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
                      ;ฃฃฃ&ฃ
                                      .

                                                  WV *r t • '.v . *-'• "
                                                  :^^.:~-:'fป
                                                 r.*m^
                                                   :?'?^*
                                                       ?ซป*ป.
                                                  ;.

-------
                           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 lO5ฉ,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  lO3ฉ1-20          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 38ฐ 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 38ฐ  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—





-ฑl





"_^-
^~



-_



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~xฑฑ
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-
; ; • '





ฑ=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
ฃ 3ฐ
O
0
2.0
O
h-
u
2 0-.91
i s;
O ฐ-6
<•> 0.5
-1 0.4
o ฐ-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
ฐ i.O
3 09
_j 0.8
— 0.7
5 0.6
Z 0.5
1- ฐ4
O ฐ3
O
Z 0.2
0
h-
o
ID
ฐ: O.I
r- 0.09
W 0.08
Z 0.07
ง 0.06
0.05
< 0.04
I-
ฎ 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 ::;:

^+t4ฑ;|i:+:- + l— t"+f 	 	 	
, | 1 i,; _i__^ 	 j 	 L i J 	 l_ _[_
Tpi^:irtr-||--^^:-:^ฑ4t:::4:-i:++:ฑfฑ
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:ฑ::=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
~ฑ"::^ฑ"":::::::tt::i^^P^ + ฑฑ
~|z:::— ~:::::!:::ffi: ::|::ie::lฑฑ: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:::"ฑ
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
:::::::::::::::::ซ


11111111111111 ! ' '-"
RUCTION '--
~f 	 	 	


	 pi,
	 ?• 	 T"


SURE 6. If
" ~1~T~! 	 ' \ ' 1 — 	 1~
- j i -i- -H- •+ H 	 1 — [-
1

o
o

z
o

ป-
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 TฑE:^j: :::::-
ฃ;::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 	 	 	
-ฅ"-:^^--- = ------- •-------•-----•
_+_. 	 ;>.___.
jr ~ ('' 	 T; ~"
_-:::: 	 2z?i = :::::::::::-n::
	 ^ 	 	 	
	 ^ 	 	
rTrrrTTTTnTTTTTTTTn~rrTTnrn
ULL ... 	





— — — ^ 	 _
	 . t
=;ii;;;;;=====E===ip?H==-
	 	 	 ^ 	
;;:: :::: 	 :: ^f. 	 :
- - - 	 — y 	 •• 	
•" 	 	 tfr 	

FIGURE €
:lE:-i;:^5ง^ง
EiEEjiiil^l
::::::::::,te|
::::::::: ::tftel|t
::ฑ::: ::ฑf:ฑtrm
	 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 40ฐ
o:
< 30.0
-1
20.0
O
U.
0

Z 10.0
1 -
i :;0ฐ
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 	 ^^_ _|_
ฑtj::^ffiฑ:----r-J 	 	 -]
:itt!::4^-|ji-::t:ฑ--EfE 	 1--::-::::
"^"H" : 1 1 j — [ — ! 	 	 T —



C ^.88 X IU U 	 -......__













1 1
ฑ4








— 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^Iฑ; 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'

- 	 	 ฑ 	 r4-fl3ti[|jฑ|:^
:t::::::::::iฑ: ^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--- ^ซ-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- -
— ••
;ซi
-^
3

ฃ
_4
?

-t-^


-fฑC
~~~


> | 1

•

^4-
1 | ,







T
\\
g
+
I

j
3J
5
-J4-
— rT-h-




~~r

r)-


44;-
T-H •
Sr
if^4
^
TTti



ฑit
tec



1
,
4+f
,




1 ' '
11
ffi
^
f
^
ป4-h

rt
--



	 1—
L+-

— (-•

H=
• — h-





_|_




~f—




-.-






y
^

_t-
-i-
i-







4 -

1





-
T^
-




.-
<
h

— ฑr


















-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
-~ 	 [•^ฃฃSji = 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 '•ฐZ^:- 	 	 •
— r^imiiiiiiiiii i nNiiniiii i i i ---^ — --,<--•-
:-<-! 	 ฑxti- JT-I 	 	 -O— V 	
- ~"""~j"! 	 j 	 1 	 	 	 	 " 	 ? 	 " 	
(i|H!;!!!!!;;;====M[!!iEii==iii!^ii=====i;;=i;;;
rlmrniT 1 Hrrl rniTii
-i[;-ฑ-+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:^ฑ^|- -
.................__.... 	 _j_... ....gn^f;^^^
HI [[[ [||| 1 1 [| || | || |[i||[|[|||||i ii|i||j||iffl
:•.---------::::• — ------ 	 ::::::: ฑ::: ฑZJL|:: r+fc ^ y:
	 	 , 	 ' j-.U^.ju-t-

2



3

^~i-
ฑt
-^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^-ฑr~ rฑt ^ ^*^: ฑrr :::::::::: + :: ==j=prr^:: ::
- -- — U — — - i — rr -t++ - — H- 1 1 i +-- -^ 	 	 h -i 	 \-^f-\ 	 \ 	
	 ^^--ฃ^^^4-:+- + 	 ^fr'"
'" T~"^lt| tjit "ff| -prjrj: ._:):: |:: __ :: :: :: 	 ;;;;


	 1 	 .1 	 . 	 	 _i 	 1 	 	



,_ 	 Kf-+ J 	 - -<)-

,
=iฑt fi no 	

-H-r-, 	 1— I 	 |~i 	 i—4- 	 	 ,
Nlii|iii|i|ii!lliililllilllJtlll|l
1 ^i' /
.-._ .i. 	 f... ... J-L. , 	 ^-/- 	 ::I:
^EEES;:;:;;^:::!1;;;;;;;;:::-:^;^-:::::::;;
„__, 	 .ฃฃ_ 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^EEEฑ|5:j:::ฑi
X 1


/ ' _l_ _j_j_ '
ป 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.
—
{••-
ฑ17--
) ' --
„.,

1 	 ^-T—


^m



' '



--



— '-
"


-*-h-
^n^
i M i
, U!
*ฃ

-i-l-^-r
rtjฑ
tnt


94





ฑTp
1 r
TTT





---



..._








_ir:

-
--
2






-L



~

a-
*-
_-
-
c -


• f




-rr
ฑ-


"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 *
ฑrr^
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
iฑ^-ฑ^1^i^fttfr| 	 ^ff::::
o -84 — :isr~"ii ~~'? i "
_^ 	 , 	 1 	 ,_|_| 	 ?<4-J 	 -J-4-j •
	 : 	 — ฃ----'- ::::::::: ~~~;: ::::: :
— i 	 H ~" ^* 	 	 ' 	 	 	 j
2iฑ::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|uฑLU-ij-.^.Lj_-. L ,1 i..ia
Wfl 	 	 i 	
^*5tฑ-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

Tฑ=
_; :_
	








--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^





=rฑt
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
ฑb=ฑf











-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-
T7:7ง:
"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-
-
-




~ป
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-

=ttฑ

^



- h
4
^
r=7ฃL
^

^


••j 1 i i

jll|
-*—



1 • r I
rrr
^T^

r^ฑ











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
ฑ   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

=tฑ
T!^-



ION
	



- - •

9-+;












i — r






3T
----- — --









= ฑ^
-:^
-
^

^
'--












- + -P
Tr

] -





"' — i — ' — t~~f~


— -






^^
T












-I— t_j-
-i^4l

*



^_ป.^

— r+r

ittti

1f
Uf
~f-i3


1
1 1
'
-Hfiฑ
1 • i


'
fl^*
•'frit

T-
U
1 i

l
	 . — ,_.

._!_ -U-L. i-w .
4 	 ^z:-
*" 	 ^TTTt^7^ ~
..._ '<>
11 : i ' ' i ' ^
yi
^*^^^-
-ฑ^-^H:
ปP- • ' 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 (> 38ฐ NORTH) 	 ('L 	
: C = 7.00 x. I06 Q >-43 -~-^^ ."::::::;!:!!:::::::
-< 	 h~^~~^ 	 Iff 	 rT 	 	 X-T-: ::::::::: = - = ::::
-^-^qii^l: 	 	 	 1 	 	
; i ( ) . '
_j_ 	 !ฃ_ 	 	 .... ^ 	 	 	 	
_^^!__LT 	 ฑT_ 	 T 	 fl 	 {> 	 .,,( 	
y
i "r ^ i
I illl jl iMl tf JlltH 1 ffl
; / s
'" f O t V ^
< ) f *> ' S
=^::::::::i:::;:::::;E;:;i!;: ::::ซ!!ฃ;:::::::; ::::::::::;:;::::
i ฐ — ' "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-
: (< 38ฐ NORTH) ::::::::::;::::::::::::; _:;:::;
|05 Q.8I :EEEE::::::.EEEEEEE = :i::ii:E=EEEE::
:::::::::::::::;— :::::::: :::::::::::i::rni:::::zฑ::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 ฐ6
O 0.5
_l 0.4
O ฐ3
|_
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^:ฑ::=5ฑ^::: ::::: — ==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^..ฑ_|_
: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-ฐ , 	 	 , 	 ^ ..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_
ฃ.
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:::^ฑi:+^

FLOW i ! ' M
:^ฑr-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
-+ฑฑ^n$w:-^yr'-^--
u:ฑ + ~ 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
::: :: _!ฃ 	 |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:.ฑ -:;;:: ^^^-i-T-I 35lH —
3;tTfฑEE^JE-EEE5E^2 —
c^c;#$t— ^===— ir=3 — ^
^ tit rf • i T ~" — '^ — PTI" T1"^'^ ~^
atf'^"ฑ+^^^-%^^
..,(... 	 __^_..^r!jll. (r
' •k i . ;
^ ! /1\ 1 '
j=======ฑ=4=tNl=*E=y^i
I 1
::4 C 9.90 * I05 A Q L3ฐ
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_. !ฃ.ฃ+; .. "* ""
,' / ' ~ r -
	 --a--*'-^'- 	 	 ""T'+pTTttr~^"r"^~
-- 	 ~/~/ 	 — *~^~ — ^i~"'{~4^ — ' — ^ +
_ 	 )'-'7^ 	 •- 	 "- 	 	 — lr"tT^ — ^~T^



-- 	 -' — i 	 1-
~ 	 DATA POINTS — O t"1"1"
| 1 ' •
_l_
!
:::::::: :::::"^::::"~"":::::::4™|:gi|::ฑ

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.
ฐ 10.0
(0 90
ฑ 8.0
o H
— 6.0
J "
2 4'ฐ
Z 3-0
ฃ 20
o
o
UJ
Q 1.0
< 0.9
(E 0.8
0 ฐ7
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^5ฑ
- 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
*Cฑtfฑ:
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
ฐ
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
>ฃ 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:ฃ
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—
^ปsb
L/
>P

Hi i/l
fH-'-J^H-


I1 j 	
/I '

.:-:^
i^
Sipf


^ ' ซ|
-- ,4-
-H-H-

1 ill
'Iff
-+- rt

TrFF

;_;rr
Tl-^l




t44
4ฃi
p

|Ff

HI

1 1 '

~-[-ft
iii"




4^
ii



^rr
a*!..
-H
ซ-
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- ฑ-:Ei;:;;iil! 	 :-Ls
^ iir* j ป' + + " 	
'"ill 1 _yafT 1 	 N
: '("i""t~i! J ~rff 	 " ^
/' I i D
JJ 	 :'..... _ {]_ 	 	 ฃ|
^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 105Qฐ*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 104Qฐ'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 104Qฐ'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  105Qฐ'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'ฐ
d
o
Q
1.0
**- 09
O 0.8
ป s
O 0.5
-j 0.4
i o?,
z
— 0.2
t-
co
o
o
CO Ol
CO ฐ09
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
-•-ฉ
>-




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




= = = = nฑ::: :::::::- Z ::

... .,!....
j - ^- -L-

' T
, ' •ป
/ "


	 J_ ...j-t 	
--"-:::::::::::--"
	 	 	 	



"I'll TITTTT 'I 1 1 1 1 ' 1 — ' — i ' ' i ' ' ' '



""-•|-^i??-
Eiซ;jlEEEEEi^

_ -Jปi, ,i... _2 	 —



._: 	 : ^


/ซ












*
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

Tฑ^

^-
	 	

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
                                                                                           ฉT
                                                                     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-ฐ 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 ~ฑT~tT"f IT'I 	 1 	 	 ""
ti, I.O — I-T-! 	 :::-t 	 "r::ฑ::: ::::; — =::::: 	 :::::: ::::::::: ::
o 0.9 -i — -r—1-^ 	 -TT 	 ^ 	 - 	 	 ::::-:::::: :
ฐ-8 i mirmntt i Li
en 0.7 	 	 il 	 — : 	 -.-----.-it---.--......... ..
Q ฐ6 = NO LINE CALCULATED ::::::: i:
_j ฐ'5 - DATA STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT ::::::: =
_i 0.4 i mil mi m ill mi nil I ill I i I I iiiiiii 	 -
2 0.3 ==|:™;|:;;;;;;:::==::::;;;; :ซ:===;:==ซ:====:;;|;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 -----rEฑt:|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-rฑ
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|ฑlffljtLr:^
1 ! ' r T~t~~|~ 1 — Tf "1 — r" '
r




NO LINE CALC
DATA STATISTIC













::|ง|::::::
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 -

:::ฑ:::::::::: ~ + t


|::::|::::::|||-



	 :jE:: ::::: 	 :::;
?J 	 j--. 	







:::;::;:::::::, J^:|


xฑ 	 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
ฉ
Q

U.
ฉ

en

O

_j
_j

i
ฉ
O

en
en
UJ
O
ฉ
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 -3ฑ— 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. -:-•:—--:::::::::.-----*
: . : : : ::/ : :: :—:ป::::::: :_:::
- -_ --.:-. -•::; - 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:- = = = = -ฃ = --;::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







^














— ป = :; 	 -• 	 	

. 	 	 	 ^
	 	 	 2 	
2
- ---g1 	 	






% 	 	






	 :- Fl




	 .,( 	
_-:::-2! :::::::::
	 ^ 	
^















GURE 6.32
:::::::::::::::ฃ-
	 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 	 ~ ~ฑ; 	 	 	 	 --.
^*- - — i — • "• 	



S--| 	 	 ^-|f.. ....J-- 	 	 ,S,.,. .........
i_ i f
::::i::::: 	 __ ^ ;••;•
	 	 ^^r_T 	 - -- ^ __ __ 	
= 	 	 	 ITT-1 	 ---o---g= :::::::::;::::::::::
/
-I--— 	 	 __ฃ?___ -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 ฑ 3z T S -
:::::::::: :::::V|C ::::::::::: ^T.xdl^ :: =_.- xj.
- -.-.--.-.:•.-.:•. -----if. -----.-.-.-".-.-.-.-. :-^:qฑf:: ::i^tl
::::::::::: =::::i! :::::::::::::::' ::Stm :: :'HTJ-ฑ.r
- 	 "--/ 	 	 ^hdqi:: :-t + -:

' | r ~T
~""\"\\.. 	 :::: 	 : ::::::::::~+ฑ::j: :: ::ฑ~~ฑ^
:::-;:::::::~::::::-z~::::::::::::::::::::::|::::~p|

?:::::::::. ,__jj.... :.::::::: 	 — iฑt 	 --tฑ
-o 	 	 5ฑ"-^4:T"
:::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::j



	 	 — ^--ฑ 	 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 	 --:::ฑ-:: :::::--:::::: 	 :::::::::::::

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 — ง::- 	 ~ 	 	 ---.-.-.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::::|^|:+{::: |ฑTฑ


!:!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 	 ฃ'=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^:ฑrฑ-'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:::::.ฑr.
::EE^EEEE;:::::pi|:|::;:lฑ
::^|::::::|:::ฑfett!:::ht^
.„ 	 r..^.j..^__-^...4^_
E:EiEEEEEEE;;;EE;;;;EEE|i;;;!;;Ef:Ep
i I'll ^j-f
	 _L 	 |J_ _ . 	 (•-
::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::ฑ::::.ฑ^
::in:::::::::|:::::.:::::p:::^
:: ::::::::::::!:: :::::::::::::iiฑ
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*
; , | \/\ ฃ
V* 'rr"ji . '_ _ฃ:::; _.:: c =
*^-^^T^^f:::-:^^:: —=::::::::::::::



L
	 1 1 1 1 	 i 	 .,,,... 	
--- 	 	 En"1"*""'
	 -^r 	 +ฑp- FIGU
-r- 	 T1-" -1 	 ;~r ' 1 -


jf X I
	 	 • -? 	 ,{ 	 fฑ — iti^i— '- —-

it* ' '

-j-j-ปj !--- 	 -i 	 ^++Htttr W^^~
"V — 	 — j^ i IT "ill >}'ป "
1 1 i i •
t ' 1 • : i 'I

I=:!^::::::-E=!!;:;==|ง!||^
-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 '-ฐ0 	
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
. 3ฃ
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
— 	 	 ..' •[-' ,ฑfej^^:j: --"ฃ:: 	 -----
- ._;•: :- IT. -i-M- :-]::+:::f :::::" + ::t- T^::::::
- 	 -----;---• :r^||:}:d::pi::::::::ฑฑฑ::-ฑ:ฑ 	
, -. ; , 	 ,t '• 1- 4-fji - <->-[-l-| I I I if - - 1 	 i- -| 	 1— i 	
L" ^ Wil r 1 Ml
i,,,-, , ^'
-^-4E:E^-Eฑ5;EE|EEEEEEEEE;;;EE -;=EEE^-?2— ;EEE;
-r, r—-^--^-----f •-----•-'•-• '•'••• —------.-.ฃ- 	 =--
h;4gEI|M III ||l|j]t[[[ 1 1 1 IB
jTl ilj 	 -?d-.,!.: 	 --- 	 _-__.--..
i ' | ~--tr1-' -1 	 ;'' --;' 	 1--- 	 	
:jฑT^fe:.:::::4-::::: ::::::::m:::::::
1 - \ ft
FM:TTFT'I In Lrf
^-rii:ฑ: ::::::::::::::: -::::::: ~::::::2-?z":r:;
E^IEEE;!;;;;; EEEE;E= E^EJซE;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 :: 	 ซ•* 	 ^™tj-' FIGURE
•^ 	 	 r- i 	 f|f-i~---! — 	 H 	 H— 4-
	 - 	 --:-j'---zc~":^: "iTSt-j- - , "K
::-.:•• —:: ;i!::;i:!: ==:::::: 	 =:>! = j: Tpr Jjj-J-MJ-ttT
•l^ปffฉT
..-.,,! e 	 	 ฑฑ-_.. / _^^^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 • -ฅ^--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
ฃ 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\
•ฃ
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
^ฃTrff3ff::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 I030L2ฐ -- 	
5. EQUIPMENT C= .45x I04Q'89 ;;::::::
1. CONCRETE C= .8 x I0401'06 iS :--/„
'i 1 ''
> ^ i i i , ^ ^
_j 	 E-^f1 	 ฑ- 	 	 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':-ฑ-"ฑ;^-~::4::::i
' i ' /^ ,/ r
|^^|^:|-::|=z::::;!i~:::::ฑ::
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:ฑ 	 zฑ=_ = 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|
ฑ ! 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 +ฑ
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--ฃTJ — '
K 4--4 -f ----1 	 	 -ฃ-4- | . ' i -H F 1 (5 1 1
T^ r - -i • - 4 -H — i- -i 	 I-H — h — j riou

| H| ::::: ฑ ^ ฑ :: JEt!^ =t*t* TTrr^ti — —
=;ii!IIEiii==i;;^^iฃ;ซiH
i: :::::::::: __ฑi::= _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_ _|_
	 	 ^^ฑjjT^.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~
........... ----....--..,-.ฑ.ฑ4^^^.
	 	 — | 	 	 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;'--ฃHEpi-
	 -^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 \ฑ\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 ~:'-ฃfeErt ^EQUIPMENT.
^:^ฑฑSEE 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
ฑฑtฑ
->-M4
	 H-1-
€
-3^7
-1-4-^
i i f-t
y
qJT
•M^-
-K-H-
r-l—
--H -
ป.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-ฐ
o
o
It

o i.o
in ฐ-9
^ 0.8
O 7
O
fi ฐ'6
_| 0.5
5 0.4
Z 0.3
O ฐ"*
o
t-
z
HJ 0.1
O 0.08


5 0.06
8 ฐ-ฐ5
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-ฑrtifrฑ-4:ttฑtH-- - 	 	 """ \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+itiiฑjiiฑtrtiti-^^-
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
ฐ- 0.006

o ฐ005
ฐ 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|~|:::: 	 =::ฃ 	 &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--ฑi| ^t — -=trr -7-Tฑrr —
;:::;;;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-ฑrt:^liii.--:- ~. .
::;;:E"E: ::::::;;;: zz -- ,, ::^^ = -E z^ 5- ฑtt| E^ฑฑ ^- 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 ::::ง:|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
   ซ5 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
ฑ  .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 38ฐ N.  LATITUDE

                                                               WARM CLIMATE-FACILITIES SOUTH
                                                                  OF 38ฐ 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

-------