Printed on Recycled Paper

United States Office of Water EPA 816-R-01-005

Environmental Protection (4606) February 2001

Agency

1999 Drinking Water

Infrastructure Needs Survey

Modeling the Cost of

Infrastructure
Photo on front cover: The City of El Paso, Texas, received a

$15 million loan from the Texas DWSRF program to

expand the capacity of the Jonathan Rogers Treatment

Plant. This project will provide water to colonias that lack

access to safe drinking water. Photo courtesy of the Texas

Water Development Board. 
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

Contract No. 68-C-99-245

Work Assignment No. 1-02

Prepared by:

The Cadmus Group, Inc.

135 Beaver Street

Waltham, MA 02452

February, 2001
This page intentionally left blank.
1

 Also, the scope of the survey is limited to DWSRF eligible needs - thus excluding projects solely related

to dams, raw water reservoirs, future growth, and fire flow.

February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

1 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted the second Drinking Water

Infrastructure Needs Survey. The survey is an important tool of the Drinking Water State

Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program. The purpose of the survey is to estimate the documented 20-

year capital investment needs of public water systems that are eligible to receive DWSRF

assistance—approximately 55,000 community water systems and 21,400 not-for-profit

noncommunity water systems. The survey includes infrastructure needs that are required to

protect public health, such as projects to prevent contamination by preserving the physical

integrity of the system1. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires EPA to conduct the

survey every four years and to use the results to allocate DWSRF funds to the States and Tribes.

The approach for the survey was developed by EPA in consultation with a workgroup consisting

of State, American Indian, Alaska Native Village, and Indian Health Service representatives. The

workgroup refined the methods used in 1995 based on lessons learned from the 1995 survey and

options made available from technological advancements in Internet based communications.

The survey used questionnaires to collect infrastructure needs from medium and large water

systems. EPA mailed questionnaires to all 1,111 of the nation’s largest water systems serving

more than 40,000 people, and to a random sample of 2,556 of the 7,759 medium systems serving

over 3,300 people. Approximately 96 percent of these systems returned the questionnaire, with

100 percent of the largest water systems responding. 

Small systems serving fewer than 3,300 people often lack the specialized staff and planning

documents needed to respond to the questionnaire. Therefore, EPA conducted site visits to 599

randomly selected small community water systems and 100 not-for-profit noncommunity water

systems to identify and document their infrastructure needs.

As part of the survey, EPA developed cost models to assign costs to projects for which systems

lacked adequate cost documentation (See Acceptable Documentation Box on next page). The

number of projects submitted without cost documentation increased significantly in 1999

compared to the previous survey. Of approximately 74,000 accepted projects, 67 percent were

submitted without documentation of cost. This increase required greater reliance on cost

modeling than in 1995. 
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure 2

For the 1999 survey, 59 models were

developed to assign costs to over 95

infrastructure needs, from replacing broken

valves to building new treatment plants.

Section 1.0 of this document describes the

general approach for constructing these cost

models. It discusses the sources of cost

information and the general method for

developing and applying the cost curves. 

Section 2.0 explains how this method was

applied in modeling source, treatment,

storage, transmission and distribution, and

“other” needs. Appendix A contains the cost

models as organized by category of need. 

Appendix B presents the “Type of Need

Dictionary” which provides a definition for

each type of need, including typical project

components.

Important Note: Although the cost models

developed for this survey allowed EPA to

estimate total needs nationwide, the models

do not account for all the factors that may

influence the cost of infrastructure. EPA

chose to limit the design parameters collected

for the survey to minimize the burden on the

respondents. The survey relied on the

voluntary participation of over 4,000 water

system owners and operators across the

country to supply documented cost data.

EPA also recognized that systems with a

documented need, but without a documented

cost estimate, may lack the information that

would be utilized in more complex models. 

It should be noted that while the cost curves are appropriate for developing national estimates of

need for the purpose of the survey, they may be problematic if used to budget specific projects for

individual water systems.

1.0 Methods

1.1 Sources of Cost Information

The data used to develop the cost models generally include materials, construction, design,

administrative and legal fees, and contingencies. In addition, it was important to obtain cost data

Acceptable Documentation

The following types of documents were used to

justify the need and/or cost of a project. 

For Need and/or Cost Documentation

• Capital Improvement Plan or Master Plan

• Facilities Plan or Preliminary Engineering

Report

• Grant or Loan Application Form

• Engineer’s Estimate

• Intended Use Plan/State Priority List

• Indian Health Service Sanitary Deficiency

System Printout

For Need Documentation Only

• Comprehensive Performance Evaluation

(CPE) Results

• Sanitary Survey

• Source Water Protection Plan

• Monitoring Results

• Signed and dated statement from State, site

visit contractor, or system engineer clearly

detailing infrastructure needs.

For Cost Documentation Only

• Cost of Previous Comparable Construction
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

3 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

for systems of all sizes in order to minimize the extent to which costs had to be extrapolated

beyond the range of the data points. 

Several sources of cost data were available. The cost documentation submitted by water systems

on the questionnaire was the sole source of data for 40 of the 59 cost models. However, for some

types of need, the data generated from the survey respondents proved inadequate for constructing

statistical models. Therefore, cost data from sources other than the questionnaire, such as State

funding agencies, were used to supplement the cost curves. EPA also obtained cost information

from manufacturers, engineering firms, the 1995 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey,

and the Economic Analyses (EAs, previously known as Regulatory Impact Analyses) that the

Agency publishes in support of proposed regulations.

Data Collected on Questionnaires

The project costs from the questionnaires were reviewed by States and EPA to ensure that the

data were appropriate for building models. The survey set rigorous documentation criteria for

assessing the validity and scope of project costs. EPA required that each project cost submitted

on the questionnaire be supported by documentation to indicate that the cost had undergone an

adequate degree of professional review. The documentation criteria also allowed EPA to review

all of the components of a project that were included in the cost estimate. This review enabled

EPA to model portions of the project that were excluded from a cost estimate, or to delete

DWSRF-ineligible portions of the cost. 

The following criteria were used to determine whether the cost data were appropriate:

• The cost reflected complete project costs (e.g., design, materials, and installation

costs), but excluded non-capital line items such as interest payments or financing

fees.

• The necessary modeling parameters were available. For example, cost data for

treatment projects could only be used if the respondent provided the design

capacity of the treatment facility.

• The date of the cost estimate was provided to enable adjustment of the cost to

January 1999 dollars.

• The project was representative of typical projects needed by other water systems in

the survey—unusual or unique projects were excluded from the cost models.

Data Collected from Other Sources

Additional sources of cost data from which EPA supplemented the questionnaire data included

the following:

• State funding agencies (Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, Oklahoma,

Pennsylvania, and Texas supplied data).
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure 4

• The 2000 R.S. Means catalog.

• EPA’s Economic Analyses.

• Product manufacturers and distributors.

• Engineering firms.

• 1995 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey.

• The Indian Health Service (IHS). 

Cost data from these sources were evaluated using the same criteria that were applied to the

questionnaires. 

EPA requested cost data from the States for the following types of projects:

C New Spring Collectors producing less

than 3 MGD

C Rehabilitation of Direct Filtration Plants

producing less than 2 MGD

C Rehabilitation of Spring Collectors

producing less than 3 MGD

C Rehabilitation of Slow Sand Filtration Plants

producing less than 5 MGD 

C New Conventional Treatment Plants

producing less than 2 MGD

C Rehabilitation of Lime Softening Plants

producing less than 2 MGD

C New Direct Filtration Plants producing

less than 2 MGD

C New Manganese Green Sand facilities treating

less than 15 MGD

C Rehabilitation of Manganese Green

Sand facilities treating less than 35

MGD (although most new projects to

model are less than 3 MGD)

EPA used the R.S. Means catalog to obtain costs for backflow prevention devices and assemblies. 

The cost of double check valves was selected as a representative unit for small-diameter projects,

while reduced pressure zone (RPZ) backflow prevention devices were used for larger

installations.

The Economic Analysis (EA) for the Stage 2 Disinfectant/Disinfection Byproduct Rule was the

source of costs for ozone projects, while the EA for the proposed Ground Water Rule provided

costs for chlorine dioxide projects. 

Product manufacturers and distributors provided cost information for ultraviolet disinfection,

chlorine gas scrubbers, streaming current monitors, particle counters, chlorine residual monitors

and turbidity meters. 
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

5 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

For the 1995 survey, an engineering firm (Robert Peccia and Associates, Inc.) developed costs for

well houses, the elimination of well pits, the abandonment of wells, powdered activated carbon,

and hydropneumatic storage. These costs were adjusted to January 1999 dollars for this survey. 

The 1995 survey provided data for raw water transmission, finished water transmission, and

distribution main projects of all sizes. The 1999 data were not used to model costs due to the

extreme variability of the data.

The Indian Health Service provided cost information on cisterns for use in the American Indian

portion of the survey.

1.2 Developing the Linear Regression Cost Models

Most of the cost models are linear regressions between the project’s cost (the dependent variable)

and a design parameter (the independent variable). The regressions were run on the natural

logarithm of the data. In general, the models took the form: 

C = e($0+F

2

/2)D$1

where: C = the project cost;

D = the design parameter (e.g., design capacity, in millions of gallons per day);

e = the base of natural logarithms; 

$0, $1 = coefficients that relate the design parameter to cost, estimated using ordinary

least squares regression; and

F = the standard error of the regression. F

2

/2 is added to the equation to produce

consistent estimates on the raw scale. 

 For example, the model for elevated storage tanks defines cost as a function of a tank’s design

capacity (in million gallons of water). The cost of the tank is given by: 

C = e(14.082 + 0.4842

/2)D0.671

The predicted cost for an elevated tank with a storage capacity of 1 million gallons therefore is

$1.5 million. 

As discussed in Section 2, in some cases the costs for several types of projects were pooled

together for the regression analysis and one or more indicator variables were included in the

regression to distinguish among projects. When an indicator variable is included, the cost

equation takes the form: 

C = e($0+$2

I+F

2

/2)D$1

where I is the indicator variable and $2 is its coefficient, estimated by the regression. 

EPA ensured that the data used to construct the models were representative of the types of

projects to be modeled. As part of this effort, EPA investigated statistical outliers to exclude

projects that involved extraordinary design or installation requirements. 
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure 6

The cost data for a given design parameter may vary by 2 to 4 orders of magnitude. This high

level of variability was considered appropriate considering the variability of the projects to be

modeled; similar variability was observed in the models for the 1995 survey. The variability may

be reduced if additional parameters are included in the models. For example, the costs of

installing a new treatment plant of a specific capacity will vary greatly depending on raw water

quality, the plant’s configuration, and local conditions. EPA, however, did not request data on

these characteristics to reduce the response burden on participants. While their omission

increases the standard error of the models, it does not bias the models’ estimates of cost. This is

because these factors are not correlated with capacity and do not affect which projects in the

sample have documented costs. Therefore, EPA assumed the distribution of these factors among

projects with costs and projects with costs that must be modeled is similar. 

However, in order to improve the statistical efficiency of the models, EPA tried to eliminate three

sources of variability in the data. First, EPA adjusted the cost data using the location factors

published by the R.S. Means Company to account for regional variation in construction costs.

Second, EPA normalized the cost data to January 1999 dollars using the Construction Cost Index

(CCI) published in the Engineering News-Record (ENR). This step eliminated the variability

introduced by the different dates of the cost estimates that were submitted by water systems.

Lastly, EPA developed separate cost models for the installation and rehabilitation of infrastructure

in view of the generally lower costs of rehabilitation.

EPA took the following steps to develop the models:

• Identify the cost data from the questionnaire or a supplemental source. 

• Adjust the project costs to January 1999 dollars.

• Normalize the project costs using the location factor. This step involves dividing the

cost estimate by the location factor. The first three digits of a water system’s zip

code were used to assign a location factor to the system. 

• Develop the cost curve by performing a log-log regression analysis on the

observations. 

For the 1999 Needs Survey, EPA refined some of the cost models by including dummy variables

to account for the influence of system size or project type on the cost. For example, the model

used for new well projects includes a statistically significant dummy variable for aquifer storage

and recovery (ASR) wells that assigns slightly higher costs to ASR projects.

1.3 Unit Costs Models

For some projects, such as service line replacement or water meters, that were assigned unit costs,

EPA developed average costs per unit based on the questionnaire data. These models were

developed by applying location factors to the documented cost observations and then averaging

the normalized cost observations for a particular equipment size category. For example, the cost

estimate for a 6-inch water meter was developed by averaging the cost observations for 6-inch

water meter projects. For other projects, such as backflow prevention devices, that also were
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

7 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

priced on a per unit basis, EPA used cost data provided by the R.S. Means catalogue, the Indian

Health Service, or an engineering firm.

1.4 Applying the Cost Models

EPA used the models to estimate the costs of projects for which systems lacked a documented

cost. The basic steps in applying both the linear regression and unit cost models are listed below:

• EPA determined the cost predicted by the model based on the required input,

usually design capacity.

• To adjust for regional variability in construction costs, EPA multiplied the

normalized cost that was generated from the model by the location factor of the

system. The adjustment would increase the cost in States where construction costs

are typically higher than average and decrease the cost in States where they are

typically lower.

• For transmission and distribution projects, in addition to the above steps, a

different unit cost was used depending on whether the location of the system lay to

the north or south of the nation’s frost line. This was done to recognize that

projects above the frost line generally have higher installation costs due to the

greater depths at which pipe must be buried to avoid freezing.

The total infrastructure need for a system in the survey equaled the sum of the modeled costs that

were calculated by EPA plus the sum of the documented costs that were submitted by the system.

2.0 Types of Need For Which Costs May Be Modeled

This section discusses the specific types of need for which EPA developed cost models. To reduce

the variability of the models, the cost curves usually distinguish between the installation of new

equipment and the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure. EPA attempted to develop separate

new and rehabilitation cost models for each type of need. However, some types of projects lacked

sufficient cost data and, therefore, these projects were assigned costs using models for other

similar types of technologies. 

One example may serve to illustrate how one model could be used to assign costs to similar types

of infrastructure. Cost data for chemical feed were combined with the less abundant data points

available for sequestering, corrosion control, and fluoride addition to form one model. Dummy

variables for the latter projects were included to reflect the higher or lower costs of these

technologies relative to chemical feed. Combining the data made sense, because the cost estimates

that respondents identified on the questionnaire as being for chemical feed likely included projects

for sequestering, corrosion control, and fluoride addition. In addition, EPA used this model to

assign costs to projects for zebra mussel control and the dechlorination of treated water (for both

of which EPA lacked any data points), given that the costs and types of equipment were similar to

chemical feed. 
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure 8

Also, for some projects a single model was used for both the installation of new equipment and

the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure. EPA combined the cost data for those technologies

where the distinction between new and rehabilitation likely was unclear to the respondents and the

difference in cost was small. For example, the cost model for chemical feed represents both new

and rehabilitation projects, because many of the projects that systems identified as new were

actually rehabilitations of existing equipment and vice versa. The resulting cost data, therefore,

represented a mix of new and rehabilitation projects between which it was difficult to distinguish

due to the similarity of costs. 

2.1 Source

For new and refurbished wells, intakes, spring collectors, and aquifer storage and recovery (ASR)

wells, the cost models are a function of design capacity in millions of gallons per day (MGD). For

well houses, abandoning wells, and eliminating well pits, costs were assigned on a per unit basis. 

The following is the list of models for source needs. The Needs Survey will not include

rehabilitation projects for eliminating well pits or abandoning wells because these projects are

considered one-time projects.

C Well House (unit cost) C Surface Water Intake or Spring Collector (MGD)

C Well (MGD) C Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well (MGD)

C Eliminating Well Pit (unit cost) C Abandoning Well (unit cost)
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

9 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

2.2 Treatment

For each treatment project, EPA collected information on the type of infrastructure needed and its

design capacity. Most of the cost models are a function of the design capacity of the treatment

system (in MGD). However, streaming current monitors, particle counters, chlorine residual

analyzers and turbidity meters were assigned a single cost per unit.

Chemical feed, waste handling and disinfection projects were modeled by the design capacity of

the entire treatment system, as opposed to the capacity of the chemical feed pump or volume of

the waste stream. This approach alleviated the burden on systems to provide flow data for each

component of their treatment train.

The cost models for treatment technologies are listed below with the units for modeling provided

in parentheses. Cost models for rehabilitating turbidimeters, particle counters, streaming current

monitors or chlorine residual monitors were not developed because these projects were

considered operation and maintenance. 

C Chlorination and Mixed

Oxidant Type Equipment

(MGD)

C Sedimentation/

Flocculation (MGD)

C Ion Exchange (used also for

Activated Alumina) (MGD)

C Chlorine Dioxide and

Chloramination (MGD)

C Filters (MGD) C Manganese Green Sand

Filtration (MGD)

C Ozonation (MGD) C Aeration (MGD) C Lime Softening (MGD)

C Ultraviolet Disinfection

(MGD)

C Membrane Technology

for Particulate Removal 

(MGD)

C Reverse Osmosis (used also for

Electrodialysis) (MGD)

C Contact Basin for CT

(Clearwell) (MG)

C Chlorine Residual

Monitors (unit cost)

C Powdered Activated Carbon 

(MGD)

• Conventional Filter Plant 

(MGD)

C Turbidity Meters (unit

cost)

• Granular Activated Carbon

(MGD)

C Direct or In-line Filter

Plant, Slow Sand, DE and

Cartridge or Bag filtration

(MGD)

C Streaming Current

Monitors (unit cost)

C Chemical Feed, Dechlorination,

Fluoride Addition,

Sequestering, Corrosion

Control and Zebra Mussel

Control (MGD)

C Chlorine Gas Scrubber (unit

cost by MGD)

C Particle Counters (unit

cost)

C Waste Handling and

Treatment, Mechanical

(MGD)

C Waste Handling and

Treatment,

Nonmechanical (MGD)
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure 10

2.3 Storage

Survey respondents provided ample cost data for elevated and ground-level storage tanks, and for

installing covers on existing finished water reservoirs. Conversely, the paucity of cost data for

hydropneumatic tanks required the use of engineering firm data obtained for the 1995 survey. For

cisterns, the Indian Health Service (IHS) provided information to develop a unit cost. The

following is the list of models for storage needs. Storage projects have separate cost curves for

new and rehabilitation, with the exception of storage covers which were assigned rehabilitation

costs based on the rehabilitation of the entire tank.

C Elevated Finished/Treated

Water Storage (MG)

C Hydropneumatic Storage

(MG)

C Storage Cover

(MG)

C Ground-Level Finished/Treated

Water Storage (Includes

Presedimentation Basins,

Chemical Storage Tanks, and

Rehabilitation of Contact

Basins for CT (MG)

C Cisterns (MG)

2.4 Transmission and Distribution

Transmission and distribution needs represented the largest category of need in the 1999 Needs

Survey. Many factors influence the cost of water main projects, including length and diameter of

the pipe, pipe material (e.g., PVC versus cast iron), transportation costs, pressure ratings, depth

of bury, and soil type. The survey, however, limited the collection of data to diameter and length

of pipe to reduce the response burden on water systems. Despite obtaining a large amount of data

on project costs, the 1999 data were not used to model costs due to the extreme variability of the

data. 

Several variables for use in the cost models were explored, including the length of pipe for the

project, urban and rural project locations, or population density in the project area (as indicated

by zip code from the Census Bureau). None of these variables provided a significant

improvement to the simpler cost model based only on pipe diameter and length.

Service lines were assigned a unit cost per connection based on survey respondent data. 

Hydrants, valves, backflow prevention devices, and meters were modeled using the number of

units needed and their diameter.

The following types of projects are included in the distribution and transmission category. Most

of these projects involve only the installation of new infrastructure (i.e., meters, service lines,

hydrants, valves, and backflow prevention devices/assemblies), because rehabilitation of this

equipment was considered operation and maintenance. 
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

11 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

C Raw Water Transmission

(pipe diameter and

length)

C Service Lines (number of

lines)

C Control Valves (PRVs,

altitude, etc.) (number

and diameter)

C Finished Water

Transmission (pipe

diameter and length)

C Flushing Hydrants

(number and diameter)

C Backflow Prevention

Devices /Assemblies

(number and diameter)

C Distribution Mains (pipe

diameter and length)

C Valves (gate, butterfly,

etc.) (number and

diameter)

C Water Meters (number

and diameter)

2.5 Pumping

The different types of pumping needs are listed below. EPA developed cost models for pumps and

pumping stations as a function of the pumping capacity in MGD. Documented costs for pump

controls/telemetry are based on the population served by the system, as this model accounted for

more variability in the data than the model using the systems’ design capacity. 

• Pumps, (includes Raw Water

Pumps, Finished Water Pumps

and Well Pumps) (MGD)

C Pump Station (MGD) C Pump Controls/Telemetry 

2.6 Other Needs

Projects in the miscellaneous category of need, called “other,” for which costs models were

developed include Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA), and emergency power. 

Emergency power was modeled using kilowatts. For SCADA, the costs were modeled using the

systems’ total design capacity. Chemical storage tanks, categorized as an “other” need, were

modeled as ground level storage tanks. The models developed for “other” needs were developed

only to assign costs to new projects, because rehabilitation of this equipment was considered

operation and maintenance. 

C Emergency Power (kilowatts) C Computer and Automation

Costs (SCADA) (system design

capacity)
This page intentionally left blank.
 Appendix A

 Cost Models
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-2

Appendix A

Table of Contents

Source

Cost Models

Well: New and Rehabilitation (New only for Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well)

Surface Water Intake and Spring Collectors: New and Rehabilitation

Unit Costs

Well House: New or Rehabilitation

Eliminate Well Pit

Abandon Well

Distribution and Transmission

Cost Models

Distribution and Transmission Mains: Raw and Finished Water, New and

Rehabilitation

Unit Costs

Lead Service Lines and Non-Lead Service Lines: New only

Flushing Hydrants: New only

Valves (gate, butterfly, etc.): New only

Control Valves: New only

Backflow Prevention Devices and Assemblies: New only

Water Meters: New only

Treatment

Cost Models

Chlorination and Mixed Oxidant-Type Treatment: New and Rehabilitation as a

single model 

Chlorine Dioxide and Chloramination: New only

Ozone: New only

Ultraviolet Light Disinfection: New only

Contact Basins For Contact Time: New only (Rehabilitation modeled as Ground

Level Storage Tanks)

Conventional Filtration Treatment Plant: New and Rehabilitation

Direct, In-line, Diatomaceous Earth, Slow Sand or Cartridge/Bag Filtration Plant:

New and Rehabilitation

Chemical Feed, Zebra Mussel Control, Dechlorination, Sequestering, Corrosion

Control, and Fluoride Addition: New and Rehab as a single model

Sedimentation/Flocculation Basins: New and Rehabilitation
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-3 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Filters and GAC: New and Rehabilitation as a single model

Membrane Technology: New only

Manganese Green Sand Filtration or Other Oxidation/Filtration Technology: New

only (Rehabilitation modeled as Direct Filtration Rehabilitation)

Ion Exchange: New Only (Rehabilitation will be modeled as Rehabilitation of

Filters)

Lime Softening: New Only (Rehabilitation will be modeled as Rehabilitation of

Conventional Treatment)

Aeration: New and Rehabilitation

Waste Handling and Treatment - Mechanical: New only

Waste Handling and treatment - Non Mechanical: New and Rehabilitation as a

single model

Special Cases

Electrodialysis

Activated Alumina

Unit Costs

Chlorine Gas Scrubber

Streaming Current Monitor

Particle Counter

Turbidity meter

Chlorine Residual Monitor

Powdered Activated Carbon

Storage/Pumping

Elevated Finished/Treated Water Storage: New and Rehabilitation

Ground Level Finished/Treated Water Storage, Presedimentation Basin and Chemical Storage

Tanks: New and Rehabilitation

Hydropneumatic Storage: New and Rehabilitation

Cisterns - Unit Cost

Covers for Existing Finished/Treated Water Storage: New Only (Rehabilitation modeled as

Rehabilitation of Entire Ground Level Tank)

Pumps for Raw Water, Finished Water and Wells: New and Rehabilitation

Pump Station: New and Rehabilitation

Pump Controls/Telemetry: New and Rehabilitation as a single model

Other

Computer and Automation Costs, SCADA: New only

Emergency Power: New only
This page intentionally left blank.
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-5 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Source
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-6

Well

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• R1– Well (complete, including pump and appurtenances, not including a well house).

• R11– Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well.

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data for wells (R1). Medium and large

system survey respondent data for aquifer storage and recovery wells (R11).

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).

Equations:

• New *: e(12.723+0.921*R11+0.8142

/2)*D0.674

• Rehabilitation: e(10.682+1.0562

/2)*D0.163 for wells (R1) only. Aquifer storage and recovery

wells (R11) were not modeled. 

 * Regression includes data for Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells (R11), with indicator

variable (for Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells, R11 = 1 if Type of Need = R11, = 0

otherwise).

New Rehab

Observations 318 257

R-squared 0.47 0.02

Prob>F 0.000 0.046

Cost Floor $55,117 $15,000

Minimum capacity (MGD) 0.010 0.001
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-7 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Well

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

Well Rehabilitation
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-8 Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Surface Water Intake or Spring Collector

Surface Water Intake and Spring Collector

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• R5 – Surface Water Intake

• R8 – Spring Collector

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent surface water intake data.

Determinants of Cost:

• Design capacity in million gallons per day (MGD)

Equations:

• New: e( 12.100+0.9652

/2)*D0.715

• Rehabilitation: e( 11.777+0.9732

/2)*D0.550

New Rehab

Observations 43 23

R-squared 0.61 0.50

Prob>F 0.000 0.000

Minimum capacity (MGD) 0.072 0.010
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-9 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

Surface Water Intake or Spring Collector Rehabilitation

*Larger point is outlier excluded from regression.
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-10

Unit Costs for Raw / Untreated Water Source Projects

Infrastructure

Need

Needs Survey

Code

Source of Cost Estimate 1999 Cost

Estimate

Well House R2 - New 1995 Needs Survey Unit Cost 

(developed by an engineering

firm) converted to January,

1999 dollars

$ 78,343

Well House R2 - Rehab $ 24,038

Eliminate Well Pit R3 - New Only* $ 13,006

Abandon Well R4 - New Only* $ 5,476

* Costs were assigned for construction of new projects only. Elimination of well pits and

abandonment of wells are considered one-time projects.
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-11 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Distribution and Transmission
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-12

Distribution and Transmission Mains

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• M1 – Distribution Mains

• X1 – Raw Water Transmission

• X2 – Finished Water Transmission

Source of Cost Observations:

• Distribution Mains, Raw Water or Finished Water Transmission: New and Rehabilitation Cost per

foot from 1995 Needs Survey

Determinants of Cost:

• Pipe diameter, project length (in feet) in frost and non-frost locations

• Rehabilitation- 1995 costs in January, 1999 dollars ($38.43) 

Table of Data: 

Pipe Diameter (inches) Cost per Foot - Frost Cost per Foot - Non-Frost

< 6 $ 68.03 $ 43.44

8 $ 66.91 $ 45.85

10 $ 72.65 $ 52.74

12 $ 78.40 $ 59.64

14 $ 99.62 $ 75.74

16 $ 120.83 $ 91.85

18 $ 134.97 $ 107.85

20 $ 149.12 $ 123.86

24 $ 151.80 $ 141.51

30 $ 177.48 $ 177.48

36 $ 256.11 $ 256.11

42 $ 354.08 $ 354.08

> 42 and < 60 $ 380.00 $ 380.00

> 60 and < 84 $ 524.00 $ 524.00

> 84 and < 90 $ 530.00 $ 530.00

> 90 and < 96 $ 594.00 $ 594.00

> 96 and < 120 $ 630.00 $ 630.00

> 120 $ 864.00 $ 864.00
Appendix A-13

$-

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

$900

$1,000

<=6<=8

<=10<=12<=14<=16<=18<=20<=24<=30<=36<=42

<60<84<90<96

<120

>=120

Diameter (inches)

Cost per Foot

Frost

Non-Frost
This page intentionally left blank.
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-15 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Unit Costs for Distribution Projects

Infrastructure Need Need Survey

Code

Source of Cost Estimate Cost Estimate

Lead Service Lines

and 

Service Lines other

than Lead Lines

M2, M3 Unit costs derived from 1999

Needs Survey data used on all

new projects based on size.

Rehab projects are not

allowable and therefore were

not modeled.

$1,111.54

Flushing Hydrants M4 $1,827.61
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-16

Valves

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• M5 – Valves (gate, butterfly, etc.)

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

• Diameter of valve. 

Table of Data:

• New valves only, rehabilitation projects not allowed for the Survey.

Valve Diameter

(Inches)

Cost 

(January, 1999 dollars)

4.0 $ 1,041.71

6.0 $ 1,136.88

8.0 $ 1,624.02

10 $ 3,670.51

12 $ 5,271.13

14-16 $ 7,194.40

18-20 $ 11,903.32

>20 $ 21,490.30
Appendix A-17

Gate, Butterfly, etc. Valves (M5)

1,041.71 1,136.88 1,624.02

3,670.51

5,271.13

7,194.40

11,903.32

21,490.30

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

4 6 8 10 12 14 - 16 18 - 20 > 20

Diameter

Dollars
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-18

Control Valves

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• M6 – Control Valves (PRVs, altitude, etc.)

Source of Cost Observations:

• Medium and large system survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

• Diameter of valve. 

Table of Data:

• New valves only, rehabilitation projects not allowed for the Survey.

Valve Diameter

(Inches)

Cost 

(January, 1999 dollars)

< 6.0 $ 7,894.04

10-12 $ 9,972.60

14-16 $ 19,677.58

18-24 $ 61,238.71

30+ $ 117,869.62
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-19 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Control Valves (PRV, Altitude) (M6)

7,894.04

9,972.60

19,677.58

61,238.71

117,869.62

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

<= 6 10 - 12 14 - 16 18 - 24 30+

Diameter

Dollars
This page intentionally left blank.
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-21 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Backflow Prevention Devices/Assemblies

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• M7 – Backflow Prevention Devices/Assemblies

Source of Cost Observations:

• 2000 R.S. Means Cost Data for double check valves up to and including 6-inches in diameter

and reduced pressure zone backflow prevention devices for 8 and 10-inch diameter units.

Determinants of Cost:

• Device/Assembly diameter. 

Table of Data:

• New devices/assemblies only, rehabilitation projects not allowed for the Survey.

Diameter of Device/Assembly

(inches)

Cost

 (January, 1999 dollars)

0.75 $ 611.65

1.0 $ 639

1.5 $ 731.50

2.0 $ 908

3.0 $ 1,556

4.0 $ 2,260

6.0 $ 3,548

8.0 $ 8,545

10 $ 11,945
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-22

Water Meters

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• M8 – Water Meters

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

• Meter diameter. 

Table of Data:

• New meters only, rehabilitation of meters not allowed for the Survey.

Diameter of Meter

(inches)

Average Cost per

Meter

0.625 and 0.7 $ 123.54

1.0 $ 164.20

1.5 $ 361.99

2.0 $ 588.44

3.0 $ 2,156.09

4.0 $ 3,027.33

6.0 $ 4,680.13

> 8.0 $ 10,769.96
Appendix A-23

Water Meters (M8)

123.54 164.20 361.99 588.44

2,156.09

3,027.33

4,680.13

10,769.96

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

0.625 + 0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 6 8 +

Diameter

Dollars
This page intentionally left blank.
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-25 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Treatment
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-26

Chlorination and Mixed Oxidant Type Equipment

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• T1 – Chlorination

• T5 – Mixed Oxidant Type Equipment 

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data for chlorination (T1). No data from

Mixed Oxidant Type Equipment was provided by survey respondents.

Determinants of Cost:

• Design capacity of water to be treated in million gallons per day (MGD).

• Minimum design capacities were applied when not specified.

• Minimum cost for new T1 specified as $67,072.

Equations:

• New & Rehabilitation: e( 10.400+1.0702

/2)*D0.684

New and Rehabs

Observations 95

R-squared 0.63

Prob>F 0.000

Minimum capacity (new) 0.000003

Minimum capacity (rehab) 0.001
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-27 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Chlorination System and Mixed Oxidant Type Equipment and

Rehabilitation of Existing System

Larger point is outlier excluded from regression.
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-28

Chlorine Dioxide and Chloramination

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• T2 – Chloramination

• T3 – Chlorine Dioxide

Source of Cost Observations:

• Chlorine dioxide costs reported in the Economic Analysis for the Proposed Ground Water

Rule.

Determinants of Cost:

• Design capacity in million gallons per day (MGD)

• Minimum design capacities applied when not specified

• Cost determined by extrapolating between data points provided in table.

Table of Data:

• New projects only, no rehabilitation data available.

Design Capacity

 (MGD)

Cost 

(January, 1999 Dollars)

0.03 $ 108,253

0.1 $ 171,593

0.3 $ 194,626

0.75 $ 217,658

2.2 $ 268,330

7.8 $ 445, 681

23.5 $ 928,215

81 $1,885,221
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-29 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Ozonation

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• T4 – Ozonation

Source of Cost Observations:

• Ozone costs for new systems reported in the Economic Analysis from the Stage 2

Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule.

Determinants of Cost:

• Design capacity in million gallons per day (MGD); minimum design capacities applied when

not specified.

Table of Data:

• New only, rehabilitation projects are modeled as rehab. of Chlorination (T1).

Design Capacity (MGD) Cost (January, 1999 Dollars)

0.024 $ 278,591

0.087 $ 338,144

0.1 $ 347,676

0.27 $ 377,775

0.45 $ 459,845

0.65 $ 541,798

0.83 $ 698,000

1.0 $ 795,536

1.8 $ 884,972

4.8 $ 1,220,355

10 $ 1,801,686

11 $ 1,911,480

18 $ 2,648,779

26 $ 3,441,890

51 $ 5,739,013

210 $ 17,847,610

430 $ 33,366,003
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-30

Ultraviolet Disinfection

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• T6 – Ultraviolet Disinfection

Source of Cost Observations:

• Costs extrapolated from manufacturer’s data for new systems.

Determinants of Cost:

• Design capacity in million gallons per day (MGD.

• Minimum design capacities applied when not specified.

• Rehabilitation projects were not modeled as there were no rehab. projects submitted without

costs.

Table of Data:

Design Capacity

 (MGD)

Cost 

(January, 1999 Dollars)

0.024 $ 11,371

0.087 $ 15,516

0.27 $ 21,876

0.65 $ 35,172

1.8 $ 129,633

4.8 $ 190,109

11 $ 266,152

18 $ 304,174

26 $ 349,800

51 $ 583,000

210 $ 1,381,226
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-31 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Contact Basin for CT

Contact Basin for CT

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• T7 – Contact Basin for CT (new) 

Source of Cost Observations:

• Medium and large system survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

• Design capacity in million gallons (MG).

Equations:

• New: e( 14.072+0.4642

/2)*D0.739

• Rehabilitation projects for Contact basins for CT will be modeled as rehabilitations of ground

level storage tanks (S2).

New

Observations 16

R-squared 0.84

Prob>F 0.000

Minimum capacity 0.0003
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-32

Conventional Filter Plant

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• T10 – Conventional Filter Plant

• T35 – Lime Softening (complete plant rehabilitation)

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data, and supplemental data from state

lending agencies.

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD)

Equations:

• New*:e

( 14.444+0.5372/2)*D0.593 if design capacity is less than or equal to 1 MGD;

e

( 14.444+0.5372/2)*D0.881 if design capacity is greater than 1 MGD;

• Rehab**: e( 13.710+T35*-0.696+1.0372

/2)*D0.606

* New projects are modeled as a spline, with the slope changing at 1 mgd. 

** The rehabilitation regression includes data for rehabilitation of Lime Softening (T35), with

an indicator variable. T35: = 1 if Type of Need is T35, = 0 otherwise.

New Rehabs

Observations 144 151

R-squared 0.89 0.41

Prob>F 0.000 0.000

Minimum capacity (MGD) 0.072 0.072
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-33 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Conventional Filter Plant

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

Conventional Filter Plant and Lime Softening Rehabilitation

Larger points are outliers excluded from regression.
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-34

Direct or In-line, Slow Sand, Diatomaceous Earth, or

Cartridge or Bag Filtration Plant

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• T11 – Direct or In-line Filter Plant

• T16 – Slow Sand Filter Plant

• T17 – Diatomaceous Earth Filter Plant

• T19 – Cartridge or Bag Filtration Plant

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data for direct filtration plants.

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).

Equations:

• New: e( 14.472+0.5752

/2)*D0.716

• Rehabilitation: e( 13.219+1.1232

/2)*D0.594

New Rehab

Observations 28 25

R-squared 0.79 0.46

Prob>F 0.000 0.000

Minimum capacity (MGD) 0.100 0.065
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-35 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Direct Filtration Plant

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

Direct Filtration Plant Rehabilitation
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-36

Chemical Feed, Dechlorination of Treated Water, Sequestering for Iron and/or Manganese,

Corrosion Control, Fluoride Addition, and Zebra Mussel Control

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• T13 – Chemical Feed

• T8 – Dechlorination of Treated Water

• T32 – Sequestering for Iron and/or Manganese

• T40 – Corrosion Control

• T44 – Zebra Mussel Control

• T46 – Fluoride Addition

Source of Cost Observations:

• Large, medium and small system survey respondent data for Chemical Feed (T13),

Sequestering (T32), Corrosion Control (T40), and Fluoride Addition (T46). 

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity of water to be treated in million gallons per day (MGD)

Equations:*

• New & Rehabilitation: e( 10.298+1.474*T32+0.352*T40-1.302*T46+1.1022

/2)*D0.652

*Regression also included data for Sequestering (T32), Corrosion Control (T40), and

Fluoride Addition (T46), with indicator variables: 

T32: = 1 if Type of Need is T32, = 0 otherwise

T40: = 1 if Type of Need is T40, = 0 otherwise

T46: = 1 if Type of Need is T46, = 0 otherwise

Equation for Chemical Feed (T13) used for Dechlorination of Treated Water (T8) and Zebra

Mussel Control (T44). 

New and Rehab

Observations 64

R-squared 0.63

Prob>F 0.000

Minimum capacity (new)(MGD) 0.004

Minimum capacity (rehab)(MGD) 0.036
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-37 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

T40

T32

T13

T46

Chemical Feed, Dechlorination of Treated Water, Sequestering, Corrosion Control,

Fluoride Addition, and Zebra Mussel Control
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-38

Sedimentation/Flocculation

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• T14 – Sedimentation/Flocculation

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD)

Equations:

• New: e( 12.754+0.7502

/2)*D0.608

• Rehabilitation: e( 11.347+1.2192

/2)*D0.560

New Rehabs

Observations 20 41

R-squared 0.44 0.30

Prob>F 0.001 0.000

Minimum capacity 0.144 0.086
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-39 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Sedimentation/Flocculation

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

Sedimentation/Flocculation Rehabilitation
This page intentionally left blank.
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-41 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

Filters and Granular Activated Carbon: New and Rehabilitation

Filters and Granular Activated Carbon

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• T15 – Filters

• T31 – Granular Activated Carbon

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD)

Equations:

• New & Rehabilitation*: e( 12.634-1.821*Rehab+0.9572

/2)*D0.832

*Regression included data for granular activated carbon (T31), without an indicator variable

(Rehab: = 1 if project is a rehab, = 0 otherwise).

New and Rehabs

Observations 131

R-squared 0.69

Prob>F 0.000

Minimum capacity (new)(MGD) 0.0072

Minimum capacity (rehab)(MGD) 0.007
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-42

Membrane Technology for Particulate Removal and Reverse Osmosis

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• T18 – Membrane Technology for Particulate Removal

• T36 – Reverse Osmosis (complete plant)

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data for new Membrane Technology for

Particulate Removal (T18) and Reverse Osmosis (T36). Small, medium and large system

survey respondent data for rehabilitation of Reverse Osmosis (T36). 

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).

Equations:*

• New**: e( 14.344+0.7972

/2)*D0.814

• Rehabilitations: e( 13.556+0.4552

/2)*D0.278

*Regressions included data for Reverse Osmosis (T36) without an indicator variable.

**New projects with a design capacity < 0.156 MGD are modeled as a Reverse Osmosis

(T36) rehab.

New Rehab

Observations 52 5

R-squared 0.72 0.62

Prob>F 0.000 0.113

Minimum capacity (new)(MGD) 0.0144 0.500
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-43 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

Membrane Technology for Particulate Removal and Reverse Osmosis

Rehabilitation

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Membrane Technology for Particulate Removal and Reverse Osmosis

Larger point is outlier excluded from regression
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-44

Manganese Green Sand Filtration 

or Other Oxidation/Filtration Technology

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• T33 – Manganese Green Sand Filtration or other oxidation/filtration technology (complete

plant).

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD)

Equations:

• New*:e

( 13.377+0.9992/2)*D0.403 if design capacity is less than or equal to 1 MGD;

e

( 13.377+0.9992/2)*D1.106 if design capacity is greater than 1 MGD;

• Rehabs will be modeled as rehabilitation of Direct or In-Line Filter Plants (T11)

*New projects are modeled as a spline, with the slope changing at 1 MGD 

New

Observations 52

R-squared 0.68

Prob>F 0.000

Minimum capacity (MGD) 0.007
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-45 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Manganese Green Sand Filtration or Other Oxidation/Filtration Technology
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-46 Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Ion Exchange

Ion Exchange

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• T34 – Ion Exchange (complete plant)

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).

Equations:

• New: e( 13.308+0.6762

/2)*D0.789

• Rehabs will be modeled as rehabilitation of Filters (T15).

New

Observations 34

R-squared 0.64

Prob>F 0.000

Minimum capacity (new)(MGD) 0.014
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-47 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Lime Softening

Lime Softening

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• T35 – Lime Softening (complete plant)

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD)

Equations:

• New: e( 14.660+0.4652

/2)*D0.884

• Rehabilitation projects for Lime Softening will be modeled as rehabilitations of Conventional

Filter Plant (T10).

Note: rehab data included in Conventional Filter Plant (T10) regression, with an indicator

variable (T35: = 1 if Type of Need is T35, = 0 otherwise).

New

Observations 16

R-squared 0.74

Prob>F 0.000

Minimum capacity (MGD) 0.648
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-48

Aeration

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• T38 – Aeration

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD)

Equations:

• New*: e( 12.647+1.0582

/2)*D0.762

• Rehab: e( 11.931+0.3732

/2)*D0.201

*New projects < 0.116 MGD will be modeled as a rehabilitation.

New Rehab

Observations 67 8

R-squared 0.44 0.67

Prob>F 0.000 0.013

Minimum capacity (MGD) 0.065 0.002
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-49 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Aeration

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

Aeration Rehabilitation
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-50 Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Waste Handling and Treatment, Mechanical

Waste Handling and Treatment, Mechanical

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• T41 – Waste Handling and Treatment, Mechanical (not included in another project)

Source of Cost Observations:

• Large system survey respondent data

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity of water treatment facility in million gallons per day (MGD)

Equations:

• New: e( 12.742+1.1792

/2)*D0.494

• Rehabs will not be modeled.

New

Observations 35

R-squared 0.42

Prob>F 0.000

Minimum capacity (MGD) (new) 0.050
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-51 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

Waste Handling and Treatment, Nonmechanical, New and Rehabilitation

Waste Handling and Treatment, Nonmechanical

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• T42 – Waste handling and Treatment, Nonmechanical (not included in another project).

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity of water treatment facility in million gallons per day (MGD)

Equations:

• New & Rehab: e( 11.879+1.1702

/2)*D0.562

New and Rehabs

Observations 39

R-squared 0.44

Prob>F 0.000

Minimum capacity (new)(MGD) 0.005

Minimum capacity (rehab)(MGD) 0.005
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-52

Treatment Projects With Special Modeling Needs

Infrastructure

Need

Needs

Survey

Code

No. Projects to

be Modeled

New Projects to be

Modeled as:

Rehabilitation

Projects to be

Modeled as

Electrodialysis

(complete plant)

T37 1 New

1 Rehab.

Reverse Osmosis

(T36) New

Reverse Osmosis

(T36) Rehab.

Activated

Alumina

T39 1 New Ion Exchange

(T34).

Filters (T15).
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-53 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Unit Costs for Treatment Projects

Infrastructure

Need

Needs Survey

Code

Source of Cost Estimate Cost Estimate

(January, ‘99 Dollars)

Chlorine Gas

Scrubber

T9 Average of two

manufacturers’ cost

estimates and one

engineering firm estimate.

$30,000 for < 3.0 MGD

$90,000 for > 3.0 MGD

Streaming Current

Monitors

T20 Average of two

manufacturers’ cost

estimates.

$ 8,450

Particle Counters T21 Average of two

manufacturers’ cost

estimates and 1999 Needs

Survey data.

$ 4,128

Turbidity Meters T22 Average of three

manufacturers’ cost

estimates and 1999 Needs

Survey data.

$ 2,148

Chlorine Residual

Monitors

T23 Average of two

manufacturers’ cost

estimates.

$ 2,512

Powdered

Activated Carbon

T30 Unit cost from 1995

Needs Survey (obtained

from an engineering firm).

$ 147,634

T9 – Chlorine Gas Scrubber [scrubber equipment, installation and monitoring equipment

with alarms; assume < 3.0 MGD uses scrubbers for 150 pound chlorine gas

cylinders and > 3.0 MGD uses scrubbers for 1-ton containers].

T20 – Streaming Current Monitor [basic unit including a monitor, sensor and cable].

T21 – Particle Counters [on-line units for individual filter monitoring; not research-grade,

bench-top models].

T22 – Turbidity Meter [on-line units for individual filters, not bench-top models].

T23 – Chlorine Residual Monitors [analyzer/monitor only].
This page intentionally left blank.
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-55 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Storage/Pumping
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-56 Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Elevated Finished/Treated Water Storage

Elevated Finished/Treated Water Storage

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• S1 – Elevated Finished / Treated Water Storage

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity in million gallons (MG)

Equations:*

• New: e( 14.082+0.4842

/2)*D0.671

• Rehab: e( 12.420+0.8042

/2)*D0.385

New Rehabs

Observations 479 365

R-squared 0.62 0.18

Prob>F 0.000 0.000

Minimum capacity (MG) 0.025 0.002
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-57 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

Elevated Finished/Treated Water Storage Rehabilitation

Larger symbols are outliers excluded from regressions
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-58

Ground-level Finished/Treated Water Storage, Contact Basin for CT (Rehabilitation),

Presedimentation Basin, Chemical Storage Tank

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• S2 – Ground-level Finished/Treated Water Storage

• T7 – Contact Basin for CT (Rehabilitation)

• T12 – Presedimentation Basin

• W3 – Chemical Storage Tank

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data for new ground-level storage. 

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data for rehabilitation of ground-level

storage, and contact basin for CT. 

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity in million gallons (MG)

Equations:

• New: e( 13.641+0.5592

/2)*D0.694

• Rehab*: e( 11.890+0.9762

/2)*D0.478

*Note: rehab regression included data for Contact Basin for CT (T7), without indicator

variables.

New Rehabs

Observations 577 356

R-squared 0.77 0.30

Prob>F 0.000 0.000

Minimum capacity 0.000 0.001
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-59 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Ground-Level Finished/Treated Water Storage, Presedimentation

Basin, Chemical Storage Tank

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

Ground-level Finished/Treated Water Storage, Cover for Existing

Finished/Treated Water Storage, Contact Basin for CT, Presedimentation

Basin, Chemical Storage Tank Rehabilitation

Larger symbols are outliers excluded from regressions.
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-60

Hydropneumatic Storage

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• S3 – Hydropneumatic Storage

Source of Cost Observations:

• 1995 Needs Survey cost model.

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity in million gallons (MG).

• For new tanks greater than 12,000 gallons, the Ground Level Finished/Treated Water

Storage model will be used.

• Rehabilitation projects for less than 2500 gallons will be modeled as new tanks.

Equations from 1995:

New: Rehabilitation:

(6000/5443)e 2.427*D0.681 (6000/5443)e 2.503*D0.559
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-61 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Unit Costs for Storage Projects

Infrastructure Need Need Survey

Code

Source of Cost Estimate Cost Estimate

Cistern S4 Indian Health Service

information

$4,500 each
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-62 Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Cover for Existing Finished/Treated Water Storage

Cover for Existing Finished/Treated Water Storage

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• S5 – Cover for Existing Finished/Treated Water Storage (New only)

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity in million gallons (MG)

Equations:

• New: e (12.388+0.9292

/2*D0.543

• Rehab: Rehabilitations of covers will be modeled as rehabilitation of the entire tank with the

model for rehabilitation of ground-level finished/treated water storage (S2).

New

Observations 30

Sigma 0.929

R-squared 0.69

Prob>F 0.000

Minimum capacity (new) 0.006
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-63 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

Pumps – New and Rehabilitation

Pumps

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• P1 – Raw Water Pumps

• P2 – Finished Water Pumps

• P3 – Well Pump

Source of Cost Observations:

• Medium and large system survey respondent data for Raw Water Pumps (P1), Finished

Water Pumps (P2) and Well Pump (P3).

Determinants of Cost:

• Pump design capacity in million gallons per day (MGD)

Equations:

• New & Rehab: e (10.967-0.455*Rehab+1.1372

/2*D0.713

(Rehab: = 1 if project is a rehab, = 0 otherwise)

New and Rehabs

Observations 335

R-squared 0.45

Prob>F 0.000

Minimum capacity (new)(MGD) 0.001

Minimum capacity (rehab)(MGD) 0.005

Larger symbol is outlier excluded from regressions.
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-64 Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Pump Station

Pump Station

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• P4 – Pump Station (booster or raw water pump station including clearwell, pump and

housing).

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD)

Equations:

• New: e

( 12.446+1.0772/2)*D0.644

• Rehab: e

( 11.593+1.1202/2)*D0.687

New Rehab

Observations 331 201

R-squared 0.52 0.61

Prob>F 0.000 0.000

Minimum capacity (gpm) 10 10
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-65 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

Design capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

Pump Station Rehabilitation
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-66 Project Cost

Population served

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

Pump Controls/Telemetry

Pump Controls/Telemetry

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• P5 – Pump Controls/Telemetry

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data

Determinants of Cost:

• Population served by the system as a means of estimating system complexity.

Equations:

• New and Rehabilitation: e( 7.973+1.3122

/2)*Pop0.318

New and Rehabs

Observations 173

R-squared 0.13

Prob>F 0.000
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-67 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Other Needs
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-68

Computer and Automation Costs (SCADA)

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• W2 – Computer and Automation Costs (SCADA)

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data

Determinants of Cost:

• System Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD)

Equations:

• Model is the following system of equations: 

(1) ln(Cost) = "0 + "1ln(Design Capacity)

(2) ln(Design Capacity) = $0 + $1(Population)

Cost as a Function of Design Capacity (equation 1)

New: e(10.770+1.4842

/2)*D0.578

Rehab: e(10.657+1.2802

/2)*D0.481

Design Capacity as a Function of Population (equation 2)

New: e(-6.886+0.6662

/2)*Pop0.902

Rehab: e(-8.000+0.3772

/2)*Pop1.006

Structural Model

Cost as Function of 

System Design Capacity

System Design Capacity as Function

of Population Served

New Rehab New Rehab

Observations 252 80 252 80

R-squared 0.20 0.29 0.82 0.95

Prob>F 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix A-69 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Project Cost

System Design Capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Computer and Automation Costs (SCADA)

Project Cost

System Design Capacity

.01 .1 1 10 100 1000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

Computer and Automation Costs (SCADA) Rehabilitation
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-70 Project Cost

Kilowatts

1 10 100 1000 10000

1000

10000

100000

1.0e+06

1.0e+07

1.0e+08

1.0e+09

New Emergency Power

Emergency Power

1999 Needs Survey Codes:

• W4 – Emergency Power

Source of Cost Observations:

• Small, medium and large system survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

• Design Capacity in kilowatts

Equations:*

• New: e(6.942+0.7482

/2)*D0.831

• Rehabilitation projects are not modeled

New

Observations 140

R-squared 0.61

Prob>F 0.000
 Appendix B

 Type of Need Dictionary
1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix B-2

TYPE OF NEED DICTIONARY

Possible Project Components

The following describes the general scope of projects for which each of the Type of Need codes apply. 

It is not intended to be an exclusive list. Rather, it conveys the spectrum of possible elements of a

related project. Some projects assigned a particular code may include all of the elements listed. Others

may be more limited in scope and include only one of the items. Assume all projects include engineering

design, installation, and contingency costs and all treatment projects include waste-stream handling, if

appropriate. Complete treatment plants include raw and finished water pumps.

Code Type of Need Possible Components

Parameters

Required for

Modeling Cost

RAW / UNTREATED WATER SOURCE

R1 Well Siting, drilling and developing a well to completion;

including installation of a pump and appurtenances

such as sample tap, meter, air release, pressure

gauge, shut-off valve, electrical controls and limited

discharge piping.

Design Capacity in

MGD.

R2 Well House Site work, slab, building structure sized to

accommodate on-site disinfection.

Projects may vary from constructing a small building

to more elaborate facilities with a chemical feed

room with ventilation, etc.

R2 rehab projects must be a substantial rehab and

not O&M (painting, etc.). Substantial projects may

include new roof, new room, etc.

n/a 

R3 Eliminate Well

Pit

Extend casing, install pitless adapter, modify piping

connections, fill pit, grade site. Does not include well

house.

n/a

R4 Abandon Well Fill casing with appropriate material, cap well. n/a

R5 Surface Water

Intake

Intake structure, piping, valves; does not include

pumps or impoundment structures. May include a

wet well (small storage tank for raw water to be

pumped to the treatment plant). These projects

cannot be for reservoirs or dams. 

Design Capacity in

MGD.

R6 Dam Construction of a dam or impoundment to inhibit flow

of a naturally occurring stream, river of other flowing

body of water for the purposes of storing raw water

for future use. Does not include intake structure.

(Data was collected for the survey but was not

allowable as a need counted in the survey total)

Max daily

withdrawal in MGD.
Code Type of Need Possible Components

Parameters

Required for

Modeling Cost

February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix B-3 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

R7 Reservoir An excavation or other construction (such as berms)

to create a raw water holding facility other than a

presedimentation basin (T12) or percolation basin

(T42). 

(Data was collected for the survey but was not

allowable as a need counted in the survey total)

Basin capacity in

MG.

R8 Spring Collector Spring box or other collection device, including

overflow, meter, sample tap, valves and limited

piping connection to a transmission main. Assume

these are gravity-fed and would not include pumps.

Design Capacity in

MGD.

R9 Source Water

Protection

Projects for protection of water sources from

chemical or biological contamination or vandalism. 

(Data was collected for the survey but was not

allowable as a need counted in the survey total)

n/a

R10 De-stratification Some method of water circulation or aeration of a raw

water source to avoid stratification of the water body.

n/a (cost cannot be

modeled)

R11 Aquifer Storage

and Recovery

Well 

Wells used to inject water into an aquifer for later

recovery and use as a source of drinking water. 

These wells may also be used for aquifer recharge

without subsequent recovery from the same

wellhead. Components may include well

construction, pump, appurtenances and limited

transmission main. 

Design capacity in

MGD

TRANSMISSION

X1 Raw Water

Transmission

Transmission mains, trenching, bedding, backfill site

work, easements, typical road repair, control valves,

air release valves. - Transmission codes are used for

any mains that transport raw water to the treatment

plant, or treated water from the plant to the

distribution system grid.

Pipe diameter (in

inches) and pipe

length (in feet).

X2 Finished Water

Transmission
Code Type of Need Possible Components

Parameters

Required for

Modeling Cost

1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix B-4

DISTRIBUTION

M1 Distribution

Mains

 Distribution mains, trenching, bedding, backfill,

hydrants, valves, site work, road repair, easements. -

The distribution code is used for any mains that

transport water through a piping grid serving

customers–see “transmission mains” for comparison. 

Pipe diameter (in

inches) and pipe

length (in feet).

M2 Lead Service

Lines

Service lines from the curb-stop to the building. Number of service

lines.

M3 Service Lines

(other than lead

service lines)

Service lines from the curb-stop to the building. 

They must be under the ownership of the water

system.

Number of service

lines.

M4 Flushing

Hydrants

Hydrant lead to the transmission or distribution main,

drain, hydrant, auxiliary valve.

Number of hydrants

and diameter (in

inches).

M5 Valves Includes purchase price of the butterfly, ball, air

release or other related valve and installation. 

Number of valves,

diameter (in inches)

and type of valve.

M6 Control Valves Includes pressure reducing valves (PRVs), flow

control, filter effluent control valves and altitude

valves.

Number of valves,

and diameter (in

inches).

M7 Backflow

Prevention

Devices and

Assemblies

Device or assembly, installation. Number of

assemblies and

diameter (in inches).

M8 Water Meters Individual domestic or industrial units of either

manual or remote read-methods.

Number of meters,

and diameter (in

inches).

TREATMENT - DISINFECTION

T1 Chlorination Gas or hypochlorite system with chemical mixing and

injection systems, safety-related components. Does

not include gas scrubber. 

Capacity of the

water to be treated

in MGD.

T2 Chloramination Chemical mixing and injection systems, safetyrelated components. Does not include gas scrubber.Capacity of the

water to be treated

in MGD.

T3 Chlorine

Dioxide

Chemical mixing and injection systems, safetyrelated components. Capacity of the

water to be treated

in MGD.

T4 Ozonation Ozone generation and injection equipment, off-gas

controls and related safety equipment.

Capacity of the

water to be treated

in MGD.
Code Type of Need Possible Components

Parameters

Required for

Modeling Cost

February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix B-5 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

T5 Mixed Oxidant

Type Equipment

Disinfectant generation equipment, injection system,

safety components.

Capacity of the

water to be treated

in MGD.

T6 Ultraviolet

Disinfection

UV lights, pipes, valves, controls and intensity

monitors.

Capacity of the

water to be treated

in MGD.

T7 Contact Basin

for CT

Baffled clearwell-type contact tank with overflow,

drain and access (if appropriate); or serpentine piping

for contact time. Includes valves. 

Volume in MG.

T8 De-chlorination

of Treated

Water

Chemical mixing and injection system, on-line

chlorine residual monitoring equipment.

Capacity of the

water to be treated

in MGD.

T9 Chlorine Gas

Scrubber

Gas scrubber equipment and monitoring equipment

with alarms. 

Capacity of the

water to be treated

in MGD.

TREATMENT - FILTRATION 

T10 Conventional

Filter Plant

Complete conventional plant with flocculation,

sedimentation, filtration, waste handling and the

building. This code will also be used for systems

using contact adsorption clarifier (CAC) technologies

for the flocculation/sedimentation process.

Design Capacity in

MGD.

T11 Direct or In-line

Filter Plant

Complete direct or in-line filtration plant, including the

building. This code is also used for pressure filtration

systems. Includes all raw water pumps, chemicals

and mixing, unit processes, clearwell, waste handling

and process control system. 

Design Capacity in

MGD.

T12 Presedimentation

Basin

Presedimentation basin, including any required

berms, walls, chemical feed equipment and on-site

sludge removal equipment. Confirm these are not

dams or reservoirs (R6 or R7).

Capacity of the

basin in MG

T13 Chemical Feed Chemical handling equipment, mixers, injection

systems and limited piping. Includes in-line mixers,

chemical injectors, chemical diffusers and other

rapid-mix technologies.

Capacity of the

water to be treated

in MGD.

T14 Sedimentation/

Flocculation

Sedimentation basin (including lamella plates, tube

settlers, etc.), flocculation basin with flocculators,

sludge removal and necessary valves. Includes a

Contact Adsorption Clarifier unit process.

Design Capacity in

MGD.

T15 Filters Complete filters, including media, air scour and/or

surface wash, underdrain, effluent troughs, and

backwash equipment.

Design Capacity in

MGD.
Code Type of Need Possible Components

Parameters

Required for

Modeling Cost

1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix B-6

T16 Slow Sand Filter

Plant 

Complete plant including filters and buildings. Design Capacity in

MGD.

T17 Diatomaceous

Earth Filters

Complete plant and building including chemical and

body-feed equipment, mixing and injection, filter,

backwash equipment and waste handling.

Design Capacity in

MGD.

T18 Membrane

Technology for

Particulate

Removal

Complete Plant including Pre-filtration, membrane

filtration equipment, waste-stream handling, and

monitoring equipment and controls. Also may include

caustic and other cleaning-chemical feed

components.

Design Capacity in

MGD.

T19 Cartridge or

Bag Filtration

Plant 

Complete plant including connective piping, filter

housing, building and monitoring equipment. 

Design Capacity in

MGD.

T20 Streaming

Current

Monitors

On-line monitor with or without chemical feedback

loop.

Number of monitors

T21 Particle

Counters

Bench-top or in-line particle counter. Number of counters

T22 Turbidity Meters Bench-top or in-line meter, recording charts and

limited piping for installation.

Number of meters

TREATMENT - OTHER TREATMENT NEEDS

T30 Powdered

Activated

Carbon

PAC handling facility, chemical feeders and safety

equipment

Capacity in MGD of

the water to be

treated.

T31 Granular

Activated

Carbon

GAC filter media with or without underdrains,

backwash system, air scour or surface wash and

effluent troughs. Does not include regeneration

facility. Includes GAC caps for filters and carbon

columns.

Capacity in MGD of

the water to be

treated.

T32 Sequestering

for Iron &/or

Manganese

Chemical mixing and feed system, injection system. 

Does not include disinfection. Use for up to 1 ppm

iron. Above 1 ppm, use code T33 for manganese

green sand.

Capacity in MGD of

the water to be

treated.

T33 Manganese

Green Sand

Filtration

Complete plant including waste-stream handling,

building and monitoring equipment, and chemical

feed

Design capacity in

MGD.

T34 Ion Exchange Complete ion exchange treatment plant including

final disinfection and building.

Design capacity in

MGD.
Code Type of Need Possible Components

Parameters

Required for

Modeling Cost

1Assume all complete plant new construction or rehabilitation projects include waste

handling and treatment. These codes are applied to projects for which only waste handling is

specified for either a new construction project or rehabilitation of existing waste handling

facilities. That is, the system is not also reporting a project for rehabilitation of the remainder of

the water treatment facility.

February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix B-7 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

T35 Lime Softening Complete lime softening plant including building. May

be a single technology for iron, manganese and

hardness removal.

Design capacity in

MGD.

T36 Reverse

Osmosis

Complete plant including pre-filtration, membrane

filtration equipment, waste-stream handling, building

and monitoring equipment and controls.

Design capacity in

MGD.

T37 Electro-dialysis Complete Electrodialysis plant with building. Design capacity in

MGD.

T38 Aeration Complete packed tower or counter-current tower

aeration facility including disinfection, or cascadingtype tray aeration.

Design capacity in

MGD.

T39 Activated

Alumina

Complete activated alumina plant including

disinfection and building.

Design capacity in

MGD.

T40 Corrosion

Control

Chemical mixing and injection system. Does not

include disinfection.

Capacity of water to

be treated in MGD.

T41 Waste Handling

and Treatment,

Mechanical1

Mechanical treatment plant including sludge

handling/drying equipment complete.

Capacity of plant in

MGD.

T42 Waste Handling

and Treatment,

Nonmechanical1

Ponds or lagoons for storing, recycling, and/or

evaporating process wastewater.

Capacity of plant in

MGD.

T43 Waste Handling

and Treatment,

Connection to a

Sanitary Sewer1

Lift station and force main or gravity main to sanitary

sewer.

Length of pipe (in

feet) and diameter

(in inches).

T44 Zebra Mussel

Control

Chemical mixing and injection of oxidant at raw water

intake.

Capacity of the

water to be treated

in MGD.

T45 Type of

Treatment

Unknown

Use this code when treatment is necessary but the

type of treatment to be applied is unknown. The

State or EPA assigned a treatment type based on

Best Available Treatment (BAT) technologies for the

contaminant of concern.

Contaminant name

and concentration

before treatment,

and design capacity

in MGD
Code Type of Need Possible Components

Parameters

Required for

Modeling Cost

1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey February 2001

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix B-8

T46 Fluoride

Addition

Chemical mixing and injection system. Capacity in MGD of

the water to be

treated.

T47 Other An explanation of the type of treatment to be applied

was required to assign a type of need to the project.

Design capacity in

MGD or MG, as

appropriate

FINISHED / TREATED WATER STORAGE

S1 Elevated/

Finished Water

Storage

Complete elevated storage facility with

appurtenances such as altitude valves and isolation

valves

Volume in MG.

S2 Ground-level

Finished/

Treated Water

Storage

Complete ground level storage facility with

appurtenances such as altitude valves and isolation

valves. Standpipes are considered ground level

storage.

Volume in MG.

S3 Hydropneumatic

Storage

Complete hydropneumatic storage tank and

recharge/control system and building (for larger

installations)

Volume in MG.

S4 Cisterns Finished water storage for individual homes. Volume in MG.

S5 Cover for

Finished/

Treated Water

Storage Tanks 

Construction of a concrete, wood or other cover on an

existing finished/treated water storage tank.

Volume of the tank

to be covered in MG

PUMPING STATION AND PUMPS

P1 Raw Water

Pumps

Pump and electrical controls. Capacity in MGD.

P2 Finished Water

Pumps

Pump and electrical controls. Capacity in MGD.

P3 Well Pump Pump and electrical controls. Capacity in MGD.

P4 Booster Pump

Station

Includes clearwell, pump and building or in-line

booster station and building. Use pump code P2 if

the project is for a single booster pump.

Total capacity of all

pumps (including

standby equipment)

in MGD.

P5 Pump Controls/

Telemetry

Basic telemetry system of telephone-wire based

signals or radio signal controls. Does not include

SCADA systems (use W2 for SCADA)

Population served

by the system.

OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

W1 Laboratory

Capital Costs

Limited to laboratory equipment, buildings and

facilities owned by the system

n/a Cost cannot be

modeled
Code Type of Need Possible Components

Parameters

Required for

Modeling Cost

February 2001 1999 Drinking Water Needs Survey

Appendix B-9 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

W2 Computer and

Automation

Costs (SCADA)

Computer control systems and SCADA control

systems. Does not include computer software.

System design

capacity in MGD.

W3 Chemical

Storage Tank

Tank only. Use other codes as needed for chemical

mixing and injection systems.

Volume in MG

W4 Emergency

Power

Standby power generators including on-site and

movable units with associated fuel tanks.

Kilowatts