-------
Prepared by:
Priority and Needs Assessment Branch (WH-595)
Facility Requirements Division
Office of Water Program Operations
U.b. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 332-7251
-------
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
COST ESTIMATES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY OWNED
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
December 31, 1982
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Rfigioo 5, Ll^.-di-y (5FL-16)
?30 S. Dearoorn St ett, Rooni 1670
Chio«f». It 60604
-------
U,S. Environment::;
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Executive Summary
I. Introduction 1
II. Explanation of the Survey 3
III. Survey Results 5
Table A - Backlog and Year 2000 Needs 6
Table B - Year 2000 Needs Adjusted for Reserve Capacity
Limitations 8
Table C - Category V Estimate by Stream Use Objectives 9
Table D - Category V Estimate by Cost Component 10
Taole E - Comparison of EPA and State Estimates for Year 2000. 11
Table F - 1982 Separate State Estimates 12
IV. Federal Funding Potential 13
Table G - Analysis of Federal Funding Potential for
Conference Committee Proposal of 12/9/81 15
Table H - Current Analysis of Federal Funding Potential 16
V. Comparison of Results: 1982 and 1980 Needs Surveys 19
Table I - Comparison of 1982 and 1980 Needs Surveys 20
VI. Quality of Facility Estimates: Categories I-V 22
VII. Treatment and/or Control of Stormwaters: Category VI 24
Taole J - Category VI Estimate by Generic Stream Use
Objecti ves 24
VIII. Progress Towards a Water Quality Based Needs Survey 25
IX. Summary and Conclusions 26
Appendix A: How the Survey was Conducted 28
I. Categories I-IV: Treatment Plants and Sewers 28
II. Category V: Control of Combined Sewer Overflows 32
III. Category VI: Control of Urban Stormwater Runoff 38
Appendix B: Reasons for Separate State Estimates,
Categories I-VI 39
Appendix C: Summary Tables 1-43 40
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tne 1982 Needs Survey has been completed in compliance with Sections
205(a) and 516(b)(l) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). It provides the
best estimate available of the nationwide costs of compliance with
the goals of the 1981 Construction Grant Amendments to the Act.
Tin's survey modifies and updates the comprehensive cost estimates of
the previous five surveys for constructing all grant-eligible
municipal treatment works needed by existing and future populations.
It reaffirms that meeting the water quality goals of the CWA will
require a substantial investment.
- Backlog treatment and interceptor needs for existing populations
are estimated at $35.4 billion; total existing and proposed
treatment and interceptor needs, including growth to the year
2000, are estimated at $57.3 billion. The reserve capacity
eligibility limitations as specified in the 1981 Construction
Grant Amendments reduce this estimate by about $11.0 billion.
- Overall, tne total backlog needs for existing populations are
$92.6 billion, 78.2 percent of the estimated needs for the year
2000 ($118.4 billion).
- Tne $118.4 billion represents the total construction needs
projected to the year 2000. It does not reflect either the
eligibility limitations imposed by the 1981 Construction Grant
Amendments or the total Federal funding potential based on the
Federal share for these facilities.
Advance work completed during the 1982 Needs Survey will provide the
foundation for linking treatment facilities with their receiving
water bodies and water quality impacts as part of the 1984 Needs
Survey, procedures have been developed and successfully tested to
assess municipal water pollution abatement progress and to predict
water quality and use improvements from meeting remaining treatment
needs. These water quality initiatives of the 1982 Needs Survey are
in response to the growing need to target limited construction grants
dollars to facilities resulting in the greatest water quality and
public health improvements and to the Congressional mandate of the
1981 Construction Grant Amendments for a Survey reflecting water
quality needs.
Tne costs reported oy the 1980 Needs Survey have grown by about 15.5
percent on the average due to inflation. Absolute backlog needs and
year 2000 needs have decreased by about 13.1 percent and 15.3
percent, respectively, since the 1980 Needs Survey. The most
significant and measurable progress has been made in meeting
treatment needs, wnich have decreased by 5.9 percent ($2.3 billion).
-------
o Tne decrease in the magnitude of needs is due to a combination of
grant awards, 11 ocean discharge waivers, 82 advanced treatment
reviews, and modified estimation procedures for combined sewer
overflow needs based on designated stream use. Changes in the level
of needs are due also to enhanced survey procedures and estimating
techniques.
o For the first time, the need for control and treatment of combined
sewer overflows (CSO) was based on an estimate of the costs to
achieve the State designated stream use classification rather than on
an assumed recreation use for each CSO area. The current CSO
estimate of $35.7 billion represents a 21 percent decrease from the
1980 level.
o Auout lo percent of the national population is currently served by
CSOs; 86 percent of the CSO population is in urbanized areas. The
greatest CSO proulem is limited to 12 States with CSO needs greater
than $1 billion.
o Tne 19<32 Needs Survey identified a total of more than 15,000 existing
municipal treatment plants, including 1081 CSO facilities. About 83
percent of the nation is currently served by a collection system.
o Tne quality of the 1982 Needs Survey estimates has been greatly
improved. They are based on enhanced procedures and better
information from newly available facilities plans, discharge permits,
the 1980 Census, and recent actual contract costs.
o The Needs Survey data and estimates have far reaching applications.
They provide:
- A basis for congressional allotment of funds appropriated for the
construction grants program.
- Tne only complete inventory of municipal treatment works.
- A comprehensive technical and cost data base for management,
programmatic, and technical analyses of the construction grants
program.
o Tne 1982 Needs Survey includes a preliminary analysis of the future
Federal share of treatment works cost (Federal funding potential).
Tne future Federal funding potential is approximately $37.3 billion,
wnicn is essentially the same as the Agency estimate of $36.3 billion
wnen tne 1981 Construction Grant Amendments were enacted. It is
based on phased/segmented facility data supplied by the States and on
EPA assumptions concerning the timing of grant awards.
-------
o EPA will provide a detailed report containing a complete list of
marine areas with combined stormwater and sanitary sewer overflow
problems and their estimated costs on March 1, 1983, as an addendum
to the 1982 Needs Survey Report. The 1983 Appropriations Act
includes $30 million for this separate marine CSO fund authorized at
the $200 million, level by the 1981 Construction Grant Amendments.
Tin's report is required by the Conference Report on the FY 1983
Appropriations for HUD and Independent Agencies (P.L. 97-272) which
appropriated funds for combined sewer overflow projects discharging
into marine waters.
-------
COST ESTIMATES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY OWNED
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
I. INTRODUCTION
Tin's report is submitted in compliance with sections 205(a) and
516(b)(l) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Included are detailed estimates
of the cost of constructing all needed publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) to meet the goals of the Act. These estimates include both
oacklog needs for current populations and projected needs for the year
2000 populations. This is the sixth Needs Survey since the enactment of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L.
^2-500). Previous surveys were conducted in 1973, 1974, 1976, 1978, and
1980. Cost estimates presented in previous Surveys have served as a
basis for congressional allotment of funds appropriated for the
construction grants program in accordance with the provisions of the
Clean Water Act.
This Survey is restricted to publicly owned wastewater conveyance and
treatment facilities, which include sewage treatment plants, sewers, and
other types of related treatment facilities. Except for "individual"
systems, privately owned facilities, even if intended to serve the
general public, and federally owned facilities, such as military
installations and national parks, are excluded. Costs for facilities
constructed as publicly owned potable water treatment plants for the
pretreatment, retention, or treatment of wastes from water purification
processes are also ineligible under the financial assistance grant
program established by the Clean Water Act and are, therefore, not
included in this Survey.
Backlog and year 2000 needs are reported in six major categories,
subdivided as follows:
Category I
Category IIA -
Category IIB -
Category IIIA -
Category 11IB -
Category IVA -
Category IVB -
Category V
Category VI
Secondary Treatment;
Advanced Secondary Treatment (AST);
Advanced Treatment (AT);
Infiltration/Inflow Correction;
Major Sewer System Rehabilitation;
New Collectors and Appurtenances;
New Interceptors and Appurtenances;
Correction of Combined Sewer Overflows;
Treatment and/or Control of Stormwaters-
-------
The basic approach for the 1982 Needs Survey was developed jointly
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and an advisory group
consisting of State and regional representatives. The Survey had five
initial goals aimed at improving the needs estimating process. These
were to:
o Secure nationally consistent estimates;
o Improve the overall quality of the estimates;
o Develop a detailed information base to assist in program
planning and management;
o Update a national inventory of wastewater treatment facilities
and combined sewer areas; and
o Provide a basis for the allotment of construction grant funds
among the States.
EPA led the Needs Survey activity with all States participating in
varying degrees, depending upon their resource priorities. This approach
enabled tne use of a single, nationwide methodology with uniform
guidelines. The guidelines did, however, provide flexibility for cost
estimate variations due to local conditions that affected construction
costs.
Because of the major impact of the 1981 Construction Grant
Amendments on the level of future Federal participation in the
construction grants program, a new analysis of "Federal Funding
Potential" has been added to this Survey. Federal participation in
funding future municipal wastewater treatment needs is substantially
altered by the Amendments. This report includes a preliminary analysis
of Federal funding potential, including the timing, scope, and costs of
future phased and segmented projects. The redefinition of secondary
treatment, the limitations on reserve capacity eligibility, the review of
proposed advanced wastewater treatment plants, approval of ocean
discharge waivers under Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act, and grant
funding since the 1980 Needs Survey are also discussed in this report.
Work completed during the 19<32 Needs Survey will provide the
foundation for linking treatment facilities with their receiving water
bodies and water quality impacts as part of the 1984 Needs Survey.
Procedures have been developed and successfully tested to assess
municipal water pollution abatement progress and to predict water quality
and use improvements from meeting remaining treatment needs. These water
quality initiatives of the 1982 Needs Survey are in response to the
growing need to target limited construction grants dollars to facilities
resulting in the greatest water quality and public health improvements
and to the Congressional mandate of the 1981 Construction Grant
Amendments for a Survey reflecting water quality needs. A complete
discussion of these activites is found in Section VIII of this report.
-------
On March 1, 1983, as an addendum to this Survey, EPA will provide a
detailed report containing a complete list and estimated costs of marine
areas with combined stormwater and sanitary sewer overflow problems.
This addendum is required by the Conference Report (Amendment No. 29) on
the FY 1983 Appropriations for HUD and Independent Agencies (P.L. 97-272)
wnich appropriated funds for combined sewer overflow projects discharging
into marine waters.
II. EXPLANATION OF THE SURVEY
A. Cost Categories
The 1932 NeedsiSurvey uses the same categories for construction cost
estimates used in 1980. These categories are:
Category I - SECONDARY TREATMENT. This cost category covers
facilities, including outfall sewers, needed to achieve secondary levels
of treatment. Since the final regulations on the secondary treatment
definition in the 1981 Construction Grant Amendments have not yet been
issued, the 1982 Needs Survey is based on the existing secondary
treatment definition.
Category IIA - ADVANCED SECONDARY TREATMENT (AST). This category
includes incremental costs above secondary treatment needed to achieve
advanced secondary levels of treatment. This requirement generally
exists where water quality standards require a level of removal of
conventional pollutants (biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended
solids) greater than 85 percent or 30 milligrams per liter (mg/1) BOD,
out less than 95 percent or 10 mg/1 of BOD.
Category IIB - ADVANCED TREATMENT (AT). Incremental costs above
tnose needed for AST are reported in this category for facilities that
require advanced levels of treatment. This requirement generally exists
where water quality standards require a higher degree of removal of such
pollutants as carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen demands, phosphorus,
ammonia, and nitrates. In addition, this requirement exists where
removal requirements for conventional pollutants exceed 95 percent.
Category IIIA - CORRECTION OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW. Included in this
category are costs for correction of sewer system infiltration/inflow
problems. Costs are also reported here for preliminary sewer system
analysis and for detailed sewer system evaluation surveys.
-------
Category 11IB - MAJOR REHABILITATION OF SEWERS. This category
includes cost estimates for replacement and/or major rehabilitation of
existing sewer systems beyond those for correction of infiltration/
inflow. Costs are reported if the corrective actions are necessary to
maintain the total integrity of the system. Major rehabilitation is
considered to be extensive repair of existing sewers beyond the scope of
normal maintenance programs, where sewers are collapsing or structurally
unsound.
Category IVA - NEW COLLECTOR SEWERS. This category includes costs
of construction of grant eligible new collector sewer systems and
appurtenances designed to correct violations caused by raw discharges,
and to protect public health from such things as malfunctioning septic
tanks.
Category IVB - NEW INTERCEPTOR SEWERS. Included in this category
are new interceptor sewers and transmission pumping stations necessary
for conveying wastewaters from collector sewer systems to treatment
facilities.
Category V - CONTROL OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (CSO). Costs
reported in this category are for grant eligible facilities to prevent or
control periodic bypassing of untreated wastes from combined sewers to
achieve water quality objectives. This category does not include costs
either for CSO control allocable to flood control or drainage improvement
or for treatment or control of stormwaters in separate storm and drainage
systems.
Category VI - CONTROL OF STORMWATER RUNOFF. This category includes
costs of abating pollution ih urbanized areas from stormwater runoff
channeled through sewers and otner conveyances used only for such
runoff. These facilities are not grant eligible.
The incremental costs for removal of toxic pollutants are not
included in the Needs Survey.
B. How tne Survey was Conducted
Appendix A explains how the Survey was conducted.
C. Basis of Cost Estimates
All costs are estimated in January 1982 dollars. Cost
estimates are provided for two periods of time. The estimate for backlog
needs addresses costs of providing treatment service to the 1980
population for abatement of existing pollution problems. In contrast,
the estimate for the year 2000 addresses treatment needs, including those
of new growth areas, for tne projected population of the year 2000.
-------
D. Population
The Needs Survey figures are based on present and future population
estimates. The present population is defined as the population of the
United States as estimated by the 1980 Census. The future or projected
population is based on Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) projections for
the year 2000. Population estimates and projections are used as State
population ceilings for Needs Survey purposes.
E. Indirect Industrial Treatment
Estimates of municipal wastewater treatment needs include the
existing industrial flow received by the municipal treatment plant.
Future indirect industrial flows are also included in the estimates of
the year 2000 needs if they are adequately documented.
III. SURVEY RESULTS
The 1982 Needs Survey focuses for the first time on backlog needs
for present populations. In past surveys, the emphasis has always been
directed toward needs for the year 2000. This change of focus reflects
the objective of the 1981 Construction Grant Amendments to target
construction grants dollars to existing treatment and conveyance needs.
More specifically, the amendments call for limiting reserve capacity
eligibilities to more closely approximate existing needs and for adding
oacklog needs as a factor in the allotment formula for construction
grants appropriations. However, the Year 2000 needs are still included
as an integral part of this report.
A. Assessment of Backlog and Year 2000 Needs
The results of the 1982 Needs Survey for backlog and year 2000 needs
are shown in the following tables (A through F).
-------
Table A
Backlog And Year 2000 Needs
(January 1932 Dollars, In Billions)
Needs Category
i (Secondary Treatment)
IIA (Advanced Secondary)
I IB (Advanced Treatment)
IIIA (Infiltration/Inflow)
IIIB (Replacement and/or Rehab.)
IVA (New Collector Sewers)
IVB (New Interceptor Sewers)
V (Combined Sewer Overflows)
Backlog
Estimate
20.13
3.25
0.53
2.
4.
.56
.69
16.77
8.93
35.74
Year 2000 Percent
EPA Assessment Difference Difference
31.13
4.87
0.87
.56
.69
20.66
17.83
35.74
2.
4.
11
1
00
62
0.34
0
0
3.89
8.90
0
54.6%
49.9%
64.2%
0
0
23.2%
99.7%
0
Total Treatment (I, II)
Total I, II, IIIA, IVB
Total I-V
23.91
35.40
92.60
36.87
57.26
118.35
12.96
21.86
25.75
54.2%
61.8%
27.8%
Note: Tnis taole does not account for grant eligibility restrictions for statutory
requirements regarding reserve capacity as specified in the 1981
Construction Grant Amendments.
As snown in Table A, backlog needs for Categories I-V are estimated at $92.60
billion, 78.2 percent of the year 2000 needs. Because estimated needs for Category
IIIA (infiltration/inflow correction) and Category IIIB (major sewer
rehabilitation) are for correcting and repairing existing facilities, they are
exclusively backlog needs. Similarly, because combined sewer systems are no longer
ouilt, all Category V needs are reported as backlog needs.
Tne costs reported for backlog needs are sufficient only to build facilities
needed to serve the 1980 population. These costs exclude reserve capacity to
serve population growth beyond 1980. Backlog needs estimates also exclude
treatment plants and sewers not needed in 1980 but projected to be needed for year
2000 populations.
Total backlog treatment needs (Categories I, IIA and IIB) are $23.9 billion,
64.8 percent of year 2000 estimated needs. Total backlog needs for Categories IIIA
and IVB (I/I Correction and New Interceptor Sewers) are $11.5 billion, 56.4 percent
of the year 2000 estimate. Appendix C, Tables 1 through 15, provides detailed
estimates of backlog needs; Tables 21 through 31 provide detailed year 2000 needs.
-------
Tne EPA assessment of the dollar need for construction of municipal
wastewater treatment facilities to serve year 2000 populations is
$lld.4 oil lion in Categories I through V. Included in the year 2000
needs assessment is $57.3 billion for treatment plants and interceptors
(Categories I, II, IIIA, and IVB). Needs for treatment plants alone are
$36.9 billion. Of the treatment need $31.1 billion (84.3 percent) is
required to achieve secondary treatment, and $5.8 billion (15.7 percent)
is for treatment levels higher than secondary.
The differences between backlog and year 2000 needs are substantial
for two reasons. The first is a projected 21.3 percent population
increase from the present 230 million persons to the year 2000 population
projection of 279 million. The second is an increase in percentage of
population projected to be served by municipal facilities, from the
present 71 percent to the year 2000 figure of 92 percent.
Tne year 2000 needs reported in Table A for Categories I (Secondary
Treatment), IIA (Advanced Secondary), I IB, (Advanced Treatment), and IVB
(New Interceptor Sewers) do not reflect the limitations on reserve
capacity imposed by the 1981 Construction Grant Amendments, The reported
needs currently include all projected reserve capacity to the year 2000.
The Amendments limit Federal funding of reserve capacity after October 1,
1904, to the capacity for meeting existing needs as of the date of
approval of Step 3 grant award, and in no case beyond the capactiy for
needs that exist as of October 1, 1990. A preliminary national estimate
of the impact of these limitations is shown in Table B,
as follows:
-------
Table B
Year 2000 Needs Adjusted for
Reserve Capacity
Limitations
(1982 Dollars, in Billions)
Needs
Category
I (Sec. Treat)
IIA (Adv. Sec.)
I IB (Adv. Treat)
IVB (New Interceptor
Sewers)
Subtotal
Year 2000 Needs
Without Res. Cap.
Limit.
$ 31.13
4.87
0.87
17.83
Estimated
Ineligible
Due to Res.
Cap. Li mi t.
$ 6.07
0.88
0.14
3.99
Revi sed
Year 2000
Needs
with Res.
Cap.
Limit.
$ 25.06
3.99
0.73
13.84
$54.70
I 11.08
43.62
1982
Backlog
Needs
$ 20.13
3.25
0.53
8.93
$32.84
Tne aoove EPA estimates of reduced eligibilities due to reserve capacity
limitations have not had the benefit of State involvement and must be
considered preliminary, although these national totals reflect the approximate
overall impact of the limitations. The preliminary estimates are based on
facility data supplied by the States and on EPA assumptions about the timing of
grant awards and associated reserve capacities. EPA will be working closely
with the States to refine these estimates on a State-by-State basis, and
enhanced estimates of eligible categories I, IIA, IIB, and IVB needs will be
provided in the 1984 Needs Survey.
In this Survey, the Category V backlog needs are reported as one composite
estimate. This is a departure from previous surveys which provided only a
range of Category V estimates for optional levels of control. The 1982
estimate represents the cost of CSO controls required to maintain the State
designated stream use classification. This estimate was developed in four
steps: (1) identification of the water body segment receiving the CSO;
U) identification of the State designated stream use classification for the
segment; (3) matching of each State stream use to a generic stream use; and
(4) estimation of the level of CSO control needed to maintain the stream use.
This automated CSO needs estimation process was not used when an acceptable
facility plan was available or when sewer separation was more cost effective
than other control measures.
-------
Tue total Category V estimate of $35.7 billion is disaggregated into general
classes of stream use objectives (Table C) and into cost components (Table D) as
follows:
Table C
Category V Estimate by Stream Use Objectives
(January 1982 Dollars, in Billions)
Level of Control Generic Stream Use
Aesthetics
Puolic Health
Fish and Wildlife
Navigation
Agricultural Water Supply
Industrial Water Supply
Domestic Water Supply
Partial Body Contact Recreation
Noncontact Recreation
Warmwater Fisheries
Coldwater Fisheries
General Fish and Wildlife
Need
$ 0.23
1.85
12.82
Percent
of Total
0.6%
5.2%
35.9%
Recreation
Otner *
General Recreation
Full Body Contact Recreation
Shellfish Protection
17.33
3.51
48.5%
9.8%
Total
$35.74
100.0%
* Includes needs estimates for cost effective sewer separation ($2.0 B) and
facility plans ($1.50 B). These estimates are not directly related to a
level of control needed to protect receiving water uses.
-------
Table D
Category V Estimate by Cost Component
(January 1982 Dollars, in Billions)
Cost Component
Wet Weather Interceptors
Storage Facilities
Treatment Facilities
Other *
Total
Need
$ 9.2
14.5
8.5
3.5
$35.7
Percent
of Total
25.8%
40.6%
23.8%
9.8%
100.0%
* Otner includes facility plan estimates {$1.5 B), sewer separation
($2.OB), and sewer flushing ($0.03 B).
B. Separate State Estimates for Year 2000 Needs
After EPA formulated the cost estimates, the States were asked either
to concur with these estimates or to provide additional data to support
differing costs. In many cases these data were supplied and the EPA
assessments were modified to reflect the changes. In some instances,
nowever, differences in EPA and State cost estimates were
irreconcilable. In these few cases, State participants provided an
independent State estimate of need (Appendix C, Table 22).
The reasons for differing cost estimates were, in general, not
associated with construction costs themselves but with some States'
beliefs that national survey guidelines should be amended and/or adjusted
to more accurately reflect local conditions or needs. The differences in
needs estimates between EPA and States are listed in Table E, as follows:
10
-------
Table E
Comparison of EPA and State Estimates
for Year 2000
(January 1982 Dollars, in Billions)
EPA State Percent
Needs Category Estimate Estimate Difference Difference
I Secondary Treatment $31.13 $31.14 0.01 0
IIA Incremental Costs 4.87 4.87 0 0
above Secondary to
Achieve Advanced
Secondary Levels (AST)
I IB Incremental Costs 0.87 0.87 0 0
above AST to Achieve
Advanced Treatment
Levels (AT)
IIIA Infiltration/Inflow 2.56 2.70 0.14 5.5%
IIIB Replacement and/or 4.69 4.69 0 0
Rehabilitation
IVA New Collector Sewers 20.66 20.66 0 0
IVB New Interceptor Sewers 17.83 17.83 0 0
V Comoined Sewer 35.74 35.60 -0.14 -0.4%
Overflows
Total I & II (Treatment) $ 36.87 $ 36.88 0.01 0
Total I, II, IIIA, IVB $ 57.26 $ 57.41 0.15 0.3%
Total I-V $118.35 $118.36 0.01 0.01%
Table 21 (Appendix C) shows the number of individual cost estimates
made by EPA for each State in Categories I-IV that resulted in a need.
Of tne more than 463,000 separate potential cost estimates investigated
oy EPA, only 41 independent estimates (0.008 percent) were submitted by
the States. Table 41 (Appendix C) shows the number of separate State
estimates submitted in Categories I-IV by category of need. The separate
State estimates for year 2000 and backlog needs are shown in Table F, as
follows:
11
-------
Table F
1982 Separate State Estimates
(1982 Dollars, in Millions)
Year 2000 1982 Survey Affected
State Need Backlog Category
California $139 M $139 M IIIA
-139 M -139 M V
Texas 7 M 11 M I, IVB
Total $ 7 M $ 11 M
California's estimate reflects disagreement on whether needs
estimates for one proposed project should be reported in the combined
sewer overflow correction or the separate sewer rehabilitation
categories. Texas has separate State estimates for 30 projects. EPA
could not accept these estimates because of inadequate documentation.
All otner States and Territories reported no independent State estimates.
C. Costs of Plants Requiring Treatment More Stringent than
Secondary (Category II)~
The estimated cost to upgrade all facilities to secondary treatment
levels is $31.1 billion (Category I). Secondary treatment facilities
represent 85 percent of the treatment projects and 84 percent of the
total treatment dollar needs.
Category II cost estimates consist of incremental costs above
secondary for each treatment facility where required treatment levels are
riigner than secondary. Total advanced treatment costs are split as
follows:
o Costs to upgrade Category I facilities from secondary levels to
advanced secondary levels where required (Category 11 A).
Advanced secondary levels are achieved in general when effluent
limits for BOD are between 30 and 10 mg/1 (85-95 percent
removal). Tiiese costs are estimated at $4.9 billion (13 percent
of total treatment dollar needs and 13 percent of all treatment
projects.
o Costs to raise Category IIA facilities from advanced secondary
levels to advanced treatment levels (AT) where required.
Advanced treatment is defined as removal of BOD above 95 percent
(less than 10 mg/1) or nitrogen removal requirements. The
estimate for AT costs is $0.9 billion (3 percent of total
treatment dollar needs and 2 percent of all treatment projects).
12
-------
IV. FEDERAL FUNDING POTENTIAL
A. Statutory Requirements
The 1981 Construction Grant Amendments substantially alter the level
of future Federal participation in grant awards to municipal wastewater
treatment works. A summary of the pertinent changes affecting Federal
grant funding follows:
Reserve Capacity
o Total planned levels of reserve capacity are eligible for
funding if an applicant receives a Step 3 grant (single,
segmented or phased) for a Category I, II, or IVB project
before October 1, 1984.
o Beginning October 1, 1984, only the capacity designed to serve
residential, commercial, and industrial flows that exist on
the date of approval of a Step 3 grant for a single, segmented,
or phased Category I, II or IVB project will be eligible for
Federal assistance. If a phase or a segment of the facility
for a Category I, II, or IVB project received a Step 3 grant
oefore October 1, 1984, the total planned levels of reserve
capacity are eligible for funding.
o In no event shall eligible capacity be in excess of needs
that exist on October 1, 1990.
Federal Share
o For any Step 3 construction grant approved prior to
October 1, 1984, the Federal share would be 75 percent. Where any
segmented or phased Step 3 grant in needs categories I, II, IIIA,
and IVB is approved prior to October 1, 1984, subsequent grants
for that facility would also be 75 percent.
o For any Step 3 construction grant approved after October 1, 1984,
the Federal share would be 55 percent. Where a facility had
received an initial Step 3 grant before that date, subsequent
grants for that facility would remain at 75 percent.
o The Governor of a State, with the concurrence of the
EPA Administrator, may modify the Federal share to a lower
percentage rate uniform throughout the State.
o Tne amount of any grant made after September 30, 1981, for any
treatment facilities utilizing innovative or alternative
wastewater treatment processes and techniques would be 20 percent
greater than the uniform rate, but in no event greater than 85
percent of the cost of construction.
13
-------
Eligible Categories
o All categories (I-V) of treatment, storage, and conveyance are
grant eligible until October 1, 1984.
o Only secondary and advanced waste treatment, correction of
infiltration/inflow, and interceptor sewers (Categories I, II,
IIIA, IVB) will be eligible on or after October 1, 1984, except
for those works funded by a Governor's discretionary allowance.
Discretionary Funds
o Beginning October 1, 1984, a Governor will have discretion to
use up to 20 percent of a State's allotment for categories other
tnan I, II, IIIA, and IVB.
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO)
o After Octooer 1, 1984, a Governor may request a Step 3 grant
out of the State's regular allotment at the prevailing Federal
share where correction of CSO is a major State priority.
o After October 1, 1982, $200 million annually is authorized
for correction of CSO discharges into marine bays and estuaries.
Tnirty million dollars has been appropriated for Fiscal Year
1983.
B. Preliminary Assessment Based on 1980 Estimated Needs
An early attempt was made to calculate the Federal funding potential
based on the December 9, 1981, Conference Committee proposal prior to the
enactment of the 1981 Amendments. At that time the estimate of Federal
funding potential based on 1980 Needs Survey data was $36.3 billion for
trie proposed eligible categories, including $0.8 billion for the separate
marine CSO fund. The breakdown of that projection is as follows
(Table G):
14
-------
Table G
Analysis Of Federal Funding Potential for
Conference Committee Proposal of 12/9/81
(In $ Billions)
Federal
Funding Potential Eligible Costs
FY 82/83/84
Segmented Grants (75%) $ 3.4 $ 4.5
Nonsegmented (75%) 3.3 4.4
FY 82/83/84 Subtotal $ 6.7 $ 8
After FY 84
Segmented Grants (75%) $ 3.9 $ 5.2
Nonsegmented (55%) 24.9 45.5
After FY 84 Subtotal $28.8 $50.7
Total Construction Grants Program $35.5 $59.6
Marine CSO Fund @ $200 M/yr. p. 8 1.4
for 4 years
Total Federal Funding Potential $36.3 $61.0
15
-------
C. Current Assessment Based on 1982 Estimated Needs
The current projection of Federal funding potential based on the 1981
Construction Grant Amendments and 1982 Needs Survey data is shown in
Table H, as follows:
Table H
Current Analysis of Federal Funding Potential
(In $ Billions)
Federal
Funding Potential Eligible Costs
FY 82/83/84
Segmented Grants (75%) $ 4.7 $ 6.2
Nonsegmented (75%) 1.8 2.4
FY 82/83/34 Subtotal $ 6.5 $ 8.6
After FY 84
Segmented urants (75%) $ 9.3 $12.4
Nonsegmented (55%) 20.9 38.0
After FY 84 Subtotal $30.2 $50.4
Total Construction Grants Program $36.7 $59.0
Marine CSO Fund @ $200 M/yr. for 4 years 0.6 1.4
($30 M. appropriated for 1983)
Total Federal Funding Potential $37.3 $60.4
This analysis of Federal funding potential, using 1982 Needs Survey
data and a phased/segmented project list submitted by the States,
reflects the following assumptions:
1. Project startup dates in the 1982 Needs Survey data or grant
award dates in the phased/segmented list were used to determine
the projected award date for each project.
2. Eligible costs were obtained from the 1982 Needs Survey data
file. Eligible Category V costs were estimated at $5 billion.
The total CSO needs are reduced to reflect the findings of
recent site-specific studies which limit CSO controls to those
that will result in significant improvement of water uses.
16
-------
3. Eligible reserve capacities for treatment facilities and
interceptor sewer systems were determined from the 1982 Needs
Survey data as follows:
a. Wastewater Treatment Plants:
(1) Step 3 funded before 10/1/84: used the difference
between the year 2000 plant design capacity and present
design capacity;
(2) Step 3 funded between 10/1/84 and 9/30/90: prorated the
difference between the year 2000 plant design capacity
and present design capacity to the year of projected
grant award;
(3) Step 3 funded on and after 10/1/90: used 50 percent of
the difference between the year 2000 plant design
capacity and present design capacity.
b. Interceptor Sewers:
(1) If the present design flow and the future design flow
were available, the eligible reserve capacity was
calculated as described for wastewater treatment plants.
(2) If survey forms omitted present flow and future
design flow, the present population and the future
population were used to calculate the reserve
capacity, based on the rules described for wastewater
treatment plants. Present flow is the product of
present population multiplied by assigned per
capita flow. Future design flow is the product
of future population multiplied by assigned per
capita flow. Assigned per capita flows are listed as
follows:
Non-SMSA Areas:
Population larger than 10,000:
Assigned per capita flow = 115 gallons per capita
per day (gpcd).
Population equal to or less
than 10,000 but larger than 5,000:
Assigned per capita flow = 105 gpcd.
Population equal to or less
than 5,000:
Assigned per capita flow = 95 gpcd.
SMSA Areas:
Assigned per capita flow = 115 gpcd.
17
-------
4. Analysis assumes all States use 20 percent of funds each year
after October 1, 1984, to fund otherwise ineligible costs.
b. Step I and Step II costs were not included.
6. Since future innovative/alternative projects could not be
identified at this time, their increased Federal share was not
considered in this estimate.
7. Trie Federal share was calculated according to the provisions of
the 1981 Construction Grant Amendments.
D. Comparison of Preliminary and Current Estimates
The figures shown in Table G and Table H are comparable with minor
variances. The major causes of the variances are:
1. Table G (preliminary estimate) is based on 1980 Needs Survey
data; Table H (current estimate) is based on 1982 Needs Survey
data.
2. Taole H is based in part on the phased/segmented project analysis
provided oy tne States. The eligible costs provided by the
States are suostantially larger in many cases than those derived
from the 1980 Needs Survey data. Consequently, Federal
funding potential for segmented projects in Table H is
substantially larger than for those of Table G.
3. Backlog and year 2000 needs in the 1982 Needs Survey are
smaller than those in the 1980 Needs Survey. The total eligible
cost for Categories I, II and IVB is $63.7 billion for the 1980
Needs Survey and $54.7 billion for the 1982 Needs Survey.
4. In the 1982 Needs Survey, 67 percent of the FY 82-84 funding
goes to phased/segmented projects for Categories I, II and IVB,
while only 50 percent of the FY 82-84 funding went to
phased/segmented projects for Categories I, II and IVB in the
1980 Needs Survey.
5. The dollar amount of remaining phased/segmented needs for
Categories I, II and IVB is larger in the analysis of the 1982
Needs Survey data than that obtained from the 1980 Needs Survey
data:
1980
Total eligible cost: $5.2 billion
with $3.9 billion grant share.
1982
Total eligible cost: $12.4 billion
with $9.3 billion grant share.
13
-------
6. Different funding patterns by category were assumed for FY 82-84:
Categories I,
II and IVB CSO I/I Other
1980 Needs Survey 70% 16% 2% 12%
1982 Needs Survey 86% 2% 3% 9%
E. Federal Funding Potential Qualifications
The 1982 Needs Survey includes an assessment of separate data
submitted by the States on facilities projected to be funded in phases or
segments, along with a preliminary analysis of the basic provisions that
affect Federal funding: reserve capacity, Federal share, eligible
categories, Governor's discretionary fund, combined sewer overflow
funding, funding authorization, and the allotment formula for fund
distribution. The estimate of Federal funding potential from the
combined 1982 Needs Survey data file and phased/segmented project list
was used to assess the potential Federal financial obligation due to the
1981 Amendments of the Clean Water Act. This analysis and its results,
nowever, are considered preliminary because of the various
interpretations of the definition of phased/segmented projects by the
States and the EPA Regions. The final construction grant regulations
will clarify the definition of "phased/segmented projects" and establish
criteria for funding new phased or segmented projects, based on the
legislative history of the 1981 Construction Grant Amendments. The
Administrator will review all grants for new phased or segmented projects
before the construction grant is awarded to ensure compliance with these
criteria. The 1984 Needs Survey will refine the "phased/segmented
project list" and the estimate of Federal funding potential.
V. COMPARISON OF RESULTS: 1982 and 1980 NEEDS SURVEYS
Table I shows the 1982 Needs Survey results compared with the 1980
Survey. Tne results of the two Surveys are consistent when the grants
awarded in the period 1980-1982 and the inflation of construction costs
experienced between surveys are taken into account.
19
-------
Table I
Comparison Of The 1982 and 1980 Needs Surveys
Year 2000 Needs
(1982 Dollars, in Billions)
1980
Survey
$39.3
2.9
6.8
21.1
24.4
45.2
$66.6
$139.7
1982
Survey
$36.9
2.6
4.7
20.7
17.8
35.7
$57.3
$118.4
Difference
$-2.4
-0.3
-2.1
-0.4
-6.6
-9.5
$-9.3
$-21.3
Needs Met By
Grant Awards
$6.3
0.2
0.5
0.8
1.5
0.3
$8.0
$9.6
Category
I & II (Treatment)
IIIA
Illb
IVA
IV8
Total I, II, IIIA
and IVB
Total I-V
Reasons for changes in year 2000 needs:
1. Quantified changes:
a. Grant awards since 1980 Needs Survey satisfied $9.6 billion
of needs.
D. $0.7 billion of needs were met by the approval
of ocean discharge waivers.
c. $0.3 billion of needs were met as a result of
advanced treatment review.
-------
e. CSO needs estimation procedures now address State designated
stream use classifications. In addition, more facility
plans were used in the estimating process.
Under Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act, municipal treatment
facilities discharging to marine waters are eligible to apply for waivers
of the secondary treatment standard. As of September 15, 1982, EPA had
approved 11 ocean discharge waivers and denied two applications. The
reduction in Category I need from the approval of these 11 applications
is approximately $0.7 billion. EPA is currently reviewing 17 additional
applications and expects to review several hundred more in FY 83 and
tnereafter. The 1984 Needs Survey will reflect the effects of decisions
on these applications.
Section 304(d)(4) of the Clean Water Act redefines secondary
treatment as follows:
"For the purposes of this subsection, such biological treatment
facilities as oxidation ponds, lagoons, and ditches and trickling
filters shall be deemed the equivalent of secondary treatment. The
Administrator shall provide guidance under paragraph (1) of this
subsection on design criteria for such facilities, taking into
account pollutant removal efficiencies and, consistent with the
objectives of the Act, assuring that water quality will not be
adversely affected by deeming such facilities as the equivalent of
secondary treatment."
EPA is preparing amendments to 40 CFR Part 133 to implement this new
statutory requirement. The potential cost savings from the above changes
cannot be assessed until final regulations are published. The 1984 Needs
Survey will reflect the secondary treatment cost savings.
Tne results of the EPA review of advanced treatment (AT) projects
were incorporated in the estimate of Category I and II needs. EPA, as
directed Dy Congress, reviews advanced treatment projects designed to
meet effluent standards more stringent than secondary, and with
incremental costs of $3 million or more beyond secondary, to ensure all
such projects will result in significant water quality and public health
improvements. Regional offices review advanced treatment projects with
incremental costs less than $3 million.
Tne advanced treatment reviews completed to date have resulted in
deferring or reducing the capacity of AT processes for some projects.
Tne cost estimates of the affected projects are thus reduced. The
overall impact of the AT reviews on the 1982 Needs Survey is a reduction
in needs estimates totaling $0.3 billion.
Tne 1982 Category V needs are 21 percent less than those estimated
in the 1980 Needs Survey, after adjustment for construction cost
increases since January 1, 1980. The reported costs are more realistic
than those reported in 1980. The primary reasons are the changes in the
needs estimating procedure and the use of approved facility plan
estimates.
21
-------
Tue CSO needs estimating procedure was modified in several ways.
For tue first time the estimation of needs was based on the required CSO
controls to maintain the State designated stream use classifications
linked to receiving stream segments. Also, this survey includes the cost
estimates of modification or expansion of existing dry-weather treatment
plants wnere sucn an approach was found to be cost effective. Only the
costs of separate wet weather facilities were reported in the 1978 and
19dO surveys. A more detailed explanation of the 1982 needs estimating
procedure can be found in Appendix A.
Acceptaole CSO facility plans provided the basis for 26 CSO areas
U.4 percent of the nation). The resultant $1.5 billion in needs is 4.2
percent of the 1982 Category V estimate. The 1980 estimate included
facility plan estimates for Chicago and San Francisco only. The
remainder of the 1982 CSO estimate was based on the needs estimating
model.
EPA corrected and completed an inventory of combined sewer areas in
tue 1982 Needs Survey. The reported combined sewer acreage increased by
8 percent to 2.8 million acres as a result. Overall population served by
combined sewers increased by 2 percent to about 43.2 million people
because previously undetected combined sewer service areas in the New
YorK metropolitan area were identified.
Tne revised inventory comprises 1,081 CSO facilities, 337
(31 percent) of which are in urbanized areas representing about 73
percent of the national CSO area, 86 percent of the national CSO
population, and 73 percent of the nationwide 1982 CSO need.
VI. QUALITY OF FACILITY ESTIMATES: CATEGORIES I-V
The quality of cost estimates in this Survey has improved over
earlier surveys because of the upgraded quality of technical data
supporting the costs.
The reliability of cost estimates depends upon many factors. Highly
accurate cost data can be obtained only if treatment facilities have been
planned and designed adequately to meet projected water quality
requirements. EPA studied a large number of wastewater treatment plants
tnat used a variety of treatment technologies. Using these data, EPA
developed cost estimating procedures which were used in the cost
estimating process when better quality data were not available. Actual
recent cost experience in sewer construction and installation was studied
as well. EPA also developed cost estimating procedures and rules of
thumb for pipe costs when better data were not available. Approximately
29 percent of the facilities were estimated by EPA cost curves.
Differences in local construction costs were recognized by
establishing two cost multipliers for each of 30 areas of the United
States. One multiplier was used for estimating treatment costs and the
other for sewer costs.
22
-------
Tiie cost estimates for Categories I, II, and IVB (treatment plants
and interceptors) are considered most accurate because of the extensive
construction cost data collected for these facilities. The cost
estimates for Categories IIIA, IIIB, and V (infiltration/inflow,
rehabilitation and combined sewer overflow), while improved, are not as
accurate as those for the other categories.
Numerous infiltration/inflow studies and rules of thumb based on
experience to date have resulted in a substantial improvement in the
Category IIIA estimates. EPA accepted need estimates for
infiltration/inflow correction only when the estimates could be
documented by facility plans or by engineering studies. In some cases
costs of correction of infiltration/inflow can be traded off against
treatment costs.
Tne estimated repair cost of sewers (Category IIIB) is uncertain
because many sewers cannot be routinely inspected. Thus, the nature and
magnitude of sewer structural deficiencies are unknown until actual sewer
collapse, a relatively common event in older cities. The need for this
category resulted mainly from both operation and maintenance deficiencies
and the many sewer systems that have already exceeded their expected
piiysical lives of 50 to 100 years.
Category IVA (new collector sewers) cost estimates have improved
since 1980. The quality of estimates in this category depends partly on
assumptions concerning 1972 and future populations. Category IVA needs
were limited to include provision for future populations of up to 1.5
times the 1^72 population requiring new sewers, as required by the
construction grants regulations. The blanket use of the 1.5 factor
results in a somewnat high estimate of eligible collector sewer costs
because it may allow, in some cases, for ineligible sewering of vacant
lots. Careful and detailed analysis of local conditions as required in
the facility planning process would likely reduce the estimated cost of
collector sewers eligible for construction grants below the estimate
reported in the 1982 Needs Survey. For this reason the year 2000
estimates in Category IVA are still considered high, while the backlog
estimates in this category are considered to be a more accurate but
slightly understated assessment of national need.
Category V (Control of Combined Sewer Overflow) estimates are
imprecise and difficult to develop because of variations in the size,
number and frequency of combined sewer overflows, characteristics of the
receiving waters, and uncertain and difficult to evaluate water quality
and water use effects of CSO pollution control measures. In many cases
the shortcoming of the combined sewer area inventory is that important
physical data about local conditions, such as the number and location of
overflow points and receiving water characteristics, are not available in
national studies or data files. As a result a modeling approach for
these cases was based on data collected and analyzed for 15 cities in the
23
-------
United States selected for their diverse wet weather conditions and data
availability. The results of these site studies were used to develop the model
parameters. These results, therefore, are not precise for individual cities
although the overall State and national estimates are considered realistic.
VII. TREATMENT AND/OR CONTROL OF STORMWATERS: CATEGORY VI
Tin's survey includes cost estimates for treating or controlling pollution
from separate storm sewers even though stormwater pollution control facilities
are not eligible for Federal grants. This additional cost category
(Category VI) includes the costs of abating pollution in the urbanized areas
from stormwater runoff channeled through sewers and other conveyances used only
for such runoff. Tne costs of abating pollution from stormwater channeled
through combined sewers are included in Category V.
The 1982 national stormwater treatment need to maintain the State
designated stream uses is estimated at $93.21 billion. The 1982 estimate is
32.6 percent less than the 1980 estimate to meet recreation use ($138.386 in
1982 dollars).
UnliKe previous surveys, the 1982 Survey presents Category VI estimates as
one composite cost for stormwater treatment required to maintain the State
designated stream use classifications linked to urbanized areas. Table J
presents the 1982 estimate by stream use classification.
Table J
Category VI Estimate by Generic Stream Use Objectives
(January 1932 Dollars, in Billions)
Level of Control
Aestnetics
Public Health
Fish and Wildlife
Recreation
Total
Generic Stream Use
Navigation
Agricultural Water Supply
Industrial Water Supply
Domestic Water Supply
Partial Body Contact Recreation
Noncontact Recreation
Warmwater Fisheries
Coldwater Fisheries
General Fish and Wildlife
General Recreation
Full Body Contact Recreation
Shellfish Protection
Percent
of Total^
n
3.60
19.61
69.96
$93.21
21%
75%
100%
24
-------
Tiie cost estimates for control of stormwater pollution vary greatly
depending upon how the problem is approached. Category VI cost
estimating methods are based on a uniform methodology similar to that
used to estimate CSO needs. However, the Category VI estimate is less
precise uecause data were not available during the 1982 Needs Survey to
verify the methodology for stormwater treatment and control.
VIII. PROGRESS TOWARDS A WATER-QUALITY BASED NEEDS SURVEY
Historically, the Needs Survey has been oriented toward
administrative and program overview matters related to estimating costs
of municipal treatment construction needed to comply with the enforceable
requirements of the Clean Water Act and to abate pollution from combined
sewer overflows. This focus reflects the joint efforts of EPA, the
States, and local authorities to satisfy a congressional mandate.
However, in response to growing interest in targeting limited municipal
construction dollars to facilities that result in the greatest water
quality and public health improvements, the 1984 Needs Survey is being
planned to assess water quality and related water use effects of needed
municipal facilities.
Although not implemented in the 1982 Survey, a prototype system was
developed to assess the water quality effects of the construction grants
program. This system can identify the impact of previously funded needs
and the remaining needs most critical to water quality and use
attainment. It uses the newly available Reach File, an automated file
developed by EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards to provide
trie framework for organizing data on all water bodies in this country.
Tne Reach File provides the key to integrating previously unrelated data
bases developed over the years by a broad range of State and Federal
agencies. Now linked to the Reach File are the STORET file of ambient
water quality data, tne U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) streamflow and
landforms data, the Industrial Facilities File (IFD), the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Services aquatic life survey data, the Grants Information and
Control System (GICS) award data, and the Drinking Water Supply file.
Two of tne major efforts were locating all existing and proposed
discnarging POTWs (over 21,000) on reaches and correlating all
State-delineated stream segments and associated water quality standards
to reaches.
A reach is a water segment that generally extends from one stream
junction to another. The Reach File includes unique stream reach, lake,
and estuarine shoreline segment identifiers appended to the accepted USGS
watershed subdivisions. This file is composed of some 61,000 stream
reaches and several thousand shoreline segments. The file also provides
streamflow estimates for each reach and the stream network and confluence
data.
25
-------
This work, completed during the 1902 Needs Survey, will provide the
foundation for linking municipal treatment facility needs with their
receiving water bodies and with expected environmental results. The
specific applications and modifications of the work will be proposed by
the 1984 EPA-Stdte Needs Survey Working Group and then submitted to all
States for approval.
IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Ttie 1982 Needs Survey is the best available estimate of the costs to
comply nationwide with the goals of the Clean Water Act. The Survey
reaffirms the fact that meeting the water quality goals of the Act will
require a substantial investment. For the fourth time in a Needs Survey,
the effects of the funds spent to date are noticeable in Categories I, II
and IV. The latest estimates reflect a better formulated and more
consistent survey methodology; more and better information from such
sources as new facility plans, basin plans, discharge permits, and the
reach file; and the further expansion of the survey to include all
facilities and to account for stream use.
The survey shows backlog needs of $23.9 billion for the treatment
categories, 64.8 percent of the year 2000 needs of $36.9 billion. The
backlog needs of $35.4 billion for Categories I, II, IIIA and IVB are
61.8 percent of the year 2000 needs of $57.3 billion. Overall, backlog
needs for categories I-V is $92.6 billion, 78.2 percent of the year 2000
needs of $118.4 billion.
Tne results of this survey show a decrease in needs from the 1980
needs survey. The needs for Categories I, II, IIIA and IVB have
decreased by $i).j billion, a decrease of 14 percent. The overall needs
for categories I-V have decreased by $21.3 billion since the 1980 Survey.
Grant awards have reduced backlog needs and year 2000 needs between
1980 and 1982. The net result is a reduction of 7.5 percent in backlog
needs and a reduction of 12.4 percent in the year 2000 needs since 1980.
Based on January 1982 dollars, new projects approved between the 1980 and
1^82 Surveys account for a reduction of more than $9 billion in the
present Survey estimate.
Year 2000 needs for treatment levels greater than secondary have
also dropped since the 1980 Survey. The reasons for this are the
increased attention focused on advanced treatment projects and on the
related water quality based effluent limitations. This has resulted in a
more detailed analysis of the need for advanced treatment facilities and
in dropping unnecessary treatment processes as a result of project
reviews. Compared with the 1980 Needs Survey, Category II needs are
reduced by 10.7 percent. Some advanced treatment projects funded during
the 1930-1982 period contributed to the reduction in Category II needs.
26
-------
Tiie 1932 Category V needs to correct combined sewer overflows are
21 percent less than those estimated in the 1980 Needs Survey. For the
first time, the 1982 needs were reported as one composite cost estimate
of tne most cost effective controls needed to maintain the State
designated stream use classification of the CSO receiving water. In
addition the 1982 reported costs are more realistic because they reflect
a niyher number of facility plan estimates.
Preliminary analysis of the 1982 Needs Survey data shows the Federal
funding potential is approximately $37.3 billion compared with the Agency
estimate of $36.3 billion when the 1981 Construction Grant Amendments
were enacted.
Advance work completed during the 1982 Needs Survey will provide the
foundation for linking treatment facilities with their receiving water
bodies and with water quality impacts in the 1984 Needs Survey. This
work developed an automated system that has the potential to assess State
and national progress in abating municipal water pollution as well as the
water quality and water use improvements from meeting remaining treatment
needs.
Basea on a requirement in the Conference Report on the FY 1983
Appropriations for HUD and Independent Agencies (P.L. 97-272), EPA will
provide Congress with a list of marine areas with CSO problems and the
estimated costs of correcting tnem by March 1, 1983.
In conclusion, the Survey results snow that the construction grants
program is making measurable progress toward meeting national needs for
municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
27
-------
APPENDIX A
HOW THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED
I. CATEGORIES I-IV: Treatment Plants and Sewers
A. Introduction
Tne estimate of needs for the 1902 Survey in Categories I-IV
is based on experience and data from previous Needs Surveys.
EPA, in consultation with a working group of State representatives,
determined that the Survey would be conducted for Categories I-IV on a
facility-by-facility basis as in 1978 and 1930. A consulting firm, URS,
was competitively selected to do the 1980 Survey, and EPA exercised the
option to extend the contract to augment the work effort available within
EPA and the States for the 1982 Survey. Survey guidance was prepared in
cooperation with tne States and was discussed in detail during meetings
witn the States at EPA regional offices. All data from the 1980 Survey
were preprinted on the Survey reporting forms as a starting point for the
1982 effort.
For the 1932 Needs Survey, URS not only updated the 1980 Needs
Survey file but also added new needs identified since the previous
survey. States were asked to review and comment on estimates and provide
assistance. The completed estimates were approved by the State and EPA,
suojected to a rigorous quality check, and entered into a computer file.
B. Survey Approach
The Survey approach taken for Categories I-IV, treatment plants and
sewers, was:
1. URS, the EPA consultant, conducted the Survey on a
facility-by-facility basis for Categories I-IV. The consultant's
personnel formulated the cost estimates.
2. Survey guidance and methodology were formulated for
Categories I-IV in draft and circulated to all parties involved in the
Survey. State comments were solicited and were reflected in the final
guidance.
J. While national uniformity of estimating procedures was a goal,
tne Survey accommodated the cost and construction differences in various
sections of the country where possible.
28
-------
The formal Survey began with three State/EPA work group meetings and
orientation meetings conducted in EPA Regional offices where logistics,
target dates, and individual State problems were discussed and resolved.
States were asked only to provide as many personnel for the Survey as
tney considered prudent, but were invited to participate fully in the
formal Survey field work. This field work was conducted in the spring,
summer, ana fall of 1982.
As estimates for Categories I-IV were completed, copies of the
estimates were reviewed by States on a facility-by-facility basis. When
EPA and State personnel could not agree on costs, States submitted
separate estimates which have been included in this report.
Facility estimates were reviewed and accepted and/or approved at
four levels: 1) contractor; 2) EPA regional office; 3) State; and 4) EPA
neadquarters. After machine preparation, data for Categories I-IV were
summarized for this report.
C. Survey Methodology: Operational Guidance for Categories I-IV
Operational guidance for the Survey was formulated jointly by EPA,
tne States, and the consultant. This guidance included the following
subjects:
1. Responsibilities of participants.
2. Target dates for project milestones, including the calendar for
the Survey and the consultant's contractural obligations.
3. Descriptions of all data sources to be provided to participants
to help complete the Survey.
4. Briefing schedules for participants.
5. Provisions for State and regional review of consultant's data
before it became final.
6. Definitions of terms for needs purposes. Standards were
established for definitions of secondary treatment, design year,
units of measurement, cost estimating, basis of cost estimate,
design flows, and infiltration/inflow reporting.
7. Specific guidelines for completing Survey forms.
8. EPA adjustments to the 1980 Needs data base prior to its use as
a starting point in 1982.
29
-------
9. Cost estimating procedures to be used when more reliable local
procedures were not available. These included estimating
procedures for treatment costs and new sewers, with factors
provided for determining cost variations in any of 30 areas near
major cities in the United States.
10. Interceptor sewer sizing tables.
As a result of meetings and other communications with all the States,
tne guidance was supplemented to include:
1. "Rules-of-thumb" for estimating needs based on best engineering
judgment. All of the participants understood that rules-of-thumb
would be used only when better information was not available.
For example:
a. Per capita domestic and commercial flows were allowed
consistent with the construction grant regulations.
b. Collector sewer length was limited to 16 feet per capita of
unsewered population. Interceptor sewer length was
determined based on a formula that included size and density
of population.
2. A procedure for designating the basis of cost estimates.
3. Additional national cost data showing capital costs for:
a. filtration;
b. lagoons;
c. cnlori nation.
4. Procedures for estimating backlog needs for all categories.
5. Instructions for reconciliation of population estimates.
6. Guidance for estimation of collector sewer costs.
7. Information on grant eligibilities for land costs.
8. Guidance for estimating infiltration/inflow (I/I) analysis costs.
9. Small cluster and individual onsite treatment systems.
D. Basis of Cost Estimate for Categories I-IV
All individual cost estimates for Categories I-IV of the Survey were
accompanied by a basis of cost estimate so that the quality of the
estimate could be determined. EPA has determined that the quality of
cost estimates generally can be ranked from high to low as follows:
30
-------
1. Consultant/Engineer final estimate;
2. Consultant/Engineer preliminary estimate;
3. Cost-effectiveness analysis;
4. Cost of previous comparable construction;
5. EPA-supplied cost estimating procedures;
6. State-supplied cost estimating procedures;
7. Rough estimates.
Taole 42 shows the percent of State needs reported by basis of
estimate. Table 43 shows the relative quality of estimates by Needs
Survey category. Note that three bases of estimate (State certification,
analysis completed, and evaluation survey completed), refer to Category
III (infiltration/inflow correction and major sewer rehabilitation) needs
only, and do not apply to other categories.
Tnese tables show that the quality of the cost estimates in the 1980
Survey is substantially higher than that for the 1978 survey, when 37
percent of needs were based on EPA-supplied cost curves.
E. Data Sources for Categories I-IV
1. Many types of data and data sources were used in the Survey.
Major data types are:
a. Population (year 2000 and present);
D. Total flow (average, current design, and projected year 2000
design);
c. Industrial flow (average, current design, and projected year
2000 design);
d. Biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids concentrations
(average, current design, and projected year 2000 design);
e. Ammonia and phosphorus removal requirements (average, current
design and projected 2000 design);
f. Treatment methods;
g. Sludge handling and treatment methods;
n. Level of treatment required.
31
-------
2. The sources of these data were:
a. 1980 Needs Survey;
b. Facility plans (201 Step I plans);
c. NPDES applications and permits;
d. Grant application files;
e. Grant files and Grants Information and Control System data;
f. Regional and/or basin plans (208 and 303 plans);
g. Other engineering plans or reports;
n. State water quality standards.
F. Survey Preparation
The 1982 Survey form was generated by computer, showing the 1980
data of record and adjusted for cost escalation and new rules governing
tne 1902 Needs Survey data for each facility. Once the revised cost
estimates were recorded on Survey forms for each facility, copies of the
completed forms were provided for all parties participating in the
Survey, primarily for State review and revision. The forms were then
used to record the updated 1982 Needs Survey figures.
Census data for 1980 and Bureau of Economic Analysis (Department of
Commerce) year 2000 population projections were used as State ceilings.
State population totals were not permitted to exceed these ceilings.
As Survey forms were completed, they were double checked by EPA for
the accuracy of the data collected and submitted. Each State was then
given the opportunity to review and comment on the revised data and to
review tne total cost estimates for the State.
Where cost estimate differences were not resolved, States submitted
independent cost estimates on the form. Few independent State estimates
were required.
II. CATEGORY V: Control of Combined Sewer Overflows
A. Background and General Approach
Work on Categories V and VI was undertaken by the URS Company and
its subcontractor CH2M Hill with help from EPA and the States. Category
V needs estimates were derived from a computerized cost estimating
32
-------
program that incorporates cost, water quality data and algorithms
reported in approved combined sewer overflow abatement facility plans or
generated by 15 site studies conducted in cities with diverse wet weather
conditions and data availability. This general approach for 1982 was
similar to the approach used in 1980.
The Wet Weather Data File, which contains information on each
combined sewer system and urbanized area in the nation, was updated and
enhanced as part of the 1982 Needs Survey. This file contains the
following types of information for each combined sewer facility:
1. Location;
2. Sewer system characteristics;
3. Receiving water characteristics;
4. Annual rainfall and runoff coefficients;
5. Status of CSO correction planning;
6. Grant information;
7. Grant eligible cost estimates.
An important addition to this file during 1982 was the receiving
water reach number which identified the water segment receiving the
combined sewer overflow and that segment receiving the storm drainage
from urbanized areas. The reach number provides a linkage to the U.S.
EPA Reach File, which contains hydrologic data, as well as to the stream
use classifications and water quality standards data files, which provide
information on receiving water designated use.
Other information for the Wet Weather Data File update was obtained
from State and local engineering reports, including facility plans and
otner planning documents. Needs met information, i.e., grant awards, was
obtained from the Grants Information and Control File.
B. Needs Estimation Procedure for Category V
Once the update of data was complete, Category V needs were
estimated for each facility for four different levels of control. These
control levels were:
1. Aesthetics;
2. Public Health;
3. Fisn and Wildlife;
4. Recreation.
33
-------
If an adequate facility plan estimate was available for a given
facility, this estimate was used as the basis for establishing Category V
needs. Otherwise, Category V needs were established based on one of the
four control levels listed above. The control level chosen was a
function of the designated receiving water use for the receiving
segment. This linkage of Category V needs reported to Congress to
receiving water designated use is the major change from the 1980 Category
V needs estimating procedure. In 1980, needs reported to Congress were
based on the recreation level of control.
Category V needs were estimated by a two-step procedure. First,
needs for all combined sewer systems located in urbanized areas were'
estimated by the Needs Estimation Program, 1982 Version (NEP82). This
program estimates both Category V and VI needs for each of 320 urbanized
areas in the United States based on site-specific conditions. These
site-specific conditions include the combined sewer service area, the
population served by combined sewers, the total area and population of
the urbanized area, the total annual rainfall, and the receiving water
type and characteristics as well as local construction cost factors.
NEP82 develops cost estimates for each of the four control levels
discussed above. These estimates are then applied to each CSO facility
located witnin each urbanized area.
Tne cost data generated by NEP82 were used to develop regression
equations relating capital cost for each level of control to the combined
sewer service area and population served by combined sewers. Next, these
regression equations were used to develop needs estimates for each
combined sewer facility located outside of urbanized areas. Receiving
water use information was then used to select the most appropriate level
of control and resulting needs for each individual CSO facility.
The pollutant removal objectives and technologies used to develop
Category V cost estimates for four levels of control are described as
follows:
1. Aesthetics
The objectives of the Aesthetics level of control are to remove
fleatables, coarse debris, and 40 percent of the annual BOD and SS load
generated by a comoined sewer system. The Aesthetics level is considered
tne minimum level of control necessary to allow limited noncontact
recreational uses of the waters. This level is used as a basis for
estimating CSO control needs when the primary receiving water use is
navigation or agricultural or industrial raw water supply.
Studies conducted in previous Needs Surveys indicated that the least
costly mix of technologies required to achieve an overall 40 percent
reduction in CSO pollution loads is a combination of combined sewer
flusning and a storage/treatment system utilizing physical/chemical
treatment. Aesthetics control level cost estimates are, therefore, based
on these approaches.
34
-------
2. Public Health
The objective of the public health level of control is to remove 90
percent of the annual fecal coliform load generated by a combined sewer
system. This level of control is chosen for Category V needs estimating
purposes when the limiting receiving water use is domestic water supply,
partial body contact recreation, or noncontact recreation.
Category V Public Health level cost estimates are based on an
optimum combination of CSO storage with pumping and chlorination of the
discnarge sized to capture and kill 90 percent of the fecal coliform
bacteria generated by the combined sewer system. This level of control
will also result in significant reductions in annual BOD and SS loads due
to the sedimentation achieved in the storage facility.
3. Fish and Wildlife
The objective of the Fish and Wildlife level of control is to
achieve and maintain a viable fishery in the receiving water. CSO
pollutant removal requirements for BOD and SS are estimated by NEP82 for
each urbanized area, considering all dry-weather pollutant loads
generated by the uroanized area as well as the characteristics of the
receiving water. The estimation of required pollutant removal is based
on the results of site-specific studies conducted in previous Needs
Surveys and may vary from a minimum of 40 percent to a maximum of 90
percent for areawide wet-weather loads. This level of control is chosen
for Category V needs estimating purposes when the limiting receiving
water use is aquatic fish and wildlife support for either warm or cold
water fisheries.
Once the CSO pollutant removal requirements are established, an
optimization procedure based on production theory and marginal cost
analysis is used to identify the optimum mix of CSO control technologies
that will meet these requirements. Control technologies considered
include streetsweeping, combined sewer flushing, and storage/treatment
systems. In addition CSO treatment options considered include five
different levels of physical/chemical treatment as well as four different
alternatives for modification, expansion, and upgrade of existing
oiolo9ical wastewater treatment plants. The optimization procedure will
select tne least costly combination of the above technologies that will
achieve the desired degree of CSO pollution control.
4. Recreation
The objective of the Recreation level of control is to provide
receiving water quality suitable for full body contact recreation as well
as for a viable fishery. Therefore, it is an increment above the Fish
and Wildlife control level. In addition to the CSO pollution removal
requirements for BOD and SS established by the Fish and Wildlife level
35
-------
calculations, the Recreation level will provide for a 95 percent
reduction in fecal coliform bacteria generated by the combined sewer
system. This level of control is chosen for Category V needs estimating
purposes when the limiting receiving water use is full body contact
recreation or shellfish protection.
Category V Recreation level cost estimates are based on an optimum
comoination of storage and treatment sized to capture and kill 95 percent
of the annual CSO fecal coliform load. The treatment option used is the
same as the treatment option selected in the Fish and Wildlife
calculations. Tnis ensures that BOD and SS removals required for fish
and wildlife protection will also be obtained at the Recreation level.
Combined Sewer Overflow Control Technologies
As discussed briefly above, a wide range of CSO control technologies
are considered in estimating Category V needs. These technologies can be
classified as Best Management Practices (BMPs) or structural controls.
BMPs are characterized by low capital costs and high operation and
maintenance costs. The BMPs considered in the 1982 Needs Survey include
streetsweeping and combined sewer flushing. The objective of
streetsweeping is to move street surface contaminants before they enter
the collection system and the objective of combined sewer flushing is to
transport accumulated collection system pollutants to the existing
dry-weather treatment plant. In both cases pollutants are removed from
the combined sewer watershed and are, therefore, unavailable for washoff
to the receiving water during rainfall/runoff events.
The structural CSO controls considered are wet-weather treatment
systems which include facilities to intercept, store, and treat CSO
before it enters the receiving water. Wet-weather intercepts are, in
general, required to collect the CSO at individual overflow points and to
transport the intercepted flow to central storage facilities. The types
of storage facilities considered are lined earthen basins, open concrete
tanKs, and closed concrete tanks. Lined earthen basins are used in areas
of low population density, wnereas open and closed concrete tanks are
used in areas with higher population density. In any case, cost
estimates for CSO storage include an allowance for aeration conditions
and for facilitating cleanout during dry weather.
Treatment options considered in the Category V needs estimating
procedure include construction of new physical/chemical treatment
facilities designed to treat CSO only, and modification, expansion,
and/or upgrade of existing dry-weather biological treatment facilities
designed to treat both dry-weather flow and CSO. A total of nine
different treatment levels are considered. The first five levels are
physical/chemical treatment systems and the remaining four levels are
various dry-chemical treatment system modifications. The nine treatment
levels are:
36
-------
Level 1 - Effluent Pumping (from storage);
Level 2 - Pumping/Microscreening;
Level 3 - Pumping/Microscreening/Flocculation-Sedimentation;
Level 4 - Pumping/Microscreening/Flocculation-Dissolved Air
Flotation;
Level 5 - Pumping/Microscreening/Flocculation-Dissolved Air
Flotation/High-Rate Fil tration;
Level 6 - Series/Parallel Modification of Secondary WWTP;
Level 7 - Enlargement of Secondary WWTP;
Level 8 - Enlargement and Upgrade of Secondary WWTP to AST;
Level 9 - Enlargement and Upgrade of Secondary WWTP to AT.
Level 1 treatment relies on the sedimentation and aeration provided
oy the CSO storage facility for pollutant removal and is, therefore,
applicable only where required removals are small. Levels 2 through 5
provide increasing overall pollutant removal efficiency, using more
sopnisticated physical/chemical treatment systems.
Treatment Level 6 consists of relatively minor modification of
existing WWTPs to double peak hydraulic capacity during wet weather.
These modifications will allow the primary portion of the plant to
operate in parallel with the secondary portion of the plant, thus
increasing peak hydraulic capacity at very little cost. However,
pollutant removal efficiencies are greatly reduced.
Treatment Levels 7, 8, and 9 all involve enlargement or enlargement
and upgrade of existing dry-weather facilities to develop additional
capacity to treat wet-weather flows. All processes in the treatment
train operate in series.
Economic Optimization
Tne economic optimization portion of the Category V needs estimating
procedure identifies the technology or mix of technologies from those
discussed above that will achieve the desired level of pollution control
at the least cost. The economic optimization procedures are based on
production theory, where the optimum solution will vary with
site-specific conditions, such as size and population density of the
combined sewer service area as well as the required pollutant removal.
Because CSO flows are.intermittent and highly variable, it is almost
always more cost effective to construct storage facilities along with
treatment facilities rather than to construct treatment facilities
alone. If storage were not provided, the required treatment capacity
would be sized very large to handle peak flows.
37
-------
Sewer Separation
A CSO control technology which is available but is not considered
directly in the economic optimization procedure is separation of the
combined sewer system so that combined sewers no longer exist. As a
final step in the needs estimation procedures the cost of sewer
separation is compared to the cost of the optimum combination of BMPs and
storage/treatment systems. If sewer separation is less expensive, then
Category V needs for that facility are based on the cost of sewer
separation.
III. Category VI: Control of Urban Stormwater Runoff
Category VI needs estimates were generated by NEP82 for each
urbanized area in the United States. These needs estimates were computed
using an approach similar to that used to provide Category V (CSO)
urbanized area needs. Category VI costs were developed for each of the
four levels defined for CSO control. However, some of the technologies
considered in CSO control are not applicable to stormwater runoff
control. These include combined sewer flushing and modification, sewer
separation, and expansion and/or upgrade of existing biological treatment
facilities. With these exceptions needs estimates and procedures
developed for Category VI closely parallel those for Category V described
in of Appendix A.
Tne cost estimates by State and Territory are based on regulations
for the application of the NPDES permit program for separate storm sewers
published in the Federal Register of March 18, 1976. In these
regulations the term "separate storm sewer" is defined as "conveyance or
system of conveyance . . . located in an urbanized area and primarily
operated for the purpose of collecting and conveying stormwater runoff."
In accordance with this guideline, the geographical areas that require
control and/or treatment of stormwater runoff are urbanized areas of the
nation as defined by the U.S. Bureau of Census. The specific criteria
for the delineation of an urbanized area are as follows:
o A central city of 50,000 inhabitants or more, or twin cities
with a combined population of at least 50,000, and with the
smaller of the twin cities having a population of at least
15,000; and
o Surrounding closely settled territory.
38
-------
APPENDIX B
Reasons for Separate State Estimates
Categories I-VI
Before completion of estimates, all Survey forms were sent to the States
for review and comment. States were encouraged to provide as much additional
information as possible to secure the best available estimates. Where EPA and
State estimates differed, an attempt was made to resolve the differences. To
achieve the most accurate and nationally consistent cost estimates, adherence
to the Survey guidelines and rules-of-thumb as formulated by the EPA/State
Needs Survey Working Group was enforced. Where agreement on specific
estimates could not be reached between EPA and State personnel, separate
estimates were submitted by States.
Of approximately 463,753 possible estimates, 41 separate estimates
(0.008 percent) were submitted by States. Most of these estimates were based
on State-developed cost curves or State population projections that exceed
allowable ceilings. Other reasons for separate estimates included
disagreement on allocation of dollars between Categories I-IV versus Category
V, inclusion of ineligible facilities, and differing inflation factors.
39
-------
APPENDIX C
Summary Tables
Cost data from the 1962 Needs Survey are presented in summary tables
included in this appendix. The following tables show costs by State and
U.S. totals:
Table 1: EPA Assessments of Backlog Costs by Category,
Categories I-V.
Table 2: Independent State Assessment of Backlog Needs by
Categories I-V.
Table 3: Number of Independent State Backlog Assessments
Different from EPA Backlog Assessments.
Table 4: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of
Backlog Needs, Categories I-IV.
Table 5: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Backlog
Needs, Category V.
Table 6: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Backlog
Needs, Category VI.
Table 7: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Backlog
Needs for Treatment Plants, Categories I, IIA and I IB.
Table 8: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Backlog
Needs for Categories I, IIA, IIB, IIIA, and IVB.
Table 9: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Backlog
Needs for Category I.
Table 10: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Backlog
Needs for Categories IIA and I IB.
Table 11: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Backlog
Needs for Category IIIA.
Table 12: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Backlog
Needs for Category IIIB.
Table 13: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Backlog
Needs for Category IVA.
Table 14: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Backlog
Needs for Category IVB.
40
-------
Table 15: 1932 EPA Assessment of Category V Needs by Basis of
Estimate.
Taole 16: Comparison of Current and Year 2000 and Per Capita
Backlog Costs, Categories I-IV.
V
Table 17: Per Capita Backlog Estimate, Category V.
Table 18: Comparison of Current and Year 2000 Per Capita Backlog
Costs, Categories I, IIA, IIB, IIIA, and IVB.
Table 19: Comparison of Current and Year 2000 Per Capita Backlog
costs, Categories I, IIA, IIB.
Table 20: Current Per Capita Backlog Costs by Categories I-IV.
Table £1: 1982 EPA Assessments of Year 2000 Needs by Categories
I-IV.
Taole 22: Independent State Estimates of Year 2000 Needs by
Categories I-IV.
Table 23: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessment of Year
2000 Needs, Categories I-IV.
Table 24: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Year
2000 Needs for Treatment Plants, Categories I, IIA,
and IIB.
Taole 25: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Year
2000 Needs for Categories I, IIA, IIB, IIIA, and IVB.
Table 26: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Year
2000 Needs for Category I.
Taole 27: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Year
2000 Needs for Category IIA and IIB.
Taole 28: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Year
2000 Needs for Category IIIA.
Taole 29: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Year
2000 Needs for Category 11 IB.
Table 30: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Year
2000 Needs for Category IVA.
41
-------
Table 31: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Year
2000 Needs for Category IVB.
Table 32: Comparison of 1982 and 1980 EPA Assessments of Per
Capita Costs for Year 2000 Needs, Categories I-IV.
Taole 33: Comparison of 1982 EPA Dollar Assessments with State
Dollar Assessments for Categories I-V.
Table 34: Comparison of 1982 EPA and State Estimates, Categories
I, IIA, and IIB.
Table 35: Comparison of 1982 EPA and State Estimates, Category
IIIA.
Table 36: Comparison of 1982 EPA and State Estimates, Category
IVB.
Table 37: Comparison of Year 2000 Needs and 1982 Backlog Needs,
Categories I-IV.
Table 38: Comparison of Year 2000 Needs and 1982 Backlog Needs,
Categories I, IIA and IIB.
Table 39: Comparison of Year 2000 Needs and 1982 Backlog Needs,
Categories I, IIA, IIB, IIIA, and IVB.
Table 40: Number of EPA Cost Assessments by Categories I-V.
Table 41: Number of Facilities Evaluated in Independent State
Assessments Compared to EPA Assessments.
Table 42: Percent of Dollar Needs by Basis of Cost Estimate and
by State.
Table 43: Percent of National Needs by Basis of Cost Estimate.
42
-------
DECEMBER 31. 1982
1
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
OFLAWAHE
f>IST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KFNTUCKY
LOUISIANA
M»HTI AND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NFBPASKA
NEVADA
AIF» HAMPSHIRE
NFW JERSEY
NF* MLXICO
NFW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NOrtTM DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PFNNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TFXAS
UTAH
VFRMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
SNA*
MARIANAS GROUP
PUkRTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIHGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1962 NEEDS SUHVEY
EPA ASSESSMENTS OF BACKLOG NEEDS BY CATEGORY
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
MILLIONS OF 19»i DOLLARS
TOTAL
CATEGORIES 1 THRU V
80A
249
277
288
3.20*
193
1.932
372
83
2.277
1.269
333
323
3.531
3.704
1.153
855
2.499
791
1.320
830
4.747
4,523
1.105
509
2.316
235
232
109
1.159
5.*26
121
16.12H
1.070
3?
6.125
?75
1.274
5.354
627
67?
129
1.452
2.053
211
475
1,*6«
2.766
2.437
1.841
69
36
111
39
954
75
26
25ft
100
115
122
986
117
323
19
0
808
262
76
87
322
221
396
155
294
205
164
106
1.233
9B3
353
230
643
27
130
38
225
1.8*7
73
3.790
300
12
693
105
94
903
173
129
65
300
833
94
A4
483
46S
358
517
39
13
8
9
174
40
10
IIA
65
0
0
17
24
3
39
4
0
71
128
0
4
507
108
76
0
83
6
1
227
85
194
62
42
1
1
0
17
2
181
0
122
94
0
393
4
20
169
12
25
7
125
97
37
19
31
3
19
86
I IB
14
25
6
17
28
12
2
0
0
0
6
2
97
0
56
32
0
69
1
3
1
I A
8T
2
1
IB
61
S
23
0
6
77
93
0
7
17S
47
85
»9
10*
76
17
13
20
73
28
55
37
1
0
2
9
226
0
186
84
0
13*
13
71
15
2
76
2
153
1«1
11
7
1H
us
4
32
1
1
III B
4
0
0
2
156
1
16
2
0
0
14
17
2
55
3
1
21
5
15
6
130
18
99
17
0
49
0
1
3
4
2
0
3.759
0
0
21
9
17
0
29
0
0
3
29
0
3
i
6?
2
79
1
IV A
296
84
133
92
J.097
19
550
32
0
870
231
m
77
180
2*7
109
97
39ft
333
196
225
806
506
128
115
209
34
20
33
264
440
37
2.327
404
2
669
84
313
1.31S
153
266
2
39ft
418
48
69
390
52ft
699
210
2
6
7
15
329
23
12
iv a
73
43
27
31
286
3
198
19
0
370
123
48
28
191
107
56
137
161
153
102
51
574
479
182
61
326
6
7
6
206
614
9
765
151
3
464
55
ftl
2ft8
77
169
4
120
464
17
29
230
284
183
5*6
3
15
1
13
2*5
10
3
0
18
0
0
565
41
775
292
68
8
414
0
116
2.096
2.967
426
393
1.450
0
829
75
1.990
2.157
320
0
1.047
164
72
0
443
2.015
0
5.620
2
13
3.878
0
674
2.646
177
0
43
346
21
2
261
Z7«
1.292
1.167
369
18
17
92.595
20.137
3.245
528
2.550
4.691
16.769
8.933
35.739
NOTF: SUM OF ENTRIES MAY NOT EQUAL TOTALS DUE TO ROUND-OFFS
43
-------
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
INDEPENDENT STATE ASSESSMENT OF BACKLOG NEEDS BY CATEGORY
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
MILLIONS OF 1982 DOLLAHS
DECEMBER 31t 1982
TAbLE 2
TOTAL
800
249
277
288
3.343
193
1.932
372
83
2.277
1.269
333
323
3.531
3.704
1.153
855
2.499
791
1.320
830
4.747
4.523
1.105
509
2.316
235
232
109
1.159
5.426
121
16.128
1.070
32
6.325
275
1.274
5.35*
627
672
129
1.452
2.060
211
475
1,*
-------
DECEMBER 31 1942
TABLE 3
198? NEFOS suftvEY
NUMBER OF INDEPENDENT STATE BACKLOG ASSESSMENTS
DIFFERENT FROM EPA BACKLOG ASSESSMENTS
STATE TOTAL CAT I CAT IIA CAT I IB CAT II I A CAT 1 1 IB CAT IVA CAT IVB CAT V
CALIFORNIA 1
TFXAS 21
US TOTALS ii 3
TFXAS 21 3 ,8
i 18
45
-------
DECEMBER 31t 1982
TABLE 4
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORAftO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
nlST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH OAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TFRH.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1982 NEEDS SUMVEY
COMPARISON OF 1982 AND 1080 EPA ASSESSMENTS OF BACKLOG NEEDS
FOK CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED WASTEWATFR TREATMENT FACILITIES
THOUSANDS OF 19<»2 DOLLARS
CATEGORIES l_lBRflUfia_iy.
1980
BACKLOGS
622,228
3S2.102
2T7.322
307,371
3<9?1.805
258,917
1.03H.700
120,694
?6,»66
2.353,974
712,765
S?0,205
252.055
1,966,945
875,619
807,002
567,352
1.003,173
721.613
5*7,056
2.825, SHO
2*5*0.800
2*735.081
952.143
570,837
1.553.1*6
49.930
176.482
127.058
762,256
2.650,511
105.057
11.048.834
1.147,516
17,965
2.356,088
346,400
594,208
2.676,834
634, 590
4A5.1B6
90,241
1,056,754
1.607,3^6
309.097
2*3.767
1.208,0*7
1.312.136
1. 051,680
1.734,762
47.966
56.425
22.993
42.216
9S3.565
84,017
41, 6*4
COSTS
1982
BACKLOGS
800,647
230.873
277,270
2HH.310
2.638.685
151.755
1.157.181
79.974
15.509
2.268.938
054.674
333.987
207.267
1,435.815
737.378
726,947
462.074
1,048.918
791.031
490,936
755.401
2.757,337
Z, 365.964
784.948
50V. 129
1.268,912
71,244
159,461
109,469
715,555
3,410.822
121,219
10.508.152
1,067.162
19.261
2.446.629
275.988
600.329
2*707,936
450.076
672.075
AS. 331
1,105.187
2,031,650
209.262
214,466
1,189,868
1,474,119
1.269.492
1.472.344
SO. 587
36.234
18.533
39,557
7*2.611
75.562
26.416
PERCENTAGE OF NATIONA
CHANGE
178.419
-121.229
-52
-19,061
-1.283.120
-107.162
118,481
-40,720
-10,957
-85.036
141.909
-186.210
-44,788
-531.130
-138.241
-80,ObS
-105.278
45,745
69.418
-56.120
-2.070.179
176.537
-369,117
-167,195
-61,70*
-284.234
21.314
-17.021
-17.589
-46.701
760,241
16,162
-540,682
-80,354
1.296
90.541
-70.412
6.121
31.102
-184,514
1K6.A89
-4,410
48,433
424.292
-99,835
-9,301
-18,199
1M.96J
217.812
-262.418
2.621
-20.191
-4,460
-2.659
-170,954
-8.455
-15.238
1980
BACKLOGS
1.0118
0.5725
0.4509
0.4998
6.3776
0.4210
1.6891
0.1962
0.0430
3.8280
1.1591
0.8459
0.4098
3.1986
1.4239
1.3123
0.9226
1.6313
1.1734
0.8896
4.5949
4.1969
4.4478
1.5483
0.9283
2.5257
0.08H
0.2869
0.2066
1.2395
4.3104
0.1708
17.9677
1.8661
0.0292
3.8.114
0.5633
0.9663
4.3530
1.0319
0.7K90
0.1467
1.718S
2.A139
0.5026
0.3638
1.9645
2.1338
1.7102
2.8210
0.0780
0.0917
0.0373
0.0686
1.S506
0.1366
0.0677
1982
BACKLOGS
1.4081
0.4060
0.4876
0.5070
4.6409
0.2669
2.0352
0.1406
0.0272
3.9906
1.5032
0.5874
0.3645
2.5253
1.2969
1.278S
0.8127
1.8448
1.3912
0.8634
1.3286
4.8496
4.1612
1.3805
0.8954
2.2317
0.1253
0.2804
0.1925
1.2585
S.9990
0.2132
18.4818
1.8769
0.0338
4.3031
0.4854
1.0558
4.7627
0.7916
1.1820
0.1500
1.9438
3.5732
0.3680
0.3772
2.0927
2.S927
2.2328
2.5895
0.0889
0.0637
0.0325
0.0695
1.3764
0.1328
0.0464
61*492,634 56,856*457 -4.636,177
100.0000
100.0000
CHANGE
0.3963
-0.1665
0.0366
0.0072
-1.7367
-0.1541
0.3461
-0.0556
-0.0157
0.162S
0.3441
-0.2585
-0.0453
-0.6733
-0.1270
-0.0337
-0.1099
0.2134
0.2177
-0.0261
-3.2663
0.6527
-0.2865
-0.1678
-0.0328
-0.2939
0.0441
-0.0065
-0.0140
0.0189
1.6886
0.0423
0.5141
0.0108
0.0046
0.4716
-0.0779
0.0895
0.4096
-0.2403
0.3930
0.0033
0.2253
0.9593
-0.1346
0.0133
0.1281
0.4588
0.5225
-0.2315
0.0109
-0.0280
-0.0047
0.0009
-0.1742
-0.0037
-0.0212
0.0000
46
-------
STATE
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNFCTICUT
DFLAWARF
HIST. OF COLUMHU
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KFNTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MA INF
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNFSOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NFBPASKA
NFVADA
NFta HAMPSHIRE
NFW JFHSEY
NFW YORK
NOxTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OHF60N
PFVNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOIJTH DAKOTA
TFNHFSSF.E
TF««S
UTAH
HASH!N(,TON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AKFHICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
fuFRTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
19R2 NEEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF 1980 AND 19R2 ASSESSMENT OF
BACKLOG NEEDS, CATFGOHY v.
THOUSANDS OF 1982 DOLLARS
COSTS
DECEMBER 31, 1982
TABLE s
PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL TOTALS
1940 EPA
ESTIMATE
0
18,008
0
0
636,4*5
47,663
799.636
28*. 566
509.916
7,33*
395,779
0
107,155
2.T17.?71
3.561,855
359,701
167,38*
1,000,77*
0
1.160,725
98,127
2, S3*. 376
2. 26*. 938
391, 2b2
0
990, »H8
17?.?79
103, 558
0
513.785
3.423.762
0
9,llfl,M3
7. Ob*
38.303
3.695.196
0
33?. 57*
5.154.005
448,607
0
91.793
272. 74H
?7,38b
5
76S.812
S17.944
1.03I.M06
982.385
472.378
19.3*6
0
0
0
3*. 920
0
0
19R2 EPA
ASSESSMENT
0
18,388
0
0
565,957
41,547
775,272
2<*?,110
60.119
8.526
*1*.737
0
116,380
2,096,022
2,967,239
*26,592
393.061
1.450. 892
0
829,562
75,1*1
1.990.374
2.157.457
320.721
0
1.047.436
164,019
72.783
0
443,78*
2,015,494
0
5,620,385
2.9*3
13.331
1.878.731
0
67*. 022
?.«4«S,113
177.61?
0
43.A97
34o,8»0
?1.429
?.S97
261,494
27H.*»o
i.29,».*35
1.167.555
369,650
18.687
0
0
0
171.557
0
0
CHANGE
0
-520
0
0
-70.488
-56.116
-24.36*
7.5**
-**1,797
1.191
18.958
0
9.225
-621.2*9
-594.616
66.891
25.677
450,1 Id
0
-331.163
-22.986
-544.00?
-107,481
-69.531
0
SA,9*A
-M.260
-30.77S
n
-69,997
-1.40R.268
0
-3.490.12N
-4,111
-24,972
lB3.b3S
0
3*1.448
-2.707.892
-270.995
0
-37.896
74,092
-5.V5A
2.59?
-4.31H
-250,304
260,f>29
185.17(1
-102.728
-659
0
0
0
136.637
0
0
1980 EPA
ESTIMATE
0
0.0*16
0
0
1.4068
0.2158
1.7676
0.6289
1.1271
0.0161
0.87*8
0
0.236T
6.0069
7.87*0
0.7950
0.8120
2.2123
0
2.5659
0.2168
5.6026
5.0069
0.8626
0
2.1895
0.3807
0.2288
0
1.1357
7.S688
0
20.1*05
0.015*
0.08*5
8.1688
0
0.7351
11.8359
0.9916
0
0.1807
0.6028
O.OO04
0.0111
0.5875
1.1891
2.2H09
2.1716
1.0*41
0.0*26
0
0
0
0.0770
0
0
1982 EPA
ASSESSMENT
0.0000
0.0515
0.0000
0.0000
1.5836
0.1162
2.1692
0.8173
0.1906
0.0239
1.160*
0.0000
0.3256
5.86*7
8.302*
1.1436
1.0998
4.0596
0.0000
2.3211
0.2102
5.5691
6.0366
0.897*
0.0000
2.9307
0.4S89
0.2036
0.0000
1.2417
5.639*
0.0000
15.7260
0.0082
0.0373
10.8528
0.0000
1.8859
7.4039
0.4970
0.0000
0.1228
0.9705
0.0600
0.0073
0.7317
0.7796
3.M63
3.2668
1.03*3
0.0523
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.4800
0.0000
0.0000
CHANGE
0
0.0099
0
0
0.1768
-.0996
O.*016
0.1BB*
-.9365
0.0078
0.2856
0
0.0889
-.1*22
0.4284
0.3986
0.2878
1.8*73
0
-.2448
-.0066
-.0335
1.0297
0.03*8
0
0.7*12
0.0782
-.0252
0
0.1060
-1.929
o
-4.415
-.0072
-.0*72
2.68*0
0
1.1508
-4.432
-.49*6
0
-.0579
0.3677
-.000*
-.0038
0.1*4?
-.4095
1.335*
1.0952
-.0098
0.0097
0
0
0
0.4030
0
0
45.229,453
35,739.535
-9,489.918
100.0000
100.0000
0.0000
47
-------
19A2 NEEDS SURVFY
COMPARISON OF 19AO AND 1982 ASSESSMENT OF
pACKLQf; NEFDS. CATEGORY vi.
THOUSANDS OF 198? DOLLARS
COSTS
DECEMBER 31
TABLE 6
PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL TOTALS
1982
STATE
ALAHAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
CDICRAOO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
OIST. OF COLUMBIA
FLOHIIIA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
*AINF
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MCMIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NFBKASKA
NEVADA
NFw HAMPSHIRE
Hfv JFRSFY
NFW MFXICO
NFW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NflKTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
0"t" GON
P^NSYLVANIA
*MOOF ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
Tf XAS
UTAH
VFMMONT
VlBb1«IA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
1SCONSIN
WYOMING
A-FHICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PufHTO RICO
PAC. TR. TFWR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
19X0 EPA
ESTIMATE
?.4?9.3H5
l.?fl?,107
1.394. Rid
«1*.144
I3.^9?,sia
9AM, 474
5,3*«>,427
770, \at
479,727
9,813.279
«T. 679,8o2
S57.iso
im.»38
3.16?,9H2
2,70,?,ofi»
X65,4dO
1.7C.S.S31
l,9n'<.431
1.S39.40-J
1.3S').Otf<»
3.?Hn,l9B
rt.OS6.091
2.KS0.121
l,»-«l,<»9»>
%S*.?%t>
l,iS*S,ft^3
103, SiO
30?, 3d*
S*^,^^!
3.?*n,Ql«i
IS. 21*. 778
?3c>.54a
4.779,40V
2.03H.7H*
3S.A34
4.B4T.S4J
1,00?. 443
1.S74.39B
7.90S,«^9
999.902
1,043.0*4
«>*.9J4
2.SOIS.016
H. MS.97e
S01.AV2
0
S.7?*,878,339
792.534
539.342
23.047
7.7H1.0H3
4. 32?. 271
64.325
0
3.«lH.71i
?.M«1,571
597.071
1.724.750
0
0
0
0
676.639
n
0
CHANGE
-380.261
-RH9.2H6
-1.094,175
-54,801
-5.420,524
-651.618
-599,798
-45.468
-49.645
2.102.973
-325.277
-213.2*7
-44.703
-155.2*0
-H93.106
-115.440
-72?.*51
438,921
-22*.**7
-1,119.416
-363.089
-3.331.191
-437,235
-720.903
99,912
-119.853
-68.338
-109.412
-395. «6?
-1.576.454
-11.423.2<>9
-185.41?
-3.620.002
-98A.09H
-21.171
-94.084
-407.798
507.06?
-4.737.48f>
-207.369
-503.702
-41. MBA
185.065
-3.993,705
-439.367
n
-1.906.157
32?.*05
-9.647
-206.819
0
0
0
0
60.891
0
0
1980 EPA
ESTIMATE
1.7552
0.86 A*
1.0113
O.S881
9.6768
0.7141
3.8630
0.5t>64
0.3«6S
7.0906
1.9362
0.6192
0.0746
2.2H53
1.9523
0.6252
1.2756
1.377*
1.1122
0.9819
2.3700
5.8209
2.0>>92
1.2152
0.4003
1.18H9
0.0747
0.2183
0.3469
2.3*60
10.993S
0.1701
3.453J
1.46f2
0.0256
3.5025
0.7242
1.1375
5.7123
0.7223
0.7535
0.04f>8
1.8756
6.0087
0.3638
0
4.1364
1.M201
0.4382
1.3955
0
0
0
0
0.4*48
0
0
1982 EPA
ASSESSMENT
2.1984
0.3356
0.3279
0.81*7
8.5524
0.3614
5.0925
0.7775
0.461*
12.7A45
2.5262
0.6908
0.0630
3.2269
1.9408
0.8047
1.1191
2.5162
1.4108
0.2571
3.1297
5.0692
2.5AA7
1.0311
0.7018
1.6369
0.0378
0.2070
0.1649
1.7922
4.0678
0.0538
1.2*39
1.1208
0 . 0 1 55
5.0998
0.6380
2.2331
3.3992
0.8503
0.5786
0.0247
2.9837
4.6372
0.0690
0.0000
4.0970
3.0486
0.6406
1.8504
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.7259
0.0000
0.0000
CHANGE
0.4432
-.5328
-.683*
0.2266
-1.124
-.3527
1.2295
0.2211
0.1144
5.6939
0.5900
0.0716
-.0116
0.9416
-.0115
0.1795
-.1565
1.1388
0.2986
-.7248
0.7597
-.7517
O.S29S
-.1841
0.3015
0.4480
-.0364
-.0113
-.2320
-.5538
-6.926
-.1163
-2.209
-.3464
-.0101
1.5973
-.0862
1.0956
-2.313
0.1280
-.1749
-.0221
1.1081
-1.371
-.2948
0
-.0394
1.2285
0.2024
0.4549
0
0
0
0
0.2811
0
0
U.S. TOTALS
138.39A.233
93.20H.260 -45.187.973
100.0000
100.0000
0.0000
-------
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF 1962 AND 1980 EPA ASSESSMENTS OF BACKLOG NEEDS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT PLANTS
THOUSANDS OF 1982 DOLLARS
CATS 5. IIAt AND 1IB
DECEMBER 31 1982
TABLE i
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
01 ST. OF COLUN.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
I DMA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
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
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
- COSTS
1980
BACKLOGS
215,200
2*2.3*8
136.8*1
1*5,517
1.833.183
103. 555
372.596
52.05*
9.175
92*. 061
290,058
153.665
124.055
1,390.9*0
386.57*
*7*,898
217,927
335.050
201,255
185,120
668,920
1.028.025
1,336.995
*22.779
269.030
793,552
27,5**
1*5, *11
72,966
227,951
1.385,*62
62.355
3,388,87*
550,733
13,363
1,111,3*5
115.867
118.977
1,208,182
209,106
159,909
77,979
**9.91?
603.132
199,920
108.197
5*1. ?33
*71.116
359,191
918,288
38,38*
16,902
20.252
11.198
265.869
3S.*66
18.790
1982
BACKLOGS
338.468
100.587
115.590
1*2.926
1,036,488
121.700
367.596
24,469
9,036
950,23*
391.613
76.862
92.156
829.970
331.317
473,201
155.973
378.972
211,68*
167,275
33*. 166
1,337,408
1.207,052
428,412
275,598
6*5,651
28.713
130.033
62,775
230.211
2,126.069
7*. 2*9
3,469.503
426.877
12.787
1.156.52*
111.327
116.195
1.087.812
186.099
159,235
7*. 182
4JS.3B5
933,401
131.912
10*. 818
5*8.122
*H2.*24
378.527
603.536
43.178
13.8*7
8,487
10.92*
176.80*
*1.3S3
10.978
CHANGE
123.268
-1*1.761
-21,251
-2.591
-796,695
18,1*5
-5,000
-27,585
-139
26,173
101,555
-76.803
-31.899
-560.970
-55.257
-1.697
-61.95*
43.922
10,429
-17.8*5
-33*. 75*
309.383
-129.9*3
5.633
6.568
-1*7.901
l.lb*
-1S.37B
-10.191
2,260
7*0,607
11.89*
80.629
-123,856
-576
45.179
-»,5*0
-2.782
-120.370
-23.007
-67*
-3,797
-21.607
329.269
-68.008
-3.379
6.8B9
11.308
19.336
-31*. 752
4,794
-3.055
-11.765
-27*
-89,065
5,887
-7,812
1980
BACKLOGS
.8523
.9598
.5*20
.5763
.2609
.4101
.*757
.2061
.0363
.6600
.1*88
.6086
,4913
.5092
.5311
.8809
.8631
.3270
.7971
.7332
.6*9*
.0718
.2956
.67*5
.0655
.1*31
.1090
.5759
.2890
.9028
.4875
.2*69
13.4227
2.1813
0.0529
4.4018
0.4589
0.4712
4.7854
0.8282
0.6333
0.3088
1.7820
2.3889
0.7918
0.4285
2.1437
1.M660
1.4226
3.6371
0.1520
0.0669
0.0802
0.0*43
1.0530
0.1*04
0.07**
.P.ER.CENTagE.Q.F.N»TIQN.AL TOTALS
1982
BACKLOGS
l.*15*
0.4206
0.4833
.5977
.33**
.5089
.5372
.1023
.0377
.9737
.6376
.321*
.3853
.4708
.3855
.9788
.6522
.5848
.8852
.6995
.397*
.5928
.0*77
.7915
.1525
.7000
.1200
.5*37
.2625
.9627
.8909
.3105
1 .5090
.7851
.053*
.836*
.4655
.4859
.5*91
.7782
.6659
.3102
.7911
.8992
.5516
.4383
.2921
.0174
.5829
.5239
.1805
.0579
.035*
.0*56
.7393
.1729
.0*59
CHANGE
0.5631
-0.5391
-0.0586
0.021*
-2.926*
0.0988
0.0615
-0.1037
0.001*
0.3137
0.4688
-0.2871
-0.1059
-2.0383
-0.1455
0.0979
-0.2108
0.2578
.0881
.0336
.2519
.5210
.2*78
.1170
.0870
.4430
.0110
.0321
.026*
.0599
.4034
.0636
.0863
.3961
.0005
.43*6
.0066
.01*7
.2362
.0*99
.0326
.001*
.0091
.5103
.2*01
.0098
.1*8*
.151*
.1603
.1131
.0285
.0089
.0*47
.0013
.3136
.0325
.028*
U.S. TOTALS
25,2*7,2*7 23,912.611 -1,33*.636
100.0000
100.0000
0.0000
-------
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON or 1982 AND 1980 EPA ASSESSMENTS OF BACKLOG NFEOS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY-0«NED W4STEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
THOUSANDS OF 1982 DOLLARS
CAT I. IlAi Ilflt IIIA. AND IVB
DECEMBER 31 1982
TABLE a
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSFY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NOWTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
ORFGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAUULINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMEHICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TH. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
19ftl>
BACKLOGS
361.272
311.028
1T2.762
198.485
2.6A1.149
117, »33
560, 151
89.271
26,466
1.307,307
S03.966
310,181
1A9.299
It777.874
540.988
6*8.640
441,660
547.920
397,752
333.141
7*2.697
1.573.866
1.894.713
783,056
470.425
1.288.860
37.956
157.941
88.812
464, 2?3
1.992.427
71.072
4.816,312
769,179
15.451
1.679.248
201.696
271,419
1.486,305
376.498
273.058
85.566
711.625
1.006.595
262.631
142,807
8»9.534
811.642
515.468
1.508,605
47.074
45.877
?2,993
26.813
583.868
46.457
26,043
COSTS
1982
BACKLOGS
500,016
146,460
144.034
191,341
1,384,761
131.158
589,948
45,175
15.509
1,398,307
608,759
125.501
127.410
1.199.908
486.769
615.868
343.026
644,688
441,820
287,881
39M.816
1.932.062
1.760.178
639.340
392.766
1.009,786
36.617
137,712
72.170
446.496
2,967.665
83.593
4.421.507
662.398
16,380
1.7SS.807
181.134
268.1402
1,392,088
246.297
405.141
1.619
702.899
1.5*3.415
161. 1»4
142.106
796. H07
882.559
566.812
1,181,696
47,644
29.717
10.973
24.089
441,096
SI, 869
14,408
CHANGE
*138,744
-164,568
-28,728
-5,144
-1,296,388
»13.725
29.797
-44,096
-10,957
91.000
104,793
-184.680
-41,889
-577,966
-62,219
-72.772
-98.634
96,768
44.068
-45,260
-363.801
358.196
-134. 60S
-143.716
-77.659
-279,074
-1,339
-20.229
-16.642
-17,727
975,258
12.521
-414,005
-106.781
929
76.559
-20.562
-2.657
-94,217
-A0.201
132.083
-3.947
-8.726
576.820
-101.527
-699
-92.727
70.917
51,344
-326.909
570
-16.160
-12.020
-2.724
-142.772
5.412
-11.63b
0.9576
0.8244
0.4579
0.5261
7.1073
0.3112
1.4848
0.2366
0.0701
3.4654
1.3359
0.8222
0.4487
4.7128
1.4552
1.8254
1.1707
1.4524
1.0543
0.8831
2.0217
4.1720
5.0227
2.0757
1.2470
3.4165
0.1006
0.4186
0.2154
1.2305
5.2816
0.1884
12.8703
2.0389
0.0409
4.4514
0.5346
0.7195
3.9199
O.AfiS4
0.7?3b
0.7268
1.8864
2.66*3
0.6961
A.1785
2.3580
37.723.667 35.395.929 -2.327.738
1 . 3664
3.9990
0.1247
0.1216
0.0609
0.0710
1.5477
0.1231
0.0690
100.0000
1982
BACKLOGS
1.4126
0.4137
0.4069
0.5462
3.9122
0.3705
1.6667
0.1276
0.0438
3.9504
1.7198
0.354S
0.3599
3.3099
1.3752
1.7399
0.9691
1.8213
1.2482
0.8133
1.1267
5.4584
4.9728
1.8062
1.1096
2.8528
0.1034
0.3890
0.2038
1.2614
8.3842
0.2361
12.4915
1.8713
0.0462
4.9604
0.5117
0.7594
3.9329
0.75,23
1.1445
0.2305
1.9858
4.4734
0.4551
0.4014
2.2511
2.4433
1.6013
3.3385
0.1346
0.0839
0.0310
0.0680
1.2461
0.1465
0.0407
100.0000
CHANGE
0.4550
-0.4106
-0.0509
0.0201
-3.1950
0.0593
0.1819
-0.1009
-0.0262
0.4850
0.3839
-0.4676
-0.0887
-1.3228
-0.0799
-0.0854
-0.2015
0.3689
0.1939
-0.0697
-0.8949
1.2864
-0.0498
-0.2694
-0.1373
-0.5636
0.0028
-0.0295
-0.0315
0.0309
3.1026
0.0477
-0.3287
-0.1675
0.0053
0.5090
-0.0228
0.0399
-0.0069
-0.1130
0.4207
0.0037
0.0994
1.8051
-0.2409
0.0229
-0.1068
.0.3418
0.2349
-0.6604
0.0099
-0.0376
-0.0298
-0.0029
-0.3015
0.0234
-0.0282
0.0000
50
-------
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORAnO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DIST. OF coLim.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHOOF ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VFW»ONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1982 NFEDS SURVEY
COMP.RISON OF 1982 AND 1980 FPA ASSESSMENTS OF BACKLOG NFEDS
FOR IMPROVEMENT OF T»EATMFNT PLANTS TO ACHIFVE SECONDARY LEVEL
THOUSANDS OF 1982 OOLLAHS
CATEGORY I
DECEMBER 31. 1982
TABLE »
1980
BACKLOGS
181.271
242.3*8
136.8*1
135,110
1.784,697
95,9*5
312,830
*7.319
9,175
693,780
219.119
1*5,712
96,056
379,602
211.798
433.490
212.133
288. 8H2
197.893
182.30*
253,15*
970.786
1.27*. 6AO
27*,9?6
226.523
792.620
27,»?3
145.411
30.958
216.2*0
1.315. 4*4
61.709
3.377.9H3
403.310
13,363
6S2.150
in*. 789
4.787
1.070,319
175.316
1**,27»
53.503
327. 4hO
5*9, 490
2.5072
2.1-»72
1.6551
3.9*57
0.1776
0.0800
0.0958
0.0530
1.238*
0.1679
0.0849
100.0000
1.2822
0.499*
0.5717
0.6070
4.896*
0.58*6
.6053
.0990
.0000
.0158
.3032
.3816
.4339
.6005
.0993
.9680
.7737
.4638
.0185
.8192
.5298
.1273
.8850
.7538
.1*26
.1963
.1360
.6*57
.1908
.1192
.1727
.36**
1
.3397
.4904
.063*
.445*
.5231
.4705
.4875
.8626
.6*33
.3250
.4938
*.137»
0.4679
O.*193
2.402*
2.3119
1.7783
2.5698
0.1973
0.0687
0.0*21
0.0*89
0.86**
0.2032
0.05*5
100.0000
0.4238
-0.6480
-0.0761
-0.0327
-3.5541
0.1303
0.1240
-0.1249
-0.0434
0.7307
0.2656
-0.3082
-0.0208
-0.1968
0.0964
-0.0324
-0.2306
0.0959
0.0814
-0.0439
-0.6687
1.5306
-1.1504
0.4521
0.0700
-0.5566
0.0061
-0.0428
0.0064
0.0953
3.4174
0.0723
0.5816
-0.4144
0.0002
0.3575
0.0269
.0.0690
-0.3437
0.0325
-0.0398
0.0717
-0.0577
1.5356
0.0172
-0.0396
-0.10*8
0.1147
0.1231
-1.3759
0.0196
-0.0112
-0.0537
-0.0040
-0.3739
0.0353
-0.0344
0.0000
SI
-------
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF 1982 AND 1980 EPA ASSESSMENTS OF BACKLOG NEEDS
TO ACHIEVE MORE STRINGENT TREATEMENT LEVELS
THOUSANDS OF 1982 DOLLARS
CATEGORIES IIA & IIB
DECEMBER 31. 1482
TABLE 10
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NFW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLANU
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TE»AS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
ASHINGION
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO HICO
PAC. T». TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
COSTS
1980
BACKLOGS
33.929
0
0
10,407
46.486
7.610
59.766
4.735
0
230.281
70.939
7.953
27.999
1.011.330
174,776
52.408
5,804
46.168
3.362
2.816
415,766
57,239
62.335
147.853
42.507
932
121
0
34.008
11.711
169,948
646
60.A91
148,423
0
459.195
11.078
34,190
187.863
33.790
15.635
24.476
122.452
53.663
104.714
1 1 .251
11.718
7.07V
9.633
84.96V
858
0
0
0
4.325
0
0
4,128.095
1982
BACKLOGS
80.257
0
453
20,685
50.437
3,958
44,311
4.513
9.036
141,526
129,171
0
4,760
507,644
109.931
76.880
150
84.184
6,575
2.291
227.457
103.482
223.297
75.213
45.488
1.963
1.322
0
24,335
4.823
278.876
845
179.019
126.726
0
462,675
5.970
21.437
184,123
12,382
29,683
8,719
127,680
99,213
37.666
20.371
64,316
16.8*6
20.413
86.014
3.442
0
0
1.061
2,717
419
0
3,774.755
CHANGE
46,328
0
453
10,278
1.951
-3,652
-15.455
-222
9,036
-88,755
56.232
-7.953
-23.239
-503.694
-64,845
24,472
-5,654
38,016
3,213
-525
-188,309
46.243
160,962
-72,640
2.981
1,031
1,201
0
-9,673
-6.888
108,878
199
118.120
-21.697
0
3.480
-5.108
-12.753
-3.740
-21,408
14,048
-15,757
5.228
45.550
-67,047
4.120
52.3*8
4,767
10.780
1.045
2.584
0
0
1.061
-1.608
419
0
-353.340
0.8219
0.0000
0.0000
0.2521
1.1745
0.1843
1.4477
0.1147
0.0000
5.5783
1.7184
0.1926
0.6782
24.4989
4.2338
1.2695
0.140S
1.1183
0.0814
0.0682
10.0716
1.3865
1.5100
3.5816
1.0247
0.0225
0.0029
0.0000
0.8238
0.2836
4.1180
0.0156
1.4750
3.5954
0.0000
11.1236
0.2683
0.8282
4.5508
0.8185
0.3787
0.5929
2.9663
1.2949
2.53oS
0.2725
0.2H38
U.1714
0.2333
2.0583
0.0207
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1047
0.0000
0.0000
100.0000
2.1261
0.0000
0.0119
0.5479
1.3361
0.1048
1.1738
0.1195
0.2393
3.7492
3.4219
0.0000
0.1260
13.4483
2.9122
2.0366
0.0039
2.2301
.1741
.0606
.0257
.7414
.9155
.9925
.2050
.0519
.0350
.0000
.6446
.1277
.3879
.0223
.7425
.3571
.0000
1 .2570
.1581
.5678
.8777
.3280
.7863
.2309
3.3824
2.6283
0.9978
0.5396
1.7038
.4462
.5407
.2786
.0911
.0000
.0000
.0280
.0719
0.0110
0.0000
100.0000
CHANGE
1.3042
0.0000
0.0119
0.2458
0.1616
-0.0794
-0.2738
0.0048
0.2393
-1.8290
1.7035
-0.1925
-0.5521
-11.0505
-1.3215
0.7671
-0.1365
1.1118
0.0927
-0.0075
-4.0450
1.3549
4.4055
-1.5*90
0.1753
0.0295
0.0321
0.0000
-0.1791
-0.1558
3.2699
0.0067
3.2675
-0.2382
0.0000
1.1334
-0.1101
-0.2603
0.3269
-0.4904
0.4076
-0.3619
0.4161
1.3284
-1.5380
0.2671
1.4200
0.274U
0.3074
0.2203
0.0704
0.0000
0.0000
0.02HO
-0.0327
0.0110
0.0000
0.0000
-------
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF 19B2 AND 1980 EPA ASSESSMENTS OF BACKLOG NEEDS
FOR CONNECTION OF INFILTHATIUN/INFLOW CONDITIONS
THOUSANDS OF 1982 OOLLAKS
CATEGORY in *
g£g£ENJ.A.SE_Q.
19AO 1982
BACKLOGS BACKLOGS
DECEMBER 31. 19K2
TABLE 11
ALARAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
AHKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
OIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NFtf YORK
NOHTM CAROLINA
NO»TH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
ODFSON
PENNSYLVANIA
1HOOE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
ASHlNGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MAH1ANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERP.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
COSTS
1980
BACKLOGS
B9.477
28.112
934
31.623
59.083
11.822
13.302
4.083
17.291
102.001
100,721
17
19.010
207,428
47,034
112. OS6
A3. 428
"9,352
59.365
14.653
12.500
14,356
69,081
42.289
126.448
47,596
1.784
1.087
2.698
9.595
121.494
0
110. 6H8
97.715
572
255.301
44,839
49,645
17.850
2.754
69.370
4,947
153.577
199. A*e
36.S56
2.3*8
18.314
110.975
2.075
112.543
6,936
0
825
0
19,969
0
158
1982
BACKLOGS
87.705
2.218
1.050
18,538
61.869
S.919
23.557
941
6.473
77,471
93,295
0
7,044
178.003
47,577
85,729
49,056
104,413
76,993
17,973
13.649
20.528
73.260
28.445
55.271
37.624
1.4S9
637
2.560
9.523
226.954
0
186.068
84,234
441
134,776
13.904
71,071
15.837
2.771
76.292
2.606
153.673
181.791
11.450
7.640
18,199
11S.H94
4,423
32,048
1,426
0
922
0
18,613
0
148
CHANGE
-1.772
-25,894
116
-13,085
2.786
-5.903
10.255
-3.142
-10.818
-24.530
-7,426
-17
-11,966
-29.425
543
-26.327
-14.372
5.061
17.628
3.320
1.149
6.172
4,179
-13,804
-71.177
-9.972
-32b
-450
-138
-72
105.460
0
75.300
-13.481
-131
-120.525
-30.935
21.426
-2.013
17
6.922
-2.341
96
-18.097
-?b.!06
5,<»><>
-13b
4.914
2.348
-80.495
-5.510
0
97
0
-1.356
0
-JO
2.847,625
2,550,001
-297,624
3.1421
0.9872
0.0327
1.1105
2.07*8
0.4151
0.4671
0.1433
0. ISO 72
3.5819
3.S370
0.0005
0.6675
7.2842
1.6516
3.9350
2.2274
3.4889
2.0047
0.5145
0.4389
0.5041
2.4259
1.4850
4.4404
1.6714
0.0626
0.0381
0.0947
0.1369
4.2665
0.0000
3.8870
3.4314
1.0200
8.9654
1.S746
1.7433
0.6?68
0.0967
2.4360
0.1737
5.3931
7.0194
1.2837
0.0838
O.A438
3."971
0.0728
3.9521
0.2435
0.0000
0.0289
0.0000
0.7012
0.0000
0.0055
100.0000
3.4394
0.0869
0.0411
0.7269
2.4262
0.2321
0.9237
0.0368
0.2538
3.0380
3.6586
0.0000
0.2762
6.9804
1.8657
3.3619
1.9237
4.0946
3.0193
0.7048
0.5352
0.8050
2.8729
1.1170
2.1674
1.4754
0.0572
0.0249
0.1003
0.3734
8.9001
0.0000
7.2967
3.3032
0.0172
5.2853
0.5452
2.7870
0.6210
0.1086
2.9918
0.1021
6.0263
7.1290
0.44VO
0.2<*9S>
0.7136
4.5448
0.1734
1.2567
0.0559
0.0000
0.0361
0.0000
0.7299
0.0000
0.0057
100.0000
CHANGE
0.2973
-0.9002
0.0084
-0.3835
0.3514
-0.1829
0.4567
-0.1063
-0.3533
-0.5438
0.1216
-0.0004
-0.3912
-0.3036
0.2141
-0.5730
-0.3036
0.6057
0.9346
0.1903
0.0963
0.3009
0.4470
-0.3679
-2.2729
-0.1959
-0.0053
-0.0131
0.0056
0.0365
4.6336
0.0000
3.4097
-0.12B1
-0.0027
-3.6800
-1.0293
1.0437
-0.0057
0.0119
0.5558
-0.0715
0.6332
0.1096
-0.8346
0.2157
0.0698
0.6477
0.1006
-2.6953
-0.1875
0.0000
0.0072
0.0000
0.0287
0.0000
0.0002
0.0000
53
-------
1982 NECOS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF 19d2 »NO 1980 FPA ASSESSMENTS OF BACKLOG NEEDS
FOR CORRECTION OF MAJOR REH44ILITAUON AND REPLACEMENT
THOUSANDS OF 1982 DOLLARS
CATEGORY in a
OECEHHER 31. 1982
TABLE iz
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
OIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
ORFGON
PENNSYLVANIA
MHODF ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WFST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TFHR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1980
BACKLOGS
4,00*
109
364
3.002
193.914
124,566
16%324
1.549
0
10
9,2flT
0
436
11.205
22.660
1.320
22.532
9.428
12.905
7,565
1.8*6,323
123.172
B7.623
32.614
0
36.558
598
1,315
3.138
5.804
1.903
312
3.889,310
0
n
13.2S8
28. 4 AS
57,362
909
29.934
624
l.MB
417
1?0,029
0
6,824
16.031
85.281
3.251
18,094
0
0
0
0
12.782
0
0
COSTS
1982
BACKLOGS
4.614
109
39
2.236
156,111
1.262
16,634
2.32H
0
0
14.583
17.213
2.224
55.345
3.027
1.323
21.670
5.255
15.692
6.351
130.750
18.384
99.451
17.081
947
49,»78
124
1.316
3.892
4,773
2.277
89
3.759,523
314
88
21.39*
9,928
17,604
545
29.963
0
721
3.776
29.520
0
3.239
2.185
6?, 963
2.719
79.662
0
0
370
0
11.914
0
0
CHANGE
530
0
-325
-766
-37.803
-123.304
310
779
0
-10
5.296
17.213
1 . 788
44.140
-19,633
3
-862
-4.173
2.787
-1.214
-1.715,573
-104. 7K»
11.828
-15.533
947
12.920
-474
1
*754
-1.031
374
-223
-69.787
314
88
8.136
-18.557
-39.758
-364
29
-624
-1.167
3.359
-90.509
0
-3.585
-13.846
-22.31B
-532
61.568
0
0
370
0
-868
0
0
6.805.099
4.691.006 -2.114.093
1980 1982
BACKLOGS BACKLOGS
0.0600 0.0983
0.0016 0.0023
0.0053 0.0008
0.0441 0.0476
2.8495 3.3278
1.8304 0.026M
0.2398 0.3545
0.0227 0.0496
0.0000 0.0000
0.0001 0.0000
0.1364 0.3108
0.0000 0.3669
0.0064 0.0473
0.1646 1.1798
0.3329 0.0645
0.0193 0.0281
0.3311 0.4619
0.1385 0.1120
0.1896 0.3345
0.1111 0.1353
27.1314 2.7872
1.8099 0.3918
1.2876 2.1200
0.479? 0.3641
0.0000 0.0201
O.S372 1.0547
0.0087 0.0026
0.0193 0.0260
0.0461 O.OM29
0.0852 0.1017
0.0279 0.0485
0.0045 0.0018
56.7711 80.1432
0.0000 0.0066
0.0000 0.0018
0.1948 0.4560
0.4185 0.2116
0.8429 0.3752
0.0133 0.0116
0.4398 0.6387
0.0091 .0000
0.0277 .0153
0.0061 .0804
1.7638 .6292
o.oooo .0000
0.1002 .0690
0.2355 .0*65
1.7531 .3421
0.0477 .0579
0.2658 .6981
0.0000 .0000
0.0000 .0000
0.0000 .0078
0.0000 .0000
0.1878 .2539
O.AOOO .0000
0.0000 .0000
100.0000 100.0000
CHANGE
0.0383
0.0007
-0.0044
0.003S
0.4783
-1.8034
0.1147
0.0269
0.0000
0.0000
0.1744
0.3669
0.0409
1.0152
-0.2683
0.0088
0.1308
-0.0264
0.1449
0.0242
-24.3441
-1.4180
0.8324
-0.1150
0.0201
0.5175
-0.0060
0.0087
0.0368
0.0165
0.0206
-0.0026
23.8721
0.0066
0.0018
0.2612
-0.2068
-0.4676
-0.0016
0.1989
-0.0090
-0.0123
0.0743
-1.1345
0.0000
-0.0311
-0.1889
0.0890
0.0102
1.4323
0.0000
0.0000
0.0078
0.0000
0.0661
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
54
-------
1982 NEEDS SURVFV
COMPARISON OF 19H2 AND 1980 FPA ASSESSMENTS OF BACKLOG NEEDS
FOR CONSTHUCTION OF ELIGIBLE NEW COLLECTORS AND APPURTENANCES
THOUSANDS OF 1982 DOLLARS
CATEGORY IV A
DECEMBER 31t 1982
TABLE is
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARI70NA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
D1ST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
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
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RKO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
COSTS
1940
BACKLOGS
256,872
40.965
104,196
105.88*
1,0*6,7*2
16,918
462,225
29,874
0
1,046,657
199,512
210.024
82,320
177.866
303.971
117,042
103,160
445.825
310.956
206,350
216,560
843. 7*2
7S2.675
136.473
100.412
2P7.77B
11.376
17.2P6
35.108
292,229
656. 251
33.673
2,3X3,212
378,337
2.514
6*3,542
116,2)9
265. 3B7
1.1AV.620
278, 1S8
211,504
2.747
344.712
440,734
46,466
74,136
302. S(j?
415.213
532.961
208,063
892
10.548
0
15,403
356,915
37,560
15.611
19M2
BACKLOGS
296,017
84,304
133.197
92,733
1,097,813
19.335
550.599
32.471
0
870,631
231.332
191,273
77,633
1*0.562
247,582
109,756
97.378
398,975
333,519
196.704
22S.B35
806,891
506.335
128,527
115,416
204.648
34,503
20.433
33,407
264.286
440,860
37,537
2.327,122
404,450
2.793
669,428
44.V26
313.923
1.315.303
153.816
266.934
2.9V1
398.512
414.715
40.158
A9.119
390. B76
524.597
699.961
210,986
2.943
6.517
7.190
15.468
329,601
23,693
12,008
CHANGE
39.145
43,339
29,001
-13.151
51.071
2.417
88,374
2.597
0
-176,026
31.820
-18.751
-4.687
2,696
-56.389
-7.286
-5,782
-46,850
22.S63
-9.646
9,275
-76,871
-246,340
-7,946
15.004
-18.080
23,127
3.207
-1.701
-27.943
-215.391
3.864
-56.090
26.113
27<»
5,846
-31.293
48,536
12S.6H3
-124,342
55,430
204
S3, 800
-62,019
1,692
-5,017
44.37*
113.314
167,000
2.923
2.051
-4.031
7,190
65
-27,3)4
-13,867
-3.603
16,963,868 16.769,522
-194,346
100.0000
1942
BACKLOGS
1.7651
0.5027
0.79*2
0.5529
6.5464
0.1152
3.2833
0.1936
0.0000
5.1917
1.3794
1.1*05
0.4629
1.0767
1.4763
0.6544
0.5806
2.3791
1.9888
1.1729
1.3466
4.8116
3.0193
0.7664
0.6882
1.2501
0.2057
0.1218
0.1992
1.5759
2.6289
0.2238
13.8770
2.4118
0.0166
3.9919
0.5064
1.8719
7.8*3*
0.9172
1.5917
0.0178
2.3763
2.4968
0.2871
0.4121
2.3308
3.1S21
4.1739
1.2581
0.0175
0.0388
0.0428
0.0922
1.9654
0.1412
0.0715
100.0000
CHANGE
0.2509
0.2612
0.1800
-0.0711
0.3760
0.015S
O.SS85
0.0175
0.0000
-0.9781
0.2033
-0.0974
-0.0223
0.0282
-0.3154
-0.0354
-0.0274
-0.2489
0.1558
-0.0434
0.0701
-0.3980
-1.4175
-0.0380
0.0963
-0.0922
0.1386
0.0202
-0.0077
-0.1466
-1.2395
0.0253
-0.1716
0.1815
0.0018
0.0802
-0.1746
0.3075
.0.8307
-0.7224
0.3449
0.0014
0.3443
-0.3369
0.0132
-0.0244
0.5476
0.7044
1.0322
0.0316
0.0122
-0.0233
0.0428
0.0014
-0.1385
-0.0801
-0.0204
0.0000
55
-------
1982 NEEDS SUHVEY
COMPARISON OF 1982 AND 1<980 EPA ASSESSMENTS OF BACKLOG NEEDS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NFW INTEHCEPTOHS ANO APPUHTENANCES
THOUSANDS OF 197
279. SM
1S4.202
477,774
1,754
28,975
1.916
15.61*
298.030
10.991
7,095
COSTS
1982
BACKLOGS
73.843
43.655
27,394
31,877
286,40*
3.539
198.795
19,765
0
370,602
123,851
*8,639
28.210
191,935
107,875
56,938
137.997
161.303
153,1*3
102,633
51.001
574.126
479,866
182,443
61.897
326. 511
6.445
7.0*2
6.835
206,762
614.662
9.344
765.936
151.287
3.152
464,507
55.903
81,536
288.439
77.427
169,614
4.8J1
120.911
464.223
17.742
79.650
210,»«b
284.241
183.862
546.112
3.040
15.870
1,564
13.165
245.679
10,516
3,282
CHANGE
17.248
3.0B7
-7,593
10,532
-502.479
1.483
24,542
-13,369
0
89.357
10.664
-107.860
1.976
12,429
-7,505
-44.748
-22.308
47,785
16.011
-30.735
-30.276
42.641
-8,841
-135.545
-13.050
-121.201
-2.183
-4.401
-6.313
-19.91b
129.191
627
-570,814
30,556
1,636
151.905
14.913
-71.301
28.166
-37.211
125.835
2.191
12.785
265.648
-H.413
-2. 572
-99.4HI
54.690
29,660
68.338
1.286
-13.105
-352
-2.450
-52.351
-47S
-3.813
9.628.795
8.933.317
-695.478
1980
BACKLOGS
0.5877
0.4213
0.3633
0.2716
8.1929
0.0213
1.8097
0.3441
0.0000
2.9208
1.1755
1.6253
0.772*
1.86*2
1.1982
1.0560
1.66*8
1.1789
!.*?*!
1.3850
0.8**1
5.5197
5.075*
3.302*
0.7783
4.6*97
0.0896
0.1188
0.1365
2.3541
5.0418
0.0905
13.8828
1.2538
0.0157
3.2465
0.4257
1.0680
2.7030
1.1905
0.4546
0.0274
1.1230
2.11*2
0.2716
0.1346
3.4768
2.3840
1.601*
».9619
0.0182
0.3009
0.0198
0.1621
3.0951
0.11*1
0.0736
100.0000
1982
BACKLOGS
0.8265
0.4886
0.3066
0.3568
3.2060
0.0396
2.2253
0.2212
0.0000
4.1485
1.3863
0.5444
0.3157
2.1465
1.2075
0.6373
1.54*7
1.8056
1.71*2
1.1*88
0.5708
6.4267
5.3716
2.0422
0.6928
3.6549
0.0721
0.0788
0.0765
2.314*
6.8805
0.1045
8.5739
1.6935
0.0352
5.1997
0.6257
0.9127
3.2287
0.8667
1.8986
0.0540
1.3535
5.2524
0.1985
0.3318
2.5600
3.1817
2.0581
6.1131
0.0340
0.1776
0.017*
0.1*73
2.7501
0.1177
0.0367
100.0000
CHANGE
0.2389
0.0673
-0.0566
0.1352
-4.9868
0.0183
0.4156
-0.1228
0.0000
1.2277
0.2108
-1.0808
0.0433
0.28*3
0.0093
-0.4186
-0.1200
0.6267
0.2901
-0.2361
-0.2731
0.9070
0.2962
-1.2601
-0.0854
-0.9947
-0.017*
-0.0399
-0.0599
-0.0396
1.8387
0.01*0
-5.3088
0.*397
0.0195
1.9532
0.2000
-0.1552
O.S258
-0.3237
l.**40
0.0266
0.2305
3.1383
-0.0729
-0.0027
-0.8467
0.7978
0.4567
1.1512
0.0158
-0.1232
-0.0022
-0.01*7
-0.3*49
0.0036
-0.0368
0.0000
56
-------
19«2 NEEDS SURVEY
1982 EPA ASSESSMENT OF CATEGORY V NEEDS BT BASIS OF ESTIMATE
THOUSANDS OF 1982 DOLLARS
DECEMBER 31 1982
TABLE is
STATE
ALAHAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
PCL'WARE
DIST. OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KfNTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEARASKA
NEVADA
NFM HAMPSHIRE
NtW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NtW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
ORFRON
PfNNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOOTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
Tt"S
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
w>«iT VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR..
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
PURL ic
STHETICS HEALTH
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.4«
n
0
0
0
n
0
2.705 0
0 1.620
31.737 0
0 0
0 31
0 0
0 0
19S.30J 1.B43.286
0 0
188 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
U 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 ft
o n
o n
FISH AND
WILDLIFE
17.75
0
0
0
0
0
2(168
2.461.900
76,157
393.061
0
0
341.119
26.9HM
349.146
2.061.005
40
0
658.846
n
0
0
27.897
1.367.215
0
1.507.823
2.943
657
339. 69S
0
0
2.458.014
177.612
0
40.151
0
21.429
2.597
25.S13
233.076
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
171.557
0
0
SEWER FACILITIES
RECREATION
0
18.368
0
0
77,989
41,547
752.263
278. 740
0
8.526
410.245
0
96.858
1,013,077
4*6,361
350,183
0
1,450.892
0
212.924
4U.153
1.573.211
1.944
29 J. 286
0
385,281
162,399
41,046
0
411,097
612,607
0
1,957,795
0
12,466
2.«21,OJ4
0
660,107
132, 5U5
0
0
3,746
346,840
0
0
187.236
41.V14
1.17?. 710
rt 13. 3ft ft
36V. 010
1M.687
0
0
0
0
0
0
SEPARATION
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.009
13.370
0
0
0
0
19.522
126.729
51.978
252
0
0
0
275.519
0
19,017
86,190
26,269
0
0
0
0
0
4,763
35,672
0
116.178
0
0
618.002
0
13,915
55.594
48.745
3.650
119.717
J54.189
n
0
0
PLAN
0
0
0
0
470.212
0
0
0
68.119
0
0
0
0
954,048
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.318
1.126
0
604
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
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
0
18.388
0
0
565.957
41.547
775,272
292.110
68.119
8.526
414.737
0
116.380
2.096.022
2.967,239
426.592
393.061
1.450,892
0
829.562
75.141
1,990.37*
2.157.4S7
320.721
0
1.047,436
164.019
72.783
0
443.788
2.015.494
0
5.620.385
2.943
13.331
3,878,731
0
674.022
2.646.113
177.612
0
43.897
346.840
21.429
2,597
261,494
278.640
1,292,435
1.167,555
369,650
18.687
171.55
229.933 1.849.429 12.820.36S 17.325.101 2.012.280 1.502.427 35,739,535
-------
198? NEEDS SURVtY
COMPARISON OF PER CAPITA BACKLOG COSTS
F0« CONSTHUCTION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED TREATMENT FACILITIES
BASED ON 1980 POPULATION ANO PROJECTED 2000 POPULATION
THOUSANDS OF 1982 DOLLARS
POPULATIONS IN THOUSANDS
CATEGORIES I THRU IV
DECEMBER 31.
TABLE 16
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DIST. OF COLUH.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
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
VEWHONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1962
BACKLOGS
800,6*7
230.873
277.270
288.310
2.638.685
151.755
1.157,181
79.97*
15,509
2t268,938
85*.67*
333.987
207.267
1.435.815
737.378
726.9*7
*62.07*
1,0*8,918
791.031
490.936
755.»01
2.757,337
2.365.96*
78*.9*8
509,129
1,261).912
71.2**
159,*61
109,469
715,555
3.410.822
121,219
10.508.152
1.067.162
19.261
2,**6.629
275.988
600.329
2.707.936
*50,076
672.075
H5.331
1,IDS.187
2.031.650
209. 8
1.47*.119
1.264.492
1,472.3**
50.587
36.23*
18.533
39,557
782,611
75,562
26,*16
56,856,457
1980
POPULATION
3,890
400
2,718
2,286
23.669
2.889
3.108
595
63tt
9.7*0
S.*6*
965
9*4
11.418
5,490
2,913
2,363
3,661
*,204
1,125
*,216
5,737
9.258
*,077
2.521
4,917
787
1,570
799
921
7,364
1,300
17,577
5,87*
653
10,797
3,025
2,633
11,867
9*7
3,119
690
4.591
1*,228
1.461
511
5.3*6
4.130
1,950
4,705
450
33
110
17
3,197
118
99
DOLLARS PER
PERSON (1980)
205
577
102
126
111
52
372
13*
2*
232
156
3*6
219
125
13*
2*9
195
286
188
*36
179
*ao
255
192
201
258
90
101
137
776
463
93
597
181
29
226
91
228
228
475
215
123
240
142
143
419
222
356
651
312
112
1,098
168
2,326
244
640
266
2000
POPULATION
».1»0
69*
».357
2,970
26,786
4.371
3.902
841
69*
15.049
7.053
1.366
1,183
12,358
6,059
3,101
2,642
*,224
4.880
1.222
5.583
6.736
10.31*
4,505
2,740
5.379
938
1.73*
l.*08
1,306
9.022
1.781
19.683
7.419
690
12.237
3.702
3.209
12.854
1.064
3.700
730
5,573
21,000
1,963
607
6.755
4.859
2.101
5.553
484
40
275
33
4.700
183
116
DOLLARS PER
PERSON (20001
193
332
A3
97
98
34
296
95
22
ISO
121
244
175
116
121
234
174
248
162
401
135
409
229
174
115
235
75
91
77
547
378
68
533
143
27
199
7*
187
210
*15
181
116
1«8
96
106
3S3
176
303
60*
265
10*
905
67
1.198
166
412
227
230.075
2*7
278.888
203
58
-------
19B2 NEEDS SUHVEY
PE« CAPITA BACKLOG ESTIMATE. CATEGOftr V.
DECEMBER 31t 1982
TABLE IT
STATE
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARI70NA
ARKANSAS
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DIST. OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KFNTUfKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MAHYLANO
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JFHSEY
NEW MEXICO
NFM YORK
NOrtTH CAROLINA
NriBTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEIAS
UTAH
VEHMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
NEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMEU1TAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TH. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1<»«2 EPA ASSESSMENT
(THOUSAND S)
0
18.388
0
o
565.957
41,5*7
775.272
292.110
68.119
8.526
41*.737
0
116.3«0
2.096.022
2.9A7.239
4?6.S«J2
193.061
1.4S0.8V2
0
829,562
75.141
1,990.374
2.157,457
320,721
0
1.047.436
164.019
72.783
0
443.788
2.015.494
0
5.620.385
2.943
13.331
3.»7H.731
0
674.022
2.646.113
177.M2
0
43.*97
346.«40
21.429
2.597
261.494
278.640
l.?92.43S
1,167.555
3>i9.'>SO
18 . IS* 7
171.55
35.739.S35
POPULATION SERVED
(THOUSANDS)
0
0
852
148
415
90
489
4
330
0
46
5.195
2.510
342
464
769
0
391
54
1.830
2.600
530
0
872
130
199
0
283
2,003
0
12.106
8
17
2.700
0
245
4.153
191
0
91
158
35
4
128
537
637
435
5*8
IS
0
0
o
600
0
0
43.180
PER CAPITA COST
(S/PEOSON1
0
3,784
0
0
664
281
1.867
3.243
139
1,951
1.256
0
2.529
403
1.182
1.246
847
1.888
0
2.123
1,394
1.088
830
605
0
1.202
1.259
365
0
1,567
1,006
0
464
368
789
1,437
0
2.751
637
932
0
482
2,191
612
680
2,038
51»
2.027
2.684
AS1
1.276
0
0
0
286
0
0
828
59
-------
1982 SEEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF PER CAPITA BACKLOG COSTS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED TREATMENT FACILITIES
BASED ON 1980 POPULATION AND PROJECTED 2000 POPULATION
THOUSANDS OF 1982 DOLLARS
POPULATIONS IN THOUSANDS
CAT It IIAt 118, MIAt I IVB
DECEMBER 31, 1982
TABLE la
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JEMSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH UAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1982
BACKLOGS
500,016
146.460
144.034
193,341
1,384,761
131,150
589,948
45,175
15,509
1,398,307
608,759
125,501
127,410
1,199.908
486,769
615,868
343,U26
644,688
441.820
287,881
398,816
1,932,062
1,760,178
639,340
392,766
1,009,786
36.617
137,712
72.170
446,496
2,967,685
83,593
4,421,507
662,398
16,380
1.755,807
101,134
268,802
1.392,088
266.297
405.141
81,619
702,899
1,583.415
161,104
142.10A
796,807
882,559
566.812
1.181.696
47.644
29.717
10.973
24.089
441.096
51,869
14,408
35,395,929
1980
POPULATION
3,890
400
2,718
2,286
23.669
2.889
3,108
595
638
9,740
5,464
965
944
11,418
5,490
2,913
2,363
3,661
4.204
1.125
4.216
5.737
9.258
4.077
2.521
4.91T
787
1.570
799
921
7,364
1,300
17,577
5,874
653
10,797
3.025
2.633
11.867
947
3.119
690
4,591
14.228
1,461
511
5,346
4,130
1,950
4.705
450
33
110
17
3.197
118
99
DOLLARS PER
PEHSON (1980)
12S
366
52
84
58
45
189
75
24
143
111
130
134
105
88
211
145
176
105
255
94
336
190
156
155
205
46
87
90
484
402
64
251
112
25
162
59
102
117
281
129
118
153
111
no
278
149
213
290
251
105
900
99
1,417
137
439
145
230,075
153
2000
POPULATION
4,140
694
4.357
2,970
26,786
4.371
3,902
841
694
15,049
7,053
1,366
1,183
12,358
6,059
3.101
2.642
4,224
4.880
1.222
5.583
6.736
10.314
4.505
2.740
5.379
938
1.734
1,408
1.306
9.022
1.781
19.683
7.419
690
12.237
3,702
3,209
12.854
1.084
3,700
730
5,573
21,000
1,963
607
6,755
4,859
2,101
5.5b3
484
40
275
33
4,700
183
116
278,888
DOLLARS PEH
PERSON (2000)
120
211
33
65
51
30
151
53
22
92
86
91
107
97
HO
i«*a
129
152
90
235
71
246
170
141
143
187
39
79
51
341
328
46
224
<»9
23
1*3
48
«3
108
245
109
111
1*6
75
82
214
117
181
269
212
98
7*
-------
DECEMBER 31,
TABLE 19
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF PER CAPITA BACKLOG COSTS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED TREATMENT FACILITIES
BASED ON 1980 POPULATION AND PROJECTED 2000 POPULATION
THOUSANDS OF 1982 DOLLARS
POPULATIONS IN THOUSANDS
CATEGORIES I. IIA. 4 118
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
OIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YOHK
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
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1982
BACKLOGS
338,468
100,587
116,590
1*2,926
1.036,486
121,700
367,596
24,469
9,036
950.234
391,613
76,862
92,156
829,970
331,317
473.201
155.973
378.972
211.684
167.275
334.166
1.337.408
1.207.052
428.412
275.598
645.651
28.713
130.033
62.775
230.211
2,126,069
74.249
3.469.503
426.877
12.787
1,156,524
111.327
116.195
1.087.812
186,099
159.235
74.1A2
428.305
932,401
131,412
104,dlB
548,122
482,424
378,527
603,536
43.178
13.847
8.487
10.924
176.804
41,353
10.978
23,912,611
1980
POPULATION
3,890
400
2,718
2,286
23,669
2,889
3,108
59S
630
9.740
5.464
965
944
11.418
5,490
2,913
2.363
3,661
4,204
1,125
4.216
5,737
9,258
4.077
2.521
4.917
787
1.570
799
921
7.364
1.300
17.577
5.874
653
10,797
3.025
2.633
11.867
947
3.119
6VO
4.591
14.228
1.461
Sll
5.346
4.130
1.950
4.705
450
33
110
17
3,197
118
99
DOLLARS PER
PERSON (1980)
87
251
42
62
43
42
118
41
14
97
71
79
97
72
60
162
66
103
50
148
79
233
130
105
109
131
36
82
78
249
288
57
197
72
19
107
36
44
91
196
51
107
93
65
90
205
102
116
194
128
95
419
77
642
55
350
110
230.075
103
2000
POPULATION
4.140
694
4,357
2,970
26,786
4.371
3.902
841
694
15.049
7.053
1.366
1.183
12,358
6,059
3.101
2,642
4,224
4,880
1,222
5.583
6.736
10.314
4.505
2.740
5.379
938
1.734
1.408
1.306
9.022
1.781
19.683
7.419
690
12.237
3,702
3.209
12.854
1.084
3.700
730
5,573
21.000
1,963
607
6.755
4.859
2.101
5,553
484
40
275
33
4.700
183
116
278.888
DOLLARS PER
PERSON (20001
81
144
26
48
38
27
94
29
13
63
55
56
77
67
54
152
59
89
43
136
59
198
117
95
100
120
30
74
44
176
235
41
176
57
18
94
30
36
B4
171
43
101
76
44
r>7
172
81
99
140
108
19
346
30
331
37
225
94
AS
61
-------
1962 NEEDS SURVEY
CURRENT PER CAPITA BACKLOG COSTS BY CATEGORY
(DOLLARS PER PERSON)
OECEMPER 31. 1982
TABLE 20
CATEGORIES _
ALARAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
HIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GFORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
TOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
M'NNtSOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NFRRASKA
NFVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JFKSFY
NEK MEXICO
NEK YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NOHTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VFKMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MAWIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. AVERAGE
TOTAL
205
577
10?
126
111
52
172
13*
24
232
15*.
346
219
125
13*
2*9
195
266
16*1
436
179
460
255
192
201
256
90
101
137
776
463
93
597
161
2-»
226
91
22«
221
475
215
123
240
142
143
414
22?
156
6S1
312
112
1.09R
166
2.326
244
640
266
247
66
251
42
53
41
40
104
33
0
63
46
79
92
28
40
136
65
60
48
146
2S
215
106
66
91
130
34
62
46
24*
250
56
167
51
19
64
34
35
76
163
41
94
65
58
64
165
90
112
1*3
109
88
419
77
580
54
346
110
67
II*
16
0
0
7
1
1
12
7
0
7
23
0
4
44
19
26
0
22
1
1
S3
14
21
15
16
0
1
0
22
2
24
0
6
16
0
36
1
7
14
13
8
11
27
6
25
36
6
0
9
16
7
0
0
62
0
3
0
14
I IB
3
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
14
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
1
0
0
0
6
2
13
0
3
0
6
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
o
i
5
3
0
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
III A
22
5
0
a
2
2
7
1
10
7
17
0
7
15
6
29
20
28
16
15
3
3
7
6
21
7
1
0
3
10
30
0
10
14
0
12
4
26
2
24
3
33
12
7
14
3
in a
11
1
3
5
31
3
10
4
0
10
0
0
4
5
0
0
213
0
0
1
3
6
0
31
0
1
0
2
0
6
0
15
16
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
20
IV A
76
210
49
40
46
6
177
54
0
69
42
198
62
15
45
37
41
108
79
174
S3
140
54
31
45
42
43
13
41
286
59
28
132
68
4
62
28
119
110
162
85
4
86
29
32
135
73
127
358
44
6
197
65
909
103
200
121
72
IV B
18
109
10
13
12
1
63
33
0
3ft
22
50
29
16
19
19
58
44
36
91
12
100
51
44
24
66
6
4
8
224
63
7
43
25
4
43
18
30
24
81
54
7
26
32
12
56
43
6ft
94
116
6
480
14
774
76
69
33
38
62
-------
DECEMBER 31i 1982
TAHLE 21
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
01ST. OF COLUH.
FLOP IDA
GFOROIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NF6RASKA
NEVADA
NFW HAMPSHIRE
NF* JERSEY
NF* MEXICO
NFM YORK
NOHTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OOEf'ON
PENNSYLVANIA
WHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TFXAS
UTAH
VFHMONT
VIHCiIMA
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MAM I ANAS GROUP
PUERTO HICO
PAC. TR. TERM.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
19R2 EPA ASSESSMENTS OF YEAR 2000 NEEDS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PURLICLY-OwNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
MILLIONS OF 19M2 OGLLAHS
TOTAL
1.176
396
623
557
5.029
509
1.404
144
15
4,582
1.518
589
351
2.373
983
1.017
763
1.421
1.409
5RS
1.152
3.163
3. OKI
1.160
804
2. A3*
121
293
220
96*>
*.200
2SO
1 1 ,67*
1.775
*5
3.433
514
ftrtS
3,744
49S
1.027
160
1.001
3.971
Sh?
?3M
1.A2X
2. *1*
1.4*9
2.061
12ft
55
3ft
61
1.113
lOh
42
82.62*
361
180
280
269
2,*35
312
363
*2
0
1.680
53*
181
161
598
313
491
253
397
S3A
197
194
1.375
1.322
>78
358
1.0B2
44
196
101
317
2.187
149
3.762
448
30
1.0*5
2*0
189
1.319
IV*
197
106
***
1.752
3*6
95
657
47A
*31
895
91
22
22
15
369
59
IS
31.134
CATEGORIES _I_IHHU,_IW_
II* IIB III
82
0
0
30
72
15
55
20
0
129
192
0
8
96S
1*8
93
1
112
18
2
246
98
263
109
66
*
2
0
30
*
220
1
17*
12*
0
522
U
3*
280
13
35
IS
170
157
75
23
**
6
23
1*3
7
0
0
1
5
0
0
4.871
24
0
2
6
71
0
4
14
0
1
0
17
23
39
15
3
0
0
0
6
2
133
0
70
40
0
119
1
4
2*
0
5
1
7
7
0
0
5t»
17
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
873
in a
IV A
IV B
88
Z
1
ia
61
s
23
0
6
77
94
0
7
17K
47
MS
SO
1«4
76
17
13
20
73
2«
55
37
1
0
2
9
226
0
1«6
87
0
135
13
71
IS
2
76
2
153
181
11
7
1"
115
4
32
1
0
0
0
18
0
0
4
0
0
2
156
1
16
2
It
0
14
17
2
55
3
1
21
S
15
6
130
IB
99
17
0
49
0
1
3
4
2
0
3.759
0
0
21
9
17
0
29
0
0
3
29
0
3
2
62
2
80
1
355
98
188
126
1.487
28
686
41
0
1.219
324
283
108
209
293
122
127
477
390
226
266
BBS
590
157
134
251
36
28
46
311
577
47
2.670
509
2
806
116
363
1.611
166
357
3
500
588
67
76
501
68S
747
288
2
6
7
22
390
24
13
260
115
150
104
745
145
254
37
0
1.334
373
106
62
366
17*
222
308
52*
367
133
282
7*0
692
253
186
609
36
66
29
315
852
52
1.051
56*
10
781
117
206
491
88
354
30
S20
1.254
61
31
3*5
72*
237
620
23
26
7
24
316
20
13
2.557
4.692
20.664
17.830
NOTE: SUM OF ENTRIES MAY NOT EOUAL TOTALS DUE TO OOUNO-OFFS
63
-------
198? NEEDS SURVEY
INDEPENDENT STATE ESTIMATES OF YEAR 2000 NFFDS BY CATEGORY
FOR CONSTPUCTION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
MILLIONS OF 1982 DOLLARS
OECEMBEM 31. 1982
TABLE 22
CATEGORIES 1 THRU Jy
TOTAL
IIA
82
0
0
30
72
15
55
20
0
129
192
0
8
965
148
93
I
112
18
2
246
98
263
109
65
4
2
0
30
4
220
1
174
124
0
522
14
34
280
13
35
15
170
158
75
23
44
WASHINGTON 2.4MH B76 6
WEST VIRGINIA 1.449 431 23
WISCONSIN 2,061 895 143
WYOMING 126 91 7
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MAX I ANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS 82.773 31.141 4,872
NOTE: SUM OF ENTRIES MAY NOT EQUAL TOTALS DUE TO ROUNO-OFFS
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARI70NA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
01 ST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GFORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KFNTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEUMASKA
NEVADA
NFW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NFW MEXICO
NFW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TFNNtsSEE
TFHAS
UTAH
VFwwONT
1.176
396
623
557
5,168
509
1.404
144
15
4,582
1.53H
589
351
2.373
983
1.017
763
1.621
1.409
SR5
1.152
3.163
3,081
1,160
804
2.034
121
293
220
966
4,200
250
11,674
1.775
45
3.433
514
885
3.744
495
1.027
160
l."oi
3.9«2
562
?3«
1,62*
2.4MH
1,449
2,061
126
55
38
63
1.113
106
42
361
180
280
269
2.435
312
363
42
0
1.680
534
101
161
598
313
491
253
397
538
197
194
1.375
1.322
578
358
1.082
44
196
101
317
2.187
149
3.762
448
30
1.045
240
189
1.319
194
197
106
444
1.7bB
346
95
6S7
B76
431
895
91
22
22
15
369
59
15
na
24
0
2
6
71
0
4
14
III A
III B
IV *
iv a
17
23
39
IS
3
0
0
0
6
2
133
0
70
40
0
119
1
4
24
0
5
1
7
7
5
1
88
2
1
18
200
5
23
0
6
77
94
0
7
178
47
85
50
104
76
17
13
20
73
28
55
37
1
0
2
9
226
0
186
87
0
135
13
71
15
2
76
2
153
181
11
7
18
MS
*
32
1
1
4
0
0
2
156
1
16
2
0
0
14
17
2
55
3
1
21
5
15
6
130
18
99
17
0
49
0
1
3
4
2
0
3.759
0
0
21
9
17
0
29
0
0
3
29
0
3
2
62
2
80
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
355
98
188
126
1.487
28
686
41
0
1.219
324
283
108
209
293
122
127
477
390
226
266
885
590
157
134
251
36
28
46
311
577
47
2.670
509
2
806
116
363
1.611
166
357
3
500
588
67
76
501
68S
747
288
2
6
7
22
390
24
13
260
115
150
104
745
145
254
37
0
1.334
373
106
62
366
174
222
308
524
367
133
282
740
692
253
186
609
36
66
29
315
852
52
1.051
564
10
781
117
206
491
80
354
30
520
1.258
61
31
345
724
?37
620
23
26
7
24
316
20
13
873
2.695
4.692
20.664
17.833
64
-------
DECF.MRER 31t 1982
TA«LE 23
1982 NFEDS SUKVEY
COMPAOISON OF 19*2 AND 1980 EP» ASSESSMENTS OF YEAR 2000 MEEDS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED WASTEWATE* TREATMENT FACILITIES
THOUSANDS OF I«*n2 DOLLARS
CATEGORIES I_IfiPO.UG.H_JJt
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
OIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAHOLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VEHMONT
VlUftlNTA
tSHlNftTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MAAIANAS GROUP
PUERTO HICO
PAC. TR. TFH*.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1900 EPA
ESTIMATE
It029.982
5*0, 280
691.67*
5*5, 452
7.126,075
1,056.188
1.278.871
303,370
26,466
5.587,410
1.544,271
932. 70S
480,644
2,618,881
1,254,873
1.099.359
9*9,403
1.466,447
1.310,665
650.242
3.363.939
3,006,013
3.525.327
1.405.233
962.302
2.210.589
126.663
315.863
275.970
995.790
4.1*4,482
771.479
12.364.059
1.978.049
62.289
3,804.629
711,371
1.116.0X3
3.860.607
696.068
993.190
211. ??6
1.8*8.771
4.9X2.117
4M.455
7S9.014
1.741.K14
2.<>Q7.ifc*>
1. 207.736
2.146.880
154.006
66.386
77.870
71.074
1.318. 513
125.320
53.970
COSTS
1982 EPA
ASSESSMENT
1.1 76.325
396.286
623.055
557,139
5,029.973
509.435
1,404,510
144,249
15.509
4.582.047
1.538.000
589.561
351.935
2.373,667
983.128
1.017.140
763.936
1,621.521
1.409.505
5*5,094
1.152.280
3.163.587
3.081.359
1,160.341
804.009
2.034.731
121,237
29J.542
220,216
966.026
4.200,363
250,593
11.674,194
1,775,284
45,027
3.433,201
514,867
885.869
3,744.310
495.183
1,077.403
160,034
1.801,163
3.471.990
Sfc?.2«7
23n,7'58
l.«.2<».<<«»5
2,»f<>1,924
1.449.124
2.061.234
126.867
55.337
38.754
63,502
1.113.541
106.114
42.101
CHANGE
146.343
-163.994
-68.619
-8.313
-2.096.102
-546.753
175.639
-159,121
-10,957
-1.005,363
-6.271
-343,147
-128. 7U9
-245.214
-271,745
-82.219
-!8b,46F
-244,926
98.840
-65.148
-2. 211.6*9
157,574
-443,968
-244.892
-158.293
-175,858
j,426
-22,321
-55,754
-29,764
35.881
29.114
-689.865
-202.765
-17.262
-371.428
-196,504
-230,213
-116.297
-200.885
34.213
-51,192
-S7.6U8
-I.01U.127
110.
-------
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF 1982 AND 1980 EP« ASSESSMENTS OF YEAR 2000 NEEDS
FOM CONSTRUCTION OF TKEATMENT PLANTS
THOUSANDS OF 19«2 DOLLARS
CATS It HAi AND IIB
OECFMRER 31t 1982
TABLE 2*
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARI70NA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
OIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MCXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH OAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VFRMONT
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TFRR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1980 EPA
ESTIMATE
353.110
362.583
318.205
255,268
3.166.476
4Aa,450
471,206
156,144
9,175
2.030.502
650,493
295.427
237.760
1.815.119
600.382
593.083
389.971
605.201
501.895
211.640
872.664
1.173,170
1.755.572
707.853
4S2.36S
1.101.165
67.515
215. 263
1*5,033
313.190
2.715,008
130.276
3.9H1.596
810.834
42.941
1.775.317
372.731
335.075
1.698,049
214.539
299. 4S3
171.153
772.137
1.810.479
2H2.2«9
173. S40
700,353
1.0 "^5. 217
476.185
1.140.398
105.856
75,848
21.776
18.962
472.089
61.415
71.413
COSTS
1982 EPA
ASSESSMENT
468.124
180.010
2X3.823
305.950
2.579.017
327.506
473.546
62.742
9,036
1.951.022
730,677
181.540
171.822
1.563.949
463.920
585.127
254,874
509,897
558.788
200.362
458.529
1.498,214
1,675,789
704.042
476.569
1,086.555
46.812
196,560
138.22?
324.987
2.541.287
150.839
4.007.200
612.967
30.933
1,687.367
256.768
227.865
1.675.405
207,107
239.048
123.372
622.920
1.917.345
471, b99
119.954
761.112
M44.970
456.821
1.039.246
99.083
22.748
22.958
16.992
375.333
60.378
15.001
CHANGE
115.014
-182.573
-34,382
50.682
-587,459
-160,944
2.340
-93.392
-139
-79,480
80,184
-113.887
-65.93B
-251.170
-136.462
-7,956
-135.097
-95.304
56.893
-11.278
-364.135
325.044
-129,783
-3.811
-25.796
-14,610
-20.773
-18.703
-46.810
11.797
376.279
20.613
75.604
-197.867
-12.008
-87,950
-65.963
-107.210
-72.64*
-7,432
-60.405
-47,781
-99,217
106,916
139,300
-3.5H6
-?9.£4l
-135.247
30,636
-101.152
-6,773
-3.100
1.182
-1.970
-96.756
-1.037
-6.412
PI
198(1 EPA
ESTIMATE
0.8982
0.9223
0.8094
0.6493
B.OS49
1.2425
1.0714
0.3972
0.0233
5.1652
1.6547
0.7515
0.6048
4.6173
1.5272
1.5087
0.9920
1.5395
1.7767
0.5383
2.0927
2.9843
4.4658
1.8006
1.1507
2.8011
0.1719
0.5475
0.4706
0.7967
5.6346
0.3312
10.1285
2.0626
0.1092
4.1161
0.8209
0.8523
4.3195
0.5457
0.7617
0.4353
1.8369
4.AOS4
0.7181
0.314?
7.010S
2.0,334
1.08*1
2.9009
0.2692
0.0657
0.0553
0.0482
1.7009
0.1562
0.0544
39.110.788 36,879.639 -2.431.149
100.0000
1982 EPA
ASSESSMENT
1.2693
0.4881
0.7695
0.8295
6.9930
0.8880
1.1484
0.1701
0.0245
S.2902
1.9812
0.4922
0.4658
4.2*06
1.2579
1.5865
0.6910
1.3H2S
1.5151
0.5432
1.2433
4.0624
4.4083
1.9090
1.1566
2.9462
0.1269
0.5329
0.3747
0.8812
6.8907
0.4090
10.8656
1.6620
0.0838
4.5753
0.6962
0.6178
4.*073
0.5615
0.6481
0.3345
1.6890
5.1989
1.1431
0.3252
2.0637
2.4402
1.2386
2.8179
0.2686
0.0616
0.0622
0.0460
1.0177
0.1637
0.0406
100.0000
CHANGE
0.3711
-0.4341
-0.0398
0.1802
-1.0618
-0.3544
0.0770
-0.2270
0.0012
0.1250
0.3265
-0.2592
-0.1389
-0.3766
-0.2692
0.0778
-0.3009
-0.1569
0.2384
0.0049
-0.8493
1.0781
-0.0574
0.1084
0.0059
0.1451
-0.0449
-0.0145
-0.0958
0.0845
1.2561
0.0778
0.7371
-0.4005
-0.0253
0.0592
-0.1246
-0.2344
0.0878
0.0158
-0.1135
-0.1007
-0.1478
0.5935
0.4250
0.0110
0.0532
-0.1931
0.1545
-0.0829
-0.0005
-0.0040
0.0069
-0.0021
-0.1831
0.0075
-0.0137
0.0000
66
-------
DECEMBER 31«
TABLE 2s
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF 1912 ANn 1980 EPA ASSESSMENTS OF YEAR 2000 NEEDS
Ort CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED WASTEWAtER THEATMENT FACILITIES
THOUSANDS OF 19H2 OOLLAHS
CAT It HAt IIB. IIIA. AND IVB
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
OIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NFW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEw MEdCO
NEW YORK
NOHTH CAROLINA
NOMTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OWFGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VFUMONT
VIMGINI*
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUFHTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1980 EPA
ESTIMATE
696.755
511.289
544,555
418,272
5. 46*. 5*1
907,085
641.396
263.328
26.466
4,002,294
1,252,516
635,183
362,845
2,402.740
885,555
970.063
803.479
1,272.201
939,570
407.660
1.259.083
1.910,746
2,603,359
1,196.556
843.117
1,914,974
110.853
291,515
277.335
673. 1M
3.3118.796
179.454
5.807,76*
l«SOb.O»7
59,663
2,976,352
57* , 37*
7*0,87*
2,182,475
346.319
707.2V*
?flb.H71
1,302.302
*» 1 os*?le>
T.71Q
62*. 214
1. 835,510
152.991
54,886
27.870
48.086
875,41*
"4.097
36.578
19H2 EPA
ASSESSMENT
816.685
297.445
434,885
428,897
3,386,544
479,353
701,471
100,898
15,509
3.362,908
1.198,509
288,377
241,466
2,108,370
686.339
892.954
614,319
1,138.706
1,002,861
351.926
755.098
2.259.488
2,391,432
985,707
668,356
1.733,367
84,781
263.630
169.995
649.684
3.620.440
203.441
5.2*4.518
1.245.092
42.110
2. 60*. 821
388.214
504,962
2,132,609
208,600
669,735
156.072
1,297.171
3.3S*,001
494.076
158.892
1.I75.16H
1.7*0.041
699.014
1.691,8(15
123.875
4M.820
31.194
41.471
710.792
81.309
28.387
CHANGE
119.930
-213,844
-109.670
10.625
-2,077,997
-427,732
40,075
-162.430
-10,957
-729.386
-54.007
-346,806
-121.379
-294,370
-199,216
-77,109
-189,160
-133,495
63.291
-55,734
-503,985
348,742
-211.927
-210.849
-174.761
-181.607
-26.072
-27.885
-57.340
-23.477
311.644
23,987
-653,246
-239,995
-17.553
-371.531
-136.110
-2*3.912
-249,866
-*7.719
-37,559
-»9,799
-05,131
-7M.233
10b.989
-12.807
-?]». *77
-702. 6b8
74.800
-143.625
-29.116
-6.066
3.324
-6.615
-164.622
-2.780
-8.141
1980 F.PA
ESTIMATE
1.0481
0.7691
0.8191
0.6292
8.7203
1.3645
0.9949
0.3961
0.0398
6.1560
1.8841
0.9555
0.5458
3.6144
1.3321
1.4592
1.7086
1.9137
1.4134
0.6132
1.8940
2.8743
3.9167
1.7999
1.7683
2.8807
0.1667
0.4385
0.3419
1.0126
4.9774
0.7699
8.8720
2.7641
0.0897
4.4773
0.7887
1.1265
3.5839
0.5209
1.0639
0.3096
2.0944
6.1755
O.S847
0.75H2
2.0727
2.072*
0.9390
2.7611
.2301
.0825
.0*19
.0723
.3168
.1265
.0549
66.475,649 57.2*7,292 -9,208.357
100.0000
1982 EPA
ASSESSMENT
1.4260
0.5193
0.7593
0.74S9
5.9135
0.8370
1.2249
0.1761
0.0270
5.8723
2.092S
O.S03S
0.4216
3.6816
1.1984
1.5592
1.0727
1.9884
1.7511
0.6145
1.3185
3.9455
4.1759
1.7212
1.1670
3.0268
0.1480
0.4603
0.2968
1.1344
6.3220
0.3552
9.1579
2.2091
0.0735
4.5485
0.6778
0.8817
3.7239
0.5214
1.1694
0.2725
2.2651
5.8567
0.8638
0.2774
1.9»47
3.038*
1.2206
2.9543
0.2163
0.0852
0.0544
0.0724
1.2411
0.1419
0.0495
100.0000
CHANGE
0.3779
-0.2497
-0.0597
0.1197
-2.3067
-0.5274
0.2300
-0.2199
-0.0127
-0.2836
0.2087
-0.4519
-0.1241
0.0672
-0.1336
0.1000
-0.1358
0.0747
0.3377
0.0013
-0.5754
1.0712
0.2597
-0.0786
-0.1012
0.1461
-0.0186
0.0218
-0.0450
0.1218
1.3446
0.0853
0.2859
-0.0549
-0.0161
0.0712
-0.1108
-0.2447
0.1400
0.0005
0.1055
-0.0370
0.1707
-0.3187
0.2791
0.0192
-0.0579
0.1160
0.2816
0.1932
-0.0137
0.0027
0.0125
0.0001
-0.0756
0.0154
-0.0053
0.0000
67
-------
1983 NEEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON or 19S2 AND 1980 EPA ASSESSMENTS OF YEAR ZOOO NEEDS
FOR IMPROVEMENT OF TREATMENT PLANTS TO ACHIEVE SECONDARY LEVEL
THOUSANDS OF i9«2 DOLLARS
CATEGORY 1
DECEMBER 31t 1983
TABLE 26
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
OIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSFY
NEW MEXICO
N£W rORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NOWTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
PENNSYLVANIA
RMOOE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TFXAS
UTAH
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
19«0 Ft>A
ESTIMATE
249.647
362,583
318.138
234.932
3.005.7*6
419.420
359.473
109,341
9.175
1.571,566
525.530
287,474
1A5.680
708,686
115.746
578,360
343,508
S01.35«
492.35H
208,624
381.506
1.100,333
1.620.470
371, 52d
385.384
1.099,759
53.634
215.263
108.523
297.943
1.988.973
129.221
3. 869. 631
602.248
42.941
1.0*1, hSV
285.868
206,890
1.412,239
179,766
273.987
13U.872
554.160
1.633.20S
1S0.9P2
119.176
746. 3M
M9ft,b^6
413.573
1.024.874
93.823
25.846
21.776
18.962
4*4.903
61,415
21,413
COSTS
19H2 EPA
ASSESSMENT
361.290
180,010
2H0.306
269,586
2.435.180
312.317
363.798
42.041
0
1,680.746
534,989
181.540
161,845
598,129
313.968
491.459
253.827
397,328
538,407
197,511
194.54]
1.375.551
1.322.356
578.391
358.282
1,082.281
44.001
196.560
101.478
317,777
2.187,502
149.136
3.762.790
448.361
30.933
1.045,564
240, 15H
189, 165
1.319,767
194.069
197.965
106,485
444, *07
1.75?. 107
346.2$>0
9b.R36
ftS7.71H
076.261
431.800
895.584
91.721
22.748
22.958
15.596
369.926
59.627
15.001
CHANGE
»61,643
-182.573
-37.832
34.654
-570.566
-107.103
4.325
-67,300
-9,175
109,180
9.4S9
-105,934
-23.785
-110.557
-1.778
-36.901
-129.681
-104.031
46.044
-11.113
-186.965
275.318
-298.122
206.863
-27,102
-17.478
-9,633
-18.703
-7.045
19,*34
198. S2V
19.91!>
-106.841
-153.887
-12,008
3.705
-45.710
-17.725
-112.472
14.303
-76.022
-?4,387
-109,753
118.402
145.338
-13.340
-HH.643
-?0.2h3
18.227
-129.290
-2.102
-3.100
1.182
-3.366
-94,977
-1.788
-6.412
1980 EPA
ESTIMATE
0.9112
1.1026
0.9674
0.7144
9.1407
1.2754
1.0931
0.3325
0.0278
4.7792
1.S981
0.8742
0.5646
2.1551
0.9601
1.6067
1.1662
1.5246
1.4972
0.6344
1.1601
3.3458
4.9279
1.1298
1.1719
3.3444
0.1630
0.6546
0.3300
0.9060
6.0486
0.3929
11.7678
1.8314
0.1305
3.1683
0.8693
0.6291
4.3555
0.5*66
0.8332
0.3979
1.6852
4.Q667
0.45(19
0.1320
32.883.029 31.134.990 -1.748.03V
2.7?61
1.2576
3.1167
O.P853
0.0785
0.0662
0.0576
1.4137
0.1867
0.0651
100.0000
1982 EPA
ASSESSMENT
1.1603
0.5781
0.9002
0.8658
7.8213
1.0030
1.1684
0.1350
0.0000
5.3982
1.7182
0.5830
0.5199
1.9210
1.0083
1.5784
0.8152
1.2761
1.7292
0.6343
0.6248
4.4180
4.2471
1.8576
1.1507
3.4760
0.1413
0.6313
0.3259
1.0206
7.0258
0.4789
12.0853
1.4400
0.0993
3.3581
0.7713
0.6075
4.2388
0.6233
0.6358
0.3420
1.4273
5.6274
1.1121
0.3077
2.1124
2.8143
1.3868
2.8764
0.294S
0.0730
0.0737
0.0500
1.1881
0.1915
0.0481
100.0000
CHANGE
0.2491
-0.5244
-0.0671
0.1514
-1.3193
-0.2723
0.0752
-0.1974
-0.0278
0.6189
0.1200
-0.2911
-0.0446
-0.2340
0.0481
-0.0283
-0.3510
-0.2485
0.2319
0.0000
-0.5353
1.0721
-0.6808
0.7278
-0.0212
0.1316
-0.0217
-0.0233
-0.0041
0.1145
0.9772
0.0860
0.3175
-0.3914
-0.0312
0.1897
-0.0979
-0.0216
-0.1167
0.0766
-0.1973
-0.0559
-0.2578
0.6607
0.6531
-0.0242
-0.1572
0.0879
0.1291
-0.2402
0.0092
-0.0055
0.0075
-0.0075
-0.2256
0.0047
-0.0169
0.0000
68
-------
DECEMBER 31. 1902
TABLE 27
1482 NEEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF 1912 »NO 1480 EPA ASSESSMENTS OF YEAH 2000 NEEDS
TO ACHIEVE MOKt STRINGENT TREATEMENT LEVELS
THOUSANDS OF i9b2 DOLLARS
CATEGORIES 1IA I I1B
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DIST. OF COLUN.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE.
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEHMASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YURK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
HHOUE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
6UAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUFHTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1980 EPA
ESTIMATE
53.463
0
67
20.336
160.730
69,030
61,733
46,803
0
454.936
124. 463
7.953
52,080
1,106,433
284,636
64,723
6.463
103.842
9.537
3.016
441, 1SB
72.937
135,094
3V.. 325
66,981
1.406
13,951
0
76,509
IS. 247
226. OJS
1.005
111,965
208,586
0
733,458
36,863
12«,183
265.010
34.773
2S.466
40,281
Ih7.977
177.2*4
131. 3'7
1*. 36*
43.4V2
13H.641
12.612
115.524
12.033
0
0
0
7.186
0
0
COSTS
1982 Er>A
ASSESSMENT
106,834
0
3,517
36,364
14J.H37
15,189
59,748
20,711
9,036
270,276
195.688
0
9,927
965,420
149.952
9J.668
1,047
112,569
20.381
2,851
263,988
122,663
303. «J3
125,651
6H.287
4,274
2,811
0
36,744
7.210
353. 705
1,703
244.410
164.606
0
641. 803
16.610
38.700
305.638
13.038
41.083
16.607
17*. 513
I6*.
-------
DECEMBER 31t 1982
TABLE as
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF 1982 AND 1980 EPA ASSESSMENTS OF YEAR 2000 NEEDS
FOR CORRECTION OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW CONDITIONS
THOUSANDS OF 19«2 DOLLAHS
CATEGORY III *
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
OEL AWARE
niST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NFW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NFw MEXICO
NEK YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
ORFGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TF»AS
UTAH
VFUMONT
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUFRTO RICO
MAC. TR. TFHR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1980 FPA
ESTIMATE
89,477
28,112
934
11.623
59.083
11.8??
13.302
4,083
17.291
102.001
100.721
17
19.010
207,428
47,034
112.056
63.478
99.3S2
59,365
14,653
12.500
14.356
69.0A1
42.289
126.448
47.596
1,784
1,087
2.698
9,595
121.494
0
1 10,680
97.715
572
2S5.301
44.839
49.645
17.ASO
2.754
69,370
4.947
153.577
19V, 8MH
36.556
2.3H8
18.33*
110.97-i
2,075
112.543
6.936
0
825
0
19,969
0
158
COSTS
1942 EPA
ASSESSMENT
RO. 114
2.218
1.050
18.539
61.869
5.919
23.580
941
6,473
77,471
94,145
0
7,044
178,019
47.577
85.729
50.717
104.413
76.993
17.973
13.649
20,528
73.344
78,488
55.271
37.624
1.459
637
2.560
9.533
226.954
0
186.072
87,345
441
135.785
13.904
71,071
15.837
2.771
76.292
2.606
153.873
181.791
11.4SO
7,«40
1<4.19«*
11S.H94
4.423
32.048
1.426
0
922
0
18.613
0
148
CHANGE
-1.363
-25.894
116
-13.084
2,786
-5,903
10.270
-3.142
-10,818
-24,530
-6,576
-17
-11.966
-29,409
543
-26,327
-12.711
5.061
17,628
3.320
1.149
6.172
4.263
-13.801
-71.177
-9,972
-325
-4bO
-138
-62
105,460
0
75,384
-10.370
-131
-119,516
-30.935
21.426
-2,013
17
6,922
-2.341
296
-18,097
-25,106
5.252
-133
4.919
2.348
-80,495
-5.510
0
97
0
-1.356
0
-10
2.847.625
2.557.382
-290.243
1980 EPA
ESTIMATE
3.1421
0.9872
0.0327
1.1105
2.0748
0.4151
0.4671
0.1433
0.6072
3.5819
3.5370
0.0005
0.6675
7.2842
1.6516
3.9350
2.2274
3.4889
2.0847
0.5145
0.4389
0.5041
2.4259
1.4850
4.4404
1.6714
0.0626
0.0381
0.0947
0.3369
4.7665
0.0000
3.8870
3.4314
0.0200
8.9654
1.5746
1.7433
0.6268
0.0967
2.4360
0.1737
5.3931
7.0194
1.7837
0.0838
3l«971
0.0728
3.9521
0.2435
0.0000
0.0289
0.0000
0.7012
0.0000
0.0055
100.0000
1982 EPA
ASSESSMENT
3.4454
0.0867
0.0410
0.7249
2.4192
0.2314
0.9220
0.0367
0.2531
3.0292
3.6812
0.0000
0.7754
6.9609
1.8603
3.3522
1.9831
4.0827
3.0106
0.7027
0.5336
0.8026
2.8679
1.1139
2.1612
1.4711
0.0570
0.0248
0.1000
0.3727
8.8744
0.0000
7.2758
3.4153
0.0172
5.3095
0.5436
2.7790
0.6192
0.1083
2.9831
0.1018
6.0168
7.1084
0.4477
0.29H7
0.7116
4.5317
0.1729
1.2531
0.0557
0.0000
0.0360
0.0000
0.7278
0.0000
0.0057
100.0000
CHANGE
0.3033
-0.9004
0.0083
-0.3855
0.3444
-0.1836
0.4549
-0.1065
-0.3540
-0.5525
0.1442
-0.0004
-0.3920
-0.3232
0.2087
-0.5827
-0.2442
0.5939
0.9259
0.1882
0.0947
0.2985
0.4420
-0.3710
-2.2791
-0.2002
-O.OOS5
-0.0131
0.0054
0.0358
4.6079
0.0000
3.3888
-0.0159
-0.0027
-3.6558
-1.0309
1.0357
-0.0075
0.0116
0.5471
-0.0718
0.6237
0.0890
-0.8359
0.7149
0.0*78
0.6346
0.1001
-2.6989
-0.1877
0.0000
0.0071
0.0000
0.0266
0.0000
0.0002
0.0000
70
-------
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
OIST. OF COLUH.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NfHRASKA
NEVADA
NEK HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MFXICO
NEW YORK
NOUTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OR F SON
PFNNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEHAS
UTAH
VERMONT
wASHlNf-TON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
»>AC. TR. TFHR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1962 NEEDS SURVEY
CUMPARISON OF 1982 AND 1980 EPA ASSESSMENTS OF YEAR 2000 NEEDS
FOR CORRECTION OF MAJOR RFHA4IL1fATION AND REPLACEMENT
THOUSANDS OF 1982 DOLLARS
CATEGORY in a
DECEMBER 31 1982
TA8LE 29
1980 F.PA
ESTIMATE
4.084
109
364
3.002
193.914
174.566
16.324
1.549
0
10
9.287
0
436
11.205
22.660
1.320
72.532
9,428
12.905
7.565
1.846.373
123.172
87.623
32.614
0
36.558
598
1.315
3.138
5.804
1.903
312
3.829,310
0
0
13.256
78,485
57,3*2
909
29.9J4
674
1,888
417
120.029
0
6.87*
16,031
85.2tU
3.751
18.094
II
0
0
0
12.782
0
0
COSTS
1982 EPA
ASSESSMENT
4.614
109
39
2.236
156.111
1.262
16,634
2.328
0
0
14.583
17,213
2,224
55.345
3.027
1.323
21.670
5.255
15.692
6.351
130.750
18.384
99,451
17,081
947
49,476
124
1,316
3,892
4,773
2,277
89
3.759.523
314
66
21,394
9,928
17,604
545
29,963
0
721
3.776
29.520
0
3.239
2. 1«5
62.463
2.719
80.914
0
0
370
0
11.914
0
0
CHANGE
530
0
-325
-766
-37.803
-123.304
310
779
0
-10
5,296
17.213
1.786
44,1*0
-19,633
3
-862
-4.173
2.787
-1.214
-1.715.573
-104.768
11.828
-15.533
947
12.920
-474
1
754
-1.031
374
-223
-69.787
314
68
8.136
-18.557
-39,758
-364
29
-62*
-1,167
3.359
-90.509
u
-3.5»5
-13.8*6
-27.318
-532
62.820
0
0
370
0
-868
0
0
HI
1980 EPA
ESTIMATE
0.0600
0.0016
0.0053
0.0441
2.8495
1.8304
0.2398
0.0227
0.0000
0.0001
0.1364
0.0000
0.0064
0.1646
0.3329
0.0193
0.3311
0.1365
0.1896
0.1111
27.1314
1.6099
1.2876
0.4792
0.0000
0.5372
0.0087
0.0193
0.0461
0.0852
0.0279
0.0045
56.7711
0.0000
0.0000
0.1948
0.4185
0.8429
0.0133
0.4198
0.0091
0.0277
0.0061
1.7638
o.nooo
0.1002
0.7355
1 . 75 3 1
0.0477
0.2658
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
0.1878
0.0000
0.0000
E-Of .NATlflNAl-IP.IA.LS
1982 EPA
ASSESSMENT CHANGE
6.805,09')
4,692.25* -2.112.841
100.0000
0.0983
0.0023
O.OOOB
0.0476
3.3269
0.0268
0.3544
0.0496
0.0000
0.0000
0.3107
0.3A68
0.0473
1.1794
0.0645
0.0281
0.4618
0.1119
0.3344
0.1353
2.7864
0.3917
2.1194
0.3640
0.0201
1.0544
0.0026
0.0280
0.0829
0.1017
0.0485
0.0018
80.1216
0.0066
0.0018
0.4559
0.2115
0.3751
0.0116
0.6385
0.0000
0.0153
0.0804
0.6291
0.0000
0.0690
0.0465
1.3418
0.0579
1.7244
0.0000
0.0000
0.0078
0.0000
0.2536
0.0000
0.0000
100.0000
0.0383
0.0007
-0.0044
0.0035
0.4774
-1.8035
0.1146
0.0269
0.0000
0.0000
0.1743
0.3668
0.0409
1.0148
-0.2683
0.0088
0.1307
-0.0265
0.1448
0.0242
-24.3448
-1.4181
0.6318
-0.1151
0.0201
0.5172
-0.0060
0.0087
0.0368
0.0165
0.0206
-0.0026
23.8507
0.0066
0.0018
0.2611
-0.2069
-0.4677
-0.0016
0.1987
-0.0090
-0.0123
0.0743
-1.1346
0.0000
-0.0311
-0.1889
0.06H7
0.0102
1.4586
0.0000
0.0000
0.0078
0.0000
0.0660
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
71
-------
DECEMBER 31t 1982
TABLE 30
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARI70NA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
HIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NF> HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NFw YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
ORFGON
PFNNSYLVANIA
"MODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSfE
TFXAS
UTAH
VFBHONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1983 NEEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF 19*2 AND 1980 EPA ASSESSMENTS OF TEAR 2000 NEEDS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ELIGIBLE NEK COLLECTORS AND APPURTENANCES
THOUSANDS OF 1982 DOLLARS
CATEGORY IV A
COSTS
19*0 FPA
ESTIMATE
329.1*3
*a.A82
1*6.755
1**,178
l.*67.620
?*.537
551,151
38.*93
0
l.*95.106
2*2.*6ft
297.525
117,363
20*, 936
3*6,658
12?, 976
123.392
S«». 818
35A.190
215,017
258.533
972.095
A1*.3*S
176,063
119, 1«5
259.057
15.212
73.033
*5,*97
M6.B7S
HS3.7A3
*1.713
2.616.VAS
*72.962
2,626
A15.019
158. S62
30<*.ti*6
l.*77.2?3
319, 015
2*5.372
3,467
*66.0*2
7S6.SS2
<>«>«. 165
500,271
293.276
1.015
11.500
0
22.9H8
00.337
*1.273
17.**2
1982 EPA
ASSESSMENT
3S5.026
99.732
188.131
126.006
1,*A7.318
28.820
686. *05
*1.023
0
1.219.139
32*, 908
203.971
108.2*5
209.952
293.762
177,863
127,9*7
*77,560
390. 9b2
276,817
266,* 32
885.715
590. *76
157.553
13*. 706
251.886
36.332
28.S96
*6.329
3\ 1,569
577.6*6
*7.U63
V2, 670, 153
509,878
2,829
806.986
116.725
363.303
1.611.156
166.620
357,668
3,2*1
SOU. 216
5R«.*67
67.611
7o.*27
501.602
r>«5.900
7*7.391
288, «35
2,992
6.517
7.190
22.031
390.835
2*. 805
13.71*
CHANGE
25.883
*9.850
* 1.376
-18.172
19.698
*.283
135.25*
2.530
0
-275.967
*2.**0
-13. 5b*
-9,118
5,016
-52,896
-5.113
*.55S
-107,258
32.762
-8.200
7,899
-86. .380
-2*3.869
-18.510
15.521
-7,171
21,120
5,563
832
-5.256
-276.137
5.350
33.166
36.916
203
-8.033
-*1.837
53,*b7
133.933
-153.195
72.396
-226
3*. 16*
-168.3H5
*.8*3
-3.H6*
170.36*
116.733
167,120
-«.8*1
1.977
-*.983
7.1VO
-957
-39,502
-16.*18
-3.728
PERCENTAGE OF NATIONiL_IQIALS
19HO EPA 1982 EPA
ESTIMATE ASSESSMENT CHANGE
l.S6*6
0.2323
0.6976
0.6853
6.9767
0.1166
2.6200
0.1829
0.0000
7.1073
1.3*27
0.1579
0.97*2
1.6*79
0.6083
O.SA65
2.7800
1.7027
1.1172
1.7289
4.A211
3.9662
0.8369
0.5665
1.731*
0.0723
0.109*
0.2162
*.05A6
0.1982
12.5356
2.?*83
0.012*
3.»7«*
0.7S37
1.4729
7.0223
1.5203
1.3S61
0.016*
2.215*
3.5978
0.2983
0.3M26
21.035,9** 20.66*.772
-371.173
2.7056
2.758*
1.39*1
0.00*8
0.05*6
0.0000
0.1092
2.0*57
0.1959
0.0829
100.0000
1.7180
0.*777
0.9103
0.6097
7.1973
0.139*
3.3216
0.1985
0.0000
5.899S
1.5722
1.37*1
0.5238
1.0159
l.*21S
0.59*5
0.6191
2.3109
1.891H
1.097S
1.2892
*.2861
2.8573
0.762*
0.6518
1.2189
0.1758
0.1383
0.22*1
1.5077
2.7953
0.2277
12.9212
2.*673
0.0136
3.9051
0.56*8
1.7580
7.7966
0.8062
1.7308
0.0156
2.*206
2.0*76
0.3271
0.3707
2.*273
3.3191
3.6167
1.3957
0.01**
0.031S
0.03*7
0.1066
1.8913
0.1200
0.0663
100.0000
.0.1533
0.2*53
0.2127
-0.0756
0.2206
0.0228
0.7015
0.0155
0.0000
-1.2077
0.229*
-0.0*01
-0.03*0
0.0*17
-0.2263
-0.0138
0.0325
-O.*691
0.1891
-0.0196
0.0603
-0.33*9
-1.1088
-0.07*5
0.0852
-0.0125
0.103*
0.0288
0.0079
0.0016
-1.2633
0.029*
0.3856
0.2190
0.0011
0.0307
-0.1889
0.2851
0.77*2
-0.71*0
0.37*7
-0.0008
0.2051
-0.7502
.0.0287
-0.0118
0.6150
0.6135
0.8582
0.0016
0.0096
-0.0231
0.03*7
-0.0026
-0.15**
-0.0759
-0.0165
0.0000
72
-------
DECEMBER 31. 1982
TABLE 31
1982 NEEOS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF 1982 AMD 19«0 EPA ASSESSMENTS OF YEAR 2000 NEEDS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NFW INTFRCFPTOHS AND APPURTENANCES
THOUSANDS OF 1983 DOLLAKS
CATEGORY iv a
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
01ST. OF COLU".
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KFNTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NCHPASKA
NFVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NOHTM CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
ORFGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHOOF ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1980 EPA
ESTIMATE
254,168
120.59*
275. 416
131.381
2.238,982
406,813
226.888
103.101
0
1(959,791
501,302
339,739
106,075
3*0,193
238.139
26*. 92*
3SO.OMO
567,6*8
378.310
181.367
»23.919
723.220
778,706
**6.*1*
2A*,30*
766.213
41.4X4
75,165
39.605
350.376
972.294
49. 278
1(805. 4MO
596.538
16.150
945.73*
156.75*
36*. 15*
6*6.576
179.026
318.471
79.771
516.SPH
2(094.919
.9.8.12
45.771
S.TJ.OSM
706.S/7
195.954
582.569
40.199
29.038
5.269
29,124
383, 3S6
22.682
14.957
1982 F.PA
ASSESSMENT
260.4*7
115.217
150.012
10*,*08
745.658
145,928
254,3*5
37.205
0
1,334,415
373.687
106.837
62(600
366.402
174,842
222,098
308,728
524.396
367,080
133,591
282.920
740.746
692,299
253.177
186.516
609,188
36.510
66,433
29.213
315.164
852.199
52.602
1,051.246
564,780
10,736
781.669
117. S42
216.026
491,367
88.722
3S4.395
30.094
520.378
1.254.867
61.627
31.248
34S.H57
7*4.197
237.770
620.591
23.366
26.072
7.314
24,479
316,846
20,911
13,238
CHANGE
6,279
-5.377
-75,40*
-26.973
-1,493.324
-260,885
27.457
-65.896
0
-625.376
-127,615
-232.902
-43(475
-13(791
-63.297
-42.876
-41, 352
-43(252
-11(230
-47,776
-140.999
17.526
-86,407
-193,237
-77.788
-157.025
-*,97*
-8,732
-10.392
-35.212
-120,095
3.37*
-75*. 23*
-31.758
-5,414
-164.065
-39.212
-156.128
-175.209
-40.304
15.92*
323
3.79U
-840.0*2
-8.20*
-14.473
-140.101
-72.310
41.816
38.022
-16.833
-2.966
2.045
-4.645
-66.510
-1.751
-U719
1980 EPA
ESTIMATE
1.0452
0.4959
0.9269
0.5402
9.2073
1.6729
0.9330
0.4239
0.0000
8.0592
2.0615
1.3971
0.4362
1.563*
0.9793
1.089*
1.4396
2.33*3
1.5557
0.7*58
1.7*32
2.97*1
3.2022
1.8357
1.0868
3.1509
0.1705
0.3091
0,1628
1.4408
3.9983
0.702*
7.4246
2.4531
0.0664
3.8891
0.6446
1.4975
2.7411
O.S30S
1.3918
0.1224
2.12*3
8.61*9
0.7871
0.1802
2.20*0
3.775S
0.8058
2.3957
0.1653
0.119*
0.0216
0.1197
1.576*
0.0932
0.0615
PERCENJAGE OF NATIONAL TOTALS
1982 EPA
ASSESSMENT CHANGE
?».317.216 17,830.271 -6.4R6.96b
100.0000
1.4606
0.6461
0.8413
0.5055
4.1819
0.818*
1.426*
0.2086
0.0000
7.4839
2.0957
0.5991
0.3510
2.0549
0.9805
1.2456
1.731*
2.9*10
2.0S87
0.7*92
1.5867
4.1544
3.8827
1.4199
1.0*60
3.4165
0.20*7
0.3725
0.1638
1.7675
4.7794
0.2950
5.8950
3.1675
0.0602
4.3839
0.6592
1.1554
2.7557
0.4975
1.9875
0.1687
2.918*
7.0378
0.3*56
0.1755
1.9397
4.0616
1.3335
3.4805
0.1310
0.1462
0.0410
0.1372
1.7770
0.1173
0.07*2
100.0000
0.415*
0.1502
-0.0855
0.0*53
-5.0253
-0.85**
0.*93*
-0.2152
0.0000
-0.5752
0.0342
-0.7979
-0.0851
0.4915
0.0012
0.1562
0.2918
0.6067
0.5030
0.003*
-0.156*
1.1803
0.680S
-0.4157
-0.0407
0.2656
0.0342
0.0634
0.0010
0.3267
0.7811
0.0926
-1.5287
0.71**
-0.0061
.0.4948
0.01*6
-0.3*20
0.0146
-0.0329
0.5957
0.0463
0.794?
-1.5770
0.0585
-0.0126
-0.2642
0.78*1
0.5277
1.0848
-0.0342
0.0268
0.0194
0.0175
0.2006
0.0241
0.0127
0.0000
73
-------
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF 1983 AND 1980 EPA ASSESSMENTS OF YEAR 2000 NEEDS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HU8LICLY-0»NEO TWEATMENT FACILITIES
BASED ON 2000 POPULATION
THOUSANDS OF 1902 DOLLARS
POPULATIONS IN THOUSANDS
CATEGORIES 1 THRU IV
DECEMBER 31. 1982
TABLE 32
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
OIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOHA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NE* JERSEY
NEW MEIICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNtSSEE
THAS
UTAH
VEWHONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUFHTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS 94.316.692
IN DOLLARS PEH PERSON
1980 EPA
ESTIMATE
1.029,982
S60.280
691,67*
565.452
7,126.075
1.056.168
1.22A.8/1
303,370
26,466
5.587,410
1.5*4,271
932.708
480.6*4
2,618,441
1,2*4,873
1.099.JSV
949,403
1,866,447
1.310.665
6S0.242
3, 363, 939
3,006.013
3.525.327
1,405,233
962.302
2,210.589
126.663
315.863
275.970
495.790
4.164.402
2?1.479
12,3*4.0^9
1.978,049
62.289
3.804.629
711.371
1,116.0*2
3,H60,6D7
696, 0611
991, 1*0
211.216
l,HbtJ,771
4. 91?, 117
4*1, 435
9
3,744,310
4P5.1B3
1,027.403
16U.034
1,801,163
3.971,440
!>t>2.28,<«sb
2,488,92*
1.449,124
2,061,234
126,867
55,337
38.754
63.502
1,113.541
106.114
42,101
2000 POP.
4,140
694
4,357
2,970
26,786
4.371
3,902
841
694
15.049
7,053
1,366
1,183
12,358
6.059
3,101
2.642
4,224
4,880
1.222
5.583
6.736
10.314
4.505
2.7*0
5.379
938
1,734
1,408
1,306
9.022
1.781
19.683
7,419
690
12.237
3,702
3,204
12.H54
1,08*
3,700
730
9.573
21.000
1.W63
607
6. 75*9
4.859
2.101
5.553
484
40
275
33
4.700
183
116
1980 COSTS
PER CAPITA
248
807
158
190
266
241
314
360
38
371
218
682
406
211
207
354
359
441
268
532
602
446
341
311
351
410
135
182
196
762
461
124
628
266
90
310
192
347
300
642
268
289
333
237
229
426
257
534
574
3S6
318
1.659
101
2.153
2HO
6M*
465
1982 COSTS «
.3ER CAPITA
284
S71
143
IB?
187
116
359
171
22
304
218
431
29?
192
162
328
289
383
286
478
206
469
298
257
293
378
129
169
156
73V
465
140
593
239
65
200
139
276
291
456
277
219
323
189
286
3V3
241
512
689
371
262
1.383
140
1.924
236
579
362
CHANGE IN PER
CAPITA COSTS
»36
-236
15
m\
j
-79
-125
45
-189
16
-67
»0
-251
109
-19
45
-26
-70
58
20
54
-396
23
-43
-54
-58
-32
-6
-13
-40
33
t «J
4
16
-35
-27
-25
-30
-53
71
-9
-186
9
-70
-10
-48
57
-33
-16
22
US
-IS
-56
-276
39
-229
-44
-105
-103
82.624.322
278.888
338
296
-42
74
-------
DECEMBER 31. 1982
TAHLE 33
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF 19B2 EPA DOLLAR ASSESSMENTS WITH STATE DOLLAR ASSESSMENTS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUHLICLY-OWNEO WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
THOUSANDS OF 1982 DOLLARS
CATEGORIES i_i
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
OIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MA INF
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
ME* HAMPSHIRE
NEK JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NFW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
ORF.GON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TE«AS
UTAH
VFRMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TFRR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
"7982 STATE
ESTIMATE
1.176,325
414,674
6?3,055
557.139
5.714,478
550, 9«2
2.179.782
436.359
83.628
4.590,573
1.952,737
589,561
466,315
4.449.6H9
3.950,367
1.4*3,732
1. 156. 997
3.072.413
1.404,505
1.414.6S6
1.227. 4J>I
5.153,961
5.238.816
1.481,062
804.009
3.0«2. 1*7
285.256
366,325
2?0.216
1«*09,B14
6.215.857
250.5<-3
17.294.579
1.778,227
58,358
7.311.932
51*. 867
1.559.891
6.390,423
672,795
1.0?7,*u3
203.931
2*1*8,003
4.003,724
56»,8B4
500, 2S2
1.907,595
3.7M1.3SV
2.616,679
2.430,884
145.554
55.337
38.754
*3.502
1.28S.OV8
106.114
42.101
COSTS
1982 EPA
ASSESSMENT
1,176.325
414.674
623.055
557,139
5.595.930
550,982
2.179,782
436.359
83.626
4, 490,573
1,952.737
589.561
468.315
*,*69,689
3.9S0.367
1,4*3.732
1,156,997
3.072.*13
1,409.505
1,41*, 656
1.227.421
5.153.961
5.238,816
1,*81.062
80*, 009
3.082.167
285.256
3A6.325
220.216
1,*OV,814
6.215.857
250,593
17.294,579'
1.77B.227
58.358
7.311.932
514,867
1,559,891
6,390.423
672.795
1.027.*03
203.931
2.1*8.003
3.993.*19
564, R«*
500.252
1,907.595
3.781.359
2.616.679
2.430.884
1*5.554
55.337
18.754
63.502
1.285.098
106.114
42.101
DIFFERENCE
0
0
0
0
-138.548
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-10.305
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PERCENIASF OF NATIONAL TOTALS
1982 STATE 1982 EPA
ESTIMATE ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE
HA,3«3.M%7
-US.853
0.9925
0.3498
0.5257
O.»701
4.8387
0.4649
1.8392
0.3681
0.0705
3.3734
1.6477
0.4974
0.3951
3.7714
3.3332
1.2182
0.9762
2.5924
1.1893
1.1936
1.0356
4.3488
4.4204
1.2417
0.6784
2.6007
0.7406
0.3091
0.1858
1.1895
5.?44«
0.2114
14.5930
1.5004
0.0492
6.1697
0.4344
1.3162
5.1921
0.5A76
0.8669
0.1720
1.A124
3.3783
0.4766
O.*?21
1.A04A
3.1906
2.2079
2.0511
0.1228
0.0466
0.0327
0.0535
1.08*3
0.0895
0.0355
100.0000
0.9938
0.3503
0.5263
0.4707
4.7277
0.4654
1.8415
0.3686
0.0706
3.8783
1.6497
0.4980
0.3956
3.7762
3.3374
1.2197
0.9774
2.5957
1.1908
1.1951
1.0369
4.3543
4.4260
1.2512
0.6792
2.6039
0.2409
0.3094
0.1860
1.1910
5.2514
0.2117
14.6113
1.5023
0.0493
6.1775
0.4349
1.3178
5.3989
0.5684
0.8680
0.1722
1.8147
3.3738
0.4772
0.4226
1.6116
3.14*0
2.2107
2.0537
0.1229
0.0467
0.0327
0.0536
1.0857
0.0*96
0.0355
100.0000
0.0012
0.0004
0.0006
0.0005
-0.1109
0.0005
0.0023
0.0004
0.0000
0.0048
0.0020
0.0006
0.0004
0.0047
0.0041
0.0015
0.0012
0.0032
0.0014
0.0015
0.0013
0.0054
0.0055
0.0015
0.0008
0.0032
0.0003
0.0003
0.0002
0.0014
0.0065
0.0002
0.0183
0.0018
0.0000
0.0077
0.0005
0.0016
0.0067
0.0007
0.0010
0.0002
0.0022
-0.0044
0.0005
0.0005
0.0020
0.0040
0.0027
0.0025
0.0001
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0013
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
75
-------
ALARANA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEPRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOOTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TFRR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1982 NFEDS sunver
COMPARISON OF 1982 EPA AND STATE ESTIMATES
FOB CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT PLANTS
THOUSANDS OF 1902 DOLLARS
CATS I. HA, AND lid
19B2 STATE
ESTIMATE
1.2690
O.«880
0.7644
0.8294
6.9917
0.8878
1.1482
0.1701
0.024*
5.?892
1.9808
0.4921
0.4658
4.2398
1.2576
1.5862
0.6909
1.3823
1.51*8
0.5*31
1.2*30
*.0616
*.*075
1.9086
1.156*
2.9*56
0.1269
0.5328
0.37*7
0.8810
6.8844
0.4089
10.8635
1.6617
0.0838
4.5744
0.6961
0.6177
4.*06*
0.5614
0.6*80
0.31**
1.6887
5.2168
1.1*29
0.3251
2.0M3
2.*399
Il9.9b*
761,112
M09.V70
*56,821
1,039,246
99.083
22.748
22.958
16,992
375.333
60.378
15,001
OIFFERENCI
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
0
0
»0
0
0
0
0
0
0
«0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-6.982
0
»0
«0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36.886,621 36,874,639
-6.982
1982 EPA
ASSESSMENT
1.2693
O.*681
0.7695
0.8295
6.9930
0.8880
1.1*84
0.1701
0.02*5
5.2902
1.9812
0.*922
0.*6S8
*.2*06
1.2579
1.5865
0.6910
1.3825
1.5151
0.5*32
1.2*33
*.0624
4.4083
1.9090
1.1566
2.9462
0.1269
0.5329
0.3747
0.8812
6.8907
0.4090
10.8656
1.6620
0.0838
4.5753
0.6962
0.6178
4.4073
0.5615
0.6481
0.3345
1.6890
5.191*9
1.1*31
0.3252
2.0637
2.**02
1.2386
2.8179
0.2686
0.0616
0.0622
0.0*60
1.0177
0.1637
0.0406
100.0000
DIFFERENCE
0.0003
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0013
0.0002
0.0002
0.0000
0.0001
0.0010
0.0004
0.0001
0.0000
0.0008
0.0003
0.0003
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0001
0.0003
0.0008
0.0008
0.0004
0.0002
0.0006
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0002
0.0013
0.0001
0.0021
0.0003
0.0000
0.0009
0.0001
0.0001
0.0009
o.oooi
0.0001
0.0001
0.0003
-0.0178
O.OOU2
0.0001
0.0004
0.0004
0.0002
0.0005
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
76
-------
DECEMBER 31t 1982
TABLE as
COLUM.
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
OIST. OF
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NF.VADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEIICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
fcHDOE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UT4H
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF 1982 EPA AND STATE ESTIMATES
FOR CORRECTION OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW CONDITIONS
THOUSANDS OF 1902 DOLLARS
CAlt GORY III A
1982 STATE
ESTIMATE
88.114
2.218
1,050
18.539
200.417
5.919
23.580
941
6.473
77,471
94,145
0
7.044
178.019
47.577
85.729
50,717
104,413
76,993
17,973
13.649
20.528
73.344
28,488
55.271
37.6?4
1.459
637
2,560
9.533
226,954
0
186,072
87.345
441
135.785
13,904
71,071
15,837
2.771
76.292
2.606
1S3.873
181.791
11.4SO
7.640
1 A , 1 49
11S.H94
4.423
32.048
1.426
0
922
0
18.613
0
148
19fl2 £PA
ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE
88.114
2.218
1.050
18.539
61.869 -138,5
5.919
23.580
941
6.473
77,471
94.145
0
7,044
178,019
47.577
85.729
50.717
104,413
76.993
17,973
13.649
20.528
73.344
28.488
55.271
37.624
1.459
637
2.560
9,533
226,954
o
186,072
87.345
441
135.785
13.904
71,071
15.837
2.771
76.292
2.606
153.873
181.791
11.450
7.640
18.199
llb.494
4,423
32.048
1.426
0
922
o
18,613
0
148
0
0
0
0
8
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
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
1982 STAT
ESTIMATE
3.2684
0.0822
0.0389
0.6876
7.4340
O.?195
0.8746
0.0349
0.2401
2.8736
3.4921
0.0000
0.2612
6.6032
1.7647
3.1799
1.8812
3.8729
2.8558
O.A666
O.S062
0.7614
2.7205
1.0567
2.0501
1.3955
0.0541
0.0736
0.0949
0.3536
8.4183
0.0000
6.9019
3.2398
0.0163
5.0366
0.5157
2.6362
0.5874
0.1027
2.8298
0.0966
5.7076
6.7431
0.4247
O.?831
0.6750
4.?«.68
0.1640
1.1887
0.0528
0.0000
0.0341
0.0000
0.6904
0.0000
0.0054
PERCENTAGE QF NATIONAL, TOTALS
1982 EPA
ASSESSMENT DIFFERENCE
2,695.930
2.SST.3B2
-138.548
100.0000
3.4454
0.0867
0.0410
0.7249
2.4192
0.2314
0.9220
0.0367
0.2531
3.0292
3.6812
0.0000
0.2754
6.9609
1.8603
3.3522
1.9831
4.0827
3.0106
0.7027
0.5336
0.8026
2.8679
1.1139
2.1612
1.4711
0.0570
0.0248
0.1000
0.3727
8.8744
0.0000
7.2758
3.4153
0.0172
5.3095
0.5436
2.7790
0.6192
0.1083
2.9831
0.1018
6.0168
7.1084
0.4477
0.2987
0.7116
4.5317
0.1729
1.2531
0.0557
0.0000
0.0360
0.0000
0.7278
0.0000
0.0057
100.0000
0.1770
0.0045
0.0021
0.0373
-5.0147
0.0119
0.0474
0.0018
0.0130
0.1556
0.1891
0.0000
0.0142
0.3577
0.0956
0.1723
0.1019
0.2099
0.1548
0.0361
0.0274
0.0412
0.1474
0.0572
0.1111
0.0756
0.0029
0.0012
0.0051
0.0191
0.4561
0.0000
0.3739
0.1756
0.0009
0.2729
0.0279
0.1428
0.0318
0.0056
0.1533
O.OOS2
0.3092
0.3653
0.0230
0.0154
0.0366
0.2329
0.0089
0.0644
0.0029
0.0000
0.0019
0.0000
0.0374
0.0000
0.0003
0.0000
77
-------
DECEMBER 31,
TABLE 36
1982
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
OIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NfMTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH OAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TF«AS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF 1982 EPA ANO STATE ESTIMATES
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NFW INTERCEPTORS ANO APPURTENANCES
THOUSANDS OF 1982 DOLLARS
CATEGORY iv a
1982 STATE
ESTIMATE
260.447
116.217
150. (.12
104.408
746.658
146.928
254.345
37,205
0
1.334,415
373.687
106,837
62.600
366.402
174, H42
222.098
308.728
5?4,396
367.080
133.591
282.920
740. 74*
692.299
2S3.177
1H6.516
609.1X8
36.510
66.433
29.213
315.164
852.199
52.602
1.051.246
564.780
10.736
781.669
117,542
206.026
491.367
88.7Z2
354,395
30,094
520.378
1. 258.1«3
61.627
31.29H
345.857
724,1*7
237,770
6?0.591
23.366
26.072
7.314
24.479
316.846
20.931
13.238
CflSIS
1902 EPA
ASSESSMENT
260,447
115,217
150,012
104,408
745,658
145.928
25*. 345
37.205
0
1,334.416
373.687
106.837
62.600
366.402
174.042
222.098
308.728
524.396
J6r.080
133.591
282.920
740.746
692.299
253.177
186.516
609,188
36,510
66.433
29.213
316.164
852.199
52.602
1.051.246
564.780
10.736
781.669
117.542
206.026
491.367
88,722
354,395
30.094
520.378
1.254.867
61.627
31.298
345.857
724,197
237,770
620.591
23.366
26.072
7,314
24,479
316.846
20.931
13.238
DIFFERENCE
0
0
0
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
-3.323
0
0
0
.
.
1982 STATE
ESTIMATE
1.4604
0.6460
0.841]
0.5854
4.1811
0.8182
1.4262
0.2086
0.0000
7.4825
2.0954
0.5990
0.3510
2. "545
0.9804
1.2453
1.7311
2.9404
2.0583
0.7490
1.5864
4.1536
3.8819
1.4196
1.0458
3.4159
0.2047
0.3725
0.1638
1.7*72
4.7786
0.2949
b.8947
3.1669
0.0602
4.3831
0.6591
1.1552
2.7552
0.4974
1.9872
0.1687
2.9179
7.0551
0.3455
0.1T55
1.9343
4.0608
1.3332
3.4798
0.1310
0.1461
0.0410
0.1372
1.7766
0.1173
0.0742
1982~EP4
ASSESSMENT
1.4606
0.6461
0.8413
0.5855
4.1H19
0.8184
1.4264
0.2086
0.0000
7.4839
2.0957
0.5991
0.3510
2.0549
0.9805
1.2456
1.7314
2.9410
2.0587
0.7492
1.5867
4.154*
3.8827
1.4199
1.0460
3.4165
0.2047
0.3725
0.1638
1.7675
4.7794
0.2950
6.8958
3.1675
0.0602
4.3839
0.6592
1.1554
2.7557
0.4975
1.9875
0.1687
2.9184
7.0378
0.3456
0.1755
1.9397
4.0616
1.3335
3.4805
0.1310
0.1462
.0410
.1372
.7770
.1173
.0742
17.833.594 17.830.271
-3.323
100.0000
100.0000
DIFFERENCE
0.0002
0.0001
0.0002
0.0001
0.0008
0.0002
0.0002
0.0000
0.0000
0.0014
0.0003
0.0001
0.0000
0.0004
0.0001
0.0003
0.0003
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
0.0003
0.0008
0.0008
0.0003
0.0002
0.0006
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0003
0.0008
0.0001
0.0011
0.0006
0.0000
0.0008
0.0001
0.0002
0.0005
0.0001
0.0003
0.0000
0.0005
-0.0172
0.0001
0.0000
0.0004
0.0008
0.0003
0.0007
0.0000
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
78
-------
DECEMBER 31. 1982
TABLE 37
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
01ST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NFw YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
ORFGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TElAS
UTAH
VFHMUNT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1982 NFEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF YEAR 2000 NEEDS AND 19A2 BACKLOG NEEDS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
THOUSANDS OF 1982 OOLLARS
CATE60RIFS I THRU Jy
2000 EPA
ASSESSMENT
1.4237
0.4796
0.7540
0.6743
6.0B77
0.6165
1.6998
0.1745
0.0187
5.5456
1.8614
0.7135
0.4259
2.8728
1.1898
1.2310
0.9245
1.9625
1.7059
0.7081
1.3946
3.8288
3.7293
1.4043
0.9730
2.4626
0.1467
0.3552
0.2665
1.1691
5.0836
0.3032
14.1292
2.1486
0.0544
4.1551
0.6231
1.0721
4.5317
0.5993
1.2434
0.1936
2.1799
4.R072
0.6805
0.2889
1.9715
3.0123
1.7538
2.4947
0.1535
0.0669
0.0469
0.0768
1.3477
0.1284
0.0509
100.0000
198?
BACKLOG
800.647
230.873
277,270
288.310
2,638.685
151.755
1.157,181
79,974
15,509
2.268.93A
854,674
333.987
207,2*7
1.435.815
737,378
726.947
462.074
1,044.918
791.011
490.936
755.4fll
2.7S7.337
2.365.964
784,948
509,129
1,268.912
71.244
159.461
109.469
715. 5S5
3.410.822
121.219
10.bOH.152
1,067.162
19.261
2.4«6,6?9
275, 9A8
600.329
2.707.936
4b0.076
672,075
85.311
1.105.1K7
2.031 .6SO
?00.?f,2
214. **6
1. 1H4.H*,8
1.474.U9
1.269.492
1.472.344
50.587
36,234
18.513
39.557
782.611
75.562
26.416
COSTS
2000 EPA
ASSESSMENT
1.176.325
396.286
623.055
557,139
5,029,973
509,435
1.404.510
144,249
15.509
4.582.047
I.53A.OOO
589,561
351.935
2.373.667
9B3.128
1.017.140
763.936
1.621.521
1.409,505
585,094
1,152,280
3.163.587
3. 041.359
1.160.341
804.009
2.034.731
121.237
293,542
220,216
966,026
4.200,363
250.593
11.674,194
1.775,284
45.027
3.433.201
514.867
AH5.669
3.744.310
405.183
1.077,403
160. V34
1.801,163
3.971.900
5*?. 287
231.75S
1.6?H,9->5
2.488.924
1.449.124
2.061.234
126.H67
55.337
38,754
63.502
1.113.541
106.114
42.101
DIFFERENCE
375.678
165,413
345,785
268.829
2.391,288
357.680
247,329
64,275
0
2,313.109
683.326
255.574
144,668
937,852
245.750
290.193
301,862
572.603
618.474
94.158
396,879
406,250
715.395
375.393
294,880
765,819
.49.993
134,081
110,747
250,471
789.541
129.374
1.166.042
708.122
25.766
986.572
238.879
285.540
1.036.374
45,107
355,328
74.703
695,976
1.4*0.3*0
3S3.025
2*. 292
419.087
1.014,805
179.632
588,890
76,200
19,103
20.221
23.945
330,930
30.552
15.685
1982
BACKLOG
1.4081
0.4060
0.4876
0.5070
4.6409
0.2669
2.0352
0.1406
0.0272
3.9906
1.5032
0.5874
0.3645
2.5253
1.2969
l.?78"5
0.8127
1.R448
1.3912
0.8634
1.3286
4.8496
4.1612
1.3805
O.A954
2.2317
0.1253
0.2804
0.1925
1.2585
5.9990
0.2132
18.4818
1.8769
0.0338
4.3031
0.4A54
1.055A
4.7*27
0.7916
1.1820
0.1500
1.9438
3.5732
0.36t)0
0.1772
2.0927
2.5927
2.2328
2.5895
0.0889
.0637
.0325
.0695
.3764
.1328
.0464
S6.8S6.4S7
8?.62*.322 »25.767,865
100.0000
DIFFERENCE
0.0155
0.0735
0.2664
0.1672
1.4468
0.3496
-0.3353
0.0339
-0.0085
1.5549
0.3582
0.1261
0.0614
0.3475
-0.1070
-0.0475
0.1118
0.1176
0.3146
-0.1553
0.0659
-1.0207
-0.4319
0.0237
0.0776
0.2308
0.0214
0.0748
0.0739
-0.0893
-0.9153
0.0900
-4.3526
0.2716
0.0206
-0.1479
0.1377
0.0162
-0.2310
-0.1922
0.0614
0.0436
0.2361
1.2339
0.3124
-0.0682
-0.1212
0.4196
-0.4789
-0.0948
0.0645
0.0032
0.0143
0.0072
-0.0287
-0.0044
0.0044
0.0000
79
-------
DECEMBER 31. 1982
TABLE 38
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
OIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
I Ow A
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
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
TE»AS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1982 NEEDS SOHVtY
COMPARISON UF YEAR 3000 NEEDS AND 1902 BACKLOG NEEDS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT PLANTS
THOUSANDS OF 1982 DOLLARS
CATEGORIES I. IIAt 4 lid
1482
BACKLOG
338,468
100,587
115.590
142.926
1.036.488
121.700
367,596
24,469
9.036
950,234
391.613
76.862
92.1S6
829.970
331.317
473.201
155.973
378.972
211.684
167.275
334.166
1.337.408
1.207.052
*28.412
275,548
645,651
28.713
130.033
62,775
230.211
2.126.069
74,249
3,469.503
426.877
12,787
1.156,524
111.327
116.145
1.087,812
186.099
154.235
74.182
*?ri.305
912. *01
131.412
10*. Mitt
3*8.122
*82.»24
378.527
603.536
*3.178
13.8*7
8.487
10.924
176.804
41.3S3
10.978
COSTS
2000 EPA
ASSESSMENT
468.124
180.010
283.823
305.950
2.579.017
327.506
423.546
62,752
9.036
1.951.022
730.677
181,5*0
171.822
1.563.9*9
*63.420
585.127
254, 8 74
509,847
558.788
200.362
458.529
1.498.214
1.625.789
704,0*2
*26,569
1.086.555
*6.812
196,560
138. 222
32*. 987
2,541,287
150.839
4,007,200
612,967
30,433
1,687,367
236.768
227.865
1,6?5.4U5
207,107
239, u«8
123.3/2
622.410
1.917.343
421.544
114.45*
7M.112
899.970
456.821
1,039.246
94.083
22.748
22.958
16,992
375,333
60.378
15,001
DIFFERENCE
129,656
79,423
168.233
163.024
1.542.529
205.806
55.950
38.283
0
1.000.788
339.064
104,678
79,666
733,979
132.603
111,926
98.901
130.925
347.104
33,087
124.363
160.806
418.737
273.630
150.971
440,904
18,099
66,527
75.447
94,776
415.218
76.590
537,697
186,090
18,146
530,843
1*5. **1
111.670
337,393
21.008
79.613
*9.190
194,613
48»,9*4
284,687
15,136
212.490
417,546
78.294
433.710
53,905
8,901
14,471
6,068
198.529
19.025
4.023
1962
BACKLOG
1.41S4
0.4206
0.4833
0.5977
4.3344
0.5089
1.5372
0.1023
0.0377
3.9737
1.6376
0.3214
0.3853
3.4708
1.3855
1.97«t8
0.6522
1.5848
0.8852
0.6995
1.3974
5.5928
S.0477
1.7915
1.1525
2.7000
0.1200
U.5437
0.2625
0.9627
8.8909
J. 3105
14.5090
1.7851
0.0534
4.8364
0.4655
0.*859
4.5491
0.7782
0.6659
0.3102
1.7911
3.8992
0.3516
0.43H3
2.2921
2.0174
1.5829
2.5239
0.1805
0.0579
0.0354
0.0456
0.7393
0.1729
0.0459
2000 EPA
ASSESSMENT
1.2693
0.4881
0.769S
0.8295
6.9930
0.8880
1.1484
0.1701
0.0245
5.2902
1.9812
0.4922
0.4658
4.2406
1.2579
1.5863
0.6910
1.3825
1.5151
0.5*32
1.2433
4.0624
4.4083
1.9090
1.1566
2.9462
0.1269
0.5329
0.3747
0.8812
6.8907
0.4090
10.8656
1.6620
0.0838
4.S753
0.6462
0.6178
4.4073
0.5615
0.6481
0.3345
1.6840
5.1989
1.1431
0.3252
2.0637
2.4402
1.2386
2.8179
.2686
.0616
.0622
.0460
.0177
.1637
.0406
23.912.All
36.tt7V.aJ4 12.967.02ti
100.0000
100.0000
DIFFERENCE
-0.1460
0.0675
0.2862
0.2318
2.6S86
0.3791
-0.3887
0.0678
-0.0131
1.3165
0.3436
0.1708
0.0805
0.7698
-0.1273
-0.3422
0.0388
-0.2022
0.6299
-0.1562
-0.1540
-1.3303
-0.6193
0.1173
0.0041
0.2462
0.0069
-0.0107
0.1122
-0.0814
-2.0001
-3.6433
-0.1230
0.0104
-0.2610
0.2107
0.1319
-0.1417
-0.2166
-0.0177
0.0243
-0.1020
1.2497
0.5415
-0.113U
-0.2283
0.4228
-0.3442
0.2940
0.0881
0.0037
0.0268
O.QOU4
0.2784
-0.0091
-0.0052
0.0000
80
-------
DECEMBER 31. 1902
TABLE 39
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
COMPARISON OF YEAN 2000 NEEDS AND 1982 BACKLOG NEEDS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
THOUSANDS OF 1982 DOLLARS
CATEGORIES I. II*. 118. IIIA, I IVB
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
jo* A
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MAHYLANO
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
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
TEIAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
MARIANAS GROUP
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
1902
BACKLOG
500.016
146.460
144.034
193.341
1.3A4.761
131.150
589.948
45.175
15.509
1.398.307
608.759
125.501
127.410
1.199.900
486.769
615. «68
343.026
644.688
4*1.820
287.881
398.816
1.932.062
1.760.170
639.340
392.766
1.004,786
36.617
137.712
72.170
446.496
2.967.685
83.593
4.421.507
662.390
16.3RO
1.755.807
101.134
260,802
1.392.088
266.297
405.141
81.619
702. *99
1.583.415
161.10*
1*2.1 OH
790.807
882.559
566.812
1.181.696
47.644
29.717
10.973
24.009
441.096
51.869
14.408
COSTS
2000 EPA
ASSESSMENT
816.685
297,445
434. 885
428,097
3.386.544
479.353
701.471
100.898
15.509
3.362.908
1.198.509
288.377
241.466
2.108.370
686.339
892.954
614,319
1,138,706
1.002.861
351.926
755.098
2.259.400
2.391.*32
985,707
668,356
1.733,367
8*. 781
263.630
169.995
6*9.68*
3.620.**0
203.**!
5.244.518
1.265.092
42.110
2.604.021
380.214
504,962
2.132.609
290.600
664.735
1S6.072
1.297. HI
3.354.003
49*. 676
158.092
1. IPS. 168
1.7*0.061
699.014
1.691.885
123.875
48.020
31.194
41.471
710,792
81.309
28.307
DIFFEHENCE
316.669
150.905
290,051
235.556
2.001.703
348.195
111.523
55,723
0
1.96*. 601
589.750
162.076
11*, 056
908, *62
194,570
277,086
271.293
«94.010
561.041
64.045
356.282
327. «26
631.25*
3*6.367
275.590
723.581
48.16*
125.918
97.825
203.188
652.755
119.0*0
023.011
602.69*
25.730
0*9.01*
207, 000
230.160
7*0.521
32.303
26*, 59*
7*.*53
59*. 272
1,770.504
333.572
16.70*
32*. 361
057.502
132.202
510.109
70.231
19,103
20.221
17.302
269.696
29,**0
1J.979
g£a£&N.IASE-O.F_BmatiM. -10. T M.5
1982 2000 EPA
BACKLOG ASSESSMENT DIFFEHENCE
35.395,929
S7.267.2V2 .21.871.363
1.4126
0.4137
0.4069
0.5462
3.9122
0.3705
1.6667
0.12T6
0.0438
3.4504
1.7198
0.3545
0.3599
3.3899
1.3752
1.7399
0.9691
1.8213
1.2482
0.8133
1.1267
5.4584
4.9728
1.8062
1.1096
2.8528
0.1034
0.3890
0.2038
1.2614
0.30*2
C.2361
12.4915
1.8713
0.0462
4.9604
0.5117
0.7594
3.9329
0.7523
1.1445
0.2305
1.9858
».»734
0.4551
0.4014
2.2511
2.4933
1.6013
3.3385
0.1346
0.0839
0.0310
0.0660
1.2461
0.1465
0.0407
100.0000
1.4260
0.5193
0.7593
0.7489
5.9135
0.8370
1.2249
0.1761
0.0270
5.8723
2.0928
0.503S
0.4216
3.6816
1.1984
1.5592
1.0727
1.9884
1.7511
0.6145
1.3185
3.9455
4.1759
1.7212
1.1670
3.0268
0.1480
0.4603
0.2968
1.134*
6.3220
0.3552
9.1579
2.2091
O.OT3S
4.5485
0.6778
0.8817
3.7239
0.5214
1.1694
0.2725
2.2651
5.0667
O.A638
0.2/7*
1.9647
3.0304
1.2206
2.9543
0.2163
0.0852
0.0544
O.OT24
1.2411
0.1419
0.0495
100.0000
0.0134
0.1056
0.3524
0.2U27
2.0013
0.4665
-0.4*17
0.0485
-0.0167
1.9219
0.3730
0.1*90
0.0617
0.2917
-0.1767
-0.1606
0.1036
0.1671
0.5029
-0.1907
0.1918
-1.5128
-0.7968
-O.OA49
0.057*
0.1740
0.0446
0.0713
0.0430
-0.1269
-2.0621
0.1191
-3.3335
0.3370
0.0<>73
-0.4118
0.1661
0.1723
-0.2009
-0.2300
0.0749
O.U*20
0.2793
1.3M33
0.4087
-0.1?39
-0.2*63
0.5*51
-0.3806
-0.3441
O.OH17
0.0013
0.0234
0.0044
-0.0049
-0.0045
0.0080
0.0000
81
-------
STATE
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ABI70NA
AHKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONMECTICUT
OFLAWARE
OIST. OF COLUM.
FLOW i DA
6FOBGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
I NO I ANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MAHYLANO
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINN'SOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTAN*
NEBRASKA
NFVADA
NF* HAMPSHIRE
NFW JFPSEY
NF* MF»ICO
NFW YORK
NOHTH CAROLINA
NOHTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
0»EGON
PENNSYLVANIA
HHOOE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TFNNFSSFE
TFXAS
UTAH
VFHMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WFST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
HYII-IN';
SAMOA
MARIANAS
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERR.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
U.S. TOTALS
TOTAL
CAT I
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
NUMBER OF EPA COST ASSESSMENTS BY CATEGORY
CAT IIA CAT IIB CAT IIIA CAT IIIB
DECEMBER 31* 1982
TABLE »o
CAT IV»
CAT IVB
1,085
388
S6S
1.680
2. IIS
513
46?
91
3
1,198
1.259
110
516
1.466
1,4*1
1.7*4
687
1.261
1.036
694
820
524
1.721
1.261
1.61R
1,4«8
726
700
171
454
743
S'lf,
2.776
1.970
291
2.35S
1.216
580
3.841
HO
968
104
1.044
S.797
6*0
?S«j
1.187
910
1.50?
1.011
Ib7
3
1?
12
117
72
11
244
199
309
594
1.070
166
10S
IS
0
269
263
32
152
416
339
614
2S3
279
370
152
217
78
278
513
435
572
87
249
58
103
2M
129
7R9
461
153
470
491
102
972
13
179
268
200
1.679
!«.*
39
432
201
441
279
72
1
3
4
26
29
3
55.984
16.219
102
0
2
2*6
34
10
20
6
0
170
no
o
10
208
237
7«
3
179
25
12
149
75
79
82
249
27
1
0
4
7
55
2
176
291
n
431
18
SI
320
5
94
12
157
263
130
26
58
7
68
94
3
0
0
2
5
3
0
4.410
3
0
1
23
10
0
4
0
1
24
2
0
3
0
1
0
0
1
2
3
7
6
7
21
3
1
0
0
2
3
18
0
71
104
0
70
1
3
2(1
0
7
1
a
13
0
1
19
3
4
0
0
0
(I
o
o
0
0
47!
136
4
7
42
3b
27
36
5
1
91
163
C
35
208
76
166
38
129
67
36
22
33
97
128
140
76
6
14
6
17
107
0
231
181
4
102
29
59
60
6
143
8
147
204
22
13
47
43
20
83
8
U
2
0
21
0
1
3.464
7
1
1
7
22
3
12
4
0
0
4
1
3
18
S
*
6
1
12
«
9
15
20
6
2
la
i
i
4
13
2
2
30
2
1
14
17
11
3
2
0
4
3
14
0
7
S
10
9
42
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
278
72
105
307
708
39
127
24
0
286
288
37
108
227
263
251
123
290
245
212
180
169
301
179
342
298
30
121
37
14S
135
98
757
448
15
445
214
114
1.121
28
281
18
251
1.410
116
70
274
233
438
221
a
i
2
3
32
20
3
315
110
160
421
1.034
264
144
32
0
357
401
40
191
304
390
596
261
365
365
209
225
165
347
315
447
442
85
312
60
144
127
126
641
482
110
623
446
228
1.234
24
264
183
2T4
2.263
207
68
340
379
475
279
6S
1
4
3
31
20
4
389
12.548
17.402
CAT V
0
2
0
0
S
4
14
S
1
1
8
0
14
75
130
19
3
17
0
61
U
33
92
17
0
14
16
3
0
ii
30
0
81
1
a
120
0
12
111
2
0
10
4
1
1
31
12
32
47
9
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1.081
82
-------
DECEMBER 31. 1982
TABLE »1
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
NUH8ES OF FACILITIES EVALUATED IN INDEPENDENT STATE ASSESMENTS COMPARED TO EPA ASSESSMENTS
STATF TOTAL CAT I CAT IIA CAT IIB CAT IIU CAT IIIB CAT IV* CAT IVB CAT V CAT VI
HFORNIA 1000100000
X«S 18 13 30000300
.S. TOTALS 1913?0100300
83
-------
STATE
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
OIST. OF COLUM.
FLORIDA
GFOWGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NFHBAbKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NE« MEXICO
NF» YORK
NOMTM CAROLINA
NOMTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PFNNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SDUTH CAMOL1NA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UT«H
VFWMONT
WASHINGTON
WST Vlw&INIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
"fTCAN SAMOA
GUAM
MAM I ANAS
PUERTO RICO
PAC. TR. TERU.
VIRGIN ISLANDS
CODE
CODE
CODE
CODE
CODE
DECEMBER 31, 1982
TABLE 42
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
PERCENT OF DOLLAR NEEDS
BY BASIS OF COST ESTIMATE AND BY STATE
CODE I CODE 2 CODE 3 CODE 4 CODE 5 CODE 6 CODE 7 CODE « CODE 9 CODE 10 CODE 11 CODE 12 CODE 13 TOTAI
CODE t> -
CODE 7 -
CODE H -
CODF 9 -
CDOF 10
CODE 11
CODE 1? .
COOF 13
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
On
V
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
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
fl.O
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
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.1
n.2
0.6
ft.l
1.2
4.4
0.0
0.1
i.a
l.a
2.7
5.6
4.0
1.9
1.3
0.9
o.s
0.4
1.7
4.5
1.1
A.O
0.2
n.5
2.2
o.s
4.6
0.0
0.7
1.5
1.5
fl.l
0.0
6.7
A. 9
6.2
1.4
0.0
n.s
0.1
5.4
n.i
0.4
n.i
0.0
.0
.0
.«
.0
.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.8
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.8
1.4
0.0
0.3
1.9
0.7
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
9.2
0.0
0.0
O.S
0.8
3.2
fl.l
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
1.0
O.A
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.2
6.0
2.0
0.3
1.9
1.6
5.7
1.9
7.4
3.8
3.5
0.6
0.4
2.7
1.2
0.0
1.0
1.9
0.1
0.0
22.8
10.2
2.2
15. 5
4.3
3.7
0.7
0.1
0.0
0.0
7.4
3.7
0.1
0.0
5.5
2.0
2.0
0.0
T.I
0.3
n.o
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ni
.*
o.o
0.0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.3
5.2
0.0
0.0
0.
A.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
s.s
0.5
0.0
n.o
0.0
0.0
O.i)
0.0
n.o
0.2
0.0
0.0
10.8
31. «
21.6
32.0
21.2
25.6
30.5
42.6
31.3
40.5
22.5
40.3
65.5
26.9
28.1
38.0
28.2
32.2
40.1
7.4
37.2
2V.A
15.6
21.7
41.7
59.0
26.4
47.5
41.0
41.1
44.5
9.8
44.5
38.2
33.0
15.4
23.2
16.3
75.4
35.9
50.6
49.5
22.2
58.9
49.2
33.7
3.1.9
41.8
63.6
67.7
100.0
80.5
0.0
65.3
29.4
6.9
40.1
40.1
45.8
49.5
43.9
31.2
13.7
26.6
34.0
2H.4
55.9
43.1
8.3
42.2
14.5
20.8
30.0
26.7
24.3
26.9
8.0
14.5
15.5
30.1
12.1
17.3
2*. »
34.9
12.1
21.9
31.8
25.0
26.1
24.0
28.8
42.8
27.4
68.6
11.0
37.1
17.3
26.2
23.1
27.8
22.9
SO. 6
?6.2
54.4
15.6
H.V
0.0
0.0
37.9
26.1
15.2
27.9
14.2
6.6
13.8
11.4
9.2
40.6
15.2
12.9
12.5
10.1
0.4
6.2
14.5
13.0
32.5
7.5
17.6
32.7
20.0
6.0
40.2
24.8
61.5
33.0
27.8
19.5
1.8
11.3
10.4
6.6
22.2
7.0
9.5
17.6
25.2
20.5
1.5
4.2
1.5
6.8
0.7
8.1
19. ft
3.4
12.3
1.5
13.6
2.4
7.5
7.2
0.0
19.4
62.0
2.6
44.2
0.0
0.7
18.1
3.6
0.0
24.3
0.2
0.6
3.1
0.9
2.0
10.1
0.3
3.8
3.7
14.1
19.2
0.2
0.2
6.0
25.1
5.6
2.3
4.0
1.3
3.2
0.4
6.1
1.4
32.4
2.2
0.2
28.7
1.6
4.4
0.4
2.0
32.3
7.6
10.9
7.6
2.0
2.6
0.9
0.3
3.2
4.3
17.6
0.0
3.1
6.S
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
0.0
52.9
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
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
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.4
3.1
14.8
0.2
0.4
1.6
0.3
13. 5
0.0
18.8
7.4
7.9
9.3
O.S
9.4
0.0
6.5
11.6
0.2
3.3
27.2
7.8
24. A
0.0
8.9
12.7
1.6
34.6
4.4
3.2
1.6
0.1
6.2
10.6
0.0
6.8
13.0
9.8
2.S
0.4
5.4
20.8
3.3
2.0
8.8
0.2
6.5
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
11.0
11.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.
0.
38.
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
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
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.5
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
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
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
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
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
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.
100.
mo.
100.
too.
100.
100.
loo.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
loo.
too.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.
100.1
lOO.i
100.1
100.1
STATE CERTIFICATION
ANALYSIS COMPLETED
EVALUATION SU*VFY COMPLETED
ENGINEER/CONSULTANT FIRM ESTIMATE
COST OF PREVIOUS COMP4R»BLE CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEER/CONSULTANT PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
EPA - SUPPLIED COST ESTIM4TING PROCEDllMES
COST EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
OTHER P(«FI. I-IIARY ESTIMATES
RBANT AWAJD FULFILLS ALL NEEDS
GRANT AWARD FULFILLS P»HTIAL NEEDS
STiTf.-Sil"fLIFD COST FSTIMATING PROCEDURES
NONE " ~
-------
DECEMBER 31. 1962
TABLE 43
1982 NEEDS SURVEY
PERCENT OF NATIONAL DOLLAR NFEOS
RY RASIS OF COST ESTIMATE
CAT I CAT IIA CAT 118 CAT 1IU CAT IIIB CAT IVA CAT IVB TOTAL
BtSIS OF ESTIMATE
STATE CERTIFICATION
ANALYSIS COMPLETED
EVALUATION SURVEY COMPLETED
ENGINFER/CONSULTANT FIRM ESTIMATE
COST OF PREVIOUS COMPARABLE CONSTRUCTION
ENGINFER/CONSOLTANT PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
EPA - SUPPLIEn COST ESTIMATING PROCEDURES
COST EFFECTIVF ANALYSIS
OTHER PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
GRANT AWARD FULFILLS ALL NEEDS
GRANT AMARO FULFILLS PARTIAL NEEDS
STATE-SUPPLIED COST ESTIMATING PROCEDURES
(NONE GIVEN)
U.S. TOTALS
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.2
0.1
34. 3
23.7
IB.O
6.T
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
SO. 6
16.?
IS. 9
3.6
0.0
12.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.7
0.0
37.4
31.2
20.8
9.0
0.0
i.a
0.0
0.0
0.0
46.2
17.5
2.7
0.0
17.9
5.7
5.0
1.2
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.1
0.0
2.2
23.1
0.5
0.0
6.1
0.0
5.2
62.3
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.4
15.3
64.9
6.4
5.2
0.0
1.3
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
1.0
44.5
9.7
19.7
8.8
0.0
9.3
3.6
0.0
0.0
1.6
1.9
4.3
0.6
30.7
28.6
14.2
9.5
0.0
6.6
2.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
85
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460
~ ~ ~~~~ Special
Official Business Fourth-Class
Penalty for Private Use $300 """" ^ ass
Book
------- |