FINAL REPORT
TO THE CONGRESS
FEBRUARY 10. 19/5
COST ESTIMATES FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY
OWNED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES
1974 "NEEDS" SURVEY
PREPARED PURSUANT TO
SECTIONS 205 AND 516, PUBLIC LAW 92-500
AS AMENDED BY PUBLIC LAW 93-243
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION DIVISION
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
-------
832R75901
CONTENTS
I. Introduction Page 1
II. Explanation of the Survey Page 2
III. Resul ts of the Survey Page 3
IV. Comparison of Results of the 1973 and 1974 Surveys Page 5
V. Quality of Facility Estimates Page 5
VI. Cost of the Survey Page 9
VII. Conclusions and Recommendations Page 9
VIII. Tables of Reported Needs Page 11
Appendix A. Survey Methodology Page A-l
Appendix B. Summary Table of EPA
Independent Assessments Page B-l
-------
FINAL REPORT OF JOINT STATE-EPA 1974 SURVEY OF ESTIMATES OF COSTS OF
CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED WASTE TREATMENT WORKS
I. INTRODUCTION
This final report presents State and EPA estimates of the cost
of construction of publicly-owned treatment works needed to meet the
1983 goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (FWPCA)
of 1972. The report is submitted in compliance with Sections 516(b)(2)
and 205(a) of the FWPCA, as further amended by Public Law 93-243.
These provisions of the law have the dual purpose of obtaining a
comprehensive estimate of the total cost of meeting the goals of the
FWPCA, and of estimating these costs State-by-State as a possible basis
for the allocation of construction grant funds authorized after
Fiscal Year 1975.
Public Law 93-243 required EPA to obtain these estimates by a
Nation-wide survey utilizing a modified version of the survey questionnaire
prepared for the 1973 "Needs" Survey. The 1973 Survey, however, was
restricted to documenting needs necessary to meet only the 1977
requirements of the FWPCA, therefore to comply with the legislative
purpose of obtaining a comprehensive estimate of all the costs of
meeting the 1983 goals of the FWPCA, the guidelines for the 1974 Survey
were far less constraining. A Preliminary Report presented EPA's initial
findings from this Survey to the Congress on September 3, 1974, and
expressed the Agency's serious reservations about using the estimates
for future allocation of construction funds among the States. These
reservations were founded on the Agency belief: (1) that the total
estimates probably overstated the cost of meeting the 1983 goals of
the FWPCA - with the cost of abating pollution from stormwater overflows
being of particular concern; and (2) that the comparability of State
data was inadequate because of major variations both in the criteria
and methodology used by the States in making their estimates and in
adhering to Agency Survey guidelines. Also the Preliminary Report
findings were based on a limited review of the Survey questionnaires
and an evaluation of State reports on the Survey.
Following the September Preliminary Report, the Agency concentrated
on completing a detailed review of all State estimates. There were
three basic reasons for this more comprehensive review. The first
was to identify and correct inadvertent clerical reporting
inaccuracies. The second was to further evaluate State cost estimates
that appeared to be excessive or otherwise deficient from the standpoint
of technical validity. The third purpose was to consider the possible
use of the estimates for allocation purposes and to identify data
anomalies that would treat any State unfairly. As a rosult of these review
actions EPA has developed a separate set of data which it considers
to be a more realistic portrayal of the National facility requirements.
-------
This Report also covers the Agency's analysis of the process of
identifying needs and developing a formula for allocating
funds to the States. The needs identification process is evaluated
in terms of how this Survey was conducted, and its resultant impact
on the estimates contained in the report.
II.
EXPLANATION OF THE SURVEY
The 1974 Survey asked the States to report their cost estimates
in the five major categories used in the 1973 Survey plus one new one
for treatment and/or control of stormwaters. Two of these
categories were divided for the 1974 Survey. The categories are
briefly described below:
Category I - This includes costs for facilities which would provide
a legally required level of "secondary treatment," or "best practicable
wastewater treatment technology (BPWTT)." For the purpose of the
Survey, BPWTT and secondary treatm2nt were to be considered synonymous.
Category II Costs reported in this category are for treatment
facilities that must achieve more stringent levels of treatment. This
requirement exists where water quality standards require removal of such
pollutants as phosphorous, ammonia, nitrates, or organic substances.
Category IlIA - This includes costs for correction of sewer system
infiltration/inflow problems. Costs could also be reported for a
preliminary sewer system analysis and for the more detailed Sewer System
Evaluation Survey.
Category IIIB - Requirements for replacement and/or major rehabilitation
of existing sewage collection systems are reported in this category.
Costs were to be reported if the corrective actions were necessary to
the total integrity of the system. Major rehabilitation is considered
extensive repair of existing sewers beyond the scope of normal
maintenance programs.
Category IVA - This category consists of costs for construction
of collector sewer systems designed to correct violations caused by raw
discharges, seepage to waters from septic tanks and the like, and/or
to comply with Federal, State or local actions.
Category IVB - This category consists of costs of new interceptor
sewers and transmission pumping stations necessary for the bulk transport
of wastewaters.
Category V - Costs reported for this category are to prevent
periodic bypassing of untreated wastes from combined sewers to an
extent violating water quality standards or effluent limitations.
It does not include treatment and/or control of stormwaters.
2
-------
Category VI - States were also asked to make a rough cost estimate in a
sixth category, "Treatment and/or Control of Stormwaters." This includes
the costs of abating pollution from stormwater run-off channelled
through sewers and other conveyances used only for such run-off. The
costs of abating pollution fronl stormwater channelled through combined
sewers which also carry sewage are included in Category V. Category VI
was added so the Survey would provide an estimate of all eligible
facility costs, as explicitly required by Public Law 93-243.
The estimates were to be reported in June 1973 dollars, and
are therefoi'e comparable to the costs in the 1973 Survey. Estimates
were also to be based on the projected 1990 population as in the
1973 Survey.
The 1974 Survey was initiated January 31, 1974. when a letter
with a general outline of how the survey would be conducted was
distributed to each State along with a copy of the questionnaire.
The States assumed responsibility for seeing that the Survey
questionnaires were completed. They had the option, as in 1973, of
completing a Survey questionnaire for each facility themselves, or
forwarding a questionnaire to each local sewerage authority for
completion. A more detailed description of how the Survey was conducted
is included as Appendix A.
I 11.
RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
The total of all State estimates and their comparison with
the 1973 totals is su~narized by category in the table below.
There are three sets of figures for 1974: (1) the original State
data as reported in the September Preliminary Report; (2) the State
figures after correcting inadvertent clerical reporting inaccuracies;
and (3) the set of estimates resulting from Agency adjustments based on
evaluation of technical validity of cost estimates and identification of
data anomalies that would unfairly treat JilY State if the estin,ates are
used in a grant allocation formula.
Included in the final EPA adjusted 1974 figures is S4G billion
for Categories I, II and IVG that reflect the costs for the traditional
Water Quality Program of treatment plants and interceptors. An
additional $61 billion is included for Categories III, IVA and V.
The State estimates for the new Category VI (treatment and/or
control of stormwaters) are $235 billion. Total costs for all
categories reported in the Survey therefore, come to S342 billion.
3
-------
SUMMARY TABLE OF ESTIMATES
A. Totals for All Categories:
CATEGORY
I.
Secondary Treatment
II.
More Stringent
Treatment Required
by Water Quality
IlIA Correction of Sewer
Infiltration/Inflow
IIIB Major Sewer
Rehabil itation
IVA
Collector Sewers
IVB
Interceptor Sewers
v
Correction of
Combined Sewer
Overfl ows
VI
Treatment and/or
Control of
Stormwaters
TOTALS
B. Totals for Categorip.s
1, II and IVB
Combined:
(Millions of 1973 Dollars)
I 1974 Survey
( A. ) ( B . ) (C. ) (D. )
State State EPA 1973 Change
Preliminary Corrected Adjusted Survey (D. to C.)
Data Data Data Data
11 ,679 12,628 12,635 16,639 - 4,004
I
I
I
I 21 ,311 20,330 15,720 5,650 +10,070'
I I
I 5,355 5,348 5,287 691 + 4,596
I 7,070 7,330 7,287 -- + 7,287
23,090 24,583 17,458 10,825 + 6,633
19,932 19,740 17,349 13,621 + 4,228
26,070 31 , 192 31,076 .12,697 +18,379
235,006 235,006 235,006 -- +235,.006
349,613 356,157 342,318 60,123 282,195
52,922 52,698 46,204 35,910 +10,294
4
-------
IV.
COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF THE 1973 AND 1974 SURVEYS
The 1974 Agency adjusted estimates reflect costs for the traditional
Water Quality Program of treatment plants and interceptors (Categories I,
II and IVB) that are$lObillion greater than the $36 billion reported
in the 1973 Survey. The costs reported in 1974 for Categories I-V
are $47 billion greater than the $60 billion reported in the 1973 Survey.
The primary reasons for che increases are the elimination in 1974
of most of the reporting constraints included in the 1973 Survey,
the general expanded scope of the Survey to accommodate reporting of all
costs for all treatment facilities that the States felt were necessary
in their implementation of the FWPCA, and to some degree a better job
of identifying and estimating State facility requirements.
One major impact of the expanded scope of the Survey was that estimates
for treatment plants and interceptors (Categories I, II and IVB) could
be based on water quality standards anticipated by the States for the
future and were not limited to those already established in the past,
as in 1973. One result of this is evidenced in the dramatic shift
from secondary treatment (Category I) to plants requiring more
stringent levels of treatment (Category II). Estimates for
Category III could be reported for major rehabilitation of sewer systems
as well as correction of infiltration and inflow. Major rehabilitation
costs of $7 billion were reported which were not eligible in the
earlier Survey. These estimates did not have to be documented with an
analysis and detailed evaluation of the probl~m as in 1973. Estimates
reported for correction of combined sewer overflows in Category V
were not limited in 1974 by the previous requirement that they be
based on an evaluation of the most economical and/or effective
alternative. A second major result of the expanded scope of the Survey
was the State identification of $235 billion for the new "Treatment and/or
Control of Stormwaters" Category.
QUALITY OF FACILITY ESTIMATES
V.
A.
General Factors Affecting Reliability and Comparability
The reliability of national wastewater treatment need cost
estimates and the State-to-State comparability of these estimates are
influenced primarily by three factors:
(1) The extent to which the requirements for abatement
actions have been clearly d~fined through National, State and local plans,
rules, regulations, standards, etc., determines whether abatement action
decisions can be made, as well as the accuracy with which corrective
action costs can be estimated.
(2) The state-of-the-art in abatement technology also
determines how accurately cost estimates can be made and whether they
can be validated once they have been ~ade.
5
-------
(3) The synthesis of all relevant factors through a
planning process that addresses project feasibility and practicability
is essential before realistic decisions and estimates can be made on
any abatement action.
The net impact of these three factors is that if an abatement program
area is well defined - where decisions are clear as to the specific
requirement for an abatement action, and as to the best and most cost
effective solution - then cost estimates can be made that are quite
accurate and should not vary from year to year. If abatement requirements
are unclear and alternatives numerous - estimates will be poor and may
fluctuate widely each time they are made. Similarly, if the technology
for an abatement solution is unclear - \~here there are many options and
little experience with any of the options - then estimates may have only
limited value. In such situations, estimates made by different parties
for correcting the same type abatement problem may also fluctuate widely
both at a given point in time, and from year to year. Even if program
requirements and abatement technology are well defined there is no
assurance of high quality estimates unless proper consideration is
given to such planning elements as alternative waste management
techniques and cost-effectiveness studies.
The ability to validate estimates bears a direct relationship
to the ability to make them.
B.
1974 Survey Reliability
In terms of the three factors discussed in paragraph A
that influence the facility cost estimating process, the 1974 Survey
data has varying levels of reliability between the six cost categories.
(1 )
Program Definition:
The Survey guidelines were designed to meet the legislative
requirement that all facility costs required in implementing the Act be reported.
The problem in using such estimates is that they are based on implementation
strategies that are in varying stages of development. Because of the
inherent flexibility of abatement choices, the States could not be
consistent or uniform in reporting their needs in situations where goals
were not well-defined, or wher~ there was no recognized "best method"
for a solution. In those cases, when the range of choices available for
abatement actions relating to a given pollution problem were wide,
and when the legal requirements for correction offered significant
latitude, there was considerable unevenness in the impact of the diverse
approaches taken by States in determining what corrective abatement
actions were necessary and in estimating the cost of such actions.
This situation exists in relation to costs reported
in Categories III, V and VI, and makes meaningful State-by-State comparisons
extremely difficult. Policy decisions in the Category VI, stormwater,
area are in a particularly embryonic state of development and made
cost comparisons impossible.
6
-------
(3) The synthesis of all relevant factors through a
planning process that addresses project feasibility and practicability
is essential before realistic decisions and estimates can be made on
any abatement action.
The net impact of these three factors is that if an abatement program
area is well defined - where decisions are clear as to the specific
requirement for an abatement action, and as to the best and most cost
effective solution - then cost estimates can be made that are quite
accurate and should not vary from year to year. If abatement requirements
are unclear and alternatives numerous - estimates will be poor and may
fluctuate widely each time they are made. Similarly, if the technology
for an abatement solution is unclear - ~here there are many options and
little experience with any of the options - then estimates may have only
limited value. In such situations, estimates made by different parties
for correcting the same type abatement problem may also fluctuate widely
both at a given point in time, and from year to year. Even if program
requirements and abatement technology are well defined there is no
assurance of high quality estimates unless proper consideration is
given to such planning elements as alternative waste management
techniques and cost-effectiveness studies.
The ability to validate estimates bears a direct relationship
to the ability to make them.
B.
1974 Survey Reliability
In terms of the three factors discussed in paragraph A
that influence the facility cost estimating process, the 1974 Survey
data has varying levels of reliability between the six cost categories.
(1 )
Program Definition:
The Survey guidelines were designed to meet the legislative
requirement that all facility costs required in implementing the Act be reported.
The problem in using such estimates is that they are based on implementation
strategies that are in varying stages of development. Because of the
inherent flexibility of abatement choices, the States could not be
consistent or uniform in reporting their needs in situations where goals
were not well-defined, or where there was no recognized "best method"
for a solution. In those cases, when the range of choices available for
abatement actions relating to a given pollution problem were wide,
and when the legal requirements for correction offered significant
latitude, there was considerable unevenness in the impact of the diverse
approaches taken by States in determining what corrective abatement
actions were necessary and in estimating the cost of such actions.
This situation exists in relation to costs reported
in Categories III, V and VI, and makes meaningful State-by-State comparisons
extremely difficult. Policy decisions in the Category VI, stormwater,
area are in a particularly embryonic state of development and made
cost comparisons impossible.
6
-------
There were cost comparison problems even in Categories I,
II, and IV, because under the Survey guidance, States were permitted to
project such corrective actions that would solve known or anticipated
problems in achieving the 1983 goals of the Act. Since the Water Quality
Standards to meet such objectives will not be established until about
1978 by joint State and EPA concurrence, it was necessary for the various
States to make an assumption as to what standards would ultimately be
established. The assumed standards were then utilized in establishing
the 1983 level of treatment for each plant, and costs estimated accordingly.
Some States based their projections on the same standards utilized in
the 1973 Survey, while others assumed that major increases would be
required in the stringency of standards and estimated very high
levels of treatment.
(2 )
Cost Estimating Technology:
The ability to make reasonably accurate engineering
cost estimates and to validate them exists for Category I, II, and IV
abatement needs, but is at a low state of refinement for Category III,
V. and VI needs. The EPA guidelines provided to the States for guidance
in making estimates in Categories III, V, and VI were admittedly of
minimal assistance and had limited value in making detailed engineering
estimates and State-by-State comparisons. No cost estimating guidelines
could be provided to the States for Category IllS because of the great variance
in case-by-case factors in this area.
(3)
Facilities Planning:
As was the case with program definition and estimating
technology, the facilities planning element was more effective in the
production of quality estimates in Categories I, II and IV needs.
This is to be expected as those Categories encompass the facilities
that have received the most funding under the traditional water quality
program and have been evaluated more carefully because of their
priority status. Much planning has already occured in this area and
factors affecting decisions nave been relatively well defined.
This is true however, only as it relates to planning for facilities
that are designed for the 1977 requirements of the Act. For the most
part, States that made estimates based on projected 1983 requirements
that were significantly more stringent than the 1977 effluent limitations
were doing so for the first time, and generally made the estimates
without benefit of formal planning.
Planning in Categories III and V can only be considered
effective for the portion oT the estimates for which formal analyses
have been completed. Virtually no completed planning was available for
Category VI estimates. The State data revealed an incidence of high
per capita flows that is an indicator of a :Jational planning defect in
this area. It is indicative that insufficient consideration has been
given to the control and reduction of flow impacting the sizing of
treatment facilities.
7
-------
C. Agency Assessments
The unevenness in the estimates that is described in the
preceeding section resulted primarily fr"om the wide differences in
approach taken by the individual States in projecting the level of
effluent limitations they would impose tfithin their State to meet the
1983 goals of the Act. Public Law 93-243 allows the States
to project any level of treatment they think necessary. However,'the
amount of distortion from those few States taking an extremely stringent
approach appeared sufficiently large to have a potential adverse impact
on the development of an equitable State allocation formula. A dilemma
between following the dictates of the Act and providing fair treatment
to all States was thus created.
The Agency decided that a responsive but fair allocation
formula was of primary concern and initiated a review of State estimates
to identify those costs that might create abnormal distortions. Because
the States were in fact following the Act in terms of projecting their
long-range effluent requirements, the Agency review of necessity had to
be somewhat subjective. For this reason the adjusted figures may not
reflect a clear picture of an individual State's total long-range needs but are
considered more representative of the actual short-term requirements
that would be met through funding under^any current allocation formula.
f The potential for distortion also existed in those
situations where States deviated significantly from Agency Survey
Guidelines. This was also evaluated in'the review process and three areas
were identified where State estimates deviated from either the Survey
guidelines or from what the Agency considered acceptable engineering standards.
The Agency assessment indicates that excessive costs were reported as
the result of estimates exceeding EPA cost curves, the Census Bureau 1990
population projections and acceptable flow per capita standards. For
the reasons stated in the preceeding section, major Agency assessments
could be made only for the Category I, II and IVB estimates. A summary
table showing the independent assessments for each State is attached as
Appendix B.
The State needs as reported for Category IVA (New
Collectors) are not considered comparable because they were developed using
two different assumptions. Several of the States developed needs on the
basis of the PL 92-JOO requirement (Section 211) that limits eligibility
for new collectors only to those communities where a substantial portion
of the population existed prior to October 18, 1972, and this eligibility
constraint was included in the Survey guidelines. Other States developed
needs on the basis of the assumed legislative intent of PL 93-243,
directing the reporting of all needs for all treatment works necessary to
meet the goals of PL 92-500. The resulting disparity in reported costs
has been analyzed and a separate EPA assessment made. However, the Agency
feels the results still do not provide an acceptable level of comparability.
-------
In making these independent assessments the Agency
identified at least $650 million in the State of Mary1and1s estimates
that appeared in the review to be anomalous. The State has indicated
that this large increase in treatment requirements is due to special
pollution problems effecting their shellfish industry and eutrophication
of the Chesapeake Bay. The State estimate was not reduced, in the EPA
adjustment process because the stringent effluent limitations are
considered by the State to be immediate requirements that will impact
current facility design.
VI.
COST OF THE SURVEY
The conduct of the 1974 Needs Survey involved the committment of
a substantial amount of both Federal and State resources. The Agency
expended approximately $1 million for the project up through the period
of Final Report submittal. It is known that the State's funding
committment was at least $1.5 million. In addition, the Survey
required the diversion of critical manpower during peak periods of
the Survey. The National construction grant program suffered because
personnel diverted were generally from that activity.
VII.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A.
Potential Use of Estimates
To comply with the requirements of PL 93-243, these National
estimates must be considered in two separate ways. They should be
viewed both in terms of their value as an indicator of the total National
long range facility requirements of PL 92-500, and in terms of their
value for establishing State allocation formulae.
For the several reasons cited in the preceding sections of
this Report, there was a degree of unevenness in the State corrected
estimates that was considered unacceptable when viewing the data for
allocation purposes. The Agency review process identified the extent of
this unevenness and the estimates were adjusted accordingly. No meaningful
adjustments could be made for Categories III, V and VI because of the
status of program definitions, abatement technology and facilities
planning.
If after consideration is given to the status of data comparability,
the 1974 Survey estimates are to be used for allocation purposes, only
Categories I, II and IVB are recommended for use. The Agency adjusted
figures in these three Categories are considered to be sufficiently
accurate for such purposes when viewed within the context of their
overall National validity. These figures are also felt to be adequate
for use as an indicator of total National requirements.
9
-------
The cost estimates for the new Category VI, (treatment and/or
control of stormwaters), are not considered useful as either an indicator
of any long-term requirements, or for allocation purposes. States
reporting large requirem~nts in this category assumed that a stringent
level of abatement for very large geographical areas would be necessary
to meet water quality standards. The state-of-the-art is not such that
the Agency can provide an alternative estimate for this category, but
the few studies which have been conducted to assess the impact, indicate
that the actual requirements in this category will be substantially less
than the total reported by the States.
The Agency adjusted cost estimates for Categories IlIA,
IIIB, IVA and V have limited value as an indicator of gross National
requirements, but only when considered within the context of other
comments regarding the needs identification policies that governed the
conduct of this Survey. The cost estimates for these four Categories
are not considered adequate for allocation purposes.
B.
Allocation Formula
There has been continuing debate over the allocation
formula used for distributing available construction grant funds among
the States. When a strict population formula was used in the past
it did not provide adequate funding to States that had high population
concentrations and a resulting need for construction of sophisticated
and expensive treatment facilities. When the legislation linked funding
directly to estimated facility needs there were other inequities created.
The problems with an allocation formula based strictly on needs relate
primarily to the ability to accurately make and validate estimates,
and are particularly acute when the estimates involve facility needs
projected for State implementation of longer-range abatement requirements.
This latter situation has been identified in the Report and the Agency
believes that the unevenness of the estimates, even though adjusted
through the Survey final review process, should be further tempered
by the inclusion of a population factor within the allocation formula.
A new construction grant allocation formula is recommended
that would be based on an equal 50 percent division between population
and the Agency adjusted cost estimates for Categories I, II and IVB.
This proposed formula is recommended for use in allocating any new
funds that might be authorized over and above those authorized in
PL 92-500 for Fiscal Years 1973, 1974, and 1975. With regard to the
$5 billion of currently unallotted funds, it is EPA's intent to
allot them pursuant to the 1973, 1974, and 1975 formulae in
such a way as if they had been released in the time periods intended by the
Act. Accordingly, the Agency does not recommend the application of
a new allocation formula to any of these reserve funds.
Funding for the District of Columbia's "Slue Plains"
water pollution control plant should be considered in the development
of an allocation formula since the City has only one major treatment
plant project and the allocation formula might not provide adequate
funding.
10
-------
C.
Future Identification of Facility Requirements
Several problems relating to data reliability and
comparability have been cited in this Report. Because of these
problems, and the heavy drair. on State and Federal resources
required to conduct the 1974 Survey. the Agency will investigate
different procedures for deriving future Section 516 facility estimates.
To be more effective for equitable allocation purposes,
the structuring of an alternative facility requirement identification
process should be directed toward improving the relationship between
the dollar estimate and the actual way in which the funds will be
used. To accomplish this will require that estimating concentrate
on areas of program priority and grant eligibility.
The Agency will work closely with Committee staff
members as it develops an alternative approach.
VIII.
TABLES OF REPORTED NEEDS
Attached are three series of tables which relate to the three
sets of figures discussed in the Report:
SP - State Preliminary Data
SC - State Corrected Data
EPA - EPA Adjusted Data
Each series contains the following tables:
- Shows the distribution of cost for each State,
Categories I-V.
- Reflects cost and percentage comparison between
1973 and 1974 of combined Categories I, II, III,
IV and V.
- Shows cost and percentage comparison between 1973
and 1974 of combined Categories I, II and IVB
- Shows a comparison of per capita costs between 1973
and 1974 for Categories I through V based on 1972
population figures.
Also included in the SP series is:
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5 - Shows total and per capita costs reported for
Category VI by State.
NOTE:
Column figures will not equal totals because of
computer rounding.
11
-------
~f.PTE'1dU< 3. 1974
"tLAND 1, ..44 68 30 4 I 193 IJ4 87 927
VERMONT J67 36 64 8 3 37 35 37 147
,f.GIO~ II NEw JERSEY 12.163 1.061 666 211 168 685 909 909 7.554
NEw YUR~ 37.oS9 616 2.593 465 2.108 4.46-/ 2.065 5.004 20,341
PUERTO RICO YS4 177 0 14 0 24S <'II 18 289
viRGIN ISLANDS III 13 0 1 0 12 19 0 66
'OTA 3.<32 69 407 52 14 204 233 360 1.885
OHIO 14.216 26 1.5G8 635 115 626 9..6 ),79v 6.~70
wiSCONSIN 4.225 184 421 80 131 427 447 621 1.914
REGIO~ vi ARKANSAS 4.005 0 519 63 0 44:' 309 2 2.667
LOuISIA~~ 6.075 232 120 351 97 438 285 I 4.551
NEw MEXICO 189 52 8 4 I 53 38 0 33
TExAS 15.071 0 2.162 206 187 713 468 118 11.717
OKLAHOMA 5.138 0 576 67 ~56 176 696 0 3.067
REGID~ viI IOWA 3.b76 157 216 126 10 124 232 126 2.885
KANSAS 4.760 263 71 587 326 861 29T 113 2.242
MISSOURI 3.4H9 460 88 219 0 383 341 878 1.120
NE8RA~KA 1.637 193 12 39 1 41 67 631 653
qEGIO~ viII COLORADO 713 96 203 29 24 123 212 26 NO NEEUS
MONTANA 754 40 18 4 2 22 35 8 625
NORTH lJMOT A 048 61 0 1 0 68 24 50 344
SOUTH DAKOTA 283 33 32 I 0 2 9 0 206
UTAH 750 196 0 14 2 59 24 0 455
WYOMING 133 62 0 0 0 56 15 0 NO NEEDS
REG I D~ I. ARIZONA 613 166 9 I 1 332 104 0 NO NEEC,S
CALIFORfHA 76.b16 1.016 2.687 353 46 811 1.184 900 69,t!lY
HAWAII 15.120 203 27 0 0 80 210 0 14, '\ Ii
NEvADA J16 42 102 1 0 12b 45 0 NO NLc ,-
AMERICAN ~A'10A 97 8 0 0 1 28 18 0
GUAM J63 36 10 1 0 53 16 0
TRUST Tt::RR nOR IES 190 90 18 2 0 55 25 0 NO r" -'"
Qo G I O~ ' ALASKA b57 122 0 4 2 9~ 64 9 sse
IDAHO ~46 58 64 23 16 180 100 36 4,-,":;
OREGOf~ I. Y82 147 0 S7 3~5 192 161 262 ):', J~
OASHINGTON 4.J66 578 44 95 4b5 558 352 32.1 1.951
T~TALI 349.013 11 .679 21.311 5.355 7.070 23.090 19.932 26.070 2 -1 ~ ,0 '16
..THt. FOLLOWING AUlJITlOfJAL f~EEf)S. NOT jNCcUlJED Hj T'1IS REPORT.
.-Il~l RECEivED Af nR THE SURVEY CLOSING J"TE I
NEW YORK >592 MILLlJ~
KENTUCKY \301 MILLI J'
-------
T~:JLl OP
'EGIO~ I
IlblO~ I I
lEG IO~ I I I
~EGIO~ Iv
~EGIO~ ,
~EGlO~ ,I
REGIO~ vii
REGIO~ ;Ill
REGIO~ I ~
qEGIO~ ~
TOT AL I
"
REPORTED fOR
CO~I~ECT I CUT
MAINE
MAS5ACHUSE TT S
NE. HAMPSHIRE
RHODE loLANU
VERMONT
NE. JERSEY
NEw YOR'
PUERTO RICO
vIRl,IN ISLANDS
DELAwARE
~ARYLANlJ
vIRullTS'
CONSTR~CTlc' OF PU8LlCLY-OwNeU wASH.AnCi TREA!U,ENT
(CAlluOR1ES I. II. III. IvA. !VU ANU vI
"MILLIONS OF 197) UULLAR51
COSTS.
------il)/74--------lPA----------CHANGE
SUj-ITTEU ASSESSMENT
1.620
597
3.375
e76
517
220
".609
II. )18
665
"5
5"7
).909
2.182
".259
5.579
1.05"
707
).568
1.585
2.014
4)3
1.4)4
1.012
10308
4.9"5
3.004
5.)23
1.347
7.646
2.311
1.338
1.524
156
3.854
2.071
991
2.518
2.369
984
713
129
204
77
295
133
613
6.997
520
316
55
116
190
299
477
1.144
c.415
11-.507
1.594
575
2.964
7"0
447
204
4.894
15.302
603
"4
546
3.6"2
1.884
2.360
5.454
1.052
778
2.70"
1.519
1.824
494
1.480
977
1.210 '
6.234
2.903
80102
1.330
7.773
2.044
898
1.283
155
3.222
1.484
911
1.783
2.298
924
409
127
189
75
291
8"
500
6.208
523
209
36
9)
195
405
393
1.08 I
1.8)6
107.314
FEBRUARY 10. 1975
FACiliTIES
Y/ )/74
SUUMI I lEU
PERCENTAuE OF NATIO~AL TOTALS
CHANGE
---------------------------------------------
-26
-22
-411
-136
-70
-16
'285
-2.016
-62
-I
-I
-267
-298
-1.899
-125
-2
+71
-8M
-66
-190
.61
.46
-)5
-98
+1.289
-101
+2,779
-17
'127
-267
-440
-2'd
-I
-632
-587
-80
-735
-71
-60
-304
-2
-15
-2
-4
-49
-113
-789
+)
-107
-19
-23
'5
'106
-84
-6)
-579
-7,)93
1.4147
0.5213
t!..9414
U.7650
U.451~
U.1921
4.0250
I ~. 12)"
0.5807
0.0392
0.4777
3.4137
I. 90~5
3.7194
4.8721
0.9204
0.6J74
3+1159
l.3e"1
1.75UU
0.3781
1.2523
0.8837
1+1422
4.3 1 d5
<'.6234
4.6480
1.1763
6.677J
<'.0Ie2
1.168-
1.3309
0+136<'
3.3657
1.80U6
0.8654
2 +19d9
2.06dd
0.8593
0.6226
U +1126
0+1781
0.067<'
0.2576
0.1161
0.5353
0.II0~
0.4541
0.2759
0.04dO
001013
0.16~9
0.2611
0.4165
0.9990
c. 1090
100.0000
EPA
A5Se S~ME 'H
1.4857
0.~J07
2.7~c'l
0.68i9
0.4111
0.1907
".5604
14.2~91
0.56<'1
0.0411
0.5091
3.3'," 1
1.7562
2.19i7
5.0826
0.9d10
0.72S6
2.5201
I. 41 ~7
1.6~98
0.4609
1. 3 79~
0.9107
1.1215
5.BO%
2.7056
7.5501
1.2393
7.2439
1.90"7
0.8374
1.1963
o .14~2.
3.00<7
1.3d28
0.8495
1.6619
2.1"19
0.8610
0.3819
0.11 U)
0.1764
0.0705
0.2716
0.07d4
0.4607
5.7856
0.4875
0.19~0
0.03J8
0.Od71
o.le<'1
0.3774
0.)66)
1.0017
1.7108
100.0000
+0.0709
'0.0153
-0.1844
-0.0750
-0.0343
-0.0013
'0.5353
-0.8647
-0.0185
-o.OOle
-0.0313
-0.0195
-0.1492
-1.5196
+0.2104
+0.060~
+0.1081
-0.5957
'0.0315
-0.0589
'0.0827
+0.1271
'0.0269
-0.0146
+1.4910
'0.0821
+2.9014
+0.0629
+0.5665
-0.1134
-0.3309
-0.1345
-0.0089
-0.3629
-0.4257
-0.0158
-0.5369
+0.0730
'0.0016
-0.2406
+0.0050
-0.0016
'0.0032
'0.0139
-0.0376
-0.0685
-0.3248
'0.0333
-0.080d
-0.0141
-0.0141
'0.0161
'0.1162
-0.0501
+0.0086
-0.39dl
'0.0000
-------
T~dL~ SP - 3 FEHRUARY 10, 1975
PREll M I N~RY ST~TE ~5TlMA TE
STATE 'EEDS AND PERCE~TAG~ Of NATIONAL COoTS.
REPORTED FO~ COjoTRLlCTION OF TREA TM~'H f'LANT S AND INH~RCEPTORS
ICATEGURIES I. II, AIJU IV e)
(.M I LLI ONS OF 1913 UOLLARS)
COSTS. PERCENTAGE OF ijA Tl ONAL TOTALS
-------------------------------------- --------------------------
'1/3/74 EPA CH~NGE ~n174 EPA CHANGE
SUo"1 TIED ASSESSMENT 5ueMI TIED ASSES5ME~T
REGlO~ I CONNECTICUT 531 484 -47 1.0033 1.0415 '0.0441
MAINE 284 213 -II U.53&b 0.5908 -0.0541
MASSACHUsE TI S ! ,540 1.325 -215 c.909~ 2.8& 17 -0.0421
NEw HAMf'oHI"E ~41 384 -57 U.8333 0.d310 -0.0022
RHODE ISLAND 232 181 -45 0.4383 0.4041 -0.033'0
VERMONT 135 125 -10 0.25'00 0.2105 -0.0154
REGIO~ II NEw JERSEY 2,636 2.&02 -:!.:.. 4.9809 5.&315 -0.&505
NEw YOR, ~,274 4,603 -671 ~. %56 9. %<3 -0.0032
PUERTO RICO 388 368 -20 0.1331 0.7904 -0.0632
viRGIN ISLANDS 32 31 -I 0.0604 0.0&10 -0.0065
REGIO~ III DELA'.ARE 200 199 -I 0.) 719 0.4306 -0.0526
MARYLANU 2.'053 2.324 -229 4.8240 5.02~8 -0.2057
VIRGilHA 1,334 1.129 -205 2.5206 2.4435 -0.0710
WEST vIRulNIA "0151 1.320 -831 4.0644 2.8568 -1.2075
PENNSYL VA', I A 1.e54 1.629 -225 3.5032 3.5256 -0.0223
DISTRICT OF COLUM81A 70 69 -I O.} 322 0.1493 -0.0110
~EGIO~ I V ALABAMA 423 472 -49 0.7992 1.0215 -0.2222
FLORIDA 20154 1.874 -280 4.0701 4.05')9 -0.0141
GEORGIA 1,020 1.020 -0 1.9273 2.2016 -0.2802
KENTUCKY 755 &49 -106 1.42&& 1.404& -0.0219
,,15S15SIPPI 304 359 -55 O. 5 74~ 0.71&9 -0.2024
NORTH CAROLINA 1.047 1,044 -3 1.9783 2.2'O~,) -0.2811
SOUTH CAROLINA 743 728 -15 1.4039 I.:' 7'& -0.111&
TENNESSEE 113 671 -36 1.)472 1.4&52 -0.1119
~::GIO'l v ILLINOIS 2,531 2.343 -188 ~.782S 5.0709 -0.2883
IND I A"A 898 837 -61 1.69&8 1.8115 -0.114&
MICHIGA" 1.810 1,673 -137 3.4201 3.&208 -0.200&
MINNESOTA 709 707 -2 1,)397 I. ')30 I -0.1903
OHIO 2,480 2,367 -113 ~.&8&1 5.12<:'9 -0.43&7
.ISCONSIN 1.052 939 -113 1.981d 2.0322 +0.0443
RE G I 0 ~ III ARKANSAS 828 582 -246 1.5645 1.2596 -0.3048
LOuI51ANA 637 499 -138 1.203& 1.0799 -0.123&
NEw MEX I CO 98 97 -I U.l851 0.2099 -0.0247
TE~AS 2,630 2,025 -&05 4.9&95 4.3027 -0.58&7
OKLAHOMA 1,272 662 -&10 2.403~ 1.4327' -0.9707
:EG[O~ 1111 IOwA 605 532 -73 101431 1.1514 -0.0082
KANSAS 631 524 -107 101923 1.1341 -0.0581
MISSOURI 889 843 -46 1.6Ho 1.824') -001446
NE8RASKA 272 227 -45 0.5139 0.4912 -0.0226
EuIO~ 11111 COLORADO 511 259 -252 0.9&5') 0.5605 -0.4049
MONTANA 93 90 -3 0.1757 0.1947 -0.0189
NORTH lJAr,OT A 85 74 -II 0.160& 0.1&01 -0.0004
SOUTH DAKOT A 74 72 -2 0 01 3~0 O.I,)~d -0.0159
UTAH 220 218 -2 0.4157 0.4718 -0.0560
WYOMING 71 55 -22 001454 0.1190 -0.0263
IEGIO~ I~ ARI2DIJA 279 266 -13 0.5271 0.5157 -0.0485
CALI FUR"I A 4,887 4,104 -783 '1.2343 8.0823 -0.3519
HAwAI I 440 439 -I 0.8314 0.9501 '0.1180
NEvADA 189 177 -12 U. 3571 0.3030 -0.0258
AMER I CAfj SAMOA 26 7 -19 0.0491 0.0151 -0.0339
GUAM 62 60 -2 001171 0.12~8 -0.012&
TRUST TERR ITOR I ES 133 133 .0 0.2513 ~.2070 -0.0364
Q[GIO~ ~ ALASKA 186 319 +133 0.3514 0.69U4 '0.3389
IDAHO 222 216 -6 0.4194 0.4&74 .0.0479
OREGON 308 308 '0 0.581'1 0.6bb& '0.0846
WASHII~GTUN 974 675 -299 1.040.. 1.4&09 -0.37'14
TOTAL I 5~. 922 46,204 -6,118 10U.OOOO 100.0000 -0.0000
-------
T~dLE SP - 4
~EC,IO~ I
REGIO~ II
~EGIO~ III
RE.GIO~ III
RE.G[O~ II
REC,IO~ III
REG[O~ 1111
REG[O~ 11111
REC,IO~ IK
REGIO~ x
TOT All
PRELIMINARY STATE EoTIMATE
fE~RUARY 10. 197'>
PER CAPITA COSTS REPORTED FOR CO~STRUCTJON Of ~UHLICLY-OWNED TREATMENT fACILITIES
RASED ON I~~O PO~ULATIUN
(CATEGJKIES I. II. 11[. III A. III B. AND II)
'"MILLIONS Of 197) DULLARS}
(""THOUSANDS Of PEUPLE)
9/)/74
COSTS"
CONNECTICUT
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
NEw HMWSHIRE
RHODE [SLAND
VERMONT
1.620
597
),375
876
517
220
NEw JERSEY
NEw YORK
PUERTO RICO
IIIRGIN ISLANDS
4.609
\7.318
665
45
DELAWARe
MARYLAND
IIIRGINIA
wEST IIIRGINIA
PENNS YL II "'U A
DISTRICT OF COLUM81A
547
).909
2d82
4.259
5,579
1,054
ALABAMA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH C"'ROLI NA
SOUTH CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
707
3.568
1.585
2,014
4))
1,4)4
It ° 12
I, )08
ILLINOIS
INDJAf'A
MICHIC,A'.
MINNESOTA
OHIO
wi SCONS I r.
4,945
3,004
5,323
1,347
7,646
2.311
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
NEw MEKICO
TExAS
OKLAHOMA
1,338
1,524
156
3,854
2.071
IOWA
KANSAS
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
991
2.518
2,369
984
COLORADO
MONTANA
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
UTAH
wYOMING
713
129
204
77
295
133
AR I zorJA
CALIfORNIA
HAWAII'
NEVADA
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
TRUST TERRITORIES
613
6.997
520
316
55
116
190
ALASKA
IDAHO
OREGON
wASHINGTON
299
477
Id44
2.415
114.507
EPA
COSTS"
1,594
570
2,904
740
447
204
4,8~4
15.302
603
44
546
3,642
1,8d4
2,360
5,4~4
1,002
7713
2,704
1 ,51 ~
1,824
494
1,480
977
1,210
6.234
2,903
8, I U2
1,330
7,773
2,044
89d
I ,2~)
1'>5
3.222
1,484
911
I, 7~3
2.29d
924
409
127
189
75
291
~4
500
6,208
5c3
20~
36
93
19~
405
3~3
I,O~I
1.8)b
107,314
1990
POPULA T ION"
3.946
Id42
7,052
907
1,134
536
8,822
21.799
o
°
793
5.318
5,958
1.845
13.332
764
3.850
11.728
5,667
3.741
2,359
5,880
3,023
4,800
\3t177
6,433
10.961
4,577
\3,202
5,218
2.068
4tl59
1.232
\3,666
2.942
3,053
2.509
5.488
1.562
2,848
714
606
643
1,509
600
3,384
26,/,01
1.010
933
°
275
205
408
758
2,943
4tl94
252.274
~/3/74 CUSTS
PERCAPIIA
$410
$5<2
$4/8
$9b5
$455
$410
$522
$794
$0
$0
$689
$735
$366
$2,308
$418
U ,]79
U83
$304
$279
$5)8
$ld3
$243
$3)4
$272
$375
$466
$4~5
$2~4
$5n
$442
$647
$366
U26
$282
$70)
$324
$1,003
$4JI
$629
$250
$180
$3)b
UI9
$1~5
$221
$181
$2b3
$514
$3)8
$0
$421
$926
HJ2
$629
$388
$51'>
$45)
EPA COSTS
PER CAPITA
$688
$684
016
H,279
$409
$1.376
$403
$503
$420
$815
$394
$380
$554
$701
$0
$0
$202
$230
$268
$487
$209
$251
$323
$252
$473
$451
$739
$290
$588
$391
$434
$308
$125
$235
$504
$298
HIO
$418
$591
$143
$177
$311
SlI6
SIn
$140
Sl47
$233
$517
$224
$0
$338
$951
$992
$518
$367
$437
$42'>
CHANGE I N PER
CAPITA COSTS
-7
-19
-58
-150
-61
-30
.32
-93
-0
'0
-I
-51
-50
-It 029
-9
-3
-19
-74
-II
-51
-26
.8
-II
-20
.98
-15
'254
-4
+9
-51
-213
-58
-I
-47
-199
-26
-293
-13
-38
-107
-3
-25
-3
-3
-81
-34
-30
'3
-1l4
+0
-83
'25
-260
-Ill
-21
-138
-~8
-------
!IdLE SP-5
PER CAPITA COSTS REPORTED FOR TREATMENT AND/OR CONTROL OF STORMWATERS
(CATEGORY vI) Fetlru~ry 101 1975
Tota 1 Cost
1990 Porulation
(Thousands)
Per Capita
Costs
TOTALS
EGION I
Connecticut
~jaine
r~assachu~etts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
21C,,0o6
2~C),q6h
9lq
2 l~ (, r
209
"1,121
2L?
C, it,
h7(,
,J(,;'
:,4 "
?'~,lj
K17
274
"::,'11(-,
] ,1112
7.01:)2
007
0,~'7
l' ~
41
1 ,1 ?4
EGION II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
EGION III
Delavare
~jaryland
Virginia
West Vir':-~:-:l:-1.
Pennsvlvani9.
Dist.of C)l~.tl~
'7. c,C:,4
cO 141
2t~',Q
66
R "Q2:?
-"j')
f\')6
rll~
1~
5b7
-:; 'I' [', ~
~ 16
~("'3
p'j
c:-, ,-",,~r:,
'":"6'1'
c; ,L,"') J
-1'~. c:; >~'>!~J
~. ~ t ,I
:, :7113
1 ,'1'9'
C ,')1:",8
~ ~; I.-J '7
.'" I
):~ IJ
1 ,c4 S
1-::' ~J ')
-"764
'Ii.; J
2;j}
:",Cj?,
EGION 1'r
P~qb&.E,
Florida
Georgia
Kentuckv
-, -1'-,
? H=;"
1 ~ '( 'Jr"
5 ,(,r,-
3,741
2,:5?
,",J
~-
._~~~--,----
')r:,
l ,~'~~,
6,8°1
2. sot,
4,007
..j:):
Missi~~i::::i
North Carol in::.
South Carolina
Tennes:3ee
''::,7
1 e.'~1
o fI,qr)
1 ,O~'C
I.., C',r!(J
1 ~7n
f\e,
8<:;4
:EGI01j V
I111r.ccs
2,2~5
2,397
:;,630
1,8"0
6,570
1,914
Ki. :~1if~ - ,
171, ,1'i7
~ ,4:,,";
10 , Q, '-
4,'77
13,2u~'
5.218
1hg
~'(~
10,1
414
4'18
-:;t~7
:!::.::'1C.:-:::
Mlnnesota
Ohio
wisconsin
:EGIOn VI
Arkansas
Loulsiarla
lIe\/ t1eXlCo
Texas
Oklahom2.
:EGION VII
Iova
Kansas
Mi s soU!' 1
Nebraska
;:- h(,7
4,')Sl
00
l1;rl-T
3,067
2 .Ol~e
4.:L ',0
1.~:"2
13,1--,1':.,(
2 yJI?
l ?q(J
1 (Je;4
:::7
8')7
1,042
2 ,8,35
2,242
1 1°1,
'65~
:I, . os.::.
g4 s
,8g4
?04
"18
2,~0'1
s,488
1,562
IEGIO!/ VIa
C:oiorade,
l.jor:t ana
lIorth D8-kota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyominl'\
',-
";PP-J.o
625
344
206
4 :')
2,848
714
606
643
875
')68
120
302
NrJ ?fee,;'"
1,509
348
mGION IX
AT i zona
CaL;}~;nia
-,1
j;o iTeej:;
69,e1~
14,600
110 !leeds
4 ;,
247
No 1jppds
. . l,gh
2,; f;01
] 010
eel
"0
?7S
20')
? h-'S
IJi :4lc;s
-~
AmC'rlC an Sa..::noa
GU~JTI
Trust rrerr:' te,ries
IEGWIi X
Alas}:a
Idaho.
Orep;on
WashinRt,:>n
1.03()
2,98
S ~PI
4( ~I
e-',,3
401.1
1, v;e
(1 '1
2f\')
L!6s
1-, 9~,1
'7 C G
1"-'
2,~), i
4,FJ4
-------
. ---- J~ FEBRUARY 10. 1975
CORRECTEO STATE ESTIMATE
1974 COSTS- REPORTED fOR CONSI.UCTION OF PUBlIClY-U.NII, ~ASTE~ATE~ TREATMENT FACILI T 1[5
("MilLIONS OF 1973 OULlARS)
CATEGORIES
TOTAL I II III A I II B IV A IV B V
SECONDARY MORE CORR. MAJOR NEW NEw COM~INED
TREATMENT STR INljliH INFll.1 REHAH COllECTOR IrHER- SEwER
TREATMtNT INflOw SEWEKS Ct~TO~S OVE~FlOw
RE(,fO~ I CONNECTICUT I. ~96 171 94 21 36 320 213 73H
MAINE 569 130 4 I 2 113 1J9 196
MASSACHU:;ETTS 3.ctJ5 713 230 33 25 914 542 624
NEW HA,~P:;H I RE tJ61 156 95 23 0 218 218 147
RHODE ISLAND ~76 49 37 3 0 171 123 67
VERMONT cIS 33 64 9 0 36 34 35
~t(,l0~ I I NEW JERSEY 5.u10 1.129 569 199 174 611 929 1.377
NEW YO~K 17.421 944 2.347 509 2.341 4.244 2.031 5.004
PUERTO RICO 604 181 0 14 0 203 167 17
VIRGIN ISLANDS 45 13 0 I 0 12 18 0
~E~IO~ III DElAWA~E 547 65 34 100 67 65 100 114
MARYLAND 3.>32 10 1.700 47 1.132 140 872 27
VIRGINIA 2.126 456 379 290 49 287 459 206
wEST VIRl>lNIA 4.225 106 335 145 5 1.746 1.692 194
PENNSYLVANIA 5.730 946 285 91 48 1.26tJ 651 2,439
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1."53 0 67 40 216 0 2 726
RE(,IO~ IV ALABAMA 819 114 165 102 II 233 193 0
FlOR lOA 3.526 612 651 45 44 1.262 911 0
GEORGIA 1.~~5 200 508 12 2 261:1 319 263
KENTuCKY 1.862 51 243 53 63 444 355 652
MISSIS51PPI 495 35 202 45 31 57 122 I
NORTH CAROLINA 1.531 211 451 52 0 434 382 0
50UTH CA>!OlINA 1.(,28 340 46 21 0 26~ 350 0
TENNE"S~E 1.30 I 112 293 46 39 418 276 114
RE(,IO~ V IlLlNOl5 6.301 317 1.653 176 60 511 394 3.188
INOIANA 2.'168 216 379 151 185 336 302 1.397
MICrll~AN 8.1~9 117 673 96 456 1.002 ~69 4.884
t'INNESOTA It 387 63 451 52 14 204 233 36tJ
OHIO 7.'120 219 1.325 637 114 62~ ~35 4.062
wiSCONSIN 2.291 180 417 79 134 41~ 438 621
~EGIO~ VI ARKANSA5 1.503 0 597 68 0 503 332 I
lOUISIAr4A 1.536 353 3 352 97 439 289 0
NE~ MEXICO 156 52 7 3 I 54 38 0
TExAS 3.752 9 2.144 207 214 660 399 118
OKLAHOMA 3.664 0 565 55 551 1.806 665 0
REi.>IO~ vii IOWA 965 154 209 123 9 122 222 125
KANSAS 2.348 240 66 572 318 765 272 113
MI5S0URI 2.399 471 75 219 0 375 380 876
NEBRASKA 977 163 18 38 I 3~ 65 630
RL(,IO~ viiI COLORADO 716 112 188 29 24 122 212 210
t'ONTANA 128 39 16 5 I 21 35 7
NORTH DAKOTA 195 51 0 I 0 67 23 50
SOUTH DAKOTA 78 33 32 I 0 3 7 0
UTAH 294 195 0 14 2 58 23 0
WYOMING- 133 61 0 0 0 55 15 0
REi.>IO~ IX ARIZONA 597 159 8 I I 327 99 0
CALIFORNIA 7.156 1.291 2.344 366 47 959 l.c45 902
HAWAII 520 203 27 0 0 81 c09 0
NEvADA 316 42 102 I 0 12~ 45 0
AMERICAN SAMOA 37 8 0 0 0 28 0 0
GUAM 117 36 9 2 0 53 15 0
TRUST TERR ITOR I ES 197 90 18 I 0 60 25 0
~£(,IO~ ~ _lASKA 412 234 0 4 I 71 85 9
IDAHO 471 46 71 22 16 17" 99 35
OREGON It 144 146 I 56 324 191 161 262
WASHINGTON 2.371 515 101 91 454 54tJ 344 316
TOTAll 121.153 12.628 20.330 5.348 7.330 24.583 19.740 31 .J 92
-------
TA:iL£ SC - 2
RE~10~ I
REGIO~ II
R£GIO~ III
REGIO~ I v
REGIO~ v
REGIO~ v I
RE~IO~ Vii
REoIO~ viii
REGIO~ IX
RE~IO~ ~
TOIALI
Rt::PORTED fOR
CD~NECTICUT
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
NEw HAI~PSH I RE
RHODE ISLAND
VERMONT
NEw JERSEY
NEW ,ORK
PUERTO RICO
ViRGIN ISLANDS
DELAWARE
MARYLAND
VIRGINIA
wEST viRGINIA
PENNSYL V At, I A
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ALABAMA
FLORIUA
GEORGIA
~ENTuCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
TENNEsSEE
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
MICHI~AN
MINNESOTA
OHIO
wi scorlS I N
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
NEw MEXICO
TEXAS
OKLAHOMA
IOWA
KANSAS
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
COLORADO
MONTANA
NORTH UAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
UTAH
WYDMII~G
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
HAWAII
NEVADA
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
TRUST TERRITORIES
ALASKA
IDAHO
OREGON
wASHINGTON
CORRECTED STATE ESTIMATE
STATE ~EEDS AND PERCE~TA~l DF NATIONAL CO,Is'
CDNSTRJCTIJ~ OF PU~LICLY-OWNLU wASTEwATL" T.EAILMLNI
(CATEoJ~IES I. II. Ill. IliA. Ilirl MHJ III
('MILLIONS OF 1~73 DvLLARSI
COSTS'
fEHRUA~r 10. 1975
FACILITIES
PERCENTAGE Of NATIO~AL TOTALS
------SIATE---------EPA----------CHANGE ---~TAT~----------- EP;---------------cHANGE
CO,"ECTED ASSESSMENT CURRECIED ASsES5ME~T
1.596
569
3.265
661
478
215
~.010
11.421
604
45
547
3.932
2.126
4.225
,,730
1,053
619
3.526
1.595
1.662
495
1.531
1.026
1.301
60301
2.966
~.199
1.367
7.920
2.291
1.503
1.536
156
3.752
3.664
965
2.346
2.399
977
716
126
195
76
294
133
597
7.156
520
316
37
117
197
412
471
1.144
20371
121.153
1.594
575
2.964
740
447
204
4.694
15.302
603
44
546
3.642
1.684
2.360
5.454
1.052
778
2.704
1.519
1.624
494
1.460
977
1.210
6.234
2.903
60102
1.330
7.773
2.044
696
1.263
155
3.222
1.464
911
1.783
2.298
924
409
127
189
75
291
84
500
6.206
523
209
36
93
195
405
393
1.081
1.636
107.314
-4
-\4
-321
-121
-31
-II
-116
-20119
-I
-I
-I
-290
-244
-1.865
-276
-I
-41
-622
-76
-36
-I
-51
-51
-91
-67
-65
-97
-57
-147
-247
-605
-253
-1
-530
-2.180
-13.839
1')19"
O.48o~
C. 711 ~
o.no'
U.394~
001 776
4,J 357
14.3794
(J.4~tjb
0.0371
0.4522
3.245S
1.7565
J.4879
".730 j
0.86~'o
u.6763
c.910~
1,)16/
1.5377
0..4090
1.2641
U.848~
1.0739
5.2011
2.450'0
6.76/5
1.1454
6.5373
1.6912
1.2410
1.2686
0.1295
3.0976
3.0247
-54
-565
-101
-53
0.7968
1.938S
1.9805
0.6067
-307
-1
-6
-3
-3
-49
0.5911
001 062
001610
0.0644
0.2433
0.1097
-97
-946
+3
-107
-I
-24
-2
0.4930
~. 90 71
U.4298
0.2612
0.0310
0.0972
001 6"6
-7
-78
-63
-535
0.)40~
0.3694
0.9443
1.9574
100.0000
1.4857
0.5367
2.76"~
0.6~99
0.4171
O. 1'07
4.5604
14.2"'1
0.5621
0.0411
0.5091
3.39"1
1.7562
2.1 ~'7
5.0826
0.9010
0.72S6
2.5201
1.41 ~7
1.69'8
0.4609
1.3795
0.9107
1.1275
5.6096
2.70;'6
7.5501
I "23~3
7.2439
1.9047
0.8374
1.1963
0.14~2
3.0027
1.3~28 .
0.649~
1.6619
2.1419
0.8610
0.3819
0.11~3
0.1764
0.070S
0.2716
0.07~4
0.4667
5.7~56
0.4~7S
0.1~50
0.03j~
0.0~71
0.18"1
0.3714
0.3663
1.0017
I. 7l0~
100.0000
'0.1~64
+0.0502
'0.0513
-0.020'
+0.0221
+o.ODO
+0.4246
-0.1202
+0.0634
+0.0039
+0.0568
+0.14H5
-0.0002
-1.2881
'0.3522
+0.1114
+0.0492
-0.39U6
+0.09,,9
+0.1620
+0.0518
+0.\153
+0.061~
+0.0535
.O.60tl4.+
+0.2550
+0.7625
+0.093~
+0.7065
+0.0134
-0.4035
-0.0722
+0.0156
-0.0948
-1.6416
+0.0526
-0.2765
+ 0.1613
+0.0542
-0.2091
+0.0120
+0.0153
+0.0060
+0.0262
-0.0312
-0.0262
-0.1214
+0.0576
-0.0661
+0.0027
-0.0100
.0.0194
+0.0365
-0.0230
+0.0633
-0.2465
+0.0000
-------
TAdLt SC - 3
REoIO~ I
REo 10~ 11
RE,,10~ III
RTIMATE
STATE ~EFn5 AND PE~CE~TAGt OF NATIONAL CO,TS.
FO" CO'oT~UcrlU'j OF T~EAT"un PLANTS AN[) l(dE~CLPTO~S
(CATE~OHIES I. II. ~NO Iv 81
I"MILLIONS 01 1~7J OOLLA.JSI
COSTS.
------;JATE---------[PA----------CHA~E
CO<"ECTEO ASSESSMENT
478
274
1.485
471
209
132
2.647
~.322
368
31
200
~.583
1.2Q4
~ol33
1.883
69
472
2.174
1.027
649
359
1.044
737
681
20364
898
1.759
748
2.480
1.035
930
646
98
2.552
1.251
585
578
927
266
513
91
15
13
219
71
266
4.880
439
189
6
61
134
320
217
308
961
52.698
484
273
1.325
384
187
125
2.602
4.603
368
31
199
20324
1.129
1.320
1.629
69
472
1.874
1.020
649
359
1.044
728
671
2.343
637
1.613
707
20367
939
582
499
97
2.025
662
532
524
843
221
259
90
74
12
218
55
266
40104
439
171
1
60
133
319
216
306
675
46.204
+0
-300
-7
+0
'0
+0
-9
-4
-21
-61
-66
-41
-113
-96
-348
-147
-I
-527
-589
-254
-I
-I
-I
-I
-22
'0
-716
+0
-12
-I
-I
-I
-I
-I
'0
-286
-6.494
FE8RUA>-IY 10. 1975
STAlL
CUHREC IlO
PC:RCENTA~E OF "ATIO~AL TOTALS
CHM.GE
---------------------------------------------
+6
-I
-160
-67
-22
-7
0.90d~
0.5212
c.fll':l'J
U.!J94~
0.39b8
0.251d
-45
-719
+0
+0
5.0236
10.09~"
0.699~
0.0604
-I
-259
-165
-813
-?5~
-0
0.3805
4.90c7
2.456"
4.04~2
J.S7JS
(. 132~
U.8959
4.12bd
1.9491
1.2333
0.6826
1.9827
1.3990
1.2930
4. 4B 76
1.7040
~.3381
1.420 I
407061
1.965d
1.7654
1.2264
0.185-1
4.8430
2 +3 744
-53
-54
-84
-39
1+1112
1.097"
1.759U
0.5061
0.9734
0.1739
0.1435
0+1393
0.4166
0+1462
0.5057
".2621
0.8340
o +360 ~
0.01'06
0.1112
0.2554
0.6073
0.4127
0.58S"
1.82J6
100.0000
EeA
ASSE S'oME 'H
1.047'0
O. ",",0"
2.8677
0.d310
O.401.t'
0.270'0
5.6315
9.9b23
0.7904
0.0670
0.4306
5.02"8
2.44J5
2.8'o0~
3.52'06
0.1493
1.0215
4.05~9
2.2076
1.4046
0.7169
2.2'o"~
I.S7d6
1.46~2
5.0709
1.8115
3.6208
1.530 I
5.1229
2.0322
1.2596
1.07"9
0.20~9
4.3827'
1.4327
1.1514
1.1341
1.t;24S
0.4912
0.'0605
0.1~47
0.160 I
0.15'08
0.4718
O. II "0
0.5757
8.8d~3
0.~501
0.3830
O.Oldl
0.12""
0.287"
0.6904
0.46/4
0.~b66
I. 4bO~
100.0000
+0.1389
+O.06(;S
+0.04el
-0.(;63e
-0.0078
+0.011'"
-0.607e
-0.1370
+0.0964
+0.006'0
'0.0500
-0.1270
-0.0133
-1.1 '-}2J
-O.04-/d
-0.0169
+0.125'0
-0.0105
+0.2584
-0.1712
+0.0942
-0.2167
'0.176~
+0.1715
'0.5832
-0.1074
+0.2826
-0.1099
'0.4167
'0.0663
-0.5057
-0.1464
+0.0239
-0.4602
-0.9416
+0.0401
+0.0361
+0.0654
-0.0148
-0.4128
+0.0207
-0.0165
+0.0164
+0.05'>1
-0.0271
.0.06'7i
-0.:' -
... 0" 1 ' t
... o. '
-0. '
... o. D i,' ...
... o. (I 3~ J
.O,OH]V
.Q.US...b
-0.Otl07
-0.3626
.U~ J:)OO
-------
TA:jLE SC - 4
,EGIO~ I
~EGIO~ II
~EGIO~ III
QE"IO~ IV
REGIO~ v
REGIO~ vI
REGIO~ vII
~EGIO~ VIII
~EGIO~ IX
~E"IO~ ~
TOT AL I
fEHRUAKY 10. 1975
CORRECTED STATE E'TIMATE
PEN CAPITA COST~ ~EPORTED FJR CO~'TKUCTIUN Of "UHLICLY-O~NEn T"EATMENT FACILITIES
BA~EU ON 1990 PU~ULATIO~
(CATEGJ,IES I. II. III. IV". IV". AND V)
("MILLIUNS OF 197) UOLLAKS)
C""THOUSANDS OF PlU?LE)
STATE
COSTS"
CO'lNECTICUT
MAINE
MASSACHUSl TIS
NE~ HA"P,HIRE
RHODE bL AND
vERMONT
1.598
589
3.285
861
478
215
NEw JERSEY
NEw '1 uRI\
PUERTO KILO
VII;GIN ISlA'~D~
5.010
17.421
604
45
OELAWARE
MARYLM;u
VIRGI~I.
wEST V I "-' I', IA
PENNS YL v A,'jj A
DISTRICT Lf COLUMBIA
547
3.932
2.128
4.225
5.730
1.053
ALABA>1A
fLORIUA
GEORGIA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH C",ULlNA
SOUTH CARULlNA
TENNESSEE
819
3.526
1.595
1.862
495
1.531
1.028
1,301
ILLINOIS
INDIAtJA
MICHIGAi.
MINNESOTA
OHIO
wI SCONS I "
6,301
2.968
8.199
1.387
7.920
2.291
ARKANSAS
LOUISIAriA
NEw MUICO
TEXAS
OKLAHOMA
1.503
1.536
156
3.752
3.664
IO~A
KA'~SA5
MIS50lJRI
NEBRASKA
965
2,348
2,399
977
COLORADO
MONTANA
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH LJAKOTA
UTAH
wYOMIIJG
716
128
195
78
294
133
ARIZONA
CALIFURIIIA
HAwAII
NEvAOA
AMERICArI SAMOA
GUAM
TRUST TEKKITORIES
597
70156
520
316
37
117
197
ALASKA
IDAHO
OREGOIJ
wASHINGTON
412
471
1.144
2.371
1210153
EPA
C05T~.
1.5'14
57~
2,904
740
447
20~
4.844
15.J0c
60J
44
546
3.64.!
1.8e."t
2,3bO
5,4S..
1.0'>2
77~
2.704
1.51 'I
1,8£'4
4'14
1.480
977
1.210
6.234
2.90J
8. 102
1.330
7.77J
2.044
898
1.283
100
3.222
I ,4~'+
911
1.783
2.29~
924
409
127
IH9
7S
291
84
500
6.208
523
209
36
93
19S
40'>
3'1J
I. O~ 1
1.8J6
107.314
1990
POPLJLA T I 0'1"
3,946
1.142
7.0S2
907
I. I 34
536
8.822
21.799
o
o
793
50318
5.9'>8
1.845
13.J32
764
3.850
1 I 0728
5.667
3.741
20359
5.880
3.023
4.800
13.177
6.433
10.961
4.577
13.202
5.218
2.068
4.159
1.232
13.666
2,Q42
3.053
2.509
5.488
1.562
2.948
714
606
643
1.509
600
3.384
26.601
1.010
933
o
275
205
408
758
2.943
4" 94
252.274
STATE CO>TS
PERCA~IrA
H04
~51:,
'}....t)~
~94'1
$4<1
~401
$567
~799
>0
>0
$689
$739
~3~7
$2,2bSl
~429
$1 037~
~212
$300
$2~1
$497
~209
$2bO
$340
$271
$47~
$461
$74~
~303
$5'19
$43'1
$726
$369
$lc6
~2 74
$ \0 245
$316
$93~
$437
$625
$201
$17'1
$321
$121
$194
$2C1
$[76
$269
$514
$338
$0
$4c5
$9bO
Sl.009
$6<1
$3~H
$5b~
$4~0
EPA COST~
~EK CAPITA
$688
$684
$316
$1.279
$409
$ 10376
$403
$'>03
H20
$815
$344
$380
$554
$701
$0
$0
$202
$230
$268
$487
$209
$251
$323
$252
$473
$451
$739
$290
$588
$391
$434
$308
$125
$235
$504
$298
$71 0
~418
$'>91
$143
$177
$31 I
$I 16
$192
$140
$147
$233
$517
$224
$0
$338
$951
$992
$518
$367
$437
$425
CHA"GE 1 N PEK
CAPlTA COSTS
-I
-12
-45
-134
-27
-21
-13
-9&
.0
+0
-I
-55
-41
-1.010
-20
-2
-10
-70
-13
-10
.0
-9
-17
-19
-5
-10
-9
-13
-I I
-48
-292
-61
-I
-39
-741
-18
-225
-19
-34
-108
-2
-10
-5
-2
-81
-29
-36
.3
-\14
.0
-87
-9
-17
-103
-21
-128
-55
-------
T~BL~ EPA - I fEI:IRUA~Y 10, 1975
1974 COSTS. REPORTED FOR EP~ ESTIMATE
lONSI~UCTION OF PU~LICLY-U~NED .ASTE~ATEH TREATMENT F AC I LI TIt S
(.M I LLI ONS OF 197J DOLLA"S)
CATEGORltS
TO/AL I II III A II! B IV A I V B V
SECONDARY ~ORE CORR. MAJOR NEW N~~ COMI:IINED
TREATMENT STRINGllH INFIL./ RErlA8 COLLECTOR INTE~- SE"U,
TREATMtNT INFLO~ SEWEKS CEnO~S OvtKFLOW
REl>IO~ I CONrJECT I CUT I. ~94 171 94 21 38 311 213 138
"AINE ~75 130 4 I 2 102 1J9 196
MASSACHUSETTS 2.~64 587 205 33 25 75~ ~33 824
NEw HAMPSrlIRE 740 125 95 23 0 184 164 147
RHODE ISLAND 447 45 34 3 0 16~ 108 87
VERMONT 204 31 60 9 0 33 34 35
REl>IO~ 11 NEw JERSEY 4.1:I~4 1.127 571 199 174 540 ~04 1.371
NEW YURK 15.302 1.663 994 509 2.341 2,84:> }, '-146 5,004
PUERTO RICO b03 181 0 14 0 20J 1~7 17
VIRGIN I5LANDS 44 13 0 I 0 12 18 0
REGIO~ I [I DELAw~RE 546 65 34 100 67 65 100 114
MARYLAr'U 3,642 10 1,465 51 1.132 107 849 27
VIRGPHA 1.884 3b4 317 290 32 22b 448 206
wEST VIRGINIA 2.J60 91 151 145 5 69~ 1.078 194
PENNSYLVAr;IA 5.454 742 265 91 48 1.246 b22 2,43<:1
DISTRICT OF COLUM8IA I,U52 0 67 40 .016 0 2 726
REG[O~ IV ALABAMA 778 114 165 102 II 192 193 0
FLORIDA 2.704 566 452 39 44 746 !!56 0
GEORGIA 1.019 200 501 12 2 200 319 283
KENTuCrIO~ X ALASKA 405 234 0 4 I 70 !!5 9
IDAHO 393 46 71 22 16 102 99 3~
DREGorl I.O!!I 146 I 56 3('4 130 161 262
wASHINGTON 1.;;36 283 56 91 4'>4 29~ 336 316
lOT AL I 107. JI4 12.635 15.720 5.287 7.~87 17.45~ 17,;;49 31.076
-------
rABL~ EPA - 2
REGIO~ I
~EGIO~ II
R~GIO~ III
REGIO~ IV
REGIO~ V
~EGIO~ VI
RE~IO~ vII
REGIO~ vIII
REGIO~ Ix
REGIO~ X
TOTAL I
REPORTED fOR
CONNEC Tl CUT
MAINE
"'ASSACHUSETTS
NEW HAMPSHIRE
RtiODE ISLAND
VERMONT
NEw JERSEY
NEW YORK
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
DELAWARE
MARYLAND
VIRGINIA
wEST vIRGINIA
PENNSYLVANIA
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ALABAMA
fLORIUA
GEORGIA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLI NA
TENNESSEE
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
OHIO
wISCONSIN
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
NEw MExICO
TExAS
OKLAHOMA
IOwA
KANSAS
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
COLORADO
MONTANA
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
UTAH
wYOMING
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
HAw A II
NEVADA.
A~tRICAN SAMOA
3UAM
JRUST TERRITORIES
ALASKA
IDAHO
OREGON
wASHINGTON
EPA ESTIMATED
SlATE ~EEDS AND PERCENTAGE Of NATIONAL COSTS'
C~NSTRJCTIJN Of PUBLICLY-OwNED WASTEwATE~ TPEAfEHENT
(CATE,,0RIES I. II. III. IVA. Iv~ ~ND VI
,*MILLIONS Of 1973 DOLLARS)
COSTS'
fEBRUARY 10. 1975
FACILITIES
PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL TOTALS
-----rn:J------EPii----- -CHANGE --l97J-------EPA------CHANGE-
SJ~VEY ASSESSMENT SURVEY ASSESSMENT
1.409
364
1.485
508
367
168
3.382
8.032
590
44
329
681
1.345
614
4.210
10 081
444
~.371
1.031
1.032
268
900
757
695
4,089
1,040
3.325
1.065
2.833
787
355
451
115
888
624
502
671
972
404
426
74
46
43
225
40
238
6.050
S23
227
8
22
8
205
112
568
1,080
60.123
1.594
575
2.964
740
447
204
4.894
15.302
603
44
546
3.642
1.884
20360
5.454
1.052
778
2.704
1.519
1.824
494
1.480
977
1.210.
6.234
2.903
8.102
10330
7.773
2.044
898
1.283
155
3.222
1.484
911
1.783
2.298
924
409
127
189
75
291
84
500
6.208
523
209
36
93
195
405
393
1.081
1.836
107.314
+185
+ 211
.1.479
+232
+80
+36
+1.512
+7.270
+13
+0
+217
+2.961
+539
+1.746
+..244
-29
+334
+333
+488
+792
+226
+580
+220
+515
+2.145
+1.863
+4.777
+265
.4,940
+1.257
+543
+832
+40
+2.334
+860
+409
+1.1 12
+ I 0326
+520
+47.191
~.)4 35
0.6054
~.4699
0.844~
0.6104
0.2794
5.6251
IJ')592
0.9813
0.07JI
0.5472
1.1326
~.2370
1.0212
7.0023
1.7979
0.7384
J.9435
1.7148
1.7164
0.4457
1.4969
1.2590
101 559
6.8010
1.72~7
~.5303
1.7713
4.7120
1.3089
0.5904
0.7501
001912
1.4769
1.0378
0.8349
1.1160
1.6166
0+671~
-17
+53
+143
.)2
+66
+44
0.7085
001 230
0.0765
0.0715
0.3742
0.0665
+262
+158
+0
-18
+28
+71
+ 187
0.3958
10.0627
0.8698
0.3715
0.OI3J
0.036:'
0.0133
+200
+281
+513
+756
0.)409
0.1862
0.9447
1.7963
100.0000
1.4857
0.5J67
2.7629
0.68~9
0.4111
0.1~07
4.5604
14.2:.91
0.5621
0.0411
0.5091
3.3941
1.7:'62
2.1997
5.08~6
0.9810
0.7256
2.5201
1.41S7
1.6998
0.4609
I. 37~5
0.9107
1.1275
5.80%
2.7056
7.5501
1.2393
7.24J9
1.9047
0.8374
1.1903
0.14~2
3.0027
1.3828
0.8495
1.6619
2.1419
0.8610
0.3819
0.1183
0.1704
0.0705
0.2716
0.07d4
0.4667
5.78~6
0.4d75
0.1~:.0
0.0338
0.0811
O.IH~I
0.3714
0.3663
1.0017
1.1108
100.0000
-0.8571
-0.0686
'0.2929
-0.1549
-0.1932
-0.0886
-1.0646
+0.8998
-0.4191
-0.0319
-0.0380
+2.2614
-0.4807
+1.1784
-1.9196
-0.8168
-0.0127
-1.4233
-0.2990
-0.0165
+0.0151
-0.1173
-0.3482
-0.0283
-0.9913
+0.9758
+2.0197
-0.5319
+2.5318
+0.5957
+0.2469
+0.4461
-0.0459
+1.5257
+0.3449
+0.0145
+0.5458
.0.5252
+0.1890
-0.3265
-0.0046
+0.0998
-0.0009
-0.1025
+0.0118
+0.0708
-4.2770
-0.3822
-0.1824
+0.0204
+0.0505
'0.1687
+0.0364
+0.1800
+0.062~
-0.0854
+0.0000
-------
T~~L~ EPA - 3
REGIO~ I
REGIO~ II
~EGIO~ III
REGIO~ IV
~EGIO~ V
~EGIO~ vi
REGIO~ V II
~EGIO~ viI!
~EGIO~ 1 ~
QEGIO~ ~
ror AL I
REPORTED
CONNECTICUT
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
NEW HAMPSHIRE
RHODE I~LAND
V(RMONT
NEW JERSEY
NE W YORK
PUERTO RICO
ViRGIN ISLANDS
DELAWARE
MARYLAND
ViRGINIA
wEST VIRGINIA
PENNSYLVANIA
DISTRICT OF COLUM81A
ALA8AMA
FLDRluA
GEDRGI A
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH C~ROLINA
SOUTH CAROLI NA
TENNESSEE
ILLI'IOIS
INDIANA
MICHIGAtj
MINNESOTA
OHIO
wISCONSIN
ARKANSAS
LOUISIAt,A
NEw MExiCO
TExAS
OKLAHOMA
IOWA
KANSAS
MISSOURI
NE8RASKA
COLORADO
MONTANA
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH OAKOTA
UTAH
WYOMING
ARIZONA
CALI fORN I A
HAWAII
NEvADA
AMERICAN SAMOA
GUAM
TRUST TERRITORIES
ALASKA
IDAHO
OREGON
wASHINGTON
[PA
[STIMAn
SlATE ~EEDS ANO PERCE'ITAGE Of NATIONAL CO~TS"
fO~ CO~.TRUCTION Of TREATMeNT PLANTS AND INTERClPTORS
(CATEGORIES I. II. A"'D Iv BI
I"MILLIO'lS Of 1973 DOLLARS)
COSTS"
fE~RUARY 10. 1975
PERCENTAuE Of NATIO~AL TOTALS
----j;73------~PA----- -CHANGE -197)-------- EPA ---------CHAt.jGE-
5J~VEY ASSESSMENT ~URVEY ASSlSoME~T
430
260
761
339
162
115
2.630
40165
394
32
201
583
998
323
1.555
52
310
1.590
777
573
223
749
569
467
20167
542
1.460
538
1.841
486
224
251
66
656
485
421
332
780
141
310
59
30
40
170
30
152
4.743
439
205
7
20
6
153
76
286
536
35.910
484
273
1.325
384
187
125
2.602
4.603
368
31
199
2.324
1.129
1.320
1.629
69
472
1.874
1.020
649
359
1.044
728
677
2.343
837
1.673
707
2.367
939
562
499
97
2.025
662
532
524
843
227
259
90
74
72
218
55
266
4,[04
439
177
7
60
133
319
216
306
675
46.204
+54
+13
+564
+45
+25
+ 10
-26
+436
-26
-I
-2
+ I ,741
+ 131
+997
+74
+17
+162
+264
+243
+76
+136
+295
+159
+210
+176
+295
+213
+169
+526
+453
+356
+246
+31
+1.369
+ 177
+10.294
1.1974
0.7240
<.1191
1.1.9440
u .4511
0.3202
7.3238
Ij.59~4
1.0971
0.0691
0.5597
1.6235
2.7791
0.8994
".3302
0.. 446
0.6632
".4277
<.1637
1.5956
0.6209
<;0657
1.5845
103004
6.0345
1.5093
".06'>7
1.4961
'>.1267
1.3533
0.6237
0.69~9
0.1637
1.8261
1 0350 ~
+ III
+192
+63
+86
1" 7 23
0.9245
<+1720
0.3926
-51
+31
+44
+32
+46
+25
0.8632
0.1642
0.0635
Uoll13
0.4734
0.0635
+ 114
-639
+0
-26
+0
+40
+127
0.4232
13.2060
1.2225
0.570d
0.0194
0.0556
0.0167
+166
+140
+22
+139
0.4260
U.2116
0.7964
1.4926
100.0000
1.0475
0.590~
2.8677
0.8310
0.40"7
0.2705
5.6315
9.9623
0.7964
0.0670
0.4306
5.02'18
2.4435
2.6566
3.5256
0.1493
1.0215
4.05~9
2.2076
1.40"6
0.7769
2.2595
1.5756
1.46'>2
5.0709
1.8115
3.6208
1.5301
5.1229
2.0322
1.2596
l.on9
0.2099
4.3627
1.4327.
1.1514
1.13"1
1.8245
0.4912
0.5605
0.1947
0.1601
0.15~8
0.4718
0.1190
0.5757
8.~823
0.9501
O. 3~)0
0.0151
0.12~6
0.2~78
0.6904
0.4674
0.66b6
1.4609
100.0000
-0.149~
-0.1331
+0.74~5
-0.1 129
-0.0"63
-0.0496
-1.6922
-1.6360
-0.3006
-0.0220
-0.1290
+3.4062
-0.3355
+1.9573
-0.8045
+0.0044
+0.1582
-0.3717
+0.0438
-0.1909
+0.1559
+0.1737
-0.0088
+001647
-0.9635
+0.3021
-0.4448
+0.0319
-0.0037
+0.6788
+0.6358
+0.3809
+0.0261
+2.5559
+0.0821
-0.0208
+0.2095
-0.347"
+0.0985
-0.3026
.0.0304
+0.0765
+0.0444
-0.0015
+0.035"
.0.1524
-4.3256
-0.2723
-0.1877
-0.0042
+0.0741
+0.2710
+0.2643
+0.2557
-0.1297
-0.0316
+0.0'000
-------
REGIO~ I
REGIO~ I I
REGIO~ III
REl,fO~ I;
"?-:::' IO'~ v
REG10~ 'I
REGIO~ viI
~t:GIO~ 'Ill
REGIO~ IX
,C:GIO~ ,
ruT AI ,
TA;Lt: EPA
4
PEH CAP IT A COSTS
CO~~ECT 1 CUT
MAINE
MASSACrl'J',l TTS
NEw HAf\~;,HIC;'E
RHODE ISLAtJD
VERMONT
NEi¥ JEt-;>S~ Y
"'Ew Y ll..." t\
PUERTu hieD
vIRGI,'. ISLoNDS
DELA,,~Ro
MARYL 6.r~u
VIRGFn,
wEST vl~'Jlr~IA
PENNSYL VA'd A
DISTRICT uF COLUM81A
ALA8AMA
F L~'::: I lJ L
-:Ej~Gl~
Kt.'JTuC~Y
fo4ISSISSIr--'r-I
r.ORTf-1 C':'rivLIr;4
SO,-Jl- CAr
PlR CAPjlA
\3':)7
}, J 1 /j
$210
iSbU
iJc'J
$3JJ
$3d3
$3b"
$0
>0
S414
$1<:'&
S2<:'S
$332
$31""
$1.414
$115
'£202
$Idl
}c 15
> I! 3
$I ~3
S2S0
$144
$310
Sib!
$303
$232
$214
$ISO
$I71
$108
S93
Sb4
S212
$J04
S267
$177
$2"&
$149
$103
tiS
$06
SI49
S06
$10
$20
S"17
S243
>0
$BO
S39
$50<
$147
$I ~3
$2"7
$2Je
EPA COSh
PlH CAPITA
$68B
$684
$316
$1.274
S409
SI0376
$434
S308
$125
~235
. $504
$298
S7IO
S418
$591
SI43
SI77
$311
SI16
SI92
S140
SI47
S233
1517
$224
$0
$338
$951
S9'12
~518
$367
S437
S425
$403
$503
$420
S&15
S 394
$3&0
$554
$ 701
$0
$0
S202
S230
$2(8
$4f;7
$209
S251
S323
S252
S473
$451
$739
$290
$5B8
S391
CHAfJGE It~ !-'E~
CAPITA CUST"
.46
. 1 t:I~
'210
+25~
'71
'0 I
'171
.. j 3~,
+0
+ 0
+274
'SS6
.91
.947
.94
-38
+87
.28
+':,7
+21.::'
, c., ~J
+9&
+73
'108
'163
'290
+436
+58
+374
+241
+263
+200
+ 32
'171
.. 2 je
+134
'443
+241
+333
-6
+74
+236
'50
+43
+74
.77
+6
+0
-19
+0
+2':)8
+~12
'490
+311
.. 1 74
+180
+ 1 A 7
-------
A.
APPENDIX A.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Major 1974 Survey Policies:
The following key procedures were adopted to carry out the
expanded scope of the Survey:
1. The five categories of needs as reported in the 1973 Survey
were retained but with format changes as indicated:
(a)
Costs for Category I or II were to be reported in either
one of the Categories, but not in both.
Cate~ory III was split so that needs were reported in
two (2) new categories: Category IlIa deals with
"Infiltration/Inflow Correction," Category IIIB
deals with IIr~ajor Sewer System Rehabilitation."
Major sewer system rehabilitation needs were not
allowed in the 1973 Survey unless they were related
to infiltration/inflow correction and based on a
completed study. Reporting was allowed in this
Survey in Category IIIb for major rehabilitation or
replacement of deteriorated sewers necessary to the
total integrity and performance of the system.
(b)
(c)
Category IV was separated into Category IVa for IINew
Coll ectors II and Category IVb for "New Interceptors. II
This change also combined the cost of appurtenances
into the appropriate Category.
2. A new category VI was established to allow reporting of costs
for the treatment and/or control of stormwaters. The costs were to be
based on corrective actions which when completed would solve actual
or anticipated water quality problems in meeting the objectives of
P. L. 92-500. The States were allowed to report these costs on
either a facility-by-facility, or a State-wide basis, but were
encouraged to use the latter method.
3. Survey instructions that limited reporting of needs in 1973
were removed, such as skip instructions that restricted cost reporting.
Also, State water quality standards did not require EPA approval
by a specified date in order to justify a reported need. However,
query questions were retained which would display the status of
completion of applicable studies.
4. Needs disallowed in 1973 as a result of one or more of the
restrictive guidelines, and any newly identified facility requirements,
could be reported in the 1974 Survey.
A -1
-------
5. Changes in the 1973 cost data base were to be reported for such
causes as imposition of additional effluent limitations, designation of
water quality limited segments, or receipt of a grant award for a previously-
reported need. As a result of the changes, 1973 cost data would either
increase, decrease or be deleted.
6. Wherever reference was made in the Survey form to terms relating
to "secondary treatment" they were to be considered for the 1974 Survey
synonymous with the term "Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology
(BPWTT)." Also for the purposes of this Survey, BPWTT was to mean
secondary treatment under the treatment and discharge alternative,
unless higher levels of treatment were required by water quality standards
or other requirements. Nothing in these definitions affected the
July 1, 1977 secondary treatment requirements of the Act.
7. States had the option of reporting on needs in places of less
than 10,000 population outside Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(SMSA1s) by either using the same sample group used in the 1973 Survey,
or reporting this year on a 100 percent basis.
8. For compatibility, all costs in the 1974 Survey were required
to be reported in June, 1973 dollars.
9. Costs were to be based on the design of facilities which will
serve the projected 1990 resident population.
B.
Conduct of the Survey:
The Agency initiated the Survey on January 31, 1974, with the
presentation to each of the States of the general outline and the
basic survey form.
P. L. 93-243 required that Form EPA-l used in 1973 be used again
for the 1974 Survey. Adjustments to the Form were necessary, to add one
new cost category and to eliminate previous reporting restrictions. In
addition, improvements were made to lessen the respondent burden. The
Survey was designed with the advice of an ad hoc group consisting of EPA
Regional Office and State Officials.
As with the 1973 Survey, the State Agency had the option of completing
the Survey questionnaires itself, or forwarding them to individual
sewerage authorities for completion.
The 1974 Survey Plan retained the concept that the costs reported
for all needs must indicate the basis on which the cost estimate was
developed. Where available, the States.wer~ requ~red.to provide da~a to
support their reported needs. Cost estlmatlng gUldellnes were provlded
to assist the States in the absence of more valid sources.
A -2
-------
A draft copy of the revised questionnaire and guidelines was
mailed to the States on March 29 1974, so that they could commence
detailed planning for the conduct of the Survey. Instructional
seminars were conducted for the States in the EPA Regional Offices.
The official copies of the Survey questionnaire were mailed to the
States on April 29, 1974, with instructions that by July 26, 1974,
the Forms should all be completed and into the EPA Regional Office.
The States were also requested to provide EPA with a report
summarizing the costs for each Category of needs, and information
relating to the rationale behind any reported needs that were
affected by abatement requirements that either they or EPA had
not formally approved.
The EPA Regional Office Staff conducted an initial screening
of all questionnaires. As these Regional evaluations were completed
the questionnaires were processed for keypunching. The Bureau of the
Census accomplished the keypunching operation and provided EPA with
a tape of the transcribed data from each questionnaire which was used
for the final comprehensive Agency analysis.
A -3
-------
EPA INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENTS FOR CATEGORIES I. I I AND IVB'
APPEND I X B
~-
(In Mil l10ns
of Dollars)
States
Re'W Hwn shire
Rhod€' Island
Vermont
U
"73
1 ,4l~5
,7
20Y
REGION II
Ne\l Jersev
NelJ lorl-..
Puprto RlCO
Vir in Isl<.iIlds
",6 7
~~~
3""
31
p~,-;: ',' I I'::
Q"l'.l'w':.lTt'
Iq"
2 5.~:
1 l-t')2
1 29"
2.1 J]
09
'.~C1~',~J.n~
P,,-'nn.:;'.'l vanlll
',~,~'~~ ~"t
...e: t
',' :,.'lnla
= 1:: ~ . c f
:=-,h;.r.t~'l
p c'~ I", ;',
A..l'l.t3...:"....:J.
-172
~ ~ - :- - ::. ~
~C> ~ c.: a
..
6': ,~
359
1 I~IJ":
nE
6S)
- ~
'2,364
~--
,jj7
--
..
1 -':1'~
7:'7
2 ,:. 7'j
1 03S
- .. ~ 'OJ. - j
92<:1
645
07
1 ~ :,0
:: S5~'
.L
~ - R J.
sss
S 7;:,
926
. -'1 ~ :: --.::
~"l:::'-, :.-'~ ~
:;~ ~':-9.::'" 3.
~66
REGL'ii '/:: ~
C:l ::','lj-
MJnt9.~j9.
Nort.'1 :,,-":.':a
Soutn. :J'1f.ota.
Tjtah
T,.J, or,'.ln
51 Z
90
74
72
21 H
76
REGION IX
Arizona
Cal1fornlB.
Ha.....ai i
Nevada.
American '::a..moa
Tr. Terr. of Far::. Islds.
Guam
REGIO~ X
A.laska.
Idaho
Ore on
Washln on
266
4 820
j 39
189
8
133
60
Inter-
ceptors
Comt) 1-
fld t 1 un
F i na 1 EPA
AdJu"ted
Co<; ts
-I ,864
_lJIJ ]
46,193
---
-160
-'J-'
- \"
--.T,
.---- --- ~)--
---r~-
----.----,--------
-""
--------
---
_l~
j
,,~='"t~SE=
" -o'~ :P::if . _n~- ."=+-;~-;
-d13 -3) -IS7 -- -bl" -;~~~-~==r I'i~--=
- 31jO - JU - S + : -)S-= ~-~~~~l~l~i --
o ~~-~~ -----~-- ---_: ~-=n'~J : ,;~l
-~ -_-L_=~ --.- --- =-=- ~~~.-L-~~~ - --r-~L-
~d .1- - -;---- :f +~----== ~-==-~71- -- -I'~~_~ ~-=~ =~==':~~-=
-I~ I -- --------'_'C~;--- ::-::J -j~ un T~-~-- ~~.. -.~l- "~E-~
-1 --. --~-~~-~-J" -- ~~i~
, --'--n-
-9(, -4='3 _.~_n- - t~r-
-45
;- ~ I b
T
_1:,,::'::),
-~)
- S~ 7
-J ,'--:
2 ,'2S
- 53
- S4
-83
-3J
-----:i-
~\-------..-y4
)32
~ 2~
:43
227
-----
-46
-30
-83
- 35
-"
-253
-1~
25'3
-)4
-97
90
74
72
218
-776 -678 -96 -c
-12 -12
-1 + 2 -J
~1)6
4 11~J
~ :9
177
7
)3
to
319
31J
960
-285
67)
-277
-8
. This table shows: (1) the "State Corrected" estlmates; (2) the "EPA Adjustment" to the estimates; (3) the reasons for the
adjustment (Populatlon. Flow per cap1ta.. Effluent L'm'~atlOns. Cost Curves, Interceptors. and a Combination of these problems
that could not be reported); and (4) the "Final EPA Adjusted Costs"
------- |