IndianJournalof Engineering& MaterialsSciences

Vol. 5, August 1998, pp. 223-235

Cost estimation models for drinking water treatment unit processes

Virendra Sethi' & RobertM Clarkb•
·Oak RidgeInstitutefor Scienceand Education,bWaterSupplyand WaterResourcesDivision
NationalRiskManagementResearchLaboratory,MS 689, UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,
26, WestMartinLutherKingDrive,Cincinnati,OH 45268, USA

Received12 August 1997

Cost models for unit processes typically utilized in a conventional water treatment plant and in package
treatment plant technology are compiled in this paper. The cost curves are represented as a function of
specified design parameters and are categorized into four major categories : construction, maintenance
materials, energy and labour. The cost curves are developed so that cost indices may be used to update cost
estimates from the base year. These models can be used to assist in making decisions related to construction
of new water treatment facilities or modification of existing water treatment processes to meet drinking
water standards or provide improved water quality. They can also be used as a part of sophisticated
economic evaluation such as the calculation of cost to benefit ratios.

Cost estimation plays an integral role in planning,
implementation and administration of any water
treatment project. Over the last 20 years, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has
developed a substantial amount of cost data and
related cost curves which can be used to estimate
the cost of various unit processes. These unit
processes can in turn be aggregated into water
treatment systems. These cost curves have been
used extensively for determining the economic
impact of proposed federal drinking water
regulations. The initial cost curves were presented
in earlier works 1.2. Various efforts3•4 have been
made to upgrade and modify these cost curves.
This paper reports on a selected subset of a new
and comprehensive effort to update and modify
these cost curves.
The objective of the present work is to present
some of the cost models developed from the
studies referred to earlier. The choice of the
processes and facilities was based on the
requirements of a typical conventional water
treatment plant, and a complete package treatment
plant. A complete list of unit processes for which
cost curves have been developed are listed
5'
elsewhere.
Approach
The data modelled 10 the present work was
developed for maximum flexibility and use).
Treatment systems were divided into two main
classes. - large systems (1 to 200 mgd) and small
systems (2500 gpd to 1 mgd). This separation was
made because many processes applicable to one
range are not applicable to the other, and even
when a process is applicable, the conceptual design
of the components varies significantly.
Costs were estimated under two main categories
- construction costs and operation and maintenance
costs. Construction costs were presented in terms
of eight components : excavation and site work,
manufactured equipment, concrete, steel, labour,
pipes and valves, electrical equipment and
instrumentation, and housing. Each component
cost can be updated using an appropriate cost
index to reflect variations in escalation, or a
composite index such as the Engineering News
Record Construction Cost Index can be used
instead. The cost curves developed in the present
work are based on the use of the composite
construction cost index.
In addition to the construction costs, the
following special costs need to be added to obtain
the total capital cost: general contractors overhead
and profit, engineering costs, land costs, legal
fiscal and administrative costs, and interest during
construction. Since these costs vary significantly
224 INDIAN J. ENG. MATER. SCI., AUGUST 1998

from region to region, they were not included in industry are the Engineering News Record
the current cost curves but can be added at the construction cost index (CCI) and the building cost
appropriate point in the calculations. index (BCI) which are published by Engineering
The operations and maintenance (O&M) costs News Record. Maintenance material costs can be
were developed based on five main components : updated using Producers Price Index for Finished
energy requirements (process related energy and Goods (PPI), and may be obtained from the
building related energy), natural gas, diesel fuel, Monthly Labor Review published by the
maintenance materials and labour. Energy Department of Labor.
requirements were separated for process and
buildings to account for the large geographic Individual Unit Process Costing
variations in the building energy requirements. In order to develop the unit process cost curves
Local variations in energy and labour rates can be a standardized flow pattern was assumed for the
incorporated conveniently since the costs are treatment train and then each unit process was
obtained from the cost curves in terms of energy "costed out". This approach requires assumptions
units and labour hours. The maintenance materials about such details as common wall construction
requirements which are for all repair and and amounts of interface piping required. After the
maintenance items, were calculated based on flow pattern was established, the costs associated
national U.S. averages. Chemical costs are not with specific unit processes were calculated. "As
included in these material costs due to large built" design and standard cost reference
regional variations in chemical costs. However, documents were used to calculate the costs of
these costs need to be included in any final cost equipment associated with a unit process. A
calculations. description of cost curves for inorganic coagulant
(alum) feed and rectangular clarifiers is presented
Cost Indices here to illustrate the level of detail incorporated in
Cost indices are widely used to adjust costs that the costing analysis.
occur due to differences in geographic locations
and variations from year to year. It provides a Inorganic coagulant feed
single numerical value to indicate trends with time Dry alum is used as a coagulant in both small
and the relative value of the index factors from and large treatment plants, although if the dry alum
place to place. All costs in this paper are reported usage is greater than 300 Ib/day, liquid alum
in U.S. dollars and all cost curves are based on the should be used to minimize handling costs. Liquid
year that the cost analysis was performed. The base alum is a clear amber liquid that contains 5.4
year cost indices are listed in Table 1, and can be pounds of commercial dry alum per gallon of
used to update the costs obtained from the curve liquid. A typical liquid alum feed system includes
using the following expression: IS or 30-day storage, two transfer pumps, a day
tank and two metering pumps. One of each type of
Current Year Cost = Base Year Cost pump is used as a standby pump. Fig. I shows a
Current Year Index typical liquid alum feed system. Alum feed rates
x ... (1)
Base Year Index range from 40 to 85,000 pounds per day on dry
basis. All systems, excluding the largest, provide
The most widely used indices in the construction 30-day storage ranging from 240 to 300,000
gallons. The largest system provides a 255,000
Table I-Construction cost indices and producer price indices gallon, IS-day storage capacity. All but the
for the costing analysis in the source documents smallest, system include day tanks that are filled
Base Year Construction Cost Producer Price using transfer pumps, and have volumes ranging
Index (CCI) Index (PPI) from 50 to 17,000 gallons. Costs are based on
1979 265.4 99.7 vertical, flat bottom, site constructed tanks, having
1983 383.1 287.1 maximum capacities of 60,000 gallons. Contain-
1990 445.0 345.0 ment walls are designed to hold the contents of the
1997 549.0 361.0
largest tank. Wetted parts of the pump are plastic.
 SETHI & CLARK: COST ESTIMATION MODELS FOR WATER TREATMENT PROCESSES 225

Containment
Walls

30-Day
Storage Tan

Transfer Pump

Metering Pump

Fig. I-Typical liquid alum feed system

1000000 ,------------------, 1~O'------------------'

•• Process Energy (kWH/Vr)

~
e::>
o
:I:
o 1~,
!!!
Ul
o
• .,
.J:l

-J

o Maintenance Malerial (S/Yr)

c
o 100000
.~

;:>
iii
c
o
o •
I
w
CL

r I
10000 L--,---,-,-,-,-u.L_'L......I..'..L' J...J''J.l"-"-"_L' -'-'-'-'-'-''LL"Lll"_-'----J.'--"-'-,.u.",ll"l
10 100 1000 10000 100000

Feed Rate. Ib/day alum Feed Rate, Ib/day alum

Fig. 2----{:onstruction costs for liquid .alum feed systems in Fig. J--Operation and maintenance costs for liquid alum feed
dollars versus feed rate in Ib/day alum systems versus feed rate in Ib/day alum. Cost of process
energy, maintenance materials and labour on common y-axis in
units of kWH/year, $/year, and hours/year respectively
Piping and fittings are PVC, and valves are either
PVC or PVDF plastic construction. Pipe sizes and operation include the ordering and receiving of
lengths of piping vary from 3/4 to 6 in. and 200 to alum, the maintenance and repair of pumps, the
400 ft, respectively. The piping system assumes 8 repair of feed lines and tanks, as well as the
fittings per 100 ft of pipe. Construction costs are cleanup of any liquid spills. The system's electrical
plotted in Fig. 2. Fig. 3 shows the operation and requirements are for one metering pump and one
maintenance costs. Labour requirements for transfer pump. The metering pump is assumed to
226 INDIAN J. ENG. MATER. SCI., AUGUST 1998

run continuously. 24 h a day. and the transfer pump
runs IS ruin a day. Material costs include metering
and transfer pump replacement and any material
needed to repair piping. tanks and valves.
Additional material costs include protective
clothing. gloves and goggles.
Rectangular clarifiers
Rectangular clarifiers may be used following
treatment by coagulation and flocculation or lime
softening. Cost estimates were made for clarifiers
that have 12-ft sidewall depth and that use chain
and fl ight sludge collectors.
Construction cost includes the chain and flight
collector drive mechanism. weirs. the reinforced
concrete structure complete with inlet and outlet
troughs. a sludge sump. and sludge withdrawal
piping. Costs for the structure were developed
assuming multiple units with common wall
construction. Yard piping to and from the clarifier
is not included in cost estimates. Construction cost
estimates are shown in Fig. 4.
Process energy requirements were calculated
based on manufacturers' estimates of motor size
and torque requirements. Maintenance material
costs are for parts required for periodic
maintenance of the drive mechanism and weirs.
Labour requirements are for periodic checking of
the clarifier drive mechanism, as well as periodic
maintenance of the mechanism and weirs.
Operation and maintenance costs are shown in
Fig. S.
Modelling
In previous work, cost models have been
developed to facilitate the application of the data
developed by Gumerman et a/. 1.2 These models are
described extensively by Clark", Clark and Dorsey'
and Adams and Clark". The purpose of this paper
is to modify this earlier effort and aggregate all of
the cost data collected by the USEPA's Water
Supply and Water Resources Division and make it
accessible in a standard and usable form. The
following form of equation was adopted to fit all
cost curves:
y = a + b XC ••• (2)
where y is the costing unit ($-for construction
costs, $/year for maintenance materials,
kWH/year-for energy requirements, and hours/year
- for labour); x is the design flow rate or design
parameter for the specific unit process; a, band c
are parameters estimated using a curve fitting
algorithm. For some cases, where the design
parameter (x) spanned two to three orders of
10000

1000000
Proce •• Energy (kWH/Vr)

>••••
:;
0
J:
(5
.0
CIS
...J

<II

<II
o
> 1000
U ~
~
.~ 100000 ~
"0 Maintenance M••• ,i.I, (S/YI)
::I
-.; ~
J:
c: ;:
o
U 6
w
a.
•
Labor (Hours/Yr)

100
100 1000 10000

Area, ft>
1000 10000
Area, ft> Fig. S-Operation and maintenance costs for rectangular
clarifiers versus square feet of surface area. Cost of process
Fig. 4-Construction costs in dollars versus square feet of energy, maintenance materials and labor on common y-axis in
surface area for rectangular clarifiers units of kWH/year, $/year, and hours/year respectively
 Table :!-Unit Processes and Facilities in a Conventional Treatment Plant

II Process Type of curve Parameter range Units Q b c R' Base year

Chlorine cylinder feed &< storage systems Construction CC ( 10 - 2000 ) Feed Rate, Iblday 24516.3313 372.3289 0.9309 0.95751 1990
CIl
Malcohn-Pimie/, p. 140 Process Energy PE ( 10 - 20(0) Feed Rate, Ib/day 4762.6124 3.1177 1.4786 0.90876 1990 rn
Maintenance !l.iattrials MM(IO-IOO) Feed Rate, lb/day 500 0 I I 1990 ~
Maintenance Materials MM ( 100 - 1000 ) Feed Rate, lb/day 2000 0 1 I 1990 -::r::
R:o
Maintenance Materials MM ( 1000 - 2000 ) Feed Rate, lb/day 2500 0 I I 1990
(")
Labour OL (100 - 2000) Feed Rate, Ib/day 1150 0 I I 1990 r
Labour OL ( 10 - 100) Feed Rate, Ib/day 365 0 I 1 1990 :>
~
2 Dry alum reed systems Construction CC ( 40 - 300) Feed Rate, lb/day 50534.6536 118.9127 0.7824 0.99764 1990 o
Malcolm-Pimie ', p. 213 Process Energy PE ( 100 - 150 ) Feed Rate, Ib/day 7623 0 I I 1990 0
CIl
Process Energy PE (ISO - 300) Feed Rate, IMlay 10346 0 I I 1990 ~
tT1
Process Energy PE ( 40 - 100) Feed Rate, lb/day 6716.33 9.0666 I I 1990 CIl
Maintenance Materials MM (40 - 300) Feed Rate, lb/day 3416.1544 1.0128 0.8985 0.99995 1990 ~
Labour OL (40 - 300) Feed Rate, Iblday 0 318.9911 0.241 0.95487 1990 3e
:>
~
Liquid alum reed systems Construction CC ( 40 - 85000 ) Feed Rate, Ib/day 6701.5365 1033.0292 0.565:! 0.97624 1990 (5
Z
Malcolm-Pimie' p.314 Process Energy PE ( 40 - 85000 ) Feed Rate, lb/day 1507.601829 3.0420992 0.8572325 0.998 1990
Maintenance Materials MM ( 40 - 85000 ) Feed Rate, lb/day 3063.0844 3.0691 0.6751 0.94622 1990
s:
0
Labour OL ( 40 - 85000 ) Feed Rate, lb/day 0 717.3032 0.0261 0.88257 1990 0
tT1
r
CIl
4 Polymer reed systems Construction CC (4 - 8~00) Fced Rate, Ib/day 36165.3918 336.0736 0.7375 0.98586 1990 'TJ
Malcolrn-Pimie ', p. ~CO Process Energy PE (4 - 8~00) Feed Rate, Ib/day o 4679.9878 0.2983 0.9796 1990 0
;:tl
Maintenance Materials MM (4 - 8400) Feed Rate, lb/day 218.8724 13.2158 0.9759 0.99987 1990
Labour OL (4 - 8400) Feed Rate, Ib/day 0 760.3135 0.0081 0.74421 1990
~
:>
~
tT1
;:tl
Sodium hydroxide feed systems Construction CC ( 16 - 5220) Feed Rate, gaVday 22316.8918 1.5648 1.2453 0.98127 1990 ~
;:tl
Malcolm-Pimie", p.308 Pumping Energy PU ( 16 -392 ) Feed Rate, gal/day 174 0 I 1 1990 m
:>
(Fed AS 50~. solution by weight) Pumping Energy PU (392 - 3135) Feed Rate, gal/day 0 6.903178 0.54226 0.9948 1990 ~
Pumping Energy I'U (3135 ·5220 ) Feed Rate, gal/day 522 0 I I 1990 s:
tT1
Heating Coils HC( 16-5220) Feed Rate, gaVday 2699.571954 0.5204859 1.070731 0.9819 1990 Z
Maintenance MattriaL< M.\i( 16·5220) Feed Rate, gal/day 189.7869 0.0047 1.3652 0.98802 1990 ~
'"0
Labour OLe 16·5220) Feed Rate, &aIIday 548 0 I I 1990 ;:tl
0
o
tT1
CIl
Construction(G-300) Basin Volwne, It' CIl
6 Rapid mix CC ( 100 - 20000 ) 11188.2329 30.0278 0.9664 0.99804 1990 rn
Basin VoIwne, It' CIl
Malcolm-Pirnic', p. 278 Construction(Q-(,OO) CC ( 100 - 20000) 7832.6098 164.9417 0.7947 0.9898 1990
Constru.ction( G-9OO) CC ( 100 - 20000) Basin Volume, It' 7362.9105 229.2691 0.8268 0.96654 1990
Process Energy(G-300) PE ( 100 - 20000 ) Basin Volume, It' 5.5472 50.9606 0.9999 I 1990
Process Encrgy(CF!>OO) PE ( 100 - 20000 ) Basin Volwne, It' 19.1039 101.7669 1.0001 I 1990
Process Energy(G-=900) Basin Volume, ft' N
PE ( 100·20000) 84.0263 338.8467 1.0002 I 1990 N
-.J
 Maintenance Materials MM ( 100 - 20000) Basin Volume, ftj 27.3693 0.0367 0.9298 0.9882 1990 N
N
Labour OL ( 1000 - 20000 ) Basin Volume, ft' 444.5258173 0.0025367 1.3270698 0.92041661 1990 00

Labour OL ( 100 - 1000 ) Basin Volume, ft' 470 0 1 1 1990

7 Circular clarifiers Construction CC (707 - 31416) Surface Area, ttl 46769.4068 2004.4577 0.584 0.99143 1990
Malcolm-Pimie ', p. 379 Energy (lime sludge) PE(707-31416) Surface Area, ttl 4419.4483 2.471 0.8047 0.9945 1990
Energy (ferric &: alum) PE (707 - 31416) Surface Area, ttl 2625.2752 9.1556 0.6496 0.99384 1990
Maintenance Materials M~ (707 - 31416) Surface Area, ttl 1535.579138 2.1137255 0.7440197 0.99088 1990
Labour OL (707 - 31416) Surface Area, ttl 122.8445 0.2717 0.7013 0.99873 1990

8 Gravity filtration structures Construction CC ( 140 - 28000 ) Total filter Area, ft' -34843.245 3349.8783 0.8409 0.99812 1990
Malcolrn-Pimie, p.264 Building Energy BE ( 140 - 28000 ) Total filter Area, ft' -46450.5302 883.2567 0.8211 0.99826 1990
Maintenance ~Iaterials MM ( 140 - 28000 ) Total filter Area, ttl 61.045 25.4012 0.7306 0.99975 1990
Labour OL ( 140 - 28000 ) Total filter Area, ttl 642.1469 6.7506 0.7376 0.97962 1990
Z
9 Filter media : Furnish and Install Construction-rapid sand CC ( 10 - 320) Total filter Area, ttl 717.9323 1106.7472 1.0117 0.98851 1990
Malcolm-Pimie ', p.97 Construction-dual media CC ( 10 - 320) Total filter Area, ttl 940.3323 1436.4144 0.9857 0.99694 1990
:;0Z
Construction-mixed media CC( 10-320) Total filt.r Area, ft' 1244.9106 1542.858 0.997 0.99906 1990
tr1
'"'Z
P
10 Filter media : Removal and Replacement Construction-rapid sand CC ( 350 - 70000) Total filter Area, ttl 12474.09-17 13594.325 0.927 0.99824 1990 3:
Malcolm-Pirnie ', p.271 Construction-duel media CC ( 140 - 28000) Total filter Area, ttl 8852.6791 9647.4845 0.9271 0.99824 1990 >
-l
Construction-mixed media CC ( 140 - 28000) Total filter Ar ea, ft' 10059.7246 10963.193 0.927 0.99824 1990 tr1
?'
Vl
11 Hydraulic surface wash systems Construction CC ( 140 - 28000) Total filter Area, 0> 40357.8061 111.5241 0.892 0.96037 1990
Gurnerman et a/.' p.162 Process Energy PE ( 140 - 28000 ) Total filter Area, ft' 317.0678 14.3656 0.9975 0.99503 1990
P
Maintenance Materials MM ( 140 - 28000 ) Total filter Area, ft' 242.1719 14.7974 0.3941 0.99161 1990
>
c:
C')
Labour OL ( 140 - 28000 ) Total filter Area, ft' -20.71428 9.363433 0.42004 0.97079 1990 c:
Vl
-l
12 Wash-water surge basins Construction CC ( 1337 - 66845 ) Bjlsin Capacity, ft' 16539.3117 15.7845 0.8571 0.99498 1990 \0
\0
Malcolrn-Pirnie ', p.100 00

13 Underground clear well storage tank Construction CC( 10-7500) Capacity, keal 25683.255 2083.5187 0.8398 0.97659 1990
Malcolm-Pimie ', p.158 Process En.fEY PE ( 10 - 7500 ) <Fapacity,kllal 328.2952 8896.5982 0.8658 0.97074 1990
Labour OLe 10-7500) Capacity, keal 17550 0 1 I 1990

14 Gravity sludge thickeners Construction CC (314 - 17671) Surface Area, ttl 24247.8921 4056.9502 0.4826 0.99875 1990
Gumerman et al. I, p.359 Energy(alum-fen1c sludge) PE (314 - 17671) Surface Area, ttl 2718.0056 2.7477 0.9242 0.98858 1990
Maintenance Materials MM (314 - 17671) Surface Area, ttl 93.9027 1.2665 0.8292 0.97965 1990
Labour OLe 314 - 17671) Surface Area, ttl 93.682 1.3673 0.5446 0.9982 1990

IS Dewatered sludge hauling facilities Construction CC ( 150 - 270K) Sludge Flow, gpd 119274.7132 2.7829 1.1064 0.96501 1990
 MalcoJm.Pirnie', p.439 Fuel FU ( ISO - 270K) Sludge Flow, gp<! -0.0176 0.0247 0.8436 0.97531 1990
Process Energ y PE ( 56200 - 270K ) Sludge Flow, gp<! 43550 0 I I 1990
Process Energy PE ( 150 -56200 ) Sludge Flow, gpd 10890 0 I I 1990
lAbour 01..(150 - 270K ) Sludge Flow, gp<! 0 2.1190 0.7754 0.9926 1990

16 Basket centrifuges Construction CC ( 3600 - 720000 ) Machine Capacity, gp<! 307437.717 0.0356 1.3496 0.96896 1990 en
CTl
Gumermau et al., 'p.400 Building Energy BE ( 3600 - 720000 ) Machine Capacity, gpd 79730.4403 0.0811 1.2826 0.9723 1990 -;
1.2796
::r:
Process Energy PE ( 3600 - 720000 ) Machine Capacity, gpd 62334.2056 0.0807 0.97498 1990
Maintenance Materials MM (3600 - 710000) Machine Capacity, gpd 3061.0424 0.0012 1.2952 0.99131 1990 Ro
lAbour OL ( 3600 - 7:0000 ) Machine Capacity, gP4 501.1817 0.0004 1.2194 0.98261 1990 o
r
:>
17 lnplant pumpin!: Construction CC ( 1 - 200) Pumping Capacity. mgd 37530.0645 9317.5503 0.9714 0.99431 1990
~
Gumcrman et al.', p.23S Process Energy(TDH~35') PE ( 1 - 200) Pumping Capacity, mgd 5.4852 52464.53 I I 1990 o
Process Energy(TDH=75') PE ( 1 - 200) Pumping Capacity, mgd 5.4852 112424.5 I I 1990 0
en
Maintenance Materials MM (1- 200) Pumping Capacity, mgd 364.324 237.6805 1.0034 0.99162 1990 -;
lAbour Pumping Capacity, mgd 491.5517 28.6542 0.9456 0.99566 1990 CTl
OL ( 1 - 200) en
-;
18 Raw water pumping facilities Construction CC ( 695 - 70000 ) Flo••·. gpm 123587.8047 71.4926 0.8306 0.99988 1990 §:
Malcotm-Pimie ', p.412 lAbour OL ( 695 - 70000 ) Flo••·.l:pm 179.6708 0.0002 1.428 0.94753 1990
:>
-;
Process Energy PE( 695 - 70000 ) Flow. gprn 25629.6122 184.7934 1.0011 I 1990 0
Z
19 Finished water pwnping facilities Construction CC ( 695 - 70000 ) Flow, gpm 38529.4539 273.9697 0.7346 0.99624 1990 s:::
0
Malcolm-Pimie ', p.416 lAbour OL ( 695 - 70000 ) Flow, gpm 167.0617 0.0299 0.9552 0.99671 1990 0
CTl
Process Energy PE ( 695 - 70000 ) Flow, gpm 155693.6822· 351.3382 1.0553 0.99889 1990 r
en
:, ~ 'Tl
0
;:tl
20 Backwash pumping Construction CC(140-3150) Flow. gpm -31033 29.1058 I I 1979 ~
:>
-;
Gumerman er a.', p.156 Construction CC(3 150 -22950) Flow. gpm 0 399.339 0.621422 0.99605 19;9
CTl
Process Energy PE( 140-28000) Filter Area, fl' -0.65S7 23.8161 1.0004 1 1979 ;:tl
-;
Maintenance Materials MM( 140-28000) Filter Area, ft' 0 93.0759 0.4002 0.98868 1979 ;:tl
lAbour 01..(140-28000) Filter Area, fl' CTl
0 98.1323 0.128 0.96887 1979 :>
21 flocculation (3S min, G - 600) -;
Basin Volume. fl)
s:::
Gumerman et al. " p.lll Construction CC(1800-10000) 175543 9.6865 I I 1979 CTl
Construction CC(loooO - SOOOOO) Basin Volume, fl) 90623.4 4.404384 0.937242 0.98 1979 Z
-;
Construction CC(SoooOO-IM) Basin Volume. fl) 365S0 2.0412 I I 1979 "'C
;:tl
Process Energy PE(1800-IM) Basin Vo lume, fl' 44.593306 1.169986 1.001119 I 1979
Maintenance Materials MM(1800-IM) Basin Volume, fl' 240.920752 0.521479 0.773391 (198 1979
~
CTl
01..(1800-IM) Basin Volume, fl' en
lAbour -0.40082 8.680847 0.327235 0.996 1979 en
CTl
22 RmaneuJar Clarifier (1000 epdlft1 en
Gumerman .1 al. ' p.128 Construction CC (240 - 4800) Area, ft' 24571.01828 93.412612 0.927841 I 1979
Process Energy PE (240 - 4800) Area,ft' 3276.189352 0.0191 1.481241 0.984 1979
Maintenance Materials MM (240 - 48(0) Area,ft' 302.451241 0.002222 1.525S59 0.993 1979
!.ahour 01. (240 - 4R()(I) Area.ft' 141.2618 0.197285 0.889147 0.998 1979
N
N
'-0
 IV
t..J
o

Table 3-lJni! processes and facilines lor complete packAge treatmem plan!

1/ Process Type of curve Parameter mlge t:niu a b c R' Base year

Sludge dewatering lagoons Construction CC ( 2500.1470(0) Effective Storage, tY 2621.7845 0.9932 0.9224 0.98901 1990
Eilert, p.l!X3 Diesel Fuel DF ( 500 • 20000 ) Sludge Removed. tYfYr -4.2962 0.0887 0. 7453 0.96786 1990
Mainl.enance Mal.erial MM ( 500 - 20000 ) Sludge Removed. tYfYr ~.1504 0.1211 0.9853 0.99995 1990
Labour OL ( 500 • 20000 ) Sludge Removed, tYfYr' 4.0454 0.0034 1.0236 0.99969 1990

2 CcnventioMl pKb,ge complete lreall1ltn! Construction CC (2.150) FilleT Arca, 02 85826.0638 4937.62 0.9283 0.92395 1990 Z
Gumerrnan n tU_ I, p.22 Building Energy BE (2 - 150) Fill.er Area, fr 3778.3573 320.6892 0.9188 0.86799 1990 52
(I backwash !day) Process Energy PE( ~ - 150) Filter Arca, ft2 ·1212.7469 1360.4663 0.3325 0.98199 1990 >
Z
(2 backwashes/day) Process Energy PE(2-150) Filler Arca, fr ·941.4874 1107.3761 0.3807 0.98683 1990 ~
(I backwash !day) Mainl.enance Material MM(2-150) Fill.er Arca, 02 913.6526 91.4575 0.8678 0.95424 1990 t'T1
Z
(2 bac~'asheslday) Mainl.enance Material MM(2-150) Filler Arca, 02 1280.4066 83.7553 0.9304 0.9357 1990 C)
(I backwash lday) 2 gpm Labour OL (14.4K - 1080K) Plan! Flownte, gpd 359.2445 0.238 0. 601 S7 0.!f9S03 1990 3::
(~ backwashcslday) 2 gpm Labour OL (14.4K - 10SOK) Plan! Flowrate, gpd 374.5~09 0.~803 0.637S 0.99803 1990 >
-l
(I backwash lday) 5 gpm Labour OL (14.4K - 10SOK) Plan! Flowrate, gpd 548.705 0.0665 0.7124 0.90675 1990 t'T1
(~backwashe~'day) 5 gpm Labour OL (14.4K - 1080K) Plan! Flowrate, gpd 565.1473 ·0.1:!I5 0.6559 0.99797 1990 ?'
Chlorine CI (14.4K - 1080K) Plant Flowrate, gpd -9.7311 0.01~1 0.9773 0.99942 1990 en
Polymer Poly (14.4K· 10SOK) Plan! Flowrste, gpd ~.2047 0.0004
o
0.981 0.99944 1990 .
Alum Al (14.4K .1080K) Plan! FlOWT'&te,gpd -73.643 0.042 0.9744 0.9995 I 1990 >
C
C)
3 Package Raw ~-&1Cr Pumping Facibacs Construction CC(20-700) Pumping Capacity, gpm 10415.3~836 186.645077 0.6916 0.993 1979 C
Gwnerman ~I tU. I, p.ll Process Energy PE(20-700) Pumping Capacity, gprn ·2.7~547 116.537 0.99945 0.999 1979
en
-l
Mainlenance Malerial MM(~0-700) Pumping Capacity, £I'm 16.398526 12.077824 0.35136 0.994 1979
\0
Labour OL(20-700) Pumping Cap&city, £I'm 49.713478 0.049973 1.10705 0.996 1979 \0
00

4 Sacel BacJr,nsh! C\earTo'eJ1 Tanks COIISUUCtion CC (50~3000C) Capacity, gal 1070.4668 2787974 o.!3979 0.998 1979
GumemtaD~d.i,p.l34

5 Package HiP Service Pumping SilltioDJ CODSInICtion CC (30.1100) Pumping Capacity, gpm 9131.645058 185.755631 0.60262 0.9896 1979
Gwncrman n aI.. I, p.126 COIISUUCtion CC (30·1100) Pump ing Capacity, £I'm 0 95.251473 1.11169 0.999 1979
COIISUUCtion CC (30-1100) Pumping Cap&city. £Pm 29.27397 0.007092 1.3264 0.98 1979
COIISUUCtion CC (30.1100) Pumping Capacity, gpm 6.61309 67.155767 0.10125 0.932 1979
 SETHI & CLARK: COST ESTIMATION MODELS FOR WATER TREATMENT PROCESSES 231

magnitude, a 11x2 weighting function was used to of the input design variable is limited to the
better fit the cost data. For some data sets where a "parameter range", y results in a positive cost unit.
single curve could not be found to fit the entire The "unit" column describes the unit of flow or the
data set, the set was broken into segments and the design parameter used. For a different system of
data were represented by a combination of units of input of x, a and c would remain
polynomial and straight line approximations. unchanged, but b would need to be replaced by
Cost curves for 22 unit processes and facilities bx(CF)C, where CF is the conversion factor. For
required for a conventional treatment plant, and 5 example, for the construction cost model for
processes and facilities for package treatment plant chlorine cylinder feed and storage systems (Table
are listed in Tables 2 and 3 respectively. a, band c 2, # 1), if the inputs were given in kg/day instead of
are the parameters estimated for each curve as in lb/day, the value of b (=372.3289) would be
Eq. (2). "R2" represents the goodness of fit of the modified to 775.6897[=bx(2.2)09309 where 2.2 is
model to the cost data. The column labeled the conversion factor from kg/day to lb/day and
"parameter range" indicates the values of the input 0.9303 is the value of parameter c]. "Base year"
parameters over which cost data were available to indicates that the cost estimates are based on the
develop the model. In some cases, the values of dollar index for that year. To update the date to
parameter 'a' are negative. However, if the value current cost estimates, the cost would have to be

I RawWaler I
Coagulant f-----i I---t
Il
Rapid Mix Flocculation
Feed

Rectangular
Clarifier

1
f-t
Gravity Filter Gravity
Thickener Media Filtration

- 1

Basket
Centrifuge
Surface
Wash

Dewatered Backwash Pumping

Sludge
Hauling

Finished
Water.
Clear Well
Storage
..- Chlorine
Injection
Pumping System

Fig. 6--Flow chart for a 40 mgd conventional treatment plant

232 INDIAN 1. ENG. MATER. SCI., AUGUST
Raw Water
Pumping
Facilities
Sludge
Disposal
Fig. 7-Flow chart for a 350 gpm package treatment plant
multiplied by the ratio of the cost indices for the
current and base years (listed in Table I) using
Eq. (I). The "process" column also refers to the
source document for the data.
Process Costing Examples
To illustrate the application of the cost curves,
two examples of treatment trains were selected': (i)
a 40 mgd conventional treatment plant (Fig. 6), and
(ii) a 350 gpm package complete treatment plant
(Fig. 7). Costing analysis for these two examples is
presented in Tables 4 and 5 using the cost curves
listed in Tables 2 and 3 respectively. To estimate
the O&M costs in a treatment plant, the operating
capacity (less than the design capacity) of the plant
was used. The costs have been updated to 1997
using the CCI and PPI from Table I.
Costing of 40 mgd plant
Fig. 6 shows the flow chart for a typical
conventional treatment plant. Conventional
treatment plants are primarily made from
reinforced concrete and cast in-place structures.
They consist of chemical feed systems, rapid mix,
flocculation, clarification, filtration, and sludge
disposal facilities.
Costing of package complete treatment plant
Package complete treatment plants include
coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation and
filtration, all included in factory preassembled
units or field assembled modules (Fig. 7). The
relatively low capital, and operational and
maintenance costs make these package plants
suitable for smaller water demand situations. The
example includes complete and operable facilities,
1998
Package Complete
Treatment Plant 1--4
High Service
Pumping I-------
Station
Steel Backwash /
Clearwell Tank
including raw water pumping, clearwell storage,
high service pumping, an enclosure for all
facilities, and chemical requirements. In this
example, sludge lagoons were assumed for
disposal of sludge.
The annual costs for both the systems were
estimated using the rates listed in Table 6. Column
2 in Tables 4 and 5 refers to the cost models used
from Tables 2 and 3. Total capital cost was
estimated by adding an additional 42% and 36 %
of total construction costs for the 40 mgd and the
350 gpm plants respectively. This was done to
account for the cost for administration, laboratory
and maintenance buildings; sitework, interface
piping and roads (~5%); contractors overhead and
profit( ~ 10%); engineering fee (~I 0%), and land,
legal and administrative costs. These additional
costs are based on the original estimates made by
Gumerman et al'; and should be evaluated for
each specific project. The cost of annual chemical
requirements for the two systems are included in
Tables 4 and 5. The cost estimates from this
analysis indicates a treatment cost of $0.55/kgal for
the 40 mgd plant, and $1.24/kgal for the 350 gpm
plant.
Conclusions
Cost appraisals are frequently used to eliminate
non-cost effective alternatives and to concentrate
research and evaluation efforts onto pathways
leading to the most promising end results. The cost
information presented here falls into a category
that can be used for what might be termed "pre-
design estimates". Pre-design estimates are useful
for guiding research and for examining the most
 Table 4-Costing for a 40 mgd conventional water treatment plant

# Unit Process/Facility Cost Design CC ($) Operating MM Energy Diesel Labour Energy Diesel Labour TotalO&M Capital Total
curve capacity capacity ($/year) (kWH/year) (gal/year) hours/year ($/year) ($/year) $/year ($/year) ($/year) ($/year)
VJ
(Table tTI
2) -l
133441b/day $281,585 8400lblh $4,638 8,539 0 908 $683 $0 $13,620 $18,941 $33,086 $52,027 :r:
I Alum feed system (4 3
mgIL) $12,067 ~
392 gal/day $30,788 260 gal/day $216 BE:174 0 548 $14 $8,220 $241 $3,618 $241 ()
2 Sodium hydroxide feed 5
PE:3011 $241
r
system (24 mg) ~
3 Polymer feed system (0.2 4 67lb/day $53,799 45lb/day $796 14,569 0 784 $1,166 $0 $11,760 $13,722 $6,321 $20,043 ;>:I
;><::
mg/I)
()
4 Rapid mix (45 s, G=600) 6 2785 ft' $120,803 2785 ft3 $90 283,673 0 538 $22,694 $0 $8,070 $30,854 $14,194 $45,048
0
5 Flocculation (35 min, 21 130,000 fr' $752,917 130,000 ft3 $8,935 154,160 0 409 $12,333 $0 $6,135 $27,403 $88,468 $115,871 VJ
-l
G=50) tTI
6 Rectangular clarifier 22 40,000 ft2 $4,647,478 40,000W $18,167 70,560 0 4,344 $5,645 $0 $65,160 $88,972 $546,079 $635,051 VJ

(1000 gpd/fr') ::l

7 Gravity filtration (5 8 5560 W $5,781,131 5560 W $14,542 1,003,501 0 4,548 $80,280 $0 $68,220 $163,042 $679,283 $842,325 3:
~
-l
gpm/fr')
8 Filter media-mixed media 9,10 40mgd $425,453 $49,991 $49,991 (5
9 Surface wash II 5560 W' $351,007 5560 W' $725 78,488 0 330 $6,279 $0 $4,950 $11,954 $41,243 $53,197 Z
10 Backwash pumping (18 20 10010 gpm $252,792 5560 W' $5,306 132,874 0 296 $10,630 $0 $4,440 $20,376 $29,703 $50,079 3:
gpm/ft')
0
0
II Wash water surge basin 12 26800 ft3 $141,881 $16,671 $16,671 tTI

$226,422 450lb/day $2,093 30,877 0 1150 $2,470 $0 $17,250 $21,813 $26,605 $48,418
r
12 Chlorine feed system (2 I 670lb/day VJ
mg/I,) ."0
13 Clearwell storage (under- 13 2500 kgal $1,865,445 2500 kgal 7,783,570 0 17,550 $622,686 $0 $263,250 $885,936 $219,190 $1,105,125 ;>:I
ground) ~
14 Finished water pumping 19 38194 gpm $832,028 19444 gpm 12,000,000 0 541 $960,000 $0 $8,115 $968,115 $97,763 $1,065,878 ~
850 ft2 $159,587 850 ft2 $454 4,120 0 148 $330 $0 $2,220 $3,004 $18,751 $21,755 -l
15 Gravity thickener 14 tTI
16 Basket centrifuge 16 115,000 gpd $675,780 70,000 gpd $7,706 303,626 0 1,094 $24,290 $16,410 $48,406 $79,404 $127,810 ;>:I
17 Dewatered sludge han- 15 3700 gpd $177,497 2200 gpd 10,890 5,946 828 $871 $7,433 $12,420 $20,724 $20,856 $41,580 -l
;>:I
dling Total CC= $16,776,396 tTI
18 Administrative, Engi- 42%ofCC $7,046,086 $827,915 ~
-l
neering, Sitework etc. 3:
Total Annual O&M Cos $2,331,951 tTI
Z
Arnoritized Annual Capital Cost: $2,799,142 -l
Chemical Costs Unit Cost '"C
;>:I
Alum 1533 tons/year $127 $194,691 0
Polymer 16425 Ib/year $4 $59,130 o
tTI
Sodium Hydroxide 602 tons/year $360 $216,720 VJ
VJ
Chlorine 82 tons/year $542 $44,444 tTI
Total Annual Chemical Cost $514,985 C/l

Total Annual Cost (Capita1+0&M+Chemical $5,646,077

Water Treatment Cost ($/gal): 0.000552

N
w
w
 N
V.)
~

Tableo-c-Costing for a 350 gpm package treatment plant

# Unit ProcesslFacility Cost Design CC ($) Operating MM Energy Diesel Labour Energy Diesel Labour TotalO&M Capital Total
curve capacity capacity (S/year) (kWH/year) (gal/year) hours/year ($/year) (S/year) $/year (S/year) (S/year) (S/year)
(Table
3)
Z
I Package raw water 3 500 gpm S49,930 245 gpm $181 28,462 0 72 S2,277 SO $1,080 $3,538 $5,867 S9,404 0
pumping facilities :;
2 Package complete treat- 2 70 ftl $488,287 245 gpm $5,548 BE: 15,234 0 1094 $1,219 $0 $16,410 $23,177 $57,374 S80,551 Z
•....
ment plant (5 gpm/ft', 2 PE:3,750 $300 $0 $0 $300 $300 tr1
backwashes/day Z
3 Steel backwashlclearwell 4 100,000 gal $179,403 $21,080 $21,080 P
tank ~
4 Package high service 5 500 gpm $35,137 245 gpm $72 43,139 0 124 $3,451 $0 $1,860 $5,384 $4,129 $9,512 ;I>
...,
pump station tr1
5 Sludge dewatering Ia- I 15,000 ftl $11,943 12,000 ftl $1325 0 93 55 $116 $825 $2,266 $1,403 $3,669 ?'
goon Total CC= $764,700 en
o
6 Administrative, Engi- 36%ofCC $275,292 $32,347 -
neering, Sitework etc. ;I>
Total Annual O&M Cost $34,664 C
0
Amoritized Annual Capital Cost: $122,199 C
V1
...,
Chemical Costs Unit Cost
Alum II tons/year SI27 $1,397 \0
\0
Polymer 264 lb/year $4 $950 00
Chlorine 2 tons/year $542 $867
Total Annual Chemical Cost $3,215
Total Annual Cost (Capital+O&M+Chemical $160,078
Water Treatment Cost ($/gal): 0.00124
 SETHI & CLARK: COST ESTIMATION MODELS FOR WATER TREATMENT PROCESSES 235

participation Program administered by. the Oak

Table 6--Assumptions for cost analysis in Tables 4 and 5
Ridge Institute for Science and Education through
Item Value an interagency agreement between the U. S.
Capital Cost Amortization 10% interest for 20 years Department of Energy and the U. S. Environmental
Labor cost $151h Protection Agency.
Electric Power cost $0.08/kWH
Diesel $1.25/gallon
Operating Capacity 70% of Design Capacity Nomenclature
Al Alum feed
desirable of several process or design alternatives. BE Building Energy
CC Construction costs
Many water treatment processes originate in the
Cl Chlorine Feed
laboratory and are tested through field scale pilot DF Diesel Fuel
plant studies. A cost estimate at this stage may FU Fuel Costs
disclose the most costly features of the processes gpd U.S. gallon/day
gpm U.S. gallons/minute
and reveal specific areas for further study. The
HC Heating coils
next step is to conduct preliminary evaluations in mgd million U.S. gallons/day
which laboratory data and pilot plant data is MM Maintenance materials
translated into equipment designs, piping, layout, OL Labour
buildings, etc.. At this point choices can be made PE Process energy
Poly Polymer feed
of unit processes that are most attractive from an PU Pumping energy
economic viewpoint after all factors are
considered. The final decision as to whether or not
to build a treatment facility is complex and References
involves many factors that must be weighed by I Gumerman R C, Culp R L & Hansen S P, Estimating
Water Treatment Costs, Vol 1-4, EPA-600/2-79-l62a,
judgement. Comparative costs may be used to USEPA, Cincinnati OH 45268, August, 1979.
evaluate these factors. The reliability of cost 2 Gumerman R C, Burris B E & Hansen S P, Estimation of
estimates is a function of basic data, stage of Small System Water Treatment Costs, EPA-600/S2-84-
development, definition of scope, the time 184, RREL, USEPA, Cincinnati OH 45268, March 1984.
3 Malcolm and Pimie, USEPA In-house report
expended on the analysis, and experience of the (Unpublished), Contract 68-03-3492, 1989.
analyst. 4 Eilers R G, Small System Water Treatment Costs for
This paper makes available models that can be Chemical Feed Processes, In-house report (unpublished),
used for making cost estimates for construction RREL, USEPA, Cincinnati OH 45268, June 1991.
5 Clark R M, Adams J, Abdesaken F, Sethi V &
and O&M costs for a selected number of unit
Sivaganesan M, Compilation of Cost Models for Water
processes that are frequently used in conventional Treatment Unit Processes, In-house report, Water Supply
treatment plants and package treatment plants. and Water Resources Division, NRMRL, USEPA,
Cincinnati, 1998.
Acknowledgment 6 Clark Robert M, J Environ Eng Div, ASCE, 108 (1982)
819.
The authors would like to thank Drs Manohari 7 Clark Robert M, & Dorsey Paul, J Am Water Works
Sivaganesan and L K Jain for their assistance. Part Assoc, 74 (1982) 618
of this work was completed during the first 8 Adams Jeffrey Q & Clark Robert M, J Am Water Works
author's appointment to the Postgraduate Research Assoc, 81 (1989) 35.