EPA-430/9-75-003
TECHNICAL REPORT
COSTS OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT BY LAND
APPLICATION
June 1976
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Program Operations
Washington, D.C.20460
MCD-10
-------
March 8, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR USERS OF THIS REPORT
PLEASE TAKE NOTE
For all Stage I curves using effective
flow (Figures 7 through 13), do not use the
curve for amortized capital cost. Instead,
calculate the amortized cost from the capital
cost using the appropriate capital recovery
factor. For these same figures (7-13), the
operation and maintenance cost should be
determined using the average annual flow, not
the effective flow as shown.
BelfordL. Seabrook
Project Officer
NOTE
This Technical Report supplements the Technical
Bulletin entitled, EVALUATION OF LAND APPLICATION
SYSTEMS, March 1975, No. EPA-430/9-75-001, and
should be used in conjunction with the EVALUATION
manual.
Additional cost comparison data is presented in the
Technical Report, COST-EFFECTIVE COMPARISON OF LAND
APPLICATION AND ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT,
November 1975, No. EPA-430/9-75-016.
Methods of estimating costs and evaluating the cost-
effectiveness of conventional wastewater treatment
works were developed in a separate document entitled,
A Guide to the Selection of COST-EFFECTIVE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT SYSTEMS, NO. EPA-430/9-75-002, which became
available July 1975.
-------
EPA-430/9-75-003
TECHNICAL REPORT
COSTS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT BY LAND APPLICATION
BY
CHARLES E. POUND
RONALD W. CRITES
DOUGLAS A. GRIPPES
CONTRACT NO. 68-01-0966
PROJECT OFFICER. P.E.
BELFORD L. SEABROOK
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUNE, 1975
PREPARED FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
Cost information for two stages of planning is presented
for alternative land application systems: (1) preliminary
cost screening and (2) detailed cost estimates. Cost
categories include land, preapplication treatment, trans-
mission, storage, land application, and recovery of
renovated water.
For preliminary screening costs (Stage I), curves are
presented relating capital, amortized, and operation and
maintenance costs to average flowrates ranging from
0.1 to 100 mgd (4.38 to 4,380 I/sec). Cost calculation
procedures and an illustrative example are included.
For detailed planning costs (Stage II), curves, tables,
and data are presented for 33 individual cost components
related to either flowrate or field area. For capital
items, total construction costs are shown, and operation
and maintenance costs are divided into labor, materials,
and power where applicable.
This report is submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract
68-01-0966 by Metcalf § Eddy, Inc., Western Regional Office,
under the sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Work was completed as of May 1975.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Section
1
Appendixes
A
B
C
D
F
G
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose 1
Scope 1
LAND APPLICATION SYSTEMS 5
Types of Systems 5
Design Components 12
Factors Other Than Cost 20
PRELIMINARY PLANNING COSTS (STAGE I) 23
Cost Components and Methodology 23
Cost Curves 29
Cost Calculations Procedures 52
Example 54
DETAILED PLANNING COSTS (STAGE II) 59
Cost Components and Methodology 59
Cost Curves 65
Additional Costs 120
Benefits 122
Cost Calculation Procedure 123
Example 127
REVENUE-PRODUCING BENEFITS 135
NONREVENUE-PRODUCING BENEFITS 137
REFERENCES 139
EPA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT AND
SEWER CONSTRUCTION COST INDEXES 145
PRESENT WORTH AND CAPITAL
RECOVERY FACTORS 147
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS GUIDELINES 149
GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS,
AND CONVERSION FACTORS 151
-------
FIGURES
No.
1 Methods of Land Application 6
2 Relationship of Stage I Cost Curves 24
3 Total Land Requirement 26
STAGE I COST CURVES
4 Transmission - Conveyance 33
5 Transmission - Pumping 35
6 Storage 37
7 Application Systems - Spray Irrigation,
Solid Set (Buried), Crops 39
8 Application Systems - Spray Irrigation,
Solid Set (Buried), Woodlands 4i
9 Application Systems - Spray Irrigation,
Center Pivot 43
10 Application Systems - Surface Irrigation 45
11 Application Systems - Overland Flow 47
12 Application Systems - Infiltration-
Percolation, Basins 4y
13 Recovery of Renovated Water - Underdrains 51
14 Relationship of Stage II Cost Curves 61
15 Field Area Requirement 63
STAGE II COST CURVES
16 Preapplication Treatment - Aerated Lagoons 69
17 Preapplication Treatment - Chlorination 71
18 Transmission - Gravity Pipe 73
19 Transmission - Open Channels 75
20 Transmission - Force Mains 77
21 Transmission - Effluent Pumping 79
22 Storage (0.05-10 Million Gallons) 81
23 Storage (10-5,000 Million Gallons) 83
24 Field Preparation - Site Clearing 85
25 Field Preparation - Land Leveling
for Surface Irrigation 87
VI
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
No. Page
26 Field Preparation - Overland Flow
Terrace Construction 89
27 Distribution - Solid Set Spraying (Buried) 91
28 Distribution - Center Pivot Spraying 93
29 Distribution - Surface Flooding
Using Border Strips 95
30 Distribution - Ridge and Furrow Application 97
31 Distribution - Overland Flow 99
32 Distribution - Infiltration Basins 101
33 Distribution - Distribution Pumping 103
34 Recovery of Renovated Water - Underdrains 105
35 Recovery of Renovated Water - Tailwater Return 107
36 Recovery of Renovated Water - Runoff Collection 109
37 Recovery of Renovated Water - Chlorination
and Discharge 111
38 Recovery of Renovated Water - Recovery Wells 113
39 Additional Costs - Administrative and
Laboratory Facilities 115
40 Additional Costs - Monitoring Wells 117
41 Additional Costs - Service Roads and Fencing 119
VII
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Comparative Characteristics of Irrigation,
Infiltration-Percolation, and Overland Flow
Systems for Municipal Wastewater 7
2 List of Stage I Cost Components 25
3 Sample Stage I Cost Calculation Sheet 53
4 Example of Completed Stage I Cost
Calculation Sheet 58
5 List of Stage II Cost Components 60
6 Sample Costs to Produce Crops in California 121
7 Typical Yields and Prices for Crops in
California for 1973 123
8 Sample Stage II Cost Calculation Sheet
for Capital Costs 124
9 Sample Stage II Cost Calculation Sheet
for Operation and Maintenance Costs 125
10 Example of Completed Stage II Cost
Calculation Sheet for Capital Costs 132
11 Example of Completed Stage II Cost Calculation
Sheet for Operation and Maintenance Costs 133
D-l Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index 145
D-2 Sewer Construction Cost Index 146
E-l Present Worth Factors 147
E-2 Capital Recovery Factors 148
Vlll
-------
PARTICIPANTS
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Mr. Belford L. Seabrook
TECHNICAL REVIEW: Inter-Agency Soil Treatment Systems
Work Group
EPA Members
Richard E. Thomas, OR£D (Chairman), Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma
Belford L. Seabrook, Office of Water Program Operations,
Washington, D.C.
Darwin R. Wright, OR§D, Municipal Pollution Control
Division, Washington, D.C.
G. Kenneth Dotson, National Environmental Research
Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
Stuart C. Peterson, Region I, Boston
Daniel J. Kraft, Region II, New York
W. L. Carter, J. Potosnak, Region III, Philadelphia
Russell Wright, Region IV, Atlanta
Eugene I. Chaiken, Region V, Chicago
Richard G. Hoppers, Region VI,.Dallas
Jay Zimmerman, Region VII, Kansas City
Roger Dean, Region VIII, Denver
Lewis G. Porteous, Region IX, San Francisco
Norman Sievertson, Region X, Seattle
Other Members
Charles E. Pound Eliot Epstein, USDA
Metcalf § Eddy, Inc. Beltsville, Maryland
Palo Alto, California
Sherwood C. Reed, CRREL George L. Braude, FDA
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington, D.C.
Hanover, New Hampshire
William E. Larson, USDA Jack C. Taylor, FDA
University of Minnesota Rockville, Maryland
St. Paul, Minnesota
CONTRACTOR: Metcalf § Eddy, Inc., Palo Alto, California
Supervision: Franklin L. Burton, Chief Engineer
Authors: Charles E. Pound, Project Manager
Ronald W. Crites, Project Engineer
Douglas A. Griffes
Consultant: Dr. George Tchobanoglous,
University of California, Davis
IX
-------
Section 1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to aid the planner and engineer in
evaluating the monetary costs and benefits of alternative 1 and
application systems for municipal wastewater effluents so that they
may be compared in a cost-effectiveness analysis. Procedures docu-
mented in the EPA Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines (40 CFR 35 -
Appendix A), which are presented as Appendix F of this report, include
requirements to evaluate project costs and benefits in monetary terms
where possible and to account for nonmonetary social and environmental
factors in descriptive terms. The Technical Bulletin "Evaluation of
Land Application Systems", [17] covers these important factors. The
Guidelines state that "the most cost-effective alternative shall be
the waste treatment management system determined from the analysis to
have the lowert present worth and/or equivalent annual value without
overriding adverse nonmonetary costs." The Guidelines further states
that the selected alternative shall "realize at least identifical
minimum benefits in terms of applicable Federal, State, and local
standards for effluent quality, water quality, water reuse and/or land
and subsurface disposal."
SCOPE
Cost curves, tables and other data are presented for estimating capital
and operation and maintenance costs for land application systems. In-
formation is provided on revenue-producing benefits in Appendix A and
nonrevenue-producing benefits in Appendix B. Cost information is pre-
sented for two stages of planning that require differing degrees of
detail and accuracy. The two stages correspond to alternative evalua-
tion procedures identified in Guidance for Preparing Facility Plans
[21], preliminary planning cost (Stage I) for screening of alternatives;
and detailed planning costs (Stage II) for detailed evaluation of the
most feasible alternatives.
Preliminary Planning Costs (Stage I)
Cost information for preliminary screening of alternatives to determine
which systems have cost-effective potential is presented in Section 3.
A minimum amount of site information is required to use this information.
It is expected that the information would be used for preliminary
evaluations, as indicated in paragraph c(3) of the Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis Guidelines, by planners and engineers
-------
when an accuracy of approximately 30 percent is sufficient.
It should be noted, however, that for conditions unfavor-
able to land application, Stage I cost estimates may vary
by as much as 50 percent from actual costs.
Detailed Planning Costs (Stage II)
This stage of cost estimation corresponds to paragraph f of
the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Guidelines. Alternatives
that have been screened for cost-effective potential and
ability to meet federal, state, and local criteria would
require economic evaluations based on preliminary designs.
Detailed planning costs for this purpose are included in
Section 4. It is expected that the accuracy of Stage II
information would be within about 15 percent of actual costs
Because of the uniqueness of land application systems,
however, the engineer making the estimate will usually need
to modify the Stage II information to reflect local
conditions in preparing the cost-effectiveness analysis.
Limitations
The cost data cover average plant flowrates between 0.1 and
100 mgd (4.38 to 4,380 I/sec), although they are more
applicable for flowrates between 0.5 and 50 mgd (21.9 to
2,190 I/sec). Systems with flowrates above or below these
ranges generally require special cost considerations. The
types of land application systems identified in Section 2
include irrigation, infiltration-percolation, and overland
flow. Other systems, such as subsurface leach fields or
deep well disposal, are not included.
With the current level of interest in land application, it
is expected that new types of systems and methods of
application will be developed and will appear in use. To
reflect anticipated changes and improvements, the cost
data presented in this report should be revised and
updated periodically.
Basis of Costs
All cost data given are for a base date of February 1973
and should be updated to reflect current costs by means
of cost indexes. Recommended methods and cost indexes for
use in updating the base costs are given in both Sections 3
and 4. Amortized capital costs, which are given in Sec-
tions 3, are based on an interest rate of 5-5/8 percent and
a period of 20 years.
The costs given in this publication were derived from a
variety of sources. Those in Section 3 (Stage I) were
-------
derived directly from those in Section 4 (Stage II), which
were, in turn, derived from a combination of:
Previously published information
Surveys of existing facilities
Consultation with contractors
Cost calculations based on typical preliminary
designs
For the most part, however, the costs were predominantly
built up from typical preliminary designs since very few
actual construction cost data are available for existing
land application systems. It is hoped that actual costs
can be used to a greater degree in future revisions of
this report as more data become available.
-------
SECTION 2
LAND APPLICATION SYSTEMS
To provide a background for the development of costs in
Sections 3 and 4, three basic concepts of land application
will be described:
Types of systems
Design components
Factors other than cost
TYPES OF SYSTEMS
Although there is a wide variety of land application
systems, they can generally be classified as (1) irrigation,
(2) infiltration-percolation, and (3) overland flow. These
three methods are shown schematically in Figure 1, and com-
parative characteristics are given in Table 1. In the text
that follows, each method will be discussed briefly, with
emphasis on the ranges of site characteristics and typical
loading rates.
Irrigation
Irrigation involves applying wastewater to the land, by
spraying or surface spreading, to support plant growth and
treat the wastewater. This method is the most popular of
land application techniques and is generally the most
reliable.
Treatment is accomplished by a combination of physical,
chemical, and biological means as the applied wastewater
seeps into the soil. Systems may be designed for the
following purposes: (1) to avoid surface discharge of
nutrients; (2) to obtain economic return from the use of
water and nutrients by producing marketable crops; (3) to
conserve water by exchange when lawns, parks, or golf
courses are irrigated; or (4) to preserve and enlarge
greenbelts and open space.
Preapplication treatment is provided for most irrigation
systems, and a wide range of treatment requirements are
encountered. The bacteriological quality of municipal
wastewater is usually limiting where food crops or land-
scape areas are to be irrigated, or where aerosol generation
by sprinkling is of concern. In other cases, reductions in
BOD and suspended solids may be necessary to prevent clog-
ging of the distribution system, or to preclude odor problems
-------
EVAPORATION
SPRAY OR
SURFACE
APPLICATION
ROOT ZONE
SUBSOIL
(a) IRRIGATION
SLOPE
VARIABLE
DEEP
PERCOLATION
EVAPORATION
SPRAY OR
SURFACE APPLICATION
v'TTo-'-'V
; ZONE
01
.':':'..
: Al
-". '.'/
.'-.'-.'''
RATI
ON
;.-. AND TREATMENT
;..:. ';.'.;,.- :'". '.''V^B ^j-LAjJfJ
^;^'\\;-':-V^-'v^^^V s^^Kl^
:'-' :: v' >:!.':;/ ;v.:/!>>' 'iS=T%-E3r;'S'
PERCOLATION THROUGH
UNSATURATED ZONE
(b) INFILTRATION-PERCOLATION
ORIGINAL WATER
TABLE
EVAPORATION
SPRAY APPLICATION
SLOPE 2-4*
GRASS AND VEGETATIVE LITTER
SHEET FLOW
/RUNOFF
t,. COLLECTION
(c) OVERLAND FLOW
FIGURE 1. METHODS OF LAND APPLICATION
-------
Table 1. COMPARATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF
IRRIGATION, INFILTRATION-PERCOLATION, AND
OVERLAND FLOW SYSTEMS FOR MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
Factor
Liquid loading
rate, in./wk
Annual
application, ft/yr
Land required for
1-ngd flowrate,
acres*
Application
techniques
Vegetation
required
Crop production
Soils
Irrigation
Low-rate High-rate
O.S to l.S 1.5 to 4.0
2 to 4 4 to 18
280 to 560 62 to 280
Spray or surface
Yes Yes
Excellent Good/fair
Moderately permeable
Infiltration-percolation
4 to 120
18 to 500
2 to 62
Usually surface
No
Poor/none
Rapidly permeable soils,
Overland flow
2 to 9
8 to 40
28 to 140
Usually spray
Yes
Fair/poor
Slowly permeable soils,
soils with good produc*
tivity when irrigated
Climatic constraints Storage often needed
Wastewatcr lost to:
Evaporation and
percolation
such as sands, loamy
sands, and sandy loams
Reduce loadings in
freezing weather
Percolation
such as clay loams and
clays
Storage often needed
Surface runoff and
evaporation with some
percolation
Expected treatment
performance
EOD and SS removal 98+4
Nitrogen removal 85+ta
Phosphorus removal 80 to 994
85 to 994
0 to 50t
60 to 954
9ZH
70 to 90*
40 to 804
a. Dependent on crop uptake.
Metric conversion:
in. x 2.54 - cm
ft x 0.305 = m
acre x 0.40S ha
-------
Site Characteristics. The range of suitable site character-
istics for irrigation systems is also wide. The major
criteria are as follows:
Climate Warm-to-arid climates permit longer
season application, but more severe climates are
acceptable if adequate storage is provided for wet
or freezing conditions.
Topography Slopes up to 15 percent for crop
irrigation are acceptable if runoff or erosion
is controlled.
Soil type Loamy soils are preferable, but most
soils from sandy loams to clay loams are suitable.
Soil drainage Well-drained soil is preferable;
however, more poorly drained soils may be suitable
if drainage features are included in the design.
Soil depth A uniform depth of 5 to 6 feet (1.52
to 1.83 m) or more throughout sites is usually
necessary for root development and wastewater
renovation.
Geologic formations Lack of discontinuities that
provide short circuits to the groundwater is
necessary.
Groundwater A minimum depth of 5 feet (1.52m) to
groundwater is normally necessary to maintain
aerobic conditions, provide necessary renovation,
and prevent surface waterlogging. Control may be
obtained by underdrains or groundwater pumping.
Loading Rates. The liquid and nitrogen loading rates are
usually the most important for irrigation systems, and in
most cases, one of the two will prove to be limiting.
Occasionally, however, other loading rates, such as phos-
phorus and organic matter, or loadings of constituents of
abnormally high concentration, may be more critical. To
determine the limiting loading rate, balances should be
be conducted both for water and for constituents of concern,
as shown in Evaluation of Land Application Systems [17].
In conducting the water balance, the following factors
are considered:
Wastewater applied
Precipitation
-------
Evapotranspiration
Percolation
Runoff
The key is to balance, on a monthly or annual basis, the
water applied (effluent plus precipitation) with the water
losses (evaporation and percolation). Runoff must usually
be controlled for irrigation systems. Precipitation and
evaporation are determined from an analysis of weather
records. Percolation rates used in the design should be
determined on the basis of a number of factors, including
soil characteristics, underlying geological conditions,
groundwater conditions, wastewater characteristics, degree
of renovation required, and crop tolerances. In addition
to determining the liquid loading rate, the water balance
can be used to determine storage requirements. As can be
seen in Table 1, the range of liquid loading rates differs
for low-rate and high-rate irrigation. Low-rate irrigation
systems are normally operated to maximize crop yields, and
water is normally applied only during the growing season,
and only in quantities required to meet the growth needs
of plants. Consequently, very little percolation occurs.
On the other hand, high-rate systems are normally operated
to optimize the economic treatment of applied wastewater.
In this case, the liquid loading is controlled by either
hydraulic limitations of the soil or by limiting loading
rates of constituents such as nitrogen. With regard to
hydraulic limitations, deep sandy or loamy soils usually
are not a problem while clayey soils or shallow soil
profiles may require application rates of 1.5 in./wk (3.6
cm/wk.) or less.
In conducting the mass balance for nitrogen, the amount of
nitrogen applied in the wastewater per year is compared to
the amount taken up by a particular crop, and the amount
that passes through to the groundwater. Denitrification
may amount to 10 to 30 percent of the nitrogen remaining
after crop uptake. The amount of nitrogen taken up by crops
can be determined from a number of references, including
Reference 17. Typical values are about 150 Ib/acre/yr
(168 kg/ha/yr) for corn and 230 to 400 Ib/acre/yr (258 to
443 kg/ha/yr) for Reed canary grass. Allowable amounts of
nitrogen passing through to the groundwater can be deter-
mined from applicable groundwater standards. The amount of
nitrogen applied in the wastewater is a function of concen-
tration and liquid loading rate.
Once the limiting loading rate has been determined, weekly
application rates can be calculated over the yearly
-------
operating season. Also, the land requirements can be
calculated as shown in Sections 3 and 4.
Infiltration-Percolation
In this method, wastewater is applied to the soil by
spreading in basins or by spraying and is treated as it
travels through the soil matrix. Vegetation is generally
not used although grass is grown in some cases. Preappli-
cation treatment is generally provided to reduce the sus-
pended solids content and thereby allow the continuation
of high application rates. Biological treatment is often
provided prior to spreading or ponding although effluent
with only primary treatment has also been used.
Site Characteristics. Because most of the applied effluent
percolates through the soil, soil drainage is usually the
limiting site characteristic. Other site evaluation cri-
teria include:
Climate - Infiltration-percolation is applicable
in nearly all climates. Loadings may need to be
reduced for cold weather conditions.
Topography Level terrain is preferable, but
rolling terrain is acceptable.
Soil type Acceptable soils include sand, sandy
loams, loamy sands, and gravels. Soils that are
too coarse provide insufficient renovation.
Soil drainage Moderate-to-rapid drainage is
preferable.
Soil depth - A uniform depth of 10 to 15 feet (3.1
to 4.6 m) is preferred.
Geologic formations Lack of discontinuities is
necessary.
Groundwater A minimum depth of 15 feet (4.6 m) to
the existing water table is necessary; it is not
allowed to rise to less than 4 feet (1.2 m) from
the ground surface. Control by underdrains may be
required.
Loading Rates and Land Requirements. Depending on waste-
water characteristics and water quality objectives, loadings
of nitrogen, phosphorus, organic, or trace elements may
be critical. Although liquid or nitrogen loading is most
10
-------
often limiting, loadings of salt as a result of weathering
and soil lime dissolution may be critical in some cases.
Loading schedules that include alternating loading and
resting periods are required to maintain the infiltration
capability of the soil surface and to promote optimum
nitrogen removal by nitrification-denitrification.
The water balance is similar to that for irrigation, except
that greater amounts of water are lost to percolation.
Again, runoff is usually not designed into these systems.
The limiting percolation rate should be estimated for
saturated soil and adverse climatic conditions. Loading
rates of less than 12 in./wk (30.5 cm/wk) are generally
required for loams and sandy loams, while higher loading
rates usually require the soil to be predominantly sand
or gravel.
Where concentrations of nitrogen in either the groundwater
or recovered renovated water are limiting, the loading rates
and the loading schedule must be selected to maximize
denitrification. Some guidance for the determination of
the proper loading rates for this purpose is provided in
Reference 17 and in papers by Lance [26] and Bouwer [5].
Overland Flow
In this method, wastewater is applied on the upper reaches
of sloped terraces of relatively impermeable soils and
allowed to flow across the vegetated surface to runoff
collection ditches. Renovation is accomplished by physical,
chemical, and biological means as the wastewater flows in
a sheet through the vegetation and litter. Preapplication
treatment should include removal of large solids, grit,
and grease which would hamper effective application by
sprinkling. Where preapplication treatment includes
complete secondary treatment, overland flow can be used
for polishing of the effluent and removal of constituents
such as nitrogen. The renovation noted in Table 1 has been
shown for domestic as well as food processing wastewaters.
For domestic wastewater that is not adequately disinfected
prior to overland flow treatment, disinfection of the
collected runoff may be necessary.
Site Characteristics. Important site characteristics include
Climate - Warm climates are preferable, but more
severe climates are acceptable if adequate storage
is provided for freezing conditions.
11
-------
Topography Rolling terrain is well suited;
level terrain can be used to create uniform
slopes of 2 to 6 percent, and in some cases
as high as 8 percent.
Soil type Clays and clay loams are preferable.
Soil drainage Poor or slow drainage is necessary.
Soil depth Depth must be sufficient to form
slopes and maintain vegetative cover.
Geologic formations Lack of major discontinuities
is necessary.
Groundwater Groundwater should not interfere with
plant growth.
Loading Rates. Typical loading rates range from 0.25 to
0.75 in./day (0.64 to 1.78 cm/day) for systems applying
primary treated wastewater to as high as 0.90 in./day
(2.30 cm/day) for systems applying secondary effluent.
The water balance should be conducted mainly to determine
the amount of expected runoff. The effluent applied plus
precipitation should balance the runoff plus evaporation,
with a 10 to 30 percent allowance for percolation.
The loading rates mentioned apply to the entire terraced
area, which may be composed of 50 to 100 feet (15.2 to
30.5 m) of terrace under the spray diameter, plus 100 to
200 feet (30.5 to 61.0 m) of runoff slope. The required
length of runoff terrace will depend on the degree of
treatment required, wastewater characteristics, amount of
slope, and climate.
DESIGN COMPONENTS
Typically, land application systems are composed of a
number of distinct components from the following list of
major component categories:
Preapplication treatment
Transmission
Storage
Distribution
Recovery of renovated water
12
-------
The design of land application systems is highly variable
and is dependent on many factors relating to site charac-
teristics and project objectives. Some of the major design
variables are discussed briefly in the following subsec-
tions. Additional references [17, 40] should be consulted
for more detailed information.
Preapplication Treatment
The type and level of preapplication treatment will have a
significant effect on factors such as:
The loading rate of various constituents
The methods of application to be used
The type of crop or vegetative cover to be grown
Many states have regulations concerning required levels of
preapplication treatment. Regulations for California are
included as an example in an appendix in Reference 17, and
range from requirements for primary treated wastewater for
irrigation of fodder, fiber, and seed crops, to require-
ments for adequately disinfected, oxidized, coagulated,
and filtered wastewater for spray irrigation of food crops.
Transmission
Transmission is the conveyance of wastewater from any one
portion of the system to another, and may include the con-
veyance of: (1) wastewater from the collection area to
preapplication treatment facilities, (2) treated wastewater
from treatment facilities to the land application site,
or (3) recovered renovated water from the land application
site to a discharge point. The three potential methods of
conveyance are:
Gravity pipe
Open channels
Force mains
The primary factor to be considered in the selection of
the method of conveyance is terrain. Other factors must
also be considered, however, particularly in the case of
open channels where the possibility of public contact with
the wastewater exists. Standard design criteria for each
method of conveyance should be used.
13
-------
Storage
Requirements for storage may range from 1 day of flow to
6 months of flow. The primary considerations in determin-
ing storage capacity are the local climate and the design
period of operation for the type of system; however, system
backup and flow equalization should also be considered.
Storage reservoirs may be required to have impervious
linings to eliminate percolation to the groundwater, and
asphaltic lining costs have been included in the cost
curves in both Sections 3 and 4. Adjustment factors for
other types of linings are shown in Section 4.
Distribution
Wastewater may be applied to the land by means of a variety
of distribution systems, the most basic of which are dis-
cussed in this subsection. These include:
Solid set spraying (buried)
Center pivot spraying
Surface flooding using border strips
Ridge and furrow application
Overland flow distribution
Infiltration basins
Costs are given for each system in both Sections 3 and 4.
In Section 3, however, the costs of other basic components
have been added to the cost of each basic distribution
system, and "Surface Flooding Using Border Strips" and
"Ridge and Furrow Application" have been combined into the
more general "Surface Flooding."
Solid Set Spraying (Buried). Solid set spraying using
buried pipe is used primarily for spray irrigation systems,
but it may also be used for infiltration-percolation and
overland flow systems. The use of solid set spraying for
overland flow is discussed separately in a following sub-
section. The major design variables include: sprinkler
spacing, application rate, nozzle size and pressure, depth
of buried pipe, pipe materials, and type of control system.
For more detailed information, additional references, such
as Sprinkler Irrigation [34] , should be consulted.
14
-------
Sprinkler spacing May vary from 40 to 60 feet
(12.2 by 18.3 m) to 100 by 100 feet (30.5 by 30.5 m)
and may be rectangular, square, or triangular.
Typical spacings are 60 by 80 feet (18.3 by 24.4 m)
and 80 by 100 feet (24.4 by 30.5 m).
Application rate May range from 0.10 to 1 in./hr
(0.25 to 2.54 cm/hr) or more, with 0.16 to 0.25
in./hr (0.42 to 0.64 cm/hr) being typical. Weekly
rates vary with the climate, soil type, and crop
requirements over the ranges indicated in Table 1.
Nozzles Generally vary in size of openings from
0.25 inch (0.64 cm) to 1 inch (2.54 cm). The dis-
charge per nozzle can vary from 4 to 100 gpm (0.25
to 6.3 I/sec), with a range from 8 to 25 gpm (0.50
to 1.58 I/sec) being typical. Discharge pressures
can vary from 30 to 100 psi (2.1 to 7.0 kg/sq cm);
with 50 to 60 psi (3.5 to 4.2 kg/sq cm) being typical
Depth of buried laterals and mainlines Depends
on the depth of freezing for cold climates. Where
the depth of freezing is not a factor, a depth of
18 inches (46 cm) for laterals and 36 inches
(91 cm) for mainlines is common [33]. Surface
piping, usually of aluminum, may be 40 to 50 percent
less costly than buried piping, but it is also
less reliable.
Pipe materials May be any type used for standard
pressure pipe; however, asbestos-cement and plastic
(PVC) pipes are most common. Factors that should
be considered when selecting type of pipe materials
include cost, strength, ease of installation, and
reliability.
Control systems May be automatic, semiautomatic,
or manual. Automatic systems are the most popular
for land application systems. Automatic valves may
be either hydraulically or electrically operated.
Center Pivot Spraying. Center pivot systems are the most
widely used of the moving sprinkling systems. Design
variables include size, method of propulsion, pressure,
and topography [33].
Sizes Systems consist of a lateral that may be
600 to 1,400 feet (183 to 427 m) long. The lateral
is suspended by wheel supports and rotates about a
point. Areas of 35 to 135 acres (14 to 55 ha) can
be irrigated per unit.
15
-------
Propulsion May be by means of either hydraulic
or electric drive. One rotation may take from
8 hours to as much as 1 week.
Pressures -Usually 50 to 60 psi (3.5 to 4.2 kg/
sq cm) at the nozzle, which may require 80 to
90 psi (5.6 to 6.3 kg/sq cm) at the pivot. Stand-
ard sprinkler nozzles or spray heads directed
downward can be used.
Topography Systems can be used on rolling terrain
with slopes up to 15 to 20 percent.
Surface Flooding Using Border Strips. The major design
variables for surface flooding using border strips
include strip dimensions, method of distribution, and
application rates.
Strip dimensions - Vary with type of crop, type of
soil, and slope. Border widths may range from 20
to 100 feet (6.1 to 30.5 m); widths of 40 to 60
feet (12.2 to 18.3 m) are the most common. Slopes
may range from 0 to 0.4 percent. The steeper
slopes are required for relatively permeable soils.
Strip length may vary from 600 to 1,400 feet (183
to 427 m).
Method of distribution May generally be by means
of either a concrete-lined ditch with slide gates
at the head of each strip, or underground pipe
with risers and alfalfa valves.
Application rates At the head of each strip, rates
will vary primarily with soil type and may range
from 10 to 20 gpm per foot (2.1 to 4.1 I/sec per m)
width of strip for clay, to 50 to 70 gpm per foot
(10.4 to 14.5 I/sec per m) width of strip for sand.
The period of application for each strip will vary
with strip length and slope.
Additional references, such as Irrigation [61], should be
consulted for more detailed information.
Ridge and Furrow Application. This method is very similar
in concept to surface flooding using border strips, except
that the applied water is conveyed down the slope by means
of furrows. Row crops, such as corn, are normally grown.
16
-------
The major design variables are application, topography, and
furrow dimensions.
Application Usually by gated aluminum pipe. Short
runs of pipe (80 to 100 feet) (24 to 30 m) are pre-
ferred to minimize pipe diameter and headless and
to provide maximum flexibility. Surface standpipes
are used to provide the 3 to 4 feet (0.9 to 1.2 m)
of head necessary for even distribution.
Topography Method can be used on relatively flat
land (less than 1 percent slope) with furrows
running down the slope, or on moderately sloped
land with furrows running along the contour.
Dimensions Furrow lengths usually range from 600
to 1,400 feet (183 to 427 m). Furrows are usually
spaced between 20 and 40 inches (51 to 102 cm)
apart, depending on the crop.
Overland Flow Distribution. Sprinkling is the most common
technique in the United States; however, surface flooding
may be practical for effluents relatively low in suspended
solids. General practice is as follows:
Sprinkler application May be by either fixed
sprinklers or rotating boom-type sprays. Moving or
portable systems are not practical because a smooth
surface must be maintained. Sprinklers are spaced
from 60 to 80 feet (18 to 24 m) apart on the laterals
Slopes May range from 2 to 8 percent with 2 to 4
percent preferred for adequate detention time.
Lengths of slope may range from 150 to 300 feet (45
to 90 m) with 175 to 250 feet (53 to 76 m)
being typical.
Application cycles Commonly 6 to 8 hours of
wetting and 16 to 18 hours of drying to maintain the
microorganisms on the soil surface active.
Surface application May be by flooding or by
gated pipe. Most suited to wastewater low in
organic solids.
Infiltration Basins. This method is the most common for
infiltration-percolation systems. The major design variables
include: application rate, basin size, height of dikes, and
maintenance of basin surfaces.
17
-------
Application rates Can vary from 4 to 120 in./wk
(10.2 to 305 cm/wk), with the range of 12 to 24
in./wk (30,5 to 61.0 cm/wk) being most common.
Loading cycles generally vary from 9 hours to 2
weeks of wetting and from 1 day to 3 weeks of drying.
Basin size Generally a function of design flow and
relationship of wetting and drying periods. Basins
may range in size from less than 1 acre (0.4 ha) to
10 acres (4 ha) or more. It is usually necessary
to include at least two separate basins for even
the smallest of systems.
Height of dikes Varies with depths of water
applied. For depths of 1 to 2 feet (0.30 to 0.61 m),
a height of approximately 4 feet (1.22 m) is common.
Maintenance of basin surface May be a significant
operation and maintenance expense. Many systems
require periodic tilling of surface, often annually,
while some high-rate systems may required periodic
replacement of sand or gravel.
Recovery of Renovated Water
Systems that may be used to recover renovated water include
underdrains, runoff collection followed by chlorination and
discharge, and recovery wells. Tailwater return is also
included in this group, even though the tailwater is usually
not completely renovated.
Underdrains. Underdrains may be required in poorly drained
soils or when groundwater levels will affect renovation or
crop growth. The system normally consists of a network of
drainage pipe buried 4 to 10 feet (1.22 to 3.05 m) below the
surface and intercepted at one end of the field by a ditch.
The pipes normally range in diameter from 4 to 8 inches
(10.2 to 20.4 cm). The distance between pipes can range
from 100 feet (30.5 m) for clayey soils to 400 feet (122 m)
for sandy soils.
Cut-off ditches or open drains can be used in place of
buried drain pipes; however, their use is declining and a
cost curve is not provided. Such ditches can require from
10 to 30 percent of the field area and are usually not
cost effective.
Tailwater Return. A tailwater return system is used with
surface irrigation to collect and return excess applied
water from the bottom of the strip or furrow. The system
normally consists of collection ditches, a small reservoir,
18
-------
a pump, and piping to the nearest distribution line. The
system should normally be sized on the basis of the expected
amount of return flow, which can range from 10 to 40 percent
of the applied flow.
Runoff Collection. The runoff collection systems referred
to in this publication are used primarily for overland
flow systems and can be followed by chlorination and
discharge. The runoff collection ditches are most often
unlined and sized to handle the runoff from a specific
storm. The chlorination and discharge facilities should
include a small reservoir, emergency overflow capabilities,
and also should be sized to handle the runoff from a
specific storm.
Recovery WelLs. Recovery well systems are used primarily
with infiltration-percolation systems, but may also be used
with high-rate irrigation systems. They may be used for
reduction of groundwater levels to ensure treatment effect-
iveness, or they may be required for further reuse of
renovated water or to satisfy water rights considerations.
Design variables include well location and spacing, depth,
type of packing, and flowrate. Each of these Variables is
dependent on the geology, soil, and groundwater conditions
at the site, application rates, and the desired percentage
of the renovated water to be recovered.
Crops
Crops or vegetative cover are normally an integral part of
all land application systems, with the exception of most
infiltration-percolation systems. Factors that affect the
selection of the type of crop to be grown include:
Water requirement and tolerance
Nutrient requirements, tolerances, and removal
capabilities
Sensitivity to inorganic ions
Public health considerations relating to the use
of the crop
Ease of cultivation and harvesting
Length of growing season
Value of crop (marketability)
For a more detailed discussion of these factors, Reference 17
should be consulted.
19
-------
Water Rights
Water rights considerations may be of importance in the
cost analysis, particularly in the western states [25].
The return of certain quantities of water to a particular
water body may be required. In cases where a change is
contemplated in the method of disposal or point of discharge,
the state agency or other cognizant authority should be
contacted and the status of all existing water rights
should be thoroughly investigated.
FACTORS OTHER THAN COST
A number of factors other than direct cost must be consid-
ered in the analysis of wastewater alternatives. Among
these are:
Flexibility
Reliability
Environmental impact
Public health considerations
Social impact
Economic impact
Each of these factors is briefly discussed with respect to
land application systems in the following text. For a more
detailed discussion, Reference 17 should be consulted.
Flexibility
The abilities of each alternative wastewater system to
operate efficiently under changing conditions, and to be
easily modified, should be assessed. Factors related to
flexibility that should be considered are:
Ability to meet changes in treatment requirements
Ability to meet changes in wastewater characteristics
Ease of expansion
Ability to adapt to changing land uses
Ability to be upgraded as a result of technological
advances
20
-------
Reliability
The reliability and dependability of the system are
critical, particularly if the adverse effects of an
operational breakdown or poorly operating system may be
great. Characteristics relating to reliability that should
be considered include:
Ability to meet or exceed discharge requirements
Failure rate due to possible operational breakdowns
of various components
t Vulnerability to natural disasters
Adequacy of supplies of required resources
Factors-of-safety
Environmental Impact
The environmental impact of the selected wastewater alter-
native will normally be considered in great depth in the
later stages of planning when a complete environmental
assessment is made. Preliminary assessments should also
be made in the earlier stages, however, so that alterna-
tives can be compared on that basis. Generally, the
environmental impact of factors unique to land application
systems should be assessed with respect to:
Soil and vegetation
Groundwater
Surface water
Animal and insect life
Public Health Considerations
When evaluating the overall environmental impact of an
alternative, special consideration should be given to those
effects that relate directly to the public health. Factors
that should be considered are:
Groundwater quality
Potential for breeding insects and rodents
Potential runoff from the site
21
-------
Aerosols from spray application
Potential contamination of crops
Social Impact
The overall effects of each alternative should be evaluated
in light of their impact on the sociological aspects of the
community. Factors that should be considered are:
Public acceptance
Relocation of residents
Aesthetic effects
Community growth
Agricultural marketing competition with area farmers
Economic Impact
In many cases a wastewater treatment facility will have
indirect economic impacts on the community. Some of the
potential impacts are:
Change in the value of land used and adjacent land
Loss of tax revenues as a result of governmental
purchase of land
Conservation of resources and energy
Change in quality of ground or surface waters
Resources Opportunity
The potential benefits that can be derived from the addition
or reuse of various resources should be assessed. These
may include:
Availability of a source of water for irrigation
Recycling of nutrients
Preservation of open space and greenbelts
Recreational activities
22
-------
Section 3
PRELIMINARY PLANNING COSTS (STAGE I)
In this section cost data are presented that will enable
the user to quickly estimate the costs of treatment alter-
natives involving the land application of wastewater for
the purpose of preliminary screening. Estimates developed
from these data should generally be within 30 percent of
actual costs; however, for conditions unfavorable to land
application the variance could be more than 50 percent.
Such conditions could include large site preparation costs
or the need for extensive stormwater control. Consequently,
these curves should be used with caution.
COST COMPONENTS AND METHODOLOGY
The costs of land application as presented in this section
have been divided into 13 components which are grouped
under 7 major categories, as listed in Table 2. Except for
land and preapplication treatment, cost curves are presented
for each component which relate the capital and operation
and maintenance costs to flow in million gallons per day.
The relationship among those components for which curves are
included is shown in Figure 2. Methods for determining the
cost of land and preapplication treatment are discussed in
the text.
Once the cost of each component has been computed, the
total cost of the system can be determined by adding the
component costs. A cost calculation sheet (Table 3) has
been included for this purpose at the end of this section.
A sample calculation is also included to illustrate the
step-by-step procedure (page 54).
Land Costs
The cost of land is often a significant portion of the total
system cost. Land may be acquired by an outright purchase,
lease, or other means as described in Evaluation of Land
Application Systems [17] . If the land is to be purchased
outright, the cost should be determined by multiplying the
estimated total land requirement (acres) by the prevailing
market price for land (dollars per acre). The prevailing
market price of land should be determined from a local
source such as the tax assessor.
23
-------
PREAPPLICATION
TREATMENT
APPLICATION
SYSTEMS
RECOVERY OF
RENOVATED WATER
tsj
| COST |
ESTIMATES
FROM OTHER .
SOURCES I
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
SOLID SET
(BURIED)
CROPS
SPRAY
IRRIGATION-
CENTER PIVOT
SURFACE
IRRIGATION
UNDERORAINS
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
SOLID SET
(BURIED)
IOODLANDS
OVERLAND
FLOW
INFILTRATION
PERCOLATION
BASINS
FIGURE 2. RELATIONSHIP OF STAGE I COST CURVES
-------
Table 2. LIST OF STAGE I COST COMPONENTS
Figure No.
for curve Page
Category Component reference No.
1. Land Total area requirement 3a 26
2. Preapplication Preapplication treatment^
treatment
3. Crop revenues Crop revenues
4. Transmission Conveyance 4 33
Pumping 5 35
5. Storage Storage 6 37
6. Application Spray irrigation, solid set 7 39
systems (buried), crops
Spray irrigation, solid set 8 41
(buried), woodlands
Spray irrigation, center pivot 9 43
Surface irrigation 10 45
Overland flow 11 47
Infiltration-percolation, basins 12 49
7. Recovery of Underdrains 13 51
renovated water
a. This figure is not a cost curve but a nomograph which relates total
area requirement in acres to design flow in mgd, nonoperating time in
weeks, and application rate in inches per week.
b. No cost data are provided. See text, page 27.
c. .No cost data are provided. See text, page 29.
As an aid for estimating the total land requirement, a
nomograph (Figure 3) is included which relates total
area in acres, with or without a buffer zone allowance, to
design flow in mgd, nonoperating time in weeks, and appli-
cation rate in inches per week. The nonoperating time is
defined as the nubmer of weeks per year during which
operation is ceased because of climatic factors. For
systems in cold northern states, this would be equal to
the storage period. In more temperate climates, the
nonoperating time could be considerably greater than the
storage period because operation is possible for periods
between unfavorable weather.
To use the nomograph, first draw a line through appropriate
points on the design flow and application rate axes to the
pivot line. Draw a second line from the intersection of
the first line with the pivot line through the appropriate
point on the nonoperating time axis. The calculated total
area is then noted at the intersection of that axis with
the second line. This total area includes land for appli-
cation, roads, storage, and buildings. The total area with
25
-------
tsi
20 -=
15 -4
;
-
10 -7
' ~I
? 8 ~=
~ 8 4
^_ s
2 5 -f
x i
2 4 -i
^~
o E
E 3 -=
a. ;
5
2 4
I
*"
1
_
1 J
100 -=
;
50 -
"
-
5 10 -
V S M
0
_i
ac /
X«
v>
xw
^^ ° .1
.^ ' -
/ 0.5 -
X ^
X
0.1 1
X
X|Jf
X j
^ ^
o
^ .
a.
30,000
20.&00
10,000
i
9,000 -
"
(A
ly.
BE
U
"* 1.000
r .^^ ~
Ul ~
£ 500 -
9
o
^
2
at
* 100
2 :
° 50 -
-
10
~
~
-
s
30,000
20,000
r 10,000
-
- S , 0 00
25
*» *2 -
% £ 20
_ u -
a* »5 -E
_ i ooo S SAMPLE PLOT *~ E
- oa < -
- 500 H « 9
Ul
o >- ~
- S z
e -
£ * 0 .-J
7^
*
-100 S
_l
-50 H
SAMPLE PLOT
DESIGN FLOW 3 MGO
APPL. RATE 1.9 IN./WK
NONOPER. TIME 10 »K
READ: 900 ACRES H/BUFFER
10 7SO ACRES K/0 BUFFER
FIGURE 3. TOTAL LAND REQUIREMENT
-------
a 200-foot wide buffer zone allowance is read from the
right-hand side of the axis, while the total area without
a buffer zone allowance is read from the left-hand side.
Once the total capital cost of land has been calculated,
the amortized cost, including an allowance for salvage
value, can be determined by the following equation:
j * A ni cA total capital cost
amortized cost = 0.0154 design flow
where
amortized cost is in if/1,000 gal.
total capital cost is in $(thousands)
design flow is in mgd
or in metric units
, . n IT? total capital cost
amortized cost = 0.173 design flow
where
amortized cost is in <£/l,000 1
total capital cost is in $(thousands)
design flow is in I/sec
Preapplication Treatment
For many systems the cost of preapplication treatment must
be included in the total cost of the system. To obtain
these costs, other publications that are devoted to the
cost of conventional treatment systems should be consulted.
A Guide to the Selection of Cost-Effective Wastewater
Treatment Systems [54], and Estimating Costs and Manpower
Requirements for Conventional Wastewater Treatment Systems
[27] are suggested as useful references for this purpose.
Special consideration is given to preapplication treatment
by aerated lagoons in Stage II because of their common
use in conjunction with land application systems, and
because of the limited amount of information concerning
their costs in other publications. Consequently, a set of
cost curves for aerated lagoons (Figure 16) is included in
Section 4, page 69.
27
-------
The level of preapplication treatment required for land
application is dependent on a number of factors, including
Method of application
Type of crop grown
Intended use of crop
Loading rate of certain constituents
Equipment limitations
In many states, regulations relating to preapplication
treatment exist. For further guidance, Reference 17
should be consulted.
To use preapplication treatment cost data from other
sources, the costs should first be trended to the base
date of February 1973, using the cost index specified in
that source. If a cost index is not specified, the EPA
Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index should
be used.
Once the total capital cost has been determined for
February 1973, the amortized cost can be determined by
the following equation:
amortized cost = 0.0232 total capital cost
design flow
where
amortized cost is in £/l,000 gal.
total capital cost is in $(thousands)
design flow is in mgd
or in metric units
where
amortized cost = 0.268 total capital cost
design flow
amortized cost is in
-------
The operation and maintenance cost per volume of treated
water may be determined from the annual operation and
maintenance cost by the following equation:
= 0.274
where
0§M cost is in {/1, 000 gal.
annual 0§M cost is in $ (thousands)
design flow is in mgd
or in metric units
ncM _-ct _ , 17 annual 05M cost
OSM cost - 3.17 design flow
where
cost is in {/I, 000 1
annual OSM cost is in $ (thousands)
design flow is in I/sec
Crop Revenues
For many land application systems, the sale of crops grown
can help to defray the annual operation and maintenance
cost. Consequently, this potential revenue should be
included as a credit in the Stage I cost estimate when
applicable. Net revenues can normally be expected for
irrigation systems (except woodlands irrigation) , but
infiltration-percolation and overland flow systems offer
fewer opportunities for significant revenues.
Because the prices and yields of crops vary considerably
with locality, they should be estimated from local sources.
A good source for information of this type would be the
cooperative extension services at most land grant universi-
ties. An example of some typical yields and 1973 prices
for crops grown in California is shown in Table 7, page 123
COST CURVES
The 10 cost curves, which are presented following this
discussion, are composed of two-page sets (Figures 4
through 13) : the capital and operation and maintenance
cost curves are presented on the right-hand pages, and
detailed information relating to the curves is summarized
29
-------
on the left-hand pages. Each of the 10 Stage I curves given
in this section was derived directly from the Stage II cost
curves of Section 4.
Capital Cost Curves
Two curves or groups of curves are presented in each case
for capital costs: (1) capital costs, expressed in thou-
sands of dollars, and (2) amortized cost, expressed in
cents per thousand gallons. The capital cost is the cost
to the owner and includes allowances of 25 to 35 percent
for a service and interest factor. This factor includes
contingencies; engineering; legal, fiscal, and administra-
tive costs; and interest during construction.
The amortized cost is the total construction cost multiplied
by the capital recovery factor for an interest rate of
5-5/8 percent and a period of 20 years (erf = 0.0845), and
divided by the design flow for 1 year.
Each of the curves reflects the costs for the base date of
February 1973. It is suggested that the costs be trended
to reflect current costs by means of the EPA Sewer Construc-
tion Cost Index, as explained on page 52.
Operation and Maintenance Cost Curves
An operation and maintenance curve is given for each
component. The curve gives the total of all annual labor,
power, and materials costs, expressed in cents per thousand
gallons. The curves for irrigation systems include the cost
of planting and cultivating the crop grown.
The costs are based on an average staff labor rate, includ-
ing fringe benefits, of $5.00 per hour, and a unit cost of
power of $0.02 per kilowatt-hour. Although the costs
cannot be readily adjusted for regional or time differences
in Stage I, it is suggested that the total operation and
maintenance cost be trended by means of the EPA Sewer Con-
struction Cost Index to approximate current costs.
Average Versus Effective Flow
Costs for transmission and storage are related to average
flow, which is considered to be the annual average design
flow entering the system. In the curves for pumping and
conveyance, an allowance for peaking factors has been included,
Costs for application systems and recovery of renovated
water are related to effective flow, which is the rate
30
-------
applied to the land during the operating season. For sys-
tems operating year-round, the average and effective flows
are the same. For systems that cease operation and store
incoming flow during a portion of the year, the effective
flow will be larger than the average flow in proportion to
the number of nonoperating days or weeks. The effective
flow can be calculated using the following equation:
where
Q - effective flow in mgd or I/sec
Q = average flow in mgd or I/sec
W = number of operating weeks per year
Secondary Variables
A family of curves is included for many of the Stage I com-
ponents introducing secondary variables, such as storage
capacity or application rates. Interpolation between these
curves is encouraged for storage capacities and application
rates other than those shown. Selection of the proper
storage capacity and application rate is specific to the
site and application process chosen as indicated in Sec-
tion 2. It is important to note that each application
system represents a separate process or management technique
with different site requirements to meet different project
objectives. Consequently, the curves under "Application
Systems" should not be compared without taking into account
these differences.
Detailed Information Relating to Cost Curves
Base Date. The base date for all costs given in this
section is February 1973
Costs Included. A summary of the cost items included and
the important design assumptions is presented on the left-
hand page for each component. The design assumptions gen-
erally reflect typical designs of each component with
average to moderately favorable conditions.
Metric Conversion. Metric conversion factors are given for
those parameters which appear in the cost curves. Addi-
tional metric conversion factors are given in Appendix G.
31
-------
TRANSMISSION
CONVEYANCE
Costs per mile are given for the 3 basic methods of
conveyance: (1) gravity pipe, (2) open channels, and
(3) force mains.
BASE DATE - FEBRUARY 1973
Assumptions
1'. Peaking factor allowance ranges from 3 for systems
of 1 mgd (43.8 I/sec) and less average flow, to 2
for systems with greater than 10 mgd (438 I/sec)
average flow.
2. Gravity pipe:
a. 9-ft (2.7 m) depth of cover over crown of pipe
b. Average slope of 0.002 to 0.005
c. Average velocity of approximately 3 to 5 fps
(0.9 to 1.05 m/sec)
d. Repaving of road surface required for 10%
of distance
3. Open channels:
a. Concrete-lined, trapezoidal-shaped ditch with
1:1 side slopes
b. Average slope of 0.004
c. Minimum average velocity of approximately 2 fps
(0.6 m/sec)
d. Normal freeboard of 1.5 ft (0.5 m)
4. Force mains:
a. 5-ft (1.5 m) depth of cover over crown of pipe
b. Average velocity of 5 fps (1.5 m/sec)
c. Repaving of road surface required for
of distance
Metric Conversion
1. mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
2.
-------
io.see
1.000
1 00
0. 1
D. 1
0.01
10
AVERA6E FLOW, NGO
0 . 1
0.01 ;
0. 002
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
lit
AVEKA8E FLOf. MID
FIGURE 4. TRANSMISSION - CONVEYANCE
33
-------
TRANSMISSION
PUMPING
BASE DATE - FEBRUARY 1973
Costs Included
1. Effluent pumping station with 150-ft (45.8 m)
total head.
2. Peaking factor allowance ranges from 3 for systems
of 1 mgd (43.8 I/sec) and less average flow, to
2 for systems with greater than 10 mgd (438 I/sec)
average flow.
Note: These curves should be used in conjunction
with those in Figure 4, "Transmission-
Conveyance," (see Assumption 4, Force Mains)
on the preceding page.
Metric Conversion
1. mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
2. */l,000 gal. x 0.264 = */l,000 1
34
-------
20.000
10.000
1 ,000
100
TO
O.I
AMORTIZED
CAPITAL COST
CAPITAL
I 10
AVERAQt FLOW,HID
\ 00
1 0
0. T
« 0
I I I I 1111 I I I I II
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
I 0
o. i
' 10
AVERA8E FLOW. 180
too
FIGURE 5. TRANSMISSION - PUMPING
35
-------
STORAGE
Costs are given for various storage capacities as equivalent
average flows of I-, 10-, and 20-week durations.
BASE DATE - FEBRUARY 1973
Costs Included
1. Basic reservoir construction on level ground with
dikes formed from native excavated materials.
2. Erosion protection using riprap.
Note: For approximate costs of lined reservoirs, multiply
basic cost by a factor of 2.2 for full lining, or
1.6 for half lining.
Metric Conversion
1. mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
2. 4/1,000 gal. x 0.264 = 4/1,000 1
36
-------
41.000
0. 1
0
1 00
i g
o. 1
0. 01
; i o
AVERAGE FLOW. M8D
i oo
0. 1
0.01
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
0. 1
i 1 0
AVERAGE FLOW, MOD
100
FIGURE 6. STORAGE
37
-------
APPLICATION SYSTEMS
SPRAY IRRIGATION, SOLID SET (BURIED), CROPS
BASE DATE - FEBRUARY 1973
Costs are given for a typical system, for application rates
of 1,2, and 4 in./wk.
Costs Included
1. Site clearing of brush and few small trees.
2. Distribution--buried solid-set spray system With
automatic controls, 80 x 100 ft (24.4 x 30.5 m)
sprinkler spacing.
3. Distribution pumping with 225-ft (68.6 m) total head.
4. Administrative and laboratory facilities.
5. Monitoring wells of 50-ft (15.3 m) depth.
6. Service roads and fencing.
7. Cultivation of corn.
Metric Conversion
1. mgd x 43.8 - I/sec
2. */l,000 gal. x 0.264 = {/I,000 l
38
-------
200.000
100,000
IB.001
trt
O
u
1 , 000
100
0 . 1
t.ooo
EFFECTIVE FL8I. HID
1 DO
s
! -
1 00
1 00
1 C
|
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
o. i
t 10
EFFECTIVE FLOW. MD
100
FIGURE 7. APPLICATION SYSTEMS - SPRAY IRRIGATION,
SOLID SET (BURIED), CROPS
39
-------
APPLICATION SYSTEMS
SPRAY IRRIGATION, SOLID SET (BURIED), WOODLANDS
BASE DATE - FEBRUARY 1973
Costs are given for a typical system, for application
rates of 1, 2, and 4 in./wk.
Costs Included
1. Site clearing--pathways through wooded area
for distribution.
2. Distribution--buried solid-set spray system with
automatic controls, 60 x 80 ft (18.3 x 24.4 m)
sprinkler spacing.
3. Distribution pumping with 150-ft (45.8 m) total head
4. Administrative and laboratory facilities.
5. Monitoring wells of 50-ft (15.3 m) depth.
6. Service roads and fencing.
Metric Conversion
1. mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
2. (f/1,000 gal. x 0.264 = 4/1,000 1
40
-------
200.000
100.000
o 10.000
1 . 000
1 00
2.000
1.000
1 00
0. 1
i 0
1 10
EFFECTIVE FLOV. MGD
100
i 00
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
0. 1
1 0
EFFECTIVE FLOW. MGD
1 00
FIGURE 8. APPLICATION SYSTEMS - SPRAY IRRIGATION,
SOLID SET (BURIED), WOODLANDS
41
-------
APPLICATION SYSTEMS
SPRAY IRRIGATION, CENTER PIVOT
BASE DATE - FEBRUARY 1973
Costs are given for a typical system, for application rates
of 1, 2, and 4 in./wk.
Costs Included
1. Site clearing--brush with few small trees.
2. Distribution--heavy-duty center pivot rigs with elec-
tric drive.
3. Distribution pumping with 150-ft (45.8 m) total head.
4. Administrative and laboratory facilities.
5. Monitoring wells of 50-ft (15.3 m) depth.
6. Service roads and fencing.
7. Cultivation of corn.
Metric Conversion
1. mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
2. */l,000 gal. x 0.264 = */l,000 1
42
-------
100.000
1 0 . OQO
1,000
100
, t8t
0. 1
100
i f
10
EFFECTIVE FLOW. HAD
100
200
00
0. 1
1 ' ' ' ' 'Tl 1 1 I I I I
OPERATION & HAWTEMANM COST
lATION RATES (IN./VR)
f 1 0
EFFECTIVE FLOW, 180
1 BO
FIGURE 9. APPLICATION SYSTEMS - SPRAY IRRIGATION,
CENTER PIVOT
43
-------
APPLICATION SYSTEMS
SURFACE IRRIGATION
Costs are given as an average of costs for ridge and
furrow application, and surface flooding using border
strips, for application rates of 1, 2, and 4 in./wk.
BASE DATE - FEBRUARY 1973
Costs Included
1. Site clearing brush with few small trees.
2. Land leveling--500 cy/acre C945 cu m/ha).
3. Distribution--average of ridge and furrow application,
and surface flooding using border strips.
4. Distribution pumping with 15-ft (4.6 m) total head.
5. Tailwater return--251 of applied flow is returned.
6. Administrative and laboratory facilities.
7. Monitoring wells of 50-ft (15.3 m) depth.
8. Service roads and fencing.
9. Average of cultivation of corn and alfalfa.
Metric Conversion
1. mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
2. f/1,000 gal. x 0.264 = t/1,000 1
44
-------
10,000
= 10,000
i, ooo
1 00
800
0. 1
1 00
10
EFFECTIVE FLOW, MGD
1 00
200
1 00
! 0
APPLICATION RATES (IN./IK)
0. 1
EFFECTIVE FLO*, MGD
1 00
FIGURE 10. APPLICATION SYSTEMS - SURFACE IRRIGATION
45
-------
APPLICATION SYSTEMS
OVERLAND FLOW
BASE DATE - FEBRUARY 1973
Costs are given for a typical system, for application
rates of 2, 4, and 8 in./wk.
Costs Included
1. Site clearing--brush with few small trees.
2. Overland flow terrace construction--!,400 cy/acre
(2,650 cu m/ha).
3. Distribution terrace width of 250 ft (76.3 m) .
4. Distribution pumping with 225-ft (66.8 m) total head.
5. Runoff collection using open ditches.
6. Chlorination and dischargeaverage flow of recovered
water equal to 75% of applied flow.
7. Administrative and laboratory facilities.
8. Service roads and fencing.
9. Planting of grass.
Metric Conversion
1. mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
2. f/1,000 gal. x 0.264 = t/1,000 1
46
-------
200.000
ISO.OtO
10,000
-" 1,000
1 DO
0. 1
AMORTIZED
-CAPITAL
CAPITAL COST]
4
JX J
2.000
I . Ml
100
s
i C
1 1 0
EFFECTIVE FLOW, USD
1 00
; :
OPEKATIOH & MAINTENANCE COST
II I I I
APPLICATION RATES (IN./WK)
0 .1
1 1 0
EFFECTIVE FLOW. USD
1 00
FIGURE If. APPLICATION SYSTEMS - OVERLAND FLOW
47
-------
APPLICATION SYSTEMS
INFILTRATION-PERCOLATION, BASINS
BASE DATE - FEBRUARY 1973
Costs are given for a typical system, for application
rates of 6, 12, and 24 in./wk.
Cost Included
1. Site clearing--brush with few small trees.
2. Distribution--multiple unit infiltration basins with
4-ft (1.2 m) dikes.
3. Distribution pumping with 15-ft (4.6 m) total head.
4. Recovery wells--50-ft (15.3 m) depth, flow of recovered
water equal to 75% of applied flow.
5. Monitoring wells of 50-ft (15.3 m) depth.
6. Administrative and laboratory facilities.
7. Service roads and fencing.
Metric Conversion
1. mgd x 43.8 - I/sec
2. tf/1,000 gal. x 0.264 =
48
-------
SO,ODD
^10, 000
1 , 000
1 00
0. 1
300
100
', C
0. 5
1 0
EFFECTIVE FLOW. HO
; p
i 0
0.3
OPE PAT I ON A MAINTENANCE COST
APPLICATION
MTES (IH./««)
o .1
i 10
EFFECTIVE FLOW. IBD
1 oo
FIGURE 12. APPLICATION SYSTEMS-
INFILTRATION-PERCOLATION, BASINS
49
-------
RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER
UNDERDRAINS
BASE DATE - FEBRUARY 1973
Costs are given for typical underdrain system for
irrigation application rates of 1, 2, and 4 in./wk.
Cost Included
1. Drain pipes buried 6 to 8 ft (1.8 to 2.4 m), with a
spacing of 200 ft (61 m).
2. Interception ditch along one side of the field.
3. Weir for control of discharge.
Note: These curves should be used in conjunction with
those in Figures 7, 9, or 10, "Application Systems."
Metric Conversion
1. mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
2. */l,000 gal. x 0.264 = */l,000 1
50
-------
too.ooo
1 0. 000
1 . 000
1 00
1 . 100
0. 1
1 00
1 10
EFFECTIVE FLOW. USD
0. 1
110
! 0
0. 1
OPERATION & MAINTENAHCE COST
APPLICATION
RATES (IN./fir
o. i
; .10
EFFECTIVE FLOf. 100
i oo
FIGURE 13. RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER - UNDERDRAWS
51
-------
COST CALCULATION PROCEDURE
To facilitate the use of the cost data presented for Stage
I, a sample cost calculation sheet has been developed
(Table. 3). For each alternative to be analyzed, a similar
calculation sheet could be used.
The procedure for calculating Stage I costs is as follows:
1. Determine appropriate storage capacity and appli-
cation rate (see discussion in Section 2).
2. Determine effective flow from number of operating
.- weeks per year by method described on page 30 .
3. Determine total capital cost, amortized capital
cost^ and operation and maintenance cost from
cost curves for each applicable component.
4. Enter costs in appropriate columns on cost
calculation sheet.
5. Add amortized capital cost and operations and
maintenance cost to determine total cost for
each component.
6. Add each column to determine subtotal for base
date of February 1973.
7. Determine trend factor from EPA Sewer Construc-
tion Cost Index for analysis date at appropri-
ate location.
8. Multiply subtotal for base date by trend factor
to determine subtotal for analysis date.
9. Determine total and amortized capital land costs
by method described on page 27 and enter under
appropriate columns.
10. Determine net revenue from sale of crops, if
applicable, and enter under appropriate columns.
11. Subtract crop revenues from subtotal to determine
total operation and maintenance cost.
12. Add land costs to subtotal to determine total
capital cost.
52
-------
Table 3. SAMPLE STAGE I COST CALCULATION SHEET
Alternative No.
Type of system
Average flow
Analysis date
mgd
Cost component
Total
capital cost,
Amortized
capital cost, 0§M
t/1,000 gal. «/l,
cost,
000 gal.
Total cost,
t/1,000 gal.
Preapplication treatment
Transmission -
conveyance
mi
Transmission - pumping
Storage period
wks
Application systems
e
in./wk
Underdrains
SUBTOTAL, BASE DATEa
Trend factor0
SUBTOTAL, ANALYSIS DATE
Crop revenues
Land cost
TOTAL COST
a. February 1973.
b. Trend factor = EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index for analysis date at
appropriate location T 194.2.
53
-------
EXAMPLE
The use of the cost curves and cost calculation sheet is
illustrated in the following example. A hypothetical 3-mgd
(131 I/sec) surface irrigation system, to be constructed
as part of a new wastewater treatment system in the San
Francisco area, is used in this example. The analysis date
is July 1974, and the EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index
for that date for San Francisco is 242.0. The example is
meant to illustrate all facets of the cost curves and cost
calculation sheet, and the total costs should not be com-
pared with other hypothetical cost estimates.
Assumptions
1. Preapplication treatment is to consist of preliminary
treatment (screening, grit removal, and flow measure-
ment) and aerated lagoons.
2. The distance from the preapplication treatment plant
to the potential land application site is approximately
2 miles (3.2 km) and is of sufficient slope as to allow
transmission by gravity pipe.
3. The storage requirement is approximately 10 weeks of
detention. Lining of reservoir is not required.
4. The normal operating season is to be 42 wk/yr.
5. The land is essentially flat and covered with brush
and small trees.
6. The application rate is to be approximately 1.5 in./wk
(3.8 cm/wk).
7. A buffer zone is not required.
Solution
The determination of costs is shown on a sample cost
calculation sheet (Table 4, page 58) and is discussed for
each item. Total capital costs are given to the nearest
thousand dollars, while amortized capital costs, operation
and maintenance costs, and total costs are all given to
the nearest tenth of a cent per thousand gallons.
The total cost in cents per thousand gallons is the sum of
the amortized and operation and maintenance costs, and is
not included in the discussion.
54
-------
From the equation given on page 31, the effective flow is
determined to be 3.7 mgd (163 I/sec).
Preapplioation Treatment - Includes prelimi-
nary-treatment and aerated lagoon.
1. Preliminary treatment - Based on maximum
flow of 6 mgd (263 I/sec). Costs deter-
mined from reference [37] are:
Total capital cost $ 94,000
Amortized capital cost (*/l,000 gal.) -
0.0232 x $94 0.7*
Operation and maintenance cost -
Annual cost is found to be $9,500.
The cost in */l,000 gal. is then
n ?74 v $9-5 (thousand)
0.274 x riigH - °'8*
2. Aerated lagoon - Costs determined from
Stage II cost curve (Figure 16) are:
Total capital cost $140,000
Amortized capital cost (*/l,000 gal.) -
0.0232 x $MO_(thpusandl
3 mgd 1.1*
Operation and maintenance cost - Annual
cost is found to be $8,240/mgd. The
cost in */l,000 gal. is then
0.274 x $8.24 (thousand) /mgd 2. 3*
Transmission - Conveyance - From Figure 4,
the costs for gravity pipe are :
Total capital cost - 2 mi x $140,000 $280,000
Amortized capital cost (*/l,000 gal.) -
2 mi x 1.0* 2.0*
Operation and maintenance cost (*/l,000
gal.) - 2 mi x 0.04* 0.1*
55
-------
Storage - From Figure 6, the costs for
storage for 10 weeks detention are:
Total capital cost - $ 350,000
Amortized capital cost (*/l,000 gal.) - 2.6*
Operation and maintenance cost
(4/1,000 gal.) - 0.3*
Application System - Surface Irrigation -
From Figure 10, the costs for surface
irrigation for an effective flow of
3.7 mgd are:
Total capital cost - $1,300,000
Amortized capital cost (*/l,000 gal.) - 8.0*
Operation and maintenance cost (*/l,000
gal.) - 14.0*
Subtotal, Base Date - The subtotals of costs
for each column for the base date of February
1973 are:
Total capital cost - $2,164,000
Amortized capital cost (*/l,000 gal.) - 14.4*
Operation and maintenance cost (*/l,000
gal.) - 17.5*
Trend Factor - The EPA Sewer Construction
Cost Index for the analysis date of 242.0
divided by the index for the base date of
194.2 is: 1.25
Subtotal, Analysis Date - The subtotals of
costs for each column for the analysis date
of July 1974 are:
Total capital cost - 1.25 x $2,164,000 $2,700,000
Amortized capital cost (*/l,000 gal.)
1.25 x 14.4* 18.0*
Operation and maintenance costs (*/l,000
gal.) 1.25 x 17.5* 21.9*
56
-------
Crop Revenues - A conservative yield of corn
silage of 20 tons per acre and a price of
$15 per ton are determined from Table 7
in Section 4. Corn is assumed to be grown
on 500 acres of the total area. The estimated
negative cost from the sale of corn is:
Operation and maintenance cost - Annual
revenue is determined to be $50,000/mgd.
The revenue in */l,000 gal. is then
0.274 x $50.0 (thousand) /mgd. (13.7*)
Land Cost - From Figure 3, the total land
requirement is determined to be 750 acres.
The cost of land, determined from local
sources, is approximately $1,000 per acre.
Land costs are then:
Total capital cost -
750 acres x $l,000/acre $ 750,000
Amortized capital cost (*/!', 000 gal.)
$750 (thousand)
Total Cost - The subtotals for the analysis
date plus land costs are:
Total capital cost $3,450,000
Amortized capital cost (<£/!, 000 gal.) 21.9
-------
Table 4. EXAMPLE OF COMPLETED STAGE I
COST CALCULATION SHEET
Alternative No. /
Type of system SURFACE
Cost component
Preapplication treatment
PRELIMINARY
AERATED LAGOON
IRRIGATION
Total
capital cost,
94.000
I40.00O
Average flow
Analysis date
Amortized
capital cost,
f/1,000 gal.
O.7
/.;
3
JUL '74
0§M cost,
t/1,000 gal.
0.8
2.3
mgd
Total cost
*/l,000 gal.
/.5
3.4
Transmission -
conveyance
GRAVITY PIPE, 2 mi
Transmission - pumping
Storage period
IO wks
Application systems
SURFACE IRRIGATION
§ l.S in./wk
Underdrains
SUBTOTAL, BASE DATE3
Trend factorb
SUBTOTAL, ANALYSIS DATE
Crop revenues
Land cost
TOTAL COST
280,000 .
350,000
/.300.000
_ _
2./64.000
1.25
2,700,000
75O.OOO
3.450.000
2.0
_ _
2.6
8.0
_ _
14.4
1.25
18.0
3.9
21.9
O.I
_ _
0.3
/4.0
17.5
1.25
21.9
( 13.7 )
..
8.2
2.1
_ _
2.9
22.0
3/.9
1.25
39.9
( /3.7 )
3.9
30./
a. February 1973.
b. Trend factor = EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index for analysis date at
appropriate location * 194.2.
58
-------
Section 4
DETAILED PLANNING COSTS (STAGE II)
In this section cost data of a more detailed nature are
presented that will enable the user to estimate the cost
of a land application system more accurately than in
Stage I. It is anticipated that these estimates will be
used in the evaluation of selected wastewater treatment
alternatives that are considered to be feasible.
The major differences between Stage I and Stage II are that
in Stage II: (1) costs are developed for more individual
system components, (2) costs are presented for each partic-
ular component in relation to the most applicable parameter,
and (3) costs can be more easily adjusted to reflect local
and current conditions. To utilize Stage II cost data
properly, a greater amount of specific information, includ-
ing a preliminary design layout, will usually be required.
Stage II cost estimates developed from the data in this
section should be within about 15 percent of actual costs.
It is anticipated that the engineer will build on the cost
curves presented here and modify the numbers to arrive at
his final cost-effectiveness analysis and cost estimate.
COST COMPONENTS AND METHODOLOGY
The costs of land application systems have been divided
into 33 components which are grouped under 8 major cate-
gories as listed in Table 5. For 26 components, cost
curves are presented which relate the capital and operation
and maintenance costs of the component to the most appli-
cable parameter, such as storage volume, flowrate, or field
area. The relationship between those components for which
cost curves are included is shown in Figure 14. The figure
shows only a typical relationship; in actual practice,
combinations of components other than those shown are
possible.
Once the cost of each component has been estimated, the
total cost of the system can be determined by adding the
component costs. Cost calculation sheets for both capital
costs (Table 8, page 124) and operation and maintenance
costs (Table 9, page 125) have been included for this pur-
pose at the end of this section. They are arranged so that
each component and its cost can be written under the appro-
priate component category. A column for computing amortized
cost from the capital cost is provided in Table 8. A sample
calculation is also included to illustrate the step-by-step
procedure (page 127).
59
-------
Table 5. LIST OF STAGE II COST COMPONENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
6.
7.
8.
Category
Land a
Preapplication treatment a.
b.
Transmission a.
b.
c.
d.
Storage a.
b.
Field preparation a.
b.
c.
Distribution a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g-
Recovery of renovated water a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Additional costs a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Figure
Component curve
Field area requirement3
Aerated lagoons
Chlorination
Gravity pipe
Open channels
Force main
Effluent pumping
0.05-10 million gallons
10-5,000 million gallons
Site clearing
Land leveling for
surface irrigation
Overland flow terrace
construction
Solid set spraying
(buried)
Center pivot spraying
Surface flooding using
border strips
Ridge and furrow
application
Overland flow
Infiltration basins
Distribution pumping
Underdrains
Tailwater return
Runoff collection
for overland flow
Chlorination and discharge
for overland flow
Recovery wells
Administrative and laboratory
facilities
Monitoring wells
Service roads and fencing
Planting, cultivation, and
harvesting
Yardwork
Relocation of residents
Purchase of vater rights
Service and interest factor
number for
reference
15a
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26
29
30
31
32
33
34
3S
36
37
38
39
40
41
^_
--
--
--
Page
number
63
69
71
73
75
77
79
81
83
85
87
89
91
93
95
97
99
101
103
IDS
107
109
111
113
115
117
119
120
120
120
122
122
a. This figure is not a cost curve but a nomograph which relates field area in acres to
design flow in mgd, nonoperating time in weeks, and application rate in inches per
week.
b. See text, page 64 for other methods.
c. No cost curves are provided; see discussion on referenced pages.
60
-------
PREAPPLICATION
TREATMENT
RECOVERY OF
RENOVATED WATER
FIGURE 14, RELATIONSHIP OF STAGE II COST CURVES
-------
Land
In many cases, the cost of land, either as an outright pur-
chase or a lease, will be a significant portion of the
total cost of the system. In Stage II this cost should be
determined for a specific plot of land, based on a prelim-
inary layout. An important first step in this process is
the determination of the field area requirement. This is
the area of land in which the actual treatment process
takes place. The field area requirement is also an import-
ant design parameter to which the costs of many of the com-
ponents in Stage II are related.
Field Area Requirements. As an aid to the determination of
field area requirements, a nomograph (Figure 15) is includ-
ed which relates field area in acres to design flow in mgd,
nonoperating time in weeks, and application rate in inches
per week. To use the nomograph, first draw a line between
appropriate points on the design flow and nonoperating time
axes. Draw a second line from the intersection of the first
line with the pivot line and the appropriate point on the
application rate axis. The calculated field area is then
noted at the intersection of that axis with the second line.
In some cases it may be necessary to increase this figure
by a use factor to account for inefficiencies of land utili-
zation. The use of the nomograph is further illustrated
by means of a sample plot.
Land Costs. Once the field area has been calculated, the
total land requirements can be determined. This should be
done by means of a preliminary layout for a specific site.
Included in the layout should be an adequate amount of land
for each of the following items, if they are required:
Field area
Buffer zones
Storage
Buildings, roads, and ditches
Future expansion or emergencies
The land costs should then be determined by multiplying the
estimated total land requirement (acres) by the prevailing
market price for land (dollars per acre). The prevailing
market price for land should be determined from a local
source such as the tax assessor.
62
-------
100 i
1 1
50 -
25 i
10
5 -
1.0
0.5 -
1U4UUU
5.000 -
1,000
eo 500 -
L&J
ee.
o
<
Ul
caJOO-^
-"""" = so j
10
5 -
1
^
,. "
c t
S A
DESIGN Fl
APPL. R»1
NONOPER. 1
READ:
20
10
as
o
z
0
SAMLPE PLOT
.-5
0 '
I . 0 M6D
2.4 IN./WK
S IK
120 ACRES
2 -
3 -
4
5
10 -
15 -
20 '
O.I I
FIGURE 15. FIELD AREA REQUIREMENT
-------
In accordance with the Federal Regulations on Cost Effect-
iveness Analysis (40 CFR 35), land shall be assumed to have
a salvage value at the end of the planning period equal to
its prevailing market value at the time of the analysis.
This fact is reflected in the format for calculating the
amortized cost of land as described on page 126.
Preapplication Treatment
For many systems the cost of preapplication treatment must
be included in the total cost of the system. To obtain
these costs, other publications that are devoted to the
cost of conventional treatment systems should be consulted.
A Gui.de to the Selection of Cost-Effective Wastewater
Treatment Systems [54] , and Estimating Costs and Manpower
Requirements for Conventional Wastewater Treatment Systems
[37] are suggested as useful references for this purpose.
Special consideration is given to preapplication treatment
by aerated lagoons because of their common use in conjunc-
tion with land application systems, and because of the
limited amount of information concerning their costs in
other publications. In addition, the cost of chlorination
for preapplication treatment is given in Figure 17.
The level of preapplication treatment required for land
application is dependent on a number of factors, including:
Method of application
Type of crop grown
Intended use of crop
Loading rate of certain constituents
Equipment limitations
In many states, regulations relating to preapplication
treatment exist. For further guidance, the technical
bulletin, Evaluation of Land Application Systems [17]
should be consulted.
Additional Costs
The category of "Additional Costs" consists of 8 components,
and cost curves are presented for 3 of these. The costs
for the remaining components are not readily presented by
means of curves; therefore, other methods of cost computa-
tion are described in the text that follows the curves.
64
-------
COST CURVES
The 26 cost curves, which are presented following this
discussion, are composed of two-page sets (Figures 16
through 41): the capital and operation and maintenance
cost curves are shown on the right-hand pages, and detailed
information relating to the curves is summarized on left-
hand pages.
Capital Cost Curves
A curve or group of curves is presented for each component
which represents the total capital cost to the owner, in-
cluding the contractor's overhead and profit. The curves
do not include allowances for contingencies, administration,
or engineering, however.
Each of the costs is related to either the "EPA Sewer Con-
struction Cost Index" or the "EPA Sewage Treatment Plant
Construction Cost Index" for February 1973. For many com-
ponents, neither of these indexes directly applies, in
which case the index used is the one which is considered to
be the most applicable. Capital costs read from the curves
should be trended by means of the specified index or other
method to reflect current costs for a particular locality.
Current values for both indexes are published monthly in
the Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, and
quarterly in the Engineering News Record"!
For some components, a group of curves is presented that
shows a range of costs for some secondary parameter. For
example, a group of curves corresponding to a range of
depths of cover is included for "Gravity Pipe" (Figure 18).
In several other cases, additional curves are included for
significant subcomponents or auxiliary costs, as in the
case of "Force Mains" (Figure 20), where an additional
curve is included for the cost of repaving.
Operation and Maintenance Cost Curves
Operation and maintenance costs are divided, where appli-
cable, into three curves or groups of curves: labor, power,
and materials. They are each expressed in terms of dollars
per unit per year.
The labor cost is the estimated annual cost for operating
and maintaining that component by members of the staff,
and includes administration and supervision. It is based
on an average staff labor rate, including fringe benefits,
65
-------
of $5.00 per hour and may be adjusted to reflect actual
average rates when significant differences exist.
The power cost is the estimated annual cost for electrical
power required to operate the particular component based on
a unit cost of $0.02 per kilowatt-hour. It may be adjusted
to reflect actual unit costs when significant differences
exist. For several components a group of power cost curves
are shown for a range of pumping heads.
The materials cost is the estimated annual cost for normal
supplies, repair parts, and contracted repair or mainten-
ance services. An equivalent annual cost based on the
sinking fund factor for an interest rate of 5-5/8 percent
is included for those materials costs which are not incur-
red annually.
Wholesale Price Index. The Wholesale Price Index for
Industrial Comodities, which may be used for trending
the materials cost, was 120.0 for February 1973.
Detailed Information Relating to Cost Curves
Basis of Costs. A summary of the bases of costs for which
the curves were derived is included on the upper portion of
the left-hand page for each component. These bases normal-
ly include: (1) the selected construction cost index for
February 1973, (2) the average labor rate, and (3) the
power cost.
Assumptions. A list of assumptions concerning basic design
features, and items included and not included in the cost
curves, is presented on the left-hand page for each compo-
nent. Generally it reflects typical designs of each
component with average conditions. In many cases adjust-
ment factors are included for assumptions involving impor-
tant design parameters that are highly variable.
Adjustment Factors. Adjustment factors are included for
many components to account for significant variations in
designs. These factors should be multiplied by the cost
from the indicated curve to obtain the adjusted cost. For
example, if the adjustment factor for labor costs were 1.1,
and the labor cost for a given field area were $1,000 per
acre per year, then adjusted labor cost would be $1,100 per
acre per year.
Metric Conversion. Metric conversion factors are given for
those parameters which appear in the cost curves. Addition-
al metric conversion factors are given in Appendix G.
66
-------
Sources. The various sources of information from which
the curves were derived are listed along with reference
numbers (in brackets). References are presented in
Appendix C.
67
-------
PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT
AERATED LAGOONS
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index
= 177.5.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits - $5.00/hr.
3. Electrical power cost = $0.02/kwh.
Assumptions
1. Average detention time 7 days.
2. 15-ft (4.6 m) water depth.
3. Horsepower requirement based on meeting oxygen demand.
4. Small impeller floating aerators.
5. Capital cost includes:
a. Excavation,, embankment, and seeding of lagoons
b. Service road and fencing
c. Riprap embankment protection
d. Hydraulic control works
e. Aeration equipment and electrical equipment
Metric Conversion
1. mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
Sources
Derived from previously published information [37].
68
-------
10.000
1,000
too
1C
0.1
30.000
10,000
t- 1 , 000
v>
100
30
I C
100
FLO*, MGD
X
X.
^*x.
^s
^
'^
^^
-«5
v,
s
-v.
1
^»x^
^"^
LABOR
1
"""^
OPERA
=4=
^
Is
w^
*N
^
TION & MAINTE
jp
^>
".
v
^.
>
^,
1
»
^
».
POWER
^^^^^
HAH
^^
^\
CE COST |
h^
MATERULS-^
^ ^
-S*-
^>,
s
\
3
i
^>s
*+
!
1
0.1
t D
100
FLOW, M6D
FIGURE 16. PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT - AERATED LAGOONS
69
-------
PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT
CHLORINATION
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost
Index = 177.5.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
3. Chlorine cost = $0.05/lb ($0.023/kg).
Assumptions
1. Capital cost includes:
a. Chlorination facilities with flash mixing and
contact basin
b. Chlorine storage
c. Flow measuring device
2. Maximum dosage capacity, 10 mg/1. Average dosage,
5 mg/1.
3. Chlorination contact time, 30 min for average flows.
Metric Conversion
1. mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
Sources
Derived from previously published information [37].
70
-------
1 . 000
1 00
- o
0. 1
1 10
FLOI. HGD
100
10.000
*» 1 , 000
e
o
1 00
^s
V
S
M^K> -
s
X
^ «
X
X
_ur
X
X
V
MATERIALS OTH
«
:F
^"
"S
X,
'
-^*
s
^
T
.LABOR
^
v
^x^
OPERATION
NS,
^K
"^
^^
^^^1
X,
HAN CHLORINE-
s,^,^^
"n^^
.-'
-^
*
t
-
^
& MAIHTEHANCE
^
^
s,
*>
s
/
,
^^
^^^,
fc ^^
HLOI
^^ "
*^^
^>v
^*«s
(IN
^
^v.
cosrlt
E
-»
X
0. 1
i 1 0
FLOW, MGD
1 00
FIGURE 17. PREAPPUCATION TREATMENT - CHLORINATION
71
-------
TRANSMISSION
GRAVITY PIPE
Cost curves are given for gravity pipe that may be of use for
any applicable segment of the system, such as for conveying
(1) wastewater from the collection area to preapplication
treatment facilities, (2) treated water from existing treat-
ment facilities to the land application site, or (3) recovered
renovated water from the land application site to a discharge
point.
Bas is _o_f Cjjs ts
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Curves given for various depths of cover over crown of
pipe in feet.
2. Moderately wet soil conditions.
3. All-'excavation in earth.
4. Capital cost includes:
a. Pipe and fittings
b. Excavation
c. Laying and jointing
d. Select imported bedding and initial backfill
e. Subsequent backfill of native material
f. Manholes
g. Testing and cleanup
5. Labor cost includes periodic inspection of line.
6. Materials cost includes periodic cleaning by contractor.
Note: For cost of repaying see Figure 20, "Force Mains."
Adjustment Factor
1. Soil conditions (capital cost): From approximately
0.80 for dry to approximately 1.20 for wet conditions.
Metric Conversion
1. in. x 2.54 = cm
2. ft x 0.305 = m
Sources
Derived from previously published information [6].
72
-------
900
J 100
i 0
DEPTHS OF COVER IN FEET
100
u.
<
1 00
PIPE SIZE. INCHES
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
1 00
PIPE SIZE. INCHES
FIGURE 18. TRANSMISSION - GRAVITY PIPE
73
-------
TRANSMISSION
OPEN CHANNELS
Cost curves are given for open channels that may be of use
for any applicable segment of the system, such as for con-
veying (1) wastewater from the collection area to preappli-
cation treatment facilities, (2) treated water from existing
treatment facilities to the land application site, or
(3) recovered renovated water from the land application site
to a discharge point.
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Stable soil, predominantly flat terrain.
2. Capital cost includes:
a. Slip-formed concrete-lined trapezoidal ditches with
1:1 side slopes
b. Earth berm
c. Simple drop structure every 1/2 mile (80S m)
3. Labor cost includes periodic inspection, cleaning, and
minor repair work.
4. Materials cost includes major repair or ditch relining
after 10 yr by contractor.
Adjustment Factor
1. Irregular terrain (capital cost): 1.10 to 1.40.
Metric Conversion
1. ft x 0.305 = m
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on "a series of typical
designs. Unit costs based on price quotes from an irriga-
tion contractor.
74
-------
100
z
1 C
1 C
CHANNEL PERIMETER. FT
100
1 00
MATERIALS
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST]
LA 101
I f
CHANNEL PERIMETER. FT
100
FIGURE 19. TRANSMISSION - OPEN CHANNELS
75
-------
TRANSMISSION
FORCE MAINS
Cost curves are given for force mains that may be of use for
any applicable segment of the system, such as for conveying
(1) wastewater from the collection area to preapplication
treatment facilities, (2) treated water from existing treat-
ment facilities to the land application site, or (3) recovered
renovated water from the land application site to a discharge
point.
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Depth of cover over crown of pipe, 4 to S ft (1.2 to
1.5 m).
2. Moderately wet soil conditions.
3. All excavation in earth.
4. Capital cost includes:
a. Pipe and fittings
b. Excavation
c. Laying and jointing
d. Select imported bedding and initial backfill
e. Subsequent backfill of native material
f. Testing and cleanup
5. Repaying cost included as separate curve.
6. Materials cost includes periodic cleaning by contractor.
Note: These curves should be used in conjunction with those
in Figure 21, "Transmission-Effluent Pumping."
Adjustment Factor
1. So.il conditions (capital cost): From approximately
0.80 for dry to approximately 1.20 for wet conditions.
Metric Conversion
1. in. x 2.54 = cm
2. ft. x 0.305 = m
Sources
Derived from previously published information [6].
76
-------
1 , 000
1 00
o 10
FORCE MAINS-
REPAYING
1 0
PIPE SIZE. INCHES
too
i oo
10
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
1 0
PIPE SIZE, INCHES
i oo
FIGURE 20. TRANSMISSION - FORCE MAINS
77
-------
TRANSMISSION
EFFLUENT PUMPING
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index
= 177.5.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
3. Electrical power cost = $0.02/kwh.
Assumptions
1. Capital and power cost curves given for various total
heads in feet.
2. Capital costs are related to peak flow in ragd.
Operation and maintenance costs are related to
average flow.
3_ Capital cost includes:
a. Fully enclosed wet well/dry well type structure
b. Pumping equipment with standby facilities
c. Piping and valves within structure
d. Controls and electrical work
4. Labor cost includes operation, preventive maintenance,
and minor repairs.
5. Materials cost includes repair work performed by out-
side contractor and replacement of parts.
Note: These curves should be used in conjunction with those
in Figure 20, "Transmission-Force Mains."
Metric Conversion
1. ft x 0.305 = m
2. mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
Sources
Derived from various sources [6, 37].
78
-------
5. BOO
1 . 000
1 00
0. T
1 00
too.ooo
« 10.000
1.000
too
OPERATION i MAINTENANCE COST
0. 1
1 00
FIGURE 21. TRANSMISSION - EFFLUENT PUMPING
79
-------
STORAGE
STORAGE (0.05-10 MILLION GALLONS)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $S.OO/hr.
Assumptions
1. Dikes formed from native excavated material.
2. Inside slope of dike, 3:1; outside slope, 2:1.
12-ft (3.7 m) wide dike crest.
3. 5-ft (1.5 m) depth of reservoirs less than 1 mil gal.
(3,790 cu m), increasing to 12-ft (3.7 m) depth of
reservoirs greater than 10 mil gal. (37,900 cu m).
4. 3-ft (0.9 m) freeboard.
5. Rectangular reservoir on level ground.
6. Cost of lining given for asphaltic lining of entire
inside area of reservoir. Must be added to reservoir
construction curve to obtain cost of a lined reservoir.
For other types of lining see adjustment factors.
7. Cost of embankment protection given for 9 in. (22.8 cm)
of riprap on inside slope of dike.
8. Labor cost includes maintenance of dike.
9. Materials cost includes bottom scraping and patching
of lining by contractor after 10 yr.
Note: The design and cost of storage reservoirs may be
highly variable and will depend on the type of
terrain, type of earth material encountered, and
other factors. If the expected design differs
significantly from the one summarized above, a
cost estimate should be arrived at independently.
Adjustment Factor
1. For linings other than asphaltic membrane:
a. Bentonite - 0.86
b. PVC (10 mil) with soil blanket - 1.21
c. Soil cement - 1.21
d. Petromat - 1.24
e. Butyl neoprene (30 mil) - 1.97
Metric Conversion
1. mil gal. x 3,790 = cu m
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical
designs.
80
-------
1,000
1 00
1 J
: 4
9,01
EMBANKMENT PROTECTION
RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTION
O.I I
STORAGE VOLUME, MILLION GALLONS
vt
o
u
4,000
1 ,001
III
II
0.
^,
"v,
ST
--*
KA
^"">^.
^*-x
ERIALS
1
1
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST\
"^^
^
v,
"x.
"-v
1
<
».,
X,
s-;
-LABOR
>s
r
_.
:^,
i >-.-^- ,
"^
^^_
^
*»»
s;
^
-w
-~
^-v.
'*-.
M O.I t '
STORAGE VOLUME, MILLION GALLONS
FIGURE 22. STORAGE (0.05-10 MILLION GALLONS)
81
-------
STORAGE
STORAGE (10-5,000 MILLION GALLONS)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Dikes' formed from native excavated material.
2. Inside slope of dike, 3:1; outside slope, 2:1.
12-ft (3.7 m) wide dike crest.
3. 12-ft (3.7 m) depth of reservoir with 3-ft (0.9 m)
freeboard.
4. Rectangular reservoir on level ground.
5. Reservoirs greater than 50 acres (20 ha) divided into
multiple cells.
6. Cost of lining given for asphaltic lining of entire
inside area of reservoir. Must be added to reservoir
construction curve to obtain cost of a lined reservoir.
For other types of lining see adjustment factors.
7. Cost of embankment protection given for 9 in. (22.8 cm)
of riprap on inside slope of dike.
8. Labor cost includes maintenance of dike.
9. Materials cost includes bottom scraping and patching
of lining by contractor after 10 yr.
Note: The design and cost of storage reservoirs may be
highly variable and will depend on the type of
terrain, type of earth material encountered, and
other factors. If the expected design differs
significantly from the one summarized above, a
cost estimate must normally be arrived at independ-
ently.
Adjustment Factor
1. For linings other than asphaltic membrane:
a. Bentonite - 0.86
b. PVC (10 mil) with soil blanket - 1.21
c. Soil cement - 1.21
d. Petromat - 1.24
e. Butyl neoprene (30 mil) - 1.97
Metric Conversion
1. mil gal. x 3,790 = cu m
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical
designs.
82
-------
40. DOB
19.100
I.I0>
EMBANKMENT PROTECTION
IDC
I.010
STORAGE VOLUME, MILLION GALLONS
10.111
100
=->
0 .4
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
100
1,000
STORAGE VOLUME, MILLION GALLONS
10,000
FIGURE 23. STORAGE (10-5,000 MILLIONS GALLONS)
83
-------
FIELD PREPARATION
SITE CLEARING
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
Assumptions
1. Heavily wooded--fields cleared and grubbed.
2. Brush and trees--mostly brush with few trees. Cleared
using bulldozer-type equipment.
3. Grass only--abandoned farmland requiring disking only.
4. No capital return included for value of wood removed
from site.
5. All debris disposed of onsite.
Note: In actual practice site conditions will be quite
variable, and interpolation between curves may be
required.
Adjustment Factor
1. Debris disposed offsite: 1.8 to 2.2.
Metric Conversion
1. acre x 0.405 = ha
Sources
Based on a survey of actual construction costs for existing
systems.
84
-------
111,800
10. OftO
I. 000
100
1 3
0. 1
;HEAVILY VOODED:
ittfc
TOTAL
BRUSH
AND TREES:
TOTAL"
iRASS ONLY
1C
100 18BO
FIELD AREA, ACRES
10.11*
FIGURE 24. FIELD PREPARATION - SITE CLEARING
85
-------
FIELD PREPARATION
LAND LEVELING FOR SURFACE IRRIGATION
Basis pf__Cp_stl.
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
Assumptions
1. Land previously cleared and rough leveled.
2. Curves given for volumes of cut of 500 and 750 cy/acre
(945 and 1,418 cu m/ha).
3. Costs include:
a. Surveying
b. Earthmoving
c. Finish grading
d. Ripping two ways
e. Disking
f. Landplaning
g. Equipment mobilization
4. Clay loam soil.
Note: In many cases, 500 cy/acre is sufficient, while the
curve for 750 represents conditions requiring con-
siderable earthmoving. The curves should generally
be used in conjunction with those in Figure 24,
"Field Preparation-Site Clearing," and either
Figure 29, "Distribution-Surface Flooding Using
Border Strips," or Figure 30, "Distribution-Ridge
and Furrow Application."
Adjustment Factor
1. Volumes of cut: 0.2 + 0.0016C where C = volume of cut,
cy/acre. Cost based on 500 cy/acre curve.
Metric Conversion
1. acre x 0.405 = ha
2. cy/acre x 1.89 = cu m/ha
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical
designs and consultation with the California Agricultural
Extension Service.
86
-------
II. IM
I, It!
lit
too < iooo
FIELD AREA. ACRES
to,ooo
FIGURE 25. FIELD PREPARATION -
LAND LEVELING FOR SURFACE IRRIGATION
87
-------
FIELD PREPARATION
OVERLAND FLOW TERRACE CONSTRUCTION
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
Assumptions
1. Land previously cleared and rough leveled.
2. Curves given for volumes of cut of 1,000 and 1,400
cy/acre (1,890 and 2,646 cu m/ha).
3. Costs include:
a. Surveying
b. Earthmoving
c. Finish grading
d. Ripping two ways
e. Disking
f. Landplaning
g. Equipment mobilization
4. Clay soil with only nominal amount of hardpan.
5. Final slopes of 2.5%.
Note: A cut of 1,000 cy/acre would correspond to terraces
of approximately 175-foot (53.4 m) width with a slope
of 2.5% from initially level ground, while a cut of
1,400 cy/acre would correspond to terraces of approxi-
mately 250-foot (76.2 m) width and 2.5% slope. The
curves should generally be used in conjunction with
those in Figure 24, "Field Preparation-Site Clearing,"
and Figure 31, "Distribution-Overland Flow."
Adjustment Factor
1. Volumes of cut: 0.2 + 0.0008C where C = volume of cut,
cy/acre. Cost based on 1,000 cy/acre"curve.
Metric Conversion
1. acre x 0.405 = ha
2. cy/acre x 1.89 = cu m/ha
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical
designs.
88
-------
40,OBO
10.ODD
t , 000
too
ID
t &
VOLUMES OF
CUT CY/ACRE
too
FIELD AREA. ACRES
10.000
FIGURE 26. FIELD PREPARATION-
OVERLAND FLOW TERRACE CONSTRUCTION
89
-------
DISTRIBUTION
SOLID SET SPRAYING (BURIED)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Lateral spacing, 100 ft (30.5 m). Sprinkler spacing,
80 ft (24.4 m) along laterals. 5.4 sprinklers/acre
(2.2 sprinklers/ha).
2. Application rate 0.20 in./hr (0.51 cm/hr).
3. 16.5 gpm (1.04 I/sec) flow to sprinklers at 70 psi
(4.9 kg/sq cm).
4. Flow to laterals controlled by hydraulically operated
automatic valves.
5. Laterals buried 18 in. (46 cm). Mainlines buried 36 in,
(91 cm).
6. All pipe 4 in. (10 cm) diam and smaller is PVC. All
larger pipe is asbestos cement.
7. Materials cost includes replacement of sprinklers and
air compressors for valve controls after 10 yr.
Adjustment Factors
I ten
Capital cost
tabor
Materials
1. Irregular-shaped fields 1.15 to 1.30
2. Sprinkler spacing 0.68 + 0.06S
0.65 + 0.06SS 0.1 + 0.17S
Note: S " sprinklers/acre.
Metric Conversion
1. acre x 0.405 = ha
2. in. x 2.54 = cm
Sources
Derived from a survey of existing systems and cost calcula-
tions based on a series of typical designs.
90
-------
100, 000
10, III
f. $( THOUSANDS)
r»
a
a
M
0
CJ
-1
a.
u
100
t n
-""""^
^
+T
^
?
X
X
X
'
v/
^
^
X _
n 1 i
\CAPii
y
X1
r
^
>JL cosr
»'
^
^
r 3
too i.ooo
FIELD AREA, ACRES
10.000
SOB
too
10
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
I 0
too 1,000
FIELD AREA, ACRES
10 ,000
FIGURE 27. DISTRIBUTION - SOLID SET SPRAYING (BURIED)
91
-------
DISTRIBUTION
CENTER PIVOT SPRAYING
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
3. Electrical power cost = $0.02/kwh.
Assumptions
1. Heavy-duty center pivot rig with electric drive.
2. Multiple units for field areas over 40 acres (16.2 ha),
Maximum area per unit, 132 acres (53.4 ha).
3. Distribution pipe buried 36 in. (91 cm).
4. Materials cost includes minor repair parts and major
overhaul of center pivot rigs after 10 yr.
5. Power cost based on 3.5 days/wk operation of each rig.
Metric Conversion
1. acre x 0.405 = ha
Sources
Derived from a survey of existing systems and cost calcula-
tions based on a series of typical designs.
92
-------
IB.BB5
IB,SOB
1 , 000
100
ID
| IB 1.000
FIELD AREA. ACRES
10,009
900
! CO
II
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
10
100 1.000
FIELD AREA, ACRES
It.DOB
FIGURE 28. DISTRIBUTION - CENTER PIVOT SPRAYING
93
-------
DISTRIBUTION
SURFACE FLOODING USING BORDER STRIPS
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Border strips 40 ft (12 m) wide and 1,150 ft (350 m)
long.
2. Concrete-lined trapezoidal distribution ditches with 2
slide gates per strip.
3. Rectangular-shaped fields previously leveled to a slope
of approximately 0.4%.
4. Clay loam soil.
5. Continuous operation for large systems and 5 days/wk for
systems smaller than 50 acres (20 ha).
6. Materials cost includes rebordering every 2 yr and major
relining of ditches after 10 yr.
Note: A flatter slope or more permeable soil condition would
require a reduction in strip length.
Adjustment Factors
Labor and
Item Capital cost materials
1. Irregular-shaped fields 1.15 to 1.30 1.10 to 1.20
2. Strip length 2.4 - 0.0012L 1.8 - 0.0007L
Note: L - length of border strip, ft.
Metric Conversion
1. acre x 0.405 » ha
2. ft x 0.305 = m
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical
designs.
94
-------
it.too
t ,000
100
I 0
I DO 1,000
FIELD AREA. ACRES
10.ODD
BOO
w ' B0
S
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
100 1,000
FIELD AREA. ACRES
10.000
FIGURE 29. DISTRIBUTION - SURFACE FLOODING USING BORDER STRIPS
95
-------
DISTRIBUTION
RIDGE AND FURROW APPLICATION
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Gated aluminum pipe distribution with outlets on 40-in.
(102 cm) centers.
2. Gated pipe spacing based on 1,200-ft (366 m) long furrows,
3. Rectangular-shaped fields previously leveled to a slope
of approximately 0.3%.
4. Loam soil.
5. Continuous operation for large systems and partial oper-
ation for systems smaller than 50 acres (20 ha).
6. Materials cost includes replacement of gated pipe after
10 yr.
7. Cost of furrows included in planting and harvesting.
Note: A flatter slope or more permeable soil condition would
require a reduction in furrow length.
Adjustment Factors
Labor and
Item Capital cost materials
1. Irregular-shaped fields 1.10 to 1.25 1.10 to 1.20
2. Furrow length 2.2 - 0.001L 2.44 - 0.0012L
Note: t length of furrow, ft.
Metric Conversion
1. acre x 0.405 = ha
2. ft x 0.305 = m
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical
designs.
96
-------
10.000
t . 000
100
t
Vi
a
u
! 0
100 1.til
FIELD AREA, ACRES
10.Ill
1.000
_ 100
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
100 I.000
FIELD AREA. ACRES
10,000
FIGURE 30. DISTRIBUTION - RIDGE AND FURROW APPLICATION
97
-------
DISTRIBUTION
OVERLAND FLOW
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including-fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Terraces 250 ft (760 m) wide and previously leveled
to 2.5% slope.
2. Application rate over field area 0.064 in./hr
(0.16 cm/hr).
3. 13-gpm (0.83 I/sec) flow to sprinklers at 50 psi
(3.5 kg/sq cm).
4. Laterals 70 ft (21.3 m) from top of terrace.
5. Flow to laterals controlled by hydraulically operated
automatic valves.
6. Laterals buried 18 in. (46 cm). Mainlines buried 36 in.
(91 cm).
7. All pipe 4-in. (10 cm) diam and smaller is PVC. All
larger pipe is asbestos cement.
8. Materials cost includes replacement of sprinklers and
air compressors for valve controls after 10 yr.
Adjustment Factors
Item Capital cost Labor Materials
1. Irregular-shaped fields 1.1S to 1.30
2. Terrace width l.S 0.002T 1.75 - 0.003T 2.5 - 0.006T
Note: T - terrace width, ft.
Metric Conversion
1. acre x 0.405 = ha
2. ft x 0.305 = m
Sources
Derived from a survey-of existing systems and cost calcula-
tions based on a series of typical designs.
98
-------
101.Oil
s
0
I
S
100
10
! {
I I I II
CAPITAL
100 1.000
FIELD AREA. ACRES
10.000
1.000
100
u
*
! »
1 0
I I 1 I I I 11
OPERATION & MAIHTENANCE COST
100 I.000
FIELD'AREA, ACRES
10.000
FIGURE 31. DISTRIBUTION - OVERLAND FLOW
-------
DISTRIBUTION
INFILTRATION BASINS
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Multiple unit infiltration basins with 4-ft (1.22 m) dike.
2.' Dikes formed from native excavated material.
3. Inside slope of dike.3:1; outside slope, 2:1.
6-ft (1.83 m) vide dike crest.
4. Deep sandy soil.
5. Materials cost includes annual rototilling of infiltration
surface and major repair of dikes after 10 yr.
Metric Conversion
1. acre x 0.405 = \a
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical
designs.
100
-------
T. 000
I.000
in
<=
13
_, 100
1 3
10 100
FIELD AREA. ACRES
1, 010
I .000
OPERATION & MAIHTEHANCE COST
to loe
FIELD AREA. ACRES
1, III
FIGURE 32. DISTRIBUTION - INFILTRATION BASINS
101
-------
DISTRIBUTION
DISTRIBUTION PUMPING
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index
- 177.5.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
3. Electrical power cost = $0.02/kwh.
Assumptiong
1. Capital and power cost curves given for various total
heads in feet.
2. Capital costs arc related to peak flow in mgd. Opera-
tion and aanitenance costs arc related average flow.
3. Capital cost includes:
a. Structure built into dike of storage reservoir
b. Continuously cleaned water screens
c. Pumping equipment with normal standby .facilities
d. Piping and valves within structure
e. Controls and electrical work
4. Labor cost includes operation, preventive maintenance,
and minor repairs.
5. Materials cost includes repair work performed by out-
side contractor and replacement of parts.
Note: The curves should generally be used in conjunction
with curves for a particular method of distribution.
Metric Conversion
1. ft x 0.305 = m
2. mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
Sources
Derived from a series of typical designs and various cost
data [6, 37].
102
-------
«, BOB
1.000
100
0. 1
1 00
PEAK FLOW. M6D
100.000
\ 10,000
u
-1
1 . 000
1 OD
LAIOR
POWER ^-
OPERATION & MAIHTEHANCE COST
T
MATERIALS
300
150
5C
o. i
1 00
AVERABE FLOW, MBO
FIGURE 33. DISTRIBUTION - DISTRIBUTION PUMPING
103
-------
RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER
UNDERLRAINS
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Costs given for spacings of 100 and 400 ft (30 and
122 m) between drain pipes.
2. Capital cost includes:
a. Drain pipes buried 6 to 8 ft (1.8 to 2.4 m) .
b. Interception ditch along length of field
c. Weir for control of discharge
3. Labor cost includes inspection and unclogging of drain
pipes at outlets.
4. Materials cost includes high pressure jet cleaning of
drain pipes every 5 yr, annual cleaning of interceptor
ditch, and major repair of ditches after 10 yr.
Note-: Spacings as small as 100 ft may be required for clayey
soils; a 400-ft spacing is typical for sandy soil
conditions [23].
Metric Conversion
1. ft x 0.305 = m
2. mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical
designs.
104
-------
20.000
11.000
e/J 1 . 000
« 100
t
i
o
a
SPACING BETWEEN
UNDERDRAINS IN FEET
Z
z
z
xx
100
* »
400
100 1.000
FIELD AREA, ACRES
10.000
200
\ 00
c
I I I
OPERATION & MAIHTENANCE COST
I
10
too i.lit
FIELD AREA. AIRES
to, ooo
FIGURE 34. RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER - UNDERDRAINS
105
-------
RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER
TAILWATER RETURN
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits - $5.00/hr.
3. Electrical power cost = $0.02/kwh.
Assumptions
1. Costs are given versus flow of recovered water.
2. Capital cost includes:
a. Drainage collection ditches
b. Pumping station forebay, 1/3 acre (0.14 ha).
c. Pumping station with shelter and multiple pumps
d. Piping to nearest point of distribution mainline
(200 ft or 61 m)
3. Materials cost includes major repair of pumping station
after 10 yr.
Note: Generally, the flow of recovered water can be ex-
pected to be 10 to 40 percent (an average would be
20 percent) of the flow of applied water, depending
on soil conditions, application rate, slope, and
type of crop or vegetation. This range is based on
irrigation practice where water is plentiful and
soil-water quality conditions may dictate excess
water application. Should return piping lengths be
significantly more than 200 ft (61 m), to the nearest
distribution main, the additional costs could be
obtained from Figure 20, "Transmission-Force Mains."
Metric Conversion
1. mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical
designs.
106
-------
0.01
0.1 ,
FLOW OF RECOVERED WATER. MGO
30.01*
10.000
I . 000
too
; :
o.ot
-LL
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
LABOR
MATERIALS
:t
POWER
(.1
FLOW OF RECOVERED WATER, MGD
FIGURE 35. RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER-
TAILWATER RETURN
107
-------
RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER
RUNOFF COLLECTION FOR OVERLAND FLOW
Costs are given for overland flow runoff collection by
both open ditch and gravity pipe. The curves may be used
in conjunction with those in Figure 37, "Recovery of
Renovated Water-Chlorination and Discharge for Overland
Flow."
Basis of Cost^s
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Cost of lateral collection ditches along bottom of
terrace in included in Figure 26 - "Field Preparation-
Overland Flow Terrace Construction".
2. Open Ditches:
a. Network of unlined interception ditches sized
for a 2-in./hr storm
b. Culverts under service roads
c. Concrete drop structures at 1,000-ft (305 m)
intervals
d. Materials cost includes biannual cleaning of
ditches with major repair after 10 yr
3. Gravity Pipe:
a. Network of gravity pipe interceptors with inlet/
manholes every 250 ft (76.3 m) along submains
b. Storm runoff is allowed to pond at inlets
c. Each inlet/manhole serves 1,000 (305 m) of
collection ditch
d. Manholes every 500 ft along interceptor mains.
e. Operation and maintenance cost includes periodic
cleaning of inlets and normal maintenance of
gravity pipe
Note: Open ditches should be used where possible. Gravity
pipe systems may be required when unstable soil
conditions are encountered, or when flow velocities
are erosive.
Metric Conversion
1. acre x 0.405 = ha
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical
designs.
108
-------
20.000
10.000
1 , 000
1 00
' 0
I 0
SUAVITY PIPE SYSTEM;
OPEN DITCH SYSTEM
100 1.000
FIELD AREA. ACRES
10.000
1 00
0. 4
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
IMVITY PIPE SYSTEM
t D
100 1.000
FIELD AREA. ACRES
I 0. 000
FIGURE 36. RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER -
RUNOFF COLLECTION FOR OVERLAND FLOW
109
-------
RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER
CHLORINATION AND DISCHARGE FOR OVERLAND FLOW
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index
= 177.5.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
3. Chlorine cost = $0.05/lb ($0.023/kg).
Assumptions
1. Capital cost includes:
a. Chlorination facilities with flash mixing and
contact basin
b. Chlorine storage
c. Flow measuring device
d. Stormwater overflow structure
2. Maximum dosage capability, 10 mg/1. Average dosage,
5 mg/1.
3. Chlorination contact time, 30 min.
Note: The curves should be used in conjunction with those
in Figure 36, "Recovery of Renovated Water-Runoff
Collection for Overland Flow."
Metric Conversion
1. mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
Sources
Derived from previously published information [27] , and
cost calculations based on a series of typical designs.
110
-------
i tot
100
! 0
0. I
CAPITAL COST]
10
FLO! OF RECOVERED WATER. USD
100
10. 000
- I . 000
=1
100
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST]
LABOR
ATERIALS OTHER THAN CHLORINE
CHLORINE-
0. i
i 10
FLOI OF RECOVERED WATER. iSD
too
FIGURE 37. RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER -
CHLORINATION AND DISCHARGE FOR OVERLAND FLOW
ill
-------
RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER
RECOVERY WELLS
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index
= 177.5.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr,
3. Electrical power cost = $0.02/kwh.
Assumptions
1. Capital and power cost curves given for well depths of
50 and 100 ft (15 and 30 m).
2. Total head equal to well depth.
3. Capital cost includes:
a. Gravel-packed wells
b. Vertical turbine pumps
c. Simple shelter over each well
d. Controls and electrical work
4. Labor cost includes operation, preventive maintenance,
and minor repairs.
5. Materials cost includes repair work performed by outside
contractor and replacement of parts.
Note: The costs do not include any piping away from the
well. The cost of discharge piping can be obtained
from Figure 20, "Transmission-Force Mains."
Metric Conversion
1. ft x 0.305 = m
2. mgd x 43.8 = I/sec
Sources
Derived from previously published information [8].
112
-------
I .110
M IOD
C/J
o
o
1 5
D. I
1.0 ID
FLOW OF RECOVERED WATER, MGD
100
80,811
10,000
1 .000
III
0. 1
POWER
T~ i i I 1111 i i rrr
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
MATERIALS
-LABOR
100
50'= =
-
I 10
FLOW OF RECOVERED WATER, MGD
1 00
FIGURE 38. RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER-
RECOVERY WELLS
113
-------
ADDITIONAL COSTS
ADMINISTRATIVE AND LABORATORY FACILITIES
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index
= 177.5.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Capital cost includes:
a. Administration and laboratory building
b. Laboratory equipment
c. Garage and shop facilities
2. Labor cost includes:
a. Laboratory analyses and reporting
b. Collection of samples
c. Maintenance of buildings
3. Labor cost does not include administrative supervision.
Labor for supervision included under individual components
4. Materials cost includes:
a. Chemicals and laboratory supplies
b. General administrative supply items
Note: When the land application system is to be an addition
to an already existing conventional treatment system,
complete facilities (as described here) are not re-
quired, and the costs given should be reduced
accordingly.
Metric Conversion
1. mgd x 43.8 - I/sec
Sources
Derived from previously published cost information [37].
114
-------
10,000
t.too
_ 100
a.
2
t 9
0.1
'
10
too
FLO*. M6D
ANNUAL COST, $/N8D/YR
jj m
^X
^^^
^"^>
^v
*>
HAT
^
^
ERI
^^*^
it
>»
1 -
--,
N,
-
«
*^^
^*>v
!>^
I I i
1 1 1 1
OPERATION & MAIHTEHAHCE COST^
^
^^
v,
"*s
*^
f
<,
*
_ ->
^^
^
s,
-
-LABOR
"^s
^^.
"^^x
ft ^^^^
'-.
»-,
.
«
.
'
s
0. 1
10
too
FLOW. MGD
FIGURE 39. ADDITIONAL COSTS-
ADMINISTRATIVE AND LABORATORY FACILITIES
115
-------
ADDITIONAL COSTS
MONITORING WELLS
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Capital cost includes:
a. 4-in. (10 cm) diam drilled wells
b. Vertical turbine pump, 10 gpm (0.63 I/sec)
c. Controls and electrical work
2. Labor cost includes preventive maintenance and minor
repairs by staff. Labor costs for sampling included
in Figure 39, "Additional Costs-Administrative and
Laboratory Facilities."
3. Materials cost includes repair work performed by outside
contractor and replacement of parts.
Metric Conversion
1. ft x 0.305 = m
Sources
Derived from previously published cost information [8].
116
-------
100.000
-I 10,000
u 1,000
200
i a
too
WELL DEPTH, FT
1.000
1.000
» 1 00
OPERATIM & HAIHTENAHCE OOST
1 00
WELL DEPTH, FT
1 . 000
FIGURE 40. ADDITIONAL COSTS - MONITORING WELLS
117
-------
ADDITIONAL COSTS
SERVICE ROADS AND FENCING
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
Assumptions
1. Costs of service roads and fencing given versus field
area based on typical system layouts.
2. 12-ft (3.67 m) service roads, with gravel surface,
around perimeter of area and within larger fields.
3. 4-ft (1.22 m) stock fence around perimeter of area.
4. Materials costs includes major repair after 10 yr.
Metric Conversion
1. acre x 0.405 = ha
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical
designs.
118
-------
4,000
I .Ml
*J 111
It
111 1.000
FIELD AREA, ACRES
I o, in
30
u
*
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
0. 2
111 1.000
FIELD AREA, ACRES
1,010
FIGURE 41. ADDITIONAL COSTS - SERVICE ROADS AND FENCING
119
-------
ADDITIONAL COSTS
The following components are not readily presented by means
of curves. Alternative means of cost estimation are there-
fore discussed.
Planting, Cultivation, and Harvesting
Annual agricultural costs will generally be quite variable,
depending on the type of crop or vegetation grown and
various local conditions. Costs should normally be deter-
mined from local sources; however, as an aid, sample costs
to produce crops in California are given in Table 6 [42].
Similar cost information is available in most states
through cooperative extension services at land grant uni-
versities.
Yardwork
Yardwork includes a variety of miscellaneous items. For
conventional treatment systems, these items would generally
include: general site clearing and grading, intercomponent
piping, wiring, lighting, control structures, conduits,
manholes, parking, sidewalk and road paving, landscaping,
and local fencing. The suggested costs for these items are
[37]: (1) capital cost, 14 percent of total construction
cost; and (2) annual operation and maintenance cost, $1,500
to $4,000 per mgd for labor and $80 to $400 per mgd for
materials. These cost allowances are suggested for land
application systems if applied only to the cost of pre-
application treatment components.
When applied to the cost of a land application system as a
whole, the proportion of costs for yardwork would be con-
siderably less because the costs of many of the items are
included in the cost of other components.
Relocation of Residents
The purchases of large quantities of land will often
require that some residents be relocated. If the project
is to be federally funded, this must be conducted in
accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Land Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. The cost of reloca-
tion, which can be significant, should be estimated on the
basis of local conditions. Assistence in estimating this
cost can often be obtained from agencies which must fre-
quently deal with this problem, such as the U.S. Army,
Corps of Engineers, and state highway agencies.
120
-------
Table 6. SAMPLE COSTS TO PRODUCE CROPS IN CALIFORNIA [42]
Cost,
$/acre
Cultural cost
Crop
Perennials
Alfalfa,
green chop
Alfalfa
hay
Alfafa,
seed
Clover,
seed
Pasture
Annuals
Barley
Corn,
silage
Cotton
Grain
sorghum
Expected
yield,
per acre
36 tons
8 tons
310 Ib
4 cwtc
12 aumd
2.5 tons
25 tons
8 cwt
(lint)
65 cwt
Labor
42
26
5
18
5
9
32
46
26
Fuel
and
repairs
9
2
v
19b
3
1
23b
10
24
15
Materials
69
70
51
90
46
34
43
87
58
Equipment
overhead
106a
39a
--
40a
6
--
31
25
23
Harvest
55
63
17
47
--
19
57
115
10
Cash
over-
head
18
7
20
6
4
19
10
20
10
Rent
125
100
50
50
94
60
98
115
65
Manage-
ment
26
23
8
12
4
12
80
24
13
Total
450
330
170
266
160
176
361
370
220
Pn i- +
Lost
per
unit
of
yield,
12.50
41.40
0.55
66.50
13.33
3.52
14.44
46.00
3.38
Note: Expected yield - Yields attainable under good management. Usually above average for the major
producing area.
Labor cost - Includes wages, transportation, housing, and fringe benefits for farm workers.
Fuel and repairs - Includes fuel, oil, lubrication plus repairs (parts and labor) of farm equipment.
Material - Includes seed, fertilizer, water or power, spray, machine work hired, and other costs
not included in labor or fuel and repairs.
Equipment overhead - Depreciation, interest, property taxes.
Harvest - Total cost of harvest up to receiving payment for product.
Cash overhead - Office, accounting, legal, interest on operating capital, and other costs of
management.
Rent - Actual rent or cost of taxes, interest on investment, and depreciation of fixed facilities
if land is owned.
Management - Usually calculated at 5 percent of the gross income.
a. Includes crop stand.
b. Custom operations.
c. cwt * 100 Ib.
d. aum - animal unit months or forage eaten by one 1,000-lb cow in one month.
Metric conversion: Ib x 2.2 - kg
acres x 0.405 ha
121
-------
Purchase of Water Rights
In many cases, particularly in the western states, the
consumptive use of water may require the purchase of water
rights. This may be either a capital or annual cost and
should generally be determined on the basis of prevailing
local practices.
Service and Interest Factor
A service and interest factor must be applied to the capital
cost of the system to account for the additional cost of
items such as:
Contingencies
Engineering
Legal, fiscal, and administrative
Interest during construction
Generally, the cost for these items ranges from about 35
percent of the nonland total construction cost for $50,000
projects, to about 25 percent for $100 million projects.
BENEFITS (NEGATIVE COSTS)
Benefits that may apply to land application systems range
from the sale of crops grown or renovated water recovered
to the leasing of land for secondary uses such as recrea-
tion. Monetary or revenue-producing benefits are discussed
more fully in Appendix A, and possible nonrevenue producing
benefits (social or environmental factors) are described in
Appendix B.
Typically, an irrigation or overland flow treatment system
would have an economic benefit from the sale of the crop
grown.
Prices and yields will vary with the locality and should be
determined from local sources. As an aid, however, typical
yields and prices for some feed and fiber crops grown in
California for 1973 are given in Table 7 [42]. Similar
information is available in most states through cooperative
extension services at land grand universities. The data for
Reed canary grass are from a University of Missouri publica-
tion [2] where the Missouri price range is $15 to $30 per
ton.
122
-------
Table 7. TYPICAL YIELDS AND PRICES FOR CROPS IN CALIFORNIA
FOR 1973 [42]
Price, Yield,
Crop Unit $ per unit units per acre
Perennials
Alfalfa, hay ton 49.00 8.0
Alfalfa, seed3 cwtb 42.00 3.1
Clover, seed3 cwt 62.50 4.0
Reed canary grass
hay,c ton 20.00 4.5
Annuals
Barley
Corn, silage^
Cotton, lint
Grain hay
Grain sorghum
cwt
ton
cwt
ton
cwt
4.58
15.00
47.00
--
5.11
50.0
25.0
8.0
1.8
65
Note: Prices reflect seasonal averages received by
farmers at the first delivery point.
a. For 1972.
b. cwt = 100 Ib.
c. For Missouri, reference [2].
d. From reference [10].
Metric conversion: Ib x 2.2 = kg
acres x 0.405 = ha
COST CALCULATION PROCEDURE
To facilitate the use of the cost data presented for Stage
II sample cost calculation sheets have been developed and
are shown as Tables 8 and 9. For each alternative to be
analyzed, a similar calculation sheet could be used.
The procedure for calculating State II costs is as follows:
1. Enter the cost curve or table for the applicable
cost components and read off the cost.
2. For operation and maintenance costs, multiply the
resultant annual costs per unit by the appropriate
units to yield the cost in dollars per year.
123
-------
Table 8. STAGE II CALCULATION SHEET FOR CAPITAL COSTS
Alternative No.
Type of system
Average flow
Analysis date"
_mgd
Cost component
Total cost, Amortized cost,
$ $/yr
Preapplication treatment
Transmission
Storage
Field preparation
Distribution
Recovery
Additional costs
Service and
interest factor @
Land
mil gal,
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
/acre
TOTAL
Amortization:
;, n =
yr, CRF
, PWF =
124
-------
Table 9. STAGE II CALCULATION SHEET
FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Alternative No. Average flow mgd
Type of system Analysis date
Annual cost, $/yr
Labor Power Material Total
Preapplication treatment
Transmission
Storage mil gal.
Distribution
Recovery
Additional costs
Benefits
TOTALS
125
-------
3. Adjust the costs for different cost indexes or
wage or power rates.
4. Multiply the costs by an appropriate adjustment
factor, if necessary.
5. Enter the resultant costs on the calculation sheet
for that cost component.
For operation and maintenance costs, the total annual costs
in dollars per year for labor,, power, and materials, can
now be found by summing the appropriate columns. For
capital costs and amortized capital costs, however, several
additional steps are necessary before totals can be deter-
mined. To obtain the total capital cost in dollars:
1. Increase the nonland subtotal of the costs of all
components by the appropriate service and interest
factor.
2. Add to this subtotal the cost of land.
To obtain the amortized cost in dollars per year:
1. Determine the capital recovery and present worth
factors for the appropriate interest rate and
period from Appendix E.
2. Multiply the nonland subtotal cost including the
service and interest factor by the capital recov-
ery factor to obtain the amortized nonland sub-
total.
3. Determine the present worth of the salvage value
of land by multiplying the initial cost of land
by the appropriate present worth factor.
4. Subtract this value from the initial cost of land
and multiply by the appropriate capital recovery
factor to obtain the amortized cost of land.
5. Add the amortized nonland subtotal and the amor-
tized cost of land.
126
-------
EXAMPLE
The use of the cost curves, adjustment factors, and cost
calculation sheets is illustrated in the following example.
A hypothetical 1-mgd (43.8 I/sec) spray irrigation system
to be constructed as part of a new wastewater treatment
system in the Baltimore area, is used in this example. The
example is meant to illustrate all facets of the cost
curves, adjustment factors, and calculation sheets, and the
total costs should not be compared with other hypothetical
cost estimates.
Basis of Costs
1. The analysis date is July 1974. The EPA Construction
Cost Indexes for that date are 204.7 for sewage treat-
ment plants and 226.0 for sewers.
2. The labor rate including fringe benefits is $7.50/hr.
3. The electrical power cost is $0.02/kwh.
4. The materials cost is assumed to be equal to February
1973 cost.
5. Amortization at 71 is for 20 yr (capital recovery
factor = 0.0944, present worth factor = 0.2584).
Assumptions
1. Preapplication treatment is to consist of preliminary
treatment (screening, grit removal, and flow measure-
ment), aerated lagoons, and chlorination.
2. The distance from the preapplication treatment plant
to the land application site is 2 miles (3.2 km).
3. From a water balance calculation, the storage require-
ment is 35 days of detention.
4. The land terrain is essentially flat and covered with
brush and trees. Debris can be disposed of onsite.
5. The application rate is to be 2.4 in./wk (6.1 cm/wk).
6. The soil is a loam underlain by clay.
7. Perennial grass is to be harvested by the staff twice
a year, with a yield of 5 tons/acre/yr (11.2 metric
ton/ha/yr).
127
-------
8. The buffer zone requirement is ISO feet (45 m) around
the irrigated area.
Solution (Total Capital Cost)
The determination of total capital cost is shown on a
sample cost calculation sheet (Table 10, page 132), and is
discussed for each line item. Additional minor assumption
and adjustments are included to illustrate the range of
applicability of the cost curves. All costs are given to
the nearest thousand dollars.
Each of the costs determined from cost curves is updated,
or trended to the analysis date by means of the indicated
EPA Construction Cost Index, as follows:
1. For costs keyed to EPA Sewer Construction Cost
Index
updated cost = cost x
2. For costs keyed to EPA Sewage Treatment Plant
Construction Cost Index
226.0
updated cost = cost x 194.2
Land - From Figure 15, for a flow of 1 mgd (43.8 I/sec),
a nonoperating time of 5 weeks, and an application rate of
2.4 in./wk (6.1 cm/wk) .
field area requirement = 120 acres (48.6 ha)
Total land requirements based on a preliminary layout are:
acres ha
Field area 120 48.6
Buffer zone 33 13.4
Roads 3 1.2
Storage 9 3.6
Preapplication treatment 10 4.1
Total 175 70.9
128
-------
Preapplioat-ion Treatment - Includes
preliminary treatment, aerated lagoon,
and chlorination.
1. Preliminary treatment - Based on maximum
flow of 2.5 mgd (109 I/sec), updated cost
from reference [37] $ 63,000*
2. Aerated lagoon - Updated cost from
Figure 16 $ 80,000
Chlorination - Updated cost from Figure 17 $ 40,000
$120,000*
Transmission - Includes force main, repaying,
right-or-way and easement acquisition, special
crossings, and effluent pumping station.
1. Force main - From Figure 19, updated cost
for 10-in. (25.4 cm) pipe is $14.50/lf $153,000
Repaying - 1,000 ft (305 m). From Figure
19, updated cost of repaying for 10-in.
pipe is $2.80/lf $ 3,000
Right-of-way and easement acquisition-
4,000 ft (1,220 m). From local sources,
cost is determined to be $2.00/lf $ 8,000
Special crossings - 2 streets. Cost
determined from local sources $ 12,000
$176,000*
2. Effluent pumping - From Figure 21,
for total head of 150 ft (45.7 m) $133,000*
Storage - From Figure 23, updated storage
costs for required storage volume of 35 mil
gal. (133,000 cu m) are:
reservoir construction $ 46,000
lining $103,000
riprap $ 50,000
$199,000*
Number entered on Table 10, page 132.
129
-------
Field Preparation - From Figure 24, updated
cost or clearing site of brush and few trees
Distribution - Includes solid set spraying
(buried) distribution system and distri-
bution pumping.
1. Solid set spraying (buried) - Updated
cost from Figure 27
Adjustment factor for 80 ft by 80 ft
(24.4 m by 24.4 m) sprinkler spacing,
or 6.8 sprinklers/acre
2. Distribution pumping - From Figure 33,
for total head of 150 ft (45.7 m)
Recovery of Renovated Water - 50 acres of
underdrains with spacing of 100 ft. Updated
cost from Figure 34
Additional Costs - Includes administrative
and laboratory facilities, monitoring wells,
and service roads and fencing .
1. Administrative and laboratory facilities
Updated cost from Figure 39
2. Monitoring wells - Four wells of 20-ft
depth. Updated cost from Figure 40
3. Service roads and fencing - Updated
cost from Figure 41
First Subtotal - Total of numbers*
Service and Interest Factor - 30 percent
of first subtotal
Second Subtotal - First subtotal plus
service and interest factors
$ 62,000*
$ 201,000
x 1.09
$ 219,000*
$ 93,000*
$ 58,000*
- Cost of $l,000/acre ($2,470/ha)
determined from local sources
Total - The total capital cost is
determined to be
$ 58,000*
$ 3,000*
$ 58,000*
$1,242,000*
$ 372,000*
$1,615,000*
$ 175,000*
$1,790.000*
Number entered on Table 10, page 132.
130
-------
Solution (Amortized Capital Cost)
The determination of the amortized capital cost is shown in
the right-hand column of Table 10. First the nonland sub-
total is amortized by multiplying it by the capital
recovery factor of 0.0944. The resulting amortized cost of
$152,000 per year is entered in the appropriate space.
A salvage value of zero at the end of the 20-year planning
period is assumed for all components except land. For land,
the salvage value after 20 years is assumed to be the
present market value of $175,000. The present worth of the
salvage value at 7 percent interest is $45,000, which is
determined by multiplying the present market value by the
present worth factor of 0.2584. The difference between the
two values of $130,000 is multiplied by the capital recov-
ery factor 0.0944 to obtain the amortized cost of land of
$12,300 per year.
Solution (Operation and Maintenance Cost)
The determination of annual operation and maintenance costs
is shown on a sample cost caluclation sheet (Table 11).
The method for determining the costs of each individual
component from cost curves is similar to that used for
total capital costs; consequently, a discussion of that
method for each line item is not included. Two items which
are discussed because of their unique nature are cultiva-
tion and harvesting costs, and the benefits from crop sale.
Cultivation and Harvesting - From Table 6,
the estimated labor and materials costs for
alfalfa hay are:
1. Labor - Total total from labor and harvest
columns of $89/acre ($36/ha) $ 10,700
2. Materials - The total from the materials
column less the estimated costs of water
and fertilizer, or $60/acre ($24.3/ha) $ 7,200
Benefits - From Table 7, the estimated nega-
tive materials cost from the sale of alfalfa
hay, assuming a conservative yield of 5 tons/
acre (11.2 metric tons/ha) and a price of
$40/ton ($44/metric ton), is $200/acre
($494/ha). ($ 24,000)
131
-------
Table 10. EXAMPLE OF COMPLETED STAGE II
COST CALCULATION SHEET FOR CAPITAL COSTS
Alternative No.
Type of system
SPRAY IRR.
Average flow
Analysis date
mgd
~^4
Cost component
Total cost, Amortized cost,
$ $/yr
Preapplication treatment
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
AERATED LAGOON AND CHLORINATION
Transmission
FORCE MAIN
EFFLUENT PUMPING
35
Storage
Field preparation
SITE CLEARING
mil gal.
Distribution
SOL/0 SET SPRAYING (BURIED)
DISTRIBUTION PUMPING _
Recovery
UNDERDRAWS
63.OOP
120.000
176. OOP
133, OOP
199. 000
62. OOP
219. OOP
93. OOP
58.000
Additional costs
ADMIN a LAB FACILITIES
MONITORING WELLS
SERVICE ROADS a FENCING
58.000
3,000
58. OOP
SUBTOTAL 1,242. QQQ
Service and
interest f
Land 6
'actor @ 30 %
SUBTOTAL
61.000 /acre
TOTAL
372, OOO
1.615. 000
175. OOO
1.790.000
152.500
12.300
164.800
Amortization:
i = 7 t. n
20
CRF = Q.Q944 . PWF = Q.2584
132
-------
Table 11. EXAMPLE OF COMPLETED STAGE II
COST CALCULATION SHEET FOR
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Alternative No.
Average flow
mgd
Type of system SPRAY IRR.
Preapplication treatment
PREL IMINA RY TREATMENT
AERATED LAGOON AND CHLORINATION
Transmission
FORCE MAIN
EFFLUENT PUMPING
Storage 35 mil gal.
Distribution
SOLID SET SPRAYING (BURIED)
DISTRIBUTION PUMPING
Recovery
UNDERDRAINS
Additional costs
ADMIN a LAB FACILITIES
MONITORING WELLS
SERVICE ROADS 8 FENCING
CULTIVATION S HARVESTING
Labor
7,100
8,600
2.900
800
12.300
2.900
1.800
8, GOO
500
10.700
Analysis date JUL
Annual cost, $/yr
Power Material
1.500
6,OOO 2,OOO
5OO
6,500 30O
-- 600
/.500
6.500 300
-- 2,600
/.900
-- 100
1.400
7.200
'74
Total
8.600
16,600
500
9.700
1,400
13.800
4,400
10.500
600
1.400
17.900
Benefits
SALE OF CROP
(24.OOP) (24,000)
TOTALS 56.20O 19,000
133
-------
APPENDIX A
REVENUE-PRODUCING BENEFITS
Revenue-producing benefits should be incorporated into the cost-
effectiveness analysis procedure as negative operation and
maintenance costs. Possible monetary benefits include (1) sale
of crop grown, (2) sale of renovated water recovered, (3) sale
of surplus effluent to adjacent farmers or industries,
(4) lease of purchased land back to farmers for the purpose
of land application, and (5) lease of purchased lands to
groups or individuals for secondary purposes, such as seasonal
recreation. Additional benefits may arise in a specific
locality if secondary uses of the water or land are practical.
If recreational or other social or environmental benefits
can be quantified, they should be incorporated into the monetary
portion of the cost-effectiveness analysis.
SALE OF CROP GROWN
Data on cash returns from crops grown using effluents for
irrigation are relatively scarce. Some information is in-
cluded in Sullivan [50] and Pound and Crites [40].. Generally,
the return from the sale of crops will offset only a portion of
the total operation and maintenance cost. The cost of planting,
cultivation, soil amendments (if necessary), and harvesting
should be offset by the crop sale for a well-operated system.
The relative costs and benefits of crop production will depend
on local farming practice, the local economy, and the type
of irrigation system. Referring back to Table 7, the returns
from the sale of annual crops, especially where two or more
crops can be raised in a year, are generally higher than for
perennials. On the other hand, operating costs are usually
higher and the needed degree of farming expertise may also
be greater.
For overland flow systems, the economic returns generally
amount to a small fraction of the operating costs [52 , 18] .
SALE OF RENOVATED WATER RECOVERED
This benefit is most applicable to overland flow and
infiltration-percolation systems. The return will depend on
the economic value of water in the area and the restrictions,
if any, placed on the use of the water. This type of benefit
has been incorporated into management plans for Bakersfield,
California, and Phoenix, Arizona.
135
-------
SALE OF SURPLUS EFFLUENT
This has been practiced at many existing land application sites
in Texas and California to reduce storage costs, raise revenue,
or, in one case, to satisfy a lawsuit. In Pomona, California,
effluent is purchased from the Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts at $7 per acre-foot ($0.006 per cu m) and sold to
various users at $5 to $22 per acre-foot ($0.004 to 0.018
per cu m) [40].
LEASE OF LAND FOR IRRIGATION
As an alternative to the conduct of farming operations by
cities or sanitary districts, the land owned by the city or
sanitary district is leased to a local farmer. Such leases
are prevalent in the western states. Variations exist on the
length of the lease, the requirements for storing or applying
effluent, and the responsibility for maintenance of distribution
facilities.
LEASE OF LAND FOR RECREATION
This type of benefit has been realized at Woodland, California,
where land that is leased to a farmer for $23 per acre ($57 per
ha) for irrigation in the summer is leased to a duck club for
$6 per acre ($15 per ha) during the late fall for hunting
privileges [40]. Other recreational benefits may be feasible
at other locations.
136
-------
APPENDIX B
NONREVENUE-PRODUCING BENEFITS
Nonrevenue-producing benefits including social and environmental
benefits must be accounted for descriptively in the cost-
effectiveness analysis to determine their significance and
impact. Social benefits may include recreational activities,
creation of greenbelts, or preservation of open space. Environ-
mental factors may include reclamation of sterile soils or
repulsion of saline water intrusion into aquifers by groundwater
recharge.
SOCIAL BENEFITS
Recreational benefits should be included in the descriptive
analysis, especially where parks or golf courses are to be
irrigated. The creation of greenbelts and the preservation
of open space are planning concepts specifically encouraged
in P.L. 92-500 for wastewater management systems.
Where the social benefits identified can also be quantified,
they should be incorporated into the monetary portion of the
cost-effectiveness analysis.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
Claims of environmental benefit for recycling of nutrients
should be scrutinized closely to determine whether nutrients
are being recycled, or whether nutrient problems are only
being transferred from one area to another. Energy savings
resulting from use of fertilizing agents in effluents in
lieu of commercial fertilizer should be evaluated on the basis
of actual fertilizer value of the effluent and local fertilizing
practice.
Reclamation of sterile or strip-mined soil by applications of
wastewater is an environmental benefit that is difficult to
quantify. Similarly, groundwater recharge to reduce salinity
intrusion is a qualitative benefit. The environmental benefits
that can be achieved through a specific wastewater management
alternative should be enumerated and evaluated to determine
their significance.
137
-------
APPENDIX C
REFERENCES
1. Ackerman, W.C. Cost of Municipal Sewage Treatment.
Technical Letter 12, Illinois State Water Survey.
June 1969.
2. A Guide to Planning and Designing Effluent Irrigation
Disposal Systems in Missouri. University of Missouri
Extension Division. March 1973.
3. Allender, G.C. The Cost of a Spray Irrigation System
for the Renovation of Treated Municipal Wastewater.
Master's Thesis, University Park, The Pennsylvania State
University. September 1972.
4. Bauer, W.J. and D.E. Matsche. Large Wastewater Irri-
gation Systems: Muskegdn County, Michigan and Chicago
Metropolitan Region. In: Recycling Treated Municipal
Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and Cropland,
Sopper^W.E. and L.T. Kardos, (ed.). University Park,
The Pennsylvania State University Press. 1973. pp 345-
365.
5. Bouwer, H., R.C. Rice, and E.D. Escarcega. Renovating
Secondary Sewage by Ground Water Recharge with Infil-
tration Basins. U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory,
Office of Research and Monitoring. Project No. 16060
DRV. Environmental Protection Agency. March 1972.
6. Brown and Caldwell/Dewante and Stowell. Feasibility
Study for the Northeast-Central Sewerage Service Area,
County of Sacramento, California. November 1972.
7. Buxton, J.L. Determination of a Cost for Reclaiming
Sewage Effluent by Ground Water Recharge in Phoenix,
Arizona. Master's Thesis, Arizona State University.
June 1969.
8. Campbell, M.D. and J.H. Lehr. Water Well Technology.
McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York. 1973.
9. Consulting Engineering - A Guide for the Engagement of
Engineering Services. ASCE - Manuals and Reports on
Engineering Practice - No. 45. New York, ASCE. 1972.
139
-------
10. Cantrell, R.P., et al. A Technical and Economic Feasi-
bility Study of the Use of Municipal Sewage Effluent
' for Irrigation. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on
Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation, Wilson, C.W.
and F. E. Beckett (ed.). Louisiana Polytechnic Insti-
tution. July 30, 1968. pp 135-157.
11. Crites, R.W. Irrigation with Wastewater at Bakersfield,
California. In: Wastewater Use in the Production of
Food and Fiber--Proceedings. EPA-660/2-74-041. June
1974.
12. Crites, R.W., C.E. Pound, and R.G. Smith. Experience
with Land Treatment of Food Processing Wastewater.
In: Proceedings of the Fifth National Symposium on Food
Processing Wastes, Monterey, California. EPA-660/2-
74-058. June 1974.
13. Cunningham, H. Environmental Protection Criteria for
Disposal of Treated Sewage on Forest Lands. Eastern
Region, U.S. Forest Service. Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
July 1971.
14. Davis, W.K. Land Disposal III: Land Use Planning.
Journal WPCF, 45, No. 7, pp 1485-1488. 1973.
15. Drainage of Agricultural Land. Soil Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Water infor-
mation Center, Inc. 1973.
16. Estimating Staffing for Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Facilities. Operation and Maintenance Program. Office
of Water Program Operations, Environmental Protection
Agency. March 1973.
17. Evaluation of Land Application Systems. Office of Water
Program Operations, Environmental Protection Agency.
Technical Bulletin, EPA-430/9-75-001. March 1975.
18. Gilde, L.C., et al. A Spray Irrigation System for
Treatment of Cannery Wastes. Journal WPCF, 43, No. 8,
pp 2011-2025. 1971.
19. Gray, J.F. Practical Irrigation with Sewage Effluent.
In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Municipal Sewage
Effluent for Irrigation, Wilson, C.W. and F.E. Beckett
(ed.). Louisiana Polytechnic Institution. July 30,
1968. pp 49-59.
140
-------
20. Green, R.L., G.L. Page, Jr., and W.M. Johnson. Con-
siderations for Preparation of Operation and Maintenance
Manuals. Office of Water Program Operations, Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
21. Guidance for Facilities Planning. Office of Air and
Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency.
January 1974.
22. Hill, R.D., T.W. Bendixen, and G.G. Robeck. Status
of Land Treatment for Liquid Waste-Functional Design.
Presented at the Water Pollution Control Federation
Conference. Bal Harbour. October 1964.
23. Houston, C.E. Drainage of Irrigated Land. California
Agricultural Extension Service Circular 504. December
1967.
24. Houston, C.E. and R.O. Schade. Irrigation Return-
Water Systems. California Agricultural Extension
Service Circular 542. November 1966.
25. Hutchins, W.A. Water Rights Laws in the Nineteen Western
States, Volumes I, II, and III. Miscellaneous Publica-
tion No. 1206. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1971.
26. Lance, J.C. Nitrogen Removal by Soil Mechanisms.
Journal WPCF, 44, No. 7, pp 1352-1361. 1972.
27. Land Application of Sewage Effluents and Sludges:
Selected Abstracts. Office of Research and Development,
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 660/2-74-042. June
1974.
28. McGauhey, P.H. and R.B. Krone. Soil Mantle as a
Wastewater Treatment System. SERL Report No. 67-11.
Berkeley, University of California. December 1967.
29. Merz, R.C. Continued Study of Waste Water Reclamation
and Utilization. California State Water Pollution
Control Board, Sacramento, California. Publication
No. 15. 1956.
30. Merz, R.C. Third Report on the Study of Waste Water
Reclamation and Utilization. California State Water
Pollution Control Board, Sacramento, California.
Publication No. 18. 1957.
141
-------
31. National Canners Association. Liquid Wastes from
.Canning and Freezing Fruits and Vegetables. Office of
Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency.
Program No. 12060 EDK. August 1971.
32. Nesbitt, J.B. Cost of Spray Irrigation for Waste-
water Renovation. In: Recycling Treated Municipal
Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and Cropland,
Sopper, W.E. and L.T. Kardos, (ed.). University Park,
The Pennsylvania State University Press. 1973.
pp 334-338.
33. Pair, C.H., (ed.). Sprinkler Irrigation. Supplement
to the 3rd edition. Silver Spring, Sprinkler
Irrigation Association. 1973.
34. Pair, C.H., (ed.). Sprinkler Irrigation, 3rd edition.
Washington, B.C., Sprinkler Irrigation Association. 1969
35. Parker, R.P. Disposal of Tannery Wastes. Proceedings
of the 22nd Industrial Waste Conference, Part I.
Lafayette, Purdue University. 1967. pp 36-43.
36. Parson, W.C. Spray Irrigation of Wastes from the
Manufacture of Hardboard. Proceedings of the 22nd
Industrial Waste Conference. Lafayette, Purdue
University. 1967. pp 602-607.
37. Patterson, W.L. and R.F. Banker. Estimating Costs
and Manpower Requirements for Conventional Wastewater
Treatment Facilities. Office of Research and Monitoring,
Environmental Protection Agency. October 1971.
38. Philipp, A.H. Disposal of Insulation Board Mill
Effluent by Land Irrigation. Journal WPCF, 43, No. 8,
pp 1749-1754. 1971.
39. Postlewait, J.C. and H. J. Knudsen. Some Experiences in
Land Acquisition for a Land Disposal System for Sewage
Effluent. Proceedings of the Joint Conference of Recycl-
ing Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land, Champaign,
University of Illinois. July 1973. pp 25-38.
40. Pound, C.E. and R.W. Crites. Wastewater Treatment and
Reuse by Land Application, Volumes I and II. Office
of Research and Development, Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA-660/2-73-006a,b. August 1873.
41. Powell, G.M. and G.L. Gulp. AWT vs. Land Treatment:
Montgomery County, Maryland. Water § Sewage Works, 120,
No. 4, pp 58-67. 1973.
142
-------
42. Reed, A.D. Sample Costs to Produce Crops. University
of California Cooperative Extension Circular MA-4.
July 1974.
43. Reed, S.C. and T.D. Buzzell. Land Treatment of Waste-
waters for Rural Communities. In: Water Pollution
Control in Low Density Areas, Jewell, W.J. and R. Swan,
(ed.). University Press of New England, Hanover, New
Hampshire. 1975. pp 23-40.
44. Rowan, P.P., K.L. Jenkins, and D.W. Butler. Sewage
Treatment Construction Costs. Journal WPCF, 32, No. 6,
pp 594-604. 1960.
45. Rowan, P.P., K.L. Jenkins, and D.H. Howells. Estimating
Sewage Treatment Plant Operations and Maintenance
Costs. Journal WPCF, 33, No. 2, pp 111-121. 1961.
46. Schraufnagel, F.H. Ridge-and-Furrow Irrigation for
Industrial Wastes Disposal. Journal WPCF, 34, No. 11,
pp 1117-1132. 1962.
47. SCS Engineers. Demonstrated Technology and Research
Needs for Reuse of Municipal Wastewater. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA-670/2-75-038. 1975.
48. Smith, R. Cost of Conventional and Advanced Treatment
of Wastewater. Journal WPCF, 40, No. 9, pp 1546-
1574. 1968.
49. Stevens, R.M. Green Land-Clean Streams: The Beneficial
Use of Waste Water through Land Treatment. Center for
the Study of Federalism. Philadelphia, Temple University,
1972.
50. Sullivan, R.H., et al. Survey of Facilities using Land
Application of Wastewater. Office of Water Program
Operations. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-
430/9-73-006. July 1973.
51. Tchobanoglous, G. Wastewater Treatment for Small Com-
munities. In: Water Pollution Control in Los Density
Areas, Jewell, W.J. and R. Swan, (ed.). University
Press of New Englend, Hanover, New Hampshire. 1975.
pp 389-428.
52.
C. W. Thornthwaite Associates. An Evaluation of Cannery
Waste Disposal by Overland Flow Spray Irrigation.
Publications in Climatology, 22, No. 2. September 1969.
143
-------
53. Tihansky, D.P. Cost Analysis of Water Pollution Con-
trol: An Annotated Bibliography. Office of Research
and Monitoring. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, B.C. April 1973.
54. Van Note, R.H., P.V. Hebert, and R.M. Patel. A Guide
to the Selection of Cost-Effective Wastewater Treatment
Systems. Municipal Wastewater Systems Division,
Engineering and Design Branch. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. EPA-430/9-75-002. 1975.
55. Waste into Wealth. Melbourne and Metropolitan Board
of Works. Melbourne, Australia. 1971.
56. Waste Water Reclamation. California State Department
of Public Health, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering.
California State Water Quality Control Board. November
1967.
57. Williams, T.C. Utilization of Spray Irrigation for
Wastewater Disposal in Small Residential Developments.
In: Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge
through Forest and Cropland, Sopper, W.E. and L.T.
Kardos, (ed.). University Park, The Pennsylvania
State University Press. 1973. pp 385-395.
58. Wilson, C.W. The Feasibility of Irrigating Softwood
and Hardwood for Disposal of Papermill Effluent.
Paper No. 71-245, Annual Meeting, American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, Pullman, Washington. June 1971,
59. Woodley, R.A. Spray Irrigation of Fermentation Wastes.
Water and Wastes Engineering, 6, B14-B18. March 1969.
60. Woodley, R.A. Spray Irrigation of Organic Chemical
Wastes. Proceedings of the 23rd Industrial Waste
Conference. Lafayette, Purdue University. 1968.
pp 251-261.
61. Zimmerman, J.P. Irrigation. New York, John Wiley
§ Sons, Inc. 1966.
144
-------
APPENDIX D
EPA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT AND SEWER CONSTRUCTION COST INDEXES
(1957-1959=100)
Table D-l. SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX
Years
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
M 1962
£ 1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Jan
106.80
109.64
110.82
114.05
117.76
121.10
128.68
137.63
150.60
167.73
176.14
188.13
Feb
107.05
109.45
111.04.
114.60
118.08
121.20
129.50
137.87
150.89
168.66
177.49
190.21
Mar
107.08
109.53
111.07
114.77
118.11
121.21
129.84
138.15
153.34
169.16
180.38
190.97
Apr
107.11
109.57
111.12
115.08
118.22
121.55
130.03
138.49
155.41
169.88
181.62
196.10
May
107.22
109.70
111.15
115.34
118.34
121.71
130.03
141.18
157.29
171.41
182.56
197.76
Jun
107.78
109.99
111.83
116.05
119.11
122.49
131.11
143.03
158.62
172.18
182.86
202.53
Jul
108.07
110.24
112.31
116.82
119.63
123.39
132.44
146.25
160.58
172.31
183.68
212.15
Aug
108.52
110.54
112.57
116.92
120.28
123.69
135.34
146.70
165.07
173.11
183.87
Sep
107.19
108.58
110.63
112.70
117.11
120.59
124.53
135.46
147.45
166.30
173.78
184.51
Oct '
107.20
109.54
110.69
112.82
117.51
120.89
126.80
135.85
14S.07
166.25
174.45
184.97
Nov
107.03
109.51
110.73
112.87
117.46
120.91
127.24
136.61
149.28
166.44
175.47
185.79
Dec
106.84
109.60
110.68
113.09
117.48
121.01
127.71
136.86
149.63
167.19
175.68
187.51
Annual
index
98.04
101.50
103.65
104.96
105.83
106.99
108.52
110.11
111.95
116.10
119.41
125.55
132.65
143.64
159.83
171.98
182.62
a. Source: EPA, Office of Water Program Operations
-------
Table D-2. SEWER CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX
Years
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Jan
115.32
118.19
122.72
126.31
135.01.
143.29
157.39
179.56
192.83
206.68
Feb
115.60
118.68
122.98
126.94
135.73
144.00
157.78
180.42
194.22
208.40
Mar
115.65
119.02
122.83
127.04
136.10
144.60
159.17
181.50
195.78
210.49
Apr
114.50
115.72
119.68
123.01
127.40
136.57
145.74
161.01
181.99
196.54
214.20
May
114.42
115.72
119.97
123.36
127.90
136.36
146.81
164.25
184.79
198.93
217.48
Jun
114.69
116.50
120.40
124.23
128.80
137.00
149.15
166.76
185.67
199.63
224.62
Jul
115.19
117.03
121.39
124.74
129.90
139.32
152.57
168.38
186.23
200.97
229.68
Aug
115.10
117.31
121.18
125.36
130.31
141.48
152.62
169.89
187.53
201.34
Sep
115.26
117.32
121.44
125.71
131.12
141.24
153.48
172.00
188.73
202.02
Oct
115.20
117.57
121.93
126.00
132.39
141.49
154.38
173.25
189.27
202.83
Nov
115.03
117.61
122.20
126.17
133.33
141.98
154. S2
177.29
190.44
203.69
Dec
115.01
117.95
122.16
126.24
133.44
142.61
155.94
178.99
191.06
206.01
Annual
index
96.80
100.42
104.78
106.22
108.19
109.72
113.07
114.72
116.61
120.52
124.45
129.57
138.74
149.78
167.18
185.60
199.57
a. Source: EPA, Office of Water Program Operation.
-------
Appendix E
PRESENT WORTH AND
CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTORS
Table E-l.
WORTH FACTOR, PWF =
i = interest
rate, %
5.000
5.125
5.250
5.375
5.500
5.625
5.750
5.875
6.000
6.125
6.250
6.375
6.500
6.625
6.750
6.875
7.000
7.125
7.250
7.375
7.500
7.625
7.750
7.875
8.000
10
0.6139
0.6067
0.5995
0.5924
0.5854
0.5785
0.5717
0.5650
0.5584
0.5519
0.5454
0.5390
0.5327
0.5265
0.5204
0.5143
0.5083
0.5024
0.4966
0.4909
0.4852
0.4796
0.4741
0.4686
0.4632
N
15
0.4810
0.4725
0.4642
0.4560
0.4479
0.4400
0.4323
0.4247
0.4172
0.4100
0.4028
0.3957
0.3888
0.3280
0.3754
0.3689
0.3624
0.3562
0.3500
0.3439
0.3380
0.3321
0.3264
0.3208
0.3152
= period,
20
0.3769
0.3680
0.3594
0.3510
0.3427
0.3347
0.3269
0.3193
0.3118
0.3045
0.2975
0.2905
0.2838
0.2772
0.2708
0.2645
0.2584
0.2525
0.2466
0.2410
0.2354
0.2300
0.2247
0.2196
0.2145
yr
25
0.2953
0.2866
0.2783
0.2701
0.2622
0.2546
0.2477
0.2400
0.2330
0.2262
0.2197
0.2133
0.2071
0.2012
0.1953
0.1897
0.1842
0.1789
0.1738
0.1688
0.1640
0.1593
0.1547
0.1503
0.1460
30
0.2313
0.2233
0.2154
0.2079
0.2006
0.1936
0.1869
0.1804
0.1741
0.1681
0.1622
0.1566
0.1512
0.1460
0.1409
0.1361
0.1314
0.1268
0.1225
0.1183
0.1142
0.1103
0.1065
0.1029
0.0994
147
-------
Table E-2. CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTOR, CRF =
(1
- 1
i - interest
rate, %
5.000
5.125
5.250
5.375
5.500
5.625
5.750
5.875
6.000
6.125
6.250
6.375
6.500
6.625
6.750
6.875
7.000
7.125
7.250
7.375
7.500
7.625
7.750
7.875
8.000
10
0.1295
0.1303
0.1310
0.1319
0.1326
0.1335
0.1343
0.1351
0.1359
0.1367
0.1375
0.1383
0.1391
0.1399
0,1407
0.1416
0.1424
0.1432
0.1440
0.1449
0.1457
0.1465
0.1474
0.1482
0.1490
N
15
0.0963
0.0972
0.0980
0.0988
0.0996
0.1005
0.1013
0.1021
0.1030
0.1038
0.1047
0.1055
0.1064
0.1072
0.1081
0.1089
0.1098
0.1107
0.1115
0.1124
0.1133
0.1142
0.1151
0.1159
0.1168
= period,
20
0.0802
0.0811
0.0820
0.0828
0.0837
0.0845
0.0854
0.0863
0.0872
0.0881
0.0890
0.0899
0,0908
0.0917
0.0926
0.0935
0.0944
0.0953
0.0962
0.0972
0.0981
0.0990
0.1000
0.1009
0.1019
years
25
0.0709
0.0718
0.0727
0.0736
0.0745
0.0755
0.0764
0.0773
0.0782
0.0792
0.0801
0.0810
0.0820
0.0829
0.0839
0.0848
0.0858
0.0868
0.0878
.0.0887
0.0897
0.0907
0.0917
1.0927
0.0937
30
0.0650
0.0660
0.0670
0.0679
0.0688
0.0698
0.0707
0.0717
0.0726
0.0736
0.0746
0.0756
0.0766
0.0776
0.0786
0.0796
0.0806
0.0816
0.0826
0.0836
0.0847
0.0857
0.0867
0.0878
0.0888
148
-------
APPENDIX F
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
APPENDIX A
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
a. Purpose.These guidelines provide a
basic methodology for determining the most
eoet-effcctlve waste treatment management
system or the most cost-effective component
part of any waste treatment management
system.
b. Authority.The guidelines contained
herein are provided pursuant to section 212
(2) (C) of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1972 (the Act).
. c. Applicability.These guidelines apply
to the development of plans for and the
selection of component parts of a waste
treatment management system, for which a
Federal grant is awarded under 40 CFR,
Fart 35.
d. Definitions.Definitions of terms used
In these guidelines are as follows:
(1) Waste treatment management sys-
tem.A system used to restore the Integrity
of the Nation's waters. Waste treatment
management system Is used synonymously
with "treatment works" as denned in 40
CFR, Part 35.905-15.
(2) Cost-effectiveness analysts.An analy-
sis performed to determine which waste
treatment management system or compo-
nent part thereof will result in the minimum
total resources costs over time to meet the
Federal, State or local requirements.
(8) Planning period.The period over
which a waste treatment management sys-
tem Is evaluated for cost-effectiveness. The
planning period commences with the initial
operation of the system.
(4) Service life.The period of time dur-
ing which a component of a waste treat-
ment management system will be capable of
performing a function.
(5) Vseful life.The period of tune dur-
ing which a component of a waste treat-
ment management system will be required to
perform a function which is necessary to
the system's operation.
Title 40Protection of the Environment
CHAPTER IENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER DGRANTS
PART 35STATE AND LOCAL
ASSISTANCE
Appendix ACost-Effectiveness Analysis
On July 3, 1973, notice was published
In the FEDERAL REGISTER that the En-
vironmental Protection Agency was pro-
posing guidelines on cost-effectiveness
analysis pursuant to section 212<2) (c) of
the Federal Water Pollution Act Amend-
ments of 1972 (the Act) to be published
as* appendix A to 40 CFR part 35.
Written comments on the proposed
rulemaking were invited and received
from interested parties. The Environ-
mental Protection Agency has carefully
considered all comments received. No
changes were made in the guidelines as
earlier proposed. All written comments
are on file with the agency.
Effective date.These regulations shall
become effective October 10, 1973.
Dated September 4,1973.
JOHN QUAIU.ES,
Acting Administrator.
e. Identification, selection and screening
of alternatives(1) Identification of alter-
natives.All feasible alternative waste man-
agement systems shall be Initially Identified.
These alternatives should include systems
discharging to receiving waters, systems
using land or subsurface disposal techniques,
and systems employing the reuse of waste-
water. In identifying alternatives, the possi-
bility of staged development of the system
shall be considered.
(2) Screening of alternatives.The Iden-
tified alternatives shall be systematically
screened to define those capable of meeting
the applicable Federal, State, and local
criteria.
(3) Selection of alternatives.Ths
screened alternatives shall be Initially ana-
lyzed to determine which systems have cost-
effective potential and which should be fully
evaluated according to the cost-effectiveness
analysis procedures established in these
guidelines.
(4) Extent of effort.The extent of effort
and the level of sophistication used in the
cost-effectiveness analysis should reflect the
size and Importance of the project.
f. Cost-Effective, analysis procedures(1)
Method o] Analysis.The resources costs
shall be evaluated through the use of oppor-
tunity costs. For those resources that can be
expressed in monetary terms, the interest
(discount) rate established in section (f) (5)
will be used. Monetary costs shall be calcu-
lated in terms of present worth values or
equivalent annual values over the planning
period as denned in section (f) (2). Non-
monetary factors (e.g.. social and environ-
mental) shall be accounted for descriptively
in the analysis in order to determine their
significance and Impact.
149
-------
The most cost-cttectlve alternative shall b»
the waste treatment management system
determined from the analysis to have the
lowest present worth and/or equivalent an-
nual value without overriding adverse non-
monetary costs and to realize at least identi-
cal minimum benefits In terms of applicable-
Federal, State, and local standards for ef-
fluent quality, water quality, water reuse
and/or land and subsurface disposal.
(3) Planning period.The planning period
for the cost-effectiveness analysis shall be 20
years.
(3) Clement* of cost.The costs to be
considered shall include the total values of
the resources attributable to the waste treat-
ment management system or to one of Its
component parts. To determine these values,
nil monies necessary for capital construction
costs and operation and maintenance costs
shall be Identified.
Capital construction costs used in a cost-
effectiveness analysis shall include all con-
tractors' costs of construction including over-
head and profit; costs of land, relocation, and
right-of-way and easement acquisition:
design engineering, field exploration, and en-
gineering services during construction; ad-
ministrative and legal services including
costs of bond sales; startup costs such as op-
erator training; and Interest during con-
struction. Contingency allowances consistent
with the level of complexity and detail of the
cost estimates shall be included.
Annual costs for operation and mainte-
nance (including routine replacement of
equipment and equipment parts) shall be
Included in the cost-effectiveness analysis.
These costs shall be adequate to ensure ef-
fective and dependable operation during the
planning period for the system. Annual costs
.shall be divided between fixed annual costs
'end costs which would be dependent on the
annual quantity of wastewater collected and
treated.
(4) Prices.The various components of
cost shall be calculated on the basis of mar-
ket prices prevailing at the time of the cost-
effectiveness analysis. Inflation of wages and
prices shall not be considered in the analysis.
The Implied assumption Is that all prices
Involved will tend to change over time by
approximately the same percentage. Thus,
the results of the cost effectiveness analysts
will not be affected by changes In the gen-
eral level of prices.
Exceptions to the foregoing can be made
If their Is Just meat Ion for expecting signifi-
cant changes in the relative prices of certain
Items during the planning period. 11 such
cases are identified, the expected change in
these prices should be made to reflect their
future relative deviation from the general
price level.
(5) Interest (discount) rate.A rate of 7
percent per year will be used for the cost-
effectiveness analysis until the promulgation
of the Water Resources Council's "Proposed
Principles and Standards for Planning Water
and Related Land Resources." After promul-
gation of the above regulation, the rate
established for water resource projects shall
be used for the cost-effectiveness analysis.
(6) Interest during construction.In cases
where capital expenditures can be expected
to be fairly uniform during the construction
period, interest during construction may be
calculated as IXK FXC where:
I=the interest (discount) rate in Section
P = the construction period In years.
C=the total capital expenditures.
In cases when expenditures will not be
uniform, or when the construction ]>erlod
will be greater than three years, interest dur-
ing construction shall be calculated on a
year-by-ycar basis.
(7) Service life. The service life of treat-
ment works for a cost-effectiveness analysis
shall be as follows:
Land _______ ......... ___ ...... Permanent
Structures -------------------- 30-60 years
(Includes plant buildings,
concrete process tankage,
basins, etc.: sewage collec-
tion and conveyance pipe-
lines; lift station struc-
tures; tunnels; outfalls)
Process equipment ------------- 16-30 years
(includes major process
equipment such as clartner
mechanism, vacuum filters,
etc.; steel process tankage
and chemical storage facili-
ties; electrical generating
facilities on standby service
only).
Auxiliary equipment ----------- 10-16 years
(Includes instruments and
control facilities; sewage
pumps and electric motors;
mechanical equipment such
as compressors, aeration sys-
tems, centrifuges, chlori-
nators. etc.; electrical gen-
erating facilities on regular
service) .
Other service life periods will be acceptable
when sufficient justification can be- provided.
Where a system or a component Is for
Interim service and the anticipated useful
life is less than the service life, the useful
life shall be substituted for the service life of
the facility In the analysis.
(8) Salvage value. Land for treatment
Works, Including land used as part of the
treatment process or for ultimate disposal of
residues, shall be assumed to have a salvage
value at the end of the planning period equal
to Its prevailing market value at the time of
the analysis. Right-of-way easements shall
be considered to have a salvage value not
greater than the prevailing market value at
the time of the analysis.
Structures will be assumed to have a
salvage value if there Is a use for such struc-
tures at the end of the planning period. In
this case, salvage value shall be estimated
using stralghtlino depreciation during the
service life of the treatment works.
For phased additions of process equipment
and auxiliary equipment, salvage value at the
end of the planning period may be estimated
under the same conditions and on the same
basis as described above for structures.
When the anticipated useful life of a facil-
ity Is less than 20 years (for analysis of In-
terim facilities) . salvage value can be claimed
for equipment where it can be clearly dem-
onstrated that a specific market or reuse
opportunity will exist.
IFROoc.73-19104 Piled 9-7-73;8:45 am)
150
-------
Appendix G
GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS,
AND CONVERSION FACTORS
TERMS
Aerosol - A suspension of fine solid or liquid particles in
air or gas.
Application rate - The rate at which a liquid is dosed to the
land (in./hr, ft/yr, etc.).
Aquifer - A geologic formation or stratum that contains
water and transmits it from one point to another in quan-
tities sufficient to permit economic development.
Border strip method - Application of water over the surface
of the soil.Water is applied at the upper end of the long,
relatively narrow strip.
Contour check method - Surface application by flooding.
Dikes constructed at contour intervals to hold the water.
Cost-effectiveness analysis - The procedure for economic
evaluation of wastewater treatment alternatives given in the
guidelines as 40 CFR 35-Appendix A.
Conventional wastewater treatment - Reduction of pollutant
concentrations in wastewater by physical, chemical, or
biological means.
Drainability - Ability of the soil system to accept and
transmit water by infiltration and percolation.
Evapotranspiration - The unit amount of water used on a
given area in transpiration, building of plant tissue, and
evaporation from adjacent soil, snow, or intercepted
precipitation in any specified time.
Field area - Total area of treatment for a land-application
system including the wetted area.
Flooding - A method of surface application of water which
includes border strip, contour check, and spreading methods.
151
-------
Grass filtration - See overland flow.
Groundwater - The body of water that is retained in the satu-
rated zone which tends to move by hydraulic gradient to lower
levels.
Groundwater table - The free surface elevation of the
groundwater;this level will rise and fall with additions
or withdrawals.
Infiltration - The entrance of applied water into the soil
through the soil-water interface.
Infiltration-percolation - An approach to land application
in which large volumes of. wastewater are applied to the
land, infiltrate the surface, and percolate through the soil
pores.
Irrigation - Application of water to the land to meet the
growth needs of plants.
Land application - The discharge of wastewater onto the soil
for treatment or reuse.
Loading rate - The average amount of liquid or solids applied
to the land over a fixed time period, taking into account
periodic resting.
Overland flow - Wastewater treatment by spray-runoff (also
known as "grass filtration" and "spray runoff") in which
wastewater is sprayed onto gently sloping, relatively imper-
meable soil that has been planted to vegetation. Biological
oxidation occurs as the wastewater flows over the ground
and contacts the biota in the vegetative litter.
Pathogenic organisms - Microorganisms that can transmit
diseases.
Percolation - The movement of water beneath the ground
surface both vertically and horizontally, but above the
groundwater table.
Permeability - The ability of a substance (soil) to allow
appreciable movement of water through it when saturated
and actuated by a hydrostatic pressure.
Primary effluent - Wastewater that has been treated by
screening and sedimentation.
152
-------
Ridge and furrow method - The surface application of water
to the land through formed furrows; wastewater flows down
the furrows and plants may be grown on the ridges.
Secondary treatment - Treatment of wastewater which meets the
standards set forth in 40 CFR 133.
Sewage farming - Originally involved the transporting of
sewage to rural areas for land disposal. Later practice
included reusing the water for irrigation and fertilization
of crops.
Soil texture - The relative proportions of the various soil
separates--sand, silt, and clay.
Soil water - That water present in the soil pores in an
unsaturated zone above the groundwater table.
Spraying - Application of water to the land by means of
stationary or moving sprinklers.
Spray-runoff - See overland flow.
Transpiration - The net quantity of water absorbed through
plant roots that is used directly in building plant tissue,
or given off to the atmosphere.
Viruses - Submicroscopic biological structures containing
all the information necessary for their own reproduction.
Wetted area - Area within the spray diameter of the
sprinklers.
153
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
acre-ft
ASCE
BPT
erf
cm
cu m
cy
diam
EPA
ENRCC
fps
ft
gal.
gpm
ha
hr
acre-foot
American Society of Civil Engineers
best practicable treatment technology
capital recovery factor
centimeter
cubic meter
cubic yard
diameter
Environmental Protection Agency
Engineering News-Record construction cost (index)
feet per second
foot
gallon
gallons per minute
hectare
hour
in. - inch
kg - kilogram
kg/sq cm - kilograms per square centimeter
km - kilometer
kwh - kilowatt-hour
1 - liter
Ib - pound
If - linear feet
m
mil gal
mgd
mg/1
ml
mm
meter
million gallons
million gallons per day
milligrams per liter
milliliter
millimeter
operations and maintenance
154
-------
ppm - parts per million
perim - perimeter
psi - pounds per square inch
PVC - polyvinylchloride
pwf - present worth factor
Q - flow
Qe - effective flow
SCS - Soil Conservation Service
sec - second
sff - sinking fund factor
sq cm - square centimeter
sq ft - square foot
STPCC - sewage treatment plant construction cost (index)
i
wk - week
yr - year
CONVERSION FACTORS
million gallons x 3.06 = acre-feet
acre-inch x 27,154 = gallons
mg/1 x ft/yr x 2.7 = Ib/acre/yr
155
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS
English to Metric
Cngllth unit
acre
crt-foot
cents per thousand gallons
cubic foot
cubic feet per second
cubic inch
cubic yard
cubic yards per acre
defrtt Fahrenheit
feet per second
feet per year
foot (feet)
callen(s)
(lions per acre per day
gallons per capita per day
callous per day
gallons per day per
square foot
tallons per nlnute
(alloas per minute per
square foot
horsepower
inch (as)
inches per day
inches per hour
inches per week
ill ion callons
illion (aliens per
acre per day
illion (allons per day
lie
parts per million
ponno(s)
pounds per acre
pounds per day per sere
pounds per Billion gallons
pounds per square inch
square foot
square inch
square alia
square yard
ton (short)
tons per acre
yard
Abbreviation
acre
acre-ft
4/1.000 gal.
cf
cfs
ex in.
ey
cy/acro
da( F
fP«
«t/yr
ft
gal.
gad
(Cd
cpd
(Pd/sq ft
«»
fp«/»q ft
hp
in.
in. /day
in./hr
in./wk
il f«l.
>Cad
Id
mi
W»
Ib
Ib/acre
Ib/day/acre
Ib/ail gal.
psi
a* ft
sq in.
*q ml
so. yd
ton
tons/acre
ya
Multiplier
0.405
1.23S. S
0.264
21. 12
21.12
It, it
0.01«4
0.765
764. t
1.89
0.555 (*F-32)
0.30S
O.SOS
0.30S
J.7IS
9.353
S.7IS
4.311 X 10"S
1.69( x 10'S
0.211
0.0631
Z.44S
0.679
0.746
2.S4
2.54
2.54
2. 54
3.715
1,765.0
0.039
43.40C
0.0431
1.609
1.609
1.0
0.4S4
453.6
1.121
1.121
0.120
0.0703
0.0929
6.452
2.S90
0.136
907.2
0.907
0.3674
0.914
Abbreviation
ha
cu
sq
kg
ctric ton
metric tons/ha
Metric unit
hectare
cubic acter
centi per thousand liters
liter
liters per second
cubic centimeter
liter
cubic neter
liter
cubic neters per hectare
decree Celsius
eters per second
meters per year
aeter(s)
liter(s)
liters per day per hectare
liters per capita per day
liters per second
cubic neters per hour
per square meter
cubic meters per ninute
per hectare
liters per second
cubic meters per hour
per square aeter
liters per second per
square aeter
kilowatts
centimeter
centimeters per day
centimeters per hour
centimeters per week
aegaliters (liters x 106}
cubic meters
cubic meters per hour per
square meter
liters per second
cubic meters per second
kilometer
meter
ailligrams per liter
kilograa
grams
kilograms per hectare
kilograms per day per
hectare
milligram* per liter
kilograms per square
centimeter
square meter
square centimeter
square kilometer
square meter
kilogram
metric ton
metric tons per hectare
meter
* U.S. Government Printing Off ice: 1976-777-681/56 Region 8
156
------- |