2003 Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of
Infrastructure
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Office of Water (4606) EPA816-R-06-007 vwwv.epa.gov/safewater June 2006
-------
2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Survey and Assessment
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Prepared/or:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Contract No. 68-C-02-069
Work Assignment No. 1-03
Prepared by:
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
57 Water Street
Watertown, MA 02472
June 2006
-------
-------
2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Survey and Assessment
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
In 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted the third Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment (DWINSA or Assessment). The Assessment is an
important tool of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program. The purpose of
the Assessment is to estimate the documented 20-year capital investment needs of public water
systems that are eligible to receive DWSRF assistanceapproximately 53,000 community water
systems and 21,400 not-for-profit noncommunity water systems. The Assessment includes
infrastructure needs that are required to protect public health, such as projects to comply with
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations or to prevent contamination by preserving the
physical integrity of the system.1 The Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA) requires EPA to
conduct the Assessment every four years and to use the results to allocate DWSRF funds to the
States and Tribes.
The approach for the 2003 Assessment was developed by EPA in consultation with a workgroup
of State representatives. The workgroup refined the methods used in 1995 and 1999 based on
lessons learned from the previous Assessments and options made available from technological
advancements in internet-based communications.
The 2003 Assessment used questionnaires to collect infrastructure needs from medium and large
water systems. EPA mailed questionnaires to all 1,342 of the nation's largest water systems
serving more than 40,000 people, and to a random sample of 2,553 of the 7,759 medium systems
serving over 3,300 people. Approximately 96 percent of these systems returned the
questionnaire.
Small systems serving fewer than 3,300 people often lack the specialized staff and planning
documents needed to respond to the questionnaire. Therefore, for the 1999 Assessment EPA
conducted site visits to 599 randomly selected small community water systems and 100 not-for-
profit noncommunity water systems to identify and document their infrastructure needs. EPA did
not conduct the site visits as part of the 2003 Assessment; instead, it used the 1999 Assessment,
updated for inflation to January 2003 dollars.
EPA developed cost models to assign costs to projects for which systems lacked adequate cost
documentation (see Acceptable Documentation Box on next page). These models are developed
primarily from cost data submitted by systems with available cost documentation. The number
of projects submitted without cost documentation increased significantly in 2003 compared to
the previous Assessments. Of approximately 105,673 accepted projects, 81 percent were
1 Also, the scope of the survey is limited to DWSRF eligible needs - thus excluding projects solely related
to dams, raw water reservoirs, future growth, and fire flow.
June 2006 2003 D WINSA
1 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
submitted without documentation of cost.
This increase required greater reliance on
cost modeling than in past Assessments.
The 2003 Assessment used cost models from
the 1999 Assessment. In the 1999
Assessment, 59 models were developed to
assign costs to over 95 types of infrastructure
needs, from replacing broken valves to
building new treatment plants. These models
were updated to 2003 dollars for use in the
2003 Assessment. In some cases, the 2003
Assessment data were used to supplement the
1999 cost models.
Section 1 of this document describes the
general approach for constructing these cost
models. It discusses the sources of cost
information and the general method for
developing and applying the cost models.
Section 2 explains how this method was
applied in modeling source, treatment,
storage, transmission and distribution, and
other needs. Appendix A contains the cost
models as organized by category of need.
Appendix B presents the "Type of Need
Dictionary" which provides a definition for
each type of need, including typical project
components.
Important Note: Although the cost models
developed for this Assessment allowed EPA
to estimate total needs nationwide, the
models do not account for all the factors that may influence the cost of infrastructure. EPA chose
to limit the design parameters collected for the questionnaire to minimize the burden on the
respondents. The Assessment relied on the voluntary participation of over 4,000 water system
owners and operators across the country to supply documented cost data. EPA also recognized
that systems with a documented need, but without a documented cost estimate, may lack the
information that would be utilized in more complex models.
It also should be noted that while the cost curves are appropriate for developing national
estimates of need for the purpose of the Assessment, they were not designed to estimate the cost
of specific projects for individual water systems.
Acceptable Documentation
The following types of documents were used to
justify the need and/or cost of a project.
For Need and/or Cost Documentation
Capital Improvement Plan or Master Plan
Facilities Plan or Preliminary Engineering
Report
Grant or Loan Application Form
Engineer's Estimate
Intended Use Plan/State Priority List
Indian Health Service Sanitary Deficiency
System Printout
For Need Documentation Only
Comprehensive Performance Evaluation
(CPE) Results
Sanitary Survey
Source Water Protection Plan
Monitoring Results
Signed and dated statement from State, site
visit contractor, or system engineer clearly
detailing infrastructure needs.
For Cost Documentation Only
Cost of Previous Comparable Construction
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
June 2006
-------
1.0 Methods
1.1 Sources of Cost Information
The data used to develop the cost models generally include comprehensive cost estimates that
included materials, construction, design, administrative and legal fees, and contingencies. In
addition, the Assessment tried to obtain cost data for systems of all sizes to account for the
potential effect of economies of scale (i.e., costs may decrease as system size increases).
Several sources of cost data were available. The cost documentation submitted by water systems
on the questionnaire was the sole source of data for 40 of the 59 cost models. However, for some
types of need, the data generated from the survey respondents proved inadequate for developing
statistical models. Therefore, cost data from other sources, such as state funding agencies, were
used to supplement the cost data. EPA obtained cost information from manufacturers,
engineering firms, and the Economic Analyses (EAs, previously known as Regulatory Impact
Analyses) that the Agency publishes in support of proposed regulations.
1.1.1 Data Collected on Questionnaires
The project costs from the questionnaires were reviewed by states and EPA to ensure that the
data were appropriate for building models. The Assessment set rigorous documentation criteria
for assessing the validity and scope of project costs. EPA required that each project cost reported
on the questionnaire be supported by documentation to indicate that the cost had undergone an
adequate degree of professional review. The documentation criteria also allowed EPA to review
all of the components of a project that were included in the cost estimate. This review enabled
EPA to model portions of the project that were excluded from a cost estimate, or to delete
DWSRF-ineligible portions of the cost.
The following criteria were used to determine whether the cost data were appropriate:
The cost reflected complete project costs (e.g., design, materials, installation
costs), but excluded non-capital line items such as interest payments or financing
fees.
The necessary modeling parameters were available. For example, cost data for
treatment projects could only be used if the respondent provided the design
capacity of the treatment facility (the cost was used for the project, but data was
insufficient to use the cost to help build the model.)
The date of the cost estimate was provided to enable adjustment of the cost to
constant dollars. (The models developed in 1999 used cost data adjusted to
January 1999 dollars. These models were adjusted to January 2003 dollars for the
2003 Assessment.)
The project was representative of typical projects needed by other water systems
in the surveycost estimates for unusual or unique projects were accepted for the
project but were excluded from the cost models.
June 2006 2003 D WINSA
3 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Most of the cost models are based on data from the 1999 Assessment. The 1995 Assessment
provided data for raw water transmission, finished water transmission, and distribution main
projects of all sizes, which were also used for the 1999 survey. The 2003 Assessment updated
the transmission line and distribution main models using data from the 2003 survey. The model
for meters less than or equal to one inch also were updated using data from the 2003 survey.
1.1.2 Data Collected from Other Sources
Additional sources of cost data from which EPA supplemented the questionnaire data included
the following. Cost data from these sources were evaluated using the same criteria that were
applied to the questionnaires.
State funding agencies (Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, and Texas supplied data). EPA requested cost data from the States
for the following types of projects:
New Spring Collectors
producing less than 3 MOD
Rehabilitation of Spring
Collectors producing less
than 3 MOD
New Conventional
Treatment Plants producing
less than 2 MOD
New Direct Filtration Plants
producing less than 2 MOD
Rehabilitation of Direct
Filtration Plants producing
less than 2 MOD
Rehabilitation of Slow
Sand Filtration Plants
producing less than 5
MOD
Rehabilitation of Lime
Softening Plants
producing less than 2
MOD
New Manganese Green
Sand facilities treating less
than 15 MOD
Rehabilitation of
Manganese Green Sand
facilities treating less than
35 MOD (although most
new projects to model are
less than 3 MOD)
The 2003 R.S. Means catalog. EPA used the R.S. Means catalog to obtain costs
for backflow prevention devices and assemblies. The cost of double check valves
was selected as a representative unit for small-diameter projects, while reduced
pressure zone backflow prevention devices were used for larger installations.
EPA's Economic Analyses. The EA for the Stage 2 Disinfectant/Disinfection
Byproduct Rule was the source of costs for ozone projects, while the EA for the
proposed Ground Water Rule provided costs for chlorine dioxide projects.
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
June 2006
-------
Product manufacturers and distributors. Product manufacturers and distributors
provided cost information for ultraviolet disinfection, chlorine gas scrubbers,
streaming current monitors, particle counters, chlorine residual monitors, and
turbidity meters.
Engineering firms. For the 1995 survey, an engineering firm (Robert Peccia and
Associates, Inc.) developed costs for well houses, the elimination of well pits, the
abandonment of wells, powdered activated carbon, and hydropneumatic storage.
These costs were adjusted to January 2003 dollars for this survey.
The Indian Health Service (IHS). The Indian Health Service provided cost
information on cisterns for use in the American Indian portion of the Assessment.
1.2 Developing the Linear Regression Cost Models
Most of the cost models are linear regressions between the project's cost (the dependent
variable) and a design parameter (the independent variable). The regressions were run on the
natural logarithm of the data. Most models were created with 1999 survey data and calculate
costs in January 1999 dollars. An inflation factor is used to update these costs to January 2003
dollars. In general, the models take the form:
(» _)_
C = e( r
where: C = the project cost;
D = the design parameter (e.g., design capacity, in millions of gallons per day);
e = the base of natural logarithms;
5, f = coefficients that relate the design parameter to cost, estimated using ordinary
least squares regression;
= the standard error of the regression. l/2 is added to the equation to produce
consistent estimates on the raw scale; and
= inflation factor to update the cost from January 1999 dollars to January 2003
dollars.
For example, the model for elevated storage tanks defines cost as a function of a tank's design
capacity (in million gallons of water). The cost of the tank is given by:
The predicted cost for an elevated tank with a storage capacity of 1 million gallons therefore is
$1.6 million.
June 2006 2003 D WINSA
5 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
As discussed in Section 2, in some cases the costs for several types of projects were pooled
together for the regression analysis and one or more indicator variables were included in the
regression to distinguish among projects. When an indicator variable is included, the cost
equation takes the form:
C = e ° 2
where I is the indicator variable and 5 is its coefficient, estimated by the regression.
EPA ensured that the data used to construct the models were representative of the types of
projects to be modeled. As part of this effort, EPA investigated statistical outliers to exclude
projects that involved extraordinary design or installation requirements.
The cost data for a given design parameter may vary by 2 to 4 orders of magnitude. This high
level of variability was considered appropriate considering the range of projects to be modeled;
similar variability was observed in the models for the 1995 survey. The variability may be
reduced if additional parameters are included in the models. For example, the costs of installing
a new treatment plant of a specific capacity will vary greatly depending on raw water quality, the
plant's configuration, and local conditions. EPA, however, did not request data on these
characteristics to reduce the response burden on participants. While their omission increases the
standard error of the models, it does not bias the models' estimates of cost. These factors are not
correlated with capacity and do not affect which projects in the sample have documented costs.
Therefore, EPA assumed the distribution of these factors among projects with document costs
and projects with costs that must be modeled is similar.
To improve the statistical efficiency of the models, EPA tried to eliminate three sources of
variability in the data. First, EPA adjusted the cost data using the location factors published by
the R.S. Means Company to account for regional variation in construction costs. Second, EPA
normalized the cost data to January 1999 dollars using the Construction Cost Index (CCI)
published in the Engineering News-Record (ENR). This step eliminated the variability
introduced by the different dates of the cost estimates that were submitted by water systems.
Third, EPA developed separate cost models for the installation and rehabilitation of
infrastructure in view of the generally lower costs of rehabilitation.
EPA took the following steps to develop the models:
Identify the cost data from the questionnaire or a supplemental source.
Adjust the project costs to January 1999 dollars.
Normalize the project costs using the location factor. This step involves dividing
the cost estimate by the location factor. The first three digits of a water system's
zip code were used to assign a location factor to the system.
Develop the cost curve by performing a log-log regression analysis on the
observations.
2003 D WINSA June 2006
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure 6
-------
EPA refined some of the cost models by including dummy variables to account for the influence
of system size or project type on the cost. For example, the model used for new well projects
includes a statistically significant dummy variable for aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells
that assigns slightly higher costs to ASR projects.
1.3 Unit Costs Models
For some projects, such as service line replacement or water meters, that were assigned unit
costs, EPA developed average costs per unit based on the questionnaire data. These models were
developed by applying location factors to the documented cost observations and then averaging
the normalized cost observations for a particular equipment size category. For example, the cost
estimate for a 6-inch water meter was developed by averaging the cost observations for 6-inch
water meter projects. For other projects, such as backflow prevention devices, that also were
priced on a per unit basis, EPA used cost data provided by the R.S. Means catalogue, the Indian
Health Service, or an engineering firm.
1.4 Applying the Cost Models
EPA used the models to estimate the costs of projects for which systems lacked a documented
cost. The basic steps in applying both the linear regression and unit cost models are listed below:
EPA determined the cost predicted by the model based on the required input,
usually design capacity.
To adjust for regional variability in construction costs, EPA multiplied the
normalized cost that was generated from the model by the location factor of the
system. The adjustment would increase the cost in States where construction costs
are typically higher than average and decrease the cost in States where they are
typically lower.
To adjust the modeled costs from January 1999 dollars to January 2003 dollars,
EPA used an inflation factor of 1.096833.
For transmission and distribution projects, in addition to the above steps, a
different unit cost was used for some pipe diameters depending on whether the
location of the system lay to the north or south of the nation's frost line. This was
done to recognize that projects above the frost line generally have higher
installation costs due to the greater depths at which pipe must be buried to avoid
freezing.
The total infrastructure need for a system in the survey equaled the sum of the modeled costs that
were calculated by EPA plus the sum of the documented costs that were submitted by the
system.
June 2006 2003 D WINSA
7 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
2.0 Types of Need For Which Costs May Be Modeled
This section discusses the specific types of need for which EPA developed cost models. To
reduce the variability of the models, the cost curves usually distinguish between the installation
of new equipment and the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure. EPA generally developed
separate cost models for new installation and rehabilitation of existing infrastructure for each
type of need. However, in some instances these were modeled together. In addition, some types
of projects lacked sufficient cost data and, therefore, these projects were assigned costs using
models for other similar types of technologies.
One example may serve to illustrate how one model could be used to assign costs to similar
types of infrastructure. Cost data for chemical feed were combined with the less abundant data
points available for sequestering, corrosion control, and fluoride addition (all forms of chemical
addition) to form one model. Dummy variables for the latter projects were included to reflect the
higher or lower costs of these technologies relative to chemical feed. Combining the data made
sense because the cost estimates that respondents identified on the questionnaire for chemical
feed likely included projects for sequestering, corrosion control, and fluoride addition. In
addition, EPA used this model to assign costs to projects for zebra mussel control and the
dechlorination of treated water (for both of which EPA lacked data points from the 1999 survey),
given that the costs and types of equipment were similar to chemical feed.
For some projects, a single model was used for both the installation of new equipment and the
rehabilitation of existing infrastructure. EPA combined the cost data for those technologies
where the distinction between new and rehabilitation likely was unclear to the respondents and
the difference in cost was small. For example, the cost model for chemical feed represents both
new and rehabilitation projects, because many of the projects that systems identified as new were
actually rehabilitations of existing equipment and vice versa. The resulting cost data, therefore,
represented a mix of new and rehabilitation projects between which it was difficult to distinguish
due to the similarity of costs.
2.1 Source
For new and refurbished wells, intakes, spring collectors, and aquifer storage and recovery
(ASR) wells, the cost models are a function of design capacity in millions of gallons per day
(MGD). For well houses, abandoning wells, and eliminating well pits, costs were assigned on a
per unit basis.
The following is the list of models for source needs. The Needs Survey will not include
rehabilitation projects for eliminating well pits or abandoning wells.
Well House (unit cost) Abandoning Well (unit cost)
Well Pump (MGD) Raw Water Pump (MGD)
Well (MGD) Surface Water Intake or Spring Collector (MGD)
2003 D WINSA June 2006
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure 8
-------
Eliminating Well Pit (unit cost)
Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well (MOD)
2.2 Treatment
For each treatment project, EPA collected information on the type of infrastructure needed and
its design capacity. Most of the cost models are a function of the design capacity of the treatment
system (in MGD). However, streaming current monitors, particle counters, chlorine residual
analyzers, and turbidity meters were assigned a single cost per unit.
Chemical feed, waste handling, and disinfection projects were modeled by the design capacity of
the entire treatment system, as opposed to the capacity of the chemical feed pump or volume of
the waste stream. This approach alleviated the burden on systems to provide flow data for each
component of their treatment train.
The cost models for treatment technologies are listed below with the units for modeling provided
in parentheses. Cost models for rehabilitating turbidimeters, particle counters, streaming current
monitors, or chlorine residual monitors were not developed because these projects were
considered operation and maintenance.
Chlorination and Mixed
Oxidant Type Equipment
(MGD)
Chlorine Dioxide and
Chloramination (MGD)
Ozonation (MGD)
Ultraviolet Disinfection
(MGD)
Contact Basin for CT
(Clearwell) (MG)
Conventional Filter Plant
(MGD)
Sedimentation/
Flocculation (MGD)
Filters (MGD)
Aeration (MGD)
Membrane Technology
for Paniculate Removal
(MGD)
Chlorine Residual
Monitors (unit cost)
Turbidity Meters (unit
cost)
Ion Exchange (used also for
Activated Alumina) (MGD)
Manganese Green Sand
Filtration (MGD)
Lime Softening (MGD)
Reverse Osmosis (used also for
Electrodialysis) (MGD)
Powdered Activated Carbon
(MGD)
Granular Activated Carbon
(MGD)
Direct or In-line Filter Plant,
Slow Sand, Diatomaceous
Earth, and Cartridge or Bag
filtration (MGD)
Chlorine Gas Scrubber (unit
cost by MGD)
Waste Handling and
Treatment, Mechanical
(MGD)
Streaming Current
Monitors (unit cost)
Particle Counters (unit
cost)
Waste Handling and
Treatment,
Nonmechanical (MGD)
Chemical Feed, Dechlorination,
Fluoride Addition, Sequestering,
Corrosion Control, and Zebra
Mussel Control (MGD)
June 2006
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
2.3 Storage
Survey respondents provided ample cost data for elevated and ground-level storage tanks, and
for installing covers on existing finished water reservoirs. Conversely, the paucity of cost data
for hydropneumatic tanks required the use of engineering firm data obtained for the 1995 survey.
For cisterns, the IHS provided information to develop a unit cost. The models developed for
storage needs are listed below. Storage projects have separate cost curves for new and
rehabilitation, with the exception of storage covers, which were assigned rehabilitation costs
based on rehabilitation of the entire tank.
Elevated Finished/Treated Hydropneumatic Storage Storage Cover
Water Storage (MG) (MG) (MG)
Ground-Level Finished/Treated Cisterns (MG)
Water Storage (Includes
Presedimentation Basins,
Chemical Storage Tanks, and
Rehabilitation of Contact
Basins for CT (MG)
2.4 Transmission and Distribution
Transmission and distribution needs represented the largest category of need in the 2003 Needs
Survey. Many factors influence the cost of water main projects, including length and diameter of
the pipe, pipe material (e.g., PVC versus cast iron), transportation costs, pressure ratings, depth
buried, and soil type. The survey, however, limited the collection of data to diameter and length
of pipe to reduce the response burden on water systems.
Several variables for use in the cost models were examined, including the length of pipe for the
project, urban and rural project locations, and population density in the project area (as indicated
by zip code from the Census Bureau). None of these variables provided a significant
improvement to the simpler cost model based only on pipe diameter and length.
Service lines were assigned a unit cost per connection based on survey respondent data.
Hydrants, valves, backflow prevention devices, and meters were modeled using the number of
units needed and their diameter.
The following types of projects are included in the distribution and transmission category. Most
of these projects involve only the installation of new infrastructure (i.e., meters, service lines,
hydrants, valves, and backflow prevention devices/assemblies), because rehabilitation of this
equipment was considered operation and maintenance.
Raw Water Transmission Service Lines (number of Control Valves (PRVs,
(pipe diameter and lines) altitude, etc.) (number
length) and diameter)
Finished Water Flushing Hydrants Backflow Prevention
Transmission (pipe (number and diameter) Devices /Assemblies
diameter and length) (number and diameter)
2003 D WINSA June 2006
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure 10
-------
Distribution Mains (pipe Valves (gate, butterfly, Water Meters (number
diameter and length) etc.) (number and and diameter)
diameter)
2.5 Pumping
The different types of pumping needs are listed below. EPA developed cost models for pumps
and pumping stations as a function of the pumping capacity in MOD. Documented costs for
pump controls/telemetry are based on the population served by the system, as this model
accounted for more variability in the data than the model using the systems' design capacity.
Finished Water Pumps (MOD) Pump Station (MOD)
2.6 Other Needs
Projects in the miscellaneous category of need, called "other," for which costs models were
developed include Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and emergency power.
Emergency power was modeled using kilowatts. For SCAD A, the costs were modeled using the
systems' total design capacity. Chemical storage tanks, categorized as an "other" need, were
modeled as ground level storage tanks. The models developed for "other" needs were developed
only to assign costs to new projects, because rehabilitation of this equipment was considered
operation and maintenance.
Computer and Automation Pump Controls/Telemetry Emergency Power (kilowatts)
Costs (SCADA) (system design
capacity)
June 2006 2003 D WINSA
11 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
-------
Appendix A
Cost Models
-------
Appendix A
Table of Contents
Source
Cost Models
Well: New and Rehabilitation (New only for Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well)
Surface Water Intake and Spring Collectors: New and Rehabilitation
Unit Costs
Well House: New or Rehabilitation
Eliminate Well Pit
Abandon Well
Distribution and Transmission
Cost Models
Distribution and Transmission Mains: Raw and Finished Water, New and
Rehabilitation
Unit Costs
Lead Service Lines and Non-Lead Service Lines: New only
Flushing Hydrants: New only
Valves (gate, butterfly, etc.): New only
Control Valves: New only
Backflow Prevention Devices and Assemblies: New only
Water Meters: New only
Treatment
Cost Models
Chlorination and Mixed Oxidant-Type Treatment: New and Rehabilitation as a
single model
Chlorine Dioxide and Chloramination: New only
Ozone: New only
Ultraviolet Light Disinfection: New only
Contact Basins For Contact Time: New only (Rehabilitation modeled as Ground
Level Storage Tanks)
Conventional Filtration Treatment Plant: New and Rehabilitation
Direct, In-line, Diatomaceous Earth, Slow Sand, or Cartridge/Bag Filtration Plant:
New and Rehabilitation
Chemical Feed, Zebra Mussel Control, Dechlorination, Sequestering, Corrosion
Control, and Fluoride Addition: New and Rehabilitation as a single model
Sedimentation/Flocculation Basins: New and Rehabilitation
Filters and GAC: New and Rehabilitation as a single model
Membrane Technology: New only
2003 D WINSA June 2006
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-2
-------
Manganese Green Sand Filtration or Other Oxidation/Filtration Technology: New
only (Rehabilitation modeled as Direct Filtration Rehabilitation)
Ion Exchange: New Only (Rehabilitation will be modeled as Rehabilitation of
Filters)
Lime Softening: New Only (Rehabilitation will be modeled as Rehabilitation of
Conventional Treatment)
Aeration: New and Rehabilitation
Waste Handling and Treatment - Mechanical: New only
Waste Handling and treatment - Non-Mechanical: New and Rehabilitation as a
single model
Special Cases
Electrodialysis
Activated Alumina
Unit Costs
Chlorine Gas Scrubber
Streaming Current Monitor
Particle Counter
Turbidity meter
Chlorine Residual Monitor
Powdered Activated Carbon
Storage/Pumping
Cost Models
Elevated Finished/Treated Water Storage: New and Rehabilitation
Ground Level Finished/Treated Water Storage, Presedimentation Basin and
Chemical Storage Tanks: New and Rehabilitation
Hydropneumatic Storage: New and Rehabilitation
Cisterns - Unit Cost
Covers for Existing Finished/Treated Water Storage: New Only (Rehabilitation
modeled as Rehabilitation of Entire Ground Level Tank)
Pumps for Raw Water, Finished Water, and Wells: New and Rehabilitation
Pump Station: New and Rehabilitation
Other
Cost Models
Computer and Automation Costs, SCADA: New only
Pump Controls/Telemetry: New and Rehabilitation as a single model
Emergency Power: New only
June 2006 2003 D WINSA
Appendix A-3 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Source
-------
Well
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
Rl - Well (complete, including pump and appurtenances, not including a well house).
R12 - Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well.
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data for wells (Rl). Medium and
large system 1999 survey respondent data for aquifer storage and recovery wells (R12).
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).
quations (12.723-K).921*R12-K).8142/2)1,T-0.6741, ftn,0__
New*:C = e *D * 1.096833
Rehab: C = e(10-682+L0562/2)*D°-163* i Q96833 for wells (Rl) only. Aquifer storage and
recovery wells (R12) were not modeled.
* Regression includes data for Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells (R12), with indicator
variable (for Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells, R12: = 1 if Type of Need = R12, = 0
otherwise).
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Cost Floor
Minimum capacity (MGD)
New
318
0.47
0.000
$60,454
0.010
Rehab
257
0.02
0.046
$16,453
0.001
June 2006
Appendix A-5
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
New Well
1.00+09 -
1.00+08 -
1.00+07 -
-I'
(/)
0
O
O 1.00+06
0)
100000 H
10000 -
1000
.01
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
Well Rehabilitation
1.00+09
1.00+08
1.00+07
-Ii
0
O
O 1.00+06 -
0)
'cf
CL
100000 H
10000 -
1000 -
.01
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-6
June 2006
-------
Surface Water Intake and Spring Collector
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
R6 - Surface Water Intake
RIO-Spring Collector
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent surface water intake data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).
.D. 1096833
Rehab: C=e<1177973'/2)'D0550'1096833
Observations
R-squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (MGD)
New
43
0.61
0.000
0.072
Rehab
23
0.50
0.000
0.010
New Surface Water Intake or Spring Collector
1.0e+09
1.0e+08 -
1.0e+07 -
-I<
o
O
o 1.0e+06
0)
CL
100000 H
10000 -
1000 -
.01
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
June 2006
Appendix A-7
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Surface Water Intake or Spring Collector Rehabilitation
1.0e+09 -
1.0e+08 -
1.0e+07 -
i-j
i/)
o
0
o 1.0e+06
0)
'cf
100000 -
10000 -
1000
o
.01
I I
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
* Larger point is outlier excluded from regression.
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-&
June 2006
-------
Unit Costs for Raw / Untreated Water Source Projects
Infrastructure
Need
Well House
Well House
Eliminate Well Pit
Abandon Well
Needs Survey
Code
R3-New
R3 -Rehab
R4-New Only*
R5-New Only*
Source of Cost Estimate
7995 Needs Survey Unit Cost
(developed by an engineering
firm) converted to January
2003 dollars
2003 Cost
Estimate
$ 85,929
$ 26,366
$ 14,265
$ 6,006
* Costs were assigned for construction of new projects only. Elimination of well pits and
abandonment of wells are considered one-time projects.
June 2006
Appendix A-9
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Distribution and Transmission
-------
Distribution and Transmission Mains
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
Ml - Distribution Mains
XI - Raw Water Transmission
X2 - Finished Water Transmission
Source of Cost Observations:
Distribution mains, raw water or finished water transmission from medium and large system
2003 survey respondents.
Determinants of Cost:
Distribution mains or transmission lines, pipe diameter, project length (in feet) in frost and
non-frost locations.
Rehab - An average cost per foot of $48.92 was used for all sizes.
Table of Data:
New and rehab of distribution mains and transmission lines.
June 2006 2003 D WINSA
Appendix A-ll Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Average Cost Per Foot For Pipe in January 2003 Dollars
Diameter
Category
6 Inches
6-10 Inches
10 - 14 Inches
14 - 16 Inches
16 - 20 Inches
20 - 24 Inches
24 - 30 Inches
30 - 36 Inches
36 - 42 Inches
42 - 60 Inches
60 - 84 Inches
84 - 90 Inches
90 - 96 Inches
96 - 120 Inches
> 120 Inches
New
Frost
Distribution
Mains
Transmission
Lines
$67.45
$98.21
$113.78
$142.73
$164.92
$191.03
$84.89
$100.46
$129.41
$151.61
$177.72
Non-frost
Distribution
Mains
Transmission
Lines
$50.30
$87.42
$102.99
$131.94
$154.13
$180.24
$74.10
$89.67
$118.62
$140.82
$166.93
$240.11
$286.31
$293.06
$418.00
$466.94
$581.32
$651.52
$691.00
$947.66
Upgrade
$48.92
$48.92
$48.92
$48.92
$48.92
$48.92
$48.92
$48.92
$48.92
$48.92
$48.92
$48.92
$48.92
$48.92
$48.92
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-12
June 2006
-------
Distribution Mains and Transmission Lines in frost and Non Frost Areas
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
= 6 6-10 10-14 14-16 16-20 20-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-60 60-84 84-90 90-96 96-120 >120
DM1 F HX1 X2 F DM1 NF DX1 X2 NF
Appendix A-13
-------
Unit Costs for Distribution Projects
Infrastructure Need
Lead Service Lines
and Service Lines
other than Lead Lines
Flushing Hydrants
Need Survey
Code
M2, M3
M4
Source of Cost Estimate
Unit costs derived from 1999
Needs Survey data used on
all new projects based on size
and converted to January
2003 dollars.
Rehabilitation projects are
not allowable and therefore
were not modeled.
2003 Cost
Estimate
$1,219
$2,005
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
June 2006
Appendix A-14
-------
Valves
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
M5 - Valves (gate, butterfly, etc.)
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Di ameter of valve.
Table of Data:
New valves only, rehabilitation projects not allowed for the Survey.
Valve Diameter
(Inches)
4.0
6.0
8.0
10
12
14-16
18-20
>20
Cost
(January 2003 dollars)
$ 1,143
$ 1,247
$ 1,781
$ 4,026
$ 5,782
$7,891
$ 13,056
$23,571
June 2006
Appendix A-15
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
25,000
Valves (Gate, Butterfly, etc.) (MS)
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
1,143 1,247
5,782
4,026
1,781
7,891
13,056
23,571
10 12 14-16 18-20 >20
Appendix A-16
-------
Control Valves
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
M6 - Control Valves (PRVs, altitude, etc.)
Source of Cost Observations:
Medium and large system 1999 survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Di ameter of valve.
Table of Data:
New valves only, rehabilitation projects not allowed for the Survey.
Valve Diameter
(Inches)
<6.0
10-12
14-16
18-24
30+
Cost
(January 2003 dollars)
$ 8,658
$ 10,938
$21,583
$67,169
$ 129,283
June 2006
Appendix A-17
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Cbntod V&lves(FR/ Atitud^ etc.) (IVB)
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
129,283
67,169
21,583
§663
10,938
<60
10-12
1416
18-24
30+
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
June 2006
AppendixA-18
-------
Backflow Prevention Devices/Assemblies
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
M7 - Backflow Prevention Devices/Assemblies
Source of Cost Observations:
2000 R.S. Means Cost Data for double check valves up to and including 6-inches in
diameter and reduced pressure zone backflow prevention devices for 8 and 10-inch diameter
units.
Determinants of Cost:
Device/Assembly diameter.
Table of Data:
New devices/assemblies only, rehabilitation projects not allowed for the Survey.
Diameter of
Device/Assembly (inches)
0.75
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10
Cost
(January 2003 dollars)
$671
$701
$802
$996
$ 1,707
$ 2,479
$ 3,892
$ 9,372
$ 13,102
June 2006
Appendix A-19
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
14,000
12,000
Backflow Prevention Devices and Assemblies (M7)
13,102
10,000
9,372
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
671 701 802
996
1 707
2,479
3,892
0.75 1
1.5
8 10
Appendix A-20
-------
Water Meters
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
M8 - Water Meters
Source of Cost Observations:
Meters with diameters less than or equal to 1 inch use medium and large system 2003 survey
respondent data.
Meters with diameters greater than 1 inch use small, medium, and large system 1999 survey
respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Meter diameter.
Table of Data:
New meters only, rehabilitation of meters not allowed for the Survey.
Diameter of Meter
(inches)
0.625 and 0.7
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
6.0
>8.0
Average Cost per
Meter (January
2003 dollars)
$225
$225
$397
$645
$2,365
$ 3,320
$5,133
$ 11,813
June 2006
Appendix A-21
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
14,000
Water Meters (M8)
12,000
11,813
10,000
8,000
6,000
5,133
4,000
3,320
2,000
225 225
397
645
2,365
0.625-1
1.5
>8.0
Appendix A-22
-------
Treatment
-------
Chlorination and Mixed Oxidant Type Equipment
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
Tl - Chlorination
T5 - Mixed Oxidant Type Equipment
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data for Chlorination (Tl). No data
from Mixed Oxidant Type Equipment was provided by 1999 survey respondents.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity of water to be treated in million gallons per day (MGD).
Minimum design capacities were applied when not specified.
Minimum cost for new Tl specified as $73,567.
quations^ (10.400+1.0702/2):,T^0.684:, nn_
New&Rehab: C = e *D * 1.096833
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity(new)
Minimum capacitv(rehab)
New and Rehab
95
0.63
0.000
0.000003
0.001
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
June 2006
Appendix A-24
-------
New Chlorination System and Mixed Oxidant Type Equipment and
Rehabilitation of Existing System
1.00+09 -
1.00+08 -
1.00+07 -
w
o
O
"5 1.00+06 -
o>
"S"
Q.
100000 H
10000
1000 -
.01
o
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
Larger point is outlier excluded from regression.
June 2006
Appendix A-2'5
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Chloramination and Chlorine Dioxide
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
T2 - Chloramination
T3 - Chlorine Dioxide
Source of Cost Observations:
Chlorine dioxide costs reported in the Economic Analysis for the Proposed Ground Water
Rule.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).
Minimum design capacities applied when not specified.
Cost determined by extrapolating between data points provided in table.
Table of Data:
New projects only, no rehabilitation data available.
Design Capacity
(MGD)
0.03
0.1
0.3
0.75
2.2
7.8
23.5
81
Cost
(January 2003 Dollars)
$ 118,735
$ 188,209
$213,472
$ 238,734
$294,313
$488,838
$ 1,018,097
$2,067,773
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-26
June 2006
-------
2,500,000
Chloramination and Chlorine Dioxide (T2, T3)
2,000,000
1,500,000
2,067,773
1,000,000
500,000
118,735
188,209
1,018,097
213,472 238.734
294,313
488,838
0.03 0.1 0.3 0.75 2.2 7.8 23.5
81
Appendix A-27
-------
Ozonation
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
T4 - Ozonation
Source of Cost Observations:
Ozone costs for new systems reported in the Economic Analysis from the Stage 2
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD); minimum design capacities applied
when not specified.
Table of Data:
New only, rehabilitation projects are modeled as rehabilitation of Chlorination (Tl).
Design Capacity (MGD)
0.024
0.087
0.10
0.27
0.45
0.65
0.83
1.0
1.8
4.8
10
11
18
26
51
210
430
Cost (January 2003 Dollars)
$ 305,568
$ 370,887
$381,343
$414,356
$ 504,373
$ 594,262
$ 765,589
$ 872,570
$ 970,666
$ 1,338,526
$ 1,976,149
$ 2,096,574
$ 2,905,268
$3,775,179
$ 6,294,739
$ 19,575,848
$ 36,596,933
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-2 8
June 2006
-------
Ozonation (T4)
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
36,596,93:
19,575,848
6,294,739
2,096,574 3,775,179
070
370,887 414356 594,262 a/z,
05,568 381,343 504,373 765<589
1,338,526
1,976,149
97°'666 ~
2,905,268
0.024 0.087 0.1 0.27 0.45 0.65 0.83 1 1.8 4.8 10 11 18 26 51 210 430
Appendix A-29
-------
Ultraviolet Disinfection
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
T6 - Ultraviolet Disinfection
Source of Cost Observations:
Costs extrapolated from manufacturer's data for new systems in 1999 and updated to
January 2003 dollars.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).
Minimum design capacities applied when not specified.
Rehabilitation projects were not modeled, as there were no rehabilitation projects submitted
without costs.
Table of Data:
Design Capacity
(MGD)
0.024
0.087
0.27
0.65
1.8
4.8
11
18
26
51
210
Cost
(January 2003 Dollars)
$ 12,472
$ 17,018
$ 23,994
$38,578
$ 142,186
$208,518
$ 291,924
$ 333,628
$ 383,672
$ 639,454
$ 1,514,974
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-30
June 2006
-------
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
Ultraviolet Disinfection (T6)
12
1,514,974
639,454
383,672
291,924
333,628
208,518
142,186
,472 17,018 23,994 38>578
0.024 0.087 0.27 0.65 1.8 4.8 11 18 26 51 210
Appendix A-31
-------
Contact Basin for CT
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
T7 - Contact Basin for CT (new)
Source of Cost Observations:
Medium and large system 1999 survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons (MG).
Equations: (14 072+0 464V2) 0 739
New: C = e *D * 1.096833
Rehabilitation projects for contact basins for CT will be modeled as rehabilitations of
ground level storage tanks (S2).
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity
New
16
0.84
0.000
0.0003
New Contact Basin for CT
1.00+09 -
1.00+08
1.00+07
-I i
0
O
O 1.00+06 -
0)
100000 H
10000 -
1000 -
.01
.1
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-3 2
June 2006
-------
Conventional Filter Plant
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
T10-Conventional Filter Plant
T35 - Lime Softening (complete plant rehabilitation)
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data, and supplemental data from
state lending agencies.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).
quations. (14.444+0.5372/2) 0.593. nnM>>>>-eA + i +u 1 +
New*: C= e *D * 1.096833 if design capacity is less than or equal to
1MGD;
c = e(i4.444+0.5372/2)#D0.88l# ^ Q96833 if design capacity is greater than 1 MGD
.. r, u u** r^ (13.710+T35*-0.696+1.0372/2)^0.606. nnF
Minimum capacity (MGD)
New
144
0.89
0.000
0.072
Rehab
151
0.41
0.000
0.072
June 2006
Appendix A-3 3
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
New Conventional Filter Plant
1.00+09
1.00+08
1.00+07 -
0
O
Q
0)
'cf
CL
1.00+06 -
100000 -
10000 -
1000 -
O
O
.01
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
Larger points are outliers excluded from regression.
Conventional Filter Plant and Lime Softening Rehabilitation
1.00+09 -
1.00+08 -
1.00+07
w
O
O
O 1.00+06 -
0)
'o1
CL
100000 H
10000 -
1000 -
.01
O O O O O
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
T10
T35
1000
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
June 2006
Appendix A-3 4
-------
Direct or In-line, Slow Sand, Diatomaceous Earth, or
Cartridge or Bag Filtration Plant
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
Til- Direct or In-line Filter Plant
T16 - Slow Sand Filter Plant
T17 - Diatomaceous Earth Filter Plant
T19 - Cartridge or Bag Filtration Plant
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data for direct filtration plants.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).
Rehab: C =
21 9+1
-2iy+L
1096833
0594
u-iy4
L096833
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (MGD)
New
28
0.79
0.000
0.100
Rehab
25
0.46
0.000
0.065
June 2006
Appendix A-3 5
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
New Direct Filtration Plant
1.00+09
1.00+08
1.00+07
-i-«
0
O
O 1.00+06 -
0)
100000 H
10000 -
1000 -
.01
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-3 6
June 2006
-------
Dechlorination of Treated Water, Chemical Feed, Sequestering for Iron and/or
Manganese, Corrosion Control, Fluoride Addition, and Zebra Mussel Control
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
T8 - Dechlorination of Treated Water
Tl3-Chemical Feed
T32 - Sequestering for Iron and/or Manganese
T40 - Corrosion Control
T43 - Zebra Mussel Control
T44 - Fluoride Addition
Source of Cost Observations:
Large, medium, and small system 1999 survey respondent data for Chemical Feed (T13),
Sequestering (T32), Corrosion Control (T40), and Fluoride Addition (T44).
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity of water to be treated in million gallons per day (MOD).
Equations:*
New & Rehab:
(10.298+1.474*T32m352*T40-1.302*T44+1.1022/2) 0.652^
*Regression also included data for Sequestering (T32), Corrosion Control (T40), and
Fluoride Addition (T46), with indicator variables:
T32: = 1 if Type of Need is T32, = 0 otherwise
T40: = 1 if Type of Need is T40, = 0 otherwise
T44: = 1 if Type of Need is T44, = 0 otherwise
Equation for Chemical Feed (T13) used for Dechlorination of Treated Water (T8) and Zebra
Mussel Control (T43).
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (new) (MGD)
Minimum capacity (rehab) (MGD)
New and Rehab
64
0.63
0.000
0.004
0.036
June 2006
Appendix A-3 7
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Dechlorination of Treated Water, Chemical Feed, Sequestering, Corrosion Control,
Fluoride Addition, and Zebra Mussel Control
1.00+09
1.00+08
1.00+07 -
-Ii
0
O
£ 1.00+06 -
0)
'cf
100000 H
10000
1000 -
.01
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
T32
1000
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-3 8
June 2006
-------
Sedimentation/Flocculation
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
T14 - Sedimentation/Flocculation
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).
Rehab: C = e(1L347+L2192/2)*Da56°* 1.096833
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity
New
20
0.44
0.001
0.144
Rehab
41
0.30
0.000
0.086
June 2006
Appendix A-3 9
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
New Sedimentation/Flocculation
1.00+09 -
1.00+08
1.00+07
-I i
0
O
O 1.00+06 -
0)
100000 H
10000 -
1000 -
.01
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
Sedimentation/Flocculation Rehabilitation
1.00+09 -
1.00+08
1.00+07
-I i
0
O
O 1.00+06 -
0)
100000 H
10000 -
1000 -
.01
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-40
June 2006
-------
Filters and Granular Activated Carbon
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
Tl5-Filters
T31 - Granular Activated Carbon
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).
quations^ (12.634-1.821*Rehab+0.9572/2) 0.832. -_,_..
New & Rehab*: C = e *D * 1.096833
*Regression includes data for granular activated carbon (T31), without an indicator variable
Rehabilitation: = 1 if project is a rehab, = 0 otherwise.
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (new)(MGD)
Minimum capacity (rehab)(MGD)
New and Rehab
131
0.69
0.000
0.0072
0.007
Filters and Granular Activated Carbon: New and Rehabilitation
1.0e+09 -
1.0e+08 -
1.0e+07 -
o
O
o LOe+06-
E
Q_
100000-
10000 -
1000 -
.01
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
June 2006
Appendix A-41
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Membrane Technology for Particulate Removal and Reverse Osmosis
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
Tl 8 - Membrane Technology for Particulate Removal
T36 - Reverse Osmosis (complete plant)
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data for new Membrane
Technology for Particulate Removal (T18) and Reverse Osmosis (T36). Small, medium and
large system 1999 survey respondent data for rehabilitation of Reverse Osmosis (T36).
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).
: C = ^.344+0.797^0.814,
Rehab: C = e(13-556+a4552/2)*D°-278* 1.096833
*Regressions included data for Reverse Osmosis (T36) without an indicator variable.
**New projects with a design capacity < 0.156 MGD are modeled as a Reverse Osmosis
(T36) rehabilitation.
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity
(new)(MGD)
New
52
0.72
0.000
0.0144
Rehab
5
0.62
0.113
0.500
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-42
June 2006
-------
New Membrane Technology for Particulate Removal and Reverse Osmosis
1.0e+09
1.0e+08 -
1.0e+07 -
To
o
0
0 1.0e+06 -
0)
100000 -
10000 -
1000 -
.01
I I
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
Membrane Technology for Particulate Removal and Reverse Osmosis
Rehabilitation
1.0e+09
1.0e+08 -
1.0e+07
4-<
w
0
O
o 1.0e+06-
0)
'o1
11
100000 H
10000 -
1000
.01
.1
o
I I
1 10
Design capacity
100
Larger point is outlier excluded from regression
1000
June 2006
Appendix A-43
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Manganese Green Sand Filtration
or Other Oxidation/Filtration Technology
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
T33 - Manganese Green Sand Filtration or other oxidation/filtration technology (complete
plant).
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).
quations (13.377+0.9992/2) 0.403. nnMii-eA + i +u 1+1
New*: C = e *D * 1.096833 if design capacity is less than or equal to 1
MGD
(13.377+0.999V2) 1.106 nn/,0^^ .,, , . .. . . ., , A/rr^
C = e *D * 1.096833 if design capacity is greater than 1 MGD
Rehabilitation projects will be modeled as rehabilitation of Direct or In-Line Filter Plants
(Til)
*New projects are modeled as a spline, with the slope changing at 1 MGD
Observations
R-squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (MGD)
New
52
0.68
0.000
0.007
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-44
June 2006
-------
New Manganese Green Sand Filtration or Other Oxidation/Filtration Technology
1.0e+09 - °
1.0e+08 -
1.0e+07 -
o
O
o 1.0e+06 -
0
'
100000 H
10000 -
1000 -
I
.01
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
June 2006
Appendix A-45
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Ion Exchange
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
T34 - Ion Exchange (complete plant)
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MOD).
Equations: .308+0.676V2) n.789.
New: C = e *D * 1.096833
Rehabilitation projects will be modeled as rehabilitation of Filters (T15).
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (new)(MGD)
New
34
0.64
0.000
0.014
New Ion Exchange
1.00+09 -
1.00+08
1.00+07
-Ii
0
O
O 1.00+06
0)
'8*
Q_
100000
10000 -
1000
I
.01
.1
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
Lime Softening
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-46
June 2006
-------
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
T35 - Lime Softening (complete plant)
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MOD).
quations (14.660+0.465V2VO. 884. -_..
New: C = e *D * 1.096833
Rehabilitation projects for Lime Softening will be modeled as rehabilitations of
Conventional Filter Plant (T10).
Note: Rehabilitation data included in Conventional Filter Plant (T10) regression, with an
indicator variable (T35: = 1 if Type of Need is T35, = 0 otherwise).
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (MGD)
New
16
0.74
0.000
0.648
1.0e+09 -
1.0e+08 -
1.0e+07 -
w
o
O
t> 1.0e+06 -
100000
10000 -
1000 -
.01
New Lime Softening
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
June 2006
Appendix A-47
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Aeration
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
T3 8 -Aeration
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MOD).
* 1.096833
Rehab: C = e(1L931+a3732/2)*Da201* 1.096833
*New projects < 0. 1 16 MGD will be modeled as a rehabilitation.
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (MGD)
New
67
0.44
0.000
0.065
Rehab
8
0.67
0.013
0.002
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-48
June 2006
-------
New Aeration
1.0e+09
1.0e+08
1.0e+07
i-j
i/)
o
0
o 1.0e+06
0)
100000
10000
1000
.01
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
1.0e+09 -
1.0e+08 -
1.0e+07 -
-
i/)
o
0
"G
0
's1
D.
1.0e+06 -
1 00000 H
10000 -
1000
.01
Aeration Rehabilitation
I I
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
June 2006
Appendix A-49
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Waste Handling and Treatment, Mechanical
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
T41 - Waste Handling and Treatment, Mechanical (not included in another project)
Source of Cost Observations:
Large system 1999 survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity of water treatment facility in million gallons per day (MOD).
Equations:
New: C = eC)*D* 1.096833
Rehabilitation projects will not be modeled.
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (MGD) (new)
New
35
0.42
0.000
0.050
1.00+09
1.00+08
1.00+07 -
0
O
Q
0)
'cf
CL
1.00+06 -
100000 H
10000 -
1000 -
New Waste Handling and Treatment, Mechanical
.01
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-50
June 2006
-------
Waste Handling and Treatment, Nonmechanical
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
T42 - Waste Handling and Treatment, Nonmechanical (not included in another project).
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity of water treatment facility in million gallons per day (MOD).
quations^ (11.879+1.170V2VO. 562. -_..
New& Rehab: C = e *D * 1.096833
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (new) (MGD)
Minimum capacity (rehab) (MGD)
New and Rehab
39
0.44
0.000
0.005
0.005
Waste Handling and Treatment, Nonmechanical, New and Rehabilitation
1.00+09 -
1.00+08 -
1.00+07
-Ii
0
O
"G 1.00+06
0)
'cf
CL
100000 -
10000 -
1000
.01
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
June 2006
Appendix A-51
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Treatment Projects With Special Modeling Needs
Infrastructure
Need
Electrodialysis
(complete plant)
Activated
Alumina
Needs
Survey
Code
T37
T39
Number of
Projects to be
Modeled
2 New
3 Rehab
3 New
1 Rehab
New Projects to be
Modeled as:
Reverse Osmosis
(T36)New
Ion Exchange
(T34)
Rehabilitation
Projects to be
Modeled as
Reverse Osmosis
(T36) Rehab
Filters (T 15)
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
June 2006
Appendix A-5 2
-------
Unit Costs for Treatment Projects
Infrastructure
Need
Chlorine Gas
Scrubber
Streaming Current
Monitors
Particle Counters
Turbidity Meters
Chlorine Residual
Monitors
Powdered
Activated Carbon
Needs Survey
Code
T9
T20
T21
T22
T23
T30
Source of Cost Estimate
Average of two
manufacturers' cost
estimates and one
engineering firm estimate.
Average of two
manufacturers' cost
estimates.
Average of two
manufacturers' cost
estimates and 1999 Needs
Survey data.
Average of three
manufacturers' cost
estimates and 1999 Needs
Survey data.
Average of two
manufacturers' cost
estimates.
Unit cost from 1995
Needs Survey (obtained
from an engineering
firm).
Cost Estimate
(January 2003 Dollars)
$32,905 for < 3.0 MGD
$98,7 1 5 for > 3.0 MOD
$ 9,268
$ 4,528
$2,356
$ 2,755
$ 161,930
T9 - Chlorine Gas Scrubber [scrubber equipment, installation and monitoring
equipment with alarms; assume < 3.0 MGD uses scrubbers for 150 pound
chlorine gas cylinders and > 3.0 MGD uses scrubbers for 1-ton containers].
T20 - Streaming Current Monitor [basic unit including a monitor, sensor, and cable].
T21 - Particle Counters [on-line units for individual filter monitoring; not research-
grade, bench-top models].
T22 - Turbidity Meter [on-line units for individual filters, not bench-top models].
T23 - Chlorine Residual Monitors [analyzer/monitor only].
June 2006
Appendix A-5 3
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Storage/Pumping
-------
Elevated Finished/Treated Water Storage
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
SI - Elevated Finished / Treated Water Storage
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons (MG).
C = e(14.082+0.484V2),D0.671,
Rehab: C = e^420+o.804V2),Do.385,
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (MG)
New
479
0.62
0.000
0.025
Rehab
365
0.18
0.000
0.002
New Elevated Finished/Treated Water Storage
1.00+09 -
1.00+08 -
1.00+07 -
-i'
o
O
O 1.00+06
0)
100000 H
10000 -
1000
.01
'O
O
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
June 2006
Appendix A-5 5
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Elevated Finished/Treated Water Storage Rehabilitation
1.0e+09 -
1.0e+08
1.0e+07
-t-j
w
o
O
o 1.0e+06
0)
'o1
CL
100000
10000
1000
.01
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
Larger symbols are outliers excluded from regressions
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
June 2006
Appendix A-5 6
-------
Ground-level Finished/Treated Water Storage, Contact Basin for CT (Rehabilitation),
Presedimentation Basin, Chemical Storage Tank
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
S2 - Ground-level Finished/Treated Water Storage
T7 - Contact Basin for CT (Rehabilitation)
T12 - Presedimentation Basin
T45 - Chemical Storage Tank
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data for new ground-level storage.
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data for rehabilitation of ground-
level storage and contact basin for CT.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons (MG).
Equations: (13 641+0 559V2) 0694
New:C = e *D * 1.096833
.. r. u u* /- (11.890+0.976V2) 0.478 nn/,0^^
Rehab*: C = e *D * 1.096833
*Note: rehabilitation regression included data for Contact Basin for CT (T7), without
indicator variables.
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity
New
577
0.77
0.000
0.000
Rehab
356
0.30
0.000
0.001
June 2006
Appendix A-5 7
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
New Ground-Level Finished/Treated Water Storage, Presedimentation
Basin, Chemical Storage Tank
1.0e+09 -
1.0e+08 -
1.0e+07 -
-§-<
in
o
0
"5 1.0e+06 -
0)
100000 -
10000 -
1000 -
o
I I I I I
.01 .1 1 10 100
Design capacity
Larger symbols are outliers excluded from regressions.
1000
Ground-level Finished/Treated Water Storage, Cover for Existing
Finished/Treated Water Storage, Contact Basin for CT, Presedimentation
Basin, Chemical Storage Tank Rehabilitation
1.0e+09 -
1.0e+08 -
1.0e+07 -
-§-<
in
o
0
"5 1 .Oe+06 -
0)
"S"
Q.
100000 H
10000 -
1000 -
I
.01
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-5 8
June 2006
-------
Hydropneumatic Storage
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
S3 - Hydropneumatic Storage
Source of Cost Observations:
1995 Needs Survey cost model.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons (MG).
For new tanks greater than 12,000 gallons, the Ground Level Finished/Treated Water
Storage model will be used.
Rehabilitation projects for less than 2,500 gallons will be modeled as new tanks.
D * 1.209076
Rehab: C = e(13-4862)*D°-559* 1.209076
June 2006 2003 D WINSA
Appendix A-59 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Unit Costs for Storage Projects
Infrastructure Need
Need Survey
Code
Source of Cost Estimate
Cost Estimate
Cistern
S4
Indian Health Service
information
$4,936 each
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
June 2006
Appendix A-60
-------
Cover for Existing Finished/Treated Water Storage
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
S5 - Cover for Existing Finished/Treated Water Storage (New only)
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons (MG).
Equations: (12.388+0.9292/2^0.543. 1 -.,_..
New:C = e *D * 1.096833
Rehabilitation: Rehabilitations of covers will be modeled as rehabilitation of the entire tank
with the model for rehabilitation of ground-level finished/treated water storage (S2).
Observations
Sigma
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (new)
New
30
0.929
0.69
0.000
0.006
New Cover for Existing Finished/Treated Water Storage
1.0e+09 -
1.0e+08
1.0e+07 -
in
o
O
1.0e+06 -
2
Q.
100000
10000 -
1000
.01
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
June 2006
Appendix A-61
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Pumps
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
PI-Finished Water Pumps
R2-Well Pump
R7 - Raw Water Pumps
Source of Cost Observations:
Medium and large system 1999 survey respondent data for Finished Water Pumps (PI),
Well Pump (R2), and Raw Water Pumps (R7).
Determinants of Cost:
Pump design capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).
(10.967-0.455*Rehab+1.1372/2 0.713,
Equations:
New & Rehab: C = ev *D* L096833
(Rehabilitation: = 1 if project is a rehab., = 0 otherwise)
Observations
R-squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (new) (MGD)
Minimum capacity (rehab) (MGD)
New and Rehab
335
0.45
0.000
0.001
0.005
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
June 2006
Appendix A-62
-------
1.0e+09 -
1.0e+08
1.0e+07 -
o
O
t3 1 .Oe+06 -
0
100000 -
10000
1000 -
.01
Pumps - New and Rehabilitation
08 f o
o o o
o
1 10
Design capacity
100
New
Rehab
1000
Larger symbol is outlier excluded from regressions.
June 2006
Appendix A-63
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Pump Station
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
P2 - Pump Station (booster or raw water pump station including clearwell, pump and
housing).
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).
Equations: (12.446+1.077V2), n.644, 1 ,_
New: C = e *D * 1.096833
Rehab: C = e(1L593+L12°2/2)*D°-687* 1.096833
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (gpm)
New
331
0.52
0.000
10
Rehab
201
0.61
0.000
10
New Pump Station
1.00+09
1.00+08
1.00+07 -
0
O
Q
0)
'cf
CL
1.00+06 -
1 00000 H
10000 -
1000 -
I
.01
I I I
.1 1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
June 2006
Appendix A-64
-------
Pump Station Rehabilitation
1.0e+09
1.0e+08
1.0e+07
i-j
i/)
o
0
o 1.0e+06 -
0)
100000 H
10000 -
1000 -
I
.01
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
June 2006
Appendix A-65
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Other Needs
-------
Computer and Automation Costs (SCADA)
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
W2 - Computer and Automation Costs (SCADA)
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
System design capacity in million gallons per day (MOD).
Equations:
Model is the following system of equations:
(1) In(Cost) = 5 + fln(Design Capacity)
(2) ln(Design Capacity) = 5 + f(Population)
Cost as a Function of Design Capacity (equation 1)
New: C = e*D* 1.096833
Rehab: C = e(10-657+L28°2/2)*D0-481* 1.096833
Design Capacity as a Function of Population (equation 2)
AT (-6.^6+0.6662/2)^n 0.902* ,--
New:C = e *Pop * 1.096833
_ , , (-8.000+0.377V2) 1.006 nn/,0^^
Rehab: C = e *Pop * 1.096833
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Structural Model
Cost as Function of
System Design Capacity
New
252
0.20
0.000
Rehab
80
0.29
0.000
System Design Capacity as
Function of Population Served
New
252
0.82
0.000
Rehab
80
0.95
0.000
June 2006
Appendix A-67
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
New Computer and Automation Costs (SCADA)
1.00+09 -
1.00+08
1.00+07
-I i
0
O
O 1.00+06 -
0)
1 00000 H
10000 -
1000 -
.01
0 ° °c» o" g>o ooo o
0 o o o o o °
o ° CP °° o0
o
o
o o
o
1 10 100
Syst0m D0sign Capacity
1000
Computer and Automation Costs (SCADA) Rehabilitation
1.00+09
1.00+08
1.00+07
-I i
0
O
O 1.00+06 -
0)
1 00000 H
10000 -
1000 -
.01
1 10 100
Syst0m D0sign Capacity
1000
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
June 2006
Appendix A-t
-------
Pump Controls/Telemetry
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
W3 -Pump Controls/Telemetry
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Population served by the system as a means of estimating system complexity.
(7973+1312V2) 0318
New&Rehab: C = eC ;*Pop * 1.096833
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
New and Rehab
173
0.13
0.000
Pump Controls/Telemetry
1.00+09 -
1.00+08 -
1.00+07 -
-I'
0
O
O 1.00+06
0)
100000 -
10000 -
1000
10
100
1 000 1 0000
Population served
100000 1000000
June 2006
Appendix A-69
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Emergency Power
2003 Needs Survey Codes:
W4 - Emergency Power
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in kilowatts.
quations (6.942+0.748V2VO. 83U -_..
New: C = e *D * 1.096833
Rehabilitation proj ects are not modeled.
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
New
140
0.61
0.000
New Emergency Power
1.00+09
1.00+08 -
1.00+07 -
-t-j
-------
Appendix B
Type of Need Dictionary
-------
TYPE OF NEED DICTIONARY
Possible Project Components
The following describes the general scope of projects for which each of the Type of Need codes
in List 1 of the Lists of Codes apply. It is not intended to be an exclusive list. Rather, it conveys
the spectrum of possible elements of a related project. Some projects using a particular code may
include all of the elements listed. Others may be more limited in scope and include only one of
the items. Assume all projects include installation, engineering design, and contingency costs
and all treatment projects include waste-stream handling, if appropriate.
Code
Type of Need
Possible Components
Parameters required for
Modeling Cost
RAW /UNTREATED WATER SOURCE
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
Well
Well Pump
Well House
Eliminate Well
Pit
Abandon Well
Surface Water
Intake
Raw Water
Pump
Dam/Reservoir
Siting, drilling, and developing a well to
completion; including installation of a pump
and appurtenances such as sample tap, meter,
air release, pressure gauge, shut-off valve,
electrical controls, and limited discharge
piping.
Pump and electrical controls.
Site work, slab, building structure sized to
accommodate on-site disinfection.
Projects may span significance from
constructing a small building to more elaborate
facilities with a chemical feed room with
ventilation, etc.
Extend casing, install pitless adapter, modify
piping connections, fill pit, grade site. Does not
include well house.
Fill casing with appropriate material, cap well.
Intake structure, piping, valves; does not
include pumps or impoundment structures.
May include a wet well (small storage tank for
raw water to be pumped to the treatment
plant).
Pump and electrical controls.
Construction of a dam or impoundment to
inhibit flow of a naturally occurring stream,
river, or other flowing body of water for the
purposes of storing raw water for future use.
Does not include intake structure.
Design Capacity in MGD.
Design Capacity in MGD.
n/a
(A unit cost will be
assigned)
n/a
(A unit cost will be
assigned)
n/a
(A unit cost will be
assigned)
Design Capacity in MGD.
Design Capacity in MGD.
n/a
(these projects are not
allowable for the Needs
Survey)
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix B-l
June 2006
-------
Code
R9
R10
R11
R12
Type of Need
Off-Stream
Raw Water
Storage
Spring
Collector
De-stratification
Aquifer Storage
and Recovery
Well
Possible Components
Storage basin off the stream channel,
constructed as a part of the treatment process,
providing no more than 3 days detention time.
Purpose is to address water quality issues, not
water quantity issues.
Spring box or other collection device, including
overflow, meter, sample tap, valves, and
limited piping connection to a transmission
main. Assume gravity flow; does not include
pumps.
Some method of water circulation or aeration
of a raw water source to avoid stratification of
the water body.
Wells used to inject water into an aquifer for
later recovery and use as a source of drinking
water. These wells may also be used for
aquifer recharge without subsequent recovery
from the same wellhead. Components may
include well construction, pump,
appurtenances, and limited transmission main.
Parameters required for
Modeling Cost
Cost must be provided.
Design Capacity in MGD.
Cost must be provided.
Design Capacity in MGD
TREATMENT- DISINFECTION
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
Chlorination
Chloramination
Chlorine
Dioxide
Ozonation
Mixed Oxidant
Type
Equipment
Ultraviolet
Disinfection
Contact Basin
forCT
Dechlorination
of Treated
Water
Gas or hypochlorite system with chemical
mixing and injection systems, safety-related
components. Does not include gas scrubber.
Chemical mixing and injection systems, safety-
related components. Does not include gas
scrubber.
Chemical mixing and injection systems, safety-
related components.
Ozone generation and injection equipment, off-
gas controls and related safety equipment.
Disinfectant generation equipment, injection
system, safety-related components.
UV lights, pipes, valves, controls, and intensity
monitors.
Baffled clearwell-type contact tank with
overflow, drain and access (if appropriate), or
serpentine piping for contact time. Includes
valves.
Chemical mixing and injection system, on-line
chlorine residual monitoring equipment.
Capacity of the water to
be treated in MGD.
Capacity of the water to
be treated in MGD.
Capacity of the water to
be treated in MGD.
Capacity of the water to
be treated in MGD.
Capacity of the water to
be treated in MGD.
Capacity of the water to
be treated in MGD.
Volume in MG.
Capacity of the water to
be treated in MGD.
June 2006
Appendix B-3
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Code
T9
Type of Need
Chlorine Gas
Scrubber
Possible Components
Gas scrubber equipment, installation, and
monitoring equipment with alarms.
Parameters required for
Modeling Cost
Capacity of the water to
be treated in MGD.
TREATMENT - FILTRATION (surface or ground water)
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
T16
T17
Conventional
Filter Plant
(complete
plant)
Direct or In-line
Filter Plant
(complete
plant)
P re-
sedimentation
Basin
Chemical Feed
Sedimentation/
Flocculation
Filters
Slow Sand
Filter Plant
(complete
plant)
Diatomaceous
Earth Filter
Plant (complete
plant)
Complete conventional plant with flocculation,
sedimentation, filtration, waste handling, and
the building. Includes all raw water and
finished water pumps, chemicals and mixing,
unit processes, clean/veil, disinfection, process
control system, and building. This code will
also be used for systems using contact
adsorption clarifier (CAC) technologies for the
flocculation/sedimentation process.
Complete direct or in-line filtration plant,
including all raw water and finished water
pumps, chemicals and mixing, unit processes,
clean/veil, disinfection, waste handling, process
control system, and the building. This code is
also used for pressure filtration systems.
Presedimentation basin, including any required
berms, walls, chemical feed equipment, and
on-site sludge removal equipment.
Chemical handling equipment, mixers,
injection systems, and limited piping. Includes
in-line mixers, chemical injectors, chemical
diffusers, and other rapid-mix technologies.
Sedimentation basin (including lamella plates,
tube settlers, etc.), flocculation basin with
flocculators, sludge removal, and necessary
valves. Includes a Contact Adsorption Clarifier
unit process.
Complete filters, including media, air scour
and/or surface wash, underdrain, effluent
troughs, and backwash equipment.
Complete plant including filters, all raw water
and finished water pumps, disinfection, and
buildings.
Complete plant and building including all raw
water and finished water pumps, chemical and
body-feed equipment, mixing and injection,
filter, backwash equipment, disinfection, waste
handling, and building.
Capacity of the water to
be treated in MGD.
Capacity of the water to
be treated in MGD.
Capacity of the water to
be treated in MGD (not
volume of basin in MG).
Capacity of the water to
be treated in MGD.
Capacity of the water to
be treated in MGD.
Capacity of the water to
be treated in MGD.
Capacity of the water to
be treated in MGD.
Capacity of the water to
be treated in MGD.
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix B-4
June 2006
-------
Code
T18
T19
T20
T21
T22
T23
Type of Need
Membrane
Technology for
Particulate
Removal
(complete
plant)
Cartridge or
Bag Filtration
Plant (complete
plant)
Streaming
Current
Monitors
Particle
Counters
Turbidity
Meters
Chlorine
Residual
Monitors
Possible Components
Complete plant including pre-filtration,
membrane filtration equipment, waste-stream
handling, all raw water and finished water
pumps, disinfection, monitoring equipment,
controls, and building. Also may include
caustic and other cleaning-chemical feed
components.
Complete plant including connective piping,
filter housing, all raw water and finished water
pumps, disinfection, monitoring equipment and
building.
On-line monitor with or without chemical
feedback loop.
Bench-top or in-line particle counter.
Bench-top or in-line meter, recording charts,
and limited piping for installation.
Bench-top or in-line chlorine residual monitor.
Parameters required for
Modeling Cost
Capacity of the water to
be treated in MGD.
Capacity of the water to
be treated in MGD.
Number of monitors
needed. List on third
table.
Number of particle
counters needed. List on
third table.
Number of meters
needed. List on third
table.
Number of monitors
needed. List on third
table.
TREATMENT- OTHER TREATMENT NEEDS
T30
T31
T32
T33
T34
Powdered
Activated
Carbon
Granular
Activated
Carbon
Sequestering
for Iron and/or
Manganese
Manganese
Green Sand
(complete
plant)
Ion Exchange
(complete
plant)
PAC handling facility, chemical feeders, and
safety equipment.
GAG filter media with or without underdrains,
backwash system, air scour or surface wash,
and effluent troughs. Does not include
regeneration facility. Includes GAG caps for
filters and carbon columns.
Chemical mixing and feed system, injection
system. Does not include disinfection.
Complete plant including all raw water and
finished water pumps, waste-stream handling,
monitoring equipment, chemical feed,
disinfection, and building.
Complete ion exchange treatment plant
including all raw water and finished water
pumps, final disinfection, and building.
Capacity in MGD of the
water to be treated.
Capacity in MGD of the
water to be treated.
Capacity in MGD of the
water to be treated.
Capacity in MGD of the
water to be treated.
Capacity in MGD of the
water to be treated.
June 2006
Appendix B-5
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Code
T35
T36
T37
T38
T39
T40
T41
T42
T43
T44
T45
T46
Type of Need
Lime Softening
(complete
plant)
Reverse
Osmosis
(complete
plant)
Electrodialysis
(complete
plant)
Aeration
Activated
Alumina
(complete
plant)
Corrosion
Control
Waste
Handling/
Treatment:
Mechanical
Waste
Handling/
Treatment:
Non-
mechanical or
Connection to a
Sanitary Sewer
(not included in
another project)
Zebra Mussel
Control
Fluoride
Addition
Chemical
Storage Tank
Type of
Treatment
Unknown
Possible Components
Complete lime softening plant including all raw
water and finished water pumps and building.
Complete plant including pre-filtration,
membrane filtration equipment, waste-stream
handling, all raw water and finished water
pumps, building and monitoring equipment,
and controls.
Electrodialysis plant complete with building.
Includes all raw water and finished water
pumps.
Complete packed tower or counter-current
tower aeration facility including disinfection, or
cascading-type tray aeration.
Complete activated alumina plant including all
raw water and finished water pumps,
disinfection and building.
Chemical mixing and injection system. Does
not include disinfection.
Mechanical treatment plant including sludge
handling/drying equipment complete.
Ponds or lagoons for storing, recycling, and/or
evaporating process wastewater; or lift station
and force main or gravity main to sanitary
sewer.
Chemical mixing and injection of oxidant at raw
water intake.
Chemical mixing and injection system.
Tank only. Use other codes as needed for
chemical mixing and injection systems.
Use this code when treatment is necessary but
the type of treatment to be applied is unknown.
The State or EPA will assign a treatment type
based on Best Available Treatment (BAT)
technologies for the contaminant of concern.
Parameters required for
Modeling Cost
Capacity in MGD of the
water to be treated.
Capacity in MGD of the
water to be treated.
Capacity in MGD.
Capacity in MGD.
Capacity of water to be
treated in MGD.
Capacity of water to be
treated in MGD.
Capacity of plant in MGD.
Capacity of plant in MGD.
Capacity of the plant in
MGD.
Capacity in MGD of the
water to be treated.
Cost must be provided.
Capacity of water to be
treated in MGD.
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix B-6
June 2006
-------
Code
T47
Type of Need
Other
Possible Components
Use if none of the other treatment codes apply.
Please include an explanation of the type of
treatment.
Parameters required for
Modeling Cost
Cost must be provided.
TRANSMISSION - These codes are used for any mains that transport raw water to the treatment
plant, or treated water from the plant to the distribution system grid.
X1
X2
Raw Water
Transmission
Finished Water
Transmission
Mains, trenching, bedding, backfill site work,
easements, typical road repair, control valves,
air release valves.
Mains, trenching, bedding, backfill site work,
easements, typical road repair, control valves,
air release valves.
Pipe diameter (in inches)
and pipe length (in feet).
Pipe diameter (in inches)
and pipe length (in feet).
DISTRIBUTION
M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
Distribution
Mains
Lead Service
Lines
Service Lines
(other than lead
service lines)
Flushing
Hydrants
Valves
Control Valves
Backflow
Prevention
Devices/
Assemblies
Water Meters
This code should be used for any mains that
transport water through a piping grid serving
customers. Components include mains,
trenching, bedding, backfill, hydrants, valves,
site work, road repair, easements and service
leads from the main to the curb stop. Does not
include "transmission mains."
Service lines from the curb-stop to the building.
Service lines from the curb-stop to the building.
(Applies to Alaska Native and American Indian
surveys only)
Hydrant lead to the transmission or distribution
main, drain, hydrant, and auxiliary valve.
Includes purchase price of the butterfly, ball,
air release, or other related valve and
installation.
Includes pressure reducing valves (PRVs),
flow control, filter effluent control valves, and
altitude valves.
Device or assembly, including installation.
Individual domestic or industrial units of either
manual or remote read-methods.
Pipe diameter (in inches)
and pipe length (in feet).
Number of service lines.
Number of service lines.
Number of hydrants and
diameter (in inches).
Number of valves and
diameter (in inches).
Number of valves and
diameter (in inches).
Number of assemblies
and diameter (in inches).
Number of meters, and
diameter (in inches -
converted to a decimal
for data entry).
June 2006
Appendix B-7
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Code
Type of Need
Possible Components
Parameters required for
Modeling Cost
FINISHED / TREATED WATER STORAGE
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
Elevated/
Finished Water
Storage
Ground-level
Finished/
Treated Water
Storage
Hydro-
pneumatic
Storage
Cisterns
Cover for
Existing
Finished/
Treated Water
Storage
Complete elevated storage facility with
appurtenances such as altitude valves and
isolation valves.
Complete ground level storage facility with
appurtenances such as altitude valves and
isolation valves.
Complete hydropneumatic storage tank and
recharge/control system and building (for
larger installations)
Finished water storage for individual homes.
Construction of a concrete, wood, or other
cover on an existing finished/treated water
storage tank.
Volume in MG.
Volume in MG.
Volume in MG.
Volume in MG.
Volume of the tank in
MG.
PUMPING STATION AND PUMPS
P1
P2
Finished Water
Pumps
Pump Station
Pump and electrical controls.
Booster or Raw Water. Includes clean/veil,
pumps, and building.
Capacity in MGD.
Capacity in MGD.
OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
Wl
W2
W3
W4
W5
W6
Laboratory
Capital Costs
Computer and
Automation
Costs (SCADA)
Pump Controls/
Telemetry
Emergency
Power
Security
Other
Limited to laboratory equipment, buildings, and
facilities owned by the system.
Computer control systems and SCADA control
systems. Does not include computer software.
Basic telemetry system of telephone-wire
based signals or radio signal controls. Does
not include SCADA systems (use W2 for
SCADA).
Standby power generators including on-site
and movable units with associated fuel tanks.
Project necessary to improve or maintain
security of system. Must be used in
conjunction with another type of need code.
Includes needs for which none of the other
type of need codes applies. Examples include
fencing or runoff diversion structures. Please
include an explanation.
Cost of equipment and
facility must be provided.
Cost must be provided.
Cost must be provided.
Kilowatts or horsepower
must be provided.
Refer to parameter for
accompanying code.
Cost must be provided.
2003DWINSA
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix B-&
June 2006
-------
June 2006 2003 D WINSA
Appendix B-9 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
------- |