U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
                                 VOLUME II
                            DETAILED ANALYSES

-------
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  II

                                 Detailed  Analyses
                        U.  S. Department  of the  Interior
                Federal  Water Pollution  Control Administration
                                 January 10, 1968
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.50

-------
                              UNITED STATES
                    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                         OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
                            WASHINGTON. D.C.  20240
                                             MAR 1 3 1368
Dear Mr.  President:

This transmits Volume II of 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 treatment  facilities; and the third, a study of
which Volume II is a part, of the national requirements for and the cost of
treating municipal, industrial, and other  effluent to attain water quality
standards established pursuant 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.

Volume If a summary of the major findings  and conclusions  reached in the
study, was transmitted to the Congress  on  January 10, 1968. Volume III,
Industrial Waste Profiles, a description of the source  and quantity of pol-
lutants produced by each of ten industries, has also been  transmitted.

This report (Volume II) is a detailed analysis supporting  the  major  findings
and conclusions reported in Volume I of what, in our view, is  the most  ambi-
tious cost analysis on this subject yet undertaken.   Volume IV, State and
Major River Basin Municipal Tables will follow shortly.

As I have indicated, the attached study is one of several  related studies
mandated by the Congress by Section 16(a). The studies of the economic im-
pact on affected units of government and the  cost of carrying  out the Act
were transmitted to the Congress on March  7,  1968, in company  with a study
of possible methods for providing incentives  designed to  assist in the  con-
struction by industry of water pollution control facilities.   The incentives

-------
study was authorized by Section 18 of the Act.  Together/ these studies
represent a major step toward improving our understanding of the costs and
related economic problems of water pollution control*
                                      Sincerely yours,
                                      Secretary 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 Volume II of 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 treatment facilities; and  the  third,  a study of
which Volume II is a part, of the national requirements for and  the cost of
treating municipal, industrial, and other  effluent to attain water quality
standards established pursuant 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.

Volume I, a summary of the major findings  and conclusions reached in the
study, was transmitted to the Congress on  January 10, 1968. Volume III,
Industrial Waste Profiles, a description of the  source  and  quantity of pol-
lutants produced by each of ten industries, has  also been transmitted.

This report  (Volume II)  is a detailed analysis supporting the  major findings
and conclusions reported in Volume I of what, in our view,  is  the most ambi-
tious cost analysis on this subject yet undertaken.  Volume IV,  State and
Major River Basin Municipal Tables will follow shortly.

As I have indicated, the attached study is one of several related studies
mandated by the Congress by Section 16(a). The  studies of  the economic im-
pact on affected units of government and the  cost of carrying  out the Act
were transmitted to the Congress on March  7,  1968, in company  with a study
of possible methods for providing incentives  designed to assist  in the con-
struction by industry of water pollution control facilities.   The incentives

-------
study was authorized by Section 18 of the Act.   Together,  these studies
represent a major step toward improving our understanding  of the costs and
related economic problems of water pollution control.
                                      Sincerely yours
                                      Secretary of the Interior
Hon. John W. McCormack
Speaker of the House of
  Representatives
Washington, D. C.   20515

Enclosure

-------
                                   PREFACE
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Section 16(a)) directs the Secretary
of the Interior to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the national require-
ments for, and the cost of, treating municipal, industrial, and other waste-
water effluents 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 there are no firm estimates of the
national costs of achieving satisfactory water pollution abatement levels.
However, there is widespread agreement that water pollution is a significant
and growing national problem that must be solved.  Over the past two years,
estimates of municipal requirements and the costs involved have been made by
the U. S. Senate Committee on Public Works, the Conference of State Sanitary
Engineers, and the Business and Defense Services Administration of the De-
partment of Commerce.  These prior estimates have been based, at least in
part, on different facility requirements, more extended time projections, di-
verse cost criteria, and dissimilar geographical coverage.  Thus, while these
estimates have been informative, they have not been sufficiently comprehen-
sive to serve as a basis for determining national requirements and cost of
attaining water quality standards.

Even more varied estimates of the industrial waste treatment costs have come
from still other sources.  While these studies too have contributed useful
information, they have not provided a generally acceptable estimate of the
national costs of industrial water pollution control.

It is generally recognized that effluents other than from municipal and in-
dustrial sources also have a tremendous influence on the total problem of wa-
ter pollution control, but here again no satisfactory overall estimate has
been made of what it will cost to control'them.  Because of the great diver-
sity of these other effluents, calculating such costs is immensely complicat-
ed.

The present study initiates 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 definitive estimate of re-
quired costs, the present study is believed to be the most comprehensive cost
estimate ever developed, as well as a sound base of information upon which to
build future analyses.

This is the Detailed Analyses of the national requirements and costs of water
pollution control (Volume II).  A summary (Volume I)  of the major findings
and conclusions was transmitted to the Congress on January 10, 1968.  Further
                                     vii

-------
detailed information to support the findings and conclusions is contained in
two additional volumes.  Volume III (Industrial Waste Profiles) consists of
10 studies of major water-using industries which describe the costs and ef-
fectiveness of alternative methods of reducing industrial wastes.  Volume IV
(State and Major River Basin Municipal Tables) contains a tabular breakdown
of municipal treatment works and sanitary sewer construction costs and the
operation and maintenance costs of treatment works for each of the 50 States
and the Nation's major river basins as described by the Water Resources Coun-
cil.
                                                   Commissioner
                                 Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
                                    viii

-------
                             TABLE  OF CONTENTS
                                                                    Page
Part I    -  Municipal Requirements and Cost
               Estimates                                              xi

               Table of Contents                                    xiii
               List of Tables                                         xiv
               List of Figures                                        xv
               Introduction                                             1
               Bibliography                                           44
Part II   -  Industrial Requirements and Cost
               Estimates                                               49

               Table of Contents                                       51
               List of Tables                                          53
               List of Figures                                         56
               Introduction                                            57
               Bibliography                                           153
Part III  -  Other Effluent Requirements and
               Cost Estimates                                         165

               Table of Contents                                      167
               List of Tables                                         170
               Introduction                                           17 3
               Bibliography                                           242
                                    ix

-------
            MUNICIPAL REQUIREMENTS

              AND COST ESTIMATES
                   Volume II

                    Part I
       U. S. Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control  Administration
               January 10, 1968

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                 Part I
                                                                   Page


Introduction                                                         1

Assumptions of the Study                                             3

Cost Methodology                                                     8

Municipal Waste Treatment Construction Costs
  For 1969-1973                                                     12

Operation and Maintenance Costs of Municipal
  Waste Treatment Plants                                            19

Combined Sewers                                                     26

  Partial or Complete Separation                                    26
  Holding Tanks                                                     30

Separate Sanitary Sewers                                            35

Industrial Discharge to Public Sewers                               39

Summary                                                             43

Appendix I

  Bibliography                                                      44
                                  xiii

-------
                              LIST OF TABLES
                                  Part I
Table                              Title                             Page
 I-l      U. S. Population and Industry Served By Existing
          Municipal Facilities and Estimated Annual Require-
          ments and Capital Outlays, Fiscal Years 1969-1973.           6

 1-2      Sewage Treatment Works Construction Per Capita
          Costs (Total Plant, Interceptors and Outfalls).              9

 I-3A     Capital Outlays Needed to Obtain Adequate Municipal
          Waste Treatment For The U. S. Urban Population,
          1969-1973.  (States)                                        13

 I-3B     Capital Outlays Needed to Obtain Adequate Municipal
          Waste Treatment For the U. S. Urban Population,
          1969-1973.  (Water Resource Regions)                        14

 1-4      Urban Population Served By Adequate and Less Than
          Adequate Municipal Waste Treatment Facilities and
          Urban Population Not Served, By State:  FY 1968.            16

 1-5      Operation and Maintenance Costs of Existing Munici-
          pal Treatment Facilities and Estimated Operation
          and Maintenance Costs, Projected Facilities, 1969-
          1973.                                                       20

 1-6      Annual Sewage Treatment Plant Operation and Mainte-
          nance Per Capita Costs.                                     23

 1-7      Relative Efficiencies of Sewage-Treatment Oper-
          ations and Processes.                                       25

 1-8      Reported Cost of Separation By Region.                      29

 1-9      Estimated Cost of Separation of Combined Sewers
          and The Alternative of Holding Tanks.                       31

 I-10A    Capital Outlays Needed For Construction of Sani-
          tary Sewers For the U. S. Urban Population, 1969-
          1973.  (States)                                             37
                                    xiv

-------
Table
Title
 Page
 I-10B    Capital Outlays Needed For Construction of Sani-
          tary Sewers For the U. S. Urban Population, 1969-
          1973.   (Water Resource Regions)

 1-11     Industrial Water Discharged To Public Sewers Pro-
          jected For 1968 and 1973, By Water Resource Re-
          gion.
                                   38
                                   41
                               LIST  OF FIGURES

                                  Part I
Figure
Title
Page
  I-l      Five-Year Capital Outlays Required to Obtain
           Adequate Municipal Waste Treatment for the U. S.
           Urban Population (1969-1973).

  1-2      Water Resource Regions Proposed By Water Resource
           Council for Type I Comprehensive Surveys.

  1-3      Municipal Waste Treatment Facilities Operation
           and Maintenance Costs.
                                   15
                                  22
                                    xv

-------
                                INTRODUCTION
Part I of Volume II sets forth the requirements for, and the cost of, treat-
ing municipal waste effluents to attain water quality standards during Fiscal
Years 1969-1973, by State and Water Resource Region.  The  five-year period
projected parallels that set as a national goal for achieving compliance with
water quality standards.  The Part I estimates include the requirements and
costs of controlling water pollution emanating from unsewered urban popula-
tions and from combined sewer overflows, since these, too,  are related to the
total problem.  Assuming that waste treatment works construction needed to
attain water quality standards occurs as projected to 1973, operation and
maintenance costs will increase considerably.  Estimates of these costs are
also included for each State and Water Resource Region.

A number of assessments of waste treatment needs nationally have been made in
recent years.  They vary as to cost criteria, years projected, geographical
coverage, and type of facilities considered.

A report to the Committee on Public Works, U. S. Senate, showed present and
additional needs through 1972 as amounting to $3.9 billion.  The population
covered was approximately 48 million.  The facilities included were treatment
plants, interceptor sewers and, for some cities, sanitary  sewers and control
of combined sewer overflows.

Another report by the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers estimated the
cost of eliminating the backlog for waste treatment facilities as $2.6 bil-
lion.  When provision is made for population growth and obsolescence, the to-
tal need is estimated by CSSE to require an average annual expenditure of
$961 million through 1972 or $6.7 billion over the seven-year period  (1966-
1972).2

A third study provides historical data of construction put in place in actual
dollars from 1955 through 1966, and a projection of requirements from 1967
through 1980, in constant 1966 dollars.  This report estimates that an ex-
penditure of $3.7 billion will be needed by 1980 to eliminate the deficien-
cies in waste treatment facilities.  Further, it estimates that the total
volume of construction needed to offset obsolescence and depreciation for the
  "Sewage Tnnatrnznt Weed* ojj the.  100 Longest  Cities Ln ttie. Unitzd States
          Neecfi and TutuAe, Weecii Through  1972," Step* Towasid Clean
         to the. Committee, on Pufa&tc WoJikA, Un&

    -------
    14-year period would amount to approximately $4.3 billion.  Population
    growth during the period would require the expenditure of an additional $6.4
    billion.  This is an estimated expenditure of $14.4 billion for wastewater
    utilities by 1980.  These cost estimates are for treatment plants only and
    do not include the cost of interceptor sewers.
    
    This report has estimated the costs of providing waste treatment to the to-
    tal urban population of the U. S. by 1973 (162.6 million) at appropriate
    treatment levels to comply with water quality standards.  In order to meet
    the standards by 1973, it is estimated that 90% of the urban population will
    require secondary treatment facilities and 10% primary treatment facilities.
    The urban population in 1973 will be 75% of the total U. S. population.  Cur-
    rently, only 55% of the urban population is served by adequate waste treat-
    ment facilities.
    
    This study of the national municipal sewage treatment plant requirements is
    based on the 1962 Inventory of Municipal Waste Treatment Facilities,4 updated
    to January 1, 1967, by reference to the FWPCA records of Federal grants for
    sewage treatment works.  An estimated 60% (by total dollar value) of munici-
    pal sewage treatment works construction from 1962 to 1967, received Federal.
    grants.  Large metropolitan treatment works constructed without Federal funds
    were also included.  This procedure was employed in lieu of a completely new
    Inventory which would have required extensive work by the State water pollu-
    tion control agencies at a time when they were under prior heavy demands to
    develop water quality standards for interstate waters.
    3
      "Regionat Con&&iuction Reqattemen^A fan WateA and
      J955 - 1967 - 1980," U. S. Dzpamtmewt otf Commence, Bui-ateA* and
               Mmini&tMuUon, October 1967.
             Amfoew C. and Kenneth. H. Je.nkin&, Statistical Swmcuiy o& 7962
                Municipal. Wa&te. FaacfcctcfcA .in the. United States, p4.epaA.fcd bj
      the, VivJAJjon ojj Water. SuppJLy and Pollution Con&ial, U. 5. Ve,pafubne.n£
      ojj Health., Education and Negate, Pubtic HzaJtth SeAutce, U. S. Govern
      ment Planting OjJ^ce, Wa&kington, V. C., 1964.
    

    -------
                              ASSUMPTIONS OF THE STUDY
    It was necessary to make a number of assumptions and to develop a methodology
    to assess the State and Water Resource Region needs for and costs of munici-
    pal waste treatment.  The assumptions and the reasons therefore, are explain-
    ed as follows:
    
        (1)  Adequate treatment to attain water quality standards is re-
             quired for the total urban population of the United States.
             The total waste treatment service provided to the U. S. pop-
             ulation as shown in the 1962 Inventory of Municipal Waste
             Treatment Facilities (the latest complete inventory) and
             the needs in facilities construction for untreated wastes
             reported by the 1962 Annual Survey of Municipal Waste
             Treatment Needs closely approximate the total urban popula-
             tion in that year.
    
             The Bureau of the Census defines urbanized areas in part as,
             "... incorporated places with 2,500 inhabitants or more, in-
             corporated places with less than 2,500 inhabitants, provided
             each has a closely settled area of 100 dwelling units or
             more, unincorporated territory with a population density of
             1,000 inhabitants or more per square mile..."5  An unincor-
             porated community with a population density of less than
             1,000 inhabitants per square acre would normally be unable
             to finance a community waste treatment works unless it be-
             came a part of a special district.  Incorporated places of
             less than 100 dwelling units would not generally exceed a
             population of approximately 400 persons based on the Census
             average of 3.3 persons per dwelling unit.  Such communities
             would tend not to have the financing capability to construct
             a waste treatment works.  Therefore, non-urban or rural com-
             munities are not considered for the purposes of this study
             to have significant requirements in terms of overall cost
             requirements.
    
             This study has estimated urban population in the U. S. in
             1968 as 146 million, with the total U. S. population amount-
             ing to 200 million.  The 54 million persons residing in ru-
             ral areas were .considered as administratively or economical-
             ly incapable of constructing waste treatment works solely
             within their own community for purposes of these estimates.
      "United State* Summony - Wumfae/i orf Inhabitants," U. S. Cmua o$ Popula-
      tion:  I960, U. S. PepoA#nen£ otf Commence, Bureau ofi Vie. Census, U. 5.
                 Printing 0tf£ece, WaAhinQton, V. C., 1961.
    

    -------
    (2)   Adequate  treatment  is  defined  as  at  least secondary  type of
         waste  treatment,  except  for  those areas where primary waste
         treatment has been  or  is likely to be  approved as  conforming
         to water  quality  standards.
         To estimate  the costs  of carrying out  waste  treatment re-
         quirements embodied in standards  still being negotiated, it
         was necessary to  assume  a given level  of treatment as gener-
         ally representative of that  contained  in the standards.  It
         was assumed  that  a  conventional secondary treatment  level
         (at least 85% effective  removal of five-day  biochemical oxy-
         gen demand for domestic  sewage) would  prevail for  treating
         municipal wastes  with  some exceptions  as described later.
         This conforms with  the policy  reflected in the Federal Water
         Pollution Control Administration's "Guidelines for Establish-
         ing WATER QUALITY STANDARDS  for Interstate Waters" issued in
         May 1966.  Guideline No. 8 reads:
    
             No standard  will  be approved which allows any
             wastes  amenable to  treatment or control to be
             discharged into any interstate  water without
             treatment or control regardless of the  water
             quality criteria  and water use  or uses  adopt-
             ed.  Further,  no  standard will  be approved
             which does not require  all wastes, prior to
             discharge into any  interstate water, to re-
             ceive 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 commen-
             surate  with  proposed present and  future water
             uses.
    
         Lending validity  to this assumption  was the  provision in
         all the 10 states whose  standards were approved as of Decem-
         ber 1, 1967, for  secondary treatment for all discharges to
         fresh water. Nevertheless,  the basic  assumption of  second-
         ary treatment of  municipal wastes was  made in full recogni-
         tion that in some states primary  treatment may be  adequate
         and in others secondary  treatment may  be inadequate  during
         the period FY 1969-1973.
    
         Cost estimates presented here  are adjusted to reflect stand-
         ards 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  signifi-
         cantly.
    

    -------
        Some areas may find it necessary to provide treatment ex-
        ceeding or supplementing the secondary level.  For  example,
        treatment for phosphate removal may be required at  some  fa-
        cilities in the Lake Erie sub-basin and in New Jersey ter-
        tiary waste treatment of municipal effluent may be  required
        where shellfish contamination has occurred.  In New Jersey,
        this could take the form of treatment by stabilization
        ponds after secondary treatment or possibly advanced waste
        treatment.  However, it has not been possible, at this time,
        to estimate the cost increases which would attend such
        treatment.
    
    (3)  Municipal waste treatment essential for the standards will
        be attained nationally by the end of FY 1973.
        Table 1-1 shows the cost of projected needs phased  propor-
        tionately over the five-year period, FY 1969-1973.  This is
        consistent with implementation plans of most state  standards
        approved or approaching approval.  The procedure is also
        useful to illustrate annual increments, to estimate annual
        depreciation and  annual construction cost increases, and to
        obtain associated operation and maintenance cost estimates.
        It is recognized  that, as a practical matter, achievement of
        the 1969-1973 goals will not occur at a fixed rate. There
        are lags from the time Federal construction grants  are ap-
        proved until construction is actually in place and  financing
        the estimated level of construction may present difficulties.
    

    -------
                                                                             TABLE 1-1
    
                                        U. S. POPULATION AND INDUSTRY SERVED BY EXISTING MUNICIPAL FACILITIES AND ESTIMATED
                                                  ANNUAL REQUIREMENTS AND CAPITAL OUTLAYS, FISCAL YEARS 1969-1973
                            Municipal Service
                                        1968
                                                                                                            Projected Years
                                                                                      1969
                                                                   1970
                                                                                                                  197T
    .1
    1972
    1973
                                                                                                                                                        Total
                                                                                                                                                      1969-1973
    Adequate treatment demand byi
      Urban population of U. S.  (thousands) 	   145,602      148,661       151,640       155,252       158,693       162,555
      Industrial discharge to public sewers (bil. gal.) 	   1,338.5      1,386.3       1,437.0       1,490.3       1,550.1       1,612.2
    
    Smmary of need for adequate treatment i
      Urban population, total (thousands)  	   145,6021
        With adequate treatment  	    81,703
        Less than adequate treatment	    31,865
        Mo treatment	    32,293
      Projected needs, total  (thousands) 	                 16,222        16,222        16,222        16,222        16,222     81,110
        Upgrading of treatment 	                  6,373         6,373         6,373         6,373         6,373     31,865
        Constructing facilities  for untreated wastes	                  6,459         6,459         6,459         6,459         6,459     32,293
        Increases in urban population	                  3,390         3,390         3,390         3,390         3,390     16.950
    
    Industrial discharge to public sewers, total (bil. gal.) 	   1,336.5
      With adequate municipal treatment  	     826.2
      Less than adequate municipal treatment	     512.3
    Projected needs, total (bil. gal.) 	                  150.3         153.2         155.8         162.3         164.6      766.0
      Upgrading of treatment	                  102.5         102.5         102.S         102.5         102.5      512.3
      Increases to public .ewers 	                   47.8          50.7          53.3          59.8          62.1      273.7
    
    Investment and capital outlays needed  (mil. dol.):
      Investment in place, total (mil. dol.) 	  $5,714.8     $7,066.5      $8,418.2      $9,769.9     $11,121.6     $12,473.3
        Adequate treatment	   4,148.2      5,813.2       7,478.2       9,143.2      10,808.2      12,473.3
        Less than adequate treatment 	   1,566.6      1,253.3         940.0         626.7         313.4
      Capital outlay* needed, total (mil.  dol.) 	                1,517.7       1,558.2       1,598.8       1,639.4       1,679.9   $7,994.0
        Upgrading less than adequate facilities	                  373.7         373.7         373.7         373.7         373.7    1,868.5
        Constructing facilities  for untreated wastes	                  541.5         541.5         541.5         541.5         541.5    2,707.5
        increases, population and industry2	                  436.5         436.5         436.5         436.5         436.5    2,182.5
        Allowances for depreciation	                  166.0         206.5         247.1         287.7         328.2    1,235.5
    ' Subtotal* exceed -the total bu 259,000 pe*4onA located in. e>t\»tnaJL ttatu whe/ie the. population teAved by treatment woxki exceed* the  unban population.
    2 Include* CjonttAuatijon 004*4 \on. additional capacity  fa*. fc.ve ytaM oi population, gwwth Jut tach ttote. beyond the. /969-I973 peAtod o< the. csu>t utunate.
      o  nitdt.
    Notes  Tne co4< orf municipal tootle. t/uaXment conttHuatLon wonkt wot phated proportionately ovvi the.  „.._ „...
           men£4 and to 4 five 04 a batit  jot estimating annual deprecation  and incAtuu in  conttnuction  cattA.
                         >6 at4oci&te.d operation and maintenance.
                                                                                 peAiod to illuttftate. pottible. annual
                                                                                 Thit p-tocedu/ie tww alto tue^ul (,01
    Sou*ce»  Bated on 1962 Tnu
              ?963 Cen4at oj
    oj Hun4.cJ.pal Watte, fazilitiu, updated; Cen4u4 o^ Popadatton,
                Itoe -en Manu^aetu/u>tg"; Fft/PCA ConitAuation Gxanit.
                                                                                                    I960;  Bu/ieau o&  Cwuu4  Population Utunatu,  $e*iu  P-25;
    

    -------
                                  FIGURE 1-1
        FIVE YEAR CAPITAL OUTLAYS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN ADEQUATE MUNICIPAL
           WASTE TREATMENT FOR THE U.S. URBAN POPULATION (1969-1973)
           UPGRADING LESS
           THAN ADEQUATE
              FACILITIES
    (FOR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS)
                                    CONSTRUCTING
                                    FACILITIES  FOR
                                  UNTREATED WASTES
                                                       16%
    
                                                   REPLACEMENT
     INCREASES IN
    POPULATION AND
       INDUSTRY
                             TOTAL $8.0 BILLION
    

    -------
                                  COST METHODOLOGY
    Estimates of construction costs are based on total costs eligible for Federal
    grants assistance.  These are costs incurred in new sewage treatment works
    construction or additions, extensions, alterations, acquisitions, and improve-
    ments to, by, or of existing treatment works; costs for necessary intercep-
    ting sewers, outfall sewers, pumping, power, and other equipment; costs for
    preliminary planning and such other actions necessary to sewage treatment
    construction such as engineering, legal and fiscal investigations, studies
    and designs, including the supervision and inspection of construction.
    
    Costs may be incurred in waste treatment construction which are ineligible
    for inclusion in the total project cost upon which Federal aid is based.
    Such costs may pose a considerable burden upon the community, particularly in
    large metropolitan areas where land is costly.  Items ineligible for FWPCA
    construction grants include land acquisition (for treatment plant site), sew-
    age collection systems or any part thereof  (intercepting and outfall sewers
    are not considered to be part of the collection system), and any work not in-
    cluded in the project as approved by the Department of the Interior.
    
    When it is not possible to isolate treatment works from homes and businesses,
    the project cost is increased by the need to landscape, beautify, and even
    condemn or relocate public and private structures.  New streets, viaducts and
    acquisition of rights-of-way add to the ineligible costs.  The extent of such
    landscaping, beautification and relocation by a community depends upon its
    financial capability, esthetic needs, and opportunities to shift or delay at-
    tendant costs.
    
    In this study, municipal waste treatment capital costs are based upon per
    capita costs for activated sludge-type plants.  The costs of trickling filter
    treatment works constructed under the PL-660 program approximate those for
    activated sludge construction.  Another secondary type of waste treatment,
    stabilization ponds, has much lower construction costs.  However, in terms of
    percentage of population served, only a few states show significant trends
    toward stabilization ponds.  The per capita costs used to calculate total
    costs of providing waste treatment service are based upon design and cost in-
    formation for treatment works constructed under the PL-660 Federal construc-
    tion grants program (Table 1-2).  Projects representing all sections of the
    Nation are included.
    
    Since a mean of the per capita costs of all projects was used to calculate
    total costs of needed treatment works, the costs for sections of the Nation
    may be over or underestimated.  For example, there are indications that treat-
    ment works projects in the northeast have higher estimated per capita costs
    than those of some other regions.  The FWPCA Northeast Regional Office has
    submitted some State estimates (New York, New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine)
                                          8
    

    -------
                                   TABLE 1-2
    
            SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS CONSTRUCTION PER  CAPITA COSTS1
                   (TOTAL  PLANT, INTERCEPTORS AND OUTFALLS)
    
                                (1968 dollars)
    Design Population
    
    0 - 999 	
    1,000 - 4,999 .....
    5,000 - 9,999 	
    10,000 - 24,999 	
    25,000 - 49,999 	
    50,000 - 99,999 	
    100,000 and up 	
    
    Primary Types
    of Treatment
    $148
    96
    68
    54
    43
    35
    30
    
    Secondary Types of
    Treatment
    Activated Stabillza-
    Sludge tion Ponds*
    $175 $85
    117 57
    86 29
    69 14
    56
    45
    40
    
    ' Poe& not include, land
    Z /,„;/„*„, yjtt State*:  Wat/t/i Canotcna,, South CaSLotLna,
      Alabama, Kan&a&,  Washington.
    
    Source •*  Baaed upon the, design and actu/ai  co*t j.nfio'uncuti.on o£
                    tt&atmejnt p/u>/ec£4 c.on&ttiu.cte.d und&i PL 84-660.
    

    -------
    that are two to three times the estimates developed by the Cost Estimate Study
    here reported.
    
    Future annual Cost Estimate Studies must evaluate these differences.  The
    higher costs may be attributable to several factors - inclusion of ineligible
    costs, joint municipal-industrial projects in which the industrial discharges
    predominate, projects planned primarily for storm water overflow, or projects
    which include trunk and collecting sewers, thus exceeding the typical treat-
    ment piant-interceptor cost ratio of approximately 55% to 45%.
    
    Sewage treatment plants are normally designed for sufficient capacity to ac-
    commodate additional quantities of sewage resulting from population and in-
    dustrial growth.  According to Fair and Geyer6 many factors are considered in
    deciding upon a period of design.  Among these factors are obsolescence and
    depreciation, influence of a location upon plant expansion, anticipated
    growth rate of population and industry, interest rate to be paid on bonded
    indebtedness, future construction cost changes, and the performance of the
    works during early years when operated below capacity.  Water quality stand-
    ards compliance will be a major consideration in future sewage treatment
    plant designs.  Fair and Geyer have noted that when growth and interest rates
    are high, the design periods for treatment works may amount to 10-15 years.
    Because of the many variables involved in arriving at average excess treat-
    ment plant capacity included in plant designs and the unavailability of cur-
    rent excess capacity data, this analysis is based conservatively on a minimum
    plant design period for growth of five years and a maximum of 10 years.
    Therefore, projected construction of waste treatment plants in the period
    1969-1973 would be assumed to include the cost of additional capacity for pop-
    ulation growth estimated to occur by 1978 or an average of 7-1/2 years excess
    capacity for population growth.
    
    The cost of upgrading primary treatment plants to secondary treatment was de-
    termined by applying per capita costs for upgrading to the population served
    by present primary waste treatment plants in each State.  The per capita
    costs were derived from actual costs for such projects contained in Federal
    construction grant records correlated with design populations.
    
    The cost of constructing facilities for untreated wastes was obtained by pro-
    jecting the urban population of each State to 1968 by population size range.
    The total population served by primary and secondary treatment works, in each
    population size range, in each State, was compared to the total projected ur-
    ban population in each size range.  The population difference was considered
    as lacking any type of waste treatment, and the need defined accordingly.
      Fact, Gordon M. and John C. GzyeA., Wcut&i Supply and
      John MZty 6 Son&, Inc., Wew Vo*k, Nw) Yolk, tvpuJL 7963.
                                         10
    

    -------
    This population was classified according to size range for the purpose of ap-
    plying appropriate per capita costs of constructing secondary waste treatment
    works.  These costs in 1968 were totaled for each State.  The per capita
    costs of constructing secondary waste treatment works were derived from ac-
    tual costs of such projects contained in Federal construction grant records
    correlated with design populations.
    
    The cost of providing secondary waste treatment works for urban population
    growth and increase in industrial discharges to public sewers was obtained
    by projecting urban population growth in each State by population size range
    from 1968 to 1973.  Per capita costs of constructing secondary waste treat-
    ment works for each population size range were applied to the projected popu-
    lations and total cost was computed for each State.
    
    Allowances for depreciation were obtained by using an estimated annual depre-
    ciation rate of 3% of accumulated invested capital.  The assumption is that
    waste treatment plants have an average effective life of 25 years and inter-
    ceptor and outfall sewers, 50 years.  Annual replacement needs then would be
    4% for the plants and 2% for the interceptor and outfall sewers.  Therefore,
    an average annual rate of 3% was used for calculating depreciation based on
    the total cost of waste treatment works averaging 55% plant and 45% intercep-
    tors and outfalls, according to Federal construction grant records.
    
    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
    state-wide and national in scope.
    
    The total costs by State and Water Resource Region are expressed in both
    "constant" and "current" dollars.  Constant 1968 dollars were obtained by
    using July 1967, the beginning of FY 1968, as the base.  Current dollars
    were obtained by multiplying the 1968 constant dollar estimates for each
    year of the FY 1969-1973 period by cost indexes projected for these years.
                                         11
    

    -------
             MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR 1969-1973
    On the basis of the assumptions and methodology described, waste treatment
    works construction to attain water quality standards in the five-year period,
    1969-1973, will require the expenditure of an estimated $8.0 billion in con-
    stant 1968 dollars.  Increasing construction costs during the period could
    expand the total national cost to $8.7 billion.  It is estimated that sewage
    treatment plant construction costs will increase about 3.3% annually during
    this period.
    
    The urban population of the U. S. is estimated as 146 million in FY 1968, in-
    creasing to approximately 163 million by 1973 and 188 million by 1978.  Thus,
    17 million more people will become urban area residents within these next
    five years and an additional 25 million by 1978.  If these increases follow
    the same pattern of urbanization, by size of community, that took place in
    the decade, 1950-1960, capital outlays of about $2.2 billion will be needed
    for adequate waste treatment facilities in the period 1969-1973.  These out-
    lays would provide additional capacity for population growth expected to oc-
    cur by 1978.  (Tables 1-3 and 1-4.)
    
    Primary facilities serve 43 million persons or 30% of the Nation's 1968 urban
    population.  Facilities serving 32 million of this population must be upgrad-
    ed to secondary waste treatment.  Such upgrading will require, in the five-
    year period, approximately $1.9 billion.  (Tables 1-3 and 1-4.)
    
    Adequate waste treatment facilities will need to be constructed to serve the
    country's 32 million urban area residents that at present have no waste treat-
    ment facilities.  Providing adequate treatment facilities for these 32 million
    persons in the 1969-1973 period will require capital outlays of about $2.7
    billion.  (Tables 1-3 and 1-4.)
    
    Depreciation of plant and equipment is a continuing expense.  During this
    five years, it will amount to $1.2 billion, assuming the schedule of construc-
    tion for providing for urban population increases, upgrading of facilities
    and construction of facilities for untreated wastes is systematically follow-
    ed in the five-year period.  (Table 1-3.)
    
    In summary, to provide for population growth, upgrade primary treatment works,
    construct works for urban populations presently unserved, and replace depreci-
    ated plant and equipment, will cost an estimated $8.0 billion during the peri-
    od 1969-1973.  Construction cost increases could raise this estimate to $8.7
    billion.
    
    The 10 highest ranking States in capital outlay required to attain adequate
    waste treatment by 1973 are, in order:  New York - $963.6 million, Califor-
    nia - $645.2 million, Michigan - $535.8 million. New Jersey - $505.0 million,
                                         12
    

    -------
                                                    TABLE I-3A
    
                            CAPITAL OUTLAYS NEEDED TO OBTAIN ADEQUATE MUNICIPAL WASTE
                               TREATMENT  FOR THE U. S. URBAN POPULATION,  1969-1973
                                                   ($ Millions)
               State
      Total
    (Current
     Dollars)
      Total
    (Constant
     Dollars)
    Upgrading
       of
    Facilities
      Constructing
     Facilities For
    Untreated Wastes
     Increases
     In Urban
    Population1
     Allowances
        For
    Depreciat1on
         Onited States 	   $8,693.1   87,994.0   51,868.7
    
    Alabama	      "7.0      131.0       33.0
    Alaska2 	       14.5       12.8
    Arizona	       90.0       84.0        4.0
    Arkansas 	• •       «-5       «.5       12.0
    California2	      '32.2      645.2        2.0
    
    Colorado	,	      103.6       97.6       26.0
    Connecticut 	      188.3      175.8       69.5
    Delaware 	       31.5       30.1       13.0
    District of Colunbia3  	       23.0       21.4
    Florida2	      369.6      347.0       46.0
    
    Georgia  	      223.1      209.6       53.5
    Hawaii2  	       40-1       35.5
    Id«ho	       24-5       23.0       10'5
    Illinois 	      399.4      367.0       48.0
    Indiana  	      I'6-!      162-1       39'5
    
    Iowa2	       36.0       34.7
    Kaunas 	       52.5       49.6       14.5
    Kentucky	       "0.0      120.8       39.0
    I^uisiana	       195.0      182.1       21.0
    Maine 	       "7.0       «•»         6-°
    
     Maryland 	       136-1       I™-*       "-°
     Massachusetts2 	       200.0       186.3       64.0
     Michigan	       592.6      535.8       223.0
     Minnesota 	       186.0      172.4        64.5
     Mississippi 	        57.0       54.1         3.0
    
     Missouri2 	      137-6      126.8       13.0
     Montana 	       27.0       25-s       I6'0
     Nebraska2 	       30.5       29.0        9.9
     Nevada  	       19-5       18.1        1-0
     New Hampshire  	       35.0       32.6        7.5
    
     Dew Jersey	      561.1      505.0      167.0
     New Mexico	       40.5       37.6        1.0
     New York  	     1,070.2      963.6      266.0
     North Carolina	      101.5       95.6        16.0
     North Dakota	        13.0       11.3        2.5
    
      Ohio 	      500.7      461.7      122.0
      Oklahoma 	        60.5       57.4        10.5
      Oregon 	       1*5.3      130.2        29.5
      Pennsylvania 	       331.6      310.9      149.5
      Rhode island	        41.5        38.3        9.5
    
      South Carolina	       100.0        93.9        19.0
      South Dakota	        "-0       12-5         5.0
      Tennessee 	       154.6      147.8        19.5
      TexaB        	       342.5      323.6        17.0
      Utah	       136-0      127.4        2.0
    
      Vermont 	        19-0       17.7       10.0
      Virginia3	       206.6      194.7       65.0
      Washington2	       "3.3      155.3       33.0
      West Virginia	        55.0       50.4       25.0
      Wisconsin	       133.3      122.4       47.0
    
      Wyoming2 	         9.7        9.0        2.3
                                         $2,707.4
    
                                             39.0
                                              7.0
                                             25.5
                                              4.5
                                            370.5
    
                                             18.0
                                             50.0
                                              4.5
    
                                            191.5
    
                                             60.5
                                             27.5
                                               2.5
                                            102.0
                                             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
                                               13.5
                                                3.5
    
                                                  .5
                                              $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
                                                   5-3.5
                                                     5.5
    
                                                    27.0
                                                     4.0
                                                    43.5
                                                   155.5
                                                    26.0
    
                                                     2.5
                                                    59.0
                                                    19.0
                                                     5.5
                                                    42.0
    
                                                     4.5
                                                 $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
                                                      32.1
    
                                                      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
       '  iMJUtdU,  ceiUfuMUon eoiii  fo* additional capacity  fo*  five ytM& of population growth in each State
         beyond tke  T969-1973 peJtiod  of  tkt colt u-Conate of  needi.
    
       2  tfatw. ouatitu 4i«ndflA(i4 adopted call fl Couu*  Population UtiiMtU,  S«*te*  F-zs.
    
                                                          13
    

    -------
                                                     TABLE  I-38
                        CAPITAL OUTLAYS NEEDED TO OBTAIN ADEQUATE  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  TREATMENT
                                FOR THE U. S. URBAN POPULATION,  1969-1973 (CONT'D.)
                                                    ($ Millions)
        Water Resource Region
                             1
      Total
    (Current
     Dollars)
                                               Total
                                              (Constant
                                              Dollars)
    Upgrading
       of
    Facilities
      Constructing
     Facilities For
    Untreated Wastes
     Increases
     In Urban
    Population'
                 Allowances
                    For
                Depredation
         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
    $8,693.1   $7,994.0   $1,868.7
        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
         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
    WoteA. Re6ouA.ce Reg-con6 p/iopoaed by WctCeA Reaootce Counc/cd
              to i&timate. cap^tat ouutJLa.y& needed  &on the Puerto
                                                                     Type. I  Compie/iena-tve Su/u/e«/4.
                                                                               U£andA  Region.
                                                                  Vata. not
    Sou/ice;  Boied on  7962 Invento^/ o£ Municipal Wa&te. T/ieaftnett-t,  updated;  Ce.n&u&  of> Population;  1960 Bateau
             o& Ceniui Population tltimatu, SeMu  P-25.
    

    -------
                                          FIGURE 1-2
                                    WATER RESOURCE REGIONS
             PROPOSED BY WATER RESOURCE  COUNCIL FOR TYPE I COMPREHENSIVE SURVEYS
     COLUMBIA-
    NORTH  PACIFIC
                                                                                          NORT
                                                                                         ATLANTIC
                                                                     GREAT
                                                                     LAKES
      UPPER
    MISSISSIPPI
       GREAT BASIN
                       UPPER
                     COLORADO
                                     ARKANSAS-WHITE -RED
                LOWER
              COLORADO
                                                                   SOUTH ATLANTIC
                                                                         GULF
                                           TEXAS-GULF
                                                                 PUERTO RICO &
                                                                 VIRGIN ISLANDS
    

    -------
                                                         TABLE 1-4
                        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
                                    Urban
                                    Popu-
                                    lation
    Population With
    Adequate Treat-
    ment Facilities
    Population With
    Less Than Ade-
    quate Treatment
     •Facilities
    Urban Popula-
    tion With No
     Treatment
     Facilities
      Percent of Urban
    Population With Less
    Than Adequate Or No
    Treatment Facilities
         United states1 	    145,602
    
    Alabama	      2,140
    Alaska2 	        121
    Arizona	      1,411
    Arkansas	        937
    California2 	     17,651
    
    Colorado 	      1,602
    Connecticut	      2,342
    Delaware 	        356
    District of Columbia 	        632
    Florida2 	      4,860
    
    Georgia	      2,727
    Hawaii2	        591
    Idaho	        349
    Illinois 	      8,923
    Indiana	      3,182
    
    Iowa1 2 	      1,526
    Kansas2 	      1,475
    Kentucky	      1,539
    Louisiana	      2,479
    Maine 	        509
    
    Maryland	      2,785
    Massachusetts2	      4,563
    Michigan	      6,377
    Minnesota	      2,370
    Mississippi	        988
    
    Missouri2	      3,141
    Montana1	        379
    Nebraska1 2 	        846
    Nevada 	        376
    Hew Banpshira	        414
    
    New Jersey	      6,444
    New Mexico	        764
    New York	     16,003
    North Carolina	      2,138
    North Dakota1	        254
    
    Ohio	      7,870
    Oklahoma	      1,694
    Oregon 	      1,320
    Pennsylvania 	      8,428
    Rhode Island	...	        793
    
    South Carolina	      1,134
    South Dakota.1 	        287
    Tennessee	      2,214
    Texas 	      8,874
    Utah	        825
    
    Vermont	        162
    Virginia	      2.756
    Washington2 	      2,139
    West Virginia	        710
    Wisconsin	     2,804
    
    Wyoming1 2 	       198
                                                 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
                                                    SS2
                                                   5,325
                                                    395
    
                                                    540
                                                    29O
                                                    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
                             16
                            211
                          1,146
                            412
    
                            504
                          1,661
                            814
                            277
                            505
    
                            436
                              4
                            269
    
                          1,636
                             88
                          4,253
                            566
                          1,208
                            163
                            264
                            187
                            208
    
                            416
    
                          1.145
                          1,925
                            306
    
                              32
                            336
                          1.014
                            213
                              66
                          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
                          50.2
    
                          52.4
                          13.6
                          66.1
                          23.2
                          39.4
    
                          94.4
                          60.4
                          68.2
                          79.0
                          26.9
    
                          14.6
     '  Population *e*»ed by treatment iaulitie* exceeds total uKban population o< the*e State* by 259,000 peuoiu.
       Thu* the. detail add* to 259,000 molt, than the total U. S. uftban population.
    
                                                                                                      Standard*
    ttatefi quality ttatdarid* aA^ff^ call {04 ffuatejuj axute. tMotuent in *ome unban a/tea* of, State..
    adopted {04 otht*. State* calt ion at tea*t tecondafui uotte treatment.
           1961 Inventory, Municipal Matte, facilitie* in the. United State*, updated by FWPCA Con*tiutction
           Awomu; ouaan population e*timate* bated on U. S. Ceium o< Population, I960; Bureau oi Cento* Popula-
           tion fttimatet, Sviie* P-Z5.
                                                         16
    

    -------
    Ohio - $461.7 million, Illinois - $367.0 million, Florida - $347.0 million,
    Texas - $323.6 million, Pennsylvania - $310.9 million, and Georgia -  $209.6
    million.
    
    The five highest ranking Water Resource Council Regions  (proposed for Type I
    Comprehensive Surveys) in capital outlays required to attain  adequate waste
    treatment by 1973 are, in order:  North Atlantic - $2,392.2,  Great Lakes  -
    $1,059.2, South Atlantic/Gulf - $921.9, Ohio - $674.6, and California -
    $647.8.
    
    Table 1-2 shows the per capita construction costs of primary  and secondary
    sewage treatment plants.  These data are based on design and  cost informa-
    tion for sewage treatment projects constructed in all parts of the Nation
    under PL-660.  The costs of treatment plant, interceptor, and outfall sewers
    are included; land costs are excluded because of the great variability.   The
    per capita costs are shown in 1968 dollars arrived at by use  of the FWPCA
    Sewage Treatment Plant Construction Cost Index.
    
    It is evident from these data that it is more economical in terms of  cost
    per person served to construct a large rather than a small plant, assuming
    other things are equal.  This conclusion assumes excessive sewering costs
    are not incurred, the topography is suitable for the extension of sewers,
    and the economics of scale available by constructing a larger or an intermu-
    nicipal plant are not offset by financing or operating costs.
    
    Treatment works construction cost totals 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  may
    also be available when industries and communities jointly construct treatment
    works to serve their needs.
    
    The chief feature of sewage service in the large cities  is centralized sewer
    lines and treatment.8  Such systems can often provide waste treatment service
    to fringe communities at a lower overall cost than the communities would  in-
    cur in constructing and operating individual systems.  However, individuals
    and communities outside the central city contracting for service almost al-
    ways pay a higher rate than customers within the city boundaries.
      Sewage TJie.atme.nt. Plant ConA&w&tLon  Co&t lnde.K ,  p/tepoted by the. Fede/io£
            Pollution Con&tol AcfrrUju^-ttotccw,  Ut.v-c4.ton ojj ConA-ttuatton G/uuttA,
               n, V. C.
                                           jjo/t Wote* Supply and Sewage Uapo-
          in MvUiopotitan A/tea*,"  A CommL&^ion Repo/tt,  Adv
    -------
    Conmunities without plaints may be served by some form of special district,
    authority, or other arrangement including tie-ins with a central city.  Econ-
    omies of scale - the lower costs per unit of scale or design attributable to
    large scale plants - therefore, are not necessarily restricted to or solely
    available to the larger communities.  Scale advantages can often be obtained
    through inter-community arrangement or through the legal establishment of new
    service area jurisdictions.
    
    The larger inter-community and service area jurisdictions not only allow econ-
    omies of scale in the construction of treatment plants, but attain an enlarg-
    ed financial base as well.  The latter may considerably alleviate, financing
    difficulties.  In addition, the broader financial base offers the opportunity
    for higher quality operation through the acquisition of a larger and more com-
    petent staff.
    
    The greatest offset to the economies of scale approach to sewage treatment
    construction for inter-community and new area service is the cost of the
    large trunk or interceptor sewers involved.  These sewers are necessary to
    carry the wastes from the several collection points or from new and relative-
    ly distant area services to the treatment plant.  Depending on the density of
    development and the nature of the terrain, the trunk sewer costs may be con-
    siderable, and at some point sufficiently high to offset any savings in treat-
    ment plant size.  This factor looms large in the central city's determining
    whether extending sewerage service to adjacent communities is financially
    feasible.  Also, the apportionment of trunk sewer costs poses a major diffi-
    culty.
                                         18
    

    -------
                    OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF MUNICIPAL
                               WASTE TREATMENT PLANTS
    This report has estimated the capital costs of municipal waste treatment
    works construction needed to attain water quality standards at approximately
    $8.0 billion during the period 1969-1973, or as much as $8.7 billion because
    of increasing construction costs.  Operating and maintaining these and the
    existing facilities will cost another $1.4 billion in this same period
    (Table 1-5).If expected increases in labor costs during the period 1969-
    1973 are taken into consideration, these costs nationally could amount to
    $1.7 billion.   Thus operation and maintenance costs for the five-year peri-
    od and capital outlays for new facilities would total $9.4 billion in con-
    stant 1968 dollars or $10.4 billion because of expected cost increases.  Op-
    eration and maintenance totals nationally are estimated as $201.5 million in
    1968 (Table 1-5).  These annual costs would rise to $334.5 billion in 1973
    under the projected construction schedule.
    
    Table 1-6 shows the operation and maintenance costs per capita for primary
    and secondary types of treatment.  For design populations of 25,000 and more,
    the representative secondary type of treatment - activated sludge - is approx-
    imately twice the per capita cost of the representative primary type.  These
    operation and maintenance costs are based upon the actual costs directly asso-
    ciated with plant operation and maintenance, excluding costs for central ad-
    ministration, billing and collection of sewer charges, and expenditures for
    capital maintenance according to Federal construction grant records.
    
    The types of costs included are salaries and wages, electricity, chemicals
    and other supplies.  The data for these costs were obtained from approximate-
    ly 1,000 individual plants and were correlated with population served.  Ad-
    mittedly, these cost estimates lack precision.  First, they are adversely af-
    fected by differences among plants in chlorination and sludge disposal prac-
    tices.  Second, they would be more meaningful if they could be compared
    against a standard of operation efficiency or some other performance index.
    Since the data merely show the relationship between cost and plant size ob-
    tained from experience of the audited plants, they also may not be represent-
    ative of the most efficient plants.  In short, these per capita costs are
    probably conservative.  Nevertheless, they reflect the considerable burden
    incumbent upon units of government which must construct or expand treatment
    facilities as well as provide for their operation.  The expected annual oper-
    ating costs, in some cases, could exert a greater deterrent upon a local unit
    9
      "Indexes o£ Output Pe/i Man-Hoot, HounZy Compensation, and Unit Labon
            -at tke. Manufacturing Sector, 1947-1966," (1. S. Vapasitment o&
           , Bateau, otf labofi StatutLcA, Washington, V. C., June. 7967.
                                         19
    

    -------
                                   TABLE 1-5
    
        OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF EXISTING MUNICIPAL TREATMENT
              FACILITIES AND ESTIMATED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
                    COSTS, PROJECTED FACILITIES, 1969-1973
    
                         (In millions of 1968 dollars)
                                                                Total
                   State                      1968             1969-19731
         United States  	    $201.5             $1,390.0
    
    Alabama	       3.1                 22.2
    Alaska	       1.8                  9.5
    Arizona	        .8                  8.6
    Arkansas  	       1.7                  8.8
    California	      11.2                 99.5
    
    Colorado  	       2.5                 16.3
    Connecticut 	       3.2                 25.1
    Delaware  	        .5                  3.5
    District  of Columbia	       3.3                 27.8
    Florida	       6.1                 52.5
    
    Georgia	       3.6                 26.7
    Hawaii 	        .5                  4.6
    Idaho	       1.1                  5.6
    Illinois	      16.5                 91.4
    Indiana	       7.1                 40.8
    
    Iowa 	       4.2                 21.0
    Kansas	       3.4                 17.6
    Kentucky	       3.1                 20.0
    Louisiana	       2.8                 24.7
    Maine  	        .4                  4.9
    
    Maryland	       2.7                 18.1
    Massachusetts 	       2.8                 30.4
    Michigan	       7.2                 62.0
    Minnesota	       4.2                 28.2
    Mississippi 	       1.1                 10.5
    
    Missouri	       3.2                 34.0
    Montana	        .8                  4.3
    Nebraska	       2.2                  9.4
    Nevada	        .5                  2.5
    New Hampshire 	        .4                  3.8
                                      20
    

    -------
                              TABLE 1-5  (CONT'D.)
                   State
                                     1968
      Total
    1969-1973
                                                                        1
    New Jersey	     $   7.3
    New Mexico	        1.1
    New York	       20.2
    North Carolina	        4.4
    North Dakota	         .4
    
    Ohio	       13.3
    Oklahoma	        3.1
    Oregon	        2.6
    Pennsylvania 	       12.3
    Rhode Island 	        1.2
    
    South Carolina	        2.0
    South Dakota	         .9
    Tennessee  	        2.5
    Texas	       11.2
    Utah 	        1.2
    
    Vermont	         .5
    Virginia	        3.3
    Washington 	        3.0
    West Virginia	        1.4
    Wisconsin  	        7.2
    
    Wyoming	         .4
                                                           60.9
                                                            6.4
                                                          143.8
                                                           25.1
                                                            2.1
    
                                                           84.2
                                                           17.2
                                                           16.9
                                                           73.3
                                                            7.9
    
                                                           13.3
                                                            4.3
                                                           21.7
                                                           72.2
                                                            8.9
    
                                                            2.5
                                                           25.2
                                                           22.8
                                                            8.5
                                                           36.5
    
                                                            2.0
    1
      TotaJt Operation and Maintenance  co&tb  ^ofi &ie,atme.nt wo-tfe4
      4MQ and needed during the.  ^tve-t/eor. period,  1969-1973.
    Sootce-'  Baaed on 1962 Inventory o& Municipal Wa&te. Facititcea,
    updated; Cenaoi o
    -------
                 FIGURE I -3
    MUNICIPAL WASTE  TREATMENT FACILITIES
     OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
                                EXISTING
                                  AND
                                REQUIRED
                                MUNICIPAL
                                TREATMENT
                                 WORKS
     EXISTING
    MUNICIPAL
    TREATMENT
      WORKS
                      22
    

    -------
                                                       TABLE  1-6
    
                                        ANNUAL SEWAGE TREATMENT  PLANT OPERATION
                                           AND MAINTENANCE  PER CAPITA COST1
    
                                                    (1968 Dollars)
    
    0
    5,000
    10,000
    25,000
    50,000
    100,000
    Primary Types of Tr
    Design Population ment (Separate Sli
    Digestion
    — 4
    - 9
    - 24
    - 49
    - 99
    and
    ,999 	 $3.00
    ,999 	 2.33
    ,999 	 1.84
    ,999 	 1.47
    ,999 	 1.29
    up 	 1.22
    
    •eat- Secondary Types of Treatment
    idge Activated Stabilization
    Sludge Ponds
    $3.92 $.50
    3.43 .34
    3.06
    2.75
    2.51
    2.45
    to
    W
               Vote not IncJtude. c.o&tt> £0/1 ce.n&iat adnu.nl&&ia£ion , bitting  and cotte.vti.on. o& &ewesi  change* ,
               and &x.pe.ndLtuSL&t, ^ofi capitat mainte.nanc.e..
             Soot.ce:  Boiecf  upon ptant auditb otf actaat operation and maintznanze. c.o&t& o<5 sewage
                      me.n£ pttoje.cti> con&&uu.c£e.d undeA PL 84-660.
    

    -------
    of government initiating construction of a treatment plant than the con-
    struction cost.
    
    Any evaluation of the effectiveness of water pollution control efforts will,
    in large part, be based upon the effectiveness and efficiency of the plants.
    In approving treatment works projects for Federal financial aid, FWPCA gives
    consideration to the adequacy of provisions for assuring proper and efficient
    operation and maintenance of the treatment works after construction.  When
    this responsibility is not clearly understood or only tacit compliance given,
    water pollution increases because of poor plant maintenance, inadequately
    trained operators, inadequate operating supplies, and even cost reduction
    practices such as shutting down chlorination or chemical treatment equipment.
    Identifying these deficiencies requires expert appraisal.  At present, water
    pollution control agencies at all levels of government lack adequate techni-
    cal staffs to provide consultation services to the approximately 11,000
    plants in operation.  Operating inefficiencies must be identified, quantified
    and appropriate measures taken to obtain efficient sewage treatment plant op-
    erations if prescribed treatment levels are to be attained.
    
    The Federal government provides no funds for operating, and only a few States
    either now provide such grants or are planning to do so.  Such grants usually
    serve to improve operating efficiency of treatment facilities.  New York
    State, for example, provides grants for one-third of the annual operating
    cost of municipal facilities, and requires the facilities to report regularly
    on operating efficiency.  This type of state aid to local units of government
    may set the stage for increased efficiency by stimulating better control pro-
    cedures, manpower training, and improved utilization of existing equipment.
    
    Operating treatment plants more efficiently has been advanced as one way of
    increasing available capacity.  However, an activated sludge plant, for exam-
    ple, operating at less than 85-95% 8005 (five-day biochemical oxygen demand)
    removal may nevertheless be utilizing its total hydraulic capacity.  A plant
    designed for "x" mgd (million gallons per day) cannot accept a substantially
    greater volume of wastewater whether or not it is efficiently removing 6005.
    Table 1-7 reflects BOD^ removal efficiencies of various types of waste treat-
    ment facilities.
    
    Bypassing and peak hour hydraulic loads imposed on a facility often adversely
    affect average hourly efficiency.  Many facilities operating at 85-95% 8005
    removal in non-peak hours fall to less than 60% 6005 removal during the peak
    noon hours.  Although some plants may operate below capacity at night, the
    unused capacity is usually not readily available to more distant communities.
    In some situations, however, an industry discharging to public sewers can
    advantageously limit its waste discharges to these off-peak periods at muni-
    cipal treatment plants.
                                         24
    

    -------
                                                     TABLE 1-7
    
                                     RELATIVE EFFICIENCIES OF SEWAGE-TREATMENT
                                             OPERATIONS AND PROCESSES
    
                                               (Percentage Removal)
                          Treatment Operation or Process
                                                                                   Five-day
                                                                                     20 C
                                                                                     BOD
    ro
    tn
    1.  Fine screening
    
    2.  Chlorination of raw or settled sewage
    
    3.  Plain sedimentation
    
    4.  Chemical precipitation
    
    5.  Trickling filtration preceded and followed by
        plain sedimentation
    
    6.  Activated-sludge treatment preceded and followed
        by plain sedimentation
    
    7.  Intermittent sand filtration
     5-10
    
    
    15-30
    
    
    25-40
    
    
    50-85
    
    
    
    80-95
    
    
    
    85-95
    
    
    90-95
                 Source:  Ftew£eA. ViApo&aJi, Sth ed-ctuw, 7963,
                          Jokn MJbuj & SOFIA, Table. 21-11.
    

    -------
                                   COMBINED SEWERS
    The control of pollution from municipal wastes is frequently complicated by
    the use of a single system to carry both sewage and surface storm runoff, re-
    ferred to as a combined sewer system.  Combined sewers carry sanitary sewage
    with its component commercial and industrial wastes at all times and, during
    storm or thaw periods, serve as collectors and transporters of storm water
    from streets and other sources thus serving a "combined" purpose.  These com-
    bined systems are designed to carry many times the dry weather flow, because
    of the storm water.  It has not been considered economically feasible to
    build intercepting sewers and treatment plants to handle the entire runoff
    along with the sewage flows.  Therefore, combined sewers make provision for
    the transport of excess amounts of flow from the combined system directly to
    the stream, bypassing the treatment plant.
    
    Separation of combined sewers into sanitary sewers and storm sewers has been
    considered the principal method of controlling pollution from this source.
    However, the cost of separating sewers completely would be enormous - recent
    estimates say $49 billion nationally.  Moreover, this is not feasible, either
    economically or for effectively solving the problem.  Sewer separation would
    involve major and prolonged disruptions to traffic and other street activi-
    ties, and in the use of other utilities where electric conduits, water and
    gas mains, telephone and telegraph conduits, etc., are installed beneath the
    streets.  Further, studies have shown that urban storm water itself, even
    when separated, carries serious pollution.  It is clear, therefore, that sew-
    er separation in itself provides no complete answer to the combined sewer
    overflow problem.
    
    The solutions of pollutional problems caused by combined sewer systems may be
    as varied as the circumstances involved.  In some situations, partial or com-
    plete separation may be the most feasible alternative.  In other cases, the
    solution may be the construction of holding tanks or additional treatment fa-
    cilities for handling such overflows.
    
    
                           PARTIAL OR COMPLETE SEPARATION
    
    Separating a large combined sewer system into a dual system is a project of
    vast proportions.  In some cases, new sanitary sewers would be required,
    leaving the existing sewers for storm water only.  The converse may apply in
    other cases.  To effect "total" separation of combined sewers, the plumbing
    within each building also would have to be rearranged so that roof leaders,
    areaway, depressed driveway and cellar drains would all discharge through a
    building connection into the storm drain.  The sanitary sewage would dis-
    charge to another connection leading to the sanitary sewer.
                                         26
    

    -------
    A recent survey was made of the problems of combined sewer facilities and
    overflows in U. S. communities, by the American Public Works Association Re-
    search Foundation under contract with the Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
    ministration.10  Its purpose was to determine the national extent and effects
    of such overflows and report on the treatment measures or other controls, ex-
    isting or planned, for abating the problem.  All communities of 25,000 or
    greater population and 30% of those under 25,000 were interviewed.  National
    totals were projected.
    
    In the surveyed communities, 51 million people are served by partially or
    wholly combined sewers.  Extrapolation by the survey indicates that in the
    total United States, 54 million people live in such municipalities.  A 1964
    appraisal11 reported 59 million people in communities served by combined sew-
    ers.  Because of the greater detail collected by the survey, the lower figure
    of 54 million would seem more precise.  Excluding the appropriate portions of
    those communities served by separate sewers, an estimated 36 million people
    in the United States are actually served by combined sewer systems.
    
    In addition to treatment plant overflows caused by storm water, other types
    of overflows may also be considerable in community sewer systems.  Insuffi-
    cient treatment plant capacity, infiltration, malfunctioning, poor mainte-
    nance of control devices, and pumping station bypasses  are definite  factors
    in the overflow problem.
    
    According to the  Survey, engineers have preferred to provide separate con-
    duits  for sanitary  sewage and storm water  rather than to enlarge  or  improve
    combined sewer systems.
    
    Of the  641 jurisdictions surveyed, approximately one-half reported that  engi-
    neering  studies  to  correct pollution problems  resulting from combined sewers
    or storm water overflows had been  completed.   Of these, 71%  had prepared cost
    estimates. Of those with current  plans, 71% planned  to undertake some degree
    of sewer separation and the remaining  29%  had  plans  for alternate corrective
    measures.  This  probably indicates that adequate information on  the  cost and
    effectiveness  of alternates to sewer  separation is not  available.
     10 ptu>blem& o& Combined SeweA facilUieA and OveAjlow - 1967
        by tke. Ame/u-con Pab^x.c wotui& MAoc/totton, vecembeA l, 7967.
        "Potlu£iona£ E^ecti ojj &£o/un WoteA and Oversow* FAom Combined
        Sterna, A P/tetmtnoA{f App*acaa£," p*epo/ied by ike. ViviA-ion o&
        Supply and Pollution Con&wt, Pubtic. HeaJUh SeAvx.ce, U. S. Government
        Printing O^ce, Wo4fung>Con, V. C., 1964.
                                          27
    

    -------
    To facilitate cost evaluation, the 49 states (Hawaii reported no combined
    sewers) and the District of Columbia were grouped into seven geographic re-
    gions :
    
         (1)  New England;        Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
                                 Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont
    
         (2)  Middle Atlantic;    Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsyl-
                                 vania
    
         (3)  South Atlantic:     District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia,
                                 West Virginia
    
         (4)  Southern;           Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Ken-
                                 tucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
                                 Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
    
         (5)  Midwest:            Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,
                                 Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Da-
                                 kota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin
    
         (6)  West:               Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, Mon-
                                 tana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington,
                                 Wyoming
    
         (7)  Southwest;          Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
    The cost evaluations as developed utilized information from the survey forms,
    supplemented by additional information obtained from surveyed communities.
    Area and population data were extracted and dollar-per-capita and dollar-per-
    acre ratios were developed for each community for the combined-sewer area and
    population affected.
    
    Regional and national figures developed show the range of costs for complete
    separation (Table 1-8).  Mean and median values are also determined on the
    bases of dollars-per-capita and dollars-per-acre.  The cost estimates for
    "complete separation" refer to separating the entire combined sewer system,
    but do not include the necessary plumbing changes on private property to ef-
    fect "total" separation.  As expected, there were large variations in the
    costs reported.  Most ranges, however, confirmed the reasonableness of the
    values ascribed to complete separation.  It is important to note that many
    metropolitan communities, such as Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, New York,
    Portland, and Rochester, submitted no separation cost data in this survey,
    perhaps because the probability of such work is remote.  These cities have
    high population densities and are heavily industrialized.  In many large
    cities, conventional separation is all but impossible because of existing
    tremendous under-street development - pipes, subways, and other utilities.
                                          28
    

    -------
                                                     TABLE 1-8
    
                                       REPORTED COST OF SEPARATION BY REGION
    Area
    New England
    Middle Atlantic
    South Atlantic
    Southern
    Midwest
    West
    United States
    Complete Separation'
    Cost
    Range
    $5,800-55,800
    4,550-42,900
    6,700-27,500
    1,420-27,500
    100-29,000
    290-16,700
    $ 100-55,800
    Per Acre
    Mean
    $19,000
    13,000
    13,100
    8,930
    5,720
    4,940
    $ 6,740
    
    Medi an
    $10,000
    11,000
    7,300
    5,450
    3,590
    1,700
    $ 4,500
    Cost
    Range
    $480-1,160
    430-2,720
    415-1,250
    445-1,220
    25-2,660
    60-5,000
    $ 25-5,000
    Per Capi
    I Mean
    $ 700
    1,125
    790
    670
    630
    600
    $ 670
    ta
    I Median
    $630
    640
    750
    510
    415
    280
    $470
    to
    VO
                "Complete. Separatum" mean* tkz elimination o<5 combined  &touu>  rfoi. tne,
                by providing  -two 4epcfui£e pubtic. AeweA &y&tw& in &&ie.&U> and  oth&i pubtic. oAea6,  but not
                including any &e.pasiat4.on wo/ife on p>u.vate.
    Source:  Ptwbtem& o & Combine.d SeweA
    and
                       the. American Public Wo/tfe4 MAoc*atLon, Table,  IX-B,  1967.
                                                                            -  1 96 7 ,  ptepated (JoA. FWFCA by
    

    -------
    The absence of cost data from these metropolitan areas may have resulted in a
    lower cost range because of the predominance of less costly procedures in
    less developed and less concentrated urban areas.
    
    The only reliable cost information on separating plumbing to private and com-
    mercial buildings was in the Washington, D. C. data.  The District of Colum-
    bia, for several years, has had an intensive program of working on a volun-
    tary basis with property owners in selected areas to disconnect, from the
    sanitary system, downspouts, roof drains, foundation drains, areaway drains,
    air conditioning and cooling system drains, yard drains, catch basin drains
    and other connections not receiving sanitary sewage.  Unit costs developed
    for various single family type dwellings vary from $890 for a row house to
    $3,480 for homes on one-half acre lots.  Limited experience has been gained
    in separating commercial and apartment buildings.  Costs to date range from
    $100 to $50,000 per unit.  For the purpose of cost projections, the figures
    of $1,700 for a single-family dwelling and $3,400 for an apartment building
    or commercial structure were selected.  These costs were adjusted for each
    area on the basis of the Engineering News Record cost index for sewer con-
    struction as of September 1967.
    
    Projections of cost were made for each state.  Only limited data were avail-
    able for many of the states, and it was necessary to base projections for
    these on national cost figures and housing data.  Table 1-9 shows the cost
    estimates for separation of the public and private portions of combined sew-
    ers.  For the United states, "total" separation of combined sewers would cost
    an estimated $48.8 billion; separation of only the public part would cost
    $30.4 billion.
                                    HOLDING TANKS
    
    There are wide variations in the extent and characteristics of holding tank
    projects.  No uniformity in design criteria is apparent.  Some tanks may be
    designed for short-time balancing to control surcharging while others are de-
    signed for partial treatment of the overflow by settling and chlorination.
    In 1964 the Public Health Service published available cost information for
    holding tanks for temporary impoundment of storm water discharges and/or com-
    bined sewers overflows.12  The per capita cost of these projects, $318, was
    used to estimate cost of holding tanks as an alternative to combined sewer
    separation.  These estimated costs are listed by State in Table 1-9, with the
    total cost for the United States estimated at $11.6 billion.
       " Pollution E^ectA o& Stottn Wotet and 0ve*rf£0W6 F/wm Combined
                A PJie&imin&ty Appn&i&al," lac, cct.
                                          30
    

    -------
                                                    TABLE 1-9
    
                                 ESTIMATED COST OF SEPARATION OF COMBINED SEWERS
                                      AND THE ALTERNATIVE OF HOLDING TANKS
                State
     Population
     Served By
     Combined
     Sewers'
    (Thousands)
                                                               COST OF SEPARATION*
                                                                   ($ Million)
    Separation of
    Public Part of
    Combined SewersJ
     Plumbing
    Charges to
     Affected
     Buildings4
                                                                                        Total
                Cost  of
                Holding
                Tanks5
              ($ Million)
         United States ..
    
    Alabama 	
    Alaska 	
    Arizona 	
    Arkansas 	
    California 	
    
    Colorado 	
    Connecticut 	
    Delaware 	
    District of Columbia
    Florida 	
    
    Georgia 	
    Hawaii 	
    Idaho 	
    Illinois 	
    Indiana 	
    
    Iowa 	
    Kansas 	
    Kentucky 	
    Louisiana  	
    Maine 	
    
    Maryland 	
    Massachusetts  	
    Michigan 	
    Minnesota  	
    Mississippi 	
    
    Missouri 	
    Montana 	
    Nebraska 	
    Nevada  	
    New Hampshire  	
    
    New Jersey 	
    New Mexico 	
    New York 	
    North Carolina 	
    North Dakota 	
    
    Ohio	
    Oklahoma 	
    Oregon  	
    Pennsylvania 	
    Rhode Island 	
    
    South Carolina 	
    South Dakota 	
    Tennessee  	
    Texas 	
    Utah 	
                                        36,394
           10
    
           31
          654
    
           42
          447
           97
          400
            4
    
          379
    
           19
        5,101
        2,038
    
          390
          131
          587
    
          293
    
           23
        1,707
        2,913
          506
            2
    
        1,166
           25
          314
           40
          236
    
        1,185
    
        8,519
            8
           77
    
        2,880
    
          445
        2,757
          277
           20
          207
           83
                                                        $30,391.6
             8.3
    
            25.7
           712.0
    
            35.4
           373.0
            81.3
           334.0
             3.7
    
           317.0
    
            15.8
         4,270.0
         1,710.0
    
           326.0
           109.5
           490.0
    
           243.0
    
            19.5
         1,425.0
         2,430.0
           423.0
             1.3
    
           972.0
            21.0
           263.0
            33.0
           196.0
    
           990.0
    
         7,100.0
             6.3
            64.3
    
         2,410.0
    
           372.0
         2,300.0
           231.0
             16.6
            173.0
             69.0
                                        $18,378.3    $48,769.9   $11,573.3
           4.0
    
          23.3
         547.0
    
          17.0
         146.0
          52.6
         119.0
           1.5
    
         191.9
    
            .3
       2,420.0
         872.4
    
         188.8
          46.0
         264.4
    
         116.5
    
           4.5
         926.3
       1,548.5
         189.6
            .1
    
         605.0
           7.4
          96.7
           6.8
         106.4
    
         753.5
    
       4,366.0
           1.4
          17.4
    
       1,532.8
    
         219.0
       1,396.5
         204.7
           8.2
         111.7
          42.8
        12.3
    
        49.0
     1,259.0
    
        52.4
       519.0
       133.9
       453.0
         S.2
    
       508.9
    
        16.1
     6,690.0
     2,582.4
    
       514.8
       155.5
       754.4
    
       359.5
    
        24.0
     2,351.3
     3,978.5
       612.6
         1.4
    
     1,577.0
        28.4
       359.7
        39.8
       302.4
    
     1,743.5
    
    11,466.0
         7.7
        81.7
    
     3,942.8
    
       591.0
     3,696.5
       435.7
        24.8
       284.7
       111.8
        3.2
    
        9.8
      271.6
    
       13.5
      142.1
       30.9
      127.2
        1.4
    
      120.6
    
        6.0
    1,622.9
      648.2
    
      124.0
       41.6
      186.7
    
       93.2
    
        7.4
      542.9
      926.2
      161.0
         .5
    
      370.7
        8.0
      100.0
       12.6
       74.9
    
      376.9
    
    2,708.9
        2.4
       24.5
    
      915.7
    
      141.5
      876. B
       88.1
        6.3
       66.0
       26.3
                                                       31
    

    -------
                                              TABLE 1-9 (CONT'O.)
    Stat*
    
    Virginia 	 	 	 	
    Hathl noton 	
    H«st Virginia 	 	
    
    
    
    Population
    Served By
    Combined
    Sewers'
    (Thousands)
    COST OF SEPARATION2
    ($ Million )
    Separation of
    Public Part of ,
    Combined Sewers3
    139 116.5
    273 228.0
    730 610.0
    335 280.0
    700 585. 0
    2 1.4
    Plumbing
    Charges to
    Affected M
    Buildings4
    26.2
    128.4
    478.0
    179.1
    408.0
    .6
    Total
    Cost of
    Holding
    Tanks5
    ($ Million)
    144.7 44.4
    356.4 86.7
    1,088.0 232.2
    459.1 106.4
    993.0 222.6
    2.0 .5
    
      Population «e*ved by combined 4 emeu -in conmunitie* aith vompttttty combined 4 ewe* tytttnu and popula-
      tion actually tvwta by the combined portion o{ tootu tytttM in communities with both combined and
      separate
      Estimated by American Public Woxkt Association.
    
      Complete AtptvuitLon of combintd tanitafLy and ttox* Hem by p/ioviding too Aeptvutte. pufatit toot*,
           in ttuttt and othm public aueutVL andOwMaM fium Combined SeiyeA Systems,  Public Healtn
             >bUMS oj Combined Seuvi fa&uittu and OveAfCouis - 1967,   p>iepaud 
    -------
    Based on the limited data available in the 1967 national survey ^  it was es-
    timated that the alternate means of control and/or treatment other than sewer
    separation would cost approximately $15 billion.
    
    The holding tank estimate should be used with extreme caution.  Data reported
    in the recent survey*  were insufficient to substantiate or refute the per
    capita cost of $318 estimated for holding tanks; however, the reported costs
    ranged from $62 to $1,300 per capita.  It should be noted that holding tanks
    have been used only in areas of low land costs, while 44% of the combined
    sewer outfalls are located in heavily commercial and/or industrial areas
    where land costs would be prohibitive.
    
    Chicago is presently constructing approximately five miles of concrete-lined
    underground tunnel at a depth of 200 to 250 feet for storage of combined sew-
    er overflows.  Such a system has special application in highly developed ur-
    ban areas where surface storage is uneconomical and public inconvenience must
    be minimized.  The present estimated cost is $96 per capita or $3,975 per
    acre.
    
    In contrast, the stabilization pond being used by Springfield, Illinois is
    much smaller in total magnitude than Chicago's deep tunnel.  In Springfield,
    with land readily available, the estimated cost of the pond is $7 per capita
    or $96 per acre.
    
    New York City has released information on plans to approach the storm over-
    flow problem by constructing a series of specialized overflow treatment fa-
    cilities located at critical points throughout the city which would process
    the large amounts of combined sewer overflows resulting from rainstorms.
    Construction of 30 such small treatment plants is estimated to cost about
    $460 million.  Construction is scheduled to begin in 1968 on the first of
    these auxiliary water pollution control plants at Spring Creek on Jamaica
    Bay.  The present estimated cost for this first plant is $69 per capita or
    $3,220 per acre.  Additional small plants will be constructed if the Jamaica
    Bay unit proves successful.
    
    Pollution from the discharges of sewers carrying storm water and sewage or
    other wastes, has been recognized as a significant problem in attaining water
    quality standards.  Congress, late in 1965, authorized FWPCA to assist demon-
    strations and studies which will provide a better understanding of the prob-
    lems of combined sewers through detailed engineering evaluations embodying
    complete economic analyses.  The authorization was amended by the Clean Water
    Restoration Act of 1966.  Section 6a(l) of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
                o£ Combined SetueA Facctctcea and Oue/t££ou»A -  7967, £oc. act.
    14
       "Pollution Effect* o£ Stoton WateA and Ovesifiloub thorn Combined SeweA
       Sytteiu, A PtieJUjninasiy AppMi&at," toe., cct.
    
    
    
                                          33
    
    294-046 O - 68 - 4
    

    -------
    trol Act, as amended, authorizes grants to any state, municipality, or inter-
    municipal or interstate agency for the purpose of assisting in the develop-
    ment of any project which will demonstrate a new or improved method of con-
    trolling the discharge into any waters of untreated or inadequately treated
    sewage or other waste from sewers which carry storm water or both storm water
    and sewage or other wastes.  Contract research and development in this tech-
    nical area are also authorized.  The principal objective is to provide funds
    to develop engineering and economic data on the alternative methods for con-
    trol and/or treatment of these forms of pollution.  Projects thus funded are
    expected to demonstrate a variety of new or improved methods and to stimulate
    industry-wide application of the demonstrated facilities.
    
    In summary, nationwide elimination of combined sewers by means of separation
    would be very costly and impose heavy burdens on local and State governments.
    "Total" separation would cost $48.8'billion;, separation of only the public
    part would cost $30.4 billion, and would not include the rearrangement of
    plumbing to affected buildings and homes.  As an alternate solution, a com-
    plete system of holding tanks is estimated to cost $11.6 billion.  Without
    delineating the various types, the 1967 survey estimated that alternate meth-
    ods would cost approximately $15 million.  Alternatives to separation for the
    control and/or treatment of combined sewer overflows, such as holding tanks,
    treatment facilities or other control means, may reduce the pollution effects
    of the problem to acceptable levels.  Still other alternatives may be discov-
    ered to the methods presently being investigated by FWPCA's Storm and Combin-
    ed Sewer Pollution Control Program, designed to develop engineering evalu-
    ations and economic analyses of new and improved methods for the control and/
    or treatment of combined sewer overflows.
    
    The final solution will no doubt be a combination of various control and/or
    treatment methods, including sewer separation, resulting from detailed engi-
    neering and socio-economic studies for individual problem areas.
                                         34
    

    -------
                              SEPARATE SANITARY SEWERS
    The cost of providing separate sanitary sewers for the unsewered urban popu-
    lation and the cost of sewering increases in urban population has been esti-
    mated by this study for the period 1969-1973, in order to relate these re-
    quirements to waste treatment works requirements.  Estimates of the capital
    costs of these needs have been included because of their basic relation to
    municipal waste treatment needs.
    
    Separate sanitary sewers are needed by a large number of communities present-
    ly without sewers, and existing separate sanitary sewers must also be expand-
    ed in the next five years in order to serve increasing population and urbani-
    zation .
    
    Interceptor sewer requirements are included as part of waste treatment works
    needs because these sewers are an integral aspect of waste treatment systems
    and therefore eligible for FWPCA construction grants.  However, the distinc-
    tion between interceptor and a trunk collecting sewers must be made on almost
    a case-by-case basis to determine their eligibility for Federal grant funds.
    The inclusion of collection sewer requirements can lead to over-estimates of
    treatment needs.
    
    Separate sanitary sewers carry wastewater but are designed to exclude storm
    and surface waters.  Such sewers are single-purpose systems for collecting
    and transporting all of a community's waterborne wastes to the treatment
    plant via a collector or interceptor sewer before the treated effluent is
    discharged to a receiving waterbody.  Separate storm sewer systems collect,
    convey, channel and transport all storm water runoff directly to a stream or
    other receiving waterbody.
    
    This study assumes that the national need for sanitary sewers is based upon
    the total urban population in each State and Water Resource Region.  The cost
    of constructing sanitary sewers varies widely throughout the United states.
    In 1963 the sewering of unsewered areas served by public water systems, was
    estimated by FWPCA at $125 per capita.  This cost figure, adjusted for inter-
    im construction cost changes by States, was used to calculate the total costs
    for sewering the unsewered urban population for each State, and for sewering
    projected urban population growth during the period 1969-1973.  An estimated
    28.4 million persons presently live in unsewered urban communities.
    
    The cost for new sanitary sewers would total $6.2 billion.  Of this amount,
    $3.9 billion would be required to sewer the presently unsewered urban popula-
    tion, and $2.3 billion for sewering urban population increases in the period
    1969-1973.  Table 1-10 is a summary of capital outlay needs by State and Wa-
    ter Resource Regions.
                                         35
    

    -------
    This study makes  no attempt to calculate the capital costs of storm sewers
    required  for  U. S.  urban areas.  The American Public Works Association has
    estimated such capital outlays at $25 billion to finance the storm water fa-
    cilities  needed in  new and expanding urban areas and to overcome present ur-
    ban area  deficiencies during the decade 1966-1975.
       "Uxban Vtuiinage.  Piac£lc.£&,  PwceduSieA  and Neexk," piepoted by the.
       American Pubtlc.  Uottk&  Association. Wiban Utaoiage Coimcttee, Pecem-
       be/t 1966.
                                          36
    

    -------
                                    TABLE I-IDA
    
                CAPITAL OUTLAYS NEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY
                 SEWERS FOR THE U. S. URBAN POPULATION. 1969-1973
                                   {$ Millions)
    
    Total
    State Capital
    Outlays
    United States 	 	 $6,160.5
    
    Alaska 	 8.0
    Arizona 	 	 	 133. S
    Arkansas 	 24.5
    California 	 .- 1,174.5
    Colorado 	 52.0
    Connecticut 	 	 125.0
    
    District of Columbia 	 53.5
    Florida 	 368.5
    Georgia 	 104.0
    Hawaii 	 73.0
    Idaho 	 9.0
    Illinois 	 	 	 210.5
    Indiana 	 	 f>7.0
    Iowa 	 12.5
    Kansas 	 20.5
    Kentucky 	 48.5
    Louisiana 	 143.0
    Haine 	 4.0
    Maryland 	 115.5
    Massachusetts 	 200.5
    Michigan 	 192.0
    Minnesota ' 	 75.0
    Mississippi 	 41.5
    Missouri 	 293.0
    Montana 	 5.5
    Nebraska 	 17.5
    Nevada 	 16.0
    Hew Hampshire 	 19.0
    New Jersey 	 386 .5
    New Mexico 	 33 .0
    Mew York 	 637.0
    North Carolina 	 76 .0
    North Dakota 	 5.0
    Ohio 	 247.0
    Oklahoma 	 42.5
    Oregon 	 67.0
    Pennsylvania 	 46.0
    Rhode Island 	 	 	 33.0
    South Carolina 	 34.5
    South Dakota 	 	 	 4.0
    
    
    
    Vermont 	 2.0
    
    Washington 	 186.5
    West Virginia 	 13.5
    Wisconsin 	 45.0
    Wyoming 	 	 	 4.5
    Capital Outlays
    Reduce Cur- Increases
    rent Unmet In Urban
    Need Population
    $3,867.0 $2,293.5
    37.5 27.5
    3.0 5.0
    81.5 52.0
    6.5 18.0
    718.0 456.5
    17.0 35.0
    94.5 30.5
    11.5 8.0
    53.5
    252.5 116.0
    48.5 55.5
    62.0 11.0
    4.5 4.5
    118.0 92.5
    34.5 32.5
    12.5
    20.5
    24.5 24.0
    95.0 48.0
    2.0 2.0
    65.5 50.0
    173.5 27.0
    118.5 73.5
    36.5 38.5
    27.5 14.0
    257.5 35.5
    5.5
    7.0 10.5
    16.0
    13.5 5.5
    273.0 113.5
    11.5 21.5
    466.5 170.5
    40.5 35.5
    5.0
    159.0 88.0
    17,0 25.5
    37.5 29.5
    46.0
    27.5 5.5
    18.5 16.0
    4.0
    42.0 24.5
    211.0 167.5
    32.5 18.5
    2.0
    47.5 62.5
    154.5 32.0
    9.5 4.0
    8.5 36.5
    4.5
    Soutee.:
    Based on  1962
    Sjuuth. KnxuaLSuMty 0$ Munt&ipat
    January 1966.
    oj Municipal Watte. ^axJUJitinit,  updated;
    \utvLcjUpaiL ba&te. TueJuCment NelSt  by CSSf,
                                        37
    

    -------
                                     TABLE I-10B
    
                 CAPITAL OUTLAYS NEEDED FOR CONSTRUCTION  OF SANITARY
                  SEWERS FOR THE U. S.  URBAN POPULATION,  1969-1973
                                    ($  Millions)
            Water Resource Region
                                 1
                                               Total
                                              Capital
                                              Outl ays
                                                             Capital  Outlays
    Reduce Cur-
    rent Unmet
       Need
    Increases
    In Urban
    Population
    Alaska	        8.0           3.0
    Arkansas-White-Red 	       164.2          79.7
    California 	     1,175.8         718.7
    Columbia-North Pacific	       263.1         195.7
    Great Basin	       52.7          29.2
    
    Great Lakes	       464.1         282.5
    Hawaii	       73.0          62.0
    Lower Colorado	       145.8          83.1
    Lower Mississippi	       155.8         103.9
    Missouri 	       220.3         141.3
    
    North Atlantic	     1,632.9      1,101.2
    Ohio	       281.2         159.7
    Rio Grande	       61.3          28.5
    Souris-Red-Rainy	        4.0            .7
    South Atlantic-Gulf	       680.9         418.1
    
    Tennessee	       29.0          17.8
    Texas-Gulf	       325.4         180.7
    Upper Colorado	        6.9           3^0
    Opper Mississippi	       416.1         258.2
                                                                            5
                                                                           84
                                                                          457
                                                                           67.4
                                                                           23.5
                                                                          181.6
                                                                           11.0
                                                                           62.7
                                                                           51.9
                                                                           79.0
    
                                                                          531.7
                                                                          121.5
                                                                           32.8
                                                                            3.3
                                                                          262.8
    
                                                                           11.2
                                                                          144.7
                                                                            3.9
                                                                          157.9
      Wote* Reaou*c£ Reg-tona p/iopaAe
    -------
                       INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE TO PUBLIC  SEWERS
    Industrial wastewater discharged to public  sewers  may increase substantially
    in the next few years as water quality standards are implemented.  Industries
    which are required to upgrade waste treatment may  find it economically desir-
    able to enter into joint agreements with municipalities to construct treat-
    ment facilities.  Such combined industrial-municipal treatment could yield
    savings in capital and operating costs to both  community and industry.
    
    The mosct recent detailed data on industrial discharges to public sewers are
    contained in the 1964 Census of Manufactures,  "Water Use in Manufacturing".
    The census shows water intake for establishments reporting annual water in-
    take of 20 million or more gallons and the  amount  of wastewater they dis-
    charge to public utility sewers, as well as the water intake for the estab-
    lishments reporting water intake of under 20 million gallons annually.  Dis-
    charges to public sewers by the latter establishments were not reported by
    the census.
    
    Water discharged to public sewers by  those  establishments using more than 20
    million gallons decreased from 997 billion  gallons in the 1959 Census to 987
    billion gallons in the 1964 Census, a drop  of  1%.   However, if present trends,
    state-by-state continue, the national aggregate will increase.  This is ex-
    plained by the upward trends in some  States that have large industrial dis-
    charges to public sewers.  Extrapolating these trends to 1968 shows the large-
    user discharges to public sewers increasing to 1,029.0 billion gallons.  Con-
    tinuing the trend to 1973 would raise this  discharge to 1,157.2 billion gal-
    lons.
    
    Although the 1964 Census of Manufactures did not  show the amount of wastewa-
    ter discharged to public sewers by those industrial establishments using un-
    der 20 million gallons of water annually,  it was  assumed that this water was
    discharged to public sewers.  This assumption  was  made because 80% of the
    119,714 establishments in this category  actually  used under one million gal-
    lons each per year, and only 4% used  from  10-20 million gallons.  Furthermore,
    an establishment with an intake of one million gallons would be using only
    about 2,740 gallons per day, roughly  equal to the water used daily by 34
    people.  In view of the small amount  of water use by 80% of these establish-
    ments, it is unlikely that they have  installed their own wastewater treatment
    equipment.  Even a factory using more than 10 million gallons annually  (the
    4% group) would be using only about  the  same amount of water daily as 500 per-
    sons.  Some, though certainly not all,  of  this latter group may have wastewa-
     6 "Wote* Uae Jun. Monurfactuytuig," 7963 Cw&ut, o& Manafria£a*EA, p*epa/ted  by
       tke. Bureau o& the. Cen^uA,  U.  S.  yepa^tment o& commence, u. S. Govern-
       ment P/tuttaig flrf^tce,  Waikuig-ton, V. C., T966.
                                         39
    

    -------
    ter treatment equipment.   Also,  a few are probably discharging wastewaters
    directly to streams.  Overall, it seems  reasonable for purposes  of this
    study, to consider that all wastewater discharged by establishments using
    less than 20 million gallons of  water annually goes to public sewers.
    
    The annual water intake for the  under-20-million-gallon users was extrapolat-
    ed to 1968 by using the average  annual value  added by manufacture for  estab-
    lishments in each State.   The data were  further extrapolated to  1973 by the
    trend in value added by manufacture in each State.  By this method it  was
    estimated that the under-20-million-gallon  users will discharge  an estimated
    310 billion gallons of wastewaters to public  sewers in 1968, with an expected
    rise to 455 billion gallons in 1973.
    
    By 1973, the total discharges are projected to increase 20%, the discharges
    of the over-20-million-gallon users by 12%, and those of  the under-20-million-
    gallon group by 47%.
    
    Table 1-11 shows the industrial  water discharged to public sewers by Water
    Resource Regions.  Ranking first is the  North Atlantic Region,  discharging
    336.1 billion gallons in 1968; second is the  Great Lakes  Region, discharging
    244.9 billion gallons; third is  the Upper Mississippi Region,  discharging
    200.7 billion gallons; and fourth the Ohio  Region, discharging 177.9 billion
    gallons.  From 1968 to 1973 the increases are fairly consistent from Region
    to Region except for the Columbia-North  Pacific Region which  shows a decrease
    of 0.3%.  It is probably that industrial wastewater discharged to public sew-
    ers will increase substantially under pressures for water quality standards
    compliance because this could offer economies to a manufacturer otherwise
    faced with installing or expanding his own  water pollution  control facilities.
    
    Waste treatment service provided by local governments  for industrial concerns
    is feasible and desirable when based on  equitable payment arrangements.  The
    advantages to industry include avoidance of capital investments, the econo-
    mies of scale, and the convenience.  There  are  advantages to  local govern-
    ments in strengthened financial bases of operation, in  the  economies of scale,
    and in increased opportunity for pollution  surveillance  and monitoring of
    waste discharges for pollution control.   The  additional  revenues to the local
    government, as a result of full-cost pricing  of the service,  could be used
    for improved operations and for participating in basinwide  management systems.
    Moreover, a user-charge not only achieves more  equitable  prices and waste con-
    trols but also provides revenues which otherwise would  have to be raised by
    taxes.
    
    Many factors will influence the trend toward  joint municipal-industrial waste
    treatment in the next few years.  In individual cases,  legal  questions will
    have to be resolved concerning facility  ownership, how the  construction costs
    will be allocated, how operation and maintenance  costs  will be borne, and
    types and quantities of wastes treated.
                                         40
    

    -------
                                    TABLE I-11
    
             INDUSTRIAL  WATER DISCHARGED TO PUBLIC SEWERS  PROJECTED
                    FOR 1968 AND 1973, BY WATER RESOURCE  REGION
    
                                 (Billion Gallons)
         Water  Resource Region
                               1
                                              1968
    1973
    Percentage
      Change
        United  States ..................   1,338.5      1,612.2      20.4%
    
    Alaska  ..............................        7.2         11.3      56.9
    Arkansas-White-Red ..................       33.8         46.7      38.2
    California  ..........................       80.3         99.6      24.0
    Columbia-North Pacific ..............       35 . 5         35 . 4     -  .3
    Great Basin  .........................        3.3          4.2      27.3
    
    Great Lakes  .........................      244.9        296.3      21.0
    Hawaii  ..............................        3.5          5.5      57.1
    Lower Colorado ......................        1.6          2.6      62.5
    Lower Mississippi ...................       14.9         16.4      10.1
    Missouri ............................       60.1         77.0      28.1
    
    North Atlantic ......................      336.1        388.2      15.5
    Ohio ................................      177.9        218.0      22.5
    Rio Grande  ................. . ........        4.0          6.3      57.5
    Souris-Red-Rainy ....................        3.5          4.0      14.3
    South Atlantic-Gulf .................       87.9        111.6      27.0
    
    Tennessee ...........................       10-8         11.5       6.5
    Texas-Gulf  ..........................       31.7         51.7      63.1
    Upper Colorado ......................         -9          1 • 2      33 • 3
    Upper Mississippi ...................      200.7        224.7      12.0
      Wote/i Ra6ou/ice Re.gion& p/ujpo^ed by  WateA RaiouAce Council jjo-t Type. I  Com-
      p*efienA-u;e Sifivet/4.  Vata UJC/LC not  available. to estimate, capital outlay
      need6 fax. the. Puerto Kico-Vi*gin  Uland* Region.
    
    Sou/ice:   Pto/ected on bom o£ ttend* te&£ec£ecf in Cuteu* oj
             "U/a£e* Uie in Manufacturing",  1959 and  1964,  and tiendA
             added by maniL^actu^e. in the. MApzctive. &tat&&.
                                                                         value,
                                         41
    

    -------
    An actual contract between an industry and  a municipality  illustrates the na-
    ture of these agreements:  an equitable distribution of  initial capital sav-
    ings as well as savings in operation costs;  assurance by the  city that oper-
    ation of the treatment works would be separated  from political appointments ;
    agreement by the city that it would accept  the company's wastewaters for
    treatment; agreement by the company that it would deliver  its wastes to the
    city for treatment, and a guarantee by the  company  that  it would not build a
    competitive plant; agreement by the company to furnish its pilot plant data
    to the city to use for the design basis; agreement  by the  city to hire the
    newly formed Sewage Treatment Company, a company subsidiary,  to operate the
    city's sewage treatment works, reserving to the  company  the right to control
    employment; and specifications of financial details including cost-sharing
    and the establishment of service rates.17
    
    Not all industrial wastes are amenable to the municipal  waste treatment pro-
    cesses regardless of the willingness of communities and  industry to cooperate
    in their joint waste treatment problems. Another factor to be considered is
    that some receiving streams may not be able to assimilate  adequately the dis-
    charges from a large single treatment source.  Part II of  this Volume con-
    tains a detailed analysis of joint municipal-industrial  waste treatment on
    an industry-by-industry basis.
       Gaudy, A. F., fct o£. ,  Symposium on  3oint UA. Separate T*ea^men£
                 and TnSM&tiat u/aUeA   pmefttect at .the 1$tk CkMioma In
                       Convenience at Oklahoma. State
       Oklahoma, November ZS-29,  J966.
                                         42
    

    -------
                                      SUMMARY
    Providing waste treatment facilities for population  growth,  upgrading primary
    treatment works, constructing treatment works  for  the  urban  population pres-
    ently unserved and replacing depreciated plants  and  equipment will cost $8.0
    billion during the period FY 1969-1973.  This  cost could increase to $8.7
    billion based upon the rising construction costs of  recent years.
    
    The waste treatment facilities, existing and projected,  required to attain
    water quality standards over the next five years,  will place substantial fi-
    nancial demands upon communities for operation and maintenance.  These costs
    are estimated at $1.4 billion in the period FY 1969-1973. Labor cost in-
    creases could raise this amount to $1.7 billion.
    
    In order to meet the standards by 1973, it is  estimated  that 90% of the urban
    population will require secondary treatment facilities and 10% primary treat-
    ment facilities.
    
    Substantial additional costs will be incurred  during the 1969-1973 period for
    the control of overflows from combined sewers.  It is  anticipated that a va-
    riety of control methods will be initiated, depending  upon individual circum-
    stances, and as a result, the full extent of these costs cannot be estimated
    at this time.
    
    New sanitary sewers for the U. S. urban population projected to 1973 will
    cost $6.2 billion.  This study has not attempted to  calculate the capital
    needs for urban drainage improvements in the U.  S.  However, the American
    Public Works Association has estimated these capital needs at $25 billion
    for the period 1966-1975.
    
    Future trends in industrial wastewater discharges  to public  sewers will be
    influenced greatly by the extent to which municipalities and industries can
    jointly and feasibly solve their waste treatment problems.  Industry, spurred
    by requirements to comply with water quality standards,  may find such a joint
    waste treatment operation advantageous.  Economies of scale  may also be avail-
    able through municipal-industrial sharing of the construction costs of joint
    treatment works.
                                         43
    

    -------
                                    APPENDIX I
    
                                    BIBLIOGRAPHY
    Advisory Conmission on Intergovernmental Relations.  A Commission Report,
         Intergovernmental Responsibilities for Water Supply and Sewage  Disposal
         in Metropolitan Areas,  Washington, D. C., October 1962.
    
    American Public Works Association.  The Problems of Combined Sewer Facilities
         and Overflows, 1947.  A report prepared by the American Public  Works
         Association, 1967 for the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
         U. S. Department of the Interior.
    
    American Public Works Association, Urban Drainage Committee.  Urban  Drainage
         Practices, Procedures,  and Needs.  Project 119.  Chicago, Illinois:
         December 1966.
    
    Byrd, J. Floyd.  Combined Treatment - A Coast-to-Coast Coverage.  Paper pre-
         sented at the 39th Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control
         Federation in Kansas City, Missouri, September 25-30, 1966.
    
    Conference of State Sanitary Engineers.  Second Annual Report on Municipal
         Waste Treatment Needs.   Conference of State Sanitary Engineers, Janu-
         ary 1, 1962.
    
    Conference of State Sanitary Engineers.  Sixth Annual Survey of Municipal
         Waste Treatment Needs,  Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
         Public Health Service,  Washington, D. C., January 1966.
    
    Fair, G. M. and J. C. Geyer.  Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal,  John
         Wiley and Sons, Inc., Fifth Printing, New York, New York, April 1963.
    
    Gaudy, A. F., et al.  Symposium on Joint vs. Separate Treatment of Municipal
         and Industrial Waste.  Symposium was presented at the 13th Oklahoma  In-
         dustrial Wastes Conference at Oklahoma State University, Stillwater,
         Oklahoma, November 28-29,  1966.
    
    Glass, Andrew C. and Kenneth H.  Jenkins.  Statistical Summary of 1962 Inven-
         tory Municipal Waste  Facilities in the United States.  Division of Water
         Supply and Pollution  Control, U. S. Department of Health, Education  and
         Welfare, Public Health  Service.  Washington 1964.
    
    Haseltine, T. R.  "A Rational Approach to the Design of Activated Sludge
         Plants."  Sewage Treatment.  Pages 257-270.
                                        44
    

    -------
    Howells, D.  H.  and D.  P.  Dubois.  "The Design and Cost of Stabilization Ponds
        in the  Midwest."   Sewage and Industrial Wastes.  Volume 31, No. 7, July
        1959.
    
    Kanmerer, J. C. and K. A. Mackichan.  Estimated Use of Water in the United
        States, 1960.  U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Geo-
        logical Survey Circular 456, Washington, 1961.
    
    Reefer, C. E.  Sewage  Treatment - How It Is Accomplished.  From the Smithso-
        nian Report for 1956.  Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.  1957.
        Pages 363-389.
    
    Koenig, Louis.   The Cost of Water Quality Control.  Talk for Presentation at
        ASTM National Meeting on the Control of Water Quality.  Philadelphia,
        Pennsylvania, May 13, 1965.
    
    	.  Studies Relating to Market Projections for Advanced Waste Treat-
        ment.  For The Advanced Waste Treatment Research Activities, Research
        and Development,  Cincinnati Water Research Laboratory, U. S. Department
        of the  Interior,  Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.  Cin-
        cinnati, December 1966.
    
    Logan, John  A., W. D.  Hat field, George S. Russell, and Walter R. Lynn.  "An
        Analysis of the Economies of Wastewater Treatment."  Journal Water Pol-
        lution  Control Federation.  Volume 34, No. 9.  September 1962.  Pages
        860-882.
    
    National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council.  Waste Management
        and Control.  A Report to the Federal Council for Science and Technology
        by the  Committee on Pollution, National Academy of Sciences.  Washington,
        1966.
    
    National Association of Counties/Research Foundation.  Community Action Pro-
        gram for Water Pollution Control.  Washington, 1965.
    
    National Association of Home Builders, Research Institute, in Cooperation
        With U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health
        Service*  Small Sewage Treatment Systems.  Washington, 1959.
    
    President's  Science Advisory Committee, Restoring the Quality of Our Environ-
        ment, A Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel, The White House,
        1965.
    
    Rafuse, Jr., Robert W.  Water-Supply and Sanitation Expenditures of State and
        Local Governments;  Projections to 1970.  In cooperation with the Nation-
        al Association of Cojnties, the National League of Cities, the U. S. Con-
        ference of Mayors, The George Washington University.  Chicago:  The Coun-
        cil of State Governments , 1966.
                                        45
    

    -------
    Rowan, P. P., K. L. Jenkins,  and D. H. Howells.  Division of Water Supply and
         Pollution Control, U.  S. Department of Health, Education  and Welfare,
         Public Health Service.  "Estimating Sewage Treatment Plant Operation and
         Maintenance Costs." Journal Water Pollution Control Federation.  Febru-
         ary 1961.  Volume 33,  No. 2.
    
    State of Michigan, Joint Legislative  Committee on Water Resources Planning.
         Study on Needs for Water Pollution Control Works.  December 31,  1966.
    
    Swanson, C. L.  Unit Process  Operating and Maintenance Costs for Conventional
         Sewage Treatment Processes, (unpublished memorandum) August 1, 1966.
    
    U. S. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of Population;  1960,  Volume I.
         U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961.
    
    	.  1963 Census of Manufactures, Water Use in Manufacturing.  Washing-
         ton:  U. S. Government Printing Office, 1966.
    
    U. S. Congress, House, Joint Economic Committee, State and Local  Public Fa-
         cility Needs and Financing,  89th Congress, 2nd Session, Volumes 1 and 2,
         1966.
    
    U. S. Congress, Senate, Select Committee on National Water Resources.  Water
         Resources Activities in the  United States, Pollution Abatement.  Commit-
         tee Print No. 9.  89th Congress, 2nd Session, 1960.
    
    U. S. Congress, Senate, Steps Toward Clean Water.  Washington,  D.  C.  Janu-
         ary 1966.
    
    U. S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Public Works, Hearings Before a Special
         Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, 89th Congress, 1st  Session,
         Parts 1, 2 and 3, 1965.
    
    U. S. Department of Commerce.  Regional Construction Requirements  for Water
         and Wastewater Facilities, 1955-1967-1980.  Business and Defense Ser-
         vices Administration.  Washington, 1967.
    
    D. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health  Service.
         Modern Sewage Treatment Plants - How Much Do They Cost?  Division of
         Water Supply and Pollution Control.  Washington, 1965.
    
            •  Pollutional Effects of Storm Water and Overflows From Combined
         Sewer Systems, A Preliminary Appraisal.  Division of Water Supply  and
         Pollution Control.   Washington, 1964.
    
        	•  Proceedings the National Conference on Water Pollution.  Washing-
         ton, D.  C.December 12-14, 1960.~
                                        46
    

    -------
           .   Waste Stabilization Lagoons^.   Proceedings of a Symposium at  Kansas
        City,  Missouri,  August 1-5,  1960.   Division of Water Supply and Pollu-
        tion Control,  Region VI,  Kansas City,  Missouri, 1961.
    
       	.  Problems in Financing  Sewage Treatment Facilities.   Division of
        Water  Supply and Pollution Control. Washington, 1964.
    U. S. Department of the Interior,  Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
        tion.   Manpower and Training  Needs in Water Pollution Control.   Report
        to the Congress of the United States, Document No.  49.  90th Congress,
        1st Session, 1967.
    
           .  Sewage Treatment Plant  Construction Cost Index.  Division of Con-
        struction Grants.
    
              Sewer Construction Cost Index.   Division of Construction Grants.
        U. S.  Government Printing Office.   Washington, D. C., 1964.
    
        	.   Sewage and Water Works Construction, 1965.   Washington,  1966.
    U. S. Department of Labor.   Indexes of Output Per Man-Hour, Hourly Compensa-
        tion, and Unit Labor Costs in the Manufacturing Sector, 1947-1966.
        Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Washington.  June 1967,
    
    Water Pollution Federation.  Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm
        Sewers, WPCF Manual of Practice No. 9.  Prepared by a Joint Committee
        of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 1960.
    
    	.  Sewage Treatment Plant Design, WPCF Manual of Practice No. 8.
        Prepared by a Joint Committee of WPCF and the American Society of Civil
        Engineers.  Washington:  Water Pollution Control Federation, 1957.
    
    	.  Uniform System of Accounts for Waterwater Utilities.  Prepared by
        WPCF Committee on Sewage and Industrial Wastes Practice, Subcommittee
        on Sewage Works Finance.  Washington:  Water Pollution Control Feder-
        ation, 1961.
                                        47
    

    -------
                               INDUSTRIAL REQUIREMENTS
    
                                 AND COST ESTIMATES
                                      Volume II
    
                                       Part II
                           U. S. Department  of  the  Interior
                    Federal Water Pollution  Control  Administration
                                  January 10,  1968
    294-046 O - 6« - 5
    

    -------
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
                                     Part II
    Introduction                                                         57
    
    Volume of Industrial Wastes                                          59
    
    Methods and Prevalence of Industrial Waste Control                   67
    
      Volume of Waste and Degree of Treatment                            67
      Industry-Operated Waste Treatment Plants                           68
      Treatment of Industrial Wastes by Municipal
        Treatment Plants                                                 70
      Ground Disposal of Liquid Industrial Wastes                        76
      Technological Advance as an Industrial Waste
        Control Measure                                                  77
    
    Cost Standards and Investment Requirements                           91
    
      Analysis of Unit Costs                                             91
      Method of Assessment                                               94
    
    Total Required Investment for Industrial Waste
      Treatment                                                          98
    
    Marginal Efficiency and Hidden Costs                                105
    
      Other Sources of Cost                                             108
    
    Annual Costs of Industrial Waste Treatment                          110
    
    Regional Incidence of Industrial Waste Treatment
      Costs                                                             115
    
    Industrial Wastewater Cooling Requirements                          119
    
    Conclusions                                                         137
    
    Appendix I
    
      Effect of Potential Cost Increases                                140
                                       51
    

    -------
                                                                       Page
    Appendix II
      Procedure Followed in Development of the Waste
        Treatment Cost Model                                            151
    
    Appendix III
    
      Bibliography                                                      153
                                      52
    

    -------
                                 LIST OF TABLES
    
                                     Part II
    Table                              Title                             Page
    II-l     Currently Reported Wastewater Characteristics, By
             Industry Groups.                                             60
    
    11-2     Estimated volume of Industrial Waste Before Treat-
             ment, 1964.                                                  63
    
    II-3     Regional Incidence of Industrial Waste Discharge,
             By Major Industrial Sectors, 1964.                           65
    
    II-4     Waste Controlling Techniques, By Major Industrial
             Sectors, 1964.                                               69
    
    II-5     Relative Increase in Output and Treatment of Liquid
             Wastes By Major Industrial Sectors, 1954-1964.               71
    
    II-6     Growth of Municipal Sewer and Waste Treatment Facil-
             ities, 1949-1962.                                            72
    
    II-7     Total Discharge and Sewered Discharge Trends, 1959-
             1964  (1959 = 100%) .                                          74
    
    II-8     Trend of Ground Disposal in Industrial Liquid Waste
             Handling, 1959-1964.                                         78
    
    II-9     Relative Change in Output, Water Use, and Wastewa-
             ter Discharge, By Major Industrial Sectors.                  83
    
    11-10    Relative Increase in Water Use Efficiency and in
             Water Reuse, By Major Industrial Sectors.                    84
    
    11-11    Coefficients of Liquid Wastes Generated, By Indus-
             try Category.                                                89
    
    11-12    Estimated Value of Investment, Industrial Waste
             Treatment Requirements, 1968.                                99
    
    11-13    Comparison of Estimated 1968 Waste Treatment Re-
             quirements Under Two Methods of Calculation.                 101
                                        53
    

    -------
    Table                              Title                              Page
    11-14     Annual Investment Required to Reduce the Existing
              Industrial Waste Treatment Deficiency in Five
              Years.                                                       103
    
    11-15     Capital Costs Associated With Varying Levels of
              Industrial Waste Treatment Efficiency for 1968
              Discharges.                                                  107
    
    11-16     Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs as a Per-
              centage of Value of Treatment Plants.                        Ill
    
    11-17     Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs, 1968-1973.           112
    
    11-18     Annual Cash Outlays Associated With the Projected
              Industrial Waste Treatment System, 1969-1973.                114
    
    11-19     Regional Distribution of Waste Treatment Require-
              ments, 1968, By Wastewater Profiles and Estimates.           116
    
    II-2O     Relative Regional Prevalence of Industrial waste
              Treatment, 1964.                                             118
    
    11-21     Waste Heat - Comparison of New Generating Units
              Coming on Stream in 1965 With Plant Retirements,
              1961-1965.                   -                                122
    
    11-22     Nuclear-Fueled Generating Capacity Operational
              in Year, 1957-1973.                                          124
    
    11-23     Regional Distribution of Thermal Generating
              Plants and Cooling Facilities, 1965.                         127
    
    11-24     Cooling Facilities Required, Steam-Electric Gen-
              erating, By Region, 1965.                                    129
    
    11-25     Manufacturers' Capital Requirements for Cooling
              Facilities, By Industry, 1964.                               130
    
    11-26     Regional Distribution of Cooling Facilities Re-
              quirements in Manufacturing, 1964.                           132
    
    H-27     Indicated Annual Investment Required to Provide
              Complete Cooling for Major Industrial Establish-
              ments By 1973.                                               133
                                        54
    

    -------
    Table                              Title                             Page
    11-28     Annual Cash Outlays  for Cooling,  1969-1973.                  136
    
    II-A     Construction  Cost  Increase, As Measured  By  the
             Engineering News Record Index.                               142
    
    II-B     Effect on  Investment Requirements of  Continuing
             the Current  (1958-1968) Rate  of  Increase in Con-
             struction  Costs.                                             143
    
    II-C     Value of Plant In-Place,  1973, Under  Alternative
             Evaluation Procedures.                                       145
    
    II-D     Cash Flow  Deficiencies Associated With Continuing
             the Current Rate of  Increase  in  Construction
             Costs.                                                       146
    
    II-E     Effect on  Operating  and Maintenance Charges of
             Continuing the Current  (1958-1967) Rate  of  In-
             crease in  Cost.                                             148
    
    II-F     Summary of Total  Impact of Projected  Cost In-
             creases,  1969-1973.                                          150
                                        55
    

    -------
                                 LIST OF  FIGURES
    
                                     Part II
    
    
    
    Figure                            Title                              Page.
    
    
     II-1     Major Drainage Regions, Industrial Definition.                 66
    
     II-2     Comparative Index of  Annual  Wood Pulp Production
              and Volume of Pulping Wastes, 1920-1960 (1920 -
              100).                                                         80
    
     II-3     Decline in Heat Wasted in  Steam-Electric Power
              Production.                                                   81
    
     II-4     Index of Unit Wastewater and Pollutant Concentra-
              tions Associated With Current Production Technolo-
              gies (Old Technology  » 100).                                  87
    
     II-5     Effect of Reduction in Initial  Waste Loading on
              Treatment Plant Cost.                                         88
    
     II-6     Comparative Construction Costs  Per Unit of Flow,
              Secondary Waste Treatment  Plants.                             92
    
     II-7     Generalized Relationship Between Waste Treatment
              Costs and Intensity of Treatment.                            106
    
     II-A     Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index,
              (1913-1967) Projected to 1973.                                141
                                        56
    

    -------
                                   INTRODUCTION
    Waste controls and wastewater cooling facilities having  a  current replacement
    value of from over $5 billion to more than $6 billion must be  utilized to
    achieve by FY 1973 the level of industrial waste reduction and temperature
    control assumed to be necessary to provide adequate protection against water
    pollution.  Roughly half of the value of the necessary investment is present-
    ly provided by industrial waste treatment and cooling plants in place, or by
    municipal facilities which treat industrial wastes.  But an investment of
    from almost $2 billion to almost $3.5 billion will be required to overcome
    the accumulated deficiency in industrial waste  treatment and cooling facili-
    ties that exists in 1968, another $.5 billion to $1 billion will be required
    to keep pace with industrial growth between 1968 and 1973. The annual cost
    of operating and maintaining the system is expected to rise from $550 million
    at the inadequate 1968 level of operations to over $1 billion, exclusive of
    depreciation, by 1973.
    
    The costs indicated are those associated with assigned levels  of efficiency:
    85% removal of standard BOD and of settleable and suspended solids contents
    of waterbome industrial wastes and achievement of a 13° average temperature
    reduction.  It must be recognized that the values have no  application to spe-
    cific situations - greater or lesser efficiencies may be required to maintain
    water quality standards at any point.  The requirement is  expressed in aver-
    age terms.  Similarly, attainment of the requirement is  evaluated in terms of
    prevailing approaches and technology and average costs.  There are many al-
    ternative methods of meeting the waste reduction and the cooling requirement.
    The combination of decisions regarding adoption of the alternatives will have
    a profound impact on realized costs.
    
    The ultimate cost to industry and to the economy of providing  a degree of
    waste treatment sufficient to maintain water quality standards for interstate
    waters will depend on the interweaving of a complex set  of variables that in-
    cludes  (but is probably not limited to) industrial location, water use tech-
    nology, regulatory policy, rate of increase in  industrial  output, the compo-
    sition of industrial output, waste treatment  technology, development of coop-
    erative institutional arrangements, and the speed with which  obsolete indus-
    trial plant is replaced.
    
    The critical nature of industrial pollution control is  indicated by the as-
    sessment of gross volume of industrial waste production  presented in this re-
    port.  While no national inventory of industrial waste  sources has yet been
    assembled, it has been possible to gather reasonably  reliable information re-
    garding both the volume of industrial wastewater  and  of  industrial production,
    Engineering studies of the waste handling requirements  of  a wide variety of
    industrial processes have produced data which permit waste-to-product ratios
    to be calculated for many processes and products.  Application of these ra-
                                         57
    

    -------
    tios to published estimates of output, then, provides a gross sizing of con-
    stituents of the industrial wasteload.
    
    While the obvious weaknesses of an attempt to quantify the industrial waste
    problem on the basis of limited data must be recognized, it is apparent that
    industrial wastes are a much larger potential source of water pollution than
    are the wastes of the nation's municipal populations.  Estimated production
    of standard BOD by industry is almost three times that of municipalities;
    production of suspended solids is between two and three times that of munici-
    palities.  In addition, polluting increases in temperature, alkalinity, acid-
    ity, color, metals, and toxicants in our nation's waters as a result of the
    wastes of industrial processes are significant and growing.
    
    In evaluating this assessment of wasteloads and treatment costs, two factors
    must be kept in mind.  First, the industrial waste problem is greater than a
    simple comparison with municipal wastes would indicate.  The variety of pol-
    lutants other than heat, standard BOD, and suspended solids, the gaps in the
    data, the unreliability of the standard BOD test for non-human waste pro-
    ducts - all suggest strongly that an assessment of industrial wasteload quan-
    tities made with the present state of information must, of necessity, be an
    under-evaluation.  Second, technological improvements which advance the cost-
    effectiveness of waste treatment, opportunities for modification of produc-
    tion processes to reduce unit waste production, and cooperative waste han-
    dling procedures should be utilized fully to lessen costs, in order to offset
    the cost-increasing effects of industrial concentration and hard-to-treat
    wastes.
                                         58
    

    -------
                            VOLUME OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES
    Definition of treatment requirements and costs associated with  the nation's
    production of industrial wastes has, as a preliminary  condition,  required an
    assessment of the volume and pollutional characteristics of  industrial wastes.
    No such assessment has ever been made before.  Evaluations of industrial
    wastes to this time have occurred in connection with localized  problems.
    
    In order to provide the required quantitative framework for  this  study, the
    FWPCA undertook to correlate the results of an extensive search of the tech-
    nical literature of industrial wastewater characteristics with  the data on
    industrial water use presented in The 1963 Census of Manufactures, "Water Use
    in Manufacturing."  Efforts were bent to development of three pieces of in-
    formation:  (1) characteristic waste products of major water using industrial
    processes, (2) normal volume relationships for industrial processes between
    unit material outputs or inputs and pollutants, and  (3) relationships between
    total output, total water use, and wastes for industrial sectors  in the cen-
    sus year.
    
    The investigation of wastewater characteristics produced a  large  number of
    estimates of characteristic kinds of waterborne wastes generated  by specific
    industries.  But though the list, presented in Table II-l,  is extensive, only
    a few pollutants have been reported in meaningful detail.
    
    Five-day biochemical oxygen demand  (BOD5) was reported most  frequently.
    Other parameters for which considerable data are available  are  suspended sol-
    ids, total solids, and pH (a measure of alkalinity or  acidity).
    
    The deficiency of data with regard to many industrial  pollutants  symptomizes
    a deficiency in the general approach to pollution control.   There has been a
    tendency to view and evaluate all pollutants in terms  of their  analogy with
    sanitary wastes.  Thus waste treatment efficiency is almost  universally ex-
    pressed in terms of percentage BOD removal, although it is  recognized that,
    in the case of industrial pollutants, the effectiveness of  control will often
    depend on removal of specific compounds that may or may not  contribute to
    standard BOD measured in the waste stream.
    
    The shift from qualitative analysis - identification of the  kinds of materi-
    als found in various industrial wastewaters - to quantitative description in-
    volved enormous difficulties, due largely to data deficiencies.  It was found
    that the concentrations of given pollutants per unit of product for any in-
    dustry varied greatly from one plant to another.  Lack of information regard-
    ing other pollutants required the analysis to be expressed  largely in terms
    of standard BOD and suspended solids.  Moreover, the census  data  on water use
    are in many cases inconsistent, incomplete, and inexact.  These deficiencies
    appear to be due, in large part, to industry's limited accounting for water
                                         59
    

    -------
                              TABLE II-l
    CURRENTLY REPORTED WASTEHATER CHARACTERISTICS BY INDUSTRY GROUPS
    SIC Code
    Liquid Waste
    Characteristic
    Unit Volume
    pH
    Acidity
    Alkalinity
    Color
    Odor
    Total Solids
    Suspended Solids
    Temperature
    BODj/BQDultimate
    COO
    Oil « Grease
    Detergents
    (Surfacants)
    Chloride
    Heavy Metals:
    Cadmium
    Chromium
    Copper
    Iron
    Lead
    Manganese
    Nickel
    Zinc
    Nitrogen:
    Ammonia
    Nitrate
    Nitrite
    Organic
    Total
    Phosphorus
    Phenols
    Sulfide
    Turbidity
    Sulfate
    Thiosulfate
    Hercaptans
    Lignins
    Sulfur
    Phosphates
    Potassium,
    Calcium
    Polysaccharides
    Tannin
    Sodium
    Fluorides
    Silica
    Toxicity
    Magnesium
    Ammonia
    Cyanide
    Thiocyanate
    Ferrous Iron
    Sulfite
    Aluminum
    201 202 203 204 206 208 22
    Canned
    & Textile
    Heat Frozen Grain Mill
    Products Dairies Foods Mills Sugar Beverages Products
    X ) X X XX X X
    XX X X X X
    XXX
    X XXX
    X
    X
    XX X X X X
    X X X X X X X
    X
    X X X X X X X
    X X
    XX X X
    
    X
    X X
    
    
    X
    X
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    X XX
    X
    X
    XX X
    x x
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    26
    Paper
    &
    Allied
    Products
    X
    X
    
    X
    X
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    X
    
    X
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    
    X
    X
    
    
    X
    
    X
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    x
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    281
    Basic
    Chemicals
    x
    x
    x
    x
    x
    x
    x
    x
    x
    x
    x
    x
    
    x
    x
    
    x
    x
    x
    x
    x
    x
    X
    X
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    x
    x
    x
    x
    
    x
    x
    
    
    
    X
                                      60
    

    -------
                              TABLE II-l
    
    CURRENTLY REPORTED WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS BY INDUSTRY GROUPS
                                (CONT'D.)
    SIC Code
    
    
    Liquid Waste
    Characteristic
    ttoit Volume
    PH
    Acidity
    Alkalinity
    Color
    Odor
    Total Solids
    Suspended Solids
    Temperature
    BODj/BOOultimate
    COO
    Oil t Grease
    Detergents
    (Surfacants)
    Chloride
    Heavy Metals:
    Cadmium
    Chronium
    Copper
    Iron
    lead
    Kanganese
    Nickel
    Zinc
    nitrogen:
    Ammonia
    Nitrate
    Nitrite
    Organic
    Total
    Phosphorus
    Phenols
    Snlflde
    Turbidity
    Sulfata
    Thiosulfate
    Hercaptans
    Lignins
    Sulfur
    Phosphates
    Potassium
    Calcium
    Polysaccharides
    Tannin
    Sodium
    Fluorides
    Silica
    Tmdcity
    Magnetic
    Ammonia
    Cyanide
    Thiocyanate
    Ferrous Iron
    Snlfite
    282 2871 291 1
    Fibers
    Plastics Petro-
    & leum
    Rubbers Fertilizer Refining
    XX X
    XX X
    X X
    X
    X X
    X X
    X X
    X X
    X X
    X X
    X X
    X X
    
    X
    X X
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    X
    
    
    k
    X X
    
    
    X
    X
    X
    X X
    X
    X
    X X
    
    X
    
    
    X
    X
    X
    
    
    X
    X X
    X
    X
    X
    X X
    
    
    
    
    3111
    Leather
    Tanni ng
    &
    Finishing
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    X
    X
    
    X
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    
    X
    X
    
    
    X
    
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    331
    Steel
    Rol 1 1 ng
    &
    Finishing
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    
    X
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    3334 3717
    Motor
    Vehicles
    Primary &
    Aluminum Parts
    X X
    X X
    X X
    X
    X
    X
    X X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    X
    X
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    X
    
    
    
    X
    
    
    
    3722
    Aircraft
    Engines
    &
    Parts
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    X
    X
    
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    
    
    
    
    
    X
    
    
    
    X
    
    
    
                                  61
    

    -------
    as a raw material.  Extension of the disclosure rule to water, where its rel-
    evance is doubtful, must bear a considerable responsibility for the weakness-
    es of the census of water use as an analytical  tool.
    
    While the weaknesses in precision of the assessment of waste volumes must be
    admitted, its utility can scarcely be questioned.   The data - presented in
    Table II-21 - indicate that manufacturing is not,  as has often been suggested,
    roughly equal in pollutional effect to municipal populations.  It is, in fact,
    a far more significant source of pollutants, and probably of pollution, than
    is the nation's sewered population.  In terms of gross quantities alone,
    prior to treatment manufacturing wastes have an estimated BOD more than
    three times that of all sewered municipalities  and contain more than twice
    the suspended solids content of municipal wastes.   Moreover, increasing per
    capita output, and degree of processing involved in that output, indicates
    that industrial waste volumes are growing at a  much more rapid rate than are
    domestic waste volumes.
    
    Perhaps more significant than the gross quantity of industrial waste is its
    concentration.  A few industries - paper and allied products, the chemicals
    group, petroleum refining, sugar refining, primary metals - which are typi-
    cally composed of a relatively few, relatively  large plants, use most of the
    nation's industrial water and produce most of the  nation's wastes.  Wherever
    one of these big, high pollutant-producing plants  is located, the potential
    for pollution is high.  Because industries tend to be concentrated at points
    of demand or of raw material availability, and  because industrial concentra-
    tions create or are attracted to concentrations of population, the environ-
    mental effects of such industries are magnified beyond the level that their
    gross production of pollutants would suggest.
    
    The tendency to industrial concentration has a  tremendous impact on the re-
    gional prevalence of industrial water pollutants.   The great preponderance of
    American industrial water use, as measured by wastewater discharge, occurs in
    the northeast - the North Atlantic, Great Lakes, and Ohio River Drainage
    areas.2  While volume of water discharge is in  no  sense a direct index of
      The. data, a* pM&ented in tlie. table. f  ha&  been Jueiaotiked to &it the. btioad
      indu&tAAol cla^&ifxLcation& utilized in tiilb  tepoxt.   The. original fatun
      o$ the. table. - to be. found Jin National Indu&tfiial Waltz te&u&mejit,
      T. J. PowertA, III, et. at. - i& con&ideAjably mo*e detailed,  and organ-
      ized in a ^a&hion mote amenable, to conventional engine.esiing  U6e than i&
      the. material in thii tepoJit, which ib dUutcted to the. economic aipec-tfi
      natheA than the. engineering tfunattorw involved in pollution  control.
    2
      Throughout tiiu> du>cui>Aion, the. geagtiaphic. friame. o£ *ejfe*ence i& the.
      ma/04 drainage. a/iea4 de,^uted by the. Wa£e/i Reiotw.ce Council.   Vata, fiow-
      eve*, OJUL tupoHted by Bureau o^ Cenaua1 "Indu&tAial Watest U&e. Region*."
      The**, a/te Alight di^eJimcju between  the. regional boundasiiu a& de.£ine.d
                                          62
    

    -------
                                   TABLE II-2
    
    
                      ESTIMATED VOLUME OF INDUSTRIAL  WASTES
    
                             BEFORE TREATMENT,  19641/
    Was
    wat
    Industry Vol
    (Bil
    Gal
    Food & Kindred Products
    Heat Products
    Dairy Products
    Canned & Frozen Food
    Sugar Refining
    All Other
    Textile Mill Products
    Paper & Allied Products 1,
    Chemical & Allied Products 3,
    Petroleum & Coal 1,
    Rubber & Plastics
    Primary Metals 4,
    Blast Furnaces & Steel Mills 3,
    All Other
    Machinery
    Electrical Machinery
    Transportation Equipment
    All Other Manufacturing
    All Manufacturing 13,
    For comparison:
    Sewered Population of U. S. 5,
    te- Process
    er Water
    ume Intake
    1 i on ( Bi 11 i on
    Ions) Gallons}
    690 260
    99 52
    58 13
    87 51
    220 110
    220 43
    140 110
    900 1,300
    700 560
    300 88
    160 19
    300 1,000
    600 870
    740 130
    150 23
    91 28
    240 58
    450 190
    100 3,700
    30oi/
    BOD5
    (Million
    Pounds)
    4,300
    640
    400
    1,200
    1,400
    670
    890
    5,900
    9,700
    500
    40
    480
    160
    320
    60
    70
    120
    390
    22,000
    7,3001'
    Suspended
    Solids
    (Million
    Pounds)
    6,600
    640
    230
    600
    5,000
    110
    N. E.
    3,000
    1,900
    460
    50
    4,700
    4,300
    430
    50
    20
    N. E.
    930
    18,000
    8,800^
    -'  Column* may not  add,  due, to Bounding
    
    91
    -  120,000,000 pon&  x 120 QO££JOH& x 365 cfcu/4
    
    
    3/
    -  120,000,000
                          x  1/6  pound* x 365 day*
    -  120,000,000 pdA*on&  x  0.2  pound* x 365 day*
                                        63
    

    -------
    pollutants produced by industry, it provides a good scaling  of relative mag-
    nitude.  It  is  clear, from reference to Table 11-3 and Figure  II-l,  that in-
    dustrial-originating pollution control requirements cluster  overwhelmingly in
    the Northern United States, between the Mississippi River  and  the Atlantic
    Ocean.
      by the. two agencies, the. bo&^6 fion the. boundaJiy being  physical, -in the.
      one coae,  political in the. otheA.  However, the. combination orf the.
      CenAuA'  New England, VelaioaAe. and Hudson, and Chesapeake. Say t&Qi.on&
      accofuU  ve*y closely with the. WRC'i Month Atlantic.  Region;  the. combi-
      nation o$  the. Cianbesi&wd and Ohio \flateji U&e. Regions  cowt.eApond& we£t
      with the. WRC Ohio Vtiainage. M&a; the. Rio Gnande. plu& the. Texoi-GuZ^
      WRC ti&Qion& one. u&entiaJULy the. &ame. a& tlie. Census'  WuteAn Gutfi; the.
      MiAAousu. Region o£ the. Cen&u& contain* mo&t o£ the. SoutiA-Recf-Roou/
      dJioAJMLQe. o/iea; and the. two Gieat Lake* Indu&fUat Mate*.  U&e. Reg-con*
      ate, together., macn tike. the. Gfieat Lake* VnainoQe. M.ea.   It wa& found
      ne.c.eA*any, toot to add toyetheJi the. Gxeat Ba&in and Cotonado Sa&in to
      fa>*m a tingle. anaJLyticaJL unit limiton. to the. combination o£ the.
      (IppeA  Colorado, LoweA Colorado, and Gieat Ba&in.
                                          64
    

    -------
                                                                                    TABLE U-3
    
    
                                                 REGIONAL INCIDENCE OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGE, BY MAJOR  INDUSTRIAL SECTORS, 1964
    Percent of Discharge of Industry's Wastewater
    Industry Reg Ion a
    Assigns
    Dlschar
    ITy
    ble North- South-
    •ge east east
    Heat Products 90.6 5.0 7.0
    Dairy Products 64.0 10.3 3.4
    Canned t Frozen Foods 68,8 1.4 18.4
    Great
    Lakes
    4.0
    22.4
    8.0
    Ohio
    6.0
    3,4
    -
    Ten-
    nessee
    
    -
    -
    Upper
    Missis-
    sippi
    32.3
    7.2
    3.4
    Sugar Refining 56.7 6.3
    All Other Food Products 95.1 21.0 4.3
    Textile Hill Product! 98.4 31.1 55.6
    Paper b Allied Product* 98.3 23.5 26.4
    Chemical fi Allied Products 100.0 12.8 5.0
    Petroleua & Coal 97.6 26.8 .4
    Rubber 1 Plastics, n.e.c. 76.8 22.6 3.9
    Primary Metals 87.8 7.4 1.0
    Machinery 100.0 49.6 .7
    Electrical Machinery 99.0 35.2 3.3
    Transportation Equipment 98.2 31.2 1.7
    All Other (plus
    Unassignable)
    Total industrial
    Discharge
    
    95.7 4.0
    
    19.9 6.9
    15.5
    1.5
    12.4
    13.0
    19.7
    36.8
    38.4
    16.8
    19.8
    46.8
    
    18.1
    
    23.4
    7.1
    .6
    2.6
    19.7
    1.8
    5.8
    33.4
    8.1
    28.6
    5.9
    
    8.7
    
    18.2
    .9
    8.1
    3.4
    6.7
    -
    -
    .5
    -
    1.1
    -
    
    8.1
    
    2.4
    20.1
    -
    5.6
    1.6
    .8
    2.6
    2.3
    22.8
    6.6
    2.1
    
    11.9
    
    3,5
    Lower
    Missis-
    sippi
    1.0
    -
    -
    36.4
    4.3
    1.5
    1.6
    5.4
    9.1
    2.6
    -
    -
    -
    "•
    
    35.6
    
    3.7
    Missouri
    23.2
    5.2
    -
    10.4
    4.9
    -
    .1
    .4
    1.6
    1.9
    .3
    -
    1.1
    -
    
    1.7
    
    1.2
    Arkansas
    White -
    Red
    4.0
    -
    -
    -
    1.0
    -
    3,4
    1.3
    1.1
    -
    _
    -
    1.1
    .8
    
    6.6
    
    1.4
    Western
    Gulf
    2.0
    -
    -
    -
    1.5
    •
    1.4
    32.0
    25.5
    -
    3.2
    .7
    -
    -
    
    4.3
    
    12.2
    Colorado'
    and
    Great
    .
    -
    -
    -
    1.5
    -
    -
    .1
    .2
    -
    .2
    .7
    -
    -
    
    7.2
    
    .3
    [Pacific
    North,-.
    west!/
    5.1
    5.2
    14.9
    -
    5.0
    -
    16.7
    1.2
    .2
    -
    .9
    -
    -
    1.7
    
    18.8
    
    4.1
    Cali-
    fornia!/
    1.0
    6.9
    20.7
    3.6
    7.1
    -
    1.2
    .8
    10.5
    .6
    .2
    .7
    2.2
    8.0
    
    8.1
    
    2.7
    I/I
                           A&ufca
               -
    
    
               2 /
               -   Intiudu Hawaii
    

    -------
                                                  FIGURE n- 1
                                MAJOR DRAINAGE REGIONS,  INDUSTRIAL DEFINITION
    i      "
                                         ARKANSAS-WHITE ANDRED
    
     * INCLUDES ALASKA
     # INCLUDES HAWAII
    

    -------
               METHODS  AND PREVALENCE OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTROL
    
                      VOLUME OF WASTE AND DEGREE OF TREATMENT
    While there is no  comprehensive inventory of industrial waste  sources,  the
    Census of Manufactures  includes a survey of "Water Use in Manufacturing"
    that provides the  raw data for a generalized assessment of  industry's waste
    handling practices.   A  reported total of 13,157 billion gallons of wastewa-
    ter was discharged in 1964, the date of the most recent survey, by manufac-
    turing establishments that used 20 million gallons or more  of  water  during
    that year.
    
    Of the more than 13  trillion gallons of wastewater, some indeterminate  part
    may be considered  to have required treatment because of its pollutional
    characteristics.   Total water intake of the surveyed establishments  included
    3,703 billion gallons of process water, all of which might  be  expected  to re-
    quire treatment prior to discharge, and 959 billion gallons of water for  mis-
    cellaneous uses, of  which at least the component utilized for  sanitary  ser-
    vices would require  waste treatment.  The largest category  of  water  use,
    cooling water, accounted for 9,385 billion gallons of intake.  Under many
    circumstances cooling water would not require treatment other  than tempera-
    ture stabilization.   But where recycling involves the mixture  of process  and
    cooling waters or  the diversion of used cooling waters to process applica-
    tion, then waters  brought into a plant primarily for cooling would also be
    expected to require  treatment in addition to temperature stabilization  prior
    to discharge.
    
    Industry, faced with the task of limiting the polluting effects of its  waste-
    waters, may apply  at least four techniques.  The obvious approach is to add
    conventional waste treatment to the list of processes routinely performed by
    the manufacturing  establishment.  An alternative is to discharge liquid
    wastes to public sewers, delegating the task of treatment to municipal  waste
    treatment plants.  Effective protection of streams against  polluting waste
    discharges may also  be  achieved by discharging wastewaters  to  the ground  -
    either spreading them for irrigation on suitably sized tracts  or inserting
    them into deep, sealed  wells.  Theoretically more attractive than any of  the
    other three methods, a  fourth approach to liquid waste handling is to modify
    processes to limit polluting discharges by segregating wastes, recycling  wa-
    ters, and reclaiming waste materials.  In practice the methods are compati-
    ble and interchangeable with one another.  It is not unusual for a manufac-
    turing plant to use  a combination of all four waste handling expedients.
                                         67
    

    -------
                      INDUSTRY-OPERATED WASTE TREATMENT PLANTS
    
    Although the Bureau of Census  data indicate that the majority of manufactur-
    ing establishments depend on municipal waste treatment plants for  satisfac-
    tion of their treatment requirements, the data also indicate that  treatment
    facilities operated by industry  treat a far greater volume of water.   (Table
    11-4.)  The industries which account for the major portion of manufacturers'
    water use are not generally suited, by reason of the volume or nature of
    their waste discharges, to use of municipal facilities.
    
    The 10,600 manufacturing establishments that used 20 million gallons  or more
    of water in 1964 operated some 3,700 reported waste treatment facilities,
    whose purpose and characteristic efficiency may be defined in a general fash-
    ion.  The majority of plants did not report waste treatment.  (Though a num-
    ber of the same plants were connected to municipal facilities.)
    
    The absence of a comprehensive inventory of industrial waste sources  becomes
    crippling when one attempts to evaluate Bureau of Census data on liquid in-
    dustrial wastes.  It is obvious  that a majority of American manufacturing
    plants do not treat their wastes - or did not in 1964.  it is also clear that
    there is no straightforward relationship between number of treatment  plants,
    level of waste discharge, and  level of treated waste discharge that will al-
    low an adequate judgment to be made about the relative adequacy of industrial
    waste treatment.  (For example,  there is no method to indicate what portion
    of the industrial waste stream receives:  (1) primary treatment,  (2)  second-
    ary treatment, (3) treatment beyond the secondary level, and/or  (4) pretreat-
    ment that falls short of the primary level.)
    
    An obvious problem with the data is the fact that the number of establish-
    ments providing definable levels of waste treatment is known to be less than
    the number of treatment facilities.  A good portion of the primary treatment
    plants are operated in conjunction with secondary treatment plants; and there
    are instances in which several types of secondary waste treatment  may be uti-
    lized for different portions of  the waste stream of a single plant.   Cumula-
    tive totals, then, do nothing  to indicate the number of establishments that
    have attained a definite level of treatment efficiency.
    
    Nor do the data do more than hint at the proportion of the waste stream that
    may be treated to a degree associated with primary or secondary standards.
    There are known to be instances  in which regulatory authorities have  insist-
    ed on treatment of sanitary wastes of a factory, while its industrial wastes
    are allowed to continue to be  discharged untreated or partially treated; so
    that the proportionate presence  of secondary waste treatment plants is an un-
    certain guide to the volume of wastewater receiving secondary treatment.
    
    While the available data are only sufficient to provide hints as to its de-
    gree, they substantiate an already recognized deficiency in treatment of in-
    dustrial wastes.  Over half of the significantly sized manufacturing  estab-
                                        68
    

    -------
                  TABLE II-4
    
    WASTh CONTROLLING TECHNIQUES,  BY  MAJOR
           INDUSTRIAL SECTORS, 1964
    Industry
    Food & Kindred Products
    Textile Mill Products
    Paper & Allied Products
    Chemical & Allied Products
    Petroleum & Coal Products
    Rubber & Plastics
    Primary Metals
    Machinery, except
    electrical
    Electrical Machinery
    Transportation Equipment
    All Other
    All Manufacturing
    Waste-
    water,
    Billion
    Gallons
    688
    135
    1,947
    3,662
    1,317
    155
    4,312
    
    149
    91
    237
    464
    13,157
    Treated Discharge
    to Surface Waters
    Billion
    Gallons
    92
    20
    689
    568
    941
    7
    1,147
    
    11
    7
    58
    87
    3,607
    % Total
    13.3
    14.8
    35.4
    15.5
    71.4
    4.5
    26.6
    
    7.3
    7.6
    24.4
    18.7
    27.4
    Discharge to
    Sewers
    Billion
    Gallons
    241
    44
    81
    153
    31
    24
    157
    
    40
    49
    79
    88
    987
    % Total
    35.0
    32.5
    4.1
    4.1
    2.3
    15.4
    3.6
    
    26.8
    53.8
    33.3
    18.9
    7.5
    Discharge to
    Ground
    Billion
    Gallons
    79
    5
    11
    38
    5
    2
    20
    
    2
    3
    5
    25
    195
    % Total
    11.4
    3.7
    .5
    1.0
    .3
    1.2
    .4
    
    1.3
    3.2
    2.1
    5.3
    1.5
    

    -------
    lishments in the nation reported no waste treatment in 1964, and the number
    of secondary waste treatment facilities reported by significant industrial
    plants amounted to less than 20% of the number of establishments.
    
    Industry has, however,  been adding to its inventory of waste treatment facil-
    ities - or at least to  the volume of water passed through such facilities -
    at impressive rates. The level of in-plant treatment of industrial wastewa-
    ters has been climbing  about three times as fast as the value of industrial
    output, with the trend  apparent in every industrial sector.  (Table 11-5.)
    
    
                    TREATMENT OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES BY MUNICIPAL
                                 TREATMENT PLANTS
    
    Discharge of industrial wastes to community sewers is probably the best es-
    tablished method of providing for industrial waste disposal.  Table II-4 in-
    dicates that while only 7.5% of the wastewaters of establishments using over
    20 million gallons of water a year are so disposed, sewering provides  the
    principal waste handling  expedient of seven of the 11 industrial sectors:
    food processing, textiles, rubber and plastics, machinery, electrical  machin-
    ery, transportation equipment, and miscellaneous manufacturing.
    
    Though industrial use of  public sewer and waste treatment facilities is sanc-
    tioned by custom, there has been a relative decline in discharge of industri-
    al wastes to public sewers during the 1960's.  The recorded volume of  such
    discharges dropped 10 billion gallons - 10% - between 1959 and 1964.   At the
    same time, the total volume of discharged industrial wastewater increased 1.7
    trillion gallons, or about 15%.
    
    There are some good reasons for the decline in the use of public sewers for
    the discharge of industrial wastes.  Unless these are evaluated, it is possi-
    ble to misinterpret the evolving relationship between municipal treatment fa-
    cilities and industrial waste discharges by projecting a decline in municipal
    treatment of industrial wastes; when, in fact, the trend to combined waste
    treatment is strong in  many industries.
    
    There has been a rapid  increase in municipal waste treatment capabilities
    since World War II.  Both the number of treatment plants and the average lev-
    el of treatment have been rising steadily, the growth being most marked since
    the inauguration of Federal grants for construction of waste treatment plants.
    As recently as 1949, almost 40% of the nation's sewered communities and popu-
    lation did not have waste treatment provided to them.  By 1962, less than 20%
    of the total number of  sewered communities and 14% of the sewered population
    of the United States were without waste treatment - and well over half of the
    sewered communities and sewered population were provided with secondary waste
    treatment.  (Table I1-6.)
                                         70
    

    -------
                         TABLE 11-5
    
        RELATIVE INCREASE IN OUTPUT AND TREATMENT OF
    LIQUID WASTES BY MAJOR INDUSTRIAL  SECTORS,  1954-1964
    
    
    Industry
    
    
    Food & Kindred Products
    Textile Mill Products
    Paper & Allied Products
    Chemical & Allied Products
    Petroleum & Coal Products
    Rubber & Plastics, n.e.c.
    Primary Metals
    Machinery, except electrical
    Electrical Machinery
    Transportation Equipment
    All Other
    All Manufacturing
    Values Added,
    in Millions of
    Constant (1954)
    Dollars
    1954 1964
    13,398 18,513
    4,709 5,409
    4,630 6,267
    9,547 15,364
    2,241 3,031
    1,954 4,002
    9,772 13,436
    12,333 15,870
    7,300 14,486
    13,428 19,241
    37,720 49,769
    117,032 165,388
    
    
    
    Annual Rate
    of Increase
    3.3
    1.4
    3.0
    4.9
    3.0
    7.4
    3.2
    2.6
    7.1
    3.7
    2.8
    3.5
    
    Treated Waste
    Discharge
    Billion Gallons
    1954 1964
    38 158
    13 35
    199 707
    338 580
    458 1,006
    1 9
    270 1,178
    3 12
    6 15
    9 24
    53 101
    1,388 3,825
    
    
    
    Annual Rate
    of Increase
    15.3
    10.4
    13.5
    5.6
    8.2
    24.1
    15.9
    14.9
    9.6
    10.3
    6.7
    10.7
    

    -------
                     TABLE  11-6
    
    GROWTH OF MUNICIPAL SEWER  AND  WASTE TREATMENT
                FACILITIES,  1949-1962
    
    Number of Sewered Communities
    Sewered Communities Not
    Treating Wastes
    Communities With Primary
    Waste Treatment Plants
    Communities With Secondary
    Waste Treatment Plants
    Estimated Population Served
    By Sewers Alone
    By Primary Treatment
    By Secondary Treatment
    Source: Glau, A. C. and Jenkou
    Inventory orf Muitcctpot (
    7i — A n ' ii — ** 	 1.1 . t "
    1949 1957 1962
    N. A. 11,131 11,420
    
    3,718 3,165 2,249
    3,019 2,730 2,672
    3,050 4,647 6,584
    28,067,000 21,918,000 14,687,000
    17,218,000 25,667,000 32,734,000
    26,090,000 43,326,000 61,191,000
    S, K. H., Stati&tlcaJt Swmany 0(J 7962
    wM.ce racAJU&LU -en tkn Unitad Stotu.
                         72
    

    -------
    The addition of a waste treatment plant at the  end of the sewer system inter-
    poses significant complications into the relationship between the manufactur-
    er who uses the public sewer and the municipality which provides the sewer.
    The plant and its operation must be paid for; and the usual arrangement is to
    levy sewer charges based on volume and/or strength of wastes.  Obviously such
    charges give the manufacturer a distinct incentive to utilize his water as
    fully as possible prior to discharge,  and to  segregate, for separate dis-
    charge, cooling water and other portions of his waste stream which do not re-
    quire treatment.3  Thus, a decline in  volume  of industrial waste discharges
    to public sewers is not incompatible with an  increase in treatment of indus-
    trial wastes by municipal plants.  Indeed, there is reason for supposing that
    this incentive to efficiency extends to waste production, and that the reduc-
    tions achieved by many factories upon  connection with municipal treatment
    systems apply to the strength as well  as to  the volume of discharges.
    
    The distinction between municipal and  industrial wastes becomes critical when
    the municipality begins to provide secondary  waste treatment, as more than
    3,500 communities have done since 1949.  Factories whose wastewater dis-
    charges are characterized by inorganic materials or by presence of toxic ma-
    terials that interfere with operation  of biological systems are not suited to
    use of conventional secondary waste  treatment.   Extreme segregation - limit-
    ing the sewered discharge to sanitary  and other organic wastes - or pretreat-
    nent are required by such manufacturing plants.  The decline in manufacturers'
    use of public sewers between 1959 and  1964 occurred almost entirely in such
    industries.  The primary metals and  transportation equipment industries, to-
    gether with metal fabricating components of  miscellaneous manufacturing, re-
    duced their discharges to public sewers by  an estimated total of 126 billion
    gallons during the five-year period.   (Table II-7.)
    
    Another consideration acts to limit  the use  of municipal waste treatment fa-
    cilities by manufacturers.  The scale  of water use in some industries is so
    great as to impose a completely different order of magnitude in the design of
    waste treatment works.  The pulp and paper,  chemical, petroleum refining,  and
    primary metals industries account for  only  27% of the number of manufacturing
    establishments using 20 million gallons of water or more per year, but ac-
    count for more than 85% of their total water intake.  Even when the wastes of
    such factories are suited to treatment in municipal facilities, the volume of
    water to be handled far exceeds the  capacities of most municipal systems.
      It &kou£d be no-ted thcut artAangejne.ntt> o& thit> Aoit *We, on
      involved tunaJL £6iowc£o£ h.asidt>lvip&  j$ot c.onmunJM.eA to/i/tcA 4eA ckasigeA on die. ba& o& an  anat-
      A-C& OjJ diafiacteAAAtic woAtejwateA licicAa/igei, onty to ^ind. tkat  contri-
      buting induA&iieA we/te abte. to e.^e.&tu&te. ec.ouonu.ea 4.n wateA tide  and
                x.n volume OjJ waAte, dibckasigeA on a tcate. gieei£ enough  to
                     tiie.
                                         73
    

    -------
     I
    .1.
                 INDUSTRY
                                                        TABLE n-7
                            TOTAL DISCHARGE AND SEWERED DISCHARGE TRENDS 1959-1964(1959=100%)
                                1964 AS A PERCENT OF  1959
                                                          60       80        100%       120       140
                                                           I         I     i     L  _j_  _L    i.  J
             FOOD & KINDRED PRODUCTS
             TEXTILE MILL PRODUCTS
             PAPER & ALLIED PRODUCTS
             CHEMICAL & ALLIED PRODUCTS
             PETROLEUM & COAL PRODUCTS
    RUBBER & PLASTICS, N.E.C.
             PRIMARY METALS
             MACHINERY,  EXCEPT ELECTRICAL
             ELECTRICAL MACHINERY
             TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT
             ALL OTHER MANUFACTURING
             ALL MANUFACTURING
             ALL MANUFACTURING,  EXCLUDING
                PRIMARY METALS AND TRANS-
                PORTATION EQUIPMENT
    TOTAL
    DISCHARGE
    120
    113
    107
    120
    109
    130
    121
    •,,
    103
    103
    
    115
    NG 112
    SEWERED
    DISCHARGE
    H5
    116
    100
    143
    282
    104
    60
    108
    120
    
    
    
    114
    160
     I
                                                                                                                           180
                                                                                          TOTAL DISCHARGE
                                                                                          SEWERED DISCHARGE
    

    -------
    Such plants usually discharge wastes separately rather than into public sew-
    ers.
    
    There are,  however, indications that the situation is shifting with respect
    to cooperative municipal-industrial waste treatment plants that are scaled to
    handle organic wastes of the pulp and paper, chemical, and other large water
    using industries.  In Bound Brook, New Jersey, a chemical plant treats muni-
    cipal wastes, reversing the usual relationship between factory and community.
    In Kalamazoo, Michigan, three good sized paper mills and a chemical plant use
    a modern municipal sewage treatment plant.  Metropolitan Chicago and Metro-
    politan Seattle have adopted ambitious programs to provide a  high  level of
    treatment for all liquid wastes - whether of domestic, commercial, or indus-
    trial origin - that occur within extended areas of jurisdiction.   It would
    appear that technology is overcoming the lag that excluded large industrial
    waste sources from municipal treatment plants in the past; and that modern
    engineering competence is extending to the construction of efficient and very
    large treatment plants that are designed to handle wastes  from a variety of
    sources.  Since the trend, if apparent, is of recent origin,  it is not re-
    flected in the 1963 Census of Manufactures.  Its nature and its effect on  fi-
    nancial requirements of municipalities and industries probably cannot be
    evaluated prior to the appearance of the 1968 census of water use  in manufac-
    tures.  The possible impact on municipal waste treatment requirements of a
    large scale shift to joint treatment by the chemical, oil  refining, or pulp
    and paper industries might be huge.  Certainly regional dislocations would
    occur.  Projections of joint treatment presented in Part I assumed consistent
    industry practice, so do not reflect the possibility of a  change of this na-
    ture.
    
    It would seem, from review of available information, that  the availability of
    Federal construction grants may have promoted the use of combined  municipal
    and industrial waste treatment facilities.  The grants, for  construction of
    interceptor sewers and waste treatment plants, are made only  to public bod-
    ies; and their potential availability makes a pronounced difference among  the
    cost variables that plant management must consider in coming  to a  solution of
    its waste treatment problem.  If his wastes are to be treated in  a municipal
    plant, the manufacturer, in effect, can secure Federal  financing of a varying
    but substantial portion of his construction costs.  The economies  of scale
    resulting from construction and operation of larger plants,  and the ability
    to delegate problems of operation to waste treatment specialists  also argue
    for the cooperative method in providing for industrial waste  treatment needs.
    
    The practical result is that a number of communities -  at  the instance of  lo-
    cal industries - are replacing existing treatment facilities  in order to ac-
    conmodate a larger portion of the total wasteload that  is produced by facto-
    ries, with the cost of the construction shared by community,  industry, and
    Federal Government.  (The effects are sometimes surprising.   Two of the
    largest municipal waste treatment plants in the nation  are operated by the
    tiny community of Monsanto, Illinois, and by little Nampa, Idaho.  In each
                                         75
    

    -------
    case, plant size and operating characteristics are dictated by the need of a
    local factory, a chemical plant in the one situation and a group of food pro-
    cessors in the other.)
    
    
                     GROUND DISPOSAL OF LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTES
    
    Discharge of liquid industrial wastes to the ground is a rather specialized
    technique of waste treatment that is of interest because of the rapid growth
    in its use, the high degree of protection of stream quality that it may af-
    ford, and its value as an example of the development of effective, low cost
    waste treatment practices.  Use of the method is limited by availability of
    safe and suitable sites and by climatic conditions, however.
    
    Table 11-4 indicates that while ground discharge is used in disposal of lit-
    tle more than one percent of the total industrial waste flow, the technique
    has attained particular relevance in the handling of food processing wastes.
    The reasons for the association are easily understandable.  Food processing
    tends to be a non-urban occupation, with plants located in food-producing
    areas.  In many cases processing plants are located among the fields that
    provide raw materials.  This circumstance provides many opportunities to uti-
    lize the liquid wastes of food processing - after very limited treatment such
    as solids removal - for irrigation, without incurring serious transmission
    costs.  When such conditions exist, it is usually considerably less costly to
    use spent process water for irrigation than to treat it.  The method makes
    for effective and economic use of water, while often providing a higher de-
    gree of stream protection than some forms of advanced waste treatment.
    
    Distinctly different in concept from use of industrial wastes for irrigation
    is deep well disposal of such liquids.  This method has been employed exten-
    sively for at least a decade in oil drilling to dispose of the great volume
    of brackish water brought up in petroleum production, and has been adopted by
    industries that deal with radioactive or toxic materials which normally can-
    not be released to the environment.  Deep well injection seems particularly
    suitable for such liquid waste materials; and is often less costly than other
    waste controlling procedures.  Its use is being extended to elements of the
    steel, chemical, and other industries.  Technical difficulties, potential for
      Becouae no e^o/it hoa been made, to document and categorize, the. induA-
      tniat watte* and watte, treatment situation be.yond the. grot* -i^xtrnj ap-
      proach attempted in thi& report, there. i& no compre.hen&ive. ti&ting o£
      relative, uae orf public, and in-hou&e. tre.atme.nt methods by industry.  A
      guide, to the. incre,asing pre.valence. o£ municipal tre.atme.nt otf watte* 0(J
      industrial origin, kowe.ver, it the. &act that nine, out ojj 10 applica-
      tion* by municipalities ior federal demonstration Quanta during the.
      &M>t six. month* o$ 1967 centered upon development o& methods to han-
      dle, industrial waste*.
                                         76
    

    -------
    groundwater contamination,  and streamflow depletion all indicate, however,
    that deep well disposal must  necessarily be considered a very  specialized and
    limited waste handling method.
    
    There is a definite pattern  to the geography of ground disposal of wastes.
    Use of the method is pronounced in the far west, particularly  in the  arid re-
    gions of the Southwest and  California, where irrigated agriculture underpins
    the economic base, and where  water is in short supply.  Conversely, ground
    disposal is least used in humid regions:  New England, the Great Lakes area,
    the Ohio River Basin, the lower Mississippi area, and the western Gulf area.
    Acceptance of one form or another of ground disposal for liquid industrial
    wastes seems to be growing  in most regions, and at rates well  above those
    achieved by alternate methods of disposal.  (Table II-8.)
    
    
           TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE AS AN INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTROL MEASURE
    
    While in-plant waste treatment, use of public utility sewers,  and ground dis-
    posal are generally recognized to be legitimate and effective  methods of con-
    trolling industrial wastes, their combined effect in reducing  the strength  of
    industrial waste discharges may be less than that occurring  as a  result of
    process changes and advances in water use technology.
    
    It is difficult to evaluate the waste-reducing effect of technological shifts,
    or to predict their influence on cost.  It is true, too, that  improved tech-
    nology does not always act  to limit waterborne wastes.5  But,  in  the  main,
    greater efficiency means reduction in waste relative to product;  and  such re-
    ductions extend to liquid wastes.
    
    Waste reductions that come  from process changes may involve  not percentages
    but orders of magnitude.  The most often cited example occurs  in  the  pulp and
    paper industry, where the production of a ton of wood pulp by  the older sul-
    fite process results in  20  to 40 times the waste strength of a similar amount
    of pulp produced by the  now dominant sulfate process.  Since about  1940, most
    of the expansion that has occurred in the pulp and paper industry has taken
    the form of growth of sulfate production.  As a result, pulp output has in-
    creased roughly two and  a half times as fast as have wastes  of pulp manufac-
      Fo* example.,  fault and ve.g&tabte. p>ioc.tLt>t>ofU> today pfiodace. many
      the. unit wai>te£oadi>  o& the^ui p^edeceAAo-w o& a  couple o kandting ptcceduAeA ,  the. aie o&
      wate/t OA a &ian&miA&ion medium, the. fLe.ptac.eme.ifit o&  me.chanu.cjnX, pe.e£-
      -019 u)itk Liquid cau&tic, on 4-team pe.eJUlng age.nt& ,  and blancJiing picce-
           in £teez>6uj.   Simi£aA£y, wa&te. va£ume& in 4>te,eJL p^ocfuctcon have
           i&Uh -cnc/ieaied p/u>ce44-auj, vthJUU. the. te.chnotoQij tiiat al&ow u&e.
           eA glade, o^ei  thsuougliout the. me£at& 4.nd(it>tAA.eA JA, by
      tlon, 'rugn -in tieJiative. unit u)a&tej>.
                                        77
    

    -------
                     TABLE II-8
    
    TREND OF GROUND DISPOSAL IN INDUSTRIAL LIQUID
              WASTE HANDLING, 1959-1964
    
    
    Major Drainage
    Basins
    
    
    North Atlantic
    Southeast
    Great Lakes
    Tennessee
    Ohio
    Upper Mississippi
    Lower Mississippi
    Missouri
    Arkansas -White-Red
    Western Gulf
    Colorado-Great
    California
    Pacific Northwest
    U. S.
    
    Total Industrial
    Waste Discharge
    to Ground
    (Billion Gallons)
    1959 1964
    22 29
    7 12
    14 17
    1 10
    13 15
    7 6
    1 3
    1 2
    2 3
    3 2
    2 3
    13 19
    10 20
    98 195
    
    Annual Rate
    of Increase
    in Ground
    Disposal
    
    5.7
    11.3
    3.9
    69.2
    2.9
    - 3.0
    25.0
    14.9
    8.5
    - 8.5
    8.5
    7.9
    14.9
    14.7
    Percent of
    Regional Indus-
    trial Wastes
    Discharged to
    Ground
    1959 1964
    1.0 1.2
    1.2 1.3
    .5 .5
    .4 2.4
    .6 .6
    1.7 1.2
    .3 .5
    .9 1.5
    1.7 1.7
    .2 .1
    4.9 6.7
    4.9 6.0
    2.5 3.7
    .9 1.5
    Sou/ice:  Adopted frum *963 CenauA o&
                          tr
                                       "Wat&t  u&e.
                        78
    

    -------
    tore.  To put the matter in another perspective, if all pulp now produced by
    the sulfate process were being produced with sulfite pulping, BOD of the pulp
    and paper industry at current production levels would exceed 20 trillion
    pounds per year - or just about as much as is now produced by all manufactur-
    ing.  (Figure II-2.)
    
    toother example of the effect of technological improvement on production of
    pollutants can be found in the electrical power industry which has  constantly
    reduced the amount of heat required to generate a given amount of thermally-
    produced power.  The lower heat requirement - and that requirement  has been
    declining steadily for over 40 years - means less wasting of heat to cooling
    water, thus proportionately less discharge of heated cooling waters.  The av-
    erage plant in 1965 is as efficient as was the best plant in 1945,  two and a
    half times as efficient as the average plant of 1925.  By using heat more ef-
    fectively, the electrical power industry has achieved the same results in re-
    ducing heat loads to streams that it might have obtained from widespread in-
    stallation of cooling towers and cooling ponds.   (Figure II-3.)
    
    Numerous examples of process changes that are more effective than treatment
    in reducing wastes might be considered - substitution of reclaimable pickling
    liquors for sulphuric acid by the steel and metal fabricating industries,
    complete recycling of process waters in the beet sugar refining industry, and
    use of solid waste material of various sorts as cattle feed by  food proces-
    sors.  A number of such opportunities and trends are examined in profiles of
    specific industries, which are being published separately in Volume III of
    this report.
    
    These discussions tend to indicate that improved technology does not ordinar-
    ily take the form of a major alteration in process, such as the shift from
    sulfite to sulfate pulping; it is more apt to involve a number of minor
    shifts in practice, a tightening of operations, or attention to engineering
    aspects of use of water as an industrial raw material.  There are,  in general,
    three considerations that lead the manufacturer to make the necessary invest-
    ments and procedural changes to achieve such efficiencies:
    
        (1)  Water shortages, or increases in the price of water, consti-
            tute constraints on production or limit unit profitability.
            Water shortage is a general condition in much of the western
            U. S., and intermittent droughts or increased demands on a
            water system have created similar localized conditions
            throughout the nation.
    
        (2)  Opportunities to reclaim materials, and thus to increase vol-
            ume of production with a constant raw material input, are  im-
            proved with control of water, or reuse of water in the same
            or sequential process.
                                         79
    

    -------
                           FIGURE n-2
       COMPARATIVE INDEX  OF ANNUAL  WOOD PULP PRODUCTION
        AND VOLUME  OF PULPING WASTES,  1920-1960(1920= 100)
    1925
    1930
    1935
    1940
    1945
                                                       1950
                                                       1955
                                                       1960
                                   80
    

    -------
                                             FIGURE H-3
    
                         DECLINE IN HEAT WASTED IN STEAM-ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCTION
                        HEAT
                   £"  WASTE D~%>
    4 —
    Ol
    1925
    1930
                             HEAT CONVERTED TO  ELECTRIC ENERGY
    1935
    1940
    1945
    1950
    1955
    1960
    1965
    

    -------
        (3)   Increasingly stringent enforcement of pollution control
             regulations  has made it necessary for more and more estab-
             lishments  to provide waste treatment, either in-house or
             through available municipal works.  In either case, limit-
             ing hydraulic loadings by segregation of waste streams and
             by reducing  water use lessens required treatment plant ca-
             pacity, and  the consequent cost of waste treatment.
    
    There is an indication that reduction in volume of wastewater is often  accom-
    panied by a reduction in the volume of pollutants discharged.  While  concen-
    trations of pollutants might, in the normal order of things, be expected  to
    rise in direct proportion to the decline in the volume of the carrying  liquid,
    this is simply not the case for industry as a whole.  The reason is that  op-
    erating practices - "good housekeeping" - have a high degree of influence on
    the volume of wastes  produced in a factory; and when hydraulic controls are
    tightened there is a corollary reduction in materials losses.  In addition to
    this influence on waste volume, there are direct reductions attributable  to
    engineering improvements specifically aimed at materials reclamation.
    
    Some indication in quantitative terms of the magnitude of changes in  the  ef-
    ficiency of water use is provided by the data from the Census of Water  Use in
    Manufactures that is summarized in Table II-9.  Two trends are immediately
    apparent.  First, less water, including recycled water, is being used per
    dollar of value added by manufacture than in the past.  Second, water is  be-
    ing used more intensively.  The second trend is not surprising.  It has long
    been recognized that there is a tendency to increased water reuse in  manufac-
    turing processes.  Thus, total water use in 1964 of 30.6 trillion gallons was
    derived from an intake of 14.1 trillion gallons, indicating an average  recir-
    culation ratio for all manufacturing establishments of 2.2 to 1.  In  compar-
    ison, the reported 1954 intake of 11.6 trillion gallons was used an average
    of 1.8 times, providing a use equivalence of 21 trillion gallons.  The  51%
    increase in values added by manufacture between 1954 and 1964 was achieved
    with only a 22% increase in water intake, in good part because of a 20% in-
    crease in the recirculation ratio.
    
    The importance of "good housekeeping", careful water use controls, and  im-
    proved process engineering becomes apparent when the relative increase  in wa-
    ter use within the plant  (i.e., including recirculation) is compared  to the
    increase in value of physical output.  Total water use in most industrial
    sectors increased at a far lower rate than did values added.  Not only  did
    the typical industrial plant of 1964 take in less water than it did in  1954,
    it used less water for each dollar's worth of output.
    
    The relative significance of reuse of water and more efficient application of
    water per unit of product is made clearer by reference to Table 11-10.  The
    table describes the relationship between increased output and increased water
    use, dividing the index of growth of values added for the ten-year period
    1954 to 1964 by the index of growth of water use, to express relative unit
                                        82
    

    -------
                         TABLE 11-9
    
    RELATIVE CHANGE IN OUTPUT, WATER USE,  AND WASTEWATER
           DISCHARGE,  BY MAJOR INDUSTRIAL  SECTORS
    Industry
    Food & Kindred Products
    Jbxtile Mill Products
    Paper & Allied Products
    Chemical & Allied
    Robber & Plastics
    Petroleum, fi Coal
    Primary Metals
    Machinery
    (Machinery, other
    Electrical)
    Products
    , n.e. c.
    Products
    
    
    than
    
    (Electrical Machinery)
    Transportation Equipment
    All Other
    All Manufacturing
    
    
    1964 as a Percent of 1954
    Values Added
    in Constant
    Dollars
    134
    137
    162
    224
    203
    138
    141
    160
    
    N. A.
    N. A.
    156
    144
    151
    Total Water
    Use, Including
    Redrculation
    97
    147
    142
    176
    160
    148
    117
    128
    
    (195)
    (205)
    204
    86
    145
    Water
    Discharge
    125
    92
    120
    144
    125
    116
    117
    128
    
    (117)
    (101)
    110
    83
    122
                             83
    

    -------
                                    TABLE  11-10
                  RELATIVE INCREASE  IN WATER USE EFFICIENCY AND
                      WATER REUSE, BY MAJOR INDUSTRIAL SECTORS
                          IN
                Industry
                                                Coefficients of  Efficiency
    Index of Increase
     in Value Added
     Per Unit Water
       Application
    Index of Increase
     in Value Added
     Per Unit Water
         Intake
    Food & Kindred Products
    Textile Mill Products
    Paper & Allied Products
    Chemical & Allied Products
    Rubber & Plastics, n.e.c.
    Petroleum & Coal Products
    Primary Metals
    Machinery
    Transportation Equipment
    All Other
    
    All Manufacturing
           138
            93
           114
           127
           127
            93
           121
           125
            76
           167
    
           104
          107
          149
          135
          156
          162
          119
          121
          125
          142
          173
    
          124
                                        84
    

    -------
    efficiency of a volume  of water, and by the index of growth of water  dis-
    diarge, to express  relative effect of recycling.  It is apparent  that in many
    industries efficient  use, in terms of volume of water applied per unit of pro-
    duct, was almost  as significant in reducing water intake  as was recycling.
    
    Hhile no general  principles may be offered to quantify the potential  effect
    of technological  modifications on industrial waste treatment requirements and
    costs, there is adequate documentation to indicate that production technology
    nay have enormous impacts.  For example, a study of "The  Economics of Poor
    Housekeeping in the Meat-Packing Industry"7 conducted by  W. J. Fullen and
    1C. V. Hill revealed that the industry - based on an investigation of  28
    plants - produced an  average standard BOD concentration of  14.7 pounds per
    1,000 pounds liveweight of animals slaughtered, with individual plant concen-
    trations ranging  from 6.5 pounds to 23.5 pounds per 1,000 pound animal.  The
    difference between  the high and the low BOD loads  (17 pounds)  could very well
    be viewed as equivalent to waste treatment efficiency of  almost 73%.
    
    There are other dramatic examples.  The major drop in unit  waste  production
    in the papermaking  industry that has occurred with the transition to  the sul-
    fate pulping process  has been cited, but should not be construed  to have end-
    ed the processing opportunities to reduce wastes that are available to the
    industry.  For example, while an efficient integrated kraft plant can produce
    a ton of paperboard with a waste production of 45 pounds  of BOD   (including
    the wastes of pulping) , two Willamette Valley  (Oregon) producers  have lowered
    waste production  to nine or 10 pounds of BOD per ton of paperboard through
    use of  tight process  controls and the recycling of evaporator  condensates.
    Very simple management techniques can have major impacts  on waste production.
    For example,  a pulp and paper plant operated by Crown-Zellerbach  Corporation
    schedules production  of low grade, high-yield products during  summer low
    flows to obtain  a 70% reduction in strength of final effluent  -  from 29
    pounds  of BOD per ton of production to nine pounds per  ton  - without perform-
    ing treatment additional to that normally provided.
      FOA nwiu.factusu.ng a* a. whole., the. 4.ncne.at>e -in value* added and .in
      uie had almost a. one.-to-one. relationship.  Thi*  may be. traced in tange.
      nteoAuAe, howe,vesi, to material tliifrt*  quite di^efient faom tliat
      oi 1954.
    
      iASCE, Joatnal o& the. Sanitary tnQJ.ne.esu,ng faviAion, Volume 59, Wo. 4.
                                         85
    

    -------
    Some waste reducing effects of technological  improvements  can be foreseen  for
    any industry,  since their adoption is a function  of  the  rate  of capital in-
    vestment in the industry.  Figure II-4 depicts  graphically the unit waste
    production and wastewater discharge associated  with  a group of industrial
    processes in terms of levels of technology.   The  figures,  adapted from the
    industrial Waste Profiles, indicate the effects of three levels of current
    technology on waste production in the affected  industries. It is clear, for
    example, that as old plants are phased out or modernized and  new plants are
    built, waste reduction will become an increasingly critical problem in the
    steel industry •- where the new technology incorporates both a higher degree
    of processing and a lower grade of raw material - but less of a problem in
    seme other industries.
    
    The impact of technological advances on total waste  production has occurred
    largely without reference to their benefits  in  terms of  pollution control.
    Advanced technological processes have been adopted because they were more
    profitable, and resulting waste reduction results have been incidental bene-
    fits.  Development of specific waste-limiting process modifications as an  end
    in itself remains to be  realized.
    
    More rapid utilization of the prospective waste reducing efficiency of pro-
    cess modification would  seem to be a likely result of the  new element in  the
    profit equation introduced by the increasing attention given  to environmental
    protection and pollution control.  The manufacturer  who  considers waste  con-
    trol to be an integral portion of the production  process will attempt to  de-
    sign and modify his plant in order to obtain the  required  reduction efficien-
    cies at lowest cost - including the combined cost of in-plant reduction of
    loadings and of final treatment.  Complete control of wastes  within the plant
    is not an unrealistic goal in some industries.   In most  cases, however,  such
    efficiencies are not,attainable.  In all cases, steps taken by plant manage-
    ment to reduce the volume of wastewater or the strength  of waste loadings
    lessen the cost of constructing;and operating waste  treatment facilities.
    Thus, the engineering of an in-plant waste control system, as opposed to  the
    addition of a waste treatment plant to an otherwise  unrelated production  sys-
    tem, offers the prospect of optimum control of all waste-associated costs  of
    production.   (Figure II-5.)
    
    The effectiveness of process modifications in reducing wastes is given  some
    quantitative dimensions  in Table  11-11, provided by Mr.  Blair Bower, an  asso-
    ciate of Resources for the Future. : While the unit waste load quantities  in
    this table may differ in detail from those quoted elsewhere in  this report,
    the concept of major waste reduction  from process or other in-house modifica-
    tions is shown clearly.
    
    If it is assumed that,  on the  average, newer technology generates  less  waste
    per production unit,  it also must be  recognized that the  adoption  of such
    technology probably will take place because of its overall effect  on profits
    rather than its contribution to pollution abatement.  The newer technology's
                                         86
    

    -------
                                           FIGURE H-4
            INDEX OF UNIT WASTEWATER AND POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS ASSOCIATED
               WITH CURRENT PRODUCTION  TECHNOLOGIES  (OLD TECHNOLOGY = 100)
                       BOD
                 PER UNIT  PRODUCT
    WOOLEN
     MILLS
    COTTON
     MILLS
    STEEL
    MILLS
      EESI
      OIL
    REFINING
     MEAT
    PACKING
    POULTRY
    PACKING
                      100
    SUSPENDED SOLIDS
    PER UNIT PRODUCT
       WASTEWATER
    PER UNIT PRODUCT
        100
    
    
     OLD TECHNOLOGY
     PREVALENT TECHNOLOGY
     NEW TECHNOLOGY
    
                                                 260
          * Source: Industrial Waste Profiles.
                                              87
    

    -------
                                            FIGURE H-5
    
                          EFFECT OF REDUCTION IN INITIAL WASTE LOADING
    
    
                                     ON TREATMENT PLANT COST
    _
    
    
    s
    -
    
    
    
    
    
    7
    _
    ~
    at
    —
    —
                                       20             30             40
    
    
    
    
                                  PERCENT REDUCTION IN WASTE DISCHARGE
    
    
    
    
                     Adopted From: Petroleum Refining Industry Wastewater Profile (Roy F.  Weston)
                                                  88
    

    -------
                                                                                  TABLE 11-11
                                                         COEFFICIENTS OF LIQUID WASTES GENERATED, BY INDUSTRY CATEGORY
    Industry Category
    Hot-Packing
    Fluid Milk
    Canned and Frozen Foods
    Cane Sugar
    Beet Sugar
    Distilled Spirits
    Cotton Finishing
    Synthetic Textiles
    Finishing
    Paper Mill*
    Paperboard Mills
    Paper Coating and
    Glazing
    PAper Containers
    Petroleum Refining
    Leather Tanning and
    Finishing
    
    Present
    121 BOD/1,000* Of live
    weight
    1.2» BOD/1, 000# intake
    30* BOD/ton of raw pro-
    duct processed
    41 BOD/ton of product
    2* BOD/ton of pjroduct
    0.51 BCD/bushel of
    grain processed
    SOt BOO/1,000 linear
    yards 	
    20* BOD/1,000 linear
    yards
    SCI BOD/ton of product
    50* BOD/ton of product
    30* BOD/ton processed
    301 BOD/ton processed
    100« BCD/barrel of
    crude processed
    150* BOD/1,000 square
    f«et tanned
    Waste
    load Generated, 1n Pounds (#) of BOD5
    Future: With No External Stimulus
    Coeffi-
    cient
    12*
    1.2*
    30*
    4*
    2*
    0.5*
    70*
    25*
    100*
    60*
    50*
    50#
    110*
    ISO*
    Assumptions
    No reason to increase;
    product mix not adverse
    No apparent reasons for
    change
    Predominance of vegeta-
    bles in area; product
    mix not adverse
    Relatively straight-
    forward production pro-
    cess; essentially one
    product
    Same as above
    No change foreseeable
    Product proliferation,
    coatings, etc.
    Product proliferation
    More emphasis on fire
    and specialty papers
    Proliferation of coat-
    ings, colored product
    Product proliferation
    Product proliferation,
    coatings
    Greater jet fuel, gaso-
    line per barrel of crude;
    increase in average com-
    plexity
    No change foreseeable
    
    Future: With External Stimulus
    Coeffi-
    cient
    10*
    1.0*
    20*
    2*
    1*
    0.5*
    30*
    10*
    40*
    25*
    20*
    20*
    75*
    100*
    Assumptions
    Better utilization
    likely
    Better housekeeping
    possible
    Improved raw mater-
    ials; better inter-
    nal utilization
    Assume changes possi-
    ble as in beet sugar
    industry
    Same as above
    No change foresee-
    able
    Process modifica-
    tion possible
    Process modifica-
    tion
    Process modifica-
    tion; materials
    recovery
    Process modifica-
    tion, materials
    recovery
    Process modifica-
    tion
    Process modifica-
    tion
    Process modifica-
    tion; better house-
    keeping
    Better utilization;
    no adverse product
    mix
    Source(s)
    Eckenfelder
    Eckenfelder
    Bower
    Gurnham
    Gurnham
    Gurnham
    Gurnham,
    Bonem
    Gurnham ,
    Bower
    Gurnham ,
    Bower
    Gurnham,
    Bower
    Gurnham,
    Bower
    Gurnham,
    Bower
    Stormont
    Gurnham,
    Bonem
    oo
    

    -------
    effect in reducing unit wasteloads is reduced to a considerable extent by  the
    persistence of profitable manufacturing plants still using outmoded processes
    and procedures. New plants generally produce less wastes than old plants  and
    are more efficient in their use of water.   Therefore,  they are better able to
    deal with the financial and engineering problems of waste treatment.  But
    many old plants continue to operate.  The  pulp and paper industry again pro-
    vides an example.  In 1920, nine tons of sulfite pulp  were produced for every
    ton of sulfate pulp; today, five tons of sulfate pulp  are produced for every
    ton of sulfite pulp.  No new sulfite mill  has been built for over 10 years
    and at least two have been closed; yet sulfite pulp production amounts to
    twice what it was in 1920.  Apparently many old plants are sufficiently pro-
    fitable to remain in operation; they continue to expand their output; and  it
    is not always practical to modify them to  incorporate  newer, waste-reducing
    technology.
    
    It is important to recognize that technological improvements have had the  ef-
    fect of slowing the rate of growth of pollution by providing constantly
    greater efficiency.  But the average age of the American manufacturing estab-
    lishment is about 20 years - among the oldest among highly industrialized  na-
    tions - and older, high-pollution technology will not  be phased out so long
    as it is profitable.
                                        90
    

    -------
                   COST STANDARDS AND  INVESTMENT  REQUIREMENTS
    
                             ANALYSIS  OF UNIT  COSTS
    Ibere  are neither general rules with regard to the cost of treating a given
    •aunt of the waste of a given industrial process to a desired effluent stand-
    aid, nor sufficient information to formulate such rules.  Obviously, the area
    is one in which a great deal of data accumulation and statistical analysis
    OS required.  Because of prevailing deficiencies in information exchange, it
    is not unusual to find that professionals who specialize in industrial waste
    treatment systems disagree with respect to cost standards.
    
    Id order to resolve some of the uncertainties with regard to cost and to pro-
    vide a basis for further study, a statistical analysis of industrial waste
    treatment plant construction costs was undertaken.  Published articles, FWPCA
    Regional Office files, and applications submitted to obtain Federal demonstra-
    tion grants provided  a very limited number of cases which contained suffi-
    cient  information about plant cost, waste reduction efficiency (at least 85%
    BODs removal required for inclusion) , and design flow to be incorporated into
    the sample.  In the absence of adequate samples to review costs for separate
    industrial sectors, the analysis  considered the entire group of industrial
    vaste  treatment plants to compose a single sample which was analyzed for cor-
    relation of two parameters, hydraulic loading and construction costs.  The
    analysis, presented graphically in Figure II-6, suggests some interesting
    considerations.
    
       (1)  Industrial waste treatment plants are probably less costly -
           per gallon of water treated, per pound of BOD, or per pound
           of solids removed - to construct than are municipal plants.
           This is not  surprising.   The industrial operation is subject
           to much greater control.  Flows can be equalized, unlike mu-
           nicipal wastewater which operates under severely shifting in-
           fluent patterns through  the day.  Waste concentrations can
           often be altered through mixing and dilution to achieve an
           optimal composition.  The plant can be designed for the spe-
           cific materials contained in the wastewater instead of oper-
           ating to deal with a range of concentrations of differing ma-
           terials, as  does the small municipal plant.  Greater cost con-
           sciousness on the part of industrial management, too, may be
           a factor acting to stimulate efficiency.
    
       (2)  Combining substantial industrial waste discharges with muni-
           cipal wastes tends to move unit construction costs substan-
           tially downward.  Again, this is a reasonable and expected
           situation, where the industrial wastes are suitable for con-
           ventional waste treatment.  The usual composition of munici-
                                         91
    

    -------
                                           FIGURE H-6
                       COMPARATIVE CONSTRUCTION COSTS PER UNIT OF FLOW,
                                SECONDARY WASTE  TREATMENT PLANTS
       10,ooo,ooo a
    t/1
    3
    :
    -
    -
     i
    ~  1,000,000
    2
    c
    -:
          100,000
    .-
    :
    -
           10,000
               0.01
        0.1                 1                 10
         MILLION GALLONS PER DAY DESIGN FLOW
                       G
    
                       &
    MUNICIPAL SECONDARY WASTE TREATMENT PLANTS (From: Figure 25,
    Modern Sewage Treatment Plants-How Much do they Cost?)
    
    24 INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT PLANTS  (IMPUTED TREATMENT
    EFFICIENCY  >85%)
    5 MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANTS,  WITH INDUSTRIAL INFLUENT >4
    TIMES DOMESTIC  WASTE LOADINGS
    
    3 PETROCHEMICAL OR OIL REFINERY PLANTS
    PLANT CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO  1960
    
    PLANT CONSTRUCTED SINCE  1965
                                                92
    

    -------
        pal wastes is relatively deficient in nutrients, the indus-
        trial waste is often deficient in operative bacteria.  High-
        ly concentrated wastes of some manufacturing processes, then,
        tend to bring the municipal plant closer to the efficiency
        possible when an optimum loading pattern is attained,  when
        a significant portion of industrial wastes originate from
        plants operating on a single shift, the hydraulic pattern,
        too, may approach an optimum, since the normal daily loading
        pattern of a municipal plant is complementary with industry's
        normal day shift; or industrial discharges may be scheduled
        to coincide with treatment plant operating cycles.  Finally,
        in many cases, the industrial waste is higher in temperature,
        which tends to accelerate the life processes of the bacteria
        that sustain decomposition.
    
    (3)  The unit cost of constructing industrial waste treatment sys-
        tems appears to be declining.  When adjustments are made for
        price level changes, systems built prior to 1960 cluster
        above the average cost curve while treatment systems built
        since 1965 tend to fall below the curve.
    
    (4)  The cost of waste treatment probably differs significantly
        among industries.  This would not seem surprising, but funda-
        mental waste treatment processes are similar for wastes from
        most sources, while hydraulic loading is a constant sizing
        factor.  It would seem, however, that opportunities for seg-
        regation of the components of the waste stream, pretreatment
        requirements, and the rate of assimilation vary significantly
        among industries.  There is at least a hint in the analyzed
        data that unit costs are relatively high for petroleum refin-
        eries and some segments of the chemical industry, while food
        processing and pulp and paper - readily adaptable to conven-
        tional waste treatment procedures - tend to require lesser
        investments per unit of wastewater.  Industrial Waste Pro-
        files support the conclusion.
    
    (5)  On the basis of the very limited data, it would appear that
        unit costs tend to exhibit a sharper drop with increase in
        size of plant than is characteristic of municipal waste
        treatment plants.  The tendency has been indicated in a
        prior study of municipal waste treatment plant construction
        costs, where it was found that "...the cost  [per unit waste-
        load] curves have a greater slope than the cost per capita
        curves.  This slope differential evidently is caused by the
                                     93
    

    -------
             increasing percentage of industrial wastes with increasing
             population..."
    
    
                               METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
    
    From the point of view of the economist attempting a gross assessment of  to-
    tal industrial waste treatment costs, uncertainties regarding specific costs
    are largely irrelevant.  Gross aggregation and consistent application of  sta-
    tistical method can cut through the complexities caused by the wide range of
    options available within the open system of the industrial plant to produce a
    generalized estimate of the cost of providing a fixed level of waste treat-
    ment efficiency.  If it is assumed:  (1) that all of the data are equally
    valid and reliable;  (2) that normal cost and efficiency standards apply;  and
    (3) that the equivalent of secondary waste treatment (i.e., no less than  85%
    removal of standard BOD and of settleable and suspended solids) provides  an
    adequate definition of the efficiency goal, then a normative assessment of
    costs can be made. We may say that within the limits of current technology,
    85% of the volume of settleable and suspended solids and of oxygen-demanding
    dissolved organics contained in the wastewater of manufacturing firms using
    20 million gallons or more of water per year can be reduced by an expenditure
    of roughly £ dollars.
    
    That is the form which this study takes.  If the data were better, the analy-
    sis more detailed, the estimate might be more precise in its formulation.  It
    is doubtful, however, that it would be more reliable.  Only a plant-by-plant
    analysis that fully  considers alternatives available within the limits of
    law, technology, and custom in terms of both the physical environment and lo-
    cal economic developmental patterns would be wholly reliable.  Lacking that
    assessment, the method should prove adequate to provide preliminary cost  es-
    timates required for planning and budgeting purposes.
    
    This cost assessment is based upon a specific, quantitative goal:  complete
    application to industrial wastewaters of waste reduction efficiencies equiva-
    lent to that of secondary treatment of domestic wastes.  The introduction of
    a specific goal makes this analysis possible.  It should be noted, however,
    that in any particular situation secondary treatment may represent a distinct
             Seiaage. Treatment ?ian&>  -How Much Vo Thuj Co&t? , p. 25.  T/ie
                    not pimue the. indicated conc£u6.ton.  Tt~
      -too, that the. -tone otf cona-tftuatton hoa on e^ect on the. data,
      many o& the. taxgM. aecondafcf plants 6e*ng faac££ teJfativeJty ie,c.en£ty.
      U&tunate, *e6o£utton otf qut&tion* o$ tkti 4o%t wUl have, to auxuU a
      p
    -------
                               Q
    departure  from actual needs.   Recognizing that conditions may sometimes  re-
    quire  higher  or lower efficiencies,  the analytical goal of secondary-level
    removal was chosen on the basis of the  technical decision that it most  close-
    ly approximated the condition required  to satisfy water quality  standards in
    the aggregate.
    
    Given  the  specific goal of complete  secondary waste treatment, it was possi-
    ble to evaluate the cost of attaining that goal.  The method utilized was
    consistent, rigid, but, within the limits of data reliability, it is felt
    adequate to provide an approximate assessment of the magnitude of the cost
    associated with the analytical goal.
    
    Cost data  were derived from the considerable body of material that  has  been
    accumulated through the machinery of the Federal Construction Grants program
    analyzed in Modern Sewage Treatment  Plants - How Much Do They Cost? and up-
    dated  by application of the Engineering News Record Index of Construction
    Costs. The data refer only to municipal plants, but it was felt that a form-
    ula that related varying elements of the costing equation could  be  applied  to
    industrial plants in view of the demonstrated effectiveness of conventional
    waste  treatment techniques in reducing  organic wastes from all sources, and
    the observed  general correspondence  of  municipal and industrial  construction
    costs  demonstrated in Figure 11-6.
    
    Industrial water use data were obtained from the Census of Manufactures.   In-
    fozmation  contained in the Census covered less than 11,000 of the more  than
    300,000 manufacturing establishments in the nation.  But the establishments
    included all  of those with an intake of 20 million gallons or more  of water a
    year,  and  account for about 97% of all  water withdrawn for manufacturing use.
    tte group, then, may be assumed to include every significant industrial
    source of  water pollution, as well as the entire body of manufacturers  whose
    waste  treatment investment requirement  can be calculated.
    
    Industrial waste loadings and concentrations were derived from a previous
    study conducted by FWPCA.  This study,  summarized in Table 11-2, attempted  to
    assess the total pollutional loading produced in the base year 1964 by  manu-
    facturing  plants.  While an attempt  was made by the investigators  to gage the
    •agnitude  of  a broad range of pollutants, this cost analysis limited itself
    o
      A
     The ana£t/4-c4 oj$ conven£tona£ u)cu>t& 4-t/z.e.ng-t/u aA4ocxated with     ..
     ing p*oce44e4 -ouUcated that tlie. average. conce.n&ia£ion& DJ$  ox.tjQe.n-de.-
     aandinQ organic. wai-teA -en -the. diit>ch(ViQ o& -t/ie p/wjnaAt/ me£a&4,  -inorgan-
     ic. chem.cat&t and macA-cne'u/ -c.nchiA-fw.e6  £e4  ($01  -t
           iee&J-'Li tti&ie. ica£ed on Uie, baA-cd o^ ptujmaAy &ie.cutn\ejvt.
                                         95
    

    -------
    to consideration of the total annual volume of standard BOD, a key factor in
    sizing secondary waste treatment plants.
    
    Given the number of industrial plants, the average daily discharge and  BOD
    concentration of wastewaters, the average cost for constructing a treatment
    plant of a given size, and  the approximate level of waste treatment in  each
    industrial sector in 1964,  it was possible to calculate:
    
         (1)  a total number of  waste treatment plants required in each in-
             dustry ,
    
         (2)  a cost for the average large plant (discharge of 100 million
             gallons per year or more) and the average small plant (dis-
             charge of 20 to 99 million gallons per year)  in each industry,
    
         (3)  the number of waste treatment plants available in each indus-
             try in 1964 and, by straight line projection, in 1968, and
    
         (4)  the deficiency in  number of treatment plants, and an amount
             equal to the percentage of plant value represented by the per-
             centage of required plants actually available.
    
    The  figures obtained rested entirely on application of average construction
    costs to numbers of plants  of average size classes.  The data were subsequent-
    ly modified to include information obtained in "profiles" of waste treatment
    requirements of 10 major water-using industries.  For the most part, the out-
    lines of investment requirements developed in the profiles adhered within
    practical limits to the requirements developed through the analysis of  the
    census materials.  One major exception should be noted.  In almost every case
    the profile suggested a higher prevalence of waste treatment than did projec-
    tion of census-developed data.  It would appear that either American industry
    built waste treatment plants during the period 1964 to 1967 at a rate much
    accelerated over that of the previous five years, that the form in which the
    census data were collected  and reported understated the prevalence of waste
    treatment in 1964, or that  some consistent bias was built into the profiles.
    
    Accordingly, the data presented in the following pages are to be considered a
    generalized model of costs  associated with achieving an 85% reduction of
    standard BOD and of settleable and suspended solids generated by major  indus-
    trial establishments.  While the figures are based on the assumption of use
    of conventional methods and normal cost relationships, it may be anticipated
    that techniques presently available and yet to be developed will be utilized
    to reduce costs below the indicated values.  It must be recognized, too, that
    though studies of a number  of industrial segments were utilized in an attempt
    to build into the model's structure an appreciation of waste treatment  prob-
    lems and methods peculiar to specific kinds of industries, there must inevi-
    tably be great variations in detail which can change the indicated require-
    ment for any industrial sector.
                                         96
    

    -------
    In spite of these reservations, it is believed that  the  reported  requirements
    provide a useful indication of both the gross magnitude  of  industry's  waste-
    associated costsi and the inter-industry distribution  of those  costs.
                                          97
    

    -------
                      TOTAL  REQUIRED  INVESTMENT FOR INDUSTRIAL
                                   WASTE TREATMENT
    Table 11-12 summarizes,  by  industrial  classification, the total investment re-
    quired to achieve  an  85% reduction  in  gross industrial wastes under current
    (FY 1968) conditions.  In view of the  volume of such wastes, the amount is
    surprisingly small -  about  $4  billion. Even more surprising is the high indi-
    cated prevalence of industrial waste treatment.  The analysis indicates that
    the unmet requirement for industrial waste treatment plants amounts to little
    more than $1 billion.
    
    It should be noted that  the values  depend in large measure on data provided
    in Volume III,  Industrial Waste Profiles/ the waste treatment requirements of
    10 major water-using  industries. Calculations based entirely on census data
    and municipal construction  costs developed a total indicated requirement for
    industrial waste treatment  works of more than $5 billion - about 30% higher.
    More significant,  they revealed a total unmet requirement of $2,644 million,
    more than twice the level reported  in  Table 11-12.  Moreover, there were some
    meaningful shifts  among  the requirements for specific industries when the
    data of the profiles  were applied.  Before adjustment for such information, a
    much higher total  investment requirement and a proportionately lower addition-
    al requirement  was calculated  for the  chemicals industries; a higher invest-
    ment requirement and  a proportionately far higher unmet requirement was calcu-
    lated for the paper and  allied products industries; and a slightly lower to-
    tal requirement combined with  a much higher unmet requirement was calculated
    for the primary metals industries.
    
    The set of figures that  reflect the information provided in Volume III, Indus-
    trial Waste Profiles, was selected  for more detailed presentation and analy-
    sis on the basis that it included all  of the available information.  Still,
    policy makers should  keep in mind the  fact that costs presented in this re-
    port are lower  than others  developed for the same report (as well as much
    lower than some undocumented assessments made on other occasions) and should
    not, therefore, be regarded as completely reliable.  To indicate the possible
    range of costs  involved, succeeding tabular materials will provide a summa-
    tion of relationships under both sets  of values, though the discussion will
    be restricted,  in  large  part,  to the values obtained through application of
    the profile information.
    
    The arguments for  making full  use in this report of cost relationships devel-
    oped by the wastewater profiles rather than the higher, census-derived, as-
    sessment are these:
    
        (1)  They reflect experience and expert observation in specific
             industry  situations;  data  derived from census analysis and
             municipal cost  relationships  do not.  Thus the steep indus-
                                          98
    

    -------
                                                      TABLE 11-12
    
                                   ESTIMATED VALUE OF INVESTMENT, INDUSTRIAL WASTE
                                             TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS, 1968
    
                                         (Based on Industrial Waste Profiles)
    
    Industry
    Total Plant
    Required
    Food and Kindred Products 743.1
    Meat Products 170.8
    Dairy Products 104.0
    Canned and Frozen Foods 137.0
    Sugar Refining 175.2
    All Other 156.1
    Textile Mill Products 165.2
    Paper and Allied Products 321.8
    Chemical and Allied Products 379.7
    Petroleum and Coal 379.4
    Rubber and Plastics 41.1
    Primary Metals 1,473.8
    Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills 963.8
    All Other 510.0
    Machinery 39.0
    Electrical Machinery 35.8
    Transportation Equipment 216.0
    All Other Manufacturing 203.7
    All Manufactures 3,998.6
    Millions of 1968 Dollars
    Currently Currently
    Provided By Provided By
    Municipalities Industry
    340.7 182.4
    98.7 36.9
    73.1 7.8
    80.0 23.0
    2.3 105.5
    86.6 9.2
    85.4 53.3
    21.1 225.0
    12.0 87.9
    27.4 275.0
    5.1 5.1
    55.1 1,269.2
    865.6
    55.1 403.6
    11.2 2.9
    22.8 4.5
    115.1 59.2
    35.5 50.8
    731.4 2,215.3
    Additional
    Investment
    Required
    220.0
    35.
    23.
    34.
    67.
    60.
    26.
    75.
    279.
    77.
    30.
    149.
    98.
    51.
    24.
    8.
    41.
    117.
    1,051.
    2
    1
    0
    4
    3
    5
    7
    8
    0
    9
    5
    2
    3
    9
    5
    7
    4
    9
    ID
    

    -------
            trial waste treatment unit cost curve presented in Figure
            II-6 seems to be borne out in contrasting the preliminary
            $5 billion cost assessment with the amended $4 billion re-
            quirement.
    
       (2)   Census  data are partial and unweighted, and generalized
            assumptions used to modify them may well be in error - in
            greater or  lesser  degree - in the case of specific indus-
            tries.
    
       (3)  The profiles  account  for cost-reducing steps customarily
            taken in the  plant to reduce the volume and strength of
            wastes prior  to treatment.  Such procedures could only bo
            roughly approximated  in the model that utilized census
            data.
    
       (4)  In the judgment of the authors of the profiles, most in-
            dustries would seem to have been constructing waste treat-
            ment facilities at a more  rapid rate over the last  four
            years than during the five previous years.  Thus the sim-
            ple projection of 1959 to  1964 plant construction rates
            used in the analysis of the  census perhaps overstates  the
            unmet requirement.
    
        (5)  The profiles provide an insight into the peculiar waste
            treatment requirements of specific industries,  thus are
            more precise than a general  goal such  as  "the equivalent
            of secondary treatment of domestic wastes."  When  speci-
            fics are brought into the equation,  the experience  of in-
            dustries that have dealt with them on  the  basis of  mean-
            ingful  alternatives is reflected - and with it  the  weight-
            ing of cost experience provided by use of optimal methods.
    
        (6)  A weakness of the profiles, as opposed to the census,  as
            a source of data  is that they tend to be based on limited
            geographical experience.  Thus the waste treatment situ-
            ation  of a regional segment of an industry may, without
            proper justification, be used to generalize the total in-
            dustry's practices.   It is probable, for example,  that
             the problem  presented by the obsolescent sulfite pulping
            plants of  Wisconsin  and the Pacific Northwest could at
             least double indicated requirements for the paper and
             allied products group.
    
    Table 11-13 summarizes  the differences in evaluation that occurred with the
    two sets of calculations.   The significant variation between the value of
    plant in place as calculated  by the separate methods gives further point to
    the need expressed by the FWPCA, through a number of program proposals over
                                         100
    

    -------
                           TABLE 11-13
    
    COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED 1968 WASTE TREATMENT  REQUIREMENTS
                UNDER TWO METHODS OF CALCULATION
    Industry
    Food and Kindred Products
    Heat 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
    Primary Metals
    Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills
    All Other
    Machinery
    Electrical Machinery
    Transportation Equipment
    All Other Manufacturing
    All Manufactures
    Plant Currently Provided By
    Industry
    Plant Currently Provided By
    Municipalities
    Dnmet Requirement
    Millions of 1968 Dollars
    Basis For Estimate
    Wastewater Profiles
    and Estimates
    743.1
    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
    
    2,215.3
    
    731.4
    1,051.9
    Census -Municipal
    Projections
    669.6
    128.6
    69.3
    155.8*
    175.2
    140.7
    170.9
    917.6
    1,003.8
    272.3
    58.9
    1,383.7
    890.7
    493.0
    55.9
    51.3
    156.4
    291.8
    5,032.2
    
    1,752.3
    
    635.9
    2,644.0
                               101
    

    -------
    the years, for an  inventory of industrial waste sources and waste treatment.
    For while deficiencies of the census as a source of data may explain a part
    of the difference,  and the high dollar efficiency of industrial waste treat-
    ment investments relative to municipal investments may also provide a partial
    explanation, the wide spread between the two estimates is perplexing.  It is
    possible that the  variation in indicated investment reflects an industry-wide
    deficiency in normal waste treatment capacity.  If the difference between the
    separate assessments of  unmet requirements were proportional to incremental
    industrial wasteloads reaching watercourses as a result of under capacity in
    existing waste treatment, there would be clear cause for concern.
    
    There is a hint in the Industrial Waste Profiles that some such mechanism is
    actually at work.   For example, the estimated efficiency with which the steel
    industry operates  its waste-reducing plant is, according to the profile, only
    50%.  Similarly, the profile of the plastics and resins industry suggests
    that waste reduction efficiencies based on reduction of standard BOD are de-
    ceptive.  Many waste constituents are not removed by conventional treatment
    processes; and removal of five-day BOD provides an ineffective yardstick for
    evaluating treatment effectiveness where a large proportion of the wastes pro-
    duced are of a persistent nature.  Oxygen demand is asserted in such cases
    well after the five-day  period when 67% of the stabilization of sanitary
    wastes takes place.
    
    It is clear that,  whichever set of unmet treatment requirements is utilized,
    industry does not  face a major investment to bring its waste treatment capa-
    bilities up to the standard of removal set as a goal.  But in planning to
    meet industrial pollution control costs, the unmet requirement should not be
    considered to be their only, or even their major, source.  Substantial sums
    will be needed to  keep pace with removal standards as industrial output in-
    creases; and large amounts will have to be expended each year to operate,
    maintain, and replace elements of the waste removal system.
    
    Table 11-14 presents an  assessment of investment requirements which must be
    met if industrial  wastes are to be controlled within the next five years to
    the average level  of efficiency used as a standard for this report.  The un-
    derlying assumptions are that:   (1) existing unmet waste treatment require-
    ments will be provided equally over each of the next five years; and (2) no
    additional unmet requirements will arise  (i.e., all new plant construction
    or other additions to capacity will include adequate waste treatment facili-
    ties whose cost is assessed in the schedule).
    
    The table indicates that industry will have to invest over a third of a bil-
    lion dollars a year to keep pace with the growth of its waste treatment re-
    sponsibilities and to eliminate existing deficiencies.   (If the higher indi-
    cated requirements and the greater preponderance of deficiency indicated by
    the analysis of the census is used for a base, the total industrial invest-
    ment requirement over the same five-year period would amount to over $3.6
    billion.)
                                          102
    

    -------
                                                       TABLE 11-14
                              ANNUAL INVESTMENT REQUIRED TO REDUCE THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL
                                        WASTE TREATMENT DEFICIENCY IN FIVE YEARS
                                           (Wastewater Profiles and Estimates)
                      Industry
                                                 Annual Investment
                                                 To Reduce Existing
                                                    Requi rement
                                                                    Millions of 1968 Dollars
                      Total Investment to Reduce Waste
                      Treatment Requirements and Meet
                                Growth Needs
                                    T97T
                                                                                                    1972  I   1973
    o
    U)
    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)
    43.9
     7.0
     4.6
     6.7
    13.5
    12.1
    
     5.3
    15.1
    56.0
    15.4
     6.2
    29.9
    19.6
    10.3
    
     5.0
     1.7
     8.3
    23.5
                                                           210.3
                                                          (528.5)
    63.2
    10.1
     5.1
    11.4
    19.3
    17.3
    
     9.8
                                                                               .1
                                                                               .7
    19.
    75.
    15.4
     7.0
    83.6
    52.4
    31.2
    
     6.9
     3.6
    11.7
    32.3
    65.4
    11.2
     5.7
    12.4
    18.4
    17.7
    
    10.9
    25.5
    76.9
    18.1
     7.9
    91.3
    59.1
    32.2
    
     6.9
     3.8
    11.9
    32.6
    69.9
    11.2
     5.5
    12.6
    22.6
    18.0
    
    11.1
    26.0
    77.7
    30.5
     7.1
    93.3
    60.1
    33.2
    
     7.1
     3.8
    12.2
    33.0
    70.0
    11.7
     5.5
    12.9
    21.4
    18.5
    
    11.0
    26.4
    79.4
    31.7
     7.2
    96.2
    63.0
    34.2
    
     7.1
     4.0
    12.1
    33.5
                                                                                                            69.9
                                                                                                            11.6
                                                                                                             5.5
                                                                                                            13.0
                                                                                                            21.5
    18.3
    
    11.6
    27.0
    77.9
    32.1
     7.1
    97.8
    63.0
    34.8
    
     7.3
     4.1
    12.3
    33.8
                   328.3   351.2   371.7   378.6   380.9
                  (676.9) (705.8) (731.5) (740.2) (743.1)
    

    -------
    The required increase in waste treatment that will result from growth of in-
    dustrial output over the five-year period will constitute a significant sum.
    Starting at over $100 million per year in 1969, the annual total adds about
    $20 million in each succeeding year, on a schedule based on projections of
    output provided by the Business and Defense Services Administration of the
    U. S. Department of Commerce. ^
    
    By FY 1973, it is assumed that American industry will be installing water pol-
    lution control equipment for new and expanded plants at a roughly $200 mil-
    lion annual rate.  In addition, depreciation charges on $4.4 billion of waste
    treatment  plants in place (including municipal plants serving industry) will
    be accruing at an annual rate of $238 million, assuming a normal 20-year
    period of  depreciation.  Thus total annual capital requirements will exceed
    half a billion dollars a year, even after indicated industrial waste treat-
    ment requirements have been met.
    
    In sum,  the amount should not have a depressing effect on any industry,  if
    one considers that new plant and equipment expenditures in manufacturing
    amount to  almost $30 billion annually at existing rates of investment, the
    $400 to  $500 million annual waste treatment investment foreseen after the
    period of  catching up has ended will amount to roughly one and a half percent
    of industry's annual plant and equipment investment.
        The o&4ump£uM in making the. pJwje.ction 1004 that u)at>te treatment
                   u)ou£d incnea&e. pAopoxtionateJLy with value* addzd, adjusted
            pu.ce. te.ve£ changes.  In &e.vesiaJi induA&iieA - tftan&potttation
        equipment, pet^oteum Ae£uioig, daJUuj product* - wa&te. treatment fie.-
        quinement* weste. p*o/ec£ecf at a. leA&eSL note o£ incA.e.a&z than vodueA
        added to £& (at> pieA
    -------
                       MARGINAL EFFICIENCY AND HIDDEN COSTS
    Ultimately the cost of pollution control must be measured in  each drainage
    basin,  in terras that include the peculiar hydrologic, climatic,  and economic
    configurations of the river system.  A national assessment, to be dependable,
    tost be built painstakingly from the bottom up, to reflect water quality
    standards and factors affecting water quality in each drainage area.   The
    generalized waste treatment goal utilized in this report must be recognized
    to provide only a first effort to set the terms for detailed  regional  and in-
    dustrial studies that take into account specialized circumstances that affect
    costs.
    
    One of the most significant of these is the extreme increase  in  costs  that is
    incurred when advanced waste treatment becomes a necessity.   Figure II-7, de-
    veloped by W. W. Eckenfelder of the Department of Engineering at the Univer-
    sity of Texas, generalizes the cost relationships associated  with progressive
    levels of waste removal efficiency.  The curve's shape  and known relationships
    between the cost of primary treatment, aerated lagooning, and activated
    sludge indicate that the relationships are arithmetic rather  than logarithmic.
    
    It is obvious from the shape of the conceptualized treatment  cost curve that
    marginal reductions in wastes involve sharp increases in unit costs.   Between
    primary and secondary waste treatment, costs roughly double.  From secondary
    to tertiary treatment, cost increase is even more pronounced.
    
    These relationships are critical in assessing the validity of the $4 billion
    to $5 billion treatment cost estimates.  Those costs are associated with a
    selected point - 85% removal of the suspended solids and biochemical oxygen
    demand of sewage.  It is generally recognized, however, that  the relation-
    ships between secondary waste treatment  (85% removal) and attainment of water
    quality standards is not a fixed one.  In some instances primary waste treat-
    Bent may be adequate to maintain stream quality.  On the other hand, there
    are a number of instances - and that number must grow,  with incremental in-
    creases in waste volume - where secondary waste treatment will be inadequate
    to achieve an established standard.  This is particularly true of industrial
    wastes.  Secondary waste treatment reduces oxygen demand and  settleable and
    suspended solids; but in many cases, industrial wastes  are characterized by
    persistent rather than standard biochemical oxygen demand, by toxics,  by ex-
    otic compounds, by dissolved minerals.  Reduction of such waste  constituents
    cannot be achieved with secondary waste treatment, and  it is  necessary to ap-
    ply some form of advanced (tertiary) or specific treatment process.  In view
    of the sharply increased costs involved in attaining advanced treatment,  it
    aay be expected that industrial waste treatment costs may in  fact exceed con-
    siderably those presented in this report.  Much of what is considered  ad-
    vanced waste treatment in the case of sanitary sewage or municipal wastes may
    be the required form for many industrial establishments.
                                         105
    

    -------
                                         FIGURE H-7
               GENERALIZED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WASTE TREATMENT COSTS AND
                                   INTENSITY OF TREATMENT
                                                                                        •€3
    
    
    -
    
    -
    -
                                                   ACTIVATED
                                                     SLUDGE
    AERATED
    LAGOONS
                                                                       ADVANCED
                                                                          WASTE
                                                                        TREATMENT
         DEGREE OF WASTE REDUCTION-
             After W.W.Eckenfelder:  Effluent  Quality and Treatment  Economics for Industrial
                                   Wastewaters,  October 1967
                                              106
    

    -------
    Lacking  a technical assessment of the relative significance of this circum-
    stance,  the  analyst may still obtain some view of its potential impact on
    cost.  If it is  assumed that the cost relationships indicated by W. W. Ecken-
    felder's curve are generally valid and that the curve presents them accurate-
    ly, application  of the measured costs of secondary industrial waste treatment
    at points along  the curve provides some index of the growth in the magnitude
    of the total investment requirement associated with more complete removal of
    industrial wastes.
    
    The operative assumption in preparing this report is the presumption  of  a
    level of waste removal that correlates theoretically with point i_ along  the
    curve (Figure II-7) .  The point is considered to represent the level  of  cost
    that corresponds with 85% BOD removal.  Point ij_ may be assumed to represent
    about 90% removal of BOD.  Point i^ mav be said to correspond with 95% BOD
    removal, some indeterminate level of reduction of persistent organic  mater-
    ials and/or  dissolved inorganics; point i_^ indicates a level of cost  associ-
    ated with removal of more than 98% of BOD and/or an increased level of remov-
    al of persistent organics and dissolved inorganics.
    
    If all industrial waste treatment investments are evaluated in terms  of  85%
    removal  - at the primary treatment level and each of the sequence of  points
    indicated along  the curve - relative costs may be derived at successive  incre-
    aental efficiences, as indicated in the following table:
                                    TABLE  11-15
    
                  CAPITAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH  VARYING LEVELS OF
                       INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT  EFFICIENCY
                                FOR 1968 DISCHARGES
    Type of Treatment
    Assumed BOD5
    Removal
    Indicated Total
    Investment
    Wastewater
    Profiles and
    Estimates
    Primary 35% $ 2.3 billion
    Secondary 85% $ 4.0 billion
    Secondary 90% $ 6.0 billion
    Tertiary 95% $10.6 billion
    Tertiary 98% $13.4 billion
    Census-
    Municipal
    Projections
    $ 2.9 billion
    $ 5.0 billion
    $ 7.5 billion
    $13.3 billion
    $16.8 billion
                                         107
    

    -------
    These are,  of course,  approximate kinds of relationships.   It is clear,  how-
    ever, that  as we move  into the  actual implementation of water quality stand-
    ards - where  varying levels of  treatment will be demanded  by conditions  -
    diminishing returns may act to  increase costs enormously.
    
    (Not only industrial waste treatment costs will be affected.  The less exotic
    wastes of municipalities,  by reason of their great volume  at points  of popu-
    lation concentration,  will pose an increasing need to face the costs of  in-
    stalling and  operating advanced waste treatment procedures.  Relying on  the
    relationships of the Eckenfelder curve, we may conclude that for every 10% of
    the nation's  urban population that is required to increase its waste treat-
    ment efficiency to 95% BOD removal, an additional $1.3 billion investment
    will be required.  With more than two-thirds of the nation's population  con-
    centrated in  222 standard  metropolitan statistical areas,  it is obvious  that
    an increasing number of municipal areas are expanding to a point where the
    volume of their waste  discharges will make just such an investment decision
    necessary.)
    
    
                                 OTHER SOURCES OF COST
    
    There are other, undefined, kinds of costs associated with treatment of  in-
    dustrial wastes which  may  have  the effect of pushing total costs well above
    those derived from the methods  and assumptions embodied in this analysis.
    
    Technical experts are  in general agreement that reduction  in standard BOD is
    an inadequate guide for measuring the efficiency of waste  treatment  where
    wastes are  other than  conventional sanitary sewage.  There is a hidden cost
    component of  indeterminable magnitude in that portion of the industrial  waste
    treatment plant now in place which is operating in an ineffective manner.
    
    Loss of practical efficiency of sunk capital is sometimes  involved in circum-
    stances where a conventional waste treatment procedure is  applied to indus-
    trial wastes  which may have quite separate characteristics from those of san-
    itary sewage.  In the  case of potato processing wastes, for example, there is
    evidence that conventional secondary waste treatment simply serves to incu-
    bate slow-stabilizing  wastes, so that they are discharged  to watercources
    near their  maximum oxygen-demanding potential.
    
    A general problem is the fact that stabilization of organic materials in the
    treatment process results  in release of nitrogen and phosphorous in  a mineral
    form, which is swiftly utilized by aquatic biota.  Given a primary level of
    waste treatment, natural stabilization takes place over an extended  area of
    stream, where biologic productivity is regulated by rate of nutrient release.
    With the introduction  of secondary waste treatment, nutrients are immediately
    available,  production  of algae  and other biota is accelerated, and is some-
    times attended by disagreeable  slime growths.  The situation is increasingly
                                          108
    

    -------
    prevalent in many western and midwestern drainage systems, where  it may  force
    early adoption of some form of advanced waste treatment.
    
    toother kind of cost increment is inherent in the assumption  that the  pres-
    ence of a treatment plant of a given description indicates a  normal removal
    of waste constituents.  Experience has taught that  this  is simply not  true.
    Treatment plants may be undersized, under-maintained,  inadequately operated.
    Factories are  operated for other purposes than waste reduction -  in pollution-
    controlling terms - so their waste treatment plant  operators  tend to be  non-
    professionals  and, except in circumstances involving enforcement  proceedings,
    waste treatment often does not receive a high priority in allocation of  man-
    agement effort.  In many cases, treatment plants may be  said  to be built sim-
    ply to escape  the nuisance presented by the regulatory agency. Under-
    designed, under-engineered, and under-operated industrial waste treatment
    plants may be  very common.  If one considers the South Platte River Basin,
    for example, he finds that the census of water use  indicates  that all  but one
    of the sugar refineries in the area had some sort of ground disposal system
    in operation in 1964, thus would be assumed to have adequate  waste treatment.
    Investigation  of the plants in the conduct of an enforcement  conference  re-
    vealed, however, that normal BOD removal efficiency was  in the neighborhood
    of 10 to 25% rather than the assigned average efficiency of 85%.   Similarly,
    Volume III, Industrial Waste Profiles, prepared for the  standard  industrial
    classification "blast furnaces and steel mills" offered  the judgment that,
    industry-wide, waste treatment facilities are operated only at 50% of  stand-
    ard or expectable efficiency.  To the extent that attainment  of normal oper-
    ating efficiency may require additional expenditure, capital  requirements are
    understated; and the possible effects of this mechanism  remain to be evalu-
    ated.
                                         109
    

    -------
                      ANNUAL  COSTS  OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT
    The estimated Si billion to $2.6 billion that industry will have to expend
    over the next five years to end the deficiency in its waste treatment capa-
    bilities will be most burdensome not as an investment requirement but through
    its effects  on industrial cost structures.  Once built, the waste treatment
    system must  be operated and maintained, so that as the capital investments
    are made, operating costs will rise.
    
    Analytical work on operating and maintenance costs associated with industrial
    waste treatment has been extremely scarce.  When, as occasionally happens,
    such costs are quoted in the technical literature, they tend to be expressed
    in terms of  costs - including interest, depreciation, and taxes - per pound
    of BOD removed.  An assemblage of data prepared by W. W. Eckenfelder (Efflu-
    ent Quality  and^j^rejitment Economics^ for Industrial Wastewaters) cited operat-
    ing and maintenance costs for more than 50 industrial waste treatment systems;
    but the variation in expression of unit costs, treatment efficiency, and val-
    ue of plant  made it impossible to derive meaningful relationships between in-
    vestment and operating costs.  Volume III of this report, the Industrial
    Waste Profiles, probably contain the only existing publicly available analy-
    ses of operating costs for any significant segment of industrial wastewater
    treatment.
    
    Operating costs have been abstracted from the profiles, and expressed in
    terms of percentage of current replacement value of investment in Table 11-16.
    The cost relationships indicated in the table were used to derive estimated
    annual operating and maintenance costs for all manufacturing industries for
    the period 1968-1973, on the assumption that .operating costs for a total in-
    dustrial sector would be similar to those for the segment of the industry
    profiled, and that other industrial groups would face operating costs similar
    to average costs for all of the profiled industries.
    
    Applying the operating cost ratios to the assumed schedule of investment,
    Table 11-17  presents the calculated annual cost to industry of operating the
    waste treatment system assumed to be necessary to maintain water quality
    standards.   Operating and maintenance costs, as presented in the table, in-
    clude assessment of sewer charges for municipally treated wastes at the same
    rate as operating costs incurred by factory-operated treatment plants.  As
    the backlog  of needed plants is worked off and industrial output increases
    over the period, the annual cost of operating treatment plants is seen to
    rise almost  60%, and to amount to almost three quarters of a billion dollars
    by 1973 - or almost a billion dollars if municipal capital cost relationships
    are applied.
    
    Unlike  construction costs, operating and maintenance costs tend to be higher
    on a unit basis for industrial waste treatment than for municipal.  The
                                          110
    

    -------
                                   TABLE 11-16
    
                  ANNUAL  OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS AS A
                     PERCENTAGE  OF VALUE OF TREATMENT PLANTS
               Industry
    Operating and Maintenance
       Costs as Percent of
    Current Replacement Value
    Fibers,  Plastics  and Resins
    
    Textile  Mill  Products
    
    Canned and Frozen Foods
    
    Heat Packing
    
    Dairy Products
    
    Motor Vehicles
    
    Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills
    
    Pulp and Paper
    
    Petroleum Refining
    
    
    
    Mean for Nine Industries
              21.2
    
    
              28.1
    
    
              17.4
    
    
              11.3
    
    
              20.0
    
    
              16.9
    
    
              10.4
    
    
              13.6
    
    
              20.0
    
    
    
              17.7
                                       111
    

    -------
                                                       TABLE 11-17
    
                                         ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
                                                        1968-1973
    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
    Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs
    (Millions of 1968 Dollars)
    1968 1969 I 1970
    85.4 95.9 107.0
    15.3 16.4 17.7
    16.1 17.1 18.3
    17.9 19.9 22.0
    19.1 22.5 25.8
    17.0 20.0 23.2
    39.0 41.7 44.8
    33.3 35.9 39.3
    21.1 37.2 53.5
    60.5 63.6 67.2
    1.8 3.0 4.4
    137.8 146.5 155.9
    90.1 95.5 101.6
    47.7 51.0 54.3
    2.5 3.7 4.9
    4.8 5.5 6.1
    29.4 31.4 33.4
    15.3 21.0 26.8
    
    430.9 485.4 543.3
    By Census-Municipal Projections (348.7) (453.6) (565.6)
    I 1971
    118.7
    19.0
    19.4
    24.2
    29.8
    26.3
    47.9
    42.8
    70.0
    73.3
    5.7
    165.7
    107.9
    57.8
    6.2
    6.8
    35.5
    32.6
    
    605.2
    (679.9)
    1972
    130.4
    20.3
    20.5
    26.5
    33.5
    29.6
    51.0
    46.4
    86.8
    79.6
    7.0
    175.7
    114.4
    61.3
    7.5
    7.5
    37.5
    38.5
    
    667.9
    (802.1)
    I 1973
    142.1
    21.6
    21.6
    28.7
    37.3
    32.9
    54.3
    50.0
    103.3
    86.1
    8.2
    185.9
    121.0
    64.9
    8.7
    8.2
    39.6
    44.5
    
    730.9
    (921.7)
    N>
    

    -------
    causes are  functions  of the same phenomena that result in high  cost effec-
    tiveness of the  industrial waste treatment investment.  More  concentrated in-
    dustrial wastes  induce  greater materials handling costs per unit of wastewa-
    ter or per  cubic foot of treatment capacity than is  true of the municipal
    plant.  Similarly,  the  evening of the industrial flow pattern that allows a
    smaller industrial  treatment plant to handle the same volume  of wastewater
    as a larger municipal plant, with its fluctuating daily flow  pattern,  re-
    sults in a  treatment  system that is operating closer to capacity, thus with
    higher costs per unit of capacity.  Finally, it should be noted that the in-
    dustrial operating  cost often includes a larger measure of pretreatment and
    post-treatment operations.  The typical municipal treatment system is, ex-
    cept for disinfection,  a continuous process.  Industrial wastes often re-
    quire neutralization, screening, segregation, dilution, and other ancillary
    processes in addition to treatment or to sewering.
    
    Operating and maintaining the nation's industrial waste treatment plant will
    provide the major element in the sustained, rising total cost of industrial
    water pollution  control, once the existing deficiency in waste  treatment cap-
    abilities has been  ended.  Even if an equilibrium position is attained by
    1973, with  no waste treatment requirements other than those imposed by re-
    placement and expansion, the total annual increment  to manufacturers'  cash
    requirements represented by water pollution control  will exceed a billion
    dollars a year.   Table  11-18 summarizes, for all manufacturing, the rising
    requirements posed  by waste treatment through the period 1969-1973.  After
    1973, industry will face a situation in which it must be prepared to expend
    an annual investment  rising from a base of about $200 million a year to pro-
    vide for output  growth,* pay operating and maintenance costs  rising from over
    $730 million a year,  and face replacement costs - as measured by depreci-
    ation - increasing  steadily from the 1973 base rate  of about  $200 million
    per year.
    
    Clearly, waste treatment will occupy an increasingly significant place in de-
    termining the total costs and the financial requirements of industrial oper-
    ations.
    %ie:  The. vo£tte6  one. obtained by tubtsiacting  £tom the, -cncUcoted 1973
          capitat ie.qu*A<2jnwt, tliat portion needed to e£6)vcna£e
                        (TaMe 11-74).
                                        113
    
      194-046 o - 68 - 9
    

    -------
                                                    TABLE 11-18
    
                                ANNUAL  CASH OUTLAYS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECTED
                                   INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM, 1969-1973
              Source of Outlay
                                                                    Millions  of  1968 Dollars
                                                1969
                 1970
                 1971
                 1972
                 1973
                                                               5-Year
                                                               Total
    By Wastewater Profiles  &  Estimates:
      Depreciation/Replacement @  5%
      Operation & Maintenance
      New Plant Required
         Total Outlays
      127.2
      485.4
      328.3
                                        I/
    (Replacement Value,  Plant in Place)—
      144.7
     '543.3
      351.2
      163.3
      605.2
      371.7
      182.3
      667.9
      378.6
                                                    201.3
                                                    730.9
     	    		      380.9
       940.9    1,039.2    1,140.2    T722878    1,313.1
    
    (2,543.6)   (2,894.8)  (3,266.5)   (3,645.1)   (4,026.0)
      818.8
    3,032.7
    1,810.7
    5,662.2
    By Census-Municipal  Projection:
      Depreciation/Replacement @ 5%
      Operation & Maintenance
      New Plant Required
         Total Outlays
      121.5
      453.6
      676.9
    1,252.0
      156.8
      565.6
      705.8
    1,428.2
      193.3
      679.9
      731.5
    1,604.7
      230.3
      802.1
      740.2
    1,772.6
                                                    267.5
                                                    921.7
                                                    743.1
                                                  1,932.3
      969.4
    3,422.9
    3,597.5
    7,989.8
     (Replacement Value,  Plant in Place)!/   (2,429.2)   (3,135.0)   (3,866.5)   (4,606.7)   (5,349.8)
    
    U Exclude* value. o£ fie.atme.nt th/iough. municipal J>yt>tejnt> in  1968.   ?tioje.cti.on& oj$ the. incide.nct o(J mu-
       nicipaJL ttie.at3ne.nt o&  induAtniat w
    -------
                     REGIONAL INCIDENCE OF  INDUSTRIAL  WASTE
                                 TREATMENT  COSTS	
    Distribution of industrial waste treatment  requirements among the regions of
    the nation is affected by a variety of  factors.   The relative degree of in-
    dustrialization, the type of manufacturing  industries that characterize the
    region, and the relative age of plants  in various industries are the princi-
    pal elements that enter into the determination of industrial waste treatment
    requirements.  In addition to these, scarcity or abundance of water supplies
    and the vigor with which pollution control  laws  are enforced tend to affect
    strongly the level of plant in place relative to required plant.
    
    Regional allocations, as presented in Table 11-19,  of the estimated current
    industrial waste treatment investment requirement reflect only two of the
    tutors that bear upon actual cost distributions.  The table adequately mir-
    rors degree of industrialization and manufacturing specialization among re-
    gions.  It fails to account for relative average age and size of plant, or
    effects of regional water pollution control programs; these elements cannot
    be gaged accurately in the absence of an inventory of industrial waste
    sources.
    
    fte method of distribution involved allocation of costs by industry, accord-
    ing to the identifiable portion of each industrial sector's total wastewater
    discharge that occurs within each of the regions.  The unidentifiable por-
    tion of the cost was allocated porportionately to each region's share of the
    toted unidentifiable industrial water discharge.
    
    Since the major factors influencing industrial waste treatment requirements
    bomber and kind of manufacturing users of  water) are the elements underly-
    ing the tabulation, it should be of some value to state and regional plan-
    Mrs who must consider the relative significance of waste treatment require-
    lents in the total complex of regional  development circumstances.
    
    taste treatment requirements are concentrated in the industrial northeast.
    The North Atlantic, Great Lakes, and Ohio drainage regions contain more than
    601 of the nation's industrial waste treatment requirement, more than half
    of;the indicated unmet requirement.   (In view of the tendency for old, small
    plants to have a disporportionate share of  the total treatment needs of any
    industry, there is reason to believe that this industrially mature portion
    of the nation actually contains an even greater  proportion of the waste
    treatment requirement than the allocation indicates.)  In distinction, the
    vast areas of the southwest - i.e., the Colorado, Great Basin, and Califor-
    nia drainage areas - contain only 4% of the indicated treatment requirement.
    tot only are these areas relatively unindustrialized, they tend to contain
    itttastries whose waste-producing, water-using characteristics are minor; the
                                        115
    

    -------
                                     TABLE 11-19
    
    
               REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF WASTE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS,
                     1968, BY WASTEWATER PROFILES AND ESTIMATES
    
    Regions
    Tota
    Req
    North Atlantic
    Southeast
    Great Lakes
    Ohio
    Tennessee
    Upper Mississippi
    Lower Mississippi
    Missouri
    Arkansas-White-Red
    Millions of 1968 Dollars
    1 Plant Value of
    uired Plant in Place
    814.0 575.5
    276.1 208.0
    973.4 784.2
    658.5 526.7
    80.4 47.8
    205.1 149.9
    230.1 144.8
    88.2 64.2
    49.2 33.0
    Western Gulf 286.8 168.9
    Colorado/Great
    25.9 17.0
    Pacific Northwest^/ 167.6 121.1
    California^ 143.3 1Q5>6
    T°tal 3,998.6 2,946.7
    Additional "
    Investment
    Requi red
    238.5
    68.1
    189.2
    131.8
    32.6
    55.2
    85.3
    24.0
    16.2
    117.9
    8.9
    46.5
    37.7
    1,051.9
    -   IncAudu Abuka.
    
    21
    -   Includu Hawaii
                                        116
    

    -------
    regions' 4% of the industrial waste  treatment requirement is generated by
    plants producing 10% of national values added by manufacturers .
    
    It should be recognized that the allocation of requirements by proportional
    industrial specialization probably provides a good guide to the dimensions of
    the total treatment requirement for  any region, but a far less satisfactory
    indication of the relative deficiency in industrial waste treatment.  Experi-
    ence and judgment indicate that stringency and enforcement of pollution con-
    trol regulations impose a significant influence on the prevalence of indus-
    trial waste treatment.  Even more significant, perhaps, is the extent of the
    influences of water shortage and average age of industrial plant.  Although
    the data do not permit quantitative  expression of the effects of these inf lu-
         there are approximate numerical guides to its effect.
    Table 11-20 lists by  region  comparative percentage of total and treated in-
    dustrial wastewater discharge  found in the Census of Manufactures for  1964.
    Obviously, it is impossible  to draw specific conclusions from the listings
    xhich reveal nothing  about the kind or degree of treatment, relationships be-
    toreen wastewater discharge that requires treatment and other discharges, pol-
    lutional loading before  and  after treatment.  Still, all things being  equal,
    there is good reason  to  infer  a distinct difference in regional practice.
    It may be anticipated that natural and recent historical circumstances will
    affect the actual resolution of regional cost allocations in ways that the
    information presently available does not allow us to measure.
                                         117
    

    -------
                                                        TABLE  11-20
    
                                        RELATIVE REGIONAL PREVALENCE OF  INDUSTRIAL
                                                   WASTE TREATMENT, 1964
    Billion Gallons, 1964
    Region
    To
    Disc
    North Atlantic 2
    Southeast
    Great Lakes 3
    Ohio 2
    Tennessee
    Upper Mississippi
    Lower Mississippi
    Missouri
    Arkansas-White-Red
    Western Gulf 1
    Colorado/Great
    California/Hawaii
    Pacific Northwest/Alaska
    U. S. Total 13
    Treated Discharge
    tal Treated
    harge Discharge^/
    ,397 1,037
    893 315
    ,003 955
    ,370 400
    387 109
    494 155
    572 133
    128 47
    174 82
    ,700 377
    45 21
    420 136
    575 153
    ,157 3,611
    Sewered
    Di scharge
    175
    48
    307
    167
    10
    104
    20
    36
    14
    14
    6
    50
    40
    987
    Ground
    Discharge
    29
    12
    17
    15
    10
    6
    3
    2
    2
    2
    3
    72
    20
    195
    
    Treated
    as %
    of Total
    51.7
    41.9
    54.0
    24.6
    33.3
    53.6
    27.3
    66.4
    56.3
    23.1
    66.7
    61.4
    37.0
    36.3
    00
        —  Exclude* -tteo^ed  dUchange. to ground and &ie.a£e,d dL&cJiaAQZ -to -iewe/Li
    

    -------
                   INDUSTRIAL WASTEUATER COOLING REQUIREMENTS
    gaite apart from waste treatment  requirements, industry faces a considerable
    expenditure arising from the need to reduce the temperature of heated waste-
    rtter discharges.  Cooling water  intake of thermal electric power generating
    establishments in 1964 amounted to 41,938 billion gallons; and the  largest
    category of water intake by manufacturers is that for cooling purposes,  a re-
    ported 9,385 billion gallons in 1964 by users of 20 million gallons or more,
    over 70% of recorded water-use by manufacturers.  Combined cooling  water in-
    takes of major manufacturing and  power generating establishments averaged
    142 billion gallons per day, or almost enough to equal the 146 billion gal-
    lots per day of estimated use by  irrigation, the largest user of water.
    Since the rate of growth of demand for power and manufactured products is
    greater than that for agricultural products, industrial intake of cooling wa-
    ter today probably exceeds use of water by irrigation, even conceding the ef-
    ficiencies possible in recycling  of cooling water.
    
    Industrial cooling waters are a prime source of thermal pollution - the  addi-
    tion or removal of heat from a stream that causes water temperature to be
    above or below ambient temperature.  They are not the only source of thermal
    pollution.  Temperature changes can be induced by the presence of a dam, by
    depletion of a stream through diversion, by the warming of irrigation return
    waters that occurs on fields, by  industrial process and municipal effluents
    vhose temperature characteristics have been modified.  Industrial cooling is,
    however, a very significant source of thermal pollution, and the one we  are
    best equipped by information to evaluate and to remedy.
    
    Teaperature modification is a significant kind of pollution in itself.
    fanned waters are intolerable to  many desirable aquatic life forms, and  their
    utility for cooling is diminished.  Temperature modification also contributes
    toother forms of pollution.  Warming of water accelerates most of  the bio-
    logical and chemical processes that occur in water, sometimes to an extent
    that affects the kind as well as  the degree of water quality modifications.
    Thus the more rapid decomposition of dissolved organics that occurs in warmed
    Wter can result in oxygen depletion; and attainment of threshold temperature
    levels may effect reactions that  cause otherwise tolerable concentrations of
      It should be. noted, however,  that both manu.6a.ctusu.ng and  powet. geneA.-
      ation ana u&eAA thsiougkout the. yejvi, and that tlneJJi ivatesi u&e occifia
      ptijicipally 
    -------
     materials  (e.g., of the sulfides of wood pulping) to become  toxic  to aquatic
     life.
    
     Information on waste heat discharge or on thermal pollution  is  limited.
     Available data, primarily estimates of water intake and  consumption by vari-
     ous use categories, are of limited accuracy.  We may estimate,  but we cannot
     know, the volume of water discharged and the gross increase  in  temperature
     that occurs.
    
     Seasonal factors bear upon the validity of estimates.  The amount  of water
     used for cooling varies widely by season, due to the greater cooling effi-
     ciency of colder winter water.  Similarly, the increased temperature of cool-
     ing water discharge has a less deleterious effect on receiving  waters in win-
     ter.
    
     Even the prevalence of thermal pollution is difficult  to assess.   Volume of
     water and heat transfer properties of a river basin provide  no  guide to the
     seriousness of a temperature problem, for thermal pollution  may occur on in-
     dividual streams or at stream points, yet be indistinguishable  and immeasur-
     able above and below the affected areas.  Nevertheless,  it is generally rec-
     ognized that heat is a significant pollutant, and the  one most  likely to in-
     crease in seriousness in the immediate future.
    
     Cooling requirements can most advantageously be examined through  the steam-
     electric generating industry, where data is readily available,  heat exchange
     mechanisms may most conveniently be considered, an industrially homogenous
     sample is available, and, most significantly, where the  preponderance of
     waste  heat originates.  The method followed in cost development was to at-
     tempt  to deduce temperature stabilization requirements associated  with ther-
     mal  generation of power, and to infer cooling requirements for  manufacturing
     from known relationships with waste heat of power plants.
    
     A steam-electric generating plant consists of a boiler where water is heated
     to produce  steam under pressure, a turbine where the expansion  of  the steam
     is converted  to mechanical energy, which is in turn converted to electrical
     energy in a generator, a condenser which further increases the  pressure dif-
     ference through the turbine by converting steam to water, and a feed water
    pump which returns the condenser water to the boiler.  Each  plant  has a cool-
     ing system to  circulate water through the condensers.  With  once-through
     cooling - the  cheapest and most convenient method if water is plentiful and
    protection of  the environment against heat pollution is  not  a consideration -
    water is pumped from a source through the condenser and  returned  to the
    source  stream; otherwise, the heated cooling water may be passed  through a
    cooling device and recycled through the condenser, together  with  necessary
    additional make-up water.  In the latter case, only blowdown is returned to
    the stream; and the thermal pollution probability is reduced or eliminated.
                                         120
    

    -------
    The path followed by water as it is  converted to steam,  expands, and is con-
    densed back to water determines the  efficiency with which thermal energy is
    converted first to mechanical energy and  then to electrical energy.  Inherent
    in the conversion is wasted discharge of  a portion of the energy to the en-
    vironment as heat.  Efficiency of energy  conversion is limited by the capa-
    bility of boilers and turbines to withstand high temperatures for extended
    periods of time and of condensers to lower exhaust temperature.  The higher
    the generating efficiency - expressed as  net  heat rate,  or the amount of
    thermal energy required to produce a kilowatt-hour of electricity - the less
    heat that is wasted to cooling waters.
    
    Advances in generating technology have reduced the amount of heat required to
    produce electricity.  By increasing  the size  of plant, the temperature and
    pressure of steam, utilization of reheat  cycles and heat transfer in boilers
    and condensers, preheating boiler feed with waste heat,  and other operation-
    al improvements, utilities have effected  a reduction in  their average net
    heat rate from 25,000 Btu per kilowatt-hour in 1925 to 10,453 in 1965.  Since
    one kilowatt-hour is the energy equivalent of 3,413 Btu, the increase in ef-
    ficiency has meant a drop from 21,587 Btu to  7,040 Btu of heat that is wasted
    to the environment in the production of a kilowatt-hour  of electricity.  Ob-
    viously, it is to the interest of the generating industry to utilize heat as
    fully as possible, rather than wasting it.  Unfortunately, we'seem to be ap-
    proaching the limits of the efficiency possible with present generating meth-
    ods.  Current best plant heat rates  are just  over 8,700  Btu; and informed
    opinion seems to hold that a net heat rate of 8,500 Btu  represents the outer
    limit of efficiency in fossil-fueled steam-generation.
    
    More significant, the gross mathematics of the situation have created a situ-
    ation in which increased demand for  power has more than  compensated for in-
    creased efficiency.  Electric power  production in this country has doubled
    every 10 years during this century,  and most  of the increase has come 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;  where the net heat
    rate has declined at a 2.8% annual rate over  the last 40 years, steam-elec-
    tric power generation has increased  at a  7.2% annual rate.  And because each
    succeeding generation of power plants has been larger -  one of the major rea-
    sons for their increase in efficiency - the discharge of heated cooling water
    at point locations has soared.
    
    This may be best indicated by example.  Nine  new generating units, each with
    a net heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kw-hr  or better,  were brought on stream in 1965.
    Ihe average rated capacity of these  plants was  308 megawatts.  In the five-
    year period that ended in 1965, no less than  72 generating units were retired.
    Heat rates of the retired units were  in the 15,000 to 20,000 BtuAw-hr range;
    and average capacity of the retired  units was only 22 megawatts.  Thus, in
    spite of an average efficiency a third to a half greater than the retired
    plants, new plants coming on stream  in one year - because of their much
                                         121
    

    -------
    greater size  -  contribute almost as much waste heat to the environment as to-
    tal retirements over a five-year period.  Because the wasted heat of the new
    facilities was  concentrated at fewer points, potential effects on quality of
    receiving waters are even greater than a simple comparison of gross magnitude
    would indicate.  (See Table 11-21 below.)
                                      TABLE  11-21
    
               WASTE HEAT - COMPARISON  OF NEW GENERATING UNITS COMING
                       ON STREAM IN  1965 WITH PLANT RETIREMENTS
                                       1961-1965
    
    New I
    196
    Number of Plants
    Average
    Average
    Capacity (Megawatts)
    Jnits Retirements
    i5 1961-1965
    9 72
    308 22
    Net Heat Rate (BtuA«-hr) 10,000 17,500
    Total Waste Heat (Btu/hr) 18,259,164 22,313,808
    Average
    Waste Heat/Unit (Btu/hr) 2,028,796 309,914
    If the plants  used in the foregoing illustration are an accurate sample, the
    modern steam-generating plant is almost seven times as serious a potential
    source of water pollution as the 30 to 35-year old plant that it replaces.
    
    In point of  fact,  however, the modern plant is an even more serious potential
    polluter than  the  illustration indicates.  About half of the generating capa-
    city currently scheduled to come on stream by 1975 will be nuclear-fueled,
    and the future predominance of nuclear over fossil-fueled plants seems to be
    an obvious fact.  Current estimates are that half of the generating capacity
    that will become operational over the next decade will be nuclear;  and the
    average size of nuclear plants is increasing as experience with their oper-
                                          122
    

    -------
    ation accumulates.  We have noted  that  the  average  new plant coming on stream
    in 1965 had 308 megawatts of generating capacity.   Presently scheduled (fall
    1967) nuclear additions to capacity will, on  average,  be two or three times
    as large.  Of the seven nuclear-fueled  steam  generating plants presently
    scheduled to go into service in 1975  and later,  none will be of less than 800
    megawatts, five will have a capacity  of 1,000 megawatts or more.  (Table II-
    22.)
    
    Bie growth of nuclear power generation  is significant  in terms of pollutional
    effects, not just because of the great  size of the  units, but because of in-
    herently lesser thermal efficiency and  heat dissipation in the generating
    process.  The net heat rate of nuclear  plants in operation in 1965 averaged
    11,680 BtuAw-hr, 29% thermal efficiency.   In distinction, the average effi-
    ciency for all steam generating plants  was  32.6%,  and  the efficiency of the
    Host efficient (fossil-fueled) plant  was 39.1%.   where it is now generally
    assumed that the average efficiency of  fossil-fueled generating plants may
    ultimately run into a ceiling near current  "best plant" levels, expectations
    for thermal efficiency of the nuclear-fueled  portion of the industry do not
    run much above the current average for  the  industry.  Moreover, expenditure
    of heat through incomplete combustion and losses through the stacks - which
    nediate the cooling water requirements  of fossil-fueled plants - will not be
    a factor in reducing cooling requirements imposed on water by nuclear plants.
    Thus, it will take more heat to generate a  given amount of electrical energy
    in the nuclear plants of the future,  and more of that  heat will have to be
    dissipated into cooling waters.
    
    We cannot depend on increasing thermal  efficiency alone to protect our waters
    from heat pollution.  Fortunately, there are  a number  of well-developed tech-
    niques of evaporative cooling which industry  may apply to reduce temperature
    of cooling waters.  Cooling ponds  allow heat  to pass from a water surface to
    the air immediately above.  Spraying  hot water into the pond or reservoir fa-
    cilitates thermal exchange by allowing  heat to pass from water droplets to
    air as well as from pond surface to air. Natural draft cooling towers -
    which operate by pumping water to  the top of  a structure, from whence it
    flows vertically downward, exposed to air which flows  horizontally through
    louvers - provide heat exchange at the  air/water interface.  Mechanical draft
    cooling towers operate in the same fashion  as natural  draft towers, with the
    addition of fans to induce air movement through the tower.  Substitutions of
    iir or other coolants for water offer other methods of controlling thermal
    pollution which may, in the future or under specialized conditions, be ap-
    plied.
    
    It should be noted that the presence  of facilities  for stabilizing the tem-
    perature of cooling waters does much  to relieve the generating - or other -
    industry from dependence on natural water supplies. There is little point
    to stabilizing the temperature of  cooling water, then  discharging it back to
    the water course and assuming the  cost  of pumping in a fresh supply.  Once
                                         123
    

    -------
                               TABLE  11-22
    
                   NUCLEAR-FUELED GENERATING CAPACITY
                     OPERATIONAL IN YEAR, 1957-1973
     Period
    Nimber of
     Plants
    Average Rated
      Capaci ty
     (Megawatts)
    1957-1967
       18
                                                            161
      1968
                                                             507
      1969
                                                             654
      1970
                                                             606
      1971
       15
                                                             830
       1972
       14
                                                             775
       1973
       13
                                                             864
     SouA.ce.:   Atomic. Energy Coimu&ion
                                   124
    

    -------
    cooled,  the supply is again available for use,  requiring  only the addition of
    enough water to make up for loss through evaporation.
    
    !Ihe build-up of dissolved solids in reused water  that  occurs  as a result of
    continuous evaporation requires that the recirculated  supply  be exchanged for
    new cooling water at intervals.  But total water  requirements are significant-
    ly diminished by cooling facilities.  To a very considerable  extent,  availa-
    bility of cooling facilities mitigates the necessity of selecting a plant
    site near a considerably sized source of dependable water supply.  Economies
    of location may, then, often compensate for at  least a part of the cost of
    cooling.
    
    file cost of a cooling facility depends on a number of  factors whose combina-
    tion varies from establishment to establishment.   Where land  is cheap and
    plentiful, a water supply dependable, and streamflow sufficient to assimilate
    a moderately heated volume of wastewater, once-through cooling with use of a
    simple pond might work well.  Where water is  scarce, mechanical draft cooling
    and recirculation may be not only most economic,  but absolutely essential for
    operation.  The size of the generating plant, its thermal efficiency, the al-
    lowable  temperature of receiving waters, all  have a power to  modify cooling
    costs.  Cooling efficiency, too, can be engineered into a plant.  The more
    heat that is transmitted to a given volume of cooling  water,  the less water
    that is  required for cooling purposes.  Thus  a  plant that releases an efflu-
    ent with a temperature 20° above influent temperatures will have to spend
    less money to construct a cooling tower than  will a plant where cooling water
    temperature increases only 15°.
    
    Plant efficiency* cooling requirements, land  availability, and other elements
    will, then, affect the resolution of costs.   But  within the range of affec-
    tive factors, a number of sources provide guides  to generalized unit costs.
    The FPC's National Power Survey has provided  the  estimate that construction
    costs for contemporary fossil-fueled power plants are  about five dollars per
    kilowatt-capacity greater with cooling towers than with once-through cooling.
    (By implication, the added cost would be about  eight dollars  per kilowatt-
    capacity for nuclear plants.)  A consulting  firm, EBASCO, has estimated that
    cooling towers would add four  to 10 dollars per unit of capacity to the cost
    of nuclear-fueled power plants.  The principal  authority  in the field is prob-
    ably George O. G. Lflf, who has indicated that costs of constructing cooling
    towers amount generally to eight dollars per  kilowatt-capacity, while their
    operation adds about 0.5 mills per kilowatt-hour  to  the cost of electricity
    produced.
    
    tecognizing that individual conditions have  a great power to modify costs, it
    is possible to estimate the total cost of providing  cooling to all thermal
    generating plants on the basis of recorded net  heat rates and the use of a
                                         125
    

    -------
                                                           12
    single cooling method.   Such an estimate has been made.    Utilizing a design
    that assumed:   (1)  mechanical draft cooling towers,  (2) an approach tempera-
    ture of  10°  F.,  (3) water temperature  range of 10°,  15°, and 20° F.,  (4)
    $8.00 per gallon per minute average construction cost for cooling tower  and
    appurtenances,  and (5)  summer ambient  temperatures,  it was calculated that to
    provide  cooling towers  for each of the 514 plants covered in the 1965 annual
    report of the Federal Power Commission would require an expenditure of:
    
         (1)   At an average  cooling water temperature increase of 10° , $665
              million,
    
         (2)   At an average  cooling water temperature increase of 15° , $594
              million,
    
         (3)   At an average  cooling water temperature increase of 20°, $533
              million.
    
     While the figures indicate the general magnitude of  the investment that  would
     be required to provide  absolute stabilization of temperature from existing
     steam-electric generating sources, some adjustments  are required to make them
     specific  for existing conditions.  The plants evaluated - those covered  by
     Steam-Electric Plant Construction Cost and Annual Production Expenses, 1965,
     the most  recent volume  of an annual series issued by the Federal Power Com-
     mission - account for 93% of thermal generating capacity in place in  the per-
     tinent year.  Moreover, costs are those associated with a range of cooling
     efficiencies, while the average reported temperature increase of the  cooling
     waters of documented generating plants in 1965 was 13* - suggesting a cost
     very near the top of the range.  Inferring the cost  associated with the  13°
     temperature increase ($620 million for the 514 plants) and extending  it  to
     all plants, including those not covered by the FPC report, provides a total
     cost for mechanical draft cooling towers of $705 million.
    
     Some portion of the indicated investment is presently in place,  largely  in
     small plants, and almost entirely in plants located  west of the Mississippi.
     It is very rare that coastal plants and those located on major river  systems
     install cooling towers  or other facilities.  Until very recently, availabili-
     ty and dependability of a cooling water supply was a major consideration in
     determining the presence or absence of cooling facilities.  Large plants tend
     to be located near abundant water supplies, and to be users of once-through
     cooling techniques.  (Table 11-23.)
    
     Because locational considerations have played so large a part in determining
     the status of cooling facilities, an attempt was made to allocate regionally
     the $705 million requirement, and to estimate the current replacement value
     of cooling facilities in place on the  basis of the percentage of regional
     n
                S. P., Tkesmat Pollution Ffram S-£fcam-E£ec&u.c GeneAotoig  Plant*.
                                          126
    

    -------
                                                       TABLE 11-23
    
    
                                   REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF THERMAL GENERATING PLANTS
    
                                              AND COOLING FACILITIES, 1965
    1,0
    Gen
    Region No. of ing
    Plants c
    
    
    North Atlantic 101
    Southeast 61
    Great Lakes 54
    Ohio 59
    Tennessee 9
    Upper Mississippi 49
    Lower Mississippi 14
    Missouri 33
    Arkansas-White-Red 30
    Western Gulf 51
    Colorado/Great 22
    California/Hawaii 31
    Pacific Northwest/Alaska
    00 MW
    erat-
    
    
    Capa- Plants With Cooling/Total PI
    
    
    ants,
    
    
    
    
    By Capacity
    ity In Megawatts
    101- 201-
    100 200 400
    33.7 1/11 0/26 0/35
    19.8 1/10 0/12 1/24
    21.1 0/11 0/8 0/12
    25.6 1/6 0/5 4/21
    6.8 - - 1/1
    10.7 1/18 1/13 0/11
    4.6 2/3 1/2 2/6
    5.2 9/17 1/7 2/6
    5.6 9/10 5/10 4/7
    14.3 6/10 12/13 12/17
    3.8 5/7 9/10 4/4
    14.1 2/5 3/5 2/7
    _ _ _ _
    Total 514 165.5 37/108 32/111 32/151
    401-
    600
    0/14
    0/7
    0/11
    1/16
    -
    0/4
    0/1
    2/3
    2/3
    4/6
    -
    1/5
    -
    10/70
    601-
    900
    0/13
    0/5
    0/7
    0/3
    1/6
    0/2
    0/2
    -
    -
    2/5
    1/1
    0/2
    -
    4/46
    
    900
    0/2
    0/3
    0/5
    0/8
    0/2
    0/1
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    1/7
    -
    1/28
    
    Total
    1/101
    2/61
    0/54
    6/59
    2/9
    2/49
    5/14
    14/33
    20/30
    36/51
    19/22
    9/31
    -
    116/514
    to
    -J
    

    -------
    capacity associated with cooling facilities to total regional steam-electric
    generating capacity.  The assessment, presented in Table  II-24,  indicates
    that only about $104 million of current replacement value of such  facilities
    is provided - assuming that all facilities provide the  required  degree  of
    stream protection.
    
    Problems of cooling are far more complex in the case of manufacturing estab-
    lishments than are those of the electric generating industry.  Temperatures
    may be higher, permitting more economical heat dissipation, but  contamination
    of heated wastewaters and generally smaller size of establishments tend to
    increase costs.  Assuming equal costs per unit of heat  dissipation,  tempera-
    ture control for the volume of waste discharge by manufacturers  reported in
    the 1963 Census of Manufactures, "Water Use in Manufacturing", would require
    an investment on the order of $300 million.  (Table 11-25.)   (It should be
    noted that the figure represents no more than an estimate - an expert esti-
    mate , it is true - of the relationships between manufacturers' wastewater
    discharge, steam-generating plant cooling costs, and manufacturers'  wastewa-
    ter characteristics.  It is, in short, a highly informed  guess.)
    
    It is possible to allocate the estimated investment requirement  for cooling
    facilities among industries, on the basis of their relative intake of cooling
    water.  It is not feasible, however, to estimate accurately what portion of
    the total requirement is presently met in any industry, or to assess the ef-
    fects of relative thermal and cooling efficiency.  The  allocation, then, must
    be recognized to be extremely general.
    
    Because regional climate and hydrology have been the major operative elements
    in determining the prevalence of cooling and revise of water for  manufacturers
    as well as for power generating plants, it is not unreasonable to  assume that
    the distribution of cooling facilities among regions is similar  in manufac-
    turing and production of electricity.  If this is so, then the current  level
    of investment in cooling by manufacturers is about $40  million,  concentrated
    in southwestern states.  (Table 11-26.)
    
    The need for cooling facilities may be expected to expand at a somewhat more
    rapid rate than that for waste treatment, the reason being that  demand  for
    electricity is expected to continue to increase at a more pronounced rate
    than demand for manufactured products.  The dimensions  of the projected cost
    increase will depend in large measure upon the prevalence of nuclear-fueled
    generating plants in the future.  The indicated investment schedule presented
    in Table 11-27 is based on the assumptions that:  (1) the need for cooling
    facilities in the electric generating industry has increased at  the same rate
    from 1965 through 1968 as has output of electricity, while the need for cool-
    ing facilities in manufacturing has increased at the same rate from 1964 to
    1968 as has the output of manufactured goods, as measured by the Federal Re-
    serve Board Index of production; (2) the ratio of cooling facilities required
    to cooling facilities provided is the same in 1968 as that estimated for the
    base year 1965 for electrical generating plants, and the  base year 1964 for
                                         128
    

    -------
                                 TABLE 11-24
    
                 COOLING FACILITIES REQUIRED, STEAM-ELECTRIC
                         GENERATING, BY REGION, 1965
    Mil
    Region
    Investment
    Requi remen
    north Atlantic 143.1
    Southeast 84.6
    Great Lakes 89.5
    Ohio 109.3
    Tennessee 28.9
    Djaper Mississippi 45.8
    Lower Mississippi 19.7
    Missouri 21.9
    tekansas-White-Red 24.0
    Sestern Gulf 60.6
    Oolorado/Gre at 16.2
    California/Hawaii 59.9
    Pacific Northwest/Alaska
    Total 703.5
    lions of 1968 Dollars
    Additional
    Investment Investment
    t Provided Required
    0.1 143.0
    1.4 83.2
    89.5
    7.4 101.9
    4.5 24.4
    .9 44.9
    2.4 17.3
    9.3 12.6
    14.6 9.4
    39.0 21.6
    15.1 1.1
    11.3 48.6
    -
    104.0 599.5
                                      129
    *MttO-68 - 10
    

    -------
                                     TABLE 11-25
    
                         MANUFACTURERS1  CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS
                      FOR COOLING FACILITIES,  BY  INDUSTRY, 1964
              Industry
    Cooling
     Water
    Intake
                                    (Billions
                                    of Gallons)
    Percent of
      Total
    Indicated Value of
     Required Cooling
        Facilities
                               (Millions of
                               1968 Dollars)
    Food & Kindred Products             392
    
    
    Textile Mill Products                 5
    
    
    Paper & Allied Products             607
    
    
    Chemical & Allied Products        3,120
    
    Petroleum & Coal Products         1,212
    
    
    Rubber & Plastics                   128
    
    
    Primary Metals                    3,387
                 »
    
    Machinery, except electrical        111
    
    Electrical Machinery                 53
    
    
    Transportation Equipment            102
    
    
    All Other                           268
    
    
    
    Total                             9,385
                  4.2
    
    
                    .1
    
    
                  6.5
    
    
                  33.2
    
    
                  12.9
    
    
                  1.4
    
    
                  36.1
    
    
                  1.2
    
    
                    .6
    
    
                  1.1
    
                  2.9
                         12.6
    
    
    
    
                         19.5
    
    
                         99.6
    
    
                         38.7
    
    
                          4.2
    
    
                        108.3
    
    
                          3.6
    
    
                          1.8
    
    
                          3.3
    
    
                          8.7
    
    
    
                        300.0
                                        130
    

    -------
    jaaufactures;  (3)  the  deficiency in cooling  facilities  will be made up in
    qpal annual expenditures over the period 1969-1973;  (4)  the requirement for
    lanufacturers' cooling facilities will increase  at  a  4.5% annual rate over
    the period 1969-1973  (the rate is based on a Department of Commerce projec-
    tion for the industries whose waste treatment requirements were evaluated in
    an earlier portion of  this section);  (5) the cooling  requirements for elec-
    trical power generation will increase at the 7.2% annual rate which has ap-
    plied to output of electrical power in this  century;  (6)  half of the increase
    ia the cooling requirement of thermal-electric power  generation will be nu-
    clear, and that half will require the expenditure of  60% more for cooling fa-
    cilities than an  equal incremental addition  to the  conventional thermal gen-
    eating component of the additional supply.*
    
    fte indicated investment requirement under this  set of  assumptions amounts to
    $1.6 billion over the  five-year period.  It  may  very  safely be assumed that
    the figure represents  an absolute maximum, since it is  based on 1965 average
    thermal efficiency* and presumes complete application of cooling facilities
    throughout industry under conditions of rapidly  expanding output.  One might
    conjecture that actual requirements will prove to be  considerably less, since
    the imposition of additional outlays of such magnitudes upon industrial in-
    vestment requirements  will almost certainly  prove a powerful incentive to de-
    wlop and apply techniques to increase cooling efficiency.   (Such incentives
    light initially be expected to be operative  in the  case of manufacturing,
    since the protected rate structure and consequent earning power of utilities
    tends to insulate profits in considerable measure from  the effects of cost-
    increasing developments.)
    
    Sethods to reduce cost of cooling heated discharges,  or of limiting the ex-
    tat of heated discharge, are numerous.  This in itself argues for the proba-
    bility of application  of operational  techniques  to  abate thermal pollution
    rather than  reliance on a single method of water treatment and recycling.
    Least cost combinations of method are indicated  whenever there is more than
           "Problem*  of, cootaig &u.pply  Kaced  in fat>&talle.d cjo&t peA \iitowtt,
           nu.cJte.asi unit noting* have eAcalate,d to tlie. 1,000 megawatt
           nange,.   In addition, cunnznt JUg'nt wateA nzacton cycle* one.
           not 04  e6jjx.cu.en-t as one. the.  modeAn AupeAcnitical ie.ke.at cfe-
           &ign&  employed fan. fa^&U.-^ue£ed &isu,ng.  Ton thi& tiea&on,
           and because nua£eat. i$ue£ failing doe* not -uu;o£ve *.nheAe.nt
           Atack  ga&, oft boiJLvi Zjob&eA, ^eac/to-t station neat lejec&uw
           to plant ciACJulating wateA coolant  Vofik, OctobeA  1967.}
                                        131
    

    -------
                      TABLE  11-26
    
           REGIONAL  DISTRIBUTION OF  COOLING
    FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS  IN MANUFACTURING,  1964
    Mi
    Region Facilitie
    Requi red
    North Atlantic 62.7
    Southeast 16 . 2
    Great Lakes 51.0
    Ohio 67.2
    Tennessee 10.5
    Upper Mississippi 11.7
    Lower Mississippi 16.8
    Missouri 2.7
    Arkansas -White-Red 2.4
    Western Gulf 49.5
    Colorado/Great .9
    California/Hawaii 2 . 1
    Pacific Northwest/Alaska 6.3
    Total 300i0
    Ilions of 1968 Dollars
    s Facilities Investment
    Provi ded Def i ci ency
    .1 62.6
    .3 15.9
    51.0
    4.6 62.6
    1.6 8.9
    .2 11.5
    2.0 14.8
    1.1 1.6
    1.5 .9
    31.9 17.6
    .8 .1
    .4 1.7
    6.3
    44.5 255.5
                         132
    

    -------
                                    TABLE 11-27
    
             INDICATED ANNUAL INVESTMENT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE  COMPLETE
              COOLING FOR MAJOR INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS  BY 1973
                                               Millions  of 1968 Dollars
                                       Manufacturing
                 Thermal Power
                   Total
    Projected  value of 1968
     Cooling  Required
    
    Projected  Value of Facilities
     Available
    
    Indicated  Deficiency
    annual Investment Required:
     1969
     1970
     1971
     1972
     1973
    
    total Investment, 1969-1973
    350.5
    
    
     51.9
    
    298.6
     75.6
     76.2
     76.9
     77.7
     78.5
    
    384.9
      866.7
    
    
      128.3
    
      738.4
      228.8
      234.5
      240.8
      247.5
      254.6
    
    1,206.2
    1,217.2
    
    
      180.2
    
    1,037.0
      304.4
      310.7
      317.7
      325.2
      333.1
    
    1,591.1
                                        133
    

    -------
    one way to derive a desired result*  The need for such development is  exem-
    plified in a research report issued by the Pacific Northwest Laboratories of
    Battelle Memorial Institute with respect to Nuclear Power Plant Siting in the
    Pacific Northwest that concluded that "the method of handling waste heat was
    the single most important economic variable" affecting power plant location.
    Once-through cooling with fresh water was estimated to involve an investment
    per kilowatt of capacity of $3 less than once-through cooling with salt wa-
    ter, and $10 per kilowatt less than use of cooling towers.  Power could be
    produced with once-through fresh water cooling at a total cost of 3.0289
    mills per kilowatt-hour, compared to 3.1603 mills with cooling towers  and
    3.1069 mills with cooling ponds.  Obviously, the potential significance of
    the one factor indicates the necessity for deriving lower cost techniques for
    dealing with it.
    
    As with other pollution controlling costs, development of technologies that
    incorporate desirable features would appear to provide the optimum long-term
    approach to control.  Utilization of waste heat, through further reduction in
    the net heat rate or by transferring waste heat to other processes, will be-
    come increasingly economic, even with utilization of relatively high cost
    procedures, as pressures to assume the cost of controlling heated discharges
    make once-through cooling an unacceptable procedure in a growing number of
    cases.
    
    Site selection, too, should increasingly reflect temperature control consid-
    erations.  By increasing the cost of once-through cooling, pollution control
    needs have extended the number of locations which, on a total cost basis, are
    economically acceptable.  Certainly any plant that elects in the future to
    choose a site in which once-through cooling is acceptable under normal hydro-
    logic and climatic conditions, must realize with it the potential requirement
    to reduce or eliminate operations during periods when conditions make  it im-
    possible to discharge heated waters without damage to the aquatic environment.
    
    Many design or operating techniques can limit cooling costs.  Outfalls that
    facilitate mixing of heated discharges with normal flows, and do not result
    in increases in temperature beyond that allowed by water quality standards,
    are one such possibility.  Another is an outfall design that results in tem-
    perature stratification in a thin upper layer of the receiving stream, which,
    in effect, becomes an extended cooling pond.  It has been proposed, too, that
    nuclear power plants be sited so that their cooling water discharges may be
    utilized for irrigation rather than returned directly to the stream.   The
    warmed waters are thought to facilitate plant growth; and during the cold
    season when irrigation is not practiced, discharge of heated waters is not
    generally harmful to aquatic life.  An ambitious proposal in connection with
    a planned nuclear generating plant in the Pacific Northwest would have cool-
    ing water taken from one watershed, pumped up over a low range of mountains
    during the summer for discharge in another watershed which suffers naturally
    from high temperature, due to depleted summer strearaflows.  The net result
    would be to eliminate heated discharges to the source stream, and improve
                                        134
    

    -------
    stream flow and quality in the receiving stream.   Use of air cooling,  cur-
    rently two to three times as expensive  as  evaporative cooling,  would con-
    serve water and allow reuse, if less  costly  designs  could be developed.   Im-
    provements in cooling tower design, too, may be  expected to result imminent-
    ly from the pressure of temperature regulating requirements.
    
    Hhat we have defined, then, is the maximum expectable cost of controlling
    thermal pollution over the next five  years.   Technological improvements  and
    nanagement techniques should be able  to reduce such  costs.
    
    Certainly it is desirable that every  cost-reducing effort that is compatible
    with maintenance of water quality standards  be utilized, for the sums in-
    volved in temperature stabilization are potentially  huge.  This is particu-
    larly true in assessing cost implications  of an  extended time frame.  Be-
    cause of the high demonstrated rate of  increase  in utilization of electrical
    energy, the cost of cooling, if provided through methods no more efficient
    than complete utilization of mechanical draft cooling towers, would within
    several decades exceed the cost of all  other forms of wastewater treatment.
    Indeed, accomplishment of complete cooling for the levels of manufacturing
    output and electrical generation projected in this study would bring total
    annual outlays very close to $700 million  by 1973.
    
    Table 11-28, which projects cash outlays  for cooling for the five-year peri-
    od, 1969-1973, rests on the assumption  that  mechanical draft cooling towers
    are provided for all steam-electric generating plants and all manufacturing
    plants using 20 million gallons or more of water per year.  Replacement
    costs, as measured by depreciation, are assumed  to be incurred at rates
    which reflect the generalized depreciation practice  of manufacturing firms
    and the 30-year average life of steam-generating plants.  Operating and main-
    tenance costs are assessed on the basis of a cooling tower charge of  .14
    •ills per kilowatt-hour for steam-generating plants; and the assumption that
    the relationship between operating and  maintenance costs in manufacturing
    and in power generating are similar  to  the relationship between their re-
    spective capital investments in cooling towers.
                                         135
    

    -------
                                    TABLE 11-28
    
                          ANNUAL CASH OUTLAYS FOR COOLING
                                     1969-1973
                                           Millions of 1968 Dollars
         Source of Outlay
                                  1969
            1970
    1971
    1972
    1973
    5-Year
    Total
    New Plant Required:
      Steam-generating
      Manufacturing
    
    Depreciation/Replacement:
      Steam-generating @ 3.5%
      Manufacturing @ 5%
    
    Total Capital Outlays:
      Steam-generating
      Manufacturing
    
    Operating and Maintenance:
      Steam-generating
      Manufacturing
    
    Total Cash Outlays
    Current Replacement Value
      of Installed Plant:
        Steam-generating
        Manufactoring
    228.8  234.5  240.8     247.5
     75.6   76.2   76.9      77.7
     12.5   20.7    29.1      37.8
      6.4   10.2    14.0      17.9
    241.3  255.2  269.9     285.3
     82.0   86.4   90.9      95.6
     58.0   94.8  132.4     170.9
     20.7   32.6   44.8      56.7
    
    402.0  469.0  537.8     608.5
                     254.6  1,206.2
                      78.5     384.9
                      46.7
                      21.8
                       146.8
                        70.3
                     301.3  1,353.0
                     100.3     455.2
                     210.3
                      68.8
                       666.4
                       223.4
                     680.7   2,698.0
    357.1  591.6  832.4  1,079.9  1,334.5
    127.5  203.7  280.6    358.3    436.8
                                        136
    

    -------
                                   CONCLUSIONS
    jeview of  the volume of industrial wastes  discharged  to water  and of  the
    costs associated with  controlling their polluting  effects provides  some con-
    clusions which may be  useful guides  in pursuing  the attainment of water qual-
    ity standards.  In particular,  it would appear that greater  relative  atten-
    tion to industrial wastes would have the effect  of accelerating  progress to-
    ward meeting water quality  standards,  yet  would  require lower  initial invest-
    nents in waste controlling  facilities  than are demanded by current  emphasis
    on municipal waste treatment.   This  is felt to be  true because:
    
       (1)  Manufacturing activities are  the  largest  measurable and con-
           trollable sources  of biochemical  oxygen demand, heat, and  of
           settleable and suspended solids discharged to the nation's
           waterways.  Wastes from manufacturing are particularly  con-
           centrated in  the northeastern quarter of  the nation - the
           area which has suffered most markedly from water pollution -
           and are overwhelmingly associated with  the chemical,  pulp
           and paper, food processing, steam-electric power generating,
           and steel industries.  These sources of waste and heat, then,
           might well be made the major foci of program and research  at-
           tention.
    
       (2)  There are a variety of techniques for controlling industrial
           waste discharges,  these being for the most part  applications
           or adaptions  of the methods used  to treat sanitary  sewage.
           It is possible, then,  to design  and construct waste treat-
           ment plants capable of treating wastes  from  both industrial
           and municipal sources. Significant reductions  - and  in some
           cases near-complete elimination  - of waterborne  industrial
           wastes may also be provided through modifications of  manufac-
           turing processes.   Attention may  fruitfully  be  devoted  to  de-
           velopment of  incentives and engineering systems  that  result
           in optimum waste reduction/cost  relationships.
    
       (3)  In general, unit construction costs are less for industrial
           waste treatment plants than for  municipal waste  treatment
           plants scaled to handle an equivalent waste  loading or  hy-
           draulic volume, and the cost advantage  extends  to municipal
           systems handling a large  component of  industrial wastes.
           Moreover, unit  costs  tend  to decrease  sharply with  an in-
           crease in the volume  of wastes  to be handled.   It would ap-
           pear  that there are compelling  cost advantages  in  coopera-
           tive waste  treatment  arrangements that involve  handling of
           the wastes  from a  variety  of sources in large municipal or
           metropolitan  waste treatment works.
                                       137
    

    -------
    (4)  It is estimated that facilities sufficient  to provide  the
         equivalent of secondary waste  treatment for all major  water-
         using manufacturing establishments would be provided by an
         investment of $4 billion  to  $5 billion.  Indications are
         that a quarter to a half  of  that investment requirement had
         not been met by the summer of  1967.  Moreover, when condi-
         tions require higher than secondary levels  of waste treat-
         ment efficiency, construction  costs increase far more  than
         proportionately.  It is clear, then, that considerable in-
         vestment in waste treatment  facilities - or in process modi-
         fications which reduce wastes  - remains to  be made by  Ameri-
         can manufacturing.
    
    (5)  The principal impact of the  waste treatment requirement on
         manufacturers'  costs will occur through routine and continu-
         ing operating and maintenance  charges rather than in the
         form of construction costs.  Over the next  five years,  manu-
         facturers must expend over a billion dollars a year -  the
         amount rising with  the growth of output and  level of treat-
         ment facilities in  place  - in order to adequately discharge
         waste treatment requirements.  About three quarters of  the
         total cash outlays  will arise out of normal operating  needs
         rather than as a result of new investments or depreciation.
         Industrial planning and research, then, might well be di-
         rected to development of  more economically operated waste
         treatment plants; and regulatory attention may often best
         be directed to monitoring the level of efficiency at which
         industrial waste treatment facilities are being operated,
         since their under-operation offers a convenient method  of
         reducing production costs.
    
    (6)   Cooling of the  heated wastewaters of manufacturing and  pow-
         er generation will  require additional large investments.
         While there are a number of techniques that may be applied
         to handle the polluting effects of waste heat,  it is esti-
         mated that universal  use of mechanical draft cooling towers
         by steam-generating plants and major manufacturing plants
         would require $1.2  billion of facilities under current  con-
         ditions,  and that about $1 billion of that investment re-
         mains to  be made.  Thermal pollution is coining to be of in-
         creasing  significance because of the rapid rate of increase
         of steam-electric power generation.  In particular, the
         growing prevalence of very large nuclear-fueled power plants
         constitutes  a distinct threat to water quality.   Because of
         the limited current availability of wastewater cooling  fa-
         cilities  and the rapid rate of expansion projected for
         sources of waste heat, cash outlays for cooling must in-
         crease  at a particularly sharp rate if thermal  pollution of
                                    138
    

    -------
    water is to be ended within five years.  It is estimated
    that about $1.8 billion of cooling facilities must be in
    place by 1973 - by which time annual operating and mainte-
    nance costs for such facilities would approach $300 million
    per year - if all major industrial sources of waste heat
    were to be equipped with mechanical draft cooling towers.
    The magnitude of the investment requirement indicates that
    development of effective means of non-polluting heat dissi-
    pation should receive a high priority in research and de-
    velopment programs; while the rapid rate of growth of heat
    sources suggests that greater attention must be given to
    temperature control if the problem of thermal pollution is
    not to become a major one in the near future.
                                 139
    

    -------
                                    APPENDIX  I
    
                        EFFECT OF POTENTIAL COST  INCREASES
    A constant price  level - July 1967 dollars  - was  assumed in developing the
    cost of industrial waste treatment.  Construction costs have been rising
    rapidly throughout the post-war period,  however;  and it would seem appropri-
    ate that the indicated values be reviewed in a format that accommodates the
    probability  of price increases.  (Figure II-A.)
    
    Exactness in assessment of the impacts of future  events is, of course, not
    attainable.   The  effects of increases in cost  due to changes in price level
    or interest  structures depend on the direction and degree of change and upon
    their distribution in time.  We can, however,  impose upon our static model
    some of the  kinds of changes that have occurred in the past, in order to
    gage, in a general fashion, the results of a repetition or continuation of
    such influences.
    
    Construction costs are weighed and reported regularly by Engineering News
    Record, whose "Index of Construction Costs" was applied generally in devel-
    oping the report. The index has recorded a constant rise in construction
    costs through the period since World War II.   Over time, the steepness of
    costs' ascending  slope was progressively moderated until recently, when it
    began again  to turn sharply upward.  For the purposes of this analysis, a
    3.6% annual  rate  of increase in the cost of construction has been presumed
    to apply over the next five years, that being  the rate that characterized
    both the recent period from FY 1965 to FY 1968 and the decade that began  in
    FY 1958.  (Table  II-A.)
    
    The most obvious  effect of an increase in construction costs will be exer-
    cised on annual investments to install waste  treating facilities.  If a  3.6%
    annual rate  of increase is applied to the construction schedules presented
    in Tables 11-14 and 11-27, treatment plant construction costs are calculated
    to escalate  in the amount of $400 million to $600 million over the five-year
    period, 1969-1973 (Table II-B).  Constructing  required waste treatment  fa-
    cilities would involve the expenditure of $2 billion of current dollars
    rather than  $1.8  billion of constant dollars  if the estimate of deficiency
    based on the Industrial Waste Profiles is used, $4 billion rather than  $3.6
    billion if the projection of census data is used  to define the treatment  de-
    ficiency.  Estimated  cooling facilities construction costs would escalate
    over the five-year period from the estimate of $1.6 billion to almost $1.9
    billion.
    
    The five-year temporal matrix cannot adequately reflect the impact of  in-
    creasing construction costs on capital requirements.  The most damaging  re-
    sults of rising cost occur cumulatively and over the long  term, in the  form
                                         140
    

    -------
                         FIGURE H-A
    ENGINEERING NEWS-RECORD CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX,
              (1913 TO 1967) PROJECTED TO  1973
                                                                      100
    : is 20
    |-4 	
    25
    
    30
    
    35
    
    40
    Arn IAI
    45
    
    50
    
    
    
    
    
    65 70
    
    
    
    
                                                             PROJECTED
                            141
    

    -------
                               TABLE II-A
    
              CONSTRUCTION COST INCREASE, AS MEASURED BY THE
                      ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD INDEX
        Date
      (Federal
    Fiscal Year)
    ENR Index
    Annual Rate of
    Increase From
      Period to
      July 1967
        1945
        308
         5.4%
        1950
        510
         4.3%
        1955
        660
         3.9%
        1960
        829
         3.4%
        1965
        977
         3.6%
        1968
      1,085
                                   142
    

    -------
                                  TABLE II-B
    
               EFFECT ON  INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS OF CONTINUING
                   THE  CURRENT  (1958-1968)  RATE OF INCREASE
                             IN  CONSTRUCTION COSTS
    Year
    Cost Increase in Millions of Current Dollars, By Year
    Waste Treatment
    By Census
    Projection
    By Estimate
    Cooling
    Manufacturing
    Thermal
    Power
    1969
    1970
    1971
    1972
    1973
    Total
     24.4
     51.7
     81.9
    112.5
    143.7
    414.2
     11.8
     25.7
     41.6
     57.5
     73.7
    210.3
     2.7
     5.6
     8.9
    11.8
    15.2
                                                      44.2
    Total Cost Increase Over Period:
      By Census Projection     -     $597.5 Million
      By Estimate              -     $393.6 Million
     8.2
    17.2
                                                                      26.9
                                                                      37.6
                                                                      49.2
                                                       139.1
                                      143
    

    -------
    of constant pressure on cash flow.   Facilities whose costs rise at  a  com-
    pounding rate cannot be replaced out of depreciation charges which  are  as-
    sessed at constant rates.   If 1968's hundred-thousand-dollar waste  treatment
    plant is to be replaced at the end  of  20 years during which costs rise  at a
    3.6% rate, it will require almost ?203,000 to install the new facility.
    
    The effects of this penalty may be  assessed over the limited time span  uti-
    lized in the study.  A 3.6% annual  rate of increase in cost applied to  the
    previously utilized investment schedules and to progressively revalue facili-
    ties in-place allows a comparison of constant and inflated values.   (Table
    II-C.)  Application of appropriate  depreciation rates to both estimated book
    value and current replacement value indicates something of the deficiency of
    normal depreciation charges to meet replacement requirements.  It should be
    noted, however, that the deficiency is) of necessity, considerably  under-
    stated, due to the built-in revaluation of value of plant in-place  in 1968
    that occurs because it is expressed as 1968 current replacement value.
    
    Under the comparison, depreciation  charges over the five-year period, assum-
    ing current replacement value for plant in-place in 1968 and year-by-year ad-
    ditions to plant in projected current  dollars, fall about $90 million short
    of meeting replacement needs.  (Table  II-D.)  More significant than the gross
    amount, however, is the fact that the  deficiency increases with time.  In
    1969, estimated depreciation charges are $3.3 million to $4.1 million short
    of replacement needs.  By 1973, the deficiency expands to $34.5 million to
    $37.1 million.   (The method distorts the degree of growth, since 1969 depre-
    ciation charges based on current replacement value of plant in-place  in 1968
    must be assumed to be estimated at levels well in excess of industry's  actual
    rate of accrual.  Nevertheless, the principle of expanding cash flow  defi-
    ciencies holds true.  With continuing  persistence of inflation and  an in-
    creasing total value of waste treatment plant in-place, the gap between cash
    flow from depreciation and actual replacement needs will become increasingly
    greater as time passes.)
    
    While the effects of cost increases are most immediately evident and  can most
    conveniently be analyzed in connection with construction costs, it  must not
    be supposed that construction costs rise independently.  The economic en-
    vironment that results in higher construction costs must be supposed  to be
    one in which operating costs, too,  rise.
    
    Unfortunately, we know too little about the elements of the costs of  operat-
    ing and maintaining industrial waste treatment plants to be able to project
    the effects of price increases upon them as precisely as in the case  of capi-
    tal cost factors.  It must be assumed, for example, that a portion  of the in-
    crease in costs of construction may be attributed to building into  facilities
    some substitution of capital for labor or other cost elements; thus higher
    capital costs may be due partially to  facilities which reduce operating out-
    lays.
                                         144
    

    -------
                                     TABLE II-C
    
                           VALUE  OF PLANT IN-PLACE, 1973,
                       UNDER ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION PROCEDURES
                                              Millions of Dollars
                                     Value in
                                   1968 Dollars
      Value By
      Cost of
    Construction
    Replacement
       Value
     Industrial Waste  Treatment:
    
       By Estimate                    4,026.0
    
    
       By Projection                  5,349.8
    
    
    
    
     Industrial Cooling:
    
       Manufacturing Plants            436.8
    
       Steam-generating              1,334.5
      4,236.3
    
    
      5,764.0
        481.0
    
    
      1,473.6
      4,789.8
    
    
      6,356.5
        521.5
    
    
      1,592.2
                                       145
    294-046 O - 68 - 11
    

    -------
                             TABLE II-D
    
    CASH FLOW DEFICIENCIES ASSOCIATED WITH CONTINUING THE CURRENT
               RATE OF INCREASE IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS
    Depreciation Charges
    1n Current Dollars
    Waste Treatment Cooling
    By By Steam
    Year Estimate Projection Manufacturing Power
    Replacement Requirements
    in Current Dollars
    Waste Treatment
    By By
    Estimate Projection
    Cooling
    Manufacturing
    
    Steam
    Power
    (Millions of Dollars)
    1969 127.8 122.7 6.5 12.8
    1970 146.6 160.6 10.6 21.6
    1971 167.3 201.2 14.9 31.0
    1972 188.4 242.5 19.2 40.6
    1973 211.1 286.8 23.9 51.3
    Total 841.2 1,013.8 75.1 157.3
    Cumulative Deficiency in Cash Flow:
    Five-Year Depreciation, by Estimate - $1,073.6
    Five-Year Replacement Requirements - $1,162.9
    Deficiency, By Estimate - $ 89.3
    Five-Year Depreciation, By Projection - $1,246.2
    Five-Year Replacement Requirements - $1,336.4
    Deficiency, By Census Projection - $ 90.2
    131.7 125.8
    155.3 168.2
    181.6 215.0
    209.2 264.0
    239.5 317.8
    917.3 1,090.8
    Million
    Million
    Million
    Million
    Million
    Million
    6.6
    10.9
    15.6
    20.5
    25.9
    79.5
    
    
    12.9
    22.2
    32.4
    43.2
    55.4
    166.1
    
    
    

    -------
    Lacking a definition of  elements  that compose operating and maintenance costs
    in industrial waste treatment,  we may, for analytical purposes, fall back up-
    on analogy  for standards of evaluation.  Waste treatment is basically a con-
    tinuous flow renovation  process,  not unlike many industrial processes in its
    elements.   It may be anticipated, then, that increased costs will be reflect-
    ed in much  the same degree  in treating industry's wastes as in other portions
    of industry's activities.   If this is so, then the pressure of inflation and
    other cost-inereasing  factors should be manifested in approximately the same
    dimensions  as they occur and are  measured and recorded by the Bureau of Labor
    Statistics  "Index of Unit Production Costs."  Over the past decade, labor and
    non-labor unit costs of  production have been increasing at almost exactly the
    same rate,  1.8% a year.   If the rate of increase continues unchanged over the
    five-year period of study,  and is mirrored in the cost of operating and main-
    taining industrial waste treatment facilities, then wastewater facilities op-
    erating costs for the  period will be about a quarter of a billion dollars
    greater than those measured in current dollars.  (Table II-E.)
                                         147
    

    -------
                    TABLE II-E
    
    EFFECT ON OPERATING  AND MAINTENANCE  CHARGES
       OF CONTINUING THE CURRENT  (1958-1967)
             RATE OF INCREASE IN  COST
    Year
    1969
    1970
    1971
    1972
    1973
    Total
    Cost Increase in Millions of
    
    Waste Treatment
    By Census
    Projection By Estimate
    8
    20
    37
    59
    86
    .2 8.7
    .5 19.7
    .4 33.3
    .4 49.4
    .0 68.2
    211.5 179.3
    Current Dollars, By Year
    Cooling
    Thermal
    Manufacturing Power
    .4 1.0
    1.2 3.4
    2.5 7.3
    4.2 12.6
    6.4 19.6
    14.7 43.9
    Total Cost Increase Over Period:
    By Census Projection - $270.1 Million
    By Estimate - $237.9 Million
                       148
    

    -------
                                      SUMMARY
    Maintenance of  indicated  current rates of increase in costs of construction
    and operation would expand outlays needed to provide proposed industrial
    wastewater treatment by $700 million to $1 billion over the next five years.
    
    The figure is not presented as a prediction, but as an illustration of the
    impact of existing trends on the schedule of investments developed in the
    body of  the study.
    
    While the initial force of cost increases would occur in the area of capital
    investments, due to the current deficiency in industrial wastewater treat-
    ment, long-term effects on operating charges and supplemental outlays for re-
    placement may be presumed to be highly significant.   (Table II-F.)
                                          149
    

    -------
                 TABLE II-F
    
    SUMMARY OF TOTAL IMPACT OF PROJECTED
          COST INCREASES,  1969-1973
          I - By Census Projection
    
    
    Cost Element
    
    
    Industrial Waste Treatment:
    Construction of Plant
    Replacement
    Operating and Maintenance
    Industrial Cooling:
    Construction of Plant
    Replacement
    Operating and Maintenance
    Electric-Power Cooling:
    Construction of Plant
    Replacement
    Operating and Maintenance
    TOTAL
    Millions of Dollars
    
    Cumulative
    Five- Year Cost
    Constant Dollars
    
    3,597.5
    1,013.8
    3,422.9
    
    384.9
    75.1
    223.4
    
    1,206.2
    157.3
    666.4
    10,747.5
    
    Projected
    Incremental
    Charges
    
    414.2
    77.0
    211.5
    
    44.2
    4.4
    14.7
    
    139.1
    8.8
    43.9
    957.8
    Cumulative
    Projected
    Current
    Dollar Cost
    
    4,011.7
    1,090.8
    3,634.4
    
    429.1
    79.5
    238.1
    
    1,345.3
    166.1
    710.3
    11,705.3
              II - By Estimate
    Industrial Waste
    Treatment:
    Construction of Plant
    Replacement
    
    Operating and Maintenance
    TOTAL (including
    cooling costs)
    
    1
    
    3
    8
    
    ,810.
    841.
    ,032.
    ,397.
    
    7
    2
    7
    9
    
    210
    76
    179
    720
    
    .3
    .1
    .3
    .8
    
    2
    
    3
    9
    
    ,021
    917
    ,212
    ,118
    
    .0
    .3
    .0
    .7
                     150
    

    -------
                                     APPENDIX II
    
                       PROCEDURE  FOLLOWED IN DEVELOPMENT OF
                          THE WASTE  TREATMENT COST MODEL
    The summary steps performed  in the costing method is presented below.  The
    analysis consisted of repetitive calculation of sub-processes involved in
    eight steps for each of  20 major industrial groups.  The steps were, sequen-
    tially:
    
       (1)  Classification  of industrial waste sources by 11 industrial
            sectors and nine major sub-sectors;
    
       (2)  Definition of the average daily discharge by size of plant
            for the average small plant (intake of 20 to 99 million gal-
            lons of water in 1964) and the average large plant  (intake
            of 100 million  gallons or more in 1964) for each industrial
            classification;
    
       (3)  For each large  plant class and each small plant class, cal-
            culation of average daily discharge, average daily  dis-
            charge of process water, and average daily generation of
            BOD;
    
       (4)  Determination for the appropriate discharge and BOD classi-
            fications of each size of establishment of the cost of con-
            structing a plant to treat:  (a) the total discharge,
            (b) the discharge of process waters, and  (c) the population
            equivalent of BOD.   The arithmetic average of the three
            costs was then  used as the design cost for plants in that
            industrial group and multiplied by the number of plants in
            each size class to  obtain the imputed value of the  1964
            waste treatment requirement for the industry;
       The -unp&ted a&tumption tuigasiding the. M&ia.c£ion o&  hydnaulic load-
       ing,  oppoxtunLtiu  tfo*. & egtegotton and advanced wateA 06-019  te.ch-
       niqueA,  and voa&te. concentration* -L& adm^tte.dly the, weakest paAt o&
       the, analytic.   It. ioa& biUJU Mo the. analytic to accommodate, the.
       iM.no/tcti/ orf te.chnj.cat expeAtt who exp/ieA4ed the. opi.ni.on that i.nda&-
       tiial watte. ttie,atm&nt it zx£riao>Ldinasu2y complex and co&tty  w/ien
       compared to mwu-ccpat watte, tsie.atme.nt.  The. anaty&t'& opuu.cn ^a
       that  the. co&t wou£d be. moie. tsiuly exp/ieAAecf - ancf at teM>t a thiM
       lovoeA -  J.& bated. e.ntuie£y on volume. o& pfiocett wateA and BOP con-
       cent^atcowA.  Indeed, accommodation o% value* developed In Indu^-
       trtial Watte. Pio&ilzA produced a total i.nveAfine.nt ^izqu^iemejfit 30%
       belou) that: achieved by the. pfiocett deAcu.bed  (CF pp.  5^
                                          151
    

    -------
    (5)  Adjustment of the gross value figure to account for the lev-
        el  of existing treatment by:  (a) deducting a percentage of
        the gross value equal to the percentage of flow discharged
        to  public sewers  {on the assumption that this portion of the
        industrial waste is or will be adequately treated by munici-
        palities) ;  (b) deducting from the total value a percentage
        of  that value equal to the proportion of the industrial dis-
        charge that  is made to the ground (on the assumption that
        ground discharge  constitutes adequate treatment) ; and  (c) de-
        ducting from the  total value an amount equal to the portion
        of  the industrial  flow to surface waters that is treated,
        multiplied by the percentage that secondary waste treatment
        plants operated in that industry constitute of all its waste
         treatment plants.  The net figure obtained is assumed  to rep-
         resent the  value  of the deficiency in industrial waste treat-
         ment in 1964;
    
     (6)  Projection  of requirements to June 1968, by relating total
         value of treatment requirements associated with 1964 levels
         of production to  projected outputs, and projecting growth  of
         treatment by extending observed  1959-1964 shifts in relation-
         ships between output, discharge, volume of treated discharge
         to ground or to municipal sewers through the period, 1964-
         1968;
    
         Addition of the increase in  the  value of treatment require-
         ments between  1964 and 1968  to 1964 treatment requirements
         is assumed to represent the  total value of required waste
         treatment in June 1968.  The combination of all values is
         assumed to express the values associated with the current
         unmet industrial waste treatment requirement;
    
     (7)  Subsequent modification of  the derived values to incorporate
         the estimates of replacement value of plant in-place  and of
         total requirements developed in  Industrial Waste Profiles
         prepared by contractors  for 10 industries; unprofiled  indus-
         try  costs were reallocated  to reflect the information  con-
         tained in the profiles on  the basis of the relationships de-
         veloped by the analysis of  census data;  and
    
     (8)  Apportionment of the amounts derived  for gross  value of in-
         dustrial waste treatment  requirements among major  drainage
         basins according to  each  region's proportionate share  of the
         discharge of specific reported industrial  sectors.   The re-
         maining, unaccounted-for portion of the  values  was distrib-
         uted among regions according to  their percentage of the to-
         tal  unaccounted-for  industrial discharge,  expressed as an
         exponential value of "all other  manufacturing".
                                     152
    

    -------
                                   APPENDIX III
    
                                   BIBLIOGRAPHY
    flnbrose, T. W. and E. R. Castle.  "Wastes From Potato Starch Plants."  Indus-
        trial and Engineering Chemistry, June 1965.
    
    Anderson. V.  A Tentative Approach to the Establishment of Engineering Guide
        Lines in the Design of Treatment Facilities for Wastes Associated With
        the Manufacture of Food Products From Potatoes.Idaho Department of
        Health, Boise, Idaho.
    
    An Assessment of Thermal Pollution Problems.  Report of a Task Force appointed
        by the Science Advisor to provide recommendations for research and appro-
        priate action.  Washington, D. C.  July 28, 1966.
    
    Barnes, G. E. and L. W. Weinberger.  "Internal Housekeeping Cuts Waste Treat-
        ment at Pickle Packing Plants."  Wastes Engineering.  January 1958.
    
    Battelle-Northwest.  Nuclear Power Plant Siting in the Pacific Northwest.
        Bonneville Power Administration.  Portland, Oregon.  July 1967.
    
    Bender, R. J.  Sjbeam Generation.  (A Power Special Report.)  New York.  June
        1964.
    
    Bendixen, T. W., R. D. Hill, F. T. Du Byne, and G. G. Robeck.  "Cannery Waste
        Treatment by Spray Irrigation-Runoff."  Cincinnati, Ohio.  FWPCA.  June
        1967.
    
    Berger, H. F.  "Evaluation of Water Reclamation Against Rising Costs of Water
        and Effluent Treatment."  TAPPI.  August 1966.
    
    Besselievre, E. B.  "Pontiac Motors Treats Its Wastes."  Wastes Engineering.
    
    Black, H. H.  Industrial Waste Treatment, as Varied as Industry.   (Reprint
        from Civil Engineering for October 1955.)  Cincinnati, Ohio.  1956.
    
    Black, H. H. and G. N. McDermott.  "Industrial Waste Guide-Beet Sugar."  Pro-
        ceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Sanitary
        Engineering Division.  February 1952.
    
    Bolduc, E. J.  Results of NCSI Industry Survey of Investment and Cost of Ef-
        fluent Treatment.  National Council for Stream Improvement.
                                        153
    

    -------
    Bower, B.  Industry and the Water Environment;  A Study of Water Utilization
         Patterns in Selected Industries in Relation to Technologic and Economic
         Factors.University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.May  1963.
    
    Bower, B. T.  "Incorporate Wastewater Handling in Plant Design."  Canner/
         Packer.  February 1967.
    
    Bodenheimer, V. B.   "Factors to Consider in Waste Treatment Systems Evalu-
         ation."  Pulp  and Paper Manufacturer.  February 1967.
    
    Bradakis, H. L.  "A Joint Municipal-Industrial Spray Irrigation Project."
         Industrial Water and Wastes.  July-August 1961.
    
    	.  "Largest Activated Sludge Plant for Pulp and Paper Wastes Will
         Treat Sewage From Three Towns."  Wastes Engineering.  May 1960.
    
    Bramer, H. C.  "Economics and Water Pollution Abatement."  Water and  Sewage
         Works.  February 1966.
    
    Bryan, E. H.  "Two-State Biological Waste Treatment."  Industrial Water and
         Wastes.  January-February 1963.
    
    California Department of Water Resources.  Water Use By Manufacturing Indus-
         tries in California, 1957-1959.  Sacramento, California.  April  1964.
    
    Caster, A. D.  "The Municipality Looks at Industrial Wastes."  Industrial
         Water and Wastes, July-August 1962.
    
    Cawley, W. A. and V. A. Minch.  "The Treatment of Pulp and Paper Mill Wastes."
         Industrial Water and Wastes.  March-April 1963.
    
    Columbia River Basin Project, FWPCA.  Snake River Basin, Comprehensive Report.
         (In open file, FWPCA, Portland, Oregon, Washington, D. C.)
    
               Water Temperature - Influences, Effects, and Control.  Proceedings
         of the Twelfth Pacific Northwest Symposium on Water Pollution Research.
         Corvallis,  Oregon.  November 7, 1963.
    
    Cootner, P. H. and G. O. G. Lflf.  Water Demand for Steam-Electric Generation.
         Resources for the Future.  Washington, D. C.  1965.
    
    Coughlin, R.  L.   "Alternatives and Costs to Achieve 5 P.P.M. Dissolved  Oxygen
         in Portland Harbor."  FWPCA.  1966.  (Three memoranda in open file,
         Portland, Oregon.)
    
            .•  Computed waste Treatment Costs Related to Puget Sound Pulp Mills.
         FWPCA.   1965.   (In open file, Portland,  Oregon.)
                                         154
    

    -------
    Gulp, G. L.  Soybean Processing and Related Wastes.  U.S.P.H.S.  Cincinnati,
        Ohio.  January 1963.
    
    Eckenfelder, W.  A.  Effluent Quality and Treatment Economics for Industrial
        Wastewaters.   Austin, Texas.October 1967.~~~
    
           .  "Theory of Biological Treatment of Trade Wastes."  Journal of the
        Water Pollution Control Federation.  February 1967.
    
    Edison Electric Institute.  Historical Statistics of the Electric Utility
        Industry.   1962.            ~~
    
    Eichberger, Willis.  G.  Industrial Water Use.  U.S.P.H.S.  Washington, D. C.
        February 1965.
    
    Elonka, Steve.   Cooling Towers.  (A Power Special Report.)  New York, New
        York.  1963.
    
    Engineering News Record.  Cost Indexes.  "ENR 20-Cities, Construction Cost."
    
    Pair, G. M.  "Economies in Metal-Finishing Wastes Management."  Proceedings
        of American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Sanitary Engi-^~
        neering Division.  January 1960.  ~                             ~~~
    
    Pair, G. M. and J. C. Geyer.  Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal.  John
        Wiley and  Sons, Inc.  New York, New York.  April 1963.
    
    Pairall, J. M.   "Industrial Waste Treatment."  Presented at the New Jersey
        Water Resources Conference, Rutgers University.  July 12, 1966.
    
    Pederal Power Commission.  Annual Production Expenses.  Washington, D. C.
        Annually.
              Steam-Electric Plant Construction Cost.  Washington, D. C.
        Annually.
    
       	.   National Power Survey - 1964.  Washington, D. C.  1964.
    Piehn, A.  V.   Cooling Tower Solutions to Problems of Power Station Circulat-
        ing Water System Design.   ASCE.  New York, New York.  October 1967.
    
    Porce, S.  L.   Beet Sugar Factory Wastes and Their Treatment, Primarily the
        Findlay  System.   Great Western Suguar Company.  Denver, Colorado.
    
    Pormo, H.  G.   Problems and Approaches in the Treatment of Wastes From Potato
        Processing Plants.   Idaho Department of Health.  Boise, Idaho.  May 1961.
                                        155
    

    -------
    Fullen, W. J. and K. V. Hill.   "The Economics of Poor Housekeeping in the
        Meat-Packing Industry."  Journal of the Water Pollution Control Feder-
        ation.  April 1967.
    
    FWPCA, Applications for Research  and Development Grants.   (In open file,
        Washington, D. C.  1966-1967.)
    
      	.  The Beet Sugar  Industry - The Water Pollution Problem and Status
        of Waste Abatement  and Treatment.  South Platte River Basin Project.
        Denver, Colorado.   June  1967.
    
        	.  An Industrial Waste Guide  to the Cane Sugar Industry.  Government
        Printing Office.  1959.
    
        	.  An Industrial Waste Guide  to the Fruit Processing Industry.  Gov-
        ernment Printing Office.  1962.
    
        	.  An Industrial Waste Guide  to the Meat Industry.  Government Print-
         ing Office.   1954.
    
        	.  An Industrial Waste Guide  to the Milk Processing Industry.  Govern-
        ment  Printing Office.  1962.
    
        	.  An Industrial Waste Guide  to the Potato Chip Industry.  Government
         Printing Office.  1961.
    
        	.  Kansas  City Regional  Office.   Sewage Treatment Construction, Oper-
         ation and  Maintenance Costs, For Meat Packing Plants.  (In open file) .
         Kansas City,  Missouri.   June 1967.
    
        	.  Technical Services Program.  Temperature and^Aquatic IAfe.
         August 1,  1967 (Internal Report).
               Technical Advisory and Investigations Branch.  Temperature and
         Aquatic Life.   Cincinnati,  Ohio.  December 1967.
    
            .   Industrial Waste Profile No.  1 - Blast Furnaces and Steel Mills.
         Washington,  D.  C.   January  1968.
    
               Industrial Waste  Profile  No.  2 - Motor Vehicles and Parts.  Wash-
         ington,  D.  C.   January 1968.
    
         	.  Industrial Waste Profile No.  3 - Paper Mills, Except Building.
         Washington, D.  C.  January  1968.
    
            .  Industrial Waste Profile No.  4 - Textile Mill Products.  Washing-
         ton, D.  C.   January 1968.
                                         156
    

    -------
              Industrial Waste Profile No.  5 - Petroleum Refining.   Washington,
        D.  C.   January 1968.
    
       	.   Industrial Waste Profile No. 6 - Canned Fruits and Vegetables.
        Washington,  D. C.  January 1968.
    
       	.   Industrial Waste Profile No. 7 - Leather Tanning and Finishing.
        Washington,  D.  C.   January 1968.
    
       	.   Industrial Waste Profile No. 8 - Meat Products.  Washington, D. C.
        January 1968.
    
       	.   Industrial Waste Profile No. 9 - Dairies.  Washington, D. C.
        January 1968.
    
              Industrial Waste Profile No. 10 - Plastics Materials and Resins.
        Washington,  D. C.  January 1968.
    
    Gehm, H.  W.   "The Activated Sludge Process for Pulp and Paper Mill Effluents."
        Industrial Water and Wastes.  July-August 1963.
    
    Geyer, L. C.   "Industry Solves Its Own Sewage and Process Wastes Treatment
        Problem." Wastes Engineering.  April 1960.
    
    Gibbs, C. V.  and  R. H. Boshel.  Potential of Large Metropolitan Sewers for
        Disposal of  Industrial Wastes.  Presented at 31st Meeting of the PNW
        Pollution Control Assn.  Spokane, Washington.  October 1964.
    
    Glass, A. C.  and  K. H. Jenkins.  Statistical Summary of 1962 Inventory of
        Municipal Waste Facilities in the United States.  U.S.P.H.S.  Washing-
        ton, D.  C.  1964.
    
    Gloyna, E. F. and J. F. Malina.  "Petrochemical Wastes Effects on Water."
        Industrial Water and Wastes.  September-October, November-December
        1962, and January-February, March-April 1963.
    
    Graeser,  H.  J.  "Advice to Cities:  Get Ready for Industrial Waste Loads."
        Industrial Water and Wastes.  May-June 1962.
    
    Gurnham,  C.  F.  (Editor).  Industrial Wastewater Control.  Academic Press.
        New York, New York.  1965.
    
      i	.  "Latest Developments in the Treatment of Dairy Wastes."  Indus-
        trial Wastes.  July-August 1956.
    
    Hampton, T. R.  "Design of Industrial Waste Treatment Facilities at Washing-
        ton National Airport."  Water and Sewage Works.  October 1966.
                                        157
    

    -------
    Hayesr D. C.   "Water Reuse, A Survey of the Pulp and Paper  Industry."
         TAPPI.   September 1966.
    
    "Heated Discharges.. .Their Effect on Streams."  Publication No.  3.   Pennsyl-
         vania Department of Health.  January 1962.
    
    Hindin, E.   Disposal of Potato Chip Wastes By Anaerobic Digestion.   Washington
          State University Bulletin 255.  Pullman, Washington.   1961.
    
    Hopkins,  G. J., et al.  "Evaluation of Broad Field Disposal of Sugar Beet
          Wastes."  Sewage and Industrial Wastes.  December 1956.
    
    Hopkins,  G. J. and J. K. Neel.  Raw Sewage Lagoons in the Midwest.   Purdue
          Industrial Waste Conference.  May 15-17, 1956.
    
    Hoppe, T. C.  "Industrial Cooling Water Treatment for Minimum Pollution From
          B loud own."   Nalco Chemical Co.  Reprint.  Chicago, Illinois.   1966.
    
     Horton, J. P., et al.  "Processing of Phosphorus Furnace Wastes."   Sewage and^
          Industrial Wastes.  January 1956.
    
     Howe, R. H.  L.   "Handling Wastes From the Billion Dollar Pharmaceuticals In-
          dustry." Wastes Engineering.  April 1960.
    
     Hultin,  Sven. Calcium Sulphite Spent Liquor Disposal Costs.  Helsinki, Fin-
           land.   February 1963.
    
     Ingols,  R.  S.  "Review of  Older Methods for Treating Food Processing Wastes."
           Industrial  Wastes.  November-December 1956.
    
     Jaquelt, Z. and N.  C. Bur bank.  "American Cyanamid Simplifies Sludge Handling
           From Lagoons."  Industrial Water and Wastes.  July-August 1953.
    
     Kerri, K. D.  "A Dynamic Model for Water Quality Control."  Journal of the
           Water Pollution Control Federation.  May 1967.
    
      Lamb, J. C.  "$4,500,000 Wastes Treatment Plant Dedicated by American  Cyana-
           mid Co."  Wastes Engineering.  August 1958.
    
      Landsberg, H. H., L. L.  Fischman, and J. L. Fisher.  Resources in America's
           Future.  John Hopkins Press.  1962.
    
      Laugbein, W. B.  and W. H.  Durum.  The Aeration Capacity of  Streams. U.S.G.S.
           Circular 542.   Washington, D. C.  1967.
    
      Lardieri, Nicholas Jr.   "Industry Has an Important Role in  Development of
           Water Quality Programs." Environmental Science and Technology.  May
           1967.                            ~~~	
                                           158
    

    -------
    leidner,  R. N.   "Burns  Harbor - Waste Treatment Planning for a New Steel
        Plant."  Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation.  November
        1966.                        ~          "	
    
    Lindsey,  Alan M.   "Filters for Dewatering Mixed Primary and Activated Sludge."
        Presented  at  1967  South Central Regional Meeting of the National Council
        for  Stream Improvement.  August 1967.
    
    Manufacturing Chemists  Association, Inc.  "Wastes Treatment and Water Pollu-
        tion Control  Facilities."  Survey.  1962.
    
    (Onus,  L. J.  "How to Choose an Industrial Site."  Wastes Engineering.  June
        1957.                                                   s
    
    ___.  "Are Our Pollution Parameters Reliable for Chemical Wastes."
        Wastes  Engineering.   June 1957.
    
    	.   "Should Dairy  Wastes Be Converted Into By-Products or Discharged
        to Sewers?"   Wastes  Engineering.  June 1957.
    
    Hark, R. H.   Wastewater Treatment.   (A Power Special Report.)  New York, New
        York.   June  1967.
    
    Hathur, S.  P.   Thermal  Pollution From Steam-Electric Generating Plants.
        FWPCA.   Cincinnati,  Ohio.  September 1967.
    
    McBeath, B.  C.  and R. Eliassen.  Optimization of Sewage Treatment Plant Costs.
        Engineering-Economic Planning Program.  Department of Civil Engineering.
        Stanford University.  Stanford, California.  July 1965.
    
    McCarty, P.  L.   "Nutrient-Associated Problems in Water Quality and Treatment-
        Task Group Report."   Journaj^ of the jUnej:ican^Water works Association.
        October 1966.
    
    McKinney, R. E.  "Biological Treatment Systems for Refinery Wastes."  Journal
        of the  Water Pollution Control Federation.  March 1967.
    
    HcLean, J.  E.   "Disposal  of Waste Heat-Thermal Pollution."  FWPCA.  Memorandum
        in open file.  Washington, D. C.
    
              "Notes for Thermal Pollution."  FWPCA.  Memorandum in open file.
        Washington,  D. C.
    
    	.   "Thermal Pollution."  FWPCA.  Memorandum in open file.  Washington,
        D. C.
                                        159
    

    -------
    Mercer, W. A.   "Water  Supply  and Waste Disposal Problems of the Food indus-
         tries."  Eleventh Pacific Northwest Industrial Wastes Conference.   Ore-
         gon State  University.  Corvallis, Oregon.  1963.
    
    Meyers, N. w.   "Waste  Disposal in Phosphate Fertilizer Plant Operation."
         Industrial Water  and Wastes.   September-October 1963.
    
       	.  "Sew age-Wastes Treatment - By Reverse Corporation."  Wastes  Engi-
         neering .  June  1957.
    
    Milligan, F. B.   "Bethlehem Steel  Improves Acid Pickling Wastes Treatment
         Plant."  Wastes Engineering.   January 1956.
    
    National Academy  of  Sciences and National Research Council.   Alternatives in
         Water Management.   Publication 1408.  Washington, D. C.  1966.
    
    	.  Waste  Management and Control.  Publication 1400.   Washington,  D. C,
         1966.
    
    National Association of Manufacturers  and the Chamber of Commerce of the
         U. S. Water in Industry.   New York, New York.  January 1965.
    
    National Council for Stream Improvement.  Technical Bulletin 120.  Appleton,
         Wisconsin.
    
    Nebolsine, R.  and E. J. Donovan.   "Fit Wastewater Treatment to Industrial
         Process."  Plant Engineering.  June 1966.
    
    Nemerow, N. L.  Theories and Practices of Industrial Waste Treatment.
         Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Reading, Massachusetts.   1963.
    
    NTA Committee  for Water Quality Requirements for Industrial Water Supplies.
         "Interim  Report, June 30, 1967."   FWPCA.   (In open file.) Washington,
         D. C.
    
    The Oregonian.  "Chemical Plant Prepares Facility for Treatment of 2, 4-D
         Effluents."  Portland, Oregon. February 25, 1966.
    
    Peterson, A. T.   Joint Treatment of Municipal and Beet Sugar Waste on High-
         Rate Trickling Filters.  Boise, Idaho.  Chronic and Associates, Consult-
         ing Engineers.  (undated.)  (Mimeographed.)
    
    Powers, T. P.   "Basic Inter-Relationships of Pollution Abatement  Alternatives
         to water  and Wastewater Quantity  and Quality Characteristics."  FWPCA.
         (In open  file.)  Cincinnati, Ohio. 1967.
                                          160
    

    -------
    Powers,  T.  P.,  B.  Sachs,  and J.  Holdaway.  "National Industrial Wastewater
        Assessment, Manufacturing Year, 1963."  FWPCA.  (In open file.)  Cincin-
        nati,  Ohio.   1967.
    
    porges,  Ralph.   "Waste Loadings  From Potato Chip Plants."  Sewage and Indus-
        trial  Wastes.  Volume 8, No.  24.  August 1952.  Pages 1001-1004.
    
    porges,  Ralph  and  W.  W. Towne.  "Wastes From the Potato Chip Industry."
        Sewage and Industrial Wastes.  Volume 31.  No. 1.  January 1959.
        Pages  53-59.
    
    Quirk, T. P.   "How Effective Is  Chemical Treatment of Board Mill Process Ef-
        fluents?"   Industrial Water and Wastes.  January-February 1963.
    
    tend, M. C.  "Eight Industries and 11 Cities  'Pay the Freight' for Authority
        Plant."   Wastes Engineering.   June 1959.
    
    Reid, F.  "Two Major Industries  Cut Their Wastes Pollution Problems by Self-
        Analysis." Wastes Engineering.  April 1958.
    
    Hose, Walter W. et al.   "Composting Fruit Waste Solids."  Eleventh Pacific
        Northwest Industrial Waste  Conference.  Corvallis State University.
        (Circular No. 29.)   Corvallis, Oregon.  1963.  Pages 32-63.
    
    towan, P. P.,  K. L. Jenkins, and D. H. Howells.  "Estimating Sewage Treatment
        Plant  Operation and  Maintenance Costs."  Journal of theWater Pollution
        Control Federation.   February 1961.
    
    Ryckman, D. W., E. D. Edgerley,  and N. C. Burbank.  "Evaluation and Abatement
        of  Industrial Waste  Problems."  Industrial Water and Wastes.  July-August
        1962.
    
    Salbatorelli,  J. J.  "Aircraft Engine Wastes Treated in Continuous  'Flow-
        Through1  Plant." Wastes Engineering.  June 1959.
    
    Saunders, W.  F.  "How to  Recover Investments in Wastes Treatment Plants."
        Industrial Water and Wastes.   March-April 1960.
    
    Schraufnagel,  F.  H.  Waste Disposal By Ridge and Furrow Irrigation.  Wisconsin
        Committee on  Water  Pollution Report No. WP-108.  Madison, Wisconsin.
        1963.
    
    Sercu,  C.   "Burning Industrial Wastes Slurries."  Wastes Engineering.  Janu-
        ary 1959.
    
    Skrotzki, B. C. A.  Energy System Economics.   (A Power Special Report.)  New
        York,  New York.  December 1961.
                                         161
    
      194-046 O - 68 - 12
    

    -------
             .  Steam Turbines.   (A Power Special Report.)   New York,  New York.
         June 1962.
    
    Stanonis, F. L.   Subsurface  Liquid Waste Disposal in the Canton,  Ohio Area.
         International  Disposal  Contractors, Inc.  Evansville,  Indiana.
    
    Steffen, A. J.   "The New and the Old in Slaughter House Wastes Treatment Pro-
         cesses."  Wastes Engineering.  August 1957.
    
    	.   "Refiners Make Good  Use of Fresh-Water Supplies."  Oil and Gas
         Journal.   February 25,  1963.
    
    Stum, Werner,  and James J. Morgan.   "Stream Pollution By Algal Nutrients."
         Reprinted from Transactions of  the Twelfth Annual Conference on Sanitary
         Engineering.  University of Kansas.  1962.
    
    The Sunday Oregonian.   "Beaters Air  River Water."  Portland, Oregon.  July 24,
         1966.
    
    Svore, Jerome  H.  "Sewage Lagoons  and Man's Environment."  Civil Engineering.
         Volume  34.  No. 9.  September 1964.
    
    Sylvester, Robert O. and Goerge C. Anderson.  "A Lake's Response to Its En-
         vironment."  Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal
         of  the  Sanitary Engineering Division.  Volume 90.  No. SA 1.  February
         1964.
    
    U. S. Atomic Energy Commission.  Nuclear Reactors Built, Being Built, or
         Planned in the United States  as of June 30,_19_67.  Washington, D. C.
    
    U. S. Congress.  Federal Water Pollution Control Act, As Amended.
    
    U. S. Department of Commerce, Business and Defense Services Administration.
         1967 National Assessment. Part V.  Chapter 2.  "Industrial Uses."
    
               1963, 1958, and 1954 Census of Manufactures.
                Projections of Values Added for Specific Industrial Categories,
         Annually for Years 1969 through 1973  (working tables in open file,
         FWPCA,  Washington, D.  C.).
    
    U. S.  Department of the Interior.   Magnitude of the Thermal Pollution Problem.
         Internal document of the Interior Committee on Water Resources Research.
    
    U. S.  House  of Representatives,  Committee on Science and Astronautics.
         Adequacy of Technology for  Pollution Abatement.  Government Printing
         Office.  Washington, D. C.   1966.
                                          162
    

    -------
    B. S.  Public Health  Service.   Deep-Well Injection of Liquid Waste.  Cincin-
       nati, Ohio.   April 1965.
    
    	.  Modern  Sewage Treatment Plants, How Much Do They Cost?  Washing-
       ton, D. C.  1964.
    
    0. S.  Senate,  Select Coirmittee on Natural Water Resources, Electric Power in
       Relation  to the Nation's  Water Resources.  Committee Print No. 10.
       Water Resources Activities in the United States.  Washington, D. C.
       1960.
    
    Tacker,  D., C. H.  Connell,  and W. N. Wells.  "Phosphate Removal Through Muni-
       cipal Wastewater Treatment at San Antonio, Texas."  Journal of the Water
       Pollution Control  Federation.  May 1967.
    
    Wei,  J. J. and F. D. lannuzzi.  Factors in Evaluating Sulfite Recovery Sys-
       tems.  A. D.  Little and Co.  Cambridge, Massachusetts.
    
    tolz,  C. J. and J. J. Gannon.   "Forecasting Heat Loss in Ponds and Streams."
       Journal Water Pollution Control Federation.  April 1960.
    
    lalden,  C. C.  Water Use, Reuse and Wastewater Disposal Practices in the Beet
       Sugar Industry  of  the United States and Canada.  British Columbia Re-
        search Council. Vancouver, British Columbia.  June 1965.
    
    Halker,  K. H.   "Each Industry  Has Its Own Wastes Problems."  Wastes Engineer-
        ing.  July-August-September 1958.
    
    _	.   "'Package' and Compact Plants - What Makes Them Click?"  Wastes
        Engineering.   March 1958.
    
    latson, C. W.   "New Developments in Dairy Waste Treatment."  Industrial Water
        and Wastes.  March-April 1961.
    
              "Plating Wastes Treatment Problem Solved."  Water and Sewage Works.
        November 1966.
    
     	.   "Progress in Air and Stream Pollution Control - Nationwide."
        Industrial Wastes.  July-August 1956.
    
     tetz, O.  B. and C.  E. Renn.  Water Temperatures and Aquatic Life, Cooling
        Water Studies for Edison Electric Institute.  The John Hopkins Univer-
        sity,
                                        163
    

    -------
            OTHER EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS
    
                AND COST ESTIMATES
                      Volume II
    
                      Part III
           U  S.  Department of the  Interior
    Federal Water Pollution Control  Administration
                   January 10, 1968
    

    -------
                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
    
                                    Part III
    Introduction                                                         ^7 3
    
    Wastes From Watercraft                                               175
    
      Costs                                                              175
    
    Radioactive Industrial Wastes                                        176
    
      Uranium Milling                                                    176
      Nuclear Power                                                      177
      Treatment Costs                                                    178
    
    Erosion and Sedimentation                                            181
    
      Damaging Effects                                                   181
      Sources of Sediment                                                182
      Methods of Control                                                 184
      Effects of Control                                                 185
    
    Acid Mine Drainage                                                   186
    
      Costs                                                              189
    
    Feedlot Pollution                                                    193
    
      Magnitude of the Problem                                           193
      Processes Causing Pollution From Feedlots                          198
      Trends in Meat Consumption, Numbers of Cattle,
        Numbers of Feedlots                                              199
      Remedies and Costs                                                 199
    
    Pesticides in Surface and Ground Waters                              202
    
      Use of Pesticides                                                  202
      Pesticide Levels Found in Water                                    204
      Removal of Pesticides From Water                                   207
      Costs                                                              208
                                       167
    

    -------
                                                                      Paqe
    Nutrient Enrichment of Lakes and Streams                            210
    
      Land Runoff                                                      210
      Use of Fertilizer Nitrogen                                       212
      Pho sph orus                                                       213
    
        Phosphorus and the Fertility of Natural Waters                  213
        Sources of Phosphorus                                          213
        Phosphorus and Soil Erosion                                    214
        The Chemistry of Phosphorus in River  Water                      218
    
      Costs                                                            221
    
    Impact of Irrigation on Salinity of Surface Waters                  222
    
      Significance of Water Quality Degradation as the
        Result of Irrigation                                           226
      Increasing the Flow of Water With Water of Lower
        Salt Concentration                                             230
    
        Water Harvest                                                  230
        Import of Water                                                230
        Increasing Precipitation By Weather Modification                231
    
      Reduction of Evaporation and Transpiration Loss                   231
      Separation of Saline Water From Freshwater Flows                  232
    
        Salt Sinks                                                     232
        Desalination                                                   234
        Collecting Basins                                              234
        Discharge Channels                                             234
    
      Reducing Evapotranspiration                                      234
      Cost Estimates for Remedial or Control  Measures                   235
    
    Oil Pollution                                                      236
    
      The Problem                                                      236
    
        Waterborne Sources                                             236
        Gasoline Service Stations                                      238
        Tank Cleaning Facilities                                       238
        Oily Waste Industries                                          238
        Industrial Transfer and Storage                                238
        Pipelines                                                      238
                                       168
    

    -------
                                                                       Page
    
    
    
    
    
    
        Offshore Mining                                                 239
    
    
    
    
      Treating the Problem                                              239
    
    
    
    
    Conclusion                                                          241
    
    
    
    
    Appendix I
    
    
    
    
      Bibliography                                                      242
                                        169
    

    -------
                                 LIST OF TABLES
    
                                     Part III
    
    
    
    Table                             Title                               Paae_
    
    
    III-l     Treatment Costs for Radioactive  Wastes,  1957-1973.           180
    
    III-2     Estimated Ranges in Sediment  Yield  From Drainage
              Areas of 100 Square Miles  or  Less,  By Water Re-
              source Region.                                               183
    
    III-3     Estimated Cost Range  to Reduce Acid Mine Drainage
              By 40% to 80% Over Next 20 Years.                             190
    
    III-4     Range of Pollution Control Costs in Mine Drainage
              Management.                                                  192
    
    UI-5     Solid Wastes Produced By Livestock  in the United
              States, 1965.                                                195
    
    III-6     Fecal Discharge From Specified Animal Types.                 196
    
    III-7     Animal Waste Equivalence to Untreated Human Waste
              By  Sub-Basins of the Potomac River.
    197
     III-8     U.  S. Per Capita Consumption of Meat and Fowl,
               1949-1951 to 1964 and Projections to 1980.                   200
    
     III-9     U.  S. Farmers' Pesticide Expenditures By Produc-
               tion Region and Type of Farm, 1964.                          203
    
     III-10    Pest Control By Type of Crop, Acreage Treated,
               and Percent of Total Acreage Treated.                        205
    
     III-ll    Threshold Odor Concentrations of Pesticides and
               Solvents in Water.                                           209
    
     111-12    U.  S. Production of Phosphoric Acid in Thousand
               Tons of Elemental Phosphorus.                                215
    
     111-13    U.  S. Consumption of Phosphorus                              216
    
     111-14    Erosion of Soil and Phosphorus From Five Experi-
               mental  Plots of Differing Slopes on Dunmore Silt
               Loam, Virginia                                               217
                                        170
    

    -------
    Table                              Title                             Page
    111-15    Phosphorus Content of Animal Manures of Various
              Origins.                                                     219
    
    111-16    Amounts of Phosphorus Excreted Annually By 1,000
              Pound Weight of Various Animals.                             220
    
    111-17    Acreage of Irrigated Land in Farms.                         223
    
    III-18    Incremental Salt Concentration Attributable to
              Specific Sources, Colorado River at Hoover Dam.             224
    
    111-19    Historic Water Quality Data From Four Western
              Rivers.                                                     225
    
    111-20    Comparison of the Salinity in Irrigation and
              Drainage Waters From Selected Irrigation Dis-
              tricts.                                                     227
    
    IH-21    Chemical Composition of Some River Waters Used
              for Irrigation in Western United States.                    228
    
    111-22    Costs Associated With Existing Desalinization
              Processes.                                                  233
    
    111-23    Worldwide Waterborne Casualties, U. S. Vessels,
              1966-1967.                                                  237
                                         171
    

    -------
                                   INTRODUCTION
    Conventional waste treatment systems have been designed to accommodate only
    industrial and municipal wastes.  These  systems do not deal with such pollu-
    tional effects, as those caused by or  resulting in sedimentation and erosion,
    salinity from the use of irrigation water,  nutrients  from land runoff, mine
    drainage, concentrated animal feedlot  runoff,  or radioactive wastes.  And
    there is evidence to indicate that these pollutional  sources may eventually
    become, if they are not now, the principal  pollution  problems.
    
    Haste Management and Control, a 1966 publication of the National Academy of
    Sciences and National Research Council,  set forth 20  major water polluting
    agents.  Of these, only nine agents were considered susceptible to existing
    control technology, three  (suspended solids, BOD, and bacteria) by applica-
    tion of conventional waste treatment methods,  and the others by specific wa-
    ter treatment or materials handling techniques.  Significantly, the kinds of
    pollutants for which there are either  no controls, or for which existing con-
    trols are uncertain or excessively costly,  occur in large part as a result of
    natural drainage.  This absence of control  technology makes it impossible to
    calculate, and hazardous to attempt to estimate, either the timing or the
    •agnitude of necessary control costs.
    
    Despite the long-run difficulties of estimating the costs required to control
    'other effluents," recognition of their  tremendous influence in the water pol-
    lution picture reflects the considerable progress made toward overall pollu-
    tion control in the last several years.  Only  recently has the full pollution-
    al significance of land drainage begun to be recognized; and problems associ-
    ated with drainage (heretofore, largely  the special concern of the hydrolo-
    gist) now are being studied and acted  upon  by  sanitary engineers and other wa-
    ter pollution specialists.  We are just  beginning to  understand how large and
    how prevalent are the pollutional influences of runoff.
    
    tot until evaluation of recent Potomac Basin studies  was it generally recog-
    nized that land runoff and cattle populations  might well be a principal
    source of coliform bacteria.  Similarly, studies during the last decade of
    the pollutional effects of urban runoff  have demonstrated that these effects
    •ay be as great or greater than those  of sewered municipal wastes.  Yet the
    principal frame of reference for solutions  to  urban storm water runoff has,
    until recently, continued to be the separation of storm and sanitary sewers,
    4 measure that will facilitate the efficient operation of the waste treatment
    plant, but which offers no direct reduction of water  pollution from urban run-
    off.
    
    Hie polluting effects of land drainage are  becoming more pronounced.  Runoff
    is a natural process but many of the conditions which have intensified munici-
    pal and industrial waste problems are  also  magnifying runoff problems.  For
                                         173
    

    -------
    example, concentration of population in urban-suburban complexes, whose  large
    paved areas provide little natural stabilization of organic materials while
    offering ready channels for their transmission to watercourses, have produced
    large point deliveries of pollutants.  Also, intensive animal husbandry  in
    concentrated areas is replacing broad grazing areas; an arrangement that has
    facilitated the transfer of large quantities of untreated animal wastes  to wa-
    tercourses.  Use of pesticides and herbicides has resulted in totally new and
    very potent polluting materials which are washed from land into watercourses.
    Another effect on land drainage is chemical fertilizers.  These allow the far-
    mer to synthesize new topsoil cheaply but remove much of the incentive to pre-
    serve topsoil, which is allowed to erode, and contributes to turbidity and
    siltation of waterbodies.  And, the abandonment of strip and below-surface
    mines presents a continuing problem in all types of mine drainage.
    
    While it is impossible to precisely inventory the cost of the many pollution
    control measures which lie outside the range of municipal and industrial
    waste treatment, it must be anticipated that such costs will be large.   For
    example, an inventory of pollution control needs, compiled by the Federal Wa-
    ter Pollution Control Administration for interstate drainage basins of the
    Southwest and Gulf Coast, indicated the costs of controlling "other effluents"
    would be more than double the estimated costs to meet municipal and industri-
    al waste treatment requirements of these basins.
    
    In summary, then, the discussion which follows should be understood to be
    merely a start toward defining what may prove to be the most difficult por-
    tion of the national water pollution problem.  This section delineates major
    problem areas and, where available, includes a description of remedial proce-
    dures and the costs of carrying out these procedures.
    
    In major problem areas for which cost estimates cannot be made because of in-
    sufficient knowledge of the problem and its remedies, arrangements have  been,
    or will be, made with other responsible organizations for joint investigation.
    The results of such studies will be made available to Congress with each year-
    ly updating of this report.
    
    Recognition of the interdisciplinary and interagency aspects of the pollution-
    al problems posed by natural runoff and other effluents required the FWPCA
    study group assigned to prepare this report, to enlist the assistance of ex-
    perts from other agencies, both within and without the Department of the In-
    terior.  Data and other assistance were supplied by the U. S. Bureau of  Mines,
    the U. S. Geological Survey, the Office of the Secretary of Transportation,
    the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Federal Power Commission.  Particularly
    broad, informed, and timely assistance was provided by the Department of Agri-
    culture, which produced valuable background papers on animal wastes, salinity,
    nutrient runoff, erosion, and pesticides through its various offices.
                                        174
    

    -------
                              WASTES  FROM  WATERCRAFT
    Satercraft discharges contain several  significant polluting agents.   Sanitary
    wastes, including sewage, may carry pathogenic organisms which cause a variety
    of diseases such as dysentery, typhoid fever,  and infectious hepatitis.  Con-
    centrations of such wastes make water  dangerous for contact sports such as
    swimming and water-skiing.  Oil,  bilge, and ballast waters may contaminate
    waters, destroy aquatic life, and discolor vessels, piers, docks and other
    structures at the water line.  Bilge and ballast waters also may serve to
    transfer disease-bearing organisms.
    
    A recent report to Congress by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
    tion^- provides some estimate of the size of the problem and its remedial cost.
    the report indicates that in any  given year about 110,000 commercial and fish-
    ing vessels, about 1,500 Federally-owned vessels, and about 8,000,000 recre-
    ational watercraft use the navigable waters of the United States.  In addi-
    tion, about 40,000 foreign ship entrances are recorded each year.  The waste
    discharges from these sources are estimated to be equal to those produced by
    a city of 500,000 population.  However, this estimate probably understates
    the seriousness of the problem, because watercraft wastes tend to be concen-
    trated in critical areas, such as those used for body-contact water sports,
    drinking water supplies, shellfish beds, and the like.  In addition, as men-
    tioned previously, such waste discharges may present particularly serious
    health problems.
    
    
                                        COSTS
    
    The study emphasized the difficulty  involved in estimating the costs of con-
    trolling pollution from watercraft.   It cited, in particular, lack of  treat-
    ient and discharge standards  and  inadequately defined costs of treatment
    equipment.  The installed cost of onboard equipment for properly handling wa-
    tercraft wastes could vary  from  $40  to $100,000 per vessel, depending  on size,
    type, mission, and other  factors.  Based upon the number of vessels of differ-
    ent classes and the wide  range of equipment costs, the total  cost of bringing
    all existing American watercraft into compliance with impending regulations
    till be on the order of  $600  million.
             turn n;ata*e*a£t, Fede^ut£ WateA PoUtution Con&wt
      U. S.  Pepattmen-t o£ vie, lntvu.on, June. 30,  1967.
                                          175
    

    -------
                             RADIOACTIVE INDUSTRIAL WASTES
    Radioactivity has  such  serious potentials as an environmental pollutant that
    only the highest levels of  control are acceptable.  As a result,  the manage-
    ment of radioactive wastes  is characterized by an extremely high  level of con-
    trol over very  limited  quantities of polluting material.
    
    
                                   URANIUM MILLING
    
    Nationally the  uranium  milling industry comprises 16 active mills and two con-
    centrators.  These are  located as follows:  New Mexico, four mills;  Wyoming,
    five mills/ one concentrator; Colorado, four mills; Texas,  one  mill; South
    Dakota, one mill;  and Utah, one mill, one concentrator.  The plants  process
    approximately 16,000  tons of ore per day.  Historically, activity of the in-
    dustry rose to  a peak,  and  then decreased according to military require-
    ments.  Rapid development of nuclear power generation, however, should pro-
    vide in the future the  uranium milling industry with a stable source of sus-
    tained demand.
    
    The process of  uranium  extraction varies among mills, but includes four basic
    steps common to all mills:  crushing, grinding, leaching, and uranium recov-
    ery.  It is the leaching process which produces liquid wastes,  with  the chem-
    ical composition of the ores determining whether an acid or an  alkali leach
    is appropriate.
    
    Thirteen of the 16 active mills utilize an acid leach.  This process gener-
    ates large quantities of wastewater; 500 to 1,200 gallons per ton of ore pro-
    cessed.  Uranium is recovered in the acid leach process by multi-stage ex-
    traction processes, usually ion exchange and/or solvent extraction followed
    by chemical precipitation.  Alkaline leaching produces a uranium-bearing liq-
    uor with few dissolved  impurities.  This allows uranium recovering by direct
    chemical precipitation, without the need for concentration by ion exchange or
    solvent extraction.   The barren liquor  (raffinate) of alkaline  leaching is re-
    cycled, and wastewater  discharge averages 250 gallons per ton of  ore pro-
    cessed, less than  a third of the wastewater quantities associated with the
    acid leaching process.
    
    Essentially all of the  radium dissolved by alkaline leaching is precipitated
    together with uranium,  thereby leaving the plant in the uranium concentrate
    product.  In acid  leaching, however, dissolved radium is discharged  in the
    waste stream, averaging about three micrograms of dissolved radium per ton of
    ore processed.  In either leaching process, the uranium mills discharge signi-
    ficant quantities  of  inorganic, non-radioactive waste materials.   Total dis-
    solved solids range between 4,500 and 20,000 milligrams per liter in the
                                         176
    

    -------
    vastewater, which tends  to  be either strongly acid or highly alkaline, de-
    pending upon the process used.
    
    The industry's standardized waste control practice involves the use of hold-
    ing ponds  for the retention and concentration of the liquid and solid wastes.
    These ponds serve as  reservoirs for water reuse, provide removal of waste
    solids by  sedimentation, and allow the evaporation and seepage of the liquid
    wastes.  During periods  of  high runoff, the liquid wastes may be released to
    surface waters in accordance with available dilution, but evaporation and
    seepage are the principal means of dispersal.  Standards for design and oper-
    ation of holding ponds are  stringent, stressing materials' stability against
    erosion from runoff,  precipitation, and wind action as well as control of
    liquid releases.  Seepage,  however, is a problem in some areas.  Inspection
    of uranium mill sites in the Colorado River Basin has revealed some adverse
    effects on adjacent ground  waters.  Potential pollution from this source is
    a subject  for further study.  An additional problem is posed by the existence
    of unstabilized piles of tailings at inactive or abandoned mills.  Placement
    of responsibility for control, and procedure therefore, have posed problems,
    but have been adjusted by cooperative State-Federal-Industry agreements.
    
    
                                    NUCLEAR POWER
    
    The increased generation of electrical energy through the use of nuclear pow-
    er will require continuing  and close control over the release of radioac-
    tive effluents.  Nuclear generating capacity at the close of 1967 exceeded
    2,800 megawatts; by 1973, the scheduled total of 72 reactors will be generat-
    ing almost 46,000 megawatts.
    
    Hith the exception  of the heat source, electrical generation in nuclear
    plants is  very similar to the process in conventional thermal generating
    plants.  Where conventional plants derive their thermal energy from combus-
    tion of  fossil fuels, nuclear plants utilize the controlled nuclear fission
    of uranium as an energy  source.  One waste product, heat, is similar  in the
    hro types.  But where conventional plants release smoke,  ash, and gases to
    the atmosphere, nuclear  plants release small quantities of radioactive iso-
    topes to the environment.
    
    Radioactive  material is  produced by two processes which occur within  the  en-
    ergy source,  the reactor.  The fission process  itself forms a variety of  iso-
    topes, which remain for  the most part within the matrix of the fuel material.
    A high integrity material which encloses the fuel material serves to prevent
    the fission  fragments which escape the matrix from entering the cooling sys-
    tem surrounding  the reactor.  Nevertheless, some quanitites of fission pro-
    ducts enter  the  coolant as a result of defects  in the covering material,  by
    diffusion  through  the covering, or by contamination on the outer  surface  of
     the covering.
                                         177
    
       294-046 O - 68 - 13
    

    -------
    Neutron activation  is the other possible source of radiological contamination
    in a reactor system.   Radioactivity is produced by exposing stable nuclides
    to neutron bombardment.   It is a characteristic of reactor operation that
    neutron activation  will  occur, and that activated products will go into solu-
    tion or suspension  in the coolant as corrosion takes place.  Removal of the
    radionuclides  from  the coolant is necessary to prevent excessive accumulation
    of radioactivity.   This  is accomplished by cycling a portion of the coolant
    through a clean-up  process, usually filtration followed by ion exchange.
    
    Liquid radioactive  wastes arise from several sources in the generating plant.
    These sources  include leakage of the primary coolant, effluent of the coolant
    clean-up system,  the fuel storage pool, laboratory operations, and laundry
    drains.  Such  wastes are treated by batch process in specific radioactive
    waste treatment systems, usually by filtration/ followed by demineralization
    and/or evaporation.  Treated wastes are collected and analyzed.  Depending
    upon the analysis and system requirements for the primary coolant, the treat-
    ed wastes are  reprocessed and either returned to the cooling system or dis-
    charged with cooling water effluents.
    
    Criteria for routine radioactive effluent discharges have been established by
    the Atomic Energy Commission based on the recommendations of the Federal Rad-
    iation Council (FRC) , National Council on Radiation Protection and Measure-
    ments  (NCRPM) , and  the International Commission on Radiological Protection
    (ICRP).  As a  general rule, liquid effluent radioactivity concentrations are
    several orders of magnitude below levels which would result in exposures ex-
    ceeding FRC guides.  In  no case are operations allowed which would result in
    radiation exposures exceeding the guides established by the Federal Radiation
    Council.
    
    
                                   TREATMENT COSTS
    
    Treatment costs involve  projecting the level of production over the next sev-
    eral years  and assigning appropriate unit costs.  It is necessary to assume
    arbitrarily static  processing and treatment technology because it is diffi-
    cult,  in such  a rapidly  developing industry, to forecast the direction and
    extent of  future  unit cost modifications.
    
    Uranium milling treatment costs vary from mill to mill, depending upon the
    leaching process, the location of disposal areas, and neutralization require-
    ments*  It  should be noted that it is impossible to separate, realistically,
    the costs of  solid  and liquid waste disposal since the tailings pile which
    serves as  the  dump  for solid wastes may serve also as the settling pond for
    liquid wastes.
                                         178
    

    -------
    For  uranium milling,  an average cost of 80 cents per ton of ore processed
    has  been estimated  for waste treatment measures.2  This assumes that the in-
    dustry's current productive capacity is sufficient to meet the uranium de-
    nand over  the projected period and that the average quality of ores processed
    remains constant.   On this basis, an annual cost of about $3.2 million will
    be required.  Of this cost, about $0.6 million represents capital require-
    nents, and the  remainder comprises operating and maintenance costs.
    
    
    Another factor  in treatment costs is control measures at inactive mills.  The
    control of mill tailings piles will constitute a significant portion of the
    treatment  cost  for  radioactive pollution control.  Control cost estimates ob-
    tained for inactive mills in the Colorado River Basin have ranged from
    $300,000 to $500,000  per establishment, depending upon the type of control.
    
    Because of limited  current experience, there is no extensive body of cost
    data related to the control of radioactive discharges of nuclear generating
    plants.  There  is,  however, enough experience with plants which have been in
    operation  for a period of years to provide approximate guides to operating
    and  construction costs associated with building and maintaining nuclear waste
    treatment  plants.   The experience is that installation of treatment facili-
    ties for nuclear wastes amounts to about 1% to 2% of the total cost of a nu-
    clear plant, and operation and maintenance of the system accounts for about
    0.3% of total generating costs.
    
    Application of  these  treatment cost factors to existing and planned nuclear
    plants, with plant  costs evaluated at $1.31 per kilowatt of capacity and gen-
    erating costs of 3.024 mills per kilowatt^, provides the gross assessment of
    treatment  costs associated with construction and operation of nuclear gener-
    ating facilities as presented in Table III-l.  On this basis, capital costs
    for  nuclear waste treatment facilities are expected to lie within a range of
    $60  million to  $120 million over the five-year period ending with 1973.
      Lomm&toig,  M.  W.,  Pe,deAa£. Mate* Pollution Control kdnu.nit>tMuUon wpo&

-------
                        TABLE III-l

          TREATMENT COSTS FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTES,
                         1957-1973
Startup Date

1957-1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
TOTAL
Reactors
Starting
Operati on

«v
2
5
7
15
14
13
72
Megawatts
of Generat-
ing Capacity
on Stream
in Year

2,810
1,015
3,272
4,241
12,455
10,853
11,186
45,832
Capital Value
of Associated
Treatment Fa-
cilities
($ Millions)
(Range)
3.68 - 7.36
1.33 - 2.66
4.29 - 8.58
5.56 - 11.12
16.31 - 32.62
14.22 - 28.44
14.65 - 29.30
60.04 - 120.08
Annual
Operating
Costs
in Year
($ Millions)

.67
1.12
1.85
3.87
7.97
11.89
16.27

—  Exa£ucfeA Hattam and
   4 /iat down.
A&wvcc Energy
                             nJja. Tut Reactor toktc/t have been
                           180

-------
                         EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
Sediments produced by erosion  of the  land surface are the most extensive pol-
lutants of surface waters.  Suspended  solids  loadings reaching the Nation's
streams from surface runoff are estimated to  be at least 700 times the load-
ing from domestic sewage discharge.  The same estimate places the quantity of
sediment carried by streamflow and discharged to the oceans each year at some-
thing approaching one billion tons.  The quantity of sediment reaching the
oceans, however, is only a fraction  of the total amount effected by erosion.
OD an average, it is probable that at  least four billion tons of soil are
•oved each year by water.  This is roughly equivalent to removing one-half
inch of surface solids from about 50 million  acres of land each year.


                             DAMAGING EFFECTS

tte damaging effects of sedimentation  are varied.  Nutrients, particularly
phosphorus adsorbed on sediment particles, may be a source of enrichment and
consequent eutrophication  of lakes  and other surface waters.  The oxidation
of organic pollutants is hindered by sediments in streams.  Both commercial
fisheries and game fish habitats are damaged by waterborne and deposited sed-
iment.  Corrosion of power turbines, pumping equipment, irrigation distribu-
tion systems and other structures is caused by impact with suspended sediment.

Flood-borne sediment deposited on productive  flood plains may damage crops
and, if sufficiently coarse-textured,  may reduce the productivity of the
soils.  Sediment deposits in stream  channels reduce the stream's capacity to
convey water and sometimes seriously impair the drainage of adjacent lands.
Suspended sediment in water used for artificial recharge of underground aqui-
fers presents problems by clogging the aquifer pore spaces, and costs are in-
curred in clearing the water before  it can be used.

Storage capacity of artificial reservoirs is being depleted at the rate of
about one million acre-feet each year  by deposition of sediment.   (Capacity
for all artificial reservoirs in the U. S. was estimated to be about 1.8 bil-
lion acre-feet in 1966.)5  This damage is reflected in the loss of storage
capacity for water supply, flood control, power generation, navigation, and
streamflow regulation for water quality control.
  EwUwphJ.cati.on £& the. exce*4-u;e. AeAtitizc&ion oi algae. and otheA aquatic.
  plant* \04*k nu&u.entt>,  p^incA.patly phosphate* - a. common e£eme.nt faund
  in muni.CA.pat Aeuoage.,  human uto&te., agtecu&tusiat fieAtilizzM and
  aJL di&changeA, and
 5 Mate* RfcAouAceA Re&eotc/i,  Volume. II, Wo. 3, R. F.F. , 3id quaiteA,  1966,
  pp.  323-354.
                                     181

-------
Pollution also  affects  recreational areas.  The deposition of sediment on
beaches reduces their utility  for swimming, fishing or boating,  and detracts
from their aesthetic quality.  There are instances where formerly clear res-
ervoirs have experienced significant reductions in both visitor  days and fish
catch because of excessive  turbidity of the lake water due to sediment inflow.

The impact of stream-borne  sediment upon the economy as well as  the quality
of our environment is of tremendous significance.  A rough estimate is that
sediment damage costs are well in excess of $500 million annually.  Moreover,
the loss of soil resources  by  erosion is very likely several times greater
than the combined direct and indirect sediment damage costs.

The physical magnitude  of the  sediment problem is indicated in Table III-2.
Ranges are shown of average sediment yield in tons per square mile per year
from areas of 100 square miles or less.  The figures are based largely on an
analysis of sedimentation surveys of reservoirs in Water Resource Regions
with drainage areas of  100  square miles or less.  Particularly striking are
the differences in average  sediment yield among regions (from 50 to 5,200
tons per square mile per year).


                             SOURCES OF SEDIMENT

Erosion is the  major cause  of  sedimentation.  Although erosion is recognized
as a normal geological  process,  its normal effect has been accelerated by
agricultural and forestry activities, construction of roads and highways, and
industrial and  urban development.  This accelerated erosion has  increased the
production of sediment  far  above that experienced when the country was first
settled.  It has been estimated, for example, that man-induced erosion has
increased the sediment  load of streams in the humid areas of the United
States by a factor ranging  from  25 to 100; and that most streams in the arid
and semi-arid areas carry two  to four times their original sediment load.  It
is largely this induced erosion  that is susceptible to control.

The principal sources of sediment are:  (1) sheet erosion by surface runoff
which does not  cause conspicuous water channels;  (2) gullying, or the devel-
opment of channels in soil  by  concentrated runoff;  (3) roadside  erosion or
the washing away of material from cuts, fills and surfaces of transportation
lines;  (4) stream channel erosion;  (5) flood erosion or the scouring of
flood-plain lands by floodflows; (6) erosion from construction activities
such as those involved  in urbanization and industrial development; and (7)
mining and industrial wastes dumped into streams or left in positions suscep-
tible to erosion.

Many examples of the importance  of the several sources of sediment and how
they vary in different  portions  of the country can be cited.  Sources of the
sediment yield  presently experienced in the Middle Fork Eel River in the Cal-
                                     182

-------
                             TABLE II1-2

     ESTIMATED RANGES IN SEDIMENT YIELD FROM DRAINAGE AREAS
      OF 100 SQUARE MILES OR LESS, BY WATER RESOURCE REGION
Water Resource Region

North Atlantic
South Atlantic
Ohio
Tennessee
Great Lakes
Upper Mississippi
Lower Mississippi
Tex as -Gulf
Rio Grande
Arkansas-White-Red
Missouri
Sour is -Red- Rainy
Upper Colorado
Lower Colorado
Great Basin
California
Columbia - North Pacific
Estimated Sediment Yield
High | Low I Average
(Tons/sq. mi./yr.)
1,210 30 250
1,850 100 800
2,110 160 850
1,560 460 700
800 10 100
3,900 10 800
8,210 1,560 5,200
3,180 90 1,800
3,340 150 1,300
8,210 260 2,200
6,700 10 1,500
470 10 50
3,340 150 1,800
1,620 150 600
1,780 100 400
5,570 80 1,300
1,100 30 400
Source:  A0Ucu£tuAae R<*ea/idi Se/ivxlce, U.S.P.A.; M
         JUccuUon, No. 964, 1964.
Pub-
                                 183

-------
ifornia Water Resource Region are:  (1) watershed slopes - 13.5%,  (2)  land-
slides - 22.5%,  (3)  stream banks - 63.0%, (4)  major roads - 1.0%.  Interest-
ingly, the 13.5% arising from watershed slopes breaks down as follows:
(1) natural causes - 42.7%,  (2) logging - 7.7%, (3) burns - 3.2%,  (4)  graz-
ing - 24.6%, (5) deer - 19.5%  (as the result of browsing and hindrance to re-
production of vegetation), and (6) temporary logging roads - 2.3%.

The Potomac River Basin in the North Atlantic Water Resource Region dis-
charges an estimated 2,500,000 tons of sediment to the Potomac estuary each
year.  While agricultural lands of the basin produce the major portion of the
sediment, construction activities produce a disproportionately large share
when relative area is considered.

While the sources of sediment  are similar in all parts of the country, the
preceding examples indicate  that the relative importance of each source var-
ies widely.  Each area of the  country must be considered separately to deter-
mine the importance of each  source in order to carry out effective controls.
The following control methods  are expressed mainly in terms of land use, but
consideration must be given  to climatic factors, soils, geology, topography
and stream channel characteristics in recommending methods of control.


                            METHODS OF CONTROL

Proper use of land is basic  to the control of sediment originating in  upland
areas.  Sheet erosion on farmlands can be reduced by the application of many
available conservation measures.  Such measures include conservation rota-
tions, the establishment and improvement of long-term ground cover of  hay and
pasture grasses or legumes,  mulching, and critical area plantings.  In connec-
tion with such agronomic practices, complementary field mechanical measures
such as stripcropping, terracing, and diversions are often recommended.  In
combination, these and supporting mechanical field measures can reduce sub-
stantially the movement of soil materials by erosion.  Forestry measures in-
clude site preparation, the  planting of trees on burned, cut-over or abandon-
ed farmlands, as well as the interplanting of existing woodlands.

Channel-type erosion, such as gullying and streambank and stream-bed erosion,
usually requires more elaborate structural measures.  Grade stabilization
structures, sloping and vegetating stream banks and gullies, and construction
of debris basins and sediment detention basins are among the structural works
employed to reduce sediment  yields from these channel-type sources.

Urban erosion and sedimentation stem principally from road building and con-
struction projects.   Measures such as prompt reseeding of exposed areas, use
of mulches, temporary settling basins, or diversion can effect significant
reductions in sediment yield from urban erosion sources.
                                    184

-------
                            EFFECTS OF CONTROL

Ihere is considerable evidence that sediment can be reduced by  the measures
discussed above.   Agronomic and supporting mechanical  field practices  have
reduced the amount of sediment that reaches reservoirs by  amounts ranging
from 28% to 73%.   Good conservation practices on cultivated watersheds have
reduced sediment yields by almost 90%.  The protection of  existing  forest and
range lands indicates such measures may reduce sediment  yields  by 90%.
Streambank protection work on Buffalo Creek, New York, reduced  sediment de-
livery to Buffalo Harbor during flood flows by 40%.
                                     185

-------
                             ACID MINE DRAINAGE
Acid mine drainage is not  the only pollutant being discharged by active and
abandoned mining operations.  Other constituents found in mine drainage, such
as iron, sulfate, manganese, etc., sometimes have a more detrimental effect
on the quality of the receiving waters than the acid loadings.  However, the
mine drainage problem has  been considered largely in terms of acid production,
which is the major source  of water pollution by mining.  As information be-
comes available, analyses  of currently less critical mine drainage problems
may be included in future  reports.

Current estimates are that over four million tons of acid-equivalents are dis-
charged 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 to fish and fish food
organisms, recreational  and aesthetic values, and structures and equipment ex-
posed to the water.  Costs for pretreatment of water intended for municipal or
industrial supplies  are  also increased.  It is estimated that over 4,300 miles
of stream in the U.  S. are polluted significantly by acid mine drainage.

Acid mine water is associated predominantly with working of coal deposits.
Accordingly, its pollutional effects are most evident in the coal mining
states - West Virginia,  Pennsylvania, Illinois, Kentucky, and Ohio.  Acid
drainage also has been pinpointed as the largest pollution problem of the
heavily industrialized Ohio River Basin.  But acid waters have been found to
occur from mining of other kinds of ores; and isolated instances of water pol-
lution caused by acid mine waters are found elsewhere throughout the Nation.

In addition to the acid  problem, mining tends to be accompanied by excessive
siltation.  Sediment yields from strip-mined areas average nearly 30,000 tons
per square mile annually - 10 to 60 times the yields of otherwise-worked
lands.  Spoilbank surfaces from stripped areas are often too acid to re-estab-
lish the vegetation  which  would halt the excessive erosion.  The reaction of
minerals in the eroded soils with receiving waters is a source of acid release.
Thus, strip-mining,  the  source of an estimated one-quarter of polluting acid
mine waters, is at the same time a major source of erosion.

Somewhat more than half  of the acid production comes from abandoned mines,
both surface and underground, and the remainder from operating mines.  The
three classes of mining  -  strip, underground above drainage, and underground
below drainage - require different control measures.  Measures that are ef-
   BuJUcvid,  W.  E.,  "Hationat PMatem  fax. Ptevextion and Control o& Pollu-
   tion Irnam Atcne WuiinaQt," in-hou&e. Aepott. Ve.pavtm&nt oX the.
   FWPCA,  Ap/tU 14, 1967,  p. 4.
                                     186

-------
fective in reducing acid production from abandoned mines cannot be applied to
operating mines where, in many cases, actual treatment of the mine effluent
must be initiated.

In examining the magnitude of the problem,  "A Study of Surface Mining and
Our Environment" found that 3.2 million acres of land have been affected by
surface mining.  More than two-thirds of this total acreage is unreclaimed.
Large amounts of this acreage will require  corrective action to alleviate det-
rimental effects or to restore the land to  some type of productive use.  The
extension of areas disturbed by acid drainage is continuing at an estimated
150,000 acres per year, with the rate increasing as a larger population and a
larger per-capita output of goods create a  greater demand for materials.

By means of enforced regulations and effective sanctions, operating mines
can utilize existing methods to control their pollutional effects in the reg-
ular course of operations.  Remedial solutions to mine pollution are costly
but they minimize damages by lessening the  degree of environmental exposure.

Continuous reclamation can be conducted in  strip-mining operations by stock-
piling topsoil, then burying acid-producing materials at the bottom of the
strip pit, and covering it with the stockpiled topsoil.  Reclamation of un-
derground mines can be accomplished by collecting infiltrating waters, pro-
viding lined drains and construction of internal seals.  Flooding of abandon-
ed mine sections to reduce acid production  at the source, and treating or
neutralizing the discharges before releasing them to streams or ground water
are also effective methods in controlling mine wastes.  Several states re-
quire that mining be limited to areas where harmful effects can be amelio-
rated.  Many states require post-operative  reclamation or control of pollu-
tion damages.  But a general policy of reduction of environmental damages
from mining remains to be established.

Abandoned mining operations present an entirely different abatement problem.
In such cases past generations of producers have ignored reclamation costs,
which were generally accepted to be a public responsibility.  That responsi-
bility extends to about two million acres of abandoned mined lands, plus a
smaller, but significant, subsurface drainage problem.  Abandoned pollution-
producing strip-mined lands must be reclaimed; pollution-producing surface
waste piles derived from underground mines  must be controlled; subsidence
holes and drainage discharges must be sealed; and, in some cases, water
treatment will be needed to limit residual  pollution after physical control
of acid-producing sites has been inaugurated.

Control procedures for strip-mines are governed by the condition of the aban-
doned site.  Major features may include steep, crumbling, hazardous highwalls
that sometimes isolate ridgetops, pits that are often full of red acid water,
and long parallel ridges of rock and soil that overburden from above the mine
deposit.  An estimated 20% of coal strip-mining spoilbanks contribute to acid
pollution of streams receiving their drainage.  Nearly all of them at some
                                     187

-------
time contribute large volumes of sediment.  Because of the high acid content,
steep slopes with shifting surface  layers, and the often shaly and  drouthy
nature of the surface, these spoilbanks present sites hostile to  the growth
of vegetation.  Standard reclamation practice calls for rounding  spoilbank
ridges, grading spoils to natural contours, or to traversable grades, burying
toxic spoilbank material, backfilling spoil against the highwall  to cover ex-
posed pollution-producing mineral formations, rounding hazardous  highwall
crests, and revegetating for stabilization of the spoil.  Strip pits may be
left open and allowed to fill with  water to provide recreation areas.  Long
slopes may be terraced to aid erosion control, and drainage diversions and
channels may be installed for that  purpose, and to keep water from  leaching
pollutants from spoil.  The final step of revegetation may include  both a
quick cover crop of grasses and legumes for soil stabilization and  tree plant-
ing.  Where high acidity in the surface prevents establishment of plants, con-
tour furrowing may promote leaching and prepare the site for the  existence of
the hardier, adaptable species. The addition of lime and fertilizer has been
shown to increase the success and encourage the rapid growth of vegetation.
These methods have been established, applied, and found effective.

Several methods may be sufficient to deal with problems presented by under-
ground mines below drainage. As a  mine fills with water, oxidation processes
and acid production diminish and stop.  But, where there is through-flow
across the body of water trapped in the mine, or where there is seasonal fluc-
tuation in the water level, there may continue to be enough acid  production
to cause significant pollution. Various methods of coping with this situ-
ation have been suggested - backfilling mine galleries, injecting neutraliz-
ing agents that produce a sludge to blanket the acid-producing materials, in-
jecting chemicals to immobilize and prevent oxidation of sulfur minerals,
and sealing the surface to prevent  or reduce percolation to the mines, as
well to treat the effluent. The adequacy of these methods remains  to be
proved.

The most difficult problem is presented by underground mines above  drainage.
Some methods have been applied  successfully in several situations,  notably
air-sealing and drainage diversion.  The success of these methods appears to
be related to the proportion of openings which are closed and which would
otherwise permit entry of air and water to the mines.  Numerous other methods
have been proposed that appear  worth testing.  They include injecting reac-
tive gases into mine galleries  to immobilize and prevent oxidation  of sulfur
minerals, grouting to make fractured layers above mineral seams impermeable,
and grouting with chemical solutions to bind sulfur.

To summarize physical solutions to  the acid mine drainage pollution problem,
there are available established prevention and control methods to apply to
most strip-mined areas, to most of  the underground mines below drainage, and
to the less complex situations  in the underground mines above drainage.  We
are on the track of economic methods for treating significant drainage resid-
uals from abandoned mines as well as effluents from operating mines.  In the
                                    188

-------
future, modified mining  methods in stripping operations can be utilized for
reducing acid pollution.


                                    COSTS

The FWPCA Acid Mine  Drainage Pollution Control Demonstration Program has de-
veloped some standardized cost relationships which provide an insight into
the general magnitude of the cost requirements associated with controlling
acid mine drainage.   It  should be stressed that the costs, as presented here,
refer  only to reclamation of abandoned sites.  In the absence of adequate
controls over mining procedures, such costs would have to be projected into
the future on the  assumption that remedies will continue to be borne by the
public.  If adequate controls are enforced, future costs will be reflected in
total  production costs and either borne by producers or passed on by them to
consumers.  In either case, there are no existing estimates of the dimensions
of such costs.

This assessment is presented in terms of a minimum and a recommended solution
to the problem.  The minimum solution is considered to be one which would ac-
complish significant reductions in pollution from acid drainage without re-
gard to accompanying requirements for restoration of land use capabilities or
other  potential benefits, and with only a minimum of research necessary to de-
velop  effective treatments for cleaning up effluents from active mines and
major  pollution residuals.  For strip-mined areas it would include basic rec-
lamation of 1.12 million acres at a cost of $360 per acre or a total of $400
million.  Sealing  underground mines would cost $225 million.  Purchase of
land would cost an estimated $40 million.  Program operations would cost over
$2.5 million a year  for  20 years.  This minimum program would thus cost about
§700 million, assuming no further pollution from current and future mining op-
erations.  It is estimated that this minimum program would result in reduc-
tions  of from two-fifths to three-fifths of existing acid mine drainage pollu-
tion.  It would have the additional benefit of considerably reducing sediment
pollution from mine  spoilbanks and wastepiles.

A more extensive solution to the acid mine drainage problem would increase ex-
penditures.  It would involve work on approximately 2.2 million acres of
strip-mined land,  to put the land back into uses planned and integrated with
the uses of surrounding  lands and the needs of nearby metropolitan centers.
At an  estimated average  cost of $920 per acre, the cost would total $2 bil-
lion.  For this more substantial operation, purchase of a greater percentage
of the land would  be necessary - an estimated total cost of $85 million.
Sealing underground  mines and treating subsidence areas would add an estimated
$900 million.  Program operation would cost an estimated $4 million a year for
20 years, or $80 million.  A grand total for the program is, then, $3.1 bil-
lion.   (Table III-3.)
                                     189

-------
                            TABLE III-3

         ESTIMATED COST RANGE TO REDUCE ACID MINE DRAINAGE
                 BY 40% TO 80% OVER NEXT 20 YEARS
        Cost Element
Range in Cost
($ Millions)
Reclaiming Abandoned Stripmine
  Areas                                          400    -    2,000
Land Purchase                                     40    -       85


Sealing Underground Mines                        225    -      900
Operation for 20 Years (Not
  Discounted)                                     50    -       80
                                                 715     -    3,065
Source:  In-HcuAe Pocumeitt, federal Wote/t Pollution  Control
         MminU&iation, U. S. VqpaAtmtnt o{ the. InteMon,
         Aptul 14,  1967.   (Vou not include. co&t& ol can-
         A&iuction o& tteatment ptantt> and lu&vich  and de-
         velopment p*og>iam&.)
                               190

-------
This solution would bring about a reduction of at least four-fifths of the
pollution presently attributed to acid mine drainage.  It would provide con-
siderable further benefits in almost complete reduction of sediment pollution
from mining activities.  Enhancement of land values and land uses would ex-
tend well beyond the boundaries of the treated acres.   (Table III-4.)
                                      191

-------
                                TABLE 111-4

                     RANGE OF POLLUTION CONTROL COSTS
                        IN MINE DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT
                     Item
 Range or Average
       Cost
     (Dollars)
Sealing Underground Mines

  Grouting - No data available

Surface Mine Reclamation -

  Earth Moving -  cubic yard

  Surface Grading - per acre

  Planting Costs: Trees - per acre

  Trees, ground cover, fertilizing, per acre

  Costs of complete reclamation including
    grading and planting, per acre

  Drainage Diversion, per foot

  Impoundments per acre-foot

  Refuse and Gob

    Hauling - per ton mile

    Reclamation at site per acre

    Control and Treatment (mil. gal. per ft.
      of pumping)

    Treatment  (neutralization - per thous.
      gal.)
1,000
  .05


   71


   35


  125



  106


    6


  500
  600
  .08
  .03
2,000
  .10


  350
  475
              .10
  .09
 1.29
 Source:  Handbook o& Pollution Con&iot Co&& Jun. Hint VMLinage. Manan
-------
                               FEEDLOT  POLLUTION
 Animal wastes include liquids and  solid wastes  that are either excreted by
 animals - farm livestock, wild animals, and pets  - or arise from practices
 associated with their care and utilization.  This report is concerned primar-
 ily with the livestock production  aspects  of  animals used for food and fiber
 Not only the excreta but the by-products of feeding and sanitation are in-
 volved.

 Animal wastes may contribute to water pollution in many ways.  Involved are-
 (1) excessive nutrients that unbalance  natural  ecological systems causing  ex-
 cessive aquatic plant growth and fish kills;  (2)  microorganisms that are path-
 ogenic to animals, including man;  (3) dissolved toxic impurities in drinking
 water; (4) solids that load water  filtration  systems and complicate water
 treatment; (5) taste and odor in water;  and (6) consumption of dissolved oxy-
 gen, producing stress on aquatic populations  and  occasionally producing sec-
 tic conditions.

 Animal wastes have been also associated with  malodorous emissions from lakes,
 rivers, streams, and other waterbodies.  Methods  of entry vary.  Surface
 drainage from cattle feedlots and  other areas where animals are concentrated
 in relatively large groups, has created considerable national concern.   How-
 ever, other problems such as seepage downward into aquifers,  direct deposi-
 tion of excreta by domestic and wild animals  either at the edge of or in wa-
 terbodies, runoff from city streets, drains from  animal quarters and milking
 rooms, seepage from silos, runoff  from  manured  fields,  and effluents from  ani-
 mal waste disposal lagoons are also significant.

 Animal wastes may be the prime pollution contributor in some  areas of the
 country;  for example, certain sections  of  the Midwest have feedlots on small
 watersheds where animal concentrations  are  extremely high.  Heavy storms
 flush slug loadings of animal wastes into  a small stream;  the volume of storm-
 water, however, is insufficient to provide  adequate dilution  along the  entire
 watercourse.   Fish kills and lowered recreational values often result.


                          MAGNITUDE OF  THE  PROBLEM

 Nearly all grain-fed cattle spend  the last  three  to five months of their
 1-1/2 to  two years of life in feedlot confinement.   Although  feedlot drainage
 can be as detrimental to a body of water as can untreated industrial and muni-
 cipal wastes, very little planning has been done  to curb the  pollutional ef-
 fect of feedlots.

Cattle feedlots are the major producer of concentrated  animal wastes.  How-
ever,  there are other important sources of  animal-related pollution which are
                                     193

   294-046 O - 68 - 14

-------
detrimental to health and the environment.  These sources include multi-hun-
dred cow dairy operations, hog feedlots where many thousands of animals  are
fed annually, and chicken and turkey operations feeding 100,000 or more  birds
annually.  Disposal of such wastes has become a problem, and economic studies
indicate that the cost of handling manures is higher than the costs of hand-
ling equivalent quantities of chemical fertilizers.

Table III-5 indicates the amount of solid wastes produced by livestock in the
United States.  In addition to the wastes generated by commercial livestock,
as shown in this table, domestic animals produce over a billion tons of  fecal
wastes a year.  Liquid effluent amounts to over 400 million tons.  Used  bed-
ding, paunch manure from slaughterhouses, and dead carcasses raise the total
annual production of animal wastes to almost two billion tons.  Possibly half
of this waste is produced under concentrated conditions.  It also should be
noted that cattle in a feedlot for fattening, or dairy cows maintained for
high milk production, may produce double the daily amount of wastes shown in
the table.

It is of interest also to consider Table III-6 showing the population equiva-
lent of the fecal production by various kinds of livestock in terms of stand-
ard BOD.  For example, a feedlot carrying 10,000 cattle has about the same
sewage disposal population equivalent problem of a city of 165,000 people.
The city will be using 8.2 million gallons of water a day to carry off its
sewage.  Such amounts of water are never used and are seldom even available
at the feedlot.

Wastes carried in runoff from barnyards and feedlots may vary in BOD content
from 100 to 10,000 parts per million  (ppm) depending on dilution and degree
of deterioration of wastes.  Pollution control authorities object to runoff
entering a stream if it exceeds 20 ppm of BOD.  Hence, the problem is a  seri-
ous one in many areas.

Treatment systems using lagoons for the oxidation of animal wastes have  been
tried on many feedlots.  Success has not been complete.  These lagoons are
plagued by problems such as overloading, floating litter, intermittent load-
ing, aquatic weeds, and sludge buildup.  When a lagoon becomes overloaded,
bacteriological decomposition changes from that caused by oxygen using bac-
teria (aerobic) to that caused by bacteria which operate in the absence  of
oxygen (anaerobic).  During anaerobic decomposition, noxious gases and odors
are produced.  Under such conditions, the lagoon becomes even more malodor-
ous than the ordinary manure pile.

To date, evaluations of river basin and watershed sources of pollution do not
provide a complete national picture of the role of animal wastes in water pol-
lution.  The Potomac River Basin (more than 14,000 square miles) has been
adopted for use as a model for evaluation, and analysis of this basin will
provide some insight into the role of animal wastes.  The evaluation of  the
bacteriological aspects of pollution (coliforms, fecal coliforms, and fecal
                                    194

-------
                                  TABLE III-5



                     SOLID WASTES PRODUCED BY LIVESTOCK

                         IN THE  UNITED STATES, 1965
Livestock
Cattle
Horses^/
Hogs
Sheep
Chickens
Turkeys
Ducks
ITOTAL
U. S.
Popula
tion,
1965
(millions)
107
3
53
26
375
104
11
Solid
Wastes!/
(gms./cap./
day)
23,600
16,100
2,700
1,130
182
448
336
Total Pro-
duction
Solid
Wastes
tons /year
(millions)
1,004.0
17.5
57.3
11.8
27.4
19.0
1.6
1,138.6
Liquid
Wastes
(gms./cap./
day)
9,000
3,600
1,600
680
-
-

Total Pro-
duction
Liquid
Wastes
tons/year
(millions)
390.4
4.4
33.9
7.1
-
-
435.8
•J  3owi. Mate*. PotfaUon Con&Lol  Fecte/uitton 34:295


II
-   Ho/iAe-6 and nuJLvt,  on   wo/tfe
Sou/ice:  U>o6>teAjin  Relotom to Ag/u.cu£tuA.e, Unpub^cified

         U, S. Ve.pasiftne.nt o& Ag^LcnJUuA.n.,  kpnJUi 1967,
                                     195

-------
                            TABLE II1-6

             FECAL DISCHARGE FROM SPECIFIED ANIMAL  TYPES
Animal
Han
Horse
Cow
Sheep
Hog
Hen
Fecal
Discharge
(gms./cap./day)
150
16,100
23,600
1,130
2,700
182
Relative
Discharge
Compared to
Man's Waste
(units)
1.0
107.0
157.0
7.0
18.0
1.2
Relative
BOD Per Unit
of Waste
(units)
1.000
0.105
0.105
0.325
0.105
0.115
Population
Equivalent
1.00
11.30
16.40
2.45
1.90
0.14
SouA.ce.:  Wa&tu xn Relation to Ag/tccottu*e.  C.  H. UadLfUgh., Unpub-
         mnui MonuActtpc, u. sT vvpaMmint otf Ag;u.cot£u*e,
         1967.
                               196

-------
streptococci) revealed that animal wastes are a major source of pollution.
The ratio of fecal coliforms to fecal streptococci was used as an index of
animal/human waste contribution.  Several sampling points consistently yield-
ed a ratio of less than one, an accepted indication that bacterial contamina-
tion was non-human in origin.  Table III-7 provides a comparative example of
animal waste equivalence to untreated human wastes by sub-basins within the
Potomac Basin.  This table takes into consideration the greater population
equivalent of animal wastes as compared to human sewage.
                                 TABLE II1-7

                 ANIMAL WASTE EQUIVALENCE TO UNTREATED HUMAN
                  WASTE BY SUB-BASINS OF THE POTOMAC RIVER
     Potomac River above Shepherdstown, W. Va.            800,000 people
     Shenandoah River above Charles Town, W. Va.        1,400,000 people
     Monocacy River above Frederick, Md.                  700,000 people

     TOTAL                                              2,900,000 people


The total human waste equivalence of the animal wastes is nearly six times
the human population (approximately 500,000 people) and more than 10 times
the sewered population (275,000 people) in the area.

Op to the time of the Potomac study, animal wastes were considered a pollu-
tion source only in small streams or lakes.  The Potomac study has demonstrat-
ed the pollution potential of animal wastes in all river basins.  The upper
limits of the animal waste problem on a national scale may be illustrated by
estimates that, in terms of standard BOD, U. S. farm animal waste production
is 10 times greater than U. S. human sewage.

Although the Potomac Basin studies provide the only currently available quan-
titative documentation of the role of animal wastes in water pollution rela-
tive to other wastes, there exists substantial evidence of the potential for
farm animal wastes to pollute water.  The presence of the infectious agents
in water are always a concern, particularly in beach areas, surface waters
consumed directly by animals, and underground water supplies used by rural
dwellers.  Infectious agents from animals which may pollute streams are an-
thrax, brucellosis, coccidiosis, encephalitis, erysipelas, foot rot, histo-
plasmosis,  hog cholera, infectious bronchitis, nastitis, Newcastle disease,
ornithosis, transmissible gastroenteritis, salmonellosis, and leptospirosis.
Outbreaks of infections from these agents have been reported in numerous in-
stances.
                                     197

-------
Looking at the national profile of the potential of farm animal wastes as a
source of excessive  nutrients to streams, total nitrogen would average about
10 million tons, phosphorus about 2.5 million tons, and potassium about 7.5
million tons.  These are  substantial quantities of nutrients, but in terms of
total nutrients uniformly distributed in all water bodies, their significance
is greatly diminished.


                   PROCESSES CAUSING POLLUTION FROM FEEDLOTS

To meet the ever-increasing demand for high quality beef, the feedlot has
been utilized as a means  of producing a high grade carcass in a relatively
short time.  Cattle  received in feedlots usually range in weight from 400 to
800 pounds per head. During the time cattle are in the feedlot, each animal
is expected to gain  about 2-1/2 pounds per day.  Therefore, over the 120 to
150-day feeding period, the animals leave the feedlot weighing from 750 to
1,200 pounds each.  Indications are that the feeding period and the weight of
animals leaving the  feedlot are increasing.  A feedlot with a capacity of
5,000 head covers  approximately 35 acres, an average of about 300 square feet
per animal.  Each  day cattle consume about 3% of their body weight in total
feeds.  About two-thirds  of this quantity is grain and protein.  The other
one-third is roughage.  A 1,000-pound animal consumes about 20 pounds of
grain and protein  and about 10 pounds of roughage per day.  Animals confined
in feedlots normally consume between 10 and 20 gallons of water daily.  Ani-
mals so fed produce  an average of about 64 pounds of wet manure per day; and
the nutritionally  balanced feed results in a body waste having greater water
pollution potential  than  is found with grassland grazed cattle.

Cattle feedlots are  seldom cleaned more than two to three tiroes per year;
usually manure is  removed only once per year.  Periodically, however, manure
on the floor of each feeding pen is mounded in a central location in the pen.
This mounding allows the  animals a clean area in which to stand.  Occasional-
ly, cattle feedlots  have  a concrete surface pen, where experimental work has
shown animals gain one-third pound per head more daily than those in muddy
pens.  To minimize the mud problem, lots are normally constructed on land
having at least 2% slope, preferably underlaid with sand or gravel.

The most apparent  water pollution problems from feedlot operations occur im-
mediately following  rains sufficient to cause runoff from the feedlots.  Cat-
tle feedlot runoff is a high strength organic waste containing large concen-
trations of nitrogen and  with a high bacteria content.  According to research
done at Kansas State University, one gallon of feedlot runoff is equivalent
to from two to seven gallons of average municipal sewage in terms of pollu-
tion load.  Runoff from concrete feedlots was found to be approximately twice
as heavy as that from nonsurfaced feedlots, due to lack of infiltration.
                                     198

-------
                  TRENDS IN MEAT CONSUMPTION,  NUMBERS OF
                        CATTLE, NUMBERS  OF FEEDLOTS

Consumption of beef and veal has been increasing.   By 1980 the domestic de-
tand for beef and veal may increase  by about 65% above the 1949-1951 average.

In the 1949-1951 period, total  consumption of meat (excluding fowl)  in the
United States amounted to about 22 billion pounds  or about 145.6 pounds per
capita as shown in Table III-8.  By  1964  consumption had increased to 176.2
pounds per capita; the largest  increase occurred in the consumption of beef
and veal, up 50% to 106.6 pounds per capita in  1964 compared to 1949-1951.

Increases in the total number of large feedlots are sure to compound pollu-
tion control problems in the future.  These increases are due to a number of
factors, the principal one being economies of scale and advantageous location.

fte potential magnitude of the  problem can be realized by examining a 1964
Study made by the Crop Reporting Board, United  States Department of Agricul-
ture, in 32 states.

According to this study, there  were  1,635 feedlots marketing 1,000 or more
head of cattle in 1964 compared to  1,440  lots in 1962 or an increase of 14%.
the same feedlots  (less than 1% of  the total) marketed 6,912,000 head of cat-
tle in 1964 - 41% of the total  that  year  and 27% more than in 1962.

As of January 1, 1967, a little over 11 million cattle were on feed in the
United States.  Normally, during January, cattle feedlots are filled to with-
in 50-60% of capacity.  Assuming this relationship exists, at any one time
feedlots in the United States  total  about 20 million head capacity.  That
wuld mean that feedlot areas  in the United states totaled about 138,000
acres or 215 square miles.  The 11  million cattle on feed in these feedlots
nere producing about 700 million pounds of wet manure per day.  On an annual
basis, this amounts to 255 billion  pounds per year scattered over the 138,000
acres.  That is a daily manure  production of 2-1/2 tons per acre or an annual
lanure production of 925 tons per  acre.  About one-half of the wet manure
last be cleaned from the pens.  The remainder either evaporates, runs into
ground water or into surface streams.  The waste produced by cattle in feed-
lots is roughly equivalent to  the  organic loading of untreated wastes from
about 100 million people.


                              REMEDIES AND COSTS

Considerable research is under way to determine the characteristics of animal
wastes and of storm water runoff  from cattle feedlots, various means of treat-
Ing animal wastes, the buildup of  nitrates in ground water from feedlot seep-
age, and the engineering of  structures necessary to control feedlot runoff.
tb date this research has only scratched the surface as  far as research needs
                                     199

-------
                                 TABLE II1-8

               U. S. PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF MEAT AND FOWL,
                 1949-1951 TO 1964 AND PROJECTIONS TO 1980i'
Type of
Meat
Beef and Veal
(Carcass Weight)
Pork
(Carcass Weight
excluding lard)
Lamb and Mutton
(Carcass Weight)
Chicken and Turkey
(Ready to Cook)
TOTAL
Per Ca
1949 to
1951
(Pounds)

71.2

70.6

3.8
24.9
170.5
)ita Consumption
1959 to
1961
(Pounds)

91.3

64.9

4.8
35.7
196.7
19£
1964 (Proje
(Pounds)

106.6 117.

65.4 58.

4.2 3.
38.5 45.
214.7 224.
Decrease or
Increase From
10 1949-1951
•cted) to 1980
(Percent)

0 64.4

0 -17.8

5 - 7.7
5 83.0
0 31.5
-   Valy, R.  F. and A. C. Egbe/rt, "A Look Ahead fan Pood and
     (Stotu-ttca£ Suppiemwt) ERS 277, U. S. V&pa/itm&nt oj
              n, V. C., Fefcttuwu/ 1966.
                                     200

-------
are concerned.   Continued research is needed to quantify water pollution stem-
ming from animal feedlots and to economically control such pollution.

Estimates of the costs of installing waste treatment facilities vary consider-
ably.   The few  feedlots equipped with treatment lagoons showed construction
costs  ranging from $1 to $5 per head capacity,  in other words, an operator
setting up a feedlot with 20,000-head capacity could possibly spend from
$20,000 to $100,000 in construction, excluding buildings.  Estimated construc-
tion expenditures to control current pollution from large feedlots, with ex-
isting technology, would total over $7 million in the 32 states where feed-
lots are located.  Construction includes fencing, grading lots for proper run-
off, excavating lagoons, and installing an irrigation system to distribute
the effluent to surrounding cropland.

Important factors affecting costs of waste disposal include size  and loca-
tion of feedlot, soil characteristics, and the manner of disposal of solid
wastes and effluent.  Information is needed on the effects and costs of efflu-
ent disposal through irrigation or runoff on ground water supplies.  Treat-
ment facilities are few and their effectiveness is poorly understood.  For ex-
ample, in some  areas a three-lagoon system is an acceptable waste disposal
system for cattle feedlot operations.  This type of operation channels the ef-
fluent into anaerobic, aerobic, and stabilization lagoons, in that order.
The few cattle  feedlots using this type of system use the effluent to irri-
gate cropland.   The manure is rich in nutrients, a good soil conditioner, and
is sold to surrounding farms for a nominal fee.  This system has  thus far
worked satisfactorily.  However, it is too early to recommend this operation
for all cattle  feedlots.
                                      201

-------
                   PESTICIDES IN SURFACE AND GROUND WATERS
Modern pesticides are an important example of the many new synthetic organic
chemicals which have helped man to increase the efficiency and productivity
of his agricultural and horticultural operations.  As would be expected with
any new synthetic compound, it is necessary to develop a thorough understand-
ing of the hazards as well as the benefits associated with the use of pesti-
cides.  Currently/ there is little evidence that the levels of pesticides in
surface waters present an acute short-term hazard to man, although little is
known about the effects upon humans of long-term, low-level environmental ex-
posure to pesticides.  There is, however, considerable evidence  that some
species, particularly fish, are sensitive to pesticides at very  low concen-
trations .

The major problems regarding pesticides in surface and ground waters relate
to their sources, nature and extent, and to the control procedures needed to
reduce or to maintain their incidence at tolerable levels.
                              USE  OF PESTICIDES

Total U. S. sales of pesticides  in 1966 amounted to an estimated  1.25 billion
pounds having a manufacturers1 value of around $800 million.  Preliminary es-
timates of production of pesticidal chemicals in the United States  during
1966 are:

        (1)  Fungicides                 -     177 million pounds
        (2)  Herbicides                 -     272 million pounds
        (3)  Insecticides,  fumigants,
               and rodenticides          -     562 million pounds

Included under insecticides,  fumigants and rodenticides is a small  amount of
synthetic soil conditioners.  Excluded from the fumigant category are carbon
tetrachloride, carbon disulfide, ethylene dibromide and dichloride, which
have uses other than as fumigants.  The inorganic rodenticides are  not in-
cluded in the rodenticide category.

The Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture,  con-
ducted a survey of pesticide  use in 1964.  Farms with sales of agricultural
products of $5,000 or more, in all areas of the United States except  the
south, were surveyed.   In the south (Appalachian, Southeast, and  Delta
states), farms with agricultural sales of $2,500 or more were surveyed.   The
farmers' pesticide expenditures by production region and type of  farm are
listed in Table III-9.
                                    202

-------
                                TABLE II1-9

                 U.  S.  FARMERS'  PESTICIDE EXPENDITURES BY..
                 PRODUCTION REGION AND TYPE OF FARM, 19641/
    Regi on
                       Expendi ture
                      (1,000 dollars)
  Type of Farm
  Expendi ture
(1,000 dollars)
Northeast

Lake States

Corn Belt

Northern Plains

Appalachian

Southeast

Delta States

Southern Plains

Mountain

Pacific
      United States
                           28,800


                           42,343


                           87,267


                           20,500


                           52,693


                           52,841


                           54,670


                           33,593


                           21,311


                           62,222
                          456,240^
Cash grain               75,571


Tobacco                  29,603


Cotton                   85,923


Other field crops        15,710


Vegetable                26,023


Fruit and nut            54,782


Poultry                    5,676


Dairy                    34,897


Livestock                46,391


Ranches                    3,675


General                   71,449


Miscellaneous              6,540


      United States      456,
            taunt, iriOi Ao£c4 o<
              rf Ae United S*o*<*  except tkt SouA.
   don, SoutnWt. and VlUa SCotw)

'*/ °£ ZdiiionaJL utunatzd $S&,062,000
               not -included x.n
                                                      In
 Sou/ice:  Adapted  ft*.  U. S.
         Seltvlce,
                fax.
                                Econorrw.c Repo^  No.
                               
-------
The 1964 Census of Agriculture reported the acreage treated, in the United
States, for pest control.  The data are presented by crop or area,  acreage
treated, and the percent of the total acreage, under the crop or area,  that
was treated.  In the  1964 Census only the acreage of crops harvested was re-
ported.  Therefore, the calculated percentages, based on the acres  actually
harvested, are likely to appear high.   (Table 111-10.)

The Plant Pest Control Division, United States Department of Agriculture, co-
operates in pest control programs with individual states and with Mexico.
Treated acreages in the seven most extensive programs, for 1966-1967 were:


   Imported fire ant    9,022,898 acres     Witchweed       531,212 acres
   Boll weevil          1,110,324 acres     Gypsy moth      151,900 acres
   Grasshopper          1,132,786 acres     Pink bollworm   136,190 acres
   Cereal leaf beetle    196,212 acres

Forest insect control projects conducted by the Forest Service, United States
Department of Agriculture, are done in cooperation with individual  states and
with privately owned  timber companies under certain strict conditions.   Dur-
ing the years 1966 and 1967, the Forest Service was associated with the con-
trol of the following insects on the indicated number of acres:


                Project and Location                      Acres Treated
                                                         1966       1967

   Spruce budworm, Idaho, Montana and New Mexico       131,000       -
   Fall canker worm,  Pennsylvania                        1,000    160,000
   Pales weevil. North Carolina                          4,000
   Miscellaneous insects                                23,500      6,800

Pesticide usage, other than agricultural and forestry, accounts for an unde-
termined level of potential contamination of the environment.  For  mosquito-
control purposes, pesticides are applied directly to the water or to adjacent
areas such as marshes, tide flats, etc.  Control of aquatic weeds also in-
volves application of pesticides to water.  At present the total amount used
in this manner is not available.
                        PESTICIDE LEVELS FOUND IN WATER

The  residual properties and fate of chemicals used in pest control have been
the  cause of considerable  concern in recent years.  Whenever pesticides are
applied,  a certain part of these chemicals may remain as a residue.  For pur-
poses  of  this discussion,  we propose to limit the consideration of residues
to surface and ground waters.  The residues are exposed to attacks by vari-
ous  biological, chemical,  and physical agents.  The stability or possible
                                     204

-------
                               TABLE 111-10

              PEST  CONTROL BY TYPE OF CROP, ACREAGE TREATED,
                   AND PERCENT OF TOTAL ACREAGE TREATED
       Crop or Area
Acres Treated
Percent of Total
Acreage Treated
Insect and fungus control:


  Grain


  Cotton


  Fruit and nuts


  Hay crops


  Vegetables for sale


  Seed crops and other



TOTAL
  16,620,570


   8,285,994


   3,296,412


   2,273,438


   1,972,525


   6,475,406



   38,924,345
      42.7


      21.3


       8.5


       5.8


       5.1


      16.6



      100.0
Weed control:


  Corn


  Small grains


  Cotton

  Pasture  and rangeland


  Other



 TOTAL
   27,130,711


   21,107,303


    4,046,489


    3,688,560


    8,527,597



   64,500,660
       42.1


       32.7


        6.3


        5.7


       13.2



      100.0
 Sou/ice:   U.  S.  0epoA£nenX oi Ag/UcuttuAe >u>po*t
                         FWPCA.
                                     205

-------
translocation of some pesticidal residues within soils or from soils into
plants or water, presents problems that require thorough investigation.

Since water moves on and within the soil, its potential effects on the per-
sistence and stability of pesticidal residues should be understood.  While
insecticidal residues are primarily concentrated in the upper one to two
inches of the soil,  it has been demonstrated that water in deeper soil strata
can be contaminated  by these chemicals or their metabolites.  Current data
indicate that these  occurrences are infrequent.  The frequency/ extent, and
duration of such occurrences need study and documentation.  A large amount of
pesticide pollution  of waters in rivers and ponds may occur through the trans-
port of soil particles, to which pesticidal residues are adsorbed, by irriga-
tion runoff, rainfalls or flooding.  Pesticides in considerable amount are
also transported in  solution in water.  The fate, persistence, and distribu-
tion of pesticides once they reach water should be determined since they  po-
tentially affect human and aquatic life.

The known programs for the measurement of pesticides in surface waters are
few in number and necessarily limited in scope.  Extensive surveillance for
chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides as well as other synthetic organic pollu-
tants has been under way by the FWPCA for several years.  In this order of
frequency, dieldrin, endrin, DDT, and DDE have been found present in all  ma-
jor river basins. Heptachlor and aldrin have been less abundantly measured,
possibly because both compounds undergo chemical change to form epoxides  -
aldrin changes to dieldrin and heptachlor to heptachlor epoxide.

The potential problem of biological magnification has received considerable
attention both in the scientific and lay areas.  Biological magnification
occurs when organisms at the lower end of the biological scale, become con-
taminated with pesticides and then are consumed by higher organisms.  As  this
proceeds along the biological scale, it is possible for the pesticide content
per organism to increase to the point where intoxication takes place.  At
present this problem seems to be fairly well limited to the chlorinated hydro-
carbon pesticides.  There is an urgent need for more intensive investigation
of this process to provide information on which to establish water standards
in the field of pesticide contamination.  The toxicity of many pesticides to
various aquatic organisms has been investigated.  However, more research
needs to be done on  the effects of long-term exposure at less-than-lethal
levels.

The potential problem of ground water pollution by pesticides is worthy of
serious consideration.  Present recommendations for the disposal of empty
pesticide containers and unused pesticides call for burial in at least 18
inches of soil, in a place where ground water will not be contaminated.   It
has been a common practice to dispose of empty containers and refuse from
manufacturing and formulation plants in this manner.  In the case of manufac-
turing and formulation plants the amount of pesticide-containing refuse to be
disposed of can become a major disposal problem.  Certain manufacturers have
                                    206

-------
been using incineration techniques  to  dispose  of refuse.   Others  have main-
tained "graveyards" where the material is  buried.

is early as 1945 the United States  Department  of Agriculture  cooperated with
the Fish and Wildlife Service to study some  of the biological effects of  for-
est insect control.  This was a study  of modest proportions involving more
than 20 experimental areas, using varied dosages of DDT to determine its  ef-
fect on various forest types and forest pests.  From this modest  beginning,
•onitoring programs have increased  in  magnitude and sophistication.  Federal,
State and private agencies cooperate in monitoring insect control programs.
Equipment unknown on the market until  recent years, now is available for  meas-
uring residues in parts per billion, or even parts per trillion.   One might
veil ask if there were insecticide  and pesticide residues in  our  waters a num-
ber of years ago that now could be  measured  but which were not detectable
»ith equipment and methods of a decade ago.

Fbrest lands comprise one-third of  the total area of the United States, re-
ceive one-half of the total precipitation, and yield about two-thirds of  the
streamflow.  Forest lands annually  receive more than twice the precipitation
falling on other lands and yield about 16  inches of runoff per year, four
times that from other lands.  Thus  forest  lands provide most  of the Nation's
Hater supply.

In 1962, 1.7 million pounds of insecticides  were applied to about 1.8 million
acres of forest land.  In addition, about  half this amount of herbicides  and
a small amount of other pesticidal  chemicals were used.  Insecticides used  in
1962 on forest lands represented about 1%  of the total poundage of insectici-
dal chemicals distributed in the United States.  Thus, the rate at which  pes-
ticides are used in the forest is substantially lower than in most other  land
classes.  Only about 5% of the Nation's forest lands have ever been treated
vith an insecticidal chemical.

tost of the studies made following  forest  spraying have dealt with adverse
effects of initial application on fish and wildlife.  Very little is known  of
toe long-term impact of forest pesticide use on water quality.


                     REMOVAL OF PESTICIDES  FROM WATER

Bimerous studies have shown that repeated  application of pesticides, particu-
larly of the chlorinated hydrocarbons, has resulted in residues of some of
these compounds being found in soil layers corresponding to plow and cultiva-
tion depths.  These compounds are generally resistent to biological degradation.
Ihe extended persistence of these compounds  has increased the chance of water
contamination.  Current knowledge as  to the extent and amount of  pesticide
residues in water resources is meager, and knowledge about the significance
jof these residues and their effect  on  water supplies even more so.  The com-
mittee which reviewed and updated the  USPHS Drinking Water Standards in 1962,
                                     207

-------
concluded that the information available at that time was not sufficient to
establish specific limits  for pesticidal chemicals in drinking water.   Only
the concentration that will produce a perceptible odor in water has been de-
termined for several pesticides.   (Table III-ll.)

A study conducted by FWPCA personnel at the Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
assessed the effect of various treatments on concentrations of dieldrin, en-
drin, lindane, DDT, 2, 4,  5-T and parathion from water.  The study indicated
that, while each part of the treatment plant may have potential for reducing
certain pesticides, no effective practical treatment is known for large vol-
umes of water containing pesticides.


                                   COSTS

Although more needs to be  done to assure long-term safeguarding of the  envi-
ronment from pesticidal residues, the actions to reach these goals cannot be
defined precisely enough to assess the costs at this time.
                                    208

-------
                             TABLE III-ll

             THRESHOLD ODOR CONCENTRATIONS OF PESTICIDES
                         AND SOLVENTS IN WATER
           Pesticides
Threshold Odor
Concentration
   in ppm
   Parathion (technical grade)

   Parathion (pure)

   Endrin

   Lindane



   Formulation components

   Sulfoxide (synergist)

   Aerosol OT  (emulsifier)



   Commercial Solvents



   Deodorized Kerosene

   Solvent  1

   Solvent  2

   Solvent  3
   Sotw.ce:   U. S.
                 FU'PCA.
      .003


      .036


      .009


      .330
      .091


    14.600
      .082


      .016


    13.900


      .090
                                   209
294-046 O - 68 - 15

-------
                  NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT OF LAKES  AND  STREAMS
This section discusses the contribution of agricultural  land through the pro-
cesses of runoff and deep percolation,  erosion,  and animal  feeding to the min-
eral enrichment of water.  The inadequacies of present information are noted,
and control measures that can be instituted are  suggested.


                                 LAND RUNOFF

All plant and animal life, whether on land or in water,  requires  mineral nu-
trients to grow and reproduce.  On land, agriculture and agricultural re-
search have been concerned for centuries with providing  such nutrients in
proper amount and balance for good crop yields,  proportionately nutritious to
people and animals.  In water, until about two decades ago, we depended on
natural runoff to supply the necessary minerals  to the aquatic life that
serves as food for fish, shellfish and crustaceans harvested by man.  Only re-
cently have we learned how to enrich or fertilize pond waters and lakes ar-
tificially to increase their productivity.  Now  we are finding that water can
be excessively and unintentionally enriched - to the point  where  "nuisance"
blooms of algae, noxious odors, and excess growth of water  weeds  degrade the
quality of the water.  This water enrichment process - eutrophication - is
desirable up to a point, but carried too far becomes pollution.  Nutrient ac-
cumulation is part of the natural geological process in  the aging of a lake,
but accelerated by man, it leads to quick "death" of the lake.

Enrichment of stream and lake water can come from raw sewage, the effluent of
sewage treatment systems, runoff from city streets, the  wastes of industry,
and the runoff, leachate, and sediments from agricultural land.

At least 12 mineral elements are needed to sustain life  in  a pond or lake,
but only two - nitrogen and phosphorus - receive much attention,  for they are
the ones that control or limit the growth of plant life. The others are gen-
erally present in such concentrations relative to plant  requirements that
they may have little or no effect on the amount  of growth.   Examples are
known of lakes deficient in molybdenum and iron  for the  optimum growth of
phytoplankton, but such instances are rare.

The problems associated with excessive nutrient  accumulation in lakes and
streams are excessive growth of algae,  mosses, and bottom-rooted  grasses
along the shores.  Growth of actinomycetes on the algae  and the decomposition
of organic debris in the bottom muds produce offensive odors.  Decomposing
dead algae and other water plants deprive fish of oxygen.  The desirable
sport and food fish are replaced by less desirable scavenger species.  The
oxygen deprivation may produce greatest loss of  fish in  winter when the lake
is frozen over.  Fishing lines/ boat propellers, and water  skiers get fouled
                                     210

-------
up in the excessive vegetation.  Shoreline properties decline in value.
Many examples of such lake deterioration can be cited - Lake Erie, Lake Wash-
ington, the Potomac estuary, to name a  few.

The U. S. Department of Agriculture, as of June 30, 1965, has given technical
and/or cost-sharing assistance in  constructing 1,420,733 farm ponds.  The es-
timated losses in potential uses of these ponds caused by aquatic weeds for
the period 1951-1960 was $27,320,000 annually,  in a farm pond, the nutrients
have to come from the land, fertilizers applied to land, the farmstead, or
excrement of migratory waterfowl.

Whether phosphorus or nitrogen is  most  limiting to growth depends on the lo-
cal situation.  Evidence from Lake Erie indicates that there may be seasonal
variations when an element limits  growth.  Chemists know that they can often
obtain some growth of valve-plugging organisms even in distilled water lines.
No limit can be set for an element at which there will be no growth, for
plants have an enormous capacity to accumulate ions from extremely dilute
solutions.  However, we are concerned with the levels that  are  associated
with objectionable growths in water.  Mackenthun7  (1965), based on a review
of the literature, indicated that  0.015 ppm of total phosphorus and 0.3 ppm
inorganic nitrogen in the spring are associated with dense  algae blooms later
in the season.  He recognized that many considerations such as  the rate of
water flow, the composition of the inflow, and the rates of decomposition and
release of nutrients in the bottom muds can modify these values.

Increasing use of fertilizers on farms  has received much of the blame  for ac-
celerated enrichment of surface and well waters.  For example,  the total
U. S. production of anhydrous ammonia in December 1966, was over one million
tons.  This is more than the total nitrogen  fertilizer consumption in  any
year before 1948.  In 1940, U. S.  farmers used about  380,000 tons of nitrogen
as fertilizer.  In 1966, farm use  amounted to over 5-1/4 million tons, almost
a 14-fold increase.  Hence, it is  easy  to conclude that  accelerated eutrophi-
cation is a modern problem and that  fertilizers are largely responsible.

However, there is considerable evidence that ground and  well waters, particu-
larly in the arid and semi-arid West, contained considerable nitrate before
commercial fertilizers were used to  any appreciable extent. The accumulation
of "niter" spots in the Arkansas Valley of Colorado,  studied in the 1920's
and 1930's is classic.  This accumulation, once blamed on nitrogen fixation,
was later shown to be a problem of accumulated nitrates, along  with other sa-
lines.  Unirrigated, uncropped soil  in  the San Joaquin Valley of California
was core-drilled to a depth of 50  feet  and yielded 1,400 to 1,800 ppm  nitrate-
nitrogen calculated on the basis of  the soil solution.   These profiles below
about four feet were dry, with soil water suctions in the range of 15  to 80
 7 Macfeen-tnurt,  K.  M.,  "NwA -on Wot^r. and An Annotat&d
                o£ TnexA &iotoQJ.ca£ E^eatA," USPHS Pub. 1305, 1965,  p.  W.
                                      211

-------
bars.  At this suction, little downward movement of  nitrate  could occur, but
when the soil was irrigated, nitrate moved downward  with  the wetting front.
An accumulation of nitrate-nitrogen was reported under dryland  unfertilized
fields in northeastern Colorado.   A marked zone of nitrate accumulation oc-
curred below the rooting depth of crops.  Cropped profiles averaged 208
pounds of nitrate-nitrogen per acre to a depth of 22 feet, whereas dryland
native pasture land averaged only 72 pounds to the same depth.

Nitrates in water are actually a very  poor measure of the enrichment of water.
Aquatic plants readily remove nitrate  from water.  Depletions of nitrate in
water at successive downstream sampling stations on  a given  river are fre-
quently noted.  High accumulations of  nitrate in surface  waters is good evi-
dence that some other condition, probably a limitation of phosphate, is in-
hibiting the use of nitrate by aquatic plants.


                         USE OF FERTILIZER NITROGEN

In 1940, total nitrogen in fertilizers applied to U. S. farms was less than
500,000 tons.  In 1964, about 4.5 million tons of nitrogen were applied, and
there is no indication that the rate of increase is  slowing.

There is little point in citing average uses of nitrogen  for different crops
and soils because the averages for the U. S. as a whole or regionally within
the country presently represent suboptimum levels in terms of crop response.
Within each region or State, levels of nitrogen fertilizer use  range from far
less than adequate to excessive.   With a normal frequency distribution, one
might expect that one-third to one-half of a given crop acreage receives near-
adequate fertilization, with the remainder divided between suboptimal and ex-
cessive use.

The goal in nitrogen fertilization is  to minimize the amount of nitrogen that
must be applied to achieve the desired crop response.  But with low-cost ni-
trogen fertilizer, its use is being increasingly geared to producing maximum
yields in the sense of nitrogen not being a limiting factor.

Considering only the crop receiving the fertilizer,  data  support the conclu-
sion that the efficiency range is broad, from about  25% to 75%.  A level of
40% to 50% can be expected when timing of application is  coordinated with
crop demands for nitrogen.

It is well established that nitrogen fertilization for maximum  yield contri-
butes an excess of nitrogen to the immediate environment.  In the vast amount
of field and associated laboratory research, little  specific information has
been provided regarding the fate  of the excess nitrogen under conditions of
high fertilization.
                                     212

-------
During decomposition of root residues produced under conditions of nitrogen
abundance, substantial amounts of the nitrogen may be mineralized readily,
thus augmenting the pool of fertilizer nitrogen remaining in the soil.  In
well-aerated agricultural soils, most of the mineral nitrogen is converted  to
nitrate, in which form it readily moves downward in percolating water.  If
the oxygen level is adequate, the nitrogen persists as nitrate, and remains
mobile within and below the root zone.  Studies on sources of nitrate in
ground waters have been few and not very definitive in that not all possible
sources, i.e., corrals, farmland, sewage disposal fields, and cesspools were
considered.

Under humid conditions it is known that large losses of nitrogen by leaching
can occur if nitrogen is applied in the fall and if winters are mild.  Too
many studies on the recovery efficiency of fertilizer nitrogen conducted un-
der conditions where leaching losses were thought to be minimal have given  in-
sufficient attention to the downward movement of nitrate below the root zone.
The low recoveries often noted were presumed due to denitrification.  Unfor-
tunately, there are no direct quantitative measurements in the field of the
magnitude of denitrification.


                                 PHOSPHORUS


Phosphorus and the Fertility of Natural Haters

Phosphorus is generally considered to be the critical element in controlling
the fertility of natural waters.  The critical concentration limiting the
growth of blue-green algae, whose appearance frequently indicates any unde-
sirable increase in fertility, is about 0.01 ppm (of phosphorus).  Concentra-
tions of 0.05 ppm provide an excellent medium for profuse growth, and at lev-
els above this, the population is controlled by other factors such as light
penetration.  In most uncontaminated waters, phosphate concentrations are
about 0.01 to 0.03 ppm which is close to the critical level.  Relatively
small increases in concentration often have noticeable effects in the growth
of both algae and aquatic weeds that cause severe water management problems.


Sources of Phosphorus

Although 70% to 80% of the phosphates produced in the United States are used
as fertilizer, they have many industrial and domestic uses, the most promi-
nent being in synthetic detergents.  Between 15% and 40% of the weight of
such materials, depending upon their use, is composed of phosphate salts.

Statistics on phosphorus consumption are complex, but a reasonable estimate
of the amount used for purposes other than as fertilizers can be made from
                                     213

-------
the data on the annual production of electric furnace phosphorus.   Table III-
12 shows that close to 80%  of this material has gone into uses other than
fertilizer since the mid-1950's.

Table 111-13 shows the relative amounts of phosphorus consumed in  both ferti-
lizer and non-fertilizer forms in the United States since 1950.  The amount
of non-fertilizer material  is based upon the furnace acid figures  of Table
HI-12.  These data show that non-fertilizer consumption has  increased more
rapidly, and is now about 23% of the total.  Since 1950 there has  been almost
a three-fold increase in per capita consumption of phosphorus.

Phosphorus use in detergents is particularly important because these com-
pounds are completely water soluble and pass directly into  sewers  and drain-
age waters where they are fully available to plants.  Unless  sewage treatment
specifically designed to remove phosphate is applied, urban areas  will con-
tribute available phosphorus at an annual rate of about five  tons  per 1,000
persons in the form of sewage effluents containing concentrations  up to five
ppm.  The amounts of phosphorus-free water needed to dilute this to tolerable
levels are rarely available.

The fraction of fertilizer  phosphorus moving directly into  natural waters is
very small.  Even where highly soluble salts are used, they are rapidly con-
verted to insoluble forms in the soil.  In time this phosphorus becomes dis-
tributed through the topsoil, but many studies have shown that downward move-
ment below plow depth is slow. Over 95% of phosphorus applied remains per-
manently in the top six to  nine inches of the soil.  The strong adsorption
capacity of the subsoil reduces the phosphate content of the  soil  water to
0.005 ppm or less and, under normal agricultural conditions,  the amount in
drainage water is insufficient to support algal growth.  A  notable exception
is found where large amounts of phosphorus are used on well-drainged, irri-
gated soils.  Average concentrations of 0.08 ppm have been  observed under
such conditions in California's San Joaquin Valley.


Phosphorus and Soil Erosion

The most direct way in which agricultural phosphorus moves  into drainage wa-
ters is by erosion of the soil into which it is adsorbed.   The phosphorus
content of agricultural soils varies widely, but the largest  amounts, ranging
from 800 to 2,700 pounds per acre to a six-inch depth, are  found in the West-
ern States.  The average rate of application on cropland in the United States
is close to 20 pounds per acre, although certain crops, notably tobacco and
potatoes, average two to three times this amount.

Several studies have shown  that phosphorus losses from cropland are caused
entirely by erosion.  Table 111-14 shows that a loss of four  tons  per acre of
soil containing 1,000 ppm of phosphorus - which may occur in  soils in which
cotton or corn is grown - will represent a loss of eight pounds of phosphorus
                                     214

-------
                           TABLE II1-12

              U. S. PRODUCTION OF PHOSPHORIC ACID IN
               THOUSAND TONS OF ELEMENTAL PHOSPHORUS
Year     Total
                          Furnace Acid
                                     Wet Process Acid
          Total
           Non-
        fertilizer
Total
   Non-
fertilizer
1965     1,707
           441
           358
1,266
                                                            94
1964     1,434
           440
                                  356
                          994
                                                92
1960
922
333
                                                 589
 1955
556
                       235
                       207
                                                 321
                                                 52
 1950
254
                       128
                                                 126
 Soutce:   Ve.panAne.nt o£ Commw.ce, Vata.
                                 215

-------
                           TABLE 111-13

                   U. S.  CONSUMPTION OF PHOSPHORUS
 Year
           Phosphorus Consumed  as:
Fertilizer
1,000 tons
   Non-
fertilizer
1,000 tons
  Percent
  as Non-
fertilizer
 Non-fertilizer
  Consumption
Ibs./person/yr.
 1965         1,520
                 441
                   23
                   4.5
 1964         1,460
                 440
                   23
                   4.6
1960        1,112
                 333
                   23
                   4.6
1955
    987
   235
    19
                                                           2.8
1950
    841
   128
    13
      1.6
Sou/ice:  Ve.paAAme.nt o£ Commence. Data
                               216

-------
                            TABLE 111-14

              EROSION  OF SOIL AND PHOSPHORUS FROM FIVE
               EXPERIMENTAL PLOTS OF DIFFERING SLOPES
                   ON  DUNMORE SILT LOAM, VIRGINIA
  Plot
  Slope
(Percent)
           Average Annual
      Soil and Phosphorus  Loss
        Over  3-Year  Rotation
   Soil
             (tons/acre)
Total Phosphorus
               (Ibs./acre)
          (Ibs./ton
           of soil)
                          Maximum
                      Annual Soil Loss
(tons/acre)
                 4.38
                    8
             1.8
                                                           6.5
   10
     8.25
                               10
                               1.2
                            14.0
   15
    12.42
                                13
                               1.0
                                                           24.5
   20
    11.55
                                13
                               1.1
                                                           19.7
   25
    19.50
                                26
                               1.3
                                                           35.5
U. S.
    FWPCA.
                                 Ag4x.cu££u/ie ie.poHt
                                  217

-------
per acre a year.  Under high erosion conditions  this can increase to the or-
der of 30 to 50 pounds.  Since this will  be largely adsorbed in the soil col-
loids, only a fraction of this will be available for plant growth.  If this
fraction is assumed to be 10%, then figures indicate that fertilizer and soil
phosphorus may be contributing to available phosphorus  in lakes and rivers at
about one to five pounds per acre per year.  This estimate agrees substantial-
ly with measurements of the phosphorus content of surface drainage waters on
the Kaskaskia River in Illinois which showed losses ranging up to 14 pounds
per acre per year with a mean value of about 2.5.

In addition to phosphorus carried into streams by soil  erosion, significant
contributions may be made by leaching or  by surface erosion of animal manure
from stockyards or manure piles.  The phosphorus contents of some animal ma-
nures are summarized in Table 111-15, and average amounts excreted annually
per 1,000 pounds body weight of various animals  are presented in Table 111-16,
page 240.  Pollution from stockyards is of particular importance because feed-
lots represent points of high local input, especially where they are situated
near streams to take advantage of the water supply.  The movement of phosphor-
us from animal wastes may then be a continuous process  as opposed to the spo-
radic nature of the movement of phosphorus by soil erosion.  Animal input may
be highest when erosion is least, as when wastes are washed into streams over
frozen ground in the winter.  It is estimated that agricultural land contri-
buted 45% of the phosphorus input to Lake Mendota, Wisconsin,  and the chain
of lakes associated with Lake Mendota. Seventy-five percent of this phosphor-
us came from runoff in the spring from an area where heavy manure applica-
tions were made on frozen soil.

On the basis of the foregoing data it is  possible to make some general compar-
isons.  A loss of five pounds per acre from a fertile soil means that the out-
put from one square mile is about the same as that from a community of 700
people, or a stockyard containing 200 cows, each of 1,000 pound-weight.
These figures represent totals and not effective amounts,  which depend upon
the chemical forms in the various cases.


The Chemistry of Phosphorus in River Water

Direct measurement of the total phosphorus concentration,  including that on
the suspended mineral material, cannot be regarded as a useful measure of the
amount available for plant growth.   Measurements of the rate at which equili-
brium is established between the dissolved and adsorbed forms  of phosphorus
in the soil show that complete equilibrium is never reached and the bulk of
the soil phosphorus is very inert.   The most reactive part,  reaching equili-
brium within a few days,  is usually less  than 5% to 10% of all the phosphorus
present.  The amount of biologically active phosphorus  present in stream wa-
ter carrying a significant load of  sediment is probably a small fraction of
the total.  Water containing 0.01%  by weight of  sediment,  which itself con-
tains 1,000 ppm of phosphorus, would have a minimum total  concentration  of
                                     218

-------
                           TABLE 111-15

                   PHOSPHORUS CONTENT OF ANIMAL
                    MANURES OF VARIOUS ORIGINS
Source
      Range of Phosphorus Content  of
      Animal Manures  (% dry weight)
   Total    i   Inorganic*    I   Organic
Chicken
0.73 - 2.99    0.39 - 2.42     0.34  -  0.57
Hog
0.27 - 0.77    0.19 - 0.61     0.08  -  0.16
Horse
0.26 - 0.35    0.20 - 0.24     0.06  -  0.11
Cow
0.43 - 0.73    0.26 - 0.64     0.17  -  0.09
Sheep
       1.19
0.75
0.44
 -on
         .c deponed a&  that &x&ia.c£e.d -en 10% &u.cJkto>ia.c.e£ic. acid
Sou/ice:  U. S.  Ve.pcwtme.nt oft
                                219

-------
0.1 ppra, while the amount in true solution  might be 0.01 ppm or less.  Little
information is available about the contribution made by suspended phosphate
to the biological activity of river water.   The matter is important, because
in lakes and still streams, settling sediment will carry considerable amounts
of phosphorus that may be returned to the upper water when the sediment is
disturbed under storm conditions.

Up to 20% of the total phosphorus in a surface soil may be present in organic
forms, although this fraction may vary a good deal with the locality, type
and management history of the soil.  Table  111-16 shows that considerable
amounts of phosphorus derived from animal wastes may also be organic.  In un-
disturbed soil, the organic fraction does not readily reach equilibrium with
that in true solution, and is not immediately available for plant consumption,
but abrasive action of eroding materials and the stirring action in streams
may tend to increase its availability.  Little information is available on
the biological activity of organic phosphates in streams, and new analytical
procedures are needed to reveal the significance of this activity.
                                TABLE 111-16

                   AMOUNTS OF PHOSPHORUS  EXCRETED  ANNUALLY
                  BY 1,000 POUND WEIGHT OF  VARIOUS ANIMALS
         Source                      Annual  Excretion  of Phosphorus
                                     (Ibs.  P/1,000  Ib.  wt.  of animal)
         cow                                        17

         Horse                                      19

         Sheep                                      19

         Poultry                                    30

         Swine                                      45



         Sou/tee:   U. S. Pepo/tOnent orf Ag/ucuttote
                                     220

-------
                                    COSTS

No estimate has been made of the cost of providing adequate safeguards
against excessive nutrient runoff.  Current procedures depend largely upon
educational programs that encourage application of nutrients to the soil on
the basis of tested need, thus avoiding the hazard of "luxury" over-fertili-
zation.  As new research data identify the sources and amounts of nutrient
runoff, and as new technology provides nutrients in forms that will avoid
displacement, cost estimates can be developed.
                                      221

-------
             IMPACT OF IRRIGATION ON  SALINITY  OF SURFACE WATERS
Salinity of surface waters refers  to their total  soluble salt content, mainly
of chlorides, sulfates, and bicarbonates  of calcium,  magnesium,  and sodium.
The amounts and proportions of these constituents vary not only  from river to
river, but from reach to reach of  a single river.  This section  discusses the
impact of irrigation agriculture on total salinity, and specific salt com-
position of rivers, and some measures for control of salt-degraded water.

Dissolved salts derive ultimately  from weathering of rock and solubilization
of soil minerals.  Immediate salt  sources vary.   Even rainfall contributes
some miniscule amount of salt to surface  waters,  though the contribution of
seawater salts and dust-borne salts to surface water salinity is generally
minor (probably 10% or less).  Rainwater  percolating through soils carries
additional salts into rivers and lakes.   These salts are produced by weather-
ing of soil minerals, and the process is  the principal natural source of sa-
linity in surface waters.

In some areas, salt beds or saline strata of geologic origin may contribute
especially high salt concentrations not only to percolating rainwater, but to
rivers and streams flowing across  their surface.®  In humid zones the salin-
ity of surface water is generally  low because soils have been leached for
eons by abundant rainfall.  In arid and semi-arid zones soils contain larger
amounts of salts, and surface waters generally have higher salt  concentra-
tions.  (The acreage of irrigated  farmland is shown in Table 111-17.)

It is important, then, that irrigation, subject to mineralization, is roost
necessary in arid areas, for irrigation itself is an unvarying source of sa-
linity in waters.  The well documented salinity of the Colorado  River, for
example, may be traced - even as far upstream as  Hoover Dam - in large part
to irrigation.  (Table 111-18.)

Although not conclusive, evidence  presented in Table 111-19 shows that the
salinity problems in the Colorado, North  Platte,  Arkansas, and Rio Grande
areas did not necessarily originate with  the extensive development of irriga-
tion projects, but that salts were present in substantial amounts over 60
years ago.  Analyses of various chemical  constituents of single  samples of
water shows the Colorado River had 833 ppm of dissolved salts at Yuma, Ari-
zona in 1893, and that the Arkansas River content ranged from about 1,100 to
1,400 ppm during September and October in 1909.   It is clear, however, that
the onset of extensive irrigation  has intensified the salt problem; for the
t  CkapteA & JLYI
  "titathvung ojj RocfeA  and  Utne/tafcA -en SoiJL GeneA-tA",  Volume. 1 ojj Ency-
  clopedia. o& SoJJi Science.
                                    222

-------
                          TABLE  111-17

               ACREAGE OF IRRIGATED LAND  IN  FARMsl/
      Water Resource Region
 Acres
(1,000)
North Atlantic
South Atlantic-Gulf
Great Lakes
Ohio
Tennessee
Upper Mississippi
Lower Mississippi
Souris-Red-Rainy
Missouri (Arid)
Arkansas-White-Red  (Arid)
Texas-Gulf  (Arid)
Rio Grande  (Arid)
Upper Colorado  (Arid)
Lower Colorado  (Arid)
Great Basin  (Arid)
Columbia-North Pacific  (Semi-Arid)
California  (Semi-Arid)

TOTAL
    203
    560
     82
     30
     13
     55
    625
      9
  5,802
  2,806
  4,168
  1,638
  1,361
  1,219
  1,426
  5,014
  7,627

 32,638
—   To6u£a£ec£ by ft/oteA  Reaautce Region*  friom the. 1959  Cen4u6
                               223

-------
                          TABLE 111-18

           INCREMENTAL SALT CONCENTRATION ATTRIBUTABLE   '
        TO SPECIFIC SOURCES, COLORADO RIVER AT  HOOVER DAM-i-'

     (1942-1961 Period of Record Adjusted to  1960  Condition)
             Factor                         TDS*  Increment,  Mg/L
Natural Sources

  Diffuse Sources                                    274
  Point Sources (mineral springs,
    wells, etc.)                                      69

Irrigation

  Consumption                                         88
  Leaching                                           165

Municipal and Industrial Sources                      10

Water Exports                                         22

Evaporation and Phreatophytes                         97


TOTAL                                                725
-  Baaed on data frwm-.  USGS ?io&Ui>4.onaJt Pope* 44 1 , Watet Re-
                                                         ,  Piog-
        Kfcpo/it No. 3, QuaCLtij o& WateA, coZakado Wbtvi
   Jatwuvu/ 1967; FWPCA /teco/tdA on open

*  To-toC
                               224

-------
                               TABLE  111-19

                    HISTORIC WATER QUALITY  DATA  FROM
                           FOUR WESTERN  RIVERSl/
      Date
                           Parts
                            Per
                          Million
                            of
                            TDS
                          Location
      1893
                             Colorado  River
                             833
                   Yuroa, Arizona
    Sept. 1906
    Oct. 1906
    Oct. 1906
North Platte River

       262
       361
       265
                                         North Platte, Nebraska
                                         Columbus, Nebraska
                                         Fremont, Nebraska
    Sept. 1907
    Sept. 1907
    Oct. 1907
                       Arkansas River

                           1,079
                           1,105
                           1,418
                   Great Bend, Kansas
                   Arkansas City, Kansas
                   Deerfield, Kansas
    1893-1894
    Sept. 1905
                       Rio Grande River

                             399
                             746
                   Mesilla, New Mexico
                   Laredo, Texas
U CtaAk, F. W., The. Composition o& Rcve^tA and
   United State*, USGS P^o^sionat Pap&i 135, 1924.
                                                             the.
                                    225
294-046 0-68-16

-------
past six years the Colorado River at Yuma,  Arizona,  has averaged about 2,300
ppm (total dissolved solids).   The difference between 833 and 2,300 TDS is
probably due to irrigation return water.

Table 111-20 indicates about a 40-fold variation in  salt content of these
rivers.  A river, such as the Rio Grande, may have low salinity in its head-
waters, but build up to a high salinity at  its mouth.  This increase in sa-
linity results in part from the inflow from saline tributaries, from removal
of salts from irrigated lands, and from the evaporative loss of water due to
irrigation with resultant concentration of  salts in  the smaller residual vol-
ume.

Data in Table 111-20 also show that irrigation and drainage waters from se-
lected irrigation districts vary in electrical conductivity, and hence salin-
ity.  In all cases, the salinity of drainage water is higher than that of the
irrigation water.  However, the ratio between the two concentrations is not
constant.  It varies from about a twofold increase in most instances to a ten-
fold increase in the case of the tile drainage water in California's Imperial
Valley.  Rate of evapotranspiration, level  of reuse, degree of segregation of
saline return waters, and leaching rates all affect  the ratio.

For the chemical composition of some river  waters used for irrigation, see
Table 111-21.
                  SIGNIFICANCE OF WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION
                         AS THE RESULT OF IRRIGATION

Increased salinity is an inescapable consequence of irrigation.  Unlike most
uses, irrigation involves actual consumption of water rather than its use and
subsequent discharge.  Up to 70% of applied irrigation water is taken up by
the plant life or is evaporated.  (The more efficient the application of water,
the higher the coefficient of evapotranspiration.)   Little, if any, of the dis-
solved salts carried in irrigation water is used by the plant life.  Each use
of water in irrigation increases the concentration of salts by reducing the
volume of the carrying liquid; (e.g., if water with 100 ppm of TDS is applied
and the rate of evapotranspiration is 50%, then half as much drainage water
returns to the stream as was diverted, but it contains the- original quantity
of salts, so that the concentration of TDS in the irrigation return water
will have been increased to 200 ppm).  Increasing further the potential sa-
linity of irrigation return water is the fact that one of the functions of
irrigation is to flush excess salts away from the root zone of growing plants.
Arid soils tend to be highly mineralized requiring extensive flushing, so
that irrigation of such soils results not only in a reduction of carrying wa-
ter, but in a net increase in the gross volume of salts.  (The earlier illu-
stration, where a 50% loss of water involved a 100% increase in TDS concen-
trations, assumed the most favorable situation, existence of a salt "balance"
with no pick up of soil salts during irrigation.  To carry the illustration
                                      226

-------
                            TABLE II1-20

        COMPARISON OF THE SALINITY IN IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE
              WATERS FROM SELECTED IRRIGATION DISTRICTS
     Irrigation District
        Salinity
   (Mineralization as
Electrical Conductivity)
                                   Irrigation Mater  | Drainage Water
Middle Rio Grande Valley,
  Albuquerque Division!/

Lower Rio Grande,
  Rincon, Division!/
  Mesilla Division!/
  El Paso Division!/

Pecos River, Carlsbad Are
Colorado River Water,  Meloland
  Imperial Valley,  California^/

Wapato Project, Washington
   (Yakima River water)—'
   481


   834
   869
 1,200

 4,360


 1,120


   137
 1,070


 1,480
 1,410
 3,680

 7,800


11,770


   296
U U. S. Gide.,  Cali-
                                  227

-------
                              TABLE  II1-21

             CHEMICAL  COMPOSITION OF SOME RIVER  WATERS  USED
                FOR  IRRIGATION IN WESTERN UNITED STATES!/
River
Missouri
Yellowstone
North Platte
South Platte
Platte
Arkansas
Arkansas
Canadian
Rio Grande
Rio Grande
Rio Grande
Pecos
Gila
Salt

Colorado
Sevier
Sevier
Weber
Humboldt
Sacramento
Kem
Columbia
Snake
Payette
Rogue
Locati on
Williston, North Dakota
Miles City, Montana
Wyoming-Nebraska lines
Englewood, Colorado
Aurora, Nebraska
La Junta, Colorado
Ralston, Oklahoma
Conchos Dam, New Mexico
Otowi Bridge, New Mexico
El Paso, Texas
Roma, Texas
Carlsbad, New Mexico
Florence, Arizona
Stewart Mountain Dam,
Arizona
Yuma, Arizona
Central, Utah
Delta, Utah
Ogden, Utah
Rye Patch, Nevada
Tisdale, California
Bakers field, California
Wenatchee, Washington
Minidoka, Idaho
Black Canyon, Idaho
Medford, Oregon
Date
Sampled
11/29/45
7/22/48
10/8/45
7/11/44
7/21/51
7/21/44
8/16/44
6/3/43
6/46
6/46
6/46
1945/46
4/10/34

3/8/34
3/21/43
6/5/49
6/3/49
10/7/49
8/48
8/15/47
9/28/44
11/25/35
1948/49
1948/49
9/13/32
Mineraliza-
tion as
Electrical
Conductivity
838
548
828
406
800
1,210
1,670
844
340
1,160
607
3,210
1,720

1,210
1,060
580
2,400
510
1,173
162
234
151
410
100
108
Dissolved
Solids
(ppm)
574
368
565
246
571
981
967
586
227
754
380
2,380
983

664
740
338
1,574
308
658
108
152
78
246
60
72
I/ Pota fam Table. 12,  page. 77 oj
                                          .
Improvement o& Satine. and Mkati SoW>,"  1954.
                                            Handbook 60,  "Viaano&i* and
                                  228

-------
one step further, assume that a volume of salt equal to one-half the volume
borne by the applied waters is flushed from soil and dissolved in the irriga-
tion water; then the return flow would have a TDS concentration three times
that of the originally diverted water, or - in the illustration - 300 ppm.)
When the return flow merges with the receiving river, the net result is an
increase in salinity that can affect all downstream water users.  Because the
mechanism is invariable, cumulative salinity is progressively greater with
each reuse of irrigation water.

Salinity is generally regarded as excessive for domestic use when total salt
content exceeds 500 ppm, although more saline water is sometimes used.  Even
salt-sensitive crops can increase the salinity of return flows to five times
this value.  Dilution in the river may partially correct this effect, but re-
use of the river water for irrigation will ultimately reduce the water volume
and increase salinity.

Industrial uses of water are so varied that no single salinity limit for gen-
eral industrial use can be given.  When high quality water is required, as
for boiler water, paper manufacture, or food processing, the increase in sa-
linity caused by irrigation agriculture in many cases impairs the suitability
of the river water.

Along many western rivers, water is reused by several irrigation districts
along the river.  Downstream projects must generally use more saline waters
than those available to upstream users.  Frequently, dilution of return flows
in the river reduces salinity sufficiently to permit repeated use of the riv-
er water.  However, it should be pointed out that downstream users are not
necessarily benefited by the volume of return flow waters added to the river
by upstream irrigation districts.  For example, if an upstream district has
used its irrigation water with maximum efficiency, the return flow will be as
concentrated as the particular crops grown in that district can make it with-
out damage to the crops.  Only by the growth of more salt-tolerant crops can
this return flow be utilized further.  If more salt-tolerant crops are not
grown in the downstream projects, the return of such intensively used water
to the river contributes no usable water to those downstream projects.  This
results because the salt carried in the return flow from the upstream dis-
trict must reappear in the same water upon reuse downstream.  In such cases,
downstream users are penalized because the additional volume of water with no
reuse potential must be carried through the project and drained.  If, on the
other hand, crops five to ten times as salt tolerant are grown downstream,
then a correspondingly higher salt concentration compared to the upstream re-
turn flow water can be tolerated.9
a
             Leon, "Rcuae o£ Ag^icultuAat WoA-tewoteAA fan lwu.gati.on
  Relation -to the. SaLt To£eAanc.e. ofi Otopi", Ptoc. , Symposium on Ag>u.ca£-
         aAtwxvtztA , Report Wo. J0, WcuteA Re^ouAcea Center,
     Catt^u-a, 1966, pp. 1&S-1BB.
                                      229

   294-046 O - 68 - 17

-------
Three choices are available for controlling natural situations marked by ex-
cess salinity, such as those occurring in the Red River and Arkansas River
Basins:  divert the flow of saline springs around the points where waters are
diverted for beneficial uses; create a head of water over the outlets of sa-
line springs to stop their flow;  and cut off by diversions or by surface seal-
ants the supply of percolating water.  The last procedure has a twofold ad-
vantage.  Not only is the salt source avoided, but the yield of fresh water
is sustained or increased.

Areas having concentrated deposits of salts in underlying strata could be
avoided by excluding them from irrigation developments.  Canal routes may be
selected to avoid such deposits or the canals can be lined.

Another possible source of salts  in return flows from irrigation districts is
highly saline shallow aquifers underlying an irrigated area.  A high water
table often develops in such areas because of restricted natural drainage,
and drainage systems usually are  needed to discharge the extra water applied
to satisfy the leaching requirement for the system.


                   INCREASING THE FLOW OF WATER WITH WATER
                         OF LOWER SALT CONCENTRATION
Water Harvest

The feasibility of increasing runoff from salt-affected areas by reducing in-
filtration, utilizing soil surface sealants,  offers one possibility of col-
lecting and releasing high quality water for  control of natural salt accumu-
lations.  Instead of having natural flow of poor quality from salt-contribut-
ing areas such as the extensive Mancos shale  deposits in Wyoming and Colorado,
the soil surface could be sealed using chemical or physical barriers that
cause essentially 100% runoff.  Sodium chloride to disperse the soil surface,
cut back asphalt emulsion as a soil sealant,  and plastic membranes have been
effective on small research plots.^°


Import of Water

Attention is being given to inter-basin transfer of water to reduce salt con-
centrations by dilution during critical periods of flow and to provide water
supplies.  Imported water would often permit  greater flexibility in regula-
tion of stream flows and diversions, particularly as related to the water re-
   Mt/e/16, L. E., "Wo&A HaAvutlng , " pieAentzd at Nevada W&teA
   17th, (Cawon Ccty, Nevaaa),  1962,  p.  /4.
                                     230

-------
quirements of irrigated agriculture, but only to the extent such water was
not used to provide additional irrigation.


Increasing Precipitation by Weather Modification

Weather modification to increase water supplies in arid regions has received
much research attention during the past decade.  Considerable knowledge has
been gained about the physics of cloud formation, and the potential contribu-
tion that atmospheric water may provide in  augmenting natural precipitation.
It appears that water supplies in mountainous areas might be increased 10% to
15% by seeding storms with silver iodide to increase snow accumulation and ul-
timate runoff.11

Proposed projects for major inter-basin transfers of water and the seeding of
clouds, however, are costly,  create  legal and political problems, and  involve
unmeasured ecological hazards.


               REDUCTION OF EVAPORATION AND TRANSPIRATION LOSS

Agriculturally nonbeneficial  use  of  water by phreatophytes or water-loving
plants growing adjacent  to river  channels,  canals  and drains amounts  to an
estimated  25 million acre-feet of water  annually in the  Western  States.12
Salt  cedar is the most  common phreatophyte  in  the  Southwest and  requires from
five  to nine acre-feet  of water per  acre  annually.   The  obvious  solution to
the problem is eradication,  a practical,  but costly, way to increase  river
flow  and  thereby reduce  salt concentration.

Another major  loss  of water  in the 17 Western States occurs by evaporation
from  freshwater  and inland saltwater bodies.  It is estimated  that about  23
million acre-feet  of water is lost annually through evaporation from  fresh-
water areas  and  another 17.5 million acre-feet is lost from inland saltwater
areas.13   The  flurry of research activity in the past decade  to explore the
effectiveness  of monomolecular films (hexadecanol and octadecanol)  on water
surfaces  to  reduce evaporation losses has almost ceased.  Though these chemi-
 cals  form an effective barrier to evaporation from water surfaces, weed and
 algae growth and wave action limit practical utility.  (Results indicate  that
 11 "flutcgotum o{ Ag/ix-cuttotoe Land*," Monograph No. H, 7967, pp. 45-46.

 12 Rokorton, T. W. , "The PhMcutapkyte. Pwbtvn," In Sympo&ium on Vkwato-
    pkyt&A, Pacific. Southwest lnteAage.nc.y Committee.,  J95*f pp. I-M.
    Gautka  OJaJUvi U. , "Evaporation and ltt> Reduc^con," Pioc. InieA
    tionat Seminal on BoiJi and. Watc* U£6£tzatuw, South. Vakota State.
    Co-Uege, Blocking*, South. Vakota, July  1962, p. 74.
                                       231

-------
evaporation can be reduced by as much as one-third under ideal conditions.)
Work is continuing^4, but the use of chemicals to suppress evaporation appears
to have limited application.  Exploratory work with floating plastic mem-
branes shows promise in reducing evaporation as well as controlling aquatic
growth.

It is estimated that one-fourth to one-third of all water diverted for irri-
gation purposes is lost in conveyance.  U. S. Bureau of Reclamation records
for 46 projects show that 15.7 million acre-feet of water is diverted annual-
ly.  That lost to seepage represents 3.9 million acre-feet and evaporation
losses from canals accounts for another 1.0% to 1.5% of the diverted water.
It is questionable whether canal seepage losses are actual losses, because of
return flow; recovery of such water for reuse is never complete, however, and
in many instances it carries a considerably heavier salt burden than the wa-
ter being transported.


              SEPARATION OF SALINE WATER FROM FRESHWATER FLOWS

Increases in salt concentration can be avoided by denying entry of saline
flows  (natural or from irrigation) to the river or by desalinizing before al-
lowing such waters to enter the river.  Either solution requires interception.
Complete interception is virtually impossible because of the percolation of
water to and through deep strata, but conceivably at least the effluents from
artificial drains can be collected.  A precondition is to maximize irrigation
efficiency/ so as to minimize the volume of saline water to be collected per
unit of salt.  Desalinization, while technically feasible, involves major
problems of brine disposal and - at this time - continues to be too expensive
for irrigation or other low value per unit water application uses.   (Table
111-22.)


Salt Sinks

Lagoons can be created or natural sinks such as the Salton Sea in southern
California can be utilized to confine the salt in collected waters.  Within
the lagoon, or sink, solar energy removes water from the brine.  The end re-
sult is an accumulation of dry salts that might themselves have economic val-
ue, or certain elements might be extracted from the brines from certain areas
during the drying process.
 14
   "RuzaJich-Engine.eAing Me#ioda and Ma£eAiatt>," Bateau o<$ Reodamatcon Re-
          Repo-tt, U. S. Pepattwiewt orf tke. IYVLVU.OI, 1963, pp. 1-137.
                                     232

-------
                                      TABLE  111-22

                 COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH EXISTING  DESALINIZATION PROCESSES
          Project
     Method
      Status
  Size
(Million
Gallons/
  Day)
 Cost/
 1,000
Gallons
MWD of Southern California    Distillation
San Diego


Israel


Pilot Study


Pilot Study
Distillation
Distillation
Ion Exchange
                   proposed
under construction
under study
experimental
Reverse Osmosis    experimental
                        150
  1.2
  100
           $0.22
$1.00
$0.29
         $0.40-1.00
                                 $0.25
Seaside.:  CompHad fiicm RfcAou/icea fan the. Fotu/te, and O^ce. o£ Sa&tne. WateA Repo/Lt&.

-------
Desalination

This process also could be combined with the salt sink concept.  The end re-
sult could then be the salvage of a portion of the water as freshwater, in
addition to the accumulation of quantities of dry salt.


Collecting Basins

These are used as temporary storage lagoons to concentrate saline waters.
The brine, concentrated by evaporation from pond water, might be discharged
during periods of peak flows.


Discharge Channels

Channels separate from the river might be constructed to transport highly sal-
inized return flows to the ocean.  An example of such a channel is the San
Joaquin Master Drain that has been approved for the San Joaquin Valley in
California.15
                         REDUCING EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

Obviously, the most complete and effective reduction in salinity induced by
the evapotranspiration process can be accomplished by reducing the number of
acres irrigated.  Limitation of salinity increases can be most effectively
promoted by curtailing irrigation in areas where salinity is a problem.  Ob-
viously the very mechanics of irrigation impose a self-regulating limitation
on the extension of irrigation.  A parcel of water can be effectively reused
only so many times, the degree of recycling depending in large measure on
initial TDS concentration.  At a certain level of use intensity, it must have
become too salty for additional application.  Thus, either the quantity or
the quality of a stream can become the critical limiting factor in irrigation
extension.  It is this phenomenon that leads to the growing desire for large
scale interbasin water transfers.

But there are other possibilities less radical than reducing irrigation to
reduce evapotranspiration by altering soil, water, and crop management prac-
tices.  In particular, application of systems engineering to the irrigated
agriculture of entire drainage basins should establish the trade-offs between
water use agricultural procedures that result in optimum water use/agricul-
tural production balances.  Selection of crops, timing of growth, careful use
   Hurf^mon, Elmo W., "Wa&tuuatufL £t4po4o£:  Son Joaqmin Valtzy,
   iua", JouAnat o£ IwUQOtion and VJuLinaQe. V
-------
of water, use of proper draining and transmission precautions, determination
of desired water uses, even desalination - there is a great variety of ele-
ments to be balanced, a great number of remedies to be applied before it is
necessary to resort to extensive irrigation restriction or large scale water
transfers.
               COST ESTIMATES  FOR  REMEDIAL  OR  CONTROL MEASURES

Costs of control measures  for  water quality related  to irrigation depend upon
the degree of improvement  required and are  determined by physical factors in
individual drainage basins.  It should be recognized that  the basic remedy
for degradation of surface waters  by  salinity  involves reducing, diluting, or
eliminating saline return  flows into  surface waters  that serve as water
sources for other users.   The  cost for alternative disposal methods will vary
greatly among specific projects.  Many of the  possible remedial measures are
not sufficiently developed to  be immediately applicable, and still others in-
volve market analysis beyond the scope of this report.
                                       235

-------
                                OIL POLLUTION
Spills of oil and other hazardous materials constitute a major pollution
threat to the water resources of the nation.  Both water and land-based fa-
cilities are sources of this danger to our streams and rivers.  Each source,
large or small, occasional or continuous, must be taken into account.


                                 THE PROBLEM

Much damage has already been done from accidental or indiscriminate spillage
of crude oil, petroleum and its by-products.  Such spills have contaminated
water supplies, killed fish and wildlife, created fire hazards, and destroyed
or reduced the usage of recreational areas.


Waterborne Sources

World-wide waterborne casualties dropped .2%, from 2,408 in 1966 to 2,353 in
1967.  (Table 111-23.)  Collisions were up, however, 18% from 922 to 1,090 in
this same period.

The Torrey Canyon disaster is still fresh in many people's memories.  This
vessel was carrying 119,000 tons of fuel oil when she grounded off the Cor-
nish coast of England in 1967.

There has been a steady progression in tanker capacity since World War II.
The T-2 tanker of World War II carried 16,000 tons of fuel oil.  In 1965 the
average tanker had a capacity of 27,000 tons.  New tankers delivered in 1966
averaged about 76,000 tons.  Tankers now on order include 60 that will exceed
150,000 tons, and some will reach over 300,000 tons.  Feasibility studies in-
dicate tankers of 500,000-ton-capacity may be built in the future.  As the
size of vessels increases, it is obvious that the magnitude of disaster-po-
tential due to accident also increases.

Foreign tankers or tankers under foreign registry are carrying an increasing
amount of U. S. oil.  Foreign ships carried about 20% of U. S. imports in
1945, 50% in 1951, and about 95% in 1964.  Aspects of tanker pollution which
are readily manageable under U. S. law may not be applicable to foreign ves-
sels.

Commerce in potential pollutants is quite active on the 25,000-mile network
of U. S. inland waterways.  An estimated 188 million tons of petroleum pro-
ducts and hazardous substances were moved on these waterways in 1964.  The
inland fleet involves smaller vessels but they use confined water areas where
spills spread quickly and endanger shore facilities and potable water sup-
plies.
                                     236

-------
                          TABLE  II1-23

                WORLDWIDE WATERBORNE  CASUALTIES,
                    U. S. VESSELS,  1966-1967

FY
1966
FY 1967
Number of Casualties
Vessels over 1,000 tons
Tank Ships and Tank Barges

Locations :
  U. S. Waters
  Elsewhere

  Total
Types of Casualties:
  Collisions
  Explosions
  Groundings with Damages
  Flounderings, Capsizings, Floodings

  Total
2,408
1,310
  470
                                               1,685
                                                 723

                                               2,408
  922
  175
  302
  315

1,714
                                                           2,353
                                                           1,343
                                                             499
            1,569
              784

            2,353
                                                           1,090
                                                             168
                                                             282
                                                             230

                                                           1,770
Source:  "Oil Potdtttcon," XJLpont to the.  PieA-Ld&nt by tke.
         tasiy o{ the. InteAiofi and the, Se.cA.et
-------
Gasoline Service Stations

About 350 million gallons of used motor oil must be disposed of annually by
more than 210,000 service stations operating in the U. S.  The stations were
once the key suppliers for used oils sent to re-refiners.  In the past five
years, however, reuse of oil has become an increasingly marginal business,
due to changes in labeling requirements and tax laws.  As the demand for used
oil has diminished, the oil has had to be disposed in other ways, often by
flushing into sewers.


Tank Cleaning Facilities

Most large shipyards have tank-cleaning facilities, but not all have the
equipment to treat oily wastes.


Oily Waste Industries

According to the Bureau of the Census, over 10,000 industrial plants are ma-
jor water users.  Many of these plants have significant quantities of oil in
their wastes.  Untreated or inadequately treated wastes from such sources
cause a continuing oil pollution problem in receiving waters.


Industrial Transfer and Storage

The United States has an extensive system of navigable internal water com-
merce routes as well as coastal sea lanes.  Extensive coastal and riverside
terminal facilities, now numbering about 6,000, have been developed for the
transfer of commodities between water and land.  Products arriving at, or de-
parting from, these waterside facilities may be handled several times.  Frag-
mentary information indicates that ruptured tanks, levee and dike failures,
pipeline breaks and human failures are leading causes of spills.  Retention
levees around storage tanks are generally designed only for safety and fire
prevention, not pollution control.


Pipelines

About 200,000 miles of pipelines, criss-crossing the United States, carried
more than one billion tons of oil and other hazardous substances in 1965.
Many sections of this network cross navigable waterways and reservoir sys-
tems, and the lines are heavily concentrated in populous areas where the de-
mand for petroleum is great.  This system exposes our watercourses, port
areas, and critical drinking water supply areas to oil pollution.  There are
many spills, accidental punctures, cracked welds, and leaks from corrosion
which require alertness and technical improvement.
                                     238

-------
Offshore Mining

Offshore oil and gas operations are being conducted in the Gulf of Mexico,
the Southern California coastal waters, Cook Inlet in Alaska, and areas of
the Great Lakes and the East Coast.  These operations are a pollution threat
due to potential blowouts of wells, dumping of oil-based drilling muds and
oil-soaked cuttings, and losses of oil in production, storage, and transport.
Pipelines laid across the ocean floor from the offshore platforms to on-shore
storage facilities also pose a pollution threat.  These lines are subjected
to severe stresses by storms, and may be ruptured by dragging ships' anchors.

The Gulf of Mexico is perhaps the best illustrative example of offshore drill-
ing operations.  Since 1960 about 6,000 wells have been sunk in the Gulf.
Many of the structures have been damaged or destroyed by hurricanes.  The in-
dustry is compelled to remove damaged structures, but in many instances it is
difficult to locate all the debris, and the larger pieces become a menace to
surface navigation.  As a result, shipwrecks, portions of storm-ranged struc-
tures, and other litter exist in profusion on the Gulf's continental shelf.
The increased hazard of marine casualty has correspondingly increased the
threat of pollution in these waters.


                            TREATING THE PROBLEM

We know the potential causes of oil pollutants; we have no estimate of the
magnitude of pollution from these sources.  Presently, there is little or no
basis for cost estimates to control oil pollution.  Recommendations for con-
trolling oil pollution therefore cannot be accompanied with relevant costs.

A considerable amount of oil pollution can be controlled or reduced by re-
organizing the standards and practices of the industry affected.  For exam-
ple, vessels can be built with smaller, stronger compartments in order to re-
duce the volume of oil spilled if collisions occur.  Regulations should be
developed on such factors as maximum speeds in critical areas, the mainte-
nance and employment of radars, and ship control by automatic pilot in crowd-
ed or confined waters.  Port safety advisory information should be available
to all vessels entering U. S. ports.  The Captains of the Port maintain cur-
rent information concerning location and availability of berths, anchorage,
navigational hazards, traffic conditions (such as major movements in prog-
ress) , harbor sanitation rules and facilities, and other features of port ac-
tivity which have a bearing upon safety and pollution control.  Contact with
the Captain of the Port should be mandatory for all vessels entering port.

More positive controls of the movements of hazardous cargo are necessary.
First, it is necessary to recommend expanded use of well-defined shipping
lanes.  This would be a major step toward reducing the risk of collisions.
Background in this field is already available in the use of approaches to
New York and Delaware Bay, and in the area of drilling platforms in the Gulf
                                      239

-------
of Mexico.  Secondly, research is needed on the feasibility of a shore-based
guidance system to promote safe movement of shipping.

Municipal sewage systems are able to cope with only limited quantities of
waste oil.  It is necessary either to expand these systems' facilities or to
reduce or eliminate the amount of waste oil entering municipal sewage plants.

Shipyards with tank cleaning facilities should be required to have either an
oil treatment installation or access to such an installation.

Oily-waste producing industries pose a more difficult problem because they
are so numerous.  However, some sort of collection system might well be ini-
tiated, with holding tanks to be emptied daily or weekly and taken to a cen-
tral re-refining area.

Regarding industrial transfer, storage and pipelines, some of the most bene-
ficial results would be obtained in expanding the training programs of per-
sonnel involved in this type of work.  Designs of retention levees and mate-
rials handling requirements should include provisions for pollution as well
as safety and fire prevention.

Care should be taken in laying pipelines to avoid critical drinking water
supply areas, watercourses, and port areas.  Where it is necessary to extend
pipelines in such areas, extra precautionary measures should be initiated.
These would include continuing surveillance of the lines, better material
specifications, corrosion control methods, and higher welding standards.
Automatic shutdown of pumps could be used in the event of pressure drops in
the lines.  Block valves could be installed at critical river crossings to
minimize drain-back should a break occur within the river segments.

It is also necessary to strengthen mining platforms in the Gulf of Mexico to
enable them to withstand violent storms.  A marking device setting forth the
locations of pipelines across the ocean floor would be desirable.  Establish-
ment of fairways is necessary.  The situation appears to require both im-
proved coordination among agencies which have responsibility for offshore in-
stallations, and the inclusion of effective pollution control provisions in
mineral leases.

Controlling oil pollution will be a monumental task during the next few years.
We have the technology but few of the facilities to measure the amount of pol-
lution by type of polluter.  Presently, there is technology to correct some
types of oil pollution, but physical facilities are lacking.  It will take
time and considerable research and education to incorporate these controls
in the economy.
                                     240

-------
                                 CONCLUSION
In contrast to pollution caused by municipal and industrial wastes, that re-
sulting from "other effluents" is unfixed and unspecific.  Some pollution con-
trol measures and their costs can be roughly defined for certain types of pol-
lutants.  For others, there are no data available.

The fundamental difficulty in developing control measures for "other efflu-
ents" is that, until recently, the necessity or opportunity for such controls
was relatively unrecognized.  Very little effort has been made to quantify
the pollutional effects, remedies, and control costs associated with such
problems.

Some types of pollution cannot be controlled with present technology; for
other types of pollution, controls are available but at considerable cost.
Where no other feasible controls are presently available, stringent use regu-
lations must be applied.

The "other effluent" area has no common denominator such as reduction in BOD
loads in the municipal sector.  Each type of waste may have a distinct method
of control; possibly none are interchangeable.

Finally, any attempt to forecast a five-year remedial program for  "other ef-
fluents" other than in terms of necessary research is difficult, if not im-
possible, at this time.  Currently, it is necessary to make the best judgment
possible with the technology at hand and to apply the results of available
research.  Where a pollutant is particularly harmful, and no control technol-
ogy is available, it may be necessary to curb this particular activity.
                                      241

-------
                                 APPENDIX  I

                                BIBLIOGRAPHY
Atomic Energy Commission.   Bonnevilie Power Administration;  the Portland
     General Electric Co.  and the Washington Water Power Co.  Reviews,  Re-
     ports and Discussions.

Bernstein, Leon.  "Reuse of Agricultural Wastewaters for Irrigation in  Rela-
     tion to the Salt Tolerance of  Crops."  Prgceedings, Symposium on Agri-
     cultural Wastewaters, Report No. 10.  Water Resources Center.  Univer-
     sity of California.  1966.

Bullard, W. E.  "National Program for Prevention and Control of Pollution
     From Mine Drainage."   Unpublished Manuscript.  April 14, 1967.

Clark, F. W.  The Composition of Rivers and Waters of the United States.
     USGS Professional Paper 135.  1924.

Daly, R. F. and A. C. Egbert.  A Look Ahead for Food and Agriculture.  USDA.
     ERS.  ERS-277.  Washington, D. C.  February 1966.

DeGreer, Myron W.  "Chlorides Control - Arkansas - Red Basins."  Meeting of
     the American Society of Civil  Engineers and International Committee on
     Irrigation, Drainage, and Flood Control.  El Paso, Texas.  December 2,
     1964.

Eliassen, Rolf.  "Saline Water Conversion."  Journal American Water Works
     Association.  October 1966.

Evans, R. K.  "Nuclear Power Reactors."  (A Special Report.)  Reprinted from
     Power.  March 1965.

Garstka, Walter U.  "Evaporation and Its Reduction."  Proceedings Internation-
     al Seminar on Soil and Water Utilization.  South Dakota State College.
     Brookings, South Dakota.  July 1962.

House Committee Print No.  18.  Acid Mine Drainage.  U. S. Government Printing
     Office.  Washington,  D. C.  April 19, 1962.

Howard, C. A.  "Irrigation Runoff."  Journal American Water Works Association.
     November 1953.
                                                       4
Huffman, Elmo W.  "Wastewater Disposal:  San Joaquin Valley, California."
     Journal of Irrigation and Drainage.  Division Proceedings.  ASCE.   92
      (IR-2.)  1966.
                                     242

-------
Lammering, M. W.  Uranium Milling Industry; Nuclear Electrical Power Industry.
     (Drafts, reports in mimeograph, Technical Advisory and Investigations
     Branch, Division of Technical Services, FWPCA.)

McNeal, B. L. and C. A. Bower.  "Evaporates in Soils."  Water of Rocks  and
     Minerals in Soil Genesis, Chapter 8.  Volume 1 of the Encyclopedia of
     Soil Science.

Myers, L. E.  "Water Harvesting."  Presented at the 17th Nevada Water Confer-
     ence.  Carson City, Nevada.  1962.

National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.  Wa_ste_ Management
     and Control.  Publication 1400.  Washington, D. C.  1966.

Presidents Science Advisory Committee, The White House.  Restoring The  Quality
     of Our Environment.  Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel.   Novem-
     ber 1965.

A Report to the President by the Secretary of the Interior.  A__Survey of Strip
     and Surface Mining in the United States.   (Draft-Impact p. 20.)

Robinson, T. W.  "The Phreatophyte Problem."  In Symposium on Phreatophytes.
     Pacific Southwest Interagency Committee.  1958.

Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Transportation.  Oil Pollution.
     A Report to the President.  Unpublished Report dated January 1968.

Traylor, Duane.  "Cattle Feedlot Pollution."  Unpublished Manuscript.  U. S.
     Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
     tion.  1966.

Tsivoglou, E. C. and W. W. Towne.  "Sources of Radioactive Water Pollutants."
     Reprinted from Sewage and Industrial Wastes.  February 1957.

U. S. Department of Agriculture.   (Especially the in-house reports from the
     Soil Conservation Service and the Agricultural Research Service.)
     November 1967.

U. S. Department of Agriculture.  Irrigation of Agricultural Lands.  Mono-
     graph No. 11.  1967.  Pages 45-46.

           Basic Statistics of the National Inventory of Soil and Water Con-
     servation Needs.   Statistical Bulletin No. 317.  1962.

         .  U. S. Census of  Agriculture.  1959 and 1964.
U. S. Department of  the  Interior, Geological Survey.  Water Resources of the
     Upper Colorado  River Basin.  Professional Paper 441.
                                      243

-------
           Quality of Water;   Colorado River Basin.  Progress Report No. 3.
     (FWPCA records on open file.)   January 1967.

        .   Surface Mining and Our Environment.  1967.
        .   Wastes From Watercraft.  Senate Document No. 48.   Federal Water
     Pollution Control Administration.   August 31, 1967.

    	.   "Research-Engineering Methods and Materials."  Bureau of Reclama-
     tion Research Report.   1963.  Pages 1-137.

           Handbook of Pollution Control Costs in Mine Drainage Management.
     Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.  December 1966.

Wadleigh, C. H.  "Wastes in Relation to Agriculture."  U. S. Department of
     Agriculture.  Agricultural Research Service.  Unpublished Manuscript.
     April 1967,

Walton, Graham.  "Agricultural Wastewater - Treatment and Recycling for Agri-
     cultural Use."  Technical Advisory and Investigating Activities.  Tech-
     nical Services Program.  U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
     fare.  Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,  R. A. Taft Sani-
     tary Engineering Center.  Cincinnati, Ohio.

Willrich, Mason.  "International Control for Civil Nuclear Power."  Bulletin
     of the Atomic Scientists.  March 1967.
                                     244
                                              U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1968 O - 294-046

-------