A COMPILATION OF COST INFORMATION FOR
CONVENTIONAL AND ADVANCED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS AND PROCESSES
by
Robert Smith
U.S. Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Advanced Waste Treatment Branch, Division of Research
Cincinnati Water Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio
December, 196?
-------
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
MEMORANDUM
IN REPLYING ADDRESS:
OHIO BASIN REGION
4676 COLUMBIA PARKWAY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45226
February 8, 1968
TO: FWPCA Regional Public Information Officers
U.S. Department of Hie Interior
FROM: Chief, Office of Information
Ohio Basin Region, FWPCA
Cincinnati, Ohio 45226
SUBJECT: "A Compilation of Cost Information for Conventional and Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Plants and Processes," by Robert Smith
December 1967
This memorandum transmits one copy of the subject report for your information
Additional copies are available upon request*to this office.
Gilbert M. Gigliotti
ADDRESSEES:
Kenneth Crotty, Northeast Region
Richard Hoffman, Great Lakes Region
Edward Lee, South Centra! Region
Everett Lemley, Middle AMantic Region
Richdrd H . Myers, Missouri Basin Region
William R. Shipp, Southeast-Region
"* Herbert Simison, Northwest Region
cc C . M. Rogers
Erik Bromberg
Regional Directors
Laboratory Directors
-------
FOREWORD
The cost associated with building and operating wastevater treatment plants
or individxial wastevater processes has always been difficult to estimate Tor
planning purposes. This is particularly true if the cost of the process must
be related to the effectiveness of the process in removing water contaminants
such as BOD, nitrogen, or phosphorus. Many cost studies are available from
the literature or from government sponsored research but the individual engi-
neer often has access to only a limited number of these studies. Assumptions
made in these studies and the cost items included or omitted often vary with
the amount of effort invested in the study or the background and interests of
the person conducting the study. A great deal of information is available,
however, and this report is an effort to bring together in one place most of
the useful information now available using a consistent set of assumptions and
omissions for the purpose of producing a working document useful to engineers
and scientists working in the field of wastevater treatment.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COST OF CONVENTIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
1. Primary Sedimentation Plants
2. Activated Sludge Plants
3. Trickling Filter Plants
COST OF ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
1. Solids Removal by Coagulation and Sedimentation
2. Filtration Through Sand or Graded Media
3. Ammonia Stripping
h. Granular Carbon Adsorption
5. Electrodialysis
6. Microstraining of Secondary Effluent
7. Aeration of Secondary Effluent
8. Chlorination of Secondary Effluent
9. Pipelines for Ultimate Disposal
CONSTRUCTION COST OF INDIVIDUAL EQUIPMENT, STRUCTURES,
& CONSUMABLE ITEMS
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
-------
COST OF CONVENTIONAL WA3TEWATER TREATMENT PLAT-TS
Total construction costs and operating and maintenance costs were taken
from six principal sources.1" Regression relationships from these six sources
are shown in Figures 1, 2, 3, and H. For the three types of conventional
plants, the total cost of treatment in cents per thousand gallons is given in
Figures 5,6, and ~. Field construction costs reported by Logan et al. re-
present the total bonded cost for construction of the plant excluding ancillary
works such as interceptors, outfalls, or pumping stations. Plant construction
O 3 ^4-
costs reported in PHS No. 1229 and Velz3 and Diachishin exclude ancillary
works and also exclude preliminary expenses such as engineering and legal fees,
3 2
land acquistion, interest during construction, etc. Both Velz and PH3 No. 1229
state that costs reported represent about 80$ of the total bonded cost for plant
construction. Since the total bonded cost for plant construction is required
in estimating the total cost of wastewater treatment in cents per thousand
gallons the construction cost data given in references 2, 3, and h were multi-
plied by a factor of (1.25) to make them equivalent to the construction cost
data given by Logan et al.
Logan1, Velz3, and Diachishin used the Engineering News Record Construction
Cost Index to adjust all data collected to a specific point of time. It is
generally conceded, however, that the ENR Construction Cost Index is too heavily
weighted in favor of the cost of common labor. Skilled labor which represents
a significant part of the construction cost has not increased in cost at as
great a rate as common labor over the past 20-30 years. The ENR Building Cost
Y
Index (Table A-l) or the PHS Sewage Treatment Cost Index (Table A-II) are
believed to give a more realistic representation of the increase in construction
7
cost with time. For this reason the PHS Sewage Treatment Cost Index was used
to adjust data from references 1, 2, 3, and k to June, 196? level.
-------
- 2 -
Total plant construction costs adjusted to June, 1967 taken from references
l-k are shown plotted in Figure 1. The values given represent national aver-
ages. The greater cost estimates are given by Logan and Velz and the smaller
2 k
cost estimates are given by PHS No. 1229 and Diachishin ; the ratio of the
two is about (1.6) for the activated sludge plants. For the primary plants
the Logan data is the greatest and Velz data is the smallest; the ratio is
h 2
about (1.7). The Diachishin data and the PHS No. 1229 data fall in between
these extremes. Mean values for construction cost taken from Figure 1 are shown
plotted in Figures U and 5.
Operating and maintenance data from three sources (references 1, 5, and 6)
are shown plotted in Figure 2. The U.S. Department of Labor Average Earnings
8 ,
for Nonsupervisory-Workers in Water, Steam, and Sanitary Systems (Table A-IV)
was used to adjust all operating and maintenance costs to the June, 1967 level.
It can be seen from Figure 2 that the three sources agree well; the spread is
only 10-20$. Mean values from Figure 2 were used in preparing Figures k and 5.
Total construction cost for triakling filter plants taken from references
1, 2, 3, and k are shown plotted in Figure 3. An average of these data was
used In preparing Figure 7. Operating and maintenance cost for trickling filters
from two sources are shown plotted in Figure k. A mean of this data was used
in preparing Figure 7.
As shown in Figure A-I from Division of Pollution Surveillance, FWPCA. the
cost of borrowing money to finance water treatment facilities has been increas-
ing over the last couple of years. Since bonds are sold on the open market,
the cost of borrowing money varies with the type of bonds sold and with the
financial rating of the municipalitv issuing the bonds. k 1/2$ interest, be-
lieved to be an average conservative value,was used in computing the amoritiza-
tion cost of all construction. The correct amoritization period to use is also
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST-DOLLARS PER MGD
for
PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANTS AND ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANTS
adjusted to
JUNE, 1967
Activated Sludge Treatment
gPrimary Treatment
J.A. Logan
PHS Publication No. 1229 (2)
C.J. Velz (3)
I A.N. Diachishin
1 10
Plant Size, millions of gallons per day
100
1000
-------
OPERATING AriD MAINTENANCE COST-DOLLARS/YEAR PER MGD
for
PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANTS AND ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
adjusted to
JUNE, 1967
Sludrae Treatments
Primarv Treatment
m
J.A. Logan et al.
P.P. Rowan et al.
C.L. Swanson
.01
100
1000
Plant Size, millions of gallons per day
-------
: ' ' '. '' ! s M
iWi. 4:11 .1: J^N ! B
^ CONSTRUCTION COST-DOLLARS PER MGD -
for
TRICKLING FILTER PLANTS
adjusted to
JUNE, 196T
J.A. Logan
PHS Publication No. 1229 (2)
C.J. Velz (3)
A.N. Diachishin (k)
1 10
Plant Size, millions of gallons per day
100
1000
-------
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST-DOLLARS/YEAR PER MGD
for
TRICKLING FILTER PLANTS
adjusted to
JUNE. 1967
aTiiSi i [
J.A. Logan et al.
P.P,, Rowan et al.
1 10
Plant Size, millions of gallons per day
100
1000
-------
PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANTS
Capital Cost, Operating & Maintenance Cost, Debt Service
vs.
Design Capacity
100
4 567891
10.
Cost Adjusted to June, 1967
5 67891
10.0
Design Capacity, millions of gallons per day
C = Capital Cost, millions of dollars
A = Debt Service, cents per 1000 gallons(U 1/2$ - 25 yr.)
0 8s M = Operating and Maintenance Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
T = Total Treatment Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
-------
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANTS
Capital Cost, Operating & Maintenance Cost, Debt Service
vs.
Design Capacity
c
H
b
jj
2
,--
n
-
i
c
e
t
c
1
£
50.0
10.0
1.0
Cost Adjusted to June. 196?
100.
10.0
--- i.o
-
.
4 5 678910
0.1
1.0 10.0
Design Capacity, millions of gallons per day
100.
C = Capital Cost, millions of dollars
A = Debt Service, cents per 1000 gallonsfU 1/2% - 25 yr.)
0 & M = Operating and Maintenance Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
T = Total Treatment Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
-------
TRICKLING FILTER PLANTS
Capital Cost, Operating & Maintenance Cost, Debt Service
vs.
Design Capacity
10.0
1.0
1.0
3 4 5678910
r-
^
-
_
1.0
10.0 100.
Design Capacity, millions of gallons per day
C = Capital Cost, millions of dollars
A = Debt Service, cents per 1000 gallons (1* 1/2$ - 25 yr.)
0 & M = Operating and Maintenance Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
T = Total Treatment Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
-------
- 3 -
subject to various interpretations. For example, the amoritization period can
be taken as the maturation period for the bonds. The amoritization period might
also be taken as the maturation period for the plant or structure. This pre-
sents difficulties, however, because the useful life of equipment and structures
varies sharply with the nature of the depreciating item. For example, a con-
crete tank might have a useful life of hO years while equipment which moves or
fouls such as sludge scrapers or aeration equipment might have a useful life
of less than 20 years. To avoid this complexity, the amoritization period was
taken as the maturation period of the bonds which was found to average about 25
years from data collected by the Division of Pollution Surveillance, FWPCA.
COAGULATION AND SEDIMENTATION
Cost estimates for r-oagulation and sedimentation after lime addition (Figure
8) were based primarily on references 10 and 11. Chemicals required were taken
as 300 mg/1 of hydrated lime and 50 mg/1 of ferrous sulfate. The installed cost
of Infilco Densators and associated chemical feeders are shown in Figure A-IV.
Recovery of the settled lime by recalcination was assumed so that no lime dis-
posal charges were incurred. The cost of purchasing lime in the Washington, B.C.
area was found to be 3l8.50 per ton. Amoritization was based on retiring the
loan in 25 years at h 1/2% interest. If the settled sludge is to be disposed of
by pipeline this cost can be estimated from Figure 17, and added to the values
given in Figure 8.
FILTRATION THROUGH SAND OR GRADED MEDIA
The capital cost of sand filters operated at k gpm/sq. ft. (which is about
twice the normal rate of 2 gpm/sq,, ft. used in water purification plants) were
12 13 1^
taken from Orlob & Lindorf, Koenig, and Rehm & Plautz. Operating and
-------
SOLIDS REMOVAL BY COAGULATION & SEDIMENTATION
Capital Cost, Operating & Maintenance Cost, Debt Service
vs.
Design Capacity
1.0
Cost Adjusted to June, 1967
0.1
c
-
i
.10
3 4 5678910
0.01
1.0 10.0
Design Capacity, millions of gallons per day
100.
C = Capital Cost, millions of dollars
A = Debt Service, cents per 1000 gallons(4 1/2 - 25 yr.)
0 & M = Operating and Maintenance Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
T = Total Treatment Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
-------
FILTRATION THROUGH SAND OR GRADED MEDIA - UGFM/SQ FT
Capital Cost, Operating & Maintenance Cost, Debt Service
vs.
Design Capacity
10.
=
c
:
-
li.o
-
-
I
o.i
Cost Adjusted to June, 196?
1.0
0.1
c
-
-
r-
-
-
-
-
H
P
3 4 5678910
.01
1.0
10.0
Design Capacioj., millions of gallons per day
100.
C = Capital Cost, millions of dollars
A = Debt Service, cents per 1000 gallons^ 1/2% - 25 yr.)
0 & M = Operating and Maintenance Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
T = Total Treatment Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
-------
- k -
maintenance cost was taken from the same three sources by subtracting the cost
of chemicals. Amoritization charges vere computed on the basis of retiring
the bonds in 25 years at U 1/2% interest.
AMMONIA STRIPPING
The capital cost of cooling towers for ammonia stripping was taken from
Bauraan and the cost of power and operating and maintenance labor was taken
from Smith and Chapman. Amoritization charges were based on 25 years and
h 1/2$ interest. It should be noted that the removal of ammonia by this pro-
cess is strongly dependent on ambient temperature ranging from greater than
95$ removal in the summer to a lower limit of 50-60$ removal when the tempera-
ture is below zero degrees Centigrade.
GRANULAR CARBON ADSORPTION PROCESS
All cost data for the granular carbon adsorption process were taken from
reference no. IT. The loss of carbon as a result of regeneration was taken as
7 1/2$. Amoritization charges were based on 25 years at U 1/2$ interest.
ELECTRODIALYSIS
18
Cost data for electrodialysis was taken from Ionics Inc. Publication No. V2
19
and a paper recently published by C.A. Brunner. Amoritization charges were
based on 25 years and h 1/2$ interest and no cost for brine disposal was in-
cluded. The cost of brine disposal will depend on the location of the plant
and the disposal means available. Cost estimates for disposal by pipelines
are shown in Figure 17. Normally the brine stream is about 10$ of the in-
fluent stream.
-------
AMMONIA STRIPPING PROCESS
Capital Cost, Operating & Maintenance Cost, Debt Service
vs.
Design Capacity
LLJ I I !
Cost Adjusted to June
1.0
0.1
-
:
-
-
:
^
-
o.i
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.01
10.0 100.
Design Capacity, millions of gallons per day
C = Capital Cost, millions of dollars
A = Debt Service, cents per 1000 gallons(U 1/2$ - 25 yr.)
0 & M = Operating and Maintenance Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
T = Total Treatment Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
-------
GRANULAR CARBON ADSORPTION PROCESS
Capital Cost, Operating & Maintenance Cost, Debt Service
vs.
Design Capacity
100.
5 67891
10.
c
V
H
"
I
C
1.0
1
1-0
Cost Adjusted to June. 1967
iFigure 11
.._ .._.
Ih-
0.1
67891
10.0
Design Capacity, millions of gallons per day
C = Capital Cost, millions of dollars
A = Debt Service, cents per 1000 gallons(4 1/2$ - 25 yr.)
0 & M = Operating and Maintenance Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
T = Total Treatment Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
-------
ELECTRODIALYSIS
Capital Cost, Operating & Maintenance Cost, Debt Service
vs.
Design Capacity
100
10
I
-
g
..
H
7
-
-
c
c
IM-L Cost Adjusted to June, 1967 -
-
3 4 5 6789 1C
1.0
10.0
100.
Design Capacity, millions of gallons per day
C = Capital Cost, millions of dollars
A = Debt Service, cents per 1000 gallons^ 1/2$ - 25 yr.)
0 & M = Operating and Maintenance Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
T = Total Treatment Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
-------
- 5 -
MICROSTRAINING OF SECONDARY EFFLUENT
20
The cost of raicrostraining was taken from an estimate made by Bodien
for a 10 ragd plant receiving secondary effluent similar to that found at the
Lebanon, Ohio Sewage Treatment Plant (27 mg/1 suspended solids). A filter-
ability index of 17 and a Mark I screen was used as the design basis. The
slope of the capital line was arbitrarily taken as 9/10. The microstrainer,
which operates with a head which varies from zero to six inches of water is
easily overloaded as a result of high suspended solids in the influent stream.
The quality of the effluent from the microstrainer also varies with the con-
centration of suspended solid of the feed and the nature of the solids. Ade-
quate design procedures for sizing Microstrainers for use on secondary effluent
are needed.
AERATION OF SECONDARY EFFLUENT
21
Cost estimates by Roesler and Smith are based on building an aeration
tank downstream of an activated sludge plant. The tank was assumed to be con-
crete with typical aeration equipment. Additional blowers were provided to
supply the air needed. Electrical power was assumed to cost one cent per kilo-
watt hour. The costs shown in Figures lU and 15 are for water at 20 C. If
the temperature is increased to 30°C the cost estimates shown in Figures 1^
and 15 should be multiplied by a factor of about two.
CHLORINATION OF SECONDARY EFFLUENT
The design basis of 15 minutes contact time and 8 mg/1 of chlorine re-
22
cotanended by the Ten State Standards was used in making this cost estimate.
The cost of chlorine was taken as n.O cents per pound.
-------
MICROSTRAINTNG OF SECONDARY EFFLUENT
Capital Cost, Operating & Maintenance Cost, Debt Service
vs.
Design Capacity
10.0
.
-
-
BE
-
1
O
.1.0
:
-
:
:
fi
0.10
Cost Adjusted to June, 196?
Figure 13
ttttl
1.0
0.10-S
-
.
-
0.01
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10.0
Design Capacity, millions of gallons per day
100.
C = Capital Cost, millions of dollars
A = Debt Service, cents per 1000 gallons(k 1/2% - 25 yr.)
0 & M = Operating and Maintenance Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
T = Total Treatment Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
-------
AERATION OF SECONDARY EFFLUENT TO RAISE D.O. FROM 1.0 mg/1 to U.O mg/1
Capital Cost, Operating & Maintenance Cost, Debt Service
vs.
Design Capacity
.
E
r
--
I
1.0
-.-
0)
0.10
-
-.-
:
.
0.01
Cost Adjusted to June. 196?
-1.0
0.10
4 5 6 7 8 9 1C
0.01
1.0
10.0 100.
Design Capacity, millions of gallons per day
:
C = Capital Cost, millions of dollars
A = Debt Service, cents per 1000 gallons(U 1/2% - 25 yr.)
0 & M = Operating and Maintenance Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
T = Total Treatment Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
-------
AERATION OF SECONDARY EFFLUENT TO RAISE D.O. FROM 1.0 tng/1 to 6.0 mg/1
Capital Cost, Operating & Maintenance Cost, Debt Service
vs.
Design Capacity
1.0
DC
C
EC
t
DO
fi
I
'
'
^
C
C
-
I
&
Cost Adjusted to June, 196?
=t: 1-0
0.10
-
-:
i-
-:
-
:
;
!
:
K
^
-
P
-
0.01
10.0
100.
Design Capacity, millions of gallons per day
C = Capital Cost, millions of dollars
A = Debt Service, cents per 1000 gallons(U 1/2$ - 25 yr.)
0 & M = Operating and Maintenance Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
T = Total Treatment Cost, cents p«r 1000 gallons
-------
CHLORINATION OF SECONDARY EFFLUENT
Capital Cost, Operating & Maintenance Cost, Debt Service
vs.
Design Capacity
10.0
1.0
rr:^^^^^: 0.10
-
-
-
i
£0.1
0.01
Cost Adjusted to June, 1967
1.0
0.01
..
I
EC
:
c
-
:
..
-
~
-
-
:
-
;-
I
7 8 9 10 0.001
1.0
10.0
100.
Design Capacity, millions of gallons per day
C = Capital Cost, millions of dollars
A = Debt Service, cents per 1000 gallons(^ 1/2$ - 25 yr.)
0 & M = Operating and Maintenance Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
T = Total Treatment Cost, cents per 1000 gallons
-------
- 6 -
PIPELINES FOR ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
The cost of building and operating pipelines as shown in Figure IT was
computed from relationships given in the Office of Saline Water R&D Report
2^
No. 257. The capital cost includes the construction cost of the pipe and
the capital cost of pumping stations. It was assumed that one pumping; station
would be installed for each UOO ft. of dynamic head. Only frictional drop
was considered and this was taken as eight feet of water per mile for pipe
sizes greater than 1.0 mgd and 20 feet of water per mile for the 0.1 mgd size.
Operating and maintenance cost vas taken as 0.25$ per year of the total capital
cost. In most cases, however, the major part of the total cost was amoritiza-
tion charges which were computed on a 30 yr. -3 lA$ interest basis. The cost
of electrical power was assumed to be one cent per kilowatt hour.
CAPITAL COST OF IHEIVTDUAL EQUIPMENT, STRUCTURES, AND CONSUMABLE ITEMS
Most of the cost estimates for individual components of conventional waste-
water treatment plants now available were developed by George S. Russell work-
ing in collaboration with Lynn, Hatfield, and Logan at Northwestern University
under a research grant from the Public Health Service. The original cost esti-
mates were obtained from Dr. W.R. Lynn, now at Cornell University, and plotted
versus the most significant design parameter. For example, the cost of settling
tanks was plotted versus overflow area and the cost of aerators was plotted versus
the volume of the aerator. These plots are shown in Figures 18-28.
From the work of Russell the capital cost of heating equipment for the
digester was found to "be represented by the following relationship:
Capital Cost, dollars = $5000+ $i*0(Digester Volume, cu. ft./3.000)
The cost of constructing sludge drying beds was found to be $2.23 per sq. ft.
The cost of improvements in the plant site can be represented by the following
equation:
-------
COST OF PIPELINES FOR ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
Capital Cost & Total Cost versus Design Capacity
1000
100
DO
E
:
CM
a 10
«
a
Amoritization at 30 yr. - 3
Capital Cost, millions of dollars
'Total Cost, cents/1000 gallons pumped
tfl
Figure 17
1
100
B
fc
:
-
-
1
:
i
:
-
10 3
4 5 f
5 67891
1.0
0.1
1.0
Pipeline Capacity, mgd
10.
-------
Figure if
9_
8_
7_
6.
5_
3_
2.5_
2_
g
7
6
b
4
1.5
1
! L
w
to
H
,
O
R :
--
.:::
77"
8
. .
.-
-
B -
-: -: ;
: ;
1 . ! 1
;
\S
A ,
V _i
I
1
. : ' '
-
,
: ;
"
: :
-S
S
\^
"^
:.-'-- :-'
-
~
^P
'
xH
f>
i 1
" ~
;^x
: : :
.:,
g
i *
. .
::-
-:\
~
X
.
-
~^~
X
:::
-
--
x'
::.: j
COST OF PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
INCLUDING
1. Screen Chamber
2. Grit Chamber
3. Overflow and Bypass
Chamber
k. Par shall Flume
versus
PLANT SIZE, mgd
EE5;;:EEE£=: | .
1.5
2 2,5 3
1
.
4
b
" .
X'
:
--
6
=
X
H
:::
-:
- fft
~
^
;;
x
-;
::1
Z7~
--
'
- -
.-.;
~
8
n
|
i
~£
g
.--
rr
.; .
S 1
Plant Size, mgd
R. Smith July
-------
Figure 193
COST OF PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION TANKS
versus
SURFACE AREA
Estimates by Russell & Axon
January I960 ENR Index = 812
(Dollars/sq. ft.) = $13-^ + $5-2 (lOOO/sq. ft.)
r i ! i r r i T T r T I T I 7T 1 1 ', T"l T r ' ' I-T- -f : >.', J-FZ-TI I 1 1 I 1 i i 4 -I fc ' - 14 J_
Stirface Area. Thousands of sq. ft.
R. Smith July 1965 f
-------
COST OF AERATORS AND HIE GALLERY
Estimates by Russell & Axon
January 1960 ENR Index = 812
=
WFigure 20
CAPACITY,
-------
Figure 21 tp
COST OF FINAL SETTLING TANKS
including
FLEES, VALVES AND FITTINGS
SLUDGE WASTE RMP
SLUDGE COLLECTOR
Estimates by Russell & Axon
January 1960 ENR Index = 812
= $12.60 + $5-35 ( 1000/sq. ft.)
Surface Area. Thousands of Sq. Ft.
I I ..-. ,-. .,,<..:.- I ! I : -I'*. r ' ' I I ' '
R. Smith July 1965 1
-------
CONSTRUCTION COST FOR BLOWER INSTALLATION
versus
BLOWER CAPACITY
Including 1. Blowers
2. Air Headers & Piping
3- Blower House
Figure 22
, cfm/1000
Blower Capacity
R. Smith July 1Q65 ;
-------
^Figure 23==
OOST OP ACTIVATED SLUIXS
RETURN PUMPS
Estimates by Russell & Axon
Jan I960 ENR Index = 812
CO
\\A
H
w
-_.
CO
w
§
*P
-»-i_L_j.
;:
Plant Size, mgd
R. Smith July 1565 I
-------
COST OF DI(ESTERS
versus
DlffiSTER VOLUME
Estimates by Russell & Axon
January 1960 ENR Index = 812
$1.04 + $10.70(1000/cu.ft.)
($/cu.ft.)
Thousands of Cubic Feet
Digester Volume,
R. Smith July 1965
-------
-------
Figure 26
2,5.
COST OF CHLORINE CONTACT TANK AW CHLORINATOR
versus
PLANT SIZE
(15 min. contact time)
Estimates by Russell & Axon
January I960 ENR Index = 8l2
1.5 ~2~~ 2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.0
1.5 2 2.5 3 4
10
Plant Size, mgd
R. Smith July
-------
Figure 27
J- =:==S::= ::::[; iliiiiiiiiiii i::: : :
6. i^Siiii=li=:li;;;;i!i;;;ii«:li ;
1
3- K - - . . ' : :::::-
f_,
2.5_ H - -
r~f ~
o :
p
o .
to _::::.-:;:: :::]::: ::
JH -- - --
10- -102_^ £
£ M EEEgg:|::::|:=^^.
7" o ' *" ~~
6. £ '- _--
§ -yy^:::::-;:^--" ~;".;
^H : - "b :.--!-.: |
4. 43 : > - "
O : ;
2.5. S
E r-. ^-.-i-^-ir--
j-j-t+hi^ - iii i jl i
_
"Ullli BU^
.Ill 1 C
1 rrm^' M:,J- ; -
1 1.5 2.5
1
JUl!l||lii||!l;!|IIHttt|l|l||||l;|i|I^UJ
COST OF CONTRC
:;;;^ INCLUDING
1. Excavatioi
2. Building (i
3. Laboratory
h. Shop
versus
PLANT SIZE
§'-- ftT ^^t
1-H-tttt^t! =f~ 4i-:4: J-- : -~ j-r- r; j - - -jrr .-- LL:
! ijj.j! ir1- r^rrr: ~ ~ ?rrr: rrrr rr rrr n
..._ j
Hff rt: :::T:~ ::Tr:;;| :-'~": :-:- :::1-^'
LPiifflHi^M
II 1 1 g i B J ( 1 1
MHw4 1 hJ I r"r
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
l.(
^m
nfiMtwmrW
)L HOUSE
i @ $3/cu.yd.
§ $1.50/cu.ft.
r
~v;.r EZ
_l- -
::E±::::
_L
- -~ -..:. v
ip::
1.
".ID
-0^
nn
:.: g
d . .
2
H .
L...::
§§t
:::::: ::
-T
.5
- -! - T
- - RTT "H r
: |g E
' ' '
1 : i ; - -
3 4
III [1
1 : ' ' 1 1 I '
jj. n^.^. - : ; _
, M-i i L
B SSn:} ffi
.. 1 1 , ..
-KT
5 6
g
^
:- : -.
., ^
..
J
8
.0
Plant Size, ragd
R. Smith July
-------
m
Fig
ure
LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR JRIMARY AND
IRIMARY WITH ACTIVATED SLUDCE PLANTS
versus
PLANT SIZE
Estimates by Russell & Axon
R. Smith July 1965 .
-------
- 7 -
Capital Cost, dollars = $U*00(mgd)°* 75
Construction cost for sludge thickeners and elutriation tanks were taken from
the personal file of Mr. C. Swanson of FWPCA. These are shown below where ATHM
is the surface area of the thickener in sq. ft. and AE is the surface area of the
sludge elutriation tanks in sq. ft.
UKIT PROCESS CAPITAL COST, dollars
Sludge Thickeners (l8.8 + 9.1/exp(ATHM/13,300))ATHM
Sludge Elutriation (l8.8 + 52.0/exp(AE/6000))AE
Tanks
All cost estimates supplied by Russell and Swanson are keyed to prices in St.
Louis, Mo. in January, 1960. This corresponds to a value of 105.23 for the PHS
Sewage Treatment Construction Cost Index. Since the PHS index was 119.11 for
June, 1967 these cost estimates should be multiplied by 1.13 to adjust them to
the national average level for June, 1967. The cost of influent pumps was ob-
tained from a manufacturer and applies to May, 19^5
In using these data to synthesize the total cost of complete plants it was
found that the following additional costs expressed as a percentage of the total
construction cost were necessary to make the synthesized cost for the complete
plant agree with reported values from operating plants.
1. Contractor's Profit 10$
2. Contingencies and Omissions 15$
3. Land Acquisition 2$
k. Engineering 6-12$
Representative engineering costs as a function of the total construction cost is
shown in Tables A-VI and A-VH and Figures A-II and A-III.
-------
1
w
I
-^
COST OP IBFLUENT PUMPS
versus
FLOW CAPACITY (mgd)
-
'
11
/
B
Figure 29
20 feet nominal Head
Price Includes Pump, Motor, Baseplate and Coupling
4
s
... !
Pump Capacity, mg
ill
-------
It was also found that if the equipment and structures are sized on the
reported average performance of the processes; extra capacity must be pro-
vided for cleaning and maintenance. Extra capacity can be provided by multi-
plying the computed average size required by an Excess Capacity Factor. The
values used for Excess Capacity Factors will depend on the specific design
problem, but average representative values are given in the following list:
UNIT PROCESS
Preliminary Treatment
Primary Settling
Aerator
Air Blowers
Final Settler
Sludge Return Pumps
Control House
Thickener
Digesters
Sludge Elutriation
Vacuum Filter
Incinerator
Sludge Drying Beds
Chlorination
Plant Site Preparation
EXCESS CAPACITY FACTOR
1.0
2.0
1.2
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
The cost of hauling by truck in Cincinnati was found to vary from l£ cents
per ton-mile for a two mile one-way trip to 3«5 cents per ton-mile for a U5 mile
one-way trip. The cost of barging sludge to sea was found to be $3«50 per ton for
a 225 one-way trip from the Washington, B.C. area or about 1.6 cents per ton-mile.
The following table supplied by Koenig ^ shows the average price paid for
chemicals in water plants:
-------
- 9 -
Distribution of Unit Prices
Superv. labor, large, dollar s/hr
Superv. labor, small, dollar s/hr
Op & Maint labor, large, d.ollars/hr
Op & Maint labor, small, dollar s/hr
General labor, dollar s/hr
Elec. energy, large, cents/KWH
Elec. energy, small, eents/KWH
Oil, cents/gas/gal
Alum, large, cents/lb
Alum, small, cents/lb
Alkali, large, cents/lb, h.l. equiv.
Alkali, small, cents/lb, h.l. equiv.
Chlorine, large, cents/lb
Chlorine, small, cents/lb
Carbon, cents/lb
No. of
Points
14
6
14
13
9
14
11
5
13
11
11
10
14
12
10
Dist'n
Type
log
log
log
log
log
la-
log
log
log
log
arith
arith
log
log
arith
Value of
Factor at
10$
1.73
1.35
1.65
1.31
1.04
.65
98
9.8
2.37
3-31
.68
.35
4.15
9.10
8.50
50<£
3-35
2.12
2.40
1.75
1.58
92
1.48
12.
2.65
3.89
1.14
2.40
5.20
12.50
11.80
90#
6.51
3.35
3.50
2.30
2.40
1.30
2.22
18.2
3.00
4.50
1.60
4.10
9.10
17.50
15.20
or
ratio
1.67
1.42
1.34
1.23
1.39
1.32
1.36
1.40
1.09
1.13
1.32
1-53
1.62
1.30
i
1.29
-------
REFERENCES
1. Logan, J.A., Hatfield, W.D., Russell, G.S., and Lynn, W.R., "An Analysis
of the Economics of Wastewater Treatment," Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol. 314-, pp. 860-<°82 (1962).
2. "MODERN SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS - How Much Do They Cost?," Public Health
Service Publication No. 1229, U.S. Govt. Printing Office (196M .
3- Velz, C.J., "How Much Should Sewage Treatment Cost?," Eng . News Record,
lUi, 16, p. 316 (Oct. 191*8).
h. Diachishin, A.N., "Hew Guide to Sewage Plant Costs," En.g. News Record,
159, 15, P- 316 (Oct. 1957)
5. Rowan, P.P., Jenkins, K.L., and Ilovells, D.H., "Estimating Sewage Treat-
ment Plant Operation and Maintenance Costs," Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation. Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 111-121 (Feb. 1961).
6. Swanson, C.L., "Unit Process Operating and Maintenance Costs for Con-
ventional Sewage Treatment Processes," Internal FWPCA Memorandum (Aug.
1,
^ . "Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index," Public Health Service
Publication Ho. IQoQ (1963) .
8. "Employment and Earnings and Monthly Report on the Labor Force," U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of LaLor Statistics, Vol. 13, No. 9 (March
1967) .
9- "Fundamentals of Municipal Bonds," Investment Bankers Association of
America, French-Bray Printing Co. (May
10. Smith, R., "Capital and Operating Cost Estimates for Phosphate Removal
at the Washington, D.C. Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant," FWPCA Memo
to Record (Aug. 1966).
11. Smith, R., "Status of Cost Information on Phosphate Removal," FWPCA Memo
to Record (July 1, 19*37).
12. Orlob, Gerald T. and Lindorf, Marvin R., "Cost of Water Treatment in
California," Journal AWWA (Jan. 195'°')
13- Louis Koenig Reseat:") (San Antonio, Texas), "The Cost of Water Treatment
by Coagulation. Sedimentation and Rapid Sand Filtration," U.S. Public
Health Service, Contract No. p6-b5-120 (Jan. 1966).
lU. Rehm, Leo F. and Plautz, William H., "Various Costs of Clarification,
Filtration, and Lime Softening,: Proceedings of the Eighth Sanitary Eng-
inee-ing Conference, conducted by the Illinois State Department of Public
Health and the University of xllinois. pp. 109-121.
-------
15- Bauman, H. Carl, "Fundamentals of Cost Engineering in the Chemical In-
dustry,'' Reinhold Publishing Corp, New York (196U) .
16. Smith, C.E., and Chapman, R.L., "Recovery of Coagulant, Nitragen Removal,
and Carbon Regeneration in Waste Water Reclamation," Final Report of Pro-
.iect Operations, Dept. of Interior FWPCA Grant WPD-85.
17- Allen, J.B., Claphaa, T.M., Joyce, R.S., and Sukenik, V.A., "Use of Gran-
ular Regenerable Carbon for Treatment of Secondary Sewage." Report to Public
Health Service, Dept. HEW Contract PH ; 6-63-2^3 by Pittsburgh Activated
Carbon Co. (October 1,
18. "Large-Scale Electrodialysis Data with Applications Examples in Southern
California," Ionics Inc. Publication Wo. 72 (April 1, 1965).
19. Brunner, C.A., "Pilot-Plant Experience in Demineralizati on of Secondary
Effluent Using JILectrodialysis," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation
Research Supplement, Vol. 39, No. 10. Part 2.
20. Bodien, D.G. »M Stenburg, R.L., "Microstraining Effectively Polishes Acti-
vated Sludge Effluent," Water and Wastes Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 9 (Sept.
1966) .
21. Roesler, J.F., and Smith, P., "Cost of Aeration of Secondary Effluent,"
FWPCA Memo to Record (Sept. 11,
22. "Recommended Standards for Sewage Works," Adopted by Great Lakes-Upper
Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers (May 10, 1060) .
23. "Manual of Procedures and Methods for Calculating Comparative Costs of
Municipal Water Supply from Saline and Conventional Water Sources in
Texas," Office of Saline Water, R. & D. Report No. 257.
-------
APPENDIX
-------
Table A-I
ENGINEERING NEWS-RECORD BUILDING COST INDEX
U.S. Average
(Base : Year
Year
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
Jan.
356
393
406
425
436
458
480
502
517
536
55^
563
571
584
604
616
635
660
Feb.
356
398
406
425
437
459
483
502
516
537
555
563
573
585
604
621
641
661
Mar.
360
399
407
425
437
460
483
501
516
540
555
563
575
586
606
622
643
663
Apr.
363
400
408
426
437
46l
486
501
517
543
556
565
576
586
607
621
649
May
364
401
410
426
438
462
487
503
519
544
560
569
579
588
609
621
652
June
373
401
412
426
440
464
489
504
521
548
561
570
580
590
612
626
656
675
1950 to 1967
1913 = 100)
July
378
400
4l4
435
444
468
489
50V
524
552
563
572
583
596
615
628
657
Aug.
383
400
422
437
456
478
491
517
526
554
562
571
586
602
616
630
659
Sept .
393
400
424
436
454
479
500
516
535
556
563
571
586
602
617
633
660
686
Oct.
397
403
425
436
455
480
500
517
537
555
561
571
585
604
617
634
659
Nov.
390
404
426
436
456
479
500
517
535
554
561
571
584
602
616
633
659
Dec.
391
406
425
435
457
479
500
516
535
553
562
570
584
603
617
634
658
Annual
Average
375
401
416
431
446
469
491
509
525
548
559
568
580
594
612
627
Source: Engineering News-Record
-------
Table A-IT
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX*
for
1958-1967
Time National Average
August 1958 101.50
August 1959 103.65
August I960 104.96
August 1961 105.83
August 1962 106.99
August 1963 108.52
August 1964 110.5U
August 1965 112.57
August 1966 116.92
June 196? 11911
* Public Health Service Publication No. 1069
-------
Tatle A-IH
THE HANDY-WHITMAN INDEX FOR WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
North Central Division
1950 to 1967
(Base: Year 1936 - 100)
Large Treatment Plant
Small Treatment Plant
Large Treatment Plant
Small Treatment Plant
1950
» &
? I
199 210
203 213
1961
» g
? t
H H
313 315
313 315
1951
09 d
? t
221 225
226 229
1962
» g
? 1
H H
317 324
316 322
1952
s §
227 235
230 235
1963
» &
? t
H H
324 330
322 327
1953
0 0
P £
236 2i*6
237 246
1964
» g
? t
H H
332 3^0
329 336
195^
0 d
P t
246 251
2U7 251
1965
» g
P t
H H
341 350
338 346
1955
0 d
P t
253 258
252 257
1966
» g
? f
H H
353 368
350 362
1956
0 p
P t
267 275
268 276
1967
» g
? 1
H H
367 380
36l 374
1957
f. c_i
0 P
P t
280 288
283 289
1958
SH ^H
0 d
? f
289 296
290 296
1959
C-l GJ
» ?
P t
H H
300 311
300 309
I960
C-| C_i
0 ?
P t
H * '
310 317
311 317
Source: Handy-Whitman Index of Water Utility Construction Costs
-------
Table A-IV
NONSUPERVISORY-WORKER AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS - IN DOLLARS*
Water, Steam, and Sanitary Systems Nonsupervisory Workers
1958 to 1967
Average Earnings by Month in Dollars per Hour
Annual
Average
Year Jan.
1958 1.96
1959 2.0?
I960 2.11
1961 2.25
1962 2.28
1963 2.37
1961). 2.1+2
1965 2.49
1966 2.6l
1967 2.76
n.a. means not
'-Source: U.S.
Feb.
2.00
2.06
2.12
2.27
2-30
2.38
2.hh
2.51
2.65
2.79
Mar.
1-97
2.05
2.12
2.26
2.30
2.37
2.H3
2.50
2.63
2 . 76
Apr . May
1.96 1.96
2.02 2.03
2.11+ 2.13
2.27 2.26
2.32 2-31
2.37 2.35
2.1+1+ 2.M+
2.51 2.51
2.67 2.66
2 . 79 2 . GO
June
2.00
2.0>+
2.15
2.26
2-33
2.37
2.H
2.S2
2.65
2. CO
July
2.00
2.06
2.18
2.29
2-3l|-
2.38
2.1 !-!+
2.55
2.69
n.a .
Aug.
2.00
2.08
2.18
2.27
2-32
2.38
2.1+3
2-55
2.67
n.a .
Sept.
2.02
2.09
2.18
2.29
2.3^
2-39
2.U5
2.56
2.70
n.a .
Oct.
2.03
2.10
2.21
2.29
2.33
2.^0
2.1+5
2.55
2.72
n.a .
Nov.
2.08
2.13
2.23
2.30
2-37
2.1+2
2.1+8
2-59
2.7!+
n.a .
Dec.
2.05
2.09
2.22
2.29
2.36
2.^3
2.1+7
2.58
2.71+
n.a .
Dollars/ Hour
2.00
2.07
2.17
2.27
2-33
2.38
2.1+1+
2.51+
n.a.
n.a.
available
Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics,
Employment and
Earnings
Statistics for the United States, 191+8-67 (Vol. 13 No.~9~J
-------
Table A-V
TABLE OF AMORTIZATION FACTORS
20, 25, and 30-year periods
Three to five percent interest rate
Interest
Rate
3 %
3-1/2
k
U-l/2
~i
Amortization Factor*
20 years
.06722
. 0^036
.07358
.0~6< £
.OPO2U
25 years
057U3
.06067
.06i;01
.067U4
.07095
30 years
.05102
.05U37
.057^3
.06139
.06505
* Annual payment necessary per $1.00 of debt for number of years shown
to repay the debt.
Source: Marks' Mechanical Engineers' Handbook, Sixth Edition, McGraw
Hill Book Company, Inc.
-------
TsT^c A-VT
RECOMMENDED MINIMUM BASIC FEES
Ohio Society of Professional Engineers
General Engineering Projects - Schedule 1
Intercepting, Relief, Storm or Sanitary Sewers
Pumping Stations
Ground or Underground Water Storage Facilities
Water Intakes and Sewage Outlets
Water, Sewage and Industrial Treatment Plants
Minimum Fees - Schedule 1
Cost of Construction
Less than $100,000 - Payroll costs plus a percentage
$100,000 to $500,000 - Base fee of 12% of $100,000
Plus 7-5$ of amount over $100,000
$500,000 to $1,000,000 - Base fee of &.k% of $500,000
Plus 6% of amount over $500,000
$1,000,000 to $5,000,000 - Base fee of 7.2% of $1,000,000
Plus 5-5# of amount over $1,000,000
$5,000,000 to $100,000,000 - Base fee of 5-8U# of $5,000,000
Plus 5-25# of amount over $5,000,000
For alterations to above type projects, add 30# - 50$ to fees shown above.
-------
Table A-VH
FEES FOR PRO!
As Published By The Missouri Society of Professional Engineers
ACTUAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION BASIC MINIMUM FEE*
$ 750,000 to 1,000,000 5-75 %
500,000 to 750,000 6.25 %
UOO 000 to 500,000 6.75 %
300,000 to U00,000 7-00 %
250,000 to 300,000 7-25 %
200,000 to 250,000 7-75 %
150,000 to 200,000 8.25 %
100,000 to 150,000 8.75 %
50,000 to 100,000 10.00 %
25,000 to 50,000 11.00 %
10,000 to 25-000 12.00 %
Less than 10,000 Cost Plus 100$
* Basic fee shall be not less than the maximum calculated
under the next lower total project cost bracket.
-------
5.0
NET INTEREST COST
ALL WATER 8 SEWER BONDS
Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration
4.5
o
Revenue
3.5
A
3.0
General
Obligation
,-rure A-I
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1964
1965
1966
All data for current year are provisional
-------
COMPLEX CHEMICAL PROCESS PLANTS
and
PILOT PLANTS
WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
INSTALLED COST IN MILLIOHS OF DOLLARS
Source: Bauman, "Fundamentals of Cost Engi-
neering In The Chemical Industry,"
Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York
(1964).
-------
TYPICAL ENGINEERING CHARGES IN KANSAS
Percentages do not include resident
inspection.
Figure A-HI
Net Construction, Cost, thousands of dollars
10O
Chart taken from "Directory & Guide",
1962-1963 Addition, published by the
Consulting Engineers Section of the
Kansas Engineering Society.
-------
CAPITAL COST FOR INFILCO DENSATORS .MJ
DOLLARS versus AVERAGE PLOW
Figure A-IV
Plant Size, millions of gallons per day
R. Smith U/U/67
------- |