United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Water Program Operations
(WH-547)
Washington DC 20460
May 1978
430/9-77-015
&EPA
Analysis of Operations &
Maintenance Costs for
Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Systems
OPERATION
MAINTENANCE
TOTAL
SALARIES EMPLOYEE
& WAGES BENEFITS
MATERIALS POWER MISCEL- SUBTOTAL
& SUPPLIES & LIGHT LANEOUS OPERATION
MATE- SUB TOTAL OPERATII
SALARIES EMPLOYEE RIALS & MAINTE- MAINT
& WAGES BENEFITS SUPPLIES NANCE ° NANC
$1,192,473 $252,135 $1,551,462 $ 780,709
$3,776,779 $ 593,304 $125,448 $249,188 $ 967,940 $4,744,7
.in Pumping
oratory
200,228 42,335
130,446 27,581
209,662
470,737
176,472
57,238 12,128 46,740 116,106
4,942 1.036
6,572 183.C
er Survey & Industrial Wastes
ercepting Sewer System
73,386 15,514
263,036 55,612 43,702 362,350 371,
per Allegheny System
24.804 5,241 4,220
34.265 43.C
ling & Collecting
gineenng
360,076
179,112
4,888 $207,733 681,164
1,447 34,503 259,687
5,332 1,124
6.620 687,
ministration & General 261,830
fal Operating Expenses—1974 2,397,551
Percent of Total 31.5
507,007
6.6
1,706,292
22.4
1,270 125,151 517,042
1,014,088 367,387 5,992,325
13.3 4.8 78.6
1,042,949
13.8
220.501
2.9
133,351 650.
363,853 1,627,303 7,619.
tal Operating Expenses—1973
Percent of Total
2,065,646
37.4
418,282
7.6 ,-
954,845
17.3
457,197 366,445 4,262,415
8.3 6.6 77.2
855,311
15.5
179,691
3.3
221,827
4.0
1,256,829
22.8
tal Operating Expenses—1972
Percent of Total
1,706,988
37.3
348,972
7.6
878,859
19.2
323,483 275,835 3,534,137
7.1 6.0 77.2
750,132
16.4
153.146
3.4
137,525
3.0
1,040,803
22.8
tal Operating Expenses—1971
Percent of Total
tal Operating Expenses—1970
Percent of Total
1,586,838 ./257,278 669,868 286.812 262,706 3,063,502
40.1 6.5 16.9 7.2 6.6 77.3
c-
1,389,711 285,348 522,648 ,246,387 263,730 2,707,824
39.8 8.2 15.0 7.0 7.5 77.5
Year Avg Operating Expenses
Percent of Total
1.829,348
' 36.3
363,377
7.2
946,502
18.8
465,593 307,221 3,912,041
9.3 6.1 77 7
'Breakdown of Treatment Expenses:
reening & Grit Removal ,
eaeration & Sedimentation
185,995 39,344
178,912 37,823
255,138
229.696
647,883
16.4
549,136
15.7
769,082
15.3
104,497
2.6
112,739
3.2
154.115
3.1
146.224
3.7
124,228
36 o
198,731
39
37,637 7.960 8,776
898,604
22.7
786,103
22.5
1,121,928
22.3
54,373 309
73.554 15.546 14,143 103,243 ' 332
idary Treatment
190,350 40,256 181,152 529,243
941,001
72,673 15,370 14,771
102.814 1.04
im Filtration
314,296 66,418
607,697
1,073.180
108,368 22.911 43,763
175,042 1,24.
322,920 68,294 725,520 161,030
1,277,764
301.072 63,661 167,735
532.468 1.81C
MCD-39
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection
Agency and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. In this report there
is no attempt by EPA to evaluate the practices and methods reported.
The three technical reports listed below were prepared in con-
junction with the 1976 Update of Needs Municipal Facilities, a biennial
report to the U.S. Congress. These series of reports provide con-
struction cost relationships for wastewater treatment plants and sewers
presently under construction and also related operations and maintenance
(O&M) cost relationships for existing facilities. The data base for all
three studies is representative of the ten regions.
Document Number
430/9-77-013 Construction Costs For Municipal
MCD-37 Wastewater Treatment Plants: 1973-1977
430/9-77-014 Construction Costs For Municipal
MCD-38 Wastewater Conveyance Systems: 1973-1977
430/9-77-015 Analysis of Operations & Maintenance
MCD-39 Costs For Municipal Wastewater
These reports were prepared under the direction of:
James A. Chamblee, Chief
Needs Assessment Section (WH-547)
Office of Water Program Operations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, B.C. 20460
(202) 426-4443
Copies of these reports are available from the address below. When
ordering, please include the title and MCD number.
General Services Administration (8.FFS)
Centralized Mailing Lists Services
Bldg. 4,1, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
-------
EPA 430/9-77-015 MCD-39
TECHNICAL REPORT
ANALYSIS OF OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
FOR MUNICIPAL VIASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
BY
DAMES & MOORE
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ENGINEERING SERVICES
DENVER. COLORADO
FEBRUARY 1978
PREPARED FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
WASHINGTON,, D,C, 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 PURPOSE \ 1-1
1.2 BACKGROUND 1-2
1.3 DATA BASE 1-4
1.4 FINDINGS 1-5
2.0 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.1 PURPOSE 2-1
2.2 OBJECTIVES 2-2
2.3 SCOPE 2-3
3.0 METHODOLOGY 3-1
3.1 INFORMATION SOURCES 3-1
3.2 APPROACH TO DATA ACQUISITION 3-3
3.2.1 Selection of Facilities 3-3
3.2.2 Data Collection Procedure 3-4
3.2.3 Data Collection Format 3-5
3.3 DATA BASE 3-5
3.4 DATA BASE ANOMALIES 3-8
3.5 COST INDEXING PROCEDURE 3-12
4.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS: WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANTS 4-1
4.1 OPERATING COST PARAMETERS 4-1
4.1.1 Operational Capacity: Average Daily Flow
versus Design Flow 4-1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
4.1.2 Component Treatment Expenditures 4-3
4.1.3 Average Cost Per Employee 4-12
4.1.4 Distribution of Functional Costs 4-15
4.1.5 Cost Allocation: Operating Versus Supporting.. 4-19
4.2 RELATIVE O&M INDICES FOR VARIOUS ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
METHODS 4-19
4.3 EFFECT OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE LOADINGS ON O&M COSTS 4-22
4.4 PER CAPITA TRENDS AND OPERATING COSTS 4-26
4.4.1 Per Capita Flow Trends 4-26
4.4.2 Per Capita Operating Costs 4-30
4.5 OPERATING EFFICIENCIES 4-35
4.5.1 Average Flow Treatment Costs 4-35
4.5.2 Average BOD Removal Costs 4-37
4.5.3 Average SS Removal Costs 4-42
4.5.4 Significant O&M Relationships 4-44
4.6 LEVEL OF TREATMENT UPGRADING COSTS 4-46
4.7 ECONOMIES OF SCALE DETERMINATION 4-48
4.8 INCREMENTAL AWT COSTS 4-52
5.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS: SEWER SYSTEMS 5-1
5.1 SEWER SYSTEM DEFINITIONS AND STATISTICAL SUMMARY 5-1
5.1.1 Sewer System Definitions 5-1
5.1.2 Statistical Summary 5-2
5.2 OM&R COSTS PER CAPITA 5-5
5.3 OM&R COSTS PER MILE 5-7
-------
Ill
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
Page
5.3.1 Gravity Sewers 5-7
5.3.2 Force Mains 5-7
5.4 ANALYSIS OF PUMPING STATIONS 5-7
5.5 COST ALLOCATION: OPERATING VERSUS SUPPORTING 5-12
APPENDIX A METHODOLOGY USED IN EPA SURVEY A-l
A.I SAMPLE SELECTION - TREATMENT PLANTS A-l
A.2 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES A-36
A.2.1 Methods of Contact A-36
A.2.2 Data Collection Forms A-37
A.2.3 Data Coding A-44
APPENDIX B ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE AGENCIES SURVEY... B-l
B. 1 BACKGROUND B-l
B.2 DATA BASE B-2
APPENDIX C COST INDEXING PROCEDURE C-l
C.I NEED FOR COMMON DOLLAR BASE C-l
C.2 ALTERNATIVE INDICES FOR PLANT COSTS C-l
C.3 DESCRIPTION OF EPA O&M PLANT INDEX C-2
C.4 APPLICATION OF EPA O&M PLANT INDEX C-3
C.5 SEWER COST CONVERSION C-3
APPENDIX D WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS D-l
APPENDIX E WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT GRAPHICAL RELATIONSHIPS E-l
APPENDIX F SEWER SYSTEMS F-l
APPENDIX G SEWER SYSTEM GRAPHICAL RELATIONSHIPS G-l
CONVERSION EQUIVALENTS
REFERENCES
-------
IV
LIST OF TABLES
Table
3.1 Number of Wastewater Treatment Plants Surveyed by Size
Group 3-7
3.2 Number of Wastewater Treatment Plants Surveyed by EPA
Region and Size Group • 3-9
3.3 Number of Wastewater Treatment Plants Surveyed by Level
of Treatment 3-10
4.1 Distribution of Operational Capacity of Wastewater
Treatment Plants by Level of Treatment 4-2
4.2 Operational Capacity of Wastewater Treatment Plants
by Level of Treatment 4-2
4.3 Average Operating Cost for Various Treatment Levels by
Operational Capacity, EPA Survey 4-4
4.4 Average Operating Cost for Various Treatment Levels by
Operational Capacity, AMSA Survey 4-5
4.5 Average Percent Distribution of Various Expenditures to
Total Costs by Treatment Level for 1.0-5.0 MGD Actual
Flow 4-6
4.6 Average Percent Distribution of Various Expenditures to
Total Costs by Treatment Level for 5.1-20.0 MGD Actual
Flow 4-7
4.7 Average Percent Distribution of Various Expenditures to
Total Costs by Treatment Level for >20.0 MGD Actual
Flow 4-8
4.8 Average Percent Distribution of Various Expenditures to
Total Costs by Treatment Level for All Size Plants, EPA
Survey 4-10
4.9 Average Percent Distribution of Various Expenditures to
Total Costs by Treatment Level for All Size Plants,
AMSA Survey 4-11
4.10 Average Cost Per Employee for Various Treatment Levels
and Size Groups, EPA Survey 4-13
4.11 Average Cost Per Employee for Various Treatment Levels
and Size Groups, AMSA Survey 4-14
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
4.12 Average Percentage of Functional Costs to Total O&M
Costs by Level of Treatment, EPA Survey 4-16
4.13 Average Percentage of Functional Costs to Total O&M
Costs by Level of Treatment, AMSA Survey 4-18
4.14 Average Operating Costs As Percentages of Total O&M
Costs 4-20
4.15 Index Values For Average O&M Cost Per Dry Ton of SS
Removed For Various Levels of Treatment By Ultimate
Sludge Disposal Methods, EPA Survey 4-21
4.16 Index Values For Average O&M Cost Per Dry Ton of SS
Removed For Various Levels of Treatment By Ultimate
Sludge Disposal Methods, AMSA Survey 4-23
4.17 Number of Wastewater Treatment Plants Surveyed By
Industrial Contribution 4-25
4.18 Average O&M Cost for Treatment as Affected by Industrial
Wastes, EPA Survey 4-27
4.19 Average O&M Cost For Treatment As Affected by Industrial
Wastes, AMSA Survey 4-28
4.20 Average Flow Per Capita For Wastewater Treatment Plants
Surveyed By Size Group 4-29
4.21 Average Operating Cost Per Capita for Varying Treatment
Levels by WWTP Size Group, EPA Survey..... 4-31
4.22 Average Operating Cost Per Capita For Varying Treatment
Levels By WWTP Size Group, AMSA Survey 4-33
4.23 Average Operating Cost For Varying Treatment Levels By
EPA Regions 4-34
4.24a Average Cost Per Million Gallons Treated, EPA Survey 4-36
4.24b Median Cost Per Million Gallons Treated, EPA Survey 4-36
4.25a Average Cost Per Million Gallons Treated, AMSA Survey 4-38
4.25b Median Cost Per Million Gallons Treated, AMSA Survey 4-38
-------
VI
LIST OF TABLES (Concluded)
Table Page
4.26a Average Cost Per Pound BOD Removed, EPA Survey... 4-39
4.26b Median Cost Per Pound BOD Removed, EPA Survey 4-39
4.27a Average Cost Per Pound BOD Removed, AMSA Survey 4-41
4.27b Median Cost Per Pound BOD Removed, AMSA Survey 4-41
4.28a Average Cost Per Pound SS Removed, EPA Survey 4-43
4.28b Median Cost Per Pound SS Removed, EPA Survey 4-43
4.29a Average Cost Per Pound SS Removed, AMSA Survey 4-45
4.29b Median Cost Per Pound SS Removed, AMSA Survey 4-45
4.30 Percent O&M Cost Differentials For Upgrading a Wastewater
Treatment Facility 4-47
4.31a Average Cost Per Pound BOD Removed 4-53
4.31b Average Cost Per Pound SS Removed 4-53
5.1 Distribution of Sewer Systems Sampled 5-3
5.2 Statistical Summary of Sewer System Data 5-4
5.3 Average Cost Per Capita for Various Types of Sewer
Systems 5-6
5.4 OM&R Cost Per Mile of Gravity Sewers for Various Types
of Sewer Systems 5-8
5.5 Pumping Stations Cost Relationships 5-10
5.6 Pumping Sations Component Costs As Percent of Total
Costs 5-11
5.7 Average Operating and Administrative Support Costs as
Percentages of Total OM&R Costs 5-13
-------
1-1
1.0 SUMMARY
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to present the results and analyses
of the most comprehensive survey made to date on the operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs of the nation's municipal wastewater treatment
plants and collection systems. The results have been derived from actual
plant operating records across the continental United States. Costs are
presented for different levels of wastewater treatment, types of plants
and collection systems, and segregated cost categories. A number of
analyses are also presented as relative costs for certain treatment
variables and characteristics. The cost data utilized in the study range
from fourth quarter 1972 to first quarter 1977. All costs have been
adjusted to third quarter 1977 dollars. Only treatment plants of
1.0 million gallons per day (mgd) capacity or larger were sampled in this
survey. The analyses in this study were performed with the assistance of
a computer statistical package.
This report is addressed to a large and diverse user community
of Federal, state and municipal decision makers, and interested citizens.
It is intended to be of value to funding agencies, to municipal admin-
istrators and elected officials, and to the engineering community, when
planning the construction of new facilities, as well as in comparing O&M
costs of a facility with others in the geographic area or in the nation.
-------
1-2
1.2 BACKGROUND
Virtually all wastewater treatment plants and most sewage collection
systems will expend more fiscal resources for operation, maintenance, and
repair over the lifetime of a given facility than will be invested in
initial capital costs (construction costs). With the advent of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law
/
92-500) and the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217), the number
of wastewater treatment facilities being constructed and brought on-line
nationwide is constantly increasing. The costs necessary to operate and
maintain these facilities will increase at proportional rates, plus
inflation, to staggering amounts. The public and the engineering commun-
ity are very cognizant of the high costs of operating such facilities,
and it is their joint responsibility to provide an adequate annual level
of funding to perform these functions. While capital costs are funded
with massive Federal grants-in-aid of construction, no Federal subsidies
are available for operating and maintaining the treatment facilities.
The decision, therefore, as to the type of plant, level of treatment, and
projected mode of operation must be considered during the planning
stages to allow the decision makers to formulate the most cost effective
long-term solution to an existing pollution control or collection pro-
blem.
In order to satisfy legal and administrative requirements of funding
agencies and municipalities, to conserve financial resources, and
to protect the nation's waters, it is imperative that operation and
-------
1-3
maintenance costs be known and integrated into comprehensive wastewater
treatment plans. This report is an outgrowth of that need. The Office
of Water Program Operations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
has recently published reports on the construction costs of both waste-
water treatment and collection facilities. The data presented in the
three reports noted in the frontispiece of this document are intended to
present the most recent cost information for those individuals and
organizations with responsibility for planning, designing, financing, and
operating wastewater treatment facilities. This report was prepared as a
first step in evaluating the costs associated with operating and main-
taining these facilities. It is not intended to supersede other reports
by the U.S. EPA or reports by other organizations on this subject, but it
has been developed to supplement and, in some cases, update these docu-
ments.
The costs presented in this study are strictly O&M costs, i.e.
those operating costs necessary and essential for the normal functioning
of wastewater treatment plants and sewer systems. Costs for debt service
or amortization of capital construction were not included in the data
presented herein. Also, no attempt was made in this study to assess the
replacement of wastewater treatment facilities required in user charge
systems under the auspices of Public Law 92-500. Only minor replacement
costs and normal, daily repair services were included in this study.
-------
1-4
1.3 DATA BASE
The primary data base utilized for this nationwide study consisted
of 348 individual wastewater treatment plants and 155 sewer systems. The
primary data were collected by the contractor's engineers visiting each
facility and obtaining fiscal information from plant records and in
consultation with the owner's operating and management personnel. The
types of treatment systems included in the survey were primary, secondary
(trickling filter, activated sludge, aerated lagoon, oxidation ditch),
and advanced wastewater treatment systems. The collection system data
base includes cost relationships for gravity sewers, force mains, and
lift stations. The data base for treatment plants was limited to facili-
ties designed to receive greater than 1.0 mgd flow. The 1976 Needs
Survey (EPA Report MCD-48B, February 10, 1977, Office of Water Program
Operations, Washington, B.C. 20460 - 430/9-76-011) reports that at the
time there were a total of approximately 13,220 municipal treatment
plants nationwide. Of these treatment plants, approximately 1,900 have
design capacities greater than 1.0 mgd. Therefore, the sample used in
this survey includes about 18 percent of the treatment plants (those
greater than 1.0 mgd design capacity) in the continental United States.
The plants selected were from representative states in each of the ten
EPA regions.
In addition to the primary source of the data collected by the
contractor, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA)
performed a survey of its membership in 1974-75. Data from this survey
were obtained and analyzed in a cooperative arrangement among U.S. EPA,
-------
1-5
AMSA, and the contractor. From the AMSA survey 99 municipal question-
naires contained sufficient data for a cost analysis. One-half of the
AMSA plants have a design flow capacity greater than 20 mgd while all of
the AMSA plants used in this study have a design capacity greater than
1.0 mgd. Thus, approximately 24 percent of all treatment plants of
capacities greater than one mgd were used in the combined analyses
presented herein. Due to the nature and ease of recording fiscal infor-
mation for treatment plants by various categories versus that for sewer
systems, the results of the data are considered to be more precise for
plants than for sewers.
One factor which became very apparent after the data were collected
was the operation and maintenance costs of both treatment plants and
sewer systems as a function of the number of years (age) that they have
been in service. Again, this may prove to be significant in the results,
but because of the nature of treatment plant additions and modifications
over the years, a statistically valid relationship could not be obtained.
1.4 FINDINGS
This study quantified and confirmed certain economic principles
relative to operating costs of process related facilities. As would be
expected, wastewater treatment plants that are operating at less than
design capacity (less than 90 percent) have substantially higher operat-
ing costs per million gallons treated than plants treating flows at
design capacity (90-110 percent). Overloaded plants have lower average
-------
1-6
operating costs per million gallons treated than plants processing flows
at hydraulic design capacity. For example, the average costs of all
activated sludge treatment plants examined resulted in the follow-
ing values: $192 per million gallons treated at design; $176 per
million gallons treated for overloaded; and for underloaded plants, $198
per million gallons treated at 70-89 percent of design, $315 at 50-69
percent of design, and $436 at less than 50 percent of design.
Operating efficiency analyses indicate that the larger the plant, up
to a limit of approximately 85 mgd, the lower the operation and mainten-
ance costs per million gallons treated. Likewise, the more sophisticated
the treatment process, the more costly waste is to treat per million
gallons. Pollutant removal costs, i.e., the average cost per pound of
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) or Suspended Solids (SS) removed, in-
crease as the level of treatment increases but these average pollutant
removal costs decline as the size of the plant increases.
For all types of treatment levels, personnel, power, and chemical
expenditures accounted for approximately 80 percent of total operating
costs. Advanced wastewater treatment plants had lower relative personnel
costs and higher percent chemical and power costs than other processes,
because these plants are all relatively new and are highly automated.
Other key findings regarding treatment plant operations are briefly
noted. As an ultimate sludge disposal method, incineration is the most
-------
1-7
costly alternative for all levels of treatment while land spreading is
the most economical. Increasing amounts of industrial waste do not
necessarily increase O&M costs appreciably. The average flow per
capita increases as the size of the plant increases. However, per capita
costs in general decline for all levels of treatment as the treatment
plant size increases. Per capita treatment costs are generally higher
east of the Mississippi River than in the western United States. Average
personnel costs per employee are higher at the larger size treatment
plants.
The data indicate that the total operating costs per capita are
highest for sanitary sewer systems and lowest for a mixed system which
has sanitary sewers plus storm sewer systems. The sanitary sewer system
also has the highest per mile operating cost, and the mixed sewer system
has the lowest maintenance cost per mile. The data are not as precise
for sewer systems as for treatment plants due to the difficulties in
recording and allocating costs in the former.
-------
2-1
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PURPOSE
As an integral part of the EPA construction grants review process,
each proposed wastewater treatment construction project must undergo a
cost-effective analysis which ensures that projected Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) costs are reasonable and appropriate for the planned
level of treatment and process train. In addition, the U.S. General
Accounting Office in their December 1976 report entitled "Better Data
Collection and Planning Is Needed To Justify Advanced Waste Treatment
Construction," urged the EPA to consider information on expected water
quality improvements, high initial capital costs, and projected annual
operation and maintenance expenditures before approving construction
grants.
This study provides municipal cost information that should assist
such evaluations by presenting current O&M wastewater treatment facili-
ties data. Further, the study evaluates existing operating costs for
various treatment levels and process trains. Another purpose of this
study is to examine the effect on O&M costs of more stringent wastewater
treatment standards and the current national energy requirements. In
particular, personnel, power, and chemicals are important component O&M
costs that have been subjected to increasing emphasis due primarily to
recent inflationary trends.
-------
2-2
This study also serves as a corollary to the construction cost
reports for municipal wastewater treatment plants and sewers by providing
cost data that supplement the capital construction cost data. These
companion documents are "Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Plants: 1973-1977" (EPA 430/9-77-013, MCD-37) and "Construction
Costs for Municipal Wastewater Conveyance Systems: 1973-1977" (EPA
430/9-77-014, MCD-38). Municipal wastewater planning officials should
find the combined results particularly useful in evaluating a community's
long term costs for operating and maintaining wastewater treatment
facilities.
2.2 OBJECTIVES
Objectives of the operations and maintenance study are enumerated
and grouped according to treatment system objectives and sewer system
objectives. The Treatment System Objectives are as follows:
1) To identify and analyze significant operating cost parameters
for various treatment levels and processes;
2) To assess the relative economy of various sludge disposal
methods for different levels of treatment;
3) To estimate the effect or significance of industrial loadings
on O&M costs and;
4) To assess variations in operating cost per capita for comparable
levels of treatment by plant size and by region;
5) To estimate O&M costs in dollars per million gallons of waste-
water treated for various size plants and levels of treatment;
-------
2-3
6) To estimate O&M costs in terms of dollars per pound of bio-
chemical oxygen demand (BOD) removed and dollars per pound of
suspended solids (SS) removed;
7) To compare primary and secondary treatment O&M costs and to
identify the cost differentials for upgrading a wastewater
treatment facility to the next higher level of treatment;
8) To estimate, if possible, at what point larger (or regional)
wastewater treatment plants become less economical to operate
and maintain than smaller treatment systems; and
9) To estimate the incremental O&M costs of treating wastewater
beyond the conventional secondary treatment processes.
The Sewer System Objectives are as follows:
1) To identify significant operating cost parameters for gravity
sewers, force mains, and lift (or pump) stations;
2) To estimate total operating costs per capita for various
types of collection systems; and
3) To estimate total operating costs per mile of gravity sewer
and force main.
2.3 SCOPE
In order to provide meaningful O&M cost relationships, municipal
wastewater treatment plants are classified by both type and level of
treatment. Level of treatment is mandated by the National Pollutant
-------
2-4
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions and type of
treatment indicates the major processes used to obtain that required
level. The level of treatment and types of plants considered in this
study are categorized as:
LEVELS TYPES
a. Primary Treatment Primary
b. Secondary Treatment
1) Trickling Filter
2) Activated Sludge
3) Oxidation Ditch
4) Aerated Lagoon
c. Advanced Wastewater
Treatment (AWT) AWT
The major goal of primary treatment is to remove from wastewater
those pollutants which will either settle (such as the heavier suspended
solids) or float (such as grease). Primary treatment will typically
remove about 60 percent of the raw sewage SS and about 35 percent of the
BOD. The major goal of secondary treatment is to oxidize the soluble BOD
that escapes the primary process and to provide added removal of SS.
These removals are typically achieved by using biological processes,
providing the same biological reactions that would occur in the receiving
stream if it had adequate capacity to assimilate the wastewater dischar-
ges. When incorporated with primary processes, secondary treatment
processes remove approximately 85 percent of the BOD and SS. In cases
where secondary levels of treatment are not adequate, advanced wastewater
treatment methods are applied to the secondary effluent to provide
-------
2-5
further removal of the pollutants. AWT processes may involve chemical
treatment and physical treatment, including filtration of the wastewater.
Some of these AWT processes can remove as much as 99 percent of the BOD
and phosphorus, nearly all SS and bacteria, and 95 percent of the nitro-
gen. The final effluent is a sparkling clean, colorless, odorless
effluent indistinguishable in appearance from a high quality drinking
water (Gulp, 1977).
Wastewater treatment plants are also grouped by size, and only
facilities with permit flows or design flows equal to or greater than
one million gallons per day (mgd) are included in this study. Plants
with a hydraulic design capacity less than one mgd were not sampled
because the U.S. EPA has an ongoing, comprehensive research and develop-
ment study emphasizing operational efficiencies for the treatment plants
with flows less than one mgd. Hence, these smaller plants were excluded
from this O&M study to preclude duplication of effort. Each level of
treatment is subdivided into the following size categories:
a. Small 1.0 mgd to 5.0 mgd
b. Medium 5.1 mgd to 20.0 mgd
c. Large Greater than 20.0 mgd
In addition to level of treatment and size, results of this study
are also presented for the 10 EPA regions. Where appropriate, findings
are reported which consider industrial loadings and operational-design
capacities. Many municipal agencies provided detailed expenditures by
individual treatment process or groups of processes. In those cases
-------
2-6
total O&M costs are categorized and presented by object of expenditure
classes such as personnel, power, chemicals, materials, outside services,
etc.
For sewer systems, operations, maintenance, and minor repair (OM&R.)
costs are presented for gravity sewers, force mains, and lift (pump)
stations. Comparisons are reported for sewer systems that are similar to
wastewater treatment systems, but the amount and level of detail are not
as extensive nor are the reported costs as thorough. Probable reasons
for the apparent weakness in sewer maintenance cost reporting are prof-
fered. Because most components of sewer systems are underground,
preventive maintenance is not routinely scheduled or performed. In some
cases such preventive maintenance may not even be cost-effective. Most
sewer maintenance work is corrective in nature. Corrective maintenance
occurs on demand such as a line stoppage or break, which requires immedi-
ate action. Another reason for lack of good sewer system data is that
sewer systems have existed over considerable periods of time, and unless
maintenance personnel are knowledgeable about existing sewer lines,
adequate maintenance records and first-hand experience of potential
problems are perfunctory.
-------
3-1
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 INFORMATION SOURCES
In order to establish a valid and uniform data base for the analysis
of O&M costs, the assumption was made that the most accurate and complete
information could be obtained directly from the local municipal officials
at the treatment facility. For this reason, site visits were attempted
for every facility included in this survey. In some instances additional
sources of data were used, such as state or regional files, U.S. EPA O&M
inspection reports, NPDES permit files, and self-monitoring information.
The EPA form 7500-5, employed in the annual O&M inspection for
treatment plants and completed by U.S. EPA or state staff, is generally
available in files at the municipal, state, and sometimes regional
levels. These reports include plant performance data, which were used in
this study only when the inspection period coincided with the munici-
pality's fiscal year, i.e., when comparable periods of time corresponded.
In some instances, however, recent inspection reports provided accept-
able information on process trains and design loadings.
Also available at U.S. EPA regional and state offices were NPDES
permit files containing permit applications, imposed effluent limita-
tions, and usually, quarterly or monthly self-monitoring reports for
treatment plants. The format of these latter reports varied somewhat,
depending on whether the permit program was state or federally-
administered, but they served as the official records of flow and water
-------
3-2
quality data as monitored according to NPDES requirements. From these
self-monitoring reports, average annual flow and water quality parameter
data were obtained for the most recent fiscal year of each facility.
Permits and permit applications were also used since they often contain
effluent limitations, information on design parameters, and service
populations.
Remaining operating data and virtually all cost data were obtained
at the municipal level, either from facility operators or administrators
in the operating authority office. Due to differences in accounting
procedures, it was occasionally necessary to contact more than one
municipal department in order to collect requisite data for both the
treatment and sewer systems. Actual expenditures were recorded whenever
available; however, when auditing schedules or other constraints pre-
cluded the use of such figures, budget estimates for the year under
consideration were accepted. The O&M cost estimates contained in this
study do not include any allowance for amortization of capital debt
or any provision for debt service retirement.
During the formative stages of this survey the U.S. EPA became aware
that the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) had con-
ducted an extensive O&M study among its membership in 1975 but had yet to
complete the data analysis and prepare the survey results. The U.S. EPA
project personnel contacted AMSA officials to volunteer data processing
and analytical assistance in exchange for use of the AMSA-acquired
-------
3-3
O&M data. AMSA officials agreed to this arrangement and the EPA project
officer concurred with this agreement.
3.2 APPROACH TO DATA ACQUISITION
3.2.1 Selection of Facilities
To establish significant national cost relationships, a sample of
treatment systems greater than one mgd was selected that would be reason-
ably representative of existing facilities across the nation. The
smaller treatment plants (less than one mgd) were excluded from this
study. The prime reason for this exclusion was to avoid duplicating an
in-depth, continuing U.S. EPA research and development study specifically
oriented toward operating efficiencies of the nation's smaller treatment
plants. Sizes and locations of the sampled facilities in this O&M study
were determined using a percentage of existing facilities as tabulated by
design flow, type, and level of treatment in the U.S. EPA 1976 Needs
Survey. From these percentages, the number of facilities to be surveyed
by EPA region were established.
On the assumption that each EPA region can be accurately represented
by one or two states, 17 states were selected to represent the nation.
The selected states were California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maine,
Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Sample facilities within each state were selected with respect to such
factors as geography, terrain, urbanization, and climate. The selected
-------
3-4
facilities were, in most cases, reviewed by state or EPA regional auth-
orities for their suitability within the context of the survey. A more
detailed description of the sample selection procedure appears in
Appendix A.I (Sample Selection — Treatment Plants).
3.2.2 Data Collection Procedure
Following the initial determination of the sample characteristics
and the state or states to be considered in each region, the Operation
and Maintenance (O&M) Branch in each EPA region was contacted. From the
NPDES permit files and other information available in the O&M offices,
specific facilities were selected to satisfy the desired survey require-
ments. The predesignated state or states and facilities were reviewed by
the O&M staff of each regional EPA office.
In some regions more complete information, such as accessibility of
permit files, was available in the state offices. Whenever this
occurred, the facilities selection took place at that level. In many
states flow and water quality data were readily obtained from the self-
monitoring reports in the state offices, thereby reducing the volume of
data required from local contacts.
Upon approval of the selected sample facilities, appointments were
scheduled with personnel at the municipal level. Generally, the facility
design and performance data were provided by the superintendent of the
facility or the director of public works, and the costs of operation and
-------
3-5
maintenance from the same source or from the municipal finance depart-
ment. A visit was made to every facility in order to assess the opera-
tional processes and to obtain other required information.
3.2.3 Data Collection Format
In order to facilitate data management, a pre-printed coded work-
sheet was devised on which to record the desired data. The treatment
system data worksheet provided space for recording flow, influent and
effluent quality, treatment processes, and pumping data in addition to
cost data for each treatment facility for a given fiscal year. A second
worksheet was designed for recording design and cost data for sewer
systems, whether operated by the treatment system authority or an inde-
pendent authority. A third worksheet was available for including addi-
tional information or comments. Each format was flexible enough to
accommodate itemization of varying systems for cost and physical system
data as records management and accounting procedures often differ sub-
stantially among municipalities.
A detailed description of the categories of data obtained and the
worksheet used are included in Appendix A.2 (Data Collection Procedures).
3.3 DATA BASE
The data base of this nationwide operations and maintenance study
consists of two sources: the 1977 survey conducted by the U.S. EPA and
the 1975 survey performed by the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies (AMSA).
-------
3-6
The U.S. EPA survey includes current O&M cost and operational
data for 348 municipal wastewater treatment plants and 155 municipal
sewer systems, providing a representative national sample. A detailed
description of the sample selection and data collection procedures
employed in the EPA survey appear in Appendix A.
The 1975 AMSA survey yielded extensive data on plant operations,
design parameters, staffing levels, and operating costs for 99 AMSA
member facilities. No contributary sewer system data were included in
the AMSA survey. Appendix B describes the AMSA survey and presents a
listing of these wastewater treatment plants.
Table 3.1 shows the number of wastewater treatment plants surveyed
by plant size group (design flow capacity) in the EPA and AMSA studies.
The EPA survey is a representative national sample of existing treatment
plants by hydraulic design capacity greater than one mgd: approxi-
mately two-thirds of all plants contained in the survey are classed as
small (1.0-5.0 million gallons per day); about one-quarter are medium-
sized plants (5.1 to 20.0 mgd); and the remaining number or approximately
one-tenth are categorized as large wastewater treatment facilities
(greater than 20.0 mgd). The AMSA survey, however, represents a bias
toward the larger capacity treatment plants with one-half of all surveyed
plants greater than 20 mgd. The balance of the AMSA data is equally
divided between small and medium-sized facilities, 25 percent each.
-------
3-7
TABLE 3.1
NUMBER OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS SURVEYED BY SIZE GROUP
Size Group: Design Capacity EPA Survey AMSA Survey
(Million Gallons Per Day)
1.0-5.0
5.1-20.0
>20.0
TOTALS
Number
227
89
32
348
Percent
65
26
9
100
Number
25
25
49
99
Percent
25
25
50
100
-------
3-8
Table 3.2 presents a distribution of wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs) surveyed by EPA region and size group. This distribution reason-
ably represents the 10 EPA regions by size groups. EPA Regions IV
(Southeast) and V (Lake Central) have the greatest number of plants while
EPA Regions VII (Plains) and X (Northwest) have the smallest number of
facilities.
A distribution of wastewater treatment plants sampled by level
of treatment for the two surveys is shown in Table 3.3. The EPA survey
approximates the various levels of treatment that are representative
treatment systems across the nation. The AMSA survey indicates a high
percentage of primary and activated sludge plants and a low percentage of
trickling filter and advanced waste treatment (AWT) plants. No aerated
lagoons nor oxidation ditches were sampled in the AMSA survey.
Care was taken in the EPA survey not to sample plants that were
already included in the AMSA data base. However, nine plants were
duplicated in the EPA survey but these plants were enlarged, upgraded in
level of treatment, or a combination of enlargement or upgrading since
the AMSA survey was conducted. Therefore, the inherent characteristics
of these nine plants were significantly changed.
3.4 DATA BASE ANOMALIES
During the data collection phase of the EPA survey it was revealed
that the cost accounting systems for wastewater treatment plants were
-------
3-9
NUMBER
IURVEYE:
1.0-5.
18
24
24
39
32
25
13
14
27
11
TABLE 3 . 2
EPA SURVEY
OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
D BY EPA REGION AND SIZE
0 mgd 5.1-20.0 mgd
5
11
7
17
16
8
3
5
11
6
PLANTS
GROUP
>20.0 mgd
0
4
3
3
9
4
2
2
4
1
TOTALS
23
39
34
59
57
37
18
21
42
18
EPA Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
TOTALS 227 89 32 348
-------
3-10
TABLE 3.3
NUMBER OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
SURVEYED BY LEVEL OF TREATMENT
EPA Survey AMSA Survey
Level of Treatment Number Percent Number Percent
Primary 63 18 29 29
Secondary
— Trickling Filter 68 19 88
— Activated Sludge 131 38 49 50
— Aerated Lagoon 62 00
— Oxidation Ditch 72 00
Advanced (AWT) 73 21 13 13
TOTALS 348 100 99 100
-------
3-11
considerably detailed. Utility accounting procedures varied among
the selected facilities.
It was observed that the general levels for fringe benefits vary
as to local custom and the socioeconomic profile of the community. The
fringe benefits (retirement, social security, health insurance, etc.)
percentage of total payroll varied from a low of approximately 10 percent
to a high of 35 percent. In this study fringe benefits were included as
part of personnel costs.
Administrative and support services costs were often omitted where
the sewerage facility was an agency of the municipal government. Admin-
istrative costs for autonomous bodies like sewer commissions or special
sanitation districts were usually available and were apportioned among
the various facilities if there was more than one treatment plant.
A frequent inconsistency occurred with respect to the terminology
used for contractual services. Contractual services, as defined in this
study, are work done by outside forces, rental of equipment, service
contracts, etc. Many municipalities included under contractual services
any purchase of materials, supplies, or services, which was made through
a municipal contract. This required the investigator to segregate
the individual costs into classifications consistent with the study data
base. In general, the costs of major equipment replacements (e.g.
pumps, blowers, etc.) were not included in the data base, but in some
-------
3-12
instances the investigator experienced difficulty in excluding these
items.
Cost accounting procedures and data for sewer systems were usually
not as well developed as for plants. Greater cost detail was usually
available at the larger facilities because a permanent crew was assigned
to perform routine sewer maintenance work. In the smaller municipalities
personnel were often assigned only when needed and in many cases manhour
and recorded payroll figures were often the superintendent's estimate.
\
In some instances, sewer maintenance was often a function of the Depart-
ment of Public Works or another department, which made actual sewer
system operations, maintenance, and minor repair costs difficult to
estimate. Where this situation occurred, the local official offered his
estimate in the apportionment of costs to labor, materials, contracted
work, etc.
3.5 COST INDEXING PROCEDURE
The O&M cost data collected in the EPA survey range in time from
late 1975 to early 1977. The AMSA cost data ranges over a longer time
span: late 1972 to late 1975. Prior to performing data analyses, these
current cost data were converted to constant dollars. Several indices
were considered in translating these O&M costs to a common dollar
base. The EPA O&M cost index was selected primarily because it reason-
ably estimates actual wastewater treatment plant O&M costs. All treat-
ment plant costs reported in the EPA survey and the AMSA survey were
-------
3-13
converted to third quarter 1977 dollars using the EPA O&M cost index. A
description of this index is provided in Appendix C and Table C.I indi-
cates the procedure used in normalizing the recorded costs.
Finding a suitable index to convert current dollar amounts for
operations, maintenance, and minor repair (OM&R) to sewer systems was
difficult. A thorough search revealed no appropriate OM&R index.
However, in the absence of a good conversion measure, the most suitable
index apparently is the EPA complete urban sewer system (CUSS) cost
index. Even though the CUSS index is predicated on construction of sewer
systems, it was reasoned that much of the operations and maintenance work
on sewer systems is repair and minor replacement work. Therefore, the
EPA CUSS index was used to adjust current OM&R costs of sewer systems to
a common dollar base.
-------
4-1
4.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
4.1 OPERATING COST PARAMETERS
4.1.1 Operational Capacity: Average Daily Flow versus Design Flow
Approximately three-fourths of all wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs) included in the EPA survey were operating at less than their
hydraulic design capacity or at underloaded conditions. In this study
underloaded plants are defined as the plants in which actual average
daily wastewater flows are less than 90 percent of engineering design
flow. Table 4.1 indicates that about 16 percent of the plants surveyed
were operating within the 90 to 110 percent range of the design capacity.
Only eight percent of this nationwide survey reported average daily flows
exceeding the design requirements by more than 10 percent. All types of
plants are fairly representative of the foregoing national distribution
except that the trickling filter plants are proportionately higher at
overloaded conditions. An in-depth review of the data indicates that a
considerable lapse in time has occurred since the last plant modification
for a high percentage of the overloaded trickling filter plants.
Table 4.2 presents operational capacity data for the AMSA survey.
Approximately one-fourth of all plants in the AMSA survey were operating
at overloaded conditions. Eighteen percent of the WWTPs are operating at
design capacity while about 59 percent are treating flows at less than
-------
4-2
TABLE 4.1
EPA SURVEY
DISTRIBUTION OF OPERATIONAL CAPACITY OF
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS BY LEVEL OF TREATMENT
Level of Treatment
Primary
Secondary
— Trickling Filter
— Activated Sludge
— Oxidation Ditch
-- Aerated Lagoon
Advanced (AWT)
TOTALS
Percent
Operating @
Design (90-110%)
8
Operating @ Operating @
Overload Underload
48
Totals
63
13
24
0
0
10
55
16
9
10
1
0
2
29
8
46
97
6
6
61
264
76
68
131
7
6
73
348
100
TABLE 4.2
AMSA SURVEY
OPERATIONAL CAPACITY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANTS BY LEVEL OF TREATMENT
Level of Treatment
Primary
Secondary
— Trickling Filter
— Activated Sludge
Advanced (AWT)
TOTALS
Percent
Operating Operating Operating
@ Design @ Overload § Underload
(90-110%)
12
13
Totals
29
0
11
3
18
18
2
7
2
23
23
6
31
8
58
59
8
49
13
99
100
-------
4-3
hydraulic design capacity. The most significant point relative to
hydraulic design appears to be the high number of primary treatment
plants that are overloaded (12 of 23 equals 52 percent). Above average
population growth in most of the communities with overloaded primary
treatment plants has been one of the reasons for the high number (12) of
AMSA primary facilities operating beyond design specifications. In
addition, nearly all primary plants are old, and by their hydraulic
capacities, these plants are not able to conform to the existing water
quality effluent standards.
Table 4.3 presents average (arithmetic mean) operating costs for
various treatment levels by operational capacity for the EPA survey.
Except for primary treatment plants, overloaded plants have lower average
operating costs per million gallons treated than WWTPs operating at their
hydraulic design. Also, plants that are operating at less than design
capacity «90 percent) have higher operating costs than plants treating
wastes at design flow. Regardless of treatment level, treatment plants
operating at less than 50 percent of hydraulic design capacity incur
substantially higher O&M costs per million gallons treated. Table 4.4
presents similar data for the plants sampled in the AMSA survey.
4.1.2 Component Treatment Expenditures
Tables 4.5 4.6, and 4.7 present average percent distributions of
various component treatment expenditures for small, medium, and large
plants, respectively. Personnel costs, i.e., labor wages, salaries, and
benefits, comprise about one-half of all WWTP expenditures for primary,
-------
4-4
TABLE 4.3
EPA SURVEY
AVERAGE OPERATING COST FOR VARIOUS TREATMENT LEVELS
BY OPERATIONAL CAPACITY
(Dollars Per Million Gallons Treated Per Year)
Actual Flow as
Percent of
Design Flow
Overload (>110%)
At Design (90-110%)
Underload at
70-89%
50-69%
<50%
Level of Treatment
Secondary
Primary T
147a
131
133
132
281
rickling Filter
133
170
176
184
417
Activated Sludge Advanced
176
192
198
315
436
b
303
376
377
796
The values appearing in this table were determined from the
following equation:
Dollars Per Million Gallons _ Total Annual O&M Costs in Dollars
Treated Per Year ~ Actual Flow (mgd) x 365
No AWT plants reporting overload condition.
-------
4-5
TABLE 4.4
AMSA SURVEY
AVERAGE OPERATING COST FOR VARIOUS TREATMENT LEVELS
BY OPERATIONAL CAPACITY
(Dollars Per Million Gallons Treated Per Year)
Actual Flow as
Percent of
Design Flow
Overload (>110%)
At Design (90-110%)
Underload at
70-89%
50-69%
<50%
Level of Treatment
Secondary
Primary Trickling Filter Activated Sludge Advanced
8ia 46 122 c
109 b 194 111
177
216
239
148
232
b
227
261
-328
529
547
c
aThe values appearing in this table were determined from the following
equation:
Dollars Per Million Gallons
Treated Per Year
Total Annual O&M Costs in Dollars
Actual Flow (mgd) x 365
°No Trickling Filter plants operating at design or at <50% of design.
"No AWT plants reporting cost at overload conditions or at <50% of design.
-------
4-6
TABLE 4.5
EPA SURVEY
AVERAGE PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF VARIOUS EXPENDITURES
TO TOTAL COSTS BY TREATMENT LEVEL FOR
1.0-5.0 MGD ACTUAL FLOW
Level of Treatment
Object of
Expenditure
Category
Personnel
Power a
Total Utilities
Chemical Disinfection
Total Chemicals
Equipment
Materials
Contractual
Other
TOTAL
Number of Plants Surveyed
Secondary
Trickling
Primary Filter
59 57
(14) (13)
15 17
(4) (3)
10 9
3 5
5 6
4 3
4 3
100 100
40 61
Activated
Sludge
54
(22)
23
(2)
6
4
6
3
4
100
95
Advanced
(AWT)
47
(20)
24
(1)
10
5
3
5
6
100
22
Power costs are also included in total utility costs.
Chemical disinfection (usually chlorine) costs are also included
in total chemical costs.
-------
4-7
TABLE 4.6
Object of
Expenditure
Category
Personnel
a
Power
Total Utilities
Chemical Disinfection
Total Chemicals
Equipment
Materials
Contractual
Other
EPA SURVEY
TRIBUTIC
3N OF VARIOUS
EXPENDITURES
iSTS BY TREATMENT LEVEL FOR
!0.0 MGD
ACTUAL FLOW
Level of
Treatment
Secondary
Primary
55
(17)
18
(3)
10
5
7
3
2
Trickling
Filter
57
(12)
15
(4)
10
5
6
3
4
Activated
Sludge
48
(27)
30
(3)
9
4
6
1
2
Advanced
(AWT)
40
(11)
15
(7)
15
15
4
8
3
TOTAL
100
100
100
100
Number of Plants Surveyed
12
17
30
Power costs are also included in total utility costs.
^Chemical disinfection (usually chlorine) costs are also included
in total chemical costs.
-------
4-8
TABLE 4.7
Object of
Expenditure
Category
Personnel
Power
Total Utilities
Chemical Disinfection
Total Chemicals
Equipment
Materials
Contractual
Other
EPA SURVEY
iTRIBUTI
>STS BY
ON OF VARIOUS
EXPENDITURES
TREATMENT LEVEL FOR
0 MGD ACTUAL FLOW
Level of
Treatment
Secondary
Primary
65
(8)
9
(2)
7
1
2
7
9
Trickling
Filter
60
(10)
15
(8)
16
1
3
3
2
Activated
Sludge
47
(14)
18
(3)
8
2
9
8
8
Advanced
(AWT)
44
(20)
25
(5)
15
4
3
6
3
TOTAL
100
100
100
100
Number of Plants Surveyed
12
Power costs are also included in total utility costs.
Chemical disinfection (usually chlorine) costs are also included
in total chemical costs.
-------
4-9
trickling filter, and activated sludge plants regardless of size. In
general, personnel costs for AWT plants constitute less than one-half of
all operating expenses (usually in the 40-47 percent range).
Power costs are noticeably higher in activated sludge plants than
in primary treatment and trickling filter plants regardless of size.
Total chemical costs are relatively the same (8 to 10 percent) for the
various levels of treatment (except for AWT plants) and size of plants.
Due to the nature of AWT plants, a proportionately higher percent of
expenditures is allocated to chemicals than at the other levels of
treatment. Other object of expenditure categories, such as equipment,
materials, and contractual services, contribute proportionately smaller
expenditure amounts.
Table 4.8 reflects the distribution of various expenditures for
all WWTPs in the EPA survey whereas Table 4.9 shows the same information
for the AMSA survey. In both surveys the distribution of expenditures
for primary treatment plants and trickling filter plants are very sim-
ilar. However, the distribution of reported operating costs for the
activated sludge plants and the AWT plants vary significantly.
According to the information in Table 4.8 from the EPA survey,
the percentage of personnel costs declines as the level of treatment
increases. For example, personnel costs represent about 59 percent of
total operating costs at primary treatment plants; this percentage
declines to 58 percent at trickling filter plants and to 52 percent at
-------
4-10
TABLE 4.8
Object of
Expenditure
Category
Personnel
Power
Total Utilities
1
Chemical Disinfection
Total Chemicals
Equipment
Materials
Contractual
Other
EPA SURVEY
iTRIBUTI
>STS BY
ILL SIZE
ON OF VARIOUS
EXPENDITURES
TREATMENT LEVEL FOR
PLANTS
Level of
Treatment
Secondary
Primary
59
(14)
15
(4)
10
3
5
4
4
Trickling
Filter
58
(13)
16
(3)
9
5
6
3
3
Activated
Sludge
52
(22)
24
(2)
7
4
6
3
4
Advanced
(AWT)
46
(19)
23
(2)
12
6
3
5
5
TOTAL
100
100
100
100
Number of Plants Surveyed
56
82
137
28
a
Power costs are also included in total utility costs.
b
Chemical disinfection (usually chlorine) costs are also included
in total chemical costs.
-------
4-11
Object of
Expenditure
Category
Personnel
Power
Total Utilities
Chemical Disinfection
Total Chemicals
Materials
Contractual
Other
TABLE 4 . 9
AMSA SURVEY
TRIBUTION OF VARIOUS
EXPENDITURES
STS BY TREATMENT LEVEL FOR
.LL SIZE PLANTS
Level of
Treatment
Secondary
Trickling
Primary Filter
59 60
(10) (8)
11 12
(4) (
-------
4-12
activated sludge plants. It drops further to 46 percent at AWT plants.
Because of process requirements, the percentage of power costs are
significantly higher at activated sludge plants and AWT plants than at
primary treatment plants and trickling filter plants. Total chemical
costs appear to average about 9 percent for all levels of treatment
although AWT plants indicate a 12 percent distribution. Equipment,
materials, contractual, and other object of expenditure categories all
range between 3 and 6 percent for all treatment levels.
The AMSA survey which includes proportionately larger WWTPs gen-
erally portrays similar findings as reported in the EPA survey. In this
respect Table 4.9 shows the following trends: (1) a decline in the
percentage of personnel costs as the level of treatment increases; (2) a
substantially greater cost for power at activated sludge and AWT plants
as opposed to primary and trickling filter plants; and (3) a significant-
ly higher percentage of total chemical costs at activated sludge and AWT
plants than at primary and trickling filter plants.
4.1.3 Average Cost Per Employee
Average cost per employee is defined as total personnel costs per
staff member. Total personnel costs include not only wages and/or
salaries but also fringe benefits earned by the employee and paid by the
municipality. Table 4.10 presents these data for the EPA survey while
Table 4.11 indicates the results for the AMSA survey. In general, both
surveys show a trend toward higher personnel costs per employee for the
-------
4-13
TABLE 4.10
EPA SURVEY
AVERAGE COST PER EMPLOYEE FOR
VARIOUS TREATMENT LEVELS AND SIZE GROUPS
Flow = 1.0-5.0 mgd
Dollars Per Employee
Number of WWTP
Primary
b
16,405
39
Secondary
Trickling Activated
Filter Sludge
13,574
61
13,994
94
Advanced
(AWT)
.14,373
23
Flow = 5.1-20.0 mgd
Dollars Per Employee
Number of WWTP
13,172
12
16,658
18
14,606
31
15,297
3
Flow > 20.0 mqd
Dollars Per Employee
Kumber of WWTP
All WWTPs
Dollars Per Employee
Total Number of WWTP
13,816
5
15,481
56
18,286
4
14,470
83
15,499
10
14,213
135
15,724
3
14,608
29
Secondary Plants in addition to Trickling Filter and Activated Sludge:
Type 1.0-5.0 mqd 5.1-20.0 mqd
. Oxidation Ditch
. Aerated Lagoon
$ 10,674 (n=5)
$ 7,656 (n=2)
$ 11,028 (n=l)
$ 11,199 (n=l)
The values appearing in this table were determined from the following
equation:
Total Personnel Costs in Dollars
Average Cost Per Employee = ~——;—, ' . m—'-,
^ * * Total Number of Employees
Total Personnel Costs include fringe benefits.
-------
4-14
TABLE 4.11
AMSA SURVEY
AVERAGE COST PER EMPLOYEE FOR
VARIOUS TREATMENT LEVELS AND SIZE GROUPS
Secondary
Flow = 1.0-5.0 mgd
Dollars Per Employee
Number of WWTP
Flow = 5.1-20.0 mgd
Dollars Per Employee
Number of WWTP
Flow > 20.0 mgd
Dollars Per Employee
Number of WWTP
All WWTPs
Dollars Per Employee
Total Number of WWTP
Primary
8,914a
4
15,076
9
18,934
13
16,057
26
Trickling
Filter
b
b
17,889
2
11,289
3
13,929
5
Activated
Sludge
7,468
6
20,776
15
27,084
24
22,366
45
Advanced
(AWT)
12,516
5
4,686
2
13,546
4
11,467
11
Average Cost Per Employee =
Total Personnel Costs in Dollars
Total Number of Employees
Total Personnel Costs include fringe benefits.
No trickling filter WWTPs were reported for the small plant category.
-------
4-15
larger size facilities. This phenomenon might be explained: larger
plants require more specialization (greater division of labor), usually
have labor unions representing hourly wage earners, and are located in
metropolitan areas. In addition, larger plants usually have on their
staff more highly qualified or more skilled personnel which normally are
more expensive. The larger plants also tend to do more of their own
work, particularly for such items as mechanical/electrical problems and
laboratory analyses, rather than contract it to outside services. For
these reasons, it is not surprising that larger plants have higher
employee costs than smaller WWTPs. Average cost per employee for advanc-
ed treatment levels might be expected to be higher than similar costs for
primary treatment plants. This hypothesis is not supported by the
information shown in either table. Regardless of treatment level the EPA
survey (Table 4.10) indicates that the average cost per employee is
nearly the same (actually a 9 percent variance between high and low
rates). However, the AMSA survey (Table 4.11) shows a large disparity of
employee costs between activated sludge and AWT plants. Some of this
difference might be explained since most AWT plants are highly automated.
4.1.4 Distribution of Functional Costs
Table 4.12 presents a distribution of functional costs to total O&M
costs by level of treatment (EPA survey). Functional costs are costs
attributable to a major process in a group of related major processes.
For example, the major functional processes of an activated sludge plant
are primary, solids handling, and secondary. In this instance the
processing of both primary sludge and secondary sludge are grouped
-------
4-16
TABLE 4.12
EPA SURVEY
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF FUNCTIONAL COSTS TO
TOTAL O&M COSTS BY LEVEL OF TREATMENT
Level of Sample Ratio of Functional Costs at
Treatment Size(n) Primary Solids Handling Secondary Advanced
Primary 31 80 20 n.a.a n.a.
Secondary
— Trickling Filter 42 33 30 37 n.a.
— Activated Sludge 72 35 26 39 n.a.
Advanced 15 15 20 47 18
Total Plants Surveyed = 160
Average Design Flow = 10 mgd
Range =0.3 mgd to 200 mgd
a
n.a. denotes 'not applicable".
-------
4-17
and reported as solids handling costs. Costs associated with treating
the liquid stream are primary (removing settleable solids) and secondary
(biologically and chemically removing pollutants from primary-treated
wastewater). Thirty-one primary treatment plants reported functional
costs. Eighty (80) percent of total plant O&M costs were recorded as
primary costs and 20 percent were recorded as solids handling costs.
Forty-two trickling filter plants reported functional costs. A nearly
equal distribution of costs among the three functional areas was record-
ed, viz., 33 percent for primary costs, 30 percent for solids handling
costs, and 37 percent for secondary costs. Functional costs were report-
ed for 72 activated sludge plants. Thirty-five percent of the total
plant O&M costs were recorded as primary costs, 26 percent were recorded
as solids handling costs, and 39 percent were classified as secondary
treatment costs. Fifteen advanced waste treatment plants reported
functional costs. Fifteen percent of the total plant operating costs
were recorded as primary treatment costs, 20 percent were indicated
as solids handling costs, 47 percent were classified as secondary treat-
ment costs, and 18 percent were specifically identified as advanced
treatment costs.
Table 4.13 illustrates the same general distribution of functional
costs as reported by the AMSA survey. The major difference in the
functional cost distributions between the two surveys is the higher
allocation to secondary process at all levels of treatment in the AMSA
survey. Conversely, for every treatment level in the AMSA survey primary
-------
4-18
TABLE 4.13
AMSA SURVEY
AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF FUNCTIONAL COSTS TO
TOTAL O&M COSTS BY LEVEL OF TREATMENT
Level of Sample Ratio of Functional Costs at
Treatment Size(n) Primary Solids Handling Secondary Advanced
a
Primary 7 60 40 n.a. n.a.
Secondary
— Trickling Filter 1 22 20 58 n.a.
— Activated Sludge 17 27 20 53 n.a.
Advanced 5 13 19 52 16
Total Plants Surveyed = 30
Average Design Flow = 70 mgd
Range = 1.0 mgd to 999 mgd
a
n.a. denotes 'not applicable".
-------
4-19
process costs and solids handling costs are comparably lower than in the
EPA survey.
4.1.5 Cost Allocation: Operating Versus Supporting
Table 4.14 presents average operating costs as percentages of total
O&M costs for various levels of treatment and by wastewater treatment
plant size groups. The values listed in this table are actual average
operating costs ("inside-the-fence") which exclude administrative or
supporting services type costs. By subtracting these values from 100,
the resultant values would be the average administrative and supporting
services costs. For all levels of treatment, as the size of treatment
plant increases, the proportion of operating costs to total O&M costs
likewise increases. In addition, as the level of treatment is upgraded,
i.e., primary treatment to secondary treatment to advanced treatment, the
percent of average operating costs increases steadily.
4.2 RELATIVE O&M INDICES FOR VARIOUS ULTIMATE DISPOSAL METHODS
Table 4.15 presents index values for average cost estimates to
remove a dry ton of suspended solids (SS) for various methods of ultimate
sludge disposal. The index values appearing in this table were deter-
mined by dividing the average O&M cost per dry ton of SS removed for a
specific disposal method by the average O&M cost per dry ton of SS
removed for all methods. This relative index value is used for comparing
the SS removal efficiency and related expenses of various solids disposal
methods. (These values or estimates should not be confused with the cost
to process a dry ton of sludge.)
-------
4-20
Actual
Flow (mgd)
0.1 - 5.0
5.0 - 20.0
<20.0
All Plants
TABLE 4 . 14
EPA SURVEY
AVERAGE OPERATING COSTS AS PERCENTAGES
OF TOTAL O&M COSTS3
(All numbers in percentages)
Secondary
Primary Trickling Filter Activated Sludge
82 85 86
83 85 88
88 88 90
83 86 87
Number Sampled 33 39 86
The values
following
Po-mpm-f- On
appearing in this table were determined from the
equation:
-n-^Hrirr r- i- c Total Operating Costs in Dollars
Advanced
89
92
94
92
16
Total O&M Costs (includes Operating
+ Supporting Administrative Cost)
in Dollars
-------
4-21
TABLE 4.15
EPA SURVEY
INDEX VALUES FOR AVERAGE O&M COST PER DRY TON OF SS REMOVED
FOR VARIOUS LEVELS OF TREATMENT BY ULTIMATE SLUDGE DISPOSAL METHODS
Various Methods of
Secondary
Ultimate Sludge Disposal Primary Trickling Filter Activated Sludge Advanced
AIR
Incineration 1.01C
WATER
Ocean Dumping b
LAND
Air Drying Beds 0.69
Land Spreading 0.95
Landfill/Burying 1.12
Average O&M Cost Per
Dry Ton of SS Removed
for All Methods $170°
Number of Disposal
Systems Sampled 63
1.48
0.89
1.03
0.98
$214
68
1.39
1.13
1.32
1.15
0.91
$257
131
1.20
0.87
1.00
0.91
$410
73
The values appearing in this table were determined from
the following equation:
Index Value = Average O&M Costs Per Dry Ton of SS Removed for a Specific
Method of Ultimate Sludge Disposal * Average O&M Cost Per
Dry Ton of SS Removed for All Methods.
No costs reported for this level of treatment.
->i
"Computed:
Total Annual OSM Costs in Dollars of All Systems
Dollars Per Dry Ton of SS = Total Tons of ss RemOved Per Year of All Systems
-------
4-22
As an ultimate method of disposal, incineration is the most costly
alternative for all levels of treatment except primary treatment. Air
drying beds are the least costly method for all levels of treatment
except for activated sludge treatment. Table 4.16 shows comparable
trends for the AMSA survey, viz., incineration is generally the most
costly ultimate sludge disposal method while the various land applica-
tion methods are generally the least costly disposal alternatives.
In general, all of the cost estimates for the various solids handling
methods in the EPA survey are slightly higher than those cost values
obtained from the AMSA survey. This result is probably due to the size
of the WWTPs in both surveys. For example, the average size plant in the
AMSA survey is seven times the size of the average plant in the EPA
survey (70 mgd vs 10 mgd). This analysis suggests that smaller treatment
plants incur proportionately higher solids handling costs per level of
operating efficiency than do larger plants.
4.3 EFFECT OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE LOADINGS ON O&M COSTS
In this study industrial waste loadings are defined as those flows
contributed to municipal wastewater treatment plants by various manufac-
turing establishments, commercial businesses, and profit-making enter-
prises without regard to quality of plant influent. Some industries, of
course, pretreat their wastewater prior to releasing it to the municipal
sewerage system. The specific quality of industrial flows was not
analyzed in this study, but the aggregate contribution of all industrial
flows was recorded and analyzed as a proportion of the total plant
influent.
-------
4-23
TABLE 4.16
AMSA SURVEY
INDEX VALUES FOR O&M COST PER DRY TON OF SS REMOVED
FOR VARIOUS LEVELS OF TREATMENT BY ULTIMATE SLUDGE DISPOSAL METHODS
Various Methods of Secondary
Ultimate Sludge Disposal Primary Trickling Filter Activated Sludge Advanced
AIR
Incineration 1.07a 2.85 1.64 b
WATER
Ocean Dumping 1.16 b 1.51 b
LAND
Air Drying Beds 0.79 0.84 1.06 0.93
Land Spreading 1.17 1.19 0.79 b
Landfill/Burying 1-06 0.85 0.94 1.22
Average O&M Cost Per
Dry Ton of SS Removed
for All Methods $145° $201 $227 $361
Number of Disposal
Systems Sampled 29 8 49 13
3The values appearing in this table were determined from
the following equation:
Index Value = Average O&M Costs Per Dry Ton of SS Removed for a Specific
Method of Ultimate Sludge Disposal * Average O&M Cost Per
Dry Ton of SS Removed for All Methods.
No costs reported for this level of treatment.
c
Computed:
Total Annual O&M Costs in Dollars of All Systems
Dollars Per Dry Ton of SS = Total Tons of SS Removed Per Year of All Systems
-------
4-24
It was hypothesized that industrial waste loadings would impact
costs at a given WWTP in two ways: (1) as the amount (percentage) of
industrial flow increases, the total O&M costs would also show an in-
crease, and (2) average O&M costs for treating industrial wastes would
increase per unit as greater quantities of industrial pollutants are
removed at progressively higher treatment levels. Admittedly, these
hypotheses are somewhat generalized, but the particular objective of this
comparative analysis is to identify and determine the relative impacts
(effects) of industrial waste contributions on O&M costs at municipal
treatment plants. Although both surveys failed to disclose the character
of industrial wastes at the sampled facilities, it was assumed that the
proportion of industrial waste flow to total flow would be a determinant
of total O&M costs.
Table 4.17 shows the number of plants sampled in the two surveys by
the level of industrial flow contribution. Municipal plants treating
wastes were grouped into four categories: those WWTPs receiving no
industrial wastes at all; those WWTPs receiving up to 10 percent of their
total flow; those WWTPs receiving between 10 and 25 percent industrial
wastes; and those WWTP receiving greater than 25 percent of their total
flow in industrial wastes. In comparison to the EPA survey, the AMSA
survey included WWTPs that were more evenly distributed in the four
industrial waste categories.
Results of both surveys refute the first hypothesis, viz., that
as the percent of industrial flow increases, the total O&M costs would
-------
4-25
TABLE 4.17
NUMBER OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS SURVEYED BY INDUSTRIAL CONTRIBUTION
Industrial Flow as Percent
of Total Annual Flow
No Industrial Contribution
Less than 10 Percent
10 - 25 Percent
Greater than 25 Percent
EPA Survey
AMSA Survey
Number
177
39
74
58
Percent
51
11
21
17
Number
35
27
23
14
Percent
36
27
23
14
TOTALS
348
100
99
100
-------
4-26
also increase. Tables 4.18 (EPA survey) and 4.19 (AMSA survey) indicate
that plants with increasing industrial flow percentages do not incur
higher average O&M costs per million gallons of wastewater treated.
The second hypothesis appears to be substantiated by the data
presented in both surveys. From Tables 4.18 and 4.19, average O&M costs
per million gallons of treated effluent increase as greater quantities of
industrial pollutants are removed at progressively higher treatment
levels. For example, in Table 4.18 municipal plants that have 10 to 25
percent of their total flows as industrial waste flow show $143 per
million gallons treated for primary plants, $178 per million gallons
treated for trickling filter plants, $225 per million gallons treated
for activated sludge plants, and $247 per million gallons treated for AWT
plants. Similar trends for other industrial waste categories are evident
in both surveys.
4.4 PER CAPITA TRENDS AND OPERATING COSTS
4.4.1 Per Capita Flow Trends
According to Table 4.20 the average flow per capita (in gallons
per capita per day) increases as the size of plant increases. The values
appearing in Table 4.20 were determined by dividing the actual flow (mgd)
less industrial contributions by the service population. Population
equivalent (PE) flow loadings to account for commercial establishments
and public facilities were not computed nor employed in this analysis.
Actual flow data for both surveys were obtained for the most recent year
without considering whether or not the year in question was a "normal"
-------
4-27
TABLE 4.18
EPA SURVEY
AVERAGE O&M COST FOR TREATMENT AS AFFECTED BY INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Industrial Flow as Percent
of Total Annual Flow
No Industrial Flow
Number of Plants
Less Than 10 Percent
Number of Plants
10-25 Percent
Number of Plants
Greater Than 25 Percent
Number of Plants
Dollars Per Million Gallons Treated
Secondary
Primary
$163a
34
$154
10
$143
15
$163
8
Trickling
Filter
$213
42
$144
10
$178
18
$185
11
Activated
Sludge
$311
86
$242
16
$225
34
$236
30
Advanced
$486
15
$681
3
$247
7
$186
9
The values appearing in this table were determined from the
following equation:
Dollars Per Million Gallons Treated =
Total Annual O&M Costs in Dollars
Total Actual Flow (mgd) x 365
-------
4-28
TABLE 4.19
AMSA SURVEY
AVERAGE OSM COST FOR TREATMENT AS AFFECTED BY INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Industrial Flow as Percent
of Total Annual Flow
No Industrial Flow
Number of Plants
Less Than 10 Percent
Number of Plants
10-25 Percent
Number of Plants
Greater Than 25 Percent
Number of Plants
Dollars Per Million Gallons Treated
Secondary
Primary
$188 a
9
$ 81
7
$ 91
8
$ 63
6
Trickling
Filter
$153
4
$ 84
4
$ 0
0
$ 0
0
Activated
Sludge
$238
18
$227
16
$171
12
$161
7
Advanced
$477
4
$ 0
0
$354
3
$ 62
1
The values appearing in this table were determined from the
following equation:
Dollars Per Million Gallons Treated = Total Annual O&M Costs in Dollars
Total Actual Flow (mgd) x 365
-------
4-29
TABLE 4.20
AVERAGE FLOW PER CAPITA FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
SURVEYED BY SIZE GROUP
Average Flow Per Capita
Size Group: Actual Flow (Gallons Per Capita Per Day)
(Million Gallons Per Day) EPA Survey AMSA Survey
0.1-5.0 12la 110
5.1-20.0 130 126
>20.0 145 139
The values appearing in this table were determined from the
following equation:
Actual Flow (mgd) - Industrial Flow (mgd)
Average Flow Per Capita = Service Population
-------
4-30
flow year. In other words, the actual flows used in this study were not
evaluated or classified as "wet" year flows (due to higher than average
precipitation), "dry" year flows (due to lower than average precipita-
tion), or normal year flows.
Because many of the larger WWTPs have heavier commercial flows, it
is assumed that these flows contributed to the sizeable increase in the
gpcd value from the middle group to the greater than 20 mgd size cate-
gory. In addition, some of the larger, older treatment plants in the
eastern U.S. still process storm wastes, i.e., have combined sanitary and
storm wastes. Thus, the combined flows of sanitary and storm flows also
contributed to the noticeably higher gpcd value for the larger size
class.
4.4.2 Per Capita Operating Costs
Table 4.21 presents average operating cost per capita for varying
levels of treatment by WWTP size group. These per capita values do not
include any allowances for amortization of capital debt or any provision
for debt service requirements. In general, it can be stated that per
capita costs decline for all levels of treatment as treatment plant size
increases. Table 4.21 also indicates that per capita costs increase as
the level of treatment progresses from primary to secondary to advanced
treatment systems. On a cost per capita basis, the most costly treatment
systems to operate are the smaller AWT plants (cf* $19.60 per capita per
year). Conversely, the least costly treatment systems to operate are the
large primary treatment plants (cf. $2.89 per capita per year).
-------
4-31
TABLE 4.21
EPA SURVEY
AVERAGE OPERATING COST PER CAPITA
FOR VARYING TREATMENT LEVELS BY WWTP SIZE GROUP
(Costs in Dollars Per Capita Per Year)
Secondary
Actual Flow (MGD) Primary Trickling Filter
0.1 - 5.0
5.1 - 20.0
>20.0
All Plants
$7.87a
n=44
$7.19
n=15
$2.89
n=4
$7.40
n=63
$9.35
n=57
$9.83
n=14
$6.15
n=4
$9.27
n=75
Activated Sludge Advanced
$15.97
n=105
$10.15
n=35
$ 8.72
n=13
$14.02
n=153
$19.60
n=23
$12.01
n=4
$11.77
n=3
$17.81
n=30
The values appearing in this table were determined from the
following equation:
Costs in Dollars Per Capita _ Total Annual OSM Costs in Dollars
Per Year Service Population
These calculations did not include debt service provisions.
-------
4-32
The AMSA survey findings concerning average cost per capita are
presented in Table 4.22. Generally, the same conclusions that are made
about the EPA survey hold true for the AMSA survey. However, the cost
per capita per year for the medium size class of trickling filter plants
is higher than the small class ($6.74 versus $5.23), but this situation
may be biased due to a low sample frequency of only three plants in each
category. Also, the annual cost per capita of medium size AWT plants
($9.43) is lower than the annual cost per capita of medium size activated
sludge plants ($12.63). Again, the aberration might be attributed to the
low number of AWT plants (only two) in the sample. Other than this
discrepancy, the AMSA survey findings regarding annual per capita
operating costs are very comparable with those found in the nationwide
EPA survey.
Table 4.23 presents the same type of data that was reported in
Table 4.21, except average operating costs per capita are presented for
each EPA region rather than by WWTP size class. Of the sample data from
the EPA survey, EPA Regions V and IX indicate the highest annual per
capita operating costs for primary treatment plants at $8.90 and $8.92,
respectively. The lowest annual per capita operating costs for primary
treatment plants are in EPA Regions VI and VIII at $3.08 and $3.55,
respectively. For trickling filter plants, EPA Regions II and IV rank
the highest in annual per capita operating costs at $18.60 and $10.16,
while the lowest per capita costs for trickling filter WWTP are in EPA
Regions VI ($5.31) and VIII ($6.03). EPA Regions I and VIII show the
-------
4-33
TABLE 4.2.2
AMSA SURVEY
AVERAGE OPERATING COST PER CAPITA
FOR VARYING TREATMENT LEVELS BY WWTP SIZE GROUP
(Costs in Dollars Per Capita Per Year)
Secondary
Actual Flow (MGD) Primary Trickling Filter
0.1 - 5.0
5.1 - 20.0
>20.0
All Plants
$8.5ia
n=7
$4.83
n=10
$4.67
n=13
$5.62
n=30
$5.23
n=3
$6.74
n=3
$2.17
n=2
$5.03
n=8
Activated Sludge Advanced
$23.40
n=12
$12.63
n=ll
$ 7.11
n=25
$12.45
n=48
$29.43
n=2
$ 9.43
n=2
$ 7.38
n=3
$14.27
n=7
The values appearing in this table were determined from the
following equation:
Costs in Dollars Per Capita _ Total Annual OSM Costs in Dollars
Per Year ~ Service Population
These calculations did not include debt service provisions.
-------
4-34
TABLE 4.23
EPA SURVEY
AVERAGE OPERATING COST FOR VARYING TREATMENT
LEVELS BY EPA REGIONS
(Dollars Per Capita Per Year)
Secondary
EPA Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
National Average
Primary
$6.94
n=6
$7.95
n=5
$4.46
n=4
$8.40
n=10
$8.90
n=10
$3.08
n=2
$5.09
n=5
$3.55
n=3
$8.92
n=ll
$7.60
n=7
$7.40
n=63
Trickling Filter
$9.29
n=3
$18.60
n=10
$9.80
n=7
$10.16
n=14
$7.70
n=6
$5.31
n=14
$6.81
n=5
$6.03
n=7
$8.64
n=6
$7.27
n=3
$9.27
n=75
Activated Sludge
$22.74
n=ll
$13.03
n=18
$12.25
n=19
$18.21
n=26
$13.86
n=29
$7.44
n=18
$10.19
n=3
$22.72b
n=6
$9.47
n=16
$14.32
n=7
$14.02
n=153
Advanced
$35.21
n=2
$18.64
n=5
$32.32
n=3
$16.15
n=l
$16.41
n=ll
$ a
n=
$14.29
n=2
$ a
n=
$8.05
n=6
$ a
n=
$17.81
n=30
Per capita operating costs not reported in these regions.
b
Abnormally high due to inclusion of two mountain resort areas; when these
two Colorado resort areas are excluded, the average per capita cost is $8.01.
-------
4-35
highest ($22.74 and $22.72) per capita treatment costs for activated
sludge plants. (Note: EPA Region VIII's per capita cost per year is
abnormally high due to a small sample (6) and of this sample two plants
are located in mountain resort communities. If these two plants are
excluded, EPA Region VIII's per capita cost drops to $8.01 which would
make it the lowest region along with EPA Region VI.) The highest annual
per capita operating cost for AWT systems is in EPA Region I ($35.21) and
the lowest is in EPA Region IX ($8.05). The high annual per capita cost
at EPA Region I is atypical; this value is based on only two samples.
Therefore, this per capita per year cost should be used with caution.
4.5 OPERATING EFFICIENCIES
4.5.1 Average Flow Treatment Costs
Table 4.24a indicates average (arithmetic mean) cost per million
gallons treated for varying levels of treatment by WWTP size. The
findings of the EPA survey show, as expected, that the cost of treating a
million gallons of wastewater increases as the level of treatment in-
creases. Primary treatment plants average $159 per million gallons
treated, trickling filter plants $196, activated sludge plants $268, and
AWT plants $398. In all levels of treatment, as the WWTP group size
increases, the average cost of treating one million gallons of wastewater
decreases. This result basically reinforces the concept of economies of
scale.
Table 4.24b presents a corresponding distribution of average costs
for level of treatment and size categories except that costs are reporte<
-------
4-36
TABLE 4.24a
EPA SURVEY
AVERAGE COST PER MILLION GALLONS TREATED
1.0-5.0 mgd 5.1-20.0 mgd >20.0 mgd All Plants
Primary
Secondary
— Trickling Filter
— Activated Sludge
Advanced (AWT)
$176a
n=40
$212
n=61
$316
n=95
$454
n=22
$137
n=12
$162
n=17
$165
n=30
$251
n=3
$ 47
n=4
$ 95
ri=4
$149
n=12
$136
n=3
$159
n=56
$196
n=82
$268
n=137
$398
n=28
The values appearing in this table were determined from the following
equation:
. „ 4. T, ,, • i -i • ~ -i-i Total Annual OSM Costs in Dollars
Average Cost Per Million Gallons = ———., • : — ——
Actual Plow (mgd) x 365
TABLE 4.24b
EPA SURVEY
MEDIAN COST PER MILLION GALLONS TREATED
Level of Treatment
Primary
1.0-5.0 mgd 5.1-20.0 mgd >20.Q mgd All Plants
$161C
$ 98
$ 40
$126
Secondary
— Trickling Filter
$182
$113
$46
$163
— Activated Sludge
$240
$155
$123
$219
Advanced (AWT)
$458
$221
$139
$366
The values appearing in this table were determined from the following
equation: Median Cost Per Million Gallons is the middle value in order of
size by dividing Total Annual O&M Costs in Dollars by Actual Flow (mgd)
times 365.
-------
4-37
as median costs. These median values reflect similar trends as the
average costs shown in Table 4.24a, viz., the median O&M cost of treating
one million gallons of wastewater increases both as the level of treat-
ment is upgraded and as the size of plant decreases in hydraulic design
capacity.
The AMSA survey findings (Table 4.25a) exhibit the same patterns
of average cost per million gallons treated as reported above in the EPA
survey. The average cost per million gallons treated declines as the
size (capacity) of the WWTP increases but the average cost per million
gallons treated increases as the level of treatment also increases
(quality upgrading). Similarly, the AMSA survey shows median values that
demonstrate this same trend (Table 4.25b). One additional observation is
made in comparing the data from the two surveys: the average costs
presented in the AMSA survey are considerably less than those presented
in the EPA survey. This phenomenon is probably due to the significantly
larger size treatment plants in the AMSA survey as opposed to the EPA
survey (70 mgd vs 10 mgd).
4.5.2 Average BOD Removal Costs
Perhaps an even better way to look at plant efficiency is to compare
pollutant removal unit costs instead of an average cost per volume of
wastewater treated. Table 4.26a shows average cost per pound of BOD
removed for plants sampled in the EPA survey. Primary treatment removal
costs are high in comparison to other treatment levels. (BOD removal
-------
4-38
TABLE 4.25a
AMSA SURVEY
AVERAGE COST PER MILLION GALLONS TREATED
Level of Treatment
Primary
Secondary
1.0-5.0 mgd
$1023
n=4
5.1-20.0 mgd >20.0 mgd All Plants
$ 89
n=10
$ 64
n=13
$ 78
n=27
— Trickling Filter
— Activated Sludge
Advanced (AWT)
$136
n=3
$341
n=7
$435
n=5
$134
n=2
$230
n=15
$390
n=3
$ 74
n=3
$139
n=24
$110
n=4
$113
n=8
$199
n=46
$316
n=12
The values appearing in this table were determined from the following
equation:
„ . ,,. „ ,, Total Annual O&M Costs in Dollars
Average Cost Per Million Gallons = ; ; : — ——
Actual Flow (mgd) x 365
TABLE 4.25b
AMSA SURVEY
MEDIAN COST PER MILLION GALLONS TREATED
Level of Treatment 1.0-5.0 mgd 5.1-20.0 mgd >20.0 mgd All Plants
Primary $ 729 $ 62 $ 50 $ 66
Secondary
— Trickling Filter
$ 92
$ 46
$ 69
$ 89
— Activated Sludge
$305
$168
$120
$165
Advanced (AWT)
$349
$323
$ 99
$305
The values appearing in this table were determined from the following
equation: Median Cost Per Million Gallons is the middle value in order of
size by dividing Total Annual O&M Costs in Dollars by Actual Flow (mgd)
times 365.
-------
4-39
Level of Treatment
TABLE 4.2 6a
EPA SURVEY
AVERAGE COST PER POUND BOD REMOVED
1.0-5.0 mgd 5.1-20.0 mgd >20.0 rogd All Plants
Primary
Secondary
— Trickling Filter
— Activated Sludge
Advanced (AWT)
$0.35a
n=26
$0.17
n=48
$0.26
n=75
$0.37
n=19
$0.47
n=9
$0.15
n=ll
$0.12
n=27
$0.20
n=3
$0.07
n=4
$0.10
n=2
$0.13
n=9
$0.15
n=3
$0.35
n=39
$0.16
n=61
$0.22
n=lll
$0.32
n=25
The values appearing in this table were determined from the following
equation:
, „ , Total Annual O&M Costs in Dollars
Average Cost Per Pound BOD Removed =
Level of Treatment
Primary
Total Pounds of BOD Removed Per Year
TABLE 4.2 6b
EPA SURVEY
MEDIAN COST PER POUND BOD REMOVED
1.0-5.0 mgd 5.1-20.0 mgd >20.0 mgd All Plants.
$0.19
$0.18
$ .08
$0.14
Secondary
— Trickling Filter
$0.13
$0.15
$0.07
$0.13
— Activated Sludge
$0.19
$0.09
$0.11
$0.16
Advanced (AWT)
$0.34
$0.08
$0.13
$0.26
The values appearing in this table were determined from the following
equation: Median Cost Per Pound BOD Removed is the middle value in order of
size by dividing Total Annual O&M Costs in Dollars by Total Pounds of BOD
Removed Per Year.
-------
4-40
costs for primary plants are high because these plants are basically
designed to remove SS. The BOD removals at primary plants are coincident
with SS removal performance.) Notwithstanding this difference it can be
observed that average BOD removal costs increase as the level of treat-
ment increases. Table 4.26b indicates that median BOD removal costs
generally increase as the level of treatment increases. In addition, the
median costs decline as the WWTP size increases. The larger average cost
discrepancy between primary treatment and the other levels of treatment
in Table 4.26a is not quite as profound in the median cost values of
Table 4.26b.
Table 4.27a presents average costs per pound of BOD removed for 92
plants in the AMSA survey. In general, average costs decline as the size
of plant increases; however, average costs do not consistently increase
as the level of treatment is upgraded. For example, the average cost to
remove a pound of BOD for primary treatment plants as well as activated
sludge plants is $0.19 whereas the average cost to do the same job at an
AWT plant is $0.73. A partial explanation for the high AWT BOD removal
cost is the small sample size; perhaps this would have been lower if data
were obtained from more plants. In addition, the BOD removal average
appears abnormally low for trickling filter plants. This, too, might be
attributable to the small number of plants available in the sample.
Although the median costs per pound of BOD removed as shown in Table
4.27b reflect similar trends as the mean costs, the absolute values are
somewhat lower. This fact implies that the arithmetic mean values are
-------
4-41
Level of Treatment
TABLE 4.27a
AMSA SURVEY
AVERAGE COST PER POUND BOD REMOVED
1.0-5.0 mgd 5.1-20.0 mgd >20.0 mgd All Plants
Primary
Secondary
— Trickling Filter
— Activated Sludge
Advanced (AWT)
n=4
$0.07
n=3
$0.24
n=7
$1.36
n=5
$0.25
n=10
$0.14
n=2
$0.24
n=15
$0.45
n=2
$0.18
n=13
$0.03
n=3
$0.14
n=24
$0.08
n=4
$0.19
n=27
$0.07
n=8
$0.19
n=46
$0.73
n=ll
The values appearing in this table were determined from the following
equation:
_ . _ _ , _„ _ , Total Annual O&M Costs in Dollars
Average Cost Per Pound BOD Removed = „ ^ . - - _^ _ r—
Total Pounds of BOD Removed Per Year
TABLE 4 ^27 b
AMSA SURVEY
MEDIAN COST PER POUND BOD REMOVED
Level of Treatment 1.0-5.0 mgd 5.1-20.0 mgd >JO.O mgd All Plants
Primary $0.04a $0.18 $0.12 $0.12
Secondary
— Trickling Filter
$0.07
$0.07
$0.03
$0.05
— Activated Sludge
$0.18
$0.10
$0.09
$0.11
Advanced (AWT)
$0.36
$0.23
$0.07
$0.19
The values appearing in this table were determined from the following
equation: Median Cost Per Pound BOD Removed is the middle value in order of
size by dividing Total Annual O&M Costs in Dollars by Total Pounds of BOD
Removed Per Year.
-------
4-42
probably inflated by unusually high average removal costs at only a few
plants.
As increasing quantities of BOD are removed from a given volume of
wastewater, greater technical difficulties are encountered which are, of
course, directly proportional to O&M costs. Most AWT plants are not
designed to remove additional BOD but to remove specific nutrients
such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and ammonia. The cost analysis in this
section presumes that O&M costs for removal of these nutrients are
directly attributal to BOD.
4.5.3 Average SS Removal Costs
Table 4.28a presents average suspended solids (SS) removal costs for
the EPA survey. These cost data are similar in trend to the BOD removal
costs disclosed in Table 4.26a. Primary treatment removal costs are high
in comparison to other treatment levels. Excluding primary treatment,
the average SS removal costs increase as the level of treatment in-
creases, i.e. trickling filter plants average $0.16 pels pound SS removed,
activated sludge $0.21, and AWT plants $0.33. Technically, trickling
filter and activated sludge plants are the same level of treatment, but
the absolute pollutant removals of activated sludge plants are usually
better (i.e., lower) than those of tricking filter plants. Table 4.28b
indicates that median SS removal costs generally increase as the level of
treatment increases. The median costs also decline as the WWTP size
increases.
-------
4-43
TABLE 4.28a
EPA SURVEY
AVERAGE COST PER POUND SS REMOVED
Level of Treatment
Primary
Secondary
— Tricking Filter
— Activated Sludge
Advanced (AWT)
1.0-5.0 mgd
$0.43a
n=27
$0.17
n=48
$0.26
n=74
$0.37
n=18
5.1-20.0 mgd
$0.17
n=9
$0.13
n=ll
$0.11
n=27
$0.22
n=3
>20.0 mgd
$0.03
n=4
$0.11
n=2
$0.10
n=9
$0.18
n=3
All Plants
$0.33
n=40
$0.16
n=61
$0.21
n=110
$0.33
n=24
The values appearing in this table were determined from the following
equation:
. „„ , Total Annual O&M Costs in Dollars
Average Cost Per Pound SS Removed = m ^ •— , __ „ —
Total Pounds of SS Removed Per Year
TABLE 4.28b
EPA SURVEY
MEDIAN COST PER POUND SS REMOVED
Level of Treatment
Primary
1.0-5.0 mgd 5.1-20.0 mgd >20.0 mgd All Plants-
$0.18
$0.14
$0.02
$0.13
Secondary
— Trickling Filter
$0.14
$0.13
$0.10
$0.13
— Activated Sludge
$0.19
$0.09
$0.09
$0.16
Advanced (AWT)
$0.29
$0.09
$0.16
$0.25
The values appearing in this table were determined from the following
equation: Median Cost Per Pound SS Removed is the middle value in order of
size by dividing Total Annual O&M Costs in Dollars by Total Pounds of SS
Removed Per Year.
-------
4-44
The average cost per pound of suspended solids removed was com-
puted for 92 plants in the AMSA survey (Table 4.29a). Larger plants tend
to show lower average SS removal costs, and as the level of treatment is
upgraded, higher average SS removal costs are generally incurred.
Trickling filter process costs are lower than those experienced by
primary treatment plants. Table 4.29b presents median cost values per
pound SS removed. In general, all these averages are lower than the mean
values as illustrated in Table 4.29a. This suggests that a few plants
with abnormally high removal costs have distorted the mean averages.
As increasing quantities of SS are removed from a given concentration and
volume of wastewater, greater technical difficulties are encountered
which are directly proportional to O&M costs.
Most AWT plants are not designed to remove additional SS only but to
remove specific nutrients such as phosphorus, nitrogen, and ammonia.
The cost analysis in this section presumes that O&M costs for removal of
these nutrients are directly attributable to SS.
4.5.4 Significant O&M Relationships
Appendix D contains tabular information on the specific plants
sampled in the EPA survey. The treatment systems are listed by group
size with level of treatment specified for each facility (Table D.I).
Table D.2 indicates the number of plants sampled by specific treatment
processes for both surveys.
-------
4-45
Level of Treatment
Primary
Secondary
TABLE 4.29a
AMSA SURVEY
AVERAGE COST PER POUND SS REMOVED
1.0-5.0 mqd 5.1-20.0 mqd >20.Q mqd All Plants
n=4
$0.20
n=10
$0.08
n=13
$0.12
n=27
— Trickling Filter
— Activated Sludge
Advanced (AWT)
$0.11
n=3
$0.24
n=7
$0.96
n=5
$0.10
n=2
$0.22
n=15
$0.40
n=2
$0.04
n=3
$0.12
n=24
$0.05
n=4
$0.08
n=8
$0.17
n=46
$0.53
n=ll
The values appearing in this table were determined from the following
equation:
, „ , Total Annual O&M Costs in Dollars
Average Cost Per Pound SS Removed =
Level of Treatment
Primary
Total Pounds of SS Removed Per Year
TABLE 4.29b
AMSA SURVEY
MEDIAN COST PER POUND SS REMOVED
1.0-5.0 mqd 5.1-20.0 mgd >20.0 mgd All Plants
a
$0.04
$0.06
$0.04
$0.05
Secondary
— Trickling Filter
$0.06
$0.03
$0.05
$0.05
— Activated Sludge
$0.13
$0-14
$0.08
$0.11
Advanced (AWT)
$0.27
$0.22
$0.04
$0.17
The values appearing in this table were determined from the following
equation: Median Cost Per Pound SS Removed is the middle value in order of
size by dividing Total Annual O&M Costs in Dollars by Total Pounds of SS
Removed Per Year.
-------
4-46
Potentially significant O&M relationships have been plotted using a
polynomial regression statistical package developed by the Health
Sciences Computing Facility, University of California at Los Angeles.
All statistically meaningful relationships of plant variables are graph-
ically presented in Appendix E and listed in Tables E.I, E.2, and E.3.
Those plant relationships that appear to be statistically non-significant
are listed in Table E.4. Potentially significant O&M relationships are
defined as those relationships that meet the following criteria: 1) the
sample size (n) must comprise at least five data points to be meaningful;
2) the correlation coefficient (r) is equal to or greater than 0.67.
However, if the number of samples (n) is greater than 100, an r value of
0.60 is acceptable; and 3) the F-Test value, when compared in the F
distribution table, is greater than those indicated values at the 95
percent or 99 percent level of significance. The higher a given F-Test
value the greater the probability that the relationship is significant.
Definitions of these terms along with the graphical relationships appear
in Appendix E.
4.6 LEVEL OF TREATMENT UPGRADING COSTS
Sanitary engineering planners are often asked, "What will it cost to
upgrade a given wastewater treatment plant from an existing level of
treatment to a higher level to meet more stringent effluent standards?"
Table 4.30 presents percent O&M cost differentials for upgrading treat-
ment plants. To obtain these percent differentials, differences in
actual operating costs were determined by combining relevant cost data
-------
4-47
TABLE 4.30
PERCENT O&M COST DIFFERENTIALS FOR
UPGRADING A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY3
(Percentage of Dollars Per Million Gallons Treated)
Levels of Upgrading From
Actual Flow
(mgd)
1.0 - 5.0
5.1 - 20-0
>20.0
All Plants
Primary To
Secondary
68
62
52
64
Secondary To
Advanded
59C
30
17
33
Primary To
Advanced
157
117
73
125
aEPA and AMSA Surveys combined. Percent cost differentials shown above
were based on 155 plants: 40 primary; 93 secondary (activated sludge);
and 22 advanced systems.
bOnly wastewater treatment plants that were operating between 70-110 percent
of design flow were included in this particular analysis.
CThe percentage values appearing in this table were determined from the
following equation:
Percent O&M Cost Differential = Higher level of treatment cost in dollars
per million gallons treated less lower level
of treatment cost in dollars per million
gallons treated divided by the lower level of
treatment cost in dollars per million gallons
treated.
For example, to compute the percent increase in upgrading a secondary plant
to an AWT in the 1-5 mgd class: $382/mg - $241/mg_ = 0 59
$241/mg
-------
4-48
from both surveys for three levels of upgrading: primary to secondary
(activated sludge); secondary to advanced (AWT); and primary to advanced.
These percent differentials also have been calculated for the three size
groups. As presented in Table 4.30, the percent O&M cost differential
declines as the size of the plant increases. For all levels of upgrad-
ing, the small size plants (1.0-5.0 mgd class) incurred the highest O&M
cost differentials. In the secondary to advanced category, percent O&M
cost differentials were not as large as the other two upgrading cate-
gories for the medium and large size plants. Disregarding plant size,
the actual O&M cost differential for upgrading a primary WWTP to a
secondary plant averaged 64 percent. The O&M cost differential between
activated sludge plants and AWT systems was calculated at 33 percent, and
the actual O&M differential for upgrading from primary treatment to
advanced waste treatment averaged 125 percent. Another dimension to
expanding WWTPs is enlargement. Table 4.30 does not present enough
information to yield accurate O&M cost differentials for enlarging a
plant. An approximation, however, might be ventured. Suppose an exist-
ing 4 mgd activated sludge plant were to be upgraded to an advanced
treatment plant and also enlarged to 8 mgd. According to Table 4.30,
the O&M cost differential for the upgraded, enlarged facility would be in
the range of 59 percent to 89 percent.
4.7 ECONOMIES OF SCALE DETERMINATION
In Section 4.5 considerable evidence documents the concept of
economies of scale, which basically infers that as the size of the
-------
4-49
treatment plant increases, the average cost per unit of treatment de-
clines. This inverse relationship has been well documented in wastewater
management studies over the past several years. Nevertheless, economic
theory dictates that economies of scale do not continue without limit.
At some point (which is often determined by technology) the limits of
efficient plant operation are reached. A rapidly expanding municipal
wastewater facility or growing sanitation district begins to stretch too
thin the coordinating powers of management and resource allocation. When
this occurs, diseconomies of scale become evident and the long run
average unit cost curve begins to rise. Hence, bigger is not necessarily
better or less expensive at this juncture.
This analysis attempts to estimate the hydraulic capacity at which
wastewater treatment plants begin to become less economical. A computer
analysis was employed to determine the slope of the curve. The following
assumptions were made to assist in the analysis and to limit the biases
that could occur:
1) the AMSA data base was combined with the EPA data base to
provide an adequate data base for larger plants;
2) only secondary activated sludge plants with average daily flows
in the 1.0 mgd to 200 mgd range were considered;
3) of these standard treatment systems only those plants with
actual flows in the range of 70 to 110 percent of hydraulic
design capacity were considered;
4) the minimum accceptable pollutant removal performance for BOD
and SS was 85 percent or 30 milligrams per liter effluent
discharge, whichever resulted in the higher absolute value;
-------
4-50
5) cost per unit was measured in dollars per million gallons
treated which is computed by dividing total annual O&M costs in
dollars by actual annual flow in mgd; and
6) O&M costs were defined as those necessary and essential operat-
ing costs (or "inside-the-fence" costs) which are exclusive of
administrative or supporting type costs.
Seventy-four activated sludge plants comprised the data base for
the economies of scale determination. The results of the polynomial
regression analysis indicate that the nonlinear best fit equation
for the average cost (AC) curve from the combined surveys is:
AC = 73.267 Q~l + 165.95 - 1.0668 Q + 0.0064015 Q2,
where Q is actual flow in mgd. The F-Test value is 13.39 which is
significant at the 99 percent confidence level (see Appendix E, page E-l,
for a complete explanation of this important statistic). Figure 4.1
shows the shape of the average cost curve for the economies of scale
determination.
From this analysis of O&M costs only it appears that the optimum
size of an activated sludge treatment plant is approximately 85 mgd.
Secondary plants less than 85 mgd have not achieved full economic effic-
iency but are advancing toward optimum O&M conditions as the WWTP is
enlarged. Conversely, activated sludge treatment plants greater than 85
-------
400
350 -
300-
AVERAGE COST PER MILLION GALLONS TREATED VS. ACTUAL FLOW
SECONDARY TREATMENT - ACTIVATED SLUDGE
NATIONAL
AC= 73.267Q + 165.95- 1.0668Q +
0.00640I5Q2
50
c
70
2*0
60
100
120
40
80
ACTUAL FLOW CMGD)
140
(60
—I
ISO
-------
4-52
mgd design capacity have probably reached the point where economies of
scale begin to diminish, i.e., diseconomies commence.
Care must be exercised in the application of these findings.
For example, a 120 mgd WWTP in this category could be operating effi-
ciently in one community due to external factors or local conditions but
in another setting or environment it might very well be operating in-
efficiently. The O&M variables that could alter or influence a specific
community's average cost curve over the long run might include labor
wages paid, power costs, assimilative capacity of the receiving stream,
operational mode of activated sludge process, and major maintenance
problems.
4.8 INCREMENTAL AWT COSTS
As previously defined in Section 2.3, the advanced wastewater
treatment processes normally involve chemical treatment and filtration of
secondary effluent. The preponderance of AWT plants with nutrient
removal sampled in this study were required by NPDES permit to remove
phosphorus. A fewer number of AWT plants provided for specific removal
of nitrogen and ammonia. These same AWT plants, of course, removed
additional amounts of BOD and SS as they were performing the specific
process of nutrient removal.
The incremental or additional O&M costs to remove a pound of BOD
or a pound of SS for two general classes of AWT systems are presented in
Tables 4.31a and 4.31b. The actual O&M costs shown are for secondary
-------
4-53
TABLE 4.31a
AVERAGE COST PER POUND BOD REMOVED3
Secondary
Secondary With
Greater Than
Secondary With
Actual Flow (mgd) Activated Sludge Nutrient Removal Nutrient Removal
0.1 - 5.0
5.1 - 20.0
>20.0
All Plants
$0.13"
n=53
$0.10
n=31
$0.10
n=34
$0.11
n=118
$0.28
n=6
$0.20
n=3
$0.11
n=4
$0.21
n=13
$1.29
n=5
$0.10
n=l
$0.20
n=l
$0.97
n=7
EPA and AMSA Surveys combined. Not enough data were obtained from plants
with Zero Discharge to present relevant removal costs.
The values appearing in this table were determined from the following
equation:
j_ ~ ^ -, ~~~ „ -i Total Annual O&M Costs in Dollars
Average Cost Per Pound BOD Removed =
Total Pounds of BOD Removed Per Year
TABLE 4.31b
AVERAGE COST PER POUND SS REMOVED0
Secondary
Secondary With
Greater Than
Secondary With
Actual Flow (mgd)
0.1 - 5.0
5.1 - 20.0
>20.0
All Plants
Activated Sludge
$0.07b
n=53
$0.07
n=31
$0.08
n=34
$0.07
n=118
Nutrient Removal
$0.24
n=6
$0.23
n=3
$0.15
n=4
$0.21
n=13
Nutrient Removal
$0.91
n=5
$0.05
n=l
$0.11
n=l
$0.68
n=7
aEPA and AMSA Surveys combined. Not enough data were obtained from plants
.with Zero Discharge to present relevant removal costs.
The values appearing in this table were determined from the following equation:
Median Cost Per Pound SS Removed is the middle value in order of size by dividing
Total Annual O&M Costs in Dollars by Total Pounds of SS Removed Per Year.
-------
4-54
(activated sludge) treatment with nutrient removal—usually phosphorus
nitrogen, and ammonia—and greater than secondary (activated sludge)
treatment with nutrient removal. In general, the latter classification
is considered a dedicated effort or total commitment to AWT while the
former category is basically a waste activated sludge plant with added
process units to remove a specific nutrient or nutrients.
Using the activated sludge plants as a base, O&M cost comparisons
can be made with the two general classes of AWT systems. Except for the
medium size plants (5.1-20.0 mgd), O&M costs for removing BOD increased
from the base secondary treatment systems to secondary with nutrient
removal and to greater than secondary with nutrient removal. The obvious
reason for this exception is the sample size—actual operating costs for
only one plant were obtained from the medium and large size classes for
greater than secondary treatment with nutrient removal category. Another
apparent observation in Table 4.3la is that BOD removal costs decline as
the size of plant increases. When all WWTPs are considered regardless of
size, the actual O&M cost to remove a pound of BOD progresses markedly
upward from the base of $0.11 per pound for conventional secondary
treatment systems to $0.21 per pound for secondary plants with nutrient
removal to $0.97 per pound for WWTPs classed as greater than secondary
with nutrient removal.
Similar trends are evident for SS removals (Table 4.31b). In
general, actual O&M costs decline as the size of plant increases and
average operating costs increase as more nutrients and pollutants are
-------
4-55
removed from wastewater. When all treatment plants are considered
without regard to size, the average operating cost to remove a pound of
SS increases significantly from the base of $0.07 per pound for a stan-
dard secondary treatment system to $0.21 per pound for secondary plants
with nutrient removal to $0.68 per pound for plants greater than secon-
e
dary with nutrient removal.
-------
5-1
5.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS: SEWER SYSTEMS
5.1 SEWER SYSTEM DEFINITIONS AND STATISTICAL SUMMARY
5.1.1 Sewer System Definitions
Sewer collection systems have been classified into two general
categories. They are defined as follows:
A. A sewer system owned and operated by a municipality or authority
but tributary to a wastewater treatment plant owned and operated
by a different municipality. This category of sewer systems was
further subdivided into:
1. Separate sewer system which collects and transmits the
admixture of sanitary, commercial, and industrial wastes.
In this report such systems are referred to as "Separate
Sewer Systems."
2. Combined sewer system which collects and transmits the above
liquid wastes and storm water. In this report such systems
are referred to as "Combined Sewer Systems."
3. A sewer system which is partly separate and partly combined
and is referred to as "Mixed Sewer System."
B. A sewer system owned and operated by the same municipality or
authority which owns and operates the wastewater treatment
plant to which said sewers are tributary. This category was
further subdivided into:
1. Sewer systems which collect and transmit only the admixture
of sanitary, commercial, and industrial wastes. In this
-------
5-2
report these systems are referred to as "WWTP + Separate
Sewer System."
2. Combined systems which collect and transmit the above
admixture and storm water. In this report these systems are
referred to as "WWTP + Combined Sewer System."
3. Any combination of the above types of sewer systems are
referred to as "WWTP + Mixed Sewer Systems."
5.1.2 Statistical Summary
Table 5.1 shows the distribution of sewer systems sampled in the EPA
survey by the type of system. Separate Sewer Systems comprise 18
systems (12 percent) of the total types of systems sampled. Only two
Combined Sewer Systems were surveyed and the same number of Mixed Sewer
Systems were sampled. WWTP + Separate Sewer Systems comprise 94 systems
(61 percent) of the total systems sampled in this nationwide OM&R study.
WWTP + Combined Sewer System consist of eight samples (5 percent) and
the WWTP + Mixed Sewer System contain 31 systems (20 percent).
A brief statistical summary of the sewer systems sampled in the
EPA survey is shown in Table 5.2. Of the 155 sewer systems sampled,
approximately 3.67 million persons are served, with an "average system"
serving about 24,000 people. The total length of all gravity sewers
reported is 18,753 miles; the average length of all gravity sewers is
139 miles. This survey reports 735 miles of force mains with the average
force main system running about 18 miles. A total pumping capacity of
-------
5-3
TABLE 5.1
EPA SURVEY
DISTRIBUTION OF SEWER SYSTEMS SAMPLED
System Sampled
Type of System Number Percent
Separate Sewer System 18 12
Combined Sewer System 2 1
Mixed Sewer System 2 1
WWTP + Separate Sewer System 94 61
WWTP + Combined Sewer System 8 5
WWTP + Mixed Sewer System 31 20
Total Systems Sampled 155 100
-------
5-4
TABLE 5.2
EPA SURVEY
STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF SEWER SYSTEM DATA
Average for Total
Total Number Reporting
Service Population 3,674,000 24,000
n=154a
Length of Gravity Sewers (miles) 18,753 139
n=135
Length of Force Mains (miles) 735 18
n=42
Capacity of Lift Stations (mgd) 1,708 20
n=85
Horsepower of Lift Stations (hp) 53,071 639
n=83
a
A population estimate was not provided for one sewer system.
-------
5-5
1,708 mgd with an aggregate horsepower output of 53,071 hp was reported
for 85 lift stations.
5.2 OM&R COSTS PER CAPITA
Operations, maintenance, and minor repair (OM&R) costs per capita
for the six various classifications of sewer systems are presented in
Table 5.3. Total costs per capita range from $3.66 for the plant plus
the mixed sewer system to $14.53 for the separate sewer system. The most
prevalent type of sewer system sampled, the WWTP plus the Separate Sewer
System, averages $6.35 per capita.
The large disparity in per capita costs between autonomously-
operated sewer systems and sewer systems operated in conjunction with
treatment plants is not easily explained. It is reasoned, however, that
the sewer system which is integrated into a treatment plant operation
experiences lower OM&R costs because of better (more efficient) utiliza-
tion of personnel. In addition, the plant operation provides a broader
base to charge O&M costs as opposed to the sewer system entity. It is
also plausible to expect better records management at those systems which
are directly tied into a treatment plant due mainly to available resour-
ces. In some cases, however, it was revealed that power costs for
pumping stations were charged to the wastewater treatment plant account.
When this occurred, a break out of power charges to the lift function was
not possible.
-------
5-6
TABLE 5.3
EPA SURVEY
AVERAGE COST PER CAPITA FOR VARIOUS
TYPES OF SEWER SYSTEMS
Average Cost Per System
Type of System (Dollars Per Capita)
Separate Sewer 14.53
(n=17)
Combined Sewer 14.43
(n=2)
Mixed Sewer 4.37
(n=2)
WWTP + Separate Sewer 6.35
(n=92)
WWTP + Combined Sewer 4.16
(n=7)
WWTP + Mixed Sewer 3.66
(n=30)
a
The values appearing in this table were determined from the
following equation:
Total Annual OM&R Costs in Dollars
Dollars Per Capita =
Service Population
-------
5-7
5.3 OM&R COSTS PER MILE
5.3.1 Gravity Sewers
Table 5.4 shows the total annual OM&R and component costs per mile
of gravity sewer for the six specific types of sewer systems. These cost
estimates represent national averages. The Separate Sewer System appears
to have the highest total cost per mile, $2,783. (Even though the
combined sewer system average cost is higher at $3,565, this estimate is
questionable due to only two sample systems.) The lowest OM&R cost per
mile of gravity sewer systems is $1,154, representing the plant and the
Mixed Sewer System. Personnel costs are the highest component costs for
nearly every type of sewer system ranging from 34 percent to 53 percent
of the total cost of OM&R. Costs of materials and contractual work
contribute significant amounts for the various sewer systems. Power
costs and other costs are minor component expenditures for gravity sewers
regardless of type of sewer system.
5.3.2 Force Mains
Table F.I which appears in Appendix F lists those sewer systems that
reported force main data. Unfortunately, the cost information and
physical data were not in sufficient detail to produce meaningful cost
per mile relationships for force mains.
5.4 ANALYSIS OF PUMPING STATIONS
Of the 85 facilities reporting pumping station data, only 18 provid-
ed sufficient information to develop meaningful cost relationships.
-------
5-8
TABLE 5.4
EPA SURVEY
OM&R COST PER MILE OF GRAVITY SEWERS
FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF SEWER SYSTEMS
(Costs in Dollars Per Mile)
Type of System
Separate Sewer
—Number in Sample
Combined Sewer
—Number in Sample
Mixed Sewer
—Number in Sample
WWTP + Separate Sewer
—Number in Sample
WWTP + Combined Sewer
—Number in Sample
WWTP + Mixed Sewer
—Number in Sample
Total
Costa
2,783
15
3,565
2
1,272
2
1,618
81
2,142
4
1,154
27
Personnel
1,289
1,861
427
839
981
614
Co
Power
201
58
217
231
522
133
mponent Cos
Materials
388
640
398
246
164
180
ts
Contractual
491
d
219
136
324
89
Other
414
1,006
11
166
151
138
The values appearing in this column were determined from the
following equation:
Average Cost in Dollars Per Mile =
Total Annual OMSR Costs in Dollars
Component Costs Per Mile =
Total Length (miles) Gravity Sewers
Respective Component Cost in Dollars
Total Length (miles) Gravity Sewers
"Chemicals, if any, are included as materials.
3
No cost reported.
-------
5-9
Table 5.5 presents various pumping station cost relationships. In this
analysis only sewer systems reporting the number of pumps, total install-
ed pump capacity and/or total installed horsepower, total cost of opera-
tion and maintenance, and/or major component costs were included. The
median values presented in this table are probably better estimates than
the average values due to abnormally high pumping costs at a few facili-
ties.
Table 5.6 shows component costs as a percentage of the total OM&R
costs for selected pumping stations. Only 15 facilities or 10 percent of
those sampled supplied data to the degree necessary to establish these
relationships. Unit costs for power vary considerably throughout the
country. In the State of New York, for example, the highest cost per
kilowatt-hour is 2.5 times the lowest for privately-owned electric
utilities. Obviously, this large disparity greatly affects power cost
relationships. Another factor which affects power cost relationships is
the head against which the sewage is pumped.
Graphical relationships for total OM&R cost of pumping stations
versus total installed capacity (mgd) and versus total installed horse-
power indicated no significant trend. This is not alarming because total
dynamic head which would tie these data together was not readily avail-
able.
-------
5-10
TABLE 5 . 5
EPA SURVEY
PUMPING STATIONS COST RELATIONSHIPS
(Cost in Dollars Per mgd or Dollars Per hp)
Number of Number
Facilities of Pumps Maximum Average Median Minimum
Total Cost/mgd
Total Cost/hp
Power Cost/mgd
Power Cost/hp
Personnel Cost/mgd
Personnel Cost/hp
18 245b $47,648C $5,430 $1,659 $ 456
11 212 604 159 61 23
15 176d 24,903C 2,898 956 182
15 176 422 44 31 6
9 113 14,126° 3,696 1,431 256
8 100 187 77 48 3
The average values appearing in this column were determined from the
following equations:
Average Costs
For: Per Million Gallons Per Day Per Horsepower
Total OM&R Costs in Dollars Total OM&R Costs in Dollars
Total Cost =
Power Cost =
Personnel Cost
Total Flow (Q) Lifted in mgd Total Horsepower
Total Power Costs in Dollars Total Power Costs in Dollars
Total Flow (Q) Lifted in mgd Total Horsepower
Total Personnel Costs in $ Total Personnel Costs in $
Total Flow (Q) Lifted in mgd Total Horsepower
Average hydraulic lift capacity of the 245 pumps is 2.1 million gallons per day-
Q
This facility has many samll pump stations with high discharge heads and is
located in a high power and labor cost area.
Average hydraulic lift capacity of the 176 pumps is 2.2 million gallons per day.
-------
5-11
TABLE _5._6
EPA SURVEY
PUMPING STATIONS
COMPONENT COSTS AS PERCENT OP TOTAL COSTS
Component Percent5
Personnel 47.8
Power 35.5
Equipment 12.5
Chemicals 1,4
Contrac tu a1 i.Q
Other i.s
100.0
Number in Sample = 15
a Total Component Cost in Dollars
Component percent = : , ~—r~r : r~ r
Total O&M Cost of Pumping Stations
-------
5-12
5.5 COST ALLOCATION: OPERATING VERSUS SUPPORTING
Table 5.7 presents the proportion of total OM&R sewer costs for all
types of sewer systems by operating costs and by administrative, support-
ing services costs. This allocation combines the costs of gravity
sewers, force mains, and lift stations. Over two-thirds of all total
OM&R costs are classified as operating costs for every type of sewer
system. Administrative and supporting costs represent the balance but
range from 15 to 31 percent of the total OM&R costs.
Appendix F contains a listing of gravity sewers and force mains
that were sampled in the EPA survey (Table F.I). A listing of the pump
stations that were sampled appear in Table F.2. Potentially significant
OM&R relationships have been plotted using a polynomial regression
statistical package. These geographical relationships are in
Appendix G.
-------
5-13
TABLE 5.7
EPA SURVEY
AVERAGE OPERATING AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT COSTS
AS PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL OM&R COSTS
Type of System
Separate Sewer
Combined Sewer
Mixed Sewer
WWTP + Separate Sewer
WWTP + Combined Sewer
WWTP + Mixed Sewer
Operating
Costs
(Percent)
69
85
a
84
70
83
Administrative and
Supporting Services
Costs (Percent)
31
15
a
16
30
17
Not Calculated.
-------
APPENDIX A
METHODOLOGY USED IN EPA SURVEY
A.I Sample Selection - Treatment Plants
A.2 Data Collection Procedures
-------
A-l
APPENDIX A
METHODOLOGY USED IN EPA SURVEY
A.I SAMPLE SELECTION - TREATMENT PLANTS
To ensure that the wastewater treatment plants sampled were repre-
sentative of the "real world," the existing plants in the U.S. were
identified by size and type. The U.S. EPA 1976 Needs Survey included an
assessment of existing facilities by design flow, level of treatment, and
unit processes. This information was tabulated and used to establish the
state and regional distribution of plant sizes and types (see Tables A.I
through A.10).
Table A.11 presents a national distribution of wastewater plants by
EPA regions indicating type of process. This table is the basis for
developing a representative sample of plants from across the United
States. Basic assumptions used in the sample selection procedure are as
follows:
1) Only plants of 1 mgd or greater would be considered.
2) Each EPA region can be accurately represented by one or more
states within that region.
3) Plants would be categorized into one of six categories: pri-
mary; secondary (trickling filter, activated sludge, aerated
lagoon, or oxidation ditch); and advanced wa^ste treatment
(AWT).
-------
A-2
TABLE A.I REGION I DISTRIBUTION OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS IN OPERATION GREATER THAN ONE
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY BY SIZE AND PROCESS, 1976
TRICKLING
FILTER
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
AERATED
STATE
LAGOON OTHER TOTALS
REGIONAL
TOTALS
1.0 - 5.0 MGD
STATE
CT
ME
MA
NH
RI
VT
5.1-20.0 MGD
9
0
3
0
0
2
23
17
15
5
1
5
0
2
0
1
0
0
2
0
8
3
0
0
34
19
26
9
1
7
96
STATE
CT 3
ME 0
MA 1
NH 0
RI 0
VT 0
>20.0 MGD
STATE
CT 0
ME 0
MA 0
NH , 0
RI x 0
VT < 0
PROCESS TOTALS 18
15
3
8
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
18
3
11
0
2
0
3
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
1
1
0
100
15
136
Notes:
a
,
34
136
Source:
Primary treatment plants are excluded.
Other implies advanced waste treatment (AWT) and other secondary
treatment schemes not otherwise defined as trickling filter,
activated sludge, or lagoon.
1976 Update of Needs Municipal Facilities, Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
A-3
TABLE A.2 REGION II DISTRIBUTION OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS IN OPERATION GREATER THAN ONE
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY BY SIZE AND PROCESS, 1976
TRICKLING
FILTER
1.0 - 5.0 MGD
STATE
NJ
NY
PR
VI
5.1-20.0 MGD
STATE
NJ
NY
PR
VI
>20.0 MGD
STATE
NJ
NY
PR
VI
PROCESS TOTALS
22
18
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
43
.TKOCESS
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
40
32
1
0
7
12
0
0
2
17
0
0
111
AERATED . STATE
LAGOON OTHER TOTALS
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
10
16
0
0
3
6
0
0
1
1
1
0
38
72 )
68 )
1 )
0 )
12 )
19 )
0 )
0 )
4 )
18 )
1 )
0 )
195
REGIONAL
TOTALS
141
31
23
195
Notes: * Primary treatment plants are excluded.
Other implies advanced waste treatment (AWT) and other secondary
treatment schemes not otherwise defined as trickling filter,
activated sludge, or lagoon.
Source: 1976 Update of Needs Municipal Facilities, Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
A-4
TABLE A.3 REGION III DISTRIBUTION OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS IN OPERATION GREATER THAN ONE
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY BY SIZE AND PROCESS, 1976
-PROCESS
TRICKLING
FILTER
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
AERATED
STATE
LAGOON OTHER TOTALS
REGIONAL
TOTALS
1.0 - 5.0 MGD
STATE
DE 0
DC 0
MD 2
PA 13
VA 8
WV 1
5.1-20.0 MGD
STATE
DE 0
DC 0
MD 1
PA 6
VA 1
WV 0
>20.0 MGD
STATE
0
0
4
80
11
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
18
4
1
0 )
0 )
11 )
111 )
23 )
4 )
0
0
5
15
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
2
1
0
1 )
0 )
10 )
23 )
8 )
2 )
149
44
DE
DC
MD
PA
VA
WV
Notes:
a
b
0
0
0
2
1
0
PROCESS TOTALS 35
1
1
3
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
1 )
1 )
4 )
7 )
8 )
0 )
140
36
214
21
214
Source:
Primary treatment plants are excluded.
Other implies advanced waste treatment (AWT) and other secondary
treatment schemes not otherwise defined as trickling filter,
activated sludge, or lagoon.
1976 Update of Needs Municipal Facilities, Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
A-5
TABLE A.4 REGION IV DISTRIBUTION OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS IN OPERATION GREATER THAN ONE
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY BY SIZE AND PROCESS, 1976
FKUUfiSS
TRICKLING ACTIVATED AERATED STATE
FILTER SLUDGE LAGOON OTHER TOTALS
REGIONAL
TOTALS
1.0 - 5.0 MGD
STATE
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
5.1-20.0
STATE
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
21
17
17
1
3
12
9
9
MGD
5
2
3
0
1
4
0
3
11
54
28
8
8
16
24
19
6
18
14
3
1
16
4
4
16
0
2
0
5
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
10
4
4
6
4
7
13
2
10
2
0
0
1
4
2
51 )
81 )
51 )
13 )
22 )
32 )
43 )
42 )
13 )
30 )
19 )
3 )
5 )
21 )
8 )
9 )
335
108
>20.0 MGD
STATE
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
PROCESS
Notes :
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
TOTALS 109
, Primary treatment
2
2
6
1
1
2
1
6
254
plants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
are excluded,
ic-ra <-T-oa trnonl
2
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
80
»
- (AW
4 )
8 )
6 )
2 )
1 )
3 )
1 )
5 )
473
P) and oth
30
473
er secondar
Source:
\s L.L1GJ. -Llllp J.J-CO c**-iv«-«-"*•"-•** — — "
treatment schemes not otherwise defined as trickling filter,
activated sludge, or lagoon.
1976 Update of Needs Municipal Facilities, Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
A-6
TABLE A.5 REGION V DISTRIBUTION OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS IN OPERATION GREATER THAN ONE
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY BY SIZE AND PROCESS, 1976
TRICKLING
FILTER
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
AERATED
STATE
LAGOON OTHER TOTALS
REGIONAL
TOTALS
1.0 - 5.0 MGD
STATE
IL 18
IN 13
MI 4
MN , 3
OH 5
WI 3
5_. 1-20.0 MGD
STATE
IL 3
IN 2
MI 0
MN 2
OH 0
WI 2
>20.0 MGD
STATE
37
24
14
10
59
32
1
0
0
2
0
1
25
3
12
2
18
11
81
40
30
17
82
47
15
16
10
3
17
6
0
1
0
0
1
0
7
0
4
1
4
2
25
19
14
6
22
10
297
96
IL
IN
MI
MN
OH
WI
Notes:
a
,
0
1
0
0
0
0
PROCESS TOTALS 56
7
5
8
3
5
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
5
0
7
7
9
3
10
3
274
96
432
39
432
Source:
Primary treatment plants are excluded.
Other implies advanced waste treatment (AWT) and other secondary
treatment schemes not otherwise defined as trickling filter,
activated sludge, or lagoon.
1976 Update of Needs Municipal Facilities, Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
A-7
TABLE A.6 REGION VI DISTRIBUTION OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS IN OPERATION GREATER THAN ONE
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY BY SIZE AND PROCESS, 1976
rKUUE,£>t>
TRICKLING ACTIVATED AERATED
FILTER SLUDGE LAGOON OTHER
STATE REGIONAL
TOTALS TOTALS
1.0 - 5.0 MGD
STATE
AR
LA
NM
TX
OK
5.1-20.0
STATE
AR
LA
NM
TX
OK
9
2
2
16
27
MGD
3
1
0
4
4
1
17
2
14
82
1
3
0
3
18
13
6
2
2
14
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
1
1
4
0
0
0
0
1
24 )
26 )
7 )
33 )
127 )
4 )
4 )
0 )
7 )
26 )
217
41
>20.0 MGD
STATE
AR
LA
NM
TX
OK
PROCESS
Notes:
0
0
0
1
2
TOTALS 72
f_ Primary
" rn-Vio-r in
1
1
1
1
8
153
treatment plants
imlips advanced w<
0
0
0
0
0
40
are excluded.
iste treatment
0
0
0
0
2
11
(AWT)
1 )
1 )
1 )
2 )
13 )
276
and other
18
276
secondar
Source:
treatment schemes not otherwise defined as trickling filter,
activated sludge, or lagoon.
1976 Update of Needs Municipal Facilities, Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
A-8
TABLE A.7 REGION VII DISTRIBUTION OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS IN OPERATION GREATER THAN ONE
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY BY SIZE AND PROCESS, 1976
— — — — — — irKU^EiDo "" — — —
TRICKLING ACTIVATED AERATED , STATE
FILTER SLUDGE LAGOON OTHER TOTALS
1.0 - 5
STATE
IA
KS
MO
NE
5.1-20.
STATE
IA
KS
MO
NE
.0 MGD
11
12
13
4
0 MGD
4
6
1
0
1
7
11
2
1
1
0
3
1
0
12
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
1
3
2
1
0
13 )
23 )
39 )
9 )
8 )
9 )
2 )
3 )
REGIONAL
TOTALS
84
22
>20.0 MGD
STATE
IA
KS
MO
NE
PROCESS
Notes :
2
1
0
0
TOTALS 54
rt
, Primary
0
0
1
1
28
treatment plants
0
0
0
0
15
are excluded,
1
0
1
1
17
»
3 )
1 )
2 )
2 )
114
n \ 1 . t
8
114
Source:
treatment schemes not otherwise defined as trickling filter,
activated sludge, or lagoon.
1976 Update of Needs Municipal Facilities, Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
A-9
TABLE A.8 REGION VIII DISTRIBUTION OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS IN OPERATION GREATER THAN ONE
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY BY SIZE AND PROCESS, 1976
- - rKui,Ei£>a
TRICKLING ACTIVATED
FILTER SLUDGE
AERATED STATE REGIONAL
LAGOON OTHER TOTALS TOTALS
1.0 - 5.0 MGD
STATE
CO
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
5.1-20.0
STATE
CO
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
10
0
1
4
10
1
MGD
6
0
0
1
3
0
16
2
0
0
1
3
4
1
0
1
0
0
3
2
7
2
0
2
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
29 )
5 )
8 )
6 )
11 )
6 )
10 )
2 )
0 )
3 )
4 )
0 )
65
19
>20.0 MGD
STATE
CO
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
PROCESS
Notes:
0
0
0
0
1
0
TOTALS 37
a
, Primary
/-n-u~_ .;„
2
0
0
0
0
0
30
treatment plants
in 1 -I nr* o/1t7 a r»r* oci W/
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
are excluded.
iste treatment
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
(AW
2 )
0 )
0 )
0 )
1 )
0 )
87
[) and other f
3
87
secondar
Source:
ULIltiL llllp J. J-e» au vai.i>->-^ ..— . , , . ,. . ,
treatment schemes not otherwise defined as trickling filter,
activated sludge, or lagoon.
1976 Update of Needs Municipal Facilities, Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
A-10
TABLE A.9 REGION IX DISTRIBUTION OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS IN OPERATION GREATER THAN ONE
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY BY SIZE AND PROCESS, 1976
TRICKLING
FILTER
1.0 - 5.0 MGD
STATE
AZ
CA
HI
NV
GM
TR
5.1-20.0 MGD
STATE
AZ
CA
HI
NV
GM
TR
>20.0 MGD
STATE
AZ
CA
HI
NV
GM
TR
PROCESS TOTALS
3
35
1
3
0
0
0
7
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
53
ritui;£,sa
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
3
54
7
4
0
0
1
17
0
0
1
0
1
10
0
1
0
0
99
AERATED , STATE
LAGOON OTHER TOTALS
5
10
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
2
24
0
1
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
41
13 )
123 )
8 )
10 )
0 )
0 )
2 )
36 )
1 )
0 )
1 )
0 )
3 )
14 )
0 )
1 )
0 )
0 )
212
REGIONAL
TOTALS
154
40
18
212
Notes: , Primary treatment plants are excluded.
Other implies advanced waste treatment (AWT) and other secondary
treatment schemes not otherwise defined as trickling filter,
activated sludge, or lagoon.
Source: 1976 Update of Needs Municipal Facilities, Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
A-ll
TABLE A.10 REGION X DISTRIBUTION OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS IN OPERATION GREATER THAN ONE
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY BY SIZE AND PROCESS, 1976
- - - rK.UL,C,£5£>
TRICKLING ACTIVATED
FILTER SLUDGE
AERATED
LAGOON OTHER
STATE REGIONAL
TOTALS TOTALS
1.0 - 5.0 MGD
STATE
AK
ID
OR
WA
5.1-20.0
STATE
AK
ID
OR
WA
0
4
6
7
MGD
0
2
3
2
1
2
20
10
0
3
6
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
1
1 )
6 )
29 )
17 )
0 )
6 )
10 )
5 )
53
21
>20.0 MGD
STATE
AK
ID
OR
WA
PROCESS
Notes:
0
0
1
0
TOTALS 25
a
, Primary
0
0
1
1
45
treatment plants
•*« 1 4 a «> •ayltT'a nr* on "W!
0
0
0
0
2
are excluded.
isi-e treatment
0
0
0
2
7
(AWT
0 )
0 )
2 )
3 )
79
) and other i
5
79
secondar
Source:
\J LIlt:l J.H1JJ J. JLCO O.W. v a LAW w v» ..«.«*.— ^
treatment schemes not otherwise defined as trickling filter,
activated sludge, or lagoon.
1976 Update of Needs Municipal Facilities, Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
A-12
TABLE A.11 NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS IN OPERATION GREATER THAN ONE
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY BY PROCESS, 1976
TRICKLING
FILTER
EPA REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
NATIONAL PLANTS
TOTAL PERCENT
18
43
35
109
56
72
54
37
53
25
502
22.6
rKuutss -
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
100
111
140
254
274
153
28
30
99
45
1234
55.6
AERATED
LAGOON
3
3
3
30
6
40
15
18
19
2
139
6.2
TOTAL
OTHER PLANTS
15
38
36
80
96
11
17
2
41
7
343
15.6
136
195
214
473
432
276
114
87
^212
79
2218
PERCENT OF
NATION
6.1
8.1
9.7
21.3
19.5
12.4
5.1
3.9
9.6
3.6
100.0
Notes: , Primary treatment plants are excluded.
Other implies advanced waste treatment (AWT) and other secondary
treatment schemes not otherwise defined as trickling filter,
activated sludge, or lagoon.
Source: 1976 Update of Needs Municipal Facilities, Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
A-13
Categories for treatment plant classification were selected to
reflect those areas thought to have similar cost relationships. In
addition, the degree of detail provided by the 1976 Needs Survey data
limited the classification of existing plants to these relatively broad
categories. Regional data were collected within representative states
in an attempt to minimize travel costs and limit the number of governmen-
tal entities involved.
One rationale considered in attempting to develop cost relationships
was the lack of accounting precision in the smaller plants. Several
reasons for this assertion became evident during the course of the
survey:
1) It is difficult to accurately record costs and hours worked by
functional areas at a small plant in which personnel may work
only a portion of their time at any one task;
2) There is often less flexibility of support at treatment facili-
ties requiring only a portion of personnel time and consequently
a greater variability in recording appropriate costs and hours
worked;
3) Smaller plants with smaller budgets were more likely to have a
greater variability in cost reporting between similar types of
process trains due to the more significant impact of equipment
failure, plant upset, staff turnover or other operational
interferences; and
-------
A-14
4) In general, budgeting and accounting records are not as accur-
ately or thoroughly tabulated in smaller communities, making
data collection more difficult and time consuming.
From the percentages presented in Table A.ll, the number of facili-
ties to be surveyed by EPA region could be determined. Due to financial
limitations it was decided to survey approximately 300 secondary and
advanced waste treatment plants. Table A.12 shows the desired number of
plants that require sampling by EPA region. In addition to the 300
secondary and AWT plants, a representative selection of wastewater
treatment plants that provide only primary treatment would be surveyed.
Therefore, a few (4-6) primary treatment plants for each EPA region were
added to the secondary and AWT base of 300 plants. From the state
breakdown for each region, each state could be tested for its similarity
to regional characteristics. Other supplemental factors such as geo-
graphy, terrain, urbanization, climate, and state water quality organiza-
tion were evaluated for each state and compared with the region.
After considering the above factors, the representative states were
reviewed to insure that regional sampling requirements could be obtained
within those states and still provide a large degree of flexibility.
The states selected are listed in Table A.13 and shown in Figure A.I.
Areas remote from the continental U.S. in both distance and characteris-
tics were excluded from consideration. These areas include Alaska,
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Trust
-------
A-15
TABLE A.12 DESIRED DISTRIBUTION OF NATIONAL SAMPLE
OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
BY EPA REGION AND PROCESS
h-KUtJUbb
TRICKLING ACTIVATED AERATED
FILTER SLUDGE LAGOON OTHER
EPA REGION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
NATIONAL PLANTS
TOTAL PERCENT
Notes: , Prim
3
6
5
15
8
10
8
5
8
3
71
23.6
iary treatment
13
15
18
35
37
20
3
3
13
7
164
54.5
plants
1
1
1
4
1
5
2
2
3
1
21
7.0
are excluded
2
5
5
10
13
1
2
1
5
1
45
14.9
•
^ . ____ i
TOTAL
PLANTS
19
27
29
64
59
36
15
11
29
12
301
PERCENT OF
NATION
6.3
9.0
9.6
21.3
19.6
12.0
5.0
3.7
9.6
3.9
100.0
_ _ 3
Source:
Other implies advanced waste treatment (AWT) and other secondary
treatment schemes not otherwise defined as trickling filter,
activated sludge, or lagoon.
1976 Update of Needs Municipal Facilities, Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
A-16
Territories of the Pacific, and all other territories or possessions of
the United States.
Figures A.2 through A.18 illustrate the geographical distribution of
the sampled wastewater treatment plants in the selected states. The type
of plant and size class are also noted in addition to the general loca-
tion within the selected state.
-------
A-17
TABLE A.13
Region
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
Sample
State
Maine
Massachusetts
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Florida
Georgia
Mississippi
Ohio
Wisconsin
Texas
Missouri
Colorado
South Dakota
California
Oregon
Washington
Other States
in Region
Connecticut, New Hampshire
Rhode Island, Vermont
New Jersey, Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Delaware, District of
Columbia, Maryland,
West Virginia
Alabama, Kentucky, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee
Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota
Arkansas, Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma
Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska
North Dakota, Montana,
Utah, Wyoming
Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada,
Guam, Trust Territories,
American Samoa
Alaska, Idaho
-------
FIGURE A.I
REGION X
STATES SAMPLED FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES BY EPA REGIONS
DJUIIBS • MOOM
-------
A-19
TYPE OF PLANT SAMPLED
PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
LAGOON
ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
SIZE OF PLANT SAMPLED
<5 MGD SEATTLE
5-20 MGD SEATTLE
>20 MGD SEATTLE
IITTERY
MAINE
-------
SHREWSBURY
MEDFIELD
GREAT BARRINGTON
po
CD
TYPE OF PLANT SAMPLED
PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
LAGOON
ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
SIZE OF PLANT SAMPLED
<5 MGD SEATTLE
5-20 MGD SEATTLE
>20 MGD SEATTLE
MASSACHUSETTS
O
C
;O
m
GJ
-------
OGDENSBURG
TYPE OF PLANT SAMPLED
$ PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
4» TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
A ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
• LAGOON
• ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
SIZE OF PLANT SAMPLED
<5 MOD SEATTLE
5-20 MGD SEATTLE
>20 MGD SEATTLE
PLATTSBURGHI
TUPPER LAKE
SARANAC LAKE
LOWVILLE
AMHERST
SPENCERPORT
A
BATAVIA
^WARSAW
ALFRED.
•1T+WEBSTER
MONROE COUNTY
(VAN LARE)
DNEIDA COUNTY
MANLIUS
ILLION
.AMSTERDAM
i
no
PENN YAN
,BATH
(CAYUGA HEIGHTS
ASIDNEY
BETHLEHEM
JAMESTOWN
CHEMUNG COUNTY AOWEGO
kMONTICELLO
I
ARLINGTON
.PORT JERVIS
SUFFERN
m
*^;
AASTONY POINT
COUNTN
NEW YORK
YSTER BAY
AY PARK
-------
GROVE CITY
TYPE OF PLANT SAMPLED
* PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
+ TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
A ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
9 LAGOON
• ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
SIZE OF PLANT SAMPLED
<5 MGD SEATTLE
5-20 MGD SEATTLE
>20 MGD - SEATTLE
CLARKS SUMMIT^ AARCHBALC
ADALLAS
AWILLIAMSPORT
BLOOMSBURG
SUNBURY^
APINECREEK
APLEASANT HILLS
MON VALLEY
SCDTTDALE
HARRI5BURG
LEMOYNE*XSWATARA
MECHANICSBURG +LITITZ
ASPRINGETTSBURY
CHAMBERSBURG
TWP
ro
ro
, HAZLE.TON
O
c
PENNSYLVANIA
-------
TYPE OF PLANT SAMPLED
PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
4" TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
• LAGOON
• ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
SIZE OF PLANT SAMPLED
<5 MGD SEATTLE
5-20 MGD SEATTLE
>20 MGD SEATTL
CHARLOTTESVILLE
FREDERICKSBURG
LEXINGTON
A
CHESTERFIELD
PORTSMOUTH
HAMPTON ROADS
-------
A-24
FIGURE A.7
N
JACKSONVILLE
BEACH
/•HOLLY
HILL
PENSACOLA
TALLAHASSEE
LAKE CITY
ST AUGUSTINE
TITUSVILL
MILL SLOUGH
KISSIMMEET
MELBOURN
TARPON SPRINGS A|ftr«M +BARTOW
ST PETERSBURG-'
FT PIERCE
BOCA RATONA
NORTH MIAMI
HOMESTEA
+
COCOA
TYPE OF PLANT SAMPLED
*• PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
+ TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
A ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
• LAGOON
• ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
SIZE OF PLANT SAMPLED
<5 MGD SEATTLE
5-20 MGD SEATTLE
>ZO MGD SEATTLE
FLORIDA
-------
A-25
CARROL. LTONA
^ATHENS
+ ATHENS
ACOVINGTON
COLLEGE PARK
ST SIMONS
ISLAND
TYPE OF PLANT SAMPLED
t PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
+ TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
A ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
• LAGOON
• ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
6 OXIDATION DITCH
SIZE OF PLANT SAMPLED
<5 MGD SEATTLE
5-20 MGD SEATTLE,
>20 MGD SEATTLE
GEORGIA
-------
A-26
FIGURE A.9
CLARKSDALE
TYPE OF PLANT SAMPLED
4} PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
•fr TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
A ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
• LAGOON
• ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
SIZE OF PLANT SAMPLED
<5 MGD SEATTLE
5-20 MGD SEATTLE
>20 MGD SEATTl
HATTIESBURG
HATTIESBURG
MISSISSIPPI
-------
A-27
FIGURE G. 7— 1
E.CLEVELAND
DEFIANCE
VAN WERT
A
SANDUSK
S. CLEVELAND.
W .CLEVELAND
BEDFORD
ASOLON(2)
NORWALK
A
FINDLAY
GIRARD
RAVENNA f
• BOARDMANA
BARBERTON
——^ . STRUTHERS
ALLIANCE
A
WOQSTER
DELAWARE
SIDNEY
GREENVILLE
e
SPRINGFIELD
VANDALIA
MIAMISBURG . ,
A *
DAYTON
A
HAMILTON
TYPE OF PLANT SAMPLED
£ PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
4 TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
A ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
• LAGOON
• ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
© OXIDATION DITCH
SIZE OF PLANT SAMPLED
<5 MGD SEATTLE
5-20 MGD SEATTLE
>20 MGD 5EATIU
OHIO
-------
A-28
TURGEON
BAY
TYPE OF PLANT SAMPLED
!• PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
K TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
k ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
I LAGOON
9 ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
SIZE OF PLANT SAMPLED
<5 MGD SEATTLE
5-20 MGD SEATTLE
>20 MGD SEATTLE
WISCONSIN
-------
A-29
FIGURE A.12
LEWISVILI^E
FT WORTI-lA +SALLAS
BAYTOWN(3)
CITY( 2)
GALVESTON
"GALVESTON
BROWNSVILLE,
TEXAS
TYPE OF PLANT SAMPLED
$ PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
+ TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
A ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
• LAGOON
• ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
0 OXIDATION DITCH
SIZE OF PLANT SAMPLED
<5 MGD SEATTLE
5-20 MGD SEATTLE
>20 MGD SEATTLE
-------
KANSAS CITY
MARSHALL
+
MEXICO
+
TYPE OF PLANT SAMPLED
£ PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
+ TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
A ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
• LAGOON
• ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
© OXIDATION DITCH
SIZE OF PLANT SAMPLED
<5 MGD SEATTLE
5-20 MGD SEATTLE
>20 MGD SEATTLE
LEES SUMMIT
COLUMBIA
ST. CHARLES
ST. LOUIS
T CHARLES
BOLIVAR
e
A
SPRINGFIELD
MISSOURI
i
co
O
e
SALEM
CD
d
m
>
-------
FIGURE A.14
ESTES PARKA
. COLLINS
WINDSOR
BOULDER
BOULDER
*
VAIL
T LONGMONT
+BRIGHTON
kWESTMINSTER
I DENVER
LAKEWOOD
A COLO. SPRINGS
PUEBLO
+
TYPE OF PLANT SAMPLED
£ PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
+ TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
A ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
• LAGOON
• ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
SIZE OF PLANT SAMPLED
<5 MOD SEATTLE
5-20 MGD SEATTLE
>20 MGD SEATTLE
COLORADO
-------
SOUTH DAKOTA
SISSETON
PIERRE
RAPID CITY
WINNER
TYPE OF PLANT SAMPLED
PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
LAGOON
ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
SIZE OF PLANT SAMPLED
<5 MGD SEATTLE
5-20 MGD SEATTLE
MGD SEATTLE
3>
co
o
C
;0
m
>
01
-------
MILL
VALLE
SAN
REFAEirT
S.F.
IAIRPORT,
MILLBRAE-
TYPE OF PLANT SAMPLED
PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
A ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
• LAGOON
ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
SIZE OF PLANT SAMPLED
<5 MGD SEATTLE
5-20 MGD SEATTLE
>20 MGD SEATTLE
HEALDSBURG
A RIO LINDA
ASPEN*. ASACRAMENTn
NOVA TO J^ T«~SACRAM
NATOMAS
MARTINEZ ^-ANTIOCH
PITTSBURG
PTTSBURG
BAKERSFIELD
BAKERSFIELD
LANCASTER
*
(OAK VIEW
VENTURA* ^SANTA PAULA
CAMARILLOA PPALMDALE
aXNARD
-------
A-34
FIGURE A.17
TYPE OF PLANT SAMPLED
£ PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
+ TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
A ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
• LAGOON
• ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
SIZE OF PLANT SAMPLED
<5 MGD SEATTLE
5-20 MGD SEATTLE
>20 MGD SEATTLE
-------
EDMONDS
SEATTLE(2)
LAKOTA
3=
i
TYPE OF PLANT SAMPLED
^ PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT
•fr TRICKLING FILTER PLANT
A ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT
• LAGOON
• ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
SIZE OF PLANT SAMPLED
<5 MGD SEATTLE
5-20 MGD SEATTLE
>20 MGD SEATTLE
WASHINGTON
o
c:
m
*
001
-------
A-36
A.2 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES
A.2.1 Methods of Contact
In order to minimize the effort required to locate proper facilities
from which to obtain data and to contact proper authorities, an approach
was devised based on the Federal-state-local hierarchy of the Water
Pollution Control Grants or NPDES permit programs. After determining the
sample characteristics and states to be considered in each region, Dames
& Moore survey personnel contacted the Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
Branch in each EPA region. From the information available in these
regional offices and from the NPDES Permit files, potential facilities
were selected by Dames & Moore investigators and reviewed by the regional
O&M staff for appropriateness. An attempt was made to avoid selecting
only those facilities that were operated well and properly maintained.
In some regions this information was more readily available from
the state offices than from regional EPA offices and the facility sel-
ection was performed at that level. In those cases where facilities were
selected at the regional level, the states concerned were consulted.
After sample facilities were approved at the regional and state
levels, the authority names, addresses, and phone numbers of the pre-
designated municipalities were obtained from either the O&M offices, or
the NPDES or Grants files. Each facility was contacted and informed of
the nature of the project and the required information. Appointments
were made with the appropriate municipal officials and a visit to each
facility was scheduled.
-------
A-37
A.2.2 Data Collection Worksheets
To standardize the format of the data collected and to simplify
data processing, a worksheet was developed that itemized the information
desired (see Figure A.19). In addition, to insure flexibility and
thoroughness, a supplemental worksheet was provided to accommodate
exceptional information or comments (see Figure A.20). The comment
worksheet could only be used in conjunction with the treatment system
data worksheet or the sewer system data worksheet.
Treatment System Data Worksheet
The Treatment System Data worksheet (Figure A.19) is divided into
three basic segments: identity data; flow, quality, process and pumping
data; and fiscal data. In addition, each line of the treatment worksheet
and accompanying comment worksheet is uniquely identified by a three-
digit identification number identifying the EPA region and state of the
facility. Table A.14 lists the identification number groupings for each
region and state.
For each facility line A includes the name, location (city, county,
state, zip code), the Authority/Facility number from the 1976 Needs
Survey, and the NPDES permit number. In addition, a two-digit code,
(explained in Section A.2.3) is entered describing the type of facility
being recorded. Line B lists the operating authority, staff size,
service population, year of latest modification, and the ending date of
the year the data represent.
-------
DATACOLLECTOR.
DATE COLLECTED.
TREATMENT SYSTEM DATA
DATE KEYPUNCHED-
KEYPUNCHED BY
VERIFIED?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 272829 3031 3233 34 3S 36 37 3839 40 4 1 4243 44 45 46 47 48 49 5051 5253 54 5556 5758596061 6263646566676869 7071 7Z 73 74 75 76 77 7ft 79 $0
A
o
B
101
IM]
lit 12 (131 YEAR
YEAH END NG STAFF SERVICE POP MOD
(211
1151 (161 17 [IB) (19) 120) TUT. 122)
fLOW (MCD1 PERMIT ACTUAL PEAK DATE DESIGN IND LEVEL PROCESSES
C
•
•
•
•
•
(i) EFFLUENT g, / DESIGN (ma.Ml
123 INFLUENT PERMIT '-* d' '•> f ACTUAL hi 1 ) / Ijl ,k) II) (ml („)
QUALITY |m,/ii 7OAYim9/)] 7 DAY ling/ 3O DAY mg/ll 30 DAY ILbil M<\X mijM WIN Img/l) AVE.lfTig/ll AVE 1 Lhi / MAX Img/ll INFLUFNT EFFUUfNT iLb/dav COMMEMT
-
D
E
F
G
H
•
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
129
12fll (271 SOLIDS
INFLUENT 125) [26] LIQUID 128 HANDLING (301 (311
J
I3ZI lal (bl 'CJ Id] * T
COSTS CODE COMMENT TOTAl PERSONNEL POWER UT
\
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
K
' \
i
!
!
i
III [gl IK!
3TAL CHFMICAi. CHEMICAL •! |l rki "1
LITlfS Dt^-INi-ECTICN TOTAL EQU PMC NT MATERIALS COM rRAf.TtJfii. OTHER
(
!
' '
|
i ;
— L-L-
; i
!
_
i ; 1 !
i i
; f
1
i
J ! i
1 i
!
! j
i
i
1
i
i
)
i
i
i
\
\
i
f
|
! i '
!
1 1 I i j
1 i
' j i !
i i 1
i i
\ i \
i
| j
i ' \ \ '
•
1
i
j
: i
i
i
i
i i
i
i '
!
_
i
i '
— ^^ ^^ ^a J^» ou 01 t^J C3 GJI SB 6S £7 on PSJ fo 7 , 7? 73 7^ V5 rs 77 78 Tg »O
>
UJ
oo
O
c
70
-------
ID NO. COMMENT
1
1
2
345678 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2425 26 272829 3031 3233 3435363738 3940414243444546474849 50 51 5253 54555657 5859 6O61 62636465666768697071 7273 74 7578777879*0
234
5
6
7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22232425262728293031 32333435363738394041 42434445464748495051 52535455565758596061 62636465666768697071 727374757677787980
O
c
70
m
>
O
-------
A-40
TABLE A.14
IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
State
Massachusetts
Maine
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Florida
Georgia
Mississippi
Ohio
Wisconsin
Texas
Missouri
Colorado
South Dakota
California
Oregon
Washington
ID#'s
100-149
150-199
200-299
300-349
350-399
400-434
450-499
435-449
500-549
550-599
600-699
700-799
800-879
880-899
900-999
000-099
-------
A-41
Line C itemizes plant flow, treatment level, and unit processes.
Coding for the latter two items is explained in the next section.
Lines D through H are for quality information and are patterned
after the NPDES permit reporting requirements. Line D is for BOD, line E
for suspended solids, and lines F through H for other critical para-
meters. Quality information is obtained for actual influent values,
permit effluent limitations, actual effluent values, and design influent
and effluent levels. Flow data as submitted by the facility operator was
accepted without further investigation.
Line J contains information on the number and total horsepower
of influent pumps, liquid stream pumps, and solids handling pumps. In
addition, total flow capacity of the influent pumps is included.
Fiscal information is entered on line K. Costs are broken out
into personnel, power, total utilities, chemicals for disinfection, total
chemicals, equipment, materials or supplies, contractual services, and
other. Additional K lines are available to facilitate data collection
for the degree of detail contained in the municipality's financial
records.
Sewer System Data Worksheet
The Sewer System Data worksheet (Figure A.21) is divided into two
basic segments: identity data and physical data with cost. The identi-
-------
DATACOLLECTOFL
DATE COLLECTED^
SEWER SYSTEM DATA
DATE KEYPUNCHED-
KEYPUNCHED BY
VERIFIED?
FACILITY MAME
STATE CO.
12315
A
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 232425 262728293031 323334353637383940414243444546474849 5051 5253 5455565758596061 62636465666768697071 7273 74 75 76 77 7B 79 «O
I10> (111 (121 113 YEAR
OPERAT NG AUTHORITY YEAR END MG STAFF SERVICE POP. MOD
B
<15I la)
COSTS COD
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Ib (d
E mlN M«X
( J
LENGTH/CAP *HP COMMf-WT TOTAL PERSONNEL POWER & MATERIALS CHEM CALS CONTRACTUAL OTHER
_.
--
L _
I
^
-------
A-43
fication numbering system and lines A and B are similar to that for the
Treatment System Data.
C lines may be used for the size and length of gravity sewers and
force mains, pumping stations, and fiscal data. Flexibility is built-in
to the data format to obtain as detailed information for cost centers as
is contained in the municipality's financial records.
-------
A-44
A.2.3 Data Coding
Information required for lines A and B of the Treatment System and
Sewer System Data worksheets with the exception of block 6, Type of
Facility, did not require coding. Two-digit codes were developed to
indicate the type of facility being reviewed, including sewage treatment
plants with various combinations of sewers tributary thereto. Where
treatment plants were owned and operated by one municipality and sewers
by another municipality, separate identification numbers are used and the
type code adjusted accordingly. Table A.15 lists the various codes.
TABLE A.15
Code Type of Facility
10 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Only
rt
01 Interceptor Sewers - Separate (Major Transmission)
02 Interceptor Sewers - Combined (Major Transmission)
03 Collection Sewers - Separate (Not Included in 01)
04 Collection Sewers - Combined (Not Included in 02)
05 Complete Sewer System - Separate (01 + 03)
06 Complete Sewer System - Combined (02 + 04)
07 Complete Sewer System - Mixed
11 10 + 01 WWTP + Separate Interceptor Sewers
12 10 + 02 WWTP + Combined Interceptor Sewers
15 10 + 05 WWTP + Complete Sewer System - Separate
16 10 -i- 06 WWTP + Complete Sewer System - Combined
17 10 + 07 WWTP + Complete Sewer System - Mixed
rt
Separate Interceptor Sewer implies sanitary wastes only.
Combined Interceptor Sewer implies sanitary wastes and storm
water wastes.
-------
A-45
Line C, block 21 of the treatment system data worksheet describes
the level of treatment. For level of treatment, a two-digit code des-
cribing the design treatment level provided by the installed processes is
indicated in the following table.
TABLE A.16
Code
00 Raw Discharge
01 Primary (BOD/SS Eff. >50/50)
02 Advanced Primary (BOD/SS Eff. 50/50 - 30/30)
03 Secondary (BOD/SS Eff. 30/30 - 25/25)
04 Greater Than Secondary (BOD/SS only)
05 Nutrient Removal (BOD/SS
-------
A-46
TABLE A.17
WASTEWATER TREATMENT CODES
Code Process
AO Pre-Treatment - General
Al - Pumping, Raw Wastewater
A2 - Preliminary Treatment - Bar Screen
A3 - Preliminary Treatment - Grit Removal
A4 - Preliminary Treatment - Comminutors/Barminutors
A5 - Preliminary Treatment - Others
A6 - Prechlorination
A7 - Flow Equalization Basins
A8 - Preaeration
BO Sedimentation - General
Bl - Primary Sedimentation
B2 - Clarification
B3 - Tube Settlers
CO Trickling Filter - Unspecified
Cl - Trickling Filter - Rock Media
C2 - Trickling Filter - Plastic Media
C3 - Trickling Filter - Redwood Slat
C4 - Trickling Filter - Other Media
C5 - Rotating Biological Filter (Bio-Disc, Bio-Surf)
C6 - Activated Bio- Filter Contactors
DO Activated Sludge - Unspecified
Dl - Activated Sludge - Conventional
D2 - Activated Sludge - High Rate
D3 - Activated Sludge - Contact Stabilization
D4 - Activated Sludge - Extended Aeration
D5 - Pure Oxygen Activated sludge
D6 - Oxidation Ditch
EO Filtration - Unspecified
El - Microstrainers - Raw Sewage or Primary Effluent
E2 - Microstrainers - Secondary or Tertiary Effluent
E3 - Sand Filters
E4 - Mix-Media Filters
FO Nutrient Removal/Chemical Treatment
Fl - Biological Nitrification
F2 - Biological Denitrification
F3 - Ion Exchange
F4 - Breakpoint Chlorination
-------
A-47
TABLE A.17 (Continued)
Code Process
FO Nutrient Removal/Chemical Treatment - (continued)
F5 - Ammonia Stripping
F6 - Recarbonation
F7 - Neutralization
F8 - Activated Carbon - Granular
F9 - Activated Carbon - Powdered
Gl - Lime Treatment of Raw Wastewater
G2 - Tertiary Lime Treatment
G3 - Alum Addition
G4 - Ferri-Chloride Addition
G5 - Polymer Addition
G6 - Other Chemical Additions
HO Disinfection - General
Hi - Chlorination for Disinfection
H2 - Ozonation for Disinfection
H3 - Other Disinfection
H4 - Dechlorination
H5 - Reaeration - General
JO Other Treatment - General
Jl - Land Treatment of Primary Effluent
J2 - Land Treatment of Secondary Effluent (30/30)
J3 - Stabilization Ponds
J4 - Aerated Lagoons
J5 - Polishing Ponds
KO Effluent Disposal
Kl - Effluent Pumping
K2 - Outfall to Other Plants
K3 - Recycling and Reuse
K4 - Irrigation
K5 - Ocean Outfall
K6 - Surface Water Outfall
K7 - Land Disposal
K8 - Complete Retention
K9 - Other Disposal (Comment)
LO Sludge Handling (Comment)
LI - Sludge Holding Tank
L2 - Sludge Lagoons
L3 - Air Drying (Sludge Drying Beds)
Ml - Aerobic Digestion - Air
M2 - Aerobic Digestion - Oxygen
M3 - Anaerobic Digestion
M4 - Digestion Gas Utilization
-------
A-48
TABLE A.17 (Concluded)
Code Process
LO Sludge Handling (Comment) - (continued)
M5 - Chlorine Oxidation of Sludge (Purifax)
Nl - Dewatering - Mechanical - Vacuum Filter
N2 - Dewatering - Mechanical - Centrifuge
N3 - Dewatering - Mechanical - Filter Press
N4 - Dewatering - Others
N5 - Gravity Thickening
N6 - Flotation Thickening
N7 - Heat Treatment
Pi - Incineration - Multiple Hearth
P2 - Incineration - Fluidized Beds
P3 - Incineration - Rotary Kiln
P4 - Incineration - General/Other (Comment)
P5 - Pyrolysis
P6 - Co-incineration with Solid Waste
P7 - Co-pyrolysis with Solid Waste
P8 - Wet Air Oxidation
P9 - Recalcination
QO Ultimate Sludge Disposal
Ql - Compositing
Q2 - Land Spreading of Liquid Sludge
Q3 - Land Spreading of Thickened Sludge
Q4 - Trenching
Q5 - Ocean Dumping
Q6 - Other Sludge Handling
Q7 - Sludge Transferred to Another Facility
Q8 - Sludge Used by Others
Q9 - Landfill
RO Miscellaneous
Rl - Laboratory
R2 - Controls
R3 - Maintenance
R4 - Other Miscellaneous Items (Comment)
-------
A-49
Lines F, G, and H are to be used for permit quality parameters
other than BOD or SS but which the discharge permit requires treatment.
Use of these lines required an accompanying comment to identify the
parameter.
Line J - Pumping - listed not only influent and sludge handling
pumping but also other pumping in the liquid stream which pumps sub-
stantially all of the flow through the process train such as pumps
between primary and secondary units, effluent pumps, etc. No pumps which
are an integral part of a process were included.
The K lines are to be used for fiscal data. Table A.18 lists
the coding for block 32(a).
TABLE A.18
FISCAL CODES
Code Item
TO General Acccounting
Tl Administration, Support Services, Etc.
T2 Operation & Maintenance (actual "inside-the-fence" costs)
T3 Total O&M costs, including administration, support
services, etc. (Tl + T2)
T4 Primary Treatment
T5 Secondary Treatment
T6 Advanced Waste Treatment (AWT)
T7 Other
T8 Solids Handling
-------
A-50
Code TO, General Accounting, and Code T7, Other, must be accompanied
by a comment to adequately describe the item of work on which costs are
being reported.
Data required for lines A and B of Figure A.21, Sewer System
Data worksheet, are similar to that required for lines A and B of Figure
A.19, on the Treatment System Data worksheet. Line C of Figure A.21
(Sewer System Data worksheet) is used for listing engineering design and
financial data for sewer systems. Provisions are made for a range of
diameters, length of gravity sewers and force mains, number of pumps, and
summation of discharge capacity and horsepower within the sewer system.
Table A.19 lists the coding and items to be used on line C.
TABLE A.19
SEWER SYSTEM CODES
Code Item
01 Gravity Sewers
02 Force Mains
03 Pump Stations
04 Combined Flow Appurtenances
05 Separate Flow Appurtenances
06 Treatment or Control Devices
07 Other
10 Total O&M Costs (20 + 30), including Administration,
Support Services
20 Operating Cost (includes Maintenance and Minor Repair)
30 Administration, Support Services, Etc.
-------
APPENDIX B
ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE AGENCIES
SURVEY
-------
B-l
APPENDIX B
AMSA SURVEY
B.I BACKGROUND
In 1975 the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA)
conducted a survey of wastewater treatment plant operations and main-
tenance among its membership. This survey was very thorough and required
considerable data relative to treatment processes, design parameters, and
process efficiencies. The 38-page questionnaire emphasized operational
performance data with O&M costs receiving only secondary importance. The
plant equipment inventory section requested information on design para-
meters as well as number, type, model, and manufacturer of equipment
installed in the various processes. It requested flow and strength of
sewage applied to each process plus a description of each process and
mode of operation.
The operational data reporting section was so arranged that flow and
other parameters were to be reported as influent or effluent of each
liquid treatment process. In general to satisfy the data collection
requirements of the AMSA form, wastewater samples would have to be taken
and reported at four locations throughout a conventional activated sludge
plant. Quality parameters considered were BOD, SS, COD, Total N, Total
P, and NH_. Other operational data requested related to specific
processes which are tests usually performed by the operator for process
control.
-------
B-2
The solids handling section of the AMSA questionnaire required data
regarding the quantity of screenings, grit and scum removal, feed to
digesters, digester performance analyses, and sludge quantity. Chemical
dosage information was requested by process and type of chemicals used.
Plant operating personnel were categorized into one of the following
classes: management, operations, engineering, maintenance, training, and
other. Only in-plant personnel were to be considered. Operational costs
were requested by cost centers, viz., primary, secondary, solids handling
and AWT (if any). No sewer system data were requested.
During the organizational stage of the EPA O&M survey, contact was
made with AMSA officials to ascertain the status of their extensive O&M
survey. It was learned that the data had been collected in 1975 but had
yet to be analyzed and consequently no report had been prepared. In
exchange for processing the AMSA data and reporting the findings to AMSA
officials, Dames & Moore project personnel received approval to incorpor-
ate the AMSA results in this O&M study.
B.2 AMSA DATA BASE
The AMSA data were reviewed and extracted to fit the format of
the EPA survey worksheet (see Figure A.19). Of the 139 municipal AMSA
questionnaires, 99 contained sufficient data for a cost performance
analysis. Thirty-seven (37) municipal agencies in 25 states provided
data for the 99 wastewater treatment plants. These 99 facilities ranged
-------
B-3
in size from 0.3 mgd to 999 mgd design flow and contained primary,
secondary (trickling filter and activated sludge), and advanced waste-
water treatment plants. The aggregate design capacity of these facili-
ties is 6.9 billion gallons per day with an actual flow of 6.0 billion
gallons per day. Nearly 38 million people are served by these 99
plants.
Table B.I lists those AMSA facilities that are part of the analysis
of this report. The cost data which represent fiscal years ranging from
late 1972 to late 1975 were in general agreement with the cost reporting
requirements of the EPA survey. The AMSA operating data, however, were
in much greater detail than required in the EPA survey.
-------
AMSA SAMPLE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
ID NO FACILITY NAME
199 HARTFORD UPCP
100 NUT ISLAND STP
101 DEER ISLAND STP
298 PASSAIC VALLEY STP
200 NORTH WWTF
201 BOWERY BAY UPCP
202 ROCKAUAY STP
203 TALLMAN ISLAND UPCP
204 NEWTOWN CREEK UPCP
205 JAMAICA PCP
206 OWLS HEAD STP
207 CONEY ISLAND UPCP
208 26TH WARD STP
209 UARDS ISLAND UPCP
210 HUNTS POINT UPCP
211 PORT RICHMOND UPCP
212 OAKUOOD BEACH WPCP
213 GATE-CHILI-OGDEN TP
214 NU QUADRANT STP
396 UESTERN BRANCH UUTP
397 PARKWAY UUTP
398 PISCATAUAY UUTP
399 PISCATAUAY MODEL PL
300 NORTHEAST UPCP
301 SOUTHEAST UPCP
302 SOUTHUEST UPCP
303 PITTSBURGH UUTP
360 BOAT HARBOR STP
361 LAMBERTS POINT STP
362 ARMY BASE STF
363 CHESAPEAKE-ELIZ STP
364 JAMES RIVER STP
365 WILLIAMSBURG STP
492 MORRIS FOREMAN UUTP
491 N BUFFALO STP
488 DRY CREEK UUTP
594 STREAMWOOD URP
595 LEMONT STP
596 HANOVER PARK URP
597 UEST-SOUTHUEST STW
598 NORTH SIDE STP
599 CALUMET SEU. TRT UK
593 FORT UAYNE UPCP
585 CLOQUET STP
591 FAIRMONT STP
592 GARY NEU DULUTH STP
500 AKRON UPCS
550 SOUTH SHORE UUTP
551 JONES ISLAND STP
697 EAST BANK STP
CITY STATE
HARTFORD CT
BUINCY MA
UINTHROP MA
NEWARK NJ
ALBANY NY
QUEENS NY
ROCKAWAY NY
NEU YORK NY
BROOKLYN NY
GUEENS NY
BROOKLYN NY
BROOKLYN NY
BROOKLYN NY
NEU YORK NY
BRONX NY
STATEN ISLAND NY
STATEN ISLAND NY
ROCHESTER NY
HILTON NY
UPPER MARLBORO MD
LAUREL MD
ACCOKEEK MD
ACCOKEEK MD
PHILADELPHIA PA
PHILADELPHIA PA
PHILADELPHIA PA
PITTSBURGH PA
NEWPORT NEWS VA
NORFOLK VA
NORFOLK VA
VIRGINIA BEACH VA
NEWPORT NEWS VA
UILLIAMSBURG VA
LOUISVILLE KY
GREENSBORO NC
MADISON TN
STREAMWOOD II.
LEMONT IL
HANOVER PARK IL
CICERO IL
SKOKIE IL
CHICAGO IL
FORT UAYNE IN
CLOQUET MN
DULUTH MN
DULUTH MN
AKRON OH
OAK CREEK WI
MILWAUKEE WI
NEW ORLEANS LA
LEVEL OF
OPERATING AUTHORITY DESIGN FLOU TREATMENT
METRO DIST BUREAU OF P U 60.0 03
BOSTON METRO DISTRICT COM 112.0 01
BOSTON METRO DISTRICT COM 343.0 01
PASSAIC VALLEY SEU COM 300.0 01
ALBANY COUNTY SEU. DIST. 35.0 03
NEW YORK CITY DUR 70.0 03
NEU YORK CITY DWR 30.0 03
NEU YORK CITY DWR 55.0 03
NEW YORK CITY DWR 310.0 03
NEW YORK CITY DWR 100.0 03
NEW YORK CITY DWR 160.0 03
NEW YORK CITY DWR 110.0 03
NEW YORK CITY DWR 60.0 03
NEW YORK CITY DWR 250.0 03
NEW YORK CITY 150.0 03
NEW YORK CITY DUR 10.0 01
NEW YORK CITY DUR 15.0 03
MONROE CO. PURE WATERS D. 4.0 01
MONROE CO. DFU 15,0 06
UASHIN6TON SUB. SAN. COMM 5.0 03
WASHINGTON SUB. SAN.COMM. 7.5 04
WASH SUB SAN COMM 30.0 03
UASH SUB SAN COMM 5.0 07
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 175.0 03
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 130.0 01
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA 136.0 01
ALLEGHENY COUNTY SAN AUTH 200.0 03
HAMPTON ROADS SAN DIST 11.0 01
HAMPTON ROADS SAN DIST 20.0 01
HAMPTON ROADS SAN DIST 11.0 01
HAMPTON ROADS SAN DIST 24.0 03
HAMPTON ROADS SAN DIST 11.0 03
HAMPTON ROADS SAN DIST 9.6 03
LOUISVILLE METRO SEUER DT 105.0 01
CITY OF GREENSBORO 18.0 03
NASHVILLE-DAVIDSON CTY 6.0 03
MSD CHICAGO 3.0 07
MSD CHICAGO 1.2 07
MSD CHICAGO 6.0 04
MSD CHICAGO 999.0 03
MSD CHICAGO 333.0 03
MSD CHICAGO 220.0 03
FORT UAYNE CITY UTILITIES 32.0 06
U. LAKE SUPERIOR SAN DIST 1.5 01
U. LAKE SUPERIOR SAN DIST .7 02
W. LAKE SUPERIOR SAN.DIST .3 02
CITY OF AKRON 07,0 06
CITY OF MILWAUKEE 120.0 06
CITY OF MILWAUKEE 200.0 03
JEFF PARISH SAN DIST 23.0 01
W
1
t->
M
a
-------
AMSA SAMPLE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
ID NO FACILITY NAME
698 WEST BANK STP
699 MICHOUD STP
693 TULSA COAL CREEK
694 TULSA SOUTHSIDE
695 TULSA NORTHSIDE
696 TULSA FLAT ROCK
600 GOVALLE STP
603 HASKELL ST. TP
607 CENTRAL REG. WWTS
608 SALADO CREEK STP
609 RILLING ROAD STP
610 LEON CREEK STP
700 BIG BLUE RIVER STP
701 TODD CREEK STP
702 PLATTE CO, STP
703 S. LITTLE BLUE STP
704 UESTSIDE STP
801 MDSD *1 STP
997 RODGER ROAB PLANT
998 91ST AVE WWTP
999 23RD AVE WUTP
901 CHINO REG PLANT *2
903 REG. TERT. PLT NO 1
905 TERMINAL ISLAND TP
906 SPEC. DISTRICT 1 TP
911 SAN JOSE/SANTA CI..AR
912 JOINT WATER POL CTL
913 DIST 14 UWTP
914 DIST 26 UWTP
915 SAN JOSE CREEK WWTP
916 DISTRICT 20 WWTP
917 LONG BEACH WWTP
918 LOS COYOTES
919 DISTRICT 32 WWTP
921 POMONA WWTP
923 WHITTIER NARROWS WW
991 MILILANI STP
992 WAHIAWA STP
993 WAJPAHU LAGOON
994 KANEOHE STP
995 KAILUA SEWAGE PLANT
996 PEARL CITY STP
000 FOREST GROVE WWTP
001 ALOHA WWTP
002 TRYON CREEK STP
003 COLUMBIA BLVD UWTP
052 ALM STP
053 WEST POINT STP
054 RENTON STP
CITY STATE
ALGIERS LA
NEW ORLEANS LA
TULSA OK
TULSA OK
TULSA OK
TULSA OK
AUSTIN TX
EL PASO TX
GRAND PRAIRIE TX
SAN ANTONIO TX
SAN ANTONIO TX
SAN ANTONIO TX
KANSAS CITY MO
KANSAS CITY MO
KANSAS CITY MO
KANSAS CITY MO
KANSAS CITY MO
COMMERCE CI:TY CO
TUCSON AR
PHOENIX AR
PHOENIX AR
CHINO CA
ONTARIO CA
SAN PEDRO CA
OAKLAND CA
SAN JOSE CA
CARSON CA
LANCASTER CA
SAIIGUS CA
WHITTIER CA
PALMDALE CA
LONG BEACH CA
CERRITOS CA
VALENCIA CA
POMONA CA
EL MONTE CA
MILILANI HI
WAHIAWA HI
WAIPAHU HI
KANEOHE HI
KAILUA HI
PEARL CITY HI
FOREST GROVE OR
HILLSBORO OR
LAKE OSWEGO OR
PORTLAND OR
SEATTLE WA
SEATTLE WA
RENTON WA
OPERATING AUTHORITY
NEW ORLEANS S AND W BD
NEW ORLEANS S 8 W BOARD
TULSA WSD
TULSA WSD
TULSA WSD
TULSA WSD
CITY OF AUSTIN
EL PASO WATER UTIL. PUB.
TRINITY RIVER AUTH. TEX.
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO
CITY OF SAN ANTONIO
CITY OF KANSAS CITY
CITY OF KANSAS CITY
CITY OF KANSAS CITY
CITY OF KANSAS CITY
CITY OF KANSAS CITY
METRO DENVER SAN DIST #1
TUCSON» CITX OF
CITY OF PHOENIX
CITY OF PHOENIX
CHINO BASIN MUN WATER DIS
CHINO BASIN MUN WATER DIS
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
EAST BAY M.U.D.
CITY OF SAN JOSE
CO SAN DIST LOS ANGELES
CO SAN DIST LOS ANGELES
CO SAN DIST LOS ANGELES
CO SAN DIST LOS ANGELES
CO SAN DIST LOS ANGELES
CO SAN DIST LOS ANGELES
CO SAN DIST LOS ANGELES
CO SAN DIST LOS ANGELES
CO SAN DIST LOS ANGELES
CO SAN DIST LOS ANGELES
OF HONOLULU
CITY AND CO.
CITY AND CO.
CITY AND CO.
CITY AND CO.
CITY AND CO.
CITY AND CO.
UNIFIED SEW.
UNIFIED SEW.
CITY OF PORTLAND
CITY OF PORTLAND
METRO SEATTLE
METRO SEATTLE
METRO SEATTLE
OF HONOLULU
OF HONOLULU
OF HONOLULU
OF HONOLULU
OF HONOLULU
AG. WASH. CO
AG. WASH. CO
DESIGN FLOW
10.0
2.5
5.0
21.0
11.0
6.0
40.0
25.0
30.0
24.0
94.0
12.0
100.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
35.0
117.0
37.0
60.0
45.0
3.0
16.0
14.0
128.0
160.0
385.0
4.5
5.0
37.0
3.0
12.0
12.0,
1.5
10.0
12.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
7.0
5.0
5.0
5.. 2
5.0
100.0
10.0
125.0
36.0
LEVEL OF
TREATMENT
03
03
03
01
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
01
03
03
02
01
03
03
03
03
03
07
01
01
03
01
01
04
04
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
02
03
03
01
03
04
03
03
01
01
03
IT1
M
W
O
O
a
8.
-------
APPENDIX C
COST INDEXING PROCEDURE
-------
c-i
APPENDIX C
COST INDEXING PROCEDURE
C.I NEED FOR COMMON DOLLAR BASE
The operations and maintenance cost data that were collected across
the United States reflect several time periods. Whenever possible, the
most current cost data were obtained. Not all municipalities conven-
iently end their fiscal year on December 31st. According to the informa-
tion received from the survey about one-third of all municipalities
terminate their fiscal year other than on a calendar year basis. Con-
sequently, the O&M cost data that were originally collected represent
current dollars...not constant dollars for the same period of time.
Recorded costs range from late 1975 to early 1977 for the EPA survey and
late 1972 to late 1975 for the AMSA survey. In order to perform economic
analyses and make cost comparisons, it was essential to convert all costs
to a constant dollar basis.
C.2 ALTERNATIVE INDICES FOR PLANT COSTS
A number of indices exist that might be used to convert the O&M
wastewater treatment plant costs to a common dollar base. Some of
the indices that were considered include the EPA operation and mainten-
ance cost index, the fuel and utilities component of the National Consu-
mer Price Index (CPI), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) water and
sewerage services index, the BLS industrial commodities Wholesale Price
Index (WPI), factory maintenance cost index as published regularly in
-------
C-2
Factory magazine, and the Business Week price index. Because the EPA
operation and maintenance cost index most nearly reflects actual waste-
water treatment plant operational costs, it was chosen to convert the
recorded current O&M costs to a constant dollar base.
C.3 DESCRIPTION OF EPA OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE PLANT INDEX
The EPA O&M plant index was developed from an extensive study
conducted in 1966-67. This index comprises six separate sub-indexes that
are based on the actual costs of operating and maintaining a 5 million
gallon per day conventional activated sludge plant. These six sub-
indexes which are composited to form the single annual O&M escalation
index include the categories of labor, chemical, power, maintenance,
other cost, and added input. These various components of the EPA O&M
plant index were distributed as follows:
Allocation
Component (Percent)
Labor 47.1
Chemical 9.8
Power 19.8
Maintenance 10.5
Other Costs 12.5
Added Input
(Training) 0.3
Total 100.0
-------
C-3
Since 1974 EPA's Municipal Construction Division has produced
quarterly updates of the O&M plant cost index. During the seven previous
years (1967-73) the index was released annually. Over the 10 year period
the annual O&M costs for a typical 5 mgd activated sludge plant have
escalated 122 percent (3rd quarter 1977).
C.4 APPLICATION OF EPA O&M PLANT INDEX
Fields 32c through 321 of the Treatment System Data worksheet
provide for recording O&M costs by object of expenditure. Refer to
Appendix A, Figure A. 19 for a representation of the form. The recorded
dollar amounts in columns 32c through 321 were converted to a third
quarter 1977 base (constant dollars) using the appropriate EPA O&M
sub-index. Table C.I outlines the appropriate EPA O&M sub-index employed
to update the recorded cost in these 10 fields.
C.5 SEWER COST CONVERSION
Finding a suitable index to convert current dollar amounts for oper-
ations, maintenance, and minor repair (OM&R) to sewer systems was diffi-
cult. An extensive search revealed no appropriate OM&R index exists.
However, in the absence of a good conversion measure, such as the EPA O&M
Plant Index for WWTPs, the most suitable sewer index appears to be the
EPA complete urban sewer system (CUSS) cost index. Even though the CUSS
index is based on construction of sewer systems, it is rationalized that
much of the operations and maintenance work on sewer systems is repair
and minor replacement work. Therefore, the EPA sewer CUSS index
-------
C-4
TABLE C.I O&M PLANT COST INDEX CONVERSION SCHEME
Costs as Recorded
in Field 32a
Column
k
1
Title
Total
Personnel
Power
Total Util-
ities
Chemical
Disinfection
Chemical Total
Equipment
Materials
Contractual
Other
Appropriate Sub-Index
for Conversion to
Common Base
(1) Automatically totals columns
(d) through (1) OR
(2) Apply Average O&M
Escalation Index when only
dollars occur in column (c)
Labor Index
Power Index
Power Index
Chlorine Index
Chemical Cost (Overall)
Index
Maintenance Index
BLS Industrial Commodities
Index
Labor Index
Other Cost Index
See Appendix A, Figure A. 19 (Treatment System Data worksheet).
-------
C-5
was used to convert current OM&R costs of sewer systems to a 3rd quarter
1977 dollar base (constant dollars). The input factors of this index
include wages for labor and material costs for ready mix concrete,
reinforced concrete pipe, low grade S4S lumber, and asphalt paving.
-------
APPENDIX D
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
D.I Treatment Systems Listed by Group Size and
Level of Treatment
D.2 Number of Plants Surveyed by Process
EPA SURVEY
-------
08M SAMPL.K TREATMENT SYSTEMS
o.:i •••• 5.0 MG»
ID NO FACILITY NAME
102 MILLBURY UPC PLANT
103 SHREWSBURY WPCP
105 PLYMOUTH WUTP
106 WAREHAM UUTF
107 SWAMPSCOTT WPCP
108 WESTBOROUGH WUTF
109 NORTHAMPTON UUTP
110 GARDNER UUTP
111 GREENFIELD UUTP
113 GREAT HARRINGTON TP
1J.5 MEDF1ELD WWTP
153 BREWER POLL.CONT.FA
154 ORONC) STP
157 BRUNSWICK STP
158 FALMOUTH UPCP
160 SANFORD SEU.TRT.FAC
161 KITTERY STP
165 SKOWHEGAN STP
2.19 HAVERSTRAW JT REG
221 STONY POINT STP
222 ARLINGTON STP
223 SIJFFERN STP
224 MONTICELLO STP
227 CUPPER LAKE: UPCP
228 SARANAC LAKE WPCP
229 CANTON UPCP
231 LOWVILLE UPCP
232 OUEGO UPCP # 2
233 SIDNEY UPCP
234 CHEMUNG CO SD tl
235 CAYUGA HGTS UPCP
239 ILLION UPCP
243 UARSAU WWTP
244 BATAVIA WPCP
246 ALFRED WUTP
2-17 BATH UUTP
248 PENN YAN UUTP
249 SPENCERPORT UWTP
250 WEBSTER UUTP
251 OYSTER BAY STP
2S2 BETHLEHEM WUTP
;>S5 PORT JERV1S STP
304 L.ITJTZ STP
306 LEMOYNIr. BORO JT. AD
307 MECHANICSBURG STP
308 CMAMBERSBURG UUTP
310 UPPER SAUCGN TUP WW
31 1 SWiTr'AKA "IWP ftUI'H. U
CITY STATE
MILLBURY MA
SHREWSBURY MA
PLYMOUTH MA
UAREHAM MA
SWAMPSCOTT MA
UESTBOROUGH MA
NORTHAMPTON MA
GARDNER MA
GREENFIELD MA
GREAT BARRINGTO MA
MEDFIELD MA
BREWER ME
ORONO ME
BRUNSWICK ME
FALMOUTH ME
SANFORD ME
KITTERY ME
SKOWHEGAN ME
U HAVERSTRAW NY
STONY POINT NY
POUGHKEEPSIE NY
SIIFFERN NY
MONTICELLO NY
TUPPER LAKE NY
SARANAC LAKE NY
CANTON NY
LOWVILLE NY
APALACHIN NY
SIDNEY NY
ELMIRA NY
CAYUGA HGTS NY
ILL ION NY
WARSAW NY
BATAVIA NY
ALFRED NY
BATH NY
PENN YAN NY
SPENCERPORT NY
WEBSTER NY
OYSTER BAY NY
CEDAR HILL NY
PORT JERVIS NY
LITITZ PA
LEMOYNE PA
MECHANICSBUR(3 PA
CHAMBERSBURG PA
CrNTER VALLEY PA
SWAFARA TUP PA
LEVEL OF
OPERATING AUTHORITY DESIGN FLOW TREATMENT
MILLBURY SEUER COMM. .9 03
SHREWSBURY SEUER COMM. 1,3 03
PI... YM0UTH SEWER HEPT . 1.8 04
UAREHAM BRB. SEU. COMM. 1.8 04
SWAMPSCOTT* TOWN OF 2.2 01
UESTBOROUGH W&S COMM. 1.1 04
NORTHAMPTON DPW 4.3 01
GARDNER DPW 3.8 03
GREENFIELD BOARD OF PW 3.2 03
GREAT HARRINGTON SD 3.2 03
MEDFIELD SEWER COMM. 1.5 07
BREUERjCITY OF 3.0 03
ORONO» TOWN OF 1.8 03
BRUNSWICK SD 2.5 01
FALMOUTH* TOWN OF 1.5 03
SANFORD SD 5.0 03
KITTERY. TOWN OF 1.5 03
SKOWHEGAN, CITY OF 1.4 03
HAVERSTRAU^JT REG SEU BD 4.0 03
STONY POINT,TN OF 1.0 03
POUGHKEEPSIE,T.ARLINGTON 4.0 03
SUFFERN.VILLAGE OF 1.5 03
MONTICELLO,VILLAGE OF 2.S 03
TOPPER LAKE- VILLAGE OF 1.1 01
SARANAC LAKE? VILLAGE OF 3.0 03
CANTON,VILLAGE OF 2.0 03
LOWVl'LLE,VILLAGE OF 1.5 03
OWEGO TN 2.0 03
SIDNEY,VILLAGE OF 1.7 03
SIDNEY.VILLAGE OF 4.8 03
CAYUGA HGTS.VILLAGE OF 2,0 06
ILL.ION*VILLAGE OF 1.5 01
WARSAW.VILLAGE OF 1.2 01
BATAV.IAs.CrrY OF 2.5 03
ALFRED, VILLAGE OF 1.0 04
BATH,VILLAGE OF 1.0 03
PENN YAN,VILLAGE OF 1.5 03
SPENCERPORT VILLAGE OF .1.0 06
WEBSTER.VILLAGE OF 2.5 03
OYSTER BAY TOWN OF 1.2 03
BETHLEHEM,TOWN OF 4.9 03
NEW YORK CITY,EPA 5.0 03
LITITZ BOROUGH 1.2 03
LEMOYNE BORO MIJN. AIJTH. 2.1 06
MECHANICSBURG HUN. AIJTH, 1.2 03
CHAMBERSBURG BORO MIJN. AU 3.0 03
UPPER SALIC ON VAL. MIJN. AU .6 04
S W A I' A R A I U P A U T H . 3.0 0 3
D
I
GO
|—
m
D
-------
OXM SAMPLE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
0.1 - 5.0 MGD
ID NO FACILITY NAME
3:14 HATFIELD TUP A LIT
3.1.5 PENN TUP UUTT
31.6 ARCHBALD STP
317 DALLAS AREA MUM. AU
319 CLARKS--SUMMITTS. AH
320 BL.OOMSm.IROi STP
321 SUNBURY UUCP
323 LOWER SALFORD TUP W
340 SCOTDALE STP
341 PINECREEK STP
342 MON VALLEY STP
343 PLEASANT HILLS
344 GROVE CITY STP
345 SHARON STP
366 FREDERICKSBURG STP
369 HODRES CREEK STP
371 LEXINGTON STP
372 BEDFORD STP
403 HOMESTEAD STP
405 FT .PIERCE CITY UIUITP
406 KISS.MILL SLOUGH WW
407 KISSIMMEE 192 STP
408 STUART STP
409 GRANT ST STP
410 COCOA STP
413 HOLLY HILL STP
414 SOUTH STP
415 OCALA STP tl
416 JACKSON. BEACH STP
417 LAKE CITY STP PLtl
419 ST. AUGUSTINE PL.tl
419 PERRY STP
420 MUNICIPAL STP
422 TARPON SPRINGS STP
423 MARINA PLANT STP
426 PINELLAS PARK STP*2
429 SOUTHGATE STP
430 MONTCLAIR PLANT STP
437 AERATED LAGOON
438 NORTH LAGOON NO.2
443 OXFORD STP
445 CLARKSDALE STP
446 PICAYUNE SfP
466 DUBLIN UPCP
468 GARDEN CITY WPCP
470 ST. SIMONS ISLAND U
471 DOUGLAS UPCP SE
472 MUCKAI..F.E: CREEK UPCP
473 COVINBTON UUTP
CITY STATE
HATEIELD PA
PENN TUP PA
ARCHBALD PA
KINGSTON TUP PA
CHINCHILLA PA
BLOOMSBURG PA
SUNBURY PA
HARLFYSVILLE PA
SCOTDALE PA
MCCANDLESS PA
DONORA PA
PLEASANT HILLS PA
GROVE CITY PA
SHARON PA
FREDERICKSBURG VA
CHARLOTTESVILLE VA
LEXINGTON VA
BEDFORD VA
HOMESTEAD FL
FT.PIERCE FL
K1SSIMMEE FL
KJSSIMMEE FL
STUART FL
MELBOURNE FL
COCOA FL
HOLLY HILL FL
TITIJSVILLE FL
OCALA FL
JACKSON. BEACH FL
LAKE CITY FL
ST. AUGUSTINE FL
PERRY FL
BARTOU FL
TARPON SPRINGS FL
CLEARWATER FL
PINELLAS PARK FL
SARASOTA FL
PENSACOLA FL
WATER VALLEY MS
HATTIESBIIRG MS
OXFORD MS
CLARKSDALE MS
PICAYUNE MS
DUBLIN GA
GARDEN CITY GA
ST. SIMONS ISLA GA
DOUGLAS GA
AMERICUS GA
COVINCifON GA
OPERATING AUTHORITY
HATFIELD TWP. MUN, AUTH.
PENN TUP YORK CO. AUTH.
LACKAWANNA RIMER BASIN SE
DALLAS AREA MUN. AUTH.
CLARK'S SUMMIT-S. ABIHGTON
BLOOMSDURG MUN. AUTH.
SUNBURY, CITY OF MUN. AUT
LOWER SALFORD TUP AUTH.
UESTMORELAND-FAYETTE AUTH
MCCANDLESS TUP.SAN. AUTH.
MON VALLEY SEWAGE AUTH
PLEASANT HILLS AUTH.
GROVE CITY BOROUGH OF
UPPER SHENAGO VALLEY UPCA
FREDERICKSBURGr CITY OF
RIVANNA U 8 S AUTH.
LEXINGTON. CITY OF
BEDFORD* CITY OF
HOMESTEAD CITY OF
FT.PIERCE CITY OF
KISSIMMEE CITY OF
KISSIMMEE CITY OF
STUART CITY OF
MELBOURNE CITY OF
COCOA CITY OF
HOLLY HILL.CITY OF
TITUSVILLEiCITY OF
OCALA, CITY OF
JACKSONVILLE BEACH CITY
LAKE CITY CITY OF
ST. AUGUSTINE CITY OF
PERRY CITY OF
BARTOW CITY OF
TARPON SPRINGS CITY OF
CLEARUATER CITY OF
HILLSBOROLIGH COUNTY
FLA CITIES UATER CO
PENSACOLA CITY OF
WATER VALLEY CITY OF
HATTIESBURG CITY OF
OXFORD CITY OF
CLARKSDALE CITY OF
PICAYUNE CITY OF
DUBLIN. CITY OF
GARDEN CITYr CITY OF
GLYNN CO. ST. SIMONS DIST
DOUGLAS. CITY OF
AMFRICUS, CITY OF
COVINBTON. CITY OF
DESIGN FLOW
3.6
1.2
3.0
"7, ';>
1 ,2
4.3
3.5
,3
1.0
3.0
3.6
3.0
1.5
3.0
3.5
3.3
2.0
1.5
2.3
5.0
1.0
1.7
4.0
2.5
2.0
1.3
2.0
2.5
3.0
1.5
3.0
1.3
2.8
1.3
2.7
3. 0
1.3
1.1
1.7
1.0
3,5'
4.5
3.0
2.3
1.0
1 .0
5.0
2. 0
3. 0
LEVEL OF
TREATMENT
06
03
03
03
03
03
01
03
04
03
03
04
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
03
04
04
03
04
04
04
04
03
03
03
03
02
'04
04
04
03
07
04
03
03
03
03
04
03
03
03
03
03
O3
CO
I-
m
o
O
Z
c
m
a
-------
C)XM SAMPLE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
0.1 - 5.0 M(3»
I» NO FACILITY NAME
THOMASVILLE WPCP
476 BLUE JOHN MUNICIPAL
477 BLUE JOHN INDUSTRIE
478 CARROLLTON WWTP
480 SUMMERVILLE WWTP
481 NORTH OCONEE WPC 2
482 NORTH OCONEE UPC 1
483 SOUTHEAST WPC PLANT
4136 JACKSON CREEK WPC
SOS MARIETTA STP
507 ALLIANCE STP
508 STRUTHERS STP
509 GIRARD STP
510 BOARDMAN WWTP
5.1.1 RAVENNA STP
517 SOLON CENTRAL STP
518 BEDFORD STP
51V SOLON NL" STP
522 NORWAL.K STP
525 DEFIANCE STP
526 VAN WERT STP
537 FORD ROAD WUTP
S3Q VANDALIA WWTP
540 MIAMISBURG STP
542 SIDNEY WWTP
544 ATHENS WWTP
545 IRONTON STP
548 GREENVILLE WWTP
549 DELAWARE STP
552 GRAF TON STP
555 FLA NEVILLE STP
556 RICHLAND CENTER STP
557 WATER TOWN STP
558 RE'EDSBURG WWTP
561 WISCONSIN DELLS STP
562 WISCONSIN RAPIDS TP
563 STURGEON BAY WUTP
564 ROTHSCHILD STP
565 MERRILL WWTP
567 SUPERIOR STP
;;,6V TOMAH STP
60S CO RSI CAN A #1
.',09 COKSICANA 42
610 MEXIA STP
612 *2 WACO BRA
613 TEMPL.E--BELTON SIP
614 rOWN CREEK STP
615 WELLS CREEK STP
CITY STATE
THOMASVILLE GA
LAGRANGE GA
LAGRANGE GA
CARROLLTON GA
SUMMERVILLE GA
ATHENS GA
ATHENS GA
COLLEGE PARK GA
LILBURN GA
MARIETTA OH
ALLIANCE OH
STRUTHERS OH
GIRARD OH
BOARDMAN OH
RAVENNA OH
SOI...ON Oil
BEDFORD OH
SOLON OH
NORWALK OH
DEFIANCE OH
VAN WERT OH
XENIA OH
VANDALIA OH
MIAMISBURG OH
SIDNEY OH
ATHENS OH
IRONTON OH
GREENVILLE Oil
DELAWARE OH
GRAFTON WI
PLATTEVILLE WI
RICHLAND CENTER WI
UATERTOWN WI
REEDSBURG WI
WISCONSIN DELLS WI
WISCONSIN RAPID WI
STURGEON BAY WI
ROTHSCHILD WI
MERRILL WI
SUPERIOR wr
TOMAH WI
CORS1CANA TX
CORSICANA TX
HEX IA TX
WACO TX
WACO TX
PALESTINE TX
PALESTINE TX
OPERATING AUTHORITY
THOMASVILLE, CITY OF
LAGRANGE. CITY OF
LAGRANGE. CITY OF
CARROLL.TON, CITY OF
SIJMMEFSV.TL.Lf. CITY OF
ATHENS. CITY OF
ATHENS. CITY OF
COLLEGE PARK. CITY OF
GWINNETT CO. WPC
MARIETTA. CITY OF
ALLIANCE. CITY OF
STRUTHERS, CITY OF
GIRARD, CITY OF
MAHONING CO. METRO. SD
RAVENNA. CITY OF
SOLON. CITY OF
BEDFORD, CITY OF
SOLON, CITY OF
NORWALK, CITY OF
DEFIANCE, CITY OF
VAN WERT, CITY OF
XENIA, CITY OF
VANDALIA, CITY OF
MIAMISBURG, CITY OF
SIDNEY, CITY OF
ATHENS, CITY OF
IRONTON, CITY OF
GREENVILLE, CITY OF
DELAWARE, CITY OF
GRAFTON W g S COMMISSION
PLATTEVILLE
RICHLAND CENTER, CITY OF
WATERTOWN, CITY OF
REEDSBURB, CITY OF
WISCONSIN DELLS, CITY OF
WISCONSIN RAPIDS, CITY OF
STURGEON BAY UTILITIES
ROTHSCHILD, VIL. OF
MERRILL, CITY OF
SUPERIOR, CITY OF
TOMAH, CITY OF
CORSICANA DEPT OF UTILITY
CORSICANA DEPT OF UTILITY
MEXIA CITY OF
BRAZOS RIVER AUTHORITY
BRAZOS RIVER AUTHORITY
PALESTINE DPW
PALESTINE DPW
DESIGN FLOW
4.0
3.5
2.5
5.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
1.2
2.4
3.4
4.7
4.6
3.5
5.0
1.9
2.4
3.2
.0
3.5
4.0
2.8
3.0
1.2
2.2
2.5
4.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
1.0
1 .6
1.6
2, g
1.7
.2
4.0
1 .2
1 .3
2.1
5 . 0
1 . 5
1.0
1 .5
1.5
2.8
5.0
1 .8
1 .5
LEVEL OF
TREATMENT
04
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
06
02
03
02
02
03
07
03
07
03
03
06
04
03
03
03
03
03
01
03
04
06
03
03
03
03
0.1.
03
06
03
03
01
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
00
r~
m
o
O
c
m
o
-------
OXM SAMPLE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
0.1 •••• 5.0 MfJD
1IJ NO FACILITY NAME.
616 PLANT * 1
617 PLANT * 2-A
618 N. STP
619 S STP
620 WEIMAR STP
622 CHOCOLATE: BAYOU STP
624 CLINTON PARK STP
626 DEEPWATER STP
628 E DIST STP
629 W MAIN STP
630 LAKEWOOD STP
6;.51 STP 42
632 STP tl
634 WCID STP *1
635 WESTSIDE STP
636 ALLISON STP
640 AIRPORT STP
643 SAN ANGELO STP
703 MISSOURI R. STP
704 MEXICO STP
705 PLANT tl
706 PLANT *2
707 SOUTHEAST SIP
709 BOLIVAR STP
71.0 s, LITTLE: BLUE' STP
711 PLATTE CO. STP
712 TODD CK. STP
714 SPRING BRANCH STP
715 MALE LAGOON
716 N.W. STP
717 SALEM STP
803 BRIGHTON UPCP
S04 S. LAKEWOOD STP
807 BIG DRY CK STP
809 EAST PEARL ST WUTP
810 WINDSOR STP
811 WWTP #1
812 WWTP #2
8J 4 ESTES PARK STP
815 VAIL. STP
891 WINNER STP
892 PIERRE STP
894 SISSETON STP
895 CANTON STP
896 VERMILLION STP
909 MEADOUVIEW STP
914 8AUUUS-NEUHALL URP
916 PALMDALE URP I» 2O
CITY STATE
NACOGDOCHES TX
NACOGDOCHES TX
HUNTSVILLE TX
HUNTSVILLE TX
WE; i MAR TX
HOUSTON TX
HOUSTON TX
PASEDENA TX
BAYTOWN TX
BAYTOWN TX
BAYTOWN TX
TEXAS CITY TX
TEXAS CITY TX
niCKENSON TX
CORPUS CHRISTI TX
CORPUS CHRISTI TX
GALVESTON TX
SAN ANGELO TX
ST CHARLES MO
MEXICO MO
COLUMBIA MO
COLUMBIA MO
MARSHALL MO
BOLIVAR MO
KANSAS CITY MO
KANSAS CITY MO
KANSAS CITY MO
INDEPENDENCE MO
LEES SUMMITT MO
SPRINGFIELD MO
SALEM MO
BRIGHTON CO
DENVER CO
WESTMINSTER CO
BOULDER CO
WINDSOR CO
FT. COLLINS CO
FT. COLLINS CO
ESTES PARK CO
VAIL CO
WINNER SD
PIERRE SD
SISSETON SD
CANTON SD
VERM1LLION SD
SACRAMENTO CA
SAUfiUS (D. 26) CA
PALMDALE CA
OPE-RA11 NG AUTHOR IT Y
NACOGDOCHES CITY OF
NACOGDOCHES CITY OF
HUNTSVILLE CITY OF
HUNTSVILLE CITY OF
WEIMAR CITY OF
HOUSTON DPW
HOUSTON DPW
PASEDENA CITY OF
BAYTOWN DPW
BAYTOWN DPW
BAYTOWN DPW
TEXAS CITY IJTIL DEPT
TEXAS CITY UTIL DEPT
GALVESTON CO WCID
CORPUS CHRISTI
CORPUS CHRISTI DEPT OF UT
GALVESTON DEPT OF UTILITY
SAN ANGELO WATER DEPT
ST. CHARLES CITY OF
MEXICO CITY OF
COLUMBIA CITY OF
COLUMBIA CITY OF
MARSHALL CITY OF
BOLIVAR CITY OF
KANSAS CITY CITY OF
KANSAS CITY CITY OF
KANSAS CITY CITY OF
INDEPENDENCE CITY OF
LEES SUMMITT CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD CITY OF
SALEM CITY OF
BRIGHTON CITY OF
S. LAKEWOOD SAN. DIST.
WESTMINSTER CITY OF
BOULDER CITY OF
WINDSOR CITY OF
FT. COLLINS CITY OF
FT. COLLINS CITY OF
ESTES PARK SAN. D.TST.
VAIL W 8 SAN. DIST
WINNER CITY OF
PIERRE CITY OF
SISSETON CITY OF
CANTON CITY OF
VERMILLION CITY OF
SACRAMENTO REG.CO.SAN.DIS
LOS ANGELES CO. SAN. DIST
LOS ANGELES CO. BAN. DTST
DESIGN FLOW
2,0
2.8
2. 1
.8
,5
1.6
.8
4.0
3.0
4.7
.7
.8
4.5
4.2
3.0
2.0
1.0
5.0
3.0
2.4
2.0
2.5
3,9
1.5
3,8
1.0
2.0
3.0
2, 1
3.5
.8
1.8
2.3
1.4
4.3
.9
4.6
4.8
.8
1.5
1.0
1.6
.4
.4
1.2
2.5
5.0
3 . 2
LEVEL OF
TREATMENT
03
03
03
03
01
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
01
01
03
04
03
03
03
01
03
03
03
03
04
03
03
03
04
0.1.
03
03
03
03
03
03
01
03
03
03
03
03
01
CO
I-
m
p
_*
o
o
c
m
o
-------
OSM SAMPLE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
0.1 - 5.0 M6D
ID NO FACILITY NAME
925 It I ST. NO. 6 TP
926 CORDOVA STP
927 RIO LINDA TP
928 NATOMAS TP
929 HEALDSBIJRG TRT. FAC
935 CAMARILLO U.REC.PLT
936 OAK VIEW STP
937 SANTA PAULA UW R FA
951 GILROY-MORGAN HILL
952 MILLBRAE WWTP
953 SAN FRANCISCO I AIR
954 PINOLE UIUTP
955 MILL VALLEY UUTP
956 SAN RAFAEL MAIN TP
957 NOVATO PLANT
958 IGNACIC) PLANT
959 MT. VIEW S.D. UUTP
960 ANTIOCH U.POLL.C.P.
962 PLEASANTON STP
963 SAUSALITO-MARIN TP
964 GUSTINE ST FACIL..
970 UUTP NO, 1
972 UUTP NO. 3
973 MONTEZUMA STP
003 LAKOTA UUTP
005 LK SERENE UIUTP
006 MCCLEARY STP
009 SUMNER UUTP
0:1. :l OAK HARBOR STP
031 DOUGLAS CO STP *1
032 UENATCHEE UUT FAC
034 CARKEEK PARK STP
035 RICHMOND BEACH STP
050 ASTORIA STP
089 UAPATO UUTP
CITY STATE
NORTH HIGHLANDS CA
RANCHO CORDOVA CA
RTO LINDA CA
SACRAMENTO CA
HEALUSBURG CA
CAMARILLO CA
VENTURA CA
SANTA PAULA CA
GILROY CA
MILLBRAE CA
S.F. I. AIRPORT CA
PINOLE CA
MILL VALLEY CA
SAN RAFAEL CA
NOVATO CA
NOVATO CA
MARTINEZ CA
ANTIOCH CA
PLEASANTON CA
SA11SAL. ITCI CA
GUSTINE CA
BAKERSFIELD CA
BAKERSFIELD CA
PITTSBURG CA
FEDERAL WAY WA
EDMONDS WA
MCCLEARY WA
SUMNER WA
OAK HARBOR UA
E UENATCHEE UA
UENATCHEE WA
SEATTLE UA
SEATTLE WA
ASTORIA OR
UAPATO UA
LEVEL. OF
OPERATING AUTHORITY DESIGN FLOU TREATMENT
SACRAMENTO REG.CO.SAN.BIS 3.0 03
SACRAMENTO REG.CO.SAN.DIB 2.6 03
SACRAMENTO REG.CO,SAN.BIS .6 03
SACRAMENTO REG.CO.SAN.DIS 1.7 03
HEALDSBURG* CITY OF 1.0 03
CAMARILLO SAN, DIST. 4.8 04
OAK VIEW SAN. DIST, 3.0 07
SANTA PAULA* CITY OF 2.4 04
GILROY? CITY OF 3.3 08
MILLBRAEr CITY OF 3.0 04
AIRPORTS COMMISSION 2.2 03
PINOLE, CITY OF 2.0 03
MILL VALLEYx CITY 1.5 04
SAN RAFAEL SANITATION DIS 5.0 03
SAN. DIST. 6 OF MARIN CO. '3.0 04
SAN. DIST. A OF MARIN CO. 1.2 04
MT. VIEW S. D. 1.6 03
ANTIOCH* CITY OF 2.5 01
PLEASANTON» CITY OF 1.7 08
SAUSALITO-MARIN CITY S.D. 2.4 01
GUSTINE* CITY OF 3.2 08
BAKERSFIELDr CITY OF 5.0 01
EAKERSFIEI..DI CITY OF 3.5 02
PITTSBURG* CITY OF 3,5 01
LAKEHAVEN SEWER DIST 1.5 01
ALDERUOOD MANOR WATER DIS 1.0 03
MCCLEARY CITY OF ,3 01
SUMNER CITY OF 2.0 03
OAK HARBOR CITY OF 1.5 01
DOUGLAS CO SEW DIST 2.3 03
UENATCHEE CITY OF 5.0 03
SEATTLE METRO 3,5 O.I
SEATTLE METRO 3.2 01
ASTORIA CITY OF 4.0 03
UAPATO CITY OF 1.0 03
CD
|-
rn
o
o
O
•z.
H
•z.
C
m
o
-------
GXM SAMPLE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
5.1 -• 20,0 MB I)
IB NO FACILITY NAME
104 MARLBORO E, AUTF
112 ADAMS WWTP
114 BROCKTON UWTP
151 AUGUSTA SAN.BIST.ST
BANGOR POLL,ABATEME
NORTHWEST tlUADRANT
217 ORANGETOWN STP
218 ROCKLAND COUNTY STP
225 AMSTERDAM STP
226 PLATTSBURGH UPCP
230 OGDENSBURG WPCP
2 3 6 M E A D 0 W B R 0 0 K - LIM E S T 0
240 DUNKIRK UPC FAC
241 JAMESTOWN STP
242 OLEAN WWTP
245 AhHERST STP * 16
305 SPRINGETTSBURY TUP
313 BETHLEHEM UWTP
318 GREATER MAZLETON JS
316 CENTRAL PLANT STP
362 ARMY BASE STP
367 PALLING CREEK STP
368 PINNER'S POINT STP
400 BOCA RATON STP
402 GOULDS STP
404 NORTH MIAMI PLT *1
412 BETHUNE STP
421 LAKELAND STP
425 NORTHEAST STP *2
431 SOUTHWEST STP
435 VICKSBURG UUTP
436 LAGOON COMPLEX ONE
441 GREENVILLE STP
465 ALBANY UUTP
•167 ROCKY CREEK WPCP
469 BRUNSWICK UPCP
475 CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER
479 CHTCKAMAUGA UU PLT
484 FLINT RIVER UPC
467 INTRENCHMENT CREEK
/06 STLUBENV1LI..E STP
12 BARBERTON STP
J20 AVON LAKE SIP
i21 SANDUSK/ STP
J24 MAIIMEF: RI'VHR STP
?7 F INLlI AV DTP
2H UODS II )•: UL'CP
3V HAM II I Oil WU'IP
CITY
MARLBORO
ADAMS
BROCKTON
AUGUSTA
BANGOR
HILTON
ORANGE BURG
ORANGE BURG
AMSTERDAM
PLATTSBURGH
OGDENSBURG
HANI... I US
DUNKIRK
POLAND (TN OF)
OLEAN
AMHERST
SPR1NGETTSBURY
BETHLEHEM
HAZLETON
WILLIAMS PORT
NORFOLK
CHESTERFIELD
PORTSMOUTH
BOCA RATON
GOULDS
NORTH MIAMI
DAYTONA BEACH
LAKELAND
ST. PETERS BURG
TALLAHASSEE
VICKSBURG
HATT1ESBURG
GREENVILLE
ALBANY
MAC ON
BRUNSWICK
SMYRNA
CH1CKAMAUGA
COLLEGE PARK
ATLANTA
STEI.IBENVILLE
BARBER TON
AVON LAKE
SANDIJSKY
WATER VI I, I E
FIND LAY
1 1 AMI L TOM
STATE
MA
MA
MA
ME
ME
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
PA
PA
PA
PA
VA
VA
VA
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL
MS
MS
MS
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
OH
OH
OH
Oil
OH
Oil
on
Oil
OPERATING AUTHORITY
MARLBORO BPU
ADAMS BOARD OF SEWER COMM
BROCKTON DPW
AUGUSTA SAN.DIST
BANGORvCITY OF
MONROE CO.PURE WATERS DIV
ORANGETOWN DPW
ROCKLANM CO SD *1»BD OF G
NYS ENV FACILITIES CORP
PLATTSBURGH >. CITY OF
OGBENSBURGyCITY OF
ONONDAGA CO.BEPT OF SAN
DUNKIRK CITY' OF
JAMESTOWN CITY OF DPW
OLEAN CITY OF
AMHERST»TOWN OF
SPRINGETTSBURY TUP SEW.
BETHLEHEM, CITY OP
GREATER HAZELTON JSA
UILI...IAMSF>ORT SANITARY AUT
HAMPTON ROADS SAN. DIST.
CHESTERFIELD CO
PORTSMOUTH. CITY OF
BOCA RATON CITY OF
MIAMI-BADE WSS
NORTH MIAMI CITY OF
DAYTONA BEACH? CITY Of"
SARASOTA CITY OF
ST.PETERSBURG CITY OF
TALLAHASSEE
VICKSBURG CITY OF
HATTIESBURG CITY OF
GREENVILLE CITY OF
ALBANY* CITY OF
MACON-BIBB COUNTY UrS AUT
BRUNSWICK* CITY OF
COBB COUNTY W S S DEPT,
CHICKAMAUGAr CITY OF
ATLANTA DEPT. OF ENV. AND
ATLANTA DEPT. OF ENV, AND
STEUBENVILLEi CITY OF
BARBER TON i> CITY OF
AVON LAKE. CITY (IP
SANDUSKY» CITY Of"
LUCAS CO. SAN. ENGR.
FINDLAY, CITY OF
W0()!.!') I. K, CI ( Y OF
H AM 11..'! ON » CIIY OF
DESIGN FLOW.
10.2
12.0
6,8
9,0
15.0
£1.5
10 . 0
10.0
16.0
6.5
7.0
6.0
8.0
7.0
12.0
H . 0
12.5
5.8
7.2
.1.4 , 0
6.0
15. 0
10. 0
6.0
13,0
10.0
10,0
8,0
8. 8
7 .5
5. 4
20,0
20.0
14."0
10,0
10.0
5.2
6.0
20,0
6. 5
8.0
5,3
1 2 . 5
6.0
7.5
LEVEL. OF
TREATMENT
07
03
03
01
01
06
03
03
03
03
01
03
06
03
03
01
04
03
03
03
01
03
01
03
04
01
03
04
04
04
04
01
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
02
03
07
07
06
03
0 4
03
D
I
CTi
CD
I-
m
p
O
O
c
m
a
-------
OXM SAMPLE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
3.1 - 20.0 MOD
ID NO FACILITY NAME
541 NEWARK UUTP
S43 LANCASTER WPCF
553 WAUKESHA STP
554 JANESVILLE WPCP
559 SHEBOYGAN UWTP
560 APPLETON WUTP
566 LACROSSE STP
5613 EAU CLAIRE UWTP
604 LEWISVILL.E WUTP
611 fl WACO BRA
627 VINCE BAYOU STP AXB
633 S,PLANT (MAIN PLANT
637 BROADWAY STP
638 OSO STP
639 MAIN PLANT
699 SOCORRO STP
702 MISSISSIPPI R. STP
708 ST. JOSEPH UUTP
713 ROCK CK. STP
802 LONGMONT STP
808 75TH ST WUTP
818 PUEBLO STP
890 RAPID CITY STP
893 HURON STP
913 LANCASTER WRP D 14
917 LONG BEACH URP
923 WHITTIER NARROWS WR
924 ARUEN STP
910 CLEAR CREEK ST FACL
945 VENTURA WATER RENOV
946 HILL CANYON TP
948 PORT HUENEME WTP
950 GILROY-MORGAN HILL
96). CAMP STONEMAN STP
971 UWTP NO. 2
001 EUGENE STP
002 MT VERNON UWTP
007 CHEHALIS TP
009 PLIYALL UP STP
033 ELLENSBURG UWTP
061 YAKIMA UPC PLANT
CITY STATE
NEWARK OH
LANCASTER OH
WAUKESHA WI
JANES V1L.LE WI
SHEBOYGAN WI
APPLETON WI
LACROSSE WI
EAIJ CLAIRE UI
LEWISVILLE TX
WACO TX
PASEDENA TX
BROWNSVILLE TX
CORPUS CHRISM TX
CORPUS CHRISTI TX
GALVESTON TX
EL PASO TX
ST, CHARLES MO
ST. JOSEPH MO
INDEPENDENCE MO
LONGMONT CO
BOULDER CO
PUEBLO CO
RAPID CITY SB
HURON SD
LANCASTER CA
LONG BEACH CA
EL MONTE CA
SACRAMENTO CA
REDDING CA
VENTURA CA
THOUSAND OAKS CA
PORT HUENEME CA
GILROY CA
PITTSBURG CA
BAKERSEIELD CA
EUGENE OR
MT VERNON WA
CHEHALIS UA
PUYALLUP WA
ELLENSBURG WA
YAKIMA WA
LEVEL OF
OPERATING AUTHORITY DESIGN FLOW TREATMENT
NEWARK, CITY OF 12.0 03
LANCASTER, CITY OF 8.0 03
WAUKESHAy CITY OF 8,5 06
JANESVILLE UPC UTIL. 16.0 03
SHEBOYGAN, CITY OF 15.0 05
APPLETON, CITY OF 12.5 06
LACROSSE, CITY OF 20.0 03
EAU CLAIRE, CITY OF 7.0 01
LEWISVILLE DPU 6.0 04
BRAZOS RIVER AUTHORITY 18.0 03
PASEDENA CITY OF 7.0 03
BROWNSVILLE PUB 7.5 03
CORPUS CHRISTI 12.0 O3
CORPUS CHRISTI 12.0 03
GALVESTON DEPT OF UTILITY 10.0 03
EL PASO WATER UTIL BOARD 20.0 03
ST. CHARLES CITY OF 5.5 06
ST. JOSEPH CITY OF 13.1 01
INDEPENDENCE CITY OF 6.5 01
LONGMONT CITY OF 5.3 <>3
BOULDER CITY OF 15,6 03
PUEBLO, CITY OF 17.0 03
RAPID CITY 13.5 03
HURON CITY OF 6.0 03
LOS ANGELES CO. SAN. DIST 6.0 04
LOS ANGELES CO. SAN. DIST 12.5 03
LOS ANGELES CO. SAN. DIST 12.5 03
SACRAMENTO REG.CO.SAN.DIS 10.0 03
REDDING, CITY OF 8.8 03
VENTURA, CITY OF 14.0 04
THOUSAND OAKS, CITY OF 10.0 04
VENTURA REGIONAL CO. S.H. 6.O 01
GILROY, CITY OF 8,0 03
PITTSBURG, CITY OF 6,5 01
BAKERSFIELD, CITY OF 16.0 01
EUGENE DPW 17.1 03
MT VERNON CITY OF 9.0 03
CHEHALIS CITY OF 7.5 03
PUYALLUP CITY OF 6.0 01
ELLENSBURG CITY OF 15.0 03
YAKIMA CITY OF 18.0 O3
00
r~
rn
p
o
O
c
m
o
-------
08M SAMPLE TREATMENT SYSTEMS
> 20.0 MGD
ID NO
FACILITY NAME
CITY
STATE
208
216
238
253
309
322
363
401
427
485
513
514
515
523
535
536
546
547
570
605
606
607
625
701
718
805
817
907
908
910
947
004
DESIGN
CODE
00
01
02
03
04
-26TH WARH WPCP
FRANK E VAN LAKE WW
ONE I DA CO WPCP
BAY PARK STP
HARRISBURG STP
ERIE WWTP
CHESAPEAKE-EL I ZABET
VIRGINIA KEYS STP
HOOKERS PT STP
UTOY CREEK UPC PLT.
WESTERLY WWTP
EASTERLY WWTP
SOUTHERLY UWTP
TOLEDO WWTP
JACKSON PIKE WWTP
SOUTHERLY UWTP
SPRINGFIELD WWTP
DAYTON WWTP
NINE SPRINGS WWTP
VILLAGE CREEK STP
RIVERSIDE STP
CENTRAL STP
N. SIDE STP
LEMAY STP
COLDWATER CK. STP
NORTHSIDE STP
COLORADO SPRINGS TP
CENTRAL TP
NORTHEAST TP
CITY MAIN TP
OXNARD WTP
COLUMBIA BLVD WW TP
BROOKLYN
ROCHESTER
UTICA
E.ROCKAWAY
HARRISBURG
ERIE
VIRGINIA BEACH
MIAMI
TAMPA
ATLANTA
CLEVELAND
CLEVELAND
CLEVELAND
TOLEDO
COLUMBUS
COLUMBUS
SPRINGFIELD
DAYTON
MADISON
FT WORTH
FT WORTH
DALLAS
HOUSTON
ST. LOUIS
ST. LOUIS
DENVER
COLORADO SPRING
ELK GROVE
CARMICHAEL
SACRAMENTO
OXNARD
PORTLAND
NY
NY
NY
NY
PA
PA
VA
FL
FL
GA
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
WI
TX
TX
TX
TX
MO
MO
CO
CO
CA
CA
CA
CA
OR
FLOW IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
LEVEL OF TREATMENT
RAW DISCHARGE
PRIMARY {BOD/SS EFF. >50/50)
ADVANCED PRIMARY (BOD/SS EFF. 50/50 - 30/30)
SECONDARY (BOD/SS EFF.
GREATER THAN SECONDARY
30/30 - 25/25)
(BOD/SS ONLY)
OPERATING AUTHORITY DESIGN FLOW
NEW YORK CITY 85.0
MONROE CO.PURE WATERS DIV 100.0
ONEIDA CO DPW 27.0
NASSAU COUNTY HPW 60.0
HARRISBURG SEW. AUTH. 27.8
ERIE* CITY OF SEWER AUTH. 64.0
HAMPTON ROADS SAN. DIST. 24.0
MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEW. 70.0
TAMPA CITY OF 36.0
ATLANTA DEPT. OF ENV. AND 30.0
CLEVELAND REG. SD 38.0
CLEVELAND REG. SD 123.0
CLEVELAND REG. SD 96.0
TOLEDO* CITY OF 102.0
COLUMBUS7 CITY OF 100.0
COLUMBUS, CITY OF 100.0
SPRINGFIELD* CITY OF 25.0
DAYTON* CITY OF 60.0
MADISON METRO, SEW. DIST. 27.5
FT WORTH WATER DEPT 45.0
FT WORTH WATER DEPT 22.0
DALLAS WATER UTILITY DEPT 100.0
HOUSTON HPW 138.0
METRO SEWER DIST. 173.0
METRO. ST. LOUIS SEW. CIS 25.0
DENVER C. & CO. 110.0
COLORADO SPRINGS* CITY OF 30.0
SACRAMENTO REG,CO.SAN.DIS 30.0
SACRAMENTO REG.CO.SAN.DIS 21.0
SACRAMENTO REG,CO,SAN.DIS 70.0
VENTURA REGIONAL CO. S.D. 25.0
PORTLAND BUREAU OF WWT 200.0
CODE LEVEL OF TREATMENT
05 NUTRIENT REMOVAL (BOD/SS < SECONDARY)
06 SECONDARY TREATMENT WITH NUTRIENT REMOVAL
07 GREATER THAN SECONDARY WITH NUTRIENT REMOVAL
08 ZERO DISCHARGE
LEVEL OF
TREATMENT
03
06
03
03
01
06
03
03
01
03
05
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
01
03
01
03
03
03
03
02
03
>
03
(-
m
D
-i
o
0
z
H
Z
C
m
o
O
I
03
-------
D-9
TABLE D.2
NUMBER OF PLANTS SURVEYED BY PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Process Description Number of Wastewater Treatment Plants
DSM Survey AMSA Survey
Pre-Treatment
Pumping, Raw Wastewater 213 40
Preliminary Treatment - Bar Screen 226 84
Preliminary Treatment - Grit Removal 243 83
Preliminary Treatment - Comminutors/
Barminutors 197 20
Preliminary Treatment - Others 7 3
Prechlorination 40 3
Flow Equalization Basins 10 4
Preaeration 69 9
Sedimentation
Primary Sedimentation 234 84
Clarification (Secondary & AWT) 275 71
Tube Settlers 1 0
Trickling Filter - Unspecified 0 1
Trickling Filter - Rock Media 93 9
Trickling Filter - Plastic Media 4 1
Trickling Filter - Redwood Slats 3 1
Trickling Filter - Other Media 1 °
Rotating Biological (Bio-Disc, Bio-Surf) 0 1
Activated Sludge - Unspecified ° 1
Activated Sludge - Conventional 1Q1 50
Activated Sludge - High Rate 14 6
Activated Sludge - Contact Stabilization 38 3
Activated Sludge - Extended Aeration 26 2
Pure Oxygen Activated Sludge 2 °
Oxidation Ditch 7 °
-------
D-10
TABLE D.2 (Continued)
Process Description (Continued) Number of Wastewater Treatment Plants
D&M Survey AMSA Survey
Filtration
Microstrainers - Raw Sewage or Primary
Effluent 0 1
Microstrainers - Secondary or Tertiary
Effluent 6 1
Sand Filters 10 2
Mix-Media Filters 4 3
Nutrient Removal/Chemical Treatment
Biological Nitrification 4 0
Biological Denitrification 2 0
Recarbonation 0 1
Activated Carbon - Granular 1 1
Activated Carbon - Powdered 1 0
Lime Treatment of Raw Wastewater 11 0
Tertiary Lime Treatment 2 1
Alum Addition 12 3
Ferri-Chloride Addition 11 2
Polymer Addition 16 3
Other Chemical Additions 6 1
Disinfection
Chlorination for Disinfection 304 78
Ozonation for Disinfection 0 1
Other Disinfection 2 0
Dechlorination 8 0
Reaeration - General 7 2
Other Treatment /
Land Treatment of Secondary Effluent
(30/30) 1 i
Stabilization Ponds 20 5
-------
D-ll
TABLE D.2 (Continued)
Process Description (Continued) Number of Wastewater Treatment Plants
DSM Survey AMSA Survey
Aerated Lagoons 16 1
Polishing Ponds 22 2
Effluent Disposal
Effluent Pumping 21 4
Outfall to Other Plants 4 1
Recycling and Reuse 2 2
Irrigation 15 2
Ocean Outfall 27 19
Surface Water Outfall 293 66
Land Disposal 3 0
Complete Retention 7 1
Sludge Handling
Sludge Holding Tank 51 H
Sludge Lagoons 19 8
Air Drying (Sludge Drying Beds) 131 43
Aerobic Digestion - Air 79 7
Aerobic Digestion - Oxygen 6 °
Anaerobic Digestion 182 60
Digestion Gas Utilization 99 18
Chlorine Oxidation of Sludge (Purifax) 2 5
Dewatering - Mechanical - Vacuum Filter 72 19
Dewatering - Mechanical - Centrifuge 34 16
Dewatering - Mechanical - Filter Press 7 2
Dewatering - Others 4
76 45
Gravity Thickening
Flotation Thickening
4 0
Heat Treatment
11 8
Incineration - Multiple Hearth *-L
-------
D-12
TABLE D.2 (Concluded)
Process Description (Concluded) Number of Wastewater Treatment Plants
DSM Survey AMSA Survey
Incineration - Fluidized Beds 5 1
Incineration - Rotary Kiln 1 0
Incineration - Other 5 2
Wet Air Oxidation 5 -1
Recalcination 0 2
Ultimate Sludge Disposal
Composting 7 6
Land Spreading of Liquid Sludge 58 1
Land Spreading of Thickened Sludge 52 9
Trenching 3 0
Ocean Dumping 2 18
Other Sludge Handling 7 2
Sludge Transferred to Another Facility 15 15
Sludge Used by Others 84 8
Landfill 140 50
-------
APPENDIX E
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT GRAPHICAL RELATIONSHIPS
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT O&M RELATIONSHIPS
E.I Staff Size versus Actual Flow
E.2 Total O&M Costs versus Actual Flow
E.3 Total O&M Costs versus Staff Size
E.4 Apparent Non-signficant O&M Relationships
EPA Survey
-------
E-l
Notes:
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT (r) is a measure of the degree of closeness of
the linear relationship between two variables. It varies from zero (no
relationship between the two variables) to _+_ 1 (perfect linear relation-
ship). The sign of r is the same as that of a in the regression equa-
tion, Y= a + bX. Thus, if r= -1, -all points are on the regression line
sloping down to the right. The independent variable (X) accounts for the
variability in the dependent variable (Y). For example, if r = 0.73,
then 73 percent of the variance in Y is explained by X; the balance of 27
percent is simply not explained by the independent variable X and is left
unaccounted for the relationship of the two designated variables.
F-TEST VALUE is used to test the goodness of the fit of a regression
curve. The F-value can be compared with tabled values to give a test of
the hypothesis that the correlation coefficient is zero against the
alternative that the equation as a whole defines a significant relation-
ship between the two variables. The F-value is the ratio of the mean
square due to regression to the deviations mean square:
SSFE/K
F-value
RSS/(N - K- 1)
The ratio is compared to the corresponding value from an F-table with K
and (N - K - 1) degrees of freedom, where N is the total number of
points, K is the degrees of freedom due to regression, and N - K - 1 is
the degrees of freedom due to deviations. (SSFE implies sum of square due
to fitted equation; RSS means residual sum of squares.) In general, the
higher a given F-value the greater the probability that the relationship
is significant. Also, as the sample size increases, the relative prob-
ability of the F-test value being significant increases.
-------
TABLE E.1
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT O&M RELATIONSHIPS
STAFF SIZE VS ACTUAL FLOW
Sample Correlation F-Test
Title Equation Size (n) Coefficient (r) Value
Primary Treatment
National S = 0.90 x Q + 3.25 63 0.79 102.90
Trickling Filter
(TF) , National S = 1.19 x Q + 2.59 81 0.87 241.40
Activated Sludge
(AS), National S = 1.94 x Q + 2.38 149 0.77 208.69
AWT, National S = 1.26 x Q + 5.48 32 0.94 223.93
Where S equals the size of the staff at the wastewater treatment plant, and
Q equals the average daily flow in million gallons per day.
-------
5O •
4 ^ .
A A -
*HJ
^ R .
O 3
"7 O.
oU
STAFF SIZE
o c;.
£1 O"
o r\ -
£iU"
1 R
10
5
0
•
• i
i
•
• /
A •"-'
/
• if •
4 •
f£ • •
• •
• •
•
• 4
•
/
v/^
/
>
/
/
/
/.
<
(1000
y
/
>
»
M3 = 3.
/
OQO
.y u
STAFF
P
785 MGI
X Q + C
SIZE
RIMAR'r
NA
))
J.25
VS. AC'
' TREA
TIONAL
•
»
rUAL FLOW
TMENT
•n
O
C
70
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 m
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD) T
-------
|-I K J
1? n -
/ 105 -
QO .
I
STAF/F SIZE
7 5 •
i
o n
/i (^ .
H-O
f
•z n
i
1 c\
1 O
-\
*
•
•
••
\*/
f.
•••
•/
/.
./»
/
/
/
SE
•
(100
X
f
c
COND/:
0 M3 =
' /
' o
ITAFF !
^RY TF
3.785 M
/
/
= 1.19 X
SIZE V
»EATME
NATIO
GD)
/
Q + 2.
S. ACT
.NT - '
NAL
•i
59
UAL FL
FRICKL
_OW
NG FILTER
-n
o
c
TO
m
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 ™
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD) ^
-------
STAFF
SIZE
?4O OO -
? n? *sn •
165 00 -
IP 7 RO-
qn of) •
c;p en.
15.00'
(
0
••M^V
2P* *
15
c
5 = 1.94
/
.00 30.00 45
X Q +
X^
• (1C
2.38 -_
x
•
00 M3 =
.00 60.00 75
.
•
» 0
1
•- -
3.785
.00 90
X
•
STAF
r~ SEC
MGD)
//
»
F SIZE VS. ACTUAL FLOW
ONDARY TREATMENT -
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
NATIONAL
.00 105.00 120.00 135.00
c
70
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
w
-------
STAFF SIZE
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
•••
9? *
»
•
y
/
Jr
•
/
/
1
./
W f
000 M3
A
/
— S
= 3.785
A
/
f •
= 1.26 >
/
( Q + 5
STAFF SIZ!
ADVANC
is
MGD)
•
.48
E VS. /
ED TR
IATION,
\CTUAL FLOW
EATMENT
AL
O
c
TO
10 20 30 40 50 60
ACTUAL FLOW CMGD)
70 80
-------
TABLE E.2
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT O&M RELATIONSHIPS
TOTAL O&M COSTS VS ACTUAL FLOW
Title
Primary Treatment
National
Trickling Filter
(TF) , National
Activated Sludge
(AS) , National
AWT, National
TF, Region II
TF, Region III
TF, Region IV
TF, Region V
TF, Region VI
TF, Region VIII
TF, Region IX
AS, Region II
AS, Region III
AS, Region IV
AS, Region V
AS, Region VI
AS, Region X
Equation
TC = 4.53
TC =
TC =
TC =
TC =
TC =
TC =
TC =
TC =
TC =
TC =
TC =
TC =
TC =
TC =
TC =
TC =
6.
8.
6.
7.
6.
4.
8.
3.
2.
8,
1.
1.
7.
1.
4.
9.
02
25
85
58
14
66
08
99
51
55
11
08
27
04
36
55
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
10"
105
105
10"
10 5
10"
10"
Q1
Q°
Q°
Q1
Q1
Q1
Q1
Q°
Q°
Q1
Q°
Q°
Q°
Q°
Q°
Q1
Q°
.01
.94
.96
.44
. 10
.04
.27
.70
.90
.29
.95
.82
.87
.98
.87
.14
.80
Sample
Size (n)
57
71
143
28
9
7
13
5
12
11
7
15
16
26
20
18
6
Correlation F-Test
Coefficient (r) Value
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0-
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
83
86
89
71
77
91
70
95
95
96
91
95
87
83
95
93
98
119.57
194.15
515.76
25.75
10.31
23.54
10.32
25.13
96.03
99.55
23.16
112.19
44.65
52.60
176.73
109.73
100.82
re equals total utdxi cost j.n uuj.j.a.j.0 a.^^
Q equals the average daily flow in million gallons per day.
-------
FIGURE E. 2-1
TOTAL 0 a M COST VS. ACTUAL FLOW
PRIMARY TREATMENT
NATIONAL
TC = 4.53 x 10" Q
0001
0.5 |.0 5.0 10.0 50.0 100.0
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
(1000 M3 = 3.785 MGD)
-------
TOTAL 0 8 M COST VS. ACTUAL FLOW
SECONDARY TREATMENT-TRICKLING FILTER
NATIONAL
5.00
FIGURE E. 2-2
TC = 6.02 x I04
0.0001
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
(1000 M3~ -
50.0 100.0
-------
TOTAL 0 a M COST VS. ACTUAL FLOW
SECONDARY TREATMENT-ACTIVATED SLUDGE
NATIONAL
10.00
5.00
(£
J
J
O
Q
U. '-ou
O
(ii
Z
2 0.50
J
J
Z
H
U
5 QIO
03
0
< 005
h
0
t-
u.oi
0.
— — f
. ', '. '.
\
-H-h-
;;:.i
, . , .
[— _ — _
•
!•::
. , . .
....
, . . .
::<.:
d
• r ;
1
: ii
rf
; j;
• • • '
r ' i ,
' '
....
' i : 1
j i '
; i !
r f
: " i
. : -r L
". I ij
. 1 4 i
I'M
- l"t
, i '
;i'l"rl'ini4"H"tit"l i'i"H III |lM'4HfH4-M i iiriiii 1 1 1 ;
1 1 ! fl fif * •? 4- * -H I'll 4 i T TTTT 1 III 1 1 II i II i 1 1
H 1 ------- -4 •- — i -i-- .. - i_ „
4 1 . . J X
iH! PjJ|j}p[rftj§ Tc " 8-25 x I04
r i tiff t ::HtTT P \K\\\
i : ^ | 1 r
. j mill 1 1 ||.j. LlllliLLLQjJ H H
-:T4t"Tf — ^ 1 «|: ::::::::::«-
W^fflWtffliffl
•+ yf -1 - -- 4- F -jr- J : i'l' -— -t
" fl! " T ", •-" ' /' ""^i "" * - --T
-1- tH-1 - + i --.',, , f J,
.. ,,..+. £ +.... ^ +. — -1-
' !ll t 4- . 1 'Xw? I
mt - '^- ••)". -T i r^ ^ ^ - - 1 i ------ - *
Hp -(• -JJ->1-r - -~^r --4--. ..-I "-""jt
''T'lviji^il1 Ti 1 mttitm I t
. .' | . . L. _, .f — . . -a- - + •
"Ti ' TJIflpi^fffl
• • ' ;i - - - 'T "1 " ' ~ T" , i
' ' ' ' r* T ' t" jj_
0.5 1.0 5.0
FIGURE E. 2-3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M | i M 1 i i l I jlll'i | i I 1 1 [ ' | i [l|!i| j [ 1 [ 1 i j
— ; , . . . - -j- — i H— l^-p - ^—
Q 0.96 "|:"i-:--;i||E;|::::j:-;:"EE";;
1... — .._.! i — [j — }i^| -F-{--
::::_=pz::^:.,i!|::::j:irp::±_ :::!_; _:::::
/ ' 1 ' '
:: ::^f. : ::: J~|: ^.^ ._,__: ::i: : .: ::
f ii ! ,
::^-*-EfEE|E;;:;;;;E.:g:;::::;;|EEEEEEi;
IIMtt
!-. ' .. ----- I - r
! | 1 !
1 ' t f
:::: ___::J:::^:..::,:i::::::::::i -±::±
j_ ,. . LI i
10.0 50.0 100.0
ACTUAL FLOW CMGD)
( 1000 M3 = 3.785 MGD)
-------
FIGURE E. 2-4
TOTAL 0 a M COST VS. ACTUAL FLOW
ADVANCED TREATMENT
NATIONAL
TC = 6.85 x 10" Q
0.001
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
(1000 M3= 3.785 MGD)
50.0 100.0
-------
TOTAL 0 a M COST VS. ACTUAL FLOW
SECONDARY TREATMENT - TRICKLING FILTER
EPA REGION II
1.0 5.0
ACTUAL FLOW ( MGD)
(1000 M3 = 3.785 MGD)
50.0
-------
TOTAL 0 & M COST VS. ACTUAL FLOW
SECONDARY TREATMENT-TRICKLING FILTER
EPA REGION III
FIGURE E. 2-6
0.50
CO
tr
o
Q
O
V)
z
o
CO
o
o
05
o
o
0.10
0.05
0.01
5.0 10.0
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
(1000 M3= 3.785 MGD)
50.0
100.0
-------
TOTAL 0 a M COST VS. ACTUAL FLOW
SECONDARY TREATMENT-TRICKLING FILTER
EPA REGION IV
i.oo
FIGURE E. 2-7
0.50
CO
x
<
_i
o
lu
O
Z
O
co
o
o
o
t— TC = 4.66 x 10
0.05
.0
5.0 10.0
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
(1000 M3= 3.785 MGD
50.0
100.0
-------
TOTAL 0 a M COST VS. ACTUAL FLOW
SECONDARY TREATMENT-TRICKLING FILTER
EPA REGION V
FIGURE E. 2-8
IAJUEJJE|EEEEEEEEEEEE;;EE-;; ,[ |EEEEE|EEE;; : |;; ;EEEEE|;;;E~.
CT : — ; — ; :;::£:±::±::: : :: 1 ..::::::!:::::.: :. : t .:::::,*:!: :*::
<;;;;;:::::::::::::;:::t :: i : ; ::::::i::: ::;: : : :: J ::;::±:::E:::
§ !|i!:!n!ilN!M|i!!!:;:i::ih!i:i:!--T
o nil 1 1 Illl II Illllll
CO ;-^=;EjE:::::|::::-:-: : |,!'[ :::::!"•-} t ' -': j:'
O :|- + -tj— + - --rjj $--
3 EElEfliJ!!!;!;;:^
2 rfrrm IH 1 1 i
H E=EEEE^::|:;;i;;!;;; : :;: ;:j ;;:;;;;;;;;;;;:;*:; :; ];;;;;!;;::;;::
O E^EEEEEEMIEEEEEE;!!!!! !! ;;!;;EEEEEE;E:;;E;;;| ! - ^\^\\l\\\'\\\\
O .E = = z:EEEEEE±EEEEE:::::: : :: : : : EEEEEEIEE: : ;::: |: : EEEE:EE:::::E:
0.05 == = = E = EEEEE=|E = = = EEEii = i i =!• i = i = = = E = E = E = i i =E = i r = = = = === = = ii= = = ii
S EEEiiiiliEiEEEEEiEiiiii !• i ; i EEEEEEEEEN !!ii I : • •• EEEEElliiiiili:
(C ----------------:::---^ :: :: : : -$:::::-;: |: ::• : • •• ::::::::::•:::•
O :::::::::::::::::|: ::: : : : fe:::::::: +::!::: : :::::::::::::::::
O ^==EEEMEEEEEE!!!!!;;!;; 1 ; ; \^\\\\^\ :-:- -; ••••• $::::::••::-:•
X _ ._
1 --; --!
nni -- 1 1 - i ---•
::;llI=EEMMmM=|:il=:l|i;i plEp:l;lpIl^p^|
ljffl|B
. . . 1- .. .-,-- """T "" ^ f1" f ! T~^T ' "'^"M1 n
C = 8.08 x I04 Q°-70 iEEE|i::|;!| bp:i:;[!:
i j
III Illl [II ffl^
:;:= = == = == = = :[ = ::::::::::::;:; | • ;: : = : | : ;• ;; • : j ;• :::::|:;|; 1
::=-;=r = ; = =:: = = ::::::::::|::: :: . :;;;:::::::::::: | .:. ::::::::::::; {
;;;E==E==iEEi==E==!:=l;:;::;;;; i:: ====!!=:::•;;;•;; ;; j E=i!!:!;i 1 j
••• — -( • • TT •*- • i " "i i dit h
1 1 t 2 E
U.UI
1.0 5.0 10.0 50.0 1000
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
(1000 M3 = 3.785 MGD)
-------
TOTAL 0 8. M COST VS. ACTUAL FLOW
SECONDARY TREATMENT-TRICKLING FILTER
EPA REGION VI
10.0
5.0
DOLLARS
ft i.o
V)
z
0
-J 0.5
•s
•7
COST II
5
oB OJ
j
h 0.05
O
0.01
-|
—
p
<=
3
_
^-
±
_[_
+wp|tMf
•-! I ! 1 1 i i •• \ 1 1 1 1 1 ! II 1 1
""' • TT
=EE|^:;;;;-EEE!
;-:::::~±i -+--
E:J:il::::.fE|;^
r ' \ f1
1 1 \\f^~~~ ^~~T -~~^T
V 1 ~^
- .} ; 4. _...:__ !
. ) i i i
: • , i • : ,!
, ; ! . : i
ITltrT tin
((!!::::.J:::;::
__j- -r - ~i
k
tH^ra^
+ :—::::::;;!'1!*;
* J
— ^-
ffll* !|M
~ - .: if!
::::::::::: ?~~;
^ ,
(L..t.L,
FIGURE
_l_ 1
99 x I04 Q°
j_
: E. 2- 9
- — fi 4. — ^
90 :: :-J=------
ptfB
i..
1.0
5.0 10.0 50.0 100.0
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
(1000 M3= 3.785 MGD)
500.0 1000.0
-------
TOTAL 0 ft M COST VS. ACTUAL FLOW
SECONDARY TREATMENT-TRICKLING FILTER
EPA REGION VIM
FIGURE E. 2- 10
I.OUO
0.500
(/)
o:
_i
i
_/
o
Q
0.100
o
C/5
z
° 0.050
Z
h-
cn
0
o
s 0.010
og
-l 0.005
1-
0
nnni
—
— I
-1
- ~: -I-'1' .14- ' -h^--p ^:: : "-T""- -1- -^ --
• - 1 - - --] - H-- j_-"/j i i q |V| t rli TT it hi III
i ' i i ' M
, ^_j_,_ ^ ', r, r. |..1T -4--J- — 1 1 1 j-- 1
±inrr3:;j^:::gS:^-t--::-~""i::::::::r: :::::::
_..._,-,_„_ ^_—,--p-U 1 LpL -L _ _p -r-.. L(.
1 ' ' ' , 'A
..ii , . r
, i j I L i1 _L
^_^_l- - - -j- - f - - -i . 1 1 - _L - - -
~ "T-1— H Hj 1~^~ ' ' —I--!- |( "! --
1 j 1 • ' . . f 1 1 5.
1 ? ' " • •
— r~ "^ — • n — " ~™| "!" ' — f "~
> !
f
r
^— 1.. 1 tt'. !.:,_. _j +.
' 1 '
/
L A
.^ .^p — X -. - i... _
J
_ I . . -L. C J 1 . •--)- •-
A \
nfif IjJII 1 | III! Hill II fntn
.
T
A o a
:-' TC = 2 51 x 10 Q .".". "-
:::::::: ::::::± ::+:::::::::::::::::^: :::::::
0,1
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
ACTUAL FLOW ( MGD)
(1000 M3= 3.785 MGD)
50.0
I00.<
-------
TOTAL 0 a M COST VS. ACTUAL FLOW
SECONDARY TREATMENT - TRICKLING FILTER
EPA REGION IX
FIGURE E. 2-
IU.U
5,0
LOONS OF DOLLARS
o —
01 O
*
1
3-
P
2 0.05
0
0.01
0.
--------\[-"[\\\ "
1
._ rr = F
~ •• .
1 Ulll 1 I 1 ni :
=
P^
5
/
J
i
/
i_
4
/
0.5 .0
x I04 Q
EE::!!^;;;;ji?:
?
r
: JL
D . 9 5 .
~ • -,
,_. ^
— . — — i
^ ., !
i ^
» = --- ....
5.0
"""' s
:::: _
t
f
-f-
EEE""E";;1"
^
J f
/
V
^^^: T —
mil |
10.0
|^— r~ —-'-• -
tl ! ' '
^^^^^^
T :g gg ^ -
Wtt
.. ._.. -••j-j-H-j-l --
'" ; "trttnT
| -- - -4|ffl-r-t-
rLLL^ +
1
-. - 1» +J-I
-- •- - •- -ir UI--
-^ 1 -{^
TTrFr nrfti \\\ ttiT
--
-t--
•- -
_ .:.
-t- —
~T
+ t
_)_ . ^
-|
50.0 IOC
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
(1000 M3= 3.785 MGD)
-------
O.I
TOTAL 0 a M COST VS. ACTUAL FLOW
SECONDARY TREATMENT-ACTIVATED SLUDGE
EPA REGION II
FIGURE E. 2-12
IU.U
5.0
OLLARS
Q
U- 1.0
O
CO
o
_j 0.5
Z
O
o
_
O.I
00
O
< 0.05
0
OOI
[ il || [[I |-
|- - ~
, ' ' V^
V
i ,i .
TC
^
j t
^
/
/
/
1 x 10 5
_ t - - -
_(
, '
{ L I
Q 0. 8 2
s
fc "
i
!
, !
_ . _ ^ * . , . . . -,
, t
^ *
t.
\^t t-i -
V
* 1 1
=|pR|l||jil!
1- "t-|-| |. -fj-H- -
_L j ' • j , ! '
— - — i— . — 1 1 1 ] — j-^-B-i _ -
1 i | i lii -H-- -- — -
! 1 ' ; ' '
' 1 '
1 1 TI \Jr\\
_. (
— _i — ... i_
l JJ^TI 1 1 I I [ 1 1 1 1 1 [ 1 1 1 |
_::J::|~|li
! ! !' ! : L
J— 4i _l : H~
1 ! | | -r4-|4 jj-f4 -T- -p —
H^ppflS
_
—
f
_ 1
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
(1000 M3= 3.785 MGD)
50.0
100.0
-------
TOTAL 0 a M COST VS. ACTUAL FLOW
SECONDARY TREATMENT-ACTIVATED SLUDGE
EPA REGION IV
10.00 1 I I ; , |; i1 | ' 1 , 1 1 1 limn 1 1 | ||||||H||||||I|||||
5.00 --EE = " = = : ::::::::: :::::::::::::: =::::::: =:::::::::::::: ""
(^ • -•• ____. ...
^ _ ^ •-•-• --
IT T £
f*\
U. 1.00 £ t - —
O "~T3EE !'"" imiiiiiidMiM
w _=S::::-:::^:::: ::::::: TC = 7.27 x I040°-98 —
Z.
j 0.50 --Ef EEEEEE|E:;;EEE EEEEEEEEEi iiii EEEEEE EE—EEEEEEEiEEEEiiiiiEEEE
s ffFm||i||
(0 -^~ ±i:::::::::: :::::::::.:::: :::::: _:::::::::;!::::::::
O 1 J- •••;:: :::;:::;^::!::: :::::
/
* 0.10 1 | j. !||i •r± + - tt ;•-- "-^::":::::::::i:;::
| : tf ± - __
*•+-! IT- -j^
- • ' !
nni _L uu-Jt. I.ii 1 1 ' Illllllllllll 1 'I
FIGURE E. 2-13
:::::::::: __m::: -. — " ::::::::::-*:::::::::::: _;r:::::
'
jj
Afi
_ _ t I ._
:::::::: _::::;; ^^::: ::::::::::::: :::::::::::: -:::::
, ....._ "jf. __ __LJ
4 \
i £ 1. -+ u
[j|ij|| ||||| |^| HI |_|_ || Pill IJJ HI i| || ||[ll
. _. _ k i . _ ._
l
0.1
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
(1000 M3= 3.785 MGD)
500
100.0
-------
TOTAL 0 a M COST VS. ACTUAL FLOW
SECONDARY TREATMENT-ACTIVATED SLUDGE
EPA REGION III
FIGURE E. 2-14
iu.U| | | | | 1 1 1 1 |||||||i|||| 1 1 1 minium 1 1 1 II III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Illlllil
I
50 — EEEEE::;;:":::; -E-::":::!::;:-EE:-::: EEEE:;^:-!!;:
(f) 1 ±::: ::::::: ::.: = : ::::::::::::__;;:::: ------------
oc- MMIIil Illllllrl 1 hliNI 11:1 II Hill Ml II II III II 1
<
_l 1:::::::::::::::::::::::::::—::;::: ;:;::::::::::
_i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: :::::::::::::
O ~~~f ~
Q . . I I
1 Q I._
li. llU— n:::i::±::::::::;:
0 — i -— TC = 1.08 X I05 Q °-87—
0 0.5 == = = ==E=E=iEEiiiii:EEE::::ii iEiE: == EE EEEi ======EEEEEiEEiiiiE
_j LI11U1UIJ|1^
_, 3j..± ^ ±..j
5 ===:::|:;;;:;;;;:;.::::;::;; ;;;;;;: ::::;;= J==::::::;;|;|
z — EEEEE|;;E:;;;E;:EEEEEEE;; ;E;;:-EEEEEE;-P--EEEE!;;EE;!|
. i » * * ' > i
t— 1C - -- I f ± 4.
,ft ± it j* ±
t/J i X 2 I 4.
Ol J^
-r- ' W^ ^
O --T" jt ^t
i ^^ i
^ Ol --+ • -±Tti -+- - — ^1- + — T"
2 UJ 1;:::::::::::::: -;::::::: :::: -;^^': z;;:;:^:::::!::
;--x::::::::::i::::::::::i;:::± 2^5::: :i:i :;;;::
00 It _ • __ ^
. ,. I...Z- H.J....I.
o — + --T f-'1^1 - -I — i-
i _, f '
< °-°5 1 ' lIHJi INll'lll N^K
i_ .T r 1 — 4- ^ — r-
o ! ifffl !|4J- 1 n^oMt
QQI , . _,,.il ,._
O.I 0.5 .0
\ ^S" ^ ^
f :::::: -~X-~-s - i.±::::
> I
"" S I I "I
L. __ - 2 ---
' ' ! '
' Si *. J '
* ^ --- -- • ! 1
. . , -, . ^ — — ._! — —
. j i • . — — ... . _ — —
_^B . . . . 4- . 1 — |
--P/— |'!4- 1= 1- - -$4t
B-L X
r
i i ! :
.__i h ' if ' ' s — i "' ^~ "1~ n~i "
•--] 1 ' J-jl i , 1 1 -^-M-tJ-4 -j- TT
I II 1 1 II nil 1 iMiB ii^M^rTf^S
1 1 1 ^
' i ! • ; ! '
5.0 10.0 50.0 100.
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
(1000 M3= 3.785 MGD)
-------
O
Q
O
cn
CO
O
O
cC
O
_J
-------
TOTAL 0 8 M COST VS. ACTUAL FLOW
SECONDARY TREATMENT-ACTIVATED SLUDGE
EPA REGION VI
FIGURE E. 2-16
IU.VU
5.00
V)
a:
<
_i
_j
o
Q
o 1.00
C/7
o
-1 0.50
S
Z
i
on
'
^
010
/
T j
^Bm
•.
*
f
36 x I04
^
1- /-
i1^-
ji. ...
J'
«/.....""
7
_ij£; ;;i.;;;;; ~
-g J--- --
? T
• .
-:|:.:|::j::i
r||]]JP|fP
Q |.|4 -.--
3 __
-__-. — — ?
. ~2
. . ^ _
C
i
.I... .,
I .
i 1
"a
^
^
i / ~
. , : .. _
\ i" --
^v
r
^_ _j_._p. __
•:: ::::: :::(--:•
~:: ::::::: i
.... ! .. .
. .- !„. - .
t
"I"
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
(1000 M3= 3.785 MGD)
50.0 100.0
-------
TOTAL 0 a M COST VS. ACTUAL FLOW
SECONDARY TREATMENT-ACTIVATED SLUDGE
EPA REGION X
FIGURE E. 2- 17
IOA) T T T
5.0 —EEEEEE: ::::::: : ==:: =| ::::== =EEE EE=!=-EE = EE
* EEEE-:|-;;;-|-;---EEEE:;lEEEEEEEE
_l t
—1 - U
O± I .1-
Q t "
it io- t ----• TC
O T — -
co i.. . -iji-. .i.. , ..
---Z-- ::::::: : ; :±:::: :: ;:::; ---
j 0.5 E=EEJEEEEE|EEE;;! E=EEE;EEE;;E!E£*EEEE— =EEEE|
-1 ;::::::::::::§ :;|:::::::: :: I;:::::: ;;:;
_ ^ "
Z i;;:-:::::::: ;£ = ::::::: :: ;;-
h ""I::::::::*:::: ::::::::::::: _::::::: = :::]
0 ~i::::::::::J:::: ::::: ::::::: :.i:::::::==~::;z
O f ,'-'
T T >
; r ~
5 Ql ^ T ~ S
00 i-i"""::"J:::: ":i::±:::: "::;8!:___""^
O ::::::::::::_ ^ _::;
J = = = = = -""-;:::::: ---^:-±:; •'• •---------=--- =-q
< 0.05 = = ===11::: :::|:::: =;;|jj|:::: ==:::: :: === = = i:2
o ± — j i -
0.01 [-1. 1 1 II II II III | III II II 1 II 1 1 1 1 II
O.OI« 0.5 .0
-i r'^T^^P """• * ; "
- r-1 ^.^ 1- -L -( }~|-— 'III ! i i i — . — —
;
- "- t'"~ !" " ' ;•— l '< i ^_i_l —i-~ "7
]j|f||ff
r-— 3"i"-^---=t±f i^±^±^~^?^^ —
' 1 ~\ 1 ~- — 1 "— • '+4-1- -[--(-I. -yjf- - .
:::::::::::::~:::::::::r:::__r i: •"•;: ' , i ^L' ^ ^ • '
^ ^ _i_ i ^^L^C ~r^ "
O J A I \J w >_ L> i ; ,
1 tf n ' I ! '
j [[I 1 |||||||]|i |^[j]|J4i^4j4r'J]i4L!!l:-:l^--l ]
mill III UJrll Mill lIlllTr ! ; ! iF'iT t'T""l
i1' ! ' i '!'
_. i!.J | T| Sl.I^S^T-
;S?;:::::::::|:::::::|:-i":::: = = |==:;Ej:::|:ffi
__ .. j P , _, 1 1 j . -j- j i | | L j-j-4- ||| — j—
! i !
- •• I '
; ' ' :
+--+- ± rj |-±r--fett^-
-:;;;;;;E-E::;";;|;:sEEjj;;|^^|z^""|;:|--:pjp
•1 ^^HjH
5.0 10.0 50.0
,
Pt
""
— (—
I. .
-t-
I
— [—
-T
4-
± =
1
_|. ._
_-.^
7
4--I-
_t- 4-.
-±
IOC
ACTUAL FLOW (MGD)
(1000 M3 = 3.785 MGD )
-------
TABLE E.3
Title
Primary Treatment
National
Trickling Filter
(TF), National
Activated Sludge
(AS), National
AWT, National
Primary
Region IV
Primary
Region V
Primary
Region IX
Primary
Region X
TF, Region II
TF, Region III
TF, Region V
TF, Region VI
TF, Region VIII
TF, Region IX
AS, Region I
AS, Region II
'ENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT O&M RELATIONSHIPS
TOTAL O&M COSTS VS STAFF SIZE
Sample
Equation Size (n)
TC = 2.06 x 104 S1'10 56
TC = 1.63 x 104 S1-19 72
TC = 1.85 x 104 S1-19 140
TC = 3.32 x 104 S1-02 30
TC = 2.01 x 104 S1'08 11
TC = 2.20 x 104 S0'90 8
TC = 3.79 x 104 S1'08 11
TC = 2.90 x 104 S°-97 7
TC = 3.35 x 104 S1'02 9
TC = 1.39 x 104 S1-35 7
TC = 3.41 x 104 S°-83 5
TC = 1.67 x 104 S1' 16 12
TC = 1.85 x 104 S1-09 8
TC = 3.35 x 104 S1'11 7
TC = 6.20 x 103 S1'73 11
TC = 1.99 x 104 S1-15 15
Correlation F-Test
Coefficient (r) Value
0.85
0.86
0.91
0.97
0.86
0.86
0.76
0.90
0.93
0.86
0.99
0.90
0.94
0.94
0.85
0.98
145.31
199.19
693.14
464.19
25.25
17.20
12.27
21.38
47.31
14.70
125.76
43.53
45.16
40.18
22.67
304.45
-------
TABLE E.3 (Concluded)
Title
AS, Region III
AS, Region IV
AS, Region V
AS, Region VI
AS, Region VIII
AS, Region IX
AS, Region X
AWT, Region II
AWT, Region V
AWT, Region IX
Equation
TC = 1.61
TC
TC
TC
TC
TC
TC
TC
TC
TC
= 2.
= 3.
= 1.
= 2.
= 4.
= 2.
= 1.
= 3.
= 4.
08
04
04
76
42
39
73
01
38
Sample
Size (n)
x 104
x 104
x 104
x 104
x 104
x 103
x 104
x 104
x 104
x 104
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
.20
.08
.05
.36
.10
.16
.01
.23
.03
.00
16
26
17
18
6
14
6
5
9
7
Correlation F-Test
Coefficient (r) Value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.82
.89
.96
.90
.95
.87
.99
.99
.91
.97
28
91
175
72
34
37
202
167
32
83
.17
.28
.64
.17
.81
.24
.55
.65
.73
.99
Where TC equals total OSM cost in dollars and
S equals the size of the staff at the wastewater treatment plant.
-------
TOTAL 0 a M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
PRIMARY TREATMENT
NATIONAL
FIGURE E. 3-
IU.U
5.0
CO
cc
1
o
1.0
LL
n
'f\
z
2 0.05
J
J
5
Z
D
J
£ O.I
0
i 0.05
c
0.01
0
• • ; !
—A
. . ]
.
"• '. • • ,
/L:"
1
-^— — 1
••-
=t*
— I h-
I ' I
— — >-• l- f •
H
-n4-
i
' T'''M'''!TTlwttFtt1 1 ill
-;- -|jt ^4-^4-M 1
•;•; "• ;rr; ~ rp" '^p'Tr ~- -:" _ . ..:::::-;£;: :__::::::::::
--r* -^-—M" ' "^"H tt+f "' T T r"
- • • • r - i 1 i i - -i - ! -- i
. . „ . ~, ... .^^ , i ^_j_ _^4-_L -J-4-. _| 1 [_ ...
. , . , 1 . , | _. _]_
• ' 1 ^J !
• ; :, : • ! 1 1 1
r ;-- — -J-^-U- .-4-r-L-1- i ^"1 ~*" "" f
' ' I ' • • 4. j. _L_
-T— r -^q±^±|-f 1- - ; --: [ C, = ^.Ub X IU b —
' , : ' ' 1 1 ; i
! ' • • i ! i 1 ^
-ttt^ttS^":T":f" ""::±— ="""":::::::: =="i^l "
— ^-H~ +j— ^ -1- - ^ -pi 1 - + - -1 r )'! -J'-' •'
ipp;|=^
— i — j— | L ^ j. _|_i. _i — 1__ .J .--j- • -}-
0.5 .0 5-0
-- . ^ —
::::::::__=£:::::::::::::: ::::::::^: f-^---i
- - 1l" I j " "L
'
--j'-|i--- ---
-_ _-_ --^ ..I. __
. ITT | Z
• - ^
4 _i_ l
'HI • — •-- — |
10.0 50.0 I0(
STAFF SIZE
-------
TOTAL 0 ft M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
SECONDARY TREATMENT-TRICKLING FILTER
NATIONAL
5.00
0.50
CO
cr
<
o
Q
O
(/)
^ 0.05
I-
cn
O
O
05
O
<
t-
o
f-
0.0005
FIGURE E. 3-2
TC = 1.63 x 10
0005
0.001
0.0001
0.
0.5
1.0 5.0 10.0
STAFF SIZE
-------
TOTAL 0 & M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
SECONDARY TREATMENT-ACTIVATED SLUDGE
NATIONAL
50.00
10.00
ce
o
Q
U_
O
oD
o
o
h-
FIGURE E. 3-3
0.005
0.001
5.0 10.0
STAFF
50.0 100.0
SIZE
500.0
-------
FIGURE E. 3-4
TOTAL 0 8 M. COST VS. STAFF SIZE
ADVANCED TREATMENT
NATIONAL
TC = 3.32 x 10** S
0.001
1.0 5.0 10.0
STAFF SIZE
50.0 100.0
-------
TOTAL 0 & M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
PRIMARY TREATMENT
EPA REGION IV
1.06-p
0.50 =
0.10
0.05
0.0 11
I.C
^||||||||||||||]||||l|||||[i
^ -- ' | ' 'T -t — 'T"
1 r-i T -1 • t - •'
- -|- rl 1 • " - - f - +
r4" 1- • • ft ' [ •'" ---• | i f.j" "t
1 ^ L - - 1 - - - -- - - •
lijffl ' 1J ml 1 1 1 III II IHI III HH^H
= :EEEEEE:::::!:jjf ::i:;;; ' ': \""\\\[-[- ] [^]\l\\\\\\\"\\"~
EEEEE|EEEEEEEEEE| iEEEp ; EEEEEEEE:;;EEE ;;;; EEE|EEEE;;EEE^:E;:EE:
' >f "f — 'T T "J "i 1 — 1 ' "" ""
j)vi j 1 ]]{j({ljl}llllljl§j^l^^
I 5.0 IO.C
FIGURE E. 3-5
li iiiiiiiilH
-
:<:::::::::::: ::::::: : :::::::*:::::::::: Ji
---/ — ^ — '2'"'
_ T .- j It .. ^ ..
'C = 2.01 x I04 S -08 F i 4
= ==i:n:::::::::::::::::::::::: E::± :::i t :::.|: ':'. " :::T:S::: :::: :
T--T -- 1 '<--- +
ft "" f h "4!
--iEEE--E-EEEE;:;;EE;;;;::;;' EEEE:^;;;;;;;;:;;: :. I ;|E:^|;:: :: : ::
EEEEEEEEEE||:;;E:E:;:I;;;:;| \~^\^\\\\ : ;EEEEE:±I; : :: : ::
.j . .- I . . — i L-
X - *t — ff - — (- ••-• •• •
50.0 100.0
en
(£
J
O
O
u.
o
z
0
J
J
5
h
cn
O
O
(fi
0
J
<
o
h
STAFF SIZE
-------
'•00l
TOTAL 0 S M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
PRIMARY TREATMENT
EPA REGION V
FIGURE E. 3-6
z
o
QQ5'
= 2.20 x io4 s°-90
g g
f
o
h-
O.OH
-itfnnr!
1.0
5.0 10.0
STAFF SIZE
50.0
100.0
-------
TOTAL 0 & M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
PRIMARY TREATMENT
EPA REGION IX
10.0
FIGURE E. 3-7
5.0
'4:
en
J
O
Q
U.
O
z
O
J
J
§
z
I-
b
rt-rr;
1.0
TC = 3.79 x I04 S
4 c 1-08.
0.5
ffi
0.1
0.05
-h
O
h
0.01
0.5
1.0 5.0 10.0
STAFF SIZE
50.0 100.0
-------
TOTAL 0 a M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
PRIMARY TREATMENT
EPA REGION X
i.oo,
FIGURE E. 3-8
0.50
O)
cc
o
o
u.
o
CO
•z.
o
0.10*
-TC =
x 10'
0.97
65
tt
CO
o
o
CD
o
<
o
0.05>
-:
5.0 10.0
STAFF SIZE
50.0
100.0
-------
TOTAL 0 & M COST VS STAFF SIZE
SECONDARY TREATMENT-TRICKLING FILTER
EPA REGION II
FIGURE E. 3-9
IU.UU :::::: :j:: :: :"":-:: ::n — — -:: :T-T
5.00 == = == = = = = = i"::::" :EE-: EEEii iiiii Er EE = E:J = = = = =EEEEE
CO = : = :::::::g: ;::|:::::|: — E: :: :: " — = EEEE:
flC ==;==;: = ;::t::i:: : = i±::±:f:: =; =i :r !; =^-= EzE-i
< ~ ------"::" r :::|::i:£:: ~ :::::: -T-~::::
J :::::::::::;:: :::::::::::::: -;:::::: ±::'T
j ::::: ::+:r::: ::::: :::::::::, — :: :: :: + :£:::
O :-T---;;-
Q C -H
U. 1.00 --~±-i:-: 4-
-r----T "
en i_. j... __ .. :.,
I; _. . V
I " (2
- 0.50 =- = = EE== = -| ==iiiii=EEEI:EE-iiilii = ::EEEEE— ^ = ===1
_| ____....... __.__..__......_-____.. ?C^S_-
_, !iiHMHM!!!;i;;;!=H!!=!;;;;;;M=!=!=;2N=MEh;
5 _ ... i
+ ' j •
Z — -EEEEEE:i:E:;fii :;EE;;:^::::: z^;r::: EEEEii
>- III II III ml IlllllHi! HI 1 \\Wf mill II 1 1 1 Illl 41
« EEE:E:::::::;: : :"::iji!:::: ==:":::= = """"
O ~V ""
l_ 1
w ^' i
5 OJO== ===::i:;~:--;,;^'""t ---:-"==-,-::
-- -T -,- ^....j-p^-^.^. .^
|:._.5:_j_ __j__ — 1 --H----H--JV ---I
::::::;^i::::::::::::::::::|:::::|:|l:|:||S|^
•p' -- ? — 1 --p -i — -)- — (• -rrf -p
• "-I ' ""I !
:: :: -----.--:-.::--• -.-. -. * j --j-j- ; ^p --
M II 1 II 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 II 1 1 II M- 1 1 1 liUifiiLUlilMlIm ,J|j4-|j
!:!i— TC = 3.35 x I04 S '-02 :: ::::t:±: ::S:B-
iL|.j,[||j||-[.| Ijjj II II II Ml l[.|J=j Ml I H"[[[[[|||||l| lj| 'i|Mnr 1 1
l:iiiiiiiE=E::™;;ilii=E|EEII— EEEiEE:!:|; ivEF-irr g-
;;;;i;===il!=E=;;;;:;======EiEEEEE=i±-:::-iJ|EE
DHH 1 1 H IN 1 1 1 ImiV'ti
::::::;::m::^:::::::^!::::|^::,:::;,;^l,;: ,|
^^ U • 1 >r • -1 ' l-^t" TJT *~"
50.0 100.0 500.0
•r
- t— '
_J_ |
-U
-4-
-
r
-
1
-t
— r-
7
4-
->-
-
\
J
-t-
1 — r-
-t-
-
:.
-
t
__*"
T
-t-
T
H:
1
+
I
+
STAFF SIZE
-------
TOTAL 0 S M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
SECONDARY TREATMENT-TRICKLING FILTER
EPA REGION III
FIGURE E. 3-10
0.50
-------
TOTAL 0 a M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
SECONDARY TREATMENT-TRICKLING FILTER
EPA REGION V
FIGURE E. 3-11
OL
<
J
o
o
u.
o
V)
z
o
5
z
I-
V)
o
o
2
oB
o
o
h
3.41 x I04 S°-83 -JIT:
100.0
STAFF
-------
TOTAL 0 & M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
SECONDARY TREATMENT-TRICKLING FILTER
EPA REGION VI
10.0
5.0
FIGURE E. 3-12
O)
a:
o
a
rr hr
to
1.0
TC = 1.67 x
1.16
I-
cn
o
oB
O
0.1
< 0.05
h-
o
0.01
1.0
5.0 10.0 50.0
STAFF SIZE
100.0
500.0 1000.0
-------
TOTAL O&M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
SECONDARY TREATMENT - TRICKLING FILTER
EPA REGION VIII
FIGURE E. 3-I3
4 1.09
TC = 1.85 X 10 S
.01
.0
5.0 IO.O
STAFF SIZE
50.0
-------
TOTAL O&M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
SECONDARY TREATMENT - TRICKLING FILTER
EPA REGION IX
FIGURE E. 3-14
co i====M=!:::;:;;;;:=m::!:!:;:::HMn=!=ElM==!==:!!=
< ::::::::::::::: ::::::::: •;:::::=:::::: :::::::::
— 1 — •--•
_J j
Q
u.1.00
— ::::: — ::::"'":• —
co ::.:: :::::r:: :E:: ::::::::: ::::: _.:.:::::
4- - -- -i —
o ==="EE=E;E;E;;|;; :EEE;:::E::;;: -- 1" -.-.===" "^\\"
_i .50 =—=======»=.=;:=.=: EEEE====E;;==! EEEEEEEE— ===E=E===E
1 -r--
2 :::::::::::£:: ::::::::: |: =i:::::: 1::::::::
2 = = = —= — :=::::£:: "" = :::::!:: — ""::— = = == = = :::::
CO = = = = =iii:::::Tf:: ; = -:::::::£:: == n i: :: - = rr=r":: :::
0 =___:::::::::: t .___:.:.:: :::::i"::: :: — :::::::
o ~i""± " t
^ • '
*0 ' '
o .10 T -J ~~^~ 1~~" "
... .J.. ................ __...... _,_,l._.....^
*" .05 "- = :E::::::::: I":::::-;::: --""-- ----^iz:: = = |
01. _ __ i - __ ,....
0.1 0.5 .0
i::::;;;:::;:::::-::::::.--;-::::::::::::::::::::: : -;;:;;
;;;;::EEEE;;E-:;::::EEEEE:;;E— ==-EE;;;E;;;;;:EEEE;^--EEEEE j
-T -•$-- T * -| r -
• ^ ' — p- - " *^ ' — r T- —
' ! , !
4 .id-it TI -- -+^_t
TO - "^ "^^ y. o S- C J
•• ' --f--+-^4-" " — '••ftTT T"t +
^ T" -1 1- J-J-. J-fir 4- -t "-
' N
' ' ! i """t "
i •-•• t | : 1 '"^ +
Lrf ' iltPiimi '-^ :-H 'I1 IN 'ifH
't""± A ! ' — v~- ft-H-4-i-^-H-+i-*-^--t-
--""-'. "'"^^-^"-"""^^j-^^^T-tT^ :^fFfjTt!T:;~~±
[H||l| [|lilj}l)Ff| 1 Hill H 1 ' '1 l+lrlll|iliil 4^J^lrf]
1 | ! ! ! ; '
t ' ! ; ' ' '
i , i i i i i . . .
5.0 10.0 50.0
STAFF SIZE
-------
TOTAL 0 ft M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
SECONDARY TREATMENT-ACTIVATED SLUDGE
EPA REGION I
1.00
0.50
dDLLARS
i
k 0.10
T
•H/J
"2
P
j-l 0.05
P
r ,
te '..
T
^
t 0.01
I
-------
TOTAL 0 a M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
SECONDARY TREATMENT-ACTIVATED SLUDGE
EPA REGION II
FIGURE E. 3- 16
IU.U
5.0
)OLLARS
LJ
fc 'o
f/i
z
0
_l 0.5
_l
S
Z
h-
c/>
0
o
5 O.I
cC
o
_l
< 0.05
O
i
t~
o.ni
-
-
I—
_
^------.:::::-.:::.. --.-.-.-.
pi-r ::f:::::- __•__
•
J__,-|-L-.4...i Ty
U-|J — || >f |
-t-- — i ^ ^-~
-r^ff-t^'Jit^^
-^pii
•::- rr::i4ir4t:
J.J.J. H-TL.
: ;
1 .. _ /
. .__ - ^
r
/ !—
, " r
t-±-- ,/ 1-
f
ri!..
-,_-/. ..L.
y
• 4- i
T"""1"
_ I_l_
/
/
/
>-
' >'
. . J
j
- '
,'1|-
-^ --
t --- --
:-..-:.:.----.-...£----------.--
— -I — ~t
£ jf
: t~ ::-:: :::
ufl 1 I 1 1 II III
j1 •-••
- - - t ---
t . ____---
£
r
:^TC = .99 x I04 S IJ
:::::|-:::::: . : - : :
::::: ::::::::: : : ~:::
..... _ _: :: : f
5 :;;:::: : :--.::. E
1.0
5.0 10.0 50.0
STAFF SIZE
100.0
500.0 1000.0
-------
TOTAL 0 8. M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
SECONDARY TREATMENT-ACTIVATED SLUDGE
EPA REGION III
ipQf 1 i i |i J i r i II 1 1 i MI 1 1 MI
5.0i=====E:-";;;;;;;: E====:"" ::: =====•==-- === ====•=•=•
mi 1 HTM TC = M
05 = = = = = = = = = :ii= = iiiii= = = =ii = ::ii:iii =====:•:= = = = == = = = ••!••
EEEEEEEEEi;;EE;;;;;EEEE;rE|;;;;;EEEEEEII==EEEEEEEE;|::
0.1 = = --:::::::::»::» - ":|:::::
0.05 = = -=== = = = • i:::iiiii = = = = = i:::i iiii ===••: '1 = = = = == = = = = i:::
ooil ' 1 1 1 lllllllllllllllllllllllll|lllll 1 Mlll'l 1 1 1 1 Illlllllll
o: 0.5 .0
FIGURE E. 3-1
•- -• — h ~iL' fit ~^ ^" —
:::::::::::::::::: ::::::::iri::::::::::::::ii^iEt-E
'"' — ____ . ..._ ^ _; 4-i-i-f — , - -,- —r- —
-- .. . _ _ ^. _|_ _LL LL^+ _1_
i 1 1
r
SI X I04 S1'20 ^ErE:::::;;;i:;!-!!::::;;;5;;±T-:
mm i ] 1 1 j| 1 1 [linn | | • 5^__. t1 "I" + < 7 -+• 7- __
5 V .. ' "*~
— • jt-...- jp JT"t !
.... .... ^^^ — L *~" 1 ;j', ' '
:::: :::::::::: :::--:::::: 2~--_ _: ::*::: : :-;;::;— t± ^ r-
-- — ^~--± "+' i^"~3t:n:~1 ~~
.... . . t . 4- -• 1 i- 1 -j 4-|4 — | — .-J-- -J L
;:;: :EEEi;ii;;:;:;!E^:E::iEEEEEEi;i::;;;;-~::i:ii;e-*x;
T- -/<- II"-" ' M — X±4
...z! — — j — . - _^_ .^ .,
••• 1 ' " ^ ' "" ~T ^a
•••• >' ' "T T 1
•••• -~i " 1" ' " "' J2 JjL~
•-•• • ~ ill
;;;: ~ : ]•• -H — | — H-J+H--I — i--^-1
5.0 10.0 50.0 10
7
0.0
(A
£
o
o
u.
o
z
o
J
i
h
CO
o
u
2
06
O
STAFF SIZE
-------
TOTAL OaM COST VS. STAFF SIZE
SECONDARY TREATMENT-ACTIVATED SLUDGE
EPA REGION IV
FIGURE E. 3-18
IQ.Oi [ 1 I ' I I! IN |||||||[|||||| III 1 1 1 |||| 1 I 1 1 II ,11 1
5.0 -~~= = = E:--::--"li = = = = ::=::l!:lliEEEEM:: — = == = =::•»:!!»
........... ____.£.. ...... ::::-£: :[: ::::::::
{/) I—;::::::::::: :ii: ~ : ::: ::; — ;; :: :: zri: :::::::::
Q£ — — ~E~ "
< :::::::::;::::: --h^:: :::::-i:::::: ^:::::::::::::
_j T ..!..__
1
~ -- -...+ ^ — :rt:~"
O ~T"T '±"
Q, :
1.0' -J--- -~ -•- ±
U_ ;;::::::::::::: -q:::::::::: :,_-;^:: :::::::::::::
O_ __±.±. :::..: zi~.~.
T — t +
» i i
f/> i
0 °-5i III ! ! F rr = ?oa x in4 s
-J hrrt Nil
_l -::::::±:::: —-- •±::: : ill 1 ! 1 III 1 I [41 1 1 FFffffF
2 —-::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::: ::::::::— ±::::::::::::::
•£_ • ----|---:-..:: - = -;;;;;:::::: _--::::: i::i:: ::::::::
i '
h- , ±
f> hi HI 1 1 i
O :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::: ::::::::::::::
o 1 ~~T±
S 0.1 =-"---::::::::::: -----_•-•-.•••_: -- -- 1 ::—-":"::::::::::
OB 1 - -± |
O'
_ I |. ...!.__ _ _ ,.,,
-J 0.05; = = ==== = = = = !!!il!!l EEEM^IIiilii iEE^--^^^iMEE::i^!i^
g EEEE-E|::;::;;;:: -E:;;-; ::: E-— IEEEEEEEEEJ;!::! ;:
,?
"" !ltrtltflllnlP ill 111 il II Iffl^
1 - -
1 ^
ooi — --
O 0.5 1.0
EEE:!:;;;:;;:; EEEEEEE;E-~I:::|::::::::: ||:::EJg^iT;
:i:::::::::::: -.-;:;;: __Er:::±. .....|:::^.. ..^ |l ^ | : j
:;:::::::::::: :::::::: :::;:::::::H::-::^r:i-h::; j:
• 1 ' -t *•• !-•+-• — ; *l- -T -1-
li PBH
r- •-•- -i 1 - • (l ||
:r T^ +,---.- J,^-o-H.-L+t
I L y : • ' i
d L
(
1
T , ' i
.£ _LL i -h -t 4-
.08 :• .-=:==== -,p=c^Jt3i::J --i:::_: ::= — == : :
**• ^ i •
. i 1 1 . 1 1 1 ^ . i _i^____. ^JL...^ —~. -i ^ J. 4.. 4 -i 4- -t
— t -i.. f. _ ... — i. ..i - .
-,--*- zEi--1 — B-- --'^T-I
. _ . .„ ' t J 4. 1
• r-- "~}^ ] r— --- 1 [• -il 4-
::::::::::;:::: ?:::::: ^ ::T-; :::±::: ,:^::: ±:::.^_ i +
. .._ j ^ .. ip "•" .
,?'. _._^ ii_ lit.. i
t1 ' _L
1 -- i - . ' -T - r - |t -1- - T
J<-i--4- ! -1 * -— M--^ L --
«!_ : ' i
1 li. -
5.0 10.0 500 100.0
STAFF SIZE
-------
TOTAL 0 a M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
SECONDARY TREATMENT-ACTIVATED SLUDGE
EPA REGION V
10.0
5.0
1.0
0.5
O.I
0.05
0.01
1
-t
p
3
3
-t
b
t-
—
1
0
£lg|fl::::i
4-| f4-\- J J- L-
EEEE:E:|:|::i:i:: = EE:
— L--H -Li- ;[•---
.
' L'
g::::::|-'|S:
-I— 1 L
3=£-" = :::E:;^i:EEEE
: "::::;::::--:::*
:|:ilii^$EE:El
--r^- ...| ^^ .- ~—
f
1
:3::::::' =": " 3
5.0 IO.C
)
-i
-i
__<
, ,!_.. s>,-
~f
^ —
1 -f T ;£-
EEEEE;!!;;!!;;JEEE
V
-•"• — TC = 3.C
500 100
t-
0
FIGUR
1 x 10 4 S -°
E E. 3- 19
1 II II 'III II 1 Illl
5 ;:;_:::::::
-t •••
L
500.0 lOOOjO
(/)
a:
<
j
j
o
a
u.
o
w
z
o
J
J
o
o
2
00
O
J
<
0
h
STAFF SIZE
-------
TOTAL OaM COST VS. STAFF SIZE
SECONDARY TREATMENT-ACTIVATED SLUDGE
EPA REGION VI
10.00
FIGURE E. 3-20
5.00
CO
O
Q
CO
z
O
1.00
•TC = I.
1.36
O
O
05
o
o.io
0.05 .
o
1.0
5.0 10.0 50.0 100.0
STAFF SIZE
500.0 1000.0
-------
TOTAL O&M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
SECONDARY TREATMENT - ACTIVATED SLUDGE
EPA REGION VIII
FIGURE E. 3-21
5.0
£C
J
o
o
u.
o I.Of
CO
g
j
=! .50
2
Z
TO
4 .10
2.76 X 10 S
CO
o
o
2
,05'
01
0.5
1.0 5.0
STAFF SIZE
10.0
50.0
-------
TOTAL 06 M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
SECONDARY TREATMENT-ACTIVATED SLUDGE
EPA REGION IX
FIGURE E. 3-22
10.00
5.00
cn
o
o
5 0.10
cO
0
_J
< 0.05
O
h-
001
0.
—I
—
rJ
--
-1
-
-\
E\
=\
'-
— r
— i
-
=3
--
-i
r
H
d
L
LH
H
s:g::ig3gE:::3: ;;";;:: -E=EE;;E:: :::;;:::::::::
-fg|E=J!E|~!l~~=|EEEEEEEEi~ii;~HH
i -1 ,_, ._,_. ,___ _, — i _ j__ -.
— ±±-i-::±±,-^p:4.:..4.. 1C = °t .°< d. X IO C
~F"t"-^fn--t-'- — • — -|--- •r~i~~"'~ —
i i- i
^-i--5--S--r-+-t-|-- it~-
I-,-, J ^-,— -.-1 1 z : -^
4! P 4J jjj-rjli lilp nflfl jtitll In
====|i!lEEEh|!::;=:EM=:M:iiiiiM!ll;!:::;;;;:=ME
ppkuij^plillll N ||||[[| |Hj II II > P |||| 1 II || jl
^_ _,_ _.__L. _ I ..4. . _ _ | _L
-j- 1 | | ' --j -^.—b—. ^--.| 1 j-Uu. J.— _-
„. I I-I-T . . . H ^ .__|_
_l_ — _)_._ ^__i ^ 4_ __ ___
! I
0.5 .0
- - j — " — -
2.16 ::::: i:) ::::::::::::-;:::::: : -::::
=..;. --C- .....
1 +
T
7 __ _» . _ i
+
-1 1.... -.-
..::::::__:::..:/
! ^
.... | ^ .. . . __ _ .
u ii HIM i pitp imffl i ilium IHIII 1 1 PLUJ
'
/ !
t ;
i 1 J_ 4-
( — -- -_-
ill N 1 1 rm
5.0 10.0 50.0 1005
STAFF SIZE
-------
TOTAL 0 a M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
SECONDARY TREATMENT-ACTIVATED SLUDGE
EPA REGION X
lO-Upppprrriic-TT :-::""::"" ::::• " " TTTTT 1 1 l-UU-Liiiifmm
5.0 = = = = EEEEE!iij=!iiijiiEEij = i!i!J!iiii E^ EE j[jj = = = = EEE = =: ^i: ::
7 = E~"~~ = ~::: = :::|: == i ::;;;;. :; :.: ~~ " JF \\== = ~ "E" ! !: :! ; ::
j
1 H~h~M iihl Ml" 1 1 1 1 II Hllllllllli
3 +""+4 1
5 1.0 — i-— ::::::::::|::: ±
o + --
r ~>~ -.....,. --j- ....
) ":::::i::::::::|:::::::::::::: ::::!::—: ;i- EES::::;;;:;;::::::::;:::;::;:;Ez:::;;;EEE^-z:;;^:::
UUJ4 | |.U^|L... 1 J>T 1 Hnt
; =^1=1===:=::::: = ::::
3 i^f:::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::: ^ _::::: :::i:: :::::::::
j i~|:|::::::::::}:::::::::::::;i^::::::~i~::i:::::::::::
B oj::||y;:::;t::::;!;;;: :::::::;;:;::::::-
5 iEf-:::|:::::::|:J:::::::::::: :: :::: ::__n:::::::::::: ::
j ti!2 — -- — t;
- 0.05 ^^ = ! = = : I!:?!*. £ = =;: = ::::* ==::::::= = = = :« = :::::::: :E
0.01 [tT, mill i iiiHiiihiiiiiii 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 ii.iiiiiiiiiiiii
1.0 5.0 10.0
-H i H
III" III"!!!; II ^1 II ! ! H Z ^~" " ' "" ' T"1"
_..^_____.. ^ E[E
- jL - . .... — — ___ — . -.... ,. . .
h-rr = ? ^q x io4 s1-01 |fm]w|^^
:::::::::::: : -----••-• -i- = $-- — --- "\"\ '• tt: j= :; : | ---= - -
50.0 100.0 500.0 IOOC
STAFF SIZE
-------
TOTAL 0 & M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
ADVANCED TREATMENT
EPA REGION II
10.00
FIGURE E. 3-24
5.00
1.00
CO
Z
O
= |73
1.23
CO
o
o
OS
o
i
0.10
O.I
0.5 1.0 5.0
STAFF SIZE
10.0
50.0 100.0
-------
TOTAL 0 & M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
ADVANCED TREATMENT
EPA REGION V
10.00
5.00
OL
<
J
_l
O
Q
U.
O
V)
z
O
J
O
O
05
O
O
h
FIGURE E. 3-25
TC = 3.01 x I04 S1-03
5 1.00
5.0 10.0
STAFF SIZE
50.0
100.0
-------
TOTAL 0 6 M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
ADVANCED TREATMENT
EPA REGION IX
FIGURE E. 3-26
10.00, i I [ [ 1 1 1 1 1 ' IIHIII 1 1 1 1 II
S Iff : II II ||||ffl ijljj
5.00 — EEEEEEEEEEEE;™ FEE= = EEEEEIIEEI EE EJEEEEE— EEEEEEE iEEEEII
w II II [t||| III Hllfll II Illl I 1 Hi [f l4l'TTTTT'riT IHHi
3 EEEiE,EE::|::::^;;l:;;;;EEEnE;:EEEEEE^|;|
O --:-::—::::: :i::: ::i: :::}-"::: r "":::::::::
0 --—::::::::-::::: :::::::±:::::~::::- ;:::J:E:::
u. — ^ T ^
O^
tO ''
Q 1.00 i::::::^::::J— *-^ :--=£-rz:rrv;i'::-
,-• ;.:::::::::::; i ~::: _::_i! :::;::;
*J ! t •• • •
tf) _ _ , . _j _,^_
—i , ; f
0 == = = = = ==E::: = :::: = it|-i!: = ::===-=::=i^hi== = = i::
H 0.50 ==ll!H==Ep;;pH!!!!i;;;:i:MM!!:|p!Mi:iE=;;;
Q z:::::::::::::: ±::: ::: j E::: r_ :. :: a! ;::;:: ::::::;
U --± T / *
Q: ::::: ::::::::: ::: :::::::• ~^:::: i::::::::::T
z ==^EEEEE:^EE;;;;; EEEEEEEE;;;"!: ---==;:--=ZE==Z::;|:;E
3 = = --- = : = ::::::::::j:: — i: ::.:::: J.== =iii :------"- = : :±:: 5
z rH 1 1 !lfflflPI ImHii
1 - . , ;
(/)
8 0.10 zr-|""::™"| :::::-:: | ;-- ± -:: ~~"|T """-
S -i-::T-----":::~ "r:^-;:":: — ^z±:: ::::::::::::
-f* ..._
CD T t '
0 ao5Blillllllli in ilrw ml1 til
g = = == = = : = :::;::;! :==::::;; :;;; "" : = , ======:=:: -:;
o i M- ; 1
f_ = = r: = ^-=,:::S::: --: --: | -=„":: =fc = == " i:::^::-
001 •— — i-.i
O.I 0.5 1.0
.. -| "~"j~ j^ ! r TT" "T"
— ^... — ->•--] 1 i T |- --::::: j- ^j-
.. :::::::::: ^_ :: ^{= ::±::r:: =-;:::::: : :
::=5-:::::::j'!'EEEE:i::=E::tE=t=:E::E:::i::ErF=::::f:E+ =EE:: :
1 --]-•_
i i!-'r- ± j "T""T± ' 1 j~~" T
::::^:!J:;: :::::-::::::— -=:::!:::::::::: :::::::::: i _::::
/ .
!' I ~~— TC = 4 38 x 10 S ' °° I- +
]i 1 I"' j '
ii |
i • : i ! ! '
- — i 1 — i , . ' f " "~ — ' — — 1~ M ' — . +
' ' !
;--EEEEEE!;|;E = EEE:-==^EEEEE-EE|;JE;^:EEJ:;ii-p
-t. J_ . . • _ _._j_ !]_!.-
iEE^EEEEEE;;EE:EEEEEErE — EEzEEEEEEEEEEE^iEEfEEElSiEE^f
;-^i::::;.:;:.--|3~^EEEE::f;::;;^SP^F||
III 1 Ml || | [^--[ ||i| 1 |^f|fff|pr$f^^'ft!n
- - 4- ,1 ._ r . j .^LJ. -T~ -j- -t-
i IT ^ : "i~ = ' s * < ' ' ' i
_L ' i ' • ' ' i ' ' ' ' J
: 1 ! 1 ; ' i ' 't "pit , _L
5.0 10.0 50.0 IOO.C
STAFF SIZE
-------
TABLE E.4
APPARENT NON-SIGNIFICANT O&M RELATIONSHIPS
• Staff Size vs Actual Flow, Nationally
a) Oxidation Ditch
b) Aerated Lagoon
• Influent BOD Strength vs Percent Industrial Flow of Actual Flow
• Influent SS Strength vs Percent Industrial Flow of Actual Flow
• Component Total O&M Costs vs Actual Flow, Level of Treatment
• Average Cost Per Employee vs Actual Flow, Level of Treatment
a) Nationally for 3 Size Groups
b) Regionally for 3 Size Groups
• Average Cost Per MG Treated vs Actual Flow, Level of Treatment
• Component Process Costs vs Actual Flow, Level of Treatment
a) Nationally for 3 Size Groups
b) Regionally for 3 Size Groups
• Percent BOD Removal vs Percent Design Flow Capacity
• Percent SS Removal vs Percent Design Flow Capacity
• Average Cost Per MG Treated vs Percent BOD Removal, Level of Treatment
• Average Cost Per MG Treated vs Percent SS Removal, Level of Treatment
• Average Cost Per Pound BOD Removed vs Percent BOD Removed, Level of
Treatment
• Average Cost Per Pound SS Removed vs Percent SS Removed, Level of
Treatment
• Influent BOD Strength vs Per Capita Flow (Where Industrial Flow = 0)
• Influent SS Strength vs Per Capita Flow (Where Industrial Flow = 0)
-------
APPENDIX F
SEWER SYSTEMS
F.I Gravity Sewer and Force Main Systems Surveyed
Indicating Operating Authority, Service Population,
and Total Length
F.2 Lift (Pump) Stations Surveyed Indicating Total
Capacity (mgd) and Horsepower (hp)
EPA SURVEY
-------
OSM SAMPLED SEWERS
TOTAL LENGTH OF GRAVITY SEWERS AND FORCE MAINS
Ui NO
151
152
154
157
158
160
161
165
216
217
21B
220
221
222
223
224
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
237
238
239
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
304
305
I 306
307
308
FACILITY NAME
AUGUSTA SAN.niST SS
BANGOR S.S.
ORONO SS
BRUNSWICK SS
FALMQUTH SS
SANFORD SS
KITTERY SS
SKOWHEGAN SS
ROCHESTER S.S.
ORANGETQWN SEW SYS
ROCKLAND COUNTY STP
K'AMAPO SEW SYS
STONY POINT SEW SYS
ARLINGTON SEW SYS
SEUER SYSTEM
MONTICELLO SEW SYS
PLATTSBURGH SEW SYS
TUPPER LAKE SEW SYS
SARANAC LAKE SEW SY
CANTON SEW SYS
OGDENSBURG SEW SYS
LOWVILLE SEW.SYS
OWEGO * 2 S.S.
SIDNEY S.S.
CHEMUNG CO SB *1 SS
CAYUGA HGTS S.S,
MANLIUS S.S.
GNEItlA CO. SS
ILLION SS
JAMESTOWN S.S.
OLEAN S.S.
WARSAW S.S.
BATAVIA S.S,
AMHERST S.S.
ALFRED S.S.
BATH S.S.
PENN YAN S.S
SPENCERPORT S.S.
WEBSTER S.S.
OYSTER BAY S.S.
BETHLEHEM S.S.
SEWAGE DIS.DIST N02
PORT JERVIS S.S.
LITITZ STP
SPRINGETTSBURY TWP
LEMOYNE BORO JT. AD
MECHANICSBURG STP
CHAMBERSBURG UWTP
CITY
AUGUSTA
BANGOR
ORQNO
BRUNSWICK
FALMQUTH
SANFORD
KITTERY
SKOWHEGAN
ROCHESTER
ORANGEBURG
ORANGEBURG
SUFFERN
STONY POINT
POUGHKEEPSIE
SUFFERN
MONTICELLO
PLATTSBURGH
TUPPER LAKE
SARANAC LAKE
CANTON
OGDENSBURG
LOWVILLE
APALACHIN
SIDNEY
ELMIRA
CAYUGA HGTS
MANLIUS
UTICA
ILLION
JAMESTOWN
OLEAN
WARSAW
BATAVIA
AMHERST
ALFRED
BATH
PENN YAN
SPENCERPORT
WEBSTER
OYSTER BAY
DELMAR
E.ROCKAWAY
PORT JERVIS
LITITZ
SFRINGETTSBURY
LEMOYNE
MECHANICSBURG
CHAMBERSBURG
STATE
MAINE
MAINE
MAINE
MAINE
MAINE
MAINE
MAINE
MAINE
NEW YORK
NEW YORK-
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEU YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEU YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK-
NEW YORK-
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK-
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK-
NEW YORK
NEU YORK
NEU YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK-
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
SERVICE
OPERATING AUTHORITY POPULATION
AUGUSTA SAN.DIST 20000
BANGOR,CITY OF 30000
ORONO, TOWN OF 10000
BRUNSWICK 3D 13000
FALMOUTH, TOWN OF 6500
SANFORD SD 11000
KITTERY, TOWN OF 7500
SKOWHEGANr CITY OF 7000
MONROE CO PURE WATERS DIV 350000
ORANGETOWN DPW 70000
ROCKLANI) CO SD *1,BD OF C 145000
RAMAPDrTOWN OF,DPW 30000
STONY POINT TN OF 9000
POUGHKEEPSIE T.ARLINGTON 23000
SUFFERN,VILLAGE; OF 11000
MQNTICELLU,VILLAGE OF 7500
PLATTSBURGH,CITY OF 25000
TUPPER LAKE. VILLAGE OF 5000
SARANAC LAKE VILLAGE OF 10000
CANTON,VILLAGE OF 10000
OGDENSBURG,CITY OF 14000
LOWVILLE VILLAGE OF 3800
OWEGO,TN 7500
SIDNEY,VILLAGE OF 4970
CHEMUNG,CO OF 16090
CAYUGA HGTSrVILLAGE OF 7200
MANLIUS,VILLAGE OF 4500
ONEIDA CO.DPW 125000
ILLION.VILLAGE OF 7000
JAMESTOWN CITY OF DPW 40000
OLEAN CITY OF 20000
WARSAW,VILLAGE OF 4000
BATAVIA,CITY OF 19500
AMHERST,TOWN OF 60000
ALFRED,VILLAGE OF 8500
BATHrVILLAGE OF 6530
PENN YANfVILLAGE OF 5200
SPENCERPORT,VILLAGE OF 5000
WEBSTER,VILLAGE OF 7000
OYSTER BAY,TOWN OF 7500
BETHLEHEM,TOWN OF 18000
NASSAU CO.DPW 558400
PORT JERVIS,CITY OF 8300
LITITZ BOROUGH 7600
SPRINGETTSBURY TWP SEW. 48000
LEMOYNE BORO MUN, AUTH, 16500
MECHANICSBURG MUN. AUTH. 9500
CHAMBERSBURG BORO MUN. AU 17000
TOTAL LENGTH TOTAL LENGTH
OF GRAVITY OF FORCE
SEWERS (MI) MAINS (MI)
64.00
121.00
35.00
19.00
58.00
10.00
15.00
700.00
300.00
69.00
176.00
35.00
100.00
27.00
25.00
47.00
45.00
34.00
16.00
62.00
4G.OO
31.00
19.00
92.00
35.00
18,00
30.00
17.00
135.00
70.00
16.00
52.00
270.00
2.50
24.00
17.50
15.00
20.00
20.50
82.00
1553.00
38.00
27.00
72.00
16.00
45.00
53.69
9.00
1.79
11.00
1.50
.29
4.00
1,00
CO
I'-
ll. 00 m
2.50 -n
.50 ^
.29
3.00
3.00
.86
-------
08M SAMPLED SEWERS
TOTAL. LENGTH OF GRAVITY SEUERS AND FORCE MAINS
ID NO FACILITY NAME
309 HARRISBURG STP
310 UPPER SAUCON TWP UU
313 BETHLEHEM WWTP
314 HATFIELD TUP AWT
318 GREATER HAZLETON JS
321 SUNBURY WUTP
366 FREBERICKSBURG SS
3(,8 PINNER'S POINT SS
370 CHARLOTTESVILLE S.S
371 LEXINGTON SS
372 BEDFORD SS
400 BOCA RATON SEWERS
401 VIRGINIA KEYS COLL
402 GOULDS COLL.
403 HOMESTEAD SEWERS
404 N.MIAMI PLT 1 SEWER
405 FT.PIERCE CITY OF
407 KISSIMMEE 192 STP
408 STUART SEWERS
409 GRANT ST STP
410 COCOA SS
413 HOLLY HILL SS
414 SOUTH STP S3
415 OCALA STP *1 SS
416 JACKSONVILLE BEACH
418 ST.AUGUSTINE SS
420 LAKELAND SS
-------
OXM SAMPLED SEWERS
TOTAL LENGTH OF GRAVITY SEWERS AND FORCE MAINS
-ID NO FACILITY NAME
518 BEDFORD SS
520 AVON LAKE SS
522 NORUALK SS
523 TOLEDO SS
525 DEFIANCE SS
526 VAN UERT SS
527 FINDLAY SS
534 COLUMBUS SEWERAGE
537 XENIA SEWERS
540 HIAMISBURG SEWERS
541 NEWARK SEWERS
542 SIDNEY SEWERAGE SYS
547 DAYTON SEWERS
552 GRAFTON SEWERS
553 WAUKESHA SEWERS
554 JANESVILLE SS
556 RICHLANIi CENTER SEW
557 WATERTOWN SEWERS
558 REEDSBURG SEW. SYS.
559 SHEBOYGAN SS
560 APFLETON SS
561 WISCONSIN DELLS SS
562 WISCONSIN RAPIDS SS
563 STURGEON BAY SS
564 ROTHSCHILD SS
565 MERRILL SS
566 LACROSSE SS
567 SUPERIOR SS
568 EAU CLAIRE S3
569 TOMAH SS
570 MADISON INTERCEPTOR
571 MADISON COLL. SYS.
572 MIDDLETON COLL. SYS
601 IRVING COLLECTION S
602 EVLESS W8S SYSTEM
603 SEWAGE COLLECTORS
654 WU COLLECTION SYS
683 BROWNSVILLE COLL S
698 SEWAGE COLLECTION
704 MEXICO COLL.
705 COLUMBIA COLLECTORS
802 LONGMONT COLL. SYS.
8O3 BRIGHTON COLL. SYS.
804 S. LAKEWOOD COLL.
806 N. TABLE MTN. SS
807 WESTMINSTER COLL.
808 BOULDER COLLECTION
810 WINDSOR COLLECTION
CITY
BEDFORD
AVON LAKE
NORWALK
TOLEDO
DEFIANCE
VAN WERT
FINDLAY
COLUMBUS
XENIA
MIAMISBURG
NEWARK
SIDNEY
DAYTON
GRAFTON
WAIJKESHA
JANESVILLE
RICHLAND CENTER
WATERTOWN
REEDSBLIRG
SHEBOYGAN
APPLETON
WISCONSIN DELLS
WISCONSIN RAPID
STURGEON BAY
ROTHSCHILD
MERRILL
LACROSSE
SUPERIOR
EAU CLAIRE
TOMAH
MADISON
MADISON
MIDDLETON
IRVING
EVLESS
COPPELL
LEWISVILLE
BROWNSVILLE
GALVESTON
MEXICO
COLUMBIA
LONGMONT
BRIGHTON
DENVER
DENVER
WESTMINSTER
BOULDER
WINDSOR
STATE
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
SERVICE
OPERATING AUTHORITY COPULATION
BEDFORD, CITY OF 16500
AVON LAKE, CITY OF 12000
NORWALK, CITY OF 13500
TOLEDO, CITY OF 445000
DEFIANCE, CITY OF 17300
VAN WERT, CITY OF 11320
FINDLAY, CITY . 36000
COLUMBUS, CITY OF 865000
XENIA, CITY OF 28500
MIAMISBURG, CITY OF 18200
NEWARK, CITY OF 43000
SIDNEYrCITY OF 17000
CITY OF DAYTON 317000
GRAFTON W 8 S COMMISSION 8434
UAUKESHA, CITY OF 49500
JANESVILLE WPC UTIL, 50000
RICHL.AND CENTER, CITY OF 5100
WATERTOWN, CITY OF 16000
REEDSBLIRG, CITY OF 4800
SHEBOYGAN, CITY OF 49000
APPLETON, CITY OF 57000
WISCONSIN DELLS* CITY OF 3000
WISCONSIN RAPIDS, CITY OF 35000
STURGEON BAY UTILITIES 7000
ROTHSCHILD, VIL. OF 5000
MERRILL, CITY OF 9500
LACROSSE, CITY OF 65000
SUPERIOR, CITY OF 32000
EAU CLAIRE, CITY OF 47000
TOMAH, CITY OF 5700
MADISON METRO. SEW. DIST. 240000
MADISON, CITY OF 170000
MIDDLETON, CITY OF 8200
IRVING CITY OF 115244
EVLESS DPW 27000
COPPELL CITY OF 825
LEWISVILLE DPW 23000
BROWNSVILLE CITY OF 18135
GALVESTON DEPT OF UTILITY 60000
MEXICO CITY OF 13000
COLUMBIA CITY OF 59850
LONGMONT CITY OF 37000
BRIGHTON CITY OF 160OO
S. LAKEWOOD SAN. DIST. 17000
N. TABLE MTN. W S SAN DIS 4500
WESTMINSTER, CITY OF 32000
BOULDER CITY OF 579O4
WINDSOR CITY OF 5000
TOTAL LENGTH TOTAL LENGTH
OF GRAVITY OF FORCE
SEWERS (MI) MAINS (MI>
75.00
63.00
2800.00
80,00
90.00
87.00
51.00
160,00
66.00
31.00
147.00
203.00
35,00
71.00
23.00
143.00
190.00
18.00
91 .00
16.00
65,00
160.00
123.00
201.00
30.00
102.00
531.00
36.00
415.00
55.00
8.00
31 .00
200.00
136.00
100.00
218.00
57.00
35.00
29.00
18.00
140.00
237.00
23.00
1.00
1.00
.00
5.00
CD
|—
m
-n
O
C
m
D
-------
OSH SAMPLED SEWERS
TOTAL LENGTH OF GRAVITY SEUERS AND FORCE MAINS
ID NO FACILITY NAME
814 ESTES PARK COLLECTI
815 VAIL. COLL.
817 COLORADO SPRINGS S3
935 CAMARH.LQ SEWER SYS
937 SANTA PAULA SEWER S
945 VENTURA SEWER SYST
946 HILL CANYON TRIBUTA
947 OXNARD SEWER SYSTEM
021 TUKWILA COLL SYS
022 BOTHELL COLL SYS
024 BELLEVUE COLL SYS
CITY
ESTES PARK
VAIL
COLORADO SPRING
CAMARILLO
SANTA PAULA
VENTURA
THOUSAND OAKS
OXNARD
TUKUILA
BOTHELL
BELLEVUE
STATE
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
OPERATING AUTHORITY
ESTES PARK SAN. DIST.
VAIL W. & SAN. DIST.
COLORADO SPRINGS, CITY OF
CAMARILLO SAN. DIST.
SANTA PAULAf CITY OF
VENTURA? CITY OF
THOUSAND OAKS, CITY OF
VENTURA REGIONAL CO. !3.D.
TUKWILA CITY OF
BOTHELL DPW
BELLEVUE SEW DIST
SERVICE
POPULATION
2500
2500
150000
27000
18600
69700
69500
93000
3000
5120
18228
TOTAL LENGTH
OF GRAVITY
SEWERS (MI)
13.39
26.00
650.00
160.00
47.50
550.00
303.00
28.00
272.00
TOTAL LENGTH
OF FORCE
MAINS (MI)
CD
|-
m
o
O
z
c
m
D
-------
OXM SAMPLED SEWERS
PUMP STATIONS
ID NO FACILITY NAME
151 AUGUSTA SAN.DIST SS
152 BANGOR S.S.
151 ORGNO SS
157 BRUNSWICK S3
158 FALMOUTH SS
160 SANFORD SS
161 KITTERY SS
165 SKOWHEGAN SS
216 ROCHESTER S.S.
217 ORANGETOWN SEU SYS
218 ROCKLAND COUNTY STP
:->20 RAMAPO SEU SYS
221 STONY POINT SEU SYS
222 ARLINGTON SEU SYS
223 SEWER SYSTEM
224 MONTICELLO SEU SYS
226 PLATTSBURGH SEW SYS
228 SARANAC LAKE SEU SY
229 CANTON SEU SYS
230 OGDENSBURG SEW SYS
231 LOUVILLE SEU.SYS
232 OUEGO * 2 S.S.
234 CHEMUNG CO SD tl SS
238 ONEIBA CO. SS
241 JAMESTOWN S.S.
242 CLEAN S.S.
244 BATAVIA S.S.
245 AMHERST S.S.
247 BATH S.S.
248 PENN YAN S.S
249 SPENCERPORT S.S.
251 OYSTER BAY S.S.
252 BETHLEHEM S.S.
253 SEUAGE DIS.DIST N02
254 PORT JERVIS S.S.
305 SPRINGETTSBURY TUP
306 LEMOYNE BORO JT. AD
307 MECHANICSBURG STP
308 CHAMBERSBURG UUTP
309 HARRISBURG STP
310 UPPER SAUCON TUP UU
314 HATFIELD TWP AUT
318 GREATER HAZLETON JS
321 SUNBURY WWTP
368 PINNER'S POINT SS
370 CHARLOTTESVILLE S.S
371 LEXINGTON SS
372 BEDFORD SS
CITY
AUGUSTA
BANGOR
ORONO
BRUNSWICK
FALMOUTH
SANFORH
KITTERY
SKOUHEGAN
ROCHESTER
ORANBEBURG
ORANGEBURG
SUFFERN
STONY POINT
POUGHKEEPSIE
SUFFERN
MONTICELLO
PLATTSBURGH
SARANAC LAKE
CANTON
OGDENSBURG
LOUVILLE
APALACHIN
ELMIRA
UTICA
JAMESTOWN
CLEAN
BATAVIA
AMHERST
BATH
PENN YAN
SPENCERPORT
OYSTER BAY
DELMAR
E.ROCKAUAY
PORT JERVIS
SPRINGETTSBURY
LEMOYNE
MECHANICSBURG
CHAMBERSBURG
HARRISBURG
CENTER VALLEY
HATFIELD
HAZLETON
SUNBURY
PORTSMOUTH
CHARLOTTE'SVILLE
LEXINGTON
BEDFORD
STATE
MAINE
MAINE
MAINE
MAINE
MAINE
MAINE
MAINE
MAINE
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEU YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEU YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEU YORK
NEW YORK
NEU YORK
NEU YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEU YORK
NEW YORK
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
OPERATING AUTHORITY
AUGUSTA SAN.B1ST
BANGOR,CITY OF
ORONO. TOWN OF
BRUNSWICK SD
FALMOUTH. TOWN OF
SANFORTJ S»
KITTERY. TOWN OF
SKOUHEGAN, CITY OF
MONROE CO PURE WATERS HIV
ORANGETOUN CPU
RQCKLAND CO SD *1,BD OF C
RAMAPO.TOWN OF.DPW
STONY POINT TN OF
POUGHKEEPSIE T.ARLINGTON
SUFFERN,VILLAGE OF
MONTICELLO.VILLAGE OF
PLATTSBURGH.CITY OF
SARANAC LAKE VILLAGE OF
CANTON.VILLAGE OF
OGUENSBURG.CITY OF
LOWVILLE VILLAGE OF
OWEGO.TN
CHEMUNG.CO OF
ONEIIJA CO.DF'U
JAMESTOWN CITY OF DPW
OLEAN CITY OF
BATAVIA.CITY OF
AMHERST.TOWN OF
BATH.VILLAGE OF
PENN YAN.VILLAGE OF
SPENCERPORT.VILLAGE OF
OYSTER BAY.TOWN OF
BETHLEHEM,TOWN OF
NASSAU CO.DPW
PORT JERVIS.CITY OF
SPRINGETTSBURY TWP SEU.
LEMOYNE BORO MIIN. AUTH.
MECHANICSBURG MUN. AUTH.
CHAMBERSBURG BORO MUN. AU
HARRISBURG SEU. AUTH.
UPPER SAUCON VAL. MUN. AU
HATFIELD TWP. MLIN. AUTH.
GREATER HAZLETON JSA
SUNBURY. CITY OF MUN. AUT
PORTSMOUTH. CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE, CITY OF
LEXINGTON, CITY OF
BEDFORD, CITY OF
TOTAL
CAPACITY
<«GD>
28.00
35.00
27.00
25.00
64.00
1.30
1.00
11.00
2.20
5.00
9.90
12.00
1 .20
10.00
1.00
10.00
2.20
65.00
43.00
43.00
12.00
25.00
.10
.50
.07
1 .60
23.60
47.00
2.30
7,40
4,30
2.60
.86
69.00
1 .00
4.80
199.00
.50
.50
6.40
TOTAL
HORSEPOWER
1530
206
360
2800
148
25
500
200
275
300
90
40
90
6
240
42
825
325
334
250
420
3
20
5
40
840
490
60
240
44
20
1038
60
850
65
1525
60
15
350
CD
r~
m
o
-------
OSM SAMPLED SEWERS
PUMP STATIONS
10 NO FACILITY NAME
400 BOCA RATON SEWERS
401 VIRGINIA KEYS COLL
402 GOULDS COLL.
403 HOMESTEAD SEWERS
404 N.MIAMI PLT 1 SEWER
405 FT.PIERCE CITY OF
407 KISSIMMEE 192 STP
408 STUART SEWERS
409 GRANT ST STP
410 COCOA SS
413 HOLLY HILL SS
414 SOUTH STP SS
415 OCAL.A STP *1 SS
416 JACKSONVILLE BEACH
418 ST.AUGUSTINE SS
420 LAKELAND SS CBARTOW
421 LAKELAND SS
422 TARPON SPRINGS SS
424 SARASOTA SS
425 ST.PETERSBURG SS
426 PINELLAS PARK SS
431 TALLAHASSEE SS
432 DANIA SS
433 CORAL GABLES SS
469 BRUNSWICK SS
474 THOMASVILLE WPCP
436 HATTIESBURG SS
505 MARIETTA SS
506 STEUBENVILLE SS
507 ALLIANCE SS
fill RAVENNA SS
512 BARBERTON SS
517 SOLON SS
518 BEDFORD S3
522 NORWALK SS
523 TOLEDO SS
525 DEFIANCE SS
526 VAN WERT SS
527 FINDLAY SS
540 MIAMISBURG SEWERS
542 SIDNEY SEWERAGE SYS
552 GRAFTON SEWERS
533 UAUKESHA SEWERS
556 RICHLAND CENTER SEW
557 WATERTOWN SEWERS
S58 REEDSBI1RG SEW. SYS.
559 SHEBOYGAN SS
360 APPl ETON SS
CITY
BOCA RATON
MIAMI
GOULDS
HOMESTEAD
NORTH MIAMI
FT.PIERCE
KISSIMMEE
STUART
MELBOURNE
COCOA
HOLLY HILL
TITUSVILLE
OCALA
JACKSON.BEACH
ST.AUGUSTINE
BARTOW
LAKELAND
TARPON SPRINGS
SARASOTA
ST. PETERBURG
PINELLAS PARK
TALLAHASSEE
DAN IA
CORAL GABLES
BRUNSWICK
THOMASVILLE
HATTIESBURG
MARIETTA
STEUBENVILLE
ALLIANCE
RAVENNA
BARBERTON
SOLON
BEDFORD
NORWALK
TOLEDO
DEFIANCE
VAN UERT
FINDLAY
MIAMISBURG
SIDNEY
GRAFTON
UAUKESHA
RICHLANH CENTER
WATERTOWN
REEDSBURG
SHEBOYGAN
APPLETON
STATE OPERATING AUTHORITY
FLORIDA BOCA RATON CITY OF
FLORIDA MIAMI-DADE W&S
FLORIDA MIAMI-DADE WSS
FLORIDA HOMESTEAD CITY OF
FLORIDA NORTH MIAMI CITY OF
FLORIDA FT.PIERCE CITY OF
FLORIDA KISSIMMEE CITY OF
FLORIDA STUART CITY OF
FLORIDA MELBOURNE CITY OF
FLORIDA COCOA
FLORIDA HOLLY HILL CITY OF
FLORIDA TITUSVILLE CITY OF
FLORIDA OCALA CITY OF
FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE BEACH CITY
FLORIDA ST.AUGUSTINE CITY OF
FLORIDA LAKELAND CITY OF
FLORIDA LAKELAND CITY OF
FLORIDA TARPON SPRINGS CITY OF
FLOPlIDA SARASOTA CITY OF
FLORIDA ST. PETERSBURG CITY OF
FLORIDA PINELLAS PARK CITY OF
FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE CITY OF
FLORIDA DANIA CITY OF
FLORIDA CORAL GABLES CITY OF
GEORGIA BRUNSWICK, CITY OF
GEORGIA THOMASVILLE, CITY OF
MISSISSIPPI HATTIESBURG CITY OF
OHIO MARIETTA* CITY OF
OHIO STEUBENVILLE, CITY OF
OHIO ALLIANCEr CITY OF
OHIO RAVENNA, CITY OF
OHIO BARBERTON, CITY OF
OHIO SOLON, CITY OF
OHIO BEDFORD, CITY OF
OHIO NORWALK, CITY OF
OHIO , TOLEDO, CITY OF
OHIO DEFIANCE, CITY OF
OHIO VAN WERT, CITY OF
OHIO FINDLAY, CITY
OHIO MIAMISBURG, CITY OF
OHIO SIDNEY,CITY OF
WISCONSIN GRAFTON W 8 S COMMISSION
WISCONSIN WAUKESHA, CITY OF
WISCONSIN RICHLAND CENTER, CITY OF
WISCONSIN WATERTOWN, CITY OF
WISCONSIN REEDSBURG, CITY OF
WISCONSIN SHEBOYGAN, CITY OF
WISCONSIN APPLETON, CITY OF
TOTAL
CAPACITY
(MGD)
54.40
51.60
22.00
1.80
67.00
6.00
5.00
7.50
23.00
54.00
7.00
28.00
6.50
7.00
15.00
57.00
12,50
128.00
9.00
103.00
4.30
4.00
6.00
1.80
5,90
4.50
27.00
4.00
4.00
26.00
TOTAL
HORSEPOWER
1285
9750
241
225
840
3120
140
168
100
522
230
2700
1110
684
101
178
600
2127
4200
3440
200
800
1125
81
97
CO
I-
m
Tl
N>
o
o
Z
107 H
Z
104 C
744 m
33 O
-------
OXM SAMPLED SEWERS
PUMP STATIONS
ID NO FACILITY NAME
361 WISCONSIN DELLS S3
562 WISCONSIN RAPIDS SS
564 ROTHSCHILD SS
565 MERRILL SS
566 LACROSSE S3
567 SUPERIOR SS
568 EAU CLAIRE SS
569 TOMAH SS
570 MADISON INTERCEPTOR
571 MADISON COLL. SYS.
601 IRVING COLLECTION S
602 EVLESS W8S SYSTEM
603 SEWAGE COLLECTORS
654 WW COLLECTION SYS
683 BROWNSVILLE COLL S
698 SEWAGE COLLECTION
704 MEXICO COLL.
705 COLUMBIA COLLECTORS
803 BRIGHTON COLL. SYS.
006 N. TABLE MTN. SS
807 WESTMINSTER COLL.
808 BOULDER COLLECTION
814 ESTES PARK COLLECTI
817 COLORADO SPRINGS SS
935 CAMARILLO SEWER SYS
945 VENTURA SEWER SYST
946 HILL CANYON TRIBUTA
947 OXNARD SEUER SYSTEM
021 TUKWILA COLL SYS
02?. BOTHELL COLL SYS
024 BELLEVUE COLL SYS
CITY
STATE
WISCONSIN DELLS
WISCONSIN RAPID
ROTHSCHILD
MERRILL
LACROSSE
SUPERIOR
EAU CLAIRE
TOMAH
MADISON
MADISON
IRVING
EVLESS
COPPELL
LEWISVILLE
BROWNSVILLE
GALVESTON
MEXICO
COLUMBIA
BRIGHTON
DENVER
WESTMINSTER
BOULDER
ESTES PARK-
COLORADO SPRING
CAMARILLO
VENTURA
THOUSAND OAKS
OXNARD
TUKWILA
BOTHELL
BELLEVUE
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
OPERATING AUTHORITY
WISCONSIN DELLS, CITY OF
WISCONSIN RAPIDS, CITY OF
ROTHSCHILD, VIL. OF
MERRILL, CITY OF
LACROSSE, CITY OF
SUPERIOR, CITY OF
EAU CLAIRE, CITY OF
TOMAH, CITY OF
MADISON METRO. SEW. DIST.
MADISON, CITY OF
IRVING CITY OF
EVLESS DPW
COPPELL CITY OF
LEWISVILLE DPW
BROWNSVILLE CITY OF
GALVESTON DEPT OF UTILITY
MEXICO CITY OF
COLUMBIA CITY OF
BRIGHTON CITY OF
N. TABLE MTN. W 4 SAN BIS
WESTMINSTER, CITY OF
BOULDER CITY OF
ESTES PARK SAN. DIST.
COLORADO SPRINGS, CITY OF
CAMARILLO SAN. DIST.
VENTURA, CITY OF
THOUSAND OAKS, CITY OF
VENTURA REGIONAL CO. S.D.
TUKWILA CITY OF
BOTHELL DPW
BELLEVUE SEW DIST
TOTAL
CAPACITY
(MOD)
6.00
36.00
10.00
2.00
5,00
3.00
6.00
21.00
1.40
2.30
l.SO
7.10
21.00
21 .00
1.80
TOTAL
HORSEPOWER
140
30
600
60
40 OJ
r~
20 m
255 S
O
355 •£.
660 -|
140 ^
160 m
72 O
720
-------
APPENDIX G
SEWER SYSTEM GRAPHICAL RELATIONSHIPS
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT O&M RELATIONSHIPS
G.I Total Cost versus Service Population
G.2 Total Cost versus Total Length of Gravity Sewers
G.3 Total Cost versus Staff Size
G.4 Staff Size versus Service Population
G.5 Staff Size versus Length of Gravity Sewers
G.6 Operating Cost versus Staff Size
G.7 Power Costs versus Pumping Capacity
EPA SURVEY
-------
TABLE G.I
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT O&M RELATIONSHIPS
SEWERS SYSTEMS: TOTAL COST VS SERVICE POPULATION
Sample Correlation F-Test
Title Equation Size (n) Coefficient (r) value
Separate Sewer
System, National TC = 0.27 x SP1-35 17 o.74 17.71
WWTP + Separate
Sewer System,
National TC = 0.09 x SP1'39 92 0.80 160.45
WWTP + Mixed
Sewer System,
National TC = 0.012 x SP1-55 30 0.89 108.07
Separate Sewer
System,
Region VI TC = 26.69 x SP°-87 6 0.98 113.40
WWTP + Separate
Sewer System,
Region II TC = 0.22 x SP1-30 21 0.92 105.07
WWTP + Separate
Sewer System,
Region III TC = 0.14 x SP1-31 11 0.85 23.59
WWTP + Separate
Sewer System,
Region IV TC = 4.16 x SpL°7 26 0.78 37.86
WWTP + Separate
Sewer System, „„ , _ . _
Region V TC-O.lOxSpl-35 19 0.71 17.15
WWTP + Separate
Sewer System, 54 4g
Region VIII TC = 10.44 x SP°-92 8 0.95 54.49
WWTP + Mixed
Sewer System, 48 15
Region II TC = 0.025 x SP1-52 9 °-yj
WWTP + Mixed
Sewer System, 1 76 ig 084 32.72
Region V TC = 1.20 x 10 x SP
-------
TOTAL COST VS. SERVICE POPULATION
SEPARATE SEWER SYSTEMS
NATIONAL
50.00
10.00
5.00
oc
_J
o
Q
0.50
o
O
o
FIGURE G. l-l
TC = 0.27 x SP
0.05
0.01
Q005
O.OQI
0.001
0.005 0.10 0.50 1.00
SERVICE POPULATION IN HUNDRED THOUSAN
5.00 10.00
DS
-------
TOTAL COST VS. SERVICE POPULATION
SEPARATE SEWER SYSTEMS
INCLUDING TREATMENT PLANTS
NATIONAL
5.000
cc
o
O
U.
o
1.000
0.500
o
o
o
f-
O.IOOpE?
0.050
0.010
0.005
0.001
FIGURE G. 1-2
0.01 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00 5.00 10.00
SERVICE POPULATION IN HUNDRED THOUSANDS
-------
TOTAL COST VS. SERVICE POPULATION
M[XED SEWER SYSTEMS
TREATMENT PLANTS
NATIONAL
FIGURE G. 1-3
TC = 0.012 x SP '-55
001 0.05 0.10 0.50 1.00
SERVICE POPULATION IN HUNDRED THOUSANDS
5.00 10.00
-------
TOTAL COST VS. SERVICE POPULATION
SEPARATE SEWER SYSTEMS
EPA REGION VI
!.00.
0.50
o
o
0.10--
0.05
CO
O
O
h-
o
0.01
0.005-
0.001
0
.01
0.05 0.10
0.50 1.00 5.00 10.00 50.00 100.0
SERVICE POPULATION IN TEN THOUSANDS
5000
-------
TOTAL COST VS. SERVICE POPULATION
SEPARATE SEWER SYSTEMS
INCLUDING TREATMENT PLANTS
EPA REGION II
0.001
001 0.05 0.10 0.50 1-00 5.00 10.00
SERVICE POPULATION IN HUNDRED THOUSANDS
-------
TOTAL COST VS. SERVICE POPULATION
SEPARATE SEWER SYSTEMS
INCLUDING TREATMENT PLANTS
EPA REGION III
0.50
CO t
a: ±
- -^it-
0.10-
o
Q
O
CO
O
0.05 i
i O
O
J-
i:
--
TC =0.14 x
G>
O.OI
O.OI
O.O5 O.I O.5 I.O
SERVICE POPULATION IN HUNDRED THOUSANDS
5.O
-------
TOTAL COST VS. SERVICE POPULATION
SEPARATE SEWER SYSTEMS
INCLUDING TREATMENT PLANTS
EPA REGION IV
inQr i IIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH 1 IIHIII [ 1 1 \\\\\\\\\
5.0 EEErEEEEE: ::::::::: "":iEEE!i;ii EE EE == == EEEEEEEEEE ii
0 :-::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::: -:::::::— -i:::;::::
a:
j — - : TC = 4.16 x SP1
J |0|""::::::::::::::: :::::::::::
Q :-"::i::::::::::: :::::::::::::: —-::::: ::::::::
O -- •••!
U. •.
Qt ___;;:::::::::::::: ::::::::::::: ..:;;;;; ;;:;::::
Z \ -----.-.-.-.-.:::-.:•.•.:-.•. :;:::::::::: -----'.-.--------.--•.-.-.
o 1 1 1 1 Hill 1 HI II 1
j ___::::::::::::::: I:::::::::::::.::::::: ::::::::
j =r=EiE:E:;:;:;;;;;; EEEE;:EEE;;I;; =EEEEE:E = ===EEEEE:^
S zzzi::::::::::::::: :::|::::: :::: i; :;;: iizrri:::::: !!
Z in::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::="=:::::,?'
1- S .
V) -t—t-...
o ni: ,__£"::::
U • l —- — -.:-:: :::::::: ::::::::::::: in::;:: zj?zi:^:::: ::
? .^•^•W§
g-aoSiEEEEEiJEJiiiJIiiJi =====1=111!=;! EEEEEEJJEEEEEEEEEM!
aoi n 1 Illl Illl IIIIIIIH Illlllllllll 1 Ulllll 1 1 1 IIIIIIIH
aoi o.os oio
FIGURE G. 1
•3ii L- -(-LI 1 , •', 1 _ i_
-. . i I'1
2 ~*~ I tl~^~
-- ._..) _. .. -1 , — -^-
II 111^
--,-. .... -- + - +- 4- -4> -j--
0.50 .00 5.00
1
-H
7
V
f
-\-
u
.00
SERVICE POPULATION IN HUNDRED THOUSANDS
-------
TOTAL COST VS. SERVICE POPULATION
SEPARATE SEWER SYSTEMS
INCLUDING TREATMENT PLANTS
EPA REGION V
FIGURE G. 1-8
I.UO
0.50
(/)
": ::::::::: "
— :e:::: ::::::::: ::
f -.
E^:!!:;;:;;:;E;;
il^-.-.-...:..:-.::-,,,.V-.
...... .-
0.10 x SP '-3
0.50 1.00
5 ;:::::
5.00 IO.C
SERVICE POPULATION IN HUNDRED THOUSANDS
-------
1.00
TOTAL COST VS. SERVICE POPULATION
SEPARATE SEWER SYSTEMS
INCLUDING TREATMENT PLANTS
EPA REGION VIII
0.50
V)
DC
o
Q
I
1:
tit
*---!
-HJ
0.10
_J
i
= o
= o
o
f-
rm
-TC = 10.44 * SP°-92
I
-U4-
ttr
0.05
;--t_r±
1
tr
\
f
0.0
+--H-
•1
O.I
0.5
1.0
SERVICE
POPULATION
5.0 10.0
IN TEN THOUSAND
50.0
-------
TOTAL COST VS. SERVICE POPULATION
MIXED SEWER SYSTEMS
INCLUDING TREATMENT PLANTS
EPA REGION II
5.000
CO
o
Q
LJ_
O
0)
z
o
1.000
0.500
- o.ioo
h-
co
o
o
0.050
O
\-
0.010 =
0.005
0.001
0.01
FIGURE G. 1-10
TC = 0.025 x SP1-52
0.05
SERVICE
0.10
POPULATION IN
0.50 1.00 5.00 10.00
HUNDRED THOUSANDS
-------
TOTAL COST VS. SERVICE POPULATION
MIXED SEWER SYSTEMS
INCLUDING TREATMENT PLANTS
EPA REGION V
5.000
co
a:
o
a
u.
o
'.000
0.500
C/)
o
o
<
o
0.010
0.005
0.001
FIGURE G. l-ll
TC = 1.20 x I0~3 SP
0.100
0.050 i^^^
0.001
0.005 0.010 0.050 0.100 0.500 1.000
SERVICE POPULATION IN MILLIONS
-------
TABLE G.2
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT O&M RELATIONSHIPS
SEWER SYSTEMS: TOTAL COST VS TOTAL LENGTH OF GRAVITY SEWERS
Sample Correlation F-Test
Title Equation Size (n) Coefficient (r) Value
Total Cost vs
Total Length of
Gravity Sewers,
National TC = 56.35 x L1-72 132 0.75 172.26
Total Cost of
Gravity Sewers,
Region II TC = 31.14 x L1-90 34 0.78 50.86
Total Cost of
Gravity Sewers,
Region V TC = 14.71 LL89 34 0.75 42.22
Total Cost of
Gravity Sewers,
Region VI TC = 1.44 x 103 x L1-12 6 0.94 29.14
Total Cost of
Gravity Sewers,
Region VIII TC = 1.46 x 103 x L°-97 10 0.94 57.16
Where TC equals total OMSR cost in dollars and
L equals the total length of the gravity sewer system.
-------
50.00
10.00
5.00
u.
o
z
o
1.00
0.50
I-
V)
o
o
<
o
0.10
0.05
0.01
0.005
TOTAL COST VS. TOTAL LENGTH
OF GRAVITY SEWERS
NATIONAL
0.001
10
TC = 56.35 x L
50 100 500 1000
TOTAL LENGTH OF GRAVITY SEWERS IN MILES
( | MILE = 0.622 KILOMETERS)
5000
-------
TOTAL COST VS. TOTAL LENGTH OF GRAVITY SEWERS
EPA REGION II
o.ooi
10
50 100 500 1000 5000 10000
TOTAL LENGTH OF GRAVITY SEWERS IN MILES
(I MILE = 0.622 KILOMETERS)
-------
TOTAL COST VS. TOTAL LENGTH OF GRAVITY SEWERS
EPA REGION V
FIGURE G. 2-3
TC = 14.71 x L
0.001
0.01
TOTAL
005 0.1 0.5 1.0 5.0
LENGTH OF GRAVITY SEWERS IN THOUSANDS OF
(I MILE = 0.622 KILOMETERS)
10.0
MILES
-------
TOTAL COST VS. TOTAL LENGTH
OF GRAVITY SEWERS
EPA REGION VI
FIGURE G. 2-4
IQOO i i t iii II in r :| Nil lil 1 1 IH 1 1 II
r_":::|::::::|:::±::±::::r -::::::: ^==:::::::
5.00 — EE=EEEEEEE = E=EEEE iEE-E™ ": :-E EE EEEEp — =1=:::
-j.-if. ... -+ j-^. x.
o: IT T--- -7- jr :::::: :—J:
" ""^" E
j
-J 1.00 — 5- --t'~ —
0 '" ___i-±::::i:i::::::::::::::::::-::::::_J-LLUUil
II T r- -
\ L, -
Li. ;
O it_±"i:::_:::— ii:., -.:::::: _ii: ::::___i: i^x1:
_l - - -...I... ±
_J ^=^= = = i::T::£:::i==i:::I::::±===r=;::= = = = ==$|:
21 i i 'in ii i Niii iiiii'i lit iiiirrttnin rri 1 1 11 1 n
. -i
^~
L_
tf\
v/ -f-
g 0.10 =--i::±::::::±::::I:::::::j:— :::::--:::::::
1 '
<-^- -r- +, -+- -f 4- 4 - -
J- — -^-- — _...._..._.. ..... 4-.1 _- -- .... ____...... .
° 0.05 — =E|EE = EEEEEE; = ; : :p: |:::=::: ~ =-==:: =- = --ii~: :
: j
i •
001 - I.i.I-.j. — J-... _ ...I..
1 .0 5.0 10.0
__. -.4-. +-, i__^ .4. .
" " T" ' ""' ~~ " Tt ; 1 j ' T* f
1 II II ill 1 1 II 1 1 1 iH^fri
i i ; ; • i
\ \ ' y ; • ' 1 ; :
., .. • „„. , $ \ '' \ -+-
^- -U ] H th" ' X "H- T^H- TTH -p
i xi /i i f~\ 3 i 1 ^ ^ ' ,'li
' • ^ r X 1 \ J L_ "-*4_ f + ' i i i ' '
"""•!i|(T * ' 1 • '•
__. _ . .__ t - ~\ ' 1 . - j -M j ! u_
....1 r_ . — j — _j . . 1 . -^ f\ L p] U|-|- 1 — i -^-J-i-i- — p 4 — f—
-p 1 — j — i — \^ : i — j--|-|-"f- -1— "-i — |- T--J4 -|-
..!.. __^ _| f > I . ; ,_ M-J" "1 "- ••- j i i- -t-i-—
|| '• l/ff "Hf fn i!' 1 1 |i II M ! H-4
• — 1-^ ^7 ; 1 1 1- -f -p; j -[-;- -j-f-j r--
; f , ' ' ' | : '• ' ' ! ' i
\ ! XT , • | | i ! | ! ! ' •
1 j' ! ! • i '• : ; ;
' i ; 1 | •
4- - + --?^ ^^ 1 ^--T^-^-+|0-^
_L i- • _ i _ _ _; • "'"it _ L- -
^ i , i ; :
y j 1 i i , 1 | 1 ; i
1 1 i 1 i L . ' ' ' .
i ! ' '
-- --T - T i . i ! :
50.0 100.0 500.0
T^
^
1
—i— -|—
I |
1
3*
-1- '
! j
j i
-4 — ••-
! -*~
-1— -
IOC
)0.
TOTAL LENGTH OF GRAVITY SEWERS IN MILES
(I MILE = 0.622 KILOMETERS)
-------
TOTAL COST VS. LENGTH OF GRAVITY SEWERS
EPA REGION VIII
FIGURE G. 2-5
-TC = 1.46 x 10° L
10
50 100
TOTAL LENGTH OF GRAVITY SEWERS IN MILES
(I MILE =0.622 KILOMETERS)
500
1000
-------
TABLE G.3
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT O&M RELATIONSHIPS
SEWER SYSTEM: TOTAL COST VS STAFF SIZE
Sample Correlation F-Test
_Title_ Equation Size (n) Coefficient (r) Value
Total Cost vs
Staff Size -
All Systems,
National TC = 1.65 x 104 S1-14 97 0.91 436.82
Total Cost of
Staff,
Region I TC = 1.45 x 104 S1-20 6 0.99 149.10
Total Cost of
Staff,
Region II TC = 1.65 x 104 S1'12 28 0.92 151.14
Total Cost of
Staff,
Region III TC = 2.19 x 104 S1-07 5 0.96 35.39
Total Cost of
Staff,
Region IV TC = 1.84 x 104 S1-05 23 0.84 50.55
Total Cost of
Staff,
Region V TC = 8.58 x 103 S1-34 13 0.91 51.70
Total Cost of
Staff, „ Q,
Region VIII TC = 2.46 x 104 S'91 9 0.91 31.85
Where TC equals total OM&R cost in dollars and
S equals the size of the staff to maintain the sewer system.
-------
TOTAL OSM COST VS. STAFF SIZE
NATIONAL
.0014
5 1.0 5.0 10.0
STAFF SIZE
50.0 100.0
-------
TOTAL OSM COST VS. STAFF SIZE
EPA REGION I
FIGURE G.3-2j
.10
-------
TOTAL OS M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
EPA REGION II
FIGURE G.3-3
10.0
IOQO
STAFF SIZE
-------
TOTAL 0 SM COST VS. STAFF SIZE
EPA REGION III
FIGURE G. 3-4
l.OO
TC = 2.19 xl04S1'07
.01
STAFF SIZE
-------
TOTAL O&M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
EPA REGION IV
FIGURE G. 3-5
' 1 *"™™"™""~°~~1™— — -—•••.«...
T •••"•-— ™ — —--..... ..
"":ri = :—j::::: ----:;::
1 1 p — ^ I j .:::: ~z ip z: :: = n — ^
' T "T :^ ::^:::;---=f:f -: :: ----~:~~:~
CO -ppITtJf-...:: :£:::::: :::::: -4- ~
ec. | i | p_|i i|| |||| i||[ p || 1 1 | [I }-^4+|j|jj||||||iJ
j — ^--rtj-r^H'--^-^ — :::::::::::
j ^^ttTTTTt-'-^-^-- 4
0 I.O-=t=ptt^F:r4trt:::=ffti*-"" """:::£" i
Q EEt*jEip;;i l=£;;l; EEEEEEIEEEEEE""^^
|j_ — | — M— ! i [-1- -+H | -H- 4 1 L -1- - --
O Mil -^r-^^ttl- -| i— ttt
CO — ^—^11:=^ =J = :E::^3 — EE - "=£ — = = = = :: i ^^ i
Z .5C ^— -^T^-^ EEr--£:^;S -E--";- --:i:::::::::
o fe^^u^M^ ji : u m~p^^^
J ! T{^"Tt T'H
j | i i : ^^-U.- |__|__.-t.^ i
5 E=^*Hi;g=|;;:--^---;--3-="""=p-"EE::;"::;;
Z i4^^±ff^±if E = ^rr|r::+ == == -- ± -4E^------ :::::::
co ~=^tnT^itf'{"n^"^""T 1— H- J— -
O | | ! | -H^-^-O....! -- ^--u. ^
o —- H--1— -4+ h--n- 1
O ±-::::::::::::::: :i:::::::::: : -:::::! -:::::::::::::
j — i""±i±"""i4i± ± — '
° -°5n i ill I4ir
h EE^EEEE:iE:iiiii::*E[ij;::;;:EEE:|jj=lEE=mj;!!:::;;
| | | j | | | j 1 1 1 ii| 1 1 Ullli i- 1 1 ' 1 r 1 II 1 HI f\\
.Oil ''I' llliil:lllllllillNllilil|IIHI 1 llllll| M 1 IMMMHIIII
°-> 0.5 .0
t.. "" " ' ! ji 1 '
4 |.05 --^--A-~~~'r-- • •
TC - 1.84 X 10 S— -:;::::ft: ::':+" tt^i^::^
llllllllllllllllllllll'iiiiiii:!;;
' ~~" ...,-- -- -- .. 7 ~*~ "~~1 — H" ' — •" ~~
III Illll \\\m\\ II II llfll tt II II rlrrrrHii ''iPT m
--• -+ - --- g it • TT ^" ;
-- -H .---p'-il 1 1 - -4- -<- -1-4-1- -J-f- >-4--'
/ , , | 1 l
-J-XT 4~~- H - j_i
- • ..--- -_-- ... __t_._j ^ ..J.J
IM 1 iilBinil
— ..i.. .- .^p -,. — j-
5.0 10.0 50.0 1-00
STAFF SIZE
-------
TOTAL 0 8 M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
EPA REGION V
FIGURE G.3-6
l.OO-
.501
tr
<
o
o
EEt
TC = 8.58X |Q3S134
.10
:tr:
CO
o
o
05
O
O
.05
.01
to
STAFF SIZE
50
100
-------
1.00
TOTAL O a M COST VS. STAFF SIZE
EPA REGION VIII
1.0
10.0
50.0
100.0
STAFF SIZE
-------
TABLE G.4
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT O&M RELATIONSHIPS
SEWER SYSTEMS: STAFF SIZE VS SERVICE POPULATION
Sample Correlation F-Test
Title Equation Size (n) Coefficent (r) Value
All Sewer Systems
National S = 2.74 x 10~6 SP1-44 143 0.81 260.13
and
-------
STAFF SIZE VS. SERVICE POPULATION
NATIONAL
1000.0
S= 2.74 x IODSP
5 10 50 100 500 1000
SERVICE POPULATION IN THOUSANDS
-------
TABLE G ._5
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT O&M RELATIONSHIPS
SEWER SYSTEMS: STAFF SIZE VS LENGTH OF GRAVITY SEWERS
Sample Correlation F-Test
Title Equation Size (n) Coefficient (r) Value
Staff Size vs
Length of Gravity
Sewers - All
Systems, National S = 2.81 x 10~3 L1-72 127 0.68 111.92
-------
STAFF SIZE VS. TOTAL LENGTH OF GRAVITY SEWERS
100.0
10 100 1000
TOTAL LENGTH OF GRAVITY SEWERS (MILES)
10000
-------
TABLE G.6
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT O&M RELATIONSHIPS
SEWER SYSTEMS: OPERATING COST VS STAFF SIZE
Sample Correlation F-Test
Title Equation Size (n) Coefficient (r) Value
All Sewer Systems
National OC = 1.39 x 104 S1-1^ 114 0.88 385.48
Where OC equals operating cost of the sewer system and
S equals the size of the staff to maintain the sewer system.
-------
OPERATING COST VS. STAFF SIZE
NATIONAL
10.000
OC=l.39x I04S"6
.001
10.0
100.0
STAFF SIZE
-------
TABLE G.7
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT O&M RELATIONSHIPS
POWER COSTS VS PUMPING CAPACITY
Sample Correlation F-Test
Title Equation Size (n) Coefficient (r) Value
Power Costs vs
Total Pumping
Capacity (mgd).
National PC = 3.44 x 102(PC:mgd)1•59 63 0.72 65.34
Power Costs vs
Total Horse-
power of Pump
Stations,
National PC = 4.35 x HP1-44 63 0.73 69.37
Power Costs vs
Total Pumping
Capacity,
Region II PC = 2.75 x 102(PCrmgd)]•73 21 0.72 20.36
Power Costs vs
Total Pumping
Capacity,
Region III PC = 1.24 x 103(PC:mgd)°-90 10 0.83 17.32
Where PC equals power costs,
PC:mgd equals total pumping capacity in million gallons per day, and
HP equals horsepower of pump stations.
-------
POWER COST VS. TOTAL PUMPING CAPACITY
SEWER SYSTEMS NATIONAL
O
Q
CO
O
Z
O
x
Q
Z
X
Z
tn
O
U
Q£
LU
O
Q_
3.44 x 102 {PC: AAGD)
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
TOTAL PUMPING CAPACITY (MGD)
(1000 M3 / DAY = 3.785 MGD)
50.0 100.0
-------
POWER COST VS TOTAL HORSEPOWER
OF PUMP STATIONS
NATIONAL
50.00
CO
(Z
O
Q
U_
O
CO
Q
2
<
CO
r>
O
x
H
Q
LJ
QC.
a
CO
O
O
tr
LU
5
o
Q.
10.00
5.00
1.00
0.50^
0.10 s*
0.05
0.01
0.005
0.001
FIGURE G. 7-2
-.,-!:!.,
PC = 4. 35 x HP
10 50 100 500 1000
TOTAL HORSEPOWER OF PUMP STATIONS IN H
5000 10000
UNDREDS
-------
FIGURE G. 7- 3
POWER COSTS VS. TOTAL PUMPING CAPACITY
EPA .REGION II
10.000
to
o: 5.000
O
O
1.000
0.500
CO
O
to
r>
o
X
h-
Q
LU
CC
Q
x o.ioo
-------
POWER COST VS. TOTAL PUMPING CAPACITY
EPA REGION III
10.00
5.00
o
Q
CO
Q
CO
^
o
X
t-
LU
h-
- 0.10
1.00
0.50
CO
o
o
en
LJ
o
CL
0.05
0.01
5.0 10.0 50.0 100.0
TOTAL PUMPING CAPACITY (MGD)
(1000 M3 = 3.785 MGD)
500.0 1000.0
-------
CONVERSION EQUIVALENTS TO METRIC UNITS
1000 cubic meters per day = mgd x 3.785
1000 kilograms (metric ton) = tons x 0.907
kilograms = pounds x 0.454
kilometers = miles x 1.609
kilowatts = horsepower x 0.7457
-------
REFERENCES
Gulp, Gordon, 1977, Environmental pollution control alternatives:
Municipal Wastewater, U.S. EPA Technology Transfer (EPA-625/5-76-
012).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 1977, Cost estimates for
construction of publicly-owned wastewater treatment facilities:
Summaries of Technical Data (Categories I-IV), MCD-48B, 430/9-76-
011.
------- |