Construction Costs
for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment
Plants: 1973-1977
United States
Enviromental Protection Agency
January 1978
Office of Water Program Operations,
Washington. D.C. 20460
430/9-77-013
MCD-37
;£££&£
.
WV *r t • '.v . *-'• "
:^^.:~-:'f»
r.*m^
:?'?^*
?«»*».
;.
-------
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 products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. In this report there
is no attempt by EPA to evaluate the practices and methods reported.
The three technical reports listed below were prepared in conjunc-
tion with the 1976 Update of Needs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Facilities, a biennial report to the U.S. Congress. This series of
reports provide construction cost relationships for wastewater treatment
plants and sewers presently under construction and also related opera-
tions and maintenance (O&M) cost relationships for existing facilities.
The data base for all three studies is representative of the ten regions.
Document Number
430/9-77-013 Construction Costs for Municipal
MCD-37 Wastewater Treatment Plants: 1973-1977
430/9-77-014 Construction Costs for Municipal
MCD-38 Wastewater Conveyance Systems: 1973-1977
430/9-77-015 Analysis of Operations & Maintenance
MC-39 Costs For Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Systems
These reports were prepared under the direction of:
James A. Chamblee, Chief
Needs Assessment Section (WH-547)
Office of Water Program Operations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, B.C. 20460
(202) 426-4443
Copies of these reports are available from the address below.
When ordering, please include the title and MCD number.
General Services Administration (8FFS)
Centralized Mailing Lists Services
Bldg. 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
Cover Photo Courtesy: Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1
-------
EPA 430/9-77-013 MCD-37
TECHNICAL REPORT
CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS:
1973 - 1977
BY
DAMES & MOORE
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ENGINEERING SERVICES
DENVER, COLORADO
JANUARY 1978
PREPARED FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
WASHINGTON, D,C. 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1-1
2.0 SUMMARY 2~1
3.0 INTRODUCTION 3-1
3.1 BACKGROUND 3-1
3.2 STUDY OBJECTIVES 3-2
3.3 ADDITIONAL BENEFITS 3-4
3.4 PREVIOUS STUDIES 3-6
3.5 DATA BASE UPDATES 3-10
3.6 FUTURE APPLICATIONS 3-11
4.0 SCOPE OF STUDY 4-1
4.1 PUBLIC LAW 92-500 FACILITIES 4-1
4.2 SAMPLE SELECTION 4-1
4.3 NON-CONSTRUCTION COST DATA 4-2
4.4 SEWERS AND PUMP STATIONS 4-3
5.0 DATA COLLECTION AND CLASSIFICATION 5-1
5.1 PRELIMINARY SURVEY 5-1
5.2 DATA CATEGORIES 5-1
5.3 DATA COLLECTION FORMS 5-2
5.4 COST UPDATES 5-2
6.0 RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS 6-1
6.1 CONSTRUCTION COST CURVES - GENERAL 6-1
6.2 PLOTTING PROCEDURES 6-1
6.3 FIRST ORDER COST CURVES 6-6
6.4 SECOND ORDER COST CURVES 6-11
6.5 THIRD ORDER COST CURVES 6-14
11
-------
PAGE
6.6 UNIT COSTS 6-15
6.7 NON-CONSTRUCTION COSTS 6-16
6.8 USE OF THE COST CURVES 6-18
7.0 SIMPLIFIED TREATMENT PLANT COST ESTIMATION
TECHNIQUES 7-1
7.1 BACKGROUND 7-1
7.2 TREATMENT PLANT COSTS 7-3
7.3 CITY MULTIPLIERS 7-5
7.4 EXAMPLES - TREATMENT PLANT COST ESTIMATING.. 7-6
APPENDIX A METHODOLODY A-l
A.I GENERAL A-l
A.2 WORKSHEET DEFINITIONS A-l
A.3 COMMENTS ON THE USE OF CERTAIN DATA A-9
APPENDIX B DESCRIPTION OF DATA BASE B-l
APPENDIX C COST INDEXING C-l
C.I REQUIREMENTS C-l
C.2 COST INDEXING SYSTEMS INVESTIGATED C-2
C.3 EPA TREATMENT PLANT INDICES C-3
C.4 ANCHORAGE, HONOLULU & GUAM INDICES C-5
C.5 USE OF THE EPA TREATMENT PLANT INDICES C-6
C.6 COMMON BASE COST CONVERSIONS C-8
REFERENCES
111
-------
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
6 .1 CONSTRUCTION COST CURVES - STATISTICAL INFORMATION 6-3
6.2 CONSTRUCTION COMPONENT CLASSIFICATION 6-13
6.3 NON-CONSTRUCTION COST PERCENTAGES 6-17
6.4 FIRST AND SECOND ORDER COST COMPARISONS 6-19
6.5 TOTAL PROJECT COST COMPARISONS 6-21
6.6 SECONDARY TREATMENT, NEW CONSTRUCTION: UNPLOTTED
REGIONAL DATA 6-30
6.7 GREATER THAN SECONDARY, NEW CONSTRUCTION:
UNPLOTTED REGIONAL DATA 6-35
6.8 SECONDARY WITH NUTRIENT REMOVAL, NEW CONSTRUCTION:
UNPLOTTED REGIONAL DATA 6-38
6.9 GREATER THAN SECONDARY WITH NUTRIENT REMOVAL, NEW
CONSTRUCTION: UNPLOTTED REGIONAL DATA 6-41
6 .10 UNIT PROCESSES AND COST EQUATIONS 6-54
7.1 CITY MULTIPLIERS 7-14
A.I SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT CODING SHEET A-12
B.I LIST OF SAMPLED TREATMENT PLANTS B-2
B.2 PLANT SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION BY FLOW & LEVEL OF
TREATMENT B-12
B.3 PLANT SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION BY PROJECTED CHANGE B-14
B.4 PLANT SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION BY SMSA AND LAND USE B-16
B.5 PLANT SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION BY TREATMENT PROCESS B-18
C.I EPA SMALL CITY CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT INDEX C-9
C.2 EPA LARGE CITY ADVANCED TREATMENT INDEX C-ll
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES PAGE
5.1 TYPES AND AVAILABILITY OF CONSTRUCTION BID DATA 5-3
FIRST ORDER COST CURVES
6.1 SECONDARY TREATMENT, NEW CONSTRUCTION: NATIONAL 6-22
6.la Secondary Treatment, New Construction: Region 1 6-23
6.1b Secondary Treatment, New Construction: Region II 6-24
6.1c Secondary Treatment, New Construction: Region III 6-25
6.Id Secondary Treatment, New Construction: Region V 6-26
6.1e Secondary Treatment, New Construction: Region VI 6-27
6.If Secondary Treatment, New Construction: Region IX 6-28
6.1g Secondary Treatment, New Construction: Region X 6-29
6.2 GREATER THAN SECONDARY, NEW CONSTRUCTION: NATIONAL 6-31
6.2a Greater than Secondary, New Construction: Region II 6-32
6.2b Greater than Secondary, New Construction: Region III.... 6-33
6.2c Greater than Secondary, New Construction: Region V 6-34
6.3 SECONDARY WITH NUTRIENT REMOVAL, NEW CONSTRUCTION:
NATIONAL 6-36
6.3a Secondary with Nutrient Removal, New Construction:
Region V 6-37
6.4 GREATER THAN SECONDARY WITH NUTRIENT REMOVAL, NEW
CONSTRUCTION: NATIONAL 6-39
6.4a Greater than Secondary with Nutrient Removal, New
Construction: Region V 6-40
6.5 STABILIZATION PONDS, NEW CONSTRUCTION: NATIONAL 6-42
6.5a Stabilization Ponds, New Construction: National
Discharging 6-43
6.5b Stabilization Ponds, New Construction: National
Non-Discharging 6-44
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued) PAGE
6.5c Stabilization Ponds, New Construction Warm and
Cold Climate, No Pumping 6-45
6.5d Aerated Lagoons, New Construction: National 6-46
6 .6 ENLARGEMENT OF TREATMENT PLANTS : NATIONAL 6-47
6.7 UPGRADE FROM PRIMARY TREATMENT: NATIONAL 6-48
6.8 UPGRADE FROM SECONDARY TO AWT: NATIONAL 6-49
6.9 ENLARGE & UPGRADE FROM PRIMARY: NATIONAL 6-50
6.10 ENLARGE & UPGRADE FROM ADVANCED PRIMARY: NATIONAL 6-51
6.11 ENALRGE & UPGRADE FROM SECONDARY: NATIONAL 6-52
SECOND ORDER COST CURVES
UNIT PROCESS COSTS
6.12 PRELIMINARY TREATMENT 6-56
6.13 INFLUENT PUMPING 6-57
6.14 FLOW EQUALIZATION 6-58
6.15 PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION 6-59
6.16 TRICKLING FILTER 6-60
6.17 ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATION 6-61
6.18 OXYGEN ACTIVATED SLUDGE 6-62
6.19 ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR 6-63
6 .20 CLARIFICATION 6-64
6.21 FILTRATION 6-65
6.22 CHEMICAL ADDITION 6-66
6.23 STABILIZATION POND 6-67
6.24 AERATED LAGOON 6-68
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued) PAGE
UNIT PROCESS COSTS
6.25 CHLORINATION 6-69
6.26 LAND TREATMENT (EFFLUENT) 6-70
6.27 OUTFALL PUMPING 6-71
6.28 EFFLUENT OUTFALL 6-72
6.29 OUTFALL DIFFUSION 6-73
6.30 LABORATORY/MAINTENANCE BUILDING 4. 6-74
6.31 GRAVITY THICKENING 6-75
6.32 FLOTATION THICKENING 6-76
6.33 OTHER SLUDGE HANDLING 6-77
6.34 AEROBIC SLUDGE DIGESTION 6-78
6.35 ANAEROBIC SLUDGE DIGESTION 6-79
6.36 SLUDGE LAGOONS 6-80
6.37 LAND SPREADING OF SLUDGE 6-81
6.38 HEAT TREATMENT (SLUDGE) 6-82
6.39 MECHANICAL SLUDGE DEWATERING 6-83
6.40 AIR DRYING - SLUDGE 6-84
6.41 INCINERATION 6-85
PLANT CONSTRUCTION COMPONENT COSTS
6.42 MOBILIZATION 6-87
6.43 SITEWORK EXCLUDING EXCAVATION 6-88
6.44 SITEWORK INCLUDING EXCAVATION 6-89
6.45 EXCAVATION 6-90
6.46 PILINGS, SPECIAL FOUNDATIONS, DEWATERING 6-91
vn
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued) PAGE
6.47 ELECTRICAL 6~92
6.48 HEATING, VENTILATING, AIR CONDITIONING 6-93
6.49 CONTROLS AND INSTRUMENTATION 6-94
6.50 YARD PIPING 6-95
THIRD ORDER COST CURVES
PROCESS CONSTRUCTION COMPONENT COSTS
6.51 PRELIMINARY TREATMENT 6-97
6.52 PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION 6-98
6.53 ACTIVATED SLUDGE 6-99
6.54 CLARIFICATION 6-100
6.55 CHLORINATION 6-101
6.56 OXIDATION PONDS 6-102
6.57 AEROBIC DIGESTION 6-103
6.58 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION 6-104
6.59 FLOTATION THICKENING 6-105
6.60 GRAVITY THICKENING 6-106
6.61 MECHANICAL DEWATERING 6-107
6.62 CONTROL LAB/MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS 6-108
Vlll
-------
PAGE
7.1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - CONSTRUCTION COSTS 7-10
7.2 AERATED LAGOON & STABILIZATION POND - CONSTRUCTION COSTS 7-11
7.3 PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL COST 7-12
7.4 CHLORINATION ADDITION COST 7-13
A. 1 TREATMENT PLANT DATA CODING FORM A-ll
LIST OF MAPS
7.1 CITY MULTIPLIERS - CITY INFLUENCE MAP 7-16
B.I LOCATION OF SAMPLED TREATMENT PLANTS B-20
C.I EPA SCCT CITY INFLUENCE BOUNDARIES C-10
C.2 EPA LCAT CITY INFLUENCE BOUNDARIES C-12
IX
-------
1.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
-------
1.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by Dames & Moore, Water Pollution Control
Engineering Services, Denver, Colorado, under the direction of Mr. James
A. Chamblee of EPA Headquarters' Municipal Construction Division.
Sincere appreciation is extended to EPA Construction Grants person-
nel in each of the ten regions. Their advice and assistance was
invaluable in accumulating the large quantity of construction bid data
contained herein.
Inquiries concerning this report should be directed to:
Mr. James A. Chamblee
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (WH-547)
401 M. Street Southwest
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 426-4443
1-1
-------
2.0 SUMMARY
-------
2.0 SUMMARY
The purposes of this study were to collect, categorize and analyze
construction bid data for wastewater treatment plants nationwide with the
goal of providing a reference for estimating future facility costs. To
accomplish this, construction bid information was obtained from the
construction grant files of each of the ten EPA Regional Offices. All
facilities sampled are municipally owned treatment plants funded after
1973 under Public Law 92-500. The 536 treatment plant construction
projects sampled included new, enlarged and upgraded facilities. Stabil-
ization pond and aerated lagoon cost information was included along with
that for mechanical plants. In addition to construction costs, data on
Step I, Step II and the non-construction portion of Step III costs were
collected and analyzed. Ineligible treatment costs and the costs of
facilities for collecting and transporting sewage are not considered
in this report. A parallel document with similar objectives has been
developed for sanitary sewer facilities, and is entitled "Construction
Costs for Municipal Wastewater Conveyance Systems: 1973-77", (EPA 430/
9-77-014).
During data analysis, it was assumed that the cost of a treatment
plant could be viewed from three perspectives: the cost of the entire
plant, the sum of the costs of the individual unit processes, and the sum
of the costs of individual construction components such as steel,
concrete, etc. Therefore, construction cost data were categorized
according to three levels of detail:
2-1
-------
1. First Order - Total Plant Construction Costs
2. Second Order - Unit Process Construction Cost and Plant Con-
struction Component Cost
3. Third Order - Construction Component Costs for Unit Processes
Using linear regression analysis techniques cost curves were
developed relating item cost to plant design flow for each order of data.
Methods of estimating wastewater treatment plant costs based on first and
second order cost curves are presented. All data used in this report
were updated from the bid date to second quarter 1977 dollars using the
EPA Wastewater Treatment Plant Cost Indices.
In several cases insufficient data were available to develop
valid cost relationships for specific unit processes or construction
components. In other cases adequate data were available to define
cost relationships for individual EPA regions for certain types of
plants. As more construction cost history becomes available, it is
expected that the current data base will be expanded and updated regu-
larly providing a more complete series of cost estimating relationships.
2-2
-------
3.0 INTRODUCTION
-------
3.0 INTRODUCTION
3.1 Background
The United States Environmental Protection Agency and its predeces-
sor agencies have been providing financial aid to local municipalities
for wastewater treatment facility construction since 1957. In the twenty
years of these grants programs several thousand facilities have been
constructed, enlarged, or upgraded. Under the authority of the Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500), this effort inten-
sified as the EPA set out to achieve the goals of that act, including:
1. "That the discharge of pollutants into the navigable water be
eliminated by 1985."
2. "That wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality
which provides for the protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on
the water be achieved by July 1, 1983."
Under PL 92-500, collector sewers became grant eligible for the first
time and EPA grant assistance increased from 50 to 75 percent for treat-
ment plants. More importantly, funds allocated to water pollution
control increased substantially under the act as shown in the following
table:
3-1
-------
PL 92-500 OBLIGATIONS
(Federal Share)
Fiscal Year Ending Dollars Obligated
6/30/73 $ 1,591,000,000
6/30/74 1,384,000,000
6/30/75 3,616,000,000
9/30/76 4,809,000,000
9/30/77 6,669,000,000
Total to 9/30/77 $18,069,000,000
In total, 18 billion dollars have been obligated to date in funding
over 11,000 treatment plant and sewer facilities under PL 92-500.
The increase in level of effort evidenced by this allocation is tre-
mendous when compared to the 6.1 billion dollars funded between 1961 and
1972 under previous programs. Recent proposals to commit 45 billion
dollars in Federal Funds to this effort over the next ten years indicate
the program will continue growing.
3.2 Study Objectives
The increased intensity and volume of construction work underway
since the passage of PL 92-500 has combined with general inflationary
economic trends to cause a sharp rise in wastewater treatment facility
construction costs. Tracking these price trends is difficult since many
factors which are difficult to predict, like material and labor cost,
affect the final cost of any facility. However, in order to control and
3-2
-------
project expenditures, the EPA must have access to accurate cost estimat-
ing techniques and objective criteria for future allocations of pollution
control money.
While cost estimating models for wastewater treatment plants are
available, they are generally based in design theory and useful only when
comparing the cost of two or more different treatment systems. In
general, they do not attempt to use the type of construction cost data
collected in this study or make complete estimates of a particular
facility.
This study, using data on the cost of constructing wastewater
treatment facilities in the recent past, attempts to establish an empiri-
cal base from which future costs can be estimated using the assumption
that past costs can be adjusted for inflation, material and labor cost
fluctuations and various other influences to yield an estimate of what
similar facilities will cost in the future. These estimating procedures
are intended to be sufficiently simple and accurate that they can be
applied to EPA's future cost estimating needs, including:
1. Step I (Facilities Planning) Cost Effective Analysis Require-
ments
2. Step II (Plans and Specifications) Design Cost Guidelines
3-3
-------
3. Biennial Needs Survey Cost Estimating Requirements, as required
by PL 92-500
4. 208 Areawide Planning, Cost Effectiveness Analysis Requirements.
3.3 Additional Benefits
While EPA1s cost estimating needs provide the main impetus for this
study, there appear to be other important benefits in related fields,
including those outlined below. An attempt has been made to direct
this document to each of these audiences to the extent possible.
3.3.1 Input to CAPDET Model
Concurrent with this study, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers launched a joint effort to refine the Corps' existing CAPDET
Model (Computer Assisted Procedure for the Design and Evaluation of
Wastewater Treatment Systems). The updated CAPDET will attempt to
estimate the capital costs for wastewater treatment plants within a +^10
percent range. By performing detailed designs of unit processes, calcu-
lating construction labor and material quantities and applying unit
prices to these take-offs, cost estimates will be produced. It is
anticipated that the present study will provide empirical check points
for CAPDET estimates and also furnish non-construction costs essential
for complete estimates.
3.3.2 State Pollution Control Construction Programs
Many states operate construction grant programs which are an
3-4
-------
integral part of the federal program and growing just as rapidly. The
construction cost tabulations as found in this study could help personnel
in these programs estimate future costs.
3.3.3 Index of Inflation/Deflation Effects
Collection of construction cost data nationwide will help quantify
regional variations in material and labor prices and pin down temporal
fluctuations in costs due to inflation, allowing more accurate predic-
tions of future costs.
3.3.4 Planning Agencies at Local and Regional Levels
At the initial stage of project planning, cost of previous construc-
tion in a usable format would provide a beneficial tool, if not the only
tool, for cost estimates by local and regional planners.
3.3.5 Citizen Participation
A section of the data presented in this study is intended to provide
interested citizens with a simple method of estimating the cost and
potential tax burden of proposed treatment works. Section 7.0 presents
simplified cost estimating procedures with examples of their use for
those interested in general treatment plant construction costs.
3-5
-------
3.4. Previous Studies
To date, there have been relatively few attempts to systematize data
and procedures on a national scale to develop construction cost estima-
ting models for wastewater treatment plants. Three of the more familiar
systems previously developed are reviewed below. While similar in
purpose they vary significantly in technique.
3.4.1 Guides System
This technical report, published by the EPA in 1975 under the title
"A Guide to the Selection of Cost - Effective Wastewater Treatment
Systems", presents a user-oriented model in which treatment plant con-
struction costs are estimated by combining costs of component unit
processes. In developing the guides cost curves, processes were designed
for plant sizes of 1, 5, 20 and 100 million gallons per day (MGD).
Curves for each unit process were then drawn using these four points.
Amortized capital construction costs from the unit process curves were
combined with yearly operations and maintenance costs to allow compara-
tive analysis of various process trains producing the required effluent
quality. The report's purpose is clear, "This publication is not inten-
ded as a design manual but as an effective means for making preliminary
cost comparisons based on the assumptions set forth in this report". (Pg.
1-2). An important assumption of the report results in the exclusion of
costs for ultimate sludge disposal, yardwork, pump stations, outfalls,
garages, administration buildings and laboratories since, "Inclusion of
3-6
-------
such common costs is not necessary since the focus of this study is
primarily the comparison of alternative wastewater treatment and sludge
handling systems." (Pg. III-4).
3.4.2 CAPDET Model
The original CAPDET Model developed by the Corps of Engineers was
based on parametric cost curves which related total unit process cost to
specific design parameters such as overflow rates for clarification
units. Since many other factors are involved in the determination of
unit process cost, the accuracy of the original model is limited. In
addition, cost indexing or updating was difficult. Due to these factors
it was decided to upgrade the existing CAPDET model to allow more speci-
fic design data input and more ease in updating unit cost data. In many
respects, the refined CAPDET Model will be similar to the Guides System,
combining current cost data for such items as concrete, steel, chemicals
and labor with quantities developed based on detailed unit process
design. In contrast to the Guides Model, however, CAPDET will have the
capability of calculating unit process material and labor quantities for
the specific capacity required. Operation and maintenance costs will be
factored into the total cost to provide criteria for process selection.
Also in contrast to the Guides System, CAPDET will include all signifi-
cant costs associated with treatment plant construction.
3-7
-------
3.4.3 MCD-22 (EPA 430/9-76-002)
Entitled, "An Analysis of Construction Cost Experience for Waste-
water Treatment Plants," MCD-22 involved collecting, categorizing and
analyzing construction bid data generated by PL 92-500 activities in each
of the ten EPA Regional Offices. The prime purpose of this work was to
generate cost curves for the 1976 Needs Survey. A secondary goal of
MCD-22 was to define the relationship between plant capacity, performance
and cost parameters resulting from actual project data and to benchmark
the Guides System cost estimates against these empirical relationships.
The MCD-22 data base consisted of 157 projects from across the nation
including new facilities and enlarged and/or upgraded facilities.
Analysis of this data provided linear cost relationships of total project
cost versus design flow for new construction and facilities upgrades.
There was no attempt in the MCD-22 effort to collect or analyze unit
process costs. It should be noted that while it accomplished its'
purposes, this report was abbreviated in scope due to resource limita-
tions.
3.4.4 Cost Estimating Technique Classifications
Two distinct types of plant cost estimating approaches can be
identified. The first type may be termed the "theoretical" approach and
basically combines design quantities and current unit costs such as the
cost of steel or concrete to estimate what a plant should cost before
construction. The second, or "empirical" approach, develops cost
3-8
-------
relationships based on what similar plants have cost in the past. CAPDET
and the Guides System fall into the first category, while MCD-22 is an
example of the second.
By nature the theoretical approach has the potential of better
defining a specific treatment facility since detailed design parameters
and unit prices are input. While this explicit, detailed input infers
that resultant cost estimates are correspondingly accurate, it should be
realized that several important variables are sometimes not quantified
by theoretical systems. Among these are such items as (U. S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency , MCD-22):
1. Competition in the contractor and supplier marketplaces.
2. Unpredictable variations in local material and labor costs.
3. Timeliness of construction.
4. Variations in conventional engineering, design and construction
practices.
5. Design requirements imposed by regulatory agencies.
6. Degree to which cost is considered in design and construction
phases.
7. Variations in site conditions.
The effect of such variables on cost can usually be quantified only
after a construction contract is signed. The empirical system, while
3-9
-------
not defining the effects of each of these subjective factors individ-
ually, does testify to the cumulative effect of these factors on final
construction costs. Obviously, each project is unique and the cumula-
tive effects of the above listed factors vary from facility to facility.
Because of this variation, cost analysis must utilize average conditions
for these subjective parameters.
Using past construction cost information to predict future costs in
an empirical approach hinges on the ability to place each sample treat-
ment plant in a precise category of similar plants. This classification
can be by design flow, unit processes employed, level of treatment,
location or any combination thereof. There must also be sufficient data
to define average cost relationships for particular classifications and,
as with any cost estimating tool, there must be an earnest attempt to
predict changes in cost parameters and quantify the effect of these
changes on treatment plant construction costs. Unforeseen technological
development or other factors could significantly affect the accuracy of
empirical estimates and therefore the empirical base must be continually
reassessed.
3.5 Data Base Updates
It is the EPA's intention to update cost data on a regular basis
subsequent to this initial study, thus creating a "construction cost
history" for wastewater treatment and conveyance systems. EPA funding of
new municipal projects should yield a quantity and quality of bid data
sufficient for this purpose.
3-10
-------
3.6 Future Applications
It is not anticipated that estimates based on previous comparable
construction can replace engineers' estimates or stand alone with respect
to other cost estimating systems. However, the resource of construction
cost history must be a major consideration in economic planning efforts.
As this tool is fully developed and refined based on accumulation of cost
experience, it should become complementary to and supportive of models
such as CAPDET or the Guides System. Also, as a benchmarking tool it
should serve to illuminate significant disparities in cost estimates for
wastewater treatment plants and lead to rationalization of these differ-
ences ,
3-11
-------
4.0 SCOPE OF STUDY
-------
4.0 SCOPE OF STUDY
4.1 Public Law 92-500 Facilities
This study was limited to projects approved and funded under
PL 92-500. Projects funded under this law are all recently bid allowing
three advantages. First, recent construction costs minimize the effects
of technological advancements and regulatory revisions on resultant cost
relationships. Second, the accuracy of indexing costs to a current base
dollar increases with more recent data. Third, the effect that the law
itself has had on construction costs is effectively discounted.
4.2 Sample Selection
Because of the large number of grants issued under PL 92-500 and the
tremendous amount of resultant cost information, coupled with limited EPA
resources, it was not feasible to review all recently constructed,
facilities nationwide. Thus, statistical analyses were performed using
EPA Grants Information Control System (GIGS) data to select a statisti-
cally adequate sample.
In brief, construction bids were studied for 536 treatment facili-
ties ranging from less than 20,000 gallons per day capacity to over 300
million gallons per day capacity. The data base includes 270 secondary
plants and 267 advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) plants. Of these, 225
are newly constructed plants, 38 are enlargements, 42 are upgrades, and
192 are enlarged and upgraded facilities. For the purpose of this
4-1
-------
study, enlargement is defined as the increase of treatment capacity
(design flow) without change in the level of treatment provided. Up-
grading means increasing the level of treatment provided while holding
the plant capacity constant. Tabulations of facilities by type, size,
treatment level, regional distribution, and other parameters resulting
from this analysis appear in Appendix B.
Once the smaple size and distribution within EPA regions were
determined, data collection efforts focused on obtaining a representative
sampling from each EPA region with projects from each state, and geo-
graphical area including plants located inside and outside of Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's). Since PL 92-500 usually re-
quires secondary levels of treatment as a minimum, data were only collec-
ted from projects meeting or exceeding this requirement.
4.3 Non-Construction Cost Data
The normal procedure for allotment of water pollution control funds
under PL 92-500 to eligible communities encompasses three "steps". The
Step I phase includes facility planning, general cost-effective analysis
and preliminary plant design. Step II funds provide for preparation of
detailed plans and specifications for the chosen alternative while Step
III moneys are allotted for actual plant construction.
4-2
-------
This study provided for the collection of non-construction cost
data including the non-construction portion of Step III costs such
as administrative, fiscal, legal, engineering and land acquisition. Step
I and Step II grant cost and other significant items were also accumulat-
ed. Again, it should be remembered that only grant eligible cost items
were considered.
4.4 Sewers and Pump Stations
As mentioned previously, a parallel document, "Construction Costs
for Municipal Wastewater Conveyance Systems: 1973-1977", analyzes con-
struction cost data for gravity sewers, pump stations, force mains and
associated appurtenances. Information on sanitary sewer construction
costs is not contained in this report.
4-3
-------
5.0 DATA COLLECTION AND CLASSIFICATION
-------
5.0 DATA COLLECTION AND CLASSIFICATION
5.1 Preliminary Survey
Prior to extensive collection of facility cost information, a
preliminary survey of available construction bid data was performed.
This survey investigated municipal and state construction files as well
as those in EPA regional offices. It was found that EPA grant files
provided the most consistent and detailed cost information and, there-
fore, they were selected as the prime source of construction bid informa-
tion.
5.2 Data Categories
This survey and previous experience indicated construction bid data
for treatment plants are reported in four basic categories:
1. Total Construction Costs - Plants
2. Total Construction Costs - Unit Processes
3. Construction Components - Plants
4. Construction Components - Unit Processes
For the purposes of this study the four categories were defined
as 1st, 2nd or 3rd order data with categories 2 and 3 combined as
2nd order data. Categories 1 and 4 correspond to first and third order
costs, respectively. Second order data include unit process costs bid
as one item and plant construction components. Generally, 3rd order data
occurred in the form of costs for construction components for specific
unit processes. An example would be the cost of concrete for the
5-1
-------
aeration basins in an activated sludge plant. Figure 5.1 illustrates the
relationship between the three orders of data.
5.3 Data Collection Forms
After reviewing the preliminary survey, data collection forms
were developed and collection efforts begun in each of the ten EPA
regional offices. Data collection forms facilitated classification,
keypunching and recall of cost information by the three orders. They
also provided for collecting itemized costs for non-construction items
such as legal fees, administrative expense, project inspection, Step I,
and Step II costs. In addition, physical parameters such as land use,
soil conditions and topography were coded. Appendix A provides a detail-
ed description of the data forms with definitions of the coded items.
5.4 Cost Updates
Costs were updated from their bid date to second quarter 1977
dollars using the EPA Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction
Cost Index. Thus, all cost relationships presented in Section 6 are
second quarter 1977 dollars. Appendix C describes the procedure employed
to bring all reported construction costs to a common dollar base.
5-2
-------
FIGURE 5.1
TYPES AND AVAILABILITY OF CONSTRUCTION BID DATA
TOTAL PROJECT COST
I ORDER
DATA
LUMP-SUM
PROCESS TRAIN
2 ND ORDER
DATA
UNIT PROCESS AND PLANT
CONSTRUCTION COMPONENTS
3 RD ORDER
DATA
UNIT PROCESS
COMPONENTS
-------
6.0 RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS
-------
6.0 RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS
6.1 Construction Cost Curves - General
Based on the methodology outlined in Appendix A, analysis of the
construction bid data is presented in First, Second and Third order
categories. Again, the definitions of these orders are:
First Order - Total Plant Construction Costs.
Second Order - Unit Process Construction Cost
and Plant Construction Component Cost
Third Order - Construction Component Costs - Unit Processes
Non-construction costs are not included in the cost relationships
developed. Cost curves presented represent construction costs only, as
updated to second quarter 1977 dollar values (See Appendix C). Non-con-
struction costs are included in a separate section and must be added to
total construction costs to yield complete facility costs.
6.2 Plotting Procedures
A linear regression equation computer plot package was used for
initial cost curve development. Each curve was checked for statistical
validity by testing the F-value at a 0.05 level of significance. Table
6.1 lists the regression equation, sample size, correlation coefficient
and F-test value for each plot presented in Section 6.0. The following
is a review of correlation coefficient and F-test value definitions.
6-1
-------
TABLE 6.1
CONSTRUCTION COST CURVES - STATISTICAL INFORMATION
FIGURE NO.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
1
la
Ib
Ic
Id
le
If
ig
2
2a
2b
2c
3
3a
4
4a
5
5a
5b
5c
5d
6
7
8
9
10
11
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
C =
EQUATION
2.12
2.66
2.73
2.37
1.79
9.21
2.69
1.97
2.88
2.88
3.95
2.85
2.02
2.61
2.28
2.44
1.35
1.94
1.32
7.00
7.53
2.18
9.90
2.53
1.74
1.11
8.14
4.02
2.83
3.83
3.65
2.29
2.25
2.08
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
106Q-
106Q-
106Q-
106Q-
106Q-
105Q-
106Q-
106Q-
106Q-
106Q1
106Q1
106Q-
106Q-
106Q-
106Q-
106Q-
107Q1
107Q1
107Q1
106Q1
105Q-
106Q-
105Q1
106Q-
106Q-
106Q1
105Q-
106Q-
105Q-
106Q1
106Q1
106Q'
106Q-
106Q*
SAMPLE SIZE (n)
88
63
83
77
89
90
95
80
99
.07
.05
92
Bk
93
93
89
.68
.87
.62
.43
81
90
.30
8k
83
.01
89
98
93
.01
.21
95
89
84
97
19
12
21
7
8
10
12
40
5
7
15
12
5
32
19
31
17
14
21
4
9
19
4
11
9
11
20
34
11
15
29
36
12
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT (r)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.92
.95
.97
.93
.92
.95
.96
.84
.91
.98
.91
.90
.90
.94
.97
.98
.69
.64
.71
.85
.98
.88
.78
.99
.94
.79
.87
.89
.84
.96
.62
.87
.88
.93
F-TEST
VALUE
526
166
176
119
29
57
89
24
172
86
22
53
41
24
544
482
26
10
12
48
56
24
26
186
69
12
28
65
73
95
8
82
122
65
.05
.88
.85
.56
.22
.84
.19
.60
.84
.91
.89
.92
.96
.35
.73
.93
.77
.36
.42
.08
.38
.78
.55
.45
.62
.00
.56
.56
.73
.18
.28
.70
.66
.16
6-2
-------
TABLE 6.1 (cont.)
CONSTRUCTION COST CURVES - STATISTICAL INFORMATION
FIGURE NO.
6.12
6.13
6.14
6.15
6.16
6.17
6.18
6.19
6.20
6.21
6.22
6.23
6.24
6.25
6.26
6.27
6.28
6.29
6.30
6.31
6.32
6.33
6.34
6.35
6.36
6.37
6.38
6.39
6.40
6.41
6.42
6.43
6.44
6.45
6.46
6.47
6.48
6.49
6.50
C
C
C
C
NO
C
NO
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
NO
NO
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
EQUATION
= 5.79 X lO^Q1 • 17
= 1.47 X 105Q1'03
= 1.09 X 105Q'49
= 6.94 X lO^Q1-04
LINE CALCULATED -
= 2.27 X 105Q*87
LINE CALCULATED -
= 3.19 X 105Q-92
= 1.09 X 105Q1 -01
= 1.85 X 105Q-8tt
= 2.36 X lO^Q1-68
= 9.05 X 105Q1-27
= 3.35 X 105Q1-13
= 5.27 X 1040-97
= 3.67 X lO5©,1-02
= 3.32 X lO^Q1'26
= 7.39 X lO^Q1-37
= 3.24 X lO^Q-91
= 1.65 X IC^Q1'02
= 3.28 X lO^Q1'10
= 2.99 X lO^Q1'1^
= 4.26 X lO^Q1'36
= 1.47 X lO^1-14
= 1.12 X 105Q1 • 12
LINE CALCULATED -
LINE CALCULATED -
= 1.51 X 105Q'81
= 3.44 X lO^Q1'61
= 9.89 X lO^Q1-35
= 8.77 X lO^Q1-33
= 4.77 X lO^Q1-15
= 1.12 X 105Q-97
= 1.71 X 105Q1-17
= 1.38 X 105Q-97
= 3.68 X lo'+Q1'12
= 1.36 X 105Q1-00
= 3.10 X lO^Q1-24
= 5.06 X lO^Q1 -12
= 9.96 X lO^Q1-03
SAMPLE SIZE(n)
69
56
8
28
DATA STATISTICALLY
53
DATA STATISTICALLY
11
72
41
25
36
18
70
14
13
74
5
81
15
5
33
17
9
DATA STATISTICALLY
DATA STATISTICALLY
5
24
30
13
40
110
19
46
30
126
74
37
61
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT (r)
0.84
0.79
0.97
0.81
INSIGNIFICANT
0.90
INSIGNIFICANT
0.93
0.87
0.92
0.76
0.54
0.59
0.80
0.86
0.66
0.79
0.94
0.74
0.76
0.94
0.73
0.84
0.90
INSIGNIFICANT
INSIGNIFICANT
0.95
0.56
0.75
0.86
0.81
0.77
0.80
0.85
0.70
0.89
0.84
0.82
0.83
F-TEST
VALUE
158.52
90.32
93.46
49.94
211.65
57.59
212.78
226.25
30.89
13.66
8.70
122.04
34.09
8.37
122.00
21.65
93.35
18.03
23.59
35.01
34.68
31.59
25.40
10.18
35.59
30.38
70.84
162.23
30.79
118.86
27.02
486.32
175.53
70.13
126.10
6-3
-------
TABLE 6.1 (cont.)
CONSTRUCTION COST CURVES - STATISTICAL INFORMATION
CORRELATION P-TEST
FIGURE NO. EQUATION SAMPLE SIZE(n) COEFFICIENT (r) VALUE
6.51 C = 3.14 X lO^Q'88 63 0.88 211.23
C = 1.08 X lO^Q1-39 15 0.77 18.98
6.52 C = 3.59 X lO^Q1-00 13 0.92 58.55
C = 2.33 X 104Q-97 25 0.77 32.85
6.53 C = 6.28 X 103Q1'01 7 0.86 14.62
C = 6.75 X 103Q1-'tlt 10 0.89 29.77
C = 4.98 X lO^Q1-05 55 0.81 104.19
C = 8.86 X 104Q'95 26 0.84 57.52
6.54 C = 1.77 X 103Q1'10 9 0.72 7.61
C = 3.46 X loV-46 12 0.75 12^76
C = 4.94 X 104Q'83 68 0.86 179.70
C = 4.76 X lO^Q-97 31 0.90 123.18
C = 2.70 X 105Q1-35 10 0.73 8.91
6.55 C = 7.69 X 103Q-77 8 0.95 56.98
C = 4.15 X lO3©1-20 13 0.74 13.68
C = 1.45 X loV89 66 0.76 88.02
C = 1.81 X lO^Q1'06 21 0.77 28.34
6.56 C = 1.19 X 106Q1'60 19 0.52 6.33
6.57 C = 4.43 X lO^Q1'17 16 0.74 16.88
6.58 C = 8.95 X lO^Q'70 9 0.87 21.90
6.59 C = 2.92 X lO^Q1-23 15 0.75 17.06
6.60 C = 5.50 X 103Q1-lt5 26 0.58 12.11
6.61 C = 3.71 X lO^Q1'27 38 0.64 25.36
6.62 C = 1.47 X lO^Q-71 4 0.95 20.23
C = 1.63 X lO^O1-19 33 0.62 19.87
6-4-
-------
6.2.1 Correlation Coefficient (r)
The correlation coefficient (r) is a measure of the degree of
closeness of the linear relationship between two variables. It varies
from zero (no relationship between the two variables) to +_ 1 (perfect
linear relationship). The sign of r is the same as that of a in the
regression equation, Y = a + bX. Thus, if r = -1, all points are on the
regression line sloping down to the right. The independent variable (X)
accounts for the variability in the dependent variable (Y)- For example,
if r = 0.73, then 73 percent of the variance in Y is explained by X; the
balance of 27 percent is simply not explained by the independent variable
X and is left unaccounted for in the relationship of the two designated
variables.
6.2.2 F-Test Value
The F-test value is used to test the goodness of the fit of a
regression curve. The F-value can be compared with tabled values to give
a test of the hypothesis that the correlation coefficient is zero against
the alternative that the equation as a whole defines a significant
relationship between the two variables. The F-value is the ratio of the
mean square due to regression to the deviation's mean square:
SSFE/K
RSS/(N - K -
6-5
-------
The ratio is compared to the corresponding value from an F-table
with K and (N - K - 1) degrees of freedom, where N is the total number of
points, K is the degrees of freedom due to regression, and N - K - 1 is
the degrees of freedom due to deviations. (SSFE implies sum of square
due to fitted equation; RSS means residual sum of squares.) In general,
the higher a given F-value the greater the probability that the relation-
ship is significant.
For categories of cost information with insufficient data for
valid cost relationships no plots were included. A tabulation of avail-
able data is included at the end of the pertinent group of curves for
reference purposes. The two main reasons for lack of construction
cost information for various categories were: (1) a lack of EPA grants
which had progressed to the bidding stage for a specific category of
costs and (2) unusable bid formats which made actual construction costs
unobtainable.
6.3 First Order Cost Curves
6.3.1 New Construction
Figures 6.1 through 6.5 show graphs of total construction cost
versus design flow for mechanical wastewater treatment plants. Since
very few municipal physical-chemical treatment plants have been built
under PL 92-500, no cost information was collected for physical-chemical
treatment facilities. Lagoons, both aerated and stabilization ponds,
have been analyzed separately in Figures 6.5 through 6.5d.
6-6
-------
Figure 6.1 shows the resultant plot of total construction cost
against design flow for construction of new secondary treatment plants.
It includes 96 projects nationwide ranging in size from 0.02 mgd to 56.0
mgd. The process train of each facility is not a parameter of this
curve.
Regional curves for new, secondary plants were developed using
the data of Figure 6.1 and are presented as Figures 6.la thru 6.1g.
For Regions IV, VII and VIII, insufficient data were collected from
which to construct cost curves, so Table 6.6 lists the cost data for
those regions.
Figure 6.2 relates total construction cost to design flow for
new construction of treatment plants providing levels of treatment
greater than secondary. Greater than secondary treatment is defined in
this study as BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) and SS (Suspended Solids)
effluent concentration requirements of less than 30 mg/1 each or removals
greater than 85 percent, whichever is more stringent. Plants classified
as greater than secondary only had no nutrient removal processes included
in the facility design. Figures 6.2a through 6.2c are plots of cost
curves for EPA Regions II, III, and V, and Table 6.7 lists available data
for the remaining regions.
6-7
-------
The cost curve for total contruction cost versus design flow for
secondary facilities with nutrient removal requirements is shown on
Figure 6.3. Typical plants in this category are required to produce 30
mg/1 BOD and SS each and 0.2 mg/1 phosphorus as effluent concentrations.
Other nutrients commonly restricted by NPDES (National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System) permits were ammonia and nitrate compounds.
The bulk of cost data for secondary treatment with nutrient removal
originated from facilities in the Great Lakes region where nutrient
pollution problems are severe. Figure 6.3a is the cost curve for Region
V. Table 6.8 lists data for regions where plots were not statistically
significant.
Figure 6.4 presents total construction cost versus design flow for
plants required to produce greater than secondary treatment with nutrient
removal. Again, this curve is heavily weighted with Region V facilities
tributary to the Great Lakes. Figure 6.4a shows cost versus design flow
for Region V; Table 6.9 tabulates remaining regional cost data.
Costs for stabilization ponds are shown in Figure 6.5. Facilities
incorporated in this curve include discharging and non-discharging
lagoons, lined and unlined ponds and facilities with and without pumping.
Figures 6.5a and 6.5b represent stabilization pond data from discharging
and non-discharging ponds, respectively.
6-8
-------
Since stabilization pond design is sensitive to local climatic
conditions, cost relationships were developed for warm and cold climate
lagoon construction and plotted in Figure 6.5c. Cold climate facilities
were defined as those north of 38° N. latitude while warm climate facili-
ties were those south of that parallel. This division was based on the
assumption that the surfaces of ponds north of the 38th parallel would
probably freeze in winter while those south of 38° would not. Admit-
tedly, there is a degree of subjectivity inherent in this assumption.
Variation from the 38th parallel as the southern limit of pond freezing
will occur due to variation in climatic and geographic conditions,
particularly elevation differences and warm ocean currents.
Figure 6.5d relates construction costs for aerated lagoons to
design flow. There were insufficient data to produce separate aerated
lagoon cost curves for any of the EPA Regions.
6.3.2 Treatment Plant Enlargement
Construction cost information was collected for existing treatment
facilities which were being enlarged to accept increased design flows.
Facilities which were improving their level of treatment simultaneously
with expansion were not included in this category. Since actual flows
immediately after plant enlargement are often a fraction of the design
flow, improved treatment may be a result of plant enlargement in many
cases. However, if design parameters were based on the need to enlarge
the facility only, the plant was classified as an enlargement.
6-9
-------
Figure 6.6 presents cost curves for enlarging secondary and ad-
vanced wastewater treatment plants. Note that total construction cost is
plotted versus the increase in plant design flow. This curve is based on
mechanical plant data only and does not include lagoons. Also, insuffi-
cient data were available to separate the AWT curve into the categories
of greater than secondary, secondary with nutrient removal and greater
than secondary with nutrient removal.
6.3.3 Upgrading of Treatment Plants
Existing facilities for which design flow remained constant while
the level of treatment was improved by means of expansion of existing
unit processes and/or addition of new unit processes were categorized as
upgraded facilities.
Figures 6.7 and 6.8 present cost relationships for upgrading
existing primary and secondary plants, respectively. Insufficient
data were accumulated to define separately upgrading to each category of
advanced wastewater treatment (i.e., greater than secondary, secondary
with nutrient removal or greater than secondary with nutrient removal).
These curves are based on mechanical plant data only and do not include
upgraded lagoon facilities.
6.3.4 Treatment Plant Enlarging & Upgrading
Construction costs for existing facilities enlarged and upgraded
simultaneously are presented in Figures 6.9 through 6.11. Figure 6.9
6-10
-------
includes curves for enlarging and upgrading primary treatment plants to
either secondary or advanced wastewater treatment.
Several facilities were sampled for this study which achieved,
before upgrading, a level of treatment defined as advanced primary. Many
of these facilities were trickling filter plants producing an effluent
consistency between 30 and 50 mg/1 each for BOD and SS. Due to the July
1, 1977, deadline specified by PL 92-500 for the achievement of secondary
treatment levels, these plants were upgraded to either secondary or AWT
capability. There were too few of these advanced primary plants which
were not simultaneously enlarged to produce cost curves in the "upgrade
only" section. Figure 6.10 presents cost curves for enlarging and upgrad-
ing from advanced primary treatment to secondary or AWT.
Figure 6.11 defines cost relationships for enlarging and upgrading
secondary facilities to each of the three AWT categories.
6.4 Second Order Cost Curves
6.4.1 Unit Process Costs
Cost relationships for individual unit processes in-place are
presented in Figures 6.12 through 6.41. These curves utilize costs for
newly constructed processes only and do not include data for enlarging
and/or upgrading of individual processes. Note, however, that when
enlarging and/or upgrading an entire treatment plant, new unit processes
are often constructed. Cost data for such processes, when available,
6-11
-------
were included in this section of curves. Costs for enlarging and/or
upgrading individual unit processes were rarely provided in construction
bid tabulations or contractor partial payment requests. In addition,
design considerations for enlarging and/or upgrading of a particular unit
process are particularly job specific, limiting the applicability of
average cost curves. For these reasons cost curves for enlarging and/or
upgrading were not developed on the unit process level. Table 6.10
directly precedes Figure 6.12 in the text and lists all the unit process-
es which were included in the study and for which cost data were sought.
Several of these processes had insufficient data with which to plot cost
curves. For those unit processes with valid cost relationships, log-log
linear regression equations are listed also.
Of particular concern during data collection and analysis was
the definition of each unit process with respect to construction compo-
nents. During the initial survey of EPA construction grant files it
became evident that construction components included in a lump sum cost
for a given unit process varied considerably from project to project.
For example, one bid tabulation might allocate the associated costs for
controls and instrumentation to each of several unit processes while
another bid may have included them in a lump sum cost for the entire
plant. To overcome this problem, each unit process was defined to
include certain construction components and cost data were collected for
those processes including those components and only those components.
Unit process costs including more or less than the specified construction
component costs as shown in Table 6.2 were not utilized in second
6-12
-------
Table 6.2
CONSTRUCTION COMPONENT CLASSIFICATION
A. The following construction components were included in the cost
data for all unit processes except those listed in Part B below:
Process Piping
Equipment
Concrete
Steel
B. The following unit processes included excavation costs in addition
to the construction components listed in Part A above:
Oxidation Ponds Air Drying of Sludge
Aerated Lagoons Sludge Lagoons
Flow Equalization
C. Construction components commonly bid on a lump sum basis for an
entire plant were:
Mobilization Electrical
Sitework Controls and Instrumentation
Excavation Yard Piping
Pilings, Special Heating, Ventilating & Air
Foundations & Conditioning
Dewatering
Miscellaneous
6-13
-------
order curves. Construction components listed in this table are assumed
to be in place including both materials and associated labor.
6.4.2 Lump Sum Construction Component Costs
Since bids for unit processes commonly employed in standard process
trains usually include process piping, equipment, concrete and steel,
other component items are often bid in lump sum form for the entire
plant. For these components, tabulated in Table 6.2, Part C, cost curves
were developed and presented as Figures 6.42 through 6.50.
Methods and considerations for employing unit process and lump
sum construction component costs in developing total plant costs are
discussed in Section 6.8.
6.5 Third Order Cost Curves
During the process of accumulating total construction costs for
given unit processes, separate costs for each of the construction compo-
nents of a specific process were often available in bid tabulations.
For instance, the costs for concrete and equipment for a primary sedimen-
tation basin may have been itemized separately in addition to the total
cost for the entire unit process. In practice, within the bid tabula-
tions or partial payment requests, the breakdown of unit process prices
into construction components was irregular. Furthermore, variation in
design standards and practices as well as job specific requirements
cause significant variations in the relative cost of construction compon-
ents .
6-14
-------
/
Understanding these factors, construction component costs for
each unit process were collected when available and Figures 6.51 through
6.62 were developed from these data. Each figure represents a specific
unit process and presents cost curves for each construction component of
that process for which sufficient data were available to create a statis-
tically valid relationship.
If sufficient data were available, each unit process figure would
contain a construction component curve for process component shown in
Table 6.6. It is anticipated that missing component curves will be
drawn as more treatment plants are constructed and bid data are collect-
ed.
6.6 Unit Costs
During the preliminary survey to determine which cost data to
collect from EPA Grant files it was noticed that in some cases unit costs
and quantities for various construction components were tabulated in
contractors' bids. For example, concrete bid items may have specified
the number of cubic yards and the price per cubic yard. Allowance was
made for the collection of this information on the data forms. It was
hoped that this unit cost information would be of sufficient quantity and
consistency to be employed as input to other cost estimating models such
as CAPDET. In the course of reviewing bids for facilities nationwide, it
became evident that this was not the case. Unit costs and quantities
6-15
-------
were rarely itemized for most construction components. For concrete work
and excavation unit costs were more frequent but were so job specific
and design dependent that classification was difficult. For these
reasons third-order cost curves for unit prices and quantities were not
developed.
6.7 Non-Construction Costs
A significant percentage of the total expense of a wastewater
treatment project results from non-construction cost items. This cost
category includes Step I and Step II EPA Grant expenses and the non-con-
struction costs associated with Step III funding such as administration,
architect/engineer fees, construction inspection expenses and contingency
allowances. These non-construction costs were readily available during
the course of data collection from the EPA Grant files.
Table 6.3 summarizes the average ratios of Step III non-construction
costs to total construction costs for facilities sampled in this study.
Note that national average ratios for a particular non-construction cost
item may be lower than the regional figures since some projects had no
expenditures for certain items.
In addition to Step III non-construction costs the percentage of
construction costs for Step I and Step II grants have also been analyzed.
Based only on projects which have proceeded though individual Step I, II
and III phases, the percentages indicated at the bottom of Table 6.3 were
6-16
-------
TABLE 6. 3
AVERAGE NON-CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
NEW CONSTRUCTION
NON-CONSTRUCTION COSTS (NCC) /TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS (TCC)
STEP III
NON-CONS. ITEMS REG 1 REG 2 REG 3 REG 4 REG 5 REG 6 KEG 7 REG 8 REG 9
Admin/Legal .0212 .0125 .0163 .0047 .0061 .0106 .0049 .0030 .0091
Preliminary .0016 .0001 .0009 .0005
Land, Struct., Row .0512 .0020 .0007 .0017 .0021 .0002 .0040
A/E Basic Fees .0318 .0891 .0164 .0397 .0139 .0069 .0171 .0434
Other A/E Fees .0134 .0168 .0124 .0173 .0057 .0051 .0262 .0274
Inspection .0357 .0185 .0125 .0149 .0008 .0083 .0273 .0192 .0020
Land Development
Relocation .0003 .0005
Relocation Pints.
Demolition S Removal
Bond Interest .0011 .0014
Contintency .0542 .0571 .0571 .0933 .0271 .0445 .0335 .0420 .0482
Indirect Costs .0009 .0020
Miscellaneous .0003 .0006 .0025 .0071 .0014
Sig. Inelig. Costs .0012 .0029
Equipment .0002 .0087 .0015 .0002 .0033 .0004
Other Eligible .0121 .0024 .0135 .0003 .0011 .0004 .0063
REG 10 NATIONAL
.0118 .0086
.0005 .0002
.0007 .0018
.0486 .0290
.0034 .0124
.0200 .0079
.0001
.0030 .0001
.0002
.0369 .0407
.0009
.0004 .0007
.0003
.0050 .0015
.0020
# PTS.
183
8
14
29
27
54
0
4
0
1
2
211
6
12
3
27
18
0.1890 0.1406 0.1839 0.1639 0.0961 0.0874 0.0881 0.1140 0.1418 0.1303
0.1064 TOTAL
0.0350 STEP 1/TCC
0.0850 STEP 2/TCC
0.2264 TOTAL NON-
CONS . COST/
TCC
-------
calculated. Step I and II percentages were then added to the Step III
non-construction cost percentages to yield total project non-construction
cost percentages for new wastewater treatment facilities.
Curves for first, second, and third order cost relationships
developed in the preceding sections include construction costs only.
Non-construction costs must be added to produce complete project costs
for EPA funded treatment plants. See Section 6.8 for examples which
utilize non-construction cost information.
6.8 Use of the Cost Curves
There are two methods of arriving at complete wastewater treatment
plant cost estimates using the cost relationships presented in the
preceding section. The first utilizes first order or total plant con-
struction costs - the second utilizes second order or unit process
construction costs. Both must be combined with non-construction costs to
provide total costs for complete projects.
Second order cost curves have been developed for new construction
only; thus enlarge and/or upgrade costs cannot be derived based on
unit process costs. All cost curves have correlated construction costs
to design flow in millions of gallons per day.
Table 6.4 presents comparisons of construction costs for three
secondary, activated sludge treatment plants. In this comparison,
6-18
-------
TABLE 6.4
CONSTRUCTION COST COMPARISONS - 1st vs 2nd ORDER DATA
(Costs in 2nd Quarter 1977 Dollars)
SECONDARY - ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANTS
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Preliminary Treatment $
Influent Pumping
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge (1)
Secondary Clarification
Effluent Chlorination
Effluent Outfall
Gravity Thickening
Aerobic Digestion
Other Sludge Handling
Mechanical Dewatering
Landfill of Sludge (No
Control/Lab. Main. Bldg.
Cost of Unit Processes 1
Mobilization
Sitework
Excavation
Electrical
Controls & Instrumentation
Yard Piping
HVAC
Total Cons. Component Cost
1.0 MGD
58,000
147,000
69,000
227,000
109,000
53,000
74,000
33,000
147,000
43,000
34,000
Capital Cost)
165,000
,159,000
48,000
112,000
138,000
136,000
51,000
100,000
31,000
616,000
10.0 MGD
$ 856,000
771,000
761,000
1,683,000
1,115,000
492,000
1,732,000
413,000
2,029,000
976,000
1,401,000
(No Capital Cost)
1,728,000
13,957,000
674,000
1,045,000
1,421,000
1,360,000
667,000
1,067,000
539,000
6,773,000
20.0 MGD
$ 1,927,000
3,216,000
1,565,000
3,076,000
2,246,000
963,000
4,478,000
885,000
4,472,000
2,205,000
4,278,000
(No Capital Cost)
3,504,000
32,815,000
1,495,000
2,047,000
2,523,000
2,720,000
1,450,000
2,179,000
1,272,000
13,686,000
Total Plant 2nd Order
$1,775,000
$20,730,000
$46,501,000
Total Plant 1st order
$2,120,000
$16,082,000
$29,597,000
(1) Included in Process Cost are equipment, concrete, steel and inter-processing
pumping
6-19
-------
second-order cost estimates have been made by combining costs for the
specific unit processes listed with construction component costs for the
entire plant. Unit process costs are from Figures 6.12 through 6.41
while construction component costs are derived from Figures 6.42 through
6.50. The first order or total plant cost was derived from Figure 6.1 for
new, secondary treatment plants. This table presents construction costs
only; non-construction costs are added as shown in Table 6.9.
It can be seen from this comparison that, for the particular process
train selected, the first and second order cost estimates are equal
for some design flow between one and ten mgd, roughly 2 mgd. Divergence
in cost based on the two estimating schemes occurs above and below this
design flow. Obviously-, the ratio of first and second order cost esti-
mates will change as the unit processes employed in the second order
design change. Since first order cost curves are averages of many process
train variations they remain constant for a given design flow. The unit
process train employed in Table 6.4 was assumed to be typical of a
secondary treatment layout for municipal wastewater treatment. Varia-
tions will obviously occur based on specific requirements of each parti-
cular project considered.
Table 6.5 lists the total, project costs for activated sludge plants
as shown in Table 6.4, but with non-construction costs added.
Construction costs based on third order cost curves presented in
Figures 6.51 Lhrough 6.62 could not be developed due to insufficient
6-20
-------
TABLE 6.5
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
(SECOND QUARTER 1977 DOLLARS)
Construction
Cost (1)
Step I Cost
Step II Cost
Step III
Non-Cons (2)
Total Project
1.0 mgd
1st order
2,120,000
74,000
180,000
226,000
2,600,000
2nd order
1,775,000
62,000
151,000
189,000
2,177,000
10.0 mgd
1st order
16,082,000
563,000
1,367,000
1,711,000
19,723,000
2nd order
20,730,000
726,000
1,762,000
2,206,000
25,424,000
20.0 mgd
1st order
29,597,000
1,036,000
2,516,000
3,149,000
36,288,000
2nd order
46,501,000
1,628,000
3,953,000;
4,948,000
57,030,000
Cost
1. From Table 6.4.
2. Non-construction percentages are derived from Table 6.3 based on
average cost distributions for municipal wastewater treatment.
Variations will occur based on the specific requirements of each
particular plant considered.
data presently available. Eventually, unit process costs may be calcu-
lated by combining the costs of the various construction components
comprising the specific process. The accumulation and analysis of addi-
tional construction bid data in the future will allow more detailed and
accurate definition of construction component costs and therefore unit
process and plant costs.
6-21
-------
FIRST ORDER CONSTRUCTION COST CURVES
(PLANT CONSTRUCTION COSTS)
-------
iCOST VS DESIGN F L 0 W
DARY TREATMENT- NEW CONSTRUCTION \
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MOD
(1000 M3/DAY = MGD/0.264)
500.0 1000.0
-------
CO
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
O 20.0
Q
<" 10.0
^ 9.0
O 8.0
_J 7.0
=! 6.0
5 5.0
Z 4.0
CO
O
O
3.0
2.0
h-
u
3 1.0
CC 0.9
h- 0.8
tO 0.7
2
O '6
O 0.5
O
0.4
0.2
O.I
O.I
COST VS DESIGN FLOW
SECONDARY TREATMENT - NEW CONSTRUCTION
REGION I
FIGURE 6.la
0.5
10.0
50.0
100.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
FIGURE b.lb
COST VS DESIGN FLOW
SECONDARY TREATMENT- NEW CONSTRUCTION *
REGION
C 2.73 x 10" Q
5.0
10.0
50.0 1000
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M /DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
CO
cr
o
CO
CO
o
o
o
Z)
o:
t-
co
•2.
O
O
On -. 1
0.0
0.0 -
0.0
o.o -
o.o -
0.0 -
0.0
o.o
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
n i
-
--\r^\
— h-hf4-4
COST VS DESI
SECONDARY TREATMENT -
REGION
1 -i-
- l
- i
- - 4- -
t
1-
-. -
— ^
r
- . . . ^-
y
_ —
>-.-..,
H
' ••
,..j-' ,-
---.:•-
-7*
~
c
—
r
:: ' H
-,-_
__ . .|
^=^
--
- :-
-^
—
t
-.J
~^=
. 3
-4—
-±l
"_^-
^~
-_
n^
7 x
-l-t-H-
fe
^
j -
!
— \ —
1
_:.
— i—
~* •
_L
— T"
De
-f-
ijp
r
--
—
T
-4-
f
-
r
—
•^
3-
r
1 1 L|^JJJ_^LLLLL1
-4-j.i , , i ; I : : : • i ; • • i : 1 ; 1
GN FLOW
- NEW CONSTRUCTION
m
-4--M-4- ~L;.
_|--i:
~~^~" 7"
^
'
1— i-
77
i
-
P-
F^t
-~
^"Fr*1
~i T~
^~rr
~nTT
f^
J-H^
~^~h~
! L,
V4f
lull!
^^
J— 1-4- —4
-ntF^t
;rrrr
1 '
^
^t"
-U-
^+Tif
-nj^^
^r!
f"**
K-J:
n
4- -Z- ;
5-m
-t-f -•-
1 J__j
it — <-r4-
^-r+rr
*^te
fff =F
4
H+^i
12 ^41
*^z
Wrr
a~x±±
i-
—
) • < •
-™
^ft
^
Ml,
' ll
rfr
' | M
. 1 1 |
E^
itH
^Tl^
, 1
-^f
ae
ptn*
^
-^4-
-r-J-
•ffjT
tit
-^
^i+
tttt
4rr
i
r
^F
-
-4
-
-
t-
1_~
T
-„
/r
-
—
1-
p
:
-,-
~r
-f
Tf*
-
;-
Jz
-t-
^
-
-
i
^
-1-
— r
^
_. . 4 ^ ,_
- - — ;
-j-,
.; J-K :
: r :" r
r: Ii:
"T:l-
^;r^~
:^-i :.r
. 1 1
i
=pt^t
x^ '• • •
— 1 — ,_,...,.-.
-—— .fa
--
FIGURE 6.lc
, _
~ '. '
- - :.
-.--
-"---
i — r
n
?
SF
gf
-L.
nil
-j
^
-
i
~ ..-
1~T'~"
— , — r
""IT
•
3Z
-i-J-t-t-
; ; • '
±=t
—
._.
I-J:
.:..
H
— 1-r4-
^^
p^
_^T —
-----
~S*
::::_
:""
.._
—f
-•--'
'-• :
-—
\
i
1
/
^
1
o.oi
0.05
O.I
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264!
-------
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
tf> 40.0
(E
j 30.0
_l
0
Q ao.o
U.
O
2 10.0
O 9.0
EJ SS
— 6.0
S 5.0
5 4.0
£ 3°
O
0
2.0
O
h-
u
2 0-.91
i s;
O °-6
<•> 0.5
-1 0.4
o °-3
1-
0.2
O.I
0.(
-
— -
- 1 T j-
i i
7 1 "i '~
Dl
SEC
I--T —
r
-
=FFr
'• \ ' '
ON
Ml!
1 [ j i
-t-t-1-'-
— <— t-
DA
- --
-^
=^
i — "
^
"T
i
-^TT
| • ;rt|—- ijT— j~-|^-fTn"l 1 ' 1 < 1 1 1 Illllllllll ' ' IM
COST VS DESIGN FLOW
RY TREATMENT - NEW CONSTRUCTION
REGION 3C
C 1.79 x 10 6 Q •" =-~-
iiiihiii i II •Hi
0.05 0.1 0.5
II | 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 1 II I I 1 1 ' i 1 II I-JJ-L..L: . u...'i.ji;j— i . i i.
li-^-j---+^ h^zrrijHr
-t-J- + +-i ^-^^ FlfiURF 6 1 rl
1 — — ^j — — <~~r~ 1 i "'^^ ^.- .-^H- --
--*' --^ 1 M ^y--i"--_4_^^i4|t^_il
j |__|J ^.L ^.___ ^ r \_ _ _ 1 ^ + -r
lililljill] illJ l [o^^nrm 1 hrn
:::: ::::::::::: ] jiS::::::' :::!
1.0 5.0 10.
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
1000 M 3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
"J-ul — : 1 . ... i mill
9. Oh
8.0)-
6.0
5.0 [
V) !
o: 4.0
d 30
o
0
2.0
U_
o
en
z
° i.O
3 09
_j 0.8
— 0.7
5 0.6
Z 0.5
1- °4
O °3
O
Z 0.2
0
h-
o
ID
°: O.I
r- 0.09
W 0.08
Z 0.07
§ 0.06
0.05
< 0.04
I-
® 0.03
0.02
0.01
0
S E
.: _ . -_ |
-- -- r
'I
^
CON
: : ' i
!ii
=pt
-rH-h
-~+J
DA
!
t '
"1 — TT
c
1
T+J")-
RY
-M-
-++T
S
^
b
-++
1 1 i
' •
T"~
1 i i , i | i | | | j | ,Tn — !_ j j j j j n — 1 — | — | — rri r
1 — i ' 1 'Nllilll II 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 i 1 M M ! III IIIIIHI 1 1 1 inTlT[L.
[---
:OST VS DESIGN FLOW ['.'.'.'
TREATMENT- NEW CONSTRUCTION ::::
R EG ION 3CC ::;:
^+t4±;|i:+:- + l— t"+f
, | 1 i,; _i__^ j L i J l_ _[_
Tpi^:irtr-||--^^:-:^±4t:::4:-i:++:±f±
HTTT L II 1 Ml M ml
: : 1
9.21 X 10.5 Q-aO^^^;:!:!:::::!::::!::;!!:
^^5|)-..^:i::::^L _^._.^_ f
^T^T'lT'^^^^ ' 1 ' fl7" ""
-r-l-r T^t- '--r-k '-'--H J '
; ' | i | S \ \
'ii' j _i_
^S:±::=i::::i-ztt=i:=::::::::::::iii:::::::::::
1 [ |_
01 0.05 0. 0.5
-I' FIGURE 6le
1 1
t^EEE^:___E: 4^1111^;^^^^^
E-:EEEEEEEEEJEE=E:E:|||^^g^^::--J
|EE|4^|]^:JjE:| r|{intt|j|i^ift|^^pnj%|^^^^
y ' 1 ' ' i ' ' ! i
~±"::^±"":::::::tt::i^^P^ + ±±
~|z:::— ~:::::!:::ffi: ::|::ie::l±±:t:T
* — • — -p- --J--
N^44ii|Iii^
h--1- t""t""'""H"t^'tl^ + + ^^
J ] — -L--L -44-i--i-Li-|--l--4-^- i^-
\ '
1 1 !
M]^^
i , i i
i ; i
1.0 5.0 1C
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
o:
o
V)
o
_i
)0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
2 0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.2
0 1
_
T
i —
_
J
-
i—
7
c
SECONDARY
p:rr3::ft::f:::"±
i II i II 1 1 II ill! iM
C 2.69 x 10
OST VS DESK
' TREATMENT
REGION
6 95
K
D
FLOW
NEW CONST
C
:::::::::::::::::«
11111111111111 ! ' '-"
RUCTION '--
~f
pi,
?• T"
SURE 6. If
" ~1~T~! ' \ ' 1 — 1~
- j i -i- -H- •+ H 1 — [-
1
o
o
z
o
»-
o
D
cc.
I-
(rt
z
o
o
_l
J5
o
O.I
0.5
1.0
3.0
10.0
50.0
1000
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
cn
tr
o
o
u.
o
CO
z
o
CO
o
o
o
z>
(T
h-
to
2
o
o
<
o
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40. 0
30.0
20.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
r.o
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
~~~ ' i ' ' l.-l 1,, 11- U.UJliLLLUII 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II hi I I ii I
SEC
' -
m^
! 1
i~rTT-
ONDAF
T ,*}-*(:
•, r; i'i:
- - -+J H-
4 i - ' 4^r
r^ -* * ~^+
™-H-H -+f4-
'' ll"
=— ::i
1.1.1:111 mrn-T
COST VS
Y TREATMEf
REG
•H'H-H- -t~Mt1ttf+ -
•FU'H "T •
ii-ft T±E:^j: :::::-
£;::t33:::i::3
rH-|--t-(+--tfH
t-i'-<-+-H----i-li--|--- -
IL: -nil:} ::::::
r., .,..,,- +-4+. "+--(
"j*T "* ^~" T" ~
C 1.97 x
TnTT^^f "i""
Tfrt I I I 1
^-1-jt----
M|U4-[-||l||!J| |[
-i-4-j 1 : ; I —
:ttfo | | I -|L.t-y
l^i::|:.i
-rr+4- — I— j —
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ml Illlllll I I l-lf
DES GN FLOW
JT - NEW CONSTRUCTION
ION X
-:-jj-:: -- + --
ll;a::^::;::::;:;:|
-----t :::::: :::::::|:::::
1 1
-¥"-:^^--- = ------- •-------•-----•
_+_. ;>.___.
jr ~ ('' T; ~"
_-:::: 2z?i = :::::::::::-n::
^
^
rTrrrTTTTnTTTTTTTTn~rrTTnrn
ULL ...
— — — ^ _
. t
=;ii;;;;;=====E===ip?H==-
^
;;:: :::: :: ^f. :
- - - — y ••
•" tfr
FIGURE €
:lE:-i;:^5§^§
EiEEjiiil^l
::::::::::,te|
::::::::: ::tftel|t
::±::: ::±f:±trm
T I i ri' rt t-
fp^d
i|i^ij
yijll i ' p M
' i i
:Ei:i;;!;EEEi^E;
_j — 4- • - -h-U-- -i-i-[-i- -f -
1 M
-1-11(4^-^+4+++ 41+
1 , ,,:.,,
,.lg :
if -i-F-PF ft '1
~*i.
f4-.-r:--.t-::
::i- :.•••.:-
- -i - 4.-;
;-=EtiEE
[=P*T =
f^4-X4-
Prffl
E3E — -J- —
* i " r r T
^ -^ — t- -t- -+-
0.01
0.05 O.I 0.5 1.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M VDAY = MGD/0.264)
5.0
10.0
-------
TABLE 6.6
Secondary Treatment - New Construction
Regional Data - Unplotted
Region Grant No. Design Flow (mgd) Cost ($)
IV 010296 .15 251,847
130315 .50 555,638
VII 290603 2.11 1,316,238
290629 7.50 11,203,086
310407 2.00 2,678,754
310421 .22 893,239
VIII 080329 20.00 22,739,187
300204 .60 666,286
-------
100.0 1 . . |
90 o . . ; i .
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
CO 40°
o:
< 30.0
-1
20.0
O
U.
0
Z 10.0
1 -
i :;0°
2 ,o
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
o p ooppopp— t\> oi
p— M (fiAUitn^oxoo b b
Till
111
GREATER
- .:.j3
- ' .'_.,-
— —
i- i
__ — -- . . |-
— • — i r~
i ' 1
i ! , i
i , ._)-
— i — L-
1 ' •
"!"" — r
—
i
T
M '
'- ~ \-
i i '
• '
TTTt
^r
1 1 !
I
*
L! i
! ;
' ,
tr
-^
—
^
-U4+L. U|m| ilLM III [ I M IN mmmi m_|_|
COST VS DESIGN FLOW
THAN SECONDARY TREATMENT
NEW CONSTRUCTION
NATIONAL
r^MrjttjIjijj-ijjMI 1 h Hifp
j i ^P
_LJ ^^_ _|_
±tj::^ffi±:----r-J -]
:itt!::4^-|ji-::t:±--EfE 1--::-::::
"^"H" : 1 1 j — [ — ! T —
C ^.88 X IU U -......__
1 1
±4
— rr4- T + 1 -
" 1 f
i ' it '
II ^
I _ 4 i\. -._ .j... _
, j IjiHf i f II 1
^^rt~l?f"T^T hi — tit""~
i
! ^
01 0.05 O.I
mmmmi i i i MI LI ii |_LJJ u MJ^I±; i , I I • I • ivi'i: 1.1 i |
'llllilllllil ll'-:: + ^-"+jj::^- FIG
f""tt"Vn -
URE 6.2
1 BOD/SS ) :|E|^H=HEJFJTOSJW prj
.::-:: :z = = :; = i izfr: :::l^pp: z! I :
_i J^.., j ..
•::-:. =E^!Spft4^
=i;;ji!D=Dii|ljt
I MM'1'
- ± r4-fl3ti[|j±|:^
:t::::::::::i±: ^Esiffi^Si^
-~ ' 1 M~-( )"?f "T^ ~^
— -j- — 1 i — 1 '-4----I--4- 4—1 -
E
1
?
U-
-
S
^4:iEEEi^^i-PSl&
J||i llfTpffffi]^
--s--- ^«-i--i T T T 44- -i- -<- |
! ]--;' ^ )- ' 1- ^ h~^H~
' ' ( "" 1 1 '
/** ! '
/
^ '
C) i r i
H~I4^ 1 h 1 ' 1 ' 1 "Ml p >-44r^'f^44'i -
H +~" "r H — " ~T~I~ ~rt~ T T*" "" f
. i
1 1 '
j-
-
^ J .: .'.' . .
0.5 1.0
tL-
-:j- -
— ••
;«i
-^
3
£
_4
?
-t-^
-f±C
~~~
> | 1
•
^4-
1 | ,
T
\\
g
+
I
j
3J
5
-J4-
— rT-h-
~~r
r)-
44;-
T-H •
Sr
if^4
^
TTti
±it
tec
1
,
4+f
,
1 ' '
11
ffi
^
f
^
»4-h
rt
--
1—
L+-
— (-•
H=
• — h-
_|_
~f—
-.-
y
^
_t-
-i-
i-
4 -
1
-
T^
-
.-
<
h
— ±r
-h -f-
*" X
- -.-
5.0 10
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M 3/DAY = MGD/0.264
-------
o
Q
O
CO
1000
90.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
70
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
-
r
-
:
:
-
~hr-t , i •!:! ,, him 1 1 niiii , in i ii MI
COST VS DESIGN FLOW
GREATER THAN SECONDARY TREATMENT
NEW CONSTRUCTION
REGION 31
-~ [•^££Sji = EEi3:;;;;;:EEE-::: =:: = :::::::::
i_:::pr4MMttM |
- — ^— — 1 1 ii i 1 1 1 1 1 ii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ii i M M • —
.' ' ' iJTi C = 2.88 x I06 Q '•°Z^:- •
— r^imiiiiiiiiii i nNiiniiii i i i ---^ — --,<--•-
:-<-! ±xti- JT-I -O— V
- ~"""~j"! j 1 " ? "
(i|H!;!!!!!;;;====M[!!iEii==iii!^ii=====i;;=i;;;
rlmrniT 1 Hrrl rniTii
-i[;-±-+J:t f
::::: J4J FIGURE 6
(BOD/SS) .,,:: r-^gffl^^^^TTrratt —
^jf^^^^MIiBliii: •
;E=M:;E::;;:!;;EiEE^:Ei=^i==!i;:=;;i;^p^T
: -;n::::::::::,=--i::;: ------ ::g :g: JT|;r ijjr :gf ~
:::::::::;!:::::•::::::::— ==:::::::::::B^ — aT~
^ -H~- ;--— H
/ ,
1 ^ • • -P- "^ "p^t - - t4- -U
:::::::::::::::•===: ::::___"i:|:::::::l:^±^|- -
.................__.... _j_... ....gn^f;^^^
HI [[[ [||| 1 1 [| || | || |[i||[|[|||||i ii|i||j||iffl
:•.---------::::• — ------ ::::::: ±::: ±ZJL|:: r+fc ^ y:
, ' j-.U^.ju-t-
2
3
^~i-
±t
-^4-
i
-r +
co
o
o
I-
o
3
a:
l-
co
z
o
o
O.I
0.5 1.0 5.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
50.0
100.0
-------
O
O
L_
O
z
O
o
o
o
z>
cc
o
o
<
o
100.0 i > — f- — i i ilium i i i
90.0 1-
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O 1
1 ' ' M " -1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 ' 1 ' i
COST, VS DESIGN FLOW
GREATER THAN SECONDARY TREATMENT ( E
NEW CONSTRUCTION
REG ION IH
-------
o
Q
o
CO
•z.
o
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0,4
0.3
0 2
O.I
COST VS DESIGN FLOW
GREATER THAN SECONDARY TREA
NEW CONSTRUCTION
REGION 3C
•-— z^^^^*Mi:llliiiiEEEE:— iiiiEiEii;
— irr^-±r~ r±t ^ ^*^: ±rr :::::::::: + :: ==j=prr^:: ::
- -- — U — — - i — rr -t++ - — H- 1 1 i +-- -^ h -i \-^f-\ \
^^--£^^^4-:+- + ^fr'"
'" T~"^lt| tjit "ff| -prjrj: ._:):: |:: __ :: :: :: ;;;;
1 .1 . _i 1
,_ Kf-+ J - -<)-
,
=i±t fi no
-H-r-, 1— I |~i i—4- ,
Nlii|iii|i|ii!lliililllilllJtlll|l
1 ^i' /
.-._ .i. f... ... J-L. , ^-/- ::I:
^EEES;:;:;;^:::!1;;;;;;;;:::-:^;^-:::::::;;
„__, .££_ J ^^.^^ J _^ _(J.
^5i|ii|i::::::::~::::::="E::|:;;
' ' '
• 1 1 1 1 1 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j I! i i i i i i i i — | — r~r j i | | i M j > ' i M ' : :j ' . . — i : : .1. : ; : i ; i , ITT~~]
X t- f F 1 G U
i ~
TMENT (BOO/SS) !=rr^^S SpEt^tr
--_-. yg::TT; '..J_M
I'll 1 II III II 1 [tTHTttt HI f iTT^^n^rnfM ^:1
::::::: :i::::::::::::-==i:::::=*=ii^^Bt. —
::::::; :EEi; :::;:: u_-~^..^ v
;:::;::: ::::;;:;;:;::::- x-^^^...
_,_ _ -^4--^ , J<
- . __1 ' (f ,._... .
^^? tl "15
1 ^ t -4-^ +-* -^+ . ^
-^_^r_-|--_j|^_t^7
:::::::. iii:: ::::::::::== =j(?::ii^EEE±|5:j:::±i
X 1
/ ' _l_ _j_j_ '
» T I '
/^ 1 1
j*- -j.-i-j--^.^^ MI;
1"'i'-:-^ r ITlKt^TT-
i --- lUt Ittt -^-^-r+-
i 1^^
:::::::::::::::::::::::_-:: ::::__SSS:S_ -. _
1 1 , III. r|_H- ^^
RE 6.
—
{••-
±17--
) ' --
„.,
1 ^-T—
^m
' '
--
— '-
"
-*-h-
^n^
i M i
, U!
*£
-i-l-^-r
rtj±
tnt
94
±Tp
1 r
TTT
---
..._
_ir:
-
--
2
-L
~
a-
*-
_-
-
c -
• f
-rr
±-
"ll ~""
~l "^
i ^
--
\ \
-~
,--
CO
o
o
o
^
or
h-
co
•z.
O
o
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.50
1.0
5.0
10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M 3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
TABLE 6.7
GREATER THAN SECONDARY - NEW CONSTRUCTION
Regional Data - Unplotted
Region Grant No. Design Flow (mgd) Cost ($)
I 440086 3.50 7,657,858
IV 370382 24.00 29,477,613
370434 1.50 2,094,140
450265 .30 385,155
VI 400682 .75 732,994
480981 .25 293,998
VII 200576 .14 254,078
VIII 490142 2.26 2,699,619
490152 .88 1,452,267
IX 040134 1.50 1,636,962
060810 10.35 36,806,755
X 410416 .04 443,469
530549 .06 1,845,667
6-35
-------
to
cc
o
Q
U.
O
en
o
o
o
3
o:
l-
o
o
<
>-
o
00.0
- — ' — i r- — i — rn — i I • I , ! I 'inni ' II
90.0 — •
80.0 —
70.0 - -
600 SECON
50.0 -
40.0 -
30.0 : :
200-
10.0 | :— — -•
9 0 ,
8.0 - _J_._ j
r.o
6.0- : C
5.0' r— 1
4.0' —
3.01 . - -[ i--
1- - . - i-r-
2.0 t— h^
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
-&-•
s
p:-
--^—
"itrr
—
.-. i i-
- IT
DAF
- . -
—3
....
tH
r^
-^ — i
^p-
Ji --
\
— hr-
^T
: — T
1
Y
:'1
I i . i
-^4-1 4-
rr
2.(
-F
~Tt
11
—,-4.
nr
&
-1-44—
itrt
-^HT
T-H-t-
cos
TRE
32
-1— | —
-eh-
k=
• . r
-^
T V
ATME
NEW
— , 1-4- -i (-,-
— ' -rfh
. _i 4- . . ,-t
< 10 *
±rr^
fK-4*
X^
1"i~- --F
st=f
1 . | ' 1 1 1 ' | ! . . 1 1 1 . i ! 1 . M i II II
S DES GN FLOW
NT WITH NUTRIENT REMOVAL
CONSTRUCTION
NATIONAL
i±^-±^1^i^fttfr| ^ff::::
o -84 — :isr~"ii ~~'? i "
_^ , 1 ,_|_| ?<4-J -J-4-j •
: — £----'- ::::::::: ~~~;: ::::: :
— i H ~" ^* ' j
2i±::ffli:T:::|::::i|:::::::::
4--t<>^^ i i | -, 1 -j-l 1-.
^ + + + III () 4-
K^ + ^4 -44-- -<;-••
Ujtot^^^P
^ \- '
HI 1 I 1 1 1 111 i 1 | 1 1 i._i i|u±LU-ij-.^.Lj_-. L ,1 i..ia
Wfl i
^*5t±-i:g: FIGUF
-EEEEEEE— EJEE^jg^E^
::\ — -----.-. ^- jit^^^pt^
f i— jjjj-rf— h—
... , ,t- i i — L^-, — ^ — ^. -, —
i || \\y\ \ j i Liii -)-r- -
•lyHg
... ( . | .... _^_L
'H + f + • - -r-l-l-i
::,-.;:--; ::: ::^||T Ti-yr
^EE:::;;;=E=---H;;-;;t3t^
;;•:::::-: -t-^^wf-^-
*E
-T-+-
^i
1 . . ,
^
€
rpz
-M-H-
4^
3:
4-4
— ^+-
>.:
-4-
—
5
l_
—I _
^~
-)--.-
-r T
— +•
-h +
Tt
O.I
0.5
1.0
10.0
5.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M VDAY = MGD/0.264)
50.0
100.0
-------
cn
cc
u.
o
en
z
o
CO
o
o
o
i-
o
Z)
(T
t-
co
z
o
o
90.0 h
so.o r
70.0 r
60.0 'c
so.Or
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0. 1
- i .4::. 4. -rm-
SECON DARY
— .
L-..
-T"
-
-
-^-4—^.1 1 | I — ; 1 i i i4lim[_14_J i L
141^4-4-1
il ' : :
COST VS DESIGN FLOW
TREATMENT WITH NUTRIENT REMOVAL
NEW CONSTRUCTION
REGION 3T
. . - ._ 1 t__. — ._,_. rrr^^_,.. „.
--
•-
T-— t-
' 1 1 |
^
-
^^
• 1 1—! 1— — L^
------
-""•
=t:
74=
—
-7 C 2.6 1 x I06 Q '93\
_ . ._ _
- ~y
—/*~
-r~
'
1 ' •
F=
^^
—
^ — ^ —
, '
X
r
— r_
__..
~T"
,'V
/O
T±=
_; :_
--T —
y
^ — —
-77 —
.
jf
/^
H
tei
It
j
/
"^
trr
-r-H—
llLL
— i —
3E
Mil
-Hri
Tf*-
H
=<=
?f
3=
-i-
—4 -
rt
~
-1
—
--
~
\
_!_
-
^
-Jv
-T-
^Tz—r'
=r-r=rt-
— r — ,
' i'
'^ — ^~
f
^f
^7^-
_L : .!_'
7^7^
=r±t
U.-
-
-T-
-^
rr
4-
-' ! II
~^?
-^-
=
tr
m
-lrti.il
-j-" -r-i1 1 f
-L-K- -U
-H-h-lt
— • -| • -t-r
1 ' '
,
It*4"7?
T^fi
LtJ
JH h
±b=±f
-1 -J —
^si
*tfl
l-t-r- —
FiCT-tr
^V2! zt
^i-^f -3
1
^%ff
-n- - j | i -f—
**3$
i i
-ti-H-H-
T7:7§:
"tit
fe::3
1 ' l
4-|-^~
1 •
f'Tj
^^
i
--r:
i ' I
• •
^+t^
. | | j
l1^
^
+ -W
^M
S^
5:^
t* +p|.
~
— ^-•
^~"
— ^
-r-
•-
—
--I —
L_J
4-
-f-
—
1
"
i
^-
U-
-
-
~»
7
-;
T
J
-
— (-
— )-
-,
-4-
T
-••
-j-
-f
i
— i-
4n
-
; -
-
i~-
--
-:"
:j=hp:
:~prrJ-^:
-4^-L^
--f-F ^— F
n
-L
=Ftt~
-.: 4-4-,-
-i ' '.!.
1 i i '
.^
~^\ L '
rX-
F
t
riz
7^--
-* "T-
— J.
-— -
-i
•i^
""' ' ^ •
=7TT-
T~^
-T'-TT-
— 1— ) \—r-
^~
— - 1-1 -
-^
-1-
— -
^
14-
=tt±
^
- h
4
^
r=7£L
^
^
••j 1 i i
jll|
-*—
1 • r I
rrr
^T^
r^±
cit
-^^^
1 1
=tt
-|GURE 6.3o
~
~
H
1 ! • !
4
T^~
,...
-_.
-T : r
~7 - :
;t:;r
_~_:
\ I--
.
-rr: — 1
7:::
1
;
_.
--..
i
O.I
0.5 1.0 5.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M 3/DAY- MGD/0.264)
10.0
50.0
100.0
-------
TABLE 6.8
SECONDARY WITH NUTRIENT REMOVAL - NEW CONSTRUCTION
Regional Data - Unplotted
Region Grant No. Design Flow (mgd) Cost ($)
I 330203 11.54 10,980,074
II 340358 2.50 4,094,405
III 420742 .33 1,765,987
420917 .43 1,188,435
IV 370441 6.70 10,117,877
VI 400648 2.00 1,055,819
VII 290674 .80 1,263,201
Note: Cost data for wastewater treatment plants in this category were
not available for Regions VIII, IX and X.
6-38
-------
100.0
90.0
0.5
1.0 5.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264
10.0
50.0 100.0
-------
CO
or
100.0 --
90.0 •—
80.0 -
70.0 '-
60.0 -
50.0
40.0
30.0-
O
Q
O
CO
Z
o
t-
co
o
o
z
o
o
Z5
cr
t-
co
z
o
o
o
20.0 !- h
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
± 4.0
3.0-
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
O.I
' - - - —• :. - -|
— r — i — ~"F — i 1 P — r
COST VS DESIGN FLOW
GREATER THAN SECONDARY TREATMENT
WITH NUTRIENT REMOVAL
MCW mm <5TR nrTION
". i ' " . ^
. _
c
— ' — : — rrr
_. -|
•- r:.
— — • — ^ — Q
^
—
7
--E ' --
-
~^>
*=
—
— [
~t~
^T^
2.4
jS
^=
•'.-•
k
...._.
4
jr
^
—
- - H
x 10
_^1
i >jjt
11/1 <
— ---
—
REG
— -
6 Q
-K
jf
- —
•8
Tttt
K
•H c
;r
=t±
T!^-
ION
- - •
9-+;
i — r
3T
----- — --
= ±^
-:^
-
^
^
'--
- + -P
Tr
] -
"' — i — ' — t~~f~
— -
^^
T
-I— t_j-
-i^4l
*
^_».^
— r+r
ittti
1f
Uf
~f-i3
1
1 1
'
-Hfi±
1 • i
'
fl^*
•'frit
T-
U
1 i
l
. — ,_.
._!_ -U-L. i-w .
4 ^z:-
*" ^TTTt^7^ ~
..._ '<>
11 : i ' ' i ' ^
yi
^*^^^-
-±^-^H:
»P- • ' i i — h-*" -H^H" ~
Pitt
, ', ' ! 1 '
. ', '
i ill
-f+H-J-KtrH-'iti-
^-^+ -N-III4 -
ill liii
,1 ill
lEEEE^EEiiflli
Pii^jiii IT"
1 1 1 • i ! 1 1 ! ii n |Tir
4-n^:5t:S:
i . lii
^~F i - H-- ^n
— . , , . -
__ — , — ^.^-
^=s*S
-s^-~
'0 i
-------
TABLE 6.9
GREATER THAN SECONDARY WITH NUTRIENT REMOVAL - NEW CONSTRUCTION
Regional Data - Unplotted
Region
II
III
IV
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Grant No.
340354
360707
510331
010250
370383
050305
050350
190605
190637
080322
061121
410371
410485
Design Flow (mgd)
7.50
14.10
22.50
1.00
3.50
12.00
.12
.72
3.70
1.50
4.83
20.00
15.00
Cost ($)
31,620,334
26,548,399
45,663,989
1,131,055
5,323,869
15,992,658
270,661
2,108,891
5,893,281
2,937,457
22,133,369
25,765,275
17,132,645
Note: Cost data for wastewater treatment plants in this category were
not available for Region I.
6-41
-------
<
_l
O
Q
U.
o
(/)
z
O
O
O
t-
o
cc
H
Z
O
O
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.05
O.I 0.5 1.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY- MGD/0.264)
-------
(/)
O
Q
O
O
O
O
O
0.001
0.001
0.005
0.01 0.05
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M 3/DAY = MGD/0.264)
O.I
0.5
-------
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
-------
V)
a:
o
o
V)
z
o
h-
co
o
o
o
I-
o:
o
o
<
o
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.O
Z.O
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
-T
^
— — 4f-Hn '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ullllni i i i 1 1 1 1 1
:::::
COST vs DES GN FLOW :::::
STABILIZATION PONDS -NEW CONSTRUCTION -:-
WARM AND COLD CLIMATE :"::
(WITHOUT PUMPING)
— r-rtr-iii-i^i-ii:--""
" COLD CLIMATE (> 38° NORTH) ('L
: C = 7.00 x. I06 Q >-43 -~-^^ ."::::::;!:!!:::::::
-< h~^~~^ Iff rT X-T-: ::::::::: = - = ::::
-^-^qii^l: 1
; i ( ) . '
_j_ !£_ .... ^
_^^!__LT ±T_ T fl {> .,,(
y
i "r ^ i
I illl jl iMl tf JlltH 1 ffl
; / s
'" f O t V ^
< ) f *> ' S
=^::::::::i:::;:::::;E;:;i!;: ::::«!!£;:::::::; ::::::::::;:;::::
i ° — ' "lX --^ -;i'--- ;; _>WARM CJ-IMAT
_^__: ::_:::!:, ;!!__5JL- -*-
|i -r_--
EEEE^E;!i::i;ii;;i:Eii|:;;i;;:EEEE:E::-p=EE:EEiii::;;;;;;EEEE:;:
— ^-H — 1 i: '::::::::. :::
-~\-f -+- i"ir"
[ [IHIII i I i i i i i i i i I I 1 II II I 1 1 | i l i i — r— i
-- FIGURE 6.5c -
= =! = :::== EE=E=== = = = = = E = E== = = = :-E|=| = p:JE=|i|
EiiiiiiEEEEEE;;— EEEEEEEEi;E-;;;;;;EEEEE:E;:;;;;;;EE*i*
II Illl 1 III II 141 II l^ll1 ! li IN 'IH
-•- i-t-
: (< 38° NORTH) ::::::::::;::::::::::::; _:;:::;
|05 Q.8I :EEEE::::::.EEEEEEE = :i::ii:E=EEEE::
:::::::::::::::;— :::::::: :::::::::::i::rni:::::z±::i
0.01
0.05 O.I 0.5 1.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M 3/DAY - MGD/0.264)
5.0
10.0
-------
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
^ 30.0
_l
_j
0 20.0
Q
U,
O
U> 10.0
Z 90
O 8.0
_J 7.0
-I 6.0
5 5.0
Z 4.0
h- 3.0
O
<-> 2.0
2
O
1-
o
3 1.0
OC 09
}_ 0.8
CO 0.7
o °6
O 0.5
_l 0.4
O °3
|_
0.2
O.I
0.
—— + ^ ' ll!' ' ! ' '
_ COST VS DESIGN FLOW
AERATED LAGOONS- NEW CONSTRUCTION
=f NATIONAL
— r
— -i
— I
^
~n
1—^-:::::::::: ::::::::::==:::::: "::::::::::::
i
___-...|.j...::. .....T-...4-- 1---: —------...-.....
— i i , 1 111 1 1 1 n 1 1 in i M 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 i i i4-i — [— t— !
I C 2 1 8 x 10** 0 '^
1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ii i i i [i 1 1 1 1 tittii i i M i m — i— M --• ,:
• • -j ' i
|=!=4:^ = :T^:±::=5±^::: ::::: — ==i::: ii^: ::::::::
1 1 — | — | j— 1— j . | 1 1 _ . 1 L_ ^L ..
r~4— 1— 1 -4" -*-4 1 •'•'-- >
01 0.05 O.I
r ::_. rp FIGUKfc. o.Dd
= ===== ======EEEEE|==^E^g^^3r??:^: —
f-j 1— I -J-t-|4 -"-4 -r * *• '-^1- -j- •
- | | . ] . . ^ -,-^-f- -n— ,-
r:::::::::::::-::::::: :::::: "Sfri^t^ M= ~
:= = = !:::::::::: =-;;-;:: -- = -==EEEEg::|;!! ^g^|^ ffl zf=
/ ! ,
i ' ! '
:ti'r |.-l— J-4+tr^..±_|_
:J>?:: ::::::::::" ::::::— =:::::::::|::|^3^::::' =
:j^:;;;::;::EE;;;;:;EEEEE^;;;;::|i^gH:^
-
..
--
-|-
-f-
_ .
H >-
-f
~ -
.--
-!-4-
0.5 1.0 5.0 I0.(
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
O
Q
U,
O
CO
Z
O
CO
o
o
o
CO
Q.
X
LJ
100-° , , ^ ..L.^L. .,11 ,'H.lh! 1 ! MM,! 1 Ml linn
90.0f
80.0
700
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
O.S
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
COST
--- + --
' — 3
" ~ ~ ~ r
-- AD
— C
-- DA
y/AN<
2.!
TA
-H — -
A
i
vs
EN
;ED
53
PO
-7T —
Jii_
£.
LA
NA
. W
JC
LN1
^
. ' 1 i
/-
^ DE
RG E
TIO
. * i -| .
ASTE
I06
"S -
^
:!
' i
SIG
ME
NAL
^~
: T
AQ
o-
&
h
— M--
N
NT
TtH-
*E;
.8
— -
IN
^ —
111111 ' ' ' ' ^^:rrf:Tti:::^±i:+^
FLOW i ! ' M
:^±r-p::I:::::|:^^:^
. ._L -_U . l.i 1 . — | ^_ _| — 1_ . -j_j_j-J.
^TMENT ^^^^^^J^^.^
^ ' : ' i
_ ::;:;;:i::::;::::,2
^\ -— : -"-^^"Tdf a,
\ ' IA i1 ' y^'-"-/
. h M i -I-+HJ ' >ffli i: IjK |4fr
-+±±^n$w:-^yr'-^--
u:± + ~ ij/f* L| MgljTTT'+
j-v ' ' • ' • K ' L^ ! ' ! M ' • h
[>n1yi ' I'liKii [rNii1! nil i
-r — -^T-1 — ry-t^T--H-T-H- T
::: :: _!£ |IM
:: . ::^:^::^^:::r::::::^
:=^-ri — --^JiiiiHj3^:::::
---^I^^ + ---V^-^-^
/ • • ill
/ n i ll
1 h I I |j4: U|| | ||4|4
] i M" 1 1| ii i i || M — | — r'l | i I : ' ] — rrrvr""! \ — ' — i —
tl-l* ,- -p 4- F 1 GU r
i | '
r::^: :::: zp~- ifT^fei:^" -; i"
::|:.=;::::::_^i;^:::Sl^z^r
:: :i:.± -:;;:: ^^^-i-T-I 35lH —
3;tTf±EE^JE-EEE5E^2 —
c^c;#$t— ^===— ir=3 — ^
^ tit rf • i T ~" — '^ — PTI" T1"^'^ ~^
atf'^"±+^^^-%^^
..,(... __^_..^r!jll. (r
' •k i . ;
^ ! /1\ 1 '
j=======±=4=tNl=*E=y^i
I 1
::4 C 9.90 * I05 A Q L3°
TJ DATA POINTS - A
IE
1 1 ' '•
^-r^
%*
ii'
, ' i i
^^
-M-
---(-
— 1 1 T-^T 1
P
-n
-r-U-
i — "
-M-f-1-
1 | | '
^^
^^
6.
~h
— r
— K
^_
._ l_
— r
6
,-
-i-
T~
._. .,
_L
-i h
T=c
^ J
— f~ ~-
O.I
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
A DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(IOOCLM 3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
50.0
100.0
-------
CO
cc
o
Q
U.
O
o
o
UJ
o
<
oc
o
Q.
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
I—1 ' ' 1 1 ' 1 ' " 1 1 ' 1 : 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
_ . — 1 __- j |
— - COST VS DESIGN PLOW +""" "
— NATIONAL : = gi = = = = = = :::::::::::=:
—
—
— t
—
— t
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
=
- PRIMARY -AWT UPGRADE --
- C 1.74.x I06 0 -83 "
zpi --- --:: ~ss- •;:!;::::?:
_,_ _ __ ^ ,((.._
— 1 j 1 ^ij ,, _, _-
/ /
^ S
^p ,_.. / ^ __
_, |_H: ;! X^'.i. .:!... ,2
j ' ,' r ......
. . , ; , i ^ _ . ,.
| | | || JIIIIIIH | | | | | | [| [ | | [ | | | | | III .11. 'i| i MI — r-n — i — i— pi
................ ...... F|GURE 67
i ri rry TT~ " ~ ' ~
j- + --.l3-l ry- -fi- -r - ._
::::::::::: ^ tfjiiiz — -1
S? i • • ;• i
//. ICr_. !£.£+; .. "* ""
,' / ' ~ r -
--a--*'-^'- ""T'+pTTttr~^"r"^~
-- ~/~/ — *~^~ — ^i~"'{~4^ — ' — ^ +
_ )'-'7^ •- "- — lr"tT^ — ^~T^
-- -' — i 1-
~ DATA POINTS — O t"1"1"
| 1 ' •
_l_
!
:::::::: :::::"^::::"~"":::::::4™|:gi|::±
I::::::::::::-::::::— z:i:::::::::::::::i|: |^:i=i::::"
E:;;E;:;;;;:;=EEE:E:; ====;EEEE:::::;;;;; EEEE^E;;;!EEl3E5
! MNIIII 1 1 IN I:I!J
O.I
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M VDAY = MGD/0.264)
50.0
100.0
-------
'00.0 } . ' j i i i . ' 1 1 M 1 1 n 1 1 1 i M 1 1 i i m 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i i i 1 1 i i i 1 1 i
90.0!-
80.0
70.0
60.0f
50.0
40.0
W 30.0
(T
j 20.0
O
O
U.
° 10.0
(0 90
± 8.0
o H
— 6.0
J "
2 4'°
Z 3-0
£ 20
o
o
UJ
Q 1.0
< 0.9
(E 0.8
0 °7
Q. 0.6
3 0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
— I —
L_
^
^- 1 'linn i i i i ' 1 ' 1 1 1 1 Mill
. .
r COST VS DESIGN FLOW 1" " " ~T~~
r NATIONAL — : :: : : ----
t EEEE :E E EEEEE
=M=^ C - 8. 14 X 10 5 Q-89 = ----:::-.:::::: i-".
1 i [ i
i ' , i
gE^EE^|^|i:iii:EnMjjlH=E=EEE!;;!;!;MEm
1 1 1 IIJIIH 1 1 I I j I 1 1 1 I I | 1 M i | 1 1 1 j nil — n ii i i ! i ni'ii < i — i — i — i
G U R E o. 8
EEE-;::EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE:E:EE;;;EEiEi|;ES-r-^^I
O.I
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M '/DAY = MGD/0.264)
50.0
100.0
-------
V)
a:
o
Q
U.
O
CO
CO
o
o
o
n
or
(-
CO
z
O
o
<
o
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3 0
2.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3,
0.2
0. 1
1 1 1 — | ,
_L! EN
I
-
^
-
(
pf
—
•\
-
?
—
COST VS
LARGE AND
1, 1 1 1 1 1 ,1,1 | | | ||
A DES GN
UPGRADE FRC
NATIONAL
PRIMARY - AWT
ENLARGE AND UPGRADE
C = 4.02 X I06AQ '98
DATA POINTS -A —
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ID i 1 1 1 1 1 1| in |[[| f1)^
f\
A
MtH
— j, — i
C) ,' "
T *'
. ...,.83
?
f
M i
p^5±
- SECC
AND
K I06A
II iiir-ii . — r — _LiUi - i . i : i • i
tri^
FIG
gEEEEijiEl
URE
•ff HzF4
~-^~^"-^
j ! i '
=ii3;
)NDARY
JPGRAD
Q -93
*C±tf±:
i |
E
DATA POINTS - O
JJH
[
Ss^l
itf^'
i j j
4;^^
1
1 ' 1 1 > '
i
6.9
Etti t
... . _ 4-
ilE^ES
.ii_
_l
tftrn
1 ' T
it ~* ~*~
^~
-.--
-i- 4-
4--
-^ -L
-1
:
O.I
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
A DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M 3/DAY = MGD/0.264)
50.0
100.0
-------
90.0 r
80.0
70.0
60.0 '
50.0 '
40.0
CO
< 30.0
_l
_J
O 20.0
Q
°
g 10.0
o 90
r 8.0
_l 7.0
d 6.0
5 5.0
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST IN
o O pOOOOOO— N GJ *•
pi. K) oJf.uio>-ja>tob b bo
TTT
41! J
-r '-fffU- 44
COST VS A DESIGN FLOW
ENLARGE AND UPGRADE FROM ADVANCED PR
NATIONAL
i . • ,i ,1 • , ";T;trr~-i T'Tr; r
/..IT
- --
-- 4 •- . -I
•K.
— ,-'4—
— "
,-4
— -
• — i-
T, -
TTT
-H —
-7
H
~
i
tr
It
^J;
-^-rr
=* ADVANCED
=j E
~! C
3 D
1 1 '
--t- -T-
•— r ' -— p
^5^
L^
^ V —
;
NLA
3
ATA
-r— r
RG
.8 3
P(
1 '
1 !
I'l'
-i _
.1.-
*>
—
I
3
X
N
1 1
I'l1
-,—
— JT
1
I
31
4444
~f-^r
4^+
i 1-4 '
~~rpr
• i '
PRI
AND
TS
"T7TT
-— ,-_
~^ ! i t~
4Jr
^F-
rtTi-
-TT1
^n~"
~rr
-^
— r-
^f-p
^
i • • i
4V
~t^
i"71
MARY
i|^
^P
~p
LJ
T=4
-4":4
"4-4
1
'
-r--|-
/\WT
^f-H^
T-4
T -T
1
i4'4=
— p
^^-14-
^
- -
-TT
T--^--rr
-, — [-•— r-i-
T "J
i
UPGRADE
>£ Q .01
— H--
- i } | '
j-p
r
• +T
I
4H-
^
-4
nt
|H
^ 1
-4
~-f
r
I
_|_. _L
-4---
Pi
===>
i +
— r
=t
^T
— ,
^ — — •
~-
^
UJ4-
^f
|i| M 1 i
0.05 0.
iii nff
-rf-4=:44-
4^X ^[44
^+ -i p-i
45^t
^F:£
44-1 -i- -44)
T-41 — h
^4^^^
i i
-wi:-i
:
+^-U-i^
| i | 1 --pH-
!
i i • ! 1
-~l~| rt
-TT-T"^ T &
A 1/1 j 1 1
L/ ' J^!
4^*tk
=*=f==^
CtuK
m:~Tf :
IMARY E
4*1,5 23^
titi^Tj,1-
T^!' irf r
41^,+r,:
4^.4T4f:
!v!44-M4J]
H:4S
r::4=5
g4444
A^
ill
tt-M—
^»sb
L/
>P
Hi i/l
fH-'-J^H-
I1 j
/I '
.:-:^
i^
Sipf
^ ' «|
-- ,4-
-H-H-
1 ill
'Iff
-+- rt
TrFF
;_;rr
Tl-^l
t44
4£i
p
|Ff
HI
1 1 '
~-[-ft
iii"
4^
ii
^rr
a*!..
-H
«-
f
J4J-I
-(-I-.- .
in
iW
"^f
--H i
-1 (
all
JT+T
^n
N
m
n
^
!
i
-fff
jtr
il
:^—
•-]
-l-H-
44!
TT
--!-
—
— (
__.
—4
nt~
— t--
^:
1"
-
^
4-
Sr
^ •
- :
-^
-u
-
-T
-"^-"
— p
—4
_K
— (-
-i-
4
u
.— .
-r
~
—
4
i
—
-
^
Zz
~l-
-i
~r
~l—
-*-
T~
T
-
A
E
C
D
4^
-t
-L
-
-<-
-
r
-i-
-
.'Z
-1-
J
-i-
]-
t
-------
CO
o:
o
o
L.
O
CO
z
o
CO
o
o
z
o
H
o
13
(C
J-
co
z
o
o
o
I-
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
09
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
03
0.2
O.I
, T n U I I i I 1 1 II i 1 1 ! 1 M 1 1 IIIIIIIIIILU-U-
COST VS A DESIGN FLOW ..... ^1 —
ENLARGE AND UPGRADE FROM SECONDARY -.::::-----
[ NATIONAL :::::.— i| =
f ---::
-:-M----r-.-:i-,~r;-!: '-^::::::— = -!E: = - = ::::::::::.= — —
— . ..
SE
NL
C
- Dt
— -— -
. ~ -
, i
— : — ^ -1- ^ —
- '-'• -+-I--
;+_!_._
. — J-
T ' M
: rr •
H
•^-H^T^-sits-EE:::^!"::— -"==EEEE^E;;E;;;EEEEE
CONDARY-> SECONDARY WITH
TRIENT REMOVAL -"^
2.29 x IO6 Q "95 ! = = == = = = =:
iTA POINTS - Q "
-|+-H-+l^^4t j | I | 1 t*7'\
N^wwi^
lw^i|E=:p::;;;;;'====|E::EEEEE=^|i;!!iii;;iEEEE:
^ t---H^--rlfI X---4- ^V *"^ IV"-
zfT^fH- ±-:Ei;:;;iil! :-Ls
^ iir* j »' + + "
'"ill 1 _yafT 1 N
: '("i""t~i! J ~rff " ^
/' I i D
JJ :'..... _ {]_ £|
^EEE^iEEEiEiiElh^EEEi^Eir^EiE^E— EEEEEEEEEEEEEEiEEEiEEEEE
- i .)_,.. -,-i-t-j- -4- +
JM- ,. i . I .._,_--_ __ 1
:::::::: ^ :::::: z— =:::|: FIGURE 6.11
--- — /-^-^ z v.. it g...^^. 444* +ffi ^ -j--i--
';:';:::: ?!!:::::: i::::::::::::::j:^:^::3:^i:
!': ----jn-j-If4 — t^f i
......=.._--.. SECONDARY - > SECONDARY T
:::::;::: __::; c 2.25 x I06 Q -89 f
:::::::::. - = z r - . . 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 |"H"^ 1 [JH ' -ttttj-f
;;;;::;:: EE:::-E---^;;;;;;||;||te!;;
ECONDARY - SECONDARY WITH I
IITHIFNT RFMfWAI ^r+f -i
2.08 X IO Q •"J* — U-J-I} ^-1-1
ATA POINTS - A i- + + —
HI ||T||||l||||^^^^^a
j~ T ~> r-(- • •- 4 - - — |— j- - +
t i | i 1 , 1 | | |
:::::::::.::::::" ^ TT-'-iitrttrtrT
O.I
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
A DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M 3/DAY - MGD/0.264)
50.0
100.0
-------
SECOND ORDER COST CURVES
(UNIT PROCESS COSTS)
-------
TABLE 6.10
Unit Processes - Water Stream
Process Equation
Preliminary Treatment C = 5.79 x 10 Q
. ... Ir.5n1.03
Influent Pumping C = 1.47 x 10 Q
5 0 .49
Flow Equalization C = 1.09 x 10 Q
r n/ in4,-.1.04
Primary Sedimentation C = 6.94 x 10 Q
Trickling Filter
Activated Sludge C = 2.27 x 10 Q
Oxygen Activated Sludge
5092
Rotating Biological Contactor C = 3.19 x 10 Q
Biological Filter
Other Treatment
Filtration C = 1.85 x 105Q°*84
Clarification C = 1.09 x 105Q1>01
/ 1 A ft
Chemical Addition C = 2.36 x 10 Q *
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Biological Nitrification
Biological Denitrification
Ion Exchange
Breakpoint Chlorination
Ammonia Stripping
Stabilization Pond C = .9.05 x 105Q1>27
Aerated Lagoon C = 3.35 x 105Q1*13
Chlorination C = 5.27 x 104Q°'97
Ozonization
Other Disinfection
Post Aeration
Land Treatment of Effluent C = 3.67 X 105Q1*02
Outfall Pumping C = 3.32 x 104Q1>26
Effluent Outfall C = 7.39 x 1Q4Q1'37
Outfall Diffuser C = 3.24 x 104Q°'91
Other Processes
Laboratory/Maintenance Building C = 1.65 x 10 Q
6-54
-------
TABLE 6.10 - (continued)
Unit Processes - Sludge Stream
Process Cost Equation
Gravity Thickening C = 3.28 x lO^V"10
Flotation Thickening C = 2.99 x 10 Q
Other Sludge Handling C = 4.26 x 104Q1*36
Aerobic Digestion C = 1.47 x 10 Q
5112
Anaerobic Digestion C = 1.12 x 10 Q '
Sludge Lagoons
Land Spreading
Ocean Dumping
Heat Treatment C = 1.51 x 105Q°'81
Mechanical Dewatering C = 3.44 x 10 Q
Air Drying C = 9.89 x 104Q1>35
/ 1 Q *3
Incineration C = 8.77 x lO^Q '
Landfill
6-55
-------
10.0
9.0
1.0
-o
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
CO
rr
< 2'°
d
o
Q
1.0
**- 09
O 0.8
» s
O 0.5
-j 0.4
i o?,
z
— 0.2
t-
co
o
o
CO Ol
CO °09
UJ 0.08
0 0-07
O 0.06
Q_ 0.05
0.04
<
0.03
0.02
1
0.01
T -
"J --
— i—
M
K " ^1
-J--H:
^=fr
I i '"I
] ; L_
— ^=F
' M
— !— Hi
• J . r
1 ' '
— 0
PR
r
C
~
-_,-
_,_! —
=
i i
-•-©
>-
OCE
P
"" ; "frr
— H ^
5. 7<
^3
- -t-i-; -L
| i
^_^
ss
RELI
— f-
J X
- ^4-|-
^ /!
COS
MINA
--^:i
I04
T VS
RY TF
ffff
-U. 1
QI.I7
>.
••-<> T -
x; ?
! L/
./
y- — -<>
iL -L. -
DEJ
?EA'
F::E
)-
^ r
:L
>i
n
1 1 1 1 i
G
td
=
7
4
1 i i i 1 1 i i i i
N FLOW
ENT
=EESE|EE;;;;;;===E
= = = = n±::: :::::::- Z ::
... .,!....
j - ^- -L-
' T
, ' •»
/ "
J_ ...j-t
--"-:::::::::::--"
"I'll TITTTT 'I 1 1 1 1 ' 1 — ' — i ' ' i ' ' ' '
""-•|-^i??-
Ei«;jlEEEEEi^
_ -J»i, ,i... _2 —
._: : ^
/«
*
U^l^c
i /T "
y i
jF
i
- i
~ FIGURE 6.12
1 |
^
1—
sl^
••H---Tf--r-
|f! —
fH"!^ '
ipfe
-^~ — h^
— d
^b^
ki|
~T'"
iJi.,
r^T-H
r
I"
T — -
TtH
T±^
^-
1
--
--
-J- ,-
J_
-i
T-
^-
r~
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY = MGD/0.264)
50.0
100.0
-------
(rt
o:
o
Q
u.
o
en
z
o
_J
i.o
0.9
0.8
0,7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0.09
0.08
0.07
006
0.05
0.04
0.03
— 0.02
I-
V)
o
o
CO
CO
LU
O
O
X
CL
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
-, I-H |-+- [-
111iiTTi i
m
PROCESS COST VS DESIGN FLOW
INFLUENT PUMPING
4.:..
m
C - I.47xl0 0
©T
FIGURE 6.I3/ J-
m;
o.oi
0.05
O.I
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY- MGD/0.264)
-------
_J
O
Q
U,
O
_J
_)
h-
-------
10.0
9.0
0.5
1.0
5.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264
10.0
50.0
100.0
-------
io-° i — f- ' i "'i'"'! ' ' • ! i ' "'ir"i ii ii ii ' 1 1 M i 1 1 ii ii rrnw'
70_~ PROCESS COST VS DESIGN FLOW
6 0 =5 TRICKLING FILTER --
en 1 i — i ^1 — r-r- i ! ! f + _n.. ----- -:
J. V j — -T-T ^ 1- , , . 1 ^T^ ~ "I '
4.0 zFrrrpnz^iE::!:::::::::::::::::---:"! ::::::::::: : ::
p: 1 ! ' 1 I j 1 Nl
3.0 t-r-^-^T-^--:-:-^-^-^-^----------"----"""-: - -
(f) — ^^i:SJ:|M:3+:::f:: — ==":: = = - = : = :::::::::: = :
5 ^^WIM™ lifflB
_l ' -*n — L+(- 1 Tjf
o — HLj_-_-r-i4-1— -i:i? =p
Q ~±T~tT"f IT'I 1 ""
ti, I.O — I-T-! :::-t "r::±::: ::::; — =::::: :::::: ::::::::: ::
o 0.9 -i — -r—1-^ -TT ^ - ::::-:::::: :
°-8 i mirmntt i Li
en 0.7 il — : -.-----.-it---.--......... ..
Q °6 = NO LINE CALCULATED ::::::: i:
_j °'5 - DATA STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT ::::::: =
_i 0.4 i mil mi m ill mi nil I ill I i I I iiiiiii -
2 0.3 ==|:™;|:;;;;;;:::==::::;;;; :«:===;:==«:====:;;|;i;;!! :
0.2 -
J_ _
c/> ti i
o W--4-T- -i-f- !•-
o
CO O.I :::-::::::::::: : :4::: +:::::: : — -::::: ::::::::--::::: :
CO 0.09 — ^F I
LLI 0.08 H ' J x -- TT -1
o 0.07 — En 1 3: j — T T--I -
0 OX)6i| = ,-|!!!^;!!;;:m!i,!;;!I;^HH!!n^nm!!!m;!!;,
0.04 Er--j-| — f = 1- -
0.02 -----rE±t:|S:H::-:::+:::::: =:=:"|= = - = :-:::; -:::::::::
aoi -— -j— -LJ-u.iL..Jl .j—^.j.... _..
_.::::::::::: :::: =p u-^,,"""i •• ' i'1 • • < '-
:::::::::::::-::::::___ ;::—..| PIGURE 6.16 -
:::-- zz-.-.:-.-^.— ------ jijfl^^isiJti;- '
* 1- -I — +VTTp^~'TtT' ' "
"'""'.'."'. ~-~ ^p - "^-ii{ ^ _|- _|- " .p. i : i _|_ ^T~
:: ;::—::::::: ::::::::j:::::H:tt:iz^i
--^--- ^ i-^-t
::::::::::::: ::::::: ::;::::::::::::.;:::::::::::::: :r-r±
j. 31 I
i j_
O.I
0.5 1.0 5.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M 3/DAY = MGD/0.264)
10.0
50.0
100.0
-------
V)
oc
o
Q
u.
O
V)
O
o
FIGURE 6.17
PROCESS COST VS DESIGN FLOW
ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATION
C = 2.27 x I05 Q '87
0.02
O.OI
O.OI
0.05
0.5 1.0
5.0 10.0
50.O 100.0
500.0 1000.0
DES
(1000
!GN FLOW IN MGD
M 3/DAY= MGD/0.264
-------
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
CO
a:
< 20.0
_1
_J
O
Q
U. 10.0
O90
8.0
CO 7.0
* e.o
J b-u
-1 4.0
3.0
h- ^
CO
o
o
CO i.o
(/) n Q
UJ 0.8
<-> 0.7
0 0.6
Q. 0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
— p- 1 — |—
-
PROCESS C
OXYGE^
4ia=:if|±lffljtLr:^
1 ! ' r T~t~~|~ 1 — Tf "1 — r" '
r
NO LINE CALC
DATA STATISTIC
::|§|::::::
1
;OST vs DE
ACTIVATED
E|;;;;'E;EEEZZ:E =
ULATED
:ALLY INSIGN
s
s
F
<
1
1
;
.
c
N F LOW
JOGE
ANT ;;:::::-:
....... —--I
._.„*•
,
— ------.:: FIR
,
is
URE 6.18 -
:::±:::::::::: ~ + t
|::::|::::::|||-
:jE:: ::::: :::;
?J j--.
:::;::;:::::::, J^:|
x± 1
— t
O.I
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
50.0
100.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
;iOOO M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
CO
O
Q
O
_J
co
O
O
CO
CO
LU
O
O
OL
CL
PROCESS COST VS DESIGN FLOW
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTOR
C = 3. 19 x 10
O.O2
O.OI
0.01
OO5 0.1
1.0 5.0 10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY = MGD/0.264)
50.0 100.0
500.0 1000.0
-------
CO
o
Q
U,
O
CO
2
O
_J
_J
CO
O
O
CO
CO
LU
O
O
a:
a.
PROCESS COST VS DESIGN FLOW
CLARIFICATION
C = 1.09 x I05 Q '-Ol
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.05 O.I
0.5
50.0 100.0
500.0 1000.0
DESIGN FLOW
(1000 M3/DAY = M
IN MOD
GD/0.264)
-------
FIGURE 6.21
PROCESS COST VS DESIGN FLOW
FILTRATION
85 x I05 Q 84
0.01
0.01
0.05 O.I
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M 3/DAY = MGD/0.264)
50.0 100.0
500.0 1000.0
-------
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
PROCESS COST VS DESIGN FLOW
CHEMICAL ADDITION
FIGURE 6.22
CO
IT
<
O
Q
U_
O
CO
z
o
2.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
^++T C 2. 36 x
,4 n 1.68
CO
O
o
LJ
O
O
O.I
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
O.I
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
50.0
100.0
-------
en
<
_j
_j
©
Q
U.
©
en
O
_j
_j
i
©
O
en
en
UJ
O
©
cr
a.
PROCESS COST VS DESIGN FLOW
STABILIZATION POND
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.05 O.I
0.5
5.0 10.0
50.0 IOOO
500.0 1000.0
(
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
IOOO M 3/DAY = MGD/0.264)
-------
I PROCESS COST VS DESIGN FLOW
AERATED LAGOON
C - 3.35 X lO-'Q
0.01
0.01
0.05
5.0 10.0
50.0 100.0
500.0 1000.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY = MGD/0.264)
-------
to
Q
CO
z
O
_J
i
K
V)
O
o
CO
CO
UJ
o
o
tr
a,
FIGURE 6.25
PROCESS COST VS DESIGN
CHLORINATION
C = 5. 27 x I04 Q '97
0.002 r-
0.001
0.01
0.05 0.1
1.0
5.0
10.0
50.0 100.0
500.0 1000.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
cc
o
Q
U.
O
I-
(O
O
O
UJ
o
o
o:
a.
PROCESS COST VS DESIGN FLOW
LAND TREATMENT (EFFLUENT )
C = 3.67 x 10 5 Q '-02
0.05 O.I
0.5
1.0 5.0 10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY = MGD/0.264)
50.0 100.0
500.0 1000.0
-------
en
o:
o
o
U.
o
CO
z
o
h-
co
o
o
to
CO
UJ
U
o
CE
CL
ESS COST VS DESIGN FLOW
OUTFALL PUMPING
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
50.0 100.0
500.0 IOOO.O
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY = MGD/0.264)
-------
CO
a:
a
o
u.
o
co
z
o
J-
co
o
o
en
CO
UJ
o
O
a:
a.
FIGURE 6.28
PROCESS COST VS DESIGN
EFFLUENT OUTFALL
C = 7. 39 x I04 Q L37
0.02
00
0.01
0.05 O.I
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
50.0 100.0
500.0 1000.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(IOOO M3/DAY= MGD/0.264
-------
en
a:
o
Q
u_
o
O)
O
O
CO
(/)
UJ
O
o
FIGURE 6.29
ROCESS COST VS DESIGN FLOW
OUTFALL DIFFUSION
C = 3.24 x 10^ Q
aft
0.002
0.001
0.01
0.05 O.I
1.0 5.0 10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
50.0 100.0
500.0 1000.0
-------
en
tr
o
Q
o
en
z
o
I-
cn
o
o
en
en
UJ
o
o
cc
a.
PROCESS COST VS DESIGN FLOW
LA BORATORY/ MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS
C = 1.85 x I05 Q1-02
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.05 O.I
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M 3/DAY = MGD/0.264
50.0 100.0
500.0 1000.0
-------
0)
(T
O
o
U.
o
V)
•z.
o
h-
(rt
o
o
LU
o
o
oc
CL
9n
8n
60
s n
o n
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.3
0,08
0.07
0.05
0.02
0
L-Vr-^.jj-.-:::!:::::/ '-~~:TEI -3T"-i:""" : '-'"
• ! II,— - - • i -3±— I- ~":: "~":
_, PROCESS COST VS DESIGN FLOW .. "
J GRAVITY THICKENING t ": :: '"-
. , i || " 1 ~ T~ 1 t "" 1
I -- . ----j
I i . .--t-: . --.. .: . :. ._- :- .-_ .
; ; * \ " :; ----- '--• --. - --- -:------ ---•;
:: ":.:.:::. ::-~:-::".r ,:: "::_J:: .:: i :::::
+ -t- ~
:
I i , I -HT. , [..
I ^_ — I (_ _ _ _ +. „ . I
i B t ~~
4 : ' r ;::::
^^ trf ^ .!....-. :. -. :_ ^.:EEE-EEEEEEE;;: -EE::
i ' I ! !! ' m1 fi III -Hi- Til- -ll-l tm HF ft rfflQiffliTflT
. ! ; i - ||- .- .-...-.i:; -' - --.-::,::::: :: ..::..
; • T1 i t :b Prit-i --
j |l th t -: i ::-:.:•_::. '-:r .::.__:•_ .:—-:--:•---:.-:':< =
H I -.,.-.-.. — .. -
1 7
1 7
1 /
:...: _?!_... ::::::: _;.:::..— --;;;:;:::::::;!:: :::::
1 1 1 ^ I 1 1 i H 1'HII HII ''1 H 1 ' H'H-HI-|-| i+H'l 1 H™ 1- hi" H+H-H-|-f-UfH-|-H 1 H 1
- -t" " " "
_, i •_:_ __..., _ ..
^
•:'-.'-.-. -"E;:;:;.EE = EEE:rEE-"- = EE = E:z??EEEEEE;::.; -:E.
, _^ _ .: yt ::
: -..-.-'--' -f. -:-•:—--:::::::::.-----*
: . : : : ::/ : :: :—:»::::::: :_:::
- -_ --.:-. -•::; - r - -^ •:;-.- r:- _:. ._i ::::: T:: ~~z-
- - - :../._:___ __ :. v • . _
_. . / _ _ .. ._.___
| | : ' . / - ~ _ . j : . : — :""
lllJll : "' ^ - :-:-:-":-- "
1 0.5 1.0
[1,1111 1 II 1 || I [ || 1 1 MINI ! ! ! ! 1 — , I.LLUU..! 1 - 1 U '
. . -
-..-:•" :::::::: FIGURE 6.31
" :::..: _ i[_^nr'~"": _xi
;;:- ^f=:E:EE!:^=E::El;:Ei|;;:: :";::]:: J:ii;: :"^ "i^
;-;: :-:::-:-_-;;:r::E:=::E:::;;;-;:;-; i :_:;:^;;::i:t .
L-:: "~- jEIE:- = = = = -£ = --;::L:f^ r -LlId-'EE: ji!:. ~ r=zL|Ei
:::: :--.-:::.:=zzzz:::::::..::| n^ilriiiiizi-:::;
"
-------
to
or
o
o
u.
o
en
o
o
CO
LJ
o
o
cr
a.
10.0
9.0
8.0
70
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
001
-TTxu-i-u- - 44+ f " ' T :
H
—
p
1 —
1 • iii'!iiiniiittta
PROCESS C
FLOTA
1 iiiinni | 1 1 ' | | I
QST VS DESK
TION THICKEN
::::::: c - 2.99
I
N
M
X
I I II 1 II II MM Ml 1 I 1 I
1 HIIIIIIIIII ;:;:::
FLOW — '
3 ...n:
,04 Q 1.14
^
— » = :; -•
. ^
2
2
- ---g1
%
:- Fl
.,(
_-:::-2! :::::::::
^
^
GURE 6.32
:::::::::::::::£-
1 M- • - -j-f- —) -,—
f. ,_. ..1 _, ,_
f > i
- /\ , | p!— -*- - | 1_
"jS'Wffi "t
. Z.
T-
h
O.I
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
50.0
ioao
-------
PROCESS COST VS DESIGN FLOW
OTHER SLUDGE HANDLING
C = 4.26 x I04 Q ''36
0.01
ODI
50.0 100.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M VDAY = MGD/0.264)
500.0 1000.0
-------
O
Q
O
o
to
en
UJ
u
o
o:
a.
10.0
9.0
8 0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Q3
0.2
O.I
0.08
0 07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
001
0.
—
_
-
1
-
— 1
— '
' ^^ f-rH '-M— L! II ' ! 1 II 1 ' ' II | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 | II 1 | II 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l+i
__!_; — il.-i-il-H 1 . -.11 Illllllll II Illlll j. II II M Illlllllllli - - -
DDf^rcCC P n Q T V^ RF^IRM FIOW
AEROB C SLUDGE DIGESTION i"
p r~i ~ ~±; --.
^*- - — i — • "•
S--| ^-|f.. ....J-- ,S,.,. .........
i_ i f
::::i::::: __ ^ ;••;•
^^r_T - -- ^ __ __
= ITT-1 ---o---g= :::::::::;::::::::::
/
-I--— __£?___ -I: I
1 iHI II III TlinT.1l ffrm
'
T T U _ t'
__ _. _z --t- , -.
,_( (X--L-L 1
1 J ^ _
r — n-^-^rr ] - —
0.5 .0
ii |||||l| |||| 1 1 1 1 1 144-1 I j I I ] 1 HI j ' l-LL1Ji-l-1JJ-a^-|--- + ^n
::;-: ----.--... FIGURE 6.34
, ,
1 I l|M
..... _ _-_,...-- g-p- - - - - -J- + - -_- - - -. . _
- ^ ^+C T' f "^ ~ — ^ -i- -J-
z::;::;:::::==EEE:;:_ 2_z EEEE| ::E|:|: ^^ J ± 3z T S -
:::::::::: :::::V|C ::::::::::: ^T.xdl^ :: =_.- xj.
- -.-.--.-.:•.-.:•. -----if. -----.-.-.-".-.-.-.-. :-^:q±f:: ::i^tl
::::::::::: =::::i! :::::::::::::::' ::Stm :: :'HTJ-±.r
- "--/ ^hdqi:: :-t + -:
' | r ~T
~""\"\\.. :::: : ::::::::::~+±::j: :: ::±~~±^
:::-;:::::::~::::::-z~::::::::::::::::::::::|::::~p|
?:::::::::. ,__jj.... :.::::::: — i±t --t±
-o 5±"-^4:T"
:::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::j
— ^--± J
.......... ________ ---z------ -.•—--.-.^
- --plj-.^j... i — 1- + -
1 ' J_
1 -1
5.0 10.0 50.0 100
DESIGN FLOW IN MOD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
tf)
cr
o
Q
U.
o
V)
z
o
en
O
o
UJ
O
cr
10.0 r—
9.0 h—
8.0 |—
7 0 u_ PROCESS CO.ST VS DESIGN FLOW
6.0 (--
5.0 '
ANAEROBIC. SLUDGE DIGESTION
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.0 I
O.I
C I. 12 x 10 5 Q U2
-141 m
FIGURE 6.35
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
50.0
100.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD 70.264)
-------
CO
QL
O
Q
(/)
Z
O
10 0 I ' . i | i — i i 1 1 'i j i I! 1 II 1 1 iiiM II i i i i || 1 1 [ IIMIIIII |4fh
80^
70 " PROCESS COST VS DESIGN FLOW
60-i SLUDGE LAGOONS
—^ — 1 — ' — | • I :" — h — h" h~ Ip"~t" "".'.——-- -- -~~~ — ~~--~-- III--'"
4.0 r^^g:::::::::!::"::i::: ::::: — :-::::--""":::"::::
3.0 -^=f=t=---*- ::---:::----- +—:::::"" --•- = = = ==---" :::|||
2.0 — =| 1 --:::±-:: :::::--:::::: :::::::::::::
1.0 — re- -:::::-• :::--:::::: ::::::::::::
0.9 - — :::::: ::-::::::::::
o.e -+ + --- :::::::::::
0.7 -- —
NO LINE CALCULATED
0.4
-- DATA STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT
0.2 ::---•::::::::: ::::::::::::::--:::::: ::::::::::::
O.I --- H
009 t —
0.08 --
0.04 _-:--::: :.:::::::::
0.03 -- = ------•::-:•-:: ----•.•.---•.•.•.•.:•. — =----- = -- = -----••--•-:•.
0.02 — §::- ~ ---.-.-.I-.-.-.-.-.:
0.01 1 ' ' ' • 1 1 .illili'illil 1 i 1 ll illllllll \ \ \ III 1 1
::::::-::::::: :::::: FIGURE 6.36
' •
:::":::::::::::""::::—"":::: :::::|::::gglJr*T
::::::::::::,::: ::::::::--i:::::::::::::|:^ffifeS;;
LL 4-p- 4- | i T- - - -< i- -
illllll
1 !
:•:::::::::::::: "::::::— "::::: J::::|^|:+{::: |±T±
!:!Ui;Ji..;Lyu:;=EE=HE!i^i|:p=fNp!
j.i ' , li _|_ j_^
-------
PROCESS COST VS DESIGN FLOW
SLUDGE-LAND SPREADING
NO LINE CALCULATED
DATA STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT
0.001
0.01
0.05
5.0
10.0
50.0
100.0
500.0
IOOO.O
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
CO
cc
o
Q
li.
O
CO
Z
o
2
Z
CO
o
o
CO
CO
UJ
o
o
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0 9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
— 1
E
-r-
" '||.' "-T-
PROCESS
HEAT
--=F £'=F
•- = -•:•-•: C
-::s:::|^
COST VS
TREATMENT
- 1. 51 x 10
3 LH^
DES
(SL
C
5 Q
1 " Z
? — i
1
u
,/
G N F LO W —
DGE) : = =
==EEEEE:;:E::;;;!!E'EE
intn
^ f *
II III iilill tfrl
,;fc^::;;.
--=::::::: Fl
ft
— ^
GURE 6.38
::T:::S:::: $T
"^ — r +* -- •+•
=g-::=EE;;g-=$
==| ====:!; il
_L . "
m- +t
T^I^IiEll;!-
^— •
f 7
tl
"TI
---r
- +
1
m
-4-
1.0
5.0 10.0 50.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
100.0
500.0
1000.0
-------
10.0
FIGURE 6.39
at _.
PROCESS COST VS DESIGN FLOW
MECHANICAL SLUDGE DEWATERING
C 3.44 x I04 Q1'6'
O
0.01
10.0
50.0
100.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY- MGD/0.264)
-------
0.001
0.01
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
PROCESS. COST VS DESIGN FLOW
SLUDGE INCINERATION
10.0
DESIG
(1000 M3
50.0
N FLOW IN MGD
/DAY = MGD/0.264
100.0
50O.O 1000.0
-------
SECOND ORDER COST CURVES
(PLANT CONSTRUCTION COMPONENT COSTS)
-------
CO
=J
_J
O
Q
u_
O
_J
_J
CO
O
O
H
Z
O
O
FIGURE 6.42
PLANT CONSTRUCTION
COMPONENT COST VS DESIGN FLOW
MOBILIZATION
BBBBSt
C = 4. 77 x 10
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.00 CJ
0.01
0.05
1.0 5.0 10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 MS/DAY= MGD/0.264)
50.0
100.0
500.0 1000.0
-------
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
O.I
0.08
0.06
0.04
— 0.02
_J
o
Q
U,
O
o
o
Ul
z
Q.
2
O
o.oi
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.001
PLANT CONSTRUCTION
COMPONENT COST VS DESIGN FLOW
SJTEWORK EXCLUDING EXCAVATION
0.01
C = 1.12 x 10 5 Q 97
0.05
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
50.0 100.0
500.0 1000.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M 3/DAY = MGD/0.264)
-------
CO
cc
o
Q
s-
co
o
o
LU
2
O
Q.
s
o
o
PLANT CONSTRUCTION
COMPONENT COST VS DESIGN FLOW
SITEWORK INCLUDING EXCAVATION '
C = 1.7 I x I05 Q ' l7
0.02
0.01
0.01
5.0
10.0
50.0 100.0
5OO.O 1000.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M 3/DAY = MGD/0.264)
-------
(S)
tr
o
Q
S
z
00
o
o
UJ
^
o
Q_
o
o
FIGURE 6.45
PLANT CONSTRUCTION
COMPONENT COST VS DESIGN FLOW
EXCAVATION
C = I. 38 x I05 Q-97
I nn 114-1 in
O.OI
0.05
0.5
1.0 5.0 10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
MOOO M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
50.0 100.0
500.0 1000.0
-------
V)
QC
o
Q
o
o
J-
z
UJ
z:
o
Q.
O
o
PLANT CONSTRUCTION
COMPONENT COST VS DESIGN FLOW
PILI NGS, SPECIAL FOUNDATIONS
AND DEWATERING
|04QI.I2
0.002
0.001
0.01
0.05 0.1
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
DESIG FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
50.0 100.0
500.0 1000.0
-------
FIGURE 6.47
PLANT CONSTRUCTION
COMPONENT COST VS DESIGN FLOW
ELECTRICAL
C = 1.36 x I05 Q1'00
0.02
0.01
aoi
0.05
0.5
1.0 5.0 10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M 3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
50.0 100.0
500.0 1000.0
-------
V)
a:
o
a
O
o
LU
z
o
Q,
s
o
o
PLANT CONSTRUCTION
COMPONENT COST VS DESIGN FLOW
HEATING, VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING
C = 3.10 x I04 Q L24
O.OO2
0.001
O.OI
0.05 O.I
0.5
1.0
10.0
50.0 100.0
5OO.O IOOO.O
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
o
Q
en
o
o
LU
z
o
Q.
5
O
o
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02C
0,01
r 1 — n — T|MI I ' Ml'
t
>-
t=
u
~
i—
r~
r~
h-
—, — \-
H--
i — i —
—] —
r~^-
r
-i—
1 | ., •I'Hil | 1 ; I | •
PLANT
COMPONENT
CONTROLS A
-f^-tt^ij:!^::
-i-i , ' i j i r iir i i i I '
-t^:±r±-'tt-4lp
:Pilp|
— n — ^\ — —
If_._l_|I.Ij!
Tt^'^TT^
-U---44-J-J-JT-
r "f^T ~H
5.06 x I04 0
-t- f -
-|H — +-L-i — /---
1 ! i i
1 : 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 lilllllTFT''''1'"""''''''''''' --:::'
Etit: 4- Illlllllllillll'l.:: :::::::::"::::
CONSTRUCTION ---:--•. ------ -^
COST VS DESIGN FLOW EEli!l!i !::!!EE ;M =
ND INSTRUMENTATION _:::::::::::_.::::
--
l^llllll 1 1 -:::: :-:(!:::: ::::.:;:::::::::::; ^-z:::
1.12 ::::: :: :::::::::::::: :::; '.. ::::
.. 9 !|,^
r ^ ,'-
_C)_ ;? sir
-- j -" '
-i. ~ f f i
2___Z >
1 - ^ , ,--- - - - -
t-----.-.jp~ ---------- -------- :::::::::: ::::i:::::
~~
::— "::::::} FIGURE 6.49
--"EE-EE-^^*tfeSp3g-9-
| 44ilta^4 •
^F T'Tr|l >f~y|i+ "
. 1 1- -p-r • /T^ (T^~|" t"i* ^"*~ "
::!-==:::::; |:::::::S::f:::{T'
:?>-ii:::^::|:|::^::j:::::.±r.
::EE^EEEE;:::::pi|:|::;:l±
::^|::::::|:::±fett!:::ht^
.„ r..^.j..^__-^...4^_
E:EiEEEEEEE;;;EE;;;;EEE|i;;;!;;Ef:Ep
i I'll ^j-f
_L |J_ _ . (•-
::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::±::::.±^
::in:::::::::|:::::.:::::p:::^
:: ::::::::::::!:: :::::::::::::ii±
i—
f:i
— ^
f +
--+
-)---
O.I
Q5
1.0
5.0
10.0
50.0
100.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
en
cc
U.
O
o
Ij
_J
co
O
O
UJ
z
o
Q.
s
o
o
PLANT CONSTRUCTION
COMPONENT COST VS DESIGN FLOW
YARD PIPING
9.96 x I04QL03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.05 O.I
0.5
5.0
10.0
50.0 100.0
500.0 1000.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
THIRD ORDER COST CURVES
(PROCESS CONSTRUCTION COMPONENT COSTS)
-------
ct
o
o
u.
o
z
o
o
o
I-
z
UJ
z
o
0.
5
o
o
1.0 r
0.9 r
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
nnni
i • • I- mill
— i "J 1 1 ii Miiiiiiii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 n 1 1 111 . .
COMPONENT COST VS DESIGN FLOW '
PROCESS CONSTRUCTION :i
t-
1
.— vpr-~;
i T
~~I 1~~"~
~
E~^
- c
, i i
1 ; i
_!_i.fi.
.TTT--
•
1 ,
mil
= 3.
-^-T
5RELIMINARY TREATMENT
r-ra^|j:pp|p|^
—;-"--,• -p -] r-;^- • 1 1 1 -j- - -[- -j
: ' ; 1 1 i j ! i . '
1 ^ t
14.x O4 Q-88 "==s|-^:zi::::ji:::
-i |_i_ -| — 1_| 1- 1 ! i ' j ! i "^ -L- .
• , i , ~E'' ;- X :" -
i* ' / ^
. y / '• — cot*
; , | \/\ £
V* 'rr"ji . '_ _£:::; _.:: c =
*^-^^T^^f:::-:^^:: —=::::::::::::::
L
1 1 1 1 i .,,,...
--- En"1"*""'
-^r +±p- FIGU
-r- T1-" -1 ;~r ' 1 -
jf X I
• -? ,{ f± — iti^i— '- —-
it* ' '
-j-j-»j !--- -i ^++Htttr W^^~
"V — — j^ i IT "ill >}'» "
1 1 i i •
t ' 1 • : i 'I
I=:!^::::::-E=!!;:;==|§!||^
-i j-— i— • H-|- -tT^4~ "h~p" ~ — ! —
CRETE 1 ; '
I.O8 x IO 4 O '-39 I, ,
IT 1 j j 1 1 1 1 M 1 II j j 1 1 1 II II 1 1 j 1 j 1 ft ' •"'
............... _.+... .^.^.^
;:=;:;;=:; ::;:|M:=::^=!==i:;!iiH:^
RE
_. .
^-" "
— * i •--
(- r— t-
^
*ttt
^
-h*
6.51
-;:
„-
^
^
-+-
M
^
^
Wl
1
^
TTT
-H-
Tt
:
•
- --
1
—
O.I
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
50.0
100.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
V)
cc.
z
o
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
GDI
0.
_1
h
1
1-
—
=
r~
-1
— i ! : ,1111:1111
COMPONENT COST VS DESIGN FLOW
PROCESS CONSTRUCTION
PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION
III CONCRETE
::::::::::::::: c=3.59xi04 Q '-°0
t '
0.5 1.0
1 1 i miiii i i I i i | i i I MI | j I I I I I I 1 |[ [1 1 | | [I [ i i i in'ii ' — ! — I- i!-L.:..L — I — i — r-i
_ _ _ _L _i_ _ _ rIGUKt c
::::::::.:::::::::::::: ::::::::i:::^:i:gg^:rzi
? ~~ 7 ^T r| — ' — I — ^ MI J ~
?t' ./----.._... EQUIPMENT
-/- .,•.'....- c 2.33 x I04 Q -97
;>' •j-h-TTM-^T-r-'--H-H---i+
5.0 10.0 50.0
. 3£
i 1 ;•
"I" ~i " r "
-ip 4-. .-.-;:
J — I — \
-\ ^H
~r". ~t "
H — h + ~
IOC
o
o
I-
z
UJ
z
o
Q.
2
O
O
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
10.0
CK
_l
O
O
LL
O
Z
O
2
2
0
O
h
z
LJ
z
0
Q.
5
O
O
0.01 L
1.0 5.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M 3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
10.0
50.0
100.0
-------
(O
a:
o
o
V)
z
o
I-
to
o
o
z
UJ
z
o
a.
S
o
CJ
1.0
0.9
0.8
07
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
O.OO3
0.002
0.001
• ' - -,|~-4lU44^44W-4 1 1 1 i 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II
- COMPONENT COST VS DESIGN FLOW --
PROCESS CONSTRUCTION --
CLARIFICATION
-- - -L-t^n||-^i-H-t'iiii|ij -t I i 1 i III 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i
— ..' •[-' ,±fej^^:j: --"£:: -----
- ._;•: :- IT. -i-M- :-]::+:::f :::::" + ::t- T^::::::
- -----;---• :r^||:}:d::pi::::::::±±±::-±:±
, -. ; , ,t '• 1- 4-fji - <->-[-l-| I I I if - - 1 i- -| 1— i
L" ^ Wil r 1 Ml
i,,,-, , ^'
-^-4E:E^-E±5;EE|EEEEEEEEE;;;EE -;=EEE^-?2— ;EEE;
-r, r—-^--^-----f •-----•-'•-• '•'••• —------.-.£- =--
h;4gEI|M III ||l|j]t[[[ 1 1 1 IB
jTl ilj -?d-.,!.: --- _-__.--..
i ' | ~--tr1-' -1 ;'' --;' 1---
:j±T^fe:.:::::4-::::: ::::::::m:::::::
1 - \ ft
FM:TTFT'I In Lrf
^-rii:±: ::::::::::::::: -::::::: ~::::::2-?z":r:;
E^IEEE;!;;;;; EEEE;E= E^EJ«E;EE*EEEEEE:
M^irMB I TO
_U , ^ _.,__ _ i __*__ „_ _
— i .^, 1 i — L i i , 1 N id J 1 1 1 [.(LUJJ 1 1,11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — — LJ u —
1 1 i jllHI i i | i i i i mijl | i 1 1 [ [ [ 1 1 M | l_i-|_L!-|J-L!.l|-!-l:.| ' ~ - , .~^~T^~n T" T~{
fi:I :: «•* ^™tj-' FIGURE
•^ r- i f|f-i~---! — H H— 4-
- --:-j'---zc~":^: "iTSt-j- - , "K
::-.:•• —:: ;i!::;i:!: ==:::::: =:>! = j: Tpr Jjj-J-MJ-ttT
•l^»ff©T
..-.,,! e ±±-_.. / _^^^H.,.. ^^ utt
ill i f[ iiP'ftiM
---/----? q:^.i..;J+<_+.K>
- ~ ~" i ^ •+• ", h-i'-^-j-f-f--
E:E;;;;; EEEEEEEEE;;E;;;EZEEEE;! EEEE^;^!!;!^^^
ill m in mi njnnj^^
ffl ^ l/t roBmmffi
?• — j1"'1 7 ' l~~ " -r-l-:::::
-^ — -- f • -¥^--t
tt ff j I j
--- f - — • — — ~ ? — — rt~ "^"r" ~r~i !~ ~
----,'- -/- -/ 1- ill -h— L 4ti
:,::::: ^:::::::::::;;^:::::::i=i::::::::::::::|::::::4
^---; -/ ifF""+T^
---••,•• -- ,<••• H--:trm
—I1 -- 1 f-W-'-t+r I 1 1 i -"it
- ^? \ ^"^ '^' iT
:::::;i! "EE: CURVE COMPONENT EQU
i1' ---------- 2 ELECTRICAL ' C = 1.77 x 1
•-::: :: 3 PIPING C = 3.46xl
I::!! : :E==:i: 5 CONCRETE C = 4.76x
i 6 STEEL C = 2.70x
| 1 Jl ]
111 j !
t" n ; '
i i
I 1 ! | i +4-t i -^
6.5
t T;:; :
T -^H"|- •
T.^,-.
z$ '
~ -rj— • '
ftfr
:^i-
tprir
(i)
r - --J-+ • i
£ t-)- ^
i^-
ATION
03 Ql
O3 0
O4 Q
O4 Q
O3 0
1 ' '
_,- j.+-tJ- - -
' i '
"*" ]^
4
10
.4
8
9
.3
1
;-
-r- +-
4--T
•1-1-
1
s :
j
7 ;
5 p
H
0.01
0.05 I.O 5.0 10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(IOOO M 3/DAY = MGD/0.264)
50.0
IOO.O
-------
cc
<
_l
_J
o
Q
U.
O
V\
•£
O
i-
V)
o
a
I-
z
iii
z
o
a.
2
o
o
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
~l--\
c
1 :-'1
6 cu
— r
r
FW
1 ' 1 '-
-r^
OMPONENT COST VS DESIGN FLOW
PROCESS CONSTRUCTION
CHLORINATION
^£Trff3ff::S::rEE;:::::=-EEEE| E:EEEEE;:E;
-^-r j ' 1 ^rfL ^4-j- - ^- 1 ----
-:^:-i-:TltT:5f : ' :::::t ::::: ~~ : ::::::
_J j 1 i , 1 | | | , | ^ T 4- - 1 ^ ,
RVE COMPONENT EQUATION ::::::::
ELECTRICAL c=7.69 x io3o 77 :::: :::.
2. PIPING C = 4.l5x I030L2° --
5. EQUIPMENT C= .45x I04Q'89 ;;::::::
1. CONCRETE C= .8 x I0401'06 iS :--/„
'i 1 ''
> ^ i i i , ^ ^
_j E-^f1 ±- 2jE;is
n ^ it+4. 4-M-- '--1. -p-, rf-^f'-
|ii"|!|'i|'ii'|!"l |il||i|li|i \\rnW \\\\m
' i ] \ } • ' ' i ' '' *
! 1 ! ! ' M ' ' f j j^ /
';•;—! i ' ," *' .'
T TT r~ , ' f "? i
• I ]• • ' " t t ' — r -• — — p ~ t ~^f~ — ~" ^ ~ ^^ — — r 1 — ] ^"
LI -^L- -^ — ^.(--T „ __^ yL
^ririt^lt-;f':-±-"±;^-~::4::::i
' i ' /^ ,/ r
|^^|^:|-::|=z::::;!i~:::::±::
i?l|^lEl:;;:j|^:Eg-=f:::
zdzip ' i j/ mil ;^~: i^;::::: z^zi i: :: ^ = ~z:^^pi: ::^:
:^:::::::g::::::^::: ..,!_....... ~--~::::
^.^^^^ <
-i- , ' '. , / .___ _.;:. •• -:::+:+;
i III 1 1 1 1 1 1'l M 1 1 " i :-'^--L~~1~~
• :::::: h-^H--44 FIGURE
1 • 1 | : '
i EEE=E==EE;; JEE---^4|:^p55-r-
-a^- — — t- i|i k^ — ' 'Jr - •
. .. -p. '_;.:^_^_^- ^x^^L7i-^— —
-,' !^-^y?I? :!,.._
T--|--- -^-T^.^?^^_f .-j
::==:;; ;:=,i!=lii^fe^=S
mif itf fw4- - •
/ .,' ! / 1>K
• ••• ji ~ ' ^~ jK ~~l 1 ^"^ ! 1 " "
..,!. .... _^fT ^ , 1— t- . ' i 1- 4— r-!- -^
:--=!i!;-l$-|=HEp^^^
::::: :__^; !:::::::: ztin:± z±=_ = id: ^r:+qi-L^i-
• J- • 1 r -1 -1— M H- -*• + ; ' ' ;- — -L -- - -
1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 : i 1 1 . 1 1 l 1 . 1 . 1 i 1 . -L— . \ . ... J i 1 1
: <
....
*H
—
.-^.
3.5
3
ir:
i — i — i — r~
55 3
1 T - r '
-
— ^
O.I
0.5 1.0 5.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M 3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
10.0
50.0
100.0
"t L- fcjj-^*.
-------
V)
(T
O
Q
O
Z
O
en
O
o
LU
•z.
o
a.
^
O
o
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.007
0X306
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
1
U--:
_L_!_
OMP
-•>-•'-
r
^n
E>
C
-l--i ., - .
• I ; I
H
J rrr-J II '"I"!
ONEf
PRO
C
,--- - J---
CAVJ
= 1. 19
rH ]'-)-(-
i ' '
i , i i i-
-l-h-i- -i-1-f
1 1 ' i -t-t-
-H-tit:
^
w
-^4J4
TT , : ' rMiilii.!!
JT COST V
CESS CONS
XIDATION
- •* — TH — T*" ttt' ~
T -t-^-i-l-j- 44----
MION
x I06 Q L<
t]-i| |l'l[i[l|
± ! 1 1 1 ~T'"Hr~
T--V-I:::]::-
- ^-(^-T i
T , Tf ^
:^T::;i!i
_]_ — l_j_J_ _ i
1 -p-t-l ^ --^M--
: |i|i||/l II |||
• , jj
i^--=
|J:i-::::::: =
-^ ' hi-H
1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 | 1 1 ! Ml
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
S OESIG
TRUCTIO
PONDS
50^
":l::-2
F ^-
^
— j
?
7
N
^
•-i
^
ht"
-+
-4-
-j/ -
F
1 1 1 1 1 1 II i
LOW
/-
^
^- —
---^
3k?
II II i i i | 1 1 1 1 1
•JX +
_. ^
\\-----f:
... ^ — --
•" i^~::::::
:::JIT:~~:::::
-t- -
-I H-
1
H H-
=-4
|_LU! UN, 'ii ' ' i r-n — i — I—T-]
1
I i
r~~l~^~^r
"""I
1 h-H-
SURE 6.56
-1 — ;
in:
+- _j-
zrzi;
^^^^
t+^++
^tf
T^ -
I.
•^ -^-
n^
C —
-H- ---—
-
_i_
._
— f
0.01
0.05
O.I
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
crt
CC
-------
to
or
o
Q
u.
o
O)
z
o
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
o.te
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
002
0.01
f . — . i— r-,- .-i — i — :- '. i i i i i 1 1 ii irn 1 1 [ i ' i
'- COMPC
-
-
- - —
•
::. :...-j
-J-4--I-
- -
— r
— t-
r~r
^
)NE
PR
A
-
&
-_-r-|-
| 1 . I
NT
OC
NA
--•—
p?
^
—7
-+
w
EQ
C
?*
' ' I .:i'.':i : i ' i ! i ; i , i • i . , i (_,_
COST VS DESIGN FLOW T'
ESS CONSTRUCTION -:|: =i
EROBIC DIGESTION :Jt +±
7— p -^| ^n — -p -J- 4- -H — !-4--|-l----+ -(--
^^._j_ _:: — | ^ __ _ ::::; ..... —
UIPMENT |- ---
1 ' X
^^|:EEE;r?;;EEE||::;;;|F:::
-^T-=tf| 1-- -I-
4-J-4-- — -]- ,
=cbc:^lliiii:|= = = = = = "|:::::;;;;:=|
j-i i^-t- --JT q- — —
=3::: :tt: ::::: it :: T :: ^~~~ ::::::::::::::::::
=- f B-ffi-t-i^- — |-H--£TJ — '
K 4--4 -f ----1 -£-4- | . ' i -H F 1 (5 1 1
T^ r - -i • - 4 -H — i- -i I-H — h — j riou
| H| ::::: ± ^ ± :: JEt!^ =t*t* TTrr^ti — —
=;ii!IIEiii==i;;^^i£;«iH
i: :::::::::: __±i::= _j=4_j_j:^j-).j.|t^ ^_ -,3,-.-
::::::::: 4= _: i :: -=JT=p "t-i- W )--- --^:
— — i ^ — i — Ut-4 — in ; ' i --^ -* — ^
------IS^IliS
||. iijpji |j i ii^ij^ffl
-:: = :::::::: n :: -5*"^ ::pp:: Jg r^---
-^ H-(- .-Li .; ,. +^ — H-+
_. . _ . . -,C |_p -^ __.- jr_|- -pJ_ _|_
^^±jjT^.j:_
— =F--w-U-lJ4i4l*^+^
h4-^+ir +t^-^T^^*^
J-lll ! i[i 1 1 I ;;|i!ii|,7TJ-
III II II II II rrrnM+p \\\\^r Hi~
........... ----....--..,-.±.±4^^^.
— | 1 1- •<• | • • -*T-4 ~ r-
1 '1 1 II IIIIIH . 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 nil ili.TlT.
RE 6.56
-r^fi ~
•I!*- J4
Hi
i*f
iirg
-t-^T-j
-J-fll
i-r - -
^:-r:
+T
+T -1-
1-
-
r~
,
— u
- — 1
T—
•*- r
i7*
tf)
o
o
I-
z
LU
z
o
0.
2
o
o
O.I
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
50.0
100.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M VDAY = MGD/0. 264)
-------
co
a:
o
o
LL
O
z
o
z
(0
o
o
h
z
LU
Z
o
a.
2
o
o
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0 9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0. 1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
002
0.0.1
0
__
--
— -)
--•}
COMPONENT C.OST VS DESIGN F
PROCESS CONSTRUCTION
FLOTATION THICKENING
^"Ty
..,_—
j ' ' I j I ! '
"•"*". llii •^^Ttt~~|~l~f" t": 1""r|r--^:^: — -| 1
^^-T— ^y-j----^ j+f ~~hr ^t ~1~T
! i ...,-.- .. . , i \'\ J- ,:.-U .... ,.,
r
i r
-r-r-h T ^-"f
i } j j 1 1 M! 'mini 1 1 1 1 ! I [I [HI I I | | 1 1 1 J/f I | | 1 1 J4
( I _l _A _^ ^^
~|~ :t::::::: :+::::::: t :::
"""ttT"" " " "
-M L- +1- - -h-J. f - - -) 1
1 0.5 1.0
iniinin — T t-t-t , j. -- " ••-
::::::::: : :- J7:t J-I-M-U-!' ~> FIGU
.ow | i" ' t :,_j_U 'J '
Hi IjRur
j I i i i i ' ,^ ifi
1 --S — ^i_jr+^+5^!-1 — , — u_
[[I III II || |i| '"hJ/i| " I ?"< JM i j " " • j
, XL ii :
j :EE.E:;E:: ;;; — EEEEIE^-— EEEif s;'--£HEpi-
-^i H-H- 4+^- H— - -
— 9l ii^LW-f..;,.
-I*- • I--H--TT -r-t-pf-.
^ilHHntimHhiiiilhill
:|EE;;!:; ====1 !=[!;;::! E=EEEE;E==E|EE|;!!^|S
:::::::: :::::::::::: : ::|::::— rjiiir^s!^
1 i ' '
-J-j-^-i. ^_i
RE
r*
^
—
7^
^Ui
-^J-
^f^
J-f-
—-
-7-'
-1 — "
'T '
.-,.
^
t^^-
-^,
-*-
-rir
6.59
^
—
—
i i
— 1 — i — >
I ;
~T~h
-
-
5.0 10.0 50.0 100.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(IOOO M3/DAY = MGD/0.264 )
-------
(0
cc
o
0
u_
o
v>
2
o
CO
o
UJ
•z.
o
Q.
2
o
o
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
- CO
•
- - ---
. .1 1 . r
1-4 . i
MPO
P
-
T—
NEK
ROC
G R
. i
-+
f
-[-
T
:E
A V
F
...
__
^
j~ -•-— L— '-- : : ' • ' " ^g3H:
COST VS DESIGN FLOW -^T'^'
1 TY TH ICKEN NG \±\t\\'^.
— -I-1 — -|T^^-^^ /i ' i -1 -H-L-
^ ' l ' ~I~TTT ~y H j ' ' 1 '
-H-H-=ttt^ T^ljl i 1,11 i i i 1 i 1 i III .1
Tfff ~:'-£feErt ^EQUIPMENT.
^:^±±SEE C = 5.50 x I03
UM.il |ii| i [[I III
. i 1 H-f-- --+ — 1 1
i !
J _ p4- --)--. -j
. > ; i . -( 1- -j 1— i
^i::^::^^:::: + -=t^^^iT^' J
1 jl I i ! || T^I4lM||l|M_ JIj p|
EEizEEEEiE ;;;;;-= EEEEEE EEEEEE;:!;E|
jiu LM_MJI : 1 N li M 4_m M|| m
GUF
IT TT
lilt
i i i i i •
-T l
^E
±±t±
->-M4
H-1-
€
-3^7
-1-4-^
i i f-t
y
qJT
•M^-
-K-H-
r-l—
--H -
».6
-
0
~-
I
-t-
-J
1.0
5.0 10.0 50.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
100.0
500D
IOOQO
-------
10.0
9.0
8.0
70
6.0
5r\
40
(0 3.0
DC
d 2-°
o
o
It
o i.o
in °-9
^ 0.8
O 7
O
fi °'6
_| 0.5
5 0.4
Z 0.3
O °"*
o
t-
z
HJ 0.1
O 0.08
5 0.06
8 °-°5
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
rr— i — | i , , 1 1 1 1 1 1
T~ - .. i 'i — 1 1 , i . 1 1 iiiiiii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 it mini
PROCESS CONSTRUCTION
MECHANICAL DEWATERING :
: =. ^rfpt^
^-^'.[M I""7!' 1 [ill [II 1 1 1 II i JllllllllllllHlf
1 : ! . i • '
! . ;,;' • . , ~^4 -L I 1 ,
11, i ;
- : j I ! t: l::i ' ij| i |[|| || | | | 1 II
' ^_ EQUI PM ENT
1 ^=1=^::^ C 3.71 X I04 Q1'27 ^--- ;-.--,:::::
1 j 1 1 1-1- -H i
' y'
TrH--LHt-±rtifr±-4:tt±tH-- - """ \t-----"'
] i ' i | _ j i ^|_ . . . i _ j _. 2 —
i ' ' i j ^
, • ' T ~ j ™
! i 1 j .
\ | rH ^1" ' ~* '"
1 i \ \j \J f\ w O . O 1
m i
> I ' ' i i
j' | | ' ' ! ' ' i ' i ' ! ' :
" I" -- +^--j|tite+itii±jii±trtiti-^^-
I-- -f +-l!:ffi"-^^--
t i I ' I
II J ililifTHl
Tj ;
j U._,.L ,1 1 J \\
I
::::::::::::::=::::::: =i::::::itt::: :i:::_^.:^-, :-
1
~l~"~
i-:
f -
-i- _
— -
_-!-
_L
O.I
0.5 1.0 5.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M 3/DAY = MGD/0.264)
10.0
50.0
100.0
-------
ir
o
Q
o
V)
•z.
o
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
— Q04i
0.03
V)
O
O
0.02
Z 0.01
UJ 0.009
Z 0.008
O 0.007
°- 0.006
o °005
° 0.004
0.003
0.002
O.OQI
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 — \ — 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1
COMPONENT COST VS DESIGN FLC
- PROCESS CONSTRUCTION
: CONTROL LAB / MAINTENANCE BUILC
— 1 — 1-+^ -"-'• EQUIPMENT
c 1.63.x I04 Q u9 -f -.:-•-'•
^Z
— -------. ::::::::: ::::::::::::: =i:: :: :Vz2:i::::: ::::
> S
\ '
E|~|:::: =::£ &EEEEE-
___..... . . ... -,. _, ..
.._ t ..,!..
---~--i~~~-\\i\\\\i- ziEE; ;::;;;;; —------=— —-—---•-
Tl 1 1 lh-"~FF ::: ""--: _ -^p . i ; ; +. . i ! . u -J- - "— - -L- .- .-1 . -I 1 I '
^^^ FIGURE 6.6
W -- hfi
::::::::: =====::: = = = || = = ? ; ^ tS: j.pj : .;:: _:
)INGS ""::::: -z i- i: :: =-r--±i| ^t — -=trr -7-T±rr —
;:::;;;i;;EEEE::::EEE = ^Ij|;rxf*r^=r-
. -y u4-4-l- -i i i I t-M-t- f--1—!— t- - • - -i-i~ht
IIIIHIIII - i^-::tB-±rt:^liii.--:- ~. .
::;;:E"E: ::::::;;;: zz -- ,, ::^^ = -E z^ 5- ±tt| E^±± ^- gp ^r
LjZjJ I ; iLiLJif! ifiiiJi:!:] H
^ H — H-L-fUt -•-•-* -'— -Uj —
,'- + -;.?--h3 "1- — LTTt' -
,i 1 1 4ji.a-.t--.j-rJ- -;- •- -— 4--
.... . --^4^,.--^ ^ .
--**-,'- ^ Tt'T"^^ "T'ff1'
.... __-^: ,^ J-f t" ^^+H+W -
::::::^:: :::::::::•:::: ;!!:—=::::::: 5E5::+^t^^r
..... ^* 1 (_)_ L — . pi 1 ,_)_ _!_)_ ,|.
::::':i:::^^- PIPING ::::§:|i^
C = 1.47 x I04 0 -7| ^"^|-|-^-
_ ... _i hhT+^ "*" "f~n " " t1" '
— _!_!_,_ __j ^^ .^ . ^
HI III M PtwrnW^
-iHHHl-HHinlllHHiiiiiHilft
_-... ... _...^,iji4-|Lh__tp_^i-.
. |..|.|. t- 4-4|-L Ijfr
::ii::::::::::. ::::::::::: ;::::" Ti"H^^"i:i:r "
2
[
~\-
i .
-t-
+ -HJ
^ -^
-t- +
-t~- +
r +
r '
0.1
0.5
1.0
5.0
10.0
50.0
100.0
DESIGN FLOW IN MGD
(1000 M3/DAY= MGD/0.264)
-------
7.0 SIMPLIFIED TREATMENT PLANT COST ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES
-------
7.0 SIMPLIFIED TREATMENT PLANT COST ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES
7.1 Background
The Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with Sections 516(b)
(2) and 205(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (PL 92-500), must submit a report to Congress before February 10,
1979 entitled "1978 Cost Estimates for the Construction of Publicly-Owned
Wastewater Treatment Facilities." Commonly referred to as the "Needs Sur-
vey," similar reports have been submitted to Congress in 1974, 1975 and
1977.
The major objective of the 1978 Needs Survey is to provide a comprehen-
sive estimate of the total cost of meeting the water pollution control
goals of the act. To accomplish this objective cost estimates of treat-
ment needs will be developed on a facility by facility basis for each
existing or planned treatment plant nationwide.
In the process of developing cost estimates for new or enlarged and/or
upgraded facilties, the most accurate cost information is to be em-
ployed. A majority of the facilities reviewed will have cost information
available based on completed Step I facilities planning or other similar
engineering criteria. However, in many cases specific plans and cost
estimates will not have been developed.
One of the objectives of the present study was to provide construction
cost estimating criteria to be used in the 1978 Needs Survey for facili-
ties in this latter case. In developing cost estimates for these treat-
7-1
-------
ment plants based on previous bid data three criteria were considered of
importance:
1. The resultant cost curves and procedures had to be broad in
scope applicable to a wide range of treatment alternatives from
small, evaporation lagoons to large AWT mechanical plants.
2. Cost estimating methods had to be flexible enough to be applied
coast to coast yet technically consistent providing national
uniformity.
3. Methods were to be straightforward, facilitating utilization
by a variety of users.
Using these criteria Figures 7.1 through 7.4 were produced using the
data base described in Section 6.0 of this report. Costs presented in
these figures have been updated to first quarter 1978 dollars using the
EPA Treatment Plant Indices. In addition the 1978 Needs Survey curves
include allowances for Step I and Step II costs as well as Step III
non-construction costs such as administrative, legal, inspection and
contingency expenses. For these reasons, Needs Survey curves will vary
considerably from related cost curves presented in Section 6.0 which
include construction cost only. These cost estimating procedures are
presented in the belief that the lay public often has need to estimate
treatment plant construction costs.
7-2
-------
7.2 Treatment Plant Costs
Figure 7.1 presents curves used for estimating costs for mechanical
wastewater treatment plants. Note that the cost scales differ for the
left and right halves of the graph. Curve 1 is used for secondary
treatment facilities. This curve was developed from approximately 100
construction cost bids for plants nationwide. It reflects costs for both
activated sludge and trickling filter secondary facilities.
When a plant is required to produce effluent concentrations less
than 30 mg/1 each for both suspended solids and BOD or greater than 85
percent removal for these pollutants, Curve 2 should be employed for cost
estimating.
Construction bid information was collected for plants requiring
phosphorus removal in addition to secondary treatment. The linear
regression best fit for these points when superimposed on the secondary
treatment cost curve was askew to and significantly below the secondary
curve with the difference increasing with increasing design flow. For
the purposes of the Needs Survey, Curve 1 was assumed to apply to second-
ary treatment with phosphorus removal as well as secondary treatment
only.
A similar trend was observed in development of Curve 3 for greater
than secondary treatment with nutrient removal. Data for these facilties
produced a line which crossed the curve for greater than secondary at
about 5.0 MGD design flow becoming less costly at higher design flows.
For this reason Curve 2 represents both categories above 5.0 MGD.
7-3
-------
For instances in which existing facilities must be enlarged and/or
upgraded, costs are to be determined by using the new construction cost
for the projected design flow from the appropriate curve and deducting an
allowance for the usable portions of the existing plant. Curves A and B
provide deduction values for existing primary and secondary plants,
respectively.
Curve A was developed by subtracting from the secondary treatment,
new construction curve (Curve 1) the cost of upgrading facilities from
primary to secondary treatment. Similarly. Curve B is the result of
subtracting the cost of upgrading secondary treatment facilities to
advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) from the cost of new AWT plants.
7.2.1 Aerated Lagoons and Stabilization Ponds
For many of the proposed facilities which require needs estimates,
stabilization ponds or aerated lagoons are suitable, lower cost alterna-
tives as treatment processes. In these cases Figure 7.2 should be used
to estimate costs. Analysis of construction projects nationwide indi-
cates that very few aerated lagoons are built with design flows less than
about 0.2 MGD. Correspondingly, few stabilization ponds have design
flows greater than 0.2 MGD. For these reasons, curves for both aerated
lagoons and stabilization ponds were combined on Figure 7.2 with costs at
higher design flows reflecting aerated lagoon bid data and costs at lower
design flows data from stabilization pond projects.
7-4
-------
In addition, due to the variation in lagoon design parameters
resulting from variations in climatic conditions, data were segregated
into warm and cold climate facilities and curves developed for each.
While the 38th parallel of north latitude was used for this study, in
practice one should consider local climatic variations such as elevation
and effects of ocean air currents in determining which curve is more
appropriate.
Costs are included in the lagoon curves for preliminary treatment
and chlorination as well as average costs for pumping, lining, and
laboratory/maintenance facilities.
Figure 7.3 presents costs for adding phosphorus removal facilities
to existing wastewater treatment plants. This curve is not meant for
use with new treatment plants.
Because many facilities were originally constructed without effluent
chlorination capabilities, Figure 7.4 was derived from unit process cost
data to provide for the expense of adding this process. New treatment
plant costs from Figure 7.1 include a chlorination allowance.
7.3 City Multipliers
To better reflect the variations in wastewater treatment plant
construction costs due to regional differences in material and labor
costs, the geographic multipliers indicated on Table 7.1 were developed.
7-5
-------
These multipliers were derived from engineers' estimates for treatment
plants nationwide as reported in the 1976 Needs Survey.
Map 7.1 was drawn by correlating wage information based on Bureau of
Labor Statistics data for 102 cities with the wage rate data for which
city multipliers were available. State and county boundaries were fol-
lowed where possible with labor rate correlations indicating general
areas of influence for the 46 cities listed in Table 7.1. This map
is to be used in conjunction with Table 7.1 for applying city multipliers
to costs estimated using curves presented in this section. See the
following section for examples of the use of this table.
7.4 Examples - Treatment Plant Cost Estimating
The following examples have been devised to illustrate treatment plant
cost estimates using procedures outlined in this section. As noted, all
cost curves include average allowances for Step I, Step II, and Step III
non-construction item costs.
Example 1 - Enlarge and Upgrade, Secondary Plant
Enlarge and upgrade an existing 1.0 mgd primary sedimentation treat-
ment plant to a 5.0 mgd secondary activated sludge plant in Ft. Collins,
Colorado.
7-6
-------
1. From Figure 7.1, Curve 1:
Cost of 5.0 mgd Secondary Plant $10,500,000
2. From Figure 7.1, Curve A:
Deduction for 1.0 mgd Primary Plant 640,000
$ 9,860,000
3. From Table 7.1: Denver City Multiplier X 0.8843
Cost Estimate $ 8,719,000
Example 2 - Enlarge Secondary Plant
Enlarge an existing secondary, activated sludge treatment plant in
Omaha, Nebraska from 10.0 mgd to 45,0 mgd.
1. From Figure 7.1, Curve 1:
Cost 45.0 mgd Secondary Plant $75,000,000
2. From Figure 7.1, Curve B:
Deduction for 10.0 mgd Secondary Plant -19,500,000
$55,500,000
3. From Table 7.1: Des Moines City Multiplier X 0.8371
Cost Estimate $46,460,000
Example 3 - New Secondary Plant
Construct a new 3.0 mgd secondary activated sludge treatment plant
with phosphorus removal in Bath, Maine.
7-7
-------
1. From Figure 7.1, Curve 1:
Cost of 3.0 mgd Secondary Plant w/Phosphorus
Removal $ 6,700,000
2. From Table 7.1, Portland, Maine City Multiplier X 1.1226
Cost Estimate $ 7,520,000
Example 4 - Enlarge and Upgrade, AWT Plant
Enlarge and upgrade an existing 0.4 mgd secondary, activated sludge
treatment plant to a 2.0 mgd greater than secondary plant with ammonia
removal in Tacoma, Washington.
1. From Figure 7.1, Curve 3:
Cost of 2.0 mgd Secondary w/Nut. Rem. Plant $ 7,200,000
2. From Figure 7.1, Curve B:
Deduction for 0.4 mgd Secondary Plant 940,000
$ 6,260,000
3. From Table 7.1: Tacoma City Multiplier X 1.0862
Cost Estimate $ 6,800,000
Example 5 - Enlarge Aerated Lagoon
Enlarge an existing 0.10 mgd aerated lagoon in Twig, Minnesota to
a 0.50 mgd secondary treatment, aerated lagoon.
-------
1. From Figure 7.2, Cold Climate Curve:
Cost of 0.50-0.10 = 0.40 mgd Aerated Lagoon $ 1,140,000
2. From Table 7.1: Duluth City Multiplier X 1.2468
Cost Estimate $ 1,421,000
Example 6 - Upgrade Phosphorus Removal
Upgrade an existing 1.0 mgd Secondary, activated sludge treatment
plant in Tampa, Florida to include phosphorus removal.
1. From Figure 7.3:
Cost of 1.0 mgd Phosphorus Removal Process $ 120,000
2. From Table 7.1: Miami, Florida City Multiplier X 0.8843
Cost Estimate $ 106,000
7-9
-------
.06 .08 0.10
60 BOIOO.O
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
(JANUARY 1978 DOLLARS)
SECONDARY TREATMENT
1 SECONDARY WITH
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
GREATER THAN SECONDARY
CBOD/SS < 30/30)
GREATER THAN SECONDARY
WITH NUTRIENT REMOVAL
CNH,. NO.)
DEDUCTION FOR EXISTING
PRIMARY TREATMENT
DEDUCTION FOR EXISTING
C-4.050.0000
«5 MOD)
0.71
0.01 .02
.06 .080.10
6 a 10.0
so ao ro o. u
PLANT CAPACITY IN MGD
-------
10.0—
9.0
8.0 —
7.0 —
6.0
5.0
4.0—i-- -
CO 3 0
or
2.0-
AERATED LAGOONS i STABILIZATION PONDS
NEW CONSTRUCTION
(JANUARY 1978 DOLLARS)
TFIGURE 7.2'M
o
o
U-
o
CO
o
1.0-
.9-
.8-
.7-
.6-
.5-
I
Sit
± .4-
I
.3-
CO
o
o
o
=>
ir
i-
co
z
o
o
H-
o
.2-
.10-
.09-
.08-
.07-
.06-
.05-
.04-
.03-
.02-
.01-
COLD CLIMATE-FACILITIES NORTH
OF 38° N. LATITUDE
WARM CLIMATE-FACILITIES SOUTH
OF 38° N. LATITUDE
.01
.02
.04 .06 .08,0.1 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
PLANT CAPACITY IN MGD
2.0
4.0 6.0 8.010.0
-------
FIGURE 7.
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL COST
UPGRADING OF EXISTING SECONDARY PLANT
(JANUARY 1978 DOLLARS)
CURVE EQUATION
.01-
.01
0.10
1.0
10.0
100
PLANT CAPACITY IN MGO
-------
OHLORINATION ADDITION
N.EW CONSTRUCTION OF UNIT PROCESS
(JANUARY 1978 DOLLARS)
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
(f)
0.30
CO
O 0.20
10.0
100
PLANT CAPACITY IN MGD
-------
TABLE 7.1
CITY MULTIPLIERS
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION
REFERENCE: MAP NO. 7.1
City Code City Multiplier
(From Map No. 1)
1 Albany, New York 1.1985
2 Atlanta, Georgia 0.8347
3 Baltimore, Maryland 1.0083
4 Binghamton, New York 1.1722
5 Birmingham, Alabama 0.8289
6 Boston, Massachusetts 1.1349
7 Buffalo, New York 1.2171
8 Charlotte, North Carolina 0.6281
9 Chicago, Illinois 1.2209
10 Cincinnati, Ohio 1.0415
11 Cleveland, Ohio 1.0744
12 Dallas, Texas 0.7934
13 Davenport, Iowa 0.8336
14 Denver, Colorado 0.8843
15 Des Moines, Iowa 0.8371
16 Detroit, Michigan 1.0415
17 Duluth, Minnesota 1.2468
18 Houston, Texas 0.8678
19 Indianapolis, Indiana 1.1411
20 Johnstown, Pennsylvania 0.9703
21 Kansas City, Missouri 1.0000
22 Lafayette, Indiana 1.1148
23 Lansing, Michigan 1.0577
24 Los Angeles, California 1.0578
25 Miami, Florida 0.8843
26 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1.0415
27 Minneapolis, Minnesota 1.0415
28 New Orleans, Louisiana 0.9256
29 New York, New York 1.4322
30 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1.1818
31 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1.0413
32 Portland, Maine 1.1226
33 Providence, Rhode Island 1.1209
34 St. Louis, Missouri 1.1009
35 San Diego, California 1.0768
7-14
-------
TABLE 7.1 - CONCLUDED
City Code City Multiplier
From Map No. 1)
36 San Francisco, California 1.3175
37 Santa Rosa, California 1.0855
38 Seattle, Washington 1.0330
39 Springfield, Massachusetts 1.0919
40 Suffolk County, New York 1.2265
41 Syracuse, New York 1.2000
42 Tacoma, Washington 1.0862
43 Trenton, New Jersey 1.1205
44 Utica, New York 1.1902
45 Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 0.9316
46 Worcester, Massachusetts 1.1055
STATE AND TERRITORIAL MULTIPLIERS
Alaska 2.7362
Hawaii 1.4086
Puerto Rico 0.9749
Trust Territories 0.8985
7-15
-------
E.P.A. MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX MAP
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS - CITY MULTIPLIERS
WORCESTER 46
BOSTON ft
PROVIDENCE 33-
SPRJNGFIELD 39
JFFOLK COUNTY 4Q
NEW YORK 29
TRENTON 43 \
3fc
CHICAGO" jJCLEVELANDji
INDIANAPOLIS-Vilqi^^i'aOT^SySYfc^
-mtt^^m&ff'miiKi&lm^
MAP 7.1
-------
E.P.A. MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION COST STUDY
SAMPLED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
.
• SMALL CITY CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT (SCCT) it LARGE CITY ADVANCED TREATMENT (LCAT)
MAP B.1
-------
E.P.A. MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX MAP
FOR SMALL CITY CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT (SCCT) PLANT INDICES
MAP C.I
-------
E.P.A. MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX MAP
FOR LARGE CITY ADVANCED TREATMENT (LCAT) PLANT 81 COMPLETE URBAN SEWER SYSTEM (CUSS) INDICES
MAP C.2
-------
APPENDIX A
METHODOLOGY
-------
APPENDIX A
METHODOLOGY
A.I General
Based on a preliminary survey of potential sources of construction
bid data for wastewater treatment plants, it was determined that the EPA
municipal construction grant files, located in the ten regional offices,
provided the most consistent and detailed cost information. A more
in-depth study of these files furnished information used to organize the
data collection effort and develop the data worksheet shown as Figure
A.I.
Basically, this worksheet is arranged to allow tabulation of general
facility information and the three orders of cost data as shown in the
left margin of Figure A.I and as defined in Section 5.2. A separate
worksheet was completed for each facility sampled. The completed work-
sheets were sent to a central location for quality assurance and key-
punching into the data base.
A.2 Worksheet Definitions
The following is a block by block description of the data fields
provided on the wastewater treatment plant worksheet, Figure A.I. To
facilitate data collection, many fields utilize coded items as shown on
Table A.I. This table should be used in conjunction with Figure A.I
and the following field descriptions:
A-l
-------
(1) Grant No. - This six-digit number indicates the particular
grant under which EPA funds are allotted for treatment facili-
ties. A grant may apply to both sewer and treatment needs;
however, only treatment costs were collected on this worksheet.
(2) Facility Name - This is the commonly accepted title of the
treatment plant being constructed.
(3) City or Town - Indicated here is the name of the city in which
the facility is located.
(4) State - Shown is the state in which the facility is located.
(5) County - This is the county in which the facility is located.
(6) Region - Coded here is the number of the EPA Region in which
the facility is located.
(7) A/F Number - The Authority/Facility Number is a nine-digit
number indicating the state, in the first two digits, authority,
in the next four digits and the facility within that authority
in the last three digits. This number uniquely identifies the
particular facility and can be used to identify the facility's
discharge permit number and grant number through the EPA1s cross
reference index.
(8) Type Facility - This block refers to the type of construction
provided for in the grant number specified. Treatment facili-
ties only, collection facilities only, or a combination of both
may be coded, as indicated on the code reference table included
as Table A.I.
A-2
-------
(9) Change - Table A.I lists the possible change codes each specify-
ing a purpose for the treatment facility construction.
(10) Present MGD - This field allows input of the .design flow of
the treatment plant prior to construction. For new facilities,
this field is left blank.
(11) Level of Treatment - Input here is the appropriate code from
Table A.I indicating the degree of treatment attained before
cons truction.
(12) Projected MGD - This field refers to the design flow of the
plant after construction.
(13) Level of Treatment - This field utilizes Table A.I and specifies
the design level of treatment after construction.
(14) Outfall - Referred to in this field is the method of disposal
of liquid effluent as coded on Table A.I.
(15) Acres - In cases where land was acquired for the construction
of new wastewater treatment facilities, the number of acres
is specified in this field.
(16) Topography - This field employs the codes listed in Table
A.I and classifies the type of terrain on which construction
was performed.
(17) Soil Type - As listed in Table A.I, this field employs a two
digit code. The first digit categorizes the groundwater level
with respect to foundation construction. The second digit
specifies the soil type at the construction site.
A-3
-------
(18) Use - This field utilizes a two-digit code to specify both the
land use designation applicable to the construction site and the
surface geography of the site.
(19) Extra Conditions - Extraordinary site conditions which signifi-
cantly affected construction are coded numerically in this field
and explained under the same code in the "comments" section of
the worksheet.
(20) Population - Based on the breakdown listed in Table A.I, the
population of the community served by the treatment facility is
coded in this block. This population is not necessarily the
service population of the plant.
(21) Distance - Coded in this field is the distance, in tens of
miles, from the treatment plant to the closest city of 50,000
population or more.
(21a) Zip Code - This field provides the zip code of the city or town
specified in Block 3.
(22) Total Project Cost - Input here is the total eligible project
cost as determined from the EPA Step III grant file for the
facility. The EPA share will generally be 75 percent of this
number. If code 03 is used in Block 8, the cost in Block 22
will include the cost for the wastewater collection system.
(23) Date - This is the contract date as specified in the Step
III, construction contract documents for the project cost shown
in Block 22.
A-4
-------
(24) Step I Cost - Input in this field is the total grant eligible
cost for the Step I planning phase. If the project included
collection works in addition to treatment facilities, the
Step I cost indicated will include facilities planning costs
for both.
(25) Date - This field was provided for the grant award date for
the Step I planning cost.
(26) Step II Cost - Input here is the total grant eligible cost for
the Step II design phase. Again, if the project included
collection facilities in addition to treatment works, the cost
for design of both would be included in Block 26.
(27) Date - This block indicates the grant award date for the Step
II phase.
(28) Construction Cost - This field specifies the actual construction
cost obtained from the project contract documents. This cost
includes total, eligible capital construction expenses and
does not include Step I or Step II costs or Step III non-
construction costs. For projects covering both collection and
treatment facilities, only the construction bid cost for the
treatment works is indicated in Block 28.
(29a-h) Non-Construction Cost - These eight blocks are allocated for
Step III non-construction cost items as enumerated in Table A.I,
Items 30a&b. Blocks 30a through h correspond to the same
lettered cost, i.e. Block 30c is the appropriate code for the
cost tabulated in Block 29c. The non-construction item costs
were obtained directly from the EPA grant files.
A-5
-------
(29i) Architect/Engineer - The name of the engineering firm responsible
for the design and construction of the treatment plant was coded
in this space.
(29j) Contractor - The name of the construction company to which the
treatment plant contract was awarded was coded in this space.
(30a-h) Non-construction Cost Code - These blocks correspond to the
non-construction item blocks (Block 29) with the same letter code.
The codes utilized for specifying non-construction item costs are
listed in Table A.I.
(31) Cost Category - As indicated in Table A.I, three single letter
codes may be used in this block:
L - This indicates that the cost in Block 34 represents
a lump sum cost for the plant construction component
coded in Block 33. Plant construction components
are items such as equipment or electrical work which
are bid as a total cost for the entire plant and are
not broken down by unit process.
P - Use of this code indicates that the cost tabulated in
Block 34 applies to the unit process specified in
Block 32. In many instances, unit processes were
constructed but the total cost was unavailable. In
these cases, the process was indicated with a P-code
in Block 31 with the Block 34 cost left blank.
A-6
-------
C - This code in Block 31 means that the cost shown in
Block 34 is the total cost of a particular construc-
tion component for the unit process indicated in Block
32. For example, a C-code would be used when a cost
for the equipment for a secondary clarifier was
available.
Note: Section 6.4 describes in more detail the use of
these cost categories.
(32) Unit Process - When a "P" or "C" is indicated in Block 31, the
unit process to which the cost applies is coded in this field
based on the Table A.I codes. The unit process field is left
blank when a plant construction component cost is indicated,
i.e. Block 31 - "L".
(33) Change/Component - The codes used in this field depend on
the cost category shown in Block 31. If Block 31 is:
L - The plant construction component code from Table
A.I is coded in Block 33.
P - The nature of change (as used also for Block 9)
is coded in Block 33. This refers to the construction
plans for the specific unit process indicated in Block
32.
C - The unit process construction component code (same as
plant construction component codes) from Table A.I is
shown in this field.
A-7
-------
(34) Total Cost - This field contains the total construction cost for
the item specified in Blocks 31, 32 and 33. Thus, for a new,
primary sedimentation unit process Block 31 shows "P", Block 32
shows "03" and Block 33 shows "04" with the cost indicated in
Block 34.
(35) Unit Cost - When the construction bid data contained total
cost broken down into units and unit cost, Block 35 was employed
to tabulate the unit cost. For example, concrete for primary
sedimentation basins may have been broken down in the bid
documents by cubic yard and cost per cubic yard. If so, Blocks
35 and 36 indicated these figures.
(36) Units - This field specifies, when available, the units of a
certain construction component. See the Block 35 description
above.
(37) Special Condition - When extraordinary conditions existed
which affected the costs presented in Blocks 34 and 35, a
numeric code was employed in this field. The specific condi-
tions where then enumerated in the "Comments" section of the
form under the same code number.
(38) Confidence - For some projects, costs were available for final,
in-place construction costs including increases or decreases
in bid cost due to valid change orders accepted during construc-
tion. Costs shown in Blocks 34 and 35 were identified as final
costs using the confidence codes shown in Table A.I.
A-8
-------
Comments Section - This section of the data worksheet allowed
explanations for special conditions identified in Blocks 19 and
37. In addition, when codes indicated unidentifiable or uncoded
items, such as Code 09 for Block 14 or Code 42 for Block 32, a
description of such items was documented in the Comments
Section.
A.3 Comments on the Use of Certain Data
A.3.1. Variation in Constructiuon Costs Due to Site Conditions
It was anticipated that variation in construction costs for similar
unit processes or plants might be correlated with specific geographic or
geologic factors such as topography, land use or soil type. With this
intention, Blocks 16 through 21 were inserted on the worksheet. However,
after analysis of several possible relationships, it was concluded that
such correlations, if existent, were not quantifiable using data collect-
ed for this study. There may be many reasons for this inability to
relate these variables. It is possible that increased costs directly
attributable to soil type or land use may be such a low percentage of
construction cost that they are obscured by the larger variations in cost
due to such factors as differences in design standards and preferences
for the same size unit process from engineer to engineer. Furthermore,
fluctuation in construction material markets for steel or concrete may
also overshadow lesser cost differentials due to site conditions.
A-9
-------
A.3.2 Step I and Step II Costs
In order to develop valid Step I and Step II cost percentages of
construction cost as shown in Table 6.3, it was necessary to isolate and
analyze projects for treatment plants only. Step I and Step II costs for
projects with sewers as well as plants were not applicable to construc-
tion estimates for plants only.
A-10
-------
TABLE A.I
CODE REFERENCE TABLE
ITEM 8 - TYPE FACILITY
01 Treatment Plant
02 Collection System
03 Both 01 and 02
ITEM 14 - DISPOSAL OF EFFLUENT
01 Outfall to Surface Waters
02 Orean Outfall
03 Holding Pond
04 Deep Well
05 Ground Water Recharge
06 Other Land Disposal
07 Recycling and Reuse
08 Septic Tank Field
09 Other
ITEM 18 - LAND USE
10 Agricultural
20 Residential
30 Dense Residential
1st < 40 Commercial
Digit 50 Dense Commercial
60 Industrial
70 Dense Industrial
80 Municipal Site
01 Open../Vacant
2nd < 02 Forested/Brushy
Digit 03 Structures
04 Existing Thoroughfare
ITEM 31 - COST CATEGORY
L Lump Sum Cost
SEWAGE TREATMENT
ITEMS 9, 33 - NATURE OF CHANGE
01 Enlarge
02 Upgrade
03 Enlarge and Upgrade
04 New Construction
05 Replace
06 Abandon
07 No Change
08 - Modification
09 Other
PLANTS
ITEM 11 - LEVEL OF TREATMENT
00 Raw Discharge
01 Primary (BOD/SS eff 50/50)
02 Advanced Primary (BOD/SS eff 50/50-30/30)
03 - Secondary (BOD/SS eff 30/30-25/25)
04 Greater than Secondary
05 - Nutrient Removal
06 Secondary Treatment with Nutrient Removal
07 Greater than Secondary with Nutrient Removal
08 Zero Discharge
09 No Collection
99 No Information
(OUTFALL) ITEM 16 - TOPOGRAPHY ITEM 17 - SOIL TYPE
01 Flat
02 Rolling
03 Hilly
04 Steep
ITEM 20 - POPULATION
01 Less than 2,500
02 2,500-5,000
03 5,000-10,000
04 10,000-25,000
05 25,000-50,000
06 50,000-100,000
07 100,000-250,000
08 250,000-500,000
09 500,000-1,000,000
10 Greater than 1,000,000
foo No Ground Water Problem
1st 1 10 - Excavation into Ground Water
Digit] 20 Surface Saturation
130 Ground Water Unknown
01 Soft Fines
2nd 02 Medium Fines
Digit 03 Stiff Fines
04 Coarse
05 Rock
ITEMS 30a-h - NONCONSTRUCTION COST
01 - Administrative/Legal
02 - Preliminary
03 Land, Structures, Right-of-way
04 - Architectural Engineering Basic Fees
05 - Other Architectural Engineering Fees
06 Project Inspection Fees
07 Land Development
08 Relocation Expenses
09 Relocation Payments to Individuals
and Businesses
10 Demolition and Removal
11 Bond Interest
12 Contingency
13 Indirect Costs
14 Miscellaneous
15 Other significant Ineligible Costs
15 - Equipment
17 - Other Eligible Costs (Comment)
P unit Process Code TTKM 1? - UNIT PROCESSES
C Cost Element
01
ITEM 3; - L S C ITEMS 02
03
00 Material 04
01 Labor 05
02 In Place 06
10 Mobilization (L.S.) 07
20 Sitework, Incl. 08
Excavation 09
23 Sitework w/o 10
Excavation 11
24 Excavation (Yd3) 12
25 Pilings, Spec. Found. 13
Dewatering 14
30 Electrical (L.S.) 15
33 Controls & Instr. 16
40 Piping (All) 17
43 Yard Piping 18
44 Process Piping 19
50 Equipment (L.S.) 20
60 Concrete (Yc". ) 21
70 Steel (TonS) 22
80 HVAC
90 Miscellaneous
Preliminary Treatment
Pumping
Sedimentation, Primary
Trickling Filter (Without
23 Sludge Lagoons
24 Heat Treatment
25 Air Drying
26 Mechanical Dewatering
Activated Sludge (Clarification 27 Gravity Thickening
Filtration
Activated Carbon
Chemical Addition
Biological Nitrification
Biological Denitrification
Ion Exchange
Breakpoint Chlorination
Ammonia Stripping
Chlorination
Ozonation
Othar Disinfection
aiofilter
Land Treatment of Effluent
Oxidation Ponds
Aerated Lagoons
Aerobic Digestion
Anaerobic Digestion
28 Incineration
29 Landfill
30 Land Spreading of Sludge
31 Ocean Dumping
32 Other Sludge Handling
33 Effluent Outfall
34 Outfall Pumping
35 Outfall Diffuser
36 Clarification
37 Bio-Disc
38 Control/Lab/Maint. Buildings
39 Flotation Thickener
40 Flow Equalization Reservoir
41 02 Activated Sludge
42 Other treatment
43 Post-Aeration
ITEM 38 - CONFIDENCE IN UNIT PROCESS COST
01 Bid Data
02 Final Construction Cost Data
-------
DATA COLLECTOR
DATE OF COLLECTION.
DATA LOCATION
WASTE WATER
TREATMENT
PLANTS
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
1ST
0
R
D
E
R
2ND
&
3RD
O
R
D
E
R
C
0
M
E
N
T
S
(1) GRANT NO. (2) FACILITY NAME (3) CITY OR TOWN (4) STATE (5) COUNTY
i
1
1
1
1
1
\
\
I6 7 <8) (9) HO 11 LEVEL 112) 131 LEVEL '14) bl 16) (17) 18) 19) 120) (21 I21a
EPA REGION A/F NUMBER TYPE FAC CHANGE PRESENT MGD OR TRTMT PROJECTED MGD OH TREAT OUTF ALL ALHES TOPO SOIL USE X-COND POP DIST. ZIP
1
2
•
•
(22) (23) 1241 (25) 126) 27
TOTAL PROJECT COST DATE STEP 1 COST DATE STEP 2 COST DATE
3
1281 (29j (30a 1291) I30hl 129..) 130cl 29dl I30il) (29p) I30u>
CONSTRUCTION NON-CONSTRUCT ON CODE NON CONS ITEM CODE NON CONS TEM CODE NON CONS ITEM CODE NON-CONS ITEM v CODE
L
P
(291) 130M I29i 1 IJU(| !?9bl 1 JO < '.''.I!
-------
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTION OF DATA BASE
-------
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTION OF DATA BASE
Data for this study were collected from 536 Federally funded facili-
ties spread over the ten EPA regions. Name, grant number, and other
information for each sample facility are listed in Table B.I, and Map B.I
shows their locations on the National Map.
In order to display more clearly the types of plants studied,
four charts are included in this section showing the number of data
points included in certain categories. The codes used in these tables
for various parameters such as level of treatment, projected change and
unit process are defined in Appendix A. Table B.2 shows a breakdown by
region and by state of the data base by plant design flow and level of
treatment. Table B.3 shows how the sample divided between facilities in
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's) and those outside such
areas and breaks down the sample by the type of land use prevalent at the
site before construction began. Within the data base, some sample
facilities were being funded for upgrading, enlargement, or both, while
some were entirely new. Table B.4 shows how many sample plants fall in
each category. Similarly, the data base includes plants employing
various treatment processes, as shown in Table B.5.
B-l
-------
TABLE B.I
LISTING OF WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS SAMPLE
GRANT NO.
FACILITY NAME
PROJ . FLOW LEVEL OF TREAT. STATE
COUNTY
INDEX CITY LCAT/SCCT
010250
010256
010296
020039
020043
020046
020047
020074
040134
040138
040138
040140
040141
040151
050305
050339
050346
050350
050367
060669
060696
060731
060763
060767
060771
060772
060775
060778
060779
060786
060787
060790
060796
060797
060800
060801
060804
060810
06081 3
060816
060818
060823
060833
060835
060837
060840
060882
060897
060913
060915
060925
060938
060947
MONROEVILLE-DOUBLE BRANCH
NEW HOPE
TOWN CREEK SEWER SYSTEM
FAIRBANKS WWTP
HAINES STP & COLL
SKAGWAY STP 6. COLLECTION
PETERSBURG WWTP
KODIAK SYSTEM
RANDOLPH PARK STP
IRON SPRINGS WWTF #B
IRON SPRINGS WWTF #A
LAKE HAVASU STP
CASA GRANDE STP
INA ROAD STP
HOT SPRINGS REGIONAL WUTP
SPRINGDALE WWTP
PARAGOULD WWTP
GREENBRIER WWTP
WEST SIDE WWTRT WORKS
TERMINAL ISLAND STP
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA STP
AVALON STP
KERMAN WWTP
MAIN WgCF
PALM DESERT WRP
SCOTTS VALLEY STP
VISALIA WCP
ANGELS CAMP STP
ORANGE CO. WWRP #1
BOLINAS STP
LIVERMORE
LACUNA WWTP
ROSEVILLE WWTF
SANTA BARBARA STP
BASS LAKE STP
CALEXICO STP
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA STP
FAIRFIELD-SUISUN WWTF
INYO CA WWTF
NORTHWEST CLEAR LAKE REG.
LOMPOC REGIONAL WWTF
MT . SHASTA WPCF
SOLVANG STP
TULARE TREATMENT PLANT
VALLEJO STP
SOUTH WWTF
IMPERIAL STP
TERMINAL ISLAND
MODESTO STP
NAPA VALLEY-AMERICAN CANY
PACIFICA WPCF
SACRAMENTO REGIONAL WWTF
SAN JOSE/SANTA CLARA WPCF
1 .00
.25
.15
8.00
.30
.30
.80
2.13
1 .50
. 10
.03
.20
3.00
25.00
12.00
16.00
2.20
.12
3.00
30.00
30.00
1 .00
.41
67.00
2.10
.40
8.30
.32
46.00
.07
6 .00
15.00
5 .75
1 1 .00
.50
2.20
30.00
10.35
.85
2 .45
5.00
.70
.54
4.50
13.00
7 .00
.70
30.00
45.00
15.00
4.30
136 .00
143.00
07
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
03
03
03
03
03
07
03
03
07
04
03
07
03
03
04
03
03
03
03
03
03
07
03
04
03
03
03
04
04
03
03
04
03
03
03
04
03
03
03
02
04
03
07
07
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ALASKA
ALASKA
ALASKA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
MONROE
MADISON
LAWRENCE
NORTH STAR
HAINES
SKACWAY
WRANGELL
KOKIAK IS
PIMA
YAVAPAI
YAVAPAI
MOHAVE
PINAL
PIMA
GARLAND
WASHINGTON
GREENE
FAULKNER
CRAIGHEAD
LOS ANGELES
CONTRA COSTA
LOS ANGELES
FRESNO
SAN JOAQUIN
RIVERSIDE
SANTA CRUZ
TULARE
CALAVERAS
ORANGE
MARIN
ALAMEDA
SONOMA
PLACER
SANTA BARBARA
MAD ERA
IMPERIAL
CONTRA COSTA
SOLANO
INYO
LAKE
SANTA BARBARA
SISKIYOU
SANTA BARBARA
TULARE
SOLANO
SUTTER/YUBA
IMPERIAL
LOS ANGELES
STANISLAUS
NAPA
SAN MATED
SACRAMENTO
SANTA CLARA
103
013
013
026
026
026
026
026
110
012
012
012
012
012
109
023
023
109
109
001
123
001
001
123
001
001
001
008
001
008
123
123
123
001
001
001
123
123
001
008
114
008
001
001
123
008
001
001
008
123
008
123
123
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
4
4
2
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
3
4
2
1
1
3
3
1
1
4
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
2
3
1
3
3
-------
060950 SAN MATED SUBREGIONAL STP
060956 SHASTA DAM AREA STP
060964 TRACY WWTF
060967 SONORA STP
061081 HANCTOWN CREEK WWTP
061121 TAHOE-TRUCKEE STP
061131 WILLITS WQCP
080322 UPPER THOMPSON WWTP
080329 LITTLETON-ENGLEWOOD WWTP
080330 W. JEFFERSON COUNTY WWTP
080352 LONGHONT WWTP 4 SEWER SYS
080354 EATON WWTP
080357 LYONS WWTP
090153 KILLINGLY WWTP
090155 PAWCATUCK WPCF
090155 STONINGTOH WPCF
090175 NEW LONDON WPCF
100061 DELAWARE CITY WWTP
100088 S. COASTAL REGIONAL STP
120428 PENSACOLA WTW
120433 SOUTH CROSS BAYOU WTW
120474 FORT LAUDERDALE STP
120523 NW STP & EFFLUENT DISPOSA
130315 RICHMOND HILL SEWERAGE SY
130357 ALMA
150046 SAND ISLAND STP PHASE I
150050 HANAPEPE-ELEELE WWTF
150051 HONOULIULI STP PHASE I
150054 LAHAINA STP
150057 K.ULAIMANO STP
160144 PARIS SEWEPAGE
160185 SOUTH FORK COEUR D'AIENE
160188 POCATELLO STP
160194 WEST BOISE (GARDEN CITY)
160204 CULDESAC WWTP
160208 COWEN FIELD WWTP
170484 LAKE VILLA
170508 BUSHNELL STP
170561 RIDGEWAY
170660 RICHMOND
170680 SPARTA
170749 TAYLORVILLE SANITARY DIST
170759 MARSEILLES
170766 MT CARMEL WWTP
170865 MOMENCE
170876 ALGONQUIN
170924 SALEM
170930 OLMSTED
170951 TROY
170956 STOCKTON
170970 O'FALLON
170973 DOWNERS GROVE SANITARY D.
170979 LENA
170992 GRAYVILLE
171001 GALVA
171001 GALVA
171006 BLOOHINGTON-NORMAL STP
171023 BELLEVILLE STP NO. 1
171023 BELLEVILLE STP NO. 2
171060 GALENA
13.60
.50
5.50
2.60
1 .60
4.83
.64
1 .50
20.00
.50
8.20
.34
.29
8.00
1.31
.66
10.00
.50
3.00
20.00
27.00
22.00
16.00
.50
.75
85.00
.40
25.00
3.20
.50
.10
.13
7.50
5.00
.05
.26
.30
.70
. 14
.38
.65
92
23
00
60
25
00
.07
1 .00
.30
3.00
9 .60
.30
.30
.42
.41
16.00
8.00
.45
.50
04
02
03
03
04
07
03
07
03
04
06
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
04
07
06
06
04
03
04
01
03
01
03
03
08
03
03
03
03
08
07
04
04
06
04
04
04
04
04
07
04
03
07
04
03
07
03
03
07
06
07
04
04
03
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUTT
CONNECTICUT!
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
HAWAII
HAWAII
HAWAII
HAWAII
IDAHO
IDAHO
IDAHO
IDAHO
IDAHO
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
SAN MATED
SHASTA
SAN JOAQUIN
TUOLUMNE
EL DORADO
NEVADA
MENDOCINO
LARIMER
ARAPAHOE
JEFFERSON
BOULDER
WELD
BOULDER
WINDHAM
NEW LONDON
NEW LONDON
NEW LONDON
NEWCASTLE
SUSSEX
ESCAMBIA
PINELLAS
BROWARD
PINELLAS
BRYAN
BACON
HONOLULU
KAUAI
HONOLULU
MAUI
HAWAII
BEAR LAKE
SHOSHONE
BANNOCK
ADA
NEZ PERCE
ADA
LAKE
MCDONOUGH
GALLATIN
MCHENRY
RANDOLPH
CHRISTIAN
LASALLE
WABASH
KANKANEE
MCHENRY
MARION
PULASKI
MADISON
JO DAVIES
ST. CLAIR
DUPAGE
STEPHENSON
WHITE
HENRY
HENRY
MCLEAN
ST. CLAIR
ST. CLAIR
JO DAVIESS
123
008
008
008
123
123
008
110
016
110
110
016
016
022
022
022
022
120
120
103
103
115
103
005
103
027
027
027
027
027
015
008
015
008
008
008
106
116
122
106
122
122
116
122
116
106
122
014
122
116
014
106
014
014
116
116
116
122
122
014
3
1
1
1
4
4
1
4
2
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
3
3
3
3
1
4
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
2
4
1
1
4
4
3
4
4
1
-------
171061 COWHEN
171004 MEOCA
171089 GIBSON CITY WWTP
171105 BARTLETT
171118 M 0 1,1 N f,
171172 ELGIN
I 7 1 1B2 ALTON
17 196 DUQUOIN
17 202 I1ATOON
17 215 GRANITE C[TY STP
17 2 1 ti B E N S C M V 11. L F.
17 226 STILLMAN VALLEY STP
171279 CENTRALIA
171294 WOODRIDGE WWTP
171294 WOOD RIDGE PLANT
171310 MT V E K N O M S T F
171332 EAST (IOLINE
171341 FULTON
171365 ARTHUR
171397 HINSDALE SO STP
171399 SALT CREEK SANITARY DIST.
171412 CARPENTERSVILLE WWTP
171420 BLOOM TOWNSHIP STP
171436 ROCKFORD SD STP
171471 DANVILLE SANITARY DISTRIC
171584 LIBERTYVILLE WWTP
171639 LAKE CO DPW-CRANDWOOD PK
171714 DEERFIELD WWTP
171840 WHEATON SD STP
175008 MSD OF CHICAGO
175058 MSD OF CHICAGO- CALUMET
175111 01IARE WATER RECLAM PLANT
175207 MSD OF CHICAGO-CALUMET
175213 MSD OF CHICAGO- CALUMET
175255 HANOVER PARK. WRP
180260 NORTH WEBSTER
180295 LOGANSPORT
180295 LOCANSPORT
180328 SHELBURN
180329 LINDEN WWTP
180335 ELNORA STP
180346 BIRDSEYE STP
180354 WILLIAMSPORT STP
180375 ROME CITY LAGOONS
180400 BROOKLYN WWTP
180410 CREENSBURG
180434 CLARKS HILL WWTP
180445 CARMEL WWTP
180467 SEYMOUR WWTP
180470 PARAGON STP
180473 LAUREL
180474 SCHERERVILLE
180484 CLAY CITY
180488 RISING SUN WWTP
180494 COVINCTON WWTP
180495 DUCGER
180499 SALEM
180502 SUNMAN
180515 BROOK.VILLE
180520 HEW PROVIDENCE WWTP
1
5
I 7
. OH
. 22
.58
.54
.50
.00
10.50
1.20
4.50
23.00
4 .00
. 20
.00
.00
.00
.80
. 1 0
.47
.50
12.00
3 .
4 ,
4 ,
3 .
1 1 .
5 .
5
1 2,
00
00
10
60.20
16.00
4 .00
.50
3 .00
8.90
410.00
446.00
72.00
446.00
446.00
12.00
.28
9.00
9.00
.25
.10
. 10
.08
.22
.45
.24
1 .60
. 15
3.00
4 .30
.07
. 15
1 .00
. 12
.36
.35
.13
.90
. 18
.60
. 14
02
04
04
04
04
0 7
03
04
07
03
04
03
04
07
04
07
04
03
07
04
07
06
07
03
07
04
07
07
07
03
03
07
03
03
07
06
03
03
07
04
04
03
03
06
03
07
04
06
06
04
04
06
04
03
03
04
04
07
03
04
1 LLIMOIS
ILLINOIS
I LLIMOIS
ILLINOIS
I LLIMOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
SHELBY
CUMBERLAND
FORD
OUPAGE
ROCK ISLAND
KANE
MADISON
PERRY
COLES
MADISON
DUPACE
OGLE
MARION
DUPACE
DE PAGE
JEFFERSON
ROCK ISLAND
WHITESIDE
DOUGLAS
DUPACE
DUPAGE
KANE
COOK
WINNEBAGO
VERMILLION
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
DU PAGE
COOK
COOK
COOK
COOK
COOK
COOK
KOSCIUSKO
CASS
CASS
SULLIVAN
MONTGOMERY
DAVIESS
DUBOIS
WARREN
NOBLE
MORGAN
DECATUR
TIPPECANOE
HAMILTON
JACKSON
MORGAN
FRANKLIN
LAKE
CLAY
OHIO
FOUNTAIN
SULLIVAN
WASHINGTON
RIPLEY
FRANKLIN
CLARK
0 14
014
1 16
106
1 16
106
014
1 22
122
014
106
014
122
1 06
106
122
1 16
014
122
106
106
106
106
014
122
106
106
106
106
010
010
106
010
010
106
107
014
014
122
122
122
014
014
107
014
107
122
122
107
122
107
106
122
014
014
122
107
167
014
107
1
1
4
4
4
3
2
4
4
2
4
1
4
4
4
4
3
1
4
3
4
4
3
2
3
4
4
4
4
2
2
3
2
2
3
4
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
4
4
4
1
4
-------
180526 STAUNTON STP
180528 tiARTINSVILLE WWTP
180532 MUNCIE WWTP
180533 PRINCETON WWTP
180534 WESTVILLE WWTP
180555 PENNVILLE STP
180574 BOSWELL
180576 DEMOTTE
180591 CONVERSE WWTP
180595 FREMONT STP
180596 WATERLOO
180617 HAMMOND
180627 CROWN POINT WWTP
180760 COLUMBUS
180767 BLUFFTON STP
190579 MASON CITY WWTP
190584 SIOUX CITY WWTP
190592 MUSCATINE WWTP
190594 KEOKUK WWTP
190605 HARLAN WWTP
190617 WOOLSTOCK SEWERS & LAGOON
190637 SPENCER WWTP
200365 LEAVENWORTH WWTP
200429 ATLANTA LAGOONS
200478 JUNCTION CITY WWTP
200576 LA HARPE WWTP
220265 CITY OF KENNER WWTP
220292 JEANERETTE WWTP
220295 TOWN OF BASILE WWTP
220305 CITY OF RUSTON WWTP
220307 GILBERT WWTP
220314 VILLAGE OF ROSEPINE WWTP
220321 TOWN OF LIVINGSTON WWTP
230102 FORT FAIRFIELD WWTP
230114 OLD ORCHARD BEACH STP
230117 SOUTH PORTLAND STP
230122 PORTLAND WD WPCF
240152 CALVERT CO SANITARY DIST
240180 FRIENDSVILLE STP
240243 ACCIDENT TOWN OF
240255 WILLARDS WWTF
240294 BALLENCER CREEK WTW
240298 SAVAGE STP
240310 BACK RIVER STP
240311 FREEDOM DIST PROJECT
240311 FREEDOM DISTRICT STP
240318 CLEAR SPRING STP
240366 WESTERN BRANCH STP
240393 TYLERTOWN STP
240393 EWELL RHODES POINT STP
240409 COX CREEK STP
240467 CHERRY HILL
250253 UPPER BLACKSTONE WPCF
250255 ROCKPORT STP
250266 REGIONAL STP
250270 ORANGE STP
250300 HULL WWTP & SEWERS
262034 HARBOR SPRINGS LAGOONS
262041 LANSING WWTP
262053 CHATHAM HWTP
.09
2.20
24.00
2.00
.35
.16
.13
.40
.25
.30
.24
48.00
3.60
12.40
2.62
6.50
30.00
13.00
5 .00
.72
.04
3.70
6.88
.21
3.60
.14
5.00
1 .32
.28
4.60
.10
.15
.30
.88
1.50
5.50
4.54
.15
.10
.05
.08
2.00
5.00
210 .00
1 .80
1 .80
.20
30.00
.02
.07
15.00
.08
56.00
.80
18.10
1 .10
3.07
.45
40.50
.25
07
03
04
04
07
07
06
07
06
07
06
07
07
07
04
07
07
03
04
07
03
07
02
03
03
04
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
07
03
04
04
07
03
03
03
04
03
03
03
03
03
03
07
08
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MAINE
MAINE
MAINE
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
CLAY
MORGAN
DELAWARE
GIBSON
LAPORTE
JAY
BENTON
JASPER
MIAMI
STEUBEN
DEKALB
LAKE
LAKE
BARTHOLOMEW
WELLS
CERRO GORDO
WOODBURY
MUSCATINE
LEE
SHELBY
WEBSTER
CLAY
LEAVENWORTH
COWLEY
GEARY
ALLEN
JEFFERSON
IBERIA
EVANGELINE
LINCOLN
FRANKLIN
VERNON
LIVINGSTON
AROOSTOOK
YORK
CUMBERLAND
CUMBERLAND
CALVERT
GARRETT
GARRETT
WICOMICO
FREDERICK
HOWARD
BALTIMORE
CARROLL
CARROLL
WASHINGTON
PRINCE GEORGE
SOMERSET
SOMERSET
ANNE ARUNDEL
CECIL
WORCESTER
ESSEX
ESSEX
FRANKLIN
PLYMOUTH
EMMET
INGHAM
ALGER
122
014
107
122
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
106
106
107
107
113
113
021
113
113
021
113
020
016
020
113
013
013
013
024
024
013
013
003
003
003
003
Oil
006
006
Oil
Oil
Oil
102
Oil
102
102
102
Oil
Oil
Oil
102
022
022
022
022
022
019
111
010
4
1
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
2
4
4
1
4
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
4
4
3
1
1
2
4
2
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
-------
262073 BRONSON WWTP
262076 DETROIT
262110 CADILLAC
262127 FLINT WWTP
262142 GRAND LEDGE WWTP
262148 GRATIOT CO.-FULTON DPW
262301 CHESANING
262314 CHEBOYGAN AREA WW MANAC
262315 BERRIEN CO. DPW -NILES
262326 IRON MOUNTAIN-KINCSFORD
262349 DOWAGIAC WWTP
262353 EATON RAPIDS
262491 MT.CLEMENS & CLINTON AREA
262501 OWOSSO
262503 BIG RAPIDS WWTP
262522 WASHTENAW COUNTY DPW
262535 MASON
262541 IONIA WWTP
262543 LUCE CO. DPW
262640 GLADWIN
270663 MSB OF TC-PRELIMINARY TMT
270664 PRELIMINARY TMT FACILITIE
270665 METROPOLITAN WWT WORKS
270720 VIRGINIA
270725 TWO HARBORS WWTP
270741 ROGERS
270747 ST CLOUD
270748 WESTERN LAKE SUPERIOR SAN
270818 STOCKTON LAGOONS
270837 TAUNTON WWTP
270838 ZIMMERMAN LAGOONS
270844 ALEXANDRIA LAKE, ETAL.
270845 BREEZY POINT LAGOONS
270871 FARIBAULT WWTP
270949 MARSHALL WWTP
270970 MADISON LAKE
276743 DOVER-EYOTA ST CHARLE SIP
290480 ST. JOSEPH WWTP
290524 MONETT WWTP
290603 NEVADA WWTP
290629 INDEPENDENCE (ROCK CREEK)
290646 WYATT LAGOON & SEWERS
290674 WARRENTON WWTP
300163 KALISPELL WWTP
300194 FLAXVILLE LAGOONS
300197 GREAT FALLS SIP
300199 MISSOULA STP 4 INT.
300201 GREAT FALLS STP
300204 POPLAR WWTP
310398 FREMONT WWTP
310407 BLAIR WWTP
310421 SPRINGFIELD UWTP
310433 YORK WWTP
310435 ARLINGTON WWTP
310466 HEBRON WWTP
320076 YERINGTON STP
320078 RENO-STEAD STP
320085 FALLON WWTF
320086 HINDEN-GARDNERVILLE STP
320091 BEATTY STP
.50
999.99
2.50
50.00
1 .50
.70
.58
2 .00
11 .00
3 .00
2.50
1 .20
4.50
6 .00
2.40
.75
1 .00
2.85
1 .00
.65
345.00
290.00
290.00
2.00
1 .20
.15
13.00
43.60
.07
.02
.08
2.55
. 12
3.50
4.30
.09
.80
32.85
3.07
2.11
7.50
.06
.80
2.70
.01
21.00
8.00
21.00
.60
10.50
2.00
.22
2.30
.17
.25
.54
1 .00
.64
1 .50
.10
06
06
07
07
06
08
06
06
04
06
07
06
03
06
06
06
07
06
07
06
03
03
04
07
07
03
07
07
03
03
03
07
08
03
04
04
04
03
03
03
03
03
06
04
08
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
06
03
03
08
03
08
03
08
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
MONTANA
MONTANA
MONTANA
MONTANA
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEVADA
NEVADA
NEVADA
NEVADA
BRANCH
WAYNE-MACOMB
WEXFORD
GENESEE
EATON
GRATIOT
SAGINAW
CHEBOYGAN
BERRIEN
DICKINSON
CASS
EATON
MACOMB
SHIAWASEE
MECOSTA
LIVINGSTON
INGHAM
IONIA
LUCE
GLADWIN
RAMSEY
RAMSEY
RAMSEY
ST. LOUIS
LAKE
HENNEPIN
STEARNS
ST LOUIS
WINONA
LYON
SHERBURNE
DOUGLAS
CROH WING
RICE
LYON
BLUE EARTH
WINONA
BUCHANAN
BARRY
VERNON
JACKSON
MISSISSIPPI
WARREN
FLATHEAD
DANIELS
CASCADE
MISSOULA
CASCADE
ROOSEVELT
DODGE
WASHINGTON
SARPY
YORK
WASHINGTON
THAYER
LYON
WASHOE
CHURCHILL
DOUGLAS
NYE
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
111
116
111
111
019
111
111
111
111
111
116
111
007
007
117
117
117
007
117
117
007
007
007
117
007
007
117
117
117
020
020
020
020
020
122
124
002
002
002
002
002
021
021
021
113
021
021
012
012
012
012
012
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
3
4
4
1
3
3
1
1
1
4
1
1
4
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
4
4
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
320097 HCDERMITT STP .05
320107 OVERTON STP .18
320108 SEARCHLIGHT STP .03
320111 WEST Wq CONTROL PLANT 32.00
330093 MANCHESTER WWTP 26.00
330104 ALLENSTOWN STP 1.05
330119 WARNER VILLAGE STP .17
330137 LISBON LAGOONS .29
330203 FRANKLIN REGIONAL WWTF 11.54
340299 LINDEN-ROSELLE SEWERAGE A 17.00
340333 PARSIPPANY-TROY HILL STP 16.00
340340 JOINT MFC UNION4ESSEX CO. 75.00
340344 ATLANTIC COUNTY S.A. 40.00
340350 LIVINGSTON WTW UPGRADE 3.50
340354 PEQUANNOCK,LINCOLN PARK 7.50
340356 OCEAN CO SEWERAGE AUTH(N) 28.00
340358 PEMBERTON M Y A 2.50
340372 OCEAN COUNTY S.A CENTRAL 24.00
340377 S MONMOUTH S.A. 8.00
340383 HAMILTON TOWNSHIP 16.00
340386 BERGEN CO SEWER AUTHORITY 75.00
340388 HANOVER SEWER AUTHORITY 3.00
340550 CUMBERLAND CO. SEWERAGE A 7.00
350171 LAS CRUCES WWTP 6.00
350188 CITY OF LORDSBURG WWTP .80
351029 CITY OF PORTALES WWTP 1.14
360389 RENSSELAER COUNTY S.D. 24.00
360391 TONWANDA STP IMP 30.00
360433 SAG HARBOR SEWAGE SYS .10
360446 CLAYTON STP .30
360485 ONTARIO TOWN SEWERAGE SYS 1.00
360495 N TONAHANDA WTW 10.00
360534 SACKETS HARBOR STP .60
360567 NEW ROCHELLE S.D. 13.60
360618 AMHERST SEW SYS 24.00
360621 GREENPORT .50
360640 WALTON STP 4 SEWERS 1.17
360644 WATERFORD SEWERAGE SYSTEM 1.50
360646 COBLESKILL WTW .75
360650 GROTON WTW .25
360659 SYRACUSE METRO 80.00
360680 CHAUTAUQUA LAKE SO 4.10
360691 ORANGE CO.S.D #1 2.00
360707 NIAGARA COUNTY S.D.#1 14.10
360742 LISHAKILL COLOHIE 5.00
360747 NIAGARA FALLS AWT 48.00
360750 CHAMPLAIN PK S.D. .16
360771 WESTFIELD SEWER IMPROVEM 2.60
360783 OCEAN BEACH STP .50
360786 WATKINS GLEN STP .70
360812 SODUS POINT STP .57
360824 ALBION AWT 2.00
360854 DEPOSIT SEWERAGE SYSTEM .40
360859 MARATHON SEWER SYSTEM .20
370364 TARBORO WTW 3.00
370382 CONCORD WTW 24.00
370383 FARMVILLE WTW 3.50
370425 CLINTON STP 3.00
370434 SPRING LAKE 1.50
370441 MOORE COUNTY REG. WTW 6.70
08
08
08
04
03
03
03
02
06
03
03
03
03
03
07
03
06
03
04
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
06
03
03
04
06
03
03
04
03
04
03
04
03
07
03
04
07
03
07
04
06
04
03
03
07
03
03
03
04
07
06
04
06
NEVADA
NEVADA
NEVADA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
HEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
HEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
H. CAROLINA
N. CAROLINA
N. CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
HUMBOLDT
CLARK
CLARK
CLARK
HILLSBOROUGH
MERRIMACK
MERRIMACK
CRAFTON
MERRIMACK
UNION
MORRIS
ESSEX & UNION
ATLANTIC
ESSEX
ESSEX
OCEAN
BURLINGTON
OCEAN
MONMOUTH
MERCER
BERGEN
MORRIS
CUMBERLAND
DONA ANA
HILDALGO
ROOSEVELT
RENSSELAER
ERIE
SUFFOLK
JEFFERSON
WAYNE
NIAGARA
JEFFERSON
WESTCHESTER
ERIE
SUFFOLK
DELAWARE
SARATOGA
SCHOHARIE
TOMPKINS
ONODAGA
CHAUTAUQUA
ORANGE
NIAGARA
ALBANY
NIAGARA
CLINTON
CHAUTAUQUA
SUFFOLK
SCHUYLER
WAYNE
ORLEANS
BROOME
CORTLAND
EDGECOMBE
CABARRUS
EDGECOMBE
SAMPSON
CUMBERLAND
MOORE
012
012
012
1 14
003
003
003
003
104
022
022
022
Oil
022
125
Oil
125
Oil
125
Oil
022
022
Oil
012
012
012
022
121
022
022
121
121
022
022
121
022
104
022
104
022
121
022
104
121
022
121
121
121
104
022
022
121
022
022
005
105
105
105
105
105
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
4
3
1
2
3
1
4
1
4
1
3
1
4
3
1
3
4
4
4
1
1
4
1
1
1
3
4
4
4
4
-------
380294 ENDERLIN WTW 6, SS
380313 SHELDON LAGOON AND OS
380321 BISMARCK WWTP
380329 DICKINSON LAGOONS
380332 CRARY WWTF
390464 VAN WERT
390471 CLEVELAND RSD SOUTHERLY
390471 CLEVELAND RSD SOUTHERLY
390514 RAVENNA
390556 LITTLE MIAMI WWTP
390577 LONDON
390584 PORTSMOUTH TREATMENT PLT
390586 MINERAL CITY
390589 OAK HARBOR WWTP
390590 PLEASANT HILL
390591 EUCLID
390593 MOUNT VERNON WWTP
390599 URBANA WWTP
390622 CANTON
390624 GEAUCA CO.MCFARLAND CREEK.
390626 LIMA WWTP
390627 MASSILLON
390630 BURTON WWTP
390644 CIRCLEVILLE
390648 OREGON WWTP
390654 HAMILTON
390657 MEDINA COUNTY REGIONAL TP
390663 HASKINS WWTP
390680 NEW KNOXVILLE WWTP
390683 FRENCH CREEK STP
390684 MEAWDER WATERSHED, ETAL.
390686 FAIRFIELD
390702 MONTGOMERY CO WEST REG PT
390717 PROSPECT
390741 CLEVELAND RSD-SOUTHERLY
390753 BLOOMINGBURG
390754 SHERWOOD WWTP
390893 COLUMBUS
390957 SWANTON WWTP
390982 SOUTH POINT WWTP
390999 LIVERPOOL UWTP
391001 PREBLE COUNTY WWTP
391005 ASHLEY
400537 WEWOKA WWTP
400638 AMBER LAGOONS
400644 COTTON COUNTY RWD LAGOON
400648 ALTUS WWTP
400674 STILLWATER WWTP
400682 PERRY WWTP
400743 MARTHA LAGOONS
400779 NO CANADIAN WWTP
410320 WILLOW LAKE STP
410341 TRYOH CREEK STP
410355 CORVALLIS STP
410365 DEPOE BAY STP
410371 DURHAM WWTP
410411 REDWOOD SANITARY DISTRICT
410416 CLOVERDALE STP
410446 LEBANON STP
410485 ROCK CREEK AWTP
.25
.03
5.04
1 .49
.02
2.75
200.00
200.00
2 .80
38.00
1 .50
4.00
.15
.74
.20
22.00
5.00
3.00
33.00
1 .20
18.50
12.00
.27
3.50
8.00
24.70
2.00
.10
.12
7.50
4.00
6.00
20.00
. 12
200.00
.16
.16
100.00
.92
1 .20
10.00
.60
.19
.75
.04
.05
2 .00
6.00
.75
.03
40.00
35.00
10.50
9.70
.80
20.00
.50
.04
3.00
15.00
03
03
03
03
03
07
06
06
07
06
04
06
03
03
03
07
06
06
04
07
07
07
04
06
07
06
07
04
04
07
07
07
07
03
06
04
03
04
07
03
07
07
07
04
03
08
06
04
04
08
03
03
04
07
03
07
03
04
04
07
NORTH DAKOTA
NORTH DAKOTA
NORTH DAKOTA
NORTH DAKOTA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
RANSOM
RANSOM
BURLEIGH
STARK
RAMSEY
VAN WERT
CUYAHOCA
CUYAHOCA
PORTAGE
HAMILTON
MADISON
SCIOTO
TUSCARAWAS
OTTAWA
MIAMI
CUYAHOGA
KNOX
CHAMPAIGN
STARK
GEAUGA
ALLEN
STARK
GEAUGA
PICKAWAY
LUCAS
BUTLER
MEDINA
WOOD
AUGLAIZE
LORAINE
MAHONING
BUTLER
MONTGOMERY
MARION
CUYAHOBA
FAYETTE
DEFIANCE
FRANKLIN
FULTON
LAWRENCE
MEDINA
PREBLE
DELAWARE
SEMINOLE
GRADY
COTTON
JACKSON
PAYNE
NOBLE
JACKSON
OKLAHOMA
MARION/POLK
CLACKAMAS
BENTON
LINCOLN
WASHINGTON
JOSEPHINE
TILLAMOOK
LINN
WASHINGTON
002
002
002
002
002
107
108
108
108
107
108
107
014
014
014
108
108
107
108
108
107
108
108
108
111
107
108
111
107
108
121
107
107
014
108
107
111
108
111
014
108
107
108
109
023
023
109
109
109
023
023
008
123
123
008
123
008
123
123
123
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
1
1
1
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
3
4
4
3
4
1
3
4
4
4
1
1
4
4
4
1
2
2
3
4
1
3
1
4
4
3
-------
420572 HICKORY TWP HUNIC.AUTH. 2.50
420585 LOCK HAVEN STP 3.75
420600 VALLEY FORCE SEWER AUTH 8.00
420622 PORTAGE JOINT SEWER AUTH 1.00
420643 ELIZABETHVILLE .28
420657 TRI-BORO MUNICIPAL AUTH .50
420701 MOSHANNON VALLEY J.S.A. 1.50
420704 OIL CITY GENERAL AUTH.
420707 MC CANDLESS TWP SAN.AUTH
420711 HAMILTOHBAN TWP AUTH
420712 OLEY TWP MUNICIPAL AUTH
420715 HIDDLETOWN BOROUGH AUTH
420718 SHOEMAKERSVILLE MWWTF
420720 MONTGOMERY W 6, S AUTHORIT
420723 ADAMS TOWNSHIP
420724 UPPER STONYCREEK J.M.A.
420728 MILTON MUNICIPAL AUTHORIT
420733 THOMPSONTOWN MUNICIPAL A.
420737 NEW KENSINGTON M.S.A.
420738 YORK CITY SEWER AUTHORITY
420739 POINT MARION MUNICIPAL AU
420740 PENNRIDGE WASTEWATER TREA
420742 TREMOHT MUNICIPAL AUTH
420749 CORAOPOLIS STP
420760 SYKESVILLE MUNICIPAL AUTH
420775 CARMICHAELS-CUMBERLAND ST
420781 SCHUYLKILL HAVEN MUNIC.A
420783 BROWN TWP MUNICIPAL AUTH
420820 MOUNTAINTOP AREA
420831 ALLENTOWN AUTHORITY
420917 PORTER-TOWER JOINT M.A.
421004 HARRISBURG SEWERAGE AUTH.
440074 BLOCK ISLAND WWTP
440086 SMITHFIELD REGIONAL WWTF
450265 SANTEE PUBLIC SERVICE DIS
460222 VIVIAN LAGOON & COLL.SYS.
460238 RAMONA WWT PONDS
460259 HENRY WWT POND
460472 BRUCE LAGOON 6, COLL. SYS.
470352 GATLINBURG WWTP
470355 MCEWEN STP
470374 SINKING CREEK WWTP
480799 BLOOMING GROVE WWTP
480856 CROCKETT WWTP
480878 MERTZON WWTP
480938 KERRVILLE CITY WWTP
480952 SULFUR SPRINGS WWTP
480981 CROSBY WWTP
481017 VILLAGE CREEK WWTP
481021 LONGVIEW WWTP
481048 BAYTOWN CITY WWTP
481062 BURKBURNETT WWTP
481084 CLEAR LAKE CITY WWTP 4.50
481110 SILVER LAKE WWTP 1.00
481116 CONROE WWTP 20.00
490142 CEDAR CITY WWTP 2.26
490152 HYRUM CITY WWTP & COLL. .88
490170 GRANGER - HUNTER IMP DIST 7.30
490175 TROPIC TOWN OF .04
490181 EMERY TOWN PONDS & COLL. .03
4.00
3.00
.03
.25
2.20
.35
.60
.03
.27
2.60
.11
7.00
26.00
.30
4.00
.33
3 .00
.20
.60
2 .00
.25
1 .83
40.00
.43
30.90
.28
3.50
.30
.02
.03
.02
.03
3.00
.50
8 .00
.10
1 .00
.05
2.05
2.50
.25
96.00
15.60
3.00
2.20
04
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
06
06
04
03
03
03
03
03
06
03
06
06
03
03
03
06
03
03
06
06
06
03
04
04
08
08
08
08
07
07
07
04
03
03
03
04
04
07
07
04
03
06
04
04
04
04
04
03
08
PENN
PEHN
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENN
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENN
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENN
PENNSYLVANIA
PENN
RHODE ISLAND
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
UTAH
UTAH
UTAH
UTAH
UTAH
MERCER
CLINTON
CHESTER
CAMBRIA
DAUPHIN
SUSQUEHANNA
CENTRE
VENANGO
ALLEGHENY
ADAMS
BERKS
DAUPHIN
BERKS
LYCOMING
CAMBRIA
SOMERSET
NORTHUMBERLAN
JUNIATA
WESTMORELAND
YORK
FAYETTE
MONTGOMERY
SCHUYLKILL
ALLEGHENY
JEFFERSON
GREENE
SCHUYLKILL
MIFFLIN
LUZERNE
LEGHIGH
SCHUYLKILL
DAUPHIN
WASHINGTON
PROVIDENCE
ORANGEBURG
LYMAN
LAKE
CODINGTON
BROOKINGS
SEVIER
HUMPHREYS
RUTHERFORD
NAVARRO
HOUSTON
IRION
KERR
HOPKINS
HARRIS
TARRANT
GREGG
HARRI S
WICHITA
HARRIS
VAL VERDE
MONTGOMERY
IRON
CACHE
SALT LAKE
GARFIELD
EMERY
121
022
Oil
006
Oil
Oil
022
022
025
Oil
120
120
120
121
006
006
Oil
Oil
025
102
025
120
120
025
022
025
120
Oil
Oil
120
120
120
022
104
105
017
021
021
021
103
103
103
109
024
024
024
109
112
109
109
112
024
112
112
112
110
110
110
015
015
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
4
4
1
1
1
4
1
1
3
4
3
1
4
4
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
4
4
3
3
4
1
4
4
3
4
4
4
1
1
-------
490194 PROVO CITY WWTP
500079 BRANDON WWTP
500081 HARTFORD WWTP
500083 NORTH BRANCH F.D. STP
500089 ENOSBORC FALLS
510259 UPPER SMITH RIVER WWTP
510314 GALAX STP
510331 UPPER OCCOO.UAN REGIONAL
510355 CLIFTON FORGE STP
510356 ALEXANDRIA STP
510357 ARLINGTON COUNTY
510370 ROANOKE STP
510375 STUART STP
510383 ROUND HILL
510384 WAVERLY STP
510396 LEXINGTON STP
510442 ROANOKE STP
510447 PLAINS-MARSHALL REGIONAL
510485 CULPEPER STP
510490 MCKENNEY STP
510498 BLACKBURG-VPI SAN.AUTH
510500 REEDVILLE STP
510515 POUND STP
510517 MARTINSVILLE STP
530466 BIRCH BAY(WHATCOM CO WD#8
530488 WESTPORT WWTF
530504 OLYMPIA STP
530513 ARLINGTON STP
530516 BURLINGTON STP
530530 WEST LONGVIEW STP
530549 STEVENS PASS-YODELIN STP
530553 WHITE SWAN WiS
530580 SPOKANE WWTF
530740 GLENWOOD STP(KLICKITAT CO
540198 WEIRTON STP
540208 DELBARTON
540213 BLUEFIELD
540424 ST. ALBANS STP
550488 TWO RIVERS
550548 SUPERIOR STP
550552 RACINE STP
550569 11T HOREB WWTP
550573 LOtlIRA WWTP
550625 MONTREAL WWTP
550631 OCONOMOWOC WWTP
550648 UANITOWOC WWTP
550662 RHINELANDER STP
550686 KEWAUNEE WWTP
550687 RIPON STP
550689 HOLLAND STP
550706 DEPERE WHTP
550734 MADISON MSD
550787 HARSHFIELD STP
550788 FOND DU LAC
550790 STOUGHTOfi WWTP
550790 STOUCHTON STP
550794 CASCO
550820 NORTHERN MORAINE UC STP
550831 APPLETOH STP
560104 COWLEY STP & COLL.
21.00
.70
1 .00
.82
.26
4.00
1 .50
22.50
2.00
54.00
30.00
35.00
.30
. 10
.35
2 .00
35.00
.16
3.00
. 10
6 .00
.20
.18
6.00
1 .60
1 .00
9. 10
1 .00
1 .20
.20
.06
.10
40.00
. 10
4.00
.12
3.50
2.50
4.40
5 .00
30.00
.79
.49
.20
4.02
15.50
1.90
.58
2.00
.20
14.20
51 ..30
3.50
25.00
1 .65
1 .65
.07
.60
16.50
.05
04
03
03
03
03
03
03
07
03
07
06
02
03
04
03
03
07
04
04
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
08
06
03
02
04
07
03
07
06
06
07
04
03
04
06
03
06
07
07
06
03
04
07
03
03
03
03
07
08
UTAH
VERMONT
VERMONT
VERMONT
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
UTAH
RUTLAND
WINDSOR
WINDHAM
FRANKLIN
HENRY
GRAY SON
PRINCE WILLIA
ALLECHANY
FAIRFAX
ARLINGTON
ROANOKE
PATRICK
LOUDOUN
SUSSEX
ROCKBRIDCE
ROANOKE
FAUQUIER
CULPEPER
DINWIDDIE
MONTGOMERY
NORTHUMBERLAN
WISE
HENRY
WHATCOM
GRAYS HARBOR
THURSTON
SNOHAMISH
SKAGIT
COWLITZ
KING/CHELAN
YAKIMA
SPOKANE
KLICKITAT
BROOKE
MI NG 0
MERCER
KANAWHA
MANITOWOC
DOUGLAS
RACINE
DANE
DODGE
IRON
WAUKESHA
MANITOWOC
ONEIDA
KEWAUNEE
FOND DU LAC
BROWN
BROWN
DANE
WOOD
FOND DU LAC
DANE
DANE
KEWAUNEE
SHEBOYGAN
OUTAGAMIE
BIG HORN
110
003
003
003
003
018
018
102
018
102
102
018
018
102
Oil
018
102
102
102
Oil
018
Oil
018
018
008
008
008
008
008
008
124
008
124
008
025
121
121
006
116
117
116
116
116
117
116
1 16
010
116
1 16
116
116
010
116
116
010
010
010
010
116
004
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
2
1
4
1
1
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
3
1
1
4
4
1
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
1
4
4
4
3
2
4
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
-------
560109 CASPER WWTP 6.40 03 WYOMING NATRONA 004 1
560110 LABARCE WWTP 6, CULL. SYS. .04 03 WYOMING LINCOLN 015 1
660007 NORTHERN DIST WHTF 12.00 01 GUAM GUA11 126 2
-------
TABLE B.2
DISTRIBUTION OF UUTP SAMPLE
BY PROJECTED FLOW AND LEVEL OF TREATMENT
< 1.00 MGD
1.00 - 5.00 I1GD
5.01 - 25.00 HGD
> 25.00 HGD
REGION 01
CONUECTICUT
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW HAMPSHIRE
RHODE ISLAND
VERMONT
REGION 02
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK.
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
REGION 03
DELAWARE
WASHINGTON DC
MARYLAND
PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
REGION 04
ALABAMA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPP[
1IORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
REGION 05
ILLINOIS
INDIAUA
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
OHIO
WISCONSIN
PROJECTED
LEVEL OF TREATMENT
1-2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
36,8
8
1
1
1
1
1
3
9
0
9
0
0
21
0
0
6
10
5
0
3
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
28
6
6
3
5
5
3
4-7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
11
1
0
2
5
2
1
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
51
13
21
4
2
7
4
TOTAL
9
1
1
1
2
1
3
12
0
12
0
0
32
1
0
8
15
7
1
6
2
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
80
20
27
7
7
12
7
PROJECTED
LEVEL OF TREATMENT
1-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36,8
7
1
2
2
1
0
1
5
2
3
0
0
16
0
0
3
8
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
8
1
1
1
1
1
3
4-7
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
6
1
5
0
0
8
1
0
1
4
1
1
5
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
55
19
7
10
4
10
5
TOTAL
8
1
2
2
1
1
1
11
3
8
0
0
25
1
0
4
12
5
3
6
1
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
63
20
8
11
5
11
8
PROJECTED
LEVEL OF TREATMENT
1-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3&8
4
2
1
1
0
0
0
7
5
2
0
0
5
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
2
0
0
0
0
4-7
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
5
2
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
6
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
1
29
11
2
2
1
9
4
TOTAL
5
2
1
1
1
0
0
12
7
5
0
0
6
0
0
1
2
3
0
6
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
1
33
13
4
2
1
9
4
PROJECTED
LEVEL OF TREATMENT
1-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3&8
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
5
0
0
2
0
1
4-7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
8
0
0
2
3
3
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
1
1
3
2
6
1
TOTAL
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
7
4
3
0
0
9
0
0
2
3
4
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
6
1
3
4
6
2
TOTALS
24
4
4
5
5
2
4
42
14
28
0
0
72
2
0
15
32
19
4
19
3
4
2
0
0
6
1
3
198
59
40
23
17
38
21
-------
TABLE B.2 (Continued)
DISTRIBUTIOt) OF WWTP SA11PLE
BY PROJECTED FLOW AND LEVEL OF TREATMENT
< 1.00 HGD
1.00 - 5.00 MGD
5.01 - 25.00 MGD
> 25.00 MGD
REGION 06
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
NEW MEXICO
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
REGION 07
IOWA
KANSAS
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
REGION 08
COLORADO
M01ITAUA
I1OKTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
UTAlI
WYOMING
REGION 09
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
HAWAII
1IEVADA
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
TRUST TERR.
REGION 10
ALASKA
IDAHO
OREGON
WASHINGTON
PROJECTED
LEVEL OF TREATMENT
1-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
u
0
u
u
u
1
0
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38,8
9
0
4
1
3
1
6
1
1
1
3
15
2
2
3
4
2
2
21
3
10
2
6
0
0
0
12
3
4
2
3
4-7
5
1
0
0
2
2
3
1
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
TOTAL
14
1
4
1
5
3
9
2
2
2
3
17
3
2
3
4
3
2
22
3
11
2
6
0
0
0
14
3
4
3
4
PROJECTED
LEVEL OF TREATMENT
1-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
348
8
1
3
1
0
3
4
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
1
U
0
0
11
1
7
1
2
0
0
0
6
1
1
0
4
4-7
6
I
0
0
1
4
3
2
0
0
1
3
1
1
0
0
1
0
4
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
TOTAL
14
2
3
1
1
7
7
2
1
2
2
4
1
1
1
0
1
0
15
2
10
1
2
0
0
0
7
1
1
1
4
PROJECTED
LEVEL OF TREATMENT
1-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
U
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3&8
2
1
0
1
0
0
3
1
0
1
1
6
1
3
1
0
0
1
6
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
0
1
4-7
4
1
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
2
0
6
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
4
0
TOTAL
6
2
0
1
1
2
5
2
1
1
1
9
2
3
1
0
2
1
14
1
11
1
0
0
1
0
7
1
1
4
1
PROJECTED
LEVEL OF TREATMENT
1-2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3&8
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
4-7
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
5
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
TOTAL
2
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
9
1
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
TOTALS
36
5
7
3
8
13
23
7
4
6
6
30
6
6
5
4
6
3
62
6
41
5
9
0
1
0
30
5
6
9
10
NATIONAL TOTALS
3 132
80
215
67
92
160
40
60
103
20
35
58
536
-------
TABLE B.3
DISTRIBUTION OF WWTP SAMPLE
BY TYPE OF PROJECTED CHANGE
REGION 01
CONNECTICUT
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW HAMPSHIRE
RHODE ISLAND
VERMONT
REGION 02
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
REGION 03
DELAWARE
WASHINGTON DC
MARYLAND
PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
REGION 04
ALABAMA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
REGION 05
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
OHIO
WISCONSIN
REGION 06
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
NEW MEXICO
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
ENLARGE
(CODE 01)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
5
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
5
2
0
2
1
3
6
0
2
1
0
3
UPGRADE
(CODE 02)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
6
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
25
10
2
5
0
3
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
UPGRADE
(CODE 03)
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
9
5
4
0
0
20
0
0
1
12
7
0
7
0
4
0
0
0
1
0
2
96
40
15
15
5
15
6
9
2
0
0
2
5
CONSTRUCTION
(CODE 04)
22
3
4
5
5
2
3
20
5
15
0
0
36
1
0
1 1
15
8
1
9
3
0
1
0
0
4
1
0
58
3
21
3
10
16
5
16
2
5
1
6
2
REPLACE
(CODE 05)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
1
6
0
0
5
1
0
0
2
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
1
0
1
0
3
ABANDON
(CODE 06)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO CHANGE
(CODE 07)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MODIFICATION
(CODE 08)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OTHER
(CODE 09)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS
24
4
4
5
5
2
4
42
14
28
0
0
72
2
0
15
32
19
4
19
3
4
2
0
0
6
1
3
198
59
40
23
17
38
21
36
5
7
3
8
13
-------
TABLE B.3 (Continued)
DISTRIBUTION OF WWTP SAMPLE
BY TYPE OF PROJECTED CHANGE
REGION 07
IOWA
KANSAS
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
REGION 08
COLORADO
MONTANA
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
UTAH
WYOMING
REGION 09
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
HAWAII
NEVADA
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
TRUST TERR.
REGION 10
ALASKA
IDAHO
OREGON
WASHINGTON
ENLARGE UPGRADE
(CODE 01) (CODE 02)
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 1
1 0
0 10
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3 7
0 0
3 6
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
UPGRADE
(CODE 03)
8
3
2
1
2
7
2
1
2
0
1
1
27
1
21
1
4
0
0
0
10
0
1
4
5
CONSTRUCTION
(CODE 04)
11
3
2
4
2
16
2
2
2
4
4
2
19
4
7
4
3
0
1
0
19
5
4
5
5
REPLACE
(CODE 05)
3
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ABANDON
(CODE 06)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NO CHANGE t
(CODE 07)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10DIFICATION
(CODE 08)
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
OTHER
(CODE 09)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS
23
7
4
6
6
30
6
6
5
4
6
3
62
6
41
5
9
0
1
0
30
5
6
9
10
NATIONAL TOTALS
32
44
195
226
30
536
-------
TABLE B.4
DISTRIBUTION OF WWTP SAMPLE
BY SUSA, NON-S!1SA, AND LAUD USE
REGION 01
CONNECTICUT
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW HAMPSHIRE
RHODE ISLAND
VERMONT
REGION 02
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
REGION 03
DELAWARE
WASHINGTON DC
MARYLAND
PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
REGION 04
ALABAMA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
REGION 05
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
OHIO
W I S C 0 N S I tl
REGION 06
ARKANSAS
LOUISIA'U
NEW MEXICO
OKLA!!0:lA
TEXAS
SMSA
14
3
1
3
4
2
0
28
11
17
0
0
33
1
0
7
16
7
2
6
1
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
98
35
13
8
6
27
9
7
0
0
0
1
6
HON- AGRICULTURAL
StlSA (11-14)
10
1
2
2
1
0
4
14
3
1 1
0
0
39
1
0
8
16
12
2
13
2
0
2
0
0
5
1
3
100
24
27
15
1 1
11
12
29
5
7
3
7
7
1 1
1
1
1
4
1
3
17
5
12
0
0
31
1
0
8
1 1
9
2
10
3
0
1
0
0
4
1
1
49
4
18
3
8
11
5
12
3
2
1
6
0
RESIDENTIAL
(21-24)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
9
0
4
1
0
4
DENSE
RESIDENTIAL
(31-34)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
COMMERCIAL
(41-44)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
DENSE
COMMERCIAL
(51-54)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
INDUSTRIAL
(61-64)
3
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DENSE
INDUSTRIAL
(71-74)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MUNICIPAL
(81-84)
8
1
2
4
0
1
0
20
9
11
0
0
32
0
0
4
16
10
2
7
0
2
1
0
0
2
0
2
143
54
22
20
8
23
16
12
2
0
0
2
8
-------
TABLE B.4 (Continued)
DISTRIBUTION OF UWTP SAtiPLE
BY SI1SA, NON-S11SA, AMD LAND USE
REGION 07
IOUA
KA N S A S
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
REGIOU 08
COLORADO
MONTANA
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
UTAH
WYOMING
REGION 09
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
HAWAII
NEVADA
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
TRUST TERR.
REGION 10
ALASKA
IDAHO
OREGON
WASHINGTON
SHSA
5
2
0
2
1
8
4
2
0
0
2
0
34
3
25
2
4
0
0
0
9
0
2
4
3
NON- AGRICULTURAL
StISA (11-14)
18
5
4
4
5
22
2
4
5
4
4
3
28
3
16
3
5
0
1
0
21
5
4
5
7
13
2
3
5
3
15
1
2
3
3
4
2
17
0
10
1
,5
0
1
0
14
1
3
5
5
RESIDENTIAL
(21-24)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
DENSE
RESIDENTIAL
(31-34)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
COMMERCIAL
(41-44)
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DENSE
COMMERCIAL
(51-54)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
INDUSTRIAL
(61-64)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
4
3
1
0
0
DENSE
INDUSTRIAL
(71-74)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MUNICIPAL
(81-84)
7
3
1
1
2
9
4
1
2
0
1
1
41
4
30
3
4
0
0
0
11
1
2
3
5
NATIONAL TOTALS
242
294
189
14
11
290
-------
Table B.5
DISTRIUUTtON OF WWTP SAMPLE
BY TREATMENT PROCESS
STABILIZATION PONDS
AERATED LACOONi
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
REGION 01
CONNECTICUT
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW HAMPSHIRE
RHODE ISLAND
VERMONT
REGION 02
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
REGION 03
DELAWARE
WASHINGTON DC
MARYLAND
PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
UEST VIRGINIA
REGION 04
ALABAMA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
REGION 05
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
OHIO
WISCONSIN
REGION 06
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA.
NEW MEXICO
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
1
1
3
2
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
o
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
2
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
2
3
5
4
2
4
29
10
19
0
0
55
2
0
13
25
13
2
14
2
2
2
0
0
4
1
3
128
39
32
11
9
24
13
20
1
6
1
4
8
TRICKLING FILTER
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
4
2
0
0
9
0
0
1
4
3
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
I
0
0
30
14
2
3
2
5
4
7
3
0
1
1
2
OTHER
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
7
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
20
2
3
6
1
4
4
2
1
0
1
0
0
TOTALS
24
4
4
5
5
2
4
42
14
28
0
0
72
2
0
15
32
19
4
19
3
4
2
0
0
6
1
3
198
59
40
23
17
38
21
36
5
7
3
8
13
-------
TABLE B.5 (Continued)
DISTRIBUTION OF UUTP SAI1PLE
BY TREATMENT PROCESS
STABILIZATION POKDS
AERATED LAGOONS
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
REGION 07
IOWA
KANSAS
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
REGION 08
COLORADO
MONTANA
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
UTAH
WYOMING
REGIOfl 09
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
HAWAII
NEVADA
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
TRUST TERR.
REGION 10
ALASKA
IDAHO
OREGON
WASHINGTON'
3
1
1
1
0
12
0
1
3
4
2
2
4
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
7
1
2
0
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
10
2
2
3
3
11
4
4
1
0
1
1
30
4
23
3
0
0
0
0
16
2
3
6
5
TRICKLING FILTER
4
1
1
0
2
3
1
0
0
0
2
0
10
0
7
0
3
0
0
0
4
1
1
2
0
OTHER
TOTALS
23
7
4
6
6
30
6
6
5
4
6
3
62
6
41
5
9
0
1
0
30
5
6
9
10
NATIONAL TOTALS
34
18
333
76
54
536
-------
APPENDIX C
COST INDEXING
-------
APPENDIX C
COST INDEXING
C.I REQUIREMENTS
Construction bid data employed in developing cost relationships
presented in this report originated across a wide spectrum of time
and location. Bid dates ranged from second quarter 1973 to second
quarter 1977 and locations varied from Alaska to Puerto Rico. Data
included Step I and Step II grant costs, non-construction item costs for
administrative, legal and contingency expenses, and lump-sum costs for
treatment plant construction unit processes and construction components.
Because of these variations it was necessary to devise a system for
referencing costs to a common dollar base for the purposes of data
analysis.
For the purposes of this study several indexing tools were consi-
dered. Criteria for selection of the most appropriate method included the
following:
1. National Scope - The data base included facilities nationwide
therefore the indexing method had to apply to all geographical
areas of the country.
2. Sufficient Time Span - Bids to be updated were, in some cases,
four years old. The indices must be applicable to each quarter
from 1973 to the present.
C-l
-------
3. Treatment Plant Oriented - The mix of material and labor
components had to be reflective of that typical to wastewater
treatment facilities.
4. Commonly Accepted and Available - Due to the possibility
of future use of this study as well as its potential for
updating, the indexing method had to be available to and accept-
ed by the user community.
C.2 COST INDEXING SYSTEMS INVESTIGATED
There are a number of cost indexing systems in existence, each
directed at the needs of a specific user. Some, such as the Consumer
Price Index are general in nature and applicable to a variety of products
and services. Others, like the Federal Highway Index, serve specific
estimating needs. Generally, input to the development of each index
consists of a mix of material and labor costs. The composition of this
mix determines the relevance of a given index to a particular construc-
tion estimating requirement.
Using the criteria above, several cost indexing methods were inves-
tigated for use in this study including the Engineering News Record (ENR)
Building Cost Index, the ENR Construction Cost Index and Chemical Plant
Cost Index, the Bureau of Reclamation Index, the EPA Treatment Plant
Indices, and two contractor cost indices.
C-2
-------
Since analysis of cost indexing techniques was of secondary concern
for this study, some reliance was placed on previous efforts at index
comparison, particularly in comparing the indices records. Of interest
in this regard was the publication "Comparison of Construction Cost
Indexes" of March 1976 by the EPA. This report investigated the response
of each of several indices during the late 1960's and inflation/defla-
tion period of the 1970's. Upon investigation, it was decided that
the two EPA-developed indices for treatment plants were most appropriate
and would be employed for this study. These are the Large City Advanced
Treatment (LCAT) Index and the Small City Conventional Treatment (SCCT)
Index.
C.3 THE EPA TREATMENT PLANT INDICES
C.3.1 Large City Advanced Treatment Index
The LCAT Index is based on a model 50 MGD treatment plant consisting
of bar screens, grit chambers, primary clarification, conventional
activated sludge, lime clarification, multi-media gravity filtration,
chlorination, gravity thickening of sludge, vacuum filtration and multi-
ple hearth incineration. Indices for 25 large cities were developed
using a Kansas City Index of 100 in the third quarter of 1973 as a
base.
C.3.2 Small City Conventional Treatment Index
The SCCT index uses a 5.0 MGD activated sludge facility as a
model. It includes the same processes as the LCAT model excluding
C-3
-------
those designed to produce greater than secondary treatment, namely, lime
clarification and multi-media gravity filtration. Indices are maintained
for 25 small cities nationwide. The base city for the SCCT index is St.
Joseph, Missouri with an index of 100 in the third quarter 1973.
C.3.3 Index Composition
From the model designs each plant was broken down into cost compo-
nents, the mix of these components being the fundamental bases of the
indices. Based on second quarter 1975 costs the LCAT mix of cost compo-
nents was found to be: equipment, 17.2% ( of total cost); civil material
and labor, 35.4%; piping material and labor, 10.3%; electrical material
and labor, 2.7%; construction overhead, 22.5%; and miscellaneous, 12%.
This component mix and a similar mix for the SCCT index plant seemed
to reflect the ratio of components of facilities reviewed for this study
better than other indices considered for use. The LCAT and SCCT Indices
also include profit adjustment and productivity factors in an attempt to
define price increases due to supplier backlog and variations in labor
productivity, respectively.
EPA indices are updated quarterly and published in the Engineering
News Record periodically. Tables C.I and C.2 tabulate the SCCT and LCAT
indices from their origination to second quarter, 1977. Values listed in
these tables are final values and may in some cases vary slightly from
preliminary calculations published in the Engineering News Record.
C-4
-------
The Alaska, Hawaii and Guam indices listed on these tables were not
published by EPA but were estimated as outlined in the following para-
graphs. All cost relationships presented in this report have been
updated to second quarter 1977 dollars.
C.4 ANCHORAGE, HONOLULU AND GUAM INDICES
Because construction bid information was collected for facilities
in Alaska, Hawaii and Guam, indices were required to update those costs.
The indices listed in Tables C.I and C.2 for Alaska, Hawaii and Guam were
developed for this purpose using the following procedure:
1. From the data bank of the 1976 Needs Survey, including over
19,000 treatment facilities, multipliers were developed for
Alaska, Hawaii and Guam for newly constructed facilities. These
multipliers are a ratio of the average cost of construction in
the particular state to the national average cost of construc-
tion for similar facilities. Only costs based on engineers'
estimates and cost of previous comparable construction were used
for this analysis.
2. The 25 city index average for each quarter was then multiplied
by the appropriate Alaska, Hawaii or Guam multiplier from above
yielding a quarterly index for these three areas.
C-5
-------
The Alaska and Hawaii indices were grouped with the SCCT indices
since facilities sampled in these states fell into that category.
The same rationale was used to place Guam in the LCAT group. Criteria for
classification of treatment plants into LCAT or SCCT categories are given
below.
C.5 USE OF THE EPA TREATMENT PLANT INDICES
C.5.1 LCAT-SCCT Classification
Most facilities were readily placed in either the SCCT or LCAT
group, but some did not fall easily into either. Since the mix of
component costs for treatment plants is more sensitive to process equip-
ment variation than size the SCCT index was applied to all conventional
treatment facilities and the LCAT index to all advanced treatment facili-
ties. An exception to this rule was the case of lagoons, classified in
all instances as small, conventional facilities.
C.5.2 City Influence Classification
Applying the appropriate quarterly index to a construction bid
required the determination of which EPA index city most influenced the
contract prices. The areas of influence illustrated by Map C.I and Map
C.2 are the result of application of the following criteria:
1. County boundaries were followed without exception.
2. State boundaries were followed where more definitive infor-
mation was unavailable.
C-6
-------
7A #2
3. Bureau of Labor Statistics Information was used to draw
boundaries where such information was available.
C.5.3 ELS Data
Due to the fact that labor is generally the largest single cost
component for a wastewater treatment plant an effort was made to define
boundaries on Maps C.I and C.2 based on Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics data. The Bureau regularly collects and tabulates wage
rates for a variety of construction skills for 102 cities nationwide.
From these tabulations a combined rate for carpenters, masons and build-
ing laborers was derived for 15 quarters dating from third quarter 1973
to first quarter 1977. These three skills were chosen because they
correspond to the labor skills that comprise the labor component of the
EPA indices. Next, the 15 quarters of record for each of the 102 BLS
cities were statistically correlated to the labor component history of
each of the EPA index cities yielding a correlation coefficient repre-
senting the similarity of that city's labor costs to each EPA city. These
correlations were then used to define areas of influence for LCAT and
SCCT index cities. For example, the correlations of the BLS cities,
Chattanooga, Nashville and Knoxville with the LCAT city of Birmingham
were all much higher than their correlations with the LCAT city of
Cincinnati. Therefore, Birmingham's influence boundary was drawn to
include Tennessee. Similarly; the wage rate histories of the Atlanta and
Miami Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA) were so radically
C-7
-------
different than those of the closest BLS city histories that the areas
of influence for those two cities include only the respective SMSA's.
C.6 COMMON-BASE COST CONVERSIONS
Using Maps C.I and C.2 along with Tables C.I and C.2, construction
bid data for a given location and date may be converted to a common
dollar base for development of a national average cost relationship. An
example of this might be a bid cost of X dollars in January, 1975 for a
5.0 MGD conventional plant in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Classifying this facil-
ity into the Small City Conventional Plant (SCCT) category, the influence
city is found from Map C.I to be Casper, Wyoming. From Table C.I the
first quarter 1975 index for Casper is 102. To convert the cost to
second quarter 1977 dollars, X should be multiplied by 117/102 or 1.15.
Conversely, cost values taken from national average cost curves must be
multiplied by the ratio of the index for the appropriate city and the
national average index for the same quarter to arrive at a cost estimate
based on the economy of the specific city.
C-8
-------
TABLE C.I
CITY
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
CITY NAME
Bakersfield
Bismarck
Burlington , Vt
Casper
Charlestown , SC
EPA
SMALL
1973
3
105
81
92
84
58
4
101
80
92
85
58
1
103
84
94
88
61
CITY CONVENTIONAL
TREATMENT (SCCT) INDEX
1974
2
115
92
101
97
66
3
122
97
106
104
72
4
123
99
108
105
76
1
121
96
104
102
72
1975
2
118
94
101
101
69
3
119
98
101
101
77
4
119
100
102
105
77
1
127
102
104
108
74
1976
2
128
104
104
108
77
3
132
107
105
114
77
4
134
108
107
115
81
1977
1
138
108
108
115
82
2
138
108
108
117
83
6
7
8
9
10
Cumberland , Md .
Duluth
Eugene
Gainesville
Green Bay
110
95
102
80
103
109
94
104
80
103
112
96
107
83
107
120
106
116
91
113
127
112
123
97
119
128
113
124
102
122
126
109
121
99
123
126
107
118
98
119
126
109
119
97
119
128
109
122
98
121
129
114
130
100
123
130
116
137
101
122
134
118
137
101
124
135
119
139
102
125
138
124
141
104
131
143
128
141
107
131
11
12
13
14
15
Harrisburg
Las Vegas
Mobile
Muncie
Pocatello,Id.
102
102
92
95
84
105
101
91
96
88
109
103
92
98
90
113
113
103
108
97
120
119
111
114
104
122
124
123
114
105
119
121
121
112
103
122
119
117
111
104
126
126
118
112
105
129
127
120
113
108
132
129
118
114
108
135
130
119
117
110
138
136
120
120
112
139
140
121
124
114
138
142
127
123
115
144
142
127
127
116
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
76
27
Pueblo
Rapid City
Roanoke
Saginaw
St. Joseph
Sioux City
Syracuse
Tulsa
Waco
Wheeling
Alaska
Hawaii
25 City Average
87
79
87
105
100
90
124
81
74
105
254
131
93
87
79
80
104
102
90
126
82
73
106
254
131
93
89
81
83
104
106
95
127
85
77
108
261
134
95
97
89
90
111
116
103
136
97
84
116
283
146
104
104
97
97
118
122
108
141
102
90
122
301
155
110
104
98
108
120
119
108
140
101
92
122
306
158
112
105
94
106
118
115
105
137
99
89
120
300
154
109
98
92
103
115
113
107
137
96
87
118
294
152
108
98
94
102
117
113
107
138
97
87
121
298
154
109
99
95
105
118
113
107
139
98
88
122
302
156
110
107
99
110
120
116
113
142
101
90
122
310
160
113
110
102
114
120
117
117
143
103
91
124
315
162
115
113
103
115
122
120
118
146
104
91
125
321
165
119
114
105
116
123
120
120
148
108
92
126
326
168
119
115
105
116
127
124
120
147
109
97
129
331
170
121
119
106
117
128
125
130
150
111
99
132
337
173
123
-------
TABLE C.2
CITY
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
CITY NAME
Atlanta
Baltimore
Birmingham
Boston
Charlotte
EPA
LARGE
1973
3
87
106
84
118
57
4
87
106
83
118
58
1
91
110
89
121
62
CITY ADVANCED TREATMENT
1974
2
97
114
94
129
68
3
105
122
101
136
75
4
107
124
102
139
76
1
103
120
99
135
73
(LCAT) INDICES
1975
2
98
120
95
135
68
3
99
120
98
135
74
4
100
122
99
136
75
1
102
125
101
140
76
1976
2
103
132
101
141
77
3
106
134
102
143
79
4
106
134
103
145
82
1977
1
109
134
105
146
83
2
110
134
107
149
83
6
7
8
9
10
Chicago
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Dallas
Denver
121
105
113
82
87
121
105
113
83
88
126
108
116
87
91
135
119
127
96
99
143
127
134
103
107
144
126
132
102
108
141
123
129
98
105
137
121
126
93
101
138
123
128
94
105
140
124
129
95
105
144
126
132
99
108
146
127
133
104
111
152
130
139
105
113
153
131
140
107
114
155
132
141
108
115
158
134
147
111
120
11
12
13
14
15
Detroit
Houston
Kansas City
Los Angeles
Miami
109
83
100
104
92
111
84
100
103
93
111
89
104
107
96
124
95
115
113
103
132
102
124
121
110
127
107
125
127
111
125
103
120
125
108
120
103
118
121
104
120
103
119
126
105
121
104
120
126
106
130
106
122
130
108
130
112
126
133
109
132
113
128
137
110
133
114
129
138
111
140
114
129
141
112
145
119
133
141
113
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
New Orleans
New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburg
St. Louis
San Francisco
Seattle
Trenton
102
96
94
139
122
108
117
111
100
115
102
96
92
138
122
108
117
110
101
114
106
99
96
141
125
111
123
114
105
117
112
107
102
148
141
123
130
121
114
125
120
113
112
154
148
131
143
128
123
134
125
115
118
161
144
130
140
134
124
135
123
112
113
157
140
128
136
130
121
130
123
108
110
152
140
125
136
128
120
127
123
108
110
158
141
124
138
133
123
129
125
109
113
160
142
126
139
134
124
130
126
116
116
164
146
127
141
138
128
133
129
120
120
163
152
129
147
141
133
136
131
122
121
168
154
130
149
151
135
140
133
123
123
169
155
131
150
152
137
141
134
123
124
171
155
135
151
153
138
140
138
127
128
175
159
138
153
153
139
144
26
Guam
25 City Average
116
102
115
102
119
106
129
114
137
122
140
123
137
120
134
112
136
119
138
120
141
123
144
126
146
129
148
130
151
132
154
134
-------
REFERENCES
-------
REFERENCES
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, EM 1110-2-174,Washington,
B.C., April 1976, Computer-Assisted Procedure for the Design and
Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Systems (CAPDET): Users Guide,
(Draft)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Report, MCD-22, Washing-
ton, D.C., February 1976, An Analysis of Construction Cost Experi-
ence for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, CAR 9. March 1976, Comparison
of Construction Cost Indexes.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Report, EPA-430/9-75-002
Washington, D.C., July 1975, A guide to the Selection of Cost-
Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, MCD-48 Washington, B.C., February
1977, Cost Estimates for Construction of Publicly-Owned Wastewater
Treatment Facilities.
"U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978 — 777-066/1108 REGION NO. 8
------- |