U'S- ^Headquarters Library
a''
ton DC 20460
DRAFT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR FINAL RULE:
REVISIONS TO THE UNDERGROUND INJECTION
CONTROL REGULATIONS
FOR CLASS V INJECTION WELLS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
August 19, 1999
-------
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells August 19, 1999
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summaiy .... 1
2. Introduction .' 6
2.1 Background , 6
2.2 Summary of Options Considered in the Analysis 8
2.2.1 Options for Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells 8
2.2.2 Options for Large-Capacity Cesspools 9
3. Entities Affected by the Rule 10
3.1 Number of Affected Class V Wells , 10
3.1.1 Accounting for Existing Regulatory Programs 11
3.1.2 Estimating the Number of Wells hi Ground Water Protection
Areas and Sensitive Ground Water Areas 12
3.1.3 Estimated Numbers of Affected Wells 14
3.2 Affected Industries : 15
4. Costs of the Rule 18
4.1 Costing Methodology for Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells 19
4.1.1 Overview 19
4.1.2 Waste Stream Characterization 26
4.1.3 Best Management Practices 28
4.1.4 Injectate and Sludge Monitoring 29
4.1.5 Sludge Disposal 31
4.1.6 Permit Applications 31
4.1.7 Well Closure 31
4.1.8 Off-Site Treatment and Disposal , 33
4.1.9 Soil Sampling and Remediation 36
Draft Pagei
i
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
4.1.10 Other Administrative Costs 37
4.1.11 Calculation of Average Facility Costs 37
4.1.12 Determining National Cost to Owners and Operators of Motor
Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells 38
4.2 Costing Methodology for Large-Capacity Cesspools 40
4.3 Costing Methodology for States and EPA 41
4.4 Cost Results 41
4.5 Limitations of the Analysis 42
5. Economic Impacts 44
5.1 Average Cost Per Facility 44
5.2 Impacts on Owners and Operators 44
6. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 49
6.1 Need for and Objectives of the Rule 49
6.2 Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 50
6.3 Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Affected ... 51
6.4 Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Final Rule 54
6.5 Minimizing Impacts on Small Entities 55
6.5.1 Steps Taken to Minimize Impacts 55
6.5.2 Alternatives Not Adopted 56
Draft
Page it
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UJC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells August 19, 1999
Apendices
Appendix A: Number of Large-Capacity Cesspools and Motor Vehicle Waste
Disposal Wells as Reported in the Class V Study
/
Appendix B: Economic Analysis Estimate of Potentially Affected Wells
Appendix C: Summary of States' Class V UIC Well Inventories and Programs,
and Implications for the Economic Analysis
Appendix D: Estimating the Number of Wells in Ground Water Protection Areas
Appendix E: Estimating the Number of Wells in Sensitive Ground Water Areas
Appendix F: Sampling and Monitoring Costs for Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal
Wells
Appendix G: On-Site Treatment Costs
Appendix H: Average Capital and O&M Costs for Wells Under the Ban Options
(Ia,2a,and3a)
Appendix I: Average Capital and O&M Costs for Wells Under the Ban with
Waiver Options (Ib, 2b, and 3b)
Appendix J: Unit Costs Associated with Large-Capacity Cesspool Closures
Appendix K: Estimating Per Facility Sales for Facilities in Each Affected SIC
Category
Appendix L: SBA Size Thresholds for Affected Facilities
Appendix M: Data and Calculations for SIC Codes in the Utilities Sector
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
Draft Page Hi
-------
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
1. Executive Summary
Class V injection wells are regulated under the authority of Part C of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). The SDWA is designed to protect the quality of drinking water in the
United States, and Part C mandates the regulation of underground injection of fluids through
wells. Section 1421 of the Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
promulgate regulations specifying minimum requirements for State programs to prevent
underground injection from endangering drinking water sources. The 1996 SDWA Amendments
make source water protection a national priority. The Amendments create powerful incentives
for States to assess their own source waters and for water systems and States to establish source
water protection programs that fit their particular needs and conditions.
Consistent with the national priority established by the 1996 SDWA Amendments, the
final Class V rule adds new,requirements for two high-risk categories of Class V wells to ensure
protection of underground sources of drinking water. In particular, it: bans new motor vehicle
waste disposal wells and new and existing large-capacity cesspools nationwide, and bans existing
motor vehicle waste disposal wells in ground water protection areas and other sensitive ground
water areas with a waiver provision that will allow well owners/operators to seek a permit. For
the purposes of this rule, ground water protection areas are source water protection areas
delineated in accordance with the 1996 SDWA Amendments for community and non-transient
non-community water systems that use ground water as a source. Other sensitive ground water
areas include additional designated, productive, or vulnerable locations that are critical for the
protection of underground sources of drinking water.
Analysis of Compliance Costs
EPA estimated the cost of the rule and several regulatory options. Exhibit 1-1
summarizes the regulatory alternatives considered and the associated annualized compliance cost
estimates. The exhibit also presents the estimated number of affected wells for each option. The
final rule promulgates Option 2b for motor vehicle waste disposal wells and Option 3 for large-
capacity cesspools.
EPA estimated the number of injection wells affected by the final rule using results from
the Agency's 1999 "Class V Study," a comprehensive survey of EPA Regional and State staff
responsible for implementing underground injection control (UIC) programs. These survey
results provide the best available information on the total number of motor vehicle waste
disposal wells and large-capacity cesspools in all States and territories. The number of wells
potentially affected by the Class V rule was then adjusted to account for (1) existing regulatory
Draft
Pagel
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
and implementation conditions, and (2) whether the wells are located in ground water protection
areas or other sensitive ground water areas targeted by the final rule.
Exhibit 1-1
Summary of the Regulatory Options and Estimated Costs
Options
Option la
Option Ib
Option 2a
Option 2b
Option 3a
Option 3b
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Description
Number of
Affected Wells
Total
Annualized
Cost
Ban in Ground Water Protection Areas
Ban/Waiver in Ground Water Protection Areas
Ban in Ground Water Protection Areas and
Other Sensitive Ground Water Areas
Ban/Waiver in Ground Water Protection Areas
and Other Sensitive Ground Water Areas
Ban Statewide
Ban/Waiver Statewide
^i^^l&^^^^^l^iSre^i^^rcS^GeMpi
Ban in Ground Water Protection Areas
Ban in Ground Water Protection Areas anc
Other Sensitive Ground Water Areas
Ban Statewide
761
745
' 5,699
5,324
16,688
15,138
86
1,179
2,723
$ 4,100,000
$ 3,100,000
$ 24,600,000
$ 17,900,000
$ 70,400,000
$ 49,600,000
$ 200,000
$ 3,300,000
$ 7,600,000
For Options Ib, 2b, and 3b for motor vehicle waste disposal wells (the ban with waiver
options), the analysis excludes wells in States that maintain effective permit programs that are at
least as stringent as the federal minimum requirements in the final Class V rule. These wells are
included in the analysis, however, when evaluating options that would require the wells to be
closed (i.e., Options la, 2a, and 3a). Similarly, the economic analysis does not include any
motor vehicle waste disposal wells or large-capacity cesspools in States that already ban such
wells, because wells in those States will be closed regardless of EPA's rulemaking efforts. After
making the adjustments based on existing state UIC regulatory programs, the analysis then
estimates the number of wells actually affected based on whether the remaining wells are likely
to be located within ground water protection areas or other sensitive ground water areas. To
estimate how many of the existing wells fall within ground water protection areas, the analysis
assumes that wells are twice as likely to be located within a ground water protection area as
outside a ground water protection area. To estimate the number of wells located within sensitive
Draft
Page 2
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the U/C Regulations for Class VInjection Wells August 19, 1999
ground water areas, the analysis considered State-specific data regarding settings that often lead
to an area being considered sensitive for purposes of ground water protection.
Compliance costs were then estimated for each option based on: (1) the number of wells
likely to be affected and (2) compliance strategies likely to be used by owners and operators of
affected Class V wells. These compliance costs were then allocated over an expected
compliance schedule (see Section 4.1.12) that recognizes that some well owners and operators
will comply by an earlier date than others. Finally, average national annual compliance costs for
well owners and operators were calculated for each option (as presented in Exhibit 1-1 above).
Analysis of Economic Impacts
EPA then evaluated the economic impact each option would have on affected facilities.
The average annualized cost per facility to owners and operators of motor vehicle waste disposal
wells is estimated to range from approximately $4,300 to $14,400, depending on the waste
streams generated by the facility and the regulatory option. Exhibit 1-2 presents the average per
facility cost for each standard industrial classification (SIC) category included in the analysis,
both for the ban options (la, 2a, 3a) and the ban/waiver options (Ib, 2b, 3b). The average
annualized cost per facility to owners and operators of large-capacity cesspools is. estimated at
$3,626, regardless of the option being considered, because all of the options would ban such
cesspools.
The economic criteria used to assess the financial impact of the final regulation on
affected businesses are based on the "Sales Test" (i.e., compliance costs as a percentage of total
sales). EPA estimates that compliance costs will exceed one percent of sales for almost half of
the affected entities operating motor vehicle waste disposal wells, while about 18 percent of
entities operating such wells will incur costs exceeding three percent of sales. For virtually all of
the entities comprising this 18 percent, costs as a percent of sales are estimated to range from 3.1
percent to 8.3 percent. These figures almost certainly overstate impacts because they assume that
all facilities incur the "average" compliance cost for their industry. In reality, compliance costs
are likely to be proportional to economic activity. That is, facilities that do little business should
generate less wastewater (and incur lower compliance costs) than facilities that do more business.
An estimated 2,700 facilities will incur costs associated with closing large-capacity
cesspools. However, available data on the type of establishments that use large-capacity
cesspools are insufficient to evaluate impacts on these affected entities.
Draft Page 3
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class ¥ Injection Wells
Augusl 19, 1999
Exhibit 1-2
Average Per Facility Cost of Compliance
for Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells Options
SIC
Number
.4142
4212
4213
4581
5015
5511
5521
5531
5541
7514
7515
7532
7533
7537
7538
7539
7549
9111
SIC Description
Bus charter service, except local
Local trucking, without storage
Trucking, except local
Airports, flying fields, and airport terminal
Motor vehicle parts, used
Motor vehicle dealers (new and used)
Motor vehicle dealers (used only)
Auto and home supply stores
Gasoline service stations
Passenger car rental
Passenger car leasing
Top, body, and upholstery repair shops
and paint shops
Auto exhaust system repair shops
Automotive transmission repair shops
General automotive repair shops
Automotive repair shops, not elsewhere
classified
Automotive services, except repair and
carwashes
Municipal and solid waste township
management and road facilities
"Ban" Options
la, 2a, 3a
$5,745
$5,745
$5,745
$14,553
$12,590
$12,590
$12,590
$6,1 15
$5,745
$5,745
$12,590
$5,745
$5,745
$5,745
$5,745
$5,745
$7,116
$6,115
"Ban/Waiver" Options
Ib, 2fa, 3b
$5,013
$5:,013
$5,013
$10,869
$ 6,896
$6,896
$6,896
$4,314
$5,013
$5,013
$6,896
$5,013
$5,013
$5,013
$5,013
$5,013
$5,270
$4,314
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As part of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, EPA also estimated the number of
potentially affected facilities within different commercial and industrial sectors, along with the
fraction and number of those facilities that qualify as small entities. Approximately 4,800 small
businesses and 370 small governments will be affected by the motor vehicle well provisions of
the final rule. Of the 18 SIC categories used in the economic analysis, 17 are comprised mainly
of small entities (at least 95 percent of all facilities in the category). The other category (SIC
5511, used motor vehicle dealers) consists of 77 percent small businesses. Data on the type of
entities that use large-capacity cesspools are insufficient to analyze impacts.
Draft
Page 4
-------
*
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells August 19, 1999
For these small entities, about 50 percent of the affected entities are estimated to incur
costs that represent more than 1 percent of their sales (or revenue for small governments);
whereas, about 18 percent of the affected small entities are estimated to incur costs that represent
more than 3 percent of their sales (or revenue for small governments). For virtually all of the
small entities comprising this 18 percent, costs as a percent of sales are estimated to range from
3.1 percent to 8.3 percent. These figures are likely to be overstated because they assume that all
small entities incur the "average" compliance cost for their industry. In reality, compliance costs
are likely to be proportional to economic activity. That is, small facilities that do relatively less
business should generate less wastewater (and incur lower compliance costs) than facilities that
do more business. In addition, the number of affected small entities also is overstated because
the analysis does not take into consideration that some businesses are subsidiaries of larger
businesses and thus may not qualify as small businesses under the Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis.
Based on this analysis, EPA believes that the final rule may have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities. This is consistent with the Agency's analysis of the
proposed rule (63 FR 40586, July 29,1998). Accordingly, EPA has worked to identify and
include small business concerns into the rulemaking process by conducting small entity outreach
and convening a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel, and has taken these concerns into
account in selecting the final rulemaking option.
Draft Page 5
J
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class VInjection Wells
August 19, 1999
2. Introduction
2.1 Background
Class V injection wells are generally shallow waste disposal wells, storm water and
agricultural drainage systems, or other devices used to release fluids either directly into
underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) or into the shallow subsurface that overlies
USDWs.1 In order to qualify as a Class V well, the well cannot release fluids that meet the
definition of a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Class V wells are located in virutally every State, expecially in unsewered areas where the
population is likely to depend on ground water. Frequently, these wells are designed as no more
than shallow holes or septic tank and leachfield combinations intended for sanitary waste
disposal. While such designs may be adequate for the treatment of sanitary waste, they may not
be appropriate for the disposal of other fluids, although they are sometimes used for this purpose.
In the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974, Congress required that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protect current and future USDWs from endangerment.
Class V wells are subject to EPA's underground injection control (UIC) regulations promulgated
under the authority of Part C of the SDWA. Under the existing federal regulations, Class V
wells are "authorized by rule" (40 CFR 144), which means they do not require a permit if they
comply with the UIC program requirements. Chief among therse requirements is that the
operations of Class V wells must not allow fluid containing any contaminants to move into
USDWs where the presence of the contaminants may cause violations of the primary drinking
water regulations or may otherwise adversely affect public health.
The 1996 Amendments to the SDWA establish source water protection as a national
priority. Source waters consist of underground aquifers or surface water bodies from wlu'ch one
or more public drinking water systems receive supplies of drinking water. The Amendments
provide incentives for States to assess their source waters, including the susceptibility of public
water systems to contamination, and to establish State drinking water source assessment and
protection programs that fit their particular needs and conditions.
EPA believes that it is necessary to revise the Class V UIC regulations to (1) clarify
EPA's position on known high-risk categories of Class V wells and (2) integrate UIC regulations
1 Any well that is not included int Classes I through IV, as defined in 40 CFR 144.6, is
considered a Class V well.
Draft
Page 6
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells August 19, 1999
with the new programs for source water protection. The revised Class V requirements also fulfill
EPA's obligations under a 1997 consent decree with the Sierra Club.2
This report documents the economic analysis and the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis prepared by EPA to accompany the Agency's final rule "Revisions to the Underground
Injection Control Regulations for Class V Injection Wells." The rulemaking adds new
requirements for the following two high-risk categories of Class V wells to ensure protection of
USDWs:
• Motor vehicle waste disposal wells. These are drywells3 or septic tank and
leachfield combinations that receive or have received fluids from vehicular repair
or maintenance activities, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair
shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and
muffler repair shop), or any facility that does any vehicular repair work. Fluids
disposed in these wells may contain organic and inorganic chemicals in
concentrations that exceed the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) established
by the primary drinking water regulations (see 40 CFR Part 142). These fluids
also may include waste petroleum products and may contain contaminants, such
as heavy metals and volatile organic compounds, which pose risks to human
health.
• Large-capacity cesspools. Cesspools are drywells that receive untreated sanitary
waste, and which sometimes have an open bottom and/or perforated sides. The
UIC requirements do not apply to single-family residential cesspools nor to non-
residential cesspools that receive solely sanitary waste and have the capacity to
serve fewer than 20 persons a day.
In particular, the final rule: bans new motor vehicle waste disposal wells and new and
existing large-capacity cesspools nationwide, and bans existing motor vehicle waste disposal
wells in ground water protection areas and other sensitive ground water areas with a waiver
provision that will allow well owners/operators to seek a permit For the purposes of this rule,
ground water protection areas are source water protection areas delineated in accordance with the
1996 SDWA Amendments for community and non-transient non-community water systems that
2 Sierra Club vs. EPA, Civil Action no. 93-2644 filed in United States District Court,
District of Columbia on January, 28 1997.
3 A drywell is a bored, drilled, or driven shaft or a dug hole whose depth is greater than
its largest surface dimension, which is completed above the water table so that its bottom and
sides are typically dry when receiving fluids.
DraftPage 7
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
use ground water as a source. Other sensitive ground water areas include additional designated,
productive, or vulnerable locations that are critical for the protection of underground sources of
drinking water.
The minimum federal requirements would continue to authorize all other kinds of Class
V wells by rule as long as (1) they do not endanger USDWs, and (2) the well owners or operators
submit basic inventory information. If a Class V well may endanger USDWs or adversely affect
public health, UIC Program Directors in the States and EPA Regional Offices can require the
owner/operator to apply for a permit, order closure of the well, require remediation, take
enforcement action, or prescribe actions to prevent adverse effects. In many States that have
received primary enforcement responsibility for the Class V UIC program (called Class V
Primacy States), these minimum federal requirements have been supplemented with additional
regulations at the State level.
2.2 Summary of Options Considered in the Analysis
2.2.1 Options for Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
For motor vehicle waste disposal wells, this analysis considers both a categorical ban and
a ban with a waiver. As mentioned above, the waiver provision will allow well owners and
operators to seek a permit. The analysis also considers how widely the ban or ban with waiver
should be applied, evaluating wells in three different areas within affected States and territories:
• Ground water protection areas,
• Ground water protection areas and other sensitive ground water areas, and
• Statewide.
Combining these two considerations, the economic analysis considers the following six
options. (Option 2b is being promulgated in the final rule.)
la) Banning motor vehicle waste disposal wells within ground water protection areas.
Ib) Banning motor vehicle waste disposal wells within ground water protection areas,
but allowing owners and operators of individual wells in such areas to seek a
waiver to keep operating by applying for a permit.
2a) Banning motor vehicle waste disposal wells within ground water protection areas
and other sensitive ground water areas.
Draft
PageS
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells August 19, 1999
2b) Banning motor vehicle waste disposal wells within ground water protection areas
and other sensitive ground water areas, but allowing owners and operators of
individual wells in either kind of area to seek a waiver to keep operating by
applying for a permit.
3a) Banning motor vehicle waste disposal wells statewide.
3b) Banning motor vehicle waste disposal wells statewide, but allowing owners and
operators of individual wells to seek a waiver to keep operating by applying for a
permit.
Obtaining a waiver by receiving a UIC permit allows affected facilities to continue to
operate their injection wells if several conditions are met. UIC Program Directors have the
flexibility to specify permit requirements but, at a minimum, the permit would have to include
the following three conditions. First, owners or operators would have to make sure fluids
released in their wells meet the primary drinking water MCLs or other appropriate health-based
standards at the point of injection. Second, owners or operators would have to follow specified
best management practices (BMPs) for motor vehicle-related facilities. Third, owners or
operators would have to monitor the quality of their injectate and sludge (if present in drywells or
tanks holding injectate) both initially and on a continuing basis in order to demonstrate
compliance with the MCLs. The rule, however, does not specify monitoring requirements that
must be followed, leaving those instead to the discretion of the Director to specify in the permit.
2.2.2 Options for Large-Capacity Cesspools
The economic analysis evaluates the following three options for banning large-capacity
cesspools. The only difference between these options is the geographic scope of the ban.
(Option 3 is being promulgated in the final rule.)
1) Ban large-capacity cesspools within ground water protection areas.
2) Ban large-capacity cesspools within ground water protection areas and other
sensitive ground water areas.
3) Ban large-capacity cesspools Statewide.
Draft Page 9
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
3. Entities Affected by the Rule
This section describes EPA's characterization of the number and types of entities affected
by the rule. Presented first is EPA's process for estimating the number of affected Class V wells,
along with the resulting estimates. Next, the industries believed to own and operate these wells
are identified.
3.1 Number of Affected Class V Wells
The analysis estimates the number of facilities affected by the final rule based on EPA's
1999 "Class V Study," a comprehensive survey of EPA Regional and State staff responsible for
implementing UIC programs.4 The survey results provide EPA's best estimates of the number of
motor vehicle waste disposal wells and large-capacity cesspools for most States and territories, as
presented in Appendix A. For certain States and territories, the survey obtained either an
unbounded estimate (e.g., "more than 50 wells") or no response. In these cases, the analysis
develops modeled estimates appropriate for the given State or territory. Modeled estimates are
based on the survey data for States and territories that reported bounded estimates, as follows.
First, the model sums (1) the numbers of wells, and (2) the unsewered populations,5 over all the
States reporting bounded data. It then divides the total number of wells by the total unsewered
population to calculate an aggregate ratio of wells per thousand people not hooked up to sewers.
Finally, this ratio is multiplied by the unsewered population (in thousands) for each State needing
a modeled estimate.6 Summing up the State estimates by well type, the current national
estimates are 21,692 motor vehicle waste disposal wells and 9,583 large-capacity cesspools.
Appendix B presents the estimate of the total number of motor vehicle waste disposal wells and
large-capacity cesspools by state.
4 The study was described in the Notice of Data Availability published by EPA on May
21, 1999 (64 FR 27741).
5 The model estimates unsewered population using data from EPA's 1996 Clean Water
Needs Survey Report to Congress (U.S. EPA, Office of Water, September 1997). This updates
the 1992 Needs Survey data used in the 1998 economic analysis.
6 The analysis replaces unbounded estimates with modeled estimates only for States
where the modeled estimates exceed the unbounded estimates. For example, a modeled estimate
of 40 wells is used if the unbounded estimate reported was "more than 10 wells." However, if
the unbounded estimate reported was "more than 60 wells," then the analysis uses an estimate of
60 wells rather than the modeled estimate of 40 wells.
Draft
Page 10
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells August 19,1999
EPA believes that the Class V Study data are the best available and that the current well
estimates represent an improvement over those reported in the 1998 economic analysis for the
proposed rule (63 FR 40586, July 29,1998).7 The economic analysis for the proposed rule
developed national estimates of the number of wells by employing a number of assumptions,8
because recent survey data on the number of wells were not available.
These wells comprise the universe of all Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells and
large-capacity cesspools. The number of wells potentially affected by the Class V rule will be
fewer, however, depending on (1) existing regulatory and implementation conditions, and (2)
whether the wells are located in ground water protection areas or other sensitive ground water
areas targeted by the final rule. The following sections describe how these two factors were
evaluated.
3.1.1 Accounting for Existing Regulatory Programs
When analyzing Options Ib, 2b, and 3b for motor vehicle waste disposal wells (the ban
with waiver options), the analysis excludes motor vehicle waste disposal wells in States with
permit programs at least as stringent as the minimum requirements in the final rule. Due to
existing State regulatory programs, these wells are assumed to automatically qualify for a waiver
from the final rule at no incremental cost to the owner or operator. These wells must be
included, however, when evaluating options that would require the wells to be closed (i.e.,
Options la, 2a, and 3a). Similarly, the economic analysis does not include any motor vehicle
waste disposal wells or large-capacity cesspools in States that are already in the process of
7 U.S. EPA, Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC
Regulations, July 22,1998.
8 Based on inventory data in eight States, the 1998 economic analysis identified certain
industries (represented by SIC codes) as most likely to use Class V wells. It then assumed that,
nationally, each establishment in those industries could use a Class V well. Next, it estimated
and subtracted out facilities served by publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs), permitted
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (i.e., discharging to surface waters),
closed by EPA Administrative Order, or closed under State wellhead protection programs. (See
Appendix II to the 1998 economic analysis.) The analysis further reduced the number of affected
wells based on the percentage of non-urban land believed to fall within ground water protection
areas and the likelihood of wells falling within ground water protection areas. As described in
Section 3.2, the 1998 analysis of potentially affected SIC categories is used in the current
analysis for the purpose of characterizing affected industries, but not to estimate the number of
affected wells.
Draft Page 11
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class VInjection Wells August 19, 1999
banning such wells, because wells in those States would be closed regardless of EPA's
rulemaking efforts.
To assess how many motor vehicle waste disposal wells and large-capacity cesspools
potentially will be affected under a given option, EPA reviewed State regulations and held
discussions with EPA Regional and State staff who are responsible for implementing -the Class V
UIC program'in each State. Based on this research, EPA compiled a summary analysis of the
status of each States' Class V UIC programs relative to the regulatory options being considered.
This analysis is presented in Appendix C. In a few instances, the summary analysis concludes
that a given State's motor vehicle waste disposal well permit program, as currently implemented,
would fully ensure that wells would meet the regulatory option that requires continued operation
with a permit and compliance with MCLs at the point of injection. In these cases, the economic
analysis does not include the State's motor vehicle waste disposal wells when costing this option.
The analysis gives "full credit" for the existing UIC program in a given State only when
it is clear that the program is at least as stringent as the final Class V rule requirements, For
example, full credit was given for the existing Massachusetts program regulating motor vehicle
waste disposal wells (meaning all such wells in Massachusetts were removed from the analysis
because they would not be affected by the new rule) because the State already effectively bans
these wells statewide. No credit, not even any partial credit, was given to existing State UIC
programs that go beyond the existing minimum federal requirements but do not meet the full
intent of the new rule.
Accounting for State programs, the estimated numbers of wells potentially affected by the
rule are 16,688 motor vehicle waste disposal wells9 and 2,723 large-capacity cesspools.
3.1.2 Estimating the Number of Wells in Ground Water Protection Areas and
Sensitive Ground Water Areas
The analysis then estimates the number of wells actually affected based on whether these
wells are located within ground water protection areas or sensitive ground water areas. These
estimates were developed hi the following way:
9 This figure represents the number of motor vehicle waste disposal wells potentially
affected by the ban options (la, 2a, and 3a). The number of motor vehicle waste disposal wells
potentially affected by the ban/waiver options (Ib, 2b, and 3b) is 15,138.
Draft Page 12
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class VInjection Wells August 19, 1999
• To estimate the number of wells that fall within ground water protection areas, the
analysis first calculates the amount of land in ground water protection areas10 as a
percentage of non-urban land in each State," and then assumes that wells are
twice as likely to be located within a ground water protection area as outside a
ground water protection area. Specific assumptions and calculations are shown in
Appendix D.
• To estimate the number of wells located within other sensitive ground water areas,
the analysis considered State-specific data regarding the presence of four settings
that often lead to an area being considered sensitive for purposes of ground water
protection: sole-source aquifers, shallow unconsolidated aquifers, karst, and
fractured bedrock. Specific assumptions and calculations are shown in
Appendix E.
EPA recognizes that the number of wells in these areas can range from, on the low end,
the number of wells in ground water protection areas to, on the high end, the number of wells in
ground water protection areas plus 100 percent of the other sensitive ground water areas. These
numbers range from 991 to 11,789 motor vehicle waste disposal wells and from 296 to 7,667
large-capacity cesspools. However, EPA believes that the estimate using 100 percent of the
sensitive ground water areas (i.e., the high-end estimate) is too high because the sensitive areas
defined for the purpose of this analysis do not account for localized hydrogeologic features such
as depth to ground water and the presence of confining layers, which can effectively protect
aquifers from the downward migration of contaminants from shallow motor vehicle waste
disposal wells and large-capacity cesspools. States are not likely to define as sensitive an area
where the localized hydrogeologic features prevent fluid movement into USDWs. Therefore, to
account for this uncertainty, EPA's best estimate of the true number of wells that will be affected
10 Unless State Source Water Assessment and Protection Program plans indicated that an
alternate distance should be used, the analysis assumes that States will delineate ground water
protection areas by using areas of one-half mile radius around water supply wells for ground
water community water systems (G-CWS) and of one-quarter mile radius around water supply
wells for ground water non-transient non-community water systems (G-NTNCWS). EPA
reviewed the plans submitted by all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to
determine the proposed methods for actually delineating ground water protection areas. When
those methods would lead to an area that is clearly larger or smaller than the default assumption,
the analysis uses the distance indicated in the plan.
11 Although ground water protection areas could conceivably be found in urban areas,
EPA conservatively assumes that all ground water protection areas are located in non-urban
(unsewered) areas.
Draft Page 13
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
by the final rule is the mid-point between the low-end and high-end estimates. This equates to
6,390 motor vehicle waste disposal wells and 3,982 large-capacity cesspools.12
3.13 Estimated Numbers of Affected Wells
The estimated number of motor vehicle waste disposal wells and large-capacity .cesspools
that are potentially affected by the rule are shown in Exhibit 3-1. As a result of the Class V
Study data and estimation methodology (discussed above) and the modified scope of the rule
(i.e., as applied to motor vehicle waste disposal wells in other sensitive ground water areas), the
number of wells estimated to be affected by the rule has changed relative to EPA's estimates for
the proposed rule. The number of affected large-capacity cesspools is now estimated at 2,723
(compared to 55 estimated for the proposed rule). The number of affected motor vehicle waste
disposal wells is now estimated at 5,324 (compared to 7,045 estimated for the proposed rule).
Exhibit 3-1
Estimated Number of Affected Wells
Motor Vehicle Waste
Disposal Wells - Ban
(Options la, 2a, and 3 a)
Motor Vehicle Waste
Disposal Wells - Ban/Waiver
(Options Ib, 2b, and 3b)
Large-Capacity Cesspools
Option 1
(i.e., rule applied
in ground water
protection areas)
761
746
86
Option 2
(i.e., rule applied in
ground water
protection areas and
other sensitive
ground water areas)
5,699
5,324*
1,179
Option 3
(i.e., rule applied
Statewide)
16,888
15,138
2,723*
1 Estimated number of wells affected by the final rulemaking option.
12 These figures do not account for the existing regulatory programs discussed in
Section 3.1.1. If existing regulatory programs are also considered, the resulting figures would be
the same as those discussed in Section 3.1.3.
Draft
Page 14
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
3.2 Affected Industries
This section discusses how the analysis determined the Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) categories containing Class V wells. Note that the final rule, unlike the proposed rule,
does not apply to industrial waste disposal wells. The analysis described in this section,
however, was conducted in support of the proposed rule. Consequently, it addresses industrial
waste disposal wells, even though industrial wells are not affected by the final rule or considered
in the remainder of the analysis.
To identify industries that use Class V waste disposal wells, several sources of data were
reviewed extensively. First, EPA reviewed the Class V Injection Well Regulatory Impact
Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (September 6,1994 Draft) to determine the SIC
categories that represent industries likely to use Class V waste disposal wells.
EPA also considered detailed inventory data (collected between 1991 and 1997) from
West Virginia, Kansas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Illinois, Montana, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia. On the whole, data from these eight states are sufficiently detailed to allow EPA to
determine the SIC codes for many facilities with Class V waste disposal wells. More important,
these eight states are sufficiently representative of the United States as a whole based on two
ratios. First, the aggregated sample ratio of industries to population across all eight states (0.57)
is nearly identical to that of the entire country (0.56).13 Second, the percentage of urban land in
the sample states (2.24 percent) is very close to that of the entire United States (2.46 percent).
On the basis of this observation, EPA believes these eight sample states adequately represent the
entire country for the purposes of identifying commercial and industrial facilities that are likely
to use Class V waste disposal wells.
Using State and EPA Regional inventory data, an SIC category is included in the analysis
if it appears at least once in at least three of the eight sample States. Because it is infeasible to
assess the prevalence of Class V waste disposal well use in every industry, EPA is taking this
approach to provide a "reasonable" basis for determining representative SIC categories for
purposes of the economic analysis. EPA conducted sensitivity analyses under the alternative
13 In computing the industry-to-population ratio, only industries (57 SIC categories)
which appear once in at least 3 of the 8 state inventories are used. The ratio for the selected
states is calculated as ((sum of all facilities in the 8 selected states)/(sum of population in the 8
states))* 100 = .57, whereas the ratio for the United States is calculated as ((estimated number of
facilities in U.S.)/(U.S. population))* 100=.56 (see Appendix II of the 1998 economic analysis for
the estimated number of facilities in each state for the SIC categories used in the analysis. The
population figures used are from 1992 U.S. Bureau of Census Data).
Draft
Page 15
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
assumptions that an SIC category should be included if it is found at least once in two, and then
in four, of the eight states.14 The results of the sensitivity analyses indicate that the approach
taken in this analysis is robust and yields consistent results.
Exhibit 3-2 shows the selected SIC categories along with the approximate number of
affected entities estimated within each category. The analysis assumes that the number of wells
within each category is proportional to the relative number of total establishments in each SIC
category.15 The analysis also assumes that wells are distributed across the maximum number of
facilities (i.e., a different owner or operator is assumed for each well).
Large-capacity cesspools are not necessarily related to any specific industrial or
commercial operations; they may occur in a variety of residential, recreational, or commercial
settings. Based on inventory data from West Virginia, the majority of large-capacity cesspools
are located in state parks and campgrounds, with a very small fraction distributed among a few
industrial and commercial establishments. This understanding is reinforced by public comments
on the proposed rule. Due to the lack of data on the users of large-capacity cesspools, they are
not included in the SIC category-specific analysis.
14 Detailed results of these sensitivity analyses are provided in Addendum 1 to the 1998
economic analysis.
15 The number of total establishments in each SIC category was taken from 1992 Bureau
of Census data on industrial and commercial establishments.
Draft
Page 16
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to theUIC Regulations for Class V Injection Weils
August 19, 1999
Exhibit 3-2
SIC Categories with Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
Affected by the Final Rule
SIC
4142
4212
4213
4581
5015
5511
5521
5531
5541
7514
7515
7532
7533
7537
7538
7539
7549
9111
Totals
SIC Description
Bus charter service, except local
Local trucking, without storage
Trucking, except local
Airports, flying fields, and airport terminal services
Motor vehicle parts, used
Motor vehicle dealers (new and used)
Motor vehicle dealers (used only)
Auto and home supply stores
Gasoline service stations
Passenger car rental
Passenger car leasing
Top, body and upholstery repair shops and paint shops
Auto exhaust system repair shops
Automotive transmission repair shops
Genera! automotive repair shops
Automotive repair shops, nee
Automotive services, except repair and canvashes
Municipal and solid waste Township management and
load Facilities
Affected Facilities
(approximate)
10
573
469
37
83
280
214
474
1,210
56
11
402
63
72
744
118
125
381
5,322
Draft
Page 17
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
4. Costs of the Rule
This section presents a detailed discussion of the methodology and assumptions used to
estimate compliance costs for motor vehicle waste disposal wells and large-capacity cesspools,
including the sources and application of cost data and the design of the cost model. This section
also summarizes costs to States and EPA, presents the cost results, and discusses limitations of
the analysis.
As noted in Section 2.2, this analysis estimates costs for six different regulatory
alternatives addressing motor vehicle waste disposal wells, and for three different alternatives for
large-capacity cesspools:
Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
la) Banning motor vehicle waste disposal wells within ground water protection areas.
Ib) Banning motor vehicle waste disposal wells within ground water protection areas,
but allowing owners and operators of individual wells in such areas to seek a
waiver to keep operating by applying for a permit.
2a) Banning motor vehicle waste disposal wells within ground water protection areas
and other sensitive ground water areas.
2b) Banning motor vehicle waste disposal wells within ground water protection areas
and other sensitive ground water areas, but allowing owners and operators of
individual wells in either kind of area to seek a waiver to keep operating by
applying for a permit.
3a) Banning motor vehicle waste disposal wells statewide.
3b) Banning motor vehicle waste disposal wells statewide, but allowing owners and
operators of individual wells to seek a waiver to keep operating by applying for a
permit.
Large-Capacity Cesspools
1) Ban large-capacity cesspools within ground water protection areas.
2) Ban large-capacity cesspools within ground water protection areas and other
sensitive ground water areas.
Draft
Page 18
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells August 19, 1999
3) Ban large-capacity cesspools Statewide.
The basic costs elements associated with the motor vehicle options and the cesspool
options are described in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. This followed by a discussion of the approach for
estimating costs to States and EPA (Section 4.3), the cost results (Section 4.4), and the
limitations of the analysis (Section 4.5).
4.1 Costing Methodology for Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
This section starts with an overview of the methodology used to calculate compliance
costs associated with motor vehicle waste disposal wells. It then describes the individual
compliance costs. Next, this section discusses how the individual compliance cost elements are
combined to estimate average facility costs. Finally, it discusses how the analysis computes the
total cost to owners and operators of motor vehicle waste disposal wells nationally.
4.1.1 Overview
To comply with the ban options (Options la, 2a, and 3a), owners and operators of motor
vehicle waste disposal wells are assumed to: implement best management practices (BMPs) to
reduce both the volume and toxicity of wastewater; physically close the well (put in a permanent
plug or some other sort of permanent seal); send future wastewater offsite (i.e., the wastewater
that can no longer be disposed through the well) to a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW),
to an industrial/commercial wastewater treatment facility (WWTF), or to a recycler via a "waste
exchange" arrangement; conduct soil sampling; and (if needed) undertake remediation, additional
sampling, and off-site disposal of remediation wastes at an appropriate facility. These activities
are summarized in flowchart form in Exhibit 4-1.
The compliance process under the ban/waiver options (Options Ib, 2b, and 3b) is
summarized in Exhibit 4-2. Under these options, owners and operators implement BMPs and
then sample their injectate to determine whether the injectate meets MCLs. If the injectate does
not meet MCLs, the well must be closed as discussed above, thereby incurring the other costs
noted above. However, if the injectate does meet MCLs, owners and operators may seek a
permit allowing them to continue operating the well. The analysis assumes that permits will
entail periodic injectate and sludge sampling, as well as proper disposal of sludge when liquid
from the sludge exceeds MCLs.
To determine the cost of this rule for a particular well owner, certain information about
the injectate and the facility must be known. This information would ideally include quantity of
injectate, general composition of injectate, injectate contaminant levels, location of facility
relative to off-site treatment facilities and sewer systems, extent of soil contamination (if any),
Draft Page 19
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to theUIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Exhibit 4-1
Compliance Process for Ban Options (Motor Vehicle Wells)
Implement BMPs
(Reduce Flow by 50%)
Send Injectate Offsite for Treatment
(POTW, Waste Exchange, WWTF)
Sample Soil
Off-Site Disposal
HW Thennal Treatment
Off-Site Disposal
Non-Hazardous
Thennal Treatment
Need \Ycs
Remediation
Additional
Sampling
Off-Site Disposal
Non-Hazardous Landfill
Stop
Draft
Page 20
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class ¥ Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Exhibit 4-2
Compliance Process for Ban with Waiver Options (Motor Vehicle Wells)
Implement BMPs
(Reduce Flow by 50%)
Send Injectate Offsite for Treatment
(POTW, Waste Exchange, WWTF)
Get waiver, incur annual
injectate and sludge sampling
costs. Continue operating
Additional
Sampling
Stop
Off-Site Disposal
HW Thermal Treatment
Off-Site Disposal
Non-Hazardous
Thermal Treatment
Off-Site Disposal
Non-Hazardous Landfill
Draft
Page 21
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the U1C Regulations for Class VInjection Wells
August 19, 1999
and current wastewater minimization practices. The nature of the injectate, for example, is an
important determinant of costs associated with sampling and implementing BMPs.
Because this type of detailed information is not available for the individual wells affected
by this rule but rather is known more generally for the affected universe, EPA has made
assumptions and assigned probabilities to determine the cost of the rule to average wells within
each of the representative motor vehicle four-digit SIC codes identified in Section 3.2. To
capture the spread of expected conditions, EPA has modeled 12 different waste stream types
defined by several variables (flow rate; levels of organics, oils, and greases; presence of metals).
EPA then assigned to all facilities within a given four-digit SIC code one or more waste stream
types (as discussed in Section 4.1.2). Similarly, EPA defines three different levels of best
management practices will be implemented by owners and operators of motor vehicle waste
disposal wells and assigned one to each four-digit SIC code (See Section 4.1.3).
The analysis calculates weighted average compliance costs to address the different costs
that may be incurred by different owners and operators. Within the ban with waiver options, for
example, EPA estimates that 72.5 percent of all motor vehicle waste disposal wells would
qualify for and receive a permit to keep operating, and the remaining 27.5 percent would close
(this estimate is discussed in more detail below). The analysis uses this estimate to calculate an
average cost, by adding 72.5 percent of the total costs incurred by a facility with a permit to keep
operating to 27.5 percent of the total costs incurred by a facility that closed its well. EPA used
this weighted average approach to apportion costs whenever some facilities will respond to the
rule in one manner and other facilities will respond in another manner. Exhibit 4-3 and Exhibit
4-4 show the percentages and costs applied to derive the "average" facility cost to motor vehicle
waste disposal wells under, respectively, the ban options (Options la, 2a, and 3a) and the ban
with waiver options (Options Ib, 2b, and 3b). These exhibits also indicate which costs are
variable (such as monitoring costs) and which costs are fixed. The derivation of these costs is
described in subsequent sections.
Assumptions Under the Ban Options (la. 2a. and 3a^) - Exhibit 4-3
Under the ban options (la, 2a, and 3a), 100 percent of motor vehicle waste disposal wells
will close. Accordingly, all of these wells will incur well closure costs. At the same time,
owners and operators of the associated facilities are assumed to implement BMPs and will have
to send their waste off-site for treatment and/or disposal at one of the following types of
facilities: a publicly-owned treatment work (POTW), waste exchange, non-hazardous waste
treatment facility, or hazardous waste treatment facility. The selection of the type of facility is
based on the waste stream type, and is discussed in Section 4.1.8. The analysis conservatively
assumes that all well owners will sample their soil to determine if contamination has occurred,
even though such sampling is not specifically required under this rule. It assumes that 35 percent
Draft
Page 22
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class Y Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Exhibit 4-3
Percentages and Costs Used to Derive Average Facility
Costs Under the Ban Options (Motor Vehicle Wells)
Implement BMPs
(Reduce Flow by 50%)
Cost Determined by BMP Category
Qose Well ) Cost Determined by BMP Category
Send Injectate Offsite for Treatment
(POTW, Waste Exchange, WWTF)
Sample Soil
$2,376
Management and Cost Determined by
Waste Stream Classification
Need \Yes
Remediation
33.3% (35%) = 11.7%
Additional
Sampling
$3,871
Off-Site Disposal
HW Thermal Treatment
$24,248
Off-Site Disposal
Non-Hazardous
Thermal Treatment
$4,872
Off-Site Disposaf
Non-Hazardous Landfill
$3,752
Stop
Draft
Page 23
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Exhibit 4-4
Percentages and Costs Used to Derive Average Facility Costs
Under the Ban with Waiver Options (Motor Vehicle Wells)
Implement BMPs
(Reduce Flow by 50%)
Cost Determined by BMP Category
Sample Injectate
Cost Determined by Waste Stream
Classification
c
Yes (72.5%)
Get waiver ($598/yr); incur annual
injectate and sludge sampling costs;
continue operating.
Sampling Cost
determined by
Waste Stream
Classification
xii «r 11 """"N Cost Determined
Close Well^>by BMP Category
Send Injectate Offsite for Treatment 1 Management and Cost V operating
(POTW, Waste Exchange. WWT™ '
(72.5%) = 48%
Yes
33.3% (72.5%) = 24%
Slample Soil
$2,376
35% (27.5%)
Need N. Yes
Remediation
33.3% (9.6%) = 3.2%
9.6%
Additional
Sampling
$3,871
No
65% (27.5%) = 17.9%
iff-Site Disposat\
KW Thermal Treatment )
$24,248 /
Stop
ff-Site Disposa
Non-Hazardous
Thermal Treatment
$4,872
Off-Site Disposal
Non-Hazardous Landfill
$3,752
Draft
Page 24
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
of well owners will discover contamination and remediate their site. Contaminated soil will be
disposed at one of the following types of facilities: a hazardous waste thermal treatment facility,
a non-hazardous waste thermal treatment facility, or a non-hazardous waste landfill. Facilities
will re-sample to confirm that cleanup is complete. Soil at one third of the facilities that must
remediate (or 11.7 percent of the total facilities) is assumed to be hazardous and disposed at a
hazardous waste thermal treatment facility. The remaining two thirds of the facilities that
-remediate will be evenly divided between the two types of non-hazardous waste facilities (i.e.,
11.7 percent of the total facilities will dispose of contaminated soil at non-hazardous thermal
treatment facilities, and 11.7 percent of the total facilities will dispose of contaminated soil at
non-hazardous landfills).
Assumptions Under the Ban/Waiver Options (lb. 2b. and 3b) - ExhibvJL4-4
Under the ban with waiver options (lb, 2b, and 3b), 100 percent of motor vehicle
facilities with wells are assumed to implement BMPs. All of these well owners will then test
their injectate and liquids from their sludge to determine if each meets MCLs. EPA assumes that
72.5 percent will meet MCLs at this point and will apply for and receive a permit to keep
operating. The remaining 27.5 percent of facilities will not meet MCLs and will close their
wells. These percentages (72.5 percent and 27.5 percent), which were also used in the economic
analysis of the proposed rule, were derived using data on industrial wells (discussed below).
Data from an EPA Region 5 survey suggest that a relatively high percentage of Class V
industrial waste disposal wells meet MCLs at the point of injection. Additional data from EPA
Region 9 also supports this observation. These two data sources indicate that between 45 percent
and 75 percent of industrial wells meet MCLs at the point of injection.16 Using the more
conservative of these two estimates, EPA assumed that only 45 percent of industrial wells would
meet MCLs without implementing BMPs. EPA then assumed that of the remaining 55 percent,
half (or 27.5 percent) would meet MCLs if BMPs were implemented and the other half (27.5
percent) would not meet MCLs and would have to close. Because EPA believes there is a
fundamental difference in the injectate characteristics and baseline operating practices at motor
vehicle facilities, EPA has conservatively assumed that no motor vehicle facilities will be able to
meet MCLs without implementing BMPs. However, once these BMPs are implemented at
motor vehicle facilities, EPA estimates that the percentage of motor vehicle facilities that will be
able to meet MCLs will be the same as the total percentage of industrial wells that would
16 Information from sampling data and presentation from EPA Region 5 (September
1995) and Memorandum from EPA Region 9 (June 1992) indicate that among 87 sample wells
that pass toxicity characteristics, only 23 did not meet MCLs. The lower bound (45 percent) is
estimated based solely on EPA Region 5 data.
Draft
Page 25
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UlC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19,1999
ultimately meet MCLs (i.e., after implementing BMPs, if necessary). Thus, a total of 72.5
percent of motor vehicle waste disposal wells are assumed to be able to meet MCLs, and 27.5
percent are assumed to be unable to meet MCLs and to close.
Of the 72.5 percent of total motor vehicle waste disposal wells that are assumed to meet
MCLs and obtain a permit (in the ban with waiver options), all are assumed to monitor the
injectate quarterly for the first three years and annually thereafter. These wells will also sample
liquids from their sludge annually. In the initial sludge sample, one third of these wells (about 24
percent of all motor vehicle waste disposal wells) will have liquid from sludge that meets MCLs,
and will not incur further costs. The remaining two thirds of the wells (or 48 percent of total
motor vehicle waste disposal wells) will have liquid from sludge that does not meet MCLs and
will need to dispose of their sludge. In subsequent years, the sludge from all wells is assumed to
meet MCLs.
Of the 27.5 percent of total motor vehicle waste disposal wells that are assumed to close
because they are unable to meet MCLs, all will incur well closure costs (to physically seal off the
well). All of these wells will send waste off-site for treatment, sample soil, and remediate if
necessary. Thirty-five percent of the wells that close (or 9.6 percent of the total wells) will
remediate soil. As described above, one third of these wells that remediate (or 3.2 percent of the
total wells) will dispose of the soil in a hazardous waste thermal treatment facility, one third (or
3.2 percent of the total wells) will dispose of the soil in a non-hazardous waste thermal treatment
unit, and one third (or 3.2 percent of the total wells) will dispose of the soil in a non-hazardous
waste landfill.
4.1.2 Waste Stream Characterization
To account for the diversity of waste stream characteristics, EPA developed 12 model
waste streams, based on flow rate, levels of organic constituents (along with oils and greases),
and presence of metal constituents. These groupings were assigned letter labels (A, B, C, D, E-l,
E-2, F-l, F-2, G, H, I, or J), as shown in Exhibit 4-5.
Waste stream types A, B, C, D, G, H, I, and J generally represent the characteristics and
flow rates of industrial waste, while E-l, E-2, F-l, and F-2, which contain oil and grease,
generally represent the characteristics and flow rates of motor vehicle waste. EPA used best
professional judgment to estimate which of these waste stream types were likely to be found at
motor vehicle facilities in each of the 18 representative motor vehicle SIC codes. These
assignments are summarized in Exhibit 4-6.
Motor vehicle waste disposal wells within some of the SIC categories have low and high
flow rates. In the absence of flow data on individual wells, half of the wells in these SIC
Draft
Page 26
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
Exhibit 4-5
Waste Stream Groupings for Estimating Compliance Costs
August 19, 1999
Group
Label
A
B
C
D
El
E2
Fl
F2
G
H
I
J
Annual
Flow Rate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
Waste Characterization
Organics
Low
X
-
X
-
X*
-
X*
-
X
-
X
'
High
-
X
-
X
-
X*
-
X*
-
X
-
X
Metals
-
-
X
X
-
-
-
-
-
-
X
X
* These waste streams, which best represent motor vehicle waste
fluids, are likely to contain oil and grease in addition to other
organics.
categories are assumed to have low flow rates, and half are assumed to have high flow rates. The
automotive service-related facilities are divided into two categories: service-related facilities with
a low flow rate of 2,000 gallons per year, represented by scenarios El and E2, and dealerships
with a high flow rate of 20,000 gallons per year, represented by scenarios Fl and F2. Because a
few of the motor vehicle SIC codes are more like industrial facilities than service stations,
several of these SIC codes are assigned waste stream types more typically associated with
industrial wells (e.g., SIC code 5531).
Draft
Page 27
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Exhibit 4-6
Waste Stream Characterization and Best Management Practice Category by SIC Code
SIC
Code
4142
4212
4213
4581
5015
5511
5521
5531
5541
7514
7515
7532
7533
7537
7538
7539
7549
9111
Description
Bus charter service, except local
Local trucking, without storage
Trucking, except local
Airports, flying fields, and airport terminal services
Motor vehicle parts, used
Motor vehicle dealers (new and used)
Motor vehicle dealers (used only)
Auto and home supply stores
Gasoline service stations
Passenger car rental
Passenger car leasing
Top, body and upholstery repair shops and paint shops
Auto exhaust system repair shops
Automotive transmission repair shops
General automotive repair shops
Automotive repair shops, NEC
Automotive services, except repair and carwashes
Executive offices
Flow Rate/
Waste
Category*
E1.E2
E1,E2
E1,E2
C,D,I,J
F1.F2
F1,F2
F1,F2
A,G
E1,E2
E1.E2
F1,F2
E1,E2
E1.E2 j
E1.E2
E1,E2
E1,E2
A, B, G, H
A,G
BMP**
Category
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
* See Exhibit 4-5
** Categories 1,2, and 3 denote "Good Housekeeping," "Parts Washers," and "Solvent Recovery Unit,"
respectively. See Exhibit 4-7.
4.13 Best Management Practices
Under the ban with wavier options (Ib, 2b, and 3b), owners or operators of all motor •
vehicle waste disposal wells are expected to implement BMPs to improve the quality of their
injectate enough to meet MCLs, and to reduce the quantity of wastewater that will need to be
disposed. BMP costs are classified in three categories, based on the waste type (organic or
organic with metals) and the type of manufacturing or service industry generating the waste (i.e.,
whether single or multiple process steps are typically involved). The BMPs are classified as
"good housekeeping" in Category 1, "parts washing" in Category 2, and "solvent recovery" in
Category 3. These categories are developed to account for the process complexity among the
Draft
Page 28
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UlC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
different establishments represented in the analysis, from simple repair shops to complex, multi-
stage operations.
As shown in Exhibit 4-6, each four-digit SIC code is assigned to a BMP category based
on the type of waste generated and the complexity of facility processes. For example, single-
purpose service facilities will incur lower BMP costs than complex, multi-stage servicing
facilities (e.g., airports). Capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs differ for each
BMP category. Exhibit 4-7 presents the components of capital and O&M costs for each
category.
Facilities in SIC categories assigned to BMP category 1 incur costs for the
implementation of general housekeeping practices. These practices include spill collection
devices, improved handling practices, and labeling and inventory controls. Service industries
such as retailers (e.g., auto parts stores - SIC code 5531) are assumed to require a minimal level
of BMPs and are assigned costs related to good housekeeping practices. Total capital costs for
good housekeeping are $1,727 and O&M costs are $1,267 per facility. A detailed breakdown of
these costs is presented in Appendix VI.C of the 1998 economic analysis.
The majority of motor vehicle service-related facilities are assigned BMP costs which
include the installation of parts washers and the adoption of good housekeeping practices
(category 2). Total costs for parts washing are $7,484 in capital investments and $1,686 for
O&M.
Airports, flying fields, and airport terminal services (SIC code 4581) are assigned to BMP
category 3. These facilities are likely to generate wastes that include organic solvents. This
category includes costs for the installation of solvent recovery systems in addition to adopting
good housekeeping measures. Total capital costs for solvent recovery are $26,966 and O&M
costs are $4,606 per facility.
4.1.4 Injectate and Sludge Monitoring
Under the ban options (la, 2a, and 3a), there are no injectate or sludge sampling or
analysis costs. Under the ban with waiver options (Ib, 2b, and 3b), the injectate must be sampled
initially to determine if the well would qualify for a permit to keep operating. If the injectate
meets MCLs during the initial sampling, the well is assumed to receive a permit that requires
quarterly injectate sampling for the first three years, and annual injectate sampling
Draft
Page 29
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UJC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Exhibit4-7
Descriptions of BMP Processes for Each SIC Code by BMP Category
BMP
Category
1
(Good house- '
keeping)
2
(Parts washer)
5
(Solvent
recovery unit)
SIC Codes
5531,9111
4142, 4212, 4213, 5015,
5511,5521,5541,7514,
7515,7532,7533,7537,
7538, 7539, 7549
4581
BMP Process Description
Capital
1. Install collection devices
2. Improve handling process
Total capital costs = $1,727
1. Install collection devices
2. Recycle wastes in on-site
solvent units
3. Improve handling process
Total capital costs = $7,484
1 . Install collection devices
2. Keep floors clean
3. Mechanical devices for
material removal
4. Improve handling process
5. Install built-in distillation unit
6. Operate distillation unit
Total capital costs - $26,966
O&M
1. Labels/inventory
2. Keep floor clean
3. Improve handling process
Total O&M costs = $1,267
1. Labels/inventory
2. Recycle wastes in on-site solvent
units
3. Keep floor clean
4. Improve handling process
Total O&M costs = 51,686
1 . Labels/inventory
2. Keep floor clean
3 Improve handling process
4. Prc-washing
5. Maintain and calibrate equipment
6. Inspect repair gaskets
7. Inspect air relief valves;
S.Inspect baffle assembly bi-weekly
Total O&M costs = $4,606
thereafter.17 Annual sludge sampling will also be required. If liquid within the sludge does not
meet the MCLs, the sludge must be removed and properly disposed. If during the initial
sampling, the injectate does not meet MCLs, EPA assumes the well will not receive a permit and
will close.
Initial injectate monitoring costs include the labor costs for sampling, analysis costs, and
recordkeeping costs. These costs depend on the waste stream constituents and range from $493
to $647 per well annually. Waste stream types A, B, G, and H, which contain only organic
constituents, incur a total monitoring cost of $493 per well. Waste stream types C, D, I, and J,
which contain organic and metal constituents, incur a total cost of $647 per well. Waste stream
types E-l, E-2, F-l, and F-2, which contain only organic constituents, incur a total cost of $586
per well. (These waste stream types are likely to contain oil and grease, and are therefore slightly
17 Specific permit conditions will be developed by Primacy States and EPA Regional
offices. For the purposes of this analysis, EPA assumes reasonable permit conditions to protect
underground sources of drinking water.
Draft
Page 30
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells August 19, 1999
more expensive than waste stream types A, B, G, and H.) These sampling costs include
contacting a laboratory, supervising sampling, analysis by the laboratory, reporting, and
recordkeeping.
The annual cost of ensuring that a motor vehicle waste disposal well is in compliance
includes quarterly injectate sampling at $1,658 to $2,272 for the first 3 years and annual injectate
sampling at $493 to $647 in subsequent years (i.e., if injectate consistently meets MCLs over the
first three years). The annual sampling cost for sludge is estimated at $1,192 per facility.
Appendix F details the sampling and monitoring costs associated with the demonstration of
continuous compliance for motor vehicle waste disposal wells.
4.1.5 Sludge Disposal
If the liquid extracted from the sludge exceeds the MCLs, the sludge must be removed
and disposed of properly prior to continuous injection. The cost associated with removing and
disposing of sludge from a motor vehicle waste disposal well is estimated at $737 (one-time
cost).
4.1.6 Permit Applications
Under the ban with waiver options, 72.5 percent of facilities are expected to apply for and
qualify for a permit to continue operating based on assumptions that their injectate will meet
MCLs after BMPs have been implemented. These facilities will need to apply to their EPA
Regional office or State for a permit. Requirements for permit application may vary by State.
Nonetheless, EPA assumes that these facilities will incur a one-time permit application cost of
$1,300, which covers labor associated with preparing and submitting the permit application.
4.1.7 Well Closure
Unit compliance costs associated with well closure includes pre-closure notification, well
closure costs, and contractor oversight. .
Pre-Closure Notification
Costs associated with reporting well closures are included in the analysis for all wells that
must close, assuming a simple notification procedure. Owners and operators are required to
notify the UIC Program Director of their intent to close their wells at least 30 days prior to
closure. An optional form, "Class V Well Pre-Closure Notification Form" (OMB #XX), may be
used. The pre-closure notification costs incurred by owners and operators are estimated at $41
per well, which includes the cost of labor.
Draft Page 31
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class VInjection Wells
August 19,1999
Well Closure Costs
Closure costs were derived for drywells and septic systems to provide a range of
estimates. These costs are applied according to well closure complexity, which is related to
operating process complexity. Therefore, SIC codes in BMP categories 1 and 2 (i.e., good
housekeeping and parts washing) are assigned the lower of the two well closure costs, while the
higher well closure cost is assigned to wells in BMP category 3 (i.e., solvent recovery).
The well closure cost components include pipe flushing, pipe plugging, wastewater
disposal, and well backfilling. The average closure cost of a motor vehicle waste disposal well
with organic wastes is assumed to be $1,293. Closure costs increase to $3,480 per well if the
pipes need to be filled with grout, as in cases involving solvent recovery. Owners and operators
of facilities that close their wells will also incur costs associated with soil sampling and analysis
to detect possible contamination. The annualized cost of oversight and sampling is estimated to
be $365 per motor vehicle waste disposal well. Individual components of well closure cost and
the associated unit costs are given in Appendix VI.D of the 1998 economic analysis.
Contractor / Engineering Oversight
The rule does not require hiring consultants or engineers to oversee closure. Since the
publication of the 1998 proposed rule, however, EPA has received data indicating that some
motor vehicle facilities do in fact hire consultants or engineers to oversee closure. In response to
these data, EPA has added a prorated cost of hiring a consultant or engineer, as discussed below.
EPA obtained additional well closure cost data from EPA Region 2, as well as cost data
submitted by the Penske Truck Leasing Company (Penske). EPA also received cost data
submitted during the public comment period for the proposed rule by the American Trucking
Association (ATA). EPA compared these data to the costs in the 1998 economic analysis.
Specific cost elements (e.g., contaminated soil disposal fees) used in the economic analysis were
compared to the corresponding cost elements found in cost data from the three sources. Average
costs were used when various cost estimates were available. Some cost elements could not be
compared to cost elements reported in the new sources (ATA, Penske, EPA Region 2) because
the new sources presented only aggregated costs or they categorized costs in a different manner.
EPA's cost comparison and analysis of the new data indicated that the closure cost
estimates used in the 1998 economic analysis were reasonable or even overestimated the cost of
some activities. However, the comparison also revealed that trucking companies, such as
Penske, hire contractors, consultants, and/or engineers to oversee well closure. The average cost
reported for this oversight was $2,713.
Draft
Page 32
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class Y Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Exhibit 4-8
Assumed Distribution of Off-Site Management Alternatives by Waste Stream Type
Waste
Stream
Type
A
B
.C
D
El
E2
Fl
F2
G
H
I
J
Waste Characterization
Annual Flow
Rate*
780 gal/yr
780 gal/yr
780 gal/yr
780 gal/yr
1,000 gal/yr
1,000 gal/yr
1 0,000 gal/yr
10,000 gal/yr
5,200 gal/yr
5,200 gal/yr
5,200 gal/yr
5,200 gal/yr
Organics
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Metals
-
-
Yes
Yes
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yes
Yes
Percentages of Facilities Selecting Off-Site
Management Alternatives
POTW
50%
25%
50%
N/A**
50%
25%
50%
25%
50%
25%
50%
N/A**
Waste
Exchange
-
50%
-
50%
-
50%
-
50%
-
50%
-
50%
Treatment Facilities
Hazardous
-
25% .
-
50%
-
25%
-
25%
-
25%
-
50%
Non-Haz.
50%
-
50%
-
50%
-
50%
-
50%
-
50%
-
* Annual flow rate after BMPs are implemented. BMPs are assumed to reduce flow rate by 50 percent.
** POTW option is not available for this scenario due to the high concentration of waste.
All waste stream types with high relative waste concentrations (i.e., waste stream
types B, D, E2, F2, H, and J) are assumed to require treatment as a hazardous
waste when sent to a treatment facility.
Waste exchanges are assumed to be impractical for waste stream types
characterized by a relatively low organic concentration (i.e., waste stream types A,
C, E-l, F-l, G, and I) due to diluted waste quality.
Draft
Page 34
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class VInjection Wells
August 19, 1999
EPA considered the scope and context of these new data, and determined that a limited
number of facilities would choose to hire the servies of contractors, consultants, and/or engineers
(i.e., approximately 10 percent of the motor vehicle waste disposal wells are likely to incur this
new cost). For example, larger facilities that perform truck maintenance and truck washing may
generate a larger amount of wastewater, with different wastewater constituents, than most
smaller automobile service facilities; therefore, the facilities might have a larger or different type
of Class V well. In addition, more extensive contamination might occur at such sites, requiring
more extensive well closure activities, which in turn might lead to higher well closure costs.
Well closures and clean-ups performed voluntarily by the facility owner (e.g., to obtain an
optional no-liability verification letter from the State environmental authority) or as a result of a
notice of violation or EPA Administrative Order could be more extensive than would be required
by the new Class V rule. Therefore, EPA has added a prorated average cost (10 percent of
$2,713, or $271) of hiring consultants and/or engineers to the analysis.
4.1.8 Off-Site Treatment and Disposal
Owners and operators of waste disposal wells that must be closed will incur costs
associated with off-site waste disposal. A number of alternative management options are
available, including transporting wastewater to POTWs, using a waste exchange, or transporting
wastewater to off-site treatment facilities.18-!9 Off-site management alternatives are based on
waste stream characteristics and are summarized in Exhibit 4-8. This exhibit illustrates the
assumed management preferences (in percentage) of well owners that generate a particular waste
stream type. For example, 50 percent of the well owners that generate waste stream type E-l will
send their waste to a POTW and the other 50 percent will send their waste to a non-hazardous
waste treatment facility.
The percentages shown in Exhibit 4-8 are based on the following assumptions:
• All waste stream types with relatively high organic concentrations (i.e., waste
stream types B, D, E2, F2, H, and J) are assumed to be candidates for waste
exchange (e.g., organic solvent re-use and recycling).
18 The analysis assumes that connection to a sewer is not an available wastewater
disposal option. This will, in fact, be the case for at least most wells located in rural areas, but it
is not likely to be the case for all wells. Consequently, the analysis overstates the compliance
costs of the rule as a result of this assumption.
19 On-site treatment is always more expensive than off-site treatment and disposal, and is
therefore never used in the cost analysis. A discussion of on-site treatment costs can be found in
Appendix G.
Draft
Page 33
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UICRegulations for Class VInjection Wells
August 19, 1999
flow rates by 10 to 40 percent, parts washer and solvent recovery units reduce flow rates by 40 to
80 percent, and process modifications reduce flow rates Tjy approximately 50 percent. However,
given the variability in the processes and operations within each SIC category, the current
analysis reduces all flow rates by 50 percent. A summary of waste stream scenario compliance
costs is provided in Exhibit 4-9, and a detailed breakdown of the cost components is given in
Appendix VLB in the 1998 economic analysis.
Exhibit 4-9
Costs of Off-Site Management of Waste Streams By Type
Waste
• Stream
Type
A
B
C
D
El
E2
Fl
F2
G
H
I
J
Percent
Affected
8.62
0.59
0.18
0.18
34.92
34.92
5.52
5.52
8.62
0.59
0.18
0.18
POTW
Capital ($)
2,449
2,449
2,805
NA
2,504
2,648
6,074
6,218
6,019
6,019
6,375
NA
O&M ($/yr)
1,462
1,462
783
NA
783
1,174
1,580
1,971
735
735
791
NA
Waste Exchange
Capital ($)
NA
4,061
NA
4,417
NA
4,951
NA
8,521
NA
6,842
L_ NA
10,059
O&M($/yr)
NA
789
NA
1,449
NA
1,237
NA
2,031
NA
730
NA
9,087
Wastewater Treatment
Facility
Capital ($)
2,210
1,865
2,210
1,865
2,210
2,210
5,780
5,780
5,780
3,264
5,780
3,264
O&M ($/yr)
2,068
6,304
2,068
6,304
2,409
6,766
16,728
25,666
8,919
15,586
8,919
15,586
4.1.9 Soil Sampling and Remediation
Owners and operators of all waste disposal wells that are required to close are assumed to
incur soil sampling and analysis costs of $3,871. If the soil around a well or septic system is
found to be contaminated, the soil is assumed to be removed and disposed of properly. Based on
the information from the 1991 National Administrative Order (AO) Closure Database on motor
vehicle waste disposal wells, of the 135 facilities that submitted detailed reports, 47 facilities
needed soil remediation. Therefore, 35 percent of the closed wells are estimated to need soil
remediation.
EPA anticipates that affected businesses will excavate leach fields (a component of septic
systems) or the area surrounding dry wells. EPA also assumes these wells will re-sample after
Draft
Page 36
-------
Economic Analysisof Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells August 19, 1999 ^^
• All waste stream scenarios with relatively low organic concentrations (i.e., waste
stream types A, C, E-l, F-l, G, and I) are assumed to require treatment as a non-
hazardous waste when sent to a treatment facility.
• POTWs will not accept wastewater that has high levels of both organic:; and
metals (i.e., waste stream types D and J).
» When more than one management alternative is available, owners and operators
are generally assumed to select each alternative in even proportions. However,
when available (i.e., for waste stream types B, D, E-2, F-2, H, and J, because of
relatively high organic concentrations), 50 percent of facilities are assumed to take
advantage of the waste exchange alternative, even if more than two alternatives
are available. Remaining facilities are assumed to use other remaining options in
even proportions.
For all waste stream scenarios involving off-site disposal, waste is assumed to be
transported to a treatment facility without any pretreatment or segregation. Wastewater shipping
distances are assumed to be 25, 50, and 200 miles for a POTW, nonhazardous waste facility, and
hazardous waste facility, respectively. Transport to either a POTW or a nonhazardous waste
facility is assumed to cost $9.81 per mile per thousand gallons, while transport to a hazardous
waste facility is assumed to cost $3.99 per mile per thousand gallons. The lower unit shipping
cost for hazardous waste is due to the extended distance to be traveled. Off-site waste disposal
costs are $1.84 per 1,000 gallons, $1.55 per gallon, and $2.10 per gallon for POTW, non-
hazardous, and hazardous waste facilities, respectively.
This analysis conservatively assumes that high-concentration wastes will be disposed of
at hazardous waste treatment facilities despite the fact that any hazardous waste disposaJ in a
Class V well is illegal. Wells receiving hazardous wastes would be classified as Class IV wells,
which are prohibited under existing federal regulations. Based on past experience, about 13
percent of motor vehicle waste disposal wells are assumed to inject some hazardous waste.20
Hazardous waste treatment is therefore included as a possible (though relatively unlikely) off-site
management option because facilities may decide to concentrate their waste for volume reduction
and more cost-effective disposal.
The cost of off-site management assumes implementation of BMPs which results in
decreased annual wastewater flow. Given the limited number of facilities with complex BMPs,
approximations of the expected flow reductions are used. Good housekeeping BMPs reduce
20 1991 Administrative Consent Order issued by EPA to 10 major oil companies.
_—_ Page 35
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells August 19, 1999
Because all of the SIC categories are assigned at least two waste stream types, the
analysis then calculates the weighted average facility costs in each SIC category. For instance,
facilities within SIC code 5541 (gasoline service stations) generate both E-l and E-2 waste
stream types, though they all are assigned BMP category 2. Using the assumption that facilities
generating each of the waste stream types within a SIC code are evenly distributed, EPA added
half of the costs associated with waste stream type E-l, BMP category 2, to half of the costs
associated with waste stream type E-2, BMP category 2. This produces the weighted average
annualized capital and O&M costs that are applied to all facilities within SIC code 5541. For the
ban with waiver options, Exhibit 4-10 shows these annualized capital and O&M costs for each
waste stream type and BMP category within each SIC code, as well as the weighted average
annualized capital and O&M costs for each SIC category.
4.1.12 Determining National Cost to Owners and Operators of Motor Vehicle
Waste Disposal Wells
The analysis then calculates the national annualized cost to owners and operators of
motor vehicle waste disposal wells by annualizing the present value of all facility costs (as
described in Section 4.1.11) across all facilities and SIC categories. In doing this, the analysis
takes into consideration when individual facilities will be affected by the rule. This is important
primarily because, for motor vehicle waste disposal wells, some of the options apply not only to
wells in ground water protection areas (as did the proposed rule), but also to wells in sensitive
ground water areas or to all wells within a given State. The rule requires wells in ground water
protection areas to comply with the rule by the end of 2004, whereas motor vehicle waste
disposal wells in sensitive ground water areas and in other areas of a given State must come into
compliance over a slightly longer period (by the end of 2007). Moreover, because the
compliance schedule for individual wells is tied to their States' delineation of ground water
protection areas and other sensitive ground water areas, the analysis assumes that wells in all
States will not come into compliance hi the same year.
To accurately evaluate the costs of the rule, the analysis recognizes the different time
periods over which wells are expected to come into compliance. For motor vehicle waste
disposal wells in ground water protection areas, this period is 2001-2004. For motor vehicle
waste disposal wells in sensitive ground water areas, this period is 2004-2007. Within these
periods, equal percentages of wells are assumed to comply each year. For example, for motor
vehicle waste disposal wells in ground water protection areas, 25 percent of wells are assumed to
comply in each of the years 2001,2002,2003, and 2004. Exhibit 4-11 shows the proportions of
wells in each geographical area (ground water protection area, other sensitive ground water area,
everywhere else) complying in a specific year in each option considered.
Draft Page 38
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
remediation to ensure that the cleanup has been completed. Based on the remediation
information submitted to EPA by facilities complying with the AO agreement, it is estimated that
an average facility will need to remediate approximately 40 cubic yards of soil (about 56 tons).
Excavation costs are based on engineering estimates varying from $38.50 per ton for 13 tons of
soil to $15.20 per ton for 210 tons (lower unit cost for higher volume). Therefore, an average
facility will incur an excavation cost of $1,680 (at a unit cost of $30 per ton) to remediate 56 tons
of soil.
To calculate the disposal costs of remediated soil, it is assumed that soil from 67 percent
(i.e., about two-thirds) of the 35 percent of closed wells requiring remediation can be disposed of
as non-hazardous waste, while the remaining soil will be disposed of as hazardous waste.
The cost of transporting non-hazardous soil is estimated at $392 for an average facility,
while the disposal costs are calculated as $30 per ton at a landfill and $50 per ton at a non-
hazardous waste thermal treatment plant. EPA assumes that half of the 67 percent of the
facilities that have non-hazardous soils will select landfills and half will use thermal treatment.
The cost of transporting hazardous soil is estimated as $2,698 per facility at $53 per ton.
The cost of disposing of hazardous soil in a thermal treatment plant is estimated at $350 per ton.
Remediation costs associated with Class V wells do not consider costs associated with
incineration or stabilization of wastes, because soil that requires such intensive treatment would
most likely be associated with Class IV wells. The detailed cost calculations and unit costs for
each treatment are given in Appendix VI.G of the 1998 economic analysis.
4.1.10 Other Administrative Costs
A one time cost of $164 has been added to the analysis to cover the administrative costs
of the rule (reading the regulations, contacting the state or EPA region to determine if a well is in
a ground water protection area or other sensitive ground water area, and initial recordkeeping
costs).
4.1.11 Calculation of Average Facility Costs
The analysis then tabulates the average facility costs described above for each
combination of waste stream type and BMP category. These costs, broken out by average capital
and O&M cost, are shown in Appendix H and Appendix I, respectively, for wells under the ban
options (la, 2a, and 3a) and wells under the ban with waiver options (Ib, 2b, and 3b). The
analysis then calculates an average annual capital cost, assuming that capital costs are annualized
using a 7 percent interest rate and a 20-year payback period for each well owner.
Draft
Page 37
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
The resulting series of costs were then annualized as described in the beginning of the
section.
Exhibit 4-10: Calculation of Average Facility Costs
SIC Waste Fraction Annualized O&MS/yr Weighted Average Weighted Average Total Weighted
Code Type/BMP of Weils Capitals Annual Capital O&M Average Facility
$ $/yr Cost
6,896
5531
A-1
G-1
0.5
0.5
829
917
3,014
3.868
873
3,441
4,314
7514
1,413
3.600
5,013
5,013
7537
E1-2
E2-2
0.5
0.5
1.397
1.430
3,460
3.740
1,413
3,600
5,013
7539
E1-2
E2-2
0.5
0.5
1,397
1,430
3,460
3.740
1,413
3,600
5.013
9111
A-1
G-1
0.5
0.5
829
917
3,014
3.868
873
3,441
4,314
Draft
Page 39
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Exhibit 4-11
Compliance of Affected Populations by Year
Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
Option
Opt. 1a
Opt. 1b
Opt. 2a
Opt. 2b
Opt. 3a
Opt. 3b
GWPA
2001 2002 2003 2004 200J
1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4
I/4 1/4 1/4 1/4
|/4 1/4 1/4 1/4
|/4 1/4 1/4 1/4
1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4
|/4 1/4 1/4 1/4
Other Sensitive Ground Water Areas
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4
1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4
1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4
1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4
"Everywhere Else*
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4
1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4
Cesspools
Option
Opt. 1
Opt. 2
Opt. 3
GWPA
2001 2002 2003 2004 200J
I/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5
I/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5
I/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5
Other Sensitive Ground Water Areas
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5
1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5
"Everywhere Else"
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5
4.2 Costing Methodology for Large-Capacity Cesspools
All the regulatory alternatives assume that large-capacity cesspools will be banned.
Therefore, EPA assumes that cesspools will incur closure costs and costs associated with
disposing a high volume (10,400 gallons per year) of domestic wastes off-site in POTWs.
Closure costs associated with cesspools include capital costs for clean out, pipe flushing, pipe
plugging, transportation of wastes off-site, disposal at a POTW, and the costs associated! with
filling the cesspool with clean, inert material.
The average cost of closing a cesspool (one-time) is estimated at $1,293. In addition to
closure, owners and operators will incur costs associated with disposing of high-volume high-
concentration organic wastewater in an off-site treatment facility. The one-time capital costs
associated with analysis and installation of a holding tank are estimated at $607 and $5,412,
respectively. The O&M costs associated with off-site disposal at a POTW are estimated at
$2,922 per cesspool. There is no cost associated with soil remediation because only sanitary
wastes are of concern. Finally, costs were added to cover administrative cost of submitting a pre-
closure notification, and other administrative costs (reading the regulations, initial recordkeeping
Draft
Page 40
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells August 19, 1999
costs). The unit costs associated with large-capacity cesspool closures are shown in Appendix J.
These cost were annualized and phased in following the pattern described for motor vehicle
waste disposal wells, assuming a fifth of the wells comply each year beginning in 2001.
Combining these costs results in an annualized total cost per well of $3,626.
4.3 Costing Methodology for States and EPA
Both EPA and Primacy States will incur costs to administer the new requirements. For
Primacy States, the analysis has estimated costs associated with regulation adoption, preparation
of a revised primacy application, delineation of sensitive ground water areas, review of pre-
closure notifications, provision of technical assistance to well owners and operators, issuance of
permits to qualifying motor vehicle waste disposal well owners and operators and review of
periodic monitoring reports on these wells. Additional discussion of these costs is presented in
the Information Collection Request (ICR) for the final rule (EPA ICR No. 1874.01). Primacy
States will also incur costs associated with enforcement of the rule.
Direct implementation (DI) States (i.e., States in which EPA implements the UIC
program) will incur fewer costs under the rule. The analysis assumes that half of these States
will delineate sensitive ground water areas.
The analysis assumes that EPA will incur all costs associated with implementing the rule
in DI States, as described above for Primacy States. EPA is also assumed to incur the cost of
delineating sensitive ground water area for those DI States that do not themselves conduct the
delineations.
This analysis estimates costs to States and EPA only for the option being promulgated in
the final rule. These costs are estimated to total, on an annualized basis, less than $500,000.
4.4 Cost Results
This analysis estimates the total annual cost of the rule at approximately $26 million.
This estimate assumes that all large-capacity cesspools will be affected by the rule, but that
existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells will be affected only if they are located in ground
water protection areas or sensitive ground water areas. This assumption is consistent with EPA's
belief that all States will delineate source water protection areas (SWPAs) by May 2003 and
sensitive ground water areas by January 2004. In the event that a State fails to delineate SWPAs
as required, or elects not to delineate sensitive ground water areas, then the provisions of the rule
would apply to all motor vehicle waste disposal wells in the State. EPA deems it unlikely,
however, that the rule will be applied to motor vehicles statewide in any State.
Draft ''Page 41
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Exhibit 4-12 presents the results of the cost analysis broken out by option. (Hie options
promulgated are Option 2b for motor vehicle waste disposal wells and Option 3 for large-
capacity cesspools.)
Cost results on a per facility are discussed in Section 5.
Exhibit 4-12
Results of Cost Analysis
Options
Option la: Ban in Ground Water Protection Areas
Option Ib: Ban/Waiver in Ground Water Protection Areas
Option 2a: Ban in Ground Water Protection Areas and
Other Sensitive Ground Water Areas
Option 2b: Ban/Waiver in Ground Water Protection Areas
and Other Sensitive Ground Water Areas
Option 3a: Ban Statewide
Option 3b: Ban/Waiver Statewide
Number of
Affected Wells
761
745
5,699
5,324
16,688
15,138
Total Cost
^'•/^msm^fmjs^-
eft ^<^Mm^$3i8$$&-
$4,100,000
$ 3,100,000
$ 24,600,000
$ 17,900,000
$ 70,400,000
$ 49,600,000
Option 1 : Ban in Ground Water Protection Areas
Option 2: Ban hi Ground Water Protection Areas and Other
Sensitive Ground Water Areas
Option 3: Ban Statewide
86
1,179
2,723
$ 200,000
$ 3,300,000
$ 7,600,000
4.5 Limitations of the Analysis
This analysis contains numerous assumptions that will influence the cost results;. EPA
believes the net effect of these assumptions is an overestimation of costs for the following
reasons:
• The analysis assumes no motor vehicle waste disposal well owners will be able to
meet MCLs without implementing BMPs, and that no facilities currently used
BMPs. That is, every well owner will incur costs for BMPs even though it is
Draft
Page 42
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells August 19, 1999
likely that many facilities already have these in place, or might not need to
implement them at all to meet MCLs.
This analysis assumes that Class V wells are not located in sewered areas. If
Class V wells are located in sewered areas, the cost of wastewater disposal should
be significantly less expensive than hauling it by truck to a POTW.
EPA based the percentage of wells that would need to close on the more
conservative of two data points from Regions 5 and 9. If the average or higher of
these two points had been used, fewer wells would have been assumed to close,
thereby reducing the cost of the rule.
This analysis makes use of hazardous waste disposal fees for some of the
wastewater and remediated soil. However, injection of hazardous waste is not
permitted using Class V wells. As a result, estimated costs are higher than if EPA
assumed all wells were operating in full compliance with UIC regulations.
Some of the cost data that EPA received in public comment indicate that EPA's
cost for specific cost elements may be higher than actual costs incurred by well
owners that have already closed their wells. EPA could have chosen to lower the
cost estimates. However, in the interest of being conservative, EPA only raised
costs in response to these data (as described in Section 4.1.7). Further, the new
cost element that EPA added as a result of the new data (a cost for engineering or
contractor oversight) is not required under the final rule.
Based on information from, and discussions with, several state and regional UIC
staff, many facilities do not generate any wastewater after their wells are closed.21
Some owners and operators of these closed wells are likely to implement waste
minimization practices and BMPs, rather than continue to generate wastewater
that requires off-site disposal. For instance, the data from New Hampshire
suggest that only 23 percent of closed wells require holding tanks to store
wastewater for disposal. This analysis, however, assumes that after well closure,
every affected facility will continue to produce wastewater that requires treatment
or disposal.
21 Conversations with Mitch Locker of New Hampshire, Ron Stilene of Massachusetts,
and Mark Nelson of EPA Region 3, October, 1997. Data from New Hampshire was from the NH
Department of Environmental Services Site Remediation and Groundwater Hazard Inventory
Listing of All Sites, or the "ALLSITES" list, as of October 1997.
Draft : Page 43
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
5. Economic Impacts
This section discusses the per facility costs (in Section 5.1) and impacts (in Section 5.2)
of the various regulatory alternatives on all affected businesses and local governments. Affected
entities include both large and small entities. (See Section 6 of this report for a discussion of the
rule's impacts on small entities in particular.)
5.1 Average Cost Per Facility
Compliance costs are estimated for the average facility in each representative SIC
category, as described in Section 4. Facility costs have been annualized over 20 years, using a 7
percent discount rate, and are presented in 1999 dollars.
Per facility costs are calculated for two sets of options: the ban options (la, 2a, 3a) and
the ban/waiver options (Ib, 2b, 3b). Within each of these sets of option, per facility costs will
not vary (although the number of facilities affected and the total cost of the option will vary).
EPA estimates that the final rule will affect certain entities that own or operate motor
vehicle waste disposal wells. Section 3 describes how the number of affected entities is
estimated and how the affected facilities are characterized by SIC category. The average
annualized cost per facility to owners and operators of these facilities is estimated to range from
$4,300 to $14,400, depending on the waste streams generated by the facility. Exhibit 5-1
presents the average annualized per facility cost for each of the representative SIC categories,
both for the ban options (la, 2a, 3a) and the ban/waiver options (Ib, 2b, 3b). Option 2b is being
promulgated in the final rule.
The average annualized cost per facility to owners and operators of large-capacity
cesspools is estimated at $3,626, regardless of the option being considered.
5.2 Impacts on Owners and Operators
The analysis estimates the impact of compliance costs based on the ratio of cost to sales
(or total revenue). This provides a rough measure of the extent to which gross margins would be
reduced by the incremental compliance costs, or alternatively, the amount by which a facility's
prices would need to increase to maintain existing margins. Under actual market conditions,
businesses may absorb only part of the compliance cost and pass the remainder on to their
customers. The extent to which these impacts actually take place will vary across industries
given then* price elasticity of demand. The analysis employs screening level thresholds of one
percent and three percent of sales to evaluate significant impacts.
Draft
Page 44
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Exhibit 5-1:
Average Annualized Per Facility Cost of Compliance
SIC
Number
4142
4212
4213
4581
5015
5511
5521
'5531
5541
7514
7515
7532
7533
7537
7538
7539
7549
9111
SIC Description
Bus charter service, except local
Local trucking, without storage
Trucking, except local
Airports, flying fields, and airport terminal
Motor vehicle parts, used
Motor vehicle dealers (new and used)
Motor vehicle dealers (used only)
Auto and home supply stores
Gasoline service stations
Passenger car rental
Passenger car leasing
Top, body and upholstery repair shops and
paint shops
Auto exhaust system repair shops
Automotive transmission repair shops
General automotive repair shops
Automotive repair shops, nee
Automotive services, except repair and
carwashes
Municipal and solid waste township
management and road facilities
"Ban" Options
la, 2a, 3a
$5,745
$5,745 '
$5,745
$14,353
$12,590
$12,590
$12,590
$6,115
$5,745
$5,745
$12,590
$5,745
$5,745
$5,745
$5,745
$5,745
$7,116
$6,115
"Ban/Waiver" Options
lb,2b,3b
$5,013
$5,013
$5,013
$10,869
$6,896
$6,896
$6,896
$4,314
$5,013
$5,013
$6,896
$5,013
$5,013
$5,013
$5,013
$5,013
$5,270
$4,314
The numerator of the ratio, compliance cost per facility, is the average facility cost for
each SIC category, as discussed in Section 5.1J22 The analysis models the ratio's denominator,
22 Compliance costs for actual facilities will differ from the average based on facility-
specific factors. Also, recall that costs have been annualized over a 20-year period using a 7
percent discount rate. This is consistent with the Office of Management and Budget's
recommended best practices as detailed in Economic Analysis of Federal Regulations Under
Executive Order 12866. Individual facilities, however, may be unable to obtain financing under
relatively less favorable terms. Thus, impacts on facilities may be greater than those estimated.
Draft
Page 45
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19,1999
per facility sales (or total revenue), for all facilities in each SIC category, as described in
Appendix K.
The analysis estimates per facility impacts on owners and operators of motor vehicle
waste disposal wells in each of the 18 representative SIC categories for two sets of options.
Impacts associated with the ban options (la, 2a, 3a) are summarized in Exhibit 5-2. Impacts
associated with the ban/waiver options (Ib, 2b, 3b) are summarized in Exhibit 5-3. Within each
of these sets of options, the number of facilities estimated to incur potentially significant impacts
varies, although the percentage of facilities incurring these impacts will not vary.
The final rule bans existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells in ground water protection
areas and other sensitive ground water areas, but allows owners and operators to seek a waiver to
keep operating by applying for a permit (Option 2b). Under the final rule, EPA estimates that
compliance costs will exceed one percent of sales for almost half of the entities affected by the
rule. About 18 percent (less than one-fifth) will incur costs exceeding three percent of sales. For
virtually all of these entities most impacted by the rule, costs as a percent of sales are estimated
to range from 3.1 percent to 8.3 percent. These figures almost certainly overstate impacts
because they assume that all facilities incur the "average" compliance cost for their industry. In
reality, compliance costs are likely to be proportional to economic activity. That is, facilities that
do little business should generate less wastewater (and incur lower compliance costs) than
facilities that do more business.
The final rule bans large-capacity cesspools statewide (Option 3). An estimated 2,700
facilities will incur costs associated with closing cesspools. However, available data on the type
of entities that use large-capacity cesspools are insufficient to evaluate impacts on affected
entities.
Draft
Page 46
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the VIC Regulations for ClassV Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
I
A*
O
I
oa
to?
Is)
si*
& H —
ca co *-*
H •< «j
WI^C
dE
o
s
I
2
g
o
i
S
S
£
IU
ll*
S as c
Pi
u
«
s
i*'
o
u •
§S
ill
ing
8
pa
S
s?
CO
$
«
cS
S
me
tal
§
eg
Q.
£
fr
i
o
f
TJ
» 8
t|
•° "
&'jc
Ts
K-Q
(0
SI
Ge
S
Automo
carwash
.a
f
01
« =
SJ
s-g
- |
?
sol
ro
Municipal an
managem
m
Draft
Page 47
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V InjectionWells
August 19, 1999
o
H
0.
O
O
09
BU ^
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells August 19, 1999
6. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), requires EPA to explicitly consider the effect of
regulations on small entities. In accordance with Section 603 of the RFA, this section presents
EPA's final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRF A) examining the impact of the proposed rule on
small entities.
6.1 Need for and Objectives of the Rule
Class V wells are generally shallow wells or other devices used to inject fluids either
directly into or above an underground source of drinking water (USDW). Class V wells are
subject to the UIC regulations promulgated under the authority of Part C of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA), which mandates the regulation of underground injection of fluids through
wells to protect underground sources of drinking water. Under the current regulations, all Class
V wells, regardless of the risk they pose to USDWs, are authorized by rule (no specific technical
requirements). These generic Class V requirements provide, most importantly, that disposal of
wastes into Class V wells cannot result in the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into
USDWs, if the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of the primary drinking water
regulations or may otherwise adversely affect human health.
To meet the obligation to protect USDWs as mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act
and the requirements of a consent decree with the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, EPA is
finalizing more specific requirements for two types of high risk Class V wells; large-capacity
cesspools and motor vehicle waste disposal wells. The rule will ban new motor vehicle waste
disposal wells and new and existing large-capacity cesspools nationwide. Existing motor vehicle
waste disposal wells would be banned in ground water protection areas for community water
systems and non transient non community water systems that use ground water (ground water
protection areas) and other State designated sensitive ground water areas. However, owners and
operators of existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells would be allowed to seek a waiver from
the ban and apply for a permit if they can demonstrate that they can meet minimum permit
requirements.
EPA is banning new motor vehicle waste disposal wells and new and existing large-
capacity cesspools nationwide, and is banning motor vehicle waste disposal wells (with the
opportunity to seek a waiver from the ban if certain conditions are met) located in ground water
protection areas and sensitive ground water areas, based on the high potential for these wells to
endanger USDWs. Available information and damage cases show that these wells stand out as
particularly troublesome. Many wells at motor vehicle-related facilities are injecting fluids with
little or no treatment, such as spilled gasoline and oil, waste oil, grease, engine cleaning solvents,
Draft 'Page 49
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells August 19, 1999
brake and transmission fluids, and antifreeze. These fluids contain potentially harmful
contaminants, often in high concentrations. For example, fluids containing waste oils or gasoline
generally include benzene, toluene, xylene, and other volatile contaminants. Waste oils and
antifreeze also contain some priority heavy metal pollutants, such as barium, cadmium,
chromium, and lead. Other contaminants that may be injected include methylene chloride, a
compound found in many degreasers, and ethylene glycol, a component of antifreeze. All of
these contaminants can be toxic above certain levels. Some, such as benzene and toluene, have
the potential to cause cancer.
Large-capacity cesspools have a high potential to contaminate USDWs because: (1)
sanitary wastes released in cesspools frequently exceed drinking water MCLs for nitrates, total
suspended solids, and coliform bacteria;23 (2) the wastes released in cesspools also contain other
constituents of concern, including phosphates, chlorides, grease, viruses, and chemicals used to
clean cesspools such as trichloroethane and methylene chloride; and (3) numerous States have
reported degradation of USDWs from such cesspools.
Based on the above information, the detailed discussions in the preambles to the proposed
and final Class V rule-makings, and the supporting documents contained in the rule-making
docket, EPA believes that banning new motor vehicle waste disposal wells and new and existing
large-capacity cesspools nationwide and existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells (with option
for existing wells to seek a waiver) in ground water protection areas and sensitive ground water
areas is necessary to protect USDWs.
6.2 Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
One commentor on the proposed rule noted EPA's statement that the Agency had reduced
the burden on small entities by keeping permitting, reporting, and other administrative
requirements to a minimum. The commentor stated that EPA's statement was inconsistent with
the proposed requirements, and that EPA's proposal would put a burden on small entities.
In the final rule, the Agency has sought to minimize the requirements applicable to
owners and operators of UIC wells to the extent consistent with the objectives of the rule.
Closure requirements for owners and operators of existing large capacity cesspools and motor
vehicle waste disposal wells are limited to notifying the UIC Director 30 days prior to closing the
well. For owners and operators of motor vehicle waste disposal wells that choose to seek a
waiver from the ban, the minimum requirements include obtaining a permit and monitoring
23 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Water, Report to
Congress: Class V Injection Wells, September 1987, page 4-149.
Draft Page 50
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells August 19, 1999
sludge and injectate to insure compliance. EPA has carefully estimated the costs of all of the
requirements applicable to small entities; evaluated the impacts of the costs; and incorporated
any applicable comments received during the comment period for the proposed rule and the
Notice of Data Availability.
The commentor also expressed concern that EPA's analysis might understate impacts on
small trucking companies in rural areas given EPA's stated expectation that waste disposal wells
and drinking water wells may both be located in populated areas. The analysis explicitly
assumes a correlation between existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells UIC wells and
populated areas that are unsewered. The statement noted by the commentor discussed the
assumption that motor vehicle waste disposal wells are twice as likely to fall within ground water
protection areas as outside of ground water protection areas. The effect of this assumption was to
double the estimated number of entities — including small entities — that are found in ground
water protection areas. For this reason, the commentor's concern is unfounded and no changes to
the rule or the analysis are necessary.
Finally, the commentor also raised the question of whether this regulation will override
the current federal and State regulations in place across the country. If it does not, the
commentor argues, then most of these facilities will also need to perform some sort of testing
during closure at their expense that may then lead to expensive remediation activities. The new
requirements establish minimum requirements for two types of Class V injection wells. The new
requirements do not set standards for closure of Class V wells, referring owners and operators to
existing State or federal closure requirements. Primacy States and EPA Regions (for DI States)
may require specific testing and/or remediation if deemed necessary by the UIC Director. EPA
did estimate possible costs that owners and operators might incur during closure of their Class V
well, as discussed in Section 4.1.
63 Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities Affected
The final rule affects owners and operators of two categories of Class V injection wells:
large-capacity cesspools nationwide and, motor vehicle waste disposal wells when located in
ground water protection areas or sensitive ground water areas. The initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) discussed a third category of Class V injection wells (industrial wells) that is not
addressed by the final rule.
• Motor vehicle waste disposal wells receive or have received fluids from vehicular
repair or maintenance activities, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive
repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission
and muffler repair shop), or any facility that does any vehicular repair work.
Fluids disposed in these wells may contain organic and inorganic chemicals in
Draft : ! Page 51
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for ClassV Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
concentrations that exceed the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) established
by the primary drinking water regulations (see 40 CFR Part 142). These fluids
also may include waste petroleum products and may contain contaminants, such
as heavy metals and volatile organic compounds, which pose risks to human
health.
• Large-capacity cesspools. Cesspools are drywells that receive untreated sanitary
waste, and which sometimes have an open bottom and/or perforated sides. The
UIC requirements do not apply to single-family residential cesspools nor to non-
residential cesspools that receive solely sanitary waste and have the capacity to
serve fewer than 20 persons a day.
- The analysis estimates impacts for the selected regulatory option. The rule bans existing
motor vehicle waste disposal wells in ground water protection areas and sensitive ground water
areas, but allows them to continue to operate if they seek a waiver from the ban and obtain a
permit. The final rule also bans large-capacity cesspools and new motor vehicle waste disposal
wells nationwide.
The RF A's definition of a small entity includes small businesses, small governmental
jurisdictions, and small not-for-profit organizations. This rule would primarily affect small
business entities. To define small business entities, EPA used the Small Business
Administration's (SB A) industry-specific criteria published in 13 CFR 121. SB A size standards
have been established for each type of economic activity under the Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) system. These criteria are usually expressed in terms of number of ^
employees or dollar volume of sales. Appendix L shows the SB A size threshold used for each of
the 18 SIC categories used in the analysis.
Using the methodology described in Sections 3 and 5 of this document, EPA estimated
the number of facilities potentially affected by the final rule, along with the fraction and number
of those facilities that qualify as small entities. Approximately 4,800 small businesses and 370
small governments are affected by the motor vehicle waste disposal well provisions of the final
rule. Of the 18 SIC categories used in the analysis, 17 are comprised mainly of small entities (at
least 95 percent of all facilities in the category). The other category (SIC 5511, used motor
vehicle dealers) consists of 77 percent small businesses. Data on the type of entities that use
large-capacity cesspools are insufficient to analyze impacts.
EPA's analysis to evaluate the magnitude of the impacts on these small entities uses the
same methodology described in Section 5, except that the analysis is conducted only on those
entities that qualify as small. Exhibit 6-1 summarizes the analysis of small entity impacts,
including both the number of small entities affected and the magnitude of the impacts. About 50
Draft
Page 52
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the VIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Exhibit 6-1:
Small Entities Affected by Class V Regulation:
Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
SIC
Code
4142
4212
4213
4581
5015
5511
5521
5531
5541
7514
7515
7532
7533
7537
7538
7539
7549
9111
Totals
SIC Description
Bus charter service, except local
Local trucking, without storage
Tracking, except local
Airports, flying fields, and airport
terminal services
Motor vehicle parts, used
Motor vehicle dealers (new and used)
Motor vehicle dealers (used only)
Auto and home supply stores
Gasoline service stations
Passenger car rental
Passenger car leasing
Top, body and upholstery repair
shops and paint shops
Auto exhaust system repair shops
Automotive transmission repair
shops
General automotive repair shops
Automotive repair shops, nee
Automotive services, except repair
and carwashes
Municipal and solid waste township
management and road facilities
No. of
Affected
Entities
10
573
469
37
83
280
214
474
1,210
56
11
402
63
72
744
118
125
381
5^22
Percent
Small
95%
100%
99%
95%
100%
77%
100%
100%
97%
99%
98%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
97%
No. of
Small
Entities
10
573
465
36
83
216
214
473
1,169
56
10
402
63
72
744
118
125
370
5,199
No.
Affected
at 1%
5
375
216
27
62
5
118
210
344
30
5
297
43
60
614
96
95
0
2,602
No.
Affected
at 3%
2
173
95
16
26
0
37
41
73
14
3
112
14
19
241
40
41
0
947
Percent
Affected
at 1%
48%
66%
47%
75%
75%
2%
55%
44%
29%
53%
51%
74%
68%
83%
83%
81%
76%
0%
50%
Percent
Affected
at 3%
1 18%
30%
20%
46%
32%
0%
17%
9%
6%
26%
26%
28%
21%
27%
32%
33%
33%
0%
18%
Draft
Page S3
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
percent of the affected small entities are estimated to incur costs that represent more than 1
percent of their sales (or revenue for small governments); whereas, about 18 percent of the
affected small entities are estimated to incur costs that represent more than 3 percent of their
sales (or revenue for small governments). For virtually all of these small entities most impacted
by the rule, costs as a percent of sales are estimated to range from 3.1 percent to 8.3 percent.
Note, however, that these figures are likely to be overstated for two reasons. First, they assume
that all small entities incur the "average" compliance cost for then- industry. In reality,
compliance costs are likely to be proportional to economic activity. That is, small facilities that
do relatively less business should generate less wastewater (and incur lower compliance costs)
than facilities that do more business. Second, the analysis does not take into consideration that
some businesses are subsidiaries of larger businesses and thus may not qualify as small
businesses under the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
Based on this analysis, EPA believes that the final rule will have (or may have) a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This is consistent with the Agency's
analysis of the proposed rule, and EPA has conducted its rulemaking process accordingly (e.g.,
by conducting small entity outreach and convening a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel),
as discussed below.
6.4 Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements of the Final Rule
In the targeted ground water protection areas and other sensitive ground water areas, the
final rule will ban Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells, as well as large capacity
cesspools. Existing Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells hi affected areas may seek a
waiver from the ban and apply for a permit. Owners or operators of large capacity cesspools or
motor vehicle waste disposal wells that close then* wells would be required to notify the UIC
Program Director of the intent to abandon their well at least 30 days prior to abandonment
To comply with these requirements under the final rule, owners or operators of each
affected well type would need basic engineering and administrative skills to close their well and
implement alternative waste management practices. Well closure is likely to include pipe
flushing, pipe plugging, wastewater disposal, and backfilling wells with soil, cement, or other
material. Remediation - defined as removal of piping, septic tank, and/or contaminated soil and
installation of ground water monitoring wells — is not required as part of closure, but EPA .
understands that closure of the well may trigger site characterization and remediation
requirements under EPA Regional and Primacy State UIC Program Implementation of 40 CFR
144.12, other State environmental programs, insurance policies, business contracts, local
ordinances, and so forth. The economic analysis supporting the final rule, therefore, reflects
these costs, where they are likely to apply. Alternative waste management practices will most
Draft
Page 54
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells August 19, 1999
likely include such pollution prevention measures as: (1) recycling and reusing wastewater; (2)
collecting and recycling petroleum-based fluids, coolants, and battery acids drained from motor
vehicles; (3) washing parts in a self-contained, recirculating solvent sink, with spent solvents
. being recovered and replaced by the supplier; (4) using absorbents to clean up minor leaks and
spills, and placing the used materials in approved waste containers and disposing of them
properly; or (5) using a wet vacuum or mop to pick up accumulated rain or snow melt and
disposing of it properly.
Under the final rule, some owners or operators of existing motor vehicle waste disposal
wells may choose to seek a waiver from the ban that would allow them to keep their wells open
if they can meet specific permit requirements. The specific permit requirements could vary from
one well to the next, but would have to include the following three conditions at a minimum.
First, owners or operators would have to make sure fluids released in their wells meet the
primary drinking water MCLs at the point of injection or other appropriate health-based
standards approved by the UIC Program Director. Second, owners or operators would have to
follow accepted best management practices (BMPs) for motor vehicle-related facilities. The
BMPs recommended in the State of Connecticut's Best Management Practices for the Protection
of Ground Water and American Petroleum Institute's Handling Water Discharges from
Automotive Service Facilities Located at Petroleum Marketing Operations serve as good models.
Third, owners or operators would have to monitor the quality of their injectate and sludge (if
present in dry wells or tanks holding injectate) both initially and on a continuing basis in order to
demonstrate compliance with the permit MCLs. The rule, however, would not specify new
injectate monitoring requirements that must be followed, leaving those instead to the discretion
of the Director. New monitoring would require on-site sampling and recordkeeping capabilities,
as well as contractor laboratory services for sample analysis.
Finally, no special skills are believed to be needed to comply with the pre-closure
notification requirement. This notification is very simple, consisting of filling out a form or
sending a brief letter informing the UIC Program Director of the intent to abandon a well at least
30 days prior to abandonment.
6.5 Minimizing Impacts on Small Entities
6.5.1 Steps Taken to Minimize Impacts
To reduce the impact of the final rule on small entities, EPA has attempted to keep
technical requirements, as well as reporting and other administrative requirements, to a minimum
while ensuring adequate protection of drinking water supplies. The proposed rule incorporated
all of the consensus recommendations offered by the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
that was convened by EPA to obtain advice and recommendations from representatives of
Draft Page 5 5
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
affected small entities in accordance with Section 609(b) of the Act. In particular, the Panel
recommended that the rule offer alternatives to the ban of Class V motor vehicle waste disposal
wells. Therefore, in addition to the ban, the EPA co-proposed a ban with waiver option for
existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells. The Panel also recommended that UIC Program
Directors be allowed to extend the time to comply with the new requirements from 90 days to up
to a year in certain situations. Other changes made to the proposal in response to Panel
recommendations include the following: the preamble clarifies that Class V wells at motor
vehicle service facilities may not be subject to the rule if motor vehicle waste fluids are
prevented from entering the well; the preamble has been expanded to elaborate on the rationale
for the proposed statewide coverage of the new requirements in States that fail to complete their
source water assessments by May 2003; the supporting economic analysis has been revised to
acknowledge and account for the cleanup requirements that may be triggered by the proposal to
close certain Class V wells and to account for the likely overlap between areas where Class V
wells are located and source water protection areas; and the regulatory language has been
expanded to identify ways in which well owners or operators can learn whether they are in a
source water protection area.
The new requirements finalize some of the Panel's recommendations including: allowing
owners and operators of existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells to seek a waiver from the
ban and obtain a permit if they can meet certain conditions; the preamble clarifies that wells
(including storm water wells) at motor vehicle service facilities may not be subject to the rule if
motor vehicle waste fluids are prevented from entering the well; the deadline for statewide
coverage of the new requirements in States that fail to complete their source water assessments
by May 2003 has been extended to January 1,2004 to give States additional time to complete
their drinking water source water assessments; and, the supporting economic analysis has been
revised to account for higher cleanup cost incurred by some facilities.
6.5.2 Alternatives Not Adopted
1. Banning All Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
One of the proposed options was to ban existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells in
ground water protection areas and other sensitive areas. The need for a ban was based on the
high potential for these wells to endanger USDWs and EPA's concern that protection of current
and future drinking water might only be achieved through a total ban of these wells in ground
water protection areas and other sensitive areas. However, EPA did not select this option,
instead allowing owners and operators to seek a waiver from the ban and obtain a site specific
permit that requires injectate to meet MCLs and other health based standards at the point of
injection. While it is EPA's belief that the majority of owners and operators of motor vehicle
Draft
Page 56
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V InjectionWells August 19, 1999
facilities will close their wells, allowing pennitting of motor vehicle waste disposal wells gives
States and facility owners flexibility while insuring protection of USDWs.
2. Meet MCLs as Part of Rule Authorization
EPA also included an alternative for owners and operators of existing motor vehicle
waste disposal wells that would require them to meet MCLs and other health based standards at
the point of injection as a requirement of rule authorization. The requirements for this option are
identical to the regulatory approach chosen, except owners and operators would not have to seek
a waiver from the ban and to obtain a site specific permit. This option was not selected because
EPA believes that banning of high risk wells in ground water protection areas and sensitive
ground water areas is the best means of providing protection to drinking water sources.
However, if owners and operators can demonstrate that they are not endangering USDWs
through obtaining a permit in which injectate does not exceed the MCL or other health based
standards at the point of injection, BMPs are followed, and monitoring of injectate and sludge is
conducted, some wells could remain open. An effective prevention program requires the
involvement of both the regulators and the regulated community. The main reason for
considering the waiver from the ban would be the involvement of State and EPA Regions (for DI
States) through permits.
Draft Page 57
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UJC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Appendices
Appendix A: Number of Large-Capacity Cesspools and Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal
Wells as Reported in the Class V Study
Appendix B: Economic Analysis Estimate of Potentially Affected Wells
Appendix C: Summary of States' Class V UIC Well Inventories and Programs, and
Implications for the Economic Analysis
Appendix D: Estimating the Number of Wells in Ground Water Protection Areas
Appendix E: Estimating the Number of Wells in Sensitive Ground Water Areas
Appendix F: Sampling and Monitoring Costs for Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
Appendix G: On-Site Treatment Costs
Appendix H: Average Capital and O&M Costs for Wells Under the Ban Options (la, 2a,
and 3a)
Appendix I: Average Capital and O&M Costs for Wells Under the Ban with Waiver
Options (Ib, 2b, and 3b)
Unit Costs Associated with Large-Capacity Cesspool Closures
Estimating Per Facility Sales for Facilities in Each Affected SIC Category
SBA Size Thresholds for Affected Facilities
Appendix J:
Appendix K:
Appendix L:
Appendix M: Data and Calculations for SIC Codes in the Utilities Sector
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
Draft
Page 58
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class VInjection Wells
August 19,1999
Appendix A
Number of Large-Capacity Cesspools and
Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
as Reported in the Class V Study
Draft
Page A-I
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the VIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Inventory of Large-Capacity Cesspools in the US
State
Documented
Number of Wells
Estimated Number of Wells
Number
Source of Estimate and Methodology
v^^^^jK^fi'gr^kx.'iHZSstf&F":?, ttesa^.a*. <*&• <•.•.•,-&•.^W-^iyiViaur&>*»? • '. •? ^^.^:;?;v^-;f;@-*&fr^A^^ •?&&
NY
NR
N/A
VI
500
Review of business directory, particularly 'the number
of large businesses.
DE
25
Best professional judgement.
wv
299
299
N/A
FL
Unknown
Some cesspools may exist but do not know if they meet
large capacity definition.
GA
>1
There may be additional cesspools, particularly at old
facilities installed prior to 1984 when the
Environmental Protection Division assumed primacy of
the UIC program. At this time, however, the State does
not know that any other cesspools exist.
KY
NR
NR
N/A
^fegfe^^i^^^
IN
Best professional judgement of EPA Region 5 staff.
OH
224
£ 1,000
Information from Ohio EPA District Ground Water and
Surface Water staff, as well as local health departments.
Tribal Program
10
Best professional judgement of EPA Region 5 staff.
TX
Database. 17 wells are closed. These closures are
tracked by the State.
IIP
Draft
PageA-2
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Inventory of Large-Capacity Cesspools in the US
State
Documented
Number of Wells
Estimated Number of Wells
Number
Source of Estimate and Methodology
CA
78
78
N/A
HI
58
N/A
CNMI
Unknown
NR
N/A
ID
25
Data collected by Calvin Terada, Region 10, per
telephone conversations with State personnel.
OR
6,248
6,400
State Regional staff estimate and discoveries by
Cleanup Division. Also, data collected by Calvin
Terada, Region 10, per telephone conversations with
State personnel.
WA
25
Data collected by Calvin Terada, Region 10, per
telephone conversations with State personnel.
leiepnone conversations wiin aiaie personnel.
AIIC. . 6,924 > 8,428 Total estimated number counts the documented number
All States
N/A Not available
NR Although Regional, State and/or Territorial officials reported the presence of the well
type, the number of wells not reported, or the questionnaire was not returned.
Unknown Questionnaire completed, but number of wells is unknown.
Draft
PageA-3
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the U1C Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Inventory of Motor Vehicle Wells in the U.S.
State
Documented
Number of Wells .
Estimated Number of Wells
Number
Source of Estimate and Methodology
MA
ME
NH
RI
VT
NJ
NY
VI
0
1,239
26
15
NR
!M«-3^5:l'i'l^^liiSS?
4
345
0
NR
1,239 to 3,000
918
800 to 1,200
Unknown
Best professional judgement. The State believes that there are
still a significant number of motor vehicle waste disposal
wells. However, the inventory is 0 because all wells are
closed upon discovery.
Best professional judgement and field inspection history.
New motor vehicle waste disposal wells are identified weekly
during routine inspections. Although the Maine Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP) has identified many that
have been abandoned, it finds approximately twice as many
new ones through inspection.
Currently, there are 1,225 service stations in NH with active
and inactive underground and aboveground storage tanks.
The State estimates that 75 percent of these facilities, or 918
sites, are not supported by municipal sewers. This estimate is
based on best professional judgement.
Estimate based on best professional judgement, including
previous inventory work, discussions with consultants, local
staff, etc., and understanding of existing business. A new
inventory effort is on-going.
N/A
NR
3,000
100
N/A
Best professional judgement, based on years of inspections
and reviews of business directories.
Review of inspection reports, business directory, and the
number of P&A wells.
Draft
Page A-4
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the U1C Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Inventory of Motor Vehicle Wells in the U.S.
State
Documented
Number of Wells
Estimated Number of Wells
Number
Source of Estimate and Methodology
DC
MR
N/A
MD
71
N/A
PA*
1,700
> 1,700
Documented number of wells based on data from Region 3's
Well Activities, Tracking, Evaluation, and Reporting System
(WATERS) Database.
New motor vehicle waste disposal wells are identified weekly
during routine inspections.
VA«
467
>467
Documented number of wells based on data from Region 3's
Well Activities, Tracking, Evaluation, and Reporting System
(WATERS) Database.
New motor vehicle waste disposal wells are identified weekly
during routine inspections.
WV
<53
State officials believe most wells have been closed.
IN
MOO
N/A
MI
11
NR
N/A
OH
405
800 to 1,200
Estimate prepared by Ohio EPA based on extensive
discussions with trade organizations, knowledge of industry,
and unsewered areas in Ohio.
WI
67
>67
Surveys conducted by Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR) in 1989 and 1996.
Tribal Program
14
N/A
Draft
PageA-5
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Inventory of Motor Vehicle Wells in the U.S.
State
Documented
Number of Wells
Estimated Number of Wells
Number
Source of Estimate and Methodology
IA
KS
MO
NE
1
2 !
36
136
100 to 1,000
<50
100
200
Best professional judgement. Although the use of motor
vehicle wells is illegal in Iowa, discussions with state
sanitarians reveal that the use of this type of well is more
common than originally thought.
Best professional judgement Note that mos t motor vehicle
disposal wells are not broken out from other industrial waste
disposal wells.
Best professional judgement
Best professional judgement.
MT • .
ND
SD
UT
WY
Tribal Program
6 (permitted)
129 (1997 UIC
Inventory)
174
IS
35
60
3
CA
Tribal Program
414
0
>129
174
>I5
> 35
60
>3
Region is inventorying the State by geographic region. Many
parts of the State have not yet been inventoried. However,
Region 8 has already closed more than 700 automotive waste
disposal wells and permitted 6 wells.
N/A
The documented number of wells primarily reflects
geographic initiatives in Sioux Falls, Brookings, and Rapid
City. The documented number can not be extrapolated to the
rest of the State because only a small area of the State has
been examined to date.
Inventory forms received in FY 1998 are not reflected in the
documented number because of an anticipated change in data
systems.
Best professional judgement
Best professional judgement.
414
<100
N/A
Best professional judgement
Draft
PageA-6
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for ClassV Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Inventory of Motor Vehicle Wells in the U.S.
State
Documented
Number of Wells
Estimated Number of Wells
Number of Wells Number Source of Estimate and Methodology
18 1,250 Data collected by Calvin Terada, Region 10, from telephone
ID
Data collected by Calvin Terada, Region 10, from telephone
conversations with State personnel.
OR
500
Best professional judgement, and data collected by Clavin
Terada, Region 10, from telephone conversations with State
personnel.
WA
150
500
Data collected by Calvin Terada, Region 10, from telephone
conversations with State personnel.
Tribal Program
N/A
All States
5,601
> 16,440
Total estimated number counts the documented number when
the estimate is NR.
N/A Not available
NR Although Regional, State and/or Territorial officials reported the presence of the well type, the number of
wells was not reported, or the questionnaire was not returned
Unknown Questionnaire completed, but number of wells is unknown.
* Well inventory data were obtained from Memorandum from ICF to Robyn Delehanty, EPA: "Analysis of Class V Injection
Wells in EPA Region 3," dated January 20,1999; and on-going review of EPA Region 3's enforcement actions.
Draft
PageA-7
-------
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Appendix B: Economic Analysis Estimate of Potentially Affected Wells
State
CT
MA
ME
NH
RI
VT
NJ
NY
PR
VI
DC
DE
MD
PA
VA
WV
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
sc
IK
IL
IN
Ml
Region
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
Class V Study
Inventory of Motor
Vehicle Waste
Disposal Wells
0
NR
1,239-3,000
918
800-1,200
UNK
NR
3,000
0
100
NR
0
> 71
> 1,700
> 467
< 53
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
> 100
NR
Economic Analysis
Estimate of Motor
Vehicle Waste
Disposal Well
Inventory
0
694
3,000
918
1,200
46
782
3,000
0
100
0
0
370
1,700
771
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
430
1,047
Draft
PageB-1
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class VInjection Wells
August 19, 1999
Appendix B: Economic Analysis Estimate of Potentially Affected Wellls
State
MN
OH
WI
Tribal Program
AR
LA
NM
OK
TX
IA
KS
MO
NE
CO
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
Tribal Program
AZ
CA
ffl
NV
GU
AS
CNMI
Region
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Class V Study
Inventory of Motor
Vehicle Waste
Disposal Wells
0
800-1,200
> 67
> 14
0
0
0
0
0
100-1,000
< 50
100
200
0
> 129
174
> 15
> 35
60
> 3
0
414
0
0
0
0
0
Economic Analysis
Estimate of Motor
Vehicle Waste
Disposal Well
Inventory
0
1,200
392
14
0
0
0
0
0
1,000
50
100
200
0
129
174
1,329
163
60
3
0
414
0
0
0
0
0
Draft
Page B-2
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19,1999
Appendix B: Economic Analysis Estimate of Potentially Affected Wells
State
Tribal Program
AK
ID
OR
WA
Tribal Program
Total
Region
9
10
10
10
10
10
Class V Study
Inventory of Motor
Vehicle Waste
Disposal Wells
< 100
0
1,250
500
500
4
>16,424
Economic Analysis
Estimate of Motor
Vehicle Waste
Disposal Well
Inventory
100
0
1,250
500
500
4
21,692
Draft
PageB-3
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the U1C Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19,1999
Appendix B: Economic Analysis Estimate of Potentially Affected Wells
State
MA
ME
NH
RI
VT
NJ
NY
PR
VI
DC
DE
MD
PA
VA
wv
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
IK
IL
IN
Ml
MN
OH
Region
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
Class V Study
Inventory of Large
Capacity Cesspools
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
500
0
25
0
0
0
299
0
UNK
> 1
NR
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
>= 1,000
Economic Analysis
Estimate of Large Capacity
Cesspool Inventory
0
0
0
0 :
0
0
222
0
500
0
25
0
0
0
299
0
410
367
157
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
1,000
Draft
PageB-4
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions tothe UIC Regulations for Class VInjection Wells
August 19, 1999
Appendix B: Economic Analysis Estimate of Potentially Affected Weils
State
WI
Tribal Program
AR
LA
NM
OK
TX
IA
KS
MO
NE
CO
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
Tribal Program
AZ
CA
ffl
NV
GU
AS
CNMI
Tribal Program
AK
ID
OR
Region
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
Class V Study
Inventory of Large
Capacity Cesspools
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
78
58
0
0
0
NR
0
0
25
6,400
Economic Analysis
Estimate of Large Capacity
Cesspool Inventory
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
78
58
0
0
0
4
0
0
25
6,400
Draft
Page B-5
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class F Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Appendix B: Economic Analysis Estimate of Potentially Affected Wells
State
WA
Tribal Program
Total
Region
10
10
Class V Study
Inventory of Large
Capacity Cesspools
25
0
8,425
Economic Analysis
Estimate of Large Capacity
Cesspool Inventory
25
0
9,583
Draft
Page B~6
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UJC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Appendix C:
Summary of States' Class V UIC Well Inventories and Programs,
and Implications for the Economic Analysis
State
Primacy
orDI
Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
Large-Capacity Cesspools
CT
0 exist
0 exist
MA
Regs require individual permit, but not
permitted, so an effective statewide ban - ban
not in regs, but "more than just policy" (lots of
outreach, everyone knows, etc.)
Full credit for ban and waiver
0 exist
ME
Same as MA
0 exist
NH
Same as MA
0 exist
Rl
Regs require individual permit; permit
requirements are very restrictive and generally
result in closure; must meet EPA or more
restrictive state drinking water standard at
point of injection
No credit for ban; fall credit for waiver
0 exist
VT
Regs require individual permit; must meet EPA
or more restrictive state drinking water
standards at a point in the aquifer, not at the
point of injection
No credit for ban; no credit for waiver
0 exist
NJ
Regs require individual permit; close them
when find them, but no ban on the books;
unclear what quality standards apply where
No credit for ban or waiver
0 exist
NY
PR
DI
Federal program, although state issues
individual permits for some wells
No credit for ban or waiver
0 exist
Federal program only
No credit
0 exist
Draft
Page C-l
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Appendix C:
Summary of States' Class V UIC Well Inventories and Programs,
and Implications for the Economic Analysis
State
VI
Primacy
orDI
Dl
Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
Federal program only
No credit for ban or waiver
Large-Capacity Cesspools
Federal program only
No credit
Draft
Page C-2
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Appendix C:
Summary of States' Class V UIC Well Inventories and Programs,
and Implications for the Economic Analysis
State
Primacy
orDI
Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
Large-Capacity Cesspools
DC
DI
Federal program only
No credit for ban or waiver
0 exist
DE
0 exist
Banned by regulation
Full credit
MD
No ban or discharge limits; a permitting
program but not clear what the program
involves
No credit for ban or -waiver
0 exist
PA
DI
Close them when found, but only federal
program on the books
No credit for ban or waiver
0 exist
VA
DI
Close them when found, but only federal
program on the books
No credit for ban or waiver
0 exist
WV
When wells are found, they are required to
close or get an individual permit in accordance
with existing law (no ban on the books); if get
permit, must meet MCLs in ground water, not
at point of injection
No credit for ban or waiver
When cesspools found, they are required to close or
get an individual permit in accordance with existing
law (no ban on the books); if get permit, must meet
MCLs in ground water, not at point of injection
No credit
AL
0 exist
0 exist
FL
0 exist
Regs require individual permit for all wells, which
must meet MCLs at point of injection; assumed to be
de facto ban for cesspools
Full credit
Draft
Page C-3
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class VInjection Wells
August /P, 1999
Appendix C:
Summary of States' Class V UIC Well Inventories and Programs,
and Implications for the Economic Analysis
State
GA
KY
MS
NC
sc
IN
Primacy
orDI
P
DI
P
P
P
DI
Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
0 exist
0 exist
0 exist
0 exist
0 exist
0 exist
Large-Capacity Cesspools
Regs require individual permit, but no specific permit
requirements are on the books; wouldn't permit new
ones; unclear if would permit existing ones if found
No credit
Federal program only
No credit
0 exist
0 exist
0 exist
0 exist
IL
IN
MI
MN
OH
P
DI
DI
DI
P
0 exist
Federal program only
No credit for ban or waiver
Federal program only (no specific program at
State level); however, believe request for a new
well would be reviewed by MDEQ for a
groundwater discharge permit, which would set
contaminant limits at or below MCLs (though
not sure if target limits cover all MCLs)
No credit for ban or waiver
0 exist
Regs require an individual permit; existing
wells have been encouraged to voluntarily
close for the past 12 years; o/o's of new wells
deterred because they are told they would have
to meet MCLs at point of injection; but there
are new and existing wells that OH doesn't
know about and aren't controlled to same
standard
No credit for ban or waiver
0 exist
Federal program only
No credit
0 exist
0 exist
No ban
No credit
Draft
Page C-4
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Appendix C:
Summary of States' Class V UIC Well Inventories and Programs,
and Implications for the Economic Analysis
State
Primacy
orDI
Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
Large-Capacity Cesspools
WI
Disposal of motor vehicle waste fluids via a
well or septic system is prohibited; floor drains
are allowed in service areas to receive
snowmelt only; these floor drains do not
require a permit because injectate contains very
small concentrations of industrial contaminants
Full credit for ban; full credit for waiver
0 exist
Tribal
DI
Federal program only
No credit for ban or waiver
Federal program only
No credit
AR
0 exist
0 exist
LA
0 exist
0 exist
NM
0 exist
0 exist
OK
0 exist
0 exist
TX
0 exist
0 exist
1A
DI
Federal program only
No credit for ban or waiver
0 exist
KS
Permit required; requirements so stringent they
serve as a de facto ban
No credit for ban; full credit for waiver
0 exist
MO
Regs require individual permit; must meet
MCLs at point of injection
No credit for ban; full credit for waiver
0 exist
NE
Regs require individual permit; must meet
MCLs at point of injection
No credit for ban; full credit for waiver
0 exist
Draft
Page C-5
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Appendix C:
Summary of States' Class V UIC Well Inventories and Programs,
and Implications for the Economic Analysis
State
CO
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
Tribal
Primacy
orDI
DI
DI
P
DI
P
P
DI
Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
0 exist
Federal program only
No credit far ban or waiver
Can be authorized by rule or permit, but are
banned in WHPAs; generally, permits would
require MCLs be met at point of injection
Full credit for ban and waiver in SWPAs; no
credit outside SWPAs
No Class V wells allowed in WHPAs, but not
written policy (only federal program on books)
No credit for ban or waiver
Can be authorized by rule or permit, but can be
banned in WHPAs
No credit
Regs ban new wells statewide; existing wells
subject to individual or general permit
requirements, but can be banned in WHPAs;
permits do not require MCLs to be met at point
of injection
No credit for ban or -waiver
Federal program only
No credit for ban or waiver
Large-Capacity Cesspools
0 exist
0 exist
0 exist
0 exist
0 exist
0 exist
0 exist
AZ
CA
DI
DI
0 exist
Federal program only
No credit for ban or waiver
0 exist
Federal program only
No credit
Draft
Page C-6
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UlC Regulations for ClassV Injection Wells
August 19. 1999
Appendix C:
Summary of States' Class V UIC Well Inventories and Programs,
and Implications for the Economic Analysis
State
HI
' NV
GU
AS
CNMI
Tribal
AK
ID
OR
WA
Tribal
Primacy
orDl
DI
P
P
Dl
P
DI
DI
P
P
P
DI
Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
0 exist
0 exist
0 exist
0 exist
0 exist
Federal program only
No credit for ban or -waiver
0 exist
Wells deeper than 18 feet get permitted; wells
18 feet or less are rule authorized; unclear what
permit requirements apply
No credit for ban or waiver
Must meet standard (stricter than MCL) in
ground water, not at point of injection
No credit for ban or waiver
Banned since 19S4; wells existing at that time
had 1 year to apply for permit; must meet
quality standards in groundwater, not at point
of injection
No credit for ban or waiver
Federal program only
No credit for ban or -waiver
Large-Capacity Cesspools
Federal program; in addition, HI regs ban new
cesspools after 2000 and require existing cesspools to
get individual permits
No credit
0 exist
0 exist
0 exist
Rule authorized
No credit
0 exist
0 exist
Told that cesspools banned; however, regs say
cesspools deeper than 18 feet get permitted and
cesspools that are 18 feet or less are rule authorized;
unclear what permit requirements apply
No credit
Administrative rules ban new and existing cesspools
Full credit
Told that a ban exists
Full credit
0 exist
Draft
Page C-7
-------
-------
o
-S
o
I
I
•
Q>
a
o
fik
• !•
•o
Q 1
.a 5
1,5
4* %
«»x
O
s
ID _
£ S;
f 1 CD
i
C
I-
•a
CO
1
O
z'
6
~2
6
I
UIC Wells in
GWPA(2:1
Ratio)
UIC Wells In
GWPA(1:1
Ratio)
11
§5
e _
UlCWelH
GWPA (2:
Ratio)
c^
UIC Wells
GWPA(1i
Ratio)
UIC Well
Estimate
§ «E
5 -*
CO
c fi
0 <
5I
il
a
I
Land Area
Within Radii ol
All Wells (sq.
miles)
.I?
Iff
Estimated
Number of
Wells*
Land Area
Within Radii
of All Wells
(«q miles)
•fi™
Iff
Estimated
Number of
Wells*
OL.
O
z
s
J
*
-
X
O
u.
IU
o
o
m
<
[Column
CM
*
0.
P
1
r;
?
1
b
5
o
i
6
1
c
s
O
J
O
o>
*a
«**
1
0
I
o
[Calculation
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
in
£
CO
co
s
CM
eo
V
r—
eo
8
o
1
o>
in
o
-
_
o
o
o
o
o
CM
P
Z
O
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
1
CM
C-
co"
o
N.
CM
co"
CM
CO
o
5
CO
CO
0
s
CC
a.
o
o
o
o
C
IT
O
O
O
0
o
0
§
O
CO
o
*-
o
in
CM
O
O
o
in
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
g
o
o
CO
CO
o
in
CM
O
O
O
in
0
o
u
o
in
10
N.
cs
m
CM
o
o
o
0
o
1
o
r-.
rl
in
in
o>
in
co
m
CM
o
m
CO
in
CO
m
o
•»
O
o
o
o
o
o
o>
CN
T-
m
o
CO
in
o
^
CO
CO
r-
co"
CM
T-
CO
CO
CO
V"
•«*"
CO
CM
0
r-
co
m
O
CM
j
O
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
!?
o
CO
CO
o
eo*
R
CO
CM"
oo
o
!>.
8"
in
CM
o
§
CM
in
0
CO
N-
CM
_l
ID
CO
IO
•*•"
CM
0>
O
O
o
o
o
o
1
CD
CO
co
o
m"
CO
in
1
o
CO
co"
"-
-
in
T-
i
I
I
-------
i
I
1
I
t
03
2.
<
(3
.0
**
o
2
o
b
5
1
•o
a 1
x&
•§ s
O en
jj^ Jg
tl
(M
O
!•
«
X)
9
<**
W>
C
•••
•4—
03
•^
**
W5
w
£
53
5GE-CAR
JESSPOC
LL. V->
5
LLJ
_l
O
X t/»
UJ J
Sg
25
|
<£
& CO -
§ s'
1
2:
J-"
D -
TJ
CD
|2
o
z
H
z
6
6
0)
3
w
UIC Wells in
GWPA(2:1
Ratio)
UIC Wells in
GWPA(1:1
Ratio)
ll
UIC Wall! in
GWPA<2:1
Ratio)
s —
UIC Wells
GWPA<1:
Ratio)
ii
M?
•e «
B^-1
CD
G 8
g<
5I
2°W
SI
•o
1
Land Area
Within Radii ol
All Walls (eq.
mites)
,,ls
3 uj '*
Estimated
Number of
Wells*
ill!
III!
l|f
Estimated
Number ol
Wans4
O
<£
O
00
r-.
%
o
O
o
0
o
a?
CO
CM
5
CM
8
CO
§
CM
CO
m
o
8*
r»-
in
in
CM
o
8
CD
in
o
a>
in
g
oo
O
•^-
o
1*.
to
V
o
C)
o
o
o
$
CM
o
m
(O
3
S
o
"
§
8"
X.
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
i
T~
8
$
CM
T*
"
s
«M
l«-~
Si
8
O
CO
CM
i
in
o
CO
n
tfi
•o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
CO
CO
CO
in
S?
O
s
CM
5
8
u>
CM
O
S
CO
in
in
in
d
S
CO
J
o
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
o
*f
en
^
ff
r-
8
Si
•*
T-
S
»>
T—
_1
^t"
O
CM
O
^J-
T
C.
•*
C»l
^->
CM
?
i
^~
CO
in
S
s
fv
T-
^
o>
in*
«
CO
JS
(O
rS
i
?5
CM
m
g
cv
SS
rt
CM
O
V
r^
CO
1
CO
s
p.
5
CO
*•"
CM
S
o
CM
T*
i
5?
d
1%.
o
*-
X
o
o
cb
o
o
O)
m
T—
o
CO
CM
O!
CO
ss
s
CM
GO
«
r-
&
JS
in
T"
•*
«
S
s
CM
in
CM
O
1
£
CO
s
5
i
o
p
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
•*
V-
o
0
o
o
m
CM
o
o
o
m
0
o
ci
S
o
o
o
o
o
a
o
o
0
o
S£
r«»
T-
o
1
S
CM
S
5?
g
T"
5.
v
CD
in
CM
o
CM
CO
CM
o
T—
o>
m
d
a>
n
v
5
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
3?
o
o
o
s
§
g
to
CO
co_
CM
S
in
CM
o
h*.
•*
T-
3
^~
in
d
o
o
S
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
a
o
o
in
o
$
g
S
V"
CM
S
8"
cti
in
CM
o
^
CM
%
«
O
i
X
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
;£
s
0
in
u>
CO
S
CM
CM
g
r~
I*-
*•••
o
1
CO
T~
in
CM
o
S
»«.
n
D
m
*
n
co"
<
o
o
o
o
o
00
IK
CN
*~
't
c:
T-
S
Tf
T-
I
£
i
T"1
g
CO'
S
CD
CM
in
CN
O
n
CD
J
m
d
o
n
09
<
o
d
o
d
o
m
d
CO
0
s
§
0
I
§
1
CO
IS.
h^
CO
CO
in
CM
o
s
?
in
d
n
n
2
-------
o,
o\
5
X
I
o
1
I
.o
1
4
(A
S3
cu
. <
f*
.0
'•S
V
£
o
£
2
£
T3
0 I
M ^
IS
4> en
0.=
o«4*
<< ^
t»-l
e
&•
-
^ ««;
o «°
i;
CIS
5 -
•o
to
1
O
Z
6
JO
6
CD
S
CO
UiC Wells in
GWPA(2:1
Ratio)
UIC Wells in
GWPA(1:1
Ralio)
^ •£
ii
DID
c _
UIC wells
GWPA(2:
Ralio)
c_
UIC Wells
GWPA(1:
•Ratio)
UIC Well
Estimate
$5*
w tO
s^-1
CD
c £
D <
B-o
3J
°"m
§ &
_i <
m
CD
0)
<
Land Area
Within Radii of
All Wells (sq.
miles)
»«f
|l|
Estimated
Number ol
Wells*
Land Area
Within Radii
of All Wells
(sq. miles)
•^ •— •
Radius
Around Eat
Well (miles
Estimated
Number of
Wells*
O
o
O
o
o
^-
CO
in
V-
o
0
^
8
^
s
o
&
g
CD
m
•*
CD
CO
CO
r>~
f-
m
g)
CM
i
g
m
?>
m
8
8
to
m
in
CM"
in
CNJ
o
CO
en
-
&
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
0
CO
ss
g
0
o
o
m
CM
o
o
o
in
o
o
if
a
|
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
i
0
o
f-
^r
CO
s
CM
CO
o
in
co"
CM
^C
m
CM
o
•*
CM
CO
CO
in
in
O
9
r>-
S
o>
o
CO
r».
^»
o
^~
T-
m
•»
?
^
CM
CM
T-
CM
CO"
£
ed
a>
a>
CM
8"
r~
CD
m
CM
o
-'
r».
5
^>
n
"»•
0
»»•
OO
s.
CM"
g
CO
CD
O
OO
IO
o
o
o
0
o
£
s
V*
R
in"
v
S
in
CM
*
co"
CM
IO
CM
O
CM
m
**.
m
0
CO
en
X
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
^
o
s
8
o
£
•*
o
CO
1
CO
T"
m
CM
o
5
3
T"
m
o
s
>
z
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
§
m
CO
o
T"
CM
O
O
CM
O
in
CM
O
CM
f>-
n
o
CD
3
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
i
o
o
o
o
o
m
CM
0
O
O
m
0
o
5
T-
If
o
•
O
O
o
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
^
1
0
o
o
m
CM
o
o
o
in
O
o
oS
e
a.
~a
&
•c
•->
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
o
o
2S
i*.
0
o
CO
ao
o"
!«.
in
o
3
S
CO
R"
«n
o
in
CM
0
O
of
CO
in
0
S
•V
*
<
co
O
CM
O
m
CM
CM
r>-
co
CO
s
CM
i
o
§
o
CM"
oo
CM
S
CM
•5-
CM"
GO
CM
m
in
CM
O
m
CO
CM
in
m
o
n
(0
O
CO
CO
l>-
T
O)
CO
C
X]
ttf
c\
CO
7-
eo
0
g
^
CM
CO
0
s
i*
CO
s
CO
8
5
£
in
CM
o
8
CO
3
n
O
8
K
3
s>
S
-------
b.
2
PH
I
o I
e .5
0) M
CU S
O
I.
Ja
E
5
£
Bft
I
I
18
o °-
V
-------
O\ I
I
si
.OS
f
•Si
I
"O
c
1
O
"O es
M)
Cfl
^i
0
UJ CO
O UJ
tr o
UJ
o
x co
2d
S = 75 £
O g<
3 CO
§1
§5
3 UJ
"
a g<
3 CO
= d>
II
O *=
!>l
e »
o c •
C8 >••£ O ^«
g c ® i » £
o .
>
<
•J <
CO
olgs
•« ** C 5
AS •**
51SI
O «8 »= =
£
S
[ oroioi oi sn
00
CN
81
CM
CN
, w
CN
§
CN
001
O)
CD
fOl
ol
°-
to
COl
T— I
oil
col
^l
S
f-
co]
ml
col
o>
in
ml
o>(
col
0>
*M
001
ml
S?|
col
051
0)1
O)
«ol
cv
col
l
m
CO
in
«|
in
CO
CO
(N
(O
to
^1
»
CN|
»'
S
in
m
S?
o>
in
CM
oi
CN
"
S
Rol
CO"
c\
CN"
w"
ex
•*"
cc
CO
cy
CN
"
(O
CO
o
CN
S
oo
m"
§
to
in"
CN
10
CO
CO
CM
CD
S'
CO
Iv.
CN
eo
in
CO
CO
CN
•V
8*
CO
CO
§
r-.
CN
CN
S?
o
O>
0)
CN
SI
co"l
CNl
o>l
co
CD
CO"
col
o>
10
to
^•J
iCNl
CNl
091
I in
i CN'I
in
(D
CO
CN
oo
CN
ro
051
'CM I
(O
O)
in
in
o>
3)
i
, ^l
o
to
00
CN
CO
CN
CO
O)
COl
CN
CD
I col
•
M
CNl
CN
SI
o>
N
CNl
<0|
inl
i Q)
co
^1
il
-------
I
45
i
1
J
I
i
•a
00
•0
e
1
O
W 1
.B (»
•9 JS
§ ee
6
!•
Si
UJ
«< 1
£l»
«r
o
S-
c 01 a:
S ff--
— 10
• i « •= *-
-J < CO 3
~ 10
o
-1 0 JS
«•- «5 0
•o
&
« «
M *>
™ e .
• « K _1
£
IliP
J= "<1'S
IP
IB
55
loirs.
[OIC3IC51
Icol
ml
ml
col
rol
ol
CM
SI
CO
CD
CO
oil
ml
,co
uj
^1
^
CD I
o
m
CO
CO
a>
O
8"
CM
tn
in I
col
in'l
col
CM
CO
in
O)
o
in"
05
-I
in
, ^
cnf
o]
0)1
N4
0>
CO
00
o
co"
£»
CO
CO
CC
CO
O>
OO
S
in
CM
CO
s
CM
CM
CO
CO
CM
o
O)
CO
CO
CO
in
CO
o
in
in
in
in
»l
col
CM!
"-I
«
r^l
hi I
m'l
in
CM
ol
S
l«n
o>
lie
i **>
I*-
^1
col
ufl
CO
CO
CO
0)
m
in
OO
m
a>
CO
in
CM
CO
CM
in
CM
CO
o
r-"
m
o
co
co"
ss
in
CO
CO
CM"
a?
as
co
in
as
§
O)
CM'
in
in
CD
OO
O)"
in
in
T"
m
in"
in
8
in"
CO
.
8
in"
$
CN
I"5!
O)
tn
CM
CO
co
CO
M)
in
co"
CO
CM
in
m
CO
CM
as
in
nl
o>
at
04
3S
CM
CM
CO*
CM
mi
col
s
o>
CO
SSI
CO
CM
CO
8
CO
CD
m
r«-
CM
in
CO
CO
8
in
§
CO
co"
CM
CM
in
CM
col
co"
m
col
CO I
«
52
CM
co
CD"
co
CM
CM
n
CO
n
in
CM I
COl
'CO
CM|
N
CM I
m"|
col
Q|
~ sl
-------
I
I
§
I
J
1
I
41
^
:i
1
05
V
•o
1
c "
09
JB
S
s
OJD|
•*->
OS
•**
y
o w
2g
88
£«
o iu
K O
<
HI
o
I CO
Si=!
DC
|
<
to
is
«
2 §<
3 «0
= 0)
II
SI
III
O
>»•£ O !?cr
lllll^
CD b M _gr ^Z -^—
-"< w 5 |i "5
•O t» „"
5«S?
i£||
O < re «
55 £0
I
|«S1-
•5Ig«l
„» IB c o 2
S" -I < CO O
•g « * o g o-—.
c » o S= » E
'M M ^ Ife* •*
•p^ * •
n 3
« £
-i <
0) C
*- c B
2 o-^
5= y-
"5"
oroioroici
in
•*»•
oo
CO
(O
8
n
S
u:
CO
n
CM
in
co
of
o>
to
CM
CD
CD
CO
CO
o>
CM
CO
•1
f I
- 2
o>.
CO
«!
CO
8
CO
*
CM!
31
o>|
S
CO
in
m
(M
C7J
of
03
00
in
cef
in
CM
S*
m
CO
n
co"
CM
of
CO
o>
co"
CO
m
CO
in
CM
of
CO
5?
in
a
CM
S
inl
^1
M
CM!
CO
CM
ml
S
CM I
O
-------
I
I
i
I
i
I
J
1
f
i
ater
•o
B
3
O
•o .a
fli *1
1
BX
n
.S
w
o <5
go
gs £«n
o-gJS-a
ce £ O = =
-1 < m S. c
0> C
*• c S
S2 o-^
21°;
Iff
I
CO
o
r-.
o
0
0
f".
K- O.
^e
CO
00
m
0)
CO
co
CO
s
CN
in
c
tr
2
CO
o
CO
0>
co
(0
CO
CO
I
O)
CD
CO
CD
CN
CO*
co
CO
O>
in
*
O)"
CO
CC
IT
CN
in
CO
S
S
r-
(O*
o
u>
00
in"
i
CN
CO
to
o>
in"
|
CD
O)
.£
"c
8
o
to
CO
10
CN
i
IO
CO
CD
CD
(O
CO
o
"
o
CO
10"
IN
CO
CN
CO
"
in
CM
- 2
h- Q.
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19,1999
Appendix F
Sampling and Monitoring Costs for Motor Vehicle Wells
Detailed Compliance Costs for Annual Injectate Monitoring:
Waste Stream E and F
1. Contracted Sampling Labor
2. Oil and Grease
3. VOCs(SW.8620)
4. Decontamination/ Disposable Materials
Subtotal per event
Events
Contact Laboratory/Supervise Sampling
Reporting/Recordkeeping
Reporting/Recordkeeping
Total
Quantity
1
1
1
2
1
1
4
'/2
Unit
hr
each
each
each
hr - technical
hr - technical
hr - clerical
Unit Cost
$62.50
$92.10
$276.30
$6.92
$26.35
$26.35
$18.35
Total
$62.50
$92.10
$276.30
$13.84
$444.74
$444.74
$26.35
$105.40
$9.18
$585.67
Waste Streams A, B, G, and H
1 . Contracted Sampling Labor
2. Oil and Grease
3. Decontamination/ Disposable Materials
Subtotal per event
Events
Contact Laboratory/Supervise Sampling
Reporting/Recordkeeping
Reporting/Recordkeeping
Total
Quantity
1
1
2
1
1
4
'/2
Unit
hr
each
each
hr - technical
hr - technical
hr - clerical
Unit Cost
$62.50
$92.10
$6.92
$26.35
$26.35
$18.35.
Total
$62.50
$92.10
$13.84
$352.64
$352.64
$26.35
$105.40
$9.18
$493.57
Waste Streams C, D, I, and J
1. Contracted Sampling Labor
2. Metals Screen, Flame AA
3. Metals Screen, Furnace
4. VOCs(SW8620)
5. Decontamination/ Disposable Materials
Subtotal per event
Events
Contact Laboratory/Supervise Sampling
Reporting/Recordkeeping
Reporting/Recordkeeping
Total
Quantity
1
5
2
1
2
1
1
4
l/2
Unit
hr
each
each
each
each
hr - technical
hr - technical
hr - clerical
Unit Cost
$62.50
$18.42
$30.70
$276.30
$6.92
$26.35
$26.35
$18.35
Total
$62.50
$92.10
$61.40
$276.30
$13.84
$506.14
$506.14
$26.35
$105.40
$9.18
$647.07
Draft
PageF-J
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class y Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Detailed Compliance Costs for Quarterly Injectate Monitoring:
Waste Stream E and F
1. Contracted Sampling Labor
2. Oil and Grease
3. VOCs(SW8620)
4. Decontamination/ Disposable Materials
Subtotal per event
Events
Contact Laboratory/Supervise Sampling
Reporting/Recordkeeping
Reporting/Recordkeeping
Total
Quantity
1
1
]
2
4
4
4
2
Unit
hr
each
each
each
hr - technical
hr - technical
hr - clerical
Unit
Cost
$62.50
$92.10
$276.30
$6.92
$26.35
$26.35
$18.35
Total
$62.50
$92.10
$276.30
$13.84
$444.74
$1,778.96
$105.40
$105.40
$36.70
$2,026.46
Waste Streams A, B, G, and H
1. Contracted Sampling Labor
2. Oil and Grease
3. Decontamination/ Disposable Materials
Subtotal per event
Events
Contact Laboratory/Supervise Sampling
Reporting/Recordkeeping
Reporting/Recordkeeping
Total
Quantity
1
1
2
4
4
4.
2
. Unit
hr
each
each
hr - technical
hr - technical
hr - clerical
Unit
Cost
$62.50
$92.10
$6.92
$26.35
$26.35
$18.35
Total
$62.50
$92.10
$13.84
$352.64
$1,410.56
$105.40
$105.40
$36.70
$1,658.06
Waste Streams C, D, I, and J
1. Contracted Sampling Labor
2. Metals Screen, Flame AA
3. Metals Screen, Furnace
4. VOCs(SW8620)
5. Decontamination/ Disposable Materials
Subtotal per event
Events
Contact Laboratory/Supervise Sampling
Reporting/recordkeeping
Reporting/Recordkeeping
Total
Quantity
1
5
2
1
2
4
4
4
2
Unit
hr
each
each
each
each
hr - technical
hr - technical
hr - clerical
Unit
Cost
$62.50
$18.42
$30.70
$276.30
$6.92
$26.35
$26.35
$18.35
Total
$62.50
$92.10
$61.40
$276.30
$13.84
$506.14
$2,024.56
$105.40
$105.40
$36.70
$2,272.06
Draft
Page F-2
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to theUIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Appendix G
On-Site Treatment Costs
Capital costs for on-site wastewater treatment facilities are developed for each waste stream
scenario. Capital costs include influent and effluent flow equalization and storage, pumps,
instrumentation, and installation. The following indirect costs are applied to the on-site
treatment system capital subtotal:
* Permitting, administration, and legal fees at 5 percent
• Contractor's overhead and profit at 15 percent
• Engineering design at 10 percent
• Contingency at 10 percent of the total capital (direct and indirect) cost
Capital costs of on-site treatment depend upon the waste stream characterization (organic
waste, organic and metal waste, or motor vehicle service-related waste) and the flow rate of the
waste stream (high or low). Waste stream scenario A (low flow, low concentration of organic
waste) has the least expensive on-site treatment cost at $17,000, while scenario J (high flow, high
concentration of organic and metal waste) has the most expensive on-site treatment cost at
$95,300 per well. Exhibit G-l presents capital and O&M costs for on-site treatment systems by
waste stream scenario.
On-site treatment system O&M costs include labor, materials, and utilities. The labor
cost is assumed to be a function of the treatment system, hours of operation, maintenance calls,
system complexity, number of changeouts (e.g., replacement of pre- and post-filters, granulated
activated carbon [GAC] filters, and ion exchange column), and sludge production rate.
Treatment system materials include filters, GAC units, coagulant, acid/base, and ion exchange
resin. Utility costs primarily consist of electricity costs. A 5 percent contingency fee for the on-
site treatment system O&M costs is assumed.
Each on-site management alternative assumes annual monitoring to demonstrate
compliance. This cost is directly related to sampling frequency and could be incurred as often as
monthly under state or local ordinances. On-site management O&M costs range from $2,600 per
well for waste stream scenario A to $21,900 for waste stream scenario F2.
Draft
Page G-l
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19,1999
Exhibit G-l
Capital andO_&MCosto_of On-site Treatment^
Waste Stream Type
A
B
C
D
El
E2
Fl
F2
G
H
I
J
Flow rate (gal/yr)
1,560
1,560
1,560
1,560
2,000
2,000
20,000
20,000
10,400
10,400
10,400
10,400
On-site Treatment
Capital
$17,000
$64,600
$38,800
$84,000
$20,000
$75,900
$23,000
$78,900
$27,200
$75,200
$49,100
$95,300
On-site Treatment
O&M
$2,600
$4,600
$5,700
$8,600
$3,300
$5,900
$17,000
$21,900
$9,200
$11,800
$11,300
$18,800
Draft
Page G-2
-------
CD
CO
o.
I
-------
CO
CD
CO
IT
in
co
tr,
CO
1C
m
co"
m
m
o
CM
CM
CD
CD
O
CO
CC
en
co
co
en
co
co
^r
f"
en
CO
en
co
CM
co
CO
c
CM"
CS
o
m
co"
oo
CO
cc
00
cc
en
to'
to
CM
CM
rt
to"
co
(O*
CO
to"
§
CN
co
CO
CN
f*.
CO
O)
T*
C7>
00
CO
oo
10
in"
IT
IT
If.
en
en
co"
en
0>
CO
m
CD
8
m"
IT
m
in
m
co
to
m
tn
in
in
o
en
CO
CO
0>
co
co
co
in
co
8
en
oo
in
CM
en
oo
CM
ex
CN
to
ao
o
en
oc
CM
CM
en
oc
CM"
CM
CO
CD_
CM
CO
CO
CM
CO
CO
CD
(D
CM
(B
CM_
CM
in
CM
CM"
m
in
eg
in
CM
CM
CM"
m
m
CM
in
CM
in
CM
in
m
in
CM
CM
in
£
in
CM
CM"
CM
in
in
m
in
m
m
in
in
d
m
m
CM
oo
t-.
in"
in
g
m
in
o
oo
in
CM
co"
co
CM
co"
in
in
CM
in
CM
in
O
00
in
in
co
m
in
in
§
m
in
to
CM
co"
in
m
CM
CO"
m
CN
co"
in
a.
O
10
CO
a>
cu
•o
JS2
S
8
h-
co
o
CM"
in
en
co
10
CM"
in
en
co
o>
m
?!
01
in
CM
CD
5
CM
S
CM
CM"
g
CM
CM"
N
CM"
o>
to
to
CM
'O
CM"
co
m
to
co
in
8
in
in
in
CM
N
CO"
N
co"
g
CO
co
co
S
m"
Si
en
O
O
co
co
CM
in
oo"
CM
CM
CD
CM
•^-
oo
to"
in
en
in
in
O
•a
co
2
'5.
CO
a
in
m
in
d
in
d
in
co
P
n
8
co
CM
CO
CO
s
CM
en
to
CO
s
s
m
s
tn
8
CO
en
5
I
CM
s
in
CM
CM
$
m
3
m
CM
CO
CM
n
o
CM
I
n
o
CM"
CO
CO
CM
in
in
CO
in
in
in
CM
S
in
m
n
oo
co
CO
CO
en
in
CM"
in
in
in
CM
d
m
CM
d
in
in
in
in
6
CM
til
CM
CM
-------
«?
X
0
c?
Q.
to
CO
CD
TO
CM
CD
$
5s
i
if
Ir
1
'•r^
1
?S?
;-*S
i
8&
1
?f
|g
1
1
i
•i*f
1
;S;
?:s
•;'?•
I
.S"
.'i
.£*
A::ip
ms
*¥»ft
fm^^^S
S'-^ErSftS-H
a
gj&fegs!^
•JJSgJv/S S3
ill
Wfl(f
fusl;
§|j|
illfjaSaS
isiiffll
JUial
^§81
IP
1
S
m
r1
c6
CM
0
8
m
CO
CM
0
b
r-
CM
§
CM
CM
O
in
in
CO
'
,-
eo
CO
m
CO
o
,-
a
CM
OO
CM
O
CO
co
S3
CO
CM
O
CjJ
OO
CN
JO
CM
CM
O
in
in
0
in
CO
O
CM
8
CM
CO
CM
0
eo
CO
in
CO
CM
o
CM
ro
CO
CM
CO
s:
CM
O
m
in
»
m
CO
o
(O
a,
CM
co
CM
O
00
CO
in
CO
CM
o
PI
CO
CM
9O
CM
O
m
in
CO
in
CO
o
m
o>
CO
in
CM
OO
CN
O
oo
co
in
CO
CM
0
CM
00
CM
CO
CM
CM
O
in
in
oo
in
CO
o
CD
O>
CO
m
CM
00
CM
O
00
co
S3
CO
CM
o
PI
00
CM
oo
Si
CN
O
in
in
00
in
CO
o
CO
CO
C35
CN
eo
CM
0
CO
CO
in
CO
CM
o
PI
CO
CM
CO
s;
CM
O
in
in
CO
in
CO
0
6
en
CO
CM
CO
CM
0
CO
CO
in
co
CM
o
CM
CO
(M
00
CM
O
m
in
CO
in
CO
o
6
01
CN
CO
CM
O
00
co
m
CO
CM
0
CM
CO
eo
CM
00
CM
O
8
00
in
CO
o
co
6
O)
CD
CN
00
CN
O
8
s
CO
CM
O
CM
f)
CO
CM
CO
CM
•M
O
in
in
CO
in
CO
o
T
§
CM
eo
CM
O
8
in
CO
CM
O
CM
co
CO
CM
OO
CM
0
in
in
CO
in
CO
0
S
en
S
CM
co
CM
0
CO
CO
to
CO
CM
O
PI
00
CM
OO
CM
CN
O
in
in
00
m
CO
o
Q
o>
CO
m
CN
00
CM
o
eo
CO
in
co
CM
0
PI
CO
CM
CO
CM
CM
O
£
CO
in
CO
0
to
6
en
CO
m
CM
oo
CM
0
00
CO
m
CO
CM
0
P!
CO
CM
00
CM
CM
O
in
in
CO
in
CO
o
T
o>
CD
m
CM
00
CM
O
8
in
CO
CM
O
PI
00
CN
00
CM
CM
O
in
m
CO
in
co
o
LI
0)
S
CM
00
CM
O
CO
CO
tn
CO
CM
o
PI
CO
00
CM
CM
O
in
m
00
in
CO
o
CM
CM
LU
en
CO
to
CM
CO
CN
O
00
CO
in
CO
CM
o
CM
eo
00
CM
CM
O
in
in
CO
in
CO
o
C
en
CO
in
CM
00
CM
o
oo
CO
in
CO
CM
0
CM
CO
00
CM
CM
0
in
in
CO
in
CO
o
Cvl
i.
cn
CO
in
CM
co
CM
o
3
in
CO
CM
O
CM
CO
00
CO
CM
CM
O
in
in
00
m
CO
o
6
at
fR
CN
00
CN
O
00
CO
in
CO
CM
O
CM
00
3O
CM
0
m
m
CO
m
0
3
o>
8
CM
00
CM
0
00
CO
in
CO
CM
o
CN
CO
00
00
CM
o
in
in
00
in
CO
o
6
en
CD
ID
CM
CO
CM
O
eo
CO
in
CO
CM
O
CM
CO
CO
co
CM
0
in
in
00
in
CO
0
1
en
CO
ift
CM
co
CM
O
8
s>
CO
CM
O
CM
CO
9
CM
O
n
CO
m
co
o
CNI
X
en
CO
to
CM
OO
CM
O
S
in
CO
CM
O
CM
CO
CO
00
T
CM
0
in
m
CO
3
0
CO
en
S
CM
CO
CM
0
CO
CO
in
CO
CM
o
CM
CO
eo
CO
CM
o
in
in
00
in
CO
o
en
CO
m
CM
oo
CM
O
OO
CO
in
CO
CM
O
CM
CO
00
oo
CM
O
m
in
00
in
CO
o
CM
at
S
CM
CO
CM
O
00
co
in
CO
CM
0
CM
CO
00
eo
CM
CM
o
n
CO
in
CO
o
CO
<£
in
CM
CO
CN
O
00
co
CO
CM
O
CM
00
oo
Si
CM
0
in
in
oo
m
CO
0
2
en
S
CM
00
CM
0
eo
CO
in
CO
CM
o
CM
CO
CO
9D
CM
O
S
eo
in
CO
O
,_
en
CO
in
CM
eo
CM
o
00
co
Csl
in
CO
CM
O
CM
00
0
CM
O
m
in
CO
in
CO
o
*
1
CM
00
CM
O
oo
co
in
CO
CM
0
CM
CO
00
CM
Si
o
in
in
CO
in
co
o
CO
en
CO
in
CM
oo
CM
o
00
CO
CM
in
CO
CM
o
CM
CO
CO
Si
CM
o
in
in
CO
CO
o
T
S
Q
-------
r
~M
*
CO
0.
to
CO
o
CM
QL
O
C
01
CD
•o
3
CD
N.
in
CM
0>~
(O
v~
CD
CO*
CO
m
m
CM
CM
i
o>
in
co
co
r-.
s
CM*
CO
s
co"
CM
s.
CO*
m
eo
CO
CO
CD
CO
o>
o
CM
m
o
m
m*
CO
CM
s
in
oo~
CM
en
™
CM"
co
CO
CO
v
V
CO
CM
in*
co
co
in*
co
8
CO*
CD
co
r*.
•v
co
CD
o>
(O
CO
CD*
oT
in
CM
CD*
CO
r*-
o>
CM
CD"
O>
CM
CO
co"
oo
g
of
in
in
o»
CM
co
CM
CD
CO
CO
CO
CM"
eo
5>
CO
m
CO
co"
o>
CM
eo
co
CD
CM
s
eo
CM
CM*
S
CO
in
CD
3
CO
CM
«n
CM"
co
eo
CM
CD
co
co
CD
CO
CO
CD
CD
CO
o>
CM"
CO
co
a
CM
V
CO
CO
in
tn"
CO
CO
CD
-g
•«- CM CO
O
«?
O
CM
CO
-------
CO
•o
CO
CM
V—
(A
§
5
S
i
£
i
*
s
>§
IA
«
£
•5
f
O
5
o
JS
ex
^
O)
m
CO
•1
X
8.
!
^
mpiement BMF
"*
i
i
*!
S
1*
3
-g
Q
i
1
-M
i
i
i
1
i
ij«.
«S
1
s
il
sji
f
|
1
3
1
1
i
1
&
,1*
2
"f.
Q -*-
j- _ j%
j|;£ftt>
Ip^ *K
fe
ill
issSjr<'«S&
jjlggpjfi
MB
B
9 5£r^"™£
K«5r^
5GB~S£M«2^
Angsts
lllp-t-
#3
H
fv
CO
CS
(CO
CM
CS
CM
T~
t—
CD
00
in
in
OO
o
I
CD
^™
CO
n
CO
CD
CM
0
CM
in
o
5
CD
CO
CO
CO
CO
CD
IV
'"-
CD
00
IT
OO
0
CD
00
CD
oo
n
CO
•*
0
CM
in
o
CD
o
s
8
co
CO
in
"*
in
0
1
cc
cc
OC
IV
|v
CD
CO
18
|V
00
0
i
CD1
n
S
o
CO
"*
r\
O
6
cc
cc
cc
cc
S
a
CD
CM
CO
CO
CM
CD
CO
in
in
eo
0
CD
00
CD
CD
n
CD
0
s
"""
in
o
CO
I
o
CD
CT
T-
CO
CS
o
CD
cs
£
m
oo
0
s
CO
CD
CD
o
s
o
s
^
in
o
3
fv
CO
CN
IV
CO
CM
|v
CM
|v
CN
*~
CD
00
in
in
CO
o
i
CD
CD
n
S
o
CO
8
"*
in
o
Q
£
CO
CO
oo
CO
OC
r-T
oo
IV
CD
OO
in
in
r*»
co
o
i
a>
CD
n
D
O
0
"*
in
o
a
cc
cc
cc
14
CO
CO
CM
to
CO
§
tn
in
CD
o
D
CO
CD
CD
n
S
8
o
•a-
m
o
CO
a
a
CD
en
CO
o
o
s
c§
in
m
fv
oo
o
O
CD
CD
O
S
8
co
CD
in
"*
m
0
0
s
CO
CO
§
CO
IV
00
**"
g
in
m
OO
o
i
o
m
rsi
CO
tn
CO
CO
o>
i
*
in
0
CM
UJ
CC
CO
s
OC
oo
|v
CD
OO
In
s?
0
D
CO
CD
in
CM
£
in
CO
CO
CD
CD
S
"T
tn
o
CM
HI
CO
00
CO
CC
cc
^
CD
oo
in
u>
CO
0
o
CD
in
CM
in
CO
CO
CJ3
D
^
in
O
S
CO
oo
CO
1
ac
*""
CD
OO
m
in
OO
o
CD
in
CSI
00
m
o
3
*
in
o
CM
u.
|v
co
CS
N.
CO
CN
rv
CN
CM
*~
CD
00
in
m
00
o
i
O)
oo
n
co
CD
O
in
o
6
CO
§
CO
OC
cc
|v"
00
rv
CD
00
m
OO
o
i
CD
CO
n
CD
O
in
o
CN'
O
8
CD
8
CD
CC
CC
CM
C§
£
in
in
ao
o
x>
O)
00
?
*-
o
m
0
(O
6
cc
CS
CO
CN
CN
CM
*"
£
in
in
OO
o
CM
D
00
a>
00
?
o
in
0
X
cc
CO
00
CD
00
fv*
r-
CD
oo
n
s?
0
CD
OO
n
^
0
in
o
X
8
CO
cc
<£
£
CD
CD
CN
CJ>
CO
CM
CO
0
CD"
CN
0
CO
CN
£
in
in
ao
O
i
CD
CD
f)
S
8
CO
in
m
o
I
cc
CN
fv
co
CN
c\
CM
T~
£
in
in
OO
o
CM
D
CO
Q
"*
S
8
CD
m
m
o
i
cc
CO
oo
CD
i
^
£
in
s?
o
I
CD
CD
*
D
8
S?
m
0
3
cc
cc
cc
M
CC
CM
ft
CD
CM
CD
ao
in
tn
oo
0
D
CO
0)
™
O)
CO
D
O
s
CM
O
3
a
a
CD
er
CD
cs
S
co"
CN
CO
eo
in
in
OO
0
o
0)
*""
CD
CO
CO
0
s
in
CM
o
?
T"»
1
0)
O)
CL
CO
Q
\
-------
CM
.Q
CO
CO
CM
xf
tn
O
"5.
O
0)
£
0)
XJ
I
o
12
to
o
O
(0
I
Q.
CO
O
-------
CO
T3
CO
CM
.a"
I
$ m
n
m
0)
I
o
o
O
T3
ra
I
'o.
co
O
Q>
0)
a.
ex
CO
-------
*". *$$&&
co
in
in
CO
10
(O
in
co
s
co
in
CO
s
co
in
CO
in
CO
in
£8
CO
m
£
s
8
S
CD
CD
in
co
1
.cf
CM
CM
I-.
00
CO
CO
CO
CM
r-
CO
CM
f*.
00
CM
!•«•.
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
E5
CM
CM
£
CM
r^
co
CM
CM
r-.
co
CO
(0
.1
•s.
o
(O
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
co
co
co
CO
co
eo
O
8
I
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
C3
CM
CM
CM
CD
m
CD
O3
t»
o
CD
O)
o>
en
o>
I
o
o>
o>
o>
o>
o>
o>
o>
O)
o>
o>
O)
o>
O)
a>
CD
o>
o>
CD
CM
re
1
'a.
ca
O
CM
s
CO
CO
s
CM
CO
CM
CM
CM
CO
CM
CM
00
s
eo
CM
co
00
CM
CM
co
CM
s
n
00
^-
CM
CM
n
co
CO
CM
CM
co
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
co
CO
TJ-
CM
s
eo
s
00
CM
CM
CM
CM
to
o
CM
s
8
CO
CM
CM
n
CM
CM
£
8
CM
CM
a>
CO
n
n
CO
CO
n
n
ro
n
CO
r-
co
to
r»-
CO
CO
ro
io
to
r>-
co
n
n
co
V.
CO
CO
co
h>
CO
ro
ro
tr>
'«..
m
co
s.
CO
CO
•».
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
eo
CO
CO
co
eo"
CO
to
10
10
8
-------
0>
Q)
CD
Q.
T-|CM|CO
ro
co
s
(O
CO
CO
CO
•v
CO
CD I CD
(O
co"
CD
CD
CM
CO
CO
O)
to
CO
CM
CO
CD
CO
in
CM
CD
CD
CO
CD
•^~
CD
CM
a>
CM
CO
CO
CO
CM
CM
CM
(O
-------
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class Y Injection Wells
August 19,1999
Appendix J
Unit Costs Associated with Large-Capacity Cesspool Closures
Analysis
Install Holding Tank
Liquid Transportation
POTW Disposal
Well closure
Pre-closure notification
Other Administrative Costs
Total
Capital
$ 607
$5,412
$ 0
$ 0
$1,293
$ 41
$ 79
$7,532
O&M
$1,921
$ 0
$ 981
$ 19
$ 0
$ 0
$ p
$2,922
Total Annualized cost $3,626
Draft
PageJ-1
-------
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Appendix K
Estimating Per Facility Sales for Facilities in Each Affected SIC Category
For each SIC code containing affected facilities, the analysis obtained U.S. Census data
on the average total sales (or revenue) for establishments in various revenue categories.1 Based
on the average sales data, the analysis then modeled the distribution of sales across each industry
assuming a standard lognormal distribution (i.e., the natural log of sales is used to transform the
lognormal distribution into a normal distribution). This assumption was deemed reasonable
based on a review of data plots for the Census data describing each of the 18 SIC categories.
The mean
formula:
of the natural log average revenue was calculated using the following
H=-
where: n = the number of groups in the data
Xj = the average revenues per establishment for each group i
establishmentSj = the number of establishments in each group i
The standard deviation (o) of the natural log of average revenue was calculated using the
following formula:
(ln(jr) -^(establishments^
n-l
These formulas take into account that the Bureau of Census data is grouped by different
revenue size categories. Specific calculations used to determine the natural log mean sales and
the standard deviation for specific SIC categories are presented in Appendices M and N.
1 1992 Establishment and Finn Size Economic Census data for Manufacturing, Retail, Wholesale,
Construction, and Service Industries. Bureau of Census, 1992. Data have been updated to 1999 dollars using the
implicit price deflator for the gross domestic product.
Draft
PageK-1
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
The natural log of the mean sales and the standard deviation for each SIC category, along
with the SIC's applicable "break-even points"2 and their natural logs, are used to estimate the
percentage of facilities significantly affected in the given industry.3 The number of facilities with
costs greater than the break-even point is then equal to the percent of facilities affected times the
total number of affected facilities.
2 The break-even point is a function of the average facility cost and the applicable
threshold for significant impacts. For example, if the average per facility cost of compliance in a
given SIC category is $5,150 then the break-even point assuming a one percent threshold is
$515,000 (i.e., $5,150/0.01).
3 The NORMDIST function in Excel is used to calculate the percent of facilities with
sales lower than the break-even point. The NORMDIST function calculates the normal
cumulative distribution given a value in the distribution, the mean, and standard deviation.
Draft
PageK-2
-------
Economic Analysis of Revisions to the UJC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells
August 19, 1999
Appendix L
SBA Size Thresholds for Affected Facilities
SIC
Code
4142
4212
4213
4581
5015
5511
5521
5531
5541
7514
7515
7532
7533
7537
7538
7539
7549
91112
Industry
Bus Charter Service, Except Local
Local Trucking without Storage
Trucking, Except Local
Airports, Flying Fields, & Terminal Services
Motor Vehicle Parts, Used
Motor Vehicle Dealers (New and Used)
Motor Vehicle Dealers (Used Only)
Auto & Home Supply Stores
Gasoline Service Stations
Passenger Car Rental
Passenger Car Leasing
Top, Body, and Upholstery Repair Shops and Paint Shops
Automotive Exhaust System Repair Shop
Automotive Transmission Repair Shops
General Automotive Repair Shops
Automotive Repair Shops, NEC
Automotive Services, Except Repair and Carwashes
Municipal & Township Solid Waste Management & Road
Facilities
SBA Size
Threshold1
$5^0
S6.0
$18.5
$5.0
100
$21.0
$17.0
$5.0
$6.5
$18.5
$18.5
$5.0
$5.0
$5,0
$5.0
$5.0
$5.0
50,000
SBA size thresholds from 13 CFR, 121. Size standards in number of employees or millions of dollars.
2 Economic Census refers to 9111 as "Executive Offices." In fact, the facilities described in the Region 3 database
of Class V wells under SIC 9111 correspond more closely with Municipal and Township Solid Waste Management
and Road facilities as described in the 1992 Census .of Governments. Thus, all 9111 codes in this analysis refer to
these facilities rather than the broader definition of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual.
Draft
PageL-1
-------
-------
CO
to
ffi
co
I
O
o
«
(0
o
Is
S
P
U.0
(«,
ii
ii
f
M i
2.
g
.2
mem ln(r
S35559S
u> o.-
S5
!!
» M O
*". *°. *
S § o*" a
CM a m n MT
ssSS||
S-ja
5SSs|.
«»••«•«--»<
§i
.
a ^ o «o
> - ^ D T
-
§S-a
O.l
OJ CJ Q Ul Uj O <
II
IP-
II
h- O «p
m
tt> o> in
a CM" «* «" « «•> «» «-** nest
iS8
sli's'ss gc
S 585 SS SIS-
S5:s« s
IS
«**.
1.
< m O b ui uJ b <
II
Is
* s _- <
* f§ fl'
• r ii
i ii
i !i
ss
§81?
.liii
» 5 tf •» « » ? n S
•»•»•» ^ ^ M cvj
He
Sggs
'
§i
|s
?
dills ?!
is
|sl
s ^- jj« S R s s
u
r
ga
Ii
:«. SS_
> — at co
8.8
r-s *
iSliii is
«s
il!ia§ «i
Jl-il I
iliiil to
< tti O Q Lli u. O <
SI
S"5'
in n
8";
M W
p.l.
x's
ii"
n ifl as
«•» *»
I!
0 = »
sgs
15
11
ill
§i
s'l
*si to"
ft t^ O
*- f* w
Is
Si
III
S n
Si-
|g
iv a"
as
.1* .
Ill I
5SI
< m o
-------
W
w
I
s
g
w
•_
,0
m
c
o
(0
to
S
x
i
il
3=
1
S
§
•i!
JJ
1.15
s|i*S8 5«
**«»«•
III, L
5|-|s|| :i If
•»•»«»
II6 I
< c O o m u.
-8
f If
= SS
§88
§ii
si s=
2C-SS ~=
•
§|| Sg S5
g rw n»
cs|"5i ^s
§|'8'*"5l SS
W pi
*»*»«»
I§.S.
I
*
U
S5 • •J
< a u_ti_i
o
t3t<
1
§h> m
«s
*
!s3
ss i
SS I
|5|
slSssg ss
l.i.S 1.5
ssSsss ff- §"
"SS^'SE "2 2
§^ «
s
St =S
*
5 „
SSg
* SR
PI
i|r§!
«*«*•*
§i§
§
9S II
> s =•=•
iiiiii ..
<-B> U O 111 u. Q <
I
-------
if fi:
!' |i
| |J
f ii
I
OT
CO
®
§
5
B
O
O
CO
}£
CA
to
o
•o
s
2
16
o
2
x
i
o.
r*
*»
A
|.
3 i
||
5* 4
!i
|:
S j
**
II
[i
is§
h
:«
Is
• •
ft B
k *
**
18
:g
;S
§
:8
L2
|-
ll
S
!
s
y
^^
f
g
3
I
»B 11
8 I
8" 1
"- 1 S 52 «
j • *. a ». S
i
ri
%Z- S*
•> *• n — «
1
5 g j
-ss »a
= ss S5
c
(A
- „.
* o n «•-
155 as
g
i"
i » -S
§51 ?i
w 5 S oci
«
y §. J)
** v- o <5 w 35
.
as- .s
»» ss
si »^
ev g" r tri
1 |
•i _f f I
S 1 &£. i-
0 " = £ &o
M ci t±i u_' (3 5t
•i
,
i
M.
&
2
10
S
•
§
1
|
1
J
I
—
5
fa
«
- 1
||
ii
• s
if
• 5
||
a. S
if
1?
If
to "B
if
OT -fi
5|
I*
||
i|
* i '
IB
? s
-------
I
01
•g
o
o
(O
,2
_
CO
O
•o
m
JS
(O .
Q
x
'•o
Ii
,00010
>4,rat,iM
11,000,00010
to,m,m
I
i!
I|
$100
H49,«»
£ 5 » = *:
*^ OK* o •
S S % C 6
a-« E Z' o -*s
• 5 I B J8
g I S IB
II S
l|
S s
..2
pi
Jtl'i
§RS
,500,000
73
Us
!l|>.
i s z z £ 5
Hi
in
§i
§1
:s8!
85
IS 8
-
S" S £
, s ;-; £> a
UI ± .
•8S'
sf
fi O
J!
It
v
§ i '- S
'
si
!i|,
O {w W *
« S S <-> •
to *»«*«» <
!5 3! S S g
P's
slila
-
8 5 5 <
'
II 9V
lo
< :
-------
I
o>
CO
e>
a)
o
to
1
O
o
CO
re
cj
•o
i
to
15
a
s
.s
•g
a
S
I
s _
ii
f
s.
I!
ii
ii
if
Si
IS, i
sfi«-
'"""" "n i
* S S
IL ^
*?*»vfr8™£ on W
gs
525
a w> «> o
"
to
< m u Q ui u. o <
o
fs"
f I
o!
if
ll
sis'
s" i S s s „
2 3
ii tO «.
£> S «8 "
I *^ rt Fta »i
Ii.
I
§i £
ill
llilll si
!!« . . -'
5 **, **. S *? *. S S
I1- I1
£•»•»•»££ 3 S S <
II
Illhl 88
CN •«»«%«« f-
-
«?8S ni
*•«»*» ^ ^- V"
« i £ S s S =-<3
< m o o ui n." b <
II
s*
•
^_ - 3E5 «w in
$Sww^3 ^5
§S *
N a 1
^L8 j
isa 5
i
i?
"
S ;
I
Ii
S 3 ft"
SDO^
«^8l.
< m o o uj u: o <
-------
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
:•^'fc•S'~^Cy::^S;^(;~••i:•;':;v•^S^^;V^i^>::^^:fefl;''i'^•5^V.:i;•:•
WS^^^^^^^^?^P^Mnfit^
Sfi&^-^g?f^l^M|;^^^^^^-^--
Kansas Abilene City
AndoverCity
Anthony City
Arkansas City
Atchison City
Augusta City
Baldwin City
Baxter Springs City
Bel Aire City
Belleville City
BelloitCity
Bonner Springs City
Burlington City
Chanute City
Clay Center City
Coffeyville City
Colby City
Columbus City
Concordia City
Derby City
Dodge City
Edwardsville City
El Dorado City
Emporia City
Eudora City
Eureka City
Fairway City
Port Riley North CDP
Fort Scott City
Fredonia City
Frontenac City
Galena City
Garden City
Gardner City
Gamett City
Girard City
Goodland City
Great Bend City
Hays City
Haysville City
. Hemnton City
Hesston City
Hiawatha City
Hillsboro City
. Hoisington City
Holton City
Hugoton City
Hutchinson City
Independence City
iola City
Junction City
Kingman City
Lansing City
'-"•/;... .:.. •.;'. : -'-'••••„••'.' ~ - .. -v.-.TdtaliTdwn-.'iv/'-r'-Total.Town , «-_*_.•
^*ipuiati^i|^^
^,,, >.. ^.^i^™^ ..-
6.242
4,047
2,516
12,762
10,656
7,876
2,961
4,351
3,695
2,517
4,066
6,413
2,735
9,488
4,613
12,917.
5.396
3,266
6,167
14,699 '
21.129
3,979
11,504
25,512
3,006
2.974
4,173
12,648
8,362
2,599
2,588
3,308
24,097
3,191
3.210
2.794
4,983
15,427
17,767
8.364
2,685
3,012
3.603
2.704
3,182
3,196
3.179
39,308
9,942
6,351
20.604
3.196
7.120
12,066
14,933
10.499
11,374
10,028
11.683
9,823
9,245
15,778
11.643
10,686
13,007
10,983
10,151
12,705
10,040
10,849
8.861
10.212
16.227
11.064
11,783
13.251
11,159
10.825
11,705
26,996
8.105
9,801
10,406
10,907
7,085
11,853
12.870
9,748
10,419
9,540
11,937
12,430
12,099
10,364
10.941
12,339
10,325
10,455
10,590
11,843
11,849
12,541
9.311
9,792
10,717
11,439
75,315.972
60,433.851
26.415,484
145,154,988
106,858,368
92,015,308
29,085.903
40,224.995
58,299,710
29,305,431
43,449.276,
83,413.891
30,038,505
96,312,688
58,608,165
129,686.680
58,541.204
28.957,748
62,977,404
238.520,673
233,771,256
46,884.557
152,439,504
284,688,408
32,539,950
34.810,670
112.654.308
104,133.040
81,955,962
27.045,194
28.227.316
23.437,180
285,621,741
41,068,170
31,291.080
29,110,666
47,537.820
184,152,099
220,843,810
101,196.036
27,827,340
32,954,292
44,457,417
27,918.800
33,267,810
33,845,640
37.648,897
465,760,492
124.682,622
59,134.161
201.754,368
34,251,532
81,445,680
85,159,770
68.332.555
29,867,988
164,126,745
120,824,757
104.041.709
32,887,431
45,482,402
65.919.482
, 33,135,651
49.128,096
94.316,087
33,964,538
108.900,756
66,268,252
146.636,729
66,192.539
32,742,526
71,208,551
269,695,325
264.325,159
53.012,369
172,363,347
321,897,183
36.792,921
39,360,425
127,378,226
117.743,228
92,667,606
30,580,001
31,916,626
26,500.419
322,952,503
46,435,780
35,380,824
32,915,453
53,751,013
208,220,778
249.708,096
114,422.358
31,464,373
37,261,418
50,268,001
31.567.787
37,615,913
38,269,265
42.569,608
526.635,388
140,978,641
66,862,996
228,123,664
38,728,207
92,090,630
18.26
18.04
17.21
18.92
18.61
18.46
17.31
17.63
18.00
17.32
17.71
18.36
17.34
18.51
18.01
18.80
18.01
17.30
18.08
19.41
19.39
17.79
18.97
19.59
17.42
17.49
18.66
18.58
18.34
17.24
17.28
17.09
19.59
17.65
17.38
17.31
17.80
19.15
19.34
18.56
17.26
17.43
17.73
17.27
17.44
17.46
17.57
20.08
18.76
18.02
19.25
17.47
18.34
Draft
Page N-1
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
Kansas Lamed City
Leavenworth City
Leawood City
Lenexa City
Liberal City
Lindsborg City
Lyons City
McPherson City
Manhattan City •
Marysville City
Merriam City
Mission City
Mission Hills City
Mulvane City
Neodesha City
Newton City
Norton City
Oaktawn Sunview CDP
Osage City
Osawatomie City
Ottawa City
Paola City
Park City
Parsons City
Phillipsburg City
Ptttsburg City
Prairie Village City
Pratt City
Roeland Park City
Russell City
Salina City
Scott City
Shawnee City
Ulysses City
Valley Center City
Wamego City
Wellington City
Winfield City
New Hampshire Allenstown Town
Alton Town
Amherst Town
Atkinson Town
Auburn Town
Bamstead Town
Barrington Town
Bedford Town
Belmont Town
Berlin City
Boscawen Town
Bow Town
Brentwood Town
Bristol Town
Canaan Town
'r^jJ?TVF*'" •'"
P PC1'' lati '":'-::-;P
jjjj$Klm^ '••*:: •--.
4,490
38,495
19,693
34,034
16.573
3,076
3.688
12,422
37.712
3,359
11,821
9,504
3,446
4.674
2.837
16.700
3,017
3,240
2.689
4.590
10,667
4.698
5,050
11,924
2.828
17,775
23,186
6,687
7,706
4,781
42.303
3.785
37,993
5,474
3,624
3,706
8,411
11.931
4.649
3,286
9,068
5,188
4,085
3.100
6.164
12,563
5,796
11,824
3,586
5,500
2,590
2.537
3,045
.13,758
12,827
34,275
20,202
11,481
9,587
10,554
12,887
11,273
10,770
16,901
19,742
76.392
13,197
8.783
12.055
11,198
8,075
10.260
9,518
11,382
11.729
10,519
11,146
11,174
10,289
25.216
12.880
16,245
12.209
13,044
11,443
17.268
11.306
13,276
10,916
11,933
11.145
13,420
14,098
25,778
21.449
17.321
13,613
14,033
25.883
13,267
12,172
11,656
19,752
16,112
12.072
12.474
$e!!miw!sijl
61,773,420
493,775,365
674.977,575
687,554,868
190,274,613
29,489,612
38,923,152
160,082,314
425,127,376
36,176.430
199,786,721
187,627,968
263,246,832
61,682.778
24,917,371
201,318,500
33,784.366
26.163.000
27,589.140
43,687.620
121,411,794
55,102,842
53,120,950
132,904.904
31,600,072
182,886,975
584.658,176
86,128,560
125.183.970
58.371,229
551,800.332
43,311,755
656.063,124
61,889,044
48.112.224
40.462,108
100.368,463
132,970,995
62,389,580
46,326,028
233,754,904
111,277,412
70,756,285
42.200,300
86,499.412
325.168.129
76,895,532
143.921,728
41,798,416
108,636.000
41,730,080
30.626,664
37,983,330
ffBoi^):X:@^P«
69,847,206
558,311, £(05
763,197.144
777,418,289
215,143.505
33.343,904
44,010,408
181,005,072
480,691,524 ,
40.904,689
225,898.845
212,150,943
297,653,193
69,744,717
28.174,071
227,630,828
38.199,983
29,582.504
31,195,041
49.397,592
137,280.315
62,304,7133
60.063,858
150,275,575
35,730.201
206,790.303
661.073,000
97,385.563
141,545.515
66,000,349
623.920,635
48,972,601
741,810,574
69,977,942
54,400,492
45,750.506
113,486,621
150.350,304
70.543,898
52,380,840
264,306,670
125.821 ,37'0
80,004,131
47,715,879
97,804,885
367,667.603
86.945.778
162,732,298
47.261,469
122,834.725
47,184,201
34,629,569
42,947,751
ofTbtal
wji*m?$\
18.06
20.14
20.45
20.47
19.19
17.32
17.60
19.01
19.99
17.53
19.24
19.17
19.51
18.06
17.15
19.24
17.46
17.20
17.26
17.72
18.74
17.95
17.91
18.83
17.39
19.15
20.31
18.39
18.77
18.01
20.25
17.71
20.42
18.06
17.81
17.64
18.55
18.83
18.07
17.77
19.39
18.65
18.20
17.68
18.40
19.72
18.28
18.91
17.67
18.63
17.67
17.36
17.58
Draft
Page N-2
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
£;££yMi&£l^^
^lli^filllt^
l&e^^iS?^
New Hampshire CandiaTown
Charlestown Town
Chester Town
Chesterfield Town
Claremont City •
Concord City
Conway Town
Danville Town
Deerfield Town
DerryCDP
DerryTown
Dover City
Durham CDP
Durham Town
East Memmack CDP
Enfield Town
Epping Town
Epsom Town
Exeter CDP
Exeter Town
Farmington CDP
Farmington Town
Franklin City
Fremont Town
Gilford Town
Gilmanton Town
Goffstown Town
Gorham Town
Greenland Town
Hampstead Town
Hampton CDP
Hampton Town
Hanover CDP
Hanover Town
Haverhil! Town
Henniker Town
Hiilsborough Town
Hinsdale Town
Hollis Town
HooksettCDP
HooksettTown
Hopkinton Town
Hudson CDP
Hudson Town
Jaffrey CDP
Jaffrey Town
Keene City
Kingston Town
Laconia City
Lancaster Town
Lebanon City
Lee Town
Uchfield Town
3,557
4.630
2,691
3,112
13,902
36,006
7,940
2,534
3,124
20,446
29.603
25.042
9,236
11.818
3.656
3,979
5,162
3,591
9,556
12,481
3.567
5,739
6,304
2,576
5,867
2,609
14,621
3.173
2.768
6.732
7,989
12,278
6,538
9.212
4,164
4,151
4,498
3,936
5,705
2.573
8,767
4,806
7.626
19.530
2,558
5,361
22,430
5,591
15,743
3.522
12,183
3,729
5,516
16,308
14,200
16,212
15,412
11.552
15,981
14,282
15,750
15,424
16,950
16,990
15,413
8.568
12,774
18,465
14,349
14.208
14.514
16,511
18,531
11,026
12,166
12.095
14,841
16,541
13.924
15,039
12,585
19,637
18,214
18,881
18,371
15.359
17.496
12,034
14.005
13,155
12,127
26.005
15,786
18,872
23.872
16,339
17.678
14,331
15,206
14,246
18.382
14.824
12.328
15,012
17.153
16,592
58,007,556
65,746.000
43,626.492
47.962,144
160.595,904
575,411,886
113,399.080
39.910,500
48,184,576
.346,559.700
502,954,970
385.972,346
79.134,048
150,963.132
67,508,040
57,094.671
73,341,696
52,119,774
157,779.116
231,285,411
39,329,742
69.820,674
100.436,880
38,230,416
97,046.047
36,327,716
219,885,219
39,932.205
54,355.216
122,616,648
150,840,309
225.559,138
100.417,142
161.173,152
50.109,576
58,134,755
59,171,190
47,731.872
148.358.525
40,617,378
165,450,824
114,728,832
124,601.214
345,251,340
36,658,698
81,519.366
319,537,780
102,773,762
233.374.232
43,419.216
182,891,196
63.963,537
91.521,472
65,589,144
74,339,002
49.328,475
54,230,796
181,585.789
650,618.220
128,220,340
45.126.602
54,482,300
391.855,053
568.691,185
436.418,932
89,476.868
170,694,013
76,331,341
64,556,944
82,927,456
58,931,828
178.400,846
261.514.414
44,470.139
78,946,236
113.563,980
43,227.131
109,729.965
41,075,748
248.624.217
45.151.344
61.459.443
138,642,644
170,555,137
255,039,717
113,541.662
182.238.483
56.658.898
65.732,967
66,904.865
53,970,428
167,748.984
45.926.069
187,075,247
129,723.890
140,886,593
390,375,690
41,449,990
92,173,947
361,301,368
116,206,293
263,876,244
49,094,108
206,795.075
72,323.571
103.483.328
18.00
18.12
17.71
17.81
19.02
20.29
18.67
17.62
17.81
19.79
20.16
19.89
18.31
18.96
18.15
17.98
18.23
17.89
19.00
19.38
17.61
18.18
18.55
17.58
18.51
17.53
19.33
17.63
17.93
18.75
18.95
19.36
18.55
19.02
17.85
18.00
18.02
17.80
18.94
17.64
19.05
18.68
18.76
19.78
17.54
18.34
19.71
18.57
19.39
17.71
19.15
18.10
18.45
Draft
Page N-3
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
^^^^^^j^liw«i^|i^^^^^^^^^ig§^^
New Hanpshire Littleton CDP
Uttelton Town
Londonberry CDP
Londonberry Town
Loudon Town
Meredith Town
Mem'mack Town
Milford CDP
Milford Town
Milton Town
Moultonborough Town
New Boston Town
New Ipswich Town
New London Town
Newmarket CDP
Newmarket Town
Newport CDP
Newport Town
Newton Town
Northfiled Town
North Hampton Town
Northwood Town
Nottingham Town
OssipeeTown
Pelham Town
Pembroke Town
Peterborough CDP
Peterborough Town
Pinardvilie CDP
Prttsfield Town
Plaistow Town
Plymouth CDP
Plymouth Town
Portsmouth City
Raymond CDP
Raymond Town
Rindge Town
Rochester City
Roltingsford Town
Rye Town
Salem Town
Sandown Town
Seabrook Town
Somersworth City
South Hooksett CDP
Strafford Town
Stratham Town
Sunapee Town
Suncook CDP
Swanzey Town
Tilton Town
Tilton-Northfield CDP
Wakefield Town
4,633
5.827
10,114
19,781
4,114
4,837
22,156
8,015
11,795
3,691
2,956
3.214
4,014
3.180
4.917
7,157
3,772
6.110
3,473
4.263
3.637
3.124
2,939
3.309
9.408
6,561
2.685
5.239
4,654
3,701
7.316
3.967
5,811
25,925
2.516
8.713
4,941
26.630
2,645
4,612
25.746
4,060
6,503
11,249
3,638
2,965
4,955
2.559
5.214
6,236
3,240
3,081
3,057
11,598
11,809
18,942
18.888
13,873
13,925
19,129
15,800
16.547
12,397
13.578
18,607
13,759
27.055
13.961
15,078
11.429
11,590
15,948
12.728
23,672
12,562
25,708
12.141
17,715
15,811
18.724
19.144
15.524
11.360
16.692
7,260
9,045
15.557
12.873
13.608
11,303
13,395
16.697
28.020
17,930
16,423
14.515
13.495
16,590
13,771
23,104
14,589
15,009
14,458
13,389
13,264
12,992
^^{^9S&ilffi^fiy^^^^^]
5:boi^«?il|?fi>Sia^^Pii^^^l^
53,733,534
68,811,043
191,579,388
373,623,528
57.073,522
67,355,225
423.822.124
126,637,000
195.171,865
45,757.327
40.136.568 .
59.802,898
55,228,626
86,034,900
68,646,237
107.913,246
43.110.188
70,814,900
55,387,404
54,259,464
86,095,064
39,243.688
75,555,812
40,174,569
166,662.720
103,735,971
50,273,940
100,295.416
72,248,696
42.043,360
122,118.672
28,800,420
52,560,495
403,315.225
32.388,468
118,566.504
55.848.123
356,708.850
44,163.565
129.228,240
461,625.780
66,677,380
94.391,045
151.805,255
60,354,420
40,831,015
114,480,320
37.333.251
78,256,926
90,160.088
43,380,360
40.866.384
39,716,544
60,756,507
77.804,(546
216,618,814
422.456.123
64,533,031
76,158,553
479.215,676
143.188.456
220,680,828
51,737,810
45,382.417
67.619,137
62,447,007
97,279,661
77,618,300
122.017,507
48,744,690
80,070.407
62,626.538
61.351.176
97,347.689
44,372.838
85.430,957
45.425,385
188,445,538
117.294,262
56,844.744
113.404,027
81.691,601
47,538,427
138,079.532
32.564,635
59,430.152
456.028,525
36,621,641
134.063,146
63,147,473
403,330,697
49.935,743
146.118,371
521.960.269
75.392,114
106,727,955
171,646,202
68,242,743
46.167,629
129,442,698
42,212,707
88.485,106
101,944,01:2
49,050,173
46,207,620
44,907,496
17.92
18.17
19.19
19.86
17.98
18.15
19.99
18.78
19.21
17.76
17.63
18.03
17.95
18.39
18.17
18.62
17.70
18.20
17.95
17.93
18.39
17.61
18.26
17.63
19.05
18.58
17.86
18.55
18.22
17.68
18.74
17.30
17.90
19.94
17.42
18.71
17.96
19.82
17.73
18.80
20.07
18.14
18.49
18.96
18.04
17.65
18.68
17.56
18.30
18.44
17.71
17.65
17.62
Draft
PageN-4
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
3im^^miji&^
iliiiy^gf!!^
New Hampshire Walpole Town
Weare Town
Wilton Town
Winchester Town
Windham Town
Wolfeboro COP
Wolfeboro Town
Nebraska Alliance city
Auburn city
Aurora city
Beatrice city
Bellevue city
Blair city
Broken Bow city
Central City city
Chadron city
Chalco CDP
Columbus city
Cozadcrty
Crete city
David city
Fairbury city
Falls City city
Fremont city
Geringcity
Gothenburg city
Grand Island city
Hastings city
Holdrege city
Kearney crty
Kimball city
La Vista city
Lexington city
McCook city
Minden city
Nebraska City city
Norfolk city
North Platte city
OffuttAFBCDP
Ogalla city
O'Neill city
Papillion city
Plattsmouth city
Ralston city
Schuyler city
Scottsbluff city
Sewardcrty
Sidney city
Skyline CDP
South Sioux City city
Valentine city
Wahoocity
Wayne city
3,210
6,193
3,122
4,038
9,000
2,783
4.807
9.765
3,443
3.810
12,354
30,982
6.860
3,778
2,868
5,588
7,337
19,480
3,823
4,841
2,522
4,335
4.769
23.680
7.946
3.232
39,386
22,837
5,671
24,396
2,574
9,840
6,601
8,112
2,749
6,547
21.476
22,605
10,883
5,095
3,852
10,372
6.412
6.236
4.052
13,711
5,634
5,959
2.563
9.677
2.826
3.681
5.142
15.100
'15.728
16.935
11,086
23,323
13,941
14.716
11.512
12.483
11,140
11,565
13,540
13.145
11,110
10.227
9,322
12,849
12,059
11,031
10.917
10,378
11,304
9,994
'11,504
11.552
9.958
11.246
11,905
12.816
11,350
11.477
11,217
11,054
11,631
11,436
11,073
11,438
12.123
7.648
11,103
10,328
14,707
9,900
15,545
9,798
10,275
11,077
11.985
24.022
10.804
11,390
11,398
8,735
48,471,000
97,403.504
52,871.070
44,765.268
209,907,000
38,797.803
70,739,812
112,414,680
42,978,969
42.443.400
142.874,010
419,496,280
90,174,700
41,973,580
29,331,036
52,091.336
94.273.113
234.909.320
42,171.513
52,849.197
26.173.316
49.002.840
47.661.386
272,414.720
91,792,192
32.184,256
442,934,956
271,874,485
72.679,536
276.894,600 .
29.541,798
110.375,280
72.967,454
94.350,672
31.437,564
72,494,931
245,642,468
274,040,415
83,233,184
56,569.785
39.783.456
152,541,004
63.478,600
96.938,620
39,701,496
140,880,525
62,407,818
71,418,615
61.568.386
104,550,308
32,188,140
41.956,038
44,915.370
54.806,160
110,134.142
59,781.319
50,616.089
237,341,845
43,868.676
79,985,505
127,107,279
48,596.320
47.990,752
161.547,643
474,324,444
101,960,533
47,459,527
33,164,602
58,899,674
106,594,609
265.611,968
47.683,330
59.756,587
29,594,168
55,407,511
53,890,729
308,019,324
103,789.431
36,390,738
500.826,555
307,408,480
82,178,751
313,084,724
33.402,911
124.801,329
82.504,300
106,682,305
35,546,454
81,970,018
277,747.961
309,857.497
94,111,761
63,963,456
44,983.154
172.478,113
71,775.479
109,608,498
44,890.482
159,293,610
70,564,520
80,753,028
69,615.374
118,215,033
36,395,130
47.439,692
50,785,809
17.82
18.52
17.91
17.74
19.29
17.60
18.20
18.66
17.70
17.69
18.90
19.98
18.44
17.68
17.32
17.89
18.48
19.40
17.68
17.91
17.20
17.83
17.80
' 19.55
18.46
17.41
20.03
19.54
18.22
19.56
17.32
18.64
18.23
18.49
17.39
18.22
19.44
19.55
18.36
17.97
17.62
18.97
18.09
18.51
17.62
18.89
18.07
18.21
18.06
18.59
17.41
17.67
17.74
Draft
Page N-5
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
fillllllll^^
Nebraska West Point city
York city
California Agoura Hills city
Alamo CDP
Albany city
AlisoViejoCDP
Alondra Park CDP
> ' Alpine CDP
Altadena CDP
Alta Sierra CDP
Alturas city
American Canyon CDP
Anderson city
AngwinCDP
Apple Valley town
Aptos CDP
Arcadia city
Arcatacity
Armona CDP
Arnold CDP
Arroyo Grande city
Artesiacity
An/in city
Ashland CDP
Atascadero city
Atherton town
Atwatercity
Aubum city
August CDP
Avalon city
Avenal city
Avocado Heights CDP
Azusacity
Banning city
Barstowcrty
Bayview-Montahrin CDP
Baywood-Los Osos CDP
BealeAFBCDP
Beaumont city
Bell city
Bell Gardens city
Belmont city
Benidacrty
Ben Lomond CDP
Bermuda Dunes CDP
Beverly Hills city
Big Bear City CDP
Big Bear Lake city
Bishop city
Blackhawk CDP
Bloomington CDP
Blythe city
Bonadelle Ranchos-Madera
Ranches CDP
3,250
7,884
20,390
12.277
16,327
7,612
12,215
9.695
42,658
5,709
3.231
7.706
• 8,299
3,503
46,079
9,061
48,290
15,197
3,122
3,788
14,378
15,464
9,286
16.590
23.138
7,163
22.282
10.592
6.376
2.918
9,770
14,232
41,333
20.570
21.472
3,988
14,377
6,912
9,685
34,365
42,355
24,127
24,437
7.884
4,571
31.971
4.920
5,351
3,475
6,199
15.116
8.428
15.116
10,825
11,663
27,539
43.705
18,158
23.688
14.366
17,620
18,524
17,917
10,349
15,339
8,964
11,257
14,643
21,744
25.441
10,676
9.048
15,167
16,583
12,724
7.252
13,435
14,639
63.919
104.001
18,111
8.271
17.974
6.461
12.374
11,038
11,194
11,889
12.058
16.519
7.847
10,224
7,104
6.125
25.827
20,663
19.008
23.862
55.463
13.029
16,261
12.421
53,226
9.848
11,443
9,848
35,181.250
91.951,092
561,520,210
536.566.285
296,465,666
180.313,056
175,480.690
170,825,900
790,196,792
102,288.153
33,437,619
118,202,334
74,392,236
39,433.271
674,734,797
197,022,384
1,228,545,890
162,243,172
28,247,856
57,452,596
238,430,374
196.763,936
67,342,072
222,886.650
338,717,182
457.851,797
2.317,350.282
191,831,712
52,735,896
52,448,132
63.123.970
176,106.768
456,233,654
230,260,580
255,280.608
48,087.304
237,493,663
54.238,464
99.019.440
244,128,960
259,424,375
623,128.029
504.941,731
149,859,072
109,073,202
1,773.207.573
64,102,680
87,012,611
43,162,975
329,947.974
148,862,368
96,441.604
148,862.368
39.779,439
103.969,100
634.910,901
606,695,498
335.213,729
203,879,972
198,416,016
193,152,845
893,475.513
115,657,215
37,807,916
133.651,379
84,115,301
44,587,200
762.922,635
222,773,210
1,389,116,8:18
183,448,355
31.939.8S1
64.961.650
269,593,22:4
222.480,982
76,143,681
252,017,935
382,987,516
517,693.027
2.620.227.964
216,904,117
59,628,478
59,303,103
71,374,273
199,123.923
515.863,393
260,355,633
288,645,783
54,372.315
268,534.085
61,327,431
111.961,281
276,036.615
293.331,141
704.570.862
570,937,615
169.445.653
123,329,070
2,004,965.803
72,480,900
98,385.159
48.804,376
373,072.174
168,318,679
109,046,522
168,318,679
|:??jiW?'':
17.50
18.46
20.27
20.22
19.63
19.13
19.11
19.08
20.61
18.57
17.45
18.71
18.25
17.61
20.45
19.22
21.05
19.03
17.28
17.99
19.41
19.22
18.15
19.35
19.76
20.06
21.69
19.19
17.90
17.90
18.08
19.11
20.06
19.38
19.48
17.81
19.41
17.93
18.53
19.44
19.50
20.37
20.16
18.95
18.63
21.42
18.10
18.40
17.70
19.74
18.94
18.51
18.94
Draft
Page N-6
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
»S««teP«i«;i»J^^ "^Income ,
California Bonita CDP
Bostonia CDP
Boulder Creek CDP
Boyes Hot Springs CDP
Brawley city
Brea city
Brentwood city
Brisbane city
Broadmoor CDP '
Buelton CDP
Burbank CDP
Burlingame city
Bumey CDP
Calexicocity
California City city
Calimesa CDP
Calipatria city
Calistoga city
Cambria CDP
Cambrian Park
Cameron Park CDP
Campbell city
Camp Pedleton North CDP
Camp Pendleton South CDP
Canyon Lake CDP
Capitola city
Carmel-by-the-Sea city
Carmel Valley Village CDP
Carmichael CDP
Carpinteria city
Casa Conejo
Casa de Oro-Mount Helix CDP
Castro Valley CDP
Castroville CDP
Cathedral City city
Cayucos CDP
Central Valley CDP
Ceres city
Channel Islands Beach CDP
Charter Oak CDP
Cherryland CDP
Cherry Valley CDP
Chicocrty
Chino Hills CDP
Chowchilla city
Citrus CDP
Claremont city
Clayton city
Cleariake city
Cloverdale city
Coachelta city
Coalinga city
Cotton city
12,542
13,670
6,725
5,973
18,923
32,873
7.563
2,952
3,739
3.506
4.902
26,801
3,423
18,633
5.955
4.647
2.690
4.468
5.382
2.998
11,897
36,048
10.373
11.299
7,938
10,171
4.239
4.407
48,702
13,747
3,286
30,727
48.619
5.272
30,085
2.960
4.340
26.314
3.317
8,858
11.088
5.945
40.079
27.608
5,930
9,481
32,503
7,317
11,804
4,924
16,896
8,212
40.213
.21,934
12,788
18,464
13.961
9,408
21,407
14,260
19.808
15,953
15,521
15,230
25,031
11,736
6,595
13.743
14.696
6,952
15,799
21.604
19.281
19,301
20,759
10,710
7.512
22,002
17,075
26,575
27,095
19.300
15,615
17,278
23,068
20,307
8.032
13.331
22,877
8,983
11,603
22,740
15,703
13,214
14.363
10,584
19,903
10,240
11,372
22,161
24.833
9,531
21,418
5,760
10,779
10,924
275.096,228
174.811,960
124,170,400
83,389,053
178,027,584
703.712,311
107,848,380
58,473,216
59.648,267
54,416,626
74,657,460
670,855,831
40,172,328
122,884,635
81,839,565
68.292,312
18.700.880 '
70,589.932
116,272,728
57,804,438
229,623.997
748,320,432
111,094,830
84,878,088
174.651.876
173.669.825
112,651,425
119,407,665
939,948,600
214.659,405
56,775.508
708,810,436
987,306,033
42,344,704
401,063,135
67.715.920
38.986.220
305.321.342
75,428,580
139,097,174
146,516,832
85,388,035
424,196,136
549.482,024
60,723,200
107.817,932
720.298,983
181.703,061
112.503,924
105,462,232-
97,320,960
88,517,148
439,286,812
311,051,305
197,659,883
140,399,471
94,288,002
201,295,789
795,687,510
121,944,163
66,115,665
67,444,295
61,528,879
84,415,190
758,536,688
45,422.851
138.945,657
92.535.996
77,218,117
21.145,085
79.816,036
131,469.574
65,359.478
259.635.853
846.125,912
125,614,924
95.971.654
197.478.876
196,368,471
127,374.966
135,014.247
1,062,799.882
242.715,389
64.196,067
801.451,960
1,116,346,932
47.879,157
453,482,087
76,566,391
44,081,719
345,226,841
85,287,095
157,277.175
165,666,582
96,548,251
479.638,571
621,299,325
68,659,722
121,909,736
814,442,060
205.451,651
127,208,187
119.246,146
110.040,809
100,086,339
496,701,598
19.56
19.10
18.76
18.36
19.12
20.49
18.62
18.01
18.03
17.94
18.25
20.45
17.63
18.75
18.34
18.16
16.87
18.20
18.69
18.00
19.37
20.56
18.65
18.38
19.10
19.10
18.66
18.72
20.78
19.31
17.98
20.50
20.83
17.68
19.93
18.15
17.60
19.66
18.26
18.87
18.93
18.39
19.99
20.25
18.04
18.62
20.52
19.14
18.66
18.60
18.52
18.42
20.02
Draft
Page N-7
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
iiSSplSte^i^
California Colusacity
Commerce city
Corcoran city
Coming city
Coronado city
Corralitos CDP
Corte Madera town
Cotaticity
Goto de Caza CDP
County Club CDP
Covina city
. Crescent City city
Cresent City North CDP
Crestline CDP
Crockett CDP
Cudahy city
Culver City city
Cypress city
Dana Point city
Danville city
Davis city
Day Valley CDP
DelAireCDP
Delano city
Delhi CDP
Del Mar city
Del Monte Forest CDP
Denair CDP
Desert Hot Spring city
Diamond Springs CDP
Dinuba city
Discovery Bay CDP
Dixonchy
Dixon Lane-Meadow Creek CDP
Dos Palos city
Duarte city
Dublin city
Durham CDP
Eartimart CDP
East Compton CDP
East Foothills CDP
East Hemet CDP
East La Mirada CDP
.East Palo Alto city
East Porterville CDP
East Richmond Heights CDP
East San Gabriel CDP
Edwards AFB CDP
El Centre city
El Cerrito CDP.
Ell Dorando Hills
El Granada CDP
Elk Grove CDP
4,934
12,135
13,364
5,870
26,540
2,513
8,272
5,714
2,853
9,325
43,207
4,380
3.853
8,594
3,228
22,817
38,793
42,655
31,896
31,306
46.209
2,842
8,040
22,762
3,280
4.860
5,069
3,693
11.668
2,872
12,743
5,351
10,401
2.561
4,196
20,688
23.229
4,784
5.881
7,967
14,898
17,611
9,367
23.451
5,790
3,266
12,736
7,423
31.384
4,490
6,395
4.426
17,483
.11,303
9,023
8,270
8,433
21,972
19,272
26,660
16,371
43,726
14.948
16.259
9,809
11.139
14,451
19,067
5,935
21.471
19.147
27,986
31,265
15,269
20.468
17,153
7,491
7,960
37.414
40,295
11,699
11.185
12.773
8,354
29,339
13,984
14,008
10,589
14.103
17,056
17,016
4.909
6.686
17,800
13,568
16.988
9.968
7,406
18,414
19,661
8.464
9,898
16.054
20,620
22.401
15.403
55,769.002
109,494,105
110,520,280
49,501.710
583,136,880
48,430,536
220,531.520
93,543,894
124,750,278
139,390,100
702.502,613
42,963,420
42,918,567
124.191,894
61,548.276
135,418,895
832,924,503
816,715.285
892,641,456
978,782.090
705,565,221
58.170,056
137,910,120
170,510,142
26,108,800
181.832,040
204,255,355
43,204,407
130,506,580
36.684,056
106,455,022
156,992,989
145,447,584
35.874.488
44,431,444
291,762,864
396,193.824
81,404,544
28,869.829
53,267,362
265,184,400
238,946,048
159,126,596
233,759,568
42.880,740
60.140.124
250,402.496
62,828,272
310,638,832
72,082,460
131,864,900
99,146.826
269.290.649
63,058,011
123,804,985
124,965,281
55,971,583
659,352.870
54,760.407
249,354,990
105,770,081
141,055,139
157.608,386 '
794,319.705
48,578,739
48.528,024
140,423,775
69,592,636
153,118,145
941,787,736
923,459,973
1,009,309,6194
1,106,708.909
797.782,595
65,772,882
155,934,£i73
192.795,818
29,521,220
205,597,488
230.951,530
48,851,223
147,563,790
41,478,662
120.368,693
177,511,973
164,457,583
40,563,284
50,238,634
329.896,270
447.976.357
92.044,118
32,643,116
60,229,406
299,844,001
270,176,296
179.924,442
264,311,944
48,485,253
68,000.438
283.130,102
71,039.927
351,239,327
81,503.638
149,099,642
112,105,316
304.486.937
17.96
18.63
18.64
17.84
20.31
17.82
19.33
18.48
18.76
18.88
20.49
17.70
17.70
18.76
18.06
18.85
20.66
20.64
20.73
20.82
20.50
18.00
18.86
19!08
17.20
19.14
19.26
17.70
18.81
17.54
18.61
18.99
18.92
17.52
17.73
19.61
19.92
18.34
17.30
17.91
19.52
19.41
19.01
19.39
17.70
18.04
19.46
18.08
19.68
18.22
18.82
18.53
19.53
Draft
Page N-8
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50.000
•\^f,".'- '"'• '•• •.••"'.:~ '' w-: '-./"it^ToteLTowit'i^JSiiTotal.Towtijx^V'v.'.'1" - »_;' , '.
''•^^^^^^ts^^^^^^w^^m^ •
California El Paso de Robles
El Rio CDP
El Segundo city
El Sobrante CDP
El Toro Station COP
ElVeranoCDP
Emerald Lake Hills CDP
Emerwile city
Escalon city
Eureka city
Exeter city
Fairfax town
Fair Oaks CDP
Fairview CDP
FalibrookCDP
Farmersville city
Felton CDP
Fillmore city
Firebaugh city
Florin CDP
Folsom city
Foothill Farms CDP
FordCityCDP
Fort Bragg city
Fortuna city
Foster City city
Fowler city
Freedom CDP
French Camp CDP
Gait city
Gardena city
Garden Acres CDP
George AFB CDP
Gilroy city
Glen Avon CDP
Glendora city
Golden Hills CDP
Gortzales city
Grand Terrace city
Granite Hills CDP
Grass Valley
Greenacres CDP
Greenfield city
Gridley city
Groveland-Big Oak Flat CDP
Grover City city
Guadalupe city
Gustine city
Half Moon Bay city
Hanford city
Hawaiian Gardens city
Hayfork CDP
Healdsburg city
18,583
6,419
15,223
9,852
6,869
3.498
3.328
5,740
4,437
27,025
7,276
6.931
26.867
9.045
22,095
6,235
5,350
11.992
4,429
24,330
29,802
17.135
3,781
6,078
8,788
28,176
3.208
8,361
3.018
8.889
49.847
8.547
5,085
31.487
12.663
47,828
5,423
4,660
10,946
3,157
9,048
7.379
7.464
4,631
2,753
11,656
5.479
3,931
8,886
30,897
13,639
2.605
9.469
12,288
10,708
23,583
17,373
9,831
14,395
28,259
23.190
12,879
12,915
9,571
22,228
22,806
20,689
13,050
5,858
17,383
10,674
6,836
11,607
17.617
13.511
10,425
12,324
12,907
28,399
9,585
8,779
5,851
11,550
14,601
7,925
7,974
14,241
13,365
18,573
12.911
7,834
18,940
21.607
12,078
15,125
7,710
8,768
18,924
12,820
6,663
14,303
22,302
11,283
8.344
8.904
14,710
228,347,904
68,734,652
359,004,009
171,158,796
67,529,139
50,353,710
94.045,952
133,110,600
57,144,123
349,027,875
69,638,596
154,062,268
612,728.802
188.941,005
288,339.750
36.524,630
92,999,050
128,002,608
30,276,644
282,398,310
525.021.834
231.510,985
39,416,925
74,905.272
113,426.716
800,170.224
30,748,680
73.401,219
17,658,318
102,667.950
727.816.047
67.734.975
40.547.790
448,406.367
169.240,995
888.309.444
70,016,353
36.506,440
207,317.240
68,213,299
109,281.744
111.607.375
57,547.440
40.604,608
52,097.772
149,429.920
36,506,577
56,225,093
198,175,572
348,610,851
113,803,816
23,194.920
139,288,990
258,192,975
77,718,271
405,925,833
193,529,251
76,355,197
56,934,940
106.337,758
150.508.155
64,612,860
394,645,818
78.740,360
174,198,206
692.812,456
213.635,594
326,025.755
41,298,399
105,154,026
144,732,549
34,233,801
319,307,769
593,642.188
261,769,471
44.568,717
84.695.391
128.251,588
904.752.472
34.767.532
82,994,758
19,966.260
116,086,651
822,941,604
76,587,936
45,847,386
507,013,079
191,360,793
1,004.411,488
79.167,490
41,277,832
234,413,603
77.128.777
123,564.868
126,194,459
65.068,890
45.911.630
58,906,951
168,960,411
41,277,987
63,573,713
224,077,119
394,174,289
128,677,975
26.226.496
157.494,061
19.37
18.17
19.82
19.08
18.15
17.86
18.48
18.83
17.98
19.79
18.18
18.98
20.36
19.18
19.60
17.54
18.47
18.79
17.35
19.58
20.20
19.38
17.61
18.25
18.67
20.62
17.36
18.23
16.81
18.57
20.53
18.15
17.64
20.04
19.07
20.73
18.19
17.54
19.27
18.16
18.63
18.65
17.99
17.64
17.89
18-95
17.54
17.97
19.23
19.79
18.67
17.08
18.87
Draft
Page N-9
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
California Heber CDP
Hemet city
Hercules city
Hermosa Beach city
Highgrove CDP
Highland city
Highland CDP
Hillsborough town
Hilmar-lrwin CDP
Holltstertity
Holtville city
Home Gardens CDP
Homeland CDP
Hughson city
Humboldt Hill CDP
Huron city
Idyllwild-Pine Cove CDP
Imperial city
Imperial Beach city
Indian Wells city
Indio city
lone city
Isla Vista CDP
Ivanhoe CDP
Jackson city
Joshua Tree CDP
Kelseyville CDP
Kensington CDP
Kentfield CDP
Kerman city
Keyes CDP
King City city
Kings Beach CDP
Kirtgsburg city
La Canada Flintridge city
La Crescenta-Montrose CDP
Ladera Heights CDP
Lafayette city
Laguna CDP
Laguna Beach city
Laguna Hills CDP
Laguna Miguel city
La Habra Heights city
Lake Arrowhead CDP
Lake Elsinore city
Lake Isabella CDP
Lakeland Village CDP
Lake Los Angeles CDP
Lakeport city
Lake San Marcos CDP
Lakeside CDP
La Mirada city
Lament CDP
*lfeS|y£ ;i(
2.566
36,094
16,829
18,219
3,175
34,439
2,644
10,667
3,392
19,212
4.820
7,780
3,312
3,259
2,865
4,766
2,853
4,113
26.512
2.647
36,793
6,516
20.395
3.293
3,545
3.698
2,861
4,974
6,030
5.448
2.878
7.634
2,796
7.205
19,378
16.968
6,316
23,501
9.828
23,170
46,731
44,400
6,226
6.539
18.285
3,323
5.159
7.977
4.390
3,802
39.412
40,452
11,517
tr. Capita "
. 5,379
12,270
18,948
33,510
10,797
12.567
25,346
63,302
12,881
11,415
9,631
10,269
11.855
10,408
13,402
5,501
18,771
11,143
10.731
70.41 1
9,244
9,949
6.007
6.122
13,867
9.736
10.055
31,217
44,649
8.609
8.134
11,642
11.926
11.079
38,132
21.599
35,877
34,281
20,506
40.537
27,237
28,614
33,285
22.226
11.765
9,458
14,488
11.319
12,701
32,176
14,241
16.415
5.964
.Total Town ^
Income (1992 f
•* Dollars) '"^
13,802,514
442,873,380
318,875,892
610,518.690
34.280,475
432,794.913
67,014,824
675,242,434
43,692,352
219.304,980
46,421,420
79,892,820
39,263,760
33,919.672
38.396,730
26,217.766
53.553,663
45,831,159
284.500,272
186,377,917
340.114.492
64.827,684
122,512,765
20.159.746
49,158,515
37,950,928
28,767.355
155.273,358
269,233,470
46.901,832
23.409,652
88.875,028
33.345,096
79,824.195
738,921.896
366,491.832
226,599,132
805,637.781
201.532.968
939.242.290
1.272.812,247
1,270,461.600
207.232,410
145.335,814
215.123,025
31,428.934
74.743,592
90.291,663
55.757,390
122.333,152
561.266,292
664,019,580
68,687,388
Total Town .
*iM«M|ptMj;~j
15,606,503
500.756,931
360,552,971
690,313,483
38.760,933
489.361,208
75,773,661
763.496.S20
49,402,942
247,968.141
52,488,700
90,334,812
44,395,533
38,352,973
43.415.163
29,644,428
60,553,127
51.821,291
321,684,458
210.737,511
384,567,456
73,300.662
138,525.183
22,794,625
55,583,533
42,911,114
32,527.248
175,567.586
304.422,285
53,031,901
26,469,294
100,490,994
37.703,300
90,257,217
835.498,388
414,392,314
256,215,639
910,934,639
227,873.327
1.062,001,257
1,439,168,608
1,436,510.931
234,31 7.6:86
164,331,205
243,239,604
35,536.696
84.512,579
102,092,783
63,044,881
138,322,095
634,623,796
750,806.939
77,664.830
*•'••. °. ,. I
16.56
20.03
19.70
20.35
17.47
20.01
18.14
20.45
17.72
19.33
17.78
18.32
17.61
17.46
17.59
17.20
17.92
17.76
19.59
19.17
19.77
18.11
18.75
16.94
17.83J
17.57
17.30
18.98
19:53
17.79
17.09
18.43
17.45
18.32
20.54
19.84
19.36
20.63
19.24
20.78
21.09
21.09
19.27
18.92
19.31
17.39
18.25
18.44
17.96
18.75
20.27
20.44
18.17
Draft
Page N-10
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
,^ .:, • ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Kai^^^^y^^^^^^^^^^^
.V - ' -- - . ^®*^H*N^^^
state-:''- - ;* *!i^^|*sif|^
California La Palma city
La Puente city
La Quinta city
La Riviera CDP
Larkfield-Wlkiup CDP
Larkspur city
Lathropcity
La Veme city
Lawndale city
Lemon Grove city
Lemoore city
Lennox CDP
Lenwood CDP
Lincoln city
Lincoln Village CDP
Linda CDP
Lindsay city
Live Oak CDP
Live Oak city
Livingston city
Lockeford CDP
Loma Linda city
Lomrta city
Lompoc city
Loomis town
Los Alamitos city
Los Altos city
Los Altos Hills town
Los Banos city
Los Gatos town
Los Serranos CDP
Loyola CDP
Lucas Valley-Marinwood CDP
McFartand city
McKinleyyille CDP
Madera city
Madera Acres CDP
Magalia CDP
Mammonth Lakes town
Manhattan Beach city
Manteca city
March AFB CDP
Marina city
Marina del Rev CDP
Martinez city
Marysville city
Mather AFB CDP
Mayflower Village CDP
Maywood city
Meadow Vista CDP
Meiners Oaks CDP
Mendota city
Menlo Park city
15,392
36.955
11,215
10,986
6,779
11,070
6,841
30,897
27,331
23.984
13.622
22,757
• 3,190
7.248
4.236
13,033
8,338
15.212
4,320
7,317
2,722
17.400
19,382
37,649
5.705
11,676
26,303
7.514
14.519
27.357
7,099
3,076
5.982
7.005
10,749
29,281
5.245
8.987
4.785
32.063
40.773
5,523
26.436
7,431
31,808
12,324
4,885
4,978
27,850
30.667
3,329
6,821
28,040
. 19,337
9,060
19,678
15.573
22,993
33.714
10,318
18,622
13,550
12,796
11,787
6,449
10,531
11,702
19,244
6,930
8,753
1,502
6,749
6,834
17,493
15,365
16,791
13.384
14,413
19,361
37.776
62,223
11,345
33,714
13,892
41.118
27.152
6.056
13,102
8.883
12,268
11.787
18.153
38,932
12.813
11,810
11,338
42,210
20,060
11,809
9,267
16.445
6,927
16,931
14,151
4,920
30,130
297,635.104
334,812,300
220,688,770
171.084.978
155,869,547
373,213,980
70,585,438
575,363,934
370.335.050
306.899.264
160,562,514
146.759,893
33,593.890
84,816,096
81,517,584
90.318.690
72.982,514
22,848,424
29.155,680
50.004.378
47.615.946
267,351,000
325,443,162
503.894.216
82,226,165
226,059,036
993.622.128
467,543,622
164,718,055
922,313,898
98,619,308
126,478,968
162.423.264
42,422.280
140.833,398
260,103,123
64.345.660
105,929.769
86.862.105
1,248,276.716
522.424.449
65,226,630
299.731,368
313,662,510
638,068,480
145,534,116
45,269,295
81,863,210
192,916,950
519,222,977
47.108,679
33.559,320
844,845,200
336,536,012
378,572,268
249,532,792
193,445.785
176,241,697
421,993,047
79,810.955
650,564,000
418,737,841
347,010,998
181.548.035
165,941,411
37,984,611
95.901.560
92,171.932
102,123,343
82.521.329
25,834,713
32,966,327
56.539,950
53,839.350
302,293.776
367,978,583
569,753.190
92.973.125
255,604,952
1,123,488,540
528,651.573
186,246.705
1.042,860,324
111,508,852
143,009,769
183,651,985
47,966,872
159,240,323
294.098,601
72.755,638
119,774,790
98,214,982
1,411,426,483
590.705,324
73,751,751
338.906,258
354,658,200
721,464.030
164,555,425
51,185.992
92,562,732
218,131,195
587,085,420
53,265,783
37,945,523
955,266,468
19.63
19.75
19.34
19.08
18.99
19.86
18.20
20.29
19.85
19.66
19.02
18.93
17.45
18.38
18.34
18.44
18.23
17.07
17.31
17.85
17.80
19.53
19.72
20.16
18.35
19.36
20.84
20.09
19.04
20.77
18.53
18.78
19.03
17.69
18.89
19.50
18.10
18.60
18.40
21.07
20.20
18.12
19.64
19.69
20.40
18.92
17.75
18.34
19.20
20-19
17.79
17.45
20.68
Draft
Page N-11
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
iiilll
Stat»*%::H:
California
.
Mentone CDP
Millbrae city
Mill Valley city
Mira Loma CDP
Mira Monte CDP
Mission Hills CDP
Mojave CDP
Mono Vista CDP
Monrovia city
Montara CDP
Montdair city
Monterey city
Monte Sererto city
Moorpark city
Morada CDP
Moraga Town city
Morgan Hill city
Morro Bay city
Moss Beach CDP
Mount Shasta city
Muscoy CDP
Myrtletown CDP
Needles city
Nevada City city
Newark city
Newman city
Nipomo CDP
Norcocrty
North Auburn CDP
North El Monte CDP
North Pair Oaks CDP
North Highlands CDP
Novato city
Nuevo CDP
Oakdale city
Oakhurst CDP
Oakley CDP
Oak View CDP
Oceano CDP
Ojaicrty
Olivehurst CDP
Opal Cliffls CDP
Orange Grove city
Orangevale CDP
Orinda city
Orlandcrty
Orosi CDP
Orovtlle city
Oroviile East CDP
Pacheco CDP
Pacifica city
Pacific Grove city
Pajaro CDP
5,675
20,412
13,038
15,786
7,744
3,112
3.763
2,599
35,761
2,552
28.434
31,954
3,287
25,494
3.570
15,852
23,928
9.664
3.002
3,460
7.541
4.413
5,191
2.855
37,861
4,151
7.109
23.302
10.301
3,384
13,912
42,105
47,585
3.010
11.961
2,602
18,374
3,606
6.169
7.613
9,738
5.940
5.604
26,266
16,642
5,052
5,486
11,960
8.462
3,325
37.670
16,117
3,332
IHn^
. 13,486
21,764
36,057
13,924
17.213
14,469
11.493
12,697
15.495
27,421
11,530
18,174
48,334
19.183
23,844
31,122
19.560
15,731
24,094
10.983
7.779
12,954
11,867
15,412
16,721
11,728
12.919
15.142
13.306
16.158
11,221
11,575
21.518
12,960
11.994
14.573
15,540
18,250
10,706
17,478
7,452
20.188
4,385
16.354
40,558
9,630
6.662
8,774
15.953
17,368
18,553
19,533
6.555
j Total Town
: Income (1992
'•'•> Dollars)
76,533,050
444,246,768
470,111.166
219,804,264
133,297,472
45,027,528
43,248,159
32,999,503
554,116,695
69,978,392
327,844,020
580,731.996
158,873,858
489,051.402
85,123,080
493,345,944
468,031.680
152.024.384
72,330,188
38,001.180
58.661.439
57,166,002
61,601,597
44,001,260
633.073,781
48.682.928
91,841,171
352,838,884
137.065.106
54.678,672
156,106,552
487,365,375
1.023,934,030
39,009,600
143,460,234
37,918,946
285,531,960
65,809,500
66,045,314
133,060,014
72.567,576
119,916,720
24.573,540
429,554,164
674,966.236
48,650,760
36,547,732
104,937,040
134,994,286
57.748,600
698.891.510
314.813,361
21,841,260
-Total Town , . -
j^ssw-fs*
86,535,920
502,309.821
531,554,695
248,532,681
150,719,452
50,912,626
48,900,693
37,312,538
626,539,747
79,124.568
370.693.233
656,633,668
179,638,671
552,970,420
96,248,667
557.826,259
529,203.421
171,893,971
81.783,744
42,967,934
66,328,489
64.637,598
69.652,926
49,752,225
715.816,524
55,045,787
103.844,312
398,954.926
154,979,515
61.825,174
176.509,678
551,064,030
1.157,762,208
44,108.155
162.210,487
42,674,952
322,850,987
74,410,802
74,677,437
150,450,958
82,052,158
135,589,835
27,785,302
485,696.893
763,184,323
55,009,414
41,324,521
118,652,311
152,638,039
65,296,342
790,236,630
355,959,467
24.695.S13
|ofTotai(
icome
18.28
20.03
20.09
19.33
18.83
17.75
17.71
17.43
20.26
18.19
19.73
20.30
19.01
20.13
18.38
20.14
20.09
18.96
18.22
17.58
18.01
17.98
18.06
17.72,
20.391
17.82
18.46
19.80
18.86
17.94
18.99
20.13
20.87
17.60
18.90
17.57
19.59
18.13
18.13
18.83
18.22
18.73
17.14
20.00
20.45
17.82
17.54
18.59
18.84
17.99
20.49
19.69 |
17.02
Draft
Page N-12
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
is^>^i^^^^^^i^M-II^^^^W>
California Palermo CDP
Palmdale East CDP
Palm Desert city
Palrn Desert County CDP
Palm Springs city
Palos Verdes Estates city
Paradise town
Paramount city
Parkway-South Sacramento CDP
Parlier city
Patterson city
Pedley CDP
Perns city
Petaluma city
Phoenix Lake-Cedar Ridge CDP
Piedmont city
Pine Hills CDP
Pinole city
Pismo Beach city
Pittsburg city
Pfacentia city
Placerville city
• PlanadaCDP
Pleasent Hill city
Point Dume CDP
Pollock Pines CDP
Porterville city
Port Hueneme city
Portola Hills CDP
Portola Valley town
Poway city
Prunedale CDP
Quartz Hill CDP
Quincy-East Quincy CDP
Ramona CDP
Rancho Cordova CDP
Rancho Mirage city
Rancho Palos Verdes city
Rancho Rinconada CDP
Rancho San Diego
Rancho Santa Margarita CDP
Red Bluff city
Reedley city
Ridgecrest city
Rio Dell city
Rio del Mar CDP
Rio Linda CDP
Rio Vista city
Ripon city
Riverbank city
Rocklin city
Rodeo CDP
Rohnert Park city
5,260
3,052
23,252
5,626
40.181
13.512
25,408
47,669
31,903
7,938
8,626
8,869
21,460
43,184
3.569
10.602
2.947
17.460
7,669
47.564
41,259
8.355
3.531
31.585
2,809
4.291
29,563
20,319
2,677
4.194
43,516
7,393
9,626
4,271
13,040
48.731
9,778
41.659
4,206
6,977
11,390
12,363
15,791
27.725
3,012
8,919
9,481
3,316
7.455
8.547
19,033
7,589
36,326
!Pl
10,029
'12,150
25,926
19,154
19,725
50.273
12.887
9,429
9,337
4784
11,504
15,152
9,773
17,170
15,053
42,951
15,937
18,000
20,407
13,686
18.924
13,783
5,197
21,950
' 40.348
14.097
9,666
13,552
24,711
55,721
20,720
16,545
15,359
13,545
12.823
13,859
42,189
36,509
17.834
20.037
21,495
9.997
8.791
16,258
9,559
28.066
12,272
15708
13,447
10.167
17.729
15.111
14,861
" Income (1992*|I
-:-:XDtffla«yS*$S
52,752,540
37,081,800
602,831,352
107,760,404
792,570,225
679,288776
327.432,896
449,471,001
297,878,311
37.975.392
99,233.504
134,383.088
209,728,580
741,469,280
53,724.157
455,366,502
46,966,339
314,280,000
156,501,283
650,960,904
780.785,316
115,156,965
18,350,607
693.290.750
113,337,532
60,490,227
285,755.958
275,363.088
66,151,347
233,693,874
901,651,520
122,317,185
147.845,734
57,850,695
167,211,920
675,362,929
412,524,042
1,520.928,431
75,009,804
139,798,149
244.828,050
123,592,911
138,818,681
450,753.050
28,791,708
250,320.654
116,350,832
52,087,728
100,247,385
86,897,349
337,436,057
1 14,677.379
539.840.686
krjotsu Town * •*
•"•:"1 •• ^sfet-fcOQ
•:;., tXHl&rSJ * ^f^f^*" "
59.647,297
41.928,391
681,621,410
121,844,689
896,159,153
768,071,819
370,228.376
508.216.861
336,811,006
42.938,776
112,203,323
151,946,958
237,140,105
838,379,315
60,745,904
514,882.904
53.104,840
355.356,396
176,956,001
736,041.494
882.833,957
130,207.980
20.749,031
783,903,851
128.150,747
68,396.300
323,104.262
311,353.044 "
74,797,328
264,237.663
1.019,497,374
138,304,041
167,169,171
65.411,781
189,066,518
763,632,864
466,440,934
1.719,713,777
84,813.585
158.069,767
276,827,076
139,746,504
156,962,283
509,666,474
32,554,784
283,037,563
131.557,886
58,895,594
113,349,718
98,254,833
381.538.950
129,665,712
610;397,864
of Total
17.90
17.55
20.34
18.62
20.61
20.46
19.73
20.05
19.64
17.58
18.54
18.84
19.28
20.55
17.92
20.06
17.79
19.69
18,99
20.42
20.60
18.68
16.85
20,48
18.67
18.04
19.59
19.56
18.13
19.39
20.74
18.74
18.93
18.00
19.06
20.45
19.96
21.27
18,26
18.88
19.44
18.76
18.87
20.05
17.30
19.46
18.69
17.89
18.55
18.40
1976
18.68
20.23
Draft
PageN-13
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
a^llllt^^^^ ^l««ne:|]
California Rolling Hills Estates city
Rosamond CDP
Rosedale CDP
Roseland CDP
Rosemont COP
Roseville city
Rossmoor CDP
Rowland Heights CDP
Rubidoux CDP
Running Springs CDP
St. Helena city
Salida CDP
San Anelmo town
San Antonio Heights CDP
San Bruno city
San Carlos city
San Clemente city
San Diego Country Estates CDP
San Dimas city
San Fernando city
San Gabriel city
Sangercity
San Jacinto city
San Juan Capistrano city
San Lorenzo CDP
San Luis Obispo city
San Marcos city
San Marino city
San Pablo city
San Rafael city
San Ramon city
Santa Cruz city
Santa Fe Springs city
Santa Paula city
Santa Venetia CDP
Santa Ynez CDP
Saratoga city
Sausalito city .
Scotts Valley city
Seal Beach city
Searles Valley
Seaside city
Sebastopol city
Sedco Hills CDP
Selmacrty
Shatter city
Sierra Madre city
Signal Hill city
Sotana Beach city
Soledad city
Sotvang city
Sonoma city
Sonora city
7.789
7,430
4,673
8,779
22,851
44,685
9.893
42.647
24,367
4,195
4.990
4,499
11,743
2,935
38,961
26,167
41.100
6,874
32,397
22.580
37.120
16,839
16,210
26,183
19,987
41,958
38.974
12,959
25,158
48,404
35.303
49.040
15,520
25,062
3,362
4,200
28,061
7,152
8,615
25,098
2.740
38.901
7.004
3,008
14.757
8,409
10,762
8.371
12,962
7,146
4,741
8,121
4,153
.38,905
12,135
18,450
10,630
14,439
17,430
28,876
15,640
11,018
19,209
19,199
12,289
25,508
34.405
18,289
28,161
23,841
20,412
20,246
8.876
13.733
8,461
9,361
233,444
15,817
14,760
13,590
49,537
10,505
24.230
25,196
15,538
11,196
11,650
19.907
22,036
40.660
48,996
21.514
25,695
10,328
10,409
15,899
10,657
8.175
10.430
24.947
18,270
29.496
6.889
20.946
18.527
14.310
303,031,045
90,163,050
86.216.850
93,320,770
329,945,589
778,859.550
285,670,268
666,999,080
268.475,606
80,581,755
95,803.010
55,286,211
299,540,444
100,978,675
712,557.729
736,688,887
979,865,100
140.312.088
655,909,662
200,420,080
509.768,960
142,474.779
151.741.810
6,112,264,252
316,134,379
619,300,080
529,656,660
641,949,983
264,284,790
1.172,828.920
889,494.388
761,983.520
173,761,920
291,972,300
66,927,334
92,551,200
1,140,960,260
350,419,392
185,343,110
644,893,110
28,298,720
404,920.509
111,356.596
32.056.256
120,638,475
87,705,870
268.479.614
152,938,170
382,327,152
49,228,794
99,304,986
150,457,767
59,429,430
342.637,203
101,947,361
97,485,392
105,517,795
373,069,477
880,656,493
323,007,372
754.175.860
303,565,368
91,113,790
108,324.463
62,514.380
338,690,380
114.176,588
805.689,024
833,200,265
1.107,933,469
158,650,378
741.637.055
226.614.984
576.395.763
161,096,233
171,574,465
6,911,137,190
357.453.142
700,242,600
598.882,785
725.852.JJ46
298.826.812
1,326.1 17,660
1,005,751,305
861,574,766
196,472.603
330,133,080
75,674,737
104.647,642
1.290,083.766
396,219,207
209,567,454
729.180,639
31.997,363
457,843,620
125,910,903
36,246,009
136,405,924
99,169,027
303,569,900
172,927,189
432,297,311
55.662,997
112.284,148
170,122,597
67.196,857
19.65
18.44
18.40
18.47
19.74
20.60
19.59
20.44
19.53
18.33
18.50
17.95
19.64
18.55
20.51
20.54
. 20.83
18.88
20.42
19.24
20.17
18.90
18.96
22.66
19.69|
20.37
20.21
20.40
19.52
21.01
20.73
20.57
19.10
19.62
18.14
18.47
20.98
19.80
19.16
20.41
17.28
19.94
18.65
17.41
18.73
18.41
19.53
18.97
19.88
17.83
18.54
18.95 |
18.02'
Draft
Page N-14
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
*, * 1, ^
*>~4"~" * ' Town/CHy Name""/" "' Population"^* , v ^^
eil-;- t-* -*•""* :v _ »"*- wcome
state • .-^ ' » * —
California Soquet CDP
South Ei Monte city
South Lake Tahoe city
South Oroville CDP
South Pasadena city
South San Gabriel CDP
South San Jose Hills CDP
South Santa Rosa CDP
South Whittier CDP
South Yuba City CDP
Stanford CDP
Stanton city
Stawberry CDP
Suisun City city
Sun City CDP
Sunnyslope CDP
Susanville city
Sutler CDP
Tafttity
Tamalpais-Homestead Valley CDP
Tara Hills CDP
Tehachapi crty
Temecula city
Temple City city
Templeton CDP
Terra Bella CDP
Thermaltoito CDP
Thousand Palms CDP
Tiburon town
Tierra Buena CDP
Trabuco Highlands CDP
Tracy city
Truckee CDP
Tulare city
Turlock city
Tustin Foothills CDP
Twentynine Palms city
Twentynine Palms CDP
Twin Lakes CDP
Ukiah city
Valinda CDP
Valle Vista CDP
Vandenberg AFB CDP
Vandenberg CDP
Victorvilie city
View Park-Windsor Hills CDP
Villa Park city
Vincent CDP
Vine Hill CDP
Walnut city
Wainut Park CDP
Wasco city
Waterford city
9.188
20,850
21,586
7,463
23,936
7,700
17,814
4,128
49,514
8,816
18,097
30,491
4.377
22,686
14,930
3,766
7.279
2,606
5,902
9,601
4,998
5,791
27.099
31.100
2,887
2,740
5,646
4,122
7,532
2,878
3,191
33,558
3,464
33,249
42.198
24,358
11,821
10,606
5,379
14,599
18,735
8,751
9,846
5.971
40.674
11.769
6.299
13.713
3,214
29.105
14,722
12,412
4,771
.21.450
8.043
12,580
7,881
26.106
10,810
8,752
12,890
12,378
18,498
14,177
12.803
35,992
12,539
15,148
12,209
11,155
9,602
13,447
34,172
15,598
12.026
16.895
16,107
13,890
5,204
9,085
12,384
52,398
13,557
23,661
14.298
15,689
9,678
11.936
35,696
10,892
8,569
18,440
11,533
11,431
14.135
9.184
20.286
11.474
22.201
42,565
11,843
14.728
18,749
7,891
7,097
8,753
DollarsV*5^
197.082.600
167,696,550
271,551,880
58,815.903
624,873,216
83,237,000
155,908.128
53.209.920
612,884,292
163,078,368
256,561,169
390,376,273
157,536,984
284,459,754
226,159.640
45.979.094
81,197,245
25.022,812
79.364,194
328.085,372
77,958.804
69,642,566
457,837,605
500,927,700
40,100,430
14.258,960
51,293,910
51,046,848
394,661,736
39,017,046
75,502,251
479,812.284
54,660.476
328.433,622
503,675,328
869,483,168
128,754,332
90,882,814
99,188,760
168,370,267
214,159,785
123,695.385
90,425.664
121.127.706
466,693,476
261.283,569
268,116,935
162,403,059
47,335,792
545,689,645
116,171,302
88,087.964
41,760,563
"7 'Dollars) Y^t^S
222,841.296
189.614,489
307,043,711
66,503,142
706,544,145
94.116,076
176,285,320
60,164.457
692,988,269
184.392,711
290,093,714
441,398,452
178,127.068
321,638,644
255,718,705
51,988,562
91.809,725
28.293,294
89,737,094
370,966,130
88.148,020
78,744,849
517,676,980
566,398,950
45,341,556
16,122.606
57,998.024
57.718,671
446,244,025
44,116,574
85,370,395
542,523,750
61,804,600
371,359.696
569.505,693
983,124,618
145,582,523
102.761,198
112.152,731
190.376.261
242,150,469
139,862,372
102.244.298
136.959.097
527,690,313
295,433,331
303.159,818
183,629,139
53.522,580
617,011,282
131,354,891
99,601,061
47.218,669
ncome
19.22
19.06
19.54
18.01
20.38
18.36
18.99
17.91
20.36
19.03
19.49
19.91
19.00
19.59
19.36
17.77
18.34
17.16
18.31
19.73
18.29
18.18
20.06
20.15
17.63
16.60
17.88
17.87
19.92
17.60
18.26
20.11
17.94
19.73
20.16
20.71
18.80
18.45
18.54
19.06
19.31
18.76
18.44
18.74
20.08
19.50
19.53
19.03
17.80
20.24
18.69
18.42
17.67
Draft
Page N-15
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
.•'•; 'rr te*:3*itf :.-•<: •.;<•. ":~. •.:••.&*.$**&£%&.•„ :-W:.:v-:. : -^.v^:.^*-, 'V ^^feiTotalTown^v. 'Total Town .. , ,_ ,. [f
«^i»^^ Log of Total
S^<3^4«^^ : •••• lncome 1
California Watsonviile city
Weavervifie CDP
Weed city
West Athens CDP
West Bishop CDP
West Carson CDP
West Compton CDP
West Hollywood city
Westlake Village city
West Memo Park CDP
WestmontCDP
West Prttsburg CDP
West Puente Valley CDP
West Sacramento city
West Whittier-Los Nietos CDP
WidomarCDP
Wiilitis city
Willowbrook CDP
Willows city
Wilton CDP
Windsor CDP
Winters city
Winton GDP
Woodbndge.CDP
Woodcrest CDP
Woodlake city
Woodland city
Woodside town
Wrightwood CDP
Yountville town
Yrekacity
Yuba City city
Yucaipa city
Yucca Valley CDP
Pennsylvania Adams Township
Adams Township
Akron Borough
Aldan Borough
Aliquippa City
Allegheny Township
Allegheny Township
Allen Township
Allsace Township
Ambler Borough
Ambridge Borough
Amity Township
Amity Gardens CDP
Arnwell Township
Ancient Oaks CDP
Annville Township
Annville CDP
Antis Township
Antrim Township
31,099
3,370
3,062
8,859
2.908
20,143
5.451
36,118
7.455
3.959
31,044
17,453
20,254
28,898
24,164
10,411
5,027
32.772
5.988
3,858
13.371
4,639
7.559
3,456
7,796
5.678
39,802
5.035
3,308
3,259
6.948
27,437
32.824
13.701
3.911
6.869
3,869
4.549
13,374
7,023
7,895
2,626
3,459
6,609
8,133
6,434
2,714
4,176
2,663
4,294
4.294
6,176
10,107
10,422
12,629
8,482
10,614
19,475
17,538
11,765
24,366
37.658
28,934.
8.605
12.642
9.429
11.510
11,573
14,818
106,898
7.182
9,644
19,237
15.485
11.561
8,473
16,750
19.672
6,241
13,854
68,236
20.713
113.649
11.901
11,815
14,131
12,902
15,568
9,643
16,553
17.290
8,892
10,980
12,487
14,871
14,802
15,778
9,006
15,907
16.548
11,483
16.494
10.717
10.717
12.129
12,444
324.113.778
42.559,730
25,971,884
94,029,426
56,633.300
353,267.934
64,131,015
880.773,548
280.740.390
114.549.706
267.133.620 .
220,640.826
190.974.966
332,615.980
279.649,972
154,270,198
537.376.246
235,368,504
57,748,272
74,216,346
207,049,935
53.631,479
64,047,407
57,888,000
153.362,912
35.436,398
551,416,908
343,568,260
68.518,604
370,382.091
82,688,148
324,168,155
463,835,944
176.770,302
60,886.448
66,237.767
64,043.557
78.652,210
118,921.608
77.112,540
98,584,865
39.051.246
51,200.118
104,276.802
73.245,798
102,345,638
44,911,272
47,953.008
43.923,522
46.018,798
46.018.798
74,908.704
125,771,508
366,475,449
48,122,287
29,366,409
106,319,072
64.035,272
399,440,053
72.512.939
995.890,651
317.433.159
129.521,353
302,047.984
249.478,582
215,935.394
376.088,889
316,200,223
174.433,313
607,611.321
266.131,167
65,295,971
83,916,422
234.111.aS2
60,641,113
72.418.403
65,453,962
173.407,4-45
40,067.935
623,487,098
388.472,632
77,473,986
418,791.030
93,495.489
366,536.933
524.459.302
199,874.180
68,844,307
74,895,r>!i3
72.414,050
88,932.054
134,464,6612
87.191,149
111,469.907
44,155,244
57,891.973
117,905,780
82,819,024
115,722,213
50.781,175
54.220,466
49.664,328
52,033.455
52,033,455
84,699,272
142,209,844
19.72
17.69
17.20
18.48
17.97
19.81
18.10
20.72
19.58
18.68
19.53 '
19.33
19.19
19.75
19.57
18.98
20.23
19.40
17.99
18.25
19.27
17.92
18.10
18.00
18.97
17.51
20.25
19.78
18.17
19.85
18.35
19.72
20.08
19.11
18.05
18.13
18.10
18.30
18.72
18.28
18.53
17.60
17.87
18.59
18.23
18.57
17.74
17.81
17.72
17.77
17.77
18.25
18.77
P
Draft
Page N-16
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50.000
S^^^^^^^^^^^il^M^f ''...- '• '• ' lncor™»0
Pennsylvania Archbaid Borough
Ardmore CDP
Arlington Heights CDP
Armagh Township
Armstrong Township
Arnold City
Ashland Borough
Ashley Borough
Aspinwall Borough
Aston Township
Athens Borough
Athens Township
Audubon CDP
Avalon Borough
Avoca Borough
Avon Heights CDP
Baden Borough
Baldwin Borough
Bangor Borough
Bamesboro Borough
Barrett Township
Bart Township
Beat Creek Township
Beaver Borough
Beaver Falls City
Bedford Borough
Bedford Township
Bedminster Township
Bellefonte Borough
Bellevue Borough
Belmont CDP
Benner Township
Bentleyville Borough
Benzinger Township
Bern Township
Berwick Borough
Bethel Township
Bethel Township
Bethel Township
Bethel Park Borough
Bethlehem Township
Birdsboro Borough
Birmingham Township
Birmingham Township
Blair Township
Blairsville Borough
Blakely Borough
Bloomsburg Town
Blue Bell CDP
Boggs Township
Boothwyn CDP
Boyertown Borough
Brackenridge Borough
6,291
12,646
4.768
3.627
3,048
6,113
3.859
3,291
2,880
15.080
3.468
4,755
6,328
5,784
2.897
2.714
5.074
21,923
5,383
2.530
3,216
2,774
2,721
5,028
10.687
3.137
4,945
4,602
6.358
9,126
3.184
5,085
2,673
8,509
6.303
10,976
3,676
3,330
4.343
33,823
16,425
4,222
2.636
3.118
3,994
3,595
7.222
12,439
6.091
2,686
5,069
3,759
3,784
11,799
22,295
15.259
9,563
10,507
10,745
9,824
10,294
22,365
16,176
10,667
13,449
20,264
12,262
11.401
11,001
11.298
13,977
13,229
8.648
15,010
9.680
19,250
' 16,803
8,025
12,838
11,092
18,238
11,890
16,327
12.679
9,443
9,632
11.048
15,188
10.246
11,267
17,936
12,490
17,603
17.659
13,898
35,535
34,995
13,994
11,265
12,342
9,571
36.091
10,737
15.060
14,272
11,300
;TotaITown --:• ;>.TotaJTown ._
ln^e<1992lincome(1998 LopofTotal
.V'Dollarajft^il^boMars') '- /lncom* '
74,227,509
281,942,570
72,754,912
34.685,001
32,025,336
65,684.185
37,910,816
33,877.554
64,411,200
243.934,080
36,993.156
63,949.995
128,230,592
70.923,408
33,028,697
29,856.714
57,326,052
306,417.771
71.211.707
21,879,440
48,272.160
26,852.320
52,379,250
84,485,484
85,763,175
40.272.806
54.849.940
83,931,276
75,596,620
149,000,202
40,369.936
48.017,655
25,746,336
94,007,432
95,729,964
112.460,096
41,417,492
59.726,880
54,244,070
595,386,269
290.049,075
58.677,356
93.670.260
109.114.410
55.892.036
40.497.675
89.133,924
119.053.669
219.830,281
28,839,582
76.339.140
53.648,448
42,759,200
.83,929.044
318,792,464
82,263,979
39,218,331
36,211,047
74,269.108
42,865,760
38,305.350
72.829,744 .
275,816,264
41,828,161
72,308.259
144,990,330
80.193,097
37.345,548
33,758.987
64,818.567
346,466.574
80,519,077
24.739.083
54,581,331
30,361,918
59.225,218
95,527,737
96,972.422
45.536,462
62.018,827
94,901,094
85,477,098
168.474,528
45,646,287
54,293,563
29.111,382
106,294,203
108,241.870
127,158,631
46,830,758
67,533.183
61.333,770
673,203,254
327,958,489
66,346,486
105.912,963
123,375.663
63.197.125
45,790,721
100,783,728
134.613.984
248.562,099
32,608,915
86.316.666
60,660.300
48,347,827
18.25
19.58
18.23
17.48
17.40
18.12
17.57
17.46
18.10
19.44
17.55
18.10
18.79
18.20
17.44
17.33
17.99
19.66
18.20
17.02
17.82
17.23
17.90
18.37
18.39
17.63
17.94
18.37
18.26
18.94
17.64
17.81
17.19
18.48
18.50
18.66
17.66
18.03
17.93
20.33
19.61
18.01
18.48
18.63
17.96
17.64
18.43
18.72
19.33
17.30
18.27
17.92
17.69
Draft
PageN-17
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
--..-.• .. :...•:;;:'*«-?<" '">•';"•••»••: ••^••!v'A"^v-A''^0v^^":.^.v;>;;' -'^j:;"1-1;' • ,••'.;•••' ' • ..— — '- .^-''-A'-r-TotalTown'tr^yvTotol'Towil . __ •'•'• ,\
•^miiffc^ *f of Total
aifi^M^Ss^^ - ;- Income , [
Pennsylvania Braddock Borough
Bradford Township
Bradford City
Bradford Township
Brecknock Township
Brecknock Township
Brentwood Borough
Bressier-Enhaut-Obertin CDP
Briar Creek Township
Bridgeport Borough
Bridgeville Borough
Brighton Township
Bristol Borough
Brittany Farms Highlands CDP
Brookhaven Borough
Brookvilte Borough
Broomall CDP
Brown Township
Brownsville Borough
BrynMawrCDP
Buckingham Township
Buffalo Township
Buffalo Township
Bullskin Township .
Bumel Township
Bushkil! Township
Butler Township
Butler City
Butter Township
Butler Township
Butler Township
Caernarvon Township
California Township
Cain Township
Cambria Township
Camp Hill Borough
Canonsburg Borough
Canton Township
Carbondale City
Carlisle Borough
Carnegie Borough
Camot-Moon CDP
Carroll Township
Carrot! Township
Carroll Township
Castle Shannon Borough
Catasaqua Borough
Cecil Township
Cecil-Bishop CDP
Center Township
Center Township
Center Township
Centerville Borough
4,682
2,504
9,625
5,065
3.770
5,197
10,823
2.660
3,010
4,292
5,445
7.489
• 10,405
2.747
8,567
4,184
10,930
3.320
3.164
3,271
9,364
6,317
2,877
7.323
3.669
5.512
2,514
14,714
17,625
6,020
4,099
3.946
5.748
11,997
6,357
7,831
9,200
9,256
10,664
18,419
9,278
10.187
4.597
6,210
3,287
9.135
6,662
8,948
2,701
10,742
6.239
5,257
3,842
8.411
9,087
10,722
12.556
15.582
11,855
13,290
13,236
12.220
14,287
13,712
15.908
11,911
21,367
18,188
11,830
18,145
11.866
7.995
19.170
24,751
13,163
10,470
10.247
' 11,332
14,388
15,172
10,162
14,716
13,205
12,547
12.249
7,749
15,711
9,834
20,698
11,157
11,328
11,098
13,797
13,082
16,926
11.659
13,405
18,183
13,539
12,886
15,084
14.366
13,945
14,885
10.788
10.152
39,380,302
22,753,848
103,199,250
63,596,140
58,744.140
61,610,435
143,837,670
35.207.760
36,782.200
61.319.804
74,661,840
119,135,012
123.933,955
58,695,149
155,816,596
49,496,720
198.324.850
39.395,120
25.296.180
62.705.070
231,768,364
83.150,671
30.122,190
75,038.781
41.577,108
79,306.656
38,142,408
149.523,668
259,369.500
79.494.100
51.430.153
48.334.554
44.541,252
188,484,667
62.514,738
162,086,036
102.644.400
104,851,968
118,349.072
254,126,943
121,374,796
172.425.162
53.596.423
83,245,050
59,767,521
123,678,765
85,846,532
134,971,632
38,802.566
149,797,190
92,867.515
56,712,516
39,003,984
44,527.307
25,727,776
116,687,392
71,908,155
66,421,999
69,662,919
162,637,253
39,809,414
41 .589.634
69,334,302
84,420,142
134,705,958
140,132,123
66.366,605
176,181,825
55,965,941
224,245.908
44,544,062
28,602,391
70.900,623
262,060,489
94,018,464
34.059,160
84,846.350
47.011,236
89,672,036
43,127,621
169,066.411
293,269.094
89,883,979
58,152.074
54,651,080
50,362,794
213,119,839
70.685,414
183,270,683
116.060.CI23
118,556,120
133,817.296
287,341.334
137,238.482
194,961,131
60,601,475
94,125,178
67,579,136
139,843,580
97,066,674
152,612,424
43.874.C61
169.375.683
105,005.299
64,124.842
44.101,605
17.61
17.06
18.58
18.09
18.01
18.06
18.91
17.50
17.54
18.05
18.25
18.72
18.76
18.01
18.99
17.84
19.23
17.61
17.17
18.08
19.38
18.36
17.34
18.26
17.67 |
18.31
17.58
18.95
19.50
18.31
17.88
17.82
17.73
19.18
18.07
19.03
18.57
18.59
18.71
19.48
18.74
19.09
17.92
18.36
18.03
18.76
18.39
18.84
17.60
18.95
18.47
17.98 j
17.60
Draft
Page N-18
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50.000
State''-"
^ ^r4;Town/C»h/'lton»J":' ':£;"
Population *£•*% ^vSfjESZpS* .f^SjJJ"
•"corn*. : ooUare)? 4«- Dollars) v lncome
Pennsylvania
Centre Township
Chalfont Borough
Chambersburg Borough
Chanceford Township
Charteroi Borough
Charleston Township
Charleston Township
Chartiers Township
Cheltenham Township
Cherryhill Township
Chester City
Chester Township
Chesterbrook CDP
Chester Township
Chestnuthill Township
Chippewa Township
Churchill Borough
Churchville CDP
Clairton City
Clarion Borough
Clarion Township
Clarks Summit Borough
Clay Township
Clearfield Township
Clearfield Borough
Clifton Heights .Borough
Clinton Township
Clinton Township
Coal Township
Coaldaie Borough
Coatesville City
Codorus Township
Colebrookdale Township
Colerain Township
College Township
Collegeville Borough
Collier Township
Coliingdale Borough
Colonial park CDP
Columbia Borough
Cotwyn Borough
Concord Township
Conemaugh Township
Conestoga Township
Conewago Township
Conewago Township
Conewago Township
Conewago Township
Connellsville City
Connelisville Township
Connoquenessing Township
Conoy Township
Conshohocken Borough
3,154
3.069
16,647
5,026
5,014
2,957
2,754
7.603
34,923
2,764
41,856
5,399
4,561
5,399
8.798
6.988
3.883
4,255
9,656
6.457
3,306
5,433
5,050
2.635
6.633
7,111
2.556
3.086
9,922
2,531
11.038
3,653
5,469
2.867
6,709
4,227
4,841
9,175
13.777
10,701
2,613
6,933
7,737
3,470
4,532
2,832
4,997
4.475
9,229
2.553
3,093
2,687
8,064
13.743
19,098
12,744
11.295
10.419
10,871
31.737
13.886
25.653
9.791
9,115
11.034
35,737
11,034
13.484
15.589
28,639
20,825
10.936
7,826
9,317
16.783
12.899
9,989
12,338
13,278
12,911
11,695
9,563
9,529
10.570
14,441
15,095
12,376
16,905
16,269
12,853
12,250
17,325
11,723
11.268
21,657
11,012
13,676
14,005
17,050
13.547
11,227
8,596
11,667
11,942
12,415
13,566
43.345.422
58,611,762
212,149,368
56.768,670
52,240,866
32,145,547
87,403,698
105,575,258
895,879.719
27,062,324
381,517,440
59,572,566
162,996,457
59.572,566
118.632.232
108,935.932
111.205,237
88.610,375
105,598,016
50,532.482
30,802,002
91.182,039
55,139.950
26,321.015
81.837,954
94,419,858
33,000.516
36,090,770
94.884,086
24.117,899
116,671,660
52.752,973
82,554.555
35,481,992
113,415,645
68,769,063
62,221,373
112,393,750
238,686.525
125,447.823
29,443,284
150,147.981
65,199,844
47,455,720
63,470,660
48,285,600
67,694,359
50,240,825
79.332,484
29,785,851
36,936,606
33,359,105
109,396,224
49,010,669
66,272,319
239,877,290
64,188,335
59,068,747
36,346.970
98,827,361
119,373,944
1.012.971.198
30.599,370
431,381,769
67,358.700
184,300,094
67,358.700
134,137.465
123,173,858
125,739,761
100,191.751
119,399,677
57.137,077
34,827,824
103,099.531
73.653.741
29,761,172
92,534.175
106,760,533
37,313,683
40,807,834
107.285.436
27.270.108
131,920.646
59,647,787
93.344,435
40.119,488
128.239,070
77,757,180
70,353,706
127,083,613
269,882.854
141,843.853
33,291.521
169,772,322
96,335.464
53,658.183
71,766.275
54.596.528
76,542,012
56,807.301
89,701.240
33,678.862
41.764.220
37>19.140
123.694,310
17.71
18.01
19.30
17.98
17.89
17.41
18.41
18.60
20.74
17.24
19.88
18.03
19.03
18.03
18.71
18.63
18.65
18.42
18.60
17.86
17.37
18.45
18,1 1
17.21
18.34
18.49
17.43
17.52
18.49
17.12
18.70
17.90
18.35
17.51
18.67
18.17
18.07
18.66
19.41
18.77
17.32
18.95
18.38
17.80
18.09
17.82
18.15
17.86
18.31
17.33
17.55
17.45
18.63
Draft
Page N-19
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
, < Town/CHy Name""* * ' "
State ^ x? ~ •<-$&> A?**?^ "
Pennsylvania Coolbaugh Township
Copper Toenship
Coopersburg Borough
Coplay Borough
Coraopolis Borough
Complanter Township
Cornwall Borough
Comwells Heights-Eddington CDP
Corry City
Coudersport Borough
Cowanshannock Township
Crafton Borough
Cranberry Township
Cranberry Township
Cresson Township
Croydon CDP
Cumberland Township
Cumberland Township
Cumru Township
Curwnsvilte Borough
Dallas Borough
Dallas Township
Dallastown Borough
Damascus Township
Danville Borough
Darby Borough
Darby Township
Darby Township
Daugherty Township
Decatur Township
Decatur Township
Delaware Township
Delaware Township
Delmar Township
Denver Borough
Deny Township
Derry Township
Deity Borough
Deny Township
Devon-Berwyn CDP
Dickinson Township
Diskson City Borough
Dingman Township
Donora Borough
Dormonl Borough
Douglass Township
Douglass Township
Dover Township
Dowington Borough
Doylestown Township
Doylestown Township
Drexel Mil! CDP
DuBois City
PM
Population ,
6,756
2,590
2,599
3,267
6,747
2,968
3,231
3.621
7.216
2,854
2,813
7,188
14.816
7.256
3.284
9.967
5.431
6,742
13,142
2.924
2,567
7.625
3.974
3.081
5.165
11.140
10.955
10,955
3,433
3.004
2,735
4,018
3.527
3.048
2.861
18,408
7.650
2.950
15,446
5,019
3,870
6.276
4,591
5,928
9,772
3,570
7,048
15,668
7.749
8.575
14.510
29.744
8,286
.12,295
8,400
14,609
12,906
12,126
11,927
19.064
13.723
9,913
11,902
9.356
14.833
16,494
10.494
10.336
12,821
16,029
9,089
19.100
10.723
17.470
16.238
12.259
'11,449
12.236
10.308
12,182
12,182
13,020
9,567
9.911
11.417
13.289
10,951
13,452
19,594
12,560
10,368
10,440
25,349
14,239
10,968
15,022
8,914
13,448
14,036
16,636
14,259
15,196
20,537
22,124
17.998
11,713
Total Town . ...
^Income (199*?. 1
;^:-DoBars>----.-:~
83,065,020
21,756,000
37,968.791
42,163.902
81,814,122
35,399.336
61,595,784
49,690,983
71,532.208
33,968.308
26.318.428
106,619.604
244,375,104
76,144,464
33,943,424
127.786.907
87,053.499
61,278,038
251.012.200
31.354.052
44,845,490
123,814,750
48,717,266
35.274,369
63,198.940
114,831,120
133,453,810
133,453.810
44.697,660
28,739,268
27,106,585
45,873,506
46,870,303
33.378.648
38,486,172
360,686,352
96,084,000
30.585,600
161,256.240
127.226,631
55,104.930
68.835,168
68,966,002
52,842,192
131,413,856
50,108.520
117,250.528
223,410,012
117,753,804
176.104,775
321,019.240
535,332.512
97.053.918
Total Town ::••*,..__
93,921,618
24.599,509
42,931.312
47,674,724
92,507,228
40,026,029
69,646,353
56.185,594
80,881,468
38,407.966
29.758,247
120.554,786
276,314,930
86,096,545
38,379.830
144.488,656
98.431,391
69,287,078
283.819,495
35.452,027
50.706,796
139,997.338
55,084,613
39,884,729
71,459,1X1
129,839,1547
150,896,223
150.896,223
50,539,1544
32,495.490
30,649,416
51,869,173
52,996,252
37.741,237
43,516,315
407,828,058
108,642.179
34,583. 138
182,332.431
143.855.152
62,307.144
77,831.924
77,979,858
59.748,666
148,589,647
56,657.704
132,575,172
252,609,701
133.144,226
199.121.669
362,976,455
605,300,471
109,738,865
icome 1
'-•••-; 1
18.36
17.02
17.58
17.68
18.34
17.51
18.06
17.84
18.21
17.46
17.21
18.61
19.44
18.27
17.46
18.79
18.40
18.05
19.46
17.38
17.74
18.76
17.82
17.50
18.08J
18.68
18.83
18.83
17.74
17.30
17.24
17.76
17.79
17.45
17.59
19.83
18.50
17.36
19.02
18.78
17.95
18.17
18.17
17.91
18.82
17.85
18.70
19.35
18.71
19.11
19.71
20.22 j
18.51
Draft
Page N-20
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
pV^X-^'^^
!.;•;•-•, ;..,.;--,;;.: .x-.;- : .-•.:-.••' • . -: •••>>.:•;. .,-, s rv; v,,,,«..;*-«v;ti^^!?>V-^
««»•< <^'.~^-.^-v^^^
Pennsylvania Dunbar Township
Dunmore Borough
Dupont Borough
Duquesne City
Duryea City
Eagleville CDP
Earl Township
Eart Township
East Alien Township
East Bethehem Township
East Bradford Township
East Brandywine Township
East Buffalo Township
East Cain Township
East Cocalico Township
East Coventry Township
East Donegal Township
East Drumore Township
East Earl Township
East Fallowfield Township
East Franklin Township
East Groshen Township
East Greenville Township
East Hanover Township
East Hanover Township
East Hempfield Township
East Huntingdon Township
East Lampeter Township
East Landsowne Borough
East Manchester Township
East Marlborough Township
East McKeesport Borough
East Norriton Township
East Norriton CDP
East Nottingham Township
Easton City
East Pennsboro Township
East Petersburg Borough
East Pikeland Borough
East Rockhill Borough
East St. Clair Township
East Stroudsburg Brough
East Taylor Township
Easttown Township
East Uniontown CDP
East Vincent Township
East Wheatfield Township
East Whiteland Township
East York CDP
Ebensburg Borough
Economy Borough
Edgewood Borough
Edgewood CDP
m^^-^:^^^:;^^^«^m
^Pbpulatfon-?;^^^
•$&&£'- ,v' "'Dollars)-';:"^
7,460
15,403
2.984
8.525
4,869
3,637
3.016
5,515
4,572
2,799
6,440
5,179
5,245
2,619
7,809
4.450
4,484
3.225
5,941
4,433
3.923
15.138
3.117
4,569
3,058
. 18,597
7.708
11.999
2.691
3,714
4,781
2.678
13.324
13,324
3,841
26,276
15,185
4.197
5,825
3,753
2,765
2.781
3.073
9.570
2,822
4,161
2,735
8.398
8,487
3,872
9.519
3,581
2,719
10,051
13.083
11,186
8,404
11,510
14,406
13,807
13.313
15,548
8,867
12,297
19,576
18,668
22,336
14,124
17.079
14,183
12.576
12,073
16,474
11,712
25.260
12,573
15.349
12,073
20.282
10.476
16,904
13,876
14,549
26,695
11.379
18,980
18,980
13,660
11,319
14,996
16.028
18.898
16,295
8,481
11.146
9.771
38.348
8,846
14,837
9,680
21.099
19,412
13,676
13,056
20,807
10,441
74,980,460
201.517.449
33,379,024
71,644,100
56,042.190
52,394,622
41,641,912
73,421,195
71.085.456
24,818.733
79,192.680
101,384,104
97,913.660
58,503,222
110,294,316
76.001.550
63,596.572
40,557,600
71.725,693
73,029.242
45,946,176
382.385,880
39,190,041
70.129,581
36,919,234
377,184,354
80,749,008
202,831,096
37,340,316
54,034,986
127,628.795
30,472.962
252,889.520
252,889,520
52,468,060
297,418,044
227,714.260
67.269,516
110.080,850
61.155,135
23,449,965
30.997.026
30,026.283
366,990,360
24,963,412
61.736,757
26.474,800
177,189.402
164,749,644
52,953,472
124,280,064
74,509,867
28,389,079
•>T6tal-ToKm^.V:;,:~-;^-i:;i: ^ .
84,780,406
227,855,780
37,741,662
81,007,984
63,366,904
59,242,599
47.084,510
83,017,345
80,376.325
28,062,541
89,543.163
114,635,006
110.710,975
66.149.593
124,709,783
85,934.953
71.908,644
45,858.478
81.100.241
82.574,164
51,951,341
432,363,715
44,312,179
79,295.517
41,744,578
426,482,349
91,302,903
229,341,120
42,220,695
61.097,359
144,309.879
34,455,776
285,942.180
285.942,180
59.325,635
336,290,582
257,476,514
76,061,642
124,468,417
69,148,111
26.514.875
35,048.337
33,950,718
414.956,000
28,226,130
69,805,751
29.935,056
200,348,057
186,282,422
59,874,491
140,523,468
84,248,307
32.099,532
18.26
19.24
17.45
18.21
17.96
17.90
17.67
18.23
18.20
17.15
18.31
18.56
18.52
18.01
18.64
18.27
18.09
17.64
18.21
18.23
17.77
19.88
17.61
18.19
17.55
19.87
18.33
19.25
17.56
17.93
18.79
17.36
19.47
19.47
17.90
19.63
19.37
18.15
18.64
18.05
17.09
17.37
17.34
19.84
17.16
18.06
17.21
19.12
19.04
17.91
18.76
18.25
17.28
Draft
Page N-21
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
Pennsylvania Edgemont Township
Edinboro Borough
Edwardsville Borough
Elim CDP
Elizabeth Township
Elizabeth Township
Elizabethtown Borough
Ellwood City Borough
Emigsville CDP
Emmaus Borough
Emporium Borough
Emsworth Borough
Enola CDP
Ephrata Borough
Ephrata Township
Etna Borough
Exeter Township
Exeter Borough
Exton CDP
Fairfletd Township
Fairtess Hills CDP
Fairview Township
Fairview Township
Fairview Township
Fairview -Femdale CDP
Fallowfield Township
Falls Township
Farrell City
Fawn Township
Fayette Township
Fayeteville CDP
Feasterville-Trevose CDP
Ferguson Township
Femway CDP
Findlay Township
Fleetwood Borough
Flourtown CDP
Folcrott Borough
Folsom CDP
Ford City Borough
Forest Hills Borough
Fortes Township
Fort Washington CDP
Forty Fort Borough
Forward Township
Foster Township
Foster Township
Fountain Hill Borough
Fox Township
Fox Chapel Borough
Frackville Borough
Franconia Township
Franklin Township
?^^™§ff:»i
2.735
7,736
5,399
3,861
14,712
3,691
9,952
8,894
2.580
11.157
2,513
2.892
5,961
12,133
7.116
4,200
17,260
5,691
2,550
2,580
9.026
7.839
3,014
13,258
2,895
4,972
34,997
6,841
2.712
3,002
3.003
6.696
9,368
9.072
4,500
3.478
4,754
7,506
8,173
3,413
7,335
5.923
3,699
5,049
3.877
3.372
4.691
4,637
3,392
5,319
4.700
7.224
4.126
L:aP'.,/j
29,394
' 6,977
9,589
13,703
13,010
15,183
13.482
10,110
14,869
16,211
9,464
12,782
13,103
14,692
12,241
11,780
17,828
10.290
22,617
12,211
14,870
25,442
21,864
15.627
8,904
12,033
15,443
8,975
13,135
10,558
13,443
16.087
17.126
17.745
14,506
16.034
22.037
13.272
14.660
10,621
18,739
16,708
28,730
13,318
14,680
10,309
12,617
14,086
9,939
63,063
10,699
16,502
11.668
v..Total Town
Income (1992 "
80.392.590
53,974,072
51,771,011
52,907,283
191,403,120
56,040.453
134,172,864
89,918,340
38.362.020
180.866,127
23,783,032 .
36,965,544
78,106.983
178,258,036
87,106,956
49,476,000
307,711,280
58;560,390
57,673,350
31,504.380
134,216.620
199.439.838
65.898.096
207,182,766
25.777.080
59,628.076
540.458,671
61,397,975
35.622,120
31,695,116
40,369,329
107,718,552
160,436,368
160,982,640
65.277.000
55,766,252
104,763,898
99,619,632
119,816,180
36,249,473
137,450,565
98.961.484
106.272,270
67,242,582
56.914,360
34,761,948
59,186,347
65.316,782
33.713,088
335,432,097
50,285,300
119,210,448
48,142,168
Total Town : ;....
iroome(1998-yd:f*
":'Dollafs)"--t^v
90.899.902
61,028,483
58.537,482
59,822,265
216,419,508
63,364,5)40
151,709.257
101.670.e567
43,375.936
204,505.330
26,891.474
41,796.941
88.315,566
201,556.361
98,491,835
55,942,513
347,929,144
66,214,233
65,211,257
35,622,002
151,758,732
225,506,E!25
74,510.977
234,261,554
29,146.144
67.647.606
611,096,619
69,422,690
40,277.931
35,837,668
45,645,600
121,797,367
181,405,401
182,023,071
73,808,704
63,054.901
118,456,539
112,639,918
135.476.155
40,987.279
155.415,354
111,895,750
120.162,056
76,031.187
64,353,067
39,305.335
66.922.003
73,853,685
38,119,389
379,273,072
56,857,589
134,791,254
54.434,349
of Total
18.33
17.93
17.89
17.91
19.19
17.96
18.84
18.44
17.59
19.14
17.11
17.55
18.30
19.12
18.41
17.84
19.67
18.01
17.99
17.39
18.84
19.23
18.13
19.27
17.19
18.03
20.23
. 18.06
17.51
17.39
17.64
18.62
19.02
19.02
18.12
17.96
18.59
18.54
18.72
17.53
18.86
18.53
18.60
18.15
17.98
17.49
18.02
18.12
17.46
19.75
17.86
18.72
17.81
Draft
Page N-22
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
J- f
> *-. i^C * * Town/0% Name
v, 4, 'ZHty * v, —
CfehArfl J»*^> «v £i •"*" J, ~h
oBie <-s •> "s **•"*
Pennsylvania Franklin Township
Franklin Township
Franklin Township
Franklin Township
Franklin Township
Franklin City
Franklin Township
Franklin Park Borough
Frankstown Township
Freedom Township
Freeland Borough
Fullerton CDP
Fulton Township
Garden View CDP
Gastonville CDP
Geistown Borough
Georges Township
German Township
Gettysburg Borough
Gilbertsville CDP
Gilpin Township
Girard Borough
Girard Township
Glassport Borough .
Gienolden Borough
Glenside CDP
Grantley CDP
Granviile Township
Green Township
Greencastle Borough
Greene Township
Greene Township
Greene Township
Greenfield Township
Greensburg City
Green Tree Borough
.Greenville Borough
Greenwich Township
Grove City Borough
Guilford Township
Halifax Township
Hamburg Borough
Hamilton Township
Hamilton Township
Hampden Township
Hampton Township
Hampton Township
Hanover Township
Hanover Township
Hanover Township
Hanover Township
Hanover Borough .
Harborcreek Township
\ Population
3.821
3.706
2,779
2,640
5,562
7.329
3,852
10,109
7,243
2,959
3,909
13,127
• 2,688
2,687
3,090
2,749
6,525
5.596
7.025
3.994
2,804
2,879
4,722
5.582
7.260
8,704
3,069
5,090
4,095
3,600
2,573
4,959
11,930
3,802
16,318
4.905
6.734
2.977
8,240
11.893
3,449
3.897
7,745
6.681
20.384
15,568
15,568
3,470
12.050
7.176
2,883
14,399
15,108
_ - i*_ -. Total Town - -Total.Town . ._ .,
^^rlnCome<1M2 >lneome(1998 ^«"«y
Income MJm} ^ ^^^ Income
10,699
"11,581
20,685
9,853
14,325
11,501
14.060
24.439
17,708
9,267
10,306
15,986
10.703
13,123
12,821
12.628
7.915
8,727
11,342
16.875
13.130
11.111
10.911
9,766
' 14,201
16,349
24.793
10.606
8,380
14.385
10,450
12.163
15.416
9.314
12,167
18,439
10,707
14,844
10,342
13,587
12,946
13,697
12.813
13,306
20,380
19,940
19,940
12,541
10,892
24,183
12,212
13.856
12,009
40.880.879
42,919,186
57,483,615
26,011,920
79,675.650
84,290.829
54,159,120
247,053,851
128,259,044
27.421,053
40,286,154
209,848.222
28,769.664
35.261.501
39,616.890
34,714,372
51,645,375
48,836.292
79.677.550
67.398.750
36,816,520
31.988,569
51.521,742
54.513.812
103,099,260
142,301,696
76,089,717
53,984.540
34,316.100
51.786.000
26,887.850
60,316,317
183,912,880
35,411,828
198,541,106
90,443,295
72,100.938
44,190,588
85,218,080
161,590.191
44,650,754
53.377,209
99.236,685
88,897.386
415.425.920
310,425.920
310.425.920
43,517,270
131,248,600
173,537,208
35,207.196
199,512,544
181,431.972
46.224.010
48.528,724
64,996,723
29.411,678
90.089,257
95,307,640
61,237,717
279,343,789
145,022,501
31,004,985 '
45,551,554
237,275.385
32.529.859
39,870,179
44,794,818
39,251,540
58.395,426
55.219,195
90,091,406
76,207.767
41.628,439
36.169,475
56.255,634
61,638,767
116,574,333
160,900.528
86.034,643 -
61.040,319
38.801,214
58,554,430
30,402,092
68,199,660
207,950.293
40,040.154
224,490,429
102,264,234
81,524,531
49,966,298
96.356,083
182.710.029
50.486.608
60,353.610
112,206,920
100,516,274
469.722,088
350,998,588
350,998,588
49,204,977
148,402.792
196,218,521
39,808,777
225,588,834
205,145,131
17.65
17.70
17.99
17.20
18.32
18.37
17.93
19.45
18.79
17.25
17.63
19.28
17.30
17.50
17.62
17.49
17.88
17.83
18.32
18.15
17.54
17.40
17.88
17.94
18.57
18.90
• 18.27
17.93
17.47
17.89
17.23
18.04
19.15
17.51
19.23
18.44
18.22
17.73
18.38
19.02
17.74
17.92
18.54
18.43
19.97
19.68
19.68
17.71
18.82
19.09
17.50
19.23
19.14
.Draft
Page N-23
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50.000
Pennsylvania Harleysville CDP
Harmar Township
Harmony Township
Harmony Township CDP
Harris Township
Harrison Township
Harrison Township CDP
Harveys Lake Borough
Hatboro Borough
Hatfield Borough
Hatfield Township
Haverford Township
Hayfield Township
Hazle Township
Hazteton City
Hegins Township
Heidelberg Township
Heidelberg Township
Heidelberg Township
Hellam Township
Heltertown Township
Hempfield Township
Hempfield Township
Hepburn Township
Hereford Township
Hermitage City
Hershey CDP
Highspire Borough
Hilltown Township
Hokendauqua CDP
Hoilidaysburg Borough
Homeacre-Lyndora CDP
Homestead Borough
Honesdale Borough
Honey Brook Township
Hopewell Township
Hopewell Township
Horsham CDP
Horsham Township
Hummeiston Borough
Huntingdon Borough
Imperial-Enlow CDP
Independence Township
Indiana Township
Indiana Borough
Ingram Borough
Irwin Borough
Jackson Township
Jackson Township
Jackson Township
Jackson Township
Jackson Township
Jackson Township
7,405
3,144
3,694
3,694
4,167
11.763
11.763
2,746
7.382
2,650
15,357
49,848
2,937
9,323
24.730
3.561
3.797
3,250
2,622
5.123
5.662
3,826
42,609
2,834
3,026
15,300
11,860
2.668
10.582
3.413
5.624
7.511
4,179
4,972
5,449
13,274
3,177
15,051
21,896
3,981
6,843
3,449
2.563
6,024
15,174
3,901
4,604
3,078
5,213
5.732
5,336
3,757
6.244
16,603
16.027
12,945
45,945
18,787
12.101
12,101
12.471
16.681
15,591
17,149
20,566
11,699
10,845
11,512
11,667
13,054
12,828
14,433
15.477
14.662
16,529
13.359
11.569
13,714
13.334
18,307
13,245
17,091
14.130
13,640
14,954
7,564
12.555
13.035
13,091
16.660
18,475
19,592
14,475
10,444
12.302
12,192
15,795
8,627
12,358
11,967
15,215
10,696
12,638
12,511
14,141
13,947
• Total Town •,
income (1 992 at
Dollars) •*#
122,945,215
50,388,888
47,818,830
169,720,830
78,285.429
142,344.063
142,344,063
34,245,366
123.139,142
41,316,150
263,357,193
1,025,173,968
34,359.963
101,107.935
284.691,760
41.546,187
49,566.038
41,691,000
37,843,326
79,288,671
83.016,244
63.239,954
569,213,631
32,786,546
41,498.564
204,010.200
217,121,020
35.337,660
180.856,962
48.225,690
76,711.360
112.319.494
31.609,956
62.423,460
71.027,715
173,769,934
52,928,820
278,067,225
428,986,432
57.624.975
71,468,292
42,429,598
31,248,096
. 95,149,080
130,906.098
48,208,558
55,096,068
46,831,770
55.758,248
72,441.016
66,758,696
53,127.737
87,085.068
Total Town j^- ^ ,
Income (1938 " , . ' • • • 1
~ Dollars) ' lncom* |
139.014,155
56,974,716
54,068,751
191,903,342
88.517,335
160,948,432
160,948,432
38.721,235
139,233,428
46,716.171
297,777.978
1,159,164,206
38.850,810
114.322,742
321,900,973
46,976,274
56,044,319
47.140,014
42,789,449.
89,651,700
93,866.467
71,505,416
643,609.853
37,071,748
46,922,426
230,674,333
245,498,737
39,956,292
204.494,1367
54,528,788
86,737,535
126.999,652
35.741,377
70.582.206
80,311.037
196.481 ,(564
59.846,617
314,410,1511
485,054,959
65,156.559
80.809,198
47.975,146
35,332,222
107,585,065
148,015,525
54,509,417
62,297,124
52.952,682
63,045,351
81,909,057
75.484,058
60.071.532
98.467,086
18.75
17.86
17.81
19,07
18.30
18.90
18.90
17.47
18.75
17.66
19.51
20.87
17.48
18.55
19.59
17.67
17.84
17.67
17.57
18.31
18.36
18.09
20.28
17.43
17.66J
19.26
19.32
17.50
19.14
17.81
18.28
18.66
17.39
18.07
18.20
19.10
17.91
19.57
20.00
17.99
18.21
17.69
17.38
18.49
18.81
17.81
17.95
17.78
17.96
18.22
18.14
17.91 1
18.41 *
Draft
Page N-24
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
'^^^^^^^^&^SSSS^^^f^ti&n'^
st^^/SlsS®'^
Pennsylvania Jeannette City
Jefferson Borough
Jefferson Township
Jefferson Township
Jefferson Township
Jenkins Township
Jenkintown Borough
Jenner Township
Jersey Shore Borough
Jessup Borough
Jim Thorpe Borough
Johnsonburg Borough
Johnstown City
Kane Borough
Keating Township
Kelly Township
Kenhorst Borough
Kennedy Township
Kennedy Township CDP
Kennett Township
Kennet Square Borough
King of Prussia COP
Kingston Borough
Kingston Township
Kiskiminetas Township
Kttanning Borough
Kulpmont Borough
Kulpsville Borough
Kutztown Borough
Lackawannock Township
Lackawaxen Township
Lake Township
Lake City Borough
Lancaster Township
Lansdale Borough
Landsdowne Borough
Lansford Borough
Larksville Borough
Latrobe Borough
Laureldale Borough
Lawnton CDP
Lawrence Township
Lawrence Pa* Township
Lawrence Park CDP
Leacock Township
Leacock-Leola Bareville COP
Lebanon City
Leechburg Borough
Lehigh Township
Lehighton Borough
Lehman Township
Lehman Township
Lemoyne Borough
11.221
9,533
4.812
2,536
3,438
4.740
4,574
4,147
4,353
4,605
5.048
3.350
28,134
4.590
3,070
4,561
2.918
7,265
7,152
4,624
5.218
18,406
14,507
6.763
5,456
5,120
3,233
5,183
4,704
2.677
2,832
3,287
2.519
13,187
16,362
11.712
4,583
4,700
9,265
3,726
3,221
8,000
4,310
4,310
4,668
5,685
24,800
2,504
9,296
5,914
3,076
3,055
3,959
.lncofiw':£i~r?
10,315
"15,614
12,420
11,084
12,785
11,547
22,141
10.673
10,308
11,247
12,806
10,247
8,500
10,929
9,742
8,864
14,345
14,522
14.565
28.432
15,147
22.821
15,356
16,069
10.738
9,248
9,806
18.128
12,222
9,669
10.778
11,003
11,099
18,645
16.390
17,626
9,916
11.116
12,702
14.936
15,395
11.344
12.964
12,964
10.916
13.869
11,203
12,065
14,529
11.403
13.720
13,478
17,889
Income (1892g|
•i:DoIlai*K§Sl!
115.744,615
148,848,262
59,765,040
28,109,024
43,954,830
54.732.780
101,272,934
44,260,931
44,870.724
51.792.435
64,644.688
34,327,450
239.139,000
50.164,110
29,907,940
40.428,704
41,858,710
105,502,330
104,168,880
131.469,568
79,037,046
420,043,326
222.769,492
108,674,647
58,586,528
47,349,760
31,702,798
93,957,424
57.492,288
25,883,913
30.523,296
36,166,861
27.958,381
245,871,615
268,173,180
206,435,712
45.445,028
52.245,200
117.684,030
55,651,536
49,587.295
90,752,000
55,874,840
.55.874,840
50,955,888
78,845,265
277.834,400
30.210.760
135,061,584
67.437,342
42.202,720
41.175,290
70.822,551
130,872.436
168.302,730
67,576,331
31,782.873
49,699,726
61,886.354
114,509,306
50.045,835
50.735,328
.58,561,706
73,093,749
38.814,048
270,394,467
56,720,559
33,816,908
45,712.736
47,329,643
119,291,485
117.783.753
148,652.641
89.367,188
474.942.989
251,885.465
122,878,423
66,243,787
53,538,374
35,846,354
106,237,659
65.006,530
29.266,940
34.512,691
40,893,870
31,612,541
278,007,035
303,223,415
233,416,860
51,384,693
59,073,648
133.065,333
62,925.192
56.068,354
102,613.266
63,177,682
63,177,682
57,615,823
89,150,341
314,147,356
34,159,306
152,714,133
76,251.403
47,718,616
46,556,900
80,079,058
IP*'
18.69
18.94
18.03
17.27
17.72
17.94
18.56
17.73
17.74
17.89
18.11
17.47
19.42
17.85
17.34
17.64
17.67
18.60
18.58
18.82
18.31
19.98
19.34
18.63
18.01
17.80
17.39
18.48
17.99
17.19
17.36
17.53
17.27
19.44
19.53
19.27
17.75
17.89
18.71
17.96
17.84
18.45
17.96
17.96
17.87
18.31
19.57
17.35
18.84
18.15
17.68
17.66
18.20
Draft
Page N-2
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
•^ v * '-To wi vGlty Nftm0/- i
State " - -** ;-'.
68,066,681
106,072,847
34.855,067
121,137.125
56.104.520
130,686,684
104,300,779
45,352,575
146,764,661
139.852,484
37.582,779
38.936,7'24
96,755,5103
163.468.620
72,050,519
72,480,174
69.787.385
83.612,268
42,932,521
145,363,897
315,701.861
86,653,457
174,357,713
48,273,993
69,079,981
357.523,240
413,606,693
818.309,977
60,415,342
398,796,452
56,323.344
83,464.970
37,112.722
820,162,928
161,398.886
383,187,517
210,656,109
184,518,951
395.197,899
114.946,952
38.856,320
102,351,798
41.015.089
199.988,433
50.808,403
38,584,758
52,319.072
33,679,238
691,662,0(51
691,662,051
46,798,1139
44,688,810
68,720,544
18.04
18.48
17.37
18.61
17.84
18.69
18.46
17.63
18.80
18.76
17.44
17.48
18.39
18.91
18.09
18.10
18.06
18.24
17.58
18.79
19.57
18.28
18.98
17.69
18.05
19.69
19.84
20.52
17.92
19.80
17.85
18.24
17.43
20.53
18.90
19.76
19.17
19.03
19.79
18.56
17.48
18.44
17.53
19.11
17.74
17.47
17.77
17.33
20.35
20.35
17.66
17.62
18.05
p
Draft
Page N-26
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
•vs'':^!^-^^--^'^:^'"!^-^.;'.'''--' •perCa'nItaii"-rT-Otel'"^OWn '•i''--'"Tl°*'''T'W*'^;i?f'"i '' f T tal
\ «•• "j1 -?,, » ™y » T0Wtl/C1tjfcN8JBO*"':.>;H;: f^yfff pO|HltallWI:^vvV~'^''-v^«^In6pHW^(1992>C^llSMIH0X19M^|^..^ |"-"v?'~ '!..-.".
Pennsylvania McKeesport City
McKees Rocks Borough
McMurray CDP
McSherrystown Borough
Macungie Borough
Mahoney City Borough
Mahoning Township
Mahoning Township
Mahoning Township
Maidencreek Township
Malvem Borough
Manchester Township
Manheim Borough
Manheim Township
Manheim Township
Manor Township
Manor Township
Manor Borough
Mansfield Borough
Maple Glen CDP
Marcus Hook Borough
Marietta Borough
Marfborough Township
Marple Township
Marshall Township
Martic Township
Masontown Borough
Maxatawny Township
Meadwood CDP
Meadville City
Mechanicsburg Borough
Mechanicsville CDP
Media Borough
Menallen Township
Menallen Township
Meridian CDP
Meyersdale Borough
Middle Paxton Township
Middlesex Township
Middlesex Township
Middle Smithfield Township
Middletown Township
Middletown Borough
Middletown Township
Meddletown CDP
Midland Borough
Miffiinburg Borough
Milford Township
Millcreek Township
Millcreek Township
Millersburg Borough
Millersville Borough
Millvale Borough
26.016
7,691
4,082
2,769
2,597
5,209
4,198
3,560
4,134
3.397
2,944
7,517
5,011
28,880
2.692
4,482
14.130
2.627
3,538
5,881
2.546
2.778
3.116
23,123
4.010
4.362
3,759
5,724
3.011
14.318
9,452
2,803
5,957
2.700
4.739
3,473
2,518
5,129
5.578
5,780
6,382
43.063
9,254
14.130
6,866
3,321
3.480
7,360
2,687
46,820
2.729
8.099
4,341
9,024
8,701
24.238
12,152"
16,874
8,863
11,499
10,127
19.361
13,882
18,709
17.280
13,360
19,703
15,023
12,022
15,954
12,036
7,712
21.116
10,031
13,077
16,192
20.148
22.554
. 12,999
9.917
9,977
15,482
10,986
15,312
22.579
19,037
12,408
9,515
14.166
9,062
17,160
13,812
14.358
12.983
17,479
13,046
20,209
14,563
9,116
12.006
15,455
12.949
16.292
12.967
10,258
10,302
234,768,384
66,919,391
98,939,516
33,648,888
43.821,778
46,167,367
48,272,802
36,052,120
80,038,374
47,157,154
55.079,296 .
129.893.760
66.946.960
569.022,640
40,441,916
53,882,604
225.430.020
31.618,572
27,285,056
124,183,196
25.538,926
36.327,906
50,454,272
465,882,204
90.441.540
56,701,638
37,278,003
57,108.348
46.616,302
157,297,548
144,729,024
63,288.937
113,403,409
33.501.600
45.091,585
49,198,518
22,818,116
88,013,640
77.043,336
82,989,240
82,857,506
752.698.177
120.727.684
285,553.170
99.989,558
30,274,236
41.780,880
113,748,800
34,793,963
762,791,440
35,441,523
83,079,542
44,720,982
265,452,612
75,665,755
111,870,911
38.046,798
49.549,284
52,201,442
54,582.057
40,764,132
90,499,389
53,320,594
62,278,160
146,870,874
75,696.928
643,393,899
45,727.674
60.925,060
254,893,724
35,751.119
30,851,213
140.413,940
28,876,864
41,075,963
57,048.645
526,773,008
102.262,249
64,112.542
42.150,238
64,572,409
52,709,053
177,856.338
163,645,107
71.560.801
128,225,235
37.880,259
50.985,055
55.628,764
25,800.444
99,517,023
87.112,900
93,835.934
93,686.982
851,075,829
136.506,792
322,874.969
113.058,193
34,231,079
47,241,641
128,615,768
39,341.534
862,488,281
40.073.730
93.938.038
50.566,014
19.40
18.14
18.53
17.45
17.72
17.77
17.82
17.52
18.32
17.79
17.95
18.81
18.14
20.28
17.64
17.93
19.36
17.39
17.24
18.76
17.18
17.53
17.86
20.08
18.44
17.98
17.56
17.98
17.78
19.00
18.91
18.09
18.67
17.45
17.75
17.83
17.07
18.42
18.28
18.36
18.36
20.56
18.73
19.59
18.54
17.35
17.67
18.67
17.49
20.58
17.51
18.36
17.74
Draft
Page N-27
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
- Town/City NameCf^ ? ' Population vjjjjjj"
Pennsylvania Milton Borough
Minersville Borough
Monaca Borough
Monessen City
Monongahela City
Monroe Township .
Monroe Township
Montgomery Township
• Montgomery Township
Montgomeryville CDP
Montoursville Borough
Moon Township
Moore Township
Moosic Borough
Morgan Township
Morris Township
Morrisville Borough
Morton Borough
Mount Carmel Borough
Mount Carmel Township
Mount Joy Township
Mount Joy Borough
Mount Joy Township
Mount Lebanon Township
Mount Lebanon CDP
Mount Oliver Borough
Mount Penn Borough
Mount Pleasant Township
Mount Pleasant Township
Mount Pleasant Borough
Mount Pleasant Township
Mount Union borough
Muhlenberg Township
Muncy Borough
Muncy Creek Township
Munhall Borough
.Municipality of Monroeville Borough
Municipality of Murrysville Borough
Myerstown Borough
Nanticoke City
Nanty-Glo Borough
Narbeth Borough
Nazareth Borough
Neshannoek Township
Nesquehoning Borough
Nether Providence Township
Nether Providence Township CDP
Neberry Township
New Brighton Borough
New Britain Township
New Castle City
New Cumberland Borough
New Freedom Borough
6,746
4,877
6.739
9,901
4,928
5.468
3,881
4,558
12,179
9.114
4,983
19,631
8.418
5.339
2,887
2,680
9.765
2,851
7,196
2.679
2.848
6.398
6.227
33,362
33,362
4.160
2,883
4,076
3,555
4,787
11.341
2.878
12.636
1.702
3.401
13,158
29,169
17,240
3,236
12,267
3,190
4.278
5,713
8,373
3,364
13,229
13,229
12.003
6,854
' 9,099
28,334
7,665
2,920
10,844
11,852
11.197
9,842
11,347
16.554
15,257
11,828
21,465
21.220
12,906
18.134
15.404
15.840
8,499
9,074
15,158
15,261
9,946
9.437
13.941
14.221
14,628
26,355
' 26,355
9,898
13,869
12,671
12.842
10.552
11,186
10,474
15,366
12.784
11,157
1 1 ,635
17,753
20,991
11,198
10,815
9.400
24,124
14,694
18,897
11,102
23,280
23,280
13,512
9.429
21.103
9.298
17.590
16,189
Total Town >:
Income ((1992?
DoMws$f?«
73,153.624
57,802.204
75.456,583
97,445,642
55,918,016
90,517,272
59,212,417
53,912,024
261,422,235
193,399,080
64,310,598
355,988.554
129,670.872
84,569,760
24.536.613
24,318,320
148,017,870
43.509.111
71.571.416
25.281.723
39.703.968
90,985.958
91,088,556
879.255.510
879,255.510
41,175,680
39,984,327
51.646.996
45,653.310
50,512,424
126,860,426
30,144,172
194.164,776
21,758,368
37,944,957
153,093,330
517,837,257
361,884,840
36,236,728
132,667,605
29,986,000
103,202.472
83,946,822
158,224,581
37.347,128
307,971,120
307,971,120
162,184,536
64.626.366
192,016,197
263,449,532
134,827,350
47,271,880
££!£• •**»»•
Dolla \ -;> Income .
82.714,803
65.356,952
85.318,758
110,181,787
63,226,501
102,347,879
66,951.480
60.958,326
295,590,121
218,676,340
72,715,993
402.516,258
146.618.&55
95.623,026
27.743,548
27.496,724
167,363,806
49,195,752
80.925,800
28,566,044
44,893.277
102,877,823
102.993,830
994.174,205
994.174.205
46,557,341
45.210,279
58,397.258
51,620.198
57,114,398 •
143,441, 084
34,084,015
219.542,112
24,602,187
42,904,363
173,102,628
585,518,5(16
409,183,189
40,972,868
150,007,261
33,905,170
116,691.035
94,91 8,67'2
178,904,5214
42.228,398
348.222.945
348,222,945
183,382,055
73.073,032
217.112.714
297,882,386
152,449,285
53,450,315
18.23
18.00
18.26
18.52
17.96
18.44
18.02
17.93
19.50
19.20
18.10
19.81
18.80
18.38
17.14
17.13
18.94
17.71
18.21
17.17
17.62
18.45
18.45
20.72
20.72
17.66
17.63
17.88
17.76
17.86
18.78
17.34
19.21
17.02
17.57
18.97
20.19
19.83
17.53
18.83
17.34
18.58
18.37
. 19.00
17.56
19.67
19.67
19.03
18.11
19.20
19.51
18.84
17.79
Draft
Page N-28
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50.000
aite'^^^P'^v-^
^jf^tHi^a^^imi^il^
?¥%?^Wi!^&'--&:£?&&? '••'
i|fliwtottot|
Per Capita ;;-
^fjncome^
v.:Total:Town;::«^.lfrotaiTown ..
•^n'-: -'...r- •••,-•-••.• -. .-•.^^•i.,V;.i..->;..-- •>. ...
Income (1992^ Income (1998
^:DolfairsV?^llBboltois)Hi ;
Log of Total
•!':"; "Income".^.
Pennsylvania New Garden Borough
New Hanover Township
New Holland Borough
New Kensington City
New London Township
Newport Township
New Sewickley Township
Newton Township
Newton Borough
Newton Township
Newton Township
New Wilmington Borough
Nockamixon Township
Nomstown borough
Northampton township
Northampton borough
North Beaver township
North Braddock borough
North Buffalo township
North Catasauqua borough
North Codorus township
North Cornwall township
North Coventry township
North East borough .
North East township
North Fayette township
North Franklin township
North Huntingdon township
North Lebanon township
North Londonderry township
North Manhein township
North Middleton township
North Sewickley township
North Strabane township
Northumberland borough
North Union township
North Versailles township
North VersaillesCDP
North Wales borough
Northwest Harborcreek COP
North Whitehall township
Norwood borough
Oakland township
Oakmont borough
Oakwood CDP
O'Hara township
O'Hara Township CDP
Ohioville borough
Oil City city
Old Forge borough
Old Lycoming township
Old Orchard CDP
Oley township
5,430
5,956
4,484
15,894
2.721
4,593
6.861
2,843
2,565
13,685
11.366
2,706
3,329
30,749
35.406
8,717
3,982
7,036
2,897
2,867
7.565
4,886
7.506
4,617
6,283
9.537
4,997
28,158
9,741
5,630
3.404
9,833
6.178
8.157
3,860
13.910
12.302
12,302
3,802
6,662
10,827
6,162
2.820
6,961
2,541
9,096
9,096
3.865
11,949
8.834
5,526
2,598
3,362
15,508
16.651
16,085
12.105
17,782
10.093
10,787
13,632
21,132
23,768
26.630
8,869
17,993
13.527
22,373
12,268
12.091
10,270
10,833
13,773
14,055
17.037
19,224
10,576
12.657
15,323
13.279
13.405
12,515
16.673
11.474
' 15,062
11.371
15.825
12,792
9,414
12,118
12,118
16,294
11,863
16,299
14,831
10,532
18,018
11,687
25,159
25,159
10,898
10,658
11,691
13,217
24,208
15,729
84,208,440
99,173,356
72,125,140
192.396,870
48,384,822
46,357,149
74.009,607
38,755,776
54.203.580
325,265,080
302.676,580
23,999,514
59,898,697
415.941.723
792,138,438
106,940,156
48,146,362
72,259,720
31,383.201
39.487.191
106,326,075
83.242.782
144,295,344
48,829,392
79.523.931
146,135,451
66,355,163
377,457,990
121,908,615
93.868.990
39.057,496
148.104.646
70,250,038
129,084,525
49.377.120
130.948.740
149,075,636
149,075,636
61,949,788
79.031.306
176,469,273
91,388,622
29.700.240
125,423.298
29.696.667
228.846.264
228.846,264
42,120.770
127,352,442
103,278,294
73,037.142
62.892.384
52,880.898
95.214,483
• 112,135,314
81,551,896
217,543,141
54,708,718
52.416,028
83,682.663
43,821,156
61,287,988
367.777.226
342,236.409
27,136,250
67,727.457
470,305,306
895,670,932
120,917,234
54.439.092
81.704,065
35,484,985
44.648.167
120,222,893
94.122.614
163.154.745
55.211,394
89,917.709
165,235,354
75,027,783
426,791,749
137,842,071
106.137,667
44,162.311
167,461,923
79.431.718
145,955,872
55.830,710
148.063.740
168,559,822
168,559,822
70.046,625
89,360,698
199,533,807
103,333,115
33,582,061
141,816,123
33,578,021
258.756,471
258,756,471
47,625,955
143.997.406
116,776.767
82,583,096
71,112,419
59,792,431
18.37
18.54
18.22
19.20
17.82
17.77
18.24
17.60
17.93
19.72
19.65
17.12
18.03
19.97
20.61
18.61
17.81
18.22
17.38
17.61
18.60
18,36
18.91
17.83
18.31
18.92
18.13
19.87
18.74
18.48
17.60
18.94
18.19
18.80
17.84
18.81
18.94
18.94
18.06
18.31
19.11
18.45
17.33
18.77
17.33
19.37
19.37
17.68
18.79
18.58
18.23
18.08
17.91
Draft
Page N-29
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
""c- '**** '*"> •»* > Town/CHy Nairn
State -^ >• "*&#•'«>•* * •>
Pennsylvania Oliver CDP
Olyphant borough
Oreland CDP
Orwigsburg borough
Oxford township
Oxford borough
Paint township
Palmer township
Palmer Heights CDP
Palmerton borough
Palmyra borough
Paoli CDP
Paradise township
Paradise township
Parkesburg borough
Park Forest Village CDP
Parks township
Parkville CDP
Patterson township
Patterson Township CDP
Patton township
Paxtonia CDP
Peach Bottom township
Pen Argyl borough
Penbrook borough
Penn township
Penn township
Penn township
Penn township
Penn township
Penn township
Penndel borough
Penn Forest township
Pennsbury township
Penn Wynne CDP
Pequea township
Perkasie borough
Perkiomen township
Perry township
Perry township
Peters township
Peters township
Philipsburg borough
Phoenixville borough
Pine township
Pine township
Pine Creek township
Pine Grove township
Pine Grove township
Pitcaim borough
Prttston city
Pittston township
Plainfield township
^Jt P
Population
3.271
5,222
5,695
2,780
3,437
3.769
3,491
14,965
3.960
5,394
6,910
5.603
4,430
3,180
2,981
6,703
2.739
6.014
3.074
3,074
9.971
4.862
3,444
3.492
2,791
5.080
6.760
3,283
3.208
15,945
11.658
2,703
2,895
3.326
5,807
4,512
7,878
3.200
2.516
2.817
4,090
14,467
3,048
15.066
4,048
4,193
3,188
3,699
2,756
4,087
9,389
2,725
5.444
2£&
. 9,327
10,923
16,766
13,900
12,490
10.954
10,385
17,348
15.317
11.636
14,082
23,862
11,701
12.730
13,230
20,084
9.683
12.885
15.537
15,537
16.696
16,676
12,515
13,088
12,831
15,708
13.646
12,409
9,094
13,570
14.693
13,296
13,797
32,026
29,826
15,529
18,102
16,693
13,065
9,898
15.139
24.417
10.908
15.138
20,064
12,027
12,981
10,981
14.714
10,539
9.840
11,167
13.136
ICAfVUI f19S2 "*"^v|
Dolbrs>
30,508,617
57.039,906
95,482,370
38,642.000
42.928,130
41,285,626
36,254,035
259,612,820
60,655,320
62,764,584
97,306,620
133,698.786
51,835.430
40,481,400
39,438,630
134,623.052
26,521.737
77,490,390
47.760.738
47,760,738
166,475,816
81.078,712
43,101.660
45,703,296
35,811,321
79,796,640
92,246.960
40.738,747
29,173.552
216.373,650
171,290,994
35,939.088
39,942.315
106,518,476
173,199,582
70,066.848
142,607,556
53,417,600
32.871,540
27,882,666
61,918,510
353,240.739
33,247,584
228.069,108
81,219,072
50,429,211
41,383,428
40,618.719
40,551,784
43.072,893
92,387.760
30,430,075
71.512,384
iH^wttSs "^
34,496,093
64,495,022
107,961,916
43,692.509
48,538,837
46,681,657
40,992.437
293,544,216
68,582.970 .
70,967,915
110.024.595
151,173,217
58,610,321
45,772,319
44.593,259
152,218.285
29,988,128
87.618.384
54,003,066
54,003,066
188,234.205
91.675,700
48,735,047
51,676,717
40.491,861
90.226,061
104.303.633
46,063,301
32,986,535
244,653,68(5
193.678,727
40,636,327
45,162.776
120,440,441
195.836.767
79.224,585
161,246,364
60,399.280
37.167,850
31,526,930
70.011,258
399,409,304
37,593.043
257.877,740
91,834,405
57,020,309
46,792,242
45,927,586
45,851.902
48.702,520
104,462,840
34.407,286
60,859.053
Si
17.36
17.98
18.50
17.59
17.70
17.66
17.53
19.50
18.04
18.08
18.52
18.83
17.89
17.64
17.61
18.84
17.22
18.29
17.80
17.80
19.05
18.33
17.70
17.76
17.52
18.32
18.46
17.65
17.31
19.32
19.08
17.52
17.63
18.61
19.09
18.19
18.90
17.92
17.43
17.27
18.06
19.81
17.44
19.37
18.34
17.86
17.66
17.64
17.64
17.70
18.46
17.35
18.21
Draft
Page N-30
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50.000
it
Slate ig*fM€ ?g$r£:V'. -:;>-V^t^i;iiat-:
Pennsylvania Plains COP
Plains township
Pleasant township
Pleasant Hills borough
Plum borough
Plumstead township
Plymouth borough
Plymouth township
Plymouth Meeting CDP
Pocono township
Pocopson township
Point township
Polk township
Portage borough
Portage township
Porter township
Port Vue borough
Potter township
Pottsgrove CDP
Pottstown borough
Pottsville city
Progress CDP
Prospect Park borough
Providence township
Pulaski township
Punxsutawney borough
Pymatuning township
Quakertown borough
Quincy township
Racoon township
Radnor township
Radnor Township CDP
Ralpho township
Rankin borough
Rapho township
Rayne township
Reading township
Reamstown CDP
Red Lion borough
Redstone township
Reiffton CDP
Reserve township
Reserve Township CDP
Reynoldsville borough
Richboro CDP
Richland township
Richland township
Richland township
Richmond township
Ridgeway borough
Ridgway township
Ridley township
Ridley Park borough
8? Popi^U^l^^^^liic^e^lS^^ IIH^L fWS ; M* of I**1
^fr---^*™0"*^-!*®^ *-. Dollars) - taeome
4,694
10,988
2,663
8,884
25.609
6,289
7,134
15.958
6,241
7.529
3,266
3,466
4,517
3.105
4,089
2,560
4,641
3.020
3,122
21,831
16,603
9,654
6,764
6,071
3.469
6,782
3,736
8,982
5,704
3,426
28,703
28.705
3.625
2.503
8,211
3.339
3.828
2,649
6.130
6.459
2,522
3.866
3,866
2,818
5,332
8.600
8,560
12,777
3,439
4,793
2,617
31,169
7,592
10,979
11,602
14.707
18,760
14,413
18.907
9,570
20.494
22.961
14,300
20,690
12.775
12,572
9,446
9,340
13,605
10.808
12.760
19.724
13,291
11,523
16.964
13.922
11,939
9.743
10.774
9,661
14.558
9,361
11,170
28,516
28.408
13,726
6,805
14,192
9,959
11,984
12,672
12,776
9.538
24,993
13,565
13.565
12,556
20,516
18.078
14,388
12,687
13,282
11.354
9,852
14,641
16,454
51,535.426
127,482.776
39,164,741
166.663,840
369,102.517
118,906,123
68,272.380
327,043.252
143,299,601
107,664.700
67,573.540
44,278,150
56.787.724
29.329,830
38,191,260
34.828,800
50,159,928
38,535,200
61,578,328
290,155,821
191.316,369
163,770,456
94,168.408
72,481.669
33.798.467
73,069,268
36,093,496
130,759.956
53,395,144
38.268.420
818,494,748
815,451.640
49,756,750
17,032.915
116,530,512
33,253,101 %
45,874.752
33.568,128
78,316,880
61,605,942
63.032.346
52.442.290
52,442,290
35.362.808
109,391.312
155,470,800
123,161,280
162,101,799
45.676,798
54.419,722
25;782,684
456.345,329
124.918.768
58.271.106
144,144,775
44,283,573
188,446,804
417,344.216
134,447,153
77.195,580
369,787,805
162,028,859
121.736.476
76,405,402
50.065,304
64,209,880
33,163.239
43.182,858
39,380.924
56,715.831
43,571,751
69,626.615
328.079,187
216,321.418
185.175,255
106,476.219
81.955,023
38.215.927
82,619.421
40,810,916
147,850,282
60,373,889
43.270,102
925,472,012
922,031,169
56,259,957
19,259,117
131,761,050
37.599,281
51,870,582
37.955.482
88.552,896
69.657,839
71,270,674
59,296,497
59,296,497
40.007,341
123,688,756
175.790,834
139,258,459
183.288.504
51,646,755
61,532.380
29.152,481
515,989,664
141,245,651
17.88
18.79
17.61
19.05
19.85
18.72
18.16
19.73
18.90
18.62
18.15
17.73
17.98
17.32
17.58
17.49
17.85
17.59
18.06
19.61
19.19
19.04
18.48
1&22
17.46
18.23
17.52
18.81
17.92
17.58
20.65
20.64
17.85
16.77
18.70
17.44
17.76
17.45
18.30
16.06
18.08
17.90
17.90
17.50
18.63
18.98
18.75
19.03
17.76
17.94
17.19
20.06
18.77
Draft
Page N-31
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
" '* "S^lik - ' ,T*wn'Ci^,Na™*'1
9t3$& » •H^ssi v-» A **" A. % j ***^^*4ii^r ** •" v
Pennsylvania Roaring Spring borough
Robeson township
Robinson township
Robinson Township CDP
Rochester borough
Rochester township
Rockland township
Rockledge borough
Ross township
Ross township
Ross township
Ross Township CDP
Rostraver township
Royersford borough
Ruscombmanor township
Rush township
Rush township
Rutherford CDP
Sadsbury township
Sadsbury township
Sadsbury township
St. Glair borough
St. Marys borough
St. Thomas township
Salem township
Salem township
Salem township
Salisbury township
Salisbury township
Saltlick township
Salunga-Landisville CDP
Sanatoga CDP
Sandy township
Sayre borough
Schlusser CDP
Schuylkill township
Schuylkill Haven borough
Scott township
Scott township
Scott township
Scottdale borough
Scott Township CDP
Selinsgrove borough
Sellersville borough
Sewickley borough
Sewickley township
Shade township
Shaler township
Shaler Township CDP
Shamokin city
Shanor-Northvue CDP
Sharon city
Sharon Hill borough
" "• p
* *~ •*
2.615
5,972
10.830
10,830
4,156
3,247
2,675
2,679
33.482
2,634
3,696
33,482
11.224
4.458
3.129
3.411
3.472
3,481
2,510
2,575
2.712
3.524
5,511
5,861
4,503
2,933
7,282
8,527
13,401
3.253
4.239
5,534
9.005
5,791
4.728
5.538
5.610
17,118
4,423
5,350
5,184
17,118
5.384
4.479
4,134
6,642
3,177
30.533
30,533
9,184
3,517
17,493
5,771
SST
.12,048
16,830
17,750
17,750
9.294
11,113
15,741
14,428
17,810
10,249
12,972
17,810
11,587
13.798
14,677
10,142
13,326
14.871
14.452
14,146
11.626
9,693
11.756
'11,587
12,797
11,566
11.166
12.091
20.364
9.545
17,101
14,091
13,567
11,249
15,681
24,161
11,902
18,380
14,282
12,239
10.952
18,380
10,634
14,687
20,233
10.852
8,201
16,029
16,029
8,689
16.499
10.578
12,617
Total Town £,
Dollars) - "\
31,505,520
100,508,760
192.232.500
192,232,500
38,625,864
36,083,911
42.107,175
38,652.612
596,314.420
26.995.866
47,944,512
596,314.420
130,052,488
61,511,484
45,924.333
34.594,362
46,267,872
51,765,951
36,274.520
36.425,950
31.529,712
34.158.132
64.787.316
67,911.407
57,624,891
33,923,078
81,310,812
103,099,957
272,897,964
31.049,885
72.491,139
77.979,594
122,170,835
65.142,959
74,139,768
133,803,618
66,770,220
314,628,840
63,169,286
65.478.650
56,775,168
314,628,840
57.253,456
66.678,873
83,643,222
72,078.984
26,054,577
489,413,457
489.413.457
79,799,776
58,026.983
185,040,954
72,812,707
Total Town
ncome(1998
Dollars)
35,623,291
113,645,255
217,357,288
217.357.288
43.674,264
40,800,078
47.610,583
43,704,508
674,252,715
30.524,226
54,210,860
674,252.715
147,050.248
69,551,035
51,926.643
39,115,845
52,315,083
58,531.761
41.015.600
41.186.822
35,650,645
38,622,600
73,255,018
76.787,428
65.156,464
38.356.824
91.938.135
116.575,121
308,565,728
35,108.105
81,965.731
88.171,527
138.138,553
73,657.144
83,829.8:36
151,291.751
75,497,088
355,750,829
71,425,512
74.036,710
64.195,6.32
355,750.829
64,736.433
75,393,802
94.575,391
81.499,707
29,459.9)0
553,379,7%
553.379,796
90,229,607
65,611.110
209,225.807
82,329,328
£co£|
17.39
18.55
19.20
19.20
17.59
17.52
17.68
17.59
20.33
17.23
17.81
20.33
18.81
18.06
17.77
17.48
17.77
17.89
17.53
17.53
17.39
17.47
18.11
18.16
17.99
17.46
18.34
18.57
19.55
17.37
18.22
18.29
18.74
18.11
18.24
18.83
18.14
19.69
18.08
18.12
17.98
19.69
17.99
18.14
18.36
18.22
17.20
20.13
20.13
18.32
18.00
19.16
18.23
Draft
Page N-32
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
State •* ^^V'^P^Ji^Doto^^^^
Pennsylvania Sharpsburgh borough
Sharpsville borough
Shenandoah borough
Srtenango township
Shenango township
Shillington borough
Shiloh CDP
Shippensburg borough
Shippensburg township
Shrewsbury borough
Shrewsbury township
Silver Spring township
Skippack township
Slatington borough
Slippery Rock borough
Slippery Rock township
Slippery Rock township
Smith township
Smithfield township
Smithfield township
Snyder township
Snyder township
Solebury township
Somerset borough
Somerset township
Somerset township
Souderton borough
South Abington township
Southampton township
Southampton township
South Annvile township
South Beaver township
South Buffalo township
South Fayette township
South Franklin township
South Hanover township
South Heidleburg township
South Huntingdon township
South Lebanon township
South Londonderry township
South Middleton township
South Pa* township
South Park Township CDP
South Pymatuning township
South Strabane township
South Union township
South Whitehall township
South Williamsport borough
Spring township
Spring township
Spring City borough
Springdale borough .
Springettsbury township
3,781
4,729
6,221
7.187
4,339
5,062
8.245
5.331
4,606
2.672
5,898
8,369
8,790
4.678
3,008
4.638
3,196
4.844
. 4.181
4,692
3,163
2,535
5.998
6,454
8.732
2.947
5,957
6,377
3,552
5,484
3,008
2,942
2.687
10,329
3,665
4,626
4,382
6,352
7,491
4,502
10,340
14,292
14,292
2,775
7,676
10,223
18.261
6,496
18,899
5.344
3,433
3,992
21.564
10,803
11,741
8.795
10.823
13,884
15,470
14,939
.11.109
5,888
16.216
15,235
17.614
13,481
11.395
9,370
7,761
10,250
10,371
8.932
14,331
8.775
11,478
34,910
13.122
' 12,994
13,529
15.749
18,671
11,148
13,365
16,262
13.084
13.897
14,211
11.233
19,203
14.737
11.685
13,285
14,305
14.888
15,048
15.048
13,100
17,021
15.818
20,404
11,762
18,326
10.935
14,685
11,983
18.236
40,846,143
55.523.189
54,713,695
77,784,901
60,242,676
78,309.140
123,172,055
59,222,079
27,120,128
43,329,152
89.856,030
147,411.566
118,497.990
53,305,810
28,184.960
35,995,518
32,759,000
50.237,124
37,344,692
67,241,052
27,755,325
29,096,730
209.390,180
84,689,388
113,463.608
39,869,963
93,816.793
119.064,967
39.597,696
73,293,660
48,916,096
38.493,128
37,341.239
146,785,419
41.168,945
88,833,078
64.577.534
74,223.120
99,517.935
64,401,110
153.941,920
215,066,016
215,066,016
36,352,500
130,653,196
161,707,414
372,597.444
76,405.952
346,343,074
58,436.640
50,413.605
47,836,136
393.241,104
46,184,734
62.780,070
61.864,775
87,951,388
68,116,394
88,544,145
139,270.643
66,962,405
30.664.729
48,992.272
101,600,213
166,678,258
133,985.677
60,272.879
31,868,734
40,700,132
37,040.601
56,803,116
42.225,643
76,029,457
31,382,946
32,899,673
236.757.477
95.758,291
128,293,302 .
45,080,967
106,078,648
134.626,758
44,773,115
82,873.141
55.309.430
43,524,180
42,221,739
165,970,273
46,549,726
100,443,561
73,017,818
83,924,082
112,524.929
72,818,335
174,062,129
243,175.144
243,175,144
41.103,772
147,729,569
182,842,573
421.295.930
86,392,210
391,610,114
66,074,309
57.002.663
54,088,319
444.637,716
17.65
17.96
17.94
18.29
18.04
18.30
18.75
18.02
17.24
17.71
18.44
18.93
18.71
17.91
17.28
17.52
17.43
17.86
17.56
18.15
17.26
17.31
19.28
18.38
18.67
17.62
18.48
18.72
17.62
18.23
17.83
17.59
17.56
18.93
17.66
18.43
18.11
18.25
18.54
18.10
18.97
19.31
19.31
. 17.53
18.81
19.02
19.86
18.27
19.79
18.01
17.86
17.81
19.91
Draft
Page N-33
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
^-j^L *— *^. - ^^^s^^pft^^s^
Pennsylvania Springetts Manor-Yorklyn CDP
Springfield township
Springfield township
Springfield CDP
Springfield township
Springfield township
Springfield township
Springfield township
Spring Garden township
Spring Hill township
Spring House CDP
Spry CDP
State College borough
Steelton borough
Stonybrooke-Wilshire CDP
Stonycreek township
Stowe CDP
Stowe township
Stowe Township CDP
Straban township
Strasburg borough
Strasburg township
Stroud township
Stroudsburg borough
Sugarcreek borough
Sugarloaf township
Summerhill township
Summit township
Summit township
Summit Hill borough
Sunbury city
Susquehanna township
Swarthmore borough
Swatara township
Swatara township
Swissvale borough
SwoyersviJle borough
Tamaqua borough
Tarentum borough
Taylor borough
Telford borough
Texas township
Thompsonville CDP
Thombury township
Thorndale CDP
Throop borough
Tiiden township
Tinicum township
Tinicum township
Tinicum Township CDP
Titusville City
Tobyhanna Township
Towamencin Township
3,433
5.177
24,160
24,160
3,218
2,968
19.612
3.918
11,207
2,800
2,782
4,271
38,923
5.152
4,887
3.562
3,598
7.681
7.681
4,565
2,568
3,688
10,600
5,312
5,532
3,534
2,798
4,284
5.284
3,332
11,591
18,636
6.157
19,661
3,318
10,637
5,630
7.943
5,674
6,941
4,238
2.570
3,560
5,056
3.518
4.070
2.622
4,167
4.440
4,440
6.434
4,318
14.167
.14.242
18,185
18.838
18.838
11.639
6,639
22,208
14,929
21,610
9.567
33.770
16,508
8.694
12,966
19,543
11,621
14,099
10.916
10,916
12,493
14,929
13.585
16,945
12,788
10,879
19.821
8,828
11.186
12,281
10.547
9,677
18,241
24,641
14,636
12,150
13.164
10,619
10.030
10,211
11,227
15.187
11,901
26,696
15,474
14,686
10,883
14,056
20,298
13,454
13,454
11.435
14,088
19.370
48,892,786
94,143,745
455,126.080
455,126,080
37,454,302
19,704,552
435,543,296
58,491.822
242,183,270
23,787.600
93,948,140 .
70.505,668
338,396,562
66,800,832
95.506,641
41,394,002
50.728,202
83.845.796
83.845,796
57,030.545
38.337,672
50,101,480
179,617,000
67,929,856
60.182,628
70,047,414
24,700.744
47.920.824
64,892,804
35.142,604
112,166,107
339,939,276
151,714.637
287,758,396
40,313,700
140,025.468
59,784,970
79.668.290
57,937,214
77,926,607
64,362,506
30.585,570
95,037,760
78,236,544
51.665.348
44,293.810
36,854,832
84.581,766
59,735,760
59.735,760
73,572,790
60.831.984
274,414,790
55.283,073
106,448.332
514,611,059
514,611,059
42.349,579
22.279,937
492,468,805
66,136,703
273,836.e>23
30,288,739
106.227.1:62
79,720,759
382,624,993
75.531,701
- 107,989,359
46.804,198
57.358.378
94.804,442
94,604.442
64,484,437
43,348.406
56.649,743 .
203.092.942
76,808,238
66,048,497
79.202,611
27,929,131
54.184,076
73,374,293
39,735,742
126,826,217
384,369.339
171.543,740
325,368,418
45,582,701
158,326.797
67,598,866
90,080,9316
65,509.608
88,111,615
72,774.686
34.583,104
107,459.195
88,462.060
58,418,009
50,083,011
41,671,759
95.636,603
67,543,224
67,543,224
83,188,754
68.782,724
310,280,803
17.83
18.48
20.06
20.06
17.56
16.92
20.01
18.01
19.43
17.23
18.48
18.19
19.76
18.14
18.50
17.66
17.86
18.37
18.37
17.98
17.58
17.85
19.13
18.16
18.04
18.19
17.15
17.81
18-11
17.50
18.66
19.77
18.96
19.60
17.64
18.88
18.03
18.32
18.00
18.29
18.10
17.36
18.49
18.30
17.88
17.73
17.55
18.38
18.03
18.03
18.24
18.05
19.55
Draft
Page N-34
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
i«£^|&iji^
Sta^is^Slpfelfe S^^^ISl^^i^'fSg^V^- - TV??; w;3:X . r ;":•' ™, °^"?^:0ollara)-;; K!f ?
Pennsylvania Towamencing Township
Towanda Borough
Trafford borough
Tredyffrin Township
Tropper CDP
Tulpehocken Township
Tunkhannock Township
Turtle Creek Borough
Tyler Run-Quenns Gate CDP
Tyrone Borough , .
Union Township
Union Township
Union Township
Union Township
Union Township
Union City Borough
Uniontown City
Unity Township
Upland Borough
Upper Allen Township
Upper Augusta Township
Upper Chichester Township
Upper Dublin Township
Upper Swynedd Township
Upper Hanover Township
Upper Leacot* Township
Upper Macungie Township
Upper Makefirled Township
Upper Merion Township
Upper Milford Township
Upper Moreland Township
Upper Mount Bethel Township
Upper Nazareth Township
Upper Paxton Township
Upper Pottsgrove Township
Upper Providence Township
Upper Providence Township
Upper Providence Township CDP
Upper Salford Township
Upper Saucon Township
Upper Southampton Township
Upper St. Clair Township
Upper St. Clair CDP
Upper Uwchlan Township
Upper Yoder Township
Uwchlan Township
Valley Township
Valley Green CDP
Valley View CDP
Vandergrtft Borough
Vemon Township
Verona Borough
Village Green-Green Ridge CDP
3,111
3;242
3,345
28,028
5,137
2,843
4.371
6,556
2,739
5.743
3,440
5.581
2.755
3,265
6.322
3.537
12.034
20,109
3,334
13,347
2,681
15.004
24.028
12,197
4.604
7,254
8,757
5,949
25,722
6.304
25,313
5.476
3,413
3,680
3,315
9.727
9.682
9,727
2.719
9.775
16,076
19.692
19,692
4,396
5,435
12.999
4,007
3,017
2,911
5,904
5,605
3.260
9,026
14,174
14,745
12,085
34,078
17.328
11,743
14,712
9.632
19.843
10,054
16.010
11,041
12.852
12.444
12,076
8.303
10.091
14,340
11,825
17,698
13,757
15,062
26.977
21.818
15,794
12.643
18,679
36,466
24,325
18.019
19,188
16.561
11,852
11.844
15,437
24,885
16.811
24,885
20.720
18,068
20,205
28,666
28,666
22,100
14,798
21,815
12.963
15,455
20,581
10.609
13.462
10,630
16,428
44,095.314
47,803,290
40.424.325
955,138,184
89,013,936
33.385.349
64,306.152
63,147,392
54.349.977
57,740,122
55,074,400
61,619,821
35,407,260
40,629,660
76,344.472
29,367,711
121,435.094
288,363,060
39.424,550
236,215,206
36.882,517
225,990,248
648.203,356
266.114.146
72,715,576
91,712.322
163.572,003
216,936,234
625.687.650
113,591.776
485.705.844
90,688,036
40.450.876
43,585,920
51.173,655
242.056,395
162,764,102
242.056,395
56,337,680
176,614.700
324,615,580
564,490,872
564.490.872
97,151,600
80,427,130
283.573,185
51,942.741
46,627.735
59,911,291
62,635,536
75.454,510
34,653.800
148,279.128
'Total Town;;
ieeime'{1998ri>*
£i::bolJarsj;>-vft:
49.858,572
54,051,180
45,707,784
1,079.974,745
100,648,057
37,748,814
72,710,966
71,400,756
61,453.519
65,286,756
62,272,624
69,673,532
40,034,989
45,939.957
86,322.694
33.206,071
137,306,661
326,052.112
44,577,339
267.088,533
41,703.062
255,527.173
732,923,535
300,895.265
82,219,502
103,699,122
184,950,864
245.289,800
707,465.026
128,438,221
549,187.598
102.540,962
45.737.805
49,282,600
57,862,052
273,693,166
184,037,370
273,693.166
63.701,015
199,698,241
367,268.976
638.269,829
638,269.829
109.849.314
90,938,956
320,636,200
58.731,657
52,721.980
67.741,697
70.822,001
85,316,414
39,163,052
167,659,210
9 of Total;
17.72
17.81
17.64
20.80
18.43
17.45
18.10
18.08
17.93
17.99
17.95
18.06
17.51
17.64
18.27
17.32
18.74
19.60
17.61
19.40
17.55
19.36
20.41
19.52
18.22
18.46
19.04
19.32
20.38
18.67
20.12
18.45
17.64
17.71
17.87
19.43
19.03
19.43
17.97
19.11
19.72
20.27
. 20.27
18.51
18.33
19.59
17.89
17.78
18.03
18.08
18.26
17.48
18.94
Draft
Page N-35
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
Stota^l^fliiili^
Pennsylvania Village Shires CDP
Walker Township
Wallace Township
Warminster Township
Warminster Heights CDP
Warren City
Warrington Township
Warhngton Township
Warwick Township
Warwick Township
Warwick Township
Washington Township
' Washington Township
Washington Township
Washington Township
Washington Township
Washington Township
Washington City
Washington Township
Waterford Township
Wayne Township
Wayne Township
Wayne Township
Waynesboro Borough
Waynesboro Borough
Weatherly Borough
Weigelstown CDP
Weisenberg Township
Wellsboro Borough
Wesleyville Borough
West Bradford Township
West Brandywine Township
West Brunswick Township
West Cain Township
West Chester Borough
West Chillisquaque Township
West Cocalico Township
West Deer Township
West Donegal Township
West Earl Township
West Goshen CDP
West Goshen Township
West Hanover Township
West Hazleton Borough
West Hempfield Township
West Lampeter Township
West Mahanoy Township
West Manchester Township
West Manheim Township
West Mead Township
West Mifflin Borough
Westmont Borough
West Newton Borough
4,364
2,801
2,541
32,832
4,310
11,122
12,169
4,275
5.915
2.575
11,622
. 2,977
4.102
4.613
11.119
6,356
3,759
15.864
7.725
3.402
2.785
2,521
3.929
9.578
4,270
2,640
8,665
3,246
3.430
3,655
10.406
5,984
3,227
6,143
18,041
3,119
5,521
11,371
5.605
6,434
8,948
18,082
6,125
4,136
12.942
9.865
4,539
14.369
4,590
5.401
23,644
5.789
3,152
23,701
12,234
19,326
15.795
9,571
13,889
17.671
13.246
20.588
21.307
15.044
14.303
15.367
10.254
15.541
14,042
15,417
9,492
13,962
12,602
11,199
8.766
12,831
12.258
9.321
10,931
13.769
19.314
13,851
10.751
17.745
16,627
15,607
14,648
13,082
11,280
12,957
12,999
12,928
12,699
20,426
20,589
16,028
11,033
14,994
19,074
10.636
15,169
16.222
11,632
12.676
21,203
10.407
103,431.164
34,267.434
49,107,366
518,581.440
41,251,010
154.473,458
215.038.399
56.626,650
121.778,020
54.865,525
174.841,368
42,580.031
63.035,434
47.301,702
172,800.379
89.250.952
57.952,503
150,581.088
107,856,450
42.872,004
31,189,215
22.099,086
50,412.999
117,407,124
39,800,670
28,857.840
119,308,385
62.693.244
47,508.930
39.294,905
184,654.470
99.495,968
50,363,789
89,982,664
236.012.362
35,182.320
71,535.597
147,811,629
72.461.440
81,705,366
182,771,848
372,290.298
98.171,500
45.632.488
194,052.348
188,165,010
48,276,804
217,963,361
74.458,980
62.824.432
299,711,344
122.744.167
32,802.864
116,949,617
38,746,188
55,525,699
586,360,034
46.642,517
174,663,139
243,143,918
64,027,753
137.694.407 .
62.036.449
197,693,135
48,145,241
71.274.165
53,484,034
195,385,3(59
100.916,051
65.526.895
170,262,0316
121.9S3.2fl8
48,475,375
35,265,645
24,987,437
57,001,978
132.752,235
45.002,618
32,629,560
134,901.991
70,887.251
53,718,347
44,430.749
208,788,809
112,500.091
56,946,33(5
101,743,398
266,859,178
39,780.649
80,885,300
167,130.609
81,932,150
92,384.257
206,660,129
420,948,640
111,002,515
51.596,654.
219,414,990 .
212.758,177
54,566,582
246.451.172
84,190.769
71,035,585
338.883.617
138.786,830
37,090,198
18.58
17.47
17.83
20.19
17.66
18.98
19.31
17.97
18.74
17.94
19.10
17.69
18.08
17.79
19.09
18.43
18.00
18.95
18.62
17.70
17.38
17.03
17.86
18.70
17.62
17.30
18.72
18.08
17.80
17.61
19.16
18.54
17.86
18.44
19.40
17.50
18.21
18.93
18.22
18.34
19.15
19.86
18.53
17.76
19.21
19.18
17.82
19.32
18.25
18.08
19.64
18.75
17.43
Draft
Page N-36
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
State V ^^-"f „ **
Pennsylvania West Norriton Township
West Norriton CDP
West Penn Township
West Pennsboro Township
West Pittston Borough
West Pottsgrove Township
West Providence Township
West Reading Borough
West Rockhill Township
West Salem Township
Westtown Township
West View Borough
West Whiteland Township
West Wyoming Borough
West Wyomissing CDP
West York Borough
Wharton Township
Wheatfield Township
White Township
White Deer Township
Whitehall Borough
Whitehall Township
Whitemarsh Township
White Oak Borough
Whttfield CDP
Whttpain Township
Wilkes-Barre City
Wilkes-Barre Township
Wilkes-Barre Township CDP
Wilkins Township
Wilkinsburg Borough
Wilkins Township
Williams Township
Williamsport City
Willistown Township
Willow Grove CDP
Willow Street CDP
Wilson Borough
Windber Borough
Wind Gap Borough
Windsor Township
Winfield Township
Winslow Township
Wolf Township
Wolfdale CDP
Woodbume CDP
Woodlyn CDP
Woodside CDP
Woodward Township
Worcester Township
Womleysburg Borough
Wright Township
Wyncote CDP
* * PerCaoita To*8'10*"^ Total Town .^
fH if Q."tt J1.H. ^^ ^»«JM«M Ijiji juuin /Hlffitl*'! * **, tm\f*r*mm*4L fdlOCKA • >>• ' •"*
^ r*opu*auon . income (isRU income 11999 ./ . .-
IHCOH18 •**" ' ' '" ''•' ' *
*• Dollars) •" Dollars)- ~r:
15,029
15,029
3,693
4,945
5,590
3.829
3,233
4,142
4,518
3,547
9,937
7.734
12,403
3,117
3,097
4,283
3.390
3.097
13.788
3.958
14.451
22.779
14.863
8.761
2,585
15.673
47.523
3,572
3.572
7.585
21.080
7.487
3.982
31.933
9.380
16.325
5.817
7,830
4,756
2,741
9,424
3,162
2.526
2.617
2.906
2,953
10,151
2,947
2,662
4.686
2,847
4,685
2,960
20,544
20,544
12,027
13,246
12,512
13,936
11,799
13,649
16,771
11,438
23,547
12,929
21,387
12,381
14,883
13.807
8,623
12,351
14,418
11,005
17,917
14,959
26,919
15,137
21.158
28,788
10.513
12,345
12,345
17,942
13,000
18,004
14,648
10,276
31,270
18,051
20,206
13,269
9,427
13,169
15,531
11,434
9,547
11.819
13,022
20,535
14,356
31,209
12,360
22,679
23.549
13.459
25,043
308,755,776
308,755,776
44,415,711
65,501,470
69.942,080
53,360,944
38,146,167
56,534,158
75;771.378
40,570,586
233,986,539
99,992,886
265,262,961
38,591,577
46,092,651
59.135,381
29,231,970
38,251,047
198,795,384
43,557,790
258,918,567
340.751,061
400,097,097
132,615.257
54,693,430
451,194,324
499,609,299
44,096,340
44,096,340
136,090,070
274,040,000
134,795,948
58,328,336
328,143,508
293.312,600
294,682.575
117.538.302
103.896,270
44.834.812
36,096,229
146,364,144
36.154,308
24,115,722
30,930.323
37,841,932
60,639,855
145,727.756
91.972,923
32,902,320
106,273,794
67,044,003
63,055.415
74.127,280
349,110,156
349,110,156
50,220,844
74,062,512
79,083,510
60,335,219
43,131,871
63,923,172
85,674,697
45,873,162
264,568,580
113,061,956
299,932,630
43.635.496
52,116,960
66,864,375
33,052,588
43,250,459
224,777,941
49,250,793
292,759,224
385,287,225
452,389.788
149,948,071
61.841,861
510,165,422
564,908,234
49.859.732
49,859,732
153,877,042
309,857.028
152,413.778
65,951,850
371,031,864
331.648,557
333,197,588
132,900,558
117,475,512
50,694,722
40,814,006
165,493,938
40,879,676
27,267,647
34,972,916
42,787.873
68,565.484
164,774,374
103,993.784
37,202,653
120,163,779
75,806.654
71,296.758
83,815.715
g of Total
Income ;
19.67
19.67
17.73
18.12
18.19
17.92
17.58
17.97
18.27
17.64
19.39
18.54
19.52
17.59
17.77
18.02
17.31
17.58
19.23
17.71
19.49
19.77
19.93
18.B3
17.94
20.05
20.15
17.72
17.72
18.85
19.55
18.84
18.00
19.73
19.62
19.62
18.71
18.58
17.74
17.52
18.92
17.53
17.12
17.37
17.57
18.04
18.92
18.46
17.43
18.60
18.14
18.08
18.24
Draft
Page N-37
-------
Appendix N: Data for Towns with Populations Under 50,000
Pennsylvania
WyndmoorCDP
Wyoming Borough
Wyomissing Borough
Yeadon Borough
York City
York Township
Youngwood Borough
Zelienople Borough
5,682
3,255
7,332
11,980
42,192
19,231
3,372
4.158
27,732
14,745
28.801
15,334
10,485
17,835
11,580
14.850
157,573,224
47,994.975
211,168,932
183,701,320
442,383,120
342,984,885
39,047.760
61.746,300
178,168,1344
54,267.918
238.768,711
207,711,083
500,202.594
387.813,009
44,151,302
69,816,541
Average log income per town:
Standard deviation
Percent Small Governements*
19.00
17.81
19.29
19.15
20.03
19.78
17.60
18.06
18.50
0.90
96%
Source: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1998, Sept. 25.1998, pg. 306
Average income data by town is taken from all towns with populations under 50,000 (i.e. small towns/cities/boroughs) in five
states (KS, NH, NE. CA. PA) and is assumed to be representative of small towns throughout the United States. Income data
from only small towns is used because large towns or cities are unlikely to be significantly impacted by the costs of well closure.
Draft
Page N-38
-------
I
f.
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
Contract No. 68-C6-0061
Work Assignment No. 1-14
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL REGULATIONS FOR
CLASS V INJECTION WELLS
VOLUME 2
DRAFT
May 12,1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
Prepared by.
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
135 Beaver Street
Waltham,MA02154
Prepared for:
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
I
-------
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
ooeoooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooo
m -i. ^f r-» ro —
i i i
£ § • >
i
>
!5
?
oo<*io-oe> — ONCSO eso — o — oo- — oooovo- — ts •«• o - o- — -
I
> I
— ooooooooo — O;0r^
o — — -<«
I
Appendix II-1
Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V U1C Regulations
May 12, 1998
ooeooooooooooeoopo
Hi
t « ,. vO^-wmjo
ill
£ § "»
eocnrnOO9«oo«n«n
^ o\ O r- r*i
HI
pi
— _!-. — O — OOOOOOO — O __
~" »*
o o o o o o
oooooooooooooooo ^
If
r^ — r-iOr*iir» — o^oo^oos*n^« r--^%og\
n vo _ _ rs — CMC*— 5r~
&
I.
**
= i
~
g t
< 11
fa
1
HI
II*
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooo — oo — ooooooooo
=
«
Is 1
I § 1
ill
111
{II
SJ I
i
i
S
I
1
Appendix 11-2
EPA Staff Draft—Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
fsoorjoooooo — r< o o o — o O O — — o o o o o
JJooooooooo — «r>%on.£oootDc>oooooooQoeeo>fnrNOoe>ooo
«o %e
m •<»•
eo CTV n rj
en «-
B 1 I
ii
*J
< <
JJooooooooooooo gooooooooooooooooo — oooooo
OOOOOOOO — OOOf*i OOOOOOOOOOOOOO—
c- <
** f^
S 5 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e JS UJ
"o ^ e *»
Mil
in
«j
ti
E
— eo — o — — o oo.— o — oo — oeooomee — rM o — o — o«s
ooooo — «r,orn
P >"
Mi !ie°
ill g
< •?
§0000000000000 Jjooooooooooooooo
85
o i1
S
o — oooooo
oooooooooooo— oooooooooooooo — oopoooooo
— vovooo —
Z £
Appendix 11-3
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations May 12,1998
(O
L.
1!
•o 5" C-
111
_ j a oo — oo — ooooo—-oo^o — — jw
* 1 * I
Trooooooo-*o „
fn Lj
5
oooooooooooooooooo —
OOO— 0
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
3
£
(NOO — O — OOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOO — OOO— O— O — O —
— o — — 'Sr'*z;z:!5X2E — S:%oee
r^ininior~t^r>r'Om-riNnaveveoooo
O — — — — — tNr«mn'»»^W'W»«ininw)
Appendix II-S
Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class VUIC Regulations
May 12.
i
S
o
1
1 jl
OOOOO — OOOOOO — O
I
«l
OOOOO _,
oo — oo«oooo
i'l
r-r*r-r-r*r»r-r-
—
^^
§
i
.ts
I!
.S
•8
S
i
1
|£ 1
ill
!!!
U l2 I J
>»
•l
Appendix II-6
£/»/< Staff Draft—Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12,1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t A t- «N *N •*» r< *t — rM CN o i- * — — ~«o — m — — *»«N-- iNOr»irM*rmw>«r>»-wioif-r'>Ov
I I | n -
H Z -8
._ ooooo«HO*oON*«n^rfi — O. episMi>orMmco — o*>«r-«\\ot-oomo>O'nve — —
a* oo — — v — <• —
|ll '
*"• O ^ :>
W«o^roainooooeo
ooooooeoooooojjoooeoooooooeoooooooeoooo
oooooooooooo oooooooeeoooooeoooooooeo
— oor^opimON^rmvteom <4-r-ceo>«r-ooo-'o«nv>r^r4ioom>OOcN — rs m — —
r^ i*> — "
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
I
I,
nt
— in 00 I-
a
|J*
s I
— OOv—
ooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooo
£ £• w £ £•
111 lul
*B M 5
ill
1s!
zfS
*1
5-1
in—.
I
I
oooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooo
w
6
I
M !
15 !
I
1
Appendix 11-8
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
•s
I
J; *
« a
III
\H
i S },
l
i
l
l
l
I* I
III
4 i
fi
I
O O O O O O — OOOOOm OOOOOOOOOOWIOOO'WOOr-IOOOOO
*» — r»
iii
i B *
oooeoeeooeooo ooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooeo ooooooooooooooooooooooo
.£ooooooooooooo.S ooooooooooooooooooooooo
> t ^ -a
III I I
G£* o. ^
f "oooooooooooooKooooooooooooooooooooooo
51"
S z I -2
B
s
ooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooo
^o
»
Appendix II-9
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12,1998
£
z
1
i
ir) vi —• tjr rn irt
neavinor)
ftSoamr,
*s
= S = S I
g
I
s
>
s-s ^
II !
->•
s
*8
i
s
I
Appendix II-10
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote—Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rioo — oooooo — oo GO
O O ovo — ee BO m ««\ornnOOoe
•g oo — — oo °OOOOOOQOOQOO "ooooooooooooooooor-ooooo
o i " "
OOOOOOOOOOOO'w' OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO — OOOOO
t
s.
I
w^oiooOf^*N^'Oi>N0 i^mcNw>«n—•O'l^^r-x^o--* — w*mo*oo*^-*ot"-
— «i — — —i — — — ~ u-> TT — r-tm — r-t — — ow> — o — — o TT —
B> ^_ •* ^
ill IH
— —
1 t
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
3
•8 2
Z I 5.
I
3
E •
Ml
iM
lit
tJoooooooooooooKooooo
*» K
OOOOOOOOOOOO— O O
oooooooooo — ooooo
OOnlOOOOOOVOOOO —
u
8
S3
Appendix II-11
Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Ocas V VIC Regulations
May 12,1998
JH -
— ooooo — — otsooo g
1
oooooooooooooooooo
OOOP4— O
g
g
.&
1
M
a a
H
H t
SO r-i— t^r-i~r»r-r-r-r-r»-r'*r»
Appendix 11-12
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class K U1C Regulations
May 12, 1998
m —
1
•
1
1
1
1 i
fe u
si
I*"~
III
i til
*lii!
11 = 1
I « s
z«£
JM B
•Q G
£* M
j» *s W
1
1
1
1
k'
1
jiTisis— «. «. — «N es — —
1 a i - ' — — " — "
•= a s > >
J~B?S' """§ P 'OtNr^rsmor^r^r-' ao— — — t^ — *o<— fn»—inp4fn — r4cot^-^oo^o w»—«»«^
^ * ^
•S
iJ 2 £
_|£ INOO — OOOOOO — — 0 OOOOOOOOOOOOOfSOO — — OO — OOO
jl^ S«S£RK£ = S2SR!2 de2P2S25SS22225gS5fS285t^Si2S;S
*** |o__ „,..?...„.... [..][......
li*| |
StJoooooooooooooSoooooooooooooooooooooooo
D *"
•^ _ ooooooooooooo oooooooooeooooooo-woooooo
ill
| ii(«8.«aa»BEiB .a»«9*«i(>!!Bna.<,aR«-!a«.*
"• i-
ll'l "'"Re°- i"e"RS« --„--«-- «s«M.5;rJ2,qX2 aa,a
u | 'KSs^RSJOowSMMSsSooooooioo-Hs^wRRSKSSiSSm
•
Appendix II- 13
£P/I Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12.1998
in— oo — ts —
co M w> r- — w>r~Or— ooooooo
8 i
*-° *
0 1
oooooooooooooooooo
— oooooooooooooo
£ "£. * *
•a •£" «• en
IS s S . .
5
a
5 i
s 5s
<
I
1 1-s
I U5
H
I
_ j j
15 I -S
ooo — oooooo —
§ I
_
II
ooooooooooooo ^
r~ — i-e}«»ioo — p»-»
r-M«NO«o«n«nn i
ll I
If 1
111
o
Appendix 11-14
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fc •
ni
J°s
•, •<
vo — «. ^ »• — O O — O V »T O O O IS O .— O f»> — — « — • ~
-o """
ooooooooooooo gooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooisooooo— oooooooooo — ooo — ooejoooooo
—
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
£
ill
!!f
I!!
•* S
I - I
O«SOv' «N « «••• m —
— 3 5
oooooooooeoooooeo
oooooooooooooooooo
° &
• !ii
I "
g
s
£
>
oooooooooooooooo
— o<= — ooooo
I
s
£
I
s
u
^ I
ai
Appendix II-16
Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote—Deliberative Material
-------
I Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
l»
I
1
May 12, 1998
ill
riooMoooooori — o oo — oooooooooo** — o — r>iooo — — —
— OOOOOOOOO — O — OOOOOO
I
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOfJOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOviOOOOOO
i
I
I
ooo — ooooooo ooooooooooirooovooo — ooootno
^-
S
1= I
£
Iff i1 !
— or>t
— <«o
X
gooooooooooooojjoooooooooooooooooooooooo
OOOOOO — OOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO — OOOOOOO.OOOOOO
vmoo^oo irtr^-^moieovio^of^o^t**—»O""«*>^fO^"p-
ss-sK^ N"R"2*aa'2'e*'n*5;82f2a2
Appendix 11-17
EPA Staff Draft-Da Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V U1C Regulations May 12, 1998
I
* I
'II
I
it
o—-oo — ooooo — oomoo —
.
-• CN —•
oooooooeo
I 12
- £
l
i
I
fi
OOO — OvO — O — OOOOOOOOO
B
I
i
m
HI
1 «
5 •
HI
*J
->moeoo«er
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jf
e o
moon — — o o — o M «s o oo — oooooooooo« — — — mo — — — — —
OOOOOOOOOOOT — :=OOOl— OOOOO
<-)oo«<->l—
—• — »
if» I
8
o o o o o o o uoooooooooooooooooooooooo
O
ooooooooo— ooo
oooooooooomoooooo
I
£*
I
I
I
I
•&
S-J3
0 fe
«5
< Pi
* a E
11!
a
I
>O"^^^*-o — o
*s«sS — r- — oCc-Sr
s * *
I~BOO
— is
S I
t S
OOOOOOOOOOJJOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOMOOOTT O O O O O O
Appendix H-19
Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12. 1998
il
HI
H*
s j
ill
O — OO«NOOOOO — —
5 -s
^ I
ts o rs «s — fHOOOOOOOOO
- a -
f*^ *l
i
II I
! M
It}
ii
£ o f2
V
?!
Appendix 11-20
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"m £
r> -•••—-•
* J* 1
§ I I 8.
OS* $
3 J
III
t~"n«o or- —
eoooooeooooooiJooeoooooooooeoooomeooooo
o o o o is — ooooon ooooooooooriooois — oooooooo
!*•
So «
vo»
oo
11
r--r~ — o — nrq
—
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
it'
eooooooooooooeoooo
v — ooooooooooo
g
lit I
!!! 1
oo* — — O*Oi«ft«
— ots ro^ierl
fl
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
b£
* I I
Hi
£ I *
o — —
— (SI —
o o o o o e
OOOOOOOOOOOOr-IOOOOOO
£
*
is 1 1
1
OOOOOOrtOOOOOm OOOOOOOOOOTTOOOOOOmOOOOOO
^q;e5;«r2t-eovr»i^ft^r» >o — «->r-es
r-\ovOOeo — omrt — ee — n •o-cy.Tfr-iN
— — w — •«• — — m i^m m
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Reflations
May 12.1998
OOrlOOflO — — O O - » 5
' 1 i
0 |2 T
I
I
Appendix 11-24
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12. 1998
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Pi
«}
•?
i
i
i
i
i
i
VI
1
t a
Ground Wat
Wells by Sta
ibmenl)
•nslent Non-ee
imberorWuti
nes One Well f
2| |
* J
1"
Q
J i
— >»f»O>o>l~*o>«i»-f»>mOfM eomee —
(N-wvi^'O^V'noo BOOS — v>mTr
*rt f*^*-< fs r*i —
> >
OOOOOOC!OOO<->TrO:J;OOO«
OOOOOOOOOO^>v>«ar-OOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO}»OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO<^lOOOOOO
ooooon — ooooo— ooooooo
ooo^foomoooo — o
— voeovi
L,
f
-5
B
or»s2S?
'~lr>oe|'>>oOico
— eo — \o ov >r>
111
VCOlVoe
ooooooooooo goooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooocm ooooooooooiNooomoonooooooo
Appendix 11-25
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
fc .8 OO«NOOmO — — O O N — OO»O(S«S Jg
P* ~
S s
oooooooooooooooooo „,
o — omoooooooooooo
o\«n
F- —
"
II
I
— o — o ft m SB
* I
oooooooooooooooooo
ooootsoooooooooooo e
.11
S S KS S S S
£
3 .
1,'
S
w
l!
n
Appendix 11-26
EPA Staff Draft—Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
£
£
I
I
I
I
I
I
III
S.
i-s
•8 e
fl
Mi
IS*
— oo — oooooo — — o oooooo — oooooo — oeo — oooooo
oooooooo
s
ii
8 UOOOOOOOOOGOOO gooooooooooooooo
§ S «4
OOOOOOOO
ooooooo — eeon OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO«NOOOOOO
-
— m-w»n
— «n r-
m»eo — — ^•»*tnr'«oi
r-r<(>, — — rJ t~-— » oo —
•
I
I
ill
— oooooooooooo ooooooooooooo — oooooooooo
'I
(i O
< <
2 jjooooooooooooogo
a i
i!
ooooooooooooo o o
ooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooo — ooooooooo
b
I
Appendix 11-27
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12,1998
I
ooooocio — o ae
l
o
g
oooooooooooooooo
•OOOOOO(^mtN
t^i«s — — o\
Ill
I
S 9 B
n o oo — — — rsocNooooooor-o
oooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooo „
r f
£!>
g
' *
S
ID
.>>.£•
ii
•3 *
1
I %
1*1
I l
I
S *
!]
I- "
Appendix 11-28
EPA Staff"Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
b
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
^A
1
>
ill
*• 1 1
1*2
III
If!
G £
O g
_
m u S TB
s g B i
« * £ i
% a
II |i 1 1
ill i" *
5 *3 B ^
g JJ e W* •
ill "^ S
| v K.
== !|t
k .s 5 * ^
' = Is 1
< g 6 C
jll jjf
*-s " » ! "
tfl Hi
1 *5S
O > g
Hi
o •
< 8
ill
ill
•<
|M
- 1
M - M -
SSRSSSSaSSSS- 2-fJ25:2: = ggi2S-SP?:!C5yiS23;S!SS§
.s £;
M X
^ooooooooomrso — ^ooorMoooooooooo — «» — oooooe
1 ~" I "
£k O*
^Q. ^0.
goooeooooooooojjoooooeoooooooooooooooooo
eoooooeooeooo oooooooooooooooeoooooooo
PmS|£F:SSS;R8;«,l*> ^2:g2«*2SR2F;<»R|g?gS2oSSS£
p2SS?5??i2Jn22" mSijjSSmRSSSRSSZrjoe^jNScSrio^o
ooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooo
s >
x • x
•ooooooooooorifioSSooo — oooooooooorsr-»*r>£>oooooo
< <
JjOOOOOOOOOOOOOgOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOrJOOOOOO
•> . s
e o o ooooooooo— oooooooooeoooo — oeooooooo
§sss^88A9SXS» »assa*s8BRSHa|is85g = S«88g
g=BgSi;;R£5;s SRSS,sa,3SS8R£5SI,=s.SR5
gKS3?:?:rCpoS:;2?;MS5;oJSooS§§ooo--
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Classy UlC Regulations
May 12,1998
I
t JS
S^ 8 «
IN O — — — NMOnOOOOOOOVJO
<
oooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooo
* •-
b V 5 IS
a m 25 I
SI- i*
III 1J
*"s s u I
•585 z «
« =
o
i
I
i
i
IP
"e "
III
•8 |
oooooooooooooooooo «
i
s
— OflO— r~ — OMOOOOOOO — O
oooooooooooooooooo N
oooooooooooooooooo
>
(i
o
-i
s*S2s;SS5sJ:'eF!S*§ss?;
•- « — r» »
t I
> S
^^ ^™ f*i f*\ c*^ f> f*i ^f ^F
*•• fn ^^
s*
S
i
Appendix 11-30
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
I
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
— O C3 — OOOOOOQOO OOOOOOOOOOOOO — OOO— OOOOOO
ill
.SOW
H»
S I
S3 1 I
>
X
vi — oooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOO «OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO«OOOOOO
Ijf
Ill
£ j X
I g
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo — oooooo
ooooooooofsoooyp — 01-00 o o o o
IS
J — ^^ — r***iN«*i*- — «n*>if*»«ftf»i«smvv>r-"O|ir4~«-«-"*- — -"«-^
SCJSS^eSClOSS*'1''^ — «e — w> — —. — iooooSoooo!£r~« — — rsm^m^t-
r>«nmvor^i^r~t>;oin—ooooooooo-~ — r
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the ClassV UIC Regulations May 12, 1998
I
•I
_ t = ooooooooooooootsooo —
S <
> g _ — oo\ — Tfow
il*
«
1°'
ooooooooooooooooo
i
£
H
B
111
S
GGOOOOOOOOOOOQOO
rtiOOvtOO —
vo —• O*
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12,1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
PS
— -mm —
— in «s r-
f *
Jjooooooooooooojjooooooooooooooooovooo'oooo
ooooo —
a* £ 1
II. I1
1*1 i
0*1 g 1
III 8'
Me
>= Mi
X -**
I -i|o
!• i
Hi
OOOOOOOOOTJ-OOOU-.OOVIOOOO —
— oae — o — *^
i~o>«e — ^•»mOi
m^* —• t^ rs
* i
a
E
Mf
o o e o o
o — >or--ts;5ooo[-oooooooooo*>c — oooooooo
oooooooooogo
en o o a
oooooeooooooemoooooo
Appendix 11-33
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the ProposedRevisions to the Class VJJIC Regulations
j a
o —
May 12,1998
85
I
ll
I
1
oooooooeoeoooooooo
OO — •SO'fO
OOOOOOOO —
fl 2
* 9
£•«• g
s s 2
I
I
= HI
1 II!
•a
E
oooooooooeeeoooeoo
OOOO — -"OOOOOOOOOOO
I i I
I" i
^i £
-3 !
3
•i
I-5
.
•5.
U £
I'
s o
IS 1
.5 JJ
If
A jfr
§1 I
— i
il
b S
W
_
ES
Appendix 11-34
£/>/! Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations May 12, 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
eo^ —
b. v
£ J
3 I
0 2
S 1 1
SI I
t a
I a
!•£
•o «=•
oooooooooooo KOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO em e e o o o o
ooo — ooooo«s
— — oo oo o% * «
BBS
III
i
ooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooo
^ooooeoooo — omo:Sooo»oooeeeoooo'vnr>)^>oooooo
OOOOOOOOOOOOO JJOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOO
J
Appendix 11-35
EPA Steffi Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations __ May 12,1998
.
oooooooooooooooooo
ooooooo — ooooooooo
8
E
£
s
<
*r*es*"^
ip ''
ISL
Is*
II
ill
oooooooooooooooo — o n
5 N ^ wo n ^
— M ^ <
I
i
C
|3
epoooocsooooooooooci
o o o o o o o o o o m
s> S Si
*^. t" 1
10 pp
±
J
II
if.
s
?g
Appendix 11-36
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12. 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
i €
— rs — «
~- o r* — o oo — o — o o ~ — oooo^r — o ~ «N o ~ o — o ~
u ^f
:3ooooooooooo>>oM!Soooc^oooooooooo«OMO — oooooo
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOOOOOO
w ""
OOOOOOOOOOOOIS OOOOOOOOOO — OOOO — O — OOOOOO
M SH*
I
I
I
I
I
I
B ?lf
I III
I III
" III ,
— OO — OOOOOO — — O OOOOOOO — OOOOOtOOO—
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
12, 1998
I
lit
cs o o o
3 I £
oooooooooooooooooo
oooo — oooooooooooo
ll
! I
&
- 2
5 —
PI — INJ
oooooooooooooooooo _
oooooooooooooooooo
£
S
1
*
.£
S
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix 11-39
EPA Staff Draft—Do Not Cite or Quote—Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions tojhe Class V UIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
—_ ON rn r^ —
X
J 3 2 a*22S5!E:SS! = SJ
III
fc J *
CM ^ ^ »
1? 1
_ OOGGOOOOOOGGO VOOOGOOOGGOOOQQGOOrtOOOOOO
0 >
100000 — ooooo— ooooooooooooooooomoooooo
av^o^vvr^rsr*!— *ev
m — mcoao
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class F UIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
«"•« ^
l
ooooooooooooooooo
i- 1
11
** oJ
5
• <* "•
oooooooooooooooooo
>«<»»<*«n
jo — ve«o
o ^
"28
=5
B
11 §
5 -g i I*J *22p«
«-omrifM-"~«oo — oeoc* 5
« v, - - g
s •:
ooeoooooooeooeoeoo
— ooooooooo
«•»
*
2.
-5
u
11
11
I
.s
.1
I
Appendix 11-40
EPA Staff"Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
i
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UlC Regulations
May 12,1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
oooooooooooo ooooooooooooo— o o o — o o o o o o
r-v«n — <-»ve
O r^ co — is
5
!!
I
I
I
I
I
I
IS* ^
S — S B
si f g
»5l 5e*
ill s
- l«fc
"• i S a:
M = 5 «*
I 1
< -s
E
3
If
oooooooo — «-,•« — -oooo — oooooooooommiersoooeo
— — c CN
OOOOOOOOOOOOO «OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
oooooooooooo OOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-------
r
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class VUIC Regulations May 12, 1998
I
*<
oooooooooooooo—o—
M» *rv OO ^ ^ *6 ^
' ' S «N ^ £
— ooooooo>co «e —
oo 0
oooooooooooooooooo
S <
S
I -B
•g
£5? om
s*
1s3
i
HI "°s"**-
. ooooooooooooo
a •
I
ooooooooo
514-5
y
= " = = ^
S
if
•s*
a >
-
II
«i
i i
!
£ J B
It |
§
I JS
It
1
1
g
i
Appendix 11-42
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12,1998
If >
s 1 < v
If* |
.
"ooOOOOOOOO—«r^^OMiOOOO«— OOOOOOOOOOOQ-ffSOOOOOOO
c o* ON "~" c r>r invortr**
VOOOOOOOOOOOOOWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
VI in
oooeoooeoooon ooooooooooo^eeotNOovooooeo
i
s
*
is c»i m ~ "* —
g|J CO
"II JS1-
•I
~ CM
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12.1998
I
b s
If
z -
*
f
I
s «•>«»•>*• — »ir~ov>oo
— Ja — r- — Nvoctm
III - •
i!
s
OOOOOOvO O ~ «*•
* s Is
eoooooooooeeoooooo
o o — o o — o o — ooeeooooo
_ts»oo
— — in
B |s
oooootoooooooooo
ill
II
•s *
u
S
£
I
I
I
I
Appendix II-44
£/*X Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote—Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class F UIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
£
e
z
i
| a
E n
«M — o o o o (s — o oo — oooooooo©o>e — — «-
S H > >
x " S
> a =5oooooooooenvr-oooooo
Hi i - |
« uoooeoooooooeo goooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooo — ooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooo
l.
«£
O O O O O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOO — OOO— OOOOOO
I
I
I
I
I
I
s
I
i
s
oooooooooooooKoooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooo— oooooooooooooooooooooooo
II'!
Appendix 11-45
£Pv4 Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12,1998
I
a
lit
— OO»NOOOOO — — oiom — ••
in
— «o
S ^
«•« ft,
I
1
- i
i!
~ O m O O <1 — O — OOOOOOOONO
ooooooooooooooo
•
s
£
.1
•O *C-
§i s
t-l
ffl
OOOQOOOOOOOOOGOGOO _
* r~ jv
m •-
&
1 S*8
f HI
OOOOO— OOOOOOOO— 00
s ^'
R < s
II
il
•l
I
t>< ^ oS
ooooooooooo
o e ^
II
I 1 * ll g
Itllil
« •» p«
eo«o
M oo
» -g
1
f £$ I
>" S= E
I ii i
Appendix 11-46
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis/or the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
»
I
I
I
I
© «s IN fi •«* v» —• —«
>
X
--x»«
£
Pi *j
sll i|-
HI *
4
4-
§
I
II* 1
I!* 1
. 8 !
>
M
OOOOOOOOOOOOOVOOOOOOOOOOCJOOOOOOf^OO
OOOOOOOOOOOOr~ OOOOOOOOOO—'OOOK1OOOOOOOOO
i
I
^
Appendix 11-47
EPA Staff Draft-Do Noi Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions tothe Class V UIC Regulations May 12, 1998
I
•
— — — tstsn — ooomori — m^ ee
£ f
# en
" CD
asmG«
«e - -
I
I
I
oooooooooooooooooo
t*
If
1*1
K — **
ll«
ii!
IS
Dt
fr
"S
a
I
sl
U
oooooooooooooooooo
S
— •» •«»• * r- w
i
oo — — 0*000000000000
1
i |
R
Si
3
1 -
SL"?
ins
fi 1 « 5
rf s >, >.
-
ll Jp
11 1
s-
1
I
i
at £
ssss:
I
Appendix 11-48
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
May 12,1998
•
1
•
1
1
1
I
1
1
*i
i
i
i
i
t
3
e
o
i
E
Z"
J
i
n
v
V)
5"
4- •>
£ 1
**-
1*1
£> "5 i
i m ™
|||
111
•T Z i
HI
z 5 ~
«8 E
£l
§"
B
a
i
«-_,__MO_0 o-N0-0««-0-.-. ,0.-
" 1 *
||| g ">"» 5 2 SS S S " S5= SJ8S C2 SE S 2* ^"^ll ^II'S'S^
>j |... a|tn|.o... . -RaS
l!! i |
80000000000000 goooooooooooooooooO t^^o^ftoosr^f^i^i
1
to g "5 1 » — — J;«« — nso *g2 — « — m — •wvom — — r< co vo •«» -a- >q — o oO"-oo""O~>eoooo>« — — — no— >o — —
Is*
|«i !SSS$*;3;2~S"3£° £±B2S92?S2S2S§SRgS«5- = S
£ ^ ^^ ^
X M
> I 5000 oooooooT>r--|o^ooooo>nooooo
?? « £ ^
z £ fc
I
I
I
Appendix H-49
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12,1998
I
I
lit
fnoofio otno — — oomrso —
i
f —
I *
E
ooeooooeeoooooeoooo M
I
s
s
li
gr
oooo—
SMr«^
•» — «N
m^oooko Ho
s*Mss -
I
S
5:
s
.
ft
f!
11°
i!
e 79 8
<
I
— O O — O O — OOOOO — OOmO — —
Sm — t^«s e«N«n — <« «s »r — T^eooii — *
— «o-"~ o*-ro-« — ~»ev r-i — no o
r* o O «N —
o o o o
E f
x
oeoo oooooooooo
St*»
«M
i
s
••* ^* f*l fl
§
•
?!
.£•£•
I
•I i
s
i ir
Sjf * I
-t
Tfr
i
i
i
i
i
Appendix 11-50
E/Vi Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12, J998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
£ £
£1
i*
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fc
I
*H?
Jlo
S •* t
4
£•
1
s
s.
^ .
o o o o ooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooo
!fi
— oooooooooom —
S
gooooooooooooobooooooooooooooooo — ooooo
O OOOOOOOOOCS OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
n
Appendix 11-51
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
re Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
|
* 5
111
III
- i
£ -g S
III
B I B
H
oeooooooeoooeoooooo ••
II
•a "°
ll
ill II
W
i
— o-ooeoooo«o g
IS* Jl*
s
oooooooooooooo
oooooooooooeoooooo
si
>• i-
I
•G
>
j: P
il
> I
Appendix II-S2
Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
1
I
1
1 11
03 A
1 II
•g • 4">V
B I s
§ 1 B
IJs!
til
will
< - K g
1 li
^ u 8
z S
1 f
1 J
1
1
1
•
k
1
1
i
— S3 ^ — — MO—— — OOOOO OINOO — OOtNOO — — rtOr") — eooeor~ — o to rs — i- *r o-
.s a
>J >o oo o oo ooo ooooo'So ooo o ooooo o o oo^foemrroo o
H* f |
« oo o oo ooo ooooo go ooo o eoooo o o oooooooo o
sj •
ooo'oooooooooo ooooo ooooo ooo — ooo — ooo
t — £ m^-ini-.— fiwi-i o> v— eo — — w>>or»«nr>i*oer- «n<»!
si4 "• "" ""
\J "~ K"
S
Nv n u^oe^nmOv^NOooo ooooo>o\or-o>Tr». — — »sooi^e>o^o»N>o
U £ s ojooo^isr-ioiri— oo oo— — u-i?« J V OO O OO OOO O O O O O =5 O OOO O OOOOO O O OOOO— — OO O
11*1 i
£ S oo o oo ooo ooooo JJ o ooo o ooooo o o oooooooo o
ooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooo
ili
• go«voonooooooo o—ooo\eoooo — — —v^-onrivao —
sH
S6555**^P*t M MM BM ^| ^^
IT!
gi ? $j£ o f^R P S o m~ivrsKo:« ooo S ooooo 2 — rs^SKJnSKS S
Appendix II-53
EP.4 Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class VUIC Regulations May 12,1998
I
•* « M — O — — — -wMOOOOfl — OOOOO
»s ^ >e t-
< •» >O VC —
00 O f>O OO'Vr'lO.Os O— <=> OOOOO 000 JO -5 o?
v^ r* •> *o
OOOOO OOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO
O
lit.
I
1
I
I
O O O O O O
oo o o o o o o o
II
a-S
fl.
i
I
I.
•—ooooo oo
*
1 « s
S J B
Z *•
\O — «0 mm — O O O vi OO rn O O •»
— otsooo— ooooooooooo in ^
= 5
-
I
OOOO OOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO
o oo ooooo oo oooooo oo
— — »»• r- o o ooo
e
H _
Appendix 11-54
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V U1C Reflations
May 12. 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
Is
s
3 _ V
2
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
ll
E
I
^
III
ooooo ooo oooeo ooooooooooooooooooooo
mo ••TWO moo ooooo oooonoioooo*— CM — m
" "
o o o o o o o o o
O O O O O O O O O O OOOOO — — OO O
s
1
ffi
OO O O O O O O OOOOO O o O O O O OOOOO O O OOOOOOOO O
O O O OO O O O OOOOO O OOO O OOOOO O O OOOOOOO
WO«ortOC4OO~OOOO o— OO«riTfOOOO — VOTJ- —
— oooo o—ooc~>ooooori«o
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 72, 79Pg
I
ill
ooooooooooooooooooo <-
fN O VOOOO OO OOOm
— is oo r* o oo O
(SO mOOOO OO OOOOO
o o o o
i =
•n
o
I -
I!
i
I
£
e:
fl
3 -E
11
OO OOOOO OO OOOOOO OOO
« _ O xiOOOO OO O O O — O O OOO
— O C4OOOIOO OO
1
*£• I I! s
g
i
ft K«nv)«nmmvkVkin S S S S S 01 P I- 3 J°
r^r-?-r-r-r-.r*.t-.r^i^?:?:?:fCcoSoo^SI H
Appendix 11-56
EPA Staff Draft—Do Not Cite or Quote—Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12,1998
w
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix VLA. Detailed Compliance Costs for Annual Injectate Monitoring
Waste Stream Scenario E and F: Motor Vehicle Related
1. Contracted Sampling Labor
2. Oil and Grease
3. VOCs (SW 8620)
4. Decontamination/Disposable Materials
Subtotals Per Event
Events
Reporting (once 4 hr/report)
Total Injectate Monitoring
1
1
1
2
1
4
nH
hr
ea
ea
ea
Is
hr
$62.50
$92.10
$276.30
$6.92
$444.74
$70.00
$62.50
$92.10
$276.30
$13.84
$444.74
$444.74
$280.00
$724.74
Waste Stream Scenario A, B, G, and H: Organics Only
1. Contracted Sampling Labor
2. VOCs (SW 8620)
3. Decontamination/Disposable Materials
Subtotal Per Event
Events
Reporting (once 4 hr/report)
Total Injectate Monitoring
Waste Stream Scenario C, D, I, and J: Organics and
t. Contracted Sampling Labor
2. Metals Screen, Flame AA
3. Metals Screen, Furnace
4. VOCs (SW 8620)
1 5. Decontamination/Disposable Materials
Subtotal Per Event
Events
Reporting (once 4 hr/report)
Magnitude
1
1
2
1
4
Metals
Magnitude
1
5
2
1
2
1
4
Unit
hr
ea
ea
Is
hr
Unit
hr
ea
ea
ea
ea
Is
hr
Unit Cost
$62.50
$276.30
$6.92
$352.64
$70.00
Unit Cost
$62.50
$18.42
$30.70
$276.30
$6.92
$506.14
$70.00
Total
$62.50
$276.30
$13.84
$352.64
$352.64
$280.00
$632.64
Total
$62.50
$92.10
S61.40
$276.30
$13.84
$506.14
$506.14
$280.00
Total Injectate Monitoring
$786.14
^i
Appendix VLA-1
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations^
May 12,1998
I
This page is intentionally left blank.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix VI.A-2
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12,1998
Appendix VLB. Detailed Compliance Costs for Quarterly Injectate Monitoring
^
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Waste Stream Scenario E and F: Motor Vehicle Related
1. Contracted Sampling Labor 1 hr $62.50 S62.SO
2. Oil and Grease 1 ea $92.10 S92.10
3. VOCs (SW 8620) 1 ea $276.30 $276.30
4. Decontamination/Disposable Materials 2 ea $6.92 $13.84
Subtotals Per Event
Events
Reporting (twice 4 hr/report)
4
8
Is
hr
$444.74
$70.00
$444.74
$1,778.96
$560.00
Total Injectate Monitoring
Waste Stream Scenario A, B, G, and H: Organics Only
Magnitude
$2,338.96
Unit Unit Cost Total
1 . Contracted Sampling Labor
2. VOCs (SW 8620)
3. Decontamination/Disposable Materials
Subtotal Per Event
Events
Reporting (twice 4 hr/report)
1
1
2
4
8
hr
ea
ea
Is
hr
$62.50
$276.30
$6.92
$352.64
$70.00
$62.50
S276.30
$13.84
$352.64
$1,410.56
$560.00
Total Injectate Monitoring
$1,970.56
Waste Stream Scenario C, D, 1, and J: Organics and Metals
Magnitude
Unit Unit Cost Total
1. Contracted Sampling Labor 1 hr $62.50 S62.50
2. Metals Screen, Flame AA 5 ea $18.42 $92.10
3. Metals Screen, Furnace 2 ea $30.70 $61.40
4. VOCs (SW 8620) 1 ea $276.30 $276.30
5. Decontamination/Disposable Materials 2 ea $6.92 $13.84
Subtotal Per Event
$506.14
Events
Reporting (twice 4 hr/report)
4
8
Total Injectate Monitoring
Is
hr
$506.14
$70.00
$2,024.56
$560.00
$2,584.56
Appendix VI.B-1
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12,1998
I
This page is intentionally left blank.
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
•i
Appendix VI.B-2
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote—Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V U1C Regulations
May 12, 1998
Appendix Vl.C Detailed Compliance Costs Associated with Waste Minimization and BMPs
•^1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I. Good Housekeeping Practices: Category 1
I. Labels/Inventory
2. Instill collection devices
3. Keep fioon clew
4. Improve handling processes
SO
1345
SO
S14S2
SS06
SO
$115
1345
II. Parts Washer: Category 2
I. Labels/Inventory
2. Install collection devices
3. Recycle wastes on-site solvent unit (assumes majority of iciviee Miriam have Ml
instilled parti washer)
4. Keep floors clean
{.Collect Spills
D. Improve iuiauling processes
IV. Process Modifications: Category 4
I. Labels/bmniory
S1.727
SO
$345
SS.7S7
SO
SO
$1,3*2
SU67
$806
SO
$419
$115
SO
SMS
S7.484
S1.6S6
III. Solvent Recovery Unit: Category 3
1. Labds/hvcnlory
2. Install collection devices
3. Recycle wastes co-site solvent unit
4. Keep floors clean
5. Mechanical Device for Material Removal
7. Maintain calibrate equipment
1. Install built-in distillation unit
9. Prcwashing
iO. Operate distillation unit properly
13. inspect air relief valves
14. Imped baffle assembly bi-w«ddy
SO
. $115
SO
$23
SI 15
S3,569
SO
El, 992
SO
S1.I51
$0
SO
$806
SO
$0
$230
SO
S345
SI76
$0
S1.9S7
SO
S5S
$288
S26.966
SO
S4.606
£. UUlall GOtlCCDOB OCYICCS
3. Recycle wastes oo-tite solvent unit
4. Keep floors dean
5. Mechanical Device for Material Removal
6. Improve handling processes
7. MuntBUi cuipnte c^uipnwut
I. High qualify fluids for use reduction
9. Add «kimmer/co*l«ior
10. Use DI water instead often water
1 1. Additional treatment/chemical processes
12. rUitffi electroplate bttfa
13. Replace band over bath
14. Use non-cyanide plating bath
15. Substitute cyanide dcanen
toyi
S3.9I5
S23
$115
$1,151
SO
$2,763
$15.889
S2.1SS
$98.215
S1.15I
SO
SO
so
»u
so
so
so
$345
$574
SO
SO
$691
so
so
S345
SO
so
$126.103
$2.994
Appendix VI.C-1
EPA Staff"Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
r
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12,1998
This page is intentionally left blank.
Appendix Vl.C-2
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote—Deliberative Material
-------
I
b
I
I
I
I
I
I
Economic Analysis/or the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations ^^^ May 12 1998
Appendix VI.D. Detailed Compliance Costs Associated with Well Closure
1. BMP Category I«nd2
I. Cieanout
a) Pressure wash pipes
b) Transport off-lite 25 mile one-way
c) Disposal at POTW (6.000 gal)
2. Fill well with clean inert material
2. BMP Category 3 and 4
I. Clesnout
t) Pressure wain pipes
b) Transport off-tile 25 mile one-way
c) Disposal at POTW (6.000 gal)
d) Fill Pipe with Grout
2. Fill well with clean inert material
S46I
S245
SI I
S576
SO
$0
SO
SO
SO
S46I
S245
$11
S2.303
$461
SO
S3.480
SO
JO
SO
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix VI.D-1
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class VU1C Regulations
May 12, 1998
I
This page is intentionally left blank.
I
I
I
I
Appendix VI.D-2
StnfrOraft-Dn Not Cite nr Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V U1C Regulations
May 12,1998
Appendix VI.E. Detailed Compliance Costs Associated with Off-site Waste Disposal
I
I
I
I
eairioA
1. Transport to POTW
a) Analysis (includa analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
b) Instill holding tank (4 ft by 6 ft by 6 A it 1,077 gallons)
«) Liquid transportation (1 trip of 25 miles)
d) POTW dispoul (7SO gal/yesr)
2. Transport to Non-hazardous Silo
a) Analysis (includes analysis and reponing per disposal trip]
b) Install holding unk (4 ft by 6 ft by 6 ft u 1.077 gallons)
G) 1-iHiyid tmiSDOftStlDD ( \ tHID of 50 UllJcs)
d) Non-hazardous trcatment facility disposal (710 gal/year)
enarioB
I. Transport to POTW
a) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal nip]
b) Install holding tank (4 ft by 6 ft by 6 ft at 1.077 gallons)
c) Liquid transporuiipn (1 trip of 23 miles)
d) POTW disposal (7(0 gtVyesr )
2. W«stt Exchange
.) Manager's time
b) Analysis (include! analysis and repotting per disposal trip]
c) Drums for shipping
SM7
S1.M2
SO
SO
S2.449
S36S
SI.842
SO
so
S2.2IO
S607
S1.I42
SO
SO
S2.449
S1.842
1607
SMS
d> Install holding tank for waste exchange (4 ft by 4 ft by 4 A ti 480 gal) • S1.497
e) Liquid transportation (1 trip of 25 miles)
f) POTW disposal (390 gal/yr}
3. Transport to Hazardous Sites
a) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip;
b) Install holding tank (4 ft by 6 ft by « ft *l 780 gallons)
c) Hat Liquid transportation (4 trips of 200 miles each)
d) Hazardous treatment facility disposal (780 gal/year)
enarioC
1. Transport to POTW
a) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
b) install holding tank (4 ft by 6 ft by 6 ft at 1 ,077 gallons)
c) Liquid transportation (1 tripof 30 mites) (
d) POTW disposal (7*0 gal/year)
2. Transport to Non-hazardous Sits*
a) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
b) Instill holding tank (4 ft by 6 ft by 6 ft at 1,077 gallons)
€) Liquid transportation (1 trip of 50 mile*)
d) Non-hazardous treatment facility disposal (7*0 gal/year)
SO
so
S4.061
S36S
11,497
SO
SO
S1.S6S
S963
11,842
SO
SO
S2.805
$361
S1.M2
SO
$0
S2JIO
S4SO
SO
S9II
SI
J1.463
S36S
SO
$491
$1.209
12,068
S4SO
SO
S981
SI
SI.463
SO
S4SO
S63
SO
S245
SI
S7S9
$1,474
SO
S3.192
S1.638
$6404
S536
$0
S245
SI
$7*3
$361
SO
$491
S1J209
S2.061
Appendix VI.E-1
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
Scenario D
1. Waste Exchange
a) Manager1! time
b) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal nip)
c) Drums for shipping
d) Install holding lank for waste exchange (4 ft by 4 ft by 4 ft at 480 gal)
e) Liquid transportation (1 trip of 25 miles)
0 Non-hazardous treatment facility disposal (390 gal/year)
2. Transport to Hazardous Silt*
a) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
b) Install holding tank (4 ft by 6 ft by 6 ft at 1077 gallons)
c) Haz. Liquid transportation (4 trips of 200 miles each)
d) Hazardous treatment facility disposal (7SO gal/year)
Scenario El
t. Transport to POTW
a) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
b) Install holding tank (4 ft by 6 ft by 6 ft at 1.077 gallons)
e) Liquid transportation (1 trip of 25 miles)
d) POTW disposal (710 gal/year)
2. Transport to Non-hcxardoiu Sites
a) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal (rip)
b) Install holding tank (4 ftby 6 ftby 6 ft at 1,077 gallons)
e) Liquid transportation (1 trip of SO miles)
d) Non-hanrdous treatment facility disposal (780 gal/year)
Scenario E2
1. Transport to POTW
•) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
b) Install holding tank (4 ft by 6 ft by 6 ft a 1 .077 gallons)
c) Liquid transportation (1 trip of 25 miles)
d) POTW disposal (1000 gal/year)
Waste Oil Hauling (520 gal/year)
c) Deril Ten
f) Hauling (S2S/5S gal drum)
g) Disposal Fee (SO.ZO/gal)
h) Drums
2. Waste Exchange
a) Managers time
b) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
c) Drams for shqqiing
d) Install holding tank (6 ft by 12 ft by 12 ft at 6.460 gallons)
e) Liquid transportation (1 trips of 25 miles each)
f) POTW disposal (gOO gsl/ycsr)
Watte Oil Hauling (520 gal/year)
g) Deal Test
h) Hauling (OS/55 gal dnm)
i) Disposal Fee (MJO/gal)
j) Drums
$0
$1,842
$963
$115
SI.497
$0
SO
$4,417
$368
S1.497
SO
SO
$1.865
J662
$1.842
$0
SO
I24M
IMS
$1.842
SO
SO
$2,210
SO
S662
$1,842
SO
$1?
SO
so
S127
S2.64B
$1.842
$662
$461
$1.842
SO
SO
SJ7
• so
SO
$127
$4.951
SO
SO
$536
S63
SO
S245
$605
$1,449
$1.474
SO
$3.192
SI.63B
$6304
S536
SO
S245
SI
S7S3
$368
SO
$491
SU50
$2.409
S536
SO
S245
$2
SO
S272
$120
SO
$1.174
SO
S5«
$63
SO
$245
Si
SO
$272
$120
SO
$1,237
I
I
Appendix VI.E-2
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May_12, 1998
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
3. Transport to Hazardous Site
a) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
b) Install holding Umi (6 ft by 12 ft by 12 ft ai 6,460 gallons)
c) Hat Liquid transportation (4 trips of 200 miles each)
d) Hazardous treatment facility disposal (10,000 gaVyear)
Scenario Fl
1. Transport to POTW
a) Aiulysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
b) Install holding tank (6 ft by 12 fl by 12 ft at 6,460 gallons)
cl L.I fluid tnnsimlBtion C 1 trips of 25 mites cscb)
d) POTW disposal (10.000 gaVyear}
2. Transport to Non-hazardous Sites
a) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal nip)
b> Install holding tank (6 ft by '12 ft by 12 ft at 6.460 gallons)
c) Liquid transportation (2 trips of 25 miles each)
d) Non-hazardous treatment facility disposal (10.000 gal/year)
Scenario Fl
I. Transport to POTW
a) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
b) Install holding tank (6 ft by 12 ft by 12 ft el 6,460 gallons)
cl Lidtiid trmfiv*>tit*?fffi (2 trios of 25 miles csdi)
d) POTW disposal (10.000 gal/yev)
Wane Oil Hauling (520 gal/year)
a.)DexilTcst
b.) Hauling ($25/55 gal drum)
c.) Disposal Fee (S0.2Q/gal)
d.) Drums
2. Waste Exchange
a) Managers lime
b) Analysis .(includes analysis and reporting per disposal nip)
c) Drums for shipping
d) Install holding tank (6 ft by 12 ft by 12 ft at 6.460 gallons)
f) POTW disposal (8.000 gaUyear)
Waste Oil Hauling (J20 gal/year)
g) Deadliest
h) Hauling ($25/55 gal drum)
i) Disposal Fee (SOJO/gal)
j) Drums
1368
SI.M2
SO
SO
S2.2IO
S662
$5,412
SO
$0
$6,074
$368
S5.4I2
SO
SO
S5.7SO
S662
$5.412
•SO
SO
S17
SO
SO
SI27
$6.218
SI.M2
S662
S461
$5.412
SO
$17
$0
SO
S127
$8,521
$1,474
SO
SI. 192
$2.100
$6,766
$1.071
SO
$491
S|g
$1,580
$737
SO
$491
113.500
116.728
$1.071
SO
$491
Sit
SO
S272
S120
SO
$1.971
SO
SI.07I
S63
so
Cue
3mj
$603
SO
S272
$120
SO
$2376
i
Appendix VI.E-3
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12,1998
I
2. Transport to Nm-haunhnu Site
a) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
b) Install holding lank (6 ft by 12 ft by 12 ft at 6.460 gallons)
c) Liquid transportation (2 trips of 25 mile* each)
d) Non-hazardous treatment facility disposal (10,000 gal/year)
$368
$$.412
SO
SO
SI.747
SO
$3,192
$21.000
$5.780
$25,939
Scenario G
1. Transport to POTW
a) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
b) Install holding tank (4 ft by 6 ft by 6 ft at 1,077 gallons)
«\ f iAuid tmuiMtftttMUi ( 1 trta af 24 milett
C/ Ldl|lilQ i»aii»|M»iB41**» ^ 1 Ulp VI A? miJOVJ
d) POTW disposal (800 gal/year)
2. Transport to Non-hazardous Sites
a) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
b) Install holding tank (4 ft by 6 ft by 6 ft at 1,077 gallons)
c) Liquid transportation ( 1 trip of 50 mile*)
d) Non-hazardous treatment facility disposal (780 gal/year)
$607
$5.412
SO
$0
$6,019
S36S
. $5,412
SO
SO
15,780
S4SO
SO
$245
SIO
S73J
$368
SO
S491
S8.060
SS.9I9
Scenario H
1. Transport to POTW
a) Analysis (includes analysis and repotting per disposal nip)
b> Install holding lank for wane exchange (4 ft by 6 ft by 6 ft at 1077 gal)
c) Liquid transportation (I trip at 25 miles)
d) POTW disposal (2.600 gal/yr)
$607
S5.4I2
$0
SO
$480
$0
S245
$10
1. Waste Exchange
a) Managers time
b) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
e) Install holding tank tor waste exchange (4 ft by 4 ft by 4 ft at 480 gal)
d) Install holding tank (6 ft by 8 ft by 8 ft at 2172)
e)Uqutd transportation (1 trip of 25 miles)
f) POTW disposal (390 gal/yr)
$6,019
J1.W2
$607
$1.497
$2,896
SO
SO
S73S
SO
$480
SO
SO
$245
$5
1. Transport to Hazardous Site*
a) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
b) Install holding tank (4 ft by 4 ft by 4 ft at 2.872 gallons)
c) Ho. Liquid transportation (4 trips of 200 miles each)
d) Hazardous treatment futility disposal (5.200 gal/yeaf)
$6,842
$368
S2.896
SO
SO
$730
$1.474
SO
S3.I92
$10.920
$3,264
$15486
Scenario I
I.TntuporttoPOTW
a) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
b) Install holding tank (6 ft by 12 ft by 12 ft at 6.460 gallons)
c)Ucnnd transportation (I trip per year 25 miles)
d) POTW disposal (5.200 gal/year)
S963
$5,412
SO
SO
$536
SO
$245
SIO
2. Transport to Kefs-hazardous Sites
b) Analysis (includes analysis and repotting per disposal trip)
c) Install holding tank (6 ft by 12 ft by 12 ft at 6,460 gallons)
d) Liquid transportation (1 trip of SO miles:)
e) Non-hazardous treatment facility disposal (5.200 gal/year)
$6475
S36S
$5.412
SO
SO
$791
$368
SO
S3.I92
$8.060
$5.780
$11.620
Appendix VI.E-4
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
^
I
I
I
I
I
I
All. 1 . B. Waste Exchange / Tank / Transport - Non-hazardous (High Flow): Scenario J
,) Sewer 50% (5.200 gal/year)
b) Manager's rime
c) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
d) Install holding tank tor waste exchange (4 ft by 6 ft by 6 R at 1 ,077 gallons)
e) Install holding lank (6 ft by 12 ft by 12 ft at 6.460 gallons)
i) Liquid transportation (1 trip of 50 miles)
g) Non-hazardous treatment Facility disposal (5.200 gal/year)
Scenario J
LWute Exchange
a) Manager's time
b) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
c) Install holding tank for waste exchange (4 ft by 6 ft by 6 ft at 1077 gal)
d) Install holding tank (6 ft by 12 ft by 12 ft ai 6.460 gal)
e) Liquid transportation ( 1 nip of SO miles)
t) Non-hazardous treatment facility disposal (3200 gal/year)
1. Transport to Non-hazardous Sites
a) Analysis (includes analysis and reporting per disposal trip)
b) install holding tank (6 ft by 12 ft by 12 ft al 6.460 gallons)
j\t iji.iijt • li*>kBMnrt*ti*Mk /I ffiful llf tft ML*1-LJ J^Jlkh
c)Liquio transpofiaootui trips ot 50 rniles each)
d) Non-hazardous treatment facility disposal (5,200 gal/year)
SO
Sl,«42
S963
$1,142
S5.412
SO
$0
SI0.059
$1.842
S963
S5.4I2
SI.S42
SO
$0
S10.0S9
$368
S5.4IZ
SO
S5.7BO
$0
SO
SS36
SO
SO
1491
18.060
S9,0*7
SO
$536
SO
SO
S49I
$8.060
$9.087
$1.474
SO
Mli**
tl92
$10.920
S15.586
I
I
I
I
Appendix VI.E-5
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote—Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the ClassVVIC Regulations May 12, 1998 I
This page is intentionally left blank.
Appendix VI.E-6
Nnt nip nr Ounte—Deliheratwe Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UfC Regulations
May 12, 1998
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix VI.F
Cost Associated with Preparation and Submission of Permit Application for Operating Motor
Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells Under the Proposed Regulation
CFR
Citation
Description of Requirements
Management
Hours
@$32/hr
Technical
Hours
@$22/hr
Clerical
Hours
@$12/hr
Total
Hours
Total
Costs
Requirements associated with permit application- one time costs
144.3 l(e)
(1-8)
144.3 l(e)
(10)
Read permit application
directions
Gather and submit: a
description of activities
requiring a permit, inventory
information, listing of relevant
permits or construction
approvals, topographic maps,
description of the business, and
an analysis of die injectate.
Prepare and submit plugging
and abandonment plan which
includes financial assurance.
Prepare and submit
contingency plans
2
5
1
2
4
13
8
20
2
15
4
8
8
33
13
30
Total one-time costs
$176
S626
$256
$600
$1,658
Reporting requirements (costs incurred yearly)
144.51(1)
(4)
Report on required monitoring
at each quarter every year
4
4
4
12
$264
Record keeping requirements • (costs incurred yearly)
144.510)
(2)
Maintain all monitoring results
at each quarter every year
-
-
4
4
Total yearly costs '
$48
S312
Assuming that a permit is required every 10 years, cost associated with permit application and reporting
for 20 years is calculated as:
Compliance costs
I
permit
± ] *0.07 *(1 +0.07)20
d+0.07)10 +y
(1+0.07)20-!
I
Appendix VI.F-1
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12, 1998
I
where X is the one-time cost associated with permit application (incurred every ten years) and Y is the
reporting cost.
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix VI.F-2
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V VIC Regulations
May 12. 1998
Appendix VI.C. Detailed Compliance Costs for Remediation
^1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells: Remediation Costs
I. Soil Sampling
1. Oversight and sampling
2, Sample Analysis
$875
$2,996
$3,871
Industrial Wells: Detailed Remediation Costs
1. Sail Sampling
I. Oversight and sampling
2. Sample Analysis
S87S
$2,996
II. Soil Excavation, Transportation, and Treatment/Disposal
Alt. 1 A. Treatment/Disposal (for non-hazardous soil)
1. Excavation (56 tons at $30 per ton)
2. Transportation (1 trip. 25 miles at $7 per ton)
3. Treatment/Disposal at non-hazardous landfill ($30 per Ion)
$3,871
$1.680
$392
$1,680
Alt. 1. B. Treatment/Disposal (for no
5 .oil)
1. Excavation (56 tons at $30 per too)
2. Transportation (I trip. 25 miles at $7 per ton)
3. Treatment/Disposal a nonAazBriouslfaennal treatment pUnt ($50 per too)
$2,072
$1,680
$392
$2.800
Alt l.C-Trestraent/IMipraa] (forhazardous sou)
I. Excavation (56 tons at $30 per ton)
2. Transportation (I crip. 100 miles at $53 per ton)
3. Treatment/Disposal at hazardous thermal treatment plant ($350 per Ion)
$4,872
$1.680
$2,968
$19.600
so
so
$0
11. Soil Excavation, Transportation, and Treatment/Disposal
Alt. I A. Treatment/Disposal (for non-hazardous soil)
1. Excavation (56 tons at $30 per too)
2. Transportation (1 trip. 25 miles at S7 per ton)
3. Treatment/Disposal at non-hazardous landfill ($30 per ton)
Alt. 1 . B. Treatment/Disposal (for non-hazardous soil)
1. Excavation (56 tons at $30 per ton)
2. Transportation (1 trip, 25 miles at $7 per ton)
3. Treatment/Disposal at non-hazardous thermal treatment plant ($50 per ton)
Alt. I.C. Treatment/Disposal (for hazardous soil)
1. Excavation (56 tons It S30 per Ion)
2. Transportation (1 trip, 100 miles at $53 per too)
3. Treatment/Disposal at hazardous thermal treatment plant ($350 per ton)
$1,680
$392
$1,680
$2,072
$1,680
$392
$2.800
$4,872
$1.680
S2.968
J19.600
$24,248
$0
$0
$0
SO
$0
$0
$0
to
SO
$0
SO
SO
.$0
so
$0
$0
so
$0
so
so
so
so
$0
$24448
$0
$0
$0
$0
I
Appendix VI.G-1
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
IN'
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations May 12. 1998
t
This page is intentionally left blank. I
™i
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix VI.G-2
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
-------
I
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12, 1998-
^•1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix VI.H. Cesspools: Detailed Compliance Costs
a) Sewer 0% (10,400 gal/yew)
b) Analysis {includes analysis uid reporting per disposal nip)
c) Install holding lank (6 ft by 12 ft by 12 ft at 6.460 gallons)
d) Liquid transportation (4 trip per year 25 miles)
e) POTW disposal (10,400 gal/year)
•Totals may not be exact due to rounding
$0
S60?
19,412
$0
SO
$1,921
SO
S9S1
$19
S6.0I9
$2,922
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~\
Appendix VI.H-1
EPA Staff Draft—Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
-------
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Class V UIC Regulations
May 12,1998
This page is intentionally left blank.
Appendix VLH-2
EPA Staff Draft-Do Not Cite or Quote-Deliberative Material
------- |