WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT GUIDANCE
WPD - 4-76-01
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER REUSE
APRIL 1975
WATER PLANNING DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER REUSE
Prepared by
C. J. Schmidt
D. E. Ross
Water Planning Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Err.
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
I
j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
t> APR 1975
SUBJECT: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Municipal Wastewater
Reuse
FROM: Mark A. Pisano, Director
Water Planning Division
TO: All Regional Water Division Directors
All Regional 208 Coordinators
Technical Guidance Memorandum: TECH-2
Purpose;
The enclosed report has been prepared to assist 208 agencies in
evaluating the cost-effectiveness of wastewater reuse as a component
of a municipal waste treatment system. P.L. 92-500 requires facilities
plans to contain an evaluation of wastewater reuse as an alternative
waste management technique. Reuse is also to be considered in deter-
mining best practicable waste treatment technology for new facilities.
Guidance
This report suggests procedures for evaluating the potential of
municipal wastewater reuse. It includes a preliminary test to deter-
mine the applicability of reuse to a particular area, cost-effectiveness
analysis procedures, and application of the analysis procedures in two
case study locations.
Enclosure
cc: State and Areawide Agencies
-------
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this report is to describe procedures to
assist local government agencies in properly assessing the
cost-effectiveness of alternative wastewater reuse systems.
The reclamation and reuse of municipal wastewater may often
be a technically and economically feasible alternative to
the disposal of all or a portion of an area's sewage treat-
ment plant effluent. However, the reuse option often has not
been properly considered in traditional advance planning
for wastewater treatment and disposal systems. Use of the
procedures described in this report will facilitate the
analysis of wastewater reuse options and thus may encourage
reuse whenever it is found to be cost-effective.
The report provides the following information:
A review of existing wastewater reuse sites in the
U.S., including an inventory of facilities that
provide reclaimed wastewater for industrial, agri-
cultural, recreational, and other purposes.
A description of procedures for analyzing the cost-
effectiveness of alternative wastewater management
systems, including wastewater reuse systems. The
basic fundamentals of cost-effectiveness analysis
are described ,and a list of information required
for the analysis is presented. Also, a preliminary
test is included to help local government agencies
determine if wastewater reuse systems are potentially
applicable to the area. If reuse is potentially
feasible, a complete cost-effectiveness analysis is
warranted.
The application of the cost-effectiveness analytical
procedures on two case study locations: The City of
Santa Barbara, California, and the Hampton Roads
Sanitation District, Virginia. In both cases, no
reuse is presently practiced. However, the analyses
indicate that wastewater reuse would be cost-
effective in both locations as a part of necessary
future expansion and modification of sewage treat-
ment and disposal facilities.
A complete bibliography of current information
regarding the economics and practice of wastewater
reuse.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES ill
LIST OF FIGURES vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii
I. Introduction 1
II. Wastewater Reuse Practice and Pricing
Policies 9
III. Preliminary Test: Is Wastewater Reuse
a Possibility for Your Area? 25
IV. Background Data Required for Cost-
Effectiveness 37
V. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Waste-
water Reuse Systems 52
VI. Case Study - City of Santa Barbara 66
VII. Case Study - Hampton Roads Sanitation
District 93
BIBLIOGRAPHY 116
APPENDICES 166
A. Inventory of Wastewater Reuse
Locations in the United States A-2
B. Minimum Water Quality Requirements
of Selected Various Water Users B-2
C. ENR Construction Cost Indices
1966-1974 C-l
D. Sample'Cost Curves for Estimating Capital D-l
and Operating and Maintenance Expenditures
for Water Resource Facilities
E. Seven Percent Compound Interest Factors E-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1-1 - Geographical Distribution of Reported
Municipal Reuse 4
II-l - Quality of Effluent Applied to Crops 11
II-2 - Type of Industrial Reuse in the United
States 13
II-3 - Effluent Quality vs. User Treatment
Required for Cooling Tower Make-Up Water 14
II-4 - Ranges of Effluent Charges for Irrigation
Reuse (1972) 19
II-5 - Industrial User Costs for Reclaimed Waste 21
III-l - Checklist for Determining the Potential
Practicality of Wastewater Reuse 26
III-2 - Potential Customers and Uses for Reclaimed
Wastewater 30
III-3 - Illustrative Format for Tabulating Data
on Potential Customers for Reclaimed,
Wastewater 34
IV-1 - Information Needed for Economic Analysis
of Wastewater Reuse Systems 38
IV-2 - Illustrative Format for Estimating Future
Water Use 41
IV-3 - Fresh Water Use Information for Input into
Economic Analysis 43
IV-4 - Summary Prices for Reclaimed Municipal
Wastewater Including Cost for Procurement
and Additional Treatment 46
IV-5 - Quality Parameters for Wastewater Char-
acterization 48
111
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
V-l - Basic Procedures for Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis 53
V-2 - Basic Requirements for EPA's Cost-
Effectiveness Guidelines 54
V-3 - Alternative Water Sources and Means of
Increasing an Area's Water Supply 56
V-4 - Factors to Quantify in Preliminary Design
of Alternative Wastewater Reuse Systems 59
V-5 - Suggested Format for Calculation of Present
Values for Alternative Water Supply/Waste-
water Treatment Systems 62
V-6 - Suggested Format for Summarizing Present
Values of Alternative Water Supply/Waste-
water Treatment Systems 61
VI-1 - Population Projection - City of Santa
Barbara 69
VI-2 - Present and Projected Water Use and Supply -
City of Santa Barbara 70
VI-3 - Characteristics of Santa Barbara's Sewage
Treatment Plant 73
VI-4 - Present and Projected Municipal Wastewater
Flow Volume - Santa Barbara 73
VI-5 - Average Removal Efficiency of Santa Barbara
Sewage Treatment Plant 74
VI-6 - Selected State Wastewater Discharge Re-
quirements Applicable to Santa Barbara 74
VI-7 - Checklist for Determining if Wastewater
Reuse is Potentially Practical 76
VI-8 - Potential Wastewater Use in Santa Barbara 77
VI-9 - Costs for Alternative Wastewater Pro-
cessing Systems 83
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page-
VI-10 - Cost for the Cost-Effective Water Supply
System Identified for Santa Barbara 84
VI-11 - Calculation of Present Value Costs -
Santa Barbara Case Study Alternative 1 86
VI-12 - Calculation of Present Value Costs -
Santa Barbara Case Study Alternative 2 88
VI-13 - Calculation of Present Value Costs -
Santa Barbara Case Study Alternative 3 90
VII-1 - Service Area Population Data 97
VII-2 - Water Quality Characteristics of Avail-
able Potable Water, the York River, and
the HRSD's James River Sewage Treatment
Plant Effluent 101
VII-3 - Checklist for Determining if Wastewater
Reuse is Potentially Practical for HRSD 1Q3
Area
VII-4 - Water Use at Yorktown Amoco Refinery 105
VII-5 - Reported Cooling Water Quality ror
Make-Up Water to Recirculating Systems 106
VII-6 - Quality of Water Used for Boiler Feed at
Amoco Refinery 107
VII-7 - Estimated O&M Cost to Amoco for Treatment
of Cooling Tower Make-Up 112
VII-8 - Estimated Capital Cost to Amoco for Treat-
ment Facilities for Cooling Tower Make-Up 113
VII-9 - Estimated O&M Cost to Amoco for Treatment
of Boiler Feed Make-Up 114
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1-1 - Renovated Water Uses 3
1-2 - Relative Reuse Volumes in the United States 3
IV-1 - Example Plot of Projected Future Water Sup-
plies and Use 44
VI-1 - Location of Santa Barbara in California 67
VI-2 - The City of Santa Barbara 68
VI-3 - Projected Water Use and Supply From Existing
Sources, City of Santa Barbara 71
VI-4 - Alternative 1 - Wastewater Treatment and
Effluent Routing 79
VI-5 - Alternative 2 - Wastewater Treatment and
Effluent Routing 80
VI-6 - Alternative 3 - Wastewater Treatment and
Effluent Routing 81
VII-1 - Hampton Roads Sanitation District Location
Map 94
VII-2 - Goodwin Neck Sewage Treatment Plant and
AmocoSiteMap 95
VII-3 - Projected Water Use in HRSD Case Study
Area 99
VII-4 - In-Plant Processing for Upgrading Secondary
Effluent for Cooling Tower Make-up Water 109
VII-5 - In-Plant Processing for Upgrading Secondary
Effluent for Boiler Feedwater 110
VI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The assistance of those who contributed their time and
effort to this project is gratefully acknowledged. Mr. Gary
Broetzman, the initial EPA Project Officer, and his successor,
Mr. Stephen Heare, who was EPA Project Officer for the bulk
of the project, provided excellent guidance and coordination
between SCS Engineers and the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Consultant services were provided by Messrs. W. 0. Morgan,
Ph.D. and Lloyd Mercer, Ph.D., Professors of Economics,
University of California, Santa Barbara, California.
Many officials in the city of Santa Barbara cooperated in
the preparation of that case study, including the following:
R. W. Puddicomb, P.E., Director of Public Works
Howard Bensen, Assistant Director of Public Works
Charles Evans, Manager, Water Resources Division
Michael Hopkins, Wastewater Treatment Superintendent
Representatives of the Hampton Roads Sanitation District
who participated in this study included:
Col. William Love, Director
Gene Goffigon, Director of Treatment
We are also indebted to Messrs. Gene Echols, Chief of
Operations, and Jerry Caroll, Chief Engineer, from the
American Oil Company's Yorktown Refinery for their close
cooperation on the case study work.
VI 1
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Community officials have traditionally considerod wastewater
a liability. Expensive sewer systems are required to col-
lect and transport sewage to a costly treatment plant. Addi-
tional facilities are needed to convey the treated sewage to
receiving waters or suitable land for disposal. Even after
such collection and basic treatment, discharge of poor qual-
ity effluent can still occur, causing health and environmen-
tal problems.
Now, however, municipal wastewater is being recognized by
many communities as a valuable resource. The reclamation
and direct reuse of municipal wastewater offer many communi-
ties an opportunity to derive various benefits from their
former headache. Most importantly, the overall volume of
municipal wastes requiring discharge to the local environ-
ment is greatly reduced, and the existing water supplies are
augmented. Of course, many communities have indirectly re-
used municipal wastewater for many years by drawing their
water supplies from water courses that contain sewage treat-
ment plant effluents from upstream activities. But it is
the direct reuse of municipal wastewater that is becoming
more attractive for two primary reasons:
1. Regulatory agencies, supported by an environment-
ally-concerned citizenry, are imposing increasingly
stringent standards on sewage treatment plant efflu-
ent. Thus, the quality of treated municipal waste-
water is being upgraded and is often suitable for
industrial and irrigation applications.
2. Population increases in many urban centers are
placing an added burden on traditional fresh water
supplies. In some parts of the U.S., augmentation
of existing fresh water supplies by expanding sup-
ply sources, by importation, and/or by groundwater
overdrafts is necessary to satisfy water require-
ments. Such water supply projects are very costly,
and local governmental agencies are faced with
large expenditures to supply citizens with accus-
tomed volumes of fresh water. In addition, major
water augmentation projects may cause significant
environmental problems. As an alternate in many
locations, reclaimed municipal wastewater is a
readily available source of water for non-potable
uses to satisfy a portion of the area's demands,
thereby delaying water supply projects that may
involve greater environmental and economic risks.
-------
Municipal wastewater reuse operations include the categories
of:
1 . I r r i g a t i o n
2. Industrial
3. Recreation
4. Domestic
As shown by Figure 1-1 , of the above types of reuse, by far
the greatest number of plants practice reuse by irrigation.
In terms of volume, however, irrigation reuse accounts for
only slightly more than half the reuse reported with indus-
trial reuse a close second. Figure 1-2 shows the compara-
tive volumes by types of reuse. One large industrial reuser
(170 mgd) significantly affects the volume comparison.
Geographically the reuse operations are concentrated in the -,
semi-arid southwestern United States. As shown in Table 1-1 ,
Texas with 149 municipal reuse operations, and California
with 138, reuse wastewater most extensively of all other states
Research into the engineering aspects of wastewater reuse
systems has now advanced the state-of-the-art to a point
where such systems are technically feasible for most locali-
ties in the United States. Federal law and Environmental
Protection Agency policies reflect this advancement and
strongly encourage the implementation of municipal wastewater
reuse systems whenever such facilities are cost-effective and
will result in no greater pollution effects to receiving
waters than if reuse were not employed. Thus, the funda-
mental questions that must be answered by local decision-
makers concern costs and benefits: Is there a need for and
cost-effective application of wastewater reuse in their water
management program, and, if so, what is the most cost-effec-
tive wastewater reuse system?
Scope of Study
This report describes the procedures for assessing the cost-
effectiveness of wastewater reclamation systems in comparison
with conventional wastewater treatment systems. Analyses per-
formed using these procedures are simplified to encourage
widespread use by local managers of water supply and/or
wastewater treatment agencies.
The methodology is general in nature and is applicable in any
locality that desires to investigate the cost-effectiveness
of wastewater reuse systems for any or all of the following
reasons :
To supplement water supplies where alternative sources
are costly and/or unavailable.
-------
340
330
S5 320
o
cc: :
O O
0-
oo
LU
s;
o
310
300
290
280
C — 1
CTi O
30..
10--
100
90
80
60
50
40--
20
10
IRR. IND. REC.
TYPE OF REUSE
FIGURE I-l1
RENOVATED WATER USES
DOM
IRR. IND. REC.
TYPE OF REUSE
FIGURE I-21
RELATIVE REUSE VOLUMES
IN THE UNITED STATES
DOM.
-------
TABLE 1-1
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTED MUNICIPAL REUSE
State
Texas
Cal i form' a
Arizona
New Mexico
Colorado
Nevada
Michigan
Florida
Oklahoma
Washington
Missouri
Maryland
Kentucky
North Dakota
Indiana
Nebraska
Oregon
Utah
No.
Irr .
144
134
28
10
5
4
1
2
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
of Municipal
Ind.
5
1
2
0
1
2
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
i t i e s
Rec.
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Practicing
Dom.
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reuse
Total
149
138
31
10
7
6
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Totals 338 14 5 1 358
-------
To realize environmental gains.
To generate revenues from the sale of reclaimed
wastewater.
To reduce the cost of waste treatment (by making
higher levels of treatment necessary).
A discussion on cost sharing arrangements between the opera-
tor of the sewage treatment system and the users of the re-
claimed water is also presented to assist in the implementa-
tion of a successful wastewater reuse system.
Use of the evaluation methodology is illustrated by its ap-
plication in two case studies. Santa Barbara, California,
represents a semi-arid area, while Hampton Roads Sanitation
District in Yorktown, Virginia, is located where fresh water
is relatively plentiful. Neither city now incorporates
wastewater reuse facilities into its sewage treatment system.
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
In the following paragraphs we present a brief description
of the type of cost-effectiveness analysis presented in this
report. A cost-effectiveness analysis consists of summari-
zing all the relevant alternatives for accomplishing specific
objectives, comparing the total costs of the various alterna-
tives, and selecting the best alternative through the use of
appropriate criteria. It should be noted that total costs
include environmental and social as well as direct resource
costs. However, for the purposes of this study only direct
monetary costs are considered.
The basic elements of a cost-effectiveness analysis for waste-
water systems include:
1. Stating the problem or problems. Many municipali-
ties have two water problems. First the quantity
of fresh water demanded at the prevailing prices
either exceeds or soon will exceed the supply capa-
city of the existing water system. Bringing in
additional fresh water can be extremely expensive.
Second, the wastewater created whenever fresh water
is used must be properly treated and disposed.
2. Defining objectives. The two basic objectives are:
(a) to meet the community's demand for water, and
(b) to treat municipal effluent to acceptable stan-
dards for disposal or for reuse.
-------
Selecting alternatives. The alternatives are the
various ways and means of accomplishing the objec-
tive or objectives. The alternatives available can
be grouped into two general categories:
a. Use only fresh water from various sources to
meet the community's demand for water, and dis-
pose of the wastewater after treating it to
acceptable standards.
b. Treat wastewater to acceptable standards and
reuse it along with fresh water from other
sources to meet the community's overall water
demand. An example would be to apply treated
or partially treated wastewater for crop irri-
gation. Revenues derived from crop sales would
go towards reducing overall wastewater treat-
ment costs. A possible third alternative is to
reduce the quantity of water demanded by in-
creasing the price of fresh water. Although it
is one viable solution,this approach is used
infrequently in this country and not considered
in this report.
Determining costs. Each alternative method of
accomplishing the objectives involves certain costs.
It is important that all the costs associated with
each alternative be considered. For example, it is
easy to forget that one of the costs of not using
reclaimed wastewater is the expense of bringing in
fresh water from new sources to meet the community's
demand for water.
Establishing a model or models. Models are abstract
representations of specific problems which illus-
trate significant relationships; they aid in pre-
dicting the relevant consequences of choosing each
alternative. Every water agency in the United States
uses models to predict future demands for water,to
calculate costs of supplying water, etc. These
same types of models can be used in cost-effective-
ness analysis for wastewater reuse projects.
Designating criteria. A criterion is a test by
which alternatives are judged. Criteria subjects
for a wastewater reuse system include but are not
limited to:
Energy consumption
System reliability
Environmental impact
-------
Capital costs
Operating and maintenance costs
Ideally, the best alternative is the one which
yields the greatest excess of benefits over cost.
Unfortunately, benefits and costs of a wastewater
reuse system are sometimes incommensurable. This
report approaches the problem by considering only
cost of tangibles, as follows:
a. Establish wastewater effluent limitations which
must be met, and estimate the future fresh
water demands under the present water rates.
b. Select the alternative which meets both the
treatment standards and the quantity demands at
the lowest possible cost.
Reference Listings
Specific references cited within a chapter are listed at the
end of each chapter.
A complete bibliography divided into seven specific categories
is included at the end of the report.
-------
CHAPTER I
REFERENCES
Schmidt, C. and E. Clements. Demonstrated Technology
and Research Needs for Reuse of Municipal Wastewater.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Contract No. 68-03-0148. 1974.
-------
CHAPTER II
WASTEWATER REUSE PRACTICES AND
PRICING POLICIES
Present Practices
Many localities in the United States and in other parts of
the world are already reclaiming municipal wastewater and
providing treatment plant effluent for numerous beneficial
uses, such as listed below:
Irrigation uses, including watering a wide range of
agricultural crops, as well as horticulture and
1andscaping.
Industrial uses, primarily cooling.
Recreational lakes.
Non-potable domestic uses such as lawn irrigation,
car washing, and toilet flushing.
Groundwater recharge.
A compilation of 358 such reuse operations in the U.S. has
been obtained from the literature. Pertinent data regarding
these operations are summarized according to effluent end use
in Appendix A. Information is provided about each facility
name and location, the volume of wastewater reused, and the
unit charges, if any, received from the sale of effluent.
References 1, 2, 3 contain more detailed data concerning both
U.S. and foreign reuse activities. A review of these refer-
ences by those contemplating construction of wastewater reuse
facilities is beneficial to learn of others' experiences.
Geographically, reuse operations are concentrated in the
semi-arid southwestern United States. Of the 358 areas report-
ing wastewater reuse practices, 287 are located in Texas and
California.
Irrigation Reuse
The most prevalent end use of municipal wastewater is irri-
gation. In the United States, approximately 340 wastewater
plants produce 77 billion gallons of effluent annually which
is subsequently utilized for irrigation purposes. Waste-
water treatment systems that include land treatment or land
disposal are included in this count only if wastewater is
intentionally used for irrigation of crops, landscaping, and
-------
other such purposes. Thus, approximately 58 percent of the
total reuse (by volume) in the U.S. is used for irrigation.
The literature shows a surprising-variability in the types of
crops being irrigated with municipal wastewater.4 Successful
irrigation of 39 different crops was reported, ranging from
turf (grass) for recreation (i.e., golf courses, parks, etc.)
at 40 locations, down to sugar beets at three locations.
Other crops included truck vegetables, tree fruits, and all
types of grains.
The degree of treatment provided prior to irrigation varied
greatly from location to location. Roughly three-fourths of
the total effluent volume reused for irrigation has undergone
secondary treatment. However, primary effluent is still used
by some programs for watering corn (for cattle feed), cotton,
and pastureland. Fifteen plants provide some type of ter-
tiary treatment of their wastewater before irrigation reuse.
Due to the different degrees of treatment provided, a wide
range of effluent quality was reported as being used for irri-
gation. For example, i rrigators ',of cotton reported BOD's
ranging from 15 to 370 mg/1 and suspended solids (SS) from
12 to 259 mg/1; grains were watered with effluents varying
from 10 to 1,100 mg/1 BOD and 10 to 173 mg/1 SS. Table II-l
summarizes reported effluent quality as applied to various
crops.
Of particular interest are the foigh average TDS (over 800 mg/1)
and Na (over 300 mg/1) levels of reclaimed waters used for
irrigation. Excessive TDS in irrigation water can have an
osmotic effect, thereby restricting or preventing water up-
take by crops because of the increasing salt concentration in
the soil. The salts can also be toxic to plant metabolism;
and by altering soil structure, permeability, and aeration,
they adversely affect plant growth.5 Yet relatively poor
waters in terms of dissolved salts are being successfully used
on a wide variety of crops. Proper irrigation management is
the key. Consideration must be given to the interrelation-
ships between soil type, crop tolerance, drainage, water
application rate, climate, and other factors.
The prevalent relationship between the municipal suppliers of
effluent and the users of the effluent for irrigation is to
suit the crop to the quality of the effluent. If contami-
nants are present which are not readily removed by conven-
tional treatment, e.g., TDS and Boron, crops are selected
which tolerate the contaminant.
Few of the reuse applications involve irrigation of crops for
human consumption. Most of the crops for human consumption
10
-------
tO
D_
0
o:
°
o
'
Q
LU
i— _l
1 O
»— i O-
I-H ef
LiJ h-
—i :z
CO UJ
1 T 1
r™ — i
LL.
LL_
1 1 1
LL.
O
i
r^
i— i
i
• j
•<
cr
^
en
E
— '
oo
Q
•
1^
' x
cr>
E
oo
CO
en
>
"^
-C
CT
•p-
-T--
— 1—
3
O
_J
CD
^
-C
CD
3
O
_J
^
1
CD
E
- —
Q
O
co
CO
.E
co
•i—
~T"
s
0
_l
_Q
Q. ro
CO
• -I—
O i-
z s-
h—l
Q.
O
s_
o
^
oo
oo
o
0
•*
^_
«tf.
CM
OO
t^
OO
o
r—
o
00
o
o
r—
*
, —
0
•~
r~»
i —
c
•1—
tO
i-
CJ3
i— o oo -=a- i— cr> oo
o o en LO <=j- oo LO
LO t*^ r^ oo *^ oo ^o
«;f- ^j- O O O O O
i — i — O LO LO LO O
i— r— *3- CM '=3- CM O
r— i— r- CM •— CM CM
00 LO «d- •* CO IO OO
i— CM ^J-
OO
CT> i — 00 <3- UD O ^D
<£> OO LO CT) U3 «3- CM
LO r^ LO cr> cri oo o
OO CM OO LO LO i — O
r- r- r— CM CM i— CM
O U3 CTi CM CD CM O
r— i —
U5 OO CM ^J- *d- O CT>
r-~ en oo oo LO LO i —
o o o o o o o
p*» o ^o r^- r-v r^ oo
OO i— r— OO OO OO
rt
r—
O «D O LO i— I-- i —
r— p— r—
i — IJD CM vo i — ^d" r*-*
i — r — CM LO OO "3-
Irt CO
CU CL
-Q CO O
(C C i- i- °S V)
+•* 4-* O 3 "O
C 0) -c— -IJ TO •!-> f- C
S- CO34->"D U_ O U- CL, I—
Q.
o
0
CU
c
o
c
(O
-^
CO
o
E
o
+J
s-
CD
+J
s
^
CL
CL
VO I/)
cu ^
0 +->
c c
CO (O
S- r-
O) CL
q-
Ol C
rv .|—
rt3
E +->
o s-
i- CU
U- 0
rO -O
11
-------
-o
Ol
3
E
•r-
4->
E
O
<->
1
r-
1
r-l
1— I
CU
r—
XI
ro
t—
n:
Q.
•
o>
-C
01
re
2
o
-1
.
P
^^
01
E
^™"
O
01
>
— *
ro
•z.
01
>
+J E
E T-
ro •*->
r— ro
a. en
•r-
• s_
o s-
Q.
0
s-
C "i
r^.
^'
.
en
CO
•
co
o
co
i —
0
o
CO
o
r—
«^-
O
CM
0
O
CO
r--.
CO
r^.
r—
E
•r-
ro
s_
CD
CO
•
.
CO
CO
.
CO
LO
o
1 —
o
o
CM
cn
«^-
r^
co
r—
O
CM
CM
co
LO
r—
i —
E
S-
o
CJ
LO CO ^J" CM CO oo co co cr> on
LO o r~» i^» LO r-^
• 4 . . . .
co r^. co co co co
CM CO CO «3- CT> CTl
1 — 1 — CO LO ^f O
CM •— r- r- r— r-
CO O O O O O
CO O CO CO CO O
CM co »d- co «3- E o
ro E s~ S- ro co
•*•> +* O CU 3 XJ
CU -i- +J -O +-> C|_ c
01 3 -M -a to s- ro
cu i. o o ro 3 _i
> u_ o u. CL. H-
.
a.
o
o
cu
c
0
E
ro
t-
+j
cu
S-
0
o
4J
i.
cu
-I ^
ro
S
ex
a.
3
CO
CO
^J
E
ro
Q.
c
ro
S-
CU
O
.0
12
-------
are those that do not come into direct contact with e-ffluent
such as grapes, citrus, and other tree crops. Truck crops
such as asparagus, spinach, and tomatoes are irrigated with
reclaimed effluent at only five sites.
Industrial Reuse
A recent survey indicated that reuse of municipal wastewater
effluents by industry amounted to 53.5 billion gallons in
1971, or 40 percent of the total United States reuse volume.6
Only a small percentage of this quantity is consumptive reuse,
with over 95 percent utilized for cooling purposes. The bulk
of the industrial reuse volume is due to one user, the
Bethlehem Steel Plant in Baltimore, Maryland, which utilizes
44 billion gallons annually for once-through cooling.
Only fifteen industrial plants are presently reusing munici-
pal wastewater in the United States. These fifteen facilities
include three city-owned power plants, so private industry is
represented by only twelve plants in the entire nation. Ob-
viously, numerous potential reuse opportunities remain unre-
cognized.
Water quality requirements vary widely between industries,
between different plants in the same industry, and between
various processes within a single plant. The bulk of indus-
trial water is used for cooling, boiler feed, washing, trans-
port of materials, and as an ingredient in the product itself.
As shown in Table 11-2 cooling is predominant in the reuse of
municipal wastewater, accounting for approximately 154 mgd
out of the total 156 mgd reported industrial reuse.
TABLE II-2
TYPE OF INDUSTRIAL REUSE IN THE UNITED STATES
Type of Use
Boiler feed
Process
Cool ing
Number
of
Plants
3
3
12
Percent
of
Total
17
17
66
Reuse
Volume
(mgd)
1
1
154
Table II-3 shows practice at specific locations in gearing
cooling water make-up treatment methods to the quality of the
municipal effluent being used. The table indicates that
13
-------
TABLE II-3
EFFLUENT QUALITY VERSUS USER TREATMENT
REQUIRED FOR COOLING TOWER MAKE-UP WATER
Effluent Quality
mg/1
Selec
City
ted
of
Users
BOD
2
S
S
2
TDS
500
User
Shoe
k
Treatment
c h 1 o r i n a t
Proces
ion, p
ses
H
Burbank, CA
Nevada Power Co. 20 20 1,000-
Las Vegas, NV 1,500
Southwestern
Public Svc
Company
Amarillo, TX
City of
Denton, TX
10
15 1,400
30 30
130
El Paso Products 10 13 1,300
Company
Odessa, TX
adjustment, corrosion
inhibitor
Shock chlorination , lime
clarification, pH adjust-
ment, corrosion inhibitor
Lime clarification, pH
adjustment, shock chlor-
ination, corrosion in-
hibitor
Shock chlorination , pH
adjustment, corrosion
inhibitor (treatment in-
sufficient for effluent
of this quality)
Lime clarification, pH
adjustment, filtration,
softening
14
-------
superior quality sewage effluents, e.g., the city of Burbank,
California, can be used successfully with only an increase in
chlorine, acid, and corrosion inhibitors required to put the
effluent on almost equal status with fresh water. If, how-
ever, the treated sewage effluent is of average quality or
worse, then lime clarification treatment is necessary to
remove suspended solids and organics prior to use.
»
Recreational Lake Reuse
There are three major recreational lake reuse projects in the
United States, all located in California:
Santee (San Diego County)
Lancaster (Los Angeles County)
Lake Tahoe area
Each of these recreational lake projects has provided impor-
tant background for advances in wastewater treatment.
The Santee County Water District lakes project is justifiably
famous for its pioneering work. Since 1961, the Santee Lakes
have been used progressively for recreational activities in-
volving increased human contact as laboratory results and epi-
demiological information indicated that such activities could
be conducted without health hazard. The lakes are now used
for boating and fishing with associated activities along the
shoreline but are not open for whole-body, water-contact
sports. In 1965, an area adjacent to one of the lakes was
equipped with a separate flow-through swimming basin which
used reclaimed water that was given additional treatment by
coagulation, filtration, and chlorination .
The best documented tertiary treatment process in the nation
is found at Lake Tahoe, California, where five tertiary treat-
ment steps are combined to provide exceptionally high-quality
effluent. Activated sludge effluent is subjected to chemical
treatment for phosphate removal, nitrogen removal, filtration,
carbon adsorption, and chlorination. This plant also utilizes
advanced sludge handling techniques, lime recalcination, and
carbon reactivation. The treated effluent is pumped fourteen
miles through a lift of 1,460 feet and then flows through
gravity pipeline an additional thirteen miles to Indian Creek
Reservoir. Indian Creek Reservoir has a capacity of 3,200
acre-feet. It is approved for body-contact sports (swimming)
and is reported to have excellent trout fishing.
An interesting project is located at Lancaster, California,
where, since 1971, the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles
15
-------
County have sold sewage treatment plant effluent to the County
of Los Angeles for use in a chain of three recreational lakes.
The lakes have a capacity of 80 MG and serve as a focal point
for the County's 56-acre Apollo Park. The park, located near
Lancaster, was opened to the public in 1973 and features
fishing, boating, and picnic areas. Treatment at Lancaster
consists of a series of eight oxidation ponds followed by
flocculation and sedimentation "for removal of phosphates;
suspended solids and algae; filtration to polish the effluent;
and chlorination.
Each of the three recreational projects briefly described
above is unique, but they have much in common. All have
found it technically feasible to consistently produce efflu-
ent meeting drinking water coliform standards. All practice
phosphate removal for algae control and filter the effluent
to reduce turbidity. Many species of fish have been grown
successfully, including trout.
Domestic Reuse
Great controversy surrounds the subject of domestic reuse of
wastewater for potable purposes. Little opposition is voiced
to non-potable domestic reuse; e.g., toilet flushing. It is
not within the scope of this report to enter into the con-
troversy.
The only current example of direct reuse for domestic pur-
poses in the United States is the non-potable domestic reuse
program managed by the National Park Service at Grand Canyon
National Park. The Grand Canyon domestic reuse operation pro-
vides an average of 30,000 gpd through a separate distribu-
tion system for toilet flushing, car washing, irrigation, and
construction. Major tertiary treatment given the activated
sludge effluent is anthracite filtration and heavy chlorina-
t i o n .
The City of Denver, Colorado, is engaged in a long-term pro-
ject which is aimed at achieving direct reuse in approximately
1985. The City is operating a pilot facility to test ter-
tiary treatment and accumulate technical and cost data. A
significant public education program is also under way.
Groundwater Recharge
Reclaimed municipal effluent is currently being used specifi-
cally for groundwater recharge and/or salt water intrusion
barriers at ten locations in the U.S. (and also at a few
sites in Israel). Several other municipalities across the
country practice percolation of effluent solely as a dis-
posal method; these are not included in the following dis-
16
-------
cussion, since the wastewater so disposed has no economic
value.
Table A-3 in the Appendix summarizes municipal wastewater re-
charge locations, purposes of the programs, and volumes re-
charged .
As shown, the total use of reclaimed wastewater for recharge
is currently only 54 mgd (including the Orange County Water
District, California, and Oceanside, California, facilities
just being completed). All sites provide a minimum of bio-
logical secondary treatment, with three programs (Orange
County; Nassau County, New York: and the Santa Clara Water
District, Palo Alto, California) either constructing or
planning extensive tertiary treatment facilities.
Three sites involving tertiary treatment are planning to
create salt water intrusion barriers with reclaimed effluent
by well injection into groundwater aquifers. These programs
are being initiated by the Santa Clara Valley Water District,
Palo Alto, California; the Orange County Water District,
Fountain Valley, California; and the City of Phoenix, Arizona,
in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service, Water Conservation Laboratory.
Tertiary treatment is provided at all locations to reduce the
chance of groundwater contamination and prevent pore clogging
in the injection well. These wells generally have multiple
6-in. diameter casings and are capable of pumping up to
70,000 gpm per well, depending on the capacity of the aquifer.
Injection of the high-quality tertiary effluent produces a
hydraulic pressure around the well forming a barrier against
intruding sea water. Two of the programs (Phoenix and Palo
Alto) plan to continue extracting this recharged water for
irrigation reuse, while Orange County intends to leave the
effluent in the aquifer for replenishment. The other six
operations employ percolation as the mechanism to introduce
secondary effluent to the groundwater. They take advantage
of the soil as an excellent polishing filter to purify the
effluent.
Current operations appear to show that recharge with reclaimed
effluent can be a sound method of wastewater reuse and con-
servation of water supplies. However, at this time it is
generally accepted that the questions of possible ground-
water contamination by virus, pesticides, or residual organ-
ics present in reclaimed water have not been sufficiently
answered. Whether filtration through soil effectively removes
these contaminants and the hazards they present has not been
firmly established, although studies are in progress (e.g.,
17
-------
Lake George, New York, and Phoenix, Arizona).
A long-range problem facing reclaimed water recharge is poten-
tial groundwater degradation due to increasing IDS concentra-
tions. As each use cycle adds an incremental 200-300 mg/1
IDS with no subsequent removal, continued recharge and ex-
traction will ultimately degrade the groundwater quality.
The extent of this problem will vary from one site to another
depending on various factors including the IDS of the ground-
water, the IDS of the water supply, and the relative volume
of reclaimed water recharged as compared to other recharge
volumes (i.e., natural runoff, imported water, etc.).
Pricing Policies
The existing pricing policies for the sale of treated munici-
pal effluent vary greatly depending generally upon one or
more of the following factors:
1. Price, availability, and quality of alternate fresh
water supplies.
2. The additional cost for transportation, storage, and/
or treatment incurred to make the effluent available
and suitable for the reuser's purposes. The term
"additional" in this context refers to costs over
and above what the Tnunici pal i ty would normally incur
to treat and dispose of its municipal sewage without
reuse.
3. Prior water rights held by irrigation users down-
stream from the municipality may stipulate that
volumes of water must be supplied at a certain cost
per acre or free of charge.
4. The municipality's attitude regarding the potential
value of its treated wastewater. Many municipalities
have long considered their wastewater as a liability
to be disposed of, and it is difficult for them to
now look upon effluent as a potentially valuable
asset. For example, only 33 percent of the munici-
palities canvassed in one study charged a fee to
local irrigators for effluent.* Of those, the
majority charged only nominal fees.
5. Other marketing considerations
Federal or state construction grant fund require-
ments which stipulate a method for determining the
price of effluent for reuse.'
18
-------
As stated above, less than 33 percent of the municipalities
presently supplying effluent for reuse sell their product.
Most municipalities look upon the irrigation operation, as
primarily a means of disposal, and are not prone to demanding
payment for effluent which they would otherwise waste. In
some cases the irrigation operation allows the municipality
to provide only primary treatment; whereas if discharge were
made to surface waters, a high degree of secondary treatment
would be required.
Treated effluent transportation and storage facilities in
many cases may be the largest extra costs to the reuser. The
magnitude of the costs is dependent upon many factors, in-
cluding distance, elevation difference, storage volume, pipe
diameter, etc. In some cases, equivalent facilities would be
required for fresh water supplies, so no extra cost is
incurred for wastewater reuse.
The irrigation reuser is normally less concerned about occa-
sional changes in quality (except health hazards). His only
extra cost may be increased volume required to flush out the
soil root zone to prevent buildup of TDS, sodium, chlorides,
etc. Offsetting this may be the fertilizer value of the
effluent, which has been estimated at $18/MG.
Table II-4 shows the range of effluent charges by those
suppliers who currently charge for their effluent. The ma-
jority of these charge less than $150/MG (approximately
$50/acre-ft). Table II-4 does not differentiate between the
levels of treatment provided.
TABLE II-4
RANGES OF EFFLUENT CHARGES FOR IRRIGATION REUSE (1972)
Range of Charges Number of
for Effluent ($/MG) Suppliers
^
1 -
10 -
26 -
51 -
101 -
151 -
301 -
901 -
1
10
25
50
100
150
300
900
1 ,000
3
14
6
3
5
5
5
0
3
19
-------
Several suppliers charge on either an indirect or flat-rate
basis. The typical indirect basis gives the grower all water
and land in exchange for a percentage of his farm income,
which is, in essence, a sharecropping arrangement. This per-
centage ranges from 20 to 25 percent.
Flat-rate charges for effluent fall into two categories:
token fees and compensatory fees. Token fees are imposed to
fulfill legal obligations and protect water rights. Three
facilities reported in Reference 6 charge $1.00 per year to
users. Compensatory fees are designed to partially defray
the costs of treatment. Five other facilities reported in
Reference 6 indicated charges in the range of $200 to $1,000
annually. In several cases the price is set by bids received
from several interested potential users.
It appears that charges for effluent are primarily influenced
by factors other than effluent quality. Among these factors
are fresh water cost and its availability in the area, prior
water rights in the area, and the municipality's failure to
recognize its effluent as a valuable commodity rather than
something to be discarded. In actuality the price paid to
dispose of wastewater can be considered as a non-zero demand
price for the effluent. In all cases, any revenue derived
from the sale of effluent is more than that obtained
through straight disposal.
The costs to the industrial user of reclaimed water may be
divided into two parts: first, the cost of procuring re-
claimed water from the municipality, and second, the cost of
treating the reclaimed water to make it suitable for the
intended use. Table II-5 shows 1972 costs for most of the
current industrial reuse operations. In most cases, the
additional treatment cost comprises the largest portion of
the cost of using reclaimed water by industry. For cooling
water used in recirculating systems, treatment costs varied
from $100/MG to $550/MG; for water used for boiler feed make-
up water use, treatment costs are estimated to be in the
range of $500/MG to $1,000/MG.
As with irrigation reuse, the revenue received by municipali-
ties from industrial users of reclaimed water is less than
the cost of treatment to the municipality. Since none of the
municipalities provide more treatment than would be necessary
for discharge to surface waters, any revenues from the sale
of wastewater are considered windfall revenues by local tax-
payers and government officials.
The main factor which influences the use of wastewater by
industry is the procurement and treatment costs of fresh
water. Fresh water is like any other economic good — the
20
-------
TABLE II-5
INDUSTRIAL USER COSTS FOR RECLAIMED WASTE
User
City of Burbank,3
Cal i form' a
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Baltimore, Maryland
Dow Chemical Company
Midland, Michigan
Nevada Power Company
Las Vegas, Nevada
Champl in Refinery
Enid, Oklahoma
Southwestern Public
Service Company
Amarillo, Texas
Texaco, Inc.
Amarillo, Texas
Cosden Oil & Chemi-
cal Company
Big Spring, Texas
City of Denton,
Texas
Southwestern Public
Service Company
Lubbock, Texas
El Paso Products
Company
Odessa, Texas
Cost to
Procure
Effluent
($/M6)
43
1 .33
(avg.)
3.33
(avg.)
25
7
80
90
79
(avg.)
80
144
125
User
Treatment
Cost
($/M6)
100
N/A b
N/A
193
N/A
160
194
742
100
160
550
Total
Effluent
Cost
($/M6)
143
N/A
N/A
225
N/A
240
284
821
180
304
675
a City-owned power plants are considered industrial
users in this study.
b N/A - Not Available.
21
-------
higher the price of fresh water, the less fresh water is used
and the greater the use of a substitute good, such as waste-
water. This fact holds true for domestic use as well as for
industrial and irrigation uses. Studies have shown that
people do, in fact, reduce their use of potable water as it
becomes more costly (References 6, 9-13). Generally, people
reduce their use of water outside the house. Lawns are
watered less frequently, and cars are not washed as often in
areas where water is more expensive than in other areas. It
is difficult for people to reduce their use of potable water
inside the house, and many studies show that in-house use is
reduced much less than outside-the-house use of water.
Nevertheless, even uses of potable water inside the house is
reduced significantly, and wastewater is substituted for
potable water in places where water is extremely expensive.
At Grand Canyon National Park wastewater is used for toilet
flushing because fresh water is much too expensive to use for
this purpose.
In locations where public water supplies are of good quality
and available at low cost and/or where the price of water to
consumers is in some way subsidized, it is generally consi-
dered uneconomical to use reclaimed wastewater. A prospec-
tive user would not purchase reclaimed wastewater if fresh
water could be cheaply and readily obtained. For this reason,
most users of treated wastewater are located in semi-arid
parts of the West where fresh water is often rather hard and
expensive.
Today, however, the situation throughout the nation is be-
coming more favorable to wastewater reuse. Fresh water costs
are rapidly increasing and the quality of treated sewage is
improving, narrowing the cost and quality differences between
the competing commodities. The case study described in
Chapter VII of this report is an example of the new situation.
Where several years ago, the economics of wastewater reuse
were not favorable, in 1975 they are.
22
-------
CHAPTER II
REFERENCES
1. Douglas, James L.'and R.R. Lee. Economics of Water
Resources Planning. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1971 .
2. Grimo, A.P. Lino. The Impact of Policy Variables on
Residential Water Demand and Related Investment Require-
ment. Water Resources Bulletin. 9_(4):703-710, Aag. 1973.
3. Hirshleifer, J.C., DeHaven, and J.W. Milliman. Water
Supply: Economics, Technology, and Policy. Chicago,
The University of Chicago Press, 1960.
4. Sullivan, Richard H., et_ aJL Survey of Facilities Using
Land Application of Wastewater. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water Programs Operations, Washington,
D.C. Report No. EPA-430/9-73-006. July 1973.
5. Todd, O.K. Groundwater Hydrology. Wiley & Sons, 1959.
6. Schmidt, C.J. and E. Clements. Demonstrated Technology
and Research Needs for Reuse of Municipal Wastewater.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Contract No. 68-03-0148. 1974.
7. Grants for Construction of Treatment Works. Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. 40 CFR
Part 35, Subpart E. Federal Register. 39(29): 5252-5270.
Feb. 11, 1974.
8. Hanke, Steve H. and R.K. Davis. Demand Management Through
Responsive Pricing. Journal of the American Water Works
Association. 63j9) : 550-560, Sept. 1971.
9. Howe, C.W. Water Pricing in Residential Areas. Journal
of the American Water Works Association. £KK5), 1968.
10. Howe, C.W. and F.P. Linaweaver, Jr. The Impact of Price
on Residential Water Demand and Its Relation to System
Design and Price Structure. Water Resources Research,
First Quarter. 3_(l):13-32, 1967.
11. Linaweaver, F.P., Jr., C. Geyer, and J.B. Wolff. A Study
of Residential Water Use. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Washington, D.C. Report prepared for the
Technical Studies Program of the Federal Housing Adminis-
tration. Feb. 1967.
23
-------
12. Sullivan, R.H., M. Cohn, and S. Baxter. Survey of
Facilities Using Land Application of Wastewater.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Contract No. 68-01-0732. July 1973.
13. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Application,
Volumes I and II. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. August 1973.
24
-------
CHAPTER III
PRELIMINARY TEST: IS WASTEWATER
REUSE A POSSIBILITY FOR YOUR AREA?
A complete cost-effectiveness analysis is necessary to
determine the feasibility of wastewater reclamation. How-
ever, a preliminary review is desirable to roughly determine
practicality.
As a general rule wastewater reuse would most likely be cost-
effective in those sectors of the country where reuse has
been and is now being practiced. Information in Chapter II
and Appendix A indicates that reuse is most common in the
more arid western and southwestern states, yet there are
significant notable exceptions, wastewater reuse is expec-
tedly more prevalent in areas where precipitation is low,
evaporation is high, significant land is irrigated, and
where inter-basins transfers of water are now practiced or
are planned. However, other conditions affect the cost-
effectiveness and feasibility of wastewater reuse systems
as well. For example, the Bethlehem Steel Company Plant in
Sparrows Point, Maryland, uses large volumes of reclaimed
wastewater for cooling even though ample fresh water sup-
plies are available. Also, as the analysis in Chapter VII
indicates, wastewater reuse could be attractive in other
water rich, non-agricultural areas.
So it is seen that regardless of location in the country, a
municipality should investigate the cost-effectiveness of
wastewater reuse to determine its potential. After all,
site specific conditions are the most important factors and
should be explored on an individual basis.
As an aid to local entities,this chapter presents a check-
list of conditions that can help determine if wastewater
reuse has potential in a specific area. If the checklist
evaluation indicates potential practicality, a preliminary
survey of the latent market for reclaimed wastewater is
warranted. Guidelines for performing the market survey are
also provided.
Check!ist
A simple test may be employed to indicate the potential prac-
ticality of wastewater reuse. The study area should investi-
gate the cost-effectiveness in more detail if one or more of
the checklist factors indicated in Table III-l apply. The
relationship of these factors to the practicality of waste-
water reuse systems is explained below.
25
-------
TABLE III-l
CHECKLIST FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL
PRACTICALITY OF WASTEWATER REUSE
Wastewater Reuse is potentially practical if one or more of
the following factors are true for your area. A more com-
plete analysis should then be performed.
1. Existing or future fresh water supply is limited
relative to demand.
2. Existing or future fresh water supply is expensive.
3. The area presently includes or will include indi-
vidual reusers of large volumes of water.
4. Municipal wastewater that meets high-quality stan-
dards is presently discharged for disposal.
5. Requirements for improved wastewater effluent are
impending or anticipated.
6. Wastewater disposal is expensive; e.g., a long out-
fall line is required.
26
-------
Existing or Future Fresh Water Supply is Limited Relative to
Demand. Background data will indicate the existing and pro-
jected quantity of fresh water available to the study area
from current sources. Similarly, the data will show the
current use of fresh water at present prices. Expected
water use can be projected based on present consumption fac-
tors and anticipated future prices for water. If these data
are plotted as shown on Figure IV-1, the adequacy of supply
in comparison with demand can be observed at a glance.
In a present or projected shortage situation, where the quan-
tity of fresh water used or expected to be used is greater
than the available supply, three basic courses of action or
a combination of actions may be taken by the water resource
manager.
Decrease fresh water use
Increase water supplies
Reuse wastewater
The most common course of action is to increase the fresh
water supply by various means, such as:
1. Further development of local ground and surface
water sources.
2. Importation of fresh water from sources outside the
local basin.
3. Desalination of brackish or salt water.
Municipalities usually consider development of new in-basin
sources and importation first when faced with a water short-
age. The technology for such conventional projects is well
establ i shed,and municipal plan-ners are familiar with alterna-
tive means of obtaining water through traditional water re-
source projects. Costs of these projects are well documented
and, therefore, they are not discussed in this report.
Existing or Future Fresh Water Supply is Expensive. 11 is
possible that municipal wastewater could be reclaimed for a
cost less than present or projected alternative fresh water
supply costs.
Under these conditions, the low-cost reclaimed water could
be substituted for low-value uses; e.g., for irrigation and
industrial purposes. Equal volumes of fresh water could
then be diverted to potable and other high-value uses.
This possibility is particularly attractive in areas exper-
iencing water shortages, but it may also be applicable where
supply is adequate but where water prices for all uses are
27
-------
considerably high. Of course, wastewater reuse could lessen
the stream flow in an area and thereby impose external costs
due to the reduction 'in downstream use opportunities. Such
external costs should be considered in the economical analy-
sis of reuse systems.
The Area Presently Includes or Will Include Individual High-
Volume Water Users. A significant portion of the cost for
reuse systems is attributable to facilities necessary to
convey reclaimed wastewater from treatment plants to users.
Costs for conveyance can be minimized if there are few cus-
tomers for the reclaimed water who will use large amounts.
The need for extensive distribution systems is thereby
eliminated.
Further cost savings will result if large-volume users are
located near to and/or at lower elevation than the area's
treatment plants. Thus, wastewater reuse systems should be
investigated in areas where a significant present or future
concentration of demand for high-volume users exist. Users
of water for cooling, irrigation, or groundwater recharge,
for example, often require large volumes and can use
reclaimed effluent.
Municipal Wastewater Meeting High-Quality Standards is Pre-
sently Discharged for Disposal. In many parts of the country,
municipal wastewater treatment plants now provide secondary
or tertiary treatment. The effluent quality from such plants
is often suitable for reuse but in general is presently
wasted to receiving waters.
The cost-effectiveness of wastewater reuse systems should be
evaluated for the study area that currently produces high-
quality waste effluent to assure that the potentially valu-
able effluent is being channeled to its best uses.
Requirements for Improved Wastewater Effluent are Impending
or are Anticipated. Whenever an area anticipates an expan-
sion, modernization, and/or improvement in their existing
municipal wastewater treatment system to satisfy regulatory
requirements, wastewater reuse should be given serious con-
sideration in the planning stages. In fact, existing EPA
regulations governing construction grant awards state that
municipalities must evaluate the cost-effectiveness of in-
corporating wastewater reuse facilities into their treatment
system plans.
Assessment of Potential Users for Reclaimed Hater
In the event that evaluation of the checklist factors indi-
cates the potential desirability of wastewater reuse, it is
28
-------
beneficial to assess the possible market for the sale of re-
claimed water. Knowledge of the expected volume and quality
demands and the locations of the potential customers will be
useful later in formulating alternative treatment plant de-
signs and locations and effluent conveyance systems. Con-
versely, a preliminary market analysis may indicate that a
small amount of the area's reclaimed wastewater would be
purchased if it is made available.
A market survey serves as a second preliminary check on the
financial feasibility of wastewater reuse. If a market does
exist, this information will be useful later for design pur-
poses .
The market survey consists of three basic tasks:
1. The identification of potential customers in the
public and private sectors.
2. Preliminary estimate of the potential volume, qual-
ity, and reliability of reclaimed water demanded.
Consideration should be given to health and legal
requirements when applicable.
3. Preliminary determination of effluent treatment,
transportation, and storage facilities required.
Identification of Potential Customers
Potential customers can be categorized to facilitate the mar-
ket survey as follows:
Governmental users
Private industrial users
Private irrigation users
Table III-2 summarizes the possible uses for reclaimed waste-
water by these customers. The inventory of wastewater reuse
sites (Appendix A) indicates that most of these uses are cur-
rently practiced in the United States. The reuse potential
for each user class is discussed below.
Governmental Agencies. A municipality should look first at
its own activities. Municipal power generation stations,
golf courses, parks, school grounds, farms, cemeteries, and
recreational lakes are all successfully using treated efflu-
ent as a water supply (see Appendix A). In addition, county,
state, and federal activities are also excellent prospects
to purchase and use reclaimed wastewater. For example, uni-
versities, prisons, military bases, etc. are excellent pros-
pects. One university campus may be more economically supplied
with reused water than several dispersed primary and secondary
schools.
29
-------
TABLE III-2
POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS AND USES
FOR RECLAIMED WASTEWATER
Customer
Uses
Governmental Agencies
Private Industry
Private Irrigation
Irrigation
- Public parks, zoo grounds,
government centers, etc.
- Public golf courses
- School grounds
- Publicly-owned farm lands
- Right-of-way landscaping
Groundwater recharge
Prevention of salt water intru-
sion
Recreational lakes
Public utilities
- Cooling water for power plants
Domestic, non-potable uses
- Toilet flushing
- Air conditioning
Cooling water
Boiler feed water
Process purposes
Irrigation of grounds
Crop irrigation
Salt leaching
Irrigation of
- Golf courses
- Duck clubs
- Recreation areas, including
artificial lakes
30
-------
Maintenance of adequate groundwater levels is almost exclu-
sively a governmental function. Local agencies can often
beneficially recharge groundwater using reclaimed wastewater
together with fresh water. Knowledge of the region's geo-
logical, hydrological, and soils features will help deter-
mine if proper spreading areas exist in close proximity to
the treatment plants.
Landscape irrigation of highway right-of-ways is another pos-
sible governmental use for reclaimed water. The costs of fa-
cilities needed to deliver the water to such an elongated
area may be relatively high, but corresponding costs to irri-
gate newly developed areas with fresh water would also be
high.
In certain cases, it may be feasible to use reclaimed waste-
water for domestic non-potable purposes. An example is Grand
Canyon Village where a separate piping system conveys re-
claimed effluent to homes for toilet flushing, household
landscaping, and car washing.
Private Industry. Municipal effluent can be successfully
used in essentially all major industrial applications: cool-
ing, boiler feed, and processing, providing no health hazards
exist. At present, there are only twelve private industrial
reusers of municipal effluent in the nation, and two of
these are "company towns" for large copper mines.
Undoubtedly, many opportunities for industrial reuse of re-
claimed wastewater are being overlooked especially for cool-
ing purposes. Treated effluent can be successfully used for
both once-through and recirculating cooling systems.
Private Irrigation. Private irrigation reuse sales oppor-
tunities exist in many areas. Private farms, orchards, and
golf courses are all amply represented among existing re-
users. Livestock can be safely watered with suitable qual-
ity effluent. Essentially all row, field, fruit, and nut
crops can be irrigated with reclaimed wastewater, as long as
critical quality criteria are met. It is common practice to
suit the crop to the quality of the effluent. If contami-
nants such as TDS and boron are present that are not readily
removed by conventional treatment, only contaminant tolerant
crops are selected.
Table II-l summarizes the quality of effluent presently be-
ing applied to various crops. A wide quality range is rep-
resented; e.g., BOD of 15 to 370 mg/1 for cotton, showing
that the effluent quality ranges from poor primary to excel-
lent secondary. Of particular interest are the high average
TDS (over 800 mg/1) and Na (over 300 mg/1) levels of reclaimed
31
-------
waters used for irrigation. These average values indicate
that relatively poor waters in terms of dissolved salts are
being successfully used on a wide variety of crops with pro-
per irrigation management.
State health departments generally stipulate the conditions
under which wastewater can be used for crops and livestock.
Farmers who now purchase reclaimed wastewater generally
realize significant cost savings in comparison with fresh
water supplies.
Where significant amounts of reclaimed wastewater could be
employed for irrigation and a shallow groundwater table
exists, there is a possibility that the groundwater under-
lying the area could become increasingly mineralized due to
the percolation of effluent of relatively high salinity.
The extent of the problem will depend on several factors
including: TDS concentration of the irrigation water, TDS
of the groundwater, depth to groundwater, the clay content
of the soil, the oxidation-reduction reactions taking place
within the soil subsurface, and the pH of the wastewater.
Obviously, the difference between the TDS concentration of
the effluent and the groundwater will be a factor in deter-
mining the extent of possible degradation. Occasionally,
the groundwater is naturally high in salts, and the TDS of
irrigation water is not a problem as far as contamination of
the aquifer is concerned. Naturally, the reverse is also
true; groundwater basins that are low or moderate in salt
content may be threatened by heavy irrigation with higher
TDS water.
The deeper the groundwater table,the greater the extent of
interaction between dissolved solids in the percolating
water and soil particles. Clay soils have a greater capa-
city to adsorb and store metallic ions than more sandy soils.
Thus, soil characteristics also determine the potential re-
movals of these ions in the soil profile. Both clayey and
sandy soil types show increased abilities to retain heavy
metals at pH levels above 7.Q1
Whether soil conditions are aerobic or anaerobic determine
whether metal compounds are in reduced or oxidized forms.
In reduced forms metal compounds are soluble and will be
leached to the water table. In cases where groundwater deg-
radation may be a problem, an engineering study is neces-
sary before implementing an irrigation reuse system.^
Private interests also operate recreational facilities that
require significant volumes of water. Private golf courses
and country clubs, duck hunting clubs, and recreational lakes
32
-------
are all potential users for reclaimed wastewater and should
be screened during the market survey.
All potential customers should be inventoried and tabulated
for ready reference. Table III-3 illustrates a format that
may be used for this purpose. Potential reusers should be
located on a base map of the study area to enable a prelimi-
nary determination of pipeline distances to each.
Determination of Volume, Quality, and Reliability Require-
ments
Each potential customer should be contacted and informed of
the reasons for the market study. Information should be
solicited concerning the following main topics:
Volume of water desired, now or in the near future,
that could be satisfied by reclaimed wastewater.
Quality requirements.
The degree of water supply reliability required to
prevent disruption of their activities.
Most potential users will be cooperative and willing to pro-
vide the requisite information.
Volume Estimates. For the purposes of a preliminary market
survey, the anticipated average daily volume and normal
seasonal variations of reclaimed water desired by each poten-
tial user should be determined.
Quality Estimates. No single number can characterize the
quality demanded by each potential effluent user. It is thus
convenient to designate two groups of users to define water
quality needs:
1. Those that require only water of a quality that
meets the generally accepted minimum standards for
the intended use (Appendix B contains tabulations
of such minimum standards for most uses of waste-
water eff1uent).
2. Those that require a higher water quality than the
generally accepted minimum standards, because their
intended use is intolerant to one or more contami-
nants at those concentrations.
Accordingly, Table III-3 shows that the quality needs of each
potential customer will be designated subjectively as:
33
-------
CO
1
"-1
t" '(
LU
__|
CO
I-H
1—
cC
i
^^
00
13
_1
_l
i — i
C£.
LU
1—
<
LU
\-
oo
•a:
3
Q
LU
•SL
«=C
_l
<_)
LU
Qi
0
LU-
GO
o:
LU
2:
o
i—
oo
Z3
O
__J
ct
I—
'Z.
LU
I—
O
CL.
OJ
re
s_
o
4->
00
0)
o
c E
re o
•(-> S-
co LL.
•i—
O
>,
J4-1
,
•r-
.Q
re
••-
CU
O£
>^
•*->
*r~*
re
3
cr
CO
-o
OO
0
CO
•o
Of
(U
Z
3
CO
01
CD
Z.
re
CD
o> >> o;
re r- E
S- T- 3
a; re i—
> Q O
<=t >
OJ
-o
o
<_}
T3
S-
>•> re
C D-
<
E
•r-
ai
u
E
re
4-)
CO
•r-
•o
CD
4->
re
E
•r—
0
s_
a.
a.
<
-a
f — «
oo
^x
CO
^"
» — '
•a
E
to
S- 1
o s
Q)
C7> CO
E
•r- E
•t-> 0
CO •!-
•i— 4->
x re
CU E
re
+j i—
CO O
cu cu
S- S-
re
a» -a
E
E E
o re
s- •—
M- Q.
CO
"CJ
S-
03
-a
E •
re co
4-> CU
CO CO
o
>> a-
-t-> S-
re
•r~
>
-M
E
re
i —
a.
-!->
E
CU
E
-4->
re
cu
4->
cu
01
re
i
re
i_
cu
•a
•r-
CO
E
O
O
>>
4->
•<->
• o
CU E
•M
3 CO
o cu
S- T-
4J
r— 'r-
re r—
0 •!-
•i- O
-M re
o li-
re
s- cu
a. C7>
re
-t-> s-
CO O
E oo
CU 1
_E
+J 2:
CU
1
S-
cu
4J
E
CU
-Q
>>
re
E
-1 — _J -I — T»
O>r— Q.I— i—
•o
E
c:
•i—
T3
CD
CO
to
0)
a.
X
LU
re
re
—3 "D
D" CU
4_>
E re
3 •!->
E CO
•i —
E S-
•i- o
s: M-
,
S!
-Q
re
3
CT
, —
re
•r-
0
ai
Q.
00
,
oo
re
CJ
• !>—
4J
•i—
• s-
CO O
E
0 -t->
•i- o
-i-> s:
i
~Zi
0
cu
s-
re
CO
cu
•r-
4-)
*^-
,—
•i—
O
re
• M—
-O
CU CD
S- 01
•i- re
3 S-
cr o
s- oo
i
o:
cu
4_>
re
s-
cu
r—
O
4->
4->
0
E
re
o
r,
,
• re
"O O
CO ••-
•*-> 4->
Q.-I-
3 i-
s. o
1
o
•
•o
cu
S-
•1 —
3
o-
s-
.
c
o
•r-
•M
CL
=
tl
CU
4->
E
•r-
>>
i —
Q.
Q.
3
00
34
-------
M - minimum quality standards for intended purposes,
corresponding to case 1 above, or
S - special quality considerations, corresponding to
case 2.
Degree of Reliability. Most sewage treatment plants experi-
ence periodic upsets which could result in temporary inter-
ruptions in effluent flow to users. Customers will have dif-
fering reliability requirements depending on the intended
use of the wastewater and the availability of alternative
water supplies. For example, a customer who purchases re-
claimed effluent for irrigation may be able to easily toler-
ate several days interruption in service. Conversely, an
industrial user who relies on a constant flow of water to
cool a critical process cannot tolerate any reduction in
effluent flow unless he has alternate sources of cooling
water.
While there are certain degrees between these two extremes,
they are suitable for characterizing reliability needs of
potential customers for the preliminary market survey.
Note that on Table III-3 the letter "N" for non-critical
is suggested as a designation for potential users for whom
reliability is not a critical factor, while "C" indicates
where it is critical. Wastewater storage tanks or ponds
could be included in the distribution system to increase
reliability of a source when the wastewater stream is not
f1 owing .
Det'ermtnation of Necessary Effluent Transportation and Stor-
age Facilities. Distances from each potential reuser to the
nearest existing and/or proposed sewage treatment plant that
will produce wastewater for reclamation can be scaled from a
map of the area. The route selected for the measurement
should account for topography and possible excavation prob-
lems, and may not necessarily be the most direct path. The
resultant distance is tabulated as in Table III-3.
In general, potential customers who rely on an uninterrupted
flow of wastewater and who do not have alternative water
sources will rate an "R" designation for the storage column
on Table III-3. "N" signifies that storage facilities are
considered unnecessary.
35
-------
CHAPTER III
REFERENCES
1. Stone, Ralph and J. C. Merrel , Jr. Significance of
Minerals in Wastewater. Sewage and Industrial Waste.
30(7), 1958.
2. Evaluation of Land Application Systems. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Technical Bulletin
No. EPA-430/9-75-001. March 1975.
36
-------
CHAPTER IV
BACKGROUND DATA REQUIRED FOR COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Local governmental agencies have available most of the basic
information necessary for the cost-effectiveness analysis of
potential wastewater reclamation systems. Guidelines on how
to prepare a cost-effectiveness analysis, including reference
to what data should be included in the analysis, can be found
in Guidance for Facilities Planning and the Federal Register
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. *•
This chapter details data requirements and suggests how and
where to obtain them. For the purposes of this report, data
needs are classified into three categories:
1 . General Background Data
2. Water Use and Supply Information
3. Wastewater Information
Table IV-1 summarizes the information required in all cate-
gories. This table is useful as a checklist to assist in
the compilation and assembly of the data. The particular
data to be gathered and their use in the analysis are dis-
cussed in the sections below.
General Background
Knowledge of present and projected future population is nec-
essary for economic feasibility studies of wastewater reuse,
since water use projections are based on per capita consump-
tion rates, as discussed later in this chapter. Projected
future water use is highly dependent on reliable population
projections. However, estimation of future population entails
many assumptions and uncertainties. Thus, an area may have
various population projections, each derived by different
governmental agencies or organizations. Population estimates
provided by the local planning agency should generally be
used for the initial analysis since water use projections
would then be consistent with other planning data.
Land use in the study area influences water consumption and
wastewater generation. Local planning agencies are respon-
sible for formulation and maintenance of an area's general
plan and would, therefore, be the most direct source of land
use information. The general plan usually contains informa-
tion on both existing and projected land use.
For an analysis of water supply and wastewater disposal sys-
tems incorporating wastewater reclamation, the following
37
-------
TABLE IV-1
INFORMATION NEEDED FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
OF WASTEWATER REUSE SYSTEMS
General background information
Population data
present
projected
Land use data
present
planned and/or zoned
Topographical base map of
study area
Geological data for study area
soil types and bedrock
formations
groundwater depths and
locations
Climatalogical data for study
area
precipitation
evapotranspiration
temperature ranges
Possible data sources
Local and/or state
planning or finance
agencies.
BEA Series E projections
Local office of U.S.
Bureau of Census, Dept.
of Commerce
Local planning
agencies
Local office of
U.S. Geological
Survey
State geological
agency
Soil Conservation
Service, U.S. Dept.
of Agriculture
Local flood control
agency.
Local airport
Local office of
the National
Weather Service
Water use and supply information (withdrawal and consumptive)
Fresh water volume use
present, by category of water user
projected, on basis of
existing prices, by category
of user
Local and/or
regional agency
responsible for
water supply.
Local water
districts.
38
-------
TABLE iv-l (Continued)
Water use and supply information Possible data sources
Fresh water quality
presently supplied
as desired by water users
Fresh water supplies
volume available from
various sources throughout
planning period
quality of available
supplies
reliability of available
supplies
water prices
- existing
- planned increases
costs of water supply system
- present
- projected
Wastewater information
Municipal wastewater volume
existing
projected
Municipal wastewater quality
Location of existing treatment
facilities, outfalls, and
receiving waters
Treatment costs for existing
system
capital
operating and maintenance
expected increases in cost due to more stringent treat-
ment requirements
Local and/or
regional agency
responsible for
wastewater treat-
ment and disposal.
39
-------
general land use categories are typically used:
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Agricultural
Recreational
Transportation
Waterways
Knowledge of the location and size of present and projected
land use for these purposes is employed in the evaluation of
potential customers for reclaimed municipal wastewater. It
is beneficial to obtain maps of the study area that indicate
the present and projected land use, and to superimpose the
locations of existing and planned water supply and wastewater
treatment facilities.
If the base maps available do not indicate elevations, a
topographical map of the area should also be obtained, since
the cost and feasibility of a wastewater reclamation system
is influenced by the elevation differences between the sewage
treatment plant and potential customers, as well as their
respective geographical locations.
Basic information concerning the geology of the study area is
useful in the selection of alternative wastewater reuse sys-
tems to be evaluated. For example, a groundwater recharge
project using reclaimed wastewater could be impractical in an
area where the permeability of soil overlying groundwater
aquifers is low and/or where geological faults would impede
the movement of groundwater from potential wastewater spreading
grounds or injection wells.
Geological information of interest includes:
Location of groundwater basins
Depths to groundwater
Type and characteristics of soil in area (permea-
bilities, alkalinity, and suitability for vegetative
growth)
Type and characteristics of underlying geologic
formations
Climatological data, as listed below, are useful in deter-
mining an area's water supplies and evaporation losses.
Precipitation (average annual and frequency through-
out the year)
Average daily temperature ranges for each season
Evapotranspiration rates
40
-------
Water Use and Supply Information
Water use information concerning both the quantity and quality
of water used is required. In most areas, information re-
garding the present volume of fresh water used for various
purposes is readily available. The volume used may be delin-
eated by user type in areas where meters are installed. Gross
water withdrawal and consumption is known in localities that
do not meter customers. Future water use projections are
also usually available through the agencies responsible for
water supply. Projections of future water consumption in the
area over a period of at least 20 years are necessary for
cost-effectiveness analyses performed for EPA.
If projected water use data are not available, they can be
estimated on the basis of existing per capita water use rates
and population projections, and/or other applicable unit con-
sumption rates.
Future water use is readily calculated and reported as shown
on Table IV-2. Obviously, this calculation does not include
major industrial or agricultural users and is dependent on
reasonably reliable population projections. Also, consider-
ation should be given to factors that tend to change the per
capita use of water, such as changes in the use of water-
dependent appliances.3'4 (It should
predicted in this manner is based on
current prices will remain unchanged
It is likely that water prices will
ties, resulting in decreased water use.)
use
be noted that'water
the assumption that
over the project period.
increase in most locali-
TABLE IV-2
ILLUSTRATIVE FORMAT FOR ESTIMATING FUTURE WATER USE
(1)
Year
1974
1980
1985
1990
1995
(2)
Per Capita
Water Use
Rate
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
(3)
Projected
Population
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
(4)=(2)x(3)
Project
Water Use
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
41
-------
Projections based on population are sufficiently accurate for
predicting water use in the municipal, residential, and com-
mercial sectors. Other bases of prediction are often desir-
able for projecting industrial water needs such as unit vol-
ume consumed per employee or per unit of production. Future
agricultural water use may be estimated on the basis of unit
volume used per acre for various types of crop classifica-
tions.
If different unit water use rates are utilized, different
versions of Table IV-2 are necessary to cover industrial,
agricultural, etc. The resulting projected water use volume
(Column 4, Table IV-2) from all such tabulations would be
summarized in a format as shown in Table IV-3. It is useful
t& group the various activities into the six main categories
shown on Table IV-3 and listed below:
Domestic (including residential landscaping irriga-
tion)
Industrial (specifying power generation plants and
large industrial complexes)
Irrigation (including agriculture, golf course,
parkland, and municipal horticultural uses)
Recreational (particularly man-made lakes)
Groundwater recharge
. Other
Each basic water use category is abbreviated as shown on
Table IV-3. It is usually instructive to plot the expected
water use versus time, as illustrated by an example on
Figure IV-1. When water supply data are similarly plotted,
actual or potential shortages are shown.
User's Hater Quality Requirements. .Water quality require-
ments of the various water users in the study area should be
identified so that the potential for supplying reclaimed
wastewater can be assessed. Water quality criteria for
various industrial and agricultural uses have been evaluated
in the literature. (See Chapter References 5 through 18 for
examples.) Appendix B includes a selection of the criteria
developed to date for various uses. It should be noted that
industrial and agricultural water quality needs may vary
significantly from the general limits set forth in Appendix B,
depending on local conditions. While the tabulated data may
be adequate for a preliminary economic evaluation of waste-
water reuse systems, specific quality needs of local indus-
trial processes and agricultural crops must be evaluated for
each specific application. Formats similar to those shown
in Appendix B can be used in tabulating data on water qual-
ity as required by local water users.
42
-------
m
i
H
W
l_3
9.
EH
EH
D
P)
23
PS
0
M
2 e/3
O X
H J
EH •=?
rH
-P
c
0)
CO
QJ
P^
CO
tn
(C
rH
U
V-|
Q)
W
rj
V)
(U
4J
s
X-^, x-^ x-s. x-^.
Q OS U Q
— 2 OS W 2
g H H OS O
Q M
— rH C C
O -H -H -H (0 >H
-H in -P -P ^ 03
j-i -P tO (tJ "t3 JU
LOW UlOJCUrlrH
OJ3-r(>H3(U{UfO
e^J M U OPS^I-P
O G M 0) M -P O
Q H H OS U O EH
43
-------
rH
^
H
t.
£
H
fr.
fn W
CO
Q D
W
EH Q
U S
W
-------
Water Supply. Also important in the cost-effectiveness anal-
ysis is information concerning fresh water supplies: the
volume available from various sources, the quality of each
source, the reliability of the supply, and the cost of water
from each supply source. These considerations are discussed
be!ow.
Data on the monthly variations in fresh water volume avail-
able to a locality are usually well defined. The. total
supply volume may include water from both surface and sub-
surface sources within the locality's watershed and any
water that is imported. Future projections of water supplies
can be made on the basis of existing supplies and committed
plans for future water resource development programs. The
present and projected annual supply volumes can be plotted
as illustrated on Figure IV-1 . This provides a graphic
illustration of anticipated water supplies in relation to
projected water use.
The existing and projected quality of alternate water sup-
plies is often an important consideration in the economics
of wastewater reuse. Total user costs of reclaimed water
are the sum of purchase costs and costs for additional treat-
ment and/or distribution systems required. The potential
user, in deciding between alternate water supplies, is inter-
ested in what additional treatment and handling costs he must
incur, if any, because of quality differences between avail-
able fresh water and reclaimed water.
Industrial water users usually require a dependable supply of
water to guarantee uninterrupted processing and to avoid
costly shut-downs. Agricultural users must have the neces-
sary quantities of water to prevent crop loss. Thus, it is
important to consider the volume reliability of the reclaimed
wastewater supply since it may differ from that of the fresh
water. For example, in any area experiencing a water short-
age, domestic needs will normally be met first, with agri-
culture and industry having lower priority.
The prices of fresh water and reclaimed wastewater are impor-
tant factors in the analysis of wastewater reuse. In areas
where fresh water is inexpensive, wastewater reuse is unat-
tractive. Conversely, in areas where fresh water is expen-
sive, there is more incentive for reuse. Table IV-4 summa-
rizes data regarding the price of reclaimed wastewater
reported at existing reuse operations. Note that prices
shown include both procurement cost and cost of additional
treatment by the user, if any.
Legal or contractual requirements to pay for water supply
improvements or to purchase a minimum quantity of imported
45
-------
TABLE IV-4
SUMMARY OF PRICES FOR RECLAIMED MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER INCLUDING COST OF PROCUREMENT
AND ADDITIONAL TREATMENT
Range of prices for reclaimed
Use Use municipal wastewater, $/MG
Irrigation3
Primary effluent 6
Secondary effluent 11
Tertiary effluent 76
Industrial 143 to 675
Recreational 150 to 882
Domestic b 1,000 to 1,750
Figures shown are weighted averages based on effluent
volume sold by the 20 percent of all municipalities
supplying wastewater for irrigational use that
actually charge for the effluent.
Reclaimed effluent at Grand Canyon is sold for
$1,000/MG where fresh water is available and
$1,750/MG where fresh water is unavailable.
46
-------
water may influence some communities in their consideration
of wastewater reuse. Thus, legal factors must be known and
incorporated into any economic analysis of wastewater reuse
alternatives. Some California areas, for example, are obli-
gated to purchase a minimum quantity of water annually from
large water importation projects.
Municipal Wastewater Information
Basic information about an area's municipal wastewater volume,
quality, treatment costs, disposal practices, and other fac-
tors is essential for the economic analysis, since it is the
effluent from the sewage treatment plant that will be used as
supply water in a wastewater reuse system. These factors are
discussed below.
The volume and quality of the sewage generated by an area to
some extent determine what types of reuse applications are
feasible and, in addition, influence treatment costs. Waste-
water containing contaminants from industrial and municipal
activities that are not removed or detoxified by conventional
treatment processes may be detrimental for reuse applications.
For this reason, many communities that now reclaim municipal
wastewater for irrigation have enacted ordinances to prevent
the discharge of home water softening recharge wastes (brines)
into the sewers. Similar restrictions against the discharge
of industrial wastes containing heavy metals are prevalent.
Available wastewater volume and quality data should be
obtained. Municipal wastewater volume is generally measured
and recorded daily. Likewise, the quality of the raw sewage
and existing effluent should be well documented by the local
agency responsible for wastewater disposal. Volume data
should be reported in terms of average dry weather flow to
.account for the effects of precipitation. If possible,
sewage and effluent quality should be described in terms of
all parameters listed on Table IV-5. If available quality
data are not so detailed, the most important parameters
(designated by an asterisk) should be quantified. Knowledge
of the selected wastewater quality parameters can be used in
the economic analysis as a preliminary indication of poten-
tial wastewater reuse applicability. The location of each
existing and planned wastewater treatment facility should be
designated on a base map of the study area. The flow expected
from each facility should also be noted. This will facilitate
the later determination of transport distances from treatment
plants to potential wastewater effluent users.
The present cost of wastewater treatment and disposal is
usually well documented. This information is useful in
estimating the operating, maintenance, and capital cost of
47
-------
TABLE IV-5
QUALITY PARAMETERS FOR
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Bacterial: Chemical:
Total Coliform a Total Dissolved
Fecal Coliform Solids (TDS) a
Chlorides a
Organic; Fluorides
Phenols
BOD Borons
COD Nitrates (as NO3)a
Ammonia Nitrogen a
Physical: TKN
Sodium (% of total
pH a cations)
Turbidity
Color Heavy Metals;
Suspended Solids (SS)
Floating Solids Aluminum
Odor Arsenic
Taste Beryllium
Temperature Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
aBasic parameters for characterizing
municipal wastewater.
48
-------
the additional effluent discharge pipelines and pumping sta-
tions, if any, necessary to transport reclaimed effluent
from the treatment plant to potential users.
If wastewater reuse involves a different treatment level
than treatment for disposal only, then the operating, main-
tenance, and capital cost of the various alternative treat-
ment facilities should be estimated.
In some areas, legal and contractual considerations may
influence potential implementation of wastewater reuse sys-
tems. Such impediments may include:
Riparian water rights
Effluent quality standards
Health Department restrictions
For example, the reuse of wastewater instead of discharge
to a receiving stream is complicated by water rights of
downstream users. Water rights laws are usually based on a
priority system whereby river waters are subject to appro-
priation. Prior to initiation of a reuse program, such
constraints must be investigated and resolved.
A more in-depth investigation of the possibility for imple-
menting a wastewater reuse system can be undertaken once the
necessary background data discussed in this chapter has been
obtained. The following chapters describe the pertinent
analysi s.
49
-------
CHAPTER IV
REFERENCES
1 .
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11 .
Guidance for Facilities Planning (2nd ed).
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
Protection of the Environment (Title 40).
Cost-Effective Analysis. Federal Register
24,639, Sept. 10, 1973.
Environ-
Oct. 1974
Appendix A
38(174):
Metcalf, L. Effect of Water Rates and Growth in Pop-
ulation Upon Per Capita Consumption. Journal of the
American Water Works Association, pp. 1-21, Jan. 1926.
Hanson, R. and H.E. Hudson, Jr. Trends in Residential
Water Use. Journal of the American Water Works Asso-
ciation, pp. 1347-1358, Nov. 1956.
Bernstein, Leon. Quantitative Assessment of Irrigation
Water Quality. American Society for Testing and Mater-
ials. (First National Meeting on Water Quality Cri-
teria, Philadelphia, 1966).
Culp, Gordon, and A. Selechta. Tertiary Treatment -
Lake Tahoe. Bulletin of the California Water Pollution
Control Association, January 1967.
Day, A.D.,
Treatment
the Water
T.C. Tucker, and
Plant Effluent on
Pollution Control
J.L. Strochlein. Effects of
Soil Properties. Journal of
Federation. 44:373, 1972.
Dornbush, James N
Wastewater Pond.
and J.R. Anderson. Ducks on the
Water and Sewage Works. 3(6), June 1964
McKee, J.E
Cali fornia
cation No.
, and H.W. Wolf (ed.) .
State Water Resources
3-A, 1971.
Water Quality
Control Board.
Criteria
Publi-
Merrell, John C., Jr., and Paul C.
at the Santee, California Project.
American Water Works Association.
Ward. Virus Control
Journal of the
February 1968.
Parizek, R.R., ejt aj_. Penn State Studies Wastewater
Renovation and Conservation. Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity Studies No. 23. University Park, Pennsylvania,
1967.
50
-------
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Petrasek, Albert C., S.E. Esmond, and H. Wolf. Munici-
pal Wastewater Qualities and Industrial Requirements.
(Presented at ASCHE meeting. Washington, D.C.
April 1973).
Schmidt, Curtis J. The Role of Desalting in Providing
High Quality Water for Industrial Use. Office of Saline
Water, Washington, D.C. Contract Report No. 14-30-2776.
Oct. 1972.
Schmidt, Curtis J. and E. Clements. Demonstrated Tech-
nology and Research Needs for Reuse of Municipal Waste-
water. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. Contract No. 68-03-0148. 1974.
Water Quality Criteria.
Agency, Washington, D.C
Environmental Protection
Draft Report. 1973.
Water Quality Criteria. Federal Water Pollution Control
Agency, Washington, D.C. 1968.
Wilcox, Lloyd V. Water Quality from the Standpoint of
Irrigation. Journal of the American Water Works Asso-
ciation. 5^:650-654, 1958.
Williams, Roy E., D.D. Eier, and A.T. Wallace. Feasi-
bility of Reuse of Treated Wastewater for Irrigation,
Fertilization and Groundwater Recharge in Idaho. Idaho
Bureau of Mines and Geology, Moscow, 1969.
51
-------
CHAPTER V
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF
WASTEWATER REUSE SYSTEMS
A cost-effectiveness analysis of wastewater reuse systems is
indicated when preliminary investigations, as discussed in
Chapter III, suggest the potential practicality of wastewater
reuse. Cost-effectiveness analysis provides a rational pro-
cedure for determining the best alternative for meeting a
community's water supply objectives and the present and
future regulatory standards for wastewater disposal.
This chapter describes how to evaluate various water supply
alternatives, including wastewater reuse. Table V-l out-
lines the basic steps necessary in the evaluation process.
Each aspect of the procedures is discussed in the subsequent
sections.
Economic studies performed to satisfy EPA requirements must
conform to EPA guidelines for cost-effectiveness studies of
wastewater treatment programs, as summarized on Table V-2J>2
These guidelines have been followed in the case study anal-
yses presented in this report.
Step 1. Determine the Nature and Extent of the Water
ResourceProblem
During the preliminary analysis (as discussed in Chapter III)
the present and projected fresh water use and available sup-
ply in the study area will have been assessed. Existing
wastewater treatment capacity and future requirements will
also have been determined.
When water use is projected to exceed supply, and/or where
the level of wastewater treatment is expected to be insuffi-
cient to meet EPA standards, the area is faced with a prob-
1 em.
Step 2. Define Objectives
The municipality must then determine what it will do to solve
the predicted shortage in supply and/or the insufficient
treatment capability. At a minimum, a municipality's policy-
makers must establish the following objectives:
The quantity of water to be supplied
The water quality for all intended uses
The minimum quality standards to be met for reclaimed
wastewater
52
-------
TABLE V-l
BASIC PROCEDURES FOR COST-
EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
1. Determine the nature and extent of the water
resource problem.
2. Define objectives.
3. Hypothesize technically feasible alternatives
that can satisfy objectives.
4. Estimate the costs of each alternative.
5. Calculate the present value of each alternative
system.
6. Compare the present value of the cost for each
alternative which meets or exceeds the objec-
tives. Select that alternative with the lowest
value.
53
-------
TABLE V-2
BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF EPA'S
COST-EFFECTIVENESS GUIDELINES3
1. Planning period for projects - 20 years.
2. Service lives for each component of a wastewater
treatment system.
Land Permanent
Structures 30 to 50 years
Process equipment 15 to 30 years
Auxiliary equipment 10 to 15 years
3. Interest (or discount
rates) Water Resources Council Rate
4. Monetary costs shall be calculated in terms of
present worth values or equivalent annual
values.
5. Interest cost during construction equals the
interest rate times the total capital expendi-
tures times one half the construction period
in years.
6. The future inflation of wages and prices shall
not be considered in the analysis.
a As presented in 40 CFR 35.
54
-------
The extent of the water distribution system
There are many questions to consider in setting program
objectives. For example, should all the fresh water that the
analysis indicates will be needed in future years actually be
provided? Do all water users require the same quality of
water, and, if not, should a dual system be considered?
Step 3. Hypothesize Technically Feasible Alternatives that
Can Satisfy the Objectives
For any given area there will be several alternative methods
of supplying water and of treating municipal wastewater. All
technically feasible alternatives must be hypothesized to
assure that the cost-effectiveness analysis will point to the
least costly system.
The selection of alternatives for evaluation will depend on
local conditions. One or more alternatives which do not
involve wastewater reuse should be considered. Often, pre-
viously completed engineering studies of water and waste-
water management for the area will provide a basis for selec-
tion of technically feasible conventional alternate systems.
It is helpful to discuss the fresh water supply aspects of a
water resources management system separately from the waste-
water treatment facilities, although a complete water
resource system is comprised of both elements.
Water Supply. Possible sources of water supply available to
an area are outlined in Table V-3. Depending on the local
conditions, some of these alternative sources are not appli-
cable. Table V-3 also lists several means of increasing an
area's water supply.
Expansion of an area's existing water supply system would
entail development of one or more of the available sources.
The water supply agency must formulate alternative programs
that will provide water of sufficient quantity and quality to
meet the area's water resource objectives, as established in
Step 2 of this procedure.
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal. Municipal wastewater must
be treated to prevent environmental degradation. Federal and
local regulations set the minimum standards for such treat-
ment; local decision-makers must decide on the specific treat-
ment objectives which may exceed minimum standards.
Water pollution from municipal wastewater can be prevented by
various alternative treatment systems, including those that
incorporate reclamation and those that do not. In general,
55
-------
TABLE V-3
'ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCES AND MEANS OF
INCREASING AN AREA'S WATER SUPPLY
1. Existing supply sources.
2. Other in-basin sources:
Surface waters (e.g., rivers, lakes,
reservoirs).
Groundwater basins.
3. Imported water from various out-of-basin
sources,
4. Wastewater reclamation.
5. Miscellaneous;
Water conservation measures (e.g., evapora-
tion controls, improved distribution
systems, and drip irrigation).
Temporary overdraft of groundwater
basins.
Weather modification to promote
precipitation.
Desalination of brackish or sea water.
56
-------
a wastewater treatment system entails the necessary treatment
plant facilities, trunk sewers, effluent conveyance pipelines,
and pumping stations required to properly process sewage for
disposal.
There are usually several possible alternatives for waste-
water treatment. Basically, a locality can construct a sys-
tem providing secondary or tertiary treatment or a combina-
tion of the two if more than one plant is involved. (In rare
cases, primary wastewater treatment may be sufficient; how-
ever, it is assumed that effluent quality requirements cannot
be met by a primary treatment process alone.)
There are numerous unit processes that can be combined to
provide the required levels of treatment. In addition, there
may be alternative geographical locations for treatment plant
siting and different construction phasing possible.
Wastewater Reuse Systems. Development of a technically
feasible wastewater reuse alternative or alternatives is
based on an analysis of various local factors, such as:
Location of existing wastewater treatment facility
or faci1ities
Location of potential effluent customers
Quality requirements of potential effluent customers
Volume requirements of potential effluent customers
These and other pertinent factors will have been determined
through the market survey, conducted during the preliminary
analysis of wastewater reuse applicability (Chapter III).
A preliminary design of a wastewater treatment and reclama-
tion alternative to serve trVe area could take many forms.
For example, it may be very similar to a conventional system,
with identically situated treatment plants and sewers, except
that means are provided for storage and conveyance of'efflu-
ent to users. On the other hand, it may involve the construc-
tion of one or several satellite treatment plants throughout
the area to facilitate reclamation and delivery of effluent
to widely scattered customers. Investigation of two or more
wastewater reuse plans is beneficial when these alternatives
differ widely in terms of treatment plant locations, pro-
cesses used, customer locations, and timing of treatment
plant construction.
Step 4. Estimate the Cost of Each Alternative
Each alternative must be technically feasible to construct
and operate. Some degree of preliminary engineering design
may be necessary to develop feasible systems that incorporate
57
-------
wastewater reuse. However, the preliminary plans need not be
detailed. Table V-4 lists those basic items that should be
quantified in the preliminary plans for the purposes of sub-
sequent cost-effectiveness analysis.
The determination of the direct monetary costs for construct-
ing and operating each alternative is one key factor in the
analysis. For each alternative to be analyzed, cost esti-
mates should be obtained for the following items:
1. Construction cost of new water resources facilities
to be built both at the outset of the project
period and at various intervals during the planning
period where applicable.
2. Operating and maintenance (O&M) cost on an annual
basis. Annual O&M costs may be constant over the
project period or they may vary, particularly if
new facilities are to be initiated at future dates.
3. Interest costs during construction, as delineated
in EPA's guidelines for cost-effectiveness analyses
and summarized on Table V-2.
Historical capital costs and their amortization charges should
be omitted in all cases. It is the additional cost to be
incurred by each alternative system that is relevant to the
analysis. Historical capital costs (called sunk costs) have
already been committed and must be repaid regardless of
which new alternative is adopted.
There are various means possible to estimate the cost of
each alternative. Some local agencie,s will have the exper-
tise, experience, and resources to accurately estimate water
supply and sewage treatment plant costs applicable to their
particular area. Others can derive pertinent cost estimates
developed in recent water supply and wastewater management
studies for the service area itself or for neighboring
localities. If previously developed cost estimates are
used, they must be updated to account for past inflation.
The Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index is
useful for updating past cost estimates to the time of
analysis. Cost estimates for water resource projects that
were derived in previous years can be adjusted to a present
cost basis by applying the ratio of the value of the ENR
Construction Cost Index for the year the analysis is per-
formed to the value for the year that the past cost informa-
tion was developed. Appendix C lists values for the Con-
struction Cost Index from 1966 to July, 1974.
58
-------
TABLE V-4
FACTORS TO QUANTIFY IN PRELIMINARY
DESIGN OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER
REUSE SYSTEMS
1. Type of treatment process for each plant in
the system.
2. Capacity of each plant.
3. Additional sewer requirements, if necessary
Size of pipes
Length of pipes
4. Effluent discharge facilities required:
Length and size of outfall sewers for
disposal.
Length and size of conveyance pipelines
to each potential customer.
Pumping needs to supply effluent to
upstream users.
Storage facilities required, if any, to
assure users receive an uninterrupted
supply of effluent (e.g., tanks and/or
lagoons).
59
-------
Use of empirically-derived cost data in tabular, graphical,
or equation form generally yields acceptably accurate cost
estimates for the purposes of a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Appendix D provides graphical cost data of a somewhat general
nature to assist in the estimation of both construction and
O&M costs for water supply and wastewater treatment facili-
ties. However, costs may vary significantly from region to
region and from process to process. It is therefore prefer-
able to develop cost estimates on the basis of local condi-
tions and prevailing rates for labor, material, and equipment
Step 5. Calculate the Present Value of Each Alternative
The costs developed for each alternative in Step 4 cannot be
compared directly in that form because of the'timing differ-
ences in cash flows, and the time variations in the volume
of water supplied and wastewater treated by each system.
The estimated present value of the costs to be incurred by
each alternative over the entire 20-yr planning period must
be determined and these costs compared. The general compu-
tational procedure to determine the present value of each
alternative's costs is as follows:
Present value =
Total capital cost for initial construction and
equipment purchases
plus (+)
The capital construction for each subsequent con-
struction phase times the single payment present
worth factors based on 7 percent and the number of
years from time of analysis
plus ( + )
Average annual operation and maintenance cost
times uniform series present worth factor based
on 7 percent and 20 years (L)
plus (+)
Equipment replacement costs, if service life is
less than 20 years based on 7 percent interest and
the expected service life value
60
-------
minus (-)
Salvage values of equipment and structures times
single payment present worth factor based on 7 per-
cent and 20 years, if service life for these items
is greater than 20 years.
Table V-5 provides a format useful in calculating the
present value of costs for water supply and wastewater
treatment system alternatives. Separate tables would be
completed for each alternative considered. Applicable
present worth factors (pwf) are available in most engi-
neering economics textbooks. A copy of a representative
table corresponding to a 7 percent interest rate is in-
cluded in Appendix E.
For each alternative considered, a total single present
value will be calculated, as shown in Column 12 on Table V-5
Present values for all alternatives should be tabulated
separately, such as on Table V-6, to facilitate comparisons.
TABLE V-6
SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR SUMMARIZING
PRESENT VALUES OF ALTERNATIVE WATER
SUPPLY/WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Present Value of
Alternatives Costs (from Table V-5)
a
b
C-la
C-2
C-3
etc .
R-lb
R-2
etc .
A conventional
wastewater is 1
An alternative
labeled R.
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
alternative which does not reuse
abeled C.
which does reuse wastewater is
61
-------
in
I
w
PQ
H
CO
g
K
CO EH
H CO
i-3 co
f-C
> EH
EH W
W EH
CO «<
K K
ft EH
pTj p^
O H
EH
O IS'
H K
EH EH
g -
t£ CO
-P O -P
G co
CD MH O
CO O 0
CD
ft
^^
.
U
-P -H
C - rH
CD 4H Oj
e & &,
>i CU (0
rO
O4 4H
-H
£ CO
JH cu
O -H -
MH JH M-!
•H
m
-P 0 *
G >H
(D 0) (0
CO ^ -P
OJ rH -H
M fCi Qj
ft > fO
u
CU -P
rH G
Cn CU -
G S "w
, ) ^. *>
^Q fri PJ
cu
i «>-
(D
U -P ^
rfl G -P
rH (U CO
Cu £ O
CU O
X X X X X X
X X X X X X
^ ^^ ^* ^ ^ ^
X
X X X X X
Xrv* K^ Ky* K/4
rS >"H i^( rN
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X ' X X X
X X X X X X
X
o
o X X X X
rH
CO
-P in o in o m rH
M r~^ oo oo eh (7> ro
fO CT\ T3 CU
•H C >
DI rO 'H
CT1
0) tn
M C CU
n3 -H VH
-P rO
co rd
CU M CO
3 CU CU
rd O rH
> (0
£>
• ••
4-) S MH
£ "^ S:
QJ O Cu
^-^ --X s~*
ro in vis
— ^ ^.^ — *
• •
CO
CU
-p
o
1
rj
H
o
Q_)
CO EH
62
-------
—
OJ
£
-H
-P
O
U
in
I
^
rq
l_q
9
EH
(fi CM
-P C rH
C Pi
^- (0 tP
X > rt
1 ^
• — >r-] f^ pt
CO ft
(0 -
O -P CD
^~ (u Q) d
(0 rH Q< U
CO (C -rH d
> d M
o en
^_i
nJ
X X X X X X
X X X X X X
XS.4 Kjl ls,>4 ^ ^J(
r^t r^N| »^s tf^t ii'S
X
X X X X X X
X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
en
in o m o in rH
[•-- CO CO 0*1 CT\ fti
C^ O^ O^ O^ -P
rH rH rH rH i-H O
63
-------
Step 6. Compare the Present Value of the Cost for Each
A1ternative
The foregoing analysis will indicate which alternative has
the lowest present value for cost over the 20-yr period.
This lowest cost alternative may or may not employ waste-
water reuse, but it must be chosen as the cost-effective
alternative.
It must be recognized that the cost-effectiveness analysis
is based on indefinite information: predicted population
data; projected fresh water demands*, estimated facilities
costs; and various other assumptions. If time and resources
allow, it is useful to recalculate the costs of each alter-
native based on different assumptions, particularly if two
or more alternatives have approximately equal costs. The
results of a series of recalculations will indicate the
sensitivity of the results to possible changes in important
factors such as projected wastewater volume sold for reuse,
construction cost estimates, and estimated fresh water use.
The cost-effectiveness methodology can be a useful tool in
assisting local agencies to evaluate the best alternative
water supply/wastewater treatment system. Its use encour-
ages the consideration of wastewater reuse systems where
they are economical and/or environmentally beneficial. But
if reclamation systems are not cost-effective and/or do not
enhance the local and regional environment, they should not
be constructed.
The foregoing analysis procedure is based strictly upon
economic considerations in terms of monetary costs only.
It is recognized, however, that other factors such as energy
use, social effects, environmental impact, reliability,
public acceptability, and so forth can and should signifi-
cantly influence deeision-makers.
64
-------
CHAPTER V
REFERENCES
Guidance for Facilities Planning (2nd edition).
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
October, 1974.
Protection of the Environment (Title 40).
Appendix A: Cost-Effective Analysis.
Federal Register. 38(174):24,639, Sept. 10, 1973
65
-------
CHAPTER VI
CASE STUDY - CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Procedures described in Chapter V for determining the cost-
effectiveness of alternative wastewater reuse systems are
applied in this and the following chapter to two case study
situations: Santa Barbara, California, and Hampton Roads
Sanitation District, Virginia. These case studies represent
two distinct areas where wastewater reuse may be considered.
The Santa Barbara area is a semi-arid region with essentially
no major industrial water users. In the Hampton Roads area,
however, relatively abundant fresh water is available, and
there are heavy industries nearby that use large volumes of
water. Results of the case study analyses show that selec-
tive wastewater reuse can be cost-effective in both situa-
tions.
The city of Santa Barbara is located on the south coast of
California, approximately 80 miles northwest of Los Angeles.
Figure VI-1 shows the area's location in relation to Califor-
nia's major cities. Figure VI-2 provides a map of the general
area. Santa Barbara is in a semi-arid region and will soon
face a water problem since the projected consumption of
water will be greater than the projected supply of water from
the present sources.
At present, the city obtains its water from wells and from
the Cachuma and Gibraltar Reservoirs, both fed by the Santa
Ynez River. In the future, fresh water from Northern Cali-
fornia may be available to Santa Barbara through a coastal
branch of the California State Water Project. However, this
supplementary source of water would be rather expensive.
Consequently, city officials have expressed considerable
interest in using reclaimed wastewater as one supplementary
water source and have commissioned various studies of the
situation in the pastJ»2 The existence of a complete, up-
to-date data base makes the city of Santa Barbara an ideal
case study to illustrate the use of the procedures for deter-
mining the cost-effectiveness of wastewater reuse.
Background Data
A cost-effectiveness analysis is dependent on the avail-
ability of basic information concerning an area's water
resources, as discussed in Chapter IV. Accordingly, perti-
nent information on Santa Barbara's fresh water supply and
demand, wastewater characteristics, and other factors has
been obtained and is summarized below./
66
-------
San Francisco
Santa Barbara
FIGURE VI-1
LOCATION OF SANTA BARBARA IN CALIFORNIA
67
-------
SANTA BARBARA
Sc»l«
ZMIUI
FIGURE vi-2
THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
68
-------
Geological and Topographical Data. Santa Barbara is located
in a low lying plain surrounded by the adjacent foothills of
the Santa Ynez Mountains to the north. These mountains stand
between the city and the two reservoirs from which the city
obtains part of its water supply.
The area has several geological faults which tend to impede
the underground flow of groundwater. These faults also make
it more costly to recharge the groundwater basins below the
city. There are two levels of groundwater under Santa Bar-
bara - one is 250 feet below sea level, and the other is
about 375 feet below sea level. The calculated capacity of
both levels is approximately 60,000 MG. The estimated safe
yield of this groundwater basin is 1.79 mgd.
"Climate. Santa Barbara receives 95 percent of its 18 inch
annual rainfall between November and May. The average winter
temperature is 55°F, and the average summer temperature is
65°F. The mornings are generally foggy during the summer,
but offshore winds usually dissipate the fog by midday.
Population. Various population projections for the city of
Santa Barbara are available, each based on differing expected
growth trends ranging from an assumed low net growth rate
(zero growth after 1990), up to an optimistic net growth
rate of 2.8 percent a year. In this case study, a net growth
rate of 1.25 percent per year is used as a basis for pre-
dicting water use as tabulated on Table VI-1.
TABLE VI-1
POPULATION PROJECTION - CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Year
1973
1980
1990
2000
Population3
72,400
81 ,300
93,900
103,700
Corresponds to projection B in Ref. 1
69
-------
In using this population projection, future projected demand
for water, if in error, would tend to overestimate future
water use. It should be noted that Series E population pro-
jection estimates are specified for use in California unless
specific studies indicate differing projections.
Land Use. Land in Santa Barbara is used mainly for low den-
sity residential housing. There is practically no heavy
manufacturing or heavy industry in Santa Barbara, and it is
expected that this will continue to be the case. Any indus-
trial growth in the city is expected to be in light produc-
tion (e.g., electronics) and research and development. Ag-
ricultural land use is expected to continue to decline, and
residential land use is expected to take its place. A sig-
nificant area is devoted to parks, golf courses, bird
sanctuaries, and other vegetated open space land uses.
Fresh Water Considerations
Water use in Santa Barbara in 1973 was approximately 13 mgd.
By the year 2000, 20 mgd will be used according to city
projections. However, the safe firm yield capacity of the
existing water supply system is expected to decrease from the
present 13 mgd down to 11 mgd in the year 2000, as indicated
on Table VI-2.
TABLE VI-2
PRESENT AND PROJECTED WATER USE
AND SUPPLY - CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
1
Year
1973
1980
1990
2000
Water Use
mgd
13.2
15.3
18.1
20.0
Firm Yield Water
Supply From
Existing Sources
mgd
13.4
13.4
12.7
11 .3
Difference
Supply-Use
mgd
0.2
(2.0)
(5.4)
(8.7)
(The expected decrease is due primarily to siltation of
reservoirs.) Figure VI-3 shows that if the projected demand
for water at the present water rates through the year 2000
is to be satisfied, Santa Barbara will soon have to establish
70
-------
20
16
Ul
o
>
14
12
10
1970
PROJECTED WATER USE
WATER SUPPLY FROM
EXISTING SOURCES
1
1975
1980
1985
YEAR
1990
1995
2000
FIGURE VI-3
PROJECTED WATER USE AND SUPPLY FROM EXISTING SOURCES
CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
(Derived from data in Ref. 1)
71
-------
a supplementary water supply capable of providing 9 mgd in
addition to the amount drawn from present sources.
Alternative fresh water sources are expected to be very cost-
ly in comparison with present costs. According to one study,
existing water costs from $77/MG for groundwater to $107/MG
for Cachuma Reservoir water. In contrast, it is expected
that water imported via the^California State Water Project
will cost at least $630/MG.^
It is recognized that implementation of more costly water
supply systems could likely result in increased consumer
water prices. Increased prices would, in turn, cause con-
sumers to use less water. For the purposes of this study,
however, it has been assumed that water prices would not be
increased and that water use would not decrease. Additional
water supply costs would be covered by tax revenues in this
event, a financing arrangement commonly practiced by munici-
palities.
Wastewater Considerations
An understanding of the area's wastewater volume, quality,
and treatment characteristics is also required for an
analysis of wastewater reuse potential. Presently, one
sewage treatment plant constructed in 1951 processes all
municipal wastewater from the city of Santa Barbara. Table
VI-3 summarizes information describing the existing facili-
ties .
Table VI-4 indicates the projected average dry weather waste-
water flow that will require treatment through the year 2000.
Influent and effluent quality of wastewater and the treatment
plant removal efficiency are summarized on Table VI-5.
Requirements promulgated by California's Central Coast Region-
al Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) stipulate that Santa
Barbara must provide added treatment for all wastewater dis-
charged to the ocean, as illustrated by the selected waste
discharge requirements shown on Table VI-6. Hence, the city
is expanding its existing plant to provide secondary treat-
ment and to increase the capacity to 11 mgd.
Faced with the prospect of high-cost water in the future,
Santa Barbara understandably desired a more thorough analysis
of its water supply alternatives. At the same time, waste-
water treatment requirements were becoming more stringent,
and their treatment plant was nearing capacity. Consequently,
the reclamation of wastewater to help solve both a water
supply and sewage treatment problem offered a promising course
of action to the city.
72
-------
TABLE VI-3
CHARACTERISTICS OF SANTA BARBARA'S
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT1
Design Capacity 8.0 mgd
Existing flow 7.5 mgd
Degree of treatment primary
Ocean outfall
Length 3,400 ft
Diameter 42 in,
TABLE VI-4
PRESENT AND PROJECTED MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER FLOW VOLUME - SANTA BARBARA-1
Average Dry Weather Flow
Year mgd acre-ft/yr
1973 7.5 8,400
1980 9.3 10,400
1990 11.7 13,100
2000 14.2 15,900
73
-------
TABLE VI-5
AVERAGE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY OF THE
SANTA BARBARA SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT1
Suspended Solids
BOD (SS)
Average influent (mg/1)
Average effluent (mg/1)
Average percent removal
207a
141
32
192
93
52
Based on data collected in May, June, July, and
August, 1974.
TABLE VI-6
SELECTED STATE WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO SANTA BARBARA
Constituent
State Ocean Plan Requirement (mg/1)
50 percentile 90 percentile
BOD
Suspended Solids
Settleable Solids
a
50.0
0.1
b
75.0
0.2
Based on statistical variation; e.g., the 90 percentile
means that the specified concentration must not be
exceeded 90 percent of the time.
^Standard not specified.
74
-------
Preliminary Test: Is Wastewater Reuse a Possibility for
Santa Barbara?
A review of the checklist for determining if wastewater reuse
is potentially practical for an area (Table VI-7) shows that
Santa Barbara exhibits all five positive conditions:
1. The existing and future supply of inexpensive water
is limited and is expected to decline.
2. Supplementary fresh water from the California State
Water Project will be very expensive (about six
times more costly than water from Santa Barbara's
present sources).
3. Irrigation of agriculture land, parks, golf courses,
and other open space with reclaimed wastewater is a
distinct possibility. The quantity of wastewater
treated (and projected to be treated) in Santa
Barbara is much larger than the projected shortage
of fresh water during the 20-year planning period,
as observed by comparing data on Tables VI-2 and
VI-4.
4. Municipal wastewater of relatively high quality will
soon be discharged for disposal once the planned
secondary treatment facilities are built. (Santa
Barbara has already responded to the state-imposed
effluent quality regulations by initiating work on
a new sewage treatment plant. Therefore, item 5 of
the checklist is a moot point in this case.
It is clear, then, that wastewater reuse is definitely a pos-
sibility for Santa Barbara. A study of the potential market
for wastewater sales is justified.
Potential uses of reclaimed wastewater in Santa Barbara are
for irrigation and groundwater recharge, as indicated on
Table VI-8. An estimated 2 mgd of wastewater could be sub-
stituted for fresh water to irrigate city parks and other
open space. There is essentially no demand for industrial
cooling water, since there is no heavy industry in the city.
Use of reclaimed wastewater for groundwater recharge would be
accomp-1 ished by injection since insufficient suitable area
is available within the city limits for surface spreading
and percolation. Well injection of wastewater into potable
groundwater is presently prohibited by California State
Department of Public Health Standards.
75
-------
TABLE VI-7
CHECKLIST FOR DETERMINING IF WASTEWATER
REUSE IS POTENTIALLY PRACTICAL
Wastewater reuse is potentially practical if one or more
of the following factors are true for your area. A more
complete economic analysis should then be performed.
/\7/ 1. Existing or future fresh water supply is limited
A// 2. Existing or future fresh water supply is relatively
expensive
/~\7J 3. The area presently includes or will include
individual entities who use high volumes of water
Ay 4. Municipal wastewater of relatively high quality
is presently discharged for disposal
f\7/ 5. Requirements for improved wastewater effluent are
impending or are anticipated
76
-------
<
K
<
• m
K
<,
«
<
EH
2
<
CO
oo 2
1 H
H
> CO
W
CO
W D
I-H*
« &
ril W
EH EH
,-f
t
W
EH
CO
£
£
i-q
<
M
EH
2
U
EH
O
&4
i
O
o;i u
MJ -
M 0'
O 1
4->
-H
rH
-H
X!
rd
-H
rH
OJ
as
>i
-P rd
•H .
•H D1
(d QJ
d M
O
d)rH
e~
3T|
rH fj|
5 g
^> "fc— X
0)
(0
D
2 £ - tz 2 2 .£ ^ ^
2222222 2
SSSSSSS to
VOVDVDOrHrHinin T!
nnmrHrHor^-o
OOOOOOOOJ
XJ
3
rH C
U 0
•H
>1 -P
M U
(V X 4-> £> rH 0)
to SH C Mo •.•!-)
M rd D rd rH (U C
P (A O IX en M
o cj >, ^; d
o tn c to n n
o« td&KT) (dcd'O
O< Oi -H Cn-P C
>1 i -P M
tn
Q) M
x: o rH -H
•o D
C 0 OJ G •
-H M S -P O 'O
x: o "J -H o
^ ^ .p rH -P -P -H
OJ di M-l ttl O M
-P 4J S U 0) U,
^ O 13 M O -P
U-t rd 3 ftf W M
0) w (d rd
rH W Q) W 'd £ GJ
X! T) M rd 0) ><
fd M d -P -P i
-P rd tn o o (d o
o.'O in 4J a) x! CM
-( 0) -P W -H
•H U -H M O o tJ -H
-H M C O Kj
1 1 4J 4J Q)
•HI 1 M -H 0
S CO M Q) -H
0 « 2 -P ^-P
cd >i u
4J £ T3 fd
i tn o •• r<
J_i SH ->Xi 4J
•H -H t^ JJ O
d •• d «> C
CT >i tr1 cr* «w
(1) JJ Q) rH O rH
^ -r-( ^ rH
rH O W -H
>i -HO) -P (D S
4J XJ tr> w
•H rd rd MOM
rH -H M O O<
-------
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Was'tewater Reuse for Santa
Barbara
Three alternative wastewater treatment and effluent routing
schemes are considered for this analysis as described below.
Figures VI-4, VI-5, and VI-6 refer to Alternatives 1, 2,
and 3, respectively.
Alternative 1 - No reuse is practiced. A 16 mgd
sewage treatment plant would be constructed adjacent
to the existing plant, and effluent would be dis-
charged to the Pacific Ocean.
- Alternative 2 - A total of 2 mgd of effluent is
reclaimed for irrigation of parks and other open
space in Santa Barbara. A 16 mgd central sewage
treatment plant is constructed adjacent to the
existing site, as in Alternative 1. To convey ef-
fluent to the reuse locations, Santa Barbara must
construct an effluent pipeline system and pumping
facilities.
Alternative 3 - A 12 mgd central sewage treatment
plant would be constructed adjacent to the .existing
plant. In addition, a 2.6 mgd satellite plant would
be constructed at Mission Creek. Also, Santa Barbara
would support the expansion of the existing plant at
Montecito to 1.6 mgd and would install effluent pipe-
lines to coastal irrigation sites. Effluent from
the satellite and Montecito facilities would be
routed to the nearest areas that can use reclaimed
water for irrigation. As in Alternative 2, 2.05 mgd
would be reclaimed. Unreclaimed effluent from the
satellite plant and all effluent from the central
plant would be discharged to the ocean through the
central plant outfall.
Other alternative systems are theoretically possible, but the
three selected represent the most feasible at this time. For
example, groundwater recharge by well injection is a possi-
bility for Santa Barbara. However, existing state health
laws prohibit the direct injection of reclaimed wastewater
into potable groundwaters. It is anticipated that this ban
will be relaxed within the next ten years if and when long-
term test results and improved treatment levels can guarantee
safe injection practices. For the purposes of this illustra-
tive case study, it has been assumed that Santa Barbara would
not be able to directly inject wastewater for recharge pur-
poses within the 20-year planning period. (It should be noted
that groundwater recharge with effluent by surface spreading
78
-------
Santo Barbara
Central ST
SANTA BARBARA
Sc»i«
t
FIGURE VI-4
ALTERNATIVE 1
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND EFFLUENT ROUTING
79
-------
Santa Barbara
Central ST
- Location
for landscape irrigation
SANTA BARBARA
with reclaimed wastewater
FIGURE VI-5
ALTERNATIVE 2
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND EFFLUENT ROUTING
80
-------
Santa Barbara
Central S
® Locations ^5r
for landscape i
with reclaimed wastewater
SANTA BARBARA
Sctl*
i
FIGURE VI-6
ALTERNATIVE 3
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND EFFLUENT ROUTING
81
-------
is legal in California and is widely practiced. However,
the city of Santa Barbara lacks sufficient area for such
groundwater recharge practice.)
The three alternative wastewater treatment and effluent rout-
ing systems must also be viewed in the context of Santa
Barbara's water supply situation. Under Alternative 1, which
incorporates no wastewater reclamation, Santa Barbara must
provide the full volume of water demand from fresh water
sources. A recent study indicates that the cost-effective
method of supplying fresh water to the Santa Barbara area to
the year 2000 involves the overdrafting of local groundwater
basins while continuing to draw water from existing surface
impoundments. Cost of water supplied through such a system
is approximately $583/MG. At the end of the 25-year water
supply planning period, the plan calls for construction of
the Coastal Branch of the California Water Project which
would bring Northern California water to the Santa Barbara
area to replace overdrafted groundwater basins and supply
the area's year 2000 and beyond water demands. (Other
alternative water supply systems investigated included the
construction of the Coastal Branch now to import water with
some groundwater overdraft required during the period of
construction. Unit cost of such water supply alternative
is approximately $921/MG.)
Under both Alternatives 2 and 3, use of wastewater effluent
for irrigation would replace 2 mgd of fresh water, in effect
causing an equivalent increase in the supply of fresh water
available to Santa Barbara for domestic and other purposes.
The overall impact of implementing a reuse program now would
be to postpone the need for overdrafting the groundwater by
five years.
The capital and operating and maintenance costs associated
with each alternative wastewater processing system and the
water supply system have been determined from existing infor-
mation, including previous reports and estimating handbooks.
These costs are shown on Tables VI-9 and VI-10, respectively.
Calculations using these basic costs indicate that the present
value of each wastewater processing and water supply alter-
native are as follows:
Alternative 1 - $21,075,000
Alternative 2 - $20,129,000
Alternative 3 - $21,947,000
82
-------
TABLE VI-9
3 WASTEWATE!
(1974 dollars)3
COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER PROCESSING SYSTEMS2
Capital Operating and
Item Cost Maintenance Cost
16 mgd Advanced Biological $7,725,000 $654,000
Treatment Plant, adjacent
to present SBWTF site
12 mgd Advanced Biological $6,126,000 $552,000
Treatment Plant, adjacent
to present SBWTF site
2.6 mgd Advanced Biological $1,550,000 $192,000
Treatment Plant at
Mission Creek
1.4 mgd expansion of Monte- $ 686,000 $128,000
cito Wastewater Treatment
Facility
Delivery system for land- $2,122,000 $ 19,000
scape irrigation, Central
SBWTF
f
Central SBWTF plus satellite $1,053,000 $ 10,000
plants ^
aOriginal cost estimates have been multiplied by 1.28
to reflect the change in the ENR Construction Cost
Index between 1971 and June 1974.
83
-------
TABLE VI-10
COSTS FOR THE ONE COST-EFFECTIVE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
IDENTIFIED FOR SANTA BARBARA13
Capital Costa
Operating Cost •
Overdraft
Replacement Supply
State Obligation
Total
1975
424
31
374
62
467
1980
636
93
374
62
529
1985
530
235
374
62
671
1990
530
378
374
62
814
a Costs in thousands of dollars.
Original cost estimates have been multiplied by 1.06
to reflect the change in the ENR Construction Cost
Index between 1973 and June 1974.
b Original operating cost estimates were multipled by
0.31 to reflect the approximate share of the cost for
Santa Barbara County borne by the city of Santa
Barbara.
84
-------
It is apparent that Alternative 2 is the cost-effective
system and should be implemented if cost alone were the
determining selection criteria.
The method used in calculating these present value figures
for each alternative are shown on Tables VI-11, VI-12, and
VI-13, for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, respectively. EPA cost-
effectiveness guidelines as shown on Table V-2 are followed
throughout, including the use of a 7 percent interest
rate and a 20-year planning period.
85
-------
w
PQ
<
CO
EH
CO
O
U
W Q
r-5 EH
f£ CO
> -H
H
EH CO W
Z, <>
CO
ft rtj K
PQ W
fc PH EH
O r=d J
ra f=c
2
O rtj
H EH
d
CU
O
rd
rd
-P
rH
-P
CU
g
.p
fd
cu
n
-P •
cu
>i CO
rd
CO fd
^
T3 CU
tn-P
g w
rd
vo |5
rH
O
- d
d
-H -P
CO 3
(d A
4->
13 d
d rd
3 rH
O QJ
^_i
tn cu
tjl
tn rd
d £
•H CU
-P CO
rd H
H rd
M -P
CU d
> cu
O U
M-l 4-J
-P O en
d o
CU QJ U
Wr-t
fJ
CU rH SI
M (d <-#
Cu > O
-p
cu d >-i
rH CU O
t?i e -P
•H n3 td
co O-i EM
r-l CO M
0 CU O
M-l -H 4J
i Ii r \
•H M VJ
d cu fd
D co fo
H
rd -P
^ S co
a i-s o
C! O U
rtj
M-l
-P O rH
d {Tj
CU CU -P
CO 3 -H
Q) r— 1 P_|
M rd fd
CM > U
-P
cu a M
rH CU O
rjn 6 -P
G >i 0
•H rd rd
CO 0 1 FT i
rH
rd
-P
•H
p.
rd
U
in iH
rH 00
o> vo
•H CN
0 O
0 0
o o
rH rH
0 O
o o
rH H
<3< rr
r^ ^r
vo in
^* vo
"* CN
CN fn
•^ r~-
•-
r^*
0 O
o o
0 0
• •
H H
•^< CN
CN m
*3* r^
«.
r^.
rd
< PQ
m
p»
en
rH
VO CN CO CN CO rH
"=1* rH CT> VD O I"*
in en m ro CN en
•H rH rH rH rH
fi m oo co CN CN
rH rH O O VO VO
r>- r~ in in n ro
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
O 0 0 O 0 O
rH rH rH H rH rH
^ ^, ^j, ^. ,-j, ^
en ^ rH ^ "31 "^i"
CN m r> m H in
in vo vo vo co vo
n en CN
in vo en
•^J1 CN rH
CO CO CN
rH O VO
r>- in ro
• • •
o o o
VO 0 0
ro n n
vo in in
< cq <; pq r< m
o m o
co co en
en en en
rH rH rH
ro
en
-
CN
rH
o
r-
o
-
en
•H
rd
-P
O
.
CO
.p
CO
0
• o
CO
S CT*
cu c
4J -H
CO -P
10 O
rH -P
cu a
a cu
CO rH
cu m
4-1 CU
CO
fd T3
:§ d
rd
-M I *
•rH C
^ Q)
T3 4-1
CU rd
4-1 CU
rd w
•H 4-1
O
O M
CO CU
CO 4->
rd rd
CO CU
4-> 4->
CO CO
O rrj
O £
O O
4-J 4->
CO CO
CU CU
Ml ll i
0) CU
d d
o o
•H -H
4-> 4-1
fC fd
d d
•H -H
CO 10
0) CU
n3 'O
cu cu
FH EH
rrj
86
-------
•a
f\\
UJ
3
c
•H
-P
c
o
u
rH
_J
r~l
i
H
r>
k^
W
J
PQ
<
EH
Q) 4J
I-< FA
•-> UJ
rH O
cd rj
>
H
-P IS
C -P
0) O
en EH
Q)
1 . || |
H MH
ft 0
0)
3
rH 0)
(0 &
> fO
>
-P rH
a is
0) CO
m
a) m
M O
ft
-P
c
0)
e
&H
(0 O
ft -P
u
0) nJ
H fa
en
C
. t
•r-|
CO
en
cu
n
>w p
0 -P
O
Q) 3
w-t i,
^J M
rH -P
IS CO
U3
(1)
tn-P
(0 fi
> OJ
rH 6
(0 C^
CO -H
i-«
^j
O1
w
vo in CN
n «^> oo
<^>
00 00 00
in in in
CN CM CN
• • •
00 0
rH r- 00
••M f>!^ 1
^r i^* r~i
IH in ro
«fc
CN
< ffl <
in o
t^- 00
o> a\
rH rH
n
r>
o
00
cr>
oo
in
CN
00
in
CN
m
in
ro
CNJ
in
oo
o
fO
-P
o
87
-------
CN
H
W
CO
CO
o
u
£H
K 0
i-3 EH
rt. CO
W
EH C/3 W
2
E4 U H
co EH
W < <<
O-i ^ 3
CQ H
fe K EH
O < J
^ n rfj
o <
M EH
EH 3
•P O
(0
CD O
ll r^
" rH
-P
>i CD
S-l CO
(0 J3
13 CD
C r<
O
U JH
CD CD
CO -P
(0
Cn CD
0 -P
CO
!£> tO
rH £
t| J 1)
-P O CO
C O
CD Q) U
CO J3
CD rH S
i-i fd <-a
&4 > O
+J
fJJ Ci rH
rH CD C
Cn 6 -P
C^>~. o
»^i *— '
•H tO tO
CO D-iMH
e
M co M
O 0) O
MH -rl 4J
-ri rH O
C 0) (0
D co m
rH CO
tO -P
3 S LO
C! <-8 0
H-) O rH
C 10
CD 0) -P
CO 3 -H
CD H fl,
r-1 CO CCJ
CL( > O
4-)
OJ C M
rH CD O
Cn g .p
C >i U
•H tO tO
CO QjMH
1 1
to
.p
•H
p.
fO
CJ
cn in f~* CN CN
in ^o vo o o
I r~* oo cn rH ^
«. ^ >. V V.
CN rH rH rH rH
O 00 00 00 00
0 rH rH O O
I o r^ r~ in in
rH O O O O
o o o o o
o o o o o
1 rH rH rH rH rH
^ ^ ^, ^ ^
oo r^ oo cn oo
I t^ vo r~> CN r~-
vo ^* **o in *«o
t~» CN OO
•fl" O CN
1 oo oo i oo I
V
tn
o oo oo
O rH O
i o r~- i in i
• • •
rH O O
I- <* VO
M* CN OO
| 00 ^J1 | i£> |
«.
cn
< PQ < CQ < CQ
in o in
r~ oo co
cn D vo
OO 00
O O
O O
o o
rH rH
<3< "?
rH 00
r^ r-»
*> ^D
CN **
o^ ^o
rH | VD
v
O
rH
CN
VD
oo i
.
o
o
00
in i
-------
CN
H
EH
J2
K
W
EH
a
x~s
^0
Q\
3
C
•H
4->
C
O
u
v^
CN
•H
1
H
W
h-1
CQ
rtj
EH
-P
MH en
•POO
C u
O CD
W 3 rH
Q) rH (d
r-l (fl -P
CU > 0
-p
m
-P O CD
C &1
O CD (0
en 3 >
OJ rH H
M rd (0
O4 > en
CD C ^
rH CD O
tne -P
C >i U
•H (0 (0
W &MH
en
CD -P CD
^ f"1 ^J
I" ' M ^1
H CD 3
to e -p
> di O
•H 3
CD 3 M
Cn tr-P
rd CD en
j>
H m TI
n
<;« < «
^ CT» O^ CT*
H rH rH rH
-------
ro
rH
I
I
H
>
W
55
EH
to
EH
to
O
u
^1
H P
D ID
ro
W
EH to W
£5 rtj p>
W U H
CO EH
§ P§ S
C^i <] K
§W
EH
O <1 iJ
ffl rfl
£j
O
-P tO O
-P 4-> O
q q q
0) tO
U rH T3
to a> q
•ri to
T) (U
tO -p »
•H Q)
-P rH in
q H 3
tO (U (L)
rH -P M
O. ti
tn M
-P (U
q H 4J
d)
(U O in
iH rH tO
-H 0 &
^4 _l_j
to ^ q
T3 (1) tO
q U rH
o q a
u to
0) > O
tn T! 4->
(0 -H
'O O •
tn vo D q
e • 4J-H
CN q tn
(N O tO
rH tO g X!
MH 4-J
4-> o tn
q o
0) 0) U
to 3
Q) rH g
M tO ^
PU > O
4-1
(P q rJ
H (U O
tn E 4-)
•H (0 tO
to PI^-I
g
M in M
O Q) O
m -H 4->
.1 ti r\
q oj m
D in m
rH U]
fO 4-)
3 g tn
q <* o
q o u
m
4J O H
q fl
Q) CU 4->
in 3 -H
Q) rH d.
!H tO to
PL, > u
_p
q >i o
•-H (0 tO
to cu'w
rH
fO
4->
•rH
p.
fO
U
VD
rH
1 ^O
^
ro
O
O
1 0
rH
O
O
1 rH
•^
CN
CO
1 00
in
rH
1 ^
w
en
0
0
1 0
rH
in
rH
1 "3*
•.
CTl
< PQ
in
r^
CTt
H
in oo CN t--
vc r~ o c'l
ro in rH oo
». •. ». «.
rH CN rH rH
ro ro co oo
rH rH O O
r-~ r~ in in
o o o o
o o o o
O O 0 O
rH rH rH rH
^ ^ ,-J, ^J,
r~ CN cr\ CN
i^> CO CN 00
•^r co m oo
CN n
O CN
ro i ro i
ro co
rH 0
r^ I m i
. .
0 0
rr V£>
CN ro
•vf 1 VD I
-------
m
£
H
EH
2
S
W
EH
a
,-^
T3
0)
C
•H
4-J
C
O
o
m
i
H
W
] "1
w
CM > O
4-1
M-l
4-> O Q)
C Cn
CD (U (0
tfl 3 >
(U rH rH
&4 (0 (0
P^ > CO
4->
OJ C M
H i 0
•H (0 (C
C/J PjMH
CO
0) 4-> 0)
r< /— t (j
r— ' >— 1 ^1
i — 1 0) J3
(0 E 4-1
> (I, O
•H 3
QJ 3 !H
en cr4-i
(C (D CQ
>
(0 O C
CO fO
o in ^ *^
•H in o H
1 00 | rH 1 rH 1
00 00 CO CO
in in in m
1 CM (Ml CN 1 CN 1
• • • •
0 O O O
CO CN ^ CN
ro i — i CN ^f
1 rH CN 1 ** 1 ** 1
«.
ro
<;m
-------
CHAPTER VI
REFERENCES
Toups Corporation. Water Resources Management Study,
South Coast-Santa Barbara County. July 1974.
Engineering-Science, Inc. Regional Wastewater Manage-
ment and Water Reclamation for Santa Barbara.
August 1971 .
92
-------
CHAPTER VII
CASE STUDY - HAMPTON ROADS SANITATION DISTRICT
The northern half of the Hampton Roads Sanitation District
(HRSD) is located on the peninsula of the Tidewater Region of
Virginia (see Figure VII-1). The peninsula region is bor-
dered by the York River, the Chesapeake Bay, the James River,
and by New Kent (County) and Charles City.
At the present time, the HRSD is planning to construct a new
sewage treatment plant at Goodwin Neck (see Figure VII-2).
This facility is being constructed to relieve the loads pre-
sently imposed upon two existing treatment facilities.
As planned, this new Goodwin Neck plant will discharge its
effluent to the York River. However, HRSD is also considering
the sale of effluent to nearby industries to offset a portion
of the new treatment plant costs.
Located relatively near the proposed Goodwin Neck sewage
treatment plant are various industrial plants, which use
large volumes of water, including the American Oil Company's
Yorktown Refinery (AMOCO) and the Virginia Electric Power
Company power plant. For the purposes of this case study,
alternative methods of supplying only the AMOCO facility with
effluent were investigated, primarily because AMOCO expressed
a desire to decrease its dependency on the region's potable
water supply and agreed to cooperate fully with this study.
The AMOCO refinery is located adjacent to the proposed Good-
win Neck sewage treatment plant, as shown on Figure VII-2.
Pertinent information regarding other potential customers of
reclaimed wastewater was unavailable within the time con-
straints of the study.
Results of the analyses conducted during this case study show
that it is cost-effective to reclaim about 6.0 mgd of waste-
water effluent from the Goodwin Neck plant for reuse at the
AMOCO refinery. Details of the cost-effectiveness analysis
are presented in the following sections.
Background. Basic background information concerning the
area's physical characteristics, water supply system, and
wastewater disposal network is necessary for a cost-effec-
tiveness analysis of wastewater reuse options.
Geographical. Geological, and Topographical Data. The
northern portion of the HRSD is comprised of the counties of
James City and York, the town of Poquoson, and the cities of
Hampton, Newport News, and Wil 1iamsburg. The HRSD lies within
93
-------
\
to,\ Chesapeake
C Bay
( \ x^ \
, 8z;!,s-«v* U.I
i , _»«k_ A^
_
j,_ ^ ..---i-- ^-
W%-«Jlfrl *, I ftirt Hjf»
STUDY
AREA
NORTHERN PORTION
OF HRSD SERVICE
Ntwaay p0At|,
^,-^^^r
-'-OeVt^f.-^ Vo PRINCESS ANNE^Cf1 I
FIGURE VII-1
HAMPTON ROADS SANITATION DISTRICT
LOCATION MAP
-------
PROPOSED
OUTFALL SEWER
AMOCO
REFINERY
PROPOSED
HRSD GOODWIN NECK
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
••: ^^
FIGURE VII-2
GOODWIN NECK SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
AND AMOCO SITE MAP
95
-------
the Atlantic Coastal Plain area known as "Tidewater Virginia."
The peninsula is surrounded by three major bodies of water
into which it drains: the James River, the York River, and
the Chesapeake Bay/Atlantic Ocean. These water bodies are
saline due to tidal action.
The terrain within the peninsula is generally flat except for
the northwestern portion, which is gently rolling. Eleva-
tions vary from sea level to a maximum of about 125 feet.
Most of the peninsula is at an elevation of 40 feet or less.
A low ridge, which runs southeasterly along the length of the
peninsula, divides it roughly in half.
The geology of the area is characterized by underlying uncon-
solidated sands, clays, marls, and gravels with granite base
rock occurring between 800 and 2,000 ft below the surface.
Generally, the soil is relatively impermeable, and only a
limited amount of high quality groundwater is available.
C1imate. The peninsula has a moderate rainfall. Average
annual precipitation is about 45 in., with low years of 30
to 35 in. The annual rainfall is not the most significant
factor affecting the availability of potable water in the
region. The most critical factors are the lack of adequate
water shed area and storage capacity, which are a result of
the topography and geology of the area, and the poor quality
of the surrounding water bodies due to tidal influences.
Popul ation. There are various population projections avail-
able, based upon different assumptions for the study area.
The source of projections used herein is the Interim Metro-
politan Region Water Quality Management Plan, prepared for
the Peninsula Planning District Commission in 19712 (see
Table VII-1). These projections were used for case study
purposes. According to EPA Guidelines, the most recent
Series E projections would be used.' Due to availability of
recreational facilities and the availability of land for
industrial and residential developments within the region,
continued rapid population growth in the area is expected.
Land Use. Much of the available land is occupied by farms
and other open space; the bulk of the remaining available
land within the region is occupied by the population concen-
trations of the cities of Hampton Roads, Newport News, and
Wi11iamsburg. Areas immediately adjacent to the water
courses (the York River, James River, and Chesapeake Bay)
are occupied or planned to be occupied by either recreational
facilities or large industrial complexes.
Fresh Water Supply.^'3 Presently, the region takes water from
three small reservoirs: Skiffes Creek, Lee Hall, and
96
-------
TABLE VII-I1
SERVICE AREA POPULATION DATA
Hampton
Newport News
Williamsburg
James City County
York County
Poquoson
1950
60,994
82,233
6,735
6,317
11,750
a
Past
1960
89,258
113,662
6,832
11,539
17,305
4,278
1970
120,779
138,177
9,069
17,853
27,762
5,441
168,029 242,874 319,081
1980
Future
1990
Hampton
Newport News
Williamsburg
James City County
York County
Poquoson
2000
152,000
168,900
11,700
31,100
49,800
10,600
179,000
196,900
14,300
44,200
71,800
14,800
207,100
218,300
16,900
56,900
94,100
19,000
424,100 521,000 612,300
Included in York County population.
97
-------
Harwoods Mill, and from a new dam on the Chickahominy River.
The resulting maximum safe yield of the combined system is
35 mgd.
Other capital improvements, such as the installation of
additional pumping capacity to Walkers Dam (already completed)
and the planned construction of 6 billion gallon reservoir
on Little Creek will add an additional maximum safe yield of
25 mgd. Thus the total safe yield will be 60 mgd.
Fresh Hater Demands and Cost. Overall demand for water in
the HRSD case study area is expected to be about 60.5 mgd by
the year 2000, based on estimated population increases, as
illustrated on Figure VII-3. Since the safe yield of the
water supply system will be approximately 60 mgd, a small
potential shortage situation is projected.
The capital expenditures required to construct such planned
facilities as the Little Creek reservoir to supply the
potable water demand of the peninsula region will increase
water rates. In anticipation of these new capital improve-
ments, a water rate study was prepared for the Newport News
Water Works in 1971 .4
Knowledge of the actual marginal costs of constructing new
water supply facilities is, of course, necessary for local
planners and decision-makers. For the purposes of a waste-
water reuse cost-effectiveness analysis, however, it is the
sales price of water to customers that is the most important
consideration. As the Newport News Water Works rate study
recommended, a rate increase of about 25 percent was insti-
tuted in July, 1971. This rate was to have been in effect
through June, 1976. However, as a result of increases in the
costs of labor, material, electricity, and general inflation,
an additional rate increase was instituted in mid-1974. At
that time, rates for major users increased from $0.21 to
$0.26 per 100 cu ft. Further analysis indicated another
increase to $0.30 per 100 cu ft will be required prior to
March, 1975. Estimates indicate that water rates can be
expected to increase further to $0.35 per 100 cu ft within
the foreseeable future.
Sewage Facilities. Presently, most of the municipal waste-
water generated within the District is discharged into the
James River from three existing HRSD plants: Boat Harbor
James River, and Wi11iamsburg. The Boat Harbor plant pro-
vides primary treatment, and the James River and Williamsburg
plants provide secondary treatment. These facilities will
soon be overloaded due to growth of the peninsula area. The
Boat Harbor plant is scheduled for expansion and upgrading
to secondary treatment standards. To accommodate this
98
-------
Q
O
g
W
W
D
Pi
W
36
32
28
24
20
1970
60.5
2000
FIGURE VII-3
PROJECTED WATER USE IN HRSD CASE STUDY AREA
99
-------
additional load, the HRSD plans to construct a new plant at
Goodwin Neck at the mouth of the York River adjacent to the
AMOCO refinery. The Goodwin Neck plant will serve District
No. 2 in Yorktown and certain other areas.
The initial capacity of the proposed Goodwin Neck plant is
15 mgd with a projected ultimate capacity of 30 mgd. The
plant will provide essentially the same level of treatment
that is presently provided at the James River plant. Table
VII-2 summarizes the water quality characteristics of the
James River plant effluent. Also shown on Table VII-2 for
later comparisons are the quality characteristics of York
River water and available potable water. Note that York
River water is very saline, with a TDS over 20,000 parts per
million.
Preliminary Test: Is Wastewater Reuse a Possibility for the
Hampton Roads Sanitation District? A review of the checklist
in Table VII-3 shows conditions in HRSD service area are
conducive for wastewater reclamation and reuse. The cost of
providing additional fresh water supplies is increasing, as
reflected in the rising water use rates. The planned sewage
treatment plant will produce a relatively high quality of
effluent in comparison to the brackish York River water. The
plant will be located adjacent to the AMOCO refinery complex
which uses large volumes of water. Consultants to HRSD con-
sider it impractical to construct a distribution system to
supply effluent to other industries in the peninsula area.
Due to the geological conditions, groundwater recharge is not
possible; and there is no irrigated agricultural or recre-
ational land in the vicinity.
Given these favorable conditions, an investigation of the
cost-effectiveness of wastewater reuse at HRSD is warranted.
In the following sections we will discuss the technical and
economic feasibility of using treated wastewater effluent at
the AMOCO refinery. The discussion provides a guideline for
local agency-private industry cooperative effort to ascertain
whether wastewater reuse is feasible. The procedure pre-
sented is typical of the preliminary analysis which would be
undertaken by any municipality and industry, though obviously
actual costs would vary depending on local circumstances.
AMOCO Water Volume and Quality Needs
The AMOCO refinery presently withdraws a total volume of about
81 mgd in the summer and 51 mgd in the winter. Over 95
percent of this volume is taken from the highly saline York
River for use in the once-through cooling system. Water for
other uses is purchased potable water. Seasonal variations
100
-------
CM
!_,
H
w
tH"
Si
EH
W &
PQ >
CO EM
< « H
K
EM EH
O H 2
ffi 21
CO EH 1-3
U ft
H Q
EH S EH
CO 51 S.
H W
PH ^a
W & EH
EH W <
U > W
f< H 2
K Pn EH
K+
ffi « Efl
U K O
O <
EH W
H pq co
rl W
i C
4-J (0
-rH £ rH
rH O ft
fC M
^3 '1 I y
O1 U
T3 CD
-P CD S
C -P
CD 0 C
J3 CD -H
rH O, £
q_j S> rrj
4H 0) O
H O
Q)
tn
C
rO
PH
s
tji
j>
^
5H
CD
>H -P
CD "3
> 5
•H
K CT>
C
rX 'H
M rH
0 0
>H O
U
Q)
-P
fo
U
CD
X!
rd
-P
O
0)
tn
C
rd
PH
•
tn
£>
<]
CD
-P
CD
e
(0
ft
o
•
CM «>
To
CO '
in ^
r-
•
CM f")
r-
ro tn
u a
CO
o in
I •
o i o r^
>£> U3 O O
O O rH O
(N
•
CO
I
CO
I I
o in
CO
O rH rH
o r-~
o o
O
in
CO
o
CO
^o in o o
I i i i i I I
rH rH rH r~ IT)
• . VD rH CM
CM r- • ro
o
\D
O I
T
CM
CTl
in co
O O
co
U
X! rl rH
ft U <
CM
o
CD -H
EM CO
m
O
U
ffi
en
CD
C
>H
rd
r|
rH
fd
-P
0
EH
0)
CD
•H
^
0
rH rH
O EM
CD
-p
fd
M-l
rH
rj
CO I
CD
-P
rd
r;
0,
Ul
o
(~l
ift
CD
4J
rd
SH
4J
-rH
X
rd
•H
£
Q
^
-------
^-^.
03
CO
3
£
•H
-P
a
0
u
CM
|
H
H
r>
k-*^
w
i-q
m
<
CH
^
>i C
-P rrj
•H g rH
rH O CU
rd SH
3 MH >;
D' U
13 CU
-p cu s
C -P
cu o c
3 CU -H
t c\ *^
1 I Vtl i>
U-i X 03
HH CU O
w o
0
cu
tr
c
(0
Pi
fl
Cr.
>
<
r-l
cu
M -P
cu to
> g:
•H
Pi tjl
c
A; -H
M rH
0 0
X 0
0
M
cu
-p
to
£
cu
rH
X!
tO
-p
o
p<
CO
&1
c
tC
Pi
.
tn
>
<
SH
cu
4->
• 3J
g
(0
M
tO
p^
o co ro
. U3 CN CO 'J1
r~ •«* r~ rH CN
1 I I I I
tri oo a~\ o
CO rH
;Q -^
'sf
oo
o
CU 4H
r-~ CM CM cn m tn o
C\j ro rH rH H ro
^f rH
O
un ro o
CO
r-r-~^coro oorHcri'* i
in OO CM CTl 'J' r-i rj3
•sT ^ ^* O
o ro c in
CM CN
ro co
. •sj' "*
r» H H H G\ c\
1 1 VD CTi II
O I) CM O
CN CTi ^
r-~ rH ro r~
rH
rH
13
O "">
in i~~
CM ro CN ro
• • • •
r^or^ro mm rHrH
co •<* co r-~
rH
•p
3
a<
-P
CU 3
• to tn o
c to to \
•H CU CU C
IS rH CO
O 13 -H
rH !H -P
(0 13 rrj QJ
'J C K S
nd fO 3
•H a to
CQLOta tnrHQQCJCMtOrOCQ
KQco>W CU-HOOOOOO OO
C2jEHBEHEHPiOCqUEHUOOUU2
•
a
-P
C/j
SH
CU
>
•H
Pi
CO
CO
I — cf\
ID ( )
O
CUU
£} (0
4JU
gMH
0 0
rH ^
<4H g
CU
4J QJ
C
cu to
3 fO
rH
M-to3
m co
cu w
to
&iCU
d M
•H a,
+J X
CO CU
•H
X W
CU >H
CU
CU -P
$%
(0
10 5H
rd tO
DJ
m
g ' — '
rdH
C0<
.
d
o
•H
-P
&•
p
03
S
O
U
S-)
CO
g
3
tn
-P
c
CO
tn
cu
n
CU
•
c
o
•H
-p
a
e
3
to
s
O
O
SH
CU
-P
a
•H
£
•p
c
cu
to
cu
JH
cu
•
X
u
CU
1 — p
s
c
• -H
X 5
O 03
CO O
*8
c
•rH 4H
£ 0
13
O >i
0 4J
O -H
o
m to
o a,
rrj
>i O
-p
••H CO
0 -P
fO rd
a< e
fO -H
O H->
rH
CU 3
to
(0 13
,£ CU
£X4J
O
-P CO
tn -PI
M O
•H M
fe PH
(OX! O 13 CU MH
102
-------
TABLE VI1-3
CHECKLIST FOR DETERMINING IF WASTEWATER
REUSE IS POTENTIALLY PRACTICAL
FOR HRSD AREA
Wastewater reuse is potentially practical if one
or more of the following factors are true for your
area. A more complete economic analysis should then
be performed.
03 1• Existing or future fresh water supply is
limited.
Od2. Existing or future fresh water supply is
relatively expensive.
03. The area presently includes or will include
individual entities who use high volumes of
water.
04. Municipal wastewater of relatively high
quality is presently discharged for
disposal or soon will be.
05. Requirements for improved wastewater effluent
are impending or are anticipated.
Q6. Wastewater disposal is expensive, e.g., a
long outfall line is required.
103
-------
in volume required by the refinery are due to lower winter
temperatures of the York River cooling water. Table VII-4
summarizes the major specific uses and present sources of
water supply into the refinery.
Present water quality of the York River and the local potable
water supply was shown in Table VII-2. In terms of inorganic
constituents, the potable supply is good quality, and the
York River is poor quality, virtually seawatei—satisfactory,
however, for a once-through cooling system.
As a result of forthcoming EPA effluent limitations, the
refinery may be required to install cooling towers in order
to stop the discharge of warm water into the York River. The
cost of once-through cooling towers for the summer flow of
81 mgd is prohibitive. In addition, the use of saline water
in cooling towers may create additional environmental prob-
lems such as salt water drift, a condition where the cooling
tower exhaust plume contains substantial salt which is
deposited over a wide area surrounding the cooling tower.
The cooling system would then be a recirculating system and
require an estimated daily volume of 6 mgd of cooling tower
make-up water, as compared to the present volume of 51 to
81 mgd.
Typical quality requirements for cooling tower make-up
water are shown in Table VII-5. The York River water pres-
ently used for cooling is too highinTDS, sulphates, etc.
to use as cooling tower make-up water in a recirculating
system; therefore, the refinery will be left with a choice
between their potable water supply and reclaimed wastewater
from HRSD as a source of 6 mgd of future cooling tower make-
up water. In addition, if it is economically feasible to
use reclaimed wastewater for cooling tower make-up water,
then a further analysis is desirable to determine if
reclaimed effluent should also be used for boiler feedwater
make-up. Volume requirements for boiler feedwater make-up
at AMOCO are shown in Table VII-4 as 0.55 mgd, and typical
quality requirements are shown in Table VII-6.
Additional Treatment Required for Reclaimed Effluent
In comparing costs of using reclaimed effleunt vs. using a
potable supply for industrial purposes the engineer will
normally find that, (1) the price of procuring the potable
supply is more than the price of procuring the reclaimed
effluent; however, (2) the reclaimed effluent requires more
pumping, storage, and treatment facilities to make reclaimed
effluent comparable to the potable water supply. The tech-
nical and cost data used for background in this discussion
104
-------
TABLE VI1-4
WATER USE AT THE YORKTOWN
AMOCO REFINERY
Use
Source
Present
volume
used a
(mgd)
Expected
volume
used b
(mgd)
Processing and
potable
Boiler feed
Cooling
Newport News 0.70
Water Works
Newport News 0.55
Water Works
0. 70
0.55
Summer
Winter
Total
Summer
Winter
York River 80.00
York River 50.00
81.25
51.25
6.0
average
7.25
average
^Once-through cooling system in use.
After installation of a recirculating cooling system.
105
-------
TABLE VII-5
REPORTED COOLING WATER QUALITY
FOR MAKE-UP WATER TO
RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS
Parameter
Range in reported
values
Comment
Cl
TDS
~~~~~ Hardness
(CaCOs)
Alkalinity
(CaC03)
PH
COD
TSS
Turbidity
BOD
MBAS
NH3
P04
Al
Fe
Mn
Ca
Mg
HC03
S04
100-500
500-1,650
50-130
20-
6.9-9.0
75-
25-100
50-
25-
2-
4-
1-
0.1
0.5
0.5
50
0.5 aar a
24
200
preferably 6.8-7.
preferably below
preferably below
preferably below
preferably below
2 is good
preferably below
1 is good
2
10
10
10
5
1
aar - accepted as received.
106
-------
TABLE VII-6 i
QUALITY OF WATER USED FOR
BOILER FEED AT THE
AMOCO REFINERY
Concentration
Parameter (ppm as CaCOs)
Ca 0.1
Mg 0.1
HCO3 2.6
Total hardness 0.2
Sulfate 46.0
P-Alkalinity 0.2
M-Alkalinity 3.0
TDS 130
C03 0.4
Cl 20.0
107
-------
is mainly derived from experience at other locations which
are using reclaimed municipal effluent for cooling tower
and/or boiler feedwater make-up. In addition, equipment
manufacturers were interviewed to obtain current (1974)
prices and verify technical criteria.
Figure VII-4 shows the basic treatment chain being used
successfully at six out of eight existing operations where
municipal effluent is being further treated for use as
cooling tower make-up water. The basic system entails a
storage pond; lime clarification for removal of suspended
solids, phosphates, silicates and organics; and high dosages
of corrosion inhibitor, algaecides and bacteriacides.
Figure VII-5 shows the basic treatment chain being used
successfully at the three existing operations where municipal
effluent is being further treated for use as boiler feed-
water make-up. The treatment chain basically adds filtra-
tion and softening steps to follow the lime clarification
described in the previous paragraph to treat the water for
cooling tower make-up.
In this case study the effluent outfall line from the HRSD
treatment plant passes through the AMOCO refinery, so there
is no additional cost involved for transporting the effluent
to the industrial user. (In some other locations, transpor-
tation of the effluent may be a major cost factor.) There
will be, however, a small cost for pumping the reclaimed
effluent from the storage pond, which is not necessary if
the potable supply were used because the potable supply is
already pressurized.
Cost Analysis for Use of Reclaimed Effluent vs. Potable
Water Source
In this subsection is presented a narrative discussion and
tables illustrating a simplified cost analysis of three
water source alternates for the AMOCO refinery. These are:
1. Use now (1975) of existing potable water supply
for both cooling water make-up and boiler feed-
water make-up.
2. Use now (1975) of reclaimed HRSD effluent for both
cooling water make-up and boiler feedwater make-up.
3. Use now (1975) of reclaimed HRSD effluent for
cooling water make-up and existing potable water
supply for boiler feedwater make-up.
108
-------
SUPERNATANT
THICKENER
SLUDGE TO WASTE
SECONDARY EFFLUENT FROM
GOODWIN NECK STP
LIME
1 SODIUM ALUMINATE
tPOLYELECTROLYTE
I t pH ADJUSTMENT
LJ
COLD
LIME
TREATER
SLUDGE
95% RE CIRCULATION
t LOSSES^ 3%
2 % SLOWDOWN
TO SEWER
ALGAECIDE
CHLORINE
CORROSION INHIBITOR
COOLING
TOWER
HEAT
EXCHANGER
( NOTE I )
TO BOILER FEED
PRETREATMENT
FIGURE VI1-4
IN-PLANT PROCESSING FOR UPGRADING SECONDARY
EFFLUENT FOR COOLING TOWER MAKE-UP WATER
109
-------
LIME
SODIUM ALUMINATE
fPOLYELECTROLYTE
fpH ADJUSTMENT
SECONDARY
EFFLUENT FROM
GOODWIN NECK STP
HEAT
EXCHANGER
(NOTE I)
(NOTE
OXYGEN SCAVANGER
HARDNESS SCAVANGER
CORROSION INHIBITOR
FEED WATER
DEGASIFIERS
(NOTE I )
Na+
ZEOLITE
EXCHANGERS
(NOTE 2 )
H+
ANTHRACITE
FILTERS
SURGE
TANK
NOTE I. EXISTING EQUIPMENT OR ADDITIVES.
NOTE 2. TWO EXISTING SOFTENERS TO BE SUPPLEMENTED WITH TWO
ADDITIONAL ZEOLITE UNITS.
NOTE 3. COOLING SYSTEM SHOWN IS EXISTING.
FIGURE VII-5
IN-PLANT PROCESSING FOR UPGRADING SECONDARY
EFFLUENT FOR BOILER FEEDWATER
110
-------
Capital and annual operation and maintenance costs are
estimated for each alternate based on costs experienced for
similar operations elsewhere and on current (1974) equip-
ment, chemical and energy costs.
Table VII-7 shows that estimated operation and maintenance
cost of using effluent for cooling tower make-up is
$0.42/1,000 gal which is $0.13/1,000 gal less than the
equivalent cost of using the potable water supply. This
difference, however, does not include amortization of
capital facilities required to store, pump and treat the
reclaimed effluent. The capital cost of these required
facilities is estimated at $340,000, as shown- in Table VII-8.
The question of economic feasibility thus hinges upon the
cost per 1,000 gal of amortizing the capital expenditure for
storage, pumping and treatment facilities. In an equipment
life of 20 years, an interst rate of 10 percent, and no
salvage value is assumed then the cost of amortizing capital
is only 1.8c/l,000 gal as calculated below:
Estimated capital cost = $340,000
erf at 10% for 20 yr = 0.11746
annual amortization cost = 340,000 x 0.11746 =• $39,936
annual volume = 6 mgd x 365 days = 2190 MG
cost per MG = $18.24 = 1.8c/l,000 gal
Based upon the above analysis there would be clear savings
to AMOCO of 11.2c/l,000 gal if reclaimed effleunt is used
instead of potable water for the cooling tower make-up water
supply. This assumes that the HRSD gives away its effluent
to AMOCO, i.e., AMOCO does not attempt to profit from
sale of effluent. This cost of effluent is negotiable,
of course, between the supplier and user.
As shown in Table VII-9, however, the use of reclaimed
effluent for boiler feedwater would not be advantageous
because the added treatment for reclaimed water, as shown
in Figure VII-5, raises the O&M cost of the reclaimed use
to 57c/l,000 gal which is 3c/l,000 gal higher than potable
water.
Ill
-------
TABLE VII-7
ESTIMATED 0 & M COST TO AMOCO FOR
TREATMENT OF COOLING TOWER MAKE-UP
(Based upon 6 mgd average use)
Reclaimed
Potable water effluent
source source
Item c/1,000 gal c/1,000 gal
Water cost • 40a 0 b
Chemicals
Lime
Coagulant
Biocide
Inhibitors
pH control
Pumping
O&M
Total
0
0
1
2
2
0
10
55
4
2
2
4
5
4
21
42
a Equivalent to 30C/100 cu ft
Negotiable up to about 11C between supplier
and user
112
-------
TABLE VII-8
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST TO AMOCO FOR
TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR COOLING
TOWER MAKE-UP
(Based on 6 mgd average use)
Item
Estimated cost
$1,000
Storage pond
Pumping facility
Lime clarifier-
Sludge treatment
and disposal
Miscellaneous and
contingencies
Additive metering
Instrumentation
All other facilities
required
Total difference in
capital facility cost
to utilize reclaimed
effluent
40
30
150
60
60
Same as for
potable water
Same as for
potable water
Same as for
potable water
340
113
-------
TABLE VI I-9
ESTIMATED O&M COST TO AMOCO FOR
TREATMENT OF BOILER FEED MAKE-UP
(Based upon 0.5 mgd average use)
Potable Reclaimed
water effluent
source source
Item c/1,000 gal c/1,000 gal
Water cost 40 0
Chemicals
Lime 0*4
Coagulant 0 2
Filter media 0 1
Brine 0 3
Acid 0 12
Inhibitors 2 4
Pumping 2 6
O&M 10 25
Total 54 57
114
-------
CHAPTER VII
REFERENCES
1. Guidance for Facilities Planning (2nd ed.). Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Oct. 1974.
2. Malcom Pirnie Engineers, Inc. Interim Metropolitan
Regional Water Quality Management Plan. Peninsula
Planning District Commission - Hampton, Virginia.
Paramus, New Jersey, 1971.
3. Malcom Pirnie Engineers, Inc., and Coastal Zone
Resources Corp. Environmental Assessment - Construction
and Operations of a Water Storage Reservoir at Little
Creek, James City County, Virginia. Newport News,
Virginia, 1973.
4. Malcom Pirnie Engineers, Inc. Water Rate Study, Newport
News Waterworks. Newport News, Virginia, 1971
115
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ECONOMICS
1. Adrien, Donald D., et al. A Methodology for Planning
Optimal Regional Wastewater Management Systems.
Amherst, University of Massachusetts, Water Resources
Research Center, 1973.
2. Andrews, Richard A., and R. R. Weyrick. Values and
Cost Allocations of Surface-Water Use and Treatment.
New Hampshire Station Bulletin No. 500. Durham,
New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, Nov.
1972.
3. Arrow, K. J. , and R. C. Lind. Uncertainty and the
Evaluation of Public Investment Decisions. American
Economic Review, p. 60, 1970.
4. Banks, H. 0., et al. Economic and Industrial Analysis
of Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Projects. San
Francisco, Leeds, Hill & Jewett, 1971.
5. Bargman, Robert D., W. Adrian, and D. C. Tillman.
Planning, Testing, and Design for Water Reclamation
for Los Angeles. Paper presented at ASCE National
Meeting, Water Resources Engineering, 1973.
6. Berger, H. F. Evaluating Water Reclamation Against
Rising Costs of Water and Effluent Treatment.
Louisiana State University, Division of Engineering
Research Bulletin. 89_: 155-168, 1967.
7. Bishop, A. B. An Approach to Evaluating Environ-
mental, Social, and Economic Factors in Water
Resources Planning. Water Resources Bulletin.
(4):724-734, Aug. 1972.
8. Brams, Marvin R. A Case Study of the Application of
Cost-Benefit Analysis to Water System Consolidation
by Local Government. The Engineering Economist.
17(2), Jan.-Feb. 1972.
9. Cesario, F. J., and J. L. Knetsch. Time Bias in
Recreation Benefit Estimates. Water Resources
Research. 6(3):700-704, 1970.
116
-------
10. Clark, Colin. The Economics of Irrigation. Oxford,
Pergamon Press, 1967.
11. Clawson, M., and J. L. Knetsch. Economics of Outdoor
Recreation. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press for
Resources for the Future, 1966.
12. Cluff, C. B., K. J. DeCook, and W. G. Matlock. Tech-
nical, Economic, and Legal Aspects Involved in the
Exchange of Sewage Effluent for Irrigation Water for
Municipal Use—Case Study, City of Tucson. Tucson,
University of Arizona, Dec. 1972.
13. Cluff, C. B., G. R. Dutt, P. R. Ogden, and J. K.
Kuykendall. Development of Economic Water Harvesting
Systems for Increasing Water Supply-Phase II. Project
Completion Report, OWRR Project No. B-015-ARIZ.
Tucson, University of Arizona, 1972.
14. Conley, Bryan C. Price Elasticity of the Demand for
Water in Southern California. Annals of Regional
Science. Western Washington State College, Economics
Department. (Papers and proceedings of Western
Section, Regional Science Association, Billingham,
Washington. Dec. 1967). pp. 180-189.
15. Cootner, Paul H., and G. O. G. Lof. Water Demand for
Steam Electric Generation, An Economic Projections
Model. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, Resources for
the Future, 1965. pp. 34-35.
16. Cost Effectiveness in Water Quality Programs. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1972
17. Cost Effectiveness Studies of Sanitary Sewerage Systems
Methodology and Demonstration. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1974.
18. Cost Estimating Guidelines for Wastewater Treatment
Systems. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington,
D.C., 1970.
19. Cost Factors for Water Supply and Effluents Disposal.
Chemistry and Industry. pp. 667-683, 697-703, 1970.
20. Cuchetti, Charles J., e_t al. Benefits or Costs? An
Assessment of the Water Resources Council's Proposed
Principles and Standards. In: Benefit-Cost and
Policy Analysis, Niskanen, W. A., ed., Chicago,
Aldme Publishing Co., 1973.
117
-------
21. Davis, R. K. Water Supply Economics in the Potomac
River Basin. Journal of the American Water Works
Association. 56_:257, 1964.
22. Davis, R. K., and S. H. Hanke. Pricing and Efficiency
in Water Resource Management. Benefit Cost Analysis,
1971. Chicago, Aldme Publishing Co., 1972.
23. DeCook, K. J. Economic Feasibility of Selective
Adjustments in Use of Salvageable Waters in the Tucson
Region, Arizona. Ph.D. Dissertation. Tucson,
University of Arizona, 1970.
24. Douglas, James L., and R. R. Lee. Economics of Water
Resources Planning; New York, McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1971.
25. Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr., and D. L. Ford. Economics
of Wastewater Treatment. Chemical Engineering, p. 109,
Aug. 1969.
26. Eckstein, Otto. A Survey of the Theory of Public
Expenditure Criteria. Universities-National Bureau
Committee for Economic Research. (In Public Finances:
Needs, Sources, and Utilization.) Special Conference
Series 12. Princeton, Princeton University Press,
1961.
27. Eckstein, Otto. Water Resource Development: The
Economics of Project Evaluation. Cambridge, Harvard
University Press, 1958.
28. Economic Analysis of Public Investment Decisions:
Interest Rate Policy and Discounting Analysis. U.S.
Congress, Joint Economic Committee, 90th Congress,
2nd Session, 1968.
29. Economics of Clean Water. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1972.
30. The Economics of Water Supply and Quality, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
1971.
31. Eilers, Richard G., and R. Smith. Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant Cost Estimating Program. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1971.
32. English, J. Morley, ed. ' Cost Effectiveness—The
Economic Evaluation of Engineered Systems. New York,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1968.
118
-------
33. Erlich, Harry, and P. H. McGauher. Economic Evalua-
tion of Water: Part II Jurisdictional Considerations
in Water Resources Management. UC Berkeley, Sanitary
Engineering Research Laboratory, June 1964.
34. Fair, G. M., and J. C. Geyer. Water Supply and Waste
Water Disposal. New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1969.
35. Fourt, Louis. Forecasting the Urban Residential Demand
for Water. Agricultural Economics Seminar paper.
Chicago, Illinois, University of Chicago, Department
of Economics, Feb. 1958.
36. Frankel, R. J. Water Quality Management: Engineering
Economic Factors in Municipal Waste Disposal. Water
Resources Research. .1(2) : 173-186, 1965.
37. Freeman, A. M., III. Six Federal Reclamation-Projects
and the Distribution of Income. Water Resources
Research. 3_(2) : 319-332, 1967.
38. Freeman, A. M., III, and R. H. Havemen. Benefit-Cost
Analysis and Multiple Objectives: Current Issues in
Water Resources Planning. Water Resources Research.
£(6):1533-1539, 1970.
39. Gardner, B. D., and S. H. Schick. Factors Affecting
Consumption of Urban Household Water in Northern Utah.
Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 449,
Nov. 1964.
40. Gottlieb, Manual. Urban Domestic Demand for Water:
A Kansas Case Study. Land Economics, pp. 204-210,
May 1963.
41. Grant, Eugene L., and W. G. Ireson. Principles of
Engineering Economy. New York, The Roland Press
Company, 1960.
42. Grima, A. P. Lino. Residential Water Demand:
Alternative Choices for Management. University of
Toronto, Department of Geography, Research Publication
No. 7. Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1972.
43. Grubb, H. W., and J. T. Goodwin. Economic Evaluation
of Water-Oriented Recreation in the Preliminary Texas
Water Plan. Rep. 84, Texas Water Development Board,
Austin, 1968.
119
-------
44. Hanke, Steve H., and R. K. Davis. Demand Management
Through Responsive Pricing. Journal of the American
Water Works Association. pp. 555-560, Sept. 1971.
45. Hanke, S. H. Demand for Water Under Dynamic Conditions.
Water Resources Research. £(5):1253-1261, 1970.
46. Haveman, R. H. Ex-Post Analysis of Water Resource
Projects. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 1971.
47. Haveman, R. H. The Opportunity Cost of Displaced
Private Spending and the Social Discount Rate. Water
Resources Research. 5_(5) :947-957f 1969.
48. Haveman, R. H. Water Resource Investment and the
Public Interest. Nashville, Tenn., Vanderbilt Univer-
sity Press, 1965.
49. Haveman, R. H., and J. V. Krutilla. Unemployment,
Idle Capacity, and the Evaluation of Public Expendi-
tures: National and Regional Analyses. Baltimore,
Johns Hopkins Press, 1968.
50. Headley, J. Charles. The Relation of Family Income and
Use of Water for Residential and Commercial Purposes
in the San Francisco-Oakland Metropolitan Area. Land
Economics. pp. 441-449, 1963.
51. Hild, Joseph C. An Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Plant Can Provide Revenue. Public Works. (7):49,
July 1972.
52. Hinote, Hubert. Benefit-Cost Analysis for Water
Resource Projects—A Selected Annotated Bibliography.
Knoxville, University of Tennessee, June 1969.
53. Hirshleifer, J. C. DeHaven, and J. W. Milliman. Water
Supply: Economics, Technology, and Policy. Chicago,
The University of Chicago Press, 1960.
54. Hittman Associates, Inc. Price, Demand, Cost, and
Revenue in Urban Water Utilities. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Office of Water Resources Research.
Contract No. 14-31-0001-3168. 1970.
55. Howe, Charles. Benefit-Cost Analysis for Water System
Planning. American Geophysical Union, Water Resources
Monograph 2. Washington, D.C., 1971.
120
-------
56. Howe, C. W. Water Pricing in Residential Areas.
Journal of the American Water Works Association.
6£: (5), 1968.
57. Howe, C. W. Water Resources and Regional Economic
Growth in the United States, 1950-1960. S. Econ. J.
3_4(4) , 1968.
58. Howe, C. W., and K. W. Easter. Interbasin Transfers of
Water: Economic Issues and Impacts. Baltimore, Johns
Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, 1971.
59. Howe, C. W,, and F. P. Linaweaver, Jr. The Impact of
Price on Residential Water Demand and Its Relation
to System Design and Price Structure. Water Resources
Research, First Quarter, 3_(l):13-32, 1967.
60. Hulschmidt, M., and M. Fiering. Simulation Techniques
for Design of Water Resource Systems. Boston, Harvard
University Press, 1966.
61. Institute of Water Resources. Development Benefits of
Water Resources Investments. Department of the Army,
Corps of Engineers, 1969.
62. James, Douglas, and R. R. Lee. Economics of Water
Resources Planning. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1971.
63. James, I. C., B. T. Bower, and N. C. Matalas. Relative
Importance of Variables in Water Resources Planning.
Water Resources Research. 5_(6) : 1165-1173, 1969.
64, James, L. D. A Case Study in Income Redistribution
from Reservoir Construction. Water Resources Research.
£(3) :499-508, 1968.
65. Johnson, E. L. A Study in the Economics of Water
Quality Management. Water Resources Research. 3_(2):
291-306, 1967.
66. Kalter, R. J., and L. E. Gosse. Outdoor Recreation in
New York State: Projections of Demand, Economic
Value, and Pricing Effects. Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp.
Station Spec. Series, Vol. 5. Ithaca, Cornell
University, 1969.
67. Kalter, R. J., e_t al. Federal Evaluation of Resource
Investments: A Case Study. Agr. Econ. Res. Bull. 313.
Ithaca, Cornell University, Water Resources Center and
Department of Agricultural Economics, 1970.
121
-------
68. Kazanoski, Albin D. Treatment of Some of the
Uncertainties Encountered in the Conduct of Hydrologic
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation. In: Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Uncertainties in Hydrologic
and Water Resource Systems, Vol. II. Tucson, Univer-
sity of Arizona, Dec. 11-14, 1972.
69. Keefer, C. E. No Crash Timetable Involved in Baltimore's
$68-Million Plan. Wastes Engineering. Nov. 1960.
70. Kneese, Allen V. Economic and Related Problems in
Contemporary Water Resources Management. Natural
Resources Journal. 6_(3), Oct. 1965.
71. Kneese, A. V., and B. T. Bower. Managing Water Quality:
Economics, Technology, Institutions. Baltimore, The
Johns Hopkins Press, 1968.
72. Kneese, A. V., and K. C. Nobe. The Role of Economic
Evaluation in Planning for Water Resource Development.
Nat. Resources Journal. 2_: 456-457, Dec. 1962.
73. Ko, S. C., and L. Duckstein. Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis of Wastewater Reuses. Journal of the Sani-
tary Engineering Division, ASCE. Proceedings Paper
9434. 9_8(SA6) : 869-881, Dec. 1972.
74. Koenig, L., and D. Ford. Reuse Can Be Cheaper than
Disposal. Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium
Series. 63^(78) : 143-147, 1967.
75. Krutilla, J. V. The Columbia River Treaty: The
Economics of an International River Basin Development.
Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1967.
76. Larson, B. 0., and H. E. Hudson, Jr. Residential
Water Use and Family Income. Journal of the American
Water Works Association. pp. 603-611, 1951.
77. Lee, Robert R. Local Government Public Works Decision-
Making. Stanford University, Institute in Engineering
Economic Systems, Stanford. Report No. EEP-9. 1964.
78. Leopold, L. B. Quantitative Comparison of Some
Aesthetic Factor Among Rivers. U.S. Geological Survey
Circ. 620. Washington, D.C.
79. Linaweaver, F. P., Jr., J. C. Geyer, and J. B. Wolff.
A Study of Residential Water Use. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Technical Studies Pro-
gram of the Federal Housing Administration, Washington,
D.C., Feb. 1967.
122
-------
80. Linaweaver, F. P., Jr., J. C. Geyer, and J. B. Wolff.
Final and Summary Report on the Residential Water
Use Project. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University,
Department of Environmental Engineering Science,
July 1966.
81. Marglin, Stephen A. Approaches to Dynamic Investment
Planning. Amsterdam, North Holland Publishing Co.,
1963.
82. Marglin, Stephen A. Public Investment Criteria.
Cambridge, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Press, 1966.
83. Marglin, Stephen A. Public Investment Criteria.
Cambridge, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Press, 1967.
84. Marglin, S. A. Public Investment Criteria: Benefit-
Cost Analysis Planned Economic Growth. Cambridge,
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1968.
85. Marks, R. H. Waste Water Reclamation: A Practical
Approach for Many Water Short Areas. Power. 107(11):
47-50, 1963.
86. McKean, Roland N. Efficiency in Government Through
Systems Analysis, With Emphasis on Water Resources
Development. New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1958.
87. Metcalf, L. Effect of Water Rates and Growth in
Population Upon Per Capita Consumption. Journal of
the American Water Works Association, pp. 1-21,
Jan. 1926.
88. Methodology for Economic Evaluation of Municipal Water
Supply-Wastewater Disposal Including Considerations of
Seawater Distillation and Wastewater Renovation.
Office of Saline Water and Federal Water Quality
Administration, 1970.
89. Moore, C. L. , e_t al. Economic Evaluation of Alterna-
tive Farm Water Sources in the Claypan Area of Illinois,
University of Illinois Resources Center #6.
90. Moore, C. V., and T. R. Hedges. Economics of On-Farm
Irrigation Availability and Costs and Related Farm
Adjustments: Farm Size Relation to Resource Use,
Earnings, and Adjustments on the San Joaquin Eastside.
California Agricultural Experiment Station, Berkeley.
Research Report 263. 1963.
123
-------
91. Morgan, W. Douglas. A Time Series Demand for Water
Using Micro Data and Binary Variables. Water Resources
Bulletin. Aug. 1974.
92. Morgan, W. Douglas. Residential Water Demand: The
Case from Micro Data. Water Resources Research.
9_(4) :1065-1067, Aug. 1973.
93. New Process Promises Clean Water at Low Cost. Machine
Design. 41.: 14-15, 1969.
94. Olson, J., Jr. The Optimal Allocation of Jurisdic-
tional Responsibility: The Principle of "Fiscal
Equivalence.' In: The Analysis and Evaluation of
Public Expenditures: The PPB System, Vol. 1. A
medium of papers submitted to the Subcommittee on
Economy in Government. U.S. Joint Economic Committee,
Washington, D.C., 1969. pp. 321-331.
95. Orcutt, R. D. An Engineering-Economic Analysis of
Systems Utilizing Aquifer Storage for the Irrigation
of Parks and Golf Courses with Reclaimed Wastewater.
University of Nevada Desert Research Institute, Center
for Water Resources Research. Technical Report Series
H-W. Publication No. 5. 1967.
96. Parker, D. S., and J. A. Crutchfield. Water Quality
Management: A Time Profile of Benefits and Costs.
Water Resources Research. £(2):246, 1968.
97. Patterson, W. L., and R. F. Banker. Estimating Costs
and Man-power Requirements for Conventional Wastewater
Treatment Facilities. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., October 1971.
98. Porter, J. W., A. N. Hopkins, and W. L. Fisher. An
Economic and Engineering Analysis of Municipal Waste-
water Renovation. Chemical Engineering Progress
Symposium Series No. 90. 64J246) , 1968.
99. Prehn, W. Lawrence, and J. L. McGaugh. Desalting
Cost Calculation, Procedures. Office of Saline Water,
Washington, D.C. R&D Program Report No. 555. 1971.
100. Proposed Practices for Economic Analyses of River Basin
Projects (The Green Book). U.S. Interagency Committee
on Water Resources, Washington, D.C., 1958.
101. Protection of the Environment (Title 40). Appendix A:
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Federal Register.
38(174):24639, Sept. 10, 1973.
124
-------
102. Renshaw, Edward F. The Demand for Municipal Water.
Unpublished Agricultural Economics Seminar Paper.
Chicago, University of Chicago, Department of Economics,
June 3, 1958.
103. Renshaw, Edward F. Toward Responsible Government: An
Economic Appraisal of Federal Investment in Water Re-
source Programs. Chicago, Idyia Press, 1957.
104. Ridge, Richard. The Impact of Public Water Utility
Pricing Policy on Industrial Demand and Reuse,
Philadelphia General Electric Company. Technical
Information Series. November 1972.
105. Riordan, Courtney. General Multistage Marginal Cost
Dynamic Programming Model for the Optimization of a
Class of Investment-Pricing Decisions. Water Resources
Research. 7_(2) , April 1971.
106. Riordan, Courtney. Multistage Marginal Cost Model of
Investment-Pricing Decisions: Application to Urban
Water Supply Treatment Facilities. Water Resources
Research. 7^(3), June 1971.
107. Sandmo, Agnar. Discount Rates for Public Investment
Under Uncertainty. International Economic Review.
15_(2) , June 1974.
108. Scherer, C. H. Sewage Plant Effluent is Cheaper than
City Water. Wastes Engineering, pp. 124-127, 1959.
109. Schmid, A. A., and W. Ward. A Test of Federal Water
Project Evaluation Procedures with Emphasis on Regional
Income and Environmental Quality: Detroit River,
Trenton Navigation Channel. In: Agricultural Economic
Review. East Lansing, Michigan State University,
April 1970.
110. Schramm, G., and R. E. Burt, Jr. An Analysis of Fed-
eral Water Resource Planning and Evaluation Procedures.
Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, School of Natural
Resources, June 1970.
111. Sewell, W. R. D., ejb
-------
113. Smith, Robert. Costs of Wastewater Renovation. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1971.
114. Smith, R., e_t al. A Compilation of Cost Information for
Conventional and Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plants
and Processes. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1972.
115. Smith, R., e_t al. Cost to the Consumer for Collection
and Treatment of Wastewater. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, B.C., July 1971.
116. Smith, Robert, E. Smith, and R. Richard. Cost to the
Consumer for Collection and Treatment of Wastewater.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, B.C., 1970.
117. Southern Bistrict Urban Per Capita Water Use Study,
1960-1970. California Bepartment of Water Resources,
Southern Bistrict. Memorandum report. 1972.
118. Stone, R. V., H. B. Gotaas, and V. W. Bacon. Economic
and Technical Status of Water Reclamation from Sewage
and Industrial Wastes. Journal of the American Water
Works Association. £4_: 503-517, 1952.
119. Timmons, John F., and J. R. Prescott. Bevelopment of
Model for Pricing Water in Providing a Basis for
Allocating Water Among Competing Uses. Iowa State
University, November 1972.
120. Turnovsky, Stephen J. The Bemand for Water: Some
Empirical Evidence on Consumer's Response to a Commod-
ity Uncertain in Supply. Water Resources Research.
5_(2) :350-361, April 1969.
121. Unger, Samuel G., M. J. Emerson, and D. L. Jordening.
State-of-Art Review: 'Water Pollution Control Benefits
and Costs. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
B.C., October 1973.
122. Upton, C. Application of User Charges to Water Quality
Management. Water Resources Research. 7^(2) : 264-272,
1971.
123. Van Vuuren, L. R. J., and M. R. Henzen. Process
Selection and Cost of Advanced Wastewater Treatment
in Relation to the Quality of Secondary Effluents and
Quality Requirements for Various Uses. Progress in
Water Technology, Vol. I, Applications of New Concepts
of Physical-Chemical Wastewater Treatment. New York,
Pergamon Press, 1972.
126
-------
124. Wallace, L. T. The Economic Demand for Water in Urban
Areas. In: California Water, A Study in Resource
Management. Seckler, D. (ed.). Berkeley, Los Angeles,
London, University of California Press, 1971. p. 41.
125. Ware, James E., and R. M. North. The Price and Con-
sumption of Water for Residential Use in Georgia. .
Bureau of Business and Economic Research, School of
Business Administration, Georgia State College, Atlanta,
Georgia. Research Paper No. 40. October 1967.
126. Warford, J. J. Water Requirements: The Investment
Decision in the Water Supply Industry. In: The
Manchester School of Economics and Social Studies,
Vol. 34 (I) . Manchester University, England, Jan.
1966. pp. 87-112.
127. Watson, I. C. Manual for Calculation of Conventional
Water Treatment Costs. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Office of Saline Water, Washington, D.C., March 1972.
128. Weisbrod, B. A. Income Redistribution Effects and
Benefit Cost Analysis. In: Problems in Public
Expenditure Analysis, Chase, S. B. , Jr. (ed) . Wash-
ington, D.C., The Brookings Institution, 1968.
129. Werner, R. R. An Investigation of the Employment of
Multiple Objectives in Water Resources Planning.
Ph.D. thesis. Brookings, South Dakota State University,
1968.
130. Whinston, A. B. Economic Analyses of Optimal Water
Quality Management. Indiana Water Resources Research
Center #25, August 1972.
131. Wilson, C. W. , and R. P. Cantrell. A Study of the
Technical and Economic Feasibility of Using Sewage
Effluent for Irrigation in Lincoln Parish, La. 1969.
132. Wollman, Nathaniel (ed. ) . The Value of Water in Alter-
native Uses. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico
Press, 1962.
133. Wong, S. T. A Model on Municipal Water Demand: A Case
Study of Northeastern Illinois. Land Economics.
:34-44, February 1972.
134. Wong, S. T., J. R. Sheaffer, and H. B. Gotaas. Multi-
variate Statistical Analysis of Water Supplies.
(Presented at the American Society of Civil Engineers,
Water Resources Engineering Conference, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, May 1963.).
127
-------
135. Young, Robert A. Pri-ss Elasticity of Demand for
Municipal Water: A case Study of Tucson, Arizona.
Water Resources Research, 9_(4) : 1068-1072, August
1973.
128
-------
GENERAL
1. Abelson, P. H. An Overall Look at Water Resources.
Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series.
£3(78) :96f 1967.
2. Aitken, I. M. E. Solute Control in Water Reuse.
Effluent and Water Treatment Journal, p. 34, 1968.
3. All Round Re-Use of Effluent at Bristol. Water and
Waste Treatment Journal. 1£(9):10, 1971.
4. Amramy, A. Re-Use of Municipal Waste Water. Civil
Engineering. 38^(5) : 58-61, 1968.
5. An Expanding Lubbock ... Reclaimed Water for a Growing
City. Lubbock, Texas, City Planning Department, 1969.
6. Anderson, C. M., G. N. Crits, and J. B. Pratt. A New
Wastewater Renovation System. Water Works and Wastes
Engineering, pp. 28-31, July 1965.
7. Arnold, J. L, Basic Thinking in Water Pollution Con-
trol. Water Pollution Control, pp. 601-610, 1971.
8. Bain, J. S., R. E. Caves, and J. Margolis. Northern
California's Water Industry, Chapt.. 5. Baltimore,
The Johns Hopkins Press, 1966.
9. Bargman, R. D., G. W. Adrian, and W. F. Garber. Urban
Wastewater Recovery: City of Los Angeles. Chemical
Engineering Progress Symposium Series No. 90.
6^(216), 1968.
10. Bargman, Robert D., G. W. Adrian, and D. C. Tillman.
Planning, Testing, and Design for Water Reclamation
for Los Angeles. Paper presented at ASCE National
Meeting, Water Resources Engineering, 1973.
11. Barker, J. E., and G. A. Pettit. Water Reuse.
Industrial Water Engineering. 5_(1):36, 1968.
12. Berger, B. B. The Natural Cycle of Water Reuse.
Water and Wastes Engineering. 5_(8):34, 1968.
13. Bernstein, M. Water Renovation and the Reuse of Water.
The Civil Engineer in South America. 10(8):168, 1968.
129
-------
14. Bishop, A. B. An Approach to Evaluating Environmental,
Social, and Economic Factors in Water Resources Plan-
ning. Water Resources Bulletin. (4):724-734,
Aug. 1972.
15. Bishop, A. B., and D. W. Hendricks. Analysis of
Water Reuse Alternatives in an Integrated Urban and
Agricultural Area. Logan, Utah State University,
College of Engineering, Utah Water Research Laboratory,
Sept. 1971.
16. Bishop, A. B., and D. W. Hendricks. Water Reuse Systems
Analysis. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Divi-
sion, ASCE, 9J7(SA l):41-57, 1971.
17. Bloodgood, D. E. Utilization of Wastewaters. Water
and Wastes Engineering. ^7:E2-4, 1970.
18. Borneff, J. Die Wiederverwendung von Abwasser.
Archiv fur Hygiene und Bakteriologie. 153(4):289-297,
1969.
19. Borneff, J. Die Wiederverwendung von Abwasser.
Zentralblatt fur Bakteriologie, Paristitienkunde . . .
Abt. Orig. 212;334.
20. Bramer, H. C., and R. D. Hoak. Water Reclamation
Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series.
6.3(78) :92-95, 1967.
21. Bray, D. T., U. Merten, and M. Augustus. Reverse
Osmosis for Water Reclamation. Bulletin, California
Water Pollution Control Association. 2_(2):11.
22. Brunner, C. A. Pilot-Plant Experiences in Deminerali-
zation of Secondary Effluent Using Electrodialysis.
Journal, Water Pollution Control Federation. 39:R1,
1967.
23. Bruvold, W. H., and F. C. Ward. Public Attitudes
Toward Uses of Reclaimed Wastewater. Water and
Sewage Works. 1T7:120-122, 1970.
24. Bulletin 208. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water and Hazardous Materials, Division of Water
Planning, Washington, D.C., April 1975.
25. Bunch, R. L., C. W. Chambers, and W. B. Cook. Dis-
infection of Renovated Wastewater. Federal Water
Quality Administration, 1971.
130
-------
26. Burns & Roe, Inc. Disposal of Brines Produced in
Renovation of Municipal Wastewater. Federal Water
Quality Administration. Contract No. 14-12-492.
May 1970.
27. Butler, C. E. Survival and Recovery of Salmonella
in Tucson's Wastewater Reclamation Program. Journal,
Water Pollution Control Federation. 41(5) : 738-744 ,
1969.
28. - California Endorses Wastewater Reuse. Engineering
News-Record. 179_(10):21, 1967.
29. California Water Reclamation Sites - 1971. California
Department of Public Health, Bureau of Sanitary
Engineering. 1971.
30. Cecil, L. K. Complete Water Reuse. Chemical Engineer-
ing Progress Symposium Series. 6^3(78) :258-261, 1967.
31. Cecil, L. K. How Usable is Present Technology for
Removing Nutrients from Wastewater. Progress in Water
Technology, Vol. I, Applications of New Concepts of
Physical-Chemical Wastewater Treatment. New York,
Pergamon Press, 1972.
32. Cecil, L. K. Problems and Practice of Phosphate
Removal in Water Reuse. Chemical Engineering Progress
Symposium Series. 6_3_(78) : 159-163, 1967.
33. Cecil, L. K. Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent for
Water Re-Use. Water and Sewage Works. 111:421-423.
34. Central Contra Costa Water Renovation Project.
Bulletin, California Water Pollution Control Association,
:22, 1971.
35. Channabasappa, K. C. Reverse Osmosis Process for
Water Reuse Application. Chemical Engineering Pro-
gress Symposium Series No. 97. 1969.
36. Chaty, N. B. Carbon Systems Play Key Role in
Advanced Wastewater Treatment. The Flowsheet.
(5) :4-8, 1972.
37. Clouse, J. L. Need for Water Reuse. Tappi. 47 ,
(Sup. 182A-183A) , 1964.
38. Connell, C. H. Utilization of Wastewater to Meet a
Shortage of First Water. Industrial Wastes, pp. 148-
151, 1957.
131
-------
39. Connell, C. H., and M. C. Forbes. City Sewage-Plant
Effluent is Worth Your Study. Oil and Gas Journal.
59_:94-96, 1961.
40. Conservation and Reuse of Used Water. Effluent and
Water Treatment Journal. jl: 442-443, 1964.
41. Cooper, J. C., and D. G. Hager. Water Reclamation
with Granular Activated Carbon. Chemical Engineering
Progress Symposium Series. 6_3 (78) : 185-192, 1967.
42. Copley International Corporation. The Structure of
the Southern California Water Industry. Department
of the Interior, Office of Water Resources Research.
1974.
43. Cuchetti, Charles J., et al. Benefits or Costs? An
Assessment of the Water Resources Council's Proposed
Principles and Standards. In: Benefit-Cost and
Policy Analysis, Niskanen, W. A., ed. Chicago, Aldme
Publishing Co., 1973.
44. Gulp, R. L. Wastewater Reclamation by Tertiary
Treatment. Journal, Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion, p. 799, June 1967.
45. David, E. L. Public Perceptions of Water Quality.
Water Resources Research. 7^(3) : 453-457, 1971.
46. Davis, R. K., et ajl. Conventional and Unconventional
Alternatives for Water Supply Management. Water
Resources Research. 9_(4) : 861-870, Aug. 1973.
47. Davis, R. K. The Range of Choice in Water Management:
A Study of Dissolved Oxygen in the Potomac Estuary.
Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for
the Future, 1968.
48. Dea, S. J. Total System Concept of Water Pollution
Control. Water and Wastes Engineering. 6_:36-39,
1969.
49. Deaner, D. G. California Water Reclamation Sites,
1971. California State Department of Public Health,
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering.
50. Deaner, D. G. Directory of Wastewater Reclamation
Operations in California, 1969. California State
Department of Public Health, Bureau of Sanitary
Engineering.
132
-------
51. Deaner, D. G. Public Health and Water Reclamation.
Water and Sewage Works. 117;R7-13, 1970.
52. DeLeeuw, A. Waste Water Utilization in the Dam Region.
Bulletin of Hydraulic Research, IAHR. 1^:174, 1964.
53. Diekmann, S. Veroffentlichungen Instituts fur
Siedlungswasserwirtschaft (Water for Bielefeld).
(9):5, 1962.
54. Dodson, R. E. San Diego Takes Another Bold Step to
Obtain Pure Water from Sewage. American City.
86J2) :43, 1971.
55. Dominy, Floyd E. Acquisition of Water from Federal
Reclamation Projects for Industrial and Community
Development. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Reclamation, 1969.
56. Dryden, F. D. Mineral Removal by Ion Exchange,
Reverse Osmosis, and Electrodialysis. (Paper pre-
sented at the Workshop on Wastewater and Reuse. South
Lake Tahoe, California. June 1970).
57. Dutt, G. R., and T. W. McCreary. The Quality of
Arizona's Domestic Agricultural, and Industrial
Waters. University of Arizona Agricultural Experimental
Station Report 256. 1970.
58. Dye,.E. 0. Wastewater Reclamation Project. Water
and Sewage Works. 115:139, 1968.
59. Eden, G. E., et al. Water from Sewage Effluents.
Proceedings and Journal, Institute for Sewage Puri-
fication (Brit.), Pt. 5. p. 407, 1966.
60. Effluent Reuse Investigated. Water Works and Wastes
Engineering. 1^:94, 1964.
61. Effluent Reuse Study at Pudsey. Water and Waste
Treatment Journal. 14_(6):4, 1971.
62. Elder, C. C. Determining Future Water Requirements.
Journal, American Water Works Association, pp. 124-135,
Feb. 1951.
63. Eliassen, R., B. M. Wyckoff, and C. D. Tonkin. Ion
Exchange for Reclamation of Reusable Supplies.
Journal, American Water Works Association. 67:113,
1970.
133
-------
64. Elliott, J. F., and J. H. Duff. Municipal Supply
Augmented by Treated Sewage. Journal, American Water
Works Association, pp. 647-650, 1971.
65. Elsahragty, Mohamed Mahmoud. Planning and Operation of
Urban Water Quality Management Systems, Vol. IX. Ithaca,
Cornell University Water Resources and Marine Sciences
Center, Feb. 1974.
66. Evaluation of Land Application Systems. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Programs Operations,
Washington, D.C. Technical Bulletin, EPA-430/9-75-001.
March 1975.
67. Fair, G. M., and J. C. Geyer. Water Supply and Waste
Water Disposal. New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1969.
68. Fair, G. M., J. C. Geyer, and A. D. Okum. Water and
Waste Water Engineering, Vol. 2. New York, John
Wiley and Sons, 1968.
69. Field Investigation of Wastewater Reclamation in Rela-
tion to Groundwater Pollution. Publication No. 6,
California State Water Pollution Control Board, 1953.
70. Fiering, M. B., and B. Jackson. Synthetic Stream-
flows. AGU, Washington, D.C., 1971.
71. Fish, H. Effluent Standards and Water Reuse.
Water Pollution Control (London). 6_8:307, 1969.
72. Flaherty, W. F. Effect of Water Reuse on Stream
Quality. Water and Sewage Works. 115;354-357, 1968.
73. Flack, J. E. Urban Water: Multiple Use Concepts.
Journal, American Water Works Association. 63:644 ,
1971.
74. Flack, J. E. Water Rights Transfers—An Engineering
Approach. Palo Alto, California, Stanford University,
1965. p. 56.
75. Fleming, R. G. Water Re-Use by Design. American
City. 7£:106-108, 1963.
76. Fleming, R. G., and H. D. Jobes. Water Reuse: A
Texas Necessity. Journal, Water Pollution Control
Federation. 41:1564-1569, 1969.
134
-------
77. Flinn, J. C., and J. C. Day. Towards the Integrated
Management of Water Supplies in the Tucson Region of
Arizona. Tucson, University of Arizona, Department
of Agricultural Economics, June 1972.
78. Flower, W. A., et al. Optimization of Combined
Industrial-Municipal Waste Treatment Through Automa-
tion and Reuse. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1972.
79. Foster, Herbert B., Jr., and W. F. Jopling. Rationale
of Standards for Use of Reclaimed Water. Journal of
the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE. 9J[(SA 3):503,
1969.
80. Fuhrman, R. E. Adaptation of Known Principles and
Techniques of Waste Water Management to Specific
Environmental Situations and Geographical Conditions.
Water Pollution Control (London). 6_8:619, 1969.
81. Gallagher, E. Water and Sewage Works. 115:356-360,
1968.
82. Gavis, Jerome. Wastewater Reuse. National Water
Commission, Arlington, Virginia, 1971.
83. Geraghty, James J., et al. Water Atlas of the United
States. Port Washington, N.Y., A Water Information
Center Publication, 1973.
84. Geshon, S. I. Unit Water Use Model for the South
Coastal Area. Technical Memorandum #27A. California
Department of Water Resources, Southern Section,
Jan. 1968.
85. Cloyna, E. F., et al. Water Resources Activities in
the United States: A Report Upon Present and Pro-
spective Means for Improved Re-Use of Water. 86th
Congress, 2d Session, Committee Print No. 30.
86. Gloyna, E. F., W. R. Drynana, and E. R. Hermann.
Water Reuse in Texas. Journal, American Water Works
Association. 5JL (6) : 768-780 , 1959.
87. Graesser, H. J. Dallas-Wastewater Reclamation
Studies. Journal, American Water Works Association.
6_3_(10) :634-640, 1971.
88. Graesser, H. J. The Dallas Philosophy—An Approach
to Wastewater Reclamation. Water and Wastes Engineer-
ing. 6 (9) :58.
135
-------
89. Graesser, H. J., and P. D. Haney. Dallas Builds
Center to Study Wastewater Reclamation. Water and
Wastes Engineering. 5_(12) :33, 1968.
90. Gram, A. L., and D. L. Isenberg. Waste Water Treat-
ment. Science Journal, p. 11, 1969.
91. Grant, Robert J. Wastewater Treatment in Great
Britain. Water and Sewage Works. 117(8).
92. Griffith, C. 0. Conservation of Water by Reuse in
Mexico. Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium
Series. £3(78):37-40, 1967.
93. Guidance for Facilities Planning, 2nd ed. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, B.C., October,
1974.
94. Guidelines for Water Quality Management Planning.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
1971.
95. Haney, P. D. Water Reuse for Public Supply. Journal,
American Water Works Association. 6_1(2) : 73-78, 1969.
96. Hennessey, P. V., L. R. Williams, and Y. S. Lin.
Tertiary Treatment of Trickling Filter Effluent in
Orange County, California. Journal, Water Pollution
Control Federation. 39_(11) : 1819-19 33, 1967.
97. Hindin, E., and P. J. Bennett. Water Reclamation by
Reverse Osmosis. Water and Sewage Works. 66, 1969.
98. Hirsch, L. Wastewater Reclamation for Water
Deficient Lands—Experiences in Southern California.
Paper No. 418. International Conference on Water for
Peace. Washington, D.C., 1967.
99. Hirshleifer, J. C. DeHaven, and J. W. Milliman.
Water Supply: Economics, Technology, and Policy.
Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1960.
100. Horsefield, David R. Factors in Regional Assessment
of Wastewater Reuse. Journal of the American Water
Works Association. 6J[(4) : 238-239, April 1974.
101. Houser, E. W. Santee Project Continues to Show the
Way. Water and Wastes Engineering. 7^(5):40-44, 1970.
102. Hulschmidt, M., and M. Fiering. Simulation Techniques
for Design of Water Resource Systems. Boston, Harvard
University Press, 1966.
136
-------
103. Ide, T. , N. Matsumoto, and H. Armitsu. Utilization of
Municipal Wastewater in Japan. Chemical Engineering
Progress Symposium Series. 6_3_(78) : 46-53, 1967.
104. Ikonnikova, S. Purification of Municipal Water
Supplies in the U.S.S.R. Water and Waste Treatment.
p. 535, 1964.
105. Improved Sewage By-Product Reclamation. Fluid Hand-
ling. (88):150, 1957.
106. Improving Water Quality Management Planning in Non-
metropolitan Areas. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Water Programs, Washington, B.C.,
January 1973.
107. Ingraham, H. S. Regional Planning for Water Supply
and Sewage Treatment. Archives of Environmental
Health. 16, 1968.
108. James, I. C., B. T. Bower, and N. C. Matalas. Rela-
tive Importance of Variables in Water Resources
Planning. Water Resources Research. 5_(6) :1165-1173,
1969.
109. Johnson, J. F. Renovated Waste Water: An Alternative
Source of Municipal Water Supply in the United States.
Chicago, University of Chicago, Department of Geog-
raphy, 1971.
110. Kardos, L. T. A New Prospect. Environment. 12(2):10,
1970.
111. Keefer, C. E. Tertiary Sewage Treatment. Public
Works. 9.3(11) : 109-112; (12):81-83, 1962.
112. Kneese, A. V., and B. T. Bower. Managing Water
Quality: Economics, Technology, Institutions.
Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968.
113. Koebig and Koebig, Inc. Wastewater Reclamation in
Southern California Coastal Area. Los Angeles Area
Chamber of Commerce, Wastewater Reclamation Task
Force: Draft report. 1972.
114. Krutilla, J. V. Conservation Reconsidered. American
Economic Review. 5_7: 777-786, 1967.
115. Krutilla, J. V., and 0. Eckstein. Multiple Purpose
River Development. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press,
1958.
1 37
-------
116. Langbein, Walter B. Municipal Water Use in the United
States. Journal of the American Water Works Associa-
tion, pp. 997-1001, Nov. 1949.
117. Law/ J. P., Jr., e_t al. Water Quality Management
Problems in Arrid Regions. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration,
Washington, D.C., 1970.
118. Leopold, L. B. Quantitative Comparison of Some
Aesthetic Factor Among Rivers. U.S. Geological
Survey Circ. 620. Washington, D.C.
119. Leopold, L. B., and M. O'Brien Marchand. On the
Quantitative Inventory of the Riverscape. Water
Resources Research. £(4) :709-718, 1968.
120. Levy, D., and V. J. Calise. Fresh Water from Sewage.
Consulting Engineer. L2_(l) : 100-105, 1959.
121. Libya, Ministry of Agriculture. Water Resources in
Libya: Their Investigation, Development, and Improve-
ment. Paper No. 614. (International Conference on
Water for Peace. Washington, D.C., 1967.)
122. Linstedt, D. Evaluation of Treatment for Urban Waste-
water Reuse. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1973.
123. Linstedt, D., e_t al. Metropolitan Successive Use of
Available Water. Journal, American Water Works
Association. 6_3_:610, 1971.
124. Linstedt, D. Quality Considerations in Successive
Water Use. Journal, Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion. 43^1681-1694, 1971.
125. Lubzens, Michael. Wastewater Treatment Plant Opera-
tional Problems at Haifa, Israel. Journal, Water
Pollution Control Federation. 42^(3) : 413-417, 1969.
126. Maass, Arthur, et al. Design of Water-Resource
Systems. CambrTdge, Harvard University Press, 1962.
127. Maclver, Ian. Urban Water Supply Alternatives.
Research Paper No. 126. Chicago, The University of
Chicago, Department of Geography, 1970.
128. Marks, R. H. Waste Water Reclamation: A Practical
Approach for Many Water Short Areas. Power. 107(11):
47-50, 1963.
138
-------
129. McGauhey, P. H. Engineering Management of Water
Quality. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1968.
130. McGauhey, P. H. The Why and How of Sewage Effluent
Reclamation. Water and Sewage Works. 104:265-270,
1957.
131. McGauhey, P. H., and J. E. Middlebrooks . Wastewater
Management. Water and Sewage Works. 119 (7) : 49-53,
1972.
132. McKee, J. E. Potential for Reuse of Wastewater in
North Central Texas. Water Resources Bulletin.
:740-749, 1969.
133. McKee, J. E., and H. W. Wolf (eds.). Water Quality
Criteria. California State Water Resources Control
Board. Publication No. 3-A. 1971.
134. Merten, U. , and D. T. Bray. Reverse Osmosis for Water
Reclamation. (International Conference on Water
Pollution Research. Munich, Germany. 1966.)
135. Merz, R. C. Direct Utilization of Waste Waters.
Water and Sewage Works. 10_3: 417-423, 1956.
136. Metzler, D. F. Wastewater Reclamation as a Water
Resource. (87th Annual Conference of American Water
Works Association. 1967.)
137. Middleton, F. M. Advanced Treatment of Waste Waters
for Reuse. Water and Sewage Works. 3_(9) : 401-410,
1964.
138. Middleton, F. M. Concepts of Waste Water Reuse.
Water and Sewage Works. 118:59-62, 1971.
139. Middleton, F. M. Waste Water Treatment for Return
to Natural Cycle Reuse. Water and Wastes Engineering.
5_:61-64, 1968.
140. Miller, D. G. , and D. H. Newsome. Conservation of
Water by Reuse in the United Kingdom. Chemical Engi-
neering Progress Symposium Series. 6_3_( 78) : 13-31 , 1967,
141. Milliman, Jerome W. Policy Horizons for Future Urban
Water Supply. Land Economics, pp. 109-132, May 1963.
142. Miyahara, Shoza, and T. -Ando. Tertiary Treatment of
Sewage Water. Sangyo Kogai. 6(8):454, 1970.
139
-------
143. Murray, C. Richard. Water Use in the United States in
1965. Journal of the American Water Works Association.
6JL(11) :567-57l, Nov. 1969.
144. National Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary
of the Interior. Water Quality Criteria. Federal
Water Pollution Control Agency, Washington, D.C., 1968.
145. New Sewage Treatment Works for Exeter England. Local
Government Technology. 137(4118):30-33, 1971.
146. New Technology for Treatment of Wastewater by Reverse
Osmosis. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, B.C., 1970.
147. Nierstrasz, H. Cyclic Waste Recovery Systems. Water
Pollution Control (Canada). 109(11);33.
148. 1968 Inventory, Municipal Waste Facilities. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, B.C.
Publication No. OWF-1. 1971.
149. O'Farrell, T. P., B. F. Bishop, and S. M. Bennett.
Advanced Waste Treatment at Washington, B.C. Chemical
Engineering Progress Symposium Series. 6_5_(97) :251,
1969.
150. Okun, B. A. New Birections for Wastewater Collection
and Bisposal. Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation. 4_3 (11) :2171-2180 , 1971.
151. Ottoboni, A., and A. E. Greenberg. Toxicological
Aspects of Wastewater Reclamation. Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation. 4_2_: 493-499 , 1970.
152. Parizek, R. R. Wastewater Renovation and Conservation,
Public Works. 99_:130, 1968.
153. Parker, Clinton E. Feasibility of Water Reuse at
Highway Rest Stations. Journal of the American
Water Works Association. 6£(4):247-249, April 1974.
154. Parker, B. S., and J. A. Crutchfield. Water Quality
Management: A Time Profile of* Benefits and Costs.
Water Resources Research. 4_(2):246, 1968.
155. Parkhurst, J. B. Practical Application for Reuse of
Wastewater. Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium
Series. 64 (90) :225-231, 1968.
140
-------
156. Parkhurst, J. D. Reclaiming Used Water. American
City. 78:83-85, 1963.
157. Parkhurst, J. D. Waste Water Reuse -- A Supplemental
Supply. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division,
ASCE. 9_6(SA 3), Jan. 1970.
158. Parkhurst, J. D. Water Utility Concept Applied in
Water Reuse. Public Works. 9_8 (10) : 110-112 ,
200, 202, 1967.
159. Parkhurst, J. D., C. W. Carry, A. N. Masse, and
J. N. English. Practical Applications for Reuse of
Wastewater. Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium
Series No. 90. 6_4_(225) , 1968.
160. Parkhurst, J. D., C. L. Chen, C. W. Carry, and A. N.
Masse. Demineralization of Wastewater by Ion Exchange.
(Paper presented at the 5th International Conference
on Water Pollution Research. San Francisco, California.
August 1970.)
161. Peter, I. Y. Sewage Effluent into Sand Dunes. Water
and Sewage Works. 105;493, 1958.
162. Fetters, J. H., and D. Cuming. Water Conservation by
Barrier Injection. Water and Sewage Works.
114_(2):63, 1967.
163. Phillips, J. D., and G. L. Shell. Pilot Plant Studies
of Effluent Reclamation. Water and Wastes Engineering.
6_: 38-41, 1968.
164. Phillips, William J. The Direct Reuse of Reclaimed
Wastewater: Pros, Cons, and Alternatives. Journal
of the American Water Works Association. 6J[(4) :231-
237, April 1974.
165. Plan of Study, Susquehanna River Basin Study. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Army Engineer District,
Baltimore, Maryland, 1965.
166. Pollio, F. X., and R. Kunin. Tertiary Treatment of
Municipal Sewage Effluents. Environmental Science
and Technology. 2_:54, 1968.
167. Porter, J. W. Planning of Municipal Wastewater Reno-
vation Projects. Journal of the American Water Works
Association. 62:543,548, 1970.
141
-------
168. Ranganathan, G. S. The Use and Disposal of Water in
India. Effluent and Water Treatment Journal.
(10):517, 1968.
169. Rawn, A. M., ejb ail. Integrating Reclamation and
Disposal of Waste Water. Journal of the American
Water Works Association. 4_5_(5) , 1963.
170. Reclaimed Water Solves International Problem. Journal
of the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE.
89JSA 3) :12-13/ 1963.
171. Recommended Methods for Water-Data Acquisition. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Federal Interagency Work
Group on Designation of Standards for Water Data
Acquisition, Washington, D.C., 1972.
172. Report to the Water Resources Council by the Special
Task Force: Principles for Planning Water and Land
Resources. U.S. Water Resources Council, Washington,
D.C., 1970.
173. Report to the Water Resources Council by the Special
Task Force: Standards for Planning Water and Land
Resources. U.S. Water Resources Council, Washington,
D.C., 1970.
174. Report to the Water Resources Council by the Special
Task Force: Findings and Recommendations. U.S.
Water Resources Council, Washington, D.C., 1970.
175. The Reuse of Water. West Texas Today. 45(9);12,
22-23, 1964.
176. Reverse Osmosis for Wastewater Treatment. Gulf
General Atomic, Inc., San Diego, California.
No. GA-8020. 1967.
177. The Reverse Osmosis Process and Its Potential for
Application in Water and Waste Treatment. Rex Chainbelt,
Inc. International Project Report No. OP-4 (J-20, 904)-1,
1968.
178. Reverse Osmosis Renovation of Municipal Wastewater.
Federal Water Quality Administration, 1969.
179. Rickles, R. N. Conservation of Water by Reuse in the
United States. Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium
Series. 63(78) : 74-87, 1967.
142
-------
180. Russell, C. S., D. Arey, R. Kates. Drought and Water
Supply: Of the Massachusetts Experience for Municipal
Planning. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1971.
181. Scherer, C. H. Effluent Reuse in Amarillo. American
Institute of Chemical Engineers. (Presented at
Complete Water Reuse Meeting. Washington, B.C.,
April 1970.)
182. Schmidt, C., and E. Clements. Demonstrated Tech-
nology and Research Needs for Reuse of Municipal
Wastewater. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. Contract No. 68-03-0148. 1974.
183. Sebastian, F. P. Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse.
Water and Wastes Engineering. 7.(7) ' 1970.,
184. Seidel, H. F., and E. R. Baumann. A Statistical
Analysis of Water Works Data for 1955. Journal of
the American Water Works Association, pp. 1531-1566,
December 1957.
185. Shuvel, H. I. Proceedings of the Jerusalem Inter-
national Conference on Water Quality and Pollution
Research. Ann Arbor, Humphrey Science Publishers,
1970.
186. Shuvel, H. I. Water Pollution Control in Semi-Arid
and Arid Zones. Water Research. 3^(4) :297, 1967.
187. Slack, J. G. Sewage Effluent Treatment for Water
Recovery. Effluent and Water Treatment Journal.
9_:257, 1969.
188. Smith, J. M., A. N. Masse, and R. P. Miele. Renova-
tion of Municipal Wastewater by Reverse Osmosis.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
1970.
189. Sontheimer, H. Die Wiederverwendung von Abwasser.
Umschau in Wissenschaft und Technik. (7):195-200, 1968.
190. Sopper, W. E. Waste Water Renovation for Reuse; Key
to Optimum Use of Water Resources. Water Research.
21:471, 1968.
191. Sosewitz, B., and V. W. Bacon. Chicago's First
Tertiary Treatment Plant. Water and Wastes Engineering,
5(9) :52, 1968.
143
-------
192. Sprowl, Tom M., and R. M. Hopkins. Tertiary Waste-
water Treatment Made Practical. The American City.
p. 65, April 1972.
193. Stanbridge, H. H. From Pollution Prevention to
Effluent Re-Use. Water and Sewage Works. Ill;446-452,
494-499, 1964.
194. Stander, G. J. Tertiary Treatment - The Corner Stone
of Water Quality Protection and Water Resources
Optimization. Progress in Water Technology, Vol. I,
Applications of New Concepts of Physical-Chemical
Wastewater Treatment. New York, Pergamon Press, 1972.
195. Stander, G. J., e_t al. Current Status of Research on
Waste Water Reclamation in South Africa. Water Pollu-
tion Control (London). 7p_(2) : 213-222 , 1971.
196. Stander, G. J., and A. J. Clayton. Planning and Con-
struction of Waste Water Reclamation Schemes as an
Integral Part of Water Supply. Water Pollution Con-
trol (London). 70^:228, 1971.
197. Stander, G. J., and J. W. Funke. Conservation of Water
by Reuse in South Africa. Chemical Engineering Pro-
gress Symposium Series. 6_3(78):l-2, 1967.
198. State Health Department Proposes Criteria for Reclama-
tion Reliability. Bulletin, California Water Pollu-
tion Control Association. 10_(4) : 30-32, 1974.
199. Stenburg, R. L., et al. New Approaches to Wastewater
Treatment. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Divi-
sion, ASCE. 9_4_: 1121-1136, 1968.
200. Stenburg, R. L., et a^. New Approaches to Wastewater
Treatment. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Divi-
sion. ASCE. 9_5_:978-982 1969.
201. Stenburg, R. L., e_t al. New Approaches to Wastewater
Treatment. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Divi-
sion. ASCE. 9j[:613-615, 1970.
202. Stephen, D. G. Renovation of Municipal Wastewater for
Reuse. American Institute of Chemical Engineers Sym-
posium Series. 9_, 1965.
203. Stephen, D. G. Water Renovation—Advanced Treatment
Processes. Civil Engineer. 35:46, 1965.
144
-------
204. Stephen, D. G., and R. B. Schaffer. Wastewater
Treatment and Renovation Status of Process Develop-
ment. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation.
42^399-410, 1970.
205. Stephan, D. G., and L. W. Weinberger. Wastewater
Reuse - Has It 'Arrived1? Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation. 4£(4):529-539, 1968.
206. Stevens, J. I. Present and Future Disposal of Sludges
from Water Reuse. Chemical Engineering Progress
Symposium Series. 6_3_(78) :250, 1967.
207. Suhr, L. G. Some Notes on Reuse. Journal of the
American Water Works Association. 6_3:630, 1971.
208. Susquehanna River Basin Study Plan: A Review of
Alternatives. U.S. Department of the Army, Washing-
ton, D.C., 1966.
209. Symons, G. E. 2020 Vision: A Look at Wastewater Dis-
posal 50 Years Hence. Water and Wastes Engineering.
210. Symposium on Wastewater Treatment and Reuse. Effluent
and Water Treatment Journal, p. 94, 1969.
211. Taras, M. J. Water Guide to Europe. Water and Sewage
Works. January 1969.
212. Telfer, J. G. The Medical Professions' Attitude Toward
Water Reuse. Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium
Series. £3(78) :101, 1967.
213. Thompson, R. G., M. Z. Hyatt, J. W. McFarland, and
H. P. Young. Forecasting Water Demands. The National
Water Commission.
214. Tischler, L. F., and S. C. Burnitt. Wastewater
Reclamation and Reuse. Texas State Water Development
Board, Austin, Texas, 1971.
215. Todd, D. K., (ed.). The Water Encyclopedia. Port
Washington, N.Y., Water Information Center, 1970.
216. Truesdale, G. A. Water Pollution Control: Need and
Trends. Water Pollution Control, pp. 644-649, 1971.
217. Unger, J. Chinese Turning Old Waste Material to New
Uses. Christian Science Monitor, p. 15, March 22, 1972
145
-------
218. Use of Ozone in Reclamation of Water from Sewage
Effluent. Surveyor and Municipal Engineer.
131(3947):21-22, 1968.
219. Van Der Goot, H. A. Water Reclamation Experiments
at Hyperion. Sewage and Industrial Wastes.
29_(10) :1139-1144, 1957.
220. Vandertulip, J. J. Return Flows: A reusable Water
Resource. Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium
Series. £3(78):106, 1967.
221. Viessman, W., Jr. Developments in Waste Water Re-
Use. Public Works. 9_£(4) : 138-140 , 1965.
222. Viewing Water Renovation and Reuse in Regional Water
Resources Systems. Water Resources Research.
3_(1), 1967.
223. Viraraghavan, T. Sewage Treatment with Special
Reference to Use on Land for Irrigation. Institution
of Engineers (India). 50_(2) :25-28, 1969.
224. Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse - Morro Bay Area.
John Carollo Engineers, San Luis Obispo County,
California, 1962.
225'. Water from Raw Sewage. Chemistry and Engineering
News. 49_:11, 1971.
226. Water Policies for the Future. National Water Commis-
sion, Washington, D.C., 1973.
227., Water Quality Criteria: Report of the National Techni-
cal Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the
Interior. Federal Water Quality Administration,
Washington, B.C., 1968.
228. Water Resources Management Study, South Coast - Santa
Barbara County. Toups Corporation, Santa Barbara,
California, 1974.
229. Water Reused on Pike's Peak. Public Works.
83^(11) :114, 1970.
230. When Waste Disposal Taxes Water Supply, Reclamation
is Key to Treatment. Engineering News. 173;41-42,
1964.
146
-------
231. Watson, J. L. A. Oxidation Ponds and Use of Effluent
in Israel. Effluent and Water Treatment Journal.
3^:150-153, 1963.
232. Weber, W. J., Jr., and F. A. DiGiano. Reclamation of
Water for Reuse as a Water Resource. (International
Conference on Water for Peace, Washington, D.C., 1967.)
Paper 393.
233. Weir, E. Notes on Water Pollution Control. Water
Pollution Control, pp. 212-216, 1969.
234. Weismantel, G. E. Denver Aims at Total Reuse.
Chemical Engineer. 7_8:82, 1971.
235. Wesner, G. M., and R. L. Gulp. Wastewater Reclamation
and Seawater Desalination. Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, p. 1932, October 1972.
236. Whetstone, G. A. Potential Reuse of Effluent as
Factor in Sewage Design. Chemical Engineering Progress
Symposium Series. 6_3_(78) :255-257, 1967.
237. Whetstone, G. A. Re-Use of Effluent in the Future.
Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Texas, 1965.
238. White, Gilbert. Strategies of American Water Manage-
ment. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1969.
239. Whitford, Peter W. Residential Water Demand Fore-
casting. Water Resources Research. £(4):829-839,
August 1972.
240. Wiessman, W., Jr. Developments in Waste Water Re-Use.
Public Works. 9_6_: 138-140, 1965.
241. Zuckerman, M. M., and A. H. Molof. High Quality
Reuse Water by Chemical-Physical Wastewater Treatment.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation.
42:437-456, 1970.
147
-------
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
1. Baffa, J. J., and N. J. Bartilucci. Wastewater
Reclamation by Groundwater Recharge on Long Island.
Journal, Water Pollution Control Federation.
39_(3) : 431-438, 1967.
2. Baffa, J. J. , e_t al. Development in Artificial Ground
Water Recharge. Welling Water. Nov. 1968.
3. Boen, D. F., J. H. Bunts, Jr., and R. J. Currie. Study
of Reutilization of Wastewater Recycled Through Ground-
water, Vols. I and II. Hemet, California, Eastern
Municipal Water District, 1971.
4. Bouwer, Herman, R. C. Rice, and E. D. Escarcega.
Renovating Secondary Sewage by Ground Water Recharge
with Infiltration Basins. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., 1972.
5. Bouwer, Herman. Ground Water Recharge Design for
Renovating Waste Water. Journal of Sanitary Engineer-
ing Division, ASCE. 9_7(SA l):59-74, 1970.
6. Gould, B. W. Wastewater Reclamation Using Ground-
water Recharge. Effluent and Water Treatment Journal.
11(2):88-90, 94-95; (3):139-143, 1971.
7. Kincannon, D. F., and W. G. Tiederman. Water Reclamation
for Ground Water Recharge. Completion Report,
OWRR A-034-OKLA-C1. June 1972.
8. Krone, R. B., P. H. McGauhey, and H. B. Gotaas. Direct
Recharge of Ground Water with Sewage Effluents.
Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE.
83(SA 4) , 1957.
9. Matlock, W. G. Sewage Effluent Recharge in an
Ephemeral Channel. Water and Sewage Works.
113:(6):224-229, 1966.
10. Matlock. W. G., and P. R. Davis. Groundwater in the
Santa Cruz Valley. Univ. of Arizona Agric. Exp.
Sta. Technical Bulletin 194. 1972.
11. Nassau Activates Recharge Plant. Water in the News.
T_, 1967.
12. Owen, L. W. Ground Water Management and Reclaimed
Water. Journal of the American Water Works Association.
60(2):135-144, 1968.
148
-------
13. Peters, J. H., and J. L. Rose. Water Conservation by
Reclamation and Recharge. Journal of the Sanitary
Engineering Division, ASCE. 9_4_(SA 4):625-639, 1968.
14. Reclaimed Wastewater May Fill a Salt Free Aquifer.
Engineering News-Record. 179(6);38, 1967.
15. Rose, John L. Injection of Treated Wastewater into
Aquifers. Water and Wastes Engineering, p. 40,
October 1968.
16. Simins, H. J. Advanced Waste Treatment for Water
Reclamation and Reuse by Injection. Nassau Co.,
Department of Public Works, Mineola, N.Y.
17. Sopper, W. E. Renovation of Municipal Sewage Effluent
for Groundwater Recharge Through Forest Irrigation.
International Conference on Water for Peace, Washington,
D.C. Paper No. 571. 1967.
18. Stevens, D. B., and J. Peters. Long Island Recharge
Studies. p. 2009, 1966.
19. Todd, D. K. Groundwater Hydrology. Wiley & Sons, 1959.
20. Wesner, G. M., and D. C. Baier. Injection of Reclaimed
Wastewater Into Confined Aquifer. Journal of the
American Water Works Association. 62^:203-210, 1970.
21. Williams, Roy E., and D. D. Eier, and A. T. Wallace.
Feasibility of Re-Use of Treated Wastewater for
Irrigation, Fertilization and Ground-Water Recharge
in Idaho. Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology, Moscow,
1969.
149
-------
INDUSTRIAL REUSE
1. Banks, H. O., et al. Economic and Industrial Analysis
of Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Projects. San
Francisco, Leeds, Hill & Jewett, 1971.
2. Bower, Blair T. The Economics of Industrial Water
Utilization. Water Research, Baltimore, The Johns
Hopkins Press, 1966. pp. 143-173.
3. Bradakis, H. L. Joint Municipal Industry Spray
Irrigation Project. Industrial Water and Wastes.
6^(4} :117-120, 1961.
4. Can We Use Treated Sewage in Our Boilers? Power.
1L1:170-171, 1967.
5. Connell, C. H., and E. J. M. Berg. Industrial Utiliza-
tion of Municipal Waste Water. Sewage and Industrial
Wastes. 311^212-220, 1959.
6. Connell, C. H., and E. J. M. Berg. Practice and Poten-
tials in Industrial Utilization of Municipal Waste
Water. (Proceedings, 13th Industrial Waste Conference
at Purdue University, pp. 227-242, 1958.).
7. 'Connell, C. H., and E. J. M. Berg. Reclaiming Munici-
pal Waste Water for Industrial and Domestic Re-Use.
Southwest Water Works Journal. 4_1:17-19, 1960.
8. Connell, C. H., and M. C. Forbes. Once-Used Municipal
Water as Industrial Supply. Water and Sewage Treatment,
3-(9) : 397-400, 1964.
9. Cootner, Paul H., and G. 0. G. Lof. Water Demand for
Steam Electric Generation, An Economic Projections
Model. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, Resources for
the Future, 1965. pp. 34-35.
10. Dominy, Floyd E. Acquisition of Water from Federal
Reclamation Projects for Industrial and Community
Development. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Reclamation, 1969.
11. Dutt, G. R., and T. W. McCreary. The Quality of
Arizona's Domestic, Agricultural, and Industrial
Waters. Univ. of Arizona Agricultural Experimental
Station Report 256. 1970.
150
-------
12. Eller, J., et al. Water Reuse and Recycling in
Industry. Journal, American Water Works Association.
6£:149, 1970.
13. Eynon, D. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse of Treated
Sewage as an Industrial Water Supply. The Chemical
Engineer, p. 6, 1970.
14. Flower, W. A., et a]L. Optimization of Combined
Industrial-MunicTpal Waste Treatment Through Automa-
tion and Reuse. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, B.C., 1972.
15. Funke, J. W. A Guide to Water Conservation and Water
Reclamation in Industry. National Institute for Water
Research, Pretoria, South Africa. CSIR Guide K9.
16. Garland, C. F. Waste Water Reuse in Industry. Water
and Sewage Works. 114;R204, 1967.
17. Gloyna, E. F., et al. Water Reuse in Industry.
Journal, Water Pollution Control Federation, p. 237,
1970.
18. Gomez, H. J. Water Reuse at the Celulosa y Derivados,
S. A. Plants. Proceedings, 23d Industrial Waste
Conference. Purdue University Extension Series.
_53:165, 1969.
19. Guiver, K., and R. Huntingdon. A Scheme for Providing
Industrial Water Supplies by the Re-Use of Sewage
Effluent. Water Pollution Control (London). 70:75,
1971.
20. Haack, J. E. Treatment of Sewage for Industrial
Utilization at Moose Jaw. Municipal Utilities. 90(10)
20*, 36-41.
21. Hauser, Frank R. Expansion of Industrial Water
Facilities at Sparrows Point. Iron and Steel Engineer.
Sept. 1956.
22. Hill, William P. Industry Converts Sewage Works
Effluent into Water Supply. Water Works and Sewage.
Dec. 1945.
23. Humphrey, F. C. Sewage Effluent in Use as Power
Plant Circulating Water. (Proceedings of 14th Indus-
trial Waste Conference.) Purdue University. 1959.
pp. 732-742.
151
-------
24. Industry Utilizes Sewage and Wastes Effluents for Pro-
cessing Operations. Wastes Engineering. 28(9):444-
448, 467, 1957.
25. Janacek, K. F. Treated Sewage as Boiler Make-Up.
Industrial Water Engineering. 2_(12) , 1966.
26. Jenkins, S. H. Composition of Sewage and Its Potential
Use as a Source of Industrial Water. Chemistry and
Industry, pp. 2072-2079, 1962.
27. Jensen, L. C., and C. F. Renn. Use of a Tertiary
Treated Sewage as Industrial Process Waters. Water
and Sewage Works. 115:184, 1968.
28. Johnson, W. H. Treatment of Sewage Plant Effluent
for Industrial Reuse. (International Water Conference.)
1964.
29. Johnson, W. H. Water Treatment and Reclamation in
Steel Plants. Iron and Steel Engineering. 40:142-147,
1963. ~~
30. Keating, R. J., and V. J. Calise. Treatment of Sewage
Effluent for Industrial Re-Use. Sewage and Industrial
Wastes. 27/7) :763-782, 1955.
31. Kirkpatrick, F. W., Jr., and E. F. Smythe. History
and Possible Future of Multiple Reuse of Sewage
Effluent at Odessa, Texas Industrial Complex.
Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series.
6_3(78) :201-209, 1967.
32. Kluth, H. W. Evolution of a Steel Plant Water Supply.
Bethlehem Steel Corp. June 1966.
; •* ',
33. Ko, S. C., and L. Duckstein. Collective Utility of
Exchanging Treated Sewage Effluent for Irrigation and
Mining Water. Hydrology and Water Resources in
Arizona and the Southwest. 2:221-234, 1972.
— t
34. Ladd, Kenneth, and S. L. Terry. City Waste Water
Reused for Power Plant Cooling and Boiler Makeup.
Lubbock, Texas, Southwestern Public Service Co.
35. Leclerc, E. H. T. H. Considerations on Reuse of Water
in Certain Industries. Chemical Engineering Progress
Symposium Series. 63(78):66-73, 1967.
152
-------
36. Mayes, W. W., and W. E. Gibson. Successes and Failures
in Water Reuse at Cosden Oil and Chemical Co., Big
Spiring, Texas. Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium
Series. £3(78):167-200, 1967.
37. McCormick, E. B., and 0. E. Wetzel, Jr. Water Supply
from Sewage Effluent. Petroleum Refiner. 21(11):
165-167, 1954.
38. McCoy, J. W. Chemical Analysis of Industrial Water.
New York, Chemical Publishing Co., 1969.
39. Mcllhenny, W. F. Recovery of Additional Water from
Industrial Wastewaters. Chemical Engineering Progress
Symposium Series. 36_:76, 1967.
40. Mendia, L. Municipal Sewage Reuse for Industrial
Purposes. (International Conference on Water for
Peace. Washington, B.C. 1967.).
41. National Industrial Pollution Control Council. Waste-
Water Reclamation. NIPCC Subcouncil Report.
March 1971.
42. Nichols, M. C. Industrial Use of Reclaimed Sewage
Water at Amarillo. Journal, American Water Works
Association. £7(1):29-33, 1955.
43. Osborn, D. W. Factors Affecting the Use of Purified
Sewage Effluents for Cooling Purposes, Johannesburg
Municipality (South Africa). Water Pollution Control.
69_(4) :456.
44. Petrasek, A. C., Jr., S. E. Esmond, and H. W. Wolfe.
Municipal Wastewater Qualities and Industrial Require-
ments. (Paper presented at Complete Water Reuse
Meeting. American Institute of Chemical Engineers.
Washington, D.C. April 1973.).
45. Pilot Demonstration Project for Industrial Reuse of
Renovated Municipal Wastewater. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Washington, B.C., 1973.
46. Powell, S. T. Adaptation of Treated Sewage for
Industrial Use. (Paper presented at the Meeting of
American Chemical Society. April 9, 1956.).
47. Powell, S. T. Some Aspects of Requirements for the
Quality of Water for Industrial Uses. Sewage Works
Journal. 2£(36), 1948.
153
-------
48. Power Plant to Run on Treated Sewage. Power Engineer-
ing. 75_:54, 1971.
49. Purified Sewage Will Provide Water Supply at the Jurong
Industrial Estate, Singapore. Water and Wastes Engineer-
ing. ([9:208-209, 1965.
50. Renovated Wastewater for Industry? American City.
86_(6):I18, 1971.
51. Reuse of Sewage Plant Effluent. Industrial Water
Engineering. 6(8):32, 1968.
52. Ridge, Richard. The Impact of Public Water Utility
Pricing Policy on Industrial Demand and Reuse,
Philadelphia General Electric Company. Technical
Information Series. November 1972.
53. Scherer, C. H. Fifteen Years Experience with the
Reclamation and Industrial Reuse of Amarillo's City
Wastewater. (Presented at American Water Works
Association Annual Conference).
54. Scherer, C. H. Industrial Reuse of Sewage Plant Efflu-
ent. State of Texas Manual for Sewage Plant Operators,
3rd ed. Chapter 23, 1964.
55.i Scherer, C. H., and S. L. Terry. Reclamation and
Industrial Reuse of Amarillo's Wastewater. Journal
of the American Water Works Association. 63(3):159-164,
1971.
56. SCS Engineers. The Role of Desalting in Providing High
Quality Water for Industrial Use. Office of Saline
-Water, Washington, B.C., 1972.
57. Shannon, E. S., and A. Maass. Michigan-Industry Reuse
of Treated Waste. Journal of the American Water Works
Association. 63^(3) :154, 1971.
58. Stander, G. J., and J. W. Funke. South Africa Reclaims
Effluents as Industrial Water Supply. Water and
Wastes Engineering. £:20, 1969.
59. Steel Mill's Use of Clarified Water Cuts Stream Pollu-
tion. Water and Sewage Works. 115:489, 1968.
60. Stone, R. V., H. B. Gotaas, and V. W. Bacon. Economic
and Technical Status of Water Reclamation from Sewage
and Industrial Wastes. Journal of the American Water
Works Association. 44:503-517, 1952.
154
-------
61. Sullivan, T. F. Sewage Effluent Used for Industrial
Water. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division,
ASCE. (SA 3) , 1958.
62. Survey of Renovated Municipal Wastewater Use by
Industry. Bechtel Corporation, 1971.
63. Using Effluents as Coolants. Compost Science. 5_:31,
1964.
64. Veatch, N. T. Industrial Uses for Reclaimed Sewage
Effluents. Sewage Works Journal. 20_(3) , 1948.
65. Water Requirements of the Petroleum Refinery Industry.
U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1330-G,
1963.
66. Water Reuse in Industry. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation. j42_:237, 1970.
67. Weddle, C. L., and H. N. Masr. Industrial Use of
Renovated Municipal Wastewater. Transactions of the
ASME, Journal of Engineering for Industry. Paper No.
72-PID-6.
68. Williamson, J. S., and L. Hirsch. Treatment and Reuse
of Industrial Wastewater. Water and Sewage Works.
116(IW 24-26), 1969.
69. Wolman, A. Industrial Water Supply from Processed
Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent at Baltimore, Md.
Sewage Works Journal. 20_:15, 1948.
70. Wolters, N. Water Reuse in West German Industry.
Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series.
£3(78) :41-45, 1967.
71. Woodruff, E., and H. B. Lammers. Steam Plant Operation.
New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967.
72. Zanker, A. Utilization of Treated Wastewater as
Cooling Water. Water and Sewage Works. 118;188-189,
1971.
155
-------
IRRIGATION
1. Bernstein, Leon. Quantitative Assessment of Irrigation
Water Quality. Water Quality Criteria. American
Society for Testing and Materials. (First National
Meeting on Water Quality Criteria. Philadelphia. 1966)
2. Bishop, A. B., and D. W. Hendricks. Analysis of
Water Reuse Alternatives in an Integrated Urban and
Agricultural Area. Logan, Utah State University,
College of Engineering, Utah Water Research Laboratory,
Sept. 1971.
3. Bradakis, H. L. Joint Municipal Industry Spray
Irrigation Project. Industrial Water and Wastes.
6_(4) :117-120, 1961.
4. Caspi, B., Y. Zohar, and C. Saliternik. Water Reuse
in Israel. Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium
Series. 6_3(78) :54-65, 1967.
5. Chaiken, Eugene I., S. Poloncsik, and C. D. Wilson.
Muskegon Sprays Sewage Effluents on Land. Civil
Engineering, ASCE. £3(5) :49-53, 1973.
6. Clark, Colin. The Economics of Irrigation. Oxford,
Pergamon Press, 1967.
7. Cluff, C. B., K. J. DeCook, and W. G. Matlock. Tech-
nical and Institutional Aspects of Sewage Effluent-
Irrigation Water Exchange, Tucson Region. Water
Resources Bulletin. 7_(4) : 726-739, Aug. 1971.
8. Cluff, C. B., K. J. DeCook, and W. G. Matlock. Tech-
nical, Economic, and Legal Aspects Involved in the
Exchange of Sewage Effluent for Irrigation Water for
Municipal Use—Case Study, City of Tucson. Tucson,
University of Arizona, Dec. 1972.
9. Coe, Jack J., and F. B. Laverty. Wastewater Reclama-
tion in Southern California. Journal of the Irrigation
and Drainage Division, ASCE. 98 (IR3 Proc. Paper
9178):419-432, Sept. 1972.
10. Gofer, J. R. Orange County Water District's Water
Factory 21. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage
Division, ASCE. 9_8(IR 4):553-567, Dec. 1972.
11. Corey, J. C., D. R. Nielsen, and D. Kirkham. Miscible
Displacement of Nitrate Through Soil Columns. Soil
Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 31:497-501, 1967.
156
-------
12. Day, A. D. City Sewage for Irrigation and Plant
Nutrients. Crops and Soils, pp. 7-9, 1962.
13. Day, A. D., et al. Effects of Treatment Plant
Effluent on Soil Properties. Journal, Water Pollution
Control Federation, p. 372, March 1972.
14. Day, A. D., J. L. Stroehlein, and T. C. Tucker. Effects
of Treatment Plant Effluent on Soil Properties.
Journal, Water Pollution Control Federation, Part 1.
March 1972.
15. Doneen, L. D., ed. Proceedings of Conference on the
Quality of Water for Irrigation. Davis, California.
Jan. 21-22, 1958.
16. Dunlop, S. G., and W. L. Wang. Studies on the Use of
Sewage Effluent for Irrigation of Truck Crops.
Journal of Milk and Food Technology. 2_4_: 44-47, 1961.
17. Dutt, G. R., and T. W. McCreary. The Quality of
Arizona's Domestic, Agricultural, and Industrial
Waters. University of Arizona Agricultural Experi-
mental Station Report 256. 1970.
18. Eastman, P. W. Municipal Wastewater Reuse for Irri-
gation. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division,
ASCE. 9_3(IR 3):25-31; (IR 1):167-168, 1968.
19. Engineering Feasibility Demonstration Study for Muske-
gon County, Michigan Wastewater Treatment-Irrigation
System. Muskegon, Michigan. Muskegon County Board
and Department of Public Works, 1970.
20. Evaluation of Land Application Systems. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water Programs Operations,
Washington, D.C. Technical Bulletin, EPA-430/9-75-001.
March 1975.
21. Feinmesser, A. Survey of Wastewater Utilization.
Department of Supervision Over Agricultural Water,
National Water Commission, 1963.
22. Garthe, E. C., and W. C. Gilbert. Water Reuse at Grand
Canyon. Journal, Water Pollution Control Federation.
40^(9) :1582-1585, 1968.
23. Gray, J. F. Irrigation Processes Using Reclaimed Water
of Effluent Described. West Texas Today. 45;18-19,
23, 1965.
157
-------
24. Guymon, B. E. Sewage Salinity Prevents Use of
Effluent for Golf Course Irrigation. Wastes Engineer-
ing. 2J}(2) :80-83, 1957.
25. Hansen, William F. Some Research Findings on the
Bennett Springs Sewage Irrigation Project. (Unpub-
lished Data.) University of Missouri, 1972.
26. Heukelekian, H. Utilization of Sewage for Crop
Irrigation in Israel. Sewage and Industrial Wastes.
2^:868-874, 1957.
27. Hillinger, Charles. Farmer Finds Boon in Drip Irri-
gation. Los Angeles Times. Nov. 11, 1972.
28. Hunt, Patrick. Microbiological Responses to the Land
Disposal of Secondary-Treated Municipal-Industrial
Wastewater. In: Wastewater Management by Disposal
on Land. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers. Special
Report 171. 1972.
29. Hyde, C. G. The Beautification and Irrigation of
Golden Gate Park with Activated Sludge Effluent.
Sewage Works Journal. 9_: 929-941, 1937.
30. Irrigate with the Wastewater. American City. p. 24,
March 1972.
31. Israel's Wastewater Reclamation Scheme. World Con-
struction. 2_2(8) : 37-39, 1969.
32. Israel Turns to Sewage for Water. Engineering News-
Record, p. 42, 1969.
33. Israel, Ministry of Health. Special Conditions for
Use of Wastewater in Agriculture. 1965.
34. Kardos, L. T. Crop Response to Sewage Effluent,
Symposium on Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation.
Louisiana Polytechnic Institute, 1968.
35. Ko, S. C., and L. Duckstein. Collective Utility of
Exchanging Treated Sewage Effluent for Irrigation and
Mining Water. Hydrology and Water Resources in
Arizona and the Southwest. 2_: 221-234, 1972.
36. Kruez, C. A. Hygienic Evaluation of the Agricultural
Utilization of Sewage. Gesundheitsingenieur.
76:206-211, 1955.
158
-------
37. Lau, L. Stephen. Water Recycling of Sewage Effluent
&y Irrigation: A Field Study on Oahu. First Progress
Report. Honolulu, University of Hawaii, Water
Resources Research Center, Nov. 1972.
38. Law, J. P., Jr. Agricultural Utilization of Sewage
Effluent and Sludge. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
39. Litton, B. R., Jr. Landscape and Esthetic Quality.
In: America's Changing Environment, Revelle, R. and
H. H. Landsberg (eds.). Boston, Houghton Mifflin,
1970.
40. McQueen, F. Sewage Treatment for Obtaining Park
Irrigating Water. Public Works. 6_4_: 16-17, 1933.
41. Merz, R. C. Waste Water Reclamation for Golf Course
Irrigation. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering
Division, ASCE. 85_(SA 6):79-85, 1959.
42. Moore, C. V., and T. R. Hedges. Economics of On-Farm
Irrigation Availability and Costs and Related Farm
Adjustments: Farm Size Relation to Resource Use,
Earnings, and Adjustments on the San Joaquin Eastside.
California Agricultural Experimental Station, Berkeley.
Research Report 263. 1963.
43. Neveux, M. M., 0. Jaag, and J. Kieling. Agricultural
Utilization of Sewage Effluent. Techniques et
Sciences Municipales. 5£: 425-432, 1959.
44. Orcutt, R. D. An Engineering-Economic Analysis of
Systems Utilizing Aquifer Storage for the Irrigation
of Parks and Golf Courses with Reclaimed Wastewater.
University of Nevada Desert Research Institute, Center
for Water Resources Research. Technical Report Series
H-W. Publication No. 5. 1967.
45. Pennypacker, S. P., W. E. Sopper, and L. T. Kardos.
Renovation of Wastewater Effluent by Irrigation of
Forest Land. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion. 39_(2):285, 1967.
46. Schouten, Maria. Land Disposal of Municipal Waste
Stabilization Pond Effluent. Unpublished data.
Ministry of the Environment, Ontario, Canada, 1971.
47. Schouten, Maria. Smithville Spray Irrigation Study
Progress Report. Unpublished data. Ministry of the
Environment, Ontario, Canada, 1972.
159
-------
48. Sepp, Endel. Disposal of Domestic Waste Water by
Hillside Sprays. Journal of th,e Environmental
Engineering Division, ASCE. (EE 2):109-121, 1973.
49. Skulte, B. P. Irrigation with Sewage
Sewage and Industrial Wastes. 2_8: 36-43, 1956.
50. Sloan, G. Waste Water Reclamation for Golf Course
Irrigation. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering
Division, ASCE. 8£(SA 3):167, 1960.
51. Sopper, W. E. Effects of Irrigation of Municipal
Sewage Effluent on Spoil Banks. Pennsylvania State
University, December 1971.
52. Sopper, W. E. Renovation of Municipal Sewage Effluent
for Groundwater Recharge Through Forest Irrigation.
International Conference on Water for Peace, Wash-
ington, D.C. Paper No. 571. 1967.
53. Sopper, W. E., and L. T. Kardos. Sewage Effluent and
Sludge Successfully Revegetate Strip Mine Spoil Banks.
Science in Agriculture. 18/3):10-11, 1971.
54. Sowing with Sewage. Mechanical Engineering.
9_2(7) :48, 1970.
55. Sparks, J. T. Sewage Irrigation in the Mitchell Lake
Area, Texas. Sewage and Industrial Wastes. 25:233-234,
1953.
56. Stevens, R. M. (ed.). Green Land—Clean Streams: The
Beneficial Use of Wastewater Through Land Treatment.
Philadelphia, Center for the Study of Federalism,
Temple University, 1972.
57. Storm, D. R. Land Disposal, One Answer. Water and
Wastes Engineering. £: 46-47, 1971.
58. Sullivan, Richard H., M. M. Cohn, and S. S. Baxter.
Survey of Facilities Using Land Application of Waste-
water. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., July 1973.
59. Tofflemire, T. J., and F. E. Van Alstyne. Literature
Review - Land Disposal of Wastewater for 1973. New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Albany, N.Y. Technical Paper No. 33. Feb. 1974.
160
-------
60. Viraraghavan, T. Sewage Treatment with Special
Reference to Use on Land for Irrigation. Institution
of Engineers (India). . 5jp_(2) :25-28, 1969.
61. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Application,
Volumes I and II. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., 1973.
62. Wells, W. N. Irrigation as a Sewage Re-Use Applica-
tion. Public Works. 92/.116, 1961.
63. Wells, W. N. Sewage Plant Effluent for Irrigation.
Compost Science. £: 19, 1963.
64. Wierzbicki, J. Augmenting Water Supply Through Agri-
cultural Utilization of Municipal Sewage. Gaz, Wod i
Technika Sanitarna. Q:ll, 1957.
65. Williams, Roy E., and D. D. Eier. The Feasibility of
Refuse of Chlorinated Sewage Effluent for Fertiliza-
tion and Irrigation in Idaho. Moscow, University of
Idaho Graduate School, 1971.
66. Williams, Roy E., D. D. Eier, and A. T. Wallace.
Feasibility of Re-Use of Treated Wastewater for
Irrigation, Fertilization and Ground-water Recharge
in Idaho. Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology, Moscow,
1969.
67. Wilson, C. W., and R. P. Cantrell. A Study of the
Technical and Economic Feasibility of Using Sewage
Effluent for Irrigation in Lincoln Parish, La. 1969.
68. Younger, V. B., and W. D. Kesner. Ecological and
Physiological Implications of Greenbelt Irrigation.
Riverside, University of California, July 1, 1970.
69. Zillman. Organization of the Application of Sewage
as Artificial Rain in Wolfsburg. Stadtehygiene.
7:53, 1956.
161
-------
POTABLE WATER
1. Besik, F. Reclamation of Potable Water from Domestic
Sewage. Water Pollution Control (Canada). 109(4):35;
(5):46; (6):38, 1971.
2. Besik, F. Wastewater Reclamation in a Closed System.
Water and Sewage Works, pp. 213-219, 1971.
3. Bowen, D. H. M. Effluents are Tasting Better and
Better. Environmental Science and Technology.
5_(2), 1971.
4. 'Chemical Process Purifies Wastewater, Makes it Drink-
able. Product Engineering. 4£(15), 1965.
5. Clayton, A. J., and P. J. Pybus. Windhoek Reclaiming
Sewage for Drinking Water. Civil Engineering-ASCE.
pp. 103-106, Sept. 1972.
6. Connell, C. H., and E. J. M. Berg. Reclaiming Munici-
pal Waste Water for Industrial and Domestic Re-Use.
Southwest Water Wdrks Journal. £11:17-19, 1960.
7. The Feasibility of Wastewater Renovation for Domestic
Use. Toups Engineering, Inc. Santa Ana, California.
1966.
8. Gardner, B. D., and S. H. Schick. Factors Affecting
Consumption of Urban Household Water in Northern
Utah. Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No.
449, Nov. 1964.
9. Garthe, E. C., and W. C. Gilbert. Water Reuse at
Grand Canyon. Journal, Water Pollution Control
Federation. 40(9) :1582-1585, 1968.
10. Gruenwald, A. Drinking Water from Sewage? American
City. 8.2:3, 1967.
11. Hanson, R., and H. E. Hudson, Jr. Trends in Residen-
tial Water Use. Journal of the American Water Works
Association. pp. 1347-1358, Nov. 1956.
12. Karassik, I. J., and J. F. Sebald. Pasterilized Water:
Potable Supplies from Waste Water Effluents. Public
Works. 94:131-133, 1963.
162
-------
13. Linaweaver, F. P., Jr., J. C. Geyer, and J. B. Wolff.
ft Study of Residential Water Use. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Technical Studies
Program of the Federal Housing Administration, Washing-
ton, D.C., Feb. 1967.
14. Linaweaver, F. P., Jr., J. C. Geyer, and J. B. Wolff.
Final and Summary Report on the Residential Water Use
Project. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University, Depart-
ment of Environmental Engineering Science, July 1966.
15. Metzler, D. F. The Reuse of Treated Wastewater for
Domestic Purposes. Public Works. p. 117, 1958.
16. Metzler, D. F., e_t al. Emergency Use of Reclaimed
Water for Potable Supply at Chanute, Kansas. Journal,
American Water Works Association. 5_0_(8) : 1021, 1958.
17. Neale, J. H. Washing Water. Science and Technology.
pp. 52-57, June 1969.
18. Nupen, E. M. Virus Studies on the Windhoek Waste-
water Reclamation Plant South-West Africa. Water
Research. 4(10), 1970.
19. On the Use of Reclaimed Wastewaters as a Public Water
Supply Source. Journal of the American Water Works
Association. 6_3_:490, 1971.
20. Stander, G. J. Reclamation of Potable Water from
Sewage. Water Pollution Control (London). 68:5513-5522,
1969.
21. Stander, G. J., and J. W. Funke. Direct Cycle Water
Reuse Provides Drinking Water Supply in South Africa.
Water and Wastes Engineering. 6_(5):66, 1969.
22. Stander, G. J., and L. R. J. Van Vuuren. The Reclama-
tion of Potable Water from Wastewater. Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation. p. 355, March 1969.
23. Weinstein, R. H. Water Recycling for Domestic Use.
Astronautics and Aeronautics. p. 44, March 1972.
24. Wolf, H. W., and S. E. Esmond. Water Quality for
Potable Refuse of Wastewater. Unpublished data.
Dallas, Texas, 1972.
163
-------
RECREATIONAL REUSE
1. Apollo County Park, Wastewater Reclamation Project
for the Antelope Valley Area. Los Angeles County,
Los Angeles Department of County Engineers, 1971.
2. Bauer, J. H. Air Force Academy Sewage Treatment
Plant Designed for Effluent Re-Use. Public Works.
£2(6):120-122, 1961.
3. Brown, W. G. An Economic Evaluation of the Oregon
Salmon and Steelhead Sport Fishery. Technical
Bulletin No. 68. Corvallis, Oregon State Agricultural
Experimental Station, 1964.
4. Brungs, William A. Chronic Effects of Constant
Elevated Temperature on the Fathead Minnow. Trans-
actions, American Fish Society. 100 (4) ;659-664, 1971.
5. Cesario, F. J., and J. L. Knetsch. Time Bias in
Recreation Benefit Estimates. Water Resources
Research. 6_(3) : 700-704, 1970.
6. Clawson, M., and J. L. Knetsch. Economics of Outdoor
Recreation. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press for
Resources for the Future, 1966.
7. Gulp, R. L., and H. E. Moyer. Wastewater Reclamation
and Export at South Tahoe. Civil Engineer (New York).
3_9_(6) : 38-42, 1969.
8. Gulp, R. L., J. C. Wilson, and D. R. Evans. Advanced
Wastewater Treatment as Practiced at South Tahoe.
Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office,
Washington, D.C., 1971.
9. Davidson, P., G. F. Adams, and J. Seneca. The Social
Value of Water Recreational Facilities Resulting from
an Improvement in Water Quality: The Delaware
Estuary. (In Water Research.) Baltimore, The Johns
Hopkins Press, 1966.
10. Dobie, J., 0. L. Meeheon, S. F. Snieszko, and G. N.
Washburn. Circular No. 35. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1956.
11. Dornbush, J. N., and J. R. Andersen. Ducks on the
Wastewater Pond. Water and Sewage Works. ,3_(6) : 271-276,
1964.
164
-------
12. Fish Raised in Wastewater Lagoons. American City.
p. 148, June 1972.
13. Grubb, H. W., and J. T. Goodwin. Economic Evaluation
of Water-Oriented Recreation in the Preliminary Texas
Water Plan. Rep. 84, Texas Water Development Board,
Austin, 1968.
14. Hallock, R. J., and C. D. Ziebell. Feasibility of a
Sport Fishery in Tertiary Treated Wastewater.
Journal, Water Pollution Control Federation. 42:1656-
1665, 1970.
15. Houser, E. W. Santee Project Continues to Show the
Way. Water and Wastes Engineering. ^7(5):40-44, 1970.
16. Huggins, T. G. Production of Channel Catfish (Icta-
lurus punctatus) in Tertiary Treatment Ponds.
(Unpublished Manuscript Thesis.) Towa State Univer-
sity, 1969.
17. Kalter, R. J., and L. E. Gosse. Outdoor Recreation in
New York State: Projections of Demand, Economic
Value, and Pricing Effects. Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp.
Station Spec. Series, Vol. 5. Ithaca, Cornell
University, 1969.
18. Konefes, J. L., and R. W. Backman. Growth of Fathead
Minnow (Pimephales promelas) in Tertiary Treatment
Ponds. Iowa Academy of Science. 22.' 104-111, 1970.
19. Moyer, H. E. South Lake Tahoe Water Reclamation
Project. Public Works. 99_(12) : 87-94, 1968.
20. Wakeman, B. New Lake at South Lake Tahoe, California.
Water and Sewage Works. 115:348-349, 1968.
21. Winn, Walter T., D. M. Wells, and R. M. Sweazy.
Recreational Reuse of Municipal Wastewater. Lubbock,
Texas Tech University, Water Resources Center,
July 1973.
165
-------
APPENDICES
A - Inventory of Wastewater Reuse Locations in the United
States
B - Minimum Water Quality Requirements of Selected Various
Water Users
C - Values of the ENR Construction Cost Index 1966-1974
D.- Cost Curves for Estimating Capital and Operating and
Maintenance Expenditures for Water Resource Facilities
E - Seven Percent Compound Interest Factors
166
-------
APPENDIX A
INVENTORY OF WASTEWATER REUSE LOCATIONS
IN THE UNITED STATES
TABLE A-l Effluent Used for Industrial Purposes
TABLE A-2 Effluent Used for Irrigation Purposes
TABLE A-3 Effluent Used for Groundwater
Recharge
TABLE A-4 Effluent Used for Fish Propagation
Purposes and Recreation
TABLE A-5 Effluent Used for Research and
Development Purposes
Note: Wastewater reuse facilities are tabulated in
alphabetical order according to state name on
each of Tables A-l through A-5.
A-l
-------
CQ
Cfl
553 rf\
0 g
B g
§ a
O EJ
^ ft
W CO ,j]
CO W a<
D E-J H
^ W w
ct; E>
EH °
f^ EH H
IS M
W £3 &*
EH £3 O
CO EM
!S K Q
EH W
P4 CO
OS D
H
S §
O W
EH 13
J3 »-l
^ £
S W
H
to
•P
a
P
§
CJ
CO -P
(D C
tn
-p
•iH \ 1
CJ O
j!3 tH
0) 13
g lCO - U O (X-iH •• « -rl
-PQIfljO CO 4J4J-P
•HEHfir'cQ4H*H g«WO
3 O ..-HO -P CO
C^rH -..4J4JOM (UdJ'Cf
i to cJ (0 o d) g * O (1) CJ "-P M -H
CO 0) O -H g -H -P -H -P H «
p}np4d4JMc043 O
•H fonSOP-H SHT343
*CJ CO ^ tn Q) rH "n4d (U rH ri
CjO)CQ}HM4^rClCJ WOn3
W-OcoO-POnJ-H C3OO
o
0 0
0 O « 0
n n
CN W> O rH
• • • CM
o o rg
O
CJ
CO
tn
•H
N ft, (i
N < CJ CO
rtj
-> 0
*• *H ^ T3
"2 ° S rt
(o c! (o M
"O Q) 43 O
tn H M H
nJ jQ j3 o
CQ g CQ CJ
O
CJ
&•
Gi v
O M .to
CJ O tn
0 CJ
M -H
Q) (D M
Oi tn ril ex
D< 'd CJ co
0 0
CJ Q O
^ T3
T3 co cJ (0
id p| (^ ^_j
'O H 43 O
tn H -H
-P rH
M "tJ
0) rH
CO O
D O
o
CN
r..
CVJ
^,
j2j
^
to
fd
tn
o
CO
m
>
%.
to
tn
CD
^>
CO
H-H
4J rH
>H tJ
Q) rH
CO O
CD 0
O
IjO
*
(SJ
rH
K>
hy
^
CO
tn
(U
CO
td
•
-P
CO
•H
Q
«
£•* cJ
S "J
CO
en •
id o
tnCJ
CU
^> ^\^
^
co (d
(d rH
^ CJ
A-2
-------
in -4-»
Q) C
tn Q)
• . »-*
M P
(d tH
^JIH
O 1-1
Q)
-P
• t .
'H M
c o
b n
tn
g
i
n
n
n*
0 0
o en
^ \
• \
r~ o
CO
-rH
4J
a
o
o
va
B M
tn
! ^
O
tM
tn
Q)
«• tn ••
tn JH -P
H rd d
a) 4^ a)
tn o B
4->
m
O
in
H
H
f^ ^*
0 ^
Locati
o
c;
1?
-rH
rH
•H
O
fd
CM
- X!
-d o
c
rd
rH -d
•d -rH
-rH CJ
g H
M
g
- M
. fd I
4J x:
d ffi -P
Q) ft a
B fd
4J *
fd a) •«
O g 4J
I
01
o
0
Q) -P
tn -H
H rH
Q) O
> Q)
Q) N
-P H Q)
E - M
M rrj 4J 43 -H
Q) H 0) rH tQ
tn o 3 -H
D O -nUH
i
cn
in
X
EH
o
o
J3
•3
^
X
EH
•3
o
& •
•rl t(l
O 4^J
•H tn
d o
1
o
•P
a
M rd
Q) 0)
in
*
in
X
EH
td
tn
u
Q)
T5
O
X
EH
(d
tn
A-3
-------
CN
1
f£
W
3
EH
CO
S3
O
H
EH
U
O
i_^
W CO S3
CO W O
>^ t™' H
9 ^ EH
CO O
tf H
W Q C<
EH W OS
fa
S3 W
H
CO -P
0) d
tji QJ
S_l j3
rd H tr>
.d «w g
OMH\
CO to-
^
•H >H
fi O
ID 4-t
H S g
O (U
> M
C
O
•H
4J
rd
O
O
i_3
0)
g
rd
C
K*I
-P
•H
i«f
•H
O
rd
fa
r^
o
•
•-I
tsi
N-«.
rdO rdU ^rdi a -H -H
coo) a-dc ^cc
CT^ )-4 C M Q) (d 0 0)
rdO «rdrdXcoOO
•HrH ^JMcurrJd)^^
fafa fa O t< M S CM CM
CJ
0
CO
•H 4J 4J
H H IS! C5 fi
CM -H rt, N rd rd
g N o ia rt!
(U
co H
j_i t*\
d) ro
CO H
3-H
rd
0 >
-P rd
0) -P
CT> O
M CH
rd
£! rd
O -P
rd
O Q
S3
1
Cn
CT* g
g N^
vvW-
VI-
l
0 I
A-4
-------
o
( contin x
fN
i
TABLE A
w -P
O G
tn CD
M 3
rd H t^
•o£\
0 (U E
*"*^ (j
v* rl
o
•rH
4J
td
u
o
name
!>i
4J
-H
•H
O
O
in
•
o
N
^
-P
-P
O
o
w
Q)
>_l
A
IS1
4j"
Prescot
o
•H
o
<
«.
o
-P
c
o
r]
LQ
School
0
-P
C
O
W M
(d
v O
H
fQ
o
rH
rH
tsi
^
g
O
CO
Q)
rH
rH
O
EH
tsi
rij
J"
Tolleso
dP *>
in o
M i i*
«6 «• E
to o to o
CU O (DO
rl-H
(d
o P
0)
M »W
D O
in
•
o
N
c
o
U
CO
X!
o
U
o
rH
CO
c
•H
U
(d
G
rsi
tS3
U
M-H
O M
(d
| i Hi
tQ 4-1
D O
m
•
o
g
H
C
S
us con
ilcox
o
H
CO
c
•H
xmona
c
•rH
M
.venal
vo
«
m
U
-d
rH
0)
•H
m
CO
-------
0
•p
c
o
U
W
(0 -P
(1) d
«d rH tn
O MH\
o-w-
•P
•H rH
c o
d) »d
g cu
3 to
rH 3
O 0)
> n
o
-H
4J
id
O
O
-H
O
id
fe
in
oo
U
•d
rH
0)
••H
m
to
M
a)
•3
«
-p
§
rH
CD
•
m
O
U
§
4J
0)
0)
•P
s
to
in
•w-
m
^
rH
•
O
rH
•
O
00
•H
O
•
O
o
o
CJ
0) -P
> to
••H -rH
ffj Q
O
s
CO
CO
-p
to
rd
•d
O
o
rH
m
o
rH
rH
•H
•P
id
M
0) rH
to at
C -P
O C
O 0
U
ra o
to
0)
c
Q)
10
id
CM
U
§
rH
iH
id
U
rH
•H
rd
g
rd
O
cn
•
o
•d
rH
0)
-rl
to
0)
fd
cq
•d
rH
(U
-H
•W
to
(D
id
m
rtj
0
^
g;
O
•P
to
^)
id
•d
0
o
£
0)
CQ
O
rH
rH
•rH
•5
C
0
4J
4J
3 <$
CQ O
•te
to
id
to
id
•3
rH
id
U
s
«,
g
rH
rH
id
o
cT
rH
r-4
•H
rd
g
rd
O
O
f-H
rH.
•H
M
id
e
id
U
JJ
CO
rH
O rd
rH 4J
r-H-H
-M CU
id O
§ K
U
A-6
-------
10 -P
CD 13
tT» CD
fd rH C7>
43 •H 6
QJ
JJ
•^J Jj
G C>
OtJ
6 Q)
3 to t)
rH P Cn
O CD g
> n
J3
O
•H
fd
d
3
c
H
4J CD
c s
O *o
U C
1?
(3
•H
g
O
O
to
CD g
O* r-l
M td
nj u-i
43
.p m CD
•-; O 6
Q) dp O
M in J3
D CM -H
^
O
g
^.
v^
0)
rH
-P
3
a
PK
M
CD
^{
3
A-7
-------
CD
, j
*r~t
-P
o
OJ
t
w
^
9
EH
10 -P
CD £
cr> CD
J_l £jj
rd rH &>
f-t m g
O M-l "X
CU -co-
•P
-ri Vl
ciS
CD no
E CD
3 TO t3
iH O tp
O CD E
r^^ t 1
C
o
•H
rd
o
o
1-3
O
E
C
5
r~1
rd
fa
1
0 | o
^^ ^sj* CO
05 01 0
ril ril *
CJ O -P
rd
O rd E
rd ^ rH
rH C H
CD -rH rd
Q Q H
Q
D
Ai
U O -P
*• •* n5
0 nj E
G Xi -H
rd 0 H
rH C S-l
CD -rH rd
Q Q W
1
1
o
n
o
6
CD
O
fi
•H
CO
H
S
rjT
sino
H
H
1
1
vo
cr>
o
g
O
O
H
rH
H
CU
-H CJ
rd co
O
M CD
O CO
EH rd
rH
W
1
1
r^-
**
0
g
CO
rd
4J
•H
•H
o
C
W
•
4J
CO
-H
Q'
.
rd
to
to
rd
-P
cini
C
w
o
OJ
TP
•w-
r»-
o
S
*.
M
CD
•P
CD
X
W
g
V
CD
-P
CD
X
W
o
vo
o
0
g
«w
0
O
X)
rH
rH
fa
-P
CO
•H
Q
.
rd
CO
O
a
rH
rH
rd
fa
1
1
m
01
g
rd
ii
4J
O
fa
<
^
rd
rH
-P
o
fa
1
1
n
01
o
o
^
rl
CD
rH
s
fa
g
%.
CD
rH
O
fa
O O O
C* OO IT)
CO rH 0
^
id rd O
rH rH CD
Pi PI u
1
1
tn
vo
0
U
cisco.
§
M
fa
§
CQ
•£
rd
Oi
CD
-P
rd
O
CD
rH
O
A-8
-------
•o
§
*J
c
•H
-P
CM
1
r4 ILJ F-
•** ^1 ,K
Q) -t/J-
4J
-H M
C O
CD "O
6 0)
rH 3 tn
00)6
^^ It
P!
o
•H
cd
o
o
1
J-
1?
•H
1
r~|
I
•H
U
id
0
in
0
g
(U
j3
rH
O
H
1
a a)
O H
to rH
3 fd
w >
o
CM
H
0- 0
oo ro
CM O
6 g
•>
- 0)
0) O
•H C
r4 >
H H
Q
*
0 Q
to C4
(U
fd
to >
H H
1
1
CO
o
S
%*
£
B
(U
r^
*»
§
g
M
0)
«
0
vo
I-J
o
<:
"
fd
T?
td
§
0
(d
^
4J
01
-H
O
s
to
O
o
*
^
1
1
-*
r-l
g
U)
rH
rH
•H
w
fd
rd
Hi
pT
0
'-P
fd
•p
-H
§
w
^
o
o •
g 0
(n C
in H
O
«
i
1
-*
o
3
rH
a)
tn
•rl
ftf
Cn
fd
^
.
Q
EC
r-l
0)
3
tp
•iH
2
C!
0
-P
rH
3
1
1 1
1 1
IO CO
CM O
O O
<
O
- 3
•P
Ij ^
0 4J
a c
0) O
t^ g
^ A
? s
5-1 *•
0 -P
04 C
G) O
JL* g
(d nj
r3 r^
A-9
-------
^5
d)
>r4
-p
^^
CN
<
w
M
§
EH
CO -P
CU C
cji 0)
Cd rH t7»
fH im ^
o in \
(U v>
-P
•H M
CJ O
E cu
13 w *d
o cu e
> H
o
•H
•P
cd
o
o
1
^
"
!^H
4J
•H
trt
r
m
i
1 O
vo
n in
0 0
<
< U
U
•» cd
(U -H
M T3
O cd
0 0
e s
(U 0)
•
Q
•
rtj O
U U
cd
CU -H
5-1 T)
O Cd
0 0
E S
CU (U
1 1
1 0 0 1
0 H
n oj r*. o
o •<* n o
g
O
CU
•• M i 0 U
cd E
CO -V4 ••
'O CU -H
C > T!
•H -H O <
^ *i i-q u
rH
o
o
Jl*j
o
CO
•s
(CtJ fj
U cd
ti tn
•H -H O O
1
I
rH
H
o
u
*»
cd
•a
c
•H
^
cd
E
o
^1
-p
•H
CO
cu
•H
c
!D
cd
t3
c
•H
cd
e
o
o
rH
0
CJ
^
CO
(U
rH
cu
tr>
a
10
o
,
-p
CO
•H
Q
-p
• c
C! cd
Cd rH
CO O<
^i cd
-PT3
C cd
o §
U U
cd
a
CO
0
m
4J
CO
•H
Q -P
C
• cd
S M
CO P)
CO
>i CU
-p -p
§CQ
cd
*o o
o a
m
• *3
a
10
o
,
.p
(0
•H
Q
-p
Cd rH
CO CM
>i CU
-P rH
C cd
§1
cd
• CM
(StJ
*
CM
CM
VJ-
r-
o
O
CO
-------
?
S
•H
4J
£2
O
o
""•^
CM
1
f-i ii t g
O 4H ^x
Q)
-P
m—l V 1
C 0
D MH
g M
_,
•H
ttl
o
i
K
C
>i
•P
-H
rH
•H
O
fa
i tr>
k Id
0) .£3
CX 0
o M
0 (U
• to
H 3
o
rrj
td
0)
S
u
V.
•d
o
o
0
•d
Q)
i
i
in
0
*
o
U
en
O
W
0)
-p
-p
en
o
c
-H
H
0
•d
c:
Id
d)
^i
M
(U
CU Q)
{71
o JH
<*^ fd
•X!
rH O
.
4J
-P en
C -H
P Q
O
S
1
1 0
in ro
o ro
* *
O (N
a
•d
H
Q)
••H
MH
CO
^-|
0)
,*
6(d
0
• •
en ro
•H en
Q
0)
Id -rl
W &
co m
o •
s^ 4-J
H ^ u)
ft -P-H
tl Ij f*\
Cl «^ 1—4
3 O
o
vo
•
o
rj
»
(U
'd
•H
en
cj
(d
(D
o
o
o
•*,
cu
•rl
CO
s
0)
o
o
1
1 0
vo
CT\ 'M'
• •
o o
CJ
< (U
o >
o
- u
o
•H Q)
M Cn
td c
-P td
C rl
0 0
<
•d u
C
(d
rH (1)
a >
D O
1 0
o
•H Q)
M CT>
id c
-P td
Cli
rn
0 O
A-11
-------
•d
3
c
4J
f4
O
o
^-'
1
w
i
EH
W--P
(U C
tj> 0)
H p
TJ I-H ty
(U -t/V
-P
•H JH
C 0
a) >d
6 Q)
rH 3 tjl
p a) e
*^ t 1
^^ ^»
f-4
§
•H
nt
O
0
"
(D
g
fd
C
^i
-H
rH
-H
o
fd
fc
1
rn
•-H
O
rtj
U
Q)
S*
rH
H
o
0
r<
O
-H
^3
U
-H
4-4
•H
0
rd
ft
i
l o
o
rH 0
rH rH
U
< (0
O tr>
•» -H
QJ M
rH p.
fd cn
rH rH
fd fd
ft ft
f3j
U
«.
-H
(1) 5-1
rH Q4
S H
rd rd
ft ft
1
1
rH
O
O
O
w
' G)
-P
-P
fd
ft
R£
U
N
c
0
w
^
(U
-p
4J
m
ft
|
m
t~-
0
<
U
(U
H
fd
D
(U
G
-H
ft
_i
rd
e
CJ
CQ
O
U
C
•0^-
1 1
1 1
CO
rH in
rH O
U
rtj ••
U -P
m
0)
Q) O
rH Q)
•d tn
Q) "d
a) -H
Pi 05
•
0
U •
ff, -p
O 4J tn
W -H
" 0) Q
^1 ^
0) O •
-------
—-»
fj
Q)
£j
d
•H
-P
a
o
o
~-^
CM
1
rfj
TT"]
,JJ
CQ
5!
r_,
0} -P
Q) C!
tn 0)
fd rH tn
c4 " ' ^
•*•? «r*
O 4-1 \
CU-W-
4-»
•H 5-1
G 0
> > fd
-H -H -H J
CtJ P4 Pn
O
C
H
^
d
o
•H
-P
fd
-p
> > CQ
•H -H -H O
Pi ftj OH Pi
1
1
tn
o
CJ
..
O
£j
•H
M
rd
g
CQ
C
ro
co
.
o
U
«
£>
• tr"f
O Q
CJ
O -P
C 01
-H -H
t3 P
fd rH
d fd
H-H
cu o
cq Q)
p.
d co
rd
CO
tn
rH
o
n
CJ
fc
o
d
•H
rfj
J_|
rd
g
cu
CQ
qj
rd
CO
rfl
U
«.
O
d
•H
rO
M
td
d
M
a;
ffi
d
rd
CO
0
rH
O
fi£
U
s.
o
d
3
CQ
d
fd
CO
CM
=*=
rH
-H
rd
1-3
•
O
U
•
d
rd
Ju|
CM
d
rd
CO
0)
CJ1
^-t
rd
x:
U
M
CU
CQ
O
O
CM
CJ
•k.
cu
-p
d
cu
e
C1J
H
CJ
£
fd
CO
rtj
U
v
Q)
•P
d
g
cu
H
U
d
CO
cu
r-l -P
X! CQ
rrj O
-P U
O
Cu >-l
OJ
CM 4J
\ fd
rH |5
•1
CM
n
i
-P
£1
3
o
CJ
cu
cu
-p
d
fd
CO
i
i
CO
.
CM
•3J
CJ
ta.
rd
4J
01
•H
•P
D
fd
CQ
£
fd
^
d
rd
CO
.
o
rij
CJ
».
o
U
CQ
•H
O
d
rd
14
co
Oi
CO
d
cu
cu
3
QJ
fj
2
o
l
l
<;
CJ
«.
O
(X
05
•H
XI
0
01
•r-l
3
§
CO
CJ
«.
o
ex
01
• r-)
XI
0
01
•H
3
J_p
(5
rd
CO
1
1
rH
o
•
0
s
1*
cu
(d
o
rtj
rH
rd
3
CJ1
CQ
rd
PL,
d
id
CO
A-13
-------
W -P
Q) G
tr> a)
rH 3
rd H tn
r* ii i f*
f*-4 * * *-4
CJ IW \
a)
4J
-H VI
G O
Q) tJ
S Q)
3 CO tJ
rH 3 tT>
p to e
^^ tj
r*^ n
G
O
•H
-P
rd
U
o
^
H rd
Q) C
tn 3
G tn
rd rd
CO H!
Q)
0)
•P
rH
m
(U
S"
m
x:
0 0
m
1 1 H III 1 rH
1 |
rd'tdojco-P 'QrdjC-P-PG *
4J 4j 4J rO 4-i a) > -P rd id rd -P
GCGXltd rHrH^rliHCn^
rdtdrd(Ux!
rdrdcuco^-pT^rdxi-P-PG •>•
4J4J4JrdMHcO(U>4Jfdrdrd-P
GGG.Q
-------
'CJ
(U
3
G
•H
-P
a
o
o
^^
(N
1
<
w
l_3
ffl
rij
EH
in -P
cu c!
tn d)
(d rH &>
r* im £•
O <4H\
CO «)-
43
•H 14
£ O
cu 'd
E O
rH 3 t7>
o cu e
> M
0
•H
-P
rrt
to
o
o
A
o
n
d
-P
-H
rH
•H
o
ttj
PM
o
(N
1 CM |
01 |
"^ rH
• I • 1
• 1 • I
01 01
CJ
«3 en
U ^
•• CD <
-H U
p, f(3
td c
x; (da
O cfi O
id 3 -P
r] O O<
CU < 4J -H
EH CJ EH EH
M iH en O I O
in
ro
oo H in
ro o o
Q
|
^1
CU
4J
CU
CJ
t>i
CU
rH
•H
nJ
>
1
o-o i
co
CO rH O
o m o
<
U
ft, rtj
CJ CJ -P -
O en
id (d ci
^ -H M -H
3 rH Q) M
•P fd G pj
c! in M co
0) -rH Id
en
tn
C •
< rij -HO
CJ CJ 5H CJ
* CO -P
(d td M
M -H SH O
3 «H cu en
-P td ecu
C en M (Z
cu -H fd
l
0 1
r- co
o o
<
U
r< -d
CJ M
o
O VH
O CU
en -P
id id
SS !2
-g
E
e -
o .
CJ -P
en
Q T3-H
!=) M Q
C^i O
m .
O M >
O CD M
en -P cu
id id co
A-15
-------
rr^
Tj
cu
i™<
P
a
-H
-P
c
o
o
^-^
CN
1
CD C
Cn 0)
LJ «"t
H P
td H tf>
jd *n 6
I1 4 ' W
O U-l \
Q)
-P
•H J-l
C O
D «H
CU T3
em
CU
a co n3
•H 0 tr>
p cu E
> M
CJ
O
•H
-P
id
o
0
1-3
§
(d
C
1?
-H
rH
-H
O
td
CM
1 1
0 I I
vo in
Ot CO tH
• • •
o o o
<
CJ
•h
T3
< c
cj (d
rH
^ -P-
T3 (d
CU CU
cu <: .c
& cj s
m
g
cj o • (do
O > H -H
S rH -P rH
•X3 -P Q) (d J3
CU CO CO CU P
CU 0) X! ft
S £ &
1
1
•H
-------
03 -P
d) d
tr> o)
X! MH g
oiwX
OJ M
O
•H
•P
(d
O
i-l
OJ
J3
d
-H
•P QJ
d 6
O 'd
3 d
i>i
•P
CN -H
1 rH
^C -H
O
H rd
i "1 |V.|
EH
o
o
rH
QJ
O
j_l
O
PM
M J
•H PM
rt]
«.
d QJ
•H 03
tn (d
rH OQ,
w
M
(U
-P
(d
-p
>1 03
-P-H
d Q
3
O SH
U QJ
s
(d QJ
03 CO
o
O nd
rd (d
O
!
(N
O
CM
«.
(T3
J_l
3
Q
03
M
Q)
4J
QJ
PM
.
•P
CO
fa
V
Cn
3
c\
>H
0)
•P
QJ
CM
-P
CO
o
o
CN
J_q
CM
^
OJ
dJ
03
03
rd
if
H
rd
EH
^q
PM
«.
0)
QJ
03
03
r]
rd
rH
rH
rd
EH
1
1
m
H
,
CM
rrj"
H
M
0
^"1
0)
03
•H
Q
-P
H
rd
>*
^
PM
^
rH
J_|
0
1
^1
dJ
03
-r-|
P
4J
rH
rd
S
1
I o
m H
0 0
Q
H
^ Q
C2 1 1
CD
QJ
^3 QJ
^ 03
Q) -H
X! O
i
s
p.
g
0
O
4J
§
•H
O
Cj
dJ
QJ
O
1
1
CO
rH
O
S:
H
>.
o
Cn
M
rd
^
r«
o
•H
-p
rd
l_i
O
p, '
SH
O
U
X
dJ
^j
0
H
QJ
U
1 1
1 1
r*^ ro
0 rH
0 0
j2
H
- CO
m $4
-P
j3 ^
rd QJ
ffi -p
4J
QJ QJ
t 1 1
J-l ^
dJ 0
EH CO
03
4J
dJ
rH
O
co co
W
rH
(ft **•
•H d)
O -P
M | >
QJ
0 rH
o o
H
s
H •»
g 03
•H
•» rH
Cn 0
d &.
T3 03
rH 03
OJ rd
CQ U
i_l
^
H
S, 03
•H
H
Cn O
d Pi
•H O
'd 03
rH 03
dJ rd
CQ U
A-17
-------
to -P
a; a
tn CD
r-l P
aJ rH &>
O IH \
cu
4J
•H J-l
d 0
0) t3
g CD
rH P CD
O (!) g
> H
O
-H
4J
O
"
T3
cu
P
d
•H
-P Q)
d e
O td
o d
*-"
$*i
CN -P
1 -H
.
cu
rH
rH
•H
CU
rH
t3
'O
-H
a
(_ i
a
K
cu
rH
H
-r^
>
CU
rH
id
•rH
a
i i
i i
00
o in
O CN
0 0
H
a
«.
"tj
•H
H >
a o
CO
HH ^ i
a o
D
«. 3
g -a
5 O
O M
• y q
T3 iH O
CtJ -H-H
a «P
• id
o d-H
U «J O
IT> O
id -H co
^ x; to
id o flj
X -H
o a
i
i
m
rH
g
§
G
0
g
j-i
-H
(0
CtH
p.
g
O
d
id
£»
t>i
•H
(U
O
-P
CO
1
1
CN
rH
g
§
«.
1
O
-P
d
o
a
>i
Q
id
p.
g
O
U
-P
fj
td
•H
a
p;
CU
J-l
C5--
0 0
"5?
o in
0 0
0
a
«,
JH
-P
•H O
u a
d
O TJ
CO O
W O
(U £
IH o
cu o
T3
j_i
id
o
PQ
>>
j_i
td o
cu a
OJ
•P T3
td O
•P O
to £
. -g
o o
a i-i
i i
i i
o m
ro o
r^
a
..
cu
d
o
4J
CO
EH O
3 rH
rH
CU
d
yH ^»
C_|
§J
«.
0
d
o
-P
CO
H O
a rH
rH
CU
Iti >H
(U -P
rH CO
OX CU
a S
A-18
-------
frt
\J
CO
G
-H
-P
G
X
^2.
7
ff.
w
1
EH /
in +J
CO G
tn co
in 3
itf i— i tu1
{•< ii i r^
o m \
co -w-
-P
-H rl
C O
CO 'O
£ CO
3 w -d
rH £5 CJ^
O CO g
^^ V j
G
o
•rH
4J
nJ
o
o
M
CD
~~
**
.
M
-H
*~j
0 O
II CM n
1 1 o -en- «>
rH
f~
H o oo m
I . .
O | rH CO "*
£* J>
53 53
W >
W 53 W in
53 (0 rtJ
s J> Cr> cr>
*• >i 53 . CU 0)
•P J5 t-" K"
G rH v
nJ CD >i w w
M rf ,— ( (^J (TJ
O CO W r^ 1^
-P
CO
•H
Q
•
> G
53 fiJ
CO
W
W 53 co
12 nj o
>i 53 ^
G -H M
nj Q) ^ u) f^
JH x; rH m H
O to W ^ O
0
•5J*
*
o
^3
fO
o
D
j3
e
CO
G
•iH
«»!S
f>
53
ta
o
O
nnemu
•H
SE
i
i
in
•
m
1-3
53
*.
C
O
-P
CU
Cn
13
-H
^l
CQ
,
O
H
10
'O
0
o
c
0
w
10
CU
EC
1
c
w
i
i
in
•
o
ha
53
•*
£X|
J-|
3
Q
G
(fl
^
U
O
G
1— 1
0
•H
(Q
4J
•H
nj
CO
OJ
-P
tr>
0
1
1
n
•
rH
(-3
J2
X
B
CO
rH
(0
CO
1
p.
g
O
o
N
G
•H
CU
w
•
r"^
•
ffi
I
I
in
•
CN]
a
53
•*
O
T3
^i
O
Cr>
O
g
(3
rH
JS]
53
0
'O
^1
0
I
(«
rH
T<
T3
CU -H
•»-> xi
to
i. j ..j i
P*I r^n
(0
4J 3
•H G
ft* (0
vo
•
o
53
«.
n3
•H
in
CU
4J
JH
a
53
^
tesia
iH
<1
•
** W
CO >i
t i li
nJ a)
r-] pH
O
o
M o
CO 0
CO rH
O
•
^3*
S
53
v
CO
•H
£>
O
rH
O
a
53
ovis,
rH
CJ
.. J.
CU S
It i
(d c
& c
o
c
r) C
CO C
W r-
m
•
rH
a
53
K
D^
G
•H
g
CU
Q
a
55
t£
G
•H
E
Q)
Q
A-19
-------
T3
Q)
G
•H
-P
G
0
CN
1
<
W
rn
3
B
03 -P
(U G
H 3
fd rH &l
O *4-l N?
^ < v
jj
•«J Cj
rn r-l
G«w
e o
P 03 TS
rH 2 tF>
o Lj
G
o
-H
-P
rd
O
0
t-3
in
rd M
45 0)
O CU
H O
(U O
03 CN
D v>
g
„
tn
M
X!
03"
TJ
O
£
S
v
Oi
n
03
T3
n
O
2
03
O
fd
H
rtj
03
O
QJ
•H
-P
•H
•H
•H
4J
ID
0
U
W
0
E
rd
•3
03
O
g
2
N
G
O
4J
tr>
G
•H
>
O
J
g
s
•k
G
0
•P
G
•H
>
0
s
^
^
03
(1)
rH
fd
.jj
M
O
g
«.
03
0)
r^i
rd
4J
M
O
g
V
C
0
-P
ftf
«
g
C
o
•p
fd
o
•
M
Q)
03
O
00
*
O
in
CM
H
•
o
rH
O
O
in
&
IZ
^
d)
pL(
(1)
4J
G
en
g
2
^
fl)
pL|
(1)
4J
G
CO
g
•H
^1
rd
O
g
d
O
3
Q
2
C
O
03
G
•H
O
-H
Q
O
••
-P
•H
U
0)
CO
•H
0
«
O
^
G
fO
O
fj
3
Q
g
%
-H
rH
0)
s
03
O
rd
rH
ft
•d
rd
o
(X
4J
r^
O
O.
j^l
•H
<•
Plant
tJ
rd
O
PH
H
0)
rH
•H
JZU
g
,.
•H
^-1
rd
O
g
3
O
^(
E-<
a
«.
G
0
03
•H
^
0
•H
Q
O
^
-P
•H
u
OJ
03
•H
O
CQ
Jy<
o
•*
G
rd
O
C
Q
A-20
-------
•a
-^
CM
1
H
i
EH
W -P
a) a
tn Q)
JH D
(tf rH ty
OlIJ X^
^^ ^^
CD
0 M
a
o
•H
-p
nJ
U
O
i-l
CD
g
ftf
fj
r*i
-p
•H
r-)
-H
O
ftf
o
CM
O
jy-
O
«.
y
o
-rH
0)
•d
H)
M
En
f4
o
«.
y
O
•H
D
Q)
SH
EM
1
1
in
o
p^
O
^
•a
Q)
p^
o
•*.
c
a;
CQ
i
1 0
o o
CN CM
O
•• PH
a; o
o
M O
O M
O
-P A
w *w
Q) rH
M rH
O -H
PH K
o
OJ
tn
^
0)
nJ
in K
0) O
0) •>
co O
T5 O
Q) rQ
-H W
Ml i
•H H
C -rl
D BJ
1
1
t^
CM
K
o
(U
-p
(C
(U
Q)
En
1
C!
0
4J
•H
p^
O
J_l
QJ
-P
fd
^
OJ
0)
En
d
o
-p
rH
-H
s
1
1
CM
H
PH
o
^
y
U
o
PH
4J
O
-r(
P^
t>1
§
&
g
O
U
g
to
a*
o
w
•
i
i
m
o
«
O
V
T3
rH
(U
•H
4-1
tn
C
•H
&
w
J>i
rj
04
g
O
U
M
(U
W
3
0)
nd
,(-;
M
0)
a)
i i
1 1 0
in
o co
CM rH CM
O O CO
<
P-l
X
OJ X
rH ^i
-H JZ
> -P Q)
M (0 C
Q) C Q)
rH M rH
tr> QJ -H
-H -9 -Q
CQ rij 1
tX 4n *"
rH 4J CU
•rH (d C
SCO)
M rH
•p a; -H
Q) iQ o
p [ 1^ 1^
o
i
0
CO |
•w- I
00
CO O
<£> O
X
EH X
EH
O
H -p
rH CQ
,_J tl
rn ^i
M Q)
g 1
X
EH X
EH
O
H -P
rH CO
•H M
M OJ
•S- ^
1 1
1 1
CA ^J1
r- O
0 0
X X
EH EH
^ *.
C C
0 O
10 -P
5 S
X X
EH EH
^ **
a c:
0 0
i i
i
i
o
rH
O
X
EH
V.
-p
£
0
g
V-|
0)
a
s
X
EH
^
4J
d
Q
g
!H
OJ
a
A-21
-------
a
-p
Cj
0
o
•*-*
CN
1
<
w
rH1
EH
W V
a) a
irJ rH Cn
f* M^ fi
o «w \
(1) -W-
4J
•
00)6
'"'i i_l
fc*1^ ^*
c
o
•H
-P
, c
"C r? 'S 0
O id M JH
PQ 35 CQ CQ
1
1
in
VD
o
X
EH
•.
-P
Q)
C
d
X!
M
3
PQ
X
EH
«*,
-P
Q)
|
X!
3
CQ
1
1
^j<
H
O
X
EH
..
4J
Q)
C
jj
PQ
X
EH
4J
0
C
M
3
PQ
1
1
•5P
O
o
X
EH
ft.
0)
rH
rH
-H
£>
O
4J
CO
^D
rH
O
X
EH
V
id
rH
rH
rj
IH
o
o
X
EH
«
rH
•2
O
a
i
n
o
X
EH
*»
G
a
Q)
rH
O
O
X
EH
S
c
s
rH
0
U
1
1
rH
in
o
X
EH
v
£X(
^J
•H
u
0
73
(d
J^
0
rH
O
u
X
EH
V
>x
-P
-H
O
O
•a
(d
j-i
O
rH
O
CJ
A-22
-------
Q)
£
-iH
-P
O
o
^— •
t\j
1
w
!_q
m
3
EH
W 4J
tJ> CO
4J
•H in
C 0
•— * ii i
*— ' ^~|
CU 13
g cu
O QJ g
K^ (j
*^ "
c
o
•H
H->
id
O
O
CU
g
fO
fj
J>>,
4J
•H
rH
-,-|
O
Tj
t<
1
1
Sf
O
X
EH
«,
CU
u
1
o
u
X
EH
..
CU
A
O
c:
• g
o
u
i
i
CM
O
O
Q
X
EH
-P
M
O
M-l
g
O
U
X
EH
•.
-P
J_l
O
g
0
u
1
1
__,
n
0
X
EH
^
CU
§
M
U
X
EH
K
CU
c
m
M
u
i i
i i
rH
O rH
O O
X
EH
•*
>l
-p
C X
3 EH
O
U
4-> O
4J 4J
QJ Sj
"1 ™
j_i j_i
o u
X
EH
^
>i
4J
C X
3 EH
0
U
c
4J 0
4J 4J
CU !>i
V rQ
0 w
O O
M M
U U
1
1
Q
o
X
EH
V
U}
-H
(d
H
i
^i
u
X
EH
^
to
G
rt
rH
P4
w
CO
o
(-1
u
1 1 1
1 1 1
0 ^P 0
(M VD "Jl1
rH O O
X
EH
•b
S-
4J X X
•H EH EH
CJ
H 4J O
f$ JH -H
>! 5 rH
SH (0 CU
U Q Q
X
EH
N.
>1
4J X X
U
rH 4J O
<0 S-l -H
4J fij PH
w x:
M i X
EH 4J X EH X
•H EH EH X
- CJ ^ EH
C ^ -P
•H > -H 1 H |
CU CU d) 'H "3 £3
Q Q Q Q Q Q
X
EH
*,
X >i X
•H EH EH X
U » EH
C 4-> «•
O M cu 4-1 r4 v
W CD C -rl -H OJ
•H > -r| g rH (d
g rj j> g n £
CU CU CU "H 3 3
Q .Q_ Q O Q Q
A-23
-------
!
T3
CU
3
£
-H
-P
C
O
0
»fc^»
CN
1
<
cq
i-q
m
13
EH
W 4J
0) C!
On a)
ij >-«
M ,-J
Ot rH 13>
XJMH g
o m \
Q)
•P
•H Vl
C O
JD'H
/It |7-4
\U ^J
cs O
3 S3 "S.
rH 3 0*
o tu 6
> n
c
o
•H
-P
rd
O
O
1-3
1
•P
-H
H
-H
0
id
CM
I I I l
l l l I
CN
a\ i
-P
•H
O
CO
rH
rH
id
CM
X
EH
^
>1
-P
•H
U
CO
rH
rH
id
CM
l
1
cr>
r-
0
X
EH
•t
rH
rH
0)
%
c
id
CM
X
EH
*»
rH
rH
CU
%
s
id
CM
1
1
vo
^1<
0
o
X
EH
Hi
0)
O
c
Q)
M
0
rH
CM
X
EH
v.
CU
0
G
CU
M
O
rH
CM
1
1
r^
o
o
X
EH
H,
id
T)
id
•d
>i
0
rH
CM
X
EH
*.
id
T3
id
T3
>i
0
rH
CM
1
1
o
c?\
o
X
EH
*»
G
0
-P
X
0
O
4J
CO
4J
rH
o
CM
X
EH
%.
C
0
nJ
X
0
O
4->
CO
-P
rH
O
-CM-
1 1
1 1
rH
O V£>
0 rH
O O
X
EH
t?
rH
3
JQ
CO
^ X
0 EH
•H
rH
(1) M
•d CD
CU CU
rH M
CM CM
X
EH
«n
tn
M
3
^3
CO
rVJ X
0 EH
••H
rH
CU rH
•d cu
cu aj
rH rH
CM CM
1
1
IT)
CN
o
X
EH
ft*
id
C
0
•H
VH
CM
X
EH
•k
id
c
0
•H
M
CM
1
1
o
<*
o
X
EH
H.
XJ
O
-P
••H
VH
CM
X
EH
H.
x:
o
-P
•H
rH
CM
A-24
-------
G
-H
-P
G
O
O
^-*
(D
f* M 1 F*
O HH \
0)
-P
•H M
G O
0)13
c flt
CH UJ
•H 3 tr>
O (D E
> n
G
O
•H
-P
flj
O
O
t-J
Q)
{3
(0
G
;>i
-P
•H
i— |
-i-l
O
nJ
C4
1
1
vo
o
o
X
EH
«.
gj
-P
-H
rd
4J
"•rj
rH
O
o
X
EH
V
Q)
-P
•H
rd
U
r;
T>
H
O
O
1
1
CO
o
o
X
B
s
e
vi
o
o
X
EH
V
G
(d
e
^
0
u
1
1
CN
o
O
X
EH
^
M
0
td
Iq
O
X
EM
v
T3
j_i
0
rd
iq
rj
1
^
o
o
X
EH
>.
to
rH
rH
rd
"0
G
fd
^i
0
X
EH
<
w
rH
rH
fd
Pn
G
^
U
1
1
o
f-
o
X
EH
«.
0
G
rd
^i
0
X
EH
•.
^i
Q)
tr>
C
M
O
1
1
n
H
o
X
EH
s.
J_(
(U
-P
G
QJ
U
(U
rH
id
K
X
EH
s.
V(
QJ
-P
G •
(1)
U
Q)
H
fd
K
t I I
1 1 1
r^ co m
O H rH
o o o
X
EH
X
EH X >,
EH id
r^ "^1
ft -P H
Dj rj rH
rtJ fd o
H3 M M
X
EH
X
EH X >i
EH rd
^ T3
Dl -P H
Dj M rH
fd rd o
W W W
! o !
o o^
o^ ^* ^^
o o o
X
EH
X
- X EH
W EH
rd * o"
rG O ^
fd T3 rH
G G rd
O O 13
X
EH
X
- X EH
CO EH
G
rd - o
.cj O T3
fd T3 H
G G rd
O O T3
E -W- H
1 1
1 1
rH
O
CN O
0 0
X
EH
X
EH (U
•n
- -H
D 1C
O Q)
H rH
rd Cn
•73 G
H H
X
EH
X
EH (U
- -rH
d w
o o
rH rH
od tr>
T3 G
H M
1
1
*
O
O
X
EH
*,
>i
-P
•H
G
O
W
G
r] •
0
X
EH
*.
>i
4J
•H
U
G
O
to
G
O
•"3
A-25
-------
W -P
"^1 M
c o
a) «d
f— ni
g u»
3 to "X3
o (u e
> M
§
-iH
•P
O
O
•o
-H
-P O
G 6
O «d
o, c
*-*
CM -P1
i -H
< rH
•H
O
r?i (ft
[ "I prj
|T|
EH
1 1
I 1
CM ro
rH CO
0 0
X
EH
H
•P1 X
•rl 6H
U
CO 4J
CU -rl
G e
id
Q)
^
,
1
in
o
o
o
X
EH
V
(U
o
tr>
Hi
•H
X
X
EH
V
Q)
M
O
•H
^
1 1
1 1
rH *3*
CO O
0 0
X
EH
X
* EH
0)
H ^
H 0)
•H -P
> CO
co O
tr> U
G
•H (d
M ^
X
EH
* EH
rH «.
rH 0)
-H -P
> CO
CO O
tr> U
G
•H cd
M i—l
1
1
m
rH
rH
EH
*.
id
CO
(d
^
X
EH
•.
O CU
X
X *
EH «.
G
O id
rH rH
G H
Q) CU
M >
O CU
1
1
^
"*
O
X
EH
•*
-0
H
(U
•H
rH
•P
-P
-H
*
X
EH
•o
H
(U
•H
MH
CU
rH
4J
-H
(^
*
Q
H
O\
rH
1 rH
I •.*
CM i-H
o o
X
X EH
EH
«.
*• I>i
T3 CU
H G
O ^
IN u
>i O
r3 J
X
X EH
EH
«. JX(
t3 Q)
rl C
0 X
4-1 O
>i O
i-3 >-3
1
1
n
CM
o
X
EH
•*
^i
1
O
o
a
X
EH
«.
JX|
CU
g
U
o
a
rH
-------
(0 -P
(U C
Grt OJ
n 0
Id rH 01
rH uj ci
i* < ^^ i— •
o m\
Q)
O O E^
>t 1
*H
f4
o
•H
4J
id
o
o
Q)
C
-H
"e E
O id
O c
,^
jj
^ t!
i ,q
O
r
^
1
1
m
rH
X •
EH
«.
S-
cKinle
g
X
g-i
..
S-
Kinle
o
S
I |
I I
ro
rH
I o
X
EH
* EH
^i
Q) *
g s
-H 0)
% 3
g g
X
EH
X
- EH
0)
a a
C id
-H QJ
tf J
0 0
g s
1
1
CO
CM
o
X
EH
V
id
IH
M
id
g
X
EH
S
id
MH
M
id
S
l
• T3
g §
T3 H
id T3
0) -H
S S
1
1
CM
o
o
X
EH
in
0)
S
X
EH
W
OJ
.,_!
S
1
1
o
o
rH
X
EH
v
W
on ah an
S
X
EH
•.
CO
nahan
Q
S
1
1 1
•<*
CM m
o o
X
EH
X
EH
Q)
- O
C A
O CO
-P i
id
T3
S
X
EH
&
•d
c
d
S
i
i
H
O
O
X
EH
ft*
G
ordhei
"Z,
X
EH
*k
G
rdhei
o
&
i |
i i
pv \f)
o o
0 0
X
EH
X
EH d)
£>
O
rH H
rH 0
O
rH M
rH O
O
a o
a tn
S §
M
0 0
A-27
-------
M -P
CU G
CT> Q)
fd rH tr>
43 «W 6
O MH\
(U -co-
-p
-rJ Jl
c o
»-} ^1
§ Q)
d CO TJ
•H d tn
On) £
vy *-*
> ^
r<
o
-H
i
JJ
CM *j
1 "j
< -H
U
ro nl
EH
1
I
CO
CM
O
X
EH
**
•s
O
d
T3
fd
04
X
EH
i
U
d
T3
(d
04
i i
i i
to ro
CM CO
O O
X
EH
•> X
H EH
H
(d
CO CO
rt o
0) QJ
04 O4
X
EH
- X
•H EH
rH
(d
CO CO
M rd
rd U
(D -i
d
J3
CO
M
(U
-p
0)
04
1
1
o
o
X
EH
CO
G
•H
frj
•H
P<
X
EH
«.
CO
G
•H
id
rH
O4
1
1
rH
O
X
EH
*,
-P
CU
-P
O
04
X
EH
*,
4J
Q)
0)
-P
0
O4
1
1
o
CM
O
X
EH
V
-p
G
O
e
0)
o<
X
EH
*i
-P
C
i
0)
M
O4
1
1
o
o
X
EH
».
d)
CJ1
fd
-P
-H
d
a
X
EH
•.
CU
d
D1
fd
-P
-H
d
a
i i i
i i >
CM
O O O
CM CM O
O O O
X
EH
•»
0)
rH
X rH
X v EH -H
EH >
- 'd
C G
CO -H O
H X 6
> — 1 G ^i
rd fd fd
O1 ff! &
X
EH
(!)
rH
X rH
X EH -H
EH >
* -d
G G
CO -rl O
H rVj g
rH G >1
fd fd fd
04 .05. OH
o
CN
O
O
X
EH
>.
CO
<
Q)
to
CU
CU
K
X
EH
».
m
%
i
G -P
••H -H
H U
CO 0)
•d
•d G
rd M
rH O
O O
•H -H
On OJ
X
EH X
EH
CO -
tn >,
G -P
•H -H
5H U
CO CU
•d c
G fd
rd >H
rH CJ
•S o
•H -H
,tf 05
A-28
-------
W -P
tr> a)
M 3
rtf H tr>
0) -W-
-P
_ j t i
rn n
c o
Q) 13
g a)
"n 3 e*
^^ li
,
r*
o
•H
4J
• X - EH - EH H
H^4J»'«
> -Prd
aw-P^CCCnSEnJrHro^,
OOOnjnJnJnJQJOxJ'rirHC
P4KC5CCCOCOCOCOCQCOCOCOCO
X
X X X EH
EH EH EH X X
X EH X - EH
X •> EH EH r(
Q)X EnO fd^ (U*XX
rHEHX rH "CW "-PCEHEH
rH EH-(U(dGrH£.|J-'>
>0)%-n3cro nJOOMRri
OlOCC^COnJMGrHQJOQ)
(UOttf-H -PCn-HrH>+)tJ
D»w-P^Cqc!nJ6(0'-i'0>i
OOO'onJ'tJnJ
-------
Q)
G
-H
4>
O
O
v"*
^
K
ff
rt
EH
W -P
Q) G
JH 3
(d rH tr>
*— « It i Cl
0) -w-
-P
__J t..i
*rl rt
CO
E <1>
3 w "O
rH 3 in
O/1X EJ
Q) K
1*^ t 1
'K^ rt
.H
o
jj
Id
o
o
-i a)
'd g c «u
3335
CO CO CO CO
i i • i t i
1 1 0 I I 1
CM
oo o o f*i cr>
rH CM CT> O rH rH
o o o o o o
X
B
X
EH
X X X X fi
EH EH EH EH O
C -P
* •» - - r) CTI
(d M d) d) O G
x o -d O ffi -ri
O rH rH rH rH
rj ^| (d (d C rH
(d (d ^ ^ (d o
EH EH P ib > &
X
EH
X
EH
X X X X G
EH EH EH EH O
G -P
*. K V «. J_| tf^
(d M Q) Q) O C
^ O t3 O ffi -H
O H rH H rH
fC ^"1 fQ Hi C rH
flj fd !> ^ nj Q)
EH EH a D > S
1
1
^*
0
0
X
EH
*.
0)
O
(d
«
4J
•H
&
X
EH
«fc
0)
O
(d
14-|
OJ
4J
•H
^
A-30
-------
f* *| 1 P"
Q) -W-
•P
-H rH
G O
JD m
(U 13
6 CD
^ 10 'O
•H 3 tn
n m £
W U>* (-*
^^ ^ 1
c
0
•rH
4J
rd
O
o
O
c
"
,.
*^*
-H
, 1
t * I
•H
rt
M4
1 1 1 1 III it
III|°IIIOO|I
•^ in
rO 0 CM 0 H H
ooO'*orH'3 § «. 5
X •• ••
EH En-Pa) Sd)rH!S«rH
*• •rHrd«- >J(d I2<1)
-CO ».CJ-H,hq G"(d
O CD d ,G ^i (d U fd Q) ^ j^
tOHJ^HJGrHGCUH'OGM
HG'odGxJ-H'drH^HidTH
•H-rHOodciidO'd'dM'd
S^>n>HCO|iiOico!S!Sli(CM
>1
rH
•H
. . rd
04 o Q
H CJ
O ft( CQ
x o £ n a;
EH iCU&i
•• •HCO1' ^(d i^GG
^co»-cj (d*-idi2^ (dcfl,
GrHg H-P^r^ G.Ugj
ocudxjcufdo fdcU'to-Hc
co-P,V4J CQ SH C ftrH'd Q) MO
rH C (d d-HXl-H rtJrH M |5 (DO
•rH-HOO'dCiidO'd'doS
*> *5* ^4 ^J ^X ("T^ f^l Crt *^T *^ S^ fE
1
1
in
r*.
o
H
».
(U
H
rH
•H
CO
<1>
G
-------
-p
c
O
O
CM
I
w
•O -P
n
c
O
•H
O
s
6
nl
C
-P
•H
rH
•H
O
in
I
(U
£
G
0)
>i
0)
X!
O
(0
ti
-H
nl
s
C
0)
ui
C
•H
(U S
5 S
A-32
-------
m
I
<
w
§
EH
to
!S
0
H
EH
dj
8
^
CO
w w
CO EH
ID rij
W EH
K CO
0H Q
H M
EH EH
rij H
5 2J
W D
EH
CO W
< ffi
& EH
fa 2
O H
jx
PH
O
EH
S5
^
J3
H
M
O
05
rtj
SJ
O
g
PS
U
£-1
rt]
Q
*^
ID
Q
CM
O
05
O
fa
Q
W
CO
D
EH
J2J
w
ID
fa
W
Q
S
0)
Cn
• n
rd
j5
o
(D
CM
4-1
O
CD
CO
O
J-j
ft
G
O
•H
•P
fd
O
O
>1
o
G
0)
tn
ri|
Cn
G
•H
tT>
rd
G
S
-
<*
-P
G
CD
f*
CO
•H
G W
CD CD
rH -H
pt }-|
CD M
M rd
XI
CD M
•P 0)
fd -P
£ rd
Tl £
£
P -P
O rH
in rd
O W
• •
^
CJ
s.
£
o
-p
CD
H
•a
G
CD
ft
fl|
g
O
•
p.
^4
O
CJ
CD
•H
}»l
rd
a
•
10
•
ID
CN
-P
G
CD
g
CO
•H
£
CD
i— |
04
CD
^1
M
CD
fd
%
•O
£
0
M
U
•
rtj
U
K
4J
CD
g
as
j-i
Q)
rd
[2
H
rd
ft
•H
O
•H
G
P -P
S 0
•H
G M
j_l [ \
CD CO
-P-H
CQ Q
rd
M
in
0
•P
CJ
CD
g
J3
CQ
•H
c w
CD CD
rH -H
ft M
CD M
rl rd
Q
>-l
CD M
•P CD
rd -P
S rd
TJ ^
G
P -P
O rH
o co
• •
£H
2;
•d
g
rd
rH
CQ
H
Cn
O
,_q
4J
c*
CD •
^ ^
M ID
rd
ft 1 >i
CD (D
Q CO >
rS4 5H
^i SH P
•P O CO
G !2
P rH
O O rd
CJ-rl O
H -H
P XI Cn
rd P O
CO ft H
en O
rd m CD
2 0 O
rd
UD
CD
CQ
CD
CD
CD
EH
S
CD
13
•H
CQ
g
CD
O
O
CD
Q
CD
CD
W
'O
§
CD
•P
rd
in
rH
-P
G
CD
CQ
•H
C S"|
CD CD
rH -H
ft JH
CD rl
rl (d
XI
CD rl
-P Q)
rd -P
O H
O CO
u
-P
c
CD
Cn
CD
id
p -p
O O
CJ-H
CD -P
Cn CQ
G -H
fd D
rl
U
CN
Q)
rl CQ
rd
CD -P
-P C
id CD
CD
EH
O
rH
id
(D
rH -P
rH O
fd-H
> M
-P
id co
rl-H
rd Q
H
O rl
CD
rd 4J
•P id
in
rH
Q)
CO
•H CD CD
M
O
G
CD
rd
0)
to
CD
O
X!
ft
O
•H
4J
rd
CD
CQ
G
O
CJ >i
M O
O -P
•P id
id M
is o
XI
• rd
to A
(N
CD
•H
M
(d
X)
-P
rd
.p
H
id
u
fd
co
a>
-p
G
i
CD
rH
o
G
id
CO
•H
CJ
-P
G
CD
CO
•rl
G
CD
(U
CD
-P
rd
t)
G
O
G
•H
CD >
-P
G
g -H CO
CD O -d
H H G
CJ CJ (d
• CO
•P H
G
"en
H
O
O
A-33
-------
•d
CO
•H
G
0)
rH
ft
i O
rH -H
•H -P
M id
id M
»H (U
O D4
D40
S .
§tP
O
-P H
CO CU
>1
CO Q
O
+>*
<3) 10
CO
Q) >
in a;
ft 2
o
A-34
-------
a
§
cn
z
0
H
EH
3
S
cn
W W
cn EH
D rti
W EH
K cn
04 Q
W W
EH EH
rt! H
W D
EH
cn w
!S K
S EH
EM Z
O H
S
O
EH
Z
5
z
H
Z
o
H
EH
<^4
H
S
U
S
Q
Z
0
H
S
o
<
i
(^
a
cn
H
fti
PH
O
CM
Q
H
cn
D
EH
Z
W
D
H)
EM
EM
W
CQ
4J
d
Q)
E
E
0
U
IQ 4J
0) d
Cn (U
M 13
nj H Cn
-d *w E
O ^W \»
d)
4J .
•H H
d o
P M-l
O
I OJ'd
rH ™ IT
0 0)
> M
d
O
•H
•P
rd
O
o
^
(U
p
(u
d
I>i
-P
•H
H
•H
U
id
EM
Cn
d
•H
E
g
••H
^
CQ
O
Z
o
in
•
o
g
^
co
0)
H
0)
cn
^
<3
CO
o
1-3
d
o
•H
id
4J
•r)
d
id
cn
^i
•P -P
d o
O M
U -P
CQ
• •rl
< Q
^
4J
d
id
ft
^|
0)
jj
CQ
id
0
d
id
OY
•rj
6
3
•H
^
CQ
O
Z
o
o
H
g
O
Q)
•H
Q
§
cn
M
0)
4J
(d
|2
>i
jj
^
3 -P
O 0
U-H
H
(U -P
cu co
^J-H
d Q
id
cn
0
r-
.
CM
rtl
U
«t
o
•§
EH
0)
id
^
,
cn
S
b
(1)
o
•a
EH
0)
1
•d
Jj
£
O
cn
M
o
C7>
d
•H C7*
fjj
•H
•H 4J
S id
CQ O
O
Z
o
"*
.
rH
».
CQ
Cn
d
•H
Q,
cn
0
•a
j.j
00
H U
O
U
S-
g
0)
•a
o
CU
o
o
EM
•H
.
cn
D
M
O
Cn
d
•H Cn
i c
•iH -P
& id
CO O
O
Z
o
0
1-1
>H
V.
id
d
0
rH
O
o5
^
O
4J
d
0
o
0)
Q) -P
cn o
•H
-------
in
I
<
W
I-H
1
CO
§
H
EH
<
U
O
rH
W CO
CO W
£>EH
eg
CO
«
H Q
EH W
< EH
SH
W S3
CO
< W
& «
EH
fa
o a
H
>H
rt
8
S3
W
!>
S3
H
CO
W
CO
o
ft
K
Q
ft
EH
S3
ft
O
rH
W
>
§
Q
£3
5
W
^
<
W
CO
W
.«
PH
O
fa
Q
W
CO
D
EH
J3
B
rH
fa
fa
H
CO
4->
—H
C
r^
g
C
O
U
W -P
(I) C
Cn 0)
rJ 0
(d H en
X!1^ 6
O 4n \
Q) v>
4J
-H M
C 0
ID m
0) 'd
E H
c
o
•H
4J
i
4->
•H
_ i
r— I
-H
O
rri
iO
fa
rH
id -a
4-1 QJ
c
•H
C
D
>i
4-1
•H
U}
JH
^
>
•H
C
D
(U
4J
td
4->
CO
d
Q)
ft
A-36
-------
APPENDIX B
WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS OF SELECTED WATER USERS
Table B-l Limits of Pollutants for Irrigation Water Recommended
by EPA
Table B-2 Water Quality Parameter Limits for Livestock
Table B-3 Cooling Water Quality Requirements for Makeup Water
to Recirculating Systems
Table B-4 Quality Tolerances for Constituents of Industrial
Boiler Feedwater
Table B-5 Quality Criteria for Wastewater Used for Recreational
Purposes
Table B-6 Selected Drinking Water Quality Parameters
Table B-7 Tentative Guides for the Quality of Water Required
for Fish Life
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l
LIMITS OF POLLUTANTS FOR
IRRIGATION WATER RECOMMENDED BY EPA'
Constituents
For Water Used
Continuously
On All Soils
(mg/1)
For Short-Term Use On
Fine Textured Neutral
and Alkaline Soils
(mg/1)
Heavy Metals
Aluminum
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
5.0
2.0
0.1
0.75
0.01
O.'l
0.05
0.2
2.0
5
5
2.5
0.2
0.01
0.2
0.02
20.0
10.0
0.5
2.0
0.05
1,
5,
5.
15.0
20.0
10.0
10.0
0.05
2.0
,0
,0
,0
Bacterial
Coliform density
1,000/lOOml
Chemical
PH
TDS
4.5-9.0
5,000
Herbicides
Dalapon
TCA
2,4-D
0.2 jug/1
0.2 jug/1
0.1 jug/1
a"Short-term" used here means a period of time as long as
20 years.
B-2
-------
TABLE B-2
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
LIMITS FOR LIVESTOCK 2
Threshold
Concen.
2,500
Limiting,
Concen.
5,000
EPA
Acceptable
Concen.
Quality Factor
Total dissolved
solids (TDS),
mg/1
Cadmium, mg/1
Calcium, mg/1
Magnesium, mg/1
Sodium, mg/1
Arsenic, mg/1
Bicarbonate, mg/1
Chloride, mg/1
Fluoride, mg/1
Nitrate, mg/1
Nitrite, mg/1
Sulfate, mg/1
Range of pH
a Threshold values represent concentrations at which poultry or
sensitive animals might show slight effects from prolonged use
of such water. Lower concentrations are of little or no
concern.
Limiting concentrations based on interim criteria, South
Africa. Animals in lactation or production might show
definite adverse reactions.
Total magnesium compounds plus sodium sulfate should not
exceed 50 percent of the total dissolved solids.
5
500
250
1,000
1
500
1,500
1
200
None
500
6.0-8.5
1,000C
500C
2,000C
500
3,000
6
400
None
1,000°
5.6-9.0
5
2
2
100
.0
.0
B-3
-------
TABLE B-3
COOLING WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR MAKEUP
WATER TO RECIRCULATING SYSTEMS 3
Parameter
Cl
TDS
Hardness
(CaC03)
Alkalinity
(CaC03)
PH
COD
TSS
Turbidity
BOD
MB AS
NH3
P04
Si04
Al
Fe
Mn
Ca
Mg
HC03
S04
Reference
(4)
500
500
130
20
aar
75
100
—
—
—
—
—
50
0.1
0.5
0.5
50
aar
24
200
Reference
(5)
—
50
_..
6.9-9.0
—
25
50
25
2
4
1
—
0.5
__
__
0.5
--
Comment
up to 460 successfully
used
up to 1,650 successfully
used —
—
__
preferably 6.8-7.2
preferably below 10
preferably below 10
preferably below 10
preferably below 5
2 is good
preferably below 1
< 1 is good
_-.
__
__
—
—
—
—
aar = accepted as received
B-4
-------
TABLE B-4
QUALITY TOLERANCES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF
INDUSTRIAL BOILER FEEDWATER 3
Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration
(now EPA)
Pressure Ranges, psig
Quality
Parameter
TDS , ppm
Suspended solids,
ppm
Silica, ppm
Hardness as CaC03,
ppm
Alkalinity, ppm
pH, units
Dissolved oxygen,
ppm
I ron , ppm
Manganese, ppm
Aluminum, ppm
Bicarbonate, ppm
Chloride, ppm
Sulfate, ppm
0-150
700
10
30
20
140
8.0-10.0
2.5
1.0
0.3
5
170
NPa
NP
150-700
500
5
10
0.0
100
8.2-10.0
0.007
0.30
0.10
0.10
120
NP
NP
700-1500
200
0.0
0.7
0.0
40
8.2-9.0
0.007
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
NP
NP
NP - no problem at levels normally encountered.
B-5
-------
TABLE B-5
QUALITY CRITERIA FOR WASTEWATER
USED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES 3
For recreational use, general water characteristics of concern
include the following:
. Dissolved oxygen concentrations must always be above
levels required to support game fish. Therefore/
the organic strength/ e.g./ BOD/ of the effluent must
not exert an oxygen demand which lowers dissolved oxygen
concentrations below acceptable levels. In addition,
dissolved oxygen levels can be affected seriously by
heavy algae growth or formation of an ice covering.
. Nutrients/ e.g./ nitrogen and phosphate compounds,
stimulate unaesthetic algal growth and accelerate
eutrophication.
. Ammonia in small concentrations can be very toxic to
fish. The level of toxicity depends upon other water
characteristics/ including pH/ dissolved oxygen, and
carbon dioxide concentrations.
. Fecal coliforms are indicative of the presence of
pathogenic bacteria and viruses which can cause ill-
ness to persons coming in contact with the water.
B-6
-------
TABLE B-6
SELECTED DRINKING WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS 3
Regulatory Agency
WHO USPHS
Parameter, mg/1 Acceptable Allowable
pH 7.0-8.5 6.5-9.2 6.0-8.5
Color 5 50 15
Turbidity 5 25 5
TDS 500 1,500 500
Sulfates 200 400 250
Chlorides 200 600 250
Nitrates — 45 45
Ammonium Nitrogen 0.5
Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1.0
COD 10
BOD 6
DO — — 4-7.5
ABS 0.5 1.0 0.5
Coliform — — 1
B-7
-------
TABLE B-7
TENTATIVE GUIDES FOR THE QUALITY OF
WATER REQUIRED FOR FISH LIFE 6
Threshold
concentration
Determination Fresh water
Total dissolved solids (TDS), mg/1 2,000^
Electrical conductivity, umhos/cm @ 25°C 3,000
Temperature, maximum °C 34
Maximum for salmonoid fish 23
Range of pH 6.5-8.5
Dissolved oxygen (D.O.), minimum mg/1 5.0 c
Flotable oil and grease, mg/1 0
Emulsified oil and grease, mg/1 10
Detergent, ABS, mg/1 2-°b
Ammonia (free), mg/1 0*^h
Arsenic, mg/1 1'°h
Barium, mg/1 5.0 ,
Cadmium, mg/1 0.01
Carbon dioxide (free), mg/1 1.0
Chlorine (free), mg/1 °*02b
Chromium, hexavalent, mg/1 0.05,
Copper, mg/1 0.02^
Cyanide, mg/1 0.02^
Fluoride, mg/1 1.5 £
Lead, mg/1 0.1 D
Mercury, mg/1 0.01h
Nickel, mg/1 0.05
Phenolic compounds, as phenol, mg/1 1.0
Silver, mg/1 0'0-1'b
Sulfide, dissolved, mg/1 0.5
Zinc, mg/1 0.1
a Threshold concentration is value that normally might not be
deleterious to fish life. Waters that do not exceed these
values should be suitable habitats for mixed fauna and flora.
Values not to be exceeded more than 20 percent of any 20
consecutive samples, nor in any 3 consecutive samples.
Other values should never be exceeded. Frequency of sampling
should be specified.
c Dissolved oxygen concentrations should not fall below 5.0
mg/liter more than 20 percent of the time and never below
2.0 mg/liter. (Note: Recent data indicate also that rate
of change of oxygen tension is an important factor, and
that diurnal changes in D.O. may, in sewage-polluted water,
render the value of 5.0 of questionable merit.)
B-8
-------
APPENDIX B
REFERENCES
1. Water Quality Criteria. Draft Report, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C./ 1973.
2. Camp, Thomas R. Water and Its Impurities. Reinhold Book
Corporation, 1963.
3. Schmidt, C. and E. Clements. Demonstrated Technology
and Research Needs for Reuse of Municipal Wastewater.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Contract No. 68-03-0148. 1974.
4. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. Water
Quality Criteria. April 1968.
5. Petrasek, Albert C., S.E. Esmond, and H. Wolf. Municipal
Wastewater Qualities and Industrial Requirements.
(Presented at ASCHE meeting. Washington, D.C.
April 1973.)
6. McGaughy, P.H. Engineering Management of Water Quality.
New York, McGraw Hill, 1968.
B-9
-------
APPENDIX C
VALUES OF THE ENGINEERING NEWS-RECORD (ENR)
CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX 1966-1974
Year
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
ENR Construction Cost Index
1019
1070
1154
1270
1380
1571
1752
1900
2014
Through June 1974.
01
-------
APPENDIX D
SAMPLE COST CURVES FOR ESTIMATING CAPITAL AND
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES OF WATER
SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Basic to all economic analyses is an understanding of the
costs involved for each alternative course of action. Pre-
sented in this appendix are examples of cost curves which can
be used to approximate the capital and operating and mainte-
nance costs associated with various types of water supply and
wastewater treatment facilities, as follows:
Pumping stations
Storage reservoirs
Water treatment facilities
Wastewater treatment facilities
Demineralization facilities
The cost information presented herein is intended to illus-
trate the type of data that is available for use in estimating
costs. More detailed information on water supply and waste-
water treatment costs, such as found in References 1 through
5 and 7, should be used for cost-effectiveness analyses.
Capital Costs
Capital cost data provided in this appendix are summarized
from the literature.I/2,3,4,5,6,7 All costs are adjusted to
an ENR Construction Cost Index of 2000, which is representa-
tive for mid-1974. Unit prices include contractor's overhead
and profit, but do not include engineering, construction con-
tingencies, rights-of-way, land acquisition, or legal costs.
Pumping Stations. Construction costs for both booster pump-
ing stations and wastewater effluent pumping facilities are
shown on Figure D-l.
Booster station costs are presented for average capacity in
million gallons per day (mgd) for different total dynamic
pumping heads (TDK). The costs account for enclosed stations
with architectural and landscaping treatment suitable for
residential areas.
Costs of wastewater effluent pumping facilities are based on
units adjoined to existing chlorine contact chambers.
Because additional area and enclosed structures are not
required for these facilities, the costs are less than for
booster stations. The costs presented are for peak capacity
and should be increased by 25 percent for each additional
125 feet of pumping head greater than 125 feet.
D-l
-------
Storage Reservoirs. Costs for storage reservoirs include
expenditures for foundations, site preparation, inlet and
outlet piping with appropriate controls, and overflow works.
Figure D-2 shows the construction costs used in this report
for both steel ground level reservoirs and lined and covered
excavated reservoirs as a function of storage capacity. Both
types of reservoirs would be suitable for storing wastewater
effluent prior to reuse, as well as for fresh water storage.
Wastewater can also be scored in less costly unlined lagoons
under suitable condition.
Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Figure D-3 shows
the estimated construction costs for both water and waste-
water treatment facilities as a function of average daily
plant capacity. These curves agglomerate costs for the
various unit processes utilized in each type of treatment
system, as explained below.
Total costs for surface water treatment include costs for
coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection.
Costs for softening are not included. Groundwater treatment
costs include facilities for the reduction of iron and man-
ganese to drinking water standards.
Secondary wastewater facilities include conventional primary
treatment and activated sludge treatment, plus disinfection.
Processes involved in tertiary treatment include primary and
activated sludge treatment, nitrification and denitrification,
filtration, activated carbon absorption, and disinfection.
The developed costs are based on initial construction of
units to accommodate a given average daily capacity with pro-
vision for enlargement up to three times the initial capa-
city. Initial construction includes inlet structures and
channels, major pipelines, operation and maintenance facili-
ties, and other basic components. Enlargement costs provide
for additional construction necessary to increase the plant
capacity. Enlargement costs are estimated as 80 percent of
initial construction costs.
Demineralization Facilities. Estimated costs of deminerali-
zation of groundwater are presented in Figure D-4.
These costs are based on ocean water desalting by distilla-
tion, and groundwater and wastewater demineralization by
either ion exchange or reverse osmosis. Construction costs
for ocean water desalination are considerably higher than for
groundwater or wastewater, primarily due to the much higher
removal efficiencies required.
D-2
-------
CONSTRUCTION COSTS (THOUSAND DOLLARS}
.s a s ss s § ss83§§§ S §§§ 1 §ls!lil
w
x
X".,
X*
- _x
x
\TE
X
jX
X*
X
R F
X
^
.4
^
,*
'UMPING
X
*•
X
x
ix*
X]
X"
x
X
x'
<
>
STATI
'
•X
X
X
^
\
,
X
X
4
u
X1
X
X
x"
0
^
^
,**
N
*
**
>
TDH J
~ V
x\
x*1
X
jf*^
rWASi
PUM
^x
'x
V
X
PE \
JIN
— >
*
^
X
X"
WAI
", *
\ .
rl
X
Xl
\|^2
TER E
ACILI
x'
x
x'
x
X
X
FFLUi
TIES
X
X
:N
^i
X
X
T
, <
0 15 2 2i 3 4 S 6 7 8910 IS 20 25 30 4O 50 SO SO K.
CAPACITY (MGOI
Fig\jre D-l. Construction Cost of
Pumping Facilities
(ENR=2000)6
«J«J
too
4OO
300
too
100
to
to
*7
X
to
STEEL
/
GR
X
)UND I
x1
x"*
:VEL
X
TANK —
X
x^
— ^
^
<"
|jx
M
i
"x
'
INEO
•>CCA\
X
X
A^
in
f
X
D
EO
x"
^ X
COVERS
RESER
x'
i
/OIR
-X
x
Or Of OS Q4 Of O9 1 2 34 « t IO K 30 4O GO
Figure D-2. Construction Cost of
Reservoirs
(ENR=2000)6
D-3
-------
I
^/^
X
1
\
/
S
^
^f
>
Efl
WAI
/
/
X
Tl
'E
j
/
X
f
ARY
* T
_/^
/
S,
\
<
RE
r j(i
r^
t
'
\
\
/
•^
w
&T
X
/
J
\
^
ASTE
HEN!
/
/
/
^s.
/
^
' v 1
X
^
_^^
X
x^
.f
. r
>
X
X
1/
X
X
X
^
i >
/
^x
x
X
^r
-SECONDARY' WASTE
WATER TREATMENT
-S
W
-G
T
JRFACE
ATER TRE
AT
ROUND WATE
REATMENT
rj_
M!
R.
:NT
X
/*
£
/--
X
X
—
0 IS 1 25 J 4 S S 7 e 9/0 IS 10 IS 30 40 SO 60 SO
DESIGN CAPACITY IADWF - MOD)
l' _
•-
--
/
Figure D-3. Construction Cost of
Treatment Facilities
(ENR=2000)6
D-4
-------
1
Ol 02 03 04 06 0810 234 6 S 10 20 3O 4O 60 8OIOO
CAPACITY (UG01
Figure D-4. Construction Cost of
Demineralization
(ENR=2000)6
D-5
-------
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Economic evaluation of alternative projects requires consi-
deration of operation and maintenance as well as capital
costs. Operation and maintenance costs include expenditures
for labor, repairs, power, chemical, supplies, administration,
and additional costs which vary from project to project.
Operating costs presented herein are also based on an ENR
Construction Cost Index of 2000.
Pumping Facilities. Total operation and maintenance costs
for pumping facilities consist of power costs for the various
flows and pumping heads, and other normal operating costs
which are exclusive of power costs. Figure D-5 indicates
operating costs for both of these categories. Power costs
are based on rates for discharge heads ranging from 25 to
400 feet. The curve for costs exclusive of power includes
allowances for labor, supplies, administration, replacement
parts, and repairs necessary for efficient operation.
Storage Reservoirs. Operation costs of reservoirs are esti-
mated to be about $1,000 per year for each installation to
cover minimum routine maintenance. Additional maintenance
costs for these facilities are approximately 1.2 percent of
construction costs.
Water and Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Figure D-6 shows
representative operating and maintenance costs for water and
secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment facilities.
Total costs include expenses for labor, power, repairs,
chemicals, supplies, administration, monitoring, laboratory
control, and other miscellaneous items.
Demineralization Facilities. Figure D-7 indicates the costs
anticipated for ocean water desalting by distillation and
groundwater and wastewater demineralization by either ion
exchange or reverse osmosis processes. Desalting technology
is presently developing so operation and maintenance costs
are relatively high when compared with other water and waste-
water treatment processes.
D-6
-------
IGOO
SCO
800
700
60O
SOO
400
300
S50
2OO
ISO
B
X
100
90
80
70
60
50
25
15
/
03
O.25
POV^ER COSTS
02 ?
X
7Z
015
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
COSTS EXCLUSIVE OF POWER
O/5 OZ 0.3 O.4 OS O6 08 1.0 1.5 2 2.5 3 4 56789 IO 15 2O 25 3O 40 SO 60 SO
AVERAGE FLAW, MGD
100
Figure D-5. Operating Cost of Pumping Facilities (ENR=2000)6
D-7
-------
I
1
I
B
6
4
10
OB
OS
O4
03
01
OOS
006
004
003
oof
001
TERTIAF
Y
WA
ST
WATER
SECONDARY WASTE
WATER TREATMENT^
'
x"
X
/
^
|x*
/
X
x*
x*
X
J
^
X'
V
r '
X
X
X
s
\
\
X
>
Xy
Tl
^
s
X
_J
X
«E4
^
\
+
^
w
TMEN1
-
^
X
X
^
'
,X
X
'-
X
X
X
A
\
\
.>
X
x
,>
^
x"
JRFACE OR GROUN
ATER TREATMEf
,
I*1
X
IT
X1
X
X
X"
''
>•'
t Og 0304 0600/0 2 34 6 a 10 20 30 4O 60 6OIC
AVERAGE FLOW (MGOI
Figure D-6. Operating Cost of
Treatment Facilities (ENR=2000)6
8
6
4
3
I
IO
as
OS
at
03
01
01
DOS
006
004
003
00!
ccv.
OC
J
x
/
EAf
/
4
/
WAi
x
/
E
/
/
^-
/
/
~\
1
V
x
A
x
/
/•
/
x
px
X
/
s — GROUND
WASTE
/
^
X
X
X
WATER
WATER
/•
OR
/
/
>'
/ oi 03 at oe as 10 z 34 e a a to 30 to so ton
AVERAGE FLOW (MGOi
Figure D-7. Operating Cost of
Demineralization Facilities
(ENR=2000) 6
D-8
-------
APPENDIX D
REFERENCES
1. Blecker, Herbert G., and Theodore W . Cadman. Capital and
Operating Costs of Pollution Control Equipment Modules,
Vols. I and II. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., July 1973.
2. Eilers, Richard G. Wastewater Treatment Plant Cost
Estimating Program. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., April 1971.
3. Patterson, W.L., and R.F. Banker. Estimating Costs and
Manpower Requirements for Conventional Wastewater Treat-
ment Facilities. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., October 1971.
4. Smith, Robert A. A Compilation of Cost Information for
Conventional and Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant and
Processes. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., December 1967.
5. Smith, Robert A. Costs of Wastewater Renovation. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
November 1971.
6. Toups Corporation. Water Resources Management Study,
South Coast-Santa Barbara County. July 1974.
7. Watson, I.e. Manual for Calculation of Conventional
Water Treatment Costs. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C., March 1972.
D-9
-------
APPENDIX E
1% COMPOUND INTEREST FACTORS
n
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
31
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
SINGLE PAYMENT
Coiiipouiu
Amount
Factor
caf
Given /'
To find S
(1 + 0"
1.070
1.145
1.225
1.311
1.403
1.501
1.606
1.718
1.838
1.967
2.105
2.252
2.410
2.579
2.759
2.952
3.159
3.380
3.617
3.870
4.141
4.430
4.741
5.072
6.427
5.807
6.214
6.649
7.114
7.612
8.145
8.715
9.325
9.973
10.677
14.974
21.002
29.457
41.315
57.946
81.273
113.9S9
159.876
224.234
314.500
441.103
618.670
S67.716
Present
Worth
Factor
pwf
Given S
To find P
1
(1 +0"
0.9346
0.8734
O.S163
0.7629
0.7130
0.6C63
O.C227
0.5820
0.5439
0.5083
0.4751
0.4440
0.4150
0.3S78
0.3624
0.3387
0.3166
0.2959
0.2765
0.2584
0.2415
0.2257
0.2109
0.1971
0.1842
0.1722
0.1609
0.1504
0.1406
0.1314
0.1228
0.1147
0.1072
0.1002
0.0937
O.OGG8
0.0476
0.0339
0.0242
0.0173
0.0123
0.0088
0.0063
0.0045
0.0032
0.0023
0.0016
0.0012
UNIFORM SERIES
Sinking
Fund
Factor
sff
Given S
To find R
i
|U+i)»-l
1.00000
0.48309
0.31105
0.22523
0.173S9
0.13980
0.11555
0.09747
0.08349
0.07238
0.06336
0.05590
0.04965
0.04434
0.03979
0.03586
0.03243
0.02941
0.02675
0.02439
0.02229
0.02041
0.01871
0.01719
0.01581
0.01456
0.01343
0.01239
0.01145
0.01059
0.00980
0.00907
O.OOS41
0.00780
0.00723
0.00501
0.00350
0.00246
0.00174
0.00123
0.00087
0.00062
0.00044
0.00031
0.00022
0.00016
0.00011
O.OOOOS
Capital
Recovery
Factor
erf
Given P
To lind R
i(l +0"
(1 +i)»-
1.07000
0.55309
0.38105
0.29523
0.24389
0.20980
0.18555
0.16747
0.15349
0.14238
0.13336
0.12590
0.11965
0.11434
0.10979
0.10586
0.10243
0.09941
0.09675
0.09439
0.09229
0.09041
0.08871
0.08719
O.OS581
0.08456
0.08343
0.08239
O.OS145
O.OS059
0.07080
0.07907
0.07841
0.07780
0.07723
0.07501
0.07350
0.07246
0.07174
0.07123
0.07087
0.07062
0.07044
0.07031
0.07022
0.07016
0.07011
0.07008
Compounc
Amount
Factor
cai
Given 11
To find ,S
(1+t)"-
i
1.000
2.070
3.215
4.440
5.751
7.153
8.654
10.260
11.978
13.816
15.784
17.888
20.141
22.550
25.129
27.888
30.840
33.999
37.379
40.995
44.865
49.006
53.436
58.177
63.249
68.076
74.484
80.698
87.347
94.461
102.073
110.218
118.933
128.259
138.237
199.635
285.749
406.529
575.929
813.520
1146.755
1614.134
2269.657
3189.063
4478.576
6287.185
8823.854
23S1 .662
Present
Worth
Factor
pvvf
Given R
To find P
(1 + i)n -
t (1 + l)"
0.935
1.S08
2.624
3.387
4.100
4.767
5.389
5.971
6.515
7.024
7.499
7.943
8.353
8.745
9.10S
9.447
9.763
10.059
10.336
10.594
10.836
11.061
11.272
11.469
11.654
11.826
11.987
12.137
12.278
12.409
12.532
12.647
12.754
12.854
12.948
13.332
13.006
13.801
13.940
14.039
14.110
14.160
14.196
14.222
14.240
14.253
14.263
14.269
n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
40
45
50
65
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Reference:
Grant, Eugene L. and W. Grant Ireson . Principles
of Engineering Economy, New York, Roland Press
Company, 1960.
4U.S.GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977-241037:2
E-l
------- |