&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4606)
EPA816-R-01-005
February 2001
1999 Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of
Infrastructure
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Photo on front cover: The City of El Paso, Texas, received a
$15 million loan from the Texas DWSRF program to
expand the capacity of the Jonathan Rogers Treatment
Plant. This project will provide water to colonias that lack
access to safe drinking water. Photo courtesy of the Texas
Water Development Board.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Prepared/or:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Contract No. 68-C-99-245
Work Assignment No. 1-02
Prepared by:
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
13 5 Beaver Street
Waltham, MA 02452
February, 2001
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted the second Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey. The survey is an important tool of the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program. The purpose of the survey is to estimate the documented 20-
year capital investment needs of public water systems that are eligible to receive DWSRF
assistanceapproximately 55,000 community water systems and 21,400 not-for-profit
noncommunity water systems. The survey includes infrastructure needs that are required to
protect public health, such as projects to prevent contamination by preserving the physical
integrity of the system1. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires EPA to conduct the
survey every four years and to use the results to allocate DWSRF funds to the States and Tribes.
The approach for the survey was developed by EPA in consultation with a workgroup consisting
of State, American Indian, Alaska Native Village, and Indian Health Service representatives. The
workgroup refined the methods used in 1995 based on lessons learned from the 1995 survey and
options made available from technological advancements in Internet based communications.
The survey used questionnaires to collect infrastructure needs from medium and large water
systems. EPA mailed questionnaires to all 1,111 of the nation's largest water systems serving
more than 40,000 people, and to a random sample of 2,556 of the 7,759 medium systems serving
over 3,300 people. Approximately 96 percent of these systems returned the questionnaire, with
100 percent of the largest water systems responding.
Small systems serving fewer than 3,300 people often lack the specialized staff and planning
documents needed to respond to the questionnaire. Therefore, 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.
As part of the survey, EPA developed cost models to assign costs to projects for which systems
lacked adequate cost documentation (See Acceptable Documentation Box on next page). The
number of projects submitted without cost documentation increased significantly in 1999
compared to the previous survey. Of approximately 74,000 accepted projects, 67 percent were
submitted without documentation of cost. This increase required greater reliance on cost
modeling than in 1995.
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.
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
1 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
For the 1999 survey, 59 models were
developed to assign costs to over 95
infrastructure needs, from replacing broken
valves to building new treatment plants.
Section 1.0 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 curves.
Section 2.0 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 survey 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 survey to minimize the burden on the
respondents. The survey 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 should be noted that while the cost curves are appropriate for developing national estimates of
need for the purpose of the survey, they may be problematic if used to budget specific projects for
individual water systems.
1.0 Methods
1.1 Sources of Cost Information
The data used to develop the cost models generally include materials, construction, design,
administrative and legal fees, and contingencies. In addition, it was important to obtain cost data
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
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
February 2001
-------
for systems of all sizes in order to minimize the extent to which costs had to be extrapolated
beyond the range of the data points.
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 constructing
statistical models. Therefore, cost data from sources other than the questionnaire, such as State
funding agencies, were used to supplement the cost curves. EPA also obtained cost information
from manufacturers, engineering firms, the 1995 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey,
and the Economic Analyses (EAs, previously known as Regulatory Impact Analyses) that the
Agency publishes in support of proposed regulations.
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 survey set rigorous documentation criteria for
assessing the validity and scope of project costs. EPA required that each project cost submitted
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, and 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 date of the cost estimate was provided to enable adjustment of the cost to
January 1999 dollars.
The project was representative of typical projects needed by other water systems in
the surveyunusual or unique projects were excluded from the cost models.
Data Collected from Other Sources
Additional sources of cost data from which EPA supplemented the questionnaire data included
the following:
State funding agencies (Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, and Texas supplied data).
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
3 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
The 2000 R. S. Means catalog.
EPA's Economic Analyses.
Product manufacturers and distributors.
Engineering firms.
1995 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey.
The Indian Health Service (fflS).
Cost data from these sources were evaluated using the same criteria that were applied to the
questionnaires.
EPA requested cost data from the States for the following types of projects:
New Spring Collectors producing less Rehabilitation of Direct Filtration Plants
than 3 MGD producing less than 2 MGD
Rehabilitation of Spring Collectors Rehabilitation of Slow Sand Filtration Plants
producing less than 3 MGD producing less than 5 MGD
New Conventional Treatment Plants Rehabilitation of Lime Softening Plants
producing less than 2 MGD producing less than 2 MGD
New Direct Filtration Plants producing New Manganese Green Sand facilities treating
less than 2 MGD less than 15 MGD
Rehabilitation of Manganese Green
Sand facilities treating less than 35
MGD (although most new projects to
model are less than 3 MGD)
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 (RPZ) backflow prevention devices were used for larger
installations.
The Economic Analysis (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.
Product manufacturers and distributors provided cost information for ultraviolet disinfection,
chlorine gas scrubbers, streaming current monitors, particle counters, chlorine residual monitors
and turbidity meters.
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure 4
-------
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 1999 dollars for this survey.
The 1995 survey provided data for raw water transmission, finished water transmission, and
distribution main projects of all sizes. The 1999 data were not used to model costs due to the
extreme variability of the data.
The Indian Health Service provided cost information on cisterns for use in the American Indian
portion of the survey.
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. In general, the models took the form:
c_ ec «+'-%'
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;
o, * i = coefficients that relate the design parameter to cost, estimated using ordinary
least squares regression; and
= the standard error of the regression. 2/2 is added to the equation to produce
consistent estimates on the raw scale.
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:
(14.082 + 0.4842/2) 0.671
\^/ C -L'
The predicted cost for an elevated tank with a storage capacity of 1 million gallons therefore is
$1.5 million.
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:
where I is the indicator variable and 2 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.
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
5 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
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 variability of the 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. This is
because 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 costs and projects with costs that must be modeled is similar.
However, in order 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.
Lastly, 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.
For the 1999 Needs Survey, 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
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure 6
-------
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.
For transmission and distribution projects, in addition to the above steps, a
different unit cost was used 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.
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 attempted to develop separate
new and rehabilitation cost models for each type of need. However, 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 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 as being 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 any data points), given that the costs and types of equipment were similar to
chemical feed.
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
7 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Also, 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 (MOD). 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 because these projects are
considered one-time projects.
Well House (unit cost) Surface Water Intake or Spring Collector (MGD)
Well (MGD) Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well (MGD)
Eliminating Well Pit (unit cost) Abandoning Well (unit cost)
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure 8
-------
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 MOD). 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
(MOD)
Chlorine Dioxide and
Chloramination (MOD)
Ozonation (MOD)
Ultraviolet Disinfection
(MOD)
Contact Basin for CT
(Clearwell) (MG)
Conventional Filter Plant
(MOD)
Sedimentation/
Flocculation (MOD)
Filters (MOD)
Aeration (MGD)
Membrane Technology
for Particulate 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, DE 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)
February 2001
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
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 Indian Health Service (IHS) provided information to develop a unit cost. The
following is the list of models for storage needs. Storage projects have separate cost curves for
new and rehabilitation, with the exception of storage covers which were assigned rehabilitation
costs based on the 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 1999 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
of bury, 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. Despite obtaining a large amount of data
on project costs, the 1999 data were not used to model costs due to the extreme variability of the
data.
Several variables for use in the cost models were explored, including the length of pipe for the
project, urban and rural project locations, or 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.
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure 10
-------
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)
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.
Pumps, (includes Raw Water Pump Station (MGD) Pump Controls/Telemetry
Pumps, Finished Water Pumps
and Well Pumps) (MGD)
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.
Emergency Power (kilowatts) Computer and Automation
Costs (SCADA) (system design
capacity)
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
11 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
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 Rehab as a single model
Sedimentation/Flocculation Basins: New and Rehabilitation
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-2
-------
Filters and GAC: New and Rehabilitation as a single model
Membrane Technology: New only
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
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
Pump Controls/Telemetry: New and Rehabilitation as a single model
Other
Computer and Automation Costs, SCADA: New only
Emergency Power: New only
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Appendix A-3 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Source
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Appendix A-5 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Well
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
Rl- Well (complete, including pump and appurtenances, not including a well house).
Rl 1- Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well.
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data for wells (Rl). Medium and large
system survey respondent data for aquifer storage and recovery wells (Rl 1).
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).
qua ions. .723+0.921*Rll+0.8142/2) 0.674
New *: e *D
T> u UT+ + (10.682+1.056V2) 0.163
Rehabilitation: e *D for wells (Rl) only. Aquifer storage and recovery
wells (Rl 1) were not modeled.
* Regression includes data for Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells (Rl 1), with indicator
variable (for Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells, Rl 1 = 1 if Type of Need = Rl 1, = 0
otherwise).
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Cost Floor
Minimum capacity (MGD)
New
318
0.47
0.000
$55,117
0.010
Rehab
257
0.02
0.046
$15,000
0.001
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-6
February 2001
-------
New Well
1.00+09 -
1.00+08
1.00+07
0
o
O
"G 1.00+06 -
0)
"E"
Q.
100000 H
10000 -
1000 -
.01
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
Well Rehabilitation
1.00+09 -
1.00+08
1.00+07
o
O
-------
Surface Water Intake and Spring Collector
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
R5 - Surface Water Intake
R8- Spring Collector
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent surface water intake data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design capacity in million gallons per day (MOD)
Equations:
New: e *D
_ , ,.,.. .. (11.777+0.973V2V 0.550
Rehabilitation: e *D
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (MGD)
New
43
0.61
0.000
0.072
Rehab
23
0.50
0.000
0.010
1.0e+09
1.0e+08
1.0e+07
o
O
"3 1.0e+06
Q)
100000 -
10000
1000
New Surface Water Intake or Spring Collector
.01
O O
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-8
February 2001
-------
Surface Water Intake or Spring Collector Rehabilitation
1.0e+09
1.0e+08
1.0e+07
"co
O
O
o 1.0e+06
0)
£
D.
100000
10000
1000
.01
.1
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
* Larger point is outlier excluded from regression.
February 2001
Appendix A-9
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Unit Costs for Raw / Untreated Water Source Projects
Infrastructure
Need
Well House
Well House
Eliminate Well Pit
Abandon Well
Needs Survey
Code
R2-New
R2 - Rehab
R3 - New Only*
R4 - New Only*
Source of Cost Estimate
7995 Needs Survey Unit Cost
(developed by an engineering
firm) converted to January,
1999 dollars
1999 Cost
Estimate
$ 78,343
$ 24,038
$ 13,006
$ 5,476
* Costs were assigned for construction of new projects only. Elimination of well pits and
abandonment of wells are considered one-time projects.
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-10
February 2001
-------
Distribution and Transmission
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Appendix A-11 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Distribution and Transmission Mains
1999 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: New and Rehabilitation Cost per
foot from 1995 Needs Survey
Determinants of Cost:
Pipe diameter, project length (in feet) in frost and non-frost locations
Rehabilitation- 1995 costs in January, 1999 dollars ($38.43)
Table of Data:
Pipe Diameter (inches)
<6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
24
30
36
42
> 42 and < 60
> 60 and < 84
> 84 and < 90
> 90 and < 96
> 96 and < 120
> 120
Cost per Foot - Frost
$ 68.03
$66.91
$ 72.65
$ 78.40
$ 99.62
$ 120.83
$ 134.97
$ 149.12
$ 151.80
$ 177.48
$256.11
$ 354.08
$ 380.00
$ 524.00
$ 530.00
$ 594.00
$ 630.00
$ 864.00
Cost per Foot - Non-Frost
$43.44
$45.85
$ 52.74
$ 59.64
$ 75.74
$91.85
$ 107.85
$ 123.86
$ 141.51
$ 177.48
$256.11
$ 354.08
$ 380.00
$ 524.00
$ 530.00
$ 594.00
$ 630.00
$ 864.00
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-12
February 2001
-------
tfi
o
o
$1,000
$900
$800
$700
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$-
a to to 1
IS // // // // // ,'/* ,'/
Diameter (inches)
Appendix A-13
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
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.
Rehab projects are not
allowable and therefore were
not modeled.
Cost Estimate
$1,111.54
$1,827.61
February 2001
Appendix A-15
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Valves
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
M5 - Valves (gate, butterfly, etc.)
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Diameter 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, 1999 dollars)
$ 1,041.71
$ 1,136.88
$ 1,624.02
$3,670.51
$5,271.13
$7,194.40
$ 11,903.32
$21,490.30
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-16
February 2001
-------
25,000
Gate, Butterfly, etc. Valves (MS)
20,000
15,000
o
Q
10,000
5,000
21,490.30
11,903.32
7,194.40
5,271.13
3,670.51
1,041.71 1,136.88
1,624.02
10 12
Diameter
14-16 18-20 >20
Appendix A-17
-------
Control Valves
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
M6 - Control Valves (PRVs, altitude, etc.)
Source of Cost Observations:
Medium and large system survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Diameter 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, 1999 dollars)
$ 7,894.04
$ 9,972.60
$ 19,677.58
$61,238.71
$ 117,869.62
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-18
February 2001
-------
Control Valves (PRV, Altitude) (M6)
14U.UUU -
120,000 -
100,000 -
80,000 -
"o
Q
60,000 -
40,000 -
20 000
g
117,869.62
61,238.71
19,677.58
7,894.04
<= 6
9,972.60
10-12
14-16
Diameter
18-24 30 +
February 2001
Appendix A-19
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Backflow Prevention Devices/Assemblies
1999 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, 1999 dollars)
$611.65
$639
$731.50
$908
$ 1,556
$ 2,260
$3,548
$ 8,545
$11,945
February 2001
Appendix A-21
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Water Meters
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
M8 - Water Meters
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system 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
$ 123.54
$ 164.20
$361.99
$ 588.44
$2,156.09
$3,027.33
$4,680.13
$ 10,769.96
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-22
February 2001
-------
Water Meters (M8)
12,000 -
10,000 -
8,000 -
in
(5
3 6,000 -
4,000 -
2,000 -
n -
.
123.54 164.20 361'"
588.44
2
10,769.96
4,680.13
3,027.33
156.09
0.625 + 0.75 1
1.5
2 3
Diameter
8 +
Appendix A-23
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Treatment
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Appendix A-25 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Chlorination and Mixed Oxidant Type Equipment
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
Tl - Chlorination
T5 - Mixed Oxidant Type Equipment
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data for Chlorination (Tl). No data from
Mixed Oxidant Type Equipment was provided by survey respondents.
Determinants of Cost:
Design capacity of water to be treated in million gallons per day (MOD).
Minimum design capacities were applied when not specified.
Minimum cost for new Tl specified as $67,072.
M* i, I, KT, * ( 10.400+1.070V2V 0.684
New & Rehabilitation: e *D
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (new)
Minimum capacity (rehab)
New and Rehab s
95
0.63
0.000
0.000003
0.001
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-26
February 2001
-------
New Chlorination System and Mixed Oxidant Type Equipment and
Rehabilitation of Existing System
1.00+09 -
1.00+08 -
1.00+07
-§-<
CO
O
O
"3 1.00+06
0)
100000 -
10000
1000 -
O
.01
.1
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
Larger point is outlier excluded from regression.
February 2001
Appendix A.-1
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Chlorine Dioxide and Chloramination
1999 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 (MOD)
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
(MOD)
0.03
0.1
0.3
0.75
2.2
7.8
23.5
81
Cost
(January, 1999 Dollars)
$ 108,253
$ 171,593
$ 194,626
$217,658
$268,330
$445,681
$928,215
$1,885,221
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-28
February 2001
-------
Ozonation
1999 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 (MOD); minimum design capacities applied when
not specified.
Table of Data:
New only, rehabilitation projects are modeled as rehab, of Chlorination (Tl).
Design Capacity (MOD)
0.024
0.087
0.1
0.27
0.45
0.65
0.83
1.0
1.8
4.8
10
11
18
26
51
210
430
Cost (January, 1999 Dollars)
$278,591
$338,144
$ 347,676
$ 377,775
$ 459,845
$541,798
$ 698,000
$ 795,536
$ 884,972
$ 1,220,355
$ 1,801,686
$ 1,911,480
$ 2,648,779
$3,441,890
$5,739,013
$ 17,847,610
$ 33,366,003
February 2001
Appendix A-29
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Ultraviolet Disinfection
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
T6 - Ultraviolet Disinfection
Source of Cost Observations:
Costs extrapolated from manufacturer's data for new systems.
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 rehab, 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, 1999 Dollars)
$ 11,371
$ 15,516
$21,876
$35,172
$ 129,633
$ 190,109
$266,152
$304,174
$ 349,800
$ 583,000
$ 1,381,226
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-30
February 2001
-------
Contact Basin for CT
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
T7 - Contact Basin for CT (new)
Source of Cost Observations:
Medium and large system survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design capacity in million gallons (MG).
Equations: 14 072+0 464V2) 0 739
New: e *D
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
1.00+09
1.00+08
1.00+07
-i-«
-------
Conventional Filter Plant
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
T10 - Conventional Filter Plant
T35 - Lime Softening (complete plant rehabilitation)
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data, and supplemental data from state
lending agencies.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD)
Equations
New*: e ' ' *D ' if design capacity is less than or equal to 1 MGD;
( 14.444+0.5372/2) 0.881 .
e *D if design capacity is greater than 1 MGD;
r, u u** ( 13.710+T35*-0.696+1.0372/2):1:T0606
Rehab**: e *D
* New projects are modeled as a spline, with the slope changing at 1 mgd.
** The rehabilitation regression includes data for rehabilitation of Lime Softening (T35), with
an indicator variable. T35: = 1 if Type of Need is T35, = 0 otherwise.
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (MGD)
New
144
0.89
0.000
0.072
Rehab s
151
0.41
0.000
0.072
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-32
February 2001
-------
New Conventional Filter Plant
1.00+09
1.00+08
1.00+07
O
O
"G 1.00+06 -
0)
CL
100000 -
10000 -
1000
.01
.1
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
Larger points are outliers excluded from regression.
Conventional Filter Plant and Lime Softening Rehabilitation
1.0e+09
1.0e+08
1.0e+07 -
O
O
o 1.0e+06 -
0)
'B1
D.
100000
10000
1000
.01
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
T10
T35
1000
February 2001
Appendix A-33
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Direct or In-line, Slow Sand, Diatomaceous Earth, or
Cartridge or Bag Filtration Plant
1999 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 survey respondent data for direct filtration plants.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).
Equations: 14 472+0 575V2) 0 716
New: e *D
_ , .... . ( 13.219+1.1232/2) 0.594
Rehabilitation: e *D
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (MGD)
New
28
0.79
0.000
0.100
Rehab
25
0.46
0.000
0.065
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-34
February 2001
-------
New Direct Filtration Plant
1.00+09
1.00+08
1.00+07
o
O
S
0)
'B1
Q.
1.00+06
100000
10000
1000
.01
.1
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
Direct Filtration Plant Rehabilitation
1.00+09 -
1.00+08 -
1.00+07 -
+-<
O
O
S 1.00+06 -
-------
Chemical Feed, Dechlorination of Treated Water, Sequestering for Iron and/or Manganese,
Corrosion Control, Fluoride Addition, and Zebra Mussel Control
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
T13 - Chemical Feed
T8 - Dechlorination of Treated Water
T32 - Sequestering for Iron and/or Manganese
T40 - Corrosion Control
T44 - Zebra Mussel Control
T46 - Fluoride Addition
Source of Cost Observations:
Large, medium and small system survey respondent data for Chemical Feed (T13),
Sequestering (T32), Corrosion Control (T40), and Fluoride Addition (T46).
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity of water to be treated in million gallons per day (MOD)
quations^ 10.298+1.474*T32+0.352*T40-1.302*T46+1.1022/2):kT0652
New & Rehabilitation: e *D
*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
T46: = 1 if Type of Need is T46, = 0 otherwise
Equation for Chemical Feed (T13) used for Dechlorination of Treated Water (T8) and Zebra
Mussel Control (T44).
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
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-36
February 2001
-------
Chemical Feed, Dechlorination of Treated Water, Sequestering, Corrosion Control,
Fluoride Addition, and Zebra Mussel Control
1.00+09
1.00+08
1.00+07
-i-«
-------
Sedimentation/Flocculation
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
T14 - Sedimentation/Flocculation
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MOD)
Equations: ^+Q
New: e *D
_ , ,.,.. .. (11.347+1.219V2V 0.560
Rehabilitation: e *D
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity
New
20
0.44
0.001
0.144
Rehab s
41
0.30
0.000
0.086
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-38
February 2001
-------
New Sedimentation/Flocculation
1.00+09 -
1.00+08 -
1.00+07 -
-I <
O
O
"G 1.00+06 -
0)
'o*
CL
1 00000 -
1 0000 -
1000 -
o ^^^^
oo/e-^^^
0_^^r° %
, -"""^ 0 °
^-^^^ o
^^-^^^ o °
^^^^^
.01
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
Sedimentation/Flocculation Rehabilitation
1.00+09 -
1.00+08 -
1.00+07 -
*jj
O
O
"G 1.00+06 -
0)
'o*
(L
1 00000 -
1 0000 -
1000 -
o
o ^^~-~-~^^
0 0 ^^-~~~~^^
S^^^"^ o o o
_^^^°° cP 8 ° °
_^-~~~^ O DO
^^^-^^ 0 0 0 0
^^-^ ° o °°o
^--"^^
I I I I
.01 .1 1 10 100 1000
D0sign capacity
February 2001
Appendix A-39
7PPP Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Filters and Granular Activated Carbon
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
Tl5-Filters
T31 - Granular Activated Carbon
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MOD)
quations^ 12.634-1.821*Rehab+0.9572/2):,T0 832
New & Rehabilitation*: e *D
*Regression included data for granular activated carbon (T31), without an indicator variable
(Rehab: = 1 if project is a rehab, = 0 otherwise).
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (new)(MGD)
Minimum capacity (rehab)(MGD)
New and Rehab s
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 ~
8
o
o 1.0e+06 ~
0>
'o1
11
100000 ~
10000 -
1000 -
.01
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
February 2001
Appendix A-41
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Membrane Technology for Particulate Removal and Reverse Osmosis
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
Tl8 - Membrane Technology for Particulate Removal
T36 - Reverse Osmosis (complete plant)
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data for new Membrane Technology for
Particulate Removal (T18) and Reverse Osmosis (T36). Small, medium and large system
survey respondent data for rehabilitation of Reverse Osmosis (T36).
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MOD).
.*
( 14.344+0.7972/2):kT0814
': e *D
_ , ,.,.. .. ( 13.556+0.455V2) 0.278
Rehabilitations: e *D
*Regressions included data for Reverse Osmosis (T36) without an indicator variable.
**New projects with a design capacity < 0.156 MOD are modeled as a Reverse Osmosis
(T36) rehab.
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
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-42
February 2001
-------
New Membrane Technology for Particulate Removal and Reverse Osmosis
1.0e+09 -
1.0e+08
^ 1.0e+07
to
0
0
"5 1.0e+06
0)
's1
0.
100000 -
10000 -
1000
.01
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
Membrane Technology for Particulate Removal and Reverse Osmosis
Rehabilitation
1.0e+09
1.0e+08
1.0e+07
!-»
O
O
o 1.0e+06
0)
'
100000
10000
1000
.01
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
Larger point is outlier excluded from regression
February 2001
Appendix A-43
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Manganese Green Sand Filtration
or Other Oxidation/Filtration Technology
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
T33 - Manganese Green Sand Filtration or other oxidation/filtration technology (complete
plant).
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD)
Equations
New*: e
*D if design capacity is less than or equal to 1 MGD;
( 13. 377+0.
. 106.
. f, . . .
e if design capacity is greater than 1 MGD;
Rehabs will be modeled as rehabilitation of Direct or In-Line Filter Plants (Tl 1)
*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
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-44
February 2001
-------
.01
New Manganese Green Sand Filtration or Other Oxidation/Filtration Technology
1.0e+09
1.0e+08
1.0e+07
55
o
O
5 1.0e+06
0
"E"
Q_
100000 -
10000 -
1000 -
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
February 2001
Appendix A-45
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Ion Exchange
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
T34 - Ion Exchange (complete plant)
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).
Equations: 13 308+0 676V2) 0 789
New: e *D
Rehabs 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
1.00+09
1.00+08
1.00+07
O
O
"G 1.00+06 -
0)
CL
100000 -
10000 -
1000
.01
New Ion Exchange
003 O
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-46
February 2001
-------
Lime Softening
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
T35 - Lime Softening (complete plant)
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD)
Equations: 14 660+0 465V2) 0 884
New: e *D
Rehabilitation projects for Lime Softening will be modeled as rehabilitations of Conventional
Filter Plant (T10).
Note: rehab 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
o
O
1 .Oe+06
100000 ~
10000
1000
.01
New Lime Softening
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
February 2001
Appendix A-47
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Aeration
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
T3 8 -Aeration
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD)
Equations:
New*: e
*D
_ , , (1 1.93 l+O.SVS^V^O. 201
Rehab: e *D
*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
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-48
February 2001
-------
New Aeration
1.0e+09
1.0e+08
1.0e+07
-I i
v>
O
O
o 1.0e+06
0)
'
CL
100000
10000
1000
.01
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
Aeration Rehabilitation
1.0e+09
1.0e+08
1.0e+07
i-'
w
o
O
o 1.0e+06
0)
"E"
D.
100000
10000
1000
.01
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
February 2001
Appendix A-49
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Waste Handling and Treatment, Mechanical
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
T41 - Waste Handling and Treatment, Mechanical (not included in another project)
Source of Cost Observations:
Large system survey respondent data
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity of water treatment facility in million gallons per day (MOD)
Equations:
New: e *D
Rehabs 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
-i-«
-------
Waste Handling and Treatment, Nonmechanical
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
T42 - Waste handling and Treatment, Nonmechanical (not included in another project).
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity of water treatment facility in million gallons per day (MGD)
M, Bl,K (H.879+1.170V2V0.562
New & Rehab: e *D
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (new)(MGD)
Minimum capacity (rehab)(MGD)
New and Rehab s
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
O
O
"G 1.00+06 -
0)
'o*
CL
100000 -
10000 -
1000
.01
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
February 2001
Appendix A-51
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Treatment Projects With Special Modeling Needs
Infrastructure
Need
Electrodialysis
(complete plant)
Activated
Alumina
Needs
Survey
Code
T37
T39
No. Projects to
be Modeled
1 New
1 Rehab.
1 New
New Projects to be
Modeled as:
Reverse Osmosis
(T36)New
Ion Exchange
(T34).
Rehabilitation
Projects to be
Modeled as
Reverse Osmosis
(T36) Rehab.
Filters (T15).
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-52
February 2001
-------
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, '99 Dollars)
$30,000 for < 3.0 MGD
$90,000 for > 3.0 MOD
$ 8,450
$4,128
$2,148
$2,512
$ 147,634
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].
February 2001
Appendix A-53
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Storage/Pumping
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Appendix A-55 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Elevated Finished/Treated Water Storage
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
SI - Elevated Finished / Treated Water Storage
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons (MG)
Equations:*
New: e *D
_ , , ( 12.420+0.8042/2):1:T^0.385
Rehab: e *D
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (MG)
New
479
0.62
0.000
0.025
Rehab s
365
0.18
0.000
0.002
1.00+09
1.00+08
New Elevated Finished/Treated Water Storage
1.00+07
o
O
"G 1.00+06 -
0)
'o*
CL
1 00000 -
1 0000 -
1000 -
|op |j||r* o o
° o 1 iiJo^fB* ^ °
°RSJ*KrK'o ° o
SS^OgM-b § 8 Q
ftj^Sil 8 o r o ° © Q
,^^5 °°° o @
^^~^ ° O Q
O
I I I I
.01 .1 1 10 100 1000
D0sign capacity
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-56
February 2001
-------
Elevated Finished/Treated Water Storage Rehabilitation
1.0e+09
1.0e+08
1.0e+07
i-'
w
o
O
o 1.0e+06
0)
'B1
D.
100000
10000
1000
.01
.1
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
Larger symbols are outliers excluded from regressions
February 2001
Appendix A-57
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Ground-level Finished/Treated Water Storage, Contact Basin for CT (Rehabilitation),
Presedimentation Basin, Chemical Storage Tank
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
S2 - Ground-level Finished/Treated Water Storage
T7 - Contact Basin for CT (Rehabilitation)
T12 -Presedimentation Basin
W3 - Chemical Storage Tank
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data for new ground-level storage.
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data for rehabilitation of ground-level
storage, and contact basin for CT.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons (MG)
Equations:
New: e
*D
n u u* (H.890-K).9762/2)1,T-0.478
Rehab*: e *D
*Note: rehab 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 s
356
0.30
0.000
0.001
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-58
February 2001
-------
New Ground-Level Finished/Treated Water Storage, Presedimentation
Basin, Chemical Storage Tank
1.0e+09 -
1.0e+08 -
1.0e+07 -
to
0
0
"5 1.0e+06 -
0)
's1
Q.
100000 H
10000 -
1000 -
.01
o
o nu
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
Larger symbols are outliers excluded from regressions.
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 -
-M
0
0
"5 1.0e+06 -
0)
100000 -
10000 -
1000 -
.01
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
February 2001
Appendix A-59
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Hydropneumatic Storage
1999 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 2500 gallons will be modeled as new tanks.
Equations from 1995:
New:
(6000/5443)e2-427*D°-681
Rehabilitation:
(6000/5443)e2-503*D°-559
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-60
February 2001
-------
Unit Costs for Storage Projects
Infrastructure Need
Cistern
Need Survey
Code
S4
Source of Cost Estimate
Indian Health Service
information
Cost Estimate
$4,500 each
February 2001
Appendix A-61
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Cover for Existing Finished/Treated Water Storage
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
S5 - Cover for Existing Finished/Treated Water Storage (New only)
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons (MG)
Equations: (12 388+0 929V2 0 543
New: e *D
Rehab: 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
if)
0
0
0
s1
Q.
.Oe+06
100000 -
10000
1000 -
.01
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-62
February 2001
-------
Pumps
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
PI - Raw Water Pumps
P2 - Finished Water Pumps
P3 - Well Pump
Source of Cost Observations:
Medium and large system survey respondent data for Raw Water Pumps (PI), Finished
Water Pumps (P2) and Well Pump (P3).
Determinants of Cost:
Pump design capacity in million gallons per day (MOD)
quations^ (10.967-0.455*Rehab+1.1372/2s,T^0.713
New & Rehab :e *D
(Rehab: = 1 if project is a rehab, = 0 otherwise)
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (new)(MGD)
Minimum capacity (rehab)(MGD)
New and Rehab s
335
0.45
0.000
0.001
0.005
Pumps - New and Rehabilitation
1.0e+09
1.0e+08
1.0e+07 -
to
o
O
o 1.0e+06 -
0
'
100000 -
10000 -
1000 -
New
Rehab
O
.01
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
Larger symbol is outlier excluded from regressions.
February 2001
Appendix A-63
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Pump Station
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
P4 - Pump Station (booster or raw water pump station including clearwell, pump and
housing).
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MOD)
Equations: ^
New: e *D
_ , ,
Rehab: e
(1 1.593+1. m^V^O. 687
*D
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
Minimum capacity (gpm)
New
331
0.52
0.000
10
Rehab
201
0.61
0.000
10
1.00+09
1.00+08 -
1.00+07 -
-I i
o
O
"G 1.00+06 -
0)
'
CL
1 00000 H
10000 -
1000
.01
New Pump Station
1 10
D0sign capacity
100
1000
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-64
February 2001
-------
1.0e+09
1.0e+08
1.0e+07
-I <
o
O
o 1.0e+06
0)
'
CL
100000
10000
1000
.01
Pump Station Rehabilitation
So,
1 10
Design capacity
100
1000
February 2001
Appendix A-65
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Pump Controls/Telemetry
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
P5 - Pump Controls/Telemetry
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data
Determinants of Cost:
Population served by the system as a means of estimating system complexity.
M H
New and
*Pop
0.318
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
New and Rehab s
173
0.13
0.000
1.00+09
1.00+08
1.00+07
o
O
S
0)
'£
Q.
1.00+06
100000
10000
1000
10
Pump Controls/Telemetry
100
1 000 1 0000
Population s0rv0d
100000 1000000
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-66
February 2001
-------
Other Needs
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Appendix A-67 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Computer and Automation Costs (SCADA)
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
W2 - Computer and Automation Costs (SCADA)
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data
Determinants of Cost:
System Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD)
Equations:
Model is the following system of equations:
(1) In(Cost) = 0 + 1ln(Design Capacity)
(2) ln(Design Capacity) = 0 + population)
Cost as a Function of Design Capacity (equation 1)
(10.770+1.4842/2) 0.578
New: e
'*D
_ , , (10.657+1.2802/2):1:T0481
Rehab: e *D
Design Capacity as a Function of Population (equation 2)
0.902
..±n
New: e *Pop
_ , , (-8.000+0.3772/2):,Tl 1.006
Rehab: e *Pop
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
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix A-68
February 2001
-------
New Computer and Automation Costs (SCADA)
1.00+09
1.00+08
1.00+07
o
O
S
0)
'B1
Q.
1.00+06
100000
10000
1000
.01
1 10 100
Syst0m D0sign Capacity
1000
Computer and Automation Costs (SCADA) Rehabilitation
1.00+09
1.00+08
1.00+07
0
O
O
S
0)
'E1
Q.
1.00+06
1 00000
1 0000
1000
.01
1 10 100
Syst0m D0sign Capacity
1000
February 2001
Appendix A-69
7PPP Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Emergency Power
1999 Needs Survey Codes:
W4 - Emergency Power
Source of Cost Observations:
Small, medium and large system survey respondent data.
Determinants of Cost:
Design Capacity in kilowatts
Equations:*
New: e *D
Rehabilitation projects are not modeled
Observations
R- squared
Prob>F
New
140
0.61
0.000
1.00+09
1.00+08
1.00+07
-i-«
-------
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 apply.
It is not intended to be an exclusive list. Rather, it conveys the spectrum of possible elements of a
related project. Some projects assigned 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 engineering
design, installation, and contingency costs and all treatment projects include waste-stream handling, if
appropriate. Complete treatment plants include raw and finished water pumps.
Code
Type of Need
Possible Components
Parameters
Required for
Modeling Cost
RAW/ UNTREATED WATER SOURCE
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
Well
Well House
Eliminate Well
Pit
Abandon Well
Surface Water
Intake
Dam
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.
Site work, slab, building structure sized to
accommodate on-site disinfection.
Projects may vary from constructing a small building
to more elaborate facilities with a chemical feed
room with ventilation, etc.
R2 rehab projects must be a substantial rehab and
not O&M (painting, etc.). Substantial projects may
include new roof, new room, 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). These projects
cannot be for reservoirs or dams.
Construction of a dam or impoundment to inhibit flow
of a naturally occurring stream, river of other flowing
body of water for the purposes of storing raw water
for future use. Does not include intake structure.
(Data was collected for the survey but was not
allowable as a need counted in the survey total)
Design Capacity in
MGD.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Design Capacity in
MGD.
Max daily
withdrawal in MGD.
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix B-2
February 2001
-------
Code
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
Type of Need
Reservoir
Spring Collector
Source Water
Protection
De-stratification
Aquifer Storage
and Recovery
Well
Possible Components
An excavation or other construction (such as berms)
to create a raw water holding facility other than a
presedimentation basin (T12) or percolation basin
(T42).
(Data was collected for the survey but was not
allowable as a need counted in the survey total)
Spring box or other collection device, including
overflow, meter, sample tap, valves and limited
piping connection to a transmission main. Assume
these are gravity-fed and would not include pumps.
Projects for protection of water sources from
chemical or biological contamination or vandalism.
(Data was collected for the survey but was not
allowable as a need counted in the survey total)
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
Basin capacity in
MG.
Design Capacity in
MGD.
n/a
n/a (cost cannot be
modeled)
Design capacity in
MGD
TRANSMISSION
X1
X2
Raw Water
Transmission
Finished Water
Transmission
Transmission mains, trenching, bedding, backfill site
work, easements, typical road repair, control valves,
air release valves. - Transmission 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.
Pipe diameter (in
inches) and pipe
length (in feet).
February 2001
Appendix B-3
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Code
Type of Need
Possible Components
Parameters
Required for
Modeling Cost
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 and
Assemblies
Water Meters
Distribution mains, trenching, bedding, backfill,
hydrants, valves, site work, road repair, easements. -
The distribution code is used for any mains that
transport water through a piping grid serving
customers-see "transmission mains" for comparison.
Service lines from the curb-stop to the building.
Service lines from the curb-stop to the building.
They must be under the ownership of the water
system.
Hydrant lead to the transmission or distribution main,
drain, hydrant, 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, 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,
diameter (in inches)
and type of valve.
Number of valves,
and diameter (in
inches).
Number of
assemblies and
diameter (in inches).
Number of meters,
and diameter (in
inches).
TREATMENT- DISINFECTION
T1
T2
T3
T4
Chlorination
Chloramination
Chlorine
Dioxide
Ozonation
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.
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.
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix B-4
February 2001
-------
Code
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
Type of Need
Mixed Oxidant
Type Equipment
Ultraviolet
Disinfection
Contact Basin
forCT
De-chlorination
of Treated
Water
Chlorine Gas
Scrubber
Possible Components
Disinfectant generation equipment, injection system,
safety 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.
Gas scrubber equipment and monitoring equipment
with alarms.
Parameters
Required for
Modeling Cost
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.
Capacity of the
water to be treated
in MGD.
TREATMENT - FILTRATION
T10
T11
T12
T13
T14
T15
Conventional
Filter Plant
Direct or In-line
Filter Plant
Pre-
sedimentation
Basin
Chemical Feed
Sedimentation/
Flocculation
Filters
Complete conventional plant with flocculation,
sedimentation, filtration, waste handling and the
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 the
building. This code is also used for pressure filtration
systems. Includes all raw water pumps, chemicals
and mixing, unit processes, clean/veil, waste handling
and process control system.
Presedimentation basin, including any required
berms, walls, chemical feed equipment and on-site
sludge removal equipment. Confirm these are not
dams or reservoirs (R6 or R7).
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.
Design Capacity in
MGD.
Design Capacity in
MGD.
Capacity of the
basin in MG
Capacity of the
water to be treated
in MGD.
Design Capacity in
MGD.
Design Capacity in
MGD.
February 2001
Appendix B-5
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Code
T16
T17
T18
T19
T20
T21
T22
Type of Need
Slow Sand Filter
Plant
Diatomaceous
Earth Filters
Membrane
Technology for
Particulate
Removal
Cartridge or
Bag Filtration
Plant
Streaming
Current
Monitors
Particle
Counters
Turbidity Meters
Possible Components
Complete plant including filters and buildings.
Complete plant and building including chemical and
body-feed equipment, mixing and injection, filter,
backwash equipment and waste handling.
Complete Plant including Pre-filtration, membrane
filtration equipment, waste-stream handling, and
monitoring equipment and controls. Also may include
caustic and other cleaning-chemical feed
components.
Complete plant including connective piping, filter
housing, building and monitoring equipment.
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.
Parameters
Required for
Modeling Cost
Design Capacity in
MGD.
Design Capacity in
MGD.
Design Capacity in
MGD.
Design Capacity in
MGD.
Number of monitors
Number of counters
Number of meters
TREATMENT- OTHER TREATMENT NEEDS
T30
T31
T32
T33
T34
Powdered
Activated
Carbon
Granular
Activated
Carbon
Sequestering
for Iron &/or
Manganese
Manganese
Green Sand
Filtration
Ion Exchange
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. Use for up to 1 ppm
iron. Above 1 ppm, use code T33 for manganese
green sand.
Complete plant including waste-stream handling,
building and monitoring equipment, and chemical
feed
Complete ion exchange treatment plant including
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.
Design capacity in
MGD.
Design capacity in
MGD.
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix B-6
February 2001
-------
Code
T35
T36
T37
T38
T39
T40
T41
T42
T43
T44
T45
Type of Need
Lime Softening
Reverse
Osmosis
Electro-dialysis
Aeration
Activated
Alumina
Corrosion
Control
Waste Handling
and Treatment,
Mechanical1
Waste Handling
and Treatment,
Non-
mechanical1
Waste Handling
and Treatment,
Connection to a
Sanitary Sewer1
Zebra Mussel
Control
Type of
Treatment
Unknown
Possible Components
Complete lime softening plant including building. May
be a single technology for iron, manganese and
hardness removal.
Complete plant including pre-filtration, membrane
filtration equipment, waste-stream handling, building
and monitoring equipment and controls.
Complete Electrodialysis plant with building.
Complete packed tower or counter-current tower
aeration facility including disinfection, or cascading-
type tray aeration.
Complete activated alumina plant including
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.
Lift station and force main or gravity main to sanitary
sewer.
Chemical mixing and injection of oxidant at raw water
intake.
Use this code when treatment is necessary but the
type of treatment to be applied is unknown. The
State or EPA assigned a treatment type based on
Best Available Treatment (BAT) technologies for the
contaminant of concern.
Parameters
Required for
Modeling Cost
Design capacity in
MGD.
Design capacity in
MGD.
Design capacity in
MGD.
Design capacity in
MGD.
Design capacity in
MGD.
Capacity of water to
be treated in MGD.
Capacity of plant in
MGD.
Capacity of plant in
MGD.
Length of pipe (in
feet) and diameter
(in inches).
Capacity of the
water to be treated
in MGD.
Contaminant name
and concentration
before treatment,
and design capacity
in MGD
Assume all complete plant new construction or rehabilitation projects include waste
handling and treatment. These codes are applied to projects for which only waste handling is
specified for either a new construction project or rehabilitation of existing waste handling
facilities. That is, the system is not also reporting a project for rehabilitation of the remainder of
the water treatment facility.
February 2001
Appendix B-7
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
-------
Code
T46
T47
Type of Need
Fluoride
Addition
Other
Possible Components
Chemical mixing and injection system.
An explanation of the type of treatment to be applied
was required to assign a type of need to the project.
Parameters
Required for
Modeling Cost
Capacity in MGD of
the water to be
treated.
Design capacity in
MGD orMG, as
appropriate
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
Finished/
Treated Water
Storage Tanks
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. Standpipes are considered ground level
storage.
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
to be covered in MG
PUMPING STATION AND PUMPS
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
Raw Water
Pumps
Finished Water
Pumps
Well Pump
Booster Pump
Station
Pump Controls/
Telemetry
Pump and electrical controls.
Pump and electrical controls.
Pump and electrical controls.
Includes clean/veil, pump and building or in-line
booster station and building. Use pump code P2 if
the project is for a single booster pump.
Basic telemetry system of telephone-wire based
signals or radio signal controls. Does not include
SCADA systems (use W2 for SCADA)
Capacity in MGD.
Capacity in MGD.
Capacity in MGD.
Total capacity of all
pumps (including
standby equipment)
in MGD.
Population served
by the system.
OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
W1
Laboratory
Capital Costs
Limited to laboratory equipment, buildings and
facilities owned by the system
n/a Cost cannot be
modeled
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
Appendix B-8
February 2001
-------
Code
W2
W3
W4
Type of Need
Computer and
Automation
Costs (SCADA)
Chemical
Storage Tank
Emergency
Power
Possible Components
Computer control systems and SCADA control
systems. Does not include computer software.
Tank only. Use other codes as needed for chemical
mixing and injection systems.
Standby power generators including on-site and
movable units with associated fuel tanks.
Parameters
Required for
Modeling Cost
System design
capacity in MGD.
Volume in MG
Kilowatts
February 2001
Appendix B-9
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey
Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure
------- |