430 '9-81-00
F F-l [>-19
1980 Needs Survey
Cost Estimates
for Construction of
Publicly-Owned
Wastewater Treatment
Facilities
FRD-19
-------
This Report was prepared under the direction of:
James A. Chamblee, Chief
Priority and Needs Assessment Branch (WH-595)
Office of Water Program Operations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 426-4443
Copies of this Report, FRD-19, 1980 Needs Survey, Cost Estimates
For Construction of Publicly-Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities
are available from the address below.When ordering, please
include the title and FRD number.
General Services Administration (8BCC)
Centralized Mailing Lists Service
Building 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
-------
1980 NEEDS SURVEY
COST ESTIMATES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
February 10, 1981
f, fy. ^ •?:••'j^X-'
£3®. iiosith D.cjrbora
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
U,S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGES
I. Introduction 1
II. Explanation of the Survey 2-4
III. Results of the Survey 4-13
Table A - 1980 Needs Survey Summary Costs 5
Table B - Year 2000 and Backlog Needs 7
Table C - Urban/Rural Needs 9
Table D - Multiple-Purpose Needs Estimates 12
Table E - Types of Multiple-Purpose Treatment Facilities 13
IV. Comparison with the 1978 Survey 14-15
Table F - Comparison of 1980 Survey with 1978 Survey and 14
Construction Grant Awards in 1978 and 1979
V. Quality of Facility Estimates, Categories I-V 15-17
VI. Category VI. Treatment and/or Control of Stormwater 18
Table G - Comparison of 1980 Survey with 1978 Survey 18
Year 2000 Category VI. Stormwater Control Needs
VII. Comprehensive Domestic Wastewater Treatment Needs 19-27
Table H - Aggregate Annual Expenditures 20
Table I - Total 1981-2000 Needs 21-22
Figure 1 - Comprehensive Domestic Wastewater 24
Expenditures Required, 1981-2000
Table J - Sources of Information 26
VIII. Summary and Conclusions 28-29
APPENDIX A - Conduct of the Survey 30-39
I. Categories I-1V 30-34
II. Category V 34-38
III. Category VI 38-39
APPENDIX B - Reasons for Independent State Estimates 40
APPENDIX C - Summary Tables 41-43
Tables 1-47 44-90
APPENDIX D - List of SMSA Sketch Profiles and Inner City Reports 91-93
-------
COST ESTIMATES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
1980 NEEDS SURVEY
I. INTRODUCTION
This report is submitted in compliance with the provisions of the
Clean Water Act, sections 205(a) and 516(b)(l). Included in this report
are a detailed estimate of the cost of construction of all needed
publicly-owned treatment works in all of the States and the cost of
construction of all needed publicly-owned treatment works in each of the
States, to meet the 1983 goals of the Act. The cost estimates presented
in this Survey may serve as a basis for Congressional allotment of funds
in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Also included in this report are estimates of the total current
expenditures for municipal waste treatment in the Nation, as well as
projections of those costs to the year 2000.
This is the fifth Needs Survey conducted since the enactment of
PL 92-500. Previous Surveys were conducted in 1973, 1974, 1976, and
1978. The 1980 Survey had five initial goals aimed at improvement of the
Needs estimation process:
1. To secure estimates which are comparable nationwide,
2. To improve the overall quality of the estimates,
3. To develop a detailed information base to assist in program
planning and management,
4. To update a national inventory of wastewater treatment facilities
and combined sewer areas, and
5. Provide a basis for the allocation of construction grant funds
among the States.
EPA, in a joint effort with an advisory group consisting of State and
Regional representatives, formulated the approach used in the 1980 Needs
Survey. The approach selected called for an active role by EPA, with
State participation in varying degrees, State-by-State, depending on
resource priorities. This permitted the use of a single nationwide
methodology, with uniformly applied guidelines. Provisions were made in
the guidelines for local cost variations due to local conditions
affecting construction costs.
-------
II. EXPLANATION OF THE SURVEY
A. Cost Categories
The 1980 Survey used the same cost estimate Categories as were used
in 1978, with the exceptions of Categories I and II. These Categories
are:
Category I - SECONDARY TREATMENT. This included costs for
facilities to achieve secondary levels of treatment, regardless of the
treatment levels required at the facility site. Incremental costs for
treatment levels above secondary were reported in Categories IIA and IIB.
Costs for systems designed to serve individual residences are
reported in Category I. For purposes of the Survey, "best practicable
wastewater treatment technology (BPWTT)" and secondary treatment were
considered synonymous.
Category IIA - ADVANCED SECONDARY TREATMENT (AST). Reported are
incremental costs above secondary treatment levels to achieve advanced
secondary levels of treatment, for those facilities that must achieve
such levels. This requirement generally exists where water quality
standards require removal of standard pollutants at higher levels than
85 percent or 30/30; but less than 95 percent removal, or 10/10.
Category IIB - ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT (AWT). Incremental costs
above AST are reported for those facilities which require advanced levels
of treatment. This requirement generally exists where water quality
standards require removal of such pollutants as phosphorus, ammonia,
nitrates, or organic and other substances. In addition, this requirement
exists where removal requirements for conventional pollutants exceeds
95 percent.
The definitions of the treatment categories (I and II) were changed
from 1978 to 1980 to more accurately reflect the incremental cost of AST
and AWT projects, relative to secondary costs. This change affected the
split of these costs only, and did not result in the reporting of more or
less needs.
Category IIIA - CORRECTION OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW. Included in this
category are costs for correction of sewer system infiltration/inflow
problems. Costs could also be reported for a preliminary sewer system
analysis and for a detailed Sewer System Evaluation Survey.
Category 11 IB - MAJOR REHABILITATION OF SEWERS. Requirements for
replacement and/or major rehabilitation of existing sewer systems were
reported in this category. Costs were reported if the corrective actions
were necessary to 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
^lapsing or structurally unsound.
-------
Category IVA - NEW COLLECTOR SEWERS. This category included costs of
construction of new collector sewer systems and appurtenances designed to
correct violations caused by raw discharges, seepage to waters from
septic tanks and the like, and/or to comply with Federal, State or local
actions.
Category IVB - NEW INTERCEPTOR SEWERS. Included in this category
were new interceptor sewers and transmission pumping stations necessary
for the bulk treatment of wastewaters. Outfall sewers were also included
in this category.
Category V - CONTROL OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (CSO). Costs
reported for this category were for facilities to prevent and/or control
periodic bypassing of untreated wastes from combined sewers to achieve
water quality objectives and which are eligible for Federal funding. It
does not include treatment and/or control of stormwaters in separate
storm and drainage systems.
The costs of abating pollution in the urbanized areas from stormwater
runoff channelled through sewers and other conveyances used only for such
runoff are reported in Category VI. The Category VI estimates are
discussed separately in Chapter VI.
The incremental cost for removal of pollutants such as toxic
substances are not included in the Needs Survey. The 1980 Survey does
not reflect the effects of changes in the Clean Water Act due to the
Industrial Cost Exclusion (ICE).
Costs for projects involving goals beyond pollution control are
called multiple-purpose projects. Costs for these projects were split
into two parts: water pollution costs, which are reported in the Needs
totals, and other costs, which are reported separately.
In addition, for the first time, EPA has attempted to estimate the
total costs of municipal wastewater treatment. These estimates include
many costs which are currently not grant eligible, and are fully borne by
State and local governments and citizens.
Appendix A explains the details of the conduct of the Survey.
B. Survey Dollars
All costs were estimated in January, 1980 dollars.
C. Population
Two time periods are of interest to the Needs Survey for population
purposes. The first of these is the present, defined as the July, 1979
population of the States as calculated by the Bureau of the Census. The
second population of interest is the future or projected population,
based on Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) projections for the year
2000. The BEA population projections are used consistently in the
construction grants program.
-------
Population estimates and projections are used as State population
ceilings for Needs Survey purposes in Categories I-IV. These ceilings
are not applicable to Category V.
III. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
A. EPA Assessment
The EPA assessment of the dollar need for construction of municipal
wastewater treatment facilities to serve year 2000 populations is $119.90
billion in grant-eligible Categories I through V. The States' estimate
for the same needs are $120.60 billion for Categories I-V.
Total needs in constant dollars have been reduced by $10.67 billion
(eight percent) since the 1978 Survey.
Table A contains a summary of national needs by Category. Appendix C
contains tables detailing the Survey results.
Included in the Needs assessment is $55.8 billion for Categories I,
II and IVB (treatment plants and interceptors) that reflect the costs for
the traditional Water Quality Program of Treatment Plants and Interceptor
Sewers. Needs for treatment plants alone are $34.5 billion. Of the
treatment need, $28.8 billion (84 percent) is required to achieve
secondary levels of treatment, and $5.6 billion (16 percent) is for
treatment levels higher than secondary.
Two levels of Category V estimates (Recreation and Fish and Wildlife)
were developed in the 1980 Survey in order to establish a relationship
between the cost of pollution control for CSO and the stream use benefits
measured. The costs reported in this 1980 Needs Survey depend upon the
water quality criteria adopted to achieve the recreation and the fish and
wildlife water quality objectives. The criteria used in the Survey are
presented in Appendix A. The estimated cost to achieve the recreation
water quality objective (i.e. waters safe for full body contact) is
$37.2 billion. The estimated cost to achieve the fish and wildlife
objective is $21.9 billion. Unless otherwise noted, the Category V
estimate and references presented elsewhere in this report are for the
recreation water quality objective. Only Table 24 in Appendix C lists
the Category V need for fish and wildlife objective by State. The two
estimates are not additive, rather they only represent two independent
stream use objectives.
B. Independent State Estimates
After EPA formulation of cost estimates, States were asked to review
these estimates and concur or provide additional data to support
differing costs. In many cases, these data were supplied, and the
resultant EPA assessments reflect those changes.
-------
TABLE A
1980 Needs Survey Summary Costs
(January, 1980 Dollars in Billions)
NEEDS CATEGORY EPA STATE PERCENT
ASSESSMENT ESTIMATE DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE
I Secondary Treatment 28.84 29.23 .39 1.4
IIA Incremental Costs 4.21 4.21 0 0
above Secondary to
Achieve Advanced
Secondary Levels (AST)
I IB Incremental Costs 1.43 1.43 0 0
above AST to Achieve
Advanced Treatment
Levels (AWT)
IIIA Infiltration/Inflow 2.50 2.50 0 0
IIIB Replacement and/or 5.97 5.97 0 0
Rehabilitation
IVA New Collector Sewers 18.45 18.46 .01 0
IVB New Interceptor Sewers 21.33 21.44 .11 0.5
V Combined Sewer Overflows 37.17 37.57 .40 1.1
TOTAL I &II (Treatment) 34.48 34.87 .39 1.1
TOTAL I, II, IVB 55.81 56.31 0.5 0.9
TOTAL I-V 119.90 120.81 0.9 0.8
-------
In some instances, however, differences in cost estimates were
irreconcilable between EPA and State participants. In this case, State
participants provided an independent State estimate of need differing from the
EPA estimate (Appendix C, Table 2), and usually higher in cost.
The reason for differing cost estimates was, in general, not associated
with construction costs themselves, but with States' beliefs that national
Survey guidelines should be amended and/or adjusted to more accurately reflect
local conditions or needs.
C. Differences between State and EPA Estimates
A total of over 210,000 possible individual cost estimates were
investigated by EPA. Over 57,000 of these possible estimates resulted in a
need. Table 44 shows for each State the number of individual cost estimates
made by EPA in Categories I-IV (treatment plants and sewers), which resulted
in a need. For Category V (control of combined sewer overflow), one estimate
per State was made for the capital cost of achieving the desired levels of
control for year 2000 populations. A total of eight States and Territories
submitted separate State estimates for at least one facility.
Of over 210,000 separate potential cost estimates investigated by EPA,
only 81 independent estimates were submitted by States, representing 0.6
percent of the Needs. Table 45 shows for each State the number of independent
estimates submitted in Categories I-IV, by Category of Need. These
independent estimates are:
Percent of Number of Percent of EPA
State State Estimates Dollar Assessment
Arizona 2.2 30.6
California .001 4.1
New York .0001 1.1
South Dakota .002 .02
Texas 1.0 0.4
Wisconsin .01 8.5
Wyoming .01 6.0
Guam 1.4 62.5
All other States and Territories reported no independent State
estimates differing from EPA estimates.
Most of these independent State estimates were based on State
developed cost curves or State population projections exceeding allowable
ceilings. Other reasons for separate estimates include disagreement on
allocation of dollars between Category I and other categories, inclusion
of ineligible facilities, and differing opinions on treatment
alternatives. The State of Wisconsin submitted a separate estimate for
control of Milwaukee's combined sewer overflows, based on a draft
facility plan prepared in accordance with a stringent court order.
-------
D. Assessment of Backlog
A continued part of the Survey was the assessment of need for present
populations (the backlog of need). Needs for Categories I-V present
populations are estimated to be $91 billion, or 76 percent of the year
2000 needs. Note that because of their nature, year 2000 needs for
Categories IIIA (infiltration/inflow correction) and IIIB (major sewer
rehabilitation) are almost exclusively all backlog needs. Similarly,
because combined sewer systems are no longer built, Category V backlog
needs are equivalent to the year 2000 needs. In addition, for reasons
detailed in section 211 of the Clean Water Act and the Construction Grant
Regulations (40 CFR 35.925-13), about 80 percent of the Category IVA
(collector sewers) needs for year 2000 are theoretically also backlog
needs.
The differences, therefore, are most graphically illustrated in
Categories I, II, and IVB (treatment plants and interceptor sewers),
where backlog needs represent only 55 percent of the year 2000 needs
(Table 43). Backlog and 2000 needs are presented by Category in Table B
and in Tables 39-41 in Appendix C.
TABLE B
YEAR 2000 AND BACKLOG NEEDS
Year 2000 BACKLOG PERCENT
NEEDS CATEGORY EPA ASSESSMENT ESTIMATE DIFFERENCE
I (Secondary Treatment) 28.84 18.53 36
IIA (Advanced Secondary) 4.21 2.66 37
I IB (Advanced Treatment) 1.43 .96 33
IIIA (Infiltration/Inflow) 2.50 2.50 0
IIIB (Replacement and/or Rehab.) 5.97 5.97 0
IVA (New Collector Sewers) 18.45 14.88 19
IVB (New Interceptor Sewers) 21.33 8.45 60
V (Combined Sewer Overflow) 37.17 37.17 0
TOTAL TREATMENT (I, II) 34.48 22.15 36
TOTAL I, II, IVB 55.81 30.59 45
TOTAL I-V 119.90 91.11 24
The differences between backlog and year 2000 needs are substantial
both because of the 23 percent increase in population projected from the
present (220 million persons) to the year 2000 (270 million persons) and
to the increase in percent of population projected to be served by
municipal systems (from 69 percent at present to 88 percent in year 2000).
Backlog needs have reduced by $6.1 billion (6 percent) since the 1978
Survey. $2.6 billion of that reduction has occurred in Categories I, II,
and IVB (treatment and interceptors). The backlog in those categories
was reduced by 7.8 percent. All of these reductions were due primarily
to grant awards made during the period between the two surveys.
-------
The costs reported for the backlog are sufficient only for facilities
necessary to serve the June, 1979 populations. They do not include any
costs for reserve capacity which would be required by the Act to be
included in these facilities for population growth beyond 1979. They
also exclude estimates for treatment plants and sewers that were not
necessary at all in 1979, but are projected to be necessary for year 2000
populations. Backlog needs, as determined by EPA, are shown in
Tables 38, 42, and 43 in Appendix C.
E. Costs of Plants Requiring Treatment More Stringent than Secondary
(Category II)
Category II cost estimates consist of incremental costs above
secondary for each treatment facility where reauired treatment levels are
higher than secondary. Total treatment costs are split as follows:
1. To upgrade all facilities to secondary treatment levels -
$28.8 billion. Secondary treatment projects represent 85 percent of the
treatment projects, and 84 percent of the total treatment dollar needs.
2. To upgrade Category I facilities from secondary levels to
advanced secondary levels where reauired. Advanced secondary levels are
achieved in general when effluent limits for BOD are between 30 and
10 mg/1 (85-95 percent removal) and when no nitrogen removal requirements
exist. These costs are estimated at $4.2 billion, or 12 percent of total
treatment dollar needs, and 12 percent of treatment projects.
3. To raise Category IIA facilities from advanced secondary levels
to advanced treatment levels (AWT) 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 AWT costs is
$1.4 billion, which represents 4 percent of total treatment needs, and
3 percent of treatment projects.
F. Urban/Non-Urban/Rural Needs
Needs in Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's) were
estimated, as well as needs outside the SMSAs. While the areas outside
of SMSAs may include communities of up to 50,000 population, this
criterion provides some idea of the relative division between urban and
non-urban needs. Table C shows the split of year 2000 needs into
SMSA/non-SMSA and rural categories. This table shows that while urban
areas have only 70 percent of the total population, they have 79 percent
of the total needs. Similarly rural areas have only eight percent of the
national population, yet have 16 percent of the national need.
-------
TABLE C
URBAN/RURAL NEEDS
(Percent of Need)
CATEGORY (Pop,
URBAN (SMSA's)
greater than. 50.000)
I
IIA
I IB
IIIA
IIIB
IVA
IVB
V
68
81
85
69
98
69
77
82
TOTAL I & II 70
TOTAL I, II, IVB 73
TOTAL I-V 79
SMALL TOWNS & CITIES
(Pop. 3,500 to 50.000)
13
15
11
18
1
4
11
18
13
12
5
RURAL
(Pop, less than 3.500)
19
4
4
13
1
27
12
17
15
16
PERCENT OF
POPULATION
70
22
8
-------
G. Needs for Large Metropolitan Areas
Major U.S. metropolitan areas have large needs. Nineteen such cities
have needs above $1 billion. The New York metropolitan area is the city
with by far the greatest need, estimated at $11 billion in
Categories I-V.
As an adjunct to the 1980 Survey, EPA has produced separate community
profile reports for 106 Standard Metropolitan Areas which had treatment
needs (Category I & II) above $50 million in the 1978 Needs Survey. The
purpose of these profiles is to provide a better understanding of the
individual and collective characteristics of the nation's high-need metro
areas.
In addition to the 106 metro-area profile reports, EPA also has
produced reports on 25 inner-city areas.
These reports are available from EPA. Appendix D shows the list of
cities for which reports were produced, and provides ordering information.
H. Multiple Purpose Needs
Some wastewater treatment and conveyance facilities are designed for
purposes in addition to those necessary for compliance with the pollution
abatement provisions of the Clean Water Act as outlined in the NPDES
permit. Such facilities are called multiple-purpose facilities. Only
costs for the purpose of water pollution control are eligible for
Construction Grants funding, so only grant eligible costs are included in
the Category I-V results for the 1980 Needs Survey. This section of the
report describes the results of an inventory of proposed multiple-purpose
facilities performed in conjunction with the 1980 Needs Survey.
The methodology used in splitting total project costs into
multiple-purpose and water pollution control categories is given below:
1. The cost for the most cost-effective water pollution control
alternative was included in the 1980 Needs Survey when the 201 facility
plan had been approved by EPA. If the facility plan had been completed
but not yet approved, the average of the cost estimates for the water
pollution control alternatives were reported in the Survey and the
average of the cost estimates for non-pollution control were reported
separately. If the facility plan was incomplete or if no planning had
been done, EPA rule-of-thumb costs for pollution control were reported in
the Survey, and the best available costs for non-pollution control were
reported separately.
10
-------
2. Costs for new plants with land treatment of effluent considered
to be water pollution control costs were reported in the Survey. Land
treatment is considered to be a single-purpose pollution control project
only if the land is an integral component of the treatment process
necessary to achieve the limits of the NPDES permit. Any costs for
treatment or conveyance works proposed to achieve levels of treatment
more stringent than specified in the NPDES permit were reported
separately as multiple-purpose needs.
3. Multiple-purpose costs for plants currently in operation and
meeting permit requirements were reported as with zero needs in the
Survey. All projected water reclamation needs were reported separately.
The dollar needs for proposed multiple-purpose facilities are
summarized in Table D. This table gives the total cost for all multiple
purpose projects. In addition, the total cost is split into the eligible
water pollution control and the multiple-purpose cost components. The
treatment and the conveyance components of the multiple purpose cost are
also identified.
Facilities designed to provide irrigation for agricultural or public
lands constitute by far the largest proportion of multiple-purpose
facilities inventoried during this Survey. Industrial reuse and ground
water injection are also common multiple-purpose schemes. Table E shows
the distribution of types of surveyed multiple-purpose projects.
Information concerning revenues generated by multiple-purpose facilities
was generally not available and is, therefore, not included.
Approximately 72 percent of the estimates were derived from Step 1
planning documents. Another 18 percent of the estimates are the result
of Step 2 design. The remaining 10 percent of the costs are from
projects having proceeded beyond the Step 2 design level.
The multiple-purpose costs given in Table D are not all-inclusive.
Costs for Category V reflect estimated grant-eligible pollution control
needs. Category VI estimates (Chapter VI) are also for pollution
control, although not presently grant-eligible. Needs for flood control
or urban drainage are not included in the Category V or VI estimates nor
could they be identified in the multiple-purpose costs estimate. The
storage cost required for urban drainage is considered a multiple purpose
cost, but it was not identified due to a lack of information.
11
-------
>•)
c_
3
GO
to
O)
(/I
lO "O
ef—
C.
•r— CO
tO 3
LU O
.c
t/> I—
•a
a* c
a» T-
z
to
0— * S_
Q- ro
-- O
rO O
(— a»
to o
O CO
Q.CT
S_ i—
3
Q. "
1 >>
0) S-
•— ro
•i- C
•4-) rO
i— p™3
3
si
o
rO
>
C
O
O tO
+J
Q. tO
0- O
Z <->
C
E
T3
(U
S-
•— to
I %
Q- to
D- 0
Si 0
CM
to
,|_)
to
o
o
f\
o.
s:
^—
o
4-*
c
o
t ^
C
0
t .]l
3 tO
>— •»->
r— tO
0 O
Q. C_>
to
•4-^ -M
to o
o at
o
r— 5-
(O Q.
0 vi-
t— o
O tO
s- u
CM
CM ^" ^C
•» •* ^%fc
•— 01 Z
co co
CM
*"**
i— CO
CTI CM
^f VO
1 *
1 O
^
t/^
CT^ CO CO
r^ oo c\j
CNJ O^ VO
•* *»
f™~ O^
CO O
f"x^
^. r-~
CO
t^-
CO O CO
^j- CO ^J-
o i-n r^
r»» ^j- vo
^d- oo •—
LT)
,-T
'^
VO O CM
CO
'O
*^
C O
rO V ~o
C O r^
ct f>n. c\J ^£ f-^
**S^ **S^. ft
Z Z CM
^C ^1 ^C ^C ^C
^s,, ^«» ***«^ **>». *****
Z Z Z Z Z
f^ O CO
0 r~x r>-
^^ ^^ **
Z Z CM
If) ^Q QQ ^Q ^N,
*^" r^ CM CT* ^^
r>» o r*. <^- vo
i— ^j- ^~
• — **• i — i — CO
CTi f™~ r™~
co co i— i— r-
ro
c
•r—
•— ro
rO c^ ^~
T3 rrj L. o
•r— "O rO .C to
O > r— X
i — Q) . ^^ O)
r_
CM
LO
A
^J-
(^
CM
fe*-
^J-
r~-
^~
«
r^
^t
yfif
in
CO
vo
n
LO
1*^
t^
CO
o
CM
vo"
CM
O
r—
CO
^-
CO
r-T
r>-
r-^
r-?
*
CO
o
to
r—
(O
^_>
O
H-
OO
^
ro
•4-)
o
S-
3
oo
to
•o
O)
O)
-o >»
a; •—
+j c
s_ o
o
a. a>
O) S-
o: ai
c a;
•i- +J
•o s-
c: o
3 a.
>4- 0)
a:
o
-------
1980 Needs Survey
Table E
Types of Multiple Purpose Treatment Facilities
Type of Facility Number Surveyed
Agricultural Irrigation 49
Public Lands Irrigation 25
Industrial Reuse 5
Ground Water Injection 2
Ground Water Percolation 2
Other Reuse Purposes 8
2
Combinations 16
Total 105
^Other purposes include Methane generation for commercial sales,
coincineration of sludge and solid waste, land reclamation with sludge, and
recreation.
2$ome multiple purpose facilities were designed to fulfill several of the
above purposes.
13
-------
IV. COMPARISON WITH THE 1978 SURVEY
A. Treatment Plants and Sewers (Categories I-IV)
The estimates of needs for the 1980 Survey in Categories I-IV built on
the experience and information 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. A consultant firm, URS, was competitively selected to
augment the manpower available within EPA and the States. Survey guidance was
prepared in conjunction with the States and discussed in detail during
meetings held with the States at EPA's regional offices. All data from the
1978 Survey were pre-printed on the Survey reporting form as a starting point
for the 1980 effort.
URS established its personnel in Denver, Colorado in the fall of 1979 and
prepared estimates facility-by-facility on the basis of information in
regional and State files. States were asked to review and comment on
estimates and provide assistance, subject to the constraint that adverse
impact on the progress of the construction grants program should be avoided as
much as possible. Independent State estimates were recorded when agreement
between the State and EPA was not possible.
The completed estimates were approved by the State and EPA, subjected to
a rigorous quality check and entered into a computer file.
Table F shows the 1980 Survey results compared with the 1978 Survey. The
results of the 1980 Survey track well with the 1978 results, given the volume
of grants awarded and the inflation of construction costs experienced between
Surveys. The net result was a decrease in needs of eight percent for
Categories I-V. The major reasons for the differences in these estimates for
Categories I-IV are summarized below:
TABLE F
COMPARISON OF 1980 SURVEY WITH 1978 SURVEY
AND CONSTRUCTION GRANT AWARDS IN 1978 AND 1979
(1980 Dollars in billions)
1978 1980 GRANT
CATEGORY SURVEY SURVEY DIFFERENCE AWARDS
I & II (Treatment) 43.79 34.48 - 9.31 5.32
IIIA 3.00 2.50 - 0.5 .12
IIIB 6.00 5.97 - .03 .21
IVA 23.39 18.45 - 4.94 1.31
IVB 22.72 21.33 - 1.39 2.17
V 31.66 37.17 + 5.51 .88
TOTAL I, II, IVB 66.51 55.81 - 10.70 7.46
TOTAL I-V 130.57 119.90 - 10.67 9.97
14
-------
Reasons which increased needs:
1. Al.l categories were substantially affected by the increased value
of construction, estimated for Needs purposes at 11.5 percent per year.
The 1978 Needs Survey total was $106 billion in 1978 dollars. These
effects are responsible for an estimated $25 billion rise in needs,
raising the 1978 total to $131 billion.
2. The completion of a national facilities inventory for the 1980
Survey resulted in the addition of over 2,000 facilities, almost all of
which are very small facilities located in rural areas.
3. New and improved historical cost data were used to generate cost
curves for use in the Survey which were substantially higher in cost than
previous curves. The improvement in the quality of the curves, however,
was significant as well.
B. Combined Sewer Overflow (Category V)
The 1980 Category V needs are 17 percent higher than those estimated
in the 1978 Needs Survey, after adjustment for construction cost
increases since January 1, 1978. The primary reasons for this is the
increase in the volume and accuracy of information sources needed to make
these estimates.
EPA did further work-to correct and complete an inventory of combined
sewer areas in the 1978 Needs Survey. The reported combined sewer
acreage increased by 7 percent to 2.7 million acres as a result. Overall
population served by combined sewer increased by 3.7 percent to about
42.4 million people due to identification of previously undetected
combined sewer service areas.
There are 1,118 CSO areas in the revised inventory. Approximately
82 cities (each containing one to many CSO areas) have Category V needs
greater than $50 million. These communities represent about 73 percent
of the national CSO area and 85 percent of the national CSO population.
Further, additional research and more detailed site studies were used
to determine the relationships between the costs to control pollution
from combined sewer areas and the data collected for each combined sewer
area. Better storage and conveyance cost relationships were used. This
more detailed consideration of the individual characteristics of each
combined sewer area is the major reason for the individual State needs
changes from the 1978 Survey.
V. QUALITY OF FACILITY ESTIMATES, CATEGORIES I-V
The reliability of the cost estimates is dependent upon many
factors. Highly accurate cost data can only be obtained if treatment
facilities have been planned and designed adequately to meet projected
water quality requirements. Also, cost estimation is related to the
15
-------
ability to discern "historical" cost trends based upon actual treatment
plant cost experience. Accordingly, EPA studied a large number of
wastewater treatment plants employing a variety of treatment
technologies. Using these data, EPA developed cost estimating procedures
which were used in the cost estimation process when better quality data
was not available.
Actual recent cost experience was studied in sewer construction and
installation as well. EPA developed cost estimating procedures and rules
of thumb for pipe costs when better data were not available.
Supplementary to EPA supplied treatment and pipe cost estimating
procedures, differences in local construction costs were recognized by
the provision of cost multipliers for each area of the United States.
One multiplier was used when estimating treatment costs in each of sixty
areas, and the second multiplier was used for sewers in each of thirty
areas.
The cost estimates for Categories I, II, and IVB (treatment plants
and intereceptors) are considered most accurate because of the many years
of experience with these types of construction costs. Also, facilities
in these Categories have been subjected to the most rigorous planning
requirements.
The cost estimates for Categories IIIA, IIIB, and V
(infiltration/inflow, rehabilitation and combined sewer overflow) are not
considered to be as accurate as those for the other Categories, but the
estimates are considered to have greatly improved.
Numerous infiltration/inflow studies and rules of thumb based on
experience to date have resulted in a substantial improvement in the
Category IIIA estimates. Estimating the repair cost of sewers which defy
routine inspection creates a weakness in Category IIIB estimates. In
addition, there are few instances nationwide where sewer replacement is
anticipated prior to actual sewer collapse, a relatively common
occurrence in older cities.
EPA accepted needs for infiltration/inflow correction and major sewer
rehabilitation only when they could be documented by facility plans or
engineering studies. Additional undocumented needs may exist in many
areas. Costs of correction of infiltration/inflow, however, can be
traded off against treatment costs. Major sewer rehabilitation may in
many cases be considered an ongoing operation and maintenance problem as
much as a capital need eligible for grants funds.
Category IVA (jiew collector sewers) cost estimates have improved
since 1978. The quality of estimates in this category degrades quickly
as non-uniform assumptions concerning future populations are introduced.
16
-------
Therefore, Category IVA needs were limited to include provision for
future populations of up to 1.5 times the 1972 population requiring new
sewers, in accordance with the rule of thumb used in the construction
grants program. Even though this limitation provides much better and
more comparable eligible requirements for new collector sewers, it
implicitly provides new collector sewer capacity for a great deal of
future growth in vacant lots and on the fringes of communities in
existence in 1972. Careful and detailed analysis of local conditions, as
required in the facility planning process, would likely reduce the
collector sewers eligible for construction grants below what was reported
in the 1980 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 estimate of national
need.
For Category V (control of combined sewer overflow), estimates are
difficult to make due to the variations in the size, number and frequency
of combined sewer overflows, the characteristics of the receiving waters,
and many other factors. A substantial amount of study and research has
been conducted on how much and what type of control of combined sewer
overflow are required under varying conditions.
In addition, the Agency improved its inventory of combined sewer
areas in the United States which provided more accurate data about each
combined sewer area and its receiving waters. Several such improvements
were made, including better storage and conveyance costs. The results of
this work were incorporated in estimating needs for Category V, and the
reported costs are considered more comparable and reliable than in 1978.
The shortcoming of the inventory was that in many cases, important
physical data about local conditions such as the number and location of
overflow points and receiving water characteristics, were not available
in national studies or data files. As a result, a modelling approach for
these cases was based on rules of thumb based on experience. The
results, therefore, are not considered highly accurate for individual
cities, although the State and national estimates are considered of good
quality.
About 50 of the 82 cities (72 percent) with Category V needs greater
than $50 million have initiated CSO facilities planning, but the plans
are not complete or otherwise usable for Needs estimates. However,
because of the degree of CSO planning done in Chicago and San Francisco,
cost estimates for those two cities were made using the developed CSO
facilities plans instead of using the model.
An important consideration for the the entire discussion of the
quality of cost estimates is the substantial upgrading of the quality of
technical data supporting costs in this Survey, compared to prior
Surveys. These dataware significantly improved and are being published
concurrently with this report.
17
-------
VI. CATEGORY VI. TREATMENT AND/OR CONTROL OF STORMWATERS
Although stormwater needs are not eligible for Federal grants, the
cost required to treat or control pollution from separate storm sewers
was estimated during the 1980 Needs Survey. This additional cost
category, known as Category VI, includes the costs of abating pollution
in the urbanized areas from stormwater runoff channelled through sewers
and other conveyances used only for such runoff. The costs of abating
pollution from stormwater channelled through combined sewers, which also
carry sewage, are included in Category V.
The 1980 national stormwater treatment need to achieve recreation use
benefits is estimated at $114 billion above the $119 billion for the
other types of facilities surveyed. The 1980 need for stormwater control
decreases to $66 billion if water quality improvement is limited to fish
and wildlife uses.
The needs to meet recreation uses and the fish and wildlife uses are
57 percent and 93 percent higher, respectively, than those estimated in
the 1978 Needs Survey, after adjustment for construction cost increases
since January 1, 1978 (Table G). This increase in need is due to the
increased cost of basic storage facilities necessary before special
control or treatment processes can be applied. Storage costs increased
primarily because storage sites could not be found close to overflow
points.
The cost estimates for control of stormwater pollution vary greatly
depending upon how the problem is approached. Category VI cost
estimating methods are tentative at best. However, the estimates are
based on a uniform methodology incorporating the state-of-the-art, which
is not as advanced as that for combined sewer overflow. The methodology
is described in Appendix A, III. Category VI estimates from the 1978 and
1980 Surveys to meet recreation objectives are presented by State in
Table 13.
Table G
COMPARISON OF 1980 SURVEY WITH 1978 SURVEY
Year 2000 Needs for Treatment and/or Control of Stormwaters
Category VI
(1980 Dollars in Billions)
1978 1980
Water Quality Objectives * Survey Survey Difference
Fish and Wildlife 34.23 66.08 +93%
Recreation 72.29 113.70 +57%
* The estimates shown for the two water quality objectives pertain to
two separate alternatives; they are not additive.
18
-------
VII. COMPREHENSIVE DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT NEEDS
Introduction
An estimate of the total national needs for domestic wastewater
collection and treatment is provided in this section. In addition to the
construction grant eligible needs identified in the EPA Needs Survey,
other related needs exist for domestic wastewater collection and
treatment which have not been accounted for in past surveys. These
additional needs consist of items which are not grant eligible and
include the annual costs associated with wastewater collection and
treatment. The magnitude of these needs for the period 1981-2000 were
estimated based on actual expenditures for a selected base year. The
capital construction needs, consisting of ineligible needs plus eligible
needs identified in the Needs Survey, are combined with the projected
composite expenditures for annual recurring costs to compute the total
1981-2000 needs estimate. Category VI stormwater treatment needs were
not considered in this estimate but are discussed in Section VI of this
report.
Methodology
Total expenditures for all wastewater collection and treatment
functions were estimated for fiscal year 1978, the most recent period for
which total expenditures could be tabulated. Total expenditures for the
construction of public facilities, private facilities, residential
systems, and annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs associated
with these facilities were determined. Privately-owned treatment systems
include privately-owned treatment plants and collection systems such as
those built by subdivision developers and operated by homeowner's
associations or others. Residential systems consist of house laterals
and individual on-site systems. All individual on-site systems were
assumed to be septic tanks.
Other annual expenditures, including debt service, replacement,
research and development, interest paid during construction,
administration, and monitoring costs were also identified. Table H shows
the categories of expenditures and the dollar total for each category for
the base year 1978.
After determining actual expenditures in the base year, a projection
of the total expenditure between 1981 and 2000 was prepared. The
projection of future expenditures includes estimates for all the
categories identified in the base year total. Table I shows the
categories of expenditures and the dollar total for each category.
19
-------
TABLE H
1978 AGGREGATE ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
(Millions of 1980 dollars)
ESTIMATED DOLLAR EXPENDITURE
ITEM EXPENDITURE BASIS 1980 $
CAPITAL OUTLAY
1. PUBLIC SEWERAGE
- Federal Grants and Loans $4,833
- Local Matching Funds 987
- Federal Facilities 296
- Funding by Municipalities 373
for Projects with No Federal
Participation
SUBTOTAL = $6,489 2 Q 78 $ 7,668
2. PRIVATE SEWERAGE
3.
Privately Financed $ 125
Treatment Facilities
Privately Financed 2,154
Collector Sewers
SUBTOTAL = $2
RESIDENTIAL SYSTEMS $2
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY =
,279
,100
2
2
Q
Q
78
78
$
$
2
2
$12
,693
,493
,854
CURRENT OPERATIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
»
-
-
-
-
-
PUBLIC O&M $2
PRIVATE O&M
RESIDENTIAL O&M
OTHER ANNUAL COST
Research and Development $
Administration and Monitoring
Debt Service 1
Interest During Construction
Replacement Costs, Sewers 1
Replacement Costs, Treatment
Facilities
TOTAL CURRENT OPERATIONS =
TOTAL ESTIMATED 1978 EXPENDITURE
,819
48
323
231
397
,280
81
,996
933
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
q
78
78
78
78
78
77
78
79
79
$
$
$
3
1
1
9
$21
,303
56
378
273
469
,638
96
,996
933
,142
,996
20
-------
TABLE I
TOTAL 1981-2000 NEEDS
(Millions of 1980 dollars)
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE
ITEM 1981-2000
CAPITAL OUTLAY
1. PUBLIC SEWERAGE
- EPA Construction Grant $ 34,500
Eligible Treatment Needs
- Other EPA Grant Eligible $ 85,400
- Other Federal Agency 42,051
Eligible
- Federal Facilities 6,645
- Funding by Municipalities
for Projects with No
Federal Participation 8.375
SUBTOTAL = $176,971
2. PRIVATE SEWERAGE
- Privately Financed $ 583
Treatment Facilities
- Privately Financed 51,338
Collector Sewers
SUBTOTAL = $ 51,921
3. RESIDENTIAL SYSTEMS $ 19.000
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY = $247,892
TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES
1. PUBLIC O&M $ 94,980
2. PRIVATE O&M $ 1,390
3. RESIDENTIAL O&M $ 7,590
21
-------
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE
ITEM 1981-2000
4. OTHER ANNUAL COSTS
- Research and Development $ 5,187
- Administration and Monitoring 8,911 8,911
- Debt Service 31,122
- Interest During Const. 1,824
- Replacement Cost, Sewers 37,924
- Replacement Treatment 17,727
Plants
TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES $206,655
TOTAL 1981-2000 NEEDS $454,547
22
-------
Total needs for the 1981-2000 period were determined, for the most
part, by projecting the base year spending over the 19 year period. Most
categories of expenditures were assumed to remain at levels comparable to
the base year. Three categories of expenditures are projected to
increase (in constant dollars). These are EPA grant eligible
construction projects, construction of private and residential systems,
and operation and maintenance of wastewater systems.
Expenditures for private and residential systems are projected to
increase due to population growth and the associated need for new
housing. Expenditures for EPA grant eligible construction and OSM are
projected to increase based on the assumption that all needs identified
in the 1980 Needs Survey will be satisfied by year 2000.
Results
The total expenditure for all wastewater functions, for the base year
1978, (Table H) was estimated at $22 billion (1980 dollars). The total
expenditure for the 19 year period (Table I) is projected at
$454.5 billion (January 1980 dollars). These estimates assume that all
wastewater treatment needs will be met by the year 2000. Furthermore, no
attempt was made to account for the effects of inflation or changes in
the funding strategies of Federal and State agencies.
In 1978, EPA awarded $2.96 billion in construction grants which, in
fourth quarter 1979 dollars, would satisfy $4.65 billion in needs. The
total eligible needs for the period amount to $119.90 billion. While in
itself a considerable sum, these needs are only 26 percent of the total
needs identified for the 19 year period. Figure 1 provides a graphical
representation of these projections.
23
-------
CD
CD
M
I
•-«
00
cr»
*-v
(X)
0£
»-•
o
UJ
z
QCO
Ul t-«
I--I
-------
Reliability of the Comprehensive Needs Estimate
The figures reported in this survey, and the resulting totals, may be
considered a first order approximation of comprehensive costs of domestic
wastewater collection and treatment. For the most part, the estimates
were gathered from published or existing sources (Table J). It was
beyond the scope of this study to prepare categorical estimates by
independent means. Rather, the primary aim of this survey was to
identify, gather, and collate existing data to compile an estimate of
total costs and needs. Therefore, varying levels of confidence can be
associated with the numbers reported in this survey.
Public sewerage capital outlay costs were provided by the U.S. Bureau
of Economic Analysis (BEA) and were primarily based on the "Value of New
Construction Put in Place," published by the Bureau of the Census
monthly. These figures are compiled in part by direct measurement and in
part by indirect estimation. Although potential errors in the data are
described, the data as adjusted by BEA is considered to be highly
accurate.
Capital and O&M costs for residential systems are compiled by BEA
using average cost, number of housing starts, and percentage of housing
units involved for either house laterals or septic tank systems. Average
cost was obtained in telephone interviews with installers in various
parts of the Nation. Although some error can be expected in this type of
sampling, the figures reported represent good estimates of residential
system expenditures.
Public sewerage O&M costs used in this study were obtained from a
Census Bureau questionnaire sent to State and local governments,
including special purpose governments and districts. Current operation
expenses for sewers and sewage disposal is one item included on the
questionnaire. (A separate item is included for sanitation other than
sewage, such as refuse disposal).
The Census Bureau tabulations of relative standard errors for
sewerage current operations indicate that the relative standard error on
a national basis for this item is less than 4.9 percent of the total. It
is recognized that other independently derived estimates for public O&M
expenditures are in existence. However, due to the good statistical base
for the Census Bureau estimates (85-95 percent useable responses from the
questionaire sent to the design sample population), the estimates
presented herein are the most accurate available.
The costs reported for research and development and administration
and monitoring have the same or greater confidence interval as public
sewerage O&M, because these components were obtained by similar
techniques.
25
-------
TABLE J
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
COMPREHENSIVE DOMESTIC WASTEWATER NEEDS FOR
THE PERIOD 1981-2000
ITEM SOURCES
CAPITAL OUTLAY
1. Public Sewerage 2, 6, 10
2. Private Sewerage 3, 5
3. Residential Systems 2, 9
CURRENT OPERATIONS
1. Public O&M Costs 7, 10
2. Private O&M Costs 11
3. Residential O&M Costs 2, 9
4. Research and Development 1, 8
5. Regulation and Monitoring 1, 8
6. Debt Service 4, 7
7. Interest During Construction 11
8. Replacement Costs 8, 10
LIST OF SOURCES
1. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
2. Pollution Abatement and Control Branch,
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
3. Office of Housing, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
4. Municipal Finance Officers Association
5. National Association of Homebuilders
6. Construction Statistics Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census
7. Finance Branch, Governments Division, U.S. Bureau of Census
8. Office of Planning and Management, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA)
9. ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS,
U.S. EPA Technology Transfer Design Manual
10. SURVEY OF NEEDS FOR MUNICIPAL WASTEUATER TREATMENT FACILITIES,
U.S. EPA
11. No available data; Independently formulated.
26
-------
Other current operations costs do not lend themselves to computation
of confidence intervals. The debt service cost was obtained from the
Municipal Finance Officer's Association. This number was derived by
multiplying total municipal debt service times the percentage of total
municipal construction that is wastewater related. Interest during
construction and replacement costs were calculated empirically and thus
have no statistical basis.
Capital and O&M costs for private sewerage facilities were one of the
few quantities estimated outright. The absence of direct sources of
information on this subject makes possible a potentially substantial
error in the resulting estimate. However, the relatively small magnitude
of this component makes even a substantial error practically
insignificant.
27
-------
VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The 1980 Needs Survey is the best estimate available of the
nationwide costs of compliance with the goals of the Clean Water Act of
1977. It is clear from the 1980 Needs Survey that in order to meet the
water quality goals of the Act, a substantial amount of monies will be
required. For the third 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, greater amounts of information now available from
such sources as new facility plans, basin plans and discharge permits,
and the further expansion of the survey to include all facilities
nationwide.
Significant and measurable progress has been made in meeting needs
for treatment plants. The current survey shows a decrease in total
treatment needs of $9 billion (twenty-three percent) since 1978.
The 1980 Survey estimates the overall remaining needs for treatment
plants at $34.5 billion. Additional Clean Water Act eligibilities, such
as interceptor sewers ($21 billion), collection sewers ($18 billion), and
control of combined sewer overflows ($37 billion) raise the total
remaining needs to $120 billion. All costs are reported in January 1980
dollars.
Grant awards have reduced needs between 1978 and 1980. Other factors
such as the increased value of construction have offset these
reductions. The net result is an estimate eight percent lower than
reported in the 1978 Needs Survey. New projects approved between the
1978 and 1980 surveys account for a reduction of more than $9 billion in
the present survey estimate. More careful reporting and better cost
estimates have resulted in reduced estimates for several categories of
need.
The 1980 estimate includes $37 billion for control of pollution from
combined sewer overflows. This is about 19 percent higher than the
estimate made in 1978, which reflects improved estimation techniques as
well as the completion of an inventory of combined sewer areas.
Greater progress could be achieved toward treatment goals with a more
focussed funding strategy. Treatment plant needs are estimated at $34.5
billion. If these needs are to be met, funding would have to be focussed
on these needs. Without such a focus, treatment plant needs are unlikely
to be met before the year 2000.
-------
Studies of the construction schedules of those metro areas with
treatment needs above $50 million shows that a peak funding requirement
for treatment construction will likely occur in 1983 or 1984; and could
begin as early as 1982. These needs alone could use all of the available
construction grants funds during those years, and would confirm the need
to focus funding on treatment facilities.
The treatment needs for 1979 populations (the backlog of treatment
needs) represent $22.2 billion, which is 64 percent of the total
year 2000 need. Overall, backlog needs are $91.1 billion, or 76 percent
of year 2000 needs.
Needs for treatment levels greater than secondary have dropped
markedly since the 1978 Survey. The reason for this reduction has been
the increased attention that AWT/AST projects have received. This has
resulted in a more detailed analysis of the need for AWT facilities based
on reevaluation of the attainability of certain water quality standards.
The remaining treatment needs greater than secondary levels are
considered to better represent those areas where water quality
requirements truly mandate higher treatment levels.
Rural areas and large cities have a large share of the nation's
need. Rural areas below 3,500 population have sixteen precent of the
total need; but represent only eight percent of the nation's population.
Similarly, cities above 50,000 population have 79 percent of the national
need; but only represent 70 percent of the nation's population.
In conclusion, the Survey results show that the construction grants
program is producing significant and measurable results toward the goals
of the Clean Water Act, by almost any measure.
29
-------
APPENDIX A
CONDUCT OF THE SURVEY
I. CATEGORIES I-IV (Treatment Plants and Sewers)
A. Background
Drawing on the experience of prior Surveys, EPA and the States formed
a working group to determine the strategy for the conduct of the 1980
Survey. Several Survey goals were identified by the group:
1. That the Survey identify and quantify all needs.
2. That the conduct of the Survey be nationally uniform.
3. That the utilization of scarce State personnel and dollar
resources for the Survey be minimized.
4. That a complete inventory of municipal wastewater facilities be
compiled.
5. That the survey results provide a basis for the allocation of
construction grants funds among the States.
The Survey approach taken for Categories I-IV (treatment plants and
sewers) as a result of these recommendations was:
1. An independent consultant, paid by EPA, would conduct the Survey
on a facility-by-facility basis for Categories I-IV. The consultant's
personnel were to formulate cost estimates. URS Company, with
Headquarters in Denver, and company resources sufficient for this large
effort was competitively selected.
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 final guidance was issued
with reflected those comments.
3. While national uniformity of estimating procedures was a Survey
goal, the cost and construction differences inherent to various sections
of the country were recognized and accommodated where possible.
The formal Survey of Categories I-IV began with 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 much investment in personnel for the Survey as they
considered prudent; but were invited to participate fully in the formal
Survey field work.
30
-------
The Survey field work was conducted in the spring, summer, and fall
of 1980. At the same time work on Categories V was undertaken by URS
Company and its subcontractor Ch^M Hill.
As estimates for Categories I-IV were completed, copies of the
estimates were reviewed by States on a facility-by-facility basis. When
cost agreement between EPA and State personnel could not be reached,
separate estimates were submitted by States and 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
Headquarters.
After machine preparation, data for Categories I-IV were summarized
for this report.
B. Survey Methodology - Operational Guidance for Categories I-IV
Participant guidance for the Survey was formulated by EPA, the
States, and the consultant working closely together. This document
included the following subjects:
1. Responsibilities of the 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 aid in completion of the Survey.
4. Briefing schedules for the participants.
5. Provisions for State and Regional review of consultants data
prior to finalization.
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 1978 Needs data base prior to its use as a
starting point in 1980.
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 determination
of cost variation in any of sixty areas in the vicinity of major cities
in the United States.
31
-------
10. Interceptor sewers sizing tables.
As a result of meetings and other communications with all the States,
the guidance was supplemented by request to include:
1. "Rules-of-Thumb" for estimating needs based on best engineering
judgement. All of the participants understood that rules-of-thumb would
be used only when better information was not available. Examples are:
a. Per capita domestic and commercial flows were allowed consistent
with the cost effective regulations.
b. Collector and interceptor lengths were limited to sixteen feet
and one foot per capita, respectively, of unsewered population.
2. A procedure for designating the basis of cost estimates.
3. Additional cost data, showing national capital costs for:
a. pumping stations
b. aerated lagoons and waste stabilization ponds
4. Procedures for estimating backlog needs for all Categories.
5. Instructions for reconciliation of populations.
6. Guidance for estimation of collector sewer costs.
7. Information on grant eligibilities for land costs.
8. Guidance for estimation of I/I analysis costs.
9. Small and individual treatment systems.
C. Basis of Cost Estimate for Categories I-IV
All individual cost estimates made in Categories I-IV of the Survey
were to be accompanied with a basis of cost estimate, so that the quality
of the estimate can be better determined. EPA has determined that the
quality of cost estimates can be ranked from high to low as follows:
1. Engineer/Consultant Firm Estimate
2. Engineer/Consultant Preliminary Estimate
3. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
4. Cost of Previous Comparable Construction
5. EPA Supplied Cost Estimating Procedures
6. Rough Estimates
32
-------
Table 46 shows the percent of State needs reported by basis of
estimate. Table 47 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 have no application to other Categories.
These tables show the quality of the cost estimates made in the 1980
Survey is substantially higher than in 1978, when 37 percent of needs
used EPA supplied cost curves.
D. Data Sources for Categories I-IV
1. The types of data needed in the Survey and the sources used to
access these data were many. The major types of data used were:
a. population (year 2000 and present)
b. total flow (average, current design, and projected year 2000
design)
c. industrial flow (average, current design, and projected year 2000
design)
d. biological 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
h. level of treatment required
2. The sources of these data were:
a. 1978 Needs Survey data
b. Facility Plans (201 Step I Plan)
c. NPDES Applications and Permits
d. Grant Application Files
e. Grant Files and Grant Information Control System Data
f. Regional and/or Basin Plans (208 and 303 Plans)
g. Other Engineering Plans or Reports
h. State Water Quality Standards
33
-------
E. Survey Preparation
The 1980 Survey form was generated by computer showing the 1978 Data
of Record 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 1980 Needs Survey figures.
Census data for 1979 and BEA 2000 populations 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 upon the revised data shown
on Survey forms, and to review the total cost estimates for the State.
Where differences over cost estimates were not resolved, States
submitted independent cost estimates on the form. Few independent State
estimates were required.
II. CATEGORY V - (Control of Combined Sewer Overflow)
A. Background
Category V estimates were derived from a computer cost model as in
the 1978 Needs Survey with two significant improvements which were:
1. Substantial upgrading of the model to reflect the current state
of the art of CSO control.
2. Use of completed and approved facility plans in lieu of model
estimates, where available.
Information collected for the CSO estimates included:
1. Location
2. Sewer system characteristics
3. Receiving water characteristics
4. Status of CSO correction planning
34
-------
Sources of data for this information were:
1. State and local engineering reports
2. United States Geological Survey
3. National Combined Sewer System Data File
4. Facilities Plans or other planning documents.
Data collection and model upgrading and analyses for Category V were
conducted concurrently with the work for Categories I-IV.
In November 1980, a draft of the results of the Category V work was
mailed to States with a request for review. Because few comments were
received from the States, few changes were necessary to the model and the
data base.
B. Survey Methodology for Category V (Combined Sewer Overflow)
The methodology for estimating the cost to control combined sewer
overflow to prevent periodic bypassing of untreated wastes from combined
sewers was based on seven major factors. These factors were studied in
15 cities in the United States selected because of their diverse wet
weather conditions and the availability of good data. Data generated by
the 15 site studies were used to develop an estimate of the time water
quality criteria would be violated.
The estimate is based on a model which evaluates all sources of
pollution during dry and wet weather flow, quality, and reaeration
capacity of the receiving water. The model then determines the treatment
level of the CSO necessary to obtain water quality objectives.
Next, the model uses production theory and marginal cost analysis to
identify the optimum mix of CSO controls to meet the required level of
treatment. The site study analysis and other literature review led to
the conclusion that offline storage of the CSO, in combination with
management practices (i.e. street sweeping or sewer flushing) and any of
four treatment processes, was more cost effective than other types of
controls.
The model was applied to each of the 1,118 CSO areas for the
Category V estimate and to the 320 urbanized areas (or State portions of
urbanized areas) for Category VI estimates. Average state data were
utilized for some variables where necessary.
35
-------
The seven major factors which affect Category V costs are as follows:
1. Pollutants to be controlled.
The pollutants for which reasonable estimates of pollutant
washoff and receiving water impact may be developed include:
suspended solids, ultimate oxygen demand, total phosphorus (for
lakes), and fecal coliforms. For other materials such as pesticides
or heavy metals, little is known about their occurrence in the urban
system to evaluate potential impacts.
2. Water quality criteria.
The water quality criteria applied to assess the assimilative
capacity of a receiving water to obtain fish and wildlife uses are as
follows:
a. Suspended solids.
The mean value of suspended solids concentration discharged to
the receiving water from urban stormwater and combined sewer overflow
sources should not exceed the mean value of the natural background
suspended solids concentration for the subject receiving water on an
annual baiss. This criteria applies except in cases where the
allowable mean value of suspended solids concentration is less than
25 mg/1. In this case, a discharge limit of 25 mg/1 shall apply.
b. Dissolved oxygen (DO).
The minimum receiving water dissolved oxygen concentration shall
not average less than 2.0 mg/1 for more than 4 consecutive hours; nor
shall the minimum receiving water dissolved oxygen concentration
average less than 3.0 mg/1 for more than 72 consecutive hours
(3 days). In addition, the annual average receiving water dissolved
oxygen concentration shall be greater than 5.0 mg/1 for all waters
which will support warm water species and shall be greater than
6.0 mg/1 for all waters which will support cold water species.
c. Ultimate Oxygen Demand (Carbonaceous and Nitrogenous
Biological Oxygend Demand)
The required ultimate oxygen demand removal rate shall range as
low as 40 percent (no dissolved oxygen problem) to as high as 90
percent.
d. Phosphorus
Average annual lake phosphorus concentration should not exceed
0.025 mg/1.
36
-------
An additional effluent criteria is required above and beyond the
above fish and wildlife criteria in order to maintain recreational
water use:
e. Fecal coliform
A ninety-five percent removal of fecal coliforms shall be
required for all flows. This criterion represents a basic change
from the 1978 Survey, at which time a criterion of a maximum of two
untreated overflow events per year was used.
3. Cost of Alternative Technologies Necessary to meet Required
Treatment Level
The optimum treatment level is a function of the removal required
from the storage/treatment systems, the pollutant type and the sewer
system type (separate or combined). After the treatment level is
selected, an optimum combination of control technologies is calculated
for each combined sewer area. Streetsweeping and combined sewer flushing
are employed at all treatment levels after calculation of the optimum
level of efforts for these management practices. These levels of removal
were found to be insufficient to satisfy the total required treatment
level, so the remainder had to be removed by offline storage combined
with an optimized treatment system.
The following four physical/chemical treatment processes were found
to be the most cost-effective. The treatment system to supplement the
storage facility was selected from the few. They were utilized in the
optimization process as a basis for estimating the cost of treatment
facilities to be combined with the cost of storage. The four processes
are:
(1) microscreen
(2) flocculation - sedimentation
(3) dissolved air flotation
(4) high rate filtration
The cost of the selected storage/treatment system is then compared to
the estimated cost of sewer separation. If the separation cost is less,
then the sewer separation estimate was used. This occurred primarily in
small communities.
4. Pollutant Sources from Dry Weather Flows.
The pollutant loadings from municipal dry weather sources are assumed
to meet 1983 secondary treatment requirements. It is assumed that each
population equivalent contributes the following:
a. BOD = 30 mg/1
SS - 30 mg/1
TKN = 28 mg/1
Pb = 0.04 mg/1
37
-------
b. 100 gallons per capita of wastewater per day
5. Pollutant Loads from Wet Weather Sources
It was assummed that oxygen-demanding materials (i.e. BOD and TKN)
will reach maximum accumulation in 15 days and that non-oxygen demanding
material (i.e. suspended solids and lead) accumulate in a linear
fashion. Pollutant accumulation rates were calculated from the
Stromwater Management Model Level 1 equations.
6. Tolerance of Aquatic Species
The receiving water quality criteria established for the Survey take
into account the pollution tolerance of aquatic species. These
tolerances were considered for both short-term and long-term exposure to
pollutants.
For additional bacteriological cleanup in combined sewer overflow and
urban runoff beyond that required for protection of fish and wildlife,
the storage capacity and the treatment rate were increased so that fecal
coliforms were controlled to the 95 percent level.
7. Pollutant Control Levels Required
Each combined sewer area has differing receiving water
characteristics which affect pollution control costs substantially. The
degree to which pollutant control is required is a function of the
overall assimilative stream capacity resulting from the receiving water
characteristics.
The factors which led to the determination of required control levels
in each combined sewer area are the upstream flow and quality, the
combined sewer overflow, urban storm runoff, and the wastewater treatment
plant effluent quality.
III. SURVEY METHODOLOGY FOR CATEGORY VI (STORMWATER CONTROL)
The methodology for estimating the cost to provide control and/or
treatment of urban stormwater runoff channeled through sewers or other
conveyances used only for such runoff is based on the same 15 site
studies as the Category V cost estimation methodology. Also, the seven
major factors which affect stormwater cost estimates are the same as for
Category V, except that sewer flushing was eliminated as an alternative
technology.
38
-------
The cost estimates by State (and Territory) are base on regulations
for the application of the NPDES Permit Program for separate storm sewers
which were published in the Federal Register of March 18, 1976. In these
regulations, the term "separate storm sewer" is defined as "a conveyance
or system of conveyances . . . 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 which 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 is as follows:
1. 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
2. Surrounding closely settled territory.
39
-------
APPENDIX B
Reasons for Independent State Estimates
Categories I-VI
Prior to finalization of estimates, all Survey forms were sent to 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
secure 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 210,000 possible estimates, 3,421 separate estimates were
submitted by States. Most of these estimates were based on State-developed
cost curves or State population projections exceeding allowable ceilings.
Other reasons for separate estimates include disagreement on allocation of
dollars between Categories I-IV versus Category V, inclusion of ineligible
facilities, and differing inflation factors.
New York State submitted independent estimates for treatment plants in
Nassau and Suffolk counties totalling about $200 million for treatment. To
provide a population base for these estimates, State personnel shifted
projected population from other parts of the State to Nassau and Suffolk.
However, no corresponding reduction of needs was reported in the places where
population was reduced. Therefore, EPA concluded that the additional need was
already included in the total State estimate, and to include the higher
Nassau/Suffolk costs would result in double-counting.
40
-------
APPENDIX C
Summary Tables
Cost data from the 1978 Needs Survey are presented in summary tables
included in this Appendix. The following tables show costs by State and
U.S. totals:
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
EPA Assessments of Needs by Category.
Independent State Estimates of Needs by
Category.
Comparison of 1980 and 1978 EPA Asssement,
Categories I-V (Recreation).
Comparison of 1980 and 1978 EPA Assessments for
Treatment Plants, Categories I and II.
Comparison of 1980 and 1978 EPA Assessments for
Categories I, II, and IVB.
Comparison of 1980 and 1978 EPA Assessments for
Category I.
Comparison of 1980 and 1978 EPA Assessments for
Category II.
Comparison of 1980 and 1978 EPA Assessments for
Category IIIA.
Comparison of 1980 and 1978 EPA Assessments for
Category 11 IB.
Comparison of 1980 and 1978 EPA Assessments for
Category IVA.
Comparison of 1980 and 1978 EPA Assessments for
Category IVB.
Comparison of 1980 and 1978 EPA Assessments for
Category V (Recreation).
Comparison of 1980 and 1978 EPA Assessments for
Category VI.
Per Capita Costs for Year 2000 and Present
Population, Categories I-V (Recreation).
41
-------
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18
Table 19
Table 20
Table 21
Table 22
Table 23
Table 24
Table 25
Table 26
Table 27
Table 28
Table 29
Per Capita Costs for Year 2000 and Present
Population, Categories I, II, and IVB.
Per Capita Costs for Year 2000 and Present
Population, Category I.
Per Capita Costs for Year 2000 and Present
Population, Category HA.
Per Capita Costs for Year 2000 and Present
Population, Category IIB.
Per Capita Costs for Year 2000 and Present
Population, Category IIIA.
Per Capita Costs for Year 2000 and Present
Population, Category IIIB.
Per Capita Costs for Year 2000 and Present
Population, Category IVA.
Per Capita Costs for Year 2000 and Present
Population, Category IVB.
Per Capita Costs for Year 2000 and Present
Population, Category V (Recreation).
Per Capita Costs, Category V (Fish & Wildlife),
Comparison of 1980 and 1978 EPA Per Capita
Assessments, Categories I-V (Recreation).
Comparison of 1980 EPA Assessments with State
Estimates for Categories I-V (Recreation).
Comparison of Per Capita Differences Between
the EPA and State Estimates, Categories I-V
(Recreation).
Comparison of 1980 EPA and State Estimates,
Categories I and II.
Comparison of 1980 EPA and State Estimates,
Categories I, II, and IVB.
42
-------
Table 30
Table 31
Table 32
Table 33
Table 34
Table 35
Table 36
Table 37
Table 38
Table 39
Table 40
Table 41
Table 42
Table 43
Table 44
Table 45
Table 46
Table 47
Comparison of 1980 EPA and State Estimates,
Category I
Comparison of 1980 EPA and State Estimates,
Category IIA.
Comparison of 1980 EPA and State Estimtes,
Category I IB.
Comparison of 1980 EPA and State Estimtes,
Category IIIA.
Comparison of 1980 EPA and State Estimates,
Category 11 IB.
Comparison of 1980 EPA and State Estimates,
Category IVA.
Comparison of 1980 EPA and State Estimates,
Category IVB.
Comparison of 1980 EPA and State Estimates,
Category V (Recreation).
Needs for Current Populations (Backlog),
Categories I-V.
Comparison of Year 2000 and Backlog Needs,
Categories I-V.
Comparison of Year 2000 and Backlog Needs,
Categories I and II.
Comparison of Year 2000 and Backlog Needs,
Categories I, II, and IVB.
Per Capita Backlog of Needs, Categories I-V.
Per Capita Backlog of Needs,
Categories I, II, and IVB.
Number of EPA Assessments by Category
Number of State Cost Estimates Differing from
EPA Estimates.
Percent of State Needs by Basis of Cost
Estimate.
Percent of National Needs by Basis of Cost
Estimate.
43
-------
It- NO- I
>-* *« « o nut KI
9 « » « ** in
irt •* mm nt
3 O
« 1
*4 «- IP -*
KJ -J
2 m
U.O U
OH I-
•O O
O I
fU O
00 =>
o &
«J Ui
UJ
•« O Cl
»« u
« z o t-*iuta. •>
< <-
Ul
o d z »-» i
[»>a:k-* z mac**
:zz>z2ru z o »- 3
« ZZZ>Z2TU Z O »- Z
Uin QMI-* O -• -• «»- *-*
-------
r in - a -j
UJ W ->
» Z 0
0> • O
>- i-£(n-4rfvf>»i0**)'*ii'**0f*>«nfnjf|'i^9tf>9><«>9"*{vnff>*«{n9ifim9**0i/>f>t
4 O O »• O- IA C
t- » inr^ 9 o «
o
»- O 3
.
< m « a.
_
x >- o oo
U« O*-t*-*
< a. ••>
< O 3 (TO
(-(EOOCZ
z
»-K»-i Z 0> a •»-«
»- •-* o 1-1 «» o <
ZZZ>Z2U Z O »- Z
at o •>
45
-------
2 U <
Ol- J
M« _>Z
»"* Oti
»-X OM
mo ~
w I *oc
u >• o o
j
O
: « 2 •> o « u« o»-*i-«
•- r. K< t *- f I «
» ~* — » «o
4 0*-* «
t-t 2 J »-
Z4OO
•« a. •«
« O 3 DC O
*-* ZOQTZ
Z < QC O Ul<
Z •-• » 13 U »- -J
O 13 2 »-*0>
»- IX •-* Z « (T ••-*
o •-«•-» o •-« •-•
-------
o — O
iv a o> 4
»- 3 U
z z r
J-'-'— •-••— KiAj — rxi
_
x >- o o o
« o 3 a o
ft Z O tt Z
Z 4 OE O Ul < 00
«-«>-« oz
47
-------
j «
>
o
at
o
«*« .* M»«r\j***« txi
a: o
at z
W Z O i-»lU IL
»-«-«15 •«• •» t5 < <« a: o
ZZZ»2tZU ZO*-Z t-
O i-i <-• O •-»»-§ •« »- *t
-------
g sscxcsssstsssss
£ OT-OO,-OOOO--O--O---
SS8»9S»S8S58S»»SS2Sr:
S2RS2S3SSSS3SS
2
NEED3
E SECONDARY LEVEL
PERCFWT4CF nr
: OF NATIONAL
*NT3 TO ACHIEV
1980 DOLLARS
JRY I
ND PERCENTAGE
TREATMENT PL*
HOUSANOS OF
C*HG(
COSTS 1
*PHOVEM£NT OF
1
cnftTf
1-4
cr
o
u.
«
4 UI
* *
»-
«r\»-M — ^Kl^*«
** rt ~ ni
t m t t + •
*
9
cr- w tn ~* o m
9
•« O *-• •*
O*-*«-i OZ » (J •-•
<-itt^HJ O19Z *-f««t
-J*-*OO«D i-»-«t*^«0'< ^ at o
- -2zw zo*-z •-
**tr »<* *
49
-------
u o>» *onir
u> ca i-«
*-i-»O
K ft •*• ni -
9 4
-* 0
U •> Q <_>
OC Z
Ul Ul <
til
-rum -*««*» AI»
o o w -*
»- o
^t o •( » < a. •> uj u a: K < _i oc ^ uj o o z i-i « <
o> z o *-* ui to. «o >- z o 13 z »- N^ »-» « o. •> •-> K < < < > « < < ui •« t- at»-« z ««•>-» i—
^QCO^'OCO^^ »^ ^ K«K ZX^OWQT*^ ZKXOTUO Z —I ^^ O O O9 f—^^tS^^MU)^ 4 QL O
•o o << u < o*-**-* O z o> u*-* z»-«• » z z z » 2 z u zo»-z *-
ZU.CTUIX • i-» (3 "-• O Z •< <3«UI_Kt-»UJt-tO'«-XX XOWUJXXUIW OMM* QM**-* «»- »-t
<*-*oz«»~oca:<«xi-i«-i««o*-»-tz>-«xz«>zo»-»-z«xzt»x»-uza:x«-'* «(9 •
U(-ioou.ux>-t»-«*-*i-*^KJXZJ;zz zzzzzzzzz zzoooa.a:«>«»-»-^>>'*** K ^ t* i a. a. » 3
50
-------
ac -I
(D CD
III*
»*-
o~
itt o
u. o o *-*
I- O> >-•
F| ^ K> M O> Ot
- -* J f- f* F-
**» » t
4
X
a
^
i-
4 3
•-• o
« « K O »-
« zo>o«u
2^2 jSz
i *5 5SS
0
_»
o
u
a: O-i •*
« O «-tM
J«OOZ
oo^Sr
<
•-• •< * « z
O Z «U «-• •«
i!jolzzo«a
SdSS2^3SS
CO
^ *-l
w a,
•3 « CL
x « o o> ac
Z
Szz z
z
J 1-
>- o a o
Ul U OC it
141 Ul O
*- t- O
zzzzzo
z
Z -1
O Z >-
-«C9 Z
z
« oo
_J QC X Ul
MUO n
03=il>
z
Z M
ooz
I- 1-1 C3 •-* M
z z z :>aB
r xz«x^3
? o a z
4 (E O U <
Z U Z OH- Z
g*z«or jg
C 4 1* I 0.0. -»
3
o
*r
•
51
-------
«*-* G
f-»- •
3
•9
O
W
HI
Z
O
<0
»
UK >•
I*Z a
« Hlk. C
>-0! OO
Z fet
uac «»-
uoo«
ac •? z o
u < <
a. I r>
OU.O
COSTS AN
ORRECTION C
Tli
COSTS
0
«*.
O 4- il+**+ t • -»•*- + —•
1—
« u f- o -* -*-*-H— oi*-iMf*» v\ •• iv in AJ o »• r^. ^* *«
£« S2553SS1S ? S25S2 2S?2S« §S 5«SS£ S££S - 5 S SSSsS S S
— Kt
•« O =J
_
x>-ooo z * o o
z z z > 2 z LJ
cooc
<
zo
52
-------
2
NEEDS
NO APPURTENANCES
PERCENTA6F Dt
Of NATIONAL
I COLLECTORS A
I960 DOLLARS
IV A
NO PERCENTAGE
ELIGIBLE NE*
HOUSANDS OF
CATESOR1
COSTS t
NSTRUCTION Of
1
COSTS
tj
OL
O
£¥ $S£S5SS£SC:;3£2;£3!SS5ES22SS-:C22I£3£S;53£;SS333S:5S;e:3S33;
-•CO —
4 tu
* ff It • • t III II ••
1-
—• CO * * * »
< -H -* ni «*
— — ^. r« —
•*•
m
-* r\i~9 «
M
O •-• <
tz_i»-
4 o o
« a. •«
•« o o a o
*-i X O CK Z
Z4aou<
*-> a» ts o»- _i
O> Z O *^ UJ U- O>
4 44o:ot~a:o44 •-•
Z4ZOOQ4U4 Q >-• i-* O
4^cOZU.QCUIZ »»-»l3 t-l O Z
•- *-n3 •-»
-------
•> a —
NEEDS
APPURTENANCE
PERCENTAG
-100)
« z a:
z « <
O -J
*-* n _i
•- a o
•« OQ»
Z 1-
a. o >
h. w « •-•
oua
a: -^
ua i «•-
uu o «
K Z ZU
w <
0 O
z z z
COSTS •
OR CONSTRUCTIC
T
CQSTi
u.
«U
• *• «••• >!•»«•
I—
*^ 09 * •> * •
a. i- n) << CL
>- Z O 3 Z»
54
-------
0
z
•<
X
Ui CO taJ
c 9- n
-. CO
Z uJ
-J O »
> o o o o o
o z a >•
r-t -~ OL
UJ (O O
(3 X (9
O »- O
Z «J X
< ut »~
a
> u*t*«t o «o
:^2
m 9 -«f\j ru 4>innjnir^
m rn
09 z o >~* u u>
«O <«->•« O^M
« 09 < a
3^ Z O I3Z >-•-»•
a «-"*
M _l h-
X >- O O O
2
!»-«•«
r _ii-
t o o
« a. •m
4 O => a; o
*-• z o a z
z •< cc o ui *
Z t-« 03 (3 O »- _J
oo z — «
i Sys-
-•oz^^-ira: « j:«-i»-»««^-i-»a
O Z >- 0 ZZZ»39ZL> ZO*-Z »-
xocauxxuin o •-•*-• o »-••-« * >— »-•
' — -~ KQC *19 •
55
-------
O OOOOfOOOOO^OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOnjOOOOIVOO-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O
DC **
•*
Ottl
.
eo bJ • •••»•••*••*
> u> o o o
W O (O •«
U 7 O U
at * z
9 -t> ir> ~* tr- -
o
u or
o
-• -* -. 5»
•< a. ••>
«( o 3 at o
•- I O ft 2
z « a o uj •<
z«-« to (»o»- _i
o o z •-%«
Z«ZCDO-«U« O •-» »-• OZ
56
-------
,
»•**
. .
o
z »-
ui -4:
x -t
t~ ZJ
4 a.
uj a '-o
(E (L O-
»- ct r-
o u 9-
uj o u>
_
to ae « •- *-
3 a> a
a — z »-i
Z O Z »-i
?7 O ft
o <-««oni^9tt4nch(uranir^ruin«niMMt«t9tnAjni«44)Ki
i- UiZ »^tn^«rv«Ai^«o«-A9^9-«cro^in«i\io(\irxiin«a>«o»*»ii»«*»****»«»»*»*B>***-»»*.«»»**.»»*.»*.*«»»»»»»»X«»»»»«<»» »
||;
^ co uj z z 4 o 3 a: o
_* »- Qt *-» < •< O «-• 4 i-* Z O QC Z
*-o i- >-* M _i K- »*z-Jt- z « ac o ui < o»
4OU bl O. X >- O O O Z •« O O Z »-t «9 (»U »- _1 _l
*-. U < CO 4 & COUUflCX «^<
CO Z O •-» UI U. 03 >-Z O O Z *~ •-• i-. < O.09»-t^«« « »fl(t««W «»-£«-• Z «(£•»•• H-
40CO^(KO44 •-+ < X4 ZI^OCOOC*^ ZQCXQCUO Z _> •-» U O W ^•^*C9*^tOC94 < ft O
Z O »- Z ^>
U.CEUIX -ft (3 »-• O Z
COWXXU1CO O >-»»-• 'Oi-**-* <*- •-•
zo»-i-z
-------
uj o :
o M
fc. Z «
O « IL W»
roir^^ff-^oru—(Mt*»(^^ff-«^ir»^roi/»O(\*-*t*-otf>r-«*vo«
jor-Kio-oftjoo* AI ~«in r- •« o m KI«-OOK»IT>«O«KI«
a. *«
z> (to
O a: z
x o u <
to z o«-*uf u-
< « < a o i- ZOt-Z *-
iz x x z x z :
58
-------
iwa
!
•« a
u* o
a: a.
)-««r»ff-*-»--ir>ir»tn^fxjo,o«,otf>«=»»tr»-«»'
)aor-o«««*«o»»Aioc*»aDft4>p-Ai«> X »- X X XOOOUIXXUIOO O »-ll-l OMM 4 >- i-l
59
-------
*» I-
O *-t
o a.
•< Q.
WO
a: a.
X Ot 09
o o < a
t Ul JZ
» UtaJ O 3
tr «-• *? o •<
3 _l O O X *+'
.
a. -*z >-
o —a:
ta. z o
O * U. »J IB
O 2 IU
Z Z O»-
:TV
1-- *»
_
£t 13 30.
»-Q. OO
o
*-
O Ul
3 oro
o a z
ar o tu •< f
t» o t- _i -i
c*-4-iuiz o :
60
-------
1* — — O,
< a.
tU O
ot a.
X (X CO t- *»
00*0 to i—
• UJ _1 2 O •-»
>- >- fr- _j < u a.
u _i u O « <
>• e> ai o Z) (_i
a M "^ o as
u _i o o i **
CO ffi (T 00 •— >-*
coin «
.
i~ a. O o
or. o I a
z a »-
Oui o to » »• » "» •»• .**»*«» »•>* »• » *•> »»•• » •> i
< »• « — r- p^ ^o »t »t ^ ho fnomr^«t r*> >«*«m *«
* < a. *ao
Z ^ O O tt O
•« a -^ •« *-»zoac2
»-»z_jf- a < a o i** •< «o
Z < O O Z •-• «0(»U»-*J-I
61
-------
oc o
Ul O
a. rti « -o t
2 (V O>
I (T «O
oa « a
• W-IZ
OJ *« " -• -^
— — m ~+ ~+ t\t
_
O UJ O 3 «
•-•n o
_JO o I *-t
i«_» -* :
m o
o uj
(J CO
ao z a*-iuu.
to z o +- z »-
62
-------
4 Q.
Lki O
or a.
3K OC CO
O Q < O
» UJ _J Z
>• >— -J «
_) U O *5
o UJ O O Q. a- *-»
a —z
O M >-
03 H-
D ^
o a.
O O 01 **^- f*
_
a o 3 a
»- a. o o
« o i a.
z a •-
4 a. * a o
x o ac. z
•* a o ui <«
09 O O H- -I
63
-------
UO
aw
K -1
mm
Zz I
o r^ « »*i o i~ i^ in o « «r- o o tf» « 01 r^^^ «
...... ... .... . -
O
»- «
Z I-
u-«
3S
oca.
o o •-•>-
W la. Z OC z
Kl O « *.» C- O
Z OZli i-. QO
« K-I-Z4U ^3 • »»•.. .. ............. . .... .... . ... ».*. • .
.• 3_t«3 OM ^ ,~_.«_4 ni
K 330. O. )V
•-O.OO
•o a i o.
3 muzz
»-• u * - z o 3 z t-»-**-« <« a.«-»x«< •< j.«««uj «»-£»-• z «ac •-• »-
64
-------
_
0)0)
u «
b. »-
o o«o
• ui-iz
>- X »- _l •<
w _j o o on
:> o uj o ^ a>
* ^ *^ o
3 _l O o I >•
(O a> a OD i- •-*
=> a. a-
«O Q» —2
o a •-» >-
u h. z a
bJ & « it. r> c
Z O Z (3
z z ciu
at ra 3 a. a. w
i- a o o
CO O I CL
z a »-
o
O 9- *
QC O-
U. »-
Z •« Z
a >-» <
._ j»_
x >- o oo
«u« a t-»i-t oz
65
-------
a.
t <\i *« KI in KIM »*-«
?o«« o
W -J Z Itt
y- l- _** •>
_IU O •> =>
U Ul O 3
»-•••» OZ
-JOOIO
« I-
DI-*
U ft.
o •-«»-« o »
<0 l-*-2-
.
^-- o o o
^ O »-« •«
•-« z _i K-
z < o o
< ft. •«
•4 O 3 QC O
*-* z. o • X X X O « Ul X X Ul « O M »-• O •-••-• < •- •-•
66
-------
00
M o
Z f\l«0
o-
ft »-
IU O-
0. -^
_
Ui _1 O O « -I
> - «
3 OL O-
0> a. — z «e
Q O «-t
W U. 2 X
tu o « k. « n
2 OZ •-.
no
O UJ
o to
o »-t
Suiv
z<*
»•"•••« OZ
- «0 Z Z Z » Z Z U Z O >- Z
> I -^ X >- X X XO«UJXXUIW O •-»»-• O •-••-• «»- *-*
67
-------
— —
-.
» *• — 9 «
BO — i/> -e
ni— i/>
at
z
a
_i
o
_
:>-ooo
<, o «-• <
»-» 2 _i •-
z •* c o
68
-------
19(r»*nj«-*tT4>Ktr--&O(/>Q1fXI'9f-f\itn4>i*tr*i>o-«iAa-40ooo-oo o
•* a: a
z uj «
O »- _i
i-» t» 9 •« ^ A OD 4 4<^o**\«at^t'\o9-o9'ruirto>«-*(v*n4vonjioo9cor^n«tfi<4if*it'%4>i/tt/%ct*4<
OH- • •»••••»••••»••*•»*•••»•»•••»•»••*••»•*•»••*•»*••**
4 teJ O ~
2 »- C
to o a
ta. « - a c
a _j z is
UJ U « Ul
a. •-* tn »-
_j 3 «
O (D O U
Z 3 I
< a. t-
*4 *H CO
— * (C —
Q. «O7
3 a: o
o a: z
_
x >- o a o
O3 2 O »-• UJ t
•
ZZU
69
-------
a. «
o
z u
oc f\i u. o.
< 1-4 <
3UJ O (_>
cr _i
ID i_» _»o 3oc
oc ti r> o x •
3 _l Q. O X »- O.
O o **»-» o *»-***»»» «***Z»*"Z«.»*«.»»»»»* »»...*« «•**** »»» »««* »**M »
hJ O c IL v> hJ o r\i v>v •>. v^i._ «- K
Z MOZ*-» fXI M
Z DOT
O Z ««O
O •-• O O I- O
« »* Z •* UJ
O- - »-
*4 O uj « 15 4
ac« =>a.u
l-< OO
|«X a: •*-» »-
zzz>z;zu z o»- z »-
Q*-*i-4 O •-••-« <»— •-•
70
-------
> * oo- * o
OC OOrtlOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
»imoooniv«o o
o co
UI *-
u z
Z 4
UJ O Z
U.(r«O<
-••
ui u, <
o o •-»
« u. »-
»- Z O
2 C -
UJi-*CO ^
U *— O
tx o z *>
»
on
_
zvooo
* o •-< 4
*-»z_i>-
z 4 o o
O>ZO*-«UtU.
»-t X o a:
z 4 a: o ui
z*-« «o t* o >-
O is Z *-*•
71
-------
z ac
< at at
O »- -i *-•
b. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O
- o *
1 « O
-
O *-
l ff ce
« => U Ul
•-tO < CO
•3 Z O '-' UJ U, BO >~Z O=93
L •« z •> O 4 o < o !_* i_i oz «r> o •-« «. (_> t
< O 3 a: o
t-l X O QC Z
Z ** Ct O Ul 4
z 1-4 tn is o >- -j
o oz •-* «
cc
:xxsxixxzzzzzzzzoooo.o:»«»-»-3>-:
72
-------
C
C
2
-I O C
UJ
-1 U
C
>- «
ac. *•
4 3
a u
Z C
o a
co u u
O UJ 0
UJ CO
_J UJ CO Oh-
Z X 4
O U -I
«-t 4 _J
•- O
4 O O
O *•
tt. CO CO O OOh-OO-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO—OOOOOOOOK\O«OOOOOC*C>'O<
z *•* (£ uj in a: o
-J »- (K *-• 4 4 Q •_• 4 »M Z O «Z
4 13 O Ul (L X >- O O O Z 4 O O Z*-i •> (»U I- _1 _l
»-«(_) 4 CO 4 O. COU1UK3C 4 _l £t ^ UJ OlfiZ *-t » 4
co z o •-* uJ u. •> >~z a o z »—•-»*•• 4 a. >o *-• v: 4 4 4 >«044uj •* »- et»-» 2 •>«•** ^~
I4ZCOO4U* a •-!•-• OZ » (j«-t 4Uti»«CO3iZtn44UJUJO O Z >- (O Z Z Z >• Z 2 O Z O*- Z »-
73
-------
00 OD
111«
Ifcl-
00 <
a ui
Ultt
_
t- O O
* Ul O
z w ^
QUIO
O — >-
UIZ Ot
I* « O
« > to. C9
I- Q O U
z« >-
IU 00 4
L>U1 O U
cr > z
00 Z O «-*bl It.
• O O
J X X
« a. •«
< o => * o
•-• x o or z
z < tk o uj «
Z*M 00 t* (J >- _*
O Id Z -t «
* >- a •-* z oo a •»-*
»- »-t ta »-«oo et * •* a
74
-------
tu
u
Z
ifcj z «
** «4 m -«
o»- *«
*> «>
o- ui
O *\l ^ «
x
o
j
o
••-tc5 •-• o
a. •
3 or
O IE
a: ou
z z 3«-»K0>u
75
-------
UJ 00<
(C O O <
til * •
I-* -* 9- O -« <
u
<_>»-«*>•-
oc o «
z t
x>-**-t««H-*-i
-------
»-«i»-«
UJ 2
ti b
4 i.
-J QE
no. u
Ok* a
Uj or
bJ
z o
F NATIONAL
LITATION AN
80 DOLLARS
II B
0 «-*» -«
s* x at
« b.1 h. C
*-a oii
z u
u ae « H-
U O O 4
tr "» z 0
UJ 4 4
OL Z «
3
COSTS AN
CORRECTION 0
TH
COSTS
O
u.
tu
*- UJ
O- UJ AJ
UJ
UJ
(t
Ul
b.
u.
o
t—
4 -<
.« — ^oo.,.«. 0^^3-000,00
in
•
•>
K1
-TnliiT- »" -a*o « - nT maaiJut -
o -* r- -4
2 S
§>-«
K O
O K Z
a o bi « •»
MM az
l-»-O4»ZO»-l-Z4
x »-«4 z oc
•t»«oiu
77
-------
> o —« o —•«
-JO >
ta. O * »-*
O O O-
u oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorMooooooooooooooooooo—«oooo nt
U i*»
Z O t-t
a:o*-
o « o
< 09 4 a.
4 a. • v>
o 3 ae o
x o a: z
< cr o aj < BO
00 U> (J »- _1 _J
3u < < a:
z <_> z o •- ;
78
-------
a: oo.wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooof*»oooooe>oooooooooooooooooo
» a u
o => a
uj a.
u a.
z <
F NATIONAL
EPTORS AND
80 DOLLARS
IV 6
NO PERCENTAGE 0
IN QF NEW I*TERC
HOUSANDS OF 19
CATEGORY
t
COSTS '
R CONSTRUCTIC
1
cnsi!
u.
UJ
*- UJ
o- u>
UJ
UJ K» -*
U. 1
o
»-
-• W • »
« f* ~+
UJ
SS?SS?S=S5S5SSa£a;KS5535SSSSasSSSSSS
B — •>
9- & *-
I
•« o 3 a o
«-t X O tt 2
z « (r o uj« ca
Z t-t «0 O U *- «J J
O (»z; •-• « •«
« i-a: *-i z •> a ••»* »»
3ta < « ae o
zu z o»- z i-
?MM 0 — *-« •<•- •-•
c9Z*— u z a: X »-« a: *c» •
79
-------
o-i a
UK
IF NATIONAL n
IED SEWER OVE
>80 DOLLARS
t V
••4 — o:
ui aa o
* c *. ai
»- O O t-
z «
oo o
K Z
ttlZ «
a. o M
Ot-O
zox
a •-
•-0 C
nu c.
o
u a:
o
b.
O »-
» u
u
u
UI
tf
IU
u.
-4
4 Z
UI Z
0 (O
a ao
u
S£SS£SSSiSSSSSS2£SS£SK::£S5Sf:gS:S:S3K3SSiSJS?S2£SS?S2:C§§§£§S
ru -i
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo«aooooooo
*
V
I
1-1 •<
_J >—
OD
> 2 O »-< UJ U.
-«u-< a»-«*-t oz « o •-•
I X X UJ 09 O «-«•-*
o o z
I ^- OC *-i Z
30 4
z u
z o»~ z «-
ZZZZZ2
80
-------
o co HI co *« ;* « Al m ^ -^
9> CO <. O
-
^ i O
«J O
4 I CO
to >- z
JO
U> •-. »- *-i OJ
ruin Alteon
o
z
o
• O
-* 2
O-
3
_l
I- O
< o •-* 4:
t-t 2 _l >-
Z4OO
4 a. *>m tiJ
4 o z> a: o
•-* at o a: z u.
Z «CCOuJ4*9O
»-* CO O U >- _l _l
UZ •-•«*» I
o «-• i-t oz «o o •-• 4o<
'
O •-«•-« O •-*•-*
81
-------
—« O *• Kl «« O
r ut o ~- « ~* c
}^*OOO(^O(
UJ CO O I-
13 4 to
< I O* »-
J UJ (O
.
ft 3E O *-•
*J O or
& i n o
>- o cj
a -tz u
oz
-IO
X •-*
O- V
• O
«r
03
M m
ui a.
m * a
O O z»-i-ii
4 o. . «n
o 3 a o
z o or 2
< CE O IU 4
W IS O *- _l
ft O)
X X X X X
82
-------
» »- «• i-i
a: z o •-
a. •-• •» o
»- o cs
>- ar i
•so*-
oo
z
^
-J
>-O
3 U
u «
>-iUlU. A >-2
^-arO4« •-•« ^ •<
U« O *-»•-• OZ CO O •-•
i-«-«-*in*-' *
03
a. * a o
O OC 2
(K O Ul <
« O »- -I
•-•*)
ooz
»- K *-t Z O»at*^
» t3 •-* « t» « « cc
Z^>ZZU ZO^-Z
«-»« o *-*•-» « >- »-t
83
-------
ut z
U UJ
Z X
O.UJ crfiHi«mom3*4i'\AjAjKini«>««"t*oirk-0ni9Oi
"• z. 99-4F»inr^«)r^:*«-*o«>oor*-«iHt*'i-4r-»ofO3
U. Z O CD
OUIO-.
Z O «
Ulttl
o r i» .
>IO
a. i «
>• o ca
o _j z u
ss
.
O =5 I
xo
<• a: o
•-* o
9) Z O •-» VU tt.
nuutrx
a.
-------
gs:
co»- (E oo
I- « O
m u _» z »
>• O OC —1 « *• J
UJ U »- O W => « 3
> O 3 Of (L
or «o o x o
3 N. u; e T »- a
m -» 2 « »-
a * <> •-
o u i -*
UJ >- A
ui a: _i b. a> u
z uuo z -i
a. M o a
O C9 ID O *- (9
« O 3 Z < U
o- _j a. * -i »-
— x «n ZJ -<
o ^» «nic
IK ^ m
»-• *-* -!>•
£X >-O OC
n u o ac i
_ - —
U U O. Z >- O O O Z < O O
t^ to
.
*»OZ«0<-• 0
r*?z>-xx xo«>ujxx
85
-------
oe *f
<
3UI
«t • »
0K — —
Ul
o.
er>
u
*-•
M
_i
o
«
h.
*-
Z
IU Z
X 09 O
w »- or eo »-*
m uj _t z CD r-< «otn«a^^«(/^«»^omoo«r\if\«a««o«o««t^o*r^49otftpnarAii^i^i^«oa>««acrnir^r\iinKi*,*«ipMo- nj
O >- O «3 t-t »«I5 *> .••»* »* ».»*»»**..»». » * * * » »•». . ... .... . *
o Z) ft. i** mmmrur^ o f\i AJ -• AI ^ Ft »^ 10*^*49 ^ to
*o o«* Ofti ^i ^^,^« nj
»- tu o x o rv
•-» z « *- a
a * o M
•c O-*Z •-*
U I •-•
CE -111. (DM
UJ U O Z •-•
a. •-• o
_!«•-..-.
O 13 Z < «
_IBL < _l»-
u ik o a. o
< oo o
m i -i 1-1 _i H- •-« z _i K- z « at o u* < «
«3u kt a. x >- c o o z < o o z »-• « 13 u»- _» _j
•-HO < 9>-*(n<
«>zo*-*ub. «> >- z o z> z »-•-•»-< « a*>»-*x4« * >•»* < uj < •- a: •- z O>QC.»-* »-
X«Z«>O«U< O «-*«-! OZ 09OI-* «(jO»«r3Z»<^UJUIO O Z >- CO Z Z Z > Z Z O ZOt-Z I-
ai»N-i-iz>-«xz«>«t-a:« >-*-o-»-z«xx<3X»-ijx{rx»-ia: -o •
««Mjc_i_iZjnoox4^oxzz^<-«(r«uznnz(D>zxacxa:Q:*-i_iujzo3:3zx«(Ka:cam*>atti«aciti<-»a: *°
XZZ X XX ZZZZZZZ ZO
86
-------
o-
ICO
or z
O W •«
O •-» t-i O Z «OOi-* -«Ot9«
Z Z Z > Z Z U Z
87
-------
< •* O 9 O O O •
•*. o o o o o o o
-* — in
•-« at «
2 X -* ft-
Ul •« KttO (» O
»- Z O O Z »-
« O k. >• I •> M
88
-------
O OOO^OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
«-* OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
O Z -I Z
Z 2 uJ
uj o a:
o a.
a _j tu
Z3 O
» O •-
u* o
U, J-t
O B »-
eo a. »-
C 3 BO
0 O Z
oc
t\i f\t « I\J
-
: CO »-* 3 OOOOOOOOOOO-^O-'OOJOOOUIOO — -*O-'
ooooooc —
J (X lOOoKlOCJOOt/*—"S
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo^ooooooooooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
O!) J Q *-» uJ U>
.
< < a
89
-------
-* o o
o o **
o i\j r-
in nt -4
90
-------
APPENDIX D
SMSA Sketch Profiles (and Inner City Reports*)
1. Akron, (Ohio)
2. Allentown - Bethlehem - Easton, (Pennsylvania & New Jersey)
* 3. Anaheim - Santa Rosa - Garden Grove, (California)
4. Anchorage, (Alaska)
* 5. Atlanta, (Georgia)
* 6. Baltimore, (Maryland)
7. Baton Rouge, (Louisiana)
* 8. Boston, (Massachusetts)
* 8a. Buffalo, (New York)
9. Canton, (Ohio)
10. Charlotte - Gastonia, (North Carolina)
11. Chattanooga, (Tennessee & Georgia)
* 12. Chicago, (Illinois)
13. Cincinnati, (Ohio, Kentucky & Indiana)
14. Cleveland, (Ohio)
15. Columbus, (Ohio)
* 16. Dallas - Ft. Worth, (Texas)
17. Dayton, (Ohio)
18. Daytona Beach, (Florida)
* 19. Denver - Boulder, (Colorado)
* 20. Des Moines, (Iowa)
21. Detroit, (Michigan)
22. Erie, (Pennsylvania)
23. Eugene - Springfield, (Oregon)
24. Ft. Lauderdale - Hollywood, (Florida)
25. Ft. Myers - Cape Coral, (Florida)
26. Fresno, (California)
27. Gary - Hammond - East Chicago, (Indiana)
28. Greensboro - Winston Salem - High Point, (North Carolina)
29. Hartford, (Connecticut)
30. Honolulu, (Hawaii)
* 31. Houston, (Texas)
32. Indianapolis, (Indiana)
33. Jackson, (Mississippi)
34. Jacksonville, (Florida)
* 35. Jersey City, (New Jersey)
36. Kalamazoo - Portage, (Michigan)
37. Kansas City, (Missouri & Kansas)
38. Knoxville, (Tennessee)
39. Lakeland - Winter Haven, (Florida)
40. Lancaster, (Pennsylvania)
41. Las Vegas, (Nevada)
42. Lexington - Fayette, (Kentucky)
-------
43. Long Branch - Asbury Park, (New Jersey)
44. Lorain - Elyria, (Ohio)
* 45. Los Angeles - Long Beach, (California)
46. Louisville, (Kentucky & Indiana)
47. Macon, (Georgia)
* 48. Manchester, (New Hampshire)
49. Melbourne - Titusville - Cocoa, (Florida)
* 50. Memphis, (Tennessee, Arkansas & Mississippi)
51. Miami, (Florida)
* 52. Milwaukee, (Wisconsin)
53. Minneapolis - St. Paul, (Minnesota & Wisconsin)
54. Modesto, (California)
Monterey - (see Salinas)
* 55. Nashville, (Tennessee)
* 56. Nassau - Suffolk, (New York)
57. New Bedford, (Massachusetts)
58. New Haven - West Haven, (Connecticut)
59. New Orleans, (Louisiana)
* 60. New York, (New York & New Jersey)
* 61. Newark, (New Jersey)
62. Norfolk - Virginia Beach - Portsmouth, (Virginia & N. Carolina)
63. Northeast Pennsylvania
Oakland - (See San Francisco)
64. Oklahoma City, (Oklahoma)
65. Omaha, (Nebraska & Iowa)
66. Orlando, (Florida)
67. Oxnard - Simi Valley - Ventura, (California)
Passaic - (See Patterson)
68. Paterson - Clifton - Passaic, (New Jersey)
69. Pensacola, (Florida)
* 70. Philadelphia, (Pennsylvania & New Jersey)
71. Phoenix, (Arizona)
72. Pittsburgh, (Pennsylvania)
73. Portland, (Oregon)
74. Poughkeepsie, (New York)
75. Reno, (Nevada)
76. Richmond, (Virginia)
* 77. Riverside - San Bernardino - Ontario, (California)
78. Rochester, (New York)
79. Sacramento, (California)
80. St. Louis, (Missouri & Illinois)
81. Salem, (Oregon)
82. Salinas - Seaside - Monterey, (California)
83. Salt Lake City - Ogden, (Utah)
84. San Antonio, (Texas)
San Bernardino - (See Riverside)
* 85. San Diego, (California)
* 86. San Francisco - Oakland, (California)
87. San Jose, (California)
88. Santa Cruz, (California)
92
-------
89. Santa Rosa, (California)
90. Sarasota, (Florida)
Scranton - (See Northeast Pennsylvania)
91. Seattle - Everett, (Washington)
92. Sioux Falls, (South Dakota)
93. Syracuse, (New York)
94. Tacoma, (Washington)
95. Tampa - St. Petersburg, (Florida)
96. Toledo, (Ohio & Missouri)
97. Trenton, (New Jersey)
98. Tulsa, (Oklahoma)
99. Utica - Rome, (New York)
100. Vallejo - Fairfield - Napa, (California)
Ventura - (See Oxnard)
101. Waco, (Texas)
102. Washington, (D.C, Maryland & Virginia)
103. Wilmington, (Delware, New Jersey & Maryland)
104. Worcester, (Massachusetts)
105. York, (Pennsylvania)
106. Youngstown - Warren, (Pennsylvania)
Notes: 1) Some SMSAs are comprised of several well-known
cities, in which case the same SMSA may be referred to
twice, as in the case of Oxnard and Ventura.
2) For the SMSAs preceeded by an asterisk, an Inner
City Report is also available, in addition to the SMSA
Sketch Profile.
In order to obtain copies of any of the above mentioned SMSA
Sketch Profiles or Inner City Reports please contact:
Jerre A. Manarolla
Priority & Needs Assessment Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 426-4443
-U.S. GOVEBHMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1981 0-51A-OB2/239
93
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc/
Regicn V. Library
230 Sour, D--ai'born Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
------- |