United States Office of Water September 1981
Environmental Protection Program Operations (WH-595) 430/9-81-004
Agency Washington D C 20460 £> -^
v>EPA Technical Report
Operation and Maintenance
Costs for Municipal
Wastewater Facilities
ill'
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES
SEPTEMBER 1981
Prepared For
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS DIVISION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
Project Officer: Dr. Wen H. Huang
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5 Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Blvd., 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
U,S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Background 1-1
Purpose 1-2
Objectives 1-2
Approach 1-2
Scope 1-3
2.0 DEFINITIONS AND PROCEDURES
Introduction 2-1
Definition of Terms 2-1
Data Collection Procedures 2-5
Cost Updating Procedures 2-10
Data Analysis and Presentation 2-12
3.0 FINDINGS
Introduction 3-1
Treatment Plants 3-2
Conveyance Systems 3-68
4.0 DATA UTILIZATION
Introduction 4-1
Example Problem 4-1
Cost Updating 4-2
REFERENCES R-l
APPENDIX A - LIST OF WASTEWATER CONTROL FACILITIES IN A-l
THE DATA BASE
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2.1 Summary of Treatment Plant Information Items 2-7
2.2 Summary of Sewer System Information Items 2-9
2.3 Distribution of Plants and Sewers by EPA Region and 2-11
Level of Treatment
2.4 Wastewater Treatment Facility O&M Cost Updating Indexes 2-13
2.5 Wastewater Conveyance System O&M Cost Updating Indexes 2-14
3.1 Comparison of Annual Administrative Costs to Annual 3-9
Total O&M Costs for Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.2 Secondary Treatment Sludge Handling Methods 3-16
3.3 Advanced Secondary Treatment Sludge Handling Methods 3-31
3.4 Advanced Wastewater Treatment Sludge Handling Methods 3-36
3.5 Comparison of Statistical Information From Secondary, 3-42
Advanced Secondary, and Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Plant Data
3.6 Major Component Costs as a Percentage of Total O&M Costs 3-46
3.7 Number of Facilities According to Hydraulic Loading 3-59
3.8 BOD Removal (mg/1) According to Hydraulic Loading 3-59
3.9 Suspended Solids Removal (mg/1) According to Hydraulic 3-59
Loading
3.10 Total Annual O&M Costs/Million Gallons According to 3-61
Hydraulic Loading
3.11 Total Annual O&M Costs/Pound of BOD Removed According 3-61
to Hydraulic Loading
3.12 Total Annual O&M Costs/Pound of SS Removed According to 3-61
Hydraulic Loading
3.13 Most Frequently Reported Wastewater Treatment O&M 3-62
Problems
3.14 Component Costs as a Percentage of Total O&M Costs for 3-74
Conveyance Systems
11
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Concluded)
Page
4.1 Example - Wastewater Treatment Facility Annual O&M 4-3
Estimates
4.2 Example - Conveyance System Annual O&M Estimates 4-4
4.3 Example - Total Annual O&M Cost and Staffing Estimates 4-4
4.4 Wastewater Charges for Select Cities 4-6
A.I List of Wastewater Treatment Plants A-2
A.2 List of Conveyance Systems A-17
m
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
3.1 Administrative Costs vs Design Flow - Comparison: 3-5
Treatment Levels - Secondary, Advanced Secondary,
and Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.2 Administrative Costs vs Design Flow - All Treatment 3-6
Level Composite - Secondary, Advanced Secondary,
and Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.3 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - Secondary Wastewater 3-10
Treatment Plants
3.4 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - Comparison: Literature 3-11
Values - Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.5 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - Comparison: CAPDET 3-13
Values - Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.6 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - Comparison: Sludge 3-15
Handling Complexity - Secondary Wastewater Treatment
Plants
3.7 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - EPA Region 1 - 3-17
Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.8 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - EPA Region 2 - 3-18
Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.9 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - EPA Region 3 - 3-19
Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.10 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - EPA Region 4 - 3-20
Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.11 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - EPA Region 5 - 3-21
Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.12 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - EPA Region 6 - 3-22
Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.13 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - EPA Region 7 - 3-23
Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.14 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - EPA Region 8 - 3-24
Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.15 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - EPA Region 9 - 3-25
Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.16 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - EPA Region 10 - 3-26
Secondary Wastewater treatment Plants
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
3.17 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - Advanced Secondary
Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.18 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - Comparison: CAPDET 3-29
Values - Advanced Secondary Wastewater Treatment
Plants
3.19 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - Comparison: Sludge 3-30
Handling Complexity - Advanced Secondary Wastewater
Treatment Plants
3.20 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - Advanced Wastewater 3-33
Treatment Plants
3.21 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - Comparison: CAPDET 3-34
Values - Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.22 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - Comparison: Sludge 3-35
Handling Complexity - Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Plants
3.23 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - Comparison: Treatment 3-38
Levels - Secondary, Advanced Secondary, and Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.24 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - Comparison: Treatment 3-39
Levels, QD <1.0 mgd - Secondary, Advanced Secondary,
and Advanced" Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.25 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - Comparison: Treatment 3-40
Levels, 0~ > 1.0 mgd - Secondary, Advanced Secondary,
and Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.26 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - All Treatment Level 3-41
Composite - Secondary, Advanced Secondary, and
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.27 Sludge Handling Costs vs Actual Plant Flow - All 3-44
Treatment Level Composite - Secondary, Advanced
Secondary, and Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.28 Sludge Handling Costs vs Solids Production - All 3-45
Treatment Level Composite - Secondary, Advanced
Secondary, and Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.29 Staff Size vs Design Flow - Secondary Wastewater 3-48
Treatment Plants with Literature Comparisons
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page
3.30 Staff Size vs Design Flow - Advanced Secondary 3-50
Wastewater Treatment Plants with Literature
Comparisons
3.31 Staff Size vs Design Flow - Advanced Wastewater 3-52
Treatment Plants with Literature Comparisons
3.32 Staff Size vs Design Flow - Comparison: Treatment 3-53
Levels - Secondary, Advanced Secondary, and Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.33 Staff Size vs Design Flow - All Treatment Level 3-54
Composite - Secondary, Advanced Secondary, and
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.34 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - Comparison: Hydraulic 3-55
Loading Ranges - Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.35 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - Comparison: Hydraulic 3-56
Loading Ranges - Advanced Secondary Wastewater
Treatment Plants
3.36 Total O&M Costs vs Design Flow - Comparison: Hydraulic 3-57
Loading Ranges - Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.37 ABC Classification of Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWT) 3-64
3.38 ABC Wastewater Treatment Plant Classification - Variable 3-65
Point Guide
3.39 Total O&M Costs vs ABC Rating - All Treatment Level 3-66
Composite - Secondary, Advanced Secondary, and
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.40 Staff Size vs ABC Rating - All Treatment Level 3-67
Composite - Secondary, Advanced Secondary, and
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plants
3.41 Total O&M Costs vs Service Population - Sewer Systems 3-69
With Lift Stations
3.42 Total O&M Costs vs Service Population - Sewer Systems 3-70
Without Lift Stations
3.43 Total O&M Costs vs Length of Pipe - Sewer Systems With 3-71
Lift Stations
3-44 Total O&M Costs vs Length of Pipe - Sewer Systems 3-72
Without Lift Stations
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Concluded)
Page
3-45 Staff Hours vs Service Population - Sewer Systems With 3-75
Lift Stations
3-46 Staff Hours vs Service Population - Sewer Systems 3-76
Without Lift Stations
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by Sage Murphy & Associates, Inc., Denver,
Colorado, under the direction of Dr. Wen H. Huang of EPA Headquarters,
Facility Requirements Division.
Sincere appreciation is extended to EPA Construction Grants personnel in
each of the ten Regions and to the many State and local officials who
contributed their experience, advice, and counsel to this task. A
special thanks is extended to the municipal wastewater control facility
personnel--more than a thousand of them—who took the time to provide
the data and information on which this report is based.
Inquiries concerning this report should be directed to:
Dr. Wen H. Huang
Facility Requirements Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (WH-595)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 426-4443
vm
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Successful operation and maintenance (O&M) of wastewater control facili-
ties is essential to the attainment of this nation's clean water goals.
It is also an expensive undertaking, equal in magnitude over the life of
the facility, to the cost of its construction. For these reasons EPA's
Construction Grants Program examines and, if appropriate, approves the
projected O&M costs for proposed wastewater control facilities. To
facilitate this determination EPA continually collects and maintains
data on O&M costs for municipal wastewater treatment works. Currently
data on the O&M costs for separate sewer systems, and for secondary,
advanced secondary, and advanced wastewater treatment plants served by
separate sewer systems are of special concern. This report presents the
results of the latest and most comprehensive effort to obtain and
analyze O&M costs for these kinds of facilities. It summarizes O&M data
from more than 900 treatment plants and almost 500 conveyance systems
throughout 41 of the 48 contiguous United States—including all ten EPA
Regions. Included is information on administrative costs, sludge
handling costs, and staffing.
The basic information for this report was obtained from visits to
selected sites and from earlier studies. It was combined into a single
data base, and examined for relationships between O&M costs and common
facility design and operating parameters. These relationships were
determined for the general national case and, where possible, for
smaller geographic units. Where appropriate in analyzing the data,
total O&M costs were reduced to their major components such as person-
nel, utilities, chemicals, materials, equipment, and contractual.
Among the more significant findings are:
• O&M cost recordkeeping procedures are less than adequate for many
facilities. For example, complete O&M cost data were available
for only 60 percent of the sites actually visited.
• Estimates of administrative costs attributable to O&M indicate that
this is a significant fraction of the total O&M investment—often as
much as ten percent and sometimes larger. Moreover, little accurate
documented information exists on these administrative costs.
"Normal" operation of wastewater facilities, i.e., plants operating
for at least a year in a continuous mode at a consistent treatment
level without major upset or failure and having good records of such
operation, appear to be the exception rather than the rule.
• Analysis of O&M costs is hampered, especially for advanced secondary
and advanced wastewater treatment plants, by the lack of adequate
numbers of such facilities with a record of normal operation.
IX
-------
Little difference in annual O&M costs was observed between secondary,
advanced secondary, and advanced wastewater treatment facilities.
Few wastewater treatment plants—approximately 15 percent of the
total--were found to operate near their design flow. Most--74 per-
cent—were underloaded. Seventy-seven of the 88 advanced wastewater
treatment plants studied were underloaded; five were overloaded.
Personnel costs constitute the largest component of annual O&M costs
for both treatment plants (almost 50 percent of the total) and
conveyance systems (60 percent of the total).
Information on O&M staff needs for both plants and conveyance systems
is inadequate. Many authorities use contractors for O&M tasks rather
than employing resident staff. However, accurate records are not
maintained on equivalent staff hours procured through contracts.
Accurate O&M costs are difficult to obtain for wastewater conveyance
systems, especially those in small municipalities. Many such author-
ities have a unified public works budget and do not keep separate
records of costs for operating and maintaining their sewer system.
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Effective, efficient operation and maintenance of facilities can mean
the difference between success and failure in water pollution control
efforts (1). Inadequately or improperly operated collection and treat-
ment works—no mater how well designed, sited, or constructed—are
unlikely to produce desired results. But O&M is not inexpensive; it is
often a significant portion of the total costs of wastewater collection
and treatment. In fact, it has been reported that more will be expended
for O&M over the lifetime of most facilities than initially invested in
capital costs (2). It is essential then that O&M costs be carefully
considered as the facility is being planned to assure adequate funding
for these purposes once it is constructed.
Despite the efforts of EPA's Construction Grants Program to insure that
O&M costs are given full consideration during facilities planning,
following construction many facilities often are allotted prohibitively
small O&M budgets by their owner authorities. There are two aspects of
this problem. One is the human proclivity for being more concerned with
today's costs than with tommorrow's. The other is that realistic
estimates of such costs are extremely difficult to obtain because of the
inadequacy of data linking O&M costs to the size and/or efficiency of
operation of various facilities. Improved information on O&M costs can
help mitigate both aspects of this problem.
Recognizing this, EPA initiated efforts in 1976 to collect and analyze
information on O&M costs for municipal wastewater treatment and convey-
ance systems. Cost data on selected facilities were systematically
obtained for the period from late 1972 to early 1977 and presented in a
1978 report (2). Until now this report has been the only general tool
available for estimating probable O&M costs for future systems.
Rapid changes in parameters affecting costs—inflation and interest
rates, energy, chemical, and labor costs, to name a few—make it neces-
sary to update and expand O&M cost information periodically. For this
reason EPA entered into a contract in 1979 to obtain additional data on
specific kinds and sizes of municipal wastewater control facilities, to
update the data obtained earlier, and to re-analyze all of this informa-
tion to produce more current, comprehensive estimates of annual O&M
costs. This report presents the results of that effort.
As used here the term "O&M costs" refers to those expenditures related
to daily operation and maintenance of a wastewater treatment plant or
conveyance system. Specifically not included in this definition are
replacement costs beyond routine repair and/or replacement of equipment,
and the costs for debt service and/or amortization.
1-1
-------
PURPOSE
To be eligible for funding under the Construction Grants Program, each
proposed wastewater control facility must undergo a cost effectiveness
analysis. An integral part of this analysis is the examination of
projected O&M costs and the determination that such projections are
reasonable and appropriate.
The purpose of the effort being reported here is to provide EPA with
improved information on which to base such funding decisions. Specifi-
cally, the effort was designed to provide for the continuation, enhance-
ment, and, as appropriate, redirection of O&M cost estimating acitivi-
ties that have been carried out by EPA since 1976.
OBJECTIVES
Specific objectives adopted in support of this overall purpose include:
• Collection of O&M information on certain specific sizes and kinds of
facilities.
Development of consistent, uniform O&M data for such facilities
representative of the U.S. at large.
• Preparation of these data for inclusion into the automatic data
processing files of EPA.
• Examination of the effect of geographical distribution on these
data.
• Presentation of these data in terms of their more significant
components.
• Analysis of the data base to investigate possible relationships
between O&M costs and certain accepted parameters of facility size,
type, and efficiency.
• Recommendations regarding the need for additional study or research
on O&M costs.
APPROACH
Operation and maintenance data contained in a 1978 EPA report (2) served
as the starting point for the present effort. This data base consisted
of information on more than 300 individual wastewater treatment plants
and more than 150 sewer systems across the U.S. These data, and infor-
mation from other rports in the technical literature, were reviewed to
determine their usefulness for the current study. Part of this informa-
tion was used in preparing this report.
1-2
-------
The criteria used in making this selection included data reliability,
geographical distribution, and type of treatment system. These same
criteria were used to select additional plants and facilities for study
during the present effort.
The 1978 Needs Survey provided a listing of the number of municipally
owned treatment plants and collection systems in existence and poten-
tially available for inclusion in the study (3). Preliminary decisions
were made about facilities to be visited. EPA Regional and State agency
people were asked for advice about the suitability of such facilities
for this purpose. Contact was made with personnel responsible for those
treatment works which seemed to present the opportunity for successful
data collection efforts. The results of this contact served as the
final test of which plants and facilities would be visited.
Data on the facility and its operation and maintenance costs were
obtained from the selected sites. These raw cost data were updated to a
common dollar base using approved indexes and standard updating tech-
niques. Then the data were subjected to bivariate analysis to investi-
gate the possibility of predictable relationships between O&M costs and
certain standard parameters of facility size, function, or efficiency.
The results of such analyses were reduced to statistical parameters,
mathematical relationships, and graphical plots which are presented and
discussed in the body of this report.
SCOPE
Data for this study were obtained from 916 treatment facilities and 482
conveyance systems located in 41 of the 48 contiguous United States.
These data represent costs incurred during the period 1973 to 1981.
Only facilities with secondary or higher levels of treatment receiving
wastes from separate sewer systems were selected for this effort. All
lagoon systems were excluded, as were systems with combined sewers. A
further requirement for inclusion in this study was a recent, full year
of records for normal operating conditions.
Data analyses were performed for three levels of treatment, three levels
of performance as measured by plant loading and by pollutant removal,
and for different levels of plant complexity.
Illustrative examples are presented at several points in this report for
guidance in the use of the data and results of the study.
1-3
-------
2.0 DEFINITIONS AND PROCEDURES
INTRODUCTION
This effort followed and took direction from an earlier and similar
effort by EPA to obtain and present information on O&M costs for mu-
nicipal wastewater control facilities (2). The present study addressed
objectives and dealt with questions not convered before. It required
the collection, analyses, and presentation of new information on certain
types of facilities, and the integration of this information with
previously published data on similar systems. Thus, decisions were re-
quired as to definition of terms; type, location, and number of facili-
ties to be investigated; type, precision, and accuracy of the informa-
tion to be obtained from each facility; procedures for data handling and
analysis; and the manner of data presentation and discussion.
This section gives the basic definitions used in this study. It also
describes the procedures employed in this effort: how the facilities
were selected for study, how the data were collected, and how the data
were analyzed and presented. This description is meant to provide a
general overview of the investigation. Specific points of procedure and
methodology are discussed, as appropriate, in subsequent sections of
this report.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Following is a listing of terms frequently used in this report, arranged
alphabetically according to functional groups of definitions. Many of
these terms have a variety of definitions and interpretations within the
sanitary engineering community; however, the definitions given below are
applied consistently and uniformly throughout this report. The defini-
tions apply to this report only and are not necessarily the same as used
in other times and places by EPA or by others involved with water
pollution control.
ABC Classification
The Association of Boards of Certification for Operating Personnel in
Water and Wastewater Utilities (ABC) classification system is a method
for determining the relative complexity of treatment facilities. The
system assigns points to treatment plants based on numerous factors
such as population served, receiving stream sensitivity, variation in
loading, treatment processes in use, and laboratory testing methods
utilized. These points are then summed to indicate a complexity of
operation relative to other facilities.
Collection Systems
Collection systems are defined in this report as the agglomerate of
gravity collector sewers, interceptors, lift stations, and associated
2-1
-------
force mains necessary to collect and transport municipal and industrial
wastewater to a treatment facility. Systems transporting stormwater in
any appreciable extent were excluded from this study.
Combined Sewer System. A combined sewer system is one which
carries stormwaters in addition to sanitary and/or industrial
wastewater.
Separate Sewer System. A separate sewer system, or sanitary sewer,
is a system intended to carry only sanitary and/or industrial
wastewater from residences, commercial buildings, industrial
plants, and institutions.
Cost Information
All cost information given in this report is expressed as 1st Quarter
1981 dollars unless specifically noted otherwise. Several types of
costs are discussed as follows.
Administrative Costs. Costs for administrative and support activi-
ties related to the daily operation and maintenance of the waste-
water control facility are defined as administrative costs. These
costs are associated with functions such as supervising a central
office, purchasing, billing arid other financial activities, legal
assistance, and clerical duties. In this report administrative
costs are not included in the total operation and maintenance costs
but are presented separately.
Component Costs. Component costs are general budgetary categories
which collectively make up the total O&M costs. Several compo-
nents, itemized below, are analyzed in this report.
Personnel - This component includes wages and fringe benefits.
Utilities - All expenditures for electrical power, natural gas,
telephone, fuel, and water are included in this component.
Chemicals - This component includes costs for all process
chemicals including disinfectants, coagulants, and sludge
conditioners. Laboratory chemicals are considered supplies as a
part of the equipment and materials component.
Equipment and Materials - Expenditures for minor machinery,
routine replacement of parts, laboratory equipment and supplies,
tools, and routinely consumable supplies are part of this
component. The supplies included are for process, building,
grounds and vehicle maintenance, laboratory work, and office
management.
2-2
-------
Contractual Services and Other - This component includes any
contracted function and costs which are not accounted for in
other components. Examples of services which are often con-
tracted are sludge handling, sludge disposal, laboratory work,
contract maintenance, and engineering consultation. Some items
in the "Other" category are travel, transportation, training,
vehicle and equipment insurance, and magazine subscriptions.
Replacement Costs. Replacement costs are the costs for replac-
ing or repairing major equipment items or for the replacement,
reconstruction, expansion, upgrading, or betterment of the
entire facility. They represent the decline in worth of operat-
ing assets because of day-to-day consumption in providing
services. They are not included in the total operation and
maintenance costs presented in this report.
Sludge Handling Costs. Sludge handling costs represent that
portion of the total plant expenditures necessary for sludge
treatment process O&M and ultimate sludge disposal. Sludge
handling costs, both on-site and contracted sludge treatment and
disposal costs, are included in total operation and maintenance
costs in this report.
Total Operation and Maintenance Costs. All expenditures for the
daily operation and maintenance of a wastewater treatment plant
or sewer system are termed total operation and maintenance
costs. Components which make up total O&M costs include person-
nel, utilities, chemicals, equipment and materials—including
the cost of minor equipment repair and replacement—and con-
tracted services. Sludge treatment and disposal costs and
laboratory costs are also part of the total operation and
maintenance costs, regardless of whether they are on-site
activities or contracted. Specifically not included are
administrative costs, replacement costs beyond routine repair
and/or replacement of equipment, and the costs for debt service
and/or amortization.
Hydraulic Loading
Design Loaded. Treatment facilities with average annual hydraulic
loadings in the range of 90 to 110 percent of design flow are
referred to as design loaded.
Overloaded. Treatment facilities with average annual hydraulic
loadings greater than 110 percent of the design flow are defined as
overloaded.
Underloaded. Treatment facilities with average annual hydraulic
loadings of less than 90 percent of design flow are defined as
underloaded.
2-3
-------
Sludge Handling
Complex Sludge Handling. Complex sludge handling is a term used to
categorize those treatment facilities where the sludge treatment
scheme includes at least one of the following processes: heat
treatment, wet air oxidation, incineration, or pyrolysis.
Moderate Sludge Handling. Moderate sludge handling is a term used
to categorize those treatment facilities where the sludge treatment
scheme includes dewatering (centrifuge, vacuum filter, or filter
press), but excludes more complex processes such as heat treatment,
wet air oxidation, incineration, or pyrolysis.
Simple Sludge Handling. A simple sludge handling scheme includes,
as its most sophisticated process, one of the following unit
processes: aerobic digestion, anaerobic digestion, sludge la-
gooning, composting, gravity thickening, or sludge flotation.
Staff Size
Staff size represents equivalent full time staff utilized for operation
and maintenance of the treatment facility or sewer system. Equivalent
full time staff is based on a 40 hour work week and is calculated from
reported average weekly staff hours at the facility.
Treatment Levels
Secondary Treatment. Secondary treatment facilities are defined as
thosefacilities, regardless of treatment process, designed to
reduce the five day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) effluent
concentration to between 25 and 30 mg/1, inclusive. No data were
collected from lagoon systems or other so-called secondary facili-
ties having design effluents greater than 30 mg/1.
Advanced Secondary Treatment. Advanced secondary treatment (AST)
facilities are defined as those facilities designed to reduce the
five day BOD effluent concentration to a value in the range of 11
to 24 mg/1, inclusive. This definition makes no distinction
between types of treatment processes or whether or not there is any
requirement for nutrient removal.
Advanced Wastewater Treatment. The advanced wastewater treatment
(AWT) category includes facilities designed to reduce the five day
BOD effluent concentration to 10 mg/1 or less, without regard to
nutrient removal.
Treatment System Type
Attached Growth Systems. Attached growth systems are those whose
liquid treatment scheme includes trickling filters and/or rotating
biological contactors.
2-4
-------
Suspended Growth Systems. Suspended growth systems are those whose
liquid treatment scheme utilizes some form of activated sludge
process including extended aeration, oxidation ditch systems, and
pure oxygen.
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES
Generation of a comprehensive, statistically valid base on total annual
O&M costs and staffing requirements for wastewater control facilities
was a major objective of this project. A further concern was that this
data base provide consistent, uniform information representative of the
entire U.S. and permit delineation of the variations in costs and
staffing between geographical areas. Thus, the initial step in the
process was the judicious selection of facilities from which to collect
the needed data.
The selection was accomplished through repeated screenings of the 1978
Needs Survey (3) and through questioning of knowledgeable persons in
EPA's Regional offices and in State water quality control offices.
Final selection was based on actual questioning of personnel from
prospective facilities.
An initial decision was to limit the effort to treatment systems pro-
ducing secondary or higher levels of treatment which are served by
collection systems that carry municipal and industrial wastes only.
Collection systems carrying stormwater were ruled out, as were lagoon
type treatment systems regardless of their performance level.
The decision to link collection systems to treatment facilities in the
data gathering efforts was based on the assumption that communities with
good cost records for treatment plants likely would maintain good
records on their sewer systems—an assumption that proved to be untrue
in many cases.
Following these decisions, the 1978 Needs Survey was examined to deter-
mine the number of treatment plants and conveyance systems in existence
and potentially available for inclusion in the data base. Decisions were
then made regarding the total number of facilities needed for the data
base and their distribution with respect to EPA Regions. It was decided
to select a certain minimum number of plants of each performance level
(secondary, advanced secondary, and advanced wastewater treatment) and
of each hydraulic loading condition (underloaded, design loaded, and
overloaded) for each Region.
Information on plants and facilities contained in the 1978 report,
Analysis of Operation & Maintenance Costs for Municipal Costs for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems, MCD-39 [?) was screened to~
determine the availability of necessary data from this source. This led
to a determination of the number of additional data sources needed in
each Region. The final facility selection criteria are listed below.
2-5
-------
Secondary Treatment: A base of 50 plants per Region was required.
At least 30 new plant visits were made in each Region with approximately
30 additional visits for those Regions with more than 600 secondary
facilities.
Advanced Secondary Treatment: A base of 15 plants per Region was
included in the combined data base. At least ten new plant visits were
made in each Region.
Advanced Wastewater Treatment: A slightly different approach was used
to create the sample for AWT facilities. For those Regions with less
than 100 such facilities, a base of seven plants per Region was included
in the combined data base. Regions having 100 to 300 AWT facilities
provided ten plants per Region, while 12 plants each were selected in
those Regions with more than 300 AWT facilities.
Following the determination of the number of facilities needed for the
study in each Region, the 1978 Needs Survey again was consulted in order
to select specific facilities capable of meeting the following criteria:
• Representing the full range of treatment levels (secondary to AWT).
• Being served by separate sewers.
• Representing the full range of hydraulic loading (underloaded, design
loaded, and overloaded).
Additional criteria were introduced at this point. Facilities selected
were required to have at least one full year of "normal" operation and a
history of good recordkeeping. Normal was defined as continuous opera-
tion at a consistent treatment level. These criteria were utilized to
eliminate facilities which had experienced recent major plant upset or
failure, natural disaster, expansion, and/or upgrading.
Representatives of Regional EPA offices and State water pollution con-
trol regulatory agencies, using their knowledge of specific plant oper-
ating characteristics, assisted in selecting the proposed list of plants
to be visited in each State. Each proposed facility was contacted.
Information about the project was provided, the need for a site visit
was explained, and cooperation was solicited. This contact was the
final step in selecting facilities for this study. If the facility did
indeed meet all the criteria and if the owner/operator appeared coopera-
tive, the facility was chosen.
Contractor personnel visited most of the sites and collected information
on total annual O&M costs, staffing, performance, and other facility
characteristics. Data for a few of the sites were obtained by telephone
or written requests. A summary of the data items collected is presented
in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 for the treatment plants and sewer systems,
respectively.
2-6
-------
TABLE 2.1
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT PLANT INFORMATION ITEMS
Facility Identification: Facility name, name of operating authority,
City or town, county, State, zip code, EPA Region, authority/facility
number (from the Needs Survey), facility architectural/engineering firm,
and service population.
Information Dates: The month, day, and year defining the end of the
fiscal year from which were taken actual or budgeted costs and operating
information. Also, the year in which the last major modification was
completed.
Permit Information: The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) number, and maximum values based on a 30 day average for influ-
ent flow (mgd) and effluent concentrations (mg/1) of BOD, Suspended
Solids (SS), and any applicable nutrient.
Wastewater Characteristics: Actual average daily concentrations (mg/1)
of BOD, SS, and any applicable nutrient in influent and effluent;
actual average daily flow (mgd); peak daily flow (mgd) for the year
being reviewed; and average daily industrial flow (mgd).
Facility Design Parameters: Influent and effluent average daily concen-
trations (mg/1) of BOD, SS, and any applicable nutrient for which
facility was designed.
Staffing Information: Number of employees at facility, average number
of hours per week for superintendents, supervisors, operators, mainte-
nance staff, chemists, laboratory technicians, laborers, and others.
Also, percentage of overall hours devoted to supervision, upkeep, liquid
line, and sludge line.
Cost Information: Total annual O&M costs, either budgeted or actual, in
terms of power, total utilities, personnel, chlorine, total chemicals,
equipment, materials, contractual and other, and administrative costs
(for offsite facility management). When possible, costs associated
strictly with sludge handling and laboratory work were segregated.
Yearly totals for replacement/capital improvement costs for major
facility work were retrieved. These costs were not reflective of plant
expansion, nor for any work not fully financed by the operating author-
ity. Several years' information was collected.
General Facility Information: Type of sewer system serving the plant,
i.e., sewers carrying domestic/industrial flow only, or sewers carrying
combined domestic/industrial and stormwater flows.
Treatment level, i.e., design effluent concentrations (mg/1) for BOD
and any applicable nutrient.
2-7
-------
TABLE 2.1 (Concluded)
Percentage value of average daily flow attributed to infiltration/inflow
(I/I) and comment if I/I presented a problem.
Unit processes in operation at facility (i.e., bar screen, primary
clarification, chlorination).
Daily amount of dry solids (Ibs./day) removed from the facility.
Plant classification based on the ABC method.
2-8
-------
TABLE 2.2
SUMMARY OF SEWER SYSTEM INFORMATION ITEMS
Total miles of gravity sewer pipe in the system and diameter range
(inches) of the pipe.
Total miles of force main in the system and diameter range (inches) of
the pipe.
Number of lift stations in operation in the system, the design pumping
capacity (mgd) of each, and the motor horsepower of each.
Number of service connections to the collection system.
Number of collection system employees and average hours per week in
areas of supervision, foreman, maintenance, equipment operation, la-
borer, and other.
Total annual O&M costs, either budgeted or actual, in terms of person-
nel, power, equipment and materials, contractual and other, and adminis-
trative costs (for administration and management of collection system).
Yearly totals of replacement/capital improvement costs for the collec-
tion system. These costs were not reflective of system expansion, nor
for any work not fully financed by the operating authority. Several
years' information was collected.
2-9
-------
Records of actual expenditures were the prime source of cost informa-
tion. Where actual cost records were not available, budget information
from the last complete fiscal year of operation or estimates by the
facility personnel were utilized.
While in the field, project personnel recorded the required information
on specially designed forms. A manual quality assurance check was made
of these forms prior to entering the data into the computerized data
file. After data entry, every data item was screened by computer to
verify that it fell within a prescribed range of values. Any data item
not passing the computer screen was examined manually by inspection of
the data collection form and the written record of the site visit. Data
items which remained outside of the prescribed range of values after
this review were checked further with the respective municipal operating
personnel. Only data items passing these screenings were retained in
the data base.
Data collected for this study were added to EPA's existing O&M data
base. The combined data base represents costs from 41 States and all
ten EPA Regions. Table 2.3 shows the distribution of plants and sewer
systems for which data were obtained. Some 100,000 data items from 916
treatment facilities and 482 sewer systems are contained in the data
base. Because of various necessary exclusions and screenings, only 723
treatment facilities and 419 sewer systems were used in the analyses
presented here.
COST UPDATING PROCEDURES
Cost data collected during this study were for the period from 1972 to
1981. To enable comparable analyses, these costs were updated to 1st
Quarter 1981.
The EPA developed Quarterly Indexes of Direct Cost for Operation,
Maintenance and Repair (OM&R)1 were used to update the raw cost data.
These indexes are prepared quarterly by the Facility Requirements
Division of EPA to reflect changes in O&M costs for wastewater treatment
facilities and conveyance systems. The base year for the Treatment
Facilities Index is 1967; for the Conveyance System Index, 1973. The
indexes were published annually from 1967 to 1973 and on a quarterly
basis thereafter.
Updating Wastewater Treatment Facility Costs
The EPA developed OM&R Indexes for treatment plants are based on categor-
ical cost estimates for operating and maintaining a 5.0 mgd activated
•"•Although EPA uses this terminology for these indexes, a more common
definition of OM&R is Operation, Maintenance and Replacement which, in
general, is the context in which O&M is used in this report.
2-10
-------
UJ
s-
O) CO
-D
: re
D
QJ .O
.o re
CO
i—i
ro
*
E *
r- QJ
^H r— I f*O
c
o
o
01
X) ••-
o; i—
BL
co
CM
LU
l
OQ
c£
i—
^f
D-
UJ
CQ
oo
a:
UJ
^£
1 i 1
oo
a
in
C
re
ca-
l-
i/i
«I
•t:
•i- OJ
ai co
E re
3 4->
O
*
OJ
S- ^«
O) J2
E i—
en
C
•r- QJ O,
eC
1
D-
1 1
O
~^
O
t— t
1 —
CQ
OL
1—
OO
1 1
a
i/l
C
ro
^
ro
-D
C
O
o
QJ
t/)
*
C +
•>- QJ
i- ro
QJ CO
.0
3 •*->
ZS
+
QJ
S- i—
QJ JD
^ ro
E p*~
•^. ro
5
QJ
C (/>
'r- O
«£
O-
•3-
O
CO
o
—
-------
sludge facility. Eleven O&M cost categories are considered including
labor, power, utilities, chemicals, and administration. A composite
index was developed from the categorical indexes to form an average O&M
Escalation Index.
In collecting data for this report, total O&M costs for wastewater
treatment facilities were separated into several components. Table 2.4
lists these components and presents the indexes applied to update each
of them.
Updating Wastewater Conveyance Systems Costs
The EPA developed OM&R Indexes for updating wastewater conveyance O&M
costs use separate indexes for gravity sewers and for those having lift
stations. The Lift Station Index is based on a national average cost
for the operation, maintenance, and repair of a 1.0 mgd average flow
rate raw wastewater lift station. The Gravity Sewer Index is based on a
national average cost per mile for the operation, maintenance, and
repair of municipal sewer lines excluding the cost of lift stations.
Table 2.5 outlines the appropriate indexes applied to update the speci-
fic cost components for sewer systems.
Cost Updating Formula
Raw data were updated to 1st Quarter 1981 dollars using the following
formula:
EPA O&M Item Specific
O&M Item Specific Cost Cost Index (1st Qtr 1981) _ O&M Item Specific
from Data Base as Appropriate Qtr EPA O&M " Cost 1st Qtr 1981
Collected Item Specific Cost Index
DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION
Most data analysis for this report took, the familiar form of using one
parameter as the sole predictor of a second parameter. The method
employed was bivariate analysis using a linear regression technique; a
convenient, widely accepted way of analyzing both large and small data
sets for relationships.
The least-squares method was used for the linear regression analysis.
This method yields a linear regression equation—expressing one variable
in terms of another—and certain kinds of statistical information about
this equation and the relationship it expresses.
The large sample sizes encountered in this study precluded, in most
cases, the display or presentation of individual data points. Because
of this, a general rule was adopted that no data points be used in the
graphical presentations. Rather the information usually is presented as
2-12
-------
TABLE 2.4
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY O&M COST UPDATING INDEXES
Cost Category from Data Base
Total O&M Costs
Personnel
Power
Total Utilities
Chlorine
Total Chemicals
Equipment
Materials
Contractual
Other
Replacement Items
Administrative
EPA Developed OM&R Index Used
for Update*
Total of All Cost Categories
or Average OM&R Escalation
Index if only Total Costs
Available
Labor Index
Power Index
Power Index
Chlorine Index
Overall Chemical Index
Maintenance Index
Wholesale Price Index for
Industrial Commodities
Labor Index
Other Costs Index
Maintenance Index
Administration Index
* Available through the Priorities & Needs Assessment Branch, Facility
Requirements Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D. C. 20460.
2-13
-------
TABLE 2.5
WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM O&M COST UPDATING INDEXES
Cost Category from Data Base
Total O&M Costs (Sewer Systems
without Lift Stations)
Total O&M Costs (Sewer Systems
with Lift Stations)
Personnel
Power
Equipment and Materials
Contractual
Other
EPA Developed OM&R Index Used
for Update*
Total of All Cost Categories
or Average Sewer OM&R Index
without Lift Stations
Total of All Cost Categories
or Average Sewer OM&R Index
with Lift Stations
Labor Index
Power Index
Equal Weighted Composite of
Subindexes for Cleaning,
Testing, and Maintenance of
Sewer Lines
Labor Index
Composite of Subindexes
* Available through the Priorities & Needs Assessment Branch, Facility
Requirements Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D. C. 20460.
2-14
-------
the log-log plot of the linear regression equation together with appro-
priate statistical information about the data used. Some information is
presented in tabular form. Unless otherwise indicated, the data are
presented in 1st Quarter 1981 dollars and are representative of the
entire nationwide data set for the particular system or systems being
discussed.
Further explanation of this approach is provided in subsequent sections
of this report, together with examples of the use and interpretation of
the information presented.
2-15
-------
3.0 FINDINGS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the most current, comprehensive information
available on annual O&M costs for municipal wastewater control systems.
Total O&M costs reflecting the general national situation were obtained
by collecting appropriate data from throughout the U.S. In the case of
secondary treatment facilities, information descriptive of conditions in
each of the ten EPA Regions was segregated from the larger data base and
is presented separately. Data on administrative costs, sludge handling
costs, staffing and personnel costs, power costs, and lift station costs
associated with municipal sewerage works also are presented. Where
appropriate, total O&M costs are reduced to their principal components,
i.e., personnel, utilities, chemicals, materials and equipment, contrac-
tual and other.
Costs presented are those annual costs required to maintain design
capacity and performance over the life of the facility. They include
only those replacement costs which apply to the routine replacement of
minor equipment, accessories, and appurtenances. They do not include
costs for replacement of major equipment items or of entire facilities.
Neither do they include costs for debt service or amortization.
All costs are presented in 1st Quarter 1981 dollars and are reported and
compared on the basis of such system variables as design flow, actual
flow, degree and method of treatment, method of sludge handling, popula-
tion served, and length of collection system.
The data reported here were collected and analyzed by commonly accepted
techniques. However, certain limitations relative to both data collec-
tion and analyses should be recognized before attempting to apply these
results to specific cases. These data generally reflect well operated
plants and systems, functioning under normal conditions, and having good
operating records. Nevertheless, some O&M component cost data were not
available for some of the sites visited. Complete cost data were
available for only about 60 percent of the sites with data from the
remaining facilities consisting of a combination of actual and budgeted
or estimated costs. In addition, the data have not been normalized to
account for cost differences inherent to various parts of the country,
such as might be found among identical plants treating identical waste-
water, but located in different geographical areas.
The method of data analysis used in this report--bivariate analysis
using linear regression—is widely accepted in the sanitary engineering
community as a way of analyzing and expressing data. However, in
interpreting the results of such analysis, it is important to keep in
mind certain aspects of the method. For example, the technique always
yields an equation—the regression equation—which can be plotted as a
straight line—the regression line—on log-log paper, regardless of the
3-1
-------
true relationship between one parameter and the other. Thus, strong
relationships between parameters often are assumed, even when they do
not exist, because of the equation or graph generated. This can result
in the placing of more confidence in the relationship expressed by the
graph or equation than is merited.
The bivariate, linear regression approach was used because it is both a
convenient means of expressing large numbers of data points and a useful
analytical tool. In this report large sample sizes preclude display of
individual data points in many cases, thus it was decided not to plot
individual data points on any of the graphs. Rather, the data were
used to develop the regression equation which was then plotted to
illustrate general trends. For this reason statistical information is
included with each graph to help in defining the significance of the
relationship.
In general, large sample sizes (n) and high values of the squared
correlation coefficient (r^) imply more statistically sound relation-
ships. To provide an indication of data scatter, most of the graphs—
regardless of the associated number of data points—include a shaded
band about the plotted regression line. The shaded region is an indica-
tion of data scatter—the "goodness of fit" of the data points to the
plotted line. The wider the bands the greater the degree of scatter in
observed data and the less reliable the equation of the plotted line as
a measure of the true relationship(s) between one variable and the
other. Examples are used to illustrate the application of these graphs.
Despite such limitations this report represents the most comprehensive
information currently available on the O&M costs of U.S. water pollution
control systems. Used with good engineering judgment and normal
engineering estimating procedures, it should be helpful in providing
more definitive preliminary estimates of O&M costs for several kinds of
wastewater control processes and facilities.
TREATMENT PLANTS
Administrative Costs
Cost for administrative and support activities related to the daily
operation and maintenance of wastewater control facilities are defined
here as administrative costs. Such costs might include those for
supervising a central office, purchasing, financial management, legal
assistance, general computer usage, and routine clerical support. These
services often are provided at locations separate from the wastewater
control facility and by an authority of which the wastewater system is
but one subunit. This study found that such authorities seldom main-
tain records sufficient for segregating administrative costs for each of
its subunits. Because of this, much of the information collected on
administrative costs is an approximation obtained at the site, according
to "best available estimates," but likely having less reliability than
the data on other O&M cost components. For this reason, it was decided
3-2
-------
to exclude administrative costs from other O&M costs in this report and
to present the available administrative cost information separately.
Administrative cost data were collected for secondary, advanced second-
ary, and advanced wastewater treatment plants. These data were analyzed
to examine their relationships to design flow, and the three regression
lines resulting from the analyses are shown in Figure 3.1.
It should be noted that these are administrative costs associated with
the plants only. Insufficient information was collected to permit a
meaningful analysis of sewer system administrative costs. Figure 3.1
represents data from 385 plants from all Regions of the contiguous
United States. The number (n) of each type facility is shown on the
figure and in each case is sufficiently large to assure reliability of
the information.
The regression lines—or the regression equations--of Figure 3.1 show
that, as expected, administrative costs generally increase as design
flow (Qn) increases. However, caution must be used in interpreting
the information presented here. First, it should be noted that the
square of the correlation coefficient (r?) is low in all three cases.
An r^ of 1.0 would indicate a perfect fit between the data and the
regression line, i.e., all the real data actually fall on the line.
Thus, the lower values of r2 contained in Figure 3.1--0.357, 0.282,
and 0.382, respectively—indicate that the relationships between admini-
strative costs and design flow depicted by the regression line plots are
questionable. This is logical as there is a "fixed" nature to many of
the components of administrative costs and the relationship between such
costs and design flow might more accurately be represented, on an
arithmetic plot, by some kind of step function.
Statistically there is little distinguishable difference in administra-
tive costs between the three types of systems studied. The bulk of
administrative costs are probably fixed costs having little relationship
to degrees of treatment. Given the nature of the data, the conclusion
is that there are no measurable differences between administrative costs
for the three levels of treatment investigated.
Considering the above, the administrative cost data from all three
levels of treatment were analyzed as one data set. This result is shown
in Figure 3.2 which can be used to estimate the administrative costs
associated with either of the three treatment levels considered.
However, caution is again urged in the use of this information. There
is a large scatter of data about the regression line of Figure 3.2.
This is illustrated by the shaded band shown on the figure, which is of
a width to contain most (approximately 95 percent) of the actual data
points. The regression line itself expresses the most probable location
of the actual data points. However, as the shaded band becomes larger
the regression line becomes less accurate as an expression of the
probable location of the actual data.
3-3
-------
Administrative cost data were collected for secondary, advanced second-
ary, and advanced wastewater treatment plants. These data were analyzed
to examine their relationships to design flow, and the three regression
lines resulting from the analyses are shown in Figure 3.1.
It should be noted that these are administrative costs associated with
the plants only. Insufficient information was collected to permit a
meaningful analysis of sewer system administrative costs. Figure 3.1
represents data from 385 plants from all Regions of the contiguous
United States. The number (n) of each type facility is shown on the
figure and in each case is sufficiently large to assure reliability of
the information.
The regression lines—or the regression equations—of Figure 3.1 show
that, as expected, administrative costs generally increase as design
flow (Qn.) increases. However, caution must be used in interpreting
the information presented here. First, it should be noted that the
square of the correlation coefficient (r2) is low in all three cases.
An r2 of 1.0 would indicate a perfect fit between the data and the
regression line, i.e., all the real data actually fall on the line.
Thus, the lower values of r2 contained in Figure 3.1--0.357, 0.282,
and 0.382, respectively—indicate that the relationships between adminis-
trative costs and design flow depicted by the regression line plots are
questionable. This is logical as there is a "fixed" nature to many of
the components of administrative costs and the relationship between such
costs and design flow might more accurately be represented, on an
arithmetic plot, by some kind of step function.
Statistically there is little distinguishable difference in administra-
tive costs between the three types of systems studied. The bulk of
administrative costs are probably fixed costs having little relationship
to degrees of treatment. Given the nature of the data, the conclusion
is that there are no measurable differences between administrative costs
for the three levels of treatment investigated.
Considering the above, the administrative cost data from all three
levels of treatment were analyzed as one data set. This result is shown
in Figure 3.2 which can be used to estimate the administrative costs
associated with either of the three treatment levels considered.
However, caution is again urged in the use of this information. There
is a large scatter of data about the regression line of Figure 3.2.
This is illustrated by the shaded band shown on the figure, which is of
a width to contain most (approximately 95 percent) of the actual data
points. The regression line itself expresses the most probable location
of the actual data points. However, as the shaded band becomes larger
the regression line becomes less accurate as an expression of the
probable location of the actual data.
3-4
-------
O
CO •
3-
co
<2
CO
UJ _
Qn2g
gg^f
cojSffi
1
": ^
< So
CL 9lU
o§
°<
tug
I w
Q
<
Q -
o
O>
n il n
?CM c
LS
Q
O
*" O
i:;
w
O *1 T-
M II (I
Z CM C
IO
F")
CD
ro
-©
—CD
G>
O
CO
: cs>
OJ
CD
O
dA/$
sisoo 3AiivdisiNii^av IVONNV
FIGURE 3.1
3-5
-------
o
co J|
z
<
_l
£L-
(0 ~ w h-'
>_IQ Q.
co>oti!
h-LUz H
co=l<<
5
U)
CO
>QI
o!
10
o
s s s
T% CO
i CO
II II
N c
Q
<
&L
CD
ro
CD
•Q
-.Q
o
O
g
0)
HI
Q
- ®
CM
©
dA/$
(IflQV) S1SOO 3AllVdlSINIWaV "IVflNNV
3-6
FIGURE 3.2
-------
An example calculation based on Figure 3.2 will serve to illustrate both
the use of such plots and some of the problems inherent in their use.
Example Problem: Estimate administrative costs for a secondary waste-
water treatment facility having a design flow (QQ) of 5.0 mgd.
Solution: From the regression line1 of Figure 3.2 and for a Qg of 5.0
mgd, the most probable annual administrative cost is (reading from the
graph at the design flow rate):
Secondary Administrative Costs = $30,000
However, the range of cost values which could be expected to contain
most of the data (about 95 percent) should also be determined, and can
be as follows:
From Figure 3.2, using the upper and lower boundaries of the shaded band
and reading from the graph at the 5.0 mgd design flow rate, the range
and the most probable values of administrative costs for the 5.0 mgd
secondary facility are:
Lowest Probable Value : $ 9,000
Most Probable Value : $ 30,000
Highest Probable Value : $100,000
This tabulation shows the very large uncertainty inherent in these data
which must be considered when using them. The reason for this extreme
range of values for administrative costs is not clear; perhaps some
plants simply spend more on such costs than others; perhaps many plants
do not really know what they spend—because of poor recordkeeping or
because such costs are borne elsewhere. At any rate, these data should
only be used for first cut approximations of such costs.
These data also were analyzed to evaluate possible relationships between
administrative costs and design flow in situations where flow is equal
to or less than 1.0 mgd and greater than 1.0 mgd. It was reasoned that
the general relationship between administrative costs and design flow
might differ for small plants as opposed to larger ones.
The data sets for each level of treatment—secondary, advanced second-
ary, and advanced wastewater treatment—were used for these split
analyses. In each case the results of such analyses showed that most of
the plants in the data set have design flows greater than 1.0 mgd.
Plants having flows equal to or less than 1.0 mgd represent only 23, 16,
and 17 percent of all plants for secondary, advanced secondary, and
advanced wastewater treatment plants, respectively.
value could also be determined from the regression equation given
on the figure.
3-7
-------
The analyses of the split data sets agreed, in general, with those
obtained from analyses of the total data sets. For each level of
treatment, the regression equations produced from analyses of the data
subsets were not significantly different from those derived using the
full data sets. Neither the accuracy (r^) nor the precision (shaded
band width) of the regression equation as an expression of the actual
data points were improved by the separate analyses. In fact, in all
cases the r^ was smaller for the split data-in some cases, dramati-
cally smaller--than for the full data set. Because they revealed
nothing of value, the plots of these split analyses are not included in
this report.
The relative magnitude of administrative costs compared to total O&M
costs for the same kinds of systems is also of significance. This
calculation is shown in Table 3.1. Here, annual administrative costs
are seen to be on the order of six to ten percent of annual total O&M
costs. In many instances this represents a considerable sum, worthy of
more careful accounting than is generally being applied at present.
Total Annual O&M Costs
Operation and maintenance costs for the treatment systems studied--
exclusive of administrative costs, major replacement costs, and debt
service—are presented here. These costs are expressed in terms of
plant type, size, and complexity. Information is also given on staff
size for these facilities.
Secondary Treatment Facilities:
Nationwide - More than 900 wastewater treatment plants were investigated
for this study. Of these, 723 produced data of sufficient quantity and
quality to permit their use in this report. Information on 376 of
these—all secondary treatment facilities—is shown in Figure 3.3. The
plants included here are those which produce a five day BOD effluent
concentration of 25 to 30 mg/1. The plot is a generalization of the
data obtained on these facilities and thus represents current, national
average total annual O&M costs. The data were obtained from widely
distributed geographical locations around the U.S. and the number of
data entries is sufficient for good statistical generalization.
For comparative purposes, the information presented in Figure 3.3 is
shown in Figure 3.4 along with plots of O&M cost information obtained
from the technical literature (5, 6, 7). It was not possible to deter-
mine if the O&M costs reported in the literature include or exclude
administrative costs. However, much of this information fits that
obtained by this effort—most of it falling within the shaded band width
(approximately 95 percent of the data) for plants with design flows
ranging from 0.1 mgd to 60 mgd. In fact, the New York data (5) coin-
cides almost precisely with the regression line from Figure 3.3 over the
entire range studied. It should be noted, however, that the data on
3-8
-------
TABLE 3.1
COMPARISON OF ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS TO ANNUAL TOTAL
O&M COSTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
Design Flow Type of Facility
(mgd)
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
100.0
Note: Percentages were computed from Most Probable Values, determined
by substituting the appropriate design flow value in the regres-
sion equations from Figures 3.2, 3.3, 3.17, and 3.20.
Secondary
9%
8%
7%
7%
6%
6%
AST
10%
8%
7%
6%
5%
5%
AWT
7%
7%
6%
6%
5%
5%
3-9
-------
^^-»
cf
73
O)
E
g
w
LU
O
(NOD S1SOO
UA/$
^ O TVnNNV 1V1O1
FIGURE 3.3
3-10
-------
I
1
CO
LLJ
Q
(0
§
O
O
O
»«x
o
CO
sisoo
o nvnNNv nvioi
3-11
FIGURE 3.4
-------
secondary plants obtained for this study show total O&M costs to be
appreciably higher than those computed from the methods in an earlier
EPA report (6).
Total O&M costs for secondary plants were generated by the Computer
Assisted Procedure for the Design and Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment
Plants (CAPDET) program (8). These costs were developed for several
typical configurations of both activated sludge plants and trickling
filter plants with design flows ranging from 0.5 mgd to 25 mgd. These
results are shown in Figure 3.5 and compared with the nationwide data on
secondary treatment plants obtained during this study. The CAPDET
estimates for trickling filters adequately approximate the location of
most of the collected data over the range studied. These results,
however, do raise questions about CAPDET O&M cost approximations for
activated sludge systems. As Figure 3.5 clearly shows, CAPDET activated
sludge O&M costs are significantly higher over the entire range studied
than those obtained by this study.
In light of these observations and considering the relatively wide
scatter in the data, caution must be exercised in the application of
these plots for O&M cost estimating. For example, on Figure 3.3 the
square of the correlation coefficient (r2) is 0.813; fairly good, but
still far enough below a perfect 1.000 to indicate a less than perfect
relationship between costs and design flow. The shaded band width also
is indicative of this imperfection and can be useful in setting the
limits of believability in the use of the data.
Although the results are not shown here, these data also were split
several ways and each subset analyzed separately. The total data set
contained information on 376 plants. There were 97 plants with flows
equal to or less than 1.0 mgd, 212 plants with flows greater than 1.0
mgd but equal to or less than 10.0 mgd, and 67 plants greater than 10.0
mgd. Each of these three subsets were analyzed separately and the
results compared to those for the total data set. No significant points
emerged from this analysis. The regression equation for each subset
compared favorably with that of the full set. But as expected, the r2
for each subset was less than that in the full set.
Most of the collected data are for facilities on the lower end of the
flow scale (309 of 376 are equal to or less than 10.0 mgd). There
simply are not very many large plants in existence. This suggests that
the bulk of the relationship shown in Figure 3.3 is contributed by the
smaller facilities. However, r2 for the smaller plant data set is
less than for the complete secondary facility data set. This could
indicate that total O&M costs vary more widely for the small facilities
than for the large. It might also mean, however, that the larger plants
keep better records of O&M costs. This brings up a second point. In
terms of logic, Figure 3.3 compares apples and oranges. That is, the
data have not been normalized to make possible comparison between
identical plants treating identical wastes, but located in different
3-12
-------
CO
s
HI
§1
fc
CO
in
Q
(IAIOD sisoo IN ^ o nvnNNV nvioi
FIGURE 3.5
3-13
-------
parts of the country. Thus, the observation made above regarding
possible differences between large and small plants might arise from
unspecified geographical differences.
The following example serves to illustrate the use of these data.
Example Problem: To determine total annual O&M costs for a 5.0 mgd
secondary treatment plant.
Solution: From Figure 3.3 obtain the most probable value of the total
O&M cost by reading from the plotted regression line at the 5.0 mgd
design flow rate.
Most Probable Total Annual O&M Costs = $350,000
An expected range of total O&M cost values which would contain approxi-
mately 95 percent of all observed values is determined by reading from
the upper and lower limits of the shaded band for the 5.0 mgd design
flow. The range and the most probable values of total annual O&M costs
for a 5.0 mgd secondary treatment plant are:
Lowest Probable Value : $200,000
Most Probable Value : $350,000
Highest Probable Value: $600,000
Figure 3.6 presents nationwide total annual O&M data on two types of
secondary treatment in combination with three sludge handling methods.
For this presentation suspended growth systems, regardless of type, are
compared with attached growth systems, regardless of stage or type.
Systems are further distinguished by the complexity of sludge handling
employed as shown in Table 3.2.
The difficulty of generalizing from these data is emphasized by Figure
3.6. Over most of the design flow range studied, attached growth
systems require less total O&M expenditures than suspended growth
systems. This is in agreement with the estimate of O&M costs made by
CAPDET for activated sludge and trickling filter systems and shown
earlier. Furthermore, O&M costs generally increase for both types of
systems as sludge handling complexity increases. However, given the
fact that there is wide scatter in these data, it is presumptuous to
claim that there are distinguishable differences in O&M costs for the
various combinations studied even though the regression lines are, in
fact, different. The conclusion is that more analysis and/or more
information is needed.
Regional - Information on total O&M costs within each of the ten EPA
Regions is presented in Figures 3.7 through 3.16. In terms of r^ and
shaded band width (data scatter), these plots demonstrate a better fit
3-14
-------
111
dA/$
sisoo H * o "ivnNNv nvioi
FIGURE 3.6
3-15
-------
CM
•
ro
UJ
i
CO
e^
h-
CO
O
O
3;
1—
UJ
s
CD
^X*"
h—*
_J
Q
^S"
-
C£.
O
O
(_3
UJ
CO
"O
0
5
s
CD
E
•r—
i-~
T35
E
ro
"T*
CU
CD
3
Lo
X
0)
'o.
f^
o
0
E
E
-M en
QJ "r™"
1— O) CM
+J t — t
ro 3 n
CD (1)
in o E
cu
4->
ro
&_
cu
-o
o
^j
E
ro
d>
i- CTJ
1— E
1 > £_
ro oi 01
CU -M CM
n: ro
3 n
o cu
•ZL Q E
0)
"o.
+T
E
CU
+-> CD
ro E
CU -r-
S- S_
1— CU
4-J
4-> ro r~~
ro 3 -<
O) O) <— <
1~ ^^1
II
o o
•Z.-Z. E
"O
0
JZ
.f_3
CU
s:
-4->
E
E*
^_>
ro
01
s-
i—
00
s-
0
(J
ro
E
O
00 CJ
E
CU i—
+-> ro
00 00 O
>> 5- -i-
CO CU CD
4J O
-l-> -i- O
3 u_ T-
2 CO
en
CD E Cn
•r- E 00
•o i— T- ur>
O) -V -l-> <— 1
jz o ro
0 •!- 4J II
ro s- o
•i-> i— o: E
•4-)
||
E
LT)
t— 1
II
c—
. .
00
E
cu
00
>^
CO CU
-E "O
4^ 3
3 i—
o co
s.
CD "O
CU
"O 4->
cu ro co
-0 > ,-H
E T-
CU 4-J II
Q- 0
00 eC E
3
co
3-16
-------
>»
g CO -
O H
_j Z
d 5 -
— Q.
i fe
W— uj
5
uj K :
Q < -
i- UJ _
<0 CE
> z i- -
co 2£ -
i- e>}=
CO UJ < ~
O ^^
O < K "
— Q. CO
2 LU <
* J
0 | :
<
_J Q -
< 0 "
o a "
H co
—
-
^1
't® i
¥3 ?
% ]
j
(^
1 I
||
! 1
^ 1
1
1
i
1
$
*
1
i
m
i
i
A
•
B
I
1
1
\
1
ttv
^
s
m
^
0
^f
CD
O
O
10
o
T-
X
N ^t
•* t co
^ « "
il ii »
•5 M C
n *-
O
1-
1
r1
|
^.
Hi
•ft
fill
Wf!
!
W!
Hi
l|
!
I
i i
i !
il
il
II
i •*
1 ;
1
k
]?/!
!*
»'
\
'$
?•>•
'$1
rw '.o in ^t
- 1-*
f*
mm
•»
>"
-
CD
- ~« ^%
o
0
»••»
^
" 3'
i, O>
u_ £
z
g
CO
in
o
-
m
~
-
••-«
^•4
O O CD OD
(INO1) S1SOO
O "IVflNNV 1V1O1
3-17
FIGURE 3.7
-------
o
u.
g
CO
LJ
o
CO
>
CO
H
co
o
o
00
O
O
Q
O
O)
E
g
CO
LU
Q
S1SOO
O IVflNNV IViOl
3-18
FIGURE 3.8
-------
-
-
^>
^ CO -
0 |
u_ 5 ™
Q_
1 ^
WTT — ..
in H :
Q iS -
Szp:
co 2 85 -
H 0 5 .
CO UJ >
O * g
,» rrt
Q- 3^
2 ni >
00 >.
o < -
o -
< o I
fc 8 -
O co
1-
**
CD
\ .
i
CD
! .'
';
li
^
s
>
s
k
>
V
V
\
^s
\
o
«o
*
Q
O
10
O
X
r-. eo
5-S
H ii n
S CM C
o •-
'\
~lN
v,
V~\ :
^-'i
i
ID
CO
\
\ •
•
ii
1
l^
\
I
\
\
it
\
4
~,;
S
"•
\
~\
ife~
TJ
\
^
r 1
c
-
.
CD
-
^
^
3
Q
O
-
u.
CO
LU
Q
dA/$
S1SOO N ^ O HVHNNV 1V1O1
3-19
FIGURE 3.9
-------
o
-J
li.
Z
CO
LJJ
(0
<
I-
o
<
Q.
P -
CO O
Hob
co
O
< —
LU
ro
-
**
••
—
*•
—
-
-
*™
_
~
™
—
jv
s
t
*
N
Si
i
>^
1
V
\
\
Li ' i '
IL" ~
v
ji
jTi! „
^K!| :i
1
V
X
J \
\
v «,
X, - i
;\
v- "'
\
\
1
'JO
S
i h
'
i
\
! '
\ i
Si
N
s
s
^
CD Q
cc -
Q
O
o
LU
CO
o
O
g
CO
HI
Q
(INOJL) S1SOO
O HVHNNV IViOl
3-20
FIGURE 3.10
-------
tiii 11 i I I I
'£>
sisoo
o nvnNNv nvioi
3-21
FIGURE 3.11
-------
•o
O)
E
CD
dA/$
(NOD SiSOO IN * O IVflNNV 1V1O1
3-22
FIGURE 3.12
-------
O
O
z
o
CO
LU
O
0
<5>
sisoo IN * o ivriNNV
3-23
FIGURE 3.13
-------
«v
CO "
•^ t~ -
3 5-
- £-
z z
0 u
co i-
LLJ < -
Q LU -
__ DC -
(0 °° 1- -
>ZQ: -
CO O UJ -
i TZ h—
1— O Lr
CO UJ< -
o ttg
0<£ -
— 0- CO
2 UJ <
<* S
o £ :
LL
-1 < "
< i :
5 8 -
HiT,
UJ
CO
-
1
'
pi
f
M
1
?•
1 1
; VJ
ii
j
\
j
•
!i
f;
f'
•?
|
•
!:
'i
'i
i
$ij
Wl
1
®
«»
1
Iv
4
•
PI
m
Us
5^
^^5
s
n
i
$$$/;
m
m
mi
/$£$/!
ji
1
1
I
co ;
CM
0>
o
O
U)
0
^-
X
CO
i- M>
m ftl
w w „,
_^ r* ^
O . ^
II 1 II
2 CM c
o 1-
H
i
i
n
ii^
im\
m
m
i
I
u
it
1
me-
m
m
|
K
..
,
I
4W
•
1
i
m,
m
|
.
k
|
m
m£$8
m
m
,
L
%
Ik
m
r*. ID U"? ft-
** »*"i
"*
Mt
H»
CD
~ *« ^
u o
f" O
. ***
Z
' 3^
- -?
z
o
CO
UJ
Q
-
^
"
-
-
vt
I
CD
^^
O <3> "3) O
sisoo
o nvnNNv nvioi
3-24
FIGURE 3.14
-------
z
o
CO
CO
CO
o
otf
o
<
H
o
O
LL
Z
g
CO
in
o
O)
(NOD S1SOO
O 1VONNV 1V1O1
3-25
FIGURE 3.15
-------
o
_J
u.
z
g
CO
CO
CO
H
CO
o
o
<
I-
o
a
O
u.
z
g
CO
UJ
a
CD
UA/$
(INO1) S1SOO N ^ O 1VHNNV 1V1O1
FIGURE 3.16
3-26
-------
between observed values and the regression plots than did the nationwide
data set. This is understandable as analysis of the data by Region
should tend to minimize inaccuracies or distortions in the national
data presentation caused by factors which are dependent on geographical
location. Because of this, the Regional data plots are preferred for
estimating the O&M costs of future facilities. Unfortunately, as can be
seen by the shaded band width on each Regional plot, the data scatter is
such that it is not possible to determine accurately the effect of
geographical location on these costs.
These Regional data sets also were split into two subsets of design flow
equal to or less than 1.0 mgd and greater than 1.0 mgd and examined by
regression analysis. The plots of these analyses are not shown, but did
re-emphasize a point made earlier; the data on total O&M costs versus
design flow for all Regions show a much higher scatter for those plants
with flows equal to or less than 1.0 mgd than for the larger facilities.
Advanced Secondary Treatment Facilities: This study included 209
treatment facilities defined as advanced secondary, i.e., producing a
five day BOD effluent concentration of 11 to 24 mg/1. The number of
these type facilities proved to be inadequate for analyses distinguish-
ing between Regions; thus, only nationwide information is presented.
Figure 3.17 presents the linear regression analysis of these data.
This plot is sufficient to deduce a useful relationship between costs
and design flow. However, the data scatter is large as shown by the
width of the shaded band and must be given consideration when attempt-
ing to predict O&M costs from this graph.
No data were found in the literature with which to compare this plot.
However, comparison of the information of Figure 3.17 with that obtained
from the CAPDET program (8) is shown in Figure 3.18. The CAPDET program
estimates of total annual O&M costs are somewhat higher than those found
by this study. Perhaps the default data used in CAPDET are on the
conservative side for advanced secondary systems, i.e., yield higher
costs values.
Figure 3.19 presents total annual O&M costs as a function of design flow
by type of sludge handling for advanced secondary facilities. No
segregation of treatment methods was attempted because few trickling
filter plants reported BOD effluent concentrations of less than 24 mg/1.
Thus, the data reflect primarily activated sludge systems with sludge
handling as shown in Table 3.3.
Total annual O&M costs might logically be expected to increase with
increasing complexity of sludge handling. The regression line plots for
the three types of sludge handling shown on Figure 3.19 demonstrate this
over the range studied.
3-27
-------
CO
I-
z
<
Is
_J UJ
O
H
O
< :
LU ^
a £
(0 h-
£ I
o I
O £
O
O
LJJ
CO
Q
LU
O
Q
O
O)
g
CO
LU
o
dA/$
sisoo IN * o nvnNNV nvioi
3-28
FIGURE 3.17
-------
I
2
CO
H H
CO LU <
> Q g
CO 9r W
1-^ I-
§ i
^SQ >
2cc oc
__ "^C[ ••y
°o o
-JO O
UJ
CO
R
Q _
O
Q
2
3
u.
i
CO
UJ
Q
D)
CD
sisoo
dA/$
o nvnNNV ivioi
FIGURE 3.18
3-29
-------
»
-
CO -
z -
5 -
^ HH
g ss "
LL. ft ^
QL r~
TS vs DESIGN
HANDLING COM
TEWATER TREA
1 1 1 1 ! 1 1
CO LUCO
O o<
O §^
00 £
1°
-1- u>
UJ Q
Q ^
-J CO CO
T
''
V.
\
s
S
\
— ijj
-
••
••
CD
-
_
*
-p
(2D
•^-t
O
2
o
i
CO
UJ
Q
O)
r.
'.£>
in
dA/$
sisoo N ? o IVONNV nvioi
3-30
FIGURE 3.19
-------
TABLE 3.3
ADVANCED SECONDARY TREATMENT
SLUDGE HANDLING METHODS
Simple Moderate Complex
No Heat Treatment, No Heat Treatment, Heat Treatment,
No Dewatering Dewatering Dewatering
n = 94 n = 36 n = 14
3-31
-------
The full data set on O&M costs versus design flow for advanced secondary
facilities also was examined for plants with flows equal to or less than
1.0 mgd and greater than 1.0 mgd. Most of the facilities--169 out of
209--were of a design flow size greater than 1.0 mgd. The r? value
was better for the full data set (r2 = 0.765) than for either of the
subsets, suggesting that something other than plant size introduces a
significant amount of the uncertainty inherent in these data. For
example, such things as variation in the costs of labor, power, and
chemicals resulting from geographical differences might well impact
these O&M costs significantly.
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facilities: Figure 3.20 is a presenta-
tion of total annual O&M costs for the 86 plants studied which are
categorized as advanced wastewater treatment facilities, i.e., producing
five day BOD effluent concentrations of 10 mg/1 or less. The observed
data fit the regression line produced from them moderately well and
should serve as an adequate guide for estimating the O&M costs for such
facilities when used with caution and judgment. No Regionalized analy-
ses were done for these high performance systems because of the small
number of them in each Region.
As with the other types of facilities, the data set on O&M costs as a
function of design flow for advanced facilities was analyzed for the two
subsets of plants with flows equal to or less than 1.0 mgd and greater
than 1.0 mgd. No new information was derived from this exercise. About
two-thirds (57 of 86) of these plants had design flows greater than 1.0
mgd. Again, the r^ values for both subsets were less than for the
full data set, suggesting the importance of factors other than design
flow in the determination of O&M costs.
A comparison of the linear regression plot from Figure 3.20 with O&M
costs produced by the CAPDET program (8) is shown in Figure 3.21. This
comparison shows the O&M costs for the advanced wastewater treatment
facilities of this study to be generally lower than predicted by CAPDET.
As noted for advanced secondary systems, no explanation of this observa-
tion is apparent. However, it could be that the generalized cost data
used by CAPDET produce conservative (higher) estimates of total O&M
costs for advanced wastewater treatment plants. This is not illogical
as CAPDET was developed before there were many operative AWT plants from
which to collect O&M data.
Figure 3.22 isolates the O&M cost data obtained from several advanced
wastewater treatment facilities in terms of the way their sludges are
handled, as described in Table 3.4.
Over the range of design flows studied—and apparently for a consider-
able distance outside this range—the data match logic; total O&M costs
are directly related to the complexity of the sludge handling procedure.
This observation fits that encountered for advanced secondary systems
and, in general, for secondary systems.
3-32
-------
o
O
~ n 9
z
g
CO
LU
o
(NOD S1SOO
dA/$
* O HVONNV TV1O1
3-33
FIGURE 3.20
-------
O
dA/$
(NOD sisoo H ^ o ivnNNv nvioi
3-34
FIGURE 3.21
-------
-
-
>«-
^^ |— • r"
> X rf "
O ui _j
_l — 1 n
u. o.0--
_ 2K
^™ ^5 «Z
O QU
ffio^:
w z<-
Q ^ uj -
sif:
COSTS
UDGE HA
EWATER
i i i
__ -J l-
2 coco
«* z>
o ^
O CO Q -
TOTAL
COMPARI
ADVANCE
1 L 1 1 I J
1
/
\
/'
\
V
V ^
V
O / >
Z /
l«
rf *R
ui O
Out
0 0
(0 x
Ui o S
MODERA
M
II
S
o
II
M
V.
0)
II
C
\
v \
\ v
\\
VN
\\
%
1s
o«o
id
U|IO
s
s
I
\
1
s
/
3
F
\
V
s
/
3 X
*o f*» f^
* 0
J* CM' «eo
UI
-i i u 1
i^
o o s>
Q
O
Z
O
CO
til
o
CD
in
dA/$
(WOi) SISOO ttl « O IVnNNV 1V1O1
3-35
FIGURE 3.22
-------
TABLE 3.4
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SLUDGE HANDLING METHODS
Simple Moderate Complex
No Heat Treatment, No Heat Treatment, Heat Treatment,
No Dewatering Dewatering Dewatering
n=29 n=9 n=8
3-36
-------
Summary and Comparison - Total Annual O&M Costs for Treatment Plants:
The regression equations obtained from the nationwide data sets of total
annual O&M costs for secondary, advanced secondary, and advanced waste-
water treatment facilities were compared against one another. The plot
of these equations is contained in Figure 3.23. Figures 3.24 and 3.25
also show similar plots for the two data subsets of plants with design
flow equal to or less than 1.0 mgd and greater than 1.0 mgd, respec-
tively. This comparison suggests that advanced wastewater treatment is
somewhat more costly of O&M dollars than the lower degrees of treatment
over the range of plant size investigated. In Figure 3.24 the ordering
of O&M costs (highest to lowest) to treatment level is AWT, secondary,
and advanced secondary. In Figure 3.25 this ordering is from AWT to
advanced secondary to secondary. However, when data scatter previously
noted for the three individual cases is considered, it must be concluded
that there are no significant differences in the total O&M costs re-
ported for the three levels of treatment.
Because of this conclusion, the data from plants of all three treatment
levels were treated as a single data set and analyzed. This regression,
as shown in Figure 3.26, supports the conclusion of no significant
differences in the total annual O&M costs between secondary, advanced
secondary, and advanced wastewater treatment plants. As shown in Table
3.5, regression equations, r2 values, and shaded band widths are
comparable for each of the individual levels of treatment and for the
composite of treatment levels. Thus, Figure 3.26 is as adequate as
Figures 3.3, 3.17, or 3.20 for determining the estimated total O&M costs
for either of the three levels of treatment.
SJudge Handling Costs
Earlier information (2) indicated that expenditures for solids handl-
ing might be a significant part of the total O&M costs of treatment
facilities—perhaps 20 to 30 percent of the total. However, there is
little information to substantiate or refute this point. Thus, it
seemed useful in this effort to examine the O&M cost attributable to the
handling and disposing of sludge.
As used here, the term sludge handling O&M costs refers to all O&M costs
incurred in handling, treating, dewatering, and/or disposing of the
sludge once it leaves the clarifiers of the systems under study. These
costs, of course, were included in the total treatment facility O&M
costs reported earlier, but are dealt with here separately.
Sludge handling O&M costs are reported as a .function of actual plant
flow and as a function of dry solids production. All of the plants
studied were municipal facilities. It was assumed that their waste
strength and composition would be roughly comparable, making flow and
dry solids production reasonable bases for comparing sludge handling O&M
costs.
3-37
-------
o
O
CO
LU
Q
(IMOI) sisoo
o IVONNV nvioi
FIGURE 3.23
3-38
-------
CO
H
Z
^•» • •*»• M^
^zz5 _
I-
1
t
\
vv
H V
\'
\
1
V
«
\
^ \
\N
1 TREATMENT
.348
\
\
y,
/
(C Q
JUOf
s*
IU "
£*
< «
i «• »
*«««
a o*: «
£ . • I
Z 501 B
5 ®
o *~
^f*
•^
\
V'
\
\
I
\
\
\
i
\
K «
oc «
< 0
o
z *
ui 2
«9 ^
CD
o ,.
N Q|
I 1
fc-
^
\
V
i
1-
z
UI
1-
»- o
Q1?
n x
O •• K
UI T- tfj
» « e» 0
Q O O •*
g • • •
Z S « c
< o *-
> H
Q
<
^
'
,
R»
•»
.
,.
-
Q
O
^^
^,
1 -I
O LU
. *" Z
CO
LU
Q
^
CM
2
CD <3>
S1SOO
O IVONNV 1V1O1
FIGURE 3.24
3.39
-------
Q
O
g
CO
UJ
Q
O Q CD
,-»•«""• •»•«
dA/$
(NOD S1SOO N ^ O TVHNNV 1V1O1
»S)
3-40
FIGURE 3.25
-------
(NOD S1SOO
HA/$
^ O IVnNNV 1V1O1
3-41
FIGURE 3.26
-------
•»•> o
•o o
•i- O
TJ^
(O T3
ffll
•o
<1J O
•o •
ro r-t
CO C&
O
CM
LO
CM
O
00
CM
CO
LO
V£>
CM
CM
LO
•
00
00
<>- I—
•SiCL-ZL
O O _]
p 2; Q_
z o
H-1 O I—
UJ Z
_J CO UJ
J_ o UJ
co z cs:
< Q i
H-<:I
u. >- s
o a: uj
z Q co
o z «c
co o 3
i—i O
O£ UJ O
(d
3
CT
O
CO
CO
t
CT)
LO
O
X
r—I
O
<£>
«—I
00
O
o
o-
LO
o
X
LO
o
II
00
LO
o
cr
LO
o
X
CM
II
•to-
vo
a
cr
LO
o
CO
o
co
CO
I"
CD
O
o
O)
CO
(O
•o—••>
C I*-
O «-"
o -
O) fO
CO
-o2i
0) 3
U O)
n3
a>
4J
(O
•*-> CM
V) -
(O CO
to
"«
a>
_i
c co"
4J CO
ia
22
o en s-
c i- «J i
ra U. g i
-o^"" 3'
<: co
3-42
-------
Linear regression analyses were performed for sludge handling costs as a
function of actual plant flow for secondary, advanced secondary, and
advanced wastewater treatment systems. These analyses showed little
significant difference in sludge handling costs between the three levels
of treatment over the range of plant sizes studied. For this reason, a
regression of sludge handling costs as a function of actual plant flow
for all treatment levels was done and is shown in Figure 3.27.
The statistical information on this plot is not good. The r? is quite
low (.406) and the data scatter is large. However, this plot is as
significant statistically as those obtained from the regression analysis
of each treatment level. Consideration of Figure 3.27 suggests that
other factors, for example individual plant sludge handling procedures,
may be a more important determinant of O&M costs for sludge handling
than the actual plant flow.
Regression analysis also was performed on sludge handling costs as a
function of dry solids production for each of the three levels of
treatment. These analyses provide little in the way of confidence about
the relationship between the two parameters; thus, their results are not
shown. Statistically there was little difference in the relationship of
sludge handling costs and solids production between the three treatment
levels. Because of this a single plot of sludge handling annual costs
as a function of solids production, using the data from all three levels
of treatment, was developed and is presented in Figure 3.28. This plot
may be used as the general expression of sludge handling costs versus
solids production.
Cpm po nents of O&M Costs
Earlier work (2) established five major components of total annual O&M
costs, e.g., personnel, utilities, chemicals, equipment and materials,
contractual and other. Table 3.6 presents information on the national
average cost of each of these five components. It also compares these
values with similar values taken from the literature (2) and updated to
1st Quarter 1981.
In evaluating the information in Table 3.6, it should be noted that the
component size given for "this study" is the sum of the ratio between
the individual component costs and the total O&M costs for a particular
wastewater treatment plant, divided by the available data points for
that particular component cost, expressed as a percentage. The equa-
tion is shown below.
3-43
-------
r-
•3)
£ E
o :
-J CO -
li- Q h-
^ 2 "
!~ <<
Z ._i -
Q-
"•co< z .
i Q Q LU **
*** Q- ^ ^ •>
^ Q i ™
^^ ri& ^^ ^^ **
i Q O ^ -
JTQUJ LLJ
<-JW H
ujO
W-5.LU DC
>LUO W
M^
^^ ^^ K. -^
vZ ^~ ^ —
O!^ OC >
— 1^0 Q "
• ^^ ^J LJ
9-100
<<°< -
I CO > "
Q -
LU < -
O
Q
D
i
CO
^
<
;
\"''
V
\,
o
co
O
IO
o
1 .
1
\
\
k
"
\
\
X
O ^ N
II II II
O CM C
I «- ^>
^f
1
s
i
\
s*
s
••
\
v,
^
\
\
\
1k
1
-------
CO
(OHS) S1SOO ONHONVH BOdmS "IVflNNV
3-45
FIGURE 3.28
-------
IO
CO
LU
_J
CO
<
CO
CO
0
o
CO
T5T" i*
£. -t->
08 C
o cu
c
—1 O
< a
& 1!
H- 0
U_
o
LU
C3
e£
•z.
LU
o
UL
LU
Q.
•u o
CO
C =3
o
o
§-^ >-9 >5 ^& JSsfi >$ -^0 ^sCJ ^^0 _
fL i o^> o^> o^». o^^. cr-- o^C cy*i o*^i **
CM r^-cri r~-r^ t— i o<— >
1—1 r-H ^H i— 1 r-l i
CU
+->
l_>
cu
a.
CO
oS
CO
1 \ ^
C ro
CU -i-
E 5-
Q. CU
•I— +J
3 (O
crs:
LU
cu
«\
&5 S-9^S 5^S3 5^ ^SS-S^-S •
^] CMCT) •— I 00 t~-. COCTil^ ^3-
<— < i— ( <-t ^^
-a
CI
ro •
CO CO
• CTi
<=*• r-H
CO
r~*
ro
0
'i
cu
.c
o
CO >-
CU CU
. j^ %
r— +-*
_f^ t_
•sf ^S^ &s^§ s^ &«s^^s rare
r- OOCM <£>cn r^ rv.,-,^ 1—3
*— * i-H i— 1 CM O*
O 4->
S- CO
It- ^-1
•o o
CO
CU
4->
•I—
i ^
4-^
r^
t;
•r— "O
ro CU
&S 6? 54J ^s ^e ^5 &« ^S SrS £5 "ro
10 oo co vr> to to o LO CM o -a
C^1 CM i— 1 CMCM CM COCMCM Q.
CO 3
0)
cn cu
ro S-
•M CU
C 2
cu
,_ 0 CO
CU
C
c:
o
CO
c
>—
CU
D-
S- +J
cu co
£Sr &5 £-3 &« &S S« &S S^ &S Q" 8
co LO r-^ cn t-n oo LO «* cri cr
«sr LDLO ^3-«d- «=j- ^-^3-co co~a
S CU
ef -O
^-J- ^^
ro
T3 •!-
^ CO
o *° °
fl CO
0 eC co
Q,. +-> Q. ro
££ •»-> C LU
R c: CU cu
12 cu E i. jz
^ E -P 0 f=
2: 4-> ro M-
ro CU
CU S- c .
£ 1— O CM
•»->
C
cu
E
-l->
CO
cu
1—
^.
c
ro
T3
C
O
0
cu
CO
y> i- +3 . QJ « 0
cu cn s- 4-J EC
-M -0 ro re £ S
-- 3 -0 S 0 S-
••~ •— E cu 4- a>
U_ CO o -!-> c H_
•OCD -o cu'Oro'o >r" Q;
3C 0) C0323 r—
4—) -r— _l_3 _t_ 1 • * »
^^ i^ -i~' 4-J +J -— u
CO^- |— > h- LU et +J
•o -a o
< < z
3-46
-------
n
% = z (c/t x 100) x 1/n
i
Where: n = Number of plants having a particular component cost
c = Cost of a given type of component for a particular facility
t = Total O&M costs for the facility
There were differing amounts of data available on each of these com-
ponent costs. Thus, the percentage of component costs expressed in each
type of treatment system will not total to one hundred. In this sense,
they are not strictly comparable with the literature reported values or,
indeed, one with another. However, such comparisons are useful in
determining relative magnitudes of the various components. Table 3.6
demonstrates that the five components chosen for study as described
above are, indeed, the major O&M cost components. Furthermore, their
ranking and their value agree with earlier reported data (2) on this
subject.
Comparison of the percentage of costs represented by each component
shows no significant differences among the three levels of treatment
studied. For example, personnel costs make up about half of the total
annual O&M costs for secondary, advanced secondary, and advanced waste-
water treatment facilities. Similar observations can be made with
respect to treatment level for the other components of costs. This
result is surprising, but may derive from the fact that only biological
plants were studied, only a few AWT plants were studied, and all the
data were compared on a nationwide basis without regard for cost differ-
ences that might arise from geographical location.
Staffing
As noted in the previous section, personnel costs are a large part of
total O&M costs for wastewater control facilities. As little informa-
tion on this subject is available, treatment plant staffing was made a
part of this investigation. The average weekly staff hour report of
each facility served as the basis for information on staff size.
Unfortunately, this approach does not give a complete picture of person-
nel needs as many plants use contractors rather than resident staff for
such items as laboratory analysis and sludge disposal. Weekly staff
hour reports do not reflect this additional manpower, and it is not
considered here.
Secondary Treatment Facilities: Figure 3.29 illustrates the data
obtained on staff size For 2l>4 secondary treatment facilities with
design flows ranging from 0.1 to 120 mgd.
3-47
-------
o
CO
Hi
Q
CO
>
UJ
N
CO
U.
U.
<
CO
Q
o
T3
O)
E
g
CO
LLJ
Q
suosjad |o jaquunu
(J1S) 3ZIS JdVIS
3-48
FIGURE 3.29
-------
The regression analysis plotted on Figure 3.29 shows a relatively good
relationship between plant size and staff size. Staff size, as a
function of plant size, probably should be envisioned as a step function
rather than as a curvilinear or linear function. A certain minimum
number of staff is required for a plant of a given size. However, this
same number of people also might be adequate for plants with consider-
ably larger flows, up to some point, where additional staff would have
to be added.
This observation is supported by data obtained from the literature (7,
9) and plotted on Figure 3.29. This literature information fits well
with the field information obtained during this investigation. One to
three persons, on the average, are required to staff plants ranging in
size from 0.1 to more than 1.0 mgd. After that size is reached, addi-
tional people must be added.
These data also were used to examine the effect of treatment system type
and sludge handling complexity on staff size. Two types of systems were
studied—suspended growth and attached growth systems—each having three
levels of sludge handling as discussed and described earlier in Table
3.2. This analysis suggested that more complex sludge handling gener-
ally results in the need for more staff, although this might depend to
some degree on plant size. While this observation seems reasonable, the
statistical reliability of the analysis did not permit definitive
conclusions on these or other points. Thus, their results are not
shown.
Advanced Secondary Treatment Facilities: The data on staff sizes from
95 advanced secondary treatment facilities, with design flows ranging
from 0.2 to 100 mgd, produced the regression plot shown in Figure 3.30.
Data from the literature (9) are added to this plot for comparative
purposes. In general, this plot agrees with observations made earlier
about staffing in secondary systems.
The regression line for Figure 3.30 is quite similar to that of Figure
3.29, and they are such that staff sizes for advanced secondary facili-
ties are comparable to those in secondary systems for sizes up to 10
mgd. Above that value staff needs appear to increase more sharply
for the advanced secondary plants than for the secondary plants.
Data on staff size versus design flow for advanced secondary plants
were segregated and analyzed according to type of sludge handling as
described in Table 3.3. Simple sludge handling appeared to be less
demanding of staff, but there was no discernible difference in staff
needs for plants smaller than 10 mgd. Furthermore, no significant
difference in staff requirements was noted between moderate and com-
plex sludge handling. Because of the doubtful significance of these
analyses, their results are not presented.
3-49
-------
a
O
"O
O)
g
CO
LLJ
Q
suosjad ^o jaqiunu
(dlS) 3ZIS JdVIS
3-50
FIGURE 3.30
-------
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facilities: The plot of staff size versus
design flow shown in Figure 3.31 was obtained from data on 39 advanced
wastewater treatment facilities having design flow rates up to 70 mgd.
As with secondary and advanced secondary systems, data from the litera-
ture (9) fit observed data well. Also for sizes up to 10 mgd, advanced
wastewater treatment seems to require no more staff than secondary or
advanced secondary treatment.
The data on advanced wastewater treatment facilities were segregated and
analyzed according to complexity of sludge handling as described earlier
in Table 3.4. Simple sludge treatment appeared to be less demanding of
staff than moderate or complex handling. Further, the analyses for the
latter two cases suggested that for flows smaller than 20 mgd, adding
heat treatment to the sludge handling process significantly increases
the need for staff. Above the 20 mgd design flow, staff size needs
appear to have little relationship to sludge handling complexity.
However, the number of plants on which these analyses were based was
quite small, and the statistical parameters produced indicated very
doubtful relationships. For these reasons, the plots of these analyses
are not presented.
Summary and ^Comparison - Staff Size: Figure 3.32 presents the regres-
sion lines produced by the data on staff size versus treatment level for
all plants studied. These lines verify that there is little difference
in staff needs between the various treatment levels in plants with
design flows less than 10 mgd. As design flow increases above 10 mgd,
there is a slowly increasing need for more staff in the plants producing
higher levels of treatment. More data are needed to see if this rela-
tionship holds at design flows above 100 mgd.
All the data on staff size versus design flow were analyzed together and
the regression line of this effort is shown in Figure 3.33. This line
is quite similar to the regression lines produced from the data on each
of the three individual treatment levels and could be used as the
general expression for staff size versus design flow.
Performance
Wastewater treatment plant performance is influenced by many factors.
One of the more important is the hydraulic loading—whether or not the
facility is overloaded, underloaded, or design loaded with respect to
flow. Design loaded facilities are those with average annual hydraulic
loadings in the range of 90 to 110 percent of design capacity. Under-
loaded facilities are those which receive less than 90 percent of their
design flow, and overloaded plants are those with actual flows of more
than 110 percent of design capacity.
Figures 3.34, 3.35, and 3.36 present information on total annual O&M
costs as a function of hydraulic loading for secondary, advanced second-
ary, and advanced wastewater treatment facilities.
3-51
-------
CO
h-
z
> a. co
O £ O
rH iu w
z
G
CO
HI
Q
(0
>
i-
<
UJ
cc
H
ATER
<
Q.
2
O
o
LU
CC
Z)
l_
LU ^ <
N LU QC
h- LU
CO |-
LL. < U
»
Q
a
O
S.X
5
g
CO
in
Q
suosjad ^o jaquinu
(dlS) 3ZIS ddVIS
3-52
FIGURE 3.31
-------
Q
O
o
u.
z
g
CO
in
o
suosjad jo jaqujnu
(diS) 3ZIS ddVIS
3-53
FIGURE 3.32
-------
suosjed |o jaqtunu
(J1S) 3ZIS ddVIS
3-54
FIGURE 3.33
-------
CO
DC
UJ
g z
CO o
Ul <
Q O
> o
Pi
co 5
O D
O >
O^ s-
CO
_i E <
< < Q
H- Q- z
O J o
h- O o
O in
CO
-
—
-
-
-
I
_
-
-
—
••
™
m
-
-
V
™
-
—
>
s
\
\
1
1,
^
^
*
^
10
10
<
o
0
IO
Q 0
ui *-
a x
<
O CM CO
-I ••-. CM a)
z- °? •
O u n n
5 5 CM C
Ul Q "
Q H
^
^
\
\
\
k
\
vv \
^V \
^\^v ^
^^^
T
f»
•Q
10
o
.O ir ..-_. .
UJ M
o CD u>
< ^ 2 co
Of ,
%
Jf
r^
*•
\
\
—w
••
M ^_^
* ^^T
•
O ^
: O
. s«»
^
' 2 «
n. »
"• E
. -* o
» MMH
: co
Q
V
{
" CD
* .
-
™
"
*
-
(VI
|
O
tw
CD
in
Q
(INO1) S1SOO
O TVnNNV IVlOi
3-55
FIGURE 3.34
-------
CO
I-
z
> CO H
> LU Z
O CD U
^ < t
z* 2
2gf
2S£
Q O H
o
LU
I-
co
R
CO
CO
8P
2 ^ =
otf Z Q
^ O Z
O co O
^5°
h- °~
O 2 Q
if O LU
"~ o o
z
LU
CO
o
O
O -o
_i en
u- E
Z
g
CO
LU
Q
(IAIO1) S1SOO
dA/$
« O "IVflNNV TV1O1
3-56
FIGURE 3.35
-------
UJ < f-
2 = ^
£o- Z ?
2i>
;
•i
-
-
fm
-
"
—
—
I
•»
„
-
•M
-
**
^
— ,
M
-
\
\.
s
S
'
V
t
s ^
s
N
S
\
\
/
/
\
N
r
/
/
/
o
o>
N
O
O
>o
o
Q '-
^ V
0 *
< 0 0
0 w jo ,0
oc
UJ II II II
Og. .
\
\
N
^
7" N
/»
f «J
Q
1 o
u>
o o
UJ »-
S x
O o eo
_l O tO
to 2 CM c
111 1
1
>
»
V
^
^
1
^
^
L/
w
\
\
\
^
0
o
1C
t—
o x
HI O)
Q CO O)
«( CO O)
O c! *J 10
/jjf » II II
UJ 2 CM C
>_ ^
rj
O f-
,
l\
1
t
\
\
••
••
-
-
—
-
-
•
-
n
M
w
•
_
-»•
-
^
^
^
_
-
0
"S>
.®
o
O
O)
g
CO
LLI
O
o
•3)
'•JO
CD
in
•s>
CD
sisoo
o nvnNNv nvioi
3-57
FIGURE 3.36
-------
Most of the plants studied in all three categories are either under-
loaded or overloaded. The data on these three figures represent 671
plants. Of these, only about 15 percent (107) were hydraulically loaded
in the range of 90 to 110 percent of their design capacity. In fact,
only six of the 86 advanced wastewater treatment plants studied were
design loaded hydraulically. Considering all three types of facilities,
a total of 491 were underloaded with 73 overloaded.
Data on each loading range within each treatment level were analyzed
separately. Also, each loading range and treatment level was examined
for relationships using the applicable full data set and the applicable
split data sets for design flows equal to or less than 1.0 mgd and
greater than 1.0 mgd. Nothing useful was observed from these analyses.
As shown in Figures 3.34 and 3.35 there is little difference in total
annual O&M costs as a function of hydraulic loading between secondary
and advanced secondary wastewater treatment plants. In fact, there is
little difference in O&M costs between either level, regardless of
hydraulic loading.
However, the information on advanced wastewater treatment plants shown
in Figure 3.36 presents a different situation. Here O&M costs are less,
over most of the range studied, for both the underloaded and overloaded
systems as compared to the design loaded ones. This seems unreasonable
and probably reflects the need for additional investigation more than
anything else, as only six of the 86 AWT plants studied were loaded
according to their design.
The data were further screened to select those plants having sufficient
information on loading and removal of BOD and suspended solids to permit
the use of these parameters in measuring performance. The characteriza-
tion of these facilities by type and hydraulic loading is shown in Table
3.7.
For each loading range in this sample, average annual five day BOD and
suspended solids were computed for both the influent and effluent.
These values are shown in Tables 3.8 and 3.9.
It is unfortunate that more data on design loaded AWT and advanced
secondary wastewater treatment facilities were not available. For
secondary facilities, overloading generally decreases BOD and suspended
solids removals, as is well known and further demonstrated here. The
data suggest that the same effect occurs with advanced secondary plants,
but the small number of plants and the small increase in average ef-
fluent BOD noted for the overloaded case make it difficult to determine
the relative importance of overloading to these plants. However, it
should be noted that the data on suspended solids removal for advanced
secondary plants does support the contention that overloading these
facilities causes a deterioration in effluent quality.
3-58
-------
TABLE 3.7
NUMBER OF FACILITIES ACCORDING TO HYDRAULIC LOADING
Treatment Level
Secondary
Advanced Secondary
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Totals
BOD REMOVAL (mg/1)
Treatment Level
Secondary
Advanced Secondary
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
SUSPENDED
ACCORDING
Treatment Level
Secondary
Advanced Secondary
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Underloaded
281
157
77
515
TABLE 3.8
ACCORDING TO
Underloaded
Inf. Eff.
227 21
217 13
194 9
TABLE 3.9
Design Loaded
40
33
6
108
HYDRAULIC LOADING
Design Loaded
Inf. Eff.
205 30
174 20
133 7
Overloaded
45
25
5
75
Overloaded
Inf. Eff.
178 37
161 22
105 4
SOLIDS REMOVAL (mg/1)
TO HYDRAULIC LOADING
Underloaded
Inf. Eff.
209 24
210 16
196 11
Design Loaded
Inf. Eff.
205 29
183 23
133 11
Overloaded
Inf. Eff.
181 36
171 31
125 9
3-59
-------
Advanced wastewater treatment facilities, on the other hand, seem
to produce improved effluent quality--BOD and SS--as they go from
underloaded to overloaded. Again, the small number of AWT plants
investigated requires that great caution be used in making such a
generalization.
Table 3.10 shows that O&M costs per unit volume treated rise for second-
ary and advanced secondary facilities as they go from underloaded
through design flow to overloaded conditions. Why this should be so is
not clear. Perhaps more sludge handling costs are encountered at the
higher hydraulic loadings, or more operating and/or maintenance problems
may be encountered at the higher loading levels.
On the other hand, O&M costs per unit volume treated seem to decline for
AWT plants on either side of the design loading. However, the small
number of facilities in this data set again makes the drawing of firm
conclusions on this point quite risky.
In terms of O&M costs per unit of BOD or suspended solids removed,
underloaded facilities should be more costly to operate and maintain
than design loaded facilities. This observation is confirmed in general
for secondary and advanced secondary plants by the values given in
Tables 3.11 and 3.12 which present total O&M costs per pound of BOD and
SS removed, respectively. In fact, as shown here, costs per pound of
BOD or suspended solids removed increase as the secondary and advanced
secondary systems become either underloaded or overloaded. Thus, it
appears that design hydraulic loading gives the best return on O&M
dollars, as far as BOD and suspended solids removal are concerned, for
secondary and advanced secondary plants.
Unfortunately, the data do not show that this is true also for advanced
wastewater treatment plants which appear to be more costly to operate at
design load than at under or over design. It could be that not enough
data are available to permit such generalization for AWT plants.
However, it also could be that AWT facilities are being designed with
imperfect loading criteria.
Operating Problems
As part of this study's data collection efforts, plant personnel were
questioned on the most difficult problems encountered in operating and
maintaining wastewater control facilities. Their responses are tabu-
lated and shown in Table 3.13 according to the frequency of appearance
of a particular response. These responses, though far from definitive,
are interesting. More than 1,000 responses were recorded. Of these,
more than 700 can be interpreted as relating to design/engineering,
i.e., the categories listed as fluctuation in loadings, climatological
factors, inadequate controls, pilot plant problems, and sludge disposal
problems. About 20 percent of the problems reported were equipment
3-60
-------
TABLE 3.10
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS/MILLION GALLONS
ACCORDING TO HYDRAULIC LOADING
Treatment Level
Secondary
Advanced Secondary
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Underloaded Design Loaded
$262 $305
251 272
322 546
TABLE 3.11
Overloaded
$317
285
175
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS/POUND OF BOD REMOVED
ACCORDING TO HYDRAULIC LOADING
' Treatment Level
Secondary
Advanced Secondary
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Underloaded Design Loaded
$0.32 $0.21
0.35 0.21
0.51 0.74
TABLE 3.12
Overloaded
$0.27
0.30
0.22
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COSTS/POUND OF SS REMOVED
ACCORDING TO HYDRAULIC LOADING
Treatment Level
Secondary
Advanced Secondary
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Underloaded Design Loaded
$0.35 $0.22
0.37 0.23
0.47 0.75
Overloaded
$0.31
0.30
0.22
3-61
-------
TABLE 3.13
HOST FREQUENTLY REPORTED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT O&M PROBLEMS
Number of Times
Factor Reported
Fluctuation in Flows 210
Design Deficiencies 184
Equipment Failures 181
Fluctuation in Loadings 94
Inadequate Capacity 97
Understaffing 89
Climatic Factors 83
Inadequate Process Controls or Control
Plans 29
Inhibiting Industrial Wastes 24
Severe Operating Problems Requiring
Process Shutdowns or Major Disruptions 6
Pilot Plant Associated Problems 2
Sludge Disposal Problems 2
TOTAL RESPONSES 1,006
3-62
-------
failures and about ten percent of the responses are related to inade-
quate staffing—either in numbers of staff or poorly trained staff.
It follows that almost all of the most commonly observed problems with
wastewater treatment plant operation and maintenance are preventable
through better design criteria, better design/engineering, and improved
operator training and/or staffing.
Complexity
The Association of Boards of Certification for Operating Personnel in
Water and Wastewater Utilities (ABC), with funding from EPA, has devel-
oped a standard system for classifying the relative complexity of
wastewater facilities (10).
This system provides a means of comparing facilities and is based on
such items as population served, design flow, discharge limitations,
variations in loading, number and type of treatment processes, and
laboratory control. Points are assigned to each of these items and
others, and the total number of points are summed to produce a plant
rating which reflects the relative complexity of plant operation.
Figure 3.37 shows the rating form used for this classification system,
and Figure 3.38 offers further explanatory material on it.
These forms and instructions were used to prepare an ABC rating for 671
of the treatment facilities from which data were collected during this
study. That rating is presented as part of the listing of plants
contained in Appendix A. These ratings also were used to further
investigate the relationship between total annual O&M costs, staffing
levels, and plant complexity as shown in Figures 3.39 and 3.40. Because
the ABC classification reflects more than effluent quality, plants
classified for this study as secondary, advanced secondary, and advanced
wastewater treatment were found throughout the range of ABC scores.
Figure 3.39 presents total annual O&M costs as a function of the ABC
rating score using nationwide data for all levels of treatment. The
analysis shown does not provide much confidence regarding the relation-
ship between O&M costs and ABC rating. On the other hand, there is
Ijttle reason to suspect that a strong relationship exists between the
ABC rating and total O&M costs. General plant complexity probably has
less effect on total O&M costs than specific factors such as energy use
in the plant, use of process chemicals, or method of sludge disposal.
Similar observations apply to Figure 3.40 which shows the regression
analysis of ABC rating versus plant staffing size using nationwide data
for all treatment levels.
3-63
-------
ABC CLASSIFICATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS (WWT)
FACILITY-CLASS
RANGE OF POINTS
30 and Less
II.
31-55
III.
56-75
IV.
76 and Greater
Assign points for every item that applies:
Item Points
Size
Maximum population equivalent (P.E.) served, 1 pt. per 10.000
peak day P-E. or part Max. 10 Points
Design flow (avg. day) or peak month's 1 pt. per MOD
flow, (avg. day), whichever is larger or part Max. 10 Points
Effluent Discharge
Receiving stream (sensitivity) .... 0"6*
Land disposal - evaporation 2
Subsurface disposal 4
Variation in Raw Wastes (slight to extremel i > 6*
Pretreatment
Screening, comminution 3
Grit removal ... 3
Plant pumping of main flow 3
Primary Treatment
Primary clarifiers ... 5
Combined sedimentation/digestion 5
Chemical addition (except chlor., enz.) 4
Secondary Treatment
Trickling filter w/sec. clarifiers ... 10
Activated sludge w/sec. clarifiers 15
(including ext. aeration and oxidation ditches)
Stabilization ponds without aeration 5
Aerated lagoon 8
Advanced Waste Treatment
Polishing pond 2
Chemical/physical - without secondary 15
Chemical/physical - following secondary 10
Biological or chemical/biological 12
Ion exchange 10
Reverse osmosis, electrodialysis .... 15
Chemical recovery, carbon regeneration 4
Solids Handling
Thickening 5
Anaerobic digestion .. 10
Aerobic digestion .. 6
Evaporative sludge drying . . 2
Mechanical dewatering 8
Solids reduction (incineration, wet oxidation) 12
Disinfection
Chlorination or comparable 5
On-site generation of disinfectant 5
Laboratory Control by Plant Personnel
Bacteriological (complexity) 0-10*
Chemical/physical (complexity) 0-10*
TOTAL**
*SEE FIGURE 3.38
**If unique treatment plant conditions distort the point total, the certification board should adjust the facility classification
3-64
FIGURE 3.37
-------
ABC WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CLASSIFICATION
VARIABLE POINT GUIDE
Effluent Discharge
Receiving stream sensitivity 2-6*
The key concept is the degree of dilution provided under low flow conditions. Suggested point values
are:
"Effluent limited segment" in EPA terminology; secondary treatment is adequate. - 1
More than secondary treatment is required. - 2
"Water quality limited segment" in EPA terminology; stream conditions are very critical (dry run,
for example) and a very high degree of treatment is required. - 3
Effluent used in a direct recycle and reuse system. - 6
Variation in Raw Wastes (slight to extreme) 0-6*
The key concept is frequency and/or intensity of deviation or excessive variation from normal or
typical fluctuations; such deviation can be in terms of strength, toxicity, shock loads, I/I, etc. Suggested
point values are:
Variations do not exceed those normally or typically expected. - 0
Recurring deviations or excessive variations of 100 to 200 percent in strength and/or flow. - 2
Recurring deviations or excessive variations of more than 200 percent in strength and/or flow. - 4
Raw wastes subject to toxic waste discharges. - 6
Laboratory Control by Plant Personnel
Bacteriological/biological (complexity) 0 - 10*
The key concept is to credit bacti/bio lab work done on-site by plant personnel. Suggested point
values are:
Lab work done outside the plant. - 0
Membrane filter procedures. - 3
Use of fermentation tubes or any dilution method; fecal coliform determination. - 5
Biological identification. - 7
Virus studies or similarly complex work conducted on-site. - 10
Chemical/physical (complexity) 0 - 10*
The key concept is to credit chemical/physical lab work done on-site by plant personnel. Suggested
point values are:
Lab work done outside the plant, - 0
Push-button or visual methods for simple tests such as pH, settleable solids—up to - 3
Additional procedures such as DO, COD, BOD, gas analysis, titrations, solids, volatile content—up to - 5
More advanced determinations such as specific constituents: nutrients, total oils, phenols, etc.—up to- 7
Highly sophisticated instrumentation such as atomic absorption and gas chromatography. - 10
FIGURE 3.38
3-65
-------
CC
v^»
O
C
'o
O
CD
(NOD SiSOO
HA/$
« O TVONNV 1V1O1
FIGURE 3.39
3-66
-------
DC
^^
CO
S w
o
00
suosjad 10 jaqtunu
(dIS) 3ZIS JJV1S
3-67
FIGURE 3.40
-------
CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS
This section presents total annual O&M costs and staffing levels for
separate municipal wastewater conveyance systems—those systems intended
to carry sanitary and industrial wastes only. More than 480 such
systems were investigated. The results are expressed in terms of
service population, length of system, and whether the system operates
with lift stations or without. Component costs—personnel, power,
equipment, materials, and miscellaneous costs—were examined where
possible. Only information descriptive of the general national situa-
tion is presented. The data were insufficient to produce satisfactory
Regional analysis of costs.
Accurate O&M cost data for wastewater conveyance systems are difficult
to obtain. This is especially true for the small and medium sized
municipalities. Many municipal entities have unified budgets and staff
for general public works and separate records of O&M costs for the
wastewater conveyance systems frequently are not kept. As a general
rule, only total O&M, power costs, personnel costs, and total staff
hours are available.
Total Annual O&M Costs
Service Population: Figures 3.41 and 3.42 present information on total
annual O&M costs as a function of service population for systems with
and without lift stations. More than 400 conveyance systems are repre-
sented on these plots. Comparison of these figures shows that in the
smaller systems—less than 2,000 service population—there is no discern-
ible difference in O&M costs between systems with lift stations and
those having none. Such systems probably are so small that only a
minimal number of lift stations are ever present—causing little impact
on total O&M cost.
As the service population increases above 2,000, however, nongravity
systems become ever more costly, comparatively, to operate and maintain.
This is only logical as increasing system size will require an increas-
ing number of lift stations with corresponding increases in O&M costs.
Length of System: Figures 3.43 and 3.44 illustrate the total O&M costs
as a function of system length for conveyance systems with and without
lift stations. Again, comparison shows that additional O&M costs for
systems with lift stations are minimal for the smaller systems but
increase continuously throughout the range studied as system size
increases.
Components of O&M Costs
The total annual O&M costs for conveyance systems were divided into four
basic components, i.e., personnel, power, equipment and materials, and
3-68
-------
z
o
-> z
°- 2
Q- <
..i i-
^^ I
tr n
in _
co*
22i
O co
00
CO
O
J-
D
Q-
o
o
DC
LD
CO
sisoo
dA/$
^ o ivnNNv nvioi
3-69
FIGURE 3.41
-------
z
O
"- H
Ul CO
O h-
— Lu
cc -1
111 H
co
O
2 co
00 CO
o£
< HI
I- CO
D
Q_
O
a.
HI
o
LU
CO
dA/$
(NO!) S1SOO IAI « O nVHNNV 1V1O1
FIGURE 3.42
3-70
-------
LU
Q.
CL
CO
o
HI
CO
o
UL
CO t
I-
i
l_ LU
ow
LJJ
a.
a.
LL co
O J2?
X E
H
O
Z
LU
SiSOO
O 1VONNV HV1O1
3-71
FIGURE 3.43
-------
LU
0. co
— Z
a- o
LU H -
o<
I CO
1- .
0 t -
z 3 I
(0 O
> I
£ CO "
O 2
O LU
^_
00 CO -
O o: I
N
\
/
/
Y
S
\
V ' f
\
/ \
'
/
O
_l
CO
0
T"
X
O CM
»•' « co
n ii H
2 CM c
o w
1
in
;i
0)
i
s
\
1
•i.
\
\
1
<
s
' C
• ^
s
V
K
*"3> J*j
~""'i
\
, •
i -
%
V
\
\
~~~..\
-.. \
• ,~>
1, '
v :
•\ .
\
vA ! 3
ww**fwn^ fl
! j
1 ! 1
k vi:
**
PO
^
r v
y
: S ,
\
j
..
A
-
> ••
^
\
T, "
,
ro
0
m
OJ
" ^N
_J
_ ^^
LU
Q.
Q.
LL eo
O
I E
O
® S
11 LU
" -1
-
Im
-
..
D
sisoo
HA/$
s o ivriNNv nvioi
3-72
FIGURE 3.44
-------
other. Table 3.14 presents the cost of each of these components ex-
pressed as a percentage of the total O&M costs. The component cost
percentages were computed from average component costs, as expressed in
the following equation:
n
% = Z (c/t x 100) x 1/n
i
Where: n = Number of systems having a particular component cost
c = Cost of a given type of component for a particular system
t = Total O&M cost for the system
The sample size used to calculate this percentage varied, as all
components were not available for every system; therefore, the component
percentages do not total 100.
The major discernible difference in component costs between gravity and
power pumped systems is for power, as would be expected, with the other
three components being essentially equal for both types of systems. The
largest component of conveyance system O&M costs is for personnel.
Staffing
Figures 3.45 and 3.46 show staff hours as a function of the service
population for conveyance systems with and without lift stations,
respectively. Regrettably, the sample size upon which Figure 3.46 is
based is very small, thus the validity of the relationship it illus-
trates may be suspect. Further, as discussed for treatment systems,
staff hours should more logically be considered as a stepwise function
of system size.
3-73
-------
TABLE 3.14
COMPONENT COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL O&M COSTS FOR CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS
Systems With Systems Without
Components Lift Stations Lift Stations
Personnel 60% 63%
Power 18% 0%
Equipment and Materials 18% 18%
Other 17% 25%
3-74
-------
°ro
h- Z
< O
=!H
O-1
it
co 2
> UJ
-- LU
U. ^
u. LU
< to
f-
co
o
I-
<
_l
Q.
O
0.
UJ
O
DC
UJ
CO
sanoH
3-75
FIGURE 3.45
-------
Z CO
O z
O
a.
LU
o
I-
D
> O
oc x
111 t
CO ^
CO
>
CO
DC
CO
CO
DC
UJ
^
HI
co
I-
<
_i
z>
Q.
O
Q.
LLJ
O
>
oc
LU
CO
>JM/SJI]
(SUM) sanoH
FIGURE 3.46
3-76
-------
4.0 DATA UTILIZATION
INTRODUCTION
The use of O&M cost relationships developed in previous sections is
illustrated here in an example problem. In the example, values are
obtained from the figures to provide an estimate of O&M costs for what
may be considered an average system. In actual application the cost
estimates obtained should be adjusted to reflect any overriding local
conditions. The statistical parameters presented with each graph should
be useful for this adjustment process.
EXAMPLE PROBLEM
Midway through the facility planning process for a new treatment plant,
local planning officials desire an estimate of O&M costs for a proposed
treatment system. The following information is available:
Design Population
Existing per Capita Wastewater Flow
Design F1ow (25.OOP x 110)
uesign now 1,000,000
Existing Sewer System
Proposed Effluent Limit
Proposed Treatment Process
Proposed Sludge Handling
25,000
110 gpcd
2.75 mgd
75 Miles of Pipe
2 Lift Stations
30 mg/1, five day BOD
Rotating Biological Contactors
Thickening and Dewatering
The effluent limitation of 30 mg/1 BOD indicates secondary treatment as
defined earlier. The proposed treatment plant is an attached growth
system with moderate sludge handling facilities. The cost data pre-
sented previously for secondary treatment plants may be used to estimate
total O&M costs for this facility.
Several different figures in this report may be used to obtain an
estimate of these O&M costs. Administrative costs are obtained from
Figure 3.2. For this example, plant O&M costs are obtained from Figure
3.3 or from Figure 3.26--tney yield the same values—which are based on
nationwide data. For a specific case, the graph applicable to the
appropriate Region (Figures 3.7 through 3.16) could be used.
O&M cost values may be obtained directly from the appropriate graphs and
should include the most probable and the highest and lowest probable
costs. These upper and lower values illustrate the expected range of
costs. Total estimated costs to the community for operation and mainte-
nance of the proposed plant include the administrative costs, as well as
plant O&M costs.
4-1
-------
Figure 3.6 also may be used to obtain O&M costs for an attached growth/
moderate sludge handling plant. This approach yields O&M costs compara-
ble to those obtained from Figure 3.3, with the latter being somewhat
more conservative.
An indication of sludge handling costs, using the design flow rate in
lieu of an actual flow, is obtained from Figure 3.27. Plant staffing
requirements are estimated using Figure 3.29 or Figure 3.33, which yield
the same values. Table 4.1 presents the O&M cost and staffing require-
ments for the example treatment plant obtained from the referenced
figures.
Table 4.1 provides annual O&M costs and staff estimates for the plant
only. The conveyance system also must be considered. Again, several
different figures may be consulted to obtain estimates of conveyance
system O&M costs and staffing requirements. For the example, O&M costs
based on a service population of 25,000 are obtained from Figure 3.41.
For a conveyance system with 75 miles of sewer, Figure 3.43 provides
another O&M estimate. The two values obtained this way are different
and judgment must be used in selecting the one to be used for planning
purposes. In this example, the more conservative estimate is used.
Staffing requirements for the example sewer system are obtained from
Figure 3.45. Table 4.2 lists the various conveyance system O&M costs
for the example problem.
Table 4.3 summarizes the planning level estimates of O&M costs and
staffing requirements for the example system. Debt service or amortiza-
tion costs would need to be added to these totals to determine the total
annual cost to the community.
The earlier section on plant performance should also be considered as
part of the planning level O&M cost estimation. Specifically, the plant
performance data, presented in terms of efficiency in removing BOD and
suspended solids, are important if the influent is projected to be
stronger or weaker than average. Data also are presented that reflect
the variation in O&M costs as the hydraulic loading increases toward and
through the design flow range. Such information might be useful in
adjusting average annual O&M estimates over the first several years of
the system's operations to more accurately reflect variation in costs
resulting from variation in flow or loading during this period.
COST UPDATING
The O&M costs contained in this report are expressed in 1st Quarter 1981
dollars. All planning level cost estimates, such as those presented in
this example, should be updated from 1st Quarter 1981 to the time of
their use. EPA Quarterly Indexes of Direct Cost for Operation, Mainte-
nance, and Repair as described earlier should be used for this. These
indexes are published quarterly by EPA and also are printed in the
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation.
4-2
-------
TABLE 4.1
EXAMPLE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY ANNUAL O&M ESTIMATES
Item
Administration
Total O&M - All
Secondary Plants
Figure
No.
3.2
3.3,
3.26
Lower
Probable
Value
$ 6,000
$120,000
Highest
Probable
Value
$ 70,000
$370,000
Most
Probable
Value
$ 20,000
$205,000
Planning
Estimate
$ 20
$205
,000
,000
Total O&M -
Attached Growth/
Moderate Sludge
Handling
O&M - Sludge
Handling
Treatment
Staff Size
3.6
3.29,
3.33
$180,000
3.27 $ 11,000 $195,000 $ 56,000 $ 56,000
10
4-3
-------
TABLE 4.2
EXAMPLE
CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANNUAL O&M ESTIMATES
Item
Total O&M -
Population
Total O&M -
Length of Pipe
Staff
Lower Highest Most
Figure Probable Probable Probable Planning
No. Value Value Value Estimate
3.41 $45,000 $280,000 $100,000 $100,000
3.43 $30,000 $200,000 $ 80,000
3.45 60 hrs. 320 hrs. 150 hrs. 4 persons
* (1 Person = 40 hours)
TABLE 4.3
EXAMPLE
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M COST AND STAFFING ESTIMATES
Cost or Staffing Item
Administration
Total O&M - Plant
Total O&M - Sewer
Totals
Total
O&M Costs
$ 20,000
205,000
100,000
$325,000
Staffing
(Persons)
6
4
10
4-4
-------
Average Per Capita O&M Costs
The treatment facility and conveyance system used in this example has an
estimated total annual O&M cost of $325,000. For the assumed popula-
tion of 25,000 this would result in a $13.00 per capita annual cost for
total O&M of the wastewater system.
Assuming an occupancy of three persons in the typical residence, a cost
of $13.00 x 3 = $39.00 annually is indicated, or $3.25 per month at-
tributed to O&M for the wastewater control facilities. The costs of
debt service and replacement should be added to these costs to estimate
the total annual OM&R costs of wastewater conveyance and treatment.
The Construction Grants Program generally provides 75 percent of the
funding necessary for the construction of new or improved treatment
facilities. Thus, in computing the annual cost of wastewater treatment
and conveyance debt service, costs should be based only on the local
share of construction costs.
Table 4.4 compares the average annual residential wastewater service
charge obtained from this example to those of eight metropolitan cities
in the U.S. Charges for these cities were obtained from Inner City
Studies prepared for EPA under Contract No. 68-01-5890. The assumption
was made that an average residential unit consisted of three persons
with a water usage of 330 gallons per day.
Data presented in this report should be used for planning level esti-
mates. For analysis of cost effectiveness as required by 201 facilities
plans, the CAPDET method as accepted by EPA or other more comprehensive
analyses are necessary.
4-5
-------
TABLE 4.4
WASTEWATER CHARGES FOR SELECT CITIES
Total Annual Charge
Description Per Residence
Example Problem $ 39.00*
Atlanta, Georgia 150.00***
Baltimore, Maryland 80.00
Boston, Massachusetts 73.00
Denver, Colorado
Flat Rate 30.00
Metered 67.00
Los Angeles, California 41.00
Memphis, Tennessee 26.00
San Diego, California 60.00**
Seattle, Washington 109.00***
*Includes total O&M costs only. No allowance for debt service, major
replacement, or surcharges to commercial and industrial users.
**Flat rate charge.
***Rate for combined sewer system.
Note: All charges are in 1st Quarter 1981 dollars.
4-6
-------
REFERENCES
1. Costly Wastewater Treatment Plants Fail to Perform as Expected,
CED-81-9, General Accounting Office, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C., November 14, 1980.
2. Analysis of Operations & Maintenance Costs for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Systems, MCD-39, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
430/9-77-015, Washington, D.C., February, 1978.
3. 1978 Needs Survey, Conveyance and Treatment of Municipal Waste-
water, Summaries of Technical Data, FRD-2, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 430/9-79-002, Washington, D.C., February,
1978.
4. Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants;
1973^1978, FRD-11, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 430/9-80-
003, Washington, D.C., April, 1980.
5. Stevens, K. B., Performance and Operation and Maintenance Costs
of POTW's in New York State, New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation, Albany, N.Y., December 31, 1979.
6. A Guide to the Selection of Cost-Effective Wastewater Treatment
Systems,UTS.EnvironmentalProtection" Agency, 430/9-75-002,
Washington, D.C., July, 1978.
7. "Costs and Manpower for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant
Operation and Maintenance, 1965-1968," Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol. 42, November, 1970.
8. Design of Wastewater Treatment Facilities, CAPDET, Program Users
Guide, U.S. Department of the Army, Engineer Manual No. 1110-2-501,
Washington, D.C., July 31, 1980.
9. Estimating Staffing for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 68/01-0328, Washington," D-C.»
March 1973.
10. Administrative Review of the ABC Certification System, Project
Report, Grant No. T900589010, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., August, 1977.
R-l
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF WASTEWATER CONTROL FACILITIES
IN THE DATA BASE
The following pages contain a listing of the wastewater treatment
facilities and conveyance systems which were used to obtain the data
base for this report. The listing is presented in two sections.
Treatment plants are listed first, followed by conveyance systems. All
are listed alphabetically by State and by city within the State.
Included for both listings are the facility name and service popula-
tion. For treatment facilities, the design flow and ABC rating score
are shown also. The total length of gravity sewers and force main is
given for the conveyance systems.
A-l
-------
TABLE A.I
LIST OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
CITY
STATE
ALBERTVILLE
ALBERTV-ILLE
FLORENCE
6ADSDEN
HUNTSVILLE
HUNT5VILLE
JASPER
MONROVILLE
MONROVILLE
OXFORD
OZARK
PHENIX CITY
TALLEDEGA
FAYETTEVILLE
FORT SMITH
HARRISON
HOT SPRINGS
HUNTSVILLE
PRAIRIE GROVE
ROGERS
RUSSELVILLE
SPRINGDALE
WEST FORK
YELLEVILLE
ANDERSON
BANNING
BARSTOW
8UR8ANK
CALABASAS
CAMARILLO
CARMEL
CHICO
CORONA
CRESCENT CITY
DALY CITY
EL MONTE
ESCONDIOO
FREMONT
HEALDSBURG
INDIO
LIVERMORE
MEHCED
MILL VALLFY
MILLBRAE
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
FACILITY NAME
F
WESTSIDE TP
EASTSIDE STP
CYPRESS CK WWTP
WEST RIVER STP
HUNTSVILLE WTP 1A
HUNTSVILLE WTP 1
TOWN CREEK STP
DOUBLE BRANCH TP
HUDSON BRANCH TP
CHOCCOLOCCO CREEK
OZARK WTP A
PHENIX CITY WTP
MAIN STP
FAYETTEVILLE WWTP
P STREET WPCP
HARRISON WWTP
HOT SPRINGS WWTP
HUNTSVILLE WWTP
PRAIRIE GROVE WWTP
ROGERS WWTP
RUSSELVILLE WWTP
SPRINGDALE WWTP
WEST FORK WWTP
YELLEVILLE WWTP
ANDERSON WPCP
BANNING STP
BARSTOW STP
BURBANK WRP
TAPIA WRF
CAMARILLO W.REC.PL
CARMEL STP
CHICO WPCP
CORONA WRF
CRESCENT CITY WPQF
N SAN MATEO C SD
WHITTIER NARROWS T
ESCONOIDO STP
IRVINGTON WPCP
HEALDSBURG TRT. FA
VALLEY STP
LIVERMORE WWTP
MERCED STP
MILL VALLEY WWTP
MILLBRAE WWTP
SERVICE 1
•OPULATION
9000
6000
32000
46589
150000
150000
10000
1750
3500
60000
7500
26490
13600
35000
22800
7000
31500
1300
1687
12000
14000
25000
1000
1031
6500
13500
17590
63781
45000
27000
19950
28000
58000
3000
80000
140000
100000
66468
6000
44765
50000
35000
19500
21000
DESIGN FLOW
IN M.G.O.
2.00
6.00
10.00
6.50
20.00
10.00
3.05
2.00
2.80
8.00
1.00
4.50
4.50
10.00
10.00
3.00
12.00
0.28
0.50
4.00
4.22
16.00
0.10
0.30
1.00
1.31
5.10
9.00
8.00
4.80
2.40
5.00
5.50
1.89
8.00
15.00
11.00
10.00
1.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
1.50
3.00
ABC
RATING
44
52
62
62
65
70
53
48
48
67
43
64
53
78
0
52
103
57
57
77
59
77
55
38
48
43
50
63
70
80
66
69
67
58
80
73
82
69
39
73
85
84
80
71
NEWARK
NORTH HIGHLANDS
NOVATO
NOVATO
OROVILLE
PINOLE
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
NEWARK WPCP
DIST. NO. 6 TP
1GNACIO PLANT
NOVATO PLANT
OROVILLE WWTP
PINOLE WWTP
93813
30000
17400
17400
25000
15000
7.00
3.00
1.20
.00
.30
.00
69
32
67
52
61
83
A-2
-------
CITY
PLACERVILLE
PLEASANTON
POMONA
RED BLUFF
RICHMOND
RIO DELL
RIO LINDA
S SAN FRANCISCO
SAN BERNARDINO
SAN LORENZO
SAN RAFAEL
SANTA BARBARA
SANTA PAULA
SAUGUS (o. 26)
STOCKTON
SUNNYVALE
THOUSAND OAKS
THOUSAND OAKS
TUHLOCK
UKIAH
UNION CITY
VALENCIA
VENTURA
VENTURA
WEST SACRAMENTO
WHITTIER
WHITTIER
WINDSOR
ARVADA
ASPEN
ASPEN
AVON
BERTHOUD
BOULDER
BRIGHTON
CANON CITY
CARBONDALE
COLORADO SPRING
COMMERCE CITY
COHTEZ
DENVER
DILLON
OURANGO
EATON
STATE
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
FACILITY NAME
1
PLACERVILLE WWTP
PLEASANTON STP
POMONA STP
RED BLUFF W RECL P
MUNICIPAL SO 01
RIO DELL WWTP
RIO LINDA TP
S SAN FRANCISCO ST
SAN BERNARDINO STP
ORO LOMA WWTP
SAN RAFAEL MAIN TP
SANTA BARBARA STP
SANTA PAULA WW R F
SAUGUS-NEWHALL WRP
STOCKTON WWCF
SUNNYVALE STP
HILL CANYON STP
HILL CANYON TP
TURLOCK WQCF
UKIAH STP
ALVARADO WPCP
VALENCIA STP
VENTURA WATER RENO
OAK VIEW STP
w SACRAMEMT WWTP
SAUGUS STP
LOS COYOTF.S STP
WINDSOR WWTP
CLEAR CREEK VAL. S
ASPEN METRO WWTP
ASPEN WWTP
AVON STP
8ERTHOUD STP
75TH ST WWTP
BRIGHTON WPCP
CANON CITY METRO T
CARBONDALF WWTP
COLORADO SPRINGS T
SOUTH ADAMS CO STP
CORTEZ NORTH WWTP
S. LAKEWOOD STP
BLUE RIVER STP
DURANGO STP
EATON WWTP
SERVICE
'OPULATION
6736
17000
74000
9300
65000
2800
5600
83000
172200
140000
32000
85000
18600
40500
138000
106400
82000
69500
400000
14500
50006
38500
69700
16000
25000
40000
190000
5200
10000
3500
1430
15000
3100
57904
16000
10000
2800
220000
27000
1875
17000
4000
12000
2200
DESIGN FLOW
IN M.G.D.
1.60
1.70
10.00
1.90
16.00
0.33
0.60
13.00
28.00
20.00
5.00
11.00
2.40
5.00
67.00
22.50
10.00
10.00
15.50
2.50
4.50
6.00
14.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
37.50
0.75
2.10
2.00
0.50
2.00
0.90
15.60
1.80
2.50
0.50
30.00
3.00
0.42
2.30
2.00
2.50
0.34
ABC
RATING
75
78
63
66
90
58
55
90
75
103
75
79
53
76
149
109
93
73
131
58
74
86
101
71
70
64
73
40
68
53
50
46
40
70
51
46
46
105
40
41
46
60
55
40
ENGLEWOOD
ESTES PARK
ESTES PARK
EVERGREEN
FRISCO
FT. COLLINS
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
ENGLEWOOO/LITTLETO 180000
UPPER THOMPSON SO 12000
ESTES PARK STP 2500
EVERGREEN WWTP 4550
FRISCO SO WWTP 2000
WWTP #2 35000
20.00
1.50
0.80
1.00
0.75
4.80
82
87
43
65
53
63
A-3
-------
CITY
FT. COLLINS
GLENWOOD SPRING
IDAHO SPRINGS
LAFAYETTE
LONGMONT
LONGMONT
LOUISVILLE
LOVELAND
MEEKER
MONTROSE
MORRISON
PUEBLO
SAL IDA
TRINIDAD
WESTMINSTER
ENFIELO
FAIRFIELD
GROTON
LITCHFIELD
MANCHESTER
NAUGATUK
SALISBURY
SEYMOUR
STAMFORD
TORRINGTON
WAREHOUSE PT
WEST HAVEN
WILLIMANTIC
DELAWARE CITY
GEORGETOWN
HARRINGTON
MIDDLETOWN
BOCA RATON
COCOA
DAYTONA
FT.PIERCE
GOULDS
HOLLY HILL
HOMESTEAD
JACKSON. BEACH
KISSIMMEE
KISSIMMEE
MELBOURNE
MIAMI
STATE
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DELAWARE
DELAWARE
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FACILITY NAME
F
WWTP #1
GLENWOOD SPRINGS
IDAHO SPRINGS WWTP
LAFAYETTE STP
LONGMONT STP
LONGMONT STP
LOUISVILLE STP
LOVELAND WWTPal
MEEKER SD
MONTROSE WWTP
MORRISON STP
PUEBLO STP
SALIDA STP
TRINIDAD STP
BIG DRY CK STP
ENFIELD WPCP
FAIRFIELO WPCF
CITY OF GROTON PAF
TWN OF LITCHFIELD
MANCHESTER STP
NAUGATUK TRMT CO.
TWN SALISBURY WWTF
SEYMOUR WPCF
STAMFORD WPCF
TORRINGTON WPCF
EAST WINDSOR WPCA
WEST HAVEN WPCP
WILLIMANTIC WWTP
DELAWARE CITY WWTP
GEORGETOWN STP
HARRINGTON STP
MIDDLETOWN STP
BOCA RATON STP
COCOA STP
6ETHUNE STP
FT. PIERCE CITY WWT
GOULDS STP
HOLLY HILL STP
HOMESTEAD STP
JACKSON. BEACH STP
KISSIMMEE 192 STP
KISS. MILL SLOUGH W
GRANT ST STP
VIRGINIA KEYS STP
SERVICE
'OPULATION
35000
7350
3000
9500
45000
37000
5700
35000
2350
8500
413
104000
6000
10000
10000
46000
46000
15000
5700
46600
30000
2400
10000
90000
28500
2400
52000
20000
2600
3000
2500
2900
35000
15025
100000
33000
20000
10000
10000
17700
12000
5000
21225
400000
DESIGN FLOW
IN M.G.D.
4.60
1.20
0.35
0.36
8.30
5.30
1.00
7.70
0.40
O.B5
0.07
17.00
0.80
1.80
1.40
10.00
9.00
3.10
0.80
6.75
10.30
0.68
1.00
20.00
7.00
0.80
12.50
5.50
0.50
0.27
0.60
0.40
10.00
2.00
10.00
5.00
6.00
1.30
2.30
3.00
1.70
1.00
2.50
70.00
ABC
RATING
59
48
50
48
97
66
41
83
57
54
27
75
50
51
74
72
79
68
57
78
71
45
68
104
88
75
91
70
62
34
40
53
66
55
70
61
65
55
74
42
57
44
65
65
PENSACOLA
ST. AUGUSTINE
ST.PETERSBURG
TALLAHASSEE
TARPON SPRINGS
TITUSVILLE
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
MONTCLAIR PLANT ST
ST. AUGUSTINE PL.#
NORTHEAST STP #2
SOUTHWEST STP
TARPON SPRINGS STP
SOUTH STP
8586
15700
44700
80000
15000
10000
1.10
3.00
8.00
8.80
1.30
2.00
54
53
75
93
59
39
A-4
-------
CITY
AMERICUS
ATHENS
ATHENS
BRUNSWICK
CARROLLTON
CHICKAMAUGA
COLLEGE PARK
COLLEGE PARK
COVINGTON
DOUGLAS
LAGRANGE
LILBURN
ST. SIMONS ISLA
SUMMERVILLE
THOMASVILLE
ABERDEEN
BOISE
BOISE
IDAHO FALLS
JEROME
MERIDIAN
SODA SPRINGS
TWIN FALLS
MILLEDGEVILLE
MT.CARROLL
VIRDEN
WHEATON
YORKVILLE
AKRON
ANKENY
ANKENY
ANKENY
BEDFORD
CAMANCHE
CEDAR FALLS
CHEROKEE
CORALVILLF
EMMETSBURG
ESTHEHVILLE
FORT DODGF
GRIMES
GRINNELL
HOPKINTON
INDIANOLA
STATE
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
IDAHO
IDAHO
IDAHO
IDAHO
IDAHO
IDAHO
IDAHO
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
FACILITY NAME SERVICE DESIGN FLOW
POPULATION IN M.G.O.
MUCKALEE CREEK WPC
NORTH OCONEE WPC 1
NORTH OCONEE WPC 2
BRUNSWICK WPCP
CARROLLTON WWTP
CHICKAMAUGA WW PLT
FLINT RIVER WPC
SOUTHEAST WPC PLAN
COVINGTON WWTP
DOUGLAS WPCP SE
BLUE JOHN MUNICIPA
JACKSON CREEK WPC
ST. SIMONS ISLAND
SUMMERVILLE WWTP
THOMASVILLE WPCP
ABERDEEN STP
BOISE WEST STP
LANDER STREET STP
IDAHO FALLS STP
JEROME WWTP
MERIDIAN STP
SODA SPRINGS WWTP
TWIN FALLS STP
MILLEDGEVILLE STP
MT. CARROLL STP
VIRDEN NORTH STP
WHEATON WWTF
YORKVILLE-BRISTOL
AKRON WWTP
WESTWOOD PLANT *4
WEST PLANT #2
SOUTHEAST PLANT »3
BEDFORD STP
CAMANCHE WWTP
CEDAR FALLS WWTP
CHEROKEE WWTP
CORALVILLF. WWTP
EMMETSBURG STP
ESTHERVILLE WWTP
FORT DODGE WPCP
GRIMES WWTP
GRINNELL WWTP
HOPKINTON WWTP
INDIANOLA N. WWTP
13500
0
0
35000
0
760
0
3138
10000
10500
15000
0
8700
1363
19095
1640
36830
78880
50000
6800
6654
4051
35000
6500
3100
1750
53000
4000
1400
4590
10000
13000
1700
4200
35472
7500
6928
4450
8108
28000
1985
8600
800
8000
2.00
5.00
2.00
10.00
5.00
5.20
6.00
1.20
3.00
5.00
3.50
2.40
1.00
2.00
4.00
0.60
5.00
15.00
14.00
0.72
2.82
1.50
8.00
0.50
0.31
0.20
8.90
2.10
0.15
0.46
0.28
1.20
0.40
0.60
4.86
0.94
1.75
0.72
3.20
4.50
0.35
1.10
0.20
1.50
ABC
RATING
S3
70
62
71
69
47
73
47
43
46
56
61
56
50
57
54
55
90
83
57
65
63
88
58
44
46
87
65
47
28
26
48
31
43
55
54
51
67
72
59
62
44
46
75
INDIANOLA
IOWA CITY
MARSHALLTOWN
MARSHALLTOWN
NEWTON
NEWTON
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
INDIANOLA S. WWTP
IOWA CITY WPCP
MARSHALLTOWN WPCP
MARSHALLTOWN WPCP
NEWTON NW WWTP
NEWTON SOUTH WWTP
3000
50000
26000
26000
3141
6898
0.65
8.00
5.50
5.50
0.22
3.10
59
47
60
76
28
37
A-5
-------
CITY
NEWTON
OSKALOOSA
REINBECK
REINBECK
WATERLOO
ANTHONY
COLWICH
DE SOTO
EMPORIA
LAWRENCE
LAWRENCE
LENEXA
MANHATTAN
NEWTON
TOPEKA
WICHITA
CADIZ
GLASGOW
HOPKINSVILLE
LEBANON
LEXINGTON
LOUISVILLE
LOUISVILLE
MAYFIELD
MT WASHINGTON
MURRAY
NICHOLASVILLE
NICHOLASVILLE
RUSSELLVILLE
ALEXANDRIA
BOGALUSA
BUNKIE
KENNER
KENNER
KENNER
LAFAYETTE
LAFAYETTE
NEW ORLEANS
PORT ALLEN
RUSTON
SHKEVEPORT
ACCOKEEK
ANNAPOLIS
ANNAPOLIS
STATE
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
FACILITY NAME
f
NEWTON SW WWTP
OSKALOOSA SW WWTP
REINBECK WWTP
REINBECK WWTP
WATERLOO WPCP
ANTHONY WWTP
COLWICH STP
OE SOTO WWTP
EMPORIA WWTP
LAWRENCE WWTP
LAWRENCE WWTP
LENEXA WWTP
MANHATTAN WWTP
NEWTON WWTP
OAKLAND WWTP
WICHITA WWTP U2
CADIZ STP
GLASGOW MSTP
HOPKINSVILLE N STP
LEBANON MSTP
TOWN BRANCH STP
OKOLONA STP
HITE CREEK WWTP
MAYFIELD WWTP
MT WASHINGTON WPCF
MURRAY WWTP
W HICKMAN STP
W HICKMAN WWTP
RUSSELLVILLE STP
ALEXANDRIA WWTF
BOGALUSA WWTP
BUNKIE WWTP
PLANT 1 BIOFILTER
PLANT i ACT. SLUDGE
PLANT 2
LAFAYETTE SOUTH ST
LAFAYETTE EAST WWT
WEST BANK STP
PORT ALLEN STP
NORTHSIDE STP
LUCAS WWTP
PISCATAWAY WWTP
BROAONECK WWTP
ANNAPOLIS WWTP
SERVICE
'OPULATION
4145
11000
1711
1800
75000
3771
1000
2000
30000
54000
50000
10000
40000
17000
150000
300000
2200
12000
29000
6350
79750
21700
3504
11356
3080
19040
36841
36841
9394
53000
18412
5500
19000
9500
38000
66051
23638
52340
8000
15000
215000
104000
16500
50000
DESIGN FLOW
IN H.G.D.
0.50
0.81
0.27
0.28
20.35
1.00
0.12
0.40
4.00
9.00
9.00
2.00
6.20
2.82
20.00
40.00
0.32
4.00
1.74
1.00
18.00
2.60
2.19
2.30
0.40
2.50
8.75
8.75
1.20
14.00
6.00
1.00
2.50
1.25
5.00
5.22
2.03
10.00
1.00
4.00
24.00
15.00
4.00
10.00
ABC
RATING
18
47
41
37
96
31
42
26
48
67
85
29
56
42
66
65
53
110
68
58
115
52
69
56
41
66
84
84
60
53
69
43
51
47
54
65
63
77
34
49
91
96
59
77
ANNAPOLIS
BOWIE
CAMBRIDGE
CHURCHTOWN
CROFTON
HAGERSTOWN
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
BROADCREEK WWTP
BOWIE-BELAIR WWTP
CAMBRIDGE WWTP
BROADWATER WWTP
PUTUXENT WWTP
HAGERSTOWN
567
32500
13000
0
25000
35800
0.75
2.65
8.10
2.00
4.00
8.00
35
73
91
58
53
87
A-6
-------
CITY
LAUREL
MANCHESTER
MARYLAND CITY
MAYO
RIVA
RIVIERA BEACH
THURMONT
UPPER MARLBORO
ADAMS
AMESBURY
BELLERICA
EAST DOUGLAS
FITCHBURG
GREAT BARRINGTO
MANCHESTER
MEDFIELD
MILLBURY
ROCKPORT
SHREWSBURY
WAWEHAM
WESTBOROUGH
FLINT
FRANKENMUTH
GRANDVILLF
HASTINGS
IONIA
PETERSBURG
PINCONNING
PORT HURON
TRAVERSE CITY
TRENTON
WARREN
WYOMING
ZEELANO
ALEXANDRIA
AUSTIN
DETROIT LAKES
EAGAN
ELK RIVER
FARIBAULT
MANKATO
MOORHEAD
NORTHFIELD
ROCHESTER
STATE
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
FACILITY NAME
1
PARKWAY WWTP
MANCHESTER STP
MARYLAND CITY
WOODLAND BEACH WWT
SYLVAN SHORES WWTP
COX CREEK WWTP
THURMONT STP
WESTERN BRANCH WWT
ADAMS WWTP
AMESBURY WWTP
BELLERJCA WWTP
DOUGLAS WWTP
EAST FITCHBURG WWT
GREAT BARRINGTON T
MANCHESTER WWTP
MEDFIELD WWTP
MILLBURY WPC PLANT
ROCKPORT WWTP
SHREWSBURY WPCP
WAREHAM WWTF
WESTBOROUGH WWTF
ANTHONY RAGNONE WT
FRANKENMUTH WWTP
GRANDVILLE WWTP
HASTINGS WWTP
IONIA WWTP
PETERSBURG WWTP
PINCONNING WWTP
PORT HURON WWTP
TRAVERSECITY WWTP
TRENTON WWTP
WARREN WWTP
WYOMING WWTP
ZEELAND WWTP
ALEXANDRIA WWTP
AUSTIN WWTP
DETROIT LAKES WWTP
SENECA WWTP
ELK RIVER WWTP
FARIBAULT WPCP
MANKATO WWTP
MOORHEAD WWTP
NORTHFIELD MUN WWT
ROCHESTER STP
SERVICE
COPULATION
33800
1500
3960
5580
1000
65000
3000
75400
11000
13500
13000
2100
40000
7500
3500
2000
6000
4500
11630
3500
7500
200000
3800
18000
6500
12000
1200
1500
55000
21000
25000
167000
100000
5200
12000
26000
7500
135000
2400
16000
45000
5000
12783
70000
DESIGN FLOW
IN M.G.O.
7.50
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.25
8.50
0.50
15.00
10.20
1.90
1.60
0.18
12.40
3.20
0.67
1.50
0.90
0.80
1.30
1.80
1.10
20.00
1.21
3.20
1.00
4.00
0.21
1.00
20.00
8.50
5.50
36.00
19.00
1.10
2.55
6.90
1.44
24.00
1.04
3.50
10.00
4.50
1.65
12.50
ABC
RATING
93
48
44
34
32
72
39
111
69
56
49
42
110
58
43
57
62
37
44
65
60
119
79
70
68
74
36
68
113
73
97
117
83
61
64
83
77
93
49
69
68
79
65
80
SHAKOPEE
TWO HARBORS
WILLMAR
WINONA
CLARKSDALE
GPSENVILLE
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSISSIPPI
BLUE LAKE WWTP
TWO HARBORS WWTP
WILLMAR WWTP
WINONA WWCP
CLARKSDALE STP
GREENVILLE STP
120000
4437
20000
25000
21500
55000
20.00
1.20
2.50
6.50
4.50
20.00
61
80
66
58
54
64
A-7
-------
CITY
OXFORD
PICAYUNE
VICKSBURG
BELTON
BOLIVAR
CAPE GIRAROEAU
COLUMBIA
FLORISSANT
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
KANSAS CITY
KIRKSVILLE
LICKING
MARSHALL
MARSHALL
MARSHFIELD
MARSHFIELO
MEXICO
MEXICO
MOBERLY
SAINT CHARLES
SALEM
SEOALIA
SPRINGFIELD
ST CHARLES
ST. CHARLES
ST. LOUIS
COLUMBIA FALLS
HELENA
BELLEVUE
COLUMBUS
CRETE
FALLS CITY
FREMONT
GIBBON
GRAND ISLAND
HASTINGS
KEARNEY
LINCOLN
NEWMAN GROVE
SUPERIOR
WEST POINT
YORK
BELFORD
STATE
MISSISSIPPI
MISSISSIPPI
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEW JERSEY
FACILITY NAME
1
OXFORD STP
PICAYUNE STP
VICKSBURG WWTP
BELTON WWTP
BOLIVAR WWTP
CAPE GIRARDEAU STP
PLANT #1
COLDWATER CREEK ST
BIRMINGHAM WWTP
TODD CK. STP
PLATTE CO. STP
KIRKSVILLE WWTP
NORTHWEST STP
SOUTHEAST WWTP
SOUTHEAST STP
MARSHFIELD WWTF
MARSHFIELD WWTP
MEXICO STP
MEXICO STP
EAST STP
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
SALEM STP
SEDALIA STP
N.W. STP
MISS. RIVER PLANT
MISSISSIPPI R. STP
COLDWATER CK. STP
COLUMBIA FALLS WWT
HELENA WWTP
BELLEVUE WWTP
COLUMBUS WWTP
CRETE WWTP
FALLS CITY WWTP
FREMONT WWTP
GIBBON WWTP
GRAND ISLAND WPCP
HASTINGS WPCP
KEARNEY WWTP
THERESA ST WWTR
NEWMAN GROVE WWTP
SUPERIOR WWTP
WEST POINT WWTP
YORK WWTP
TWP MIDDLETON WWTP
SERVICE
>OPULATION
30000
12000
30000
5250
6200
30000
11000
185000
50000
6000
7000
17000
1900
12799
15000
3800
4200
11500
13000
10000
40000
4300
24000
15000
30000
29000
225000
2100
23800
10500
18000
4500
5440
26000
1500
32000
25000
30000
180000
863
3512
3600
7500
65000
DESIGN FLOW
IN M.G.D.
3.50
3.00
7.50
1.00
0.98
7.00
2.00
25.00
4.00
2.00
1.00
5.00
0.25
3.88
3.90
1.00
1.00
1.90
2.40
1.70
5.50
0.80
2.50
3.50
5.50
5.50
25.00
0.50
6.00
1*90
2.60
1.05
1.00
10.50
1.14
5.80
3.00
3.00
30.00
0.14
1.57
0.58
3.00
6.50
ABC
RATING
58
62
67
52
39
52
49
80
43
43
44
75
49
47
55
31
40
49
51
49
80
32
53
58
93
84
80
53
67
64
39
60
33
73
47
60
47
43
68
44
58
43
69
71
BIRMINGHAM
BRICK TOWN
BRIDGEPORT
BRIDGEWATER
EAST WINDSOR
ELIZABETH
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
PEMBERTON TWP WWTP 14000 2.50 75
NORTHERN WPCF 126973 28.00 86
LOGAN TWP WWTP 2300 1.00 47
SOM BAR VAL WWTP 80000 10.00 97
E WINDSOR MUA WWTP 22000 2.23 72
JOINT MEETING WWTF 500000 75.00 76
A-8
-------
CITY
HACKETTSTOWN
LAMBERTVILLE
LARENCEVILLE
LONG BRANCH
LONG VALLEY
MARLTON
MARLTON
MATAWAN
MATAWAN
MATAWAN
MEDFORD
NEPTUNE
OAKHURST
ORTLEY BEACH
RAHWAY
SAYREVILLE
WE5T CREEK
WILLINGBORO
LAS VEGAS
LAS VEGAS
RATON
SANTA FF:
SANTA FE
TAOS
HARRIMAN-MONROE
MANLIUS
OHANGEBURG
ALFRED
APALACHIN
AVON
BATAVIA
RATH
BAY PARK
BEACON
CANISTEO
CANTON
CAPE VINCENT
CARMEL
CAYUGA HEIGHTS
CAYUGA HGTS
CEDAR HILL
CEDARHURST
CHEEKTOWAGA
E.ROCKAWAY
STATE
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NFW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
FACILITY NAME
F
HACKETTSTOWN MUA W
LAMBERTVILLE STP
EWING-LAWRENCE WWT
LONG BRANCH WWTP
SCHOOLEYS MTN WWTP
WOOOSTREAM WTP
ELMWOOD WTP
STRATHMOORE STP
CLIFFWOOD BEACH ST
RIVER GARDENS STP
MEDFORD TWP WWTP
TWP OF NEPTUNE WWT
TWP OF OCEAN WWTP
ORTLEY BEACH PLANT
RAHWAY VALLY WWTP
MIDDLESEX CO WWTP
SOUTHERN WPCF
WILLINGBORO MUN PL
LAS VEGAS EAST STP
LAS VEGAS WEST STP
RATON STP
SILER ROAD STP
AIRPORT ROAD STP
TAGS STP
ORANGE CO SO 1 STP
MEADOWBROOK-LIMEST
ROCKLANO COUNTY ST
ALFRED WWTP
OWEGO WPCP # 2
AVON WWTP
BATAVIA WPCP
BATH WWTP
NASSAU COUNTY SD*2
BEACON STP
CANISTEO STP
CANTON WPCP
CAPE VINCENT STP
CARMEL STP
CAYUGA HTS WWTP
CAYUGA HGTS WPCP
BETHLEHEM WWTP
CEDARHURST WPCP
CHEEKTOWAGA SO #5
BAY PARK STP
SERVICE
•OPULATION
13600
7000
65000
34000
2412
10000
10000
10020
6000
1400
15500
85000
35000
60000
315000
600000
88550
56450
8000
6000
9000
14850
29700
3000
9200
32192
145000
8500
7500
11410
19500
6530
556000
13800
2772
10000
1500
3000
11000
8000
18000
8200
80000
558400
DESIGN FLOW
IN M.G.D.
1.65
0.65
9.00
5.40
0.50
1.25
1.50
0.80
0.75
0.10
1.30
8.50
3.60
12.00
35.00
120.00
20.00
4.20
0.85
0.35
1.20
2.70
3.00
0.40
2.00
7.00
10.00
1.00
2.00
2.75
2.50
1.00
60.00
6.00
0.40
2.00
0.14
0.35
2.00
2.00
4.90
1.00
7.50
60.00
ABC
RATING
53
57
86
84
45
38
46
34
37
36
59
62
71
72
88
85
74
74
46
46
49
45
53
46
67
64
98
57
58
57
61
51
178
87
44
66
46
33
72
63
59
52
67
70
ELMIRA
ENDICOTT
FLORIDA
FREEPORT
GOSHEN
GREAT NECK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
CHEMUNG CO SD
ENDICOTT STP
FLORIDA WWTP
FREEPORT STP
GOSHEN STP
BELGRAVE WWTP
4970
49000
2000
42000
8000
13000
4.80
10.00
0.30
4.00
1.50
1.50
60
77
49
61
53
51
A-9
-------
CITY
GREECE
HALFMOON
HOLCOMB
LIVONIA
LONG BEACH
LYONS
MANLIUS
NEWBURGH
NEWBURGH
NEWBURGH
NEWFANE
NIAGARA FALLS
NORTHPORT
ORANGEBURG
ORANGETOWN
OYSTER BAY
PENN YAN
PLATTSBURGH
POLAND (TN OF)
PORT WASHINGTON
POUGHKEEPSIF
ROCHESTER
SAG HARBOR
SARANAC LAKE
SARANAC LAKE
SOUTH FALLSBUHG
SPENCERPORT
STONY POINT
TONAWANDA
TRUMANSBURG
TULLY
VIL OF FISHKILL
WANTAGH
WAPPINGER FALLS
WASHINGTONVILLE
WEbSTER
WEST LONG REACH
YORKTOWN
YORKTOWN
ORANGEBURG
ALBMEARLE
GASTONIA
GASTONIA
GREENSBORO
STATE
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YOHK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
YOHK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NFW YOKK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NFW YORK
NEW YOHK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YOHK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NFW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
FACILITY NAME
F
GREECE NW QUAD WWT
SARATOGA CO 1 WWTP
HOLCOMB STP
CONESUS LAKE SD
LONG BEACH WPCP
LYONS STP
MEADOWBROOKLIMESTO
GIDNEYTOWN STP
GOLDEN PARK STP
MEADOWHILL NORTH S
NEWFANE STP
NIAGARA SP> «1
NORTHPORT STP
ORANGETOWN STP
ORANGETOWM WWTP
OYSTER BAY STP
PENN YAN WWTP
PLATTSBURGH STP
JAMESTOWN STP
PORT WASHINGTON ST
ARLINGTON STP
GATES CHILI OGDEN
SAG HARBOR WWTP
SARANAC LAKE WPCP
SARANAC LAKE STP
SOUTH FALLSBURG ST
SPENCERPORT WWTP
STONY POINT STP
TWO MILE CREEK STP
TRUMANSBURG WWTP
TULLY WPCP
FISHKILL STP
CEDAR CREFK WPCP
OAKWOOD KNOLLS STP
WASHINGTONVILLE ST
WEBSTER WWTP
WEST LONG BEACH ST
YORKTOWN HEIGHTS T
YORKTOWN, OSCEOLA S
HOCKLAND CO SD #1
LONG CREEK WWTP
CATABA CREEK WTP
LONG CREEK WTP
NORTH BUFFALO WTP
SERVICE
'OPULATION
132000
54363
1421
4800
35000
4300
25900
1200
615
1500
4875
2000
2500
70000
52000
7500
5200
40000
40000
30000
23000
85800
2400
10000
15300
2500
6600
9000
129000
2000
1100
1400
235000
407
2000
7500
4000
13000
2388
40000
14000
50000
14000
196000
DESIGN FLOW
IN M.G.O.
15.00
13.00
0.23
1.27
6.36
0.75
7.00
0.12
0.20
0.20
1.60
999.99
0.30
8.50
8.50
1.20
1.50
16.00
8.00
3.00
4.00
15.00
0.10
3.00
2.00
1.20
1.00
1.00
30.00
0.25
0.25
0.40
45.00
0.20
0.40
2.50
1.50
1.50
0.20
10.00
16.00
9.00
9.00
18.00
ABC
RATING
92
84
62
65
62
62
55
56
44
43
60
81
44
76
61
60
57
74
64
59
73
112
47
66
57
53
50
46
104
49
48
47
79
46
53
52
51
86
46
78
79
67
64
99
GREENVILLF
GRIFTON
LFNOIR
MAXTON
NEW BERN
PEMBROKE
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH
NORTH
NORTH
NORTH
NORTH
CAROLINA
CAROLINA
CAROLINA
CAROLINA
CAROLINA
GREENVILLF WWTP
CONTENTNEA M S D
GRANT CREEK WTP
MAXTON WWTP
NEW BERN WWTP
PEMBROKE WWTP
33000
8390
15000
2500
18000
4000
8.00
4.73
6.00
0.30
4.00
0.50
60
52
42
37
53
43
A-10
-------
CITY
RALEIGH
ROCKINGHAM
SALISBURY
SALISBURY
WASHINGTON
ATHENS
BAH8ERTON
BEDFORD
BOARDMAN
CLEVELAND
COLUMBUS
COLUMBUS
DAYTON
FAIRBORN
GREENVILLE
HAMILTON
HEATH
LOGAN
MIAMISBURG
NEWARK
RAVENNA
SIDNEY
SIDNEY
SOLON
SOLON
TROY
VANDALIA
WATERVILLE
XENIA
AROMORE
AROMORE
BLACKWELL
BROKEN BOW
HENRYETTA
IDA8EL
MUSKOGEE
NORMAN
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA CITY
OKLAHOMA CITY
OKMULGEE
PONCA CITY
TULSA
TULSA
STATE
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
FACILITY NAME
1
NEUSE RIVER WTP
ROCKINGHAM WTP
GRANT CREK WWTP
TOWN CREEK WWTP
WASHINGTON MUN WTP
ATHENS WWTP
BARBERTON STP
BEDFORD STP
BOARDMAN WWTP
EASTERLY WWTP
SOUTHERLY WWTP
JACKSON PIKE WWTP
DAYTON WWTP
FAIRBORN WWTP
GREENVILLE WWTP
HAMILTON WWTP
HEATH WWTP
LOGAN WWTP
MIAMISBURG STP
NEWARK WWTP
RAVENNA STP
SIDNEY WWTP
SIDNEY WWTP
SOLON CENTRAL STP
SOLON NE STP
TROY WWTP
VANDALIA WWTP
MAUMEE RIVER STP
FORD ROAD WWTP
SOUTHWEST STP
NORTHEAST STP
BLACKWELL STP
BROKEN BOW WPCP
HENRYETTA WPCP
IOABEL WPCF
MUSKOGEE WWTP
NORMAN STP
CHISHOLM CREEK AWT
NOHTHSIDE WWTP
SOUTHSIDE WWTP
OKMULGEE WWTP
PONCA CITY WWTP
FLATROCK STP
COAL CREEK STP
SERVICE
'OPULATION
166335
10100
10200
10500
8900
33000
35300
16500
12000
540000
340000
515000
317000
36000
13500
21274
8020
6000
18200
37000
12000
17000
18000
11500
4000
18000
12400
20000
28500
14000
12000
8645
4000
7500
12000
40000
63000
50000
150000
300000
20000
30000
57874
31946
DESIGN FLOW
IN M.G.D.
30.00
6.00
5.00
5.00
2.20
4.80
8.00
3.20
5.00
123.00
100.00
100.00
60.00
5.50
3.00
25.00
2.00
1.20
2.20
12.00
1.90
2.50
4.00
2.40
0.80
6.20
1.20
6.00
3.00
2.50
2.50
2.20
0.75
0.90
2.50
12.00
10.00
5.00
10.00
25.00
5.00
4.00
6.20
4.00
ABC
RATING
96
53
91
91
58
66
58
56
61
620
77
107
74
71
37
73
56
57
67
74
80
42
70
72
43
71
47
88
54
51
51
47
57
46
44
67
107
69
61
60
76
58
61
46
TULSA
TULSA
CLATSKANIE
COTTAGE GROVE
DALLAS
DEPOE BAY
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
NORTHSIDE STP
SOUTHSIDE STP
CLATSKANIE STP
COTTAGE GROVE STP
DALLAS STP
OEPOE BAY STP
91251
200000
1700
7500
9000
1650
19.00
31.50
0.50
1.50
2.00
0.80
100
116
52
60
45
46
A-ll
-------
CITY
EUGENE
EUGENE
FOREST GROVE
GASTON
GLENEOON BEACH
HILLSBORO
HILLSBORO
HOOD RIVER
OTTER ROCK
PORTLAND
PORTLAND
SALEM
SPRINGFIELD
THE DALLES
TIGARD
TILLAMOOK
WEST SALEM
WILSONVILLE
ALLENTOWN
AMBLER
BADEN
BETHLEHEM
BLOOMSBURG
CENTER VALLEY
CHAMBERSBURG
CHINCHILLA
CONSHOHOCKEN
OUNCANSVILLE
DURYEA
FOLCROFT
GROVE CITY
HARLEYSVILLE
HASTINGS
HATFIELO
HEHSHEY
KINGSTON TWP
LEBANON
LEMOYNE
LITITZ
MCCANDLESS
MECHANICSBURG
NEK HOLLAND
OAKMONT
PLEASANT HILLS
STATE
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
FACILITY NAME
P
EUGENE WWTP
EUGENE STP
FOREST GROVE WWTP
GASTON STP
SILET2 KEYS STP
HILLSBORO WEST STP
ROCK CREEK STP
HOOD RIVER STP
OTTER CREST INN ST
TRYON CREEK STP
INVERNESS STP
WILLOW LAKE STP
SPRINGFIELD STP
THE DALLES STP
DURHAM ADV. WWTP
TILLAMOOK STP
WALLACE ROAD STP
DAMASCH ST HOSP ST
KLINE'S ISLAND WWT
AMBLER SOUTH WWTP
BADEN STP
BETHLEHEM WWTP
BLOOMSBURG STP
UPPER SAUCON TWP W
CHAMBERSBURG WWTP
CLAHKS-SUMMITTS. A
CONSHOHOCKEN WPCP
DUNCANSVILLE WWTP
L LACKAWANNA V STP
MUCKINPATFS WWTP
GROVE CITY STP
LOWER SALFORD TWP
HASTINGS WWTP
HATFIELD TWP AUT
DERRY TOWNSHIP WPC
DALLAS AREA MUN. A
LEBANON STP
LEMOYNE BORO JT. A
LITITZ STP
PINECREEK STP
MECHANICSBURG STP
NEW HOLLAND STP
OAKMONT STP
PLEASANT HILLS
SERVICE 1
•OPULATION
106000
90000
19347
642
25
7765
100747
4500
600
39208
10829
135000
39350
16075
120000
4300
3500
1000
179000
32300
7000
100000
15000
9000
17000
10000
17500
7000
28749
78000
8300
2900
2100
10000
20000
22000
32300
16500
7600
8500
9500
4500
8300
22000
3ESIGN FLOW
IN M.G.D.
17.10
17.10
5.00
0.06
0.01
2.00
15.00
3.50
0.13
8.34
2.00
35.00
6.90
4.15
20.00
1.06
0.40
0.30
40.00
3.26
0.50
12.50
4.30
0.60
3.00
1.20
1.30
0.25
6.00
6.00
1.50
0.30
0.21
3.60
5.00
2.20
6.80
2.10
1.20
3.00
1.20
1.00
1.20
3.00
ABC
RATING
71
70
81
39
30
71
99
87
35
74
45
88
62
62
117
48
41
46
101
53
53
79
60
62
53
41
57
35
85
55
54
50
33
86
80
49
86
57
45
69
54
54
69
79
POTTSTOWN
READING
ROBESONIA
SHARON HILL
SINKING SPRING
SPRINGETTSBURY
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
POTTSTOWN WWTP 33000
FRITZ ISLAND WWTP 102000
ROBESONIA-WERNERSV 3300
DARBY CREEK WWTP 98921
SINKING SPRING WWT 3200
SPRINGETTSBURY TWP 48000
7.40
13.50
0.60
10.00
0.35
8.00
86
86
48
69
45
74
A-12
-------
CITY
WEST READING
WILLOW GROVE
EAST GREENWICH
EAST PROVIDENCE
WARWICK
BATESBURG
COLUMBIA
LANCASTER
MARION
ROCK HILL
ROCK HILL
UNION
UNION
CUSTER
DEADWOOD
RAPID CITY
RAPID CITY
YANKTON
CENTERVILLE
CLEVELAND
DICKSON
DICKSON
FAYETTEVILLE
FRANKLIN
KNOXVILLE
KNOXVlLLE
LAVERGNE
MARYVILLE
MEMPHIS
MEMPHIS
NASHVILLE
NASHVILLE
NASHVILLE
SOUTH PITTSBURG
ATHENS
ATHENS
AUSTIN
AUSTIN
AUSTIN
AUSTIN
BAYTOWN
BAYTOWN
BAYTOWN
BAYTOWN
STATE
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
RHODE ISLAND
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
FACILITY NAME
f
WYOMISSING VAL STP
U MORELANO-HATBORO
EAST GREENWICH STP
EAST PROVIDENCEWPC
WARWICK SATP
BATESBURG STP
COLUMBIA METRO STP
LANCASTER STP
WITHLACOOCHEE STP
MANCHESTER CREEK S
WILDCAT STP
MENGS CREEK STP
TOSHES CREEK STP
CUSTER WPCP
LEAD DEAOWOOD STP
RAPID CITY WPCP
RAPID CITY STP
YANKTON WWTP
CENTERVILLE WWTP *
CLEVELAND WWTP
PINEY RIVER WWTP
JONES CREEK WWTP
FAYETTEVILLE WWTP
FRANKLIN WWTP
HALLSDALE POWEL ST
FOURTH CREEK WWTP
LAVERGNE WWTP
MARYVILLE REG WWTP
NORTH WWTP
T.E. MAXSON WWTP
DRY CREEK WWTP
CENTRAL WWTP
WHITES CREEK WWTP
SOUTH PITTSBURG ST
ATHENS NORTH STP
ATHENS WEST STP
GOVALLE STP
WALNUT CREEK STP
WALNUT CK WWTP
GOVALLE WWTP
EAST DISTRICT STP
CENTRAL DIST. STP
LAKEWOOD STP
W MAIN STP
SERVICE
>OPULATION
30000
30000
3000
40000
13500
4500
200000
leooo
3300
27185
4942
2500
5000
2200
8000
60000
50000
15000
2495
30000
3500
5500
8500
10500
16750
63794
476
15000
350000
325000
25000
323957
50000
4200
4000
9200
159000
148000
148000
159000
24000
24450
6672
26500
DESIGN FLOW
IN M.6.D.
3.00
6.00
0.51
10.40
5.00
1.30
20.00
3.00
1.00
12.00
0.50
1.00
6.00
0.56
2.33
13.50
13.50
1.80
0.30
12.00
0.65
0.90
2.00
2.50
2.10
7.72
0.08
7.50
135.00
80.00
6.00
55.00
25.00
1.07
0.90
0.92
26.00
25.00
18.00
40.00
3.00
4.70
0.70
4.70
ABC
RATING
64
80
47
77
69
43
103
50
50
69
49
42
45
45
69
61
69
56
43
69
60
53
63
66
83
81
50
90
79
85
65
98
80
47
38
34
59
74
68
58
59
54
50
67
BAYTOtoN TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE TEXAS
CONROE TEXAS
CONROE TEXAS
CORPUS CHRIST I TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI TEXAS
E DIST STP
S.PLANT (MAIN PLAN
SOUTHEAST STP
SOUTHWEST STP
BROADWAY STP
BROADWAY STP
18000
70000
10000
20000
18600
57800
3.00
7.50
4.00
2.00
10.00
12.00
45
72
41
51
63
72
A-13
-------
CITY STATE
CORPUS CHRIST! TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI TEXAS
CORSICANA TEXAS
CORSICANA TEXAS
DICKENSON TEXAS
FLOWER MOUND TEXAS
FT WORTH TEXAS
GALVESTON TEXAS
GALVESTON TEXAS
GEORGETOWN TEXAS
HITCHCOCK TEXAS
HOUSTON TEXAS
HOUSTON TEXAS
HOUSTON TEXAS
HUNTSVILLE TEXAS
HUNTSVILLE TEXAS
HUNTSVILLE TEXAS
LEWISVILLE TEXAS
LEWISVILLE TEXAS
HEXIA TEXAS
NACOGOOCHES TEXAS
NACOGOOCHES TEXAS
PALESTINE TEXAS
PALESTINE TEXAS
PASEOENA TEXAS
PASEDENA TEXAS
PORT ARTHUR TEXAS
PORT LAVACA TEXAS
PORT LAVACA TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO TEXAS
TEMPLE TEXAS
TEXAS CITY TEXAS
TEXAS CITY TEXAS
TEXAS CITY TEXAS
WACO TEXAS
WACO TEXAS
WACO TEXAS
WACO TEXAS
COTTONWOOO UTAH
GRANGER UTAH
HYRUH UTAH
MAGNA UTAH
MORONI UTAH
FACILITY NAME
F
ALLISON STP
WESTSIDE STP
CORSICANA *2
CORSICANA #1
WCIO STP «1
FLOWER MOUND MUD 1
VILLAGE CREEK STP
MAIN PLANT
AIRPORT STP
GEORGETOWN WWTP
HITCHCOCK WWTP
N. SIDE STP
CLINTON PARK STP
CHOCOLATE BAYOU ST
S STP
SOUTH WWTP
NORTH WWTP
LEWISVILLE WTP
LEWISVILLF WWTP
MEXIA STP
PLANT # 2-A
PLANT « 1
WELLS CREEK STP
TOWN CREEK STP
DEEPWATER STP
VINCE BAYOU STP AS,
MAIN WWTP
LYNN'S BAYOU STP
BLARDONE WWTP
BILLING ROAD WWTP
LEON CREEK WWTP
DOS1ER FARM WWTP
TEXAS CITY STP
STP *1
STP *2
TEMPLE-BELTON STP
HZ WACO BRA
WACO METRO REG SS
WACO METRO REG SS
COTTONWOOD STP
GRANGER-HUNTER STP
HYRUM WWTP
MAGNA WWTP
MORONI WWTP
SERVICE
•OPULATION
8900
16500
14000
7000
13800
1500
363612
54000
9000
10000
5700
465000
5500
15000
6000
8000
15000
30000
23000
6200
26000
8165
9300
5200
29000
30000
69000
10000
3000
933000
81400
23000
43000
70000
8000
40000
20000
33000
100000
80000
68000
3800
14000
1358
DESIGN FLOW
IN M.G.D.
2.00
3.00
1.50
1.00
4.20
1.50
45.00
10.00
1.00
1.00
0.74
138.00
0.80
1.60
0.80
1.60
2.10
6.00
6.00
1.50
2.80
2.00
1.50
1.80
4.00
7.00
8.00
1.00
0.50
100.00
24.00
5.00
4.40
4.50
0.80
5.00
2.80
5.00
18.50
8.00
12.50
1.00
1.30
1.50
ABC
RATING
58
34
60
55
63
54
78
78
46
35
38
64
43
49
43
42
54
70
97
55
47
56
39
52
60
69
65
45
32
105
96
59
62
71
62
65
62
57
72
56
72
55
43
60
MURRAY UTAH
OGOEN UTAH
PROVO UTAH
SALT LAKE CITY UTAH
SALT LAKE CITY UTAH
SANDY UTAH
MURRAY STP 32000
CENTRAL WEBER STP 132000
PROVO WWTP 60000
SALT LK CITY RCL P 189000
SLC SUBURBAN #1 155000
SANDY CREEK STP 7800
4.00
44.50
21.00
45.00
16.00
1.30
59
70
108
69
62
41
A-14
-------
CITY
SOUTH SALT LAKE
SPRINGVILLE
SYRACUSE
WOODS CROSS
WOODS CROSS
CHARLOTTESVILLE
CHARLOTTESVILLE
CHESTERFIELD
CHESTERFIELD
DANVILLE
FAIRFAX
FREDERICKSBURG
LEXINGTON
MANASSAS PARK
NEWPORT NEWS
PETERSBERG
RICHMOND
RIDGEWAY
ROANOKE
WILLIAMS8URG
8LAINE
BURLINGTON
CHEHALIS
E WENATCHEE
EAST WENATCHEF
LONGV1EW
MCCLEARY
NACHES
OMAK
PASCO
SEDRO WOOLLEY
SELAH
TOPPENISH
VANCOUVER
VANCOUVER
WAPATO
WESTPORT
ATHENS
BECKLEY
8ELLE
BELOIT
BROOKFIELD
GERMANTOWN
GRAFTON
STATE
UTAH
UTAH
UTAH
UTAH
UTAH
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WFST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
FACILITY NAME
F
SOUTH SALT LAKE ST
SPRINGVILLE WWTP
NORTH DAVIS CO STP
S DAVIS CO SO N ST
S DAVIS CO SD S PL
MEADOW CREEK WWTP
MOORES CREEK STP
FALLING CREEK STP
FALLING CREEK STP
DANVILLE NORTHSIDE
WESTGATE STP
FREDERICKS8URG STP
LEXINGTON STP
UPPER OCCOQUAN WWT
BOAT HARBOR WWTP
PETERSBERG WWTP
RICHMOND WWTP
MARTINSVILLE WPCP
ROANOKE WPCP
WILLIAMSBURG WWTP
WHATCOM CTY DIST «
BURLINGTON WWTP
CHEHALIS TP
DOUGLAS CO STP HI
EAST WENATCHEE WrfT
COWLITZ WPCP
MCCLEARY STP
NACHES WWTP
CITY OF OMAK STP
PASCO WPCP
SEDRO WOOLLEY WWTP
SELAH WWTP
TOPPENISH WWTP
SALMON CREEK STP
WESTSIOE STP
WAPATO WWTP
WESTPORT WWTP
ATHENS WWTP
N BECKLEY PUB SERV
BELLE WWTP
BELOIT STP
FOX RIVER WPCP
GERMANTOWN WWTP
GRAFTON STP
SERVICE
>OPULATION
7810
13000
77000
35000
13125
32597
25000
49000
60000
108000
140000
28000
7600
70000
300000
76000
233000
22000
170000
45000
10000
3500
5900
6000
8500
45000
1313
646
4081
17000
4000
4300
6000
13000
69000
3100
1560
2700
5000
3000
36000
18000
6819
8434
DESIGN FLOW
IN M.G.D.
4.60
4.00
19.00
5.35
2.84
4.16
3.30
6.00
6.00
24.00
14.00
3.50
2.00
15.00
22.00
15.00
70.00
6.00
35.00
9.60
0.50
1.60
7.50
2.30
1.60
10.00
0.30
0.17
1.90
4.25
1.90
4.60
1.30
2.00
12.00
1.00
1.00
0.25
0.56
0.30
9.50
5.00
1.00
1.00
ABC
RATING
51
40
55
55
46
67
57
70
74
77
71
68
71
130
67
79
95
65
119
92
57
49
89
64
59
77
42
39
43
54
51
56
51
46
94
46
49
35
31
33
81
84
56
65
GREEN BAY
LACROSSE
MADISON
MADISON
MANITOWOC
MENASHA
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
GREEN BAY METRO ST 130000
LACROSSE WWTP 68428
NINE SPRINGS WWTP 225000
NINE SPRINGS WWTP 240000
MANITOWOC WWTP 34000
NEENAH-MENASHA STP 39000
52.50
20.00
57.00
27.50
15.50
18.00
100
82
84
88
82
68
A-15
-------
CITY
MENOMONIE
MERRILL
MILWAUKEE
OSHKOSH
RACINE
RICHLANO CENTER
ROTHSCHILD
SO MILWAUKEF
STURGEON RAY
TOMAH
WATERTOWN
WAUKESHA
WAUKESHA
WAUSAU
CASPER
CHEYENNE
EVANSTON
JACKSON
KEMMERER
RIVERTON
ROCK SPRINGS
TETON VILLAGE
THERMOPOLIS
STATE
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
WYOMING
WYOMING
WYOMING
WYOMING
WYOMING
WYOMING
WYOMING
WYOMING
FACILITY NAME
F
MENOMONIE WWTP
MERRILL WWTP
SOUTH SHORE WWTP
OSHKOSH WWTP
NORTH PARK STP
RICHLAND CENTER ST
ROTHSCHILD STP
SOUTH MILWAUKEE ST
STURGEON BAY WWTP
TOMAH STP
WATERTOWN STP
WAUKESHA STP
WAUKESHA STP
WAUSAU STP
CASPER BPU WWTP
DRY CREEK WWTP
EVANSTON WWTP
JACKSON WWTP
KEMMERER WWD
RIVERTON WWTP
ROCK SPRINGS WWTP
TETON VILLAGE STP
THERMOPOLIS STP
SERVICE
>OPULATION
15000
9500
212100
54100
10000
5100
5000
23487
7000
5700
16000
49500
50000
40000
51000
26000
7000
6000
3700
12000
25950
1212
6300
DESIGN FLOW
IN M.G.O.
2.88
2.10
120.00
20.00
1.90
1.60
1.30
6.00
1.20
1.50
2.50
8.50
8.50
9.20
6.50
4.50
1.80
0.80
0.50
1.50
2.00
0.20
0.60
ABC
RATING
74
66
81
86
59
47
86
67
72
70
540
69
66
97
68
70
44
38
23
51
69
43
54
A-16
-------
TABLE A.2
LIST OF CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS
CITY
ALBF.RTVILLE
FOLEY
6Ai)SDEN
HUNTSVILLF
JASPER
MOrtROF.VILLE
OXFORD
OZARRK
PHENIX CITY
FORT SMITH
GREEN8RIAR
HARRISON
HOT SPRINGS
HUNTSVILLF
JACKSONVILLE
PKAIRIE GROVE
ROGERS
RUSSELLVILLE
SPRINGDALE
WEST FORK
YELLEVJLLF.
ANDERSON
BANNING
BArtSTOW
BURBANK
CALABASAS
CAMARILLO
CAHMEL
CHICO
CORONA
CRESCENT CITY
DALY CITY
FREMONT
INOIO
LIVERMORE
LOS ANGELES
LOS BANDS
MODESTO
OROVILLE
OXNARO
PLACERVILLE
RED 9LUFF
RICHMOND
RIO DELL
STATE
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
FACILITY NAME
ALBERTVILLE SS
FOLEY SS
GADSOEN SS
HUNTSVILLF SS
JASPER SS
MONROEVILLE SS
OXFORD SS
OZARK SS
PHENIX CITY SS
P STREET SS
GREENBRIAR SS
HARRISON SS
HOT SPRINGS SS
HUNTSVILLF SS
JACKSONVILLE SS
PRAIRIE GROVE SS
ROGERS SS
RUSSELLVILLE SS
SPRINGDALE SS
WEST FORK SS
YELLEVILLE SS
ANDERSON SS
BANNING SS
8ARSTOW SS
BURBANK SS
CALABASAS SS
CAMAHILLO SEWER SY
CARMEL SS
CHICO SS
CORONA SS
CRESCENT CITY SS
N SAN MATEO C SO S
FREMONT SS
INDIO SS
LIVERMORE SS
LOS ANGELES CO SS
LOS BANOS SS
MODESTO SS
OROVILLE SS
OXNARO SEWER SYSTE
PLACERVILLE SS
RED BLUFF SS
RICHMOND SS
RIO DELL SS
SERVICE
POPULATION
15000
4000
46569
300000
10000
5200
60000
7500
26490
22800
1400
7000
31500
1300
25000
1687
12000
14000
25000
1000
1031
6500
13500
17590
83781
45000
27000
19950
28000
58000
3000
80000
210287
44765
50000
3800000
10000
101000
25000
93000
6736
9200
65000
2800
TOTAL LENGTH OF
GRAVITY SEWERS (Ml)
7.0
2.0
27.0
21.0
1.0
99999.0
3.0
1.7
60.0
77.0
1.9
0.6
21.0
0.5
7.0
0.6
2.0
27.0
5.6
0.0
0.7
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.0
21.0
54.0
1.4
99999.0
2.0
99999.0
7.0
0.4
3.5
99999.0
2.0
37.7
3.5
0.0
0.5
99999.0
99999.0
99999.0
TOTAL LENGTH OF
FORCE MAIN (MI)
0.0
2.0
7.0
Z.O
1.0
10.0
2.0
1.6
90.0
13.0
1.1
0.0
4.8
1.0
14.5
0.2
1.3
4.0
3.0
0.0
0.6
0.1
0.4
0.0
3.0
3,0
0.0
6.0
0.4
0.3
O.I
2.0
0.0
0.5
0.9
99999.0
0.0
1.6
2.7
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
s SAN FRANCISCO
SAM BERNARDINO
SAN LORENZO
SANTA PAULA
STOCKTON
THOUSAND OAKS
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
s SAN FRANCISCO ss 82000
SAN BERNARDINO SS 172200
SAN LORENZO SS 140000
SANTA PAULA SEWER 18600
STOCKTON SS 138000
THOUSAND OAKS SS 82000
18.0
99999.0
20.0
0.0
62.0
0.0
2.0
99999.0
2.0
0.0
12.0
0.0
A-17
-------
CITY
THOUSAND OAKS
TURLOCK
UK I AH
VALLEJO
VENTURA
WEST SACRAMENTO
WINDSOR
ARVADA
ASPEN
ASPEN
AVON
BOULDER
BRIGHTON
CARBONDALE
COLORADO SPRING
COKTEZ
DELTA
DENVER
DENVER
DUKANGO
ENbLEWOOD
ESTES PARK
ESTES PARK
EVANS
EVERGREEN
FRISCO
GLENWOOD SORING
IDAHO SPRINGS
LONGMONT
LOUISVILLE
LOVELANO
MEEKER
MONTROSE
NEDERLAND
PAGOSA SPRINGS
RIFLE
SALIDA
TRINIDAD
VAIL
WESTMINSTER
WINDSOR
ENFIELD
FAIRFIELD
GROTON
STATE
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
FACILITY NAME SERVICE TOTAL LENGTH OF
POPULATION GRAVITY SEWERS (MI)
HILL CANYON TRIBUT
TURLOCK SS
UK I AH SS
VALLEJO SS
VENTURA SEWER SYST
WEST SACRAMENTO SS
WINDSOR SS
CLEAR CREEK VAL. S
ASPEN METRO SS
ASPEN SO SS
AVON SS
BOULDER COLLECTION
BRIGHTON COLL. SYS
CARBONDALF WWTP
COLORADO SPRINGS S
CORTEZ SS
DELTA SO
S. LAKEWOOD COLL.
N. TABLE MTN. ss
OURANGO SS
ENGLEWOOD SS
UPPER THOMPSON SO
ESTES PARK COLLECT
EVANS SAN.DIST.SS
EVERGREEN SS
FRISCO SAN DIST SS
GLENWOOD SPRINGS S
IDAHO SPRINGS SS
LONGMONT SS
LOUISVILLE SO
LOVELAND
MEEKER SD
MONTROSE SS
NEDERLAND SD
PAGOSA SPRINGS SS
RIFLE SD
SALIDA SS
TRINIDAD SS
VAIL COLL.
WESTMINSTER COLL.
WINDSOR COLLECTION
ENFIELD WPCP
FAIRFIELD SS
GROTON SS
69500
400000
14500
85000
69700
25000
5200
10000
3500
1430
15000
57904
16000
2BOO
150000
7500
4600
17000
4500
12000
40000
12000
2500
6000
4550
2000
7350
3000
45000
5700
35000
2350
8500
8500
1500
3000
6000
10000
2500
32000
5000
48000
46000
15000
1.8
99999.0
0.1
99999.0
21.0
0.0
99999.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
99999.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
1.3
99999.0
0.9
1.1
0.2
0.0
1.7
1.4
0.0
99999.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
7.1
0.0
13.9
4.5
6.9
TOTAL LENGTH OF
FORCE MAIN (MI)
0.0
0.0
0.4
3.7
0.0
12.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
99999.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.8
3.8
LITCHFIELD
MANCHESTER
SALISBURY
SEYMOUR
STAMFORD
TORRINGTON
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
LITCHFIELD SS
MANCHESTER SS
TWN OF SALISBURY S
SEYMOUR SS
STAMFORD WPCF
TORRINGTON WPCF
5700
46600
2400
10000
90000
28500
0.0
0.6
1.1
2.7
15.2
4.3
0.0
99999.0
1.2
0.7
99999.0
3.2
A-18
-------
CITY
VERNON
WAREHOUSE PT
WEST HAVEN
WILLIMANTIC
GEORGETOWN
HARRINGTON
MIODLETOWN
SHELBYVILLE
BAWTO.
flOCA RATON
FT. PIERCE
GOULDS
HOLLY HILL
JACKSON. BEACH
KISSIMMEE
LAKELAND
MIAMI
OCALA
PENSACOLA
PINELLAS PARK
SAKASOTA
ST. PETERBURG
ST. AUGUSTINE
TALLAHASSEE
TARPON SPRINGS
TITUSVILLE
BRUNSWICK
THOMASVILLF
ABERDEEN
BOISE
IDAHO FALLS
MERIDIAN
SODA SPRINGS
TWIN FALLS
MT CARROLL
WHEATON
ANKENY
ANKENY
ANKENY
CAMANCHt"
CEOAR FALLS
COHALVILLF
EMMETSBURG
ESTHERVILLE
STATE
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DELAWARE
DELAWARE
DELAWARE
KLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FIOKIOA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
IDAHO
IDAHO
IDAHO
IDAHO
IDAHO
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
FACILITY NAME SERVICE TOTAL LENGTH OF
POPULATION GRAVITY SEWERS (MJ>
VERNON SS
EAST WINDSOR SS
WEST HAVEN SS
WILLIMANTIC SS
GEORGETOWN SS
HARRINGTON SS
MIDDLETOWN SS
SHELBYVILLE SS
LAKELAND SS tBARTO
BOCA RATON SEWERS
FT. PIERCE CITY OF
GOULDS COLL.
HOLLY HILL SS
JACKSONVILLE BEACH
KISSIMMEE 192 STP
LAKELAND SS
VIRGINIA KEYS COLL
OCALA STP *1 SS
PENSACOLA SS
PINELLAS PARK SS
SARASOTA SS
ST. PETERSBURG SS
ST. AUGUSTINE SS
TALLAHASSEE SS
TARPON SPRINGS SS
SOUTH STP SS
BRUNSWICK SS
THOMASVILLE WPCP
ABERDEEN SS
BOISE SS
IDAHO FALLS SS
MERIDIAN SS
SODA SPRINGS SS
TWIN FALLS SS
MT CARROLL SS
WHEATON SS
WESTWOOD PLANT *4S
WEST PLANT »2 SS
SE PLANT «3 SS
CAMANCHE SS
CEDAR FALLS SS
CORALVILLE SS
EMMETSBURG SS
ESTHERVILLE SS
25000
2400
52000
20000
3000
2500
2900
1*00
23000
35000
33000
20000
10000
17700
2000
63000
400000
13500
25000
0
54000
236140
21200
85000
15000
10000
35000
19096
1640
108079
50000
6654
4051
25000
2100
53000
4590
10000
12000
4200
35472
6928
4450
8108
4.9
2.3
56.4
0.1
3.5
2.9
1.8
0.7
6.5
54.4
67.0
22.0
0.0
7.0
6.0
0.0
51.6
0.0
0.0
12.5
15.0
57.0
28.0
128.0
7.0
54.0
0.0
4.3
99999.0
8.0
99999.9
0.5
3.0
7.3
0.5
0.9
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.3
10.7
3.8
99999.0
5.3
TOTAL LENGTH OF
FORCE MAIN (Ml)
5.0
0.7
5.4
0.1
3.0
1.5
0.5
1.1
0.0
73.0
16.0
0.0
3.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
250.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
48.0
0.0
12.0
0.0
0.0
113.0
10.0
0.0
0.1
99999.0
0.3
3.8
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
3.8
5.0
0.8
3.0
FORT DODGF
GRIMES
INDIANOLA
INOIANOLA
IQwA CITY
NEWTON
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
FORT DOOGE SS 28000
GRIMES SS 1985
INOIANOLA N. SS 8000
INOIANOLA S. SS 3000
IOWA CITY SS 50000
NEWTON SOUTHWEST S 4145
7.9
0.0
1.3
0.4
10.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
2.0
0.6
99999.0
0.0
A-19
-------
CITY
NEWTON
NEKTON
OSKALOOSA
REINBECK
WATERLOO
ANTHONY
DE SOTO
EMPORIA
LFNEXA
MANHATTAN
NFWTON
TOPFKA
WICHITA
BOWLING G«EEN
CADIZ
HOPKINSVILLE
MT WASHINGTON
RUSSELLVILLE
ALEXANDRIA
BOGALUSA
KENNER
LAFAYETTE
SH-»EVEPORT
BRUNSWICK
ACCOKEEK
HOWIE
EASTON
HAGERSTOWN
LAUREL
MANCHESTER
THURMONT
UPPER MARLBORO
AMESBURY
BELLERICA
DOUGLAS
MANCHESTER
ROCKPORT
FLINT
FRANKENMUTH
GRANDVILLE
HARBOR SPRINGS
HASTINGS
IONIA
PETERSBURG
STATE
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSl-TTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
FACILITY NAME SERVICE TOTAL LENGTH OF
POPULATION GRAVITY SEWERS (MI>
NEWTON NORTHWEST S
NEWTON SOUTH SS
OSKALOOSA SS
RtlNBECK SS
WATERLOO SS
ANTHONY SS
OE SOTO SS
EMPORlA SS
LENEXA SS
MANHATTAN SS
NEWTON SS
TOPEK,A SS
WICHITA SS
BOWLING G-JEEN SS
CADIZ SS
HOPKINSVILLE SS
MT WASHINGTON SS
RUSSELLVILLE SS
ALEXANORU SS
BOGALUSA SS
KtNNER SS
LAFAYETTE SS
SHREVEPORT SS
HWUNSWICK SS
PISCATAWAY
HOWIE-BELAIR SS
EASTON SS
HAGERSTOWN SS
PARKWAY BASIN SS
MANCHESTER SS
THURMONT SS
WESTERN BRANCH WWT
AMESBURY SS
PELLERICA SS
DOUGLAS SS
MANCHESTER SS
ROCKPORT SS
GENESSE COUNTY SS
FRANKENMUTH SS
GRANOVILLF SS
HARBOR SPRINGS SS
HASTINGS S S
IONIA SS
PETERSBURG WWTP
3141
6898
11000
1711
75000
2771
2000
30000
10000
40000
17000
150000
300000
53000
2200
29000
3080
9394
53000
18412
66SOO
89689
215000
13000
104000
32500
8000
35800
33800
1500
3000
75400
12500
12000
2100
3500
4500
100000
3800
18000
5500
6500
12000
1200
0.0
1.5
1.7
0.2
99999.0
0.7
0.6
7.1
1.2
7.1
0.4
99999.0
14.8
3.5
1.5
4.0
l.b
0.1
99999.0
16.0
99999.0
63.0
100.0
0.0
33.5
0.0
12.9
0.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
2.9
0.0
0.1
0.0
7.B
18.0
0.4
1.0
10.0
0.0
4.0
2.0
TOTAL LENGTH Of
FORCE MAIN (MI)
0.0
0.7
3.0
0.1
99999.0
0.3
0.5
4.9
0.4
1.5
0.1
2.0
3.0
4.0
0.0
11.0
3.0
5.0
25.0
2.0
35.0
28.0
28.0
0.0
1.9
2.5
7.6
0.0
0.8
0.6
1.0
0.5
R.O
14.0
0.5
0.8
4.0
3.0
1.0
0.0
11.0
0.1
0.5
2.0
PINCONNINd
PORT HURON
TRAVERSE CITY
TRENTON
WARREN
WYOMING
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
PINCONNING ss
PORT HURON SS
TRAVERSE
TRENTON SS
WARREN SS
WYOMING SS
1500
55000
21000
25000
167000
100000
0.8
88.0
8.0
31.0
48.0
4.0
0.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
0.0
1.0
A-20
-------
CITY
ZEELAND
ALEXANDRIA
AUSTIN
DETROIT LAKES
ELK RIVER
FARI8AULT
MANKATO
MOORHEAD
NOHTHFIELD
ROCHESTER
TWO HARBORS
WILLHAR
Ml NONA
GREENVILLE
HATTIESBURG
PICAYUNE
COLUMBIA
MEXICO
8ELLEVUE
COLUMBUS
FALLS CITY
FREMONT
GIBBON
GRAND ISLAND
HASTINGS
KEARNEY
LINCOLN
NEWMAN GROVE
SUPERIOR
YORK
BAYVILLE
BELFORD
BIRMINGHAM
BRIDGEPORT
EAST WINDSOR
ELIZABETH
HACKETTSTOWN
LAMBERTVILLE
LAWRENCEVILLE
LONG BRANCH
LONGVVALLFY
MARTON
MATAWAN
MEOFORD
STATE
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSISSIPPI
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
FACILITY NAME SERVICE TOTAL LENGTH OF
POPULATION GRAVITY SEWERS (MI)
ZEELAND SS
ALEXANDRIA SS
AUSTIN SS
DETROIT LAKES SS
ELK RIVER SS
FARIBAULT SS
MANKATO SS
MOORHEAD SS
NORTHFIELO SS
ROCHESTER SS
TWO HARBORS SS
WILLMAR SS
W I NONA SS
GREENVILLE SS
HATTIESBURG SS
PICAYNE SS
COLUMBIA COLLECTOR
MEXICO COLL.
BELLEVUE SS
COLUMBUS
FALLS CITY SS
FREMONT SS
GIBBON SS
GRAND ISLAND SS
HASTINGS SS
KEARNEY SS
LINCOLN SS
NEWMAN GROVE SS
SUPERIOR SS
YORK SS
OCEAN COUNTY SS
TWP MIOOLFTOWN SS
PEMBERTON TWP SS
LOGAN TWP SS
£ WINDSOR MUA SS
JOINT MEETING SS
HACKETTSTOWN SS
LAMBERTVILLE SS
EWING-LAWRENCE SS
LONG BRANCH bS
WASHINGTON TWP SS
EVESTROM TWP SS
ABERDEEN TWP SS
MEDFORO TWP SS
5300
12000
26000
7500
2400
16000
45000
35000
12783
70000
4437
20000
25000
55000
45000
12000
59850
13000
10500
18000
5440
26000
1500
32000
25000
30000
180000
863
3512
7500
240273
65000
14000
2300
22000
500000
13600
7000
65000
34000
Z412
20000
17420
15500
2.0
99999.0
14.6
5.3
1.6
6.6
7.5
19.6
1.5
3.7
99999.0
9.9
24.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.3
1.4
9.9
2.7
0.5
0.0
0.3
8.5
99999.0
1.2
10.3
0.0
4.7
0.4
0.0
3.0
24.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.9
21.0
12.0
0.4
4.0
5.0
3.0
TOTAL LENGTH OF
FORCE MAIN (MI)
4.0
29.0
4.0
99999.0
0.3
0.6
1.5
5.0
0.2
1.4
99999.0
1.0
3.5
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.5
2.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.1
40.0
6.0
6.0
10.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
20.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
7.0
OAKHURST
SAYREVILLE
TOMS RIVER
WILLINGBORO
LAS VEGAS
RATON
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
TWP OF OCEAN SS
MIDDLESEX CO SS
DOVER SEW AUTH SS
WILLINGBORO SS
LAS VEGAS SS
RATON SS
35000
600000
60000
56450
14000
9000
9.0
120.0
8.0
5.0
0.0
0.7
3.0
4.0
18.0
2.0
0.2
0.4
A-21
-------
CITY
TAOS
AMHERST
APALACHIN
BATAVIA
BATH
CANTON
CAYUGA H6TS
DELMAR
E.ROCKAWAY
ELM IRA
JAMESTOWN
LOWVILLE
ORANGEBURG
OYSTER BAY
PENN YAN
POUGHKEEPSIE
SARANAC LAKE
SPENCERPORT
STONY POINT
SUFFERN
WEBSTER
ALBEMARLE
GREENSBORO
GREENVILLE
MAXTON
PEMBROKE
RALEIGH
ROCK INCH AM
WASHINGTON
BARBERTON
BEDFORD
BELLEFONTAINE
COLUMBUS
DAYTON
HEATH
LOGAN
NEWARK
RAVENNA
SIDNEY
SIDNEY
TROY
BLACKWELL
HENRYETTA
IDABEL
STATE
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NF.W YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
FACILITY NAME SERVICE TOTAL LENGTH OF
POPULATION GRAVITY SEWERS (Ml)
TAOS SS
AMHERST S.S.
OWEGO * 2 S.S.
BATAVIA S.S.
BATH S.S.
CANTON SEW SYS
CAYUGA HGTS S.S.
BETHLEHEM S.S.
SEWAGE DIS.DIST NO
CHEMUNG CO SO »1 S
JAMESTOWN S.S.
LOWVILLE SEW. SYS
ORANGETOWN SEW SYS
OYSTER BAY S.S.
PENN YAN S.S
ARLINGTON SEW SYS
SARANAC LAKE SEW S
SPENCERPORT S.S.
STONY POINT SEW SY
SEWER SYSTEM
WEBSTER S.S.
LONG CHEEK SS
GREENSBORO SS
GREENVILLE WWTP
MAXTON WWTP
PEMBROKE WWTP
RALEIGH SS
ROCKINGHAM SS
WASHINGTON MUM WTP
BARBERTON SS
BEDFORD SS
BELLEFONTAINE SS
COLUMBUS SEWERAGE
DAYTON SEWERS
HEATH SS
LOGAN SS
NEWARK SEWERS
RAVENNA SS
SIDNEY SEWERAGE SY
SIDNEY SS
TROY SS
BLACKWELL SS
HENRYETTA SS
IDABEL SS
3000
60000
7500
19500
6530
10000
7200
18000
558*00
16090
40000
3800
70000
7500
5200
23000
10000
5000
9000
11000
7000
14000
196000
33000
2500
4000
188334
10100
8900
35300
16500
13000
865000
317000
8020
6000
43000
12000
17000
18000
18000
8645
7500
12000
0.0
25.0
10.0
12.0
0.1
1.2
0.0
23.6
47.0
2.2
43.0
1.0
25.0
1.6
0.5
11.0
12.0
0.0
1.0
2.2
0.0
0.5
23.0
99999.0
99999.0
0.0
45.0
17.2
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
2.5
1.2
0.0
0.0
5.9
6.4
11.6
0.2
99999.0
2.0
TOTAL LENGTH OF
FORCE MAIN (MI)
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.0
2.5
0.3
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
14.0
3.2
0.0
0.7
0.0
3.4
7.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.0
3.1
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.4
11.0
MUSKOGEE
NORMAN
OKLAHOMA CITY
OKMULGEE
PONCA CITY
TULSA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
MUSKOGEE SS
NORMAN SS
OKLAHOMA CITY SS
OKMULGEE SS
PONCA CITY SS
TULSA SS
40000
63000
500000
20000
30000
380071
26.5
2.0
6.0
2.8
3.3
162.0
1.6
8.0
2.0
2.0
0.5
3.0
A-22
-------
CITY
CLATSKANIE
COTTAGE GROVE
DALLAS
OEPOE BAY
EUGENE
FOREST GROVE
HILLSBORO
HJLLSBORO
OTTER ROCK
PORTLAND
SALEM
THE OALLtS
TJGARO
TILLAMOOK
ALLENTOWN
BETHLEHEM
CENTER VALLEY
CHAMBERSBURG
HATFIELH
HERSHEY
LEBANON
LEMOYNE
LITITZ
MECHANKSBURG
POTTSTOWN
SPRINGETTSflURY
WILLOW GROVF.
EAST PROVIDENCE
WARWICK
BATESBURG
COLUMBIA
ROCK HILL
UNION
CUSTER
RAPID CITY
YANKTON
CEMTERVILLE
CLEVELAND
OICKSON
FAYETTEVILLE
FRANK IN
HUNTINGDON
KNOXVILLE
HARYVILLE
STATE
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PtNNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TFNNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TFNNESSEE
FACILITY NAME SERVICE TOTAL LENGTH OF
POPULATION GRAVITY SEWERS (MJ)
CLATSKANIE SS
COTTAGE 6ROVE SS
DALLAS SS
DEPOE BAY SS
EUGENE SS
FOREST GROVE SS
HiLLseoRo WEST ss
HILLSBORO SS
OTTER CREST INN SS
INVERNESS SS
SALEM SS
THE DALLES SS
TIGARD SS
TILLAMOOK SS
KLINE'S ISLAND WWT
BETHLEHEM WWTP
UPPER SAUCON TwP W
CHAMBERSBURG WWTP
HATFIELD TWP AWT
DERRY TOWNSHIP SS
LEBANON SS
LEMOYNE BORO JT . A
LITITZ STP
MECHANICSBURG STP
POTTSTOWN SS
SPRINGETTSBURY TwP
U MORELANO-HATBORO
EAST PROVIDENCE SS
WARWICK SS
BATESBURG SS
COLUMBIA SS
ROCK HILL SS
UNION SS
CUSTER SS
RAPID CITY SS
YANKTON SS
CENTERVILLE SS
CLEVELAND SS
DICKSON COLL SYS
FAYETTEVILLE SS
FRANKLIN SS
HUNTINGDON SS
KNOXVILLE SS
MARYVILLE SS
1700
7500
9000
1650
106000
19347
7765
100747
600
10829
138500
16075
120000
4300
179000
100000
9000
17000
10000
20000
32300
16500
7600
9500
33000
48000
30000
40000
13500
4500
200000
32127
11000
2200
60000
15000
2495
30000
9000
8600
10500
4500
163794
5008
0.0
2.1
3.2
8.9
99999.0
6.6
0.0
99999.0
0.5
14.0
0.0
1.1
99999.0
4.2
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.8
0.0
4.1
0.6
4.3
0.0
2.6
3.1
7.4
1.0
13.8
0.0
99999.0
30.0
19.8
0.7
0.0
1.2
5.8
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.1
5.0
1.0
42.5
0.0
TOTAL LENGTH OF
FORCE MAIN (MI)
0.6
0.5
2.0
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
99999.0
0.3
99999.0
99999.0
2.0
99999.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.8
1.0
2.9
0.2
3.0
0.0
3.0
2.7
0.3
2.5
10,0
4.5
4.5
10.0
5.0
1.2
0.0
1.4
1.3
0.6
2.6
1.3
3.2
4.0
0.0
20.0
2.5
NASHVILLE
NASHVILLE
ATHENS
ATHENS
ATHENS
ATHENS
TFNNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
TFXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
WHITES CREEK SS
DRY CREEK SS
ATHENS N COLL SYS
ATHENS W COLL SYS
ATHENS WEST SS
ATHENS NORTH SS
50000
25000
4000
9200
9200
4000
31.6
4.3
0.9
2.3
2.3
0.4
12.0
11.0
0.1
1.7
1.7
0.1
A-23
-------
CITY
BAYTOWN
BAYTOWN
BROWNSVILLE
CONROt
COPPELL
EVLESS
GALVESTON
GEORGETOWN
HITCHCOCK
HUNTSVULE
IRVING
LEWISVILLE
PORT ARTHUR
TEXAS CITY
COTTONWOOO
PROVO
SALT LAKE CITY
CHESTERFIELD
DANVILLE
FREDERICKSflURG
LEXINGTON
MANASSAS PARK
PETERSBERG
PORTSMOUTH
RIDGEWAY
BELLEVUE
BLAINE
80THELL
BURLINGTON
EAST WENATCHEE
OMAK
PASCO
SEORO WOOLLt'Y
SELAH
TUKWILA
WESTPORT
BECKLEY
BELLE
GLENVILLE
BROOKFIELD
GERMANTOWN
GRAFTON
JANESVILLE
LACROSSE
STATE
TEXAS
TFXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TFXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
UTAH
UTAH
UTAH
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WF.ST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
FACILITY NAME SERVICE TOTAL LENGTH OF
POPULATION GRAVITY SEWERS (MI)
EAST DISTRICT SS
CENTRAL OIST SS
BROWNSVILLE COLL S
CONROE SS
SEWAGE COLLECTORS
EVLESS WiS SYSTEM
SEWAGE COLLECTION
GEORGETOWN WWTP
HITCHCOCK SS
HUNTSVILLF SS
IRVING COLLECTION
WW COLLECTION SYS
PORT ARTHUR SS
TEXAS CITY SS
COTTONWOOO SS
PROVO SS
SLC SUBURBAN SS
CHESTERFIELD CO SS
DANVILLE SEW SYS
FREDERICKS8URG SS
LEXINGTON SS
UPPER OCCOQUAN SO
PETERSBEH6 SS
PINNER'S POINT SS
MARTINSVILLE SO
BELLEVUE COLL SYS
WHATCOM CTY DIST *
BOTHELL COLL SYS
BURLINGTON SS
EAST WENATCHEE SS
CITY OF OMAK SS
PASCO SS
SEDHO WOOLLEY SS
SELAH SS
TUKWILA COLL SYS
WESTPORT SS
N BECKLEY PUB SERV
BELLE SD
GLENVILLE SD
FOX RIVER SS
GERMANTOWN SS
GRAFTON SEWERS
JANESVILLF SS
LACROSSE SS
24000
£4450
48135
30000
835
27000
60000
10000
5700
33000
115244
33000
69000
43000
80000
60000
151000
60000
108000
28000
7600
70000
76000
92393
22000
18228
10000
5120
3500
8500
4081
17000
4000
4300
3000
1560
5000
3000
2900
18000
6819
8434
50000
68428
87.0
205.0
0.0
99999.0
0.0
3.0
21.0
0.8
0.5
99999.0
5.0
6.0
44.0
99999.0
0.2
0.0
1.7
10.5
99999.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
34.0
199.0
0.0
0.0
13.2
0.0
12.0
0.0
0.5
7.1
0.2
2.8
0.0
9.8
99999.0
99999.0
99999.0
99999.0
3.3
4.5
0.0
99999.0
TOTAL LENGTH OF
FORCE MAIN (MI)
99999.0
99999.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
2.0
8.0
0.0
5.0
9.0
0.5
0.3
0.0
1.0
14.0
3.0
35.0
0.3
6.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.5
1.5
0.0
8.8
1.6
4.0
0.5
99999.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
MADISON
MANITOWOC
MENOMONIE
MERRILL
MILWAUKEE
OSHKOSH
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
MADISON SS
MANITOWOC SS
MENOMONIE SS
MERRILL SS
SOUTH SHORE SS
OSHKOSH SS
225000
34000
15000
9500
212100
54100
208.0
1.8
2.9
0.0
37.5
17.0
22.0
0.7
0.5
0.0
0.7
4.6
A-24
-------
CITY
RACINE
RICHLAND CENTER
ROTHSCHILD
so MILWAUKEE
STURGEON RAY
SUPERIOR
TOMAH
WATERTOWN
WAUKESHA
WAUKESHA
WAUSAU
WISCONSIN OELLS
CASPER
JACKSON
KEMMERER
RIVERTON
ROCK SPRINGS
TETON VILLAGE
THERMOPOLIS
STATE
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
WYOMING
WYOMING
WYOMING
WYOMING
WYOMING
WYOMING
FACILITY NAME SERVICE TOTAL LENGTH OF
POPULATION GRAVITY SEWERS (MI)
NORTH PARK SS
RICHLANO CENTER SE
ROTHSCHILO SS
SO MILWAUKEE SS
STURGEON *AY SS
SUPERIOR SS
TOMAH SS
WATERTOWN SEWERS
WAUKESHA SEWERS
WAUKtSHA SS
WAUSAU bS
WISCONSIN OELLS SS
CASPER SS
JACKSON SS
KEMMEKtK SS
rtlVERTOlM SS
ROCK SWINGS SS
TETON VILLAGE SS
THERMOPOLIS ss
10000
5100
5000
23*87
7000
32000
5700
16000
49500
50000
40000
3000
51000
6000
3700
12000
25960
1212
6300
8.2
4.0
0.0
4.9
0.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
27.0
14.4
3.0
6.0
2.8
4.3
99999.0
0.0
99999.0
0.5
99999.0
TOTAL LENGTH OF
FORCE MAIN (MI)
4.0
1.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.0
2.0
2.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.2
0.2
A-25
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
1. REPORT NO.
EPA 430/9-81-004
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
for Municipal Wastewater Facilities
Technical Report
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
September 1981
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
U.S. EPA/OW/OWPO/FRD/PNAB
. AUTHOR(S)
Dr. R. Sage Murphy
Dr. Wen H. Huang
Dr. Millard W. Hall
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Sage Murphy & Associates, Inc.
910 16th Street, Ste 420
Denver, Colorado 80202
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
B54B2G
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-5107
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of the latest and most comprehensive effort
to obtain and analyze O&M costs for wastewater treatment works. It summarizes
data from more than 900 treatment plants and almost 500 conveyance systems
throughout 40 of the 48 contiguous United States, including all ten EPA
regions. Included is information on administrative costs, sludge handling
costs, and staffing.
The basic information for this report was obtained from visits to selected
sites, and from earlier studies. This basic information was combined into a
simple data base, and examined for relationships between total O&M costs,
facility design parameters and plant operation parameters. These relationships
were developed for the general national level and, where possible, for smaller
geographic units. Where appropriate in analyzing the data, total O&M costs were
reduced to their major components.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS /This Report)
non-sensitive
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
non-sensitive
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
U. b. GOVERNMENT PRINTING DFFICE 1981 - 777-002/1103 Reg. 8
------- |