U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
VOLUME I
SUMMARY REPORT
-------
Publications in "The Cost of Clean Water" Series
Volume I
Volume II
Volume III
Volume IV
Summary Report
Detailed Analyses
Industrial Waste Profiles:
1. Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills
2. Motor Vehicles and Parts
3. Paper Mills except Building
4. Textile Mill Products
5. Petroleum Refining
6. Canned and Frozen Fruits and Vegetables
7. Leather Tanning and Finishing
8. Meat Products
9. Dairies
10. Plastics Materials and Resins
State and Major River
Basin Municipal Tables
-------
THE COST OF
CLEAN WATER
Volume I
Summary Report
U. S. Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
January 10, 1968
-------
For sale by the Superintendent oJ Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 • Price 40 cents
-------
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20240
Dear Mr. President:
This transmits our first report to the Congress on the national requirements
and costs of water pollution control. Section 16(a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, directs the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct three studies - one, a study of the cost of carrying out the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended; another, a study of the economic
impact on affected units of government of the cost of installing waste treat-
ment facilities; and the third, a study, summarized in the attached report,
of the national requirements for and the cost of treating municipal, indus-
trial, and other effluent to attain water quality standards established pur
suant to the Act or applicable State law. These studies are required to
cover the five-year period beginning July 1, 1968, and to be updated each
year thereafter.
Today the Nation is embarked upon a more vigorous effort than ever before to
abate water pollution. In enacting the Water Quality Act of 1965 and the
Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, the Congress greatly strengthened thn
ability of the Federal Government to lead a concerted attack on the pollu-
tion problem. Many States have recently strengthened their pollution con-
trol programs as well. The water quality standards currently being estab-
lished are the keystone of this process; they will call for accelerated
clean-up of our Nation's waters. The enclosed report, "The Cost of Clean
Water," estimates the national requirements and the costs of attaining ap-
plicable water quality standards.
This report (Volume I) is a summary of the major findings and conclusions
of what, in our view, is the most ambitious cost analysis on this subject
yet undertaken. Within the next few weeks we will be transmitting the more
detailed reports upon which these findings were based (Volume II, III, and
IV).
The cost of water pollution control has been the subject of considerable
discussion and controversy; we do not expect this report to settle conclu-
sively this complex and difficult question. On the contrary, the report is
-------
only a starting point toward a better understanding; there are still many
important gaps in our information. We expect the report to be widely re-
viewed and discussed, and are hopeful that those discussions will provide
useful information for improving and refining next year's version.
As I have indicated, the attached study is one of several related studies
mandated by the Congress. The studies of the economic impact on affected
units of government and the cost of carrying out the Act will be trans-
mitted to the Congress separately. A study of possible methods for pro-
viding pollution control incentives to industry will also be forthcoming.
Together, these studies will represent a major step toward improving our
understanding of the costs'and related economic problems of water pollu-
tion control.
Sincerely yours,
of the Interior
Hon. Hubert H. Humphrey
President of the Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Enclosure
-------
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20240
Dear Mr. Speaker:
This transmits our first report to the Congress on the national requirements
and costs of water pollution control. Section 16(a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, directs the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct three studies - one, a study of the cost of carrying out the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended; another, a study of the economic
impact on affected units of government of the cost of installing waste treat-
ment facilities; and the third, a study, summarized in the attached report,
of the national requirements for and the cost of treating municipal, indus-
trial, and other effluent to attain water quality standards established pur-
suant to the Act or applicable State law. These studies are required to
cover the five-year period beginning July 1, 1968, and to be updated each
year thereafter.
Today the Nation is embarked upon a more vigorous effort than ever before to
abate water pollution. In enacting the Water Quality Act of 1965 and the
Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, the Congress greatly strengthened the
ability of the Federal Government to lead a concerted attack on the pollu-
tion problem. Many States have recently strengthened their pollution con-
trol programs as well. The water quality standards currently being estab-
lished are the keystone of this process; they will call for accelerated
clean-up of our Nation's waters. The enclosed report, "The Cost of Clean
Water," estimates the national requirements and the costs of attaining ap-
plicable water quality standards.
This report (Volume I) is a summary of the major findings and conclusions
of what, in our view, is the most ambitious cost analysis on this subject
yet undertaken. Within the next few weeks we will be transmitting the more
detailed reports upon which these findings were based (Volume II, III, and
IV).
The cost of water pollution control has been the subject of considerable
discussion and controversy; we do not expect this report to settle conclu-
sively this complex and difficult question. On the contrary, the report is
-------
only a starting point toward a better understanding; there are still many
important gaps in our information. We expect the report to be widely re-
viewed and discussed, and are hopeful that those discussions will provide
useful information for improving and refining next year's version.
As I have indicated, the attached study is one of several related studies
mandated by the Congress. The studies of the economic impact on affected
units of government and the cost of carrying out the Act will be trans-
mitted to the Congress separately. A study of possible methods for pro-
viding pollution control incentives to industry will also be forthcoming.
Together, these studies will represent a major step toward improving our
understanding of the costs and related economic problems of water pollu-
tion control.
Secretary of the Interior
Hon. John W. McCormack
Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Enclosure
282-961 O - 68 - 2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Summary and Conclusions 3
Assumptions and Methods 6
Municipal Pollution 10
Plant and Equipment Investment 10
Operation and Maintenance 17
Control of Combined Sewer Overflows 18
Collection Sewers 19
Industrial Pollution 20
Plant and Equipment Investment 20
Operation and Maintenance 26
Waste Reduction Methods 27
Municipal Plant Treatment of Industrial Wastes 27
Process Changes 28
Thermal Pollution 30
Plant and Equipment Investment 31
Operation and Maintenance 31
Other Effluents 34
Wastes From Watercraft 34
Oil Pollution 35
Animal Feedlots 36
Acid Mine Drainage 36
Other Non-Point Sources 36
References Cited 39
-------
LISTING OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1 Estimated Cash Outlays To Meet Projected Waste
Treatment, Sanitary Sewers, and Water Cooling
Requirements, FY 1969-1973. 9
2 Capital Outlays Needed To Obtain Adequate Municipal
Waste Treatment For the U. S. Urban Population,
FY 1969-1973. " 11
3 Urban Population Served By Adequate and Less Than
Adequate Municipal Waste Treatment Facilities and
Urban Population Not Served, By State: FY 1968. 12
4 Capital Outlays Needed To Obtain Adequate Municipal
Waste Treatment For the U. S. Urban Population, By
Water Resource Region, FY 1969-1973. 14
5 Sewage Treatment Works Construction Per Capita Cost
(Total Plant, Interceptors and Outfalls). 15
6 Estimated Volume Of Industrial Wastes Before Treat-
ment, 1963. 21
7 Cash Outlays Needed To Meet Current and Projected
Industrial Waste Treatment Requirements, FY 1969-
1973. 23
8 Total Current Value Of Waste Treatment Requirements
Of Major Industrial Establishments. 24
9 Estimated Regional Investment Required To Eliminate
Industrial Waste Treatment Deficiencies Accumulated
Through 1968, By Water Resource Region. 25.
10 Estimated Capital Investment Required' To Provide
Complete Cooling For Power-Generating and Processing
Industries, FY 1969-1973. 32
-------
INTRODUCTION
Section 16(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, directs
the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the na-
tional requirements for and the cost of treating municipal, industrial, and
other effluent to attain water quality standards established under the Act.
This first analysis is required to be submitted to the Congress by January 10,
1968, to cover Fiscal Years 1969-1973, inclusive, and to be updated each year
thereafter.
This study is extremely important because, although there is widespread agree-
ment that water pollution is a significant and growing problem which must be
dealt with, there are no firm estimates as to what the national requirements
are or what it will cost to achieve a satisfactory abatement level. Several
cost estimate studies of municipal needs have been conducted in the past but
they have not been sufficiently comparable in geographical coverage, time
phases covered, cost criteria, types of facilities included, or in cost esti-
mate technique to provide a meaningful guide to the national requirements and
costs involved. For example, one January 1966 report^ estimated existing
waste disposal needs and projected needs through 1072 at $3.9 billion for the
100 largest cities. A second 1966 report^ estimated the total municipal
treatment backlog at $2.6 billion for treatment plants, interceptors, and
outfalls, and estimated the total need through 1972 at an average annual ex-
penditure of $916 million or a total requirement of $6.7 billion for plant
construction. A third study*3' provides historical data of construction put
in place from 1955 through 1966, and a projection of requirements in 1966
dollars from 1967 through 1980. It estimates that municipal treatment plant
construction for the 14-year period would cost $14.4 billion. Of this amount
$3.7 billion represents the existing backlog and $10.7 billion is for replac-
ing equipment.
Various other estimates have been made by other sources including some .even
more varied estimates of industrial waste treatment costs. These studies all
contribute useful information, but as yet there has not been a generally ac-
ceptable estimate of the national costs of pollution control.
The present study represents the initiation of what will be a continuing
evaluation, aimed at estimating water pollution control costs with increasing
accuracy. Although it has not been possible to arrive at a completely defin-
itive estimate of required costs, it is believed that the present study pro-
vides not only a more comprehensive cost estimate than has previously been
developed but also a sound base of information upon which to build future
analyses. This estimate is expected to improve in accuracy with each yearly
updating.
Number in pasutntkueA te^e* -to *e/fct,enc.fc4 acted on page. 39.
-------
This is a summary report (Volume I). Detailed information to support its
findings is contained in three appendix volumes, Volumes II through IV, Vol-
ume II (Detailed Analyses) contains descriptions and analyses of the various
subject areas which formed the basis for the cost estimates in this summary
report. Volume III (Industrial Waste Profiles) consists of 10 studies of ma-
jor water-using industries which describe the costs and effectiveness of al-
ternative methods of reducing industrial wastes. Volume IV (State and Major
River Basin Municipal Tables) includes, for the 50 States and the Water Re-
source Council River Basins, tables showing the breakdown of estimated con-
struction costs, sanitary sewers, and operation and maintenance costs.
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This report presents initial estimates of the national requirements for and
the cost of treating municipal, industrial, and other effluent during FY
1969-1973 to meet water quality standards established under the Act, and
comparable levels for intrastate and coastal waters. Its findings are as
follows:
1. The cost of constructing municipal waste treatment plants
and interceptor sewers is estimated at $8.0 billion, ex-
clusive of land and associated costs. This total includes
$2.7 billion to provide adequate treatment to the urban
population whose wastes do not receive any treatment at
present; $1.9 billion to upgrade service to secondary
treatment for the urban population whose wastes now re-
ceive primary treatment (excluding areas where primary
treatment is likely to be adequate to meet water quality
standards); $2.2 billion for urban population growth; and
$1.2 billion for replacing facilities.
2. By 1973 the urban population required to be served will
comprise about 75% of the total U. S. population. The es-
timated costs represent the capital outlays required to
provide secondary treatment, or other appropriate treat-
ment levels contained in the water quality standards, to
all of this 1973 urban population (162.6 million people.)
Currently, only 55% of the urban population is receiving
adequate treatment. It is estimated that, to meet water
quality standards by 1973, 90% of the urban population
will require secondary treatment, and 10% primary treat-
ment.
3. There may be significant opportunity for reducing the
costs, as well as for contributing to more effective pol-
lution control, through establishment of intermunicipal
sewage treatment and disposal systems and districts. In
many cases, however, it will be necessary to overcome ex-
isting institutional obstacles to develop effective ar-
rangements for such systems.
4. Operation and maintenance costs for the required treat-
ment works are estimated at $1.4 billion for the five-
year period. Unlike annual construction costs, which
can be expected to level off after the initial backlog
has been eliminated, operation and maintenance costs
281-561 O - 68 - 3
-------
will continue to rise as more sewage treatment plants
are placed into operation.
5. There will be substantial additional costs incurred dur-
ing the 1969-1973 period for the control of overflows
from combined sewers. It is anticipated that a variety
of control methods will be initiated depending upon in-
dividual circumstances and, as a result, the full extent
of these costs cannot be estimated at this time.
6. Construction of sanitary collection sewers will require
an estimated $6.2 billion over the next five years.
These costs will be an integral part of necessary expend-
itures for waste disposal by the communities involved.
7. Initial estimates indicate that the cost of treating in-
dustrial wastes to a level comparable to secondary treat-
ment of municipal wastes will be in the range of $2.6
billion to $4.6 billion. This includes $1.8 to $3.6 bil-
lion for new industrial treatment works and $0.8 billion
to almost $1.0 billion for replacing equipment. However,
these estimates are based upon the minimal levels of con-
trol generally considered necessary to comply with water
quality standards. Should implementation of the stand-
ards involve establishing industrial requirements calling
for higher levels of waste reduction, these cost esti-
mates could rise sharply.
8. There are significant opportunities for meeting industri-
al waste abatement requirements more efficiently through
better in-plant controls and process changes, and joint
municipal and industrial treatment systems.
9. Estimated costs of operating and maintaining industrial
waste treatment facilities will range from $3.0 billion
to $3.4 billion over 1969-1973. As in the case of sew-
age treatment works, these costs will continue to rise
with increases in plant in place.
10. Costs for constructing, operating and maintaining heat
dissipation equipment will be considerable. However, it
is not possible to estimate the costs required to comply
with water quality standards because of lack of informa-
tion on the application of temperature criteria and the
effect of heat discharges on existing water temperatures.
Some indication of the upper limits of such outlays is
the estimate of costs to reduce cooling water after use
to its original temperature. Capital outlays in the
-------
1969-1973 period to attain complete temperature restor-
ation would be $1.8 billion. This includes $1.6 bil-
lion for new cooling facilities and $0.2 billion for
replacing equipment. Operation and maintenance would
amount to an additional $0.9 billion over the five-
year period. In actual practice, a lesser overall tem-
perature reduction - and a portion of the cost - may
well prove adequate.
11. Other effluents will increase in significance as munici-
pal and industrial wastes are brought under control.
Additional costs for controlling a wide range of other
pollutants, such as sediment, acid mine drainage, and
animal feedlot runoff, will be incurred during the five-
year period, but these costs cannot be estimated accu-
rately at this time. Over the long run, these sources
will require heavy expenditures for pollution control.
NOTE: The above projected costs are expressed in constant dol-
lars. "Constant 1968 dollars" were developed by using
July 1967, the beginning of Fiscal Year 1968, as the
base. "Current dollars" were developed by multiplying
the 1968 "constant dollar" estimates over the FY 1969-
1973 time frame by projected cost indexes for each year.
Assuming a continuation of past cost increases, the dol-
lar costs would be proportionally higher. Costs of mu-
nicipal waste treatment works could rise from $8.0 bil-
lion to $8.7 billion; industrial waste treatment facil-
ity costs could rise from the $2.6 to $4.6 billion
range to the $2.9 to $5.1 billion range. Operation and
maintenance costs in current dollars would also rise:
municipal waste treatment from $1.4 billion to $1.7 bil-
lion and industrial waste treatment from the $3.0 to
$3.4 billion range to the $3.2 to $3.6 billion range.
-------
ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODS
Ideally, the costs required to attain water quality standards should be
based upon a reasonably accurate knowledge of the treatment requirements of
individual municipalities and industrial plants as expressed in the imple-
mentation plans which are an integral part of the water quality standards.
The national requirement and cost would be the total of the individual costs
calculated by this means. However, this initial study was undertaken during
the period when most of the standards were being reviewed and changes nego-
tiated with the states. Because of the unavailability of approved water
quality standards and data relating to specific municipal and industrial
treatment needs, certain assumptions had to be made as to the standards and
aggregative techniques had to be used to develop these cost estimates.
In order to estimate the costs of carrying out waste treatment requirements
embodied in standards still being negotiated, it was necessary to assume a
given level of treatment as generally representative of that contained in
the standards. It was assumed that a conventional secondary treatment level
(at least 85% effective removal of normal (five-day) biochemical oxygen de-
mand for normal domestic sewage) would prevail for treating municipal wastes
with some exceptions which are described later. This is in conformity with
the policy reflected in Guideline No. 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Administration's May 1966 publication "Guidelines for Establishing
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS for Interstate Waters" which reads:
No standard will be approved which allows any wastes amen-
able to treatment or control to be discharged into any in-
terstate water without treatment or control regardless of
the water quality criteria and water use or uses adopted.
Further, no standard will be approved which does not re-
quire all wastes, prior to discharge into any interstate
water, to receive the best practicable treatment or con-
trol unless it can be demonstrated that a lesser degree
of treatment or control will provide for water quality
enhancement commensurate with proposed present and future
water uses.
The validity of this assumption is reflected by the fact that the 10 state
standards approved as of December 1, 1967, provided for secondary treatment
for all discharges to fresh water. At the same time, however, the basic
assumption of secondary treatment of municipal wastes was made in full rec-
ognition that there are some states where primary treatment may be adequate
or where secondary treatment may be inadequate during the period PY 1969-
1973.
Cost estimates presented here have been adjusted to reflect standards and
plans currently under review which may reasonably be expected to require
-------
less than secondary treatment for certain major municipalities during the
FY 1969-1973 period and which, accordingly, lowered cost requirements sig-
nificantly .
A current inventory of municipal waste treatment facilities does not exist.
Accordingly, to estimate required municipal treatment costs it was necessary
to update the 1962 municipal waste facilities inventory (4) by taking into ac-
count subsequent Federal grants for sewage treatment works. It is estimated
that Federal grants were involved in works which accounted for approximately
60% of the total investment in treatment facilities since 1962. This pro-
vided a serviceable estimate of the present status of municipal treatment
facilities upon which to project needs and costs over the next five years.
The aggregated costs of upgrading treatment levels from primary to secondary
levels, providing secondary treatment where none now exists, and meeting the
additional needs expected by population increases through 1973, were devel-
oped by applying actual Federal construction grant project costs for appro-
priate design populations.
Estimating industrial pollution control costs presented even greater diffi-
culty because of the lack of a current inventory of wasteloadings from in-
dustrial sources, the wide range of industrial pollutants and pollutant
sources, and the scarcity of data on existing industrial treatment facili-
ties, unmet needs, and industrial treatment costs. For the purposes of this
study projected treatment needs and cost estimates to attain the equivalent
of secondary treatment were developed by using two methods. One method in-
volved estimating existing treatment facilities by reference to reported
treatment application in the 1963 Bureau of the Census ' Water Use in Manu-
facturing^ , and applying established cost factors for conventional wa$te
treatment requirements . The other costing method was based upon economic/
engineering studies of specific industrial groups and expert estimates of
the prevalence of industrial treatment^'' .
A second major assumption made in arriving at the cost estimates is that the
required municipal and industrial waste treatment would be provided by tho
end of FY 1973. This is consistent with implementation plans of most state
standards approved or approaching approval.
It was necessary also to set a fixed time period in which to assess costs
because cost estimates to attain a given level of water quality will change
with the time frame. For example, if the funding period for a construction
project were extended from five to ten years, the annual costs would be low-
er but the total cost would be increased because of accumulated interest
charges and probable increased construction costs.
The cost of municipal waste treatment construction works was phased propor-
tionately over the five-year period. This procedure was used to illustrate
possible annual increments and to serve as a basis for estimating annual de-
preciation and annual construction cost increases, although it is recognized
-------
that construction would not actually occur at a fixed rate. Where available
annual cost estimates are shown in Table 1.
Because of the aggregative analytical techniques used, it was not possible
to confine these cost estimates to interstate and coastal waters to which
the Act applies; therefore, the cost estimates presented in this report are
national in scope. Many states are moving to set standards for intrastate
streams, and it appears realistic to assume that these standards will be
comparable with standards set for interstate and coastal waters. It, there-
fore, was both logical and necessary to develop the national estimates pre-
sented in this report on the basis of representative treatment levels in-
cluded in the water quality standards.
Although the estimated costs are expressed primarily in terms of constant
dollars, the effects of possible construction costs increases are also
shown. It was assumed that the rising cost trend over the last several
years would continue during the next five years. Increases in municipal
treatment plant construction costs were calculated over the PY 1969-1973
period by projecting increases for each of 20 cities, constructing index
figures for each of the states, and using the 1950-1967 period as the his-
toric base for the projections with trends since 1960 given particular em-
phasis.
Possible rises in industrial treatment plant construction costs were based
upon an assumed average annual 3.6% increase over the next five years. Con-
struction costs, reported regularly by ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD in its "Index
of Construction Costs", have risen steadily since World War II. This annual
rate of increase was presumed to apply over the next five years since this
has been the average rate for the decade that began in FY 1958.
These national cost estimates represent the best figures that could be de-
veloped with available data. The unavoidable uncertainties in the estimates
emphasize the necessity for continuing to seek more accurate inventory data
on all sources of wastes. The water quality standards and the improved state
program plans being developed under Section 7 of the Act will provide much
valuable information for future updating and improvement of these estimates.
Further, the accuracy of these initial estimates should be improved after
they have been reviewed by the various state and interstate water pollution
control agencies. Although much of the data upon which the cost estimates
are based were derived from state sources, the states have not as yet parti-
cipated formally in these evaluations.
8
-------
TABLE 1. ESTIMATED CASH OUTLAYS TO MEET PROJECTED WASTE TREATMENT,
SANITARY SEWERS, AND WATER COOLING REQUIREMENTS, FY 1969-1973I/
($ Millions)
Constant 1968 Dollars
Requirements
1969
Capital Requirements:
Municipal treatment works
New construction 1400
Replacement 170
Sub-total 1500
Sanitary sewer construction 1200
Industrial treatment plants?/
New construction 330- 680
Replacement 130- 120
Sub-total 460- 800
Industrial cooling
New construction 300
Replacement 19
Sub-total 320
Total capital outlays 3500-3900
Operation and Maintenance Requirements:
Municipal treatment works 210
Industrial treatment plants?/ 490- 450
Industrial cooling plants 79
Total operation & maintenance costs 780- 750
Total Cash Outlays 4300-4600
1970 1971
1400 1400
210 250
1600 1600
1200 1200
350- 710 370- 730
140- 160 160- 190
500- 860 540- 920
310 320
31 43
340 360
3600-4OOO 3700-4100
250 280
540- 570 610- 680
130 180
920- 940 1100-1100
4500-4900 4800-5300
1972
1400
290
1600
1200
380- 740
180- 230
560- 970
330
56
380
3800-4200
310
670- 800
230
1200-1300
5000-5600
1973
1400
330
1700
1200
380- 740
200- 270
580-1000
330
69
400
Five-year Total
Constant
1968 Dollars
6800
•1200
8000
6200
1800- 3600
820- 970
2600- 4600
1600
220
1800
3900-4300 19000-21000
340
730- 920
280
1400-1500
1400
3000- 3400
890
5300- 5700
5200-5900 24000-26000
1969-1973
Current Dollars
7400
1300
8700
6700
2000- 4000
920- 1100
2900- 5100
1800
250
2000
20000-23000
1700
3200- 3600
950
5800- 6200
26000-29000
—' Not including possible expenditures for control of storm water or combined sewer overflows.
—' Industrial treatment plant capital-requirements and the associated operation and maintenance requirements are shown in probable ranges of
estimated cash outlays.
Note: Detail figures may not add tp totals due to rounding.
Source: Detailed analyses supporting the data contained in this Table may be found in Volume II of the Study.
-------
MUNICIPAL POLLUTION
PLANT AND EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT
It is estimated that municipal waste treatment plant and interceptor sewer
construction costs to attain water quality standards in the five-year period,
FY 1969-1973, will require the expenditure of $8.0 billion. (See Table 2).
Increasing costs of construction during the period could expand the total
national cost to $8.7 billion. This estimate, which *does not include land
costs, accommodates costs of upgrading present treatment facilities, con-
structing new facilities for the presently unserved urban population, pro-
viding for population growth and replacing obsolete facilities over the next
five years.
The urban population of the United States is estimated at about 146 million
persons in FY 1968. Of this total, about 82 million people presently have
adequate treatment facilities, almost 32 million have less than adequate fa-
cilities, -and slightly more than 32 million have no treatme.tt facilities
whatsoever. (See Table 3). Eliminating unmet needs will cost an estimated
$4.6 billion. This includes $1.9 billion to upgrade presently inadequate
treatment facilities and $2.7 billion to provide facilities where none now
exists.
The current U. S. urban population is projected to increase by 17 million in
the next five years - from about 146 million in FY 1968 to 163 million in FY
1973 with an additional increase of 25 million persons expected by 1978. If
this increase follows the same pattern of urbanization that took place in
the 1950-1960 decade, and additional capacity in new plant construction is
included for population growth to 1978, additional capital outlays of about
$2.2 billion will be required by FY 1973.
Replacement of plant and equipment is a continuing capital charge which is
estimated at $1.2 billion over the next five years.
Table 2 lists the breakdown of construction costs by state. Federal con-
struction grants, as provided for by Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, as amended, are made to states, municipalities, and inter-
state agencies. Estimates of state needs provide the most practical initial
breakdown in describing where the treatment needs are, what the estimated
costs are and, accordingly, the possible extent of Federal expenditures re-
quired. The ten states ranking highest in capital outlays required to at-
tain adequate waste treatment by 1973 are, in order: New York - $963.6 mil-
lion, California - $645.2 million, Michigan - $535.8 million, New Jersey -
See second patiagiaph. on page. &.
10
-------
TABLE 2. CAPITAL OUTLAYS NEEDED TO OBTAIN ADEQUATE MUNICIPAL WASTE
TREATMENT FOR THE U. S. URBAN POPULATION, FY 1969-1973
($ Millions)
State
U.S..
Ala
Aril
Calif2-7
Colo
Del...,
D.C*-'
Fla2-/
Ga
Idaho
Ill
Ind
Iowa2/
Kans
Ky
La
Maine
Md
Mass2/
Mich
Minn
Miss
Mo2-/
Nebr2/
Nev
N. H
N.J
N. Mex
N. Y
N. C
N, Dak
Ohio
Okla
Oreg
Pa
R. I
S.C
S. Dak
Tex
Utah
Vt
Vai/
Wash2/
W. Va
Wis
Wyo2-/.....
Total
( Current
Dollars)
8,693.1
137.0
14.5
90.0
48.5
732.2
103.6
188.3
31.5
23.0
369.6
223.1
40.1
24.5
399.4
176.1
36.0
52,5
130.0
195,0
47.0
136.1
200.0
592.6
186.0
57.0
137.6
27,0
30.5
19.5
35.0
561.1
40.5
1, 070.2
101.5
13.0
500,7
60.5
145.3
331.6
41.5
100.0
14.0
154.6
342.5
136.0
19.0
206.6
173.3
55.0
133.3
9.7
Total
( Constant
Dollars)
7,994.0
131.0
12.8
84.0
45. S
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
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
Upgrading
of
Facilities
1,868.7
33.0
4.0
12.0
2.0
26.0
69.5
13.0
46.0
53.5
10.5
48.0
39.5
14.5 '
39.0
21.0
6.0
11.0
64.0
223.0
64.5
3.0
13.0
16.0
9.9
1.0
7.S
167.0
1.0
266.0
16.0
2.5
122.0
10.5
29.5
149.5 '
9.5
19.0
S.O
19.5
17.0
2.0
10.0
65.0
33.0
25.0
47.0
2.3
Constructing
Facilities
For Untreated
Wastes
2,707.4
39.0
7.0
25.5
4.5
370.5
18.0
SO.O
4.5
191.5
60.5
27.5
2.5
102.2
45,5
.5
24.5
80.5
31.5
45.5
78.5
144.5
32,5
24.0
45.4
.5
16.0
161.0
5.5
390.5
22.5
4.0
134.5
6,0
41.5
27.5
17.5
35.5
68.0
81.0
88.0
3.0
47.0
84.5
13. S
3.5
.5
Increases
In Urban
Populationi'
2,182.5
42,0
5.0
44.0
20.0
150.5
40.5
36.5
9.5
8.0
68.0
69.0
4.5
6.5
136.0
45.0
15.5
22.5
40.5
63.0
3.0
53.0
10.0
103.5
49.5
22.0
50.5
6.0
11.5
13.0
6.0
113.5
23.5
204.0
36.0
2.5
131.5
25.5
44.0
53.5
5.5
27.0
4.0
43.5
155.5
26.0
2.5
59.0
19.0
5.5
42.0
4.5
Allowances
For
Depreciation
1,235.4
17.0'
.8
10.5
9.0
122.2
13.1
19.8
3.1
13.4
41.5
26.6
3.5
3.5
81.0
3.2.1
19.2
12.1
16,8
17.6
3.4
18.9
33.8
64.8
25.9
5.1
17,9
3.5
7.6
3.6
3.1
63.5
7.6
103.1
21.1
2.3
73.7
15.4
15.2
80.4
5.8
12.4
3.5
16.8
70.1
11.4
2.2
23.7
18.8
6.4
29.9
1.7
!_/ Includes construction costs for additional capacity for five yean of population growth in each State beyond
the 1969-1973 period of the cost estimate of needs.
2J Water quality standards adopted call for primary waste treatment in tome urban areas of this State.
Standards adopted for other States call ifot at least secondary waste treatment,
3_/ Capital outlays shown for construction of treatment works to serve population in Virginia may actually
occur in the District of Columbia with service provided to the Virginia population under contract.
Source: Based on 1962 Inventory of Municipal Waste Treatment, updatedj Census of Population, 1960;
Bureau of Census Population Estimates, Setles P-25.
11
282-551 O - I
-------
TABLE 3. URBAN POPULATION SERVED BY ADEQUATE AND LESS THAN ADEQUATE
MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES AND URBAN POPULATION
NOT SERVED, BY STATE: FY 1968
(In thousands, except percent)
State
Total Population Served By (Facilities):
Urban Population Adequate Less than Adequate None
of Pop. with less than
Adequate or None
U.S l( 145,602
Ala..... 2,140
Alaska-. 121
Ariz 1,411
Aik..,. 937
Calif-. 17,651
Colo 1, 602
Conn 2, 342
Del 356
D-Sv 832
Fla -. 4, 860
Ga 2,727
Hawaii-/. 591
Idaho 349
111 8,923
Ind 3,182
Iowa1-/-7 1.5261-'
Kans?-' 1,475
Ky 1, 539
La 2,479
Maine 509
Md... 2,785
Mass*-'. 4.563
Mich 6, 377
Minn 2, 370
Miss 988
Mo^/ 3,141
Mont^ 379i'
Nebrl/?-/ 846
Nev 376
N.H 414
N.J 6,444
N. Mex 764
N.Y 16,003
N.C...... 2,138
N. DakL'.. 254-'
Ohio 7, 870
Okla 1,694
Oreg 1, 320
Pa 8,428
R.1 793
S.C 1,134
S. Dak-'' 287i/
Tenn 2, 214
Tex 8, 874
Utah 825
Vt 162
Va 2, 756
Wash?-/ 2,139
W. Va 710
Wis 2, 804
WyoL/L/ 19S1-/
81, 703
819
19
711
684
12, 766
854
312
9
832
1,741
1,081
162
160
7,410
2,286
1,590
1,267
536
818
37
2, 119
1,729
1,340
769
460
2,522
123
833
366
43
1,629
671
8,017
1,447
278
4,591
1,332
552
5,325
395
540
290
750
6,819
500
9
1,092
681
149
2,049
189
31,865
678
34
156
36
593
1,286
267
864
1,003
134
586
529
192
792
515
60
162
1,173
4,223
1,324
23
183
263
100
6
102
3, 179
5
3,733
125
15
2,071
199
504
2,916
190
178
39
319
130
19
121
1,328
444
348
689
29
32, 293
643
102
666
97
4,849
155
744
80
2,255
643
429
55
927
367
I/
IF
211
1, 146
412
504
1,661
814
277
SOS
436
t/
4
269
1,636
88
4,253
566
1,208
163
264
187
208
416
J/
1, 145
1,925
306
32
336
1,014
213
66
V
44.1
61.7
84.2
49.6
27.0
27.7
46.7
86.7
97.5
64.2
60.4
72.6
54.2
17.0
28.2
14.1
65.2
67.0
92.7
23.9
62.1
79.0
67.6
53.4
19.7
69.4
11.8
2.7
89.6
74.7
12.2
49.9
32.3
5.9
41.7
21.4
58.2
36.8
SO. 2
52.4
13.6
66.1
23.2
39.4
94.4
60.4
68.2
79.0
26.9
14.6
!_/ Population served by treatment facilities exceeds total urban population of these States by 259,000 persons.
Thus the detail adds to 259,000 more than the total U. S. urban population.
2J Water quality standards adopted call for primary waste treatment in some urban areas of this State,
Standards adopted for other States call for at least secondary waste treatment.
Source: 1962 Inventory. Municipal Waste Facilities in the United States, updated by FWPCA Construction Grants
Awards; urban population estimates based on U. S, Census of Population, 1960; Bureau of Census
Population Estimates, Series P-25.
12
-------
$505.0 million, Ohio - $461.7 million, Illinois - $367.0 million, Florida -
$347.0, Texas - $323.6 million, Pennsylvania - $310.9 million, and Georgia -
$209.6 million.
Table 4 lists the breakdown of construction costs by Water Resources Council
regions. This provides a broader picture than the state-by-state breakdown
of required capital expenditures for municipal treatment and relates direct-
ly to similar regional estimates of capital expenditures for industrial
waste treatment. This breakdown also provides information needed by the Wa-
ter Resources Council for its report'^' on the adequacy of the Nation's wa-
ter supplies in the 20 major river basins, as defined by the Council. (Sec-
tion 102 of the Water Resources Planning Act requires the Council to prepare
such a national assessment.) The five Water Resources Council Regions rank-
ing highest in capital outlays required to attain adequate waste treatment
by 1973 are, in order: North Atlantic, Great Lakes, South Atlantic Gulf,
California, and Ohio.
Table 5 shows the per capita construction costs of primary types and second-
ary types of sewage treatment plants. Per capita costs fall sharply from
the smaller to the larger plants. These data are based on design and cost
information for sewage treatment projects constructed in all parts of the
Nation with Federal construction grant assistance. Costs of treatment
plants and interceptor and outfall sewers are included but land costs, which
are not covered by the Federal grant program, have been excluded. The per
capita costs are shown in constant dollars, using the FWPCA Sewage Treatment
Plant Construction Cost Index.
Per capita costs reflected in Table 5 played an important part in computing
the overall cost estimates but there can be considerable variation in such
costs. In this study municipal waste treatment plant capital costs were
based upon plants using activated sludge systems. Different cost figures
would have resulted had capital costs for plants using trickling filters
been used instead. In addition, there may be significant differences in
construction costs in different parts of the country. For example, some New
England states have reported per capita construction costs well in excess of
those shown in this table. To the extent that actual per capita costs for a
given treatment method or geographical area are significantly different than
per capita costs utilized in this study, the costs shown in this study would
be proportionately different. Accordingly, as this report is updated, it
may be necessary to examine per capita costs for different types of treat-
and for different states or regions.
It is evident from these data that it is more economical in terms of cost
per person served to construct a large plant rather than a small plant, as-
suming other things are equal. This conclusion assumes excessive sewering
costs are not incurred, the topography is suitable for the extension of sew-
ers, that receiving streams can assimilate adequately the discharges from a
large single treatment source, and the economies of scale available by con-
13
-------
TABLE 4. CAPITAL OUTLAYS NEEDED TO OBTAIN ADEQUATE MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT
FOR THE U.S. URBAN POPULATION, BY WATER RESOURCE REGION, FY 1969-1973
($ Millions)
Water Resource Region—'
I/
Total
(Current
Dollars)
Total
(Constant
Dollars)
Upgrading
of
Facilities
Constructing
Facilities
For Untreated
Wastes
Increases
In Urban
Population—
Allowances
For
Depreciation
United States
Alaska .........
Arkansas-White-Red ...
California
Columbia-North Pacific
Great Basin
Great Lakes
Hawaii
Lower Colorado ........
Lower Mississippi
Missouri ... -.
North Atlantic ........
Ohio
Rio Grande
Souris-Red-Rainy
South Atlantic-Gulf
Tennessee
Texas-Gulf
Upper Colorado ,
Upper Mississippi
8, 693.17, 994.0
14.5
229.9
735.2
349.1
130.8
1, 164.3
40.1
108.0
232.9
250.4
2 ,611.0
728. 3.
64.7
10.2
978.6
62.9
295.7
14.7
671.8
12.8
216.5
647.8
314.4
122.4
1 ,059.2
35.5
100.8
219.1
234.0
2,392.2
674.6
60.5
9.0
921.9
60.1
279. 3
13.8
620.1
1,868.7
41.9
2.6
77,6
2.3
376.3
4.7
25.4
61.5
746.6
205.8
2.6
2.5
172.5
8.9
14.6
1.3
121.6
2,707.4
7.0
39.4
371.3
127.7
79.4
285.7
27.5
29.5
97.7
38.0
801.6
172.3
11.9
2.6
367.7
25.5
69.5
6.2
146.9
2,182.5
5.0
92.2
151.4
70.7
28.9
246.0
4.5
53. 3
73.7
91.8
512.1
180.7
33.4
2.2
259.3
18.3
134.8
4.6
219.6
1,235.4
.8
43.0
122.5
38.4
11.8
151.2
3.5
13.3
22.3
42.7
331.9
115.8
12.6
1.7
122.4
7.4
60.4
1.7
132.0
y Water Resource Regions proposed by Water Resource Council for Type I Comprehensive Surveys. Data was not available to estimate capital
outlays needed for the Puerto Rico-Virgin Islands Region. : .-
Source: Based on 1962 Inventory of Municipal Waste Treatment, updated; Census of Population; 1960 Bureau of Census Population Estimates,
Series P-25.
-------
TABLE 5. SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION PER CAPITA COST-''
(TOTAL PLANT, INTERCEPTORS AND OUTFALLS)
(1968 Dollars)
Secondary Types of
Primary Types of Treatment
0 -
1,000 -
5,000 -
10, 000
25, 000 -
50,000
100,000
999 ....
4, 999 ....
9, 999. ...
24,999 ....
49,999 ....
99, 999 ....
and up . .
Treatment
$148
96
68
54
43
35
30
Activated
Sludge
$175
117
86
69
56
45
40
Stabilization
Ponds?/
$85
57
29
14
y Does not include land costs.
2/ Uniform cost States: North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, Kansas, Washington.
Source: Based upon the design and actual cost information of sewage treatment
projects constructed under P. L. 84-660.
15
-------
structing a larger or an intermunicipal plant are not offset by other fac-
tors.
Total treatment works construction costs in a particular area may be reduced
on a per capita basis when it is possible and desirable to serve many commu-
nities with a single or a few large treatment works. Economies of scale al-
so may be available when industries and communities jointly construct treat-
ment works to serve their needs. Achieving economies of scale in waste
treatment plants can reduce local and national water pollution control costs
and this emphasizes the importance of joint community-industry water pollu-
tion control participation. In many cases, however, it would be necessary
to overcome existing institutional obstacles to develop effective arrange-
ments for such systems.
Sewage treatment plant design normally provides for sufficient capacity to
accommodate additional quantities of sewage resulting from population and
industrial growth. According to Fair and Geyer'"' many factors are consid-
ered before deciding upon a design period for treatment works. Among these
factors are obsolescence, depreciation, location, anticipated rate of growth
of population and industry, rate of interest that must be paid on bonded in-
debtedness, future construction costs, and the performance of the works dur-
ing early years when the plant is operated below capacity. (Today an addi-
tional factor is an increased awareness of the need to meet water quality
standards.) The authors have estimated that when growth and interest rates
are high, the design periods for treatment works may amount to 10 to 15
years. Because of the many variables involved in arriving at average excess
treatment plant capacity included in plant designs and the unavailability of
current excess capacity data, a plant design period for growth has been es-
timated as five years. Therefore, construction of waste treatment plants in
the period FY 1969-1973 includes the cost of additional capacity for popula-
tion growth to 1978.
Estimates of construction of waste treatment work costs presented in this
report are based on total costs eligible for Federal grants assistance.
These are costs incurred in constructing new sewage treatment works or addi-
tions to or extensions, alterations, acquisitions and improvements of al-
ready existing treatment works; costs for necessary intercepting sewers,
outfall sewers, pumping, power, and other equipment; costs for preliminary
planning and other actions necessary to construct sewage treatment works
such as engineering, legal and fiscal investigations, studies and designs,
including the supervision and inspection of construction.
Costs not eligible for FWPCA construction grants assistance include the cost
of the site of land on which the sewage treatment works is to be built; the
costs for sewage collection systems (intercepting and outfall sewers are not
considered to be part of the collection system); and the cost of any work
not approved by the Department of the Interior. These ineligible costs, in
many cases, present a considerable financial burden to.the community, par-
16
-------
ticularly in large metropolitan areas where land costs are high. When it is
not possible to isolate treatment works from residential and industrial
areas, the cost of the project is increased by the need to landscape, beau-
tify or relocate public and private buildings. New streets, viaducts and
costs of rights-of-way add to these ineligible costs. The amount of land-
scaping, beautification and relocation carried out depends upon each commu-
nity's financial capability, the aesthetic values involved, and opportuni-
ties to shift or delay such costs.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Costs incurred in operating and maintaining the nation's waste treatment
plant to achieve adequate waste treatment for the population by
the end of FY 1973 are estimated at $1.4 billion. This estimate could be
changed by significant changes in wasteloads from industrial sources.
The estimate is based upon the actual labor and supply costs associated with
plant operation and maintenance, but excludes administrative and capital
maintenance costs. Although the cost estimate lacks precision, primarily
because of differing plant efficiencies, it indicates, nevertheless, that
operating costs ultimately could be a greater financial burden upon a local
unit of government than the construction cost itself. (Federal grants do
not provide for supporting operation and maintenance costs and only a few
states either provide such grants now or plan to do so.) This is an im-
portant point because with the greater number of plants in place in future
years, annual capital costs will level off after the backlog is met while
operating costs will continue to rise because of the larger plant treatment
facilities in place which will require operation and maintenance.
Many existing waste treatment plants are not being operated effectively and,
therefore, are achieving a lesser degree of waste removal than they are cap-
able of attaining. This is a problem area to which continued and intensi-
fied research and training efforts should be put.
For example, waste removal efficiency is low in many cases because of inade-
quate operation by the plant operator or understaffing of treatment plants.
The solution rests largely with improving operator capability by providing
necessary technical assistance and assuring that present and future require-
ments for trained treatment plant operators are met. A recent study by the
FWPCA^O) indicated that there are major deficiencies in this area, stemming
from inadequate training levels, salaries and conditions of employment.
These deficiencies must be overcome if a satisfactory level of operational
efficiency is to be reached and maintained.
Removal efficiency may be increased by more effective use of currently
available treatment methods or by other methods now under study. For exam-
ple, under an FWPCA research and development grant, a Cleveland, Ohio muni-
17
-------
cipal treatment plant is being used in a pilot study of the possibilities of
increasing removal efficiency by using relatively new polyelectrolytes -
coagulating chemicals which can increase the effectiveness of sewage purifi-
cation.
CONTROL OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
In addition to construction and operation of municipal waste treatment
plants, considerable expenditures will be made to control overflows from
combined storm and sanitary sewers during the next five years. The problem
arises when the volume of flow, caused by excessive precipitation or snow-
melt, exceeds the capacity of the treatment plant and wastewater is allowed
to bypass the plant without being treated. This is a more serious problem
in many of our older cities where combined storm and sanitary sewers predom-
inate than in the newer cities which are more likely to have separate sewer
systems.
Separation of combined sewers has been considered as the principal method of
controlling the problem. However, the cost of separating sewers completely
would be enormous. It has been estimated at about $49 billion. Moreover,
this is not a feasible solution, either from the viewpoint of cost or effec-
tiveness in solving the problem. Sewer separation would involve major and
prolonged disruptions to traffic, other street activities, and in utility
use because new sewer lines would have to be built in city streets beneath
which are electric conduits, water and gas mains, telephone and telegraph
conduits, and building service connections for other utilities. Further,
studies have shown that urban stormwater itself, even when separated, is a
serious pollution source. It is clear, therefore, that sewer separation in
itself would not provide a complete answer to the combined sewer overflow
problem.
In the next several years we can expect substantial efforts in the direction
of partial separation and other control methods. For example, New York City
has announced plans to handle the storm overflow problem by constructing, at
an estimated cost of $460 million, 30 small wastewater treatment plants lo-
cated throughout the city. The purpose of these plants would be to treat
the large volumes of water which overload the city's sewer system during
overflow periods. This method and several other methods for controlling
storm overflows are under study and development. Many of these studies are
being supported by research and development grants authorized under Section
6 of the Act.
Unquestionably, large costs will be incurred during the FY 1969-1973 period
in controlling combined sewer overflows. However, meaningful estimates of
the cost of substantial elimination of the problem cannot be predicted at
this time.
18
-------
COLLECTION SEWERS
A collection sewer is one which collects and transports waterborne wastes
through an interceptor sewer to the sewage treatment plant after which the
treated effluent is discharged to the receiving waters. Interceptor sewers
have been included in the estimate of waste treatment needs but collecting
sewers have been excluded. However, in practice the distinction between an
interceptor sewer and a trunk collecting sewer must be made on almost a
case-by-case basis to determine eligibility for FWPCA grant funds.2
The estimated cost for installing new collection sewers is placed at about
$6.2 billion. Of this amount, about $3.9 billion would be required for pro-
viding sewers to the presently unsewered population and an estimated $2.3
billion would be spent to accommodate urban population growth during the FY
1969-1973 period.
The costs of providing collection sewers for the urban population presently
unsewered and the expected increase in urban population are shown for the
period FY 1969-1973 in order to put these needs in the same time frame as
municipal waste treatment needs. These capital costs have been included in
this study because of their fundamental relationship to the water pollution
control problem.
The. inclusion otf collection Aewe/ta in aome Atudiu otf municipal,
mtnt C04& ka& teAultzd in Acme, incompatibility in co&t utimatu
pollution con&wl
19
-------
INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION
Manufacturing is the principal source of controllable waterborne wastes. In
terms of the generally quoted measurements of strength and volume, wastes of
manufacturing establishments are about three times as great as those of the
Nation's sewered population. Moreover, the volume of industrial production/
which gives rise to industrial wastes, is increasing at about 4.5% a year or
three times as fast as the population.
Table 6 shows reported quantities of industrial wastewater discharged in
1963 and FWPCA estimates of the quantities of standard biochemical oxygen
demand (8005) and settleable and suspended solids contained in the wastewa-
ter. The wasteload estimates, based upon an estimate of the "average" quan-
tity of pollutant per product unit, indicate that the chemical, paper, and
food and kindred industries generated about 90% of the BOD5 in industrial
wastewater before treatment.
Many industrial wastes differ markedly in chemical composition and toxicity
from wastes found in normal domestic sewage. Thus, the BOps or solids con-
tent often is not an adequate indicator of the quality of industrial efflu-
ents. For example, industrial wastes frequently contain persistent organics
which resist secondary treatment procedures applied normally to domestic
sewage. In addition, some industrial effluents require that specific organic
compounds be stabilized or that trace elements be removed as part of the
treatment process.
PLANT AND EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT
The minimum investment required to attain water quality standards by FY 1973
for major water-using industrial establishments is estimated to be in the
$2.6 billion to $4.6 billion range (Table 7). Increasing costs of con-
struction during the five-year period could expand the $2.6 to $4.6 billion
range to the $2.9 to $5.1 billion range. These estimates are based upon the
assumption that industries generally will have to provide a level of treat-
ment of industrial wastes equivalent to secondary treatment of municipal
wastes.
For analytical purposes, the equivalent of secondary treatment of municipal
wastes for industrial wastes was assumed to involve 85% removal of 8005 and
2
Tke. /uwge oŁ c.o&tt> pJL&&e.nte.d in tki& action dviiuQA faom tli& tomA c.o&t
604 ed upon expcAt e^timateA in tlie. lndu&&uaŁ Ua&te.
[Volume. Ill) and the. higkeA. co&t eAtunatu wtac/i
o& tine. Bate.au oft tke. CewAuV 1963 publication, WateA Us>e. in
ing.
20
-------
TABLE 6. ESTIMATED VOLUME OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES BEFORE
TREATMENT, 1963
Industry
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
All Other Manufacturing
All Manufacturing
For comparison:
sewered population of U. !
Wastewater,
billion
gallons
690
140
1,900
3,700
1,300
160
4,300
150
91
240
450
13, 100
5, 300~
I/
Standard
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand,
million pounds
4,300
890
5,900
9,700
500
40
480
60
70
120
390
22,000
7, 300~
Settleable and
Suspended Solids,
million pounds
6,600
not available
3,000
1,900
460
50
4, 700
50
20
not available
930
18,000
8,800
L/ 120, 000,000 persons x 120 gallons x 365 days
2/ 120,000, 000 persons x 1/6 pounds x 365 days
~f 120, 000, 000 persons x 0. 2 pounds x 365 days
21
-------
of settleable and suspended solids. It must be recognized that this value
has no application to any specific situation - a substantially greater or
lesser efficiency may be required in many cases. At the same time it is be-
lieved that this will be the minimal average national treatment level which
will be in accordance with water quality standard implementation plans.
The outlay (constant dollars) ranging from $2.6 billion to $4.6 billion to
attain this specified industrial treatment level by 1973 includes three com-
ponents - the estimated costs of meeting current unmet needs ($1.1 to $2.6
billion), accommodating industrial growth through FY 1973 ($0.7 to $1.0 bil-
lion), and replacing equipment ($0.8 to $1.0 billion). (See Table 7.)
Investment required to meet current unmet industrial treatment needs ranges
from $1.1 to $2.6 billion in constant dollars. In effect, this is the esti-
mated existing backlog which must be overcome. Current requirements broken
down by industry are reflected in Table 8. Primary metal industries, for ex-
ample, require the largest investment to attain the prescribed treatment lev-
el. Table 9 shows the breakdown, by Water Resource Council region, of the
estimated $1.1 to $2.6 billion capital investment required to eliminate cur-
rent needs. The North Atlantic Region, for example, requires the largest
estimated capital expenditure - $210 to $530 million - to attain the equiva-
lent of secondary waste treatment, as defined, of its industrial wastes.
As indicated earlier, many industrial wastes are characterized by pollutants
more difficult to treat than municipal wastes and, as a result, are not
treated adequately by conventional secondary treatment procedures applied to
domestic sewage. The required treatments, and associated costs, cannot be
fully evaluated because of the limited state of current information on treat-
ment requirements for specific industry wastewaters. For the purposes of
making these estimates, 85% removal of 8005 and of settleable and suspended
solids has been selected recognizing that this treatment level may not be
adequate in many cases. It is known that the costs of treatment rise sharp-
ly when applied at higher levels of waste removal. Some general idea of the
major nature of potential increases in total capital investment requirements
(constant dollars) with higher levels of pollutant removal can be gained
from some illustrative figures.
It was calculated that a total investment of $4.0 to $5.0 billion in indus-
trial waste treatment facilities would have had to be made by FY 1968 to at-
tain at least 85% removal of BOD5 and settleable and suspended solids (Table
8). Much of these facilities ($2.9 billion by expert estimate and $2.4
billion based upon census projection) already exist and the remaining invest-
ment would represent the present backlog. The following table provides some
idea of the total capital investment which would have had to be made by FY
1968 to attain higher levels of BODg removal:
22
-------
I/
TABLE 7. CASH OUTLAYS NEEDED TO MEET CURRENT AND PROJECTED
INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS, FY 1969-1973-
($ Billions)
Item
Meeting Current Unmet Need
New Treatment Facilities, FY 1969-1973
Replacing Obsolete Equipment
Capital Outlay
(Constant Dollars)
By Expert-'
Estimate
1.1
0.7
.8
By Census—
Projection
2.6
1.0
1.0
Total Capital Outlays
2.6
4.6
!_/ Assuming at least 85% reduction of BODg and of settleable and suspended solids.
2J Based upon Industrial Waste Profiles in Volume III of this report.
3/ Based upon Census of Manufactures data and established treatment cost factors.
23
-------
TABLE 8. TOTAL CURRENT VALUE OF WASTE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS
OF MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTSU
($ Millions)
Industry
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
All Other Manufacturing
Total Capital Requirement
Plant Currently Provided:
By industry
Through municipal facilities
Current Backlog
Constant Dollars—
2/
By Expert-^
Estimate
740
170
320
380
380
41
1,500
39
36
220
200
4/
By Census-*
Projection
670
170
920
1,000
270
59
1,400
56
51
160
290
4,000
2,200
730
1,100
5,000
1,800
640
2,600
If Assuming at least 85% reduction of BODe and of settleable and suspended solids.
21 All values rounded to two significant figures.
3/ Based upon Industrial Waste Profiles in Volume III of this report.
4_/ Based upon Census of Manufactures data and established treatment cost factors.
24
-------
TABLE 9. ESTIMATED REGIONAL INVESTMENT REQUIRED TO ELIMINATE
INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT DEFICIENCIES ACCUMULATED
THROUGH 1968, BY WATER RESOURCE REGION-/
{$ Millions)
Water
Resource
Regions—
Constant Dollars?/
Industrial
Waste
Treatment
North Atlantic
South Atlantic - Gulf
Great Lakes
Ohio
Tennessee
Upper Mississippi
Lower Mississippi
Missouri
Arkansas-White- Red
Texas-Gulf/Rio Grande
Great Basin/Upper Colorado/Lower Colorado
Columbia-North Pacific/Alaska
California/Hawaii
Total
210-530
70-180
190-480
130-340
34- 85
57-140
87-220
24- 61
17- 42
120-310
9- 24
48-120
39- 98
1, 100-2, 600
_V Based upon the reduction of at least 85% of BOD5 and of settleable and suspended solids.
_2/ All values rounded to two significant figures.
y Puerto Rico-Virgin Islands not included.
25
-------
Estimated FY 1968 Total Industrial Waste
Assumed BODc Treatment Investment To Attain Specified
Removal BODs Removal Levels» Billions of 1968 Dollars
Lower EstimateHigher Estimate
35% 2.3 2.9
85% 4.0 5.0
90% 6.0 7.5
95% 10.6 13.3
98% 13.4 16.8
These illustrative costs show how rapidly industrial waste treatment costs
could escalate with higher waste removal. For example, waste treatment
equipment valued at from $6.0 to $7.5 billion would be required in FY 1968
for 90% BOD5 removal and 95% removal would require equipment valued at $10.6
to $13.3 billion.
No attempt was made to project for higher than 85% pollutant removal either
total capital investment for the FY 1969-1973 period or additional capital
requirements (total capital investment required less capital value of indus-
trial treatment facilities in place.) From this example, however, it is
clear that total capital outlays required over the next five years would
rise sharply if water quality standards require significantly higher nation-
al pollutant removal levels than the 85% 8005 and solids removal levels as-
sumed for this study.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
While capital requirements are large, the most significant impact of waste
controlling requirements on the financial and cost structures of industry
will occur in the form of rising operation and maintenance costs. Such
costs will rise steeply as treatment installations are constructed, approach-
ing by FY 1973 the amount of the capital outlays required by new construc-
tion and depreciation. From an estimated $490 million cost in FY 1969, op-
erating costs will rise within a range of $730 to $920 million by FY 1973 if
complete secondary treatment of industrial wastes is to be achieved. (These
estimates are in terms of constant dollars.) This amounts to total projected
operation and maintenance expenditures over the FY 1969-1973 period ranging
from $3.0 billion to $3.4 billion compared with total capital outlays of
$2.6 billion to $4.6 billion over the same period.
26
-------
WASTE REDUCTION METHODS
Industrial waste treatment costs are affected significantly by the methods
industry employs to reduce its wastes. In general, waste reduction may be
accomplished through treatment by sewering wastes for treatment by municipal
facilities, by on-site treatment, through process changes which lessen the
amount or strength of wastes generated, by ground disposal, or by combina-
tions of these alternatives.
MUNICIPAL PLANT TREATMENT OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Use of municipal facilities is preferred by a majority of industries, and
accounts for the largest number of establishments whose wastes are treated.
Table 8 indicates that about three-fourths of the current industrial treat-
ment plant is provided by industry and one-fourth is provided by municipali-
ties.
Although only 7.5% of the wastewaters of major industrial establishments
were disposed of to municipal sewers in 1964, sewering provided the princi-
pal waste handling method for seven of the 11 industrial sectors shown in
Tables 6 and 8. The seven industries include food processing, textiles,
rubber and plastics, machinery, electrical machinery, transportation equip-
ment, and miscellaneous manufacturing. The wastes of these seven industries
are more amenable to treatment at municipal treatment plants than the wastes
of the four other industries; paper and allied products, chemicals, petro-
leum and coal, and primary metals.
The one percent decrease in volume of industrial wastes going to municipal
sewers between 1959 and 1964(->) is probably more a reflection of the greater
water discharge by industries whose wastes are not amenable to treatment at
municipal plants than it is indicative of a trend against the use of munici-
pal treatment facilities by industries. As a matter of fact, there are in-
dications that the situation is shifting toward increased numbers of cooper-
ative municipal-industrial waste treatment plants that are scaled to handle
the organic wastes of the pulp and paper, chemical, and other large water
using industries. For example, in Bound Brook, New Jersey, a chemical plant
treats municipal wastes, reversing the usual relationship between factory
and community. In Kalamazoo, Michigan, three good-sized paper mills and one
chemical plant use a modern municipal sewage treatment plant. Both Chicago
and Seattle have adopted ambitious programs to provide high level treatment
of liquid wastes - whether of domestic, commercial, or industrial origin -
within their areas of jurisdiction. It would appear that technology has
overcome the lag that excluded large industrial waste sources from municipal
treatment plants in the past, and that modern engineering competence extends
to the construction of efficient and large treatment plants desioned to han-
dle wastes from a variety of sources. Since this trend, if there is one, is
27
-------
of very recent origin, it is not reflected in the 1963 Census of Manufac-
tures data. Accordingly, its nature and effect on financial requirements of
municipalities and industries probably cannot be evaluated prior to the ap-
pearance of the 1968 Bureau of Census' Water Use in Manufacturing unless an
inventory of industrial wastes and waste treatment is compiled earlier.
In connection with the trend toward increased use of municipal facilities by
many industries, it is important to note the rapid increase in municipal
treatment capabilities since World War II. Both the number of treatment
plants and the average level of treatment have risen steadily, the growth
being most marked since the institution of Federal grants for construction
of waste treatment plants. As recently as 1949, almost 40% of the Nation's
sewered communities did not have waste treatment provided to them. By 1962,
less than 20% of the total number of sewered communities were without waste
treatment. Moreover, well over half of the sewered communities had second-
ary waste treatment facilities. Thus, municipal facilities have an increas-
ing potential capacity for handling many industrial wastes.
Joint systems for handling both municipal and industrial wastes in many
cases are likely to provide the means of attaining adequate water pollution
control most effectively and least expensively. The extent to which joint
handling systems will increase over the next five years will depend largely
upon the managerial ability of municipal and industrial officials and their
willingness to enter into such cooperative arrangements. This, in turn,
will depend upon the costs which industrial establishments are required to
pay to use municipally-operated facilities. To the extent that appropriate
charges and pretreatment requirements are fixed and that joint treatment fa-
cilities are designed and operated effectively, increased use of such facil-
ities by industry may well lower overall pollution control costs signifi-
cantly over the next five years.
Successful use of such joint plant systems depends upon effective implemen-
tation of mutual agreements between the industrial plant and the municipal-
ity because the industrial plant, in effect, is paying the municipality for
taking on the legal and physical responsibility for treating the plant's
wastes. It is important, for example, that the plant carry out recmired
pretreatment measures before disposing of its wastes to municipal sewers,
and equally important for the municipality to maintain continuing surveil-
lance of raw wasteloads to be sure that such pretreatment measures have been
taken.
PROCESS CHANGES
Reduction of many industrial wastes is often accomplished most efficiently
and economically by process modifications. While the rate and effects of
technological change are difficult to evaluate, quanitities of water used
per unit of production have been decreasing in most industries while re-
28
-------
cycling to make more efficient use of water is increasing. Moreover, modern
operational practices and engineering design increasingly stress waste con-
trol.
Review of the waste-to-product ratios of developing technologies in 10 in-
dustrial groups (7> indicates that in most instances advanced processing
methods result in reduction of wastes. Although there are important excep-
tions to this, it seems clear that in-plant process changes offer an eco-
nomic, advantageous means to reduce water pollution from industrial sources
and that such changes are likely to increase in importance as industry, in
considering waste reduction as a processing goal, puts increasing emphasis
on the reduction of water pollution by process modification or change.4
4 maJu.ng &uŁu/ie. eAtuncuteA o& Audi tA.e.n.d& i& containid Jin
the. 10 induA&uMl woi-te pno^U,^ w/u,di com-^cAe Volume. Ill
' '
29
-------
THERMAL POLLUTION
Thermal pollution refers generally to the degrading of streams by the addi-
tion of heat. The changes in water temperatures which result may affect
aquatic life either directly through the harmful effect of the warmer water
upon organisms which cannot tolerate such temperature increases or indirect-
ly by lowering the dissolved oxygen concentrations. (Dissolved oxygen sat-
uration levels in water decrease with temperature increases.)
There are several major sources of water temperature increases. Temperature
changes can be induced by reservoir impoundment, by depletion of a stream
through diversion, by the warming of irrigation return waters in fields, or
by industrial process or thermal electric power generation. This section is
concerned with thermal pollution resulting from power generation and indus-
trial process, primarily because these are the significant sources of ther-
mal pollution which can best be evaluated in terms of remedial cost require-
ments .
Thermal electric power generation is a far greater source of thermal pollu-
tion (in effect, heat wasted to cooling water) than is industrial processing.
Electric power production in this country has doubled every 10 years during
this century, and most of the increase has been achieved through use of
thermal-generating methods. The number of new plants has increased the total
production of waste heat at a rate far in excess of that with which growing
generating efficiency has reduced unit heat loss. In addition, the discharge
of heated cooling water at discharge locations has increased as power plants
have grown in size. Accordingly, thermal pollution has become an increasing-
ly serious water pollution problem. The seriousness of the problem is ex-
pected to intensify further with the planned construction of nuclear-fueled
plants, with their attendant higher unit heat loss, to supply about half of
the new generating capacity between now and 1975.
Industry, other than the power-generating industry, also faces a considerable
expenditure in reducing the temperature of its heated wastewater discharges.
Water for cooling purposes represented 70% of all water used by major water-
using establishments in 1964.(5)
All of the water quality standards include, or will include, standards for
permissible changes in the temperature of water used for cooling purposes.
However, the temperature control requirements in the standards vary to some
extent and it is not yet possible to make a generalized assumption regarding
such standards as was done for treatment levels for municipal and industrial
wastes. In some cases, the standards will permit continued heat discharges
without the use of specific controls; in other instances, cooling towers or
other cooling devices are already in operation. In still other situations,
standards will require the construction of additional cooling towers, cool-
ing ponds, or other devices designed to cool heated water. In addition, re-
30
-------
lease of cooler water from reservoirs provides another alternative method
for cooling heated water.
If it is assumed that all heated discharges are returned to their original
temperatures before use, the required investment in conventional cooling
equipment can be estimated after provision is made for existing cooling
equipment. Accordingly, an estimate of the cost of providing cooling facil-
ities to all thermal generating plants was developed, based upon recorded
net heat rates and the use of mechanical draft cooling towers. The average
reported temperature increase in cooling water of 13° F for plants account-
ing for 90% of thermal generating capacity in 1965^ ' was used as the cool-
ing standard to which conventional cost relationships were applied. A more
tentative estimate was made of cooling cost for manufacturing establishments,
necessarily more tentative because cooling problems tend to be more complex
for manufacturing establishments than for the electric-generating industry.
PLANT AND EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT
A total estimated investment of $1.8 billion (constant dollars) in cooling
equipment would be required over the next five years to return water to its
temperature before use, or $2.0 billion based upon projected construction
costs during the period. The $1.8 billion estimate is based upon a current
backlog of about $1.0 billion, an estimated $600 million to accommodate
growth and $220 million for replacement over the FY 1969-1973 period.
(Table 10.) Of this $1.8 billion outlay, an estimated $1.3 billion would be
required of the thermal power industry and about $500 million would be in-
curred 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 and, as already indicated, water quality standards
permit/ or will 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 $1.8
billion estimate.
In many cases significant improvements in thermal efficiency may be achieved.
However, such increased efficiency must at least offset the effect of the
trend toward nuclear-fueled generating plants with their lower thermal effi-
ciency.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Any increase in installed cooling equipment will be accompanied by increased
operation and maintenance costs. It is difficult to estimate operation and
31
-------
TABLE 10. ESTIMATED CAPITAL INVESTMENT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE COMPLETE
COOLING FOR POWER-GENERATION AND PROCESSING INDUSTRIES,
FY 1969-1973^
($ Millions)
2/
Constant Dollars—
Projected Value of Fiscal Year 1968
Cooling Requirement
Projected Value of Facilities
Available
Manufacturing Thermal Power Total
350
52
870
130
1200
180
Indicated Deficiency
300
740
1000
Total Investment Required in FY 1969-1973
500
1300
1800
_V Complete cooling refers to the return of heated water to its temperature before use.
2/ All values rounded to two significant figures.
32
-------
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, it is estimated that operation
and maintenance costs for water cooling would rise steadily during the next
five years - from about $79 million in FY 1969 to approximately $280 million
in FY 1973.
33
-------
OTHER EFFLUENTS
Thus far, this report has dealt with the national requirements and costs of
treating "conventional" wastes such as domestic sewage or pollutants gener-
ated by industrial processes. As these wastes come under control, the more
diffuse sources will increase in relative significance. Water quality dete-
rioration resulting from such sources as acid mine drainage, wastes from
boats and vessels, animal feedlot runoff, sediment and other products of ero-
sion and agricultural runoff, and salinity increases through irrigation will
become more noticeable. Over the long run, these sources will require a
large portion of expenditures for water pollution control. It is these non-
point sources which are referred to as "other effluents".
There necessarily will be wide variations among "other effluents" in the
time and manner in which their control will be required by the water quality
standards within the next five years. In contrast to conventional forms of
pollution for which standards require specific remedial actions within speci-
fied time periods (generally over the next five years) standards are less
specific with regard to these non-point sources. Some control measures and
associated costs to control such pollution can be expected but the content
and timing of these control measures cannot be set forth in as definite, spe-
cific a manner at this time as control plans for treating municipal and in-
dustrial pollution.
The fundamental difficulty in developing water quality standards to cover
"other effluents" is that there has been little effort to quantify the pollu-
tional effects, remedies, and control costs associated with such problems.
For these reasons, general cost estimates can be made only for a few sources
to attain a "good practice" degree of control. Here again, there is no ex-
pectation that all of these remedial costs will be incurred before the end
of FY 1973.
Some idea both of the difficulty of assessing the magnitude of "other efflu-
ents" and the large remedial costs involved are apparent from the following
illustrative cases.
WASTES FROM WATERCRAFT
Watercraft discharges contain several significant polluting agents including
sanitary wastes with an estimated population equivalent of a city of 500,000
persons. Other discharges such as oil, bilge, and ballast waters may con-
taminate waterbodies, destroy aquatic life, and discolor vessels, piers,
docks and other structures. Bilge and ballast waters also may transfer
disease-bearing organisms from a foreign country to the United States.
34
-------
A recent report to Congress^2) provides a tentative estimate of the size of
the problem and its remedial costs. The report estimates that in any given
year 110,000 commercial and fishing vessels, about 1,500 Federally owned
vessels, and about 8,000,000 recreational watercraft use the navigable wa-
ters of the United States. In addition, approximately 40,000 foreign ship
entrances in U. S. waters are recorded each year.
The study pointed out the particular difficulty involved in estimating the
costs of controlling pollution from watercraft, and cited the lack of treat-
ment and discharge standards and inadequately defined costs of treatment
equipment. It reported that the installed cost of onboard equipment for
properly handling watercraft wastes could vary from $40 to $100,000 per ves-
sel, depending on size, type, mission, and other factors. It concluded that,
based upon the number of vessels of different classes and the wide range of
equipment costs, the total cost of bringing all existing American watercraft
into compliance with impending regulations will be in the order of $600 mil-
lion.
OIL POLLUTION
The problem of water pollution from oil spills and its destructive potential
was dramatized by the Torrey Canyon disaster last March when that tanker ran
aground off the coast of England spilling into the seas the 119,000 tons of
crude oil she was carrying. Oil spills, as well as the careless or acciden-
tal release of other hazardous materials to streams or near coastal areas,
have long been of concern to water pollution authorities. Oil attaches it-
self and adheres to solid objects. The results can be serious fish kills
and harmful effects to other marine and offshore wildlife.
Oil pollution arises from many sources. Major sources include ships and
vessels, pipelines, offshore mining and service stations. Coping with these
largely accidental pollution incidents requires an extensive surveillance
program, alerting system, reaction capability, and contingency fund for
cleanup purposes.
Cleaning up an oil-contaminated area is time-consuming, difficult, and cost-
ly. The British Government, for example, reportedly is trying to recover
$8 million from the owners of the Torrey Canyon for cleanup costs. This
does not take into account the cleanup costs to local governments and pri-
vate agencies. The total direct costs of cleaning up and of preventing our
own oil pollution problems have not been estimated, but the Torrey Canyon
disaster has emphasized that an oil spill is not only deadly and unantici-
pated but also is enormously expensive. The indirect damage costs of oil
pollution - whether commercial, recreational, or aesthetic - are even more
difficult to estimate but they unquestionably are also tremendous.
35
-------
ANIMAL FEEDLOTS
The recent trend towards raising larger numbers of livestock in concentrated
areas has resulted in a growing problem of disposing of tremendous quanti-
ties of animal wastes. For example, a feedlot raising 10,000 head of cattle
produces about the same sewage disposal problem as a city with a population
of 165,000. It has been estimated that, at any given time, there are 11
million cattle on feed in feedlots and the number is expected to increase
considerably in the 1970's.
Although installation costs of feedlots vary widely, the few feedlots with
recommended treatment lagoons incurred construction costs ranging from one
to five dollars per head capacity. Thus, an operator setting up a feedlot
with a 20,000 head capacity could spend from $20,000 to $100,000 in construc-
tion of waste treatment facilities. Although considerable research is need-
ed in this area, it is known that the potential costs of controlling feedlot
pollution are high.
ACID MINE DRAINAGE
Current estimates are that over four million tons of acid-equivalents are
discharged annually into streams by active or abandoned mining operations.
When the cumulative quantity discharged becomes great enough to exceed the
natural neutralizing capacity of the waterbody, damages occur. The severity
of the damages depends upon the acidity of the affected waters and their ef-
fect upon fish, fish food organisms, and structures and equipment exposed to
the acidified water. Costs for pretreatment of water intended for municipal
or industrial supplies are also increased. It is estimated that over 4,300
miles of major streams in the U. S. are polluted significantly by acid mine
drainage.
An estimated 3.2 million acres of land are producing acid drainage as a re-
sult of surface mining activities and erosion. In addition, subsurface min-
ing contributes large acid volumes. The extension of acid drainage is con-
tinuing at an estimated 150,000 acres per year, with the rate increasing as
a larger population and a larger per-capita output of goods increases demand
for materials obtained from mining operations.
Estimates vary widely of the cost of controlling acid mine drainage from
both active and abandoned mines. However, there seems little doubt that the
eventual cost of cleaning up the problem will involve several billion dol-
lars.
OTHER NON-POINT SOURCES
Although proven methods are available to deal with some "other effluent"
problems, and cost assessments may be made on the basis of these methods,
36
-------
many serious sources of pollution still lie outside the boundaries of cur-
rent knowledge. A prime example is sedimentation - the transport of earth
by water that occurs as a result of winds, bank-caving, construction, agri-
cultural practices, and other natural and man-made causes. Silting and dis-
coloring of streams by sediments is a major problem but sedimentation also
promotes other pollution by acting as a vehicle to transmit to watercourses
such pollutants as pesticides, nutrients, and bacteria as well as decompos-
able organics and natural toxicants. Solutions to the problem lie in the
whole pattern of land use activities required to fix soils in place. The
U. S. Department of Agriculture and other agencies currently spend about
$200 million a year in programs designed for soil conservation practices;
about 80% of these funds are used to combat agricultural sedimentation and
the remainder is expended on urban sedimentation problems. USDA officials
consider current expenditures sufficient to control only a portion of the
problem and are convinced that considerable research efforts should be de-
voted to quantifying the problem and its remedial costs.
Pesticide control prospects seem to rest largely with stringent regulation
of application practices. With accelerated research we may, in time, expect
a remedy in the form of degradable toxins that break down readily in water,
or in the development of specific pesticides which do not produce harmful
effects in man. Costs of control procedures are not assessable, however, at
present.
Excessive salinity in fresh water is another difficult non-point source
problem. The problem occurs largely in the drier, water-scarce areas which
utilize large quantities of water for irrigation. In humid zones, surface
water salinity generally is low because soils have been leached by abundant
rainfall. In more arid zones, where irrigation is necessary, soils contain
larger amounts of salts and surface waters have relatively high salt concen-
tration. Improvement or control of soluble salt concentrations in river wa-
ter uses requires changes either of the salt sources or the inflow or out-
flow of salt-free water. Some possible solutions include inter-basin move-
ment of water, increasing precipitation by weather modification, or removal
of the salt directly. Accordingly, the Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the California Department of
Water Resources are conducting a joint pilot study involving the removal of
pollutants from irrigation return flows. In addition, FWPCA and the Bureau
of Reclamation are making extensive studies of possible salinity control
methods in the Colorado River Basin. As in the case of other non-point pol-
lution problems, the eventual remedial costs cannot be estimated now but it
ig recognized that they will be very high.
Nutrient enrichment, which accelerates growth of aquatic biota, and ulti-
mately modifies the entire ecological system of a lake or other waterbody,
is a pollution problem of growing seriousness and prevalence. Lake Erie's
degradation is a notable example of changes that occur from nutrient enrich-
ment. The obvious control approach involves limiting the amount of nutri-
37
-------
ents discharged to the water. Conventional waste treatment methods admit-,
tedly are uncertain and inefficient but more advanced methods are rapidly
being developed. Other control techniques to be considered include prevent-
ing runoff from fertilized fields, replacing phosphate-based detergents, and
removing nutrients from waterbodies by such methods as dredging, flushing,
and harvesting growths. Considerable private and public research efforts
will be needed to solve this problem.
Efforts will be made in these future annual assessments to quantify the ex-
tent of these problems and the remedial costs which will be required. At
some time, through continued research and development, it is hoped that the
capacity will be developed to deal effectively with these difficult, complex
and important pollution problems.
38
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Steps Toward Clean Water, "Sewage Treatment Needs of the 100 Largest
Cities in the United States - Present Needs and Future Needs Through
1972", Report to the U. S. Senate Committee on Public Works, Washing-
ton, D. C., January 1966.
2. "Sixth Annual Survey of Municipal Waste Treatment Needs by Conference
of State Sanitary Engineers", Federal Water Pollution Control Admini-
stration, Public Health Service, Washington, D. C., January 1966.
3. Regional Construction Requirements' for Water and Wastewater Facili-
ties^ - 1955-^1967-1980, Business and Defense Services Administration,
U. S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C., October 1967.
4. Statistical Summary of_ 1962 Inventory - Municipa^Wasrte Facilities in^
the United States, Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control,
Public Health Service, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Wel-
fare, Washington, D. C., 1964.
5. 1963 Census of Manufactures, "Water Use in Manufacturing", Bureau of
the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C. November
1966.
6. Modern Sewage Treatment Plants - How Much Do They Cost?, Division of
Water Supply and Pollution Control, Public Health Service, U. S. De-
partment of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D. C., 1964.
7. The Cost of Clean Water, "Industrial Waste Profiles 1-10", Volume
III, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Department of
the Interior, Washington, D. C., January 1968.
8. "The Nation's water Resources - The 1967 National Assessment", Water
Resources Council, Washington, D. C., 1968.
9. Fair, G. M. and J. C. Geyer, Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal,
John Wiley S Sons, Inc., Fifth Printing, New York, N. Y., April 1963.
10. Manpower and Training Needs in Water Pollution Control, Report to
Congress by Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U. S. De-
partment of the Interior, Senate Document No. 49, 90th Congress, 1st
Session, Washington, D. C., August 2, 1967.
11. "Steam-Electric Plant Construction Cost and Annual Production Ex-
penses", Federal Power Commission, Washington, D. C., 1965.
12. Wastes^rrpmWatercraft, Report to Congress by Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration, U. S. Department of the Interior, Senate Doc-
ument No. 48, 90th Congress, 1st Session, Washington, D. C. June 30,
1967.
39
U. S. GOVEHNMENT PBINTING OFFICE : 1988 O - 28»-56i
------- |