facilities. An example of the use of the data is
given.
Estimated average construction costs and operation and maintenance require-
ments are related graphically to appropriate single parameters for respective
plant components. In addition, cost components of the process functions are
presented to enable inflating cost-related materials and wages.
The data presented provides means of estimating costs and operating and main-
tenance requirements for a variety of facilities on an average basis, but do
not supplant the need for detailed study of local conditions or recognition
of changing design requirements in preparing estimates for specific applica-
tions .
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2186,
under sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency.
This work was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2186 by Gulp,
Wesner, Gulp under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. This report covers the period April, 1975 to July, 1976 and work was
completed July, 1976.
iv
-------
CONTENTS •
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Acknowledgements x
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Purpose 1
B. Scope - 2
C. Report Format 3
II. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW AND STORAGE FACILITIES 4
A. Basis of Estimating Construction Costs 5
B. Inflating Costs to Time of Construction 6
C. Operating and Maintenance Requirements 9
III. ESTIMATES OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS 11
A. Swirl Combined Sewer Overflow Regulator/Concentrator 11
B. Screening 14
1. Stationary Screen 15
2. Horizontal Shaft Rotary Screen ' 15
3. Vertical Shaft Rotary Screen 18
C. Air Flotation 18
D. Chlorination 20
1. Chlorine Gas 21
2. Chlorine Dioxide 23 -
3, Hypochlorite 24
E. High Intensity Mixing/Chlorine Contact-Basin (Rapid Mix) 25
F. Filtration 26
G. Storage 28
H. Flocculation Basin 31
I, Sedimentation Basin ' 33
J. Chemical Feed Equipment and Storage 34
1. Lime 35
2. Alum 35
3. Ferric Chloride 35
4. Polymer 35
K. Raw Wastewater Pumping 37
L. Sludge Pumping Stations 38
M. Flow Measurement 39
N. Section III, Figures 1 to 27 41-66
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
IV. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS 67
A. Operation and Maintenance Items 67
1. Operation and Maintenance Labor 67
2. Power 67
3. Chemicals 68
4. Miscellaneous Supplies 68
5. Administrative Costs 68
6. Laboratory and Sampling 69
7, Yard Maintenance 70
B. Swirl Overflow Regulator/Concentrator 71
C. Screening 72
1. Stationary Screen 72
2. Horizontal Shaft Rotary Screens 73
3. Vertical Shaft Rotary Screen 74
D. Air Flotation 76
E. Chlorination 77
F. High Intensity Chlorine Contact Basin (Rapid Mix) 78
G. Filtration 78
H. Peak Flow Storage 80
I. Flocculation Basin 80
J» Sedimentation 81
K. Chemical Feed, Storage, and Handling 81
1. Lime 81
2. Alum and' Ferric Chloride 82
3. Polymer 82
L. Raw Wastewater Pumping 82
M. Sludge Pumping 83
N. Flow Measurement 83
O. Section IV, Figures 28 to 72 84-113
V. USE OF COST AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DATA U4
A. Construction Cost Data Usage 114
1. Inflation 114
2. Preparing Cost Estimates 115
B. Operation and Maintenance Requirements Data Usage 117
APPENDICES
A. References 119
B. Unit Prices 122
-------
TABLES
TABLE NO._ ' TITLE
1 Estimated Construction Costs - Swirl Overflow Regulator/
Concentrator 12
2 Estimated Construction Costs - Stationary Screen 16
3 • Estimated Construction Costs - Horizontal Shaft
• Rotary Screen . 17
4 Estimated Construction Costs - Vertical Shaft
Rotary Screens 19
5 Estimated Construction Costs - Air Flotation 20
6 Estimated Construction Costs - Gaseous Chlorine Peed
Facilities 22
7 Facility Requirements for Chlorine Dioxide Feed 23
8 Estimated Construction Costs - Chlorine Dioxide Feed
Facilities" 24
9 Estimated Construction Costs - Hypochlorite Generation
Facilities 25
10 Estimated Construction Costs - High Intensity Mixing/
Chlorine Contact Basin
(Rapid Mix) 26
11 Estimated Construction Costs - Filtration 27
12 Estimated Construction Costs - Earthen Storage Reservoirs 28
13 Estimated Construction Costs - Concrete Storage Reservoirs 29
14 Estimated Construction Costs - Flocculatlon Basins 32
15 Estimated Construction Costs — Sedimentation Basins 34
16 Estimated Construction Costs - Chemical,Feed Systems 36
17 Estimated Construction Costs - Raw Wastewater Pumping 38
18 • Estimated Construction Costs - Sludge Pumping Stations 39
19 Estimated Construction Costs - Open Channel Venturl Flume 40
vii
-------
FIGURES
FIGURE NO. TITLE
1 Swirl Overflow Regulator/Concentrator-Layout 41
2 Swirl Overflow Regulator/Concentrator - Cost 42
3 Stationary Screen-Layout 43
4 Stationary Screen-Cost 44
5 Horizontal Shaft Rotary-Screen-Layout 45
6 Horizontal Shaft Rotary Screen-Cost 46
7 Vertical Shaft Rotary Screen-Layout 47
8 Vertical Shaft Rotary Screen-Cost 48
9 Air Flotation-Layout 49
1O air Flotation-Cost 50
11 Chlorine (Gas)-Layout 51
12 Chlorine (Gas)-Cost 52
13 Chlorine Dioxide-Schematic 54
14 Chlorine Dioxide-Cost 53
15 Hypochlorite Generation-Schematic 54
16 Hypochlorite Generation -Cost 55
17 High Intensity Mixing/Chlorine Contact Basin-Cost 56
18 Filtration-Layout 57
19 Filtration-Cost 58
20 Storage Reservoir-Cost 59
21 Flocculation Basin-Cost 60
22 Sedimentation Basin-Cost 61
23 time, Alum, Ferric Chloride Feed System-Cost 62
24 Polymer Feed System-Cost 63
25 Raw Wastewater Pumping Station-Cost 64
26 Sludge Pumping Station-Cost 65
27 Flow Measurement-Cost 66
28 Administration and General-Man-Hour Requirements 84
29 Administration and General-Miscellaneous Supply Costs 84
30 Laboratory-Man—Hour Requirements 85
31 Laboratory-Miscellaneous Supply Costs 86
32 Yard Maintenance-Man-Hour Requirements 87
33 Yard Maintenance-Miscellaneous Supply Costs 87
34 Swirl Overflow Regulator/Concentrator-Man-Hour Requirements 88
35 Stationary Screen-Man-Hour Requirements 89
36 Stationary Screen-Miscellaneous Supply Costs 89
37 Horizontal Shaft Rotary Screens-Man-Hour Requirements 90
38 Horizontal Shaft Rotary Screens-Miscellaneous Supply Costs 90
39 Horizontal Shaft Rotary Screen-Power Requirements 91
40 Vertical Shaft Rotary Screen-Man-Hour Requirements 92
41 Vertical Shaft Rotary Screen-Miscellaneous Supply Costs 92
viii
-------
FIGURES (continued)
FIGURE NO. TITLE
42 Vertical Shaft Rotary Screen-Power Requirements 93
43 Air Fiotation-Man-Hour Requirements 94
44 Air Flotation-Miscellaneous Supply Costs 94
45 Air Flotation-Power Requirements 95
46 Chlorine Feed Equipment-Man-Hour Requirements 96
47 Chlorine Feed Equipment-Miscellaneous Supply Costs 96
48 Hypochlorite Generation-Power Requirements 97
49 High Intensity Mixing (Chlorine Contact)-Man-Hour
Requirements - 98
50 High Intensity Mixing (Chlorine Contact)-Miscellaneous
Supply Costs 98
51 High Intensity Mixing (Chlorine Contact)-Power
Requirements 99
52 Filtration-Man-Bour Requirements 100
53 Filtration-Miscellaneous Supply Costs 100
54 Filtration-Power Requirements 101
55 Storage Reservoirs-Man-Hour Requirements 102
56 Storage Reservoirs-Miscellaneous Supply Costs 102
57 Storage Reservoirs-Power Requirements 103
58 Flocculation Basins-Man-Hour Requirements 104
59 Flocculation Basins-Miscellaneous Supply Costs 104
60 Flocculation Basins-Power Requirements 105
61 Sedimentation Basins-Man-Hour Requirements 106
62 Sedimentation Basins-Miscellaneous Supply Costs 106
63 Sedimentation Basins-Power Requirements 107
64 Chemical Feed Equipment-Man-Hour Requirements 108
65 Chemical Feed Equipment-Miscellaneous Supply Costs 108
66 Chemical Feed Equipment-Power Requirements 109
67 Raw Wastewater Pumping-Man-Hour Requirements 110
68 Raw Wastewater Pumping-Miscellaneous Supply Costs 110
69 Raw Wastewater Pumping-Power "Requirements 111
70 Sludge Pumping-Man-Hour Requirements 112
71 Sludge Pumping-Miscellaneous Supply Costs 112
72 Sludge Pumping-Power Requirements 113
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Gulp, Wesner, Gulp, Consulting Engineers are
grateful to the several equipment manufacturers,
consulting engineers, and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for data and information neces-
sary for the preparation of this report.
Of special import, the services provided by Black
S Veatch, Consulting Engineers, CH2M/Hill Consult-
ing Engineers, and Richard Field, Chief, Storm S
Combined Sewer Section were extremely valuable in
preparing this report.
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
The planning for projects for the treatment of wastewaters inherently re-
quires an analysis of capital and operating and maintenance costs. Capital
costs include construction costs, engineering, legal, administrative, land,
and interest during construction. The emphasis of this report is placed on
developing construction costs. Other costs, except land, may be related to
construction costs. Land is a variable which cannot be typified. General
information for plant construction costs has been available? however, this
information is often presented for an overall process rather than in terms
of unit processes. The variability of combinations of several unit pro-
cesses makes usage of historical data limited. By separating plant costs
into categories of unit processes, historical cost data from one plant may
be applied to similar processes for the plant being planned.
This approach to estimating project construction costs is a time honored
method used by most engineers in the utility field. Until recently, how-
ever, the information for wastewater unit process costs was unorganized
and generally inaccessible. The first significant attempt to collect and
correlate unit process cost data was presented in a U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Report(1). In addition to providing construction costs
for unit processes, the report also presented labor and material and supply
costs for conventional unit processes.
The widespread use of the information presented in that report reflects the
value of unit process costing information. Also much of the information
presented in that report is used in the EPA's executive program for costs
and operating requirements of wastewater treatment.
A. PURPOSE
It is the purpose of this report to develop construction cost information
and operating and maintenance requirements for unit processes applicable
to combined sewer overflow treatment and storage facilities. Functional
processes investigated include the following:
Swirl Flow Regulator/Concentrator
Stationary Screens
Horizontal Shaft Rotary Screen
Vertical Shaft Rotary Screen
Air Flotation
Chlorination
Granular Media Filtration
Storage
Flocculation
Sedimentation
Chemical Feed Systems
-------
Raw Sewage Pumping
Sludge Pumping
Flow Measurement
B. SCOPE
This report presents estimated construction costs and operating and main-
tenance requirements for the previously listed process functions, as they
apply to combined sewer overflow treatment and storage facilities. Con-
struction costs are related to a single parameter, which is associated
with unit size. In general, the sizes for treatment facilities correspond
to design flows of from 5 mgd to 200 mgd. Storage facility sizes have been
investigated for volumes of 1 million gallons to 200 million gallons.
Use of the estimating data presented in this report is dependent upon the
design engineer selecting the appropriate size of unit, determining the
cost of the unit process, updating the costs of the unit process, and add-
ing other relevant plant features required for the specific project. For
operation and maintenance requirements, data are presented for manpower
requirements, miscellaneous supply costs, and purchased utility service
and chemicals.
A format for listing and organizing the data in this report is presented.
The use of this data is applicable to preliminary estimates of costs for
general planning studies or for long range financial or facilities plan-
ning. Careful review of the methodology, features and components included
in the cost data is encouraged if these data are used for specific project
planning purposes. Comparison of alternative unit process schemes may be
made; however, if costs are within 15 percent, the cost difference may not
be real and more intensive costing analysis is indicated to discern real
cost differences.
Another potential use of the data in this report is as a basis for project
value analysis techniques. After proper usage and application of the cost
data included herein for a specific project, a systematic approach of ana-
lysing function and costs may be applied. More detailed costs and material
components are necessary, however, for value analysis to progress into the
design phase.
During the preparation of this study, it was determined that many unit pro-
cesses for combined sewer overflow treatment facilities did not exist in
typical, full scale facilities, thereby requiring alternative estimating
procedures. Therefore, it is prudent to review other costing information
which becomes available as full scale facilities are built and placed in
operation. This is particularly true of operating and maintenance costs.
A procedure for updating costs presented in this report to current costs,
or to projected costs at the time of construction, is shown. The procedure
is based upon the breakdown of various materials and labor costs (designat-
ed as cost components) which comprise the total construction cost of the
unit process.
-------
Component costs may be inflated using specific Bureau of Labor Statistics
indices and other sources which closely parallel the cost component. An-
other important aspect for the user to be aware of is the difference in
the design approach of facilities which exists. The basic facilities re-
quired for treatment and storage are included in these costs with no pro-
vision for subsidiary desires of the designer or user of the facility.
Furthermore, the estimating data and methods presented in this report can-
not in any way be used as a substitute for cost estimating based on de-
tailed knowledge of a particular plant situation. Actual construction
costs must be determined using a much more detailed knowledge of the amount
of materials and labor required and a closer analysis of the availability
of materials and other experience factors. The preliminary or planning
estimate derived from data presented in this report or similar information
must be. modified to reflect the affects of the length of the project
schedule, the trend of the construction economy, and local conditions which
affect the costs.
C. REPORT FORMAT
The report is presented in four sections. Section II of the report dis-
cusses special considerations in the design of combined sewer overflow
treatment and storage facilities and the effect these considerations may
have on costs and operating requirements. Section II also presents back-
ground information on cost estimating and .shows the basis of procedures
used in developing costs and operation and maintenance requirements. Pro-
cedures used in evaluating inflation effects are also discussed; Section
III presents the construction cost estimates for the various unit processesi
Section IV presents the operation and maintenance requirements for the
various unit processes ? and Section V presents a format for preparing cost
estimates and operating and maintenance cost estimates, based on the data
presented in Sections III and IV,
-------
SECTION II
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW TREATMENT AND STORAGE FACILITIES
It is presupposed that the user of this report has a knowledge of the pro-
cess design, has an awareness of the need for and purpose of combined sewer
overflow treatment and storage facilities and has turned to this report to
obtain information for costs of unit processes. Therefore, details of de-
sign procedures and process performance are not presented except as required
to explain the information contained in this report.
The application of facilities to treat or store combined sewer overflows
is relatively recent and incorporates a design and operating approach sig-
nificantly different from that used for conventional public waste treatment
facilities. The combined sewer overflow treatment facility is to be designed
for that flow, which is in excess of dry weather treatment facility capac-
ity, and which has been determined to require treatment. The discharge may
be from combined sewer overflows, or overflows from separated sanitary
sewers which receive infiltration/inflow in excess of the capacity of the
dry weather treatment facility; or separate stormwater runoff. The flow
in each case is a periodic one and is typically large in quantity as com-
pared to normal dry weather flows.
The treatment facilities for which research and demonstration have been
concentrated are either "high rate" conventional processes or compact pro-
cesses which are not typically applied in conventional systems for various
reasons. The goal, of course, is to minimize the construction costs of
the facility. The process selected may or may not be attractive for con-
tinuous use on dry weather flow? typically they are not.
Combined sewer overflow treatment facilities typically have a high unit
cost per gallon treated because of intermittent usage and the design is
likely to trade lower capital costs for higher maintenance/operating costs.
On the other hand, it is important to provide automatic operation of the
treatment facility via instrumentation, including automatic sampling or
monitoring to assure operation upon onset of the storm and thereby relieve
stationing an operator at the plant continuously prior to wet weather.
Most stormwater treatment facilities are drained and cleaned following
usage. The nonoperation of the facility and the periodic testing of the
facility require special consideration in design; for instance, pump bear-
ings should be independently lubricated to permit testing in the dry. High
points in pressure lines become more of a problem upon startup. Wetwells
and flumes should be drainable and provisions included for removal of grit,
rags, and debris. Special attention is also required for security of non-
attended stations.
Sludges produced or removed in combined sewer overflow treatment facilities
are many times returned to the sewer for subsequent treatment at the dry
-------
weather treatment facility. This report presumes this is the case. If it
is not, special provisions should be made to store, transport, and/or con-
dition the sludges and the cost estimate adjusted accordingly.
A. BASIS OF ESTIMATING CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Estimates are presented for construction costs and operating and maintenance
requirements. Section lllpresents the relationships of estimated construc-
tion costs to appropriate capacity parameters for each of the major facility
functions. The initial investment, which includes the construction costs,
as well as engineering, fiscal, administrative and land costs, may be devel-
oped on the basis of construction cost estimates.
To be generally applicable, and consistent with the earlier work(l), con-
struction costs are presented for individual unit processes. The construc-
tion costs presented include those structural, mechanical, superstructure
(if applicable), electrical and instrumentation features within the limits
of the unit process. The construction cost for a unit process does not in-
clude site work such as- connecting piping., roads, sidewalks, etc. To de-
velop total construction cost estimates, it is necessary to determine the
cost for each unit process in the planned project plus costs for site work.
To develop total project costs, it is necessary to add appropriate amounts
for engineering, land, legal, fiscal, administrative, and interest during
construction.
Unit processes included in this study are applicable to combined sewer over-
flow treatment and storage facilities. Although certain of the unit pro-
cesses are common to dry weather treatment systems, the costs are developed
on the basis of the application of the unit process to combined sewer over-
flows .
A meager background of cost data exists which is specific to combined sewer
overflow facilities. Therefore, the procedures applied to acquire cost in-
formation, by necessity, include several approaches. By far the most reli-
able approach to cost estimating is to make detailed quantity takeoffs from
plans and specifications for the specific facility and apply appropriate
unit costs. This procedure is not feasible for projects in the planning
phase, because of the large amount of effort required to define facility
detail.
For conventional facilities, or often used unit processes, the results of
previously developed detailed cost estimates may be extrapolated to the
project at hand. Extrapolation of costs requires consideration of different
unit size, local variations in labor and material costs, differences in
site requirements, inflation, and added or reduced ancillary systems. Al-
though each consideration may be quantified, considerable judgement on the ,
part of the estimator is required offering potential error in the estimate.
Alternative procedures include a thorough takeoff of a specific component
and relating the cost of the facility to the component by a factor. A pro-
-------
cadure commonly used in chemical industry is to add the costs of all major
purchased equipment and multiply an appropriate experience factor times
the equipment purchase cost to determine the overall facility cost? typi-
cally used factors range from 2.0 to 3.0, depending on the portion of equip-
ment generally associated with the process. For example, • experienced ratios
of equipment purchase cost to total construction cost for vacuum filters
range from 2.2 to 2.7 based upon detailed estimates of cost of several pro-
jects. That is, the purchase price of vacuum filter equipment represents
from 1/2.7 to 1/2.2 of the total cost associated with the installed vacuum
filters and associated piping, electrical, structural and other features.
Again this method is subject to considerable judgement and may afford op-
portunity for significant error. If the process does not have a historical
background of cost data, more effort and judgement are required. Such is
the case with most of the unit processes associated with combined sewer
overflow treatment. The most frequently used approach to estimate costs
for facilities which do not have a significant historical cost background
is to:
a. Define the facilities by dimension, construction material, equipment,
piping and appurtenant requirements. A general plan of the facility
is drawn, defining walls, overall dimensions, and structural require-
ments .
b. Estimate quantities of major cost components: Rules of thumb are
applied to derive quantities, e.g. concrete walls - 8 inch minimum
or 1 inch per foot of height; concrete footings - two thirds the
quantity of wall concrete.
c. Estimate installed costs of major cost components including: con-
crete, equipment, piping and valves, excavation, housing.
d. Add 10 to 20 percent of sum for miscellaneous minor cost components.
e. Add 5 to 20 percent for electrical and instrumentation requirements.
The items thus determined, with an appropriate contingency factor repre-
sent the estimated construction cost of the unit process. Coupled with
other unit process and plant function costs, site work and land, a total
construction cost is derived.
B. INFLATING COSTS TO TIME OF CONSTRUCTION
The use of any method of cost estimating requires careful consideration
of inflation. This has been especially true for the last 5 years (1970-
1975) since inflation of construction costs has averaged about 9 percent
per year. The rapid change in costs effects both the use of previous
cost estimates to predict project costs and the planning for project cost
which may be 6 months to one year away from time the planning estimate is
prepared.
-------
Many planners and engineers are accustomed to using cost indices which
track costs of specific items and proportion these costs in a predeter-
mined mixture. Unfortunately, there is all too much evidence that these
time honored cost indices are not understood by the user, and/or are in-
adequate for many specific applications.
•The basis for all cost indices used in the construction industry is to
monitor the costs of specific construction material and labor cost, pro-
portion these costs in a predetermined mixture and thereby derive an in-
dex. The most frequently used indices are probably the Engineering News
Record's (ENR) Construction Cost Index and Building Cost Index.
The ENR indices were started in 1921 and were intended for general con-
struction cost monitoring. The ENR construction cost index consists of
200 hours of common labor, 2500 pounds of structural steel shapes, 1.128
tons of Portland Cement and 1,088 board feet of 2 x 4 lumber. The ENR
building cost index consists of 68.38 hours of skilled labor and the same
materials as are included in the construction cost index. The large a—
mount of labor included in the construction cost index was appropriate
prior to World War II; however, on most all contemporary construction,
the labor component is -far in excess of actual labor used.
In fact, there should be little, if any, application of the construction
cost index to water utility plant projects. This index does not include
mechanical equipment, pipes and valves, which are normally associated
with water utility plant construction, and the proportional mix of ma-
terials and labor are not specific to water utility construction.
To provide a more specific index, the EPA developed a sewage treatment
cost index. This index was based on the cost components of a hypothet-
ical 1 mgd trickling filter plant. The quantities of labor, materials,
construction equipment and contractor's overhead and profit remain con- ,
stant and the unit prices and price changes as derived from the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and ENR are applied to the constant
quantities to derive the index. Because this index was specific for the
process in vogue at that time and because more activated sludge plants
are being constructed currently, the EPA has developed a new index based
on the components of a hypothetical 5 mgd activated sludge plant and 50
mgd activated sludge plant followed by chemical clarification and filtra-
tion.
The components of cost and the proportion of cost for each index are re-
ported to be:
-------
SCOT Index LCAT
Small City Large City
Component ' Conventional Treatment AdvancedTreatment
(Percent) (Percent of Total)
Equipment 17.2
Civil Material and Labor 41.4 35.4
Piping Material and Labor 18.5 10.3
Electrical Material and Labor 2.7
Construction Overhead 20.7 22.5
Other 19.4 11.9
The desire for more specific indices to predict inflation or to account
for price changes which have occurred previously is also reflected in
other utility work. The power industry developed an index specifically
for nuclear power plants which consists of weighted proportions of in-
dividual BLS indices(2). The individual BLS index proportions in the
mixture were based upon experienced quantities of various components.
Obviously, the more specific an index is, the more accurately it will
track cost change. The variation in inflation of various cost components
cannot be monitored by a single component index. If an index is based on
an improper mixture of several single component indices, it also will fail.
Therefore, to prepare construction cost estimates for stormwater facilities,
this study has prepared the cost data in categories according to related
cost components, to enable the costs presented to be updated and improved
as more cost data are available and as inflation affects costs. Unit costs
used in developing costs are presented and are applicable for June 1975.
Suggested BLS indices are shown which are believed to best reflect the na-
ture of the cost component.
Cost components presented in this report include the following:
Manufactured Equipment; This item includes estimated purchase cost of
pumps, drives, process equipment and other items which are factory made
and sold as equipment.
Concrete Products; This item includes the delivered cost of ready mix
concrete.
Steel; This item includes reinforcing steel for concrete.
Miscellaneous Steel; This item includes steel for weirs and launders,
but does not include steel pipe or structural steel for housing.
Metal Pipe and Valves; Cast iron pipe, steel pipe, valves, and fittings
have been combined into a single component. This item includes the pur-
chase price of pipes, valves, fittings, and support devices.
-------
Concrete Pipe: The purchase price of concrete pipe is included in this
item.
Housing; In lieu of segregating building costs into its- several compon-
ents, this component represents all material and labor costs associated
with the building including heating, ventilating, air conditioning, and
lighting.
Electrical and Instrumentation; The cost of electrical service and in-
strumentation associated with the process equipment is included'in this
item.
Special Construction; The provision for cost items peculiar to a specific
unit process are provided in this classification.
Labor: The labor associated with installing equipment, piping and valves,
construetinq concrete forms and placing concrete and reinforcing steel,
are included in this item.
Miscellaneous Items; Miscellaneous items provides a category for those
items which have not been quantified, but with a detailed quantity -takeoff
would be defined. As stated, these items generally represent 10-20 per-
cent of the total cost of the facility and include such things as hand-
rails, access hatches, and portable and stationary miscellaneous small
equipment.
Contingency; The contingency item is intended to represent costs which
develop in the facility as the design requirements become better defined
and also provides cushion in the event inflation exceeds the anticipated
rate.
C. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
The operating and maintenance requirements are fairly well established
for conventional unit processes operated continuously. The operating and
maintenance requirements for intermittently operated processes are not
well established. Because the actual requirements cannot be assessed from
field experience at this time, this report is necessarily limited to pro-
viding estimates or guidelines which may be used for a specific project.
Information used in developing these guidelines was derived from the lit-
erature, from information obtained from continuously operated plants, from
CWC experience of planning staff and budget requirements for specific
plants, and from the meager information which is available for intermit-
tently operated plants.
To make the information more generally usable, an attempt has been made
to isolate requirements for each process function. Most utilities do not
maintain records which permit distinguishing the amount of time or costs
spent on each process function. In fact, this study did not uncover any
information in this regard concerning intermittently operated plants.
-------
The operating and maintenance requirements should be recognized as being
based on judgement with the information available. The format presented
will serve as a basis to develop data and to modify information presented
herein when appropriate.
10
-------
SECTION III
ESTIMATES OP CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Estimated construction costs for plant unit functions are presented in
this section. Major treatment unit processes are presented first and
relationships for subsystems and ancillary functions follow.
A. SWIKL COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW REGULATOR/CONCENTRATOR
The swirl overflow regulator/concentrator is a compact unit which is used
for solids removal. If site conditions and hydraulic conditions permit,
no influent pumping is required and-discharge from the combined sewer,
through the swirl overflow regulator/concentrator to the receiving stream
is by gravity. The costs presented for the swirl overflow regulator/con-
centrator device include only the chamber. Other-plant functions which may
accompany a project centered about the swirl overflow regulator/concentrator
include concentrate (underflow sludge) pumping, flow measurement, disinfec-
tion, and site work. The design of the swirl overflow regulator/concentra-
tor is based upon hydraulic principals which have been outlined (3,4).
Upon selection of a design flow and efficiency, the inlet pipe diameter
and swirl chamber diameter, as well as other process geometry, is defined.
Actual construction cost data and material and labor requirements for con-
struction of a swirl overflow regulator/concentrator are not available in
a form which is usable for this study. Estimated costs for the swirl over-
flow regulator/concentrator have been reported, however, the basis for
these estimates generally reflect all project construction costs and spec-
ific site requirements. To prepare general cost information specific to
the unit process, and exclusive of site improvements, interconnecting pip-
ing, and unusual soil conditions, the approach used in this report is to
develop material quantities and apply current (June 1975) unit costs to a
range of sizes of swirl overflow regulator/concentrators. Chamber dia-
meters of from 12 feet to 48 feet were selected which correspond to "flows
of from about 5 mgd to 200 mgd. Quantities of excavation, concrete, re-
inforcing, steel, labor and piping were determined for the estimated fa-
cility requirements. Unit costs were applied to the determined quantities
to derive an estimated cost of construction. Unit prices have been se-
lected from Richardson's Engineering Services, Inc.(5), Means Building
Construction Cost Data 1975 (6), and the 1975 Dodge Guide(7), and are con-
sidered typical for mid 1975 (June). Unit prices for materials and labor
which have been used in this study are summarized in Appendix B.
A typical layout plan for a swirl overflow regulator/concentrator is shown
on Figure 1. Estimated construction costs for the swirl overflow regula-
tor/concentrator are shown by cost component on Table 1 and are shown
graphically on Figure 2. Costs are presented as a -function of the chamber
surface area.
11
-------
TABLE 1
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
SWIRL OVERFLOW REGULATOR/CONCENTRATOR
Cost Component:
Manufactured
Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Metal Pipe
and. Valves
Concrete Pipe
Housing
Electrical and
Ins trumenta-
tion
Miscellaneous
Items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
113
Surface Area (Square Feet)
254
452
707
10,500 16,500 22,500
600 1,340 2,220
2,480 4,885 8,305
4,075 9,765 17,770
1018
1385
3,000 3,200 3,400 3,600 3,800
4,000
1810
28,500
3,500
13,250
29,650
34,500
5,120
20,580
45,355
40,500
8,470
30,425
68,560
48,000
12,970
42,530
95,100
4,200
3,100 5,350 8,130 11,780 16,400 22,790 30,420
3,560 6,160 9,350 13,540 18,860 26,210 34,980
27,315 47,200 71,675 103,820 144,615 200,955 268,200
The cost of the swirl overflow regulator/concentrator includes the basic
chamber, which does not include roof, pumping stations, flow measurement
or basin dewatering facilities. These items, if applicable, must be added
to derive a total estimated project cost. The chamber dewatering facility
is normally incorporated in the sludge (or concentrate) pumping station or
concentrate discharge facilities. Costs for raw wastewater pumping sta-
tions, sludge (or concentrate) pumping stations, and flow measurement fa-
cilities are presented later in this section.
The previously reported estimates for swirl overflow regulator/concentra-
tors, although not presented in a format directly related to the approach
used in this study, may be used with other data to reflect on the compara-
bility of these estimates. Three sources of data are available:
12
-------
Location
Syracuse/
New York
Lancaster,
Pennsylvania
3.
Swirl Chamber Size
Diameter (ft) - area (SqFt)
12
22
32.5
22.5
29.5
36.0
113
380
830
400
680
1020
Cost Basis
Construction Bids
Engineer's Est.
Engineer's Est.
General Est.
General Est.
General Est.
Reference
(4)
(8)
(8)
(9)
(9)
(9)
The Syracuse, New York unit reports the following construction costs:
Current ' Portion attributable
Reported Costs Equivalent Cost* To Swirl Unit
Site Work
Piping
Swirl Chamber
Electrical
Mis cellaneous
$18,700
19,700
19,700
4,100
3,500
$65,700
$20,570
21,670
21,670
4,510
3,850
$72,270
21,670
4,510
1_,_925
$28,105
(1974 to 1975 inflation = 1.10)
The estimate presented in this report does not include' site work which
represents a'large portion of the costs of the above installation.' The
swirl chamber, electrical cost, and a portion of the miscellaneous cost
will be attributable to the swirl overflow regulator/concentrator as a
unit process, and the other items are attributable to site work. This
report estimates the cost of a similar size unit as $27,300. Assuming
1/2 of the miscellaneous costs, all electrical and swirl chamber costs
are attributable to the swirl overflow regulator/concentrator, the Sy-
racuse project results in $28,105.
The Lancaster, Pennsylvania engineering estimates for two swirl overflow
regulator/concentrators are as follows:
Diameter of Chamber (ft)
Surface Area1 of Chamber (SqPt)
Concrete
Excavation
Miscellaneous Metal
Roof
Valves and Gates
Paint
Ventilation
Total Estimated Cost
Estimated Cost This Study
22
380
$ 55,000
11,000
22,000
4,000
6,000
3,000
2, OOP
$103,000
70,000
32.5
830
$127,000
16,000,
32,000
-7,000
10,000
6,000
4,000
$202,000
150,000
13
-------
Without detailed knowledge of each of these projects, it is not possible
to make a comparison of costs with estimates presented hereini for in-
stance, the 22 foot diameter chamber has an estimated amount of concrete
equaling 60 yards. The Lancaster project estimated cost for concrete
being 55,000 dollars for the 22 feet diameter chamber indic.ates a quantity
of concrete equalling 220 cubic yards (assuming S250/yard). similar in-
consistencies may be shown for other item estimated costs indicating the
above projects include significant features other than the swirl chamber.
The estimates presented for the swirl overflow regulator/concentrator in
the EPA report(9) on the Helical bend overflow regulator are shown below;
attributable Attributable attributable
Estimata 1o Swirl Estimate Bo Sairl Estimate to Swirl
Chamber Diwaater 22.5 29.5 36
Item
Sheet Pile 17,200 - 24,940
Excavation 7,360 7,360 14,400 14,400 21,760 21,760
Beinf. Cone. 31,948 31,948 50,856 50,856 70,416 70,416
Superstructure 3,789 - 3,789
Qsitlet Pipes 1,300 1,300 3,000 3,000
Downshift Plata 2,000 2,000 3,000 3,000
Miscellaneous Cost* 9,540 9,540 15,000 15,000
Contingency* 10,970 10,970 17,250 17,250
Bypass Sawor 10,000 - 19,500 -
TOTAL 94,107 63,118 151,735 103,506 209,465
Estimated Cast Ihis study - 72,000 - 105,000 -
* Revised percentages to conform to those used in this study
The estimates presented in this study are supported by previous costs and
estimates. The exercise developed above does emphasize the significance
of unusual site conditions and site work costs.
B. SCREENING
There are three types of screening devices for which cost data have been
prepared. The generic designations for the devices used in this presenta-
tion are as follows:
Stationary Screen - A wedgewire screen where waste is discharged across a
sloping screen section causing solids to be removed and discharged by grav-
ity while the screened wastewater discharges through the screen to a col-
lector flume below.
Horizontal Shaft Rotary Screen - This screen is often referred to as a
microscreen or microstrainer. The wastewater enters the interior of a
slowly rotating drum and discharges through the screen into a collection
chamber.
Vertical Shaft Rotary Screen - Wastewater enters the interior chamber of
a high speed rotary screen and passes through the rotating screen to dis-
charge while the screened solids are washed out as a concentrated under-
flow. Sweco is the predominate manufacturer of this screen.
14
-------
1. Stationary Screen - The stationary screen is designed on the .basis of
experienced data; flow rates and performance have been previously reported
(10,11). The screen assembly and configuration requires about 7 to 8 feet
of hydraulic head loss; however, recent lower head models are available
which require 3 to 4 feet of hydraulic head loss. Contacts were made with
manufacturers of the equipment, and although equipment cost was made avail-
able, total project cost data were inadequate for the purposes of this study.
Therefore, several plant layouts were made and quantities estimated for the
necessary facilities. A typical section'of the facilities included in the
costs are shown on Figure 3,
The manufacturers rate various size screens for specific peak flows. For
example, the 72 inch wide screen, having one screen face, is rated at 2
million gallons per day (mgd) peak flow and the 72 inch wide screen having
two screen faces is rated at 4 mgd. For the purposes of this study, the
facilities were based on three screens, each rated at 4 mgd, 12 mgd total,
to 48 screens rated at 192 mgd total. Costs are related to hydraulic ca-
pacity.
Collection flumes for sludge and screened effluent are provided. The
sludge is of sufficient concentration that it will not flow and it is
presumed to be sluiced to return to the sewer by adding water (or un-
screened wastewater) as a conveying medium. Equal hydraulic distribution
to several units is problematical, especially, when up to 48 units are
required. To provide for the capability of flow splitting, oversized open
channels are included as influent headers and metal weirs are included at
each screen unit; this would permit equal head at each unit influent weir
and essentially equal flow to each screen unit.
Housing is included in the cost of the facility. The cost components
for stationary screens are shown in Table 2 and estimated construction
costs are shown graphically on Figure 4.
Additional functional units which may be required for a complete project
include a raw wastewater pumping station, flow measurement, disinfection,
and site work for which costs are presented later in this report.
2. Horizontal Shaft Rotary Screen - The application of horizontal shaft
rotary'screens are varied. Different aperture fabrics provide for removal
of large solids to small solids. This permits use of the screen for pur-
poses ranging from pretreatment to final treatment. Design and performance
information have been presented previously(12,13,14,15).
Horizontal screens are designed on the basis of experience. The basic de-
sign parameter is gallons per minute per square foot based on surface area
exposed to the wastewater. Screen submergence typically varies from 74
percent to 83 percent.
15
-------
Cost Component
Manufactured
Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Metal Pipe
and Valves
Concrete Pipe
Housing
Electrical and
Instrumentation
Miscellaneous
Items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
TABLE 2
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
STATIONARY SCREEN
Capacity - (mgd)
12
39,600
1,800
250
23,100
16,150
18,570
142,400
32
105,600
2,800
700
62,900
39,360
45,270
347,050
64
211,200
5,600
1,360
125,800
7,200
30,600
5,130
20,800
57,120
12,500
43,340
114,240
25,080
78,990
90,840
696,450
128
422,400
11,200
2,720
251,600
86,680
228,480
50,150
157,980
181,680
1,392,890
256
844,800
22,400
5,440
503,200
173,360
456,960
100,310
300,920
346,060
2,653,140
The screen is installed in a chamber designed to permit, entry of the waste-
water to the interior of the drum and collection of filtered (or screened)
wastewater from the exterior side of the drum. Inlet and outlet piping is
typically arranged in a fashion similar to granular media filters. A gen-
eral layout of an installation and piping for horizontal shaft rotary
screens is shown on Figure 5. A limited amount of data was made available
from screen installations, however the data format and the lack of material
quantity information prevents the use of the data. To obtain costs for
various capacity and sizes of installations, representative layouts were
made and major material and equipment items quantified. Concrete construc-
tion was used as a basis, with a center pipe gallery. Housing for the
gallery and screen chambers are included. Distribution to each filter unit
is based on influent rate control linkage between an insert differential
flow measurement device and throttling valve. Appurtenances include ultra-
violet light slime growth control, backwash sprays, and backwash storage
and pumping facilities.
A summary of the cost components used in this study are shown on Table 3.
For the current cost relationship to screen area, ,the data are presented
graphically on Figure 6.
16
-------
Associated costs which may be applicable to projects which utilize drum
type screens include raw wastewater. pumping and chlorination which are
present later in this report.
TABLE 3
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
HORIZONTAL SHAFT ROTARY SCREEN
Cost Component
Manufactured
Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Metal Pipe
and Valves
Concrete Pipe
Housing
Electrical and
Instrumentation
Miscellaneous
Items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED v
COST
Screen Area - (Square Feet)
315
630
1260
2520
5040
66,850
2,200
5,920
42,000
20,110
21,000
31,620
28,460
32,720
133,690
4,300
11,300
84,700
44,380
42,000
64,080
57,670
66,320
248,110
6,200
14,460
142,160
85,890
58,800
111,120
100,010
115,010
496,220
12,400
28,920
284,320
171,780
117,600
222,240
200,020
230,010
992,440
24,800
57,840
568,640
343,560
235,200
444,480
400,040
460,020
250,880
508,440
881,760
1,763,510
3,527,020
Syracuse, New York has experienced cost data for screen installations.
The project at Syracuse, New York consisted of a raw wastewater pumping
station, a vertical shaft rotary screen (rated at 5 mgd), two horizontal
shaft rotary screens (each rated at 5 mgd), and chlorination facilities.
The cost breakdown for this project is as follows:
Item Cost
Pumping Stations 120,700
Screen Housing 96,100
Vertical Shaft Screen 37,500
Horizontal Shaft Screens(2) 73,000
Valves and Piping 23,600
Chlorination Equipment 14,500
Electrical/Instrumentation 25,800
Miscellaneous Items 10,700
Site Work 40 f 200.
TOTAL 442,100
*From 1974 to mid 1975, factor =1.10
Inflated Cost*
132,770
105,710
41,250
80,300
25,960
15,950
28,380
••11; 77 a
486,310
17
-------
Separating costs of the screening function from these costs is not pre-
cise, however, a relative value may be derived. Excluding site work,
chlorination and the raw wastewater pumping station, and a proportional
amount of valves, piping, electrical work and miscellaneous items, the
screening (all) facilities represent about 263,000 dollars. The three
screening units may be considered to represent 300 square feet of screen-
ing area ignoring the inconsistency that one screen is a vertical shaft
unit. Figure 6 of this report estimates this area of screen to cost
250,000 dollars. This analysis, by necessity cursory, but tends to sup-
port the lower range of cost estimates presented herein.
3. Vertical Shaft Rotary Screen - There is no ready dimensional para-
meter to relate costs of vertical shaft rotary screens. The various size
units which are available are rated for specific capacities; therefore,
the cost data have been developed on a flow relationship basis. Design
and performance data have been presented for a pilot plant in Portland,
Oregon(16,17). Because of the relatively low capacity of the individual
units, as compared to the large volume to be treated, the cost data have
been developed on the basis of multiples of the largest unit available,
(60 inch screen by Sweco, Inc.) which is rated at 3 mgd.
A typical cross section of a unit with feeder piping is shown on Figure 7.
Auxilaries to the unit include hot and cold water sprays and detergent
cleaners. The operation of a multiple screen installation has been based
on activating only those numbers of units required for the flow received.
A flow meter with multiple set contacts to operate individual screen units
is presumed. An example of a layout for multiple screen installation used
for the basis of the cost data in this study is shown on Figure 7. The
cost components which compose various capacity screen installations are
shown on Table 4, and current cost estimates are shown on Figure 8.
As with the horizontal shaft rotary screen, no isolated costs, strictly
attributable to the vertical shaft rotary screen are available. The
Syracuse project included one unit which was bid at $41,250 (current
dollars) and would represent an installed cost including housing, and
associated appurtenances of about $88,000. The single screen unit would
correspond to a 3 mgd flow basis. This roughly corresponds to one quarter
of the 12 mgd data point on Figure 9.
C. AIR FLOTATION
Air flotation is a unit process designed primarily on the basis of sur-
face area, much like sedimentation. Air flotation performance and design
information has been presented previously(18). Air flotation equipment is
furnished in package units which' include the basins, or equipment for cus-
tom built basins. The largest practical size individual unit is about 20 '
feet wide and 100 feet long. Unlike many of the previously presented unit
processes, capital cost data with detailed quantity takeoffs were obtainable
and used to assist in verification of synthesized cost data? however, for
the most part, the data were developed on the basis of sizing, providing pre-
liminary structural design, and quantifying major cost components.
18
-------
TABLE 4
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS *
VERTICAL SHAFT ROTARY SCREENS
Cost. Component
Manufac tared
Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Metal Pipe
and Valves
Concrete Pipe
Hous ing
Electrical and
Instrumentation
Miscellaneous
Items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
Capacity (mgd)
12
36
72
144
216
85,600
5,160
3,760
51,000
19,800
4,000
52,800
256,510
14,850
9,930
155,800
59,400
23,300
134,400
504,000
36,400
19,850
315,600
116,800
49,000
268,800
1,008,000
74,950
39,700
633,700
237,600
103,900
537,600
1,512,000
109,200
59,550
.950,550
350,400
155,800
806,400
44,420
39,980
45,980
130,840
117,750
135,420
262,090
235,880
271,260
527,090
474,380
545,540
788,800
709,900
816,390
352,500 1,038,200 2,079,680 4,182,460 6,258,990
A typical plan of an installation is shown'on Figure 9. Flow splitting is
provided by splitter boxes consisting of an influent riser well and equal
length weirs for individual units. An enclosed piping and equipment gallery
is provided between units for collector drive equipment, recirculation
pumps, air dissolving tanks and other miscellaneous equipment.
A summary of the estimated cost components are shown on Table 5, and the
current estimated costs for air flotation are shown on Figure 10. Other
unit processes which are typically associated with air flotation in combined
sewer overflow treatment include rapid mix, flocculation, prescreening with
50 mesh drum screens, chlorination, and raw wastewater pumping. Costs for
these processes unit functions are presented later in this report.
19
-------
400
58,880
5,780
16,150
39,450
2,000
24,450
22,010
25,310
800
86,940
7,780
23,660
51,480
4,000
34,770
31 , 29O
35,990
1,600
110,740
11,85O
33,670
71,170
5,400
46,570
41,910
48,200
3,200
200,100
20,010
53,690
123,280
6,200
80,660
72,590
83,480
6,400
303,000
31,630
84,860
194,850
9,800
124,830
112,350
129,200
12,800
486,000
51,560
138,350
317,680
15,980
201,910
181,720
208,980
25,600
820,000
66,330
235,070
539,770
27,150
337,660
303,900
349,480
51,200
1,400,000
120,000
400,000
920,000
45,000
577,000
520,000
600,000
TABLE 5
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
AIR FLOTATION
Cost Component Surface Area - (Square Feet)
Manufactured Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
H*U1 Pipe and Valves
Concrete Pipe
(loosing
Electrical and Instrumentation
MiseellnnaouB Items
Contingency
TQTM. ESTIMATED COST 194,030 275,910 369,510 640,010 990,520 1,602,180 2,679,360 4,582,000
The significant combined sewer overflow project using air flotation is the
Racine, Wisconsin project. This project consists of three sites of which
two included air flotation units. The two project sites involving air flo-
tation each consisted of bar screens, raw wastewater pumping station, par-
shall flume, flow measurement, drum screens, air flotation, coagulant chem-
ical feed system and chlorination. Site I included 3 - air flotation units
having a total surface area of 3,000 square feet. Site II included 8 air
flotation units having a total surface area of 8,000 square feet. The
purchase cost of the air flotation equipment was 43,000 dollars and 117,000
dollars for the two sites,respectively. Updating these costs from 1971
(factor = 1.70) to present,and adding installation costs, a current instal-
led cost would be 90,000 and 240,000 dollars respectively. A total cost in-
cluding associated structure,piping,valves, electrical,and instrumentation
would be 300,000 and 800,000 dollars. This data contradicts experienced
data for air flotation units installed as solids concentration devices in
other facilities.
The EPA report(19) on suspended solids removal presents data which indicate
the capital cost would be 550,000 and 1,260,000 dollars for these basins
based on an EPA index of 235. These cost estimates support those presented
in this study. The Racine project costs appear to be low. The data pre-
sented in this report may reflect higher costs than will be experienced,
however, for planning purposes general cost data should not reflect the
lowest cost data found.
D. CHLORINATION
Because of the characteristic intermittent operation associated with treat-
ment of combined sewer overflows, reduction of construction cost with a
potential increase in operating costs often results in overall minimum
costs. In the case of chlorination facilities as applied to treatment of
combined sewer overflows, the construction costs associated with contact
basins having conventional detention time of from 15 to 30 minutes is
20
-------
high and difficult to justify. Therefore, consideration of higher mixing
intensities to make better usage of the chlorine and/or higher chlorine
dosages and shorter detention time contact basins to effect the same end
results should be given.
The form of chlorine used at a facility for treatment of combined sewer
overflows should be adaptable to intermittent use. Other considerations
include the disinfection effectiveness of the chlorine form, and the safety
and ease of feeding. Because application conditions vary and because local
conditions vary, the options of the form of chlorine to be fed are many.
The scope of this study is limited to chlorine forms.
Chlorine is normally fed as a gas, or liquid solution. The safety, methods
of feeding, storage provisions, disadvantages, and advantages of each are
well documented(20). The forms most often considered for use in treatment
of combined sewer overflows and the primary justification given for that
selection are as follows:
Chlorine Form Feeder Re_ason_ For Use
Chlorine Gas Gas Feeder Ease of feeding; minimum
storage
Hypochlorite Solution Safety
Chlorine Dioxide Solution Does not combine with am-
monia; disinfection capa-
bility is excellent
The feeder, storage, and housing facilities for each form are presented in
the following pages.
1. Chlorine Gas - The most prevalent form of chlorine fed in the water
utility industry today is chlorine gas. The equipment and storage facili-
ties requirements are well known and commercial equipment is readily avail-
able. Construction costs for chlorine feed equipment have been presented
previously(1); however, these costs were based upon continuous-use facili-
ties with long term storage housing requirements. For the purposes of
treatment of combined sewer overflow, the previous costing information has
been reviewed in light of current costs and reduced storage area require-
ments .
The previous work(l) cites the difficulty in isolating costs for the chlo-
rine feed and storage facilities. Most often, the chlorine feed and storage
facilities are combined with other structures, making analysis difficult.
A typical'chlorine feed and storage facility, for which the capital costs
presented herein represent, is shown on Figure 11. Ton cylinders are
shown; however, for less than 1,000 pounds per day feed rate, 150 pound
cylinders were used as a basis of storage requirements.
Several quantity take-offs of similar chlorine feed and storage facilities
were reviewed. Of seven installations, the installed chlorination system
facility was estimated to cost from 2.5 to 3.5 times the purchase price
. 21
-------
of the chlorinators. The average estimated installed cost of the seven
installations was 3.0 times the quoted purchase price of the chlorinators
above.
The total installed cost includes distribution panels, cylinder chocks,
installation, manufacturer's preparation of shop drawings, installation
check and startup, and contractor's overhead and profit. Chlorinator
costs include one standby chlorinator. Evaporators are included on sys-
tems having a capacity greater than 4,000 pounds per day.
Miscellaneous piping varies significantly depending on the layout. For
the layout shown on Figure 11, piping costs will vary from 5 to 10 percent
of the installed chlorination equipment cost.
Hoist equipment will be essentially constant for electrically operated,
monorail trolley hoists. For large storage areas having long rails and
extensive duct-o-bar electrical systems, the costs will approach 30,000
dollars for a 30 cylinder storage system or 1,000 dollars per cylinder.
Manually operated hoists systems are less expensive (about half) but re-
quire more labor for loading and unloading. For the purposes of this
analysis, hoisting equipment is estimated at 0.50 dollars per pound of
cylinder storage capacity.
A summary of the
shown on Table 6
Cost Component
cost components and current estimating cost curve is
and Figure 12 respectively.
TABLE 6
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
GASEOUS CHLORINE FEED FACILITIES
Chlorine Feed Capacity (pounds per day)
100 1,000 4,000 8,000 12,000
Manufactured
Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Concrete Pipe
Housing
Electrical and
Instrumentation
Miscellaneous
Items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
2,760 15,100
38,300
78,000
87,000
960
330
3,300
1,100
1,270
1,460
5,250
1,650
11,880
5,100
5,850
6,720
13,400
3,630
15,840
10,700
12,280
14,120
27,400
7,490
32,100
21,800
25,060
28,820
30,600
8,510
37,900
24,700
28,380
32,640
11,180
51,550 108,270 220,970 250,230
22
-------
2. Chlorine Dioxide - The feeding and storage facilities for chlorine
dioxide essentially include additional requirements to that described for
chlorine gas. The most common method of generating chlorine dioxide in the
water utility industry is reacting chlorine solution with sodium chlorite
solution. Chlorine dioxide may also be formed using sodium chlorate, sul-
furic acid, and sodium chloride; however, this method will not be presented
in this cost analysis.
In practice, one pound of chlorine dioxide is formed by mixing 1,68 pounds
of chlorine with 1.68 pounds of sodium chlorite in a reaction tower for
approximately one minute. A schematic of the facility requirements is
shown on Figure 13.
Chlorine dioxide facilities are not common in the water utility industry;
and therefore, established cost information is minimal. The costs presented
are based on those costs for gas chlorination systems plus estimated re-
quirements and costs for the added facilities for chlorine dioxide. Chlo-
rine dioxide does not combine with ammonia, and the disinfection capability
is greater than chlorine for combined sewer overflows. As a result, lower
doses of chlorine dioxide, as compared to chlorine, may be feasible? how-
ever, the reported costs presented herein are for a similar range to that
presented for chlorine.
The facilities required for chlorine 'dioxide feeding are summarized in
Table 7 and the estimating costs for the facilities are shown in Table 8
and on Figure 14. For feed rates of 2,400 pounds per day and more, a hand
truck with barrel grabs has been.included to handle and empty- sodium chlo-
rite containers.
TABLE 7
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR CHLORINE DIOXIDE FEED
Feed
Rate
(Pounds
Per Jay)
60
600
2,400
4,800
7,200
Chlorine
Feeder
(Pounds
Per Day)
100
1,000
4,000
8,000
12,000
Proportioning
Pump
Capacity
(Gallons/Hour)
1.5
15
60
120
180
Sodium Chlorite
Solution Tank
(Gallons)
36 (55 gal.drum)
360 (4.5 ft.diam.)
1,440 (9 ft.diam.)
2,880 (2.75 ft.diam.)
8,320 (3.75 ft.diam..)
Sodium
rite Storage
Area
(Square Feet)
0
100
264
528
792
23
-------
Cost Component
Manufactured
Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Metal Pipe
and Valves
Concrete Pipe
Housing
Electrical and
Instrumentation
Miscellaneous
Items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
TABLE 8
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
CHLORINE DIOXIDE .FEED FACILITIES
Design Feed Rate (pounds per day)
60
600
2,400
4,800
7,200
4,760 20,300 58,400 114,100 138,900
1,660
660
5,280
1,850
2,130
2,450
7,100
3,300
17,820
7,280
8,370
9,630
20,450
7,260
26,730
16,900
19,460
22,380
39,900
14,980
51,700
33,100
38,070
43,780
48,600
17,000
66,100
40,600
46,680
53,680
18,790
73,800 171,580 335,630 411,560
3. Hypochlorite - The recent escalation of chlorine prices and the safety
advantages of hypochlorite versus chlorine gas have stimulated interest in
hypochlorite disinfection facilities. The on-site storage of hypochlorite
and the limited shelf life of hypochlorite has directed this interest toward
on—site generation. Facility requirements for hypochlorite require elec-
trolytic cells, brine (sodium chloride) feed, and storage and hypochlorite •
feed and storage. A typical facility is schematically shown on Figure 15.
There are several commercially available package hypochlorite generation
systems including:
Diamond Shamrock "Sanilec"
Englehard "Chloropac"
Ionics "Cloropat"
Pepcon "Pep-Chor"
Several small installations of on-site hypochlorite processes are on-line;
however, cost information in the water utility industry is generally lack-
ing. Prices from manufacturers have been obtained, and general installation
cost estimating procedures have been used. Housing is included for transfer
pumps, electrodes, and rectifier, as well as auxiliaries. Hypochlorite and
salt-storage is included in the estimated construction costs presented and
are assumed to be in outdoor tanks.
24
-------
The components used in estimating costs are shown on Table 9 and the
current estimated costs for hypochlorite feed are shown on Figure 16.
Cost component
Manufactured
Equipment
'Concrete
Steel
Labor
Pipe and Valves
Concrete Pipe
Housing
Electrical and
Instrumentation
Miscellaneous
Items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
250
84,000
TABLE 9
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
HYPOCHLORIT1 GEHERATION FACILITIES
Design FeedRate (pounds per day)
500 1,000 2,000 4,000 8,000 12,000
114,000 195,000 310,000 620,000 1,240,000 1,860,000
29,000
940
10,800
18,700
21,520
24,740
39,000
1,240
15,000
25,390
29,190
33,570
65,000
1,650
20,000
42,250
48,590
55,870
100,000
2,500
29,000
66,230
76,160
87,580
186,000
3,630
58,000
130,150
149,670
172,120
372,000
7,490
116,000
260,300
299,370
344,280
558,000
8,510
174,000
390,100
448,590
515,880
189,700 257,390 428,360 671,470 1,319,570 2,639,440 3,955,080
E* HIGH INTENSITY MIXING/CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN (EAPID MIX)
as noted in the discussion under ehlorination of combined sewer overflows,
conventionally long contact times may not be economically justifiable.
Short term contact times with more intense mixing have been studied to ef-
fect the same disinfection results. As one means of providing facilities
for short term contact, a basin and (13.15) mixer, not unlike a rapid mix
chamber used in coagulant mixing are included in this presentation. Cost
data presented for this function may also be used for estimating rapid
mix basin costs.
The costs of the facility are based on reinforced concrete construction
and stainless steel mixers. The mixing intensity, or mixer horsepower per
unit volume, significantly influences the cost of the mixing basin. Costs
for two levels of mixing intensity are provided in the cost data, corres-
ponding to a velocity gradient, G» of 100 hr~"^and 300 hr
-1
A summary of
the component breakdown of costs is shown on Table 10 and is shown graphi-
cally on Figure 17.
25
-------
TABLE 10
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
HIGH INTENSITY MIXING/CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN (RAPID MIX)
G = 100 hr"1
Cost Component
Manufactured
Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical
Miscellaneous
Items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
G » 300 hr"1
Cost Component
Manufactured
Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical
Miscellaneous
Items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
Volume (Cubic Feet)
1,400
2,000
1,120
2,280
3,780
1,840
1,650
1,900
14,570
1,400
6,000
1,120
2,280
5,180
2,520
2,890
3,330
2,800
2,500
1,800
3,590
5,820
2,740
2,470
2,840
21,760
2,800
12,000
1,800
3,590
9,150
3,980
4,580
5,270
5,000
3,000
2,360
4,620
7,350
3,470
3,120
3,590
27,510
Volume
5,000
20,000
2,360
4,670
13,300
6,050
6,960
8,000
10,000
4,000
3,800
7,400
13,620
5,760
5,190
5,960
45,730
(Cubic Feet)
10,000
24,000
3,800
7,400
20,620
8,370
9,630
11,070
18,500
6,000
6,000
11,510
19,400
8,580
7,720
8,880
68,090
18,500
34,000
6,000
11,510
29,200
12,110
13,920
16,010
37,000
12,000
10,800
20,720
34,920
15,690
14,120
16,240
124,490
37,000
100,000
10,800
20,720
65,720
29,590
34,020
39,130
23,320 40,370
61,340
84,890 122,750
299,980
F.
FILTRATION
High rate filters have been applied to combined sewer overflows in con-
junction with other unit processes, such as chemical coagulation, drum
screens and chlorination. High rates (16-24 gallons per minute per
square foot) can be considered when applying stormwater(21,22). Unlike
other unit processes discussed, there is a large backlog of costing data
on filtration, primarily developed from water treatment plant experience.
26
-------
The information presented herein is based on concrete gravity filters, ex-
clusive of chemical treatment features and other unit processes. Costs
are included for backwash and surface wash of filters. Although head
losses of up to 30 feet have been reported in small bench scale filter
units, the practicability of providing freeboard to this headloss capa-
bility is questionable. Consideration of pressure filters for operations
of in excess of 12 to 15 feet of headloss should be given.
Media costs are based on dual, nonproprietary media. In general, media
depths are two to three times greater than for conventionally designed
filters, and the media is generally coarser.
Other design considerations should include prescreening drum filters,
backwash supply storage, and influent flow equalization. This may be
incorporated into basins preceding the filters which afford sufficient
volume to avoid rate increases when a filter is removed from service for
backwashing and also provide sufficient volume for backwash.
The general considerations of any combined sewer overflow treatment plant
include automatic operation. Instrumentation for automatic filter back-
wash is included.
A general physical layout of the filters is shown on Figure 18. Housing
of the filters and filter galleries is included, but may not be applicable
in warmer climates. Cost components are shown in Table 11 and current
cost estimates are shown on Figure 19.
TABLE 11
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
FILTRATION
Cost Component Surface Area (Square Feet)
2,740 4,320 9,400 15,540
Manufactured Equipment 193,800 221,800 315,000 416,600
Concrete 60,300 87,950 117,600 264,700
Steel 101,470 150,080 252,870 327,340
Labor 361,100 411,100 934,000 1,341,250
Metal Pipe and Valves 170,200 180,560 202,000 380,200
Media, Underdrains, Troughs 94,600 140,000 307,500 508,000
Housing 106,110 165,600 350,000 596,400
Electrical and Instrumentation 163,140 203,560 371,850 575,170
Miscellaneous Items , 187,610 234,110 427,620 661,470
Contingency, 215,750 269,210 491,760 760,660
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 1,654,080 2,063,970 3,770,200 5,831,790
27
-------
G.
STORAGE
The typical storm hydrograph is characterized by having a high instantan-
eous peak flow which is extreme in comparison to the average volume of the
wastewater during the storm. The concept of providing storage to either
reduce the capacity of combined sewer overflow treatment facilities, or to
eliminate stormwater treatment facilities is popular. Several innovative
storage concepts have been proposed such as collapsible underwater bladders,
deep underground reservoirs, and short term flooding of open spaces.
These concepts require detailed analysis in light of the specific project.
For the purposes of this preparation, storage of combined sewer overflows
is restricted to concrete basins and lined earthen reservoirs.
The application of storage to combined sewer overflows may also include
provisions for mechanical sludge collection; however, for strictly storage
purposes, the economics of providing mechanical sludge collection is ques-
tionable. The costs for earthen reservoirs is primarily associated with
the moving and compacting of soil and the cost of the paving or liner, if
used. The earthmoving costs are highly dependent on the shape of the basin,
borrow requirements, soil type, and ground water problems. The costs pre-
sented for earthen reservoirs presume embankment soil is obtained on-site,
no rock excavation and minimal ground water problems. In urban areas, the
likelihood of avoiding these complications is rare and exceptional contin-
gencies should be provided for in any general planning study or unexplored
site. The basis of estimating costs for earthen reservoirs are a 2.5 to 1
interior slope, a 3sl exterior slope, 20 percent compaction loss and a 16
foot top width of levee. The reservoir is presumed to be 18 feet deep and
2 times as long as it is wide. The reservoir bottom is sloped at 2 percent
to facilitate cleaning after each storm. Costs for concrete slope paving
or synthetic material liners are included. No cover is included. The
cost components of earthen reservoirs are presented in Table 12 and current
costs are shown on Figure 20.
Cent Component
TABLE 12
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
EARTHEN STORAGE RESERVOIRS
Volume (million gallons)
0.57
2,540
7,730
2,180
870
5,650
2,850
3,270
1.95
6,670
14,350
3,140
1,750
7,940
5,100
5,790
4.90
14,900
32,780
4,340
3,150
10,720
9,900
11,350
9.20
24,700
53,720
5,540
4,960
13,500
15,360
17,650
14.80
36,940
79,650
6,740
6,540
16,100
21,900
25,210
50.85
93,330
233,400
11,540
13,800
26,300
56,700
65,150
108.50
156,320
467,150
16,340
20,600
26,300
103,000
118,2j|Q
187.80
229,530
780,900
21,140
28,000
45,900
165,820
190,430
Earthwork
Liner
Paving
Seeding
Fencing
Miscellaneous Items
Contingency
TOTMi ESTIMATED COST 25,090 44,740 87,140 J.35,430 193,080 500,220 908,000 1,461,720
28
-------
Costs for concrete reservoirs have been prepared for covered basins as
well as uncovered basins. Covered basins may be applicable in parks or
congested areas where the surface of the reservoir may _serve for recrea-
tional purposes. Uncovered basins are applicable in industrial districts
or in undeveloped areas. The cost of covers are based on precast concrete
members with no provision for special toppings or earth cover. Accessways
for personnel are provided in the costs.
The costs for the reservoir are shown by cost component on Table 13.
rent estimated costs are presented in Figure 20.
Cur-
TH3LE 13
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS - CONCRETE STORAGE RESERVOIRS
CONCRETE RESERVOIRS WITHOUT COVERS
Cost Component _^ Volume (million gallons)
Concrete and Forms
Steel
Labor
Miscellaneous Items
Contingency
TOTM, ESTIMATED COST 383,410 521,700 862,500 1,108,320 1,733,380 2,502,260 4,041,820 6,162,470 10,405,300
1.0
80,370
110,400
99,140
43,490
50,010
2.0
109,030
149,600
135,850
59,170
68,050
4.0
166,360
277,200
208,610
97,830
112,500
7.5
230,390
313,600
294,060
125,710
144,560
15.0
358,450
486,400
465,840
196,600
226,090
30.0
513,270
692,000
686,800
283,810
326,380
60.0
822,940
1,104,000
1,129,260
458,430
527,190
. 120.0
1,239,770
1,648,800
1,771,140
698,960
803,800
240.0
2,073,370
2,739,200
3,055,330
1,180,190
1,397,210
Cost Component
Concrete asd Forms
Steel
Labor
Precast concrete
Roofing Material
Miscellaneous Items
Contingency
COST FOR COVER
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
WITH COVER
ADDITIONAL CQS^S FOR CQNCREI'E RESERVOIRS KITH COVESS
Volume {million gallons)
1.0
5,150
2,650
10,150
20,000
2,000
6,000
6,890
2.0
15,450
7,950
23,450
40,000
4,000
13,600
15,660
4.0
30,900
15,900
46,900
160,000
16,000
40,500
46,460
7.5
72,100
37,100
100,100
320,000
32,000
84,200
96,690
15.0
144,200
74,200
200,200
640,000
64,000
168,390
193,390
30.0
309,000
159,000
413,000
1,280,000
126,000
343,350
394,310
60.0
618,000
318,000
826,000
2,560,000
256,000
686,700
788,630
120.0
1,277,200
657,200
1,677,200
5,120,000
512,000
1,386,540
1,592,350
240.0
2,544,400
1,314,000
3,354,400
10,240,000
1,024,000
2,773,080
3,184,680
52,840 120,110 356,660
742,190 1,484,380 3,026,660' 6,053,330 12,222,490 24,434,960
436,250 641,810 1,219,160 1,850,510 3,217,760 5,528,920 10,095,150 18,384,960 34,840,260
A few storage facilities have been constructed, for which there are con-
struction costs. Two projects for which a degree of comparison may be
made include Cottage Farm (Cambridge '[Boston] , Massachusetts) (29) and Hum-
bolt Avenue (Milwaukee, Wisconsin)(30).
Cottage Farm - The detention tanks at Cottage•Farm have a very short de*-
tentiqn time at the design flow (8 minutes). The pumping and screening fa-
cilities are the major cost associated with this project and separating the
the cost associated with the "detention tanks'1 is an unpromising task;
therefore, to check the cost correlation an attempt has been made to build-
up the costs from the data presented in this report;
29
-------
Item size This Report Est.
Raw Wastewater Pumping 210 mgd (firm) $ 8,300,000
Chlorination - 100,000
Detention Basins 1.2 mg. 500,000
8,900,000
Site Work 15% of subtotal 1,335,000
$ 10,225,000
Actual Construction Cost mid-1969 - $4,852,000
EPA Index Inflation 1969-1975 = 1.73 x $4,852,000 = $8,400,000
Therefore, the estimate based on this report for the whole project is about
20 percent higher than inflating the original construction cost. This is
considered good correlation since the actual cost must be inflated over an
extended period of time.
Milwaukee - Humbolt Avenue - The 3.9 mg.detention tank is estimated to cost
$414,000 (July, 1969) exclusive of control building and other appurtenances
(23). Inflating this cost to mid-1975 would result in a current estimated
cost of about $720,000. The CWC report estimate indicates a cost of about
$1,200,000 for a 3.9 mg detention tank.
Comparable construction costs should exist with large activated sludge aera-
tion basins exclusive of aeration equipment. Nine uncovered activated
sludge aeration basins were reviewed which ranged in size from 400,000 gal-
lons to 5,000,000 gallons. Actual cost varied from 525,000 dollars per
million gallons (0.4 mg size) to 308,000 dollars per million gallons (5.0
mg size). This report estimates for uncovered basins range from 383,400
dollars per million gallons (1.0 mg size) to 200,000 dollars per million
gallons (5 mg size).
fhe comparisons made with cost data from other sources indicate that these
estimates are reasonable and may be somewhat conservative.
Specific installations and general cost estimates were reviewed for the
validity of the earthen reservoir costs. Chippewa Falls consists of an
asphalt paved reservoir, pumping, and pipe facilities(24). No detailed
cost data were available.
Two other estimating guides for earthen reservoirs are available. Black
and Veatch(l) presented estimates for sludge lagoons ranging in size from
about 225,000 gallons to 300 million gallons. Parker(25) presented cost
estimates for lined and unlined ponds. The costs from these two sources
and the estimates in this report are shown in the following tabulation;
30
-------
Without Liner (Cost - Dollars)
Lagoon Volume Black & Veatch* Parker This Report**
(ag)
0.5 13,600 - ' 12,200
1.0 19,400 25,000 18,000
5.0 50,300 42,000 43,000
10.0 71,000 55,000 70,000
50.0 194,000 105,000 195,000
100.0 310,000 160,000 300,000
225.0 587,000 230,000 500,000
* Inflated in proportion to wage inflation - 1971-1975 (1.29x)
** Subtract liner cost from breakdown
With Liner (Cost - Dollars)
Lagoon Volume ' Parker CWC
(mg)
1.0 - 30,000
5.0 89,000 88,000
10.0 130,000 150,000
50.0 400,000 520,000
100.0 700,000 900,000
225.0 1,500,000 1,800,000
The costs estimated in this report for earthen storage reservoirs, are com-
parable with previous estimates.
H, FLOCCULATION BASINS
The use of chemicals in combined sewer overflow treatment facilities has
been investigated in conjunction with air flotation and sedimentation. The
costs for the unit process of flocculation, independent of the chemical
dosage or subsequent solids removal process is presented on the basis of
basin volume and velocity gradient (G). The costs for flocculation basins
are based on reinforced concrete basins and turbine type mixers used as
flocculating devices.
A summary of the components of the facility costs are shown on Table 14 and'
are shown graphically on Figure 21.
31
-------
TABLE 14
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
FLOCCULATION BASINS
G = 70 hr""1
Cost. Component:
Manufactured
Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical
Miscellaneous
Items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
G - 110 hr"1
Cost Component
Manufactured
Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical
Miscellaneous
Items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
Volume (Cubic Feet)
10,000
12,000
3,430
9,960
13,120
5,780
6,640
7,640
58,570
10,000
14,000
3,430
9,960
13,820
6,180
7,110
8,180
25,000
14,000
6,010
11,060
20,740
7,770
8,940
10,280
78,800
25,000
16,000
6,010
11,060
21,440
8,180
9,400
10,810
50,000
28,000
9,940
18,220
36,590
13,910
16,000
18,400
141,060
Volume
50,000
32,000
9,940
18,220
37,990
14,720
16,930
19,470
100,000
31,200
16,020
27,100
49,500
18,570
21,360
24,560
188,310
(Cubic Feet)
100,000
38,000
16,020
27,100
51,880
19,950
22,940
26,380
200,000
36,000
24,840
40,070
71,880
25,920
29,800
34,280
272,790
200,000
60,000
24,840
40,070
80,280
30,780
35,400
40,710
400,000
52,000
51,900
72,120
129,400
45,800
52,680
60,590
464,490
400,000
120,000
51,900
72,120
153,200
59,580
68,520
78,800
62,680 82,900 149,270 202,270 312,080 604,120
32
-------
TABLE 14 (Continued)
G = 150 hr
Cost Component
Manufactured
Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Electrical
Miscellaneous
Items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
7,480
8,600
Volume (Cubic Feet)
10,000 25,000 50,000 100,000 200,000 400,000
15,600
3,430
9,960
14,380
6,510
19,000
6,010
11,060
22,490
8,780
39,000
9,940
18,220
40,440
16,140
78,000
16,020
27,100
65,880
28,050
156,000
24,840
40,070
107,880
49,320
312,000
51,900
72,120
194,400
94,560
10,100
11,620
18,560
21,350
32,260
37,100
56,720
65,220
108,750
125,060
65,960 89,060 163,650 284,410 500,050 958,790
I.
SEDIMENTATION BASINS
Costs for construction of plain sedimentation basins with sludge collection
equipment have been presented in earlier cost studies(1). To provide up-
dating of the previous information and to arrange the cost data in the for-
mat used in this study, the cost data from referenced) were used as well
as quantity takeoff information from several selected sedimentation basin
sizes.
The cost data are presented as a. function of the surface area provided, as
was done in the earlier study. The basin depth will affect the cost of the
sedimentation basin; albeit, minor variations will not exceed the accuracy
of the estimate. The cost data presented have been based on a basin having
a 12 feet side water depth and a 1.5 feet freeboard. Cost components are
presented on the basis of steel troughs (launders) and weirs, which for the
larger basins are more costly than single weir concrete troughs (launders),
using current estimated unit prices. The costs are applicable to sedimen-
tation basins using circular sludge collection equipment in circular basins.
The costs are also applicable to larger basin complexes (greater than 20,000
square feet) using square or rectangular basins furnished with circular type
sludge collection equipment. Cost data are not applicable to straight line
sludge collection equipment in rectangular basins. Straight line sludge
collection equipment and rectangular basins are estimated to cost from 15 to
20 percent more than the data presented in this study.
The cost components used in this study are presented on Table 15 and are
summarized on Figure 22.
33
-------
Cost Component
Manufac tured
Equipment.
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Miscellaneous
Steel
Concrete Pipe
Electrical
Miscellaneous
Items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
TABLE 15
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
SEDIMENTATION BASINS
Surface Area (Square Feet)
5,006
59,400
12,000
18,570
33,080
21,600
1,500
21,920
25,210
28,990
10,000 20,800 45,400 90,800 136,200
101,200 128,550
17,530 29,150
26,170 41,170
47,580 73,580
47,800 140,800
2,800 5,750
43,960 62,850
275,000
72,300
69,080
125,300
550,000
130,140
124,340
255,550
825,000
195,140
186,510
338,330
50,550
58,140
72,280
83,120
284,620
12,750
125,860
144,740
166,450
512,320
25,500
235,180
270,450
311,020
768,480
38,250
352,760
405,670
466,520
222,270 445,730 637,250 1,276,100 2,384,500 3,576,660
J. CHEMICAL FEED EQUIPMENT AND STORAGE
There are many package systems available and many approaches to designing
custom facilities for feeding and storage of chemicals. Also the many
available forms of chemicals and chemical strengths make a general cost
presentation on chemical feed systems difficult. Cost data for feeding
frequently used chemicals are provided herein, based on the specific form
of chemical described and are intended for general planning purposes only.
For specific projects, it is necessary to describe and estimate the fa-
cility requirements in detail. Much of the cost data were derived from
chemical feed system costs presented in the EPA Manual on Phosphorus Re-
moval (26) . The chemicals for which cost data are presented include the
following:
Lime
Alum
Ferric Chloride
Polymer
Capacity Range
52 Ib/hr
520-5200 Ib/hr
65 Ib/hr - 6600 Ib/hr
52 Ib/hr - 5200 Ib/hr
0.4 Ib/hr - 35 Ib/hr
Form Storage
Hydrated Lime 15 days
Pebble Quicklime 15 days
Liquid {8.3% A1203) 15 days
Liquid (35% FeCls) 15 days
Dry (0.25% Stock 15 days
Solution)
34
-------
1, Lime - The feed rate capacity is based on twice the average feed rate.
Equipment for the smaller system includes two volumetric feeders with manu-
ally loaded bins, dissolving chambers and accessories. The larger than 50
pound per hour systems are based upon gravimetric feeder-slaker systems,
steel storage bins flow and pH controls. A pneumatic unloading system is
assumed, with a truck providing the blower.
2- Alum - Cost estimates are based on the use of liquid alum (8.3 percent
A1203) . For rates of 65 pounds per hour, alum feeding equipment includes
two 25 gallon per hour hydraulic diaphragm pumps (one operating and one
standby) with the necessary accessories and equipment to pace the feed rate
with plant flow. Two 3,000 gallon fiberglass reinforced polyester (FKP)
tanks with accessories are provided for storage of liquid alum. The total
capacity of 6,000 gallons allows some flexibility in ordering and receiving
4 , 000 gallon tank truck shipments .
For rates of 660 pounds per hour, liquid alum is fed by three 125 gallons
per hour rotodip-type feeders (two operating and one standby) with the nec-
essary accessories and control panel for proportioning chemical feed to
flow. Alum is stored in four 11,500 gallon FKP tanks.
For rates of 6,600 pounds per hour, liquid alum is fed with seven 415 gal-
lons per hour rotodip-type feeders (six operating and one standby) with
the necessary control equipment. Storage costs are based on ten 50,000
gallon underground concrete tanks with a rubber lining. The underground
storage necessitates transfer pumps and day tanks for the rotodip feeders
but eliminates the need for heating the tanks . Three 500 gallon FFJ? day
tanks are included in the estimate; one for each pair of feeders. Four
alum transfer pumps (three operating and one standby) , with a capacity of
50 gallons per minute at 50 feet of head are provided.
The cost of feeding and storage facilities for the 6,600 pounds per hour
rate is greater than 10 times the cost of facilities for the 660 pounds
per hour rate. This is because underground storage facilities were the
basis of design for the larger rate in contrast to FRP tanks located 'in
an existing building for the lower rate. FKP tanks could be, used for the
larger plant, however, structural design may necessitate special construc-
tion requirements for underground FKP tanks. FRP tanks located above
ground and on concrete foundations would require special insulation and
heating.
3. Ferric Chloride - Costs of chemical storage and feeding equipment have
been based on the use of liquid ferric chloride. Equipment similar to that
described for liquid alum has been used as a basis. Ferric chloride in
liquid form is about 4 pounds per gallon (based on 35 percent FeCl3) as com-
pared to about 5 pounds per gallon for alum (8.3 percent
4 . Polymer - Cost estimates of solution preparation and feeding equipment
have been prepared, based on the use of dry polymer. Chemical feed equip-
ment was based on feed of a 0.25 percent stock solution. Piping and build-
35
-------
ings to house the feeding equipment and store the bags are included.
Systems with less than 0.4 pounds per hour capacity were based on the
polymer being manually fed to the mixing tank, with mixing and solution
feed equipment arranged for manual control. Two independent systems of
tanks and feeders are included. Systems for 3.5 pounds per hour include
two volumetric dry feeders discharging to two mixing tanks, arranged for
batch control. The mixing tanks discharge to a single holding tank from
which two solution feeders take their supply for application to the pro-
cess. The system for 35 pounds per hour includes four volumetric dry
feeders complete with steel day hoppers, dust collectors, bin gates and
flexible connectors. The system operation is automatic for the prepara-
tion and transfer of aged polymer solution from four mixing tanks to two
holding tanks. Ten solution feeders meter the polymer to the treatment
process.
An abbreviated cost breakdown is shown for the chemical feed and storage
equipment on Table 16 and cost data are shown graphically in Figures 23
and 24.
TABLE 16
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
CHEMICAL FEED SYSTEMS
Cost Component
Feeder fi Storage Equipment
Housing
Electrical fi Instrumentation
Miscellaneous Items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
Lime Feed (pounds per hour)
_52
24,600
12,000
6,150
6,410
7,370
56,530
520
118,000
24,000
29,500
25,720
29,580
226,800
5200
541,000
36,000
135,250
106,840
122,860
941,950
Cost Component
Feeder & Storage Equipment
Housing
Electrical fi Instrumentation
Miscellaneous Items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
Coagulant Feed (pounds per hour)
Alum
Ferric
66
52_
19,000
3,000
4,750
4,010
4,610
35,370
660
520
60,000
9,000
15,000
12,600
14,490
111,090
6600
5200
628,000
18,000
157,000
120,450
138,520
1,061,970
36
-------
Cost Component
Feeder s Storage Equipment
Housing
Electrical & Instrumentation
Miscellaneous Items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
Polymer Feed (pounds perhour)
0.4
7,400
3,000
1,850
1,840
2,110
16,200
3.5
34,000
6,000
8,500
7,280
8,370
64,150
.3J5
258,000
24,000
64,500
51,980
59,770
458,250
K.
RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING
Costs for raw wastewater pumping were presented in the previously referenced
cost study(1). This study updates those costs and identifies cost compon-
ents. Raw wastewater pumping cost data are based on a facility which in-
cludes rough screening facilities and a wet well separated from a dry well
which houses the pumps and piping. A superstructure housing electrical
control equipment and surface access is provided. The station capacity
refers to the firm pumping capacity based on all pumping units operating
except the largest unit.
The pumping station depth influences the cost of the structure; however, it
is an unusual structure which exceeds 35 to 40 feet in depth, and special
estimating procedures should be used in those specific cases. Costs for de-
watering, cofferdams, and rock excavation are not included and are often
encountered. For general planning .purposes these cost data should be in-
creased an additional 10 percent to provide for average subsurface condi-
tions encountered for sewage pumping stations. For specific projects, in-
formation should be obtained regarding subsurface conditions because the
costs to overcome adverse conditions may well exceed the previously stated
allowance.
Since the earlier study on costs, several requirements have been imposed on
design which have increased typical station costs. These requirements in-
clude safety provisions (OSHA) and more reliable electrical service (2 in-
dependent feeders) or other equally reliable facilities. The OSHA.provi-
sions have not affected the facilities provided so much as the construction
methods used. The increased electrical service requirements directly affect
the cost of the facility. Therefore, the cost increase since the previously
prepared study(1) is more than inflation indices would indicate. Provisions
for these additional requirements have been made in the cost data presented.
The cost components for raw sewage pumping stations are presented in Table
17 a'nd the estimated construction costs are1 summarized on Figure 25.
37
-------
TABLE 17
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING
Cost Component
Manufactured
Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Metal Pipe
and Valves
Concrete Pipe
Housing
Electrical and
Instrumentation
Miscellaneous
Items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
Firm Pumping Capacity (million gallons per day)
15,650
17,990
10
20
50
100
200
26,400
6,600
13,200
26,400
129,600
32,400
64,800
129,600
230,400
57,600
115,200
230,400
480,000
120,000
240,000
480,000
864,000
216,000
432,000
864,000
1,540,000
385,000
770,000
1,540,000
7,900
4,000
19,800
38,880
19,400
97,200
69,120
34,560
172,800
144,000
72,000
360,000
259,200
129,600
648,000
462,000
231,000
1,155,000
76,780
88,300
136,510
156,990
284,400
327,060
511,920
588,710
912,450
1,049,320
137,940 676,960 1,203,580 2,507,460 4,513,430 8,044,770
L.
SLUDGE PUMPING STATIONS
Sludge pumping stations are required in specific stormwater treatment fa-
cilities where gravity return to the dry weather sewer is not possible.
Sludge pumping equipment is selected based on the sludge concentration to
be pumped and the operation intended. Sludge pumping units which operate
continuously may be centrifugal pumps, so long as one avoids high solids
concentrations and large suction head losses. For sludges which compact
to high concentration and intermittent sludge pumping, positive displace-
ment pumps are generally used. Positive displacement pumping units are more
expensive than equal capacity centrifugal pumping units. If centrifugal
type pumping units are used, the sludge or concentrate pumping station will
be less expensive and these cost data are not applicable. Centrifugal type
pumping units might be used for continuous pumping and in specific cases
have been used with the cyclonic degritters.
The cost data presented in the earlier study(1) were based on positive dis-
placement pumping units. This study updates those costs and identifies _
cost components.
The station is based on an underground structure housing pumping units and
piping, constructed adjacent to and in conjunction with the solids separa-
tion unit process. A superstructure is included to access the station from
the ground level and to house electrical control equipment. Cost components
are presented in Table 18 and the current estimated construction costs are
38
-------
summarized on Figure 26.
Cost Component
Manufactured
Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Metal Pipe
and Valves
Housing
Electrical and
Ins trumentation
Miscellaneous
Items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
TABLE 18
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
SLUDGE PUMPING STATIONS
Firm Pumping Capacity (gallons per minute)
50
6,710
1,220
3,660
12,200
7,320
7,930
100
9,680
1,760
5,280
17,600
10,560
11,440
200
14,300
2,600
7,800
26,000
15,600
16,900
500
22,000
4,000
12,000
40,000
24,000
26,000
1,000
30,800
5,600
16,800
56,000
33,600
36,400
2,000
44,000
8,000
24,000
80,000
48,000
52,000
5,000
68,200
12,400
37,200
124,000
74,400
80,600
7,810 11,260 16,640 25,600 35,840 51,200 79,360
7,030 10,140
8,080 11,660
14,980
17,220
23,040
26,500
32,260
37,100
46,080 71,420
52,990 82,140
61,960 89,380 132,040 203,140 284,400 406,270 629,720
M.
FLOW MEASUREMENT
Flow measurement should always be provided in the treatment process train.
The flow measurement device is normally constructed in conjunction with other
structures. The most common wastewater measurement device is the' venturi
flume. Variations include the Parshall flume and Palmer Bowlus flume. Cost
differences will exist, albeit the variation will be difficult to identify
in total project construction costs.
The flume is normally constructed without a housing for the flume, and a
differential cell and transmitter is provided to record the flow at a cen-
trally located instrument panel.
The cost data are based on reinforced concrete construction and a flume
length four times longer than the throat width. A riser well preceding the
inlet channel and a drop channel following the channel is included in the
costs. The flume section is provided with a premolded fiberglass flume.
Cost components are presented on Table 19 and current estimated construction
costs are shown graphically on Figure 27.
39
-------
Cost Component
Manufactured
Equipment
Concrete
Steel
Labor
Ins trumentation
Miscellaneous
items
Contingency
TOTAL ESTIMATED
COST
TABLE 19
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
OPEN CHANNEL VENTURE PLUME
Flow Rate (million gallons per day)
10
1,600
500
1,000
1,200
3,600
1,200
1,370
40
3,600
800
2,000
2,400
3,600
1,860
2,140
70
6,000
1,000
3,000
3,000
3,600
2,500
2,870
90
8,000
1,400
4,000
4,000
3,600
3,150
3,620
130
10,000
2,000
6,000
6,000
3,600
4,140
4,760
230
12,000
2,600
8,000
8,000
3,600
5,130
5,900
10,470
16,400
21,970
27,770
36,500 45,230
40
-------
INFLUENT
PLAN
CONCENTRATE RETURN
TO SEWER
EMERGENCY WEIR
C~EFFLUENT TO STREAM
OR ADDITIONAL
TREATMENT
FENCE
.^•EMERGENCY WEIR
CONCENTRATE RETURN
TO SEWER
EFFLUENT TO STREAM
SECTION
FIGURE 1 SWIRL OVERFLOW REGULATOR/CONCENTRATOR LAYOUT
41
-------
1 ,UUU
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
C3
«=>
CS
VO-
te 100
o 9
u 8
o 7
p 6
y 5
*~ 4
t/j (T
8 3
2
10
1C
.
X
S
S
jt
^
s
S
S
/
'
'
'
/
/
'
2 34 56789 2 34 56789
0 1,000 10,000
SURFACE AREA - SQUARE FEET
FIGURE 2 - SWIRL OVERFLOW REGULATOR/tONCENTRATOR - COST
42
-------
-COMMON INFLUENT FLUME
./-INFLUENT PIPE
HOUSING
SECTION
FIGURE 3 STATIONARY SCREEN - LAYOUT
43
-------
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
o
0
ej_
v»
1
fe 1,000
8 I
§ 7
P 6
y 5
or
ft 4
I 3
2
100
>
X
j(
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
10
2 3456789 2 3456789
100 1,000
DESIGN CAPACITY - MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
FIGURE 4 - STATIONARY SCREEN - COST
44
-------
INFLUENT
HEADER
EMERGENCY
OVERFLOW
WEIR
BACKWASH SPRAY NOZZLES
O-OVERFLOW WEIR
EFFLUENT PIPE
SECTION
FIGURE 5 HORIZONTAL SHAFT ROTARY SCREEN LAYOUT
45
-------
10,000
I
l_
o
u
u
§
1,000
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0
7
6
5
4
3
2
0
1C
X
*
/
/
y
'
/
>
2 345678$
10
/
f
f
'
/
X
x
/
>• 2 3 4 5 6 789
,000 10,000
SCREEN AREA - SQUARE FEET
FIGURE 6 - HORIZONTAL SHAFT ROTARY SCREEN - COST
46
-------
STANDPIPE-PRESSURE^URGE RELIEF
MOTOR OPERATED VALVE
INFLUENT HEADER PIPE
EFFLUENT
OPERATING FLOOR SLAB
•SLUDGE DISCHARGE
SECTION
PLAN
FIGURE 7 VERTICAL SHAFT ROTARY SCREEN
47
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST - SI ,000
e 1
o ro oj •& 01 en -j cod) § ro w A m 05^iQD(0c
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
10
3 4 5 67 89
100
3 4 5 6 7 89
1,000
DESIGN CAPACITY - MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
FIGURE 8 - VERTICAL SHAFT ROTARY SCREEN - COST
48
-------
:
^INFLUENT PIPE--V r
f
X"
OVERFLOV
WEIR-J
""""^^
i
AND
PIPING
GALLERY^
^^
:!
— — -
\
t*
OVERFLOW
WEIR-)
j
1
^-EFFLUENT FLUME
f —
•AIR FLO!
EFFLUENT
SECTIONAL PLAN
FIGURE 9 AIR FLOTATION - LAYOUT
49
-------
I
I-
o
u
s
i
100,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
1,000
7
6
5
4
3
2
100
*••
^»
X*
X
X
f
(
<•"
s
s
OLIDS Th
\
>
^^
ICKE
MIN
V
^sL4
rf^Y
X
1
/
;p
^
X
X
U
(T^
X
kN
Jr
A
\
I
\
T
A
r*i
'
"
^^
^
_ PPA D
X
EPOR
^
T(l
x
'
9)
'
RACINE, WISCONSIN PLAN1
S
100
4 5 6?89 2
1,000
SURFACE AREA - SQUARE FEET
3 4 5 6 7 89
10,000
456 789
100,000
FIGURE 10 - AIR FLOTATION - COST
50
-------
INJECTORS AND PIPING, WALL MOUNTED
\
X
X
\
CHLORINE CYLINDER STORAGE AREA
.J.-T
\
X X,
OVERHEAD
MONORAIL
AND HOIST
FIGURE 11 CHLORINE (GAS) - LAYOUT
-------
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
I
H
8
o:
fe
z
8
IOC
7
6
5
4
10
100
3456789 2 3456789
1,000 10,000
DESIGN FEED RATE - POUNDS PER DAY
FJGURE 12 - CHLORINE (GAS) - COST
52
-------
1,000
I
t-
8
|
U
Q£
H
O
U
10
100
2 3 456789
DESIGN FEED RATE - POUNDS PER DAY
3 456789
1,000
10,000
FIGURE 14 - CHLORINE DIOXIDE - COST
53
-------
WATER SUPPLY
M*-~ BACK FLOW PREVENTION
CHLORINE CYLINDER
HANDLING & STORAGE
CHLORINATOR
SODIUM CHLORITE
STORAGE CONTAINERS
INJECTOR
CHLORINE^
SOLUTION"
SODIUM CHLORITE
SOLUTION MAKEUP
TANK-
METERING PUMP
'I'
SODIUM
CHLORITE
SOLUTION
CHLORINE
DIOXIDE
SOLUTION
FIGURE 13 CHLORINE DIOXIDE SCHEMATIC
SALT
STORAGE
& BRINE
MAKEUP
SYSTEM
BRINE
STORAGE
BRINE
TRANSFER PUMP
HYPOCHLORITE
STORAGE
BRINE
METERING PUMP
_ 7 X MFTI.R
ELECTROLYSIS CELLS
HYPOCHLORITE
ING PUMP
+, TO
SYSTEM
.^TRANSFER1
^-^ PUMP IxHOUSING
BACKFLOW PREVENTION
WATER SUPPLY
FIGURE 15 HYPOCHLORITE GENERATION SCHEMATIC
54
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST - $1,000
•T* c
_. O -r
=> O C
° W W *> OlOi^OWO0 W Cll •!»» Ol 0)-^OB«0C
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
^
^^
X^^
*r
A
f
/
s
/
'
/
J
IT
/
^
100
2 34567 89 2 3456789
1,000 10,000
DESIGN FEED RATE - POUNDS PER DAY
FIGURE 16 - HYPOCHLORITE GENERATION - COST
55
-------
CD
C3
CD
H
S
0
o
h-
u
g
te
•z
o
u
i,ooo9
8
7
6
5
IN) Cri
01 O-JOOCOo
o IN) OJ
X
X
X
G=3
00
-1
ir
;-lOOhr
-1
3456789 2
10
VOLUME - 1,000 CUBIC FEET
3 4 5 6 789
100
FIGURE 17 - HIGH INTENSITY MIXING/CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN - COST
56
-------
I*. BACKWASH TO WASTE
INFLUENT
SURFACE WASH
SECTIONAL PLAN
FIGURE 18 FILTRATION - LAYOUT
57
-------
IU,UUU
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
C3
CD
o^
«^>
1
te 1,000
8 |
i 7
5 6
i 5
-------
o
u
z
o
10,000
9
8
7
€
5
4
3
2
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
100
7
6
5
4
3
2
10
1
X
X s
X,X
S'
>•
s
frt
LUi
X""
,x
f
X
fX"
X
x
ICR
x
iX
X
J/
X
ET
X
X
"^
X
E-
X
irf**
/" "
c
/
X
X
r
x
/••
rE
X
X
X
F
/"
**
/
_.. .*•
ED-^
/
/
X
/
X
X
/*"
x^
/
CE*
x
X'
X
X
X
^
RTI
X
^C
_v
X
iEJ«
,x
3N
X^
1
X
Ci
x^
,x
?E
X
X
1
/
E
_r^
j^
j''
X"
-UNOJVI
x
jp*
ERED
2 3456789^ 2 3456789^ 2 345678^
STORAGE CAPACITY - MILLION GALLONS
FIGURE 20 - STORAGE RESERVOIR - COST
59
-------
i,ooo9
8
T
6
5
«*•>•
1
8
Z
o
IS)
i
u
100
7
6
5
4
3
10
10
rlSQ HR
-1,
G=70 HR
-1-
3456789 !
TOO
VOLUME - 1,000 CUBIC FEET
3 4 5 6 789
1,000
FIGURE 21 - FLOCCULATiON BASIN - COST
60
-------
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
o
cs
c^
i/*
1
fc 1,000
o 9
u 3
i 7
P 6
B 5
Q£
te 4
8 3
2
100
y
/
/
/
x
,/
S
/
/
r
ji
X
x
P"
/
pT
X
/
/
/
/
/
3 4 5 6789
10
3 4 5 6 789
100
SURFACE AREA - 1,000 SQUARE FEET
FIGURE 22 - SEDIMENTATION BASIN - COST
61
-------
1
o
ra
or
I—
in
Z
O
u
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000
9
8
T
6
5
4
3
2
100
T
6
5
4
3
2
10
X
X
x,
*
jt
**
^
^
^ALUM
j/?
^'
"/
/
v
X
/ ,.
X*
^
^
/
r
/
<^
/
10
3 4 5 6 789
2 34 56789 2 34 56789
100 1,000 10,000
CHEMICAL FEED RATE - POUNDS PER HOUR
FIGURE 23-LIME, ALUM, FERRIC CHLORIDE FEED SYSTEMS-COST
62
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST - $1,000
s i § i
to w * oi 01 -Joxo w w * «
-------
10,000
o
C>
c/1
o
u
g
OS
o^
I
0
4* «o>--j
0
0
10
3 456789.
100
3 4 5 6 789
1,000
FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY- MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
FIGURE 25 - RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING STATION - COST
64
-------
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
I
hj
O
u
100
2 7
u 6
2 5
t/) j|
z 4
8 _
10
100
2 3 4 5 6 789
10,000
FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY - GALLONS PER MINUTE
3 456789
1,000
FIGURE 26 - SLUDGE PUMPING STATION - COST
65
-------
100
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
o
o
CD
w»
I
te TO
o 9
u §
Z 7
0 '
B I
=3 5
02
fe 4
1 3
2
1
^— •--
-^^
^*
X
X
x
x
x
/
x
X
3456789 2 3456789
100 1,000
MAXIMUM FLOW RATE - MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
FIGURE 27 - FLOW MEASUREMENT - COST
66
-------
SECTION IV
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
The requirements associated with operation and maintenance of facilities
used to treat combined sewer overflows will be quite variable. At the
present time, established data on these requirements are not available.
A format is established which presents a basis for estimating operation
and maintenance requirements, and can be modified for specific facilities
or as additional information becomes available. Because very little
actual data were available, data previously presented in the literature
were heavily relied upon,
A. OPERATION & MAINTENANCE ITEMS
1. Operating _&_ Maintenance Labor - Operating and maintenance of combined
sewer overflow facilities does not require a full time staff, but gener-
ally is composed of individuals who are drawn from other departments, as
required, to provide the necessary labor functions associated with the
combined sewer overflow treatment plant. The general practice with inter-
mittently operated plants is "to schedule routine visits and equipment
checks, by a roving maintenance man or operator, to perform maintenance on
the facility on a routine basis, as established by the equipment require-
ments and to assign an operator when the plant be'comes active. The oper-
ator generally is not required to activate the plant, but to monitor its
operation to assure continuous operation in the event of malfunction of a
device. However, plants using reliable equipment and which are totally
automatic are not manned during operation unless equipment malfunction
alarms a central location whereby an operator is dispatched. Following a
storm event, it is typical to dispatch a crew to dewater and wash down the
facility, and place it in readiness for the next storm event.
The operating and maintenance labor provided in this analysis includes
constant allowance for routine visits and maintenance and for dispatching
of an operator(s) when the plant is active and a cleanup crew to wash down
the facility after the storm overflow ceases. Therefore, a constant amount
of labor is provided whether the plant operates, or not? and a variable
amount of labor is provided for the number of times and duration of the
overflow event. Labor is presented in terms of manhours per year to accom-
modate varying wage scales.
2. Power - The energy required to operate a combined sewer overflow
treatment.facility is composed of the process equipment which is active
only during the overflow period and heating and lighting of enclosed
spaces. The cost associated with the power may basically be a demand
charge since the power use is low compared to the maximum demand? however,
many water utilities have rate schedules which incorporate the demand into
other utility facilities locations which tends to average demand charges
across the system. The rates for a specific location should be investi-
gated prior to assigning a unit charge.
67
-------
Power is presented in terms of Kwh per year for varying time of operation,
The average power usage is assumed to be based on an average flow rate of
forty—five percent of the rated capacity of the plant facility. Most storm
overflows will not reach the plant capacity and a typical storm hydrograph
indicates the plant will operate at peak flow only for a portion of time.
3. Chemicals - The chemical requirements are not presented in tabular or
graphical form because the amount of chemicals used will basically be a
function of the flow and dosage rate. Pacing control equipment based on
flow is almost a necessity for proper operation of chemical feed equipment
and feedback information such as pH or chlorine residual is advantageous
for conservation of chemicals and attaining satisfactory results. The
amount of chemical used should be based on the average flow treated? similar
to that assumed for power usage.
4. Miscellaneous Supplies - Miscellaneous supplies include repair parts,
truck time, tools, contracted maintenance work allowances, insurance, jani-
torial supplies, gas, oil, and other miscellaneous consumable products and
other items not specifically accounted for elsewhere. The costs of this
category are less than those which would be associated with a continuously
operated plant, but essentially independent of the number of times or the
duration of time the plant is operated.
Miscellaneous supply costs are presented as a dollar amount which is be-
lieved to best be inflated using the wholesale price index which reflects
costs of a wide variety of goods and products.
5. Administrative Costs - Administrative costs will rightfully be charged
against the overflow treatment facility. Generally speaking, the time of
the wastewater and/or collection system superintendent, secretarial time
and training effort which is attributable to the overflow treatment plant
will be chargeable to the facility operation; however, most utility account-
ing systems do not provide for categorizing employee time against specific
facilities and an arbitrary portion of administrative time is charged.
For the purposes of this study a portion of the administrative time which
was reported in the previous study by Black & Veatch(l) is used to reflect
administrative time. The portion is assumed to be a function of the capa-
city and frequency of use of the combined sewer overflow treatment facility.
Since combined sewer overflow treatment plants operate from 5 to 15 percent
of the time as a general rule, it is assumed that the administrative charges
against the combined sewer overflow treatment plant will be one half of the
administrative requirements, during 10 percent of the year, or 5 percent of
the overall administrative requirements. Therefore, 5 percent of the admin-
istrative labor presented in the Black S Veatch report(1) will be,used in
this presentation, (Figure 28). Likewise, the material and supply costs
associated with administrative requirements are presented in Figure 29.
68
-------
6. Laboratory tod Sampling - Laboratory and sampling effort is primarily
a function of the number of samples, and the types of analysis performed
on each sample.
The numbers of samples and analyses presumed to be performed are outlined
in this section. The unit time required for each analysis and sample are
obtained from information derived from the laboratory director of Metro-
politan Denver Sewer District No. 1 and from information presented in EPA's
"Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Labora-
tories". (27)
PARAMETER UNIT TIME*(HOURS)
BOD 0.24
TSS 0.36
COD 0.36
TKN 0.36
NO3-NO2 0.18
NH3 0.18
PO4 0.18
Dissolved Oxygen 0.12
pH 0.07
Conductivity . 0.07
Turbidity 0.10
Alkalinity 0.18
Color 0.12
Automatic Sample Obtained 0.24
Manual Sample Obtained • 0.60
* Based on 10 percent nonproductive time plus 5 percent standardization
and reagent preparation time plus 5 percent reporting time.
The laboratory and sampling requirements for various numbers of samples and
assuming one sample per sampling point per day of operation are summarized
below based on automatic samplers and the following analysis per sample;
BOD, TSS, COD, TKN, NO-NO , NH , PO , pH
3 2, 34
LABORATORY MANHOURS REQUIRED PER YEAR
Number of Samples
Collected Number of Days of Operation Per Year
Pear .Pay t '
2
4
6
8
10
These data are presented in Figure 30.
69
20
87
174
261
348
435
40
174
348
522
696
870
60
260
520
780
1,040
1 , 300 .
80
347
694
1,041
1,388
1,735
100
435
870
1,305
1,740
2,175
-------
A portion of the cost for laboratory supplies should be charged against the
operation of the combined sewer overflow treatment facility. The material
and supply costs presented in the Black & Veatch study(1) were about 0.70
to 3.00 dollars per manhour required in the laboratory per year. The
larger plants required greater supply costs than the smaller plants. Be-
cause combined sewer overflow treatment plants are normally associated
with the larger utilities, the supply costs will likely be in the range of
2.00 to 3.00 dollars per manhour.
The cost of laboratory materials and supplies are shown on Figure 31.
7> Yard Maintenance - If the land upon which the facilities are located
are landscaped and grassed, the labor and supplies associated with main-
tenance and care of the yard may be a significant budget item. The require-
ments for the care of the yard-work is dependent upon climate, types of
plantings and area of site. Therefore, the requirements for yard mainten-
ance are basically independent of the flow capacity of the plant. Guide-
lines are presented in the Dodge Guide(7) which relate yard maintenance to
area and these are repeated here to arrive at a basis for estimating yard
maintenance.
Mowing
Fertilization
Crabgrass Control
Travel Time
Average
Frequency/
Year
Labor
(Hours/Year
1000 sq. ft.).
0.5
0.1
0.05
**
0.65**
Materials
(Dollars/Year
1000 sq. ft.)
0.50
3.0
1.50
Equip-
ment*
(Dollars)_
160
5
165
Area of Plantsite
50,000 sq. ft.
100,000 sq. ft.
150,000 sq. ft,
250,000 sq. ft.
500,000 sq. ft.
1,000,000 sq. ft.
Mainten ance/
JLabor (Hours).
32.5
65.0
97.5
162.5
325.0
650.0
Travel
Labor
(Hours)
30
30
30
30
30
30
Total Labor
(Hours)
62.5
95.0
127.5
202.5
355.0
680.0
Material &
Equipment
Costs (Dollars)
415
665
915
1,415
2,665
5,165
These requirements are presented on Figures 32 and 33.
* Amortized over 5 years at 8 percent and independent of area.
** Travel time independent of area and should be added after calculating
the area function requirements.
70
-------
B. SWIRL OVERFLOW REGULATOR/CONCENTRATOR
1. Labor - In a previous study(28) the operation and maintenance require-
ments for swirl overflow regulators/concentrators were assumed to be
constant for all sizes of units.
Cleaning of the unit may be done with automatic washdown facilities; how-
ever, the success of this method, especially on larger units should be
investigated. Many utilities perform routine visits to unattended stations
to assure the facility is operable when needed and for a check to assure
the facility has not been vandalized. It is assumed that the unit will
be visited every other week (26 times per year)and the inspection visit will
require two hours ,including travel time.
' /
In addition it is assumed that units will require the following manhours
of cleanup time for placing in service following each overflow event.
Surface Area Cleanup Manhours Travel To and From Total (Man-
Square Feet) (Manhours/Event) (Manhours/Event) hours/Event)
113 10 2 12
254 12.4 2 14.4
452 13.9 2 15.9
707 17.4 3 20.4
1,018 19.9 3 22.9
1,385 22.4 3 25.4
1,810 24.9 3 27.9
As a comparison, the 75th and Nail Station at Johnson County, Kansas is
reported to require 32 manhours to wash down 8,000 square feet of basins
per overflow event. The greater wall length with rectangular basins and
the sludge collection equipment at Johnson County would probably cause
increased wash down time.
Therefore, the sum of the labor requirements for the swirl overflow regu-
lator/concentrator, based on the above requirements is as follows:
STORMWATER EVENT MAINTENANCE
Routine
Surface Area Visits Storm Overflow Events/Per Year
CSquare^ Feet) (Manhours) 5_
113 24 60
254 24 72
452 24 80
707 24 102
1,018 24' 115
1,385 24 127
1,810 24 140
The labor requirements are shown graphically on Figure 34.
71
-------
2. Power - There is no mechanical equipment associated with the swirl
overflow regulator/concentrator, and therefore, no direct process power
requirements associated with the unit function. There is a hydraulic
head loss through the unit which may require energy to raise the liquid
to the same level as existed prior to the swirl overflow regulator/con-
centrator; however, this will be attributed to any pumping stations
required for the facility.
3. Miscellaneous Supplies - No miscellaneous costs have been assigned
to the swirl overflow regulator/concentrator.
C. SCREENING
1. Stationary Screen
a. Labor - The stationary screen, like the swirl overflow regulator/
concentrator, will likely only require washdown of the facilties after
each, storm event and routine visit to the plant during the remainder of
the year. The routine visits are established as 24 hours per year inde-
pendent of plant size. In addition, it is assumed that an operator
would be dispatched to the plant twice per day at two hours each to assure
proper operation is occurring during an overflow condition. Furthermore,
it is assumed that each event will average 3 days each.
The washdown labor for each storm event has not been reported on a sta-
tionary screen installation and the following assumptions were made:
Set up and shut down time - 1 hour
Washing time per screen - 1 hour
Travel time per event per
person - i hour
The operating and maintenance labor requirements for the stationary screen
installation based on the above are as follows:
LABOR REQUIREMENTS - MANHOURS/YEAR
Plant Capacity storm Overflow Events Per Year
Million Gallons/Day 5 Jo 20 30~
12 ' 119" 194" 364" 534"
32 144 264 504 744
64 184 344 664 884
128 284 544 1,064 1,584
256 484 944 1,764 2,144
These labor requirements are shown on Figure 35.
72
-------
b. Miscellaneous^ Suppli.es - There is no previous estimate for miscellan-
eous supplies specific to the stationary screen. The screen life is
estimated to be long (20 years) and conscientious washing should relieve
any serious replacement costs. The distribution and collection systems
should also offer long service without major costs for replacement parts
and servicing. Therefore, most of the miscellaneous supply costs will
be related to janitorial servicing (painting, cleansers) and minor repair
work. At this time it is only possible to assign an arbitrary value to
miscellaneous supply costs which is shown on Figure 36.
c* Power - although hydraulic head losses are inherent in the system,
no power costs are directly associated with the stationary screen.
2. Hori-zontal Shaft Rotary 'Screens - The total annual maintenance,
operating^, and supply costs of a horizontal shaft rotary screen facility
have been estimated at one percent of the installed facility cost. This
•is' an arbitrary allowance which may or may not be realized,
a* Labor_- The labor required for operation and maintenance of the
screening facility will be composed of the same duties as assigned to
previously.outlined unit processes; plus programed maintenance for the
spray nozzles, screen fabric, mechanical equipment and instrumentation
hardware. The programed operation and maintenance of the installation
is as follows s
Routine Visits: 2 times per month, 2 hours each
Plant Cleanup : 1 hour set up/shut down time, per storm event
3 manhour washdown per screen per storm event
1 hour travel time per storm event
Operator : 4 manhours per day during storm duration at
an average 3 days per storm event
Maintenance : 3 man crew, 1 day per year per screen to check
instrumentation, replace drive belts, sealing
bands, lubricants and clean clogged screens
and nozzles.
The labor requirements associated with the above program are as follows:
HORIZONTAL SHAFT ROTARY SCREEN
ANNUAL MANHOUR REQUIREMENTS
Screen Surface Storm Overflow Events Per Year
Area - Square _
' 315
630
1,260
2,520
5,040
73
5
203
242
320
476
788
10
358
412
520
736
1,168
20 '
668
752
920
1,256
1,928
30
978
1,092
1,320
1,776
2,688
-------
These manpower requirements are shown graphically on Figure 37.
b. Miscellaneous Supplies - As with previous unit processes, no data
are available to assign a value to costs for miscellaneous supplies;
therefore requiring an arbitrary value. Costs are based on an assumption
of 2,000 dollars per year plus 0.50 dollars per square foot of screen
per year. The resulting cost is shown on Figure 38.
c- Power - The power required to operate the screen includes the screen
rotation drive, washwater supply pump, and instrument air compressor. The
associated horsepower for each have been derived from manufacturer's
catalog values and are as follows:
HORIZONTAL SHAFT ROTARY SCREEN
ANNUAL POWER REQUIREMENTS
Screen Rotational Washwater Instrumentation Electrical
Surface Area Drive Supply Pump Air Consumption
(Square Feet) Qtorsepower} (Horsepower) (Horsepower) (Kwh/day)*
315. 5 5 1 216
630 7.5 7.5 2 336
1,260 15 15 4 672
2,520 30 30 8 1,344
5,040 60 60 16 2,688
* Based on 90 percent motor efficiency
The energy required for varying days of operation of the facility per year
is shown on Figure 39.
3" Vertical Shaft Rotary Screen - The major investigation on vertical
shaft rotary screens, to date, was performed by CH2M/H111 at Portland,
Oregon(16). A followup study by the City of Portland(17) furthered the
available Information on vertical shaft rotary screen operation. In
those studies, operation and maintenance costs for a 25 million gallon
per day screening facility was estimated to be 18,500 dollars per year
based on the following:
Labor - 1 manhour per hour of operation $ 5,600
Equipment Maintenance - 5 percent of equipment cost 3,000
Screen Replacement (500 hour life) 3,500
Power 3,000
Gas 1,200
Cleaning Agent (.Sodium Hydroxide) 700
Vehicle Operation and Maintenance 1,500
$18,500
No other data on operation and maintenance costs have been located. In
order to place the operation and maintenance requirements within the same
framework as previously presented unit processes, the above requirements
will be used for reference.
74
-------
a. Labor - The labor requirements required for operation and maintenance
will be similar to the horizontal shaft rotary screen; however, the closed
system will likely require minimal washdown time as compared to the open
basin installation. The programmed operation and maintenance of the
installation is as follows:
Routine Visits: 2 times per month, 2 hours each
Plant Cleanup : Shutdown time by operator required to check screens,
for problems. 1 hour per screen
Operator : 4 manhours per day during storm duration at an
average of 3 days per storm event.
Maintenance : 3 man crew 2 hours per year, per screen to replace
and/or clean screens, adjust part settings, replace
gear box oil, clean spray nozzles, check instrumen-
tation up to 500 hours per year usage. Beyond 500
hours per year, add 0.02 manhours per hour per
screen.
The labor requirements associated with the above program are as follows:
VERTICAL SHAFT ROTARY SCREEN
ANNUAL MANHOUR REQUIREMENTS
Station.Capacity Storm Overflow Events Per Year
Million .Gallons/Day
12
36
72
144
216
The manpower requirements are shown graphically on Figure 40. As a com-
parison to the previous estimate by CH2M/Hill(16), the manpower require-
ments for a 25 million gallon per day facility established above is about
2 manhours per hour of operation.
b. Misce1laneous Supplies - The CH2M/H111 estimate of miscellaneous
supply costs offers guidance for these costs. The 8 screens proposed for
the 25 million gallon per day facility would require 3,500 dollars (1970
dollars) for screen replacement. Each screening unit requires about
1,500 dollars in replacement parts. Based on the Portland overflow fre-
quency and quantity data, each screen will operate about 45 percent of
the time that any overflow occurs. Therefore, for the following number
of days of operation, the screen replacement costs will be as tabulated.
5
188
276
408
672
936
10
328
456
648
1,032
1,416
20
608
816
1,128
1,752
2,376
30
906
1,230
1,714
2,683
3,653
75
-------
VERTICAL SHAFT ROTARY SCREEN
SCREEN REPLACEMENT COSTS
Plant Capacity
Million Gallons/ Number of Days Overflow Occurs Per Year
Day
20
648
1,944
3,888
7,776
11,664
40
1,296
3,888
7,776
15,552
23,328
60
1,944
5,832
11,664
23,328
34,992
80
2,592
7,776
15,552
31,104
46,656
12
36
72
144
216
The cleaning agent and other costs are arbitrary and for the purposes of
this study are assumed to be comparable to the horizontal shaft rotary
screens. Miscellaneous supplies are shown on Figure 41.
c. Power — Each screen is driven by a 5 horsepower motor and requires
about 10 gallons per minute at 80 pounds per square inch backspray
pressure. The horsepower required for the backspray is about 0.75 per
screen unit. Instrument compressor air requirements are small and 0.25
horsepower is assigned for this power requirement. The resulting power
requirement is 6 horsepower per operating screen or 2.7 horsepower per
screen per hour an overflow occurs. Power requirements are summarized
on Figure 42.
D. AIR FLOTATION
The available costs for operation and maintenance of air flotation units
used for treatment of combined sewer overflows are limited to that re^
ported CIS). Costs reported include those associated with drum screens
and flocculation and therefore are not directly usable in this study.
a. Labor — The labor requirements for operation and maintenance of air
flotation units include that time required for routine visits, plant
washdown following each storm event, and maintenance of the drive units,
recirculation pump and reaeration pump. The programmed operation and
maintenance for air flotation is based on the following:
Routine Visits: 2 times per month, two hours each
Plant Cleanup : 1 hour set up/shut down time per storm event,
0.004 manhours per square foot washdown time,
and one hour travel time per storm event.
Operation : One operator dispatched 2 times per day, 2 hours
each to check plant operation during overflow at
an average of 3 days per storm event.
76
-------
• 5
106
114
152'
200
306
508
922
1,750
3,234
10
184
204
264
344
524
. 864
1,564
2,964
5,444
1
2
5
9
20
340
376
488
632
960
,576
,848
,392
,864
30
496
584
712
920
1,396
2,288
4,132
7,820
14,284
Maintenances 0.9 manhours per year per square foot to repack
pumps, change lubricants, painting, and perform
maintenance of equipment.
The labor requirements for the above program are as follows:
AIR FLOTATION
ANNUAL MANHOURS REQUIREMENTS
Surface Area Storm Overflow Eyents Per Year
(Square Feet)
400
800
1,600
3,200
, 6,4QO
12,800
25,600
51,200
100,000 "
Labor requirements for air flotation are shown on Figure 43.
b.' Miscellaneous Supplies - The previous estimate for maintenance parts
associated with drum screens and air flotation equipment for a 90 million
gallon per day installation was 3,600 dollars per year. Other supplies
and miscellaneous costs were not presented. .An arbitrary miscellaneous
supply cost has been assigned and is shown on Figure 44.
C- Power_- The power to operate an air flotation unit varies with the
manufacturer. The two major manufacturers of air flotation equipment use
a different recycle ratio and thereby require different power utilization.
For the purposes of this study, the higher of the two is presented. The'
power required is approximately 0.10 Kw/square foot for units having
larger"than 2000 square feet of surface area.
The power requirements are shown on Figure 45.
E. CBLORINATION
The costs associated with operation and maintenance of chlorine feed equip-
ment were investigated, in the Black & Veatch report CD on costs of conven-
tional treatment systems.
In this report several chlorination systems were investigated, including
gaseous chlorine, chlorine dioxide and hypochlorite. The equipment for
feeding gaseous chlorine and chlorine .dioxide is similar and it may be
anticipated, with some confidence, that the operation and maintenance
requirements will be similar for each system. The hypochlorite feed using
77
-------
on-site generation equipment is believed to require the same level of
labor effort and miscellaneous supply costs with added costs for electrode
replacement. Because the plant will operate intermittently, this added
cost will not be as much of a factor as for a continuously operated plant.
At the present time there are few data on the life of the electrode and
an assumption is made that a 10 year life will result in a cost of 50
dollars per year per ton of chlorine used.
Power costs for chlorine feeders are nominal and are not presented. Power
costs for chlorine generation are considerable, but vary extensively
between equipment manufacturers. For the purposes of this presentation
power requirements for chlorine generation are 2.5 Kwh per pound of
chlorine. Data for labor requirements and miscellaneous supply costs,
other than those outlined above, are derived from the work done by Black
S Veatch(l), assuming a proportional requirement based on the amount of
time the unit is active.
Labor requirements are shown on Figure 46, miscellaneous supply costs are
shown on Figure 47 and power requirements are shown on Figure 48.
F. HIGH INTENSITY CHLORINE CONTACT BASIN (RAPID MIX)
1. Labor - The labor required for rapid mix basins includes an allowance
of 1 hour per day for routine maintenance when the plant is operating, 4
hours per unit every 6 months for oil change, and 1 to 16 manhours per
overflow event for basin drainage and cleanup. The labor requirements
are shown on Figure 49.
2. Miscellaneous Supplies - Miscellaneous supplies have been arbitrarily
established and vary from 100 dollars per year for the 1,400 cubic feet
basin to 1,000 dollars per year for the 37,000 cubic feet rapid mix basin.
The miscellaneous supply requirements are shown on Figure 50.
3. Power Requirements — Power requirements are directly related to the
velocity gradient and time of use. The power requirements are presented
as a relationship of mixer horsepower and number of days of stormwater
overflow on Figure 51.
G. FILTRATION
A detailed study of filtration of combined sewer overflows has been made
previously(21). In that study operation and maintenance costs were
synthesized, for a pumping station, drum screen, and granular media
filters, based on 300 hours of operation per year. The requirements
developed in that study were as follows:
78
-------
Surface Area
_(squareL feet)
725
1,550
3,100
4,350
6,200
Labor
(Mh/Yr),
2,133
2,200
3,850
3,850
5,500
Miscellaneous Supplies
(Dollars)
8,390
12,550
21,570
24,310
32,750
Electrical
(Kwh/Yr)
20,000
40,000
80,000
80,000
120,000
The above costs are not directly usable, except as reference to a combin-
ation of costs as presented in this study.
-*-* Labor - Labor costs for high rate filtration include routine visits,
plant cleanup after each overflow event, and routine maintenance on the
filters and support equipment. The programmed labor requirements are
as follows:
Routine visits
Plant Cleanup
2 per month/2 hours each.
Wash filter walls, backwash each filter and
place in readiness, check equipment; 1 hour
per filter plus 1 hour set—up and shutdown
time.
Operation
4 hours per day during storm duration at an
average of 3 days per overflow.
Plant Maintenance: 12 hours per year per filter.
The labor requirements based on the above program are as follows:
FILTRATION
ANNUAL MANPOWER BEQTJIREMENTS
Surface Area .Storm Overflow Events Per Year
(square feet)
2,740
4,320
9,400
15,540
The labor requirements are shown on Figure 52.
2. Mi sce1laneo us Supplies - The miscellaneous supplies required are
assumed to be similar to those required for horizontal shaft rotary screens
and are shown on Figure 53.
5
450
462
530
632
10
840
852
940
1,072
20
1,620
1,632
1,760
1,952
30
2,400
2,412
2,580
2,832
79
-------
3. Power - The power requirements directly associated with filtration
are those associated with backwash and surface wash pumping mn<3 those
associated with instrumentation. Power to overcome headloss through the
filter should be accounted for in facility pumping stations. Backwash
and surface wash water has been assumed to require 5 percent of the aver-
age flow (45 percent of the flow capacity of the facility); the power
requirements are about 6 Kwh per mg. Assuming 0.5 Kw per filter for
instrumentation, the power requirements are as shown on Figure 54.
H. PEAK ETOW STORAGE
Peak flow storage facilities require minimal maintenance except washdown
time after each storm event. The size of storage facilities is large
compared to other stormwater facilities and the labor required for wash-
down will be exceptionally high if automatic washdown provisions are not
provided. For example, a 200 million gallon reservoir, 18 feet deep will
have an area of 34 acres. From the few data available, it appears that
washdown time requires about 0.004 manhours per square foot, or 6,000 man-
hours per storm event for the 200 million gallon reservoir. With this
large manpower requirement per event, it is doubtful whether cleaning
would be performed after each storm unless automatic sprays which flushed
the walls and floor were not provided. Alternatively the basin could be
drained, ridding the reservoir of most of the deposited solids, the walls
washed and the basin filled to a few feet to cover residual solids to
minimize odor problems.
The approach used in this study to estimate operating and maintenance
requirements is to provide automatic sprays which wash the walls; flush
the floor with large volumes of water from the sewer or from storage,
and an estimated amount of manual washing to finish the reservoir clean-
ing.
1. Labor - The labor requirements based on the above program are shown
on Figure 55.
2. Miscellaneous Supplies - Miscellaneous supplies have been arbitrarily
established as shown on Figure 56.
3. Power — The power required is limited to that required for the spray
system. The spray water used in this analysis is 3 gallons per minute
for 10 minutes per foot of reservoir wall. The spray water pressure is
60 pounds per square Inch. The power requirements are shown on Figure 57.
I. FLOCCULATION
The basis for operation requirements for flocculation is similar to those
presented for the rapid mix unit process except the cleaning labor is
80
-------
based on 0.004 jnanhours per square foot per event. Labor requirements
are shown on Figure 58, miscellaneous supplies on Figure 59, and power
requirements on Figure 60.
J. SEDIMENTATION
The basis for assessing operation and maintenance requirements for sedi-
mentation basins Is similar to that used for air flotation equipment
since the equipment and structures are similar. The labor requirements
are shown on Figure 61, and the materials and supplies on Figure 62. The
power requirements are based on 0.1 horsepower per 1,000 square feet of
basin and are shown on Figure 63.
K. CHEMICAL FEED, STORAGE, AND HANDLING .
Operation and maintenance requirements for chemical feeding, storage,
and handling consist of two major components - unloading of chemicals
and operation and maintenance of chemical feeding equipment. Estimates
of unit time requirements have been made based on data and observations ,
at several plants, but primarily from the more detailed data obtained
from the Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District and the South Tahoe
Public Utility District plants.
^-' Lime - The labor required for lime feeding and storage is based on
the following unit times:
Slaker : 1 hour/. 8.hour shift/slaker during use period
Feeder : 10 minutes/hour/feeder during use period
Slurry Pot: 30 minutes/day/feeder during use period
, Unloading : 60 minutes/ton/bag unloading
10 minutes/ton pneumatic unloading
Miscellaneous supply costs were not available in a form isolated to chemi-
cal feeders and an arbitrary cost relationship of 3 percent of the equip-
ment cost has been used.
Power requirements for lime feeding have been obtained from manufacturer's
catalog information and are based on the following unit values:
Kwh/1,000 Ibs.
Slakers 0.8 - 1.6 •
Bin Activators 0.36-2.7
Grit Conveyors 0.06 - 0.45 .- .
Dust Collection Fans 0.02-0.04
Slurry Mixers 0.02 - 0.027
Slurry Feed Pumps 1.4 - 2.2
81
-------
2. Alum and Ferric Chloride — The labor requirements associated with
alum andT"ferric~ chloride "feeding time have been based on the liquid form.
The unit labor requirements are as follows:
Unloading : 90 minutes per 4,000 gallon truck
Metering Pump: 15 minutes/day/pump
Miscellaneous supplies were arbitrarily set at 3 percent of the equipment
costs and power requirements are based on the use of metering pumps.
3" Polymer — The operation and maintenance requirements for polymer
feeding are based on the unit labor requirements as follows:
Unloading : 1 hour/ton (50 Ib. bags)
Maintenance : 1 manhour/day/feeder when in use
Mixing Labor : 30 hours/1,000 Ib.
Miscellaneous Supplies s 3 percent of equipment cost
Power : Use of metering pumps plus 48 Kwh/1,000
pounds for mixing
Labor requirements for chemical feeding are shown on Figure 64. Miscellan-
eous supply costs are shown on Figure 65 and power requirements on Figure
66.
L, RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING
The previous work by Black s Veatch on operation and maintenance require-
ments for raw wastewater pumping stations serves as a basis for the data
presented in this study. The labor requirements for operation and main-
tenance have been assumed to be proportional to the operating time, with
a constant requirement of 8 manhours to wash the wet well after each storm
event and 24 hours per year to check and test equipment and controls
between overflow events.
Miscellaneous supply costs are assumed to be one-tenth of the cost .as com-
pared to a continuously operated station. Power costs are presented in
relationship to days of operation assuming the average flow is 45 percent
of the peak flow, the total pumping head is 35 feet and the wire to water
efficiency of the driver is 65 percent. For other conditions, this require-
ment is easily convertible and should be done for specific installations.
Labor requirements are shown on Figure 67, miscellaneous supply costs on
Figure 68, and power requirements on Figure 69.
82
-------
M. SLUDGE PUMPING
•The previous work by Black & Veatch (1) also serves as a basis for the data
presented herein. Since sludge pumping stations are usually directly
connected to the solids separation process which it serves, and does not
have a separate wet well, the station alone will likely require operation
and maintenance in direct proportion to its usage, and no cleanup after
each overflow event is included.
Power requirements are presented on the basis of a pumping head of 25
feet with a weir to water efficiency of 50 percent. .Labor requirements
are shown on Figure 70, miscellaneous supply costs on Figure 71 and
power requirements on Figure 72.
N. FLOW MEASUREMENT
No individual requirements for flow measurement are included in this re-
port. The operation and maintenance requirements are minor compared to
other unit processes presented and are assumed to be included in those
requirements presented for raw wastewater pumping.
83
-------
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
w>
K
g 2
z
1 100
_] q
_i a
i !
3 :
1 3
2
in
^^
^
t""^
"-"
^
^
X
X
X
J^-*"
^x*^"
nf**
^tt^
^
-
**"
X*
^*
•*
^>"
s*
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
o
o
8
10
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2
10 100
PLANT CAPACITY - MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
FIGURE 28-ADMINISTRATION & GENERAL MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
3 456789
1,000
3 456789
10
3 4 5 6 7 89
100
3 456789
1,000
PLANT CAPACITY - MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
FIGURE 29-ADMINISTRATION & GENERAL-MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLY COSTS
84
-------
2800-
2600-
2400-
2200
2000-
„ 1800-
at
O
4 1600 -i
o
at
1400-
1200-
800-
600-
400-
200-
0
NUMBER OF SAMPLES
COLLECTED PER DAY
1.1 I I
20 40 60 80
NUMBER OF DAYS OF OPERATION PER YEAR
I
100
FIGURE 30 LABORATORY MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
85
-------
6000-
5500-
5000-
4500-
4000-
3500
§ 3000-
o
z
2500-
2000-
1500-
1000 -
500 ~
0
NUMBER OF SAMPLES
COLLECTED PER DAY
I I I I
20 40 60 80
MUMBER OF DAYS OF PLAKT OPERATION PER YEAR
I
100
FIGURE 31 LABORATORY, MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLY COSTS
86
-------
OL
3
O
1
_l
_l
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
3
2
1,000
<
0-
O
O
I
i
u
100
10
~i*
3 4 5 67 89
100
3 4 5678?,ooo
3456 789
10,000
AREA OF PLANT SITE »1,QOO SQUARE FEET
FIGURE 32-YARD MAINTENANCE-MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
r
6
5
4
3
2
X
>
*
/
y
jr
/
S
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
t
j
/
/
/
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
10 100 1,000 10,000
AREA OF PLANT SITE - 1,000 SQUARE FEET
FIGURE 33-YARD MAINTENANCE-MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLY COSTS
87
-------
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
a:
r>
o
2:
i
o
Of
a.
<
z
z
100
7
6
5
4
ID
100
J.
36-
ZIT
NUMBER OF
OVERFLOW
EVENTS PER YEAR
3 4567 89
1,000
SURFACE AREA 1,000 SQUARE FEET
3 456789
10,000
FIGURE 34-SWIRL OVERFLOW REGULATOR/CONCENTRATOR
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
88
-------
10,000
o
X
I
O
us
_
_J
o
o
o
o
5E
<
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
1,000
7
6
5
4
3
100
10,000,
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
1,000
7
6
5
4
3
TOO
3 456789
3 4 5 6 7 89
NUMBER OF OVERFLOW
EVENTS PER YEAR
IZ.
:z
30
10
10
100
3 456789
1,000
PLANT CAPACITY - MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
FIGURE 35- STATIONARY SCREEN-MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
3 456789
10
3 456789
100
3456 789
1,000
PLANT CAPACITY - MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
FIGURE 36"STATIONARY SCREEN-MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLY COSTS
89
-------
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
VI 1
0! 3
1 a
X
1
j 1,000
0* §
5 7
i :
3
2
100
__
• i—
n*~"
!"*"*"
—- «
.
**• •
sa£
a*""*
-"""
^>
„*** •
«--
^*
i**
•*•
^
«*•
^
x
•^
•*
«J
^
Nl
-^
"^
^f
^^^
^^
MBEF
;VEN1
^^
__^*"
^
^
S
OF
"S P)
^
'
*r
^
S
ov
:R
x-
x"
J
s
ER
YE
^3
*>
^
5
<*
Fl
AC
I
I
.0
i
W
o
£>
34 56789
34 56789
34 56789
10
100
SCREEN AREA - SQUARE FEET
FIGURE 37-HORIZONTAL SHAFT ROTARY SCREENS-MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
fc '.MO
8 1
_i 7
a 6
•z.
<
100
10
3 4 5 67 89
100
3 4 5 6 789
1,000
2 3456 T89
10/100
SCREEN AREA - SQUARE FEET
FIGURE 38-HORIZONTAL SHAFT ROTARY SCREENS-MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLY COSTS
90
-------
01
LU
O
=9
O
OS.
UJ
z
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
100
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
, ~
NUMBER
OFD
OF OPERATiO
PER YEAR
8(
fi
t
41
2<
AYS
N
/
y
/
X
>
/
/
/
/
^
/
/
/
/
^
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
fi
/
f
/
/
/
/
s
s
/
/ /
/ /
/ /
' /
/
/
/
/
f s
s
/
>*
/
s
/
/
>
/
y
/
V
/
/
s
/
10
3 4 5 6789
2 3 4 5 6 789
100 1,000
SCREEN AREA - SQUARE FEET
456 789
10,000
FIGURE 39-HORIZONTAL SHAFT ROTARY SCREEN-POWER REQUIREMENTS
91
-------
10,000
I
a
i
z
-j
_i
o 1,000
>
a.
_i
<
z
<
S
<=•
100,000
9
8
7
6
5
ut
ac
<
_1
§
fc
3
2
10,000
7
6
5
1,000
-NUMBER OF OVERFLOW
EVENTS PER YEAR
34 56789
10
34 56789
100
2 3456 789
1,000
PLANT CAPACITY - MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
FIGURE 40-VERTICAL SHAFT ROTARY SCREEN-MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
NUMBER OF DAYS
OF OPERATION
PER YEAR
21
345 6789
3 4 5 6 789
10
100
2 3456 789
1,000
PLANT CAPACITY - MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
FIGURE 41- VERTICAL SHAFT ROTARY SCREEN-MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLY COSTS
92
-------
i,ooo9
a
7
6
5
LU
^
UU
O
=5
S
02
100
9
8
7
6
5
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
NUMBER OF DAYS
OF OPERATION 7
PER YEAR /
BU S
20
3 456789
3 4 5 6 7 89
2 3456 789
10 . 100 1,000
PLANT CAPACITY - MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
FIGURE 42-VERTICAL SHAFT ROTARY SCREEN-POWER REQUIREMENTS
93
-------
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
1
n
o
o
at,
a.
_!
3
Z
X
1,000
100
100
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
1,000
0
U
100
100
X
~z\
S
/
X
NUMBER OF OVERFLOW
EVENTS PER YEAR
34 56789
2 34 56789
,0,000
2 3456 789
100,000
SURFACE AREA - SQUARE FEET
FIGURE 43-AIR FLOTATION-MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
2 3 456789
1,000
2 3 4 5 6 789
' 10,000
2 3456 789
100,000
SURFACE AREA - SQUARE FEET
FIGURE 44-AIR FLOTATION'MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLY COSTS
94
-------
<
LU
<
o
<
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
1000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
100
1
7
6
5
4
10
NUMBER OF DAYS
OF OPERATION
PER YEAR
40
20
y^
^Z
^
Z 345 6789
100 1,000
2 3 4 5 6 789
10,000
SURFACE AREA - SQUARE FEET
3456 789
100,000
FIGURE 45-A1R FLOTATION-POWER REQUIREMENTS
95
-------
9
8
7
6
5
«* A
DC 4
a
O -i
X 3
i *
1
_1
o
§! 1,000
Qb u
1 •
z. 5
4
3
2
100
1
100,000
9
8
?
6
5
4
3
§ '
_i
o
1 10,000
fc 1
8 7
3 I
1 4
3
i_ono
s
/
/
^
X1
*
s
jS
^S
s^
f
X
<•"
X
*r
X
/
s
.s
*
x^
.X
x^
X
^
X
.
2 34 56789 234 56789 2 34 56789
10 ' 100 i(oo
CHLORINE USAGE _ TONS PER YEAR
FIGURE 46- CHLORINE FEED EQUIPMENT-MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
^-"
***
/
. —
x
—
x<
««»
^
»•
*•'
/
/
^"
/
^~
X
**~*"
x
--*
x
«^
HYPOCHLORITE
GENERATION-
•y
**•
**
t
^•-
sX
X
X
s
#1
GASEOUS CHLORINE
OR CHLORINE DIOXIDE-
-^
^-^
»--^
***^~
*•**"
*-*•
n,^*
V
„,
3 4 5 67 89
3 4 5 6 789
10
100
3456 789
1,000
CHLORINE USAGE - TONS PER YEAR
FIGURE 47-CHLORINE FEED EQUIPMENT-MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLY COSTS
96
-------
10,000
a
7
6
5
4
3
1,000
ui
I
UI
o
UI
z
UI
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
100
7
6
5
4
10
3 4 5 67 89
3 4 5 6 789
10 100
CHLORINE USAGE - TONS PER YEAR
2 3 456789
1,000
FIGURE 48-HYPOCHLORITE GENERATION-POWER REQUIREMENTS
97
-------
f
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
100
7
6
S
4
3
2
10
0
^^x**"^
•""""^
^x
*^~
^
^
^^
>"
S"^
_^
X
X
X
>/
r
X
X
X
x
x
X
X
/
X
/
^
^
**
^
^
x
X
X
->"
Xj
^x
,*
^X"
jr
UMBER OF OVERFLOW'
EVENTS PER YEAR
X
^
x"'
•^^
^^
^1
-* s
J
I
i
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
,1 1 10 1
0.1
VOLUME - 1,000 CUBIC FEET
FIGURE 49- HIGH INTENSITY MIXING (CHLORINE CONTACT)
MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
7
6
5
3
2
10
X
x
X
X
^
X
^
X
X'
X
_s
.^^
jjT
3456789 2 3456789
1 10
VOLUME - 1.000 CUBIC FEET
3456 789
100
FIGURE 50-HIGH INTENSITY MIXING (CHLORINE CONTACT)
MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLY COSTS
98
-------
OS
-<
U4
1
o
o
Ul
Z
1,000
9
8
7
6
8
4
3
2
100
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
10
7
' S
5
4
3
2
1
—NUMBER OF DA
~~ OF OPERATIC*
PER YEAR
80
rn'
60
40 '
^
//
x/
'
X
y
x^
x
2(
YS
1
^
^
/
/
^^
>
X
X
x
i/
^
/
V
/
/
/
'
<*
/
//
/
yX
yX
X '
y
X y
X-
"^X"
X
/
X
jfl
/
/*
^
^
/
x
y
'
^
^
/
V1
/
'
J
/
J
t
'
/
r
/
'
^
/
yX >
-------
a
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
5
i
o
OL
< 1,000
a. o
z
100
100
10,000
9
8
T
6
5
s
5
I 1,000
<
<
100
100
-NUMBER OF OVERFLOW-
EVENTS PER YEAR
3 4 5 6789
1,000
3 4 5 6 789
10,000
3456 789
100,000
SURFACE AREA - SQUARE FEET
FIGURE 52- FILTRATION-MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
3 4 5 67 89
1,000
3 4 5 6 789
10,000
3456 789
100,000
SURFACE AREA - SQUARE FEET
FIGURE 53-FILTRATION-MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLY COSTS
100
-------
UJ
o
Of.
LU
1,000
9
a
7
6
5
4
3
2
100
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
10
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
NUMB
OFO
PER
ER OF DAYS
PER ATI ON^
YEAR
80
60
40
tn
./
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
'
/
/
/
t
y
/
/
f
/
/
/
/,
j/
s >
/ /
/
/
s
/
/
V
-,,
[/
V
/
IT
J
/
/
/
/
/
/
f
/
/
/
jf
X"
/
/
,
s
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
s
f
/
X
/
/
^
^
>^
^x
s'
s y
/
^
/
s
2 3 4"~56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
1 10 100 1,000
PLANT CAPACITY - MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
FIGURE 54- FILTRATION-POWER REQUIREMENTS
101
-------
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
O
ac
o
ce
a.
•x.
1,000
7
6
5
4
100
10,000
9
8
7
6
S
1,000
in
O
U
100
NUMBER OF OVERFLOW
EVENTS PER YEAR
30-
3 4 56789 2 34 S6789 2
10 100
VOLUME - MILLION GALLONS
FIGURE 55-STORAGE RESERVOIRS-MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
3456 789
1,000
2 34 56789 2 34 56789
10 11
2 3456 789
1.000
VOLUME - MILLION GALLONS
FIGURE 56- STORAGE RESERVOIRS-MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLY COSTS
102
-------
I
UJ
O
o
100
9
8
7
6
5
10
9
8
7
6
5
0.1
NUMBER OF DAYS
OF OPERATION
PER YEAR
20
3 4 5 6789,
2 3 4 5 6 789
10 100
VOLUME - MILLION GALLONS
3 456 789
1,000
FIGURE 57- STORAGE RESERVOIRS-POWER REQUIREMENTS
103
-------
z
I
g
o.
z
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000
7
&
5
4
3
2
/
//
/
/
/
/
/
s
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
f
/
s
/
/
/
^
/
/
/
/
/
j
/
/
HUH
BER OF OVERFLOW
EVENTS PER YEAR
/
//
s
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
if
/
f
y
S
/
/
/
jt
/
10
10
/
*
345 67 89 2 3456789
10 100
VOLUME - 1,000 CUBIC FEET
FIGURE 58-FLOCCULATJON BASINS-MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
3456 789
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
a 2
0
,,MI
8 I
1 •
3
2
100
^X"
X
y
X
x
X
-
"
X
X
X
X
•«
.3 4567 89 2 34567 89
10 100
VOLUME - 1.000 CUBIC FEET
FIGURE 59-FLOCCULATION BASINS-MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLY COSTS
3456 789
1,000
104
-------
Q-
<
UJ
O
OS
UJ
i,ooog
8
7
6
5
100
10
7
6
NUMBER OF DAYS-
OF OPERATION
PER YEAR
8(
~Sl
4(
£
345 6789
3 4 5 6 789
10 100
INSTALLED HORSEPOWER
3456 789
1,000
FIGURE 60-FLOCCULAHON BASIN-POWER REQUIREMENTS
105
-------
t
o
a:
a.
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000
7
6
5
4
3
£
100
_^x"
^-^
X
/r
X
•mrrf*'
x^
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x*
X
/j
X
^
X
X
IX
X
X
X
fx
X
X
^
>
/
JS
//
S'
X
X
X^
/
X
/
X
X
.X
jX
/
/
x
/
X
jt
/
/
/
X
1ft
/
/
X1
X
^
/•
X
^
'
/
X1
/
(V
x
/
/
/
I ,
1QX
/
X
X
„_
1
UMBER OF OVERFLOW"
EVENTS PiR YEAR "
3 4 5 6789
3 4 5 6 789
10 100
SURFACE AREA - 1,000 SQUARE FEET
FIGURE 61- SEDIMENTATION BASINS-MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
3456 789
1,000
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
g 2
3
_i
o
t 1,000
H §
-------
UJ
<
8
i
UJ
o
5
o
DC
UJ
100
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
n i
NUMBER OF DAYS
OF OPERATION
PER YEAR
*
A
•
6
4
2i
/
I/
»/
f
1
/
1
/
/
/
^
/
/
/
/
/
/
(
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
t
/
/
/
/)
'//
f
/
/
/
/
/
V
/
/I
/
,/
/
/
A
/
/
r
>
/
/
/
f
/
'
/
/
/
/
/
/
:g
r
/
/
'
/
/
/
s
/
/
s
s
f
/
/
/
/
X
'/,
s
s
/
/
/
r
3 4 5 67 89
3 4 5 6 789.
10 ~ " ' " " ' ~ 100
SURFACE AREA - 1,000 SQUARE FEET
3486 789
1,000
FIGURE 63-SEDIMENTATION BASINS-POWER REQUIREMENTS
107
-------
30
2u-
o
-I
3
Z
O
Q
9
8
7
6
i 5
i 4
''• 3
i
) &
:
10
7
6
5
4
3
2
1.0
(
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
Z
1,000
*n ••••
• ••
„ ^ P"* "**
^ — •
HYDR
FERRIC C
-~^
• •
,
ATED
HLOR
X*
— —
« M*-
LIM
DE
X
WWIMW*
•—
E
S~
X
?"
»*•*•
r
)
•m
**'
£
L
— im
•** 4*
jX
— —
1NSLAKED LI
..— £L
*
^*
+
/.
^XX
0^
s
" 1^
ME *^
^^""^
m
X
X ^<
X**"
— —
POLV
/
/
X
'"
Jill
/
'
X
X
/
j*
pK
f
S
^. ALUM
, * ^*
MER
«*"
***
s*
s
£ *
f
/
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
U 1 10 100
LIME, ALUM, FERRIC CHLORIDE - 100 FOUNDS PER HOUR FEED RATE
POLYMER - POUNDS PER HOUR FEED RATE
FIGURE 64- CHEMICAL FEED EQUIPMENT-MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
^
_^
ALUM -*5^
^/
••'x^
, ^ '^ p°l
/ s
X
X
-YMER
F
^
X
^
ERF
^
'
X"
/
.
:ic
V
X
/
'
CHL
^
~?
S
4.
f/
*
/
ORIDE *""*?"
:^/
m
_V^
J
x
y
^
X
X
x'"
/
/
jr
^ LIME
//
f
^
/
f
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
0.1 1 10 100
LIME, ALUM, FERRIC CHLORIDE - 100 POUNDS PER HOUR FEED RATE
POLYMER - POUNDS PER HOUR FEED RATE
FIGURE 65-CHEMICAL FEED EQUIPMENT-MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLY COSTS
108
-------
i
i
s
o
u_
o
s
IU
£
,000
9'
8
T
6
5
100
9
8
7
6
5
10
7
6
5
4
0.1
UNSLAK
ED LIME
yHYDRATED LIME
POLYMER:
~^
ALUM
FERRIC
CHLORIDE
345 6789
3 4 5 6 789
1
10
3456 789
100
LIME, ALUM, FERRIC CHLORIDE - 100 POUNDS PER HOUR FEED RATE
POLYMER - POUNDS PER HOUR FEED RATE
FIGURE 66-CHEMICAL FEED EQUIPMENT-POWER REQUIREMENTS
109
-------
s
3
5
_l
I
X)
O
u
z
100
3 4 S 6789
3456789 2 3
10 100
FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY - MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
FIGURE 67-RAWWASTEWATER PUMPING-MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
4 5678C
9
8
6
5
4
3
LOOO*
8
7
S
5
3
2
100
/
x-
x
x
,
x
^
^
X
X i
X
/
,
/
(/
x
^
^
^
y
x
/
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
1 10 100 1,000
FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY -MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
FIGURE 68- RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING-MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLY COSTS
110
-------
Cd
LU
<
O
o
O£
UJ
z
UJ
1,000
9
8
7
6
S
4
3
2
100
9
8
7
8
5
4
3
2
10
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
80^
fn y
60 '
40 "
20 '
/,
^ j
jf
f
/
/
NUMBER OF
OF OPERA!
PER YEAR
iai==.A.-..L-:.-.-.^^.:..
.
/
/
r
"DA
ION
/
/
^
f
YS
/
/
/
/
'
X
/
x
/
x
'
*"
X
/
/
.
^
/
X"
/ .X
/ X
/ / j
/ /
/
/
/
X
<^
X
yi
>^
s
/
/
/
f
/
'
/
/
*
S
,
/
X
X
'
^
^
^
^
/
'
x
x
/
/
,
'
jf
f f
S jr
x y ,
/ /
y/
/
/
X
^
^
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
10
100
1,000
FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY _ MILLIOK GALLONS PER DAY
FIGURE 69 - RAW WASTEWATER PUMPING - POWER REQUIREMENTS
ill
-------
1,000
9
8
7
6
5
VI
g 4
* .
\ ^
_l
_1
§
< 100
n 1
i I
5 5
4
3
2
10
10,000
*Q
5
3
!3 2
3
§
' 1.000.
1- 9
MI &
8 7
_J C
5 5
2 S
Z 4,
•< *
100
2
10
-•*
*"
*»
*>>
,--
.--'
x
x
M*
.^'
^*
••M *"
.'*
^*
^.x-"
^^^
^
^*
^r
.^*
, ^""
^"
.-^"
^--^
-*
.^
_^«r
--*
^
.-^
*** ~
". T - r™ <
^^
^-•X"
_, x^ao
.^
^
•'*'
.^•"^
,^
.^
r "^A
*-"
.^
NU
UV
EV
YE
' 1
,<^
MB
ER
EN
AR
.
1
•5-
ER OF
FLOW
TS PER
3 4 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
100 1,000 10,000
FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY - GALLONS PER MINU 1 6
FIGURE 70-SLUDGE PUMPING-MAN-HOUR REQUIREMENTS
X
X
/
^
,S
X
X
X
1*
/
? -
,x
X
X
X
S
*
2 34 56789 2 34 56789 2 34 56789
10 TOO 1,000 10,000
FIRM PUMPING CAPACITY - GALLONS PER MINUTE
FIGURE 71-SLUDGE PUMPING-MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLY COSTS
112
-------
Ui
I
I
UI
o
ee
ui
10,000
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1,000
'9
a
7
6
5
4
3
2
100
i
T
6
5
4
3
Z
id
INUMBI
-OF OPE
PER YE
I OF
RAT!
AR
JAY
ON
S
Jj
<
*
u
0
0
'°
y1
/
^
/
x
/
/
/
/
s
/
/
j
j
S
/
/•
X /
X X"
/ /
/ /
' /
/
/
/
4
s
s
s
/
/
/
s
/
/
s
/
/
/
J
/
/
/
/
/
X
/
/
s
/
/
/
/
/
/
'
/
/
/
s
j
/
/
f
p -
t
f
10
345 6789
100
3 4 5 6 789
1,000
3456 709
10,000
AVERAGE QUANTITY PUMPED PER DAY - 1,000 GALLONS
FIGURE 72 - SLUDGE PUMPING - POWER REQUIREMENTS
113
-------
SECTION V
USE OP COST AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The construction cost data and operation and maintenance requirements have
been presented in detail in the previous section of this report. The form
in which the data is presented is intended to be flexible by permitting
several combinations, of unit processes and functional units to be assembled.
The format requires more effort on the part of the user in assembling cost
data as compared to general cost curves relating cost to plant capacity.
However, the more specific nature of this data and format is intended to
increase the accuracy of the'cost estimate and operation and maintenance
requirements.
A. CONSTRUCTION COST DATA USAGE
1. Inflation - To derive a capital- cost estimate for plant facilities,
the user must- first establish a time frame for the project. The costs pre-
sented herein are based upon costs of materials and labor as they existed
in June, 1975. It will be necessary for the user to inflate the costs pre-
sented to that time specific for the subject project.
The information has been presented to permit inflating costs by use of gen-
eral indices, such as the EPA Sewage Treatment Cost Index or the ENR Build-
ing Cost Index. In addition, the user may elect to review the more detailed
cost components of each unit process and inflate the individual cost com-
ponents using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) wholesale price indices
for individual material items, and wage scales as published by the BLS,
Richardson Engineering Services, Dodge Reports, or Means Cost Estimating
Data. The more detailed cost inflation method is appropriate for variable
inflation of cost components.
Construction cost data presented herein have been categorized into the
following major groups shown with an appropriate BLS wholesale price index:
Index Mid 1975
Category Index Designation Number value
Mfg. Equipment BLS General Purpose Mach. & Eqpt. 114 180.1
Concrete BLS Concrete Ingredients 132 174.0
Reinforcing
Steel BLS Steel Mill Products 1.013 195.0
Labor ENR Wage Index (Skilled Labor) - 213*
Metal Pipes
S Valves BLS Valves and Fittings 114.901 187.4
Concrete Pipe BLS Concrete Pipe 1.332 169.4
Mi sc ellaneous
Steel BLS Steel Mill Products 1.013 195.0
Housing Means Building Construction
Cost Data - Offices - 32.85
*Based on Kansas City, Missouri
114
-------
Other categories have been used which are specific to a process function
and the user will be required to refer to the unit costs presented in the
attached appendix and obtain current unit costs from the estimating refer-
ences previously mentioned.
The method used in inflating an estimate front the data presented herein to
current costs is by the following:
CURRENT COST ESTIMATE = (1975 COST ESTIMATE) X
1975
To project costs into the future, a prediction of future index values is
necessary. There is no certain method to predict future costs and a con-
servative inflation rate allowance is usually selected based on recent past
performance of inflation.
2. Preparing Cost Estimates - The cost estimates presented herein are in-
tended to represent average conditions and as such serve as guidelines.
Local conditions affecting costs are very significant in cost estimating
considerations and tend to invalidate the use of this data for some projects.
Changes in regulations concerning construction practices and treatment plant
equipment, technology, and reliability needs also affect costs. For example,
the EPA mechanical and electrical requirements for wastewater treatment
plants have caused a significant increase in construction costs, as have the
OSHA regulations concerning construction practices.
The cost estimate for a plant facility is accomplished by listing the pro-
cess functions included, selecting the appropriate cost from the data pre-
sented here, and adding allowances for site work, interest during construc-
tion, engineering services, and fiscal and administrative costs.
Because the individual components are variable, a specific format is not
included in this presentation; however, an example is presented to assist
the user in preparation of an estimate.
Nevertheless it is realized that the data presented herein will be used for
specific projects as well as general planning purposes. For specific pro-
jects, the user should .consider the basis for this cost data and become
aware of construction costs in the local area.
Site work includes piping to and between process units, landscaping, drives,
fencing, site clearing, and other items outside the boundary of plant func-
tional or process units . Site work has been shown in the example to repre-
sent 15 percent of the subtotal of other construction costs. Based on 25
plants, the site work varies from 9 to 20 percent of the costs and is 'rep-
resented in this presentation as being 15 percent. This percentage should
be reviewed for each project, and particularly for swirl overflow regulator/
concentrators which have a large portion of cost associated with site work.
115
-------
Example Cost Estimate
Unit Parameter Reference
Functional Unit For Cost Estimate Figure No. Cost Estimate
Raw Wastewater
Pumping Station 100 mgd 25 $ 4,500,000
Flow Measurement
Device 100 mgd 27 29,000
Rapid Mix 15,000 cu.ft. 17 130,000
G = 300
Flocculation 200,000 cu.ft. 21 310,000
G = 110
Air Flotation 25,000 sq. ft. 10 2,700,000
Chlorination 2,500 ppd 12 90,000
Chlorine Contact
Basin 15,000 cu.ft. 17 62,000
G = 100
Alum Feed 4,000 pph 23 690,000
Polymer Peed 30 pph 23 390,000
Subtotal $ 8,901,000
Site Work (15 percent of subtotal) 1,335,000
Total Estimated Construction Cost $10,236,000
Other Costs:
Engineering Design 614,000
Inspection 100,000
Special Reports 50,000
Land (6 acres @ 5,000 dollars) 30,000
Legal, Fiscal Administrative (2%) 205,000
Interest During Construction ' 1,040,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $12,275,000
Engineering services may be budgeted on the basis of cost curves presented
by ASCE and an estimate of project construction duration and inspection re-
quirements. Special reports such as environmental impact reports, operation
and maintenance, reports and others should be included.
Land costs are highly variable ranging from 500 to several thousands of
dollars per acre. Land acquisition problems may influence the type of pro-
cess selected in urban areas. No guidelines are presented herein to esti-
mate land costs or requirements.
Legal, fiscal, and administrative costs are related to project costs but
will vary from one situation to another. Average costs may range from 3.5
116
-------
percent of the project cost for small projects to 0.2 percent of the pro- •' '
ject costs for large projects.
Interest during construction is that cost paid on borrowed funds during
the construction of the project. The borrowed funds are those paid to the
contractor and consultants. The dispersement pattern of those funds and
the duration of the loss of use of the money without the concommitant use
of the facilities is the basis for determining the cost of interest during
construction.
Estimates of other plant processes may be determined in a manner similar to
that presented above. . •
B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS DATA USAGE
The requirements for operation and-maintenance of combined sewer overflow
treatment facilities have been developed at a time where little precedence
is available to judge the adequacy or normality of the data derived. For
that reason the user is cautioned to assess the basis of the data presented
and recognize that actual needs may vary considerably from data presented.-
The format used in presenting operation and maintenance requirements is in-
tended to be general in nature and independent of unit cost where practi-
cable. Therefore, labor requirements presented are as man-hours/year and
power requirements are presented as Kwh/year. Miscellaneous supplies and
costs are presented as costs and must be inflated. It is suggested that a
composite index such as the BLS wholesale price index may be used.
Chemical costs have not been presented and must be determined by calculating
the chemical requirements and ascertaining unit costs from manufacturers.
The operation at combined sewer overflow treatment plants, being intermit-
tent and the schedule unpredictable, requires that they be automated; most
plants now in service are automated. The major time requirements, are those
required to clean the facilities after use.
Using the same example presented for the construction cost requirements,
the following format may be used in assessing operating and maintenance
requirements. • • -
117
-------
Example Operation s Maintenance Requirements
Plant Design Basis:
Capacity: 100 mgd
average Plow/year! 2,700 mg
Number Days Operation: 60
Number of Overflow Events: 20
Process Function
Administration
laboratory
Yard Mainten-
ance
Raw Hastewater
Pwnping Station
Rapid Mix
Flocculation
air Flotation
Chlorinntion
Chlorine Contact
Basins
alum Feed
Polymer Feed
Process
Parameter
100 ntgd
(4 samples/
day)
500,000 sq. ft.
100 ntgd
15,000 cu.
ft., 80 HP
200,000 CU.
ft., 100 HP
25,000 sq. ft.
30 tons/yr.
15,000 cu.
ft., 10 HP
1,600 pph
15 pph
Reference
Fig. No's.
28,29
30,31
32,33
67,68,69
49,50,51
58,59,60
43,44,45
64,65*
49,50,51
64,65,66
64,65,66
Labor
Requirements
(Manhour/yearJ
180
520
3,300
770
280
1,400
3,000
690
280
252
138
10,810
Miscellaneous
Supply Hqmts.
(Dollars/year)
680
1,300 ,
2 , 700
6,100
570
2,700
5,200
1,800
570
1,300
1,100
24,020
Power
Rqmts.
.(Kwfa/year).
-
-
-
500,000
90,000
110,000
3,400,000
-
11,000
780
2,280
4,114,060
Labor
Misc. Supply
Power
Chemicals
Alum 270O mg x 50 mg/1
Polymer 2700 mg x 1 mg/1
10,810 MH/YR @ $10/Hour
S24,020/Yr.
4,114,060 Kwh/*r 8 $Q.02/Kwh
560 Itons/Yr @ S70
22,500 Ibs./Yr
@ ?0.50
TOTAL ANNUM, OPERATION S MAINTENftNCE COST
$108,100
24,020
82,281
39,200
11,250
$264,851/¥ear
118
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
1. Black & Veatch, "Estimating Costs and Manpower Requirements for
Conventional Wastewater Treatment Plants", U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency Report, 17090DAN 10/71, 1971.
2. Anonymous, "Engineers Develop Specialized Index for Abnormal Times",
ENR, 194, 12, March 20, 1975.
3. Sullivan R.H., et al., "Relationship Between the Diameter and
Height for the Design of a Swirl Concentrator as a Combined Sewer
Overflow Regulator", U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report,
EPA-670/2-74-039, July 1974.
4. Field, R., "Design of a Combined Sewer Overflow Regulator Concen-
trator", JWPCF, 46, 7, p. 1722, July 1974.
5. Richardson Engineering Services, Inc. Oonstructipn Estimating
Standards, 1975.
6. Means Building Construction Cost Data, 33rd Edition, 1975.
7. 1975 Dodge Guide, 7th Edition, McGraw Hill, 1975.
8. Cunninghan D., Huth Engineers, Lancaster, Pa., Telephone Conversation,
9. Sullivan, R. ,"The Helical Bend Combined Sewer Overflow Regulator",
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report, EP&-600/2-75-062,
December 1975.
10. Phillips, T.G., Bubp, A.D., "The Effects of Screening Stormwater
and Combined Sewer Overflows", presented at the Ohio WPCA Confer-
ence, Cincinnati, Ohio, June 1975.
11. Stationary Screen.
12. Diaper, E.W.J., and Glover, G.E., "Microstraining of Combined Sewer
Overflows", JWPCF, 43, 10, p. 2101, October 1971.
13. Glover, G.E., and Diaper, E.W.J., "Microstraining and Disinfection
of Combined Sewer Overflows - Phase II", U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency Report, EPA-R2-73-124, January 1973.
14. Maher, B., "Microstraining and Disinfection of Combined Sewer
Overflows - Phase III", U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report,
EPA-670/2-74-049, August .1974.
119
-------
15. Glover, G.E., "Application of Microstraining to Combined Sewer
Overflow"/ Combined Sewer Overflow Seminar Papers, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Beport, EPA-670/2-73-077, November 1973.
16. CH2M/Hill, "Treatment of Stormwater Overflow Utilizing High-Rate,
Fine-Mesh Screens," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report,
11023FDD03/70, March 1970.
17. City of Portland Oregon, "Demonstration of Eotary Screening for
Combined Sewer Overflows", U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Report, 11023FDD07/71, July 1971.
18. Rex Chainbelt Inc., "Screening/Flotation Treatment", U.S. Environ-
mental Agency Report, 11020FDC01/72, January 1972.
19. Hazen & Sawyer, "Process Design Manual for Suspended Solids
Removal", U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-625/l-75~OQ3a,
January 1975.
20. White, George C., Handbook of Chlorination, Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., 1972.
21. Nebolsine, R., et al., "High Rate Filtration of Combined Sewer
Overflows:, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report,
11023EYI04/72, April 1972.
22. Harvey P.,"High-Rate Multi-Media Filtration" Combined Sewer
Overflow Seminar Papers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Report, EPA-670/2-73-077, November 1973.
23. City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Conser,' Townsend & Assoc./'Deten-
tion Tank for Combined Sewer Overflow", U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency Report, EDA-600/2-75-071, December 1975.
24. Lager, J.A., "Urban Stormwater Management and Technology," U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Report, EPA-670/2-74-040, December
1974.
25. Parker, C.L., "Estimating the Cost of Wastewater Treatment Ponds",
Pollution Engineering p32, November 1975.
26. Black & Veatch, "Process Design Manual for Phosphorus Removal",
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report 17010GNP1Q/71,
October 1971.
27. Analytical Quality Control Laboratory, "Handbook for Analytical
Quality Control in Water and Wastewater Laboratories", U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Report, June 1972.
120
-------
28. Field, R. F. , et al., "Treatab'ility Determination for a Prototype
Swirl Combined Sewer Overflow Regulator/Solids Separator, "Pro-
ceedings Urban Stormwater Management Seminars, Atlanta, Ga.,
Nov. 4-6, 1975 and Denver, Co., Dec. 2-4, 1975, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Report, WPD 03-76-04, January 1976.
29. Metropolitan District Commission, Boston,. Mass., "Cottage Farm
Combined Sewer Detention and Chlorination Station, Cambridge,
Mass., "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Draft Report,
Grant No. 11020 FAT.
30. City of Milwaukee and Consoer, Townsend and Associates "Detention
Tank for Combined Sewer Overflow, "U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Report, EPA-600/2-75-071, 1975.
121
-------
APPENDIX B
UNIT PRICES
The following unit prices have been derived from the several sources
of cost data referenced in the text and include contractor's overhead
and profit.
CONCRETE
Ready Mix Concrete
Walls to 8f high
Walls to 12' high
Walls to 16' high
Walls to 20' high
Walls over 20' high
Reinforcing
Forms
Walls to 8' high
Walls to 12' high
Walls to 16' high
Walls to 20' high
Walls over 20' high
Steel Pipe or Cast Iron Pipe
Large Earth Work Quantities
Reservoir Liners
Equipment Installation
Equipment
Housing
Concrete Pipe
$0.40/lb
0,66/square foot
MATERIAL IABOR
$27/yard $ 9.00/yard;?
9.00/yard::
10.50/yard^
12.00/yard::
14.00/yard^
16.00/yard
0.25/Ub
1.90/sq. ft.
1.90/ " "
2.20/ " "
2.50/ " "
2,90/ " "
3.50/ 1! "
$1000/ton 3
1.00/yard
0.15/sq. €t.
0,30 td 0.50
times purchase
Manufacturer's quote plus 15%
overhead and profit for
general contractor
$30 per square foot including
materials and labor
$2 per lineal foot per .inch
of pipe diameter
$l,000/ton
$0.35/square foot
122
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/ 2-76-286
2.
4, TITLE AND SUBTITLE
COST ESTIMATING MANUAL — COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
STORAGE AND TREATMENT
7, AUTHOR(S)
Henry H. Benjes, Jr.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Systems & Engineering Evaluation Branch
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory - Gin. ,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
3. RECIPIENT'S XCCESSION«NO.
5. REPORT DATE
December 1976 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO,
1BC611
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2186
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
FINAL
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officers: Frank L. Evans III, 684-7610, MTRS, MERL, USEPA, Cincinnati, OH 4526E
, Richard Field, 548-3347, SCSS, MERL, USEPA, Edison, New Jersey 08817
16, ABSTRACT
Data for estimating average construction costs and operation and maintenance require-
ments are presented for combined sewer overflow treatment plants- ranging from
5 to 200 million gallons per day in capacity, and storage facilities ranging in size
from 1 to 240 million gallons. Estimating data are included for 14 separate process
functions associated with stormwater treatment plants and storage facilities. An
example of the use of the data is given.
Estimated average construction costs and operation and maintenance requirements are
related graphically to appropriate single parameters for respective plant components.
In addition, cost components of the process functions are presented to enable
inflating cost-related materials and wages.
The data presented provides means of estimating costs and operating and maintenance
requirements for a variety of facilities on an average basis, but do not supplant the
need for detailed study of local conditions or recognition of changing design require-
ments in preparing estimates for specific applications.
17.
a. DESCRIPTORS
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
*Cost analysis, ^Operating costs, Combined Sewage treatment plants,
sewers, *0verflows, Waste treatment, Pre- Plant design
liminary estimates, *Sewage treatment,
Storage, *Water pollution, Construction
costs,. Cost effectiveness, Maintenance
management, Cost estimates
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
msE6M^s%±§tfippa^
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B •
21. NO. OF PAGES
133
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
123
S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1977-757-056/556? Region No. 5-11
------- |