U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Ter.hnical Information Service
PB-248 588
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE PROMULGATED INTERIM
PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
ENERGY RESOURCES COMPANY, INCORPORATED
PREPARED FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OCTOBER 1975
-------
KEEP UP TO DATE
Between the time you ordered this report—
which is only one of the hundreds of thou-
sands in the NTIS information collection avail-
able to you—and the time you are reading
this message, several new reports relevant to
your interests probably have entered the col-
lection.
Subscribe to the Weekly Government
Abstracts series that will bring you sum-
maries of new reports as soon as they are
received by NTIS from the originators of the
research. The WGA's are an NTIS weekly
newsletter service covering the most recent
research findings in 25 areas of industrial,
technological, and sociological interest—
invaluable information for executives and
professionals who must keep up to date.
The executive and professional informa-
tion service provided by NTIS in the Weekly
Government Abstracts newsletters wilt give
you thorough and comprehensive coverage
of government-conducted or sponsored re-
search activities. And you'll get this impor-
tant information within two weeks of the time
it's released by originating agencies.
WGA newsletters are computer produced
and electronically photocomposed to slash
the time gap between the release of a report
and its availability. You can learn about
technical innovations immediately—and use
them in the most meaningful and productive
ways possible for your organization. Please
request NT1S-PR-205/PCW for more infor-
mation.
The weekly newsletter series will keep you
current. But learn what you have missed In
the past by ordering a computer NTISearch
of all the research reports in your area of
interest, dating as far back as 1964, if you
wish. Please request NTIS-PR-186/PCN for
more Information.
WRITE: Managing Editor
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Keep Up To Date With SRIM
SRIM (Selected Research in Microfiche)
provides you with regular, automatic distri-
bution of the complete texts of NTIS research
reports only in the subject areas you select.
SRIM covers almost all Government re-
search reports by subject area and/or the
originating Federal or local government
agency. You may subscribe by any category
or subcategory of our WGA (Weekly Govern-
ment Abstracts) or Government Reports
Announcements and Index categories, or to
the reports issued by a particular agency
such as the Department of Defense, Federal
Energy Administration, or Environmental
Protection Agency. Other options that will
give you greater selectivity are available on
request.
The cost of SRIM service is only
domestic (60£ foreign) for each complete
microflched report. Your SRIM service begins
as soon as your order is received and proc-
essed and you will receive biweekly ship-
ments thereafter. If you wish, your service
will be backdated to furnish you microfiche
of reports issued: earlier.
Because of contractual arrangements with
several Special Technology Groups, not all
NTIS reports are distributed in the SRIM
program. You will receive a notice in your
microfiche shipments identifying the excep-
tionally priced reports not available through
SRIM.
A deposit account with NTIS is required
before mis service can be initiated. If you
have specific questions concerning this serv-
ice, please call (703) 451-1558, or write NTIS,
attention SRIM Product Manager.
This information product distributed by
US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
EPA-570/9-75-003
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE
PROMULGATED INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
CONTRACTJ^-01-2865
SUBMITTED TO:
U,S, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER SUPPLY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
SUBMITTED BY:
ENERGY RESOURCES CO. INC,
185 ALEWIFE BROOK PARKWAY
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02138
(617) 661-3111
OCTOBER 1975
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please rend rns!r.iicti<>n? on the rcrrrsc br.''r<: competing)
1. HEPORT NO.
EPA-570/9-75-003
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
2.
Economic Evaluation of the Promulgated
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
7. AUTHOR(S)
Dr. Joel Alpert, Donald Harrington
3. '• .RFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Energy Resources Co. Inc.
185 Alewife Brook Parkway
Cambridge, MA 02138
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
10/75 date of approval
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION-REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA. No. 68-01-2865
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Supply
Waterside Mall-401 M. Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
, TYPE OF I
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
An evaluation was performed of the Promulgated Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations. The results of this study indicate that the
annual costs for water monitoring for community systems will be
between $12 million and $25 million, while the costs for water
monitoring for non-community systems will be between $4.5 million and
$9.5 million. Between $1.1 billion and $1.8 billion will be required
to build additional treatment facilities for removing contaminants
from the nation's drinking waters. It will cost $263 million per year
for operation and maintenance of these required facilities. The annual
per capita costs for those systems which will require treatment range
from $240 for a system serving 25 people and treating for heavy metal
removal to under $0.25 per year for systems serving over 100,000 people
requiring disinfection. A constraint analysis examined the broad areas
of chemicals and supplies, manpower, laboratories, and engineering and
construction services.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS .
DESCRIPTORS
Drinking Water
Drinking Water Regulations
Public Water Supply
Water Monitoring Costs
Water Treatment Costs
Water Treatment Methods and
Proces ses
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
PRICES SUBJECT T6 CHANCE
I
1.9. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)'
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tillspage)
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
This report has been reviewed by EPA, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the
Project Officers, Robert Brown of the Office of Water
Supply and Gail Goad of the Economic Analysis Division,
Office of Planning and Evaluation, in directing the
research presented herein. The authors are especially
grateful for the Project Officers' active participation
in the preparation of the Executive Summary.
This report was researched and written by Energy
Resources Company Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-01-2865.
Dr. Joel Alpert served as Project Director. This report
was written by Dr. Alpert and Donald Harrington. Editors
on the project were Dr. Valerie Bennett, Charline Lake,
and Beatrice Pitzpatrick. Typing was coordinated by
Lynn Schwartz.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
1.1 National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations
1.2 The Water Supply Industry
1.3 Costs to Meet the Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations
1.3.1 Monitoring Costs
1.3.2 Treatment Costs
1.4 Economic Impact of the Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations
1.4.1 Water Supply Economics
1.4.2 Per Capita Costs
1.4.3 Impact Analysis
1.5 Constraints to Implementation of the
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
1.6 Limits of the Analysis
1.7 Energy Use
1
1
2
5
5
8
10
12
14
15
19
21
21
CHAPTER TWO INTRODUCTION
2.0
2.1
2.2
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
Promulgated Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations
Study Objective
23
24
25
CHAPTER THREE THE WATER SUPPLY INDUSTRY
3.0 General Description
3.1 Community Water Systems
3.1.1 Production
3.1.2 Organization
3.2 Public Non-Community Water Supply Systems
27
28
29
29
31
-it'
-------
Pai
CHAPTER POUR COSTS OF COMPLIANCE
4.0 Introduction
4.1 Routine Monitoring Costs
4.1.1 Community Water Systems
4.1.2 Non-Community Water Systems
4.2 Special Monitoring Costs Due to Exceeding
Maximum Contaminant Level
4.2.1 Community Water Systems
4.2.2 Non-Community Water Systems
4.3 Total Monitoring Costs
4.4 Water Quality Data
4.4.1 Expansion Factors
4.5 Treatment Costs Incurred by Community
Water Systems
4.6 National Treatment Costs
4.7 Treatment Costs for Public Non-Community
Systems
4.8 Sensitivity of Treatment Costs
39
39
39
48
48
48
52
52
60
62
>5
68
70
73
CHAPTER FIVE FEASIBILITY OF FINANCING COSTS
5.0
5.1
5-2
5-2.1
5.2.2
5.3
5.3.1
5.3-2
5.3-3
5-3.4
5-3.5
Introduction
Present Industry Financial Structure
Characteristics of Demand for Water
Trends in Demand
Elasticity of Demand
Distribution of Costs
General
Annual Monitoring Costs
Annual Capital Costs
Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
Total Annual Costs
79
79
85
85
85
90
90
90
90
92
92
-ii-
-------
CHAPTER SIX
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
CHAPTER SEVEN
7.0
7.1
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.1.3
7.2
7.2.1
7.2.2
7.2.3
7-3
CHAPTER EIGHT
8.0
8.1
8.2
8.3
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Introduction
Per Capita Monitoring Cost Impacts
Treatment Cost Impacts
Macroeconomic Effects
Energy Use
CONSTRAINTS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
Introduction
Chemical Constraints
Coagulation
Disinfection
Projections
Manpower Constraints
General
Manpower Availability
Personnel Required to Implement Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Laboratory Constraints
LIMITS OF THE ANALYSIS
Introduction
Assumptions in Developing Monitoring
Costs
Assumptions in Developing Treatment Costs
Assumptions Inherent in the Constraint
97
97
97
110
110
111
111
112
117
117
118
118
120
120
126
129
129
130
134
8.11
Analysis
Other Assumptions
135
-ill-
-------
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX P
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H
NATIONAL INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING
WATER REGULATIONS
DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC NON-COMMUNITY
SYSTEMS EY USE CATEGORY
QUESTIONNAIRE TO STATE AGENCIES WITH
RESPONSIBILITY FOR DRINKING WATER
REGULATIONS
CONTAMINANT REMOVAL BY CONVENTIONAL
WATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
DATA BASE AND COST ESTIMATES OF WATER
TREATMENT
TREATMENT COSTS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONTAMINANTS
BY POPULATION SERVED AND SOURCE OF WATER
TREATMENT, O&M, AND ANNUALIZED COSTS
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM QUESTIONNAIRE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
-iv-
-------
LIST OP TABLES
CHAPTER ONE
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-9
1-10
1-11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Distribution of Community Water Systems
Treatment Processes Employed by Community
Water Systems
Community Water Supply Use by Category
Monitoring Requirements for Community
Supplies
Monitoring Requirements for Non-Community
Supplies
Total Monitoring Costs Mandated by the
Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations
National Costs of Treating Contaminants
in Drinking Water
Estimated Total Annual Costs of Imple-
menting the Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Public Water Systems
Annual Monitoring Costs Per Person Served
Versus System Size and Type for Community
Water Systems
Distribution of Costs for Those Systems
Needing Treatment by System Category
Annual Per Capita and Monitoring Cost
Ranges for Pour Size Categories
3
H
5
6
7
9
11
12
16
17
CHAPTER TWO
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER THREE THE WATER SUPPLY INDUSTRY
3-1
3-2
Number of Water Systems and Daily
Production for Seven Production
Categories
Number of Water Systems and Daily
Production by Size and Ownership
30
32
-v-
-------
Page
3-3 Estimated Number of Public Non-Community 3*1
Water Systems by State
3-4 Source of Water for II Studies of Public 35
Non-Community Water Systems
3-5 Number of Non-Community Systems by Source 37
CHAPTER FOUR COSTS OF COMPLIANCE
4-1 Summary of Routine Monitoring Requirements 40
(Except Turbidity)
4-2 Distribution of Community Water Systems 42
by Population Class and Source of Water
4-3 Analysis of Drinking Water Samples: 43
Typical Charges by Commercial and EPA
Laboratories for Analyses Specified in
the Regulations
4-4 Costs of Routine Monitoring for the 44
Community Water Systems
4-5 Interstate Carrier Water Systems 45
Which are Also Community Water Systems
4-6 Present Costs for Coliform Monitoring of 4?
Interstate Carrier Water Systems
4-7 Number of Non-Community Water Systems by 49
Source
4-8 Routine Monitoring Costs for Non-Community 50
Water Systems
4-9 Monitoring Requirements When Maximum 51
Contaminant Level is Exceeded
4-10 Summary of Water Quality Data Available 53
for Community Water Systems
4-11 Number of Community Water Systems Which 54
Exceeded One or More Maximum Contaminant
Level Broken Down by Population Served
4-12 Special Monitoring Costs for Community 55
Water Systems Which Exceeded a Maximum
Contaminant Level
4-13 Number of Public Non-Community Water 56
Systems Which Exceeded One or More Maximum
Contaminant Levels
-vi-
-------
4-14 Special Monitoring Costs of Non-Community
Water Systems Which Exceeded a Maximum
Contaminant Level
4-15 Total Monitoring Costs Mandated by the 59
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
4-16 Percent of Community Water Systems Which 61
Utilize Each of Four Sources of Water for
Five Studies
4-17 Breakdown of 1969 CWSS Study by Population 63
Served and Source of Water
4-18 Breakdown of EPA Community Water Inventory 64
by Population Served and Source of Water
4-19 Model Systems Capital Treatment Costs for 69
Nine Population Served Groups
4-20 National Costs of Treating Contaminants 71
in Drinking Water Assuming Treatment of
Average Daily Production
4-21 Labor and Construction Indices by EPA 74
Region
4-22 Water Production Per Capita Per Day for 76
122 Private Water Companies
4-23 National Cost Range for Treatment of 77
Contaminants in Drinking Water
CHAPTER FIVE FEASIBILITY OF FINANCING COSTS
5-1 Financial Structure of Investor-Owned 80
Water Systems and Related Services
5-2 Projections of Public Water System 86
Requirements
5-3 The Relationship Between Price Change and 88
Demand as a Function of Elasticity
5-4 The Relationship Between Price Change and 89
Revenue as a Function of Elasticity
5-5 Annual Monitoring Costs 91
5-6 Total Annual Capital Expenditures by 93
Size of System
5-7 Total Annual O&M Expenditures by Size 94
of System
5-8 Total Annualized Total Expenditures by 96
Size of System
-vii-
-------
CHAPTER SIX
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-8
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Annual Monitoring Costs Per Person Served
Versus System Size and Type for Community
Water Systems
Distribution of Costs for Those Systems
Needing Treatment by System Category
Annual Per Capita and Monitoring Cost
Ranges for Pour Size Categories
Probability of Needing Treatment
Combinations by System Size
Price Impacts of Chlorination and
Clarification Treatments Based on Present
Average Distribution of Total Costs
Capital and O&M Treatment Costs for Small
Water Systems Using Current Average Daily
Production Rates
Annual Per Capita Treatment Costs and
Treatment Costs per 1,000 Gallons for
Small Systems
Breakdown of National Costs of Treating
Contaminants in Drinking Water by
Treatment Type and Population Served
Groups
98
99
102
103
105
106
109
CHAPTER SEVEN
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
CONSTRAINTS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
Constraint Analysis of Key Water Treatment 113
Chemicals and Supplies
Number of Community Systems Which Will 114
Need Treatment to Meet Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations
Water and Wastewater Treatment Chemicals 119
Microbiological Staffing Requirements 122
Laboratory Manpower Requirements — 123
Nationwide Monitoring for Community and
Non-Community Water Systems
Personnel Required to Operate New and 124
Retrofit Process Equipment
-viii-
-------
7-7 Summary of Manpower Required to Implement K:
the Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations
7-8 Lab Certification by State 1?7
7-9 Present Coliform Monitoring to Meet 128
Effluent Guideline Limitation Regulations
CHAPTER EIGHT LIMITS OF THE ANALYSIS
8-1 Comparison of Turbidity Control Costs 131
Per System in Each of Nine Population
Served Categories
8-2 Capital and O&M Treatment Costs for Small 133
Water Systems Using Current Average Daily
Production Rates
8-3 Ion Exchange and Clarification Costs 13a
Assigned to Small Community Systems
8-4 Per Capita Annualized Capital Costs for 136
a System Serving 100 People
8-5 Per Capita Annualized Capital Costs for 137
a System Serving 5,000 People
8-6 Per Capita Annualized Capital Costs for 138
a System Serving 100,000 People
-ix-
-------
LIST OP FIGURES
CHAPTER THREE THE WATER SUPPLY INDUSTRY
3-1
Public Water Utility Needs for the
Years 1900 to 1980
28
CHAPTER POUR COSTS OF COMPLIANCE
4-1
4-2
Percentages of Total Monitoring Costs in
the United States Versus the Percentages
of Population Served and the Percentages
of the Water Supply Systems
Percentages of Population Served by
Community Water Systems Versus Percentages
of Total Treatment Costs
72
CHAPTER FIVE
5-1
FEASIBILITY OF FINANCING COSTS
Unit Price of Water in
-------
CHAPTER ONE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 Safe Drinking Water Act of 197^
The objective of the Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-
523) is to establish standards which will provide for safe
drinking water supplies throughout the United States. To
achieve this objective the Congress authorized the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to establish national drinking
water regulations. In addition, the Act provides a mechanism
for the individual states to assume the primary responsibility
for enforcing the regulations, providing general supervisory
aid to the public water systems, and inspecting public water
supplies.
The purpose of the legislation is to assure that water
supply systems serving the public meet minimum national
standards for the protection of public health. Prior to
passage of the Act, the Environmental Protection Agency was
authorized to prescribe Federal drinking water standards
applicable only to water supplies used by interstate carriers.
Furthermore, these standards could only be enforced with
respect to contaminants capable of causing communicable
diseases. In contrast, the Safe Drinking Water Act authorized
the Environmental Protection Agency to establish regulations
to (1) protect public water systems from all harmful contami-
nants; (2) protect underground sources of drinking water;
and (3) promote a Joint Federal-State system for assuring
compliance with these regulations.
1.1 National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
The EPA published its Proposed National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations in the Federal Register, March 14,
1975. The EPA held four public hearings and received several
thousand pages of public comments on the proposed regulations.
Based upon its review of the comments, the EPA revised the
proposed regulations for final publication. The major pro-
visions of the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations are:
-1-
-------
1. Maximum contaminant levels for certain chemical,
biological, and physical contaminants are
established;
2. Monitoring frequencies to determine that
contaminant levels assure compliance are
established;
3. A methodology to notify consumers of variances,
exemptions, and non-compliance with standards
is set forth.
1.2 The Water Supply Industry
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 covers public water
systems that regularly serve an average of 25 people or have
at a minimum 15 service connections. Systems that serve the
travelling public are considered public water systems under
the Act. EPA currently estimates that there are 2*10,000
public water systems that will be subject to the regulatory
requirements developed under the Act.
The Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations cate-
gorize public systems as community and non-community systems.
A community system is defined as a public system which
serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round
residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents,
The non-community system category includes those systems
which serve a transient population. At the present time the
distribution between the two classes of public systems is
estimated as follows:
Community Systems 40,000
Non-Community Systems 200,000
TOTAL 240,000
Based on the data contained in the ongoing EPA Inventory
of Public Water Supplies, there are approximately 177 million
persons served by community water systems. Table 1-1 shows
the distribution of community systems by population served.
Most of the community water systems are small in size. Over
90 percent of the nation's supplies are under the 10,000
population served category but they provide water to less
than 25 percent of the total population served by community
systems.
-2-
-------
TABLE 1-1
DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
SYSTEM SIZE
(PERSONS
SERVED)
NUMBER OP
WATER SYSTEMS
TOTAL
POPULATION
SERVED
(OOO's)
PERCENT OP TOTAL
POPULATION
SERVED
25-99
100-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000
and over
7,008
30,150
2,599
243
420
36,816
61,423
78,800
0.2
20.8
34.6
44.4
TOTAL
40,000
177,459
100.0
Source: EPA Inventory of Public Water Supplies (July
1975)r
While all public systems do not treat all of the water
they supply to their customers, they do employ a variety of
treatment processes. The current EPA Inventory of Public
Water Supplies indicates that the most prevalent treatment
processes are used to control bacteriological contamination
and turbidity. The percentage of systems employing the
various treatment processes is presented in Table 1-2.
Community water systems may be publicly or privately
owned. The majority, 58 percent, of the 40,000 community
water supplies are publicly-owned and these systems supply
88 percent of the total drinking water production.
As indicated earlier, it is estimated that there are
approximately 200,000 public non-community water systems.
Most of these systems are privately-owned. Non-community
systems are found at service stations, motels, restaurants,
rest areas, campgrounds, state parks, beaches, national
parks, national forests, dams, reservoirs, and other locations
frequented by the travelling public. Some schools and
industries are also included in this category. Data on
these systems are very sparse, and only rough cost estimates
can be made.
-3-
-------
TABLE 1-2
TREATMENT PROCESSES EMPLOYED BY
COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
TREATMENT PERCENTa
Aeration 6.6
Preehlorlnatlon 7.8
Coagulation 11.3
Sedimentation 8.9
Filtration 12.8
Softening 4.9
Taste and Odor Control 3.4
Iron Removal 5.7
Ammoniation 0.9
Fluoride Adjustment 8.5
Disinfection 35.2
Percentages do not total 100 percent
since many systems have multiple treatments,
or no treatment.
Source: EPA Inventory of Public Water
Supplies (July 1975).
The portion of the water supply industry considered here
Includes only those systems which primarily supply water for
residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal use. An
approximate allocation of water use by various categories
of users is shown in Table 1-3. As might be expected most
of the water delivered, 63 percent, is for residential
purposes. The second largest use, industrial, consumes 21
percent.
-M-
-------
TABLE 1-3
COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY USE BY CATEGORY
TYPE OP USE PERCENTAGE OP TOTAL
Residential 63
Commercial 11
Industrial 21
Municipal 5
TOTAL 100
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
Data (1972).
1.3 Costs to Meet the Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations
1.3.1 Monitoring Costs
The implementation of the Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations will require all public water systems to initiate
a monitoring program to determine that the maximum contami-
nant level requirements of the regulations are not exceeded
in finished drinking water. The costs associated with this
monitoring activity are a function of system size, water
source, and classification (community vs. non-community).
There are two classes of monitoring costs, routine
monitoring costs and non-compliance monitoring costs, imposed
by the interim regulations. Routine monitoring costs are
those incurred in meeting the sampling requirements of the
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, to determine
compliance with the regulations. Non-compliance monitoring
costs are those which are incurred when additional sampling
must be made if routine monitoring results indicate that a
system is not in compliance with one or more maximum con-
taminant level.
-5-
-------
The Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations call for
the monitoring of four classes of contamination: inorganic,
organic, microbiological, and turbidity. The routine
monitoring frequencies for community and non-community
systems are shown in Tables 1-4 and 1-5.
TABLE 1-4
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMUNITY SUPPLIES
(Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations)
DEADLINE FOR INITIAL
COMPONENT
Coliform
Inorganic
Chemicals
SYSTEM
TYPE
Ground &
Surface
Surface
Ground
SAMPLING AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE
1 Month
1 Year
2 Years
TEST
FREQUENCY
Monthlya
Annually
Every thre
Organic
Chemicals
Turbidity
Surface
Ground
Surface
1 Year
As specified by
by the State
1 Day
years
As specified
by the State
Daily
aSupplies must collect minimum required samples during
each month after effective date. The number of samples
varies with the system size from 1 to 500 samples per month.
The State may reduce the sampling frequency based on a
sanitary survey of a system that serves less than 1,000
persons from a groundwater source, except that in no case
shall it be reduced to less than one per quarter.
bThe analyses shall be repeated at intervals specified
by the State but in no event less frequently than at three-
year intervals.
-6-
-------
TABLE 1-5
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-COMMUNITY SUPPLIES
(Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations)
COMPONENT
SYSTEM
TYPE
DEADLINE FOR INITIAL
SAMPLING AFTER
EFFECTIVE DATE
TEST
FREQUENCY
Coliform
Surface &
Ground
Inorganic Surface &
Chemicals- Ground
Nitrates Only
Turbidity
Surface
2 Years
2 Years
2 Years
a
Quarterly
Determined
by the State
Daily
May be modified by the State based on Sanitary Survey.
In developing routine monitoring costs, the number of
systems requiring routine monitoring is fixed by the number
of ground- and surface-water supply systems in each discrete
size range and the monitoring frequency prescribed by the
regulations. Therefore, the only variable in the cost
equation is the price per analysis. This price will depend
on the institutional arrangements made by each system for
analytical services. At the present time some water supplies
perform their own analyses, while others depend on state
health agencies or private commercial laboratories. The
unit analytical costs developed for the monitoring cost
estimates are as follows:
ANALYSIS
Coliform
Complete Inorganic
Complete Organic
COST RANGE ($)
5-10
70 - 170
150 - 260
The lower costs are based on costs incurred in EPA
laboratories, while the higher costs are based on commercial
laboratory estimates.
-7-
-------
In developing non-compliance monitoring costs, the
critical variable is the number of additional samples
required when a system exceeds a maximum contaminant level
(MCL). The interim regulations require a minimum of two
check samples when the coliform MCL is exceeded and at least
three repeat samples when an inorganic or organic MCL is
exceeded. In each instance the supplier must continue the
sampling procedure until two consecutive samples show that
the MCL is not exceeded. For coliform violations it is
expected that from two to five special analyses may be
needed. For organic and inorganic violations it is expected
that from three to six special analyses may be necessary.
The estimated costs for routine and special monitoring
for public 'water systems are summarized in Table 1-6. In
the first year of implementation the annual costs are expected
to fall in a range of $14 million to $30 million. By the
end of the third year when the non-community systems begin
to monitor, the annual monitoring costs will rise to a range
of $17 million to $36 million. These monitoring cost
estimates do not reflect the costs of existing monitoring
programs. Current routine monitoring is estimated at approxi-
mately $10 million to $17 million annually.
1.3.2 Treatment Costs
Once the monitoring program is initiated, some systems
will find that they exceed one or more maximum contaminant
levels (MCL). These systems will then be faced with an
additional cost in order to meet the required MCL. There
are several alternative routes which a system can pursue in
order to comply with the regulations. Some of the alter-
natives include:
1. Installing treatment facilities capable of
reducing the MCL to an acceptable level;
2. Developing a new source of supply of better
quality;
3. Purchasing better quality water from another
water utility; or
4. Merging the system with one or more adjoining
systems which have a higher quality supply.
If none of the above is feasible, a system can apply
for a variance or exemption to the MCL under the provisions
-8-
-------
I
vo
TABLE 1-6
TOTAL MONITORING COSTS MANDATED BY THE
INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
($ million)
FIRST YEAR SECOND YEAR THIRD YEAR
Costs of Routine Monitoring for 13-3 - 27.3 12.7 - 26.3 12.3 - 25-5
the 40,000 Community Systemsa
Monitoring Due to Violations of
MCL for 40,000 Community Systems
i) Coliform Violation Monitoring 0.5 - 2.0
f ii) Inorganic Violation Monitoring 0.01 - 0.3 0.01 - 0-3
Routine Monitoring Costs for 4.5 - 9-4
the 200,000 Non-Community Systemsb
Monitoring Due to Violations of 0.3-0.8
MCL for 200,000 Non-Community Systems0
TOTAL 14 - 30 13 - 27 17 - 36
aAnnual costs beginning the first year after implementation of the regulations,
Annual costs beginning the third year after implementation of the regulations,
°Total monitoring costs due to violations spread over a 2-year period.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
-------
of the Interim primary regulations. Therefore, the costs
incurred by a water supply in reducing the concentration of
a contaminant to an acceptable level are site specific and
will depend on such factors as treatment facilities available,
age of system, proximity of other suppliers, source of
water, and many other Interrelated problems.
However, in projecting national costs for treatment the
option of installing treatment facilities was assumed to be
the method systems would select to provide safe drinking
water.
The following basic assumptions are implicit in developing
costs for the treatment options:
1. Surface water systems not presently clarifying
will Install some form of filtration;
2. Approximately 30 percent of the community
water systems not presently disinfecting
will install chlorination units;
3. Advanced treatment is necessary to remove
1 inorganics;
4. Estimates of the number of MCL violations were
based on the 1969 Community Water Supply Study,
except for mercury. Mercury violations were
based on recent EPA studies.
The national treatment costs for public water systems
are summarized in Table 1-7. The majority of costs, If all
systems elect to treat for contaminant violations, will be
incurred in order to meet the turbidity and inorganic require-
ments of the Interim regulations. Ranges were developed for
capital costs only. This range is based on making two
assumptions for daily flow. If a system were required to
install treatment, it would have to consider sizing the new
components to reflect average daily flow conditions or
maximum daily flow conditions in cases where system storage
is not adequate. Whatever sizing option a system selected,
it is unlikely that significant additional operation and
maintenance expenses would result.
1.4 Economic Impact of the Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations
The expenditures required to comply with the interim
primary regulations will have an impact on all water users
-10-
-------
TABLE 1-7
NATIONAL COSTS OP TREATING CONTAMINANTS IN DRINKING WATER
($ million)
TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
Clarification
Chlorination
Ion Exchange
Activated Alumina
pH Control
SUBTOTAL
NON-COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
Clarification
Chlorination
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
CONTAMINANT
Turbidity
Coliform
Ba, Cr, Cd, NO-,,
Hg, Se ^
As, Fluoride
Pb
Turbidity
Coliform
CAPITAL
379 -
17 -
619 -
31 -
o _
1,049 -
10
14
24
1,073 -
COSTS
683
27
997
53
4
1,764
1,788
ANNUAL O&M
189
7
52
11
0.1
259
1
3
i\
263
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
-------
served by public water supplies covered by the Safe Drinking
Water Act. All persons served by these systems will feel
the impact of monitoring costs to some extent. However, the
most noticeable impact of the regulations will be on users
of public water systems that do not meet the MCL requirements
of the regulations.
An estimate of the total annual costs of capital,
operation and maintenance, and monitoring necessary to
comply with the regulations is shown in Table 1-8.
TABLE 1-8
ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING THE
INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
FOR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
($ million)*
Annual Capital 146 - 2^7
Annual Operation & Maintenance 263
Annual Monitoring (Routine) 17 - 35
TOTAL ANNUAL 426-5^5
a!975 dollars.
Assumes capital costs amortized over 15 years at 7
percent interest.
1.4.1 Water Supply Economics
The price consumers pay for water is determined, in
general, by costs the utility incurs to operate and maintain
the system. However, some publicly-owned water systems may
have their costs and revenues conglomerated with the cost of
other municipal services, and the water bill paid by the
consumer may not completely reflect the status of the water
system alone.
Water system rate structures vary from system to system,
and may also differ for various user classes within the same
system. There are four basic types of rate structures which
are used around the country. Some systems use a "normal
block" structure which results in lower unit costs to
customers that use high volumes of water. In the "inverted
-12-
-------
block" structure, higher unit costs are imposed upon
customers who use higher volumes of water. Under a "flat"
rate structure, there is one single charge per unit for all
customers regardless of use. Generally, the flat rate
structure applies to residential customers only. Finally,
in the "non-incremental" rate structure, the unit cost of
water is based on the number of water consumption units
owned by the user.
Prices charged for water are usually regulated by a
state or local commission appointed to evaluate the need for
rate hikes. In most states, investor-owned utilities are
under the jurisdiction of state regulatory commissions.
Publicly-owned utilities are either regulated by local
boards or are unregulated. Any lengthy lag time between
rate increase requests and rate increase approvals may pose
problems in the implementation of the interim regulations.
Most water utilities, both public and private, finance
large capital investments by retaining profits or acquiring
debt. Publicly-owned systems may have access to municipal
funds or can sell either general obligation or revenue bonds
to be repaid from general revenues or water revenues.
Private, investor-owned systems may issue stocks and bonds,
and unlike publicly-owned systems, their credit ratings are
dependent on the profitability of their own operations.
Since interest rates are generally proportional to risk,
water utilities in more secure financial positions can
borrow money at lower interest rates. At the present time
the interest rate on municipal bonds is 4 to 6 percent,
while the rate for debt issues of privately-owned utilities
is 6 to 8 percent.
In the water industry there does not seem to be a cor-
relation between present debt levels and long-term financial
soundness. Although a majority of water systems today have
debt ratios ranging upward from 40 percent, almost one-
fourth of the water systems are presently debt-free.
Approximately 85 percent of these debt-free systems serve
communities of less than 5,000 people. However, many of
these small systems do not have a positive net income, while
larger water systems with high debt to book value ratios do
have positive net income.
Records indicate that per capita consumption of water
tends to decrease following significant increases in water
rates. Among individual users the decrease would occur
where there is a high elasticity of demand, e.g., lawn
sprinkling. Industrial and commercial users have shown no
-13-
-------
elasticity to price increases. If demand declines sharply
after initial rate hikes, and total revenues do not rise to
cover costs, a second increase may be necessary.
1.4.2 Per Capita Costs
Monitoring costs vary with the size of the water system
involved. The number of samples for routine bacteriological
monitoring is a function of the number of persons served.
For community supplies the number of samples can range from
a minimim of 1 sample per quarter for systems serving 1,000
people or less to a maximum of 500 samples per month for
systems serving more than 4,690,000 people. For non-
community supplies only one sample per quarter is required.
In general, the annual impact of routine chemical
monitoring will vary depending on the frequency of sampling
rather than the number of samples. The frequency of
sampling will depend on the system type: groundwater vs.
surface water; community system vs. non-community. The
annual monitoring costs on a per capita basis are shown in
Table 1-9. The per capita costs for the smallest community
system (25 persons served) are high in comparison to other
system sizes. However, there are very few systems in this
category and the states may desire to enter into institu-
tional arrangements to lessen their annual monitoring burden,
TABLE 1-9
ANNUAL MONITORING COSTS PER PERSON SERVED
VERSUS SYSTEM SIZE AND TYPE FOR COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
SYSTEM TYPE
SYSTEM SIZE SURFACE ($) GROUND ($)'
25
100
500
1,000
2,500
5,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
10,000,000
7.20
1.80
0.35
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.10
0.05
a
a
- 15.05
- 3.75
- 0.75
- 0.40
- 0.30
- 0.25
- 0.20
- 0.15
- 0.05
a
3-35
0.85
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
a
a
- 7.05
- 1.75
- 0.35
- 0.20
- 0.15
- 0.15
- 0.15
- 0.15
- 0.05
- a
aLess than $0.05-
-14-
-------
However, treatment costs may be responsible for much
higher per capita cost increases than monitoring costs. As
indicated earlier, public water systems not meeting the MCL
requirements of the interim regulations will incur the major
cost burden. The impact of the treatment costs will also
vary with the size of the water system involved. Table 1-10
summarizes the treatment costs as they affect systems of
different sizes.
It should be pointed out that the per capita costs
displayed in Table 1-10 are weighted averages. Treatment
costs have been weighted by the projected frequency of the
various treatment techniques within each size subcategory.
But its nature, the weighted average does not give a true
representation of the costs to a particular consumer. In
all categories, there are five treatments, possible with a
wide variation in costs. In Table 1-11, the range of annual
per capita monitoring and treatment costs is presented.
From this table it can be seen that the annual per capita
treatment costs for disinfection are expected to range from
$3.85 to $2.10 in the Smallest system category, from $2.75
to $0.30 in the Small system category and so on.
1.4.3 Impact Analysis
As Tables 1-10 and 1-11 demonstrate, the potentially
most severe impact could occur for users of the smallest or
small systems. Assuming that treatment and monitoring costs
are directly passed on to the consumer, the monthly water
bill for a household in the smallest systems may increase on
the average between $10 and $14.
However, as noted earlier, these systems may choose not
to Install treatment facilities in order to comply with the
regulations. Several options are available to them:
1. Developing a new, less contaminated source;
2. Joining a regional system;
3. Purchasing treated water; or
4. Blending water from existing source with
water of higher quality.
The exemption and variance provisions of the Act provide
for temporary immunity from the regulations on the basis of
economic hardship or technical difficulties. Federal loan
-15-
-------
TABLE 1-10
DISTRIBUTION OF COSTS FOR THOSE SYSTEMS NEEDING TREATMENT
BY SYSTEM CATEGORY
SMALLEST SYSTEMS SMALL SYSTEMS MEDIUM SYSTEMS LARGE SYSTEMS
(25-99 (100-9,999 (10,000-99,999 (Over 100,000
PEOPLE SERVED) PEOPLE SERVED) PEOPLE SERVED) PEOPLE SERVED)
Annual Capital Costs 3.8 - 6.4
($ million)
Annual O&M Costs 2.1
($ million)
Annual Monitoring Costs 0.3 - 0.6
($ million)
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS (• 0 0 ,
($ million) b'2 " 9<1
Weighted Average Costs 37 - 54
per Capita per Year ($)
Increase in Household 9.60-14.05
Monthly Water Bill ($)a
60.2 - 101.4 52.3 - 88.1 30.5 - 51.2
48.6 74.1 134.1
0.6 - 1.3 1.2 - 2.5 1.3 - 2.9
109.4 - 151.3 127.6 -164.7 165.9 -188.2
11-15 9-12 10 - 11
2.85- 3.95 2.35- 3-95 2.55- 2.90
Assumes 3«H persons per household and that all increases in costs are passed
on to the consumer.
-------
TABLE 1-11
ANNUAL,_PER CAPITA AND MONITORING COST RANGES
FOR POUR SIZE CATEGORIES
SMALLEST SYSTEMS SMALL SYSTEMS MEDIUM SYSTEMS LARGE SYSTEMS
(25-99 (100-9,999 (10,000-99,999 (OVER 100,000
PEOPLE SERVED) PEOPLE SERVED) PEOPLE SERVED) PEOPLE SERVED)
TREATMENT3
Disinfection 3-85 - 2.10 2.75 - 0.30 0.45 - 0.15 < 0.25
Turbidity Control 152.00 - 52.00 78.00 - 16.00 20.00 - 12.50 £15-00
J-j Heavy Metal Removal 237-00 - 101.00 142.00 - 25-50 35-00 - 13-00 ilS.OO
i
Lead Control 2.60 - 1.20 1.80 - 0.30 0.40 - 0.20 < 0.30
Fluoride/Arsenic 11.80 - 7.85 11.30 - 3-15 5-00 - 3-15 < 3-55
Removal
MONITORING 15-80 - 0.85 3-75 - 0.05 0.20 - 0.05 < 0.05
aLower cost limit based on assumption that treatment plant built to treat
average daily demand and upper cost limit based on maximum daily demand, except
for the Smallest Systems category where costs are based on average daily demand
only.
-------
programs may also ease the impact on users of small systems.
The Farmers Home Administration sponsors a loan and grant
program to aid the financing of water and sewer system con-
struction in small communities. The loans are offered at
low interest rates and with long repayment schedules. The
Safe Drinking Water Act also authorizes a loan guarantee
program for small systems. These programs will reduce
community costs, but they will not completely mitigate the
possibility of high cost impacts on households in small
systems.
It is not certain how systems will finance the costs
associated with these regulations — either through higher
taxes or higher water rates — but it is certain that the
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations will have the
greatest impact on those served by smaller water systems.
Further study is underway to determine if financing will be
a serious problem for large or small systems.
At the present time EPA believes that the economic
impact of the construction requirements will be spread over
at least a 4-year period from the promulgation of the
regulations because the regulations will not result in
immediate compliance. The effective date of the regulations
will be 18 months after promulgation. Non-compliance may
not be discovered until initial sampling has been completed.
For community water supplies the deadlines for initial
sampling range from one day for turbidity to two years for
inorganic samples of groundwater systems after the effective
date. Therefore, in some cases, more than three years from
promulgation could elapse before inorganic violations would
be detected and corrective actions initiated. In addition,
the use of the exemption or variance provisions of the
regulations could further prolong compliance for public
water systems unable to comply for economic or technical
reasons.
It is estimated that the investor-owned water systems
will pay approximately one-fourth of the total treatment
costs, while the publicly-owned companies would pay the
remainder. However, since many of the investor-owned systems
serve very small populations, the capital demands on these
systems could be great.
In 1974, the water supply industry spent approximately
$1.5 billion for capital improvements. The average yearly
total annual capital costs mandated by the interim primary
regulations are estimated to be about 13 to 24 percent of
this figure. It is anticipated that the industry as a whole
-18-
-------
would be able to raise the additional necessary capital.
Small systems could encounter difficulty in financing new
treatment facilities, particularly when clarification, a
relatively expensive treatment process, is required. The
implementation of these regulations may force many com-
munities to allocate funds, which may be needed to provide
other services to the community, for the treatment of their
drinking water.
Data on non-community systems are sparse. However, it
is not anticipated that these regulations will have a serious
economic Impact on them.
The macroeconomic effects of the Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations are expected to be minimal. On the average,
the regulations will cause an increase in water rates of 9-5
percent spread over several years. If this Increase occurred
in 1 year, the resulting Increase In the Consumer Price Index
(CPI) would be less than 0.001 percent. Since the costs of
these regulations will be incurred over several years, the
average annual increase in the CPI will be even less. The
Chase Econometric model was used to examine the impact of all
existing pollution abatement regulations.1 The analysis
showed that there will be an average annual increase in the
CPI for 1974 to 1980 of less than 0.1 percent due to these
pollution abatement regulations.
1.5 Constraints to Implementation of the Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations
The implementation of the National Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations within a reasonable time frame
would greatly depend on the availability of key chemicals
and supplies needed in the treatment of drinking water;
availability of manpower to operate treatment facilities;
adequate laboratory capability to conduct sample analyses;
and sufficient supply of engineering and construction services
to build or improve treatment facilities.
In particular, the interim regulations will Increase
demand for coagulants and disinfecting agents as the needed
treatment facilities ar<* completed. An increased demand
Chase Econometric Associates, Inc., "The Macroeconomic
Impacts of Federal Pollution Control Programs," prepared for
the Council of Environmental Quality and the Environmental
Protection Agency, January 1975-
-19-
-------
could cause some temporary dislocations in chemical markets,
but in the long run, increased demand will result in an
expansion of supplies. It is projected that the 1980 demand
for ferric chloride may reach 115 to 120 percent of the
present production, while alum demand will be approximately
115 percent of current production. There is a general
consensus of opinion that organic polyelectrolytes will
become the dominant flocculating agents in the future.
However, there are no reliable estimates of which polyelec-
trolyte(s) will be dominant and when the shift in chemical
usage will occur.
At the present time there are approximately 180,000
people employed in the water supply industry. With the
implementation of the Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations between 13,000 and 27,000 additional personnel
would be needed nationwide. These personnel would be
required to perform such tasks as monitoring and enforcing
the regulations, operating the required treatment facilitiesj
performing laboratory analysis of water samples, program
assistance, and program administration. It is anticipated
that water systems may have difficulty hiring qualified
personnel.
The third potential constraint is in the availability
of adequate laboratories to perform the required chemical
and biological analyses. Coliform monitoring is now being
performed at state, local, and private laboratories. In
meeting the coliform monitoring requirements, water suppliers
should not have difficulty finding laboratory facilities.
At the present time there is little routine monitoring being
done for heavy metals and organic compounds of concern in
the regulations. However, there are adequate numbers of
public and private laboratories capable of performing these
analyses although state certification of laboratories,
required by the regulations, could constrain available
laboratory facilities.
The final area where constraints could occur is in the
design and construction of the required treatment facilities.
Although the annual cost of required new construction
represents less than 0.4 percent of the present total annual
new construction in the United States, design and construction
of new water treatment plants is highly specialized. Some
communities, especially those in rural areas, may have
difficulty obtaining these services due to their expense or
unavailability.
-20-
-------
1.6 Limits of the Analysis
In developing the cost estimates used in this study, it
was necessary to use several simplifying assumptions. This
section explores these assumptions and what their overall
impact might be.
The first assumption is that there are 40,000 community
water supply systems in the nation and that they are repre-
sented accurately by the current EPA Inventory of Community
Water Supplies. There is some evidence that when the
inventory is completed there will be a total of 50,000 com-
munity systems rather than the estimated 40,000. This increase
in systems would cause an Increase in monitoring costs of
about 12 percent and a similar increase in treatment costs.
All costs for public non-community systems were based
on the assumption that there are 200,000 of these systems
nationwide. At the present time there is no accurate
inventory of these systems, thus, this number is solely an
estimate. It is anticipated that the EPA will be performing
an inventory of these systems in the next few years so that
these estimates can be updated.
A major consideration not used in developing treatment
costs is that many systems may use alternative water manage-
ment practices rather than install more costly treatment
processes when they exceed an MCL requirement. For example,
groundwater systems might blend water from a "clean" well
with that from a "dirty" well so that the resultant water
will not exceed the MCL. Similarly, no estimate is possible
to determine the possible benefits which might result from
cascading treatment processes. An example of this is that
clarification units might remove enough heavy metals so that
the MCL might not be exceeded. These treatment alternatives
would vary from site to site so that it is impossible to
quantify the benefits which would be derived.
1.7 Energy Use
It is estimated that approximately 21,200 billion Btu's
per year will be required to operate plants and produce
chemicals for the various treatment systems necessary for
the 40,000 community systems to meet the regulations. This
is about 0.028 percent of the 1973 national energy consumption,
based on the 1974 Statistical Abstract. The increase in
energy use will depend on a number of factors, including
whether pollution in surface sources of water is successfully
controlled. There will be no direct energy savings from the
recommended action.
-21-
-------
CHAPTER TWO
INTRODUCTION
2.0 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
The objective of the Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523)
Is to provide for the safety of drinking water supplies
throughout the United States through the establishment and
enforcement of national drinking water regulations. The
Congress has authorized the Environmental Protection Agency
to promulgate national drinking water regulations. The
Individual states will have the primary responsibility of
enforcing the regulations, providing general supervisory aid
to the public water systems, and inspecting all sources of
drinking water.
The major provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act can
be summarized as follows:
1. Establishment of primary drinking water
regulations for the protection of the public
health;
2. Establishment of secondary regulations
relating to odor and appearance of drinking
water;
3. Establishment of protective measures for
underground drinking water sources;
4. Research to evaluate health, economic, and
technological problems including studies
of viruses and contamination by cancer-
causing chemicals in drinking water supplies;
5. Performance of a survey of rural water
supplies;
6. Aid to the states to improve drinking water
programs through technical assistance,
training of personnel, and grant support.
A loan guarantee is provided to assist small
water systems in meeting regulations;
7. Establishment of a procedure for citizen suits
against any party believed to be in violation
of the Act;
-23-
Preceding page blank
-------
8. Establishment of procedures for record-keeping,
inspections, issuance of regulations, and
Judicial review;
9. Establishment of a 15-member National Drinking
Water Advisory Council to advise the Administrator
of EPA on scientific and other responsibilities
under the Act;
10. Requirement that the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare either insure that
the standards for bottled drinking water
conform to the primary regulations
established under the Act or publish
reasons for not doing so;
11. Authorization of appropriations totalling
$156 million for fiscal years 1975, 1976,
and 1977-
2.1 Promulgated Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
The Congress mandated that the Environmental Protection
Agency establish the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regu-
lations within six months after passage of the Act. The
major provisions of the interim regulations can be summarized
as follows:
1. Establish definitions of the two types of
"public" water supply systems;
2. Set range of applicability and coverage
of standards;
3. Establish monitoring frequencies;
M. Indicate suitable analysis techniques;
5. Establish maximum contaminant levels for
certain Inorganic, organic, and biological
substances;
6. Establish a laboratory approval requirement;
7. Establish a methodology to notify consumers
of variances, exemptions, and non-compliance
with standards;
8. Establish reporting requirements for systems
failing to comply with the regulations;
-2M-
-------
9. Establish reporting requirement for
locating future water supplies;
10. Set the effective date 18 months after
promulgation of the regulations.
A copy of the Promulgated Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations can be found in Appendix A.
2.2 Study Objective
The objective of this study is to provide an analysis
of the effects of implementing the Promulgated Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Chapter Three briefly
describes the history and characteristics of the water
supply industry as well as relevant information on the data
bases used in this study.
Chapter Four develops the total national costs for
monitoring the 40,000 community systems and 200,000 public,
non-community systems. This chapter also develops the costs
of treatment for those systems which exceed one or more
maximum contaminant levels.
Chapter Five predicts the manner in which the monitoring
and treatment costs would be spent over the next 10 years
and examines the feasibility of financing these costs. The
chapter also examines the financial structure of the industry
and the availability of funding for the incurred costs.
Chapter Six examines the impact of the monitoring and
treatment costs both separately and cumulatively. This
chapter shows the distribution of costs among the commercial,
municipal, industrial and residential sectors. The impact
on both the private (investor-owned) sector and ths public
sector is also explored, as are the cost effects on different
size systems (measured in terms of population served).
Chapter Seven explores those non-economic variables
which might act as constraints to implementation of the
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. In particular,
the study examines the availability of manpower, key materials,
and laboratories.
Chapter Eight elucidates the major assumptions used in
this report and places limits on the effects of the assump-
tions. This chapter draws the overall analysis into
perspective.
-25-
-------
CHAPTER THREE
THE WATER SUPPLY INDUSTRY
3-0 General Description
The water supply Industry, classified by the Department
of Commerce as SIC group 4941, maintains facilities to supply
water primarily for municipal, residential, commercial, and
industrial use. This classification excludes facilities which
provide water for irrigation. The present study deals with
that portion of SIC group 4941 providing water for general
community usage.
The water supply industry produces more tons of finished
goods (approximately 85 million tons daily) than any other
U.S. industry. "It is estimated that in 1970 public water
supplies delivered over 27 billion gallons of water per day
(bgd), of,whlch about 63 percent was used for residential
purposes.
The first municipal water purification plant built in the
United States was constructed in Virginia in 1832 and was the
forerunner of several hundred plants built during the iSOO's.
The evolution of organized public systems in the 19th century
was closely related to the growth of cities and towns around
industrial developments. Water system management by private
water companies became prevalent and service was continuously
improved. By the end of the century publicly operated water
utilities were more numerous and delivered an increasing
volume of water to the growing cities of America. In 1900
about 22 million people were being served by public water
systems.2
The development of water utilities during the past 75
years has paralleled that of other essential service Industries
At the present time there are an estimated 40,000 community
C.R. Murray and E.B. Reeves, Estimated Water Use in
the U.S. - 1970, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the
Interior, 1972.
2American Water Works Association - Staff Report, "The
Water Utility Industry," April 1966.
-27- Preceding page blank
-------
water supply facilities in the United States serving approxi-
mately 177 million people each day. By 1980 the needs of
public water utilities are expected to increase to about 33.6
bgd. Water usage in the public water utility Industry for
the period 1900-1980 is shown in Figure 3-1.
35 •
30 -
25
20
WATER USE*
(billion gallons per day)
POPULATION
(tens of millions)
1900 1910 1920 1930 19«0 1950 I960 1970
"There are 0.00378 wr per gallon.
Figure 3-1. This graph illustrates public ------
utility water needs for the years 1900 to 1930. (CRC
Handbook of Environmental Control, vol. Ill: jteter
S555ly~rTrFatnicntt 1973. P- 131.) (Population data
from: Social Indicators 1973. Office of Management
and Budget, 1973, P- ~" l
3.1 Community Water Systems
The regulations define the term "public water system" as
a system for the provision to the public of piped water for
human consumption, if such a system has at least 15 service
connections or regularly serves an average of at least 25
-28-
-------
Individuals dally at least 60 days out of the year. The
term "community water system" is defined as a public water
system which serves at least 15 service connections used by
year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 residents
throughout the year. A non-community water system is defined
as a public water system that is not a community water
system.
Community water systems and public non-community water
systems are treated separately due to the great disparity in
the amount of data available on each of them.
In this study the EPA estimate of 40,000 community
water supply systems was used as a valid approximation,
although it is quite possible that the EPA will change this
estimate when the ongoing EPA inventory is more complete.
The EPA inventory of community water supplies has been
assumed to be representative of the nation as a whole with
respect to population served, treatment facilities, and
source of water. The analysis presented here is based on
the inventory as of July 1975.
3.1.1 Production
The number of plants and total daily production for
seven size categories are shown in Table 3-1. This table
shows that while 68 percent of the plants are in the two
smallest categories, they contribute only 2.1 percent of
total water production. In contrast, the largest 1.2 percent
of the plants provide almost 62 percent of the total national
community water production. Total plant production is an
important variable in the industry because it is responsible
for economies of scale in both the capital and O&M costs of
treatment.
Nationwide, community water supply systems provide
approximately 63 percent of their water service for residen-
tial purposes. There are regional variations which are
partly due to differences in per capita consumption and
partly due to differences in industrial consumption.
3.1.2 Organization
Although the water supply industry provides a univer-
sally essential product, it is an atypical industry in many
respects. Production in the industry increased first to keep
-29-
-------
TABLE 3-1
NUMBER OF WATER SYSTEMS AND DAILY PRODUCTION
FOR SEVEN PRODUCTION CATEGORIES
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
PRODUCTION CATEGORY
(Millions of Gallons Per Day) NUMBER
<.01
.01-0.1
0.1-1.0
i
o 1,0-10.0
10.0-30.0
30.0-50.0
>50.0
TOTAL
8,875
18,331
9,300
3,036
325
69
en
40,000
% OP
TOTAL
22.2
45.8
23.2
7.6
0.8
0.2
0.2
100.0
PRODUCTION
MILLIONS OF % OF
GALLONS PER DAY TOTAL
43
624
2,957
8,608
5,477
2,232
11,958
31,899
0.1
2.0
9.1
27.0
17.2
7.0
37.6
100.0
There are 0.00378
per gallon.
-------
pace with a geographically expanding agrarian society, and
then to keep pace with a growing, more densely populated
urban industrial society. In the course of this expansion
a variety of water utility types evolved. These different
types include full-service, distribution only, water whole-
salers, holding companies, and individual community water
supplies.
Community water supplies are either publicly-owned or
investor-owned. Public supplies may be either self-supporting
or tax-supported, while investor-owned utilities are self-
supporting enterprises. Because of greater risk and the
lack of tax-exempt status, the investor-owned companies have
a higher cost of capital. Thus, they generally charge
higher rates per unit than do the municipal systems. Table
3-2 displays the number of water systems and their daily
production by size and ownership. Of the 40,000 community
systems presently supplying water, the data indicate that 58
percent are publicly-owned and that 42 percent are investor-
owned. Also, 88 percent of the production is from publicly-
owned plants, with private plants contributing about 12
percent.
In many regions the large metropolitan area utilities
not only manage all aspects of water supply to major popu-
lation centers, but they also sell water to distribution
companies servicing smaller, outlying cities and towns.
Large metropolitan area water utilities are able to take
advantage of economies of scale in meeting the costs of
maintaining facilities, developing new water sources to meet
growing demands, and constructing additional treatment
facilities. Since smaller public water systems have higher
unit costs and are also limited in their ability to adjust
to rising capital needs, they are sometimes consolidated
into larger water districts or are absorbed into larger
utilities.
3-2 Public Non-Community Water Supply Systems
There is very little information available about the
estimated 200,000 public non-community water systems —
systems which serve drinking water to the transient public.
These systems are found at service stations, motels, res-
taurants, rest areas, campgrounds, state parks, beaches,
national parks, national forest reserves, dams, reservoirs,
and other locations daily frequented by the travelling
public. (Appendix B gives an estimated breakdown of these
200,000 systems by use category and population served.)
-31-
-------
t\)
TABLE 3-2
NUMBER OP WATER SYSTEMS AND DAILY PRODUCTION
BY SIZE AND OWNERSHIP
SIZE
mgd
VERY SMALL
SMALL
0.10-10
MEDIUM
10-30
LARGE
>30
TOTAL
NUMBER
PUBLIC
12,366
10,508
272
114
23,260
OF PLANTS
PRIVATE
14,810
1,828
55
47
16,740
DAILY
n
PUBLIC
416
10,061
4,571
13,097
28,145
PRODUCTION
igda
PRIVATE
252
1,446
906
1,094
3,698
aThere are 0.00378 nr per gallon..
-------
The National Sanitation Foundation has estimated1 the
number of public non-community water supply systems in each
state. These numbers are displayed in Table 3-3, Column 1.
The information was obtained from the following sources:
1. An NSF survey by questionnaire to each state
in January 1974. Forty-two states responded.
Some of the states did not estimate the
number of "Other Systems."
2. An EPA Regional Office survey by direct
contact with the states in each region in
1970.
3. A Conference of State Sanitary Engineers
survey conducted with the assistance of EPA
in January 1973. Twenty-six states responded.
4. A 1974 NSF estimate of "Other Systems" in
the seven states which did not respond to any
of the above. This estimate was made by
assuming one system for each 2,500 population.
The 2,500 factor was arrived at by taking
the number of "Other Systems" reported for
each state in the 1974 NSF survey, dividing
it into the total population for that state,
and then averaging the results.
Because the NSF survey was made in 1974, data from that
questionnaire are used whenever they are available.
In addition, the results of a survey of state water
supply agencies in April 1975 pertinent to this category of
public water supply systems is provided in Table 3-3, Column 2
(see Appendix C for the survey). Inspection of this table
(the case of Texas is the most obvious example) reveals that
accurate data on the number of non-community water supply
systems have not been compiled, and that more extensive
state-by-state investigations will be necessary.
Table 3-4 gives a breakdown by source of water for
those non-community systems where extensive data on water
quality and system usage are available, while Table 3-5
provides a breakdown by source of water of systems found in
the state survey. At the present time, the National Park
1National Sanitation Foundation, Staffing and Budgetary
Guidelines for State Drinking Water Supply Agencies (Ann
Arbor, Michigan, 1974).
-33-
-------
TABLE 3-3
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PUBLIC NON-COMMUNITY
WATER SYSTEMS BY STATE
PCPULATTON COLUMN 1
(xlOP (NSF STUDY)
COLUMN 2
(ERGO SURVEY)
ALABAMA 3,444 20,100
ALASKA
300 800
ARIZONA 1,770 800
ARKANSAS ]
..923 1.350
CALIFORNIA iq qt^ 1.900
COLORADO 2.207 1.300
CONNECTICUT "
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
!r0^1 1.300
548 401
FLORIDA gr78Q 2,716
GEORGIA 4 ".589 1.391
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS 11
INDIANA 5
768 Q
712 2<:;8
§g
,5
IOWA 2,824 615
KANSAS 2,246 900
KENTUCKY ;
LOUISIANA 3
MAINE
MARYLAND 3
MASSACHUSETTS 5
MICHIGAN 8
MINNESOTA :
rassissirn 2
,218 2,100
N
N
3,000
N
5,000
1,000
N
4,600
10,000
N
1,220
N
A641 2,000
992 2,450
1,992 1,569
.,889 2,276
,875 15,731
,804 2,675
,216 330
N
4,100
N
16,010
MISSOURI 4,676 8,100
MONTANA
894 1,700
NEBRASKA Ij483 1^050
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY 7
488 779
737 1,700
,168 5,200
NEW MEXICO 1,016 2,000
NEW YORK 18,236 35,000
NORTH CAROLINA 5^082 1,833
NORTH DAKOTA
617 250
OHIO 10,652 20,000
OKLAHOMA 2,559 1,000
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
19,100
4,000
OREGON 2,091 9,510
PENNSYLVANIA 11
RHODE ISLAM)
SOUTH CAROLINA 2
SOUTH DAKOTA
.793 23,945
946 60
.590 1,552
665 270
11,800
N
1.378
TENNESSEE 3.923 1,500
TEXAS 11.196 2.100
UTAH 1,059 120
VERMONT
444 3.300
VIRGINIA 1.648 9.375
WASHINGTON 1
.409 2.500
WEST VIRGINIA 1.741 18.010
10,150
505
3,100
9,100
2.050
210
WISCOltUN 4.417 18.010
WYOMING
TOTAL
332 600
230,387
426
N means no answer.
No entry indicates lack of response.
-------
TABLE 3-4
SOURCE OP WATER FOR 11 STUDIES OF PUBLIC
i
UG
NON- COMMUNITY
STUDY
Bureau of
Reclamation
Water Resource
Interstate
Park Service
Forest Service
f
Kansas Evaluation
Florida Evaluation5
Kentucky Evaluation
Tennessee Evaluation
Georgia Evaluation-^
V
Wyoming Evaluation
TOTAL
SURFACE
28
11
0
6
26
0
0
9
0
0
1
81
WATER SYSTEMS*
SOURCE OF WATER
GROUND PURCHASED TOTAL
25
45
114
36
93
37
78
50
64
81
12
635
5
0
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
13
58
56
119
42
119
40
78
59
64
81
13
729
*See following page for references
-------
Q
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Supply Division, A Pilot Study of
Drinking Water Systems at Bureau of Reclamation Developments. EPA-430/9^73-004, June 1973
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Programs, Sanitary Survey
Of Drinking Water Systems on Federal Water Resource Developments. A Pilot Study,
August 1971.
CU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Supply Division, Drinking Water
Systems On and Along the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. A Pilot
Study. 1972.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Supply Division, A Pilot Study of
Drinking Water Systems in the National Park Service System. EPA-520/9-74-016,
December 1974.
eU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Supply Division, A Pilot Study of
Drinking Water Systems in the U.S. Forest Service System, November 1974.
f
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, Water Supply Program, Evaluation
of the Kansas Water Supply Program, 1972.
gU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Water Supply Branch, Evaluation
of the Florida Water Supply Program, 1973.
hU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Bureau of Water Hygiene,
Evaluation of the Kentucky Water Supply Program, May 1972.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Bureau of Water Hygiene,
Evaluation of the Tennessee Water Supply Program, January 1971-
''U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Water Supply Branch, Evaluation
of the Georgia Water Supply Program, July 1973-
kU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Water Supply Branch,
Evaluation of the Wyoming Water Supply Program, December 1972.
-------
TABLE 3-5
NUMBER OF NON-COMMUNITY SYSTEMS BY SOURCE
SURFACE WATER
GROUNDWATER
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
SOOTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
. WISCONSIN
WYOMING
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
N
175
100
N
N
20
N
N
2
N
10
N
0
N
N
N
N
N
N
100
0
0
N
25
2
150
5
100
0
50
N
16
N
N
N
95
N
N
100
N
878
4,500
10rOOO
N
1,200
N
N
4,100
N
16,000
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
19rOOO
4,000
Ilr800
N
1,W
600
in.ono
Rnn
^nnn
q,4on
2,000
200
410
TOTALS
758
99,136
N is not known.
No entry indicates lack of response,
-37-
-------
Service is completing a national survey of all drinking
water systems maintained by that service; however, it will
be several months before the results of this study are
known. Until the completion of the Park Service study, this
sparse sample contains the only data which can be utilized
to project national cost trends for the estimated 200,000
systems serving the travelling public.
-38-
-------
CHAPTER FOUR
COSTS OP COMPLIANCE
4.0 Introduction
Compliance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking
Water Act is expected to involve large expenditures of
money. All systems will be required to initiate routine
monitoring programs. The total annual national cost for
monitoring will range from $1? million to $36 million,
approximately $12 million to $25 million of which will be
spent by community systems.
Costs for additional monitoring will be incurred by
those systems exceeding Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL).
The three-year total of these costs is projected to be
between $1 million and $3 million.
Should proper system management not be sufficient to
bring contaminant levels below the MCL, water treatment will
be required. The investment cost of treatment for all
systems in violation of MCL is estimated to be between $1.1
billion and $1.8 billion. Community systems will be spending
about 98 percent of this total. Treatment costs per system
will vary with system size as well as with type of treatment
required.
4.1 Routine Monitoring Costs
Routine monitoring costs will be incurred in differing
degrees by both community and non-community systems, since
there are different monitoring requirements for each type of
system. Furthermore, community systems must begin routine
monitoring within 18 months after the promulgation of the
regulations; non-community systems have an additional 24
months before they must begin monitoring.
4.1.1 Community Water Systems
Routine monitoring requirements for community systems
have been set forth in the Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations. These regulations, as summarized in Table 4-1,
-39-
-------
TABLE 4-
SUMMARY OF ROUTINE MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (EXCEPT TURBIDITY)
I
jr
O
SUBSTANCE MAXIMUM LEVEL REFERENCE METHOD
Arsenic 0.05 EPA 1971 p. 95-96
Barium 1.0 SMWW 5129
Cadmium 0.010 SMWW $129
Chromium 0.05 SKWW $129
L«ad 0.05 SMWW $129
Mercury 0.002 EPA 1971 p. 118-26
Nitrate 10. SMWW $213
Selenium 0.01 EPA 1974 P- 1*5
Silver 0.05 SMWW $129
Fluoride 1.1-2.1 SMWW $1218
Bndrln 0.0002 •
Llndane 0.001
> EPA 197 3A
Methoxychlor 0.1 { 6r* i!"3"
Toxaphene 0.005 .
2'*-° °'1 ] EPA 1973B
2,1,5-TP Silvex 0.01 J
Conform Av. 1- per 100 ml SMWW $Ko8
(Membrane filter) Max. 1 per 100 ml
Collfora Max. lOJfpos.: SMWW $407
(Fsmentatlon 10 ml samples
tub*) Max. 609 pos.:
100 ml samples
Collform Mln. 0.2 mg/1 SMKW fnuo
(Residual
chlorine)
Abbreviations for references:
MONITORING FREQUENCY
Community system supplied by surface water: initial
tests to be performed within one year and repeated
at yearly Intervals. '
Community system supplied by groundwater: Initial
teats within two years, then repeated at three year
Intervals.
Non-community systems will only test for nitrate.
Initial tests shall be completed within two years
and repeated at Intervals determined by the state.
Community systems supplied by surface water;
Initial test within one year, then repeated at
Intervals determined by the state, but no less
frequently than at three year Intervals.
Community systems supplied by groundwater;
analysis shall be completed by those systems
specified by the state.
Number of samples to be tested per month based on
number of customers served. Either membrane filter
or fermentation tube technique may be used.
Community systems supplied by groundwater; state
may reduce sampling to not less than one sample
per quarter.
Dally or more frequent (depending on nuaber of
customers served) if substituted for either of the
direct collform methods.
JAWWA - Journal of the American Water Works Association.
SMWW " Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th edition, 1971.
EPA 1971 " Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
Washington, D.C., 1974.
EPA 1973A - "Method for Organochlorine Pesticides
November 1973-
EPA 1973B - "Methods for Chlorinated Phenoxy Acid
Cincinnati, November 1973.
and Wastes. EPA, Office of Technology Transfer,
in Industrial Effluents," MDQARL, EPA, Cincinnati,
Herbicides in Industrial Effluents." MDQARL, EPA,
-------
show that monitoring requirements vary with the water source
and population served by the various systems. The distri-
bution of systems with respect to population served and
water source is displayed in Table 4-2. It can be seen from
Table 4-2 that most of the systems are small and utilize
groundwater sources. Over half serve less than 500 persons.
These smaller groundwater systems will require less monitoring
than their large surface source counterparts, although their
per capita costs will be somewhat higher since there are
economies of scale in doing large amounts of sampling.
In developing national monitoring cost estimates, the
number of systems requiring routine monitoring is fixed by
the number of ground- and surface-water supply systems in
each discrete size range (Table 4-2) and the monitoring
frequency prescribed by the regulations (Table 4-1). There-
fore, the only variable in the cost development is the price
per analysis. This price is dependent on the institutional
monitoring arrangements made by each system. In this study,
the lower monitoring cost is represented by the cost which
EPA would incur in its laboratories, and the higher moni-
toring cost was calculated from the cost which would be
charged by moderately expensive commercial laboratories.
These monitoring costs are displayed in Table 4-3. The
projection of national routine monitoring costs is displayed
in Table 4-4.
The analysis of monitoring costs shows that systems
serving small populations vastly outnumber larger systems,
and therefore assume the greatest share of monitoring costs,
while serving a very small percentage of the population.
Figure 4-1 shows that 50 percent of the monitoring costs
will be borne by approximately 12 percent of the population.
The total monitoring costs shown in Table 4-4 do not
reflect the true impact of the imposition of the Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations, since much monitoring is
presently being done under the Public Health Service Act and
under existing state monitoring laws.
A review was made of those interstate water systems
which are also community water systems and are therefore
currently subject to Federal purview under the interstate
quarantine regulations of the Public Health Act. The
populations served and water sources of these systems are
shown in Table 4-5. However, an analysis of the monitoring
practices of these systems shows that only the coliform
measurements are taken at a rate commensurate with the
-41-
-------
TABLE 4-2
DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS BY
POPULATION CLASS AND SOURCE OF WATER*
SOURCE OF WATER
POPULATION SURFACE GROUND
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2,499
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1, 000, 000
TOTAL 4
275
946
548
857
625
468
767
108
5
,599
6,361
12,947
4,278
3,690
1,607
1,079
1,243
63
0
31,268
(NO. OF
MIXED
56
199
144
281
189
169
274
52
2
1,366
SYSTEMS)
PURCHASED
316
1,021
422
354
184
142
315
13
0
2,767
TOTAL
NUMBER OF POPULATION
SYSTEMS SERVED
7,008
15,113
5,392
5,182
2,605
1,858
2,599
236
7
40,000
420,500
3,778,250
3,774,400
7,773,000
8,857,000
12,634,400
61,423,400
57,277,200
21,523,600
177,470,750
. _
PER CAPITA
DAILY
PRODUCTION
(GAL.)b
99
109
118
132
140
154
158
174
192
165
aBased on EPA Survey of Community Water Supplies, as of July 1975.
bThere are 0.00378 nr per gallon.
-------
TABLE 4-3
i
-Cr
ANALYSIS OF DRINKING
WATER SAMPLES: TYPICAL CHARGES BY COMMERCIAL
LABORATORIES AND EPA FOR ANALYSES SPECIFIED
IN THE REGULATIONS
... ..•••..
LABORATORY:
LOCATION (STATE):
Gross Alpha and Beta
Strontlum-89 and 90
Tritium
Iodlne-131
Cesiura-134 and 137
Potassium-40
Conform (Membrane filter)
(Fermentation tube)
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Organophosphates
Chlorophenoxys
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nitrate
Selenium
Silver
Fluoride
Inorganics - All Components
A
HI
(*>
_
^
_
-
-
20
20
210
28
15
10
10
10
20
10
55
10
12
195
B«
PL
($)
_
.
_
_
-
10
-
45e
15'
456
20
10
15
10
10
15
5
20
15
15
155
c
MA
<$>
_
-
_
-
-
20
T
HO
40
40
12-20
12-20
12-20
12-20
12-20
12-20
15-25
12-20
12-20
15-25
150-250
a
MA
(*)
15
-
-
-
-
-
15. 10. 8d
20, 15, 10d
75 75
-75 75
-75 75
15. 10*
15. 10g
15. 10*
15. 10g
15, 10*
20, 15*
15. 12.50s
15, I"8
15. 10*
10, 8*
185, 120.506
E»
NJ
(t)
.
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
. 125f
. 125<
, 100r
40
15
15
15
15
40
23
4n
15
23
276
P°
KM
(»)
20
60
15-20
65
55. 80
10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- '
-
-
•
-
-
0
NJ
($)
12
45
10
65
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-'
-
-
-
-
-
-
COMMERCIAL
RANGE
($)
12-20
45-80
10-20
65-155
8-20 )
10-20 '
40-305 \
40-180 V
40-80 '
10-40
10-20
10-20
10-20
10-20
12-40
5-25
10-55
10-20
8-25
120-276
EPA
RATE
(*)
5
150
7.75
7.75
7-75
5.53
3-60
11.55
5.60
7.75
5.60
5.60
70.00
A 5 percent discount on bills over $500.
A 10 percent discount on bills over $1,000.
A 15 percent discount on bills over $1,500.
A 30 percent discount for six or more samples.
°Up to 20 percent discount available.
Highest price is for single sample; middle for 2-10 samples; lowest for 11 or more samples.
ePrlce for scan plus one component analysis. Price for each additional component Is »^5.
Higher price is for full analysis; lower price Is for analysis of one specified component.
^Higher price is for single sample; lower -for 2-10 samples.
-------
TABLE H-H
COSTS OP ROUTINE MONITORING FOR THE COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
COMPONENT
Inorganic*
SYSTEM TYPE
Surface
Ground
Master Meter
DEADLINE
• FOR INITIAL
TESTING
1 yr.
2 yr.
1 yr.
SUBSEQUENT
TEST
INTERVALS
1 yr.
3 y>
1 yr.
INORGANICS TOTAI,
Organ ie*
OROANICS
Conform
CQLITOSM
Surface
Ground
Maater Meter
_TOTAL
25-1,000
1,000-2,199
2,500-1.999 Average 3,
5,000-9,999 " 6,
10.000-21,999 " 15,
25.000-ii9.999 " 31.
50.000-99,999 • 68.
100.000-219.999 " 118.
250.000-199.999 • 350.
500.000-999.999 " 735,
Over 1,000.000 * 3,071.
TOTAL
TOTAL PROJECTED MONITORING COSTS:
ASSUMPTIONS:
lyr.
3 yr.
NUMBER ASSUMED
OF COST PER
SYSTEMS TEST
5.965 $70-170
31,268 $70-170
2,767 $70-170
10.000
N
5.
15,
2.
NUMBER OF TESTS (N) AMD COSTS ($ MILLIQH) FBI TEAR
FIRST YEAR SECOND YEAR THIRD t SU15EQUENT TE«"8
$ MILLION N $ MILLION » $MILLIOSI
965
631
767
21.366
5,965 $150-260
5,
31,268 $150-260
1 yr.
500
800
200
300
200
600
100
000
800
10,000 SYSTEMS
3 yr.
I/no.
2/TC.
1/BO.
8 /mo.
17/mo.
ko/mo.
75/»e.
120/BO.
1 80/no .
260/mo.
150/mo.
1. Additional test* not included for substance* found
standard Units.
2,767 $150-260
10.000
27,513
5,182
2.605
1.858
1.597
677
339
155
13
24
7
10.000
2.
965
0
767
8.732 .
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
J-10
5-10
to exceed 50 percent,
330.
121.
125.
178,
325.
321,
305,
223.
92,
71,
37.
2,112,
156
368
010
368
788
960
100
200
800
860
800
160
75 percent
5.965
15,631
2.767
5
10
2
1.7-1.1 21.366 1.7-1.1 i2
5.965
0
1
"2.767
1.3-2.3 8. 732 1.3-2.3
330,156
121
125
178
325
321
305
223
92
71
37
10.7-21.1 2,112
13.7-27.8
,368
,010
.368
.788
,960
,100
,200
,800
,880
.800
,160 ' 10.T-21.1
13.7-WT.8
,965
,123
.767
*1S» 1.3-3-2
,988
0
9*2
2.910 fl.l-a.g
330
121
125
178
325
321
.156
.368
.010
.368
,788
.960
305,100
223
92
71
37
?.I<2
.200
.800
,880
,800
al££ f 0.7-21.1
12.1-25.4
or 100 percent of allowed
2, Turbidity monitoring not included.
3. No allowance for :he use of residual
chlorine teats
as substitute for ooliforn
tests
•
7.
Collfora luapllr.g frequency eatleated froa average alze of worka in each population chart.
For initial deadline* and teat interval* greater than one year, coata are spread eveny throughout interval.
Includes aixed ayatama. •
-------
Ul
I
TABLE 4-5
INTERSTATE CARRIER WATER SYSTEMS
WHICH
POPULATION
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2,499
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1, 000, 000
TOTAL
ARE ALSO
SURFACE
1
1
4
6
10
25
138
86
5
2?6
COMMUNITY
SOURCE OP
GROUND
5
11
5
11
11
17
67
35
0
162
WATER
WATER
MIXED
0
1
0
2
3
6
47
42
2
103
SYSTEMS
PURCHASED
0
0
2
0
3
3
24
3
0
35
TOTAL
NUMBER
OP SYSTEMS
6
13
11
19
27
51
276
166
7
576
-------
It
o
*»
c
0
Water
Supply Systems
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100
Percent of Population Served by Community Water Systems
and
Percent of Water Supply Systems
Figure 4-1. Thla figure shows the percentages of
total Monitoring coats In the United States versus the
percentages of population served and the percentages of
the water supply systems.
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Other aspects
of the regulations, such as potential inorganic contaminants,
are not subject to control under the Public Health Act.
The estimated costs of the routine coliform measure-
ments currently being performed are shown in Table 4-6.
The results of this table show that between $7 million and
$1*4 million of the monitoring costs estimated in Table 4-4
are already performed. These current monitoring costs
account for approximately 50 percent of the total estimated
monitoring costs to community systems. Therefore, the actual
incremental costs of the regulations to community systems are
between $6.7 million and $13.8 million for each of the first
two years. The number of tests to be performed for the non-
interstate carrier systems is 44 percent of the total number
of expected analyses.
-46-
-------
TABLE 4-6
PRESENT COSTS FOR COLIPORM MONITORING OP INTERSTATE CARRIER WATER SYSTEMS
COLIFORM: 25-99 persons Average
100-499 "
500-999 "
1,000-2,499 "
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999 "
100,000-999,999 "
> 1,000,000 " 3,
COLIFORM TOTAL FOR 576 INTERSTATE
47
178
604
1,741
4,258
6,413
43,349
449,528
074,800
SYSTEMS
COLIFORM TOTAL FOR 39,424 NON- INTERSTATE
TOTAL PRESENT COLIFORM MONITORING
FOR 40,
NUMBER OF
INTERSTATE
SYSTEMS
6
13
11
19
27
51
276
166
7
SYSTEMS
000 SYSTEMS
NUMBER COST PER
OF TESTS YEAR
($ million)
144
312
264
456
1,620
4,284
165,600
398,400
37,800
608,880 3-6-6.1
842,545 4.3-8.3
7.3-14.4
-------
4.1.2 Non-Community Water Systems
There are approximately 200,000 non-community systems
which will be required to perform routine monitoring. It is
assumed that no system will shut down as an alternative to
routine monitoring. The cost figures for the individual
tests are the same as those used to estimate routine moni-
toring costs for community systems. Table 4-7 shows the
total number of public non-community systems broken down by
source. The costs for routine monitoring are shown in Table
4-8.
It is estimated that at present no more than 30 percent
of the required coliform testing is being performed. Since
this amounts to between $1.2 million and $2.4 million per
year, the projected total additional national monitoring
costs are between $3.35 million and $6.95 million for non-
community systems for the first two years of compliance.
4.2 Special Monitoring Costs Due to Exceeding Maximum
Contaminant Level
Should the routine monitoring program turn up a violation
of an MCL, additional monitoring will be required. This
incremental monitoring will serve to determine whether the
problem is chronic or only a sampling anomaly.
The special monitoring procedures mandated by the
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations are outlined in
Table 4-9. The costs for this additional monitoring are
discussed both for community and non-community systems. It
is estimated that the special monitoring costs will be
incurred during the first two years of compliance for each
type of system.
4.2.1 Community Water Systems
The costs of the additional testing due to MCL vio-
lations are the same per test as those for routine monitoring,
The additional national cost of monitoring is dependent upon
the number and type of MCL violations.
Although the ongoing EPA inventory of community systems
is taken to be representative of the population of supply
systems in the country, this data base lacks water quality
-48-
-------
TABLE 4-7
NUMBER OF NON-COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS BY SOURCE
GROUNDWATER
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OP 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
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
N
175
100
N
N
20
N
N
2
N
10
N
0
N
N
N
N
N
N
100
0
0
N
25
2
150
5
100
0
50
N
16
N
N
N
95
N
N
300
N
878
H.soo
10,000
N
] ,?nn
N
N
4,100
N
16,000
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
IP, 000
MOO
Ilr800
n
1,V??
600
ir^nnn
^nn
*,nnn
Q,Unn
2.000
200
110
TOTALS
758
99,136
N is not known.
No entry indicates lack of response.
-49-
-------
TABLE 4-8
ROUTINE MONITORING COSTS FOR NON-COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
a
CONTAMINANT
NITRATE
COLIPORM
PER SYSTEM
($)
NATIONWIDE
COSTS
($ million)
i
ui
o
I
Deadline for
Initial Testing
Subsequent Test
Intervals
Assumed Cost
Per Test ($)
Cost Per Year
First 2 Years ($)
Subsequent Years ($)
2 years
6 years
5.50 - 13.50
None
1 per
quarter
5-10
2.75 - 6.75 20 - 40
0.92 - 2.25 20 - 40
22.75 - 46.75
20.92 - 42.25
4.55 - 9.35
4.18 - 8.45
aEffactive within two years of effective date of regulations.
At state discretion (six years assumed to be reasonable).
-------
TABLE 4-9
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WHEN MAXIMUM
CONTAMINANT LEVEL IS EXCEEDED
CONTAMINANT MANDATED MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
COLIFORMa Collect and analyze at least two daily
samples from same sampling location where
violation occurred until at least two
consecutive samples show no positive coliform
results.
INORGANIC AND Initiate three additional analyses within
ORGANIC , one month. If average of four samples
CHEMICALS exceeds MCL, State shall determine moni-
toring frequency.
NITRATEa Repeat the analysis within 24 hours of
initial analysis. If mean of two samples
exceeds MCL, additional monitoring at state
discretion.
aApplies to both community and non-community systems.
bApplies to community systems only.
data necessary to estimate MCL violations. Therefore, the
water quality data base developed in the 1969 CWSS study was
used to evaluate the impact of implementing the Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations. (It was necessary to supplement
the CWSS study with information from the EPA Interstate
Carrier Study and 10 EPA-State evaluations to obtain data on
mercury violations, which are not considered in the CWSS
-51-
-------
survey. ) Table 4-10 gives a summary of the water quality
data presently available on community water supply systems.
Table 4-11 displays the number of MCL violations by
type according to data from the CWSS by plant population
served. Almost 90 percent of those systems in violation
served fewer than 5,000 people. The special monitoring
costs which would result from applying these violation data
to the EPA inventory sample are displayed in Table 4-12.
The estimated total of these costs is between $0.27 million
and $1.34 million.
4.2.2 Non-Community Water Systems
The data on violations used in this analysis were
developed from 11 separate studies of Federal and state
"semi-public" water supply systems which serve the travelling
public. Using these studies to extrapolate national cost
figures is very difficult, since these Federal systems often
have more treatment facilities than non-Federal systems. In
addition, these systems are not representative of the national
distribution of water by source. Table 4-13 lists the
number of systems which exceeded one or more maximum contami-
nant levels for public non-community systems, while Table
4-14 shows the costs of monitoring these systems for coliform
and nitrate violations. This table shows that the total
special monitoring costs for non-community systems is
estimated to be between $0.4 million and $1.9 million.
4.3 Total Monitoring Costs
The 40,000 community systems will bear all the monitoring
costs for the first two years. Table 4-15 shows that almost
all of these costs will be for routine monitoring. The
200,000 public non-community systems will not have to do any
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public
Health Service: Bureau of Hygiene, Environmental Health
Service, "Community Water Supply Study — Analysis of National
Survey Findings," July 1970 and data base therein.
2.
The subject of water quality data will be examined in
greater detail in Section 4.4
-52-
-------
TABLE 4-10
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY DATA AVAILABLE FOR
i
ui
uo
I
COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
1969 CWSS STUDY
1975
EPA
10 EPA-STATE
STUDIES
INTERSTATE CARRIER STUDY
CONTAMINANT
Arsenic
Barium*
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nitrate
Selenium
Silver
Fluoride
* OF SURFACE
SYSTEMS
ANALYZED
228
4
233
233
233
_
228
227
233
233
* OF SURFACE
SYSTEMS TESTED
IN VIOLATION
0
0
0
0
0.43
_
0
0.44
0
0
1 OF
QROUNDWATER
SYSTEMS
ANALYZED
710
37
714
711
711
_
710
707
711
711
* OF
GROUNDWATER
SYSTEMS TESTED
IN VIOLATION
0.42
2.7
0.56
0.12
2.10
_
3.1
1.13
0
5.0
* OF SYSTEMS
ANALYZED
541
502
587
596
591
171
640
-
183
I OF SYSTEMS '
IN VIOLATION
0
0
0
0
0.3
2.7
0
0.24
0
* OF SYSTEMS
ANALYZED
252
117
294
291
295
289
249
250
294
189
J OF SYSTEMS
IN VIOLATION
0
0.7
0.7
0.5
1.9
1.9
0.4
2.1
0
6.3
*Barlum was not analyzed in 677 additional ground water systems since they had i2 mg/1 SO,.
Ba unlikely. *
making the presence of soluble
-------
TABLE 4-11
NUMBER OF COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS WHICH EXCEEDED ONE OR MORE
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL BROKEN DOWN
POPULATION
SERVED
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2,499
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1, 000, 000
TOTAL
As
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Ba
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Cd
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
4
Cr
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
BY POPULATION
Pb
4
6
1
3
0
2
0
0
0
16
N03
5
8
1
2
1
3
1
1
0
22
SERVEDa
Se
2
5
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
Ag
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
5
18
3
3
2
4
1
0
0
36
Frora CWSS study.
-------
TABLE 1J-12
SPECIAL MONITORING COSTS FOR COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
i
v_n
WHICH EXCEEDED A MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL
Contaminant
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury6
Nitrate
Selenium
Sliver
Fluoride
Coliform
TOTAL FOR
Percent of
CWSS Systems
Exceeding MCLa
0.420
0.1 J|Q
0.560
0.120
0.1430
2.10S
1.350
1.35S
3. .100
1.130
0.44S
0
5.000
0.88f
Number of Systems
Projected to
be In Violation1*
131
44
175
131
227
483
969
373
0
1,563
I8,853f
Number of Tests
Required
(1 Year)0
3-6
3-6
3-6
3-6
3-6
3-6
3-6
3-6
3-6
3-6
2-5
Cost Per
Testd
(!)
7.7-18.5
7-7-18.5
7.7-18.5
5.6-13.5
5.6-13.5
11.6-28.0
5.6-13-5
7.7-18.5
5.6-13-5
5.6-13.5
5.0-10.0
40,000 SYSTEMS, NATIONWIDE1* 'd
Total Cost
($ thousand)
3.0-14.6
1,0-4.8
4.0-19.4
2.2-10.6
3.8-18.4
16.8-81.2
16.3-78.4
8.6-41.4
0
26.3-126.6
188.5-942.7
270.5-1,338.1
aln CWSS sample of 969 systems based on surface (S) or groundwater (0) source.
Projected from CWSS data base by source of water.
Additional tests may be required at state discretion.
e
Low cost based on EPA laboratory rates, high cost based on commercial rates.
No data in CWSS — Number estimated from interstate carrier and other state data.
Samples in violation.
-------
TABLE 4-13
NUMBER OF PUBLIC NON-COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
VJl
a\
l
WHICH EXCEEDED ONE OR MORE MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL*
CONTAMINANT
STUDY
Bureau of Reclamation*
Water Resource
Interstate0
Park Service**
Borest Service6
Kansas f
Florida g
Kentucky h
Tennessee
Georgia •*
\r
Wyoming
TOTAL
Ag
b
0
0
0
i
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
NO 3
4
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
9
CR
1
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
0
0
0
1
Coliform
7
14
18
4
24
9
2
21
12
10
4
125
Se
6
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
8
p
0
0
1
5
11
1
0
0
0
0
0
18
Pb
0
0
1
1
0
4
0
1
0
4
0
11
. Hg
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Cd
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
?
*See following page for references.
-------
aU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Supply Division, A Pilot Study of
Drinking Water Systems at Bureau of Reclamation Developments, EPA-^30/9-73-004, June 1973-
bU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Programs, Sanitary Survey
Of Drinking Water Systems on Federal Water Resource Developments, A Pilot Study,
August 1971.
CU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Supply Division, Drinking Water
Systems On and Along the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, A Pilot
Study, 1972.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Supply Division, A Pilot Study of
Drinking Water Systems in the National Park Service System, EPA-520/9-7^-016,
December 197*1.
eU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Supply Division, A Pilot Study of
Drinking Water Systems in the U.S. Forest Service System, November 1974-
f»
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII, Water Supply Program, Evaluation
of the Kansas Water Supply Program, 1972.
gU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Water Supply Branch, Evaluation
of the Florida Water Supply Program, 1973-
hU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Bureau of Water Hygiene,
Evaluation of the Kentucky Water Supply Program, May 1972.
1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Bureau of Water Hygiene,
Evaluation of the Tennessee Water Supply Program, January 1971-
JU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Water Supply Branch, Evaluation
of the Georgia Water Supply Program, July 1973-
kU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Water Supply Branch,
Evaluation of the Wyoming Water Supply Program, December 1972.
-------
TABLE 4-
SPECIAL MONITORING COSTS OF NON-COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
WHICH EXCEEDED A MAXIMUM CONTAMlNANf LEVEL
COLIFORM
Tests required per coliform violation 2-5
Estimated cost per test $5-$10
Cost per system in violation $10-$50
Percent of systems in violation 17-1%
in survey (125 of 729)
Resultant number of systems estimated 3^,293
to be in violation, nationwide
Total cost coliform testing, $0.3-$1.7
nationwide ($ million)
NITRATE
Tests required per NOo violation 3
Estimated cost per test $5.60-$13-50
Cost per system in violation $16.80-$40.50
Percent of systems in violation 2.9^%
Resultant number of systems estimated 5,880
to be in violation, nationwide
Total cost/N03 testing, $0.1-$0.2
nationwide ($ million)
TOTAL NON-COMMUNITY SPECIAL $0.4-$1.9
MONITORING COSTS ($ MILLION)
-58-
-------
TABLE 4-15
TOTAL MONITORING COSTS MANDATED BY THE INTERIM PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS'
($ million)
FIRST YEAR SECOND YEAR THIRD YEAR
Cost of Routine Monitoring for 13-3 - 27.3 12.7 - 26.3 12.3-25.5
the 40,000 Community Systems8-
Monitoring Due to Violations of
MCL for 40,000 Community Systems
Coliform Violation Monitoring 0.5 - 2.0
^ Inorganic Violation Monitoring 0.01- 0.3 0.01- 0.3
VQ
1 Cost of Routine Monitoring for , 4.5 - 9.4
the 200,000 Non-Community Systems13
Monitoring Due to Violations of 0.3-0.8
MCL for 200,000 Non-Community Systems0
TOTAL PROJECTED MONITORING COSTS^
PRESENT MONITORING COSTS
TOTAL ADDITIONAL MONITORING COSTS
13.
[7.
6.
8 -
3 -
5 -
29.6
14.4]
15.2
12.
[7.
5.
7 -
3 -
4
26.
14.
12.
6
4]
2
It-
18.
8.
1 -
5 -
6 -
35.
16.
18.
7
8]
9
aAnnual costs beginning the first year after implementation of the regulations
Annual costs beginning the third year after implementation of the regulations
°Total monitoring costs due to violations spread over a 2-year period.
Totals may not add due to rounding.
-------
monitoring until the third year. At that time they will
account for approximately 30 percent of the total monitoring
costs of $17 million to $36 million. The remaining 70
percent of the costs should be due to the routine monitoring
of community systems, since violations in these systems are
expected to have been corrected by the third year. Bacterio-
logical monitoring will account for approximately 80 percent
of the total monitoring costs.
4.4 Water Quality Data
It is essential that the water quality data used in
this analysis be explored in detail before developing
treatment costs. This section relates the characteristics
of existing water quality data bases to the characteristics
of the national water supply systems. In this study, as was
mentioned earlier, the EPA projection of 40,000 community
water supply systems is assumed to be valid and the ongoing
EPA inventory of community systems is taken to be represen-
tative of the population of supply systems in the country.
For every organic and inorganic contaminant except
mercury, the water quality data developed In the 1969 CWSS
study was used to evaluate the impact of Implementing the
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. However, as was
pointed out in Section 4.2.1 above, it was necessary to
supplement the CWSS study with Information from the EPA
Interstate Carrier Study and the 10 EPA-State evaluation
studies to obtain data on mercury violations. Table 4-10
gave a summary of the water quality data presently available
on community water supply systems. Since all of these water
samples were analyzed using the same methodology, the results
of these studies should be comparable. If multiple samples
were analyzed, the results were averaged to determine if the
system was in violation.
There are certain problems inherent in the analyses for
the contaminants shown in Table 4-10 which affect their
interpretation. Barium was not analyzed if the sulfate
concentration was greater than 2 mg/1, which accounts for
the smaller number of barium analyses in all three studies.
However, if sulfate is found to be present in this concen-
tration in a water supply, it is highly unlikely that barium
will be present in a soluble form. It is, therefore,
reasonable to use a value of 0.14 percent of systems in
violation rather than the 2.7 percent which was based on
-60-
-------
only 37 samples, since 2.56 percent of the samples have
sulfate in the water in sufficient quantity to precipitate
out the barium.
Because lead is usually found in the distribution
system rather than in the raw water source, it is essential
that multiple testing in both source and distribution
systems be done for lead contamination. This was not always
done in the CWSS study.
Nitrate is mainly a groundwater problem. This is
apparent in comparing the percentage of systems exceeding
the maximum contaminant level in the CWSS study and the
results of the Interstate Carrier Water Study in Table 4-10.
Table 4-16 shows that 75.2 percent of the CWSS systems used
groundwater sources while only 29.9 percent of the inter-
state carrier supplies used groundwater.
TABLE 4-16
PERCENT OF COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS WHICH UTILIZE
EACH
OF FOUR SOURCES OF WATER FOR FIVE STUDIES
SOURCE OF
WATER
Ground
Surfaceb
Mixed0
Purchased
TOTAL
EPA
COMMUNITY
INVENTORY
78.2
11.5
3-1
6.9
100.0
1969
CWSS
75.2
21.6
3.2
100.0
EPA
INTERSTATE
CARRIER
29.9
48.3
15.6
6.2
100.0
10 EPA-
STATE
STUDIES
60.5
32.6
4.3
2.5
99.9
1970
AWWA
40.0
34.7
14.9
10.0
100.0
o
Includes ground and (ground and purchased).
Includes surface and (surface and purchased).
ft
Includes ground and surface and (ground and
surface and purchased).
Includes purchased only.
-61-
-------
The data on turbidity in the CWSS study are invalid.
To be valid, turbidity sampling should be done in situ, but
in the CWSS study the samples were transported to the
laboratories, and several days passed between sampling and
analysis. Furthermore, the one-time grab samples used are
not representative of the seasonal and diurnal variations in
turbidity. By their very nature surface systems are likely
to exceed the one turbidity unit limit at least part of the
year. For this reason it is assumed for the purposes of
this study that all systems which use surface water as a
source will need to provide some form of clarification if
none is presently being used.
Coliform measurements are also a problem since there
can be rapid variations In the number of organisms found.
The Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations state that
numbers of violations averaged on a monthly or quarterly
basis should be used to determine if a system is in violation.
This procedure was not followed in the three studies shown
in Table 4-10. However, historical data Indicate that
approximately 27.5 percent of the systems now in operation
will need to install some form of disinfection equipment in
the future.
Since no analysis for mercury was made in the 1969 CWSS
study, it was necessary to utilize the values found in the
Chemical Analysis of the Interstate Carrier Water Supply
Systems and the 10 state evaluations to estimate the percen-
tage of systems which would exceed the maximum level of this
contaminant. A value of 2.7 percent was chosen by dividing
the total number of samples analyzed in the interstate
carrier and state evaluations by the number of samples which
exceeded the maximum contaminant levels.
4.4.1 Expansion Factors
Since the CWSS data base for which the water quality
data exist represents a different population (Table 4-17) by
source of water/and population served than does the EPA
inventory (Table 4-18), it is necessary to apply expansion
factors in order to project national treatment costs from
this small sample.
The national treatment costs were determined by multi-
plying the percent of MCL exceeders (categorized by source
of water for each contaminant) by the number of systems in
each of nine size categories. The number of plants found in
this manner was then multiplied by the cost of treating the
mean-sized plant in each size category.
-62-
-------
TABLE 4-17
BREAKDOWN OF 1969 CWSS STUDY BY POPULATION
i
ON
SERVED AND SOURCE OF WATER
POPULATION
SERVED
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2,499
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
> 1,000,000
TOTAL
GROUND
10.7
26.9
8.0
8.9
5-7
6.2
7.8
1.0
Oa
75-2
SOURCE OF WATER
SURFACE
1.2
3.8
2.8
4.8
2.4
2.2
3.1 .
1.2
0.1
21.6
MIXED
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.3
0
3.2
TOTAL
12.1
31.1
11.2
14.2
8.7
8.6
11.5
2.5
0.1
100.0
LZero (0) means less than 0.1 percent.
-------
I
o\
JS-
TABLE 4-18
BREAKDOWN OF EPA COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM INVENTORY
BY
POPULATION
SERVED
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2,499
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1, 000, 000
TOTAL
POPULATION
SERVED
AND SOURCE
OP WATERa
SOURCE OP WATER
GROUND
15-9
32-4
10.7
9.2
4.0
2.7
3.1
0.2
Ob
78.2
SURFACE
0.7
2.4
1.4
2.1
1.6
1.1
1.9
0.3
0
11.5
MIXED
0
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.1
0
3.4
PURCHASED
0.8
2.5
1.1
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.8
0
0
6.9
TOTAL
17-4
37.8
13.6
12.9
6.6
4.6
6.5
0.6
0
100.0
aAs of July 1975.
Zero (0) means less than 0.1 percent.
-------
4.5 Treatment Costs Incurred by Community Water Systems
The costs incurred by a community in removing any
contaminant are site-specific and are dependent on many
exogenous factors, such as treatment facilities present, age
of system, availability of alternate sources of water, and
many other interrelated problems. A theoretical discussion
of the chemistry involved in contaminant removal can be
found in Appendix D. Since each system is a separate
entity, a methodology has to be devised for using the CWSS
data base of 969 plants in developing the national cost
estimates for treatment required by the regulations.
Those systems having problems with a particular contami-
nant are assigned capital and O&M costs for correcting the
violation. Lead treatment costs are determined using pH
control as the treatment process; ion exchange is the
treatment process chosen to treat for Cd, Cr, NOo, Se, Hg,
and Ba. Activated alumina adsorption is chosen to remove
excess fluoride and arsenic. (All cost functions utilized
in forming capital and O&M costs can be found in Appendix E).
A cost estimate is made to determine the capital and
annual O&M costs to clarify those water systems in the EPA
inventory of 40,000 systems which have surface-water supplies
and do not clarify. The annual and capital costs are deter-
mined by assuming that direct filtration will be used to
clarify those systems in which clarification is necessary.
In developing capital and O&M costs for disinfection,
it is assumed that 27.5 percent of the systems which do not
presently chlorinate will need to install chlorination
equipment to meet the coliform regulation.
If a system had an inorganic violation in the CWSS
study, but nonetheless had the correct remedial treatment
process, the violation is attributed to system malfunction
and it is considered unnecessary to calculate additional
capital expenses/;
The cost descriptions used are divided into two main
categories. The first category is that of cost functions
and estimates for water supply systems with production
greater than 1,000 m3/day (264,000 gpd). The second category
describes the corresponding costs for small systems. There
is a need for such a distinction because the costs developed
for large supply systems are not valid for systems of smaller
capacity. Consequently, different sets of functions are
-65-
-------
devised for the following processes: (1) clarification
(consisting of direct filtration), (2) chlorination, (3) ion
exchange, (4) pH control, and (5) activated alumina.
The assumptions used in developing costs are:
1. The quantity of water production can be
estimated by using the appropriate production
figures for each population category
(Table 4-2);
2. Electricity costs 3 cents per kilowatt-hour;
3. Land costs $202 per hectare;
4. Capital costs include expenses for equipment
purchase, installation, construction, design,
engineering study, land, site development
and construction overhead. Operating and
maintenance costs include labor, supplies,
materials, chemicals, electric utility and
general maintenance;
5. The interest rate is 7 percent;1
6. A 15-year payoff period is assumed.2
The cost functions for large water supply systems were
generated primarily from the results of a report by D.
Volkert & Associates. 3 These functions, which have been
Interest rates are quite variable and show considerable
fluctuation. Seven percent was the average rate for medium-
risk utilities at the time of writing.
This payoff period is considered to be shorter than
average for the industry and would cause the results to be
on the conservative side.
3David Volkert & Associates, Monograph of the Effective-
ness and Cost of Water Treatment Processes for Removal of
Specific Contaminants, Vol. 1. Technical Manual
Maryland: David Volkert & Associates, 1974).
-66-
-------
compared favorably with another report, are summarized in
Appendix E. It should be noted that the cost estimates are
for individual processes and that cascading them in series
may lead to lower costs. Moreover, these functions are
valid only for plant capacities from 1,000 nP/day (264,000
gpd) to 300,000 m3/day (79-2 mgd). Unless otherwise
specified, these cost estimates are in 1975 dollars.
Cost information for systems producing under 1,000
mVday was obtained through (1) personal conversation with
several water treatment equipment manufacturers and suppliers
and (2) a study of conventional water supply costs conducted
by Control Systems Research, Inc. for the Office of Saline
Water, U.S. Department of the Interior.2
The approach used when cost information was requested
from vendors included the following two steps. First, each
manufacturer or supplier was queried as to the exact nature
of his business. This allowed the cost data obtained to be
qualified in terms of actual type of equipment and services
supplied for a stated price. The various business functions
of the vendors contacted included suppliers of $40 cartridge
filter products for home use, manufacturers of treatment
unit "packages" for commercial/industrial use, suppliers of
complete clarification systems for small municipal systems
and/or industrial use, and suppliers of treatment systems
designed to handle site-specific problems.
Secondly, each vendor was asked to provide general cost
information (capital, 'installation, operation/maintenance)
for equipment customarily used in water treatment application
within the flow rate range of interest. It is acknowledged
that facilities and equipment provided in a given application
are determined from several factors including: (1) raw
water quality, (2) desired product water quality, (3) flow
rate, (4) existing facilities, (5) systems and equipment
flexibility, (6) operation and maintenance needs of equip-
ment, and other site-specific characteristics. Responses
were therefore based on either equipment catalogue costs or
on actual vendor^experience in providing goods and equipment
for small systems.
"^I.C. Watson, Resource Studies Group, Control Systems
Research Inc. (CSR), Manual for Calculation of Conventional
Water Treatment Costs (Washington, D.C.:Office of Saline
Water, U.S. Department of the Interior, March 1972). Control
Systems Research Inc. is now known as KAPPA Systems Inc.,
Arlington, Virginia.
2Watson, Manual for Treatment Costs, 1972.
-67-
-------
The information received from vendors was supplemented
with cost data contained in the aforementioned GSR study,
which is also based largely on equipment cost information
provided by vendors. The CSR report was prepared with an
emphasis on developing cost curves for systems used in
municipal applications and was designed to provide a means
for estimating the costs of conventional treatment systems
for individual unit operations. Cost functions derived from
CSR data reflect 1972 prices and are therefore multiplied by
the appropriate factor in order to present results in 1975
dollars.
It should be pointed out here that the cost curves for
small and large systems will not produce a continuous
function. The main reason for this is that each set of
curves was developed independently and perhaps under dif-
fering assumptions. The cost differences that occur at the
small and large system breakpoint do not materially affect
the overall cost estimates. In any event, it was not within
the scope of this project to develop a single continuous
function for all system sizes covered by the Act.
However, because of the tremendous range in system
size, serving from 25 persons to over 1,000,000 persons,
there are several reasons why it may be difficult to develop
a continuous function for all systems:
1. Small systems can employ package plants;
2. Small systems generally do not require
full-time maintenance;
3- Small system treatment package plants may
not require housing facilities.
4.6 National Treatment Costs
Table 4-19/&hows the cost of treatment by process for
the average plant in each of the nine population categories.
The following assumptions were implicit in using these costs
to make national treatment cost projections:
1. A system will treat its present supply
rather than develop an alternative supply;
2. There are no retrofit and cascading benefits
when new treatment processes are added;
-68-
-------
TABLE 4-19
MODEL SYSTEMS CAPITAL TREATMENT COSTS FOR
NINE POPULATION SERVED
POPULATION
SERVED
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2,499
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1,000,000
DISINFECTION
690
1,200
1,800
2,500
7,500
12,000
30,000
210,000
2,300,000
CLARIFICATION
21,000
30,000
41,000
52,000
150,000
270,000
640,000
3,400,000
22,000,000
GROUPS3
ION EXCHANGE
41,000
68,000
100,000
140,000
470,000
810,000
2,000,000
11,000,000
67,000,000
pH
CONTROL
690
1,200
1,800
2,500
7,500
12,000
30,000
210,000
2,300,000
ACTIVATED
ALUMINA
2,600
6,100
12,000
22,000
37,000
60,000
130,000
620,000
3,300,000
Costs were determined for average production and average size plant in each
group based on EPA Community Inventory as of July 1975 (Table 4-2).
-------
3. Advanced treatment is necessary to remove all
inorganic chemicals;
4. The inorganic violations found in this 1969
study are truly representative of the national
water supply systems;
5. The information on mercury violations found in
the chemical analysis of the interstate carrier
water systems is representative of the country's
water supply systems;
6. Chlorination units will have to be installed
in 27.5 percent of the systems which do not
presently disinfect their water supplies;
7. All surface water systems will install
clarification units if they are not presently
in use;
8. The mean-sized plant in each of the nine
population ranges was used as a model plant
to develop costs;
9. The present average daily production was used
to determine treatment plant size.
The national costs of treating contaminants in drinking
water are displayed in Table 4-20. The capital costs to
treat for mercury and nitrate contaminants and turbidity are
expected to account for more than three-fourths of the total
capital costs. The major O&M cost items are clarification,
nitrate treatment, and mercury treatment, with clarification
accounting for over 70 percent of the total.
The O&M and capital costs of treatment for community
systems are shown in .Figure 4-2. The total capital costs
for treatment will be approximately $1.1 billion, while the
O&M treatment costs are estimated to be $259 million. The
national treatment costs for each contaminant and nine
population served categories are shown in Appendix F.
4.7 Treatment Costs for Public Non-Community Systems
Since there are only extremely limited and questionable
data available on public non-community water systems, it is
impossible to make accurate predictions about the treatment
-70-
-------
TABLE 4-20
NATIONAL COSTS OF TREATMENT CONTAMINANTS IN DRINKING WATER
ASSUMING TREATMENT OF AVERAGE DAILY PRODUCTION
PROCESS
TREATMENT CAPITAL COSTS
TECHNIQUE ($ million)
Clarification direct filtration
NOQ
ion exchange
j
Chlorination disinfection
Mercury
Selenium
Cadmium
Lead
Fluoride
Chromium
Barium
Arsenic
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
ion exchange
ion exchange
ion exchange
pH control
activated alumina
ion exchange
ion exchange
activated alumina
COMMUNITY
NON-COMMUNITY
379-3
215.9
17.0
243.0
86.3
35.7
2.7
28.3
28.2
10.1
2.3
1,048.8
23.6
ANNUAL O&M
($ million)
188.6
18.1
7.2
20.6
7.2
3.0
0.1
10.1
2.4
0.8
0.7
258.8
4.4
TOTAL
1,072.4
263-2
aThe number of plants affected was calculated by
multiplying the percentage of violators in each contaminant
category by the total number of systems in each size and
source category. The number of plants was then multiplied
by the cost of treating the mean-sized plant (based on
average daily production) in each size category.
-71-
-------
Percent of Water
Supply Systems
10
20
Percent of Population Served by Community Water Systems
90
100
Figure J)-2. This figure shows the percentages of population served by
community water systems versus percentages of total treatment costs.
techniques which would be required. It is quite possible
that these systems, unlike community systems, would choose
to stop supplying water rather than to install any treatment
process. However, in this analysis it was assumed that no
system will choose to close rather than treat. In the non-
community system studies available, l?.l percent of the
systems exceeded the coliform MCL; this means that approxi-
mately 3*4,000 systems nationwide would install disinfection
equipment to meet the coliform MCL. It is assumed that
these 34,000 systems would install feed hypoehlorinators at
a capital cost of $400 each, or a national capital cost of
$13.6 million. 3ince the majority of these systems operate
for only 3 months of the year, the O&M is assumed to be $100
per year per plant, or a national cost of $3-4 million per
year.
The only other major treatment costs encountered by
these non-community systems would be for the clarification
of surface-water systems. A rapid sand filter can be bought
for about $5,000 for a system delivering 20 gallons per
minute. It is estimated that less than 1 percent of the
-72-
-------
non-community systems use surface water as a source (Appendix
C, Table C-16). This means that a maximum of 2,000 systems
would need clarification, or $10 million in capital invest-
ment and an annual O&M cost of $1 million. It is highly
doubtful that a non-community water supply system would
invest a great deal of capital In extensive treatment
systems for inorganic contaminants, although certain systems
might invest a few hundred dollars in a simple ion exchange
column. In general, it appears that the capital and O&M
costs of these non-community systems would be minimal
compared to the costs of community systems.
4.8 Sensitivity of Treatment Costs
The following variables were used in developing the
capital and O&M requirements for water treatment facilities:
1. Construction costs
2. Site development costs
3. Labor costs
4. Land costs
5. Plant capacity
Each of these variables has an input on the local cost
of constructing and running a treatment facility. Table
4-21 shows the regional variations in wages and construction
cost indices which were found in March 1975, as well as the
national average. In all calculations the national average
was used to compute costs, but regional variations can cause
a difference of at least 20 percent in costs. Local land
costs vary from site to site, but since land costs comprise
only a very small percentage of total construction costs,
the effect of this variable is minimal.
The major cost factor is plant capacity, since this
factor controls the amount of construction and material
needed to build a given treatment facility. Water usage may
differ markedly among cities having similar populations.
For example, Wheeling, West Virginia and Everett, Washington
each have water systems serving approximately 65,000 people.
Wheeling treats 10 mgd while Everett treats 100 mgd, with
the difference in water usage explained by the presence of
two pulp plants in Everett. Other factors, such as climate,
local economy, urbanization, water distribution facilities,
cost to consumer, availability and variability of water
-73-
-------
TABLE 4-21
LABOR AND CONSTRUCTION INDICES BY EPA REGION
March 1975
CPI Index
U.S. Average
Ratio of
Regional CPI to
U.S. Average CPI
January 1975
BLS Wages6
U.S. Average
Ratio of
Regional BLS to
U.S. Average BLS
January 1975
Handy-Whltnan
Index
Source
Pumping
Structure
Pumping
Equipment
Plant - large
• small
Distribution
Pipes
Building
Trades Labor
I
2,126a
2,128
1.02
3.96a
4.71
0.84
385
358
303
355
100
335
405
II
2,631
2,128
1.24
5.00
4.71
1.06
385
358
303
355
100
335
105
III
2,374b
2,128
1.12
4.83b
4.71
1.03
389
377
303
386
380
338
121
IV
1,670C
2,128
0.78
3.50C
4.71
0.74
389
377
303
386
380
338
121
V
2,371
2,128
1.12
5-34
4.71
1.13
375
379
303
377
364
328
117
VI
l,679d
2,128
0.79
4.72d
4.71
1.00
365
364
303
354
355
321
387
VII
2,330
2,128
1.09
4.48
4.71
0.95
371
379
303
374
361
325
416
VIII
1,705
2,128
0.80
4.80
0.71
1.02
357
335
303
335
333
318
409
IX
2,309
2,128
1.09
5-01
4.71
1.06
376
378
303
357
351
322
411
aBased on Boston Index.
Baaed on Cincinnati Index.
°Based on Atlanta Index.
"Based on Denver Index.
*Por manufacturing employees.
-74-
-------
sources, and the kinds of commercial and industrial estab-
lishments supplied from the municipal system, all determine
the quantities of water treated.1
The national average water production is presently 165
gallons per consumer day (0.62 m3/cd), according to the EPA
water supply inventory. The production by size category
varies from 99 to 192 gpcd (0.38 to 0.73 m3/cd) (see Table
4-2). A study2 of 122 private companies (Table 4-22) yields
a national average consumption of 146 gpcd (0.55 m3/cd).
This study also indicates that smaller communities can
consume considerably less water per consumer than do larger
communities. Since production is the most important factor
in the price sensitivity analysis, an analysis was performed
using peak day demand production. The treatment costs
developed for peak day demand and average daily production
are shown in Table 4-23. Using peak demand production would
put a realistic upper bound on expected treatment costs,
since many systems might decide to build treatment capacity
to meet the expected maximum demand on the systems, rather
than the average daily demand. Building larger treatment
plants will not cause O&M rates to go up significantly,
however, since most O&M expenses are related to total gallon
throughput in the system, regardless of rate of flow.
'''Water Resources Council, The Nation's Water Resources
(Washington, D.C., 1968), p. 4-1-2.
2National Association of Water Companies, "1973
Financial Summary for Investor-Owned Water Utilities,"
(Washington, D.C., 1973).
-75-
-------
TABLE 4-22
WATER PRODUCTION PER CAPITA PER DAY
FOR
122 PRIVATE WATER COMPANIES'1
NUMBER OP
COMPANIES
12
12
11
8
14
28
7
TOTAL 122
AVERAGE
POPULATION
SERVED
624,339
239,859
79,474
24,885
11,711
4,435
1,166
23,672
GALLONS CONSUMED
PER CUSTOMER
PER DAY
140
147
162
135
142
119
74
146
aNational Association of Water Companies, "1973
Financial Summary for Investor-Owned Water Utilities,"
Washington, D.C.
-76-
-------
TABLE 4-23
NATIONAL COST RANGE FOR TREATMENT OF CONTAMINANTS
IN DRINKING WATER
I
—j
TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
TOTAL
CONTAMINANT
CAPITAL COSTSa
($ million)
1,048.8 -1,764.1
ANNUAL O&M
($ million)
Community Systems
Clarification
Chlorination
Ion Exchange
Activated Alumina
pH Control
Turbidity
Coliform
Ba, Cr, Cd,
NO, Hg, Se
As , Fluoride
Pb
379.3 -
17.0 -
619.2 -
30.6 -
2.7 -
682.9
27.4
996.9
52.7
4.2
188.6
7.2
52.1
10.8
0.1
258.8
aT
Lower bound assumes treatment plant designed for average daily demand; upper
bound assumes treatment plant designed for peak daily demand.
-------
CHAPTER FIVE
FEASIBILITY OF FINANCING COSTS
5.0 Introduction
Compliance with the interim regulations will require
several types of expenditures by suppliers of drinking
water. Monitoring expenses will have to be met in some
fashion by all suppliers, while O&M and capital costs for
water treatment, as well as the indirect cost of administra-
tion will have to be met by those systems exceeding an MCL.
This chapter aggregates all costs developed in the previous
chapter and explores the financial effect on the impacted
systems.
5.1 Present Industry Financial Structure
Although a majority of water systems have debt ratios
(ratios of long-term debt to the book value of property)
ranging upward from 40 percent, almost one-fourth are free
of long-term debt. Approximately 85 percent of these debt-
free systems serve communities of less than 5,000 people.
However, these debt-free, small systems are not necessarily
the most financially sound. Analysis of the income tax
returns of water and sanitary systems listed in the Almanac
of Business and Industrial Financial Ratios (1975 edition)^
shows that almost half of the small investor-owned systems
failed to show a positive net income (Table 5-1)• Many
larger water utilities that appear to be saddled with high
debt may actually be slightly better off.
Compared with other types of utilities, water systems
tend to have high debt ratios. This is not surprising, given
the large capital expenditures required in comparison to the
low product cost of water. Since many areas have statutory
•"•R.C. Hyle, "Rate Philosophy," JAWWA 63, (11): 686,
November 1971.
p
Almanac of Business and Industrial Financial Ratios
(1975 Edition) (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:Prentice-Hall
Publishing Company). Data gathered by Prof. Leo Troy,
Rutgers University.
Preceding page blank _79_
-------
TABLE 5-1
FINANCIAL STRUCTURE OF INVESTOR-OWNED
WATER SYSTEMS AND RELATED SERVICES3
NUMBER
SIZE OP ASSETS OF FIRMS
A TOTAL 6,
B Under $100 4,
C $100 to $250 1,
D $250 to $500
E $500 to $1000
F $1000 to $5000
G $5000 to $10,000
H $10,000 to $25,000
I $25,000 to $50,000
J $50,000 to $100,000
K $100,000 to $250,000
L $250,000 and over
o
Almanac of Business
(1975 Edition) (Englewood
649
472
157
548
234
182
19
17
6
8
5
1
and
NUMBER
REPORTING
NET LOSS
2,820
2,160
419
133
39
63
4
2
—
-
-
—
NET PROFIT BEFORE
TAX AS PERCENT
OF SALES
5-4
3.8
2.2
6.1
8.2
Net Loss
for Category
4.5
7.5
10.8
6.5
16.3
Net Loss
for Category
Industrial Financial Ratios
Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-
Hall Publishing Company, 1975).
-80-
-------
limitations on both total indebtedness for public utilities
and ceilings on interest rates, some water utilities would
be able to absorb only a limited amount of further capital
expenditure if it were to be financed by traditional means.
Matters are further complicated by the existence of
loan covenants, particularly coverage ratios. Coverage
ratios for water utilities are generally defined by the
formula:
r, T> i... Net Revenues
Coverage Ratio = Debt Service
where Debt Service = Interest and Principal Repayments
Unless utilities seeking additional funds are well above
their normally required coverage ratios — which usually range
near 1.51 — they may well be forced to finance either with
higher interest loans or more expensive common stock (for
the investor-owned utilities).
Most utilities, both public and private, finance large
capital investments by retaining profits and acquiring debt.
Government-owned water utilities usually have access to
municipal funds and can sell either general obligation
bonds, to be repaid from general revenues (including property
taxes), or revenue bonds, which are less secure since they
are repaid from water revenues only.
Investor-owned utilities may issue stock as well as
bonds, and their credit ratings are more completely dependent
on the profitability of their own operations. Unbacked by
governmental guarantees and the tax-exempt status of municipal
utilities, their debt — particularly their common stock —
is more risky than the debt issues of government-owned
utilities. Since interest rates are proportional to risk,
utilities in more secure financial positions can borrow
money more easily and at lower interest rates. Government-
owned utilities have the advantage that their credit may be
more highly rated. At the present time the interest rate
John D. Wright and Don R. Hassail, "Trends in Water
Financing," in Modern Water Rates (8th Edition), edited by
Elroy Spitzer (American City Magazine, 1972).
-81-
-------
on municipal bonds is 4 to 6 percent, while the rate for
private (investor-owned) utilities is 6 to 8 percent.1
The capital investments required by the new regulations
would be financed heavily by new bond issues. For some
utilities this will pose no problem; others, already deeply
in debt or without the necessary credit ratings, might have
difficulty in meeting the new costs. The Safe Drinking
Water Act provides for guaranteed Federal loans of up to
$50,000 for "small" public water systems, including both
public and private utilities. Although the guaranteed loans
of $50,000 should ease the transition to full compliance
with the interim primary regulations, they may well prove to
be insufficient alone, particularly for those systems
requiring ion exchange or clarification. Medium-sized water
utilities might need more funds and might not be able to
obtain the full amounts through bond issues and loans which
are not eligible for coverage by the $50,000 loan guarantee
provision. One other source of financial aid for these
water utilities is the loan and grant program sponsored by
the Farmers Home Administration.
In addition to capital investments, other costs would
be incurred to meet the more rigorous drinking water regu-
lations; increased monitoring and laboratory analysis of
water samples for inorganics, organics, pesticides, and bio-
logical contaminants will all add to costs. Although many
large water utilities have their own laboratory facilities
and personnel for monitoring activities, analyses will have
to be performed for more contaminants and more frequently in
the future. Many states now provide laboratory services for
water analysis at a subsidized price; if state facilities
could not be expanded rapidly enough to meet the increased
needs, private laboratories might be able to fill the gap.
In any case, new equipment would be needed for tests which
are not now performed. The water utilities would have to
absorb the costs of analysis or pass these costs on to the
states through the use of subsidized state and private
laboratories.
All increased operating costs for monitoring and for
additional treatment, and all increased payments of interest
and principal on (new) loans and bonds, would eventually
have to be met either directly through increased revenues,
-'-Personal communication — First National Bank of
Boston, April 1975-
-82-
-------
or indirectly through funds from state and local tax revenues
or from Federal grants (also tax revenues). Private utilities
might be able to meet increased operating expenses by
retaining more earnings, rather than distributing earnings
to investors in the form of dividends; however, this practice
would tend to hurt their financial position by decreasing
the value of-their stock. Hence, it is not an appropriate
long-term financial strategy.
Since the major source of revenue for most water
utilities is the sale of water to customers, the issue of
rates (or prices) is relevant to this discussion of financing.
Because they face greater risk and lack tax-exempt status,
the investor-owned companies have a higher cost of capital;
thus the investor-owned companies generally charge higher
rates per unit than do public systems (Figure 5-1)- Rates
also vary among systems which have different amounts of
treatment.
1.00.
,90..
&
o
o
o
.80.
.70.
.60.
.50.
.40.
.30.
.20 •
.10-
/
0.
^
i
1
1
SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
1-10 mgd 10-30 mgd >30 mgd
PUBLIC SYSTEMS
PRIVATE SYSTEMS
Figure 5-1. This figure shows the unit price of
water in t/1,000 gallons.
-83-
-------
Prices to the consumer are determined by rate structures,
which in turn are a function of the institutional status of
the consumer, i.e., industrial, commercial, or residential
user, and are also a function of the cost of producing water.
There are basically four types of rate structures:
1. Normal block structure
2. Inverted block-structure
3- Plat rate structure
4. Non-incremental rate structure
Normal block structure applies particularly to industrial
consumers and it gives a lower unit cost to the large volume
users.
The inverted rate structure assigns higher unit costs
to the largest consumers. The rationale behind this structure
is that it encourages conservation through the economic
incentive of higher prices for larger users.
The flat rate structure utilizes a single charge per
unit for both large and small consumers. Only a small
portion of all water supply utilities are currently using
this rate structure.
Non-incremental rate structures are used to charge
consumers when their water is not metered. The unit cost of
water is dependent on the number and/or type of water con-
sumption units (i.e., toilets, faucets, etc.) owned by the
user under this rate structure.
No significant correlation appears to exist between
either system size and rate structure, or type of ownership —
public vs. private — and rate structure.
Prices charged for water are usually regulated by a
state or local commission appointed to evaluate the need for
rate hikes. Investor-owned utilities in all but two states
are under the jurisdiction of state regulatory commissions.
Public utilities^either are regulated by local boards or
else they are unregulated. Under such local control, water
utilities formulate rate schedules to provide the gross
revenues approved by the commissions.
Increased public understanding of water quality, as a
result of the Safe Drinking Water Act, is expected to impress
public regulatory agencies with the need for capital invest-
ments in the water supply industry. This, in turn, should
-84-
-------
lead the agencies to grant needed rate increases, thus
aiding those plants requiring additional funds for compliance
with the regulations.
5.2 Characteristics of Demand for Water
5.2.1 Trends in Demand
Public water supply systems provide water service for
residential, commercial, industrial and general municipal
purposes. Some of the many factors influencing trends in
water use are: the level of water and sewer services;
changes in customer bills for those services; changes in
modes of living; the growth and nature of commercial,
industrial, and institutional services; seasonal variations
in the local economy; changes in climate; the extent of
existing service-area development and redevelopment; the
ability to extend service to additional areas; and the
availability of an adequate, good-quality water supply.!
Table 5-2 shows the Water Resources Council's projec-
tions of the municipal water requirements to the year 2020.
These projections indicate that water requirements will
double between 1965 and 1980.
5.2.2 Elasticity of Demand
Records indicate that water use per customer tends to
decrease following significant increases in water rates.
Howe and Linaweaver2 estimated the price elasticity of
demand for water at -0.23 for metered, public sewer areas.
Gottlieb3 found it to be -0.4 in large cities and -0.65 in
smaller communities. In an article by the American Water
•"•W.L. Patterson, "Water Use," JAWWA, 65_: 287, 1973-
2Charles W. Howe and P.P. Linaweaver, Jr., "The Impact
of Price on Residential Water Demand and Its Relation to
System Design and Price Structure," Water Resources
Research, 3_: 1, First Quarter, 1967.
^M. Gottlieb, "Urban Domestic Demand for Water: A
Kansas Case Study," Land Economics, May 1963-
-85-
-------
I
CD
TABLE 5-2
PROJECTIONS OF PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS5
(Millions of gallons per
North Atlantic
South Atlantic Gulf
Ore at Lakes
Ohio
Tennessee
Upper Mississippi
Lower Mississippi
Souris-Red Rainy
Missouri
Arkansas-White-Red
Texas Gulf
Rio Qrande
Upper Colorado
Lower Colorado
Great Basin
Columbia-North Pacific
California
Alaska
Hawaii
Puerto Rico
TOTAL
1965
905
363
502
230
46
162
175
11
221
241
400
108
14
203
94
182
1,320
7
39
21
5,244
day)
CONSUMPTION
1980 2000
1,210
600
702
300
64
258
238
16
280
496
740
220
30
310
154
219
4,620
24
65
35
10,581
1,750
1,000
953
430
95
403
343
26
339
832
1,200
400
35
515
255
350
7,350
46
106
50
16,478
2020
2,550
1,500
1,304
620
140
580
497
35
397
1,205
1,750
670
50
840
3^5
'537
11,300
75
173
75
24,643
aWater Resources Council. The Nation's Water Resources.
-------
Works Association (AWWA) the implied elasticities were
-0.08, -0.20, -0.22, -0.28, -0.33 and -0.34. These elas-
ticities mean that for a given percent price increase, water
use will decrease by a much smaller percentage (Table 5-3).
For example, if the elasticity is -0.23 and the price of
water increases by 20 percent the use of water will decrease
by only 4.6 percent.
The elasticity for water used for lawn sprinkling is
much greater than the elasticity for water in general. Howe
and Linaweaver2 found the sprinkling elasticity to be -0.7
in the arid West and -1.6 in the humid East. This indicates
that if the price of water increases, people reduce the
amount of sprinkling. Gottlieb's high elasticity (-0.65)
may be due to sprinkling demands. This elasticity was
estimated for small towns, which tend to have more space
devoted to lawns and gardens than do large cities. Thus the
amount of area devoted to lawns and gardens in a utility
district will affect consumer response to price increases.
>-^
Technology also plays a role in determining water con-
sumption. The examples that resulted in the AWWA elasticities
of -0.20. and -0.34 were instances in which the population
was able to convert from water-cooled air conditioners to
non-water-using air conditioners. Once a price increase
causes people to change their habits and buy water-saving
appliances, it is not anticipated that any additional price
increase will cause further reduction of water use.
Table 5-4 indicates the manner in which revenue will
change as a function of elasticity and price change. Total
revenue increases everywhere with water price increases,
except when price elasticity is -0.65 and price increases
are 100 percent or greater. It can be concluded from these
data that if a water company, located in an area where lawn
sprinkling is prevalent, doubles its rate, it may actually
end up with less revenue than it received before the rate
increase.
American Water Works Association, Committee of Water
Use, "Water Use Committee Report," JAWWA, May 1973-
2Howe and Linaweaver, "Impact of Price on Demand and
Its Relation to Design and Structure."
-87-
-------
TABLE 5-3
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRICE CHANGE AND DEMAND
en
CO
AS A FUNCTION OP ELASTICITY
PRICE
ELASTICITY
OP DEMAND
FOR WATER
-0.08
-0.20
-0.22
-0.23
-0.28
-0.33
-0.34
-0.40
-0.65
PERCENT DECREASE IN DEMAND FOR WATER
DUE TO 5 PERCENT DUE TO 20 PERCENT DUE TO 50 PERCENT
INCREASE IN PRICE INCREASE IN PRICE INCREASE IN PRICE
0.4
1
1.1
1.15
1.4
1.65
1.7
2.0
3-25
1.6
4.0
4.4
4.6
5.6
,6.3
6.8
8.0
13.0
4.0
10.0
11.0
11.5
14.0
16.5
17.0
20.0
32.5
DUE TO 100 PERCENT
INCREASE IN PRICE
8.0
20.0
22.0
23.0
28.0
33.0
34.0
40.0
65-0
-------
TABLE 5-4
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRICE CHANGE AND REVENUE
AS A FUNCTION OP ELASTICITY
PRICE
ELASTICITY
OP DEMAND
FOR WATER
-0
I -0
cx>
MD
1 -0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
.08
.20
.22
-23
.28
• 33
.34
.40
.65
PERCENT INCREASE IN REVENUE
DUE TO 5 PERCENT DUE TO 20 PERCENT DUE TO 50 PERCENT
INCREASE IN PRICE INCREASE IN PRICE INCREASE IN PRICE
4.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
2.
1.
6
95
8
8
5
4
2
9
6
18.
15.
14.
14.
13.
12.
11.
10.
4.
1
1
7
5
3
4
8
4
4
44.
35.
33.
32.
29.
25.
24.
20.
1.
0
0
5
7
0
3
5
0
3
DUE TO 100 PERCENT
INCREASE IN PRICE
84.
60.
56.
54.
44.
34.
32.
20.
-30.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
5-3 Distribution of Costs
5.3.1 General
This section explores the projected distribution of
treatment and monitoring costs over the next 10 years. This
cost distribution was calculated on the basis of size of
system, treatment facilities, and type of ownership.
5.3.2 Annual Monitoring Costs
The Safe Drinking Water Act mandates that water moni-
toring should begin 18 months after publication of the
regulations. The projected monitoring costs for the first
two years after implementation would be approximately $21.5
million per annum, then rise to an annual expenditure of
approximately $28 million after the second year (Table 5-5).
5.3.3 Annual Capital Costs
Those systems which will be constructing new or addi-
tional treatment facilities will require some $1.049 billion
in capital expenditures. It is expected that the construction
and its attendant investment requirements will be spread
evenly over a 5-year period. In general, a design period of
1.5 years would be needed before construction could begin,
and construction would take from 1 to 3 years. It is assumed
that no treatment facility design will begin until after
implementation of the Revised National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations.1 For this reason, it is anticipated that
the 5-year period of investment requirements will begin in
1979. In all calculations in this chapter treatment costs
are based on average daily production rates.2 Cost ranges
based on maximum daily demand are displayed in Chapter Six.
Section I4l2(b) of the Act specifies that the Adminis-
trator must propose revised regulations within 100 days of
the publication of the National Academy of Sciences report
under Section lMl2(e) of the Act.
p
Complete tables of costs by plant size and by treatment
type for publicly-owned and privately-owned systems are in
Appendix G of this report.
-90-
-------
TABLE 5-5
TOTAL MONITORING COSTS'
SYSTEM
SIZE
25-99
100-199
500-999
1,000-2,199
2, 500-*, 999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000
TOTAL
COMMUNITY0
TOTAL
NON-COMMUNITY
TOTAL0
NUMBER
OP
SYSTEMS
7,008
15.^3
5,392
5,182
2,605
1,858
2,599
236
7
40,000
200,000
2*0,000
POPULATION
SERVED
(MILLION
PEOPLE)
0.4
3.8
3.8
7.8
8.9
12.6
61.*
57.3
21.5
177-5
1976
1.2
2.9
1.1
1.7
1.5
1.7
7.8
3-0
0.3
21.4
21.*
(1 Million)
1977
1.3
3-0
1.1
1.8
1.5
1.7
7.8
3.0
0.3
21.5
21.5
1978
1.0
2.*
0.9
1.*
1.2
1.6
7.7
3.0
0.3
19.5
8.4
27.9
1979
1.0
2.3
0.9
l.«
1.2
1.6
7.7
3.0
0.3
19.4
8.4
27.8
1980
1.0
2.3
0.9
1.4
1.2
1.6
7.7
3.0
0.3
19.4
7.5
26.9
COST PER
YEAR
1981-1985
1.0
2.3
0.9
1.4
1.2
1.6
7.7
3.0
0.3
19.4
7.5
26.9
AVE. COST
PER YEAR
PER SYSTEM
(DOLLARS )b
1*3
151
160
262
*56
879
2.885
12,676
41.149
.70
.25
.65
.71
.75
.49
.25
.04
.29
AVE COST
PER YEAR
PER CAPITA
(DOLLARSP
2.40
0.61
0.23
0.17
0.13
0.13.
0.12
0.05
0.01
'Totals are baaed on mean costs.
Based on 1981 monitoring costs.
"Totals may not add due to rounding.
Assumptions used to partition special monitoring costs by years:
1. For surface systems special monitoring costs were divided evenly between Year 1 and Year 2.
2. For groundwater systems special monitoring costs wero divided into 25 percent in Year 1, 50 percent
in Year 2, and 25 percent in Year 3*
3. Nitrate, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium and fluoride are found only in groundwater.
4. Lead, mercury, and selenium are found in both surface and groundwater in a random manner.
5. Silver was not found in violation.
6. Non-community systems will spread their costs evenly over the first 2 years of enforcement.
-------
The total annual capital costs, by size of system, are
displayed in Table 5-6. Projections indicate that systems
serving between 25 and 99 people will have an average per
capita capital expenditure of about $163 to treat their
water, while the average per capita cost for systems serving
more than one million people will be only $8.78. The private
(investor-owned) segment of the water supply industry will
pay 17.7 percent of the total treatment costs, while the
public sector will pay 82.3 percent. Yet, this does not
necessarily mean that the burden will fall most heavily on
the public sector because systems serving under 100 people —
those with relatively high costs of capital and relatively
poor operating records — are concentrated in the private
sector.
5.3.4 Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs
It is assumed that O&M costs will begin concurrently
with capital costs and will aggregate yearly until an
equilibrium is reached at the end of the fifth year. Table
5-7 displays the total O&M expenditures, by size of system,
for the 5-year period ending in 1983.!
The investor-owned companies would pay an annual O&M
cost of almost $33 million after 5 years, while the public
utilities would pay $225.8 million in 1983. However,
private rather than public companies must bear a higher
proportion of O&M costs for the small water companies. When
all costs are included, the private sector's portion of the
bill for systems serving 100 or fewer persons is over three
times that of the public sector.
Systems serving between 25 and 99 people will pay an
average per capita cost of approximately $12.40 per year for
O&M expenses, while systems serving between 100,000 and
1,000,000 people will pay an average of $6.46 per capita.
5.3-5 Total Annual Costs
The total annual costs are considered to be the sum of
the O&M costs, monitoring costs, and ownership costs. The
ownership costs are based on an annual 11 percent debt
Complete tables of costs by plant size and by treatment
type for publicly-owned and privately-owned systems are in
Appendix G of this report.
-92-
-------
TABLE 5-6
TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY SIZE OP SYSTEM
(JO
I
POPULATION
SIZE
CATEGORY
25-99
100-199
500-999
1, 000-2, 199
2,500-^,999
5,000-9,999
IO.CiOO-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1, 000, 000
TOTAL COMMUNITY
CAPITAL COSTS*
TOTAL t
OF PLANTS
2,716
5,039
1,562
1,t50
690
127
562
52
2
12,550
TOTAL
POPULATION
AFFECTED
1,
1,
2,
2,
2,
13,
11,
5,
10,
166,694
309^036
126,992
230.287 '
362,206
91t,i450
981,736
776,126
010,781
901,612
1979
5.77
19.83
10.28
13-89
21.01
23.11
76.29
35.60
6. 00
211.92
19&0
5.77
19.83
10.26
13.89
21.01
23.11
76.29
35.60
6.60
211.92
($ million)
1961 1982
5.21
18.39
9.73
13.26
20.22
22. bl
73-71
31-31
6.60
206.39
5.21
16.39
9.73
13.28
20.22
22.61
73.71
31.31
6.60
206.39
1963
5.21
16.J9
9.73
13.28
20.22
22.61
73.71
31.31
6.60
206.39
TOTAL*
27.3
91.6
19.6
67.6
102.7
111.6
373.6
171.2
11.0
1019.0
TOTAL PER
PLANT
(DOLLARS)
9,929
10,619
31,655
16,650
116,635
266,846
612,268
3,350,365
22,000,000
TOTAL PfcR
CAPITA
(DOLLARS)
163.36
72.11
11.15
30.33
13.11
39.39
26.73
11.79
6.76
totals may not add due to rounding.
-------
TABLE 5-7
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M EXPENDITURES BY SIZE OP SYSTEM
-Cr
I
POPULATION
SIZE
CATEGORY
25-99
100-199
500-999
1,000-2,199
2,500-1,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
> 1,000, 000
TOTAL COMMUNITY
OIK COSTS*
TOTAL *
OF PLANTS
2,716
5,039
1,562
1,150
690
127
582
52
2
12,550
TOTAL
POPULATION
AFFECTED
166,691
1,309,038
1,126,992
2,230,287
2,382,206
2,911,150
13,961,736
11,776,128
5,010,781
10,901,812
1979
.15
1.56
.81
1.13
3.19
3.66
15.63
15.66
11.60
53.92
1960
.69
3.1*
1 . 6Y
2.26
6.37
7.33
31.27
31.72
23.20
107.»3
($ million)
1981 1902
1.29
1.16
2.57
3-16
9.33
10.69
15.51
16.50
31.80
156.15
1.66
5.79
3.06
1.10
12.30
11.01
59.61
61.26
16.10
208. 1b
1963
2.07
7.12
3-76 .
5.03
15.26
17.10
71.09
76.06
56.00
256.00
TOTAL PER
PLANT
(DOLLARS)15
751
1,113
2, lib
3,166
22,119
10,752
127,295
1,162,651
29,000,000
TOTAL PER
CAPITA
(DOLLARS)6
12.11
5.11
3.35
2.25
6.11
5.97
5.30
6.16
11.56
totals may not add due to rounding.
Based on figures from 1983 when treatment Is fully implemented.
-------
service (principal plus interest), and an added factor of 3
percent of capital costs to cover land amortization, insur-
ance, taxes and other ownership costs. The total annual
costs based on average daily production and size of system
are shown in Table 5-8. The weighted average per capita
cost of treatment for systems serving between 25 and 99
people is $35.28, while the weighted average per capita cost
of treatment for systems serving between 100,000 and 1,000,000
people is $8.53. Systems serving over one million people
pay $12.80 per capita per year because of the high percentage
of plants needing clarification.
-95-
-------
TABLE 5-8
TOTAL ANNUALIZED TOTAL EXPENDITURES'1 BY SIZE OF SYSTEM
O>
I
POPULATION
SIZE TOTAL *
CATEGORY OP PLANTS
25-99 2
100-499 5
500-999 1
1,000-2,199 1
2,500-1,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1, 000, 000
SUBTOTAL COMMUNITY
01M COSTS AND
ANNUALIZED
CAPITAL COSTS0 12
MONITORING
SUBTOTAL COMMUNITY"
.716
,039
,562
,150
690
127
582
52
2
,550
TOTAL
POPULATION
AFFECTED
166,891
1,309.038
1,126,992
2,230,287
2,382,206
2,911,150
13,981,736
11,776,128
5,010,781
10.901,812
SUBTOTAL NON-COMMUNITY0
TOTAL0
1979
1.26
1.31
2.28
3.07
6.13
6.95
26.31
20.81
12.83
81.00
19.10
103.10
10.00
113.10
(*
I960
2.52
8.67
1.56
6.15
12.26
15.88
52.62
11.69
25.66
16P.01
19.10
187.11
1C. 00
197.11
million)
1961 1962
3.61
12.59
6.61
8.93
18.02
20.12
77.22
61.27
38.50
217.20
19.10
266.60
10.70
277.30
1.76
16.51
8.67
11.71
23.82
26.95
101.82
80.86
51.33
326.13
19-10
315.83
11.50
357.33
TOTAL PER
PLANT
1963 (DOLLARS)1*
5.89 2,144
20.39 4,016
10.75 6,676
11.19 9,997
29.61 42,956
33.47 78,391
126.42 217,213
100.15 1,931,708
61.16 32,060,000
105-66
19.40
125.06
12.30
137.36
TOTAL PER
CAPITA
(DOLLARS)"
35.26
15.56
9.53
6.50
12.41
11.49
9.04
6.53
12.60
aAssunes: (1) Debt service of 11 percent/year; (2) Capital ownership of 3 percent to cover taxes. Insurance, etc.
b.
Based on 1983 figures when treatment la fully implemented.
cTotals may not add due to rounding.
-------
CHAPTER SIX
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.0 Introduction
The aggregate costs of implementing the Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations were developed in previous chapters
This chapter examines the impact of the regulations on the
individual consumer by exploring the impact on residential,
commercial, and industrial water users.
6.1 Per Capita Monitoring Cost Impacts
Upon, implementation of the Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations, all communities will have to bear the
costs of monitoring their drinking water. The total cost
per capita to perform this monitoring is demonstrated in
Table 6-1. In order to develop these costs, the number of
samples required per person, as a function of the size of a
given system, had to be determined. This is not difficult
for chemical monitoring, since under ordinary circumstances
the required sampling frequency per system depends only on
the system type (groundwater vs. surface-water; community
vs. other) and not on the number of people served. Thus,
for example, a 25-person groundwater system must perform
0.02 (0.5 analyses * 25 people) chemical analyses per person
per year in the first 2 years after implementation of the
regulations, and 0.013 (0.33 analyses 4 25 people) chemical
analyses per person per year thereafter. A surface-water
system serving one million people must perform 10~° (1
analysis * 1,000,000 people) chemical analyses per person
per year. A similar cost analysis was performed to determine
the monitoring costs due to coliform sampling.
6.2 Treatment Cost Impacts
The additional treatment necessitated by the Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations will result in additional
costs to water supply systems, costs which in turn will be
passed on to water customers in the form of higher rates.
-97-
-------
TABLE 6-1
ANNUAL MONITORING COSTS PER PERSON SERVED
VERSUS SYSTEM SIZE AND TYPE FOR COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
SYSTEM TYPE
SYSTEM SIZE SURFACE (T)GROUND ($)
25
100
500
1,000
2,500
5,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
10,000,000
7.20 -
1.80 -
0.35 -
0.20 -
0.15 -
0.10 -
0.10 -
0.05 -
a
a
15.05
3.75
0.75
0.40
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.05
a
3.35 -
0.85 -
0.15 -
0.10 -
0.05 -
0.05 -
0.05 -
0.05 -
a
a
7.05
1.75
0.35
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.05
a
aLess than $0.05.
These costs and their impact will vary with both the size of
the water system and the degree of treatment required. Table
6-2 illustrates in a very general sense the differences in
average costs for four size categories. These are weighted
average costs per capita per year. They are not indicative
of the extremes in costs within each size category which
would be expected for very small systems requiring extensive
treatment and for very large systems requiring minimal
treatment. These cost extremes are shown for each treatment
type and for the four size categories in Table 6-3. In
this table the higher per capita costs shown for the small,
medium, and large system categories represent the costs
which would be incurred if the smallest plant in the category
built treatment capacity to treat the present maximum daily
demand; the lower per capita costs represent the costs which
would be incurred if the largest plant in the category built
a treatment facility for the present average daily production.
For the smallest systems, the per capita costs are based
solely on average daily production, since it was assumed that
the increased costs required to enlarge the plants to treat
for maximum daily demand would impose too great a financial
burden on the individual consumers in these systems.
-98-
-------
TABLE 6-2
DISTRIBUTION OF COSTS FOR THOSE SYSTEMS NEEDING TREATMENT
BY SYSTEM CATEGORY
SMALLEST SYSTEMS SMALL SYSTEMS MEDIUM SYSTEMS LARGE SYSTEMS
(25-99 (100-9,999 (10,000-99,999 (Over 100,000
PEOPLE SERVED) PEOPLE SERVED) PEOPLE SERVED) PEOPLE SERVED)
Annual Capital Costs 3.8 - 6.4
($ million)
Annual O&M Costs 2.1
($ million)
Annual Monitoring Costs 0.3 - 0.6
($ million)
60.2 - 101.4 52.3 - 88.1
48.6
0.6 - 1.3
74.1
1.2 - 2.5
30.5 - 51.2
134.1
1.3 - 2.9
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
($ million)
6.2 - 9.1
109.4 - 151.3 127.6 -164.7 165.9 -188.2
Weighted Average Costs
per Capita per Year ($)
Increase in Household
Monthly Water Bill ($)a
37 - 54
9-60-14.05
11 - 15
2.85- 3.95
9-12
2.35- 3-95
10 - 11
2.55- 2.90
Assumes 3.11 persons per household and that all increases in costs are passed
on to the consumer.
-------
TABLE 6-3
ANNUAL PER CAPITA AND MONITORING COST RANGES
~~FOR POUR SIZE CATEGORIES
SMALLEST SYSTEMS SMALL SYSTEMS MEDIUM SYSTEMS LARGE SYSTEMS
.(25-99 (100-9,999 (10,000-99,999 (OVER 100,000
PEOPLE SERVED) PEOPLE SERVED) PEOPLE SERVED) PEOPLE SERVED)
TREATMENTa
Disinfection 3.85 - 2.10 2.75 - 0.30 0.15 - 0.15 1 0.25
Turbidity Control 152.00 - 52.00 78.00 - 16.00 20.00 - 12.50 £15.00
M
g Heavy Metal Removal 237.00 - 101.00 142.00 - 25.50 35.00 - 13.00 £ 18.00
i
Lead Control 2.60 - 1.20 1.80 - 0.30 0.40 - 0.20 1 0.30
Fluoride/Arsenic 11.80 - 7.85 11.30 - 3.15 5.00 - 3.15 < 3.55
Removal
MONITORING 15-80 - 0.85 3-75 - 0.05 0.20 - 0.05 * 0.05
aLower cost limit based on assumption that treatment plant built to treat
average daily demand and upper cost limit based on maximum daily demand, except
for the Smallest Systems category where costs are based on average dally demand
only.
-------
While the combination of treatments required depends on
the composition of the impurities in the water, a probability
analysis showed that no more than two types of treatment
would be used within a single system. The most commonly
required treatment combinations are listed in Table 6-4,
along with their frequencies of need by system size.
If the present distribution of costs continues, the
additional costs of chlorination and clarification — the
most frequent treatment processes — will result in the
pattern displayed in Table 6-5. Should rates align with
usage, then all users in a particular system would pay the
same rate (e.g., 15-5 cents per 1,000 gallons would be the
price increase for residential, commercial, industrial, and
other users in the 100-person "chlorination only" system).
Assuming that the current average price for water is
$0.60 per 1,000 gallons, the smallest household increase
indicated in Table 6-5 would represent a 7 percent price
,hike and the largest would represent a 336 percent price
hike. Correspondingly, a base price of $0.30 per 1,000
gallons would mean a rate increase of 14.1 percent at the
low end of the scale and 672 percent at the high end. Due
to the wide range of base rates across different systems, it
is impossible to develop a realistic "average" rate.
Historically, industrial and commercial water usage has
been inelastic to price increases.1 For residential (house-
hold) customers, water appears to be price elastic with
respect primarily to lawn sprinkling. Yet, this does not
necessarily mean that higher treatment costs can be readily
passed to customers in the form of higher rates. If price
elasticity in households is -0.65, as Gottlieb believes,2
and prices increase 100 percent, as they well may in small
systems requiring expensive treatments, then water suppliers'
total revenue will fall. Total revenue, rather than rates
per se, is the critical figure for water suppliers. As
demand falls in the first round of rate hikes, a second
stage increase may be necessary to cover the largely fixed
costs of water treatment.
Financial implications aside, the political reper-
cussions of increasing water rates dramatically could be
•"•Patterson et al., "Water Use," JAWWA, 1973-
2M. Gottlieb, "Urban Domestic Demand for Water: A
Kansas Study," Land Economics, May 1963-
-101-
-------
TABLE 6-
PROBABILITY OP NEEDING TREATMENT COMBINATIONS BY SYSTEM SIZE
i
M
O
r\j
I
(% of Systems)
SYSTEM SIZE (POPULATION SERVED)
PROCESS
No Treatment
Chlorination Only
Clarification Only
Ion Exchange Only
pH Control Only
Activated Alumina Only
Chlorination i Ion
Exchange
Chlorination & Activated
Alumina
Chlorination fc Clarification
Clarification & Ion Exchange
25-99
SURFACE GROUND
1 67
3 19
72
5
1
4
2 2
1
21
100 - 9,999
SURFACE GROUND
18 74
4 12
65
6
2
4
1
1
9
2
10,000 - 99,999
SURFACE GROUND
28 79
4 6
59
1 6
2
5
2 1
5
Over 100*000
SURFACE GROUND
71 81
5 *
20
2 7
2
5
1
1
-------
TABLE 6-5
PRICE IMPACTS OP CHLORINATION AND CLARIFICATION TREATMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
BASEfc ON PRESENT AVEttAOE
CHLORINATION ONLY
Increase in Unit Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Annual Systems Increase
(dollars )«
Increase in Household Unit
Coat (cents/1,000 gal)e.
Increase in Commercial Unit
Cost (cents/1,000 gal)r
Increase in Industrial Unit
Cost (cents/1,000 gal)8
Increase in Other Unit Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)n
CLARIFICATION ONLY
Increase in Unit Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)
Total Annual Systems Increase
(dollars )d
Increase in Household Unit
Cost (cents/1,000 gal)b
Increase in Commercial Unit
Cost (cents/1,000 gal)°
Increase in Industrial Unit
Cost (cents/1,000 gal)d
Increase in Other Unit Cost
(cents/1,000 gal)e
DlS*RIBtttt6N OP TOTAL c6*TS
SYSTEMS SIZE
POPULATION SERVED
ioo* 5,ooob 100,000°
15..48 3.18 3-06
616 9,780 191,300
21.16 4.82 1.24
10.89 2.45 2.15
6.52 1.47 1.29
17-03 3-83 3.37
SYSTEMS SIZE
POPULATION SERVED
100* 5jOOOb 100,000°
142.04 30.33 20.04
5,651 85,238 1,272,510
196.92 42.05 27.78
99.95 21.34 11.10
59.81 12.77 8.44
156.24 33.36 22.04
on 109 gallons (0.412 m3) per capita day production.
bBased on 154 gallons (0.582 m3) per capita day production.
°Based on 174 gallons (0.658 m3) per capita day production.
dCosts include annualized capital costs plus O&M plus monitoring.
eAssumes residential customers pay 61 percent of total costs and
use 44 percent of output.
Assumes commercial customers pay 19 percent of total costs and
use 27 percent of output.
^Assumes Industrial customers pay 8 percent of total costs and
use 19 percent of output.
"Assumes other sales pay 11 percent of total costs and use 10
percent of output.
-103-
-------
substantial. Unless local customers clearly understand the
reasons behind the interim primary regulations and the
related rate hikes, they may reject both. However, the
mandatory notification requirement contained in the regu-
lations should serve to inform the local residents of
contaminant problems with their water.
In examining the per capita costs in Tables 6-2 and 6-3,
it is apparent that considerable attention should be given
to the small (under 2,500 population served) water systems.
Table 6-6 lists the capital and O&M costs associated with
each treatment technology for the systems serving fewer than
2,500 people, while Table 6-7 lists the per capita cost and
cost per 1,000 gallons for these same systems. When one
looks at the capital costs for clarification and ion exchange
for these small systems, it is apparent that the per capita
burden of treatment is too great for any small community to
bear. It is equally true, however, that these small systems
will need to comply with the Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations.
The small systems (as well as larger systems) would
probably consider the following options rather than install
expensive treatment processes:
1. Shift source of water from surface to ground;
2. Change groundwater sources;
3. Consolidate (merge systems);
4. Purchase finished water;
5. Disband the community system and go to individual
well sources.
It is possible to develop cost data for options 1 and 2.
In both of these options it is necessary to develop well
costs, which are dependent on the initial cost of structures
and equipment, the useful life of structures and equipment,
and the cost of operation and maintenance. As in any
engineering project, it is possible to vary the proportion
of all three cost factors. A complete description of well
costs can be found in Rural Water Systems Planning and
Engineering Guide by Campbell and Lehr.J- For purposes of
Michael D. Campbell and Jay H. Lehr, Rural Water
Systems Planning and Engineering Guide, Commission on Rural
Water (Washington, D.C.7 1973).
-------
TABLE 6-6
CAPITAL AND O&M TREATMENT COSTS FOR SMALL WATER SYSTEMS*
USING AVERAGE DAILY CURRENT PRODUCTION RATES
ION EXCHANGE
POPULATION CHLORINATION DIRECT FILTRATION (HEAVY METAL pH
SERVED (DISINFECTION) (CLARIFICATION) REMOVAL) (LEAD CONTROL)
npotlP — — —
unuur CAPITAL OMU CAPITAL O&M CAPITAL 4% O&M CAPITAL O&M
($) ($) <$) <*>
i-J 25-99 690 70 21,000 1,900 41,000 2,900 690 3
VJI
1
100-M99 1,200 190 30,000 2,200 68,000 4,800 1,200 12
500-999 1,800 U40 Ml, 000 2,500 100,000 7,200 1,800 38
1,000-2,1199 2,500 850 52,000 2,700 110,000 9,900 2,500 90
ACTIVATED ALUMINA
(FLUORIDE/ARSENIC
REMOVAL)
CAPITAL... 04M
2,600 220
6,100 630
12,000 1,500
22,000 3,000
aBaaed on average sized systems in the EPA Inventory of Community Water Supplies.
-------
TABLE 6-7
ANNUAL PER CAPITA TREATMENT COSTSa AND
TREATMENT COSTS* PER 1,000 GALLONS FOR SMALL SJ^EMS^
CHLORINATION
POPULATION (DISINFECTION)
GROUP ANNUAL PER
-------
illustration, the cost will be developed for a 6-inch
diameter 80-foot deep medium high capacity sand well using a
40-gallon per minute submersible turbine pump with 400 feet
total lead. The well cost of $6,177 includes setting up and
removing the drilling equipment, drilling the well (test
drilling not included), all casings and liners, including
construction casings, grouting and sealing the annular
spaces between casings, and between casings and the boreholes,
well screens and fittings, gravel pack materials, and placing
and conducting one 8-hour pumping test. Not included in
this estimate are preliminary hydraulic tests and site
exploration. The submersible pump would cost $3,921. It is
anticipated that the pump will remain maintenance-free for a
period of 5 years before major repairs would be needed. A
third cost associated with the construction of a new water
system is the water transmission cost. For example, it
would cost $35,000 per mile to lay a 6-inch diameter pipe.
Finally, any treatment costs associated with the new water
source must be considered. Briefly summarizing the results
of this example, it would cost $10,098 to construct the well
and install a pump, with a cost of $35,000 per mile for
transmission lines.
If systems choose options 3 or 4 above, then the primary
cost to consider is the cost of the transmission lines to
furnish water to all parts of the system from the new source.
Figure 6-1 shows the equivalent monthly cost of operating
a single domestic well. A typical well would cost $1,200 to
drill,and the average low capacity pumping system would cost
$980. It would cost about $22 per month to run a single-
family well. Presumably, if municipal water costs exceeded
this cost and groundwater sources were available, people
would choose to develop their own water source rather than
purchase water from a community system.
Table 6-8 shows the total national costs of applying
the recommended treatment technologies to comply with the
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. It is apparent
that many of these costs will not be spent on treating these
small systems. What is not known, however, is the number of
systems which will purchase water from existing systems,
thereby increasing treatment costs for those systems. Until
these two factors can be determined, it appears reasonable
to assign the costs to small systems even though they may
not ultimately treat their present source of water.
Campbell and Lehr, Rural Water Systems Planning and
Engineering Guide, 1973-
-107-
-------
o
IZ •
Z^S
If
If
BASED ON
WELL LIFE OF 20 YEARS
PUMP LIFE OF 10 YEARS
ANNUAL INTEREST RATE 8%
COMBINED ANNUAL MAINTENANCE $10
400
800 1200
INITIAL WELL COST (W.C.)
(dot Mrs)
1600
2000
2400
Figure 6-1. This figure displays the monthly
cost of wells and pumping systems. (Michael D.
Campbell and Jay H. Lehr, Rural Water Systems
Planning and Engineering Guide, p. 119.)
-108-
-------
TABLE 6-8
BREAKDOWN OP NATIONAL COSTS OP TREATING CONTAMINANTS IN DRINKING WATER
o
VD
I
BY TREATMENT TYPE AND POPULATION SERVED GROUPS a
(Capital Costs In $1,000)
POPULATION
SERVED
GROUP
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2,199
2,500-1,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1, 000, 000
TOTAL
DISINFECTION
1,052
2,892
1,092
1,220
1,582
1,596
5,100
2,520
0
17,054
CLARIFICATION
5,292
19,590
12,013
19,656
32,250
29,970
124,800
91,800
44,000
379,371
ION EXCHANGE
19,926
67,728
33,700
42,140
65,330
79,380
234,000
77,000
0
619,204
pH CONTROL
94
332
167
205
277
312
930
420
0
2,737
ACTIVATED ALUMINA
900-
4,288
2,784
4,422
3,256
3,540
8,970
2,480
0
v 30,640
aAssuming treatment of average dally production.
-------
6.3 Macroeconomic Effects
The macroeconomic effects of the Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations are expected to be minimal. On
the average, the regulations will cause an increase in water
rates of 9-5 percent spread over several years. If this
increase occurred in one year, the resulting increase in the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) would be less than 0.001 percent.
Since the costs of these regulations will be incurred over
several years, the average annual increase in the CPI will
be even less. The Chase Econometric Model was used to
examine the impact of all existing pollution abatement
regulations.1 The analysis showed that there will be an
average increase in the CPI for 1974 to 1980 of less than
0.1 percent due to these pollution abatement regulations.
6.4 Energy Use
It is estimated that approximately 21,200 billion Btu's
per year will be required to operate plants and produce
chemicals for the various treatment systems necessary for
the 40,000 community systems to meet the regulations. This
is 0.028 percent of the 1973 national energy consumption,
based on the 1974 Statistical Abstract. The increase in
energy use will depend on a number of factors, including
whether pollution in surface sources of water is success-
fully controlled. There will be no direct energy savings
from the recommended action.
1Chase Econometric Associates, Inc., "The Macroeconomic
Impacts of Federal Pollution Control Programs," prepared for
the Council of Environmental Quality and the Environmental
Protection Agency, January 1975-
-110-
-------
CHAPTER SEVEN
CONSTRAINTS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
7.0 Introduction
This chapter explores the non-economic constraints
which may hinder implementation of the Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations. The economic factors were
examined in the preceding three chapters. An examination of
these non-economic constraints on the implementation of the
interim regulations reveals that potential problem areas
include the availability of some chemicals and the avail-
ability of trained manpower.
Chemical shortages might occur for some coagulants,
mainly alum, ferric chloride, synthetic polymers, and hypo-
chlorites. It is anticipated, however, that these shortages
would be only short-term local problems. Even these local
difficulties can be eliminated if the water supply industry
maintains contact with chemical suppliers, so that the
supply of these key chemicals will keep pace with growing
demand.
It is anticipated that a shortage of state certified
laboratory facilities could delay full implementation of the
water quality monitoring program called for under the
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. However, there
are a sufficient number of uncertified laboratories available
to perform all the routine analyses necessitated by the
regulations.
7.1 Chemical Constraints
The timely implementation of the Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations depends greatly on the availability
of key chemicals and supplies needed in the treatment of
drinking water. The demand for some chemicals will require
a production increase of several percent above present
levels. The demand for many of these chemicals may be
further exacerbated by the concurrent demands of other
Federally mandated air and water pollution control programs.
-Ill-
-------
The chemical constraint analysis was based on the
following assumptions:
1. Chlorination units will be installed in
27.5 percent of those water systems which do
not presently chlorinate;
2. All surface water systems which do not
presently clarify will do so;
3. The numbers and types of systems which
exceeded one or more maximum contaminant
levels in the 1969 CWSS study are
representative of the country's 40,000
community systems;
4. No major treatment activity will begin
until March 1977 > and the maximum chemical
demands will not be felt until two years
later.
A critical evaluation has been made for those chemicals
which would require an increase in production of 5 percent
or more due to implementation of the Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations. The current and anticipated supply and
demand factors for alum, ferric chloride, synthetic polymers,
and hypochlorites were specifically examined. Table 7-1
gives a summary of the findings of the chemical constraints
analysis.
Table 7-2 summarizes the number of systems which are
expected to need treatment to reduce the concentration of
certain contaminants to a level below the maximum permitted
under the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
7.1.1 Coagulation
One of the most important processes conventionally
utilized in the treatment of drinking water is coagulation
and subsequent sedimentation or filtration. Strictly
speaking, engineers use the term "flocculation" to refer to
the chemical agglomeration of suspended solids and colloidal
materials, and the term "settling" to refer to the gravi-
tational descent of these particles to the floor of the
sedimentation basin.
-112-
-------
TABLE 7-1
CONSTRAINT ANALYSIS OF KEY WATER TREATMENT
" CHEMICALS AND SUPPLIES3-
CliuMl.nl
or
Supply
Proct-ss
Unit
Cost
Current
Prod./Yi
U.
• t
s.
(J180)
Added IV-mand
from iruw:;/Vr.c
* Current
Product 'n
Added cout/yr
(Millions .or
1971 dollars)
Availability
Outlook
u
Alum
Coagulation >85X 1,136,000
ton tons (1973)
s 180,000 tons 16. 3*
max.$16.2 Generally favor-iole, excop
that essentially all nlitit< R3
bauxite
. 1,31?, 000
tons
*6,000
tons
9,590 ft 3
0.61*
0.281
of bauxite
production
*2.2
(1.7
No probler.s should occur If the
petroleum Industry remains stall
- General inflationary trer.ds
will be reflected In costs of
resins.
Abundant. Periodic 2omp*tl~icn
for sulfur fron fertilizer In-
dustry may affect seasonal costs.
Tied to chlorine manufacture.
Inventories are presently low.
Prices will rise by late 1975.
Economically urdeslrabH, eithcj
may be used in special cas'-s or
high organic co:icen*rationi.
Cellulose acttatt can etslLy be
produced to neet sir.all cemitndc.
Abundant .
See Alum.
"List prices as of April 18, 1975 for large lota f.o.b. New York.
bSee text for further explanation
cIPnWS - Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards.
^Reflects chemical supply Industry Impressions based on current usage
trends In the water supply Industry. If there are any large scale
technology shifts this outlook would change.
-113-
-------
TABLE 7-2
NUMBER* OF COMMUNITY SYSTEMS WHICH WILL NEED TREATMENT
TO MEET INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
TREATMENT
Chlorination
Clarification
- Direct
Filtration
PRIMARY
CONTAMINANT(S)
TREATED
Coliform
Turbidity
NUMBER OP
SYSTEMS
5,557
2,126
Ion Exchange
Activated Alumina
pH Control
Ba,
Se,
NOo,
Ra,
Fluoride
Pb
Cd, Cr,
Hg
, As
2,48lb
1,702
648
aBased on number of systems violating one or more
maximum contaminant levels in the 1969 CWSS study.
Includes 769 systems estimated to violate mercury
standard.
Coagulation is responsible for decreasing turbidity in
water supplies. The regulations state that the maximum
contaminant level of turbidity in drinking water Is not to
exceed one turbidity unit; many reservoirs, however, have
recorded levels in the tens of turbidity units. Coagulation
can remove to some degree all of the other contaminants to
which the regulations are addressed; i.e., Inorganics and
microbiological pollutants.
Alum is presently the flocculant most widely used in
the water treatment industry. It is a low-cost material and
its effectiveness can be enhanced by the addition of poly-
electrolytes. Alum production in 1973 was 2.27 billion
pounds (1,136 million tons), approximately 28 percent (640
million pounds) of which was used in the treatment of supply
-114-
-------
water. Projections indicate that a maximum additional 370
million pounds would be necessary to meet the new standards,
depending on the ability of the newly developed electrolyte
coagulants to replace alum. Opinions solicited from the
manufacturing industry indicate that the future supply of
alum to meet this demand should be plentiful. Alum accounts
for $20.5 million of current water treatment costs, and may
cost as much as an additional $16.2 million by 1980.
Ferric salts, and particularly ferric chloride, are a
second group of coagulants which are used in water treatment,
In the past, the use of ferric chloride in water treatment
has been restricted because it is corrosive to most common
metals, including those used in pipes. It is expected that
the advent of new pipe and storage tank materials, particularly
PVC, fiber glass, and plastic- or rubber-lined pipes and
tanks, will allow wider use of ferric chloride. The advantages
of ferric chloride are:
1. Compared to alum, only one-half to two-thirds
as much ferric chloride is required for
coagulation. Although it is currently about
twice the price of alum, its cost is competitive;
2. A treatment plant using ferric chloride can
be operated at an optimum pH, rather than at
a low coagulation pH, which is corrosive.
Post-coagulation lime and/or phosphate
addition is therefore eliminated, as well as
the cathodic protection necessary in alum
treatment plants;
3. Ferric chloride is superior to alum for
removing undesirable color from water;
4. Storage capacity and O&M allocations are
reduced when ferric chloride is used instead
of alum.
Preliminary estimates show that ferric chloride may
account for 15 to 20 percent of the supply water coagulant
market by 1980, reaching sales of between $2 million and
$3 million. Total production of ferric chloride may be as
high as 280 million pounds by the same year. Chloride is
produced by the reaction of metallic iron with recycled
ferric chloride to produce ferrous chloride. The ferrous
chloride then reacts with chlorine gas to produce chloride.
Supply of ferric chloride is not expected to be a problem.
-115-
-------
The third class of coagulants considered are the organic
polyelectrolytes or synthetic organic polymers. Basically,
these polymers are synthesized from monomeric sub-units,
many of which may be toxic to humans if ingested in large
quantities. Since all polymers carry a certain amount of
residual monomer, the distribution of these chemicals must
be controlled.
Polyelectrolytes serve three functions in water treatment
1. As flocculating agents which agglomerate
suspended and colloidal materials;
2. As flocculant aids, used in conjunction
with inorganic coagulants for greater
reduction of turbidity, color, and odor;
3. As filter aids, polyelectrolytes produce
stronger floes than alum or ferric salts,
and consequently allow increased flow
through filters.
Polymers have the advantage of improving performance
while lowering the costs of water clarification. They are
generally biodegradable, can be used in small volumes, and
are easily incinerated. Furthermore, they are effective
under varied pH and temperature conditions. They appear to
be cheaper than alum or ferric salts per million gallons of
water treated. Upper bounds on treatment costs were esti-
mated at $100/million gallons, with the range of unit costs
at $0.40 to $2.50 per pound of solid polymer. Dosages are
on the order of 0.1 to 4.0 mg/1 for clarification, compared
to 5 to 40 mg/1 alum, and 3 to 20 mg/1 ferric chloride.
Projections indicate"that 10 to 20 million pounds of polymers
will be utilized by the water supply industry by 19»0, at a
cost of $10 million to $20 million.
Because of changing technologies, prices, and market
requirements, there is a shift in the types of coagulants
being used. Most experts agree that while the use of both
alum and ferric salts will increase during the next decade,
the use of organic polymers for coagulation will show an
even more dramatic rate of increase. Clarification of
community water supplies is expected to account for 25
percent of all coagulants utilized by 1980.
All chemical coagulant manufacturers and suppliers
surveyed indicated that there would be essentially no time
lag in the delivery of materials due to the sudden demand
-116-
-------
resulting from the implementation of the" Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations. However, at the time of the
survey, most of the major manufacturers contacted were
unaware of the impact of the regulations. Rapid growth of
the water supply industry's demands for certain chemicals
could cause spot shortages of key chemicals if no advance
warning is given to the chemical suppliers. However, since
it is more than two and one-half years before a treatment
system can be designed and constructed, ample time should be
available to notify chemical suppliers of the projected
chemical demands.
7-1.2 Disinfection
Disinfection is another major treatment process whose
increased use is expected to result from the promulgation of
the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. It is
estimated that approximately 17,260 community systems will
require additional disinfection, and that many of the 200,000
non-community suppliers will need biocidal treatment.
Calcium hypochlorite, sodium hypochlorite, and other
inorganic chlorine compounds should continue to show a fast
growth rate. They should be ideal biocidal agents for non-
community water supplies, since they are easily and safely*
handled in cylinders, pose little threat of rapid dispersal
if injected suddenly, and require minimal capital expenditures
Production of hypochlorites is presently at capacity since
there is a strong demand for its use as a disinfectant in
swimming pools. There are a total of six plants in the
United States which produce these chemicals. Consumption of
hypochlorites may reach 300 million pounds by 1980, while
the total cost of hypochlorites for water treatment is
expected to increase an additional $8.2 million by 1980.
Occasional delays in shipment may occur until production
facilities can be expanded. However, the industry is
presently expanding to keep pace with anticipated demands.
7.1.3 Projections
Implementation of the Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations is expected to place heaviest demands on the
coagulant and the disinfectant chemical industries. Projec-
tions show that costs for alum, ferric chloride, and hypo-
chlorites will be rising in the near future and that new
-117-
-------
plants will probably have to be constructed to increase
production of calcium hypochlorite. It is generally believed
that the raw materials necessary for the manufacture of
these chemicals are abundant, and that U.S. self-sufficiency
will abate any major problems in the area of treatment
chemical supply.
The increasing demand for pollution control chemicals
has caused significant price hikes in the last several
years, and there is every evidence that this increasing cost
trend will continue during the next decade. Table 7-3 shows
the projected growth trend for several categories of water
treatment chemicals.
7.2 Manpower Constraints
7.2.1 General
Although it provides a universally required product and
is the largest industry in the United States, the water
supply industry is facing serious problems of manpower both
in terms of training and availability. In the present
modern, highly urbanized society, water is collected, treated,
and delivered in an efficient, reliable manner. This has
been made possible through a high degree of functional
specialization in the industry's work force, which is esti-
mated to number about 180,000 (exclusive of persons holding
similar positions in consulting engineering firms, manu-
facturing concerns, and government agencies).1 This level
of employment in the water utilities field has been relatively
stable for the last 20 years.2 The industry is currently
faced with a growing need for qualified personnel due to
(1) increased attention to ecological and consumer issues,
(2) more stringent legal requirements for water product
quality, (3) rising public demands for better quality water,
and (4) technological improvements in the design and operation
of water supply facilities. However, the industry has
H.E. Hudson and F. Rodriguez, "Water Utility Personnel
Statistics," JAWWA, 6^: 8, 1970.
2C.M. Schwig, "Training an
Personnel," JAWWA, 66: 7, 1974.
2C.M. Schwig, "Training and Recruiting of Water Utility
-118-
-------
TABLE 7-3
WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT CHEMICALS21
ITEM
MILLION POUNDS
Coagulants
Filter Media
pH neutralizers and Salt
Biologicals
Internal Preparations
Total Volume
Cents per Pound
MILLION DOLLARS
Coagulants
Filter Media
pH Neutralizers and Salt
Biologicals
Internal Preparations
Total Value
Industrial and municipal
Water Consumption
(Tgal)
Lb/M gal
Gross National Product
($ billion)
Antipollution Chemical
Sales/$OOQ GNP .
1970
1,326
556
5,950
993
484
9,309
56.7
48.0
64.6
71.9
143.0
384.2
95.6
97
974
0.39
ANNUAL
1980 PERCENT CHANGE
1970-80
2,085
926
11,925
4,427
870
20,233
4.7
126.0
115.9
152.8
200.4
348.0
943-1
146
139
1,900
0.50
aA.C. Gross "Markets for Chemicals Grow and Grow
Environmental Science and Technology, (8)5: 1974, p.
4.6
5.2
7.2
16.2
6.1
8.1
1.4
7.6
9.2
9.0
10.8
9.3
9.4
4.3
3.6
6.9
2.5
tt
414.
-119-
-------
historically had trouble attracting and retaining technically
trained personnel due to low wages, salaries, and benefits
paid to water utility personnel.^
7.2.2 Manpower Availability
The industry needs more managers, engineers, chemists,
biologists, and other professional persons to fill technical
positions. In addition, the level of expertise of non-
technical personnel must be increased through training and
advancement incentives.
Despite high national unemployment rates, the reservoir
of unemployed manpower does not include many people required
by the water supply industry today.2 The industry's greatest
need is for civil, sanitary, and chemical engineers who, as
a group, have the lowest incidence of unemployment among
engineers. Professionally trained engineers are not needed
for every manpower deficit, however. In fact, a major
element in the solution of manpower problems would be the
better utilization of available manpoweri Babcock-* points
out that highly technically trained people are not needed in
some of the middle levels of water supply systems and that
sources of adequate personnel include (1) junior colleges
and universities, (2) training schools, (3) transfers from
industry, and (4) in-house advancement. He further notes
that "...a successful key to any recruiting program is to
campaign at all levels actively, by all people, to bring the
salary levels of personnel to reasonable values."4
7.2.3 Personnel Required to Implement Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations
This section estimates the manpower necessary to
implement the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
G.H. Dyer, "Recruiting and Holding Good Employees:
Employee Grievance Procedures, JAWWA, 62: 8, 1970.
2
G.H. Dyer, "Manpower: The Important Element in
Providing Quality Water Service," JAWWA, £6, 1974.
^R.H. Babcock, "Recruiting - A Proposal for Action,"
JAWWA, 66: 7, 1974.
Babcock, "Recruiting - A Proposal for Action," 1974,
-120-
-------
The responsibilities for this implementation would encompass
all levels of government, Federal, state and local, and many
diverse categories of both basic and support services. Of
primary concern are the personnel requirements for (1) moni-
toring and enforcement, (2) operation of process equipment,
and (3) program administration and assistance.
Additional manpower will be needed for the routine
microbiological and chemical monitoring and analysis
required by the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
The microbiological manpower requirement is outlined in
Table 7-4, while Table 7-5 gives a breakdown of laboratory
manpower requirements for chemical monitoring for community
systems and for non-community systems. It is assumed that
no manpower is presently employed in performing the chemical
analyses required by the regulations.
State surveillance of drinking water systems is an
additional component of the monitoring and surveillance
costs. Jeffrey estimates that four man-days of field time
per system are required annually to accomplish this task for
community systems.1 This amounts to 160,000 man-days or
727.3 man-years to examine all community drinking water
systems.
Routine monitoring of water supplies will identify
those systems exceeding one or more maximum contaminant
levels. These systems will be required to install treatment
instrumentation, which will, in turn, require additional
operational personnel. The exact manpower requirements will
vary from system to system, depending on the sophistication
of the equipment and the amount of production. For example,
chlorination units need a minimum of daily surveillance; ion
exchange needs daily surveillance, backwash, and either
regeneration or replacement. The total estimated manpower
required is 34,318 man-years (Table 7-6).
Program administration is the final key element in
effective implementation of the Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations. This segment can be broken down into
E.A. Jeffrey, "Water Supply Training and Manpower Needs,"
Journal of New England Water Works Association (Washington,
D.C., June 1972).
.-121-
-------
TABLE 7-4
MICROBIOLOGICAL STAFFING REQUIREMENTS
r\j
I
POPULATION
RANGE
25-99
100-199
500-999
1,000-2,499
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1, 000, 000
NON-COMMUNITY
AVERAGE
POPULATION
SERVE Da
60
250
700
1,500
3,^00
6,800
23,633
242,700
3,074,800
SYSTEMS
ADDITIONAL
NUMBER OF
SYSTEMS
7,008
15,113
5,392
5,182
2,605
1,858
2,599
236
7
40,000
200,000
MANPOWER REQUIRED
NUMBER OF
COLIFORM.
ANALYSES13
(1,000)
84
182
64
124
125
178
956
391
37
800,000
*
MANPOWER
REQUIREMENT0
(man-years)
(220 days/year)
23.9
51.7
18.2
35.2
35.5
50.6
271.6
d
d
486.7
227.3
714.0
Assuming present average population in nine population ranges.
H '
Use required number of analyses per population served.
Assume 0.5 man-hours per sample. This includes sample collection, analysis,
and reporting.
Assume this monitoring is presently being done.
-------
TABLE 7-5
LABORATORY MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS — NATIONWIDE MONITORING
FOR COMMUNITY AND NON-COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
IV)
uo
I
ANALYSIS*
COMPONENT MAN-YEAR
As
Ba
Cd
Cr
P
Pb
Hg
NO?
Se
Ag
Pesticides
1,100
6,600
2,200
6,600
6,600
2,200
4,100
6,600
4,400
6,600
198
»b ANALYSES0 REQUIRED NATIONWIDE
FIRST TWO YEARS
Routine
25,100
25,100
25,100
25,100
25,100
25,100
25,100
25,100
25,100
25,100
25,100
Violator* Total
196
266
262
196
2,344
393
724
l.«53
559
25
25
25
25
27
25
25
26
25
25
25
ft Herbicides
SUBTOTAL COMMUNITY
MO,
,296
,166
,362
,296
,411
,493
,824
,553
,659
,100
,100
rpuTPn VI? AR
MAN YEARS OP
ANALYTICAL EFFORT
FIRST SECOND THIRD
Routine Violator* Total
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
20,200
MONITORING MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
33,333 3,099
5.7
3.8
11.5
3.8
4.2
11.6
5.9
4.0
5.8
3.8
126.8
186.9
-
5.
3.
11.
3.
4.
11.
5.
4.
5.
3.
126.
186.
—
7
8
5
8
2
6
9
0
8
8
8
9
4.6
3.1
9.2
3.1
3.1
9.2
4.6
3.1
4.6
3-1
102.0
149.7
5.5
SUBTOTAL NON-COMMUNITY MONITORING MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
TOTAL
5-5
186.9 186.9 155-2
Personal communication with E. McFarren and H. Nash, EPA Cincinnati, June 1975.
Personal communication with J. Dice, Denver Board of Water Commissioners, March 1975.
"Estimates based on 1969 study.
Assuming an average of 3 analyses for each violation.
-------
TABLE 7-6
PERSONNEL REQUIRED TO OPERATE NEW AND RETROFIT
PROCESS EQUIPMENT
TREATMENT
NUMBER OP
ADDITIONAL
SYSTEMS
EMPLOYEES
PER SYSTEM
(man-years)
TOTAL ADDITIONAL
TREATMENT
PERSONNEL NEEDED
Chlorlnation
Clarification
Ion Exchange
Activated Alumina
pH Control
17,262
2,143
2,518
1,554
673
0.5
5
1
1
1
8,631
10,715
2,518
1,55^
673
Total additional process personnel required
for community systems
Total additional process personnel required
for public non-community systems
24,091
10,227'
TOTAL
34,318
Assumes one-fourth of 200,000 systems require some
minimal treatment for 45 man-days per year.
management, planning, and public information. Table 7-7
shows the total administrative manpower required for Imple-
mentation.
Eighty-one percent of the personnel required to
implement the regulations are process personnel who would
run the treatment plants at the local level. The demand for
these process employees is expected to begin in 1979 and
one-fifth of the total number would be employed each
succeeding year for 5 years. The 2.6 percent of the per-
sonnel involved in monitoring and 3.0 percent involved in
surveillance would be required by July 1976; the remaining
personnel would be employed between 1976 and 1984.
-124-
-------
TABLE 7-7
SUMMARY OF MANPOWER REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE
INTERIM PRIMARY
FUNCTION
MONITORING
microbiological3
Q
chemical
turbidity
surveillance
PROCESS OPERATION
PROGRAM ASSISTANCE
CLERICAL13
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL
DRINKING
STATE
WATER
LOCAL
REGULATIONS
FEDERAL
(man-years)
536
116
0
959
0
282
416
c 189
2,498
178
39
226
0
3^,318
0
784
3,476
39,021
0
0
0
319
0
94
91
41
545
TOTAL
714
155
226
1,278
34,318
376
1,291
3,706
42,064
aAssumes that the State will do three-fourths of the
monitoring and that local agencies will do one-fourth.
Assumes one clerical person for every five non-
process personnel.
°Assumes one administrator for every ten non-clerical
personnel.
-125-
-------
7-3 Laboratory Constraints
The availability of laboratory facilities which have
been certified., by the states is one of the factors which
will determine the success of the monitoring required under
the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
Table 7-8 shows the number of laboratories presently
certified to perform inorganic, bacteriological, and
turbidity analyses. The state-by-state information in this
table is from a survey taken by the project staff.1 At the
present time no state has an active certification program
which would enable rapid compliance with Section 141.28 of
the interim regulations. It is possible, however, that many
states will be able to certify a sufficient number of
laboratories before the effective date of the regulations.
As part of the effort made to determine laboratory
availability, the amount of coliform testing presently being
done was determined. The compliance schedules for selected
food industries and municipal wastewater treatment facilities
were examined. The monitoring frequencies, number of plants,
and number of coliform analyses presently being performed
are listed in Table 7-9, as is the additional coliform
monitoring required by the Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations. This additional monitoring is approximately 15
percent of the total presently being done in the industries
examined. It is anticipated that the private sector could
supply ample facilities to handle the increased laboratory
load, if economic incentives Justify the expansion of
existing facilities.
1The results of this survey are in Appendix C of this
report.
-126-
-------
TABLE 7-8
LAB CERTIFICATION BY STATE
In-
House Pri. Mun. St.
In-
House Pri. Mun. St.
BACTERIOLOGICAL
TURBIDITY RESIDUAL CHLORINE
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
1
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
101
107
88
3
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
N
N
1
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
1
1
N
N
1
N
N
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
N
N
N
N
N
H
N
N
N
N
N
N
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA - -
NEBRASKA
1
N
3
3
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
1
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
16
N
2
50
N
N
N
N
2
N
N
100
1
N
1
1
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
N
N
113
N
N
1
N
N
N
N
N
1
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
N
N
N
N
4
N
N
N
N
N
1
N
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
N
N
N
N
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
33
160
21
N
N
1
N
15
30
N
5
15
N
N
N
1
9
17
N
3
N
N
N
N
I1*
3
18
2
1)
7
N
4
5
7
N
2
N
2
5
10
2
0
N
0
1
9
107
2
N
4
_ _ _
1
N
3
3
33*
N
16
3
147
1
31*
N
N
N
22
N
9
N
2
1
N
4
N
1
1
6
22
1
80
8
78
185
5
1
80
N
N
3
3
5
46
N
N
N
1
N
N
5
N
26
1
N
5
4
17
1
1
1
1
1
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
N.O
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
—
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
_
L_ NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO __
NO
46 In-house, private are uncertified.
N means no answer.
No entry indicates lack of response.
-127-
-------
TABLE 7-9
PRESENT CQLIFORM MONITORING TO MEET
fiTTTPELINE LIMITATION HEdULA'i'iONS
NUMBER OP COLIFORM
SAMPLING NUMBER OP ANALYSES PRESENTLY
INDUSTRY FREQUENCY PLANTS PERFORMED/ YEAR
FOOD PRODUCTSa
1-10 mgd one per week 4,000
10-50 mgd three times 550
per week
208,000
85,800
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
<0.99 mgd
1-4.99 mgd
5-14.99 mgd
one per month
one per week
five times
weekly
16,200
10,200
3,600
194,400
530,400
936,000
TOTAL
1,954,600
Projected coliform monitoring requirement to
implement Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for community water supplies
Present coliform monitoring being done for
community water supplies
Additional coliform monitoring mandated
by Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
2,547,397
1,961,621
585,776
aMarketing Economics Institute, Limited., Marketing
Economics Industry Key Plants, 1973; includes plants
employing over 100 people.
-128-
-------
CHAPTER EIGHT
LIMITS OF THE ANALYSIS
8.0 Introduction
This chapter is a review of the major assumptions used
in this report. The dominant assumption used in developing
costs is that the EPA inventory of community water systems
provides an accurate description of the population of drinking
water supplies in the United States. There is some evidence,
however, that the inventory's estimate of 10,000 community
systems is low by a factor of 20 percent, thereby causing
some of the projected costs to be low by 20 percent as well.
The EPA estimate of 200,000 public non-community systems
is also accepted as valid in this study. No conclusive
evidence has been determined which either confirms or refutes
this estimate.
8.1 Assumptions in Developing Monitoring Costs
The monitoring costs developed were based on the
assumption that only the minimal routine monitoring required
by the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations would be
performed. It is quite possible that many systems,
particularly those systems with chemical and biological
laboratories, will choose to sample at a more frequent rate
than that indicated in the regulations. Until a more
complete data base is developed, it is impossible to predict
the number of systems which will perform more than the
minimal amount of sampling, to assure compliance with the
regulations.
Special monitoring and treatment costs were all devel-
oped from the 1969 CWSS study of 969 water supply plants.
The CWSS study has several inherent biases which are
magnified in projecting special national monitoring costs.
This is due to the fact that the systems studied were not
chosen at random; rather, they were chosen to represent
specific water source characteristics in nine regions of the
country.
-129-
-------
This report made no estimate of the costs of turbidity
monitoring for the 40,000 community systems and the 2,000 to
5,000 public non-community systems which will need to measure
turbidity in order to comply with the Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations. It was assumed that turbidity
sampling is presently being performed at each site. It is
useful, however, to examine the costs of this monitoring
activity. If one assumes that it takes 10 minutes to collect
and analyze each turbidity sample, then 505 man-years of
effort would be required nationally to satisfy the turbidity
monitoring requirement. Given a salary of $4.00 per hour
and an overhead rate of 100 percent, labor alone would cost
$1.33 per turbidity analysis.
8.2 Assumptions in Developing Treatment Costs
The assumptions about the number of systems and the
validity of the CWSS data base, as developed in the previous
section, are equally important in this section.
EPA personnel developed the assumptions which were used
in preparing estimates of the total national treatment costs
due to the implementation of the interim regulations. These
assumptions are:
1. Disinfection equipment will be installed in
27.5 percent of community surface and ground
systems in the EPA Inventory of Community
Water Supplies which do not presently
disinfect. This percentage was derived by
assuming that 15 percent of the systems
analyzed the first year are expected to fail
to meet the coliform requirement, and that
15 percent of the remainder are expected to
fail during the second year;
2. All community surface systems in the EPA
inventory which do not presently clarify
will be forced to Install clarification
equipment;
3 All systems which violated one or more maximum
contaminant level (MCL) in the 1969 CWSS study
will treat their water; furthermore, the
systems of the CWSS are considered represen-
tative of the nation's water systems.
-130-
-------
Based on these assumptions, the $1.1 billion to $1.8
billion capital requirement developed represents the cost of
reaching the goal of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
There are several reasons why the $1.1 billion to $1.8
billion capital requirement estimated to implement the
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations may be conser-
vative. In calculating the treatment costs for turbidity
control, direct filtration was chosen as the most suitable
technology. Direct filtration is a reasonable treatment for
those systems with turbidity under 100 JTU, but it is not a
practical treatment to use if the turbidity of the water is
consistently above this level or if significant seasonal
variations in turbidity exist. Therefore, it is highly
likely that many 'systems may choose to install the more
expensive process of coagulation, sedimentation, and
filtration, which assures more uniform quality effluent
during periods of high turbidity. The capital and annual
O&M expenses calculated for turbidity control using direct
filtration versus coagulation, sedimentation, and filtration
are shown in Table 8-1.
TABLE 8-1
COMPARISON OF TURBIDITY CONTROL COSTS PER SYSTEM
IN EACH OF NINE POPULATION SERVED CATEGORIES
CLARIFICATION COSTS ASSUMING CLARIFICATION COSTS
POPULATION COAGULATION, SEDIMENTATION, ASSUMING DIRECT
SERVED AND FILTRATION FILTRATION
($) ($)
25-99 220,000 21,000
100-499 300,000 30,000
500-999 370,000 41,000
1,000-2,499 430,000 52,000
2,500-4,999 480,000 150,000
5,000-9,999 530,000 270,000
10,000-99,999 1,400,000 640,000
100,000-999,999 7,200,000 3,400,000
il,000,000 41,000,000 22,000,000
-131-
-------
In developing the national capital cost estimates, no
attempt was made to assign turbidity control costs to the
1,366 mixed surface and ground systems. If a mixed source
system obtains the majority of its water from a surface
source, then it is probable that some form of clarification
will be required.
For the purpose of this study, it was assumed that only
27-5 percent of the water systems not presently chlorinating
would need to disinfect their water supplies; this includes
both surface and ground source of water. It is possible
that more systems may need some form of disinfection to meet
the coliform standards.
There are several reasons why the projected capital
requirement may be high. One important assumption is that
systems which exceed a maximum contaminant level will use a
treatment process to correct their problem, when in reality
a great number of plants will blend water which meets the
standards with water which exceeds the standards. Blending
would reduce the costs to those systems which must treat for
NOT, Se, Cd, Cr, As, Hg, and Ba violations, but it would
not.affect costs associated with chlorination and clarifi-
cation. In a 1975 project survey of 207 water supply
systems which violated one or more maximum contaminant level
in the 1969 CWSS study, it was found that five systems had
begun treating for NOo and Se problems subsequent to the
1969 CWSS study (see Appendix H, Table H-2). All five of
these systems used blending rather than the more expensive
ion exchange treatment. Since ion exchange processes account
for almost 35 percent of the total treatment costs, the use
of blending could substantially reduce the total national
treatment costs.
The possibility of savings to be derived from the
cascading of treatment processes was not considered in the
development of treatment costs. With the limited data
available, it is impossible to quantify the benefits of
cascading. There are many cases, however, in which it is
possible to treat several contaminants at once, thereby
reducing costs. In particular, coagulation and direct
filtration may remove many contaminants which are not
associated with turbidity. It is also impossible to
quantify any beneficial effects attributable to the
retrofitting of treatment processes. Since it was assumed
that there are 2,126 water systems which would install
clarification equipment, retrofitting could reduce costs
substantially for these systems.
-132-
-------
In developing the treatment costs, it became apparent
that considerable attention should be given to the costs
which would be borne by small (under 1,000 population served)
water systems. Table 8-2 lists the capital costs associated
with each treatment technology for the systems serving 1,000
or fewer people. When one examines the capital costs for
clarification and ion exchange for small systems, it is
apparent that the per capita burden of treatment is too
great for any community to bear. The small systems in
particular would probably consider the following options,
rather than install expensive treatment processes:
1. Shift the source of water from surface to ground;
2. Change groundwater sources;
3. Consolidate (merge systems);
4. Purchase finished water;
5. Disband the community system and change
to individual .well sources.
TABLE 8-2
CAPITAL TREATMENT COSTS FOR SMALL WATER SYSTEMS5
USING CURRENT AVERAGE DAILY PRODUCTION RATES
POPULATION
SERVED ION pH ACTIVATED
CATEGORY DISINFECTION CLARIFICATION EXCHANGE CONTROL ALUMINA
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2,499
699
1,200
1,800
2,500
21,000
30,000
41,000
52,000
41,000
68,000
100,000
140,000
400
800
1,200
-2,500
2,600
6,100
12,000
22,000
aBased on average sized systems in the EPA Inventory of
Community Water Supplies.
-133-
-------
Table 8-3 shows the total national costs to small
community systems of applying the recommended treatment
technologies to comply with the Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations. It is apparent that many of these costs
will not, in fact, be spent on treating these small systems.
What is not known, however, is the number of systems which
will purchase water from existing systems, thereby increasing
treatment costs for those systems. Until these two factors
can be determined, it appears reasonable to assign the costs
to small systems, even though they may not ultimately treat
their present source of water.
TABLE 8-3
ION EXCHANGE AND CLARIFICATION COSTS ASSIGNED
TO SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS
POPULATION
SERVED
CATEGORY
CLARIFICATION
COSTS
($ 1,000)
ION EXCHANGE
COSTS
($1,000)
PERCENT OF
TOTAL NATIONAL
TREATMENT COSTS 14. 9
26.4
SUM OF CLARIFICATION
& ION EXCHANGE TOTAL
COSTS ($ 1,000)
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2,499
TOTAL SMALL
SYSTEM COST
TOTAL NATIONAL
TREATMENT COST
5,292
19,590
12,013
19,656
56,551
379,371
19,926
67,728
33,700
42,140
163,494
619,204
25,218
87,318
45,713
61,796
220,045
998,575
22.1
8.3 Assumptions Inherent in the Constraint Analysis
It is assumed that in the coming decade the demand for
polyelectrolytes will increase markedly as these chemicals
replace inorganic salts as the most widely used coagulants.
-134-
-------
The constraint analysis also rests on the assumption
that manpower needs will increase dramatically for monitoring
and treatment process operations. Historically, water
systems have had trouble attracting and retaining qualified
personnel.
8.4 Other Assumptions
To simplify the analysis of the aggregate impact under
the interim primary regulations, an interest rate of 7 perceni
has been designated as the cost of financing for an average
water system. A second simplifying assumption was that a
15-year pay back period would be used to finance the costs.
As mentioned earlier, small investor-owned facilities are
riskier than large government-owned operations. The cost of
money to the former is correspondingly higher than to the
latter. Tables 8-4, 8-5, and 8-6 break down the per capita
impacts of these different financing costs according to
utility size and treatment process. Measured only against
the costs of new plant and equipment, financing charges and
pay back period differences are not insignificant. When
all costs are considered, however, the per capita impact of
different interest rates is less noticeable, since the
majority of annual expenditures go into O&M costs rather
than financing charges. No assumption is made on the rate
of inflation which will occur in the coming decade. All
costs are based on 1975 dollars with no factor for inflation.
-135-
-------
TABLE 8-4
PER CAPITA ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COSTS FOR A SYSTEM SERVING 100 PEOPLEa
I
M
UO
0\
I
CAPITALb INTEREST0
PROCESS COST ($) RATE
Chlorination 810 11
9
7
Clarification 23,500 11
9
7
Ion Exchange 48,000 11
9
7
Activated Alumina 3,4.00 11
9
7
pH Control 810 11
7
ANNUAL CAPITAL COSTS ($)
PAY BACK PERIOD
15 YRS 20 YRS 25 YRS
138
121
113
3,910
3,567
3,241
7,987
7,286
6,619
566
516
469
138
121
113
121
113
97
3,687
3,243
2,890
7,387
6,624
5,904
523
469
419
121
113
97
119
105
93
3,471
3,074
2,700
7,090
6,278
5,515
502
445
391
119
105
93
ANNUAL CAPITAL COST
PER CAPITA ($)
PAY BACK PERIOD
15 YRS 20 YRS 25 YRS
1.38
1.21
1.13
39.10
35-67
32.41
79.87
72.86
66.19
5-66
5.16
4.69
1.38
1.21
1.13
1.21
1.13
0.97
36.87
32.43
28.90
73-87
66.24
59-04
5.23
4.69
4.19
1.21
1.13
0.97
1.19
1.05
0.93
34.71
30.74
27.00
70.90
62.78
55-15
5.02
4.45
3-91
1.19
1.05
0.93
aAssumes only residential use.
bBased on 109 gallons (0.412 m3) produced per consumer per day.
cDoes not include the 3 percent for insurance, taxes, etc., which is applied to determine
the annual capital costs.
-------
TABLE 8-5
PER CAPITA ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COSTS FOR A SYSTEM SERVING 5,000 PEOPLE
a
CAPITAL13 INTEREST
PROCESS COST ($) RATE
Chlorination 10,000 9
7
6
Clarification 220,000 9
7
6
M Ion Exchange 660,000 9
LV «7
•— >3 t
• 6
Activated Alumina 50,000 9
7
6
pH Control 10,000 9
7
6
ANNUAL CAPITAL COSTS ($)
C PAY BACK PERIOD
15 YRS 20 YRS 25 YRS
1,518
1,380
1,308
33,396
30,338
28,886
100,188
91,014
86,658
7,590
6,895
6,565
1,518
1,380
1,308
1,379
1,231
1,149
30,360
27,060
25,520
91,030
81, 180
76,560
6,900
6,155
5,850
1,379
1,231
1,149
1,313
1,160
1,074
28,776
25,278
23,628
86,328
75,834
70,884
6,540
5,7^5
5,370
1,313
1,160
1,074
ANNUAL CAPITAL COST
PER CAPITA ($)
PAY BACK PERIOD
15 YRS 20 YRS 25 YRS
0.30
0.28
0.26
6.68
6.08
5.78
20.04
18.20
17.33
1.52
1.38
1.31
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.27
0.25
0.23
6.08
5.41
5-10
18.20
16.24
15.31
1.38
1.23
1.16
0.27
0.25
0.23
0.26
0.23
0.21
5-75
5.06
4.73
17.27
15.17
14.18
1.31
1.15
1.07
0.26
0.23
0.21
Assumes only residential use.
Based on 154 (0.582 m ) produced per consumer per day.
°Does not include the 3 percent for insurance, taxes, etc., whvelb'.io applied .,o
the annual capital costs.
-------
TABLE 8-6
PER CAPITA ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COSTS FOR A SYSTEM SERVING 100,000 PEOPLE'
CAPITALb INTEREST
PROCESS COST ($) RATE
Chlorination 100,000 9
7
6
Clarification 1,900,000 9
7
6
M Ion Exchange 5,800,000 9
t«J 7
CO '
f 6
Activated Alumina 350,000 9
7
6
pH Control 100,000 9
7
6
ANNUAL CAPITAL COSTS ($)
C PAY BACK PERIOD
15 YRS 20 YRS 25 YRS
15
13
10
288
262
249
880
799
761
53
48
45
15
13
10
,180
,800
,080
,420
,010
,470
,440
,820
,540
,130
,265
,955
,180
,800
,080
13
12
8
262
233
220
800
713
672
48
43
40
13
12
8
,790
,310
,490
,200
,890
,400
,400
,980
,800
,300
,085
,600
,790
,310
,^90
13,130
11,600
7,740
248,520
218,310
204,060
758,640
666,420
622,920
45,780
40,615
37,590
13,130
11,600
7,740
ANNUAL
PER
PAY
15 YRS
0
0
0
2
2
2
8
8
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
.15
.14
.10
.88
.62
.49
.80
.00
.61
• 53
.48
.46
.15
.14
.10
CAPITAL COST
CAPITA ($)
BACK PERIOD
20 YRS 25 YRS
0
0
0
2
2
2
8
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
.14
.12
.08
.62
.34
.20
.00
.14
.72
.48
.43
.41
.14
.12
.08
0
0
0
2
2
2
7
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
.13
.12
.08
.49
.18
.04
.59
.66
.23
.46
.40
.38
.13
.12
.08
Assumes only residential use.
bBased on 174 gallons (0.658 m ) produced per consumer per day.
°Does not include the 3 percent for insurance, taxes, etc., which is applied to determine
the annual capital costs.
-------
APPENDIX A
NATIONAL INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
A-i
-------
SUBCHAPTER D -- WATER PROGRAMS
PART 141 -- NATIONAL INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING
WATER REGULATIONS
Subpart A - General
Sec.
141.1 Applicability.
141.2 Definitions.
141.3 Coverage.
141.4 Variances and exemptions.
141.5 Siting requirements.
141.6 Effective date.
Subpart B - Maximum Contaminant Levels
141.11 Maximum contaminant levels for inorganic
chemicals.
141.12 Maximum contaminant levels for organic
chemicals.
141.13 Maximum contaminant levels for turbidity.
141.14 Maximum microbiological contaminant levels.
Subpart C - Monitoring and Analytical Requirements
141.21 Microbiological contaminant sampling and
analytical requirements.
141.22 Turbidity sampling and analytical requirements.
141.23 Inorganic chemical sampling and analytical
requirements.
141.24 Organic chemical sampling and analytical
requirements.
141.27 Alternative analytical techniques.
141.28 Approved laboratories.
141.29 Monitoring of consecutive public water systems.
A-l
-------
Subpart D - Reporting, Public Notification, and Recordkeeping
141.31 Reporting requirements.
141. 32 Public notification of variances, exemptions,
and non-compliance with regulations.
141.33 Record maintenance.
Authority: Sees. 1412, 1414, 1445, and 1450 of the Public
Health Service Act, 88 Stat. 1660 (42 U. S. C. 300g-l,
300g-3, 300J-4, and 300J-9).
A-2
-------
Subpart A - General
Section 141.1. Applicability.
This part establishes primary drinking water regulations
pursuant to section 1412 of the Public Health Service Act,
as amended by the Safe Drinking Water Act (Pub. L. 93-523);
and related regulations applicable to public water systems.
Section 141. 2. Definitions.
As used in this part, the term:
(a) "Act" means the Public Health Service Act, as
amended by the Safe Drinking Water Act, Pub. L. 93-523.
(b) "Contaminant" means any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological substance or matter in water.
(c) "Maximum contaminant level" means the maximum
permissible level of a contaminant in water which is delivered
to the free flowing outlet of the ultimate user of a public water
system, except in the case of turbidity where the maximum
permissible level is measured at the point of entry to the
distribution system. Contaminants added to the water under
circumstances controlled by of the user, except those resulting
from corrosion
of piping and plumbing caused by water quality, are excluded
from this definition.
A-3
-------
(d) "Person" means an individual, corporation,
company, association, partnership. State, municipality, or
Federal agency.
(e) "Public water system" means a system for the
provision to the public of piped water for human consumption, if
such system has at least fifteen service connections or regularly
serves an average of at least twenty-five individuals daily at
least 60 days out of the year. Such term includes (1) any
collection, treatment, storage, and distribution facilities under
control of the operator of such system and used primarily in
connection with such system, and (2) any collection or pretreatment
storage facilities not under such control which are used
primarily in connection with such system. A public water
system is either a "community water system" or a "non-
community water system. "
(1) "Community water system" means a public water
system which serves at least 15 service connections used by
year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round
residents.
(2) "Non-community water system" means a public
water system that is not a community water system.
A-4
-------
(f) "Sanitary survey" means an on-site review of the water
source, facilities, equipment, operation and maintenance of a
public water system for the purpose of evaluating the adequacy
of such source, facilities, equipment, operation and maintenance
for producing and distributing safe drinking water.
(g) "Standard sample" means the aliquot of finished drinking
water that is examined for the presence of coliform bacteria.
(h) "State" means the agency of the State government
which has jurisdiction over public water systems. During any period
when a State does not have primary enforcement responsibility,
pursuant to Section 1413 of the Act, the term "State" means the
Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
(i) "Supplier of water" means any person who owns or
operates a public water system.
A-5
-------
Section 141. 3 Coverage
This part shall apply to each public water system,
unless the public water system meets all of the following
conditions:
(a) Consists only of distribution and storage facilities
(and does not have any coUection and treatment facilities);
(b) Obtains aU of its water from, but is not owned or
operated by, a public water system to which such regulations
apply;
(c) Does not sell water to any person; and
(d) Is not a carrier which conveys passengers in
interstate commerce.
A-6
-------
Section 141.4 Variances and exemptions
Variances or exemptions from certain provisions of these
regulations may be granted pursuant to Sections 1415 and 1416
of the Act by the entity with primary enforcement responsibility.
Provisions under Part 142, National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations Implementation-subpart E (Variances) and
subpart F (Exemptions)-apply where EPA has primary enforce-
ment responsibility.
A-7
-------
Section 141. 5 Siting requirements
Before a person may enter into a financial commitment for or
initiate construction of a new public water system or increase
the capacity of an existing public water system, he shall notify
the State and, to the extent practicable, avoid locating part or
all of the new or expanded facility at a site which:
(a) Is subject to significant risk from earthquakes, floods,
fires or other disasters which could cause a breakdown of the
public water system or a portion thereof; or
(b) Except for intake structures, is within the floodplain
of a 100-year flood or is lower than any recorded high tide where
appropriate records exist.
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency will not seek to
override land use decisions affecting public water system siting
which are made at the State or local government levels.
A-8
-------
Section 141.6 Effective date
The regulations set forth in this part shall take effect
18 months after the date of promulgation
A-9
-------
Subpart B - Maximum Contaminant Levels
Sec. 141.11 Maximum contaminant levels for inorganic
chemicals.
(a) The maximum contaminant level for nitrate is applicable
to both community water systems and non-community water
systems. The levels for the other inorganic chemicals apply
only to community water systems. Compliance with maximum
contaminant levels for inorganic chemicals is calculated
pursuant to § 141.23.
(b) The following are the maximum contaminant levels for
inorganic chemicals other than fluoride:
Contaminant Level (mg/1)
Arsenic 0.05
Barium 1.
Cadmium 0.010
Chromium 0.05
Lead 0.05
Mercury 0.002
Nitrate (as N) 10.
Selenium 0.01
Silver 0.05
A-10
-------
(c) When the annual average of the maximum daily air
temperatures for the location in which the community water
system is situated is the following, the maximum contaminant
levels for fluoride are:
Temperature (in degrees F.) (degrees C) Level (mg/1)
53.7 and below
53.8 - 58.3
58.4 - 63.8
63.9 - 70.6
70.7 - 79.2
79.3 - 90.5
12. 0 and below
12.1-14.6
14.7-17.6
17.7-21.4
21.5-26.2
26.3- 32.5
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
A-ll
-------
Section 141. 12 Maximum contaminant levels for organic
chemicals.
The following are the maximum contaminant levels for
organic chemicals. They apply only to community water
systems. Complaince with maximum contaminant levels for
organic chemical is calculated pursuant to § 141.24.
(a) Chlorinated Hydrocarbons Level mg/1
Endrin °- °002
(1. 2, 3, 4, 10, 10-Hexachloro-
6, 7-epoxy-l, 4, 4a, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8a-
octahydro-1 , 4-endo, endo-
5, 8-dimethano naphthalene)
Lindane °- °04
(1.2. 3. 4. 5, 6-Hexachloro-
cyclohexane, gamma isomer)
Methoxychlor °« 1
(1, 1, l-Trichloro-2, 2-bis
[p-methoxyphenyl] ethane)
Toxaphene °- °05
- Technical chlorinated
camphene, 67-69% chlorine)
(b) Chlorophenoxys
2,4-D . O'1
(2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid)
2,4, 5-TP Silvex °-01
(2,4, 5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic
acid)
A-12
-------
Section 141.13 Maximum contaminant levels for turbidity.
The maximum contaminant levels for turbidity are applicable
to both community water systems and non-community water
systems using surface water sources in whole or in part.
The maximum contaminant levels for turbidity in drinking
water, measured at a representative entry point(s) to the
distribution system, are:
a) One turbidity unit (TU), as determined by a monthly
average pursuant to § 141.22, except that five or fewer turbidity
units may be allowed if the supplier of water can demonstrate
to the State that the higher turbidity does not do any of the following;
(1) Interfere with disinfection;
(2) Prevent maintenance of an effective disinfectant agent
throughout the distribution system; or
(3) Interfere with microbiological determinations.
(b) Five turbidity units based on an average for two consecutive
days pursuant to §141.22.
A-13
-------
Section 141.14 Maximum microbiological contaminant levels.
The maximum contaminant levels for coliform bacteria,
applicable to community water systems and non-community
water systems, are as follows:
(a) When the membrane filter technique pursuant to
§141.21 (a) is used, the number of coliform bacteria shall
not exceed any of the following:
(1) One per 100 milliliters as the arithmetic mean of all
samples examined per month pursuant to § 141.21 (b) or (c);
(2) Four per 100 milliliters in more than one sample
when less than 20 are examined per month; or
(3) Four per 100 milliliters in more than five percent of the
samples when 20 or more are examined per month.
(b)(l) When the fermentation tube method and 10 milliliter
standard portions pursuant to § 141.21(a) are used, coliform
bacteria shall not be present in any of the following:
(i) more than 10 percent of the portions in any month
pursuant to § 141.21 (b) or (c);
(ii) three or more portions in more than one sample when
less than 20 samples are examined per month; or
(iii) three or more portions in more than five percent of
the samples when 20 or more samples are examined per month.
-------
(2) When the fermentation tube method and 100 milliliter
standard portions pursuant to § 141.21(a) are used, coliform
bacteria shall not be present in any of the following:
(i) more than 60 percent of the portions in any month
pursuant to § 141.21 (b) or (c);
(ii) five or more portions in more than one sample when
less than five samples are examined per month; or
(iii) five or more portions in more than 20 percent of the
samples when five or more samples are examined per month.
(c) For community or non-community systems that are
required to sample at a rate of less than 4 per month,
compliance with paragraphs (a), (b)(l), or (b)(2) shall be
based upon sampling during a 3 month period, except that,
at the discretion of the State, compliance may be based upon
sampling during a one-month period.
A-15
-------
Subpart C - Monitoring and Analytical Requirements
Section 141.21 Microbiological contaminant sampling and
analytical requirements.
(a) Suppliers of water for community water systems and non-
community water systems shall analyse for coliform bacteria
for the purpose of determining compliance with § 141.14. Analyses
shall be conducted in accordance with the analytical recommendations
set forth in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastcwater, American Public Health Association, 13th Edition,
pp 662-688, except that a standard sample size shall be employed.
The standard sample used in the membrane filter procedure
shall be 100 milliliters. The standard sample used in the 5 tube
must probable number (MPN) procedure (fermentation tube method)
shall be 5 times the standard portion. The standard portion is
either 10 milliliters or 100 milliliters as described in § 141.14 (b)
and (c). The samples shall be taken at points which are representative
of the conditions within the distribution system.
(b) The supplier of water for a community water system shall take
coliform density samples at regular time intervals, and in number
proportionate to the population served by the system. In no event shall
the frequency be less than as set forth below:
A-16
-------
Minimum Number of
Population Served Samples Per Month
25- 1,000 1
1,001 - 2,500 2
2,501 - 3,300 3
3,301 - 4,100 4
4, 101 - 4,900 5
4,901 - 5,800 6
5,801 - 6,700 7
6.701 - 7,600 8
7,601 - 8,500 9
8,501 - 9,400 10
9,401 - 10.300 11
10,301 - 11,100 12
11,101 - 12,000 13
12,001 - 12,900 14
12,901 - 13, 700 15
13.701 - 14,600 16
14,601 - 15,500 17
15,501- 16,300 18
16,301 - 17,200 19
17,201 - 18,100 20
18,101 - 18,900 21
18,901 - 19,800 22
A-17
-------
Minimum Number of
Population Served Samples Per Month
19,801 - 20.700 23
20,701 - 21,500 24
21,501 - 22.300 25
22,301 - 23.200 26
23,201 - 24,000 27
24,001 - 24,900 28
24,901 - 25.000 29
25,001 - 28,000 30
28,001 - 33.000 35
33,001 - 37,000 40
37,001 - 41,000 45
41,001 - 46,000 50
46,001 - 50.000 55
50,001 - 54.000 60
54,001 - 59,000 65
59.001 - 64,000 70
64,001 - 70,000 75
70,001 - 76,000 80
76,001 - 83,000 85
A-18
-------
Minimum Number of
Population Served Samples Per Month
83,001 - 90,000 90
90,001 - 96,000 95
96,001 - 111,000 100
111,001 - 130,000 110
130,001 - 160,000 120
160,001- 190,000 130
190,001 - 220,000 140
220,001 - 250,000 150
250,001 - 290,000 160
290,001 - 320,000 170
320,001 - 360,000 180
360,001 - 410,000 190
410.001 - 450,000 200
450,001 - 500,000 210
500.001 - 550,000 220
550.001 - 600,000 230
600,001 - 660,000 240
660,001 - 720,000 250
720,001 - 780,000 260
780.001 - 840,000 270
A-19
-------
Population Served
840,001 - 910.000
910,001 - 970,000
970,001 - 1,050,000
1,050,001 - 1,140,000
1,140,001 - 1,230,000
1,230.001 - 1,320,000
1.320,001 - 1,420,000
1,420,001 - 1.520,000
1.520.001 - 1,630,000
1,630.001 - 1,730.000
1,730,001 - 1,850,000
1,850,001 - 1,970,000
1,970,001 - 2,060,000
2,060,001 - 2,270,000
2,270,001 - 2,510,000
2,510,001 - 2,750,000
2,750,001 - 3,020,000
3,020,001 - 3,320,000
3, 320,001 - 3,620,000
Minimum Number of
Samples Per Month
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
380
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
A-20
-------
Minimum Number of
Population Served Samples Per Month
3,620,001 - 3,960,000 470
3,960,001 - 4,310,000 480
4,310,001- 4,690,000 490
54,690,001 500
Based on a history of no coliform bacterial contamination and on
a sanitary survey by the State showing the water system to be supplied
solely by a protected ground water source and free of sanitary defects,
a community water system serving 25 to 1,000 persons, with written
permission from the state, may reduce this "sampling frequency except
that in no case shall it be reduced to less than one per quarter.
(c) The supplier of water for a non-community water system shall
sample for coliform bacteria in each calendar quarter during which
the system provides water to the public. Such sampling shall begin
within two years after the effective date of this part. If the State,
on the basis of a sanitary survey, determines that some other frequency
is more appropriate, that frequency shall be the frequency required
under these regulations. Such frequency shall be confirmed or changed
on the basis of subsequent surveys.
(d)(l) When the coliform bacteria in a single sample exceed four
per 100 milliliters (§ 141.14(a)), at least two consecutive daily check
samples shall be collected and examined from the same sampling point.
A-21
-------
Additional check samples shall be collected daily, or at a
frequency established by the State, until the results obtained
from at least two consecutive check samples show less than
one coliform bacterium per 100 milliliters.
(2) When coliform bacteria occur in three or more 10 ml
portions of a single sample (§ 141.14(b)(l)), at least two con-
secutive daily check samples shall be collected and examined
from the same sampling point. Additional check samples shall
be collected daily, or at a frequency established by the State,
until the results obtained from at least two consecutive check
samples show no positive tubes.
(3) When coliform bacteria occur in all five of the 100 ml
portions of a single sample (§ 141.14(b)(2)), at least two
daily check samples shall be collected and examined from
the same sampling point. Additional check samples shall
be collected daily, or at a frequency established by the State,
until the results obtained from at least two consecutive check
samples show no positive tubes.
(4) The location at which the check samples were taken
pursuant to paragraphs (d)(l), (2) or (3) of this section shall
not be eliminated from future sampling without approval of
A-22
-------
the State. The results from all coliform bacterial analyses
performed pursuant to this subpart, except those obtained from
check samples and special purpose sampLes, shall be used to
determine compliance with the maximum contaminant level for
coliform bacteria as established in §141.14. Check samples shall
not be included in calculating the total number of samples taken
each month to determine compliance with § 141. 21 (b) or (c).
(e) When the presence of coliform bacteria in water
taken from a particular sampling point has been confirmed
by any check samples examined as directed in paragraphs
(d)(l), (2) or (3) of this section, the supplier of water shall
report to the State within 48 hours.
(f) When a maximum contaminant level set forth in
paragraphs (a) (b) or (c) of § 141.14 is exceeded, the supplier
of water shall report to the State and notify the public as pre-
scribed in § 141.31 and § 141.32.
(g) Special purpose samples, such as those taken to determine
whether disinfection practices following pipe placement, replace-
ment, or repair have been sufficient, shall not be used to deter-
mine compliance with § 141.14 or § 141.21 (b) or (c).
A-23
-------
(h) A supplier of water of a community water system or a
non-community water system may, with the approval of the State
and based upon a sanitary survey, substitute the use of chlorine
residual monitoring for not more than 75 percent of the samples
required to be taken by paragraph (b), provided that the supplier
of water takes chlorine residual samples at points which are
representative of the conditions within the distribution system
at the frequency of at least four for each substituted microbio-
logical sample. There shall be at least daily determinations
of chlorine residual. When the supplier of water exercises the
option provided in this paragraph (h), he shall maintain no
less than 0. 2 mg/1 free chlorine throughout the public water
distribution system. When a particular sampling point has
been shown to have a free chlorine residual less than 0. 2 mg/1,
the water at that location shall be retested as soon as practicable
and in any event within one hour. If the original analysis is con-
firmed, this fact shall be reported to the State within 48 hours.
Also, if the analysis is confirmed, a sample for coliform bacterial
analysis must be collected from that sampling point as soon as
practicable and preferably within one hour, and the results of
such analysis reported to the State within 48 hours after the
-------
results are known to the supplier of water. Analyses for
residual chlorine shall be made in accordance with Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste water, 13th Ed.,
pp 129-132. Compliance with the maximum contaminant levels for
coliform bacteria shall be determined on the monthly mean or
quarterly mean basis specified in §141.14, including those samples
taken as a result of failure to maintain the required chlorine residual
level. The State may withdraw its approval of the use of chlorine
residual substitution at any time.
A-25
-------
Sec. 141.22 Turbidity sampling and analytical requirements.
(a) Samples shall be taken by suppliers of water for both
community water systems and non-community water systems
at a representative entry point (s) to the water distribution
system at least once per day. for the purpose of making turbidity
measurements to determine compliance with § 141.13. The
measurement shall be made in accordance with the recommenda-
tions set forth in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater, American Public Health Association, 13th Edition.
pp. 350-353 (Nephelometric Method).
(b) If the result of a turbidity analysis indicates that the
maximum allowable limit has been exceeded, the sampling and
measurement shall be confirmed by resampling as soon as
practicable and preferably within one hour. If the repeat sample
confirms that the maximum allowable limit has been exceeded,
the supplier of water shall report to the State within 48 hours.
The repeat sample shall be the sample used for the purpose of
calculating the monthly average. If the monthly average of the
daily samples exceeds the maximum allowable limit, or if
the average of two samples taken on consecutive days exceeds
5 TU, the supplier of water shall report to the State and
notify the public as directed in § 141.31 and § 141.32.
A-26
-------
(c) Sampling for non-community water systems shall
begin within two years after the effective date of this part.
(d) The requirements of this § 141. 22 shall apply only to
public water systems which use water obtained in whole or in
part from surface sources.
A-27
-------
Sec. 141.23 Inorganic chemical sampling and analytical
requirements.
(a) Analyses for the purpose of determining compliance
with §141.11 are required as follows:
(1) Analyses for all community water systems utilizing
surface water sources shall be completed within one year
following the effective date of this part. These analyses shall
be repeated at yearly intervals.
(2) Analyses for all community water systems utilizing
only ground water sources shall be completed within two years
following the effective date of this subpart. These analyses
shall be repeated at three-year intervals.
(3) For non-community water systems, whether supplied
by surface or ground water sources, analyses for nitrate
shall be completed within two years following the effective
date of this part. These analyses shall be repeated at intervals
determined by the State.
(b) If the result of an analysis made pursuant to paragraph (a)
indicates that the level of any contaminant listed in § 141.11
exceeds the maximum contaminant level, the supplier of water
shall report to the State within 7 days and initiate three additional
analyses at the same sampling point within one month.
A-28
-------
(c) When the average of four analyses made pursuant to
paragraph (b), rounded to the same number of significant
figures as the maximum contaminant level for the substance
in question, exceeds the maximum contaminant level, the
supplier of water shall notify the State pursuant to § 141. 31
and give notice to the public pursuant to § 141. 32. Monitoring
after public notification shall be at a frequency designated by
the State and shall continue until the maximum contaminant
level has not been exceeded in two successive samples or until
a monitoring schedule as a condition to a variance, exemption
or enforcement action shall become effective.
(d) The provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
notwithstanding, compliance with the maximum contaminant level
for nitrate shall be determined on the basis of the mean of two
analyses. When a level exceeding the maximum contaminant
level for nitrate is found, a second analysis shall be initiated
within 24 hours, and if the mean of the two analyses exceeds
the maximum contaminant level, the supplier of water shall
report his findings to the State pursuant to § 141. 31 and shall
notify the public pursuant to § 141. 32.
A-29
-------
(o) Kor the initial analyses required by paragraph (a)(l), (2)
or (3), data for surface waters acquired within one year prior to
the effective date and data for ground waters acquired within 3
years prior to the effective date of this part may be substituted
at the discretion of the State.
(f) Analyses conducted to determine compliance with
§ 141.11 shall be made in accordance with the following methods:
(1) Arsenic - Atomic Absorption Method, Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes, pp. 95-96, Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Technology Transfer, Washington, D. C. 20460,
1974.
(2) Barium - Atomic Absorption Method, Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition,
pp 210-215, or Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes, pp 97-98, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Technology Transfer, Washington, D. C. 20460, 1974.
(3) Cadmium - Atomic Absorption Method, Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition,
pp. 210-215, or Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes, pp 101-103, Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Technology Transfer, Washington, D* C. 20460, 1974.
(4) Chromium - Atomic Absorption Method, Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition,
A-30
-------
pp 210-215, or Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes, pp 105-106, Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Technology Transfer, Washington, D. C. 20460, 1974.
(5) Lead-Atomic Absorption Method, Standards Methods for
the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition,
pp 210-215, or Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes, pp 112-113, Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Technology Transfer, Washington, D. C. 20460, 1974.
(6) Mercury-Flameless Atomic Absorption Method, Methods
for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, pp 118-126,
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Technology Transfer
Washington, D. C. 20460, 1974.
(7) Nitrate - Brucine Colorimetric Method, Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition,
pp 461-464, or Cadmium Reduction Method, Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes, pp 201-206, Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Technology Transfer, Washington,
D. C. 20460, 1974.
(8) Selenium - Atomic Absorption Method, Methods for Chemical
Analysis of Water and Wastes, p. 145, Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Technology Transfer, Washington, D. C. 20460,
1974.
A-31
-------
(9) Silver - Atomic Absorption Method, Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition,
pp 210-215, or Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes, p 146, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Technology Transfer, Washington, D. C. 20460, 1974.
(10) Fluoride - Electrode Method, Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition, pp 172-174,
or Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, pp 65-67;
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Technology Transfer,
Washington, D. C., 20460, 1974, or Colorimetric Method with
Preliminary Distillation, Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition, pp 171-172 and 174-176,
or Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,
pp 59-60, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Technology
Transfer, Washington, B.C. 20460, 1974.
A-32
-------
Sec. 141.24 Organic chemical sampling and analytical
requirements.
(a) An analysis of substances for the purpose of
determining compliance with §141.12 shall be made as
follows:
(1) For all community water systems utilizing surface
water sources, analyses shall be completed within one year
following the effective date of this part. Samples analyzed
shall be collected during the period of the year designated
by the State as the period when contamination by pesticides
is most likely to occur. These analyses shall be repeated
at intervals specified by the State but in no event less
frequently than at three year intervals.
(2) For community water systems utilizing only ground
water sources, analyses shall be completed by those systems
specified by the State.
(b) If the result of an analysis made pursuant to paragraph (a)
indicates that the level of any contaminant listed in § 141.12
exceeds the maximum contaminant level, the supplier of water
shall report to the State within 7 days and initiate three
additional analyses within one month.
A-33
-------
(c) When the average of four analyses made pursuant to
paragraph (b), rounded to the same number of significant
figures as the maximum contaminant level for the substance
in question, exceeds the maximum contaminant level, the
supplier of water shall report to the State pursuant to § 141. 31
and give notice to the public pursuant to § 141. 32. Monitoring
after public notification shall be at a frequency designated
by the State and shall continue until the maximum contaminant
level has not been exceeded in two successive samples or until
a monitoring schedule as a condition to a variance, exemption
or enforcement action shall become effective.
(d) For the initial analysis required by paragraph (a)(l) and
(2). data for surface water acquired within one year prior to the
effective date of this part and data for ground waters acquired
within three years prior to the effective date of this part may
be substituted at the discretion of the State.
(e) Analyses made to determine compliance with § 141.12(a)
shall be made in accordance with Method for Organochlorine
Pesticides in Industrial Effluents, MDQARL, Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, November 28, 1973.
-------
(f) Analyses made to determine compliance with § 141.12(b)
shall be conducted in accordance with Methods for Chlorinated
Phenoxy Acid Herbicides in Industrial Effluents, MDQARL,
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
November 28, 1973.
A-35
-------
Sec. 141.27 Alternative analytical techniques
With the written permission of the State an alternative
analytical technique may be employed. An alternative
technique shall be acceptable only if it is substantially
equivalent to the prescribed test in both precision and
accuracy as it relates to the determination of compliance
with any maximum contaminant level. The use of the alterna-
tive analytical technique shall not decrease the frequency of
monitoring required by this subpart.
A-36
-------
Sec. 141.28 Approved laboratories
For the purpose of determining compliance with
§ 141.21 through 141.27, samples maybe considered only if
they have been analyzed by a laboratory approved by the State,
except that measurements for turbidity and free chlorine
residual may be performed by any person acceptable to the
State.
A-37
-------
Sec. 141.29 Monitoring of consecutive public water systems
When a public water system supplies water to one or more
other public water systems, the State may modify the monitoring
requirements imposed by this subpart to the extent that the
interconnection of the systems justifies treating them as a
single system for monitoring purposes. Any modified monitor-
ing shall be conducted pursuant to a schedule specified by the
State and concurred in by the Administrator of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
A-38
-------
Subpart D - Reporting, Public Notification and Record Keeping
Sec. 141.31 Reporting requirements
(a) Except where a shorter reporting period is specified
in this subpart, the supplier of water shall report to the
State within 40 days following a test, measurement or analysis
required to be made by this subpart, the results of that test,
measurement or analysis.
(b) The supplier of water shall report to the State within
48 hours the failure to comply with any primary drinking
water regulation (including failure to comply with monitoring
requirements) set forth in this part.
(c) The supplier of water is not required to report analytical
results to the State in cases where a State laboratory performs
the analysis and reports the results to the State office which
would normally receive such notification from the supplier.
A-39
-------
Section 141.32 Public notification.
(a) If a community water system fails to comply with an
applicable maximum contaminant level established in Subpart B,
fails to comply with an applicable testing procedure established
in Subpart C, is granted a variance or an exemption from an
applicable maximum contaminant level, fails to comply with
the requirements of any schedule prescribed pursuant to a
variance or exemption, or fails to perform any monitoring
required pursuant to Section 1445(a) of the Act, the supplier
of water shall notify persons served by the system of the
*
failure or grant by inclusion of a notice in the first set of water
bills of the system issued after the failure or grant and in
any event by written notice within three months. Such notice
shall be repeated at least once every three months so long as
the system's failure continues or the variance or exemption
remains in effect. If the system issues water bills less
frequently than quarterly, or does not issue water bills, the
notice shall be made by or supplemented by another form of
direct mail.
A-40
-------
(b) If a community water system has failed to comply with
an applicable maximum contaminant level, the supplier of water
shall notify the public of such failure, in addition to the notifica-
tion required by paragraph (a), as follows:
(1) By publication on not less than three consecutive days in
a newspaper or newspapers of general circulation in the area
served by the system. Such notice shall be completed within
fourteen days after the supplier of water learns of the failure.
(2) By furnishing a copy of the notice to the radio and television
stations serving the area served by the system. Such notice shall
be furnished within seven days after the supplier of water learns of
the failure.
(c) If the area served by a community water system is not
served by a daily newspaper of general circulation, notification
by newspaper required by paragraph (b) shall instead be
given by publication on three consecutive weeks in a weekly news-
paper of general circulation serving the area. If no weekly or
daily newspaper of general circulation serves the area, notice
shall be given by posting the notice in post offices within the area
served by the system.
-------
(d) If a non-community water system fails to comply with an
applicable maximum contaminant level established in Subpart B,
fails to comply with an applicable testing procedure established in
Subpart C, is granted a variance or an exemption from an applicable
maximum contaminant level, fails to comply with the requirement
of any schedule prescribed pursuant to a variance or exemption
or fails to perform any monitoring required pursuant to Section
1445(a) of the Act, the supplier of water shall give notice of such
failure or grant to the persons served by the system. The form
and manner of such notice shall be prescribed by the State, and
shall insure that the public using the system is adequately informed
of the failure or grant.
(e) Notices given pursuant to this section shall not use
unduly technical language, unduly small print or other methods
which would frustrate the purpose of the notice. In areas
designated by the State, bilingual notices shall be given. Notices
should inform the public, but not unduly alarm the public. Notices
may include a fair explanation of the significance or seriousness
for the public health of the subject of the notice, a fair explanation
of steps taken by the system to correct any problem, and the
results of any additional sampling, and may indicate preventive
measures that should be taken by the public.
A-42
-------
(f) Notice to the public required by this section may be given
by the State on behalf of the supplier of water.
(g) In any instance in which notification by mail is required
by paragraph (a) but notification by newspaper or to radio or
television stations is not required by paragraph (b), the State
may order the supplier of water to provide notification by news-
paper and to radio and television stations when circumstances
make more immediate or broader notice appropriate to protect the
public health.
A-4 3
-------
Sec. 141.33 Record maintenance
Any owner or operator of a public water system subject
to the provisions of this part shall retain on its premises or
at a convenient location near its premises the following records;
(a) Records of bacteriological analyses made pursuant to
this part shall be kept for not less than 5 years. Records of
chemical analyses made pursuant to this part shall be kept
for not less than 10 years. Actual laboratory reports may
be kept, or data may be transferred to tabular summaries,
provided that the following information is included:
»*-
(1) The date, place, and time of sampling, and the name
of the person who collected the sample;
(2) Identification of the sample as to whether it was a
routine distribution system sample, check sample, raw or
process water sample or other special purpose sample;
(3) Date of analysis;
(4) Laboratory and person responsible for performing
analysis;
(5) The analytical technique/method used; and
(6) The results of the analysis.
-------
(b) Records of action taken by the system to correct
violations of primary drinking water regulations, shall be
kept for a period not less than 3 years after the last action
taken with respect to the particular violation involved.
(c) Copies of any written reports, summaries or
communications relating to sanitary surveys of the system
conducted by the system itself, by a private consultant, or
by any local, State or Federal agency, shall be kept for a
period not less than 10 years after completion of the sanitary
survey involved.
(d) Records concerning a variance or exemption granted
to the system shall be kept for a period ending not less than
5 years following the expiration of such variance or exemption,
A-45
-------
APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC NON-COMMUNITY SYSTEMS BY USE CATEGORY
This appendix describes a breakdown of public non-
community supply systems based on use category. Very few
states have compiled this information, and of those that
have, it appears that the data are still grossly incomplete.
New York State was able to provide their breakdown of known
non-community public water supplies, which is found in Table
B-l. This accounts for only 9,634, or approximately 27
percent, of the NSF estimated 36,000 systems for that state.
Noting that the numbers in the first three categories
(food service establishments, schools, and state institutions)
should be reasonably close to the actual numbers distributed,
an extrapolation was made to estimate the percentage of
systems which belong to the final four categories (industrial,
commercial, condominiums, and miscellaneous). This was
accomplished by weighting each unknown category according to
its number of known supplies, and distributing the appropriate
percentages among the 82.28 percent of the unknown category
syctems. The results are given in Table B-2 along with a
nationwide breakdown based on these percentages.
It was difficult to determine the limits and the range
of applicability of these categories due to the lack of
data, and therefore these results should be used with caution.
However, the figure trends appear to be compatible with
assumptions made for similar estimations by the EPA Water
Supply Division in a study of drinking water systems on and
along interstate highways (Table B-3).
A further breakdown of the miscellaneous category into
Federally administered components is presented in Table B-4.
These data are presented in publications by the administering
agency responsible for the sub-category given.
There are a large number of travellers who use small
non-community water systems, although it is again difficult
to specify quantitative data on populations serviced by the
systems from each category. The problem is further compli-
cated by the fact that there are quite significant seasonal
variations in the water demand from non-community supply
systems, especially from recreational areas. The following
assumptions can be made with some confidence:
B-l
-------
1. Drinking water supplies serving food service
establishments, schools, state institutions,
apartments, and industry cater to at least 25
persons per day for 75 percent of the year:
2. Drinking water supplies serving recreational
areas and facilities cater to at least 25 persons
per day for 35 percent of the year in the northern
United States and 90 percent of the year in the
southern United States;
3. Service to commercial business establishments
is difficult to generalize due to size and type
of business, and must be investigated on a
categorical and regional basis.
Average annual system utilization for Federally adminis-
tered facilities are presented In Table B-5- No other
concrete results could be generated.
Accurate cost analysis cannot yet be made of treatment
methods for these facilities, since there is a significant
lack of data in many categories. It has become quite evident
that little, if any, national effort has been placed in this
area. Little useful information has been obtained from the
few studies that have been completed by the Joint ventures
of the National Sanitation Foundation and the Conference of
State Sanitary Engineers, by the EPA. Future emphasis in
this area will have to proceed at the state-by-state inven-
tory. In this report, all non-community systems are assumed
to serve an average of 25 people a day for all 12 months of
the year.
B-2
-------
APR o s
TABLE B-l
STATF OF NIFW YOBK MEREDITH H. THOMPSON, o, ENG.
3 I/A 1C \sr mCW IV^IVIV AMWTANT COMMIMIONKR
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
• • RECREATION SANITATION
DIVISION OF SANITARY ENGINEERING
ESP - TOWER BUILDING mv'NO eROSSMAM- p-e-
fP- Whalfn. M-D- FOURTH FLOOR - ROOM 438 DOCTOR
*'"IS$0 E ALBANY, N.Y. 12237
April 1, 1975
Mr. Berry Gahron
185 Alevisebrook Parkway
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
Dear Mr. Gahron:
Doctor Thompson has asked me to supply you with information regarding
non-municipal public water supplies in New York State.
The table below shows the number of known supplies by region and
category at this time.
REGIONS
Food Service
Establishments
Schools
Industrial
Commercial
Condominiums &
Apt. Complexes
Miscellaneous
Regional Totals J.,904
The numbers in the first three categories should be reasonably close
to the actual numbers of these establishments. This cannot be said of
the remaining categories. At this time, no estimate can be given of
the total numbers of these establishments. The reported numbers are
simply the known supplies.
B-3
Albany Buffalo
1,145
146
s 35
33
459
62
24_
1.904
Statewide
202
14
3
18
20
2
129
388
Total
Rochester
422
22
40
89
300
2
336
= 441*
Syracuse
955
103
12
41
175
5
472
1,763
.1,766-
1 — sas
White Plains
2,994
230
57
71
167
104
745
4.368
II
^y
t
5\5
147 '
^
','*•
175
i.Tot '
-------
- 2 -
The commercial category includes commercial business establishments such
as service stations, stores, shopping centers and grocers.
Examples of some establishments included in the miscellaneous category are
resorts, bathing beaches, trailer parks, camps, springs and town and county
buildings.
If you have any questions on these figures or require additional information,
please feel free to contact this office.
Very truly yours,
"72^—*
Dennis J. Corrigan
Sanitary Engineer
Residential Sanitation Section
-------
TABLE B-2
CATEGORY PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN BASED ON NEW YORK
STATE DATA AVAILABLE
CATEGORY
PERCENTAGE
SYSTEMS IN
CATEGORY (%)
ESTIMATED NUMBER
OF SYSTEMS INp
UNITED STATES
1.
2.
3-
4.
5-
6.
7-
Food Service Establishments
Schools
State Institution
Industrial
Commercial
Condominiums and Apartments
4
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
15.88
1.43
0.41
6.37
28.31
4.46
43.14
100.00
36,582
3,294
945
14,674
65,217
10,274
99,381
230,367
Assumptions:
1. Categories 4 through 7 based on weighted data (see text)
2. Nationwide breakdown based on NSF estimates and New
York data.
3. Commercial category includes commercial business
establishments such as service stations, stores,
shopping centers and grocers.
4. Micellaneous category includes resorts, beaches, parks,
camps, springs, and town and country buildings.
B-5
-------
TABLE B-3
DRINKING WATER SYSTEMS ALONG
INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS
SUMMARY OF THE CATEGORIES OF WATER SYSTEMS SURVEYED
System Category
Safety Rest Area
8
•a Service Station
•jj o
"a u< Restaurant
»> 0
a u
G "g Motel
33
Total
Virginia
9
20
3
7
39
Oregon
10
18
6
6
40
Kansas
10
22
8
0
40
Total
Number
29
60
17
13
119
Percent
24
50
14
12
100
Source- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking
Wate- Sources On and Along the National System of Interstate
and Defense Highways. A Pilot Stud^, Water Supply Division,
August 1971, P- 13.
B-6
-------
TABLE
FEDERALLY ADMINISTERED NON-COMMUNITY
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS3
1.
2.
3.
i|.
NUMBER OF
SUBCATEGORY SYSTEMS
U.S. Forest Service 10,000
Interstate Highways 9,115
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 260
U.S. National Park Service 425
POPULATION
SERVED ANNUALLY
71
1,250
55
216
x 106
x 106
x 106
Y 106
aFederally administered supplies account for about 20
percent of the miscellaneous category in Table B-2.
B-7
-------
TABLE B-5
AVERAGE ANNUAL FEDERAL WATER SUPPLY
UTILIZATION (NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED)
SUBCATEGORY USE (PEOPLE/SYSTEM/DAY)
1. U.S. Forest Service 19
2. Interstate Highways 137
3. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 580
M. U.S. National Park Service 1,390
B-8
-------
APPENDIX C
QUESTIONNAIRE TO STATE AGENCIES WITH
RESPONSIBILITY FOR DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
Name and Address of Agency:
Person(s) Pilling Out Questionnaire
1. LABORATORY CERTIFICATION
a. Does the state have a program for certification of analytical
laboratories which monitor the inorganic quality of drinking
water?
1) Local water system in-house labs? YES NO
2) Private commercial labs? YES NO
3) Municipal labs not operated by water depts? YES NO
4) State labs? YES NO
How many certified labs are there in each category?
In-house Private Municipal State
Could you please attach a list of such laboratories?
b. Does the state have a program for certification of analytical
laboratories to monitor the organic and pesticide quality of
drinking water?
1) Local water system in-house labs? YES NO
2) Private commercial labs? YES N0_
3) Municipal labs not operated by water depts? YES N0_
4) State labs? YES N0.
C-l
-------
How many certified labs are there in each category?
In-House Private Municipal State_
Could you please attach a list of such laboratories?
Does the state have a program for certification of analytical
laboratories to monitor the bacteriological quality of drinking
water?
1) Local water system in-house labs? YES NO
2) Private commercial labs? YES NO
3) Municipal labs not operated by water depts? YES NO
4) State labs? YES NO
How many certified labs are there in each category?
In-House Private Municipal State
Could you please attach a list of such laboratories?
Does the state certify individual water system to monitor
turbidity (yes/no) and residual chlorine (yes/no)? How many?
Turbidity Residual Chlorine
2. MONITORING
a. Who performs water qual-ity analyses?
(Answer with percents of total task work.)
TYPE OF LABORATORY
Private
In-House Commercial Municioal
Sample Collection
Inorganic Analyses
Organic Analyses
Pesticide Analyses
Coliform Analyses
Plate Count Analyses
Turbidity Analyses
Residual Chlorine
Radiological Analyses
State
TOTAL
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
C-2
-------
b.
c,
Must performing labs be certified?
YES
NO
Please supply data on the numbers of different types of
drinking water systems within the state:
1) Number of systems drawing on surface water sourcesa and
serving communitites .
2) Number of systems drawing only on ground water sources0
b
and serving communities
3) Number of systems drawing on surface water sources3 and
d
serving only transients
4) Number of systems drawing only on ground water sources0
and serving only transients .
5) Number of systems drawing only on suppliers of finished
water .
Does the state have standards for the frequency of
monitoring for: (If no requirement, answer "No")
Community Systems
Surface Water Ground Water
Transient
Systems
Inorganics
Jrganics
Pesticides
toll form
Plate Count
?urbidity
Every Years
Every Years
Every Years
Samples
••• - per mo .
it
ii
Every Years
Every Years
Every Years
Samples
it
ii
Every Years
Every Years
Every Years
Samples
, ..-.r-\ tn r» mn
It
TT
*May be supplemented by ground and finished waters
525 or more permanent residents.
:May be supplemented by finished waters.
Average of 25 or more in any three month period.
C-3
-------
e. Please supply data on the work load of state laboratories
performing water quality analyses:
How Many Samples Are How Many Samples Could
Presently Analyzed Be Analyzed with Present
Jontaminant Each Year? Facilities and Manpower?
Inorganics
Organics
Pesticides
Coliform
Plate Count
Turbidity
Radiological
f.
g-
Who pays for monitoring costs? (Answer with percentage
of total costs)
1) Local Water Systems?
2) Municipal Agency?
3) State Agency?
If state laboratory does drinking water quality analyses, can
you supply us with cost data for these analyses? (Annual Basis)
1) Direct Labor
2) Supplies and Equipment
3) Overhead
4) Total Cost
5) Number of Personnel
(full time equivalent)
ENFORCEMENT
a. Does the state enforce any standards for maximum contaminant
levels in drinking water? YES N0—
-------
b. If YES, do these standards conform to the 1962 PHS Drinking
Water Standards? YES NO
c. If enforced standards are substantially different from the
1962 PHS Standards, please describe the state standards:
d. How many inspectors does the state employ in its enforcement
programs?
e. What actions, if any, are taken against systems which violate
standards? ____ .
f. Please name the state agencies, if any, responsible for:
1) Enforcement of standards
2) Recorder of violations
C-5
-------
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
The latest draft of the Proposed Interim Primary Standards calls
for the following frequencies of monitoring
TYPE OF SYSTEM
Community
Transient
' norganics,
Jrganics and
Pesticides
"urbidity
Annually
Daily
Every 3 Years
Monthly
Every 6 Years
Daily
Every 6 Years
None
,'oliform
2 to 500 Samples Per Month
Based on Number of
Customers Served*
Late Count
1 to 500 Samples Per Month
Based on Number of
Customers Served
*1962 PHS, Recommended Sampling Frequencies.
a. Do you anticipate any difficulties with this level of
monitoring in terms of the availability of analytical
facilities? (If so, please describe)
b. Do you anticipate any diffficulties in funding this level of
monitoring? (If so, please describe)
Does the state issue permits for construction of water supply
systems? YES N0-
C-6
-------
Does the state issue permits for construction of additional
facilities at existing water supply systems? YES NO
Does your state plan to encourage the use of residual chlorine
monitoring to replace and/or supplement coliform density
measurements? YES NO
Please add any additional comments.
C-7
-------
TABLE C-l
PERCENT OF INORGANIC ANALYSES DONE BY POUR AGENCIES BY STATE
PRIVATE
IN-HOUSE
COMMERCIAL
MUNICIPAL
STATE
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
20
0
40
0
20
0
20
100
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
N
20
N
N
20
N
N
0
N
N
60
N
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
N
0
60
0
N
0
0
0
N
0
0
0
N
0
40
100
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
75
N
0
10
0
N
0
0
1
N
0
0
24
99
100
90
LOUISIANA
MAINE
10
N
N
90
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
0
0
0
100
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
100
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
'N
0
N
10
10
10
N
10
N
0
0
0
N
0
N
0
1
0
N
90
N
90
90
90
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
N
N
50
N
N
I
N
N
0
N
N
50
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
T^XA^
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
VEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
30
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
97
70
100
100
90
90
100
N Is not known.
^o entry Indicates lack of response.
C-8
-------
STATE LAB WORK LOAD (INORGANICS)
NUMBER OF SAMPLES
PRESENTLY ANALYZED
POTENTIAL NUMBER OF
SAMPLES ANALYZED
ALABAMA
ALASKA
few hundred
ARIZONA
N
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
1,666
1.666
COLORADO
550
550
CONNECTICUT
N
N
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
N
N
GEORGIA
9,000
9,000
HAWAII
669
1,000
IDAHO
~2T4
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
16^620
17,000
IOWA
700-900
N
KANSAS
300
1,500
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
546 (partial) 8 (total) 600 (partial) 10 (total)
MAINE
500
+ 25% +
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
13 (plus 144 mercury only!
13
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
N
N
NEBRASKA
300
1.500
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
OHIO
1,646
N
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
7,000
N
4.000
3.000
7,700
N
4,000
+20$
2,000
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
2.609
RHODE ISLAND
592
N
N
SOUTH CAROLINA
2.200
2,500
5,500
WYOMING
60
6,500
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
3T325
2,000
4,000
7zs
2,500
1,000
3,500
3jOOO
1,000
N
— — • n r* r\ n
d. ,b
-------
TABLE C-3
PERCENT OF ORGANIC ANALYSES DONE BY POUR AGENCIES BY STATE
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
IN-HOUSE
5
0
N
10
N
PRIVATE
COMMERCIAL
90
0
N
10
N
MUNICIPAL
0
0
N
0
N
STATE
5
100
N
80
N
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
N
0
100
N
N
0
0
N
N
0
0
N
N
0
0
N
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
1
N
100
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
99
99
0
100
LOUISIANA
MAINE
N
N
N
N
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
0
0
0
100
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
N
100
N
0
N
0
N
0
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
N
N
N
10
95
0
N
N
N
0
0
0
N
N
0
0
0
N
N
90
100
0
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
N
N
0
N
N
N
0
N
N
N
0
N
N
N
100
N
TFNNRSSFF.
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
100
o
100
90
wrsmMRTO
WYOMING
0
100
0
o
N is not known.
No entry indicates lack of response.
C-10
-------
TABLE
STATE LAB WORK LOAD (ORGANICS)
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
NUMBER OF SAMPLES
PRESENTLY ANALYZED
Pew
N
POTENTIAL NUMBER OF
SAMPLES ANALYZED
N
N
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
1,666
550
N
1,666
550
N
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
N
0
0
21H
N
0
0
250
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
38
700-900
0
75
N
1JO
N
0
N
N
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETiS
MICHIGAN
13
13
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
N
0
N
0
NEVADA
NEK7 HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
N
0
N
100
N
0
N
0
N
100
N
0
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
N
N
175
N
N
N
175
N
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
0
N
0
30
0
10
0
N
0
N
0
20
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
0
0
N is not known.
No entry indicates lack of response.
C-ll
-------
TABLE C-5
PERCENT OF PESTICIDE ANALYSES DONE BY FOUR AGENCIES BY STATE
IN-HOUSE
PRIVATE
COMMERCIAL
MUNICIPAL
STATE
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
0
0
N
5
N
50
0
N
5
N
N
0
N
0
N
5o
100
N
90
~TJ
nFT,AWARF.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
TT.T. TWITS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
N
0
90
0
0
N
100
0
N
N
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
N
N
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
N
N
g
nro
TDT5
100
99
0
100
N
MINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
0
0
0
100
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MTSSHTTRT
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
N
100
N
0
N
0
N
0
NEVADA
MKW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
N
0
N
10
0
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
0
0
0
N
100
90
100
100
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOLTTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
N is not known.
No entry indicates
N
N
0
N
1
0
Q
0
0
0
0
lack of
N
N
0
N
0
0
n
o
o
0
100
response .
N
N
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
100
N
99
100
0
100
100
20
0
C-12
-------
TABLE 0-6
STATE LAB WORK LOAD PESTICIDES
NUMBER OF SAMPLES
PRESENTLY ANALYZED
POTENTIAL NUMBER OF
SAMPLES ANALYZED
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
0
N
1,666
0
N
N
N
i,66b
0
N
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
N
0
16
167
N
0
16
200
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
0
700-900
0
20
10
N
0
200
LOUISIANA
MAINE
N
N
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
13
13
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
N
0
N
0
NFVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
N
200
N
under 50
0
300
N
306
N
under 50
. ^
300
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
N
184
175
N
100
20
0
10
N
20
0
N
N
175
N
100
20
0
N
N
20
0
N is not known.
No entry indicates lack of response
C-13
-------
TABLE C-7
PERCENT OP COLIFORM ANALYSES DONE BY FOUR AGENCIES BY STATE
IN-HOUSE
PRIVATE
COMMERCIAL
MUNICIPAL STATE
ALABAMA
.ALASKA
\RIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
0
0
N
30
N
10
0
N
1
N
N
o
N
1
N
90
100
N
*9
N
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
N
0
60
0
N
0
0
2
N
10
0
0
N
90
40
98
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
15
0
20 '
20
0
5
0
0
5
45
10
10
80
50
70
70
LOUISIANA
MAINE
10
0
0
90
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
N
82
N
0
N
0
N
18
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
N
20
N
0
N
10
N
70
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
N
0
N
25
10
10
N
0
N
0
0
0
N
0
0
1
0
N
100
75
90
90
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
N
N
68
0
N
N
1
0
N
N
N
10
N
N
32
90
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
10
25
0
25
10
0
0
2
0
0
0
5
0
13
0
0
50
25
90
60 _
100
80 __
40 -
70
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
1
0
0
99 __
N is not known.
No entry indicates
lack of response.
-------
TABLE C-8
STATE LAB V/ORK LOAD COLIPOBM
NUMBER OP SAMPLES
PRESENTLY ANALYZED
POTENTIAL NUMBER OF
SAMPLES ANALYZED
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
20,000
N
15,000
9,800
N
N
N
15,000
9.800
N
CONNECTICUT
DEL-WARE
JVrSTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ULINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
N
40.000
5,953
7,191
25,648
40,000
N
21,000
10,000
N
24.000
N
40.000
6,000
10,000
26,000
N
N
21,000
12,500
N
24,000
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
I'DNTANA
NEBRASKA
N
0
N
0
NEVADA
HEW HAMPSHIRE
TEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
N
25,000
N
40.000
7.000
45,000
N
25,000
N
40,000
N
45,000
OKLAHOMA
rraramN
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
rnEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
2, buy
6,»70
50,000
15,000
260,322
20,000
20.000
84,520
15,000
N
7,575
N
- •'• JT" "-• ' • ' "
N
70,000
17,000
275,000
40,000
20,000
N
15,000
N
10,000
is not known.
No entry indicates lack of response
C-15
-------
TABLE C-9
PERCENT OF PLATE COUNT ANALYSES DONE BY POUR AGENCIES BY STATE
PRIVATE
IN-HOUSE COMMERCIAL MUNICIPAL STATE
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
0
0
10
0
0
0
90
100
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
N
0
fin
1
N
0
0
N
0
0
N
0
40
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
5
0
20
100
6
N
100
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
10
10
0
0
N
0
&
90
70
0
100
R
0
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
N
20
N
0
N
10
N
70
>3EVftDA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
N
0
N
N
10
0
N
0
N
N
0
0
N
0
N
N
1
0
100
N
N
90
0
OKTAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
N is not known.
No entry indicates
N
N
5
N
0
30
0
85
0
0
lack
N
N
N
N
0
0
0
0
0
100
of response.
N
N
N
N
0
10
0
0
0
0
N
N
95
N
100
So
0
15 _
100
-
0
C-16
-------
TABLE C-10
STATE LAB WORK LOAD PLATE COUNT
NUMBER OF SAMPLES POTENTIAL NUMBER OF
PRESENTLY ANALYZED SAMPLES ANALYZED
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
several hundred
N
N
N
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
15.000
0
N
15.000
0
N
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
•1WAII
IDAHO
N
0
1,000
0
N
0
1,000
N
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
0
0
16,000
0
400
N
few
0
0
16,000
0
25%
N
few
MINNESOTA
I'GSSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
N
16,000
N
45
N
0
0
10
N
lb,000
N
2,500
N
N
N
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
N
1.480
3,000
N
N
N
5,000
N
•TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
50
2,600
not routinely
42
0
N
0
300
3,000
analyzed
N
0
-" • —•...-.—. .•-... - . • — II.,—— .—. — -.-.
N
N is not known.
No entry indicates lack of response.
C-17
-------
TABLE C-ll
PERCENT OF TURBIDITY ANALYIS DONE BY POUR AGENCIES BY STATE
IN-HOUSE
PRIVATE
COMMERCIAL
MUNICIPAL
STATE
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
30
0
50
0
10
0
10
100
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
N
90
N
N
0
N
N
N
N
N
9
N
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
N
0
60
N
0
0
N
' 0
0
N
0
4o
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
95
0
100
50
0
0
0
0
1
20
0
0
q
80
0
50
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETIS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
20
N
99
0
N
0
0
N
0
80
N
1
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
N
100
N
0
100
10
1
5
N
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
N
95
0
0
1
0
N
0
N
5
0
90
95
95
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
N
N
92
N
N
N
0
N
N
N
0
N
N
N
N
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHIM3TON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
100
0
0
100
50
0
95
N is not known.
No entry indicates lack of
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
response.
0
50
C
0
0
0
0
0
50
100
0
50
60
5
C-18
-------
TABLE C-12
STATE LAB WORK LOAD TURBIDITY
NUMBER OF SAMPLES
PRESENTLY ANALYZED
POTENTIAL NUMBER OP
SAMPLES ANALYZED
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
few
N
N
N
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
N
500
N
N
500
N
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
.ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
JxXJISIANA
MAINE
N
0
250
N
388
700-900
0
546
400
N
0
500
N
500
N
1,500
600
+25%+
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
N
450
N
450
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
N
0
N
1,500
NEVADA
WJil HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
Unknown N
6,000
N
4,000
0
1,646
N
1,120
2,200
N
0
2.000
4.000
728
W/Inoreanics figure
500
Unknown N
b,bOO
N
4,000
N
2,000
N
N
3,000
N
100
3,000
4,000
N
W/Inorganics figure
500
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
0
0
N is not known.
No entry indicates lack of response.
C-19
-------
TABLE C-13
PERCENT OP RADIOLOGICAL ANALYSES DONE BY FOUR AGENCIES BY STATE
IN-HOUSE
PRIVATE
COMMERCIAL
MUNICIPAL
STATE
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
100
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
N
0
N
N
2
N
N
0
N
N
98
N
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
N
0
0
N
0
0
N
0
0
N
0
0
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
0
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
100
99
0
100
LOUISIANA
MAINE
0
0
0
0
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
100
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
N
100
N
0
N
0
N
0
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JEKSE*
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
N
0
0
0
0
0
N
100
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
100
100
100
100
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
N is not known.
No entry indicates
N
N
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
lack of
N
N
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
response.
N
N
o
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
N
100
N
ToU
TOT5
0
100
TTTC
YCO
C-20
-------
TABLE C-14
STATE LAB WORK LOAD RADIOLOGICAL
NUMBER OP SAMPLES
PRESENTLY ANALYZED
POTENTIAL NUMBER OF
SAMPLES ANALYZED
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
0
N
N
0
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
1,000
670
N
1.000
670
N
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
N
0
0
N
N
0
0
N
IbMNOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
0
700-900
0
H
10
N
0
8
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
'N
N
120
N
N
120
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
N
0
N
0
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
N
0
N
900
N
0
N
900
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
1.690
2,500
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
N
54
800
N
200
128
0
10
0
N
N
N
N
N
250
7,900
0
N
0
N
WTSSmNRTN
WYOMING
0
0
N is not known.
No entry indicates lack of response.
C-21
-------
TABLE C-15
PERCENT OF RESIDUAL CHLORINE ANALYSES DONE BY FOUR AGENCIES BY STATE
IN-HOUSE
PRIVATE
COMMERCIAL
MUNICIPAL
STATE
ALABAMA
ALASKA
ARIZONA
30
0
10
0
50
0
10
106
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
N
99
N
N
0
N
N
0
N
N
1
N
DELAWARE
DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
IOWA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETO
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JEKSifif
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
N
0
60
0
100
80
95
75
100
N
100
N
95
N
0
100
N
100
100
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
0
N
0
0
N
0
0
100
0
80
0
25
0
N
0
N
0
N
95
0
N
0
0
N
0
40
0
0
20
5
0
0
N
0
N
5
N
5
0
N
0
0
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
N
N
65
N
N
N
" 0
N
N
N
0
N
N
N
35
N
•JLENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VEFMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
100
0
0
100
95
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
0
100
75
0
5
90
0
0
0
0
0
10
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
N Is not known.
No entry indicates
0
lack of
0
response.
90
10
C-22
-------
TABLE C-16
NUMBER OF SYSTEMS BY TYPE AND SOURCE
COMMUNITY
SYSTEMS
SURFACE GROUND
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
N
12
300
179
N
N
130
50+
125
50
54
2
N
66
N
96
N
1.900
800
34S
N
N
2.500
75+
820
393
768
450
N
104
N
1.878
NON-COMMUNITY
SYSTEMS
SURFACE GROUND
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
N
175
N
N
0
N
N
N
10
N
N
^N
955?
N
N
100
N
878
10,000
N
N
N
N
N
16.000
FINISHED
N
N
N
100
N
N
200
0
12
20
N
8
119
N
N
242
MISSOURI
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
N
2
46
17
400
169
33
167
N
450
N
353
735
2.470
224
1.485
N
0
N
N
N
N
N
100
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
19.000
N
8
N
N
400
68
N
113
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
500
10
70
20
3.875
31
1,000
350
0
N
25
5
11,800
N
1.353
600
N
N
200
1
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
400
25
133
137
100
170
6,000
600
238
1,166
1,400
360
150
5
100
0
50
N
10.000
500
3.000
9.400
2.000
200
500
40
N
50
100
120
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
46
372
16
410
6
N is not known.
No entry indicates lack of response,
C-23
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTAMINANT REMOVAL
BY CONVENTIONAL WATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
D.I Removal of Turbidity
There are a number of conventional water treatments
which are employed, either singly or in combination, for the
removal of turbidity from water intended for human consumption.
Turbidity is imparted to water by suspended solid particles
whose sizes are so small as to constitute a nonsettleable
colloidal suspension.
High turbidity levels render water unacceptable for
human consumption both for aesthetic and health reasons. The
origins of turbidity particulates are partly mineral
(including possibly toxic heavy metals), partly organic, and
partly microbiological (including possible disease causing
microorganisms). Moreover, high turbidity interferes with
disinfection and other treatment practices.
Although filtration by itself sometimes suffices to
reduce turbidity to acceptable levels, chemical treatments
are commonly practiced to induce coagulation and flocculation.
The resulting coalescence into larger particles allows
partial settling and increases filtration efficiency.
The chemicals most commonly used for coagulation and
flocculation are aluminum sulfate [A^tSOij)?], or alum, and
iron (III) sulfate [Fep(S04)o], or ferric alum. Both alum
and ferric alum are water soluble, but at medium to high
values of pH, they react with water to form solid hydroxides
in the form of gelatinous precipitates which incorporate
the turbidity particles into easily filtered or settleable
masses.
In principle, these "floes" of aluminum and ferric
hydroxides have a potential to absorb dissolved solids
including toxic heavy metals and other inorganics which fall
under the primary standards. Control of Ba*+ by precipitation
as the insoluble sulfate salt is also possible from considerations
of chemical equilibrium. Studies have been performed on the
following species to determine removal efficiencies through
coagulation, flocculation, and filtration: organic mercury
D-l
-------
(CH.HgCl)1'2 , inorganic mercury (HgClp)1'2, Barium (Ba++)2,
inorganic selenium (IV)2, inorganic selenium (VI)2, inorganic
arsenic (III)2>3, inorganic arsenic (V)2»3, and total chromium.
The results are shown in Table D-l.
In the studies by Logsdon and Symons, the removal
efficiencies of mercury tended to parallel initial levels of
turbidity!. The failure of sulfate ion to remove barium was
attributed to supersaturation2; the importance of oxidation
states was noted for selenium and arsenic^. It was observed
that selenium is primarily a ground water problem and that
the reduced state [Se(IV)] should therefore predominate^.
(Fortunately Se(IV) is the easier of the two to remove.)
Laboratory2>3 and field studies both showed that chlorination
improves the removal efficiency for arsenic, presumably
thorugh oxidation of As(III) to As(V).
D.2 Chlorination
Chlorination is very widely practiced as a means of
disinfecting public water supplies, and its use in the United
States has reduced the once epidemic incidence of water-borne
disease to almost negligible proportions.
1G.S. Logsdon and J.M. Symons, "Mercury Removal by
Conventional Water Treatment Techniques," J. Am. Water
Works Assn., 65, 551* (1958).
2G S Logsdon and J.M. Syraons, "Removal of Heavy Metals
by Conv^ionll Treatment," in J.E. Sabadel, editor "Traces
of Heavy Metals in Water Removal Processes and Monitoring,
United States Environmental Protection Agency Report
#902/9-74-001, Region II, 1973, PP- 225-56.
3y S. Shen, "Study of Arsenic Removal from Drinking
Water," J. Am. Water Works Assn., 65, 5^3 (1973).
4G M. Zemansky, "Removal of Trace Metals During
Conventional Water Treatment," J. Am. Water Works Assn.,
66, 606 (197*0 •
D-2
-------
TABLE D-l
REMOVAL OF HEAVY METALS BY COAGULATION,
FLOCCULATION
AND FILTRATION
PERCENT
APPROXIMATE REMOVAL
SPECIES ALUM FERRIC ALUM
Organic
Mercury
Inorganic
Mercury
Barium
Inorganic
Selenium (IV)
Inorganic
Selenium (VI)
Inorganic
Arsenic (III)
Inorganic
Arsenic (V)
rpx^-4-^iT A v» o o n •? r»
<30
<30
<30
<30
<30
<30
60-90
SO-8C
<30
30-60
<30
60-80
<30
50-80
90-100
I
TYPE OF -fl
STUDY REFERENCE
Jar Test
Jar Test
Jar Test
Jar Test
Jar Test
Jar Test
Jar Test
Jar Test
1,2
1,2
2
2
2
2
2
3
Total Arsenic
Total Chromium
100
0-60
Jar Test, 3
Field Survey
Field Survey M
aFerric chloride coagulation.
bChlorination followed by ferric chloride coagulation,
cCoagulants not specified.
dSee footnotes, preceding page.
D-3
-------
When Cl2 dissolves in water at a neutral pH, it
disproportionates:
C12 + H20 -* H* + Cl" + HC10 (1)
forming hydrochloric acid and hypochlorous acid (HC10). All
the disinfecting and oxidizing power of "aqueous chlorine"
resides in the hypochlorous acid. The pH is of course
lowered.
Several of the inorganic chemicals listed in the
primary standards are affected by chlorination. Trivalent
arsenic (As(III)) is oxidized to the pentavalent state
(As(V)). Tetravalent selenium (Se(IV)) does not oxidize
rapidly in the presence of HC10, but standard oxidation
potentials predict that it should be converted to Se(VI).
Nitrite (N0£) is oxidized to nitrate (NO^). Free cyanide
(CN~) is destroyed, but some cyanide complexes are resistant
to chlorination. Chlorination can potentially destroy some
organometallic compounds. (The reaction of HC10 with methyl
mercury should therefore be investigated•)
Aqueous chlorine reacts readily with ammonia. The
resulting chloramines retain much of the disinfecting power
of chlorine and represent much longer-lasting chlorine
residuals (combined chlorine residual), but are much weaker
oxidizing agents. Thus, when ammonia is present in the
water (either naturally or by deliberate addition), under
these conditions, the reactions as cited in the previous
paragraph are not as likely to take place.
Aqueous chlorine also reacts with organics to produce
chlorinated organics, such as those found in the New Orleans
water supply last year and implicated in the high incidence
of bladder cancer in that city. One possible benefit of
this reaction, however, is that the chlorinated organics are
probably more completely adsorbed on activated carbon than
are their precursors.
D.3 Activated Carbon Filtration
Filtration through activated carbon is a well known,
effective treatment for water with high levels of odor and
color. This is due to carbon's extraordinary capacity to
D-4
-------
adsorb organic molecules onto its surface. It is likely
that activated carbon filtration would constitute adequate
treatment for water with excessive levels of total organics
(as measured by carbon chloroform extraction) and of pesticides
Logsdon and Symons have investigated the removal of
several trace metal species with activated carbon.1 Effective
removals of both organic and inorganic mercury were observed
with removal efficiencies of up to 100 percent using
granular activated carbon in columns. They found that
activated carbon was ineffective against barium, selenium
and arsenic. Smith,2 however, has reported that when carbon
is prepared with a high content of oxygenated surface
groupings, it functions as an ion exchange medium and is
therefore a good adsorber of ionic species. Carbon's other
removal mechanisms include true adsorption, precipitation,
oxidation or reduction to insoluble forms, and mechanical
filtration. Smith's literature survey disclosed effective
removals of Cr, Pb, Ni, Cd, Zn, Fe, Mn, Ca, Al, Bi, Cu,
Ge, as well as the aforementioned work on Hg. Suitable
carbons can be prepared by heating carbon in the presence of
oxygen or by slurrying it with nitric acid.
It should be noted that activated carbon has a 100
percent removal efficiency for chlorine.
D.4 Lime Softening
In lime softening, calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) is used
as a base to convert the natural bicarbonate (HCO-) content
of water to carbonate (COp. The pH of course rises. As a
result, the insoluble compounds CaCOo, MgC03 and (in the
case of excess lime softening) Mg(OH)2 form and fall out of
solution as precipitates.
Lime softening has many variations, depending both on
the composition of the feed water and on the desired quality
of the finished water. In addition to lime, a particular
lime softening process may also use C02, Na2C03, or NaOH.
Ordinary lime softening raises pH to the range of 8-10; in
excess lime softening the pH goes over 10 but is later
reduced -for example, by aeration with CO (a weak acid).
iLogsdon and Symons, "Mercury Removal by Conventional
Water Treatment Techniques," 1950.
2S.B. Smith, "Trace Metals Removal by Activated Carbon,"
in J.E. Sabade, pp. 55-70.
D-5
-------
Lime softening can cause some heavy trace metals to
precipitate as hydroxides or carbonates^ it can also convert
species such as HAs02, H2AsO£, and HAsOjJ", which are soluble
in the presence of Ca4+ to AsO~ and AsO^, whose calcium
salts precipitate.
Hem and Durum1 have studied the equilibrium solubility
of lead as a function of carbonate and pH, and concluded
that a pH of 8 is sufficient to reduce the dissolved lead
content to a level which is less than 10 percent of the
maximum value permitted by the primary standards. Lime
softened water should therefore satisfy the lead standard,
and moreover should be incapable of dissolving lead pipes
and lead joints in water distribution systems.
Logsdon and Symons2 have studied the effectiveness of
lime softening on mercury (both organic and inorganic),
barium, arsenic (III), arsenic (V), selenium (IV) and
selenium (VI). Their results are summarized in Table D-2. The
arsenic results parallel those for ferric alum coagulation.
They found that chlorination of As(III) followed by lime
softening achieved removal efficiencies characteristic of
As(V).
TABLE D-2
REMOVAL OF TRACE HEAVY METALS WITH LIME
— APPROXIMATE PERCENT REMOVAL
SPECIES : pH 8.5-9.5 pH 10.5-11.5
Mercury
c Mercury
c Selenium (IV)
0
20-^40
60-90
^20
0
60-80
80-95
20-50
Barium
Inorgar
Inorganic Selenium (VI)
Inorganic Arsenic (III) 10-20 60-80
Inorganic Arsenic (V) 30-50 90-100
•'•J.D. Hem and W.H. Durum, "Solubility and Occurrence of
Leak in Surface Water," J. Am. Water Works Assn., 6j?, 562 (1973)
2Logsdon and Symons, "Mercury Removal by Conventional
Water Treatment Techniques," 1958.
D-6
-------
APPENDIX E
DATA BASE AND COST ESTIMATES OF WATER TREATMENT
This appendix presents the development of cost functions
for water treatment processes used in this study. The origins
of the data base utilized are also included. This description
should provide the necessary background to the cost estimates
for water treatment to meet the Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations.
The description is divided into two main sections.
Section E.I illustrates the cost functions and estimates for
larger water supply systems (systems that supply more than
1,000 m3/day" [264,000 gpd]). Section E.2 describes the cor-
responding costs for small systems. The need for such a
distinction stems from the fact that cost functions for large
supply systems are not valid for systems of smaller
capacity. Consequently, different sets of functions were
devised for the processes being considered, which include the
following: (1) clarification (consisting of direct filtration),
(2) chlorination, (3) activated carbon, (4) ion exchange,
(5) pH control, and (6) activated alumina.
Prior to the presentation of these cost functions, the
associated assumptions are stated below:
1. To estimate the quantity of water production,
the average daily production shown in Table 4-2
was used for each population category;
2. Electricity costs 3 cents per kilowatt-hour;
3. Land costs $202 per hectare;
4 Capital costs generally included expenses for
equipment purchase, installation, construction,
design engineering study, land, site develop-
ment, and construction overhead. Operating
and maintenance costs (O&M) include labor,
supplies, materials, chemicals, electric utility,
and general maintenance;
5. The interest rate is 7 percent.
E-l
-------
E.1 Large System Costs
The cost functions for large water supply systems were
generated primarily from the results of a report by D.
Volkert & Associates.1 These functions, which have been
compared favorably with another report,2 are summarized in
Table E-l. The first column lists the treatment processes.
The second column lists the cost estimates, and the third
column indicates the appropriate comments for that process.
It should be noted that the cost estimates are for individual
processes; cascading them in series may lead to lower costs.
Moreover, these functions are only valid for plants with
capacities between 1,000 m3/day (264,000 gpd) and 300,000
m3/day (78 mgd). For the cost functions, the following
keywords are used:
C = Construction cost
OM = Annual O&M costs, excluding labor
A = Area of land in hectares
SD = Site developemnt cost
L = Annual labor cost
OML = Annual O&M costs, including labor
Q = Plant capacity in nrYday
Unless specified, these cost estimates are in terms of 1972
dollars. They have to be adjusted to 1975 dollars using the
discount factor.
1David Volkert & Associates, Monograph of the Effectiveness
and Cost of Water Treatment Processes for the Removal of Specific
Contaminants. Vol. I.r Technical Manual (Bethesda, Maryland:
David Volkert & Associates, 1972).
2I.C. Watson, Study of the Feasibility of Desalting
Municipal Water Supplies in Montana. Manual for Calculation
of Conventional Water Treatment Costs, Supplement to Final
Report (Arlington, Virginia:Resources Studies Group,
1972).
E-2
-------
TABLE E-l
COST ESTIMATES OF TREATMENT PROCESSES FOR LARGE SYSTEMS
TREATMENT
PROCESS
COST ESTIMATES
COMMENTS
COAGULATION &
SEDIMENTATION
45000(Q/1000)°'79€
0.66
C -
SD = 40000(Q/1000)
L = 6400(Q/1000)
OM = 2?00(Q/1000)
A = 0.07MQ/1000)
1. Flash water
2. Usually followed by
filtration
uo
FILTRATION
C
SD
L
OM
A
64000(Q/1000)°'676
.0.761
11000CQ/1000)
11000(Q/1000)
0.9^8
HI 149 (Q/1000)
0.026(Q/1000)
0.948
1. Rapid sand filter
for a rate of
10 m3/m2/day
CHLORINATION
Equipment cost - 3700(Q/1000)°*533
Enclosure structure cost
= 800(Q/1000)
1. Use solution feed
2. Assume 4 mg/1 dosage
Cost of chlorine per year
= ($0.55/kg) x 365 Q x
-3
(dosage in mg/1) x 4.01 x 10 V0.7
-------
TABLE E-l
COST ESTIMATES OF TREATMENT PROCESSES FOR LARGE SYSTEMS (CONT.)
TREATMENT
PROCESS
COST ESTIMATES
COMMENTS
w
i
ACTIVATED CARBON
C for adsorption
- 23000(Q/1000)°*849
C for carbon regeneration
« 12000(Q/1000)°*656
1. Granular carbon used.
2. Three month replacement
OML » 21000(Q/1000)
0.146
OM supplies « 9000(Q/1000)
Annual fuel cost
- 300(Q/1000)°'606
Granular carbon replacement
cost per year » 300(Q/1000)
0.169
ACTIVATED ALUMINA
22000CQ/1000)
0.631
OML « 3200(Q/1000)°'785
Chemical cost for each mg/1 of
fluoride removed per year
- 2300(Q/1000)
-------
TABi-iE K-i
COST ESTIMATES OP TREATMENT PROCESSES FOR LARGE SYSTEMS (CONT.;
TREATMENT PROCESS
COST ESTIMATES
COMMENTS
ION EXCHANGE
M
I
ui
106(Q/100)°-703
0.666
C = 0.22 x
SD = 52000(Q/1000)
OML = 16000(Q/1000)°<117
OM Supplies = 0.01C
Resin replacement cost
Annual power cost
= 0.03 x 360 x 365
x (Q/1000)0-87
A - 0.03(Q/1000)
Annual chemical cost
= 5 x 10~5 x 365Q
x (ppm reduction)
1. Assume 1000 ppm
reduction in TDS
0.03C
pH Control
Cost of lime » 2
-------
E.2 Small System Costs
In this study, a small system is considered to be one
producing less than 264,000 gallons (1,000 m3) per day.
Assuming a water requirement of 100 to 150 gallons per
capita per day, the flow rate range of interest is from
about 2,500 gallons per day (- 10 m3/day) to about 300,000
gpd (=1,100 m3/day).
Cost information for small systems was obtained through
(1) personal conversation with several water treatment
equipment manufacturers and suppliers, and (2) a study of
conventional water supply costs conducted by Control Systems
Research, Inc. for the Office of Saline Water, U.S. Department
of the Interior.1
The approach used in requesting cost Information from
vendors was as follows. First, each manufacturer or supplier
was queried as to the exact nature of his business. This
allowed obtained cost data to be qualified in terms of
actual type of equipment and services supplied for a stated
price. The various business functions of the vendors contacted
included suppliers of $40 cartridge filter products for home
use, manufacturers of treatment unit "packages" for commercial/
industrial use, suppliers of complete clarification systems
for small municipal systems and/or industrial use, and
suppliers of treatment systems designed to handle site-
specific problems. Confidence in survey results was gained
by considering responses only in terms of the vendor categories
from which the responses came.
Secondly, each vendor was asked to provide general cost
information (capital, installation, O&M) for equipment
customarily used in water treatment applications within the
flow rate range of interest. It was acknowledged that
facilities and equipment provided in a given application is
determined from several factors including; (1) raw water
quality, (2) desired product water quality, (3) flow rate,
(4) existing facilities, (5) system and equipment flexibility,
(6) operation and maintenance needs of equipment, and other
site-specific characteristics.
I.C. Watson, Resources Studies Group, CSR, Inc.,
Manual for Calculation of Conventional Water Treatment Costs
(Washington, D.C.:Office of Saline Water, U.S. Department
of the Interior, March 1972).
E-6
-------
Since site-specific factors are not easily quantified
on a general basis, vendors were asked for a general indication
of costs. Responses were therefore based on either general
equipment catalogue costs or actual vendor experience in
providing facilities for small systems.
Information received from vendors was supplemented with
cost data contained in the aforementioned CSRJ- study, which
was based largely on equipment cost information provided by
vendors. The GSR report was prepared with an emphasis on
developing cost curves for systems used in municipal appli-
cation and was designed to provide a means for estimating
the costs of conventional treatment systems on the basis of
individual unit operations. Cost functions derived from CSR
data reflect 1972 prices and are thus multiplied by the
appropriate factor in order to present results in 1975
dollars. A 7 percent Interest rate was assumed.
Cost estimating functions for small systems are presented
below in tabular form with appropriate comments regarding the
equipment and services represented by each function. A list
of vendors contacted is then presented. The following
nomenclature is used:
C = Capital equipment cost
I = Equipment installation costs
O&M = Equipment operation and maintenance costs, annual
GPD = Gallons per day
Q = Plant capacity in cubic meters per day
GPM = Gallons per minute
SE = Site and enclosure costs
IMC = Initial media costs
It should be pointed out here that the cost curves for
small and large systems will not produce a continuous function.
The main reason for this is that each set of curves was
developed independently and perhaps under differing assumptions
•"-Control Systems Research Inc. is now known as KAPPA
Systems Inc., Arlington, Virginia.
E-7
-------
The cost differences that occur at the small and large system
breakpoint do not materially affect the overall cost estimates,
In any event, it was not within the scope of this project to
develop a single continuous function for all system sizes
covered by the Act.
However, because of the tremendous range in system size,
from 25 persons to over 1,000,000, there are several reasons
why it may be difficult to develop a continuous function for
all systems:
1. Small systems can employ package plants;
2. Small systems generally do not require full-
time maintenance;
3. Small system treatment package plants may not
require housing facilities.
E-8
-------
TABLE E-2
COST ESTIMATES OF TREATMENT PROCESSES FOR SMALL SYSTEMS
TREATMENT
PROCESS
CHLORINATION
i
VQ
COST ESTIMATES
C = (0.386)Q/(10)2'283
0&M= 0.751Q/(10)°-768
COMMENTS
1. For small systems, solution
feed hypochlorinators are the
most feasible kind of disin-
fection equipment.
2. O&M includes power and
chemical costs and normal
care of hypochlorinator unit.
3. Assumes 4 ppm Cl.
CLARIFICATION
(COAGULATION,
SEDIMENTATION,
FILTRATION)
C and I = 1.5 X 10
5 GPD 0.196
10
3
= il.47 X 105/_QJ°-196
\103/
O&M = 0.06 [C and I]
C and I cost reflects complete-
ly automatic filtration plant
for use in treating surface
waters to potability standards.
Equipment provided includes
chemical feed, coagulation,
floculation, sedimentation,
filtration, and also building
with foundation and sanitary
services.
Costs reflect a municipal small
system situation where bids on
a clarification system would be
received.
Added pumping, piping, drainage
not provided.
C and I and O&M estimates
(Maintenance supplies, labor,
chemicals and power costs) com-
pare favorably with CSR data.
-------
TABLE E-2
COST ESTIMATES OF TREATMENT PROCESSES FOR SMALL SYSTEMS (CONT.)
TREATMENT
PROCESS
COST ESTIMATES
COMMENTS
FILTRATION
tt
i
C * (0.277)Q/(10)3'917
0 & M = (0.101)Q/(10)3>:UO
Costs are for filtration system
used for source of water between
0-100 JTU.
C and I includes filter media
and vessel, pumping equipment,
piping, and controls for filter
system, and erected housing.
O&M Includes pump power, chemical
costs, maintenance and labor.
ION EXCHANGE
C and I - 2 X 10
GPP 0.37
103
= 2.5^6 X 103 -3, °'37
0 & M - 0.07 [C and I]
Costs for unit package designed
for industrial applications.
C and I includes demineralizer
units with automatic controls,
plastic piping, rinse alarm.
Pumping equipment, pretreatment
equipment, chemical storage
tanks not included.
O&M involves pumping care and
power, chemical tanks and
chemicals, manual tank filling.
-------
TABLE E-2
COST ESTIMATES OF TREATMENT PROCESSES FOR SMALL SYSTEMS (CONT.)
TREATMENT PROCESS
COST ESTIMATES
COMMENTS
pH CONTROL
Cost of lime » 2
-------
TABLE E-2
COST ESTIMATES OF TREATMENT PROCESSES FOR SMALL SYSTEMS (CONT.)
TREATMENT
PROCESS
ACTIVATED CARBON
M
H
ro
COST ESTIMATES
C and I » 73-5 X 103[MOD] 0.8H5
x 10-
o
j)°-
SE
2.29 X 103f-%l
0.571
O&M - [1.8 X 103(MGD)0t3711.07
- 11.73 X I03-Ar\°-37
COMMENTS
Costs for use of carbon for
taste and odor control with
light organic load.
Carbon replacement cost
assumed to be 1% of annual O&M.
C and I are for rubber lined
pressure filter vessels, piping,
valves etc., but not pumping
equipment.
O&M includes general maintenance,
supplies, power, and carbon
replacement.
ACTIVATED ALUMINA
C and I - 54 X 103[MGD]°'62
- 19.3 X 103f-^
\io-
0.98
C and I includes all equipment for
defluorldation system including
tanks piping, valves, pumping, and
housing.
O&M includes chemical costs, annual
alumina charge, general repairs,
media replacement.
0 & M = 3.8 X
-------
TABLE E-3
SMALL SYSTEM EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS CONTACTED
MANUFACTURER
Baker Filtration Co.
Baroid Division, N.L. Industries
Culligan Company
Ecodyne-Craver Water Division
Envirotech, Inc.
General Filter Company
Hayward Filter Company
Hungerford & Terry, Inc.
Lea Manufacturing
Neptune Microfloc
N.Y. Mixing Equipment Co.
North American Carbon, Inc.
Roberts Filter Manufacturing Co.
Wallace & Turnan, Div. of Pennwalt
Wastewater Systems, Inc.
Water Control Equipment Co.
Westcore Associates
LOCATION
Huntington Beach, CA
Houston, TX
Northbrook, IL
Lenexa, KY
Belmont, MA
Ames, IA
Santa Anna, CA
Clayton, NJ
Waterbury, CT
Corvallis, OR
Wakefield, MA
Columbus, OH
Darby, PA
Belleville, NJ
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Salt Lake City, UT
E-13
-------
APPENDIX P
TREATMENT COSTS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONTAMINANTS
BY POPULATION SERVED AND SOURCE OP WATER
-------
1ABLE F-l
CAPITAL AND OtM COSTS* OF
CHLORIMAUON AMD CLARIFICATION
CHLORINAIION
POPULATION
SIZE CATEGORY
25-99
100-199
500-999
1,000-2,199
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1, 000, 000
TOTAL
NUMBER OP
PLANTS
1,526
2,410
607
466
211
133
170
12
0
5,557
POPULATION
AFFECTED '
95,674
646,081
460,477
765,073
770,559
972,849
4,515,996
2,663,860
0
11,140,771
PROCESS COSTS
(»/Thou««nd)
CAPITAL 0 * H
1,052
2,892
1,092
1,220
1,562
1,596
5,100
2,520
0
17,054
106
•157
267
414
443
611
2,720
2,160
0
7,176
NUMBER OF
PLANTS
252
653
293
37»
215
111
195
27
2
2,126
CLARIFICATION
POPULATION
AFFECTED
13,*36
174,669
205,200
561,421
735,105
746,412
4,759,166
6,675,097
5,010,761
19,103,371
PROCESS CGS1S
U/Thou»«n<0
CAPITAL 0 4 H
5,292
19.590
12,013
19,656
32,250
29,970
124,600
91,600
44,000
379,371
. 476
1.436
732
1,020
7,310
7,992
16,600
64,600
50,000
188,568
aClarlficatlon include* direct filtration only.
-------
TABLE F-2
T
BREAKDOWN Of TREATMENT* COSTS FOR MERCURY (ION EXCHANGE)
POPULATION
SERVED
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2,199
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1, 000, 000
TOTAL
SURFACE .WATER
CAPITAL $ 0 & M
287,000
1,428,000
1,300,000
2,660,000
6,580,000
8,910,000
34,000,000
33,000,000
0
88,165,000
20,300
100,800
93,600
188,100
658,000
847,000
2,890,000
2,820,000
0
7,617,800
GROUND HATER
CAPITAL $ 0 ft N
5,535,000
18,632,000
9,100,000
10,920,000
15,980,000
18,630,000
54,000,000
22,000,000
0
154,797,000
391,500
1,315,200
655,200
772,200
1,598,000
1,771,000
4,590,000
1,880,000
0
12,973,100
POPULATION PROJECTED I OF
AFFECTED VIOLATING PLANTS
8,372
73,253
71,784
145,027
161,340
224,121
990,328
846,174
0
2,520,399
142
295
104
97
48
3*
44
5
0
769
The number of plants affected was calculated by -multiplying the 2.11 percent ground water and
2.20 percent surface water of mercury MCL exceedere in the EPA Interstate Carrier Study by the total
number of groundwater and surface water systems in each size category (Table 4-2). The number of
plants was then multiplied by the cost of treating the mean-sized plant in each size category.
-------
TABLE P-3
BREAKDOWN OF TREATM
ENTa COSTS FOR CHROMIUM (ION EXCHANGE)
POPULATION
SERVED
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2,499
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1, 000, 000
TOTAL
GROUNb
CAPITAL
1,107,000
3,740,000
1,800,000
2,240,000
3,290,000
4,050,000
12,000,000
0
0
28,227,000
WATER
1 0 4 M
78,300
264,000
129,600
158,400
329,000
385,000
1,020,000
0
0
2,364,300
POPULATION
AFFECTED
1,601
13,472
12,602
23,081
22,728
30,724
115,075
0
0
219,283
PROJECTED f OF
VIOLATING PLANTS
27
55
18
16
7
5
6
0
0
134
The number of plants affected by calculated by multiplying the 0.42 percent of chromium
HCL exceeders in the CWSS Study by the total number of groundwater systems in each size
category (Table 4-2). The number of plants was then multiplied by the cost of treating the
mean-sized plant in each size category.
-------
TABLE F-tl
BREAtDOHN OP TREATMENT* COSTS FO
UM (
EXCHANGE)
POPULATION
SERVED
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2,499
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1, 000, 000
TOTAL
BY PQFULATTP)
OROUND
CAPITAL
369,000
1,292,000
600,000
840,000
1,410,000
1,620,000
4,000,000
0
0
10,131,000
M SERVED AND SOU
WATER
I 0 ft M
26,100
91,200
43,200
59,400
141,000
154,000
340,000
0
0
854,900
RfiE 69 UAfdft
POPULATION
AFFECTED
533
4,490
4,200
7,693
7,576
10,24t
38,358
0
0
73,091
PROJECTED * OF
VIOLATING PLANTS
9
19
6
6
3
2
2
0
0
47
*The number of plants affected was calculated by multiplying the 0.14 percent of barium
MCL exeeeders in the CWSS Study by the total number of groundwater systems In each category
(Table 4-2). The number of plants was then multiplied by the cost of treating the mean-sized
plant in each size category.
-------
TABLE F-5
BREAKDOWN OF T
REATMENT" COSTS FOR LEAD (PH CONTROL)
POPULATION
SERVED
25-99
100-400
500-999
>TJ 1,000-2,499
1
^ 2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1, 000, 000
SURFACE WATER
CAPITAL $ 0 4 H
1,380
6,000
5,400
10,000
22,500
36,000
120,000
0
0
6
60
114
360
660
1,440
6,800
0
0
GROUND WATER
CAPITAL $ 0 & M
92,460
326,400
162,000
195,000
255,000
276,000
810,000
420,000
0
428
3,264
3,420
7,020
7,480
11,040
45,900
38,000
0
POPULATION PROJECTED I OF
AFFECTED VIOLATING PLANTS
8,073
68,451
64,670
121,088
122,861
167,258
655,945
342,278
0
136
277
93
82
37
26
31
2
0
TOTAL
201,280
9,440
2,536,860 116,552
1,550,624
684
aThe number of plants affected was calculated by multiplying the 0.43 percent surface water and
2.10 percent ground water of lead MCL exceeders In the CWSS Study by the total number of surface and
groundwater systems in each size category (Table 4-2). The number of plants was then multiplied by
the cost of treating the mean-sized plant in each size category.
-------
TABLE P-6
a\
BREAKDOWN OF TREATMENT8 COSTS FOR ARSENIC (ACTIVATED ALUMINA)
POPULATION
SERVED
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2,499
2', 500-4, 999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
> 1,000, 000
TOTAL
GROUND
CAPITAL $
70,200
335,500
216,000
352,000
259 f 000
300,000
780,000
0
0
2,312,700
MATER
0 & M
5,940
34,650
27,000
48,000
77,000
105,000
/
402,000
0
0
699,590
POPULATION
AFFECTED
1,601
13,472
12,602
23,081
22,728
30,724
115,075
0
0
219,283
PROJECTED f OF
VIOLATING PLANTS
27
55
18
16
7
5
6
0
0
134
number of plants affected was calculated by multiplying the 0.42 percent arsenic MCL
exceeders In the CWSS Study by the total number of groundwater systems In each size category
(Table 4-2). The number of plants was then multiplied by the cost of treating the mean-sized
plant In each size category.
-------
TABLE p-7
TREATMENT* COSTS FOR M07 (ION EXCHANCE)
UlATIOH SEHVfr) AMD SUUHds OF MATEH
POPULATION
SERVED
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2,499
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
> 1,000, 000
TOTAL
GROUND
CAPITAL 4
8,118,000
27,336,000
13,300,000
16,100,000
23,500,000
27,540,000
76,000,000
22,000,000
0
215,894,000
WATER
; 0 & M
574,200
1,929,600
957,600
1,138,500
2,350,000
2,618,000
6,630,000
1,880,000
0
18,077,900
POPULATION
AFFECTED
11,823
99,439
93,020
170,360
167,760
226,774
849,364
324,933
0
1,943,473
PROJECTED * OF
VIOLATING PLANTS
198
402
133
115
50
34
39
2
0
973
number of plants affected was calculated .by multiplying the 3-1 percent of NOj MCL
exceeders in the CWSS Study by the total number of groundwater systems in each size category
(Table 4-2). The number of plants was then multipled by the cost of treating the mean-sized
plant in each size category.
-------
TABLE P-8
BREAKDOWN OF TREATMENT8 COSTS FOR SELENIUM (ION EXCHANGE)
I
oo
POPULATION
SERVED
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2,499
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1, 000, 000
TOTAL
SURFACE
CAPITAL 1
82,000
340,000
300,000
560,000
1,410,000
2,430,000
8,000,000
0
0
13,122,000
WATER
I 0 & M
5,800
24,000
21,600
39,600
141,000
231,000
680,000
0
0
1,143,000
GROUND
CAPITAL
2,952,000
9,996,000
4,900,000
5,880,000
8,930,000
10,530,000
30,000,000
0
0
73,188,000
WATER
I 0 4 M
208,800
705,600
352,800
415,800
693,000
1,001,000
2,550,000
0
0
6,127,000
POPULATION PROJECTED t OF
AFFECTED VIOLATIHG PLANTS
4,375
37,362
.35,602
67,914
70,583
96,617
392,050
0
0
704,503
74
152
52
46
22
16
19
0
0
381
number of plants affected was calculated by multiplying the 1.13 percent groundwater and
0.44 percent surface water of oelenlum MCL exceeders In the EPA Inventory by the total number of
groundwater and surface water systems In each size category (Table 4-2). The number of plants was
then multiplied by the cost of treating the mean-sized plant in each size category.
-------
TABLE F-9
BBBAKDOWN OF TREATMENT* COSTS FOR CADMIUM (ION EXCHANGE)
BY POPULATION SERVED AND SOURCE OF 1JATEH
POPULATION
SERVED
25-99
100-499
500-999
1, 000-2, 499
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1. 000, 000
TOTAL
GROUND
CAPITAL *
1,476,000
4,964,000
2,400,000
2,940,000
4,230,000
5,670,000
14,000,000
0
0
35,680,000
WATER
0 4 M
104,400
350,400
172,800
207,900
423,000
539,000
1,190,000
0
0
2,987,500
POPULATION
AFFECTED
2,135
17,963
16,803
30,774
30,305
40 ,-965
153,433
0
0
292,378
PROJECTED * OF
VIOLATING PLANTS
36
73
24
21
9
7
7
0
0
177
aThe number of plants affected was calculated by multiplying the 0.56 percent of cadmium
MCL exceeders in the CWSS Study by the total number of groundwater systems in each size
category. (Table 4-2). The number of plants was then multiplied by the cost of treating the
mean-sized plant in each size category.
-------
TABLE F-10
BREAKDOWN OF TREATMENT* COSTS FOR FLUORIDE (ACTIVATED ALUMINA)
I
M
O
POPULATION
SERVED
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2,499
2, 500-*, 999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
> 1,000, 000
TOTAL
-irmanrnn
GROUND
CAPITAL $
829,400
3,952,800
2,568,000
4,070,000
2,997,000
3,240,000
6,190,000
2,480,000
0
28,327,200
'SERVED AMD SOURCE OP
WATER
0 & H
70,180
408,240
321,000
555,000
891,000
1,134,000
4,221,000
2,480,000
0
10,080,420
iram
POPULATION
AFFECTED
19,069
160,386
150,032
274,775
270,581
365,765
1,369,942
524,086
0
3,134,636
PROJECTED i OF
VIOLATING PLANTS
319
648
214
185
81
54
63
4
0
1,568
The number of plants affected was calculated by multiplying the 5.0 percent of fluoride
MCL exceeders In the C¥SS Study by the total number of groundtrater systems In each size
category (Table 4-2). The number of plants was then multiplied by the cost of treating the
mean-sized plant in each size category.
-------
APPENDIX G
TREATMENT, O&M, AND ANNUALIZED COSTS
-------
TABLE 0-1
TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY TREATMENT PROCESS
I
H
TOR PUBLICLY-OWNED UTILITIES
(Million* of Dollars Unless Otherwise Noted)
PROCESS
CLARIFICATION
K03
CHLORINATION
HERCURX
SELENIUM
CADMIUM
LEAD
FLUORIDE
CHROMIUM
BARIUM
ARSENIC
TOTAL COMMUNITY
CAPITAL COSTS*
TOTAL 1
OF PLANTS
1,261
577
3,296
456
226
105
406
930
79
28
79
TOTAL
POPULATION
AFFECTED
16,390,
1,667,
9,558,
2,162,
604,
250,
1,330,
2,669,
186,
62,
188,
692
500
762
502
464
860
435
518
145
712
145
1979
62.39
35.51
7.01
39.96
14.19
5.67
.45
4.66
4.64
1.67
.36
176.73
1960
62.39
35.51
7.01
39.96
14.19
5.67
.45
4.66
4.64
1.67
.3»
176.73
1961
62.39
35.51
39.96
14.19
5.67
.45
4.66
4.64
1.67
.36
169.72
1962
62.39
35.51
39.96
14.19
5.67
.45
4.66
4.64
1.67
.36
169.72
1963
62.39
35.51
39.96
14.19
5.67
.45
4.66
4.64
1.67
• 30
169.72
TOTAL*
312.0
177.5
14.0
199.6
71.0
29.3
2.3
23-3
23.2
6.3
1.9
062.6
TOTAL CAPITAL TOTAL CAPITAL
EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES
PER PLANTk PER CAPITA
(DOLLARS)" (DOLLARS)6
247,373
307,595
4,255
437,969
314,042
279,449
5,549
25,044
292,019
296,617
23,926
19.03
106.47
1.47
92.39
117.41
116.96
1.69
0.66
123.37
132.04
10.11
"Total* say not add due to rounding.
bBased on figures from 19&3 when treatment IB fully Implemented.
-------
TABLE 0-2
TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY TREATMENT PROCESS
9
(Millions
PROCESS
CLARIFICATION
M03
CHLORIIATIOR
MERCURX
SELENIUM
CADMIUM
LEAD
FLUORIDE
CHROMIUM
BARIUM
ARSENIC
TOTAL COMMUNITY
CAPITAL COSTS*
TOTAL 1
OF PLANTS
665
396
2,261
313
155
72
276
636
55
19
55
TOTAL
POPULATION
AFFECTED
2,712
275
1,561
357
100
41
220
115
31
10
31
,679
,973
,969
,697
,039
,518
,189
,116
,138
,379
,138
1979
13.16
7.67
1.52
8.63
3.07
1.27
.10
1.01
1.00
.36
.08
36.19
OR INVEI'.TOR-OWNED UTILITIES
or Dollars unless Otherwise Not*
1960
13.16
7.67
1.52
8.63
3.07
1.27
.10
1.01
1.00
.36
.06
36.19
1961
13.18
7.67
6.63
3.07
1.27
.10
1.01
1.00
.36
.06
36.67
1962
13.16
7.67
6.63
3.07
1.27
.10
1.01
1.00
.36
.06
36.67
1963
13.16
7.67
6.63
3.07
1.27
.10
1.01
1.00
.36
.06
36.67
d)
TOTAL*
67.*
36.1
3.0
13.2
15.3
6.3
.5
5.0
5.0
1.6
.1
166.1
TOTAL PER
PLANT
( DOLLARS )b
77,912
96,916
1,311
136,000
96,917
06,016
1,719
7,091
92,009
91,151
7,530
TOTAL PER
CAPITA
( DOLLARS )b
21.65
139.01
1.92
120.63
153-31
152.71
2.21
11.31
161.00
173.15
13.20
"Total* may not add due to rounding.
bBased on figures from 1983 when treatment Is fully Implemented.
-------
TABLE 0-3
TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY TREATMENT PROCE33
PROCESS
CLARIFICATION
N03
CHLORISATION
HERCURI
Q SELENIUM
1
UJ CADMIUM
LEAD
FLUORIDE
CHROMIUM
BARIUM
ARSENIC
TOTAL COMMUNITY
CAPITAL COSTS9
TOTAL *
OF PLANTS
2,126
973
5,557
769
381
177
664
1,568
13*
17
13«
TOTAL
POPULATION
AFFECTED
19,103,
1,943,
11,110,
2,520,
704,
292,
1,550,
3,134,
219,
73,
219,
371
473
771
399
503
376
624
636
283
091
283
(Millions
1979
75.87
43.18
8.53
48.59
17.26
7.14
.55
5.67
5.65
2.03
.46
214.92
of Dollars Unless Otherwise Noted)
I960
75.67
43.16
8.53
46.59
17.26
7.14
.55
5.67
5.65
2.03
.46
214.92
1961
75.87
43.18
46.59
17.26
7.14
.55
5.67
5.65
2.03
.46
206.39
1962
75.87
43.10
46.59
17.26
7.14
.55
5.67
5.65
2.03
.46
206.39
1963
75.67
43.16
4b.59
17.26
7.14
.55
5.67
5.65
2.03
.46
205.39
TOTAL*
379.4
215.9
17.1
243.0
66.3
35.7
2.7
26.3
28.2
10.1
2.3
1049.0
TOTAL PER
PLANT K
(DOLLARS)6
176,444
221,665
3,069
315,945
226,535
201,562
4,003
16,066
210,649
215,553
17,259
TOTAL PER
CAPITA
(DOLLARS)1*
19.66
1 1 1 . 09
1.53
96.40
122.51
122.03
1.77
9.04
126.72
13&.61
10.55
totals may not add due to rounding.
Based on 1983 figures when treatment Is fully Implemented.
-------
TABLE 0-4
TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY 3IZB OP SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY-OWNED UTILITIES
Q
I
-t
(Millions of Dollars Unless
POPULATION
size
CATEGORX
25-99
100-199
500-999
1,000-2,499
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
too, 000-999, 999
>1, 000, 000
TOTAL PUBLICLY-
OtfWED COMMUNITY
CAPITAL COSTS*
TOTAL *
OP PLANTS
676
2,827
1,192
1,206
604
378
516
4Z
2
7,444
TOTAL
POPULATION
APPECTED
41
734
659
1,657
2,066
2,579
12,390
9., 574
5,010
35,13*
,056
,370
,895
,829
,812
,288
,476
,236
,701
,7«4
1979
1.42
11.13
7.84
11.57
18.41
20.74
67.59
28.94
8.60
176.45
1960
1.42
11.13
7.84
11.57
18.41
20.74
67.59
28.94
6.80
176.45
1961
1.29
10.32
7.*3
11.07
17.72
20.04
65.33
27.92
8.60
169.90
Otherwise Noted)
1962
1.29
10.32
7.43
11.07
17.72
20.04
65.33
27.92
8.60
169.90
1963
1.29
10.32
7.43
11.07
17.72
20.04
65.33
27.92
b.bo
169.90
TOTAL*
6.7
53.2
38.0
56.3
90.0
101.6
331.2
141.6
44.0
662.6
TOTAL PER
PLANT „
(DOLLARS)
9,929
16,619
31,655
46,650
148,635
268, 64b
642,266
3,350,365
22,000,000
TOTAL PER
CAPITA h
(COLLARS)
163.36
72.44
44.15
30.33
43.11
39.39
26.73
14.79
6.76
^Totals may not add due to rounding.
bBased on 1983 figures when treatment is fully Implemented.
-------
TABLE 0-5
I
VJ1
TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY
SIZE OF
SYSTEM FOR INVEJ
(Millions of Dollars Unless Otherwj
POPULATION
SIZE
CATEGORY
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,060-2,499
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1, 000, 000
TOTAL INVESTOR-
OWNED COMMUNITY
CAPITAL COSTS*
TOTAL *
OF PLANTS
2,070
2,212
370
242
86
49
66
10
5,106
TOTAL
POPULATION
AFFECTED
125
574
267
372
295
335
1,594
2,202
5,767
,836
,668
,097
,458
,394
,162
,260
,192
,068
1979
4.35
6.71
2.44
2.32
2.61
2.70
8.70
6.66
36.47
1960
4.35
6.71
2.44
2.32
2.61
2.70
6.70
6.66
36.47
1961
3.95
6.07
2.31
2.22
2.51
2.60
8.41
6.42
36.49
1982
3-95
6.07
2.31
2.22
2.51
2.60
8,41
6.42
36.49
STOR-OUNI
Lse Note<
1963
3-95
6.07
2.31
2.22
2.51
2.60
6.41
6.42
36.49
ED UTILITIES
I)
TOTAL*
20.6
41.6
11.6
11.3
12.7
13.2
42.6
32.6
166.4
TOTAL PER
PLANT h
(DOLLARS)0
9,929
16,619
31,855
46,650
146,635
266,646
642,266
3,350,365
TOTAL PEA
CAPITA „
(DOLLARS)0
163.36
72.44
44.15
30.33
43.11
39.39
26.73
14.79
totals nay not add due to rounding.
bBaaed on 1983 figures when treatment la fully Implemented.
-------
TABLE 0-6
Q
I
TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BT SI
(Mll'lions of Dollar* Unless
POPULATION
SUB
CATEOOBI
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2,199
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
> 1,000, 000
TOTAL COMMUNITY
CAPITAL COSTS*
TOTAL #
OP PLANTS
2,746
5,039
1,562
1,450
690
427
562
52
2
12,550
TOTAL
POPULATION
AFPECTED
166,894
1,309,036
1,126,992
2,230,267
2,362,206
2,914,450
13,984,736
11,776,426
5,010,781
40,901,612
1979
5.77
19.63
10.28
13.69
21.01
23.44
76.29
35.60
8.60
214.92
I960
5.77
19.63
10.28
13.89
21.01
23.44
76.29
35.60
8.60
214.92
1961
5.24
16.39
9.73
13.26
20.22
22.64
73-74
34.34
6.60
206.39
otnerwi
1982
5.24
16.39
9.73
13.26
20.22
22.64
73-74
34.34
6.60
206.39
ZE OF ST
se Noted
1963
5.24
16.39
9.73
13.28
20.22
22.64
73.74
34.34
8.60
206.39
STEH
T
TOTAL'
27.3
94.6
49.6
67.6
102.7
114.8
373.8
174.2
44.0
1049.0
TOTAL PER
PLANT fc
(DOLLARS)0
9
16
31
46
146
266
642
3,350
22,000
,929
,619
,855
,650
,635
,648
,266
,365
,000
TOTAL PER
CAPITA k
(DOLLARS)0
163.36
72.44
44.15
30.33
43.11
39.39
26.73
14.79
6.76
*Totals may not add due to rounding.
DBased on 1983 figures when treatment la fully Implemented.
-------
TABLE 0-7
TOTAL ANNUAL OlM EXPENDITURES BY TREATMENT PROCESS
TOR PUBLICLY-OWNED UTILITIES
(Millions or Dollars Unless Otherwise
TOTAL *
PROCESS OF PLANTS
CLARIFICATION 1,
N03
CHLORINATION 3,
MERCURY
SELENIUM
CADMIUM
LEAD
FLUORIDE
CHROMIUM
BARIUM
ARSENIC
TOTAL PUBLICLY-OWNED
COMMUNITY 0»M COSTS*
261
577
296
456
226
105
406
930
79
28
79
TOTAL
POPULATION
AFFECTED
16,390,692
1,667,500
9,558,762
2,162,502
604,464
250,860
1,330,435
2,669,518
186,145
62,712
166,145
1979
32.69
3.15
3-13
3.59
1.27
.52
.02
1.76
.41
.15
.12
47.02
1980
65.78
6.31
6.26
7.18
2.54
1.04
.04
3.52
.62
.30
.24
94.04
1981
96.67
9.46
6.26
10.77
3.60
1.56
.07
5.27
1.24
.45
.37
137.93
1982
131.56
12.61
6.26
14.37
5.07
2. Ob
.09
7.03
1.65
.60
.49
181.81
Noted)
1983
164.45
15.77
6.26
17.96
6.34
2.61
.11
8.79
2.06
.75
.61
225.70
TOTAL PER
PLANT
(DOLLARS)6
130,005
27,232
1,694
39,246
27,968
24,739
270
9,423
25,661
26,660
7,652
TOTAL PER
CAPITA
(DOLLARS)6
10.03
9.45
.66
b.30
10.49
10.39
.06
3.27
10.96
11.69
3.24
'Totals may not add due to rounding.
bBased on figures from 1983 when treatment Is fully Implemented.
-------
TABLE 0-8
TOTAL ANNUAL 0«N
EXPENDITURES BY TREATMENT
K>R mVESTQR-OWNEP UTILITIES
(Million* 6r vonara unieaa otntr«i»e
TOTAL 1
PROCESS OP PLANTS
CLARIFICATION
*°3
CHLORINATION 2
MERCURY
Q
1 SELENIUM
00
CADMIUM
LEAD
FLUORIDE
CHROMIUM
BARIUM
ARSENIC
TOTAL INVESTOR-OWNED
COMMUNITY OtM COSTS*
865
396
,261
313
155
72
278
638
55
19
55
TOTAL
POPULATION
AFFECTED
2,712,679
275,973
1,581,989
357,897
100,039
41,518
220,189
445,118
31,138
10,379
3U36
1979
4.b2
.46
.16
.53
.19
.08
.00
.26
.06
.02
.02
6.90
I960
9.65
.92
.92
1.05
• 37
.15
.01
.52
.12
.01
.04
13.79
1961
14.47
1.39
.92
1.56
.56
.23
.01
.77
.18
.07
.05
20.23
1962
19.29
1.85
.92
2. tt
.74
.31
.01
1.03
.24
.09
.07
26.66
PROCESS
Noted)
1963
21.12
2.31
.92
2.63
.93
.36
.02
1.29
.30
.11
.09
33.10
TOTAL PER
PLANT
(DOLLARS)"
20,011
5,867
108
• 8,156
6,026
5,330
56
2,030
5,572
5,711
1,619
TOTAL PER
CAPITA
(DOLLARS)"
8.09
8.36
.56
7.36
9.29
9.20
.07
2.90
9.71
10.53
2.07
*Total§ nay not add due to rounding.
Baaed on figures from 1983 when treatment la fully Implemented.
-------
TABLE 0-9
TOTAL ANNUAL QAM EXPEKDITUHES BT TREATMENT PROCESS
I
vo
(Millions of Dollars
PROCESS
CLARIFICATION
N03
CHLORINATION
MERCURY
SELENIUM
CADMIUM
LEAD
FLUORIDE
CHROMIUM
BARIUM
ARSENIC
TOTAL COMMUNITY
0&M COSTS
TOTAL *
OF PLANTS
2,126
973
5,557
769
381
177
661
1,566
131
17
131
TOTAL
POPULATION
AFFECTED
19,103,371
1,913,173
11,110,771
2,520,399
701,503
292,376
1,550,621
3,131,636
219,283
73,091
219,263
1979
37.71
3.62
3-59
1.12
1.15
.60
.03
2.02
.17
.17
.11
53.92
1980
75.13
7.23
7.18
8.21
2.91
1.19
.05
1.03
.95
.31
.26
107.63
Unless Otherwise
1981
113-11
10.65
7.18
12.35
1.36
1.79
.08
6.05
1.12
.51
.12
156.15
1962
150.86
11.16
7.16
16.17
5.82
2.39
. 10
0.06
1.69
.66
.56
206.16
Noted)
1963
188.57
16.06
7.16
20.59
7.27
2.99
.13
10.00
2.36
.65
.70
258.60
TOTAL PER
PLANT
(DOLLARS)"
68,697
16,580
1,292
26,776
19,061
16,679
1&1
6,129
17,611
16,169.
5,221
TOTAL PER
CAPITA
(DOLLARS)"
9.67
9-30
.61
b.17
10.32
10.22
.00
3.22
10.76
11.70
3.19
'Totals may not add due to rounding.
Based on figures from 1983 when treatment Is fully Implemented.
-------
TABLE 0-10
O
I
TOTAL
ANNUAL 0AM EXPENDITURES BY
SIZE OP SYSTEM FOR PUBLICLY-OWNED UTILITIES
oted)
POPULATION
SIZE
CATEGORY
85-99
100*1199
500-999
1,000-2,199
2,500-1,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1, 000, 000
TOTAL PUBLICLY-
OWNED COMMUNITY
0»M COSTS'1
TOTAL 1
OP PLANTS
676
2,627
1,192
1,206
601
378
516
12
2
7,111
TOTAL
POPULATION
APPECTED
41,056
731,370
859,895
1,657,829
2,086,812
2,579,286
12,390,176
9,571,236
5,010,781
35,131,711
1979
.11
.08
.61
.91
2.79
3.21
13.85
12.89
11.60
16.91
1980
.22
1.75
1.28
1.68
5.56
6.18
27.70
25.79
23.20
93.68
1961
.32
2.50
1.61
2.65
6.16
9.16
10.35
37.60
31.60
137.86
1962
.11
3.25
2.35
3.12
10.77
12.13
52.99
19.62
16.10
181.61
1983
.51
1.00
2.88
1.19
13-37
15.10
65.61
61.61
56.00
225.62
TOTAL PER
PLANT
(DOLLARS) b
751
1,113
2,416
3,466
22,119
40,752
127,295
1,162,651
29,000,000
TOTAL PER
CAPITA
(DOLLARS)"
12.41
5.41
3.35
2.25
6.41
5.97
5.30
6.16
11.56
*Tot»ls uy not add due to rounding.
bBa»ed on figures fro* 1983 when treatment it fully implemented.
-------
TABLE 0-11
TOTAL ANNUAL CUM EXPENDITURES BI SIZE OF SYSTEM FOR INVESTOR-OWNED UTILITIES
Q
I
(Millions of Dollars Unless Otherwise Noted)
POPULATION
SIZE
CATEGORY
25-99
100-199
500-999
1,000-2,499
2,500-1,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1, 000,000
TOTAL INVESTOR-
OWNED COMMUNITY
04M COSTS8
TOTAL *
OP PLANTS
2,070
2,212
370
212
86
19
66
10
5,106
TOTAL
POPULATION
AFFECTED
125,638
574,668
267,097
372,458
295,391
335,162
1,594,260
2,202,192
5,767,068
1979
.34
.69
.20
.19
.39
.12
1.76
2.97
6.97
1900
.67
1.37
.10
.38
.79
.81
3.56
5.93
13-95
1981
.97
1.96
.56
.53
1.16
1.23
5-. 19
8.70
20.29
1962
1.27
2.5*
.73
.69
1.53
1.61
6.02
11.16
26.64
TOTAL PER
PLANT b
1963 (DOLLARS)
1.56 754
3-13 1,413
.90 2,418
.64 3,466
1.69 22,119
2.00 40,752
6.45 127,295
14.22 1,162,651
32.99
TOTAL PER
CAPITA b
(DOLLARS)
12.41
5.44
3.35
2.25
6.41
5.97
5.30
6.46
totals may not add due to rounding.
bBased on figures from 1983 when treatment Is fully Implemented.
-------
TABLE 0-12
TOTAL ANNUAL O&H EXPEMDITUBE3 BI SIZE OF 3ISTKH
O
I
H
r\j
(Millions of Dollars Uoless Otherwise
POPULATION
SUE
CATEOORI
25-99
100-199
500-999
1,000-2,199
2,500-1,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1, 000, 000
TOTAL COMMUNITY
OiM COSTS*
TOTAL 1
OP PLANTS
2,716
5,039
1,562
1,150
690
127
582
52
2
12,550
TOTAL
POPULATION
AFFECTED
166,691
1,309,036
1,126,992
2,230,287
2,382,206
2,911,150
13,961,736
11,776,128
5,010,781
10,901,812
1979
.15
1.56
.61
1.13
3.19
3.66
15.63
15.66
11.60
53.92
1980
.89
3.12
1.67
2.26
6.37
7.33
31.27
31.72
23.20
107.83
1981
1.29
1.16
2.37
3.10
9.33
10.69
15.51
16.50
31.80
156.15
1962
1.68
5.79
3.06
1.10
12.30
11.01
59.61
61.26
16.10
208.16
Noted)
1983
2.07
7.12
3.76
5.03
15.26
.17.10
71.09
76.06
58.00
256.80
TOTAL PER
PLANT
(DOLLARS)6
751
1,113
2,110
3,166
22,119
40,752
127,295
1,162,651
29,000,000
TOTAL PER
CAPITA
(DOLLARS)0
12.11
5.11
3-35
2.25
6.11
5.97
5.30
6.16
11.56
*Totals nay not add due to rounding.
Based on figures from 1983 when treatment is fully Implemented.
-------
TABU 0-13
TOTAL ANMUALIZED TOTAL COSTS* BY TREATMENT PROCESS
FOR PUBLICLY-OWED UTILITIES
(Millions of bollars Unless Otherwise Noted)
TOTAL *
PROCESS OF PLANTS
O
1
H
U)
CLARIFICATION 1
H03
CHLORINATION 3
MERCURI
SELENIUM
CADMIUM
LEAD
FLUORIDE
CHROMIUM
BARIUM
ARSENIC
,261
577
,296
456
226
105
406
930
79
28
79
TOTAL
POPULATION
AFFECTED
16,390
1,667
9,558
2,162
604
250
1,330
2,689
188
62
188
,692
,500
,782
.502
,464
,860
.435
.518
.its
,712
.145
SUBTOTAL PUBLICLY-OWNED
COMMUNITY ANNUALIZED
TOTAL COSTS6
MONITORING
TOTAL COMMUNITY0
1979
41.62
8.12
4.11
9.18
3.26
1.34
0.08
2.41
1.06
0.38
0.17
71.73
14.74
86.47
19t)0
83-25
16.25
8.22
18.37
6.51
2.68
0.17
4.82
2.12
0.77
0.35
143.51
i'4.74
153.25
1981
124.87
24.37
8.22
27.55
9.77
4.03
0.25
7.24
3.18
1.15
0.52
211.15
14.74
225.89
1962
166.50
40.60
8.22
36.74-
13.03
5.37
0.33
9.65
4.24
1.54
0.69
278.79
14.74
293-53
1983
208.13
48.72
8.22
45-92
16.28
6.71
0.42
12.06
5-30
1.92
0.87
346.43
14.74
361.17
TOTAL PER
PLANT
(DOLLARS)6
164,530
148.085
2,493
201,412
144,097
127,790
2,044
25,940
134,127
137,071
21,924
TOTAL PER
CAPITA
(DOLLARS)"
12.70
25.64
0.86
21.24
26.96
26.73
0.31
4.48
28.18
30.95
4.61
aAssumes: (1) Debt service of 11 percent/year; (2) Capital ownership of 3 percent to cover taxes, Insurance, etc.
Based on 1983 figures when treatment is fully implemented.
"Totals may not add due to rounding.
-------
TABU 0-14
TOTAL ANNUALIZED TOTAL COS!
ftOCESS
I
H
4=-
FOB I«V1
ion* oi
TOTAL «
PROCESS OF PLANTS
CLARIFICATION
N03
CHLOR1NATION 2,
MERCURt
SELENIUM
CADMIUM
LEAD
FLUORIDE
CHROMIUM
BARIUM
ARSENIC
865
396
261
313
155
72
278
638
55
19
55
TOTAL
POPULATION
AFFECTED
2.712,679
275,973
1,581,989
357,857
100,039
41,518
220,189
445,118
31,138
10,379
31,138
SUBTOTAL INVESTOR-OWNED
COMMUNITY ANNUALIZED
TOTAL COSTS0
MONITORING
TOTAL COMMUNITY0
1979
6.71
1.53
0.67
1.74
0.62
0.26
0.01
0.40
0.20
0.07
0.03
12.24
4.66
16.90
iSTOR-OWNE
D UlILlTIf
iS
r Dollar* Uoleas Otherwise Noted)
1980
13.41
3-07
1.35
3.48
1.24
0.52
0.02
0.80
0.40
0.14
0.06
24.49
4. 66
29-15
1981
20.12
4.60
1.35
5.21
1.86
0.77
0.03
1.20
0.60
0.21
0.09
36.04
4.66
40.70
1962
26.82
6.14
1.35
6.95
2.48
1.03
0.04
1.61
0.80
0.28
0.12
47.62
4.66
52.28
1983
33.54
7.67
1.35
8.69
3.10
1.29
0.06
2.01
1.00
0.35
0.16
59-22
4.66
63.38
TOTAL PER
PLANT
(DOLLARS)6
38,769
19.366
597
36,761
19,993
17,902
216
3,146
18,182
18,526
2,836
TOTAL PER
CAPITA
(DOLLARS)6
12.37
27.79
0.85
24.28
30.99
31.43
0.27
4.51
32.25
35.20
5-03
aAssumes: (1) Debt service of 11 percent/year; (2) Capital ownership of 3 percent to cover taxes, Insurance, etc.
bBased on 1983 figure* when treatment la fully implemented.
cTotals may not add due to rounding.
-------
TABLE G-15
TOTAL AUNUALIZED TOTAL COSTS BY TREATMENT PROCESS*
Q
t
M
VJ1
(Millions of Dollars Unless Otherwise Noted)
PROCESS
CLARIFICATION
NO
CHLORINATION
MERCURY
SELENIUM
CADMIUM
LEAD
FLUORIDE
CHROMIUM
BARIUM
ARSENIC
SUBTOTAL COMMUNITY
COSTS AND CAPITAL
MONITORING
SUBTOTAL COMMUNITY
TOTAL t
OF PLANTS
2,126
973
5,557
769
381
177
684
1,568
134
47
134
DIM
COSTS0
c
TOTAL
POPULATION
AFFECTED
19,103,371
1,943,173
11,140,771
2,520,399
704,503
292,378
1,550,624
3,131,636
219,283
•73,091
219,283
SUBTOTAL NON-COMMUNITY0
TOTAL0
1979
48.33
9.67
4.78
10.92
3.87
1.60
0.11
2.81
1.26
0.15
0.20
84.00
19-40
103.40
10.00
113-40
1960
96.66
19-33
9-57
21.84
7.73
3.20
0.21
5.62
2.52
0.91
0.41
168.00
19-40
187.40
10.00
197.40
1961
145.
29.
9.
32.
11.
4.
0.
8.
3-
1.
0.
247.
19-
266.
10.
277.
00
00
57
77
60
80
32
44
78
36
61
25
40
65
70
35
1902
193.33
38.66
9.57
43.69
15.47
6.40
0.43
11.25
5.04
1.82
0.82
326.48
19.40
345.88
11.50
357.38
19<»3
241
48
9
54
19
8
0
14
.66
• 33
.57
.61
.33
.00
.54
.07
6.30
2
1
405
19
425
12
437
.27
.02
.70
.40
.10
.30
.40
TOTAL PER
PLANT
(DOLLARS)6
113,668
49,667
1,722
71,009
50,740
45,186
782
8,972
47,135
48,319
7,627
TOTAL PER
CAPITA
(DOLLARS)"
12.65
24.87 '
0.86
21.84
27.47
27.39
0.34
4.48
28.80
31.10
4.67
*Assumes: (1) Debt service of 11 percent/year; (2) Capital ownership of 3 percent to cover taxes, insurance, etc.
bBased on 1983 figures when treatment is fully implemented.
°Totals may not add due to rounding.
-------
TABLE 0-16
O
I
H
fOT,
AL ANNUAL
BM-BBafSS
(Millions
POPULATION
SUE TOTAL *
CATEGORY OP PLANTS
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2,499
2,500-4,999
5,000-9,999
10.000-99,999
100,000-999,999
>1 ,000, 000
SUBTOTAL COMMUNITY
04M COSTS AND
ANNUALIZED
CAPITAL COSTS0
MONITORING
TOTAL COMMUNITY6
676
2,827
1,192
1,208
604
378
516
42
2
7,444
TOTAL
POPULATION
APPECTEO
41
734
859
1,857
2,086
2,579
12,390
9,574
5,010
35,1'34
,056
.370
,895
.829
,812
,288
,476
.236
.781
.744
1979
0.31
2.43
1.74
2.56
5-37
6.15
23.31
16.95
12.83
'71.65
14.74
86.39
I ZED TOT A
PUBLICLY.
L. C.O$TS§ BY Sm QP SISTEM
-OUNE.D UTlLltieS
of Dollars Unless Otherwise
19^0
0.62
4.88
3.48
. 5-12
10.73
12.30
46.62
33-88
25.67
143-30
14.74
158.04
1901
0.91
7.05
5.04
7.43
15.82
18.07
68.42
49.30
38.50
210.54
14.74
225.28
1962
1.16
9.26
6.62
9.75
20.89
23-85
90.21
65.74
51.33
278.81
14.74
293-55
Noted)
1983
1.45
11.45
8.20
12.07
25.97
29.62
112.01
81.66
64.16
346.59
14.74
361.33
TOTAL PER
PUNT h
(DOLLARS)11
2
4
6
9
42
78
217
1,944
32.080
,284
,049
.879
,993
,997
,370
,070
,285
,000
TOTAL PER
CAPITA .
(DOLLARS)"
37.66
15.60
9.54
6.50
12.45
11.49
9.04
8.52
12.80
^Assumes: (1) Debt ••rvice of 11 percent/year; (2) Capital ownership of 3 percent to cover taxes, insurance, etc.
Based on 1963 figures when treatment is fully lapleaented.
"Totals may not add due to rounding.
-------
TABLE 0-17
O
I
I-1
TOTAL ANNUALIZED TOTAL COSTS* 1
FOR
INVESTOR-OWNtD UTi
Dollar* Unless (
POPULATION
SIZE
CATEGORY
25-99
100-499
500-999
1,000-2.1)99
2,500-11,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
> 1,000, 000
SUBTOTAL COMMUNITY
0*M COSTS AND
ANNUALIZED
CAPITAL COSTS0
MONITORINO
TOTAL COMMUNITY0
TOTAL *
OP PLANTS
2,070
2.212
370
202
86
09
66
10
5.106
TOTAL
POPULATION
AFFECTED
125,838
574.668
267.097
372,158
295,39'*
335,162
1,591,260
2,202,192
5.767,068
1979
0.95
1.91
0.54
0.51
0.76
0.80
3.00
3.90
12.37
4.66
17.03
1980
1.90
3.82
1.08
1.03
1.51
1.60
6.00
7.80
?4.7*
4.66
29.40
1901
2.71
5.53
1.57
1.49
*
2.24
2.35
8.80
11.46
36.15
4.66
40.81
JY SIZE OF STSTEM
times
Otherwise
1982
3-59
7.24
2.06
1.95
2.97
3.10
11.60
15.12
47.63
4.66
52.29
Noted)
1983
4. UK
8.95
2.55
2.42
3.67
3.85
14. Kl
18.78
59.07
4.66
63.73
TOTAL PER
PLANT .
(DOLLARS)6
2,145
4,048
6,897
10,008
42,651
78,531
218,393
1,878/400
TOTAL PER
CAPITA
(DOLLARS)*
31.04
15.60
9-56
6.51
12.43
11.48
9.04
7.48
"Assumes: (1) Debt service of 11 percent/year; (2) Capital ownership of 3 percent to cover taxes, insurance, etc.
''Based on 1983 figures when treatment is fully implemented.
cTotals may not add due to rounding.
-------
TABU 0-1B
TOTAL ANNUALIZED TOTAL COSTS* Bt SUE OP SYS'
I
H
CD
(Millions of Dollars Unless
POPULATION
SIZE TOTAL 1
CATEGORY OP PLANTS
25-99 2,716
100-199 5.039
500-999 1,562
1,000-2,199 1.150
2,500-1,999 690
5,000-9,999 127
10,000-99,999 582
100,000-999,999 52
> 1,000 ,000 2
SUBTOTAL COMMUNITY
OtM COSTS AND
ANNUALIZED „
CAPITAL COSTS0 12,550
MONITORING
SUBTOTAL COMMUNITY0
SUBTOTAL NON-COMMUNITY0
TOTAL0
TOTAL
POPULATION
APPICTED
166.891
1.309.038
1,126,992
2,230,287
2,382,206
2,911.150
13,981,736
11,776,128
5,010,781
10,901,812
1979
1.26
1.31
2.28
3-07
6.13
6.95
26.31
20.81
12.83
81.00
19.10
103.10
10.00
113. "o
1960
2.52
8.67
1.56
6.15
12.26
13.88
52.62
11.69
25.66
168.01
19-10
187.11
10.00
197.11
1961
3.61
12.59
6.61
8.93
18.02
20.12
77.22
61.27
38.50
217.20
19.10
266.60
10.70
277.30
Othervisa
1962
1.76
16.51
8.67
11.71
23-8?
26.95
101.82
60.86
51-33
326.13
19-10
315.83
11.50
357-33
Noted)
TOTAL PER
PLANT
1963 (DOLLARS)6
5.89 2,111
20.39 1,016
10.75 6,676
11.19 9,997
29.61 12,956
33-17 76,391
126.12 217,213
100.15 1,931.706
61.16 32,060,000
105.66
19.10
125.06
12.30
137.36
TOTAL PER
CAPITA w
(DOLLARS)"
35.26
15.56
9.53
6.50
12.11
11.19
9-01
6.53
12.60
'Assumes: (1) Debt service of 11 percent/year; (2) Capital ownership of 3 percent to cover taxes, Insurance, etc.
Based on 1983 figures when treatment is fully Implemented.
°Totals may not add due to rounding.
-------
APPENDIX H
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM QUESTIONNAIRES
A questionnaire (Figure H-l) was sent to the 207 water
supply systems which were found to exceed one or more maximum
contaminant levels, as determined in the 1969 CWSS study.
Of these 207 systems, replies were obtained from 114 systems
(Table H-l); of the remaining 93 systems, 17 no longer
operate, 17 others have consolidated, and 59 could not be
contacted.
This initial questionnaire dealt mainly with treatment
and analysis costs and techniques employed. The responses
concerning analysis are summarized in Table H-2. This shows
that over 63 percent of the inorganic and 70 percent of the
organic and bacteriological analyses are done by some form
of governmental laboratory. Another important finding of
the study is that seven out of the eight water supply systems
contacted which distribute purchased water do not analyse
the water in their distribution system.
The responses to the treatment questions indicate that
only 15 systems have changed their treatment techniques
since discovering their violation on 1969. These changes
are listed in Table H-3.
A second telephone questionnaire (Figure H-2) was
utilized to supplement the financial and cost data infor-
mation of the 114 respondents listed above.
TABLE H-l
SUMMARY OF RESPONDENTS TO WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM QUESTIONNAIRE
Number sent out 207
Systems which no longer operate 17
Systems which could not be located *I3
Systems which have consolidated and therefore no response 17
Systems which operate seasonally only and no response 16
Municipal (and other governmental agency) systems responding 78
Private systems responding 36
Total 207
H-l
-------
TABLE H-2
Costs of Analysis
a b
1) Inorganic '
2) Organic3-*" a
3) Bacteriological
Range ($)
0 - 144.00
0 - 60.00
0 - 7-50
2. Analysis Done By:
STATE COUNTY MUNICIPAL PRIVATE OTHER
LAB LAB
1)
2)
3)
Inorganic
Organic
Bacteriological
27
23
27
5
5
7
8
6
11
23
15
18
3
3
i*
a$0 costs are for those systems where state or other
governmental agency incurs the cost of analysis.
bThe costs for inorganic and organic analyses are for
partial analyses only.
TABLE H-3
CHANGES IN TREATMENT TECHNIQUES
TO CORRECT FOR VIOLATIONS OF 1969 PHS STANDARDS
CONTAMINANT NEW TREATMENT
NOo Blending
Pb^ pH Control
Fluoride New well
Turbidity Coagulation, filtration,
sedimentation
Turbidity New source
NOo Blending
Se Blending
NO-5 Blending
Fluoride Inject less fluoride into system
Pb Change pipes
Coliform Chlorinator
N07 Blending
Pb^ Flush system
Turbidity Coagulation filtration,
sedimentation
Coliform Chlorinator
H-2
-------
FIGURE H-l
QUESTIONNAIRE TO WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
1. NAME OF SUPPLY:
2. LOCATION:
3. PERSON FILLING OUT QUESTIONNAIRE:
I. PHONE #
5. POPULATION SERVED:
6. CURRENT PRODUCTION (MGD):
J. TOTAL VOLUME SUPPLIED IN 197^
(SPECIFY UNITS):
8. TREATMENT METHODS USED: (PLEASE CHECK)
TREATMENT PROCESS
ADDED SINCE 1970
YES NO YES NO
a. Disinfection
b. Coagulation
c. Sand Filter
d. Fluoridation
e. Taste and Odor Control
f. Lime Softening
g. Ion Exchange
h. Settling
i. Iron Removal
j. Other (Please List) _
k. Do you use zeolite for:
1) Iron Removal
2) Softening
H-3
-------
9- ANALYSIS INFORMATION
a. Inorganic Analysis Done By:
b. Date of Last Inorganic Analysis:
State Municipal Private
Lab Lab Lab Other
c. Cost of Analysis:
d. Organic & Pesticide Done By:
e. Date of Last Organic Analysis:
f. Cost of Analysis:
g. Bacteriological Analysis Done By:
h. Date of Last Bacteriological Analysis:
1. Cost of Analysis:
10. QUALITY OF INFLUENT WATER
a. Do you Treat for a Particular Contaminant in the Influent
Water? (e.g., Lead, Coliform, CCE, etc.)
b. How Frequently do you Monitor the Influent Water?
Daily Monthly Yearly Other
11. QUALITY OF EFFLUENT WATER
a. In 1969 you exceeded the 1962 PHS Standard for
(i)
ancj . Please list any corrective actions taken
HT5
to rectify this violation.
(i)
Capital Cost
Annual Operating Cost (OVHD & Maint.)
Total Annual Cost
-------
(ii)
12.
13.
Capital Cost
Annual Operating Cost (OVHD & Maint.)
Total Annual Cost
b. Are you now in Compliance with These Standards?
c. What are your Current Concentrations of These Parameters?
d. Have you have any New Problems with Other Pollutants?
(If so, Please Specify)
CURRENT OVERHEAD AND MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR TREATMENT
$/Unit of Time
a. Labor
b. Supplies
c. Chemicals (Please List at
end of Questionnaire)
d. Electric Power
e. Total
WHAT ARE THE ANNUAL FIXED COSTS OF YOUR PLANT? $
Year
HOW MANY EMPLOYEES IN WATER SYSTEM: Full Time Part Time
15. WHAT IS THE RATE STRUCTURE FOR WATER SALES?
AMOUNT
UNIT
(Gal., Cu.Pt.)
H-5
-------
16. METHOD OF CHARGING? Meters Flat Rate Other
17- PROFITS $ Year
13. DEPRECIATION $ Year _____
19. ESTIMATES ON UPGRADING CURRENT TREATMENT FACILITIES:
(If you are planning an expansion or change in treatment
techniques, please specify contaminant you will treat for.)
a. Capital Costs
Land $
Equipment $_
Site Development $_
Total $_
O&M Costs
Labor $_
Supplies $_
Chemicals $_
Electric Power $_
Other $_
Total $
20. CAPITAL FINANCING
Amount Interest or
Realized Dividend Rate(J)
a. General Obligation Bonds $
b. Revenue Bonds $
c. Debenture Bonds $ _
d. Mortgage Bonds $__
e. Bank Loans $
H-6
-------
f. Preferred Stock $
g. Common Stock $
h. Other $
i. Total $
21. The Proposed Interim Standards allow for total substitution
of chlorine residual monitoring in place of coliform density
measurements for systems serving 4,900 or fewer persons
provided the system maintains a residual of no less than
0.3 mg/1 free chlorine. If the system serves more than 4,900
people, chlorine residual monitoring may be substituted for
not more than 75% of the required coliform measurements if a
residual of no less than 0.2 mg/1 free chlorine is maintained
in the public water distribution system. This substitution
would reduce the overall monitoring costs of the Proposed
Standards considerably. Do you feel that your system would
use this chlorine residual option? YES NO
22. COMMENTS:
H-7
-------
FIGURE H-2
CODE;
1- NAME OF WATER SUPPLY:
2- PHONE #:
3 • PERSON SUPPLYING INFO.:
OWNERSHIP
MUNICIPAL PRIVATE
OTHER GOV'T
RATE STRUCTURE:
5- dollars for units RESIDENTIAL or flat rate of $
6- dollars for units COMMERCIAL or flat rate of $_
7- dollars for units INDUSTRIAL or flat rate of $
CURRENT REVENUES RAISED FROM: Answer either in $ or % of total
8. RES I DENT IA L
9. COMMERCIAL
10. INDUSTRIAL
11. TAX REVENUES Either as SURPLUS (+) or SUBSIDY (-) or
TOTAL REVENUE If can't get #'s 8, 9, 10, or 11
# OF CUSTOMERS:
11. RESIDENTIAL
13. COMMERCIAL
l*t. INDUSTRIAL
15. CURRENT ANNUAL O&M COST INCLUDING:[AJ OPERATION & MAINTENANCE +
|¥) INTEREST ON DEBT IF ANY, [c] AMOUNT OF MONEY PUT ASIDE TO
RETIRE DEBT, IF ANY:
16. WHAT IS TOTAL PRODUCTION?
17- WHAT IS TOTAL POPULATION SERVED?
18. (AJ WHO ARE THE 2 OR 3 LARGEST CUSTOMERS AND HOW MUCH WATER DO
THEY USE? •
H-8
-------
[B| IP INDUSTRIAL CONCERN WHAT DO THEY PRODUCE?
WHAT IS TOTAL BILL OP CONCERN?
19. WHAT IS A TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL BILL?
20. IS WATER SYSTEM AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY OR TIED IN WITH
OTHER AGENCIES (SEWER, ETC.)?
21. HOW DOES THE SYSTEM FINANCE EXPANSION? BONDS? LOANS?
SHARES?
22. WHAT IS THE CURRENT INDEBTEDNESS OF THE SYSTEM?
H-9
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Almanac of Business and Industrial Financial Ratios. 1975
Edition. Englewood Cliff, N.J.: Prentice-Hall
Publishing Co., 1975.
American Water Works Association. "1974 Survey of Water
Utilities Salaries, Wages, and Employee Benefits."
JAWWA 67: 7 (1974) .
American Water Works Association. Committee of Water Use.
"Water Use Committee Report." JAWWA 67 (May 1973).
American Water Works Association. "Operating Data for Water
Utilities 1970-1975." New York.
American Water Works Association - Staff Report. "The Water
Utility Industry in the United States." Submitted to
the U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, April
1966.
American Water Works Research Foundation. Disposal of Wastes
From Water Treatment Plants. New York, August 1969.
Babcock, R.H. "Recruiting - A Proposal for Action." JAWWA
66: 7 (1974).
Campbell, Michael D. and Lehr, Jay H. Rural Water Systems
Planning and Engineering Guide. Commission on Rural
Water. Washington, D.C., 1973-
Chase Econometric Associates, Inc. "The Macroeconomic Impacts
of Federal Pollution Control Programs." Prepared for
the Council of Environmental Quality and the Environmental
Protection Agency, January 1975.
Chemical Rubber Company. CRC Handbook of Environmental
Control. Vol. Ill: Water Supply and Treatment. 1973-
,
Chlorine Institute. North American Chlor-Alkali Industry
Plants and Production Data Book. New York, January 1975.
Clark, J.W., Viessman, W., Jr. and Hammer, N.J. Water Supply
and'pollution Control. Second Edition. Scranton, Pa:
International Textbook Co., 1971.
Clifford A P.. Inorganic Chemistry of Qualitative Analysis.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Publishing Co.,
1961.
BIBLIO-1
-------
Dice, J. Denver Board of Water Commissioners. March 1975.
Dyer, G.H. "Recruiting and Holding Good Employees: Employee
Grievance Procedures." JAWWA 62: 8 (1970).
Dyer, G.H. "Manpower: The Important Element in Providing
Quality Water Service." JAWWA 66, 7 (1974).
Energy Resources Co. Inc. "Economic Evaluation of the
Proposed Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations."
For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water Supply. October 1975-
Energy Resources Co. Inc. "The Economic Impacts of Effluent
Guidelines on the Water Supply Industry." To be
published for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Pair, G.M., et al. Elements of Water Supply and Wastewater
Disposal. New York:John Wiley and Sons, 1971.
First National Bank of Boston, April 1975-
Gottlieb, M. "Urban Domestic Demand for Water: A Kansas Case
Study." Land Economics, May 1963..
Gross, A.C. "Markets for Chemicals Grow and Grow." Environ-
mental Science and Technology, 8 (5): 4818, May 197**.
Hammerstrom, R.J. et al. "Mercury in Drinking Water Supplies.
JAWWA 64: 60 (1972).
Kern, J.D. and Duron, W.H. "Solubility and Occurrence of
Lead in Surface Water." JAWWA 65: 563 (1973).
Howe, C.W. and Linaweaver, P.P. "The Impact of Price on
Residential Water Demand and Its Relation to System
Design and Price Structure." Water Resources Research
3: 1, First Quarter 1967.
Hudson, H.E. and Rodriguez, P. "Water Utility Personnel
Statistics." JAWWA 62: 8 (1970).
Hyle, R.C. "Rate Philosophy." JAWWA 63 (11): 686 (November
1971).
BIBLIO-2
-------
Jeffrey, E.A. "Water Supply Training and Manpower Needs."
Journal of New England Water Works Association
(June 1972;.
Logsdon, G.C. and Syraons, J.M. "Mercury Removal by Conven-
tional Water Treatment Techniques." JAWWA 65: 55^ (1958).
Logsdon, G.C. and Symons, J.M. "Removal of Heavy Metals
by Conventional Treatment." in J.E. Sabadel, Traces
of Heavy Metals in Water Removal Processes and Monitoring
Environmental Protection Agency Report #902/9-74-001,
Region II, 1973-
Marketing Economics Institute, Limited. Marketing Economics
Industry Key Plants. 1973-
McParren, E. and Nash, H. Environmental Protection Agency:
Cincinnati, Ohio, June 1975-
Murray, C.R. and Reeves, E.B. Estimated Water Use in the
United States - 1970. U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of the Interior, 1973.
National Association of Water Companies. "1973 Financial
Summary for Investor-Owned Water Utilities."
Washington, D.C.
National Sanitation Foundation. Staffing and Budgetary
Guidelines for State Drinking Water Supply Agencies.
Ann Arbor, Michigan, May 1975.
Patterson, W.L., et al. "Trends in Water Use." Report of
the Water Use Committee. JAWWA 65 (1973).
Professional Engineering 42: 2, 10, February 1972.
Public Works. February 1975-
Schwig C M. "Training and Recruiting of Water Utility
Personnel." JAWWA 66: 7 (197*0-
^hen Y.S. "Study of Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water."
'jAWWA 65, 606 (1974).
Smith S.B. "Trace Metals Removal by Activated Carbon."
in J.E. Sabade, op. cit.
Soitzer Elroy P., Editor. Modern Water Rates. Pittsfield,
Ma!: Buttenheim Publishing Co., 1972.
BIBLIO-3
-------
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
13th Edition, 1971.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial 1970 Outlook.
Washington, D.C., 1970.
U.S. Department of Commerce. U.S. Industrial 1975 Outlook.
Washington, D.C., 1975.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Community
Water Supply Study Analysis of National Survey Findings.
July 1970.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Public
Health Service: Bureau of Hygiene, Environmental Health
Service. "Community Water Supply Study — Analysis of
National Survey Findings." July 1970, and data base
therein.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chemical Analysis
of Interstate Carrier Water Supply Systems.
Washington, D.C., April 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Supply Division.
Drinking Water Systems On and Along the National System
of Interstate and Defense Highways, A Pilot Study, 1972.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. Water
Supply Branch. Evaluation of the Florida Water Supply
Program. 1973-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. Water
Supply Branch. Evaluation of the Georgia Water Supply
Program. July 1973.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII. Water
Supply Program. Evaluation of the Kansas Water Supply
Program. May I97T.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. Bureau of
Water Hygiene. Evaluation of the Kentucky Water Supply
Program. May 1972.
V.^. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. Bureau of
Water Hygiene. Evaluation of the Tennessee Water Supply
Program. January 1971.
BTBLI^-'-
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII. Water
Supply Branch. Evaluation of the Wyoming Wat or 3ujp_p_ly
program . December 1972.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of Public
Water Supply Systems. July 1975.
*;.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Technology
Transfer. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes. 197T!
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methods for Pet ermin ' ag
Organic Pesticides in Water and Wastewater . Cine in n ^ • T" ,
1971.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Method for Organo-
chlorine Pesticides in Industrial Effluents. MDQARL.
Cincinnati, 1973-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water
Programs. By E. Joe Middlebrooks. A National Survey
of Manpower Utilization and Future Needs of Consulting
Engineering Firms Employed in Water Pollution Control.
Logan, Utah, 1972.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Supply Division.
A Pilot Study of Drinking Water Systems at Bureau of
Reclamation Development sT EPA-430/9-73-004 . June 1973-
Environmental Protection Agency. Water Supply Division.
A Pilot Study of Drinking Water Systems in the U.S.
Forest Service System" November 197^.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Supply Division.
A Pilot Study of Drinking Water Systems in the National
Park Service System. EPA-520/9-7^-016 . December 197*1."
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water
Programs . Sanitary Survey of Drinking Water Systems on
Federal Water Resource Developments, A Pilot Study.
August 1971.
U S Food and Drug Administration. Pesticide Analytical
Manual. "General Method for Clorophenoxy Acids and
Esters in Non-Patty Poods." Vol. 1, Section 222, 1969.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Social Indicators.
1973-
BIBLIO-5
-------
U.S. Water Resources Council. "The Nation's Water and Related
Land Resources." The Nation's Water Resources.
Washington, D.C., 1968.
Volkert, David, and Associates. Monograph of the Effectiveness
and Cost of Water Treatment Processes for Removal of
Specific Contaminants. Vol. I. Technical Manual.
Bethesda, Md., 1974.
Watson, I.C. Study of the Feasibility of Desalting Municipal
Water Supplies in Montana. Manual for Calculation of
Conventional Water Treatment Costs. Supplement to
Final Report. Arlington, Va.: Resources Studies
Group, 1972.
Watson, I.C., and Resources Studies Group, CSR, Inc. Manual
for Calculation of Conventional Water Treatment Costs.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Saline Water.
Washington, D.C., March 1972.
Wilkinson, G. and Cotton, F.A. Advanced Inorganic Chemistry.
Second Edition. New York: Interscience Publishers,
Division of John Wiley, 1962.
Wright, John D. and Hassall, Don R. "Trends in Water Financing.
Modern Water Rates (8th edition). Ed. by Elroy Spitzer.
American City Magazine. Pittsfield, MA: Buttenheim
Publishing Co., 1972.
Zemansky, G.M. "Removal of Trace Metals During Conventional
Water Treatment." JAWWA 66: 606, 1971*.
BIBLIO-6
------- |