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

-------