REPORT TO THE CONGRESS
 QOSTS OF CONSTRUCTION 0F
PUBLICLY-OWNED WASTEWA1SR
      TREATMENT WORKS

      1973 "Needs" Survey
         Prepared Pursuant to
   Sections 205 and 516, Public Law 92-600
Revised November, 1973
U.S. invifonmeotal Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460

-------

-------
                            PREFACE
     This report presents the results of a Nationwide survey
conducted to obtain an estimate of the cost of construction of
publicly-owned treatment works needed in each State and the Nation
as a whole.  It is submitted in compliance with Section 516(b)(2)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
The survey was designed so that the results could be used by Congress
to allocate among the States the funds authorized for municipal
treatment works after Fiscal Year 1974, as required by Section 205(a)
of the 1972 Act.

     The original version of this report was transmitted to Congress
on October 12, 1973.  The text has not been changed, but the tables
have been corrected in this revision to convey more accurately the
survey results.

-------

-------
                            PREFACE
     This report presents the results of a Nationwide survey
conducted to obtain an estimate of the cost of construction of
publicly-owned treatment works needed in each State and the Nation
as a whole.  It is submitted in compliance with Section 516(b)(2)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
The survey was designed so that the results could be used by Congress
to allocate among the States the funds authorized for municipal
treatment works after Fiscal Year 1974, as required by Section 205(a)
of the 1972 Act.

     The original version of this report was transmitted to Congress
on October 12, 1973.  The text has not been changed, but the tables
have been corrected in this revision to convey more accurately the
survey results.

-------

-------
                              CONTENTS


  PREFACE                                                     Page i

  CONTENTS                                                    Page 1

  TABLES                                                      Page 2

  I.   EXPLANATION OF THE SURVEY                               Page 3

      1.  Guidelines for Costs of Facilities Reported

      2.  The Concept of "Needs"

      3.  Conduct of the Survey

 II.   LIMITATIONS OF THE SURVEY                               Page 6

      1.  Level  of Treatment

      2.  Infiltration/Inflow

      3.  Combined Sewer Overflows

      4.  Validity of Submitted Estimates

      5.  Flow Reduction

      6.  Inadequacy for Funding  Decisions

III.   SURVEY RESULTS AND POSSIBLE ALLOCATION FORMULAE         Page 9

      1.  Considerations of Equity

      2.  Formula Based on  Costs  for Treatment Plants and Interceptors

      3.  Formula Based on  All  Five  Categories of Facilities

      4.  Special Consideration for  District of Columbia's Treatment  Facility

  APPENDIX A.   INELIGIBLE COSTS REPORTED BY THE STATES        Page A-l

  APPENDIX B.   REASONS 1973 SURVEY RESULTS  ARE HIGHER THAN    Page B-l
               PREVIOUS "NEEDS" ESTIMATES

  APPENDIX C.   SURVEY METHODOLOGY                             Page C-l

  APPENDIX D.   SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE                            Page D-l

-------

-------
                             TABLES


1.   State Percentage of National  Costs Reported for Construction of
    Treatment Plants and Interceptors	Page  11

2.   Costs Reported for Construction of Publicly-Owned Wastewater
    Treatment Facilities	Page 12

3.   State Percentage of National  Costs Reported for Construction of
    Publicly-Owned Treatment Facilities	Page 13

4.   Per Capita Costs Reported for Construction of Publicly-Owned
    Treatment Facilities, Based on 1972 Population and Projected
    1990 Population	Page 14

5.   Total Costs Reported by States for Construction of Publicly-Owned
    Treatment Facilities, Classified as to Eligibility Under Survey
    Guidelines	Appendix  A

-------

-------
I.  EXPLANATION OF THE SURVEY

    1.  Guidelines for Costs of Facilities Reported.  In conformance with
Section 516(b)(2) of the 1972 Act, the 1973 Survey asked local authorities
to report the costs for construction of municipal treatment and collection
facilities which were eligible for Federal funding under the 1972 Act and
the guidelines published by EPA for construction grants, and met definitions
and criteria established in the survey and outlined below.   Costs of
facilities funded with a Federal construction grant before  August 1973
were excluded.

    Costs were reported for facilities in five categories,  two for
treatment and three for sewer systems, defined as follows:

    Category I - Secondary Treatment Required by 1972 Act.   This category
includes costs for facilities which would provide a legally required
level of "secondary" treatment.  All municipal treatment facilities
as a minimum are required under the 1972 Act to reduce bio-chemical
oxygen demand, suspended solids and fecal coliforms by July 1, 1977
to at least the level established by EPA in its definition  of "secondary"
treatment.  This level of treatment meets or exceeds the requirements
of water quality standards for many waterways.  Facilities  along some
waterways are required, however, to reduce these types of pollutants
still further to meet water quality standards.  The costs for this
additional "secondary" treatment are also included in category I.

    Category II - Treatment "More Stringent" Than Secondary Required
    by Hater Quality Standards.  This includes costs for facilities
which would remove pollutants such as phosphorus, ammonia,  nitrate
and organic substances to the extent required by legally binding Federal,
State or local actions.  Such actions include an EPA-approved water
quality plan, an administrative or court order, a license,  and water
quality standards which are binding on the treatment facility.  These
costs are in addition to those for secondary treatment reported in
category I.

    Category III - Rehabilitation of Sewers to Correct Infiltration and Inflow.
Costs could be reported in this category for a preliminary  analysis
to determine if excessive infiltration and inflow exist.  If such an analysis
was completed by the time of the survey and showed that they did exist,
the expense of a detailed evaluation of the cost of rehabilitation of
the sewer system could be reported.           If such an evaluation
was already completed at the time of the survey, the costs  of facilities
recommended by the evaluation to correct the infiltration and inflow
could be reported.

-------

-------
    Category IV - New Sewers.  This category consists of the costs of new
collector and interceptor sewers designed to correct violations caused
by raw discharges, seepage to waters from septic tanks and the like,
and/or to comply with legally binding Federal, State or local
actions.  As provided in the 1972 Act, costs could be reported only
if the community had sufficient existing or planned capacity to
treat adequately the collected sewage, and only for communities
existing prior to enactment of the 1972 Amendments (collectors for
new communities, new subdivisions and newly developed urban areas
were excluded).

    Category V - Correction of Overflows from Combined Sewers.  Costs
could be reported, when required by legally binding Federal, State or
local action, for correcting periodic bypassing of untreated wastes
from combined sanitary and storm sewers.  The alternative methods
for correction must have been evaluated, however, and the reported
costs based on the most economical and/or efficient alternative.

     The costs for facilities reported in each category were subject
to three overall constraints:

     a.  June, 1973 dollars.  All costs were to be expressed in June,
1973 dollars.

     b.  1990 Population.  Costs were to be estimated in the survey
for facilities which would be designed to serve no more than the  1990
population projected for each State by the Department of Commerce in
its "series E" projection published in December, 1972.

     The "series E" projection is based on the most recent estimates
of future growth in the United States, and reflects the decline in
the Nation's fertility rate during the last few years.

     Each State was asked to determine how its projected 1990 population
would be distributed among its geographical areas.  EPA assisted by
providing each State a county-by-county break-out of the "series  E"
projection from the Commerce Department.  The States, however, could
accept or modify the county-by-county projections as they saw fit.
Only the total projected 1990 population for the State was binding.
It could not be exceeded by the combined total of all population
reported as living in the service areas of all the treatment authorities
in a State, although non-resident population (primarily commuters)
could be reported as served in addition to the projected resident
population.

     The 1990 projection was chosen as a common constraint on the
time in the future for which costs would be estimated.  No restriction
was placed, however, on when facilities which would serve the 1990
projected population might be built.

-------

-------
     c.  Supporting Information.  The nature, size and cost of facilities
reported in the survey had to be reasonable for the population and
industries to be served.  Costs for treatment facilities had to be
justified by data such as population to be served, wastewater pollutants
and flows expected, and reference to legally required effluent standards.
Costs for collection facilities had to be supported by data such as
population to be served, pipe sizes and lengths, and special problems
with construction and design.  Costs reported for correction of
problems created by combined sewers had to be justified by special
analyses and evaluations which had previously been completed.  This
supporting information was the minimum necessary to determine if
the facilities and costs reported were reasonable and met the other
guidelines for the survey.

     2.  The Concept of "Needs".  To provide a common basis for
reporting costs in the survey and for screening out any inflated
costs which would potentially increase the allocation unfairly of
one or more States, the survey was restricted to those costs and
facilities which were eligible for Federal assistance and which
could be clearly defined and documented with information to justify
the size, cost and nature of the facilities reported.

     The consequence of the decision to limit the scope of the survey
was that some types of facilities eligible for Federal assistance under
the 1972 Act were entirely excluded.  Primary among them were treatment
works which would achieve "best practicable treatment technology" and
the 1985 goal of "zero discharge,"and facilities for the prevention,
control and treatment of pollution from stormwaters which do not
flow through combined sewers.  Study of these concepts had not reached
the point where clear definitions and criteria for them could be
established.  Since a variety of options exists for meeting each
goal of the Act, cost-effective evaluations are required before rational
choices can be made and reasonable cost estimates developed.  The costs ~7>
reported in the survey would have been far greater if all the facilities ^
potentially eligible under the 1972 Act could have been defined and     j
included in the survey.

     3.  Conduct of the Survey.  An EPA task force designed the 1973
survey from December 1972 through May 1973 with the help of the EPA
Regional Offices and State officials.  In June the State Water Pollution
Control Agencies mailed survey questionnaires supplied by EPA to
municipal authorities which could be identified in Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas, in Cities larger than 10,000 outside SMSAs, and in at
least a sample of places smaller than 10,000 and outside SMSAs.   The
questionnaires were completed from June through August, in most cases
by the local treatment authorities with the advice and assistance of
State officials.  Some of the questionnaires were completed by State
officials with information supplied by the local authorities.  The
completed forms were then reviewed by the States, approved Qnd sent

-------
to EPA.  After EPA's review, the questionnaires were coded and sent
to the Census Bureau wPiere the data were computerized and tabulated
for this report.

     EPA reviewed every questionnaire to determine if facilities and costs
reported fell within the survey guidelines and were justified by required
data.  Shortcomings were frequently corrected by discussing them
and reaching an agreement with State officials.  In some cases EPA's
and a State's estimate of costs for particular facilities could not
be reconciled and EPA prepared a separate, amended questionnaire with
its estimate.  (A more detailed description of review procedures is in
Appendix C.)

     All costs reported on survey questionnaires were coded during
processing to indicate whether they were prepared by EPA, or a State
or local authority, and whether or not they met the guidelines of
the survey.  Costs coded as eligible are reported in Section III.  All
costs reported on questionnaires from the States (both eligible
and ineligible under the guidelines) are included in Appendix A.

II.  LIMITATIONS OF THE SURVEY

     Costs reported for the Nation as a whole are only indicative of
the large costs of providing the kinds of facilities included in the
scope of the survey.  They are of little use for decisions about the
appropriate level and rate of Federal funding for construction of
municipal facilities.

     The detailed definitions and criteria for costs and facilities
which could be reported in the survey were meant to provide a common
basis for the estimates of costs from each State, and make possible the
reconciliation of the State estimates to produce valid ratios for
allocation of Federal funds among the States.  Paradoxically, however,
these criteria and limitations in practice permitted some States to
report large costs in some categories but kept other States from
doing so.  Therefore jin jillpcatioji formula based on costs reported for
all five categories of facilities would be unfair to a large number of
States.

     1.  Level of Treatment.  Costs reported in categories I and II for
treatment plants do not reflect the costs of additional treatment which
will have to be provided in many river basins after all States complete
the revisions to water quality standards now underway pursuant to the
1972 Act.  An allocation formula based on categories I and II would favor
States which adopted high standards early over those that did not, even

-------

-------
 though they may be  planning  to soon.   To  give  a  few  examples,  California's
 standards  limiting  the  amount of  heavy metals  which  can  be  in  the  effluent
 discharged through  deep ocean outfalls are  estimated to  add several
 hundred million dollars to the costs  it reported.  Oregon's requirements
 for a higher degree of  treatment  than secondary  as defined  by  EPA
 increased  by a  substantial percentage the costs  it reported for
 treatment.

      2.   Infiltration/Inflow.   Relatively few  cities had completed
 the studies required in the  survey  to support  cost estimates for
 facilities in category  III.   Estimated costs for sewer rehabilitation
 will  increase rapidly as municipal  authorities evaluate  infiltration
 and inflow into existing sewers and determine  the costs  of  reducing
 or eliminating  it  (such an evaluation is  now a condition for obtaining  -^
 a Federal  construction  grant for  municipal  facilities).   Costs reported
 in category III are thus only a fraction  of the  amount local communities
 will  ultimately have to spend to  rehabilitate  sewers.

      Sewer rehabilitation can be  undertaken in accordance with Federal
 guidelines only if  the  evaluation determines that it costs  less than
 construction, operation and  maintenance of  that  portion  of  facilities
 necessary  to transport  and treat  the  extra  flow  of wastewater  resulting
 from infiltration and inflow.   Future increases  in identified  costs for
 category III should result in comparable  savings in  reported costs for
 categories I and II (treatment),  and  should not  increase the total costs
 for facilities  reported in the survey.

      3.   Combined Sewer Overflows.  Costs reported in category V for
 facilities to reduce pollution from combined sewer overflows also
 reflect only a  fraction of the total  expenditures which  could  have
 been justified  nationally under the survey  guidelines if more  cities
 had completed the required studies.   EPA  estimates by rough extrapolation
 of the few studies  available to date  that costs  for  facilities to  reduce
 by 50 - 85% of  the  major pollutant  concentrations in combined  sewer
 overflows  throughout the country  would cost from $40 - 80 billion.
 The total  costs for facilities in all five  categories included in  the
 survey would therefore  have  been  roughly  double  what was actually
 reported if all the treatment authorities with combined  sewer  systems
 had completed the studies required  to report costs in category V.  An "/
..allocation formula  based in  part  on costs reported in category V would  ,-
 favor unfairly  those States  with  large cities  which  had  completed  the J
 necessary  studies to report  costs in  this category.

      4.   Validity of Submitted Estimates.  Another limitation  of the
 survey is  a consequence of the general  understanding among  the States

-------

-------
while the survey was being conducted that Federal construction grant
funds were to be allocated according to the survey results.   The
States had a strong incentive, and many were inclined to report the
highest costs possible and to report costs for all facilities which
conceivably might be eligible under the survey guidelines, even if
there was considerable doubt.

     EPA coded as ineligible the most obviously inflated costs and costs
for facilities which clearly fell outside the scope of the survey.  States
were in general given the benefit of the doubt, however, if costs
reported were questionable but not clearly out of line.   This policy
meant that the costs reported for the country as a whole are higher
than they would have been if there were incentives to keep the costs
down,  M allocation formula based on the survey results would be
unfair to those States which tried to follow the survey guidelines,
and favor those which were less attentive.

     Costs for new collector sewers in category IV presented the greatest
problem in this respect.  Pursuant to the requirements of the 1972 Act
and the survey guidelines, costs were to be reported only for communities
in existence at the time of enactment of the 1972 law, and only for
violations due to raw discharges or seepage to waterways or the like.
Review of the survey questionnaires nevertheless revealed that many
States reported costs for sewering a large proportion of their current
population now using septic tanks, and for providing sewers for increased
population which would inhabit new communities.  A substantial proportion
of these costs are undoubtedly beyond the scope of the survey, but in
many cases sufficient evidence did not exist to code the costs as
ineligible without running the risk of being unfair.

     5.  Flow Reduction.  States did not have any incentive to reduce
the costs reported to take account of savings obtainable from techniques
for recycling or reducing flows from municipal and industrial sources.
These savings would effect facilities of all types included in the survey.
Planning regulations and guidelines,to be promulgated by EPA pursuant
to the provisions of the 1972 Act, will require that municipal authorities
consider a wide array of such techniques.

     6.  Inadequacy for Funding Decisions.  The large cost estimates reported
on the survey raise obvious questions about Federal funding for the
construction grants program, but do not provide a basis for decision
making on the future role of the Federal Government in financing municipal
treatment facilities, or the level of Federal funding which should be provided.

-------

-------
Several considerations outside the scope of the survey should be
addressed as well as the limitations of the survey itself when making
decisions about Federal assistance for construction of municipal
treatment works.  Primary among them is the contribution the facilities
reported in each category would make to improving water quality.  Money
spent"on treaJieHt and interceptors (categories I, II and part of IV     '
in the survey) would in general bring about more reduction of pollutants \
per dollar than funds spent on collector systems or stormwater           S
overflows.

     Alternative methods for financing new construction should also be
considered and will be addressed in the financing study to be submitted
pursuant to Section 317 of the 1972 Act.  As required, the study will
consider a wide variety of alternative financing schemes and will
recommend appropriate roles for the Federal, State and local governments.

     Several constraints should also be taken into account when considering
 unding levels and rates.  They include the inadequate pool of trained
manpower available to operate new facilities, the rising costs and limited
supplies of energy to run facilities, the limited capacity of the construction
industry to expand operations during the short run in some areas, the
inability of some communities to provide matching funds, and the impact on
the National budget and economy.

III.  SURVEY RESULTS AND POSSIBLE ALLOCATION FORMULAE

     1.  Considerations of Equity.  The most important factors which
ideally would be considered when determining an equitable formula for
allocation of Federal funds for municipal facilities include the serious-
ness, nature and extent of the pollution problem, natural conditions, popu-
lation, local construction costs, capacity to utilize funds wisely,
and level of previous effort.  The approach used in the 1973 survey takes
account of all these factors except the last two: It gives little
indication of capacity to use funds wisely, and in general penalizes
those States with a high level of previous effort.

     The major problem with the survey is that in practice it had several
serious-limitations (discussed in Section II) which could result in
inequities if used for an allocation formula.  These inequities would be
considerably reduced if costs reported for sewer rehabilitation, collector
sewers and reduction of pollution from combined sewer overflows (categories
III, part of IV and V) were eliminated from the calculation.  Some States
would nevertheless be treated unfairly even if the formula is based only
on costs reported for treatment plants and interceptors.  Thus in practice
the survey approach may be a less equitable basis for allocation than
population, or a combination of considerations like population and regional
variations in construction costs.

-------

-------
     2.  Formula Based on Costs for Treatment Plants and Interceptors.
Total costs reported for treatment (categories I and II) and interceptor
sewers (part of category IV) for the entire country were $35.9 billion.
Table I shows costs for each State, and each State's percentage of the
National costs for these types of facilities.

     An allocation formula based on this table is considered the most
equitable possible from the survey results.  It would also put the money
where it is likely to do the most good.  As mentioned in Section II,
expenditures for treatment and interceptors would in general reduce
pollutants more per dollar than expenditures for other types of
facilities.  They should therefore usually receive the highest
priority for Federal assistance, and funds would best be allocated
in accordance with this priority.

     3.  Formula Based on Five Categories of Facilities.  The costs reported
in the survey totalled $60.1 billion for all types of facilities.  Table 2
shows by State the total costs and costs in each category reported.
Table 3 shows how an allocation formula would look if based on total
costs reported, or on the costs reported in each separate category.

     Table 4 shows the per capita costs reported by States in all five
categories, based on 1972 population and projected 1990 population.  It
indicates the great differences between basing an allocation formula
on the survey results and basing it on population,which is one of the
factors which might be considered when determining an alternative allocation
formula.

     4.  Special Consideration for District of Columbia's Treatment Facility.
Funding for the District of Columbia's "Blue Plains" water pollution control
plant should be considered in the development of an allocation formula
since the City has only one major treatment plant project and the allocation
formula might not provide adequate funding.
                                10

-------

-------
 TABLE 1
                                           November 1, 1973

              STATE PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL COSTS
REPORTED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT PLANTS AND INTERCEPTORS*
                   (CATEGORIES I, II AND IVa)
                                               COSTS
                                      (Millions of  1973  Dollars)
                                                           PERCENTAGE
REGION I Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
REGION II New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
REGION III Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
West Virginia
Pennsylvania
District of Columbia
REGION IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carol ina
Tennessee
REGION V Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
REGION VI Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Texas
Oklahoma
REGION VII Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
REGION VIII Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
REGION IX Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
American Samoa
Guam
Trust Territories
Wake Island
REGION X Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
wasmngton
4?n
•> fin
761
W)
]K2
HR
2,630
4.165
394
32
201
583
998
323
1.555
52
310
1,590
777
573
223
749
569
467
2.167
542
1,460
538
1,841
486
224
251
66
656
485
421
332
780
141
310
5Q
3(1
40
17(1
3fl
152
4,743
439
?0fi
7
?n
6
n
153
76
286
536
1.1974
0.7240
2.1191
0.9440
0.4511
0.3202
7.3238
11.5985
1.0971
0.0891
0.5597
1.6235
2.7792
0.8995
4.3303
0.1448
0.8633
4.4277
2.1638
1.5957
0.6210
2.0858
1.5845
1.3005
6.0345
1 .5093
4.0657
1.4982
5.1267
1.3534
0.6238
0.6990
0.1838
1 .8268
1.3506
1 .1724
0.9245
2.1721
0.3927
0.8633
0.1643
0.0836
0.1114
0.4734
0.0836
0.4232
13.2080
1.2225
0.5709
0.0195
0.0557
0.0167
-
0.4261
0.2117
0.7964
1 .4926
TOTAL:
                           35,910
                                                                           100.0000
 *Costs  ineligible under the survey guidelines are excluded.  Costs are affected by limitations
 of  survey design, inconsistency in reporting, variations in planning status among States, and
 other variables explained in the report.  Therefore, the costs should not be considered
 indicative of equitable shares for individual States or of total funds required to meet "needs"
 without careful review of the limitations cited in the report.
                                                 11

-------

-------
                                                                                                                    November  1,  1973
TABLE 2
                            COSTS  REPORTED  FOR  CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES*
                                                        (Millions of 1973 dollars)
REGION I Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Vermont
REGION II Hev Jersey 	
New York
	 Virgin Islands 	
REGION III Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
	 Pennsylvania 	 	
	 District of Columbia
REGION IV Alabama
	 Florida 	
	 __Georgia 	
Kentucky
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
REGION V Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
REGION VI Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Texas
Oklahoma
REGION VII Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
REGION VIII Colorada
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
REGION IX Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
American Samoa
Guam
Trust Territories
Wake Island
REGION X Alat .a
Idaho
Oreson
Total Costs
Reported for
Facilities
1.409
J64 	
1,485 	
Ififl
3.382 	
44
329
681
1.345
4.210
,081
2-371 	
1 .031
	 757
695
i.run
. 3.325
1.065
2.833
787
355
451
115
RRQ
fi?4
502
671
972
404
426
74
46
43
225
40
237
fi,n5n
523

8
22
8

205
112
568

of Treatment
Plants to
Achieve Secon-
dary Level
179
124
	 459
	 1Z4 	
	 6J 	
	 55 	
1.458 	
	 13
b4
217
516
884
	 130 	
	 Z42 	
	 1£5 	
	 aa 	
	 326
nra
243
525
310
691
212
17
D4
54
217
?na
236
141
442
121
175
34
17
31
148
20
7fi
•> ion
'222
39
4
17
4

80
40
140

Achieve More
Stringent
Treatment
Levels
46
	 1
51 	
7
16
321
731
7
139
137
	 T33
m
	 ia 	
136
	 84
	 SO 	
1(1
am;
107
115
41
482
45
1

_
4
21
44
24
9
_
20
_
_
3

_
3
1.531
4
119


-
-
_
3
	 -

Of Infiltration/
Inflow
Conditions
18
	 1
	 LI 	
18
4
2
	 T4~
	 4 	
32 	 	
7
	 3 	 	
5
41
,
14
9
34?
13

3

7
f
7
2
3
3
20
1
_
1
1
_

6
-
_
_

_
„


2
IVa-Eligible
New Interceptors
Force Mains,
Pumping Stations
205
T5"2
851
1,878
	 19 	
no
227
345
	 535
ifil
1 699
303
324
237
	 222 	
353
192
8HJ
IB/
668
223
126
157
12
355
256
141
167
329
20
115
25
13
6
22
10
73
1.022
213
47
3
3
2
-
73
33
146

IVb -Costs
of Eligible
New
Collectors
225
532
	 T5? 	
62
208
	 1 	
130
746
200
183
422
91
yy2
163
409
121
130
197
49
225
137
50
316
189
25
74
13
8
2
53
10
86
527
84
22
1
2
2

44
35
130
60,123 16,639 5,650 691 13,621 10,82"5
•Costs ineligible under the survey guidelines are excluded. Costs are af:ected by limitations of survey design, inconsistency In reportin
planning status among States, and other variables explained in the report. Therefore, the costs should not be considered indicative of ea
individual States or of total funds required to meet "needs" without careful revlev of the limitations cited im the report

V-Reduction
of Combined
Sewer
Overflows
736
202
62
127
3
47
157
	 J2 	 1
404
859
.155
541
167
1
,
_
.
_
24
21
-
235
22

8
-

-
.
774
-
-
-
_
-
-
8
_
150
	 243 |
12,697
5, variations in
aitable shares fc

-------
                                                                                                                                        November 1, 1973
                                STATS PFKCENTAGh OF  NATIONAL COSTS KEFOKTED FOR CONSTRUCTION  Of  P'JBLTCLY-OWNED TREATMENT  FACILITIES*
TABLE 3
REGION I Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
Hew Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
REGION II New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
REGION III Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
West Virginia
Pennsylvania
District of Columbia
REGION IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
REGION V Illinois

Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
REGION VI Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Texas
Oklahoma
REGION VII Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
REGION VIII Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
REGION IX Arizona
California
Hawaii
Ne ^ada
American Samoa
Guam
Trust Territories
Wake Island
REGION X Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Total Costs
Reported for
Percentage
2.34
0.61
2.47
0.84
0 61
0.28
5.63
13.36
0.98
0.07
0.55

2.24
1.02
7.00
1 .80
0.74
3.94
1.71
1.72
0 45
1 50
1 ")f>
1 lfi
6.80
1.73
" b.b3
1.77
a. ?i
i ^i
0.59
0.75
0.19
1.48
1.04
0.83


0.67
0.71

0.08
0.07
0 37
0 07
0.39
10.06
0.87
0.38
0.01
0.04
0.01
_
0.34
0 19
0.94
1 80
I-Improvement
Plants to
Achie/f. Secon-
dary Level
1.08

2.76
1.05
0.37
0.39
8 76
9 35
1.02
0.08
0 50
1 30
••j.io 	

5.31
0 01
0 78
4.49
2.03
0.33

2.12
1.96
1.41
6.06
1.46
3.16
1.86
4.15
1.27
0.58
0.56
0.32
1.79
1.25
1 42

2.66

1.05
0 21
0.10
0.19
0.89
0.12
0 46


0.23
< CATEGORIES OF NJEDED 1'ACILIWES
II-CosU to
Stringent
Treatment
Levels
Percentage
0 82
0.02
0.90
0.23
0.12
0.28
5.68
12.94
. - . _._

0.12
2.46
2.42
0.05
2.35

n it
? 51
? 41
1.49
1.06
2.69
n 1 1
,1 1R
U tt
1.89
2 04
0.73
8.53
0.8Q
0.02


0 07
0.37
0 78
0.42

_
0.35

_
! 0.05
_
_
0.05
27.10
0.07
1 2.11
0 02 ! -
0.10 i
0 02 -

0.48 j
0.24
0.84
1 71
TOTAL 100 100
*Costs ineligible under the surv'e^ guidelines are excluded. Cottr
0.05

0.09
Ill-Correction
Inflow
Conditions
Percentage
2.60
0.15
1.59
0.29
0.15
0.15
2.60
1.59
0.29
-
0.58
0.29
1 74
2.03
5.79
0.15
0 59
4 63
1.01
1.30
0.72
0.43
0.72
0.72
5.93
0.43
2.03
1.30
49.49
1 88

0.43

1.01
0.29
1 01
0.29
0.43
0.43
2.89
0.15
_
0 15
0.15
_

0.87







0.15
0 29
IVa-F.ligible
Force Mains,
_^ Pumping Stations
Percentage
1.50





6.25
13.79
1.65

0.81
1.67
2.53
1.64
3.95
0 01
1.18




1.79
1.74
1.64
2,59
1.41
6.02
1.37
4.91
1 .68
0.93
1.15
0.09
2.61
1.88
1.04
1.23
2 42

0.84
0.18
0.10
0.04
0.16
0.07
0.54
7.51
1 .56
0.35
n.o?
n o?
n 01

0.54
0.24
1.07
0 29 ! i RI
IVt-Costs
Collector?
t
Percentage
2.08


0.94


4.91
8.09
1.79
0.11
0.57
0.88
1.92
?.4R
9 4R
o.m
1.20
6.89
1.85
2 71
0.37
1.37
1.69 . _.
1.95
3.90
0.84

1.51
3.78
1.12
1 20
1.82
0.45
2.08
1.27
0.46
2.92
1.75
0.23
0 68
0.12
0 07

0.43
0.09
0.79
4.87
0.78
n m
n.oi
n.n?
0.02

0.41

1 20
2 76
V-Reductlon
Sewer
Overflows
Percentage
5.80


0.51
0.28

1.59
23.47
_
_
0.48
n m
l nn
0.07
12.51
a no

0.02
0,37
1.24
-
-
-
n no
n iQ
3 1R
fi 7fi
?.RQ
1 qn
1 37
0.01
_

.
_
0.19
0.17
_
1.85
0.17
0.0]
0.06

0.01


6. in

_

_
-
-
0.06
-
1.18
1 91
100 10° 100 100 100
are al.ect^d y limitation o~" sur e, debign, incon^i^teic . in reporting, "ariatio-i^ in

-------

-------
                                           TABLE  4
                                                              November 1 ,  1973
       PER CAPITA  COSTS  REPORTED  FOR  CONSTRUCTION OF  PUBLICLY-OWNED TREATMENT  FACILITIES
                   BASED ON  1972  POPULATION AND  PROJECTED  1990  POPULATION  U

REGION I





REGION II



REGION III





REGION IV







REGION V





REGION VI




REGION VII



REGION VIII





REGION IX







REGION X



THTfll •
Total Costs
Reported For 1972
Facilities Population
(Millions of (OOOs)
1973 Dollars)
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
West Virginia
Pennsylvania
District of Columbia
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Texas
Oklahoma
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
American Samoa
Guam
Trust Territories
Wake Island
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington

1.409
364
1 .485
508
367
168
3,382
8.032
• 590
44
329
681
1 ,345
614
4,210
1 ,081
444
2,371
1.031
1.032
268
900
757
695
4,089
1 ,040
3,325
1,065
2,833
787
355
451
115
889
624
502
671
972
404
426
74
46
43
225
40
237
6,050
523
227
8
22
8
0
205
112
566
1 ,080
60,123
3 ,08?
1.029
5.787
771
968
462
7,367
18,366
-
_
565
4,056
4,764
1,781
11.926
748
3,510
7,259
4.720
3.299
2,?63
5,214
2.665
4.031
11,251
5.291
9.082
3.896
10.783
4,520
1,978
3.720
1,063
11.649
2.634
2,883
2,258
4,753
1,525
2,357
719
63?
R79
1,126
345
1 .945
20,468
809
527
-
-
-
-
325
756
2,182
3,443
208,232
Costs per
Capita
(1972 Pop)
$
457
354
257
659
379
364
459
437
_
_
582
168
282
345
353
1,445
126
327
218
313
118
173
284
172
363
197
366
273
263
174
179
" 121 '
108
76
236
174
" 297
205
265
181
' 103
/3
" 63
200
116
122
296
646
431
_
_
_
_
631
148
260
' 314
286
1990
Projected
Population
(OOOs)
1,Qdfi
1,142.__
7,052
907
1,134
536
8,822
21,799
-
-
732
b.OOl
b,yb8
1,811
13,332
764
3,850
9,159
5,667 __
3,741
2,359
5,880
3.023
4.800
13,177
6,433
10,961
4,577
13.202
5.218
2,068
4,159
1,232
13.666
2.942
3,053
2,509
5,488
1,562
2,848
714
firm
643
1 ,293
348
2,500
26,601
962
829
-
-
-
-
408
758
2,493
4.194
246,859
Costs per
Capita
(1990)
$
357
319
211
560
324
313
383
368
.
_
449
136
226
339
316
1,415
115
259
182
276
114
153
250
145
310
162
303
233
215
151
172
108
93
65
212
164
267
177
257
150
104
76
67
174
115
95
??7
544
274

_
_
_
502
148
228
258
241
1]  Costs ineligible under the survey guidelines  are  excluded.   Costs  are  affected by  limitations
of survey design, inconsistency in reporting,  variations  in  planning  status  among States, and
other variables explained in the report.   Therefore,  the  costs  should  not  be considered
indicative of equitable shares for individual  States  or of  total  funds  required  to meet  "needs"
without careful review of the limitations  cited  in  the report.

2]  National per capita cost^ excludes Puerto Rico and Territories.
                                                 14

-------

-------
  APPENDIX A.  INELIGIBLE COSTS REPORTED BY THE STATES

       Table 5 shows total costs reported by the States and divides
  them into those eligible and those ineligible under the survey
  guidelines.  Most or all of the costs reported by the majority
  of the States were considered eligible.  These States for the
  most part agreed to reduce or eliminate the costs which they
  initially reported in the survey and EPA reviewers determined to
  be ineligible.  An allocation formula based on ineligible as well
  as eligible costs would obviously be unfair to these States.

       Kentucky reported a far higher proportion of ineligible costs
  than any other State.  Its estimates were provided in lump sums for
  each category without any supporting data.  The numbers were typed
  on a strip of paper without explanation and pasted on top of each
  questionnaire filled out by municipal authorities in the State.  Most
  of the cost estimates prepared by the local authorities and reported
  and justified inside the forms were found to be eligible, but the       .;
  much higher costs added by the State lacked the required justification.

       Ineligible costs reported in categories III and V explain many
  of the remaining differences between the States' estimates and
  estimates accepted as eligible.  These costs were not supported by
  the studies required in the survey guidelines.  Excessive costs for
  collector sewers also affected the totals for a few States.

       A large part of the differences between State and EPA estimates
  for New York and Kansas can be accounted for by ineligible costs
  reported for new sewers planned to replace old sewers which are
  failing structurally, but are not subject to excessive infiltration/inflow.
 ('Replacement sewers of this sort were not included in the survey
J "Because they are considered to be outside the scope of the municipal
  "grants program.  Over $1.2 billion for replacement sewers was nevertheless
  - included by New York City in its reported costs.  A substantial portion
  of the costs reported by Kansas and determined to be ineligible were
  also for this type of facility.
         V •  -   ,  CM..'  'I* • / <*• '
                                  A-l

-------

-------
                                                              November 1,  1973
                                             TABLE  5
      TOTAL COSTS REPORTED  BY  STATES  FOR  CONSTRUCTION OF  PUBLICLY-OWNED TREATMENT FACILITIES
                     CLASSIFIED  AS  TO ELIGIBILITY  UNDER SURVEY GUIDELINES*
                                   (Millions  of  1973 Dollars)
                                           Total
                                       Costs  Reported
Costs Eligible
Under Survey
Guidelines
Costs Ineligible
  Under Survey
  Guidelines
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine




REGION II

Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico

REGION III
Virgin Islands
Del aware
Mary! and




REGION IV
Virginia
West Virginia
Pennsylvania
District of Columbia
Alabama
Florida



Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
REGION V
1 11 i noi s
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
REGION VI
Arkartsas
Louisiana


New Mexico
Texas
Oklahoma
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
REGION IX


Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
American Samoa
Guam
Trust Territories
Wake Island
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho


TOTAL :
Oregon
Washington
1,436
368
1,486
530
484
170
3.414
9.481
590
44
338
683
1 ,476
615
4,364
1,087
448
2,606
1,053
2,655
269
926
757
773
4,089
1,040
3,325
1,065
2,833
787
356
452
115
889
647
502
783
1,142
475
429
74
48
43
235
40
248
6,063
523
227
8
22
8
-
205
112
584
1 .080
1,409
364
1,485
508
367
168
3.382
8.032
590
44
329
681
1,345
614
4,210
1,081
444
2,371
1 ,031
1,032
268
900
757
695
4,089
1 ,040
3,325
1 ,065
2,833
787
355
451
115
889
624
502
671
972
404
426
74
46
43
225
40
237
6,050
523
227
8
22
8
-
205
112
568
1.080
27
4
1
22
117
2
32
1,449
-
-
9
2
131
1
154
6
4
235
22
1,623
1
26
-
78
_
-
-
-
-
-
1
1
_
_
23

112
170
71
3
-
2
-
10
-
11
13
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
„
1G
_
64,502 60,123 4,379
*Costs are affected by limitations  of survey design,  inconsistency  in  reporting, variations
in planning status among States,  and other  variables  explained  in the  report.  Therefore,
the costs should not be considered  indicative of  equitable  shares for  individual States or
of total  funds reguired to meet "needs"  without careful  review  of the  limitations cited in
the report.
                                                 A-2

-------

-------
APPENDIX B - REASONS 1973 SURVEY RESULTS ARE HIGHER THAN PREVIOUS
             "NEEDS" ESTIMATES
     EPA and FWPCA limited their estimates of "needs" during the
years 1969-1971 to the cost of needed treatment plants and interceptor
sewers.  Costs for facilities of these types were reported in the
1973 survey in categories I and II (treatment) and part of category IV
(interceptors).  Three other types of costs were also included in the
1973 survey, but not previous estimates of needs.  These are the costs
of rehabilitating sewers to reduce infiltration and inflow (category III
in the survey), constructing needed collector sewers (part of category IV),
and correcting overflows of combined sewers (category V).

     Total costs reported in the survey are $60.1 billion, of which
$3.5,9 billion is for treatment plants and interceptors (categories I, II
and part of IV).  This total is considerably higher than previous
estimates of needs.  FWPCA's estimate in 1969 was $10.02 billion.  EPA's
estimates rose from $12.6 billion in 1970 to $18.1 billion in 1971.

     Between the 1971 and 1973 estimates, EPA obligated about $3.6 billion
for municipal treatment facilities from funds appropriated for fiscal
years 1967-1974.  These sizeable obligations met some of the needs identi-
fied in previous estimates, and therefore must be counted as part of the
difference between the 1973 survey results and previous estimates.  A
large proportion ($16.3 billion) of the contract authority provided by
the 1972 Act was not obligated at the time of the survey, however, and
remains available for construction of facilities identified in the 1973
survey.

     The 1973 survey results and previous estimates of needs by EPA and
FWPCA differ primarily for the following reasons:

     1.  New Nationwide Requirements for Secondary Treatment

     The requirement in the 1972 Act that all municipal treatment plants
provide secondary treatment by mid-1977 is a higher standard than many
localities had to meet previously.

     2.  New Requirements to Meet Water Quality Standards

     During the last few years water quality standards for many of the
Nation's waterways have been established, or strengthened where already
established.  The level of secondary treatment necessary to meet these
new standards is sometimes higher than the secondary treatment required
for the Nation as a whole by the 1972 Act.  Special processes also must
often be added to meet standards for pollutants such as phosphorous,
ammonia, nitrates and organic substances.
                              B-l

-------

-------
     3.   Inflation

     The costs of construction have increased rapidly during the last
several  years.  The Engineering News Record's cost index for construction
rose 19.3%, for example, during the two years between the 1971  and 1973
needs surveys.

     4.   More Communities Included

     The States made special efforts to see that the final  survey results
reflected the needs of as many communities as possible.   Coverage was
far more comprehensive than for previous estimates of needs.

     5.   Increasing Attention to Hater Pollution Control  at the Local Level

     The general  interest in improving water quality and the increasingly
stringent Federal, State and local requirements for wastewater treatment
have induced many municipalities during recent years to intensify their
efforts  to estimate needs for treatment facilities.  More and more engineering
studies  have been completed on which detailed estimates  of costs can be based.
                              B-2

-------

-------
APPENDIX C - SURVEY METHODOLOGY


     1.   Background.  Local  estimates of the cost of needed municipal
treatment facilities have been consolidated into overall national
totals almost every year since 1959.  The Conference of State Sanitary
Engineers made an estimate each year from 1959 to 1966 in its annual
report.   The Federal Water Pollution Control Agency and EPA have made
annual estimates since 1969.   The estimates by FWPCA and EPA have been
based on information in their files about existing facilities and
pending needs.  Much of it was assembled and supplied by State Water
Pollution Control Agencies.   EPA supplemented this information in 1970
with two surveys and in 1971  with still another survey of cities with
the largest anticipated needs.

     The approach used in 1973 of surveying most municipal  treatment
and collection authorities has the advantages of obtaining  an up-to-date
assessment of costs for facilities from the local level where costs can
best be calculated, and of providing data about existing and projected
treatment and collection facilities, sewage treated and population served.

     2.   Preparation of the Survey.  The 1973 Survey was prepared and
conducted by an inter-office task force within EPA.  The scope of the
survey was defined, and the questionnaire drawn up over a five-month
period from December 1972 through April 1973, during which  the task
force consulted with representatives from EPA's Regional Offices and
the States in several working sessions.  The questionnaire  went through
many revisions as an effort was made to define terms carefully and
strike a balance between comprehensiveness and comprehensibility.

     3.   Conduct of the Survey.  Several hundred questionnaires were
mailed out in advance to the EPA Regions and all the States so that
they could become familiar with the form and the data which would have
to be collected.  During June a team was sent to each Region to brief
regional personnel who would be responsible for the survey, and at least
one representative from each State.  The briefings included a general
discussion of the survey approach as well as an item by item description
of what was requested on the survey form.

     The task force prepared nine "procedural bulletins" to assist with
the conduct of the survey and provide guidelines for review of the
results.  These bulletins supplemented and clarified the instructions
for completing the survey forms and delineated responsibilities of the
States and EPA Regional Offices for distributing, reviewing, and process-
ing questionnaires.
                              C-l

-------

-------
     States were asked to distribute survey questionnaires to all
municipal treatment authorities which could be identified within
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and all authorities outside
SMSA's serving places of 10,000 or more.  Places of less than 10,000
outside of SMSAs could be sampled, and detailed instructions about
the sampling techniques to be used were provided in a procedural
bulletin.  A total  of 35 States chose to sample, and the costs reported
in the sample were increased in proportion to the ration between popula-
tion in places of less than 10,000 outside SMSAs and the population of
the sampled places.

     Proceduresfor distribution of the questionnaires were described
in a procedural bulletin.  No comprehensive lists of treatment authorities
were available, but EPA provided the States with four partial lists
of authorities to supplement State listings.

     The questionnaires were completed from June through August by the
local  treatment authorities, State Water Pollution Control Agencies or
both working together.

     4.  Review Process.  Municipal treatment authorities sent their
completed questionnaires to the States for review and approval.  The
States were provided guidelines in a procedural bulletin for checking
the completeness and accuracy of the forms.  They were asked to approve
the forms after their review and forward them to the EPA Regions for
further review.  A detailed checklist as well as cost curves were
provided so Regional personnel  could make a quick check of the complete-
ness of the forms and the reasonableness of the costs reported.  Regional
staffs were assisted by personnel from EPA, Washington and reviewers hired
under a contract with TRACOR-JITCO.

     Most problems uncovered by personnel in the Regional Offices were
solved and the questionnaires corrected by telephone conversations with
State personnel.  In some cases EPA personnel traveled to the States for
further discussions.  The Regional Offices submitted a separate cost
estimate in the cases where differences with the State agencies could
not be resolved, and these revised figures are reflected in EPA's estimate
of costs in this report.

     The questionnaires were then sent to Washington where they were
coded for computer processing and mailed to the Bureau of Census office
in Jeffersonvilie,  Indiana for transcription to computer tapes.  The
Census Bureau then returned the questionnaires to Washington where
EPA personnel checked all the questionnaires again for reviewing errors,
with particular attention to the forms from authorities reporting costs
over $20 million.  When patterns of errors were found for a State or
Region, Regional personnel were called in to help with the review of the
forms from the area.
                               C-2

-------

-------
     The Census Bureau developed the programs with which to tabulate
the data on the tapes.  All the tabulations and the costs in the
entire data file were carefully checked and corrected.
                              C-3

-------

-------
APPENDIX D. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

-------
                                                           O.M.B. No. I58-ROOI7; Approval Expires September 30, 1974
                                            1. Authority and

                                              facil ity number
           l>
                                                                                            FORM  EPA-1
                                                             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


                                                                   1973  SURVEY OF NEEDS  FOR

                                       MUNICIPAL  WASTEWATER  TREATMENT FACILITIES
A. PREPARATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE

  (To be completed by person who provided
  technical information)
  The attached forms describe to the best of my

  knowledge  and ability  all  new or existing

  facilities  required to  achieve the effluent

  limitations  specified  by  Sections  301(b)

  (1)B  and/or C of the Federal Water Pollution

  Control Act of 1972, as amended.
B. AUTHORITY REVIEW AND APPROVAL
   I have reviewed the attached forms on behalf
   of the authority identified, and to the best of
   my  knowledge  the  data  contained herein
   are accurate.
                                                    NAME (Please print)
TITLE
                                                    ORGANIZATION
BUSINESS ADDRESS
TELEPHONE (Area code and number)
                                   DATE
                                                    SIGNATURE
                                                    NAME (Please print)
                                                    TITLE
TELEPHONE (Area code and number)
                                   DATE
                                                    SIGNATURE
C. REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY STATE AGENCY
   The data contained herein have been reviewed
   and except as noted are hereby approved as a
   correct statement of  the costs  of  needed
   publicly-owned treatment works  pursuant to
   Sections 516(b) and 205 of the  FWPCA of
   1972,  as amended.
                                                    NAME (Please print)
                                                    TITLE
TELEPHONE (Area code and number)
                                   DATE
                                                    SIGNATURE
D. REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY EPA
   REGIONAL OFFICE

   The data contained herein have been reviewed
   and except as noted by this office and in my
   opinion represent reasonable costs of eligible
   and  needed publicly-owned treatment  works
   within the scope of the 1973 Survey of  Needs
   for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
                                                    NAME (Please print)
TITLE
TELEPHONE (Area code and number)
                                   DATE
                                                    SIGNATURE

-------
                   GUIDELINES  CONTAINING
             DEFINITIONS AND INFORMATION
           PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE STARTING
This questionnaire consists of a 36 page booklet divided into 8 sections. The right-hand pages
contain the items to be completed;' instructions pertaining to each right-hand page are printed on
each facing (left-hand) page.

The  questionnaire has  been designed to  be completed by a Treatment Authority (see definition
below)  for each Treatment Facility which it  now operates or  expects to operate in the future.
However, under certain conditions, the questionnaire may be entirely or partially completed by a
State agency,  or by consulting engineers  or others engaged for this purpose.  In such cases, the
instructions should be interpreted accordingly.

Section I,  "SUMMARY  OF TREATMENT AUTHORITY NEEDS," comprises the first page to be
completed  (Page 5 of the questionnaire).  The remaining Sections  deal with the characteristics
of a  particular Treatment Facility. A  separate questionnaire must be completed for each existing
or proposed facility  for which a Treatment Authority is responsible;   however, Section I should
be filled out one time only, on that questionnaire used to describe the  first facility operated by
the Authority.

For  purposes  of this survey,  a  Treatment Authority means any unit of a State, county, or city
government, or any other non-Federal  unit of government, which is responsible for the collection
and/or  treatment  of municipal wastewaters,  A Treatment Authority may be  a unit of a  local
government, such as the Board of Public Works of a particular city, or it may be a special-purpose
agency established to  provide services to a  particular  area, such as  a  metropolitan sewer and
water authority. The area served by an authority may be limited to a particular town or part of a
single city or county; on the  other hand, it may include all or part of a number of cities, towns,
counties or other places.  Determining which authorities are  responsible for  providing sewage
collection  and treatment services to which areas is one objective of this survey.

In some areas, there may be one Authority responsible for collection of wastewaters and another
Authority responsible for treating them.  In such cases, each Authority should submit question-
naires describing their respective functions and eligible needs within  the scope of this survey.
The  questionnaire  provides that only  those sections relevant to collection need be filled out by
an Authority  which is only  responsible  for  collection  services, etc.   Establishing the inter-
relationships  between  Authorities  with  different  functions,  which can be  quite complex,  is
another objective of this survey.

In some areas, no unit of government may have been designated  as responsible for either the
collection  or the treatment of sewage. Not all areas of the country require such services;  if the
State agency has determined  that the  concentrations of population and other sources of  pollution
in a  particular county do  not  require local sewage services, it may so  notify EPA, and no ques-
tionnaires  need be completed for such counties.  However, it  is considered  that  all populated
places  above 500 persons should be represented in this  survey, either directly  or indirectly.
(Some States may elect to estimate needs of their smaller communities on the  basis of  a random
sample.)  Questionnaires may  be submitted for smaller places if  local conditions require  publicly-
owned treatment works.
                                        Page!

-------
In areas where there appears to be a need for collection and/or treatment services, but no unit of
government has been designated as responsible for providing them, the following guidelines apply:

       • If the area is in  an  incorporated place, then the government of that place should be
         considered to be the Treatment Authority.

       • If the area is not incorporated, then the county government, such as the Board of County
         Supervisors, is presumed to be the Treatment Authority.


State Water Pollution Control Agencies may modify the above guidelines fordetermining Treatment
Authorities,  if  State law provides for a different residual responsibility, or, in New  England,
where the township  constitutes the unit of local government closest to "county."

This  survey  is  restricted  to  publicly-owned treatment works, which  include treatment plants,
sewers, and many other types of treatment  facilities.   The term Treatment Facility is used in
this survey to mean all such publicly-owned works. Privately-owned facilities,  even if they serve
the general public,  are excluded.  Septic tank  systems which are publicly owned are  included,
but septic tanks owned by individuals are not.
Authority and Facility Number - In this survey,  every existing and proposed facility is uniquely
identified  by a  combined Authority and  Facility number.   This Authority-Facility  number is
derived as follows:

       • Authority Number -  Each State agency will assign Authority numbers  to each Authority
         in its State.  Generally, this is done before the questionnaire  is distributed.  However,
         since all Authorities may  not be known  before the survey starts, some questionnaires
         may be distributed without an Authority number, which will be assigned after the ques-
        tionnaire  is  returned  to  the  State  agency.  DO  NOT ATTEMPT  TO ASSIGN  AN
        AUTHORITY  NUMBER TO YOUR AUTHORITY IF  YOU  DO NOT  ALREADY  HAVE
         ONE.   However, you should copy your  assigned number onto  any additional  question-
         naires you need to  complete.  (For example,  if you have additional facilities for which
         no pre-numbered questionnaires   were received, or if a pre-numbered questionnaire was
        damaged and had to  be replaced.)
         The Authority number consists of six digits.  The first two are a coded number which
         designates a particular State.  (Alabama  is 01, etc.)  The next four numbers are assigned
         sequentially by each State agency, using whatever consistent system is most convenient.
        The first Authority number in Alabama, for instance,  would be designated 0 I-0001.

       • Facility Number -  Facility numbers ordinarily will be assigned by  each Authority;
        however, if the State agency already has a complete inventory of facilities operated by
         each Authority,  it may  itself assign facility numbers to  all facilities of which it has a
         record,  provided that it also completes  enough of items 9 and 10 on page 7 to identify
        the facility for the Authority.
         Facility numbers should be assigned to  each existing and proposed  facility.  Do NOT
         skip numbers  in assigning facility numbers.   Questionnaires should be numbered and
        completed for  all existing  facilities before numbering facilities now under construction
        or which have been  approved  for a grant.  Complete all of the latter before numbering
        any proposed facilities.
                                          Page 3

-------
                   SUMMARY  OF TREATMENT  AUTHORITY  NEEDS
                         GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS - ITEMS  1 - 8
This summary identifies  and  describes each  "Treatment Authority"  which now  operates one or more
"Treatment Facilities", or which is expected to operate such facilities  in the future.   This summary
also shows the number and costs of all  Needs reported in the survey for all facilities operated or proposed
by this Authority.

This page is  to be completed  only once by each Authority.  If the Authority is responsible for more than
one facility, it should complete this page for its first facility only, and merely insert the Authority-Facility
number on this page for each questionnaire completed  for its other facilities.

Items I  thru  4 should be completed before completing the remainder of the questionnaire, which deals
with the characteristics and needs of each facility.  Items 5 thru 8  cannot be completed until question-
naires have been completed for all  facilities now operated or proposed by this Authority.
                         SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEMS 1 - 8    |                         >
 1. Copy the Authority Number from  the cover page and then insert the  Facility Number. Then transcribe
   the combined Authority-Facility number to the top of each right-hand page of the questionnaire.

 2. The official  name of the Authority  is the name which  is used to legally identify it. If several such
   names exist, use the name contained in the most recent Federal construction grant, if still appropriate.
   If the Authority  is a unit  of a  city or county  government, please  identify the unit. (For example,
   Deportment of Sanitation, City of Auckland,  rather than merely "Auckland" or "Lancaster County.'')

 3. Mailing Address - In addition to the mailing address most commonly used on mail sent to the Authority,
   please  show the name of the county  in which  the city or  town is  located.  Draw a line  through the
   boxes for city  or town if this  is  NOT part of the mailing address.  Draw a line through the boxes for
   the county,  if the city or town is not part of a county.  If the city is itself a  county or county-equiva-
   lent, write "Same"  in the boxes for County.

 4. Location Codes - Leave blank.  These will be completed by the State agency or by E PA.

 COMPLETE  FOLLOW/NG ITEMS AFTER  ALL QUESTIONNAIRES  FOR ALL  FACILITIES  UNDER
 THIS AUTHORITY HAVE BEEN  COMPLETED.

 5.Services Provided to Resident Population — The purpose of this question is to  determine what services
   are provided (from  any source) to the resident population within the  service area of the Authority.
   Service area is defined as  that geographic area for which the Authority is responsible  for supplying
   treatment and/or collection services.  It includes any enclaves which receive no  services (e.g., the
   residents may be served by  private septic tanks, outhouses, etc.).
   a. Resident population excludes transient,seasonal, daytime  and industrial population equivalents and
     can be based on (i.e., reconcilable with) either the 1970 Census or  a  1972-73 estimate.  This  number
     will be the total of entries 5b through e.
   b. While this condition is found  frequently in rural areas, there are  many instances where individual
     septic tanks, cesspools, etc., exist in urban and  suburban areas.   All such residents should be
     included in this category.
   c.This line  includes that portion of the population served  by sewers,  drainage ditches, etc., which
     are not connected to treatment plants, and consequently discharge untreated wastes into streams.
   d. This line includes that portion of the population served by sewers connected to  a treatment plant,
     where, however,  the level  of treatment, for whatever reason, is less than  the secondary level, as
     defined by EPA. (For this definition, see  item 21, page 14.)
   e. This line includes that portion of the population served by sewers  connected to a treatment  plant
     where the level of treatment is equal to or  higher than the secondary level defined  by EPA.
   f. Indicate, by marking the appropriate  box, the basis for data reported on resident population.

 6. Indicate either  "Yes" or "No" by marking the appropriate box.

7. a. Enter the total number of facilities for which a questionnaire was  completed. A separate question-
     naire must be completed for each existing,  under construction or proposed facility.
   b. Enter the total number of questionnaires which contain at least one cost entry in Section  III through
     VII, "Assessment of Needs by Type and Cost."

8. This entry will  be the summation  of the costs recorded in item 38f for  each facility within  this Authority
   which reported one or more needs on its questionnaires.

                                            Page 4

-------
                      Section I - SUMMARY OF TREATMENT  AUTHORITY NEEDS
 1. Authority and
   facility number
 2. Official name
   of authority
                       NUMBER OR BOX
                                           STREET OR ROUTE
 3. Mailing address
   of authority
                       CITY OR TOWN
                       COUNTY
                                                                                   STATE   ZIP CODE
  STATE OR EPA USE

\4. Location codes
                       STATE (FIPSS)
    COUNTY (FIPS6)
           PLACE CODE (See Instructions}
   Complete following items after all questionnaires for all facilities under this authority have been completed.
 SERVICES PROVIDED TO
 RESIDENT POPULATION
 (FROM ANY  SOURCE)

 5a. Total resident population within
     service area of authority
  b. Resident population receiving
     neither collection nor treatment
     services (e.g., served by septic
     tanks, cesspools, outhouses, etc.)
     Resident population receiving
     collection services but no
     treatment services (i.e., collected
     sewerage is discharged raw)
     Resident population receiving
     treatment of less than
     secondary level, as defined
     by EPA
  e.  Resident population receiving
     treatment equal to or better
     than secondary level, as
     defined by EPA
    Basis of data on resident
    population
Number
                                        Mark (X)
                                     appropriate box
 1970 Census
 1972 or 73
 estimate
ASSESSMENT OF
AUTHORITY NEEDS

6.  Does this authority have needs
   for additional or modified
   wastewater treatment facilities
   to meet the July I, 1977
   requirements of Section 30l(b)(l)
   of the Act?

   (The reporting of resident
   populations under 5b indicates
   a possible, and the reporting of
   resident populations under either
   5c or 5d a probable need for
   additional treatment facilities.)
            NUMBER OF PUBLICLY-OWNED
            WASTEWATER FACILITIES
            WITHIN THIS AUTHORITY

            7a. Total number of
                questionnaires  completed
              b. Number with needs
             TOTAL COSTS OF NEEDS
             IDENTIFIED BY THIS
             AUTHORITY
                                                     8. Total cost of needs
   Mark (X)
appropriate box
                                                        NO
                                                                                             Number
                                       Amount
                                   Report in thousands
                                                  Page 5

-------
                          SUMMARY  OF FACILITY  DATA
                      GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEMS 9 - 20
Pages 6 through 13 of the questionnaire comprise "Section II — Summary of Facility Data."  The
entries in Section  II identify the particular type of facility this is,  its present  status, whether
it  currently expects to change its status, what area(s) the facility serves, and the extent of the
services it provides.

In  this survey, a "Treatment Facility" will  usually consist of a waste treatment plant, plus all
collector and  interceptor sewers, pumping stations, or other auxiliary facilities  which feed into
the plant  and  which are under the  control  of the same Treatment Authority which operates the
treatment  plant.  In most cases, therefore, a treatment facility will  consist of  an entire waste-
water treatment system, and only one  Needs questionnaire should be completed, no matter how
elaborate  the  system.   Separate questionnaires on each collector  sewer, pumping station, etc.,
whether existing or proposed, are not required, except as specified below.

Occasionally,  a Treatment Authority only operates a sewage  plant; another  authority is respon-
sible for collection.  In  this case, the first authority completes a questionnaire for the plant only;
the second authority completes one for the collection  system  only, and indicates that treatment
of its discharges is provided by the  first authority.

A  community  septic tank system,  in which  a number  of houses  discharge  their wastes to  one
septic tank  owned by their  local government (or other non-Federal unit of government),  is con-
sidered to be a Treatment Facility.
                     SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEMS 9 - 12b   |       ;           1........A/
 9. The "Facility  name"  should  be  the name most frequently used by  the Authority  to  identify
   this facility.

10. The "Facility address"  entry should be completed  only  for treatment plants.  Unless the
   treatment plant is  physically  located  at the same  address as the Authority, this  address
   will be different from  that reported in item 3, "Mailing address of authority."  Sufficiently
   identify the plant so that it can be located on a city or county  map. If a conventional  street
   address is not appropriate, descriptive directions should be used.  (For example, "2  miles
   north on  Hampton  Road.")  Please show the name of the county  in which the plant is located,
   in  addition to  the name of the  city or town.  Draw a line through the boxes for city if the
   facility is not located in a town.

11. Record the number of  the  Congressional  District(s) to which this  facility provides service.
   (For example, for a plant which serves the third and seventh districts, enter "03" and "07".)

12a. Indicate,  by marking the appropriate box,  the  present operational status of this facility. The
    applicable conditions  are explained on the questionnaire itself.

  b. Indicate,  by marking the appropriate box,  the existing (or, if new, the proposed) type  of facility
    this is.  The applicable conditions are explained on the questionnaire itself.
                                           Page 6

-------
Authority and Facility No.
'

9. Facility name



(Physical location)
-

11. Congressional
districts served
EXISTING AND PROJECTED
STATUS OF THIS FACILITY
12a. What is the present
status of this facility?
b. What is the nature of this
facility, as it now exists or
if new, as proposed?


Section II - SUMMARY OF FACILITY DATA



STREET NUMBER STREET NAME

CITY OR TOWN
COUNTY STATE ZIP C
1 1 1

ABC

Mark (X) one box for each item below
1 n Now in operation — not being modified or replaced by
construction underway or provided for in an approved grant.
2 | | Now in operation and is being modified or replaced by
construction underway or will be by a grant which has
been approved.
3 | | Not now in operation but is now under construction or
will be built under a grant which has been approved.
4 | | Not now in operation and is not now under construction or
provided for by a grant which has been approved (i.e., this
is a proposed facility which has not yet been funded by a
Federal grant).
1 Q A complete wastewater treatment system (includes a
treatment plant, with associated collector and/or interceptor
sewers, and methods for disposal of effluent, under control
of the same treatment authority).
2 Q A separate treatment plant. (The sewers which discharge
to this plant are under the control of one or more different
authorities.)
3 [H] A community septic tank system. (A publicly-owned
facility, including any sewers which discharge to it.)
4 Q A separate municipal wastewater collection system. (Includes
one or more connected collector and/or interceptor sewers, force
mains, pumping stations, etc., which either discharge without
treatment or discharge to a facility controlled by a different
authority. Do not include combined sewers or storm sewers.)
s Q A separate combined sewer system. (Includes one or more
interconnected sewers which carry both sanitary wastewaters
and storm waters, and which either discharge without treatment
or to a facility operated by another authority. If facility
includes both separate sanitary sewers and combined sewers,
report as combined.)
6 Q Other type of facility - Describe briefly—.









ODE



EPA
USE
ONLY



^••M
                     Page 7

-------
                 SUMMARY OF  FACILITY DATA - Continued
                   SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEM 12c-12e(2)
12c. Complete this entry only if box 2 in item I2a was marked. Indicate the nature of the changes
    which are now underway or provided  for in  an  approved grant.  The applicable  conditions
    are explained on the  questionnaire itself.

  d. The purpose of this  question is to determine to what extent the nature  of the facility will
    change  as  of July I, 1977.  Consider all needs  to be reported in this  survey,  as well as
    any other changes, and mark the appropriate  box.  The applicable alternatives are explained
    on the questionnaire  itself.

  e. Complete these entries only if  box 3 in  item I2b,  and/or box 3 in item I2c, and/or box 5 in
    item I2d are marked.

    (1) Indicate, by marking the appropriate box,  the manner in which the residue from the  septic
        tank is disposed of.

    (2) Indicate, by marking the appropriate box, what alternative will  be chosen to replace the
        present septic tank  system.
                                         Page 8

-------
                                    Authority and Facility No.^  	 	 —  	  	 	 	  — 	 	  	
                        Section II - SUMMARY OF  FACILITY  DATA - Continued
EXISTING AND PROJECTED
STATUS OF THIS
FACILITY  - Continued

Complete ONLY if box 2 in
item 12a was marked.
12c.
What is the nature of the
changes to this existing
facility which are now
underway or provided  for
in an approved grant?

Mark (X) one  box
1  H7J Nature of facility will not change - modification of
        existing facility only.
z [7J Nature of facility will not change - existing facility is being
        replaced by similar facility in a similar  location.
3 [31 Nature of facility will change -  septic tank system being
        replaced.
4 Qj Nature of facility will change —  treatment plant being added
        to existing sewer system.
s [  I Nature of facility will change —  sewer system being added to
        existing treatment plant without its own sewers.
6 [71 Nature of facility will change -  existing combined sewer
        system being replaced  by separate sanitary and/or storm
        water systems.
7 [31 Other type of changes - Describe briefly—?
                                                                                                    EPA
                                                                                                    USE
                                                                                                    ONLY
     What change is projected
     in the nature of this
     facility as of July I,  I977,
     from that reported in
     item  I2b?

     (Consider all needs reported
     in this survey and any other
     changes.)

     Mark (X) one box
                                1  [7] None, while modifications, additions, etc., are needed, the
                                        nature of this facility will remain as reported in item I2b.
                                2  \  | None, will remain as reported in item I2b, and no needs are
                                        reported for this  facility in this survey.
                                3  [771 This facility will be discontinued — services will be provided
                                        by one or more facilities in other locations.
                                4  |  | This facility wi II be replaced by a similar facility in a similar
                                        location. (Do not report this type of change for a facility
                                        with a treatment  plant unless the plant is entirely or
                                        substantially to  be replaced.)
                                5  [71 Existing septic tank system will be replaced.
                                6  |  I Treatment plant  will be  added to existing sewage
                                        collection system.
                                7  [33J Sewage collection being added  to existing treatment  plant
                                        without its own sewers.
                                8  [71 Existing combined sewer system will be replaced by new
                                        separate  sanitary and/or storm system.
                                9  [^l Other type of change -  Describe briefly —
  e. Septic tank system
     characteristics
     Complete ONLY if box 3
     in item 12b was marked.
     (1) To what does this system
        discharge?  (How is
        residue from septic tanks
        disposed of?)
                                                    Mark (X) applicable responses
                                1  [771 To a stream

                                2 |  | Below ground in tank area (gravel bed, etc.)

                                3 [  | Surface land disposal

                                4 [71 By truck, barge, or other transport

                                s [771 Other means - Describe
     Complete ONLY if box 3 in
     item 12c or box 5 in
     item 12d was marked.

     (2) If this septic system is
        now  being or proposed  to
        be replaced, what will  it
        be replaced by?
                                1 [3] Sewage will be sent by sewer to another authority for treatment.
                                2 j   | Sewage will be treated by treatment system operated by this
                                       authority.  (Includes sewers and treatment plant.)
                                3 (7/J Sewage will be treated by new plant, without sewers for
                                       which this authority is responsible.
                                4 [33J Other type of  replacement - Describe
                                                    Page 9

-------
                          SUMMARY  OF  FACILITY  DATA  -  Continued
                                SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS  - ITEMS 13a - 15b
13a. Answer  "Yes" if this facility discharges its  wastes to another facility  under  the  control of a different Authority.
     The  most common example would be a  sewer facility under the control  of one Authority, transporting wastes to a
     treatment  plant under the control  of a different Authority.   If "Yes," continue with  I3b, c, and  d; otherwise, skip
     to  item  14.
  b. Record the official (legal) name of the Authority to which discharged.  If the Authority  is a unit of a city or county
     government,  please identify the unit.
  c. Record the name commonly used by the receiving Authority to identify  the receiving facility.
  d. Sufficiently  identify the  facility  so  that it can be  located  on a city map.   This  can be a conventional address, or
     descriptive directions, if  more appropriate.  Show the name  of the county  in which the receiving facility is located.
     Draw a line  through the boxes for city or town if a name of  a city is not part of the  location  address.  If the facility
     discharges to  a sewer,  the location address of the facility is not applicable.  In this case, mark the box provided
     in  13d.
14.   Complete this  entry only  if boxes 2 or 3 in  item  I2c, and/or boxes 3,  4, or 5 in  item 12d are marked.  If  so, report
     the  estimated  date the facility will  be  discontinued, and the name and  location  of the  facility which  will replace
     this facility.
15a. Print the names of each  county or "county equivalent" to  which this facility provides collection  and/or  treatment
     services.  ("County equivalents" are independent cities,  which are not  part of  counties,  in Maryland (Baltimore
     City), Missouri (St. Louis City), Nevada (Carson City),  and Virginia (38 cities).   The Census Divisions of Alaska,
     which has  no counties, are also county equivalents.  Authorities  in Alaska and Virginia will  be given listings of the
     county equivalents in their States; other Authorities, except those in  the  three cities  mentioned above,  need not be
     concerned  with "county equivalents," only with counties.)
  b. For each county named, mark the appropriate box to indicate whether all or  part of the county  is served.

                             j        GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS   - ITEM 16        I

The purpose of this question  is to determine  to what extent the  present and projected populations which either  reside in,
or work or  visit, the area served by this facility receive collection and/or treatment services.  Estimates are to  be based
on the best available data for  the current (1972—73)  period and for the year  1990.
Authorities are not required to explain how they developed their estimates of  populations served or unserved; however,
they should be prepared to answer any questions  raised  by their State agency.   Local or regional planning agencies in
most States can provide assistance to  Authorities in relating their population projections  to the particular area  served by
a given facility.

An  overall survey  restriction   is that  the total  resident  1990 population projected  for  an  entire State  cannot exceed the
population  projected by the Department of Commerce under  the "Series E"  projection.   State agencies have received both
the  overall "E"  projection for their State, and 1990 projections for  each of their  Metropolitan Areas (SMSA's) and each
county outside an SMSA.  These latter projections  are provided as baseline  estimates  only;  if a  State feels  more growth
will occur  in one area and less in another, these  estimates can be adjusted by  the State, as long as the total 1990 pro-
jection for  the State does not exceed its "E"  projection.

The term non-resident  applies  to transient, seasonal, and  daytime (working) populations  which  do not reside in the service
area of  the facility, but whose wastes must be taken into consideration in  designing facilities. (Non-resident population
does  not include  any form of "population-equivalent" based  on  industrial or  commercial flows.)  A hypothetical example
would be a downtown  business area  with a  resident population of ten thousand  but a daytime, working population of
twenty-five thousand.  The non-resident population  would thus be fifteen thousand.
The "area served by this  facility"  includes  not only the boundaries  of the areas actually served, but also any enclaves
whose residents are served by septic tanks, outhouses, etc.  There is no necessary implication that all residents who do
not  now receive waste treatment services must do  so; however,  all such areas  should be reviewed by the Authority to be
sure that  their domestic sewage is being handled  in a manner which  is not  in violation of the 1977 requirements on dis-
charges or of applicable State plans or  water  quality standards.

If an Authority has only one  facility,  the area served by  the facility is the same as that  served by the Authority.   If an
Authority has more  than one facility, it should divide up the total area it is responsible for, so that every part lies within
an area served  by one (or more) of its existing or proposed  facilities.
The area  served  by a facility may change between 1972—1973 and 1990.  Report each  on  the basis of current plans and
expectations of the Authority.

                             j   SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS  - ITEMS 16q  - 16i    |

16a. Indicate  m  the spaces provided   the  1970 population, the  1972—73  estimated  population, and the  1990  projected
     population for those persons residing within the area  served by  the facility.   (The 1970 population should be recon-
     cilable with the 1970  Census Bureau population reported for  area(s) served by  the facility.)
  b. This  line  includes  all  persons   residing m  the  service area  of the facility who  are  served by acceptable septic
     tanks, community or individual.
  c. This  line includes all persons who  now receive collection services  from this facility,  regardless  of whether  their
     sewers are connected to  a treatment  plant or not. (NOTE — Residents and Non-residents must be stated separately.)
  d. Report the population residing in the Service  area of this facility who  receive collection services from a different
     authority,  whether or not  their sewers are connected  to a treatment plant.
  e. This is the population residing in  the service area of the facility that  is  not  receiving collection services.  (NOTE —
     Lines b, c, d and e must equal line a.)
  f. Report the population, both Resident and Non-resident, who  receive treatment  services from this facility of less than
     secondary level,  as defined by EPA.
  g.  Report the population, both Resident and Non-resident,  who receive treatment services from  this facility equal  to or
     exceeding the secondary  level  as defined. (This line represents approximately  the design population for which new
     or  modified facilities reported in  this survey.)
  h. Report population residing  in the service area of the facility who receive  treatment  services, regardless of level,
     from a facility under the  jurisdiction of a different Authority.
  i. This is the  total population  residing in  the service  area of the  facility which does not receive treatment services.
     (NOTE — Lines b, f, g, h, and i must also equal line a.)

                                                       Page 10

-------

Section
Au
rhnntv and Facility No. ^










II - SUMMARY OF FACILITY DATA - Continued |
CHARACTERISTICS OF DISCHARGE FROM FACILITY
13a. Does this facility discharge to another facility 1 Q Yes - Continue with
under the control of a different authority? 2 [fl No - SKIP to item 14
b. Name of authority
to which discharged
c. Name of facility
to which discharged
d. Physical location
address of facility
to which discharged
rn Not applicable, this facility
discharges to a sewer










I3b below
below








EPA USE ONLY



































ST
C
C<

REET NUMBER STREET NAME
TY OR TOWN
3UNTY




















5TA


TE






ZIF


3 CODE

Complete ONLY if response to item 12c or 12d indicated a wastewater treatment plant will be discontinued.
TERMINATION OF FACILITY
I4a. Estimated date to be discontinued
Month
Year
b. Name and location of replacement facility
COUNTIES AND COUNTY EQUIVALENTS SERVED BY THIS FACILITY
I5a. Name of county or county-equivalents
served by this facility
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
POPULATION SERVED BY THIS FACI
Report present and projected populations fo
served by this facility
16a, Total resident population in area s
by this faci lity*
I iTw Population
Ll ' ' based on
' area 1970 Census
(D
erved
b. Resident population receiving services from acceptable
septic tanks, community or individual
c. Population receiving collection
services from this facility
d. Resident population receiving collection services
from another facility
e. Resident population NOT receiving collection services
f. Population receiving treatment services of less than
secondary level as defined, from this facil ty
g. Population receiving treatment
exceeding secondary level from
services equal to or
this fac 1 ity
h. Resident population receiving treatment services from
another facility
i. Resident population NOT receiving treatment services
b. Is all or part of
county served?
id All
1 [^] All
L1 HAH
2
2
this
QPart
[1
2LI
] Part
j Part
1 [U Al1 2n Part
Estimated population
1972-1973
(2)
Resident









Nonresident









EPA USE ONLY
Area FIPS-6
served code




Population projected
for year 1990
(3)
Resident









Nonresident









'Lines b,  c, d, and e must equal line a;
 lines b, f, g, h, and I must also equal  item a.
Page  I

-------
                          SUMMARY OF  FACILITY DATA -  Continued
                                  GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS   -  ITEM 17
The purpose of this question is to determine the current and projected flow and concentration levels, the present design specifi-
cations, and if  applicable, the projected design specifications  for the plant.   This data will  pertain to levels of secondary treat-
ment or below.  Data regarding levels of treatment above secondary treatment are reportable  under items 25 and 26.

Existing means the actual average concentration, based  on  24-hour observations during the month, made during 1973,  of influent
only for flows, and both influent and effluent concentration levels for suspended solids and five-day BOD.

Projected  actual means the influent and effluent concentration  levels anticipated for the year 1990,  or, if a final design has been
completed for this plant for a year other than 1990,  which meets  the secondary treatment requirement, then for the design year.

Present design  is the influent and effluent levels which the plant is presently intended to handle.

Projected  design is the influent and effluent levels which the plant will  be designed to handle for the year  1990, unless a design
study  based on  a different year has been completed.

The projected  design column  (4) need not be completed if it is the same as the projected actual given in column (2); in this case,
simply write "same" for each applicable entry.

Neither the projected actual  nor the projected design column need be completed if the  plant is to be discontinued prior to July  1,
1977;  in this case, write "Disc."  in the appropriate boxes.
                             SPECIFIC  INSTRUCTIONS  -   ITEMS  17q  -  19b	~)
 17a. Total  flow means all the wastewaters moving through the plant.  This figure should be reported in million gallons per day.
   b. Industrial flow is that  amount of flow, moving through the plant, that originates from industrial sources. This figure should
     be reported in million gallons per day.
   c. For suspended solids, use the conventional definition.  This figure should be reported in milligrams per liter  (mg/1).
   d. For BODs  (Biological  Oxygen Demand), use the conventional  definition.  This figure  should be  reported  in milligrams per
     liter(mg/l).
   e. Indicate  the temperature on which the design of this facility, as proposed for modifications, or other changes in this survey,
     will be based.  Record  the temperature in degrees Fahreheit.

 18a. Indicate, by  marking an  entry in each line,  whether the respective procedure is (1)  Now  in use (whether or not now being
     modified or will be proposed for modification), (2)  Under construction or provided for in an approved grant, (3) Required but
     not yet approved or funded, or (4) does not apply (e.g., not needed now or in the future by this facility).
   b. Report the daily average of dry solids produced in pounds per day.

 19a. Indicate, by marking an entry in each line,  whether the  respective procedure is:  (1) now  in use (whether or not now being
     modified  or will be proposed  for modification); (2) under construction or  provided for in an approved grant; (3) Required  but
     not yet approved or funded; or, (4) does not apply (e.g.,  not needed now or  in the future by this facility).
   b. The appropriate units for  reporting the daily  load or volumn of the  liquid  effluent are:  (1)  For surface and deep ocean out-
     falls,  record the length of pipe in feet.  (2) For holding ponds, record  the capacity in million gallons; (3) For deep wells,
     indicate the depth of the  well in feet; (4) For ground water  recharge, other land disposal,  recycling water supply, and septic
     tank field, indicate the  length of pipe in feet; (5) For "Other," specify type  and unit.
                                   GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEM 20         |                          '".')
Navigable waters are defined  by Section  502  of the Act as  including "all  waters  of the United States, including the territorial
seas."  This  includes all  waters which are navigable,  all  tributaries of such waters, all interstate waters and their tributaries,
and all  mtrastate lakes, rivers, and streams which  are used by interstate travelers for recreational purposes or from  which fish or
shellfish  are  taken and  sold  in  interstate commerce,  or  which  are  utilized  for industrial  purposes by industries in inter-
state  commerce.
                              SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEMS 20a - 20C
 20a. Based  on  the above definition,  indicate the name of the navigable  waters to which the  facility discharges.  If the plant dis-
     charges to a creek, ditch, stream,  etc., give the name of the  creek, etc., plus the name of the stream or river which it flows
     into.
   b. Indicate,  by  marking  the  appropriate  box,  whether  an application for a National  Pollutant Discharge Elimination  System
     (NPDES) permit has been made for this discharge.
   c. If an application has been submitted, report the number in the spaces provided, if known.  If  not known,put a "?" in first box.


                                                       Page 12

-------
                                    Authority and Facility No.
                         Section II - SUMMARY  OF  FACILITY  DATA - Continued
EXISTING, PROJECTED, AND
DESIGN FLOWS AND
CONCENTRATIONS
17a. Total flow (Mil. Gal./Day)
Existing average
 concentration
 during month
     (1)
                                Influent
                                          Effluent
                                                                Average concentration during month
Projected - Actual
     (2)
                  Influent
                            Effluent
                                                                          Present design
                                                                              (3)
                                                                        Influent
                            Effluent
Projected design - 1990
        (4)
                                                                                           Influent
                                                                                                     Effluent
  b.  Total industrial flow (MGD)
  c. Suspended solids
    concentration (mg//)
  d. BOD5 concentration (mg//)
  e. On what temperature of the influent has the design of this
     facility, including its proposed modifications, been based?
                            Degrees (fahrenheit)
                                                                  I
SLUDGE HANDLING  PROCEDURES
18a. Procedures now used or required                     (1)
     (1) Thickening	     1
     (2) Digestion	       '
     (3) Dewatering	I	'
     (4) Drying beds	       1
     (5) Heat treatment	
     (6) Incineration	     1 I  I
     (7) Other - Specify 	|    ' D

  b. Daily average of dry solids (Pounds per day)
PROCEDURES FOR DISPOSAL OF LIQUID EFFLUENTS
19a. Procedures now used or required
     (1) Outfall to surface waters	     ' CU
     (2) Ocean outfall	     1
     (3) Holding pond	     i
     (4) Deep wel I	     i
     (5) Ground water recharge	     , r—i
     (6) Other land disposal	     1 |~|
     (7) Recycling water supply	     i
     (8) Septic tank field	     i
     (9) Other - Specify	      i
  b. Daily load or volume
     (Use appropriate units - See instructions)
                                                   Now in use
                                Under
                             construction
                            or provided for
                              in approved
                                grant
                                 (2)
                       Required
                       but not yet
                       approved
                       or funded
                         (3)
                                                                                          Not
                                                                                       applicable
                                                                                          (4)
           EPA
           USE
          ONLY
DISCHARGE  TO NAVIGABLE WATERS
20a. What is the name of the waters to which discharged?
                                                                 Major/minor
                                                                 basin code
  b. Has an application for a National Pollutant
     Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
     permit been filed for this discharge?
                      1 I  I Yes — Continue with item 20c
                      2H] No	
                      3 H] Not known     >• SKIP to item 21 a
                      4 j  | Not required
  c. What is the application number?
                                                   Page 13

-------
                     ASSESSMENT  OF  NEEDS  BY  TYPE  AND COST
                             GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEM 21
 This page is to be completed if the facility being described in this questionnaire is one of the following:
   • An existing or proposed publicly-owned treatment plant.
   • An existing publicly-owned community septic tank system.
   • An existing sewer, drainage ditch, or other treatment works (as defined in the Act) which discharges
     untreated municipal sewage into a stream.

The "required level of secondary treatment" which all facilities identified above must meet by July I, 1977
is the most stringent of the following:
   • The  level promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency, pursuant to Section 304(d)( I) of the
     Act.  This level was published  as  Section 102, Part  133, Title 40,  Code of Federal Regulations.
     For purposes of this survey, the following effluent levels, as prescribed in this Regulation, shall
     be used  to determine whether a facility is meeting or will  meet  the  Secondary  Treatment  level
     promulgated by EPA:
Characteristic of
discharge
Biochemical oxygen
demand (5-day)
Suspended solids
Fecal coliforms
Hydrogen ion
concentration
Unit of measurement
mg/ 1
mg/l
No. per 100ml
pH units
Average concentration
during month
(Based on 24-hour observations)
30
30
200
between 6.0 and 9.0
     A higher treatment level, established by a particular State and  applicable to the basin in which lies
     the stream to which this facility discharges.  NOTE - This type of higher level of required secondary
     treatment must  be  distinguished from the "more stringent than  seconder/ treatment"  levels covered
     in  Needs Category  // (items 25 and 26).
                        SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEMS 21a  - 21e(8)
21a. Some  plants, especially  in  small  towns discharging  to  relatively  large  streams  with  few other
     sources  of pollution, may not have to treat their wastes to the  level of secondary  treatment appli-
     cable  to  their plant for the  stream  to which  they  discharge to meet the water  quality  standards
     ("WQS") applicable to it.  Mark "Yes"  if this  situation  applies to this  plant,  mark "No" if this
     plant  must achieve the secondary treatment level or a more, stringent level if the  stream to which
     it discharges is to meet its WQS.   Mark  "Not known" if the applicable WQS is not known, or if the
     relationship  between the discharge level from this plant and stream quality has not been determined,
     and mark "Not applicable" if the plant  does  not discharge to a stream (e.g.,  it  is  a  community
     septic tank system which has no discharge.)

  b. Mark applicable box and supply information requested, (e.g.,  90% removal;  20 mg/l BODsL level;
     etc.) based on definition in General  Instructions above.

  c. Based on definitions in General Instructions above.

  d. Assume  that all changes to this facility now underway,  or which have been provided for by  an approved
     grant,  will be completed by  July  I,  1977.  If your answer is "No," complete the remainder of item
     21  and the applicable  parts of items 22,  23, and  24 to indicate what will need to be done to achieve
     the required secondary treatment level.

  e. Complete if response to 2ld was "No,"
     (l)This  procedure applies  only to spraying or  otherwise  exposing  untreated  or  partially  treated
        sewage to land, in  lieu of using conventional  secondary treatment procedures  to reduce pollutant
        levels.  It does not apply to methods for disposing of treated effluents by irrigation, etc.
     (2) Mark  this only  if a treatment plant is needed where one does not now exist.  If  a community septic
        tank  is to be replaced by a treatment plant, mark here.
     (3) Mark this box  if an existing treatment plant   is  to  be  entirely  or  substantially  replaced (i.e.,  at
        least 75% of the proposed capacity is  a replacement or addition to an existing plant.)
     (4) to  (8) Self-explanatory.
                                             Page  14

-------
Authority  and Facility No. ^  	 	
Section III - CATEGORY 1 - ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS TO ACHIEVE REQUIRED
LEVEL OF SECONDARY TREATMENT
21o. Can this plant meet water quality standards
applicable to the stream segment to which it
discharges by a level of treatment LESS than
defined as secondary treatment by EPA?
b. What level of secondary treatment must
the discharge from this plant meet by
July 1, 1977?
c. Does the discharge from this plant NOW
meet the level of secondary treatment
identified in 21 b?
d. Will the discharge from this plant meet on
July 1, 1977, the level of secondary treatment
identified in 2lb? (Give consideration to
changes in flow and concentration of
influents and to the changes in treatment
capability now under construction or
provided for in approved grants.)
e. Which approaches will be used to enable
this existing or proposed plant to meet the
secondary treatment level identified in 2lb?
(1) Addition of land disposal as a means
of treatment
(2) New plant — no replacement of
existing plant
(3) Replacement plant
(4) Modification — no change in capacity
or treatment level
(5) Modification — increase in capacity
(6) Modification — increase in treatment level
(7) Improved operation and maintenance,
increase staffing
(8) Reduce mfi Itration
Mark appropriate box for each item
1 r;-] Yes
2[7J No
3 j_~] Not known
4 [~ "] Not applicable; no discharge
to waters
1 f~] Secondary treatment level as
defined by EPA,
OR
2\_] Higher level of secondary
treatment required by
State — Specify -7
Higher level secondary treatment
Nature of State action
1 H Yes
2H] No
1 H Yes -SKIP to item 25
2 T] No
1 T Yes
2 [~~\ No
1 • " Yes
2 r] No
1 [ _~i Yes
2 | ~] No
1 [ "] Yes
2 ; _" NO
1 ! " Yes
2f~] No
1 ;~ Yes
2 "I No
1 ; Yes
2! , No
1 ' ! Yes
2' No
EPA USE
ONLY












                Pa£e 15

-------
         ASSESSMENT OF  NEEDS  BY TYPE  AND  COST - Continued
                        GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEM 22
IE1
If item 2ld  is "Yes," DO NOT record costs in this item.  However, if "No," was marked in 2ld,
estimated costs should  be reported  if the projected data in  item 17 have been supplied.  Select
only those  processes to be used  and  complete each corresponding line.  Indicate the estimated
cost and the basis for the cost estimate in item 22.  Exclude operation, maintenance, and staffing
(not considered needs) and reduced infiltration (covered in item 28).

Express cost in  terms  of  capital costs only;  do not include operation  and maintenance  costs.
                    SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEMS 22o - 24b
22o. Report the total estimated costs for all primary treatment processes to be used.

  b. (1) Mark which type (one only) of secondary treatment process  is needed, and report its cost.
     (2) Indicate the additional capital  cost of the process marked  in 22b(l) for handling sludge
        generated by this plant.

  c. Indicate the cost of disinfection. Omit the cost of chemicals.

  d. Indicate  the cost  of  any  procedures  for  disposing of liquid effluents  that were marked
     "Required but not yet approved or funded" in item 19.

  e. Report  costs only  if items 2le(l) and 23a are marked  "Yes."   The estimated cost is for all
     costs of land treatment procedures, excluding the cost of the land.  Equipment and construc-
     tion costs are examples of costs which can be reported on this  line.

  f. Report the estimated cost of land to be used  in land treatment procedures.  Complete only if
     item 22e was completed.  The land to be used must be acquired by the plant.

  g. This is the  subtotal of lines 22a thru f.

23.  If the specified cost analysis has been made, remember that costs should be reported in 22e
     and f,  and that the information requested  in  23b must  be supplied.  If this analysis has not
     been made, do not record any costs in 22e and f.

24a. Indicate the year in which construction of these  Needs  is expected to begin.

  b. Indicate the year in which construction of these  Needs  is expected to be completed.
                                         Page  16

-------
Authority and  Facility No.
Section III - CATEGORY 1 - ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST - Continued
CODES AND DEFINITIONS FOR\
BASIS OF COST ESTIMATE }
(For use in column (2) below) /
1 - Actual contract costs 4 - Cost of previous comparable construction
2 - Bid/proposal from completed specifications 5 - Engineer/consultant preliminary estimate
3 - Engineer/consultant firm estimate 6 - EPA-supplied cost estimating procedures
ADDITIONAL COSTS TO ACHIEVE REQUIRED LEVEL OF
SECONDARY TREATMENT
Complete cost data ONL Y for those processes to be used
22a. Primary treatment processes
b. Secondary treatment process
(1) Type and cost of
process used
(Mark (XJ one box -^"
and enter cost in
column (j))
ses
1 [~] Trickling fi Iter
2 f~'l Activated sludge
3 [~] Lagoon
4 QJ Other — Specif/



(2) Capital cost only of sludge handling procedures
c. Disinfection (Omit the cost
of chemicals)

Complete ONLY for items marked in column (3) in item 19
d. Costs for disposal of liquid effluents
Complete items 22e and 22f ONLY if item 23a below is marked "Yes"
e. Costs of land treatment procedures, excluding land
f. Costs
9-
of land, for land treatment ONLY
Subtotal - Cos




Cost
Report in thousands
(1)
$






$
Complete ONLY if item 21e(1) is marked "Yes"
EXPLANATION OF LAND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE FOR ACHIEVING REQUIRED
LEVEL OF SECONDARY TREATMENT
23a. Has a cost analysis been made of this proposal which demonstrates it to be a more effective
or economical solution to the need to provide secondary treatment of these waste waters than
conventional secondary treatment procedures? (NOTE: Do not submit needs for land treatment
projects unless such an analysis has been made.)
1 Q] Yes —j 2 n No - SKIP to item 23c
b. Identif
Basis of cost
estimate
From above
(2)








EPA USE
ONLY
^^__— _^_
y this study and indicate where a copy can be obtained
Name/title
Author
Date

Authority
Location of copy
c. Acreage required for land treatment
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATES OF CATEGORY I NEEDS
24a. Construction is expected to begin (Year)
b. Construction is expected to
be completed (Year)
(Acreage
19 	
19 	
                   Page 17

-------
       ASSESSMENT  OF NEEDS  BY TYPE AND COST -  Continued
                        GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEM 25   [                        ""}
An  effluent limitation "more stringent"  than  secondary means a  requirement for treatment
processes,  in addition to secondary treatment processes, necessary to meet an effluent limita-
tion specified in an EPA-approved water qua I ity  plan, an administrative or court order, a I i cense ,
etc., or by a water quality standard, which is binding on the treatment facility.  Examples include
requirements to  remove phosphorus, ammonia, nitrates, or organic substances.

Approved water quality plans are primarily  those required by 40 CFR  150.1 and .2 (formerly  18
CFR 601).   Such water quality plans  have  been designated as basin, metropolitan,  or regional
plans.   These  plans  are now considered to be  "interim plans"  and constitute an  acceptable
basis  for determining Needs  until July  I, 1973, when new,  more comprehensive, basin plans are
to be  submitted to meet  requirements  of the new Act, under Sec. 303(e).  These basin plans,
after their approval by EPA, will then replace the former 18 CFR  601  basin  plans.  After July I,
1973,  the metropolitan and regional plans will begin to be replaced by Sec. 201 areawide plans.
Any new plans  approved  by EPA pursuant to Sections  303(e) or 201 constitute an  acceptable
basis  for reporting Needs; however, few of these are expected to be  approved in time to affect
this survey.

A body  of water is water quality dependent if some  or all the discharges  to  it will  need treat-
ment "more stringent" than  secondary treatment levels  to meet  a water quality level  specified
by the  State.   The basis for this  classification  is  that  a  State, after careful analysis of the
extent  and  sources of pollution affecting a particular stream segment, has determined that the
level of secondary treatment defined by EPA or  an applicable  State law will not be sufficient to
achieve or  maintain the water quality standards  applicable to  this body of water. Required dis-
charge levels will be  designated by each State as part of its  "continuing planning process." A
Treatment Authority having questions about possible designation  as "water quality dependent"
of streams  to which  its facilities discharge should contact  its State  pollution control agency.
                       SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEM 25b
25b. Indicate which reason for need imposes the most stringent requirement.  If 25a is marked
     "Yes" be sure to mark which type of order, permit, or other administrative requirement is
     applicable and to describe the specific order, plan, or action,  and  indicate where a copy
     can be obtained, where required.  If  the document has no title, show the title of the basin
     or stream to which the requirement applies.  Indicate the  number of the plan, if there is an
     applicable document number, and the  person or agency  who authored the document.  Include
     the date of EPA approval  where applicable.
                                          Page 18

-------
                                  Authority and Facility No. ^  — 	     	 —  —  	     	 — 	
            Section IV  -  CATEGORY II - ASSESSMENT  OF NEEDS BY  TYPE  AND COST
Complete 25 and 26 for treatment plant only
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS TO  PROVIDE "MORE STRINGENT" LEVEL OF TREATMENT THAN SECONDARY
25a.  Is the discharge from this treatment plant required to meet an
     effluent limitation more stringent than secondary treatment?
             i[I]Yes
                      ~L
                                                      No - Skip to item 27
  b. Reason for need (Mark the box below which imposes the most stringent requirement)

             o
 A water quality plan which has been approved by EPA
 (Identify this plan and indicate where a copy can be obtained) -7
Name/title
Author
Number
Date
Date of EPA approval
Location of copy
| A State or Federal court, permit or license, administrative order, or other enforcement or
 regulatory action binding upon this facility.  (Mark (X) the appropriate box and identify
 below this court order, permit stipulation, or other administrative requirement)
 i [   | Order of State Court                    6 Q Federal  enforcement order or proceeding

 2 |   | Order of Federal Court                 7 [  |

 3 Q State permit or license

 4 n Federal permit or license               8 O Other -  Specify

 5 Q State enforcement order                      _____________
      or proceeding
                                                                 Voluntary agreement which includes a
                                                                 schedule of compliance or improvements
                   Court order, permit stipulation, or other administrative requirement
             9 |  1 A certification by the State that the body of water receiving this discharge is water
                 quality dependent, and  that more stringent treatment is needed to meet Federally-
                 approved water quality  standards for dissolved oxygen or nutrients.

                 Identify nature and date of State action which is basis for certification; indicate
                 level of dissolved oxygen and/or nutrient permitted in stream  and the effluent
                 limitations imposed on  this discharge. (NOTE:  State agency must be prepared
                 to supply additional data to EPA upon request to support its certification of the
                 need for treatment beyond secondary)
                   Nature of State action
                                                                                          Date
                                                  Page 19

-------
                 ASSESSMENT  OF NEEDS  BY  TYPE  AND  COST  -  Continued


                            |        GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEM 26        [

Report the specific needs and costs for those removal processes which this treatment plant must install or upgrade to meet
those requirements identified in item 25b.  Include capital  costs, but not operation and maintenance costs.  All costs must
be supported by data on existing and projected concentrations; if these are not known, please do not report costs.

Existing total concentration  means the actual average concentration during the month, based  on 24-hour observations made
during 1973, of the influent  and effluent levels for the  particular substances  (e.g., nitrates, organics) for which  treatment
beyond secondary is  required.

In this section  of the questionnaire, the  influent  concentration is  the level of the substance in question  after existing or
projected secondary  treatment,  if any, has been applied.  (In other words, the influent concentration is the effluent from
secondary.)  The effluent concentration level is  the level of effluent from the plant, after  any "beyond  secondary" pro-
cessing is completed.  If no treatment  beyond secondary now exists,  the  existing influent and effluent levels will be
the same.

If an  existing  "beyond secondary" process  is to be upgraded, the difference between the  existing influent and effluent
levels represents the removal attributable to the existing process;  the  projected levels will reflect the removal attributable
to the upgraded process.

The projected design effluent concentration must be sufficient to achieve the  most stringent  effluent  limitations  identified
in item 25b.

               "" ..=         1    SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEMS  26 - 27b    j            i

26a. Phosphorus removal includes all  unit processes, except for sludge handling,  used to remove phosphorus.   Examples
     include chemical storage, mixing and coagulation,  and lime clarification  tanks added to  an existing  treatment facility.
     Express phosphorus concentrations for phosphorus ("P") only, not as phosphates ("P04").

   b. Ammonia removal  includes all  unit  processes, except sludge  handling, used  either to remove ammonia, or to convert
     ammonia  to  nitrate in  wastewaters.   Examples  include  nitrification  activated  sludge systems,   clinoptilol ite  ion
     exchange,  breakpoint  chlormation,  and  air  stripping.   Express  ammonia concentrations as  NH3 only,  not as
     NH4OH, etc.

   c.  Nitrate removal  includes all unit processes, except sludge residue  handling, which  remove nitrate  from wastewater,
     such  as ion  exchange  or anaerobic biological denitrification.  Express nitrate concentrations  as  NO3 only,  not as
     NOX or as  N03 compounds, etc.

   d.  Organics removal  includes  all unit processes, except sludge residue handling, which are used to  remove those organic
     compounds which  are not degiaded  normally  by biological treatment.  Examples include activated  carbon adsorption
     and  ozonation.   Be sure to indicate whether chemical  oxygen  demand  (COD)  or  total organic carbon (TOC) is the
     basis for estimating influent/effluent concentrations.

   e. Polishing  lagoon  includes  various types of construction for temporarily  retaining  effluents from secondary  treatment
     stages  to provide time  for additional reduction of effluents,   in order to achieve concentration  levels more stringent
     than  secondary.   This  process is to be distinguished from  the  type of  lagoon  used to achieve secondary  treatment
     per se (see item 22b(1)), and also from the type of lagoon used to store wastewaters prior to treatment (see item 36b).
   i.  Other  processes include those needed  to remove  pesticides, heavy metals,  toxic  materials,  total  dissolved  solids,
     and other substances not elsewhere identified.  If such  a process is required, indicate  both its name and the  unit in
     which its concentration is best expressed in the  space provided, and report  the existing and projected influent and
     effluent levels,  the cost, and the basis of the cost estimate.  Most of these substances  are measurable in milligrams
     per liter;  however, some substances (e.g., radioactive materials) may be best expressed in other units of concentra-
     tion.   If more than one such special process is required, report its characteristics  in  item 32,  but include its costs
     in line 26g.
   g. This  line is  the subtotal of all costs reported on lines 26a  thru f,  plus any additional  Category II  costs reported in
     item 32.

27a. Indicate the year  in which  construction of these Needs is expected  to begin.

   b. Indicate the year  in which  construction of these Needs is expected  to be completed.
                                GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS -  ITEMS 28a - 28j
Section 20l(g)(3) of  the Act provides that no grant can be awarded after July I, I973, unless the applicant satisfactorily
demonstrates that the sewer collection system discharging into the proposed treatment works is not subject to "excessive
infiltration".  Section 20 l(g)(4) authorizes Federal assistance for sewer system evaluation  studies to determine whether
there is excessive infiltration.  Specific definitions and requirements pertaining to  excessive  infiltration were published
February 23, I973, in the Federal Register (page 5330, 40 CFR 35.905, 35.925-7).

                             j   SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEMS 28q - 28e    [           j                 ^

28a. The total length of the existing  sewer system includes all types of sewers  connected to the same system, including
     collectors,  interceptors, combined, force mams, etc.  Report this figure in feet.

  b. Each applicant  for a grant must show that it has performed or  will perform an  analysis demonstrating the existence
     or nonexistence of excessive  mfi Itration/mflow in  each  sewer  system tributary to the treatment works  proposed in
     the grant.  The  analysis shall identify the  presence, quantity, and type of any mfi Itration/mflow conditions. Indicate
     the status of this analysis by marking the  appropriate box.

  c. Record either the actual or the estimated cost of the analysis.

  d. If a completed  inf iltration/mt low analysis shows that the sewer system must  be  subject to excessive  infiltration/
     inflow, a systematic sewer system evaluation survey, must be undertaken, after  approval by the Regional Administra-
     tor.   This  evaluation  shall state the specific  location,  condition,  estimated  rate  of flow,  and estimated cost of
     rehabilitation for each identified source  of mfi Itration/mflow  into the  sewer  system.  The  report shall  propose a
     program of  rehabilitation  to correct those conditions  determined  to be  excessive. Indicate the status of this survey,
     where one is required, by marking the appropriate box.

  e. Record  the actual cost of the Sewer System Evaluation  Survey  if the survey has  been completed. Record the esti-
     mated cost  if the survey is required but  is in  some stage  short of completion.

                                                       Page 20

-------
Authority and Facility No.
Section
IV - CATEGORY II - ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST - Continued
CODES AND DEFINITIONS FOR \
BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES >
(For use in column 4 below) /
Complete ONLY, if applicable data r
on 25 b has been supplied
.COST OF NEEDS TO ACHIEVE 1
LEVEL MORE STRINGENT THA
TREATMENT
.26o. Phosphorus removal (mg//)
1 - Actual contract costs 4 - Cost of previous compariable construction
2 - Bid proposal from completed specifications 5 - Engineer/consultant preliminary estimate
3 - Engineer/consultant firm estimate 6 - EPA-supplied cost estimating procedures
equired
FREATMENT
^ SECONDARY
b. Ammonia removal (mg/l)
c. Nitrate removal (mg/l)
{Mark (X) one box)
d. Organics removal 1 Q COD 2 Q TOC


Required capacity
Million gallons
e. Polishing lagoon
(See instructions for this item)
f. Other - Specify type and unit of measurement —y
g. Subtotal - Cost of all
Existing average
concentration
during month
(D
Influent Effluent






Projected design,
average
concentration
during month
(2)
Influent Effluent








Cost
Report In
thousands
(3)
$





$
Basis for cost
estimate
From above
(4)







ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATES OF CATEGORY II NEEDS
27a. Construction is expected to begin (Year) >° — —
b. Construction is expected to be completed (Year) 19 	 	
Section V - CATEGORY III - ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR CORRECTION OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW CONDITIONS Feet
28a. Total length of existing sewer system (Report in feet) '
b. Status of analysis to determ
conditions (Mark (X) one box
1 Q Detailed analysis
2 Q Analysis now unde
3 Q Analysis complete
4 [JJ Analysis complete
c. Cost of analysis (Report in
d. Status of cc
'[UN
2QR
3tHP
4ns
5ns
ne the existence of infiltration/inflow
)
not yet started | Com
rway . ... 	 v and
d: no infiltration correction necessary . . . J with
d: excessive infiltration may exist — Continue with item
hni/^^n^^) ^

>st-effective sewer system evaluation
ot required . . .
equired: plan no
Ian developed: s
urvey in progress
urvey completed -
Title/description
Date
e. Cost of evaluation survey (R
t yet developed . . .
urvey not yet started
plete items 28c
, then continue
item 30a
28c
EPA
USE
ONLY

$
survey (Mark (X) one box)
1 Complete items 28e and j,
f then SKIP to item 30a
EPA
USE
ONLY

- Identify this survey and indicate where a copy can be obtained

Location of copy
eport in thousands) >

$
                         Page 21

-------
         ASSESSMENT  OF NEEDS BY  TYPE  AND COST  -  Continued
                     SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEMS 28f - 29b
281. Indicate  by  marking the appropriate box(es), based upon  the results of the completed  Sewer
    System Evaluation Survey, what actions are necessary to correct infiltration/mflowconditions
    in order to meet the requirements of Section 201  and/or 21 I of the Act. One or more than one
    corrective action may be chosen.

  g.  Record the estimated cost of the corrective action(s) identified in 28f, boxes 2 through 6.

  h.  Answer  "Yes," only if the Sewer  System Evaluation Survey  indicates  a need to increase
     the  treatment capacity  of  the treatment plant  to which  these  sewers  discharge  above  the
     level of  capacity provided for in  item 17.

     (1) Only  if  28h is "Yes,"  record the  additional  treatment capacity in  millions of gallons
        per day.

     (2) Only  if 28h is "Yes," record the cost of providing the additional  capacity.

  i.  Answer  "Yes," only if the Sewer  System Evaluation Survey  indicates  that replacement or
     major rehabilitation of existing sewer collection system is necessary.

     (1) If 28i is marked "Yes,"  indicate  whether  the  State  has  determined that  the proposed
        replacement or major rehabilitation  is necessary to the total integrity and performance of
        the waste treatment works servicing the community.   If the  State  has  made  such a deter-
        mination please describe, in  the space provided, the  nature of the determination, its date
        and where the EPA Regional  Office may obtain a copy.

     (2) Only  if the answers to both 28i and 28i(l) are "Yes," will  there be a cost figure entered
        in 28i(2).

  j.  Summation of costs entered in cost blocks 28c, e, g, h(2), and  i(2).

29a.  Indicate  the year in which construction of these Needs is expected to begin.

  b.  Indicate  the year in which construction of these Needs is expected to be  completed.
                                          Page 22

-------
                               Authority and Facility No. ^      	 	    	
        Section V - CATEGORY III - ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST - Continued
CODES AND DEFINITIONS FOR
BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES
(For use in items 28g,
h(2), and i(2) below)
                             1 - Actual contract costs
                             2 - Bid proposal from completed specifications
                             3 - Engineer consultant firm estimate
                                 4 - Cost of previous comparable construction
                                 5 - Engineer/consultant preliminary estimate
                                 6 - EPA-supplied cost estimating procedures
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR CORRECTION OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW CONDITIONS - Continued
28f,  Based upon the results of the completed sewer system evaluation survey, which of the following
     corrective actions are necessary to correct infiltration/inflow conditions in order to meet the
•     requirements of Sections 201 and/or 21 I  of the Act'
          o I   I Not known at this time
          1 PI None	
SKIP to 28j
            2 Q Seal off sewer lines
            3 [H Replace/reline sewer sections
                                                        4 [_^[ Change/create flow routing system
                                                        5 [~1 Provide flow equalization
                                                        6 Q Other corrective actions - Specify—7
  g.Cost of required  corrective actions identified
    in item 28f (Report in thousands) 	
h.Did the completed sewer system evaluation survey indicate that the capacity of the
  treatment plant to which these sewers discharge must increase above any increase
  in capacity already provided for in item 17?

                                                      2 n No - SKIP to item 28j
                                                                                                  EPA USE
                                                                                                    ONLY
                                                                                                  Basis for cost
                                                                                                   estimate
                                                                                                   From above
                                                                                                    EPA USE
                                                                                                      ONLY
    (1) What additional treatment capacity above that specified in
       item 17 will be required? (Report in millions)
                                                                                Gal Ions per day
    (2) What additional costs beyond those identified in item 22 will  be
       required to provide this capacity? (Report in thousands)	
    Did the completed sewer system evaluation survey indicate that replacement or major
    rehabilitation of an existing sewage collection system was necessary?
            1  Q Yes                                    2 r] No - SKIP to item 28j
                                                                                                    Basis of
                                                                                                  cost estimate
                                                                                                   From above
                                                                                                   EPA USE
                                                                                                    ONLY
    (1) Has the proposed replacement or major rehabilitation of this existing sewage
       collection been determined by the State to be necessary to the total integrity
       and performance of the waste treatment works servicing this community?
            1  [^j Yes — Indicate determination             2 r~ 1 No — SKIP to item 28j
                       and where a copy can
                       be  obtained —&
                 Date
                                   Nature of determination
                 Location of copy
    (2) Cost of replacement or major rehabilitation (Report in thousands)-
                                                                                                  Basis of cost
                                                                                                    estimate
                                                                                                  From above
               Subtotal - Cost of Category III needs
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATES OF CATEGORY III NEEDS

29a.  Construction is expected to begin (Year)
                                                                                       19	
  b, Construction is expected to be completed (Year)
                                                                                       19	
                                                   Page 23

-------
            ASSESSMENT OF  NEEDS BY  TYPE  AND  COST - Continued
                           GENERAL  INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEM 30
The Act provides for the construction of new collector sewers to correct violations of secondary treatment
requirements caused by raw discharges, seepage to waters from septic tanks, cesspools, etc., and/or to
comply with applicable court orders,  permit stipulations, or administrative actions.

Section 211  of the Act provides that new collectors can be funded only in  communities existing prior to
the enactment of the  Act,  October  18, 1972,  and then only if the  community has sufficient existing or
planned capacity to adequately treat the  collected sewage.  Sewage collection systems for new commu-
nities, new subdivisions, and newly developed urban  areas, are not covered under the construction grant
program.  Provision for sewers for such areas are to  be included  as part of the development costs of the
new  construction.   If you have any  questions as to whether your  area is considered to be a new com-
munity or  not,  contact your  State agency.  A collector sewer system means one or more sewers connected
to the same interceptor.
                        SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEMS 30a - 30d
30a. Indicate "Yes," "No," or "Not known" by marking the appropriate box.

  b. Mark "Yes,"if the treatment plant now has existing or planned excess  capacity adequate to  treat
    any additional wastewaters to be transported to it by the proposed collectors.

  c. Based  on the explanation in the  General  Instructions above,  indicate "Yes" or "No" by marking
    the appropriate box.

  d. New collector sewers  constitute a reportable need under this survey only  if items 30a, b, and c were
    all  marked "Yes."  In this case, indicate by  marking the appropriate  box  the primary reason  for
    each new collector sewer.   (If more than five  sewers are proposed, record  the primary reason  for
    each additional sewer  in item 32.)

     If reasons  3  through 7 are marked for any proposed  sewer, indicate  in item 32,  the type of order or
    permit,  its date, the person or agency who authored the document, and the location where the EPA
    Regional Office can obtain a copy.
                           GENERAL  INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEM 31
The  Act provides for the construction of new interceptor sewers to correct violations of secondary treat-
ment requirements caused by raw discharges, seepage to waters from septic tanks, cesspools, etc. and/or
to comply with applicable court orders, permit stipulations, or administrative actions.

The  definition of existing  community as described  in the General Instructions in  28 above applies  to
this  item also.
                        SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEMS 31a - 31d
31a. Mark "Yes," if there is a need for one or more interceptor sewers in the area now served (or expected
     to be served) by this treatment plant.

  b. Mark "Yes,"  if the plant is required or will be required to treat untreated wastewaters now being
     collected by a facility under the jurisdiction of another authority.

  c. Mark "Yes,"  if the treatment plant now has existing or planned excess capacity  adequate to treat
     any  additional wastewaters to be transported to it by the proposed interceptors.

  d. Based on the definitions in  the General  Instructions above,  indicate "Yes" or "No" by marking the
     appropriate box.
                                            Page 24

-------
Authority and Facility No.
Section VI - CATEGORY IV - ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR NEW
COLLECTOR SEWER SYSTEMS
30a. Is there a need for one or more new
collector sewers in the area now
served (or expected to be served)
by this treatment plant?
b. Does this treatment plant now have existing
* or planned excess capacity adequate to
treat any additional wastewaters to be
transported to it by the proposed collectors?
c. Do the wastewaters to be transported in the
proposed collectors originate in communities
existing prior of October 18, 1972?
d. What is the primary reason for each new
collector sewer needed? (If more than five,
supply same data in item 32.)
(Mark appropriate box(es) and explain
lines 3—7 in item 32.)
(1) Correct violation of secondary treatment
requirement caused by raw discharges. . . .
(2) Correct violation of secondary treatment
requirement caused by seepage to waters
from septic tanks, outhouses, etc 	
(3) Comply with order of health authority ....
(4) Comply with State or Federal
court order ....
(5) Comply with State or Federal Permit
or Enforcement Action . . . 	
(6) Required by EPA-approved plan 	
(7) Other - Specify— ~

ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR NEW
INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
31a. Is there a need for one or more new
interceptor sewers in the area now
served (or expected to be served)
by this treatment plant?
b. Is this plant required (or will it be
required) to treat presently untreated
wastewaters now being collected by
another authority?
c. Does this treatment plant now have
existing or planned excess capacity
adequate to treat any additional
wastewaters to be transported to it
by the proposed interceptors?
d. Do the wastewaters to be transported in the
proposed interceptors originate from a
community existing prior to October 18, 1972?
Mark (X) appropriate box(es) for each item
'DYe
2Q No
3Q No
s — Continue with i
t known at this time
tem 30fa
1 SK/P to
J item 3/a
1 Q Yes — Continue with item 30c
2 Q No - SK/P to item 3/a
1 Q Yes - Continue with item 30d
2\^\ No - SK/P to item 3/a
COLLECTOR SEWERS
Longest
iQ
*a
3Q
*D
5Q
*D
?D
2nd
longest
in
2Q
3 tm
«n
5 Q
en
?n
3rd
longest
'D
*n
3D
*n
*n
6Q
?n
4th
longest
iD
2 Q
3d]
4D
5D
6D
?n
5th
longest
1Q
2n
3d]
'El
sn
*n
?a
1 C] Yes
zQ No
3 Q~] Not known at this time
iC]Yes
2QNo
3 f^] Not known at this time
1 Q] Yes — Continue with item 3 Id
2 Q No - SK/P to item 33o and/or 35
1 Q Yes — Continue with item 3/e
2 Q No - SK/P to item 33a and/or 35
EPA USE ONLY




1st







2nd







3rd







4th







5th











                      Page 25

-------
        ASSESSMENT OF  NEEDS  BY  TYPE  AND  COST -  Continued
                    SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEM 31e - 32
31e.  Indicate the basis of the need for each new interceptor sewer.  More than one basis for each
     need may be chosen.

  f.  Only if items 3la or  b, and c and d are "Yes," indicate by  marking in the appropriate box,
     the primary reason for each new interceptor sewer.

     If more than five  interceptor sewers are proposed, record the primary reason for each addi-
     tional sewer in item 32.

     If reasons  (2) through (4)  are marked for  any proposed  interceptor sewer,  indicate in item
     32, the type of order or permit, its date, the person or agency who authorized  the document,
     and the location where the  EPA Regional Office can obtain a copy.

32.   This item is  to record any additional data which  can not fit in the spaces  provided for the
     individual questions.  Be  sure to indicate the  item number and  letter along with the addi-
     tional data.
                                        Page 26

-------
Authority and Facility No.
Section VI - CATEGORY IV - ASSESSMENT OF
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR NEW
INTERCEPTOR SEWERS - Continued
31e. What is the basis for the need(s)
for new interceptors?
(1) To transport untreated wastes from
existing collector(s) to treatment plant
(2) To transport untreated wastes from new
collectors to treatment plant
(3) To transport wastes now being treated
at another plant to this plant
f. What is the
interceptor
five, suppl
(Mark appr
lines 2—4
(1) Correct
treatme
(2) Comply
proceec
(3) Require
(4) Other -
. primary reason for each new
sewer needed? (If more than
y same data in item 32.)
opnote box(es) and explain
n item 32.)
violations of secondary
nt requirements 	
with court order, enforcement
lings etc ....
*d by EPA-approved plan
- Specify-—
NEEDS
BY TYPE AND
COST - Continued
Mark (X) appropriate box(es) for each item
1 [JYes
2 [J No
2Q No
1 Q, Yes
2 J3] No
INTERCEPTORS
U,,s,
in
2Q
3[7]
«n
ADDITIONAL DATA ON NEEDS
32. Enter item reference and explanation
Item reference












2nd
longest
in
*n
3D
40

3rd
longest
m
2D
3[n
4 D

4th
longest
in
zn
an
•D

5th
longest
in
*n
30
4fJ
EPA USE ONLY




1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th





Explanation












                      Page 27

-------
       ASSESSMENT OF  NEEDS BY  TYPE AND  COST - Continued
                      GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEM 33
Only costs for new collector and/or interceptor sewers will be entered in this item. Costs for the
rehabilitation of existing sewers should  be  reported  under  item  28.   Costs  for  new  sewers
to separate combined sewers should be reported under items 35 and 36.

If items 30d and/or 3lf were "Yes," select the particular item or items required and complete the
corresponding line.  Indicate the number required, the length  in feet,  the estimated cost, and the
basis for the estimate.
                  SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS -  ITEMS 33a - 34b
33a.thru d.  Supply information requested.
  e. Sub-total of costs entered in 33a through d.

34a. Indicate the year in which construction of these Needs i s expected to begin.

  b. Indicate the year in which construction of these Needs is expected to be completed.
                                      Page 28

-------
Authority and Facility No.  ^     	  	    	 	 	
Section VI - CATEGORY IV - ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST - Continued
ADDITIONAL DATA ON NEEDS - Continued
32. Enter item reference and explanation — Continued
Item reference

*










Explanation












CODES AMD DEFINITIONS FOR \ 1 - Actual contract costs 4
BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES \ 2 - Bid/proposal from completed specifications 5
(For use in column 4 below) / 3 - Engineer/consultant firm estimate 6
- Cost of previous comparable construction
- Engineer/consultant preliminary estimate
- EPA-supplied cost estimating procedures
Complete ONLY if items 30d and/or 311 were completed
COST OF NEEDS FOR NEW COLLECTOR AND/OR INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
(This category EXCLUDES rehabilitation of existing Numhpr Total
sewers, reportable under items 26 and 28, and new reaured reau
sewers needed to separate combined sewers reportable
under items 35 and 36) (1) (2
33a. New collector sewers
b. New interceptor sewers
c. New force mains
d. New pumping stations i
e. Sub
total: Cost of all !
Catpgory IV nppds .„ -^. :

ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATES OF CATEGORY IV NEEDS
34o. Construction is expected to begin (Year)
b. Construction is expected to be completed (Year)
feet Total cost Basis of cost
ired Report in estimate
thousands From above
) (3) (4)
$



$ ' '.=
19 	
19 	
                     Page 29

-------
        ASSESSMENT  OF NEEDS  BY TYPE AND COST -  Continued

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS -
ITEM 35
	 	 ' 	 j
The  Act requires that  periodic  bypassing  of  untreated wastes from combined  sanitary/storm
sewers  to  an  extent violating  the  secondary treatment and/or water quality  standard effluent
limitations  of  Section 301, as defined by  EPA  or an applicable State law, must be eliminated.
Additionally, such correction may be specifically required by a court order, a permit stipulation
or an administrative action binding on the facility.

This item  includes questions on the existence of, and  types  of  correction  required for, such
violations.   Note that the  costs  of correcting  any  such  conditions can be reported only  if an
evaluation  has been made of the costs and benefits of the various alternative methods for correc-
tion, which demonstrates that the Needs  reported herein  are the most economical and/or efficient.
                     SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEMS 35a - 35f
 35a. Self-explanatory.

   b. In determining the frequency with which bypassing occurs, do not count more than one such
     occurrence within any one 24-hour period.   However, if bypassing persists for a period of
     more than 24 hours, count one  occurrence for each consecutive period of 24 hours or less.

   c. If the correction of violations noted in 35b  is specifically required by a water quality plan,
     indicate the title of the plan or  a description  thereof, its date, the person and/or agency who
     authored the document and the  location where a copy can be obtained by the EPA Regional
     Office.

   d. If the correction of violations noted in 35b is specifically required by  a court order, permit
     stipulation or other type of administrative action,  indicate the nature  of the action, its date,
     and  the location where a copy can be obtained by the E PA Regional Office.

   e. If such a cost/benefit  evaluation has been made,  identify the name and/or  nature of the
     evaluation, the person or agency who authored the document,  its date, and the location where
     a copy can be obtained by the EPA Regional Office.

   f. Answer  "Yes," only if the  modifications  of existing facilities  or  construction of new
     facilities necessary to correct  the violations noted in 35b have been determined  to be cost
     effective in  the evaluation cited in 35e.
                                         Page 30

-------
Authority and Facility No. ^      	  —  ~  	  	  —
Section VII - CATEGORY V -
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR
CORRECTION OF COMBINED SEWERS
35o. Are any of the sewers which comprise
or are connected to this facility
combined sanitary storm sewers?
b. With what frequency do such combined
sewers require periodic bypassing of
untreated wastewaters to an extent
violating the secondary treatment and/or
water quality standards effluent
limitations of Section 301 of the Act?

c. Is correction of the violations noted
in 35b, specifically required by a
water quality plan?





d. Is correction of the violations noted
in 35b specifically required by a
State or Federal court order, permit
regulatory action binding on this
discharge?





Complete unless response to both items
35c and 35d was "No," in which case,
SKIP to item 38a
e. Has an evaluation been made of the
costs and benefits of the various
alternative methods for correction of
the violations noted in 35b above which
demonstrates that the needs reported
herein are the most economical
and/or efficient?
f. Are modifications of existing
facilities or construction of
new facilities necessary to
correct the conditions noted
in 35b above, which have been
determined to be cost-effective
in the evaluation cited in 33e?
- ASSESSEMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST
Mark (X) appropriate boxes

1 \^ Yes — Continue with item 35b
2 [-7] No - SKIP to item 38a
1 [ I Not known ... ]
2 Q Does not occur . . . > Skip to item 38a
4 Q More than once a year - Specify Frequency
Q\"*ragp annual frpqu^ncy. -^.

i n NO
afjYes; required by plan approved "*\
by State and EPA.
3 [--; Yes; required by plan I /d jf ,
approved by State ' 7
4 [~ Yes; required by plan not ]
yet approved by State 	 ,, '
Title/description Date
Author Authority
Location of copy
1 (^ No
2 r J Order of State court 	 "\
3 [~] Order of Federal court 	
4 [~ I State permit 	
5 n Federal permit 	 f 'de"t'fy action—.
6 f_~] State enforcement proceeding . . 1
7 p ] Federal enforcement proceeding 1
s r~| Other - Specify 7

Action


1 [^] Yes — Identify such analysis — -
Name/description
Authority Date
Location of copy
2 LH No such evaluation has been made - SKIP to item 38o
1 d No - SKIP to item 38
2 Q] Yes - Continue with item 36a

EPA USE
ONLY

























••••••••
                     Page 31

-------
             ASSESSMENT OF  NEEDS  BY  TYPE AND COST -  Continued
                            GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEM 36
 Estimated costs should be reported only if the response to 35f is "Yes." In that case, select the corrective
 action or actions required and complete the corresponding line(s). Indicate the number required, the length
 in feet or volume in million gallons, the estimated cost,  the basis for the estimate, and the beginning and
 ending construction dates.
                        SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEMS 36a - 37b
 36a. Indicate which type(s) of sewers are required, considering that the existing combined sewer may  be
     retained for one type of use.

  b. The retention basins or lagoons, reported here are those required to store wastes prior to treatment,
     thus preventing bypassing or overloading of the treatment plant.  These must be distinguished from
     those  lagoons reportable in  box 3 of 22b(l), which are designed to hold the effluent after treatment.

  c. Costs and supportive data to be  entered in this  block are  only  those required to correct combined
     sewer overflows,  and even then, only if in addition to any treatment capacity data  and  costs  already
     reported in items  17 and 22 respectively.

  d. Includes costs of  any equipment or construction intended to  level  off peak flows by  routing excess
     waters in a different  manner than ordinarily employed, provided the excess  waters are returned for
     treatment when peak conditions subside.

  e. Identify each type of corrective action not otherwise classifiable, and provide appropriate data.

  f. Summation of all costs  entered in blocks 36a, b, c,  d, and e.

 37a. Indicate the year  in which construction of these Needs is expected to begin.

  b. Indicate the year  in which construction of these Needs is expected to be completed.
                           GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEM 38
This concluding summation of individual  category costs will result in the total  cost of all Needs for the
facility.  This total, in turn, is  used to  derive the  total  cost  of all Needs identified by this Authority.
                        SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS  -  ITEMS 38a - 38f
38.  Transfer costs  of each category, if any, from the  indicated  cost blocks to  item 38. Enter  "0" or
     "—" if no costs are required for a particular category.  Add numbers to determine the total cost of
     Needs for the facility.
                                            Page 32

-------
Authority and Facility No. »•       	  	
Section VII - CATEGORY V - ASSESSEMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST - Continued
CODES AND DEFINITIONS FOR \ 1 - Actual contract costs 4 - Cost of previous compariable construction
BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES \ 2 - Bid/proposals from completed specifications 5 - Engineer/consultant preliminary estimate
(For use in column 4 below) / 3 - Engineer/consultant firm estimate 6 - EPA-supplied cost estimating procedures
Complete appropriate items below ONLY if
item 351 was marked "Yes."
COST OF NEEDS FOR CORRECTION OF
"COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
36
-------
Remarks
                                                Page 34

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------