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

-------