; i
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-547)
Washington. DC 20460
EPA 832-R-93-002
September 1993
1992 Needs Survey
Report to Congress
It
^••ev ^*:
^ijj^^-:~ £?•-"> '^
-------
Document is available for sale to the public through:
Educational Resource Information Center
Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and
Environmental Education (ERIC/CSMEE)
1929 Kenny, Columbus, Ohio 43210-1015
National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal, Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
'}
•f}
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 2 2 i993
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. President:
Enclosed is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 1992
Needs Survey report on the "Assessment of Needs for Publicly
Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Correction of Combined
Sewer Overflows, and Management of Storm Water and Nonpoint
Source Pollution in the United States." This report is required
biennially by sections 205(a) and 516(b)(l) of the Clean Water
Act (CWA).
The 1992 Needs Survey, a joint effort by the States and EPA,
summarizes the capital construction costs to meet municipal
wastewater pollution control needs. This report also presents a
broader range of needs eligible for funding under the State
Revolving Fund (SRF) program under Title VI of the CWA, and
includes modeled needs estimates in addition to the traditional
documented needs submitted by States. EPA used models to
supplement the documented needs estimates for the control of
combined sewer overflows, to estimate the cost of implementing
urban stormwater management programs, and to develop limited
nonpoint source pollution control costs. States have limited
documentation of need or cost for these newer eligible activities
authorized for SRF funding.
As in previous Needs Surveys, EPA maintained specific
criteria to include only those needs for which a water quality or
public health problem could be documented. Although the scope
and quality of needs reporting have improved, a number of gaps
remain to be addressed, particularly for the control of
stormwater and nonpoint source runoff. Future Needs Survey
reports will contain more complete estimates of need.
I would be pleased to further discuss the results of this
Needs Survey at your convenience.
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 2 2 1993
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Thomas S. Foley
Speaker of the House
of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Enclosed is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 1992
Needs Survey report on the "Assessment of Needs for Publicly
Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Correction of Combined
Sewer Overflows, and Management of Storm Water and Nonpoint
Source Pollution in the United States." This report is required
biennially by sections 205(a) and 516(b)(l) of the Clean Water
Act (CWA).
The 1992 Needs Survey, a joint effort by the States and EPA,
summarizes the capital construction costs to meet municipal
wastewater pollution control needs. This report also presents a
broader range of needs eligible for funding under the State
Revolving Fund (SRF) program under Title VI of the CWA, and
includes modeled needs estimates in addition to the traditional
documented needs submitted by States. EPA used models to
supplement the documented needs estimates for the control of
combined sewer overflows, to estimate the cost of implementing
urban stormwater management programs, and to develop limited
nonpoint source pollution control costs. States have limited
documentation of need or cost for these newer eligible activities
authorized for SRF funding.
As in previous Needs Surveys, EPA maintained specific
criteria to include only those needs for which a water quality or
public health problem could be documented. Although the scope
and quality of needs reporting have improved, a number of gaps
remain to be addressed, particularly for the control of
stormwater and nonpoint source runoff. Future Needs Survey
reports will contain more complete estimates of need.
I would be pleased to further discuss the results of this
Needs Survey at your convenience.
Carot M. Browner
Enclosure
-------
1992 Needs Survey
Report to Congress
Assessment of Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater
Treatment Facilities, Correction of Combined Sewer
Overflows, and Management of Storm Water and
Nonpoint Source Pollution in the United States.
SEPTEMBER 1993
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (WH-547)
Washington, D.C. 20460
Tele. (202) 260-5837
-------
Acknowledgments
Many dedicated individuals have been involved in the 1992 Needs Survey. Though it is impossible
to acknowledge the hard work of everyone, we would like to thank the EPA Regional and State
Needs Survey Coordinators for their active support and continuing interest in the Needs Survey.
Regional and State Needs Survey Coordinators:
Region I - Larry MacMillan
Connecticut - Dennis Greci
Maine - Dennis Purington
Massachusetts - Dave Barnes
New Hampshire - Franz Vail
Rhode Island - Ray Pena
Vermont - Nopodon Sundarabhaya
Region III - Thomas O. Maher
Delaware - Roy R. Parikh
Dist. of Columbia - Mohsin Siddique
Maryland - Charlotte Holland
Pennsylvania - Milt Lauch
Virginia - Debbie Welsh
West Virginia - Rosalie Ortega
Region V - William Tansey
Illinois - James R. Leinicke
Indiana - Paul Serguta
Michigan - Martian Hickman
Minnesota - Debra Lindlief
Ohio - Margaret Klepic
Wisconsin - Dick Kalnicky
Region VII - Kelly Beard-Tittone
Iowa - Wayne Reed
Kansas - Rod Geisler
Missouri - Doug Garrett
Nebraska - Charles Duerschner
Region IX - Jim Meeks
Arizona - Ron Frey
California - Eric Torguson
Hawaii - John Ong
Nevada - James B. Williams, Jr.
U.S. Territories - Jim Meeks
Region II - Ray Kvalheim
New Jersey - Chet Feehan
New York - Mark Burdyl
Puerto Rico - Roberto Berrios
Virgin Islands - Leo H. Francis
Region IV - Ben Chen
Alabama - David Hutchinson
Florida - Gary Powell
Georgia - Randy Durham
Kentucky - Hamid Beykzadeh
Mississippi - Sitaraman Makena
North Carolina - Daniel Blaisdell
South Carolina - Eugene M. Watts, Jr.
Tennessee - James Poff
Region VI - Gene Wossum
Arkansas - Dave Fenter
Louisiana - Catherine Lundergan
New Mexico - David Hanna
Oklahoma - Ron Guidice
Texas - Bill Allen
Region VIII - Minnie Adams
Colorado - Brian Ehrle
Montana - Gerri Reeves
North Dakota - Gary Reed
South Dakota - Jim Wendte
Utah - Stephanie Bernkopf
Wyoming - Mike Hackett
Region X - Andrea Lindsay
Alaska - Dick Marcum
Idaho - Alan Stanford
Oregon - Jan Renfroe
Washington - Ellen Wolfhagen
-------
Table of Contents
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 3
What Is the Needs Survey? 3
What Are the Scope and Objectives? 6
SUMMARY OF THE TOTAL NEEDS 7
What Are the Needs? 7
How Have the Needs Changed? 9
How Are the Documented Needs Distributed? 11
What Is the Status of Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Infrastructure? 12
REPORTED/DOCUMENTED NEEDS 13
How Were the Needs Documented? 13
What Are the Separate State Estimates? 14
What Are the Needs for Small Communities? 15
MODELED NEEDS 19
What Are Modeled Needs? 19
How Were the Combined Sewer Overflow Needs Modeled? 19
How Were the Storm Water and Nonpoint Source
Estimates Prepared? 22
CONCLUDING REMARKS 31
How Comprehensive Is the 1992 Needs Survey? 31
GLOSSARY 33
APPENDICES 41
A. Summary of 1992 Needs Survey Estimates A-l
B. Summary of 1990 Needs Survey Estimates B-l
C. Summary of 1992 Needs Survey Technical Information C-l
D. Summary of 1992 Needs Survey Documentation D-l
-------
List of Tables
TABLE PAGE
1 Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment 2, 7
Facilities and Other Eligibilities
2 Summary of Documented Needs 8
3 Comparison of Documented Design Year Needs 9
1988 Through 1992 Needs Surveys
4 Treatment Level of Operational Facilities 12
5 Infrastructure Improvements from Meeting 12
Design Year Needs
6 Modeled Needs for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control 26
VI
-------
List of Figures
FIGURE PAGE
1 Distribution of Documented Design Year Needs 11
2 Distribution of Documented Design Year Needs 11
to Correct Combined Sewer Overflows
3 Characterization of Separate State Estimates and 14
Documented Needs by Category
4 Documented Small Community Needs 15
5 Characterization of Small Community and Total 15
Documented Needs by Category
6 Comparison of Small Community Facilities to the 16
Nation When All Documented Needs Are Met
7 National Distribution of Documented Small Community 17
Needs — Design Year Needs by State for Categories I-VI
8 1992 Small Community Facilities When All 18
Documented Needs Are Met
VII
-------
Executive
Summary
The 1992 Needs Survey, a joint
effort of the States and EPA, was
conducted to meet the requirements
of Sections 205(a) and516(b)(l) of
the Clean Water Act.
J. his report provides the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) detailed estimate of the eli-
gible capital costs to build publicly
owned municipal wastewater treat-
ment facilities and capital/program
development costs for other eli-
gible activities necessary to com-
ply with the requirements of the
Clean Water Act, including storm-
water, nonpoint source,
and estuary programs.
The 1992 Needs Survey
focuses on the expanded
CWA funding eligibili-
ties under the State Re-
volving Fund (SRF) in
the 1987 Amendments
to the Clean Water Act.
Models were used to
supplement documented
needs estimates for com-
bined sewer overflows
(CSOs). Models were
also used to develop
preliminary urban storm
water (SW) and agricul-
tural and silvicultural nonpoint
source (NPS) pollution control
implementation costs since very
little documentation of specific
projects or costs was available from
the States.
EPA's needs estimates in-
clude those facilities and activities
for which a water quality or public
health problem could be docu-
mented using specific criteria es-
tablished by EPA. The capital
investment necessary to satisfy all
categories of need is presented in
Table 1. Additional nonconstruc-
tion estimates are included for pro-
gram development costs associated
with SW and NPS control. The
1992 total documented and mod-
eled needs are $137.1 billion to sat-
isfy all categories of needs eligible
for SRF funding for the design year
(2012) population.
This amount includes $50.1
billion in modeled needs for CSO,
SW, and NPS pollution control.
For SW and NPS, the estimates ex-
clude operation and maintenance
costs (O&M) since O&M costs are
ineligible for SRF funding. How-
ever, O&M costs are the major
costs associated with SW and NPS
program implementation. Only ag-
riculture and silviculture NPS pol-
lution control costs were estimated.
Many types of NPS pollution were
not addressed: abandoned mines,
urban areas, septic systems, con-
taminated sediments, hydro-
modification, and atmospheric
deposition.
The needs estimate for the
Nation rose in constant dollars by
$53.4 billion (39 percent) from
1990 to 1992. The increase was
due to a variety of factors, prima-
rily improved documentation of
SRF eligibilities and the use of
models to capture full CSO, as well
as partial urban SW and NPS,
costs.
Total documented needs are
$111.9 billion, including the above-
mentioned modeled categories, of
which only $1.9 billion is for the
newer eligibilities: NPS (including
groundwater and wetlands) and es-
tuarine pollution control. This rep-
resents a 20 percent increase from
1988 and is the result of signifi-
cantly increased State documenta-
tion of needs. Small community
needs are $13.4 billion, represent-
ing 12% of total documented
needs. EPA and the States made a
special effort to increase document-
able needs estimates for small com-
-------
1992 Needs Survey
munities and to clarify needs for
those communities facing financing
difficulties.
The 1992 Needs Survey iden-
tified more than 20,000 treatment
and collection facilities, of which
15,613 provide treatment. These
treatment facilities currently serve
a population of 180.6 million, rep-
resenting 70 percent of the
Nation's population. When all
needs are met, facilities providing
treatment will increase to 18,966
and the population served will in-
crease to more than 250 million or
87 percent of the Nation.
About 94 percent of existing
treatment facilities are providing
secondary treatment or better. Cur-
rently, 14,745 facilities are provid-
ing secondary or better levels of
treatment, up 6 percent from 1988.
There are about 1,100 communities
served by 1,303 CSO facilities in
the Nation. Of these, 375 facilities
have documented needs totaling
$22.4 billion to correct CSO prob-
lems. A separate EPA estimate of
CSO control needs was made based
on the use of a model to obtain a
fair and equitable estimate that
meets the most likely "presump-
tive" approach outlined in the De-
cember 1992 draft CSO policy.
However, the final CSO policy
may differ from the draft. Total
CSO needs are estimated to be
$41.2 billion.
TABLE 1
NEEDS FOR PUBLICLY OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES AND OTHER ELIGIBILITIES
(January 1992 Dollars in Billions)
NEEDS CATEGORY TOTAL NEEDS
TITLE II ELIGIBILITIES
1 Secondary Treatment
II Advanced Treatment
IIIA Infiltration/Inflow Correction
IIIB Replacement/Rehabilitation
IVA New Collector Sewers
IVB New Interceptor Sewers
V Combined Sewer Overflows
VI Storm Water (institutional source controls only)f
TOTAL CATEGORIES I-VI
OTHER ELIGIBILITIES (Sections 319 and 320)
Nonpoint Source (agriculture and silviculture only)
Ground Water, Estuaries, Wetlands
GRAND TOTAL
31.3
15.5
2.8
3.6
17.9
14.7
41.2*
0.1*
127.1
8.8*
1.2
137.1
* Modeled needs.
t Includes SRF-eligible costs to develop and implement SW plans but not
eligible structural and construction costs.
NOTE: Costs for operation and maintenance are not eligible for SRF
funding and therefore are not included.
-------
Report to Congress
Introduction
What Is the Needs Survey?
This report summarizes the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) 1992 assessment of the eli-
gible costs of constructing needed
publicly owned wastewater treat-
ment works and the capital/program
development costs for other eligible
activities required by the Clean Wa-
ter Act (CWA), including storm-
water, nonpoint
source, and es-
tuary programs.
This biennial
report is re-
quired by Sec-
tions 205(a) and
516(b)(l) of the CWA. The 1992
Needs Survey, a joint effort of the
States and EPA, is the llth Needs
Survey since enactment of the CWA
Amendments of 1972.
Cost estimates presented in
previous Needs Surveys have served
as a basis for congressional allot-
ment of funds appropriated for the
construction grants program in ac-
cordance with the provisions of Title
II of the CWA. Construction grants
have been awarded to construct mu-
nicipal wastewater treatment and
collection facilities. The 1987
Amendments to the CWA estab-
lished the State Revolving Fund
(SRF) program under Title VI. As
funding under the Construction
Grants program phases out, SRF
loans have become the principal
funding source for construction of
wastewater treatment and collection
projects.
The 1987 Amendments also
established new categories of needs
eligible for funding under the SRF
program, which have tended to in-
crease the level of needs eligible for
EPA financial assistance. These
categories include estimates for
storm water (SW), the costs to
implement activities in approved
State nonpoint source (NPS) man-
agement plans, including groundwa-
ter and certain wetlands protection
activities under CWA Section 319
and the costs to develop and imple-
ment conservation and management
plans under CWA Section 320 (Na-
tional Estuary Program).
The SRF program gives States
the flexibility to fund projects that
are more comprehensive in nature
than those eligible under Title II, in-
cluding new facilities and expansion
to address expected population
growth as well as facility replace-
ment. States can allocate SRF fund-
ing to a broader range of projects to
address the problems they consider
most significant in terms of achiev-
ing water quality goals.
The Needs Survey is used ex-
tensively to assist the Federal gov-
ernment and the States in program
planning, policy evaluation, and
program management. Private firms,
public interest groups, and trade as-
sociations use Needs Survey infor-
mation in marketing, cost
estimating, and policy formulation.
The Needs Survey data base
contains detailed cost and technical
information on wastewater treat-
ment and collection facilities nation-
wide, including facilities with unmet
needs and those for which needs
have already been met. The primary
purpose of this report is to summa-
rize the cost information for unmet
needs. Summaries of technical data
are provided in Appendix C.
-------
1992 Needs Survey
What Is a "Need"?
Traditionally, a "need" is a
capital cost estimate for building a
publicly owned wastewater treat-
ment facility that is eligible for
Federal financial assistance in ac-
cordance with the provisions of the
CWA. Needs are estimated for fa-
cilities used in the conveyance,
storage, treatment, recycling, and
reclamation of municipal waste-
water. Estimates are included for
all types of required changes to
wastewater facilities, such as the
construction of entirely new facili-
ties and the enlargement, upgrade,
and replacement of existing facili-
ties. Existing facilities are consid-
ered for replacement when they
have reached the end of their de-
sign life and no longer operate
satisfactorily.
The 1992 Needs Survey esti-
mates were generated two ways: 1)
reported by States and 2) modeled.
For the latter, EPA estimated costs
for facilities and program activities
(e.g., SW, NFS) eligible for funding
under the SRF program. As a result,
a broader range of needs are reported
in the 1992 Needs Survey than in
prior Needs Surveys. Costs reported
include costs for structural and
nonstructural measures, and costs to
develop and implement State and
municipal SW and NFS programs.
Although the scope and quality
of the 1992 Needs Survey reporting
have improved, a number of gaps
remain. Needs for municipal costs to
address new enforceable require-
ments imposed by the 1987 Amend-
ments of the CWA and the 1988
Ocean Dumping Ban Act, such as
toxics removal and sludge manage-
ment, are currently included as needs
reported for Categories I and II and
are not shown separately by EPA.
Needs for sludge management re-
lated to regulations published in 1992
are not fully priced out in this Needs
Survey. Although needs for ad-
vanced treatment increased signifi-
cantly, they do not represent the full
cost of meeting more stringent water
quality standards. However, as
States continue to revise their water
quality standards to control toxics,
nutrients, and other pollutants, future
Needs Surveys may reflect these
needs more fully. Different States
may adopt stricter standards depend-
ing on their particular water quality
needs.
In the case of storm water, the
modeled needs shown on Table 1
deal only with the development and
implementation of institutional con-
trols, but not with potentially signifi-
cant structural construction costs
because EPA lacked sufficient infor-
mation to develop those costs,
whereas costs for actual construction
costs are included in some of the $1.8
billion in documented storm water
needs submitted by eight States.
For NFS, modeled estimates
were generated for agricultural, con-
fined animals, and silviculture run-
-------
Report to Congress
off only. Estimates of costs to con-
trol diffuse runoff from developed
areas, drainage from abandoned
mines, construction activities, hy-
drologic modifications, and other
sources have not been addressed in
this report due to lack of sufficient
information to develop estimates.
Documented needs for NFS were
submitted by only 12 States. Docu-
mented costs for the other Title VI
eligible needs, including groundwa-
ter, estuaries, and wetlands protec-
tion activities are reported from only
six States. For estuaries, EPA as-
sumed the majority of needs would
be captured in the traditional (point
source) needs categories (I-V) or by
the NFS model. Needs for these
other activities are eligible for SRF
assistance only if the activity is an
integral part of an approved
nonpoint source management plan
or estuary comprehensive conserva-
tion and management plan.
Needs estimates for all catego-
ries of need do not include annual
costs for operation and maintenance.
They also do not include needs that
are ineligible for Federal assistance
under Title VI of the CWA, such as
house connections to sewers and
costs to acquire land that is not a part
of the treatment process.
Municipalities can sometimes
dramatically reduce total project
costs of wastewater infrastructure by
implementing various water use effi-
ciency practices. Included are short-
and long-term water use reduction,
water recycling, and wastewater rec-
lamation and reuse. For example,
these practices may result in the de-
ferral of expanding existing facilities
or the downsizing of new facilities.
Types of Wastewater
Treatment and Water
Pollution Control Projects
The types of wastewater treat-
ment and water pollution control
projects for which needs estimates
are presented are the following:
• Category I—Secondary
Treatment
• Category II—Advanced
Treatment
• Category IIIA—Infiltration/
Inflow Correction of Sewers
• Category IIIB—Replace-
ment/Rehabilitation of Sewers
• Category IVA—New Collec-
tor Sewers
• Category IVB—New Inter-
ceptor Sewers
• Category V—Combined
Sewer Overflow Control
• Category VI—Storm Water
Pollution Control
• Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control (Sec. 319)
• Ground-Water Protection
(Sec. 319)
• Estuarine Protection (Sec.
320)
• Certain Wetlands Protection
Activities (Sec. 319)
More detailed explanations of
each category can be found in the
Glossary.
Time Frame
The eligible needs identified
in this report only include existing
needs documented as of January 1,
1992. EPA estimated the capital in-
vestment necessary to address cur-
rent municipal wastewater treatment
problems to satisfy the design year
(2012) population. The design year
is used to approximate the 20-year
design life for newly constructed fa-
cilities which are designed to meet
the current population need of a mu-
nicipality, plus population growth
and migration for the next 20 years.
EPA did not estimate the need
to satisfy the current year popula-
tion, as in prior Needs Surveys since
funding for reserve capacity under
the SRF program is not limited to
current population, as was the case
under the Construction Grants pro-
gram.
-------
1992 Needs Survey
What Are the Scope and
Objectives?
The scope of the 1992 Needs
Survey was expanded to report all
needs eligible for funding under the
SRF program in accordance with
Title VI of the CWA, including the
new water quality requirements.
While the Needs Survey focuses pri-
marily on the documented capital
costs required to meet the needs of
the Nation's waste water infrastruc-
ture, this report also includes mod-
eled preliminary estimates for newer
categories of need such as SW and
NFS pollution control. Costs to cor-
rect CSOs were also modeled. Be-
cause needs for other new
eligibilities such as ground water,
estuaries, and wetlands were not
modeled, only the documented
needs are reported and the estimates
do not reflect the total costs required
to address problems in these areas.
For estuaries, EPA assumed that the
majority of the activities conducted
under Section 320 estuary programs
are either point or nonpoint source
control activities and will be cap-
tured in the traditional needs catego-
ries or by the NFS model.
Additionally, needs for small com-
munities are highlighted in the 1992
Needs Survey.
The major objective of the
1992 Needs Survey was to improve
the 1990 needs estimates by updat-
ing and enhancing documented
needs and developing models for
eligible needs for which documen-
tation does not exist. A secondary
objective was to improve specific
technical data. EPA actively
sought more complete information
for small communities and CSOs.
States were encouraged to update
all technical data, in particular flow
and population data, on all waste-
water treatment and collection fa-
cilities in the Needs Survey.
However, many States lacked the
resources to collect and report the
most current information to EPA.
Reported/Documented
Needs
As in the 1986 and 1988
Needs Surveys, EPA asked States
to update their needs for wastewa-
ter treatment and collection on a
facility-by-facility basis in accor-
dance with established documenta-
tion criteria.
In general, EPA applied the
same documentation criteria in the
1992 Needs Survey that were es-
tablished in prior Needs Surveys to
ensure that a water quality or pub-
lic health problem existed. These
criteria were maintained to provide
national consistency in estimating
and reporting needs. States were
asked to submit documentation for
all updated needs, including those
they had updated in the 1990 Needs
Survey. Undocumented needs are
reported under the separate State
estimates (SSEs). A more detailed
discussion of the documentation
process is presented later in this re-
port in the section entitled "How
Were the Needs Documented?"
Modeled Needs
In past Needs Surveys, certain
categories of need were not ad-
equately reported, mainly because
the States lacked the information to
complete the necessary planning.
There is reason to believe that some
needs continue to be underesti-
mated. States and localities are still
assessing how to meet the regula-
tory water quality protection re-
quirements for CSOs and SW
management, so the documented
needs do not yet fully reflect the
costs of these programs. In the case
of NPS, types of controls very dif-
ferent from traditional wastewater
treatment infrastructure may be re-
quired. For these reasons, EPA de-
veloped modeled estimates for CSO
correction and for selected SW and
NPS management to be able to
present more complete needs esti-
mates in the 1992 Needs Survey Re-
port.
Of the approximately 1,100
communities served by 1,303 CSO
facilities in the Nation, only 375
facilities reported documented
needs, even though it was recog-
nized that most of these facilities
would need construction to comply
with the CWA requirements. At
the time the 1992 Needs Survey
data were collected, it was not clear
to many States and municipalities
what actions would be needed to
address CSO problems. EPA pub-
lished its draft policy on meeting
CSO control needs in December
1992, long after the States had sub-
mitted their documented needs. To
present a fair and consistent esti-
mate of total national CSO control
needs, EPA is reporting the mod-
eled estimate that most closely re-
lates to the implementation goals
contained in the draft policy.
EPA undertook a more lim-
ited modeling effort to begin to de-
velop national estimates of costs
for SW and NPS control programs.
Summaries of the methodologies
used to estimate these needs are
presented in the section on models,
beginning on page 20.
-------
Report to Congress
Summary of
the
Total Needs
What Are the Needs?
/PA's estimates of the invest-
ment necessary to address the
Nation's municipal wastewater
treatment needs are presented in
Table 1. The table summarizes the
combination of documented and
modeled estimates constituting
EPA's total estimate of $137.1 bil-
lion eligible for SRF funding. Of
this total, tra-
ditional cat-
egories of
needs (Cat-
egories I-IV)
total $85.8
billion, with
needs for
treatment
alone totaling
$46.8 billion.
Needs for
CSOs (Cat-
egory V) total $41.2 billion, a level
higher than that of any other Needs
Survey category. Appendix A con-
tains State-by-State estimates of all
the documented needs estimates.
EPA's estimate of total docu-
mented needs is $111.9 billion.
These needs are displayed in Table
2. This table differs from Table 1
in that documented, not modeled,
needs are reported for the CSO,
SW, and NFS categories. A total
of about 1,100 communities served
by 1,303 CSO facilities were iden-
tified in the 1992 Needs Survey,
although documented needs total-
ing $22.4 billion were reported for
only 375 of these facilities. States
were also able to provide docu-
mented estimates for SW, NPS,
and other new SRF eligibilities of
$3.7 billion.
Modeled needs for SW (Cat-
egory VI) are $116.5 million and
TABLE 1
NEEDS FOR PUBLICLY OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES AND OTHER ELIGIBILITIES
(January 1992 Dollars In Billions)
NEEDS CATEGORY TOTAL NEEDS
TITLE II ELIGIBILITIES
1 Secondary Treatment
II Advanced Treatment
HIA Infiltration/Inflow Correction
NIB Replacement/Rehabilitation
IVA New Collector Sewers
IVB New Interceptor Sewers
V Combined Sewer Overflows
VI Storm Water (Institutional source controls only)f
TOTAL CATEGORIES I-VI
OTHER ELIGIBILITIES (Sections 319 and 320)
Nonpoint Source (agriculture and silviculture only)
Ground Water, Estuaries, Wetlands
GRAND TOTAL
31.3
15.5
2.8
3.6
17.9
14.7
41.2*
0.1*
127.1
8.8*
1.2
137.1
* Modeled needs.
t Incfudes SRF-eligible costs to develop and implement SW plans but not
eligible structural and construction costs.
NOTE: Costs for operation and maintenance are not eligible for SRF
funding and therefore are not included.
-------
1992 Needs Survey
for selected NFS control are $8.8
billion. The results of the 1992
Needs Survey confirmed that few
States have documented costs for
these needs. EPA's modeled cost
estimates represent program devel-
opment and implementation of SW/
NFS pollution management plans.
EPA's SW modeled estimate
accounts for only part of the eligible
SW costs and therefore is low. EPA
believes it accurately priced out the
SRF-eligible needs to develop and
implement SW management plans.
However, the modeled estimate
does not include eligible construc-
tion costs (which are included in
some of the $1.8 billion in docu-
mented costs submitted by eight
States) because EPA lacked suffi-
cient information to model those
costs. Eligible costs represent only
a small fraction of the total SW pro-
gram costs, which are mainly an-
nual O&M costs.
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTED NEEDS
(January 1992 Dollars in Billions)
NEEDS CATEGORY
DOCUMENTED NEEDS
TITLE II ELIGIBILITIES
I Secondary Treatment
II Advanced Treatment
IMA Infiltration/Inflow Correction
1MB Replacement/Rehabilitation
IVA New Collector Sewers
IVB New Interceptor Sewers
V Combined Sewer Overflows
VI Storm Water
31.3
15.5
2.8
3.6
17.9
14.7
22.4
1.8
110.0
CATEGORIES I-VI
OTHER ELIGIBILITIES
Nonpoint Source
Ground Water, Estuaries, Wetlands
GRAND TOTAL 111.9
NOTE: Costs for operation and maintenance are not eligible for SRF
funding and therefore are not included.
0.7
1.2
EPA's modeled NPS control
estimate is $8.8 billion compared
to only $693 million in docu-
mented needs, yet the modeled es-
timate is also incomplete because
of a lack of sufficient information
to develop estimates for all catego-
ries of NPS pollution. As with all
other categories of need, O&M
costs are not eligible for SRF fund-
ing and therefore are not included.
-------
Report to Congress
How Have the Needs
Changed?
The total needs increased
$53.4 billion in constant dollars
from $83.7 billion in the 1990
Needs Survey to the current $137.1
billion estimate. In general, the in-
creases are caused by one or more
of six factors: (1) continued popu-
lation growth and redistribution,
(2) deterioration of older sewers
and facilities, (3) more stringent
standards to protect water quality,
(4) newly eligible activities, (5)
modeled estimates for wet weather
flow controls, and (6) use of a dif-
ferent methodology for reporting
the 1990 needs.
As shown in Table 3, ad-
vanced treatment needs have grown
by $10 billion. This increase has
occurred primarily because the in-
stallation of secondary treatment
controls has proved to be insuffi-
cient in many cities to meet water
quality standards. It is likely that
this category of needs will continue
to grow in future surveys as more
States complete their planning to
address the new water quality stan-
dards. Needs for CSOs have in-
creased by $24.0 billion as a result
of modeling the 1303 CSOs com-
pared to 375 documented CSO es-
timates; the documented CSO
needs increased by $5.2 billion
from 1990. The increases in sec-
ondary treatment and new collec-
tors are attributable to population
growth and population redistribu-
tion since the last survey.
The other reason for in-
creased 1992 needs is that the
methodology used by EPA to de-
velop these needs was improved
over that used in 1990. Since the
COMPARISON OF DOCUMENTED DESIGN YEAR NEEDS
1988 THROUGH 1992 NEEDS SURVEYS*
(January 1992 Dollars in Billions Except as Noted)
NEEDS CATEGORY
I Secondary Treatment
II Advanced Treatment
IIIA Infiltration/Inflow Correction
IIIB Replacement/Rehabilitation
IVA New Collector Sewers
IVB New Interceptor Sewers
V Combined Sewer Overflows
VI Storm Water
OTHER SRF ELIGIBILITIES
Nonpoint Source
Ground Water, Estuaries, Wetlands
TOTAL NEED
TREATMENT CATEGORIES 1 & II
CATEGORIES I-V (Nominal Dollars)
1988
SURVEY
29,1
5.5
3.1
4.0
14.9
16.2
17.7
—
—
—
90.5
34.6
83.5
1990
SURVEY
25.9
4.9
2.9
3.7
14.4
14.7
17.2
—
—
—
83.7
30.8
80.4
1992
SURVEY
31.3
15.5
2.8
3.6
17.9
14.7
22.4
1.8
0.7
1.2
111.9
46.8
108.2
* Note that the 1990 estimates were derived using a methodology
different from that used in this and previous surveys. For 1990, EPA
simply adjusted the 1988 needs estimates for grant and loan awards
and inflation.
-------
10
1992 Needs Survey
1990 Needs Survey was scaled
down in scope, new needs that
were documentable in 1990 were
collected and reported as State
supplemental estimates. This was
because EPA did not collect or re-
view needs documentation from the
States during the 1990 Needs Sur-
vey. Consequently, although there
appears to have been a substantial
increase in documented needs from
1990 to 1992, some of the increase
would have been realized in 1990
had the same methodology been
used in all years.
The documented needs have
increased by $28 billion from the
1990 Needs Survey, to $111.9 bil-
lion. Table 3 compares the
changes in needs from 1988
through 1992, and Appendix B
provides a State-by-State compari-
son of how documented needs have
changed since the 1990 Needs Sur-
vey.
-------
Report to Congress
11
How Are the Documented
Needs Distributed?
Figure 1 presents a geographi-
cal distribution of the total docu-
mented needs and shows that needs
continue to be generally concen-
trated in the highly populated north-
ern and Sunbelt States such as New
York, California, Massachusetts,
Ohio, and Florida. The less popu-
lated States, generally located in the
Rocky Mountains and the Plains,
have lower levels of documented
needs. Appendix A provides a de-
tailed presentation of needs for each
State and U.S. territory.
Figure 2 presents a geo-
graphical distribution of the docu-
mented needs to correct 375 CSO
(Category V) problems. As ex-
pected, the majority of the needs
are in the eastern coastal States
(EPA Regions 1-3), the Great
Lakes States (EPA Region 5), and
along the west coast (EPA Regions
9 and 10). This concentration of
needs reflects the age of the infra-
structure in these areas and the fact
that combined sewers were accept-
able control methods at the time
these facilities were built.
FIGURE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTED DESIGN YEAR NEEDS
(January 1992 Dollars in Billions)
Total Documented Needs = $111.9 Billion
FIGURE 2
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTED DESIGN YEAR NEEDS
TO CORRECT COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
(January 1992 Dollars in Billions)
Total Documented Design Year Needs to
Correct Combined Sewer Overflows =
$22.4 Billion
-------
12
1992 Needs Survey
What Is the Status of
Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Infrastructure?
Sustained State and Federal in-
vestment has yielded significant im-
provements in the Nation's
municipal wastewater treatment in-
frastructure. In the last 14 years, the
number of secondary and advanced
treatment facilities has steadily in-
creased. Municipalities currently op-
erate more than 20,000 treatment
and collection facilities (serving a
population of 180.6 million), of
which 15,613 provide treatment.
This represents a slight increase
from 15,591 reported in the 1988
Needs Survey1.
Presently, 14,745 or approxi-
mately 94 percent of all treatment
facilities are providing at least sec-
ondary treatment compared to
13,802 facilities (89 percent) in
1988. Although 69 collection facili-
ties may still discharge raw sewage,
this is a decline from 117 facilities
reported in 1988. The majority of
these small collection facilities are
located in rural areas and only expe-
rience raw discharges during peri-
ods of high loadings into the system.
Table 4 characterizes the current
treatment capabilities for all operat-
ing domestic wastewater facilities
compared to 1988.
The infrastructure improve-
ments from meeting the 1992 docu-
mented needs are summarized in
Table 5. Major improvements would
be made in the level of treatment
provided. When all needs are met,
facilities providing treatment will in-
crease to 18,966 and the population
served will increase to 251.4 million
or 87 percent of the Nation.
TABLE 4
TREATMENT LEVEL OF OPERATIONAL FACILITIES
1988
LEVEL OF NUMBER OF
TREATMENT FACILITIES
No Discharge
Less than Secondary
Secondary
Greater than Secondary
Total Facilities
1,854
1,789
8,536
3,412
15,591
1992
NUMBER OF
FACILITIES
1,981
868
9,086
3,678
15,613
CHANGE
+7%
-52%
+6%
+8%
+0%*
' Percent change is less than 0.5.
TABLE 5
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FROM MEETING
DESIGN YEAR NEEDS
INDICATORS
IMPROVEMENT
FROM TO
1992 2012 CHANGE
Number of treatment facilities providing
secondary or more advanced treatment 14,745 18,830 +28%
Number of treatment facilities providing
less than secondary treatment 868
Design capacity of treatment facilities
(million gallons per day) 39,380
Millions of people receiving treatment 181
Total number of operational facilities 1 5,61 3
68*
45,542
251
18,966*
-92%
+16%
+39%
+22%
* Includes facilities granted Section 301 (h) ocean discharge waivers
and interim treatment facilities discharging to other facilities
meeting secondary treatment or better.
t Level of treatment data were unavailable for 68 of these facilities,
but It appears that these facilities will be at secondary treatment or
better when all their needs have been met.
1 Comparisons are made to 1988 because
comparable numbers were not developed
from the 1990 Needs Survey.
-------
Report to Congress
13
The
Reported/
Documented
Needs
tie documentation types for the
1992 Needs Survey were based on
the 17 types used in the 1988 Needs
Survey plus 7 added for 1990 to
document new SRF eligibilities re-
sulting from the 1987 CWA
Amendments. Some additional al-
ternative types for documenting
small communities were added on a
case-by-case ba-
sis as well.
How Were the Needs Documented?
Documen-
tation is used
both to verify
the existence of
needs and to
present cost esti-
mates to meet
the needs. EPA
reviewed State-
submitted doc-
umentation for each new facility and
each category of need to ensure that
the documentation (1) established
that there was a current public
health or water quality problem and
(2) was project-specific (e.g., docu-
mentation describing a county-wide
problem of septic system failures
due to poor soils was unacceptable
to document the needs of a particu-
lar town in that county). The 24
EPA-approved documentation types
for the 1992 Needs Survey are de-
scribed in Appendix D, including
their applicability for documenting
needs or costs.
Once a State adequately doc-
umented a water quality or public
health problem, EPA accepted it into
the Needs Survey as a need regard-
less of whether a documented cost
estimate was available. For docu-
mented needs without cost estimates,
EPA used nationally derived cost
curves to calculate the dollar value of
needs.2 The curves use level of treat-
ment, general type of treatment,
population, flow, and type of pro-
posed improvement to generate cost
estimates.
It is difficult to document
needs and costs for projects serving
small communities because in many
cases local governments have not
had the resources to develop the
necessary planning and engineering
studies. For this reason, EPA es-
tablished less stringent documenta-
tion requirements for small
community facilities. In general, al-
ternative documentation for small
communities consisted of a descrip-
tion of a need and a preliminary cost
estimate from an engineer. Appen-
dix D presents the alternative doc-
umentation types for accepting
small community needs in the 1992
Needs Survey.
EPA strongly encouraged
States to submit any available docu-
mentation of needs and costs for
new enforceable requirements and
other SRF expanded eligibilities
(e.g., SW, NPS, and ground-water,
estuarine, and certain wetlands pro-
tection activities). Since the new
enforceable requirements and new
SRF eligibilities were established by
the 1987 CWA Amendments, many
States have not yet been able to de-
velop adequate documentation to es-
tablish needs and costs for inclusion
in the 1992 Needs Survey. States
should be able to document these
newer needs for inclusion in future
Needs Surveys as planning and en-
gineering studies are completed.
Needs and costs that do not meet
EPA documentation requirements
are discussed in the "What Are the
Separate State Estimates?" section.
2 Texas and Connecticut use their own State-
derived and EPA-accepted cost curves to es-
timate costs for their sewers.
-------
14
1992 Needs Survey
What Are the Separate
State Estimates?
EPA provides States the op-
portunity to submit separate esti-
mates for needs that they believe are
valid but that do not meet EPA
documentation criteria.
The States were allowed to re-
port separate needs for the tradi-
tional needs categories (Categories I
through VI). A total of 44 States
reported needs that could not be
documented using the EPA docu-
mentation types. Figure 3 compares
the EPA and separate State esti-
mates (SSEs). These needs, which
are shown in Appendix A, represent
a total of $22.1 billion in addition to
the EPA documented needs. The
types of cost estimates identified by
the individual States are generally
grouped into four broad categories:
• Needs to build centralized
wastewater treatment facilities
for unsewered communities
that have not been adequately
documented.
• Needs to build or expand
wastewater treatment systems
in small communities that are
unable to secure funding
through the SRF program or
are unable to document the
need.
• Needs to address CSO prob-
lems where no formal study
that documents a public health
or water quality problem ex-
ists.
• Needs for existing facilities
that are currently operating at
a satisfactory level but are pro-
jected to need replacement or
a major upgrade during the
next 20 years.
FIGURE 3
CHARACTERIZATION OF SEPARATE STATE ESTIMATES
AND DOCUMENTED NEEDS BY CATEGORY
(January 1992 Dollars in Billions)
.o
25
40
30
20
10
I Separate State Estimates
I Documented Needs
IVB
VI
Categories of Needs
Separate State Estimates = $22.1 B
EPA Documented Needs for Categories I-VI = $110.0 B
-------
Report to Congress
15
What Are the Needs for
Small Communities?
Small communities, particu-
larly those communities with
limited financial, technical, admin-
istrative and legal resources, are
encountering difficulties qualifying
for and repaying SRF loans. These
communities have less access to
private credit markets and are of-
ten compelled to delay addressing
their needs. Small communities in
particular cannot rely on economies
of scale to the extent that large
communities can. Nevertheless,
they must continue to comply with
CWA requirements.
The total documented need
for wastewater treatment and col-
lection systems for small commu-
nities was estimated at $13.4
billion. An additional $5.4 billion
in SSEs (Categories I-V) was also
reported. A small increase in needs
for small communities resulted
from adding alternative documen-
tation types as explained below. A
State-by-State listing of the total
needs reported for small communi-
ties is presented in Appendix A.
EPA defines a "small com-
munity" as a community with a
wastewater treatment facility serv-
ing less than 10,000 people and
processing no more than 1 million
gallons of wastewater per day.
These communities include small
towns and rural areas that find it
very difficult to finance needed
projects because of their small fi-
nancial base.
EPA made a special effort in
the 1992 Needs Survey to obtain a
better representation of the needs
of small communities. Many small
communities are not able to ad-
equately document existing needs.
For this reason, alternative docu-
mentation was accepted for docu-
menting small community needs
(see details under "How Were the
Needs Documented?"). As shown
in Figure 4, 10 States were able to
document small community needs
of $0.8 billion by using alternative
documentation; more States are ex-
pected to be able to make use of
alternative documentation in future
Needs Surveys.
Figure 5, which presents
small community and national
FIGURE 4
DOCUMENTED SMALL COMMUNITY NEEDS
(January 1992 Dollars in Billions)
Traditional
Documentation
$12.68(94.0%)
Alternative
Documentation
$0.8 B (6.0%)
Total Documented Small Community Needs for
Categories I-VI = $13.4 B
35
30
25
§ 20
S
0
= 15
CD
10
5
0
FIGURE 5
CHARACTERIZATION OF SMALL COMMUNITY
AND TOTAL DOCUMENTED NEEDS BY CATEGORY
(January 1992 Dollars in Billions)
31
V
\^
HJk
Tota
Tota
3
179
15.5
r — fj
'- 52p
II IIIA NIB IVA
Categories of Neec
I Documented Small Comm
I Documented Needs for CE
• Small Communities
B All Facilities
147
'i.
I
1
IVB
s
unity Is
itegori
02
\
sleed
esM
22'
.£.
1
S
/I
I
18
001 J
VI
= $13.46
= $110.0
B
-------
16
1992 Needs Survey
needs by category, demonstrates
that small communities generally
have the same proportionate mix in
needs (by needs category) as the
rest of the Nation except for col-
lector sewer and CSO needs. As
shown in this figure, approximately
30 percent of the needs reported for
small communities are for second-
ary treatment (Category I). New
collectors represent about 40 per-
cent of the total documented needs.
This large need for new collectors
reflects the need to replace signifi-
cant numbers of failing septic sys-
tems with centralized treatment and
collection systems in rural settings
where there are greater distances
between dwellings. An additional
difference in relative distribution of
needs is that only a few very small
communities have CSOs.
As shown in Figure 6, al-
though a significant number of the
total facilities (67 percent) report-
ing needs in this Needs Survey
serve small communities, they ac-
count for only 12 percent of the
total design year dollar needs of the
Nation. Fourteen percent of the
national population receiving col-
lection or treatment will live in
these small communities when all
design year needs are met.
FIGURE 6
COMPARISON OF SMALL COMMUNITY FACILITIES TO THE NATION
WHEN ALL DOCUMENTED NEEDS ARE MET
(January 1992 Dollars in Billions)
100
• Small Communities
H Other Facilities
Total
Facilities
Facilities Reporting
Documented
Needs
Documented
Needs
Reported
Population
Served
Total Facilities = 28,582
Total Documented Needs for Categories I-VI = $110.0 B
Note: This figure includes collection and treatment systems
-------
Report to Congress
17
Geographic Distribution
of Small Community
Needs
To show how small commu-
nity dollar needs are distributed
geographically across the Nation,
they are disaggregated by State in
Figure 7. Needs are generally
greatest in the mid-Atlantic and
southern regions, with the notable
exception of California. Two rea-
sons account for these distributions
of need: 1) some States have been
more successful in funding small
community needs, and 2) some
States have better information
about the needs of their small com-
munities.
FIGURE 7
NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTED SMALL COMMUNITY NEEDS -
DESIGN YEAR NEEDS BY STATE FOR CATEGORIES I-VI
(January 1992 Dollars in Billions)
Total Documented Needs for Small Communities for
Categories I-VI = $13.4 Billion
-------
18
1992 Needs Survey
Proportional Small
Community Needs
Distribution
For comparison, Figure 8
shows the proportion of small com-
munity facilities to total facilities
within each State. This figure
helps highlight that although small
community needs do not appear to
be great in many States, they make
up the major portion of all facili-
ties in those States.
In future Needs Surveys, EPA
will strive to increase the number
of small community needs with ad-
equate documentation, as well as
to identify additional small com-
munity needs that are currently uni-
dentified.
FIGURE 8
1992 SMALL COMMUNITY FACILITIES WHEN
ALL DOCUMENTED NEEDS ARE MET
(Percent of Total State Facilities)
Small Community Facilities = 21,853
Total Facilities = 28,582
NOTE: This figure includes collection and treatment systems.
Values for total facilities include multiple facilities for
larger communities.
-------
Report to Congress
19
Modeled
Needs
What Are Modeled Needs?
In 1991 and 1992, several bills
were introduced in the Congress to
define a technology-based require-
ment. Historically, the Needs Sur-
vey data base has lacked complete,
documentable information on CSO
correction needs. For the 1992
Needs Survey, EPA used a two-
pronged approach to estimate CSO
needs by obtaining more
complete technical data
needed to clarify the CSO
picture nationally and by
developing models which
would generate national
needs estimates.
With the 1987 CWA
Amendments expanding
the potential for using Federal funds
for storm water and nonpoint source
control needs, models were also de-
veloped to estimate the cost of these
program development activities.
EPA recognized that any modeling
efforts it undertook for these pro-
grams would be very preliminary
and incomplete in comparison to the
precision it expected from the CSO
modeling effort. Nonetheless, EPA
undertook this first modeling effort
for the 1992 Needs Survey, hoping
to build a base for future refine-
ments and additions as better plan-
ning and cost information became
available.
How Were the Combined
Sewer Overflow Needs
Modeled?
BACKGROUND
Currently about 1,100 commu-
nities served by 1,303 CSO facili-
ties nationwide use combined sewer
systems, which are designed to carry
sanitary and industrial wastewater
and storm water. These facilities are
mainly located in older cities in the
Northeast, the mid-central States,
and along the west coast. Combined
sewer overflows occur when the
capacity of the combined sewer sys-
tem is exceeded during a storm
event. During these storm events,
part of the combined flow in the col-
lection system is discharged
untreated into receiving waters. The
overflows may contain high levels
of suspended solids, floatables,
heavy metals, nutrients, bacteria,
and other pollutants. Pollution from
CSOs can pose health risks, degrade
the ecology of receiving waters, and
impair the beneficial use of water
resources.
As point sources, CSOs are .
regulated under the CWA. In Au-
gust 1989, EPA issued a CSO strat-
egy reiterating that all CSO
discharges must comply with both
the technology-based and water
quality-based requirements of the
CWA. To implement the CWA re-
quirements, permit writers develop
case-by-case standards based on
best professional judgment. States
with CSO municipalities have sub-
mitted permitting strategies and
started an implementation program.
In December 1992 EPA con-
cluded a negotiated dialogue with
State, municipal, and environmental
organizations that resulted in publi-
cation of a draft CSO policy con-
taining more specific guidance on
controlling CSO problems. Briefly,
the draft policy expects all permit-
tees to develop long-term CSO con-
trol plans after considering a
reasonable range of alternatives.
It should be noted that the fi-
nal CSO policy may be different
from the draft policy.
-------
20
1992 Needs Survey
CSO DATA COLLECTION
The 1992 Needs Survey for
CSO needs had two main purposes:
1) to improve statistical information
on CSOs and 2) to develop national
CSO estimates for complying with
the CWA requirements.
EPA provided an opportunity
for communities to describe their
combined sewer systems more com-
pletely than was possible in the past.
To accomplish this enhanced de-
scription, data on major interceptor
areas served by combined and
separate sewers, capacity limita-
tions, the average number of over-
flows per year, and the amount of
precipitation that causes an overflow
were requested. This information
helped EPA develop cost estimates
from its models for alternative strat-
egies and goals.
GOALS FOR CSO CONTROL
MEASURES
When the Needs Survey data
were collected in the summer of
1992, the draft CSO policy was not
yet available. CSO needs submitted
by the States were based on CSO
abatement plans that were devel-
oped based on the States' interpreta-
tions of meeting CWA and water
quality standards requirements. As
a consequence, not all of the sub-
mitted, documented CSO correction
needs correspond to the draft policy.
To present a fair and consistent esti-
mate of total national CSO control
needs, EPA used a modeled esti-
mate that closely corresponds to one
approach for determining local de-
sign requirements allowed in the
draft CSO policy.
CSO CONTROL POLICY
The long-term CSO control
plans developed by municipalities
should evaluate a wide range of con-
trols that would be sufficient to meet
CWA requirements, including tech-
nology- and water quality-based
requirements. Considering the com-
plexities in developing a control
plan, when data, modeling, and
other evidence do not give a clear
picture, the draft strategy offers a
"presumptive" approach. The pre-
sumptive approach allows a munici-
pality three options to control their
CSOs: (1) limiting, on average, the
number of overflow events to be-
tween four and seven per year, (2)
eliminating or capturing for a mini-
mum of primary treatment no less
than 85 percent by volume of the
annual rainfall flow through the sys-
tem, or (3) eliminating or reducing
the mass of pollutants equivalent to
the above 85 percent volume con-
trol, hi addition, the presumptive ap-
proach establishes a minimum of
primary clarification, solids and
floatables disposal, and, if appropri-
ate, disinfection of the CSO flows
controlled by the municipality.
COST-ESTIMATING
METHODOLOGY
The methodology developed
to address CSO needs was based on
draft CSO policy option 2 (de-
scribed above), which requires
elimination or capture for treatment
of no less than 85 percent by vol-
ume. EPA determined that this op-
tion would represent the most likely
approach for most municipalities
since in many cases it would be the
least costly approach. The cost esti-
mate was developed as follows:
• Review and analyze rainfall
records. Rainfall records were
analyzed to determine typical
rainfall patterns for that area
of the country. This rainfall
pattern tells the amount of rain
expected for a given land area.
• Estimate combined sewer
flows. Of the total amount of
SWIRL CONCENTRATOR/REGULATOR
F0ULN,
SEWER'
f INFLOW
...ECHANICAL
SCREENING
OVERFLOW
DISINFECTION (SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE)
iOECHLORINATION (SODIUM METABISULFITE)
-------
Report to Congress
21
rainfall, only a certain percent-
age enters the collection sys-
tem. This percentage, called
the runoff coefficient, was es-
timated form the information
supplied by the States about
the sewer system characteris-
tics. Based on these assump-
tions, flows resulting from
storm events were calculated.
Calculate flows that require
CSO control measures. Us-
ing the estimated flow and the
typical rainfall pattern for the
area, a design flow to treat 85
percent of the average total
storm flow into the collection
system was calculated. It was
assumed that a small part of
this flow, equal to 50 percent
of the current POTW treat-
ment capacity, would be
treated at the POTW and the
rest would be treated at spe-
cially designed and con-
structed CSO treatment
facilities.
percent contingency and
engineering cost was added
to the unit costs.
A more detailed descrip-
tion of the methodologies can be
found in a separate supplemen-
tary document.
MODELED ESTIMATE FOR
1992 CSO NEEDS
EPA's estimate of the na-
tional CSO correction cost is
$41.2 billion. This estimate is
consistent with the draft 1992
CSO policy presumptive ap-
proach described above. The
modeled estimate compares to
State-documented costs of $22.4
billion for 375 of the approxi-
mately 1,303 CSOs needing cor-
rection.
Determine required facilities
to provide the additional
treatment. CSO treatment fa-
cilities were assumed to con-
sist of primary sedimentation,
chlorine disinfection, and de-
chlorination. Primary treat-
ment units were sized for an
overflow rate of 1000 gallons/
square feet/day. For a side
wall depth of 11.2 feet, these
sedimentation tanks provide 2
hours of detention time.
Calculate cost of additional
treatment facilities. Unit costs
for sedimentation facilities
were taken from EPA docu-
ments and the contractor's in-
house documents. A 35
-------
22
7992 Needs Survey
How Were the Storm Water
and Nonpoint Source
Estimates Prepared?
STORM WATER
Storm water (SW) runoff from
urban areas is a significant contribu-
tor to the surface water quality im-
pairment of the Nation's waters. SW
runoff from urban and industrial ar-
eas typically contains significant
quantities of pollutants that are simi-
lar to those found in wastewater and
industrial discharges and, conse-
quently, have been found to cause
similar impacts on water quality.
Pollutants commonly found in SW
runoff include nitrogen, phosphorus,
sediment, heavy metals, pesticides,
herbicides, biochemical oxygen de-
mand (BOD), and synthetic organic
compounds. In addition to pollut-
ants, the increased quantity of SW
discharged from rapidly urbanizing
areas also poses a threat of signifi-
cant impact on aquatic ecosystems
due to physical alterations.
How Is Storm Water Regulated?
To help improve the quality of
SW discharges, Congress amended
the CWA in 1987 to add Section
402(p), which directs EPA to de-
velop National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) per-
mit application requirements for the
following classes (types) of SW dis-
charges:
• Discharges from municipal
separate storm sewer systems
(MS4s) serving a population
of 100,000 or more;
• SW discharges associated with
industrial activity; and
• SW discharges that the Ad-
ministrator (or the State, as the
case may be) determines con-
tribute to a violation of a wa-
ter quality standard or are sig-
nificant contributors of
pollutants to waters of the
United States.
Section 402(p)(3) of the CWA
specifies that permits for MS4s serv-
ing a population of 100,000 or more
must meet a new statutory standard
that requires controls to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the maxi-
mum extent practicable. The legis-
lative history for this provision
indicates that permits for MS4 dis-
charges will not necessarily require
traditional end-of-pipe controls;
rather, they will require municipali-
ties to develop and implement site-
specific SW management programs.
Under NPDES regulations,
municipalities submit a two-part
application for discharges from
their SW systems. Part 1 of the
-------
Report to Congress
23
permit application focuses prima-
rily on existing information to
characterize the municipal sys-
tem. In Part 2 of the application,
the municipality (or county) sub-
mits additional information to
characterize the system, proposes
a municipal SW management
program to control pollutants
from the system to the maximum
extent practicable, provides an as-
sessment of the effectiveness of
the proposed controls, proposes a
5-year monitoring program, and
provides a fiscal analysis of the
necessary capital and operation
and maintenance expenditures
necessary to accomplish the ac-
tivities of the proposed manage-
ment program.
The regulations and guid-
ance for Part 2 applications iden-
tify 19 components of an SW
management program, which are
organized into 4 classes of con-
trols: (1) measures to reduce pol-
lutants in runoff from commercial
and residential areas, (2) measures
to detect and remove illicit con-
nections and improper disposal
into storm sewers, (3) measures to
reduce pollutants in runoff from
industrial sites, and (4) measures
to reduce pollutants in runoff from
construction sites.
Currently, based on the 1990
Census, there are 254 incorporated
municipalities and urbanized, non-
incorporated areas of counties that
have MS4s serving a population of
100,000 or more. EPA will not is-
sue NPDES permits for MS4s serv-
ing municipalities or urbanized,
unincorporated areas having a
population of less than 100,000
people until October 1, 1994.
The regulatory definition of
"storm water discharges associ-
ated with industrial activities" in-
cludes a wide variety of facilities
that may be owned or operated by
municipalities. Some examples
are vehicle maintenance opera-
tions, wastewater treatment plants,
sanitary landfills, airports, high-
way maintenance facilities, and
electrical power generating facili-
ties. However, section 1068(c) of
the Intermodal Surface Transpor-
tation Act of 1991 provides that
EPA shall not require any munici-
pality with a population of less
than 100,000 to apply for or obtain
a permit for any SW discharge as-
sociated with an industrial activity
other than an airport, power plant,
or uncontrolled sanitary landfill
owned or operated by such mu-
nicipality before October 1, 1994,
unless an NPDES permit has al-
ready been issued or the discharge
has been determined to contribute
to a violation of a water quality
standard or is a significant con-
tributor of pollutants to waters of
the United States. (An uncon-
trolled sanitary landfill as used
here means a landfill or open
dump, whether opened or closed,
that does not meet the require-
ments for runon and runoff estab-
lished pursuant to subtitle D of the
Solid Waste Disposal Act.)
In the coastal zone, diffuse
urban runoff and discharges from
MS4s serving less than 100,000
people are subject to the Coastal
Zone Act Reauthorization Amend-
ments (CZARA) of 1990. See
separate discussion under "What Is
Nonpoint Source Pollution?"
Goals of The 1992
Storm Water Needs Survey
One of the goals of the 1992
Needs Survey data collection effort
was to develop a methodology to
estimate costs of implementing
NPDES SW programs on a nation-
wide basis. For the purpose of the
1992 Needs Survey, the SW needs
assessment is limited to activities
for developing and implementing
municipal SW management pro-
grams pursuant to NPDES permits
for discharge from municipal sepa-
rate storm sewer systems. Some ex-
amples of SRF-eligible program
development and implementation
costs are:
• Review existing statutory au-
thority and develop new stat-
utes or regulations;
• Develop training materials
and train new staff;
• Develop public education
materials; and
• Purchase equipment needed
to carry out an SW manage-
ment program.
Over the course of future
Needs Surveys, the methodology
will be refined to estimate costs for
SW management more accurately,
especially costs for structural con-
trols that may be eligible for SRF
funding. Total SW program control
costs (most of which are annual op-
erating costs, ineligible for SRF
funding) are beyond the scope of the
Needs Survey, which reports only
eligible capital costs.
-------
1992 Needs Survey
Cost-Estimating Methodology
The steps used to estimate
costs for the development of SW
control plans were as follows:
• Extract cost components from
Part 2 permit applications.
Costs for components of mu-
nicipal SW control programs
were extracted from a selected
sample of Part 2 permit appli-
cations and categorized as new
or continuing program costs.
Only new program costs were
used in this estimate.
• Develop average cost compo-
nents. Average costs for pro-
gram component's determined
to be "capital" costs (i.e., one-
time costs for assessments, de-
velopment of new statutes or
regulations, equipment pur-
chases, developing training
and educational materials,
etc.) and thus SRF-eligible
were calculated.
• Calculate per capita costs.
Using these cost data, per
capita costs of $1.46 were cal-
culated and applied to the to-
tal regulated population of
approximately 80 million.
A more detailed description of
the methodology can be found in a
separate supplementary document.
Limitations of Storm Water
Cost Modeling
The modeled estimate of na-
tional SW management costs to-
talled $116.5 million. This is only
the estimated SRF-eligible portion
of costs municipalities are expected
to incur to develop an SW manage-
ment program in response to the
NPDES regulations governing
MS4s. The methodology was based
on a limited sample and could well
have resulted in understating the
need.
The following costs are not
included in the SW estimates pre-
sented in this report due to insuffi-
cient information or ineligibility:
• O&M costs for SW manage-
ment (since they are ineligible
for SRF funding).
• Costs for developing the Part
1 and Part 2 applications.
« Costs for continued operation
of the programs proposed in
Part 2 of the application.
• Costs for constructing exten-
sive SW retention and treat-
ment devices. It should be
noted, however, that eight
States submitted documented
estimates totaling $1.8 billion
for SW control facilities. A
large portion of this is for
conveyance facilities, rather
than retention and treatment.
• Costs for controlling runoff
from industrial activities
owned and operated by mu-
nicipalities.
• Costs for establishing pro-
grams for controlling dis-
charges from municipal SW
sewers serving less than
100,000 people.
Costs for SW structural con-
trols could run into tens of billions
of dollars. In addition, O&M costs
for the continued operation of mu-
nicipal SW programs as well as
O&M of control facilities are sig-
nificant. These facilities are very
expensive to maintain, perhaps in
the order of billions of dollars per
year.
EPA believes the modeled es-
timate is reasonable, considering
how few of the total SW program
implementation costs the model at-
tempted to estimate. Information
that would provide a basis for mod-
eling all potential costs for imple-
menting the SW program were not
available for this first modeling ef-
fort. Further work needs to be done
to develop cost estimates for struc-
tural and other management prac-
tices that may need to be
implemented by many cities.
-------
Report to Congress
25
What Is Nonpoint Source
Pollution?
Nonpoint source (NFS) pollu-
tion is caused by rainfall or
snowmelt moving over and through
the ground. As the runoff moves, it
picks up and carries away natural
pollutants and pollutants resulting
from human activity, finally depos-
iting them into lakes, rivers, wet-
lands, coastal waters, and ground
waters. NFS pollution is not regu-
lated by NPDES permits.
Sources of NFS pollution in-
clude agriculture (croplands, pas-
ture and grazing lands, and small
confined animal facilities); silvicul-
ture (timber cutting and other for-
estry operations); diffuse runoff,
including sand and snowmelt ma-
terials, from paved surfaces, roads,
and bridges; drainage from aban-
doned mines and other past re-
source-extraction operations;
hydrologic modification; construc-
tion activities; and inappropriate
disposal of wastes on the land.
The distinction between NFS
and diffuse point sources is some-
times unclear and difficult to dis-
tinguish. Although diffuse runoff is
generally treated as NFS pollution,
runoff that enters and is discharged
from conveyances such as those
described in the SW section is
treated as a point source discharge
and hence is subject to the permit
requirements of the Clean Water
Act. In contrast, NFS discharges
are not subject to Federal permit
requirements. Under section 6217
of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments
(CZARA), municipal and commer-
cial SW discharges in the coastal
zone that are not covered by Phase
I of the SW permit program, must
comply with the requirements of
the CZARA. States are encouraged
to develop consistent approaches in
dealing with urban SW runoff.
Goals of the 1992 NFS
Needs Survey
The 1987 amendments to the
CWA allow the use of SRFs to
fund selected non-Federal NFS
control activities that are contained
in approved Section 319 NFS Man-
agement Plans. This Needs Survey
is an initial effort to report NFS
needs that are potentially eligible
for SRF funding. Documented NFS
needs of $693 million were re-
ported by 12 States in the 1992
Needs Survey and are shown in
Appendix A. Since few States have
developed comprehensive esti-
mates for nonpoint source control,
EPA developed a "model" to esti-
mate national costs.
What Is Included or Excluded
From the NFS Estimates?
The modeled estimates in-
clude activities to develop and
implement NFS management pro-
grams to control runoff from agri-
culture (cropland, pastureland, and
rangeland), confined animal facili-
ties with fewer than 1000 animal
units, and silviculture.
EPA did not develop a mod-
eled needs estimate for other
sources of NFS pollution, includ-
ing abandoned mine lands; atmo-
spheric deposition; hydrologic
modifications; construction; inap-
propriate land disposal; marinas;
runoff from streets, highways, and
bridges; urban/suburban areas not
covered by NPDES SW permits;
and remediation of polluted sedi-
ments causing a water quality prob-
lem. EPA attempted to develop an
estimate for control devices or
management practices to reduce
pollution from abandoned mines,
but reliable inventory data and
sufficient information on
remediation technologies were not
available. Note that this could po-
tentially be a very large cost to
States with significant numbers of
abandoned mines.
Additional NFS costs that
were excluded include ineligible,
recurring O&M costs as well as
technical assistance, engineering,
and related services that are often
provided to farmers or others free
of charge by Federal and State
agencies.
Inclusions
• agriculture
- cropland, rangeland,
pastureland
- confined animal feedlots
• silviculture
Exclusions
• federal lands
• abandoned mines
• inappropriate land disposal of
wastes
• O&M
-------
26
1992 Needs Survey
Modeled Needs Estimate for
NFS Controls
The total modeled need re-
ported for agriculture, confined ani-
mal facilities, and silviculture is
$8.8 billion. Table 6 summarizes the
estimates by category. The meth-
odologies used to develop the esti-
mates are presented in the
paragraphs that follow. A more de-
tailed description of the methodolo-
gies can be found in a separate
supplementary document. These
estimates are preliminary and will
be refined for the next Needs Sur-
vey.
TABLE 6
MODELED NEEDS FOR NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL
(January 1992 Dollars in Billions)
NEEDS CATEGORY
DESIGN
YEAR NEEDS
Agriculture (Cropland, Pastureland, and Rangeland)
Confined Animal Facilities (< 1000 animal units)
Silviculture
GRAND TOTAL
3.7
2.7
2,4
8.8
-------
Report to Congress
27
CROPLAND, PASTURELAND,
AND RANGELAND
Runoff from crop production
and grazing land carries primarily
sediments, salts, nutrients, and pesti-
cides to the downstream receiving
waters. Sediments generally result
from erosion of cropland and grazing
land. Excessive chemical fertilizer
application or animal manure on land
frequently results in high concentra-
tions of nitrogen and phosphorus in
runoff or leaching of nitrogen to
ground water. Pesticide applications
on cropland and pastures can intro-
duce toxic pollutants into both sur-
face water and ground water.
The estimated need for control-
ling runoff from cropland, pasture-
land, and rangeland is $3.7 billion. A
discussion of the methodology used
to develop the estimate follows.
Methodology
A cost-estimating methodology
was developed to address control of
erosion and pollutant export from
cropland and grazing land. The
methodology is based on applying
a "best management system." A
best management system is a com-
bination of soil conservation prac-
tices and other management
measures that, when applied, will
achieve NFS pollution control
through reduced transport of sedi-
mentation, nutrients, and chemicals
into surface and ground water.
Erosion control was ad-
dressed by implementation of soil
conservation practice groups iden-
tified by USDA's Agricultural Sta-
bilization and Conservation Service
(USDA-ASCS). Water quality
management was addressed by ap-
plying additional control measures,
such as nutrient management, pes-
ticide management, and irrigation
water management.
The primary objective in de-
veloping this cost-estimating meth-
odology was to search for best
management practices (BMPs)
(those that are the best available
and economically achievable) and
estimate the implementation costs.
This was accomplished as follows:
• Review National Resources
Inventory (NRI) data. This
national data base provides
data on area of farm land, crop
type, soil erosion rate, soil loss
tolerance, slope, and conserva-
tion practices in use in 1987.
• Develop a Best Management
System. If land required ero-
sion control, conservation
practice groups were selected
to reduce soil erosion to the
soil loss tolerance level speci-
fied for that land. Additional
measures to provide water
quality management were also
selected to complete the best
management system.
• Determine needs for crop-
land, pastureland and range-
land. Total capital costs of
erosion control and water
quality management were
computed for cropland,
pastureland and rangeland in
each State.
-------
28
1992 Needs Survey
CONFINED ANIMAL
FACILITIES
A confined animal facility is a
lot or facility used for raising or
housing animals, processing and
storing products, manure and runoff
storage areas, and silage storage ar-
eas.
Runoff from confined animal
facilities may contain nutrients, oxy-
gen-demanding substances, organic
solids, salts, and sediments. Runoff
includes process-generated waste-
water and precipitation that comes
into contact with manure, litter, or
other material used in or resulting
from the production of animals.
For the purposes of this Needs
Survey, costs were estimated only
for confined animal operations with
fewer than 1000 "animal units."
Confined animal operations (feed-
lots) with 1000 or more animal units
are considered "point sources," and
estimating costs for facilities to con-
trol runoff from them was beyond
the scope of the modeling effort.
The relationship between "animal
unit" and number of animals is
shown below.
The estimated need for con-
trolling runoff from confined animal
facilities is $2.7 billion. A discus-
sion of the methodology used to de-
velop EPA's estimates follows.
Methodology
The methodology is based on
model feedlot facilities, which were
intended to represent typical facility
sizes within each livestock category.
Livestock categories considered are
beef feedlots, dairies, swine feed-
lots, and broiler and layer houses.
The approach used is similar to that
used in the economic analysis for
the CZARA, and cost data from that
analysis were used in developing the
Needs Survey cost estimates.
It was assumed that facility
runoff was going to be controlled
primarily through diversions for
runoff containment and channeling
of on-site effluent to the ultimate
control structures. All runoff col-
lected in these control structures was
assumed to be used for irrigation.
The steps in estimating the
cost of controlling NFS pollution
from feedlot operations were as fol-
lows:
• Identify model feedlots,
Model feedlots were obtained
to represent typical facility
sizes within each livestock
category.
Develop NFS management
plan. NFS runoff control mea-
sures were identified, and a
typical management plan was
selected for the model feedlots
in each livestock category.
Estimate needs for confined
animal facilities. The number
of livestock operations in each
model feedlot was obtained
from the 1987 Census of Ag-
riculture data for each State.
The total cost of implement-
ing the NFS management plan
was then estimated using this
national data base. Estimates
for two control options were
developed. Option 1 included
lined retention ponds and irri-
gation for ultimate disposal.
Option 2 also included irriga-
tion for ultimate disposal but
used filter strips in lieu of
lined retention ponds, a tech-
nique that is also appropriate.
The estimate presented in this
report is for Option 1. This is
considered by the agricultural
community to be the more ef-
fective approach although it
has the higher cost of the two
options.
Type of Animal
Dairy Cattle
Beef Cattle
Swine
Layers
Broilers
No. of Animals
0.7
1.0
2.5
100.0
100.0
Animal Units
1
1
1
1
1
-------
Report to Congress
29
SILVICULTURE
Silvicultural activities have
the capability of degrading water
and habitat quality if sufficient care
is not taken to prevent adverse ef-
fects. Sediment from erosion due
to access roads and other harvest-
ing activities, temperature increase
due to riparian shade removal, and
pesticides and fertilizers used dur-
ing timber operations are some of
the major pollutants exported from
timber-harvesting sites to receiving
waters.
The estimated need for con-
trolling runoff from silvicultural
operations is $2.4 billion. A dis-
cussion of the methodology used to
develop EPA's estimate follows.
Methodology
The methodology developed
for estimating the costs of control-
ling NFS pollution from silvicul-
tural activities employed the
following components:
• Develop estimates of annual
forestland area harvested per
State. The area of forestland
harvested annually was com-
puted by using the U.S. For-
est Service's Forestry
Statistics of the United States,
1987. The distribution of the
timberland area in relation to
the type of terrain and pres-
ence of streams, however,
was developed by consider-
ing the geographical charac-
teristics of each State. Only
privately owned forest lands
were considered.
Identify silviculture best
management practices
(BMPs). Silviculture BMPs
were identified to control ero-
sion from roads built to gain
access to harvesting sites, to
control the introduction of
pesticides into watercourses,
to maintain the stability of
stream banks, and to ensure
the revegetation of harvested
sites, among other purposes.
BMPs assumed were similar
to those used for CZARA but
were more refined.
Identify typical comprehen-
sive management plans.
Typical comprehensive man-
agement plans were identified
for controlling pollution and
adverse habitat impacts for
various site and timber char-
acteristics.
Develop cost estimates for
management plans. Esti-
mates for the per acre cost of
implementing BMPs were
obtained for various types of
forest management units
(FMUs). These estimates in-
dicated that the greatest varia-
tions in BMP implementation
cost were caused by the gen-
eral slope of the FMU and the
presence or absence of a wa-
tercourse on an FMU.
Estimate needs for silvicul-
tural activities. Total costs of
managing NFS pollution
from silvicultural activities
were estimated for each State.
Six scenarios representing
three different assumptions as
to the percentage of forest
harvested from shallow, mod-
erate, and steep slopes and
the presence or absence of
nearby watercourses were
evaluated. The estimate pre-
sented in this report is the av-
erage of the six scenarios.
(The lowest-cost scenario and
the highest-cost scenario dif-
fered by only 15 percent.)
-------
30
1992 Needs Survey
Limitations ofNonpoint
Source Control Modeling
The estimates presented in the 1992
Needs Survey represent EPA's ini-
tial effort to assess needs nationally
for selected aspects of NFS control.
The estimates are preliminary and
represent only a portion of the ex-
pected NFS activities (specifically,
agriculture and forestry). Estimates
will be refined and enhanced in fu-
ture Needs Surveys.
Several cautions on use of
this information are appropriate:
• The model for agriculture
used the 1987 National Re-
source Inventory (NRI) data
base. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) has been
implementing the Conserva-
tion Reserve and Conserva-
tion Compliance programs
since the 1987 NRI data base
was assembled. As of late
1992, 35.4 million acres were
enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program. An addi-
tional 60 million acres are
being treated under conserva-
tion compliance. Thus, the
NPS needs estimates for
highly erodible cropland may
be overstated.
The estimates for confined
animal facilities were prepared
assuming no controls were in
place. Therefore, the estimates
presented may overstate the
real need.
Estimates for NPS BMPs as-
sumed that practices and re-
quirements developed under
CZARA would be applied na-
tionwide. As yet the CWA
does not make such a require-
ment, and it has not been de-
termined whether future
amendments to the CWA will
be equivalent to those in the
CZARA. Therefore, the cost
estimates developed for agri-
culture and silviculture would
change equivalently.
While NPS costs that were es-
timated may be overstated,
other SRF-eligible areas with
potentially very high costs,
such as nonpoint source run-
off from abandoned mines,
were not included.
While State-by-State estimates
may be possible for the activi-
ties analyzed for this report,
those figures would probably
not accurately reflect the dis-
tribution of needs for all NPS
activities eligible for SRF
funds.
The estimates for agricultural
controls, confined animal con-
trols, and silvicultural controls
are for capital investment or
initial implementation of NPS
controls, not ongoing costs of
operation and maintenance,
which are not eligible for SRF
funds and represent a portion
of the costs for NPS control.
-------
Report to Congress
31
Concluding
Remarks
How Comprehensive Is the 1992
Needs Survey?
1 he 1992 Needs Survey is the
most complete and comprehensive
survey undertaken yet. The States
completed a significant data collec-
tion effort to document not only the
new needs, but also those needs
which were identified, but not in-
cluded in the 1990 Needs Survey.
Documented needs for advanced
wastewater treat-
ment significantly
increased because
the installation of
controls to meet
secondary treat-
ment has proven
to be insufficient
to meet water
quality standards
in many cities.
Needs for second-
ary treatment and
collector sewers also increased
substantially associated with a
growing and shifting population.
The reporting of needs for CSOs,
SW, and NFS also improved sig-
nificantly with better documenta-
tion and the use of various
modeling techniques.
Although the scope and
quality of needs reporting have
improved, a number of gaps re-
main. Moreover, many States lack
the resources to collect and report
current information to EPA, in-
cluding technical information and
flow and population served by the
facilities. As noted above, water
quality standards continue to be
revised to control toxics, nutrients,
and other pollutants. Additionally,
while EPA made a good first at-
tempt to estimate the SRF-eligible
needs for SW and NPS runoff, we
recognize that the full scope of
needs covered by these programs
has not been fully addressed in
this report. EPA expects that
needs for these various activities
eligible for SRF assistance will be
more fully addressed in future
Needs Surveys.
-------
-------
Report to Congress
33
Glossary
NOTE: Definitions are provided
to help the reader understand the
terms used, but are not necessarily
to be used for legal purposes.
Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
Land mined prior to the implementation of the Surface Mining Control and Recla-
mation Act that has not been adequately reclaimed and is adversely affecting public
health and safety or the environment.
Advanced Treatment
See Categories of Needs, Category II.
Best Available Technology (BAT)
Defined in the 1972 Clean Water Act as the very best control and treatment mea-
sures that have been or are capable of being achieved.
Best Conventional Technology (BCT)
Defined in the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Water Act as the very best
control and treatment measures that have been or are capable of being
achieved for conventional pollutants, such as biological oxygen demand,
suspended solids, fecal coliform bacteria, and pH.
Best Management Practice (BMP)
A practice or combination of practices that are determined to be an effec-
tive and practicable (including technological, economic, and institutional
considerations) means of controlling point and nonpoint pollutants at lev-
els compatible with environmental quality goals.
Best Management System
A combination of conservation practices or management measures that, when ap-
plied, will achieve desired nonpoint source pollution control through reduced trans-
port of sediment, nutrients, and chemicals into surface and ground water.
Categories of Needs
Needs estimates address the following categories:
1) Secondary Treatment (Category I)
The minimum level of treatment that must be maintained by all treatment
facilities except those facilities granted ocean discharge waivers under section
301(h) of the Clean Water Act. Treatment levels are specified in terms of the
concentration of conventional pollutants in the wastewater effluent discharged
from a facility after treatment. Secondary treatment requires a treatment level
that will produce an effluent quality of 30 mg/l of BOD5 and TSS. In addi-
tion, the secondary treatment must remove 85 percent of BODS and TSS from
the influent wastewater. Needs reported in this category are necessary to attain
secondary treatment. Needs to attain incremental reductions in conventional
pollutant concentrations beyond secondary treatment requirements are included
in Category II.
2) Advanced Treatment (Category II)
A level of treatment more stringent than secondary treatment or a significant
reduction in nonconventional pollutants present in the wastewater treated by a
facility. Needs reported in this category are necessary to attain incremental
reductions in pollutant concentrations beyond basic secondary treatment.
3) Infiltration/Inflow Correction (Category IIIA)
Control of the problem of penetration into a sewer system of water other than
-------
34 1992 Needs Survey
wastewater from the ground through such means as defective pipes or man-
holes (infiltration) or from sources such as drains, storm sewers, and other
improper entries into the system (inflow). Included in this category are costs
for correction of sewer system infiltration/inflow problems. Costs also are
reported for preliminary sewer system analysis and for detailed sewer system
evaluation surveys.
4) Replacement/Rehabilitation of Sewers (Category IIIB)
Reinforcement or reconstruction of structurally deteriorating sewers. This
category includes cost estimates for rehabilitation of existing sewer systems
beyond those for normal maintenance. Costs are reported if the corrective
actions are necessary to maintain the structural integrity of the system.
5) Collector Sewers (Category IVA)
Pipes used to collect and carry wastewater from an individual source to an
interceptor sewer that will convey the wastewater to a treatment facility. This
category includes the costs of constructing new collector sewer systems and
appurtenances.
6) Interceptor Sewers (Category IVB)
Major sewer lines receiving wastewater flows from collector sewers. The
interceptor sewer carries wastewater directly to the treatment plant or to an-
other interceptor. This category includes costs for constructing new intercep-
tor sewers and pumping stations necessary for conveying wastewater from
collector sewer systems to treatment facilities or to another interceptor.
7) Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO) (Category V)
A discharge of a mixture of storm water and untreated domestic wastewater
that occurs when the flow capacity of a sewer system is exceeded during a
rainstorm. Costs reported are for facilities to prevent or control periodic by-
passing of untreated wastes from sewers that convey a combination of waste-
water and storm water to achieve water quality objectives. This category does
not include costs for overflow control allocable to flood control or drainage
improvement, or for treatment or control of storm water in separate storm and
drainage systems.
8) Storm Water Pollution Control (SW) (Category VI)
Activities to plan and implement municipal storm water management pro-
grams pursuant to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits for discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems. This
includes structural and nonstructural measures that (1) reduce pollutants from
runoff from commercial and residential areas that are served by the storm
sewer, (2) detect and remove illicit discharges and improper disposal into storm
sewers, (3) monitor pollutants in runoff from industrial facilities that discharge
to municipal separate storm sewers, and (4) reduce pollutants in construction
site runoff.
Collector Sewers
See Categories of Needs, Category IVA.
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO)
See Categories of Needs, Category V.
-------
Report to Congress 35
Combined Sewer Systems
Sewer systems designed to carry both domestic sanitary wastewater and storm
water.
Confined Animal Facility (Feedlot)
A facility for the controlled feeding of animals that tends to concentrate large
amounts of animal waste that cannot be absorbed by the soil and, hence, may be
carried to nearby streams or lakes by rainfall runoff. Facilities with less than 1000
animal units are generally considered nonpoint sources. Facilities with more than
1000 animal units or facilities with water quality problems are point sources and
are regulated under NPDES.
Conservation Practice Group
Combination of practices identified by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conserva-
tion Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to address erosion control and
water quality for agricultural land.
Conveyance Needs
The cost estimate to construct, expand, or upgrade sewer systems for transporting
wastewater to treatment plants.
Design Year Needs
The cost estimate for building publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities eli-
gible for assistance under the CWA to serve the population expected within 20
years.
Facilities Plans
Plans and studies that directly relate to the construction of treatment works neces-
sary to comply with the Clean Water Act. A facilities plan investigates needs and
provides information on the cost-effectiveness of alternatives. A recommended
plan and an environmental assessment of the recommendations are also presented
in a facilities plan.
A facilities plan includes a description of the treatment works for which construc-
tion drawings and specifications are to be prepared. The description includes
preliminary engineering data, cost estimates for design and construction of the
treatment works, and a schedule for completion of design and construction.
Fertilizer
Any organic or inorganic material of natural or synthetic origin that is added to soil
to supply elements essential to plant growth.
Forest Management Unit (FMU)
A parcel of forestland that is harvested, regenerated, and managed as a single
entity. Its size in area, shape, and boundaries are determined by operational con-
siderations, such as forest cover type, forest age, density of trees, timber merchant-
ability, soil productivity, and presence of natural boundaries, such as ridge tops,
streams, and roads.
Herbicide
A chemical substance designed to kill or inhibit the growth of plants, especially
weeds.
-------
36 1992 Needs Survey
^* • O 5 S Ci I y Infiltration/Inflow Correction
See Categories of Needs, Category IIIA.
Interceptor Sewers
See Categories of Needs, Category IVB.
Lagoon
A pond in which algae, sunlight, and oxygen interact to restore wastewater to a
quality that is often equal to that of the effluent from the secondary treatment stage.
Lagoons are widely used by small communities to provide wastewater treatment.
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Any pipe or system of pipes that is owned or operated by a State or local govern-
ment entity used for collecting and conveying storm water.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
A provision of the Clean Water Act that prohibits discharge of pollutants into
waters of the United States unless a special permit is issued by EPA, a State, or
(where delegated) a tribal government on an Indian reservation.
National Resources Inventory (NRI)
A national data base for all non-Federal rural lands that provides information on the
status, condition, and trends of soil, water, and related resources.
Need
The estimated eligible cost for constructing publicly owned wastewater treatment
facilities and funding Sections 319 and 320 activities that are potentially eligible for
Federal financial assistance under the Clean Water Act.
Needs for the Traditional Eligibilities (Categories I - V)
Documented cost estimates for the seven categories of needs for publicly owned
wastewater treatment facilities. These needs are limited to the costs eligible for
Federal financial assistance under Title II of the Clean Water Act.
New State Revolving Fund Eligibilities
The 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act allow State Revolving Funds (SRF)
to be used to fund certain activities that are now eligible for funding under Title VI
of the CWA. These new eligibilities include certain nonpoint source pollution
control, ground-water protection, estuarine protection, and wetlands protection ac-
tivities.
1) Estuarine Protection
Activities necessary to develop and implement Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plans for protecting estuaries under the National Estuary
Program. Estuarine protection activities focus on restoring and maintaining
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the estuary and controlling
nonpoint sources of pollution.
2) Ground-Water Protection
Activities addressed in a State's ground-water protection strategy that must be
a part of the nonpoint source management program under section 319(i) of the
Clean Water Act to build State institutional capabilities to protect ground-
-------
Report to Congress 37
water resources from nonpoint sources of contamination. Activities include
demonstrations, enforcement, technical assistance, education, and training.
Wellhead protection and underground injection control for Class V wells, as
well as water conservation programs, may be included.
3) Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Activities to implement an EPA-approved State nonpoint source management
program. Nonpoint sources are pollution sources that are diffuse and do not
enter surface waters from a discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance
(such as a pipe or ditch). Pollutants are generally carried off the land by storm
water runoff or melting snow. Sources of nonpoint source pollution include
agriculture; confined animal facilities with less than 1000 animal units; silvi-
culture; diffuse runoff, including sand and snowmelt materials, from paved
surfaces, roads, and bridges; drainage from abandoned mines and other past
resource-extraction operations; hydrologic modification; construction activi-
ties; and inappropriate disposal of wastes on the land.
5) Wetlands Protection
Activities to protect and restore wetlands that are an integral part of a nonpoint
source management program or part of implementation or development of
comprehensive estuary conservation and management plans.
Nonpoint Sources
Pollution sources that are diffuse and do not have a single point of origin or are not
introduced into a receiving stream from a specific outlet. The pollutants are gener-
ally carried off the land by storm water runoff. Sources of nonpoint source pollu-
tion include agriculture, silviculture, urban, mining, construction, dams and chan-
nels, inappropriate land disposal of waste, and saltwater intrusion.
Nutrient
An element, or component, essential for organism growth and development, such
as carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, etc.
Pesticide
Any chemical agent used for control of plant or animal pests. Pesticides include
insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, nematocides, and rodenticides.
Primary Treatment
The first stage of wastewater treatment, including removal of floating debris and
solids by screening and sedimentation.
Replacement/Rehabilitation of Sewers
See Categories of Needs, Category IIIB.
Reserve Capacity
Extra treatment capacity built into treatment plants and interceptor sewers to ac-
commodate flow increases due to future population growth.
Secondary Treatment
See Categories of Needs, Category I.
Separate State Estimates
Needs that are not included in the 1992 EPA estimates because these needs are
-------
38
Glossary
1992 Needs Survey
justified with documents other than the EPA-established documentation types or
have no written documentation.
Silviculture
Management of forestland for timber and timber products.
Small Community
A community with less than 10,000 population and total flows of less than 1
million gallons of wastewater per day.
State Revolving Fund
Revolving funds are financial institutions that make loans for specific water pollu-
tion control purposes and use loan repayments, including interest, to make new
loans for additional water pollution control activities. Under the State Revolving
Fund (SRF) program, States and municipalities are primarily responsible for fi-
nancing, constructing, and managing wastewater treatment facilities. The SRF
program is based on the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act, which called
for replacement of the Construction Grants program with the SRF program.
Technology-based Controls
Effluent limitations applicable to direct and indirect sources that are developed on a
category-by-category basis using statutory factors, not including water quality ef-
fects.
301(h) Ocean Discharge Waiver
A variance (authorized under Section 301(h) of the CWA) from secondary treat-
ment requirement for treatment facilities discharging to bays or estuaries.
Treatment Facility
A structure constructed to treat wastewater, storm water, or combined sewer over-
flow prior to discharging to the environment. Treatment is accomplished by sub-
jecting the wastewater to a combination of physical, chemical, and/or biological
processes that reduce the concentration of contaminants in the wastewater.
Wastewater
Dissolved or suspended waterborne waste material. Sanitary or domestic wastewa-
ter refers to liquid material collected from residences, offices, and institutions.
Industrial waste refers to wastewater from manufacturing facilities. Municipal
wastewater is a general term applied to any liquid treated in a municipal treatment
facility and usually includes a mixture of sanitary and pretreated industrial wastes.
Wastewater Infrastructure
The pipes and appurtenances for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage
in a community. The level of treatment will depend on the size of the community,
the type of discharge, and/or the designated use of the receiving water.
Water Quality Criteria
Specific levels of water quality that, if reached, are expected to render a body of
water suitable for its designated use. The criteria are based on specific levels of
pollutants that would make the water harmful if used for drinking, swimming,
farming, fish production, or industrial processes.
-------
Report to Congress 39
Water Quality Standards
State-adopted and EPA-approved ambient standards for water bodies. The stan-
dards cover the use of the water body and the water quality criteria that must be
met to protect the designated use or uses.
-------
-------
Report to Congress 41
Appendices
These Appendices contain State and national summaries
of various cost data, as well as, lists of documentation
types. Appendix A presents cost data from the 1992 Needs
Survey, including summaries by State of Design Year
Needs and Separate State Estimates. Appendix B contains
summaries by State of Design Year Needs for the 1990
needs estimates. Appendix C contains selected technical
data from the 1992 Needs Survey. Appendix D contains a
summary of acceptable documentation for the 1992 Needs
Survey.
-------
-------
Report to Congress
43
Page
List of
Appendix
Tables
Appendix A: Summary of 1992 Needs Survey Estimates
A-l Total Documented Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater
Treatment Facilities and Other SRF Eligibilities A-2
A-2 Documented Needs for the SRF Expanded Eligibilities A-4
A-3 Design Year Separate State Estimates A-6
A-4 Small Community Facilities and Design Year Needs Summary A-8
A-5 Documented Design Year Needs for Small Communities
for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities and
Storm Water Control A-10
A-6 Design Year Separate State Estimates for Small Communities A-12
Appendix B: Summary of 1990 Needs Survey Estimates
B-l Design Year Needs for Traditional Eligibilities and
Supplemental State Estimates
B-2 Documented Design Year Needs for Traditional Eligibilities
B-3 Design Year Supplemental State Estimates
B-2
B-4
B-6
Appendix C: Summary of 1992 Needs Survey Technical Information
C-l Number of Operational Treatment Facilities and Collection
Systems in 1992 C-2
C-2 Number of Operational Treatment Facilities and Collection
Systems When All Documented Needs Are Met C-3
C-3 Number of Treatment Facilities by Flow Range C-4
C-4 Operational Treatment Facility Information C-5
C-5 Number of Combined Sewer Facilities and Number of
Combined Sewer Facilities with Documented Needs C-6
Appendix D: Summary of 1992 Needs Survey Documentation
D-l List of Acceptable Documentation Types D-2
D-2 Small Community Alternative Documentation Types D-5
-------
-------
Report to Congress A- 1
Appendix A:
Summary of 199Z
Needs Survey Estimates
-------
A-2
1992 Needs Survey
Table A-1
1992 Needs Survey1
Total Documented Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Other SRF Eligibilities
(January 1992 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-1 summarizes the 1992 EPA assessment of total documented needs by State for traditional and other SRF
eligibilities to satisfy the design year (2012) population. All values are presented in millions of January 1992 dollars.
The total documented needs represent the capital investment necessary to build publicly owned wastewater treatment
facilities (Categories I through V) needed to serve the design year population and satisfy other types of needs eligible
for funding under the SRF program. These other eligible needs include storm water (Category VI) and nonpoint source
pollution control, and ground-water, estuarine, and wetlands protection. These needs include all planning, design, and
construction activities eligible for funding under Title II and Title VI of the Clean Water Act.
Needs estimates presented in Table A-1 may vary slightly from those presented in Tables 1,2, and 3 due to rounding.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
I
142
70
701
113
5388
129
339
57
0
1331
190
132
69
587
193
34
84
203
427
148
241
3274
814
572
211
214
II
153
0
69
22
144
197
650
2
122
778
890
4
52
305
148
16
64
35
49
0*
731
25
6
130
71
2
MIA
51
5
2
27
128
0*
32
0
0
30
44
0
0*
82
52
0
38
79
50
22
23
60
170
18
74
102
Category of Need
1MB IVA IVB V
36
0
1
3
706
1
23
8
0
33
35
0
2
354
27
0
50
19
35
10
70
30
27
24
59
76
333
21
182
33
684
25
345
79
0
3022
79
69
71
178
349
1
50
586
407
80
244
749
551
44
112
72
133
106
301
28
784
25
206
40
0
851
477
66
59
244
124
25
316
348
261
50
168
875
520
60
131
124
0
0
0
0
556
0*
599
2
80
4
229
0
0
1399
886
5
16
31
0
50
30
2721
1606
124
0
771
VI
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
885
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other SRF
Expanded
NPS Eligib.*
0
0
0
0
0
172
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
848
202
1256
226
8396
549
2194
188
222
6934
1944
271
253
3149
1779
81
618
1301
1229
360
1507
7734
3694
972
658
1365
-------
Report to Congress
A-3
Table A-1 — Continued
1992 Needs Survey*
Total Documented Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Other SRF Eligibilities
(January 1992 Dollars in Millions)
Category of Need
State
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Marianas
Palau
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
I
20
97
78
105
1958
43
5023
317
15
1249
176
429
598
143
245
37
223
1804
114
61
460
966
358
453
5
4
33
22
15
545
53
31312
II
0
1
39
10
269
0*
5670
1525
0
248
106
368
130
57
109
0
332
634
0
19
1073
25
41
127
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
15454
MIA
0
1
2
10
227
1
178
111
0
360
14
13
12
2
17
1
146
195
0
1
126
141
30
55
1
0
0*
0
0
40
1
2774
1MB
1
31
3
5
328
17
543
47
23
348
13
140
18
9
4
29
47
89
0
1
167
86
30
2
1
0
0
0*
0
16
16
3643
IVA
30
2
23
282
402
33
2308
1072
0
628
32
292
968
258
132
13
314
472
85
17
468
512
451
251
12
29
9
5
0
477
0
17943
IVB
14
39
20
208
275
29
1808
910
0*
370
122
110
163
142
171
23
420
1459
31
7
513
664
275
167
1
3
4
16
1
441
0
14728
V
0
61
0
236
1290
0
7046
1
0
1632
0
108
1167
327
0
1
281
0
0
57
456
610
21
5
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
22431
VI
0
12
0
0
7
0
549
20
0
113
0
0*
0
0
0
5
42
0
0
0
144
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1783
NFS
0
0*
0*
0
3
0
11
22
0
145
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
269
0
0
0
0
0
0
693
Other SRF
Expanded
Eligib.*
0
2
0
0
0*
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
1109
0
0
0
0
0
0
1147
Total
65
246
165
856
4759
123
23136
4045
38
5093
463
1460
3056
938
678
109
1847
4653
230
163
3407
3025
1206
1060
1398
36
46
43
16
1547
71
111908
* Micronesia and Marshall Islands not considered in 1992 Needs Survey due to free association.
$ Includes documented needs to address ground-water, estuarine, and wetlands protection.
* Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
A-4
1992 Needs Survey
Table A-2
1992 Needs Surveyt
Documented Needs for the SRF Expanded Eligibilities
(January 1992 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-2 summarizes the 1992 EPA assessment of documented needs for the SRF expanded eligibilities by State.
All values are presented in millions of January 1992 dollars.
The documented needs for the SRF expanded eligibilities represent the capital investment necessary to implement
activities in approved State Nonpoint Source Management Plans under Section 319 and to develop and implement
conservation and management plans under Section 320 (National Estuary Program) of the Clean Water Act. These
needs have met the established documentation criteria and are eligible for funding under Title VI of the Clean Water
Act.
Needs estimates presented in Table A-2 may vary slightly from those presented in Tables 1,2, and 3 due to rounding.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nonpoint
Source
0
0
0
0
0
172
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
Category of Need
Ground
Water
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Estuaries
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wetlands
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
0
172
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
-------
Report to Congress
Table A-2 — Continued
1992 Needs Surveyt
Documented Needs for the SRF Expanded Eligibilities
(January 1992 Dollars in Millions)
A-5
Category of Need
State
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Marianas
Palau
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Nonpoint
Source
0
0*
0*
0
3
0
11
22
0
145
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
269
0
0
0
0
0
0
693
Ground
Water
0
2
0
0
0*
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
1079
0
0
0
0
0
0
1111
Estuaries
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
Wetlands
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
Total
0
2
0*
0
3
0
11
42
0
145
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
1378
0
0
0
0
0
0
1840
f Micronesia and Marshall Islands not considered in 1992 Needs Survey due to free association.
* Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
A-6
1992 Needs Survey
Table A-3
1992 Needs Surveyt
Design Year Separate State Estimates
(January 1992 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-3 summarizes the States' assessment of needs to satisfy the design year (2012) population for selected
wastewater treatment facilities that the States believe to be legitimate but that either were justified with documents
outside the established documentation criteria of the 1992 Needs Survey or had no written documentation. The
Separate State Estimates are optional and in addition to the EPA estimates. All values are presented in millions of
January 1992 dollars.
These needs are shown in Table A-3 by category of need in each State and U.S. Territory.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
1
0
0
21
190
472
1
121
0
0
0
1
875
119
47
25
3
1
78
27
4
1
101
16
100
0
60
10
15
Category of Need
II MIA 1MB IVA
9
0
0
70
37
0
488
0
100
0
17
0
0
8
18
0
64
26
29
0
0
59
0
1
0
0
0*
28
0
0
0
113
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
4
1
4
0
4
1
0
0*
0
15
0
20
0
0
0
0*
0
0
0
98
144
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
7
2
4
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
27
2
0
0*
0*
0
0
0
126
32
0
7
0
0
0
1
154
12
9
0
0
0
108
29
3
1
161
4
22
0
31
7
0*
IVB
0
0
56
111
6
1
4
0
0
0
40
126
12
4
2
0
0
49
26
0*
0
115
0*
12
2
12
3
1
V
0
0
0
2
0
0
165
0
0
0
44
0
0
1
9
0
0
2
0
717
0
0
0
42
0
519
0
260
VI
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
2
0
2
15
Total
9
0
77
710
691
13
785
0
100
0
115
1155
154
72
62
3
69
265
112
724
7
451
20
224
6
622
22
319
-------
Report to Congress
A-7
Table A-3 — Continued
1992 Needs Survey1'
Design Year Separate State Estimates
(January 1992 Dollars in Millions)
Category of Need
State
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Marianas
Palau
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
1
377
33
277
0
1084
41
0
77
0
0
423
0
7
6
589
304
183
3
121
49
236
6
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
6138
II
103
16
0
0
425
221
0
45
0
0
136
0
0
0
59
89
0
7
21
0*
9
1
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
2106
IMA
0*
14
0
0
68
9
0
48
0
10
7
0
2
0
106
27
0
0
18
1
2
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
492
1MB
1
8
0
0
118
0
0
36
0
11
11
0
0
5
38
27
0
0
3
0
19
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
576
IVA
15
25
0
0
309
60
0
120
0
1
484
0
6
0
202
102
763
13
64
0
462
13
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3348
IVB
53
21
0
0
255
49
0
443
0
0
242
0
4
0*
168
269
34
2
44
81
229
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2481
V
0
94
17
0
278
0
0
329
0
0
787
0
0
0
254
0
0
5
1
0
32
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
3558
VI
0*
0
0
0
34
2660
0
3
0
0
0
0
0*
2
43
0
0
1
50
1
8
572
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
3414
Total
549
211
294
0
2571
3040
0
1101
0
22
2090
0
19
13
1459
818
980
31
322
132
997
595
82
0
0
0
0
0
0
22113
Micronesia and Marshall Islands not considered in 1992 Needs Survey due to free association.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
A-8
1992 Needs Survey
Table A-4
1992 Needs Survey1
Small Community Facilities and Design Year Needs Summary
(January 1992 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-4 provides a summary of all small community wastewater collection and treatment facilities identified in the 1992
Needs Survey by State, the number of those small community facilities with identified needs, the relative percentages
of each group to the total publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities within each State, and the total needs by State
for those small community facilities with identified needs. The needs summaries include documented and separate State
estimates for Categories I through VI and Categories I through V, respectively, to satisfy the design year (2012) population
living in those small communities. All needs values are presented in millions of January 1992 dollars.
Small Number of Small Percent of
Number Communities Community Documented Small
of Small as Percent of Facilities with Communities To
Community Total State Documented Total Documented
State Facilities Facilities Needs Facilities
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
458
46
309
694
543
295
120
31
0
120
615
16
209
840
391
895
565
411
448
210
359
96
538
626
622
752
192
487
63
77
77
81
90
56
69
53
70
0
27
77
40
85
71
75
91
89
83
76
79
76
34
68
84
89
77
89
93
76
241
11
37
166
175
72
43
10
0
35
120
11
33
375
283
18
108
238
211
60
149
51
180
117
222
174
19
34
21
79
65
41
87
47
76
37
53
0
13
52
39
60
70
73
49
78
78
76
69
64
28
67
70
81
67
63
72
66
Documented Small
Small Community
Community Separate
Needs State Estimates
(Cat. I-VI) (Cat.l-V)
378
74
51
125
459
40
131
25
0
101
144
45
38
506
284
16
62
443
435
136
181
289
566
136
247
170
20
16
35
0
0
0
424
20
2
6
0
0
0
7
34
37
18
21
1
30
217
19
59
2
92
5
29
0
90
20
8
187
-------
Report to Congress
A-9
Table A-4 — Continued
1 992 Needs Surveyt
Small Community Facilities and Design Year Needs Summary
(January 1992 Dollars in Millions)
State
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Marianas
Palau
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Number
of Small
Community
Facilities
92
379
79
1005
566
372
1033
453
185
1636
7
198
344
246
1549
371
90
386
260
743
770
119
0
4
2
3
1
9
21853
Small
Communities
as Percent of
Total State
Facilities
71
56
68
74
75
97
77
85
70
80
19
59
96
67
76
82
75
71
68
93
85
76
0
57
40
75
3
75
76
Number of Small
Community
Facilities with
Documented
Needs
58
208
15
403
343
14
336
91
44
539
2
98
124
170
592
18
26
207
84
341
323
8
0
1
2
3
0
9
7273
Percent of
Documented Small
Communities To
Total Documented
Facilities
67
50
56
64
67
67
70
70
51
85
8
52
91
69
73
56
58
69
56
93
83
62
0
25
40
75
0
75
67
Documented
Small
Community
Needs
(Cat. I-VI)
167
438
14
940
853
6
617
75
72
1257
42
122
40
295
944
57
50
546
168
1028
462
4
0
1
3
6
0
6
13366
Small
Community
Separate
State Estimates
(Cat.l-V)
40
249
0
617
282
0
212
0
3
885
0
9
8
217
220
96
28
203
0*
935
23
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
5381
t Micronesia and Marshall Islands not considered in 1992 Needs Survey due to free association.
* Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
A-10 1992 Needs Survey
Table A-5
1992 Needs Survey1
Documented Design Year Needs for Small Communities for
Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Storm Water Control
(January 1992 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-5 summarizes the 1992 EPA assessment of documented design year needs for small communities by State.
The assessment includes needs for traditional eligibilities (Categories I through V) and storm water control (Category
VI) to satisfy the design year (2012) population living in small communities. The small community needs shown in Table
A-5 are derived by EPA from the total documented design year needs using criteria as defined in the report section
entitled "What Are the Needs for Small Communities?". All values are presented in millions of January 1992 dollars.
These small community design year needs have met the established documentation criteria and represent the capital
investment necessary to build all publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities needed to serve the design year
population of small communities. These are the funds necessary to provide adequate wastewater treatment systems
and storm water control in compliance with the Clean Water Act for those small communities who could document their
needs.
Category of Need
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
1
99
26
26
59
192
36
19
11
0
35
33
21
22
163
84
7
28
92
116
50
33
79
156
66
57
II
39
0
1
13
23
1
0*
1
0
7
21
0
0
11
26
2
0*
22
8
0*
31
12
2
18
12
IMA
6
0
1
1
13
0*
1
0
0
1
8
0
0*
17
13
0
6
30
3
7
0*
3
9
5
32
1MB
3
0
0*
1
7
1
0
0*
0
0
12
0
1
64
8
0*
9
6
5
3
1
1
2
0*
13
IVA
176
14
10
32
171
1
62
6
0
42
23
13
7
140
92
1
9
169
216
40
91
116
253
25
70
IVB
55
34
13
19
53
1
49
5
0
16
47
11
8
96
49
1
10
123
87
33
15
78
95
22
63
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
15
12
5
0
1
0
3
10
0
49
0
0
VI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
378
74
51
125
459
40
131
25
0
101
144
45
38
506
284
16
62
443
435
136
181
289
566
136
247
-------
Report to Congress
A-11
Table A-5 — Continued
1992 Needs Surveyf
Documented Design Year Needs for Small Communities for
Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Storm Water Control
(January 1992 Dollars in Millions)
Category of Need
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Marianas
Palau
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
1
51
7
14
6
24
151
7
261
85
4
180
24
34
379
1
40
25
86
348
19
10
106
59
335
158
4
0
1
3
6
0
3
3941
II
1
0
0
0
0*
37
0*
30
233
0
58
4
9
59
0
8
0
31
71
0
5
51
2
18
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
873
MIA
4
0
0
2
3
31
0
32
23
0
44
8
2
4
0
6
0*
20
21
0
1
26
11
13
0*
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0*
407
IIIB
7
1
0
3
2
14
0*
20
7
2
3
1
0*
2
0
0
6
7
1
0
1
4
0*
21
2
0*
0
0
0
0
0
3
244
IVA
53
8
1
21
77
139
3
416
300
0
238
15
17
696
21
22
1
95
308
28
15
226
68
402
229
0*
0
0
0*
0
0
0
5178
IVB
54
4
1
3
61
59
4
177
203
0*
67
23
10
103
20
46
6
56
195
10
7
133
28
221
67
0
0
0
0*
0
0
0
2541
V
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
0
0
27
0
0
14
0
0
0*
0*
0
0
11
0*
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
174
VI
0
0
0*
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
Total
170
20
16
35
167
438
14
940
853
6
617
75
72
1257
42
122
40
295
944
57
50
546
168
1028
462
4
0
1
3
6
0
6
13366
* Micronesia and Marshall Islands not considered in 1992 Needs Survey due to free association.
* Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
A-12 1992 Needs Survey
Table A-6
1992 Needs Survey1
Design Year Separate State Estimates for Small Communities
(January 1992 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-6 summarizes the States' assessment of needs to satisfy the design year (2012) population living in small
communities. The small community needs shown in Table A-6 are derived by EPA from the total separate State
estimates using criteria as defined in the report section entitled "What Are the Needs for Small Communities?". These
needs are shown by category of need in each State and U.S. Territory.
Separate State estimates reported by the States are optional and are for selected wastewater treatment facilities that
the States believe to be legitimate but that either were justified with documents outside the established documentation
criteria of the 1992 Needs Survey or had no written documentation. All values are presented in millions of January
1992 dollars.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
1
0
0
0
146
1
1
5
0
0
0
1
6
13
9
13
1
0*
67
5
0
1
24
1
21
0
56
10
7
II
0
0
0
44
0
0
1
0
0
0
5
0
0
0*
3
0
30
15
11
0
0
18
0
1
0
0
0*
0
Category
IIIA
0
0
0
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
2
0
0
1
0
0*
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0*
of Need
IIIB
0
0
0
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*
0
1
0
3
0
0
1
0*
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0*
0*
IVA
0
0
0
104
16
0
0
0
0
0
1
25
10
7
0
0
0
93
3
3
1
29
4
2
0
25
7
0*
IVB
0
0
0
68
3
1
0
0
0
0
0*
3
9
1
0
0
0
40
0*
0*
0
21
0*
2
0
9
3
1
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
56
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VI
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Total
0
0
0
424
20
13
6
0
0
0
7
34
37
18
21
1
30
217
19
59
6
92
5
29
0
90
21
9
-------
Report to Congress
Table A-6 — Continued
1992 Needs Surveyt
Design Year Separate State Estimates for Small Communities
(January 1992 Dollars in Millions)
A-13
Category of Need
State
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Marianas
Palau
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
1
146
10
249
0
256
38
0
44
0
0
279
0
3
3
100
72
26
3
78
0
230
6
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
1950
II
2
1
0
0
12
195
0
14
0
0
96
0
0
0
7
12
0
7
17
0
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
501
IIIA
0*
5
0
0
14
9
0
6
0
1
5
0
0
0
46
0*
0
0
17
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
153
1MB
1
2
0
0
12
0
0
13
0
1
1
0
0
5
6
0
0
0
3
0
11
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
IVA
15
13
0
0
176
34
0
104
0
1
411
0
6
0
38
72
63
13
51
0
455
13
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1796
IVB
23
9
0
0
146
6
0
24
0
0
83
0
0*
0*
20
64
7
2
37
0
224
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
810
V
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
7
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
81
VI
0*
0
0
0
0
196
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*
1
16
0
0
1
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
231
Total
187
40
249
0
617
478
0
212
0
3
885
0
9
9
233
220
96
29
203
0*
935
23
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
5612
t Micronesia and Marshall Islands not considered in 1992 Needs Survey due to free association.
* Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
-------
Report to Congress
B- 1
Appendix B:
Summary of 1990
Needs Survey Estimates
-------
B-2 1992 Needs Survey
Table B-1
1990 Needs Survey
Design Year Needs for Traditional Eligibilities and Supplemental State Estimates
(January 1992 Dollars in Millions)
Table B-1 summarizes the results of EPA's 1990 Needs Survey for the traditional eligibilities and the supplemental
estimates presented by the States. These estimates include planning, design, and construction activities eligible for
Federal financial assistance under Title II (Construction grants) and Title VI (State Revolving Fund) of the Clean Water
Act. All values are presented in millions of January 1992 dollars. The estimates reflect the sum of Tables B-2 and
B-3.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
I
292
74
626
301
8123
63
579
19
107
2483
316
1036
78
594
272
179
204
281
493
124
233
2698
867
626
210
421
54
72
461
143
2142
Category
II
152
0
88
93
132
44
1344
3
194
854
384
4
9
359
157
520
105
92
34
1
955
23
10
35
79
25
2
2
143
26
210
of Need
MIA
100
5
2
143
548
2
27
0
0
46
46
0
12
90
60
51
73
81
64
27
129
43
77
37
65
11
0
2
2
24
255
1MB
25
0
3
106
861
7
18
0*
0
27
44
0
3
63
31
1
55
13
36
8
3
20
42
42
2
295
1
16
4
13
350
IVA
258
21
54
158
535
3
361
38
0
2857
101
174
64
148
266
45
48
811
344
79
223
769
552
119
92
133
41
5
23
307
446
IVB
236
108
242
141
827
41
209
25
0
1567
421
188
79
360
160
203
355
544
268
40
308
746
676
88
122
470
20
17
73
216
286
V
0
0
0
2
1746
0
418
1
76
3
213
0
1
1605
1040
6
16
33
0
848
15
1857
1466
178
0
176
0
22
0
284
1197
Total
1063
208
1015
944
12772
160
2956
86
377
7837
1525
1402
246
3219
1986
1005
856
1855
1239
1127
1866
6156
3690
1125
570
1531
118
136
706
1013
4886
-------
Report to Congress
Table B-1 — Continued
1990 Needs Survey
Design Year Needs for Traditional Eligibilities and Supplemental State Estimates
(January 1992 Dollars in Millions)
B-3
Category of Need
State
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Micronesia
Guam
Marshall Islands
Northern Marianas
Palau
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
1
43
3858
434
7
899
180
499
632
73
383
48
916
2296
418
91
812
1088
596
553
16
4
61
33
26
22
15
662
11
38847
II
0*
2070
1056
0
436
107
156
120
30
90
3
113
745
70
56
318
25
54
207
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
11740
IDA
1
206
114
0
333
14
112
17
16
27
5
203
256
42
1
100
141
30
49
1
0
0*
0
0
0
0
40
0*
3730
1MB
17
1577
79
4
107
13
204
7
14
0
6
24
114
4
5
40
86
29
2
2
0*
0
0
0*
0
0
16
0
4439
IVA
33
2623
567
0
871
32
415
635
115
99
15
324
491
24
38
285
323
921
238
2
12
16
9
2
5
0
500
9
17679
IVB
29
1493
932
5
1169
138
192
157
80
208
10
423
1925
48
19
293
618
484
350
1
3
5
4
7
16
1
510
10
18166
V
0
6633
1
0
705
0
119
122
238
0
2
240
0
0
64
488
606
22
76
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
20539
Total
123
18460
3183
16
4520
484
1697
1690
566
807
89
2243
5827
606
274
2336
2887
2136
1475
22
19
82
46
35
43
16
1753
30
115140
* Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
B-4
1992 Needs Survey
Table B-2
1990 Needs Survey
Documented Design Year Needs for Traditional Eligibilities
(January 1992 Dollars in Millions)
Table B-2 summarizes the results of EPA's 1990 Needs Survey of documented needs for the traditional eligibilities
(Categories I through V) by State for the design year population. All values are presented in millions of January 1992
dollars.
These design year needs were derived from those documented during the 1988 Needs Survey. This table is provided
as a convenience to those who wish to compare the 1990 and 1992 Needs Survey results. Table B-2 may be compared
with Table A-2, excluding needs in Category VI.
Needs presented in Table B-2 may vary slightly from those presented in Table 3 due to rounding.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
1
194
74
626
140
3527
63
287
19
107
1995
290
124
38
478
158
167
202
188
493
124
159
2677
820
375
207
303
13
Category
II
80
0
88
21
85
44
124
3
194
469
124
4
9
307
88
24
3
59
34
1
375
23
7
34
65
0
4
of Need
MIA
93
5
2
57
309
2
27
0
0
44
46
0
5
86
48
51
73
85
64
27
33
43
71
18
63
7
0
1MB
20
0
3
1
706
7
18
0*
0
26
26
0
2
42
11
1
55
13
36
8
0*
20
26
1
2
76
1
IVA
154
21
54
40
392
3
361
38
0
2584
84
143
18
117
238
43
48
722
344
79
37
769
484
27
,85
49
19
IVB
184
108
242
36
758
41
209
25
0
1372
361
110
18
304
125
203
355
455
268
36
80
746
661
48
120
407
3
V
0
0
0
0
1127
0
418
1
0
0
87
0
1
1514
1023
6
16
25
0
21
9
1857
1215
127
0
151
0
Total
725
208
1015
295
6904
160
1444
86
301
6490
1018
381
91
2848
1691
495
752
1547
1239
296
693
6135
3284
630
542
993
40
-------
Report to Congress
Table B-2 — Continued
1990 Needs Survey
Documented Design Year Needs for Traditional Eligibilities
(January 1992 Dollars in Millions)
8-5
Category of Need
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Micronesia
Guam
Marshall Islands
Northern Marianas
Palau
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
1
63
87
98
1586
43
1963
419
7
653
180
392
632
39
146
33
381
2199
418
69
289
1017
312
233
5
4
61
33
26
22
15
628
11
25912
II
2
39
10
84
0*
214
192
0
364
107
141
120
5
29
3
112
720
70
31
86
25
24
201
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
4853
IMA
1
2
10
254
1
178
94
0
296
14
44
17
0*
23
2
168
239
42
1
31
141
24
53
1
0
0
0*
0
0
0
40
0*
2935
1MB
9
3
5
343
17
1708
48
4
66
13
159
7
0
0
1
11
84
4
5
10
86
17
0
1
0
0*
0
0
0*
0
16
0
3718
IVA
9
19
281
392
33
2105
461
0
692
32
358
635
98
68
9
272
377
24
20
146
321
372
164
0*
12
16
9
2
5
0
489
9
14383
IVB
12
21
195
175
29
1094
628
5
915
138
138
157
75
150
15
400
1655
48
18
171
587
200
119
0
3
5
4
7
16
1
465
10
14731
V
22
0
251
857
0
6211
1
0
613
0
107
122
205
0
2
10
0
0
80
223
604
15
230
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
17174
Total
118
171
850
3691
123
13473
1843
16
3599
484
1339
1690
422
416
65
1354
5274
606
224
956
2781
964
1000
7
19
82
46
35
43
16
1666
30
83706
* Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
B-6
1992 Needs Survey
Table B-3
1990 Needs Survey
Design Year Supplemental State Estimates
(January 1992 Dollars in Millions)
Table B-3 summarizes the 1990 Needs Survey State supplemental estimates of incremental needs for the traditional
eligibilities (Categories I through V) by State for the design year population. All values are presented in millions of
January 1992 dollars.
The supplemental State estimates represent needs which are in addition to the 1990 documented design year needs
for the traditional eligibilities.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
1
98
0
0
161
4596
0
292
0
0
488
26
912
40
116
114
12
2
93
0
0*
74
21
47
251
3
118
41
9
374
45
Category
II
72
0
0
72
47
0
1220
0
0
385
260
0
0
52
69
496
102
33
0
0
580
0
3
1
14
25
(2)
0
104
16
of Need
IIIA
7
0
0
86
239
0
0
0
0
2
0*
0
7
4
12
0
0*
(4)
0
0
96
0
6
19
2
4
0
1
0*
14
1MB
5
0
0
105
155
0
0
0
0
1
18
0
1
21
20
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
16
41
0
219
0*
7
1
8
IVA
104
0
0
118
143
0
0
0
0
273
17
31
46
31
28
2
0
89
0
0*
186
0
68
92
7
84
22
(4)
4
26
IVB
52
0
0
105
69
0
0
0
0
195
60
78
61
56
35
0*
0
89
0
4
228
0
15
40
2
63
17
5
52
21
V
0
0
0
2
619
0
0
0
76
3
126
0
0
91
17
0
0
8
0
827
6
0
251
51
0
25
0
0
0
33
Total
338
0
0
649
5868
0
1512
0
76
1347
507
1021
155
371
295
510
104
308
0
831
1173
21
406
495
28
538
78
18
535
163
-------
Report to Congress
B-7
Table B-3 — Continued
1990 Needs Survey
Design Year Supplemental State Estimates
(January 1992 Dollars in Millions)
Category of Need
State
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Micronesia
Guam
Marshall Islands
Northern Marianas
Palau
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
I
556
0
1895
15
0
246
0
107
0
34
237
15
535
97
0
22
523
71
284
320
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
0
12935
II
126
0
1856
864
0
72
0
15
0
25
61
0
1
25
0
25
232
0*
30
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6887
IMA
1
0
28
20
0
37
0
68
0
16
4
3
35
17
0
0*
69
0
6
(4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*
0
795
1MB
7
0
(131)
31
0
41
0
45
0
14
0
5
13
30
0
0
30
0*
12
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
721
IVA
54
0
518
106
0
179
0
57
0
17
31
6
52
114
0
18
139
2
549
74
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
3296
IVB
111
0
399
304
0
254
0
54
0
5
58
(5)
23
270
0
1
122
31
284
231
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
3435
V
340
0
422
0
0
92
0
12
0
33
0
0
230
0
0
(16)
265
2
7
(154)
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
(3)
0
3365
Total
1195
0
4987
1340
0
921
0
358
0
144
391
24
889
553
0
50
1380
106
1172
475
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
87
0
31434
* Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
-------
Report to Congress C- 1
Appendix C:
Summary of 1992
Needs Survey
Technical Information
NOTE: Some States did not update all of the
technical data used to generate Tables C-l
through C-5.
-------
C-2
1992 Needs Survey
Table C-1
1992 Needs Survey
Number of Operational Treatment Facilities and
Collection Systems in 1992
Table C-1 summarizes the number of facilities in operation in 1992. This summary gives the number of treatment
facilities and collection systems in each State and U.S. Territory.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
Treatment
Facilities
256
46
116
288
586
275
100
19
1
272
375
26
162
725
360
712
569
231
321
129
176
117
378
517
298
604
166
448
51
83
Collection
Systems
322
52
129
330
789
325
142
36
1
317
481
31
187
993
402
746
581
281
355
164
277
205
627
638
350
658
170
515
54
112
State
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Marianas
Palau
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Treatment
Facilities
145
102
514
436
297
671
499
209
686
20
199
274
240
1290
108
88
239
257
184
588
103
2
7
2
1
33
12
15613
Collection
Systems
504
114
902
503
300
918
513
233
1331
29
232
276
264
1557
178
98
334
322
252
772
119
2
7
2
1
33
12
20078
-------
Report to Congress
C-3
Table C-2
1992 Needs Survey
Number of Operational Treatment Facilities and
Collection Systems When All Documented Needs Are Met
Table C-2 shows the number of treatment facilities and collection systems that are planned to be in operation when
all documented needs are met. A summary is provided for each State and U.S. Territory.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
Treatment
Facilities
414
54
175
495
666
281
107
23
1
297
435
31
196
819
427
715
580
393
465
202
202
148
450
573
493
643
189
452
67
90
Collection
Systems
508
57
189
559
907
338
170
43
1
353
592
40
226
1117
503
751
606
477
551
244
400
269
771
704
604
757
201
521
71
126
State
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Marianas
Palau
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Treatment
Facilities
149
104
676
500
306
789
497
221
996
22
238
290
291
1608
127
99
310
275
584
635
112
2
6
4
1
29
12
18966
Collection
Systems
552
116
1208
657
313
1150
523
250
1839
34
280
292
352
1937
212
109
477
367
770
885
132
2
7
4
1
34
12
25171
-------
C - 4 1992 Needs Survey
Table C-3
1992 Needs Survey
Number of Treatment Facilities by Flow Range
Table C-3 is a summary by flow range of all treatment facilities in operation in 1992 as well as those projected to be
in operation when all documented needs are met. This table gives four flow ranges in millions of gallons per day (mgd)
for 1992 and the design year 2012; the number of facilities in each range; and the cumulative total of their existing flows
and design flow capacities. These data are for all types of treatment facilities, regardless of their level of treatment.
TREATMENT FACILITIES IN OPERATION IN 1992
Existing Flow Range Number of Total Existing Flow
(mgd) Facilities (mgd)
0.00 to 0.10 6003 263
0.11 to 1.00 6545 2295
1.01 to 10.00 2460 7378
10.01 and greater 458 19554
Other* 147 0
Total 15613 29490
TREATMENT FACILITIES IN OPERATION
WHEN ALL DOCUMENTED NEEDS ARE MET
Design Flow Range
(mgd)
0.00 to 0.10
0.11 to 1.00
1.01 to 10.00
10.01 and greater
Other*
Number of
Facilities
6451
8094
3448
740
233
Total Future Design
Flow Capacity
(mgd)
314
2849
10922
31457
0
Total 18966 45542
'Note: Flow data were unavailable for these facilities.
-------
Report to Congress
C-5
Table C-4
1992 Needs Survey
Operational Treatment Facility Information
Table C-4 summarizes the level of treatment provided by all wastewater treatment facilities in the United States in 1992
as well as those projected to be in operation when all documented needs are met. This summary provides details on
the number of operational facilities, their associated flow, and the population served by each level of treatment. All
flow values are given in millions of gallons per day (mgd).
Level of Treatment
Number of
Facilities
Design Capacity
(mgd)
Number of
People Served
Percent of U.S.
Population
TREATMENT FACILITIES IN OPERATION IN 1992
Less than Secondary
Secondary
Greater than Secondary
No Discharge
Total
868
9086
3678
1981
15613
3724
17928
16408
1320
39380
21,712,715
82,907,949
68,229,263
7,764,363
180,614,290
8.4
32.2
26.4
3.0
70.0
TREATMENT FACILITIES IN OPERATION WHEN ALL DOCUMENTED NEEDS ARE MET
Less than Secondary t
Secondary
Greater than Secondary
No Discharge
Other*
Total
68
10410
5929
2491
68
18966
390
19086
24210
1825
31
45542
3,169,807
108,196,765
124,946,387
14,993,679
53,899
251,360,537
1.1
37.5
43.3
5.2
0.0"
87.0
f Note: Includes facilities with Section 301 (h) ocean discharge waivers, and treatment facilities discharging to
other facilities meeting secondary treatment or better.
* Note: Level of treatment data were unavailable for these facilities.
** Note: Percent of population served is less than 0.1.
-------
C-6
1992 Needs Survey
Table C-5
1992 Needs Survey
Number of Combined Sewer Facilities and Number
of Combined Sewer Facilities with Documented Needs
Table C-5 summarizes the number of combined sewer facilities in operation in 1992. This summary gives the number
of those facilities with reported documented needs
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
Number of
Number of Facilities With
Facilities Documented Needs
0
2
0
0
5
6
15
5
1
1
9
0
1
177
132
20
3
20
0
60
13
39
119
5
0
14
1
3
0
11
0
0
0
0
2
1
7
1
1
1
8
0
0
48
31
1
2
6
0
5
6
15
46
2
0
3
0
2
0
4
State
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Marianas
Palau
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Number of
Number of Facilities With
Facilities Documented Needs
36
0
94
1
0
122
0
7
158
4
0
16
7
0
0
36
13
52
93
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
28
0
37
1
0
37
0
3
24
2
0
3
4
0
0
20
5
8
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total
1303
375
-------
Report to Congress D-1
Appendix D:
Summary of 1992
Needs Survey
Documentation
-------
D-2 1992Needs Survey
Table D-1
1992 Needs Survey
List of Acceptable Documentation Types
Table D-1 lists the 24 acceptable criteria for documenting a problem or cost estimate in the 1992 Needs Survey.
Justification Justification
Documentation Type of Problem of Cost
1. Capital Improvement Plan Yes Yes
A capital improvement plan must adequately address
why the project is needed and provide costs which are
project-specific.
2. Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) Analysis Yes Yes
3. Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) Yes Yes
4. Final Engineer's Estimate Yes Yes
The final engineer's report is typically submitted as a result
of a detailed facility design.
5. Cost of Previous Comparable Construction No Yes
This document may be used to justify costs if stringent
guidelines are followed and the costs are project-specific.
6. Facilities Plan Yes Yes
Excerpts from a facilities plan are acceptable forms of
documentation to justify a need and to update cost
estimates.
7. Plan of Study Yes No
This documentation type must be an official project
description. A plan of study precedes a facilities plan.
8. State Priority List Yes No
A State's project priority list is acceptable as adequate
problem documentation if the list was accepted by EPA.
The 1-year fundable plus 4-year planning portion of the FY
1991, 1992, or 1993 lists may be used if accepted by the
appropriate EPA Regional Office.
9. State-Approved Area-Wide or Regional Basin Plan Yes Yes
An area-wide or regional basin plan (per Section 208 or
303 of the CWA) is an acceptable document to justify that
a need exists if specific project descriptions are cited and
the plan is State approved. The problem areas should be
specifically identified.
-------
Report to Congress D-3
Table D-1 — Continued
1992 Needs Survey
List of Acceptable Documentation Types
Justification Justification
Documentation Type of Problem of Cost
10. Grant Application Form (Step 3 or 4) Yes Yes
11. Municipal Compliance Plan Yes Yes
This document may be used to justify a need and to update
costs if the costs are project-specific.
12. Diagnostic Evaluation Results Yes No
The results of a diagnostic evaluation of a treatment plant
may be used if the results indicate that construction is
needed to achieve compliance.
13. Administrative Order/Court Order/Consent Decree Yes No
These documents may be used to justify that a need exists
if they specifically describe an existing or historic problem
demonstrating a need to construct.
14. Sanitary Survey Yes No
A sanitary survey by a health agency can be used to justify
a need if the document specifically identifies an existing or
historic problem of high failure rates.
15. State-Approved Local/County Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan Yes No
This document may be used to justify a need and to update
costs if the document contains descriptions that are
project-specific and cost-specific.
16. State Certification of Excessive Flow Yes No
A document that is preliminary to an I/I report may be used
to justify that a need exists for Category III.
17. State Approved Municipal Wasteload Allocation Plan Yes No
This document may be used to justify a need and to update
costs if the document contains descriptions that are
project-specific and cost-specific.
18. NPDES or State Permit Requiring Corrective Action (with schedule) Yes No
Facilities not meeting effluent limitations and on compli-
ance schedules or facilities required to plan because they
are at or near plant capacity may submit this documenta-
tion to justify a need.
-------
D-4 1992Needs Survey
Table D-1 — Continued
1992 Needs Survey
List of Acceptable Documentation Types
Justification Justification
Documentation Type of Problem of Cost
19. Municipal Storm Water Management Plan Yes No*
This documentation details structural and source controls
to be implemented to reduce pollutants in runoff which are
discharged to storm sewers, detect and remove illicit
discharges and improper disposal into storm sewers,
monitor industrial pollutants in runoff, and to reduce
pollutants in construction site runoff that are discharged to
municipal storm sewers.
20. Nonpoint Source Management Plan/Assessment Report Yes No*
This document is a 4-year plan detailing measures to
correct nonpoint source pollution.
21. Ground-Water Protection Strategy/NPS Report Yes No*
This document may be used to justify a need if it is a part
of a Nonpoint Source Management Plan.
22. Wellhead Protection Program and Plan Yes No*
This document may be used to justify a need if it is a part
of a Nonpoint Source Management Plan.
23. Delegated Underground Injection Control Program and Plan Yes No*
This document may be used to justify a need if it is a part
of a Nonpoint Source Management Plan.
24. Estuary Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Yes No*
This document is a management plan developed for an
estuary that has been nominated for the National Estuary
Program (NEP).
* Documentation may have information that can be used to justify costs. Cost justification for Categories I - VI
must be project-specific and distributable among the Categories I - VI. Other SRF eligible costs would be
entered in the State estimates.
-------
Report to Congress D-5
Table D-2
1992 Needs Survey
Small Community Alternative Documentation Types
Table D-2 lists the 12 alternative criteria for documenting a problem or cost estimate for small communities in the 1992
Needs Survey. These criteria represent petitions from specific States and Regions for inclusion of these documents
in the 1992 Needs Survey. Each document was reviewed and the acceptability for justification of a need or a cost was
determined.
Justification
Documentation Type of Problem
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
CSO State Strategies — Region I
SRF Preapplication for Loan Assistance — Illinois
1991 State Needs Survey — Illinois
SRF Preapplication for Loan Assistance — Wisconsin
SRF Loan Program F93 Priority List Questionnaire
— South Carolina
1 992 Water Control Board Wastewater Needs Assessment
— Virginia
Farmers Home Administration Water and Waste Disposal Loans
and Grants Preapplication — Arizona
Farmers Home Administration Water and Waste Disposal Loans
and Grants Application — Arizona
Wastewater Feasibility Study for Snyder Sanitary District
— Colorado
Remedial Action Plan — Region 5
SRF Preapplication for Loan Assistance — Nebraska
1 992 State Water Quality Needs Survey — Nebraska
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Justification
of Cost
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
------- |