FINAL REPORT
TO THE CONGRESS
JO, 1975
REVISED MAY6, 1975
COST ESTIMATES FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY
OWNED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES
1974 "NEEDS"SURVEY
PREPARED PURSUANT TO
SECTIONS 205 AND 516, PUBLIC LAW 92-500
AS AMENDED BY PUBLIC LAW 93-243
VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
.PAL CONSTRUCTION DIVISION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
CONTENTS
Preface Page i i
I. Introduction Page 1
II. Explanation of the Survey Page 2
III. Results of the Survey Page 3
IV. Comparison of Results of the 1973 and 1974 Surveys Page 5
V. Quality of Facility Estimates ...Page 5
VI. Cost of the Survey Page 9
VII. Conclusions and Recommendations .Page 9
VIII. Tabl es of Reported Needs Page 11
Appendix A. Survey Methodology Page A-l
Appendix B. Summary Table of EPA
Independent Assessments Page B-l
TJR
-------
PREFACE TO THE REVISED REPORT
The series of tables contained in the February 10, 1975, Final Report
to the Congress, which presented the cost estimates from the 1974 Municipal
Needs Survey, have been recently revised. Although the text does not change,
the Report is being reissued to reflect the impact of the revisions on the
data in the chart on page 4, in the tables in Section VIII, and in the
Appendix B table.
The revisions were necessitated after work with the individual facility
files indicated some discrepancies between the original input data and its
summarization in the Final Report tables. The initial cost estimates for
the State of Colorado and American Samoa were incorrectly converted into the
computer format. The Colorado totals for Categories II and IVB and the Cate-
gory IVB cost total for American Samoa were understated. In addition to
these cost discrepancies, the 1990 population figures for Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands and American Samoa were inadvertently reported as zero in the
final tables and have been corrected.
Although the changes do not have a significant influence on the National
totals, there is an obvious impact on individual State totals, and it is
recommended that any use of the 1974 Survey data should be made en the basis
of the revised tables.
-------
FINAL REPORT OF JOINT STATE-ERA 1974 SURVEY OF ESTIMATES OF COSTS OF
CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED WASTE TREATMENT WORKS
I. INTRODUCTION
This final report presents State and EPA estimates of the cost
of construction of publicly-owned treatment works needed to meet the
1983 goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (FWPCA)
of 1972. The report is submitted in compliance with Sections 516(b)(2)
and 205(a) of the FWPCA, as further amended by Public Law 93-243.
These provisions of the law have the dual purpose of obtaining a
comprehensive estimate of the total cost of meeting the goals of the
FWPCA, and of estimating these costs State-by-State as a possible basis
for the allocation of construction grant funds authorized after
Fiscal Year 1975.
Public Law 93-243 required EPA to obtain these estimates by a
Nation-wide survey utilizing a modified version of the survey questionnaire
prepared for the 1973 "Needs" Survey. The 1973 Survey, however, was
restricted to documenting needs necessary to meet only the 1977
requirements of the FWPCA, therefore to comply with the legislative
purpose of obtaining a comprehensive estimate of all the costs of
meeting the 1983 goals of the FWPCA, the guidelines for the 1974 Survey
were far less constraining. A Preliminary Report presented EPA's initial
findings from this Survey to the Congress on September 3, 1974, and
expressed the Agency's serious reservations about using the estimates
for future allocation of construction funds among the States. These
reservations were founded on the Agency belief: (1) that the total
estimates probably overstated the cost of meeting the 1983 goals of
the FWPCA - with the cost of abating pollution from stormwater overflows
being of particular concern; and (2) that the comparability of State
data was inadequate because of major variations both in the criteria
and methodology used by the States in making their estimates and in
adhering to Agency Survey guidelines. Also the Preliminary Report
findings were based on a limited review of the Survey questionnaires
and an evaluation of State reports on the Survey.
Following the September Preliminary Report, the Agency concentrated
on completing a detailed review of all State estimates. There were
three basic reasons for this more comprehensive review. The first
was to identify and correct inadvertent clerical reporting
inaccuracies. The second was to further evaluate State cost estimates
that appeared to be excessive or otherwise deficient from the standpoint
of technical validity. The third purpose was to consider the possible
use of the estimates for allocation purposes and to identify data
anomalies that would treat any State unfairly. As a rasult of these review
actions EPA has developed a separate set of data which it considers
to be a more realistic portrayal of the National facility requirements.
-------
This Report also covers the Agency's analysis of the process of
identifying needs and developing a formula for allocating
funds to the States. The needs identification process is evaluated
in terms of how this Survey was conducted, and its resultant impact
on the estimates contained in the report.
II. EXPLANATION OF THE SURVEY
The 1974 Survey asked the States to report their cost estimates
in the five major categories used in the 1973 Survey plus one new one
for treatment and/or control of stormwaters. Two of these
categories were divided for the 1974 Survey. The categories are
briefly described below:
Category I - This includes costs for facilities which would provide
a legally required level of "secondary treatment," or "best practicable
wastewater treatment technology (BPWTT)." For the purpose of the
Survey, BPWTT and secondary treatment were to be considered synonymous.
Category II - Costs reported in this category are for treatment
facilities that must achieve more stringent levels of treatment. This
requirement exists where water quality standards require removal of such
pollutants as phosphorous, ammonia, nitrates, or organic substances.
Category IIIA - This includes costs for correction of sewer system
infiltration/inflow problems. Costs could also be reported for a
preliminary sewer system analysis and for the more detailed Sewer System
Evaluation Survey.
Category IIIB - Requirements for replacement and/or major rehabilitation
of existing sewage collection systems are reported in this category.
Costs were to be reported if the corrective actions were necessary to
the total integrity of the system. Major rehabilitation is considered
extensive repair of existing sewers beyond the scope of normal
maintenance programs.
Category IVA - This category consists of costs for construction
of collector sewer systems designed to correct violations caused by raw
discharges, seepage to waters from septic tanks and the like, and/or
to comply with Federal, State or local actions.
Category IVB - This category consists of costs of new interceptor
sewers and transmission pumping stations necessary for the bulk transport
of wastewaters.
Category V - Costs reported for this category are to prevent
periodic bypassing of untreated wastes from combined sewers to an
extent violating water quality standards or effluent limitations.
It does not include treatment and/or control of stormwaters.
-------
Category VI - States were also asked to make a rough cost estimate in a
sixth category, "Treatment and/or Control of Stormwaters." This includes
the costs of abating pollution from stormwater run-off channelled
through sewers and other conveyances used only for such run-off. The
costs of abating pollution from stormwater channelled through combined
sewers which also carry sewage are included in Category V. Category VI
was added so the Survey would provide an estimate of all eligible
facility costs, as explicitly required by Public Law 93-243.
The estimates were to be reported in June 1973 dollars, and
are therefore comparable to the costs in the 1973 Survey. Estimates
were also to be based on the projected 1990 population as in the
1973 Survey.
The 1974 Survey was initiated January 31, 1974, when a letter
with a general outline of how the survey would be conducted was
distributed to each State along with a copy of the questionnaire.
The States assumed responsibility for seeing that the Survey
questionnaires were completed. They had the option, as in 1973, of
completing a Survey questionnaire for each facility themselves, or
forwarding a questionnaire to each local sewerage authority for
completion. A more detailed description of how the Survey was conducted
is included as Appendix A.
III. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
The total of all State estimates and their comparison with
the 1973 totals is summarized by category in the table below.
There are three sets of figures for 1974: (1) the original State
data as reported in the September Preliminary Report; (2) the State
figures after correcting inadvertent clerical reporting inaccuracies;
and (3) the set of estimates resulting from Agency adjustments based on
evaluation of technical validity of cost estimates and identification of
data ano,,ialies that would unfairly treat any State if the estimates are
used in a grant allocation formula.
Included in the final EPA adjusted 1974 figures is $46 billion
for Categories I, II and IVB that reflect the costs for the traditional
Water Quality Program of treatment plants and interceptors. An
additional $61 billion is included for Categories III, IVA and V.
The State estimates for the new Category VI (treatment and/or
control of Stormwaters) are $235 billion. Total costs for all
categories reported in the Survey therefore, come to $342 billion.
-------
SUMMARY TABLE OF ESTIMATES
A.
I
II
II
Totals for all Categories:
CATEGORY
Secondary Treatment
More Stringent
Treatment Required
by Water Qua! ity
IA Correction of Sewer
Infilration/Inflow
1 1 IB Major Sewer
Rehabilitation
IVA Collector Sewers
IVB Interceptor Sewers
V
VI
B.
Correction of
Combined Sewer
Overflows
Treatment and/or
Control of
Stormwaters
TOTALS
Totals for Categories
I, II and IVB
Combined:
(Millions of 1973 Dollars
1974 Survey
(A)
State
Prel i mi nary
Data
11,679
21,311
5,355
7,070
23,090
19,932
(B)
State
Corrected
Data
12,628
20,330
5,348
7,330
24,583
19,758
i
i
26,070 31,192
235,006 235,006
349,613 356,177
(C)
EPA
Adjusted
Data
12,629
15,776
5,287
7,287
17,458
17,923
31,076
235,006
342,442
i
1
1
52,922 52,716 46,328
)
(D) I
1973 ||
Survey 1 Change
Data (D to C)
16,639 -4,010
!i
5,650
4
| +10,126
:l
691 J +4,596
10,825
13,621
12,697
60,123
35,910
j
1 +7,287
+6,633
:
+4,302
|
+18,379
+235,006 i
+282,319 I
+10,418
-------
IV. COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF THE 1973 AND 1974 SURVEYS
The 1974 Agency adjusted estimates reflect costs for the traditional
Water Quality Program of treatment plants and interceptors (Categories I,
II and IVB) that are $10 billion greater than the $36 billion reported
in the 1973 Survey. The costs reported in 1974 for Categories I-V
are $47 billion greater than the $60 billion reported in the 1973 Survey.
The primary reasons for che increases are the elimination in 1974
of most of the reporting constraints included in the 1973 Survey,
the general expanded scope of the Survey to accommodate reporting of all
costs for all treatment facilities that the States felt were necessary
in their implementation of the FWPCA, and to some degree a better job
of identifying and estimating State facility requirements.
One major impact of the expanded scope of the Survey was that estimates
for treatment plants and interceptors (Categories I, II and IVB) could
be based on water quality standards anticipated by the States for the
future and were not limited to those already established in the past,
as in 1973. One result of this is evidenced in the dramatic shift
from secondary treatment (Category T) to plants requiring more
stringent levels of treatment (Category II). Estimates for
Category III could be reported for major rehabilitation of sewer systems
as well as correction of infiltration and inflow. Major rehabilitation
costs of $7 billion were reported which were not eligible in the
earlier Survey. These estimates did not have to be documented with an
analysis and detailed evaluation of the problem as in 1973. Estimates
reported for correction of combined sewer overflows in Category V
were not limited in 1974 by the previous requirement that they be
based on an evaluation of the most economical and/or effective
alternative. A second major result of the expanded scope of the Survey
was the State identification of $235 billion for the new "Treatment and/or
Control of Stormwaters" Category.
V. QUALITY OF FACILITY ESTIMATES
A. General Factors Affecting Reliability and Comparability
The reliability of national wastewater treatment need cost
estimates and the State-to-State comparability of these estimates are
influenced primarily by three factors:
(1) The extent to which the requirements for abatement
actions have been clearly dcifined through National, State and local plans,
rules, regulations, standards, etc., determines whether abatement action
decisions can be made, as well as the accuracy with which corrective
action costs can be estimated.
(2) The state-of-the-art in abatement technology also
determines how accurately cost estimates can be made and whether they
can be validated once they have been made.
-------
(3) The synthesis of all relevant factors through a
planning process that addresses project feasibility and practicability
is essential before realistic decisions and estimates can be made on
any abatement action.
The net impact of these three factors is that if an abatement program
area is well defined - where decisions are clear as to the specific
requirement for an abatement action, and as to the best and most cost
effective solution - then cost estimates can be made that are quite
accurate and should not vary from year to year. If abatement requirements
are unclear and alternatives numerous - estimates will be poor and may
fluctuate widely each time they are made. Similarly, if the technology
for an abatement solution is unclear - where there are many options and
little experience with any of the options - then estimates may have only
limited value. In such situations, estimates made by different parties
for correcting the same type abatement problem may also fluctuate widely
both at a given point in time, and from year to year. Even if program
requirements and abatement technology are well defined there is no
assurance of high quality estimates unless proper consideration is
given to such planning elements as alternative waste management
techniques and cost-effectiveness studies.
The ability to validate estimates bears a direct relationship
to the ability to make them.
B. 1974 Survey Reliability
In terms of the three factors discussed in paragraph A
that influence the facility cost estimating process, the 1974 Survey
data has varying levels of reliability between the six cost categories.
(1) Program Definition:
The Survey guidelines were .designed to meet the legislative
requirement that all facility costs required in implementing the Act be reported.
The problem in using such estimates is that they are based on implementation
strategies that are in varying stages of development. Because of the
inherent flexibility of abatement choices, the States could not be
consistent or uniform in reporting their needs in situations where goals
were not well-defined, or where there was no recognized "best method"
for a solution. In those cases, when the range of choices available for
abatement actions relating to a given pollution problem were wide,
and when the legal requirements for correction offered significant
latitude, there was considerable unevenness in the impact of the diverse
approaches taken by States in determining what corrective abatement
actions were necessary and in estimating the cost of such actions.
This situation exists in relation to costs reported
in Categories III, V and VI, and makes meaningful State-by-State comparisons
extremely difficult. Policy decisions in the Category VI, stormwater,
area are in a particularly embryonic state of development and made
cost comparisons impossible.
-------
There were cost comparison problems even in Categories I,
II, and IV, because under the Survey guidance, States were permitted to
project such corrective actions that would solve known or anticipated
problems in achieving the 1983 goals of the Act. Since the Water Quality
Standards to meet such objectives will not be established until about
1978 by joint State and EPA concurrence, it was necessary for the various
States to make an assumption as to what standards would ultimately be
established. The assumed standards were then utilized in establishing
the 1983 level of treatment for each plant, and costs estimated accordingly.
Some States based their projections on the same standards utilized in
the 1973 Survey, while others assumed that major increases would be
required in the stringency of standards and estimated very high
levels of treatment.
(2) Cost Estimating Technology:
The ability to make reasonably accurate engineering
cost estimates and to validate them exists for Category I, II, and IV
abatement needs, but is at a low state of refinement for Category III,
V, and VI needs. The EPA guidelines provided to the States for guidance
in making estimates in Categories III, V, and VI were admittedly of
minimal assistance and had limited value in making detailed engineering
estimates and State-by-State comparisons. No cost estimating guidelines
could be provided to the States for Category IIIB because of the great variance
in case-by-case factors in this area.
(3) Faci J i t ies Planning:
As was the case with program definition and estimating
technology, the facilities planning element was more effective in the
production of quality estimates in Categories I, II and IV needs.
This is to be expected as those Categories encompass the facilities
that have received the most funding under the traditional water quality
program and have been evaluated more carefully because of their
priority status. Much planning has already occured in this area and
factors affecting decisions ,-iave been relatively well defined.
This is true however, only as it relates to planning for facilities
that are designed for the 1977 requirements of the Act. For the most
part, States that made estimates based on projected 1983 requirements
that were significantly more stringent than the 1977 effluent limitations
were doing so for the first time, and generally made the estimates
without benefit of formal planning.
Planning in Categories III and V can only be considered
effective for the portion of the estimates for which formal analyses
have been completed. Virtually no completed planning was available for
Category VI estimates. The State data revealed an incidence of high
per capita flows that is an indicator of a national planning defect in
this area. It is indicative that insufficient consideration has been
given to the control and reduction of flow impacting the sizing of
treatment^aci 1 i ties.
-------
C. Agency Assessments
The unevenness in the estimates that is describee
preceeding section resulted primarily from the wide differences
approach taken by the individual States in projecting the level
The unevenness in the estimates that is described in the
in
of
effluent limitations they would impose within their State to meet the
1983 goals of the Act. Public Law 93-243 allows the States
to project any level of treatment they think necessary. However, the
amount of distortion from those few States taking an extremely stringent
approach appeared sufficiently large to have a potential adverse impact
on the development of an equitable State allocation formula. A dilemma
between following the dictates of the Act and providing fair treatment
to all States was thus created.
The Agency decided that a responsive but fair allocation
formula was of primary concern and initiated a review of State estimates
to identify those costs that might create abnormal distortions. Because
the States were in fact following the Act in terms of projecting their
long-range effluent requirements, the Agency review of necessity had to
be somewhat subjective. For this reason the adjusted figures may not
reflect a clear picture of an individual State's total long-range needs but are
considered more representative of the actual short-term requirements
that would be met through funding under any current allocation formula.
The potential for distortion also existed in those
situations where States deviated significantly from Agency Survey
Guidelines. This was also evaluated in the review process and three areas
were identified where State estimates deviated from either the Survey
guidelines or from what the Agency considered acceptable engineering standards.
The Agency assessment indicates that excessive costs were reported as
the result of estimates exceeding EPA cost curves, the Census Bureau 1990
population projections and acceptable flow per capita standards. For
the reasons stated in the preceeding section, major Agency assessments
could be made only for the Category I, II and IVB estimates. A summary
table showing the independent assessments for each State is attached as
Appendix B.
The State needs as reported for Category IVA (New
Collectors) are not considered comparable because they were developed using
two different assumptions. Several of the States developed needs on the
basis of the PL 92-300 requirement (Section 211) that limits eligibility
for new collectors only to those communities where a substantial portion
of the population existed prior to October 18, 1972, and this eligibility
constraint was included in the Survey guidelines. Other States developed
needs on the basis of the assumed legislative intent of PL 93-243,
directing the reporting of all needs for all treatment works necessary to
meet the goals of PL 92-500. The resulting disparity in reported costs
has been analyzed and a separate EPA assessment made. However, the Agency
feels the results still do not provide an acceptable level of comparability.
-------
In making these independent assessments the Agency
identified at least $650 million in the State of Maryland's estimates
that appeared in the review to be anomalous. The State has indicated
that this large increase in treatment requirements is due to special
pollution nroblems effecting their shellfish industry and eutrophication
of the Chesapeake Bay. The State estimate was not reduced, in the EPA
adjustment process Because the stringent effluent limitations are
considered by the State to be immediate requirements that will impact
current facility design.
VI. COST OF THE SURVEY
The conduct of the 1974 Needs Survey involved the committment of
a substantial amount of both Federal and State resources. The Agency
expended approximately $1 million for the project up through the period
of Final Report submittal. It is known that the State's funding
committment was at least $1.5 million. In addition, the Survey
required the diversion of critical manpower during peak periods of
the Survey. The National construction grant program suffered because
personnel diverted were generally from that activity.
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Potential Use of Estimates
To comply with the requirements of PL 93-243, these National
estimates must be considered in two separate ways. They should be
viewed both in terms of their value as an indicator of the total National
long range facility requirements of PL 92-500, and in terms of their
value for establishing State allocation formulae.
For the several reasons cited in the preceding sections of
this Report, there was a degree of unevenness in the State corrected
estimates that was considered unacceptable when viewing the data for
allocation purposes. The Agency review process identified the extent of
this unevenness and the estimates were adjusted accordingly. No meaningful
adjustments could be made for Categories III, V and VI because of the
status of program definitions, abatement technology and facilities
planning.
If after consideration is given to the status of data comparability,
the 1974 Survey estimates are to be used for allocation purposes, only
Categories I, II and IVB are recommended for use. The Agency adjusted
figures in these three Categories are considered to be sufficiently
accurate for such purposes when viewed within the context of their
overall National validity. These figures are also felt to be adequate
for use as an indicator of total National requirements.
-------
The cost estimates for the new Category VI, (treatment and/or
control of stormwaters), are not considered useful as either an indicator
of any long-term requirements, or for allocation purposes. States
reporting large requirements in this category assumed that a stringent
level of abatement for very large geographical areas would be necessary
to meet water quality standards. The state-of-the-art is not such that
the Agency can provide an alternative estimate for this category, but
the few studies which have been conducted to assess the impact, indicate
that the actual requirements in this category will be substantially less
than the total reported by the States.
The Agency adjusted cost estimates for Categories IIIA,
IIIB, IVA and V have limited value as an indicator of gross National
requirements, but only when considered within the context of other
comments regarding the needs identification policies that governed the
conduct of this Survey. The cost estimates for these four Categories
are not considered adequate for allocation purposes.
B. Allocation Formula
There has been continuing debate over the allocation
formula used for distributing available construction grant funds among
the States. When a strict population formula was used in the past
it did not provide adequate funding to States that had high population
concentrations and a resulting need for construction of sophisticated
and expensive treatment facilities. When the legislation linked funding
directly to estimated facility needs there were other inequities created.
The problems with an allocation formula based strictly on needs relate
primarily to the ability to accurately make and validate estimates,
and are particularly acute when the estimates involve facility needs
projected for State implementation of longer-range abatement requirements.
This latter situation has been identified in the Report and the Agency
believes that the unevenness of the estimates, even though adjusted
through the Survey final review process, should be further tempered
by the inclusion of a population factor within the allocation formula.
A new construction grant allocation formula is recommended
that would be based on an equal 50 percent division between population
and the Agency adjusted cost estimates for Categories I, II and IVB.
This proposed formula is recommended for use in allocating any new
funds that might be authorized over and above those authorized in
PL 92-500 for Fiscal Years 1973, 1974, and 1975. With regard to the
$5 billion of currently unallotted funds, it is EPA's intent to
allot them pursuant to the 1973, 1974, and 1975 formulae in
such a way as if they had been released in the time periods intended by the
Act. Accordingly, the Agency does not recommend the application of
a new allocation formula to any of these reserve funds.
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
-------
C. Future Identification of Facility Requirements
Several problems relating to data reliability and
comparability have been cited in this Report. Because of these
problems, and the heavy drair on State and Federal resources
required to conduct the 1974 burvey, the Agency will investigate
different procedures for deriving future Section 516 facility estimates.
To be more effective for equitable allocation purposes,
the structuring of an alternative facility requirement identification
process should be directed toward improving the relationship between
the dollar estimate and the actual way in which the funds will be
used. To accomplish this will require that estimating concentrate
on areas of program priority and grant eligibility.
The Agency will work closely with Committee staff
members as it develops an alternative approach.
VIII. TABLES OF REPORTED NEEDS
Attached are three series of tables which relate ^o the three
sets of figures discussed in the Report:
SP - State Preliminary Data
SC - State Corrected Data
EPA - EPA Adjusted Data
Each series contains the following tables:
Table 1 - Shows the distribution of cost for each State,
Categories I-V.
Table 2 - Reflects cost and percentage comparison between
1973 and 1974 of combined Categories I, II, III,
IV and V.
Table 3 - Shows cost and percentage comparison between 1973
and 1974 of combined Categories I, II and IVB
Table 4 - Shows a comparison of per capita costs between 1973
and 1974 for Categories I through V based on 1972
population figures.
Also included in the SP series is:
Table 5 - Shows total and per capita costs reported for
Category VI by State.
NOTE: Column figures will not equal totals because of
computer rounding.
11
-------
TAiLl
- I
IMINARY ST»IL IbllHATF
197* COSTS* REPORTED FO" >-ONSI 'UCI I ?'i Ol PU''L 1C I1 -U.N> ')
(MILLIONS OF 1973 UJLLAR->)
REGION 1
II
III
J)tGIC"i IV
REGION
REGION
REolON VII
U
olPUM.lLK 3,
ASTEWATE* TRLAIMENT FACILITIES
CATEGORIES
)97<>
CONNECTICUT
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
NEK HAMHbHUE
RHODE ISLAND
VERMONT
NE« JERSEY
SEH YORK
PUERTO HICO
V13GIN ISLANDS
DELAWARE
MARYLAND
VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
PENNSYLVAMA
UlSTRICT UF COLUMBIA
ALAKAMA
FLORIDA
GEJPGIA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
MlC"K'Ar(
MlNMEiOTA
OHIO
WISCONSIN
ARKANSAS
LOJ1SIANA
NEK MEXICO
TEXAS
OKLAHOMA
10NA
KANSAS
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
COLORADO
MONT ANA
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
UTAH
WYOMING
AHI/ON1
CALIFORNIA
MAwAII
NEVADA
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
TRUST URR1TORIES
ALASKA
IDAHO
OREGON
WASHINGTON
1 JUL'
TOUL
*,c87
096
6,496
1, Jd8
) .-44
367
12,163
37,059
95*
111
1.155
1 3. * J9
21. '68
5.V99
9. J22
l.Jb*
4.039
7,798
4.J81
3,912
057
8,315
3,320
S,*05
7,170
5,401
8. *53
3,<:32
Jl, ( s \ 6
*,22b
4,005
6.075
1B9
15,571
5,138
3.476
*, 760
3,489
1,637
713
75*
5*8
^83
'50
133
613
76.016
15,120
316
97
J63
190
057
9*6
1 * *o2
4, 366
3*9,513
1
SECONDARY
TREATMENT
181
130
721
165
68
36
1,061
616
177
13
67
9
*78
115
1,028
0
86
595
212
63
36
1*9
3*7
121
250
217
1*8
69
26
18*
0
232
52
0
0
157
263
460
193
96
*0
61
33
196
62
166
1,016
203
*2
8
36
90
122
58
1*7
578
11,679
11
HORE
ST3ING1NT
TRLA1MLNI
85
5
222
95
30
6*
666
2.593
0
0
32
1.705
3H*
33H
201
68
168
6.13
500
319
170
516
47
285
1.832
378
653
*0?
> , f, jy
*21
519
120
8
2.162
576
216
71
88
12
203
18
0
32
0
0
9
2.687
27
102
0
10
18
0
6*
0
**
21.311
III A
CORR.
INF IL./
INFLOW
23
1
36
26
*
8
211
*65
1*
1
100
50
293
156
89
41
92
**
10
b6
*2
53
1*
77
18*
153
97
52
635
80
63
351
*
206
67
126
587
219
39
29
*
1
1
1*
0
1
333
0
1
0
1
2
*
?3
57
95
5.355
III H
MA JUM
RLHAH
IV A
NEW
COlLErlOR
IV »
NEW
iNTl R-
V
COMtUNFU
SFXI R
VI
SEWERS Ct.PTO'iS OVERFLOW
36
3
31
0
j
3
168
2,108
0
0
67
1.133
50
5
57
217
5
**
2
68
28
0
0
12
6*
1B7
*59
1*
llj
131
0
97
1
187
556
10
J26
0
1
2*
?
0
0
2
0
,
46
0
0
1
0
0
?
16
325
*t>5
7.070
328
112
902
218
193
37
6flb
*.*6 '
2*b
U
65
1*6
290
1 . '52
1.1 8b
0
187
1.326
269
*5t>
5'
33*
255
396
*73
33'
1.021
20-
Le (
*2'
445
*3»
53
713
176
12*
861
J8J
41
12J
22
6«
2
59
56
332
811
SO
1 2t>
28
5J
55
98
1HO
192
55B
23,090
265
1*9
b97
18)
134
35
909
2.065
21 1
19
101
839
-'2
1 . 6^8
625
2
169
926
J08
37.1
98
382
3*9
307
**9
J03
1 .009
2JJ
*»&
447
J09
285
38
468
696
232
29 7"
3*1
67
212
35
2*
9
2*
15
10*
1.1H*
210
*5
18
16
25
6*
100
161
352
19,932
702
197
866
191
87
37
909
5.004
I"
0
11 5
2'
20'
!)'>
2, ,1'J4
72<-
0
0
2114
679
2
0
0
110
1,69.)
1,*29
1,9 )6
360
3./9U
621
2
1
0
118
0
126
1U
878
631
26 NO
8
50
0
0
0 NO
0 NO
2.667
299
3,121
212
9,' 7
1*7
7,5r>*
20. 1*1
289
66
60H
9,'.>JO
19.SH6
1 , '40
1. /* 1
300
3.3 »,'
*,2 )0
2. '9t>
I ,H9H
*,'*
6.HH1
2, 1>OIJ
* . 09 /
2.rV'>
2. I'll
).h 10
1 . HH'j
6,'j/U
1.914
2.667
*,551
33
11,717
3,067
2.8H5
2,242
1,120
653
NEED',
625
3**
206
455
NtEUS
NK-DS
900 69.H19
0
0 NO
0
0
0 NO
9
36
262
323
14.600
Nl (.OS
42
2*7
NtEUS
55H
*(>9
830
1,951
36,070 215,006
MIL >OLLU*1'.G AJUITIO'.AL uEfl>',, NTT INC-JDFO IN THIS REPORT,
«L-: RICUvEU AMIW !"(. SU-Vf 1 CLOS'Nlj 3.Ill
Nf« YORK >b9? MILLUN
KLNIUCKY 1301 MILLIUM
-------
TAULE SP -
MAY 6.
PRELIMINARY ST»It ESTIMATE
STATE NEEDS AND PERCENTAuE OF NATIONAL COSTS*
REROUTED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUHL ICL r -0-M 0 «AS!E>rAlER TREA1EMENT FACILITIES
(CATEGORIES li II. III. IVA. IVH AND V)
(MILLIONS OF 1973 DOLLARS)
1975
ON I
RtoION II
H L GI UN 111
REGION IV
REGION v
REGION VI
REGION VII
REGION Vlll
REGION IX
CONNECTICUT
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
NEH HAMPSHIRE
RHODE IbLANO
VERMONT
Nt» JERSEY
New YO«K
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
OLLAIIAWE
MARtLANU
VIRGINIA
LSI VIRGINIA
PENNSYLVANIA
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ALABAMA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
ILLINOIS
INOI ANA
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
OHIO
XlSCONSlN
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
NEW MEXICO
TEXAS
OKLAHOMA
IOMA
KANSAS
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
COLORADO
MONTANA
NORTH UAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
UTAH
WYOMING
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
HAMAI1
NEVADA
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
TKUST TEHHITOHIES
COSTS*
PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL TOTALS
9/3/7'.
SUBMITTED
1.620
597
3.375
876
517
220
"4.609
17.318
665
45
5*7
3.909
2.1B2
4,259
5.579
1.054
707
3.568
1.5S5
2.014
433
1.43'.
1.012
1.308
«.9<.5
3.00'.
5.333
1.3<.7
7,61.6
2.311
1.338
1.52*
1S6
S.Bbi.
2.071
991
2.518
2.369
984
713
129
204
77
295
133
613
6.997
520
316
55
116
190
ERA
ASSESSMtNT
1.S88
575
2.964
740
447
204
4,894
15.302
603
44
546
3.642
1.8H4
2.360
5.454
1.05?
778
2.704
1.S19
1.824
494
1.480
977
1.210
6,234
2.903
8. 102
1.330
7.773
2.044
898
1.2B3
1SS
3.222
1.484
91 1
1.783
2.29H
924
523
127
189
75
291
84
500
6,208
523
209
52
93
195
CHANGE
-32
-22
-411
-136
-70
-16
?8S
-2.016
-62
-1
-1
-267
-298
-1.H99
-12S
-2
71
-8h4
-66
-190
61
46
-35
-98
1.2H9
-101
2. 779
-17
127
-267
-440
-241
-1
-63?
-587
-80
-73S
-71
-60
-190
-2
-IS
-2
-4
-49
-113
-789
3
-107
-3
-23
5
9/3/74
SUBMITTED
1.4147
0.5213
2.9*74
0.7650
0.4515
0. 1921
4.0250
IS. 12J9
0.5W07
0.0392
0.4777
3.4137
1.9055
3.7194
4.H721
0.9204
0.6174
3.1159
1.3841
1.7b8tt
0.3781
1.252J
0.8837
1.1422
4.3185
2.6234
4.64H6
1.1763
6.6773
2.0182
1.1684
1.3309
0. 1 362
3.3657
1.8086
0.8654
2. 19UV
2.06BB
0.8S93
0.6226
0. 1 126
0. 1781
0.0672
0.2576
0.116k
0.5353
6.1105
0.4541
0.2759
0.0480
0.1013
0. 1659
EPA
ASSESSMENT
1.4784
0.5160
2.7597
0.6891
0.4166
0.1905
4.5SS1
14.2426
0.'>6U
0.0411
0.5085
3.3902
1.7S41
2.1971
5.0767
0.9798
0.7248
2.5172
1.4)40
1.697B
0.4604
1.3779
0.9097
J.1262
5.8029
2.7025
7.S4I..
1.2379
7.23S5
1.9025
0.8164
1.1949
0.1450
2.9993
1.38U
0.8485
1.6600
2. 1 3"<4
0.8600
0.4875
O.lltV
0. 1762
0.0704
0.2713
0.0784
0.4662
5.7789
0.4869
0.1948
0.0488
0.0870
0.1819
0.0616
0.0146
-0.I87h
-0.07SH
-0.0J4H
-0.0015
O.S300
-0.01-J2
0.0018
0.0307
-0.021 4
-0. 1M 1
0.204',
0.059J
0.029"
-0.0609
0.0»V2
0. I2'>S
0.02S9
-0.01S9
1.4843
0.0790
2.892/
0.061S
O.SSH1
-0.I1S6
-0.3119
-o. 1 r,9
O.OOH7
-0.1661
-0.4^73
- 0 . 0 1 6 H
-O.S1HH
0.0 70S
0.0006
-0. 1 ISO
O.OO'.S
-0.001H
o.oo ii
0.01 16
-0.0376
-0.0690
-0.111',
0.0127
-0.0810
0.0007
-0.0142
O.OIS9
REGION X
ALASKA
IDAHO
OME&ON
MASH ING I ON
?99
477
1.144
2.415
405
393
1,061
1.636
106
-84
-63
-579
2611
4165
0.9990
2.1090
0.3770
0.3659
1.0065
1.7066
0.11S8
-0.0505
0.0074
-0.4001
TOTAL!
11*.507
107.436
-7,069 100.0000
100.0000
-------
TAHLE SP - 3
'£010'.
>. L. 1 ON VI
nt uION v11
MtblON VII1
KtblON U
PHELIMINAH* STMt ESTIMATE
STATE NEtUS ANU PEHCENTAGE OF NATIONAL COSTS*
REPORTED FOH CONSTHUCT10N OF TKtAlMtNt PLANTS AND IKTEHCEPTORS
(CATLGOWIES 1. lit AND IV U)
(MILLIONS OF 1973 DGLLAHS)
HAT 6< 1975
CONNECT RUT
MA INI
MASSACMUM 1 Is
Ntx HAM.' ,it|uf
HttUOt I 'jl AM)
VtMMONI
PUE W I 0 W I [. (;
V IHblN l',l A',
Ut I A,A.AN
MlNNISOlA
OHIO
ISLGNslN
Al^ANSAS
LOUISIANA
Ntw ML X ILO
Tt HAS
OM. AnOMA
* AN^AS
MlSSJUH 1
Nt MMASK.A
COLOWAUO
MONI ANA
NOWTH UAfvOTA
SUUlM UA^OTA
UIAH
KtOMINu
AWI/ONA
CAL It OKNIA
MAlrAll
NtVAUA
AMtMlCAN SAMOA
GUAM
TKUST Tf«W|tOHlts
COSTS*
PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL TOTALS
V
X3/74
SUBMlTTtU
1
2
5
it
i
2
1
f
\
1
.,
i
i
'
t
'
4
531
2M4
.540
441
232
1 )5
.636
274
3M8
"
200
.553
.334
.151
.B54
70
423
. IS>«
.020
755
104
.04?
741
713
.531
89H
H10
709
* 4HO
.OS2
828
637
9H
.630
'"*
605
631
8H9
272
511
93
85
74
220
77
279
S87
440
189
26
62
133
{.PA
ASSESSMtNT
478
273
1.325
384
187
125
2.602
4.603
368
31
199
2.324
1.129
1, 320
1.629
69
472
1.874
1.020
649
}59
1 ,044
728
677
i.343
837
1.673
707
?. 367
-<39
582
499
97
2.025
662
532
524
843
227
373
90
74
72
216
55
266
4, 104
439
177
23
60
133
CHANGF.
-53
-11
-215
-5 /
-45
-10
-34
-671
-20
-1
-1
-2? -
-20C
-831
-225
-I
49
-280
0
- 1 0 f-
5S
-3
-15
-3fc
-IBil
-5!
-137
-1
-11 1
-113
-246
- ; M
- t
-60'
-61u
-7 )
-107
-46
-45
-138
-3
-11
-2
-£
-22
-13
-783
-1
-12
-3
-2
0
9/3/74
SUUHltTEO
1.0033
0.5366
2.9099
O.H333
0.4383
1.2550
< , 9HO-*
'< . '*656
- , ? 3 J 1
0 .060 .
0. 3?7'J
. .H,?"")
( .521*i
..04V.
1.50 !.'
' . 1 34.0701
1 . SV 7 J
1 . ^266
1 ,«,/.(.
1.97B)
1 ,'.039
I 3472
...7325
i . 6S.fcB
i , ^20 1
1 . J397
'. -fctf&l
i . 45
! . ?0 J6
C. 1H51
4. Jft95
< .40 15
: . 1431
1 . 1923
1 .h 798
O.S139
J.-.655
3. 1 757
0. 1606
0. I 398
0.4157
0. 1454
0.5271
4.2343
0.8314
0.3571
0.0491
0.1171
0.2513
EPA
CHANGE
ASSESSMENT
1
0
2
0
0
0
5
9
0
0
')
1
3
0
1
i
1
'
,J
I
)
i
=
!
i
(1
I
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
.0317
.5892
.8600
.8288
.4036
.2698
.6164
.9356
.7943
.0669
.4295
,0163
. <*369
. ^ <« s 2
. -j 1 6 1
.1489
.0168
.0450
.2016
,400d
.774 .
.2531
. 5 7 1 J
.'.613
.05?)
.8066
.b! 1 I
,'.26g
. lo1*;
.a?*-)
256,'
.0770
.?C93
. J70-J
.'.2A-i
.1483
.1310
.8196
.4B99
.8051
.19-2
.1597
.1554
.4705
.1187
.5741
.8585
.9475
.3820
.0500
.12-.5
.2870
0
0
-0
-0
-0
0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
-0
-1
0
0
0
-0
0
-0
0
>0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
-0
0
-n
-0
0
-0
0
-0
-0
0
-0
0
0
-0
0
-0
0
0
0
0
0
.0283
.0525
.0498
.0044
.0346
.0147
.6354
.0299
.0611
.0064
.0515
.1922
.0836
.2151
.0129
.0166
.2195
.0250
.2742
.0257
.2004
.2750
.1673
.1140
.2747
.1097
. 1909
. 1862
.4230
.0389
.3082
.1265
.0241
.59H5
.9745
.0051
.0612
.1397
.0239
.1603
.0184
.0008
.0155
.0547
.0266
.0469
.3757
. 1160
.0248
.0008
.0123
.0356
REGION X
ALASKA
IDAHO
OWt&ON
ASHING10N
186
^^^
306
974
319
216
308
675
133
-6
0
-?99
0.3514
0.4)94
0.5H19
1.8404
0.6885
0.4662
0.6648
1.4569
0.3370
0.0467
0.0828
-0.3834
TOTAL I
52.922
46.328
-6.594 100.0000
100.0000
0.0000
-------
TABLE SP - *
PRELIMINARY STATE ESTIMATE
MAT 6. I97St
11
ktMON III
HtOlON IV
HtOlUN V
o ION VI
NtUlUN VII
UK, ION VI II
Ht (jION 1 *
CAPITA COS15 HEPORTEO FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY-OKNEO TREATMENT FACILITIES
BASIC ON 1990 POPULATION
(CATEGORIES li II. III. IV A. IV 8. ANO V)
(MILLIONS OF 1973 OOLLAWS)
(THOUSANDS of PEOPLE)
CONNECT1CUT
MAINt
MASSACMUSITTS
MW MAMHSHlME
HHOUl I'jLANU
NtW JEMStY
Nt * YOw*
PUkHIO KICO
VlfOlN ISLANUS
Lit LAKAWt
MAKri ANU
VlU'INI A
I SI VlHliINl A
PtNNSYLVANI A
01STt LOMIUA
Ut (twd I A
Kt NTucr.y
MISSISSIPPI
NUMM CANULlNA
SOUTH CAROLINA
HNNESSIE
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
M It Ml 1>A'4
MlNNkSOlA
On lo
ISCONSIN
ARKANSAS
I UllISI ANA
Nt M Ml < Ho
It »AS
UKL AMCtMA
1U«A
M I SSUDW 1
Nt IMASKA
CUl UWAOO
MUNI ANA
NOHlli [JA^OtA
SUl'lh DAKOTA
Ul AH
MYOMINO
AMI/ONA
CAL IKWNIA
MAkAl I
NLVAIIA
AMIMICAN SAMOA
GUAM
TWUS1
9/3/7*
COSIS*
1.630
S97
3.37S
876
!>|7
220
4>609
17.310
66S
<-5
5*7
3.409
Z.iaz
*.?b9
S.S7S
l.OS*
707
3.S68
l.bBS
^.01*
»33
1.-.3*
1.013
1.30B
*.4*S
3.00*
b.Ji3
l.J*7
7.6*6
?. 311
1. J38
1.S?*
Ib6
J.Mb*
<<.071
S41
^.blt)
?.36<<
98*
713
1?9
?0*
77
Z95
133
613
6.997
&20
316
SS
116
190
EPA
COSTS*
l.SDB
57S
?.96*
7*0
**7
ZO*
*.H9*
IS. 302
603
**
S*6
3.6*2
1.88*
Z. 360
S.*S*
1.0S2
778
2.70'.
1.519
1.H2*
*9*
l.*HO
977
1.210
6.23*
2.903
a, 10!
1.330
7.773
2.0**
898
1.283
1SS
3.??2
l.*B*
911
1.7B3
2.?>JB
92*
S23
127
189
75
291
8*
SOO
6.208
S23
209
S2
93
19S
1990
POPULATION"
3.9*6
1.1*2
7.052
907
1.13*
536
8.822
21.799
3.786
116
793
5.318
S.9S8
1.8*5
13.332
76*
3.850
11.728
5.667
3.7*1
2.359
5.880
3.023
*.800
13,177
6,*33
lo.sti
*.S77
13.202
5.218
2.068
*. 1S9
l.?32
13.666
2,9*2
3,053
2.509
5.*P8
1,562
2.8*8
71*
606
6*3
1.509
600
3.38*
26,601
1,010
933
*0
275
205
9/3/7* COSTS
PER CAPITA
»*10
1522
S*78
»965
»*S5
S*10
»S2?
S79*
»175
S387
S689
»735
1366
S2.309
1*10
11.379
1183
130*
1279
1538
1183
12*3
133*
1272
1375
1*66
1*85
129*
1579
i**2
16*7
1366
1126
1282
1703
132*
11.003
1*31
1629
1250
1180
1336
1119
1195
1221
1181
1263
151*
133A
11.375
1*21
1926
EPA COSTS
PER CAPITA
1*02
1S03
1*20
1815
139*
1380
15S*
1701
1159
1379
1688
168*
1316
11.279
1*09
11,376
1202
1230
1268
1*H7
120S
1251
1323
12S2
1*73
1*51
1739
1290
issa
1341
1*3*
1308
1125
1235
150*
1298
1710
1*18
1591
1183
1177
1311
1116
1192
11*0
11*7
1233
1517
122*
11.300
1338
1951
CHANGE IN PED
CAPITA COSTS
-g
-19
-SB
-150
-61
-30
32
-93
-16
-8
-1
-51
-50
-1.029
-9
-3
19
-7*
-11
-51
26
8
-11
-20
98
-15
25*
-*
9
-51
-213
-58
-1
-*7
-199
-26
-293
-13
-38
-67
-3
-25
-3
-3
-81
-34
-30
3
-11*
-75
-83
25
RlblON X
ALASKA
10AHO
OHLOON
HASHINGI ON
299
»77
1.1**
2,*15
*05
393
1.081
1.836
408
758
2.9*3
4.19*
1732
1629
1388
1575
1992
1518
1367
1*37
260
-III
-21
-138
TOTAL I
11*.507
107.438
256,216
S446
1*19
-Z1
-------
TAiLE SP-5
«R CAPITA COSTS REPORTED FOR TREATMENT AND/OR CONTROL OF STORMWATERS
(CATEGORY VI) May 6, 1975 .
TOTALS
REGION I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
Nev Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
FEOION II
New Jersey
Hew York
Puerto RLCO
Virgin Inlands
REGION III
Delaware
Maryland
VlrKinU
West Virginia
Dist.of Columbia
REGION IV
Alabarjj
Florida
Grorpi ft
Kentucky
Miasi 2^1 ppi
North Cnrc.lt na
South Cnrol inu
Tennessee
REGION V
Illii.o.i
Indinnu
Michtfun
Minn' -otn
Ohio
VlEcon~m
RKOioti vi
Arkan^R1^
Louir iann
N-w Menro
TeXHB
Oklahoma
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebrar.ka
REGION VIII
Colorado.
Montan*
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Neradn
Anerican Samoa
dura
Truat Terrltorlei
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Va^hiiutton
Total Cost
(Millions)
235.006
2.667
?QO
1.121
212
927
1UT
7. SSL
20. 1M
28Q
66
608
9.530
19.586
1.7liO
3, 7^3
300
3.332
14.230
2-, 796
1,898
i.2^
6 .H.-*!
.'.50B
».OQf
^ ,,;. ',
i,1)t
U'. 10
1 ,"'"5
6,5iO
1,V. i
'' '-''Y
:',53l
T )
11, 71 f
3.067
- .-^5
5 ,:^
1 , 1 ?0
t>53
:,o yff33
10.961
'',577
n,"03
5. Jib
2.063
I..15Q
I.;},1
2.QU2
3.053
r.^oo
5,'-ee
l,?t;P
2.8li?
7H4
606
61. 3
1,509
600
3.3SI>
26.601
i.oin
_93^
kr*
27 r.
205
U08
758
2.91.3
t.191.
Per Capita
Costs
917
676
262
I.U3
23l<
817
27U
856
933
76
567
767
1.792
3.287
91.3
281
393
866
361
1.93
507
160
i .I7n
a
851.
169
373
331
Mli
tiOfl
167
i.pgn
1 ,09'|
?7
«S7
ljOI-2
91.5
3oii
2Ql4
llS
_
875
568
320
30?
-
?.6?s
lli, 1.55
_
1,03"
898
..
1.368
619
285
I|6;
-------
TABLE SC - 1 H*T 6. 1975
COBBECIfD STATE ESTIMATE
197* COSTS* KIPOHTEU KJH CONSTRUCTION OF PuhLICLr-O.MD HASTEKATEB TREATMENT FACILITIES
[MILLIONS Of 1973 DOLLARS!
CATEGORIES
WK.10N 1
01 UN I I
Wli.IUN Ill
kt ulON 1 V
Wl O I ON V I 1
hi I. ION V I 1 I
Htl.U'N in
CONNt CIICUT
MAlNf
MASSACMUSF I IS
NtH JLRSIY
M M YGM*
RUI MI(J KlCO
VIHUIN 1SLANO'
Otl A.AWL
MA* Yl AM)
VI^OINI A
1ST VI WO INI a
HI NNSH VAM A
LHSTRKT at CUIOMH1A
Al AHAHA
f L OH I IJA
I,I OMI,1 A
M MUI * 1
Ml VjISSlHH
NURIH CAKOlINA
SUUTM LAKUlINA
II NNI S jt t
IL C 1NOI5
I Nil I ANA
M H M 1 t-A'4
MINNt ',1)1 A
OMlu
te I SLG'JS IN
I IHI I '. 1 ANA
MM M( n1( D
U KA',
DM AHUNA
1 U* A
K AN1, AS
MlSMloi. I
M tmASh A
Sl'Li 1 M OArvol A
UIAH
h TUM I Nv,
AK1/ONA
t Al H 0»MA
HAtaA11
M V AIM
AMIKlLAN SAMOA
OUAM
THUS I I| Hn'l 101, It
HI 1. ION X
TOTAL
1.59H
SH<*
3.2H5
86]
* 78
215
5.010
7 .*2 I
60*
*S
5*7
3«^ J?
^ I t*H
*» .
1 ,S4',
1 * »*><*
A4VS
1 S J 1
1 < 0
-------
TABLE SC - 2 HAT 6.
COWMECTED STATE ESTIMATE
SIATE NfEOS ANt/ PlkCfMAGE OF NATIONAL COSTS*
REPORTED fOH CONSTRUCT I O'l of PUHL ICL Y-0«NLO «ASTE«AUH Tt'lATEMENT FACILITIES
(CATEGORIES 1. II, 111. IVA. Ivb AND VI
(MILLIONS OF 1973 DOLLARS!
CONNI ciiCUT
MAIN!
MA'.SACHU'.I ITS
N( ta MAMrv JHt
KtiUUI 1M ANLi
VI I'M'JNI
Nt * jl wst Y
Nl row*
Ruf R T u w KO
VlRl.lN ISLANDS
197S
WEGIUN III
HtGlUN IV
HtolON vl
Mil. ION VlII
Kt t. ION 1 *
KLGlON X
Ut L A* A-vi
M A tJ Y I A l< U
V IRl.IMA
i M VIRGINIA
Pt NNS YL V AN | A
OISlMlLl Uf COIU«H1A
AL AHAMA
F L'lM IDA
Ul i W(, I A
M 1.11 I c t
MlV.lv.l. I'I
NUW|»' fAMol INA
SOU 1 M (. AWOL I NA
II NNt SM t
III INU1-,
INI) 1 ANA
Ml (.Ml I. AN
M INNI ',0 T A
OMIO
Ahh AT,',AS
LOUIS! AI.A
Nt «e *ii o
II »AS
OM AMUMA
IOW A
R A N't AS
M1SSOOWI
Nt HMASK A
1.01 Oh»no
MON1 ANA
NOt. I n DAaolf
SUUTM (lAtvuTA
UM"
WY OMlNb
CAl It ,U.'M«
HA«A | I
Nl VAhA
AMIMKAN SAMOA
GUAM
THUS I II KM I UIKIIS
Al ASNA
IUAMO
OKI l'l>N
WASH INoION
SIATE
CORRECTED
1.598
589
3.285
86 1
478
215
5.010
17.421
604
45
547
3.932
2.128
4 . 225
5.730
1.053
819
3.526
1 .595
1.H6?
49S
1.531
1.028
1.301
6.301
2 . 968
H . 1 99
1.3HJ
7 .920
2.291
1 .503
1 .536
156
3.752
3.664
965
2.348
2 . 399
9"
716
12H
1 9S
78
294
133
597
7. 156
520
316
55
11 1
197
412
4 7 1
1,144
2.371
COSTS*
ERA
ASSESSMENT
1.508
575
2.964
740
447
204
4.894
IS. 302
603
44
546
3,642
1.884
2.360
5,454
1.052
778
2. 704
1.519
1 ,Kf>
494
l.-BO
977
1.210
6.234
2.903
8. 102
1.330
7. 773
2.044
H98
1.2M3
155
3.222
1.484
911
1.783
2.29H
924
523
127
189
75
291
84
500
6.208
523
209
52
93
195
405
393
1.081
1,836
PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL TOTALS
CHANGE
-10
-14
-321
-121
-31
-11
-116
-2.119
-1
-1
-1
-290
-244
- 1 . 865
-276
-1
-41
-822
-76
-38
- 1
-5 1
-51
-91
-67
-65
-97
-57
-147
-247
-605
-253
-1
-530
-2. 180
-54
-565
-101
-53
-193
-1
-6
-3
-3
-49
-97
-948
3
-107
-3
-24
-2
-7
-76
-63
-535
STATt
CORRECTED
1.3190
0.4863
2.7111
0.7108
0.3949
0. 1776
4.1351
14.3773
0.4985
0.0371
0.4522
3.2450
1.7562
3.4873
4.7296
0.8694
0.6762
2.9104
1.3166
1.5374
0.4089
1.2639
0.8487
1.0737
5.2003
2.4501
6.7665
1.1452
6.5364
1.8910
1.2408
1.26S4
0. 1294
3.0971
3.0243
0.7966
1.9382
1.9802
0.80b6
0.5910
0. 1062
0. 1609
0 . 0644
0.2433
0.1097
0.4930
5.9063
0.4297
0.2612
0.0460
0.0972
0. 1626
0.3408
0.3894
0.9442
1.9572
EPA
ASSESSMENT
1.4784
0.5360
2.7597
0.6891
0.4166
0.1905
4.5551
14.2426
0.5614
0.0411
0.5085
3.3902
1.7541
2.1971
5.0767
0.9798
0.7248
2.5172
1.4140
1.697B
0.4604
1.3779
0.9097
1.1262
5.8029
2.7025
7.5414
1.2379
7.2355
1.90J5
J.8364
1. 1949
0. 1450
2.9993
1.3812
0.8485
1.6600
2. 1394
0.8600
0.4875
0.1182
0. 1762
0.0704
0.2713
0.0784
0.4662
5.7789
0.4869
0.1948
0.0468
0.0870
0. 1819
0.3770
0.3659
1.0065
1.7086
CHANGE
0.1593
0.049ft
0.0485
-0.0216
0.0216
0.0128
0.4199
-0 . 1 346
0.062M
0.0039
0.0562
0. 1451
-0.0020
-1.2901
0.3470
0.1103
0.0485
-0.3931
0.0973
0.1603
0.0514
0.1139
0.0609
0.05P4
0.6025
0.2523
0.7743
0.09?6
0.6990
0.0114
-0.4043
-0.0734
0.0155
-0.0977
-1.643D
0.051R
0.2781
0. ISvl
0.0533
-0.1034
0.0119
0.01S2
0.0059
0.0279
-0.0312
-0.0267
-0. 1273
0.0571
-0.0663
0.00?7
-0.0101
0.0192
0.0361
-0.0234
0.0622
-0.2483
121.171
107.438
-13.733 100.0000
100.0000
0.0000
-------
TABLE SC - 3
MAT 6. 197S
CORRECTED ST»IE ESTIMATE
STATE NEEDS AND PERCENTAGE Of NATIONAL COSTS*
REPORTED FOR CONSTRUCTION Of TREATMENT PLANTS AND INTERCEPTORS
(CATEGORIES |i Il> ANO Iv b)
(MILLIONS OF 1973 DOLLARS)
COS1S*
PERCENTAGE Of NATIONAL TOTALS
xtGION I
"K.ION II
III
KtGlON IV
wtl'IUN VII
HtGION VI II
RKGION U
CONNECT I CUT
HAINI
MASSACHUSl IIS
NEW HAMt'SMl^L
WMOOt I'-AANU
VERMONT
Nl» JlWSf 1
NtW YOW*
RUEHIU WHO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
OELAxAKL
MARYLAND
VIRGINIA
XLST VIRGINIA
PENNSfLVANI A
DISTRICT 01 COLUMBIA
ALArtAMA
f LOHIOA
Gt.OW(j I A
ntNTuOY
NOR In CAH
SOUTH C«"
Tt NNEsSt (
OL INA
0l INA
IIIINOIS
INUIANA
M I CM I f,AN
H INN* SO I A
OHIO
ISCONS.1N
AR» ANSAS
LULU S I AUA
Nt W Ht X I LO
It «AS
OrvL AMOMA
IOWA
KANSAS
MISSOUMl
NLHHASKA
COLOHAUO
MONTANA
NOWIli ClArUIA
SOUTH OAHOIA
UIAH
KYOMING
AHl/ONA
CAL I( OUNIA
HAUA1I
NtVAIJA
AMfHICAN SAMOA
GUAM
1KUSI TtXHUOWI
ALASKA
IOAHO
OREGON
WASHINGTON
STATE
CORRECTED
478
274
1*485
471
209
132
2.647
5.322
368
31
200
2.S83
1.294
2.113
1 .RH3
69
472
2.174
1.027
649
359
737
681
2.364
898
1.759
748
2*480
1.035
930
646
98
2.552
1.251
585
578
927
266
513
91
75
73
219
77
266
4.880
439
189
26
61
134
320
?17
308
961
EPA
ASSESSMENT
478
273
1.325
384
187
125
2.602
4.603
368
31
199
2,324
I. 129
1,320
1 .629
69
472
1 .874
1.020
649
35*
728
677
2.343
837
1.673
707
2.367
939
582
499
97
2.025
662
532
524
R43
227
373
90
74
72
218
55
266
4. 104
439
177
23
60
133
31S
216
308
67S
CHANGE
0
-1
-160
-87
-22
-7
-45
-719
0
0
-1
-2S9
-165
-813
-254
0
0
-300
-7
0
0
0
-9
-4
-21
-61
-86
-41
-113
-96
-348
-147
-1
-S27
-589
-53
-54
-84
-39
-140
-1
- ]
-1
-1
-22
0
-776
0
-12
-3
-1
-1
STATt
CORRECTED
0.9081
0.5210
2.8185
0.8946
0.3967
0.2514
5.0219
10.0964
0.6996
0.0604
0.3804
4.9010
2.4561
4.047b
3.5723
0.1323
0.8956
4. 1250
1.9484
1.2329
0.6823
1.9820
1.3985
1.2931
4.4860
1.7034
3.3369
1.4196
4.7045
1.9651
1.7648
1.2260
0.1859
4.8414
2.3736
1. 1 108
1.0975
1 . 7584
0.5059
0.9731
0. 1739
0. 1435
0. 1392
0.4165
0.1461
0.5055
9.2589
0.8337
0.3601
0.0501
0.1172
0.2553
IPA
ASSESSMENT
1.0317
0.5B92
2.8600
0.8288
0.4036
0.2698
5.6164
9.9356
0.79,3
0.0669
0.4295
5.0163
2.4369
2.8492
3.5162
0.1489
1.0188
4.0450
2.2016
1.4008
0.7749
2.2534
1.5713
1.4613
5.0573
1.8066
3.6111
1.5260
5.1092
2.0268
1.2562
1.0770
0.2093
4.3709
1.4289
1.1483
1.1310
1.8196
0.4899
0.8051
0.1 942
0.1597
0.1554
0.4705
0.1187
0.5741
8.8585
0.9475
0.3820
0.0500
0.1295
0.2S70
0.1235
'0.0681
0.0414
-0.06S7
0.00<.S
0.0183
0.5944
-0.1607
0.0946
0.0064
0.0490
0.115?
0.0191
19S5
O.CS60
0.0165
-1
0.1231
-0.0799
0.2S31
0.1678
0.09P5
0.2713
0.1727
0.1681
0.5712
0.1031
0.2741
0.1063
0.4046
0.0616
-0.5085
-0.1489
0.0233
-0.4704
-0.94*6
0.0374
0.0334
0.0611
-0.0159
-0.1679
0.0202
0.0161
0.0161
0.0539
-0.0273
0
-1
-1
0
-286
0.6071
0.4126
0.5856
1.8229
0.688S
0.4662
0.6648
1.4569
0.0685
0.4003
1137
0.0218
0.0000
0.0122
0.0316
0.0813
0.0535
0.0791
-0.3659
TOTAL I
52.716
46,328
-6.368 100.0000
100.0000
0.0000
-------
TABLE SC - *
CORRECTED SI*Tt ESTIMATE
MAT 6. 1975
REGION I
REGION II
REGION III
REGION IV
REGION V
REGION VI
REGION VII
REGION VIII
REGION U
PE« CAPITA 'OS1S REPORTED FOR CONSTRUCTION uf PuBLICLT-OyNED TREATMENT FACILITIES
BASED ON 1990 POPULATION
(CATEGORIES ! 11. 111. IV «, IV B. AND V)
(MILLIONS Of 1913 DOLLAHSI
(THOUSANDS u> PEOPLE)
CONNECT I CUT
MAIN!
MASSACHUSETTS
NEM HAMPSHlht
RHODE ISLAND
VEHMONT
NEK JEHSEY
Nt< YORK
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANoS
DELAWARE
HARYL AND
VIRGINIA
ESI VlHblNlA
PENN YLVANIA
D1ST ICT Of COLUMBIA
ALABAMA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
KENTUCKY
«!' MSSIPPI
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
ILLINOIS
IN')I ANA
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
OHIO
WISCONSIN
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
NEW ME A 1 CO
TEXAS
OKLAHOMA
IOWA
KANSAS
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
COLORADO
MONT ANA
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
UTAH
YOMING
ARIZONA
CALlfOKNIA
MAWAI I
NEVADA
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
TRUST TERRITORIES
9/3/7'.
COSTS'
1,598
589
3.285
861
.78
215
S.010
17,*21
60'
i.*
5*7
3.932
?. I2a
,.225
j.730
I.OS3
819
3.526
.595
.86?
*95
.531
.0^8
.301
6.301
J.V6B
H. 1^9
1.3H7
7,9?0
3.JS1
1.S03
1 .SJ6
1S6
3.7S?
3.66<.
965
^.3<.8
2.399
977
716
128
19S
78
29*
133
597
7. 156
S20
316
55
117
197
f PA
JSTS'
1 .S88
57S
2.96".
7' 0
*,<.!
^Q<
<..B9<.
15.302
603
t...
5*6
3.6<.J
i .«a«
?.360
S.'.S'.
1.052
778
?.7o<.
1.519
1.82<.
<.9<.
1.<"HO
977
1.210
6.234
P.903
e. 102
1. 330
7.773
2.0'.'.
H98
1.2fli
1SS
3.222
1 .'.8'.
911
1.7H3
2.29H
92<.
523
127
189
75
291
8*
500
6.208
S23
209
52
93
195
1990
POPULATION"
3. 9*6
1. \<-f
7.0S2
907
1.13-
536
8.B22
21.799
3.766
1 16
793
5.318
5,958
1.8<.b
13.332
76*
3>850
11.728
5,667
3.7*1
2. 359
S.HHO
3.023
*,800
13,177
6.*33
10. 9H
*.S7 7
13. ?at
5.2IH
2,0tfl
*. 1S9
1.232
1 J.f.66
2.9*2
3.0S3
2.S09
5.*HH
1 .562
2.8*8
71*
606
6*3
l.SOV
600
3, 3fi*
26.601
1.010
933
*0
275
205
9/3/7* COSTS
PER CAPITA
1*0*
»S1S
»*6S
19..9
4*21
1*0 1
J567
»79><
J159
S387
1689
» 7J9
»J57
12.289
l*2-J
41.37H
»212
»300
»281
t*97
1209
1260
»3*0
»271
t*7H
1*61
\ 7*H
1303
»S9'I
»*39
172^
1369
1126
»27*
H.2'.S
»31<,
»93s
»*3 7
162',
12M
11 79
1V1
1121
119*
1221
11 76
1269
151*
1331
11.37S
1*25
1960
EPA COSTS
PtH CAHIIA
1*02
1^03
1*20
1H)5
139*
13HO
15S*
1701
11S9
1)79
1688
im*
1 )]h
11.279
1*09
11.376
1202
1230
1268
1*M7
1^09
12S1
1 V3
1252
1*73
1*51
1 7 19
12^0
1S8K
1 J9I
1* 1*
» 108
112S
1^ IS
ISO*
129M
17|0
1* 1 H
1591
11H3
1177
1111
1116
11 V?
11*0
11* 7
1231
151 7
1?2*
11 . 100
13 IH
19', 1
CHANGE IN PtK
LAP) 1 A COSTS
-2
-12
-*S
-13*
-27
-21
-n
-9H
0
-a
-1
-S'j
-*i
-1,010
-?o
-2
-10
-70
-1 1
-10
"0
-9
-1 7
-19
-S
-10
-9
-1 1
-1 1
-*8
-292
-61
-1
-3V
-7*1
-IH
-22'.
-19
-3*
-6fl
-2
-10
"j
-?
-81
-2'(
-If,
)
-1 I*
-7'.
-87
-9
REGION x
ALASKA
IDAHO
OHCGON
WASHINGTON
*12
*71
I.I**
2.371
*05
393
1.081
1,836
*08
758
2.9*3
*. I",*
»1,009
1621
13H8
1565
1992
15)8
13<>7
1*37
-17
-101
-21
-12H
TOTAL1
121,171
107.*3B
256,216
1*72
1*19
-51
-------
TABLE EPA - 1 MAT 6. 1975
tPA ESTIMATE
197* COSTS* REPORTED F0« CONSTRUCTION Of PUBL1CLY-OMNEO MASTEMATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
(MILLIONS OF 1973 DOLLARS)
CATEGORIES
REGION I
REGION II
WEGION 111
HtGlON IV
WLGION V
KtGION VI
K161QH VII
HtOION VIII
REGION Ix
REGION X
CONNECTICUT
HA INt
MASSAChUSfITS
NEW MAMHSMlME
HMOUt ISLAND
VERMONT
NEW JEHSEY
Nt* YOHK
PUEWTO H1CO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
DELAWARE
MAHYLAND
VlHGINIA
LSI VIKG1NIA
PENNSYLVANIA
DISTRICT Of COLUMBIA
ALABAMA
fLOMIOA
GEOMGlA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAMOLINA
TENNESSEE
ILl1NOIS
INOIANA
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
OHIO
WISCONSIN
AHKANSAS
LOUISIANA
NEK MEXICO
TIXAS
OKLAHOMA
1UWA
KANSAS
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
COLOHAOO
MONIANA
NOHTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
UTAH
WYOMING
AHUONA
CAL If ONNIA
HAWAII
NEVADA
AMEHICAN SAMOA
GUAM
THUST UHMITOWIES
ALASKA
IOAHO
OHt GON
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
1.SB8
575
2.96k
7*0
447
204
4,894
15.302
603
44
546
3. 642
1.BB4
2.360
5.454
1.052
778
2.704
I.S19
1.B24
494
1.4BO
977
1.210
6.2J<>
2.903
8.102
1.330
7.773
2.04*
898
1.2B3
IbS
3.222
1.481.
«ll
1.783
2.29g
92<>
S23
127
1B9
7b
291
81.
SOO
6. 208
b23
209
S2
93
195
*OS
393
1.0B1
1.836
I
SECONDARY
TREATMENT
171
130
587
125
»5
31
1.127
1.663
181
13
65
10
364
91
7*2
0
1U
566
200
51
35
211
333
112
3U
200
106
59
214
164
0
302
52
9
0
132
185
400
144
7s
39
51
33
195
*0
159
1.713
203
30
5
36
90
234
46
146
283
11
MOKE
STRINGENT
TREATMENT
94
4
205
95
34
60
571
994
0
0
34
1.465
317
151
265
67
165
452
501
243
202
451
45
293
1.635
34U
59B
415
1 .302
373
331
6
7
1.617
406
178
67
63
IB
122
16
0
32
0
0
8
1.242
27
102
0
9
18
0
71
1
56
III A
CORR.
1NFIL.X
INFLOW
21
1
33
23
3
9
199
509
14
1
100
51
290
145
91
40
102
39
12
53
45
52
21
45
176
151
96
52
637
79
6B
352
3
207
55
123
536
219
38
29
5
1
1
14
0
1
343
0
1
0
2
1
4
22
56
91
III B
MAJOR
HEHA8
38
2
25
0
0
0
174
2.341
0
0
67
1.132
32
5
48
216.
11
44
2
63
31
0
0
39
60
185
456
14
114
134
0
97
1
214
SSI
9
294
0
1
24
1
0
0
2
0
1
47
0
0
0
0
0
1
16
324
454
IV A
NE«
COLLECTOR
SEDERS
311
102
755
184
169
33
540
2.845
203
12
65
107
226
695
1.246
0
192
746
200
406
57
383
227
332
466
332
992
188
592
382
246
333
54
657
214
121
316
358
26
74
21
63
2
57
28
231
812
84
31
28
31
60
70
102
130
299
IV B
NEW
INTER-
CEPTORS
213
139
533
164
108
34
904
1.946
187
18
100
849
448
1.078
622
2
193
856
319
355
122
382
350
272
394
289
969
233
851
402
251
191
38
399
256
222
272
360
65
173
35
23
7
23
15
99
1.149
209
45
18
15
25
65
99
161
336
V
COMBINED
SEVER
OVERFLOW
738
196
824
147
87
35
1.377
5.004
17
0
114
27
206
194
2,439
726
0
0
283
652
1
0
0
114
3.188
1.397
4.884
368
4.062
508
,
0
0
118
0
125
113
878
630
23
7
50
0
0
0
0
902
0
0
0
0
0
9
35
262
316
TOTALl
107.438
12.629
15.776
5.287
7.287
17.458
17.923
31.076
-------
TABLE EPA - 2
CCA ESTIMATED
NAT 6, 1975
KEGION I
-------
TABLE EPA - 3
KtGION I
KloION Ill
HHiIUN IV
f bl ON V I
t Li ION V I 1
KL&ION VIII
EPA ESTIMATE
STATE NEEDS AND PERCENTAGE or NATIONAL COSTS*
REPORTED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF T&tATMENT PLANTS AND INTERCEPTORS
(CATEGORIES I. Ili ANO IV Ml
(MILLIONS Of 1973 DOLLARS)
HAT 6. 197S
COSTS*
PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL TOTALS
RE&ION X
CONNECTICUT
HA INt
MASSACHUSl ITS
Nt M MAMt'bH I Ht
WHOUf ISLAND
VIWMONI
NtX YORK
cue WTO KILO
VlWUIN ISI ANUS
UH AnAxl
MAKfLANU
V I WtilNl A
1ST VlhdIM A
PtNNSiri VAMA
DISTRICT U> (.ULUMHIA
Al AHAMA
F LOW IUA
01 lirfdl A
tU N 1U< * *
MIS' ISSll'l'l
NOWIM CAkOl If,A
SOUTH CAKUlISA
TlNNt SSLt
III [NOT,
I NO 1 ANA
MltHlUAN
MINNf SUIA
UHlO
1SCONSIN
turANSAS
I UOISIANA
Nt u Ml « ICO
Tl HAS
UM AnUMA
IUHA
KANSAS
COl OHADO
MUNTANA
NUW1M UAKOTA
SOUIM OAKUTA
UI AM
HYOH1NI.
AHI/ONA
CAl II OHNIA
MAMA I I
NLVADA
AMtWlCAN SAMOA
(.UAH
HHKITOH1LS
ALASKA
IDAHO
OHtCjON
WASHINGTON
1973
SURVEY
430
260
761
339
162
115
3. 630
4, |65
394
32
201
5H3
99fl
323
J.bbb
"
310
1.590
777
573
22 3
749
569
467
2.167
542
1.460
b IH
1 *H4 1
4«6
224
2bl
66
6S6
4H5
421
3 J2
780
141
310
59
30
40
170
30
152
4* 743
439
205
7
20
6
153
76
286
536
EPA
ASSESSMENT
478
273
1.325
3B4
187
125
2.602
4.603
36it
31
199
2.324
1. 129
1.320
1.629
69
472
1.874
1.020
649
359
1.044
728
677
2.343
837
1.673
707
2. 367
939
582
499
97
2.02S
662
532
S24
A4J
227
373
90
74
72
218
55
266
4.104
439
177
23
60
133
319
216
308
67S
CHANGE
48
13
564
45
25
10
-28
438
-26
-1
-2
1.741
131
997
74
17
162
284
243
76
136
295
159
210
176
295
213
169
»526
453
358
248
31
1.369
177
111
192
63
86
63
31
44
32
48
25
114
-639
0
-28
16
40
127
166
140
22
139
1973
suwvsr
1.1974
0.7240
2.1191
0.9440
0.4511
0.3202
7.3238
11.5984
1.0971
0.0891
0.5597
1.6235
2.7791
0.8994
4.3302
0.1448
0.8632
4.4277
2.1637
1 .5956
0.6209
2.0857
1.5R45
1.3004
6.0345
1.5093
4.0657
1.4981
b. 1?67
1.3533
0.6237
0.6989
0.18J7
1.8267
1.3b05
1.1723
0.9245
2.1720
0.3926
0.8632
0. 1642
0.0835
0.1113
0.4734
0.0835
0.4232
13.2080
1.2225
0.5706
0.019*
0.0556
0.0167
0.4260
0.2116
0.796*
1.4926
EPA
ASSESSMENT
1.0317
0.5892
2.6600
0.8288
0.4036
0.2698
5.6164
9.9356
0.7943
0.0669
0.4295
5.0163
2.4369
2.8492
3.5162
0.1489
1.0188
4.0450
2.2016
1.4008
0.7749
2.2534
1.5713
1.4613
5.0573
1.8066
3.6111
1.5260
5.1092
2.0268
1.2562
1.0770
0.2093
4.3709
1.4289
1.1483
1.1310
1.8196
0.4899
0.8051
0.1942
0.1597
0.1554
0.4705
0.1187
0.5741
8.8585
0.9475
0.3820
0.0500
0.1295
0.2870 .
0.6885
0.4662
0.6648
1.4569
CHANGE
-0.1656
-0.13*7
0.7404
-0.1151
-0.0*7*
-0.0503
-1.7073
-1.6627
-0.3027
-0.0221
-0.1301
3.3927
-0.3421
1.9497
-0.8139
0.0040
0.1555
-0.3826
0.0378
-0.1947
0.1539
0.1676
-0.0131
0.1608
-0.9771
.0.2972
-0.4545
0.0278
-0.0174
0.6734
0.632*
0.3780
0.0255
2.5441
0.0783
-0.0239
0.2064
-0.3523
0.0972
-0.0500
0.0299
0.0761
0.0440
-0.0028
0.0351
0.150ft
-4.349*
-0.2749
-0.1887
0.0305
0.0738
0.270?
0.262*
0.2S4S
-0.1315
-0.0356
TOTAL I
35.910
46.326
10.418 100.0000
100.0000
0.0000
-------
1ABLE EPA - » M*Y 6. 1975
tP« ESTIMATE
PER CAPITA COSTS REPORTED FOB CONSTRUCTION OF P~BL1CLY-OWNEO TREATMENT FACILITIES
HASEO ON 1940 POPULATION
(CATEGORIES I. Hi III. IV A. IV B, AND V)
(MILLIONS Of 1973 DOLLARS)
(THOUSANDS OF PEOPLEI
REGION I
REGION II
REGION III
REGION IV
KtGION V
REGION VI
CONNECTICUT
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW HAMPSHIRE
RMOOE ISLAND
VERMONT
NEW JERSEY
NEW YOxP,
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
DELAWARE
MARYLAND
VlRuIMA
WEST VtKGIMA
PENNS YLVAN 1 A
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ALABAMA
FLOWIOA
GEORGIA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH CAKOLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
M1CHIbAN
MINNESOTA
OHIO
WISCONSIN
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
NEW MEXICO
TEXAS
OKL. AHOMA
1973
COSTS'
1.409
364
1.4Bb
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
7b7
695
4.089
1.040
3.325
1.06b
2.833
7«7
3bb
451
lib
Hb8
624
EPA
COSTS*
1.588
575
2.964
740
447
204
4.894
IS. 302
603
44
546
3.642
1.884
2.360
b.4S4
1.052
778
2.704
1.519
1 * 8?4
494
1 .480
977
1.210
6.234
2.903
8. 10?
1. J30
7. 77J
2,044
898
1 .2H 1
1 S->
3.???
1 » -H-
1990
POPULATION"
3.946
1.142
7.052
907
1.134
536
8.82?
21.799
3.786
116
7S3
5.318
5. 958
1 .H4b
13.33?
764
3.850
11.728
5.667
3. 7-1
2. 3^9
b.MHO
3.0,- 1
-,«00
13.177
6,43 I
10,961
-,S7 7
13.20,-
b.?l«
2.0--1
4 , 1 ' s
1 . ? < ?
1 J.r.»-'
?.'.,'
1973 COSTS
PER CAPITA
4357
4318
4210
4560
4321
4313
4381
4368
41SS
4379
44 U
4128
4225
433?
431S
41.414
4115
4202
' 4181
4275
41 11
4 I S 1
4?SO
414-
4110
4161
4 )0 1
4? V
4? 1 -.
41SO
4171
410"
4'* 1
46-
4?!,'
EPA COSTS
PER CAPITA
4402
4503
4420
4H15
4394
4380
155*
4701
4159
4379
4688
46H%
4)16
41,?79
4-09
41. 3 76
420?
4,' 10
4?68
4-M 7
4? 1'.
4 t s 1
4 VI
42S?
44 7 3
4-S1
471,
4,- 10
4S <*
41.1
4- 1-
4 1 )«
4 l.'S
4? IS
4 S , 1 4
CHANGE IN PER
CAPITA COSTS
45
18S
210
255.
TJ
67
171
333
4
0
274
556
91
9-7
94
-38
87
?^
87
21?
"Jf,
9H
7 i
lot
16 1
?90
4 16
SH
17-
?-!
,'61
?00
3?
171
29?
KEGION Vll
IUWA
KANSAS
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
91 1
1. 7H ]
416..
4?6 7
4177
42SH
4710
4- ) H
4',', I
114
-- )
33J
REGION vIII
COLORADO
MONT ANA
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
UTAH
WYOMING
7-
43
714
60';
.S09
600
4149
410 I
47',
46',
41- I
4] Ml
4177
4 M 1
4116
41-,?
41-0
34
74
236
SO
43
74
REGION Ix
Akl/ONS
CALIF 0-MA
HA.A1I
Nt VAUA
AMt ^ICAN SAMUA
GUAM
THUST U«RITO«1ES
238
6,ObO
2?7
8
22
e
500
6,?OH
209
5?
93
470
4??7
4S1 7
4?- 1
4?00
4H'l
41*
414 7
4? I )
4M 7
4,-?'.
4 1 . j 0 0
41 !«
49S1
77
6
0
-1 I
M. 100
2SH
91?
REGION X
TOTAL!
ALASKA
IDAHO
ASHlr.GTON
20b
1 12
l.OhO
60.123
40S
3J3
l.OBI
1 .H36
107,431
?.')<. i
4.19'.
4SO?
4147
4191
42S7
4234
4367
4437
44 19
490
171
174
1HO
185
-------
APPENDIX A. SURVEY METHODOLOGY
A. Major 1974 Survey Policies:
The following key procedures were adopted to carry out the
expanded scope of the Survey:
1. The five categories of needs as reported in the 1973 Survey
were retained but with format changes as indicated:
(a) Costs for Category I or II were to be reported in either
one of the Categories, but not in both.
(b) Category III was split so that needs were reported in
two (2) new categories: Category Ilia deals with
"Infiltration/Inflow Correction," Category IIIB
deals with "Major Sewer System Rehabilitation."
Major sewer system rehabilitation needs were not
allowed in the 1973 Survey unless they were related
to infiltration/inflow correction and based on a
completed study. Reporting was allowed in this
Survey in Category I lib for major rehabilitation or
replacement of deteriorated sewers necessary to the
total integrity and performance of the system.
(c) Category IV was separated into Category IVa for "New
Collectors" and Category IVb for "New Interceptors."
This change also combined the cost of appurtenances
into the appropriate Category.
2. A new category VI was established to allow reporting of costs
for the treatment and/or control of stormwaters. The costs were to be
based on corrective actions which when completed would solve actual
or anticipated water quality problems in meeting the objectives of
P. L. 92-500. The States were allowed to report these costs on
either a facility-by-facility, or a State-wide basis, but were
encouraged to use the latter method.
3. Survey instructions that limited reporting of needs in 1973
were removed, such as skip instructions that restricted cost reporting.
Also, State water quality standards did not require EPA approval
by a specified date in order to justify a reported need. However,
query questions were retained which would display the status of
completion of applicable studies.
4. Needs disallowed in 1973 as a result of one or more of the
restrictive guidelines, and any newly identified facility requirements,
could be reported in the 1974 Survey.
A-l
-------
5. Changes in the 1973 cost data base were to be reported for such
causes as imposition of additional effluent limitations, designation of
water quality limited segments, or receipt of a grant award for a previously-
reported need. As a result of the changes, 1973 cost data would either
increase, decrease or be deleted.
6. Wherever reference was made in the Survey form to terms relating
to "secondary treatment" they were to be considered for the 1974 Survey
synonymous with the term "Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology
(BPWTT)." Also for the purposes of this Survey, BPWTT was to mean
secondary treatment under the treatment and discharge alternative,
unless higher levels of treatment were required by water quality standards
or other requirements. Nothing in these definitions affected the
July 1, 1977 secondary treatment requirements of the Act.
7. States had the option of reporting on needs in places of less
than 10,000 population outside Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(SMSA's) by either using the same sample group used in the 1973 Survey,
or reporting this year on a 100 percent basis.
8. For compatibility, all costs in the 1974 Survey were required
to be reported in June, 1973 dollars.
9. Costs were to be based on the design of facilities which will
serve the projected 1990 resident population.
B. Conduct of the Survey:
The Agency initiated the Survey on January 31, 1974, with the
presentation to each of the States of the general outline and the
basic survey form.
P. L. 93-243 required that Form EPA-1 used in 1973 be used again
for the 1974 Survey. Adjustments to the Form were necessary, to.add one
new cost category and to eliminate previous reporting restrictions. In
addition, improvements were made to lessen the respondent burden. The
Survey was designed with the advice of an ad hoc group consisting of EPA
Regional Office and State Officials.
As with the 1973 Survey, the State Agency had the option of completing
the Survey questionnaires itself, or forwarding them to individual
sewerage authorities for completion.
The 1974 Survey Plan retained the concept that the costs reported
for all needs must indicate the basis on which the cost estimate was
developed. Where available, the States were required to provide data to
support their reported needs. Cost estimating guidelines were provided
to assist the States in the absence of more valid sources.
A-2
-------
A draft copy of the revised questionnaire and guidelines was
mailed to the States on March 29, 1974, so that they could commence
detailed planning for the conduct of the Survey. Instructional
seminars were conducted for the States in the EPA Regional Offices.
The official copies of the Survey questionnaire were mailed to the
States on April 29, 1974, with instructions that by July 2G, 1974,
the Forms should all be completed and into the EPA Regional Office.
The States were also requested to provide EPA with a report
summarizing the costs for each Category of needs, and information
relating to the rationale behind any reported needs that were
affected by abatement requirements that either they or EPA had
not formally approved.
The EPA Regional Office Staff conducted an initial screening
of all questionnaires. As these Regional evaluations were completed
the questionnaires were processed for keypunching. The Bureau of the
Census accomplished the keypunching operation and provided EPA with
a tape of the transcribed data from each questionnaire which was used
for the final comprehensive Agency analysis.
A-3
-------
EPA INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS FOR CATEGORIES I. II AND IVB*
(In Millions of Dollars)
APPENDIX B
States
TOTALS
RECIOK I
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
REGION II
Hew Jersey
Hev York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
REGION III
Delaware*
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Dist.of Columbia
REGION IV
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
REGION V
"Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
REGION VI
ArKansas
I-oulsiana
N-?u Krx.co
Ok lah-im.i
Texas
RF.GION VI r
lova
Kansas
Mis'.ouri
Nebraska
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Daltota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
REGION IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
American Samoa
Tr. Terr. of Pac.Islds,
Guam
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
State
Corrected
52,663
478
273
1,485
4.71
209
131
2,647
5,322
368
31
199
2,582
1,882
1,294
2,133
69
472
5,174
1.027
649
359
1.044
736
681
2,364
897
1.759
747
2.479
1.035
929
645
97
1,250
2,5b2
585
578
926
266
512
90
74
72
218
76
266
4,880
439
189
26
133
60
319
216
308
960
EPA
Adjustment
-6,335
-160
*87
-22
-6
-45
-719
-258
-253
-165
-813
-300
-7
-8
-4
-21
-60
-86
-40
-It.'
-96
-347
-146
-58,",
-527
-53
-54
-83
-39
-139
-21
-776
-12
-3
-285
Reasons for Adjustments
Popu-
lation
-261
-86
-35
-75
-8
-32
-4
-21
Flow/Cap.
-676
-113
-7
-6
-100
-30
-21
-63
-28
-22
-7
-277
Effluent
Limitation
-1,951
-29B
-157
-16
-266
-63
-473
-678
Cost
Curves
-1,203
-38
-33
-113
-235
-138
-105
-7
(*)2
-21
-M
-21"
-40
-28
-32
-3
-96
-46
-30
-83
-JS
-63
-12
Inter-
ceptors
-1.843
-9
-54
-15
-25
-85
-23
-29
-11
-614
-5?
-4
-n
--M
-36
-lil
-'JM
-429
-74
-96
-8
Combi-
nation
-401
-20
-123
-49
-124
-9
- IS
"~ -24
-2
-2
-3
Final EPA
Adjusted
Costs
46,328
478
273
1,325
384
187
125
2,602
4,603
368
31
199
2_,324
1,629
1,129
1,320
69
472
rjn
1.020
649
359
1.044
728
677
2,341
P17
1 ,(,71
707
,'j )f>;
1)')
SR2
499
97
bt2
2,025
532
524"
227
373
90
74
72
218
55
266
4,104
^439
V
23
,133
' $0
\ ~-/
3VS /
!£ '
308
675
* This table shows: (1) the "State
adjustment (Population, Flow per
that could not be reported); and
Corrected" estimates; (2) the "EPA
Capita, Effluent Limitations, Cost
(4) the "Final EPA Adjusted Coiti."
Adjustment" to the estimates; (3) the reasons for the
Curves, Interceptors, and a Combination of these problems
Totals between tables do not compare due to computer rounding.
------- |