Printed on Recycled Paper

2003 Drinking Water

Infrastructure Needs Survey

Modeling the Cost of

Infrastructure
Office of Water (4606) EPA 816-R-06-007 www.epa.gov/safewater June 2006
2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure 

Needs Survey and Assessment

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

Contract No. 68-C-02-069

Work Assignment No. 1-03

Prepared by:

The Cadmus Group, Inc.

57 Water Street

Watertown, MA 02472

June 2006

1

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

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

June 2006 2003 DWINSA

1 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure 

Needs Survey and Assessment

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

In 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted the third Drinking Water

Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment (DWINSA or Assessment). The Assessment is an

important tool of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program. The purpose of

the Assessment is to estimate the documented 20-year capital investment needs of public water

systems that are eligible to receive DWSRF assistance—approximately 53,000 community water

systems and 21,400 not-for-profit noncommunity water systems. The Assessment includes

infrastructure needs that are required to protect public health, such as projects to comply with

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations or to prevent contamination by preserving the

physical integrity of the system.1

 The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires EPA to

conduct the Assessment every four years and to use the results to allocate DWSRF funds to the

States and Tribes.

The approach for the 2003 Assessment was developed by EPA in consultation with a workgroup

of State representatives. The workgroup refined the methods used in 1995 and 1999 based on

lessons learned from the previous Assessments and options made available from technological

advancements in internet-based communications.

The 2003 Assessment used questionnaires to collect infrastructure needs from medium and large

water systems. EPA mailed questionnaires to all 1,342 of the nation’s largest water systems

serving more than 40,000 people, and to a random sample of 2,553 of the 7,759 medium systems

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

questionnaire.

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

documents needed to respond to the questionnaire. Therefore, for the 1999 Assessment EPA

conducted site visits to 599 randomly selected small community water systems and 100 not-forprofit noncommunity water systems to identify and document their infrastructure needs. EPA did

not conduct the site visits as part of the 2003 Assessment; instead, it used the 1999 Assessment,

updated for inflation to January 2003 dollars.

EPA developed cost models to assign costs to projects for which systems lacked adequate cost

documentation (see Acceptable Documentation Box on next page). These models are developed

primarily from cost data submitted by systems with available cost documentation. The number

of projects submitted without cost documentation increased significantly in 2003 compared to

the previous Assessments. Of approximately 105,673 accepted projects, 81 percent were
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure 2

submitted without documentation of cost.

This increase required greater reliance on

cost modeling than in past Assessments.

The 2003 Assessment used cost models from

the 1999 Assessment. In the 1999

Assessment, 59 models were developed to

assign costs to over 95 types of infrastructure

needs, from replacing broken valves to

building new treatment plants. These models

were updated to 2003 dollars for use in the

2003 Assessment. In some cases, the 2003

Assessment data were used to supplement the

1999 cost models. 

Section 1 of this document describes the

general approach for constructing these cost

models. It discusses the sources of cost

information and the general method for

developing and applying the cost models.

Section 2 explains how this method was

applied in modeling source, treatment,

storage, transmission and distribution, and

other needs. Appendix A contains the cost

models as organized by category of need.

Appendix B presents the “Type of Need

Dictionary” which provides a definition for

each type of need, including typical project

components.

Important Note: Although the cost models

developed for this Assessment allowed EPA

to estimate total needs nationwide, the

models do not account for all the factors that may influence the cost of infrastructure. EPA chose

to limit the design parameters collected for the questionnaire to minimize the burden on the

respondents. The Assessment relied on the voluntary participation of over 4,000 water system

owners and operators across the country to supply documented cost data. EPA also recognized

that systems with a documented need, but without a documented cost estimate, may lack the

information that would be utilized in more complex models. 

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

estimates of need for the purpose of the Assessment, they were not designed to estimate the cost

of specific projects for individual water systems.

Acceptable Documentation

The following types of documents were used to

justify the need and/or cost of a project. 

For Need and/or Cost Documentation

• Capital Improvement Plan or Master Plan

• Facilities Plan or Preliminary Engineering

Report

• Grant or Loan Application Form

• Engineer’s Estimate

• Intended Use Plan/State Priority List

• Indian Health Service Sanitary Deficiency

System Printout

For Need Documentation Only

• Comprehensive Performance Evaluation

(CPE) Results

• Sanitary Survey

• Source Water Protection Plan

• Monitoring Results

• Signed and dated statement from State, site

visit contractor, or system engineer clearly

detailing infrastructure needs.

For Cost Documentation Only

• Cost of Previous Comparable Construction
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

3 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

1.0 Methods

1.1 Sources of Cost Information

The data used to develop the cost models generally include comprehensive cost estimates that

included materials, construction, design, administrative and legal fees, and contingencies. In

addition, the Assessment tried to obtain cost data for systems of all sizes to account for the

potential effect of economies of scale (i.e., costs may decrease as system size increases). 

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

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

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

statistical models. Therefore, cost data from other sources, such as state funding agencies, were

used to supplement the cost data. EPA obtained cost information from manufacturers,

engineering firms, and the Economic Analyses (EAs, previously known as Regulatory Impact

Analyses) that the Agency publishes in support of proposed regulations.

1.1.1 Data Collected on Questionnaires

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DWSRF-ineligible portions of the cost. 

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

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

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

fees.

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

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

capacity of the treatment facility (the cost was used for the project, but data was

insufficient to use the cost to help build the model.)

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

constant dollars. (The models developed in 1999 used cost data adjusted to

January 1999 dollars. These models were adjusted to January 2003 dollars for the

2003 Assessment.)

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

in the survey—cost estimates for unusual or unique projects were accepted for the

project but were excluded from the cost models.
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure 4

Most of the cost models are based on data from the 1999 Assessment. The 1995 Assessment

provided data for raw water transmission, finished water transmission, and distribution main

projects of all sizes, which were also used for the 1999 survey. The 2003 Assessment updated

the transmission line and distribution main models using data from the 2003 survey. The model

for meters less than or equal to one inch also were updated using data from the 2003 survey.

1.1.2 Data Collected from Other Sources

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

the following. Cost data from these sources were evaluated using the same criteria that were

applied to the questionnaires. 

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

Pennsylvania, and Texas supplied data). EPA requested cost data from the States

for the following types of projects:

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)

• The 2003 R.S. Means catalog. EPA used the R.S. Means catalog to obtain costs

for backflow prevention devices and assemblies. The cost of double check valves

was selected as a representative unit for small-diameter projects, while reduced

pressure zone backflow prevention devices were used for larger installations.

• EPA’s Economic Analyses. The EA for the Stage 2 Disinfectant/Disinfection

Byproduct Rule was the source of costs for ozone projects, while the EA for the

proposed Ground Water Rule provided costs for chlorine dioxide projects. 
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

5 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

• Product manufacturers and distributors. Product manufacturers and distributors

provided cost information for ultraviolet disinfection, chlorine gas scrubbers,

streaming current monitors, particle counters, chlorine residual monitors, and

turbidity meters. 

• Engineering firms. For the 1995 survey, an engineering firm (Robert Peccia and

Associates, Inc.) developed costs for well houses, the elimination of well pits, the

abandonment of wells, powdered activated carbon, and hydropneumatic storage.

These costs were adjusted to January 2003 dollars for this survey. 

• The Indian Health Service (IHS). The Indian Health Service provided cost

information on cisterns for use in the American Indian portion of the Assessment.

1.2 Developing the Linear Regression Cost Models

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

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

natural logarithm of the data. Most models were created with 1999 survey data and calculate

costs in January 1999 dollars. An inflation factor is used to update these costs to January 2003

dollars. In general, the models take the form:

C = e($0+F2

/2)D$1

*B

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;

F = the standard error of the regression. F2/2 is added to the equation to produce

consistent estimates on the raw scale; and

B = inflation factor to update the cost from January 1999 dollars to January 2003

dollars.

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

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

C = e(14.082 + 0.484

2

/2)D0.671*1.096833

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

$1.6 million. 
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure 6

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+$2I+F2

/2)D$1

*B

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. 

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

level of variability was considered appropriate considering the range of projects to be modeled;

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

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

a new treatment plant of a specific capacity will vary greatly depending on raw water quality, the

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

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

standard error of the models, it does not bias the models’ estimates of cost. These factors are not

correlated with capacity and do not affect which projects in the sample have documented costs.

Therefore, EPA assumed the distribution of these factors among projects with document costs

and projects with costs that must be modeled is similar. 

To improve the statistical efficiency of the models, EPA tried to eliminate three sources of

variability in the data. First, EPA adjusted the cost data using the location factors published by

the R.S. Means Company to account for regional variation in construction costs. Second, EPA

normalized the cost data to January 1999 dollars using the Construction Cost Index (CCI)

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

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

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

infrastructure in view of the generally lower costs of rehabilitation.

EPA took the following steps to develop the models:

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

• Adjust the project costs to January 1999 dollars.

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

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

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

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

observations. 
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

7 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

EPA refined some of the cost models by including dummy variables to account for the influence

of system size or project type on the cost. For example, the model used for new well projects

includes a statistically significant dummy variable for aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells

that assigns slightly higher costs to ASR projects.

1.3 Unit Costs Models

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

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

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

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

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

water meter projects. For other projects, such as backflow prevention devices, that also were

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

Health Service, or an engineering firm.

1.4 Applying the Cost Models

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

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

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

usually design capacity.

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

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

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

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

typically lower.

• To adjust the modeled costs from January 1999 dollars to January 2003 dollars,

EPA used an inflation factor of 1.096833. 

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

different unit cost was used for some pipe diameters depending on whether the

location of the system lay to the north or south of the nation’s frost line. This was

done to recognize that projects above the frost line generally have higher

installation costs due to the greater depths at which pipe must be buried to avoid

freezing.

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

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

system.
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure 8

2.0 Types of Need For Which Costs May Be Modeled

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

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

of new equipment and the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure. EPA generally developed

separate cost models for new installation and rehabilitation of existing infrastructure for each

type of need. However, in some instances these were modeled together. In addition, some types

of projects lacked sufficient cost data and, therefore, these projects were assigned costs using

models for other similar types of technologies. 

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

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

points available for sequestering, corrosion control, and fluoride addition (all forms of chemical

addition) to form one model. Dummy variables for the latter projects were included to reflect the

higher or lower costs of these technologies relative to chemical feed. Combining the data made

sense because the cost estimates that respondents identified on the questionnaire for chemical

feed likely included projects for sequestering, corrosion control, and fluoride addition. In

addition, EPA used this model to assign costs to projects for zebra mussel control and the

dechlorination of treated water (for both of which EPA lacked data points from the 1999 survey),

given that the costs and types of equipment were similar to chemical feed. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

due to the similarity of costs. 

2.1 Source

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

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

(MGD). For well houses, abandoning wells, and eliminating well pits, costs were assigned on a

per unit basis. 

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

rehabilitation projects for eliminating well pits or abandoning wells.

C Well House (unit cost) C Abandoning Well (unit cost)

C Well Pump (MGD) C Raw Water Pump (MGD)

C Well (MGD) C Surface Water Intake or Spring Collector (MGD)
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

9 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

C Eliminating Well Pit (unit cost) C Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well (MGD)

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)

C Conventional Filter Plant 

(MGD)

C Turbidity Meters (unit

cost)

C Granular Activated Carbon

(MGD)

C Direct or In-line Filter Plant,

Slow Sand, Diatomaceous

Earth, 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)
2003 DWINSA June 2006

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 IHS provided information to develop a unit cost. The models developed for

storage needs are listed below. Storage projects have separate cost curves for new and

rehabilitation, with the exception of storage covers, which were assigned rehabilitation costs

based on rehabilitation of the entire tank.

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 2003 Needs

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

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

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

of pipe to reduce the response burden on water systems. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

units needed and their diameter.

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

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

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

equipment was considered operation and maintenance. 

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)
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

11 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

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. 

C Finished Water Pumps (MGD) C Pump Station (MGD)

2.6 Other Needs

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

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

Emergency power was modeled using kilowatts. For 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 Computer and Automation

Costs (SCADA) (system design

capacity)

C Pump Controls/Telemetry C Emergency Power (kilowatts)

 Appendix A

 Cost Models
2003 DWINSA June 2006

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 Rehabilitation as a single model

Sedimentation/Flocculation Basins: New and Rehabilitation

Filters and GAC: New and Rehabilitation as a single model

Membrane Technology: New only
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-3 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

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

only (Rehabilitation modeled as Direct Filtration Rehabilitation)

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

Filters)

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

Conventional Treatment)

Aeration: New and Rehabilitation

Waste Handling and Treatment - Mechanical: New only

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

single model

Special Cases

Electrodialysis

Activated Alumina

Unit Costs

Chlorine Gas Scrubber

Streaming Current Monitor

Particle Counter

Turbidity meter

Chlorine Residual Monitor

Powdered Activated Carbon

Storage/Pumping

Cost Models

Elevated Finished/Treated Water Storage: New and Rehabilitation

Ground Level Finished/Treated Water Storage, Presedimentation Basin and

Chemical Storage Tanks: New and Rehabilitation

Hydropneumatic Storage: New and Rehabilitation

Cisterns - Unit Cost

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

modeled as Rehabilitation of Entire Ground Level Tank)

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

Pump Station: New and Rehabilitation

Other

Cost Models

Computer and Automation Costs, SCADA: New only

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

Emergency Power: New only
Source
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-5 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Well

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

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

C R12 – Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well.

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data for wells (R1). Medium and

large system 1999 survey respondent data for aquifer storage and recovery wells (R12).

Determinants of Cost:

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

Equations:

C New*: C = e(12.723+0.921*R12+0.8142

/2)*D0.674* 1.096833

C Rehab: C = e(10.682+1.0562

/2)*D0.163* 1.096833 for wells (R1) only. Aquifer storage and

recovery wells (R12) were not modeled. 

 * Regression includes data for Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells (R12), with indicator

variable (for Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells, R12: = 1 if Type of Need = R12, = 0

otherwise).

New Rehab

Observations 318 257

R-squared 0.47 0.02

Prob>F 0.000 0.046

Cost Floor $60,454 $16,453

Minimum capacity (MGD) 0.010 0.001
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-6 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
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

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 Surface Water Intake or Spring Collector

Surface Water Intake and Spring Collector

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C R6 – Surface Water Intake

C R10 – Spring Collector

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent surface water intake data.

Determinants of Cost:

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

Equations:

C New: C = e(12.100+0.9652

/2)*D0.715* 1.096833

C Rehab: C = e(11.777+0.9732

/2)*D0.550* 1.096833

New Rehab

Observations 43 23

R-squared 0.61 0.50

Prob>F 0.000 0.000

Minimum capacity (MGD) 0.072 0.010
2003 DWINSA June 2006

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

Surface Water Intake or Spring Collector Rehabilitation

*Larger point is outlier excluded from regression.
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-9 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Unit Costs for Raw / Untreated Water Source Projects

Infrastructure

Need

Needs Survey

Code

Source of Cost Estimate 2003 Cost

Estimate

Well House R3-New 1995 Needs Survey Unit Cost 

(developed by an engineering

firm) converted to January

2003 dollars

$ 85,929

Well House R3-Rehab $ 26,366

Eliminate Well Pit R4-New Only* $ 14,265

Abandon Well R5-New Only* $ 6,006

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

abandonment of wells are considered one-time projects.
Distribution and Transmission
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-11 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Distribution and Transmission Mains

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C M1 – Distribution Mains

C X1 – Raw Water Transmission

C X2 – Finished Water Transmission

Source of Cost Observations:

C Distribution mains, raw water or finished water transmission from medium and large system

2003 survey respondents.

Determinants of Cost:

C Distribution mains or transmission lines, pipe diameter, project length (in feet) in frost and

non-frost locations.

C Rehab - An average cost per foot of $48.92 was used for all sizes.

Table of Data: 

C New and rehab of distribution mains and transmission lines.
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-12

Average Cost Per Foot For Pipe in January 2003 Dollars

Diameter

Category

New

Upgrade

Frost Non-frost

Distribution

Mains

Transmission

Lines

Distribution

Mains

Transmission

Lines

#6 Inches $67.45 $50.30 $48.92

6 - 10 Inches $98.21 $84.89 $87.42 $74.10 $48.92

10 - 14 Inches $113.78 $100.46 $102.99 $89.67 $48.92

14 - 16 Inches $142.73 $129.41 $131.94 $118.62 $48.92

16 - 20 Inches $164.92 $151.61 $154.13 $140.82 $48.92

20 - 24 Inches $191.03 $177.72 $180.24 $166.93 $48.92

24 - 30 Inches $240.11 $48.92

30 - 36 Inches $286.31 $48.92

36 - 42 Inches $293.06 $48.92

42 - 60 Inches $418.00 $48.92

60 - 84 Inches $466.94 $48.92

84 - 90 Inches $581.32 $48.92

90 - 96 Inches $651.52 $48.92

96 - 120 Inches $691.00 $48.92

> 120 Inches $947.66 $48.92
Appendix A-13

0

100200300400500600700800900

1,000

= 6 6-10 10-14 14-16 16-20 20-24 24-30 30-36 36-42 42-60 60-84 84-90 90-96 96-1

M1 F X1 X2 F M1 NF X1 X2 NF

Distribution Mains and Transmission Lines in frost and Non Frost Areas
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-14

Unit Costs for Distribution Projects

Infrastructure Need Need Survey

Code

Source of Cost Estimate 2003 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

and converted to January

2003 dollars.

Rehabilitation projects are

not allowable and therefore

were not modeled.

$1,219

Flushing Hydrants M4 $2,005
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-15 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Valves

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C M5 – Valves (gate, butterfly, etc.)

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

C Diameter of valve. 

Table of Data:

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

Valve Diameter

(Inches)

Cost 

(January 2003 dollars)

4.0 $ 1,143

6.0 $ 1,247

8.0 $ 1,781

10 $ 4,026

12 $ 5,782

14-16 $ 7,891

18-20 $ 13,056

>20 $ 23,571
Appendix A-16

Valves (Gate, Butterfly, etc.) (M5)

1,143 1,247 1,781

4,026

5,782

7,891

13,056

0

5,000

10,00015,00020,00025,000

4 6 8 10 12 14-16 18-20 
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-17 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Control Valves

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

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

Source of Cost Observations:

C Medium and large system 1999 survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

C Diameter of valve. 

Table of Data:

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

Valve Diameter

(Inches)

Cost 

(January 2003 dollars)

< 6.0 $ 8,658

10-12 $ 10,938

14-16 $ 21,583

18-24 $ 67,169

30+ $ 129,283
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-18

Control Valves (PRV, Altitude, etc.) (M6)

8,658 10,938

21,583

67,169

129,283

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

< 6.0 10-12 14-16 18-24 30+
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-19 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Backflow Prevention Devices/Assemblies

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C M7 – Backflow Prevention Devices/Assemblies

Source of Cost Observations:

C 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:

C Device/Assembly diameter. 

Table of Data:

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

Diameter of

Device/Assembly (inches)

Cost

 (January 2003 dollars)

0.75 $ 671

1.0 $ 701

1.5 $ 802

2.0 $ 996

3.0 $ 1,707

4.0 $ 2,479

6.0 $ 3,892

8.0 $ 9,372

10 $ 13,102
Appendix A-20

Backflow Prevention Devices and Assemblies (M7)

671 701 802 996

1,707

2,479

3,892

9,372

0

2,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,000

0.75 1 1.5 2 3 4 6 8 
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-21 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Water Meters

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C M8 – Water Meters

Source of Cost Observations:

C Meters with diameters less than or equal to 1 inch use medium and large system 2003 survey

respondent data.

C Meters with diameters greater than 1 inch use small, medium, and large system 1999 survey

respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

C Meter diameter. 

Table of Data:

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

Diameter of Meter

(inches)

Average Cost per

Meter (January

2003 dollars)

0.625 and 0.7 $ 225

1.0 $ 225

1.5 $ 397

2.0 $ 645

3.0 $2,365

4.0 $ 3,320

6.0 $ 5,133

> 8.0 $ 11,813
Appendix A-22

Water Meters (M8)

225 225 397 645

2,365

3,320

5,133

0

2,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,000

0.625-1 1 1.5 2 3 4 6 
Treatment
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-24

Chlorination and Mixed Oxidant Type Equipment

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C T1 – Chlorination

C T5 – Mixed Oxidant Type Equipment 

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data for chlorination (T1). No data

from Mixed Oxidant Type Equipment was provided by 1999 survey respondents.

Determinants of Cost:

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

C Minimum design capacities were applied when not specified.

C Minimum cost for new T1 specified as $73,567.

Equations:

C New & Rehab: C = e(10.400+1.0702

/2)*D0.684* 1.096833

New and Rehab

Observations 95

R-squared 0.63

Prob>F 0.000

Minimum capacity(new) 0.000003

Minimum capacity(rehab) 0.001
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-25 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.
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-26

Chloramination and Chlorine Dioxide

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C T2 – Chloramination

C T3 – Chlorine Dioxide

Source of Cost Observations:

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

Rule.

Determinants of Cost:

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

C Minimum design capacities applied when not specified.

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

Table of Data:

C New projects only, no rehabilitation data available.

Design Capacity

 (MGD)

Cost 

(January 2003 Dollars)

0.03 $ 118,735

0.1 $ 188,209

0.3 $ 213,472

0.75 $ 238,734

2.2 $ 294,313

7.8 $ 488,838

23.5 $ 1,018,097

81 $2,067,773
Appendix A-27

Chloramination and Chlorine Dioxide (T2, T3)

118,735

188,209 213,472 238,734 294,313

488,838

1,018,097

0

500,000

1,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,000

0.03 0.1 0.3 0.75 2.2 7.8 23.5 
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-28

Ozonation

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C T4 – Ozonation

Source of Cost Observations:

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

Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule.

Determinants of Cost:

C Design Capacity in million gallons per day (MGD); minimum design capacities applied

when not specified.

Table of Data:

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

Design Capacity (MGD) Cost (January 2003 Dollars)

0.024 $ 305,568

0.087 $ 370,887

0.10 $ 381,343

0.27 $ 414,356

0.45 $ 504,373

0.65 $ 594,262

0.83 $ 765,589

1.0 $ 872,570

1.8 $ 970,666

4.8 $ 1,338,526

10 $ 1,976,149

11 $ 2,096,574

18 $ 2,905,268

26 $ 3,775,179

51 $ 6,294,739

210 $ 19,575,848

430 $ 36,596,933
Appendix A-29

Ozonation (T4)

381,343 765,589 970,666

1,976,149

6,294,

3,775,179

2,905,268

2,096,574

1,338,526 872,570 594,262

504,373

370,887 414,356

305,568

0

5,000,000

10,000,00015,000,00020,000,00025,000,00030,000,00035,000,00040,000,000

0.024 0.087 0.1 0.27 0.45 0.65 0.83 1 1.8 4.8 10 11 18 26 51 
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-30

Ultraviolet Disinfection

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C T6 – Ultraviolet Disinfection

Source of Cost Observations:

C Costs extrapolated from manufacturer’s data for new systems in 1999 and updated to

January 2003 dollars.

Determinants of Cost:

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

C Minimum design capacities applied when not specified.

C Rehabilitation projects were not modeled, as there were no rehabilitation projects submitted

without costs.

Table of Data:

Design Capacity

 (MGD)

Cost 

(January 2003 Dollars)

0.024 $ 12,472

0.087 $ 17,018

0.27 $ 23,994

0.65 $ 38,578

1.8 $ 142,186

4.8 $ 208,518

11 $ 291,924

18 $ 333,628

26 $ 383,672

51 $ 639,454

210 $ 1,514,974
Appendix A-31

Ultraviolet Disinfection (T6)

12,472 17,018 23,994 38,578

142,186

208,518

291,924

333,628

383,672

639

0

200,000400,000600,000800,000

1,000,0001,200,0001,400,0001,600,000

0.024 0.087 0.27 0.65 1.8 4.8 11 18 26 5
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-32 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

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C T7 – Contact Basin for CT (new) 

Source of Cost Observations:

C Medium and large system 1999 survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

C Design Capacity in million gallons (MG).

Equations:

C New: C = e(14.072+0.4642

/2)*D0.739* 1.096833

C 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
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-33 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Conventional Filter Plant

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C T10 – Conventional Filter Plant

C T35 – Lime Softening (complete plant rehabilitation)

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data, and supplemental data from

state lending agencies.

Determinants of Cost:

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

Equations:

C New*: C = e(14.444+0.5372

/2)*D0.593* 1.096833 if design capacity is less than or equal to

1 MGD;

 C = e(14.444+0.5372

/2)*D0.881* 1.096833 if design capacity is greater than 1 MGD

C Rehab**: C = e(13.710+T35*-0.696+1.0372

/2)*D0.606* 1.096833

* 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 Rehab

Observations 144 151

R-squared 0.89 0.41

Prob>F 0.000 0.000

Minimum capacity (MGD) 0.072 0.072
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-34 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.
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-35 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

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

Cartridge or Bag Filtration Plant

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C T11 – Direct or In-line Filter Plant

C T16 – Slow Sand Filter Plant

C T17 – Diatomaceous Earth Filter Plant

C T19 – Cartridge or Bag Filtration Plant

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data for direct filtration plants.

Determinants of Cost:

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

Equations:

C New: C = e(14.472+0.5752

/2)*D0.716* 1.096833

C Rehab: C = e(13.219+1.1232

/2)*D0.594* 1.096833

New Rehab

Observations 28 25

R-squared 0.79 0.46

Prob>F 0.000 0.000

Minimum capacity (MGD) 0.100 0.065
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-36 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
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-37 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

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

Manganese, Corrosion Control, Fluoride Addition, and Zebra Mussel Control

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C T8 – Dechlorination of Treated Water

C T13 – Chemical Feed

C T32 – Sequestering for Iron and/or Manganese

C T40 – Corrosion Control

C T43 – Zebra Mussel Control

C T44 – Fluoride Addition

Source of Cost Observations:

C Large, medium, and small system 1999 survey respondent data for Chemical Feed (T13),

Sequestering (T32), Corrosion Control (T40), and Fluoride Addition (T44). 

Determinants of Cost:

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

Equations:*

C New & Rehab: 

C = e(10.298+1.474*T32+0.352*T40-1.302*T44+1.1022

/2)*D0.652* 1.096833

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

Fluoride Addition (T46), with indicator variables: 

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

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

T44: = 1 if Type of Need is T44, = 0 otherwise

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

Mussel Control (T43). 

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
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-38 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

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

Fluoride Addition, and Zebra Mussel Control
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-39 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Sedimentation/Flocculation

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C T14 – Sedimentation/Flocculation

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

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

Equations:

C New: C = e(12.754+0.7502

/2)*D0.608* 1.096833

C Rehab: C = e(11.347+1.2192

/2)*D0.560* 1.096833

New Rehab

Observations 20 41

R-squared 0.44 0.30

Prob>F 0.001 0.000

Minimum capacity 0.144 0.086
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-40 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
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

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

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C T15 – Filters

C T31 – Granular Activated Carbon

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

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

Equations:

C New & Rehab*: C = e(12.634-1.821*Rehab+0.9572

/2)*D0.832* 1.096833

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

Rehabilitation: = 1 if project is a rehab, = 0 otherwise.

New and Rehab

Observations 131

R-squared 0.69

Prob>F 0.000

Minimum capacity (new)(MGD) 0.0072

Minimum capacity (rehab)(MGD) 0.007
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-42

Membrane Technology for Particulate Removal and Reverse Osmosis

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C T18 – Membrane Technology for Particulate Removal

C T36 – Reverse Osmosis (complete plant)

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data for new Membrane

Technology for Particulate Removal (T18) and Reverse Osmosis (T36). Small, medium and

large system 1999 survey respondent data for rehabilitation of Reverse Osmosis (T36). 

Determinants of Cost:

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

Equations:*

C New**: C = e(14.344+0.7972

/2)*D0.814* 1.096833

C Rehab: C = e(13.556+0.4552

/2)*D0.278* 1.096833

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

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

(T36) rehabilitation.

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
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

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
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-44

Manganese Green Sand Filtration 

or Other Oxidation/Filtration Technology

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

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

plant).

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

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

Equations:

C New*: C = e(13.377+0.9992

/2)*D0.403* 1.096833 if design capacity is less than or equal to 1

MGD

 C = e(13.377+0.9992

/2)*D1.106* 1.096833 if design capacity is greater than 1 MGD

C Rehabilitation projects 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
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

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
2003 DWINSA June 2006

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

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C T34 – Ion Exchange (complete plant)

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

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

Equations:

C New: C = e(13.308+0.6762

/2)*D0.789* 1.096833

C Rehabilitation projects 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

Lime Softening
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

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

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C T35 – Lime Softening (complete plant)

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

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

Equations:

C New: C = e(14.660+0.4652

/2)*D0.884* 1.096833

C Rehabilitation projects for Lime Softening will be modeled as rehabilitations of

Conventional Filter Plant (T10).

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

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

New

Observations 16

R-squared 0.74

Prob>F 0.000

Minimum capacity (MGD) 0.648
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-48

Aeration

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C T38 – Aeration

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

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

Equations:

C New*: C = e(12.647+1.0582

/2)*D0.762* 1.096833

C Rehab: C = e(11.931+0.3732

/2)*D0.201* 1.096833

*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
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

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
2003 DWINSA June 2006

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

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

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

Source of Cost Observations:

C Large system 1999 survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

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

Equations:

C New: C = e(12.742+1.1792

/2)*D0.494* 1.096833

C Rehabilitation projects will not be modeled.

New

Observations 35

R-squared 0.42

Prob>F 0.000

Minimum capacity (MGD) (new) 0.050
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

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

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C T42 – Waste Handling and Treatment, Nonmechanical (not included in another project).

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

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

Equations:

C New & Rehab: C = e(11.879+1.1702

/2)*D0.562* 1.096833

New and Rehab

Observations 39

R-squared 0.44

Prob>F 0.000

Minimum capacity (new) (MGD) 0.005

Minimum capacity (rehab) (MGD) 0.005
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-52

Treatment Projects With Special Modeling Needs

Infrastructure

Need

Needs

Survey

Code

Number of

Projects to be

Modeled

New Projects to be

Modeled as:

Rehabilitation

Projects to be

Modeled as

Electrodialysis

(complete plant)

T37 2 New

3 Rehab

Reverse Osmosis

(T36) New

Reverse Osmosis

(T36) Rehab

Activated

Alumina

T39 3 New

1 Rehab

Ion Exchange

(T34)

Filters (T15)
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

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 2003 Dollars)

Chlorine Gas

Scrubber

T9 Average of two

manufacturers’ cost

estimates and one

engineering firm estimate.

$32,905 for < 3.0 MGD

$98,715 for > 3.0 MGD

Streaming Current

Monitors

T20 Average of two

manufacturers’ cost

estimates.

$ 9,268

Particle Counters T21 Average of two

manufacturers’ cost

estimates and 1999 Needs

Survey data.

$ 4,528

Turbidity Meters T22 Average of three

manufacturers’ cost

estimates and 1999 Needs

Survey data.

$ 2,356

Chlorine Residual

Monitors

T23 Average of two

manufacturers’ cost

estimates.

$ 2,755

Powdered

Activated Carbon

T30 Unit cost from 1995

Needs Survey (obtained

from an engineering

firm).

$ 161,930

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

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

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

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

T21 – Particle Counters [on-line units for individual filter monitoring; not researchgrade, bench-top models].

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

T23 – Chlorine Residual Monitors [analyzer/monitor only].
Storage/Pumping
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-55 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 Elevated Finished/Treated Water Storage

Elevated Finished/Treated Water Storage

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C S1 – Elevated Finished / Treated Water Storage

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

C Design Capacity in million gallons (MG).

Equations:*

C New: C = e(14.082+0.4842

/2)*D0.671* 1.096833

C Rehab: C = e(12.420+0.8042

/2)*D0.385* 1.096833

New Rehab

Observations 479 365

R-squared 0.62 0.18

Prob>F 0.000 0.000

Minimum capacity (MG) 0.025 0.002
2003 DWINSA June 2006

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

Elevated Finished/Treated Water Storage Rehabilitation

Larger symbols are outliers excluded from regressions
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-57 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

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

Presedimentation Basin, Chemical Storage Tank

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C S2 – Ground-level Finished/Treated Water Storage

C T7 – Contact Basin for CT (Rehabilitation)

C T12 – Presedimentation Basin

C T45 – Chemical Storage Tank

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data for new ground-level storage.

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data for rehabilitation of groundlevel storage and contact basin for CT. 

Determinants of Cost:

C Design Capacity in million gallons (MG).

Equations:

C New: C = e(13.641+0.5592

/2)*D0.694* 1.096833

C Rehab*: C = e(11.890+0.9762

/2)*D0.478* 1.096833

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

indicator variables.

New Rehab

Observations 577 356

R-squared 0.77 0.30

Prob>F 0.000 0.000

Minimum capacity 0.000 0.001
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-58 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.
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-59 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Hydropneumatic Storage

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C S3 – Hydropneumatic Storage

Source of Cost Observations:

C 1995 Needs Survey cost model.

Determinants of Cost:

C Design Capacity in million gallons (MG).

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

Storage model will be used.

C Rehabilitation projects for less than 2,500 gallons will be modeled as new tanks.

Equations:

C New: C = e(14.9667)*D0.681* 1.209076

C Rehab: C = e(13.4862)*D0.559* 1.209076
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-60

Unit Costs for Storage Projects

Infrastructure Need Need Survey

Code

Source of Cost Estimate Cost Estimate

Cistern S4 Indian Health Service

information

$4,936 each
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-61 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 Cover for Existing Finished/Treated Water Storage

Cover for Existing Finished/Treated Water Storage

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

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

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

C Design Capacity in million gallons (MG).

Equations:

C New: C = e (12.388+0.9292

/2*D0.543* 1.096833

C Rehabilitation: Rehabilitations of covers will be modeled as rehabilitation of the entire tank

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

New

Observations 30

Sigma 0.929

R-squared 0.69

Prob>F 0.000

Minimum capacity (new) 0.006
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-62

Pumps

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C P1 – Finished Water Pumps

C R2 – Well Pump

C R7 – Raw Water Pumps

Source of Cost Observations:

C Medium and large system 1999 survey respondent data for Finished Water Pumps (P1),

Well Pump (R2), and Raw Water Pumps (R7).

Determinants of Cost:

C Pump design capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).

Equations:

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

/2*D0.713* 1.096833

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

New and Rehab

Observations 335

R-squared 0.45

Prob>F 0.000

Minimum capacity (new) (MGD) 0.001

Minimum capacity (rehab) (MGD) 0.005
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

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

Larger symbol is outlier excluded from regressions.
2003 DWINSA June 2006

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

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C P2 – Pump Station (booster or raw water pump station including clearwell, pump and

housing).

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

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

Equations:

C New: C = e(12.446+1.0772

/2)*D0.644* 1.096833

C Rehab: C = e(11.593+1.1202

/2)*D0.687* 1.096833

New Rehab

Observations 331 201

R-squared 0.52 0.61

Prob>F 0.000 0.000

Minimum capacity (gpm) 10 10
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

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
Other Needs
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-67 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

Computer and Automation Costs (SCADA)

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C W2 – Computer and Automation Costs (SCADA)

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

C System design capacity in million gallons per day (MGD).

Equations:

C 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: C = e(10.770+1.4842

/2)*D0.578* 1.096833

Rehab: C = e(10.657+1.2802

/2)*D0.481* 1.096833

Design Capacity as a Function of Population (equation 2)

New: C = e(-6.886+0.6662

/2)*Pop0.902* 1.096833

Rehab: C = e(-8.000+0.3772

/2)*Pop1.006* 1.096833

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
2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix A-68 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
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix A-69 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

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

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C W3 – Pump Controls/Telemetry

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

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

Equations:

C New & Rehab: C = e(7.973+1.3122

/2)*Pop0.318* 1.096833

New and Rehab

Observations 173

R-squared 0.13

Prob>F 0.000
2003 DWINSA June 2006

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

2003 Needs Survey Codes:

C W4 – Emergency Power

Source of Cost Observations:

C Small, medium, and large system 1999 survey respondent data.

Determinants of Cost:

C Design Capacity in kilowatts.

Equations:*

C New: C = e(6.942+0.7482

/2)*D0.831* 1.096833

C Rehabilitation projects are not modeled.

New

Observations 140

R-squared 0.61

Prob>F 0.000
 Appendix B

 Type of Need Dictionary
2003 DWINSA June 2006

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

in List 1 of the Lists of Codes apply. It is not intended to be an exclusive list. Rather, it conveys

the spectrum of possible elements of a related project. Some projects using a particular code may

include all of the elements listed. Others may be more limited in scope and include only one of

the items. Assume all projects include installation, engineering design, and contingency costs

and all treatment projects include waste-stream handling, if appropriate. 

Code Type of Need Possible Components Parameters required for

Modeling Cost

RAW / UNTREATED WATER SOURCE

R1 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 Pump Pump and electrical controls. Design Capacity in MGD.

R3 Well House Site work, slab, building structure sized to

accommodate on-site disinfection.

Projects may span significance from

constructing a small building to more elaborate

facilities with a chemical feed room with

ventilation, etc.

n/a 

(A unit cost will be

assigned)

R4 Eliminate Well

Pit

Extend casing, install pitless adapter, modify

piping connections, fill pit, grade site. Does not

include well house.

n/a 

(A unit cost will be

assigned)

R5 Abandon Well Fill casing with appropriate material, cap well. n/a 

(A unit cost will be

assigned)

R6 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).

Design Capacity in MGD.

R7 Raw Water

Pump

Pump and electrical controls. Design Capacity in MGD.

R8 Dam/Reservoir Construction of a dam or impoundment to

inhibit flow of a naturally occurring stream,

river, or other flowing body of water for the

purposes of storing raw water for future use.

Does not include intake structure.

n/a 

(these projects are not

allowable for the Needs

Survey)
Code Type of Need Possible Components Parameters required for

Modeling Cost

June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix B-3 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

R9 Off-Stream

Raw Water

Storage

Storage basin off the stream channel,

constructed as a part of the treatment process,

providing no more than 3 days detention time.

Purpose is to address water quality issues, not

water quantity issues.

Cost must be provided.

R10 Spring

Collector

Spring box or other collection device, including

overflow, meter, sample tap, valves, and

limited piping connection to a transmission

main. Assume gravity flow; does not include

pumps.

Design Capacity in MGD.

R11 De-stratification Some method of water circulation or aeration

of a raw water source to avoid stratification of

the water body.

Cost must be provided.

R12 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

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, offgas controls and related safety equipment.Capacity of the water to

be treated in MGD.

T5 Mixed Oxidant

Type

Equipment

Disinfectant generation equipment, injection

system, safety-related 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 Dechlorination

of Treated

Water

Chemical mixing and injection system, on-line

chlorine residual monitoring equipment.

Capacity of the water to

be treated in MGD.
Code Type of Need Possible Components Parameters required for

Modeling Cost

2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix B-4

T9 Chlorine Gas

Scrubber

Gas scrubber equipment, installation, and

monitoring equipment with alarms. 

Capacity of the water to

be treated in MGD.

TREATMENT - FILTRATION (surface or ground water)

T10 Conventional

Filter Plant

(complete

plant)

Complete conventional plant with flocculation,

sedimentation, filtration, waste handling, and

the building. Includes all raw water and

finished water pumps, chemicals and mixing,

unit processes, clearwell, disinfection, process

control system, and building. This code will

also be used for systems using contact

adsorption clarifier (CAC) technologies for the

flocculation/sedimentation process.

Capacity of the water to

be treated in MGD.

T11 Direct or In-line

Filter Plant

(complete

plant)

Complete direct or in-line filtration plant,

including all raw water and finished water

pumps, chemicals and mixing, unit processes,

clearwell, disinfection, waste handling, process

control system, and the building. This code is

also used for pressure filtration systems. 

Capacity of the water to

be treated in MGD.

T12 Presedimentation

Basin

Presedimentation basin, including any required

berms, walls, chemical feed equipment, and

on-site sludge removal equipment.

Capacity of the water to

be treated in MGD (not

volume of 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.

Capacity of the water to

be treated in MGD.

T15 Filters Complete filters, including media, air scour

and/or surface wash, underdrain, effluent

troughs, and backwash equipment.

Capacity of the water to

be treated in MGD.

T16 Slow Sand

Filter Plant

(complete

plant)

Complete plant including filters, all raw water

and finished water pumps, disinfection, and

buildings. 

Capacity of the water to

be treated in MGD.

T17 Diatomaceous

Earth Filter

Plant (complete

plant)

Complete plant and building including all raw

water and finished water pumps, chemical and

body-feed equipment, mixing and injection,

filter, backwash equipment, disinfection, waste

handling, and building.

Capacity of the water to

be treated in MGD.
Code Type of Need Possible Components Parameters required for

Modeling Cost

June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix B-5 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

T18 Membrane

Technology for

Particulate

Removal

(complete

plant)

Complete plant including pre-filtration,

membrane filtration equipment, waste-stream

handling, all raw water and finished water

pumps, disinfection, monitoring equipment,

controls, and building. Also may include

caustic and other cleaning-chemical feed

components.

Capacity of the water to

be treated in MGD.

T19 Cartridge or

Bag Filtration

Plant (complete

plant)

Complete plant including connective piping,

filter housing, all raw water and finished water

pumps, disinfection, monitoring equipment and

building. 

Capacity of the water to

be treated in MGD.

T20 Streaming

Current

Monitors

On-line monitor with or without chemical

feedback loop.

Number of monitors

needed. List on third

table.

T21 Particle

Counters

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

counters needed. List on

third table.

T22 Turbidity

Meters

Bench-top or in-line meter, recording charts,

and limited piping for installation.

Number of meters

needed. List on third

table.

T23 Chlorine

Residual

Monitors

Bench-top or in-line chlorine residual monitor. Number of monitors

needed. List on third

table.

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 and/or

Manganese

Chemical mixing and feed system, injection

system. Does not include disinfection.

Capacity in MGD of the

water to be treated.

T33 Manganese

Green Sand 

(complete

plant)

Complete plant including all raw water and

finished water pumps, waste-stream handling,

monitoring equipment, chemical feed,

disinfection, and building.

Capacity in MGD of the

water to be treated.

T34 Ion Exchange

(complete

plant)

Complete ion exchange treatment plant

including all raw water and finished water

pumps, final disinfection, and building.

Capacity in MGD of the

water to be treated.
Code Type of Need Possible Components Parameters required for

Modeling Cost

2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix B-6

T35 Lime Softening

(complete

plant)

Complete lime softening plant including all raw

water and finished water pumps and building.

Capacity in MGD of the

water to be treated.

T36 Reverse

Osmosis

(complete

plant)

Complete plant including pre-filtration,

membrane filtration equipment, waste-stream

handling, all raw water and finished water

pumps, building and monitoring equipment,

and controls.

Capacity in MGD of the

water to be treated.

T37 Electrodialysis

(complete

plant)

Electrodialysis plant complete with building.

Includes all raw water and finished water

pumps.

Capacity in MGD.

T38 Aeration Complete packed tower or counter-current

tower aeration facility including disinfection, or

cascading-type tray aeration.

Capacity in MGD.

T39 Activated

Alumina

(complete

plant)

Complete activated alumina plant including all

raw water and finished water pumps,

disinfection and building.

Capacity of water to be

treated 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/

Treatment:

Mechanical

Mechanical treatment plant including sludge

handling/drying equipment complete.

Capacity of plant in MGD.

T42 Waste

Handling/

Treatment:

Nonmechanical or

Connection to a

Sanitary Sewer

(not included in

another project)

Ponds or lagoons for storing, recycling, and/or

evaporating process wastewater; or lift station

and force main or gravity main to sanitary

sewer.

Capacity of plant in MGD.

T43 Zebra Mussel

Control

Chemical mixing and injection of oxidant at raw

water intake.

Capacity of the plant in

MGD.

T44 Fluoride

Addition

Chemical mixing and injection system. Capacity in MGD of the

water to be treated.

T45 Chemical

Storage Tank

Tank only. Use other codes as needed for

chemical mixing and injection systems.

Cost must be provided.

T46 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 will assign a treatment type

based on Best Available Treatment (BAT)

technologies for the contaminant of concern.

Capacity of water to be

treated in MGD.
Code Type of Need Possible Components Parameters required for

Modeling Cost

June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix B-7 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure

T47 Other Use if none of the other treatment codes apply.

Please include an explanation of the type of

treatment. 

Cost must be provided.

TRANSMISSION - These codes are used for any mains that transport raw water to the treatment

plant, or treated water from the plant to the distribution system grid.

X1 Raw Water

Transmission

Mains, trenching, bedding, backfill site work,

easements, typical road repair, control valves,

air release valves.

Pipe diameter (in inches)

and pipe length (in feet).

X2 Finished Water

Transmission

Mains, trenching, bedding, backfill site work,

easements, typical road repair, control valves,

air release valves.

Pipe diameter (in inches)

and pipe length (in feet).

DISTRIBUTION

M1 Distribution

Mains

This code should be used for any mains that

transport water through a piping grid serving

customers. Components include mains,

trenching, bedding, backfill, hydrants, valves,

site work, road repair, easements and service

leads from the main to the curb stop. Does not

include “transmission mains.”

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.

(Applies to Alaska Native and American Indian

surveys only)

Number of service lines.

M4 Flushing

Hydrants

Hydrant lead to the transmission or distribution

main, drain, hydrant, and 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 and 

diameter (in inches).

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/

Assemblies

Device or assembly, including 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 -

converted to a decimal

for data entry).
Code Type of Need Possible Components Parameters required for

Modeling Cost

2003 DWINSA June 2006

Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure Appendix B-8

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.

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

Existing

Finished/

Treated Water

Storage

Construction of a concrete, wood, or other

cover on an existing finished/treated water

storage tank.

Volume of the tank in

MG.

PUMPING STATION AND PUMPS

P1 Finished Water

Pumps

Pump and electrical controls. Capacity in MGD.

P2 Pump Station Booster or Raw Water. Includes clearwell,

pumps, and building.

Capacity in MGD.

OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS

W1 Laboratory

Capital Costs

Limited to laboratory equipment, buildings, and

facilities owned by the system.

Cost of equipment and

facility must be provided.

W2 Computer and

Automation

Costs (SCADA)

Computer control systems and SCADA control

systems. Does not include computer software.

Cost must be provided.

W3 Pump Controls/

Telemetry

Basic telemetry system of telephone-wire

based signals or radio signal controls. Does

not include SCADA systems (use W2 for

SCADA).

Cost must be provided.

W4 Emergency

Power

Standby power generators including on-site

and movable units with associated fuel tanks.

Kilowatts or horsepower

must be provided.

W5 Security Project necessary to improve or maintain

security of system. Must be used in

conjunction with another type of need code.

Refer to parameter for

accompanying code.

W6 Other Includes needs for which none of the other

type of need codes applies. Examples include

fencing or runoff diversion structures. Please

include an explanation.

Cost must be provided.
June 2006 2003 DWINSA

Appendix B-9 Modeling the Cost of Infrastructure