U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Technical Information Service PB-259 513 ESTIMATING STAFFING AND COST FACTORS FOR SMALL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS LESS THAN 1 MGD PART II, ESTIMATING COSTS OF PACKAGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY AMES, IOWA PREPARED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D, C, JUNE 1973 ------- BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET 1. Report No. 3. Recipient's Accession No. PB-259 513 4. Title and Subtitle Estimating Staffing and Cost Factors for Small Wastewater Trea ment Plants Less than 1 MGD. Part II. Estimating Costs of Package Wastewater Treatment Plants. 5. Report Date -Jun 73 6. 7. Auihorti) George E Lamp, Jr., E. Robert Baumann, Keith L. McRoberts. & 9.M»erfcfmr^(J'l)fj(ani./.ation Name and Address 8. Performing Organization Rept. No. 10. Pro)ect/Task/Work Unit No. Iowa State Univ., Ames. II. Contract/Grant No. EPA-5P2-WP-195-0452 12. Sponsoring Orgam/ation Name and Address Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. Office of Water Program Operations 13. Type of Report & Period Covered 14. 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstracts Effective and efficient wastewater treatment is a function of both the quality of treatment and the cost of treatment. Although the actual quality and cost of treat- ment cannot be known until after a plant is in operation, estimates of both are needed at various times during the process of planning and designing a wastewater treatment system. The report describes costs, cost factors, data from manufacturers, and operating package plants. 17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors *Sewage treatment, *Cost analysis, Municipalities, Industrial plants, Classifications, Operating costs, Cost engineering, Manufacturers, Estimates, 17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms Tables(Data), Capitalized costs, Regression analysis. I7e. COSA1I Field/Croup 13R. IB. Availability Statement National Technical Information Service Springfield, Va. 22161 19. Security Class (This Report) ,ASSIF1ED 20. SecuntyCIass (1 Pag ASS1FIED 21. No. nf 22. NTIS-3S IREV. 10-731 fc.NDORSF.0 BY ANSI AND UNKSCO THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED U3COMM-OC elOS-P'74 ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES II-ii LIST OF TABLES II-v ACKNOWLEDGMENT H-vi 1. INTRODUCTION H_l 1.1 General ll-l 1.2 Classification of Co:jts IX-3 1.3 Factors Influencing Costs II-5 1.4 Scope of Study H_3 2. DATA FROM MANUFACTURERS H-10 2.1 Introduction 11-10 2.2 Data Collection Procedure 11-10 2.3 Data Analysis 11-11 2.4 Summary 11-32 3. DATA FROM OPERATING PACKAGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS 11-35 3.1 Introduction 11-35 3.2 Data Collection Procedure 11-35 3.3 Data Analysis and Results 11-36 3.4 Summary 11-44 4. ESTIMATION OF PROBABLE AVERAGE SERVICE LIFE 11-46 4.1 Introduction 11-46 4.2 Data Available 11-47 4.3 Conclusions 11-50 5. REFERENCES 11-54 APPENDIX II-A List of package plants that have been evalua- 11-57 ted or are under evaluation by the National Sanitation Foundation ------- II - i i 4 1J Page APPENDIX tI-B Bibliography of cost and/or evaluation studies of 11-64 package plants APPENDIX LI-C Sample letter to manufacturers of package plants 11-70 and sample letter to owners of package plants APPENDIX tI-D List of package plant manufacturer8 who responded 11-74 to letter survey APPENDIX tI-E List of manufacturers mentioned in other reports as 11-78 manufacturers of package plants APPENDIX Il-F Forms for collecting manpower data from operating 11-82 package plants APPENDIX 11-C Form for collecting cost data from operating 11-91 package plants ------- II - iii LIST OF FIGURES Page Fig. 1 1-1. Means and standard deviations of list price data from 38 manufacturers for plant sizes 0 to 9000 gallons per day. 11-17 Fig. 11-2. Means and standard deviations of list price data from 38 manufacturers for plant sizes 10,000 to 90,000 gallons per day and selected smaller sizes. 11-17 Fig. 11-3. Means and standard deviations of list price data from 38 manufacturers for plant sizes 100,000 to 500,000 gallons per day and selected smaller sizes. 11-18 Fig. 11-4. Means and standard deviations of list price data from 33 manufacturers for plant sizes 0 to 9000 gallons per day. 11-21 Fig. 11-5. Means and standard deviations of list price data from 33 manufacturers for plant sizes 10,000 to 90,000 gallons per day and selected smaller sizes. 11-21 Fig. 11-6. Means and standard deviations of list price data from 33 manufacturers for plant sizes 100,000 to 500,000 gallons per day and selected smaller sizes. 11-22 Fig. 11-7. Log-log plot o mean list price vs plant design capacity for plants from 33 manufacturers. 11-23 Fig. 11-8. Regression lines for list prices of all plants and for list prices by type of treatment process. 11-28 Fig. 11-9. Regression lines for list prices subdivided by treatment process and sludge collection and return system. 11—29 Fig. 11-10. Regression lines for list prices subdivided by treatment process, sludge collection and return system, and type of basin material. 11-30 Fig. 11-11. Regression lines for list prices subdivided by type of treatment process, sludge collection and return system, basin material, and no digester. 11-31 Fig. 11-12. Regression linQs for list prices subdivided by type of treatment process, sludge collection and return system, basin material, and with a digester and for all plants without a digester. 11-32 Fig. 11-13. Regression lines for list price data subdivided by sludge collection and return system and by type of ba8in material. 11-33 ------- II— iv P age Fig. 11-14. annual equivalent costs of precast concrete basins and steel basins. 11-34 }ig. 11-15. Regression lines for capital cost and for purchase price (plus freight plus sales tax) based on data from operating plants. 11-43 Fig. 11-16. Regression lines for total. annual operating ex- penses based on data from operating package plants. 11-44 Fig. 11-17. Regression lines for annual power expense and labor expense based on data from operating package plants. 11-45 Fig. 11-18. Iowa type survivor curves 04i S 3 , and R 5 . 11-48 Fig. 11-19. Survivor curves for motors and blowers. 11-51 ------- Il-v LIST OF TABLES Page Table It-i. Types of responses from potential manufacturers of package plants. It-Il Table 11-2. Typas of treatment processes, sludge collection and return systems, and basin materials. 11-14 Table 11-3. Means and standard deviations by plant size using data from 38 manufacturers. 11-15 Table 11-4. Means and standard deviations by plant size using data from 33 manufacturers. 11-19 Table It-S. Regression analysis information for the list price-plant size data from the 33 manufacturers. 11-25 Table 11-6. Operating package plants visited by state and use. 11-37 Table 11-7. Manufacturers of the operating package plants visited. 11-38 Table 11-8. Distribution of operating package plants visited by size and type of treatment process. 11-39 Table 11-9. Regression analysis information for data from operating package plants. 11-42 Table 11-10. Manufacturers’ estimates of the probable average service life of package plants. 11-49 Table tI-Il. Life tables for motors and blowers. u-so ------- I 1-vi ACKNOWLEDGNENT Grateful acknowledgment is made to all equipment manufacturers, cities and towns, and private owners of package wastewater treatment plants who provided information and assistance for this project. Thanks are also due to the many state and federal officials who assisted us. Special thanks are due to the Program Director, Dr. Baumann, and the Project Coordinator, Dr. McRoberts; Craig Wilson for his work in collecting the operating plant data; Ralph Cooey, David Johanson, Ray Lemke, Kevin Walker and John Trzeciak for their efforts in coding and checking data; Dr. Roger Berger for his assistance with the SAS computer program; and Phyllis Beckler, Julia Lindeman, and Genelle Severtaon for their secretariat work. ------- h-i 1. tNTRODUcTION 1.1 General Effective and efficient wastevater treatment is a function of both the quality of treatment and the cost of treatment. Although the actual quality and cost of treatment cannot be known until after a plant is in operation, estimates of both are needed at various times during the proce$ of planning and designing a wastewater treatment system.. Preliminary cost estimates may be made early in the planning process by consultants or regulatory agencies to facilitate financial planning and to compare costs of alternate plants. Estimates of the quality of treatment would also be made to evaluate the ability of different alternatives to meet particular effluent quality standards. These preliminary estimates are frequently based on studies of historical data. As the planning progresses, additional design data become available and more accurate estimates can be based on the specific design and specifications of each alternative treatment system. Recent studies of construction and operating costs include a compilation and discussion of several studies by Smith 1 in 1968, a 1970 report of the operation and maintenance costs of municipal plants in the years 1957 through 1969 by Michel and Johnson 2 , a 1970 report of construction costs of municipal plants in the years 1967-1969 by Michel 3 , a 1970 article on costs and manpower for municipal plants by Michei 4 , a 1972 article by Dreva, Malan, Merring, and Moffatt on the performance and evaluation of the orbal extended aeration process 5 , and a 1971 study of the construction, operation, and maintenance coats and manpower require- ments of large conventional facilities by Black and Veatch Consulting ------- 11-2 Engineers 6 . These studies have generally dealt with conventional waste- water treatment plants rather than package plants. The National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) conducted research in 1965-1966 to establish methodology and criteria for evaluating the per- forinance of extended aeration type package plants 7 . Subsequently, NSF conducted similar research on contact stabilization type package plants 8 . Since then, NSF has established Standard Number 409 and Basic Criteria C-9 1 ° relating to the evaluation of individual aerobic units and special processes or devices, respectively. NSF has evaluated (1) extended aeration plants from eighteen manufacturers, (2) special processes or devices used in treating wastevater from one manufacturer, and (3) indi- vidual aerobic wastevater treatment plants from two manufacturers; NSF is currently conducting a performance evaluation of package wastewater treatment plants from six manufacturers. A listing of these manufac- turers may be found in Appendix A. The certification data is the property of the manufacturer and requests for data should be accordingly made to the appropriate manufacturers. A few recent cost studies have been made of package plants. Drobny and Quasi i 11 made a cost effectiveness study for the U.S. Navy of plants suitable for serving groups of 500 and 1000 men at advanced bases; they 12 have published an article on this work . A methodology was developed and utilized for evaluating plants when a number of criteria are to be considered (such as simplicity of installation, space requirements, etc.). Data on plant size, process description, volume, weight, fuel require- ments, labor requirements and capital costs are presented In an appendix. Snoeyink and Mahoney 13 studied cou!nercially available treatment plants for the U.S. Air Force. Performance data is given for ------- 11-3 individual plants. Cost data is presented for the plants as a group and not for individual plants. Goldstein 14 ’ 15 compiled cost and performance information on small units as part of a study of wastewater treatment systems for rural corn- munities. Baily and Vallman 16 have also reported on household systems. Seymour 17 presents information on the operation and performance of package plants under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati. The performance of three extended aeration package plants was studied over a three-week period and the results are reported in the article. Other recent studies on the per- formance of package plants have been made by Dague, Elbert, and Rockwell 18 19 20 21 Kugelman, Schwartz, and Cohen , Mulbarger and Reid The University of Wisconsin is currently conducting a study of on- site domestic wastevater treatment systenis 22 . The project is quite comprehensive in scope and includes studying “... criteria for proper site evaluation, equipment design, equipment installation, and long-term ,22 maintenance... Some manufacturers have conducted private evaluation studies or funded independent studies of their package plants. Known studies are included in the bibliography, Appendix B, along with other cost and evaluation studies. 1.2 Classification of Costs The total cost of a facility include8 all costs of owning and operating that facility. Two broad classes of costs are capital related costs and cash operating costs. Capital related costs are those costs ------- 11-4 associated with investing money in a facility and include (1) the initial or first costs and (2) a return on the dollars tied up in the invest- ment. Dollars invested in a facility cannot be invested in some other manner which would earn the investor a return. Hence, a cost of in- vesting in a facility is a return on the invested dollars. This con- cept applies even when a governmental unit is the investor since the investment money comes from private individuals and organizations which could invest their money in projects earning a return. Private ownership involves the additional capital related costs of paying income taxes associated with (2) above, earnings on the dollars tied up in the investment (if the plant is not 1007. debt financed). Public ownership does not directly involve income taxes but it does affect local, state, and national sources of government revenues (see 23, chapter 11 for additional discussion). tnitlal or first costs may be defined as 23 : “... the sum of the costs of purchase, freight in, sales tax, installation, and other such related initial expenditures including preproduction checking. In the case of a building, first cost includes architectural fees, legal fees, permit costs, landscaping costs, property taxes during construction, and interest lost during construction as well as the construction cost itself. Some expenditures, such a for an expanded facility, lead to an expanded need for the items which comprise working capital.” In es- sence, first costs are all of those costs necessary to acquire a facility and put it in an operable condition. These costs, except for working capital, represent the purchase of a comraodity which is “consumed” over a period of years. ------- h-S Since only a relatively small amount of money is tied up in operating supplies and other working capital items, working capita]. costs were excluded from the study. “Interest lost during construction” or “interest during construction” (IX) is an imputed return on the funds expended for physical assets during the time the assets are being constructed or erected and before they are put into service. Data on expenditures in- curred more than one year prior to the first use of the plant were sought but such expenditures essentially did not occur. Hence, IDC costs are not included herein in the analysis of first costs. The cost of replacing a major component or performing a major overahaul is similar to initial or first costs since the purchased “commodity” is consumed over a period of years. The replacement of minor itemc and minor repairs occur throughout the life of a facility and are relatively insignificant in size; hence, they are usually treated as cash operating costs. Cash operating costs are those expenditures other than first costs and major replacements or overhauls. They include the day-to-day direct operating expenses such as operator labor, utilities, laboratory testing, etc., as well, as maintenance, housekeeping or yardwork, and administration expenses. 1.3 Factors Influencing Costs Several variables were expected to affect capital and operating costs. Two variables were thought to be particularly important: plant size and the amount of testing performed. Other variables which might influence costs include: ------- 11-6 1. Type of basin or tank material 2. Type of aerobic digestion treatment process (including method of aeration) 3. Type of sludge collection system 4. Type and quantity of accessory equipment. Plant size (measured in gallons per day of design capacity) is a major determinant of capital related costs. Size also influences cash operating expenses. The amount of testing performed is a major factor in the variability of cash operating expenses. Testing affects not only testing related costs but also the amount of effort an operator can usefully expend in controlling the performance of a plant. Plant tanks or basins may be made of plastic, fiberglass, steel, or precast concrete. The type of basin material may affect capital costs directly through the cost of the material and, indirectly, through the length of the life of the facility (some materials may last longer than others). Two other variables which might effect capital costs were suggested for steel tanks 24 , quantity of steel and total length of weld. Data was not collected on either of these variables during the course of this study. Two categories of treatment processes are included herein in operating plants: extended aeration and contact stabilization. A finer subdivision was not expected to improve the validity of the study significantly. Seven treatment process categories were utilized in classifying the data from manufacturers: contact stabilization, ex- tended aeration (air diffusers), extended aeration (mechanical surface aerators), extended aeration (aspirating propellor or impellor), fill and ------- 11-7 draw, trickling filter, and miscellaneous types. Mechanical aeration usually involves agitation of the surface by some mechanical device. A diffused air system involves pumping air into the liquid by means of a motor, blower, and some type of air diffuser. Air may also be in- jected into the liquid by an aspirating propellor or impellor. The aeration system may affect both first costs and cash operating expenses and is probably the major plant component requiring overhaul and/or re- placement. Activated sludge may be returned to the plant aeration compartment from the final settling tank by gravity flow, by an air-lift return pump or by mechanical scrapers plus an air-lift return pump. The sludge return system influences both capital costs and cash operating expenses. In some units (primarily small size units) such as those involving membrane filters or fill and draw operations, sludge is not returned from one compartment to another. Accessory equipment, such as coinutors, ch].orinators, sludge holding tanks, etc., can have a significant impact on both capital related costs and cash operating expenses. What is standard equipment and what is an accessory may vary with manufacturers and may be dependent on plant size. In addition, the type and quantity of accessory equipment included in the list price of operating plants varies considerably. Dif- ferences in list prices arising because of varying amounts of accessory equipment would distort cost analyses; therefore list prices should be adjusted to reflect a basic plant. ------- 11-8 1.4 Scope of Study The general term “package plant” is applied to plants which are preengineered and use standardized equipment 8 . A sewage treatment System is usually designed by an engineer but the major component of the system may be a package plant. These plants may range from units with poured concrete basins and a package of standard equipment from a manu- facturer to units fabricated at the manufacturer’s factory but field erected at the site to units which are completely fabricated and as- sembled at the factory. The term is broad enough to include units used on water craft as well as those used on land and units based on the chemical treatment of wastes as well as those based on anaerobic and/or aerobic digestion and a variety of other treatment methods. Time did not permit nor did the project’s scope require a considera- tion of all possible types of plants which are preengineered and which utilize standardized equipment. The following definition of a “package plant” was adopted for the purpose of this study and is not necessarily suitable for any other purpose: A complete wastewater treatment plant designed, fabricated, and assembled at a manufacturing location and transported to the treatment site where it is installed and connected to waste- water influent and effluent pipe8. Plants which were shipped to the site in a few pieces for final assembly were included in the study whereas units which were essentially field erected and/or had poured concrete basins were excluded from the study. In addition to the limitations imposed by the above definition, only certain types of package plants were. considered. In particular, ------- 11-9 only land-based plants designed for the treatment of sanitary sewage by an aerobic biological process were included in the study. Manpower data were collected from operating plants and are in- cluded in the manpower portion of this report (Part I). A bibliography of cost and performance evaluation studies of package plants was com- piled and j.s included as Appendix B. A third category of data is cost data. Capital cost data was solicited from manufacturers of package plants. Capital cost and operating cost data were obtained from operating plants. These costs are the subject of the remainder of this report. ------- 11-10 2. DATA FROM MAI UFACTURERS 2.1 Introduction Two primary types of data were solicited from manufacturers — list price data and data on the location of operating package plants. List price data on a large variety of plant sizes and from different manu- facturers were needed to obtain enough data to make a meaningful analysis. The most direct sources of list price data are the manufacturers them- selves; and only through manufacturers could data on all sizes manufactured by the individual manufacturer be obtained. Plant location data were solicited from manufacturers to supplement location data obtained from state pollution regulatory agencies. In addition to list price and location data, manufacturers were also asked for data on operation and maintenance costs, estimated life of plants, and reliability and/or operational data. Manufacturers were promised that cost data would be kept confi- dential and not identified to specific companies; hence, list prices of specific plants are not given. Average list prices and standard devia- tions and equations obtained from regression analysis provide useful guidelines for preliminary cost estimating. Estimates of the list price of a specific plant which includes particular accessory equipment and is to be utilized in a given geographical area should be obtained directly from a distributor or manufacturer. 2.2 Data Collection Procedure Names of potential package plant manufacturers were obtained from a variety of sources including Thomas’ Register, the Water and Pollution ------- II -11 Control Equipment Review, Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federa- tion, Water and Sewage Works, Water and Waste Engineering, and a number of reports on, or related to, package plants 7 ’ 11 ’ 25 . In April and May 1972, letters were sent to (potential) package plant manufacturers requesting capital cost data and other information on plants up to ap- proxImately 150,000 gpd (sample letter is shown in Appendix C). As the study progressed additional manufacturers were contacted. A second letter was sent in June and July to those companies which did not respond in any way to the first letter. A third letter was sent in September to all companies which had not responded to the first and second letters. Both telephone calls and letters were utilized ;o discuss the data request and to obtain additional data about the plants. 2.3 Data Analysis The types of responses from manufacturers are shown in Table Il-I. Table 11-1. Types of responses from potential manufacturers of package plants. Manufacture package plants and sent co8t data 38 Manufacture package plants and did not send cost data 12 Do not manufacture package plants now but plan to 4 Manufacture shipboard units 3 Manufacture nonaerobic package plants 5 Do not manufacture package plants 58 No response Total 191 ------- 11-12 Companies which responded and indicated that they do manufacture or plan to manufacture package plants are listed in Appendix D. Appendix D also includes a list of companies manufacturing shipboard units and a list of companies manufacturing package plants which do not fall within the definition of a package plant as established for this study. Ap- pendix E is a list of companies which did not respond or were not con- tacted but which were mentioned in other reports or in the literature as manufacturers of package plants (in a more general sense). Some companies were not contacted when available plant descriptions indi- cated they were not manufacturers of package plants, as defined for this report. The lists of manufacturers of package plants should not be con- sidered exhaustive. Although a thorough search was conducted for the names of manufacturers, experience indicates that not all were found, especially those of companies which serve a relatively local market. The price figure selected for analysis was list price, FOB the manufacturer’s plant. List prices were adju8ted, if necessary, to exclude the cost of freight, service agreemer t, and plant installation. Since nearly all manufacturers provide some assistance in starting up the plant as part of the purchase price, no effort was made to eliminate this cost. Prices actually charged by dealers may be different than list prices because of competition. Price variations may also arise because of differing amounts of accessory equipment. A meaningful analysis of plant cost data can be obtained only if the plants are similarly equipped or if the costs are adjusted to reflect costs of similarly equipped plants. Equipment features ------- 11-13 of a “basic” plant were established. The “basic” plant includes the necessary blowers, motors, control panels, and internal piping but does not include comminutors, chiorinators, chlorinator tanks, foam control equipment, stand-by equipment, extra grating nor sludge holding tanks. Digestors are included only when they are an integral part of the basin. The price of a plant having more features was adjusted to yield an estimate of the cost of a “basic” plant. These derived costs are not exact, but they do provide a better basis for the comparison of costs among plants than do unadjusted costs. List prices were expected to be a function of the variables: plant size (design capacity), type of process, type of sludge collection and return system, type of basin material, and the presence or absence of a digester. Table 11-2 lists various types of treatment processes, sludge collection and return systems, and basin materials. The data were analyzed in two ways: (1) a calculation of the mean (or average) list price and standard deviation of the average list price by size (design capacity) and (2) a regression analysis across sizes for various combinations of the other variables. An analysis involving only one or two package plants would yield no meaningful results. In addition, the results of an analysis involving the package plants of only one or two manufacturers might unintentionally lead to a breach of our promise to keep the cost data confidential to the extent of not associating prices with specific manufacturers. For these reasons, no grouping of the plants by size, etc. was analyzed unless the group contained plants from at least three different manufacturers. ------- 11-14 Table 11-2. Types of treatment processes, sludge collection and return systems, and basin materials. Types of processes Type of sludge collection and return systems Types of basin materials Contact stabilization Air lift pump Precast concrete Extended aeration-air diffusers Extended aeration-surface aerators Collector arms and air lift pump Gravity feed Steel Plastic and fiberglass Extended aeration-aspirating propellor No sludge return Fill and draw Trickling filter Miscellaneous An initial calculation was made of the mean and standard deviation for each plant size with all plants, regardless of type of process, sludge collection system or basin material lumped into one group for that size. Table 11-3 shows the results in tabular form. The data set consisted of 381 plants from 38 manufacturers of which 56 (381-325) were in size groups consisting of plants manufactured by less than three different companies. Plots of the results are shown in Figs. 11-1-3; the mean (list price) for a size is indicated by a short horizontal line and a vertical line indicates the mean list price plus and minus one standard deviation (if the list prices are normally distributed, the range of values between the mean-plus-one standard deviation and the mean-minus-one standard deviation includes approximately 2/3 of the population of list prices). ------- 11-15 Table 11-3. Means and standard deviations by plant size using data from 38 manufacturers. Plant size, Number of Mean gallons plants in list Standard per day sample price deviation 300 6 1,350 1,309 400 3 1,123 410 500 7 1,349 648 600 8 1,465 1,433 800 4 1,061 543 900 3 1,150 187 1,000 11 2,568 2,140 1,500 10 2,475 1,249 2,000 9 4,148 2,103 2,500 5 4,375 1,719 3,000 6 6,077 2,161 4,000 7 6,644 2,389 5,000 14 7,474 2,442 6,000 9 8,081 2,894 7,000 8 8,404 3,779 7,500 4 9,492 1,360 8,000 8 9,395 3,772 9,000 7 10,398 4,339 10,000 17 9,787 3,827 11,000 4 13,143 6,227 12,000 5 12,853 6,262 12,500 3 8,199 1,066 ------- 11-16 Table 11-3. Continued. Plant size, Number of Mean gallons plants in list Standard per day sample price deviation 13,000 4 14,825 6,947 14,000 .4 15,209 6,981 15,000 15 12,730 5,961 16,000 3 12,895 2,162 17,500 4 12,847 4,924 20,000 16 14,268 4,029 25,000 8 13,730 2,534 30,000 14 1 .7,555 4,155 35,000 8 18,690 3,840 40,000 14 22,711 5,876 45,000 5 22,538 4,328 50,000 17 29,497 10,930 60,000 7 29,904 8,342 70,000 5 33,121 7,935 75,000 4 39,570 11,363 80,000 3 37,016 10,590 90,000 3 39,268 11,627 100,000 11 47,177 25,105 200,000 6 44,195 8,453 300,000 5 50,502 12,492 400,000 5 57,106 14,689 500,000 6 104,215 97,020 325 ------- h-h Fig. 11.1. Means and standard deviations of list price data from 38 manufacturers for plant sizes 0 to 9000 gallons per day. 12,000 10, 8,000 6,000 U ,- 4, 2,000 0 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 DESIGN CAPACITY, gaIIor p day Fig. 11-2. Means and standard deviations of list price data from 38 manufacturers for plant sizes 10,000 to 90,000 gallons per day and selected smaller sizes. 60,000 50,000 40,X0 ‘A 2O,000 - 10, 0 A review of the data indicated that the list prices of plants manufactured by some companies were nearly always higher or lover than those of the other plants in the same size groups. One cause seemed to be certain treatment processes: fill and draw, trickling filter, and 000 30,000 50,000 70,000 20,000 40,000 60,000 80 DESIGN CAPACITY, qa ltons p.r day ------- 11-18 Fig. 11-3. Means and standard deviations of list price data from 38 IMnufacturers for plant sizes 100,000 to 500,000 gallons per day and selected smaller sizes. 120,000 100,000 - h ,cx,o- 60,0 0 0 - 4O,000- I I I I I I 0 100,000 300,000 500,000 700,000 900,000 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 DEIGN CAPACrTY, pir day miscellaneous. List prices by specific manufacturers could also be consistently hig1 or low because the prices include different services (service agreements, installation assistance, etc.) and/or different equipment which the author did not detect (and, therefore, did not ad- just the list prices accordingly). Plants utilizing treatment processes which are substantially dif- ferent from the majority of plants can be justifiably eliminated. Therefore, plants based on treatment processes categorized as fill and draw, trickling filter, and miscellaneous were removed from the data set and a second calculation was made of the mean list price and standard deviation for each size group. The results of the second calculation are shown in Table 11-4 and Figs. 11-4-6. The data set consisted of 336 plants from 33 manufacturers, 55 (336-281) of which were in sizes groups consisting of plants from less than three different manufacturers. ------- 11-19 Table 11-4. Means and standard deviations by plant size using data from 33 manufacturers. Plant size, Number of Mean gallons plants in list Standard per day sample price deviation 300 4 743 255 500 7 1,349 648 600 6 873 321 900 3 1,150 187 1,000 9 2,178 2,148 1,500 9 2,139 696 2,000 7 4,248 1,848 2,500 4 3,836 1,416 3,000 5 5,593 2,019 4,000 6 6,002 1,838 5,000 11 7,358 1,806 6,000 7 7,073 1,747 7,000 5 7,570 2,149 7,500 4 9,492 1,360 8,000 6 7,947 2,121 9,000 5 8,676 2,541 L0,000 14 9,325 2,623 12,000 4 10,216 2,436 12,500 3 8,199 1,066 14,000 3 11,812 1,966 15,000 14 11,696 4,584 ------- 11-20 Table 11-4. Continued. Plant size, Number of Mean gallons plants in list Standard per day sample price deviation 16,000 3 12,895 2,162 17,500 4 12,847 4,924 20,000 16 14,268 4,029 25,000 8 13,730 2,534 30,000 14 17,555 4,155 35,000 8 18,690 3,840 40,000 14 22,711 5,876 45,000 5 22,538 4,328 50,000 17 29,497 10,930 60,000 7 29,904 8,342 70,000 5 33,121 7,935 75,000 4 39,570 11,363 80,000 3 37,016 10,590 90,000 3 39,268 11,627 100,000 10 44,344 24,540 200,000 6 44,195 8,453 300,000 5 50,502 12,492 400,000 5 57,106 14,689 500,000 6 104,215 97,020 281 ------- 11-21 Fig. 11-4. Means and standard deviations of list price data from 33 manufacturers for plant 8izes 0 to 9000 gallons per day. 12,000 10,000 - 8,000 — 6,000 4,000 - 2,000 I I I I I I I 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,0009,000 DESIGN CAPACITY, gallons pee day Fig. 11-5. Means and standard deviations of list price data from 33 manufacturers for plant sizes 10,000 to 90,000 gallons per day and selected smaller sizes. 60,000 50,000 - I - 30,000 - .iJ 10,000 - 4 trJ I I I I I I I I 0 10000 30,000 50,000 70,000 90 20 40,000 60,000 80,00w DEIGN CAPACI1Y, gallons per day There were not enough data points for any given plant size to calculate means and standard deviations for any given combination of class variables (type of process, type of sludge collection system, type of basin material, and presence or absence of digester). Only rarely were there sufficient data points to calculate a separate mean and ------- 11-22 Fig. 11-6. Means and standard deviations of list price data from 33 manufacturers for plant sizes 100,000 to 500,000 gallons per day and selected smaller size8. 0 100,000 300,000 500,000 700,000 200 00 400 00 600,000 800,. DESIGN CAPACIrI, gollons p day standard deviation for list price vs size and each of two types of processes. Consequently, an attempt to determine the effect of the several class variables was left to a regression analysis. Figures 11-3 and 11-6, especially, indicate a nonlinear rela- 1,3,26,27 tionship between list price and size. A number of studies used a cost-size relationship of the form: = where Y = list price in dollars, X = plant size in 100’s of gallons per day, and A, B = constants. A graphic representation of this type of relationship between variables is best expressed by a plot on log-log paper. If the data points form a reasonably straight line, then the formula will do a reasonable job of relating list price to plant size. Figure lI-i i8 a plot (on log-log ------- 11-23 100,000 10,000 0 uJ U a- ‘I , 1,000 100 Fig. 1 1-7. Log-log plot of mean list price vs plant design capacity for plants from 33 manufacturers. graph paper) of the mean list price of each size group (using the data set involving 33 manufacturers). Since the data in Fig. 11-7 indicate a linear relationship, a regression analysis was performed using the logarithmic transform of the list price-plant size relationship: Y=AXB i.e., PLANT DESIGN CAPACITY, gallons per day log Y = log A + B log X ------- 11-24 The regression analyses were performed on only the 336 plants from the 33 manufacturers (this excludes plants utilizing fill and draw, trickling filter, and miscellaneous treatment processes). A preliminary review of the data indicated that the e were less than three different manufacturers represented in the “extended aeration — surface aerators” and exactly three represented in the “extended aeration — aspirating propellor” treatment processes; therefore, all extended aera- tl.on subclassifications were discarded and all extended aeration plants included in a single group. As a result, the number of types of treat- ment processes was reduced to two, contact stabilization and extended aeration. The equation, Y = AXB, expresses a relationship between list price and plant size. The effect of the several class variables (type of treatment process, type of sludge collection and return sy8tem, type of basl.n material, and presence or absence of a digestor) is obtained by fitting the equation to several subsets of data, each data subset con- taining only those plants with specified characteristics. Data from all 33 manufacturers were grouped and the effects of manufacturer on the list price-plant size relationships were not calculated. Table 11-5 shows the results of the regression analyses. A regres- sion equation was fitted to each possible combination within each of the fo .lowing groups of class variables: 1) treatment process 2) treatment process and sludge collection and return system 3) treatment process, sludge collection and return system, and basin material ------- Table TI-S. Regression analysis information f or the list price-plant size data from the 33 manu- facturers. aC a. contact stabilization Extended a a extended aeration bAt lift air lift pump Mech. a mechanical collection and air lift sludge return Gravity — gravity flow return No return no return of sludge Cconcrete a precast concrete basin Steel a steel basin Plastic a plastic or fiberglass basin dy 5 a with digester No a without digester Type of bT of sludge collection c Type of d Presence or absence Smallest Largest Number of plant in plant in treatment process and return system basin material of a digester observations data set 4ata set in data set (100’s of gpd) (100’s of gpd) Log A A 8 2 r — — — — 336 2 7500 2.61893 416 0.65426 0.91 Contact s. 51 100 7500 3.06028 1149 0.49551 0.65 Extended a, 285 2 5000 2.56817 370 0.68234 0.91 Extended a. Air lift 193 3 1000 2.58847 388 0.66731 0.90 Extended a. Hech. — — Same aa “extended a., mech., steel, —“ Extended a. Gravity — 22 4 600 2.41442 260 0.81320 0.92 Contact s. Hech. Steel 4 ]. 100 7500 3.25193 1786 0.41090 0.86 Extended a. Air lift Concrete Same as “extended a., air lift, concrete, no” Extended a. Air lift Steel 136 5 1000 2.77091 590 0.60349 0.90 Extended a. Air lift Plastic — Same as “extended a., aft lift, plastic, no” Extended a. Mech. Steel 50 20 5000 3.23973 1737 0.44014 0.90 Extended a. No return Plastic Same as “extended a. — no return) plastic, no” Contact s. Mech. Steel Yes 35 100 7500 3.25347 1793 0.40719 0.85 Extended a. Air lift Concrete No S3 5 1000 2.40683 255 0.70629 0.97 Extended a, Air lift Steel No 124 5 1000 2.75771 572 0.61310 0.90 Extended a. Air lift Plastic No 4 3 10 2.61885 416 0.35917 0.84 Extended a. Hech. Steel Yes 31 20 5000 3.21930 1902 0.41914 0.90 Extended a. No return Plastic No 18 2 25 2.43166 270 0.74143 0.80 — Air lift - — 199 3 5000 2.60406 402 0.65888 0.91 — Gravity — 22 4 600 2.41442 260 0.81320 0.92 — — Concrete — 65 5 5000 2.30712 203 0.16187 0.95 Steel — 247 5 7500 2.87582 751 0.55155 0.89 — — No 248 2 5000 2.53665 344 0.69274 0.93 ‘ -4 I ’ , ‘a ------- 11-26 4) treatment process, sludge collection and return system, basin material, and presence or absence of a digester. A regression equation was also fitted to the data for all 336 plants. A number of the data subsets contained no data; for instance, there were no plants using the contact stabilization treatment process and a gravity feed sludge collection and return system. (Further classifica- tion by basin material and digester also results in empty data sets.) The regression equations for data subsets consisting of plants manu- factured by less than three different companies are not reported to preserve the confidential nature of the data. The regression equations for which the square of the correlation coefficient, r 2 , are less than 0.80 are not reported except the equation for all contact stabilization plants. The equation for all contact stabilization plants is included since that data subset (all contact stabilization plants) is an important major subset. The value of r 2 is a measure of the total variation of one variable (list price) which can be accounted for by the other variable (plant size). Although the r 2 values were calculated from the regression equation log Y log A + B log X rather than Y + ABX, they still provide some indication of the amount of variation in plant cost which can be explained by plant size. For example, the regression analysis of the data subset “extended aeration, air lift sludge return system, precast concrete basin and no digester” yielded an r 2 value of 0.97. Such a high r 2 value means that most of the variation in list prices can be explained in terms of plant size even though data from at least three different manufacturers are included in this data subset. ------- 11-27 A dash line under a class variable, in Table 11-5, means that no distinction is made between plants on the basis of that class variable for the particular regression analysis. For example, line one shows “-,-,-,-“ indicating that all plants, regardless of treatment process, sludge collection and return system, basin material, and presence or absence of a digester are included in the data set; line nine shows “extended a., air-lift, steel, —“, indicating that all plants with the following characteristics are included in the subset: extended aeration treatment process, air-lift pump sludge collection and return system, and a steel tank, with or without a digester; the last line shows “-,-,-,NO” indicating that the data set consists of all plants without a digester regardless of type of treatment process, sludge collection system, and basin material. The values of log A, A, and B are given for each regression equation. A user may estimate list price by either equation: Y=AXB or log Y = log A + B log X or by reading it from a graph. Figures 11-8-13 are plots of the regres- sion equations. The lines are drawn between the smallest and largest plants in the data subset (within the limits of the graph paper). Data on large size extended aeration-gravity return plants (Fig. 11-9) came from one manufacturer; without data from this manufacturer the plants would have ranged in size from 400 gpd to 1500 gpd. Figure 11-13 indicates plants using precast concrete basins cost less than tho8e with steel basins for sizes up to approximately 50,000 gpd. ------- 11-28 100,000 10,000 0 uJ U a. I- -‘ 1,000 100 Fig. 11-8. Regression lines for list prices of all plants and for list prices by type of treatment process. Manufacturers were asked to send list prices FOB the factory; hence, these prices do not include the costs of transportation, excavation, and installation of the plant. These latter costs would, of course, need to be considered in estimating the total capital cost of a package plant. One further consideration should be mentioned. Since the probable average service life of plants with steel basins may differ from that of plants with precast concrete basins, any comparison of these plants 10 100 PLANT SIZE, 100’s of gollons per day ------- 11-29 100,000 10,000 1,000 must be made on the basis of annual equivalent costs. The annual equivalent cost of a piece of equipment is that uniform annual dollar amount over the life of the equipment which viii recover the first coat of the equipment plus a return each year on the unpaid balance. If the estimated net salvage value is zero, the annual equivalent cost may be computed by roiltiplying the first coat by the capital recovery factor: 1 EXTENDED AERATION; GRAVITY RETURN AIR LIFT RETURN 7ENDED AERATIONS I 100 Fig. 11-9. 10 100 ,000 PLANT SIZE, 100’ , of gdlons per day Regression lines for list prices subdivided by treatment process and sludge collection and return system. AEC ------- 11-30 100,000 -p10,000 0 LU U I- In 1,000 Fig. 11-10. 100 CONTACT STABILIZATION; MECHANICAL COLLECTION AND AIR LIFT RETURN; STEEL BASIN 1 C 10 PLANT SIZE, 100 100’s of gallons per day 1,000 Regression lines for list prices subdivided by treatment process, sludge collection and return system, and type of basin material. AEC = annual equivalent cost Y = as before (aIp) = capital recovery factor i = rate of return n = probable average service life Since the list price-plant size relationship Y = AXB \ EXTENDED AERATION; MECHANI COLLECTION AND AIR LIFT RETURN; STEEL BASIN E TENDED AERATION; AIR LIFT RETURN; STEEL BASIN was used, ------- 11-31 EXTENDED AERATION; AIR. LIFT RETURN; STEEL BASIN; NO DIGESTER / ‘ TENDED AERATION; AIR LIFT RETURN; PRECAST CONCRETE BASIN; NO DIGESTER ENDED AERATION; AIR LI RETURN; PLASTIC BASIN; NO DIGESTER EXTENDED AERATION; NO SLUDGE RETURN; PLASTIC BASIN; NO DIGESTER 1 10 100 1,000 PLANT SIZE, 100’s of gallons per day Fig. 11-11. Regression lines for list prices subdivided by type of treatment process, sludge collection and return system, basin material, and no digester. AE = and the plot of AEC (based on only list price) is a straight line on log-log graph paper. This straight line will have the sane slope as the line from the equation Y AXB but it will be located a constant distance below Y = AX 3 . An AEC for concrete basins and for steel basins is shown in Fig. 11-14 using a rate of return of 6% and a life of 40 years and 30 years, respectively; the use of these figures for probable average service lives should not be construed to mean these 100,000 - 10,000 0 LU U ‘I , —I 1,000 100 -, ------- 11-32 100,000 CONTACT STABILIZATION; MECHANICAL COLLECTION AND AIR LIFT RETURN; STEEL BASIN; WITH DIGESTER EXTENDED AERATION; MECHANICAL COLLECTION AND AIR LIFT RETURN; glO’OOO STEEL BASIN; WITH DIGESTER , / LU U , N _ 1,000 , / NO DIGESTER , 0 100 ________ ________ ________ 1 10 100 1,000 PLANT SIZE, 100’s of gallons per day Fig. 11-12. Regression lines for list prices subdivided by type of treatment process, sludge collection and return system, basin material, and with a digester and for all plants without a digester. are actual estimates of probable average service lives. Similarly 1 the choice of a 67. rate of return is arbitrary; the rate of return to use will vary according to time and particular conditions. 2.4 Summary Table 11-5 and Figs. 11-8-13 present the regression analyses of package plant list price data from the manufacturers. The data were ------- 11-33 100,000 10,000 0 uJ I.) a- V , 1 -ii , 100 1,000 PLANT SIZE, 1 00 ’s of gollons per day Fig. 11-13. Regression lines for list price data subdivided by sludge collection and return system and by type of basin materiaL grouped in a large number of ways for analysis. The analysis of a number of these data subsets yielded correlation coefficients, r 2 , of 0.80 or higher. The corresponding regression equations should be reasonably valid for estimating the list prices of package plants. The data in this portion of the study were list prices FOB the factory. List price is, however, only a part of the total capital cost of a package plant. Other costs, such as engineering and design, transportation, site preparation, etc., should be estimated and added 1 10 100 ------- 11-34 10,000 B 0 . 5 100 10 PLANT SIZE, 1 0 0’s of gallons per day Fig. fl-L4. Annual equivalent costs of precast concrete basins and steel basins. to the list price to obtain total capital costs. Also, the actual price of a plant may vary some from the list price due to competition and local conditions. 1 10 100 1,000 ------- 11-35 3. DATA FROM OPERATING PACKAGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAI 1TS 3.1 Introduction Field visits were made to operating package plants to collect empirical data on manpower requirements and capital and operating costs. These plants were located in Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin. Results of the analyses of these data are relevant only for these states and may be relevant for only those states with similar climates, soil conditions, testing and reporting requirements, etc. 3.2 Data Collection Procedure The locations of operating package plants were solicited from package plant manufacturers, state environmental protection agencies, package plant distributors, and package plant operators. Plants to visit were selected to provide data on plants located in several dif- ferent States, manufactured by a number of different companies, and used by a variety of customers. Package plant owners (or operators) were contacted by letter and/or telephone to determine whether their plant was a package plant according to our definition and to request permission to visit the plant and locate data (sample letter in Appendix C). A personal visit was made to each of the selected plants by a research assistant to collect the desired data. Data collection forms were used to facilitate the orderly col- lection of data. The forms for collecting manpower data are modified versions of the forms used to collect similar data from municipal plants ------- 11-36 (see Appendix F). Data for the cost study portion were divided into seven major categories (see Appendix C): 1. General information 2. First costs 3. MaJor replacement costs 4. Operating expenses 5. Maintenance expenses 6. Housekeeping or yardwork expenses 7. Administrative expenses A rather detailed listing of cost items was made to maximize the useful- ness of the data; data collected in detail can always be aggregated in various ways in the analysis process whereas data collected to gross can seldom be further subdivided. In addition, the collection of data in detail assists in the correct classification of the data and reduces the chances of costs being placed in the wrong major category. A number of wastewater treatment facilities consist of a package plant followed by a lagoon or other treatment process. To facilitate the separation of costs between the package plant itself and other treatment facilities, a limited amount of data was collected on any other treatment facilities at the site. 3,3 Data Analysis and Results Operating plants were visited in eight states. In a number of instances, insufficient data were obtained from owners and/or operators to warrant inclusion in the analysis. Table 11-6 shows the number of operating plants included in the analysis by state and type of facility ------- 11-37 Table 11-6. Operating package plants visited by state and use. of Testing and reporting required by state for plants visited State City or subdivision facility serviced by the plant Mobile Office Miscellaneous homes Total Illinois 7 1 2 3 13 Iowa 2 1 4 Yes Kansas 2 2 No Minnesota 2 3 5 No Missouri Texas 1 1 2 3 (Same location) 1 7 1 Yes Some Yes Wisconsin 2 — 2 Yes Total — serviced and whether the state required the operators to perform tests and send reports to a state agency. Table 11-7 is a list of the number of plants by manufacturers and Table 11-8 shows the number of plants by size and treatment process for those plants included in the analysis. Although each of the 34 plants included in the data analysis contributed some data points, none contributed data to each and every subitem. Consequently, only a few specific subiteins were analyzed in addition to the regression analysis of the total reported capital costs and the total reported operating expenses. The following data group8 were analyzed: ------- 11-38 Table Il -i. Manufacturers of the operating package plants visited. Manufacturer Number of plants MO 2 1. Can-Tex 2 FMC-Chicago Pump 4 Clow 6 Davco 1. Dravo 1 Jet Aeration I Lyco I Permutit Sybran Corp. 1. Smith & Loveless 11 Walker Process 4 Water Pollution Control 1 1. Purchase price plus freight plus sales tax adjusted to 1972 dollars using the Environmental Protection Agency — Sewage Treatment Plant Index (EPA-STP) 2. Purchase price plus freight plus sales tax adjusted to 1972 dollars using the U.S. Department of Commerce Wholesale Price Index (WPI) for industrial coimnodities excluding farm products and foods 3. The sum of all reported capital costs adjusted to 1972 dollars using the EPA-STP Index 4. Operating labor expense ------- 11-39 Table 11-8. Distribution of operating package plants visited by size and type of treatment process. Plant size, Number of Type of process Extended Contact gpd plants aeration stabilization 600 1 1 4,000 2 2 9,000 1 1 10,500 2 2 13,000 1 1 13,500 1 1 15,000 3 3 16,000 1 1 20,000 1 1 22,500 1 1 25,000 4 3 1 30,000 1 1 31,000 1 1 32,000 1 1 35,000 2 2 40,000 1 1 45,000 1 1 70,000 1 1 75,000 1 1 76,000 1 1 100,000 1 1 150,000 1 1 250,000 1 1 350,000 1 1 500,000 2 2 Total 34 23 11 5. Operating power expense 6. Maintenance expense 7. Total reported operating expenses. ------- 11-40 Total reported capital costs include: purchase price plus freight plus sales tax; site preparation; plant installation and connection to power and to wastewater influent and effluent lines; other electrical work; start up; landscaping and yardwork; administrative building, laboratory, garage, and maintenance equipment; engineering and design; and administrative costs associated with the design, installation and startup of the plant. Total reported operating expenses include: labor; testing; power; wasting sludge; maintenance; housekeeping and yardwork; administration; and miscellaneous operating expenses. The capital cost data collected are in dollars expended at the time of acquisition of the plant. Since these plants were acquired in various years, capital costs were converted to 1972 dollars to obtain comparable figures. Cost indexes were used to convert dollars actually paid to equivalent 1972 dollars. The quantity and quality of data did not warrant using different cost indexes for each subitem. Two different sets of costs indexes were used: EPA-STP 28 ’ 29 and WPI 3 °. The WPI Index is perhaps a better index for converting the cost of manufacturing the package plant to 1972 dollars since a package plant is a manufactured product. The EPA-STP Index is vaoid for conventional, municipal sewage treatment plants constructed at the plant location. This latter index is perhaps more appropriate for many subitema, such as site preparation, installing and connecting to sewer pipes and power supply, etc., than is the WPI. The application of either index to any one of the subitems or any aggregation of the subitems is not entirely correct since none of the subitems, nor the aggregation of the subitems, are composed of the same balance of materials and services used in calculating the indexes. ------- 1I.-4l Table 11-9 and Figs. 11-15-ti show the results of the regression analyses of the data from the operating plants. Each line on each figure represents a separate, independent regres- sion analysis. The characteristics of the plants included in a regres- sion analysis is specified by the short verbal description along the side of the plotted tine. If a class variable is not mentioned, then no distinction is made between plants on the basis of that class variable. For example, on Fig. tI-16 the line labeled “total operating expenses; testing performed” represents a regression analysis of the total operating costs of all operating plants that performed testing and reporting activities, regardless of type of treatment process. Also on Fig. 11-16, the line labeled “total operating expenses; all plants” represents the regression analysis of the total operating costs of all operating plants regardless of the type of treatment plant and regardless of whether they performed testing and reporting activities. The number of observations in the total capital cost analysis is greater than the number in the purchase price analysis because some package plant owners gave only total capital costs. Total operating costs do not include co8ts of major replacements. Since the quantity and type of operating cost data obtained varied considerably, the total operating costs of a plant was included in the data subset only if the costs of labor and of power were given; other- wise, the total operating cost of a particular plant was excluded from this data subset. ------- Table 11-9. Regression analysis information for data from operating package plants. of cost b Cost index Type of treatuient process Testing and .reporting Number of observations in data set Smallest plant in data set (100’s of gpd) Largest plant in data set (100’s of gpd) Log A A B 2 r Total cap. WPC-STP — 29 Purch. price WPC—STP — — 20 6 5000 2.85730 719.95 0.62975 0.76 Purch. price WPI — 20 6 5000 2.74392 554.52 0.63765 0.87 Purch. price WPC-STP Extended a. — 13 6 5000 2.67755 475.93 0.63868 0.89 Purch. price WPI Extended a. 13 6 760 2.61274 409.94 0.68698 0.91 Total op. — — 23 6 760 2.55204 $56.42 0.68623 0.91 Total op. Contact s. — 10 40 5000 1.93825 86.746 0.62921 0.69 Total op. — — Yes 15 250 5000 1.94743 88.600 0.64102 0.74 Total op. — — No 8 40 5000 2.23352 171.21 0.54619 0.69 Power 29 135 760 1.43070 26.959 0.78973 0.60 Labor Contact s. — 10 6 5000 1.12543 13.348 0.70475 0.68 Power — Contact a. — 11 250 5000 2.11130 129.21 0.49991 0.66 Power Yes 17 250 40 5000 5000 0.61097 1.17255 4.0829 14.878 0.86439 0.69216 0.88 0.88 aTotal cap. = total capital costs Purch. price purchase price + freight + sales tax Total op. = total operating expenses bEpA_S Environmental Protection Agency Sewage Treatment Plant Index IJPI Wholesale Price Index cE dd a. = extended aeration treatment process Contact a. contact stabilization treatment process ‘-4 ‘ -I F ..) ------- 11-43 ‘10,000 .1 100,000 0 I- 0 I - ) 1,000 100 1,000 PLANT SIZE, 100’s of gallons per day Fig. 11-15. Regression lines for capital cost and for purchase price (plus freight plus sales tax) based on data from operating plants. Separate regression analyses of labor costs and power costs were performed since there were a sufficient number of data points and the results are reported because the correlation coefficients were approxi- mately 0.5 or higher. Regression analyses were performed on some other subdivisions of operating costs (such as sludge disposal) but are not reported since the correlation coefficients were quite low. 100 1 I I 10 ALL CAPITAL COSTS AD, USTED BY STP “PURCHASE PRICE” ADJUSTED BY SIP “PURCHASE PRICE” ADJUSTED BY WPI “PURCHASE PRICE”, EXTENDED AERATiON ADJUSTED BY STP “PURCHASE PRICE”, EXTENDED AERATION ADJUSTED BY WPI ------- 11-44 100,000 100 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES; CONTACT STABILIZATION 10,000 z 1,000 _____________________ 4 Fig. 11-16. Regression lines for total annual operating expenses ba8ed on data from operating package plants. 3.4 Stm ma The cost data from the operating plants was sketchy and in- complete at times and not infrequently was based on estimates by the operator and/or owner rather than accounting records. With few ex- ceptions, the data from the operating plants did not yield high cor- relation coefficients (r 2 ). The notable exceptions are the “purchase price plus freight plus sales tax” data. Power costs also yielded high correlation coefficients. TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES; TESTING PERFORMED ‘ / TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES; NO TESTING PERFORMED = TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES; ALL PLANTS 10 100 1,000 PLANT SIZE, lOO’s of gallons per day 10,000 ------- 11-45 10,000 ,000 z100 10 Fig. IT- I l. Regression lines for annual power expense and labor expense based on data from operating package plants. The regression equations and graphs for total operating costs, especially, should be considered as relatively rough guidelines in estimating costs and should probably be considered as an estimate of minimum operating costs. I LABOR EXPENSE; CONTACT STABiLIZATION - POWER EXPE iSE; TESTING PERFORMED EXPENSE; CONTACT STABILIZATION / = — POWER EXPENSES; ALL PLANTS I 1 10 100 PLANT SIZE, 100’s oF gallons per day 1,000 ------- 11-46 4. ESTIMATION OF PROBABLE AVERAGE SERVICE LIFE 4.1 Introduction The probable service life of an item of property is the time from the date of installation to the date it will probably be retired from service. The probable average service life of a group of similar units is the average of the probable service lives of the individual units. Both probable service life and probable average service life are estimates since each is a forecast of what will happen rather than what has happened. The causes of retirement of property may be classified as: (physical) deterioration, casualty, obsolescence, inadequacy, require- ments of public authorities, and policy of management 31 . Physical deterioration is one of the lesser causes of retirement 31 . The other causes of retirement tend to reduce the life of a property to less than its physical life. Inadequate maintenance would also tend to reduce the life of a property. Relevant information for estimating the probable average service life of a property group would include a life analysis of the past retirement characteristics of “identical” or similar property, analysis of technological progress, analyses of operating conditions, and a consideration of pertinent policies and decisions of owners and of governmental bodies. Two common ways of describing the retirement characteristics of a group of property are by life tables and by survivor curves. A life table is a table of the number or percent surviving (or expected to be surviving) at successive ages over the life of the property in the group. ------- 11-47 A survivor curve is a graph of the amount of property surviving (or expected to be surviving) at successive ages over the life of the property in the group. 23, 31, 32 The Iowa type curves are a well-known set of survivor curves and will be used for illustrative purposes. The retirement characteristics of property can be completely described by specifying a probable average service Life and a survivor curve (Fig. 11-1.8). An R 5 curve is representa- tive of property the units of which essentially all stay in service until near the probable average service life and then all retire in a relatively short period of time. On the other hand, an 04 type curve is representative of property, some units of which are retired shortly after the date of installation while other units continue in service for a relatively long period of time after the probable average service life. An S 3 type curve falls in between the R 5 and 04 type curves, Although these curves are quite different in shape they represent property groups having the same probable average service life and they illustrate the concept that “identical” or similar items of property are not all removed from service at; the same age but are retired over a period of time. 4.2 Data Available Very little field data on package plant service lives were obtained. A number of manufacturers provided estimates, noting that actual data were generally not available and, therefore, the estimate was based primarily on Judgment. The absence of actual data is due in part to the relatively short period of time that package plants (as defined for ------- 11-48 100 80 .1- 60 & 0 > 4o 20 0 AGE, years Fig. 11-18. Iowa type survivor curves 04, S 3 , and R 5 . this report) have been in service. Also, no one owner owns a large nLm ber of package plants, so life analysis studies are not likely to be made by any particular owner. Table 11-9 is a s ary of the data from manufacturers. The mode is the value occurring most frequently and the range is the lowest and the highest estimates received. Only two estimates of the probable 0 4 8 12 16 20 ------- 11-49 average services life of concrete tanks were received, hence, there is no mode. The number of estimates of the probable average service life re- ceived from manufacturers were: nine for steel tanks, two for precast concrete, nine for mechanical equipment, and four for fiberglass and plastic tanks. Some data on the replacement of motors and blowers were obtained from the operating plants visited during the 8tudy. Life tables for motors and blowers, Table 11-10, were constructed based on all of the information available from these operating plants (i.e., all motors were included in one group regardless of size, type, etc.). The life tables were calculated by the retirement rate method 31 ’ 33 using a placement band of 1962-1971 and an expanding observation band starting with the single year 1971 and ending with the band l962-l97l . The corresponding survivor curves for motors and blowers are shown in Fig. 11-19. The percent surviving at ages 3-1/2 and later are based on very few data points; hence the usefulness of the life tables and sur- vivor curves as guides for predicting the future are marginal. Table 11-10. Manufacturers’ estimates of the probable average service life of package plants. Node Range (years) (years) Steel tanks 20 10-40 Precast concrete tanks 20-50 Fiberglass or plastic tanks 50 15-50 Mechanical equipment 10 3-35 ------- 11-50 Table I l-Il. Life tables for motors and blowers. Age, yr Motors, 7. surviving Blowers, surviving 0 100.0 100.0 1/2 91.7 91.7 1-1/2 91.7 83.4 2-1/2 91.7 83.4 3—1/2 91.7 83.4 4—1/2 91.7 83.4 5-1/2 91.7 83.4 6—1/2 91.7 83.4 7—1/2 91.7 83.4 8—1/2 91.7 41.7 9—1/2 91.7 41.7 The Asset Depreciation Range System of the Department of the Treasury 34 does not set an asset guideline period for wastewater treat- ment plants but it does set an asset guideline period of 50 years for the depreciation property of water utilities used in the gathering, trea nent , and commercial distribution of water. 4,3 Conclusions Insufficient data are available to make a vaoid estimate of the probable average service life of either mechanical equipment or basins of package plants. What data are available are not inconsistent with the estimates made by the manufacturers. ------- 11—51 90—000000000 80 000000 70 40 0 30 0 MOTORS 20 0 BLOWERS I0 0 I I I 0 7 11 AGE, years Fig. 11-19. Survivor curves for motors and blowers. Similarly, insufficient data are available to estimate the retire- merit pattern or survivor curve for tors, blowers, or basins. Since not all. items of a given type will last exactly the s te rnmiber of years, a middle of the road approach, such as an S 3 Iowa type curve, rather than an R 5 or 04 survivor curve would seem appropriate (Fig. 11-18). ------- 11—52 The data and comments received from package plant manufacturers seem to indicate that with proper maintenance and repair, motors may physically last for a considerable length of time, perhaps as long as 30 years or so, whereas blowers or compressors may have a physical life of approximately 10 years. The physical life of steel tanks is quite dependent upon proper installation and maintenance, including replacement of the magnesium anodes when necessary. With reasonable care, the physical life of steel tanks may approach 40 years or more. With proper installation and maintenance, precast concrete tanks, plastic and fiberglass tanks should physically last an indefinite period of time; hence, a physical life of 50 years or more does not seem un- reasonable. Based solely on the manufacturers’ estimates and comments and preceding considerations, one might consider the following as maximum lives with the probably average service lives being somewhat less, perhaps as much as 50% less: 40 years or more for steel tanks; 50 years or more for precast concrete, fiberglass, and plastic tanks; approxi- mately 30 years for motors; and 10 or more years for blowers or compres- sors. The probable average service life is less than the maximum physical life for two reasons (1) not all units will physically attain the maximum physical life for a particular type of property for a variety of reasons, including a lack of proper maintenance and (2) property is frequently retired earlier than physical life for various causes such as obsolescence, inadequacy, and requirements of public authorities. The Office of Industrial Economics of the Department of the Treasury, created in 1971, incLudes among its duties the collection of data from ------- 11-53 tax returns and other sources to update the asset guideline class lives of the Asset Depreciation Range (ADR) System. Such data may provide a basis for a future study of the probable average service life of package wastevater trea nent plants. ------- 11-54 5. REFERENCES 1. Smith, R. “Cost of Conventional and Advanced Treatment of Waste- water.” Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 40, 1546-1559. 1968. 2. Michel, Robert L., and Johnson, Walter W. Costs and Man-Hours for Operation and Maintenance of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants — 1957-1970. Preliminary Draft. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration, Construction Grants and Engineering Branch, Division of State and Local Programs. Washington, D.C. October 1970. 3. Nichel, Robert L. Construction Costs of Municipal Wastewater Treat- ment Plants (1967-1969). Preliminary Draft. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration, Construction Grants and Engineering Branch, Division of State and Local Programs. Washington, D.C. May 1970. 4. Michel, Robert L. “Cost and Manpower for Municipal Wastevater Treatment Plant Operation and Maintenance 1965-1968.” Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 42, 1883. November 1970. 5. Drews, R. J. L. C., Malan, W. M., Merring, P. C. J., and Moffatt, B. “The Orbol Extended Aeration Activated Sludge Plant.” Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 44, 2, 221-231. February 1972. 6. Black and Veatch Consulting Engineers. Estimating Costs and Manpower Requirements for Conventional Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Cincinnati, Ohio, Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office, Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory. 1971. 7. Goodman, Brian L. Package Sewage Treatment Plant Criteria Develop- ment, Part I: Extended Aeration. National Sanitation Foundation Report of FWPCA Demonstration Grant Project, WPD-74. Ann Arbor, Michigan, National Sanitation Foundation. September 1966. 8. Dentpster, Andrew T. Package Sewage Treatment Plant Criteria Develop- ment, Part II: Contact Stabilization. National Sanitation Founda- tion Report of FWPCA Demonstration Grant Project, WPD-74. Ann Arbor, Michigan, National Sanitation Foundation. June 1968. 9. National Sanitation Foundation. NSF Joint Committee on Special Processes or Devices Used in Treating Wastewater. Standard No. 40 Relating to Individual Aerobic Wastewater Treatment Plants. P.O. Box 1468, Ann Arbor, Michigan. The National Sanitation Foundation. November 13, 1970. 10. National Sanitation Foundation, NSF Joint Committee on Special Processes or Devices Used in Treatment Wastewater. Basic Criteria C-9, Relating to Evaluation of Special Processes or Devices Used in Treating Wastewater. P.O. Box 1468, Ann Arbor, Michigan. The National Sanitation Foundation. November 13, 1970. (Unavailable for public distribution.) ------- 1 1-55 11. Drobny, Neil L., and Qasim, Syed R. Analysis of Wastewater Treat- ment and Disposal Systems for Advanced Bases. Report by Battelle Memorial Institute to U.S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port Huenerne, California (Contract No. N62399-69-C—0036; CR 70.011). October 1969. (Available from Commission on Rural Water, 221 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, Ill. 60601.) 12. Qasim, S. R., Drobny, N. L., and Valentine, B. W. “Waste Manage- ment Systems for Advanced Military Bases.” Water and Sewage Works, 118, R-92 to R—lOO. August 31, 1971. 13. Snoeyink, V. L., and Mahoney, J. A. Sunmiary of Contuercially Available Wastewater Treatment Plants. Technical Report No. AFWL-TR-72-45. Air Forc Systems Command, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland MB, New Mexico. NTIS Number AD-747032. July 1972. 14. Goldstein, Steven N. Technical Manual on Wastewater Treatment Systems for Rural Communities. Washington, D.C., Mitre Corpora- tion, Publication No. MTR 6223. August 1972. 15. Goldstein, Steven. Wastewater Treatment Systems for Rural Communities. Washington, D.C., Commission on Rural Water. 1973. 16. Bailey, J., and Wa llman, H. A Survey of Household Waste Treat- ment Systems. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 44, 2349—2360. December 1971. 17. Seymour, Gerald G. Operation and Performance of Package Treatment Plants. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 44, 2, 274-292. February 1972. 18. Dague, Richard R., Elbert, Gary F., and Rockwell, M. Daniel. Contact Stabilization in Small Package Plants. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 44, 255-264. February 1972. 19. Kugelman, I. J., Schwartz, V. A., and Cohen, 3. N., “Advanced Waste Treatment Plants for Treatment of Small Waste Flows.” Advanced Waste Treatment and Water Reuse Symposium, Session Four, January 12-14, 1971, Dallas, Texas. 20. Mulbarger, M. C. “Nitrification and Denitrification in Activated Sludge Systems.” Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federa- tion, 43, 10, 2059-2070. October 1971. 21. Reid, Leroy C., Jr. Design of Wastewater Disposal Systems for Individual Dwellings. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 43, 10, 2004-2010. October 1971. 22. University of Wisconsin. Small Scale Waste Management Project. Progress Report. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. October 1972. ------- 11—56 23. Smith, Gerald W. Engineering Economy: Analysis of Capital Expenditures. Ames, Iowa, The Iowa State University Press. 1968. 24. Krebs, Robert. Private co=nunication. Multi-Flow, Inc., 500 Webster Street, Dayton, Ohio. 1972. 25. Beatty, Marvin T., and Quigley, John T. Waste Disposal Demonstra- tion Project — Progress Report July 1. to December 31, 1971. Madison, Wisconsin, School of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin. December 31, 1971. 26. DiGregorio, David. Cost of Wastewater Treatment Processes. Cincinnati, Ohio. U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, The Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory, Robert A. Taft Water Research Center. December 1968. 27. Smith, R., and Eilers, R. G. Cost to the Consumer for Collection and Treatment of Wastevater. Water Pollution Control Research Series #17090. Washington, D.C., Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. July 1970. 28. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Quality Office. Sewerage Construction Cost Indexes in 20 Cities. Engineering News — Record, 188, 25, 96. June 22, 1972. 29. U.S. Department of the Interior. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. Sewer and Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index. Washington, D.C., Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. December 1967. 30. U.S. Department of Cotinerce. Bureau of the Census. Pocket data book. Washington, D.C., 207, Table 287. 31. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. Deprecia- tion Subcommittee of the Co nittee on Engineering, Depreciation, and Valuation. Public utility depreciation practices. 33 27 ICC Building, P.O. Box 684, W shington, D.C. National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. 1968. 32. Pollock, Richard L. Tax Depreciation and the Need for the Reserve Ratio Test. Tax Policy Research Study Number Two. Washington, D.C. The Department of the Treasury. 1968. 33. Winfrey, Robley. Statistical Analysis of Industrial Property Retirements: revised April 1967 by Harold A. Cowles, Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering. Ames, Iowa, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Engineering Research Institute Bulletin 125, revised edition. 1967. 34. U.S. Department of the Treasury. Asset Depreciation Range (ADR) System, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Treasury. 1971. ------- 11—57 APPENDIX Il-A. List of package plants that have been evaluated or are under evaluation by the National Sanitation Foundation ------- Certificate of performance for an extended aeration package sewage treatment plant issued by the National Sanitation Foundation under the provisions of the Standard Performance Evaluation Method* Plant Manufacturer designation Rated capacity Date certified I. Can-Tex Industries 75M75 Tex_A_RabicR 7,500 gpd November 1967 P.O. Box 340 SN No. 554 Mineral Wells, Texas 76076 2. FMC Corporation Chicago Pump Rated Aeration 9,000 gpd November 1967 Environmental Equipment Division Medium Steel SL-118-B 2240 West Diversey Avenue Model No. SA 4405 Chicago, IllinoIs 60647 3. Davco Division Series DA, Model 9D1OSC 10,000 gpd November 1967 Davis Water & Waste Industries P .O. Box 1419 Thomasville, Ga. 31792 4. Defiance Company Defiance Sewage Treatment 10,000 gpd November 1967 P.O. Drawer 186 Plant, Model 10 Tallevast, Florida 33588 5. Mack Industries, Inc. Model MV-5000 5,000 gpd November 1967 P.O. Box 335 Valley City, Ohio 44280 6. Smith and Loveless Division Cylindrical Oxigest 2,000 gpd November 1967 Ecodyne Corporation Treatment Plant 14040 West Santa Fe Trail Model 5CY2 Lenexa, Kansas 66215 ------- Plant Rated Date Manufacturer designation capacity certified 7. Water Pollution Control Corp. Model Mark IV, No. 9 16,000 gpd November 1967 P.O. Box 744 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 8. Cloy Corporation Aer-0-FIo 5,000 gpd November 1967 P.O. Box 324 Model S-50-33-2 Florence, Kentucky 41042 9. Lyco-Z F, Inc. Model 530-8 6,000 gpd November 1968 P.O. Box 281 Englishtown, N.J. 07726 10. Maroif Hygienic Equipment, Inc. Precast Concrete Series 7,500 gpd November 1968 7337 Sylvania Avenue Model 1-7.5 Toledo, Ohio 43623 11. Pall Corporation Model No. EA IOOC 10,000 gpd November 1968 30 Seacliff Avenue - Glen Cove, New York 11542 12. Pollution Control, Inc. Activator Model S-6 6,000 gpd November 1968 Ltrnken Airport Admin. Bldg. Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 13. World Ecolog Systems Co. Model No. EA 100C 10,000 gpd November 1968 P.O. Box 311 Ceneva, New York 14456 14. Jet Aeration Company Model No. JCP-25 2,500 gpd November 1970 750 Alpha Drive Cleveland, Ohio 44143 ------- Plant Manufacturer designation Rated capacity Date certified 15. Topco Company AD-50-Topco Sewage 5,000 gpd November 1970 Sterling-Salem Corporation P.O. Box 507 Salem, Ohio 44460 16. Bi0 2 Systems, Inc. Sani-Cell Model 600 600 gpd November 1970 3306 Wyoming Kansas City, Missouri 64111 17. Purestreain Industries, Inc. Model P-t-2 5,000 gpd June 1972 1450 Dixie Highway Covington, Kentucky 41011 18. Norweco, Inc. Model ST-30 3,000 gpd December l97 189 Woodlawn Avenue P.O. Box 521 Norwalk, Ohio 44857 * Package sewage treatment plant criteria development — Part I: Extended aeration (September 1966). ------- 11—61 Product listing for special processes or devices used in treating wastewater issued by the National Sanitation Foundation under the provisions of NSF basic criteria C-9 Manufacturer Plant designation Rated capacity Date 1. Pollutrol Technology, Inc. Puritrol. Process 3,000 gpd November 1972 P.O. Box 3727 Model 3M (Seal No. 8064) Portland, Maine 04104 Note: Tested PIJRITROL MODEL 3M (3,000 gpd) “batch processing” extended aeration. ------- Product listing for individual aerobic wastevater treatment plants issued by the National Sanitation Foundation under the provisions of NSF Standard No. 40 Manufacturer Plant designation Rated capacity Classification Seal No. 1. Flygt Corporation Mini-Plant 8058 129 Clover Avenue Model 4291-4 400 gpd II P.O. Box 857 Model 4291-6 600 gpd II Norwalk, Connecticut 06856 2. Nayadic Sciences, Inc. Nayadic Village of Eagle Model M-6A 600 gpd II 8063 Uwchland, Pennsylvania 19480 Model M-lO5OA 1,050 gpd II I-I 0 Note: Tested Flygt 4291-4 and Nayadic M-6A. ------- Package wastewater treatment plants under performance evaluation at National Sanitation Foundation Jan. 15, 1973 Plant Rated Evaluation Manufacturer designation capacity criteria I. Ceneral Environmental Model #C—15 EA 15,000 gpd Extended aeration Equipment, Inc. (to start April 1973) 5020 Stepp Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32216 2. The Aquatair Corporation Model P5OPE 5,000 gpd NSF Basic Criteria 111. West First Street C -9 Dayton, Ohio 45402 a ’ 3. Bio-Pure, The. Model BP- .30 3,000 gpd NSF Basic Criteria 27th & Main Streets C—9 Boise, Idaho 63707 4. Cromaglasa Corporation CA -900 400 gpd NSF Standard No. 40 P.O. Box 1146 Williansport, Pa. 17701 5. Marubeni-America Corp. Hi-Bakkie Model N-320 600 gpd NSF Standard No. 40 200 Park Avenue New York, N.Y. 10017 6. Multi-Flo, Inc. Multi-Plo FT-0.5 500 gpd NSF Standard No. 40 500 Webster Street Dayton, Ohio 45401 ------- 11-64 APPENDIX Il-B. Bibliography of cost and/or evaluation studies of package plants Azad, H. S., and Hayden, P. L., “Activated Sludge.” 3. Water Pollution Control Federation, 44, 925 (June 1972). Bailey, James R.; Benoit, Richard J.; Dodson, John L.; Robb, James N.; and Wallrnan, Harold, “A Study of Flow Reduction and Treatment of Wastewater from Households.” Washington, D.C., Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Goveriunent Printing Office (1969). Baker, Ralph H., “Current Use of Small Activated Sludge Plants in Florida,” presented at Water Pollution Control Federation Conven- tion, Bal Harbour (September 1964) in manuscript. Baker, Ralph H., “Package Aeration Plants in Florida.” J. Sanitary Engineering Division, Proc. American Society of Civil Engineers, 88, SA 6: pp. 75-95 (November 1962). Baker, Ralph, “Package Aeration Plants in Florida.” J. Sanitary Engi- neering Division, Proc. American Society of Civil Engineers 89, SA 6: pp. 49-52 (December 1963). Banks, D. H., and Cover, B. J., “The Lubeck Activated-Sludge Plant at Ticehurst Sewage-Treatment Works of Battle RDC.” Water Pollution Control, pp. 92-97 (1972). Benjes, Henry H., Jr., and McKinney, Ross E., “Specifying and Evaluating Aeration Equipment.” J. Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, 93: SA 6, 55-64 (1967). Bergies, Joseph L., and Nelson, Marvin A., “Waste Disposal and Independent Research Progress Report.” Ber-Nel Sewage Treatment Plant, Division of Nelson Septic Tank Co., Route 1, Box 169, Union Grove, Wisc. 53182 (July 31, 1972). Bernhart, A. P., “Waste Water Units for Individual. Buildings and Houses,” Engineering Journal, 47: 7, 19-25 (July 1964). Besik, F., “Waste Water Reclamation in a Closed System.” Water and Sewage Works, 118: 7, 213 (July 1971). Black, S. A., “High-Rate, Combined-Tank Activated-Sludge Process Evaluated.” Water and Pollution Control, Co. 105, pp. 42-44 (October 1967). Bloodgood, D. E., “Waste Treatment for an Individual Home with Reuse of the Water.” Purdue University, School of Civil Engineering, Lafayette, md. 47907. Bodien, D. C., and Stenburg, R. L., “Microstraining Effectively Polishes Activated Sludge Effluent,” Water and Wastes Engineering, 3: 9, 74-77 (September 1966). ------- 11-65 Boyko, B. I., “Mixing Studies on a Full Scale Aeration Tank.” Ontario Water Research Coission Research Publication 19 (December 1968). Bradley, R. N., and Isaac, P. C. G., “The Cost of Sewage Treatment.” Water Pollution Control, 68: 4, 368-402 (1969). Burton, F. L.; Theisen, H. N.; and Snveyinl, V. L., “Water Treatment Costs for the Small Plant.” Industrial Water Engineering, 6: 3, 24-26 (March 1969). Butts, Thomas A., and Evans, R. L., “Cost of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants in Illinois.” Illinois Water Survey. Urbana Circular No. 99, 39 pages (1970). Campbell, L. A., and Smith, D. K., “An Investigation of Individual Household Aerobic Sewage Treatment Units,” Canadian Municipal Utilities (November-December 1963). Clark and Groff Engineers, “Sanitary Waste Disposal for Navy Camps in Polar Regions.” Contract NBy-322O5, Salem, Ore. (May 1962). “Costs of Modern Sewage Treatment Plants.” Public Works, 96: 1, 79-82 (January 1965). Cromaglass Corporation. Performance data. Williamsport, Pa. No date. (Data taken during 1967-8-9.) Cuip, C. L., and Hansen, S. P., “Extended Aeration Effluent Polishing by Mixed-Media Filtration.” J. Water and Sewage Works, fl , 46-51 (February 1967). Dart, M. C., and Spurr, T., “Treatment of Domestic Sewage by the Contact Stabilization Process.” Water and Waste Treatment Journal (Brit.), 12: 1, 12 (1968). Downing, Paul B., “The Economics of Urban Sewage Disposal.” New York, Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers (1969). Dryden, F. E., et al., “High Rate Activated Sludge Treatment of Fine Chemical Wastes.” Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 28: 2, 183-194 (February 1956). Edward C. Hess Associates, Consulting Civil Engineers. Proposed opera- tion, data collection, sampling and analytical methods to evaluate performance and test results arid conclusions. Environmental Services, Inc., Granite and West Streets, Midland Park, N.J. 07432 (December 15, 1969). “Evaluation of Activated Sludge Treatment Plants Performance,” Symposi*.mi Harvard (Augu8t 1971). Evans, D. R., and Wilson, J. C., “Capital and Operating Costs — AWT,” J. Water Pollution Control Federation, 44: 1, 1-13 (January 1972). ------- 11-66 Eye, J. David; Eastvood, David P.; Requena, Fernando; and Spath, David P., “Field Evaluation of the Performance of Extended Aeration Plants.” Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 41, 1299-1318. FMC Corporation, Central Engineering Laboratories, “Complete-Mixing- Operating Parameter Studies — Waste Treatment Plant,” P.O. Box 580, Santa Clara, Calif. (June 1967). Goldstein, Steven N., “Coimnunity Sewerage Systems Versus On-Site Sewage Treatment Systems.” A paper presented at the Ohio Home Sewage Disposal Conference. Favcett Center for Tomorrow, Ohio State University, Co1tm bus, Ohio (January 29, 1973). Goldstein, S. N., and Wenk, V. D., “A Review of On-Site Domestic Sewage Treatment Processes and Systems Alternatives.” The Mitre Corp., MIP-638 (January 1972). Goldstein, S. N.; Wenk, V. D.; Fowler, M. C.; and Poh, S. S., “A Study of Selected Economics and Environmental Aspects of Individual Home Wastevater Treatment Systems.” McLean, Virginia, Mitre Corp. Available from NITS as PB-209-962 (March 1972). Grich, E. R., “Operating Experience with Activated Sludge Reaeration.” J. Water Pollution Control Federation, 33: 8, 856-863 (August 1961). Cuiver, K., and Hardy, J. P., “Operational Experience with Extended Aeration Plants.” Water Pollution Control, 67, 194-204 (1968). Hammer, Mark C., and Tilsworth, Timothy, “Field Evaluation of a High Rate Activated Sludge System.” Water and Sewage Works, pp. 261- 266 (June 1968). Herriot, A., “Sewage Treatment in Scotland: The Cost of the Service.” Proc. Institute Sewage Purification, 2, 157 (1963). Hove, Richard S., “Operational Problems of Package Activated Sludge Plants,” J. Water Pollution Control Federation, 33: 11, 1166 (November 1961). Howells, D. H., and Dubois, D. P., “Design Practices and Costs for Small Secondary Sewage Treatment Plants in the Upper Midwest.” Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 30: 11, 1327-1335 (November 1958). Hurwitz, E.; Nogaj, R. J.; and Roeber, J. A., “Performance of Surface Aerators under Widely Varying Loadings in an Activated Sludge System.” Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 113, R-209, R-218 (November 30, 1965). Jones, P. H., “Waste Water Treatment by Contact Stabilization of Penetanguishere, Ont.” Water and Pollution Control, 106: 2: 34-35, 38-39, 43, 45, 34 (February 1968). ------- 11—67 Kiker, J. E., Jr., “Package and Subdivision Sewage Treatment Plants.” J. Water Pollution Control Federation, 32: 8, 878-885 (August 1960). Koelin, J. R., “Apparatus for Sewage Treatment.” Chemical Abstracts, 75, 9704 (1971). Lamb, N. A.; Cuip, C. L.; Morris, G. L.; Greiner, J. A.; and McKinney, R. E., “Package Aeration Plants in Florida.” Discussion. J. Sanitary Engineering Division, Proc. American Society of Civil EngIneers, 89, Sa3, 79-87 (1963). Logan, J. A., “An Analysis of the Economics of Sewage Treatment.” Un- published report. Northwestern University Technological Institute (1962). Logan, J. A.; Hatfield, W. D.; Russel, C. S.; and Lynn, W. R., “An Analysis of the Economics of Wastewater Treatment,” J. Water Pollution Control Federation, 34, 860-882 (1962). MacDonald, F. W., and Bastamante, R. B., “The Efficiency of Extended Aeration.” Public Works, 97: 4, 88-89 (April 1966). Massachusetts Health Research Institute, Inc., “A Study of Small, Complete Mixing, Extended Aeration, Aetivated Sludge Plants in Massachusetts.” New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission — Boston (1961). Mau, G. E., “Sewage Treatment Cost in Kansas.” Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 30, 1143 (December 1958). McKinney, R. E., “A Study of Small, Complete Mixing, Extended Aeration, Activated Sludge Plants in Massachusetts.” New England Interstate Water Pollution ControL Commission, Boston, Mass. (1961). McKinney, R. E., and Schwinn, D., “Waste Treatment for an Ice Cream Plant and Restaurant.” Public Works, 91: 4, 82 (1960). Michel, R. t.; Pelmoter, A. L.; and Palange, R. C., “Operation and Maintenance of Municipal Waste Treatment Plants.” J. Water Pol- lution Control Federation, 41, 335 (1969). Middlebrooks, E. J., er al., “Kinetics and Effluent iality in Extended Aeration.” Water Resources, 3: 1, 39-46 (January 1969). Nicoll, E. H., “Extended Aeration in British Package Plants.” J. Water Pollution Control Federation, 43, 293-305 (February 1971). Ohio Department of Health, “A Study of Aerobic Digestion Plants in Ohio 1959-1.960.” Ohio Department of Health, Columbus, Ohio (1960). Ohio State University Engineering Experiment Station, “A 23-Month Study of Individual Household Aerobic Sewage Treatment Systems” (July 1961). ------- 11-68 Perry, R. a., “Moption of an Aerobic Sewage Treatment Process for Individual Homes.” A thesis, Purdue University, Lafayette, tnd. (August 1951). Pipes, W. 0., “Activated Sludge.” J. Water Pollution Control Federation, 41: 6, 908-915 (June 1969). Porges, R., and Morris, G. L., “Extended Aeration Sewage Treatment, A Preliminary Evaluation.” Publication of the U.S. Public Health Service, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center (1960). Forges, Ralph, and Norris, Grovel L., “Small Extended-Aeration Sewage Treatment Plants.” J. Environmental Health, 25: 6 (May-June, 1963). Porges, R., Norris, G. L., Towne, W. W., Struzeski, B. J., Jr., and Harlow, C. L., “Sewage Treatment by Exte’ided Aeration.” J. Water Pollution Control Federation, 33:12, 1260-1266 (December 1961). Rasmuson, J. A., and Setser, J. L., “Start Up and Operation of an Environmental/One Chemical — Biological Treatment Plant for Country Knolls Extension —Malta.” 2773 Balltown Road, Schenectady, N.Y. (December 1972). Rigby, L. E., “Aerobic Treatment of Sewage for Individual Homes and the Reuse of the Treated Waste Water for Toilet Flushing.” A thesis, Purdue University, Lafayette, md. (January 1954). Rovan, P. 0.; Jenkins, K. H.; and Butler, D. W., “Sewage Treatment Construction Costs.” J. Water Pollution Control Federation, 32: 6, 594 (June 1960). Rowari, P. 0., Jenkins, K. L., and }bwells, D. H., “Estimating Sewage Treatment Plant Operation and Maintenance Costs.” 3. Water Pollution Control Federation, 33: 2, 111—121 (1961). Sanitary Engineering Laboratories, Inc. Report of Operation of “Sitton-Air” Sanitation System. Sitton Manufacturer’s Association, Inc. (November 25, 1968). Schaller, C. L., et al., “Evaluation of a Proprietary Waste Treatment System Aboard the USCCC Alert (WMEC-630) Based at Cape May, N.J.” U.S. National Technical Information Service. Government Reports Announcements, 71: part 3, 152 (July 10, 1971). Smith, B. C., “The Use of Ultrafiltration Membranes for Activated Sludge Separation.” Annual Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, pp. 1300 (May 7, 1969). Thomas, Harold A.; Coulter, James B.; Bendixen, Thomas W.; and Edwards, Allan B., “Technology and Economics of Household Sewage Disposal Systems.” J. Water Pollution Control Federation, 32: 2, 113-141 (February 1960). ------- I 1—69 Torpey, W. N., et al., “Rotating Disks vith Biological Growths Prepare Wastewater for Disposal or Reuse.” J. Water Pollution Control Federation, 43: 11, 2181-2188 (November 1971). Tovend, C. B., “The Economics of Wastewater Treatment.” Proc. Institute of Civil Engineers, 15, 209-30 (March 1960). U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control, “Modern Sewage Treatment Plants — How Much Do They Cost?” Public Health Service Publication No. 1229. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1964). Ward, John C. Letter report to the company. Pollution Control Devices, Inc., P.O. Box 31104, Aurora, Cob, 80010 (1969). Water Technology Laboratory, Inc. Laboratory Reports on Canatraco FLPC Waste Treatment Pilot Installation in Beaconsfield, Quebec, Canada. Canatraco, Ltd., 5800 Cote St. Francois, St. Laurent, .bntrea1, Quebec, Canada (1972). Watson, K. S., and Gage]., 3. D., “Sanitary Wastewater Characteristics of Applicance Park and Package Plants.” J. Water and Sewage Works, 11.3: 10, 391—397 (1966). Wenk, V. D., “Water Pollution: Domestic Wastes.” A Technology Assess- ment Methodology Study, Vol. 6, PB 202778-06, prepared for the Office of Science and Technology by the MITRE Corporation, MTR-6009 (June 1971). ------- 11—70 APPENDIX lI-C. Sample letter to manufacturers of package plants and sample letter to owners of package plants ------- 1 1—71 LETTER TO MANUFACTURERS OF PACKAGE PLANTS - Depanment ci Industrial Engineering 212 Marston Hail IOWA STATE Ames, Iowa 50010 UN LYE R S LTY Telephone 515-294-1682 Dear Sir: The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Programs, Manpower Develop- ment Staff, has awarded a grant to the Industrial Engineering Department of Iowa State University for a project entitled, “Estimating Manpower Requirements and Selected Cost Factors for Small Wastewater Treatment Plants.” One portion of the project is to obtain information on manpower requirements and costs of packaged plants for the treatment of sanitary wastewater; for the purposes of this study we are using the following definition for a package plant: “a complete wastewater treatment plant designed, fabricated and assembled at a manufacturing location and transported to the treatment site where it is installed and connected to the influent and effluent pipes.” We are interested in those plants with steel or pre-cese concrete basins rather than poured concrete basins. An objective of this project is to provide information which would be useful in formulating and evaluating manpower development and training programs directed to increasing the supply of qualified personnel in this sector of the water pollution control effort. Another objective is to develop information on costs of purchasing and installing package plants and of operating them. It is intended that the report from this project would be made available nationally to consulting engineers and government agencies at the Federal, state and local levels for the planning and staffing of new plants and evaluating the staff and costs of existing plants in order to improve their operations, maintenanee, and organization. We solicit your assistance an a voluntary basis. Thetype of information we are interested in includes: (1) list prices F.O.B. your plant for all package plants under 2,000 CPD and then for the following sizes in CPD: 2,000; 3,000; 4,000; 5,000; 7,500; 10,000; 15,000; 20,000; 30,000; 40,000; 50,000; 6O,000Q 80,000; 100,000; 120,000; and 150,000 (if you do not manufacture plants in any of these sizes, those closest would be uuitable); (2) other cost da;a, such as operation and maintenance costs; (3) estLmated life or actual life if some of your plants have been removed from service; (4) operation and maintenance manuals and related brochures; (5) reliability information; and (6) operational study data (including National Sanitation Foundation reports, if available). If you feel that plants larger than 150,000 GPD are package plants according to the above definition, please include cost- information for them also. ------- 11-72 Page 2 In order to be able to fully utilize the cost information, we would appreciate knowing what is included in the cost figures (i.e., is a service fee included in the purchase price; is installation included in the purchase price; what is the coat of optional equipment, etc.). Cost information that you send us will be kept confidential; we will report only average cost figures and not costs of specific plants by company. We would like to visit a few of your package plants in operation. Could you please send us the location of a representative sample by size, type of operation, type of process and type of user (motel, city, etc.). Approximately six plants in each state you serve would be ample (Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, southern Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin, northern Missouri and eastern Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota.). Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, George E. Lamp, Jr. Assistant Professor CEL/ jkl ------- 11-73 LETTER TO OWNERS OF PACKAGE PLM4TS Department o( Industrial Engineering 212 Marston Hall IOWA STATE Ames, Iowa U N I ’VE RSITY Te’ephone 515-294-1682 The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Programs, Manpower Develop- ment Staff, has awarded a grant to the Industrial Engineering Department of Iowa State University for a project entitled, “Estimating Manpower Requirements and Selected Cost Factors for Small Wastewater Treatment Plants.” One portion of the project is to obtain information on manpower requirements and costs of packaged plants for the treatment of sanitary wastewater; for the purposes of this study we are using the following definition for a package plant: “a complete wastewater treatment plant, designed, fabricated and assembled at a manufacturing location and transported to the treatment site where it is installed and connected to the influent and effluent pipes.” We are interested in those plants with steal basins rather than poured concrete basins. An objective of this project is to provide information which would be useful in formulating and evaluating manpower development and training programs directed to increasing the supply of qualified personnel in this sector of the water pollution control effort. Another objective is to develop information on costs of purchasing and installing package plant8 and of operating them. We understand that you utilize a package plant and solicit your assistance on a voluntary basis. Could we visit you some time, preferably during the week of July 31 to August 4? We would like to obtain specific coat information from whoever keeps the records; and we would like to visit with the operator of the package plant as to the work he does, etc., and to observe him as he performs his duties. Let me assure you that we are not evaluating either you or your plant. The information you give us will be kept strictly confidential. If we may visit you, please indicate what dates would be moat suitable. Also, could you please send us the following information about your plant: manufacturer, capacity, type of process (ex ended aeration, contact stabilization, etc.) and method aeration (diffused air, mechanical or turbine, etc.). May we please have your reply by July 24? Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, George E. Lamp, Jr. Assistant Professor GEL/jkl 83 ------- 11—74 APPENDIX II-D. List of package plant manufacturers who responded to letter survey 1. Manufacturers of package plants Aera-Filt Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 567 Lafayette, md. 47901 Ber-Nel Sewage Treatment Plant Division of Nelson Septic Tank Co. Route lfrl, Box 169 Union Grove, Wisc. 53182 Bi0 2 Systems, Inc. 3306 Wyoming Kansas City, Mo. 64111 Can-Tex Industries P.O. Box 340 Mineral Wells, Texas 76067 Walker Process Equipment, Inc. Division of Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. Aurora, 111. 60506 Chicago Pump, Hydrodynamics Division FMC Corporation 622 West Diversey Parkway Chicago, Ill. 60614 Clow Corporation P.O. Box 324 Florence, Ky. 41042 Coolbroth-Sitton Septic Tanks, Inc. 4810 West Medicine Lake Drive Minneapolis, Minn. 55442 Davco Manufacturing Company 1828 Metcalf Avenue Thomasville, Ga. 31792 Demco, Inc. P.O. Box 94700 Oklahoma City, OkIa. 73109 Dickey, W. S. Clay Manufacturing Co. P.O. Box 6 Pittsburg, Kan. 66762 The Eimco Corp. 537 West Sixth South P.O. Box 300 Salt Lake City, Utah Environmental Health Croinaglass Division The Cromar Co. Box 1146 Williamsport, Pa. 17701 Environmental Service(s), Inc. 1319 Rose Avenue Yak, Pa. 17403 Environment/One Corporation 2773 C Balitown Road Schenectady, N.Y. 12309 Extended Aeration P.O. Box 822 Huntington, W. Va. 25712 Fifer Corporation P.O. Box 13175 Louisville, Ky. 40213 Figyt Corporation 129 Glover Avenue P .O. Box 857 Norwalk, Conn. 06856 Gulf Environmental Systems Gulf Degremont P.O. Box 608 Roga Division San Diego, Calif. 92112 Jet Aeration Company 9911 Elk Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44108 Maroif, Inc. 1620 N. Hercules Avenue Clearwater, Fla. 33515 84110 Research ------- [ 1-75 Microphor,, Inc. 475 East San Francisco Avenue Willits, Calif. 95490 Multi-Flo, Inc. 500 Webster Street Dayton, Ohio 45401 Nayadic Sciences, Inc. Village of Eagle 1205 W. Chester West Chester, Pa. 19380 New England Wastevater Systems, Inc. Route 100 P.O. Box 412 West Dover, Ver. 05356 Nishihara Environmental Sanit. Res. Co. 7. Dr. Takashi Asano Montana State University Department of Civil Engineering Bozeman, Mont. 59715 Norwalk Vault Co. Norwalk, Ohio 44857 Peabody -Hart Mart Pump Corporation 1.50 WIllard Avenue Newington, Conn. 06111 Plast-A-Forin Corporation 225 Valley Street Williamsport, Pa. 17701 Pollution Control Devices, Inc. P.O. Box 31104 Aurora, Cob, 80010 Pollution Control Systems, Inc. 1.0575 West 120th Avenue P.O. Box 401 Broomfield, Cob. 80020 Pollutrol. Technology Inc. P.O. Box 3727 Portland Me. 04104 Purastream Industries, [ nc. 618 Buttermilk Road Covington, Ky. 41011 Smith and Loveless — Division Union Tank Car Company 96th and Old Santa Fe Trail Lenexa, Ken. 66215 Thor-Bec Corp. Air-Gest International Corp. 6484 Victoria Avenue SuLte 201 Montreal, Canada Westinghouse Electric Corporation Infilco Division 401 East Main Street Richmond, Va. 23216 Wisconsin Plumbing and Heating Supply Co. 822 South 2nd Street Milwaukee, Wtsc. 53204 2. Manufacturers of package plants who did not send cost data Autotrol Corporation 5855 North Glen Park Road Milwaukee, Wisc. 53209 Defiance Company Division of Davco Industries P.O. Drawer 186 Tallevast, Fla. 33588 International Waste Controls, Inc. 580 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 07632 Keene Corporation Water Pollution Control Division 1740 Molitor Road Aurora, :111. 60507 Suburbia P.O. Box I .e awood, Systems, Inc. 6217 Ken. 66206 ------- 11-76 Lyco Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 569 Williamsport, Pa. Mack Industries P0. Box 335 Valley City, Ohio Polcon Corporation 222 Cedar Lane Teaneck, N.J. 07666 Pollution Control, Inc. Suite 21 Lunken Airport Administration Bldg. Cincinnati, Ohio 45226 Water Pollution Control Corporation — Sanitaire P.O. Box 744 2401 North Maryland Avenue Milwaukee, Wisc. 53201 World Ecolog Systems Co. Division of Purification One Pure Water Terrace Seneca Falls, N.Y. 13148 3. Manufacturers who do not manufacture package plants at the present time but plan to in the future Aero-Hydraulics Corp. 10340 Cote de Liesse Lachine, Quebec Canada Chemetics Ltd. 1827 V. 5th Avenue Vancouver, Canada 4. Manufacturers of ship board units Fairbanks Morse, Inc. Colt Industries 701. Lawton Avenue Beloit, Wisc. 52511 John Misener Marine Equipment Ltd. I Marina Drive Port Colborne, Ontario Canada Hawker Siddeley Canada Ltd. 1660 Station Street Vancouver, Canada Neptune Micro-Floc Inc. P.O. Box 612 Corvallis, Ore. 97330 Pall Corporation 30 Seacliff Avenue Glen Cove, L.I., N.Y. 11542 17701 44280 Topco Company Division of Sterling-salem Corporation P.O. Box 507 Salem,Ohio 44460 Permutit Company Division Sybron Corporation 49 East Midland Avenue Paramus, N.J. 07652 Sciences Inc. ------- 11—77 5. Manufacturers of plants which did not fall within the specific definition of package plants used for this study t nticimaxbo1agen (Wallax) Chein Pure, Inc. Fach, S-101 10 3460 llollenburg Drive Stockholm I, SWEDEN Bridgeton, St. Louis County, Mo. 63044 AWT Systems, [ nc. Dorr-Oliver, Inc. 910 Market Street Haveineyer Lane Wilmington, Dela. 19899 Ste nford, Conn. 06904 Canatraco Ltd. Suite 385 Montreal 249, Canada ------- 11-78 APPENDIX II-E. List of package plant manufacturers who did not respond to letter contact or were not contacted, but who were mentioned in the literature as manufacturers of package plants in a general sense Arrow Company, Inc. 1260 Bayson Road Columbus, Ohio 43229 Aquaneering Division of Scott 13110 Enterprise Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44101 & Fetzer Co. R. P. Adams Company, Inc. 237 E. Park Drive Buffalo, N.Y. 14240 Aerojet General Corporation 9200 East Flair Drive El Monte, Calif. 91734 Airesearch Manufacturing Company of Arizona 402 South 36th Street Phoenix, Ariz. 85934 Allenaire, Inc. 379 Niles-Cortland Road SE Warren, Ohio 44484 American Bowser Corporation 100 Nor’th Broadway Aurora, Ill. 60505 American Environmental Systems Company 35-lOT Broadway Long Island City, N.Y. 11105 American Schreiber Company R.D. 2 Red Lion, Pa. 17356 Ames Crosta Mills (Canada) Ltd. 105 Brisbane Road Downsview, Ontario, Canada Anthes Eastern Ltd. Penberthy Division P.O. Box 1009 St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. 6306 North Alpine Road Rockford, Ill. 61111 Aquanox, Inc. 140 Sylvan Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 07632 Aquatair Corporation 111 West 1st Street Dayton, Ohio 45401 Arinon Systems, Inc. Tyler, Texas 75701 Atlantic Bridge Co., Ltd. Luenburg, Nova Scotia Canada BCA Industrial Controls, Ltd. 344 Lynn Avenue N. Vancouver, Canada Beloit-Passavant Corporation Janesville, Wisc. 53545 Besser Wasteco Corporation Roanoke, Ill. 61561 BIF, Unit of General Signal Corp. 345 Harris Avenue Providence, R.I. 02901 Bluff ton Septic Tank Company Bluffton, Ohio 45817 Brink Equipment Engineering Sales Inorganic Chemical Division 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, M . 63166 Cherne Industries 5701 S. Country Road 18 Edina, Minn. 55436 ------- 11-79 Convert-All, Inc. Fostoria Vault Company Brunswick, Me. 04011 R.R. #3 Fostoria, Ohio 44830 Converto Company of Canada Ltd. 1115 Sherbrooke Street, West Frame Company Suite 2603 providence, R.I. 02904 Mcntreal, Canada General Electric Company Deady Chemical ReEntry & Environ. Systems Div. 3155 Fiberglas Road Urban Systems Program Department Kansas City, Ken. 66115 3198 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 Dearborn Chemicals W. R. Grace & Co. Hankin, Francis & Co., Ltd. Chicago, Ill. 60690 7445 Chester Avenue Montreal 265, Canada Defiance of Arizona 4829 N. 19th Avenue Hersey-Sparing Meter Co. Phoenix, Ariz. 85015 4097 N. Temple City Blvd. El Monte, Calif. 91731 Dependable Sewage Equipment Co. 3404 Deshler Avenue Hills-McCanna Company Columbus, Ohio 43216 400 Maple Avenue Carpentersville, Ill. 60110 Devine, J. A. & Associates, Ltd. 33 Cuardsman Road Hinde Engineering Co. Thornhill, Ontario, Canada 654 Deerfield Road Highland Park, Ill. 60035 Dravo Corp. Water and Waste Treatment Dept. Hydromation Engineering Company I Oliver Plaza 39203 Amrhein Pittsburgh, Pa. 15222 Livonia, Mich. 48150 E. 1. DuPont DeNemours & Co., Inc. Johns-Manville Corp. 1007 Market Street 22 E. 40th Street Wilmington, Dela. l989& New York, N.Y. 10016 Ecological Science Corporation Lakeside Engineering Corp. 20215 N.W. 2nd Avenue 222 West Adams Street Miami, Fla. 33169 Chicago, Iii. 60606 Eldib Engineering & Research, Inc. Litton Systems, Inc. 170 Blanchard Street Applied Sciences Division Newark, N.J. 07105 2033 E. Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, Minn. 55143 Envirotech Corporation 770 Welch Road Magnor, Inc. Palo Alto, Calif. 74304 190 Industrial Blvd. Boucherville, Quebec, Canada Fielding, Hugh L, Ltd. 55 Glen Cameron Road Thornhill, Ontario, Canada ------- 11-80 Masdom Corporation, Ltd. 83 Sunrise Avenue Toronto 1.6, Canada Met -Pro 505 Mitchell Lanedal,e, Pa. 19445 Napanee Industries 51 Ann Street Napanee, Ontario, Canada Neptune Meter Company 630 Fifty Avenue New York, N.Y. 10017 O’Brien Manufacturing Corp. 5630 T Northwest Highway Chicago, Ill. 60646 Ozone Research & Equipment Corp. 3840 North 40th Avenue Phoenix, Ariz. 85019 Peacock Brothers, Ltd. P.O. Box 1040 Montreal 101, Canada The Peerless Company A. E. Stevenson 24607 Emery Road Cleveland, Ohio 44128 Perfex Corporation 500 W. Oklahoma Avenue Milwaukee, Wisc. 53207 Pollution Control Division/FWI Department 10 Hagerstown, Md. 21740 Puretronics Warren, Mich. 48089 Red Jacket Manufacturing Company P.O. Box 3888 Davenport, Iowa 52808 Resources Control, Inc. Frontage Road West Haven, Conn. 06516 Richards of Rockford, Inc. P.O. Box 2121 Rockford, Ill. 61111 Sanitherin Engineering, Ltd. 1727 West 2nd Avenue Vancouver 9, Canada Security Sewage Equipment Co. 4864 Henry Street Cleveland, Ohio 44125 Sewerless Toilet Company Lafayette, Ltd. 47901 Sirco Products, Ltd. 8815 Selkirk Street Vancouver 14, Canada Svenska Interpur AB Stockholm Sweden Tailor and Company, Inc. 2403 State Street Bettendorf, Iowa 52722 Thiokol Chemical Corporation Wasatch Division Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Ultradyn nics Corporation’ 6 Wait Street Paterson, N.J. 07524 Valdespino Labs Orlando, Fla. 32802 Vogt Brothers Mfg. Co. 18th and Main Streets Louisville, Ky. 40203 Water and Sewage, Inc. P.O. Box 5577 Daytona Beach, Fla. 32020 Welles Products Corporation 1600 N 2nd Street Roscoe, Ill. 61073 ------- 11-81 Westaway, W. 3., Ltd. Wilson Water Purification Corp. P.O. Box 100 2371 Broadway Station B Buffalo, N.Y. 14240 Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Zurn Industries, Inc. Western Water Equip. Co. Erie, Pa. 16512 925 Tanklage Road San Carlos, Calif. 94070 ------- 11-82 APPENDIX Il-F. Forms for collecting manpower data from operating package plants ------- 11-83 Task - Frequency - Ti.me 1. Tasks Associated with Screening & Coinuting: Frequency f Average Performance Duratior (in # of Personnel (Times per Mm) of each Required each Task Activity Performed By d;w;m) Performance time Performed (a) Hand cleaning of screens (b) Removal and disposal of debris (screenings) (c) Coimninuter cleaning Others -— List (d) __________________________________ (e) ________________________________ 2. Tasks associated with aeration basin: (Type of aeration _____________________________ Frequency of Average Performance Duration (in 1 of Personnel (Times per Mm) of each Required each Task Activity Performed By d;v;m) Performance time Performed (a) Scum r vaL (b) Cleaning b 4 ff lea, weirs, and sci r val equipment Others -— List (c) ____________________________________ (d) ________________________________ 3. Tasks associated with Inhoff Tanks: Frequency of Average Performance Duration (in 4? of Personnel (Times per Mm) of each Required each Task Activity Performed By d;w;in) Performance time Performed (a) Clean slots _____________ ____________ _____________ (b) Squeegee sides _____________ ____________ _____________ _______________ (c) Scum removal _____________ ____________ (d) Sludge removal ____________ ___________ Ce) Inspection & flow adjustment _____________ ____________ _____________ (f) Measuring sludge depth ____________ ___________ ____________ ______________ (g) Agitate gas vents ____________ ___________ ____________ ______________ (h) Cleaning walls and weirs ___________ __________ ___________ Others -— List Ci) _________________________________ _______________ (j) ___________________________________ ________________ 4. Tasks associated with Final Settling Tank: Frequency of Average Performance Duration (in 4? of Personnel (Times per Mm) of each Required each Task Activity Performed By d;v;m) Performance time Performed (a) Adjustment of return sludge pumping (c) Scum removal (d) Cleaning walls, weirs, center walls ind scum removal equipment Others -— List (e) _________________________________ (f) _________________________________ ------- 5. ‘T .tated uttn aerobic digester: 11-84 Task Activity Performed By (a) Scum control ____________ (b) Withdrawal of superriatent ____________ (c) Cleaning of scum control equipment____________ Others -- List (d) (a) Frequency ‘-k Per formanc (Times per d w Ave ra Dhj! t 4 ts nne]. Mm) of each Required each Perforsunce time Performed 6. Tasks associated with disposal of wasted sludge: Task Activity (a) Withdrawal of wasted sludge (b) Finishing pond (c) Burial (ii) Landfill (a) Spreading of wasted sludge Others -— List (f) (g) Performed By Frequency of Performance (Times per d,u tn) Aver age Duration (in # of Personnel Mm) of each Required each Perform.rnce time Performed 7. Tasks associated with laboratory control: Task Activity Performed By Influent and Effluent Solids determination (a) Total solids ____________ (b) Suspended solids ____________ (C) Settleable solids _____________ (d) Volatile solids ____________ (a) COD ____________ (f) Waetewater temperature and color ____________ (g) BOD influent _____________ (h) BOD effluent ____________ (i) pH ____________ (j) Dissolved oxygen ____________ (k) Relative stability ____________ Digested Sludge Solids (1) 7. total solids _____________ (in) 7. volatile solids ____________ (n) 30 minute settling test _____________ (o) Mixed liquor suspended solids ____________ (p) Sludge volume or sludge densi d ____________ (q) Dtshwashing _____________ (r) Racordkeeping _____________ (a) Lab maintenance ____________ (t) Weather _____________ Others -— List (u) (v) Frequency of Performance (Times par d;v m1 Average Duration (in # of Personnel Mm) of each Required each Performance time Performed ------- 11-85 8. Li .. .. t. u ke ping and yarduork. Frequency of Average Performance Duration (in # ot “ rsonnel (Times per Mitt) of each Required each Tpsk Activity Performed By d;w;nt) Perform&nce time Performed (a) Mowing grass _____________ _______________ (b) Painting (fences, tanks, etc) ____________ ______________ Others -— List (c) ____________________________________ ______________ ________________ (d) _____________________________ ___________ _____________ 9. Tasks a8aociaced with inspection and maintenance: Frequency of Average Performance Duration (in # of Personnel (Times per Mitt) of each Required each Task Activity Performed By d;w in) Performance time Performed (a) Inspection of mechanical devices _____________ _____________ _______________ (b) Maintenance of air diffuser devices ____________ ____________ (c) Maintenance of air blowers ____________ ____________ (d) Maintenance of mechanical aerator._____________ (e) Maintenance of other mechanical equipment ____________ ______________ (f) Inspection of electricaL devices _____________ _______________ (g) Maintenance of electrical metors and other devices ____________ Others -— List (k) _______________________________ ____________ ______________ Ci) ____________________________________ ______________ ________________ 10. Miscellaneous Tasks: Frequency of Average Performance Duration (in # of Personnel (Times per Mitt) of each Required each Task Activity Performed By d;w m) Performance time Performed (a) Planning ____________ ____________ (b) Supervision _____________ _____________ _____________ (c) Training ____________ ____________ ____________ (d) Housekeeping on package plant ____________ ____________ ____________ (e) Flow measurement (f) Recordkeeping (not recorded earlier) ____________ Others -— List (8) ________________________________ _____________ _____________ (h) _______________________________ ____________ (i) ____________________________ _______________ ------- 11-86 lndiv duai uU 1\L1a y Ls - Your cooperation in gathering data on the different tasks assoclsted with package plant wastewater treatment is very much appreciated. 1. What is your job title? ____________________________________________ 2. Location of plant ____________________________________________________ 3. Describe in your own words your work with the package plant, what you do, your responsibilities, and whom you work with. 4. What is the source of the information required for effective job performance (such as handbooks, operating manuals, blueprints, consultants, government personnel, journals, manufacturer’s representative or distributor, etc.)? 5. What contacts are you required to make with persons other than your i niediate supervisor (such as government people, maintenance people, sales representatives, etc.)? 6. What problems do you normally discuss with your super-visor before making a decision? 1. What kinds of problems and decisions do you refer to your super-visor? 8. Describe the nature of your responsibility for money, facilities and reports (for example, how much can you spend for supplies, maintenance service, etc. without obtaining authorization from your supervisor)? ------- 11-87 9. What information do you relay to other persons (such as to your su ,erviscL or the state board of health, etc)Z 10. For thoae tasks which you do not perform on a routine, scheduled basis, what indicates that they need to be done. 11. Wh ch tasks must be essentially error free for satisfactory job performance? 12. What guideline do you use as a basis for evaluating your work performance? 13. What job or jobs of a higher classification does this job prepare one for? 14. What job or jobs prepare a worker for this job assignment? 15. What level of education is required to perform your job? 16. Describe any vocational preparation which is necessary for performing your job. Indicate the length of time needed to obtain this preparation. 17. (a) What percentage of the time do you spend in the following working positions? Standing ________ Sitting 7 . Walking about 7 . (b) What weight in pounds must you personally lift and carry? ________ lbs. (c) What percentage of the working day do you actually spend lifting and carrying thie weight? 7 . (d) Are their any special physical skills, eye-hand coordination, and manual dexterity skills required on your job? If yes, please explain. ------- 11-88 18. Describe any working conditions associated with your job, such as nc’ise. extremes of cold or heat, dust, fumes, toxic conditions, etc., which you consider unfavorable or disagreeable. 19. Describe the dangers or accident hazards present in your job. ------- 11-69 20. An aspect of your job may require that you work with ‘ t .”A. ottei r i the f u’ . i nuaber words and symbols; or ideas and verbal tn8trutttoilt . Uhlih . thQ following statements are representative of your job? Check all the appiopt&ate ones. _____ 1 compare readily observable data and information with given and fixad standards and act according to instructions. _____ I copy, transcribe or post data to appropriate recordq _____ I perform arithmetic operations and report on and/or carry .r:P 3 prescribed action in relation to them. _____ I compile, gather, collate, or classify information about L La, people, or things. Reporting and/or carrying out a prescribed action in relation to the information is frequently involved. _____ I analyze, examine and evaluate data. The presentation of alternative action. in relation to the evaluation is frequently involved. _____ I coordinate activities, and determine time, place, and APqUeflce of operation. or actions to be taken on the basis of analysis of data. 21. Your job also may require that you work with PEOPLE. Which oL the following statements are representative of your job? Check all the appropriate ones. _____ I follow instructions, attending to the need. or requests of others. — I talk with and/or signal people to convey or exchange information. _____ I supervise others, determining work procedures, assigning specific duties to them, maintaining harmonious relations among them, and promoting efficiency. _____ I instruct, teach or train other., through explanation, d nstration, and supervised practice. _____ I exchange ideis, information, and opinion, with others to formulate policies and progran, and/or arrive jointly at dsciatona, conclusions, or solution.. ------- 22. Your job may also require that you work with THINCS, inanimate olijects like machine,, tool., equipment and products. Something which has shape, form, and other physical characteristics. Which of the following statement a are representa— tivó of your job? Check all the appropriate ones. _____ I use body members (hand., arias, leg., etc.), handtools, and/or special devices to work, move, or carry objects or materials. This involves little or no latitude for judgment with regard to attainment of standards or in selecting the appropriate tool, object, or material. _____ I insert, throw, dump, or place materials in or remove them from machines or equipment which are automatic or are tended or operated by other wo ker . _____ I tend, start, stop, and observe the functioning of machines and equipment. This involves adjusting materials o controls of the machine, such as changing guide., adjusting timer. end temperature gages, turning valves to allow flow of materials, and flipping switches in reeponse to lights. Little judgment ii involved in making these adjuetments. _____ I use body members (hands, arms, legs, etc), tools, or special devices to work, move, guide, or place objects or materials. This involves some latitude for judgment with regard to precision attained and selecting appropriate tool, object, or material, although this is readily evident. _____ I start, stop, and control the actions of machines or equipment for which a course must be steered, or which saist be guided, in order to fabricate, process, and/or move thing. or people. Involves such activities as observing gages and dials; estimating distances and determining speed and direction of other objects; turning cranks and wheels; pushing clutches or brakes; and pushing or pulling gear lifts or levers. Includes such machines as cranes, tractors, and hoisting machines. _____ I operate and control by starting, stopping, and adjusting the progress of machine, or equipment designed to fabricate and/or process objects or materials. Controlling equipment involves observing gages, dials, etc., and turning valves and other devices to control such factors as temperature, pressure, flow of liquids, speed of pumps, and reactions of materials. _____ I use body members (hands, arms legs, etc) and/or tools or work aids to work, move, guide, or place objects or materials in situations where ultimate responsibility for the attainment of standards occurs and selection of appropriate tool,, objects or materials, and the adjustment of the tool to the task require. exercise of considerable judgment. _____ I set up and adjust machines or equipment by replacing or altering tools, jigs, fixtures, and attachments to prepars them to perform their functions, change their performance, or restore their proper functioning if they break down. ------- I I— 91 APPENDIX Il-C. Form for collecting cost data from operating package plants ------- 11-92 PACKAGE PLANT COST DATA I. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Plant location_____________________________ 2. Person interviewed _______________________________ Date 3. Design capacity _________________________________ gpd. 4. Population served ________________________________ 5. Average daily flow ______________________________ gpd. 6. Plant manufacturer ______________________________ 7. Type of process 8. Model number ___________________________________ 9. Date installed _____________________________________ 10. Description of plant layout 11. Area for package plant __________________________ 12. Area for lagoon 13. Expenditures incurred more than one year prior to first use of plant II. DATA ON INITIAL COSTS (First Costs) I. Costs associated with site acquisition a. Purchase price b. Other ________________ __________ c. Other ________________ __________ 2. Costs associated with the package plant a. Base purchase price ___________ b. Sales tax ___________ c. Freight __________ d. Site preparation __________ e. Installing and connecting to power & influent & effluent lines f. Electrical work (other than connecting power line to panel) ------- 11-93 g. Start up costs ______ h. Other ____________________ i. Other ______________________ 3. Costs associated with the lagoon a. Site preparation & construction b. Piping c. Other ____________________ _________ 4. Costa associated with landscaping & yardwork a. Fencing b. Driveway and parking ________________ c. Sidewalka _________________ d. Landscaping _________________ e. Other _________________ ________________ 5. Costs as8ociated with administrative building, laboratory, garage, and maintenance equipment. Item Cost a. _____________________________ ___________________________ b. ____________________________ __________________________ C. _____________________________ ___________________________ 6. Engineering & design costs a. Engineering Consultant _________________ b. Other _______________ ________________ c. Other ________________ _________________ 7. Administrative costs associated with design, installation and startup. a. Supervision __________________ b. Contract writing _________________ c. Legal fees _________________ d. Other ________________ e. Other ------- 11-94 Ite m Cost a. ____________________________ b. ___________________________ _________________________- C. ______________________________ — Total III. Coats associated with replacement of major items (and when) Item Time Cost I. ______________________________________________ 2. _________________________________________ 3. _________________________________________ IV. OPERATING EXPENSES I. All labor costs Ave. manhours Wage Fringe Individual Job*/veek /year rate Benefits Total a. ___________ ____ _____ b. __________ ____ _____ ____ ________ _________ C. ___________ ____ _____ ____ d. __________ ____ _____ ____ ________ _________ e. ___________ ____ _____ ____ f. Other ______________________________________ g. Other ________________________________________ 2. Costa associated with testing a. Internal (purchase of testing equipment and supplies, etc.) b. External (payments to testing labs, mailing, transp. costs) c. Other ________________________________________________ 3. Power Costs (cost/kwh ____________________ running Motor h.p. Ave. time kwh/ coat/ Location rating hrs/day hrs/yr. year year a. _________ ______ _______ _______ ____ _____ b. _________ ______ _______ _______ ____ _____ C. _________ ______ _______ _______ d. ________ ______ _______ ______ ____ e. Other - ------- 11-96 V i i. AL)L4INISTRATIVE COSTS 1. Office supplies & expensed equipment 2. Repair & maintenance of,offic laboratory and g arage facilities 3. Travel expenses 4. Training expenses including operator certification 5. Accounting expenses 6. Telephone & postage, insurance, legal services, auditing, taxes 7. Miscellaneous Item Coat a. ____________________________ _______ b. _____________________________ __________ Total ------- |