-75-003 - %
Technical Report
Cost of Land Treatment Systems
bY
Sherwood C. Reed
Ronald W. Crites
Richard E. Thomas
Alan B. Hais
Revised
September 1979
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Program Operations
Municipal Construction Division
Washington, DC 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
Cost information for planning is presented for the major land
treatment concepts including slow rate, rapid infiltration and overland
flow. Cost categories include land, preapplication treatment, trans-
mission, storage, land application, and recovery of renovated water.
Curves, tables and data are presented for cost components related
to either flow rate or field area. Capital costs are defined as
construction costs and other costs are divided into labor, materials,
and power where applicable. In addition to the graphical presentations
equations are given for the land treatment cost components if greater
precision is desired.
Much of the cost information presented in this bulletin was first
issued in EPA 430/9-75-003 (MCD-10) dated June 1975. Widespread use of
that document has confirmed the usefulness and accuracy of the infor-
mation presented therein. There were 38 cost curves in the original
version (Stage I plus Stage II). This has been reduced, by deletion of
17 curves and addition of 5 completely new curves, to a total of 26 for
this report. Other changes and additions improve the clarity and accuracy
of the curves. In addition, an essentially new text has been prepared.
Actual construction costs were used to modify or validate the cost curves
to the extent that they were available.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The original version of this report was written under Contract
68-01-0096 by Metcalf and Eddy Inc. under the supervision of Mr. F. L.
Burton. Authors were: Mr. C. E. Pound, Mr. R. W. Crites and D. A.
Griffes with Dr. G. Tchobanoglous a contributing consultant.
Mr. Bel ford L. Seabrook was the project officer for EPA and was assisted
in the review by an interagency work group.
Dr. Y. Nakano of USA CRRF.L, Hanover, N.H. derived equations for the
graphical cost curves presented in this report. These equations
(Appendix A) can be used for a more precise determination of costs.
Authors of this report were:
Sherwood Reed, Environmental Engineer, USA CRREL, on interagency assignment '¦
to Office Water Program Operations (0WP0), 'JS EPA.
Ronald Crites, Project Manager, Metcalf and Eddy, Inc.
Richard Thomas, Staff Scientist, Municipal Technology Branch (MTB), 0WP0,
US EPA .
Alan Hais, Chief, Municipal Technology Branch, 0WP0, US EPA
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Background 1
Purpose 1
Scope 2
Limitations 2
Basis of Costs 3
2 LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS 4
Introduction 4
Slow Rate Processes 9
Rapid Infiltration 11
Overland Flow 14
Energy Considerations 16
3 COST CURVES 21
• General Considerations 21
Methodology 32
Additional Costs 36
Benefits 38
Cost Curves 40
4 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS 92
APPEND ICIES 108
A COST EQUATIONS 103
B REVENUE PRODUCING BENEFITS H8
C NON REVENUE PRODUCING BENEFITS 121
D REFERENCES 123
E COST INDICIES AND ADJUSTMENT FACTORS 127
v
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1. Slow Rate Land Treatment .10
2. Rapid Infiltration 12
3. Overland Flow IB
4.. Energy Requirements, Slow Rate vs Conventional Treatment 17
5. Energy Requirements, Rapid Infiltration vs Conventional Treatment 19
6,. Energy Requirements, Overland Flow vs Conventional Treatment- 19
7. Field Area Nomograph 23
8. Slow Rate - Relationship of Cost Curves 3TiV
9. Rapid Infiltration - Relationship of Cost Curves 33
10. Overland Flow - Relationship of Cost Curves 34 :
11. Preliminary Treatment - Screening and Grit Removal 41
12. .Complete Mix Aeration Cell 43,
13. Partial Mix Aeration Pond 45
14. Facultative Pond 47
15. Pumping 49
16. Gravity Pipe 51
17. Open Channels 53
18. Force Mains 55
19. Storage (.05 - 10 MG) 57
20. Storage (10 - 5,000 MG) 59
21. Site Clearing, Rough Grading 61
22. Land Leveling for Surface Flooding 63
23. Overland Flow Terrace Construction 65
vi
-------
(Figures continued) page
24. Solid Set Sprinkling (Buried) 67
25. Center Pivot Sprinkling 69
26. Surface Flooding Using Border Strips 71
27. Gated Pipe - Overland Flow or Ridge and Furrow Slow Rate 73
28. Rapid Infiltration Basins 75
29. Underdrains 77
30. Tailwater Return 79
31. Runoff Collection for Overland Flow 81
32. Recovery Wells 33
33. Administrative and Laboratory Facilities 85
34. Monitoring Wells 87
35. Service Roads and Fencing 89
36. Chlorination 91
37. Flow Schematics for Sample Cost Calculations jgy
vi i
-------
TABLES
No.
Page
1.
Comparison of Design Features for Land Treatment
Processes
5
2.
Comparison of Site Characteristics for Land Treatment
Processes
6
3.
Expected Quality of Treated Water from Land Treatment
7
4.
Guidance for Assessing Level of Preapplication Treatment
8
5.
Total Annual Energy for Typical 1 mgd Systems
20
6.
Sample Costs to Produce Crops in California
39
E-l.
Sewage Treatment Plant Index
127
E-2.
Sewer Construction Cost Index
128
E-3.
Operation and Maintenance Cost Index
129
E-4.
Cost Locality Factors
130
E-5.
Power Cost Locality Factors
131
E-6.
Materials Cost Index
132
E-7.
Interest Formulas
1 3.3
E-8.
Present Worth Factors (PWF)
134
E-9.
Capital Recovery Factors- (CRF)
1 35
vi i i
-------
Section 1
INTRODUCTION .
BACKGROUND
This report is a revision of the Technical Report EPA 430/9-75-003,
with a similar title, published in June 1975. A review was conducted,
during 1978, of selected construction grant project files and actual
construction cost data extracted. In general, these limited data tend
to validate the accuracy of the cost curves in the 1975 report.
Many of the original cost curves have been deleted, others combined,
and some new ones drawn. Essentially a completely new text has been
i
written. It reflects current EPA policy and guidance on land treatment
and presents a more clearly defined and somewhat simplified method for
estimating costs than the original 1975 report.
Another revision and updating of this report will be undertaken
when the data base of actual costs from completed projects is more
extensive. Until that time this report should be used in place of the
earlier version since only 10 of the original 38 cost curves are used
without change herein. The other 16 cost curves in this report are
either completely new or a modification of the earlier version.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to aid the planner and engineer in
evaluating monetary costs and benefits of land treatment systems. The
three basic modes are slow rate (formerly irrigation), rapid infiltra-
tion and overland flow.. Since November 1978 it has been mandatory
for any facility plan under the EPA construction grants program to
- I-
-------
consider at least one slow rate and one rapid infiltration alternative
while overland flow may be optional or mandatory, depending on regional
determinations. Information on such determinations is available from
the EPA Regional offices. Technical criteria for these alternatives are
specified in the "EPA Process Design Manual - Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater" (EPA 625/1-77-008). This report is specified in the manual
as the source of cost data and estimating procedures.
SCOPE
Cost curves, tables and other data are presented for estimating
capital and operation and maintenance costs for land application
systems, with information on revenue producing benefits presented
in Appendix B. The original report provided two sets of curves:
Stage I for preliminary screening of alternatives and Stage II for
detailed evaluation. Experience with that report demonstrated that
the Stage II curves should be used in all situations. As a result
only one set of curves are presented herein and these are based on
the original Stage II set.
LIMITATIONS
The cost data cover average plant flow rates between 0.1 and
100 mgd although they are more applicable for flow rates between 0.5 and
50 mgd. Systems with flow rates above or below these ranges generally
require special cost considerations. For the general case it is expected
that the accuracy of the cost curves would be within about 15 percent of
the actual costs. The design engineer should make adjustments where
necessary to reflect local conditions and site specific factors.
2
-------
BASIS OF COSTS
The original cost curves were derived for a base date of February
1 973. Since many of the curves did not require change they are re-
printed directly for this report. As a result the base date for all
cost curves in this report remains February 1973. Recommended methods
and cost indicies for updating the base costs are discussed in Section
3 and Appendix E. These indicies allow updating of both capital
and other costs and adjustment for the general case to a specific
locality. As with the original version, these cost curves are based
on either the sewer index or the sewage treatment plant index, which-
ever is most appropriate for the component of concern. These are
clearly marked in the text and the users of this report are urged to
take special care to insure that the proper indicies and adjustment
factors are used.
The costs given in this report were originally derived from
published data, surveys of existing systems, consultation with
construction contractors, and hypothetical costs based on typical
preliminary designs. In preparation for this revised version a survey
was conducted of construction grant files in several EPA Regional
Offices. Completed projects and those in Step III were examined in
detail and unit costs for construction extracted where available.
Data from over 20 projects were compiled and used as described pre-
viously to validate or modify the basic cost curves.
-------
Section 2
LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS
INTRODUCTION
This report defines the costs and monetary benefits of the three
basic land treatment modes: slow rate, rapid infiltration and overland
flow. Detailed planning and design information can be found in the
Land Treatment Process Design Manual (EPA 625/1-77-008). A brief
descriptive summary of the three concepts is provided in this section
for information purposes, along with technical guidance which has been
developed since the design manual was published.
Typical design features for the land treatment processes are
summarized in Table 1. Important site characteristics for each pro-
cess are given in Table 2 and the expected quality of treated water
from each process is given in Table 3. The criteria presented in
Tables 1 and 2 recognize the capability of the land treatment site
to serve as an active component in the treatment process and not as
just the final discharge or disposal point. Unnecessarily stringent
preapplication treatment requirements usually result when the renovative
capabilities of the land treatment site are minimized or ignored. Table
4 presents current EPA guidance for determining the level of preapplica-
tion treatment. These treatment levels will "be considered as grant
eligible for Federal EPA support without special justification on a case
by case basis. These criteria recognize the treatment capacity of the
site and become increasingly stringent as public exposure and access
increases. The process selection and cost analysis for preapplication
treatment should be done in accordance with the guidance in Table 4.
4
-------
r- TABU 1
COMPARISON OF DESIGN FEATURES FOR LAND TREATMENT PROCESSES
l-eo lure
Slow rate
Principal processes
Rapid Infiltration Overland flow
Other processes
Wetlands
Subsurfa ce
Applicution techniques
Annual application
rate, ft
Field area required,
aeresb
Typitdl weekly appli-
cation rate, in.
Minimum preapplication
treatment provided
in United States
Disposition of
applied wastewater
Need for vegetation
Sprinkler or
surface®
2 to 20
56 to 550
0.5 to 4
Primary
sedimentations
Usually surface
20 to 560
2 to 56
4 to 120
Primary
sedimentation
Sprinkler or
surface
10 to /0
16 to 110
2.5 to 6C
6 to 16d
Screening'and
grit removal
Sprinkler or
surface
4 to 100
11 to 280
1 to 25
Primary
sedimentation
Subsurface piping
8 to 87
13 to 110
2 to 20
Primary
sedimentation
Fvapotranspirati on Mainly
and percolation percolation
Surface runoff and Evapctranspiration, Percolation
evapotransplration percolation, with seme
with some and runoff evapotranspiration
percolation
Requi red
Optional
Requi red
Requi red
Optional
a. Includes ridge-and-furrow and border strip.
b. Field area in acres not including buffer area, roads, or ditches for 1 Mgal/d (43.8 L/s)- flow.
c. Range for application of screened wastewater.
d. Range for application of lagoon and secondary effluent.
e. Depends on the use of the effluent and the type of crop.
1 in. = 2.54 cm
1 ft = 0.305 m
1 acre' = 0.405 ha
SOURCE: Land Treatment Design Manual
5
-------
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS FOR LAND TREATMENT PROCESSES
Characteristics
Slope
Principal processes
Other processes
Slow rate
Rapid infiltration
Overland flow Wetlands
Subsurface
Less than 20% on culti- Not critical; excessive
vated.land; less than slopes require nuch
402 on noncultivated
land
earthwork
Finish slopes Usually less Not critical
2 to Bi than 51
Soil permeability
Depth to
groundwater
C1 i ma t i c
res trictions
Moderately slow to
moderately rapid
2 to 3 ft (minimum)
Storage often needed
for cold weather and
prcci pi tation
Rapid (sands, Toan\y
sands)
10 ft (lesser depths
are acceptable where
unrierdrainage is
provi ded)
None (possibly modify
operation in cold
weather)
Slow (clays. Slow to Slow to rapid
silts, and moderate
soils with
impermeable
barriers)
Not critical Not critical Not critical
Storage often Storage may None
reeded for be needed
cold weather for cold
weather
1 ft - 0.305 m
SOURCE: Land Treatment Design Manual
-------
TABLE 3
EXPECTED QUALITY OF TREATED WATER FROM LAND TREATMENT PROCESSES
. mg/L
Consti tuent
Slow
ratea
Rapid .
infiltration
Overland
1 flowc
Average
Maximum
Average
Maximum
Average
Maximum
BOD
<2
<5
2
<5 •
10
<15
Suspended solids
<1
<5
2
<5
10
<20
Ammonia nitrogen as N
<0.5
<2
0.5
<2
0.8
<2
Total nitrogen as N
3
<8
10
<20
3
< 5
Total phosphorus as P
<0.1
<0.3
1
<5
4
<6
a. Percolation of primary or secondary effluent through 5 ft. (1.5 m) of soil.
b. Percolation of primary or secondary effluent through 15 ft. (4.5 m) of soil.
c. < Runoff of comminuted municipal wastewater over about 150 ft. (45 m) of slope.
SOURCE: Land Treatment Design Manual
7
-------
Table 4
Guidance for Assessing Level of Preapplication Treatment*
I. Slow-rate Systems (reference sources include Water' Quality Criteria
1972, EPA-R3-73-003, Water Quality Criteria EPA 1976, and various
state guidelines).
A. Primary treatment - acceptable for isolated locations with
restricted public access and when limited to crops not for
direct human consumption.
B. Biological treatment by lagoons or inplant processes plus
control of fecal coliform count to less than 1,000 MPN/100 ml
acceptable for controlled agricultural irrigation except for
human food crops to be eaten raw.
C. Biological treatment by lagoons or inplant processes with
additional BOD or SS control as needed for aesthetics plus
disinfection to log mean of 200/100 ml (EPA fecal coliform
criteria for bathing waters) - acceptable for application in
public access areas such as parks and golf courses.
II. Rapid-infiltration Systems
A. Primary treatment - acceptable for isolated locations with
restricted public access.
B. Biological treatment by lagoons or inplant processes - acceptable
for urban locations with controlled public access.
III. Overland-flow Systems
A. Screening or comminution - acceptable for isolated sites with
no pub!ic access.
B. Screening or comminution plus aeration to control odors during
storage or application - acceptable for urban locations with
no public access.
* From EPA Construction Grants Program Requirements Memorandum PRM 79-3,
issued Nov. 15, 1978
8
-------
Slow Rate Process
In several previous EPA reports slow rate land treatment was
referred to as irrigation. The term slow rate land treatment is used
to focus attention on wastewater treatment rather than on irrigation
of crops. However, in slow rate systems, vegetation is a critical com-
ponent for managing water and nutrients. The applied wastewater is
treated as it flows through the soil matrix, and a portion of the flow
percolates to the groundwater. Surface runoff of the applied water is
generally not allowed. Proper consideration of the need to provide
underdrainage is a critical design factor. The importance of this con-
sideration cannot be overemphasized for sites where subsoil or shallow
geologic conditions restrict downward movement of water. A schematic
view of the typical hydraulic -pathway for slow rate treatment is shown
in Figure 1 (a). Typical views of slow rate land treatment systems,
using both surface and sprinkler application techniques, are also shown
in Figure l(b, c). Surface application includes ridge-and-furrow and
border strip flooding techniques. The term sprinkler application is
correctly applied to impact sprinklers and the term spray application
should only be used to refer to fixed spray heads. Slow rate systems
can be operated to achieve a number of objectives including:
1. Treatment of applied wastewater
2. Economic return from use of water and nutrients to produce
marketable crops (irrigation)
3. Water conservation, by replacing potable water with treated
effluent, for irrigating landscaped areas, such as golf courses
4. Preservation and enlargement of greenbelts and open space.
For the general case, operation as a wastewater treatment system
9
-------
FIGURE 1
SLOW RATE LAND TREATMENT
EVAPOTRANSPI RAT ION
APPL I EO
WASTEWATER
f n)
PERCOLATION
(a) HYDRAULIC PATHWAY
(b) SURFACE DISTRIBUTION
(c) SPRINKLER DISTRIBUTION
10
-------
is the principal objective. Typical final effluent quality from a slow
rate system is given in Table 3. A mechanical process to achieve similar
quality might include activated sludge plus nitrogen removal plus
phosphous removal plus filtration plus granular carbon adsorption
plus disinfection. Under'favorable site conditions a slow rate system
can achieve this quality at a cost less than that required for just
activated sludge and with very significant energy savings as shown
later in this section (11, 39). An activated sludge plant by itself
could not achieve effluent quality comparable to the slow rate process.
Rapid Infiltration
In rapid infiltration land treatment (referred to in earlier EPA
reports as infiltration-percolation), most of the applied wastewater
percolates through the soil, and the treated effluent if not recovered
eventually reaches the groundwater. The wastewater is applied to
rapidly permeable soils, such as sands and loamy sands, by spreading in
basins or by sprinkling, and is treated as it travels through the soil
matrix. Vegetation is not usually used, but there are some exceptions.
The schematic view in Figure 2(a) shows the typical hydraulic
pathway for rapid infiltration. A much greater portion of the applied
wastewater percolates to the groundwater than with slow rate land
treatment. There is little or no consumptive use by plants and less
evaporation in proportion to the reduced surface area.
In many cases, recovery of renovated water is an integral part
of the system. This can be accomplished using underdrains or wells,
as shown in Figure 2(b, c).
11
-------
FIGURE 2
RAPID INFILTRATION
APPLIED
IASTEWATER
EVAPORATION
PERCOLATION
(a) HYDRAULIC PATHWAY
FLOODING BASINS
PERCOLATION
(UNSATURATED ZONE)
1?^E
UNDERDRAINS
GROUNDWATER
(b) RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER BY UNDERDRAINS
RECOVERED
WATER
PERCOLATION
(UNSATURATED ZONE)
(c) RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER BY WELLS
12
-------
The principal objective of rapid infiltration is wastewater
treatment. Objectives for the treated water can include:
1. Groundwater recharge
2. Recovery of renovated water by wells or underdrains with
subsequent reuse or discharge
3. Recharge of surface streams by natural interception of
groundwater
4. Temporary storage of renovated water in the aquifer.
Final effluent quality from a typical rapid infiltration system is
given in Table 3. In the general case the nitrogen content in the
percolate will not always be below the 10 mg/1 drinking water standard
without special management practices. In these situations it is still
possible to either locate the system over an aquifer not used for
drinking purposes or to recover the percolate for surface reuse or
discharge. ,A mechanical process to achieve the same quality as defined
in Table 3 might include activated sludge, nitrification and partial
nitrogen removal, phosphorus removal, filtration, activated carbon
adsorption and disinfection. Rapid infiltration is the most cost
effective land treatment concept. Even under somewhat unfavorable
site conditions a rapid infiltration system could produce the quality
cited in Table 3 at a lesser cost than a conventional activated sludge
plant. The activated sludge plant by itself could not achieve com-
parable effluent quality. Rapid infiltration is also the most energy
efficient land treatment concept as discussed later in this section.
13
-------
Overland Flow
In overland flow land treatment, wastewater is applied over the
upper reaches of sloped terraces and allowed to flow across the
vegetated surface to runoff collection ditches. The wastewater is
renovated by physical, chemical, and biological means as it flows in
a thin film down the relatively impermeable slope, A schematic view
of overland flow treatment is shown in Figure 3(a), and a pictorial
view of a typical system is shown in Figure 3(b). As shown in Figure
3(a), there is relatively little percolation involved either because
of an impermeable surface soil or a subsurface barrier to percolation.
Generally less than 20 percent of the applied liquid percolates, 20
percent or more is lost to evapotranspiration and approximately 60
percent or more appears as final effluent in the collection ditches.
Slopes range from 2 to 8% and from 100 to 200 feet wide in practice.
Hydraulic detehtion times under these conditions range from 20 to
45 mi nutes.
Overland flow is a relatively new treatment process for municipal
wastewater in the United States. There have been several research
efforts and pilot scale projects as well as a number of industrial
wastewater systems in various parts of the country. As a result,
consideration of overland flow was made optional except for regionally
designated areas,-rather than mandatory in EPA requirements for facility
planning.
The objectives of overland flow are wastewater treatment and,
to a minor extent, crop production. Treatment objectives may be
14
-------
FIGURE 3
OVERLAND FLOW
applied
wastewater
SLOPE 2-8#
grass AND
VEGETATIVE litter
EYAPOTRANSpl RAT ION
w „ , b,, sheet flow
esses#*
\ 1
percolation
RUNOFF.
v COLLECTION
(a) MYDR*UHC PATH***
sprinkler circles
RUNOFF
COLLECTION
D ITCH
U) PICTORIAL VIE* OF
SPRINKLER.*PPLICfcT *°H
15
-------
either (1) to achieve secondary or better effluent quality from
screened and comminuted raw wastewater, or primary treated, or lagoon
treated wastewater, or (2) to achieve high levels of nitrogen and BOD
removals comparable to conventional advanced wastewater treatment from
secondary treated wastewater. Treated water is collected at the toe of
the overland flow slopes and can be either reused or discharged to
surface water. Overland flow can also be used for production of forage
grasses and the preservation of greenbelts and open space.
Final effluent quality from a typical overland flow system is
given in Table 3. If additional BOD, suspended solids, or phosphorus
removal are required the overland flow slope can be followed by rapid
infiltration in a combined system. Chemical addition to precipitate
additional phosphorus on the slope has also been demonstrated in pilot
scale facilities. A mechanical system to achieve the same effluent
quality as defined in Table 3 might include rotating biological con-
tactor, nitrogen removal, partial phosphorus removal, clarification and
disinfection; Under favorable site conditions an overland flow system
could produce the specified effluent quality at a lesser cost than just
the biological component in the competing system (10, 11). It is also
more energy efficient. As shown in Table 4 screening or communition is
the only preappl ication treatment required in many situations.
ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS
Minimizing energy requirements is an increasingly important aspect
16
-------
FIGURE 4
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS *(12)
SLOW RATE VS CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT
ACTIVATED SLUDGE + AWT
(N REMOVAL, P REMOVAL.
FILTER, GAC, CHLORINE)
r*l RA«
1
2
3
4
5
CAPACITY MGD
* W/O BUILDING HEAT OR SECONDARY ENERGY FOR CHEMICALS
17
-------
of wastewater treatment facility planning. It is possible to estimate
energy requirements for municipal wastewater systems using a recent
EPA report by Wesner, et al. (39). This consists of individual
curves for unit processes and operations and some selected process
comparisons. For example the total annual energy for a 25 mgd slow
rate land treatment system is estimated at 12,433,000 kwh/yr while
an AWT system producing a comparable product would require an equivalent
of 86,919,000 kwh/yr. These include primary energy for operation
of the systems as well as secondary energy for chemicals and fuel
all expressed as equivalent killowatt hours per year. A related report
by Middlebrooks (12) discusses energy requirements for systems under 5
mgd, and compares land treatment concepts to a number of mechanical
systems. The Wesner report (39) was the basic data source for these
comparisons but Middlebrooks presents equations for all of the unit
processes so a more precise estimate of energy can be calculated. The
estimated annual energy requirements for a variety of treatment systems,
along with their expected effluent quality are given in Table 5. The
energy requirements of these basic land treatment modes are plotted on
Figures 4, 5 and 6 versus the energy required for a mechanical system
producing the same quality effluent. These comparisons do not include
secondary energy for chemicals or for building heat. The slow rate curve
includes an allowance for pumping to the field and for adequate line
pressure at the nozzle (175 ft TDH), while the overland flow and rapid
infiltration curves are based on a TDH of 10 ft. and 5 ft. respectively.
It is quite clear from these.figures and Table 5 that land treatment
systems are the most energy efficient processes.
-------
FIGURE 5
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS"(121
RAPID INFILTRATION VS CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT
2
I
, ....... . aal-.O INriLTB^ICN
CAPACITY (WGD)
• w/O HUlLDlNli HEAT OR SECONDARY ENfcRGY PGR CHEMICALS
FIGURE 6
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS "(12)
OVERLAND FLOW VS CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT
3
2
CAPACITY (MCD)
• VV/O BUILDING HEAT OR S-CONHARY tNERCY FOR CHEMICALS
19
-------
Table 5
Total Annual Energy for Typical 1 mgd System
(electrical plus fuel, expressed as 1000 kwh/yr) [12]
Effluent quality
Energy
Treatment system
1000
BOD
SS
P
N
kwh/yr
Rapid infiltration (facultative pond)
5
1
2
10
159
Overland flow (facultative pond)
5
5
5
3
165
Facultative pond + interm. filter
15
15
-
10
181
Slow rate, ridge + furrow (fac. pond)
1
1
0.1
3
190
Facultative pond + microscreens
30
30
-
15
221
Aerated pond + intern, filter
15
15
-
20
446
Extended aeration + sludge drying
20
20
-
-
623
Extended aeration + interm. filter
15
15
-
-
648
Trickling filter + anaerobic digestion
30
30
-
-
723
RBC + anaerobic digestion
30
30
-
-
734
Trickling filter + gravity filtration
20
10
-
-
745
Trickling filter + N removal + filter
20
10
-
5
769
Activated sludge + anaerobic digestion
20
20
-
-
828
Activated sludge + an. dig. + filter
15
10
-
-
850
Activated sludge + nitrification + filter
15
10
-
-
990
Activated, sludge + sludge incineration
20
20
-
-
1 ,379
Activated sludge.+ AWT
<10
5
<1
<1
2,532
Physical chemical advanced secondary
30
10
1
-
4,029
20
-------
Section 3
COST CURVES
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The costs of land treatment systems have been grouped under 8
major categories which are common to all systems. These are:
Preapplication Treatment
Transmission
Storage
Pumping
Field Preparation
Distribution
Recovery
Additional Factors
The 26 separate cost curves are grouped under these 8 categories
in a sequence that can vary with the treat/rent mode: and site conditions.
The curves present capital and operation and maintenance costs of the
component of concern in terms of the most applicable parameter such as
storage volume, flow rate or field area. A summary of assumptions,
conditions, and adjustment factors are also given for each curve.
Once the cost of each component has been estimated it should
be updated using the appropriate index (Tables E-l, E-2) and adjusted
if necessary or desired for a particular location. To obtain total
costs it is then necessary to include land costs and salvage values
as well as revenues, if any, from sale of crops and/or recovered water.
21
-------
Necessary factors for computing amortized costs or total present
worth are given in Appendix E. A sample calculation is also included
in Section 4 to demonstrate the step-by-step procedures.
Land
The cost of land, by purchase or lease, can be a significant ¦
portion of the total cost of the system. The total land requirements
may include:
Preapplication treatment site
storage ponds
field area
buildings, roads and ditches
future expansion
buffer zones
All of these components may not be necessary for a particular
system nor are they all eligible for federal funding under the EPA
Construction Grant Program. All components that are applicable to
a particular system, whether grant eligible or not, should be in-
cluded in the analysis of total costs. This should be based on a
specific plot of land and a preliminary layout of the system. The
prevailing market price for land can be determined from a local
source such as the tax assessor or certified land appraisers. Current
information on eligibility of land for federal funding is available
from all of the EPA Regional Offices.
Field Area
The field area is that portion of the land treatment site to
which wastewater is actually applied, including the necessary dikes,
22
-------
ez
DESIGN FLO*. MOD
J I I 'I'l
J I I I ''ii
J I I I i i ' i
o
c
3
m
m
>
73
m
>
Z
o
2
O
0
JJ
>
u
1
Y
\
PIVOT LINE
\
« ©
J I i » I i 1 ll
n O T
V
FIELD AREA, ACRES
a o
©
o
O
A
i I i i i i 11V i i i i i.i u I i i i i i 111
\
\
pi
V,
£
a U N •
O « » o
». - *
n * oi
aa o
m \
\
\
NDNDPERATI NO TIME. KEEKS
= \
1 I
I I I I I I
J I I i 1 L
\
\
\
APPLICATION RATE, IN./WK
\
o cn
\
-------
ditches, and berms. Area requirements are based on the design
application rate which in turn is based on type of system, soil type,
climate, and other site conditions. The land treatment design manual
should be used to determine field area requirements. The field area for
the system is eligible for funding under the EPA Construction Grant
Program.' An estimate of field area can be obtained using Figure 7.
Buffer Zones
Buffer zones are sometimes desirable for aesthetic purposes to
screen operations from the public. Extensive buffer zones are not
considered an effective method to contain aerosols or other potential
contaminants. Pathogens can be reduced to acceptable levels via deten-
tion time in a storage pond and aerosols can be controlled via
selection of equipment and proper operational management. Buffer zones
of reasonable dimensions are eligible for funding under the EPA
Construction Grant Program.
Buildings, Preapplication Treatment and Storage Ponds
Land required for these elements is not eligible for funding under
the EPA Construction Grant Program, with one exception. In many
situations it is possible to use a pond for preapplication treatment in
combination with storage. Under these conditions the land required is
grant eligible as described in current EPA guidance on eligibility of
land aquisition. The Construction Grant Program staff in the EPA
Regional Offices should be contacted for this information.
24
-------
Salvage Value of Land
Unlike other treatment components, the land is assumed to have a
salvage value at the end of the design life. In addition, current EPA
guidancelallows a credit for the appreciation in value of the land
during the design life of the system. Using the rate of 3 percent per
year which became effective with issuance of revised regulations in
September 1978, the future salvage value would be:
c . ,, , Present Price
Salvage Value =
PWF = Present Worth Factor = —
(1 + i)
for 3%, 20 years = —1—^
(1.03)
= .5537
Salvage Value = (1.806)(Present Price)
The present worth of this salvage value is based on the prevailing
interest rate, not the 3 percent appreciation rate. Information on
any change in the appreciation rate will be available from EPA
Regional Offices.
25
-------
Present Worth = (Salvage Value)(PWF)
Assuming prevailing interest rate of 1% with 20 year life.
PWF (7%, 20 yr) = .2584 (see Appendix E, Table E-8)
Present Worth = (.467)(Present Price)
The actual cost of the land is then:
Actual Cost = Present Price - Present Worth of Salvage Value
= (•533)( Present Price)
It is this cost that should be included in the analysis when
alternatives are being compared. However, it is the present price of
the land that is grant eligible. These calculations will be demon-
strated for a specific example in Section 4.
Leasing of Land
Leasing of land is permitted under the EPA guidance and it is to be
encouraged in many situations. It is particularly applicable for the
slow rate process in existing agricultural communities. The costs for
the leases, of grant eligible lands, are eligible for funding under the
EPA Construction Grants Program. A single payment is usually made at
the start of the project for the entire lease period. This payment is
equal to the present worth of the annual cost for the lease over the
life of the project:
r_. + _/r i _ Annual Cost
Cost or Lease - —
CRF = Capital Recovery Factor' (see Appendix E)
26
-------
Preapplication Treatment
It is beyond the scope of this report to include cost information
on all the possible preapplication treatment systems. To obtain
these costs, other publications should be consulted (19, 36). Cost
curves for various types of pond systems and for preliminary treatment
(i.e. screening, grit removal) are included since in the general case
these are the most cost effective way to achieve the preapplication
treatment levels given in Table 4. Costs for disinfection using
chlorine are also given since some project objectives may require
chemical disinfection. Cost curves for primary treatment are not given
since these costs are strongly dependent on the sludge management and
disposal operations selected. The reference sources cited above should
be used to estimate the cost of primary treatment.
The levels of preapplication treatment listed in Table 4 are usually
appropriate for the project objectives described. If more stringent
levels are imposed on a project they may not be eligible for funding
under the EPA Construction Grant Program.
Experience has shown that significant renovation does occur in
land treatment storage ponds. This includes reductions in. not only
BOD and suspended solids but also pathogens and nitrogen. It is
possible to design a pond as a combined treatment/storage unit and
still maintain eligibility of land acquisition under the Construction
Grant Program. It is recommended that the top 3 feet in a deep pond
be considered as the treatment zone. The required storage time is
fixed by the land treatment system because of climate, harvest periods,
27
-------
etc., as described in the design manual. The renovative performance
to be expected in the treatment zone, during the specified detention
time, can be calculated using the conventional design equations for
facultative ponds.' For the general case, approximately 30 days
detention tine, under summer conditions, will satisfy the 1000/100 ml
fecal coliform count listed in Table 4. In some situations preliminary
aeration nay be desirable for odor control or partial BOD reduction.
Costs for such a unit can be obtained by assuming an aeration time
of 2 to 6 hours and adjusting the values from Figure "12 - Complete
Mix Aeration Cell. It is recommended that treatment/storage ponds
be divided into at least three cells to control short circuiting and
thereby insure proper treatment and die-off of bacteria and virus.
Additional Costs
The caitegory of "Additional Costs" consists of S components,
and cost curves are presented for 3 of these. The costs for the
remaining components are not readily presented by means of curves;
therefore, other methods of cost computation are described in the
text that follows the curves.
Capital Cost Curves
A curve or group of curves is presented for each component which
represents the total capital cost to the owner, including an allowance
for the contractor's overhead and profit. The curves do not include
allowances for contingencies, administration, or engineering, however.
Each of the costs is related to either the "EPA Sewer Construction
Cost Index" or the "EPA Sewage treatment Plant Construction Cost Index"
28
-------
for February 1973. For many components, neither of these indicies
directly applies, in which case the index used is the one which is
considered to be the most applicable. Capital costs read from the
curves should be trended by means of the specified index or other
method to reflect current costs for a particular locality. Current
values for both indicies are published monthly in the Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation, and quarterly in the Engineering
News Record.
For soTie components, a group of curves is presented that shows
a range of costs for some secondary parameter. For example, a group
of curves corresponding to a range of depths of cover is included for
"Gravity Pipe" (Figure 16). In several other cases, additional curves are
included for significant subcomponents or auxiliary costs, as in the
case of "Force Mains" (Figure 18), where an additional curve is included
for the cost of repaving.
Operation and Maintenance Cost Curves
Operation and maintenance costs are divided, where applicable,
into three curves or groups of curves: labor, power, and materials.
They are each expressed in terms of dollars per unit per year.
The labor cost is the estimated annual cost for operating and
maintaining that component by members of the staff, and includes
administration and supervision. It is based on an average staff labor
rate, including fringe benefits, of $5.00 per hour and may be adjusted
to reflect actual average rates when ..significant differences exist.
29
-------
The power cost is the estimated annual cost for electrical power
required to operate the particular component based on a unit cost of
$0.02 per kilowatt-hour. It should be adjusted to reflect actual unit
costs due to inflation. The unit cost for power should be the same for
all treatment alternatives considered unless different rate schedules
exist. For several components a group of power cost curves are shown
for a range of pumping heads.
The materials cost is the estimated annual cost for normal
supplies, repair parts, and contracted repair or maintenance services.
An equivalent annual cost based on the sinking fund factor for an
interest rate of 5-5/8 percent is included for those materials costs
which are not incurred annually.
Wholesale Price Index
The Wholesale Price Index for Industrial Comodities, which may be
used for trending the materials cost, was 120.0 for February 1973.
Detailed Information Relating to Cost Curves
Basis of Costs
A summary of the bases' of costs for which the curves were derived
is included on the upper portion of the left-hand page for each component.
These bases normally include: (1) the selected construction cost index
for February 1973, (2) the average labor rate, and (3) the power cost.
Assumptions ' ' "
A list of assumptions concerning basic design features, and factors
either included in the costs or excluded, is presented on the left-
hand page for each component. Generally it reflects typical designs
-------
STORAGE
PREAPPLICATION
TREATMENT
TRANSMISSION
PUMPING
FIELD PREPARATION
DISTRIBUTION
RECOVERY
I
PONDS
COMPLETE MIX
PARTIAL MIX
FACULTATIVE
SURFACE t-LOOD
OTHCfl
GRATED PIPE
10 SDOO
MR
FORCE MAIN
FORCE MAIM
SOLID SET
CENTFR PIVOT
LEVEL
OS- 10
MG
PRELIM SCREEN
GRAVITY PIPE
PUMP
ADMIN. & LAD
UNOERORAINS
RUAOS & FENCE
CLtAH& GRUB
FIGURE B SLOW RATE SYSTEMS RELATIONSHIP OF COST CURVES
-------
of each component with average conditions. In many cases adjustment
factors are included for assumptions involving important design
parameters that are highly variable.
Adjustment Factors
Adjustment factors are included for many components to account
for significant variation in designs. These factors should be multiplied
by the cost from the indicated curve to obtain the adjusted cost.
For example, if the adjustment factor for labor costs were 1.1, and the
labor cost for a given field area were $1,000 per acre per year, then
adjusted labor cost would be $1,100 per acre per year.
Metric Conversion
Metric conversion factors are given for those parameters which
appear in the cost curves.
METHODOLOGY
Flow charts that demonstrate the relationship of the component
cost curves are shown in Figures 8, 9 and 10.. A separate flow chart
is presented for each of the three land treatment concepts. It is
usually necessary to include only one pathway in each'of the major
categories to determine which components are to be considered in a
particular cost analysis. The exception is the "Additional Factors"
category where all components are normally included in the analysis.
The disinfection component is shown as an optional item for special
cases in slow rate and overland -f-1 ow systems. The costs for "Other"
. 32
-------
PHE APPLICATION
TREATMENT
ADDITIONAL
FACTORS
TRANSMISSION
PUMPING
FIELD PREPARATION
DISTRIBUTION
RECOVERY
PRELIM. SCREEN
GRAVITY PIHE
MG
ROADS & fENCE
UNDERDRAWS
COMPLETE MIX
—Q- R) BASIN
PARTIAL MIX
PUMP
CLEAR & GRU
AOMIN. & LAB
PUMP
FACULTATIVE
ID - SOOD
MC
FGRCF MAIN
OTHtR
OPEN DITCH
FIGURE 9 RAPID INFILTRATION SYSTEMS - RELATIONSHIP OF COST CURVES
-------
ADDITIONAL
FACTORS
PREAPPLICATION
TREATMENT
FIELD
PREPARATION
DISTRIBUTION
TRANSMISSION
STORAGE
PUMPING
COMPLETE MIX
PAHTIAL MIX
FACULTATIVE
J
TEHHACE
FOHCE MAIN
PUMP
10 S000
UG
OPEN DITCH
OTHER
SOLID SET
force main
GATED PIPE
ADMtN. & LAB
ROADS A FENCE
GHAVITY PIPE
PRELIM. SCREEN
PUMP
MONITER
CLEAR & Gfll/B
OVERLAND FLOW
RUNOFF
FIGURE 10 OVERLAND FLOW SYSTEMS RELATIONSHIP OF
COST CURVES
-------
preappl ication treatments must be obtained from the references previously
cited (36, 19). The costs for combined systems, (i.e. overland flow
followed by rapid infiltration) should be obtained by selecting components
from the two flow charts rather than repeating both sets. The following
procedure is recommended for use of the cost curves and related in-
formation;
1. Identify applicable component cost curves from study of
flow charts.
2. List components in logical sequence and determine capital
and other costs from curves.
3. Update component costs with applicable indicies and adjustment
factors to the time period desired.
4. Determine the additional costs and benefits, if any, for
those factors not covered by curves:
Planting, cultivating, harvesting
Yardwork
Relocation of residents
Purchase of water rights
Service and interest factors.
Some data on these additional costs can be found at the end of this
Section.
5. Operation and maintenance costs are subdivided where applicable
in three.categories: labor, power and materials. These three
categories can be updated using current labor and power rates
and the WPI or a quick estimate determined by adding the values
from the cost curve and applying the overall O&M cost index
given in Table E-3.
35
-------
ADDITIONAL COSTS
The following components are not readily presented by means of
curves. Alternative means of cost estimation are therefore discussed.
Planting, Cultivation, and Harvesting
Annual agricultural costs will generally be quite variable, de-
pending on the type of crop or vegetation grown and various local
conditions.. Costs should normally be determined from local sources;
however, as. an aid, sample costs to produce crops in California are
given in Table 6.. . Similar cost information is available in most
states through local cooperative extension services or from land grant
universities.
Yardwork
Yardwork includes a variety of miscellaneous items. For con-
ventional treatment systems, these items would generally include:
General site clearing and grading, intercomponent piping, wiring,
lighting, control structures, conduits, manholes, parking, sidewalk
and road paving, landscaping and local fencing. The suggested costs
for these items are (19): (1) capital cost, 14 percent of total
construction cost; and (2) annual operation and maintenance cost,
$1,500 to $4,000 per mgd for labor and $80 to $400 per mgd for
materials. These cost allowances are suggested for land application
systems if applied only to the cost of preapplication treatment
components when something other than ponds are used for preapplication
treatment.
36
-------
Relocation of Residents
The purchases of large quantities of land will often require
that some residents be relocated. If the project is to be federally
funded, this must be conducted in accordance with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
The cost of relocation, which can be significant, should be estimated
on the basis of local conditions. Assistance in estimating this
cost can often be obtained from agencies which must frequently deal
with this problem, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the
Department of Transportation and State highway agencies.
Purchase of Water Rights
In many cases, particularly in the western states, the consumptive
use of water may require the purchase of water rights. This may be
either a capital or annual cost and should generally be determined
on the basis of prevailing local practices.
Service and Interest Factor
A service and interest factor must be applied to the capital cost
of the system to account for the additional cost of items such as:
Conti ngenci es
Engineering
Legal, fiscal, and administrative
Interest during construction
Generally, the cost for these items ranges from 35 percent of
the nonland total construction cost for $50,000 projects, to about
25 percent for $100 million projects.
37
-------
BENEFITS (NEGATIVE COSTS)
Benefits that may furnish revenue for land application systems
include the sale of crops grown, the sale of renovated water the leasing
of land for secondary uses such as recreation. Monetary or revenue-
producing benefits are discussed more fully in Appendix B, and possible
nonrevenue producing benefits (social or environmental factors) are
described in Appendix C.
Typically, an irrigation or overland flow treatment system would
have an economic benefit from the sale of the crop grown.
Prices and crop yields will vary with the locality and should
be determined from local sources. Data is available in most states
through local cooperative extension services or the land grant
universities.
38
-------
"ao'ie 6 -- SIMPLE CCSrS TO PRODUCE CROPS IN CALIFORNIA FCR 1979 124]
Cost, S/acre
Crop
Expected
yield,
per acre
Cultural cost
Labor
Cash
r,je' Harvest over-
and Materials head
reoairs
overhead
Cost
per
Rent Management Total
yield,
*
Perennials
A1 fa 1 fa
nay
A1 fa~a,
seed
Annuals
Barley
'Corn,
si lags
Cotter
Grain
sorgnur
3.5 ton
330 lb.
Clover,
seed
3.3 cwt
3asUre 10 3'jip"
^5 tons
S cwt
50 cwt
40
20
80
rs
110°
1.5 tons 15
40
60
50
3
60
55
15
20
25
150
25
30
1 CO
"25
80
35
25
80d
50
30
60
50
150
35
110
25
17
'50
25 155 25 563 66.24/ton
15 .110 15 305 ¦ 1.02/-D.
120 100 20 550 . 157. K/cwt
20 100 *C 375 37.50/aum
15 65 8 263 175.33/ton
15 100 25 342 13.68/ton
35 110 25 585 55.CC/cwt
15 120 15 395 7.90/cwt
'lots: Expected y'aic - Yields attainable under good management. Usually above average for the major producing area.
_apor cost - Includes wages, transportation, housing, and fringe benefits for far" workers.
-uel and repairs - includes fuel, oil, lubrication plus repairs (parts and labor) of farm equipment.
"aterial - Induces seed, fertilizer, wate*" or power, spray, nachine work hi^ed, ar.d other costs not induced
in labor or fuel and repairs.
"auionent oveneaa - Depreciation, interest, property taxes.
Harvest - Tots, cost of harvest lo to receiving payment for product.
Cash overnead - Office, accounting, legal, interest on operating capital, and otner costs of management.
Rent - Actual rent or cost of taxes, interest or, investment, and depreciation of fixed facilities if land
is owned.
Management - Usually calculated at 5 percent of the gross income.
i. C-ustcn operations.
ft. cwt - 100 lb.
c. lun- = ar.imel unit nonths or -"orace eater, by one ' .000-1 b cow in one month.
d. Includes crop slana.
Metric conversion: "d x 2.2 =
-------
PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT
Preliminary Treatment - Screening and Grit Removal (Figure 11)
The cost curves are developed for a sequence of bar screens, grit
chamber, and flow meter.
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index = 177.5
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr
Assumptions
1. Capital costs include flow channels and superstructure, bar
racks, grinders (for screenings), grit chambers, grit handling equipment,
and Parshall flume with flow recording equipment.
3
2. Volume of screenings assumed to^be 1-3 ft /mgd of flow and
grit (including ground screenings) 2-5 ft /mgd.
3. The cost of grit disposal is not included in the capital or
0 & M costs.
Metric Conversion
1 . mgd X 13.8 = 1 /rec
Sources
EPA 430/9-75-002, "A Guide to the Selection of Cost Effective
Wastewater Treatment Systems" [36]
40
-------
10.000
1,000
100
10
20,000
10,000
1.000
-------
PREAPPLICATION TREATMENT
COMPLETE MIX. AERATION CELL (Figure 12)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index = 177.5
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
3. Electrical power cost = $0.02/kwh
Assumptions
1. Average detention time 1 day
2. 15-ft (4.6 m) water depth
3. Complete mix = 100 hp/million gallons
4. High speed surface aerators
5. Capital cost includes
a. Excavation, embankment and lining of cell with asphalt
b. Service road and fencing
- c. Hydraulic control works
d. Aeration and electrical equipment
Adjustment Factor
For detention times less than 1 day, multiply by 0.3 + 0.7 (^)
h = detention time in hours.
Metric Conversion
1. mgd X 43.8 = 1/sec.
Sources
Derived from previously published information [19] and cost calculations
based on a series of typical designs.
42
-------
CAPITAL COST
FLOW. MGD
DC
>
~
a
CO
O
u
-J
-------
PREAPPLI CAT ION TREATMENT
PARTIAL MIX - AERATION POND (Figure 13)
Basis of Cost ' ¦ '
1. EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index = 177,5
2. Labor Rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr
3. Electrical power cost = $0.02/kwh
Assumptions
1. Average detention time 3 days
2. 1- ft (3.05 M) water depth
3. Partial mix for aerobic surface = 10 hp/million gallons
4. High speed surface aerators
5. Capital cost includes
a. Excavation, embankment from native material
b. 9 in (22.8 cm) slope of dike
c. 12 ft (3.7 m) service roads
d. Fencing, hydraulic control works
e. Aeration and electrical equipment
6. Capital cost does not include land
Adjustment Factors
1. Costs increase with detention time; for 7 days multiply by 1.5,
for 15 days multiply by 2.8
2. For asphalt liner add $9,800 per mgd
Sources
Derived from previously published information [19] and cost calculations
based on a series of typical designs.
44
i
-------
10,000
CO
o
2
25 1,000
D
0
1
~-
-------
PREAPPLICATION
FACULTATIVE POND
TREATMENT
(Figure 14)
Basis of Cost
1. EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index = 177.5
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr
Assumptions
1. Average detention time 30 days
2. 5 ft (1.53m) water depth
3. No mechanical mixing or aeration
4. Capital cost includes
a. Excavation, embankment from native material, inside slopes 3:1
outside slopes 2:1, 3 ft (0.9m) free board.
b. 9 in (22.8cm) of riprap on inside slope of dike
c. 12 ft (3.7m) service roads
d. Fencing, hydraulic control works
5. Capital cost does not include land
Adjustment Factors
1. Costs increase with detention tine; for 50 days multiply by 1.7,
for 10 days multiply by 0.5.
2. Costs decrease with depth; for 6 ft multiply by 0.8, for 4 ft
multiply by 1.3 (30 day detention)
3. For asphalt liner add $176,000 per mgd
Sources
Derived from previously published information [19] and cost
calculations based on a series of typical designs.
46
-------
10,000
CAPITAL COST
FLOW, MGD
DC
>
Q
U
|
K
(/)
o
u
-1
<
3
Z
Z
<
30,000
10,000
1,000
LABOR
MATERIALS
u
100
FLOW, MGD
FIGURE 14. FACULTATIVE POND
47
i
-------
PUMPING
PUMPING FACILITIES - RAW SEWAGE OR PREAPPLICATION
TREATMENT EFFLUENT OR FINAL DISTRIBUTION (Figure 15)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index = 177.5
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr
3. Electrical power cost = $0.02/kwh
Assumptions
1. Capital and power cost curves given for various total heads in feet.
2. Capital costs are related to peak flow in mgd. Operation and
maintenance costs are related to average flow.
3. Capital cost includes:
a. Fully enclosed wet well/dry well type structure
b. Pumping equipment with standby facilities
c. Piping and valves within structure
d. Controls and electrical work
4. Labor cost includes operation, preventive maintenance, and minor
repairs.
5. Materials cost includes repair work performed by outside contractor
and replacement of parts.
Adjustment Factors
1. For structures built into dike of ponds, with continuously cleaned
water screens and other elements as described in 3. above; multiply
by the following factor.
2. The peak flow for distribution pumping is the maximum rate determined
by system design. It is not the peak rate for raw sewage flow in the
municipality.
3. The annual labor and power costs should be adjusted in proportion to
the actual number of days ner vpar that ru^ninn occurs
peak flow (mgd)
Factor
0.1 - 1 .0
1.0 - 10
10 - 100
.70
.80
.86
-------
5,000
CAPITAL CDST
i.ooo
TOTAL HEAD
IN FLEET
PEAK F LOW,MGD
100
100,000
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
300
O 10.000
T5V
POWER
50
LAEC
1,000
MATEHIALS -A
-M-
0.1
100
AVERAGE FLOW, MGD
FIGURE 15. PUMPING
49
-------
TRANSMISSION
GRAVITY PIPE (Figure 16)
Cost curves are given for gravity pipe that may be of use for any
applicable segment of the system, such as for conveying (1) waste-
water from the collection area to preapplication treatment
facilities, (2) treated water from existing treatment facilities
to the land application site, or (3) recovered renovated water from
the land application site to a discharge point.
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Curves given for various depths of cover over crown of pipe
in feet.
2. Moderately wet soil conditions.
3. All excavation in earth.
4. Capital cost includes:
a. Pipe and fittings
b. Excavation
c. Laying and jointing
d. Select imported bedding and initial backfill
e. Subsequent backfill of native material
f. Manholes
g. Testing and cleanup
5. Labor cost includes periodic inspection of line.
6. Materials cost includes periodic cleaning by contractor.
Note: For cost of repaying see Figure 18 "Force Mains."
ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
1. SOIL CONDITIONS (CAPITAL COST): FROM APPROXIMATELY 0.80 .
FOR DRY TO APPROXIMATELY 1.20 FOR WET CONDITIONS.
Metric Conversion
1. in. x 2.54 = cm
2. ft x 0,305 = m
Sources
Derived from previously published information [6].
SO
-------
CAPITAL COST
DEPTHS OF COVER IN FEET
PIPE SIZE. INCHES
1 j I II '
t--
1
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
i
;
i
*4
y
<
i
1
f jk 1
" f •
'
\—I—
I
I
MATERIALS-
i I
- —
i j
i I
^LAIOR
1
T '
1 10 103
PIPE SIZE. INCHES
FIGURE 16. GRAVITY PIPE
51
-------
TRANSMISSION
OPEN CHANNELS (Figure 17)
Cost curves are given for open channels that may be of use for any
applicable segment of the system, such as for conveying (1) wastewater
from the collection area to preapplication treatment facilities, (2)
treated water from existing treatment facilities to the land application
site, or (3) recovered renovated water from the land application site
to a discharge point.
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Stable soil, predominantly flat terrain.
2. Capital cost includes:
a. S-lip-forrned concrete-lined trapezoidal ditches with 1:1 side
slopes
b. Earth berm
c. Simple drop structure every 1/2 mile (805 m)
3. Labor cost includes periodic inspection, cleaning, and minor repair
work.
4. Materials cost includes major repair or ditch relining after 10 yr
by contractor.
ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
1. IRREGULAR TERRAIN (CAPITAL COST): 1.10 to 1.40.
Metric Conversion
1. ft x 0.305 = m
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical designs.
Unit costs based on price quotes from an irrigation contractor.
52
-------
1 00
) D
J
f—
—t—h-h-H-h
CAPITAL COST
1=
— —
— —
— —
1
i
1 j
'
j
1
--h
¦
— — -
—
—1
—
— — — —
' ^
—1
1
•
|
\ 0
CHANNEL PERIMETER, FT
I 0 0
Ik
<
1 0
-t~H 1 1—1 INN
- -
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
1
— —i
— _
! L-,
n
h - -1—
¦A
IRIALS 1
>
\
I j'
I
1
T
r
i .—
\
1
— 1 1—
1
i
-r-h
i
; J
1
I
i
1 !
1
V
1 .
1
...
. _
!
!
^•1*101
!
|
1 0
CHANNEL PERIMETER, FT
100
FIGURE 17. OPEN CHANNELS
53
-------
TRANSMISSION
FORCE MAINS (Figure 18)
Cost curves are given for force mains that may be of use for any
applicable segment of the system, such as for conveying (1) wastewater
from the collection area to preapplication treatment facilities, (2)
treated water from existing treatment facilities to the land application
site, or (3) recovered renovated water from the land application site to
a discharge point.
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index =194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Depth of cover over crown of pipe, 4 to 5 ft (1.2 to 1.5 m).
2. Moderately wet soil conditions.
3. AH excavation in earth.
4. Capital cost includes:
a. Pipe and fittings
b. Excavation
c. Laying and jointing
d. Select imported bedding and initial backfill
e. Subsequent backfill of native material
f. Testing and cleanup
5. Repaving cost included as separate curve.
6. Materials cost includes periodic cleaning by contractor.
Note: These curves should be used in conjunction with those in Figure 14,
Pumping.
ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
1. SOIL CONDITIONS (CAPITAL COST): FROM APPROXIMATELY 0.80 FOR DRY TO
APPROXIMATELY 1.20 FOR WET CONDITIONS.
Metric Conversion
1. i n. x 2.54 = cm
2. ft. x 0.305 = m
Sources
Derived from previously published information [6].
54
-------
CAPITAL COST
PIPE SIZE. INCHES
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
1 0
PIPE SIZE. INCHES
I 0 0
FIGURE 1& FORCE MAINS
55
-------
STORAGE (0.05-10 MILLION GALLONS) (Figure 19)
Basis of Costs
/
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.30/hr.
Assumptions
1. Dikes formed from native excavated material.
2. Inside slope of dike, 3:1; outside slope, 2:1. 12 ft (3.7 m) wide
dike crest.
3. 5-ft (1.5 m) depth of reservoirs less than 1 mil gal. (3,790 cu m),
increasing to 12-ft (3.7 m) depth of reservoirs greater than 10 mil
gal. (37,900 cu m).
4. 3-ft (0.9 mj freeboard.
5. Rectangular reservoir on level ground.
5. Cost of lining given for asphaltic lining of entire inside area of
reservoir. Must be added to reservoir construction curve to obtain
cost of a lined reservoir. For other types of lining see adjustment
factors. Unit cost of asphaltic lining $0.225/sq ft.
7. Cost of embankment protection given for 9 in. (22.8 cm) of riprap on
inside slope of dike.
8. Labor cost includes maintenance of dike.
9. Materials cost includes bottom scraping and patching of lining by
contractor after 10 yr.
Note: The design and cost of storage reservoirs lay be nichly
variable and will depend on the type of terrain, type of earth
material encountered, and other factors. If the expected design
differs significantly from the one summarized above, a cost
estimate should be arrived at independently.
ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
1. FOR LININGS OTHER THAN ASPHALTIC MEMBRANE:
A. BENTONITE - 0.86
3. PVC (10 MIL) WITH SOIL BLANKET - 1.21
. C. SOIL CEMENT - 1 .21
D. . PETR0MAT - 1.24
E. BUTYL NE0PREME (30 MIL) - 1.97
F. LOCAL CLAY, SHORT HAUL DISTANCE - 0.65
Metric Corversion
1 . mi 1 gal . x 3,790 - cu m
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical designs.
56
-------
CAPITAL COST
EMBANKMENT PROTECTION
RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTION
LINING
O.I I
STORAGE VOLUME. MILLION GALLONS
I
i ii i i i i i i
I
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
I
i
¦
I
tr
—I—
-f-
I
>
i
LABOR
I
i
i
i
N
=t
i
AT
ERIALS '
>
s.
=1=
^h
H-
J
L_L
i
i
4-
i
i
^ i
|
LL
O.OI o.i 1 l"
STORAGE VOLUME. MILLION GALLONS
FIGURE 19. STORAGE (0.05-10 MILLION GALLONS)
57
-------
STORAGE
STORAGE (10-5,OCO MILLION GALLONS) (Figure 20)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = 55.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Dikes formed from native excavated material.
2. Inside sloDe of dike, 3:1; outside slope, 2:1. 12-ft (3.7 m)
wide dike crest.
3. 12-ft (3.7 m) depth of reservoir with 3 - ft (0.9 m) freeboard.
4. Rectangular reservoir on level ground.
5. Reservoirs greater than 50 acres (20 ha) divided into multiple cells.
6. Cost of lining given for asphaltic lining of entire insice area of
reservoir. Must be added to reservoir construction curve to obtain
cost of a lined reservoir. For other types of lining see adjustment
factors. Unit cost of asphaltic lining $0.225/sq. ft.
7. Cost of embankment protection given for 9 in. (22.8 cm) of ripraD
on inside slope of dike.
8. Labor cost includes maintenance of dike.
9. Materials cost includes bottom scraping and patching of lining by
contractor after 10 yr.
Note: The design and cost of storage reservoirs n^ay be highly variable
and will depend on the type of terrain, type of earch material
encountered, and other factors. If the expected design differs
significantly from the one summarized above, a cost estima'9 mus
normally be arrived at independently.
ADJUSTMENT FACTOR '
1. FOR LININGS OTHER THAN ASPHALTIC MEMBRANE:
A. BENTONITE - 0.36
B. PVC (10 MIL) WITH SOIL BLANKET - 1.21
C. SOIL CEMENT 1.21
D. PETR0MAT -1.2*'"
E.' BUTYL NEQPRENE (30 MIL) - 1.97
F. LOCAL CLAY, SHORT HAUL DISTANCE - 0.65
Metric Conversion
Sources
Derived frem ccst calculations based on a series of typical designs.
58
-------
4 0,000
10,000
1,009
I 0 0
1 9
1 Ml
CAPITAL COST
RESERVOIR
CONSTRUCTION
10
I OB I . 0 0 0
STORAGE VOLUME. MILLION 3ALL0NS
10.99#
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
MATERIALS I
100 1.900
STORAGE VOLUME, MILLION GALLONS
FIGURE 20. STORAGE (10-5, 000 MILLIONS GALLONS)
59
-------
FIELD PREPARATION
SITE CLEARING, ROUGH GRADING (Figure 21)
Basis of costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
Assumptions
1. Heavily wooded-^fields cleared and grubbed, includes rough grading.
2. Brush and trees--inostly brush with few trees. Cleared using
bulldozer-type equipment, includes rough grading.
3. Grass only—abandoned farmland requiring disking only.
4. No capital return included for value of wood removed from site.
5. All debris disposed of onsite.
Note: In actual practice site conditions will be quite variable, and
interpolation between curves may be required.
ADJUSTMENT FACTOR
1. DEBRIS DISPOSED OFFSITE: 1.8 TO 2.2.
2. ROUGH GRADING OF OPEN FIELDS WITH SOME BRUSH, USING BULLDOZER TYPE
EQUIPMENT, MULTIPLY GRASS ONLY VALUE BY 8.
Metric Conversion
1. acre x 0.405 = ha
Sources
Based on a survey of actual construction costs for existing systems.
60
-------
CAPITAL COST
1,000
HEAVILY WOODEDZ
~i" I idur-
X
100
TOT»LH=q:i—
BRUSH AND TREES
TOTAL'
RASS ONLY
I 0
10 0 0
1 0 D
FIELD AREA. ACRES
FIGURE 21. SITE CLEARING, ROUGH GRADING
61
-------
FIELD PREPARATION
LAND LEVELING FOR SURFACE FLOODING (Figure 22)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
Assunpti ons
1. Land previously cleared and rough leveled.
2. Curves given for volumes of cut of 200, 500, 750 cy/acre
(945 and 1,418 cu m/ha).
3. Costs include:
a. Surveying
b. Earthmoving
c. Finish grading
d. Ripping two ways
e. Disking
f. Landplanning
g. Equipment mobilization
4. Clay 1oam soil.
Note: In many cases, 200 cy/acre is sufficient, while the curve for
750 represents conditions requiring considerable earthmoving.
The curves should generally be used in conjunction with those
in Figure 21, "Field Preparation-Site Clearing," and either
- Figure 26 "Distribution-Surface Flooding Using Border Strips,"
or Figure 27, "Distribution-Gated Pipe."
ADJUSTMENT FACTOR .
1. VOLUME OF CUT: 0.2 + 0.016C WHERE C = VOLUME OF CUT, CY/ACRE.
COST BASED OH 500 CY/ACRE CURVE.
Metric Conversion
1. acre x 0.405 = ha
2. cy/acre x 1.89 = cu m/ha
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical designs and
consultation with the California Agricultural Extension Service.
62
-------
10,000
1,000
100
10
-------
FIELD PREPARATION
OVERLAND FLOW TERRACE CONSTRUCTION (Figure 23)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
Assumptions
1. Land previously cleared and rough leveled.
2. Curves given for volumes of cut of 1,000 and 1,400 cy/acre (1,890
and 2,646 cu m/ha).
3. Costs include:
a.
Surveying
b.
Earthmoving
c.
Finish grading
d.
Ripping two ways
e.
Disking
f.
Landplanning
g-
Equipment mobilization
Cl ay
soil with only nominal amount of hardpan.
5. Final slopes of 2.5%.
Note: A cut of 500 cy/acre would correspond to nominal construction
on pre-existing slopes. A cut of 500 cy/acre would correspond
to terraces of approximately 150 foot (49.2m) width with a
slope of 2.0% fron initially level ground, while a cut of
1,400 cy/acre would correspond to terraces of approximately
250-foot (76.2m) width and 2.5% slope. The curves should
generally be used in conjunction with those in Figure 21, Site
Clearing, and Figure 24, Solid Set or Figure 27 Gated Pipe.
Adjustment Factor
1. Volumes of cut: 0.2 + 0.0008C where C = volume of cut, cy/acre.
Cost based on 1,000 cy/acre curve.
Metric Conversion
1 . acre x 0.405 = ha
2. cy/acre x V.89 = cu n/ha
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical designs.
64
-------
40,000
10,000
1,000
10
-------
DISTRIBUTION
SOLID SET SPRINKLING (BURIED) - Slow Rate and Overland Flow (Figure 24)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index - 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/'hr.
Assumptions - Slow Rate
1. Lateral spacing, 100 ft (30.5m). Sprinkler spacing, 80 ft (24.4m)
along laterals. 5.4 sprinklers/acre (13.3 sprinklers/ha).
2. Application rate 0.20 in./hr (0.51 cm/'hr).
3. 16.5 gpm (1.04 1/sec) flow to sprinklers at 70 psi (4.9 kg/sq cm).
4. Flow to laterals controlled by hycraulically operated automatic valves
5. Laterals buried 18 in. (46 cm). Mainlines buriea 36 in. (91 cn).
6. All pipe 4 in. (10 cm) aiam and smaller is DVC. All larger pipe is
asbestos cement.
7. Materials cost includes replacement of sprinklers and air compressors
for valve controls after. 10 yr.
Adjustment Factors - Slow Rate
Item Capital cost Labor Materials
1. Irregular-shaped fields 1.15 to 1.30
2. Sprinkler spacing 0.68 + 0.06S 0.65 + 0.065S 0.1 + 0.17S
Note: S = Sprinklers/acre.
Assumptions - Overland Flow
1. Terraces 250 ft (760m) wide and previously leveled to 2.5% slope.
2. Application rate over field area 0.064 in.hr (0.16 cm/hr).
3. 13-gpm (0.83 1/sec) flow to sprinklers at 50 psi (3.5 kg/sq cm).
4. Laterals 70 ft (21.3m) from top of terrace.
5. Flow to laterals controlled by hydraulically operated automatic valves
6. Same as 5, 6, 7, above.
Adjustment Factors - Overland Flow
Item Capital cost Labor Materials
1. Irregular-shaped fields 1.15 to 1.30
2. Terrace width 1.5 - 0.002T' 1.75 - 0.0037 2.5 - 0.006T
Note: T = terrace width, ft.
66
-------
CAPITAL COST
OVERLAND FLOW (OF)
FIELD AREA, ACRES
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
I ABOB
.—i-1- WATEH1A1S:
1,000
FIELO AREA, ACRES
10,000
FIGURE 24. SOLID SET SPRINKLING (BURIED)
67
-------
DISTRIBUTION
CENTER PIVOT SPRINKLING (Figure 25)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits - $5.00/hr.
3. Electrical power cost =.$0.02/kv/h.
Assumptions 1
1. Heavy-duty center pivot rig with electric drive.
2. Multiple units for field areas over 40 acres (16.2 ha). Maximum
area per unit, 132 acres (53.4 ha).
3. Distribution pipe buried 36 in. (91 cm).
4. Materials cost includes minor repair parts and major overhaul of
center pivot rigs after 10 yr.
5. Power cost based on 3.5 days/wk operation of each rig.
6. Pumping and force main costs should be derived from Figures 15 and
18.
7. Center pivot sprinklers are normally used on slow rate systems only.
8. The force main requirements must include both the distance from the
pond to the field area as well as a header pipe on site to connect
each rig. A distribution pipe from this main pipe to the center
piyot connection is included in the cost curve (item 3 above).
Sources
Derived' from a survey of existing systems and cost calculations based
on a series of typical designs.
68
-------
IS,SOB
IS,BOO
1.000
100
1 0
I 0
ICO 1.009
FIELD AREA, ACRES
U J
—
1
1
c
API,
rAL
I
CO
.1
S
r i
+-
i
1
i=
¦4=*-
I
4-
i
1
¦ . - -t—
¦ 1
-T- -
1
1
1
1
1
1
r .
j—-
"j
1
,
-4—
1
i
h-H
!
¦ -j
=^=
"j
H - J - J
|-J
i
j
1
i
i
1
1
i
i
i
1
i
|
i
1
10,000
\
300
1 00
I*
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
MATERIALS
1 9
100 1,000
FIELD AREA, ACRES
10.001
FIGURE 25. CENTER PIVOT SPRINKLING
69
-------
DISTRIBUTION
SURFACE FLOODING USING BORDER STRIPS (Figure 26)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Border strips 40 ft (12 m) wide and 1,150 ft (350 m) long.
2.. Concrete-lined trapezoidal distribution ditches with 2 slide gates
per strip.
3. Rectangular-shaped fields previously leveled to a slope of approxi-
mately 0.4%,
4. Clay loam soil.
5. Continuous operation for large systems and 5 days/wk for systems
smaller than 50 acres (20 ha). N
6. Materials cost includes rebordering every 2 yr and major relining
of ditches after 10 yr.
Note: A flatter slope or more permeable soil condition would require a
reduction in strip length.
Adjustment Factors .
Item ' Capital cost Labor and materials
1. Irregular-shaped fields 1.15 to 1.30 1.10 to 1.20
2. Strip length 2.4 - 0.0012L 1.8 - 0.0007L
Note: L = length of border "strip, ft. ! :
Metric Conversion
1. acre x 0.405 = ha
2. ft x 0.305 = r?
Sources
Derived, from cost calculations based on a series of typical designs.
70
-------
10,000
1.000
100
CAPITAL COST
i a o i,3oo
FIELD AREA. ACRES
ODD
500
1 00
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
LABOR
MATERIALS
I I
109 1,900
FIELD AREA. ACRES
10,000
FIGURE 26. SURFACE FLOODING USING BORDER STRIPS
71
-------
UlblKiBUl1UN
GATED PIPE - Overland Flow or Ridge and Furrow, Slow Rate (Figure 27)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumpti ons
1. Gated aluminum pipe distribution with outlets on 40-in. (102 cm)
2. Gated pipe spacing based on 1,200—ft (366 m) long furrows for ridge
and furrow systems. Adjustment factors below for other lengths and
for overland flow.
3. Rectangular-shaped fields previously constructed to finished grade
(Figures 17, 18, or 19)
4. Loam soils.
5. Continuous operation for large systems and partial operation for
systems smaller than 50 acres (20 ha).
6. Materials cost includes replacement of gated pipe after 10 yr.
7. Cost of furrows included in planting and harvesting.
Note: A flatter slope or more permeable soil condition would require a
reduction in furrow length. Overland Flow slopes are usually
limited to a few hundred feet in length.
Adjustment Factors - Ridge and Furrow
>
centers.
Item
Capital cost
Labor and materials
Irregular-shaped fields
1.10 to 1.25
1.(0 to 1.20
2. Furrow length
2.2 - 0.001L
2.44 - 0.0012L
Note: L = length of furrow
Adjustment Factors - Overland flow
Item
Capital cost
Labor Materials
1. Irregular-shaped fields
1.15 to 1.30
2. Terrace width
2.20 - .0024T 1.50 - .004T 1.50-.004T
Note: T = width of terrace
72
-------
10.000
1.090
100
CAPITAL COST
PB5
I DO 1.010
FIELD AREA. ACNE S
¦ It
1,000
1 DO
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
10 0 1.030
FIELD AREA, ACRES
10.000
FIGURE 27. GATED PIPE-OVERLAND FLOW OR RIDGE
AND FURROW SLOW RATE
73
-------
DISTRIBUTION
RAPID INFILTRATION BASINS (Figure 28)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Multiple unit infiltration basins with 4-ft (1.22m) dike (a
minimum of 2 basins for all cases, maximum site of individual
basin 20 acres).
2. Dikes formed from native excavated material.
3. Inside slope of dike 3:1; outside slope, 2:1. 6-ft (1.83 m) wide
dike crest.
4. Deep sandy soi1.
5. Materials cost includes annual rototilling of infiltration surface
and major repair of dikes after 10 yr.
6. Includes inlet and outlet systems, control valves, etc.
7. The cost of gravity pipes or force mains to reach the site and
to serve as a header pipe connecting sets of basins should be
determined from Figure 16 or 18.
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical designs.
74
-------
1 I I TT
CAPITAL COST
FIELD AREA, ACRES
1,000
1 10
I 0
rmrn
E333
i
OPE RAJ I OH
MAINTENANCE
MATERIALS
10 100
FIELD AREA. ACRES
1,110
FIGURE 28. RAPID INFILTRATION BASINS
75
J
-------
RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER
UNDERDRAINS (Figure 29)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
i
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Costs given for spacings of 100 and 400 ft (30 and 122 m) between
drain pipes.
2. Capital cost includes:
a. Drain pipes buried 6 to 8 ft (1.8 to 2.4 m).
b. Interception ditch along length of field
c. Weir for control of discharge
3. Labor cost includes inspection and unclogging of drain pipes at
outlets.
4. Materials cost includes high pressure jet cleaning of drain pipes
every 5 yr, annual cleaning of interceptor ditch, and major repair
of ditches after 10 yr.
Note: Spacings as small as 100 ft may be required for clayey soils; a
400-ft spacing is typical for sandy soil conditions.
Metric Conversion
1. ft x 0.305 = m
2. mgd x 43.8 = 1/sec
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical designs.
76
-------
20.0 00
CAPITAL COST
10.000
SPACING BETWEEN 1
UNOERDRMNS IN FEET
1.000
3
10 0 1000
FIELD AREA , ACRES
10.000
20C
1 03
i i ' i ; 111 • i ii i i
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
1 DO 1.010
FIELD AREA. At RES
io.ooo
FIGURE 29. UNDERDRAWS
77
-------
RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER
TAILWATER RETURN (Figure 30)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
3. Electrical power cost = $0.02/kwh.
Assumptions
1. Costs are given versus flow of recovered water.
2. Capital cost includes:
a. Drainage collection ditches
b. Pumping station forebay, 1/3 acre (0.14 -ha).
c. Pumping station with shelter and multiple punps
d. Piping to nearest point of distribution mainline (200 ft or 61 m)
3. Materials cost includes major repair of pumping station after 10 yr.
Note. Generally, the flow of recovered water can be expected to be 10
to 40 percent (an average would be 20 percent) of the flow of
applied water, depending on soil conditions, application rate,
slope, and type of crop or vegetation. This range is based on
irrigation practice where water is plentiful and soil-water
quality conditions may dictate excess water application. Should
return piping lengths be significantly more than 200 ft (61 m),
to the nearest distribution main, the additional costs could be
obtained from Figure 18, "Transmission-Force Mains."
Metric Conversion
1 . mgd x 43.8 = 1/sec
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical designs.
73
t
-------
2,900
1,000
a
x
o
f 00
I 0
CAPITAL COST
0.1 I
FLOW OF RECOVERED WATER, MGD
30,tit
10,000
l , 0 0 D
too
ao
Mi ll
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
v-POI£R
1
MATERIALS
0.01
0 1 I
FLOW OF RECOVERED RATER. MQO
FIGURE 30. TAILWATER RETURN
79
-------
RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER
RUNOFF COLLECTION FOR OVERLAND FLOW (Figure 31)
Costs are given for overland flow runoff collection by both open ditch
and gravity pipe.
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Cost of lateral collection ditches along bottom of terrace is
included in Figure 23 - "Field Preparation-Overland Flow Terrace
Construction."
2. Open Ditches:
a. Network of unlined interception ditches sized for a 2-in./hr
storm
b. Culverts under service roads
c. Concrete drop structures at 1,000-ft (305 m) intervals
d. Materials cost includes biannual cleaning of ditches with
major repair after 10 yr.
3. Gravity Pipe:
a. Network of gravity pipe interceptors with inlet/nanholes
every 250 ft (76.3 m) along submains
b. Storm runoff is allowed to pond at inlets
c. Each inlet/manhole serves 1,000 (305 m) of collection ditch
d. Manholes every 500 ft along interceptor mains
e. Operation and maintenance cost includes periodic cleaning of
inlets and nornal maintenance of gravity pipe
Note: Open ditches should be used where possible. Gravity pipe systems
may be required when unstable soil conditions are encountered, or
when flow velocities are erosive.
Metric Conversion
1. acre x 0.405 = ha
Sources
Derived fron cost calculations based on a series of typical designs.
80
-------
2 0,000
11111
CAPITAL COST
10.000
1.000
GRAVITY PIPE SYSTEM
DITCH SYSTEM
14
t o
10 0 1,000
FIELD AREA, ACRES
10.000
OPERATION I MAINTENANCE COST
OPEN DITCH SYSTEM
BRAV ITY PIPE SYSTEM
FIELD AREA. ACRES
FIGURE 31. RUNOFF COLLECTION FOR OVERLAND FLOW
81
-------
RECOVERY OF RENOVATED WATER
RECOVERY WELLS (Figure 32)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index = 177.5.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
3. Electrical power cost = $0.02/kwh.
Assumptions
1. Capital and power cost curves given for well depths of 50 and 100 ft
(15 and 30 m).
2. Total head equal to well depth.
3. Capital cost includes:
a. Gravel-packed wells
b. Vertical turbine pumps
c. Simple shelter over each well
d. Controls and electrical work
4. Labor cost includes operation, preventive maintenance, and minor
repairs.
5. Materials cost includes repair work performed by outside contractor
and replacement of parts.
Note: The costs do not include any piping away from the well. The cost
of discharge piping can be obtained from Figure 18, "Transmission-
Force Mains."
Metric Conversion
1. ft x 0.305 = m
2. mgd x 43.8 = 1/sec
Sources
Derived from previously published information [8].
82
-------
t, soa
CAPITAL COST
o
100
I 0
0 . 1
I . o
10
I 0 0
FLOW OF RECOVERED WATER. MGC
0 0.000
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
*- i g . g a o
POKER
.1 00'-
BOO
t I I
0
I 0 0
FLO* OF RECOVERED HATER. MGO
FIGURE 32. RECOVERY WELLS
83
-------
ADDITIONAL COSTS
ADMINISTRATIVE AND LABORATORY FACILITIES (Figure 33)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index = 177.5.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Capital cost includes:
a. Administration and laboratory building
b. Laboratory equipment
c. Garage and shop facilities
2. Labor cost icludes:
a. Laboratory analyses and reporting
b. Collection of samples
c. Maintenance of buildings
3. Labor cost does not include administrative supervision.
Labor for supervision included under individual.components.
4. Materials cost includes:
a. Chemicals and laboratory supplies
b. General administrative supply items
Note: When the land application system is to be an addition to an
already existing conventional treatment system, complete
facilities (as described here) are not required, and the costs
given should be reduced accordingly.
Metric Conversion
1. mgd x 43.8 = 1/sec
Sources
Derived from previously published cost information [19].
84
-------
CAPITAL COST
FLOW. MGD
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
LABOR
I . ODO
I 0
1 GO
0 . I
FLOW, MGD
FIGURE 33. ADMINISTRATIVE AND LABORATORY FACILITIES
85
-------
ADDITIONAL COSTS
MONITORING WELLS (Figure 34)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5.00/hr.
Assumptions
1. Capital cost includes:
a. 4-in. (10 cm) diam drilled wells
b. Vertical turbine pump, 10 gpm (0.63 1/sec)
c. Controls and electrical work
2. Labor cost includes preventive maintenance and minor repairs by staff:.
• Labor costs for sampling included in Figure 33, "Additional Costs- -
Administrative and Laboratory Facilities."
3. Materials cost includes repair work performed by outside contractor ~
and replacement of parts.
Metric Conversion
1. ft x 0.305 = m
Sources
Derived from previously published published cost information [8].
86
-------
1 0 0,0 0 0
i o. ooo
I . 0 0 0
20 0
If
CAPITAL COST
1 0 0
1ELI DEPTH, FT
1.000
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
1 0
i oa
llll DEPTH. H
1.000
FIGURE 34. MONITORING WELLS
87
-------
ADDITIONAL COSTS
SERVICE ROADS AND FENCING (Figure 35)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewer Construction Cost Index = 194.2.
Assumptions
1. Costs of service roads and fencing given versus field area based
on typical system layouts. .
2. 12-ft (3.67 m) service roads, with gravel surface, around perimeter
of area and within larger fields. .
3. 4-ft (1.22 m) stock fence around perimeter of area.
4. Materials costs includes major repair after 10 yr.
Metric Conversion
1. acre x 0.405 = ha
Sources
Derived from cost calculations based on a series of typical designs.
88
-------
CAPITAL COST
SERVICE ROADS
FENCING
FIELD AREA, ACRES
\
i a
li
O . 2
II
MATERIALS
' "I'M i i M I I
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST
"•kr
SERVICE ROADS
FENCING
I
100 I.000
FIELD AREA, ACRES
10,111
FIGURE 35. SERVICE ROADS AND FENCING
89
-------
ADDITIONAL' COSTS
CHLORINATION (Figure 36)
Basis of Costs
1. EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index = 177.5.
2. Labor rate including fringe benefits = $5,00/hr.
3. Chlorine cost = $0.05/lb ($0.023/kg).
Assumptions
1. Capital cost includes:
a. Chlorination facilities with flash mixing and contact basin
b. Chlorine storage
c. Flow measuring device
2. Maximum dosage capacity, 10 mg/1. Average dosage, 5 ng/1.
3. Chlorination contact time, 30 min for average flows.
Metric Conversion
1. mgd x 43.8 = 1/sec
Sources
Derived from previously published information [19].
Adjustment Factor
Chlorination may be required as the final step prior to discharge for
overland flow systems. In these cases, the addition of a stormwater
overflow structure will be required, multiply capital costs by 1.4.
90
-------
1,003
CAPITAL COST
1 G
C 0
FLOW, MGD
(0.000
~ OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST*
\n i.OOO
I 0 0
MATERIALS OTHER THAN CHLORINE
FLOf, MGD
1 C 0
FIGURE 36. CHLORINATION
91
-------
SECTION 4
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
These sample calculations are based on the design example pre-
sented in complete detail in Chapter 8 of the Land Treatment Process
Design Manual. A summary of design information is presented below.
Site Conditions: Northeastern U.S., 10 mgd design flow, soil
conditions would permit either slow rate, rapid infiltration or over-
land flow within reasonable distances. Water quality requirements
for nitrogen and phosphorus could not be met by either overland flow
or rapid infiltration alone. The systems to be considered in the
cost analysis are: slow rate and an overland flow/rapid infiltration
combination.
The land requirements described in Table 8-5 of the design
manual are:
(140 days,
Storage pond 360 acres 12 ft. deep)
Slow rate, field area 1,600 acres
Overland flow, field area 627 acres
Rapid infiltration field area 60 acres.
These could be revised and refined further since the original
example did not include an allowance for accumulated precipitation
falling on the storage pond (correction would increase field area
requirements) or for nitrogen losses in the storage pond (correction
would decrease slow rate field area requirements). Such changes are
beyond the scope of this report so the original values will be used
to demonstrate cost calculations.
92
-------
One change will be made to reflect current guidance on preapplication
treatment. The original example provided a 7 day detention time
aerated lagoon for all cases. Costs in this example will be based
on: preliminary treatment (screening) followed by a combined treatment/
storage pond.
Other site data are:
Distance and elevation difference from pump station to preap-
plication treatment site are 2 miles and 100 ft., respectively.
Preapplication treatment site is covered with brush and some
trees.
Pump station for storage pond effluent constructed in pond dike.
Distance and elevation difference from storage pond to slow rate
site are 2.5 miles and 50 ft.
Distance and elevation difference from storage pond to overland
flow site are 0.5 mile and 50 ft.
Distance and elevation difference from overland flow to rapid
infiltration are 1.5 mile and -100 ft. so gravity flow would be possible.
Slow rate site is grass covered, overland flow site has brush
and trees, rapid infiltration site is grass covered.
Percolate recovery via wells or underdrains not required,
disinfection not required.
Storage detention time is 140 days. For the slow rate alternative
it is necessary to add additional detention time to assure desired
treatment levels when the pond is close to empty. An additional 30
93
-------
days is assumed for this case. That would require an additional 77
acres of pond surface at the design flow, so total area ror this
alternative would be 437 acres (360 + 77). This .would orovide about 2.5
ft. of permanent depth for treatment purposes.
This additional area is not necessary for the overland flow
case. During the application season the pond could be by passed and
the 10 mgd daily flow of screened raw sewage applied directly to the
overland flow slope. It is necessary to withdraw 6.2 mgd fron the
ponds during the application season. This could be nixed with the
screened sewage prior to the overland flow slope or nixed with the
overland flow effluent prior to application to the rapid infiltration
basins. The detailed cost analysis is based on applying the entire 16.2
mgd mixture to the overland flow slope.
COST ANALYSIS - SLOW RATE SYSTEM
(To nearest $1,000)
Capital 0 & M
Calculation date: Sept. 1977
98i 0
Sewage Treatment Plant index update (Table E-l) jyy'-g = 1.583
Sewer index update (Table E-2) - 1.525
0 & M update (Table E-3) = 1.61
1. Pumping, raw sewage, 20 mgd, 100 ft. $500,000
(peak flow - 2 x average flow)
(Figure 15) Labor 7,500
update: (500,000)(1.583) = S792,000 Power 40,000
(49,600)(1 - 61) = $80,000 Mtls 2,100
49,600
Upaated $792,000 $80,000
94
-------
Capital 0 & M
Force Main, 30 inch, 2 miles
no repaving, dry soils. (With peak factor $336,000
of 2, velocity 6 fps, force main required
is 30 inches) Mtls. $ 900
(Figure 18) Updated $512,000 $ 1,400
Preliminary treatment, 10 mgd
(Figure 11) $130,000
Labor 13,000
Mtls. 3,500
16,500
Updated $206,000 27,000
Treatir.ent/Storage Pond
(437 acres)(43,560)(12)(7.48) - 1,710,000,000 gal.
(Figure 20) local clay liner
Construction $1,000,000
Liner 2,925,000
Embankment 700,000
$4,625,000
Labor $2,000
mtls. 15,000
17,000
Updated $7,053,000 $28,000
Pumping to application site, 16.2 mgd,
150 ft., structure in side of dike. $430,000
(50 ft static head + 100 ft allowance to have 40 psi at sprinkler nozzle
($500,000)(.86) = $430,000
-------
Capital 0 & M
Pumping only occurs 225 days per year Labor $ 6,500
225
so annual labor cost is = 62% of Power 63,000
curve value: (10,500)(.62) = $6,500 Mtls. 3,200
$ 73,000
(Figure 15) Updated 681,000 $118,000
6. Force main, 30 inch, 2.5 mile, dry soils.
(Figure 18), no repaving $420,000
16.2 mgd and 5 fps, pipe = 30" Mtls. $ 1,100
Updated 665,000 1,800
7. Site clearing, pond area, 437 acres
brush and trees $175,000 None
(Figure 21)
Updated $267,000 None
8. Site clearing, slow rate area, 1,600 acres,
grass. $ 7,000 None
(Figure 21)
Updated $ 11,000 None
Distribution, 1600 acres
Option 1 - Solid Set $2,500,000
(Figure 24) Labor $ 77,000
Mtls. 14,000
$ 91,000
Updated $3,812,000 $147,000
96
t
-------
Option 2 - Center Pivot
(Figure 25)
Capital 0 & M
$ 750,000
Labor $ 88,000
Power 8,000
Mtls. 10,000
106,000
Updated $1,144,000 $171,000
Compare present worth Option 1 and 2 at It interest and 20 years.
CRF - .0944 (Table E-9).
Option 1 $3,812,000 + = $5,369,000
Option 2 $1 ,144,000 + Sl7^° = $2,955,000
Option 2, lowest cost, use center pivot.
10. Administrative and lab, 10 mgd $ 140,000
(Figure 33) Labor $ 15,000
Mtls. 6,500
21,500
$ 35,000
Updated
$ 222,000
11. Monitoring wells, assume 6, each
40 ft. deep
(Figure 34)
$ 5,000
Updated $ 8,000
Labor $ 500
Mtls. 100
$ 600
1,000
97
-------
Capi tal
0 & M
12. Roads and fence, 1,500 acre SR site.
(Figure 35)
Assume fencing around pond area Road $200,000 Mtls. $ 9,600
total = 2037 acres. Fence 120,000 Mtls. 900
S3 20,000 $10,500
Updated $488,000 $17,000
13. Planting and harvest, 1,600 acres, alfalfa hay
1977 costs. (Table 6)
0 & M Labor (Table 6: Labor plus harvest)
(40 + 150)(1,600) = $304,000
0 & M Materials (Table 6: Materials, fuel and repairs)
(115 ^ 18)(1,600) = $213,000
$517,000
14. Annual crop revenue, 1,600 acres, alfalfa hay
local source: 6 tcn/acre ® $65/ton
(6)(65)(1,600) = $624,000
15. Yardwork
Yardwork items covered elsewhere on this project.
16. Service and interest factors
¦ 30;:
Q.H
-------
Land Costs
1977 current price $l,600/acre
Pond area 437 acres
SIow rate 1,600
15% roads, etc. 306
2,343 acres
7%, 20 yr., Present Worth = (.533)(Present Cost)
{2343)(.533) ($1,600) = $1,998,000
99
»
-------
SLOW RATE - SUMMARY OF COSTS
Capi tal
0 & M
1.
Pumpi ng
$ 792,000
80,000
2.
Force Main
512,000
1,000
3.
Preliminary Treatment
206,000
27,000
4.
Treatment/Storage Pond
7,053,000
28,000
5.
Pumpi ng
/681 ,000
118,000
6.
Force Main
665,000
2,000
7.
Site Clear (pond)
267,000
0
3.
Site Clear (slow rate site)
11,000
0
9.
Distribution, Center Pivot
1,144,000
171
10.
Admin, and Lab
222,000
j I:'H
35. tv"
11.
Monitoring wells
8,000
1,000
12.
Roads and Fencing
488,000
17,000
13.
Plant and Harvest
0
517,000
14.
Crop Revenue
0
-624,000
15.
Yardwork (included in other factors)
0
0
subtotal
$12,049,000
$373,000
16.
Service & Interest @ 30%
3,615,000
0
subtotal
$15,664,000
17.
Land
1 ,998,000
0
Total Costs
$17,662,000
$373,000
Total present worth Slow Rate system {7%, 20 yr,
$1 7,662,000 + =$21,614,000
CRF = .0944)
100
I ~
-------
OVERLAND FLOW - RAPID INFILTRATION
SYSTEM COSTS
Capital 0 & M
1. Pumping (same as slow rate) $ 792,000 $80,000
2. Force main (same as slow rate) 512,000 1,000
3. Prel. Treat, (same as slow rate) 206,000 27,000
4. Treatment Storage Pond, 1,400 mg
local clay liner construction $ 850,000
liner 2,015,000 Labor 2,000
embankment 600,000 Mtls. 13,000
$3,465,000 $15,000
Update $5,284,000 $25,000
5. Pumping (same as slow rate) 681,000 116,000
6. Force main, 30 inch, 0.5 mile,
dry soils, no repaving $ 84,000
(Figure 18) Mtls. • 100
Updated $128,000 200
7. Site Clearing, pond area, 360 acres
154,000 None
8. Site Clearing, overland flow,
627 acres, brush and trees $ 250,000 None
(Figure 21)
Update $ 381,000
101
-------
Ca pital 0 & M
9. Terrace Construction, overland flow
627 acres, 500 cy, cut/acre $ 200,000 None
(Figure 23) Updated $ 305,000
10. Distribution, overland flow
Option 1 Solid Set, 627 acres $ 770,000
terrace width 200 ft. Labor $ 29,000
(Figure 24') Mtls. 2,400
$ 31,400
Updated $1,174,000 . $ 50,000
Option 2 Gated pipe, 627 acres
terrace width 200 ft. $ 240,000
(Figure 27) Labor $ 44,000
Mtls. 7,000
$ 51 ,000
Updated S 366,000 $ 82,000
Compare present worth Option 1 and 2 at 7%, 20 years.
CRF - .0944 (Table E-9)
Option 1 1,174,000 + = 1 ,704,000
Option 2 366,000 + =$1 ,.235,000
Option 2 lowest cost, use gated pipe
11. Gravity pipe, overland flow
to rapid infiltration, 24 inch pipe,
• dry soil, 5 ft; cover, 1.5 mile $ 102,000
102
-------
Capital 0 & M
Labor $ 300
(Figure 16) Mtls. 500
$ 800
Updated $ 293,000 $ 1,000
12. Site Clearing, rapid infiltration
site, 100 acres, grass 750 None
(Figure 21)
Updated 1,000
13. Rapid infiltration basins, 100 acres $ 210,000
(Figure 28) Labor $18,000
Mtls. 3,000
$21,000
Updated $ 320,000 $34,000
14. Overland Flow Runoff Collection
627 acres, open ditches $ 60,000 Labor $ 2,000
(Figure 31) Mtls. 8,000
$10,000
Update $ 91,000 $16,000
15. Roads and fencing 727 acres. OF site and RI basins
(Figure 35)
plus fencing around roads $ 110,000 Mtls. $ 4,700
pond area fence 80,000 Mtls. 600
Total fenced area = $ 190,000 $ 5,000
1164 acres Updated $ 290,000 $ 8,000
103
-------
Capital 0 & M
16. Planting, 627 acres, pasture $103,000 None
type grasses (Table 6, labor, fuel, material)
1977 prices
17. Grass harvest (Table 6, assume
similar to harvest costs for None $21,000
corn silage) twice per season
18. Crop revenue (assume no revenue) None None
19. Administrative and lab, same as slow rate $254,000 $35,000
20. Monitoring wells, same as slow rate 8,000 1,000
21. Yardwork — 0
22. Service and Interest Factor 30%
23. Land Costs, 1977 price $1,600 per acre
Pond area 370 acres
Overland flow and 727
rapid inf.
15% roads, etc. 165
1,262 acres
1%, 20 yr Present worth = (.533)(Present Cost)
(1262)(.533)($1,600) = $1,076,000
104
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
OVERLAND FLOW - RAPID INFILTRATION
SUMMARY OF COSTS
Pumping
Force Main
Preliminary Treatment
Ponds
Pumpi ng
Force Main
Site Clear (ponds)
Site Clear (overland flow)
Terrace Construction
Distribution ( Gated pipe)
Gravity Pipe (to RI site)
Site Clear (RI site)
RI Basins
Runoff Collection
Roads and Fencing
Planti ng
Grass Harvest
Crop Revenue
Administration and Lab
v1oni tori ng wel 1 s
Capital
0 & M
S 792,000
$ 80,000
512,000
1,000
206,000
27,000
5,284,000
25,000
681,000
116,000
84,000
0
154,000
0
381,000
0
305,000
0
366,000
82,000
293,000
1,000
1,000
0
320,000
34,000
91,000
16,000
290,000
8,000
103,000
0
0
21,000
0
0
'254,000
35,000
8,000
1,000
105
-------
Capital 0 & M
21. Yardwork (included in other items) 0 •; 0
Subtotal $10,121,000 $ 447,000
Services & Interest 3,036,000 0
, (30%)
Subtotal . 13,157,000' .447,000
Land 1 ,076,000 0
TOTAL COSTS ' 14,233,000' '$ 447,000
Total Present Worth Overland Flow/Rapid Infiltration
(7%, 20 yr, CRF = .0944, Table E-9)
14,233,000 + " $18,968,000
The overland flow/rapid infiltration combination is the most cost
effective alternative for the conditions described above. The cost
advantage would be even more significant if the flow path of combining
the 10 mgd overland flow effluent with the 6.2 mgd pond effluent for
application on the rapid infiltration basins is chosen. This would
reduce the pumping requirements from the pond area to the overland
flow slopes, from 16.2 mgd to 10 mgd plus a proportional reduction in
all costs associated with the overland flow area. The total present
worth cost for this alternative is approximately $17,400,000 making it
the most cost effective option.
106
-------
S.R.
IWWVWVWl
1600 ACRE, CENTER PIVOT
S.R. SITE
SUMMER
PRELIM.
437 ACRE
TREAT. PONDS
627 ACRES, OF SLOPES
SUMMER
O.F. + R.I.
OPTION 1
10mgd
16.2 mgd
SUMMER
100 ACRE
R.I. BASINS
WINTER
437 ACRE
PRELIM.
TREAT. PONDS
387 ACRES, OF SLOPES
I" SUMMER
O.F. + R.I.
OPTION 2
16.2 mgd
SUMMER
WINTER
100 ACRE
R.I. BASINS
PRELIM.
370 ACRE
TREAT. PONDS
FIGURE 37. FLOW SCHEMATICS FOR SAMPLE COST CALCULATIONS
-------
APPENDIX A
COST EQUATIONS
(PREAPPLICATION TREATMENTS NOT INCLUDED)
TRANSMISSION
GRAVITY PIPE (Figure 16)
Capital Costs ($/LF)
w/5' backfill'- 4.42 [10*330 (log P)2 + '059 (log P)] •
w/9' backfill- 4.83 [10*319 'log P^ + -106 'lo.9 P^]
w/15' backfill = 4.46 [10'232 ^log P^ + "335 'log P^]
0 & M Costs (S/YR)
Labor = (L) 0.0245 [lO'399 ^ ^ " -393
-------
Repaying - 2.70 flO'299 ^ ^ " -341 (1°9 P)]
0 & M Costs ($/YR)
Materials = (L) 0.0146 [10'279 (1°9 ^ + '121 (1°9 P)]
P = pipe size in inches
L = length of pipe system in. feet
PUMPING (Figure 15)
Capital Costs S(thousands)
w/50" head = 89.1 [10*228 log + "269 ^log V]
w/1501 head = 109.6 [10*184 (log V + *324 (1°9 V]
w/300' head = 117.5 [10'192 ^log V + "348 ^1og V]
0 & M Costs ($/YR)
Labor = (Qft) (1995) [10"'0333 ^1og V " '379 (1og V]
Power = (Qa) (42)(H)
Material = (QA) (239.9) [10*0032 (log V ~ '0618 (1og V]
Qp = peak flow in MGD
Qa = average flow in MGD
H = total head in feet
STORAGE
0.05-10 MILLION GALLONS (Figure 19)
Capital Costs $(thousands)
Reservoir Construction = 5.09 [10'°232 ^°9 + "542 ^log
Reservoir Lining , 5.24 [1Q.0105 (log V)2 + .754 (log V)-,
Embankment Protection = 7.92 [10"'0754 (log V) + '559 (1og V)]
109
-------
\
0 & M Costs (S/YR)
Labor = (V) (134.9) [io~-00305 (log " -661 (log V)]
Materials = (V) (70.8) [10"°419 "°9 " -57? 0°3 "V
V = storage volume in MG
10-5000 MILLION GALLONS (Figure 20)
Capital Costs $(thousands)
Reservoir Construction = 3.30 [10-0360 ^lo9 +/®51 ^og Vh
Reservoir Lining = 3.95 [IO*0402 (1og V)2 + -814 (1og V)]
Embankment Protection = 12.6 [10"106 ^log V)2 + ;212 (log V)]
0 & M Costs ($/YR)
Labor = (V) (151.3) [i0"-°0637 (1og ^ ~ -643 (1og V)]
Materials = (V) (24.5) [10"-00515 (log V)? " "125 (log V)]
V = storage volume in MG
FIELD PREPARATION
SITE CLEARING - ROUGH GRADING (Figure 21)
Capital Costs S(thousands)
Heavily Wooded = 1.58 [io,0°533 ^log ^ + -976 ^1og A^]
Brush-Some Trees =.1.04 [IO*0171 (log A)2 + -806 (log A)]
Grass Only = 0.022 [10*0168 ^log + -734 ^log A^]
0 & M Costs - None
A = field area in acres
LAND LEVELING FOR SURFACE FLOODING (Figure 22)
Capital Costs $(thousands)
110
-------
Volume of cut:
500 cy/acre - 0.512 DO'029 ^ * -801 (1°9 A>]
750 cy/acre = 0.80 [10'039 (1°9 A)?+ '762 (lo9 fl)]
0 & M Costs - None
A = field area in acres
OVERLAND FLOW TERRACE CONSTRUCTION (Figure 23)
Capital Costs $(thousands)
Volume of cut;
1,000 cy/acre - 1.39 [10'041S (1og ^ * '732 (lo9'A)]
1,400 cy/acre = 2.11 [10'0499 (1°9 ^ * '688 (1og A)]
0 & M Costs - None
A = field area in acres
DISTRIBUTION
SOLID SET SPRINKLING (BURIED) (Figure 24)
Capital Costs S(thousands)
Slow Rate Systems
1-30 acres = 1 .006 [10~*167 ^1o9 ^ + 1-316 ^log Ab
30-10,000 acres = 4.86 [10.0636 (log A)2 + .633 (log A)
0 ¦& M Costs (S/YR)
Slow Rate
Labor = (A) 676 [10'0999 ]
Mtls. • (A) 22.4 [10-0375 (,°9 ^ " -245 (loS A>]
111
-------
Overland F1ow
1-200 acres
Labor = (A) (741) [10'156 (,og A)2 " -883 (log A)]
Mtls. = (A) (28.8) [ 10'115 'l09 " '625 A']
200-10,000 acres
Labor = (A) (83.1) [10,0°24 ^log " J18 ^log A^]
Mtls. = (A) (4.13) [10-0083 ^log ^ + -0248 Hog A)-j
A = field area in acres
CENTER PIVOT SPRINKLING (Figure 25)
Capital Costs S(thousands).
10-300 acres = 14.45 [10*240 ^log A)2 " '203 (log A^]
300-10,000 acres = 0.072 [10~"056 ^log ^ + 1,46 ^log A^]
0 & M Costs ($/YR)
Labor
10-300 acres = (A) (6026) [TO-276 ^log ^ " 1,48 ^log Ah
300-10,000 acres = (A) (251) [10'023 (log A)2 " ;290 Hog A)j
Power
10-300 acres = (A) (27.5) [10*127 (1og A^ ~ -614 (log A)]
300-10,000 acres = (A) (5)
Materials
10-300 acres = (A) (1.52) [10*136 ^log A) " ,743 ^log A^]
300-10,000 acres = (A) (12) [10-0226 ^log ^ " ,163 ^log A^]
A - field area in acres
112
-------
SURFACE FLOODING - BORDER STRIPS (Figure 26)
i r *
-------
Drain Spacing:
100 ft. = 1.67 [10-0372 (,°9 fl'2+ -812 ('09 A)-,
400 ft. = 1.41 [10'^^3 n°9 A) + .567 (log A)j
0 & M Costs (S/YR)
Labor:
Drain Spacing:
TOO ft. = (A) (354.8) [KT0702 (1og A)? ~ *782 <1og A)]
400 ft. = (A) (195) [TO'0794 ^log A^ " * 872 ^1og A^]
Materials: . "
Drain Spacing:
100 ft. = (A) (154.9) CIO*027 (log A^ " -328 (1og A^]
400 ft. = (A) (295) [TO*0541 ^l0g ^ ~ *643 ^°9 A^]
A = field area in acres
TAILWATER RETURN (Figure 30)
Capital Cost $(thousands) = 44,7 [10*751 ^log ^ + ,514 ^1og
0 & M Costs ($/YR)
Labor.= (Q) (309) [10"°516 (log Q)2 " "543 (log Q)]
Power
0.01-0.3 MGD = (Q) (977) [10~"160 (log ^ * ,239 ^log
0.3-10 MGD - (Q) (1202) [10"'°001 ^log ^ + '°132 ^log
Materials = (Q) (240) [10*0426 ^log ^ " "384 ^0g
Q = flow of recovered water in MGD
RUNOFF COLLECTION FOR OVERLAND FLOW (Figure 31)
Capital Costs S(thousands)
114
-------
Gravity Pipe- (0.68) [lO"'027 (1°9 A> +1'10 (1°9 A)]
Open Ditch =(1.08) [10'0836 (1°" A)2 + .395 (log A)-,
0 & M Costs (S/YR)
Labor
Gravity Pipe ' (A) (55) [lO"0974 (1°9 A)? ' '882 (1°9 A)]
Open Ditch = (A) (195) [10'0702 (log A)2 " '787 ('°9 A)]
Materials
Gravity Pipe = (A) (11) [10'0552 ^lo° A)2 " "435 (log A)]
Open Ditch = (A) (347) [10'134 ^log " '893 ^1og A^]
A = field area in acres
RECOVERY WELLS (Figure 32)
Capital Costs S(thousands)
Well Depth = 50'
Flow: 0.1-6 MGD = (11.2) [10"'008 ^log ^ + ,266 (log
6-100 MGD = (5.92) [10J31 (log + ,274 (log Q)]
Well Depth =100'
Flow: 0.1-6 MGD = (15.1) [10'131 ^log + ,274 ^1og Q^]
6-100 MGD = (12.9) [10-198 ^log ^ + -313 ^log
' 0 & M Costs (S/YR)
Labor = (Q) (2.13) [10'198 ^log " '374 ^1og
Power = (Q) (41) (H) 1
Materials = (Q) (245.5) [10"-0064 (lo9 Q)2 ~ -0563 Cog Q)-j
Q = flow of recovered water, in MGD
H = head, in feet
115
-------
ADDITIONAL FACTORS
ADMINISTRATIVE & LABORATORY FACILITIES (Figure 33)
Capital Costs $(thousands)
Flow: 0.1-1 MGD = (51.3) C10"307 (,09 ^ * '366 (lo9 Q)]
1.0-100 MGD = (51.3) CIO"115 'log + -323 'l09 Q)]
0 & M Costs (S/YR)
Labor = (Q) (5129) [10'0337 ^log ^ ' '574 ^log
Mtls. = (Q) (1820) [ 10-0440 U°9 3) " -497 (l°g Q)]
Q = average design flow in MGD
MONITORING WELLS (Figure 34)
Capital Costs S(thousands) = (N) (524.8) [10'244 ^log " ,284 ^log D^']
0 & M Costs (S/YR)
Labor
Well depth
10-40 ft. = (N) (70.8) [10-0212 (lo9 D) + -0034 (1°9 D)]
40-400 ft. = (N) (7.21) [10"'153 ^1og + *093 ^log D^]
Materials = (N) (2.44) [10*0522 (lo9 D)2 + -503 Hog D)-j
D = wel1 depth in feet
N = number of wells
SERVICE ROADS & FENCING (Figure 35)
Capital Costs S(thousands)
Roads = (2.33) [10,0°984 (1°S ^ + *474 (log A^] ,
Fence = (2.05) [lO*0645 (log A)? + "420 (log A)]
116
-------
0 & M Costs ($/YR) . . ' .
Materials
Roads ' (A) (20.4) [10-0168 "°9 A' " ,559 'l09 A)]
Fence = (A) (56.2) [TO"0683 (1°9 A1? " '5Z6 (,09 A)]
A = field area in acres
CHLORINATION (Figure 36)
Capital Costs S(thousands) = (33.1) [10'0488 (log Q)2 + >434 (log
0 & M Costs (S/YR)
Materials
Chlorine = (Q) (750)
Other Materials = (Q) (891) [10'0336 ^1og ^ " -535 ^1og
Labor = (Q) (1585) [10*0375 ^0g ^ " -498 ^1og
0 = average design flow in MGD
117
-------
APPENDIX B
REVENUE-PRODUCING BENEFITS
Revenue-producing benefits should be incorporated into the
cost-effectiveness analysis procedure as negative operation and
maintenance costs. Possible monetary benefits include (l) sale of
crop grown, (2) sale of renovated water recovered, (3) sale of surplus
effluent to adjacent farmers or industries, (4) lease of purchased
land back to farmers for the purpose of land application, and (5) lease
of purchased lands to groups or individuals for secondary purposes,
such as seasonal recreation. Additional benefits may arise in a specific
locality if secondary uses of the water or land are practical. If
recreational or other social or environmental benefits can be quantified,,
they should be incorporated into the monetary portion of the cost-
effectiveness analysis.
SALE OF CROP GROWN
Data on case returns from crops grown using effluents for
irrigation are relatively scarce. Some information is included in
Sullivan [32] and Pound and Crites [22]. Generally, the return from
the sale of crops will offset only a portion of the total operation
and maintenance cost. The cost of planting, cultivation, soil amend-
ments (if necessary), and harvesting should be more than offset by the
crop sale for a wel1-operated system. The relative costs and benefits
of crop production will depend on local farming practice, the local
economy, and the type of irrigation system. Referring back to Table
118
-------
6, the returns from the sale of annual crops, especially where two
or more crops can be raised in a year, are generally higher than for
perennials. On the other hand, operating costs are usually higher
and the needed degree of farming expertise nay also be greater.
For overland flow systems, the economic returns generally amount
to a small fraction of the total operating costs [34, 45].
SALE OF RENOVATED WATER RECOVERED
This benefit is most applicable to overland flow and rapid infiltra-
tion systems. The return will depend on the economic value of water in
the area and the restrictions, if any, placed on the use of the water.
This type of benefit is included in management plans for Phoenix, Arizona,
and El Reno, Oklahoma.
SALE OF SURPLUS EFFLUENT
This has been practiced at many existing land application sites
in Texas and California to reduce storage costs, raise revenue, or,
in one case, to satisfy a lawsuit. In Pomona, California, effluent
is purchased from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts at $7
per acre-foot ($0,006 per cu m) and sold to various users at $5 to
$22 per acre-foot ($0,004 to 0.018 per cu m) [31].
LEASE OF LAND FOR IRRIGATION
As an alternative to the conduct of farming operations by. cities
or sanitary districts, the land owned by the city or sanitary district
can be leased to a local farmer. Such leases are prevalent in the western
119
-------
states. Variations exist on the length of the lease, the requirements
for storing or applying effluent, and the responsibility for maintenance
of distribution facilities.
LEASE OF LAND FOR RECREATION
This type of benefit has been realized at Woodland, California,
where land that is leased to a farmer for $23 per acre ($57 per ha)
for irrigation in the summer is Teased to a duck club for $6 per acre
($15 per ha) during the late fall for hunting privileges [22]. Other
recreational benefits may be feasible at other locations.
120
-------
APPENDIX C
NONREV ENUE-PRODUCING BENEFITS
Nonrevenue-producing benefits including social and environmental
benefits must be accounted for descriptively in the cost-effectiveness
analysis to determine their significance and impact. Social benefits
may include recreational activities, creation of greenbelts, or pre-
servation of open space. Environmental factors may include reclamation
of sterile soils or repulsion of saline water intrusion into aquifers
by groundwater recharge.
SOCIAL BENEFITS
Recreational benefits should be included in the descriptive
analysis, especially where parks or golf courses are to be irrigated.
The creation of greenbelts and the preservation of open space are
planning concepts specifically encouraged in P.L. 92-500 and P.L. 95-217
for wastewater management systems.
Where the social benefits identified can also be quantified,
they should be incorporated into the monetary portion of the cost-
effectiveness analysis.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
Claims of environmental benefit for recycling of nutrients should
be scrutinized closely to determine whether nutrients are being
recycled, or whether nutrient problems are only being transferred
from one area to another. Energy savings resulting from use of
fertilizing agents in effluents in lieu of commeri'cal fertilizer
121
-------
should be evaluated on the basis of actual fertilizer value of the
effluent and local fertilizing practice.
Reclamation of sterile or strip-mined soil by applications of
wastewater is an environmental benefit that is difficult to quantify.
Similarly, groundwater recharge to reduce salinity intrusion is a
qualitative benefit. The environmental benefits that can be achieved
through a specific wastewater management alternative should be enumerated
and evaluated to determine their significance.
122
-------
APPENDIX D
REFERENCES
1. Ackerman, W.C. Cost of Municipal Sewage Treatment. Technical
Letter 12, Illinois State Water Survey. June 1969.
2. A Guide to Planning and Designing Effluent Irrigation Disposal
Systems in Missouri. University of Missouri Extension Division.
March 1973.
3. Allender, G.C. The Cost of a Spray Irrigation System for the
Renovation of Treated Municipal 'Wastewater. Master's Thesis,
University Park, The Pennsylvania State University. September
1972.
4. Bauer, W.O. and D. E. Matsche. Large Wastewater Irrigation
Systems: Muskegon County, Michigan and Chicago Metropolitan
Region. In: Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge
through Forest and Cropland, Sopper, W.E. and L.T. Kardos, (ed.).
University Park, The Pennsylvania State University Press. 1973.
pp. 345-365.
5. Bouwer, H., R.C. Rice, and E.D. Escarcega. Renovating Secondary
Sewage by Ground Water Recharge with Infiltration Basins. U.S.
Water Conservation Laboratory, Office of Research and Monitoring.
Project No. 16060 DRV. Environmental Protection Agency. March
1972.
6. Brown and Caldwel 1/Dewante and Stowell. Feasibility Study for
the Northeast-Central Sewerage Service Area, County of Sacramento,
California, November 1972.
7. Buxton, J.L. Determination of a Cost for Reclaiming Sewage
Effluent by Ground Water Recharge in Phoenix, Arizona. Master's
Thesis, Arizona State University. June 1969.
8. Campbell, M.D. and J.H. Lehr. Water Well Technology. McGraw-
Hill Book Co. New York. 1973.
9. Consulting Engineering - A Guide for the Engagement of Engineering
Services. ASCE - Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice -
No. 45. New York, ASCE. 1972.
10. Crites, R.W. , M.J. Dean, and H.L. Selznick. Cost Comparison of Land
Treatment and Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems. Water and
Wastes Engineering, August and September 1979.
123
-------
11. Culp, G., R. Williams, T. Lineck, Costs of Land Application
Competitive with Conventional Systems. Water and Sewage Works.
Oct. 1978.
12. Middlebrooks, E.J. , C.H. Middlebrooks, Energy Requirements for
Small Flow Wastewater Treatment Systems. USACRREL Special
Report, May 1979.
13. National Canners Association. Liquid Wastes from Canning and
Freezing Fruits and Vegetables. Office of Research and Monitoring,
Environmental Protection Agency. Program No. 12060 EDK.
August 1971,
14. Nesbitt, J.B. Cost of Spray Irrigation for Wastewater Renovation.
In: Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through
Forest and Cropland, Sopper, W.E. and L.T. Kardos, (ed.).
University Park, The Pennsylvania State University Press. 1973.
pp. 334-338.
15. Pair, C.H., (ed.). Sprinkler Irrigation. Supplement to the
3rd edition. Silver Spring, Sprinkler Irrigation Association.
1973.
16. Pair, C.H. , (ed.). Sprinkler Irrigation, 3rd edition.
Washington, D.C., Sprinkler Irrigation Association. 1969.
17. Parker, R.P. Disposal of Tannery Wastes. Proceedings of the
22nd Industrial Waste Conference, Part 1. Lafayette, Purdue
University. 1967. pp 36-43.
18. Parson, W.C. Spray Irrigation of Wastes from the Manufacture
of Hardboard. Proceedings of the 22nd Industrial Waste
Conference. Lafayette, Purdue University. 1967. pp 602-607.
19. Patterson, W.L. and R.F. Banker. Estimating Costs and Manpower
Requirements for' Conventional Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
Office of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection
Agency. October 1971.
20. Philipp, A.H. Disposal of Insulation Board Mill Effluent by
Land Irrigation. Journal WPCF, 43, No. 8, pp 1749-1754. 1971.
21. Postlewait, J.C. and H.J. Knudsen. Some Experiennces in Land
Acquisition for a Land Disposal System for Sewage Effluent.
Proceedings of the Joint Conference of Recycling Municipal
Sludges and Effluents on Land, Champaign, University of
Illinois. July 1973. pp 25-38.
124
-------
22. Pound, C.E. and R.W. Crites. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by
Land Application, Volumes I and II. Office of Research and
Development, Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-660/2-73-006a,
b. August 1973.
23. Powell, G.M. and G.L. Culp. AWT vs. Land Treatment: Montgomery
County, Maryland. .Water & Sewage Works, 120, No. 4, pp 58-67.
1973.
24. Reed, A.D., L.A. Horel. Sample Costs to Produce Crops.
University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences,
Leaflet 2360. January 1979.
25. Reed, S.C. and T.D. Buzzell. Land Treatment of Wastewaters
for Rural Communities. In: Water Pollution Control in Low
Density Areas, Jewell, W.J. and R. Swan, (ed.). University
Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire. 1975.
pp. 23-40.
26. Rowan, P.P., K.L. Jenkins, and D.W. Butler. Sewage Treatment
Construction Costs. Journal WPCF, 32, No. 6, pp 594-604. 1960.
27. Rowan, P.P., K.L. Jenkins, and D.H. Howells. Estimating Sewage
Treatment Plant Operations and Maintenance Costs. Journal
WPCF, 33, No. 2, pp 111-121. 1961.
28. Schraufnagel, F.H. Ridge-and-Furrow Irrigation for Industrial
Wastes Disposal. Journal WPCF, 34, No. 11, pp 1117-1132. 1962.
29. SCS Engineers. Demonstrated Technology and Research Needs for
Reuse of Municipal Wastewater. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA-670/2-75-038. 1975.
30. Smith, R. Cost of Conventional and Advanced Treatment of Waste-
water. Journal WPCF, 40, No. 9, pp 1546-1574. 1968.
31. Stevens, R.M. Green Land-Clean Streams: The Beneficial Use of
Waste Water through Land Treatment. Center for the Study of
Federalism. Philadelphia, Temple University. 1972.
32. Sullivan, R.H., et al. Survey of Facilities using Land Application
of Wastewater. Office of Water Program Operations. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA-430/9-73-006. July 1973.
33. Tchobanoglous, G. Wastewater Treatment for Small Communities.
In: Water Pollution Control in Los Density Areas, Jewell, W.J.
and R. Swan, (ed.). University Press of New England, Hanover,
New Hampshire. 1975.. pp 389-428.
125
-------
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4-1
42
43
44
45
C.W. Thornthwaite Associates. An Evaluation of Cannery Waste
Disposal by Overland Plow Spray Irrigation. Publications in
Climatology, 22 No. 2. September 1969.
Tihansky, D.P. Cost Analysis of Water Pollution Control: An
Annotated Bibliography. Office of Research and Monitoring.
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. April 1973.
Van Note, R.H., P.V. Hebert, and R.M. Patel. A Guide to the
Selection of Cost-Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems.
Municipal Wastewater Systems Division, Engineering and Design
Branch. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-430/9-75-002.
1975.
Waste into Wealth. Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works'.
Melbourne, Australia. 1971.
Waste Water Reclamation. California State Department of Public
Health, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering. California State Water
Quality Control Board, November 1967.
Wesner, E.M., et al. Energy Conservation in Municipal Wastewater
Treatment. EPA 430/9-77-011. March 1978.
Williams, T.C. Utilization of Spray Irrigation for Wastewater
Disposal in Small Residential Developments. In: Recycling
Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge through Forest and
Cropland, Sopper, W.E. and L.T. Kardos, (ed.). University
Park, The Pennsylvania State University Press. 1973. pp 385-395.
Wilson, C.W. The Feasibility of Irrigation Softwood and Hard-
wood for Disposal of Papermil] Effluent. Paper No. 71-245,
Annual Meeting, American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
Pullman, Washington. June 1971.
Woodley, R.A. Spray Irrigation of Fermentation Wastes. Water
and Wastes Engineering, 6, B14-B18. March 1969.
Woodley, R.A. Spray Irrigation of Organic Chemical Wastes.
Proceedings of the 23rd Industrial Waste Conference. Lafayette,
Purdue University. 1968. pp 251-261.
Zimmerman, J.P. Irrigation. New York, John Wiley; & Sons, Inc.
1966.
Gilde L.C., et al. A Spray Irrigation System for Treatment of
Cannery Wastes. Journal WR-F, 43, No. 8, pp 2011-2025. 1971.
126
I
-------
APPENDIX E
COST INDICIES AND ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
-------
Table E-2. Sewer Construction Cost Index
YEAR
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR .
HAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT.
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
AVC.
1957
96. 8
1958
100.4
1959
104. 8
I960
106.2
1961
108.2
1962
109.7
1963
113. 1
1964
114.5
114.4
114.7
115.2
115. 1
115.3
115.2
115.0
115.0
114.7
1965
11 5.3
115.6
115.T
115.7
11 5.7
116.5
117.0
1 17.3
I IT. 3
117.6
117.6
118.0
116.6
1966
116.2
11B.7
119.0
119.7
120.0
12C.4
121.4
121.2
121.4
122.0
122.2
122.2
120.5
1967
122.7
123.0
122.8
123.0
123.4
124.2
124.7
125.4
125.7
126.0
126.2
126.2
124. 5
196 B
126.3
126.9
127.0
127.4
127.9
126.8
129.9
130. 3
131.1
132.4
133.3
133 .4
129.6
1969
135.0
135.7
136.1
136.6
136.4
137.0
139.3
141.5
141.2
141.5
142.0
142 . 6
138. 7
1970
143.3
144.0
144.6
145. 7
146. 8
149.2
152.6
152. 6
153.5
154.4
154.9
155 .9
149.8
197 1
157.4
157. e
159.2
161.0
164.3
166.8
168. 4
169.9
172.0
173.3
177. 3
179.0
167.2
1972
179.6
180.4
181.5
182.0
184.8
16 5.7
186.2
187. 5
188.7
189.3
190.4
191.1
LB 5 • 6
1973
192.8
194.2
195.8
196.5
198.9
199.6
201.0
201. 3
202.0
202 .B
203. 7
206. 0
199.6
19 7
-------
TABLE E-3. OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST INDEX (1)(2)(3)
YEAR QTR. INDEX
73 - 1.00
74 1 1.09
2 1 .16
3 1.22
4 1 .28
75 1 1.33
2 1.34
3 1.38
4 1.39
76 1 1.42
2 1.45
3 1.49
4 1.51
77 1 1.54
2 1.56
3 1.61
4 1.62
78 1 1.67
2 _ 1.69
3 1.72
4 1 .74
79 1 1.78
2 1 .84
3 1.90
Reference: EPA O&M Cost Index, March 1978; R. L. Michel,
EPA, Washington, DC
Base year = 1973; Index = 1.00
Includes, power, chemicals, fuel, labor, administration, etc.
129
-------
TABLE E-4
COST LOCALITY FACTORS
O&M
Construction (1) Labor(2)
Altanta '
.98
.81
Baltimore
1.06
.66
Birmingham
i.oo
—
Boston
.96
.75
Chicago
.93
1.32
Cincinnati
1.06
—
Cleveland
.95
1.68
Columbus
.82
Dal 1 as
1.02
___
Denver
.96
.90
Detroit
.95
Houston
Kansas City
1.11
.75
Los Angeles
1.07
1.21
Memphi s
—
.81
Minneapolis
.93
...
Milwaukee
1.19
New Orleans
1.06
.57
Mew York
.90
1.11
Philadelphia
1.05
.80
Phoenix
.83
Pittsburgh
.97
.96
St. Louis
.98
.78
San Diego
—
.87
San Francisco
1.04
1.28
Seattle
1.01
.90
Washington, D.C.
—
.86
Calculated frorr ENR Skilled Labor Index, Materials Cost Component
Index, and Construction Cost Index; Engineering News-Record;
March 23, 1978.
Reference: Operation, Maintenance and Repair Cost Index for Raw
Wastewater Pumping Stations," Robert L. Michel, April 1978.
Calculated from Intercity Comparison Levels of Municipal Pay in
1975, Department of.Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
130
-------
TABLE E-5
POWER COST LOCALITY FACTOR (1)(2)
New England
1.23
Mid-Atlantic
1.17
East North Central
1.09
West North Central
1.00
South Atlantic
1.00
East South Central
.93
West South Central
.84
Mountain
.72
U. S. Average
1.00
(1) Basis: BLS, Jan
Producers Price
. 1978
Index
(2) Source: "Operation, Maintenance
and Repair Cost Index for Raw
Wastewater Pumping Stations" EPA
Municipal Construction Division,
R. L. Michel, April 1978
131
-------
TABLE E-6
MATERIALS COST INDEX
USE: Wholesale Price Index for Industrial Commodities
(120.0 for Base Date: February 1973)
132
-------
TABLE E-7
INTEREST FORMULAS
Symbols -
i interest rate per interest period
n nunber of interest periods
Present Worth Factor
PWF = — (Table E-8)
(1 + i)
Capital Recovery Factor
CRF = J-ilill (Table E-9)
(Hi)" -1
Examples
Amortized construction costs = (construction costs) (CRF)
Present worth of annual O&M = (Annual O&M) (^p-)
Salvage value of land that appreciates in value = (Present Cost) (-p—-)
Present worth of salvage value - (Salvage Value) (PWF)
133
-------
Table E-8 PRESENT WORTH FACTOR, PWF = ^
N * period, yr
i = interest
rate, I 10 IS 20 25 30
5.000
5.125
5. 250
5.375
5.500
5.625
5.750
5.875
6.000
6,125
6. 250
6.375
6. 500
6.625
6.750
6.875
7.000
7.125
7.2S0
7.375
7. 500
7.625
7.750
7.875
8.000
0.6139
0 .6067
0. 5995
0.5924
0.5854
0.S785
0.5717
0 .5650
0.5584
0.5519
0.5454
0.5390
0.5327
O.S265
0.5204
0.5143
0.5083
0.5024
0.4966
0.4909
0.4852
0.4796
0.4741
0.4686
0.4632
0.4810
0.4725
0.4642
0.4560
0.4479
0.4400
0.4323
0.4247
0.4172
0.4100
0.4028
0.3957
0.3888
0.3280
0.3754
0.3689
0.3624
0.3562
0.3500
0.3439
0.3380
0.3321
0.3264
0.3208
0.3152
0.3769
0.3680
0.3594
0.3510
0.3427
0.3347
0.3269
0.3193
0.3118
0.3045
0.2975
0.2905
0 . 2838
0.2772
0.2708
0.2645
0.2584
0.2525
0.2466
0. 2410
0.2354
0.2300
0. 2247
0.2196
0.2145
0.2953
0.2866
0.2783
0.2701
0.2622
0.2546
0.2477
0.2400
0.2330
0.2262
0.2197
0.2133
0.2071
0.2012
0.1953
0.1897
0.1842
0.1789
0.173B
0.1688
0.1640
0.1593
0.1547
0.1503
0.1460
0.2313
0.2233
0.2154
0.2079
0.2006
0.1936
0.1869
0.1804
0.1741
0.1681
0.1622
0.1566
0.1512
0.1460
0.1409
0.1361
0.1314
0.1268
0.1225
0,1183
8.1142
0.1103
0.1065
0.1029
0.0994
134
-------
Table E-9 CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTOR, CRF =
i(1 + i)«
(1 + i)n - 1
period, years
i = interest
rate, I
10
IS
20
25
3 0
5.000
5.125
5..250
5. 375
5 . 50.0
5.625
5. 750
5.875
6. 000
6.125
6.250
.375
.S00
.625
. 750
, 875
7 .000
7.125
7 .250
7 . 375
7. 500
7 .625
7. 750
7.875
8.000
6
6
6
6,
6
0. 1295
0 .1303
0.1310
0.1319
0. 1326
0.1335
0.1343
0.1351
1359
1367
1375
1383
1391
1399
1407
1416
1424
1432
144 0
0.1449
0.1457
1405
1474
1482
1490
0
0 .
0 ,
0.
0.
0.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 ,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.0963
0.0972
0.0980
0.0988
0.0996
0.1005
0.1013
1021
1030 .
1038
1047
1055
0.1064
0.1072
0.1081
0.1089
0.1098
0.1107
0.1115
0.1124
0.1133
0.1142
0.1151
0.1159
0.]168
0.0802
0.0811
0.0820
0 .0828
0.0337
0.0845
0854
0863
08 7 2
0 . 0881
0.0890
0.0899
0 . 0 9 0 8
0.0917
0.0926
0.0935
0.0944
0.0953
0962
0972
0981
0990
1000
1009
1019
0.
0 ,
0 ,
0.0709
0.0718
0 ..07 27
0.0736
0.0745
0.0755
0.0764
0.0773
0.0782
0.0792
0.0B01
0.0810
0.0820
0.0829
0.0839
0.0848
0.0858
0.0868
0878
0887
0897
090 7
0917
0927
0937
0.0650
0.0660
0.06 7 0
0.0679
0.0688
0.0698
0.0707
0717
07 26
0736
0746
0756
0766
0.0776
0.0786
0.0796
0.0806
0.0816
0 .0826
0.0836
0847
0857
0867
06 7 8
0888
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
J. 5. GOVE WENT 'hlSTINo OFF ICS 1330 - 077-094/1 i Ci, Reg. 8
135
------- |