EPA 430-9-76-002
AN ANALYSIS
OF
CONSTRUCTION COST EXPERIENCE
FOR
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
FEBRUARY 1976
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Water Program Operations
Municipal Construction Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
MCD-22
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial pro-
ducts constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
NOTES
To order this publication, An Analysis of Construction Cost Experience
for Wastewater Treatment Plants, MCD-22, write to:
General Services Administration (8-FFS)
Centralized Mailing List Services
Bldg. 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
Please indicate the MCD number and title of publication.
This publication should be placed in Part III, Guidelines of the
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants Program
manual.
-------
AN ANALYSIS
OF
CONSTRUCTION COST EXPERIENCE
FOR
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
FEBRUARY 1076
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Water Program Operations
Municipal Construction Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
MCD-22
-------
ABSTRACT
The topics addressed in this report are: an analysis of wastewater
treatment plant construction cost experience in the construction grants
program; an evaluation of the cost estimating system, as presented in the
Technical Report entitled "A Guide to the Selection of Cost Effective
Wastewater Treatment Systems," EPA-A30/9-75-002; and the development of
treatment plant cost curves. A data base consisting of descriptions and
bid and grant eligible cost data for over 150 treatment plants constructed
in the last four years was obtained from EPA Regional Offices and used in
the analysis.
ii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The preparation of this report was under the direction of Gary F.
Otakie of the Municipal Construction Division of EPA.
The contributions and technical assistance of Mr. James Chamblee,
Mr. Wen Huang and Mr. Arnold Kuzmack, also of EPA were invaluable in the
report's preparation.
Most important, the contributions of the numerous EPA Regional
Construction Grants personnel who assisted in obtaining the necessary
cost information from the large and complex construction grant files is
acknowledged. Without their cooperation this report would not have been
poss i ble.
i i i
-------
Summary
The emphasis of this study was to gather, categorize and analyze
wastewater treatment plant construction bid data available in EPA's
Regional Offices. Pages 7~11 explain the categorization of bid data.
A linear regression analysis resulted in two cost curves (one for new
secondary plants and one for primary to secondary upgrades) formulated
directly from the bid data. The new secondary plant curve formed the
"anchor curve" for five additional curves for various degrees of ter-
tiary treatment. The tertiary treatment curves were developed utilizing
the differential cost from secondary treatment cost in EPA's Cost Guide
(see pages 39-^3) and adding these differentials to the "anchor curve".
Experience in analyzing the bids indicated a need for a secondary deduct
curve when upgrading to tertiary treatment; since few existing secondary
plants were of equal value to a new secondary treatment plant. Suffi-
cient data was not available to formulate this curve. Engineering
judgement resulted in a secondary deduct curve of 75% of the new second-
ary curve. The resulting cost curves are presented on pages 29 and 30.
To determine the accuracy of the curves for tertiary treatment (which
are only indirectly derived from the bid data base), a comparison of
costs was made between the cost predicted from the new curves and a
limited number of new tertiary plants (15). The results indicated that
on an average, the curves (see page 31) were \6.k% above bid cost. In
recoginiton of the limited number of tertiary bids this was considered
sufficiently accurate.
A comparison was made between the bid based cost curve and the
adjusted cost presented in the Guide for secondary treatment. Cost in
the Guide were adjusted to include 20% for site work and updated from
1973 utilizing the STP index. The comparison establishes that bid costs
are 1 to 2.5 times-higher (see page 26) than cost predicted utilizing
the Guide, at 1 and 60 MGD respectively. This fact indicates much less
economy of scale is shown by the bid data than was assumed in preparation
of the Guide's unit process capital cost estimates. The analysis
indicates the Guide is extremely inaccurate as a basis for estimating
construction costs. The Guide's main use is to make rough "comparitive"
analyses during the facilities planning phase and it advises readers to
exercise extreme caution in utilizing the data to calculate construction
cost.
-------
Another important finding of this study is that for any
specific wastewater treatment plant, construction costs are not
necessarily solely related to the type of unit processes included
or required effluent quality. The market place is subject to a
considerable number of factors, none of which are amendable to
accurate quantification. The factors include:
1. The standard design requirements promulgated by regulatory
agenci es;
2. Conventions of engineering practice and procedures;
3. The extent to which construction and supplier markets
are competitive;
4. The extent to which cost is a controlling parameter in
the character of designs, construction techniques and
procedures;
5. Timeliness of construction;
6 . S i te condi t i ons;
7- Influent wastewater characteristics (i.e. strength and
peak/average flow);
8. Condition of existing wastewater treatment facilities;
9. Local labor and material costs.
These and other factors serve to obscure the relationship
between parameters perceived to dictate cost (i.e. effluent
quality, new or upgraded plant and flow) and the actual cost of
facilities. Accordingly, the cost curves presented in this
report are a best fit of extremely variable data points (caused
by some combination of the above factors). Thus, the curves may
require adjustment to accurately reflect the cost of a specific
project. Appendix C contains adjustment factors to account for
regional cost variations. However, additional adjustments may
be necessary where factors specific to a project warrant.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract i i
Acknowledgements iii
Summary v-vi
Contents vi i
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xi
Sect ions
I Introduction 1
II Acquisition and Presentation of Construction Cost k
Data Base
III Evaluation of "Guides" Cost Estimating System and ]6
Formulation of Treatment Plant Construction Cost
Curves
IV Appendices 32
VI I
-------
FIGURES
No.
1 Regression Analysis Data Plot - All New Secondary
Treatment Plants 21
2 Regression Analysis Data Plot - Primary to Secondary
Treatment Plant Upgrades or Upgrades/Expansions 22
3 Comparison between Bid Cost Experience and Estimated
Construction Costs (Treatment Category l) 2k
k Adjustment Ratio between Bid Cost Experience and Mean
Estimated Cost (Treatment Category 1) 26
5 Treatment Plant Construction Cost Curves - Design Flow
Rate 0.1 to 3.0 mgd 29
6 Treatment Plant Construction Cost Curves - Design Flow
Rate 3 to 1000 mgd 30
IX
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Description of Codes for Type of Construction in Summary
of Bid Information 7
2 Description of Codes for Treatment Categories in Summary
of Bid Information 8
3 Description of Codes for Unit Process Trains Used in
Summary of Bid Information 9
4 Distribution of Treatment Plants by Design Flow Rate 14
5 Distribution of Treatment Plants by Principal Unit Pro-
cess in Data Set 15
6 Summary of Regression Analysis 23
7 Comparison of Individual Bid Cost Experience with
Estimated Costs from Cost Curves-New Treatment
Plants in Treatment Categories 3 to 6 31
8 Summary of Bid Information 34
9 Summary of Treatment Plant Construction Cost Estimates 40
10 Wastewater Treatment Unit Processes 41
11 Sludge Handling Unit Processes 42
12 Cost Escalation Factors Between Treatment Category One
and Specified Treatment Category for Selected
Alternatives 43
13 City Multipliers for Treatment Plant Construction 44
x i
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The general objective of the analysis presented herein was to develop
some data based upon "real life" treatment plant construction cost exper-
ience, that could be used to estimate the cost of providing the publicly
owned treatment facilities necessary to comply with the water quality
management programs following from Public Law 92-500 (Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972). The specific purposes of the
project were to develop treatment plant construction cost curves based on
analysis of actual construction bids, and to use these curves as a basis
for evaluating the cost estimating system presented in an EPA recent
report entitled "A Guide to the Selection of Cost Effective Wastewater
Treatment Systems" (EPA ^30/9-75-002). As one outcome of the analysis,
it was anticipated that the resultant treatment plant cost curves would
be used in the 1976 Needs Survey to be conducted by EPA.
The following information is presented to provide some orientation
as to the overall problem of estimating treatment plant construction costs.
BACKGROUND
The needs for wastewater treatment facilities have been identified
traditionally in terms of the wastewater flow to be treated, the effluent
quality or degree of treatment required, and whether the facility is an
expansion or upgrading of an existing facility or a new facility. The
preceding parameters are those which can be used reasonably to characterize
an existing or needed facility; i.e., to those knowledgeable of waste-
water treatment, the preceding parameters convey considerable information
about the technical aspects of an existing or needed facility. It would
therefore seem rational to move forward on a course of action which would
result in cost being expressed as a function of the same parameters.
However, the assumptions implicit in such an approach, and which need to
be examined rather carefully are: (1) that the actual cost of a wastewater
treatment facility is in fact determined by the preceding and related
parameters; and, (2) that data exist which permit one to quantify the
relationship between cost and the preceding and related parameters.
Given the current state of the art of technology in the field, the
unit process is the "backbone" of wastewater treatment facility design
and analysis. A wastewater treatment system is comprised of a sequence
of unit processes arranged on the basis of either tradition, contribution
to effluent quality, or creating an effluent required for a critical
downstream unit process, or some combination of the three. For the most
part, deterministic or quasi-deterministic expressions exist, which can
be used to determine the required basic characteristics of a unit process,
after their calibration to a particular situation. Thus, it is possible
to predict in a rather refined manner the volume, surface area, or depth
required for a unit process to produce a particular effluent quality, the
preceding variables or combinations thereof being the basic dependent
variables for most wastewater treatment unit processes. Also, it is
1
-------
important to realize that a given effluent quality can be obtained through
the use of numerous alternative sequences of similar and different unit
processes, i.e., there is no unique relationship between treatment system
composition and arrangement and effluent quality.
The above is generally referred to as the "unit process approach" to
wastewater treatment design and evaluation. Capital cost estimates for
the "unit process approach" are generally based on the direct proportionality
between process performance and a basic dimension of the unit process,
i.e. volume, surface area, and/or depth, and on an estimated in-place
material cost to provide for the critical basic dimension. Equipment
cost, also a capital cost element, is usually determined on the basis of
the solids handling or mass transfer capacity required to support a par-
ticular unit process at a given level of performance, for example, solids
removal from clarifiers, oxygen transfer and mixing in an aeration tank,'
chemical and mixing demands in a chemical reactor, etc. Because the rela-
tionships between unit process performance and the basic/critical dimensions
of a unit process are a continuous function, capital cost, and for that
matter operation and maintenance cost, can be expressed as a continuum of
"process performance." Thus, in the "unit process approach" it is possible
to define a difference in cost between an activated sludge system producing
an effluent with a BOD of 30 mg/1 and one producing an effluent of 5 mg/1.
A cost estimating system prepared for EPA (entitled "A Guide to the
Selection of Cost Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems, EPA-A30/9-75-002,
and hereinafter called "Guides") is a reasonable representation of what
can be accomplished through the "unit process approach" to dealing with
wastewater treatment cost estimation. The preceding is true regardless of
how the contractor elected to define unit process performance or the basis
of the cost estimates for the individual unit processes. There have been
complaints about various aspects of the Guides; nonetheless, the approach
used represents one endproduct of the "unit process approach" to developing
cost information. The utility of such an approach, although not necessarily
the validity, is attested to by the relative ease with which computer
programs have been developed to permit rapid use of the information presented
in the Guides.
The above discussion of the "unit process approach" and the Guides
does not address the validity of either or both relative to the realities
of the marketplace for wastewater treatment facility construction. It
was realized as the analysis proceeded that although the "unit process
approach" and the Guides represent consistent frameworks for estimating
costs, neither represents the wastewater treatment marketplace, i.e., the
compendium of circumstances that determine how much it costs to provide
a wastewater treatment facility.
Unlike the "unit process approach" which can be characterized in
terms of essentially objective terms, the marketplace is subject to a
considerable number of subjective factors, none of which are particularly
amenable to quantification. The subjective factors include:
1. The standard design requirements promulgated by regulatory agencies;
2. Conventions of engineering practice and procedures;
3. The extent to which construction and supplier markets are
competitive;
k. The extent to which cost is a controlling parameter in the
character of designs, construction techniques and procedures;
2
-------
5- Timeliness of construction;
6. Site conditions;
7. Influent wastewater characteristics (i.e. strength and peak/average
flow);
8. Condition of existing wastewater treatment facilities;
9. Local labor and material costs.
If manifest in a particular manner, each of the preceding factors can
serve to negate the relationship between the parameters perceived
(i.e. effluent quality, new or upgraded plants and flow) to dictate
cost and the actual cost of facilities. Design requirements promulgated
by regulatory agencies may preclude a design based on the results of
laboratory or pilot plant treatability studies. A 12-mgd plant designed
and constructed as a 12-mgd plant may show certain economies of scale,
however, a 12 mgd facility which in fact is comprised of four 3 rngd
facilities may not show economies of scale. Structural design is a
key determinant in the cost of wastewater treatment facilities, however,
how many regulatory agencies seriously review or even have the staff to
seriously review the efficiency and reasonableness of structural designs?
An engineer is much more likely to be challanged over whether he designed
for 800 or 1000 gallons per day per square foot overflow rate than for
whether he used six or 12 inch concrete walls for the clarifier. Given
the mobility of labor forces and the capacity to transport materials and
equipment, there is the distinct possibility that local costs are not
dictated by local market conditions. It appears that only rarely does
a client specify the amount he is willing to pay for a treatment facility
having certain performance characteristics; thus, more often than not
cost appears to be a consequence of rather than a parameter of design and
construction. When designers and contractors are familiar with each
other's work, significant economies can occur; when they are not;economic
caution is understandably the criteria. And finally, one can only speculate
as to the consequence of bidding equipment before, rather than after the
design of a facility is completed; the concept is contradictory to
tradition but the consequence might be interesting.
To take into consideration the possible factors of the marketplace
for this analysis, it was decided to obtain a representative number of
bids for the construction of wastewater treatment facilities. The con-
struction bids were obtained from the Regional Offices of EPA and subjected
to several levels of classification before the actual analysis was done.
The classification was done to take into account the location, size of
facility, type of plant (new, expanded upgraded, etc.), and levels of
treatment, etc., and several levels of analysis were performed. Two
significant results were obtained from the analysis:
1. A set of treatment plant cost/performance level/capacity relationships
for the construction of new and expanded or expanded/upgraded plants.
2. A benchmarking of the cost relationships in the Guides against actual
treatment plant construction cost experience.
-------
SECTION II
ACQUISITION AND PRESENTATION OF CONSTRUCTION COST DATA BASE
Several basic decisions were made prior to the start of the analysis
in relation to the development and analysis of construction cost experience
for wastewater treatment plants. The first of these decisions was that
the analysis would be directed solely towards publicly - owned waste
treatment facilities which are, or have been, eligible for Federal construc-
tion grant funds, and the second decision was that actual cost experience
as for individual projects, resident in the construction grant files of
Regional Offices of EPA, would be used to develop the data base for the
cost analysis. The third decision was that the "winning" construction bid
for a project would constitute the indicator of construction cost, with no
allowances being made for any overruns beyond the usual contingencies.
From these basic decisions were developed the actual procedures used
in the acquisition of the construction cost data base.
ACQUISITION OF DATA BASE
The overall objective set forth for the acquisition of the construc-
tion cost data base was to obtain a representative sampling of construction
cost experience on individual projects that had received Federal construc-
tion grant funds under the aegis of either PL 92-500 or earlier funding
programs implemented by EPA or its predecessor agencies. The phrase
"representative sampling" as used herein means representative with respect
to: locations throughout the Nation; type of construction (whether the
project related to a new sewage treatment plant, the upgrading of an exist-
ing plant, or the expansion and upgrading of an existing plant); the level
of treatment afforded by the as-constructed treatment plant; and the types
of unit processes used in providing liquid stream and residual solids
management. Lastly, to confine the sampling to recent municipal waste
treatment plant experience, only projects under bid after late 1971 were
accepted for inclusion in the data base.
To develop the data base, a total of ten EPA Regional Offices were
contacted, and nine were visited, by personnel of the Municipal Construction
Division of EPA. The nine Regional Offices visited were: Region I (Boston);
Region II (New York); Region III (Philadelphia); Region IV (Atlanta);
Region V (Chicago); Region VII (Kansas City); Region VIII (Denver);
Region IX (San Francisco); and Region X (Seattle). From this information
on individual grants contained in the construction grant files of each
Regional Office, the following types of information were excerpted and
recorded (as available) for each selected project:
1. Grant application, location, and EPA Project Number.
2. Types of construction, i.e.: complete new sewage treatment plant;
upgrading of an existing plant; or upgrading and expansion of an
existing plant.
3. Design flow rates for the new plant and (if applicable) for the plant
prior to expansion.
-------
k. Construction bid cost and date of bid.
5- Total grant eligible cost (i.e. construction, architect and engineer
fees, and legal, administrative and contingency costs), for the
treatment plant.
6. Effluent design criteria (design effluent quality) and influent stream
character!sties.
7- Unit process flow diagram for the liquid stream and residual solids
treatment trains.
8. Factors which might abnormally affect the bid price were identified
(such as unusual site work or influent quality).
9- Backup information such as bid proposals and consultant reports were
also obtained.
The implementation of this procedure resulted in the collection of
bid information and supporting materials for over 200 individual projects.
After initial screening of this data base for completeness of description
of the individual projects, ,a total of 157 projects were selected for the
analysis of construction cost experience presented herein.
PRESENTATION OF DATrt BASE
Pre-Processing of Bid Information
In order to organize the bid information for the analysis presented
subsequently, it was first necessary to: (1) convert bid costs to grant
eligible construction costs (in those cases wherein the latter information
was not provided); (2) update the grant eligible construction costs from
the date of bid to a current time horizon; and, (3) classify each project
as to design treatment level (in terms of the design effluent quality), type
of construction (new plant, upgraded plant, or upgraded/expanded plant),
and the unit processes that were constructed or added.
Ninety five of the 157 bids in the data set contained complete infor-
mation on the grant eligible construction cost; consequently, it was
necessary to convert construction bid costs to grant eligible costs for 62
of the bids. To develop a relationship between construction bid cost and
grant eligible cost for use in the conversion, an analysis was made of the
difference between the two cost parameters for each of the 95 bids containing
both cost parameters. From this analysis, it was found that, the grant eligible
construction cost was an average of 17 percent greater than the construction
bid cost for the 95 bids analyzed. On this basis, an escalation factor of
20 percent was used to estimate grant eligible costs for the 62 bids for
which only bid cost information was provided.
Grant eligible construction costs were updated from the bid date to
a current time horizon (Winter 1976) using the EPA Sewage Treatment Plant
Construction Cost Index (STP Index). The base value for the STP Index
is 100 (1957 ~ 1959), and it was assumed (unofficially) that the national
-------
average value of the STP Index will be 263 in the Winter Quarter of 1976.
The updating procedure was done by escalating the grant eligible construction
cost for each bid by the ratio of: 263 divided by the national average
value of the STP Index at the date of the bid.
The third pre-processing step involved the classification of each bid
in terms of type of construction, design treatment level provided, and unit
processes constructed. The classifications used to characterize the type
of construction in each project are presented in Table 1, the treatment
categories used to characterize the design treatment levels of each plant
are presented in Table 2, and the unit process classifications are presen-
ted in Table 3- Each bid was assigned the applicable code for type of
construction (Table 1), the applicable treatment category code from Table 2,
and the applicable unit process codes for the types of secondary, tertiary,
and residual solids treatment unit processes (from those listed in Table 3).
It was recognized that the above characterization procedure may have resulted
in the excessive disaggregation of the data base for purposes of the analysis;
however, the intent was to maximize the possible distinctions that could
be made from bid to bid in the development of the analysis.
As a final preprocessing step, each bid was identified by a three digit
bid number. The bid number was designed so that the first digit (i.e. the
"hundreds" digit) contain information on the flow rate and type of construc-
tion for each plant, as follows:
Bid Number Design Flow Rate Type of Construction
1XX <1 mgd New Plant
2XX <1 mgd Upgraded plant
3XX <1 mgd Upgraded/expanded plant
AXX >1 mgd New Plant
5XX >1 mgd Upgraded Plant
6XX >1 mgd Upgraded/expanded plant
The abbreviation "mgd" connotes millions of gallons per day.
Presentation of Pre-Processed Data Base
The bid data base, pre-processed as described above, was compiled
in the "Summary of Bid Information" that is presented in Appendix A. The
summary of Appendix A is organized in the following format: (one line per
bid)
Column 1 contains a three digit Bid Number assigned uniquely to each
bid.
Column 2 contains the EPA Project Number, a six digit code.
Column 3 contains the design flow rate in units of mgd.
Column ^t contains the updated grant eligible construction cost for the
plant (adjusted to an STP Index of 263) in units of millions of dollars.
-------
TABLE 1. DESCRIPTION OF CODES FOR TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION IN SUMMARY OF BID
INFORMATION
Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Definition
New plant
Upgrade; primary to secondary
Upgrade; primary to tertiary
Upgrade; secondary to tertiary
Upgrade/expansion; primary to second.
Upgrade/expansion; primary to second.
Upgrade/expansion; primary to second.
Upgrade/ expansion; primary to second.
Upgrade/expansion; primary to tertiary
Upgrade/expansion; primary to tertiary
Upgrade/expansion; primary to tertiary
Upgrade/expansion; primary to tertiary
Upgrade/expansion; second, to tertiary
Upgrade/expansion; second, to tertiary
Upgrade/expansion; second, to tertiary
Upgrade/expansion; second, to tertiary
Expansion at same treatment level
QFINAL
Ratio of OJNITIAL
--
1
1
1
>4
2 to 4
1.33 to 2
4
2 to 4
1.33 to 2
<1.33
>4
2 to 4
1.33 to 2
<1.33
"~
No. of
Plants
99
12
1
3
0
6
3
5
0
1
4
2
1
9
5
2
4
% of
Total
63
8
<1
2
-
4
2
3
-
<1
3
1
<1
6
3
1
3
-------
TABLE 2. DESCRIPTION OF CODES FOR TREATMENT CATEGORIES IN SUMMARY OF BID
INFORMATION
Code
1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Treatment Level
BODr
mg/T
20-30
5-19
5-19
5-19
5-19
<5
5-19
5-19
5-19
<5
5-19
5-19
<5
SS
mg/1
20-30
5-19
5-19
5-19
5-19
<5
5-19
5-19
5-19
<5
5-19
5-19
<5
P
--
--
R
R
R
R
--
--
R
R
--
--
NH -N
--
--
--
R
R
R
R
--
R
R
R
R
_ _
NO -N
--
--
--
R
R
--
--
R
R
--
--
"~ "
Post-
Aeration
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
~
No. of
Plants
66
49
15
8
2
3
6
Jt
0
0
1
1
2
Cum.
Percent
42
73
83
88
89
91
95
99
99
99
99
99
100
Note: R = Removal
-------
TABLE 3. DESCRIPTION OF CODES FOR UNIT PROCESS TRAINS USED IN SUMMARY OF BID
INFORMATION
SECONDARY TREATMENT UNIT PROCESSES
Code Description
Oil Activated sludge
012 Contact stabilization
013 Extended aeration
014 Step aeration
015 Pure oxygen
016 Roughing filter - conventional activated sludge
017 Primary chemical and activated sludge
018 Physical chemical
019 Primary chemical and oxygen activated sludge
021 Trickling filter (std. rate)
022 Trickling filter (high rate)
023 Trickling filter (high rate) - step aeration
031 Lagoon (single)
032 Lagoon (series)
033 Aerated lagoon (single)
03^ Aerated lagoon (series)
041 Biodisc
051 Oxidation ditch
TERTIARY TREATMENT UNIT PROCESS
Code Descri ption
111 Fi1trat ion only
112 Filtration - activated carbon
11;3 Filtration- microscreening
114 Microscreening
115 Activated carbon only
121 Nitrification
122 Nitrification - filtration
123 Nitrification - P removal - filtration
124 Nitrification - P removal - filtration - activated carbon
131 Nitrification - denitrification
132 Nitrification - denitrification - filtration
133 Nitrification - denitrification - P removal - filtration
134 Nitrification - denitrification - P removal - filtration - activated
carbon
141 P removal - filtration
142 P removal - filtration - activated carbon
-------
TABLE 3- (CONTINUED)
Code Descr i pt i on
143 P removal - clarification (no filtration)
144 P removal - clarification - microscreening
151 P removal - ammonia stripping - filtration
152 P removal ammonia stripping - filtration - activated carbon
161 Filtration - ammonium ion exchange
162 Filtration - activated carbon - ammonium ion exchange
163 P removal - filtration - ammonium ion exchange
164 P removal - filtration - activated carbon -ammonium ion exchange
171 Breakpoint Cl- filtration - activated carbon
172 P removal - breakpoint Cl - filtration - activated carbon
181 Post aeration
182 Chlorination - dschlorination - post aeration
191 Spray irrigation
192 Lagoons (polishing)
193 Evaporation/percolation pond
RESIDUAL SOLIDS TREATMENT UNIT PROCESSES
Code
21 1
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
221
222
223
224
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
Descr i pt i on
Thickening - only
Thickening - air drying
Thickening - dewatering
Air dryi ng
Sludge lagoon - air drying
Dewater ing
Incinerat ion
Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic Digestion - dewatering
Thi cken i ng
Thi cken ing
Thi cken i ng
Th i cken i ng
Th i cken i ng
Th icken i ng
Thi cken i ng
Thicken i ng
Th i cken i ng
Th i cken i ng
Thi ckeni ng
anaerobic digestion
anaerobic digestion
anaeriboc digestion
anaerobic digestion
air dryi ng
dewateri ng
dewater i ng
- air dryi ng
dewatering - incineration
dewatering - recalcination
dewatering - recalcination - incineration
heat treatment
heat treatment - incineration
heat treatment - filtration
heat treatment - dewatering - incineration
10
-------
TABLE 3- (CONTINUED)
Code Descript ion
241 Aerobic digestion
242 Aerobic digestion - air drying
243 Aerobic digestion dewatering
244 Aerobic digestion - thickening - dewatering
245 Aerobic digestion/anaerobic digestion - air drying
246 Aerobic digestion/anaerobic digestion - thickening - heat treatment
dewater i ng
251 Pump/haul
11
-------
The abbreviation for this parameter used in Appendix A and subsequently
in this report is "UC", for "updated cost."
Column 5 contains the updated unit cost (or "UUC"), which is equal to the
quotient obtained dividing UC by the design flow rate, and is expressed
in units of $/gpd (Dollars per gallon per day of capacity).
Column 6 contains the code for type of construction, based upon the
code system of Table 1. -
Column 7 contains the code for the treatment'category or level of
treatment (from Table 2).
Column 8 contains the code for the applicable secondary unit process
train (from Table 3).
Columns 9 to 11 contain the code or codes for the applicable tertiary
treatment unit processes (from Table 3).
Columns 12 and 13 contain the code or codes for the applicable residual
solids treatment unit processes (from Table 3).
Columns \k and 15 contain the EPA Region code and project location.
To exemplify the interpretation of the summary, an example bid listing
is presented for Bid Number 13^- This entry contains information for a new
treatment plant of less than one mgd capacity that is located in Washington
Township, PA. The design capacity of this plant is 0.2 mgd, its updated
grant eligible construction cost is $0.6^9 million, and its updated unit cost
is $3.25/gpd of capacity. The Treatment Category for this plant is 02, i.e.
the plant was designed to produce an effluent containing 5 - 19 mg/1 BOD,.
and 5 ~ 19 mg/1 SS (Table 2). Secondary treatment is provided by extended
aeration (Code 013; Table 3); tertiary treatment by microscreening (Code 113);
and residuals solids treatment by thickening and air-drying (Code 212).
Discussion of Data Base
The bid data base as displayed in Appendix A contains a description
of each bid in a number of different dimensions, e.g., in terms of updated
cost (UC), updated unit cost (UUC), design flow rate, type of construction,
treatment category, location, type of secondary treatment unit process
train, etc. In order to present a brief picture of the content of the data
base, the distribution of the bids with respect to several of these dimensions
is discussed below.
The bid data base contains information on individual projects located
within 37 of the A8 contiguous states. The contiguous states which are not
represented in the data set are: Connecticut (Region I); Alabama, Georgia,
Kentucky, and Mississippi (Region IV); Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, and Texas (Region VI); and Arizona (Region IX). Thus, from a
locational perspective, every sector of the nation with exception of the
south-central states is represented to some extent in the sampling.
12
-------
The distribution of treatment plants by design flow rate is presented
in Table 4. The range of design flow rates for all 157 plants in the data
set varies from less than 0.1 mgd to 120 mgd, and the range of design flow
rates for all new plants varies from less than 0.1 mgd to 64.1 mgd. About
50 percent of the new plants have design flow rates of less than or equal
to one^mgd, as opposed to only 31 percent of the other plants ("other"
connoting existing plants that are either upgraded or expanded and upgraded).
Nearly 50 percent of the "other" plants are designed to handle flow rates of
equal to or less than two mgd. Additionally, about two thirds of the new plants
have design flow rates of less than or equal to two mgd, whereas two thirds
of the other plants are designed to handle flow rates less than or equal to
five mgd. Based on these observations, the median flow rate for new
plants in the data set (about one mgd) is half the median value of two
mgd for other plants.
The distribution of treatment plants by type of construction is presen-
ted in the right hand columns of Table 1. Sixty three percent of the sampling
involves new sewage treatment plants, whereas about 10 percent of the bids
pertain to upgraded plants and the remaining 27 percent of the bids relate
to plants that have been both upgraded and expanded. The distribution of
treatment plants according to treatment category is presented in Table 2,
(right hand columns). Forty two percent of the plants were designed to
provide Category 1 effluents (Category 1 is assumed to correspond to the
minimal national level of secondary treatment) and 73 percent of the plants
were designed to meet effluent BOD and SS design criteria but no other
effluent criteria. The remaining "27 percent of the plants were designed
to meet one or more of the additional effluent criteria of ammonia-nitrogen,
nitrate-nitrogen, and phosphorus removals, and post aeration.
The distribution of treatment plants by principal unit processes is
described in Table 5- The term principal unit process as used in this
context connotes the secondary treatment unit process train. The conven-
tional activated sludge process was specified in fully one third of the
plants in the sampling. Extended aeration, contact stabilization, and lagoon
systems were specified as the principal unit process in an additional 39
percent of the plants in the sampling. In addition to the "old line"
principal unit process trains such as trickling filters and oxidation ditches,
the data set also includes plants containing new process developments such
as pure oxygen activated sludge systems, biodisc systems, physical chemical
systems, and primary chemical systems. It is suggested that the distribution
of treatment plants by principal unit process, if not representative of the
total "population" of new plants built or under construction in the last
four years, does reflect the mixture of tradition and innovation upon which
treatment plant design concepts are presently being developed in the nation.
13
-------
TABLE 4. DISTRIBUTION OF TREATMENT PLANTS BY DESIGN FLOW RATE
Design
Q,
MGD
0.1
0.4
1.0
2.0
5-0
15.0
64.1
120.0
% of Plants With Flow Rate <, Indicated Flow Rate
All Plants
16
29
44
59
73
85
99
100
New Plants
2k
38
52
68
78
85
100
100
Other Plants
2
12
31
48
66
83
97
100
Note: "Other" connotes existing plants that are either upgraded or
expanded/upgraded.
-------
TABLE 5. DISTRIBUTION OF TREATMENT PLANTS BY PRINCIPAL UNIT PROCESSES
IN DATA SET
Principal Unit Process Train
1 nvol ved
Activated sludge (conventional)
Extended aeration
Lagoons
Contact stabilization
Tr ickl ing f i 1 ters
Oxidation ditches
Pure oxygen
Roughing filters & conventional
activated sludge
Primary chemical and activated
si udge
Biodi sc
Physical-chemical
Primary chemical and pure oxygen
Step aeration
Trickling filter and step aeration
No. of
Plants
52
26
20
16
8
8
7
7
3
2
2
1
1
1
% of
Total
33
16
13
10
5
5
k
k
2
1
1
1
1
1
-------
SECTION I I I
EVALUATION OF "GUIDES" COST ESTIMATING SYSTEM AND FORMULATION OF TREATMENT
PLANT CONSTRUCTION COST CURVES
The four issues of concern in this report are: (l) an analysis of
the construction bid cost experience in relation to the development of
treatment plant cost curves; (2) the development of the curves; (3) an
evaluation of the cost estimating system in the Guides .report (EPA A30-
9/75-0002); and, (k) a benchmarking of cost estimates derived from this
system against the cost curves derived from the construction bid cost
experience. The approach used to commence the development of the desired
treatment plant cost curves was that of "searching" the bid data base to
define subsets that could be subjected to regression analysis. A series
of "anchor" cost curves were developed from the bid data base using
regression analysis techniques, and used to benchmark the Guides cost
estimating system. The anchor cost curves and the benchmarked Guides
system were then used in combination to complete the development of the
desired treatment plant cost curves.
As discussed in Section I, the Guides system is based upon the unit
process approach to wastewater treatment technology, and is structured
in a format that renders it readily usable but of somewhat doubtful
validity. To explore the question of the validity of the Guides system,
it is first appropriate to describe in overview what the system is.
THE GUIDES SYSTEM
The Guides system was developed for the specific purpose of providing
a tool for making preliminary cost comparisons, such as are required in the
planning, project formulation and preliminary engineering stages of develop-
ment of wastewater treatment plants. The Guides system was completed in
February, 1973, at a time when there existed essentially no prototype
experience with the innovative advanced wastewater and residual solids
treatment processes then undergoing development and/or demonstration, and
the Guides system was presented in published form (March, 1975) with the
caveat that periodic revision and update of the cost relationships therein
would be required.
The Guides system was developed in a unit process framework wherein:
(1) each of over 50 unit processes for liquid stream and residual solids
treatment were characterized in terms of flow and material balances and
described in flow sheets showing process features; and, (2) nearly 150
treatment system alternatives were formulated by the specification of
interlinkages between/among different combinations of the unit processes.
The unit processes considered in the Guides system were selected as those
most commonly used in treatment plants of capacities between one and 100
mgd. Because a plant size of one mgd was selected as the lower capacity
limit for the selection of unit processes, treatment systems such as lagoons,
extended aeration and oxidation ditches were not included in the process
inventory because these are specified most commonly in plants smaller
than one mgd in capacity. At the other extreme, the only generic type of
advanced waste treatment unit processes not included in the process inventory
are those used for effluent desalination.
16
-------
The flow and material balances developed for each unit process were
based upon conditions expected to prevail for the treatment of a standard
domestic wastewater containing 210 mg/1 BOD, 230 mg/1 TSS, 30 mg/1 total
nitrogen (as nitrogen), and 11 mg/1 total phosphorus (as phosphorus).
Each of the nearly 150 treatment system alternatives is assigned to one
of 18 levels of performance which are defined in terms of effluent quality.
The spectrum of effluent levels included in the 18 treatment categories is
bounded at one extreme by the minimum national standard for secondary
treatment (25-30 mg/1 BOD and TSS respectively), and at the other extreme
by "Tahoe type" effluents.
The development of cost estimates for any treatment system alternative
is done at the unit process level, for all unit processes within the alter-
native, when using the Guides system. Relationships are incorporated
into this system for estimating four types of cost parameters for each
unit process, as a function of design flow rate within a flow rate range
of one to 100 mgd. The four cost parameters are base capital cost, land
cost, base manhour cost for 0/M (operation and maintenance) and base
materials cost for 0/M. Each of the preceding cost parameters was developed
on the basis of information available from all sources as of early 1973,
and for each unit process at the specific design flow rates of one, 5, 20 and
100 mgd. From the resultant matrix of costs for each unit process (four
cost parameters and four flow rates), cost/capacity expressions were developed
for each unit process and each cost parameter. The resultant expressions
are presented in the format of mathematical equations, in each case rela-
ting the cost parameter as a function of Q_, in February 1973 dollars.
The preceding cost equations serve as the basis for estimating the
various measures of cost for each unit process, and are specified as
applicable in the range of flow rates between one and 100 mgd. Procedurally,
the determination of the construction cost, amortized cost, annual 0/M
cost, or total annual (amortization plus 0/M) cost of a treatment plant
involves the addition of the costs in each category for all unit processes
in the alternative - a process that is readily computerized (as has been
demonstrated by personnel in EPA and in several states).
Of immediate interest in this analysis are the accuracy of the base
capital cost relationships which are provided in the Guides system for the
estimation of construction costs, and how the cost of a treatment plant
estimated with the Guides system compares with the grant eligible con-
struction cost for the "same" treatment plant based upon the construction
bid cost experience. To assess this relationship, one must first examine
what is dealt with in the Guides system for estimating construction costs
as well as what constitutes a grant eligible construction cost.
To first address the issue of grant eligible construction cost, it was
understood that this cost includes the cost of construction of the treatment
plant (as the summation of bid costs plus subsequent change order costs),
administrative and legal costs, contingencies, and fees, but does not include
land costs. In this context, site work is included as a component of the
construction effort. As noted in Section II, it was found from an analysis
of the difference between bid costs and grant eligible construction costs
(for 95 bids wherein this information was available) that grant eligible
construction costs averaged 17 percent greater than bid costs.
17
-------
The unit process construction cost relationships in the Guides system
were keyed to a date of February 1973, and to the then in use EPA Sewage
Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index (or simply the STP Index, as used
in this report). The relationship between the cost relationships and STP
Index is defined in a manner whereby one has the option of either using the
STP Index for cost updating, or selecting any other index of one's choosing
that has a time horizon dating from Feburary 1973- The unit process
construction cost relationships provide for the costs of the structures,
equipment, pumps, integral piping, and the appurtenances for each unit
process as implied in the flow sheets presented, plus a surcharge of 27
percent on the preceding items of cost for engineering, contingencies, and
interest during construction. Specifically, not included in the unit process
construction cost relationships are the costs of site work, yard piping,
administrative, laboratory and garage buildings, and possibly not included
are costs for general electrical and HVAC (heating, ventilation and air
conditioning) systems. In light of the intended use of the Guides system,
the omission of these cost items is quite reasonable - each item being
extremely sensitive to site specific conditions.
As a result, what one obtains with the Guides system is a dollar
cost that on the surface should be comparable with (but not necessarily
equal to) the grant eligible construction cost, if:
1. The same unit process train is used in developing the estimate with the
Guides system as in the grant eligible cost.
2. A cost updating index is used that reflects changes in buying the
same "thing" over time.
3. It is assumed that the same "nonstructural" items are included in the
Guides estimate as are included in the grant eligible construction
cost, e.g., contingencies, legal and engineering fees, etc.
4. A surcharge is imposed on the Guides system treatment plant cost
estimate to account for the omitted items of cost as above - identified
(A surcharge of 20 percent was used, as discussed below).
The approach used herein to develop cost estimates with the Guides
system that could be compared with the grant eligible construction cost
experience (as the method of benchmarking the Guides system) was based
upon the assumption that the preceding framework is valid, and on the
additional assumptions that:
1. The STP Index can be used as the basis of cost update (although the
STP Index is not the only basis that could have been used); for
purposes of the benchmarking effort, an STP Index of 263 was used with
the Bechtel base capital cost relationships to account for inflation
of costs between February 1973 (at which time the value of the STP
Index was 177-5) and the Winter Quarter of 1976.
2. A surcharge of 20 percent was added to the treatment plant construction
cost estimates derived with the Bechtel relationships to account for
site work, yard piping, and other omitted costs as above discussed.
The value of 20 percent was based upon the subjective judgment of
the authors in consideration of their review of the bid data base,
and information available in the literature.
18
-------
In reference to the first assumption above, it should be noted that
the use of any index to update cost will at best provide a rough appro-
ximation of inflation and changes in the construction field. By specifically
updating the Guides cost estimate from February 1973 (STP Index - 177.5) to
1976 (STP Index = 263), the update factor of nearly 1.5 undoubtedly incor-
porates a larg_e error in any cost estimates calculated with the Guides.
In regards the second assumption above, the 20 percent added cost for site
work, yard piping and other omitted costs is chosen only as an approximate
average. This surcharge could vary greatly with the specific construction
site; in particular the use of pile foundations or large amounts of rock
excavation would increase the surcharge whereas a minimal problem site would
decrease the surcharge.
With the background for evaluation of the Guides system and development
of the^treatment plant cost curves as described above, the sequence of
steps implemented and described in the remainder of this section were as
follows:
1. A search was made of the bid data base to establish reference or
"anchor" cost/capacity/performance curves based upon the bid experience.
2. The Guides cost estimating system was used to develop cost/capacity
curves at performance levels analogous to those associated with the
above reference curves, and the cost estimates based upon the reference
and the Guides cost curves were compared to benchmark the Guides system.
3- The Guides system was additionally used to define the relative cost
escalation between each of the several treatment categories (perfor-
mance levels) selected for the desired treatment plant construction
cost curves.
4. The desired cost curves were developed using the reference cost curves
obtained by searching the bid data base, and the cost escalation factors
between treatment categories developed using the Guides system.
The first six of the 13 treatment categories defined in Table 2 (Sec-
tion II) were used as the set of treatment categories upon which to
organize both the evaluation of the Guides system and the development of
the treatment plant construction cost curves. The effluent limitations
associated with each of these six treatment categories are structurally
analogous to those used by EPA in the 197^ Needs Survey.
EVALUATION OF GUIDES COST ESTIMATING SYSTEM
Development of Reference Cost Curves
The reference cost curves were developed by a search of the bid data
base, with the objective of identifying those series of data within the
data set that could be subjected to regression analysis. As a result of
this search, two subsets of data were selected for the analysis, as follows:
(l) Seventythree new secondary treatment plants in Treatment Categories 1,
2 or 8, as defined in Table 2; (2) Seventeen primary-to-secondary treatment
plant upgrades or upgrades/expansions in Treatment Categories 1 or 2 and
(Type of Construction Codes 2 ,and 8 (Table 1)).
19
-------
Plots showing the log of the data points for each data series used
in the regression analyses and the regression lines are presented in
Figure 1 (for new secondary plants) and in Figure 2 (for primary-to-
secondary plants), and the results of the analyses are presented in
Table 6. The coefficients of the regression equations and the cor-
relation coefficients for each data subset are presented in Table 6.
The values of the correlation coefficients were .93 for both the
analysis of new secondary plant cost data and the primary-to-
secondary plant cost data. These correlation coefficients were accepted
as reasonable in light of the many "marketplace" circumstances that can
affect the cost of wastewater treatment facilities, and for this reason,
the regression equations of Table 6 were used for development of two
reference cost curves.
The reference cost curve (curve 1) for new secondary treatment
plants (shown in Figure 1) was assumed to be applicable only for new
plants in Treatment Category 1. This assumption was made even though
the data set for the regression analysis include plants in Treatment
Categories 1, 2 and 8, simply because preliminary analysis showed that
one could not distinguish cost differences among plants in each of the
three categories based upon the bid costs contained in the data set.
The second reference curve (Curve 7) was developed to provide
appropriate deduction for new plant cost curves where an existing
primary plant is in place. The deduction curve was developed by sub-
tracting regression equation 2 (Table C) cost for upgrading primary to
secondary plants from regression equation 1 costs for constructing a
new secondary plant. The primary deduct curve can be utilized to
estimate the cost of upgrading a primary plant to secondary (subtract
curve 7 at existing design flow from curve 1 at new design flow) and
to estimate the cost of upgrading a primary plant to tertiary plant
(subtract curve 7 at existing design flow from curve 2, 3, ^, 5 or 6
at new plant flow). The third reference curve (Curve 8) is provided
to allow appropriate deduction from new plant cost where an existing
secondary plant is in place (subtract curve 8 at existing design flow
from curve 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 at new plant flow). The curve is based on
engineering judgement and not any factual data. The curve represents
the value of the existing secondary plant less an allowance for essential
adjustments and rehabilitation of the existing secondary plant. Such
adjustments include modifications of unit processes, piping and the
plant site. It is recognized that the cost of upgrading and/or expanding
an existing primary or secondary plant will vary with age of the plant,
existing equipment, the plant's configuration and site conditions.
Accordingly both the deduction curves should be utilized only in full
recognition that conditions at a particular plant could substantially
alter the deduct curves.
Cost Estimates with Guides System
_ In order to develop cost curves with the Guides system for benchmarking
against the new secondary treatment plant cost curve" of Figure 1
construction cost estimates were developed with the Guides equations for
a total of nine treatment system alternatives in the Guides treatment
category analogous to Treatment Category 1 of Table 2. The Guides base
capital cost equations were applied using the conditions described earlier
in this section, and the details of the calculations performed are presented
m Appendix B, and the results are summarized in Table 9.
20
-------
-l.*600
1.'200
-0*800
* >-
PLOT OF OBSERVED AMD PRpnTCTFD
-O.'uoo t '
1.200
0^800
?.ooo
2.300 *
73 New Secondary Plants
2.300
i.eoo *
1.300 *
0,800 +
0.300 +
.0,200
o>
o
.0,700
-1.200 *
1,700
00
log C = .33266 + .8113 log Q
C = 2.1511Q-81133
n P
p a
o y
P,R non
o
n pj*p n o
-P n
.p n
np n
0 = observed values (bid cost)
P = predicted value per regression
equation
B = observed = predicted
1.800
1.100
o.eoo
0.300
-0.200
0.700
-1.700
-2.200
!« + . .. + .t««+*..B^*>*. +.. + .^.'-^*. .'^B*******- **-*
1.200 -o.«oo o.uno 1.200 ?.ooo
GRAPH SCALE EXTFND3 FROM -1.9200 Tn 2.0SOO
Log of Grant Eligible Cost (C) in Million Dollars
-------
1.240 +
1.040 +
0.840
0.640 +
g 0.440 +
S 0.240
o
0.040 *
-0.160 *
-0.360 +
-0.560 +
-0.400
-0.200
PLOT OF OBSERVED AND PREDICTED VALUES.
0.200 0.600
1.000
-0.000
0.400
0.800
1.200
17 Primary to Secondary Upgrades
log C = .13732 + .77872 log Q
C = 1.3719Q-77872
0
1.400
0
0 = observed values (bid cost)
P = predicted value per regression
equation
-0.400
t>RAPH SCALE EXTENDS FROM
-0.200 0.200
-0.000
-0.5000 TO 1.5000
0.600
1.000
0.400
0.800
1.200
1.400
1.240
1.040
0.840
0.640
0.440
0.240
0.040
-0.160
-0.360
-0.560
Inn nf Rvant F"lirriMa ("net IC\ n' n Mill-inn rinl
-------
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Description of Subsets
Type of Plant
New Secondary
Upgraded or Expanded/Up-
graded, Primary to
Secondary
Treatment
Category
1,2,8
1,2
Regression Equation
C($M) = aQ(mgd)n
a = 2.1511
n = 0.81133
a = 1.3719
n = .77872
Correlation
Coefficient
0.935
0.936
No. of
Plants
73
26
The cost estimates for the nine alternatives in Treatment Category 1
(Table 9 of Appendix B) were evaluated to determine the high, low, and
nine alternative mean costs of construction of treatment plants for each
of the four flow rates (1, 5, 20 and 100 mgd) at which the estimates were
developed. These cost data were used to develop a cost curve envelope
showing the high, mean, and low construction cost estimates as derived
with the Guides system. The resultant high, mean and low cost curves are ^
presented as Curves B, C and D respectively in Figure 3, and the "new plants
cost curve of Figure 1 is presented as Curve A in Figure 3-
23
-------
Figure 3
COMPARISON BETWEEN BID COST EXPERIENCE AND ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
(Treatment Category 1)
100
60
40
30
§ 20
o
o
o
o
r.
"MO
4-J
c/1
O
O
c 6
o
o 4
Constri
UO
2
1
-
*
-
^
^s
_
^
^ X ' ' '
= :::::::<:: -
"""^
L
J~~j "f
/ ^
N
>
. ^
, '
t »'
^ '
- --,<- '
:i,;::::: ::!;:--
-;- S^
*' * 1
LX
,
. ^
^^'
-S-
^
'
^
f ,
_, *
"N
i
>
j
^
(
,*
I
s
^,
^
^.
fj
s
=-
k
^
^
f
L .. 2-
_, __
** ^c
*- " 2^
f ' t'~
L " ' '' ^
-? ''
+ '' ' *.' -''
. ^
^ --
1
=
I
1
II vT 1 1
..,! -^
^. .:... z
- 7t 7t .......
_ - '
; '
2346 10
MGD
20 30 40
60
100
Notes:
1. Curve "A" from regression analysis of construction bid costs for new
secondary treatment plants (Figure 1).
2. Curves "B," "C," "D" - high, mean and low estimated construction costs
from Table 9-
24
-------
Benchmarking
The benchmarking of the Guides cost estimating system was done by
comparison of the differences between the respective construction cost
estimates obtained using Curve A and C in Figure 3. The difference be-
tween the bid based and the Guides based costs was defined in terms of an
adjustment ratio that was determined by dividing the bid based cost from
Curve A by the Guides based cost from Curve C. The adjustment ratios were
determined as a function of flow rate over the range of plant capacities
between one and 100 mgd, and the results of this determination are presented
in Figure 4.
The adjustment ratio relationship of Figure 4 represents the magnitude
of the differences between the bid based cost curve and the mean Guides based
cost curve when all the conditions and assumptions set forth in this report
are taken into account. The trend defined by the adjustment ratio curve
is nonlinear and both divergent and convergent depending upon range of
flow rates considered. The value of the adjustment ratio is unity at a
flow rate of 1.05 mgd. The value of the adjustment ratio increases at a
decreasing rate as the flow rate increases from 1,05 mgd, and the maximal
value of the adjustment ratio is equal to 2.52 at a flow rate of about 65
mgd. At flow rates greater than 65 mgd, the value of the adjustment ratio
decreases at an increasing rate, and is equal to 2.42 at the upper flow
rate boundary of 100 mgd.
It is apparent from the preceding that, for the conditions used in
the benchmarking, the magnitude in the variation of the estimates obtained
is both complex in nature, and not readily quantifiable in mathematical
terms - should one be tempted to do so without dealing with the causative
factors for the variation, as discussed below.
Evaluation of Results
In concert with the precepts of the unit process concept of wastewater
treatment technology, the designers of the Guides cost estimating system
held fast to two basic distinctions derived from this concept - the first
being that distinctions in performance levels can be made as a function of the
number and types of unit processes incorporated into a treatment system, and the
second being that distinctions in cost can be defined as a function of
the unit process "content" of a treatment system. While such an approach
is rational, given the intended use of the Guides system, it flies in the
face of the reality that the unit process philosophy has gained only
marginal application in the design and operation of wastewater treatment
facilities, and has no discernible role whatsoever in the wastewater
treatment plant marketplace. A second reality at the present time is that
there is very limited prototype information on either construction costs
or performance levels available in the unit process format. Thus, given
the insensitivities of most interests involved in the field of wastewater
treatment technology to the unit process format, and the resultant absence
of usable cost information at the unit process level, it is noteworthy that
the Guides system could have been compiled as it was in the first place.
In examining the possible reasons for the variability of the adjustment
ratio of Figure 4 with respect to flow rate, three factors were considered:
25
-------
Figure k
ADJUSTMENT RATIO BETWEEN BID COST EXPERIENCE AND MEAN ESTIMATED COST
1 '"
:
1
-
CM
(Treatmen
i;EE|EErEEEEiEEEE|E|EEEEEEEE|fiEEEEEE
^;||;E|::::EE;iE|:::E;EEEE:EEEE|;EE:::::
I 5T
d|O:i:::ffi|:|j±i=:=|
Mm^MtntttffP \\\m nntn
+^jg|ffl^mj| rnn 1 1 j|[|W|||||4|
FFR"BT-;T:
_ ' _| _|_LJ__S -.
T i S
""-J-1'[ s ._
" p i"
1_ 2
1 "" A"
\
s
L It ^
r t" \^ ""
B 's
|EEE^E:EEEEEEEEEEE:EEEE~E;E|EEEEEEEEE~EEE
E$: ::::: :::::::S ::::: ::::: -|"|-| """"
Kffffw^nj^tt^
T _i_ V
X V,
--- + - - - -- 1
i ~ T ~ ~ --- - -^-- (-
-3- CM O OO
CM CM CM
t Cateaory 1) o
o
:::::::;;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: O
___|i__,.
:::::;: :: o
:::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::: O
;; ;;:::::::::::;::::::: : o
. .. . .. .- CM
O
:::::;:::::::::;:::E: ::::: :;:::E::::;|
|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::||:|=: vO
-T
_. (... ...... ................. |;:. ..... p|
L
^
^
\ CM
s
\
\
\
\
^
vo -=r CM o oo
^ r ~- . O
CD
Z
O"
26
-------
(l) the unit process base capital cost relationships in the Guides system;
(2) the cost updating index selected; and, (3) the 20 percent surcharge
added to account for omitted cost items in the base capital cost relation-
ships, such as site work, yard piping and buildings. In reference to the
latter two factors, the important point in relation to the variability of
the adjustment ratio is not the magnitude of each factor, but rather that
each introduced linear adjustments to the magnitudes of the estimates
obtained with the Guides system. Additionally these factors were dealt
with as external coefficients to the structure of the cost estimating system
as opposed to being inherent. Consequently, the nonlinear variation of the
adjustment ratio that was exhibited with respect to flow rate cannot be
explained in terms of either of these external factors, but rather must be
inherent to the system. Thus, the only factor to which the nonlinearity
of the adjustment ratio can be attributed is the set of unit process base
capital cost relationships in the Guides system.
No attempt was made to ascertain how to distribute the variability
defined by the adjustment factors between/among the base capital cost
relationships for the unit processes in the nine treatment alternatives
involved in the benchmarking - it is an understatement that such an effort
would entail the review and updating of the entire Guides cost estimating
system. Rather, it was assumed herein that the Guides cost estimating
system could be used "as is" to develop estimates of the cost escalation
between treatment system alternatives representative of each of the six
treatment categories for which treatment system construction costs are
presented subsequently.
TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION COST CURVES
The treatment plant construction cost curves presented subsequently
in this section were developed in consideration of the following require-
ments:
1. To encompass a range of plant capacities varying from 0.01 to 1000 mgd .
2. To incorporate cost curves for up to 6 levels of wastewater treatment.
3. To provide a basis for determining construction costs associated with
new plants as well as the upgrading or upgrading and expansion of
existing plants.
The develo£me_nt_ o_f_tj]e_de_sj_re_d_c£st_ £urye_s_wa_s_done_ a_s_f £l J_ow_sj_
1. New treatment plant cost curves were developed for six levels of
treatment, as defined by Treatment Categories 1 to 6 of Table 2.
2. The reference curve for secondary plants presented in Figure 1
was used to obtain a cost curve for new plants in Treatment Category
1 - an application which involved the extrapolation of the "new
plants" curve of Figure 1 to cover the flow rate range from 0.01 to 1000
mgd.
3. The cost curves for Treatment Categories 2 to 6 were developed by
estimating the escalation in the cost of a new secondary treatment
plant (as determined by the above referenced curve) that would be
necessary to construct new plants capable of performance in
27
-------
Treatment Categories 2 to 6.
The cost escalation factors were estimated with the Guides system
as described in Appendix B, and were as follows:
Treatment Category Cost Escalation Factor Relative to
Treatment Category/Cost
2 Add 20%
3 " 23%
k " 38%
5 " 56%
6
5- The reference curve for determination of the salvage value of primary
treatment plants (curve 7 herein called "deduction for existing primary
treatment") was developed using the regression equations of Table 6
to determine the difference between the costs of constructing a new
secondary plant and upgrading (or upgrading/expanding) a primary plant
to secondary status.
6. The reference curve for determination fo the salvage value of secondary
treatment plants (curve 8 herein called "deduction for existing second-
ary treatment") is based on engineering judgement (see page 20).
The treatment plant construction cost curves developed by the above
process are presented in Figures 5 and 6, which are applicable for plants
in the capacity ranges of 0.01 to 3 mgd and 3 to 1,000 mgd, respectively.
In each figure, the curves labelled (1) through (6) refer to the construc-
tion of new plants associated with the effluent limitations presented
in the legends. (The effluent limitations for Curves (l) to (6) are
identical with those presented for Treatment Categories 1 to 6 in Table 2).
The other curve in each figure can be used to determine the salvage
value of an existing primary plant to be deducted from the cost of con-
structing a new plant, wherein the salvage value is determined as a function
of the flow rate of the existing plant. The cost of constructing a new
plant in a given treatment category is determined simply as a function
of the design flow rate of the new plant, using the appropriate cost curve.
In all cases, the cost curves were based upon an STP Index of 263.
In order to provide some perspective for evaluating the cost curves,
a comparison was made between bid cost experience and cost estimates
derived from the curves of Figure 5 and 6 for fifteen specific plants in
the bid data set. The fifteen plants selected for the comparison were
classified as advanced waste treatment plants (in Treatment Categories
3 to 6 as defined in Table 2 and in relation to Curves 3 to 6 of Figures
5 and 6). Each of the 15 plants is identified in Table 7 by Bid Number,
Treatment Category, design flow rate, and updated and estimated grant
eligible construction cost. The Bid Number, design flow and updated cost
information were obtained from Table 8 of Appendix A, and the estimated
cost for each plant was obtained from the appropriate cost curve in Figure
5 or 6. When each plant is considered individually, the difference between
the estimated and updated costs varies from extreme values of -kj per-
cent to 1M percent. However, the average difference between the estimated
and updated costs for all 15 bids is 16 percent.
28
-------
Figure 5
TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION COST CURVES - DESIGN FLOW RATE 0.01 to 3.0 MGD
(STP Index - 263)
0.01
1.0
3.0
29
-------
Figure 6
TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION COST CURVES - DESIGN FLOW RATE 3 TO 1000 MGD
(STP Index - 263)
1000 10 L [_..._4_ i i-
c
o
c
O
o
3
l/l
C
o
o
_Q
01
C
TO
CJ
5 6 7 8 9 K
1000
Q, MGD
30
-------
TABLE 7. COMPARISON OF INDIVIDUAL BID COST EXPERIENCE WITH ESTIMATED COSTS
FROM COST CURVES - NEW TREATMENT PLANTS IN TREATMENT CATEGORIES 3 TO 6
Bid 1
Number
108
148
405
416
426
422
424
447
J35
423
428
443
420
409
433
Avg^
Treatment
Category
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
6
6
Des ign
Flow ,
Rate (mgd)
0.45
0.50
2.00
2.25
5.00
7-50
20.00
43-60
0.75
4.00
4.40
12.4
48.0
20.0
22.0
-
Grant El ig . Const.
Cost, $ Mil 1 ion
Updated
Cost
1.08
1.16
1.99
2.99
15.8
22.5
32.0
57-7
2.40
17.7
9.16
19.4
79-9
29.4
46.6
-
Est imated
Cost3
1.45
1.60
4.85
5-35
10.0
14.0
30.8
57.5
2.83
9-35
10.2
23.4
78.0
44.0
47-5
-
% Difference
(Estimated-Updated)
Updated
34.3
37-9
143-7
78.9
-36.7
-37-8
- 3-8
0.0
-0.8
-47-2
11.4
20.6
-2.4
49-7
-1.9
16.4
Notes: See Appendix A, Table 8
From Table 2
From Figures 6 and 7
Average difference for all 15 bids
31
-------
SECTION IV
APPENDICES
Page
A. SUMMARY OF BID INFORMATION 33
B. TREATMENT PLANT COST ESTIMATES 39
C. CITY MULTIPLIERS FOR TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION kk
32
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF BID INFORMATION
A summary of the bid information developed for use in the present
report is presented in Table 8. The summary is organized in the following
format (one line per bid):
Column Content
1 Bid number
2 EPA project number
3 Design flow rate, in units of mgd
4 Updated grant eligible construction cost (DC),
adjusted to an STP Index of 263, in units
of millions of dollars
5 Updated unit cost (UUC), in units of $/gpd
6 Code for type of construction (see Table 1)
7 Code for treatment category (see Table 2)
8 Code for secondary unit process train (Table 3)
9, 10, 11 Code for tertiary unit processes (see Table 3)
12, 13 Code for residual solids treatment unit
processes (see Table 3)
14 EPA Region in which project is located
15 Project location
An overview discussion of the development and content of the bid data
base is presented in Section II.
33
-------
TABLE 8 - SUMMARY OF BID INFORMATION
Bid
No.
(1)
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
Proj .
No.
(2)
060631
060766
088803
080325
120340
17Q470
180354
180375
180376
18Q459
180495
180526
18Q638
190619
19Q686
190703
200428
23Q098
25Q246
270808
27Q970
290602
290675
29Q674
29Q731
300159
300193
310435
310470
360433
420567
420684
420699
420773
420778
460221
460225
460244
Des ign
Flow(mgd)
(3)
000.200
000.500
000.050
000.300
000.200
000.070
000.220
000.450
000.070
000.500
000.130
000.090
000.500
000.025
000.033
000.043
000.061
000.070
000.410
000.075
000.093
000.343
000.223
000.857
000.083
000.020
000.025
000.165
000*042
000.100
000.150
ooo. aoo
000.300
000.200
000.750
000.027
000.180
000.070
uc
(SM)
w
00.546
01.772
00.348
00.405
00.370
00.363
00.794
01.081
00.318
00.650
00.384
00.330
00.998
00.201
00.215
00.173
00.254
00.289
00.651
00.232
00.620
00.494
00.334
01.367
00.483
00.062
00.120
00.436
00*389
00.720
00.791
01.451
00.867
00.649
02.400
00.082
00.175
00.063
uuc
($/gpd1
(5) (6)
02.73 01
03.55 01
06.96 01
01.35 01
01.85 01
05.19 01
03.61 01
02.40 01
04.54 01
01.30 01
02.95 01
03.67 01
02.00 01
08.06 01
06.52 01
04.02 01
0^.17 01
0^.13 01
01.59 01
02.95 01
06.67 01
01.44 01
01.50 01
01.59 01
05.81 01
03.12 01
0^.78 01
02.64 01
09.27 01
07.20 01
05.27 01
01.81 01
02.89 01
03.25 01
03.20 01
03.03 01
00.97 01
00.91 01
Sec.
(7) (8)
01 Oil
02 051
02 013
02 013
01 012
02 013
01 012
03 034
02 013
02 013
02 012
02 013
02 Oil
01 032
01 032
01 032
01 031
01 013
01 013
01 032
02 051
01 012
01 051
02 013
08 051
01 013
02 013
01 013
01 041
12 013
02 013
01 012
01 034
02 013
04 Oil
01 032
01 032
01 032
Unit Processes
Tert i srv
(9)
000
18?
19?
000
191
19?
000
143
181
000
19?
19?
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
111
000
000
000
111
000
19?
000
000
131
000
000
000
114
141
091
000
000
do)
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
192
000
181
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
(11)
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
ooo
000
000
000
000
000
000
Res.
(12)
218
215
241
214
241
242
214
214
242
242
241
214
241
000
000
000
000
251
214
000
214
241
214
215
215
241
000
211
218
211
212
218
000
212
000
000
000
000
EPA
Solids Rea^ Prniftrl- Location
(13)
214
000
251
000
251
000
000
000
000
000
251
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
251
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
251
000
251
000
214
000
000
000
000
000
000
(U) (15)
09 DESERT HOT SPRNGS, CA.
09 DUNSMUIR, CA.
08 REDSTONE, CO.
08 EAGLE, CO.
04 NEWBERRY, FL.
05 PARAGON, IN.
05 WILLIAMSPORT, IL.
05 ROME CITY, IN.
05 CROMWELL, IN
05 NEWRURGH, IN.
05 DUGGER, IN.
05 STAUNTON, IN.
05 PICKNELL, IN.
07 HENDERSON, IA.
07 BEAMAN, IA.
07 BARNUM, IA.
07 TIMBERLAKES, KS.
01 BLUE HILL MA.
01 OXFORD, MA.
05 ZIMMERMAN, MN.
05 MADISON LAKE, MN.
07 MONTGOMERY CITY, MO.
07 COLECAMP, MO.
07 WARRENTON, MO.
07 EXETER, MO.
08 HINSDALE, MT.
08 HIGHWOOD, MT.
07 ARLINGTON, NB.
07 MURRAY, NB.
02 SAG HARBOR, NY.
03 WAMPUM, PA.
03 BOSWELL, PA.
03 SUMMERSET TWP, PA.
03 WASH TWP, PA.
03 S. MIDDLETON TWP, PA.
08 HUDSON, SD
08 DESMET, SD.
08 ELKTON, SD.
-------
TABLE 8 - SUMMARY OF BID INFORMATION
Bid Proj.
No. No.
(1)
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
201
202
203
204
205
206
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
(2)
460257
460258
460259
470355
500860
500150
510375
540164
540192
080314
410332
420578
420689
420691
420710
170951
060718
171196
180499
262213
310480
320081
420705
420720
450188
450188
56Q097
060664
060796
060810
061121
080239
080257
080326
100088
120428
180533
Des ign
Flow(mgd)
(3)
000.020
000.010
000.020
000.500
000.080
000.080
000.300
000.250
000.100
000.500
000.500
000.250
000.250
000.650
000.400
ooi.ooo
000.500
001.200
000.900
000.400
000.500
000.400
000.090
000.600
000.360
000.800
000.800
001.500
005.750
010.350
004.830
002.000
001.000
001.000
003.000
020.000
002.000
UC
f$Ml
00
00.032
00.037
00.027
00.705
00.400
00.858
00.655
01.016
00.438
01.161
00.409
00.562
00.809
00.922
00.820
01.047
01.080
01.490
01.992
01.199
00.306
00.053
00.732
01.167
00.408
00.640
00.443
03.546
11.804
42.129
23.517
01.989
00.698
01.720
05.597
29.422
04.544
UUC
(S/gptrt
(5) (6)
01.61 01
03.72 01
01.37 01
01.41 01
05.00 01
10.72 01
02.18 01
04.06 01
04.38 01
02.32 01
00.82 02
02.25 02
03.24 02
01.42 03
02.05 02
01.05 04
02.16 14
01.24 16
02.21 14
03.00 11
00.61 06
00.13 14
08.13 16
01.94 14
01.13 14
00.80 14
00.55 17
02.36 01
02.05 01
04.08 01
04.87 01
00.99 01
00.70 01
01.72 01
01.87 01
01.47 01
02.27 01
Unit Processes
Sec. Tertiary
(7) (8)
01 032
01 032
01 032
07 012
01 051
01 033
01 013
01 051
01 051
03 Oil
01 012
01 021
01 Oil
07 012
01 013
02 012
02 Oil
02 012
02 Oil
03 013
01 012
02 034
04 Oil
02 Oil
02 03*
02 041
01 013
01 034
08 016
07 016
06 017
03 Oil
01 Oil
02 Oil
02 Oil
06 015
02 013
(9)
000
000
191
122
000
000
000
000
000
141
000
000
000
000
000
111
000
111
111
143
000
000
000
111
000
000
000
19?
181
111
17?
Ill
000
111
114
131
000
do)
000
000
000
182
000
000
000
000
000
192
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
182
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
(11)
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Res.
(12)
000
000
000
242
214
214
214
214
214
000
000
218
241
216
000
216
242
218
242
222
000
000
218
243
214
214
000
000
224
242
223
241
242
213
341
223
242
EPA
Solids Reg. PrniP.r.l- Location
(13)
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
215
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
234
000
234
000
000
000
000
233
000
(14) (15)
08 KRANZBURG, SD
08 TURTON, SD
08 HENRY* SD
04 MCEWEN, TN.
01 PUTNEY* VT.
01 MERRIMACK» NH.
03 PATRICK, VA.
03 DELBARTON, WV.
03 8ELMONT, WV.
08 SILVERTHORN, CO.
10 GOLD BEACH OR
03 WILLIAMSTOWN, PA.
03 TUNKHANNOCK, PA.
03 JIM THORPE, PA.
03 REYNOLDSVILLE, PA.
05 TROY. IL
09 WWEAVERVILLE, CA.
05 DUQUOIN, IL.
05 SALEM,, IN.
05 ONTONAGAN, MI.
07 GRETNA, NB.
09 BATTLE MTN, NV
03 MCVEYTOWN, PA.
03 MONTGOMERY, PA.
04 DILLON, SC. (MS)
04 DILLON, SC. (LP)
08 S. CHEYENNE, WY.
09 PETALUMA, CA.
09 ROSEVILLE, CA.
09 FAIRFIELD, CA.
09 TAHOE-TRUCKEE, CA.
08 BRECKENRIDGE, CO.
08 CARBONDALE, CO.
08 EVERGREEN, CO.
03 SUSSEX CO. DL.
04 PENSACOLA, FL.
05 PRINCETON, IN.
-------
TABLE 8 - SUMMARY OF BID INFORMATION
ON
Bid
No.
(1)
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
s24
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
Proj.
No.
(2)
200366
24Q311
27Q630
270711
270747
290539
340371
340556
360643
360747
370347
39Q683
390684
410371
420600
420665
420675
420679
420695
420701
440667
490142
510331
510362
510395
510435
560095
540182
420781
100088
230092
230096
250227
250753
250258
270748
330104
250234
Des ign
Flow(mgd)
(3)
006.200
001.800
001.330
003.420
013.000
002.250
030.000
045.000
013.000
048.000
001.500
007.500
004.000
020.000
008.000
005.000
040.000
004.400
002.000
001.400
003.900
002.260
022.000
024.000
002.000
050.000
004.500
001.200
002.000
003.000
001.230
001.210
012.400
015.300
056.000
064.100
043.600
015.300
uc
(SM)
CO
10.378
05.141
01.879
06.424
15.339
02.986
46.017
55.825
23.679
79.917
02.200
22.460
17.682
32.016
10.245
15.817
53.144
09.156
03.236
03.586
10.325
02.155
46.594
13.315
03.553
50.546
05.359
04.704
04.618
05.698
04.999
01.884
19.421
33.451
49.555
57.716
05.568
15.916
uuc
(S/gpd)
(5) (6)
01.67 01
02.85 01
01.41 01
01.88 01
01.18 01
01.33 01
01.53 01
01.24 01
01.82 01
01.66 01
01.47 01
02.99 01
04.42 01
01.60 01
01.28 01
03.16 01
01.33 01
02.08 01
01.62 01
02.39 01
02.64 01
00.95 01
02.12 01
00.55 01
01.78 01
01.01 01
01.19 01
03.92 01
02.31 01
01.90 01
04.06 01
01.56 01
01.57 01
00.60 01
00.77 01
01.32 01
05.30 01
01.04 01
Unit Processes
Sec, Tertiarv
(7) (8)
01 Oil
02 Oil
02 03<+
02 017
01 012
03 051
02 Oil
02 Oil
01 Oil
05 Olb
02 014
03 Oil
04 Olb
03 Oil
08 Oil
03 034
02 Oil
04 Oil
07 012
01 012
01 Oil
02 Oil
06 Oil
02 015
02 Oil
01 Oil
01 034
08 Oil
01 Oil
02 Oil
01 013
01 012
04 Oil
01 018
01 Oil
01 Oil
03 Olb
01 018
(9)
000
000
111
000
000
111
000
000
000
115
000
114
121
111
111
112
181
114
000
000
000
111
164
000
000
000
000
000
000
114
141
000
121
11?
000
000
141
012
(10) (11)
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
000 000
Res.
(12)
241
242
000
243
221
216
223
223
234
213
243
231
233
235
231
232
231
223
244
243
234
222
223
216
223
231
222
213
218
242
216
213
231
215
231
236
231
215
EPA
Solids Rea. Protect Location
(13)
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
234
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
216
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
noo
000
(14)
07
03
05
05
05
07
02
02
02
02
04
05
05
10
03
03
03
03
03
03
01
08
03
03
03
03
08
03
03
03
01
01
01
01
01
01
05
01
' (15)
MANHATTAN, KS.
CARROLL CO., MD.
MEDELLA, MN.
NEW ULM, MN.
ST CLOUD, MN.
LEBANON, MO.
S. OCEAN CO. NJ.
N. OCEAN CO. NJ.
SARATOGA, NY.
NIAGARA FALLS, NY.
JACKSON CO. NC.
FRENCH CR., OH
MAHONING CO., OH.
DURHAM, OR.
VALLEY FORGE, PA.
DERRY TWP, PA.
CHESTER, PA.
WESTMORELAND CO. PA.
HOLLIDAYSBURG, PA.
PHILLIPSBURG, PA.
S. KINGSTON, RI.
CEDAR CITY , UT.
U. OCCUOUAN, VA.
DANVILLE, VA.
WYTHERVILLE, VA.
HOPEWELL, VA.
CHEYENNE, WY.
BLUEFIELD, WV.
SCHUYLKILL HAVEN, PA.
BETHANEY BCH, DL
HARTLAND, ME.
LISBON, ME.
FITCHBURG, MA.
WORCHESTER, MA.
SPRINGFIELD, MA.
DULUTH, MN.
ALLENTOWN, NH.
FITCHBURG, MA. 92% industrial
-------
TABLE 8 - SUMMARY OF BID INFORMATION
Bid Proj.
No. No.
(1)
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
bll
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
(2)
060621
060681
160188
170876
262142
270720
390626
420447
420682
420697
460218
530503
540199
060579
060591
060603
060735
080328
080329
120473
170970
171202
171332
171397
180474
180538
190593
200406
250305
262127
270871
290564
290652
300163
310444
Des ign
Floyv (mgd)
(3)
0 15.000
007.500
012.000
001.200
001.500
002.000
018.500
002.560
001.000
001.750
001.830
001 .650
017.000
003.300
011.000
019.000
120.000
012.000
020.000
060.000
003.000
004.500
011.100
012.000
ooi.ooo
060.000
007.500
004.000
002.160
050.000
003.500
024.000
007.000
002.700
001.500
UC
(SM)
(V
21.054
01.881
06.687
02.193
02.018
02.403
19.179
01.586
01.704
03.361
01.157
01.627
14.661
03,948
09.862
20.159
74.994
11.159
26.229
93.000
Ol.<*85
02.720
12.230
11.843
01.900
41.514
08.376
02.587
06.140
60.896
04.119
45.671
07.466
01.711
01.763
UUC
(S/apd}
(5)
01.40
00.25
00.56
01.83
01.35
0-1.20
01.04
00.62
01.70
01.92
00.63
00.90
00.86
01.20
00.90
01.06
00.62
00.93
01.31
01.55
00.50
01.49
01.10
00.99
01.90
00.69
01.12
00.65
02.84
01.22
01.18
01.90
01.07
00.64
01.18
Unit Processes
Sec . Tert i arv
(6) (7)
01 01
04 04
02 01
01 02
02 03
01 03
04 04
02 01
02 01
02 02
02 01
02 01
02 01
12 01
17 01
15 02
11 02
06 02
08 02
11 05
17 02
15 13
06 01
14 02
14 13
17 02
08 07
06 01
10 04
15 02
08 02
14 07
06 01
12 02
08 01
(8)
013
000
Oil
on
on
013
000
022
Oil
Oil
022
Oli
on
016
Oli
Oil
015
OU
01^
019
012
on
Oil
Oil
01?
017
Oil
016
013
016
023
015
022
022
022
(9)
000
152
000
000
143
141
121
000
000
000
000
000
000
191
000
111
12]
000
000
131
000
111
000
111
111
000
000
000
111
114
181
121
000
111
000
do)
000
000
000
000
000
000
143
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
115
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
181
182
000
000
000
000
000
(11)
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Res.
(12)
213
000
000
242
000
211
211
216
000
211
000
222
211
222
224
000
000
242
223
218
211
242
223
245
221
218
221
218
223
000
218
223
213
211
218
EPA
Solids Rc.a . Prolect Location
(13)
000
000
000
000
000
215
215
000
000
216
000
000
217
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
251
000
000
000
251
000
000
000
000
000
215
000
217
215
214
(14)
09
09
10
05
05
05
05
03
03
03
08
10
03
09
09
09
09
08
08
04
05
05
05
05
05
05
07
07
01
05
05
07
07
08
07
(15)
SANTA ANNA, CA.
S. TAHOE, CA.
POCADELLO, ID
ALGONQUIN* IL.
GRAND LEDGE, MI.
VIRGINIA, MN.
LIMA, OH.
AMBRIDGE, PA.
HAMBURG, PA.
TAMAQUA, PA.
YANKTON, SD.
DOUGLAS CO, WA
HUNTINGTON, WV.
SANGER, CA.
ESCONDIDO, CA.
LOS ANGELES, CA
E BAY OAKLAND, CA.
FT COLLINS, CO.
LITTLETON/ENG, CO.
TAMPA, EL.
OFALLON, IL.
MATTOON, IL.
E MOLINE, IL.
HINSDALE, IL.
SCHERERVILLE, IN.
FT WAYNE, IN.
CLINTON, IA.
GARDEN CITY, KS.
MIDDLEBOROUGH, MA.
FLINT, MI.
FAIRBOLT, MN.
SPRINGFIELD, MO.
CAPE GIRARDEAU, MO.
KALISPELL, MT.
LEXINGTON NB.
-------
TABLE 8 - SUMMARY OF BID INFORMATION
Bid Proj.
No. No.
(1)
623
624
625
626
627
62tf
629
630
631
632
(2)
380321
390593
390599
470027
510329
550648
550662
550687
550788
560109
Des i gn
Flow(mgd)
(3)
005.040
005.000
003.000
002.100
015.000
015 .500
001.900
002.000
Oil. 100
006.400
UC
(SM)
W
04.434
04.502
04.241
04.^22
04.298
20.627
02.259
03.929
20. 189
04.334
UUC
($/apd)
(5)
00.88
00.90
01.41
02. 11
00.29
01.33
01.19
01.96
01.82
00.68
Unit Processes
Sec. Tertiarv
(6)
15
11
07
13
06
15
07
01
07
08
(7)
02
03
03
11
01
03
01
03
01
01
(8)
013
Oil
016
Oil
Oil
022
022
on
016
Oil
(9)
111
143
000
122
000
141
000
111
000
000
do)
000
000
000
182
000
000
000
000
000
000
(11)
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
EPA
Res. Sol ids Rea
(12)
218
222
242
244
246
219
222
243
236
222
(13)
000
242
000
000
000
000
251
000
251
000
(14)
08
05
05
04
03
05
05
05
05
08
Project Location
(15)
BISMARK, ND.
MT VERNON, OH.
UR6ANA, OH.
KNOXVILLE* TN.
PETERSBURG, VA.
MANITOWAC, WI.
RHEINLANDER, WI.
RIPON, WI.
FOND DU LAC, WI.
CASPER, WY.
-------
APPENDIX B
TREATMENT PLANT COST ESTIMATES
The Guides cost estimating system was used to estimate treatment plant
costs for a number of purposes as discussed in Section III. The conditions
under which the cost estimates were developed with the unit process base ca-
pital cost equations of the Guides system are also discussed in Section
III, and the purpose of this Appendix is to describe the specific treat-
ment system alternatives for which estimates were made, and to summarize
the estimates.
A summary of each cost estimate prepared with the Guides system is
presented in Table 9. Each alternative is defined in terms of unit
process content, the treatment category (in Table 2) analogous to the
level of performance assigned to the alternative in the Guides system,
and the cost estimates developed at each of four flow rates (1, 5, 20 and
100 mgd). The unit processes in each alternative are described in Tables
10 and 11, and all of the estimates were developed using a value of 263
for the STP Index and a surcharge of 20 percent to account for site work,
yard piping and other cost items not Included in the unit process cost
expressions of the Guides system.
A total of nine alternatives were evaluated in Treatment Category
1 and the mean cost for all nine alternatives was determined as a function
of the flow rate. The values of the high, mean and low cost estimates at
each of the four flow rates as presented in Table 9 were used to compile
Curves B, C, and D respectively of Figure k (Section III).
In the development of the cost curves presented in Figures 6 and 7,
it was necessary to use the Guides system to determine the relative cost
differences (or cost escalation factors) between each treatment category
as a function of flow rate. The alternatives within the Guides system
selected for the cost estimations are identified by unit process content
for Treatment Categories 2 to 6 of Table 9- The alternatives specified
in each of these categories were selected because of their representativeness
in current practice. The cost estimates developed for the first alter-
native in each treatment category in each case incorporating the activated
sludge process were selected for use in developing the cost escalation
factors because fully one third of the plants in the bid data base were
activated sludge plants (Table 5). The cost estimates for the first al-
ternative of Treatment Categories 2 to 6 were divided by the cost estimates
for the first alternative in Treatment Category 1, and the resultant cost
escalation factors are presented in Table 12.
It is apparent from inspection of the factors presented in Table 12
that the magnitude of the factors within each category varies nonlinearly
with respect to flow rate. As discussed in Section III, the nonlinearity
is associated with the structure of the base capital cost relationships in
the Guides system. Because of the nonlinearity, an average cost escalation
factor was determined for each treatment category, and with one exception
the average factors reported in Table 12 were used in developing the curves
of Figures 6 and 7. The exception was with respect to Treatment Category 2,
wherein the average factor value was 1.28 and the value of the factor
used was 1.20, based upon engIneering judgement.
39
-------
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
Treatment
Category
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
Att.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
Unit Processes by Alternative
AA, AB, A-l, C-l, R, 0-5, L-l
AA, AB, A-l, C-l, R, P-6, 0-8, M-l
AA,AB,A- ,C- ,R,0- ,P-1
AA,AB,A- ,C- ,R,0- ,P-5
AA,AB,A- ,B- ,R,L- ,N-1
AA,AB,A- ,B- ,R,L- ,0-5
AA,AB,A- ,B- ,R, 0-8, P-6
AA.AB.A- ,B- ,R,0- ,P-1
AA.AB.A- ,B- ,R,0- ,P-5
Mean Cost (Alternatives 1 to 9)
AA,AB,A-3,R,C-2,0-4,P-4
AA,AB,A-3,R,B-2,0_-2,0-4
AA,AB,A-3,R,B-2,0-4,P-4
AA,AB,A-1,C-1,F-2,R,0-5,L-1
AA,AB,A-2,G-4,R,0-3,P-3
AA,AB,A-2,G-4,H,R,0-3,P-3
AA,AB,A-2,G-4,H,0,R,0-3,P-3
Estimated Cost ($ Million)
at Design Flow Rate(mgd)
1
2.06
2.6?
2.53
2.36
1.63
1.84
2.42
2.30
2.14
2.22
2.70
2.36
2.50
2.70
3.22
3-56
3-97
5
3-73
5-13
4.97
4.58
3-54
3-50
4.90
4.74
4.35
4.38
5-32
4.63
5.10
4.61
5.29
5.90
7.09
20
9-05
11.7
11.5
10.7
9.79
8.81
11.4
11.3
10.4
10.5
12.3
10.7
12.0
10.8
12.1
13-7
16.7
100
34.4
38.7
38.7
36.7
40.2
34.1
38.4
38.4
36.4
37.3
35.8
36.0
35.0
41.0
41.3
48.2
56.8
Notes: Treatment categories from Table 2.
3
Tor unit process codes, see Tables 10 and 11.
Estimated using cost equations from Table B-l of "A Guide to the
Selection of Cost Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems" (EPA
430/9-75-002), March 1975, an STP Index of 263, and a 20% surcharge
for site work and buildings .
-------
TABLE 10. WASTEWATER TREATMENT UNIT PROCESSES
AA.
AB.
B.
Preliminary Treatment
Influent: Raw wastewater
Raw Wastewater Pumping
Influent: Effluent from AA
Primary Sedimentation
Influent: Effluent from AA or AB
A-1 Conventional
Two-Stage Lime Addition
Single Stage Lime Addition
Alum Addition
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
FeCI3 Addition
Trickling Filter
B-1 Influent: Effluent from A-1
B-2 Influent: Effluent from A-3
B-3 Influent: Effluent from A-4 or A-5
Activated Sludge
C-1 Conventional
Influent: Effluent from A-1
C-2 Conventional
Influent: Effluent from A-3
C-3 Conventional
Influent: Effluent from A-4 or A-5
C-4 Alum Addition
Influent: Effluent from A-1
C-5 FeCI3 Addition
Influent: Effluent from A-1
C-6 High Rate
Influent: Effluent from A-1
C-7 High Rate & Alum Addition
Influent: Effluent from A-1
C-8 High Rate & FeCI3 Addition
Influent: Effluent from A-1
D. Filtration
Influent: Effluent from A-2, B-2, B-3, C-2,
C-3, C-4, C-5, F-1 or F-2
G-1.G-2, G-3, G-4, H, J, K
E. Activated Carbon
Influent: Effluent from D
F. Two-Stage Tertiary Lime Treatment
F-1 Influent: Effluent from B-1
F-2 Influent: Effluent from C-1
G. Biological Nitrification
G-1 Influent: Effluent from C-6
G-2 Influent: Effluent from B-1
G-3 Influent: Effluent from A-3, A-4 or A-5
G-4 Influent: Effluent from A-2.C-7 or C-8
H. Biological Denitrification
Influent: Effluent from G-1, G-2, G-3 or G-4
I. Ion Exchanges
Associated with A-2, B-2, B-3, C-2, C-3, C-4,
C-5, F-1, or F-2
J. Breakpoint Chlorination
Influent: Effluent from A-2, B-1, B-2, B-3, C-1, C-2,
C-3, C-4, C-5, F-1 or F-2
K. Ammonia Stripping
Influent: Effluent from F-1 or F-2
R. Disinfection
Influent: Effluent from any treatment process
Source: "A Guide to the Selection of Cost Effective Wastewater Treatment
Systems" (EPA 430/9-75-002, March 1975)
-------
TABLE ]]. SLUDGE HANDLING UNIT PROCESSES
L. Anaerobic Digestion
L-l Sludge Influent: Generated from A-l +B-1, C-l or C-6
L-2 Sludge Influent: Generated from A-l +C-4, or C-5, or C-l, or C-i
A-4+B-3 or C-3, A-5+B-3 or C-3
M. Heat Treatment
M-l Sludge Influent: Generated from A-l+B-1, C-l or C-6
M-2 Sludge Influent: Generated from A-l+C-4 or C-5, or C-l, or C-8
A-4+B-3 or C-3, A-5+B-3 or C-3
N. Air Drying
N-l Sludge Influent:
N-2 Sludge Influent:
O.
Dewatering
O-l Sludge
O-2 Sludge
Influent:
Influent:
Effluent Sludge from L-l
Effluent Sludge from L-2
Generated from A-l+B-1, C-l or C-6
Generated from A-l+C-4 or C-5, or C-l,
A-4+B-3 or C-3, A-5+B-3 or C-3
Generated from A-2
Generated from A-3+B-2 or C-2
Effluent Sludge from L-l
Effluent Sludge from L-2
Generated from F-l or F-2
Effluent Sludge from M-l
Effluent Sludge from M-2
P. Incineration
P-l Influent Sludge: Effluent Sludge from O-l
P-2 Influent Sludge: Effluent Sludge from O-2
P-3 Influent Sludge: Effluent Sludge from O-3
P-4 Influent Sludge: Effluent Sludge from O-4
P-5* Influent Sludge: Effluent Sludge from O-7+O-1
P-6 Influent Sludge: Effluent Sludge from O-8
P-7 Influent Sludge: Effluent Sludge from O-9
Q. Recalcination (includes chemical storage & feeding)
Q-l Sludge Influent: Effluent Sludge from O-3
Q-2 Sludge Influent: Effluent Sludge from O-4
Q-3 Sludge Influent: Effluent Sludge from O-7
or
C-8,
O-3
O-4
O-5
0-6
0-7
0-8
0-9
Sludge Influent:
Sludge Influent:
Sludge Influent:
Sludge Influent:
Sludge Influent:
Sludge Influent:
Sludge Influent:
Source: "A Guide to the Selection of Cost Effective Wastewater Treatment
Systems" (EPA 430/9-75-002, March, 1975)
-------
TABLE .12. COST ESCALATION FACTORS BETWEEN TREATMENT CATEGORY ONE AND SPECIFIED
TREATMENT CATEGORY FOR SELECTED ALTERNATIVES
Treatment
Category
1
2
3
4
5
6
Selected
Al ternat i ve
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cost Escalation from Treatment Category One
to Specified Category
Design Flow Rate (mgd)
1
1.00
1.31
1.31
1.56
1.73
1.92
5
1 .00
1.43
}.2k
1 .42
1.58
1.90
20
1.00
1.36
1.20
1.3^
1.52
1.85
100
1.00
1.04
1.19
1 .20
1.40
1.65
Average
1 .00
1.28
1.23
1.38
1.56
1.83
Factor
Used
1.00
1.20
1.23
1.38
1.56
1.83
Notes: Treatment categories from Table 2
r\
Alternatives as specified by "Alternative Number" in Table 9
^Ratio of estimated construction at specified treatment category
to that at Treatment Category 1, at each flow rate
43
-------
APPENDIX C
TABLE 13
CITY MULTIPLIERS FOR TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION
LOCATION TREATMENT PLANT CITY
MULTIPLIER
ATLANTA, GEORGIA .8347
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 1.0083
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA .8264
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 1.1132
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA .6281
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 1.1570
CINCINNATI, OHIO 1.0331
CLEVELAND, OHIO 1.0744
DALLAS, TEXAS .7934
DENVER, COLORADO .8843
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 1.0083
HOUSTON, TEXAS .8678
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 1.0000
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 1.0578
MIAMI, FLORIDA .8843
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 1.0331
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA .9091
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA .9256
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 1.3223
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 1.1818
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 1.0413
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 1.1570
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 1.1157
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 1.0330
TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 1.0826
NOTE: the treatment plant construction cost presented in Figures 5 and 6 can
be multiplied by the above multipliers to account for local labor and
material cost variations.
44
* U.S. Government Printing Office: 1977-778-743/135 Region 8
------- |