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

-------