1969
THE REPORT
68
70
71
72
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
-------
THE COST OF CLEAN WATER AND ITS
ECONOMIC IMPACT
Volume I
THE REPORT
U. S. Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
January 10, 1969
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.75
-------
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
2 - 1969
Dear Mr. President:
This transmits our complete 1969 report to the Congress on The Cost of
Clean Water and its Economic Impact, pursuant to Section l6(a) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. The Introduction and
Summary and Conclusions for this report were transmitted on January 16,
1969, by Secretary Udall.
Volume I, The Report, updates our 1968 analysis of costs contained in the
first report, The Cost of Clean Water, submitted to the Congress last year,
The 1969 report recognizes the progress made in providing waste treatment
for sewered communities while pointing up the need for continuing high
levels of investment in upgrading, expanding, and replacing the capital
base which has been provided. It concludes that the current and expected
short-run rate of investment in municipal waste treatment facilities is
inadequate to meet water quality improvement requirements by 1973.
Although industrial expenditure data are sketchy, they indicate that, in
general, industry has a correspondingly more adequate rate of investment
in wastewater treatment facilities.
Volume II, Appendix, provides supporting summary data from the 1962 and
1968 Federal Water Pollution Control Administration Municipal Waste
Treatment Inventories, and the State water quality standards implementa-
tion plans. In addition, the Appendix contains State and industrial
comments on the 1968 report.
Volume III, Sewerage Charges, addresses itself to methods of financing
wastewater collection and treatment systems and discusses the considera-
tions pertinent to the selection of a user charge program by local
governmental units as a means for raising needed revenues. Based upon a
hypothetical model approach, the impact of various user charge methods
on each of several classes of users of wastewater systems is analyzed.
The findings of this report support the application of user charges to
finance a portion of the costs of sewage collection and treatment systems.
The choice of the most favorable user charge method should be made on
an individual basis by the local governmental unit concerned due to the
myriad factors to be considered in such a choice.
11
-------
A fourth volume is an industrial waste profile of the organic chemicals
industry which was prepared by several well-qualified firms in the
industrial water pollution control field. The profile includes (l) a
five year projected range of cost estimates for attaining various levels
of water pollution control by this important industry sector and (2) improved
methodology for projecting treatment cost estimates for other industries.
We feel that the work reported on here is a significant step forward in
the understanding of the economic aspects of water pollution control.
Sincerely yours,
Assistant
Hon. Spiro T. Agnew
President of the Senate
United States Senate
Washington, B.C. 20f>10
Enclosure
ill
-------
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20240
Ai-R Z - 1969
Dear Mr. Speaker:
This transmits our complete 1969 report to the Congress on The Cost of
Glean Water and its Economic Impact, pursuant to Section l6(a) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. The Introduction and
Summary and Conclusions for this report were transmitted on January 16,
1969, by Secretary Udall.
Volume I, The Report, updates our 1968 analysis of costs contained in the
first report, The Cost of Clean Water, submitted to the Congress last year.
The 1969 report recognizes the progress made in providing waste treatment
for sewered communities while pointing up the need for continuing high
levels of investment in upgrading, expanding, and replacing the capital
base which has been provided. It concludes that the current and expected
short-run rate of investment in municipal waste treatment facilities is
inadequate to meet water quality improvement requirements by 1973.
Although industrial expenditure data are sketchy, they indicate that, in
general, industry has a correspondingly more adequate rate of investment
in wastewater treatment facilities.
Volume H, Appendix, provides supporting summary data from the 1962 and
1968 Federal Water Pollution Control Administration Municipal Waste
Treatment Inventories, and the State water quality standards implementa-
tion plans. In addition, the Appendix contains State and industrial
comments on the 1968 report.
Volume III, Sewerage Charges, addresses itself to methods of financing
wastewater collection and treatment systems and discusses the considera-
tions pertinent to the selection of a user charge program by local
governmental units as a means for raising needed revenues. Based upon a
hypothetical model approach, the impact of various user charge methods
on each of several classes of users of wastewater systems is analyzed.
The findings of this report support the application of user charges to
finance a portion of the costs of sewage collection and treatment systems.
The choice of the most favorable user charge method should be made on
an individual basis by the local governmental unit concerned due to the
myriad factors to be considered in such a choice.
IV
-------
A fourth volume is an industrial waste profile of the organic chemicals
industry which was prepared by several well-qualified firms in the
industrial water pollution control field. The profile includes (l) a
five year projected range of cost estimates for attaining various levels
of water pollution control by this important industry sector and (2) improved
methodology for projecting treatment cost estimates for other industries.
¥e feel that the work reported on here is a significant step forward in
the understanding of the economic aspects of water pollution control.
Sincerely
Assist
of the Interior
Hon. John W. McCormack
Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Washington, B.C. 20£LJ>
Enclosure
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6
GOALS AND PERFORMANCE - THE BACKGROUND FOR EVALUATION 21
THE BACKLOG CONCEPT 21
THE INVESTMENT BACKGROUND 22
MEASURING PROGRESS AGAINST GOALS 26
THE ELEMENTS OF INVESTMENTS 35
WASTE TREATMENT 35
Increasing Marginal Costs 40
Higher Treatment Requirements 42
Increasing Size of Plant 43
Accelerating Industrial Connections 48
Technological and Institutional Development 51
INTERCEPTOR SEWERS 55
COLLECTING SEWERS 66
REPLACEMENT AND DEPRECIATION 73
HISTORICAL REPLACEMENT EXPENDITURES 73
DEPRECIATION 73
PRICE LEVEL CHANGES 79
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS . 84
CURRENT LEVEL OF EXPENDITURES 84
INFLUENCES ON OPERATION COST 86
Size of Plant 87
Treatment Processes 89
Degree of Treatment 89
Wastes Composition 93
Location 97
OPERATING COST TRENDS 98
Method of Assessment 98
Degree of Increase 101
Cost-Moderating Influences 105
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Page
TOWARD THE DEFINITION OF AN APPROPRIATE RATE OF INVESTMENT 109
THE CURRENT SITUATION 110
STATES' VIEWS OF THEIR NEEDS 114
REGIONAL COST DIFFERENCES 124
THE DEVELOPING INVESTMENT GAP 128
STORM AND COMBINED SEWER POLLUTION CONTROL 131
SCOPE OF PROBLEM 131
LOCATION OF COMBINED SEWER PROBLEMS 134
CASE STUDIES 137
Chicago, Illinois 138
Cleveland, Ohio 139
Boston, Massachusetts 141
Minneapolis-St. Paul 143
INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION 144
SUMMARY OF LAST YEAR'S ESTIMATES 144
COMMENTS ON INITIAL ESTIMATES 150
INDUSTRY EXPENDITURES 150
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 150
ORGANIC CHEMICAL WASTE PROFILE 152
Methodology 153
Capital Cost 153
Operating Costs 154
The Organic Chemical Industry 155
Improved Methodology for Wastewater
Treatment Cost Estimates 156
THERMAL POLLUTION 158
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 159
INDUSTRIAL WASTE INVENTORY 161
OTHER EFFLUENTS 163
WASTES FROM WATERCRAFT 164
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM 164
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 165
TREATMENT METHODS 166
COST 169
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
CONTROL METHODS
COSTS
MINE DRAINAGE 179
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM 179
DAMAGES 180
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM 181
CHARACTERISTICS OF MINE DRAINAGE 182
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 183
CONTROL METHODS 186
COSTS 192
OIL FIELD AND CHEMICAL BRINES 196
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM 196
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM 197
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 198
CONTROL MEASURES 198
COSTS 199
POLLUTION BY OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 201
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM 201
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM 202
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 204
CONTROL METHODS 204
COSTS 206
FEEDLOT POLLUTION 208
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM 208
SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM 210
TREATMENT METHODS 210
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 211
COSTS 211
SALINITY FROM IRRIGATION 213
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Page
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM 213
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 213
COST 214
RESEARCH 214
NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT 217
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM 217
COSTS 218
PESTICIDES IN SURFACE AND GROUND WATERS 215
RADIOACTIVE INDUSTRIAL WASTES 216
REFERENCES CITED 219
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1 Distribution of Gross Waste Handling
Investments, 1952-1966 23
2 Shifting Structure of Investments, 1952-1966 25
3 Comparison of Calculated Investment Requirements
With Reported Rate of Water Pollution Control
Investments, 1967 29
4 Comparison of Calculated Investment
Requirements with Estimated Rate of
Water Pollution Control Investments, 1968 31
5 Summary of Waste Handling Investments, 1952-1967 37
6 New Treatment Plants Constructed, 1952-1967 39
7 Percent of Total New Treatment Plant
Investment Made in Towns of Less Than 10,000
Persons, 1952 to 1967 41
8 Ratio of Designed Plant Size to Actual
Domestic Loading in 1968 46
9 Increase or (Decrease) in Number of Plants
of Various Design Capacities, 1962-1968 47
10 Ratio of Total Waste Loadings to Domestic
Waste Loadings 1968, by Size of Place 49
11 Lagoons as a Percent of Total New Plants 53
12 Prevalence of Joint Municipal Facilities, 1962;
Number of Communities and Population Served,
by Size of Place 56
13 Cost Per Person Added to Population Served by
Waste Treatment, 1957-1962 and 1962-1968 59
14 Percentage of Public Waste Treatment Investment
for Interceptors and Outfall Sewers, by Size
of Place, 1956-1966 64
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Table Title Page
15 Prevalence of Waste Treatment and Availability
of Treatment Capacity in Major Cities 65
16 Sewer Systems Installed, 1857-1960 69
17 Indicated Increase in Depreciation 76
18 Relative Impacts of Depreciation and
Inflation on Replacement Over Time. 82
19 Generalized Operating Costs by Size of Place
85
20 Relative Concentration of BOD, Domestic
Sewage and Organic Industrial Wastes 96
21 Elements of Calculation, 1967 Operating Costs 100
22 Indicated Trend of Gross Operating Charges,
1957-1967 103
23 Trends in Unit Operating Costs, 1957-1962 104
24 Patterns of Process Change in Waste Treatment,
1957-1962 106
25 1967 Municipal Waste Inventory Summary 111
26 Increased or (Decrease) in Municipal Waste
Treatment 1962-1968 112
27 Construction Requirements Defined in State
Water Quality Standards: Total Projects,
36 States 117
28 Generalized. Evaluation of Water Quality
Standards-Defined Pollution Control Needs 118
29 Comparison of 1968 FWPCA Estimate and 1969
State Program Plans Estimate of Needs 121
30 Summary of Municipal Pollution Control Program
Status, by State 125
xi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Table Title Page
31 Estimated Cost for Separation of Storm and
Sanitary Sewers. Top 12 States with Estimated
Costs of Approximately One Billion Dollars or
Greater. 134
32 Area ana Population of Communities Served by
Combined Sewers (Greater than 10,000 Acres) 136
33 Estimated Cash Outlays to Meet 1968 and Projected
Industrial Waste Treatment Requirements, FY
1969-1973 (Constant 1968 Dollars) 145
34 Estimated Value of Investment, Industrial Waste
Treatment Requirements, 1968 (Based on Industrial
Waste Profiles) 146
35 Regional Distribution of Waste Treatment
Requirements, 1968, by Wastewater Profiles and
Estimates 147
36 Annual Investment Required to Reduce the Existing
Industrial Waste Treatment Deficiency in Five
Years (Wastewater Profiles and Estimates) 148
37 Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs, 1968-1973149
38 Estimated Capital Outlays to Attain Specified
Levels of BOD, COD, and Suspended Solids Removal,
1969-1973 154
39 Summary of United States Vessels with Sanitary
Facilities Using United States Waters, 1967 165
40 Summary of the Advantages and Disadvantages of
Currently Available Waste-Handling Equipment 167
41 Estimated Cost Through 1974 of Equipping Various
Classes of Vessels with Sewage Treatment
Equipment 170
42 Pollution Problems Associated with Mining 182
43 Coal Mine Drainage Classes 184
XII
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Table Title Page
44 Contribution of Acid Pollution in the United
States by Type of Mine (Percent) 185
45 Effectiveness of Drift and Shaft Mine Preventive
Control Methods 187
46 Effectiveness of Surface Mine Preventive Control
Methods 188
47 Potential Treatment Processes for Mine Drainage 190
48 Effectiveness of Mine Drainage Treatment 191
49 Estimated Unit Costs for Drainage Control 193
50 Estimated Cost to Reduce Acid in Mine Drainage by
40 Percent and 95 Percent Over the Next 20 Years
(Constant 1968 Dollars) 195
51 Production and Disposition of Oil Field Brine in
the United States (1963) 197
52 Recent Large Ship Disasters Involving Oil
Pollution 204
53 Livestock Waste Characteristics 209
Xlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1 Captial Allocation Trends: Expansion
and Replacement vs. New Treatment
Plants 27
2 Annual Number of Contracted Projects by
Category, 1952-67 36
3 Generalized Per-Capita Construction
Cost of Basic Waste Treatment Processes 44
4 Public Investment for Interceptor Sewers
and Outfalls, 1952-67 57
5 Relative Application of Economies of
Scale, Waste Treatment Plants and Inter-
ceptor Sewers 62
6 Sanitary Sewer Investment, 1952-67 67
7 Increasing Annual Depreciation Charges,
1940-67 77
8 Accumulated Depreciation: Interceptors
and Outfalls, Sewage Treatment Plants 80
9 Growth of Replacement Costs, 1940-67,
Relative Influence of Depreciation and
Price Levels Over Time. 83
10 Operating and Maintenance Costs, By
Type of Treatment 88
11 Cost of Operating and Maintaining Treat-
ment Plant at Increasing Degrees of
Efficiency, Town of 1000 Person 91
12 Prevalence of Waste Treatment in each
State, 1968 113
13 Prevalence of Secondary Treatment Among
the States, 1968 116
14 Number of New Treatment Plants Required
in each States, 1968 119
15 Relative Cost of Complete Sewer Separation,
by States 135
xiv
-------
INTRODUCTION
Section 16(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended, directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
three studies each year for transmittal to the Congress by
January 10th of the following year. One is a study of the
cost of carrying out the Act; another, a study of the economic
impact on affected units of government due to the cost of
installing waste treatment facilities; and the third, a study
of the national requirements for and the cost of treating
municipal, industrial, and other effluent to attain water
quality standards established under the Act or applicable
State law. The first series of studies, covering the five-
year period beginning July 1, 1968, was submitted in January
1968. Annual updating reports are required each January there-
after. This report comprises a combined updating of the second
and third studies -- the economic impact and the national
requirements and cost estimate studies.
LAST YEAR'S REPORT
Last year's cost estimate study, The Cost of Clean Water,
projected needs over the FY 1969-1973 period at $24 billion to
$26 billion, exclusive of the currently completely unpredict-
able costs of dealing with the combined storm and sanitary sewer
problem and the equally uncertain costs of dealing with such
"other effluents" as those related to agricultural runoff, mine
drainage, animal feedlots, oil pollution, and the like. The
$24 billion to $26 billion estimate included projected capital
outlays of (1) $8.0 billion for municipal treatment works,
(2) $6.2 billion for sanitary sewer construction, (3) $2.6
billion to $4.6 billion for industrial waste treatment, (4)
an upper limit estimate of $1.8 billion for industrial cooling
treatment, and (5) operation and maintenance costs for municipal
and industrial treatment facilities ranging from $5.3 billion
to $5.7 billion. The $24 billion to $26 billion estimate is
based upon the assumption of unchanging 1968 dollar values.
These total estimates would rise to the $26 billion to $29
billion range assuming a continuation of historical increases
in construction costs.
Last year's report presented a comprehensive overview of
the costs of meeting water quality standards requirements.
Allthough comprehensive, the results are considered extremely
tentative, necessarily being based upon a series of assumptions.
Chief among the assumptions were those relating to levels of
cost, population bases for estimating purposes, current plant
- l -
-------
in place, and the levels of treatment required to achieve water
quality standards. In addition, the study represented a first
step towards estimating industrial waste control alternatives
and costs.
Yet, despite these difficulties, it was apparent that
those cost estimates were the most complete and valid estimates
yet made on the macro-economic level. It was further apparent
that not enough new information could be developed in the
ensuing year, nor would the state of the pollution control sit-
uation change enough in one year, to warrant a massive attempt
to further refine all these estimates. Attempting to concen-
trate upon all pollution areas would have resulted in no real
improvement in the depth of understanding in any particular
area and would have resulted in confusing and meaningless
changes in the estimates without decreasing their probable error.
Therefore, with the exception of changes in tentative cost
estimates in the mine drainage, wastes from watercraft, and
erosion and sedimentation problem areas, present estimates of
cost remain as reported in last year's study.
THE CURRENT STUDY
This year's report includes four volumes. Volume I, The
Report, comprises the cost estimate and economic impact studies
required by the Congress. Volume II, Appendix, contains much
of the detailed raw data upon which the municipal pollution
section in Volume I is based as well as the reactions of State
water pollution control agencies and key industrial organi-
zations to last year's report, The Cost of Clean Water. Volume
III, Sewerage Charges, is a study of local financing of waste-
water treatment systems prepared at the request of the Senate
Committee on Public Works. The last volume is an industrial
wastewater profile entitled, Projected Wastewater Treatment
Costs in the Organic Chemicals Industry.
It is the intent of FWPCA in updating this report each
year to concentrate on particular aspects of the overall problem,
proceeding step-by-step to a more refined and sophisticated
analysis of overall remedial costs. The aspects to be investi-
gated in depth each year will be selected primarily on their
magnitude, priority of importance in implementing the pollution
control program, and on the availability of data.
In preparing this year's updated report, emphasis was
placed on developing a deeper understanding of municipal pol-
lution problems and their cost aspects. Accordingly, rather
- 2 -
-------
than revising the existing estimates of required expenditures
presented last year, this year's study attempts to examine the
factors that determine investment levels, to establish the
current rate of investment, and to express some judgments
as to any differences that may exist between existing expendi-
tures and the pursuit of some national goals for municipal
waste treatment.
Techniques used in this year's report were possible only
because major improvements in information were gained during
the course of 1968. The basic sources of data used were the
compilation of annual contract awards for waste treatment
and collection, the 1968 FWPCA municipal waste inventory,
and the pollution control plans of the individual States.
Of the three, only reported contract awards were available
a year ago. It must be pointed out, however, that there
are penalties involved in using very current data. This
report was completed at a time when the municipal waste
inventories for five of the 50 States remained to be
assembled, when the inventory data for the remaining States
were largely preliminary and unverified, and before State
program plans were fully analyzed or reduced to a consistent
format. As a result, distortions and errors of fact are
inevitably associated with portions of this report. In
addition, because the data were in rough form, many of the
conclusions drawn must be considered as tentative until such
data can be verified as to accuracy. It is felt, however,
that these shortcomings will be more than compensated for by
the greater breadth and currency made possible by the use of
the preliminary data.
Two important points should be kept in mind in reading
the municipal section of the report. First, the reader should
be alerted that the term "new plant" refers to a waste treatment
plant providing treatment for the first time to a sewered
community and not, for example, to a municipality which
modernizes or replaces equipment at an existing plant or adds
a new plant as part of an existing overall municipal system.
Second, where expenditures in preceding years for waste treatment
are discussed, those expenditures refer to current dollars
unless otherwise specified as constant dollars. For example,
expenditures in 1958 as compared with expenditures in 1964
are not adjusted to any common base insofar as the value of the
dollar was concerned unless specifically indicated in the text.
Another area of concern deals with the problems and methods
of financing local government investments in wastewater treat-
ment systems. An appraisal of sewerage service charges was
8-677 O-69-2 — 3~
-------
made, both from historical and theoretical viewpoints, as
was an investigation of the potential of such charges for meet-
ing revenue requirements. The dearth of information in many
highly important areas of these investigations led to FWPCA'S
sponsoring a comprehensive survey of wastewater system financ-
ing which is being carried out by the International City Mana-
gers' Association. The results of this survey are expected to
provide information of considerable value in preparing next
year's report.
To a lesser extent, certain aspects of estimating indus-
trial costs have been refined during the past year. The indus-
trial wastewater profile study performed under contract for FWPCA
investigated two such aspects. First, it presents a five year
projection of estimated costs of controlling pollution from the
organic chemical industry, an extremely important sector
of the industrial community, which was not included among the
industrial profiles (The Cost of Clean Water, Volume III) pre-
pared last year. Second,the profile developed a new and
promising technique for approaching the overall problem of
estimating industrial costs. The results of the contractors'
effort are summarized in the Industrial Pollution section of
Volume I and the profile is published in its entirety as another
volume of this year's report. Although the profile provides
cost estimates for the organic chemical industry and signifi-
cant help in analyzing industrial treatment costs, it does not
provide sufficient new information to warrant changing the
industrial estimates presented in last year's report. In
future reports, however, the results of this and other analy-
tical efforts will be devoted to reducing the range of cost
estimates so far developed.
During the year, a series of invitations were extended and
meetings held with industrial organizations to receive comments
on last year's industrial estimates. As a result of the com-
ments, additional valuable insights into the problems of estimat-
ing industrial costs were gained which will be put to use in
future analyses. Comments from several trade organizations are
included in Volume II.
Further evaluation of techniques for estimating industrial
costs again has emphasized the need for an industrial waste
inventory to provide a baseline for analysis of the industrial
pollution problem. As estimating techniques become more sophis-
ticated and reliable, the need for such inventory data will be
even more severely limiting to the reliability of the final
estimates of cost.
- 4 -
-------
The information presented on pollution stemming from "other
effluent" sources has merely been updated with current develop-
ments. The discussions in last year's report reflected the
extreme difficulty of delineating the extent and magnitude of
these problems, the unclear understanding of how control may be
affected, and the dearth of information on remedial costs.
Progress in the last year has added only minimally to knowledge
in these areas. The report does, however, describe the general
requirements of State water quality standards as they apply to
these diffuse "other effluent" sources; information completely
unavailable for inclusion in last year's report.
Other Federal agencies also are studying various aspects
of the nation's water pollution problem. For example, the U. S.
Department of Agriculture's efforts are reflected in its March
1968 publication "Wastes in Relation to Agriculture and For-
estry." An Ad Hoc Committee of the Office of Science and Tech-
nology also has been working on agricultural subject areas as
they relate to the water pollution problem. As cost data from
these investigations become available, they will be accommodated
in future updatings of these annual reports.
Finally, this report presents a measure of the progress
which has been made during the past year. The cost figures dev-
eloped for last year's report provide estimated rates of invest-
ment in municipal and industrial pollution control which must
be maintained over the short run if the nation's clean water
goals are to be attained within the projected time period.
Actual expenditure data compared to these normative rates pro-
vide a measure of the progress being achieved. In the final
analysis, this measurement of progress in attaining our water
quality goals is perhaps the most important contribution which
this report can make as it is updated from year to year.
- 5 -
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This section presents the summary and conclusions of the
second annual report on national requirements and costs and
economic impact on local governments in attaining the nation's
clean water goals. Volume I, The Report, reaches the following
conclusions:
1. Over 901 of the sewered population of the United
States is currently connected to waste treatment
plants, and about 60% is served by secondary waste
treatment. It should be noted that these percent-
ages do not include current data for the States of
Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Iowa and Arkan-
sas. Inclusion of such current data would make
these percentages even higher. Prevalence of treat-
ment is greatest in States west of the Mississippi
River in the coterminous U.S. Untreated sewered
population not connected to treatment plants is
concentrated in the New England States, New York,
Pennsylvania. The southeastern States provide
a secondary focus of population without waste
treatment, and Alaska and Hawaii have a very low
incidence of waste treatment. Deficiencies in
providing needed secondary treatment are apparent
in the same geographical areas.
2. Since 1952, the nation has invested about $15
billion in municipal and industrial waste-handling
facilities. Of the total, 59% has been used to
install collecting sewers and interceptors; 30% has
been used to construct new municipal plan 5 and to
construct or expand industrial waste treatment plants;
and 11% has been expended in connection with municipal
facility upgrading, expansion, and replacement needs.
After rising at an annual rate in excess of 8.5%
between 1952 and 1963, total outlays have been almost
unchanged over the last five years (i.e., 1963-
1968). Of the increase since 1952, roughly half has
been due to price level changes. While investment in
new treatment plants has been declining in recent
years, and collection sewer investments have exper-
ienced a continuous decline in constant dollar value
of investment, expenditures for interceptor sewers
have been rising; and the portion of the total annual
investment devoted to system upgrading, replacement,
and expansion has grown almost 50%.
- 6 -
-------
On the basis of limited information available in the
absence of an industrial waste inventory, largely
surveys conducted by McGraw-Hill Inc., and the National
Industrial Conference Board, industrial expenditures
for waste treatment facilities in the last two years
appeared to be very close to target amounts establish-
ed in the initial report on The Cost of Clean Water.
Municipal investment, however, was less than half that
proposed under the assumptions underlying that report,
with the deficiencies most noticeable in the cases of
collection sewers and upgrading, expansion, and
replacement of treatment plants. Because a good part
of the necessary expansion capital appears to have
been available in the form of added capacity to meet
future needs in already installed plants, and because
need for another portion of the estimated expansion
capital was dependent on the rate of collection
sewer installation, it is difficult to characterize
the significance of the deficiency in municipal
investment.
Expenditures estimated by 40 of the 50 States in
their program plans indicate that municipal waste
handling investments over the five year period, 1969
to 1973, will amount to about $6 billion. The level
of spending anticipated by these State plans is
roughly equal to that spent during the last five
years. To some extent, the States' views of their
capital needs are independent of the prevalence of
treatment achieved to date--while the eight north-
eastern States that contain over half of the nation's
untreated population propose significant increases
in expenditures, some States with near-complete
installation of secondary waste treatment see no
decline in future spending, and others with signi-
ficant treatment deficiencies (Alaska and Hawaii,
for example) indicate no increase in spending.
However, experience has indicated that State
estimates are constrained by the amount of Federal
funds anticipated to be available over the period
of estimate.
Upgrading, expansion, and replacement needs for
plants, interceptors and outfalls account for a stead-
ily increasing portion of total waste-handling invest-
ments. Currently, spending for those purposes is about
equal to investment for new waste treatment plants.
However, because the level of expenditures for expansion
- 7 -
-------
and replacement has been rising by about $40 million a
year for the last four years, it is very likely that
such outlays will exceed new plant investments during
1969. Replacement costs have been controlled to a
very considerable degree by the low average of treat-
ment plants in service; but the average useful life of
a waste treatment plant is such that during the next
five years the first surge of construction following
World War II should be reflected in a sharp rise in
replacement needs. There seem to be great expansion
and replacement needs in cities of all sizes. Up-
grading and expansion investments should also begin
in the future to be conditioned by the appearance
in some situations of a need for advanced waste
treatment.
6. A number of influences are acting to push investment
requirements upward in spite of the high prevalence
of municipal waste treatment. The average size of
plant has increased markedly in recent years, as has
the tendency of municipalities to treat industrial
wastes. Existing data suggest that about half of the
total volume of wastes processed by municipal plants
is of industrial origin; and the portion seems to be
rising. Costs of interception are rising as
municipalities extend the reach of their collection
systems. In addition, the degree of treatment re-
quired of waste-handling facilities is increasing in
many cases and with it the unit cost of treatment.
7. There appear to be very significant differences in
construction costs among various regions in the
nation. On the whole, a low average cost of construct-
ion correlates positively with a high prevalence of
treatment. The reasons for apparent cost differences
are not understood, but the significance is clear.
Those areas in which the most construction will be
needed to achieve an adequate level of waste
treatment are the very areas in which construction
costs appear to be the highest, which should tend
to push upward the total national investment for an
adequate level of treatment.
8. Operating and maintenance costs associated with muni-
cipal waste treatment plants now aggregate $150 million
to $200 million a year. Though operating costs have
doubled in the last decade, their rise has not been as
rapid as the increase in population served by waste
— Q «
-------
treatment, largely because of a combination of circum-
stances involving average size of place served by waste
treatment, increased use of oxidation ponds, and a
high relative use of primary waste treatment in the
larger cities of the nation. The force of these influ-
ences is lessening, and a growing need for treatment
of sewage for phosphorus reduction is being expressed
largely as an influence on operating costs. In addi-
tion, increased emphasis on upgrading operational
efficiency and the need to increase operator wages will
tend to further increase total operating and main-
tenance costs. For these reasons, the costs of operat-
and maintaining the nation's municipal waste treatment
plants may be expected to rise very sharply in the
immediate future.
9. Long-held expectations that the investment requirements
associated with municipal waste treatment would be
eased when some fixed "backlog" of needed treatment
works was worked off do not seem likely to be borne
out by events. As treatment deficiencies give way to
new plant construction, investment requirements
imposed by replacement, upgrading, and treatment of
industrial wastes have been taking their place. In
addition, it appears that investment in waste treat-
ment thus far has been for those plants with lower
unit costs of removal and that the investments remain^
ing to be made will be at increasingly greater marginal
costs. This situation will result in pressing capital
requirements upward significantly for many years.
In view of this, it is of particular concern that the
levels of investment outlined in the State Program
Plans, and strongly conditioned by the availability
of Federal grant funds, are roughly equivalent to those
of the last six years. These proposed investment
levels indicate that unless the rate of capital invest-
ment is increased, the nation will fall behind in its
goal of providing and maintaining adequate waste treat*-
treatment for its sewered population.
10. The cost of correcting combined sewer overflows by
total separation of stormwater from sewage, including
work on private property, was estimated in last year's
report at $49 billion. Of this cost $30 billion dol-
lars applied to public sewers. This estimate was based
on a survey made by the American Public Works Association
In this survey they reported that alternatives to
- 9 -
-------
separation may reduce costs below this level, perhaps
close to $15 billion.
11. Municipalities have exerted only minimal efforts to
correct combined sewer overflow problems to date, due
largely to the existence of other needs involving
higher local priority of funding. Local attitudes
in this regard are changing as evidenced by local
funding of demonstration projects amounting to nearly
$30 million of a total construction cost of $45 mil-
lion. Other communities are expending undetermined
amounts on combined sewer problems, usually involving
sewer separation. The level of effort nationally can
be expected to expand due to increasing awareness of
the pollution significance of combined sewer overflows
and as a necessary means of complying with quality
objectives established as a part of water quality
standards. Interstate enforcement actions have also
been an influencing factor in stimulating such efforts .
12. Current information indicates that approximately 851
of the cost for controlling combined sewer overflows
will be incurred in 12 States. About 42% of the area
and 65% of the projected combined sewer population
served by combined sewers in the United States are lo->
cated in less than four percent of the nation's
communities. Since the cost can be estimated on an
average per capita basis, approximately 65% of con-
struction expenditures will take place in this
tively small number of communities. Many smaller
munities are faced with overflow problems of a like
scale when related to local funding resources; there-
fore, the small urban areas cannot be neglected where
alternatives and remedial programs are explored.
Also, the impact of combined sewer overflow problems
on the immediate receiving body of water must be de~
termined for each location. Small communities could
be faced with problems just as serious as the large
communities and require immediate corrective actions.
13. Last year's report, based upon several necessarily
tentative assumptions, estimated industrial waste
treatment costs over the next five years at $2.6
billion to $4.6 billion and cooling requirements at
a maximum estimate of $1.8 billion. The reaction of
key industrial organizations to these estimates, al-
though useful in providing insights into these problem
areas, did not provide a quantitative basis for ad-
justing this initial range of estimates. Accordingly,
- 10 -
-------
until satisfactory refinements in the original esti-
mating techniques are developed, or new information
becomes available, the initial range cannot be more
closely defined.
14. An industrial waste profile of the organic chemical
industry was prepared during the year. This industry
comprises an important portion of the "chemical and
allied products" grouping for which cost estimates
were presented in last year's report. That report
estimated that capital outlays slightly under $400
million would be required over the next five years of
the entire chemical industry to attain 851 removal
of BOD. The organic chemical profile projects cap-
ital requirements of approximately $243 million for
that portion of the chemical industry involving organ-
ic chemicals to attain comparable (83%) BOD removal
over the next five years. The profile also provides
estimates of capital outlays required to attain spec-
fied removal levels of chemical exygen demand and sus-
pended solids. In addition to developing cost esti-
mates for the organic chemicals industry, the profile
also provides improved methodology for projecting
treatment cost estimates for other industries.
15. The necessity for carrying out a survey of indus-
trial waste treatment facilities and requirements
was again emphasized by the lack of such data as
evidenced by industry comments on the first report
and by continuing difficulties in obtaining an
accurate appraisal of the industrial situation. It is
essential to obtain this information if an adequate
projection of industrial waste treatment costs is to
be developed.
16. The entire area of "other effluents" remains unclear
as to magnitude of the problems, remedial measures,
and their costs. New, but limited improvements in
knowledge, have been incorporated in this report.
In addition, the implementation requirements for com-
pliance with water quality standards have not yet been
clearly defined for this class of effluent.
17. It is estimated that over $600 million will be re-
quired to minimally equip United States vessels,
including pleasure craft, with water pollution control
devices. The requirements of the performance standards
that will be issued if proposed vessel legislation is
- 11 -
-------
enacted will, of course, determine the actual cost re-
quirements and the validity of this estimate.
18. The costs associated with control of erosion and sed-
imentation cannot be adequately quantified, especially
those dealing with control of erosion from agricultur-
al lands. Costs associated with control of erosion
from streambeds, roadways, highway construction, and
urban construction sites can only be estimated in
very broad ranges. Total initial cost of providing
erosion control measures for roadways and streambeds
could range from a minimum of $300 million to as much
as $10 billion. Annual recurring costs, including
urban construction and maintenance of roadway controls,
may be expected to range from $140 million to $1.4
billion. It should be recognized that erosion control
is practiced for many reasons in addition to controll*-
ing pollution, such as preservation of valuable land,
and reduction of harbor and reservoir siltation.
Therefore, all costs of erosion control are not solely
related to controlling pollution.
The initial erosion control costs will likely fall
well below the $10 billion figure, depending upon
the weighted average cost of providing control. Re-
finements of this figure can be made only after more
extensive surveys are made of the erosion control
needs of streambeds and roadways. Also, as more in-
formation becomes available as to the ampunt of eros-
ion from various sources, control methods, and other
benefits, agricultural land erosion control costs will
be incorporated in the total cost ranges.
19. Studies and results of research contracts available
since last year's report indicate that abatement of
water pollution from acid mine drainage to meet water
quality standards in some cases will require neutral-
ization of acid discharges from active mines and of
residual acid discharges from sealed abandoned mines.
A summation of the estimated 20 year costs, in con-
stant 1968 dollars, for reducing acid mine drainage
ranges from $1.7 billion for a 40% reduction to
as much as $6.6 billion for a 95% reduction. Here
again the actual costs will depend upon the amount of
reduction that is required in specific areas to meet
water quality standards.
20. The cost of oil field brine disposal, if it were all
required to be disposed of through injection methods,
- 12 -
-------
would fall in an estimated range from $43 million to
$758 million. The actual costs would fall somewhere
between these two figures depending upon the weighted
average costs of the treatments applied and the amount
of this cost that can be regained through the bene-
ficial effects of using injection as a secondard re-
covery method. The cost of chemical brine disposal
cannot be estimated until information is available
on the volume and character of the brine involved and
the probable disposal methods that will be used.
21. Total costs of controlling oil spills cannot be esti-
mated. However, some minimum cleanup costs per unit
can be estimated and some examples of total costs of
individual cleanup costs can be cited. Using dispers-
ion techniques, and under ideal circumstances which
are not possible in many cases, the minimum cost per
ton of oil dispersed would run about $250. (These
costs are equal to about $450 per gross registered
ton.) In at least one case, the costs have been
five times this amount. If the oil reaches the beaches
or if the spill is in an area where dispersion is not
adequate the costs may run substantially higher.
Total cost per individual spill varies tremendously,
depending on such factors as the amount of pollutant
spilled, location of the spill, and the weather.
However, experience has shown that total cleanup
costs can be very high, even for a single ship
disaster. The Torrey Canyon spill, for example,
cost an estimated $15 million to clean up and that
operation was generally not considered satisfactory.
22. Water pollution from animal wastes, especially from
animals in confined feeding situations, is a serious
and growing problem. However, lack of data prevent
estimation of the total pollution potential from this
source as well as either total or unit treatment
costs. As on-going and planned future research pro-
jects are completed, and site-by-site inventories of
animal feedlots are completed, there will be a more
adequate basis for estimating the actual scope of the
feedlot pollution problem and its remedial costs.
23. Present information on salinity caused by irrigation
does not provide a basis for estimating costs of
correcting the problem. Current studies in specific
areas should provide the groundwork for determining
the factors affecting salinity abatement costs.
- 13 -
-------
24. Information that would lead to estimates of the
scope of the pesticide water pollution problem and its
abatement cost is not available. Last year's report
described the problem in general terms and discussed
the known relevant factors that affect costs. This
year's report adds some discussion of the approaches
of the States to the problem. At present, control of
the pesticide problem is usually through applicator
licensing, pesticide labeling laws, and education of
the users. Research is being carried out by other
governmental and private agencies in an effort to
develop -pesticides that will not be sources of water
pollution. Other research is aimed at quantifying
the problem and determining abatement measures that
can be taken until new pesticides are developed.
Estimates of future control costs will be largely
dependent upon the results of these research efforts.
25. Last year's report estimated the five year costs for
control of radioactive wastes from nuclear generating
plants at from $60 million to $120 million for capital
costs and $42 million for operation and maintenance.
It also estimated the five year capital costs for
uranium milling treatment at $3 million and operation
and maintenance costs at $13 million. No additional
cost data have been developed since that report so
these estimates have not been revised. However, it is
expected that on-going studies such as FWPCA'S Col-
orado River Basin study will provide additional quan-
titative information on this problem.
Volume II, Appendix, presents tabular data developed for the
analysis in this report, and the comments received on last
year's study from various State agencies and industrial organ-
izations.
Volume III, Sewerage Charges, provides an analysis of meth-
ods of charging for the provision of sewerage service in a
community. The following results summarize the major aspects
of this study:
THE CURRENT POSITION OF USER CHARGES
In the first section, the current status of user charges
is described. Several of the reports upon which the discuss-
ion is based were prepared some time ago and may be outdated.
Moreover, the information presented in the reports is not
- 14 -
-------
uniform. Accordingly, the description unavoidable reflects
these weaknesses in the same material. Nonetheless, the
following results are indicated by the data:
1. There are two major types of user charges -- sewer
service charges and tap fees. Sewer service charges
are monthly or quarterly levies which represent the
source of more than 90% of the user charge
revenue. Tap fees are levied only when a customer is
first connected to the sewer system. Although tap
fees account for less than 10% of total user charge
revenue they may be important in financing construct-
ion of the initial sewerage system and of additions
for some municipalities.
2. Approximately 701 of the municipalities over 5,000
in population and a substantial number of municipal-
ities below this size employ sewer service charges
of some type. Over three-fourths of these municipal-
ities have adopted such charges in the last 20 years.
There also are several sewer and utility districts
which levy sewer service charges.
3. There are several reasons for the recent growth in
the adoption of user charges, the most important of
these being: (1) State and local legal limitations on
the amount of general obligation debt; (2) limitations
on municipal tax sources and on the taxing power of
special districts; and (3) a rapid increase in the
demand for public services at the municipal level.
When user charges are combined with revenue bonds,
State and local debts are not normally increased. The
financing of sewerage services through user charges
therefore allows a municipality to employ its taxing
power in meeting the cost of other public services
such as education, roads and urban renewal.
4. The formulas used to determine sewer service charges
are varied but they can be placed into five general
categories: (a) water use, (b) number and type of
plumbing fixtures, (c) uniform flat rate ( an identi-
cal charge for each customer), (d) modified flat rate
(the charge varies by type of customer), (e) size of
water meter, and (f) size and number of sewer connections
The most commonly used formula is a uniform or modified
flat rate. However, its use is concentrated in the
municipalities below 5,000 in population. For munici-
palities above 5,000 population, approximately 65%
- 15 -
-------
base the charge on water use. The percentage
of municipalities employing a water use charge also
appears to be increasing. Many municipalities that
base the levy on water use exclude water used for lawn
sprinkling from the charge. The number of municipalit-
ies that base the entire charge on the number and type
of plumbing fixtures, size of water meter and size and
number of sewer connections is estimated at less than
10%. However, some municipalities levy a min-
imum charge based on one of these factors and a variable
charge on water use.
5. Over 35% of the municipalities provide sewerage
service to customers residing outside the municipal
boundaries and the percentage is probably increasing.
Two-thirds of the municipalities that service outside
customers charge them 50 to 100 percent more
than the customers residing inside the municipality.
6. Nearly all municipalities have provisions in their
ordinances that prohibit the discharge of certain wastes
into the sewer system. However, there are variations it
restrictions and enforcement severity. Most municipal-*
ities do not require pretreatment.
7. Approximately 100 to 200 out of the largest 3,000
municipalities levy a surcharge on industries that
discharge effluents of above average pollutant levels.
The charge is commonly based on biochemical oxygen
demand and suspended solids but oil and chlorine demand
are also included in some formulas. Many of the cities
which have employed these surcharges indicate that
such charges have had some impact on reducing the volume
and the strength of effluents discharged by industries.
8. The annual per capita yield from sewer service charges
ranges from less than $1 to over $60 but the average
yield is estimated at $7, excluding municipalities that
levy a uniform flat charge. The annual per capita yiel(
where a uniform flat rate is used is about $5.
9. Statistics relating user charge revenue to sewerage
costs are sparse, but it is likely that over two-thirds
of the municipalities employing user charges more than
meet the operation and maintenance costs of the sewer-
age system from this revenue source. In Texas, for
which the most extensive data were available, user
charge revenue exceeds operation and maintenance costs
- 16 -
-------
for more than 90% of the municipalities employing user
charges. It is likely, however, that less than one-third
of these municipalities obtain enough revenue from user
charges to meet both operation and maintenance and debt
service costs. The ratio of revenue to costs appears
to be the smallest for municipalities below 5,000
and above 500,000 in population.
10. Sewerage charges as a revenue device must be considered
within the context of total local government expendi-
tures for all purposes. In spite of increased revenue
efforts by State and local governments, revenues have
not generally kept pace with expenditures. The income
shortage has been covered by larger Federal grants and
increases in State and local debts greater than
increases in gross national product. The waste treat-
ment cost covered by local governments is usually local
cost after deducting State and Federal grants; thus
the revenue to cost picture presented is even less
clear in this light. The ability to finance all costs
in the absence of grants is not known.
DISTRIBUTION OF COST RESPONSIBILITY
BETWEEN USERS AND NONUSERS
11. In the second section of Volume III, various formu-
las for dividing sewerage costs between users,
(individuals and businesses who discharge wastes
into the system) and nonusers (property owners and
Federal, State and municipal governments) are
discussed. It should be noted that an individual
or business may be assessed costs as a nonuser and
also as a user if wastes are discharged. One finding
is that no matter what opinion one may have about
this division of costs he can find a theory to
support it because the formulas vary so widely in
terms of where the responsibility for the collection
and treatment of wastes is placed. However, this
report concludes that there is a strong case for
dividing the costs between users and non-users.
On this basis, a well-designed user charge system
should not cover all of the total construction,
operation, and maintenance costs of a sewerage
system.
There are several reasons why users should meet a
substantial share of the costs of the sewerage
- 17 -
-------
systems. First, users benefit from the collection
and treatment of their wastes and it is equitable
that they pay for this service. A properly designed
user charges system will enhance the equity character-
istics by distributing costs in a manner more
closely related to service provided than will other
ways of raising revenue.
Second, effectively administered user charges can
also improve the management of industrial wastes.
Charges on volume, and sometimes strength of wastes,
can create an incentive for industrial users to
pre-treat, change processes and manage wastes more
effectively.
Third, user charges provide a relatively stable
source of revenue with which to meet sewerage
costs which allows for a business-like management
of the sewerage system and provides for an orderly
expansion and up-grading of the system.
The case for assigning some of the costs to non-
users is less obvious but is no less valid. First,
property owners gain from having a sewerage system
through an appreciation of property values whether
or not they discharge wastes. Second, storm water
collection in combined systems and the availability
of sewerage service both are likely to have a
positive influence on property values. Third,
the general public benefits from improved water
use, disease control, recreational opportunities,
and esthetics.
The report suggests that non-users should bear a
much greater share of capital costs than operation
and maintenance costs. However, no exact division
of costs between users and non-users can be
specified. Each situation must be examined in
terms of the relevant characteristics. For example,
property owners should bear a smaller proportion
of the costs in areas where storm and infiltration
water is unimportant as compared to areas where
this water volume is important. Also, policy
considerations related to ability to pay and the
desired rate of investment for controlling pollution
influence the shares borne by higher levels of
government. Nor can any universal method of
collecting the revenue be specified: there are
- 18 -
-------
several types of user charges. On the non-user
side, property owners may meet their responsibility
through a number of means. Often, these costs will
be met through special assessments or through the
price of property in cases where developers install
the sewer system. Sometimes, non-user costs will
be met through general property taxes»
Some of the formulas described in the report do not
discuss the role of Federal and State governments
in the financing of sewer systems. However, there
are several reasons why Federal and State grants
should be used in this area. These grants will
enable the necessary standard of water quality to be
obtained more quickly and will encourage municipal-
ities to plan and construct sewage systems. The
grants aid municipalities over the difficult
transition period when treatment plants are being
constructed, the system is under-utilized, user
charges have not or cannot be depended upon to cover
the costs, large increases in the property tax are
politically unacceptable and debt limits are nearly
reached. On balance, Federal and State grants
coupled with regulatory action have tended to stimu-
late investments in waste treatment facilities.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF COST RESPONSIBILITY
AMOUNT CATEGORIES OF USERS
12. The third section of the report is devoted to
examining various charge formulas in terms of
generally accepted tax or charge canons and in terms
of the impact on various types of customers and the
income distribution. No. charge formula is clearly
superior to all of the others in terms of equity,
economic efficiency, ease of administration, and
revenue adequacy. For example, a uniform or mod-
ified flat rate charge is the easiest to administer
but is deficient in other ways to other types of
charges. The so-called Joint Committee Formula
(a charge based on the volume and strength of sewage)
appears to be a highly equitable system but it is
difficult to administer. A charge based on water
use scores between the uniform flat rate and the
Joint Committee formula when all considerations are
taken into account.
339-677 O - 69 - 3
- 19 -
-------
13. A model was constructed to measure the impact of
different charge formulas on the various categories
of users. Users were classified into residential,
commercial, and industrial groups and the charges
studied were: (a) a uniform flat charge, (b) a
charge proportionate to water volume, and (c) a
charge proportionate to biochemical oxygen demand
discharged. It is recognized that a uniform flat
rate would likely not be used in an actual situation
as that modeled; however, it serves to delineate
the limits of cost distribution. The amount paid
by each user category if sewerage costs were met by
the property tax was also computed. Residential
users would pay the most under a flat rate and the
least under a charge based on biochemical oxygen
demand. Industrial users would be in the opposite
position. Commercial users would pay the most if
costs were covered through a property tax and the
least if a flat charge was used.
14. Under any of the charge formulas, the proportion of
income paid by an individual in user charges is
inversely related to the level of his income.
Charges based on water volume and plumbing fixtures
are not as likely to widen income differentials as
a uniform charge.
15. A municipality, when choosing a charge formula,
has to examine the alternatives in the light of its
own situation; no general recommendation that can
be made at this time would be of much value. In
particular, such evaluations must examine the trade-
.off between administrative simplicity and equity.
A water use charge appears to be a good compromise
choice if water is already metered: in cases where
a variety of industrial wastes form a large part
of the sewage brought to a treatment plant, such as
may occur in a regional system, a charge based on
both volume and strength of waste may be appropriate
- 20 -
-------
GOALS AND PERFORMANCE
THE BACKGROUND FOR EVALUATION
THE BACKLOG CONCEPT
One of the enduring concepts in the field of water pol-
lution control is a legacy of the Conference of State Sanitary
Engineers who at the end of 1960 concluded a survey that indi-
cated a need for 5200 sewage treatment projects having an esti-
mated cost of $2 billion. That expression of need, termed a
"backlog" of required works, reflected both the esentially regu-
latory frame of reference of its compilers and their intimate
knowledge of conditions within their respective States.
Eight years later, the nation is in the position of having
built almost 4400 new municipal waste treatment plants, having
undertaken more than 2000 replacement, upgrading, and miscel-
laneous projects, of having invested about $1.1 billion in new
treatment plants and about $1.3 billion in upgrading, expansion,
replacement, and miscellaneous projects; yet concern continues
to be expressed about the dimensions of the investment that
will be required to eliminate the backlog of needed waste
treatment plants.
The most obvious, the clearly minimal, definition of any
existing "backlog" would be the need to provide waste treatment
to the almost 1600 sewered places in the nation that do not
treat their wastes. To accommodate policy-established de-
finitions of baseline treatment adequacy, upgrading the 2100
primary treatment plants in the nation to secondary treatment
can be added as an additional component of a backlog. When
these 3700 situations are arrayed by size of place, multiplied
by appropriate cost functions, multiplied again by a factor
to represent the historical relationship between plant costs
and costs of interceptors and outfalls in each plant-size
category, and summed, the calculation of that "backlog" amounts
to less than $2 billion.
That figure, while not highly inconsistent with the 1960
Conference of State Sanitary Engineers' definition of backlog
(taking into account price level changes, operational and
institutional developments, and increase in sewered population),
stands in stark contrast to the $8 billion estimate of need
made by FWPCA in 1967 on the basis of an assumption of secondary
waste treatment for most of the total urban population of the
nation. Both conflict with calculation of the investment
consequences of construction needs defined in the water quality
standards implementation plans--an amount in the neighborhood
- 21 -
-------
of $1.1 billion. No explanation based on inventory
inadequacies, unit cost deficiencies, or differences in regional
cost can adequately account for estimating differences of almost
eight to one, Only a fault in basic assumptions or
a significant change in circumstance can account for
the variation found to exist between various estimates
of the cost of water pollution control.
It may be argued that the concept underlying almost every
cost estimate that has been made--that is, the idea of a
fixed backlog--is no longer a valid assumption in light of the
current status of waste treatment, as reflected in the 1968
Municipal Waste Inventory.
Water pollution is a process as well as a condition. It
is dynamic in its occurrence, fluctuating in its circumstances.
So water pollution control must be flexible in its approaches;
and time forms an essential element in estimates of its cost.
This document, then, views the municipal costs of water
pollution control within a context of dynamism. It gropes
with the question of determining an appropriate rate of
investment rather than establishing a final cost of water
pollution control. In substituting the dynamic view for the
static one, it recognizes the disagreeable fact that pollution
control will continue to require expenditures, that pollution
cannot be ended by spending any single lump sum. It loses
something in apparent precision. It is felt, however, that
the view compensates for any lack of definition by bringing
us closer to a manageable statement of real conditions.
The changed way of looking at things imposes a broader
view and forces a recognition of problems in relating Federal
programs to events in such a way that the programs will not be
out of date or mis-scaled by the time they are initiated.
While all the ramifications of the approach are not understood,
analyses now being undertaken can be expected to yield some
insights over the coming year. These may be useful in recast-
ing legislation after the expiration of current authorization
in (Federal) Fiscal Year 1971.
THE INVESTMENT BACKGROUND
Over the period 1952-1966--broadly speaking, from the
beginning of large scale post World War II public investment
in water pollution control to the establishment of water
quality standards under the Federal Water Quality Act of
- 22 -
-------
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF GROSS
WASTE HANDLING INVESTMENT,
1952-1966
NATURE OF
INVESTMENT
Public Treatment Plants
Industrial Treatment Plants
Treatment, Total
MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS
1704
2808^
4512
PERCENT OF
TOTAL
11.3
18.6
29.9
Interceptors and Outfalls
Sanitary Sewers, Publicly
Constructed
Sanitary Sewers, Privately
Constructed
Sewers, Total
2018
4869
2092
8979
13.3
32.2
13.8
59.3
System Rehabilitation and
Mixed Contracts
Total
1634
15,125
10.8
100.0
I/ Including value of industrial connection to municipal
systems.
- 23 -
-------
196S--the U.S. invested some $15 billion in water pollution
control equipment and facilities.
Investment was concentrated on waste collection and
transmission systems. Almost 60% of identifiable capital
expenditures was for sewers of some description; and of the
IIS of the water pollution investment budget that was used
for expansion, replacement, and alteration of systems, some
indeterminate portion was also devoted to collection
facilities.
The most visible effect of those large expenditures,
however, was the construction of over 7000 new municipal
sewage treatment plants--701 of them in communities with a
population of less than 5000 persons. Almost all of the
industrial waste treatment plants in the nation have also been
constructed since 1952; and the degree of treatment provided
in many plants built before or during the period has been
raised.
While the level of investment has increased, the rise
has been unsteady. Degree of increase has varied sharply with
Federal policy,dividing the time span into several distinct
periods; and the general economic environment has stifled
investment in some areas, promoted it in others, as well as
causing a reversal of the upward trend in isolated years.
There can be little question of the great influence of
Federal policy on pollution control expenditures. Each
shift in the Federal approach to pollution control has been
mirrored in expenditures.
Federal funds have been available to local government
since 1956 for construction of waste treatment plants and
interceptor and outfall sewers. Those elements of the
pollution control system have reacted to the pull of grants,
receiving a constant portion of the rising total invest-
ment in the case of treatment plants, a rising share of the
total in the instance of interceptor sewers. In distinction,
the share of the investment dollar going into installation
of relatively unsubsidized sanitary sewers has progressive-
ly declined. The overall level of investment rose sharply
with the inauguration of Federal construction grants in
1956, and again with the major increase in funding that
occurred with the 1961 amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
- 24 -
-------
TABLE 2
SHIFTING STRUCTURE OF INVESTMENT, 1952-1966
ANNUAL RATE OF
INCREASE IN
INVESTMENT PERCENT OF TOTAL INVESTMENT
TYPE OF INVESTMENT 1952-66 1952-56 1956-60 1961-64 1965-66
New Public Treatment
Plants
7.6%
Industrial Treatment
Plants 16.5%
11.3 11.8 11.5 9.6
9.5 16.5 20.9 28.0
Interceptors and
Outfalls 13.9%
Sanitary Sewers,Pub-
licly Constructed 4.2%
Sanitary Sewers,Pri-
vately Constructed -2.7%
9.9 14.4 14.9 12.9
37.9 32.9 29,9 26.9
21.6 14.5 10.5 8.4
Public System Reha-
bilitation and
Mixed Contracts
9.2%
8.8
9.1 12.1 12.9
TOTAL INVESTMENT
($ Millions)
AVERAGE ANNUAL
INVESTMENT
($ Millions)
7.2%
3591 3798 5009 2805
718
760 1252 1403
- 25 -
-------
The incentive features of the Federal program may be
discerned, too, in a rapid increase in spending for pollution
control facilities by manufacturers. Industrial investment
has assumed a rising share of a steadily growing market. In
this case, incentives have not been financial, but more direct
influences have proved to be highly effective. The appeal to
the national interest, strengthened enforcement powers,
establishment of water quality standards, and technical assist-
ance have produced a notable response from industry. It
should be stressed, however, that the rising efforts of indus-
try relative to those of local government are in part due to
other factors. Industrial expenditures for pollution control
started from a very low base; and their rapid rise reflects in
good part the enormous unfilled need for treatment that
existed at the beginning of the period. Too, the 1960?s
have been marked by strong industrial capital formation.
Many new manufacturing plants have been built, and more have
been expanded, since 1960. Management generally has recognized
the desirability of installing pollution control facilities
as a basic part of plant design; and manufacturing plants
built recently have generally incorporated a degree of waste
control.
A constant — and expectable--feature of the shift in the
distribution of investment funds has been a steady increase
in public expenditures for replacement, expansion, and im-
provement of systems. It is only normal that replacement
costs should increase as the capital base expands, but the
rate of increase of this investment element has been dispro-
portionately large. Widespread upgrading of primary waste
treatment to secondary treatment, an expansion of municipal
treatment facilities to handle a growing share of the wastes
of manufacturing, and increased recognition of the need to
rehabilitate waste handling systems that are poorly located,
under-designed, or otherwise inefficient probably accounts
for the relative vigor of the replacement portion of the
market.
MEASURING PROGRESS AGAINST GOALS
In reviewing the rate of investment for pollution control
facilities, the analyst and the policy maker have been ham-
pered by a lack of norms against which performance can be
measured. There are good data available with respect to local
government contract awards for pollution control facilities;
and increasingly reliable estimating techniques provide
insights into the level of private investment by manufacturing
- 26 -
-------
M
-J
un
in
OS
180—
160—
140—
120—
100—
80-
60—
40—
20-
CAPITAL ALLOCATION TRENDS:
EXPANSmN_&JEPLACEMENT vs.
NEW TREATMENT PLANTS
New Sewage Treatment Plants
Plant Expansion and Replacement
I I I
1952 1954 1956
1958 1960
Figure 1
I
1962
1964
I
1966
-------
firms and in connection with residential construction. But
though we have become aware, and with increasing precision, of
what the nation has been investing for water pollution control,
we have had little feeling for the significance of the amounts.
Publication of The Cost of Clean Water has to some degree
removed the lack of providing a normative investment scale.
We are now able to measure progress against some tangible
goal.
It should be observed that the goal provided by The Cost
of Clean Water is provisional. It is hoped that continuous
refinement of method and the broadening base of knowledge
will bring us increasingly closer to investment goals that can
be more reliably equated with defined water quality improve-
ments. But regardless of any deficiencies in estimating cost,
it is a distinct step forward in that it does let us gauge
in a tentative way how rapidly we are moving toward some
maintenance level of control of water pollution. And a rapid
review of the level of investment indicates that--on the face
of things--the nation during 1967 fell behind in progress
toward its provisional five year goal.
Table 3 presents a comparison of the pattern of capital
expenditures in 1967 against the goals provided by The Cost
of Clean Water. Investments for municipal facilities are
equated with those reported in Sewage Treatment Contract
Awards, 1967 (pre-publication data) with an incremental
estimate for privately constructed sanitary sewers.I/
Manufacturers' investments for waste treatment equipment
are taken from two sources; the McGraw-Hill capital spending
survey, which was expanded in 1968 to include an estimate of
investment for air and water pollution control, and a Nation-
al Industrial Conference Board survey of 201 firms that ob-
tained information on water pollution control expenditures.
Since neither Federal nor State governments collect data of
this nature with regard to industrial pollution control costs,
the McGraw-Hill and National Industrial Conference Board
efforts are the only indicators available to assess magnitude
of the industrial effort on a comprehensive basis.
I/ Estimated to equal 4% of the value of residential construction
put in placef a relationship postulated by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development in its 1965 report, Public Facility Needs and
Financing.
- 28 -
-------
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF CALCULATED INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS
WITH REPORTED RATE OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL INVESTMENTS, 1967
Millions of Dollars
New Waste Treatment Plants
Plant Expansion, Upgrading,
Replacement
Interceptors and Outfalls
Sanitary Sewers
Total Municipal Investment
Food and Kindred Products
Textile Mill Products
Paper and Allied Products
Chemical and Allied Products
Petroleum and Coal
Rubber and Plastics
Primary Metals
Machinery
Electrical Machinery
Transportation Equipment
Other Manufacturing
Electric Generating
Total Industrial Investment
1967
Goal
334.9
1057.3
216.6
1200.0
2798.8
46.0- 48.7
5.3- 15.1
19.1-142.6
76.0- 95.9
22.9- 27.1
7.0- 9.6
51.9- 61.1
5.7- 7.9
2.1- 2.9
8.0- 10.9
24.8- 34.9
220.0
I/ I/
489.7=683.5"
Indicated
Expenditure
Contract Awards
149
213
188
606
1156
McGraw-Hill NICE
13.2 34.0
10.6 46.7
80.4 51.0
50.0 37.7
67.6 117.2
1.6 2.3
79.4 >45.0^/
5.0 25.7
6.1 10.8
12.7 318.5
57.7 15.9
180.0 N.A.
2/ 4/
564. 3~ >704.8~
Mid-pt. value = 586.6
I/ Includes both waste treatment and cooling facilities.
2/ McGraw-Hill Survey distributed per NICE questionnaire.
3/ Iron and Steel Only.
4/ Excludes Electric Generating.
- 29 -
-------
The picture that emerges from these limited data is,
in-general, one of a deficiency in public investment, con-
comitant with a rate of industrial investment that comes very
close to the established target. The sam6 pattern extends
(c.f. Table 4) into 1968--though here the investment data
are far less reliable. On the municipal side it represents
a projected rate of investment based on the level of Federal
grants awards. On the industrial side it covers manufacturers'
forecasts of expected capital spending during the year rather
than an accounting of actual expenditures.
The effects of Federal grants are sharply apparent in the
form taken by the municipal investment deficiency. Treatment
plant investments are fairly close to the estimated need for
construction; and rates of investment for interceptors and
outfalls are very close to the level of the indicated
requirement. But sewer, replacement, and expansion short-
comings seem to be developing. The relative lack of Federal
or State assistance for sewer installation, and a construc-
tion grant allocation method that favors initial installation
of small waste treatment plants may, because they lend a dis-
tinct unbalance to investments, be partially responsible.
It is more probably true, however, that The Cost of Clean Water
assumption of complete connection of the urban population to
sewer systems is unrealistic, and that the rate of development
--if not the amount--of the expansion need is overstated in the
goals.
The apparent correspondence between indicated investment
targets and the reported rate of industrial spending for water
pollution control is encouragingly close in the case of the
McGraw-Hill data but should not be taken at face value. For one
thing, the target--particularly in its details-suffers from
insufficient information in the development. For another, the
reported rate of investment is drawn from a sample rather than a
full scale canvass. It is puzzling that the NICE survey--when
the 201 sampled firms' experience is extrapolated to cover all
manufacturing^-indicates a rate of investment in 1967 almost
double that drawn from McGraw-Hill; that for 1968, the NICE
figures remain 501 higher than McGraw-Hill's, if the electri-
cal generating industry is excluded to make the two surveys
compatible. Probable explanations may be found in the broad
composition of the NICE sample, which includes diverse non-manu-
facturing industrial activities, and in the fact that the re-
ported results excluded all responses that failed to indicate
expenditures, thus probably resulting in overstatement of
extrapolated results.
- 30 -
-------
TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF CALCULATED INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS—/
WITH ESTIMATED RATE OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL INVESTMENTS, 1968
Millions of Dollars
New Waste Treatment Plants
Plant Expansion, Upgrading,
Replacement
Interceptors and Outfalls
Sanitary Sewers
Total Municipal Investments
Food and Kindred Products
Textile Mill Products
Paper and Allied Products
Chemical and Allied Products
Petroleum and Coal
Rubber and Plastics
Primary Metals
Machinery
Electrical Machinery
Transportation Equipment
Other Manufacturing
Electric Generating
Total Industrial Investment
(Mid-Point value=801.4)
1968i/
Goal
335.3
1091.1
223.5
1238.4
2888.3
67.4- 69.9
10.1- 20.3
23.8-196.7
98.8-243.6
23.6- 27.1
8.3- 11.1
109.0- 83.1
7.8- 10.6
4.1- 5.7
12.7- 17.9
34.7- 44.3
236.1
636.4-966.4
Pro j ected
Expenditures
Contract Awards
140
215
195
700
1250
McGraw-Hill NICE
15.6 38.1
25.0 43.1
74.6 47.0
65.0 36.5
74.2 129.0
1.9 3.0
82.2 >46.5
8.0 29.3
59.2 12.6
12.8 318.5
99.9 17.2
240.5
758.9 >721.1
V Adjusted for price level change at 3.2%.
- 31 -
-------
It should be noted that the McGraw-Hill survey aggregated
air and water pollution control investments. Distribution of
total capital spending by industry as presented in Tables 3 and
4 follows the pattern provided by an earlier survey conducted
by the National Industrial Conference Board. It is admittedly
clumsy to be forced to assume that there is an unvarying pattern
to pollution control expenditures; but in the absence of better
data, the NICB survey was considered the best available basis
for allocation. In favor of its use is the logical assumption
that the basic process of an industry determines the distribution
of its pollution control budget, all other things being equal.
With respect to the details of the two sources of estimate
of industrial investment compared with the targets for each
industry, several industrial segments seem very much out of bal-
ance. One obvious explanation is that the normative investments
postulated in The Cost of Clean Water may be badly appraised.
Another explanation might focus on sampling weaknesses or the
unreliability of a one-point-in-time-survey as the basis for
allocations of air vs. water pollution control investments in
subsequent years. It might also be argued that some industries
are doing more than their share for water pollution control,
while others are laggards.
Though each of these possibilities has some merit, there
are other possible explanations for the divergences--explana-
tions that rise out of the practices of an industry or the
method of compiling and presenting the statistics.
1. The food and kindred products industrial category shows
a decided investment deficiency for both 1967 and 1968.
The industry has an historical pattern of discharging
wastes to municipal sewers rather than operating its
own treatment facilities. Maintenance of established
industry practice, then, would dictate a low capital
budget for water pollution control, with costs incurred
in the form of annual charges against taxes or operation
to maintain a portion of what is a predominantly munici-
pal investment.
2. The chemicals, petroleum refining, and plastics industry
groups are all far from target levels in both 1967 and
1968. This may relate to the characterization of indus*
trial units rather than to substantive differences. Ths
industries are closely related, and often compose inte-
grated or sequential operations in practice. While
investment goals are expressed in terms of the predomind
value of products of manufacturing establishments, the
- 32 -
-------
McGraw-Hill and NICE data are presented in terms of the
firms making the investment. Thus, for example, a Humble
Oil and Refinery Company Plant producing petrochemicals
might well be included under Chemicals and Allied Products
on the "goals" side and under~Petroleum and Coal on the
"expenditures" side. If the three industrial categories
are considered to be a single unit, correspondence of
investment goals and reported expenditures is close in
both years;
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
INDICATED EXPENDITURE
GOAL McGraw-Hill NICE
1967 High 132.6
Mid-point 119.2 119.2 157.2
Low 105.9
1968 High 281.8
Mid-point 206.2 141.1 168.5
Low 130.7
3. The extremely high 1968 investment indicated by
the McGraw-Hill survey in the category Electrical
Machinery must be admitted to be a puzzle. No
explanation from the nature of the industry presents
itself. A sampling error, a weakness of allocation,
or a deficiency in cost development in the first
report of this series are equally likely explan-
ations .
4. Similarly, an enormous investment by Transportation
Equipment suggested in the NICE survey--almost all
of it in the subcategory Motor Vehicles and Equipmeivt
firms, which are indicated to devote 18.1% of their
capital budgets to water pollution control — is
staggering. Eight sampled firms that were found to
estimate investments at $96.6 million in 1967 and
$120.1 million in 1968 were responsible for the
reported investment. Discussion with the NICE
revealed that the firms involved do not in any sense
compose a representative sample. In the absence of
a better guide, however, extrapolations were retained
to complete the tables. Until a comprehensive
industrial waste expenditure survey became available,
such gross anomalies must continue to be an inescap-
able part of water pollution control planning.
- 33 -
-------
Other significant assessments of capital spending levels
were made during the last year. Cross ley, S-D Surveys report-
ed for the American Petroleum Institute on expenditures in the
petroleum industry.(1) Chemical and Engineering News compiled
an estimate of anticipated 1969 expenditures for air and water
pollution control equipment. The National Council for Stream
Improvement estimated capital expenditures of the pulp and paper
industry for the years 1966 through 1968.
The American Petroleum Institute survey pegged the petro-
leum industries' capital spending for water pollution control
at a $79 million level in 1966 and $113.7 million in 1967.
Most of the expenditures--77.1% in 1966, 64.8% in 1967--were
incurred in production, transportation, and marketing. Only
$18.1 million in 1966 and $35.2 million in 1967 were attributed
to manufacturing operations, i.e., refineries, chemical plants,
and their satellites. Using their own estimates, the indus-
tries' investments were far below indicated targets, and below
the level indicated by either the McGraw-Hill or NICE survey, as
allocated in Tables 3 and 4.
The projection of capital spending prepared by Chemical and
Engineering News on the basis of a compilation from other publi-
cations and trade associations was presented in very rough
terms. It indicated an industrial investment on the order of
$445 million for waste treatment in 1969, and investment by
various levels of government of about $520 million, presumably
excluding collection systems. While the public investment seems
to fit closely with recorded levels of recent years, the indus-
trial estimate falls well below either the level of need
postulated in the Cost of Clean Water or the NICE and McGraw-
Hill assessments for 1967 and 1968.Like the American Petroleum
Institute survey, the broad estimate diverges from other sources
that seem to agree, at least roughly.
The National Council for Stream Improvement's estimate
of pulp and paper pollution control investment placed it at
$54 million for 1966, $66 million for 1967, $79 million for
1968--values that fall comfortably into the mid-point of the
range of estimated needs, and compare well with the estimates
based on the McGraw-Hill Survey.
(1) Numbers in parentheses refer to References Cited on page 219.
- 34 -
-------
THE ELEMENTS OF INVESTMENT
Evaluation of pollution control needs must consider all
elements of a complex system--the use to be made of the water-
body, the hydrologic and climatic regimen of the watershed,
and volume, kinds, and sources of polluting materials. Within
each system, there are sub-systems. Municipal waste treatment
is only one such sub-system--though it is the one that has
received the majority of attention.
Within that system there are a number of elements that
require distinct investment consideration. In addition to
construction of new waste treatment plants, a constant stream
of capital must be devoted to collecting sewers, to interceptor
sewers, to plant maintenance and replacement, and to increasing
the degree of treatment as conditions demand or as technology
allows. The relative wieght given to any element by fund avail-
ability or public decisions can strongly affect the efficiency
of the total system; and no reasoned assessment of the whole
is possible in the absence of a careful review of the inter-
action of its elements.
WASTE TREATMENT
Investment emphasis on construction of new municipal
waste treatment plants has declined steadily since 1963, when,
under the stimulus of an accelerated public works program, 710
new plant projects having a value of $216 million (c.f. Tables
5 and 6) were initiated. In the most recent year of record,
1967, new plant projects had dropped to 447, and their value
to $145 million. Nor was the 1967 experience a matter of a
one year slump; new plant starts in that year were up almost
151 over the previous year. In some respects, 1963 may be
viewed as the point when most of the heritage of neglect
embodied in the backlog concept had been overcome and cities
of the nation began as a group (without recognizing the
fact) the major long-term task of maintaining and increasing
waste treatment capabilities rather than initiating them.
Since 1963 the construction of new waste treatment plants has
been declining relative to the other major categories of
investment that qualify for FWPCA construction grants--replace
ments, additions, and installation of interceptor sewers.
The decline in new treatment plant projects should not be
a surprise. (Throughout this report, new plants are considered
to be those providing waste treatment for the first time to a
sewered community.) The nation has built an enormous number
339-677 O-69-4 "35 —
-------
I
U
700 -
BOO -
500 -
400 -
300
200
100 -
ANNUAL NUMBER OF
CONTRACTED PROJECTS BY
CATEGORY/1952-67
,/v
NEW PLANTS
\
: X
> DCDI AfFIUIFNTli I
REPLACEMENTS S ADDITIONS
1952
i
1954
1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966
SEWAGE RATE AND WATER WORKS CONSTRUCTION 11952 Through 1907)
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF WASTE HANDLING INVESTMENTS
1952-1967
MILLIONS Of CURRENT DOLLARS
Type of
Expenditure
Public Expenditures
Sewers I/
Interceptors & Outfalls I/
New Treatment Plant I/
Replacement and
Expansion I/
Mixed Contracts I/
Private Expenditures
Sewers 2/
Industrial Treatment* 3/
Sewer Total
Treatment Total
Public Total
Private Total
1952
225
29
52
31
26
157
45
411
154
363
202
1953 1954
286 244
67 40
64 88
36 43
20 58
150 161
55 66
503 445
175 255
473 473
205 227
1955
301
75
80
41
6
171
80
547
207
503
251
1956
305
148
122
46
12
140
97
593
277
633
237
1957
247
134
129
55
12
127
117
508
313
577
244
1958
310
155
128
55
22
144
142
609
347
670
286
1959 1960 1961
336 359 380
124 136 169
96 97 101
92 83 80
14 14 33
155 125 129
174 195 219
615 620 678
376 389 433
662 689 763
329 320 348
1962 1963 1964 1965
320 405 396 356
196 201 181 184
117 216 144 125
99 106 70 108
71 76 71 59
131 136 130 128
246 276 310 348
647 742 707 668
533 674 595 640
803 1004 862 832
377 412 440 476
1966
399
179
145
123
73
108
438
686
779
919
546
1967
504
188
149
142
72
102
385
794
748
1055
487
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
564
678
700
753
869
821
956
991 1009 1111 1180 1416 1302 1307 1464 1542
-------
TABLE S CCont'd)
SUMMARY OF WASTE HANDLING INVESTMENTS
1952-1967
Millions of Constant (1957-59) Dollars 4/
00
Type of
Expenditure
Public Expenditures
Sewers
Interceptors & Outfalls
New Treatment Plants
Replacement & Expansion
Mixed Contracts
Private Expendvturje^
Sewers
Industrial Treatment
Sewer Total
Treatment Total
Public Total
Private Total
1952
295
38
68
40
34
206
59
538
201
475
265
1953 1954 1955
355
83
79
45
25
186
68
624
217
587
254
293 347
48 86
106 92
52 47
70 7
194 197
80 92
535 630
308 239
569 579
274 289
1956
330
160
132
50
13
151
105
641
300
685
256
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966
255 309 321 338 351 292 358 344 304 329
138 154 118 128 156 179 178 157 . 157 148
132 126 93 92 95 109 199 130 111 124
56 54 89 79 76 93 98 63 96 105
12 22 14 13 31 66 70 64 52 62
131 143 148 118 119 119 120 113 109 89
119 140 168 186 207 230 254 280 309 375
525 606 587 584 627 590 656 614 569 566
319 342 363 371 409 498 621 538 569 666
593 665 635 650 709 739 903 758 720 768
250 283 316 304 326 340 374 393 418 464
1967
402
150
124
118
60
81
320
633
622
854
401
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
740
841
843 868
941
843 948 951 955 1035 1088 1277 1152 1138 1232
1255
*Prior to 1967, estimate
includes
value of
industrial
hook-up
to municipal systems - perhaps 20-30% of the total in any year.
1 / Sewage and Water Works Construction.
2/ Estimated on Basis of
3/ Estimated on Basis of
New Housing Starts.
0. S. Dept. Commerce Reports
4/ Adjusted by Sewage Treatment
of Equipment Sales.
Plant Construction Cost Index
and Sewer Construction Cost Index.
-------
TABLE 6
NEW TREATMENT PLANTS CONSTRUCTED
1952*1967
Number of New Plants, By Size of Place
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1 1962
w 1963
-------
of new plants since the end of World War II, more than 7500
between 1952 and 1967. The great majority of the sewered
population now receive some sort of waste treatment. New
plant needs, then, have subsided to little more than the level
required to serve the newly sewered portion of the nation's
population.
It would be a mistake of the first order, however, to
equate a steadily reducing need for new waste treatment plants
with a falling absolute need for waste treatment investment.
A number of mechanisms that are operative in today's economy
will sustain demand for waste treatment capital; and with the
stable level of investment that has been evident since 1963,
it is unlikely that the nation is capitalizing the municipal
waste treatment effort sufficiently to continue to reduce the
number of residual untreated situations and to adequately
undertake necessary replacement, upgrading, and expansion of
facilities.
The apparent truth at this point is that reduction of the
obvious need for treatment of untreated wastes does not eli-
minate capital needs. The quantitative shifts in the waste
treatment situation have introduced some qualitative changes
that have a direct influence on potential capital requirements
Increasing Marginal Costs
One of the reasons that we cannot anticipate any sub-
stantial over-all reduction in investment requirements is
the simple fact that the program to increase the national
level of municipal waste treatment has been so very successful
Most of the large cities where a substantial incremental pop-
ulation can be served as the result of a single project have
already installed some degree of waste treatment. In the
nation, only four cities with a population of 250,000 or more
remain available for initial waste treatment investments--
Honolulu, New Orleans, Memphis, and parts of New York City.
Because there are well defined economies of scale in the
construction of waste treatment plants, the smaller size of
communities building plants for the first time implies that
total costs will be much higher in the future to achieve any
given degree of waste reduction.
Concentration of investments in areas of increasing
marginal costs will have continuing and cumulative impacts.
Not only does it cost more per person to build small waste
treatment plants than to build large ones, of comparable
- 40 -
-------
design, but per-capita costs of operation, maintenance, up-
grading, and replacement are also higher. So, as we build a
growing small plant component into the fixed capital structure,
we must expect to incur costs that rise at rates that are
greater than the consequent rate of improvement in effluent
quality, as the investment/improvement ratio has manifested
itself in the past.
Table 7 indicates something of the degree to which in-
vestment for new plants is concentrated in small towns. Towns
of less than 10,000 persons have always accounted for the
largest number of treatment plants that are built, simply
because there are so many small towns. But the table demon-
strates that such communities are reaching the point where they
also account for almost half of the dollar value of investment
for new waste treatment plants, a significant shift in the
placement of investment.
TABLE 7
Percent of Total New Treatment Plant
Investment Made in Towns of less than
10,000 Persons, 1952 to 1967
Size of Place Percent of New Plant
Investment in Period
1952-"55~1956-65 1964-67
Less than 1000 persons 5.9 7.4 7.4
Less than 5000
but more than 1000 18.3 22.3 22.4
Less than 10,000
but more than 5000 12.0 13.0 14.7
Total, places
less than 10,000 36.2 42.8 44.7
(Two factors make the progressive increase in the small
town share of new plant investment more notable than appears
on the face of things. First, small communities are most apt
to discharge their waste treatment requirements either through
use of lagoons, which have very low unit costs, or through
transportation of wastes for treatment by another community,
in which case treatment needs are met through an investment
in interception rather than for a new treatment plant. Second,
amendment of the Federal Water Control Act in 1966 included
- 41 -
-------
grant provisions distinctly more favorable to the larger
communities that had been relatively slighted by the previous
form of the Act--though State priority systems admittedly
stress the small town investment in many cases.)
Higher Treatment Requirements
The principle of increasing marginal costs applies, too,
as treatment requirements increase with the evolution of eco-
nomic conditions. In general, waste treatment needs are a
function of concentration; the higher the concentration of
materials in water, the greater the need for treatment. Con-
versely, the lower the concentration of materials that must be
attained in the final effluent, the higher the cost of treat-
ment.
It has been national policy that--with specifically de-
fined exceptions--all sewered wastes should receive secondary
treatment, that is, that they must undergo a biological process
to stabilize the major part of the suspended and dissolved
organic matter remaining in the waste stream after primary
treatment.
Conditions change and as they change so do waste treat-
ment requirements. Population is increasing. Migration tends
to accelerate the rate of population concentration. Factory
waste discharges grow with industrial expansion; and their
growth exerts a corollary pressure for more complete treatment
of all waste sources. Even changes in the quality of life
may have implications for waste treatment though such changes
may be so pervasive and gradual that they may not be readily
recognized. Consider, for example, the water quality impact
of two unregarded shifts in personal consumption behavior.
During the 1950's phosphorus-based detergents gradually replaced
soap in the American marketplace. Detergents are more profit-
able than soap, and they do a better job of cleansing. Un-
fortunately, their use results in the discharge to public
sewers of wastes whose concentrations of phosphorus are well
in excess of the requirements of the bacteria that effectuate
the secondary treatment process. The residual phosphorus not
removed with sewage sludges has been discharged into the
nation's waterways, fertilizing luxuriant blooms of algae
and water weeds that constitute a particularly noxious form
of water pollution. There are waste treatment implications,
too, in the potential pollutional effects of a constant rate of
acceptance of the simple home garbage disposal system. The
handy appliance roughly doubles the sewered output of solids
- 42 -
-------
and biochemical oxygen demand of the household that employs
it. If garbage disposals are to become universally used, they
will accomplish an increase in organic waste loading equivalent
to 50 years of population increase at existing rates, suggesting
an early need in many watersheds for treatment beyond the
secondary level.
Phosphorus reduction is now being required in the Lake
Michigan watershed and is under active consideration for
the Lake Erie drainage. Tertiary or advanced waste treatment
is a State goal for many Indiana communities by 1977, is con-
templated for some Ohio towns, is being phased into the Chicago
system, and is planned for a part of Long Island. Increasing
waste loadings resulting from population concentration or
technological changes will unquestionably make advanced waste
treatment or treatment for reduction of specific polluting
materials increasingly common as time passes.
The investment consequences of such developments are by
no means slight. Reference to Figure 3, which generalizes
the cost experience of waste treatment plants by size of plant
and by degree of treatment, provides some insight into the
potential effect on investment requirements of the twin
functions of higher waste treatment and of concentration of
investment in smaller scaled plants. It is clear that both
of the principal direct influences that bear upon investment
cost have the effect of pushing them upward.
Increasing Size of Plant
Another upward pressure on current investments is
somewhat more difficult to judge as to ultimate effect on
unit investment costs. Waste treatment plants are being
constructed with more capacity per person served than was
formerly the case. The median capacity of municipal waste
treatment plants in 1962 was between 1.2 and 1.4 times that
required by the population served by the plant. By 1968, the
median size had advanced to 1.4 to 1.6 times population re-
quirements, as a result of constructing significantly larger
plants between 1962 and 1968--and one plant in 13 was scaled to
handle more than four times the waste loadings justified by
its domestic connections.
The larger the community, the more capacity (i.e. with
respect to human population served) tends to be built into
the plant. For cities in the population size range between
50,000 and 500,000 persons, median capacity in 1968 was 1.6
- 43 -
-------
c/j
in
80 -
70 -
60
SO -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 J
GENERALIZED PER-CAPITA CONSTRUCTION
COST OF BASIC WASTE
TREATMENT PROCESSES
S"ONDARY TREATMENT
\ LAGOONS
PRIMARY TREATMENT
i i i i i i i i I
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60.000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000
POPULATION SERVED
-------
to 1.8 times the population served, and the modal" (most
frequently observed) size was 2.0 to 2.5 times population
served.
There are a number of reasons discussed below why plants
are getting bigger. While it is impossible to draw a
balance between cost-reducing and cost-increasing effects,
the general impression is that the installation of additional
capacity will tend to reduce long term costs.
(1) It has always been common practice to design capacity
in excess of current needs into waste treatment plants, usually
on the basis of a straightforward projection of waste loadings
or of population. The practice is prudent and desirable, since
it guards against underdesign--especially so because construct-
ing additional capacity costs less than would later expansion
of the plant to a similar capacity. In addition, local con-
ditions often require more than normal capacity to deal with
unusual peak loads, abnormal infiltration, combined sewer
systems, and perhaps other causes. It would appear, though,
that scaling standards of the past are being exceeded in current
plant designs, as demonstrated by the increase in the median
size of plant. (It might be argued that the increase in median
design size is due simply to the younger average age of plant
in service in 1968. The argument is refuted by the consid-
eration that the proportion of new plants--in the sense that
a plant built in the previous five years would be considered
new--to plants in service was somewhat greater in 1962 than it
was in 1968.)
(2) The Federal Construction Grants Program provides
some incentive to design to meet future needs. The availability
of Federal funds makes it much easier for a municipality to
finance the larger plant. From the viewpoint of the muni-
cipality this has the added advantage that existence of waste
treatment availability may often provide an industrial
location incentive.
(3) An inadequate understanding of discounting procedures,
together with the inflexible property tax revenue base charac-
teristic of American cities, may lead to an effort to reduce
the threat of inflation by designing treatment plants ambitious-
ly in order to anticipate needs that would otherwise have to
be met in an atmosphere of materially higher construction
costs. This may not be an irrational reaction for the in-
dividual community, even with existing levels of interest rates.
For the nation as a while, however, the mechanism simply
feeds inflation and is ultimately costly to the community.
- 45 -
-------
TABLE 8
Ratio of Designed Plant Size to Actual Domestic Loading in 1968
>50%
Plant Size as a Multiple of Population Served
Size of Place
Unknown
under 500
500 - 1000
1000 - 2500
2500 -' 5000
5000 - 10000
10000 - 25000
25000 - 50000
50000 - 100000
100000 - 250000
250000 - 500000
over 500000
1968 Totals
1962 Totals
under
0.5
2.7
3.6
4.2
5.2
4.9
5.1
3.8
4.0
7.6
10.3
6.5
4.2
6.5
1.0 1.2
Percent
17.8 11.2
22.0 13.7
19.5 11.4
19.8 14.2
18.4 12.7
15.4 10.7
17.4 11.1
13.7 6.9
9.7 5.4
10.3 10.3
12.9 6.5
18.9 12.1
21.8 11.0
1.4 1.6
of Plants i:
1
1.8
i Each
10.9 9.0 1 6.2
12.3 1 10.7 7.4
13.8 11.6 1 7.7
12.9 1 9.6 7.8
•"""" •""]
11.4 10.6
12.8 10.8
12.9 8.7
13.1 9.1
8.8
8.7
10.4
12.0
6.5 12.0 9.2
3.5 10.3
9.7 16.1
12.4 10.4
11.1 9.8
10.3
12.9
7.8
7.7
2.0
Size
6.6
5.7
7.2
6.0
7.7
7.6
9.4
10.3
8.7
6.9
9.7
6.9
6.9
2.5
Category
7.7
8.3
10.3
10.4
9.2
11.3
10.8
16.0
18.5
13.8
19.4
9.8
9.3
3.0
5.0
4.9
3.7
4.4
7.5
6.3
7.7
6.9
9.2
6.9
3.2
5.1
5.1
3.5
3.4
2.1
3.2
2.4
2.0
4.3
2.8
2.9
2.2
10.3
0
2.9
2.6
4.0
2.3
2.4
1.7
2.0
1.6
2.2
2.4
3.4
3.3
0
0
2.0
2.0
over
4.0
17.2
6.8
5.9
5.2
4.7
4.8
2.4
1.7
4.3
6.9
3.2
7.5
6.2
Total
Plants
1748
1736
2592
1408
1059
806
287
175
92
29
31
9963
7646
-------
TABLE 9
Increase or (Decrease) in Number
Of Plants of Various Design Capacities,
1962-1968
Plant Size as a Multiple of Population Served
Size of Place
under
0.5
1.0
1.2 1.4
1.6
1.8 2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
over
4.0
Recorded
New Plant
1962-67
Percent of Plants in Each Size Category
under 500
500 - 1000
, 1000 - 2500
-J 2500 - 5000
!
5000 - 10000
10000 - 25000
25000 - 50000
50000 - 100000
(2.9)
(4.3)
(2.4)
(6.5)
(9.6)
2.7
(9.8)
(3.8)
100000 - 250000(12.5)
250000 - 500000
over 500000
1962-1968 Total
(20.0)
(3.3)
17.5
22.7
(1.6)
(1.6)
(8.8)
4.1
29.4
15.3
(25.0)
(20.0)
9.5
19.5 16,6
15.9 16.3
12.6 19.0
16.8 15.7
24.1 19.3
9.7 14.5
19.6 9.8
(5.7) 5.7
(12.5) 12.5
20.0
25.0
15.6 16.7
11.1
14.6
15.9
5.4
20.1
6.9
(13.7)
11.5
6.2
75.0
12.3
6.5 6.1
5.4 1.3
11.0. 1 7.4
13.0 11.9
(3.2) 9.6
10.4 5.5
23.5 125.4
11.5 15.3 1
6.2 6.2
20.0
5.5
8.0
13.9
19.0
12.9
11.8
9.8
30.7
56.2
40.0
(25.0)
8.2 6.7
11.1
3.1
4.8
5.5
0.5
20.1
6.9
-
3.8
12.5
(40.0)
4.9
3.4
1.9
3.7
4.8
3.2
9.7
5.8
-
(6.2)
60.0
3.7
(0.5)
4.1
1.8
2.7
4.8
4.1
3.9
7.6
12.5
:
2.2
13.8
8.9
12,8
17.9
7.2
13.1
(3.9)
-
18.7
40.0
25.0
11.9
671
458
608
184
124
144
51
52
16
5
4
2317
-------
The information available, however, allows no judgment about
the prevalence of this or other judgmental factors.
(4) Increasing municipal treatment of industrial wastes
requires larger plants in a growing number of instances.
Large industrial waste treatment requirements can most reason-
ably account for the number of municipal treatment plants
designed to handle more than three times loadings contributed
by the connected human population. Plants scaled to that
size accounted for 15.9% of all plants in service in 1962.
By 1968, the proportion had grown to 17.5%.
Accelerating Industrial Connections
The evidence that is available suggests that the growing
pattern of municipal treatment of industrial wastes is the
largest single influence in the trend toward larger treatment
plants. Reference to Table 10 strongly bears out the point.
The table indicates that 401 of the plants in the nation treat
a greater volume of wastes than would be expected on the basis
of their connected populations.
It must be conceded that the table does not positively
indicate that 40% of the nation's waste treatment plants treat
a significant volume of industrial wastes. Standards for per
capita waste production are simply not accurate enough to draw
that positive a conclusion. Local and regional water use
differences, errors of estimate, and necessary weaknesses in
the calculating procedure all suggest a great deal of uncertain
ty as to what should be considered a threshold per-capita flow
that indicates the presence of a significant industrial waste
component. The 14% of the nation's plants that handle two
or more times the volume justified by reported population
connections can be considered to treat a large measure of
wastes of industrial origin. The 11% of the nation's plants
that handle between 1.2 and 2.0 times a normal waste discharge
for the size of the service population probably also treat
a significant amount of industrial wastes.
Even more meaningful than the proportion of all plants
whose loading pattern indicates industrial wastes is their
size distribution. Towns whose population exceeds 10,000
show a marked adherence to a pattern of loadings that exceeds
what is expectable from connected population. The number of
such plants has been growing very rapidly. On the basis of a
rough calculation of expectable and actual loadings as they
- 48 -
-------
TABLE 10
Ratio of Total Waste Loadings to
Domestic Waste Loadings 1968, By Size of Place
Waste Loading as a Multiple of Expectable Domestic Wastes
Size of Place
under 500
500 - 1000
1000 - 2500
2500 - 5000
5000 - 10000
10000 - 25000
25000 - 50000
50000 - 100000
100000 - 250000
250000 - 500000
over 500000
TOTAL
under
0.5
1.0 1.2
1.4
1.6
Percent
23.2
26.0
18.8
16.8
14.0
11.2
9.5
9.8
6.2
12.9
5.5
18.9
41.0
40.7
43.6
43.3
40.6
36.6
8.4
8.3
8.3
12.1
13.0
15.9
36.3 17.3
32.7 13.6
31.2 11.4
16.1 12.9
22.2
41.1
>5
11.1
10.3
D%
4.1
4.5
6.2
7.0
7.9
10.3
6.8
8.7
15.6
6.4
16.6
6.3
3.4
4.4
4.4
4.8
6.7
7.6
9.8
10.3
12.5
1
19.3
TT
5.1
1.8
2.0
of Plants in
2.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
4.4
4.6
6.5
5.4
]5.2
...
11.1
3.6
2.3
2.5
3.0
2.6
4.1
4.1
3.6
6.0
3.1
12.9
11.1
3.1
2.5
3.0
3.5
over
4.0 4.0
Category
3.2
3.3
4.2
3.7
2.9
4.5
5.5
7.1
8.3
3.2
8.3
3.8
1.3
1.2
2.0
1.7
2.2
0.5
2.2
3.2
3.1
3.2
2.7
1.6
1.0
0.9
1.2
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.6
2.1
1.0
-
2.7
1.1
0.6 8.6
0.7 3.6
0.9 3.3
0.5 2.0
0.7 1.8
0.5 2.2
0.3
0.5
1.0 1.0
3.2
2.7
0.7 3.8
Number of Plants in
Category, 1968 2087 4521 1139 697 567 402 343 426 186 125 80 418
Change in Number of
Plants in Category,
1962-68 (427) 709 375 245 237 165 132 153 55 62 37 211
Change as a Percent of Plants in Category in TY6?
(16.9) 18.5 49.0 54.2 71.8 69.6 62.5 56.0 41.9 98.4 86.0 101.9
- 49 _
-------
are distributed through the system of municipal waste treat-
ment plants, it would appear that in 1968 municipal plant_s
treated^a^volume of industrial wastes that was roughly equal
to their throughput of domestic wastes. The statement may
seem hard to credit in view of the fact that the median level
of loadings is equal to or less than expectable loading from
connected municipal populations. But the 1235 identified
plants whose loadings are two or more times indicated domestic
loadings are concentrated in cities with populations over
10,000; while 401 of the 6600 places treating no more than
their expectable domestic loading were communities of 1,000
persons or less, so that the prevalence of industrial load-
ings at large plants overweighs the greater number of small
plants treating domestic wastes only.
The apparently approaching preponderance of industrial
wastes as a source of municipal waste treatment requirements
has very large investment implications. A comparison of the
table that presents design as a multiple of domestic connec-
tion with the table that shows loading as a multiple of
domestic connections (Tables 8 and 10) suggests strongly that
at least half of the indicated surplus capacity of municipal
waste treatment plants is currently taken up by industrial
waste discharges. The large number of facilities whose
treatment responsibilities seem to include a significant
industrial component indicates that much of municipal govern-
ment and industrial management has accepted as normal the
municipal responsibility to treat industrial wastes. That
public utility relationship of municipality to factory may
involve large expansion and plant modification expenditures.
Finally, it should be noted that while joint municipal/indus-
trial treatment arrangements are beneficial in that they result
in attainment of economies of scale and of specialization,
they also represent a significant increase in required public
sector waste treatment expenditures. At the local level, meth-
ods of cost sharing, user charges, or lump sum payments can
be utilized to mediate the burden that treatment of industrial
wastes would constitute for the individual taxpayer. But that
portion of the investment made up from Federal matching grants
invariably represents a significant shifting of the costs of
treatment away from the cost structure of the products that
create the need for treatment and into the public sector of
the economy. Federal construction grants must be recognized,
then, to constitute a substantial incentive to industrial
waste treatment. The problem raised by the trend to municipal
treatment of industrial wastes revolves on the fact that
industrial production--and the consequent need for industrial
waste treatment--is growing at about three times the rate of
- 50 -
-------
population. Obviously, then, we must be prepared to accept
a more emphatic need for expansion capital for public waste
treatment plants than might have been anticipated from
consideration of either the raw rate of population growth or
the rate of new sewer connections.
Technological and Institutional Development
The influences that bear upon the level of waste treat-
ment investment are not uniformly pressing upward. It has
been noted that an increase in the average size of plant and an
enlarging tendency for municipalities to treat industrial
wastes can both act to reduce long term investment require-
ments, even though their initial impact may take the form of a
larger public capital outlay. Other cost-reducing mechanisms
are also operative.
For the most part these occur as a series of separate,
minor technological improvements--often directed at the incre-
mental reduction efficiencies that are becoming necessary in an
increasing number of instances and that would have proved to
be very expensive in the technological environment of a few
years ago. For example, the use of polyelectrolites to in-
duce settling improves waste treatment efficiency at a rela-
tively minor increase in operating costs. Use of plastic
filter media rather than graded aggregates has improved trick-
ling filter performance, and may cause long term maintenance
costs to be reduced. Equipment improvements, design modifi-
cations, hybrid treatment systems such as extended aeration
and aerated lagoons--a continuous trickle of engineering
improvements has entered the marketplace and is having a
moderating effect on treatment costs.
The principal improvements in unit cost expectations,
however, derive from two simple concepts: use of the oxida-
tion pond [lagoon) as a method of treatment and cooperative
use of facilities by two or more municipal jurisdictions.
Waste stabilization ponds, or oxidation ponds, or
lagoons are simple in concept. They consist of earthen
basins scaled to accommodate that volume of wastewater which
can be processed to an acceptable level of quality by the
simple natural processes of settling, organic decomposition,
and bacterial dieoff without the interposition of chemical
or mechanical aids. Since time, gravity, and atmospheric
contact can achieve in a state of nature exactly the same
339-677 O - 69 - 5
- 51 -
-------
effect as normal secondary treatment, the lagoon provides a
simple and inexpensive way to take advantage of those natural
purification processes.
Lagoons have drawbacks, of course. The over-riding one
is the space requirement. Without the artificial accelera-
tion of natural processes that is provided by conventional
waste treatment, lagoons must be large enough to hold waste-
water until the decomposition and settling processes are far
advanced. Further, the lagoon must be shallow to be effective,
since it demands natural aeration at all depths to adequately
oxidize organic waste materials; and restricted depth implies
extensive surface area. (Anaerobic lagoons and aerated
lagoons are special situations, as is the extended aeration
process. These may reduce the space requirement, but by in-
ducing equipment or staging needs, they substitute other cost
elements for space.) Because space requirements are great,
relative to those of mechanical treatment, use of lagoons
is effectively confined to small towns, where volume of
wastes to be treated is physically limited, and to places
where land is available and cheap.
There are drawbacks in operation--a tendency to over-
stimulate algal growths, percolation into the ground,
evaporation (a prime evil in an arid area), freezing--but
the method has been enthusiastically adopted by small towns
in the West, and to a lesser extent in the South, as a
convenient, inexpensive means of achieving a high degree of
waste treatment.
Simple as lagooning may be in concept, it is a rather
late acquisition to the arsenal of waste treatment methods.
Development occurred in the late 1940fs and early 1950's
and acceptance of the method is still not universal. Quite
aside from its real drawbacks, there is considerable
hesitation on institutional grounds to utilize lagooning
among States of the Northeast, where mechanical treatment
processes continue to be the rule even for very small
communities.
In spite of regional reservations, use of the lagoon
continues to advance almost annually, (cf Table 11.)
Lagoons accounted for almost 361 of all new waste treatment
plants constructed between 1962 and 1967. In some western
and southern States, lagoons made up more than half of the
new plants brought into service during that period: in
Alabama, 59%; in Idaho, 83%; in Iowa, 67%; in Kansas, 73%;
in Minnesota, 52%; in Mississippi, 86%; in Missouri, 87%;
- 52 -
-------
TABLE 11
Lagoons as a Percent of Total New Plants
Lagoons as % of Total New Plants By Size of Place
Population Under 500- 1000- 2501- 5000- 10,000- 25,000- 50,000-
Unknown 500 999 2499 4999 9999 24,999 49,999 99,999
100,000- over
250,000 250,000
TOTAL
01
to
1952-
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
4.0
8.5
10.8
14.9
17.8
12.5
4.6
50.0
33.3
45.4
50.0
45.7
59.5
65.5
59.5
69.6
61.1
62.2
69.8
21.2
29.7
30.2
54.1
56.7
50.8
54.4
61.2
50.8
64.0
21.2
20.4
30.8
39.2
33.6
41.2
36.6
32.9
39.7
40.6
N.A.
17.9
20.2
21.4
27.2
21.1
27.7
29.3
29.2
19.1
44.4
17.3
13.2
13.0
18.0
22.0
22.0
27.2
24.5
21.4
35.2
8.6
6.9
7.8
39.3
23.8
22.2
17.6
14.2
30.5
21.8
2.9
11.7
16.6
5.8
18.1
15.7
25.0
11.7
15.0
12.5
14.2
21.4
19.0
14.2
13.0
18.1
35.2
20.0
8.3
6.6
15.7
7.6
21.0
6.2
20.0
33.3
0
4.3
4.3
8.3
5.5
9.6
11.1
11.7
25.0
28.5
1.3
4.4
8.5
12.8
15.8
•16.4
18.3
20.4
23.9
34.1
30.8
35.0
36.8
30.2
37.5
45.8
-------
in Montana, 79%; in Nebraska, 64%; in New Mexico, 91%; in
North Dakota, 941; in Oklahoma, 78%; in South Carolina, 72%;
and in South Dakota, 83%.
From the economic point of view, the great merit of
lagooning is that the method has its maximum application in
exactly those small communities where unit costs are great-
est for conventional mechanical treatment processes. The
disadvantage of lagoons is that average reduction efficiency
may be distinctly below that achieved by the traditional
secondary treatment processes.
Just as lagoons provide a method of reducing unit costs
for rural communities, so joint treatment offers cost-reduc-
tion advantages in the highly urbanized or metropolitan con-
text. The idea is a simple one. Instead of building and oper-
ating several waste treatment plants, an area may construct
one large enough to handle the needs of several communities.
The larger the population to be served, the less the unit
cost of treatment.
Here, too, there are obvious drawbacks that constrain
use of the technique. On the physical side, there is a limit
to the volume of organic residues that any waterbody can
accept from a treatment plant without becoming polluted. No
matter how good the treatment, some pollutants remain in the
effluent. Where several plants are dispersed along a stream,
its self-purification properties may sustain its quality; but
sufficient concentration of discharges at a single point may
result in water pollution.
In some instances, there exist institutional barriers to
the successful implementation of regional waste collection
and treatment. The absence of viable political organizations
and legal mechanisms for combined regional works may often
lead to an inefficient mix of small treatment works.
There is an economic limit, too, to the application of
joint treatment. Though economies of scale are expressed by
constructing and operating large treatment plants, their
operation depends on the transmission of wastes to the plant.
Transmission is costly, and only slight economies of scale are
inherent in building longer sewers. The economies of the
larger treatment plant, then, only exist insofar as they are
not offset by added transmission costs.
- 54 -
-------
Whatever their drawbacks may be, cooperative municipal
waste treatment arrangements are widely practiced, (cf Table
12). In 1962, 520 municipalities provided treatment for 1560
other jurisdictions. Population of the communities served
by others exceeded 24 million; and the total population served
by systems that included more than one municipal unit was
almost 54 million, or 45% of the sewered population of the
U. S. Prevalence of joint treatment arrangements is known to
have increased since 1962, with total population included
within such systems now estimated to be something over 60
million. In fact, the very wide acceptance of the concept
prevents a precise quantitative assessment. Between 1962 and
1968, enough of these joint treatment arrangements were
regularized into specific quasi-municipal instrumentalities
(sewer district, conservancy district, county or metropolitan
systems) that assumed a legal identity, that it proved impos-
sible to trace through the 1968 Municipal Wast_e_ _Inv en t ory the
number of distinct mun i c i p aT sub-un i t s that a re contai n e d
within organizations for the specific purpose of providing
waste treatment services.
There can be no question of the broad acceptance of joint
treatment arrangements, regardless of the lack of a current
numerical assessment. In a good number of States, more than
half of the sewered population is served by a system that
handles the wastes of more than one community. In California,
70% of the sewered population was included in joint systems
in 1962; in Colorado, 52%; in Delaware, 84%; in Illinois, 751;
in Maryland and the District of Columbia, 901; in Massa-
chusetts, 621; in Michigan, 73%; in Minnesota, 61%; in Nevada,
54%; in New Jersey, 53%; in Ohio, 62%; in Pennsylvania, 77%;
in Rhode Island, 69%; and in Wisconsin, 58%. Among the highly
industrialized States, only New York and Texas do not have the
majority of their sewered population served by some combination
of cooperative waste handling arrangements.
INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
Interceptor sewers--the lines that collect effluent from
trunk sewers for conveyance to the waste treatment plant--
are an element of the waste handling complex that steadily
increases in significance. There are clear reasons
for the elevation of investment requirements for interceptor
sewers,but before considering them it may be well to
review the magnitude of the relative growth of investment
for interceptors and for other elements of the waste
handling complex. As Table 5 demonstrates, investments
- 55 -
-------
TABLE 12
PREVALENCE OF JOINT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES. 1962»
NUMBER OF COMMUNITIES AND POPULATION SERVED, BY SIZE OF PLACE
Size of Communities Providing Service
TOTAL
Size of
Communities Under 500-
Served 500 1000
Under 500 8 4
500- 1000 1 5
1000- 5000 3
5000- 10000 1
10000- 25000 1
25000- 50000
50000-100000
100000-250000
250000-500000
Over 500000
TOTAL 9 14
Communities
Serving Others
No Treatment 2 3
Primary Treatment 3 2
Secondary 7 7
Treatment
Population
Served 6900 17,230
1000- 5000-
5000 10,000
Number of Communities
33 15
22 16
44 44
9 22
7
2 3
110 107
8 9
32 24
46 48
310,835 629,980
10,000-
25,000
Served
13
24
81
23
33
5
3
182
10
39
59
2,121,685
25,000-
50,000
9
7
38
27
16
9
2
107
1
24
37
2,341,502
50,000-
100,000
13
15
60
27
29
10
4
1
159
5
25
32
4,592,265
Over
100,000
42
40
194
158
235
115
65
13
8
2
872
13
41
43
43,704,259
Communities
Served
137
130
464
267
321
143
74
14
8
2
1560
51
190
279
Population
Served
38,724
96,570
1,156,616
1,698,899
4,139,265
4,135,486
4,544,044
1,498,655
2,480,165
4,290,405
24,078,829
3,639,933
25,924,316
24,186,407
53,750,656
Source: Municipal Waste Inventory
-------
200-
180 -
CO
GC
140-
GO
100 -
80 -
60 -
4p-
20
PUBLIC INVESTMENTS FOR
INTERCEPTOR SEWERS & OUTFALLS
1952-1967
CURRENT DOLLARS'*?
CONSTANT
(1957-59)
DOLLARS
,A
INTERCEPTORS
OUTFALLS AS A
PERCENT OF
PUBLIC WASTE-HANDLING
INVESTMENT
c=
oo
CO
25
20
15
- 10
I I I I I I I I I I T I I I T
1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967
Figure 4
- 57 -
-------
for interceptors in 1952 were less than 601 of investments
for new waste treatment plants, and only about 131 of
investment for collection sewers. But with accelerated
progress toward water pollution control that occurred
through initiation of Federal matching grants for construction,
th6 level of investment in interceptor sewers began
to exceed that of new treatment plants--a relationship
it has maintained with the single exception of 1963,
when an accelerated public works program resulted in
a one year jump in new treatment plant starts. Moreover,
interceptor investments have steadily amounted to about
201 of public waste handling investments of all types
since 1956.
Since 1960, the nation has spent an average of $185
million a year for interceptors, about 30% more than it has
spent to build new waste treatment plants. Since 1956, ex-
penditures for interceptors have maintained an average annual
rate of increase of 2.2 percent a year, compared to an in-
crease of 1.8 percent for municipal waste treatment plants.
The relative vigor of interceptor investments is somewhat
surprising, in view of the fact that need for interceptors
rises with size of place, while Federal construction grants
were until very recently framed to be of maximum assistance
to small towns.
Two factors are thought to account for the strength of
demand for interception. The first is physical, and its impact
is inescapable. As the prevalence of waste treatment rises, it
becomes necessary to go further afield to collect remaining
sources of waste. The success of the postwar investment
program in the area of municipal waste treatment has forced
the nation out further along the line of increasing marginal
costs. In the early phase of the effort, it was possible to
take advantage of existing collection systems and to discharge
waste treatment needs by the simple installation of a treatment
plant. But with the initial, facile additions to treated
population accomplished, municipalities are now in the process
of hooking up those portions of their service areas which--by
reasons of location, built-up conditions, or other physical
difficulty--had not been connected to central collection
systems. Concurrently, municipalities must go out into out-
lying suburbs to bring into the system the wastes of newly
sewered populations.
The process is expensive. Indeed, it would seem that the
unit costs of interception are rising more steeply than are
the unit costs of waste treatment. On the face of things, this
- 58 -
-------
would seem unlikely in that waste treatment plants are going
into increasingly smaller communities, are being designed with
growing measures of excess capacity, and reflect pressures for
more specific and more complete materials removal. But, as
shown in Table 13, a comparison of the number of additional
persons receiving waste treatment between 1957 and 1962 and
between 1962 and 1968 with total investments in each category
indicates that the incremental costs of providing waste treat-
ment have risen for interceptor installations as well as for
waste treatment plants.
TABLE 13
COST PER PERSON ADDED TO POPULATION SERVED BY
WASTE TREATMENT, 1957-1962 and 1962-1968
1957-62 1962-
Added Population Served 27,532,000 17,412,000
Investment, New Waste Treatment
Plants (1957-61 S 1962-67) $550,480,000 $894,264,000
Investment, Interceptor Sewers $545,776,000 $962,043,000
Per Capita Treatment Investment $20.00 $56.35
Per Capita Interception Investment $19.80 $55.25
I/ Excludes New York, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Arkansas, and New
Jersey
The second reason for additional emphasis on interception
is institutional, and its consideration provides conclusions
that modify the high apparent per-capita cost of incremental
installations of interceptor sewers.
Since World War II there has been a persistent movement
toward integrated metropolitan waste-handling arrangements;
and these have been duplicated in many cases by smaller scale
local arrangements involving groups of communities or
communities and factories. In addition to Chicago, a pioneer
in such arrangements, the District of Columbia, Seattle, Los
- 59 -
-------
Angeles County, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and other
metropolitan areas have created far-flung waste handling
systems intended to bring all of the liquid wastes of an
extended area under a common administrative focus^-and often
into a single waste treatment plant.
The concept has many advantages. It eliminates over-
lapping jurisdictions, centralizes operational responsibil-
ities, allows orderly and programmed system development,
provides a higher measure of control over effluent quality,
offers more advantageous access to financial markets, and
eliminates many of the problems of staffing and operator
training encountered in smaller waste treatment systems.
Not the least of its advantages is the economies of scale
it provides in both the construction and the operation of
waste treatment plants. Larger plants cost less per unit of
capacity to build and to operate than do smaller plants. More
over, one large plant requires less capacity to operate
effectively than do a number of smaller plants that serve a
similarly scaled waste loading, since the collection network
serves the additional function of regulating reservoir, in
that time of passage from the more distant points of the
system acts to prolong peaking periods and reduces the need
to install peak loading capacity.
The obvious advantages of such systems, however, can
only be attained through recourse to an extensive and costly
system of interception. It is, in effect, the investment
for interceptors that permits realization of the economies
of scale that become available at the treatment plant. For
this reason, costly and elaborate sewer networks become
increasingly prevalent as urbanized areas of the nation move
to revamp the system of individualized waste handling arrange-
ments that has been the rule for over a century. (One of
the costs of integrating treatment systems is the abandonment
of capital involved in ceasing to operate effective waste
treatment plants when a community is brought into a larger
system. It is difficult to know how prevalent that sunk
capital effect may be, but it is known to exist. Perhaps
the imperatives of financing and initiating a metropolitan
system often require an immediate decision as to whether a
community shall or shall not join its neighbors in such
arrangements; but in the interests of capital preservation,
there would appear to be good reasons to provide for staged
connections and interim arrangements in many if not most
cases.)
- 60 -
-------
The conclusion is clear; per-capita interception costs
have risen in good part because they are being substituted
for treatment plant costs. A second conclusion flows from
this one: if metropolitan waste treatment systems provide
a means to lessen total waste handling costs, and if metro-
politan populations are growing more rapidly than the popula-
as a whole, then interception costs should continue to account
for a large component of total investment costs.
There are, of course, limits to the extent to which
consolidation of waste treatment services can be applied to
reduce costs. The available economies of scale come into
being at the waste treatment end of the line; interception
costs are fairly constant. The cost of transmission, then,
will always set the limits to the economic size of any waste
handling arrangement.
Figure 5 establishes, in a very general way, the relative
rate of accretion of economies of scale for waste treatment
plants and for interceptors. It is obvious that the scale
economies of the interceptor are far more limited than are
those of the treatment plant. Even when the interceptor's
two to one advantage in normal operational life and lower
operating and maintenance costs are taken into account,
there is clearly a point beyond which extended interception
will not reduce costs.
The figure is illustrative, and the disadvantages of
obtaining relief from treatment plant costs by incurring
additional costs for interception are not as great as may
seem from reference to the figure. The unit cost dis^
advantage applies only insofar as the interception cost
must exceed that which would be incurred by locating a treat-
ment plant at the most convenient place rather than trans-
porting waste for treatment at a central location.
Over and above that, it is questionable that per-capita
analysis of installation cost is appropriate in considering
the installation of sewers. The shape of the interceptor cost
curve was calculated in a very rough fashion after a number
of regionally differentiated interceptor projects were
subjected to a regression analysis of the correlation of cost
with population served. In most instances, the derived curves
(all of which had very low coefficients of correlation) had
moderately descending slopes—although in one case, costs
assumed a unitary relationship across the size scale. In
point of fact, the principal determinants of the cost of
sewers are physical—length of sewer lines, depth of trench,
- 61 -
-------
I
to
70 H
60
SO -
40-
t/*
< 30 -
m
o»
20-
10 -
RELATIVE APPLICATION OF
ECONOMIES OF SCALE, WASTE
TREATMENT PLANTS AND
INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
PER-CAPITA INTERCEPTION COSTS
PER-CAPITA
CONSTRUCTION COST,
TREATMENT PLANT (ACTIVATED SLUDGE)
10,000 20,000 30,000 40.000 50,000 60.000
POPULATION SERVED
70,000 80.000
90,000 100,000
Figure S
-------
slope, geologic conditions, and the nature of improvements to
land along which the sewer line is located, relate far more
intimately to the cost of a sewer project than does the size
of population which the project is intended to serve.
Because of the pattern of development of metropolitan
waste treatment arrangements, the preponderance of inter-
ception costs are borne by large cities of the nation. The
investment requirements are not exclusively the problem of
larger cities. Towns and smaller cities share the require-
ment- -though without the complications of scale and growth that
weigh upon the metropolis. Too, the smaller community is
often able to secure more meaningful direct Federal assis-
tance in coming to grips with its sewering problems,
including that of interception, by taking advantage of the
vagueness of the distinction between trunk sewer and inter-
ceptor sewer. Even without the advantages of uncertainty
in definition, the ratio of interceptor cost to total sewer
system cost relates conversely with size of community.
Therefore, the smaller communities, whose relative sewering
needs are least, are best situated to use FWPCA construction
grants to ease those needs.
The extent to which interception costs come to dominate
water pollution control program costs as size of cities
increases is indicated by Table 14, which lists by size of
place the proportion of municipal construction costs (exclud-
ing those for collecting sewers) devoted to installation of
interceptors during the period 1956 to 1966. It is clear
that the larger the community, the more dependent it is on
interception investments to maintain the integrity of its
waste-handling system. For places of more than 25,000
population, interceptor investments have consistently ex-
ceeded in amount investments for new waste treatment plants.
The pattern is unlikely to be broken. Irrespective of
the initiation of new metropolitan waste-handling arrange-
ments, the majority of the nation's population that will be
newly connected to waste treatment plants in the future, as
in the last decade, will be most likely to obtain that
connection through an extension of interception. The
reason is simple. The larger communities that serve the
majority of the nation's sewered population have, for the
most part, installed waste treatment; and their plants
appear to possess sufficient excess capacity to accept
substantial increased loadings. (Cf. Table 15.) Extension
of interceptors to take advantage of the available capacity
that exists in many places of the size where population
- 63 -
-------
TABLE 14
PERCENTAGE OF PUBLIC WASTE TREATMENT INVESTMENT
FOR INTERCEPTORS AND OUTFALL SEWERS, BY SIZE
OF PLACE, 1956-1966
Interceptor and Outfalls As a
Percent of Total Waste Treatment Investment-
I
en
Population Category
Population unknown
Under 500
500-999
1000-2499
2500-4999
5000-9999
10,000-24,999
25,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-250,000
Over 250,000
Median Year
9.8
16.6
19.9
24.5
25.3
30.7
32.4
38.5
42.0
41.9
58.9
High Year
27.7
34.5
31.6
29.7
45.6
36.7
38.7
52.2
52.9
47.9
76.6
Low Year
0
9.3
15.8
18.5
20.1
21.6
27.1
29.0
34.4
22.3
34.9
1965-67
15.7
16.4
19.7
23.5
27.1
28.5
30.4
36.2
42.7
37.3
46.5
I/ Excludes Collection Sewer
-------
TABLE 15
PREVALENCE OF WASTE TREATMENT AND
AVAILABILITY OF TREATMENT CAPACITY IN MAJOR CITIES
All Communities for Which SIZE OF PLACE
Data Are Available 100,000- 250,000- >500,000
250,000 500,000
Lacking Waste Treatment 822
With Primary Waste Treatment 18 9 6
, With Secondary Waste Treatment 39 10 9
ui
1 Percent of Installed Plants I/
With Capacity <. 1.0 times loadings 37.5 29.0 27.7
With Capacity >1.0-1.6 times loadings 39.5 38.7 33.3
With Capacity >1.6-2.0 times loadings 8.3 22.5 22.2
With Capacity >2.0-4.0 times loadings 13.5 6.4 13.8
With Capacity >4.0 times loadings 1.0 3.2 2.7
I/ Most cities in these size classes have more than one treatment plant.
-------
growth and outlying residential construction are most marked
is a likely way to increase the prevalence of treatment ser-
vices .
COLLECTING SEWERS
Although sewer systems fall, for the most part, outside
of the direct area of activity of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, their significance to water pollution
control and their specific relevance to municipal waste hand-
ling arrangements are inescapable. Unfortunately, there is
little quantitative information upon which to frame a
judgment of the necessary future costs of sewer installation,
and generalized appraisal has been attempted in the absence
of a more substantive basis for evaluation.
The 1962 Inventory of Municipal Waste Facilities in the
United States lists 11,665 sewer collection systems in place
in 1961.TTTese included over 270,000 miles of pipe, together
with manholes, pumping stations and lift stations with an
estimated aggregate replacement value, according to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, of over $8.5
billion. Between 1961 and 1967, another $3.1 billion worth
of sanitary sewers and appurtenances have been installed,
adding an estimated 42,000 miles of pipe to the system.
Population served by sanitary sewers is currently estimated
to exceed the total urban population of the U.S.
Capital expenditures for collection systems have, when
adjusted for price level changes, trended slightly downward
over the last decade and a half. (See Table 5.) In part,
the decline may be traced to a distinct drop in the level of
new housing starts since the mid-1950's. Roughly a fourth of
all sanitary sewer installations are financed by private
contractors in connection with new housing construction, with
the cost of the sub-system passed on to the ultimate pur-
chasers of the dwellings. In part, the static level of
investment may be considered to be due to the relative
completeness of the existing network of sewers.
But there is reason to believe that at least a portion
of the low level of activity in sewer installations may be
due to the postponable nature of such construction, in
combination with financial strictures. Until recently, there
have been no meaningful State or Federal assistance programs
for sewer construction, so the activity was excluded from
what has been an increasingly significant source of local
- 66 -
-------
--J
I
en
600 -
500 -
u. 400
o
V)
o
=i 300
200
100
SANITARY SEWER
INVESTMENT, 1952 -1967
TOTAL INVESTMENT
PUBLIC INVESTMENT
TOTAL, 3YR,
MOVING AVERAGE
IN CONSTANT
(1957-59) DOLLARS
PRIVATE INVESTMENT
1952 1954
1956
—I"
1958
I960 1962
'T-
IS 64
1966
—I—
1968
Figure 6
-------
government revenues. Moreover, the steady escalation of
interest rates since the early 1950's has imposed a relative
restriction on all forms of local government construction
activities. Municipalities have tended to progressively
reduce the ratio of their capital outlays to their current
expenditures for education, social programs, and debt
servicing. Given the absolute constraint of tight money
and the relative constraint of the incentive to channel
funds to take advantage of matching grants, it would not
be surprising if local government were found to be slighting
a need to install additional sanitary sewer capacity.
There is some reason to believe that the nation's
counties 'and municipalities are accumulating a significant
requirement for sanitary sewers. An estimate of the
need--based entirely on unsewered urban population, normal
population growth during the period 1963-73, average per
capita costs, and without reference to replacement--was
made in the first report of this series. That assessment
indicated a need for $6.2 billion of sanitary sewer con-
struction in the years 1969 through 1973. The Department
of Housing and Urban Development in a 1966 report prepared
for the Joint Economic Committee^/ presented a very similar
estimate. The HUD assessment assumed the provision of sewer
services to an additional 41 million persons by 1975,
normal replacement, and some progress toward separation--or
other solution to the problem--of combined storm and sani-
tary sewers. The HUD estimate projected a need to expend
$5.15 billion over the period 1969-73. Adjusting the 1965
dollars in which the estimate is expressed to 1968 costs and
adding to it the differences between estimated requirements
and actual investment during the years 1966-68,
HUD's appraisal comes to $6.68 billion over the years
1969-73, very close to FWPCA's. Both, of course, are well
above the current level of sewer installation activity.
It is questionable, however, that the divergence of
either estimate of need from the actual course of invest-
ment is in itself a cause for concern. Both estimates are
crude in the extreme. They rest largely on an assessment of
the number of persons not connected to sewer systems and the
probable course of population growth in urban areas. Sewering
requirements can only be established on a place-by-place basis
by techniques that take into account soil conditions, rate of
loading, water supply arrangements, and anticipated settlement
2J Included in State and Local Public Facility Needs and Financing.
- 68 -
-------
TABLE 16
SEWER SYSTEMS
INSTALLED, 1857-1960
PERIOD
SYSTEMS INSTALLED
RATIO OF POPULATION SERVED
TO URBAN POPULATION AT END
1857-1860
1860-1870
1870-1880
1880-1890
1890-1900
1900-1910
1910-1920
1920-1930
1930-1940
1940-1950
1950-1960
1960-1967
10
90
100
250
500
650
1400
2100
3156
2344
850
N.A.
.17
.50
.63
.72
.81
.82
.87
,89
.94
.89
1.02
1.06
-------
patterns. Because the decision to sewer must properly rest
on local assessments of local conditions, broad estimates of
need can be nothing more than convenient fictions, (cf. State
of California, State Water Control Board: Final Report:
Useful Waters for California, Sacramento, 1967, for an excel-
lent discussion of the difficulties of determining state-wide
sewer needs and a justification of a decision not to attempt
to estimate such needs.)
But if no accurate price tag can be assigned to the
current need for sewers because a comprehensive assessment
of the physical need does not exist, there is reason to be
uneasy about the adequacy of the existing rate of investment
in collecting sewers. While sewers continue to account for
a majority of public waste handling investment, their constant
dollar share has been falling slightly but perceptibly over
the last decade and a half, even though the determinants of
demand for collecting sewers continue to increase. Population
of the nation is growing at a rate of almost 1.2% a year;
metropolitan area population is increasing at a 1.61
annual rate; new household formations, conditioned by the
high post-war rate of population growth, are taking place
at about a 1.8% annual rate. Yet capital investment reflects
neither a presumably rising curve of replacement needs nor
the growing demand base.
A significant aspect of the presumptively retrograde
course of sewer investment is general acceptance by local
planning and health authorities of the use of individual
septic tanks in subdivision construction as an interim measure,
Suburban growth has been a major characteristic of metro-
politan development over the last 20 years; and in many
instances that growth has taken place in an atmosphere in
which no local authority has had either the clearly defined
responsibility to enforce, or the funds to supply, sewering
requirements. Approval of septic tank permits on a massive
scale was, under the circumstances, not only expedient but
inescapable. But acceptable levels of ground disposal
depend on soil types and loading levels. Protection of water
supplies, health considerations--and in some areas of the
country, surface water depletion--limit the extent to which
ground disposal of wastes may be permitted. In critical
situations, it has often become necessary for zoning
authorities to deny building permits that included pro-
visions for septic tanks. In other areas, population density
standards have been established beyond which use of septic
tanks has not been considered acceptable. But all local
governments are not sufficently endowed to ensure adequate
- 70 -
-------
standards of safety; and local conditions may become un-
sanitary or may result in pollution of ground water without
recognition of the fact. In view of the rapid rate of
suburban development and the seemingly laggard course of
new sewer installations, there is reason to suspect that a
significant need for sewers has been accumulating over the
years.
Another factor that raises doubts about adequacy of
sewer installation rates is an apparently growing replace-
ment requirement. Over 85% of the sewer syst.ems in the
nation have been installed since 1910, as shown in Table
16. Because the normal design life of a sewer is 50
years, local government should probably anticipate a very
sharp increase in replacement costs over the next three
decades, a period that corresponds with the maximum rate
of sewer system installation half a century earlier.
The dimensions of that replacement and rehabilitation
need cannot be estimated with precision--but some assessment
can be hazarded. Taking as a point of estimate the $11.6
billion estimated current replacement value of sewers in
place and assuming a two percent annual rate of replacement
derived from the 50 year normal life of a system, local gov-
ernments are incurring a replacement requirement at a level
of almost a quarter of a billion dollars a year. If, on the
other hand, it is assumed that in the course of the present
decade the five percent of the urban population whose service
dates from the period 1910 to 1920 must have sewer facilities
renewed at the current average cost of $139 per capita (1968
dollars), then the minimum replacement need is established
at about $90 million per year. Not only is there a wide range
of estimate as to replacement needs but there is also some
question about how much actual replacement is performed
under the guise of maintenance or repair in place. The fact
is that great uncertainty exists with respect to sewer needs,
including those for replacement.
The complexities of sewer system renewal will add to its
cost. Replacement costs based on new construction conditions
are entirely inadequate estimating tools. Thinly populated
residential areas of 50 years ago have become built up, and
have in many cases become commercial or industrial sites or
locations of concentrated, multiple dwelling housing. To tear
up streets, interrupt communications, and alter waste trans-
mission under such conditions can be enormously expensive. To
attempt to measure that expense by per-capita expenditures
that are based largely on investments made in conjuction with
- 71 -
-------
new residential construction is obviously little better than
guessing.
The significance of the sewer problem and the large sums
spent annually for installation of sewers make the general
uncertainty which surrounds the subject extremely serious and
potentially very costly. The circumstances suggest the need
for a comprehensive study of the nation's sewer system, includ-
ing such of its aspects as relation to urban drainage and waste
treatment, value of facilities in place, desirable technology,
rate of system installation, and rate of depreciation. While
the Department of Housing and Urban Development is the logical
focus for such a study, State and local government bodies
and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration might
well contribute to it.
- 72 -
-------
REPLACEMENT AND DEPRECIATION
HISTORICAL REPLACEMENT EXPENDITURES
After 20 years of high levels of construction activity,
the nation has amassed a large body of fixed capital in the
form of waste treatment plants and collection systems. The
existence of this capital has created a need for its maint-
enance, and a requirement that it be replaced over time.
Though the dimensions of the current replacement invest-
ment are not clearly identifiable because of inconsistencies
in designation, it is very clear that such expenditures have
been rising at a more pronounced rate than have new plant
investments. Contract awards for replacement and expansion of
facilities have been rising in number and value, as opposed to
the declining trend of new treatment plant investments since
1963. Recorded expansion and replacement of facilities has
involved the expenditure of more than a hundred million
dollars a year in every year but one since 1963. Currently,
such expenditures amount to about $140 million a year--rough-
ly equal to investments for new sewage treatment plants--with-
out taking into account the extent to which new plant invest-
ment includes replacement of abandoned facilities. Since 1963,
the level of investment for expansion and replacement has been
increasing at a five percent annual rate (or a 2.71 annual rate
in constant dollars). In contrast, the level of investment for
new treatment plants has declined at a 16.5% annual rate (19.7%
in constant dollars). Relative maturity of the municipal
waste treatment system of the nation is imposing a new set of
priorities in the allocation of investment resources.
DEPRECIATION
The five percent rate at which recorded replacement
expenditures have been rising reflects very imperfectly the
growth in replacement needs that must increasingly be felt as
the municipal waste collection and treatment system matures.
That the rate of increase has been so modest can only be as-
cribed to the newness of much of existing fixed capital--more
than 60% dates from 1950, and almost 40% from the initiation
of Federal construction grants in 1956.
To estimate the economic implications of the replacement
requirement, then, it is almost certainly unrealistic to pro-
ject the current rate of expenditures at some appropriate
- 73 -
-------
historical rate of increase. Depreciation--the accountant's
convention for quantifying the irregular fact of physical
deterioration—seems a superior way of assessing the built-in
replacement demand implicit in the substantial waste-controll-
ing investments that the economy has provided to this time. It
is recognized that most municipalities do not employ deprecia-
tion accounting, but the utility and validity of the concept
are generally accepted. The idea of depreciation is
appropriate in the economic sense which conveys "wearing
out" of physical plant which need not necessarily be replaced
in a given year but does represent a real economic cost
which must at some time manifest itself as an expenditure
to regenerate or replace the capital plant and equipment.
Generalized estimates of the level of depreciation are
based on the sanitary engineering rule of thumb that assigns
an average useful life of 25 years to a waste treatment plant
and 50 years to a sewer. To the extent that such estimates
are well-founded, depreciation estimates may be more meaningful
in the present context than a great deal of depreciation
accounting, where the tax laws are framed to provide private
firms with an incentive to accrue depreciation at the most
rapid possible rate.
Depreciation of municipal waste treatment plants and
interceptor sewers currently occurs at a rate that is ris-
ing from $280 million (1968 dollars) a year, or about twice
the level of recorded replacement expenditures. As has been
noted, the discrepancy between estimated depreciation and
actual replacement expenditures may be traced in large
measure to the considerable portion of the total capital base
which has been brought into being within the limits of the
normal operating life of system components. Since the nation's
capital facilities program has been of recent origins-only
becoming active at the close of World War II, and tracing its
maximum intensity from the enactment of the 1956 matching
grants program of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act--significant acceleration of replacement activities will
not become necessary for several years. After about 1971,
however, replacement needs will — at least in concept--begin
to climb very steeply as the plants built since 1946 are to
be replaced.
The replacement schedule of the future can be charted with
moderate precision (assuming that accepted depreciation rates
are accurate). The total replacement need at any time is a
simple function of the size of the capital base and the
average age of the fixed assets being depreciated. Rapid
- 74 -
-------
growth of annual depreciation charges over the recent past
mirrors the sustained expansion of facilities in place and
will translate into similarly shaped curves of replacement
needs after 25 and 50 years, in the respective instances of
treatment plants and interceptors. The rate of increase in
depreciation charges will, as the system matures, define the
major dimensions of future investment programs.
The skyrocketing growth of the potential replacement
need measured by depreciation is a direct reflection of
expansion of the facilities base. It is possible, then, to
calculate approximate dimensions of depreciation claims on
future needs at given points in time, and thus to infer the
dimensions of imminent replacement requirements. A tabular
statement of hypothecated depreciation charges at five year
intervals is presented in Table 17; and the same information
is rendered graphically in Figure 7.
The calculation process used is straightforward. Value
of plant in place was assessed in 1957-59 dollars on the
basis of the 1957 and 1962 Municipal Waste Inventories. For
succeeding years, and for the period 1952 to 1957, recorded
investments, translated into constant dollars, were used to
modify the base years' estimates and to provide a running
assessment of the value of plant in place in each year.
Per-capita investments for waste treatment plants and for
interceptors were derived on the basis of the 1957 Municipal
Waste Inventory, and applied to populations served by waste
treatment as these were recorded in the 1940, 1945, 1948,
and 1949 inventories. Gaps were bridged by the assumption
of a constant rate of investment between years of record.
It was assumed that treatment plant in place in 1940 had
come into being in regular stages over the preceding 25
years, interceptors in regular stages over 50 years. Gross
value of plant in place for each year [other than the inven-
tory years 1957 and 1962) was adjusted to a net value by
assuming that each increment of waste treatment investment
passed out of service after 25 years, each increment of
interception investment after 50 years. Price level adjust^
ments were made by application to the Municipal Waste Treatment
Plant Cost Index and Sewer Construction Cost Index. Subject
to the reliability of the input data, the depreciation model
is felt to provide a consistent approximation of the evolution
of the nation's municipal waste handling fixed capital over
time.
There is one huge gap in the model No values are assign-
able for collection sewers--whose value almost certainly
- 75 -
-------
TABLE 17
INDICATED INCREASE IN DEPRECIATION
YEAR
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1
1965
xj
1967
1 .-,......11.1
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1967
Millions of 1957-59
Treatment Plants
In-Place Depreciation
1060
1180
1410
1900
2525
3470
3885
410
460
600
980
1605
2625
3120
42
47
56
72
101
125
130
Millions of Current
16
18
24
39
64
105
125
Dollars
Interceptors
In-Place
1220
1395
1575
2125
2975
3920
4240
Dollars I/
480
550
660
1090
1930
2980
3380
S Outfalls
Depreciation
24
28
33
43
60
79
85
10
11
13
22
39
60
68
Total
Depreciation
66
75
89
115
161
204
215
26
29
37
61
103
165
193
Annual Rate (%) of
From Previous
Period
2.6
3.5
5.2
6.9
4.9
2.7
2.9
5.0
10.5
11.0
9.8
8.1
Increase
From
1940
2.6
3.0
3.8
4.5
4.6
4.4
2.9
3.6
5.8
7.1
7.7
7.7
in Depreciation
From From
1955 1960
6.9
5.9 4.9
5.3 4.2
11.0
10.5 9.8
10.1 9.4
I/ Total Estimated 1940 Plant is Evaluated in 1940 Dollars
-------
250-
225-
200-
175 -
e 150-j
g
e
a
S 125-
in
en
u.
a
co 175-1
75-
50-
25-
INCREASING ANNUAL
DEPRECIATION CHARGES,
1940-67
Treatment Plants
interceptors and Outfalls
1940
1945
I I 1 I
1950 1955 1960 1965
Figure 7
- 77 -
-------
exceeds that of all other.elements of the system, but which
cannot be quantified with present knowlege except by the
grossest kind of estimation process. A portion of that gap
is made up of interceptor sewers serving the portions of the
population without treatment at each time interval. Because
value of interceptors in place was gauged on the basis of
recorded relationships between value of treatment plant and
value of interceptors where treatment is provided, no value
for interception could be assigned for the sewered population
without treatment, even though some portion of their needed
interception facilities was unquestionably in place. The
significance of the particular deficiency in the model becomes
increasingly less with the expansion of the portion of the
population that is served by waste treatment, since a value
for interception is assigned by the procedure whenever a
treatment value is recorded. The major distortion of the model
at that point shifts from capital value of interception to
accumulated depreciation, since the effect of the adjustment
is to assign an effective life of 50 years to the incremental
interception value, regardless of what the actual age com-
position of physical facilities may be.
At the current level of accruals--equivalent to about
$280 million in 1968 dollars — estimated depreciation is
occurring at more than twice the rate of recorded expansion
and replacement, and constitutes an amount that is somewhat
more than half of the value of all recorded investments for
treatment plants, interceptors, and outfalls. And the steady
rise in depreciation presages great growth in dimensions of
future replacement expenditures.
Significantly, the growth curve is still rising
vigorously. While the rate of increase is slowing, an
absolute annual increment of about $8 million is occurring
currently; and the dimensions of charges will continue to
increase indefinitely. It has sometimes been presumed that
at some future date any "backlog" of needed treatment works
will have been eliminated. From that point, the new capital
emplacement that results in rising depreciation charges would
consist of an amount no greater than that required to serve
population increases. In fact, however, there is no fore-
seeable end to the trend of rising replacement costs, short
of a technological breakthrough that reduces unit investment
requirements. Higher levels of waste treatment and increased
public treatment of manufacturing wastes should continue to
press capital requirements upward significantly for many years.
- 78 -
-------
For this reason, it may be advisable to begin to view
capital requirements arising out of waste handling demands in
a somewhat different manner* The "backlog of treatment needs,"
as previously defined, has become an outmoded concept. Data
from the 1968 Municipal Waste Treatment Inventory indicate
that the backlog has been sharply reduced.Two distinct cate-
gories of investment currently account for the majority
of local government waste treatment expenditures. On the one
hand, funds are being spent for improvements in degree of
treatment, in efficiency of system, and in consolidation. On
the other hand, funds are being spent for replacement--or the
partial reduction of the accumulation of past depreciation.
Of the two elements, it seems likely that, as time passes,
the replacement segment of investment demand will come to
constitute the major portion of the market. Indeed, it may
be that we should not abandon the concept of backlog, but
redefine the term. While the meaningful backlog of needed
new facilities does not bulk large, there is an unquestionable
accumulation of partially depreciated facilities. If we think
of that accumulation as a backlog of foreseeable claims on
capital, the concept is entirely valid and very useful.
Emphasis is shifted from the concept of a one-time need to the
sustained maintenance of national treatment capital.
The fact is important. Replacement is not a minor detail,
it has become a major effort. If the nation is to continue to
control municipal sources of water pollution, it must be
prepared to sustain a continuous flow of investment capital for
the effort. Should a state of equilibrium control be achieved,
with no additional investments required to accommodate growth
of waste sources or to increase the degree of waste treatment,
it would still be necessary to replace facilities. And in that
equilibrium condition, 48% of the total replacement value of
treatment plants in place at any one time would be constituted
by accumulated depreciation. (Of about $10.6 billion of
current replacement value of interceptors, outfalls, and treat-
ment plants existing in the U.S. today, just about half—with-
in the accuracy of the evaluation model--represents accumulated
depreciation).
PRICE LEVEL CHANGES
The total replacement need at any time is determined by
the size of the capital base, the average age of capital
facilities, and the level of prices. While accumulated
- 79 -
-------
I
00
o
ffl
ce
5
in
o>
4000-
3500
3000
2500-
2000
1500-
1000-
500'
ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION:
INTERCEPTORS AND OUTFALLS
INDICATED
CURRENT
REPLACEMENT .
VALUE./
ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
(ASSUMING REPLACEMENT
3500 -
3000 -
(X)
•
3 2500
a
in
en
2000 ~
1500-
1000-
500-
ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION:
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
INDICATED
CURRENT
REPLACEMENT
VALUE
ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
(ASSUMING REPLACEMENT:
RAFTER 25 YRS.
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
Figure 8
-------
depreciation charges adequately reflect the size and age com-
position of facilities, they fall far short of measuring actual
replacement dimensions in that they do not account for price
level adjustments .3_/
Where the period of useful life of fixed capital is
long—as in the 25 years estimated for waste treatment plants--
the difference between the initial cost of an item and the cost
of replacing the same item can be great.
In the case of waste treatment plants and interceptor
sewers, the increase in replacement costs that is traceable
to inflation has been slightly greater over the past quarter
century than that due to the increase in physical facilities
in place. In current dollar terms, the rate of increase in
depreciation has scarcely slowed since 1960, with rising
construction costs more than counteracting influences limit-
ing the rate at which new plant construction rises.
Nor does a simple comparison of current dollar depre-
ciation estimates with constant dollar estimates adequately
reflect the impact of inflation on replacement requirements.
Current dollar depreciation rates reflect costs at the time of
installation, just as constant dollar depreciation charges
measure comparative value of replaceable facilities at
different points in time. But any increase in replacement
costs is expressed throughout the capital base, so that a
revaluation of all facilities is implicit in any cost increase.
From 1940 to 1967, waste treatment plant construction costs,
as measured by the Municipal Waste Treatment Plant Cost Index,
increased at a 4.3% compound annual rate, and sewer installation
costs increased at a 4.4% compound annual rate. Over the same
period, the constant dollar value of physical facilities put
in place increased 4,4% per year. In sum, then, inflation has,
in a general way, equalled investment as an influence on
potential replacement costs.
For the future, the effects of price level changes may be
expected to be the principal influence on replacement costs.
The higher prevalence of waste treatment, the limited need for
3/ It must be conceded that the concept of inflation is in some respects
a distortion. The passage of time invariably involves technological
improvements; and these are not normally taken into account in determination
of price levels. Despite unmeasured qualitative differences, the
quantitative impact of inflationary increases in construction costs
has become enormous with the passage of time.
- 81 -
-------
new treatment plants, as contrasted with expansion and replace-
ment and the superior organization of resources that has been
developed in reducing the extent of untreated wastes will all
limit the effective size of increase of the value of physical
depreciation. But price level changes are inescapable.
TABLE 18
RELATIVE IMPACTS OF DEPRECIATION AND
INFLATION ON REPLACEMENT OVER TIME
Period Annual Rate of Increase Percent of Constant
Dollar Investment
Fixed Capital Construction Cost Made in Period
1940-45 2.6% 1.9% 5%
1945-50 3.5 10.3 7
1950-55 5.2 4.7 18
1955-60 6.9 3.8 25
1960-65 4.9 1.4 32
1965-67 2.7 3.4 13
1940-67 4.4% 4.4% 100%
To date, accidents of timing have reduced the impact of
price level changes on total replacement requirements. Inflat-
ionary influences were at their maximum in the period of
adjustment that followed World War II, and until very recently
have been progressively moderated. Because a large part of the
total physical plant devoted to handling of liquid wastes came
on stream after inflationary stresses had eased--indeed, the
period of maximum treatment plant construction coincided with
the period of minimum inflationary effect--the net impact of
inflation on replacement has been limited. As far as price
level fluctuations were operative, the investment program
for water pollution control could not have been better phased
if it had been designed to operate as a contra-cyclical
mechanism.
- 82 -
-------
GROWTH OF REPLACEMENT COSTS, 1940-1967,
RELATIVE INFLUENCE OF DEPRECIATION AND
PRICE LEVELS OVER TIME
ANNUAL CHARGES INDEX
I
05
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
1940
1945
1950
1965
1960
1955
1967
PRICE
LEVEL
INCREASES
NORMAL
DEPRECIATION,
BASED ON
ESTIMATED
PLANT IN PLACE
Figure 9
-------
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
CURRENT LEVEL OF EXPENDITURES
Units of local government in the United States are est-
imated to currently be spending between $150 million and $200
million a year to operate and maintain waste treatment
plants.£/ On a per-capita basis, the cost amounts to about
$1.40 for every man, woman, and child being served by waste
treatment.
The significance of operating and maintenance costs to
local government has generally been overlooked. Preoccupation
with installation of facilities needed to abate or avert water
pollution has led to an imbalance of attention to investment
aspects of municipal waste treatment; so governments have
struggled with problems of engineering and financing works,
paying relatively little attention to the operation and maint-
enance costs that will exceed capital expenditures over the
life of a treatment plant.
Some idea of the magnitude of the annual expenditure
connected with operating a waste treatment plant is provided
by Table 19, which lists by size of place the average annual
cost of operation by plant and by person served, on the basis
of plants listed in the 1962 Municipal Waste Inventory. It
must be emphasized that the figures are presented as a general
guide to dimensions of average unit costs. Actual charges
are influenced by technology, size of plant, degree of treat-
ment, plant location, and other variables. The generalized
values shown in Table 18 and succeeding tables represent a
melding of all influences and are average costs; they cannot,
then, be expected to apply to any particular place. (For
4/ The figures were derived by calculating average operating costs
for treatment plants in place in 1962, as they are listed in the
Municipal Waste Inventory and apportioning investments for treatment
plants between 1962 and 1967 according to established trends for
prevalence of treatment processes among population size categories.
It is a mathematical convention representing the most likely cost
in a range of probability extending from $97 million to $314 million
and not the result of a current survey. Further uncertainty arises
from governmental accounting practices which may confuse the usual
distinctions between operation and maintenance expense and replacement
costs.
- 84 -
-------
TABLE 19
Generalized Operating Costs by Size of Place
and Type of Treatment
Average Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost, 1957-59 Dollars!/
Size
of
Place
I
00
Ul
1
Less Than
500-
1,000- 4
5,000- 9
10,000- 24
25,000- 49
50,000-100
Over 100
500
999
,999
,999
,999
,999
,000
,000
Activated
Sludgef'
P/Plant P/Capita
2,000
2,900
5,800
14,000
25,000
45,000
73,000
360,000
5.40
4.15
2.50
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.45
1.20
Trickling
Filter:?' Laqoons Primary./ All Plants
P/Plant P/Capita
2,000
3,300
6,400
11,000
15,000
27,000
55,000
61,000
5.90
4,800
2.80
1.70
1.30
1.05
.90
.90
P/Plant P/Capita P/Plant P/Capita
400
500
1,100
1,500
1,800
-§/
-v
-I/
1.00 1,400
.80 2,100
.60 3,800
.30 8,300
.20 16,000
32,000
56,000
154,000
4.60
3.15
2.20
1.60
1.20
1.10
1.00
.65
P/Plant P/Capita
1,200
2,500
3,800
9,800
16,000
30,000
54,000
133,000V
4.10
3.70
2.10
1.70
1.45
1.25
1.10
1.00
V Based on average size of population served in each population category for each treatment process
2/ Relatively low per-capita rates in the lower population categories attributed to prevalence of extended aeration.
3_/ Tend to have lower population served in every category than Activated Sludge.
4_/ Excludes intermediate treatment.
5/ Population served by lagoons in these categories are more representative of the lower population categories,
values were omitted to reduce possibility of misinterpretation.
6_/ Strongly reduced on basis of average cost, by lagoons, which treat only a tiny portion of population served in
this category.
-------
example, in national terms, the constant dollar cost of operat-
ing a treatment plant declined slightly between 1957 and 1962,
in spite of a great increase in prevalence of secondary
waste treatment. The improvement in average costs was due al-
most entirely to two influences: widespread adoption of lagoons
by small communities and assertion of economies of scale in the
over-all composition of the nation's stock of treatment plants.
Obviously, any cost advantage accrued only to new units or to
established units in which excess capacity was taken up by
growth of population served. For most plants in place in 1957,
not only was there no improvement in operating cost experience,
actual current charges had increased about eight percent over
the five years as a result of inflation.)
Notably missing throughout this assessment of operating
cost is any consideration of the cost of maintaining sewers.
We know that sewers require maintenance; and we know that the
replacement value of sanitary sewers is several times that of
waste treatment plants. Unfortunately, there is a considerable
gap in the technical literature of water pollution control at
the point where information about the cost of operating and
maintaining sewers should occur. Even if we allow for the
fact that sewer systems are relatively maintenance-free,
knowledge of the massive capital investments in sewers argues
that the absolute level of maintenance costs must be as great
or greater than operating and maintenance of treatment plants.
If, for example, interceptor sewers and the pumping stations
operated in connection with interception, could be adequately
maintained for an annual expenditure equal to no more than
three percent of their replacement value, that single segment
of the sewer system would require the outlay of about $180
million per year, equal to expenditures to operate treatment
plants.
INFLUENCES ON OPERATING COSTS
Waste treatment plant operating costs have been very
sketchily examined. The technical literature tends to present
such data as do occur in terms of specific--and often
atypical--plant situations, and to fall back for comparison
purposes on a very few and very general sources. Materials
presented in this study depend largely on a 1961 statistical
analysis conducted by the Public Health Service,(2) with some
modification to accommodate data provided by later studies,
particularly those resting on the large, but only partially
analyzed, information library accumulated by the Construction
- 86 -
-------
Grants Division of the Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration. A detailed statistical study of operating costs
is currently under way in the FWPCA. Its completion should
provide a basis for firming or modifying any numerical or
other conclusions drawn in this report.
Though operating costs in any existing plant tend to be
relatively inflexible, in that a plant in place offers little
opportunity to change costs at a given level of efficiency,
they are believed to be quite responsive to price level
changes, and are known to adjust with changes in process. On
a national scale, operating charges are subject to a great
variety of influences, and adopt a variety of configurations
when charted. Total costs, then, are subject to considerable
control over time, as available tradeoffs come to be utilized
to approach an optimum national waste treatment system. Labor,
power, parts, and chemicals are the basic elements of operating
costs, but their synthesis takes many forms, according to the
requirements imposed on the individual treatment system.
Ufasteload, degree of treatment, method of treatment, and age
of plant all have effects on the level of operating and main-
tenance costs; and there is good reason to believe that loca-
tion and regulatory and other institutional factors have furth-
er power to modify operating costs.
Size of Plant
The most pervasive influence is that of size. Economics
of scale come dramatically into effect as size of plant in-
creases. For every treatment method, however, there is a
consistent flattening of the cost to size curve, leading to the
conclusion that the cost line becomes horizontal or turns
upward beyond some point of diminishing returns. (cf. Figure
10.) And because of those inherent limits on efficiency,
application of economies of scale can not be continuous since
optimum operating costs may occur well short of the volume
of a community's waste load. The variform shapes of the costs
to size curves for different treatment methods, however, offer
tradeoff possibilities. In general, these will be expressed
as a balancing of capital with operating costs. Since coll-
ection systems comprise the major costs of the entire complex
of waste treatment needs, there is an optimum point which the
community should not exceed in collecting wastes to avail
itself of economies of scale. Because current dollars are
inherently more valuable than future dollars, there are limits
to which the community should design excess capacity into the
- 87 -
-------
2
0. V>
o on
tn
2 £
o
2 CO
a. a
i- <
V) W
O 3
o a
- pE
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS, BY TYPE OF TREATMENT
100
10
FLOW-IN
MILLION
GALLONS
PER DAY
01
t.O
10.0
too.o
THOUSAND (1957-59) DOLLARS PER YEAR
PER MILLION GALLONS PER DAY FLOW
PRIMARY
23.3
10.7
6.7
4.9
HIGH RATE
TRICKLING FILTER<
LAGOONS'
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
53.4
21.5
C.I
8.2
STANDARD RATE
TRICKLING FILTER
71.6
10.6
5.1
HIGH RATE
TRICKLING FILTER
40.0
13.5
7.5
STANDARD RATE
TRICKLING FILTER
LAGOONS
8.5
5.8
•ACTIVATED SLUDGE
PRIMARY TREATMENT
0.01
0.1
1.0
10.0
100.0
DESIGN FLOW. Mil LION GALLONS PER DAY
GENERALIZED OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Figure 10
-------
system to take advantage of economies of scale in planning to
treat expected increases in waste loads. But the two simple
capital/operating cost tradeoffs should not be ignored in
system design.
Treatment Processes
Technology, too, has a distinct impact on operating and
maintenance costs. Each of the several methods of conventional
primary and secondary waste treatment has its own character-
istic cost curve; and the interaction of those curves deserves
careful study in the selection of a means of meeting the long-
term waste treatment requirements of a community in an optimum
fashion. It is significant, too, that each treatment method
has distinct limitations of scale. The cheapest is the simple
oxidation pond or lagoon. But use of such systems is distinct-
ly limited by land availability and a variety of other consider-
erations. And though the addition of aerators increases the
effective capacity of lagooning at a modest incremental cost,
there is a definite limit to the applicability of the method
in terms of volume. There appear to be limits, too, to the
effective size of trickling filters, whose operating costs
(and capital costs as well) tend to be well below those of
activated sludge plants for most of the process size range.
The planning consequence of the inherent size limitation char-
acteristic of the various processes is that it provides
additional design alternatives in terms of investing, at
greater initial cost, in more, but smaller, plants of a process
distinguished by lower operating costs against a lower in-
vestment in a larger but more costly to operate plant. For
smaller communities, of course, such a choice does not exist.
They must accept the treatment process best suited to their
peculiar needs.
Degree of Treatment
Degree of treatment required from a facility has a very
strong influence on cost. In general, the more concentrated
a waste, the less it costs per unit of reduction to reduce
its pollutional content. As a consequence, costs of treatment
rise sharply as lower concentrations must be achieved in the
final effluent. The effect is best indicated by the increase
incests that occurs with the transformation of a system
from primary treatment to secondary treatment; and though
- 89 -
-------
experience with tertiary or advanced waste treatment processes
is not great enough to draw precise conclusions about the
dimensions of operating costs, the limited information avail-
able indicates that tertiary treatment may double the operating
costs encountered in secondary treatment.
Nor does advance of costs with degree of treatment occur
only in plateau-like steps as additional stages of treatment
become necessary. Within the various treatment processes,
levels of efficiency can vary, and with them operating costs.
For two similar treatment plants, different removal efficien-
cies are possible. And with higher degrees of pollutant re-
moval, detention time is lenghthened, sludge generation and
handling requirements grow, pumping is increased, materials
are less concentrated--all of the processing elements found in
the plant are extended and carried out under increasingly less
favorable conditions.
The principle of increasing operating costs at successive
degrees of removal is illustrated in Figure 11 for a hypo-
thetical community of a thousand persons. Here the marginal
cost curves have been inferred rather than calculated, but the
general form of the relationship is believed to be quite valid;
and average costs have been calculated from the same sources
used for other materials in this section. Cost of reduction of
biochemical oxygen demand removal increases rapidly in primary
treatment, and flattens with the addition of secondary treat-
ment. The fact is inherent in the nature of the processes.
Primary treatment is intended to reduce volume of floating
and settleable solids in wastewater; reduction of BOD and
suspended solids is almost an incidental side effect. (If the
cost curves had been graphed for solids rather than oxygen
demand, marginal cost curves would have become almost vertical
at the point secondary treatment comes into play.) When the
secondary stage of treatment is added to the system, BOD remov-
al is initially increased at a very low incremental cost, to
the point that removal efficiency approaches the practical
limits of the process. Our hypothetical town can discharge
its secondary treatment requirements with any of several tech-
nologies --each having its particular cost and treatment ad-
vantages. In the figure, the alternatives considered are a
high rate trickling filter, which is relatively inexpensive to
operate, but has definite limits on removal efficiency with a
normal composition or waste, and activated sludge, which com-
bines high relative removal with high relative costs.
The combination of primary treatment and trickling filter
may be expected to remove about 80% of the biochemical oxygen
- 90 -
-------
5 £
IB
0>
Average
Primary,
6.00 n
5.00-
4.00-
3.00-
2.00-
1.00
t
$1.10
170
COST OF OPERATING AND MAINTAINING
TREATMENT PLANT AT INCREASING
DEGREES OF EFFICIENCY. TOWN
OF 1000 PERSONS
Average Cost, Activated Sludge 90C i
Average Cost Trickling Filter 61C
BOD Reduction, Primary Treatment
150
p
130
Marginal Cost Activated Sludge
Average Incremental Cost'
Additional Removal Possible With
BOD Reduction, Secondary
High Rate Trickling Filter
110
90
I
70
Treatment
Activated
Sludge
Marginal Cost,
Trickling Filter
50
30
10
Pounds of BOD in Effluent
5
Figure 11
-------
demand in the waste stream of the community illustrated, and do
it quite effectively, at an annual cost per pound of BOD removed
per day of about $1.10 in the primary stage and $0.61 in the
secondary stage. If, however the community should see fit to
utilize the activated sludge process in the secondary treatment
stage of its plant, it could anticipate effective removal of about
90% of the biochemical oxygen demand in the waste stream, with an
operating cost of $1.10 per year per pound of BOD removed per
day in the primary stage and $0.90 per year per pound of BOD
removed per day in the secondary stage. In terms of average
costs, then, the more effective treatment method would
increase operating cost of secondary treatment almost 50%. But
when the differential operating charges of using the activated
sludge system are entirely attributed to the 10% incremental
reduction of BOD that becomes possible with the use of the
system, the average operating cost per year per pound removed
per day is calculated to be $2.16, or three and a half times
the average cost to remove a unit of biochemical oxygen
demand within the limits of the less effective process. Such
expenditures may be necessary to achieve the benefits of im-
proved water quality.
Having made the general point that increased removal in-
volves increasingly higher incremental costs, it becomes
necessary to point out that the interaction of the various in-
fluences on operating costs can completely upset the rule. Most
evident is the influence of technology. Reference to Figure
10, which contrasts operating costs for various treatment pro-
cesses, indicates that lagooning is less costly than other
methods of treatment throughout its range of application. That
advantage extends to any level of removal within the physical
limits of the process. Similarly, trickling filters, known to
achieve far higher BOD removals than primary treatment as well
as some modest improvement in solids removal, are demonstrated
by the graph to be operable at about the same cost as primary
plants over a considerable range of plant sizes. The explan-
ation lies, at least in part,5^7 in the properties of the pro-
cesses. Though parts and power costs are increased over those
of primary treatment by the addition of trickling filters,
sludge generation--which accounts for a large part of total
operating costs--is not measurably increased; and cost of chem-
icals for disinfection is considerably lessened because of the
5_/ The reservation is due to the fact that 30% of the data relating
to trickling filter costs was generated in southern States, as opposed
to 20% of the data for primary treatment. Lower regional labor costs
may have biased the sample.
- 92 -
-------
reduced organic interference with chlorination that results
from higher level of materials stabilization accomplished
by secondary treatment. There is increasing emphasis on up-
grading the operational efficiency of existing waste treatment
plants including, as one means, a higher pay scale to attract
better skilled operators. The implementation of such programs
will tend to increase operation and maintenance costs in the
future; but this increase should result in a higher level of
treatment performance.
Wastes Composition
The disinfection cost/facilities cost balance found be-
tween primary treatment and trickling filters is analogous to
many influences on operating cost that mav be exertfid by
changes in the composition of wastes.- Because domestic waste
tends to be fairly homogeneous in composition throughout the
nation and throughout the year, changes are usually found in
connection with the hookup of industrial waste sources to a
public treatment system. Existence of such arrangements can
drastically alter average and marginal operating costs of
treatment; but the variety of conditions that may occur and the
complexity of their inter-relationships make it impossible to
generalize mathematically about their cumulative impact. Be-
cause the joint municipal-industrial treatment plant is becom-
ing more prevalent, and because theoretical treatment of the
economic impacts of such arrangements has generally been lim-
ited to the economies of scale afforded by them, it is well to
describe some of the other predictable influences on operating
costs that they may involve.
There is no question that a change in the composition of
wastes can in some circumstances increase operating and main-
tenance charges. Lingering opposition to joint municipal-in-
dustrial waste treatment depends in large measure on this fact.
The clearest case in point is that where industrial wastes
include materials that may be toxic to the bacteria that
effectuate organic stabilization in conventional secondary
treatment processes. The usual remedy is to require segrega-
tion or pretreatment of such waste streams, in which case the
added cost is borne directly by the discharger creating the
potential difficulty. But such arrangements cannot insure
against the accidental spill which always constitutes a dan-
ger in connection with some industrial wastes.
- 93 -
-------
Another possible source of added cost is, paradoxically,
discharge by industry of a relatively uncontaminated waste,
such as cooling water. Because unit costs of pollutant re-
moval vary inversely, at least to a point, with the initial
concentration of pollutants in the waste stream, diluting dis-
charges of nearly pure water will increase system costs. Here
pricing can afford a remedy. If charges to the system user
are based in good part on volume of discharge, there is an
incentive to segregate for direct discharge, or to recycle,
those portions of the waste stream that do not require con-
vential treatment.
A more subtle upward influence on operating cost may
occur with fluctuations in composition of the waste stream.
The bacteria that effectuate secondary treatment are fragile
organisms, and a sudden change in their environment has the
power to short circuit the treatment system by causing a full
or partial die-off.6/ Under normal conditions, the bacterial
population will adapt itself to the changed environment, and
after a period of time return to an equilibrium level. But a
situation marked by sharp fluctuations in waste composition may
largely nullify the possibility of secondary waste treatment.
These upward influences on operating costs tend to fall in
the category of accident or of conditions subject to alteration
by arrangement or by pricing. If the waste constituents are
amenable to conventional treatment, the general effect of the
change in waste composition that occurs with joint municip-
al-industrial treatment systems is thought to be beneficial
with respect to operating costs. (The statement, of course,
refers to total costs and not to their distribution. The
6_/ A dramatic example may be found in the case of the Kalamazoo,
Michigan waste treatment plant. The bulk of the plant's waste loadings
are of industrial origin; and it has for some years operated in so
efficient a manner as to be cited as a model of enlightened cooper-
ation in pollution abatement. In late 1967, however, a paper mill
discharging to the treatment plant discontinued a minor production
process. The changed composition of the wastewater resulted .in an
immediate drop in stabilization efficiency. As a consequence, discharges
from the plant had a higher pollutional strength than before; and
a considerable volume of partially stabilized organics was consistently
incorporated in its sludges. Decomposition of such material in sludge
drying beds created an odor problem, one which was solved at considerable
cost by covering sludge beds. Maintenance of the covered beds has
added to costs; and the reduced effectiveness of the treatment plant
persists a year later.
- 94 -
-------
point is that treating an industrial waste with a municipal
waste is less costly than treating each separately. It is not
intended to infer that economies would occur in great enough
measure that total costs for the municipality would be less
after accepting an industrial waste; unit costs, however, would
be reduced in most cases. The point is examined in some length
in Volume III of this report that deals with sewerage charges.)
Because the sources of operating cost benefits to be de-
rived from widespread joint waste treatment are well defined,
it is fairly predictable that such benefits will increasingly
assert themselves on a national scale. For any given situa-
tion, however, their realization and extent will depend on the
relationships between the specific wastes that occur. Too, the
distribution of such cost advantages between the community and
industry that share them will depend on the system of taxation
or rate method used to finance the operations of the system.
A biased pricing arrangement can abort realization of possible
savings by discouraging industrial participation in the system,
or it can result in gross inequities--the most obvious example
being the use of general tax revenues to pay for operation
of a system treating predominantly industrial wastes.
A major source of operating economies is to be found in
the fact that most industrial processes using organic raw
materials produce wastes more concentrated than normal domes-
tic sewage. (cf. Table 20) To the point of overloading, the
more concentrated the waste, the less the unit cost of treat-
ment. Thus, the combination of a concentrated industrial
waste with a relatively dilute domestic sewage normally has the
effect of lifting efficiency of the secondary treatment system
closer to a biological optimum. For the municipality, unit
savings from this source may be more than offset by a major
increase in volume of sludge to be handled. The problem, then,
is one of setting a schedule of charges that adequately bal-
ances costs incurred in one area with savings achieved in
another.
Another source of possible operating economies, and one
that may assume major magnitude as time passes, is to be
found in the chemical composition of domestic sewage and the
stoichiometric balance of bacterial metabolism. Phosphorous
and nitrogen constituents of domestic sewage exceed nutrient
requirement of characteristic strains of treating bacteria,
given the usual carbon, oxygen, and water content of organics
in solution in sewage. Conversely, many industrial wastes are
nutrient deficient, and in treatment require the addition of
nitrogen and/or phosphorous. With a joint treatment system,
- 95 -
-------
TABLE 20
RELATIVE CONCENTRATION OF BOD, DOMESTIC
SEWAGE AND ORGANIC INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Waste Source
Domestic Sewage
Beet Sugar Refinery
Milk Processor
Tannery
Poultry Plant
Synthetic Fibre Producer
Brewery
Meat Packer
Potato Processor
Pulp Mill (Kraft)
(Sulfite)
(Groundwood)
Paper Mill
Mean
Concentration, MG/L
200
620V
1000
1100
480
520
610
1100
1340
290V
nooV
600
160 V
I/ Apparently includes cooling water dilution effects.
Source: W.W. Eckenfelder, Effluent Quality and Treatment Economics
for Industrial Wastewaters.
96 -
-------
the surplus nutrients of domestic sewage supply, at least in
part, the deficiency of the industrial waste, thereby reducing
chemical costs.
For most of the nation the potential savings to be found
in redressing the nutrient balance may, at this time, be small.
But it is the excessive phosphorous concentrations of treated
domestic wastewaters that is now thought to be the prime source
of excessive enrichment of waters. In circumstances--like
those of Lake Erie or Lake Michigan--where treatment for phos-
phorous is to be required, the ability to incorporate the sur-
plus phosphorous of domestic sewage in sludge by introducing a
phosphorous-deficient industrial waste stream into the treat-
ment plant should result in a very great saving over the cost
of constructing and operating specific phosphorous-reducing
processes .
Differences in wastes constituents, however, do not always
favor joint treatment arrangements. As growing waste loadings
require increasingly specific kinds of removal procedures, gen-
eralized waste treatment processes will steadily become less
satisfactory for the critical pollutants. There is clearly no
point in discharging industrial wastes which are pollutional
by reason of inorganic content, toxicity, or temperature to a
community's secondary waste treatment plant. The biological
process would either have no effect on such wastes or would
itself be less effective as a result of the addition of such
wastes. Similarly, as phosphorus removal becomes more preval-
ent, it is questionable that the factory whose organic wastes
are characterized by a near optimum nutrient balance should
use the municipal plant. For the factory, it would involve
payment for an expensive process that would be redundant
because of the low phosphorous content of its effluent after
conventional secondary treatment. For the community, it
would probably result in higher unit costs, simply because
dilution of the phosphorous content in the total effluent
stream would, under normal conditions, be expected to increase
the cost of removal.
Location
Local conditions, too, can affect the operating cost of
waste treatment plants. Materials costs may be influenced by
the nearness of suppliers. Low labor costs in parts of the
nation or in rural areas may result in local savings. More
significant, because more controllable, are attitudes-either
embodied in regulation or simply resting in local habit--that
- 97 -
-------
lie outside of the accident of place and represent deliberate
kinds of local choices. Perhaps the most obvious is an ob-
servable regional preference for one treatment method over
another. West of the Mississippi, a majority of small com-
munities have met their waste treatment requirements by
resorting to the use of inexpensive but effective oxidation
ponds. In the industrial Northeast, however, there is a de-
finite pattern of preference for activated sludge plants in
communities of all sizes.
OPERATING COST TRENDS
Operating and maintenance costs have demonstrated a
strong secular uptrend over the last decade. Current mun-
icipal expenditures to operate treatment plants are estimated
to be well over twice the level of 1957. To some moderate ex-
tent, that increase has been the result of inflation and of
population growth; but most of the increase is due to a great
increase in the prevalence and degree of treatment of munici-
pal wastes.
Method of Assessment
Operating and maintenance charges have been calculated in
gross fashion for the body of waste treatment plants listed in
the 1957 Municipal Waste Inventory and the 1962 Municipal Waste
Inventory.The method of calculation was: (1) to array listed
treatment plants according to technology (lagoon, activated
sludge, trickling filter, etc.) and population served (assumed
to be equal to the total population served in each of the
general categories used throughout this report, divided by the
number of treatment plants of each description); (2) to
multiply each size of service population by appropriate cost
function derived from the Rowan, Jenkins and Howells statis-
tical study (in some instances, the value was derived from a
more recent or more specific study) in order to derive an
average cost per plant; and (3) that value, in turn, was multiplied
by the total number of recorded plants to provide a total cost
for the treatment method and the population category. The sum
of the various products is believed to provide a reasonably
adquate estimate of operating and maintenance costs for
each inventory year, since it accommodates--within the limits
of data reliability—the major influences on operating cost;
size of plant and method of treatment.
- 98 -
-------
Because the 1968 Municipal Waste Inventory was being com-
piled at the time that this study was under preparation, a
similar calculation of operating costs could not be made for
the current year. Lacking detailed data, an estimate was made
on the basis of investment that has taken place in the interim
between inventories. The basic elements of the estimate
are presented in Table 21. The table indicates that there are
two problems to making an assessment solely on the basis of
value of plant in place in the various population categories:
(1) average rate of occurrence of costs must be gauged sub-
jectively on the basis of cost trends and the technology that
influenced those trends during previous reported periods; and
(2) rate of abandonment of facilities is unknown. With respect
to the latter, it is suggested that the in-place waste treat-
ment capital of the nation is so predominantly new that an
assessment based on normal rate of depreciation considerably
overstates the rate at which facilities are being taken out of
service. Reconciliation of capital values estimated to be
in place in 1957 and 1962 with recorded investments between the
years bears out the argument. Net investment between the per-
iods failed to account for the increased assessed value of
plant, suggesting that conventional depreciation schedules
overstate the actual rate of replacement during the period.
All costs were estimated to a common base, the period
1957-59. Deriving current dollar values proved to be an un-
certain process, in the absence of any index of comparative
prices. Lacking comparative year cost data to construct such
an index, reference has been made to analogy. It was reasoned
that processing sewage into treated wastewater is essentially
a continuous flow production process, very similar to some
aanufacturing processes in the circumstances that determine
cost. Somewhat arbitrarily, then, operating costs have been
assumed to react to price level changes in a manner that may
be described by use of the Wholesale Price Index, Intermediate
Manufactured Materials. On that basis, operating costs for
relevant years were determined by use of these coefficients:
1957-59 - 1.000
1957 - .925
1962 - 1.000
1967 - 1.080
It must be admitted that there are some rather large re-
servations about the use of the particular index. These center
about the fact that the very modest rise in the index--as com-
pared to the Consumer Price Index, for example--is due in good
J39-677 O - 69 - 8 - 99 -
-------
TABLE 21
ELEMENTS OF CALCULATION, 1967 OPERATING COSTS
Millions of 1957-59 Dollars
O
O
Size of Plant in Place
Capital Changes 1962-1967
1962 New Plant Other Adds. Depreciation^/ Plant
Indicated Operation and maintenance $l,000's (1957-59)
1967 as a % of Capital Exp. Indicated 1967
1957 1962 1967V Charges
Place 1957
Under 500 33.4 33.8
500-999 75.7 75.7
1000-4900 448.8 536.9
5000-9999 260.6 320.6
10,000-24,999 278.4 426.3
25,000-49,999 173.5 296.4
50,000-100,000 209.1 223.0
Over-100,000 920.6 920.6
TOTAL 2123.9 2836.6
TOTAL, Excluding Depreciation
\J Assigned on the basis of new plant technology trends.
2/ Assessed @ 4% of cumulative gross value for each year; no retirement assumption is included for the period 1957-62.
18.3
29.7
137.7
97.2
77.7
59.4
53.8
184.7
658.4
8.8
14.9
76.9
69.0
83.4
65.4
53.7
186.7
558.8
(8.9)
(19.0)
(124.3)
(77.2)
(98.7)
(68.4)
(53.2)
(214.2)
(663.9)
43.2
101.3
627.2
409.6
686.1
352.9
277.3
1077.6
3389.9
4053.8
3.6
4.1
3.3
3.3
3.7
3.9
2.9
5.6
4.1
3.7
4.6
3.0
3.4
3.7
3.6
3.9
5.4
4.1
3.7
4.3
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.6
4.1
5.2
4.3
4.3
1,598
4,356
20,698
14,336
25,386
12,704
11,369
56,035
146.50
173.86
-------
leasure to productivity improvements. There has been little
apparent gain in productivity of any of the several basic waste
treatment processes. Such productivity gains as have occurred
seem to have been due to better utilization of technology--
greater relative use of lagoons and utilization of economies of
scale--rather than to technological improvements. Since the
lethod of calculating costs reflects organizational advances,
it is very possible that the calculating procedure and the
chosen index both assess productivity changes, the effect being
to increase the implied productivity coefficient. The other
difficulty with use of the particular index is the fact that
the wage structure in the particular activity is known, on the
basis of scattered sampling, to be well below that in manufact-
uring, even in 1968. It is characteristic of low relative
wages that they tend to rise faster than average labor costs
during periods of full employment. Thus, the particular in-
fluence on operating costs may have had the effect of levering
actual costs upward at a greater than normal (i.e., as measured
by the index) rate. In reviewing comparative operating costs
presented herein, it is well to keep in mind that the method
of assessing them may have had the effect of understating their
rise throughout the period of discussion.
Degree of Increase
Massive investment in waste treatment plants over the last
decade has caused a substantial rise in the aggregate level of
treatment plant operating and maintenance charges. Such costs
are estimated to have amounted to about $80 million in 1957, to
have exceeded $100 million by 1962, and to be about $200 mil-
lion today.
The dimensions of the increase are not surprising, in view
of the great increase in facilities being operated. There were
7,518 sewage treatment plants of all descriptions in operation
in the U.S. in 1957. During the next 10 years, the nation
built more than 5,000 new plants. In the five years between
1957 and 1962, the number of persons served by waste treatment
increased from 69 million to 94 million. Nor do the gross fig-
ures on numbers of new plants and numbers of persons served
provide an adequate view of the increase in waste treatment
services that has occurred. Most of the new treatment plants
coming on stream in the past 10 years have been secondary
plants--between 1957 and 1962 the number of persons served by
secondary waste treatment increased more than 40% as compared
to a nine percent increase in the population of standard metro-
politan statistical areas. The whole base upon which operating
- 101 -
-------
and maintenance costs are generated has surged enormously
upward. Well over 90% of the nation's sewered population is
now served by waste treatment, and 60% is being served by secondary
waste treatment.
In view of the effective magnitude of the investment
program that has been going on, the indicated increase in op-
erating and maintenance costs is surprisingly low. The avail-
able evidence indicates that the growth of the service popul-
ation and the upgrading of the average degree of treatment
performed has been accomplished without inducing a correspond-
ing increase in operating costs. Current calculations are not
possible, because of the incomplete status of the 1968 Munici-
pal Waste Inventory, but between 1957 and 1962:
number of treatment plants in service increased 24.7%
population served by waste treatment increased 36.1%
population served by secondary treatment increased 41.2%
operating costs, in constant dollars, increased 34.7%
The nation achieved an increase of more than a third in the
number of persons receiving waste treatment, together with
an increase in the prevalence of secondary waste treatment,
for a rate of increase in operating charges no greater than
might have been expected for the increase in treatment alone.
In terms of operating costs, the benefits of secondary treat-
ment were to a large extent a pure bonus. However, current
emphasis on upgrading the performance of plants will probably
cause these figures to increase in the future.
Improvements in average operating costs were spread fair-
ly evenly through all sizes of community, but are most obvious
in the case of very small towns--those with a population under
500 persons, and those which have had the largest relative
increase in the prevalence of waste treatment. Per-capita
operating costs between 1957-62 were unchanged for the total
population served by waste treatment, except to the extent
that the price level influenced such costs. In the lowest
population category, however, per-capita operating and main-
tenance costs for all plants are calculated to have dropped
about eight percent in constant dollars, or enough to fully
offset the assigned effects of inflation. Average operating
cost per plant rose moderately on a national basis, reflect-
ing a general increase in the average size of plant as well
as in the average degree of treatment. In some population-size
categories, however, substantial decreases in average per-plant
operating costs occurred. (cf Table 23).
- 102 -
-------
TABLE 22
INDICATED TREND OF
GROSS OPERATING CHARGES, 1957-1967
Size of
Place
Under 500
500-999
1000-4999
5000-9999
10,000-24,999
25,000-49,999
50,000-100,000
Over 100,000
TOTAL
As A Percent of 1957
Total Current Dollars
As A Percent of 1957
ANNUAL OPERATING CHARGES, MILLIONS OF 1957-59 DOLLARS
1957
PRIMARY
0.45
1.09
5.02
2.69
2.86
2.88
1.71
12.11
28.80
26.64
SECONDARY
0.75
2.00
9.68
5.80
7.37
3.87
4.31
24.17
57.96
53.61
TOTAL
1.20
3.09
14.70
8.49
10.23
6.75
6.02
36.28
86.76
100.00
80.25
100.00
1962
PRIMARY
0.40
0.89
4.91
2.28
4.85
3.74
2.54
13.67
33.28
33.28
SECONDARY
0.86
2.57
11.46
8.51
11.03
6/90
6.25
36.03
83.61
83.61
TOTAL
1.26
3.46
16.37
10.79
15.88
10.64
8.79
49.70
116.89
134.7
116.89
145.6
Excluding of Facilities:
Depreciation
1957-59 Dollars
Current Dollars
1967
TOTAL
1.60
4.36
20.70
14.34
25.39
12.70
11.37
56.04
146.50
168.8
158.22
197.1
173.87
187.78
I
H
O
I
-------
TABLE 23
TRENDS IN UNIT OPERATING COSTS
1957-1962
EXPECTABLE AVERAGE ANNUAL COST IN 1957-59 DOLLARS
I
M
O
I
Size of Place
Under 500
500-999
1000-4999
5000-9999
10,000-49,999
50,000-100,000
Over 100,000
Average
(Indicated Range)
Average in
Current Dollars
Estimated Cost Per Plant
1957
1500
2300
4300
9900
17,500
40,000
156,000
11,500
(7,000-19,000)
10,500
1962
1200
2500
3800
9800
16,000
53,500
123,000
12,500
(7700-21,000)
13,000
Estimated Cost Per Capita
1957
4.40
3.65
2.20
1.60
1.40
1.10
1.00
1.25
(0.80-2.10)
1.20
1962
4.10
3.70
2.10
1.70
1.45
1.10
1.00
1.25
(0.75-2.05)
1.25
-------
Cost-Moderating Influences-1957-62
Relative improvements in unit operating costs that
occurred as a result of additions to waste treatment be-
tween 1957 and 1962 were accomplished as functions of the
technological adaptation and assertion of economies of
scale that occurred as a result of the investment program.
Technological change involved an altered pattern of pro-
cess acceptance rather than development of improved treatment
processes. A shift in the relative prevalence of processes
was continuous throughout the period. To a degree, the change
involved an increase in the use of relatively high cost methods
of treatment; but, on balance, the effect of change was exer-
cised in the direction of cost reduction.
Most notable change, in gross terms, was the relative de-
cline in the use of primary waste treatment as the sole treat-
Bent. The total number of persons served by primary treatment
increased by over seven million in the course of the five years,
with at least 173 additional primary treatment plants coming
into service. The net increase in population served, however,
occurred entirely in higher population categories. More than
balancing new primary plants installed in communities of 5,000
or more was apparent net retirement or conversion of 231 pri-
mary treatment plants in communities having populations under
5,000. As a proportion of total plants in service, primary
treatment plants declined from 37% in 1957 to 29% in 1962.
{cf. Table 24 for summary.)
While a decline in the prevalence of primary treatment
relative to secondary treatment would normally be expected
to involve increased operating costs, the way in which that
decline took place was largely responsible for holding nation-
wide unit costs down. Net reduction of numbers of primary
plants occurred in communities in the smallest population size
categories, where unit costs are highest. Net increase in
active plants and in population served, then, was concentrated
in the larger communities; and, in terms of the national economy,
incremental unit costs were sharply reduced by the consequent
assertion of economies of scale. Summation of the negative
value represented by operating costs of primary plants taken
out of service or upgraded to secondary treatment with the
operating charges for the increment of seven million persons
served by added primary treatment plants indicates that the
addition to primary treatment capacity was brought on-stream
- 105 -
-------
TABLE 24
PATTERNS OF PROCESS CHANGE IN
WASTE TREATMENT, 1957-1962
o
en
Size of Place
Under 500
500-999
1000-4999
5000-9999
10,000-24,999
25,000-49,999
50,000-100,000
Over 100,000
TOTAL
Percent of New
Plants
Percent of 1957
Plants
Percent of 1962
Plants
— q
Activated
Sludge
20
9
23
31
28
28
15
57
211
11.2
7.9
8.6
RANGE TN
Lagoons
233
178
396
43
45
10
9
4
918
48.8
5.8
14.5
NUMBERS OF J>T AWT<::
Other I/
Secondary
2
21
141
162
224
93
30
135
808
43.0
49.3
48.1
Primary
-22
-119
-90
23
58
40
21
31
-58
-3.0
37.0
28.8
Total
233
89
470
259
355
171
75
227
1879
Percent Change
Primary
-7.0
-21.7
-6.9
9.5
37.1
56.3
84.0
50.0
-2.2
Secondary
52.0
27.2
26.3
39.5
71.9
119.0
87.0
230.5
41.6
I/ Includes extended aeration.
-------
at a net per-capita operating cost of about $0.63 (1957-59
dollars) .
It is precisely that low cost of incremental primary
treatment that is mathematically responsible for holding the
average operating cost level for the nation as a whole.
But if assertion of economies of scale in addition to
primary waste treatment capacity are mathematically respon-
sible for controlling unit costs, such control was only
possible as a result of a change in acceptance of lagooning
as an acceptable means of waste treatment. Almost half of
the new plants coming into use during the period were lagoons;
and these were concentrated in those population size categories
that exhibited a net decline in number of primary treatment
plants in operation. Availability of the efficient, low cost
process encouraged small communities to adopt it. The effect
on the cost structure was doubly beneficial. In the aggregate,
lagoons were brought on-stream with their characteristically
low unit operating cost; and small, expensive primary treat-
lent plants were taken out of operation.
Increased prevalence of lagooning also exerted a moder-
ating influence on the average cost of secondary waste treat-
lent. Even more than economies of scale, the influence of
lagoons on incremental operating costs was responsible for the
fact that new secondary treatment plants, as a group, were
Irought into operation at an average operating cost of about
|L43 per capita.
All of the influences of process-selection, however, were
not on the cost-reducing side of the ledger. Need, anticipa-
tion of need, or desire for more complete treatment led a
growing number of communities to install activated sludge
plants, the most efficient but the most costly to operate of
the secondary treatment processes . Eleven percent of the net
change in plants in service was provided through use of the
activated sludge process, compared to its relative presence
of only eight percent in 1957.
The way in which economies of scale, which were so largely
responsible for controlling the rise of operating costs, were
ierived is significant. Scale economies were made available
in large measure because of the composition of the total
system of communities requiring waste treatment. They
;occurred because there was a distinct need in communities of
,every size.
- 107 -
-------
Because of the availability of a large untreated compo-
nent in every size category of community, the average popula-
tion served by a waste treatment plant increased about 101
as a result of new plant construction between 1957-62. But
within most population categories, the average size of the
population served by waste treatment declined.
The average size of the added plant brought into service
between 1957 and 1962 was greater than the average size of
plant in place in 1957, then, only because of the avail-
ability of treatment requirements in cities at the higher end
of the population size scale. The presence of a waste treat-
ment plant seems to correlate with the size of a place: the
larger the community, both absolutely and within each of the
general population categories, the greater the likelihood that
it provides waste treatment. Chance--more precisely, express-
ion of the probabilities determined by the combination of com-
munity size and prevalence of waste treatment in 1957--rather
than planning was largely responsible for controlling the over
all rise of operating costs between 1957 and 1962.
It must be noted, too, that information on the efficiency
of plant operation was not available for these analyses and,
as previously stated, efficiency of removal has an effect on
operating costs. The extent to which higher operating effi-
ciencies might have increased calculated costs over the period
cannot be ascertained with currently available data.
- 108 -
-------
TOWARD THE DEFINITION OF AN APPROPRIATE RATE OF INVESTMENT
If the point of this report has been adequately expressed,
it is recognized that no lump sum dollar value estimate can
properly assess the ultimate dimensions of municipal waste
treatment needs. The problem, then, is to determine a level
of investment that will allow the nation to sustain and to ex-
tend its control over the municipal discharge of wastes over
the next five years .
It should be clear that no completely comprehensive esti-
late of that rate of investment is possible. Within what time
frame does the nation wish to establish what degree of waste
reduction? What program priorities will be adopted at the
national level and by the individual states? What technolog-
ical improvements are in the offing? What social and produc-
tive mechanisms will act upon waste treatment requirements?
Questions of this nature must be answered before any thought-
ful analyst will hazard an opinion on the appropriate rate of
investment for the next five years.
Even if we recognize the foolishness of attempting final
fflswers about any aspect of the human condition, however, we
can narrow the range of doubt that surrounds the question
ider consideration. By making certain limited assumptions,
re can postulate that the existing level of investment for
raste handling facilities is or is not consistent with definite
program or policy goals, and whether it appears to be benefi-
cial to extend or contract proposed times of accomplishment,
to increase, decrease, or maintain the existing level of in-
restment. The purpose of this section of this report is to
compare indicated near term investment levels with those deter-
lined to be compatible with three basic assumptions of national
»ater pollution control policy:
1) all sewered municipal wastes should receive the best
practicable treatment before their discharge to a
waterbody;
2) in most cases, secondary waste treatment meets the
definition of best practicable treatment; and
3) the indicated degree of treatment is closely assoc-
iated with the general national goal of meeting water
quality standards by 1973.
- 109 -
-------
THE CURRENT SITUATION
The general outline of the municipal waste treatment
situation as it exists today is summarized in Table 25.
There are in the U.S. more than 11,000 sewered communities.
These include a population of about 131 million persons. About
14% of the sewered communities and eight percent of the sewer-
ed population are without waste treatment services. Nineteen
percent of the communities and a third of the sewered populat-
ion are served by primary or intermediate waste treatment. A
majority of both sewered places and sewered population receives
waste treatment services scaled at the secondary level.
Prevalence of waste treatment increased markedly over the
last six years. More than 17 million persons were added to the
inventory of those receiving waste treatment, 12 million
through additions to the sewered population - additions that
took the forms of both extension of sewer service and of net
population growth in areas already provided with sewers - and
five million through initial installation of treatment services
in previously sewered places. (These are net figures. Within
each category of sewerage service there were plus and minus
components that resolve to the approximate quantities indica-
ted. Several millions of persons who received primary treatment
in 1962 had their service upgraded to secondary treatment, for
example, but enough primary treatment additions were accompl-
ished to both compensate for those moving out of the category
as a result of upgrading and to provide an additional measure
of increase.)
Occurrence of major changes in the level of municipal
waste treatment between 1962 and 1968 is summarized by size of
place and categories of waste handling service in Table 26. It
should be noted that both Tables 25 and 26 present an inadequate
sketch of 1968 conditions, in that they include 1962 rather
than 1968 conditions for the States of New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Arkansas. Those five States provided
about 20% of all municipal capital expenditures for waste
handling improvements between 1962 and 1968, but their current
waste inventories were processed too late to assess the result-
ing level of improvement. While it is unlikely that national
accomplishments were 20% greater than indicated by Table 26 --
the effectiveness of investment in the group of states surr-
ounding New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania is half or less
than the median for the nation -- there is no question that
the two tables reflected current conditions in the five missing
States, a brighter picture would emerge.
- 110 -
-------
Size of Place
1960 Census
Unknown
Under 500
500-1000
1000-2500
2500-5000
5000—10,000
10,000- 25,000
25,000-50,000
50,000-100,000
100,000-250,000
250,000-500,000
Over -500,000
TOTALS
TABLE 25
1968 MUNICIPAL WASTE INVENTORY1/
PRIMARY
Treatment
SECONDARY
Treatment
N O
TREATMENT
Total
Plants
112
261
355
623
368
279
242
106
48
35
17
22
2,468
Communities Population
Identifiable Served
65
239
338
550
318
239
211
83
41
18
9
6
2,117
6,284,805
587,361
249,101
980,302
1,110,813
2,532,269
3,453,900
3,063,100
3,374,220
3,419,215
3,307,525
15,372,410
43,735,021
Total Communities Population
Plants Identifiable Served
643
1,231
1,422
2,160
1,329
961
771
258
158
97
76
77
9,183
302
1,117
1,334
1,945
1,103
781
519
166
74
39
10
9
7,399
8,049,603
1,820,942
1,322,214
3,422,129
4,325,341
5,763,512
8,875,655
6,588,635
6,192,422
6,604,168
4,200,285
18,620,880
75,785,786
Communi-
ties
15
252
333
491
215
143
82
25
14
8
2
2
1,582
Population
Served
271,725
79,640
228,444
685,556
704,898
1,649,878
1,354,855
839,075
1,071,710
1,224,070
858,905
2,305,900
11,274,656
I/ Includes 1962 rather than 1968 Conditions for the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Arkansas.
-------
TABLE 26
INCREASED OR (DECREASE) IN MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT
1962-19681/
TYPE OF TREATMENT FACILITY INDICATED POPULATION SERVED
Size of Place Primary Secondary Untreated Primary Secondary Untreated
Unknown 22 370 (12) 860,475 2,933,278 (773,340)
Under 500 (26) 521 45 (538,755) 1,606,031 13,312
500-1000 (67) 464 (71) (26,038) 520,763 (51,487)
1000-2500 (175) 557 (220) (119,810) 946,035 (297,935)
2500-5000 (54) 271 (106) (15,050) 1,032,670 (300,305)
5000-10000 9 142 (65) 1,084,138 940,406 378,005
10000-25000 15 94 (38) 242,703 1,419,079 (495,180)
25000-50000 (8) 46 (12) (537,729) 863,165 (243,050)
50000-100000 (3) 59 (9) 580,040 1,683,842 (574,400)
100000-250000 (6) 37 (6) (337,094) 1,760,063 (562,070)
250000-500000 18 (2) 263,550 (71,345) (548,000)
Over - 500000 (5) (33) (1) 1,643,770 275,340(1,504,800)
TOTAL (298) 2548 (497) 3,106,930 14,305,540(4,959,250)
1962-68 change as
a percent of the
1962 condition (10.7) 38.4 (23.9) 7.6 23.2 (30.5)
_/ Excludes changes that took place in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Iowa, and Arkansas.
- 112 -
-------
to
PERCENT OF SEWERED
POPULATION OF STATE WITHOUT
TREATMENT
50%
30-50%
15-30% gg
5-15% iiiiijj
5%
1%
PREVALENCE OF WASTE TREATMENT IN EACH
STATE, 1968
1962= 0.1%
Figure 12
-------
Consideration of the national situation is somewhat de-
ceiving. Those cases in which sewered wastes are untreated are
localized to an extraordinary degree. Over 951 of the sewered
population of the coterminous States west of the Mississippi
is connected to waste treatment plants. The six New England
States, which contain less than six percent of the nation's
population, account for 231 of its sewered population without
waste treatment. And if the untreated components of the New
York and Pennsylvania sewered population, as constituted in
1962, are added to New England's the eight northeastern states
are found to contain almost 55% of the sewered but untreated
population of the nation.
A secondary focus of abatement requirements may be found
in the bloc of southeastern States. From North Carolina to
(but not including) Florida ou the south, and from the Atlantic
seaboard through Louisiana, perhaps up into Arkansas and cer-
tainly up into Missouri, the prevalence of waste treatment is
distinctly below that of the western and Great Lakes States.
This area has been reducing its deficiencies at a much more
pronounced pace than has the Northeast, however. And with the
construction of waste treatment plants to serve the New Orleans
and Memphis metropolitan areas, the untreated population of the
southeast would recede to a very small number.
As one might anticipate, the general outlines of the
regional pattern of prevalence of treatment extend to the dis-
tribution of secondary waste treatment among the States. There
are significant differences, however, but some of these
differences are a function of regulatory requirements and hy-
drology as well as accomplishments. The arid Southwestern
States still lead the nation, but States around the Great Lakes
compare much better than the Pacific Coast States with respect
to this measure of intensity of municipal pollution control
effort. Abundant water for dilution and assimilation of
wastes has made primary treatment more acceptable on both
coasts and along some major waterways--the Mississippi, the
Ohio, the Tennessee, the Columbia, the Missouri--than in the
drier interior regions of the nation. With respect to second-
ary treatment, too, New England trails far behind the rest of
the nation; and Alaska and Hawaii have a low incidence in re-
lation to their population.
STATES' VIEWS OF THEIR NEEDS
Existence of widely varying conditions from State to State
-- ansxng from regional geography and hydrology, level of
- 114 -
-------
attainment of treatment,nature of industrial specialization,
political configurations, engineering practices--has, as one
would expect, a major influence on each State's view of its
needs, as views have been formulated by appropriate public
agencies. Certainly the local differences in attitude and
practice of pollution control are critical in attempting an
assessment of rate of investment, for it is State pollution
control policy and authority that is the primary instrument
for translating an abstract concept of needs into an invest-
ment program.
There are two sources, each unfortunately incomplete,
of State estimates of pollution control needs. The water
quality standards of 36 of the 50 States contained partially
time-phased lists of needed treatment works specific enough to
be utilized for this report. These have been compiled, by
category of improvement and by size of place, and are presented
in Table 27.
As a source of estimate for anticipated investment re-
quirements, the water quality standards were not sufficiently
specific in data. No compilation of needed municipal works
could be arranged for 28% of the States. The lists were
compiled rapidly under the extreme pressures involved in the
preparation of water quality standards in a short period of
time. Some States included works required only for interstate
waters, others included needed improvements for both interstate
and intrastate situations. There was no common method or com-
mon terminology employed in assembling the lists. In most
cases, the State provided only a list of untreated places ana
indicated a need for a treatment plant without specifying what
ancillary works would have to be installed in connection with
the proposed treatment plant. (Almost the total list of needs
in the outfall category, for example, was composed of notations
in the standards submitted by the State of Washington) . Few
States indicated existence of improvement or replacement re-
quirements. In many instances, lists included projects under
construction. For all of these reasons, no effort was made
to provide a dollar value assessment of the implementation
plans on a State-by-State basis. It was felt that the imple-
mentation plans submitted in connection with the standards
were not suitable for this purpose. (A table similar to Table
27 is presented for each of the 36 States in Volume II
of this report).
A crude dollar value assessment of the compendium of water
quality standards relating to municipal waste treatment is pre-
sented in Table 28. The evaluation rests on the assumption that
- 115 -
M9-677 O - 69 - 9
-------
PERCENT OF
SEWERED POPULATION
WITH SECONDARY
TREATMENT SERVICE:
90%
75-90%
50-75%
25-50%
25%
PREVALENCE OF SECONDARY TREATMENT
AMONG THE STATES,1968
CTi
I
Figure 13
-------
TABLE 27
Construction Requirements Defined in
State Water Quality Standards:
Total Projects, 36 States
Unknown
^C 60°
500-1000
100C- 7600
2500-5000
FOOO-10COO
10000-25000
25000-50000
50000-100000
100000-250000
250000-5COOOO
^^500000
Total
• NDICATED
COMPLETION DATE
1968
1959
1970
1971
1972
1973 or'laler
Date not given
Total Projects
NEW PLANT
Primary
12
12
7
5
6
i;
3
2
i
i
i
5ii
Secondary
203
109
96
llt£
55
lUt
ill
9
7
5
If
715
EXPANSION/UPGRADING/REPLACEMENT
Vim to Sec
15
31
56
92
53
1*2
56
22
8
9
3
6
393
Primary
5
9
5
9
It
3
8
3
1
kl
Secondary
25
30
llB
87
It?
51
U3
25
10
ll
2
It
376
INTERCEPTORS
28
10
8
15
18
13
13
8
5
5
3
6
132 _j
ANCILLARY IMPROVEMENTS
Disinfection
63
28
66
129
65
63
62
25
9
12
6
7
535
Outfall
13
9
8
7
18
8
7
If.
If,
2
80
lnterce|:tion
8
3
3
2
5
2
8
1
32
Plant
7
1
3
9
8
3
6
If
3
2
1*6
TERTIARY TREATMENT
Phos. Reduction
5
i
It
5
l
1
2
19
Othe
3
it
it
18
1?
9
3
1
^
1
62
NUMBER Of
COMMUNITIES
300
20lt
265
ItiA
2lj6
221
205
80
36
22
8
13
20ltl
fSrAi MoJIEVI
ICHEDULED
ftf »IAI
2d3
315
168
386
312
756
251U
vj
I
-------
listed improvements are distributed in such fashion that their
average value is similar to that of the same classes of pro-
jects undertaken during the last three years. Multiplication
of the number of projects of a given description by a value
equal to the average amount of contracts for that kind of pro-
ject, with the product raised by a factor that allows the aver-
age cojt of projects undertaken between 1965 and 1967 to be
expressed in 1968 dollar equivalents, provides an estimate of
the assessed cost of listed requirements. On the assumption
that requirements are distributed according to population be-
tween States whose implementation needs were supplied and those
whose needs were not supplied, the $897 million list of needs
is extrapolated to $1.1 billion for all States. The amount is
far too low to be creditable, at least as it compares with
either the recent history of investment or with other estimates
of need.
TABLE 28
GENERALIZED EVALUATION OF
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS-DEFINED
POLLUTION CONTROL NEEDS
Avge. Cost
No. of Per Project, Price Level Indicated Cost
Category of Need Projects 1965-67 Adjustment (S Millions)
New Plants 769 325,000 1.034 258.4
Replacement & Addition 1429 364,000 1.034 537.8
Interception 132 374,000 1.034 51.0
Tertiary Treatment 81 364,000 1.034 30.5
Outfalls 80 235,000 1.034 19.4
Total, 36 States 2514 897.1
Indicated (on basis of
population) for 50 States 1121.4
A far more comprehensive estimate of needs has been pro-
vided by most States in connection with applications for Fed-
eral program grants. Though less than complete, and lacking
- 118 -
-------
NUMBER OF NEW TREATMENT PLANTS REQUIRED
IN EACH STATE'S
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
17
Figure 14
-------
either a common method or common definitions, these estimates
have the great merit of being evaluated in dollar terms by the
States themselves, and of being related to real program poss-
ibilities. They are, in short, more or less complete assess-
ments of the estimated costs associated with achieving definite
series of program goals. They reflect, then, local estimates
of the possible and the local sense of real world priorities.
When arrayed State by State against the estimates of mun-
icipal needs provided by FWPCA in its 1968 report, The Cost of
Clean Water, as is done in Table 29, the two sets of values are
seen to have a rough correspondence. The over-all similarity
should not be belabored. It arises out of the major factor
that shapes the relative dimensions of needs, the national dis-
tribution of population. Internal differences are much greater
than simple numerical comparison would indicate.
Where the FWPCA estimate is a mathematical estimate based
on the assumption of secondary treatment for most of the urban
population of the U.S., the State estimates are pragmatic
evaluations of program consequences. The FWPCA estimate
assumes an additional $1.2 billion dollar per year investment
in collecting sewers--and that level of sewering is critical
to the $8 billion treatment plant requirement, because without
an accelerated program of sewering, there would be no need for
a good part of the proposed treatment plants. The State esti-
mates in many cases include a component of sewer project costs.
They also include a good number of miscellaneous system re-
habilitation needs that could scarcely be accommodated by the
FWPCA method.
It should be recognized that there are great weaknesses
of estimate inherent in the States' assessments of needs. Lack
of values for every State is a glaring deficiency, of course,
as is the absence of a consistent rationale. It should be
emphasized, too, that there are great differences in capability
among States. Some staffs are sufficiently sized, trained,
and experienced to be able to pinpoint the sets of local needs
that go into such an estimate with great accuracy, and to
evaluate with some precision their dollar value equivalents.
Others are less capable, by reason of manpower deficiencies or
program emphasis, in this regard. Cost estimates are in some
cases deficient, particularly when many State definitions of
need incorporate a major institutional constraint. Willingness
to proceed with an indicated project is more apt in many cases
to get that project identified than is a real physical require-
ment. Depending on the authority of any State to implement its
program, the readiness of communities to meet their pollution
- 120 -
-------
TOTALS
COMPARISON OF 1968 FWPCA ESTIMATE AND 1969 STATE
PROGRAM PLANS ESTIMATE OF NEEDS
FWPCA 1968 Estimate
I
\->
NJ
H
I
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kans as
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
$131.0
12.8
84.0
45.5
645.2
97.6
175.8
30.1
21.4
347.0
209.6
35.5
23.0
367.0
162.1
34.7
49.6
120.8
182.1
43.9
128.4
186.3
535.8
172.4
54.1
126.8
25.5
29.0
18.1
32.6
505.0
State Program
Cost Estimate No.
($ Millions)
$7.1-'
not available
no estimate
17.3
530.0
30.8
179.3
46.4
not available
174.5
105.3
34.6
2. 12/
313.4
87 . 2 V
not available
20.5
51.3
37.2
148.8
151.0
52 . I—/—/
210.1
67.9
50.4
35.2
11.1
4.4
21.9
59. 24/
800. 03/
Plans
Of P]
15
—
104
85
188
56
75
36
—
89
105
28
30
530
94
—
99
74
48
89
116
96
183
284
157
61
26
71
34
26
n.a
-------
TABLE 29 CCont' d)
to
10
COMPARISON OF 1968 FWPCA ESTIMATE AND 1969 STATE
PROGRAM PLANS ESTIMATE OF NEEDS
TOTALS FWPCA 1968 State Program Plans
Cost Extimate No. of Projects
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
TOTALS
37.6
963.6
95.6
11.3
461.7
57.4
130.2
310.9
38.3
93.9
12.5
147.8
323.6
127.4
17.7
194.7
155.3
50.4
122.4
9.0
no estimate
no estimate
no estimate
$7,994.0
not available
1,414.7V
36. IV
1.61/
262.2
99.8
37. 2±/
454.2
47.9
not available
9.91/
25. Ol/
159.7
10. 61/
34. 9l/
74 . 5T/
13. H/
42.3
not available
1.2
7.6
not available
mot available
—
415
26
19
181
181
44
698
21
—
69
24
203
45
62
75
23
79
—
43
11
—
—
$5,181.6
5,018
I/ State Program Plan does not distinguish between one-year and five-year needs.
2/ Estimate Covers Only 8 Projects.
3/ Estimate provided by FWPCA Northeast Regional Office
4/ Other estimates provided by the Northeast Region Office indicate substantial differences
~ from State Program Plans. These estimates are: Massachusetts, $400 million; New Hampshire,
$120 million; New York, $2,065 million. The differences, however, cannot be explained as
the underlying assumptions for the estimates are not explicitly stated.
-------
rnn £ obligations is always critical to such assessments.
.
u btate representative phrased it that, "Some of these are
wnat we can get; but some we really need. They've been gleams
in the district engineers' eyes for years, but we don't know
wnen we 11 ever get them.") Thus, in a major sense, these es-
timates represent expectations concerning levels of capital
expenditure over the next five years rather than expressions
of need for treatment facilities to meet stated goals . If The
difficulty of comparing these estimates of expenditures" with
the accomplishment of the three national goals stated above is
further complicated by the fact that there is not a total cor-
relation between the programs proposed for these expenditures
and the program necessary to meet national goals. For example
the expenditures estimates include such items as storm-water '
control projects, collection sewers, and plant capacity for
industrial wastes which were not incorporated in the municirjal
waste control cost estimates made by FWPCA, these items being
estimated as separate elements. The extent to which such items
are included in the State estimates is not fully known.
Having expressed the obvious reservations about the State
plans, it is necessary to point out that the assemblage of in-
dividual plans unquestionably constitutes the soundest basis
yet achieved for estimating anticipated capital expenditures
Uneven though it may be, it has the virtues of specificity
local information, and recognition of the possible. It is
flawed by neither an excessive artificiality nor by a lack of
recognition of the dynamics of water pollution control, since
the States which submitted program plans demonstrated an almost
unanimous awareness that they were time- conditional and in no
sense an ultimate expression of objectives.
A surprising feature of the State program plans is their
general repetition of the recent pattern of investment A maj-
ority of States see a need to invest just about as much in the
next five years as in the last six years- -and often without
respect to the apparent accomplishments of the last five years
Some of the more successful States indicate an easing of near
term investment requirements, but others appear to view main-
tenance and upgrading requirements as being very significant
forces. For example, Delaware, with some form of waste treat-
ment for all of its sewered population accomplished, sees a
7/ Jt seems clear that these expenditure expectations are conditioned
by expectations concerning the level of Federal grant support. It
appears, too, that the expected levels of other sources of funds
are impHat in these estimates, since the level of expenditure expec-
tations tends to fluctuate »ith the fate of proposed b*ond issues
- 123 -
-------
need to invest more than three times as much in the next five
years as in the last six; Colorado, with almost complete sec-
ondary treatment, sees little relief from investment pressures;
and the same situation holds for Nevada, Utah, and Texas. The
States of the Northeast are apparently well aware of their
situation in municipal waste treatment-without exception they
have proposed expansion of investment programs. Other rela-
tively deficient States --Hawaii, Louisiana, Alabama among them-
-either propose no increase, or actually forsee a decrease in
investment intensity. Table 30 provides the State-by-State
comparison in a summary of the salient elements of State mun-
icipal pollution control programs.
REGIONAL COST DIFFERENCES
One of the elements that State cost estimates do not
adequately reflect is the enormous disparity among States in
the effectiveness of an investment dollar. All communities
do not receive the same benefit from their investments in
terms of unit cost even for comparable types and sizes of
plant. To some extent, it is only natural and expectable
that there be great variation from State to State in average
return on investment: average size of place, degree of treat-
ment, interception costs, industrial load component, added
capacity factor, design and equipment standards all vary from
State to State and all of these affect cost.
But the degree to which variation manifests itself appears
to exceed the relative weight of any of these factors; and even
possible record-keeping discrepancies seem unlikely to account
for the apparent differences in what the inhabitants of one
State pay for waste treatment as opposed to the costs borne by
residents of another State.
Potential explanatory factors for apparent differences
observed from aggregate data, aside from construction cost
differences, include the following:
1) States installing a preponderance of secondary treat-
ment plants would in the aggregate show a lower cost per pound
of BOD removed than States in which a significant amount of
primary treatment was installed, since the former is more cost'
effective in this measure than the latter.
2) States that did not estimate growth of population set"
ved over the period 1962-67 would tend to show higher per cap'
ita costs in terms of aggregate data.
- 124 -
-------
TABLE 30
SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
PROGRAM STATUS, BY STATE
Increase (Decrease) in Service,
1962-68 Treatment Status, 1968
Pop. served Pop. served Sewered Secondary Primary Untreated
by second- by primary Pop. with- Treatment treatment pop. % of
ary treat- treatment out treat- % of sewer- % of sewer- sewered
ment ment ed pop. ed pop. pop.
I
t->
to
I
TOTALS
North East
Connecticut
Delaware
Maine
Massachusetts
Dew Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
Vermont
Middle Atlantic
Maryland/D.C.
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Virginia
Southeast
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Mississippi
Tennessee
14,305,540 3,106,930 (4,959,250)
115,567
367,374
19,250
14,699
19,640
13,970
6,900
584,695
565,846
145,564
158,514
(27,348)
(18,582)
83,260
98,135
57,950
(1,850)
81,078
23,375
(28,795)
(82,927)
(23,542)
391,287 268,375
661,932 (185,445)
371,348 58,830
356,451 (15,150)
133,483 38,886
(30,720)
(4,2631
(39,448)
21,665
(52,700)
(130)
(63,565)
(31,140)
(318,298)
(60,507)
(250,231)
27,045
(26,385)
(347,252)
(131,160)
1,669
57.9
22.2
60.6
6.3
14.7
10.1
66.9
7.3
94.3
86.3
60.2
40.4
41.7
69.6
49.6
67.7
43.2
33.4
75.9
39.4
20.6
34.6
34.3
32.3
70.0
5.5
6.9
11.8
58.5
44.9
26.3
42.0
2.5
21.5
8.7
1.9
.0
73.1
50.7
55.6
0.8
22.7
0.2
6.8
28.0
1.1
13.4
4.1
8.4
29.8
35.5
Investment,
TOTAL
($Millions)
5198.4
128.4
14.0
22.3
124.5
20.4
222.2
389.3
28.9
21.0
148.7
121.0
345.2
45.3
114.7
73.2
149.2
76.8
34.1
125.5
1962-67
Excluding
Collecting
sewers
3091.3
58.9
10.8
18.1
68.7
17.5
109.8
236.5
17.8
18.9
103.7
92.9
162.0
32.8
73.6
46.0
62.5
56.7
31.3
57.4
For com-
parison
State
estimated
needs \J
($ Millions)
5981.6
179.3
46.4
148.8
52.1
59.2
800.0
1,414.7
47.9
34.9
151.0
36.1
454.2
N.A.
74.5
7.1
174.5
105.3
50.4
25.0
-------
TABLE 30 (Cont'd)
SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
PROGRAM STATUS, BY STATE
Increase (Decrease) in Service,
1962-68
Pop. served Pop. served Sewered
by second- by primary Pop, with-
ary treat- treatment out treat-
ment ment
Treatment Status, 1968 Investment, 1962-67
Secondary Primary Untreated Excluding
Treatment treatment pop. % of TOTAL Collecting
% of sewer- % of sewer- sewered (SMillions) sewere
ed pop. ed pop. pop.
For com-
parison
State
estimated
needs \J
$ Millions)
01
1
Ohio Basin
Indiana
Kentucky
Ohio
West Virginia
Great Lakes
Illinois
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Missouri Basin
Colorado
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Wyoming
South Central
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
319,550
202,272
724,815
58,403
275,506
432,105
1,178,655
483,824
912,775
259,155
239,520
110,770
135,933
26,485
43,075
362,572
77,845
209,039
958,838
4,180
(6,185)
(477,155)
284,590
431,676
59,995
(1,036,755)
(284,105)
(576,465)
97,575
721,260
208,800
(41,315)
13,060
(9,800)
158,380
(3,596)
10,225
(50,545)
(6,815)
(85,160)
(245,045)
(264,378)
(207,445)
62,195
(47,590)
(5,220)
(14,075)
70,740
(1,348,790)
(270,730)
(42,725)
(31,060)
(3,000)
(340,720)
(1,100)
(4,960)
(34,995)
(6,815)
(85,160)
(245,045)
(264,378)
80.9
42.1
75.2
18.7
15.3
56.4
23.1
60.4
3.8
1.5
1.7
20.9
166.0
79.2
273.5
40.9
108.8
39.0
143.7
31.8
87.2
51.3
262.2
42.3
207,445)
62,195
(47,590)
(5,220)
88.5
24.1
86.2
84.4
11.1
74.0
12.9
15.3
0.4
1.9
0.9
0.3
291.2
69.7
240.2
112.9
180.3
197.3
44.6
113.2
60.9
140.3
313.4
N.A.
210.1
67.9
N.A.
97.9
75.3
47.2
58.5
94.3
85.7
76.6
42.8
99.8
87.8
98.1
1.4
12.7
36.3
35.8
3.5
10.4
20.8
16.2
0.2
11.8
1.8
0.7
12.0
16.5
5.7
2.2
3.9
2.6
41.0
0.0
0.4
0.1
47.9
64.9
158.3
45.5
8.2
12.5
1.6
50.4
103.4
23.1
39.5
185.8
40.0
32.3
120.9
28.8
4.8
10.3
1.3
43.0
63.5
21.1
26.6
102.6
30.8
20.5
35.2
4.4
1.6
9.9
1.2
17.3
37.2
N.A.
99.8
159.7
-------
TABLE 30 (Conf d)
SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL
PROGRAM STATUS, BY STATE
Increase (Decrease) in Service,
1962-68 Treatment Status, 1968 Investment, 1962-67
Pop. served Pop. served Sewered Secondary Primary Untreated Excluding
by second- by primary Pop. with- Treatment treatment pop. % of TOTAL Collecting
ary treat- treatment out treat- % of sewer- % of sewer- sewered ($Millions) sewers
ment ment ed pop. ed pop. P°P-
For com-
parison
State
estimated
needs .!/
($ Millions)
1
t-'
to
•J
1
South West
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Utah
Northwest
Alaska
Idaho
Montana
Oregon
Washington
31,995
1,816,747
11,125
414,580
287,210
75,671
41,760
330 ,720
238,384
(26,624)
2,548,436
10,220
(3,790)
4,525
2,860
3,620
(28,200)
(101,498)
460,277
(4,750)
(40,995)
73,625
(5,125)
(212,700)
(2,860)
(23,420)
(3,100)
(23,290)
(467,330)
95.8
32.7
7.9
99.1
94.4
53.8
38.0
53.1
33.7
1.2
67.0
9.8
0.7
3.2
20.8
40.8
60.6
43.5
62.3
3.0
0.3
82.3
0.2
2.4
79.2
5.4
1.4
3.4
4.0
48.5
3B8.9
35.6
22.1
19.6
8.1
9.7
11.2
59.7
172.7
30.5
213.1
31.9
22.1
16.0
1.9
6.2
6.9
30.8
116.3
N,A.
530.0
34.6
21.9
10.6
N.A.
2.1
11.1
37.2
13.1
_!/ Municipal Listing
-------
3) States in which a significant amount of capacity came
on stream to treat wastes of industrial origin would indicate
artificially high costs on the basis of population or estimated
loadings based on population.
After extensive investigation of aggregate data, it was
concluded that the information content of such data was inade-
quate to explain the factors at work in causing regional diff-
erences in cost. Therefore, acquisition and analysis of micro-
economic data will be initiated to better come to grips with
the problems and causal relationships involved in such diff-
erences for incorporation into a more detailed analytical
model which will provide better estimates of cost on a finer
geographical basis than is currently possible.
THE DEVELOPING INVESTMENT GAP
The investment outlook through 1973 is set within a
fairly fixed range of conditions that may be summarized from
the preceding discussions.
1) The States, as a group, anticipate programs that will
involve a level of spending very close to that of the last six
years. They expect investments of about $6 billion dollars
from 1969 through 1973, judging by the $5.1 billion program
estimate set by 40 of the 50 States.
2) New plant needs are concentrated in the eight north-
eastern States, Alaska and Hawaii which show a low percentage
of treatment relative to their population. The northeastern
group of States envisage a decided uptrend in their level of
expenditures; but no similar overall increase in spending is
contemplated in the programs proposed by most of the other
States showing pronounced deficiencies--only Georgia and
Mississippi among such states have indicated a substantially
augmented program of capital expenditures.
3) In many cases, those States that have some form of
treatment for all of their sewered population anticipate a
need to invest as much or more in the next five years as in
the last six years, the need arising from various replacements
upgrading, expansion, industrial treatment, and new sewer
connections.
4) Unit costs are rising, a result not only of inflation
but of underlying changes in waste treatment practice and in
the type of communities still available for initial waste
treatment investment. Superimposed upon these basic upward
pressures on cost is the fact that a very significant portion
- 128 -
-------
* the needed new investment of the nation occurs in precisely
J1 °s® places where cost experience in the past has been high-
It would appear, then, that there may be a substantial
jjjaP opening between the amount the nation expects to spend--as
j^asured by State program plans and by the level of Federal
obstruction grant appropriations--and the amount that will be
^quired to complete the connection of all sewered places to
taste treatment plants and to expand, replace, and upgrade
eatment where it now exists.
t. The fact that the States as a group anticipate programs
j at will involve a level of spending very close to that of the
a st six years is a cause for major concern, despite the major
ComPlishments of tne iast six years. The findings of this
c P°rt show that investment requirements imposed by new plant
^struction, expansion, replacement and upgrading of plants,
celerating acceptance of industrial wastes in the municipal
t) increasing levels of waste reduction being required, and
fact that a very significant portion of needed new invest-
occurs in precisely those places where cost experience in
n ?ast has been highest, will all result in pressing capital
HUirements upward significantly for many years.
Comparison of State expectations of expenditures during
next five years with prior estimates of the costs of meet-
e national objectives also points to the inadequacies of
br.Se>existing estimates. This highlights the importance of
the concepts explored in this year's report to bear in
re in defining an appropriate rate of investment needed
national goals.
In defining such rates of investment, the costs of provid-
new treatment plants to sewered but untreated areas will be
finishing significance. Other factors, which to date have
nt adequately considered, will be more important determi-
qu,s of the needed investment rates. These factors will in-
U0 e Determination of the rate at which the unsewered popula-
?iti W*H become connected to sewers, thereby creating an ad-
iiito al need for treatment works. This will require taking
* account such factors as population increases in urban
e areas and the impact of Federal support programs for the
Uction of collecting sewers. A more realistic consider-
of depreciation factors will be necessary to reflect the
replacement will become an increasingly important
- 129 -
-------
part of national investment patterns. The rate of needed up-
grading and expansion of facilities will have to take into ac-
count the increasing need for application of technological
improvements such as nutrient removal and advanced waste treat-
ment. The rate of acceleration of industrial connection to
municipal systems will also have to be further delineated.
Regional cost differences--that very important but little
understood element in determining national costs--need further
exploration.
During the next year we will continue to explore these
factors with the objective of determining more accurately
the annual normative levels of investment needed to meet
national goals. With expiration of the current construction
grants authorizations in FY 1971, such information should be of
key importance in outlining new legislative needs.
- 130 -
-------
STORM AND COMBINED SEWER POLLUTION CONTROL
About 65% of the nation's population, or 125 million
Persons, are served by combined or separate sanitary sewer
^sterns. The 1968 report, Volume II, delineated an "order
?* magnitude" estimate of $49 billion for correcting the com-
ined sewer problems of the nation. The estimate was based on
ne cost of separating storm and sanitary sewers, a generally
ccepted estimating base. Consideration of the possibility of
tilizing alternative corrective measures indicated that the
ost might be reduced to about $15 billion. The application
1 holding tanks was employed as the cost base for this esti-
The discussion presented here attempts to summarize brief-
sc°Pe of the problem and some of the investigations or
studies now under way in specific localities. No
w estimates are made in this section of the report. However,
an-ticipated that the results of the studies and projects
ln Pr°Sress will provide a basis for future refinement of
original projected cost estimates.
has for the past two years been intensively
new or improved methods for the control and/or
ment of combined sewer overflows and storm water dis-
There are now about 60 active demonstration grant
Contract projects. Preliminary information obtained from
Pr°Jects indicates that several control and treatment
are technically feasible.
ye principal source of data for this section and last
ar's discussion of the storm and combined sewer problem
A s a study prepared for FWPCA by the American Public Works
» A summary of its findings was recently published.
conducted this study to provide a current assessment
magnitude of this problem and an estimate of the costs
to control the resulting pollution.
SCOPE OF PROBLEM
Communities have not generally greatly expanded active
to undertake major projects to control combined sewer
larows. The apparent reluctance to attack the problem is
ly due to the magnitude of financial resources that would
to be committed to the effort and the lack of technical
°rmation to adequately plan alternative projects to complete
- 131 -
>I8.877
-
-------
sewer separation. Communities need assurance that a chosen
control or treatment method will be effective before they are
willing to commit millions of dollars to such construction.
Priority of need is also a factor since overflow control must^
be weighed in terms of need and relative priority against basic
wastewater treatment facilities, schools, streets, urban re-
newal, and other important areas requiring large amounts of mun-
icipal expenditures.
Remedial actions have been initiated where the proper
stimulus motivated the community. Other metropolitan problem
areas associated with or related to combined sewers such as
street and basement flooding are typical motivating influences.
Replacement of overloaded sewers or construction of relief
sewers is the most frequent solution or partial solution to
such problems. In the case of urban redevelopment, sewers are
usually separated during construction to avoid disruption of
services if separation is required at a later date.
Gradual changes in attitude and increasing recognition
of the impact of overflows on water quality are occurring re-
sulting, in some cases, in higher priorities for combined sewer
remedial projects. This is evidenced by the existence of 24
municipal storm and combined sewer demonstration grant pro-
jects involving $45.4 million in construction costs. The local
funding of these projects amounted to $29.5 million in October
1968.
The establishment of State water quality standards will
have additional impact on the level of effort communities will
expend on the problem within the near future. The standards of
30 States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands re-
cognize that combined sewers constitute a significant pollution
source and that control of overflows will be necessary.
In some instances, Federal enforcement conferences have
spelled out specific actions. For example: The Conference on
Pollution on Lake Michigan, and its tributary Basin (Wisconsin
-Illinois-Indiana-Michigan) , which concluded on March 12^, 1968,
resulted in the following recommendations:
1) Adjustable overflow regulating devices are to be in-
stalled on existing combined sewer systems, and be so
designed and operated as to utilize to the fullest ex-
tent possible the capacity of interceptor sewers for
conveying combined flow to treatment facilities. The
treatment facilities shall be modified where necessary
to minimize bypassing. This action is to be taken as
soon as possible and not later than December 1970.
- 132 -
-------
2) Effective immediately, combined sewers are to be sep-
arated in coordination with all urban reconstruction
projects, and prohibited in all new developments, ex-
cept where other techniques can be applied to control
such pollution. Pollution from combined sewers is to
be controlled by July 1977.
ed K Overflows from combined sewers cause pollution as measur-
e by °xy&en~consuming materials, bacteria, gross solids,
Wat effects> nutrients, and toxic materials. While all
ar06I uses are impaired by such discharges, recreational uses
severely impacted. Swimming, fishing, and other water
sports are frequently severely affected after storms.
d beaches frequently result due to bacterial pollution and
ischarge of gross solids. Floating materials, greases and
discharged in the immediate waters and on the shorelines
re t in undesirable esthetic conditions for non-water contact
bearfat*?n» sucn as sunbathing and picnicking. The closing of
j^„ fs in tne Chicago area for an extended period of time dur-
ovirfi 1968 bathing season was attributed to combined sewer
of e>f^ct*ons in Illinois and Pennsylvania are good examples
Ul* ?rts being made to establish control programs. The
tin*110*3 water quality standards, coupled with the aforemen-
0£ ned enforcement conference, has resulted in the formulation
GreC?ntro1 Planning by the Metropolitan Sanitary District of
ed K Chicago- Adjustable overflow devices will be install-
£y December 1970 to utilize the storage capacity of inter-
sewers and a 10-year program is being considered for
elimination of overflows by mid-1977 utilizing a deep
storage and treatment system.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has ordered 16 com-
*|ies to develop applicable solutions for their overflow
eros as the first step toward the implementation of a
9! program. Other States such as Wisconsin and Michigan
issued orders to communities for correction of combined
overflow problems.
- 133 -
-------
LOCATION OF COMBINED SEWER PROBLEMS
Estimated costs for separation of storm and sanitary
sewers were presented in the 1968 report. The top 12 states
with estimated costs of approximately one billion dollars or
greater are listed in Table 31.
TABLE 31
STATE COST OF SEPARATION
($BILLIONS) I/
1. New York 11.47
2. Illinois 6.70
3. Michigan 3.98
4. Ohio 3.94
5. Pennsylvania 3.70
6. Indiana 2.58
7. Massachusetts 2.35
8. New Jersey 1.74
9. Missouri 1-58
10. California 1.26
11. Washington 1.09
12. Wisconsin 0.99
I/ ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST $10 MILLION.
The tabulation indicates that approximately 85% of the
estimated cost for controlling combined sewer overflows
utilizing separation would be incurred in 12 states, based on
estimates of the cost of separation ($48.7 billion) prepared
by the American Public Works Association.(2) The location
of the states in the table is interesting since it indicates
a regionalization of the problem. Figure 15 depicts the
estimated cost distribution for the entire United States.
Actual costs for controlling overflows will be borne by
the individual communities having combined sewers. Table 32
lists United States communities with 10,000 or more acres
served by combined sewers. The table was compiled from pre-
viously unpublished data obtained by the 1967 APWA survey.
The communities listed account for approximately 50%
of the total combined sewered area and 70% of the total com-
bined sewered population found in the survey, which included i
134 -
-------
RELATIVE COST OF COMPLETE SEWER SEPARATION BY STATES.*
Key:
Estimated State Cost
0410,000,000
to $500,000,000
to $1,000,000,000
the African Public Works Association Research Foundation Report,
"Problems of Combined Sewer Facilities and Overflows - 1967".
FIGURE 15
- 135 -
-------
TABLE 32
AREA AND POPULATION OF COMMUNITIES SERVED BY COMBINED SEWERS
(Greater than 10,000 Acres)
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
TOTAL
COMMUNITY
Chicago, 111.
New York, N.Y.
MSLSD, Mo.
Detroit, Mich.
Cincinnati, Ohio
Philadelphia, Pa.
Cleveland, Ohio
East St. Louis, 111.
Seattle, Wash.
Indianapolis, Ind.
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Atlanta, Ga.
San Francisco, Calif.
Portland, Ore.
Youngstown, Ohio
Omaha, Neb.
Des Moines, Iowa
Richmond, Va
Spokane, Wash.
Kansas City, Mo.
St. Paul, Minn.
Milwaukee, Wise.
Boston, Mass.
South Bend, Ind.
Kokomo, Ind.
Gray, Ind.
Peoria, 111.
Nashville, Tenn.
St. Joseph, Mo.
Anderson, Ind.
Evansville, Ind.
Rochester, N. Y.
Saginaw, Mich.
Toledo, Ohio
Hammond, Ind.
District of Columbia
Syracuse, N. Y.
Albany, Ga.
Dearborn, Mich.
Ft. Wayne, Ind.
Augusta, Ga.
Scranton, Pa.
Augusta, Maine
Columbus, Ohio
Saugerties, N. Y.
AREA SERVED (ACRESJ
144,000
105,624
101,000
88,000
47,215
45,000
44,000
39,100
38,000
37,000
32,533
28,920
28,000
27,100
27,000
25,000
23,200
22,000
21,790
21,000
20,700
17,300
16,668
16,130
16,000
16,000
15,000
14,720
14,400
14,000
14,000
14,000
13,000
12,844
12,800
12,740
12,000
11,980
11,900
11,200
10,577
10,400
10,000
10,000
10,000
1,283,841
POPULATION SERVED
3,500,000
6,667,296
770,000
1,600,000
472,000
1,000,000
876,000
58,000
426,000
400,000
558,000
108,073
750,000
309,536
150,000
276,000
144,000
200,000
163,000
308,000
207,000
407,000
712,000
129,140
88,000
180,000
100,000
180,000
66,000
50,000
90,000
240,000
99,800
163,717
119,000
400,000
150,000
49,300
107,000
114,200
73,400
110,000
19,000
530,000
4,353
23,124,815
- 136 -
-------
total of 641 jurisdictions. Based on the data obtained from
these 64] jurisdictions, the APWA estimated that there are
3,029 million acres and 36 million persons served by combined
sewers in 1329 United States jurisdictions.
The figures in Tables 31 and 32 indicate that 641 of the
Projected combined sewer population and 42% of the projected
combined sewer area are located in the large cities (45 com-
Nunities, or less than four percent of the jurisdictions) and
ln the most populated States. Since the cost can be estimated
°n an average per capita basis, it would follow that these 45
Communities represent 64% of the estimated cost. This is true
trom a national standpoint, but it must be recognized that the
Sniall communities have serious local overflow problems also,
e^en though they are difficult to define with the data avail-
at>le. In most cases the magnitude of the smaller community
Problem is just as large in relation to local funding capabil-
^•ties as are the problems faced by the large cities and metro-
politan areas. The priority and impact on the local economy
•t°r the large number of small communities faced with combined
ewer problems have yet to be determined.
Some small communities are still faced with the difficult
wh- t-°f constructing the basic wastewater treatment facilities,
nee<
1 - J. _*_ V* J. J. 4 J. _1_ J. 1 It J_ *_/ 4, ^, 1\_/ J. JU V, J. W -I. W^-*- v* •»••»— — — ..— — i^, f
•owever, since it is clear that prevention and control of over-
-| t ~ — *— *-'**-^^AV*^rU.J^lAt WilW l~/ M. *J O- N~< rTV*«-'»-^-»Tw *- —• — — — —
wnich must be accorded a priority above combined sewer control
£eeds. Planning for control of overflows should begin now,
A. "I — 7 "-* •*••**• *i^ «-* J_ \~~ J_ ^J \^- -M. ^S t* J. W J. A V* »^ K^ » ^ " •—• ™ - -^ —
£lQws can have an impact on the hydraulic load at the waste-
«ater treatment facilities. The extent of such impact depends
°|J the control method selected and should be considered when
fte treatment plant is under design.
f The 1967 APWA study confirmed earlier opinion that very
ew communities maintain adequate records relating to the
*ewerage system, overflows, regulator maintenance, sewage and
"Verfiow volumes, and other system data which are badly needed
unng the course of engineering studies and design of re-
'iediai facilities. As a result, available data do not permit
*n accurate delineation of the combined sewer overflow prob-
Jems. Their extent can only be broadly estimated from both
chnical and cost standpoints.
CASE STUDIES
al Several projects carried out during 1968 provide addition-
/ msight into the magnitude of combined sewer overflow prob-
ems> the difficulty of the engineering and construction task
- 137 -
-------
to be faced, and the costs involved. The case studies present-
ed in the following sections will serve to outline these fac-
tors .
1) The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago
The Metropolitan Sanitary District (MSB) of Greater Chicago
has recently completed a detailed study of the feasi-
bility of utilizing large tunnels deep (several hundred
feet) under the entire metropolitan area for the purpose
of controlling combined sewer overflows. The feasi-
bility report outlined a 10-year plan for accomplishing
control of overflows including:
(a) Interception of excess storm and sanitary flows from
existing main sewers at their points of overflow to
the waterways, by vertical shafts.
(b) Discharge from the vertical shafts into high velo-
city, concrete-lines, conveyance tunnels, excavated
in solid rock.
(c) Discharge from the conveyance tunnels into a large
mined reservoir approximately 850 feet below Lake
Calumet.
(d) Pumping of the combined sewer overflows to a surface
reservoir, after temporary storage underground.
(e) Recycling of water between the upper and lower res-
ervoirs for hydroelectric power generation.
(f) Treatment of the polluted stormwater overflows.
(g) Discharge of treated effluent to the waterway system
at controlled rates.
Capital costs for the 10 year
$1.27 billion. Of this, $200 to $
by revenue bonds from the sale of
erating facilities incorporated in
maining costs financed by general
taxes. The cost for sewer separat
trict has been estimated to be $3.
of the intangible costs.
program are estimated to be
250 million could be financed
hydroelectric power from gen-
the project, with the re-
obligation bonds and current
ion within the sanitary dis-
3 billion, not including any
A significant direct benefit to the Sanitary District
would be substantial relief from surface flooding problems
- 138 -
-------
conventional sewer separation project would not ach-
ieve. Present planning would result in control of overflows
from a storm which can be expected once in 100 years, which
would result in much more control capability than is normally
Achieved in drainage control. Most frequently, drainage facil-
i
. ,
ities are designed to control flows resulting from a storm
which may be expected once in five or 10 years. A 50-year
storm is occasionally used for design, but a 100-year design
oasis is seldom used. Thus, the MSD project will offer an un-
usually high degree of control.
The magnitude of the construction effort involved is such
k at staged construction will be required. The 10-year program
Aas been divided into five construction zones. The first zone
would involve $258 million for construction costs, with com-
pletion in 1973. When completed, the first zone would serve an
of 39,600 acres, 871 of which are served by combined sewers
some 60 over-flow locations.
Designed to accept a runoff of 0.5 inches per hour it
ttouid iimit overflows to insignificant amounts from the maximum
storms of almost 100 years of record. A pumping-generating
station with a capacity of 500,000 kilowatts/eight hour weekday
be included. This plan includes treatment of the over-
*low including primary, secondary, advanced treatment, and
cniorination. The advanced treatment will probably include
Phosphate removal, nitrogen removal, and filtration.
Alternate costs for the first construction zone have been
estimated as follows: separation - $600,000,000; holding tanks
J^th capacity of 0.25 inches of overflow - $140,000,000 and to
?® as effective as the Deep Tunnel System - approximately
V50,000,000; and the use of very high rate treatment facil-
*ties at overflow points equivalent to the Deep Tunnel System
reatment - four to eight times as high.
Cleveland, Ohio
b The feasibility of utilizing a stabilization-retention
b^sin constructed in Lake Erie as a means of controlling com-
lned sewer overflows was investigated. The project report
'ecommends the construction of a 900-acre basin in Lake Erie
£°r the treatment of a number of large combined sewer over-
0 •"> scveiclj. polluted SLlccims, a.uu m«- w-•..•.-•.-.•—- .--.
^dary wastewater treatment plant. Cost of the facility is
imated to be approximately $83.5 million with an annual
$4.8 million. For the study area under consideration, sepa
ion would cost about $278
lmes the cost of the basin.
>.' • • u mJ..Lj__LVJH. ri.uu./ ttiv-i* *****~~- - -
tj~lon would cost about $278 million or approximately three
- 139 -
-------
The study area comprises 38,800 acres, contains a popul-
ation of 453,000 and is about 331 served by combined sewers.
Design criteria for the stabilization basin and shoreline
collector system have been established as follows:
(a) Overall detention period to be 30 days, based on average
flows from treatment plant, combined sewer overflows and
surface streams, plus runoff and overflow from a 3-day
storm of intensity expected to occur once in three years.
(b) Volume of basin to be 30,000 acre-feet, which is the total
volume required by (a) plus allowance for displacement by
wave action, increase in future runoff rates and hydraulic
inefficiencies.
(c) Surface area of basin to be 900 acres, and mean depth to
be approximately 34 feet.
(d) Basin to be subdivided into three zones; an aerobic, mixed
zone for bio-oxidation; a facultative quiescent zone for
sedimentation; and a reaeration and chlorine contact zone
prior to discharge of effluent.
(e) Structural design of basin wall to comprise a cellular
steel sheet piling cofferdam, filled with sand, crushed
stone or other suitable fill. Cell diameter and fill
characteristics are to be determined after completion
of detailed design studies based on foundation and sub-
soil investigations. Preliminary design based on 67-foot ,
diameter cells, having 10-foot freeboard, and concrete capped<
Approximately 410 cells are required.
(f) Hydraulic design flow based on peak runoff rate occurring
from a 1-year storm, after routing to the point of design.
(g) A combination of gravity flow conduits with pumping sta-
tions and force mains was found to be the most economical
collection system, and is recommended in preference to an
all-gravity system. Four pumping stations are required.
(h) The most economical route for the collector conduits and
force mains is at the beach line rather than in tunnel or
in deep cut in the shoreline bluff.
(i) At collector basins, trash removal and chlorination of
excess flows will be provided.
- 140 -
-------
Anticipated benefits of the project in addition to com-
bined sewer overflow pollution abatement, include protection
against shoreline erosion, creation of an invaluable sheltered
recreational bay, potential impoundment for dredging spoil,
^placement of a municipal chlorination contact chamber, pro-
yision of nutrient removal facility, and potential as an aquat-
lc pollution control research tool.
Boston, Massachusetts
Four principal methods of combined sewer overflow
pollution abatement for Boston Harbor and the adjacent
waters were developed in September 1967 following an
engineering feasibility study. The four methods with
estimated costs for the five -community Boston region
(Boston, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, and Somerville)
are :
Estimated Costs 1/2/
Millions of Dollars
Capitalized
Operation and
Construction Maintenance Total
Separation 550.0 34.0 584.0
orination Detention Tanks 400.0 133.0 533.0
ding Tanks 715.0 99.0 814.0
Deep Tunnel Plan 430.0 66.0 496.0
y Costs do not include replacement of existing storm drains of
combined sewers.
I/ At interest rate of 4.00%
Design criteria for the Boston deep tunnel storage plan
!£°uld handle the runoff resulting from a rainfall of a 15 year
5requency and 24 hour duration (total rainfall depth of five
;?<*es) and dispose of this runoff within a two day period
?lthout surcharging the tunnels. The stored stormwater would
Jf disinfected and then discharged well out to sea through a
^?>000 foot long outfall with twin 5800 foot long diffuser
plPes. *
~ 141 -
-------
In addition to being what appears to be the most econo-
mical solution, the following advantages of the deep tunnel
are :
(a) The deep tunnel plan provides the best and most practical
regional solution to the problem of handling mixed sewage
and storm water and assures abatement of water pollution
due to both sewage and surface runoff.
(b) The plan is adaptable to any conceivable development of
Boston or the regional area in the future.
(c) The plan is an economical means of eliminating overflows
to the surrounding waters.
(d) The estimated total cost of the plan is less than for al-
ternative methods, including complete separation, and
this plan may become less expensive in the future as
rock boring technology improves.
(e) The plan will occupy very little valuable land area.
(f) Construction of the deep tunnel will not cause inter-
ference with traffic or surface activities.
(g) Construction of the deep tunnel will permit efficient
draining of all areas that now flood during heavy rains
and high tides.
(h) The plan will provide the means for disposing of all pol-
luted surface water and sewage well out to sea. The ocean
outfall will permit safe discharge to sea of all treated
or untreated waste water from the Deer Island facilities.
(i) Sections of the deep storage tunnels will parallel the
Boston Metropolitan District Commission main drainage tun-
nel and have lower inverts to complement the existing MDC
sewerage system.
(j) The large quantity of rock excavated from the tunnels dur-
ing construction will be available at low cost for fill in
connection with the expansion of Logan International Air-
port, site development for the proposed 1975 Worlds Fair
or other fill operations in and around Boston Harbor.
The Metropolitan District Commission consultant also rec-
ommends that until such time as the city makes a commitment to
adopt the proposed deep tunnel plan, it should continue its
- 142 -
-------
Present policy of complete separation of sanitary sewerage and
storm drainage systems.
The report points out that in addition to the deep tunnel
|?ran> a recommended initial construction program would cost
^IS,900,000.
Importantly, if the harbor and adjacent waters are to be
ade suitable for proposed uses, i.e. to meet water quality
tandards, the solution must include the elimination of com-
°ined sewer overflows.
^ Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District (MSSD)
The Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District serves 11,200
1 and 20,700 acres of combined sewers in Minneapolis and
Paul, respectively. In June 1968, the MSSD began the oper-
>n of the first real-time computer-assisted control of a
^mbined sewer system. The objective is to fully utilize the
C;j,erceptor sewer system capacity to reduce drastically the in-
sairi Ce °"^ combined sewer overflows and produce much of the
siv e^fect as sewer separation programs many times more expen-
mij?.wjli°h would require many years to complete. This $1.5
gr On project is supported in part by an FWPCA demonstration
abant*. It is too early to determine if the objective stated
eVeVe is being fully met. It can be said at this time, how-
as F» that this approach appears promising and will materially
cha1St the very serious problem eliminating dry-weather dis-
ger§es resulting from defective regulators. It can almost be
to erafized that every community must increase its capability
Un m°nitor the overflow regulators and immediately correct any
tonrxranted overflows. Detroit, Michigan, and Seattle, Washing-
IMETRO) are also engaged in similar grant projects.
ma The cost of this type of control appears to be several
ed utudes l°wer than complete separation. It must be caution-
ce' h°wever, that to be effective the sewerage system must have
itv physical characteristics, such as excess storage capac-
y- and the level of control required must be carefully deter-
- 143 -
-------
INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION
SUMMARY OF LAST YEAR'S ESTIMATES
Last year's study projected national requirements for
industrial waste treatment at $2.6 billion to $4.6 billion over
the 1969-1973 period. (Table 33). The $2.6 billion estimate
was based upon expert estimates set forth in the ten Industrial
Waste Profiles prepared in 1967, while the $4.6 billion esti-
mate was based on census-municipal projections.8/
The $2.6 billion figure included $1.1 billion to meet the
existing backlog of treatment facility needs, $0.7 billion to
provide for industrial growth, and $0.8 billion to replace ob-
solete equipment. The $4.6 billion estimate included $2.6 bil-
lion for meeting the estimated backlog, and $1.0 billion each
for growth and for equipment replacement.
The study emphasized that these estimates were highly
tentative and largely dependent upon certain assumptions. For
example, a most important, but highly tentative, assumption was
that the equivalent of secondary waste treatment of municipal
wastes (i.e., no less than 85% removal of standard biochemical
oxygen demand - BODs - and of settleable and suspended solids)
comprised an adequate approximation of industrial waste treat-
ment as reflected by approved State water quality standards. An
illustrative set of estimates indicated that BOD removal costs
rise precipitously as removal levels in excess of 85% are
sought. It was pointed out, moreover, that many industrial
wastes are characterized by pollutants more difficult to treat
than pollutants normally found in municipal wastes and that the
removal of such industrial pollutants could well require great-
er expenditures than were estimated.
The estimated $1.1 billion backlog in industrial waste
treatment facilities represents the difference between the es-
timated $4.0 billion in treatment facilities required in 1968
and the existing $2.2 billion in industrial waste treatment
facilities and the $0.7 billion in municipal facilities (for
handling industrial wastes), respectively. These estimates are
broken down by major industrial category in Table 34. That
BJ See discussion of basis for census-municipal projections in The
Cost of Clean Water, Volume II, FWPCA, U.S. Department of the Interior,
January 10, 1968
- 144 -
-------
indicates that primary metal industries, for example, re-
table
RUired the largest investment to attain the prescribed treat-
ment level in 1968 but that, after accounting for existing fac-
ilities, the chemical and allied product industries would re-
quire the largest additional investments over the next five
years. Table 35 shows the regional distribution of industri-
a* waste treatment requirements. Table 36 shows estimated in-
vestments required to reduce existing requirements over the
five year period, broken down on a projected year-by-year
basis.
TABLE 33
ESTIMATED CASH OUTLAYS TO MEET 1968 AND
PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS, FY 1969-1973
(CONSTANT 1968 DOLLARS)
1968 Needs
ess Equipment in place
Difference (Backlog)
Five-Year needs
Backlog
Growth
Replacement
T°tal Needs 1969-1973
Wastewater
Profiles
($ BILLION)
$4.0
2.9
$1.1
$1.1
0.7
0.8
$2.6
Census
Municipal
Projections
($ BILLION)
$5.0
2.4
$2.6
$2.6
1.0
1.0
$4.6
ce: The Cost of Clean Water, Volume II, FWPCA, U. S. Department of the
Interior, January 10, 1968.
Estimated outlays over the five year period for operating
maintaining industrial waste treatment works were project-
•j to fall within a range of $3.0 billion to $3.4 billion (see
able 37 for estimated annual outlays). As the backlog of
industrial waste treatment facilities is worked off over
next five years and industrial output increases over the
- 145 -
-------
TABLE 3^
ESTIMATED VALUE OF INVESTMENT, INDUSTRIAL WASTE
TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS, 1968
(Based on Industrial Waste Profiles)
Industry
Food and Kindred Products
Meat Products
Dairy Products
Canned and Frozen Foods
Sugar Refining
All Other
Texti 1e Mill Products
Paper and Allied Products
Chemical and Allied Products
Petroleum and Coal
Rubber and Plastics
Primary Metals
Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills
All Other
Machinery
Electrical Machinery
Transportation Equipment
All Other Manufacturing
Al 1 Manufactures
Total Plant
Requi red
7^3.1
170.8
104.0
137.0
175-2
156.1
165.2
321.8
379.7
379.4
41.1
1,473.8
963.8
510.0
39.0
35.8
216.0
203.7
3,998.6
Million of 1968 Dollars
Currently
Provided By
Munici pal i ties
3^0.7
98.7
73-1
80.0
2.3
86.6
85.4
21.1
12.0
27.4
5.1
55.1
-
55.1
11.2
22.8
1l5."l
35.5
731. *»
Currently
Provided By
Industry
182.4
36.9
7-8
23.0
105.5
9.2
53-3
225.0
87.9
275.0
5-1
1,269.2
865.6
403.6
2.9
4.5
59.2
50.8
2,215.3
Additional
Investment
Required
220.0
35-2
23-1
34.0
67.4
60.3
26.5
75.7
279.8
77.0
30.9
149-5
98.2
51-3
24.9
8.5
41.7
117.4
1,051.9
Source: The Cost of Clean Water, Volume II, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
U.S. Department of the Interior, January 10, 1968
-------
TABLE
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF WASTE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS,
1968, BY WASTEWATER PROFILES AND ESTIMATES
Regions
North Atlantic
^theast
Great Lakes
Ohio
Tennessee
Pper Mississippi
°Wer Mississippi
Missouri
Ar|
-------
TABLE 36
ANNUAL INVESTMENT REQUIRED TO REDUCE THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL
WASTE TREATMENT DEFICIENCY IN FIVE YEARS
(Wastewater Profiles and Estimates)
Industry Annual Ir
To Reduce
Requir
Food and Kindred Products /+3.
Meat Products 7.
Dairy Products /+.
Canned and Frozen Foods 6.
Sugar Refining 13,
All Other 12.
Textile Mill Products 5.
Paper and Allied Products 15.
Chemical and Allied Products 56.
Petroleum and Coal 15.
Rubber and Plastics, n.e.c. 6.
Primary Metals 29-
Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills 19.
All Other 10.
Machinery 5>
Electrical Machinery 1.
Transportation Equipment 8.
All Other Manufacturing 23.
Al 1 Manufactures:
Mi 11 ions of 1968 Dollars
vestment Total Investment to Reduce Waste
: Existing Treatment Requirements and Meet
ements Growth Needs
1969 1 1970
9 63.2 65.4
0 10.1 11.2
6 5.1 5.7
7 11.4 12.4
5 19-3 18.4
1 17.3 17-7
3 9.8 10.9
1 19.1 25.5
0 75.7 76.9
*» 15.4 18.1
2 7.0 7.9
9 83.6 91-3
6 52.4 59.1
3 31.2 32.2
0 6.9 6.9
7 3.6 3.8
3 11.7 11.9
5 32.3 32.6
1971
69-9
1 1 .2
5-5
12.6
22.6
18.0
1 1 1
26.0
77.7
30.5
7.1
93-3
60.1
33.2
7 1
3.8
12.2
33-0
By Wastewater Profiles and Estimates 210.3 328.3 351.2 371 7
(By Census-Municipal Projections) (528.5) (676.9) (705.*8) (73^5)
1972
70.0
1 1 7
i i . /
5-5
12.9
21.4
18.5
1 1 n
26.4
79-4
31-7
7.2
96.2
63.0
34.2
7 i
/ • 1
4 0
12.1
33-5
378.6
(740.2)
1973
69.9
1 1 £
5.5
13.0
21.5
18.3
1 1 A
27-0
77.9
32.1
7.1
97.8
63.0
34.8
7-3
o
U 1
12.3
33.8
380.9
(743.0
03
I
Source-. The Cost of Uean Water, Volume II, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
Vi.S. Department of the Interior, January 10, 1968
-------
TABLE 37
ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE CC6TS
1968-1973
VD
I
Industry
Food and Kindred Products
Meat Products
Dairy Products
Canned and Frozen Foods
Sugar Refining
All Other
Textile Mill Products
Paper and Allied Products
Chemical and Allied Products
Petroleum and Coal
Rubber and Plastics, n.e.c.
Primary Metals
Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills
All Other
Machinery
Electrical Machinery
Transportation Equipment
All Other Manufacturing
All Manufactures :
By Wastewater Profiles and Estimates
By Census -Municipal Projections
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs
(Millions of 1968 Dollars)
85. h 95.9
15.3 16. k
16.1 17.1
17.9 19.9
19.1 22.5
17.0 20.0
39.0 Iji.y
33.3 35.9
21.1 37.2
60.5 63.6
1.8 3.0
137.8 1U6.5
90.1 95.5
U7.7 51.0
2.5 3.7
U.8 5.5
29. k 31. k
15-3 21.0
1+30.9 U85.14.
(3146.7) U53.6)
J-/ 1 ^
107.0
17.7
18.3
22.0
25.8
23.2
UU.8
39.3
53.5
67.2
iuli
155.9
101.6
5U. 3
k.9
6.1
33. h
26.8
5143.3
(565.6)
-L7I-L
118.7
19.0
19.14
2h.2
29.8
26.3
U7.9
U2.8
70.0
73.3
C 7
165.7
107.9
57.8
6 2
6 8
35.5
32.6
605.2
(679.9)
±yit
130. u.
20.3
20.5
26.5
33.5
29,6
51.0
U6.U
86.8
79.6
7 r\
1 .u
175.7
Uli.li
61.3
7 <
( «5
7 Z
1 O
37.5
38.5
667.9
(802.1)
1973
1142.1
21.6
21.6
28.7
37.3
32.9
5k. 3
5o.o
103.3
86.1
8n
.d
185.9
121.0
6h.9
a 7
o. (
80
.d
39.6
14i.5
730.9
(921.7)
Source: The Cost of Clean Water, Volume H,
January 10, 1968
FWPCA, U.S. Department of the Interior,
-------
period, the annual cost of operating treatment plants is ex-
pected to rise by approximately 60% and to amount to almost
three quarters of a billion dollars by 1973.
COMMENTS ON INITIAL ESTIMATES
In full awareness of the gross nature of these first in-
dustrial waste treatment cost estimates, and the great need for
developing more accurate estimates, positive efforts were made
by the FWPCA to elicit industry reaction to them. Copies of
The Cost of Clean Water were sent to 15 major trade organiza-
tions with the request that they review the estimates and for-
ward any comments to FWPCA to use in refining the estimates.
All these organizations did respond. However, their responses
varied widely in depth and content. Several replies merely
acknowledged receipt of the report. Other respondents comment-
ed on the overall report solely in general terms. Some organ-
izations concentrated largely or exclusively on the industrial
waste profile which related to the industry which they repre-
sent. None of the replies, however, provided a basis for ad-
justing any of the industrial waste treatment cost projections
included in last year's report.
Responses to the Commissioner's letters of April 26 and
September 3, 1968 are included in Volume II of this report.
INDUSTRY EXPENDITURES
In the earlier section on the backlog concept, compari-
sons are made between calculated investment requirements for
processing and for power generation and estimates of recent
water pollution control investments by industry. That analy-
sis indicated that, on the basis of available evidence, indus-
trial expenditures for waste treatment facilities in the last
two years were close to target expenditures established in last
year's report.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
State water quality standards implementation plans as
they relate to municipal pollution lend themselves reason-
ably well to estimating national requirements and costs. How-
ever, the standards plans as they apply to the more varied,
complicated, and less understood industrial pollution problem
- 150 -
-------
0 not make it feasible to utilize generalizations as to treat-
ment level in arriving at industrial waste treatment cost esti-
^tes . Accordingly, use of the standards implementation plans
as a basis for estimating industrial waste treatment costs must
-------
ORGANIC CHEMICAL WASTE PROFILE
Preparation of a wastewater profile of several major seg-
ments of the organic chemical industry represented the most
significant progress in 1968 towards refining industrial treat-
ment cost estimates included in last year's report. This pro-
file does not provide a sufficient basis for adjusting any of
those initial estimates inasmuch as it covers only a portion of
the "chemical and allied product" industries for which a single*
total projection was made last year. However, the profile does
serve two specific purposes. First, it provides a range of
cost estimates, based upon the most comprehensive cost data yet
obtained, for given levels of pollutant removal for a large
portion of an extremely important industry. Second, it pro-
vides a methodological base for projecting outlays for neces-
sary waste treatment for other industries. This method will be
tested in the coming year by application to available industry
waste treatment cost data.
The C. W. Rice Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania was the
prime contractor for the profile which was designed to develop
five year projections of costs required by organic chemical
plants in attaining various levels of pollutant removal. Other
experienced industrial wastewater control firms and experts
contributing to the report include the Roy F. Weston Company,
West Chester, Pennsylvania; W. Wesley Eckenfelder, Jr, of W.
Wesley Eckenfelder and Associates, Austin, Texas; and Dr.
Robert N. Rickles of Resource Engineering Associates, Inc.,
Stamford, Connecticut. Both Professor Eckenfelder and Dr.
Rickles have served the Manufacturing Chemists' Association in
several capacities. All data used were derived from informa-
tion in the files of the contractors and every possible attempt
was made to maintain the anonymity of the companies whose ope*1"
ations and treatment costs were used.
Specifically, the profile entitled "Projected Wastewater
Treatment Costs In The Organic Chemicals Industry" is an anaiy
sis of total estimated cost (including capital costs and oper-
ating and maintenance costs) required to be expended by speci"
fie removal levels for significant pollutants. The industries
covered are those included in the updated 1967 Standard Indus'
trial Categories: 2813 - Industrial Gases (Organic only); 2815 '
Cyclic Intermediates, Dyes, Organic Pigments (Lakes and Toners}'
and Cyclic (Coal Tar) Crudes; 2871 - Fertilizers (Ammonia
and Urea only); and portions of 2879 - Agricultural Chemicals*
not elsewhere classified.
- 152 -
-------
Methodology
. The costs of unit wastewater treatment methods developed
ft the profile were presented as a series of mathematical mod-
•l-s and cost function graphs. These data were then used to
alculate capital costs of waste treatment facilities in re-
,ation to degrees of pollutant removals attainable for 20
cyP°thetical plants. Both the unit cost data and the design
^riteria for these plants were checked for reliability and
ePresentativeness on the basis of cost data from 53 plants,
- . Analysis of the available data indicated that estimates
industry-wide costs in the organic chemicals industry would
be made on the basis of estimated costs per plant and es-
numbers of plants. Alternative calculations could have
. made on the basis of estimated costs per unit volume of
a^stewater and estimated wastewater volumes. Cost estimates
additionally, upon the assumption that wastewater
per unit of production will decrease as wastewater
atment facilities are installed.
Capital Costs
6q Last year's study estimated that water pollution control
Huipment worth about $380 million would have to be in place by
G
of tne next five years if the entire chemical and allied
es are to attain 85% removal of BOD at that time. The
a °anic chemicals segment of the industry is estimated to require
°tal of approximately $243 million by the end of the five years
attain a comparable (83%) level of BOD removal. (Table 38).
Profile indicates the extent to which capital costs
anttreatment facilities escalate as higher levels of pollu-
r
removal are sought. Table 38 shows, for example, estimat-
°jected five year capital outlays rising by only $60 mil-
a om $183 billion to $243 million) to increase BOD re-
by
-------
whereas complete removal of COD would require $1.4 billion -
almost twice the cost.
TABLE 38
Estimated Capital Outlays to Attain
Specified Levels of BOD, COD, and
Suspended Solids Removal,
1969-1973
5-Year Projected
Removal level for Critical Pollutants Capital Outlays
(% Removal) (Millions of Dollars)
BOD
10
83
98
99
100
COD
10
13
30
33
100
Suspended Solids
65
71
89
99
100
182.5
242.6
608.1
649.6
1378.1
Source: Projected Wastewater Treatment Costs In The Organic Chemicals.
Industry, The Cost of Clean Water and its_Economic Impact,
FWPCA, U.S. Department of the Interior, January 1969
On a percentage removal basis, suspended solids can be ?e
moved at far lower costs than COD removal and at fairly compel
able costs with BOD removal.
Operating Costs
Assuming that the operating costs associated with the
discharge of industrial wastes to municipal sewers amount to
10 cents per 1000 gallons, the total operating costs are ex-
pected to be around $16.8 million in 1969 and to rise yearly
over the period in proportion to increases in treatment facil'
ities in place.
- 154 -
-------
It perhaps should be emphasized that the total costs pre-
ented in the profile are for the construction and operation of
^aste treatment facilities for the industry as a whole and can-
be used to determine costs for individual plants. Organic
"s plants vary greatly in size, level of technology,
e . --- mix, and so forth, and a "typical" or "average" plant
w*lsts only in a statistical sense. The costs given are for
e*!^- removal levels which treatment facilities alone may be
to attain. That is, the costs entailed in process
disruption of plant operations, sewer segregation, and
and reporting waste treatment efficiency are not in-
£, ----. Such costs are practically impossible to estimate in
cjje aggregate but yet may add 40% or more to the installed
sts of facilities. Total costs for a given plant can only be
th ky detailed engineering studies. The unit costs in
e profile should be of value to engineers in making such es-
The Organic Chemicals Industry
important products of the organic chemicals industry
miscellaneous cyclic and acyclic organic chemicals and
-|-cal products, flavor and perfume materials, rubber-pro-
t^slnS chemicals, plasticizers, pesticides, and other synthe-
°rganic chemicals. Of total shipments in 1967, 75% were
^llaneous acyclic chemicals, a large number of which are
designated as petrochemicals. The expansion of the
industry into chemical production is of particular
icance insofar as the growth and complexity of the or-
c chemicals industry is concerned.
ed ?tal sales in the organic chemicals industry are project-
duCt- *1]--9 billion in 1969 and $15.6 billion in 1973. Pro-
ject"1^11 is estimated at 135.6 billion pounds in 1969, and pro-
the • to increase to 201.6 billion pounds by 1973. Growth in
^ndustry is not expected to be uniform either among the
n'u? segments of the industry or in the various geographical
m which the industry operates.
°rganic chemicals industry pollutants originate from sev-
sources. These sources include the incomplete removal of
products or raw materials from chemical reactions,
on of non-recoverable or useless by-products, from
cleaning operations, and from such water uses as
and steam production. Wastewater generation in the in-
unit of product varies so widely that an average
little meaning. For example, wastewater generation
- 155 -
-------
varies from less than 100 gallons to more than 100,000 gallons
per ton of product. The principal contaminants in the indus-
try's wastewaters are BOD, COD, oil, suspended solids, acidity,
heavy metals, color, taste and odor-producing compounds, and
residual organic products and by-products.
The production of organic chemicals results in many types
of contaminated wastewaters, and the treatment methods employed
cover the range of known practical techniques, In-plant con-
trol is the first step in instituting treatment practices.
Such controls include the salvage of unreacted chemicals, re-
covery of by-products, multiple reuse of water, good housekeep-
ing techniques to reduce leaks and spills, and changes in pro-
cessing methods. These controls can reduce the concentrations
of almost all potential pollutants and can, most importantly,
reduce the volumes of wastewaters requiring treatment. Physi-
cal treatment methods, such as sedimentation or flotation, are
used primarily to remove coarse suspended matter and floating
oils and scums. Filtration is used as a form of tertiary
treatment for reuse or as a pretreatment for deep-well inject-
ion. Chemical treatment is used primarily as a pretreatment
prior to sedimentation, filtration, or biological treatment.
Biological treatment is most widely used because of the nature
of the wastes; that is, their general susceptibility to biode-
gradation as evidenced by relatively high BOD values.
Joint municipal-industrial treatment has proved very ef-
fective in treating organic chemical wastewaters, particularly
for smaller chemical plants located near large municipal treat-
ment systems. Treatment costs play an important role in gov-
erning the expansion of joint treatment participation. Rates
established by municipalities vary widely. The chemical in-
dustry has generally found that in-plant, separate treatment
has economic advantages, particularly when significant quanti-
ties of contaminated wastewater are involved. Accordingly, no
significant percentage increase is expected in the near future
in the amount of organic chemical wastewaters that will be
treated in joint treatment systems.
Improved Methodology for Wastewater Treatment Cost Estimation.
The methods which have been developed and used in this
study of the organic chemicals industry can be utilized to re~
fine our estimates of wastewater treatment costs for other in"
dustries. The methodology is intended to be used in establish"
ing and projecting costs for an industry or for groups of in-
dustries, rather than for individual plants. Cost estimates
- 156 -
-------
individual plants are readily calculable by conventional
6llgineering techniques to almost any degree of precision desi-
depending upon the effort to be expended and the intended
of the information. Costs for an industry could, of
e, be determined precisely by calculating the costs of
treatment facilities for each individual plant in an industry
?nd totaling these costs. Alternatives to this obviously
impractical method are to estimate the number of plants in-
°lved and multiply by the "average" cost per plant or to esti-
yjate the volume of wastewater involved and multiply by the
average" cost per unit volume of wastewater. Such alternative
"|ethods are practical and offer a degree of accuracy sufficient
?r purposes of industry-wide planning and economic impact
^Udies . The suggested methods for determining the total costs
c® an industry of attaining specified degrees of wastewater ef-
iiUent quality over a time period are outlined in the profile
the following sequence:
1. Characterization of the Industry
2. Projection of Industry Growth
3. Characterization of Wastewaters
4. Wastewater Treatment Methods Determinations
5. Sample Plant Data Acquisition
6. Sample Data Analysis
7. Unit Wastewater Treatment Methods Costing
8. Determination of Cost vs. Effluent Quality Relation-
ships
9. Projection of Industry Wastewater Generation
10. Projection of Industry Costs
Od Guidelines have been established for the use of this meth-
. °logy and its use nas been demonstrated in the organic chem-
1 industry profile. Each industry has its own peculiar
da
-------
THERMAL POLLUTION
1968 COST ESTIMATES
The 1968 report indicated a total estimated investment
of $1.8 billion (in 1968 dollars) in cooling equipment would
be required over FY 1969-1973 to return water to its original
temperature before use, or $2.0 billion based upon a continu-
ation of historical construction cost increases during the per-
iod. The $1.8 billion estimate was based upon a current back-
log of about $1.0 billion, an estimated $0.6 billion to accom-
modate growth, and $0.2 billion for replacement over the FY
1969-1973 period. Of this $1.8 billion outlay, an estimated
$1.3 billion would be required of the thermal power industry
and about $0.5 billion would be incurred by major manufacturing
establishments.
The $1.8 billion estimate overstates estimated required
capital outlays to the extent that it is based upon the return
of cooling water temperature to its original temperature while
water quality standards permit some increase in the temperature
of water used for cooling where no harmful effects will occur.
In actual practice, adequate heat dissipation probably will be
attained with some portion of the $1.8 billion estimate
s ac-
is
esti'
Any increase in installed cooling equipment will be ac-
companied by increased operation and maintenance costs. It i
difficult to estimate operation and maintenance costs because
of the extreme difficulty of estimating capital outlays over
the next five years. However, based upon the assumption of
$1.8 billion projected additional capital outlays, it was est
mated that operation and maintenance costs for water cooling
would total almost $900 million during the next five years ~.
from about $79 million in FY 1969 to approximately $280 milli°n
in FY 1973.
These estimates must be recog i.zed as being extremely
tentative and most likely overstated, because they are based
upon necessarily arb: ', • iry assinnpt' n> (an overall decrease of
13°F in cooling water temperature to approximate its before-^56
tc.iuperatur - an ^ool i1 ) ,...'c'..;;i L^. ul draft cooling towers
only). Meaningful i ej'incments in these' cost estimates will be
possible only after stream quality standards applicable to pel"
missible cooling water temperature effects are completely ap-
proved and a site-by-site estimate of cooling equipment re-
quirements at power generation plants has been made. Accord'
ingly, efforts will be initiated as soon as possible to devel°P
- 158 -
-------
an inventory of cooling water treatment needs. For the pre-
ent, therefore, the first estimates of five-year projected
L?sts of a maximum of $1.8 billion in capital outlays and $0.9
illion in operation and maintenance costs remain the best
available estimate of cost.
v As indicated earlier, comparison between calculated in-
estment requirements for power generation and the 1968 esti-
ated rate of water pollution control investments are shown in
ne section on the backlog concept.
Water Quality Standards
All 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Ter-
es of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands sub-
te . water quality standards containing temperature cri-
to Protect designated water uses, particularly aquatic
propagation. The numerical criteria, controlling arti-
temPerature changes and setting maximum limits, vary
State to State. All standards include a narrative state -
n
c0J; . Smiting artificial temperature increases to levels not
Uspdered to have deleterious effects on beneficial water
pQ^- As of December 1, 1968, standards relating to thermal
°th n had been approved in whole or part for 37 States and
ner jurisdictions.
^ Generally speaking, States have not specified the imple-
withion measures that will be necessary to assure compliance
SUr tne temperature criteria. Specific implementation mea-
were omitted because it was felt that, without special
es, information was unavailable or insufficient for spec-
Waterbodies or stretches of waterbodies on the need for
dissipation equipment to meet specific temperature con-
standards. It was concluded, therefore, that the effect
at discharges on existing water temperature needs to be
led on a case-by-case basis.
research and technical studies, under way in the
Northwest, will be of sufficient scope to cover the
°n- Studies will concentrate on the following subjects:
. inventory of heat sources, present control or treatment
ed» effects of heat loads on water quality, and abate-
needs.
Det
s cermination of the best way or ways to apply temperature
ceria.
- 159 -
-------
--Assessment of the magnitude and location of future heat
sources and potential effects on water quality with a view
toward requiring treatment or control devices (possibly in-
cluding outfalls and diffusion devices) prior to beginning
of operations.
--Study of treatment and control measures and their costs.
--An evaluation of existing temperature data, and an assess-
ment of the areas where data is needed, followed by programs
to collect and evaluate such data.
- 160 -
-------
INDUSTRIAL WASTE INVENTORY
1S a critlcal need f°r quantitative information on
h • waste treatment costs if effective plans are to be
i ^dustry and Government decision makers relative to the
troi S industrial waste. The dearth of such data was il-
iji Dr^ - example, by the assumptions which had to be used
The r pari?g the industrial discussion in last year's study
^n^fft^°- C1fan Water, and the lack of treatment cost data
rePort Q/ ln t reaction -of the industrial community to that
ttj Present FWPCA plans are to develop information on indus-
afpro W£S*e treatment costs by two different approaches. One
?fld c ls to.Pr°Ject costs by developing mathematical models
^gs function graphs applicable to various industry group-
*cals described in the earlier discussion on the organic chem-
fetic ^ndustry. In order to be sure, however, that this theo-
is n approach is providing adequate estimates of costs, it
^ary t0 utilize a complementary approach for developing
n °n industrial waste disposal practices and their
costs. This second approach will comprise an in-
waste inventory whose findings will serve as a cross-
t e adequacy of treatment costs developed by the
approach.
national inventory of industrial wastewater disposal
..^ u?e? ^s in an advanced planning stage. As planned, it
^r°ce«? .mately cover an approximate 10,000 manufacturing or
°f watng plants» each of which use over 20 million gallons
a^°Ut 070annually and which, in the aggregate, account for
^Pos °^ tne water used in the country for industrial
the63' Selection of plants in this category for inclusion
ved Survey was prompted largely by the total water usage in-
and the likelihood that the essential dimensions of the
industrial water pollution problem can be delineated
•®ly by utilizing this sample of plants. It is recog-
nowever, that smaller processing establishments, parti-
those discharging effluents to relatively small
"tatter was also discussed in The Critical Need For A National
r. t~2f_ Industrial Wastes, 30th Report by the Committee on Government
-ions, House Report No. 1579, 90th Congress, 2nd Session.
- 161 -
-------
streams, may well be significant contributors to the nation's in'
dustrial water pollution problem and such establishments may be
included in the inventory at a later date.
Plants to be surveyed will be selected from a commercial
directory currently listing more than 300,000 manufacturers.
Criteria to be used include participation in an industry iden-
tified in the 1963 Census of Manufactures, "Water Use in Manu-
facturing", as being among the largest water users in terms of
volume of gross annual sales and number of employees.
The form to be used is in the final stages of design. It
will provide for identification of the plant by name, parent
corporation where applicable, and geographical location and
mailing address and principal product (s) produced. Other data
and information requested include: (a) Names and types of sour-
ces and discharge points for various kinds of water use and
wastewater effluent; (b) Original costs of treatment and con-
trol facilities, annual expenditures for operation and main-
tenance, and estimated outlay of funds for treatment and con-
trol over the next five years; and (c) Water quality data for
both intake water and effluent for each different type of
wastewater coming from the plant.
It is anticipated that this inventory will be initiated
in the near future.
- 162 -
-------
OTHER EFFLUENTS
The series of pollutional sources and effects which are
included in the following section are much more difficult to
quantify, and in many cases to even delineate, than the costs
of controlling municipal and industrial wastes. The "other
effluents" include such pollutional effects as those caused by,
°r resulting in, sedimentation and erosion, salinity from the
Use of irrigation water, nutrients from land runoff or munici-
pal and industrial wastes, mine drainage, oil field and chemic-
al brines, concentrated animal feedlot runoff, accidental dis-
charges from all sources, and drainage from sanitary landfills.
In last year's report, it was pointed out that the kinds
°f pollutants for which there are either no controls or for
which existing controls are diffuse, excessively costly, un-
certain, or difficult to quantify occur in large part as a
result of natural drainage which is the cause of several major
"other effluent" problems. This makes it impossible to cal-
culate and almost impossible to estimate meaningfully at pre-
sent either the timing or the magnitude of necessary control
Costs.
Last year's report set forth the problems and possible
solutions involved in controlling effects of "other effluents"
^o the extent that such information was available. Important
contributions to this section were made by several other agen-
cies of government, particularly the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture. In preparing this report, greater emphasis was placed
°n quantifying these problems and their remedial costs. De-
scriptive discussion is generally limited to summarization of
l^st year's report or to material not included in the first re-
Port which represents a worthwhile updating contribution to
this year's report. In this connection, considerable informa-
tion was obtained from material prepared by an Ad Hoc Committee
°n Agricultural Pollution of the Office of Science and Techno-
logy.
As water quality standards relating to "other effluents"
developed further their impact on costs and technology
will be assessed. Also, as greater knowledge of these problem
a*eas is developed, these factors will be analyzed in terms of
their interrelationships and the results will be reflected in
updatings of this report.
- 163 -
338-877 O - 68 - 12
-------
WASTES FROM WATERCRAFT
This year's review of the watercraft wastes problem did
not lead to any significant changes in the total cost estimates
for correcting the problem. However, it was considered import-
ant to refine the estimation technique, to discuss some possi-
ble alternative control methods or treatment devices, and to
show how the estimates were developed. Since more refined es-
timates must be predicated upon the cost of control devices
needed to meet the effluent standards that are finally set tor
watercraft wastes, it is not practical to make further cost
modifications at this time. Therefore, under the present cir-
cumstances it is estimated that control of pollution from
watercraft wastes will cost around $660 million (compared to
the $600 million estimate in the 1968 report) for equipment
alone. Additional costs will be incurred in treating or dis-
posing of the wastes but these costs cannot be estimated at
this time.
Scope of the Problem
The problem of pollution from watercraft is as varied as
the products and technologies of our times. Pollution of har-
bors, rivers, and other waters can result from vessels as large
as aircraft carriers to the many smaller recreational boats
which use the nation's waters. It has been determined that
approximately 46,000 Federally registered commercial vessels,
65,000 unregistered commercial fishing vessels, 1,600 Federally
-owned vessels and eight million recreational watercraft use
the navigable waters of the United States. A complete break-
down of the types of ships involved is not available. For the
purpose of estimating costs of installing pollution control
equipment aboard, the figures in Table 39 were used.
As shown in Table 39, the total human pollution potential
from watercraft is estimated to be equivalent to just over 500,
000 persons, comparable to a city the size of Cincinnati, Buf-
falo, or San Diego.
At the present time, a very small percentage of the water-
craft using the nation's waters are equipped with sewage treat-
ment devices. Approximately 40 of the vessels operating on the
Great Lakes and about 100 of the Coast Guard vessels are now so
equipped. The Corps of Engineers has equipped, or is in the
process of equipping, all of its vessels with sewage treatment
- 164 -
-------
devices. A very small number, if any, of the ocean going mer-
chant vessels and tankers which use the nation's waters treat
their sewage prior to discharge.
TABLE 39
SUMMARY OF UNITED STATES VESSELS
WITH SANITARY FACILITIES USING UNITED STATES WATERS, 1967
Type of VessejL Number of Occupancy Rate
Vessels Man-Years/Year
U. S. Navy 700 134,200
U. S. Coast Guard 404 6,600
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 321 2,900
Maritime Administration (NSTS) 170 700
Tankers 2,000 I/
Tugboats 4,000 I/
Towboats 3,900 I/
Great Lakes, Domestic 209 I/
Merchant Vessels 16,000 T/
Recreational 1,300,000 2/ 170,000
Total 1,327,704 513,400
\J Occupancy rate for all commercial vessels has been estimated to be
199,000 man-years/year.
2/ Estimated
Water Quality Standards
Most of the State implementation plans recognize that
s from watercraft could be the source of significant
Pollution problems. However, few of the States have any con-
trol programs in effect although many of them are proposing
legislation that would require treatment devices or holding
*acilities for toilet equipped boats. Other States concluded
that rules and regulations concerning watercraft waste disposal
could not be adopted until more uniform standards for equip-
approval were available or until more acceptable treat-
or disposal methods were developed.
165 -
-------
Treatment Methods
the formaof ho^?™^ f?r US° ab°ard watercraft is available in
ou? of ?he wa?ers gina" " Which tO c°llect sewage to keep it
longer present a iaterTn*?" t0 burn Up W&SteS *° the? n°
facilities to remove the hniv? pjoblem! biological treatment
by disinf^rtirm or,^ j- . UUJ-K 0± the solid matter, followed
erator-dili^fecto?s th = t ?VS ac«Ptable effluent, and mac-
heavily with aCdi,"nferttBng?lnlSI>J^,?f1.*d!' d°™ the m.ixt."?
a major^olf inh?heCrhriStiCS,°f,WaSte"handling equipment play
watercraft SoJ ?6 made f°r the different kinds of
able equipment folfn^^i Commenis regarding currently avail -
major advantages ^^-al2ng Wlth Table 40' which lis^ the
equipment g disadvantages of the various types of
ied
. isf * Cl°sed Container for re-
i Waiercra£t until ^ can be properly
lnto an onshore sewage receiving farilitv As
this rep°rt' a holding 'ank would
fuel oil n
ruei oil or liquified petrol-
electric heaters or by
eum gas,
3'-^ Biologic treatment systems -Thi c f^a *
utilizes the extended a^^^ act^J^ °f 5yStem usually
to that used for land-based «w»^? Sludge Process similar
types are available When p?oper1v ^^ ^though other
type of system provides second I designed and operated, this
The U.S. Corps of Engineers U V ^reatment f°r the sewage.
mercial ship operators have' instan S5S^?Uard' and several com'
their vessels. At the present t?™i^thls type °f system on
on the effectiveness of sv^t^ there are no da^a available
FWPCA has undertaken a program to°W °?erating aboard vessels,
stems for the Corps of Engineers? 6Valuate several of these sy-
syst™s macerate the
& isinfection chemical before
discharge into the water
- 166 -
-------
TABLE NO. 40
SUMMARY OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
OF CURRENTLY AVAILABLE WASTE-HANDLING EQUIPMENT
Advantages
Disadvantages
Holding Tank
Incinerator
t~> Biologic Treatment
Maceration-Disinfection
Dynamic Separation
1. The device, if designed properly,
completely prevents the sewage
from being discharged into waters.
2. They can be adapted to various
sizes and used on most vessels.
3. Minimizes mechanical or human failure
1. Reduces wastes to a sterile ash.
2. Relatively light and requires little
space.
1. Achieves secondary treatment of
sewage.
2. Can adequately handle other wastes
generated aboard the vessel (e.g.,
galley, laundry, and shower wastes).
1. Requires little space and is light
in weight.
2. Is easy to install.
1. Relatively small due to the short re-
tention time during liquid phase
2. Can be started and stopped in short
time periods.
3. Reduces solids to a sterile ash.
1. Large and heavy, especially if designed
for prolonged use.
2. Essential shore support facilities not
available in adequate numbers.
3. Odor control chemicals may be required for
acceptable operation.
4. Can be pumped out in unauthorized areas
unless properly designed.
1. Currently available electric models
have high power requirements.
2. Increases fire hazards.
3. Requires exhaust stacks.
1. Large and heavy.
2. Requires long retention times.
3. May be adversely affected by ship's motion.
4. Is not readily adaptable to vessels with
small crews.
5. Relatively long start-up period.
6. Proper operation requires trained
personnel.
1. Provides virtually no reduction in BOD
or suspended solids concentration.
2. Degree of disinfection depends on
frequency of toilet use.
3. Currently available models discharge
identifiable sewage solids.
4. Macerator can be operated without
addition of the disinfectant.
1. Depends on quick solids separation.
2. Has little effect on dissolved BOD.
3. Is not easily adaptable to small vessels
due to its relatively high energy
requirements.
-------
5.) Dynamic separation disposal systems-These systems separate
incoming sewage into solid and liquid phases for subsequent
treatment. The separated solids may be incinerated, subjected
to decomposition under heat and pressure, or accumulated in a
container for disposal ashore. The liquid phase may be disin-
fected by; (a) addition of a hypochlorite solution, (b) chlo-
rine generated by electrolysis of sea water, or (c) pasteuriza-
tion with waste heat or electric heating elements instead of
chlorinating to kill bacteria present.
The FWPCA recently requested industry to submit proposals
for developing and demonstrating methods for controlling or
treating wastes from various types of watercraft. Proposals
were solicited either for the development of techniques or de-
vices for on-board treatment or for storing and transferring
waste products to shore-based treatment or disposal facilities.
It is expected that two contracts will be awarded in the near
future based on this solicitation. In addition, an application
has been received from the city of Chicago for a grant to dem-
onstrate the feasibility of extending municipal sewerage lines
to a dock area and of pumping out sewage holding tanks aboard
vessels.
The U.S. Coast Guard has a program under way to develop a
more effective aerobic treatment plant requiring less space
and weight than existing plants, making such a system more
attractive for shipboard use. A prototype, designed for in-
stallation aboard a vessel having a 75-man crew, is currently
being evaluated. After a land-based evaluation, the treatment
system will be installed aboard a Coast Guard buoy tender for
evaluation under shipboard conditions.
The U.S. Navy has undertaken a three-part research and
development program related to shipboard waste disposal. This
ettort includes the development of an electro-mechanical incin-
eratory type sewage treatment system, the evaluation of macer-
ation-disinfection equipment, and the development of equipment
to separate oil from ballast and bilge water. In addition,
the Navy has awarded a contract to determine the most practical
method of treating submarine sanitary waste. During FY 1969,
the Navy planned to award a study contract to determine the
most cost-effective method of treating surface ship wastes.
*A» A*erican industry also has responded to the need for
adequate treatment devices for shipboard use. Several compan^
devoting in-house research and development efforts
solving this problem. Over the long term, additional
is needed to improve present concepts and to develop
- 168 -
-------
entirely new ones which may yield better methods. Ideally,
treatment devices should require less space and weight and
should require minimal attention of the watercraft operator.
Costs
The installed cost of outboard equipment for properly
handling watercraft wastes varies greatly, depending upon the
size of the vessel and the type of equipment required. Propos-
ed legislation, if enacted, would direct the Secretary of the
Interior to establish effluent standards for watercraft wastes.
These standards will, to some extent, influence the type of
equipment required and therefore the costs involved. Another
factor, which at present has not been defined, is the cost in-
volved in installing sewage treatment equipment on existing
Vessels.
The installation costs used here are based on the limited
data available which were obtained primarily from other Federal
agencies.
The U.S. Navy has tentatively estimated that the cost for
implementing a program to install sewage treatment equipment on
existing Navy ships, where feasible, and to provide pollution
control equipment on new ships, will require approximately $253
million. The portion of this amount to be expended through FY
1974 depends upon development of the necessary equipment, pro-
mi*lgation of effluent or treatment standards, and appropriation
°f the necessary funds.
The Coast and Geodetic Survey, U.S. Department of Com-
, is estimating an expenditure of $600,000 for purchasing
installing pollution control equipment on its vessels
ugh FY 1974. In addition, that agency estimates as an expend-
iture of $180,000 during this period for operation and main-
tenance of vessel pollution control equipment.
The Corps of Engineers is planning an expenditure of
slightly more than $2 million for sewage treatment equipment
aj>oard vessels through FY 1972. No accurate data are avail-
a&le on the number of commercial vessels which will require
Sewage treatment equipment or the cost of the equipment to be
^stalled. For the purpose of obtaining estimated costs the
°Howing assumptions were used:
1) Average cost of equipment and installation aboard
recreational watercraft - $100.
- 169 -
-------
2) Average cost of equipment and installation aboard
tugboats, towboats, and tankers - $3,000.
3) Average cost of equipment and installation aboard
merchant vessels - $15,000.
4) Average cost of equipment and installation aboard
Federally-owned Naval vessels - $361,400.
5) Average cost of equipment and installation aboard
other Federally-owned vessels - $9,400.
Table 41, based on the assumptions listed above, sum-
marizes the costs involved in equipping the nation's watercraft
with sewage treatment equipment. It is not possible to deter-
mine what percentage of these funds will be expended through FI
1974. At the present time no data are available on the costs
involved in the operation and maintenance of vessel pollution
control equipment.
TABLE 41
ESTIMATED COST THROUGH 1974
OF EQUIPPING VARIOUS CLASSES
OF VESSELS WITH SEWAGE TREATMENT EQUIPMENT
Estimated
Cost Per
Type of Vessel Number of Vessels Vessel I/ TotalJggs£-
(Millions)
Recreational (Equipped l,300,000_y $ 100 $130.0
with sanitary facilities) ~
Tugboats, towboats, and
tankers 9,900 3,000 29.7
Merchant Vessels 16,169 2/ 15,000 242.5
Navy Vessels 700 361,400 253.0
Other Federally-owned Vessels 800 9,400 7-JL
TOTAL $662.7
I/ Estimate includes cost of equipment and installation on existing vessels•
2/ Estimated figure.
- 170 -
-------
On the basis of the limited data available, it is esti-
mated that the total cost of equipping the watercraft of this
Cation with pollution control equipment will be in the order
°f $660 million. Further refinements in this estimate can be
^ade only after the establishment of treatment or effluent
standards and after more experience is obtained in manufac-
turing and installing the required equipment.
171 -
-------
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
This report is a summary of the erosion and sedimentation
problem as delineated last year with additional data on control
areas that were amenable to cost estimation.
Damages to the nation's waters from erosion-caused sedi-
mentation are significant. Although the costs of controlling
such-erosion from all sources cannot be predicted or estimated
completely at this time, estimates can be made of the costs of
controlling certain facets of the problem. The initial costs
of controlling erosion from streambeds and roadways, have been
estimated to range from $300 million to $10.0 billion. Annual
erosion control costs for urban construction and roadways are
estimated to range from $140 million to $1.4 billion. On the
other hand, the cost of controlling erosion from agricultural
lands cannot be estimated now because of the size, complexity,
and lack of data concerning the problem. However, it is known
that both the costs and benefits of land erosion control will
be large and diverse.
Nature of the Problem
Sediment produced primarily by erosion of the land sur-
face, is the most extensive pollutant of surface waters both
because it is the greatest source of suspended solids in water-
bodies and because it constitutes a loss of soil, often with
damaging effects, whenever it comes to rest.
There are several principal sources of sediment. These
include: (a) sheet erosion by regional surface runoff, (b)
gullying, the channeling effect of runoff, (c) roadway and
roadside erosion of cuts and fills, (d) erosion from construc-
tion activities such as those involved in urban and industrial
development, (e) stream channel erosion, (f) flood erosion, the
scouring of floodplain lands by floodflows, and (g) mining
wastes and industrial wastes dumped into streams or left in
positions in which they can be transported into streams by
erosion.
The impact of fluvial sediment upon the nation's economy
and the quality of our environment is of tremendous signifi-
cance. The estimate needs refinement, but it is quite likely
that sediment damages, considering the many ramifications of
the problem, are well in excess of $500 million annually. In
addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has estimated that
- 172 -
-------
the value of the soil resources that are lost through erosion
is several times greater than the combined direct and indirect
Value of the sediment damages. (4)
The presence of sediment in water greatly increases the
cost of making water usable. For example, capital investments
in water treatment facilities are required when sediment-laden
water is needed for municipal and industrial uses. The greater
the amount of sediment in water used for such purposes, the
greater the costs required both for removing the material and
*or more frequent cleaning of sedimentaion basins.
The use of water to recharge underground aquifers is an-
other example of added costs attributable to suspended sediment
Suspended sediment clogs the aquifer pore spaces, thereby re-
tiring outlays to clear the water before the aquifer is re-
charged. Water-borne and deposited sediment also damages com-
"tercial fisheries, particularly those involving shellfish, and
the habitat of game fish.
Sediment also may carry harmful chemicals and minerals
lnto the watercourses. Tests have established that salts and
^trients, particularly phosphorus, are adsorbed on sediment
Particles and redissolved in receiving waters after agitation
°* the sediment. These nutrients then become sources of en-
^ichment which accelerate eutrophication of surface waters and
1&kes . Pesticide residues also may be carried by sediment and
^leased in the stream flora and fauna. Sediment in the
frequently hinders the oxidation of organic pollutants,
thereby requiring increased treatment of municipal and indus-
trial effluents.
Silt deposited in rivers, lakes, and reservoirs is a very
°stly polluting agent. The inflow of silt depletes the stor-
Se capacity of artificial reservoirs at an estimated rate of
bout one million acre-feet each year. (5) It is estimated that
he cost associated with this annual reduction in reservoir
aPacity is some $100 million. In addition, about 380 million
c yards of silt must be dredged from the nation's harbors
waterways at an estimated annual cost of $125 million.
Scope of the Problem
Sheet erosion and gullying are associated generally with
cultural lands. Because of the tremendous area involved,
Jpicultural lands supply the greatest amount of sediment to
e total load carried by the streams. Numerous measurements
- 173 -
-------
on plots without conservation practices have shown soil losses
from land in continuous row crops ranging from 10,000 to /U,.uuu
tons per square mile per year, depending upon the characteris-
tics of soils, crops, tillage practices, topography and climat-
ic factors.
There are approximately 3.7 million miles of roads in the
United States.(6) Of this total, about 14% are located in munic
ipalities and do not contribute to the erosion problem.^ Of
the remaining roads, about 24% are primary roads and 62% are
secondary and rural roads. Although erosion from primary, sec-
ondarys and rural roads is extremely active where protection
from erosion has not been provided, the major erosion problem
is from an estimated 470,000 miles of the secondary and rural
roads.
Road construction is a large contributor to the sediment
problem if erosion control is not provided. The average sedi-
ment yield during a rainstorm at highway construction sites was
found to be about 10 times greater than that for cultivated
land, 200 times greater than for grass areas, and 2,000 times
greater than for forest areas, depending upon the rainfall, the
land slope, and the exposure of the bank.(7]1(8) It has been
shown, for example, that such disturbances in Scott Run Water-
shed in Fairfax County, Virginia, produced sediment at the rate
of some 89,000 tons per square mile per year at the source and
about one-half this amount was measured downstream at the gaug-
ing station.(9)
Rates of sediment production from commercial and industri*
al construction activities in urban areas are similar to those
found in road construction. For example, the Potomac River
Basin discharges about 2.5 million tons of sediment into the
Potomac estuary each year.(4) While agricultural lands of this
basin produce the major portion of the sediment, the urban
areas in and around metropolitan areas of Washington, where
disturbance of the land surface by construction is intensive,
produce a large share of the sediments.
Erosion is a serious problem on at least 300,000 miles of
the nation's streambanks. Depending upon flow, sediment load,
and other factors, sediment is either deposited on streambanks
or eroded from them. Because the banks of the streams and
rivers are essentially a part of the water conveyance system,
material eroded from these banks is immediately available as
damaging sediment. A serviceable estimate of the relationship
of this load to the total sediment load is not available ex-
cept in areas where specific studies have been made.
- 174 -
-------
Approximately two million acres of unreclaimed or inade-
quately reclaimed stripmined land exist in the United States.
These areas are critical sources of sediment since their sedi-
ment yields can be as much as 1,000 times that of a forest.
The sediment problem from strip-mines is discussed in more
Detail in the mine drainage section of this report because it
is closely interrelated to the acid pollution problem.
Water Quality Standards
Over two-thirds of the States discussed the problem of
erosion and sedimentation in their implementation plans. Most
the plans described erosion to be a serious pollution source
generally concluded that the diverse nature of the problem
it difficult to implement full scale control programs at
time. In almost all cases the primary efforts of the
es have been directed toward fostering cooperation between
ir pollution control programs, soil conservation agencies,
watershed management programs .
Many of the States also recognized the problem of erosion
construction sites. Here again the major effort has been
ll* the area of working through and with other governmental
aEencies to encourage or require erosion control at the con-
struction site.
In North Carolina the State Highway Commission has an ex-
e seeding program in connection with its projects. The
also is cooperating with the U.S. Corps of Engineers and
h® Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agri-
^ulture in their programs. The State Roads Commission of
a*yland has upgraded its specifications to provide more con-
.roi over construction erosion. The State also cooperates with
^cal governmental units in an effort to control urban con-
el*"Uction erosion and with conservation agencies to control
from land areas.
On a broader scale that affects all States, the U.S. Bur-
of Public Roads, using guidelines developed in cooperation
the Soil Conservation Service, is now requiring adequate
n control measures during construction of new highways
built with Federal assistance. This program, of course,
We^1 wi-th tne present State programs of cooperation with
a er agencies in the elimination of erosion from construction
ctivities.
- 175 -
-------
Control Methods
Erosion prevention, where feasible, provides the most
effective method for sediment control. However, in certain
remote arid areas in the United States such practices would
be extremely expensive while on certain construction sites
this would be completely impractical.
With regard to agricultural land, the control of erosion
by land management is multibeneficial, preserving land and
vegetation resources and at the same time reducing sediment
yield. Where practicable, and depending upon soil and cli-
matic conditions, converting cultivated fields from row crops
to contour cultivation, to small grain, or to crop rotation,
may reduce soil loss from sheet erosion from 60% to 90% and
may eliminate gully erosion.
Excessive sediment transport from highways can be signif-
icantly decreased by reducing the period of time during which
the ground is exposed to erosion and/or preventing the sediment
from making its way to waterbodies in the area. One control
approach is to "treat" the exposed roadside immediately by
mulching, seeding to grasses, or sodding prior to paving or
final grading. Where such practices are not feasible, channels
can be constructed at the outset for impounding sediment or
for diverting or spreading surface runoff.
Urban development, as in the case of highways under con-
struction, results in the loss of large quantities of sediment
to receiving waters. Control measures similar to those employ-
ed in road construction can also be employed to minimize pol-
lutional effects of urban construction. However, because of
the nature of the urban construction industry it is not prac-
ticable to seed or sod during construction. Instead, it is
more practical to grade construction areas to divert waters
to spreading basins for debris and sediment entrapment.
The control of streambank and streambed erosion usually
requires emphasis on special construction measures, includ-
ing construction of stabilization structures, riprap of
streambanks inducing deposition, and sloping and vegetating of
eroding banks, However, many of these measures may not be
complementary to other water uses.
Control of sediment from mining operations is discussed
in more detail in the mine drainage section of this report.
However, prevention of sedimentation from strip mines is gen-
erally accomplished through reclamation of the land areas
- 176 -
-------
effected. The extent and total cost of such reclamation de-
pend upon the use that is to be made of the land after it has
been reclaimed.
Costs
The costs associated with the control of agricultural
e*osion cannot be estimated. The cost in many cases is mini-
toal since it may involve only simple, inexpensive erosion con-
trol practices by land users. On the other hand, much of the
Sully erosion can be stopped only by filling, seeding, or
Camming. Such projects are more costly than merely following
§ood land management practices. Moreover, even good land
Management practices may have significant hidden costs. For
Sample, crop rotation may require the operator to plant a
Crop that provides a lower return per acre than single crop-
Ping. In such cases, the cost to the operator is the differ-
^nce between his actual return and the return that he could
have received had he planted the higher valued crop. Con-
Versely, effective erosion control may increase the land
Bailable for productive crops and thereby increase the
operator's net income.
Control of erosion from roadways may add an equivalent
°f $1,000 per mile of new highway and $1,000 per construction
Project per year. For the 470,000 miles of secondary and rural
which require erosion control measures, it is estimated
the costs of control may range as widely as $275 to
,000 per mile.(10) An additional $50 per mile per year
•id then be required for maintenance of adequate control.
therefore, the initial costs for highway erosion control may be
to range from $130 million to as much as $7 billion
annual maintenance cost could run around $23 million.
Control of erosion at urban construction projects is esti-
to cost between $100 and $1,000 per project depending
n. the size and location of the project. During 1967 there
6 approximately 1.3 million new housing units started, while
average number of starts for the five years ending in 1967
somewhat over 1.4 million.(11) Assuming that housing
rts account for the bulk of the acreage that is subject to
due to urban construction, the annual cost of erosion
on such projects can be estimated to range from $140
on to $1.4 billion.
It is estimated that costs for renovating the 300,000
of streambanks to minimize sediment pollution would range
$200 million to $3 billion.
- 177 -
-------
As reported in the mine drainage section, the cost of a
basic program to reclaim the two million acres of unreclaimed
and inadequately reclaimed surface-mine land is estimated at
$750 million. Additional reclamation to make the land suit-
able for cropland, pasture land, range land, recreation, etc.,
would raise the cost to at least $1,2 billion.(12) However,
current information indicates that the cost of the more com-
plete reclamation may be in excess of $2.0 billion.
From the foregoing discussion of costs it can be seen that
the problem of erosion control cannot be reduced to total cost
estimates at this point. Estimates of the cost of erosion
control for agricultural lands are not available, while the
costs of erosion control from mines are interwoven with the
mine drainage problem.
- 178 -
-------
MINE DRAINAGE
This year's report again points out that correction of the
mine drainage problem will require major expenditures. How-
ever, even these new estimates are extremely tentative. For
example, last year's report estimated that an 80% acid pollu-
tion reduction would cost slightly over $3.0 billion and could
be accomplished basically by reclamation of surface and under-
ground mines. Since that time our research has indicated that
even higher costs might be incurred. The research shows that
in selected areas treatment of the mine discharges, both from
operating and reclaimed mines, will be required to meet water
quality standards. If we were to assume that all acid mine
drainage would have to be reduced by 95%, the total cost could
run an additional $4.0 billion. Based on a summation of cost
sstimates made by major mining States and FWPCA, it appears
that mine drainage pollution abatement costs may require out-
lays to $7 billion. However, these cost estimates include some
reclamation activities that are more extensive than would be
required simply to alleviate the pollution problem.
Because of the magnitude of the mine drainage problem it
is still under study. As additional studies of the entire mine
situation become available, future estimates of abatement costs
should be more accurate.
Although the extent of the mine drainage pollution problem
in the United States has not been fully documented, a recent
study by the Department of the Interior(12) was an important
step in outlining the magnitude of the problem associated with
surface mining. In addition, the FWPCA is conducting a number
°f surveys to determine further the extent of the mine drainage
Problem, both from surface and underground mines.
Despite a lack of comprehensive information on mine drain-
age, the scope of several aspects of the problem has been
either documented or estimated. A review of those various as-
can be used to develop a gross estimate of the total mine
problem.
Nature of the Problem
Mine drainage degrades the affected waters primarily by
c"emical pollution and sedimentation. Acid formation and some
?edimentation occur when water and air react with the sulfur
minerals in the mines or refuse piles to form sulfuric
and iron compounds. The acid and iron compounds are then
- 179 -
*-677 O - 69 - 13
-------
transported by the water into ponds and streams creating acid
and sediment pollution problems. Most of the sedimentation,
however, occurs when water erodes soil and minerals and carries
them into the streams and ponds,
Damages
Although acid pollution is usually limited to coal field
areas, suspended solids and sedimentation damage can extend
much further downstream. Changes in the stream characteristics
as a result of coal mine drainage include increased acidity,
increased total hardness, and added quantities of undesirable
compounds such as iron, manganese, aluminum, sulfate, and other
elements and suspended materials including silt.
Damages resulting from mine drainage include degradation
of municipal and industrial water supplies, reduction of re-
creational uses, lowered aesthetic quality of waterbodies, cor-
rosion of boats, piers, and other useful structures, and mis-
cellaneous adverse effects.
1) Municipal and industrial water supplies. Costly damages to
water supplies are caused by increased acidity, iron, manga-
nese, hardness, color, silt, fines, and sulfates. Additional
damages from acid conditions occur from corrosion of intake
facilities and other equipment.
2? Recreation. Mine drainage has a deleterious effect upon
fish and related water life in streams and lakes. The increas-
ed acidity, high iron content, and silt loads either kill fish
and other aquatic organisms or inhibit their growth and repro-
duction thus eliminating sport fishing as a recreational activ-
ity in the affected waterbodies. During 1967, over a million
fish were reported killed by mine discharges, (13) ranking mine
drainage as one of the primary causes of fish kills in the
United States. Mine drainage polluted streams are often ren-
dered unsuitable for swimming, boating, and other recreational
activities.
3) Aesthetics. The aesthetic features of mining areas and
mine polluteostreams are often so impaired that property
values decrease and individuals and industries are unwilling
to locate at these sites. Local people lose their incentive to
maintain and improve their property, intensifying the problem
even^further and decreasing land values. Tourists are reluctant
to visit these degraded areas and their money is spent else-
wnere. All of these factors result in an economic loss.
- 180 -
-------
4) Corrosion. Acid corrosion causes substantial damages to
navigation equipment and structures located on streams acidi-
fied by the addition of mine drainage. Corrosion of concrete,
as well as metal, is the cause of significant monetary losses
in operation, maintenance, and replacement of boats, barges,
bridges, culverts, dams, and other structures which are in con-
tact with the water.
5) General adverse effects. Mine drainage pollution causes a
number of other adverse effects which result in damages to the
local economy. Streams polluted by mine drainage are by-passed
by firms as industrial sites, thereby reducing employment op-
portunities and sources of revenue to the local municipality.
Mine drainage polluted waters are often unsuitable for agricul-
tural uses, such as irrigation and livestock water supply.
Scope of the Problem
Total unneutralized acid drainage from both active and un-
used coal mines in the United States is estimated to amount to
over 4.0 million tons annually. About twice this amount of
acid is produced annually but roughly one half is neutralized
by natural alkalinity in mines and streams. In Appalachia
alone, where an estimated 75% of the coal mine drainage problem
occurs(14), approximately 10,500 miles of streams are reduce^
below desirable levels of quality by acid mine drainage. About
6,700 miles of these streams are continuously degraded; the re-
mainder are intermittently degraded.
In addition to the acid pollution problem, mine drainage
also contributes large quantities of sediment to the nation's
streams. The amount of sediment pollution is not known.
However, a large part of it is known to come from surface
(strip and auger) mines and some information is available as
to the extent of the surface mine problem.
The analysis of the surface mining problem(12) indicated
3.2 million acres of land in the United States had been
Disturbed by surface mine operations prior to January 1, 1965.
Qf these 3.2 million acres, approximately two million acres are
Cither unreclaimed or only partially reclaimed. An additional
153,000 acres are disturbed each year, only part of which are
^claimed annually.
Sediment yields from strip-mined areas average nearly
6°,000 tons per square mile annually - 10 to 60 times the
- 181 -
-------
yields of agricultural lands.(15) At this rate the two mil-
lion acres of strip-mined land in need of reclamation could be
the source of about 94 million tons of sediment per year. _In
addition to being a major source of eroded soil, strip-mining
has been estimated to be the source of as much as one-quarter
of the acid pollution problem.(16)
Characteristics of Mine Drainage
The characteristics of mine drainage depend upon the
type of mineral being mined, the method of mining, and the
characteristics of the material adjacent to the mined mineral.
Table 42 lists the pollution problems associated with various
minerals. Pollution by suspended solids is found in connec-
tion with all types of minerals, and is due primarily to the
method of mining. Surface, placer, and hydraulic mining are
major causes of suspended solids.
TABLE 42
POLLUTION PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH MINING
Mineral
Coal
Phosphate
Sand & Gravel
Clay
Iron
Gold
Copper
Aluminum
Pollution Problems
Suspended Solids, Low pH, Acidity,
Iron, Hardness, Sulfate, Metals
Phosphate, Suspended solids
Suspended solids
Low pH, Acidity, Iron, Hardness,
Sulfate, Metals, Suspended solids
Iron, Suspended solids, Hardness
Suspended solids
Copper, Iron
Suspended solids, Iron, Aluminum
Even for the same mineral, drainage characteristics vary
trom location to location, seam to seam, mine to mine and even
- 182 -
-------
within the same mine. These are attributable to geology, the
nature of the material, hydrology, and other factors not fully
understood. Coal mine drainage is a good example of this var-
iation. Although there is no "typical" coal mine drainage,
such drainage usually falls into one of the four classes out-
lined in Table 43. The wide variation in chemical quality is
apparent from these values. For example, pH may vary from 2.5
to 8.5 over the range of classes and sulfate content has been
found to range from 500 to 10,000 milligrams per liter within
a single class of mine drainage.
In addition to mine drainage, refuse piles, tailings
ponds, and washery preparation residues are also important in-
direct sources of pollution from mining. For many minerals,
such as phosphate, the pollution from processing operations
exceeds that resulting directly from the mining operation.
The pollution from coal mines in Indiana and Illinois, for
example, stems primarily from refuse piles, tailings ponds, and
preparation plants. However, no national estimates are avail-
able which show the volume or relative importance of pollution
from these sources.
About 60% of the mine drainage pollution problem is caused
by abandoned mines with the greatest share coming from abandoned
drift (above drainage) mines. Table 44 shows the percent of acid
pollution contribution by type of mine as estimated by the U.S.
Bureau of Mines.
Water Quality Standards
Water quality standards submitted by states and approved
the U.S. Department of the Interior set limits on pH and
Mineral levels in the various stream stretches. These stand-
ards could limit pollution from active mines even though there is
fto specific mention of mine drainage. Even where mine drain-
age is a specific problem and standards have been set to con-
trol the problem, several of the States do not specify the
implementation measures that would be necessary to assure com-
pliance with the standards.
In many cases implementation plans have been impossible
to develop because the major source of mine drainage is in-
active mines where control measures have not been adequately
Developed and where the responsibility for bearing control
costs cannot always be fixed. In these cases the States gen-
ially have taken the position that when adequate control
Measures are developed and when money is available they will
then come to grips with the problem.
- 183 -
-------
00
.fc.
TABLE 43
COAL MINE DRAINAGE CLASSES
Class I Class 2
Partially Oxidized
and
Acid Discharges Neutralized
pH
Acidity, Mg/1 (CaCO )
Ferrous Iron, Mg/1
Ferric Iron, Mg/1
Aluminum, Mg/1
Sulfate, Mg/1
2.5 - 4.5 3.5 -
1,000 - 15,000 0 -
500 - 10,000 0 -
0 o -
0 - 2,000 0 -
1,000 - 20,000 500 -
6.6
1,000
500
1,000
20
10,000
Class 3
Oxidized and
Neutralized and
Alkaline
6.5 - 8.5
0
0
0
0
500 - 10,000
Class 4
Neutralized
and
Not Oxidized
6.5 -
0
50 -
0
0
500 -
8.5
1,000
10,000
Source: In-house studies, FWPCA
-------
TABLE 44
CONTRIBUTION OF ACID POLLUTION
IN THE UNITED STATES BY TYPE OF MINE (PERCENT)
Type of Mine
Active
Abandoned
Total
Drift
Shaft
Strip
(above drainage)
and slope (below drainage)
and auger (surface)
TOTAL
26
5
9
40
48 74
5 10
1 16
60 100
Source: U. S. Bureau of Mines In-house report, Pittsburgh, Pa., July 1968,
The implementation plans deal most often with the prob-
lem of drainage from active mines. However, for many of the
States this merely means that such mine drainage problems are
being handled on a case-by-case basis or that the extent of the
problem is unknown and is being studied further.
Pennsylvania has the most comprehensive implementation plan
which is tied to its long-term mine drainage abatement program.
For active mines the State requires that all discharges be alka-
line and that the iron content be less than 7.0 mg./l.
After these mines are abandoned the owners must prevent
any future pollution. For abandoned strip mines this includes
complete backfilling and planting. Abandoned mines are consid-
ered to be a public problem and are to be handled with public
funds. However, funds are not available at the present time to
deal with this problem.
West Virginia also dealt with the mine drainage problem
in its implementation plan. The plan requires active mines to
hold a permit and permits are not issued until the State is as-
sured that the discharged water will not pollute the receiving
Caters. However, the State has not developed an abandoned mine
control program stating that such a program could not be de-
veloped until completion of sufficient research on control and
construction costs.
The Indiana implementation plan deals with the mine drain-
age problem basin-by-basin. In general, the plan provides that
- 185 -
-------
all industries will be required to provide a degree of treat-
ment or control that is equivalent to that required of munici-
palities on the same stretch of stream. This would usually be
secondary treatment or its equivalent. In certain cases addi-
tional control will be required of specific mining firms by the
end of 1972. The abandoned mine problem is not dealt with be-
cause of the inability to find persons who can be held finan-
cially responsible for the abandoned mines.
C o n t r o 1 M e t h o d s
Although the ultimate method of controlling mine drain-
age pollution is the prevention of its formation, this method
does not fully meet current needs because preventive methods
have not been completely developed and shown to be effective.
In the interim, treatment appears to be a generally more prac-
tical mine drainage control method, particularly in the cases
of active mines, situations not amenable to preventive control,
control of residual pollutants after application of prevention
control measures, and mineral preparation and processing plants.
P r ev en tive Measures
Prevention of acid and sediment drainage from surface
mines is generally accomplished through renovation of the
mined area. Regrading, in varying degrees, when coupled with
adequate revegetation is a very effective method of mine drain-
age control. However, there are still technical problems which
need to be solved. For example, better methods need to be
found for forming and stabilizing the soil, and for developing
plant species which will flourish in mined areas.
Preventive measures for mine drainage fall into three
categories as outlined in the following sections. The estimat-
ed effectiveness of the various preventive methods are present-
ed in Tables 45 and 46,
1) Reduction of oxygen availability. Oxygen is an essential
element in the formation of acid mine drainage. Therefore, if
oxygen can be eliminated or its concentration reduced within
the mine atmosphere, mine drainage pollution will be reduced
accordingly. Oxygen can be prevented from coming into contact
with the acid forming material by covering the pyrites with
earth or water. Both of these techniques are used with surface
mines, and water (flooding) has been used on underground mines.
- 186 -
-------
TABLE 45
EFFECTIVENESS OF DRIFT AND SHAFT MINE
PREVENTIVE CONTROL METHODS
Methods
Effectiveness Percent I/
Remarks
Flooding of mine
50-90
oo
-j
Mine sealing to prevent
water entrance
Mine sealing to prevent
air entrance
Control and rapid removal
of water within mine
(active mining)
25-90 2/
10-60 2/
25-50 2/
Effectiveness depends on com-
plete and permanent flooding
of pyrites. May be a safety
problem in above-drainage mines.
Two types: natural flooding
of below-drainage mines, and
flooding of below and above
drainage mines. Effectiveness
depends on sound engineering
and knowledge of mine.
Effectiveness depends on the
ability to locate and seal
all water passages to mine.
Effectiveness depends on the
ability to locate and seal all
air paths to mine workings.
Effectiveness depends on
characteristics of material
in mine and rate of removal.
V Estimated effectiveness in preventing acid pollution.
2/ Estimated values, little if any data to substantiate.
-------
TABLE 46
EFFECTIVENESS OF SURFACE MINE
PREVENTIVE CONTROL METHODS
Method
Effectiveness Percent I/
Remarks'
oo
oo
Water diversion
(active & inactive mines)
Rapid removal of water
75-95
Burying toxic material in
final cut
Flooding of toxic material
in final cut
Regrading to facilitate
the rapid movement of water
away from workings
Revegetation (for erosion
control)
25-75 2/
50-85 2/
50-95
25-75 2/
10-95
Effectiveness depends on
ability to direct as much
water as possible in a
properly designed structure.
Effectiveness depends on char-
acteristics of the spoil and
the amount of time water is in
contact with spoil.
Effectiveness depends on char-
acteristics of the spoil
material and placement.
Effectiveness depends on com-
plete and permanent covering
of toxic material.
Effectiveness depends on char-
acteristics of the spoil and
slope of land.
Effectiveness depends on type
of cover, (grass is better
than trees), soil condition-
ing and the amount of cover.
I/ Estimated effectiveness in preventing acid pollution and erosion.
2/ Estimated values, little if any data to substantiate.
-------
The reclamation of surface mines as soon as possible after com-
pletion of mining has been shown to be the most effective and
cheapest procedure. For underground mines, oxygen also can be
prevented from entering the mine by sealing mine portals, bore
holes, and other cracks or openings into the mine. In ad-
dition, oxygen can be replaced in the mine with inert gases
such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen.
The practical applications of the "reduction of oxygen"
techniques have yet to be proven. Only covering by soil or
water has been shown to be highly successful, particularly in
surface and below drainage mines. A comprehensive research and
development effort, initiated in 1967, is under way in this
area.
2) Preventing water from entering mines. Water is another
important element involved in acid mine drainage formation.
Regardless of the type of mine involved, prevention of water
contact with potential acid forming material provides a posi-
tive method of prevention. Contact is prevented by preventing
surface drainage from entering the surface or underground mine
by diversion, by surface sealing, and by improved mining sys-
tems. Diversion and/or control of underground drainage may
be required,
3) Inhibiting acid formation. Chemicals such as carbonates
and phosphates may7 reduce the reaction rates of pyrite oxida-
tion by chemical reaction, microbiological growth inhibition,
or chelation. Biological inhibitors such as bacteriophage may
reduce the reaction rate by controlling the bacteria that cata-
lyze the reaction. These techniques are in the experimental
stages and require further refinement before application in the
field.
Treatment
Table 47 outlines various methods suggested for treat-
ment of mine drainage and Table 48 presents an estimate of
their effectiveness. Neutralization is the method of common
usage. Over 70 permits have been issued by the State of Penn-
sylvania for construction of neutralization facilities. The
demineralization processes produce a high quality water which
would probably be utilized as domestic or industrial water sup-
plies .
Settling ponds and holding ponds are the common methods
utilized for removing suspended solids from effluents of prep-
aration plants, surface mines, and placer mines. When properly
- 189 -
-------
TABLE 47
POTENTIAL TREATMENT PROCESSES FOR MINE DRAINAGE
Process
Comments
Benefits
Problem Areas
Neutralization
Reverse Osmosis
Process usually includes
aeration and sedimenta-
tion. Lime and limestone
used as alkaline agents.
Three basic types of mo-
dules, i.e., spiral
wound, plate, and tube.
Removes acidity,
iron, aluminum, and
manganese. In-
creases pH. Water
less corrosive.
Demineralization
Electrodialysis
Demine ra1i z at ion
Crystallization
Ion Exchange
Distillation
Freezing process.
Various schemes have
been proposed. Each
scheme has its own
operating characteris-
tics and removes dif-
ferent ions.
Total dissolved solids
of acid mine drainage
often too low for
economic removal.
Demineralization
Demineralization,
possible reduction
of acidity.
Demineralization
Does not remove
hardness, sulfate.
Sludge is a major
problem.
Requires pretreatment
for removal of sedi-
ment and control of
organisms. CaSO4 pre-
cipitation. Brine dis-
posal. Resulting
water has low pH and
is corrosive and re-
quires post-treatment
for stabilization.
Pretreatment to re-
move iron, manganese,
sediment, and micro-
organisms required.
CaS04 precipitation.
Brine disposal.
Brine disposal.
separation.
Ice
Determination of best
ion exchange scheme-
Brine disposal, re-
generation, iron foul-
ing, precipitates.
Brine disposal.
ros.ion problems
cor-
- 190 -
-------
VD
H1
TABLE 48
EFFECTIVENESS OF MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT
Efficiency (Percent Removal)
Neutralization
Reverse Osmosis I/
Electrodialysis I/
Crystallization
Ion Exchange
Distillation
Acidity
98-100
95-99
90-95
90-99
80-99
95-99
Iron
90-100
95-99
0 2/
90-99
70-99
98-100
Sulfate
0
95-99
85-95
90-99
80-99
98-100
Hardness
0 3/
98-100
85-95
90-99
90-99
98-100
Water
Recovery
67-90
70-90
40-60
25-50
60-95
60-80
I/ May require staging
2/ May increase
3/ May not operate at high iron and manganese concentrations
-------
designed, operated, and maintained, these methods are highly
successful.
Costs
The costs associated with the control of mine drainage
cannot be directly related to the water quality standards since
most of the States have not developed implementation plans to
assure that the standards are being met. In those States where
implementation plans and criteria provided an adequate basis,
the estimated costs of meeting the specific standards were used
in developing the total cost estimates.
1) Unit costs. Although unit treatment costs can be estimated
for each of several control methods, the probable total costs
that would be associated with each of the various control meth-
ods can not be estimated. Before such estimates can be made
more needs to be known about the effectiveness of each method,
and the characteristics of a problem which makes it most amen-
able to a given treatment method.
Estimated unit costs for various control methods are pre-
sented in Table 49. Costs for neutralizing mine drainage can
also be expressed as $25-$110 per ton of acid neutralized
(average $70). (14)
The costs for treatment per 1,000 gallons range from $0.05
for neutralization to $3.24 for distillation. The costs for
prevention, rather than treatment, are not comparable since
they are for differing units of measure. However, the costs
for mine seals range from $1,000 to $30,000 each, surface rec-
lamation costs range from $125 to $3,000 per acre, and im-
poundment costs range from $350 to $1,000 per acre-foot.
2) Total costs. A Department of the Interior study(12) has
estimated that $300 million would be needed for a limited pro-
gram to reclaim the abandoned mines where stream pollution,
soil conditions, and land erosion problems were judged to be
most severe. The study further estimated that $750 million
would be required to eventually provide a basic reclamation
program for the entire two million acres of unreclaimed and in-
adequately reclaimed surface-mined land.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania(17) estimated the cost
of abating pollution from abandoned mines in that State at one
billion dollars for the period through 1974. Over a longer
period of time, the total cost, including that for active mines
- 192 -
-------
TABLE 49
ESTIMATED UNIT COSTS FOR DRAINAGE CONTROL
RANGE OF COST (DOLLARS) CONTROLLING FACTORS
I
M
VX3
I
-Treatment-
Neutralization-per 1,000 gallons 0.05-1.10
Reverse Osmosis-per 1,000 gallons 0.68-2.57
Electrodialysis-per 1,000 gallons 0.58-2.52
Crystallization-per 1,000 gallons 0.67-3.10
Ion Exchange-per 1,000 gallons
Distillation-per 1,000 gallons
0.30-2.53
0.33-3.24
-Prevention-
Sealing Underground Mines-per seal 1,000-30,000
Cost of complete surface recla- 125-3,000
mation'including diversion, grad-
ing, planting-per acre
Impoundments-per acre-foot 350-1/000
Inhibitory Chemicals-per acre Unknown
Inert gases-per acre Unknown
Water quality, size of
plant.
Size of plant.
Size of plant, amount of
pretreatment, dissolved
solids concentrate.
Freezing process, size
of plant.
Size of plant, ion ex-
change scheme, dissolved
solids concentration.
Size of plant, type of
distillation unit.
Mine opening condition,
type of seal.
Nature of surface, and
overburden, slope of land.
Proposed use of land.
Still in research phase.
Still in research phase.
-------
which may be abandoned in the future, will be two or three
times this estimate.
The abatement cost for the Upper Ohio River Basin(18) has
been estimated at $851 million, exclusive of costs for engineer-
ing study, design, maintenance, and other program development,
costs. Total cost including these factors would exceed two
billion dollars.
Some overlap exists between the Pennsylvania area and the
area covered by the Upper Ohio River Basin studies. However,
after taking into consideration the overlap and the areas in
Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and other
States not included in these estimates, it can be conservative-
ly estimated that over five billion dollars will be required to
correct the mine drainage problem in the Appalachian Region,
Up to an additional two billion dollars would probably be re-
quired to correct the problem for the remainder of the United
States yielding a total estimate of almost $7 billion. Table
50, details cost estimates based upon reduction of acid in
mine drainage through reclamation of underground and strip
mines, treating residual acid from these reclaimed mines, and
treatment of acid drainage from operating mines. The table,
which does not include interest costs, shows that total esti-
mates for reducing acid mine drainage range from $1.7 billion
for 40% reduction to $6.6 billion for 95% reduction.
- 194 -
-------
TABLE 50
Estimated Cost to Reduce Acid in Mine Drainage
by 40 Percent and 95 Percent over the Next 20 Years
(Constant 1968 Dollars)
Method
Cost
($ Millions)
VD
Ln
Reclaiming Stripmine Area?
(Including land costs)
Reclaiming Underground Mines
(Including sealing costs)
Treatment-Including Construction
and Operation
Engineering and Administration
@10%
TOTAL
40%
Removal
440
225
900
155
1,720
95%
Removal
2,200
1,000
2,800
600
6,600
Source: In-House Document, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
U. S. Department of the Interior, July 1968.
-------
OIL FIELD AND CHEMICAL BRINES
Oil and saline water (brine) are generally found together
in the same subsurface areas. Consequently, a mixture of the
oil and brine is unavoidably brought to the surface during oil
production. The oil and brine are subsequently separated with
the oil being forwarded through the process chain for ultimate
consumer use. The brine, on the other hand, has no commercial
value and therefore must be disposed of. However, proper dis-
posal is required in order to prevent the brine from polluting
fresh water supplies. In addition, other brine solutions which
result from, or which are used in, chemical processes also must
be properly disposed in order to avoid pollutional effects.
Annual costs of oil field brine disposal will probably
fall in a range of $43 million to $758 million, depending on
State disposal requirements. The chemical brine disposal
costs, although probably much smaller than oil brine disposal
costs, cannot be estimated at this time because data on the
volumes of chemical brine produced and on the disposal methods
are not available. Brine disposal from oil field operations
and chemical processes could be considered in conjunction with
the total industrial waste disposal problem. However, the size
of the problem in relation to the uniqueness of the disposal
methods and the limited geographical distribution of the prob-
lem make it more amenable to separate treatment when estimat-
ing water pollution control costs.
Nature of the Problem
Oil and gas occur in commercial amounts in restricted sub-
surface areas within porous sedimentary rocks. The rock layers
that contain hydrocarbon deposits are water saturated through-
out the remainder of the subsurface environment. In most oil
fields, the water that is associated with the oil is more sa-
line than seawater, frequently containing 300,000 milligrams
per liter or more of dissolved solids. Sodium chloride is us-
ually the major dissolved salt in oil field waters.
Calcium, magnesium, sulfate, and bicarbonate ions also
frequently occur as important brine constituents and other ele-
ments such as barium and iodine may be present in significant
amounts in some brines. Such brines are utilized for their
mineral content by the chemical industry.
- 196 -
-------
Scope of the Problem
During the initial stages of production from some oil
fields, little or no oil field brine is brought to the surface
with the oil. In other fields, brine is brought to the surface
during the early life of the field. Generally, more brine is
produced per barrel of oil as the field becomes older. Table
51, shows that almost 24 million barrels per day, or about 8.6
billion barrels (42 gallons per barrel) per year, of brine were
produced along with oil during 1963.
TABLE 51
PRODUCTION AND DISPOSITION OF OIL FIELD BRINE
IN THE UNITED STATES (1963)
Quantity Percent of Total
(barrels per day) ~~
Disposition
Injected for Water Flood 7,821,601 33.0
Injected for Disposal 9,182,173 38.8
Unlined pits 2,796,587 11.8
Impervious Pits 21,326 .1
Streams and Rivers 1,030,869 4.4
Miscellaneous 2,829,471 11.9
PRODUCTION TOTAL 23,682,027 100.0
Source: Research Committee Interstate Oil Compact Commission, 1964,
Water Problems Associated with Oil Production in the United
States: Interstate Oil Compact Commission, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.
The amount of brine produced for overall chemical industry
purposes is relatively small as a national pollution problem
but it can be a significant problem in localized areas. The
disposal of brines used as a raw material for chemical produc-
tion poses a difficult problem in some cases. For example,
- 197 -
-------
production of sodium bicarbonate from brines by the Solvay pro-
cess requires large quantities of natural brine. The spent
brine cannot be returned directly to the same stratum from
which it came since it would mix with the remaining formation
water and reduce its chemical quality. For this reason, ex-
tensive surface water pollution has resulted at several loca-
tions, particularly in the East Central United States. How-
ever no new Solvay process plants are being built since a more
economic source of the product now appears to be available.
Therefore, it is likely that this brine disposal problem will
ultimately be solved by changes in production technology.
Another significant water pollution problem, occurring in
areas of the Southwest, is the leakage of brines from abandon-
ed oil and gas wells into surface and ground waters. Correct-
ing this pollution problem can be difficult and costly. How-
ever, no reliable estimates of the total costs are currently
available.
Water Quality Standards
There are few water quality standards or State implemen-
tation plans that refer specifically to brine disposal. How-
ever, many of the numerical and narrative criteria would have
a direct bearing on brine disposal methods. Where the imple-
mentation plans refer to brines they generally set limits on
injection pressures and on disposal points, Texas, for example,
does not allow the use of pits for brine disposal. Kansas
requires permits for well disposal and prohibits brine dis-
charges to surface waters. Louisiana allows brine disposal to
streams and lakes under certain conditions; however, in a few
parishes any brine flow to rivers or lakes is forbidden. In
these parishes the brine must be disposed to subsurface areas
or permanently retained in adequate pits. In addition, most
oil producing states have an agency, other than the water pol-
lution control agency, that sets some form of pollution control
requirements relating to exploration, drilling, and production.
In the case of leasing State lands for oil exploration and pro-
duction, the State agency will usually (if not always) include
pollution control requirements in the lease.
Control Measures
The methods generally used for disposing of brine are
release into surface waters, release into lined pits, release
into unlined pits, and injection into porous and permeable
underground strata.
- 198 -
-------
Release into surface waters may be acceptable, for exam-
ple, at coastal locations where the brine can be piped into
saline waters.
Release into lined pits can be used for limited quantities
of brine in areas where the evaporation rate is great enough to
remove the water, leaving the salt to be covered over or trans-
ported away. However, this requires virtually complete separa-
tion of oil and water since even an extremely thin film of oil
will significantly retard evaporation.
Release into unlined pits has been a major cause of brine
pollution of surface and ground water and, therefore, is not
considered an acceptable disposal method.
Injection of brine into porous and permeable underground
strata that are dry or already contain saline waters is the
most desirable disposal method. When properly practiced this
method returns the brine to the subsurface where it originated
which insures protection of fresh surface and ground water. In
addition to preventing water pollution, subsurface injection
can be of significant benefit to oil production when the in-
jected water is used as a secondary recovery method for repres-
suring of the oil-bearing formation or for water-flooding.
However, effective subsurface investigation and adequate well
construction and maintenance practices must be employed to pro-
tect the subsurface from leakage or migration of the brine into
adjacent or overlying fresh water aquifers.
Table 51, shows that in 1963 about 72% of the produced oil
field brine was reinjected. However, at least 16% was released
into unlined pits and freshwater streams. Since 1963, the Tex-
as Railroad Commission has virtually banned the use of pits for
brine disposal and this regulation, along with the tightening
of disposal regulations in other States, has no doubt signifi-
cantly increased the percentage of brine being injected into
underground strata.
Costs
Relatively little data are available on the cost of oil
field brine disposal and these data are not recent. In a
rather comprehensive discussion of oil field brine disposal in
California, Smith and Olson (19) reported injection disposal
costs ranging from $0.12 to $2.10 per 1,000 gallons of brine,
depending upon the amount of preinjection water treatment need-
ed, the depth of rock stratum being used for injection, the
- 199 -
-------
volume being injected, and the injection pressure. This cost
range is adequately representative of other geographic areas
and is applicable to chemical brines as well as oil field brines
The cost of brine injection may be less than $0.12 per 1,000
gallons in cases where preinjection water treatment is not re-
quired and where the rock strata being used as injection inter-
vals are shallow and permeable.
Over 30% of the oil field brine disposed of in 1963 was
used as part of a secondary recovery method for oil product-
ion. (Table 51). In such cases, costs of injection cannot
be solely attributed to pollution control. However, there are
no available estimates as to the allocation of such costs be-
tween recovery benefits and pollution control.
As additional quantities of brine are required to be dis-
posed of through injection or the use of pits, the total annual
disposal costs will increase. For example, if all oil field
brine were ultimately required to be disposed of through in-
jection methods, the total annual costs, using the $0.12 to
$2.10 range cited previously, would range from $43 million to
$758 million. A more precise estimate, which cannot now be
made, would show the actual total costs falling somewhere be-
tween these two figures. Costs of chemical brine disposal
cannot be estimated until information is available on the vol-
ume and character of brine involved and the probable disposal
methods.
- 200 -
-------
POLLUTION BY OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Dumping and accidental spilling of oil and other hazardous
materials continue to constitute major pollution threats to the
water resources of the nation.
This report summarizes last year's discussion of the oil
pollution problem and general approaches for its correction.
In addition, the report also includes a discussion of problems
presented by hazardous substances and the National Multiagency
Contingency Plan for Oil and Hazardous Material. Although
cleanup costs of accidental oil spills and oil industry expen-
ditures for water pollution control are discussed, lack of data
prevent estimation of total oil pollution control costs.
Oil industry expenditures in 1968 for water pollution con-
trol are estimated at $223 million with approximately 65% being
spent in areas of production, marketing and transportation.
Cleanup costs are also substantial and for accidental oil
spills have ranged up to the $15 million estimated for cleanup
of the Torrey Canyon oil spill. On a per unit basis, it ap-
pears that minimum cleanup costs per ton of oil on the water
will be around $250 for dispersion techniques, with signifi-
cantly higher costs anticipated under adverse conditions or
if complete removal is desired.
Nature of the Problem
Pollution by oil and other hazardous substances may occur
in any of the nation's waterways, coastal areas, or the high
seas as a result of deliberate dumping, accidental spills,
breaks in pipelines and storage facilities, or the breakup of
transportation equipment.
Damages caused by oil pollution can be significant and di-
verse. Such pollution can destroy or limit marine life, ruin
wildlife habitat, kill birds coming in contact with the' oil,
limit or destroy the recreational value of beach areas, con-
taminate water supplies, and create fire hazards. Damages
caused by other hazardous substances can be just as significant
and diverse as those caused by oil pollution. However, the
sheer volume of oil transported or used makes oil pollution the
largest single source of pollution of this type.
- 201 -
-------
Scope of the Problem
Oil pollution may come from several different sources. A
summary of the sources or potential sources of oil pollution
as discussed in last year's report includes:
1) Gasoline service stat_ions_-350 million gallons of used oil
disposed of annually,
2) Tank cleaning facilities-Some facilities are not equipped
to t r e at o i1y wast es. The extent of oily wastes dumped
into the water from such facilities is not known.
3) Industrial transfer and storage-6,000 facilities for trans-
f e r of c~o~mmo d it i e s be t w e en 1 arm. and water. These are pos-
sible sources of pollution spills.
4) Pipelines-200,OOP miles carrying more than a billion tons
of oil and hazardous substances. The pipelines cross
waterways and reservoirs and are subject to cracks, punc-
tures, corrosion, and other causes of leakage.
5) Offshore oil exploration and production-Mainly in the Gulf
of Mexico,Southern California coastal waters, Cook Inlet
in Alaska, the Great Lakes, and the East Coast. Potential
blowout of wells, dumping of drilling muds, oil-soaked
wastes, and the demolition of offshore drilling rigs by
winds are significant pollution sources.
6) Waterborne sources-Shipwrecks are a prime cause and the
damage can be extensive when several million gallons of
pollution enter the water at one time. As can be seen in
Table 52, which lists recent ship disasters, the largest
spill to date was 29 million gallons in 1967 which required
$15 million for cleanup with limited effectiveness.
Hazardous substances can enter the nation's waters in many
of the same ways as oil. Spills caused by accidents or ruptures
of containers are important sources of pollution by hazardous
substances. For example, a train wreck on January 2, 1968, at
Dunreith, Indiana spilled a compound that released cyanide into
Bucks Creek, a tributary to the Big Blue River. The cyanide
moved with the flow of the streams and an estimated 1,600
pounds passed the town of Carthage on the Blue River, down-
stream from the site of the accident. The cyanide caused fish
kills in the affected streams, more than 25 cattle were report-
ed killed, at least one industrial plant temporarily ceased op-
erations, and groundwater was contaminated by the discharge
from the damaged rail cars.
- 202 -
-------
TABLE 52
RECENT LARGE SHIP DISASTERS
INVOLVING OIL POLLUTION
Date
9/67
Gallons
of oil
pollution
(millions)
Area affected by the pollution
Wake Island-small boat harbor and
three miles of beaches
Cost of clean-up
None - cleaned up by destructive
typhoon action
to
o
2/68 Potential Potentially New York to North Carolina
of 8,4 coastal area.
None - Ship was towed to port before
serious pollution could occur
3/68
2.0
Potential
of 5.7
Puerto Rico area - Recreational beaches
and San Juan harbor
$2.0 million
Additional cleanup costs were avoided
because temperatures promoted
beneficial bacterial action, and
favorable winds moved the oil out to
sea and dispersed it.
1967
29
Coasts of France and England
$15 million
Cleanup was not considered
satisfactory
-------
Incidents similar to the cyanide spill are not uncommon
and can be of tremendous importance to the affected areas.
More than 2,000 spills of oil and hazardous materials of varying
severity are reported each year. Other spills that go unre-
ported now will probably be recorded as discovery and notifica-
tion systems are improved. Further, the number of spills is
likely to increase due to the increasing volumes of oil and
hazardous materials being transported by vessels, in pipelines,
by rail, and by truck.
The magnitude of each individual spill is likely to in-
crease as the size of the carrier increases. The Universe Ire-
land, a ship launched in August 1968, has a cargo capacity of
over 90 million gallons of oil and the construction of even
larger ships is under consideration. The potential pollution
from a ship of that capacity is about three times greater than
that resulting from the Torrey Canyon spill.
Water Quality Standards
Oil pollution is not recognized as a significant problem
by most States. Those States that mention it as a problem in
their implementation plans are usually either oil producing
States or States where oil tankers or barges could be potential
sources of oil pollution.
Action called for in the implementation plans ranges from
handling spills on an emergency basis to the Louisiana program
of inspection and prevention. This program is designed to cov-
er such potential oil pollution sources as drilling rigs, bar-
ges, pumping wells, producing wells, storage tanks and pipe-
lines. The regulations require destruction of oil, oily wast-
es, and mixtures that are pollution sources in a manner suf-
ficient to eliminate any pollutional hazard.
Control Methods
A large share of the oil pollution problem can b,e elimin-
ated by preventing accidental spills and dumping. For exam-
ple, last year's report stressed the abatement of pollution
from shipwrecks through improved systems of navigation, guid-
ance, and control. The report also pointed out that many of
the other sources of pollution could be controlled by automatic
shutdown systems, special pipeline installation, marking, more
intensive preventive measures, and (when necessary) by prohi-
bition of dumping into municipal sewer systems. It will take
- 204 -
-------
years of development and effort before all of the preventive
measures discussed last year can be implemented. However,
even when these measures are fully implemented it is
unlikely that all accidental spills can be avoided.
Some of the concepts being studied to help in implementing
preventive measures and for controlling pollution once it oc-
curs are:
1) Identification-The source of many spills is unknown. There-
fore^a study is planned to determine the most effective means
for tagging and identifying the source of oil spilled or dump-
ed. For example, a minute quantity of inexpensive material
added to each oil shipment could be used to give it a singular
identity.
2) Containment-Mechanical and pneumatic barriers to contain the
floating oil and to remove such contained oil from harbors and
adjacent areas are being tested.
3) Removal-The use of a large sponge roller to pick up and load
spilled oil from the surface of the water is being tested,
Vacuum pumps are also being used. However, the success of
either method is dependent upon availability of equipment, the
size of the spill, and the condition of the sea.
4) Treat merit -The capabilities of biological systems to assimi-
late oil are being studied. Also, a full scale test project
for treatment of an oil-water emulsion discharged by a steel
rolling mill is under way.
Where spills do occur it is often possible to minimize the
resulting damage by a quick cleanup or neutralization of the
spill. In the case of the Dunreith, Indiana, cyanide spill,
early action was taken to neutralize the cyanide by dumping
calcium hypochlorite into the polluted area.
During the past year, a National Multiagency Contingency
Plan for Oil and Hazardous Material has been developed, at the
direction of the President, by the Secretary of the Interior
with cooperation from the Secretaries of Transportation and
Defense. This plan provides for a coordinated Federal re-
sponse in cases of spills of oil or hazardous material. It
makes the mobilization of Federal and, where practicable,
State and local resources possible so that action can be taken
when and where necessary without funding and jurisdictional
problems. When fully developed, by early 1969, subsidiary
- 205 -
-------
plans within the framework of the national plan will be avail-
able for all of the nation's coastal and navigable inland
waters.
Costs
The effect of water quality standards on costs of pollu-
tion control cannot be estimated in a meaningful way at pres-
ent. Costs associated with control of pollution at the sour-
ces cannot be estimated until information on the number of po-
tential sources and the probable control measures can be devel-
oped. However, an indication of the magnitude of the pollution
control expenditures that will be required is included in a
survey sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute.(1) This
survey includes responses from 35 companies that process over
971 of all the crude oil refined in the United States. Accord-
ing to the survey, an estimated capital outlay of $222.7 mil-
lion was planned for all types of water pollution control in
1968. In 1967, approximately 65% of the expenditures were in
areas such as production, transportation, and marketing, in
contrast to 351 for expenditures related to processing.
In addition to expenditures for pollution control, major
costs can also be incurred when large, accidental spills occur.
It was estimated, for example, that the generally acknowledged
inadequate cleanup of the Torrey Canyon oil spill cost around
$15 million.
In the case of accidental spills, the cleanup costs and
the costs in terms of damages to wildlife, property, beaches,
recreational uses, and water supplies can often run into the
millions of dollars. However, the random nature of such spills
makes it impossible to predict the size, location, season, or
any of the other factors that may affect their control or
cleanup costs.
Despite the unpredictability of accidental spills, minimum
cleanup costs can be estimated on a per unit basis. In situa-
tions where dispersion of the oil might be an acceptable clean-
up method, costs per ton of oil would be in the range of $250.
If conditions are not ideal, or if the oil reaches high value
shorelines and recreational areas, the cost of the cleanup op-
erations can become considerably higher. For example, a recent
86,000 gallon spill in San Diego Bay involved cleanup costs of
about $1,250 per ton of oil discharged.
- 206 -'
-------
In the past the responsibility for cleaning up oil spills
after ship disasters has not generally been fixed and the gov-
ernments or affected land owners have had to bear the costs.
Now, however, the tanker vessel industry is moving toward a
voluntary acceptance of the responsibility for such spills.
Several major oil companies have proposed a voluntary plan that
would insure tanker owners for their liability in cleaning up
oil spills.
The insurance would reinburse either the tanker owner or
the government, within the financial limits set by the plan,
for the cost of cleaning up oil spillages. These limits are
proposed to be the lesser of $100 per gross registered ton of
the vessel or $10 million. On the other hand, proposals being
discussed for possible future legislative action have included
liability limits for a single ship disaster of the lesser of
$15 million or $450 per gross ton of the vessel. For shore in-
stallations the discussion limit has ranged up to $10 million
per disaster.
- 207 -
-------
FEEDLOT POLLUTION
Modern feeding methods utilizing highly concentrated feed
and minimum sized confinement areas for large numbers of anim-
als have created serious water pollution sources. Beef cattle,
poultry, and swine feeding operations, along with dairy farms
are the major sources of actual or potential water pollution
from animal wastes.
This report summarizes the feedlot pollution problem and
the current status of efforts to assess its magnitude and to
estimate its abatement costs. In general, recent analyses have
concluded that water pollution from animal wastes continues to
be a serious and growing problem. Despite this general know-
ledge of the problem, there is a specific lack of information
regarding such components of the problem as: the volume of
wastes that actually contribute to water pollution, the amount
of such wastes that can easily be removed as sources of water
pollution by simple changes in feedlot location or drainage,
the amounts that can best be handled by better housekeeping
methods such as frequent cleaning of the lots and application
of the wastes to the land, and the most practicable treatment
methods to use on the remainder of the wastes.
Current research efforts are aimed at characterizing run-
off in order to utilize existing treatment methods and to aid in
developing new treatment processes. Therefore, some of the in-
formation lacks mentioned above will be overcome by ongoing and
planned research projects, and by the site inventories of the
feedlots that are now under way. When this information becomes
available it will provide a more adequate basis for estimating
the actual scope of the feedlot pollution problem and its re-
medial costs.
Nature of the Problem
When animal wastes find their way into the nation's waters
they can contribute to pollution in several ways. Heavy con-
centrations of animal wastes in water may: (a) add excessive
nutrients that unbalance natural ecological systems causing ex-
cessive aquatic plant growth and fish kills; (b) load water
filtration systems with solids and thereby complicate water
treatment; (c) cause undesirable tastes and odors in waters;
(d) add chemicals that are detrimental to both man and animals;
(e) increase consumption of dissolved oxygen which can produce
- 208 -
-------
stress on aquatic populations and occasionally result in septic
conditions; and (£) add microorganisms that are pathogenic to
animals and to man.
In the past two decades production of animal products has
been increasing rapidly. The technology of this increasing
production requires that animals be confined in a minimum space
and fed a concentrated ration, both of which increase the pol-
lution potential of animal wastes. The heavy concentration of
wastes precludes their natural decomposition and assimilation
on pastures as is the case where animals are more dispersed.
The heavy concentration also makes it difficult to find nearby
farmland that can use manure as an economical source of ferti-
lizer. In addition to being heavily concentrated in small
areas, wastes from concentrated feeding operations have a high
oxygen demand when they are being degraded and they may contain
a high proportion of roughages that are not readily biodegrad-
able.
As shown in Table 53, the wastes of different types of
livestock vary quite widely in content. Poultry wastes, for
example, are lower in moisture content and more highly con-
centrated than are the wastes of other types of livestock.
Even within the same species the composition of manure will
vary widely, depending largely upon the ration's digestibility,
its protein and fiber content, and the nature of its elements.
Manure composition also varies because of the environment, feed
additives used, and the amount of its mixing with bedding,
wastefeed, or water.(20)
TABLE 53
LIVESTOCK WASTE CHARACTERISTICS!/
Dairy Beef
Parameter Cattle Cattle Poultry
Animal Weight (Ibs) 1400 950 5
Swine
200
Manure Production
(ft. 3/day)
Manure Density (lb./ft.3)
Moisture (%)
Nitrogen
(% dry solids)
1.3
62
85
3.5
1.0
60
85
3.1
0.0062
60
72
5.4
0.28
62
82
3.3
I/ Fresh mixed manure and urine
Source: Hart, S. A., "The Management of Livestock Manure," Trans. ASAE 8 1965,
- 209 -
-------
Scope of the Problem
The magnitude of the livestock pollution problem is pri-
marily dependent upon the number of animals that are needed to
meet the demand for their products. The average population
increase in the United States is about 2.5 million people per
year. At 1966 consumption rates, each additional million peo-
ple will require another 172,000 beef cattle, 24,500 dairy cat-
tle, and 433,000 hogs. Thus, it can be seen that if these con-
sumption rates continue, the amount of animal wastes will con-
tinue to increase significantly. In addition, the trend to
increased .use of confined feeding and concentrated rations will
add to the pollution potential of the animal wastes.
Refinement of last year's estimates of the animal feedlot
problem are not feasible at this time. As more information be-
comes available from the States that are studying and inven-
torying the animal wastes pollution problem, better estimates
can be made of the magnitude of the problem. Though consider-
able information is available on the characteristics of animal
wastes as they are deposited in the feedlot, there is virtually
no information on the characteristics of the seepage or runoff
as it is affected by livestock density, feed, proximity to re-
ceiving waters or aquifers, intensity and duration of rainfall,
ground cover, slope, and general climatic conditions.
Treatment Methods
In the past, treatment methods have been almost exclusive-
ly confined to the use of natural processes. Runoff was usual-
ly collected and held in anaerobic basins where some biological
degradation occurs but the effluent remains more potent than
raw municipal wastes. In some cases the runoff is also treated
under aerobic conditions but research utilizing aerobic proces-
ses with forced aeration indicates that extensive handling af-
ter treatment will be required to meet water quality standards
of receiving streams.(21) Thus, it may be necessary to consid-
er application of more advanced waste treatment processes to
provide a quality of effluent that will meet water quality
standards. Such processes may parallel techniques utilized for
treatment of municipal and high BOD industrial wastes and could
include chemical treatment, denitrification, sedimentation,
activated sludge, micro-screening, phosphate removal, or com-
binations of such treatment methods. Evidence collected so far
indicates that development of a single process or system for
handling animal wastes is not probable. Rather, it is concluded
210 -
-------
that a variety of management and treatment systems will have
to be developed to meet the problem.(20)
Water Quality Standards
Animal wastes were included as significant pollution sour-
ces in the water quality standards of several States. In the
implementation plans, discussions of handling the animal feed-
lot problem range from very general statements concerning con-
trol needs to specific requirements for registration of feed-
lots or the installation of treatment facilities.
Kansas, for example, requires that feedlots with 300 or
more head of animals confined register with the Kansas State
Department of Health. The feedlots are then site-surveyed to
determine if they need water pollution control facilities. If
the feedlot is considered a significant contributor to water
pollution, Kansas law requires that detention ponds be provided
to retain runoff and that the wastes from the ponds be disposed
of. Approximately 900 feedlot registrations involving some 1.3
million head of livestock have been received. These lots are
now being site-surveyed to determine their pollution potential.
Colorado requires feedlot operators to take all reasonable
preventative measures to avoid water pollution. Such minimum
measures may include sealed collection and retention ponds,
adequate drainage to prevent the collection of surface waters
within such enclosures, disposal of wastes, and diversion of
surface runoff of drainage waters prior to contact with con-
taminating areas or substances. If the Colorado Water Pollu-
tion Control Commission finds preventative measures to be in-
adequate, feedlot operators may be required to undertake nec-
essary measures, including installation of a treatment facil-
ity.
Costs
As additional waste treatment methods are adopted the
costs of treatment will increase when compared to the natural
biological processes used in the past. However, only the run
off will require extensive treatment and this is directly re-
lated to rate and intensity of rainfall and the location of
the feedlot in relation to the receiving waters.
- 211 -
339-677 O - 69 - 15
-------
Information on required treatments is not yet available;
therefore, total costs cannot be estimated. However, an in-
tensive effort is under way to characterize the runoff in order
to utilize existing practices or develop new processes which
will provide an adequate treatment for animal wastes . This
information, added to the inventory information being col-
lected, will provide a more adequate basis for estimating the
pollution problem for animal feedlots and its remedial costs.
- 212 -
-------
SALINITY FROM IRRIGATION
No estimates of the scope of the salinity problem or its
abatement costs are made in this report. However, the report
does summarize the problem, discuss the States' reactions to
the problem in their implementation plans, and points out that
current research and demonstration projects are setting the
stage for developing estimates of abatement costs.
Nature of the Problem
Irrigation return flows can lead to increased water pol-
lution through the buildup of salts and minerals in the waters
that remain after evaporation and transpiration. The increase
in salinity may take place during the downward movement of ir-
rigation water through the soil profile and/or during sub-sur-
face contact with soil or rocks that contain readily soluble
components. Effective irrigation requires that some water be
applied in excess of the evapo-transpiration requirement of the
crop in order to prevent a buildup of residual salts in the
root zone. If an effective salt balance is not maintained
there will be a resulting reduction in crop yield or an even-
tual inability of the soil to sustain a particular irrigation
program. The leaching of fertilizers can also be a significant
source of pollution unless properly applied and suited to the
crop needs.
Water Quality Standards
Several States discussed the irrigation return flow pro-
blem in their implementation plans but most of the States con-
cluded that economically feasible control measures are not pre-
sently available. The States, in general, are studying, inven-
torying, or monitoring the problem and encouraging water con-
servation practices to reduce the severity of the problem.
The water conservation practices most frequently consider-
ed are: reduction of seepage losses in transporting irrigation
water from the point of diversion to the place of use; improve-
ment in the efficiency of irrigation practices; selectivity in
the development of irrigable lands to minimize the contact of
excess water with highly mineralized soil and rocks; and great-
er efficiency in the application and utilization of fertilizers
- 213 -
-------
Costs
A further review of the pesticide and irrigation return
flow problems since last year's report provided no basis for
setting forth new estimates of abatement costs.
Research
Salinity is the most serious water quality problem in the
Colorado River Basin. Like many streams in the arid West, the
Colorado River displays a progressive increase in both salt
loads and concentration as the water moves downstream from the
headwaters areas of the upper basin to Imperial Dam in the low-
er basin. Federal and State water resources agencies, as well
as the users of Colorado River water, are becoming increasing-
ly concerned about the growing magnitude of the salinity prob-
lem. The Colorado River Basin water quality control project
of the FWPCA has been making detailed studies of the salinity
problem for the past several years. The project will complete
by the end of FY 1969 a comprehensive report which will provide
detailed information on salt loads and concentration, causes
of salinity increases, its effect on water uses, its economic
impact, and technical possibilities for salinity control.
At the beginning of FY 1968, the FWPCA and the Bureau of
Reclamation initiated joint salinity control reconnaissance
and demonstration studies in the upper basin. In addition,
the FWPCA is currently sponsoring several other salinity con-
trol research and demonstration projects which are being car-
ried out by local groups and universities. These projects
will make major contributions toward the development of salini-
ty control measures.
Research and demonstration projects of the type described
above, together with related technical investigation, must be
completed and expanded as necessary in order to develop a sound
basis for estimating the cost of controlling and minimizing
salinity problems.
- 214 -
-------
PESTICIDES IN SURFACE AND GROUND WATERS
No additional information regarding the scope of the pest-
icide water pollution problem or its abatement costs has been
developed in the past year. However, the implementation plans
of a few States mentioned pesticides as water pollutants but
most of the plans indicated that the problem was still in the
study and evaluation stage.
Of the states actively regulating pesticides, the New Mex-
ico Department of Agriculture licenses commercial applicators
of pesticides under the State's Pesticide Applicator Law. To
obtain a license, applicators must demonstrate their knowledge
and ability to properly use pesticides and they must be bonded.
In Oklahoma, the State Department of Agriculture licenses com-
mercial pesticide applicators, supervises application of pesti-
cides, and maintains laboratory facilities for pesticide analy-
sis. In addition, the States usually require that the pesti-
cides used meet Federal or State labeling standards.
Research is being carried out by governmental and private
agencies in an effort to develop pesticides that will not be
sources of water pollution. Other research is aimed at quanti-
fying the problem and determining abatement measures that can
be taken until new pesticides or substitutes are developed.
- 215 -
-------
RADIOACTIVE INDUSTRIAL WASTES
The January 1968 report included a section on the estima-
ted costs of treating radioactive discharges from nuclear gener-
ating plants as well as wastes produced in uranium milling op-
erations. It is estimated that installation of waste treat-
ment facilities for nuclear generating plants amounts to about
one percent to two percent of the total cost of the plant and
that operation and maintenance costs of the system account for
about 0.3 percent of total generating costs. Application of
these estimates to existing and planned nuclear plants through
1973 yielded estimated costs ranging from $60 million to $120
million for capital costs and about $42 million for operation
and maintenance.
Total uranium milling treatment costs were estimated at
$3.2 million a year over the next five years - or a total
cost of about $16 million. The $16 million estimate was broken
down to $13 million for operation and maintenance costs and $3
million for capital outlays.
Since the first report, no additional cost data have been
developed which would justify any change in the cost estimates
which were made.
- 216 -
-------
NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT
The problem of nutrient enrichment arises primarily from
municipal wastes and secondarily from agricultural runoff.
Therefore, this problem will be discussed in the more appropri-
ate sections in future reports. This report summarizes the
nutrient enrichment problem and points out that it is largely a
factor of municipal wastes.
Nature of the Problem
The problem of accelerated eutrophication, or nutrient
over-enrichment of streams attributable to human activities, is
an extremely difficult one. Excessive nutrient enrichment re-
sults in the prolific growth of algae and other vegetation
which, in turn, exert a dissolved oxygen demand through biolo-
gical degradation and thereby affect adversely the growth and
death of algae. Excessive algal growth imparts undesirable
tastes and odors to water supplies, releases toxins which kill
animals, interferes with sandfiltering operations in water
treatment plants, and reduces the recreational value of water-
bodies because of the nuisance algae represent.
Significant among plant nutrients are inorganic compounds.
Nitrogen and phosphorus, particularly as nitrates and phosph-
ates, are considered to be the principal compounds involved in
plant growth although research has indicated that extremely
small concentrations of other elements also may be critical to
the growth of aquatic vegetation under certain conditions.
Last year's report dealt largely with accelerated eutro-
phication resulting from agricultural runoff -- the transmis-
sion of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other nutrients by drainage
from such sources as ranch lands, barnyards, and animal feed-
lots. The solution of this aspect of the nutrient problem
appears to lie in more effective agricultural and soil con-
servation practices to reduce soil erosion.
Municipal wastes represent, in many cases at least, a far
more important source of phosphate over-enrichment of lakes and
streams. For example, the FWPCA estimates that the phosphorus
contribution to the Lake Erie nutrient problem(22) is composed
of 72% from municipal wastes, 17% from rural runoff, four per-
cent from industrial wastes, and seven percent from urban run-
off. Accordingly, efforts are under way to determine the most
- 217 -
-------
effective way to remove phosphate at municipal treatment
plants.
Costs
National cost estimates of removing nutrients at municipal
waste treatment plants must be developed on a case-by-case bas-
is and, accordingly, are beyond the scope of this year's re-
port. As erosion from agricultural lands is controlled and
fertilizer applications are geared more appropriately to the
soil conditions involved, the problem from agricultural runoff
should be largely eliminated.
- 218 -
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Report on Air and Water Conservation Expenditures of the
Petroleum Industry in the United States, Crossley, S-D
Surveys, Inc., New York, August 1968.
2. ''Estimating Sewage Treatment Plant Operation and Maintenance
Cost,11 Rowan, P. P., Jenkins, K. L. , and Howells, D. H. ,
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, February,
1961.
3. Problems of Combined Sewer Facilities and Overflows 1967,
American Public Works Association, FWPCA, U. S. Department
of the Interior, December 1, 1967.
4. Wastes in Relation to Agricultural and Forestry, Wadleigh, C.H.,
1968, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publication
No. 1065, Washington, D. C.
5. Sediment - Its Consequences and Control, Glymph, L. M., and
Storey, H. C., 1966; Reprint of paper presented AAAS Meeting,
Symposium on Agriculture and the Quality of Our Environment,
Washington, D. C., December 27, 1966.
6. Highway Statistics 1966, U. S. Department of Transportation.
7. :1Problems Posed by Sediment Derived From Construction Activities
in Maryland"; Wolan, M. G. , 1964 Report to the Maryland Water
Pollution Control Committee, Annapolis, Maryland, January, 125 pp.
8. "Erosion Rates and Control Measures on Highway Cuts", Diseker,
E. G. , and Richardson, E. C., 1962, American Soc. Agr. Engr. 5, pp.
153-155.
9. Vici, R. B., Ferguson, G. E., and Guy, H. P., U. S. Geological
Survey Prof. Paper 575-A, Geological Survey Research, 1967, Chapter
A, Washington, D. C.
10. Control of^^Agriculture - Related Pollution, joint report to the
President by the Secretary of Agriculture and the Director of
the Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C., 1969.
11. "Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1968.", U. S. Bureau
of the Census, (89th Edition) Washington, D. C., 1968.
12. Surface Mining and Our Environment: Special Report to the Nation,
U. S. Department of the Interior, 1967.
- 219 -
-------
13. Pollution Caused Fish Kills, Anon, 1967, Eighth Annual Report,
FWPCA, U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C. , 1968.
14. Stream Pollution by Coal Mine Drainage in Appalachia, FWPCA, U. S.
Department of the Interior, 1967.
15. 'Beaver Creek Report", Collier, Charles K., Whetstone, G. W.,
Musser, J. J., Influences of Strip Minning on the Hydrologic
Environment of Parts of Beaver Creek Basin, Ky., U. S. G. S.
Paper 427-B, May 1962.
16. Study of_Strip and Surf_ac_e__Minin^^n_Ap_palachia, U. S. Department
of the Interior, 1966.
17- Pennsylvania's Ten Year Mine Drainage Pollution Abatement Program
for Abandoned Mines, Anon, Department of Health, April, 1968.
18. Stream Pollution by Coal Mine Drainage Upper Ohio River Basin, Ohio
Basin Region, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Work
Document No. 21, U. S. Department of the Interior, March 1968.
19. 'Waste Water Disposal by Subsurface Injection-California Oil
Fields", Smith, E. R., and Olson, E. A., 1959, Paper No. 801-35F
Spring Meeting of the Pacific Coast District, Division of Pro-
duction, American Petroleum Institute, Los Angeles, California.
20. Pollution Implj.cat.ions of Animal Vlast^s-^^Forward Oriented
Review, Loehr, R. C., FWPCA, U. S. Department of the Interior,
July 1968.
21. Progress Report, University of Kansas, Grant WPD 123-01, 02.
22. Lake Erie Report - A Plan For Water Pollution Control, Great Lakes
Region, FWPCA, U. S. Department of the Interior, August 1968.
- 220 -
t» If. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1889 O - 339-677
------- |