-------
32.
3.3.2c Salvage Value
The salvage value of the onsite option is determined in
5am® man"ep a? f°r the Orls1te and communal options described
for Problem Area 4 above. A summation of the values is
presented below:
c
Item
Onsite Systems (Present Problems)
Communal System
Septic Tanks
Collection Pipe
Cleanouts
Pump Station
Leachfield-
Future Onsite Systems (5% Failure )
i* i *. , „ 4
Easements
Total Salvage
Amount
$ 78,500
6,240
16,920
7,200
9,000
8,675
91,750
36.000
$254,285
3.3.2d Total Present Worth
5% Per Year Failure of Present Non-Problem Systems
Capital $ 406,885
Annual 0 & M (PW) ; 1,421,650 •
Salvage (PW) (64,195)
Total Present Worth $1.764,340
Present Value
$64,195
C
3.3.3 Communal System for Downtown Area
The communal system for downtown Woodrock involves the collection
of septic tank effluent and treatment by an-aerated lagoon/aquaculture system
The piping layout is presented in Figure 3-2, and the costs
associated with collection and treatment are summarized in
Tables 3-7 and 3-8.
-------
33.
Figure 3-2
Problem Area 14
Communal Solution
Problem Septic System
PVC Gravity Sewer
PVC Force Main
Kanhole
Pump Station
Dosing Siphon
Leach Field
-------
34.
Table 3-6 Costs of Collection System
Capital Costs
Item
4" Collection Pipe
6" Collection Pipe
8" Collection Pipe
Cl eanouts
Septic Tanks
Pump Station
Street Connection
River Crossings
Escavation
Basis
10,530 LF @ $16/LF
280 LF @ $18/LF
9,620 LF @ $20/LF
no - @ 1200
370 @ 800
1 @ 42,000
370 @ 450
5 • @ 16,500
2270yd3 @ 35/ydJ
Cost
$168,480
5,040
192,400
132,000
296,000
42,000
166,500
82,500
79,450
Total Construction Cost
$1,164,370
Contingencies $232,875
Engineering & Design $232,875
Financial/Legal/Administrative... $ 93,150
Total Capital Costs $1,723,270
$1.723.270.
Annual Operations & Maintenance
Collection System
Septage Pumping
Salvage Value
Collection System
Cleanout
Septic Tanks
Pump Station
River Crossings
Total Salvage Value
20,430 LF @ $0.06/LF
370 @ $25
Value
$219,550
79,200
177,600
25,200
49,500
$551,050
$1,225
9,250
$10,475
Present worth
$109,900
Present Worth
$139,115
Total Present Worth of Collection Systems
Capital Costs
Annual 0 & M (PW)
'Salvage Value
$1,723,270
109,900
(139,115)
Total Present Worth
$1,694,055
-------
TABLE 3-7
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
PRESENT WORTH
35,
CAPITAL COST:
Site Preparation
Equalization Tank
Acquaculture Treatment'
(aerated lagoon)
$ 6,800
19,900
443,250
Operations Building/Laboratory
Exterior Piping
Electrical, HVAC
Effluent Disposal
Total Construction Cost
Contingencies
Engineering, Design, etc.
Legal, Administrative, etc.
Operator Training
Land
Total Development Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
ANNUAL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE:
Labor
Electricity
Equipment Replacement
Laboratory Analysis
Resource Recovery
TOTAL 0 & M COST
Salvage Value
Equalization Tank
Aquaculture Treatment
Operations Building
Exterior Piping
Effluent Disposal
Land
35,000
15,000
20,000
62,500
$ 602,450
$ 120,450
90,400
30,100
20,000
80.000
$ 341,000
$ 15,000
1,300
500
1,000
- 2.250
$ 15,550
$ 943.450
Present Worth
$ 163.150
Present Worth
$ 11,940
221,625
21,000
9,000
31,250
144,490
$ 439,305 $ 110,900
-------
Table 3-7 cont.
Total Present Worth of Wastewater Treatment Facility
36.
Capital Costs
Present Worth of Annual O&M
Salvage Value (Present Worth)
Total Present Worth
$ 943,450
163,150
(110,900)
$ 995,700
0
-------
37,
3.3.4 Comparison of Onsite vs. Communal Systems for Downtown Woodrock
Onsite Systems (5% Failure/yr)
Present Worth $1,764,345
Communal System
Collection $1,694,055
, \
Treatment Plant '; $ 995,700
Total Present Worth $2,689,755
The onsite option is more cost effective than the communal option.
3.3.5 Townwide Analysis
A townwide analysis' can be made by summarizing the cost effectiveness
analysis for problem areas 1-15 (Problem Area 15 is the dispersed
problems). A 1% failure rate of onsite systems was assumed for the
outlying regions, and a 5% failure rate in the downtown section.
Downtown corcmunal and. onsite solutions are examined for their
impact on the overall cost, of the program. All outlying problem
areas are solved by onsite solutions.
Included in the townwide assessment are:
* a septage treatment facility ($742,900 capital costs;
$25,500/yr 0 & M costs)
* management option, including a computer and groundwater
monitoring ($25,000 capital costs; $13s600/yr 0 & M costs)
* an assumption of 50 new septic systems added per year in
non-problem areas.
The assumption that no new growth occurs in presently defined Problem
Areas has been made because each of the Problem Areas is essentially
a completely built-up housing development, with little room for further
growth.
3.3.5a Repair of New Systems
The determination of the repair of new (growth-related) systems is
similar to that for present systems. With an incremental, annual
increase of 50 systems per year and an assumed failure rate of 1%/year,
there would be 115.5 failures in the 20 year design period. If these
were assumed to fail in a linear fashion (a simplification) then the
annual cost for repairs can be shown by:
-------
•38.
Total Number of Failures/Planning Period X Unit Cost
Annual Cost
115.5 failures/20 years X $9253
$53,435/year
The Present Worth of this annual cost is $530,632
3.3.5b Salvage Value of New"Systems
Based on the assumed growth and failure rates, a total of 115 5
systems will be estimated to fail in the design period If these
are assumed to fail linearly over the 20 year peHod then the
salvage value can be calculated as-
Number of Replacements
t"
115.5
% Useful'Life'Remaining
100% '
(0.75)
) X Uni
Unit Cost * Salvage Value
X $9,253 = $801,541
= $202,350
(Present Worth)
For the present case, the system cost is assumed to be $9,253
(4 Bedroom Mo.und with 30 minute/inch perc rate - from Table 3-3)
C
Inlire
for the
-------
39.
S E
,
* tn
m
tn
in
o
C7t
CM
SR
u
fw
i
**
CC
<
Q.
UJ
OS
c*»
0%
to
£
s
0
en
tn
en
*^
e
"s
CM
O
S
-»
j.
o
CO
B
**
C71
a
**»
u
tn
CM
2
"^
1
S 2
5? &
UJ
49 t/>
O.
1U
VI*
Oi
s
**
o
r-
tn
en
1
y
o
CO
**
CM
S
z
-
t.
u
c
CO
c\
5
tn
CO
s
CM
V.
e?
s
CM
»
£ :
2 g
5 d
§ |
^
-j
ex.
Of
tn
CM
~
O
O
o
CM
§
tn
CM
•
CC
UJ
Q m
o lj
^— o
=3 >—
O O
«_» £
i
i
Ot
8
V*
-s
tn
CO
CM
i"
CM
CM
CO
U
£
O
o
**
a:
A i
§H-
v>
C9 S
O »
i I
o. tn
W UJ
*" ee
I»^
S
CD
8
tC
O
o
o
CM
O
S
CM
S
o
s
o
§
vO
s
UJ
UJ
3
UJ
§
CM
CM
CM
1
5
0
1
CM
to
CM
(A
tn
en
en
CO
CM
O
CM
cn
o\
tn
•— »
c*»
fe
z
ex.
&
4*1
2
^
CO
«t
i
p>
s
o
o
s
£
n
C1
a
CD
5
en
s
^r
UJ
ac
UJ
V)
a
o
Q
3
O
C
c
«0
Ch
c\
*».
CO
ta
m
CM
CO
tn"
o*
5
i
§
v»
o:
0.
-j
0
-------
40.
J °
*
I I
r> S ~
S
8
g
§
g
s
§
g
g
>»
o
o-
g
g
g
8
s
2
c
-------
41,
4. User Costs •
The determination of user costs in a situation where different
users receive different types of services requires that the community
make a number of decisions relative to the allocation of those costs.
For the purposes of this example it is assumed that 370 structures will
be serviced by the central collection treatment system; 589 will receive
onsite repairs and 3144 will continue to use their existing onsite systems
but will become part of the overall management district and will make
avail of the septage treatment faciVities. The costs used in this_example
are summarized below:
I. Capital Costs
A. Downtown Collection System
Total Capital Costs
85% Federal Grant
10% State Grant
$1,723,270
1,464,780
172,330
Total Local Share - $ 86,160
Debit Retirement (20 yrs 9 11%)* $ 10,820/yr
B. Wastewater Treatment Facility
Total Capital Costs
85% Federal Grant
10% State Grant
To.tal Local Share
Debit Retirement (20 yrs @ 11%)* $
-
Si
11%)*
$
$
$
943
801
94
47
5
,450
,930
,350
,170
,920/yr
C. Septage Treatment Facility
Total Capital Costs
85% Federal Grant
10% State Grant
$ 742,900
631,470
74,290
Total Local Share » $ 37,140
Debit Retirement (20 yrs @ 11%)* $ 4,660/yr
D. Onsite System Repairs
Total Capital Costs
85% Federal Grant
10% State Grant
Total Local Share
$7,353,450
6,250,430
735,350
$ 367,670
Debit Retirement (20 yrs
-------
42'.'
II. Operation and Maintenance Costs
A. Downtown Collection System
(excluding septage pumping)
B. Wastewater Treatment Facility
C. Septage Treatment Facility
D. Management Costs (onsite systems)
S 1,225/yr
$15,550/yr
.'. $32,000/yr
$37,200/yr
C
III. ' Septaqe Pumping/Hauling Costs
$75/household every three years =
$2S/household/yr
ft. '
4.1. User Costs for Downtown Residents
The'-resi dents of the downtown district will be assessed the total
cost of the collection and wastewater treatment systems and a proportionate
share of the septage treatment and management costs. Since the downtown area
will be served by a small diameter gravity sewer, each structure will be using
a septic tank which will have to be pumped. A summary of the user cost
calculation follows:
Collection system Capital Costs
Wastewater Treatment Capital Costs
Septage Treatment Capital Costs
(370 x 4660/4103)
Collection 0 & M
Wastewater Treatment 0 & M
Septage Treatment 0 & M
(370 x 32,000/4103)
Mangement Costs (370 x 37,200/4103)
$10,820
5,920
.420
1,225
•15,550
2,890
3,350
C
Total $40,175
User Costs
Collection/Treatment 40,175/370 = $109/yr
Septage Pumping - • 25/yr
Total User Cost, = $134/yr
4.2 User Costs For System Being Initially Repaired
Residents who'will be having their systems repaired will be.assessed .for
the costs of those repairs plus a proportionate snare or the ouier racilities
they will use, these are summarized below. £
-------
43.
Onsite System Repair Capital Costs $46,170
Septage Treatment Capital Costs
(589 x 4660/4103) 670
Septage Treatment 0 & M'
(589 x 32,000/4103) 4,590
Management Costs .. ,. „„„
(589x37,200/4103) • 5,340
Total ' $56,770
User Costs
Treatment 56,770/589 = $96/yr
Septage Pumping 25/yr
Total User Cost = $121/yr
4.3. User Costs For Residents Not Receiving System Repairs
For this example it is assumed that this group will pay for its
share"of all cost associated with utilizing the septage- facilities.
A. Summary Follows:
Septage Treatment Capital Costs
(3144 x 4660/4103) = $ 3,570
Septage Treatment 0 & M
(3144 x 32,000/4103) - 24,520
Management Costs
(3144 X 37,200/4103) = 28,510
Total $56,600
User Costs
Treatment 56,600/3144 = $18/yr"
Septage Pumping 25/yr
- Total User Cost = $43/yr
-------
44.
Questions
1. Is the most cost effective solution always the mdit favorable from a
community's standpoint? Why or Why not?
2. A number of assumptions are made in conducting a cost effectiveness analysis,
of the following which are mandated by EPA regulations and which are left
to the discretion of the engineer:
- length of planning period
- discount rate
- rate of failure of onsite systems
- cost of repairing onsite treatment systems
- useful life of capital items
. Discuss, in general terms the implications of varying these assumptions
as they relate to the selection of a particular alternative.
3. Different present worth factors are used for land costs and energy costs
under existing EPA regulations. What is the basic assumption behind
these differences? ' .
c
-------
EPA COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
ArreroiX A
cosr-orrcnvrnrEss AMM.*SZS cnineuira
I. Purpose, These guidelines represent
Agency policies and procedures for deter-
mining the most cost-effectlve waste treat-
ment management system; or component
part. ™"
2. Authority. These guidelines are pro-
vided under sections 212X2XC) and 217 of
the Clean Water Act.
3. Applicability. These guidelines, except
as otherwise noted, apply to »J1 facilities
planning under step 1 grant assistance
awarded after • September 30, 1978. The
guidelines also apply to* State or locally fi-
nanced facilities planning on which subse-
quent step 2 or step 3 Federal grant assist-
ance Is based. , ,
4. Definition*. Terms used in these guide-
lines are defined, as follows:
B. Waste treatment management system-
Used synonymously with "complete waste
'treatment system" as defined In 535.905 of
this subpart.
b. Coat-effectiveness analysis. An analysis
performed to determine which waste treat-
ment management system or component
part will result In the minimum total re-
sources costs over time to meet Federal.
State, or. local requirements.
c. Planning period. The period over which.
a. waste treatment management system Is
evaluated for cost-effectiveness. The plan-
ning period begins with the system's initial
operation.
d. Useful life. The estimated period of
-time during which a treatment works or «
component of ft waste treatment manage-
ment system will be operated.
e. Disc.ggresratian. The process or result of
breaking down a sum total of population or
economic activity for a Stale or other Juris-
diction ae.. designated 208 area or SMSA>
into smaller areas or Jurisdictions.
S. Identification, selection, and screening
of alternatives, a. Identification of alterna-
tives. All feasible' alternative waste manage-
ment systems shall be initially identified.
These alternatives should Include systems
discharging to receiving waters, land appli-
cation systems, on-site and other non-cen-
tralized systems. Including revenue generat-
ing applications, and systems employing the
reuse of wastewater and recycyling of pol-
lutants. In Identifying alternatives, the ap-
plicant shall consider the possibility of no
action and staged development of the
b. Screening of alternatives. The Identi-
fied alternatives shall be systematically
screened to determine those capable of
meeting the applicable Federal. State and
local criteria.
c. Selection of alternatives. The Identified
alternatives shall be-Initially analyzed to de-
termine which systems have cost-effective
potential and which should be fully evaluat-
ed according to the cost-effectiveness analy-
sis procedures established In the guidelines.
d. Extent of effort. The extent of effort
and the level of sophistication used In the
cost-effectiveness analysis should reflect the
project's size and importance. Where proc-
esses or techniques are claimed to be Inno-
vative technology on the basis of the cost
reduction criterion contained tn paragraph
8eU) of appendix E to this subpart. a suffi-
ciently detailed cost analysis shall be Includ-
ed to substantiate the claim, to the satisfac-
tion of the Regional Administrator. > •
6. Cost-effectiveness analysis procedures.
SL. Method of analysis. The resources costs
shall be determined by evaluating opportu-
nity costs. For resources that can be ex-
pressed tn monetary terms, the analysis will
use the Interest (discount) rate established
In paragraph 6e. Monetary costs shall be
calculated in terms of present worth values
or equivalent annual values over the plan-
nins period defined In section 6b. The anal-
ysis, shall descriptively present nonmone-
tary factors (e.g., social and environmental)
In order to determine their significance and
Impact. Nonmonetary factors include prima-
ry and .secondary environmental effects, im-
plementation capability, operabillty. per-
formance reliability and flexibility. Al-
though such factors as use and recovery of
energy and scarce resources and recycling of
nutrients are to be Included In the monetary
eost analysis, the non-monetary evaluation
shall also Include them. The most cost-effec-
tive alternative shall be the waste treatment
management system which the analysts de-
termines to have the lowest present worth
or equivalent annual value unless nonmone-
t&ry costs are overriding. The most' cost-ef-
fective alternative must also meet the mini-
mum requirements of applicable effluent
limitations, groundwater protection, or
other applicable standards established
under the Act.
b. Planning period. The planning period
for Uie cost-effectiveness analysis shall be
20 years.
c. Elements of monetary costs. The mone-
tary costs to be considered shall Include the
total value of the resources which are at-
tributable to the waste treatment manage-
ment system or to one of Its component
parts. To det« rralne these values, all monies
necessary for capital construction costs and
operation and maintenance costs shall be
Identified. ' - •
(1> Capital construction costs used tn a
cost-effective analysis shall Include all con-
tractors' costs of construction including
overhead and profit, costs of land, reloca-
tion, and right-of-way and easement acquisi-
tion: costs of design engineering, field explo-
ration and engineering services during con-
struction: costs of administrative and legal
services Including costs of bond sales; star-
, tup costs such as operator training: and in-
terest during construction. Capital construc-
tion costs shall also Include contingency
allowances consistent with the cost esti-
mate's level of precision and detail.
(2) The cost-effectiveness analysis shall
Include annual costs for operation and
maintanance (Including routine replacement
of equipment and equipment parts). These
costs shall be adequate to ensure effective
and dependable operation during the sys-
tem's planning period. Annual costs shall be
divided between fixed annual costs and costs
which would depend on the annual quantity
of waste water collected and treated.
Annual revenues generated, by the waste
treatment management system through
energy recovery, crop production, of other
outputs shall be deducted from the annual
costs for operation and maintenance- In ac-
cordance with guidance Issued by the Ad-
ministrator.
d. Prices. The applicant shall calculate the
various components of costs, on the basis, of
market prices prevailing at the tlwe of the
cost-effectiveness analysis. The analysis
shall not allow for Inflation al wages and
prices, except those lor land, as described in
paragraph ShCU and for natural gas. This
stipulation Is based on the Implied assump-
tion that prices, other than the exceptions.
for resources involved In treatment works
construction and operation, will tend to
change over time by approximately the
same percentage! Changes tn the general
level of prices will not affect the results of
the cost-effectiveness analysis. Natural gas
prices shall be escalated at a compound rate
of 4 percent annually over the planning
period, unless the Regional Administrator
determines that the grantee has Justified
use of a greater or lesser percentage based
upon regional differentials between histori-
cal natural gas price escalation and con-
struction cost escalation. Land prices shall
be appreciated as provided tn paragraph
6h.
(2) Where expenditures win not be unl-
' form, or when the construction period will
be greater than 4 years. Interest during con-
• stcuction shall b« calculated on a year-by-
year basis.
g. Useful life. UJ The treatment works'
useful life for a cost-effectiveness analysis
shall be as follows:
. Land—permanent..
Waste water conveyance structures (In-
cludes collection systems, outfall pipes.
Interceptors, force mains, ~ tunnels.
etc.)—50 years.
Other structures (Includes plant building.
concrete process tankage, basins. lift sta-
tions structures, etc.)—30-50 years.
Process equipment—15-20 years.
• Auxiliary equipment—10-15 years.
(2) Other useful life periods will be accept-
able when sufficient Justification can be
provided. Where a system or a component Is
for Interim, service, the anticipated useful
life shall be reduced to the period for Inter-
im service.
n. Satvaye value. (1} Land purchased for
treatment works. Including land used as
part of the treatment process or for ulti-
mate disposal of residues, may b« assumed
FEDERAL iECISTER, YOU 43, HO. 18&—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, W3
-------
46.
to h*v« a, salvare value at the end of Che
pUnnlnt period a least equal to Its previu1-
tas market value a the time of the analysts.
la csleuUtlne the salvage value of land, the
land value shall be appreciated at & com-
pound, no* of 3 perc» nt annually over the
planning period, unles the Regional Ad-
ralnU«*wr determines that the grantee has
Jollified the use of & ertater or lesser per-
centace based upon hUuncal differences
between local land cost escalation and con-
structioa cost escalation. Thi land cost esc*.
latioa rat* may b« updated periodically la
•ewdanc* *lth Asency guidelines. Risht-
of.vay .eatemenw shall be considered to
have a s*lv*se value not greater thin the
prevaUUat market value at the time of the
analysis.
<2) Structures wfl] b« assumed to have ».
salvage value Jf there Is a use for them *t
the tnd of the planninz period. la this case.
salvage value shall be estimated uslne
straitht line depreciation during the useful
Jlfc of the treatment works.
<3> The method used IB paragraph 6h<2J
nay b* used to estimate salvage value.at the
«nd of the planning period for phased addi-
tions ot process equipment and auxiliary
equipment. ,-
<4> When the anticipated useful life of a
facility Is less thin 20 years (for analysis of
Interim facilities), salvage value can be
claimed for equipment IT it can be clewly
demonstrated that a specific market or
reose opportunity will exist.
TT/i*nof(t«fe and. altemailve teasleicater
treatment ?roc«J« end techniq'Jts.
». Bet tnnlnt October 1. 1978, the capital
eosti'of publicly owned treatment works
irhleh use processes and techniques meeting
the criteria of appendix E to this subpart
and which have only a, water pollution con-
troj function, may be eligible if the present
•worth cost of trie treatment works is not
more than 115 percent of the present worth
cost of the most cost-effective pollution con-
trol system, exclusive of collection sewers
and interceptors comanoa to the two sys-
tems b«lnt compared, by US percent.
except for the following situation.
b. Where innovative or alternative unit
processes would serve In lieu of conventional
unit processes in a conventional waste water
treatment plant, and the present worth
costs of the nonconventional unit processes
«a less tV""! 50 percent of the present
worth casts of the treatment plant, multiply
the present worth costs of the replaced con-
ventional processes by 115 percent, and add
Xhtf cost of nonreplaeed unit processes.
c. The eligibility of multipurpose projects
*-hlch combine a. water -pollution control
function with another function, and wftich
\ue processes and techniques meeting the
criteria of appendix E to this subpart. shall
be determined in accordance with guidance
fcuued by the Administrator.
1 "d. The above provisions exclude Individual
systems under f 35.918, The regional Admin-.
istrator may allow a grantee to apply the 15-
percent preference authorized by this sec-
tion, to facility plans prepared under step 1
grant assistance awarded before October 1..
1978.
ft. Ca»J- For non-SMSA facility planning areas
not Included in designated areawid* 208
areas, the State may disaggregate popula-
tion projections for non-SJ«£SA counties
among facility planning areas an The estimation of existing and future
ADBP. exclusive of flow reduction from
combined residential, coevaerdal and Insti-
tutional sources. shaU b* baaed Upon one of
the following methods:
(a) Preferred Tntths*!. ExiKiss ADBP Is es-
t!r=at*d ba*td upcct. a fully documented
analysis of water us« records eji}usicd for
cons-ursption aad losses or on records of
wastewater flows for extended dry periods
less estimated dry weather bxfatratSon.
Future flows for the treataeat.works. />. .-n
should b« estimated, by
-------
47.
c
0.1 to 0.2
O.S to O.S
tsttos per capita flows based on existing
jewered resident population and multiply-
ing this figure by the future projected popu-
lation to be served. Seasonal population can
be converted to equivalent full time resi-
dents using the following multipliers:
Day-uu visitor . '
Seuooai Ttoltor ————
The preferred method shall be used wherev-
er water supply records or wastewater How
data exist. Allowances for future increases
of per capita flow over time will not be ap-
proved. • ,
(b) Optional meOiod. Where water supply
and wastewater now data are lacking, exist-
lag and future ADBF shall be estimated by
multiplying a gallon per capita per day
(gpcd) allowance not exceeding those In the
following table, except as noted below, by
the estimated total of the existing and
future resident populations to be served.
The tabulated ADBF allowances, based
upon several studies of municipal water use.
include estimates for commercial and insti-
tutional sources as well as residential
sources. The Regional Administrator may
approve exceptions to the tabulated
allowances where large Cmora than 25 per-
cent of total estimated ADBF) commercial
and Institutional flows are documented.
Description
Gallon* per
capita p«r
cities and towns with pro-
jected total 10-year population* of
SJOOorta ------
Other cttlo and towns ....... —
c. Flow reduction. The cost-effectiveness
analysis for each facility planning area shall
include an evaluation of the costs, cost sav-
ings. and effects of now reduction measures
unless the existing AJDBP from the area Is
less than 70 gpcd. or the current population
of the applicant municipality is under
10.000. or the Regional Administrator
exempts the area for having an effective ex-
isting flow reduction program. Flow reduc-
tion measures include public education, pric-
ing and regulatory approaches or a combi-
nation of these. In preparing- the facilities
plan and Included cost effectiveness analy-
sis. the grantee shall, as a minimum:
(1) Estimate the flow reductions Imple-
mentable and cost effective when the treat-
ment works become operational and after 10
and 20 years of operation. The measures to
be evaluated shall Include a public Informa-
tion program; pricing and regulatory ap-
proaches; Installation of water meters, and
retrofit of toilet dams and low-flow shower-
heads for existing homes and other habita-
tions: and specific changes In local ordin-
ances. building codes or plumbing codes re-
quiring Installations of water saving devices
such as water meters; water conserving toi-
lets. showerheads. lavatory faucets, and ap-
pliances in new homes, motels, hotels. Insti-
tutions. and other establishments.
(2) Estimate the costs of the proposed
How reduction measures over the 20-year
planning period. Including costs of public In-
formation, administration, retrofit of exist-
ing buildings and the Incremental costs. If
any. of Installing water conserving devices
' in new homes and establishments.
<3> Estimate the energy reductions: total
cost savings for wastewater treatment,
water supply and energy use; and the net
cost savings (total savings minus total costs)
attributable to the proposed flow reduction
measures over the planning period. The esti-
mated cost sayings shall reflect reduced
sizes of proposed wastewater treatment
works plus reduced costs, of future water
supply facility expansions.
(4) Develop and provide for Implementing
« recommended flow reduction program.
This shall include *• public Information pro-
gram highlighting effective flow reduction
measures, their costs, and the savings of
water and costs for a typical household and
for the community. In addition, the 'recom-
mended program shall comprise those flow
reduction measures which are cost effective.
supported by the public and within the Im-
plementation authority of the grantee or
another entity willing to cooperate with the
grantee.
(5) Take Into account In the design of the
treatment works the flow reduction estimat-
ed for the recommended program.
d. Industrial flows. U) The treatment
works' total design now capacity may In-
clude allowances for industrial flows. The
allowances may Include capacity needed for
Industrial flows which the existing treat-
ment works presently serves. However.
these flows shall be carefully reviewed and
means of reducing them shall be considered.
Letters of Intent to the grantee are required
to document capacity needs for existing
flows from significant Industrial users and
for future flows from all Industries Intend-
ing to Increase their flows or relocate In the
area. 'Requirements for letters of Intent
from significant Industrial dischargers are
set forth In 3 35.925-11(0.
(2) While many uncertainties accompany
' forecasting future Industrial, flows, there Is
still a need to allow for some unplanned
future Industrial growth. Thus, the cost-ef-'
fective (grant eligible) design capacity and
flow of the treatment works may Include (In
addition to the existing Industrial flows and
future Industrial flows documented by let-
ters of Intent) a nominal flow allowance for
future nonidentlflable Industries or for un-
planned Industrial expansions, provided
that 203 plans, land use plans and toning
provide for such Industrial growth. This ad-
ditional allowance for future unplanned In-
dustrial flow shall not exceed S percent (or
10 percent for towns with less than 10.000
population) of the total design flow of the
treatment works exclusive of the allowance
or 25 percent of the total Industrial flow
(existing plus documented future), which-
ever Is greater.
e. Staging of treatment plants, (1) The ca-
pacity of treatment plants (I.e., new plants.
upgraded plants, or expanded plants) to be
funded under the construction- grants pro-
gram shall not exceed that necessary for
wastewater flows projected during an Initial
staging period determined by one of the fol-
lowing methods:
First method. The grantee shall ana-
lyze at least three alternative staging peri-
ods (10 years. 15 years, and 20 years). He
shall select the least costly (I.e.. total pres-
ent worth or average annual cost) staging
period.
(b) Second method. The staging period
shall not exceed the period which Is appro-
priate according to the following table.
STAGING PERIODS ro» TMATXTST PIAHTS
Flow growth factors A municipality may stage the construc-
tion of a treatment plant for a shorter
period than the maximum allowed under
this policy. A shorter staging period might
be based upon environmental factors (sec-
ondary Impacts; compliance with other envi-
ronmental laws under } 35.925-14. energy
conservation, water supply), an objective
concerning planned modular construction.
the utilization of temporary treatment
plants, or attainment of consistency with lo-
cally adopted plans Including comprehen-
sive and capital Improvement plans.. Howev-
er, the staging period In no case may be less
than 10 years, because of associated cost
penalties and the time necessary to plan..
apply for and receive funding, and construct
later stages.
(3) The facilities plan shall present the
design parameters for the proposed treat
ment plant. Whenever the proposed treat-
ment plant components' size or capacity
would exceed the minimum reliability re-
quirements suggested In the E?A technical
bulletin. "Design Criteria for Mechanlcsl.
Electric, and Fluid System and Component
Reliability." a complete Justification, includ-
ing supporting data, shall be provided to the
Regional Administrator for his approval.
f. Staginy of interceptors. Since the loca-
tion and length of interceptors will Influ-
ence growth, interceptor routes and staging
of construction shall be planned carefully.
They shall be consistent with approved 20»
plans, growth management plans and other
environmental laws under 53S.S25->14 and
shall also be consistent with Executive
orders for flood plains and wetlands.
U> Interceptors may be allowable for con-
struction grant funding If they eliminate ex-
isting point source discharges and accommo-
date flows from existing habitations that
violate an enforceable requirement of the
Act. Unless necessary to meet those objec-
tives. Interceptors should not be extended
into environmentally sensitive arexs. prime
agricultural lands and other undeveloped
areas (density less than one household per 2
acres). Where extension of an Interceptor
through such areas would be nscessary to
Interconnect two or more communities., the
grantee shall reassess the need for the Inter-
ceptor by further consideration of alterna-
tive wastewater treatment systems^ If- the
reassessment demonstrates a need for the
Interceptor, the grantee shall evaluate the
Interceptor's primary and secondary envi-
ronmental Impacts, and provide for appro-
priate mitigating measures such as rerout-
ing the pipe to minimize adverse Impacts or
restricting future connections to the pipe.
Appropriate and effective grant, conditions
(e.g.. restricting sewer hookups) should be
used where necessary to protect environ-
mentally sensitive areas or prime agricultur-
al lands from new development. N?DES
permits shall Include the conditions to
Insure Implementation of the mitigating
REGISTER, VOL 43. HO. 1S&—WEBNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
-------
measures when new permits are Issued to
the affected treatment facilities In those
nasea where the measures are required to
protect the treatment facilities against, over-
loading.
(25 laUrctptor pip* sizes (diameters for
cylindrical pipes) allowable for construction
(Taut funding shall be based on a staging
period of 20 years. A larger pipe sfce corre-
sponding to * longer stating period not to
esceed 40 years 0*7 be allowed If the grant-
ee can demonstrate, wherever •water quality
management plans or other plans developed
for compliance with laws under J33.325-H
hate been approfed. that the larger pipe
vould be consistent with projected land use
patterns !n such plans and that the larger
pipe would reduce overall (primary plus sec-
ondary) enTironmenUI impacts. These envi-
ronmental Impacts include:
<«) Primary impacts. (J) Short-term dis-
ruption of traffic, business and, other dally
activities,
(ii) Destruction of flora and fauna, noise.
erosion, and, sedimentation.
Secondary impacts. (!) Pressure, to
rerone or otherwise facilitate unplanned de-
velopment. •'
and 202Ca> of
the Act shall be equivalent to the estimated
construction costs of the most cost-effective
treatment worts. For the eligibility determi-
nation, the costs of .construction of the
actual treatment works and the most cost-
effective treatment works must be estimat-
ed on a consistent basts. Up-to-date cost
curves published by SPA'* Office of Water
Program Operations or other cost estimat-
ing guidance shall be used to determine the
cost ratios between cost-effective project
components and those of the actuil" project.
These cost ratios shall b«.multiplied by the
step 2 cost and step 3 contract costs of
actual components to determine the eligible
step 2 and step 3 costs.
c. The actual treatment works to b« buflt
shall be assessed.- It must be determined
that the actual treatment works" meets the
requirements of the National Environmen-
tal Policy Act and all applicable laws, regu-
lations, and guidance, as required of all
, treatment works by H 35.925-« aad 35.925-
14. Particular attention should be given to
assessing the project's potential secondary
environmental effects aad to ensuring that
air quality standards will not be violated.
The actual treatment works' discharge must
not cause violations of water quality stand-
ards. ;
d. The Regional Administrator shall ap-
prove the plans, specifications, and esti-
mates for the actual treatment works under
section 203(a) of the Act, even though E?A
will be funding only a portion of its de-
signed capacity.
e. The- grantee shall satisfactorily assure
the Agency that the funds for the construc-
tion costs due to the addtional capacity
beyond the cost-effective treatment works-
capacity as determined by EPA (Le, the In-
eligible portion of the treatment works), as
weU as the local share of the grant eligible
portion of the coustruction costs will be-
available.
f- The grantee shall execute appropriate
grant conditions or releases providing that
the Federal Government is protected from
any further claim by the grantee, the State.
or any other party for any of the costs of
construction due to the addiUonsJ capacity.
g. Industrial cost recovery shall be based
upon the portion of the Federal grant allo-
cable to the treatment of industrial wastes.
h. The grantee must Implement a user
charge-system which applies to the entire
service area, of the grantee, including any
area served by the additional, capacity. /
C
?HO£RAt REGISTER
HO. IW— WH3N5SDAT, SSTEk
27, J978
-------
Work Session: Cost Effectiveness Analysis
The cost effectiveness analysis presented for problem area 4 (pages 20-
29 of Cost Effectiveness Analysis Module) illustrates the methodology of
making the very basic decision of onsite versus a communal (or cluster)
system. Under the assumptions used for the analysis the onsite systems
were shown to be more cost effective. However it may be necessary to
question some.of the underlying assumptions. For purposes of conducting .
the necessary analysis, the group will be in smaller groups.
Work Tasks: -
Problem Area Group: This group will act as a coordinating body for the
work session assimilating the results.of the other work groups. The other
work groups will be addressing specific issues relative to cost effectiveness
of onsite versus communal systems. This group will be responsible for
combining the results of the other groups' work and assessing its overall
Implications as it relates to the selection of onsite versus cluster systems.
This group will also be responsible for identifying other issues which may
impact this decision (i.e. onsite vs. communal) and assessing their im-
plications. .
Initial Failure Rate Group: A review of the problem area description
provided in the Case Study (p.21) shows that all of the homes in the area
were built around the same time and have relatively the same soil conditions.
An argument might be made that the survey has in fact underestimated the
number of systems that are now failing. Assess the implications of this
possibility. Using the analysis-presented on pages 20 and 24 of the cost effective-
ness module conduct a similar analysis for 15, 20 and 25 failures. Assume that
development costs will remain at about 48% of construction costs. What
appears to be the cut-off, point at which the number of existing failures
would tend to sway the selection towards a community system. (Refer to
the Comparison of Systems on page 29).
Future Failure Rate Group: Using a similar argument as that presented for the
Initial Failure Rate Group one might argue that the 5% failure rate is too low.
Using the analysis presented on p.24 conduct an analysis using a 10% and 20%
failure rate. Since at a 10% failure rate all systems will fail by year 10
use a present worth factor of 6.98 (uniform series, 10 years @ 7 1/8%) for
the present worth of initially conventional systems; similarly for 20%, a
present worth factor of 4.09 should be used. Discuss how this effects the
overall results by refering to the comparison of systems on p. 29.
Mound Design Group: As a contrary argument, one can argue that the mound design
for the Woodrock system is very conservative. A mound design based on the
EPA Design Manual for Onsite Systems for a 7-bedroom house and lO.min/in
percolation rate has yielded the following results (these are comparable to
the quantities presented in Table 3-1 of the Cost Effectiveness Module-
p. 17):
3
Excavation for Trenches 24.5 YD3
- Gravel for Trenches 24.5 YD .
Peastone for Trenches — 3
Fill Material 190 YD
Distribution Pipe 292 LF
Backflow Preventer 1 EA
-------
Header Pipe
Grading and Supervision
Layout and Supervision
55 LF,
2730 FT"
292 LF
,f
Using this new design and the costs .in Table 3-1 calculate the costs
of such a mound. Using this cost show the effects of this mound cost
on the cost effectiveness analysis presented on pages 20 and 24 of the
Cost Effectiveness Module. . •
'• "', >!!•', - '.. . ,-U'i-,.!
^-^K
C;
-------