1
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS
COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION.OF
PUBLICLY-OWNED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT WORKS
1973 "Needs" Survey
Prepared Pursuant to
Sections 205 and 516, Public Law 92-5OO
Revised November, 1973
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
f
WASHINGTON. D.C 20460
OFFICE Or THE
ADMINISTRATOR
Dear Mr. President:-
I enclose a revised version of the Costs of Construction of
Publicly-Ov/ned Wastewater Treatment Uorks, 1973 "Needs" Survey,
which was initially submitted to the Congress on October 12, 1973.
The text of tha Report has not been changed, but the "needs" reported
in the tables have been corrected to convey more accurately the
results of the survey.
The revision is necessary because of errors made when the
information in the 15,100 survey questionnaires received from
the States was transcribed to our data processing system. ?4ost
of the major errors ware corrected before the initial report was
sent to Congress. However, we have made additional corrections
during our continuing review of the data, as my letter transmitting
the original Report noted might be necessary.
I do not anticipate that further adjustment of these tables
will be required. My staff will continue to refine for analytical
purposes the computerized data file with the survey results, but
additional corrections in the "needs" estimates are expected to
have little impact on possible allocation formulae, and to be well
within the margin of error inherent in the survey process.
n - .
Russell c. Train
Administrator
Honorable -James East!and
President pro tempore
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Enclosure
-------
PREFACE
This report presents the results of a Nationwide survey
conducted to obtain an estimate of the cost of construction of
publicly-owned treatment works needed in each State and the Nation
as a whole. It is submitted in compliance with Section 516(b)(2)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
The survey was designed so that the results could be used by Congress
to allocate among the States the funds authorized for municipal
treatment works after Fiscal Year 1974, as required by Section 206(a)
of the 1972 Act.
The original version of this report was transmitted to Congress
on October 12, 1973. The text has not been changed, but the tables
have been corrected in this revision to convey more accurately the
survey results.
-------
CONTENTS
PRE FACE
CONTENTS
TABLES
I. EXPLANATION OF THE
1. Guidelines for
2. The Concept of
3. Conduct of the
II. LIMITATIONS OF THE
1. Level of Treatment
2. Infiitration/Inf1o ,
3. Combined Sewer Overflows
4. Validity of Submitted Estimates
5. Flow Reduction
6. Inadequacy for
III. SURVEY RESULTS AND
1.
2.
3.
4.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
.SPPENDIX
‘ PPENDIX
SURVEY
Costs of Facilities Reoorted
“Needs”
Survey
SURVEY
Page i
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 6
Funding Decisions
POSSIBLE ALLOCATION FORMULAE Page 9
Considerations of Equity
Formula Based or, Costs for Treatment Plants and Intercentors
Formula Based on All Five Categories of Facilities
Special Cunsjderatjon for District of Columbias Treatment Facility
A. INELIGIBLE COSTS REPORTED BY THE STATES Page A-i
B. REASONS 1973 SURVEY RESULTS ARE HIGHER THAN Page B-i
PREVIOUS “NEEDS” ESTIMATES
C. SURVEY METHODOLOGY
0. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Page C-i
Page 0-1
•1
-------
TABL ES
1. State I ercentage of National Costs Reported for Construction of
Treatment Plants and Interceptors Page 11
2. Costs Repor ted for Construction of Publicly-Owned Wastewater
Treatment Facilities Page 12
3. State Percentage of National Costs Reported for Construction of
Publicly—Owned T’ eatnient Facilities Page 13
4. Per Capita Costs Reported for Construction of Publicly-Owned
Treatment Facilities, Based on 1972 Population and Projected
1990 Population Page 14
5. Total Costs Reported by States for Construction of Publicly—Owned
Treatment Facilities, Classified as to Eligibility Under Survey
Guidelines Appendix A
-------
I. EXPLANATION OF THE SURVEY
1. Guidelines for Costs of Facilities Reported . In conformance with
Section 516(b) (2) of the 1972 Act, the 1973 Survey asked local authorities
to report the costs for construction of municipal treatment and cbllection
facilities which were eligible for Federal funding under the 1972 Act and
the guidelines published by EPA for construction grants, and met definitions
and criteria established in the survey and outlined below. Costs of
facilities funded with a Federal construction grant before August 1973
were excluded.
Costs were reported for facilities in five categories, two for
treatment and three for sewer systems, defined as follows:
Category I - Secondary Treatment Required by 1972 Act . This category
includes costs for facilities which would provide a legally required
level of “secondary 11 treatment. All municipal treatment facilities
as a minimum are required under the 1972 Act to reduce bio-chemical
oxygen demand, suspended solids and fecal coliforms by July 1, 1977
to at least the level established by EPA in its definition of “secondary 11
treatment. This level of treatment meets or exceeds the requirements
of water quality standards for many waterways. Facilities along some
waterways are required, however, to reduce these types of pollutants
still further to meet water quality standards. The costs for this
additional ‘secondary” treatment are also included in category I.
Category II - Treatment “More Stringent” Than Secondary Required
by Water Quality Standards . This includes costs for facilities
which would remove pollutants such as phosphorus, ammonia, nitrate
and organic substances to the extent required by legally binding Federal,
State or local actions. Such actions include an EPA-aDproved water
quality plan, an administrative or court order, a license, and water
quality standards which are binding on the treatment facility. These
costs are in addition to those for secondary treatment reported in
category I.
Category III - Rehabilitation of Sewers to Correct Infiltration and Inflow .
Costs could be reported in this category for a preliminary analysis
to determine if excessive infiltration and inflow exist. If such an analysis
was completed by the time of the survey and showed that they did exist,
the exDense of a detailed evaluation of the cost of rehabilitation of
the sewer system could be reported. If such an evaluation
was already completed at the time of the survey, the costs of facilities
reconiiiended by the evaluation to correct the infiltration and inflow
could be reported.
3
-------
Category IV — New Sewers . This category consists of the costs of new
collector and interceptor sewers designed to correct violations caused
by raw discharges, seepage to waters from septic tanks and the like,
and/or to comply with legally binding Federal, State or local
actions. As provided in the 1972 Act, costs could be reported only
if the community had sufficient existing or planned capacity to
treat adequately the collected sewage, and only for communities
existing prior to enactment of the 1972 Amendments (collectors for
new communities, new subdivisions and newly developed urban areas
were excluded).
Category V - Correction of Overflows from Combined Sewers . Costs
could be reported, when required by legally binding Federal, State or
local action, for correcting periodic bypassing of untreated wastes
from combined sanitary and storm sewers. The alternative methods
for correction must have been evaluated, however, and the reported
costs based on the most economical and/or efficient alternative.
The costs for facilities reported in each category were subject
to three overall constraints:
a. June, 1973 dollars . All costs were to be expressed in June,
1973 dollars.
b. 1990 Population . Costs were to be estimated in the survey
for facilities which would be designed to serve no more than the 1990
population projected for each State by the Department of Comerce in
its “series E” projection published in December, 1972.
The “series E” projection is based on the most recent estimates
of future growth in the United States, and reflects the decline in
the Nation’s ferti1i ty rate during the last few years.
Each State was asked to determine how its projected 1990 population
would be distributed among its geographical areas. EPA assisted by
providing each State a county-by-county break—out of the “series E”
projection from the Comerce Department. The States, however, could
accept or modify the county-by—county projections as they saw fit.
Only the total projected 1990 population for the State was binding.
It could not be exceeded by the combined total of all population
reported as living in the service areas of all the treatment authorities
in a State, although non—resident population (primarily commuters)
could be reported as served in addition to the projected resident
population.
The 1990 projection was chosen as a common constraint on the
time in the future for which costs would be estimated. No restriction
was placed, however, on when facilities which would serve the i99O
projected population might be built.
11
-------
c. Supporting Information . The nature, size and cost of facilities
reported in the survey had to be reasonable for the population and -
industries to be served. Costs for treatment facilities had to be
justified by data such as population to be served, wastewater pollutants
and flows expected, and reference to legally required effluent standards.
Costs for collection facilities had to be supported by data such as
population to be served, pipe sizes and lengths, and special problems
with construction and design. Costs reported for correction of
problems created by combined sewers had to be justified by special
analyses and evaluations which had previously been completed. This
supporting information was the minimum necessary to determine if
the facilities and costs reported were reasonable and met the other
guidelines for the survey.
2. The Concept of “Needs” . To provide a common basis for
reporting costs in the surve9 and for screening out any inflated
costs which would potentially increase the allocation unfairly of
one or more States, the survey was restricted to those costs and
facilities which were eligible for Federal assistance and which
could be clearly defined and documented with information to justify
the size, cost and nature of the facilities reported.
The consequence of the decision to limit the scope of the survey
was that some types of facilities eligible for Federal assistance under
the 1972 Act were entirely excluded. Primary among them-were treatment
works which would achieve ‘ best practicable treatment technology” and
the 1985 goal of “zero discharge,” and facilities for the prevention,
control and treatment of pollution from stormwaters which do not
flow through combined sewers. Study of these concepts had not reached
the point where clear definitions and criteria for them could be
established. Since a variety of options exists for meeting each
goal of the Act, cost-effective evaluations are required before rational
choices can be made and reasonable cost estimates developed. The costs
reported in the survey would have been far greater if all the facilities
potentially eligible under the 1972 Act could have been defined and
included in the survey.
3. Conduct of the Survey . An EPA task force designed the 1973
survey from December 1972 through May 1973 with the help of the EPA
Regional Offices and State officials. In June the State Water Pollution
Control Agencies mailed survey questionnaires supplied by EPA to
municipal authorities which could be identified in Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas, in Cittes larger than 10,000 outside STISAs, and in at
least a sample of places smaller than 10,000 and outside SMSAs. The
questionnaires were completed from June through August, in most cases
by the local treatment authorities with the advice and ‘assistance of
State officials. Some of the questionnaires were completed by Sta e
officials with information supplied by the local authorities. The
completed forms were then reviewed by the States, approvzi 0 nd sent
5
-------
to EPA. After EPA’s review, the questionnaires were coded and sent
to the Census Bureau wftere the data were computerized and tabulated
for this report.
EPA reviewed every questionnaire to determine if facilities and costs
reported fell within the survey guidelines and were justified by required
data. Shortcomings were frequently corrected by discussing them
and reaching an agreement with State officials. In some cases EPA’s
and a State’s estimate of costs for particular facilities could not
be reconciled and EPA prepared a separate, amended questionnaire with
its estimate. (A more detailed description of review procedures is in
Appendix C.)
All costs reported on survey questionnaires were coded during
processing to indicate whether they were prepared by EPA, or a State
or local authority, and whether or not they met the guidelines of
the survey. Costs coded as eligible are reported in Section III. All
costs reported on questionnaires from the States (both eligible
and ineligible under the guidelines) are included in Appendix A.
II . LIMITATIONS OF THE SURVEY
Costs reported for the Nation as a whole are only indicative of
the large costs of providing the kinds of facilities included in the
scope of the survey. They are of little use for decisions about the
appropriate level and rate of Federal funding for construction of
municipal facilities.
The detailed definitions and criteria for costs and facilities
which could be reported in the survey were meant to provide a comon
basis for the estimates of costs from each State, and make possible the
reconciliation of the State estimates to produce valid ratios for
allocation of Federal funds among the States. Paradoxically, however,
these criteria and limitations in practke permitted some States to
report large costs in some categories but kept other States from
doing so. Therefore an allocation formula based on costs reported for
all five categories of facilities would be unfair to a large number of
States.
1. Level of Treatment . Costs reported in categories I and II for
treatment plants do not reflect the casts of additional treatment which
will have to be provided in many river basins after all States complete
the revisions to water quality standards now underway pursuant to the
1972 Act. An allocation formula based on categories I and II would favor
States which adopted high standards early over those that did not, even
6
-------
though they may be planning to soon. To give a few examples, California’s
standards limiting the amount of heavy metals which can be in the effluent
discharged through deep ocean outfalls are estimated to add several
hundred million dollars to the cOsts it reported. Oregon’s requirements
for a higher degree of treatment than secondary as defined by EPA
increased by a substantial percentage the costs it reported for
treatment.
2. Infiltration/Inflow . Relatively few cities had completed
the studies required in the survey to support cost estimates for
facilities in category II I. Estimated costs for sewer rehabilitation
will increase rapidly as municipal authorities evaluate infiltration
and inflow into existing sewers and determine the costs of reducing
or eliminating it (such an evaluation is now a condition for obtainfng
a Federal construction grant for municipal facilities). Costs reported
in category III are thus only a fraction of the amount local conuiunlties
will ultimately have to spend to rehabilitate sewers.
Sewer rehabilitation can be undertaken in accordance with Federa’
quidelines only if the evaluation determines that it costs less than
construction, operation and maintenance of that portion of facilities
necessary to transport and treat the extra flow of wastewater resulting
from infiltration and inflow. Future increases in identified costs for
category III should result in comparable savings in reported costs for
categories I and II (treatment), and should not increase the total costs
for facilities reported in the survey.
3. Combined Sewer Overflows . Costs reported in category V for
facilities to reduce pollution fFom combined sewer overflows also
reflect only a fraction of the total expenditures which could have
been justified nationally under the survey guidelines if more cities
had completed the required studies. EPA estimates by rough extrapolation
of the few studies availab’e to date that costs for facilities to reduce
by 50 - 85% of the major pollutant concentrations in combined sewer
overflows throughout the country would cost from $40 - 80 billion.
The total costs for facilities in all five categories included in the
survey would therefore have been roughly double what was actually
repoi’ted if all the treatment authorities with combined sewer systems
had completed the studies required to report costs in category V. An
allocation formula based in part on costs reported in category V would
favor unfairly those States with large cities which had completed the
necessary studies to report costs in this category.
4. Validity of Submitted Estimates . Another limitation of the
survey is a consequence of the general understanding among the States
7
-------
while the survey was being conducted that Federal construction grant
funds were to be allocated according to the survey results. The
States had a strong incentive, and many were inclined to reDort the
highest costs posiibIe and tO-report costs for all facilities which
conceivably might be eligible under the survey guidelines, even if
there was considerable doubt.
EPA coded as ineligible the most obviously inflated costs and costs
for facilities which clearly fell outside the scope of the survey. States
were in general given the benefit of the doubt, however, if costs
reported were questionable but not clearly out of line. This policy
meant that the costs reported for the country as a whole are higher
than they would have been if there were incentives to keep the costs
down. An allocation formula based on the survey results would be
unfair to those States which tried to follow the survey guidelines,
and favor those which were less attentive.
Costs for new collector sewers in category IV presented the greatest
problem in this respect. Pursuant to the requirements of the 1972 Act
and the survey guidelines, costs were to be reported only for coirrunitles
in existence at the time of enactment of the 1972 law, and only for
violations due to raw discharges or seepage to waterways or the like.
Review of the survey questionnaires nevertheless revealed that many
States reported costs for seweririg a large proportion of their current
population now using septic tanks, and for providing sewers for increased
population which would inhabit new coninunitjes. A substantial proportion
of these costs are undoubtedly beyond the scope of the survey, but in
many cases sufficient evidence did not exist to code the costs as
ineligible without running the risk of being unfair.
5. Flow Reduction . States did not have any incentive to reduce
the costs reported to take account of savings obtainable from techniques
for recycling or reducing flows from municipal and industrial sources.
These savings would effect facilities of all types included in the survey.
Planning regulations and guidelines, -to be promulgated by EPA pursuant
to the provisions of the 1972 Act, will require that municipal authorities
consider a wide array of such techniques.
6. Inadequacy for Funding Decisions . The large cost estimates reported
on the survey raise obvious questions about Federal funding for the
construction grants program, but do not provide a basis for decision
making on the future role of the Federal Government in financing municipal
treatment facilities, or the level of Federal funding which should be provided.
8
-------
Several considerations outside the scope of the survey should be
addressed as well as the limitations of the survey itself when making
decisions about Federal assistance for construction of municipal
treatment works. Primth-y among them is the contribution the facilities
reported in each category would make to improving water quality. Money
spent on treatment and interceptors (categories I, II and part of IV
in the survey) would in general bring about more reduction of pollutants
per dollar than funds spent on collector systems or stormwater
overflows.
Alternative methods for financing new construction should also be
considered and will be addressed in the financing study to be submitted
pursuant to Section 317 of the 1972 Act. As required, the study will
consider a wide variety of alternative financing schemes and will
recommend appropriate roles-..for the Federal, State and local governments.
Several constraints should also be taken into account when considering
funding levels and rates. They include the inadequate pool of trained
manpower available to operate new facilities, the rising costs and limited
supplies of energy to run facilities, the limited capacity of the construction
industry to expand operations during the short run in some areas, the
inability of some communities to provide matching funds, and the impact on
the National budget and economy.
II!. SURVEY RESULTS AND POSSIBLE ALLOCATION FORMULAE
1. Considerations of Equity . The most important factors which
ideally would be considered when determining an equitable formula for
allocation of Federal funds for municipal facilities include the serious-
ness, nature and extent of the pollution problem, natural conditions, popu—
lation, local construction costs, capacity to utilize funds wisely,
and level of previous effort. The approach used in the 1973 survey takes
account of all these factors except the last two: It gives little
indication of capacity to use funds wisely, and in general penalizes
those States with a high level of previous effort.
The major problem with the survey is that in practice it had several
serious-limitations (discussed in Section II) which could result in
inequities if used for an allocation -formula. These inequities would be
considerably reduced if costs reported for sewer rehabilitation, collector
sewers and reduction of pollution from combined sewer overflows (categories
III, part of IV and V) were eliminated from the calculation. Some States
would nevertheless be treated unfairly even i-f the formula is based only
on costs reported for treatment plants and interceptors. Thus in practice
the survey approach may be a less equitable basis for a 11ocation than
population, or a combination of considerations like population and -regional
variations in construction costs.
9
-------
2. Formula Based on Costs for Treatment Plants and Interceptors .
Total costs reported for .treatment (categories I and II) and interceptor
sewers (part..of category IV) for the entire country were $35.9 billion.
Table I shows costs for each State, and each State’s percentage of the
National costs for these types of facilities.
An allocation formula based on this table is considered the most
equ itable possible from the survey results. It would also put the money
where it is likely to do the most good. As mentioned in Section II,
expenditures for treatment and interceptors would in general reduce
pollutants. more per dollar than exoenditures for other types of
facilities. They should therefore usually receive the highest
priority for Federal assistance, and funds would best be allocated
in accordance with this priorjty.
3. Formula Based on Five Categories of Facilities . The costs reported
in the survey totalled $60.1 billion for all types of facilities. Table 2
shows by State the total costs and costs in each category reported.
Table 3 shows how an allocation formula would look if based on total
costs reported, or on the costs reported in each separate category.
Table 4 shows the per capita costs reported by States in all five
categories, based on 1972 population and projected 1990 population. It
indicates the great differences between basing an allocation formula
on the survey results and basing it on oopulation,which is one of the
factors which might be considered when determining an alternative allocation
formula.
4. Special Consideration for District of Colunibia s Treatment Facility .
Funding for the District of Columbia’s “Blue Plains” water pollution control
plant should be considered in the development of an allocatton formula
since the City has only one major treatment olant project and the allocation
formula might not provide adequate funding.
10
-------
Novenber 1, J973
STATE PERCENTAGE OF NATIONAL COSTS
REPORTED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT PLANTS AND INTERCEPTORS*
(CATEGORIES I, II AND IVa)
FGTnN Ii N Jers y
New York 4:16 5 ________
Puerto Rico - 194 ________
Virgin islands 32 ________
REGION lit Delaware
Mary lard
Virginia
West VIr
REGION IV Alabama
South Taroiina
Tennessee
REGION V Illinois
310
573
223
A&
21 7
0.8633
4.4277
2 .1638
1.5951
‘ .6210
• 5845
.3005
6.0345
1 .5093
4.0657
1.4982
5.1261
O TflN VI fru ..c
U. i9 21
0.8633
_________ ______________________________ 0.1643
________ ____________________________ 0.0836
0.1114
0.4734
0.0836
TOTAL: 35,910 — 100.0000
*Costs ineligible under the survey guidelines are excluded. Costs are affected by limitations
of survey design, Inconsistency In reporting, varfatlons In planning status among States, and
other variables explained In the report. Therefore, the costs should not be considered
indicative of equitable shares for individual States or of total funds required to meet uneeds
without careful review of the limitations cited In the report.
TABLE 1
REGION I Connecticut
aine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
COSTS
(Millions of 1973 Dollars) PERCENTAGE
Aifl
Vermont
1.1974
0. 7240
,
0 9440
0. 4511
Pennsylvania
7.3238
11.5985
1.0971
0.0891
0.5597
01 strIct of Coltaubia
201
583
998
321
I .5 55_
224
REGION VII Iowa
Louisiana
251
0.6990
New Mexico
66
0.1838
Texas
656
1.8268
Oklahoma
485
1.3506
0.6238
r l
421
REGION Viii Colorado
Montana
332
780
.1
2.1121
141
1.1724
co
North Dakota
South Di
Utah
Wyain eq
REGION IX Arizona
Califor
Hawaii
Nevada
M erica
Guam
Trust I
Wake Is
REGION X --- Alaska
1
iaano
0.4232
• .2080
1.2225
0.570k
0.0195
0.055
0.0167
0.4261
‘ WI ’
153
2117
- 4w/h
11
-------
Nov er 1, 1913
mat a
COSTS REPORTED F58 CONSTMJCTIOFI OF Pu8tlCLv-owNm WASTEI IATER TtAThERIT FACILITIES C
(MIllions of 1913 dollars)
Tota l Casts
Reported for —
Facilities — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I-Soprovonent I ::-meta to UI-Correction 1 IVe-fl.t 4 tble . ‘o ’Costs -Reducti o n
of Tresonent I , cc1eve tore Of Infiltret too / icy Interceptors -,‘ £tir ,s. nf Cont toot
Plants to - trtc ent Lan a , Font S Ins,
Sever
Achieve Seen,- p : on Conditions Piping Stations 1 oflecccrs Deerfine
dery Leve l. a.vla
. QOO C5LLC!fl 1.409 179 i S 18 205 225 736
WLoe 354 fl4 • 1 1 1 3 37 i S
4aseacuusette 1JRS 45t • Si H ii 251 i 63 9
Sopu hire __________ 174 — , 2 i s p ‘ 02 65
‘ bode :sia,4 i c y SL - 94 69 35
CfSOPPt f 14* . 1 6 _________ 34 32 20
1e v Jersey L ISP J 1.458 .. 18 851 532 202
re (ark arn 2 s a c s Il i i 1 ,878 375 4 2.180
? nerto9ico ton - 2 225 14 _________
treS s si,ate 44 13 —
s 4 0 : :: :De3avea ’e 3 3 9 7 4 12 _______
! erylaoa 661 2ft 39 2 227 ______________ _____________
t i flitia JJ45 Si( 37 12 345 J 208 L
- eat .trrisia 614 96 3 14 224 258 i ____________
_____________ ____________ _______________ _____________ 1 ,026 T 1,589
? e nnsyiienie 4 l0 ______________ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 1 T T.U47
flatrict of Col iSie T081 ________________ ______________ 1 2 -
S 2on n Alabsan a s in i s ______________________ ____________________ _________________ _______________
florida 2 171 747 14.4 ___________________ 400 744 3
: eortha ¶ nil 7 16 136 2 303 ______________ _____________
H 3.saiaai 6 ____________ _________________ _______________ ___________________ _________________ 4 0 _____________
Keotucfl I n 164 r ________________ _______________ 293 167 —
•etk CanAls _________ 181 1 92 3 244 144 ___________
Loath Carotism 75 2 3 4 4 6 _ 5 217 1 63 -
Tennessee 464 _________________ _______________ ______________ __________________ ______________ _____________
______________ i i ) — - 5 221 213 1 2
4.i.asa lI — £ ( ISo . .. ._ . 41 - 477 I dS4
: Laaa — 1 _ nan 251 ‘ 17 _______________ ______________
_________ 192 - _ _ _ _ _ _
‘ 4itb tgnn — _ 3:32s f _ - _ c i s _________________ ucu
ujptneuots 1,065 _____________ _________________ 1 0 1 141 ___________
— L933’ S q l 1 42 142 655 _____________ ____________
- lecanstn — 212 4 5 I i _______________ ____________
__________________ tZ9 21 167
I 12 4 I 1 3 9 1
. ..:ioisieaa £91 s& - — 1 5 7 - : 37 -
. svMe’atco i lc c d - - 12 ___________ __________
lease ____________ _________________ _______________ 225 -
, slshuca __________ — — — 2 56 37 p -
EESIW .1: : ue ____________ _________________ S4 4 141 - — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
aces. 521 14 1 24 2 1 87 3 1u ______
_____________________ ___________________ _______________ 24
‘ tissouri 972 4 4 9 3 379 169 _____________
Crease. 404 — 121 - 3 20 25 235
cwjae c:: Zoioreds 426 115 20 20 115 74 22
Woote 74 34 - 1 25 13 r ______
. irth Debate _________ i i - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 13 8 F a
South Oakota It, 31 3 1 5 2 -
- 238 — 144 — 1 22 53 1
— 20 - -
___________________ 10 ia
‘ zcrcir - - - __________ 1 ___________ -L 86 -
_____________ 6 1 .022 527
ls li ton ts 4 . 5 i i 1531 4 213 34 -
: rasi 521 — 2 2 2 3
etude 2 27 3q I I I . 47 22
, neriosa Seen , ___________ 4 _____________
_________ 3 1
_____ f _________ 3 2 , - —
etc tela,o _____________ —
3201015 n,&ees 204 a n — . —
lrat l’eX-ntones 4 _ 4 - L - 2 2
_______________________________ ____________________ n i 1
: tano 112 _____________ _________________ : 9 I -
lreeoo 568 1 _ - — 2 146 130!
- .sb 1o a , 101n 2 _______ — 247 - 3591 243
6O.Ii 16,639 5,650 — 691’ 13 ,621 10.825
!eioer the Covey ei4deisoes are eeoiided. Costs u•e affected by linitetion. of s .o-vey design, Seconaletency 51 rencrtir4, -srietions in
psact z Stat.. eoocr States, art other variates explained in the report. Thererore, the coats should not be considered tr,dicett-,e of ecoitasie shares for
indtflSas States or or total rued. required to eeet “0 P l C without OeXetoi revive of the ihaitatsoos otted is the report.
52
-------
Ploveeter 1, 1973
smi’r P ct?!WZ 0’ .C:oxlA1. c 5 ‘ON cws’mrrrxai c r ZArCn
Total Costs
Repoed for Ca3WON OF CEDED ‘AT=S
Facilities
I-Iapro’et.nt ::-coets to nI-correet son : s-za ::le Th—7csts !-Reduct son
at Trestosan. easefe More of lofiltr.t lon/ .ev :—.c:tnors cr 71.14151 . 17 Coub ined
Plants ta :tn— ent - l a n c e :r:c a75, .cv Saver
Ac’ite — (neon— I ntaent CondItla le ?.p1 : E:r Ions Ccfl.ntors Overflna
‘ 1 . Le.ea
Percenteee ‘ areetaa Pnrtetsge Percerta1 Penn - tar . Percenta s Penentaee
RF4 IICI II 234 108 332 260 150 208 _____
‘ a l v i n 0 6 1 U I 9 :3 7 015 399 080 513 —
“ assachusetta 247 276 3] 159 34,. 071 ( 501
r a np ab lre — 0 84 1 05 2! 0 29 1 12 0 1 51
: n deIs1 o 061 3 3 7 : 2 015 059 56 9 28
conont 028 039 328 015 025 030 616
‘ SCION IC .evereey 563 5.76 260 525 491 159
cv ‘ork 13 36 9 35 1 12.14 1.59 13 19 — 3.09 23 47
.enoRicn 0 98 1 92 - 0.29 65 174 -
lr4iOIsl.5fl45 F ____________ • - . 01’ 0.1 1 - -
1:: :eiavsre 055 050 312 058 331 051
a n1ana I i i 130 )14 ( 179 — F ? flR 5 n on
Ir g in ls 2.24 1 10 c c 1 74 . __ ___ _ 33 ___________ _____________
. e .t vlre lnla 1.02 056 — l os 203 — . 64 an
Penoey lvsnia 708 • 531 — 2 3 5 579 — . 95 gas inn
3istrlctOiCOltcOia 001 Jo s 0 15 sD l on ! s in —
‘ 01109 I i aau 0 74 0 78 v i a 0.69 1 18 1 20 -
f Lor Ida ___________ 3.94 4 49 cc 4.63 5.13 6.88 ____________
Oeor & ___________ 1. 71 2.03 a i _ a l 2.22 L85 . ____________
Kent ________ L IZ 0.94 tie L I P 2.20 2.71 1.88
JUa n l et ________ 0.53 - 0 6 0.72 0.5 5 0.37 -
IwthCe ’ roi i.ea 180 8. 1 2 , 6 9 0.43 129 1.37 -
South Csrcllia i ‘a 1 0 i i 0.72 1.74 1 en -
? esoessee us 141 1 1 1 072 ( .64 iec no .
________________ ____ 6.08 I 74.79 593 ........... 59 _______ ha.
, d.Isns 1 73 ç _ .. __ 1.46 I 1.89 0 43 l _0 84 is
‘ t l rh i n n o _..__533 1 16 2 0 1 ____________ 32 __.95
v1-,- n:o-ts _____77 86 I ? 7 3 1.30 — _.si... ‘
.....6 71 __._ 15 2 53 91 ___3.26___.__ 1 W I
. tscons ln ___ i 1 . ...127 380 1.88 — 58 ijz...... n
‘ 1010951 -na,sas 059 0.58 302 • 093 120 001
______________________ 075 • 056 — . 043 :s — 782 _________
‘ (e den 0 19 0 32 ________________ j og 0 45 _____________
Tens I 48 1 79 3 37 1 Dl j ; .ii 2 08 _____________
______________________ 104 125 037 0.29 : 48 127 _________
ill Ire. 083 142 ‘378 101 104 046 0.19
‘ sass. 112 I 3A2 0.29 123 292 0 17
M Is sour i 162 256 016 043 742 175 -
lebreska 067 073 . 0.43 015 023 185
‘ mzanzzx Cotoredo 071 035 289 p • 068 0.17
M a tt s o n O I L 021 . 0.15 018 ________ _________
‘ tank tota 0 8 8 0 10 . . 0.10 _________ ___________
Sa ,th knts 0.07 019 005 015 004 002 _________
. teh t37 089 015 016 049 0 . 1 7 1
- gon ls e ILO ? 012 . . 307 _________ ___________
1CIW IX .rLzaua 039 046 005 ___________ ____________ 0.79 _________
: a3.s lorni& i0 _ 06 13 7 5 71 10 0.87 7 c i 4 8? 6 I 0
ta u s h I 087 13 4 00 7 __________ 1’4 078 _________
n..da _ 038 023 . 211 - 1 18 0711 _______
. er lr.oS.oon 001 002 — 1 ‘ 107 001 __________
1.50 004 01 0 _ . 17 , ________ _________
OraL Eerflsorlee o _ oi 0 02 . a ‘ i i _____________
- s te Isla nd — . . . _____________ ________________
‘ 111ON’r A.sska 034 048 i ________ r 041 I 906
C.soo 019 024 005 015 ____________ ‘ lit __________
Te! O5 1 094 084 - 029 120 118
. aso I a to n [ 180 - 171 009 029 __________ 216 191
100 100 100 1 110 IID iao 1 00
Thnts t-telI.ç..:le ..noer the survey wLtdetines .rc eenl,Aei. ,sts are st’eetfl ry liastatlous 0. nerve I 3esi o ..ateney In rePOnI’,8, ‘aristlons In
psa-.nir. stata saing States, erA other tarlasles explsloeo 1 the repcn. Thyrerore, the coats sbou3A r iot cc :t icrfl Ind.atlve a. equitabl.e flares for
usS •Ldua1 States or or total •und. rei u1red to net needs ‘Ithout careful. re 1ev o the LImitations cited It te ytort.
13
-------
PER CAPITA COSTS REPORTED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY—OWNED TREATh T FACILITIES
BASED C M 1972 POPILAflON AND PROJECTEC 1990 POPULATION ‘J
REGION II New Jersey
New York
Puerto R c
Virain Is!
REGION UI Delaware
Maryland
REGION IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
MI ss1ss j
North Cai
South
Tennes
REGION V Illinois
Indiana
Total Costs
Reported For
Facilities
(Millions of
1973 Dollars)
1 .409
364
L485
508
3.382
&.032
590
44
329
681
1 .345
a 614
4.210
f Columbia 1.081
3.510
t.259
4.720
3.299
5,214
2.665
Costs per
Capita
(1972 Pop
S
457
354
257
559
379
354
459 8,822 383
437 21,799 368
126 3,850
327 9.159
218 5.667
313 3J41
118
3.023
4.800 145
363 13,177 310
19 ! 6.433 162
365 10.961 303
4.577 233
13.202 215
114 5.218 151
179 2,068
121 4.159
108 1.232
7 5 13.666
236 2q42
REGION IX Arizona
California
iawai I
Nevada
American Eamoa
Guam
Trust Territories
426 2.357
74 719
46 512
43 579
225
40
237 1 .945
.050 20.468
523 809
227 527
8 -
22 -
8 -
0 -
150
104
76
57
174
iic
REGION X Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washi r. .
TOTAL:
1] Costs ineligible unoer the survey guidelines are excluded. Costs are affected by limitations
of survey design, inconsistency In reporting, variations in planning status among States, and
other variables explained in the report. Therefore, the costs should not be considered
indicative of equitable shares for individual States or of total funds required to meet °needs’
without careful review of the 1imitetion cited in the report.
2] National per capita cost excludes Puerto Rico and Territories.
TABLE 4
IIO,r *r 1, 1973
REGION
1972
Population
(0 00s)
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
1990
Projected
P p ! atj
(ODDs)
1 .029
5.781
77!
968
452
168
Costs per
Caoita
(1990)
S
357
_3 19
211
560
324
313
__ 3 gdR
I :142
7.052
9 n7
1.134
c
7,367
18,366
565
4 ,u b
582 732
168 ,uuI
282
345 1,811
353 13.332
1 .445 764
449
226
339-
316
1.4W
444
2 .371
L 031
1 .032
268
900
75-7
695
115
4,089
1 .040
3.325
1.065
2.833
757
REGION VI Arkansas
11,251
5.29 I
9.082
1.896
10.783
4 i2O
REGION VU
Iowa
355 1 ,978
451 3.720
115 1 O63
889 11.649
624 2 .6 14
502 2,883
671 2,258
972 4,753
404 — 1.525
REGION VIII Colorado
172
- T
174 3,053
Z97 2,509
ZUS 5,488
1 .562
I nil
164
1 L
177
257
181
103
13
63
200
116
2. 00
26.601
112
568
1,080
756
148
758
148
2.182
260
314
2.493
D 123
208.232
4.194
246.859
14
-------
APPENDIX A. INELIGIBLE COSTS REPORTED BY THE STATES
Table 5 shows total costs reported by the States and divides
them into those eligible and those ineligible under the survey
guidelines. Most or all of the costs reported by the majority
of the States were considered eligible. These States for the
most part agreed to-reduce or eliminate the costs which they
initially reported in the survey and EPA reviewers determined to
be ineligible. An allocation formula based on ineligible as well
as eligible costs would obviously be unfair to these States.
Kentucky renorted a far higher proportion of ineligible costs
than any other State. Its estimates were provided in lump sums for
each category without any supporting data. The numbers were typed
on a strin of paper without explanation and pasted on top of each
questionnaire filled out by municipal authorities in the State. Most
of the cost estimates prepared by the local authorities and reported
and justified inside the forms were found to be eligible, but the
much higher costs added bythe State lacked the required justification.
Ineligible costs reported in categories III and V explain many
of the remaining differences between the States’ estimates and
estimates accepted as eligible. These costs were not suDported by
the studies required in the survey guidelines. Excessive costs for
collector sewers also affected the totals for a few States.
A large part of the differences between State and EPA estimates
for tiew York and Kansas can be accounted for by ineligible costs
reported for new sewers planned to replace old sewers which are
failing structurally, but are not subject to excessive infiltration/inflow.
Replacement sewers of this sort were not included in the survey
because they are considered to be outside the scope of the municipal
grants program. Over $1.2 billion for replacement sewers was nevertheless
included by New York City in its reported costs. A substantial portion
of the costs reported by Kansas and determined to be ineligible were
also for this type of facility.
A-i
-------
November 1, 1973
TABLE 5
TOTAL COSTS REPORTED BY STATES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLICLY-OWNED TREATMENT FACILITIES
CLASSIFIED AS TO ELIGIBILITY UNDER SURVEY GUIDELINES*
- (Millions of 1973 Dollars)
REGION I Connecticut
Total
Costs Reported
New York
i
590
aa
Puerto Rico
V1riTn Islands
REGION III Delaware
Marvl and
Pennsylvania
4.364
District of Columbia
1.087
EGION IV Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentuck l
7 c1,,uca S(
REGION V Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
OhS 6
Oklahoma
REGION VII Iowa
Kansas
REGION VIII Colorado
MOflt fl
North Dakota
South Dakota
REGION IX Arizona
8,032
1,449
590
-
44
-
4,089
-
1,040
-
3,325
-
1.065
-
355
1
451
1
115
-
502
502
-
783
671
972
-.“
112
170
--
1,142
475
1 .080
64,502 - 60,123
*Costs are affected by 1im1tat ons of survey design, inconsistency in
in olanning status among States, and other variables explained In the
the costs should not be considered indicative of equitable shares for
of total funds required to meet “needs” without careful review of the
the report.
reporting, variations
report. Therefore,
individual States or
limitations cited in
Maine
1.436
Costs Eligible
Under Survey
4n
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
I ,48b
1,409
REGION II N w .lercev
530
Costs Ineligible
Under Survey
Guide llnps
364
4g4
1,485
i in
27
357
3.414
168
Il/
338
0 3
I ,41b
329
615
9
44R
MISsI 551 0 0I
L II
1.081
.b06
North Carolina
1.053
444
South Larolina
154
2.371
2,655
269
926
757
JJ I
4
771
900
1 .623
4.089
26
I ,Ub5
REGION VI Arkansas
/8
Louisiana
787
New Mexico
Texas
2.1
356
452
889
647
Missouri
889
624
71
429
74
48
43
426
‘I
‘4
California
235
40
46
3
Hawaii
Nevada
Nneric
Guam
248
2
43
225
-4
237
b .1Jb
i Samoa
523
227
Trust TerritOries
Wake Island
b,U5U
REG!ON X Alaska
8
523
11
227
13
o
TOTAl.
8
205
205
112
4,379
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B - REASONS 1973 SURVEY RESULTS ARE HIGHER THAN PREVIOUS
“NEEDS” ESTIMATES
EPA and FWPCA limited their estimates of “needs” during the
years 1969-1971 to the cost of needed -treatment plants and interceptor
sewers. Costs for facilities of these types were reported in the
1973 survey in categories I and II (treatment) and part of category IV
(interceptors). Three other types of costs were also included in the
1973 survey, but not previous estimates of needs. These are the costs
of rehabilitating sewers to reduce infiltration and inflow (category III
in the survey), constructing needed collector sewers (part of category IV),
and correcting overflows of con ined sewers (category V).
Total costs reported in the survey are $60.1 billion, of which
$35.9 billion is for treatment plants and interceptors (categories I, II
and part of IV). This total is considerably higher than previous
estimates of needs. FWPCA’s estimate in 1969 was $10.02 billion. EPA’s
estimates rose from $12.6 billion in 1970 to $18.1 billion in 1971.
Between the 1971 and 1973 estimates, EPA obligated about $3.6 billion
for municipal treatment facilities from funds appropriated for fiscal
years 1967-1974. These sizeable obligations met some of the needs identi-
fied in previous estimates, and therefore must be counted as part of the
difference between the 1973 survey results and previous estimates. A
large proportion ($16.3 billion) of the contract authority provided by
the 1972 Act was not obligated at the time of the survey, however, and
remains available for construction of facilities identified in the 1973
survey.
The 1973 survey results and previous estimates of needs by EPA and
FWPCA differ primarily for the following reasons:
1. New Nationwide Requirements for Secondary Treatment
The requirement in the 1972 Act that all municipal treatment plants
provide secondary treatment by mid-1977 is a higher standard than many
localities had to meet previously.
2. New Requirements to Meet Water Quality Standards
During the last few years water quality standards for many of the
Nation’s waterways have been established, or strengthened where already
established. The level of secondary treatment necessary to meet these
new standards is sometimes higher than the secondary treatment required
for the Nation as a whole by the 1972 Act. Special processes also must
often be added to meet standards for pollutants such as phosphorous,
ammonia, nitrates and organic substances.
B- I
-------
3. Inflation
The costs of construction have increased rapidly during the last
several years. The Engineering News Record’s cost index for construction
rose 19.3%. for example,. during the two years between the 1971 and 1973
needs surveys.
4. More Communities Included
The States made special efforts to see that the final survey results
reflected the needs of as many communities as possible. Coverage was
far more comprehensive than for previous estimates of needs.
5. Increasing Attention to Water Pollution Control at the Local Level
The general interest in improving water quality and the increasingly
stringent Federal, State and local requirements for wastewater treatment
have induced many municipalities during recent years to intensify their
efforts to estimate needs for treatment facilities. More and more engineering
studies have been completed on which detailed estimates of costs can be based.
B-2
-------
APPENDIX C - SURVEY METHODOLOGY
1; Back round . Local estimates of the cost of needed municipal
treatment facilities have been consolidated into overall national
totals- almost every year since 1959. The Conference of State Sanitary
Engineers made an estimate each year from 1959 to 1966 in its annual
report. The Federal Water Pollution Control Agency and EPA have made
annual estimates since 1969. The estimates by FWPCA and EPA have been
based on information in their files about existing facilities and
pending needs. Much of it was assembled and suppliedby State Water
Pollution Control Agencies. EPA supplemented this information in 1970
with two surveys and in 1971 with stillanother survey of cities with
the largest anticipated needs.
The approach used in 1973 of surveying most municipal treatment
and collection authorities has the advantages of obtaining an up—to-date
assessment of costs for facilities from the local level where costs can
best be calculated, and of providing data about existing and projected
treatment arid collection facilities, sewage treated and population served.
2. Preparation of the Survey . The 1973 Survey was prepared and
conducted by an inter—office task force within EPA. The scope of the
survey was defined, and the questionnaire drawn up over a five-month
period from December 1972 through April 1973, during which the task
force consulted with representatives from EPA’s Regional Offices and
the States in several working sessions. The questionnaire went through
many revisions as an effort was made to define terms carefully and
strike a balance between comprehensiveness and comprehensibility.
3. Conduct of the Survey . Several hundred questionnaires were
mailed out in advance to the EPA Regions and all the States so that
they could become familiar with the form and the data which would have
to be collected. During June a team was sent to each Region to brief
regional personnel who would be responsible for the survey, and at least
one representative from each State. The briefings included a general
discussion uf the survey approach as well as an item by item description
of what was requested on the survey form.
The task force prepared nine procedural bulletins” to assist with
the conduct of the survey and provide guidelines for review of the
results. These bulletins supplemented and clarified the instructions
for completing the survey forms and delineated responsibilities of the
States and EPA Regional Offices for distributing, reviewing, and process-
ing questionnaires.
C-l
-------
States were asked to distribute survey questionnaires to all
municipal treatment authorities which could be identified within
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and all authorities outside
SMSAs serving places of 10,000 or more. Places of less than 10,000
outside of SMSAs could be sampled, and detailed instructions about
the sampling techniques to be used were provided in a procedural
bulletin. A total of 35 States chose to sample, and the costs reported
in the sample were increased in proportion to the ratio; between popula-
tion in places of l’ess than 10,000 outside SMSAs and the population of
the sampled places.
Proceduresfor distribution of the questionnaires were described
in a procedural bulletin. No comprehensive lists of treatment authorities
were available, but EPA provided the States with four partial lists
of authorities to supplement State listings.
The questionnaires were completed from June through August by the
local treatment authorities, State Water Pollution Control Agencies or
both working together.
4. Review Process . Municipal treatment authorities sent their
completed questionnaires to the States for review and approval. The
States were provided guidelines in a procedural bulletin for checking
the completeness and accuracy of the forms. They were asked to approve
the forms after their review and forward them to the EPA Regions for
further review. A detailed checklist as well as cost curves were
provided so Regional personnel could make a quick check of the complete-
ness of the forms and the reasonableness of the costs reported. Regional
staffs were assisted by personnel from EPA, Washington and reviewers hired
under a contract with TRACOR-JITCO.
Most problems uncovered by personnel in the Regional Offices were
solved and the questionnaires corrected by telephone conversations with
State personnel. In some cases EPA personnel traveled to the States for
further discussions. The Regional Offices submitted a separate cost
estimate in the cases where differences with the State agencies could
not be resolved, and these revised figures are reflected in EPA’s estimate
of costs in this report.
The questionnaires were then sent to Washington where they were
coded for computer processing and mailed to the Bureau of Census office
in Jeffersonville, Indiana for transcription to computer tapes. The
Census Bureau then returned the questionnaires to Washington where
EPA personnel checked all the questionnaires again for reviewing errors,
with particular attention to the forms from authorities reporting costs
over $20 million. When patterns of errors were found for a State or
Region, Regional personnel were called in to help with the review f the
forms from the area.
C -2
-------
The Census Bureau developed the programs with which to tabulate
the data on the tapes. All the tabulations and the costs in the
entire data file were carefully checked and corrected.
C-3
-------
APPENDIX D. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
O.M.B. No. 158-R0017; Approval
Expires September 30. 194
I H I. I HI I I I
FORM EPA-i
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1973 SURVEY OF NEEDS FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
A. PREPARATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE
(To be completed by person who provided
technical in formation)
The attached forms describe to the best of my
knowledge and ability all new or existing
facilities required to achieve the effluent
limitations specified by Sections 301(b)
(1)6 and/or C of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972, as amended.
AUTHORITY REVIEW AND APPROVAL
I have reviewed the attached forms on behalf
of the authority identified, and to the best of
my knowledge the data contained herein
are accurate.
C. REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY STATE AGENCY
The data contained herein have been reviewed
and except as noted are hereby approved as a
correct statement of the costs of needed
publicly.owned treatment works pursuant to
Sections 516(b) and 205 of the FWPCA of
1972, as amended.
0. RE VIEW AND APPRO VAL BY EPA
REGIONAL OFFICE
The data contained herein have been reviewed
and except as noted by this office and in my
opinion represent reasonable costs of eligible
and needed publicly-owned treatment works
within the scope of the 1973 Survey of Needs
for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
NAME (Please print)
TITLE
ORGANIZATION
\
BUSINESS ADDRESS
TELEPHONE (Area code and number)
DATE
SIGNATURE
NAME (Please print)
TITLE
•TELEPHONE (Area code and number)
DATE
SIGNATURE
NAME (Please print)
TITLE -
TELEPHONE (Area code and number)
DATE
SIGNATURE
NAME (Please print)
TITLE
‘
TELEPHONE (Area code and number)
DATE
SIGNATURE
1. Authority and
facility number
c o S7
1. -
A
‘ 4 L PRO1
-------
GUIDELINES CONTAINING
DEFINITIONS AND INFORMATiON
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE STARTING
This questionnaire consists of a 36 page booklet divided into 8 sections. The right-hand pages
contain the items to be completed; instructions pertaining to each right-hand page are printed on
each facing (left-hand) page.
The questionnaire has been designed to be completed by a Treatment Authority (see definition
below) for each Treatment Facility which it now operates or expects to operate in the future.
However, under certain conditions, the questionnaire may be entirely or partially completed by a
State agency, or by consulting engineers or others engaged for this purpose. In such cases, the
instructions should be interpreted accordingly.
Section I, “SUMMARY OF TREATMENT AUTHORITY NEEDS.” comprises the first page to be
completed (Page 5 of the questionnaire). The remaining Sections deal with the characteristics
of a particular Treatment Facility. A separate questionnaire must be completed for each existing
or proposed facility for which a Treatment Authority is responsible; however, Section I should
be filled out one time only, on that questionnaire used to describe the first facility operated by
the Authority.
For purposes of this survey, a Treatment Authority means any unit of a State, county, or city
government, or any other non-Federal Unit of government, which is responsible for the collection
and/or treatment of municipal wastewaters. A Treatment Authority may be a unit of a local
government, such as the Board of Public Works of a particular city, or it may be a special-purpose
agency established to provide services to a particular area, such as a metropolitan sewer and
water authority. The area served by an authority may be limited to a particular town or part of a
single city or county; on the other hand, it may include all or part of a number of cities, towns,
counties or other places. Determining which authorities are responsible for providing sewage
collection and treatment services to which areas is one objective of this survey.
In some areas, there may be one Authority responsible for collection of wastewaters and another
Authority responsible for treating them, in such cases, each Authority should submit question-
naires describing their respective functions and eligible needs within the scope of this survey.
The questionnaire provides that only those sections relevant to collection need be filled out by
an Authority which is only responsible for collection services, etc. Establishing the inter-
relationships between Authorities with different functions, which can be quite complex, is
another objective of this survey.
In some areas, no unit of government may have been designated as responsible for either the
collection or the treatment of sewage. Not all areas of the country require such services; if the
State agency has determined that the concentrations of population and other sources of pollution
in a particular county do not require local sewage services, it may so notify EPA, and no ques-
tionnaires need be completed for such counties. However, it is considered that all populated
places above 5, O persons should be represented in this survey, either directly or indirectly..
(SomeStates may elect to estimate needs of their smaller communities on the basis of a random
sample.) Questionnaires may be submitted for smaller places if local condqions require publicly .
owned treatment works.
Page 2
-------
In areas where there appears to be a need for collection and/or treatment services, but no unit of
government has been designated as responsible for providing them, the following guidelines apply:
• If the area is in an incorporated place, then the government of that place should be
considered to be the Treatment Authority.
• If the area is not incorporated, then the county government, such as the Board of County
_Supervisors, is presumed to be the Treatment Authority.
State Water Pollution Control Agencies may modify the above guidelines fordeterminingTreatment
Authorities, if State law provides for a different residual responsibility, or, in New England,
where the township constitutes the unit of local government closest to “county.”
F .
This survey is restricted to publicly-owned treatment works, which include treatment plants,
sewers, and many other types of treatment facilities, The term Treatment Facility is used in
this survey to mean all such publicly-owned works, Privately-owned facilities, even if they serve
the general public, are excluded. Septic tank systems which are publicly owned are included,
but septic tanks owned by individuals are not.
Authority and Facility Number — In this survey, every existing and proposed facility is uniquely
identified by a combined Authority and Facility number. This Authority-Facility number is
derived as follows:
• Authority Number — Each State agency will assign Authority numbers to each Authority
in its State. Generally, this is done before the questionnaire is distributed. However,
since all Authorities may not be known before the survey starts, some questionnaires
may be distributed without an Authority number, which will be assigned after the ques-
tionnaire is returned to the State agency. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ASSIGN AN
AUTHORITY NUMBER TO YOUR AUTHORITY IF YOU DO NOT ALREADY HAVE
ONE. However, you should copy your assigned number onto any additional question-
naires you need to complete. (For example, if you have additional facilities for which
no pre-numbered questionnaires were received, or if a pre-numbered questionnaire was
damaged and had to be replaced.)
The Authority number consists of six digits. The first two are a coded number which
designates a particular State. (Alabama is 01, etc.) The next four numbers are assigned
sequentially by each State agency, using whatever consistent system is most convenient .
The first Authority number in Alabama, for instance, would be designated 0 1-000 1.
• Facility Number — Facility numbers ordinarily will be assigned by each Authority;
however, if the State agency already has a complete inventory of facilities operated by
each Authority, it may itself assign facility numbers to all facilities of which it has a
record, provided that it also completes enough of items 9 and 10 on page 7 to identify
the facility for the Authority.
Facility numbers should be assigned to each existing and proposed facility. Do NOT
skip numb&s in assigning facility numbers. Questionnaires should be numbered and
completed for all existing facilities before numbering facilities now q der construction
or which have been aporoved for a grant. Complete all of the latter before numbering
any proposed facilities,
Page 3
-------
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT AUTHORITY NEEDS
[ : : GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS — ITEMS 1 — 8 [ . . ‘)
This summary identifies and describes each “Treatment Authority ’ which now operates one or more
“Treatment Facilities”, or which is expected to operate such facilities in the future. This summary
also shows the number and costs of all Needs reported in the survey for all facilities operated or proposed
by this Authority. - -
This page is to be completed only once by each Authority. If the Authority is responsible for more than
one facility, it should complete this page for its first facility only, and merely insert the Authority-Facility
number on this page for eat-h -questionnaire completed for its other facilities.
Items I thru 4 should be completed before completing the remainder of the questionnaire, which deals
with the characteristics and needs of each facility. Items 5 thru B cannot be completed until question-
naires have been completed for au facilities now operated or proposed by this Authority.
I SPECIFIC INSTRUCTiONS — ITEMS 1 - 8 - -:
1. Copy the Authority Number from the cover page and then insert the Facility Number. Then transcribe
the combined Authority-Facility number to the top of each right-hand page of the questionnaire.
2. The official name of the Authority is the name which is used to legally identify it. If several such
names exist, use the name contained in the most recent Federal construction grant, if still appropriate.
If the Authority is a unit of a city or county government, please identify t e unit. (For example.
Deportment of Sanitation, City of Auckland, rather than merely “Auckland” or “Lancaster County.’ ’)
3. Mailing Address — In addition to the mailing address most commonly used on mail sent to the Authority,
please show the name of the county in which the city or town is located. Draw a line through the
boxes for city or town if this is NOT part of the mailing address. Draw a line through the boxes for
the county, if the city or town is not part of a county: If the city is itself a county or county-equiva-
lent, write “Same” in the boxes for County. -
4. Location Codes — Leave blank. These will be completed by the State agency or by EPA.
COMPLETE FOLLOWING ITEMS AFTER ALL QUESTIONNAIRES FOR ALL FACILITIES UNDER
THIS AUTHORITY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.
5.Services Provided to Resident Population — The purpose of this question s to determine what services
are provided (from any source) to the resident population within the service area of the Authority.
Service area is defined as that geographic area for which the Authority is responsible for supplying
treatment and/or collection services, It includes any enclaves which receive no services (e.g., the
residents may be served by private septic tanks, outhouses, etc.).
a. Resident population excludes transient, seasonal, daytime and industrial population equivalents and
can be based on (i.e., reconcilable with) either the 1970 Census or a 1972-73 estimate. This number
will be the total of entries 5b through e.
b. While this condition is found frequently in rural areas, there are many instances where individual
septic tanks, cesspools, etc., exist in urban and suburban areas. All such residents should be
included in this category.
c. This line includes that portion of the population served by sewers, drainage ditches, etc.. whkh
are not connected to trea ent plants, and consequently discharge untreated wastes into streams.
d. This line includes that portion of the population served by sewers connected to a treatment plant,
where, however, the level of treatment, for whatever reason, is less than the secondary level, as
defined by EPA. (For this definition, see item 21, page 14.)
e. This line includes that portion of the population served by sewers connected to a treatment plant
where the level of treatment is equal to or higher than the secondary level defined by EPA.
f. Indicate, by marking the appropriate box, the basis for data reported on resident population.
6. Indicate eith r “Yes” or “No” by marking the appropriate box.
7. a. Enter the total number of facilities for which a questionnaire was completed. A separate question-
naire must be completed for each existing, under construction or prop sed facility.
b. Enter the total number of questionnaires which contain at least one çst entry in Section llI through
VII, “Assessment of Needs by Type and Cost.” - .
8. This entry will be the summation of the costs recorded in item 3Sf for each facility within this Authority
which reported one or more needs on its questionnaires.
Page 4
-------
Official name
of authority
Mailing address
of authority
STATE OR EPA USE
4. Location codes
Section I — SUMMARY OF TREATMENT AUTHORITY NEEDS
Complete following items after all questionnaires for all
SERViCES PROVIDED TO
RESIDENT POPULATION
(FROM ANY SOURCE)
50. Total resident population within
service area of authority
b. Resident population receiving
neither collection nor treatment
services (e.g., served by septic
tanks, cesspools, outhouses, etc.)
c. Resident population receiving
collection services but no
treatment services (i.e., collected
sewerage is discharged raw)
d. Resident population receiving
treatment of less than
secondary level, as defined
by EPA
e. Resident population receiving
treatment equal to or better
than secondary level, as
defined by EPA
f. Basis of data on resident
population
Number
Mark (X)
appropriate box
i j 1970 Census
2J 1972 or 73
estimate
I PLACECODE(S eOlfl$tflICI
‘ ••
‘ • .c•
facilities under this authority have been
ASSESSMENT OF
AUTHORITY NEEDS
6. Does this authority have needs
for additional or modified
wastewater treatment facilities
to meet the July I, 1977
requirements of Section 301(b)(l)
of the Act 7
(The reporting of resident
populations under Sb indicates
a possible, and the reporting of
resident populations under either
5c or 5d a probable need for
additional treatment facilities.)
lUMBER OF PUBLICLY-OWNED
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
WITHIN THIS AUTHORITY
7o. Total number of
questionnaires completed
b. Number with needs
TOTAL COSTS OF NEEDS
IDENTIFIED BY THIS
AUTHORITY
8. Total cost of needs
completed.
Mark (X)
appropriate box
‘E Yes
2 J No
Number
Amount.
Report in thousan’Is
$
Page 5
-------
SUMMARY OF FACILITY DATA
I “ A GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS — IT S 9— 20 ‘
Pages 6 through 13 of the questionnaire comprise’Section II — Summary of Facility Data.” The
entries in Section II identify the particular type of facility this is, its present status, whether
it currently e,pects to change its status, what area(s) the facility serves, and the extent of the
services it provides.
In this survey, a “Treatment Facility” will usually consist of a waste treatment plant, plus all
collector and interceptor sewers, pumping stations, or other auxiliary facilities which feed into
the plant and which are under the control of the same Treatment Authori.. y which operates the
treatment plant. In most cases, therefore, a treatment facility will consist of an entire waste-
water treatment system, and only one Needs questionnaire should be completed, no matter how
elaborate the system. Separate questionnaires on each collector sewer, pumping station. etc.,
whether existing or proposed, are not required, except as specified below.
Occasionally, a Treatment Authority only operates a sewage plant; another authority is respon-
sible for collection. In this case, the first authority completes a questionnaire for the plant only;
the second authority completes one for the collection system only, and indicates that treatment
of its discharges is provided by the first authority.
A community septic tank system, in which a number of houses discharge their wastes to one
septic tank owned by their focal government (or other non-Federal unit of government), is con-
sidered to be a Treatment Facility.
t ‘ ‘ SPECIFIC iNSTRUCTIONS — ITEMS 9— 12b (
9. The “Facility name” should be the name most frequently used by the Authority to identify
this facility.
10. The “Facility address” entry should be completed only for treatment plants. Unless the
treatment plant is physically located at the same address as the Authority, this address
will be different from that reported in item 3, “Mailing address of authority.” Sufficiently
identify the plant so that it can be located on a city or county map. If a conventional street
address is not appropriate, descriptive directions should be used. (For example. “2 miles
north on Hampton Road.”) Please show the name of the county in which the plant is located,
in addition to the name of the city or town. Draw a line through the boxes for city if the
facility is not located in a town.
11. Record the number of the Congressional District(s) to which this facility provides service.
(For example, for a plant which serves the third and seventh districts, enter ‘03” and “07”.)
12a. indicate, t # marking the appropriate box, the present operational status of this facility. Th e
applicable conditions are explained on the questionnaire itself. -
b. Indicate, by marking the appropriate box, the existing (or, if new, the proposed) type off facirity
this is. The applicable conditions are explained on the questionnaire itself. -
Page 6
-------
Authority and Facility No. .
Section II — SUMMARY OF FACILITY DATA
9. Facilityname 111111 I I rir r i i i i i’i r l1 iiiri 4 ri i1 i
WFacilityaddress
.
(Physicollocation)
rEr T nhrr i 1 5 T”Iil M l 1 Li i i ( Sri: LF 11111
li i i HHIIIHHIHI 111111
CITY OR TOWN - - - - h . -
L II 111111111111111! 11 T h I iTi l i i
COUNTY - - - ‘ ‘,“ -s •. . - .STATE.• ZIP CODE
II I I1I1II1 [ IIlIIl,Il1l 1IKIfF iII
11. Congressional
districts served
- -. - .- E -’ -b . 4 7C ’
Al I -BI I i” ‘ I Ii *..rr ’ t_
.. .; : - : - ,i Ac :‘- . * — .
EXISTING AND PROJECTED Mark (X) one box for each item below EPA
STATUS OF THIS FACILITY USE
1 C Now in operation — not being modified or replaced by ONLY
construction underway or provided for in an approved grant.
12a. What is the present 2 C Now in operation and is being modified or replaced by
status of this facility? construction underway or will be by a grant which has
been approved.
C Not now in operation but is now under construction or
will be built under a grant which has been approved.
C Not now in operation and is not now under construction or
provided for by a grant which has been approved (i.e.. this
is a proposed facility which has not yet been funded by a
Federal grant).
b. What is the nature of this I C A complete wastewater treatment system (includes a
facility, as it now exists or treatment plant, with associated collector and/or interceptor
f sewers, and methods for disposal of effluent, under control
i new, as propose of the same treatment authority).
2 C A separate treatment plant. (The sewers which discharge
to this plant are under the control of one or more different
authorities.)
C A community septic tank system. (A publicly-owned
facility, including any sewers which discharge to it.)
C A separate municipal wastewater collection system. (Includes
one or more connected collector and/or interceptor sewers, force
mains, pumping stations, etc., which either discharge without
treatment or discharge to a facility controlled by a different
authority. Do not include combined sewers or storm sewers.)
C A separate combined sewer system. (Includes one or more
interconnected sewers which carry both sanitary wastewaters
and storm waters, and which either discharge without treatment
or to a facility operated by another authority. If facility
includes both separate sanitary sewers and combined sewers,
report as combined.)
6 C Other type of facility — Describe briefly 7
4
Page 7
-------
SUMMARY OF FACILITY DATA — Continued
[ I SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS — ITEM 1 c—12e(2) f ,,,
l 2 c. Complete this entry only if box 2 in item 12a was n,ar¼ed. Indicate the nature of the changes
which are now underway or provided for in an approved grant. The applicable conditions
are explained on the questionnaire itself.
d. The purpose of this question is to determine to what extent the nature of the facility will
change as of July I, 1977. Consider all needs to be reported in this survey, as well as
any other changes, and mark the appropriate box. The applicable alternatives are explained
on the questionnaire itself.
e. Complete these entries only if box 3 in item 12b, and/or box 3 in item tic, and/or box S in
item 12d are marked.
( ) Indicate, by marking the appropriate box, the manner in which the residue from the septic
tank is disposed of.
(2) Indicate, by marking the appropriate box, what alternative will be chosen to replace the
present septic tank system.
Page 8
-------
Authority and Facility No. — — —
Section II — SUMMARY OF FACILITY DATA — Continued
Nature of facility will not change — modification of
existing facility only.
2 j Nature of facility will not change — existing facility is being
replaced by similar facility in a similar location.
Ei Nature of facility will change — septic tank system being
replaced. -
4 J Nature of facility will change — treatment plant being added
to existing sewer system.
5 Nature of facility will -change — sewer system being added to
existing treatment plant without its own sewers.
6 J Nature of facility will change — existing combined sewer
system being replaced by separate sanitary and/or storm
water systems.
7 fJ Other type of changes — Describe briefly 7
i J None, while modifications, additions, etc., are needed, the
nature of this facility will remain as reported in item l2b.
2 None, will remain as reported in item 12b, and no needs are
reported for this facility in this survey.
EJ This facility will be discontinued — services will be provided
by one or more facilities in other locations.
4 This facility will be replaced by a similar facility in a similar
location. (Do not report this type of change for a facility
with a treatment plant unless the plant is entirely or
substantially to be replaced.)
5 J Existing septic tank system will be replaced.
6 J Treatment plant will be added to existing sewage
collection system.
‘ El Sewage collection being added to existing treatment plant
without its own sewers.
8 J Existing combined sewer system will be replaced by new
separate sanitary and/or storm system.
9 Other type of change — Describe briefly 7
Mark (X) applicable responses
Septic tank system
characteristics 1 J To a stream
Complete ONLY If box 3 2 J Below ground in tank area (gravel bed, etc.)
In Item 12b was marked.
El Surface land disposal
(1) To what does this system 4 J By truck, barge, or other transport
discharge? (How is
residue from septic tanks El Other means — Describe
disposed of?) ___________________________________________________________
i J Sewage will be sent by sewer to another authority for treatment.
2 J Sewage will be treated by treatment system operated by this
authority. (Includes sewers and treatment’plant.)
3 J Sewage will be treated by new plant, withoutbsewers for
which this authority is responsible.
El Other type of replacement — Describe
EXISTING AND PROJECTED
STATUS OF THIS
FACILITY — Continued
Complete ONLY it box 2 In
item 12a was marked.
12 c. What is the nature of the
changes to this existing
facility which are now
underway or provided for
in an approved grant’
Mark (X) one box
EPA
USE
ONLY
d. What change is projected
in the nature of this
facility as of July I, 1977,
from that reported in
item 12b’
(Consider all needs reported
in this survey and any other
changes.)
Mark (X) one box
e.
‘I
Complete ONLY It box 3 In
Item 12c or box 5 In
Item 12d was marked.
(2) If this septic system is
now being or proposed to
be replaced, what will it
be replaced by’
Page 9
-------
SUMMARY OF FACILITY DATA — L0flhiI.u u
‘I SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS — ITEMS 13o — 15b . ..
3o . Answer “yes” if this facility discharges its wastes to another facility under the control of a different Authority.
The most common example would be a sewer facility under the control of one Authority, transporting wastes to a
treatment plant under the control of a different Authority. If “Yes,” continue with 13b, C, and d; otherwise, skip
to item 14.
b. Record the official (legal) name of the Authority to which discharged. if the Authority is a unit of a city or county
government, please identify the unit.
c. Record the name commonly used by the receiving Authority to identify the receiving facility.
d. Sufficiently tdencify the facility so that it can be located on a city map. This can be a conventional iddress, or
descriptive directions, if more appropriate. Show the name of the couity in which the receiving facility is located.
Qraw a line through the. boxes for city or town if a name of a city is not part of the location address. If the facility
discharges to a sewer, the location address of the facility is not aoplicable. In this case, mark the box provided
in 13d. -
14. Complete this entry only if boxes 2 or 3 in item l2c, and/or boxes 3, 4, or 5 in item l2d are marked, If so, report
the estimated date the facility will be discontinued, and the name and location of the facility which will replace
this facility.
15a. Print the names of each county or “county equivalent” to which this facility provides collection and/or treatment
services, (“County equivalents” are independent cities, which are not part of counties, in Maryland (Baltimore
City), Missouri (St. Louis City), Nevada (Caison City), and Virginia (38 cIties). The Census Divisions of Alaska,
which has no counties, are also county equivalents. Autliontes in Alaska and Virginia will be given listings of the
county equivalents in their States; other Authorities, except those in the three cities mentioned above, need not be
concerned with “county equivalents,” only with counties.)
b. For each county named, mark the appropriate box to indicate whether all or part of the county is served.
- I GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS — ITEM 16 - . -
The purpose of this question is to determine to what extent the present and projected populations which either reside in,
or work or visit, the area served by this facility receive collection and/or treatment services. Estimates are to be based
on the best available data for the current (1972—73) period and for the year 1990.
Authorities are not required to explain how they developed their estimates of populations served or unserved; however,
they should be prepared to answer any questions raised by their State agency. Local or regional planning agencies in
most States can provide assistance to Authorities in relating their population projections to the particular area served by
a given facility.
An overall survey restriction is that the total resident 1990 population projected for an entire State cannot exceed the
population proiecteci by the Department of Commerce under the “Series E” projection. State agencies have received both
the overall “E” projection for their State, and 1990 projections for each of their Metropolitan Areas (SMSA’s) and each
county outside an SMSA. These latter projections are provided as baseline estimates only; if a State feels more growth
will occur in one area and less in another, these estimates can be adjusted by the State, as long as the total 1990 pro-
jection for the State does not exceed its “E” projection.
The term non-resident applies to transient, seasonal, and daytime (working) populations which do not reside in the service
area of the facility, but whose wastes must be taken into consideration in designing facilities. (Non-resident population
does not include any form of “population-equivalent” based on industrial or commercial flows.) A hypothetical example
would be a downtown business area with a resident population of ten thousand but a daytime, working population of
twenty-five thousand. The non-resident population would thus be fifteen thousand.
The “area served by this facility” includes not only the boundaries of the areas actually served, but also any er.claves
whose residents are served by septic tanks, outhouses, etc. There is no necessary implication that all residents who do
not now receive waste treatment services must do so; however, all such areas should be reviewed by the Authority to be
sure that their domestic sewage is being handled in a manner which is not in violation of the 1977 requirements on dis-
charges or of applicable State plans or water quality standards.
If an Authority has only one facility, the area served by the facility is the same as that served by the Authority. If an
Authority has more than one facility, it should divide up the total area it is responsible for, so that every part lies within
an area served by one (or more) of its existing or proposed facilities.
The area served by a facility may change between 1972—1973 and 1990. Report each on the basis of current plans and I
expectations of the Authority.
L. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS — ITEMS 16c — 161 .. ..
16o, Indicate in the spaces provided the 1970 population, the 1972—73 estimated population, and the 1990 projected
population for those persons residing within the area served by the facility. (The 1970 population should be recon
cilable with the 1970 Census Bwsau population reported for area(s) served by the facility.)
b. This line includes all persons residing in the service area of the facility who are served by acceptable septic
tanks, community or individual.
c. This line includes all persons who now receive collection services from this facility, regardless of whether their;
sewers are connected to a treatment plant or not. (NOTE — Residents and Non-residents must be stated separately.)
d. Report the population residing in the service area of this facility who receive collection services from a different -
authority, whether or not their sewers are connected to a treatment plant.
e. This is theipopulation residing in the service area of the facility that is not receiving collection services. (NOTE —
Lines b, c, d and e must equal line a.)
I. Report the population, both Resident and Non-resident, who receive treatment services from this facil’fty of less than:
secondary level, as defined by EPA.
g. Report the population, both Resident and Non-resident, who receive treatmej t services from this facility equal to or
exceeding the secondary level as defined. (This line represents approximately the design popuIatioa for which new.
or modified facilities reported in this survey.)
h , Report population residing in the service area of the facility who receive treatment servites, regardless of level.
from a facility under the jurisdiction of a different Authority.
i, This is the total population residing in the service area of the facility which does not receive treatment services.
(NOTE — Lines b, 1, g, h, and i must also equal line a.)
Page 10
-------
Authority and Facility No.
Section II — SUMMARY OF FACILITY DATA — Continued
STREET NUMBER STREET NAME
III 111111111 111111111111111111
CITY OR TOWN
huH 11111 hhhIhihhhhl I 1111111 ]
COUNTY STATE IP CODE
IHHIhhhIIHIHIIHIH11I ihIhI
Complete ONLY If response to item 12c or 12d Indicated a wastewater treatment plant will be disc itinued.
TERMINATION OF FACILITY Month Year
14o. Estimated date to be discontinued
b. Name and location of replacement facility
COUNTIES AND COUNTY EQUIVALENTS SERVED BY THIS FACILITY
EPA USE ONLY
l5a. Name of county or county-equivalents
served by this facility
b. Is all or part of this
county served?
Area
served
FIPS-6
code
(1)
1JA II 2JPart
(2)
lCJAll 2EJPart
(3)
IJAII 2LJPart
(4)
iE AlI zEJPart
POPULATION SERVED BY THIS FACILITY P 1 0fl
Report present and projected populations for area 1970 Census
served by this facility (1)
l6a. Total resident population in area served
by this faciluty
b. Resident population receiving services from acceptable
septic tanks, community or individual
c. Population receiving collection services from this facility
d. Resident population receiving collection services
from another facility
.
e, Resident population NOT. eceiving collection services
f. Population receiving treatment services of less than
secondary level as defined, from this facility
g. Population receiving treatment services equal to or
exceeding secondary level from this facility —
h. Resident population receiving treatment services from
another facility
I. Resident population NOT receiving treatment services
Estimated population
(2)
Population projected
(3)
Resident
Nonresident
Resident
Nonresident
-
-
- - -
- -
. -‘ -. - - -
. . -
- -
. ..
:
- :
-- ‘r ’
‘ j
—,
- -
- X
- -
-- -
Lines b. c, d. and e must equal line a;
lines b, f, g, h. and i must also equal item a.
CHARACTERISTICS OF DISCHARGE FROM FACILITY
13a. Does this facility discharge to another facility
under the control of a different authority’
b. Name of authority
to which discharged
1 J Yes — Contultle with 13b below
2 i: No — SKIP to item 14 below
I EPAUSEONLY
- c. Name of facility
to which discharged
I1IIHLIIIIIIIIIIII!hhhIIIIIihI
1111111111111] 11111111111111111
d. Physical location
address of facility
to which discharged
Not applicable, this facility
discharges to a sewer
111111111 I III [ 1111111 I liii I liii
11111111111 11111111111 111111111
Page Il
-------
SUMMARY OF FACILflY DATA — Continued
( s - J GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS — ITp 17 5 , —j-
The purpose of this question is to detetniine the current and projected flow and concentration levels, the present design specifi-
cations, and if applicable, the projected design specilications br the plant. This data will pertain to levels of secondary treat-
ment or below. Data regarding levels of treatment above secondary treatment are reportable under items 25 and 26.
Existing means the actual average concentration, based on 24-hour observations during the month, made during 1973, of influent
only for flows, and both influent and effluent concentration levels for suspended solids and five-day BOO.
Projected actual means the influent and effluent concentration levels anticipated for the year 1990, or, if a final design has beer 1
completed for this plant for a year other than 1990, which meets the secondary treatment requirement, then for the design year.
Present design is the influent and effluent levels which the plant is presently intended to handle.
Projected design is the influent and effluent levels which the plant will be designed to handle for the year 1990, unless a design
study bac- d on a different year has been completed.
The projected design column (4) need not be completed if it is the same as the projected actual given in column (2); in this case,
simply write “same” for each applicable entry.
Neither the projected actual nor the projected design column need be completed if the plant is to be discontinued prior to July 1,
1971; in this case, write “Disc.” in the appropriate boxes.
I SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS — ITEMS 17a — 19b
ha. Total flow means all the wastewaters moving through the plant. This figure should be reported in million gallons per day.
b. Industrial flow is that amount of flow, moving through the plant, that originates from industrial sources. This figure should
be reported in million gallons per day.
c. For suspended solids, use the conventional definition. This figure should be reported in milligrams per liter (mg/I).
d. For BOOs (Biological Oxygen Demand), use the conventional definition. This figure should be reported in milligrams per
liter (mgJl).
e. Indicate the temperature on which the design of this facility, as proposed for modifications, or other changes in this survey,
will be based. Record the temperature in degrees Fahreheit.
i Sa. Indicate, by marking an entry in each line, whether the respective procedure is (1) Now in use (whether or not now bing
modified or will be proposed for modification), (2) Under construction or provided for in an approved grant, (3) Required but
not yet approved or funded, or (4) does not apply (e.g., not needed now or in the future by this facility).
b. Report the daily average of dry solids produced in pounds per day.
19a. Indicate, by marking an entry in each line, whether the respective procedure is: (1) now in use (whether or not now being
modified or will be proposed for modification); (2) under construction or provided for in an approved grant; (3) Required but
not yet approved or funded; or, (4) does not apply (e.g., not needed now or in the future by this facility).
b. The appropriate units for reporting the daily load or votumn of the liquid effluent are: (1) For surface and deep ocean out-
falls, record the length of pipe in feet. (2) For holding ponds, record the capacity in million gallons; (3) For deep wells,
indicate the depth of the well in feet; (4) For ground water recharge, other land disposal, recycling water supply, and septic
tank field, indicate the length of pipe in feet; (5) For “Other,” specify type and unit.
I I GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS — ITEM 20
Navigable waters are defined by Section 502 of the Act as including “all waters of the United States, including the territorial
seas.” This includes all waters which are navigable, all tributaries of such waters, all interstate waters and their tributaries,
and aH intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams which are used by interstate travelers for recreational purposes or from which fish or
shellfish are taken and sold in interstate commerce, or which are utilized for industrial purposes by industries in inter-
state commerce.
t . 7 ’ j SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS — ITEMS 20o — 20 c [ ‘ - -s ’.. : -)
20a. Based on the above definition, indicate the name of the navigable waters to which the facility discharges. If the plaqt dis-
charges to a creek, ditch, stream, elc., give the name of the creek, etc., plus the name qtthe stream or river which it)flows
into.
b. Indicate, by marking the appropriate box, whether an application for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit has been made for this discharge.
c. If an application has been submitted 1 report the number in the spaces provided, if known. If not known,put a “7” in first box.
Page i2
-------
Section II — SUMMARY OF FACILITY DATA — Continued
b. Daily load or volume
(Use appropriate units — See instructions)
(4)
‘D
20
3D
D
10
2
30
D
10
20
30
D
,Q
2
0
D
,J
20
D
E:1
‘0
20
0
D
Existing average
concentration
during month
(1)
EXISTING, PROJECTED, AND
DESIGN FLOWS AND
CONCENTRATIONS
10. Total flow (Mu. Gal./Doy)
b. Tota’ industrial flow (MGD)
Projected — Actual
(2)
4verage concentration during month
c. Suspended solids
concentratioa-(mg/ I
Present design
(3)
Influent Effluent•
Influent Effluent
lnflue t
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
/
Projected design 1990
( 4 )
zi P -
On what temperature of the influent has the design of this
facility, incluclin gits proposed modifications,_been_based?
BOD 5 c ncentratuon (mg/I)
Degrees (fahrenheit)
Now in use
(1)
SLUDGE HANDLING PROCEDURES
18o. Procedures now used or required
(1) Thickening
(2) Digestion
(3) Dewatering
(4) Drying beds...
(5) Heat treatment.
(6) Incineration.
(7) Other — Specify
Under
Construction
or provided br
in approved
grant
(2)
Required
but not yet
approved
or funded
(3)
Not
applicable
EPA
USE
ONLY
b. Daily average of dry solids (Pounds per day)
20
‘0
PROCEDURES FOR DISPOSAL OF LIQUID EFFLUENTS
9a. Procedures now used or required
(U Outfall to surface waters
(2) Ocean outfall
(3) Holding pond
(4) Deep well
(5) Ground water recharge
(6) Other land disposal
(7) Recycling water supply
(8) Septic tank field
(9) Other — Specify _______
20
‘0
20
0
D
‘0
20
3D
0
‘0
20
0
0
10
20
D
0
‘0
2J
D
D
‘0
2J
D
0
10
20
D
D
20
DISCHARGE TO NAVIGABLE WATERS
20o. What is the name of the waters to which discharged’
Major/minor
basin co’le
--
b. Has an application for a National Pollutant 1 E:JYes — Continue with item 20c
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 2 No
permit been filed for this discharge? 3 0 Not known . SKIP item 2Ia
0 Not required J
c. What is the application number? I I —I I
‘
I I
Page 13
-------
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST
I ‘ - GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS — ITEM 21
This page is to be completed if the facility being described in this questionnaire is one of the following:
• An existing or proposed publicly-owned treatment plant.
• An existing publicly-owned community septic tank system.
• An existing sewer, drainage ditch, or other treatment works (as defined in the Act) which discharges
untreated municipal sewage into a stream.
The “required level of secondary treatment” whi& all facilities identified above must meet by July I, 1977
is the most stringent of the following:
• The level promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency, pursuant to Section 304(d)(l)of the
Act. This level was published as Section 102. Part 133, Title 40, Code of Fede al Regulations.
For purposes of this survey, the following effluent levels, as prescribed in this Regulation, shall
be used to determine whether a facility is meeting or will meet the Secondary Treatment level
promulgated by EPA:
Characteristic of
discharge
Unit of measurement
.
Average concentration
during month
(Based on 24-hour observations)
Biochemical oxygen
demand (5-day)
mg/I
30
Suspended solids
mg/I
30
Fecal coliforms
No. per lOOmI
200
Hydrogen ion
concentration
pH unIts
between 6.0 and 9.0
• A higher treatment level, established by a particular State and applicable to the basin in which lies
the stream to which this facility discharges. NOTE — This type of higher level of required secondary
treatment must be distinguished from the “more stringent than secondary treatment” levels covered
in Needs Category II (items 25 and 26).
I SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS — ITEMS 2lo — 21e(B)
2la. Some plants, especially in small towns discharging to relatively large streams with few other
sources of pollution, may not have to treat their wastes to the level of secondary treatment appli-
cable to their plant for the stream to which they discharge to meet the water quality standards
(“WQS”) applicable to it. Mark “Yes” if this situation applies to this plant, mark “No” if this
plant must achieve the secondary treatment level or a more. stringent level if the stream to which
it discharges is to meet its WQS. Mark “Not known” if the applicable WQS is not known, or if the
relationship between the discharge level from this plant and stream quality has not been determined,
and mark “Not applicable”if the plant does not discharge to a stream (e.g., it is a community
septic tank system which has no discharge.)
b. Mark applicable box and supply information requested, (e.g., 90% removal, 20 mg/I BOD L level;
etc.) based on definition in General Instructions above.
c. Based on definitions in General Instructions above.
d. Assume that all changes to this facility now underway, or which have been provided forbyanapproved
grant, will be completed by July I, 1977. If your answer is “No,” complete the remainder of item
21 and the applicable parts of items 22, 23, and 24 to indicate what will need to be done to achieve
the required secondary treatment level.
e. Complete if response to 2 Id was “No.”
(1) This prd&dure applies only to spraying or otherwise exposing untreated or partially treated
sewage to land, in lieu of using conventional secondary treatment procedures to reduce p ’ollutant
levels. It does not apply to methods for disposing of treated effluents by irrigation, etc.
(2) Mark this only if a treatment plant is needed where one does not no’ki exist. If a community 1 . septic
tank is to be replaced by a treatment plant, mark here.
(3) Mark this box if an existing treatment plant is to be entirely or substantially replaced (i.e., at
least 75% of the proposed capacity is a replacement or addition to an existing plant.)
(4) to (8) Self-explanatory.
Page 14
-------
F’.ULiIUIiLy dilU I ..iCi%.7 I U.
Section III — CATEGORY I — ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS TO ACHIEVE REQUIRED
LEVEL OF SECONDARY TREATMENT
2lo. Can this plant meet water quality standards
applicable to the stream segment to which it
discharges by a level of treatment LESS than
defined as secondary treatment by EPA’
b.What level of secondary treatment must
the discharge from this plant meet by
July I , 1977?
c. Does the discharge from this plant NOW
meet the level of secondary treatment
identified in 21b?
c i. Will the discharge from this plant meet on
July I , 1977, the level of secondary treatment
identified in 2lb? (Give consideration to
changes in flow and concentration of
influents and to the changes in treatment
capability now under construction or
provided for in approved grants.)
e. Which approaches will be used to enable
this existing or proposed plant to meet the
secondary treatment level identified in 2lb?
(1) Addition of land disposal as a means
of treatment
(2) New plant — no replacement of
existing plant
(6) Modification — increas’e in treatment level
(7) Improved operation and maintenance;
increase staffing
(8) Reduce infiltration
(3) Replacement plant
(4) Modification — no change in capacity
or treatment level
(5) Modification — increase in capacity
Mark appropriate box for each item
1 0 Yes
2 No
3 J Not known
40 Not applicable; no discharge
to waters
El Secondary treatment level as
defined by EP. .
OR
2 J Higher level of secondary
treatment required by
State — Specify 7
Higher level secondary treatment
Nature of State action
1 El Yes
2 No
10 Yes —SKIP to nero 25
20 No
1 D Yes
20 No
i El Yes
20 No
1 El Yes
20 No
1 El Yes
20 No
1 Yes
zL: No
1 Yes
20 No
1 J Yes
20 No
1 Yes
20 No
EPA USE
ONLY
Page 15
-------
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST — Continued
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS — ITEM 22
If item 2 1d us “Yes,” DO NOT record costs in this item. However, if “No,” was marked in 21d,
est mated costs should be reported if the projected data in item 17 have been supplied. Select
only those processes to be used and complete each corresponding line. Indicate the estimated
cost and the basis for the cost estimate in item 22. Exclude operation, maintenance, and staffing
(not considered needs) and reduced infiltration (covered in item 28).
Express cost in terms of capital costs only; do not include operation and maintenance costs.
SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS — ITEMS 22a — 24b
22 a. Report the total estimated costs for all primary treatment processes to be used.
b. (1) Mark which type (one only) of secondary treatment process is needed, and report its cost.
(2) Indicate the additional capital cost of the process marked in 22b(I) for handling sludge
generated by this plant.
c. Indicate the cost of disinfection. Omit the cost of chemicals.
d. Indicate the cost of any procedures for disposing of liquid effluents that were marked
“Required but not yet approved or funded” in item 19.
e. Report costs only if items 2le(l) and 23a are marked “Yes.” The estimated cost is for all
costs of land treatment procedures, excluding the cost of the land. Equipment and construc-
tion costs are examples of costs which can be reported on this line.
f. Report the estimated cost of land to be used in land treatment procedures. Complete only if
item 22e was completed. The land to be used must be acquired by the plant.
g. This is the subtotal of lines 22a thru f.
23. If the specified cost analysis has been made, remember that costs should be reported in 22e
and f, and that the information requested in 23b must be supplied. If this analysis has not
been made, do not record any costs in 22e and f.
24a. Indicate the year in which construction of these Needs is expected to begin.
b. Indicate the year in which construction of these Needs is expected to be completed.
Page 16
-------
Section III — CATEGORY I —
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST — Continued
CODES AND DEFINITIONS FOR’\ 1 — Actual
BASIS OF COST ESTIMATE ) 2 — Bid/pr
(For use In column (2) below)/ 3 — Engine
contract costs 4 — Cost of previous comparable construction -
oposal from completed specifications 5 — Engineer/consultant preliminary estimate
er/consultant firm estimate 6 — PA-supplied cost estimating procedures
ADDITIONAL COSTS TO ACHIEVE REQ
SECONDARY TREATMENT
UIRED LEVEL OF
Cost
Report in thousands
Basis of cost
Fromabo
Complete cost data ONLY for those pFocesses
22o. Primary treatment processes
to be used
— (1) -
(2)
S - -
b. Secondary treatment processes
( ) Type and cost of i 1J Trickling filter
process used 2 D Activated sludge
(Mark (X) one box 3 Lagoon
and enter cost in
column (I)) 4 Other — Specify
(2) Capital cost only of sludge handling procedures
c. Disinfection (Omit the cost of chemicals)
Complete ONLY for Items marked In column (3) In Item 19
d. Costs for disposal of liquid effluents
Complete Items 22e and 221 ONLY If Item 23a below Is marked “Yes”
e. Costs of land treatment procedures, exclud ng land
f Costs of land, for land treamient ONLY
g. Subtotal — Cost of Category I needs
: .
Complete ONLY If Item 21e(1) Is marked “Yes”
EXPLANATION OF LAND TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE FOR ACHIEVING REQUIRED
LEVEL OF SECONDARY TREATMENT
EPA USE
ONLY
23a. Has a cost analysis been made of thi
or economical solution to the need to
conventional secondary treatment pro
projects unless such an analysis has
s proposal which demonstrates it to be a more effective
provide secondary treatment of these waste waters than
cedures? (NOTE: Do not submit needs for land treatment
been made.)
iE Yes— 2
tJNo—SKIP to item 23c
b. Identify this study and indicate wher
e a copy can be obtained
Name/title
Author
Authority
Date Location
of copy
II
c. Acreage required for land treatment
I
Acreage
‘
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATES OF CATEGORY I NEEDS
2 4a. Construction is expected to begin (Year) 19 —
b. Construction is expected to be compi
eted (Year) 19 —
Page 17
-------
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST — Continued
j GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS — ITEM 25
An effluent limitation “more stringent” than secondary means a requirement for treatment
processes, in addition to secondary treatment processes, necessary to meet an effluent limita-
tion specified in an EPA-approved water quality plan, an administrative or court order, a license,
etc., or by a water quality standard, which is binding on the treatment facility. Examples include
requirements to remove phosphorus, ammonia, nitrates, or organic substances.
Approved water quality plans are primarily those required by 40 CFR 150.1 and .2 (formerly 18
CFR 601). Such water quality plans have been designated as basin, metropolitan, or regional
plans. These plans are now considered to be “interim plans” and constitute an acceptable
basis for determining Needs until July I, 1973. when new, more comprehensive, basin plans are
to be submitted to meet requirements of the new Act, under Sec. 303(e). These basin plans,
after their approval by EPA. will then replace the former 18 CFR 601 basin plans. After July I.
1973, the metropolitan and regional plans will begin to be replaced by Sec. 201 areawide plans.
Any new plans approved by EPA pursuant to Sections 303(e) or 201 constitute an acceptable
basis for reporting Needs; however, few of these are expected to be approved in time to affect
this survey.
A body of water is water quality dependent if some or all the discharges to it will need treat-
ment “more stringent” than secondary treatment levels to meet a water quality level specified
by the State. The basis for this classification is that a State. after careful analysis of the
extent and sources of pollution affecting a particular stream segment, has determined that the
level of secondary treatment defined by EPA or an applicable State law will not be sufficient to
achieve or maintain the water quality standards applicable to this body of water. Required dis-
charge levels will be designated by each State as part of its “continuing planning process.” A
Treatment Authority having questions about possible designation as “water quality dependent”
of streams to which its facilities discharge should contact its State pollution control agency.
[ H;’ SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS — ITEM 25b
25b. Indicate which reason for need imposes the most stringent requirement. If 25a is marked
“Yes” be sure to mark which type of order, permit, or other administrative requirement is
applicable and to describe the specific order, plan, or action, and indicate wheçe a copy
can be obtained, where required. If the document has no title, show the title of the basin
or stream to which the requirement applies. Indicate the number of the plan, if there is an
applicable document number, and the person or agency who authored the document. Include
the date of EPA approval where applicable.
Pa&e 18
-------
Authority and Faculty No. P — — — — — — — — —-
Section IV — CATEGORY II — ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST
Complete 25 and 26 for treatment plant only
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS TO PROVIDE “MORE STRINGENT” LEVEL OF TREATMENT THAN SECONDARY
25a. Is the discharge from this treatment plant required to meet an
effluent limitation more stringent than secondary treatment?
iD Yes zEj No —Skip to item 27
b. Reason for need (Mark the box below which imposes the most stringent requirement)
o A water quality plan which has beenapprov d by EPA
(Identify this plan and indicate where a copy can be obtained)
Name/title Number Date
Author Date of EPA approval
Location of copy
El A State or Federal court, permit or license, administrative order, or other enforcement or
regulatory action binding upon this facility. (Mark (X) the appropriate box and identify
below this court order, permit stipulation, or other administrative requirement)
1 J Order of State Court 6 El Federal enforcement order or proceeding
2 El Order of Federal Court ‘ El Voluntary agreement which includes a
schedule of compliance or improvements
El State permit or license
El Federal permit or license 8 El Other — Specify
s El State enforcement order ________________________________________
or proceeding
Court order, permit stipulation, or other administrative requirement
El A certification by the State that the body of water receiving this discharge is water
quality dependent, and that more stringent treatment is needed to meet Federally-
approved water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or nutrients.
Identify nature arid date of State action which is basis for certification; indicate
level of dissolved oxygen and/or nutrient permitted in stream and the effluent
limitations imposed on this discharge. (NOTE: State agency must be prepared
to supply additional data to EPA upon request to support its certification of the
need for treatment beyond secondary) -
Nature of state action
Date
Page 19
-------
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYP h ANLI LU l — LonTlnueu
} - . .... GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS — ITEM 26 .... - . ‘II)
Report the specific needs and costs for those removal processes which this treatment plant must install or upgrade to meet
those requirements identified in item 25b. Include capital costs, but not operation and maintenance costs. All costs must
be supported by data on existing and projected concentrations, if these are not known, please do not report costs.
Existing total concentration means the actual average concentration during the r ionth, based on 24-hour observations made
during 1973. oF the influent and effluent levels for the particular substances (e.g., nitrates, organics) for which treatment
beyond secondary is required.
In this section of the questionnaire, the influent cQncentration is the level of the substance in question after existing or
pro 1 ected secondary treatment, if any, has been applied. (In other words, the influenc concentration is me effluent from
secondary.) The effluent concentration level 15 the level of effluent from the plant, after any “beyoid secondary” prc.
cessing is completed. If no treatment beyond secondary now exists, the existing influent and effluent levels will be
the same. - -
If an existing “beyond secondary” process is to be upgraded, the difference between the existing influent and effluent
levels represents the removal attributable to the existing process; the projected levels will reflect the removal attributable
to the upgraded process.
The projected design effluent concentration must be sufficient to achieve the most stringent effluent limitations identified
in item 25b.
FT - SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS — ITEMS 26 — 27b - ‘ - ‘ -
26a. Phosphorus removal includes all unit processes, except for sludge handling, used to remove phosphorus. Examples
include chemical storage, mixing and coagulation, and lime clarification tanks added to an existing treatment facility.
Express phosphorus concentrations for phosphorus (“P”) only, not as phosphates (“P0 4 ”).
b. Ammonia removal includes all unit processes, except sludge handling, used either to remove ammonia, or to convert
ammonia to nitrate in wastewaters. Examples include nitrification activated sludge systems, clinoptilolite ion
exchange, breakpoint chlorination, and air stripping, Express ammonia concentrations as NH3 only, not as
Nl-4 4 0H, etc.
c. Nitrate removal includes all unit processes, except sludge residue handling, which remove nitrate from wastewater,
such as ion exchange or anaerobic biological denitrification. Express nitrate concentrations as N03 only, not as
NOx or as N03 compounds, etc.
d. Organics removal includes all unit processes, except sludge residue handling, which are used to remove those organic
compounds which are not degraded normally by biological treatment. Examples include activated carbon adsorption
and ozonation. Be sure to indicate whether chemical oxygen demand (COD) or total organic carbon (TOC) is the
basis for estimating influent/effluent concentrations.
e, Polishing lagoon includes various types of construction for temporarily retaining effluents from secondary treatment
stages to provide time for additional reduction of effluents, in order to achieve concentration levels more stringent
than secondary. This process is to be distinguished from the type of lagoon used to achieve secondary treatment
per cc (see item 22b(1)), and also from the type of lagoon used to store wastewaters prior to treatment (See item 36b).
f. Other processes include those needed to remove pesticides, heavy metals, toxic materials, total d:ssoived sol’ds.
and other substances not elsewhere identified. If such a process is required, indicate both its name and the unit in
which its concentration is best expressed in the space provided, and report the existing and projected influent and
effluent levels, the cost, and the basis of the cost estimate. Most of these substances are measurable in milligrams
per liter; however, some substances (e.g., radioactive materials) may be best expressed in other units of concentra-
tion. If more than one such Special process is required, report its characteristics in item 32, but include its costs
in line 26g.
g. This line is the subtotal of all costs reported on lines 26a thru f, plus any additional Category II costs reported in
item 32.
27a, Indicate the year in which Construction of these Needs is expected to begin.
b. Indicate the year in which construction of these Needs is expected to be completed.
I GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS — ITEMS28a—28j [ -
Section 2 0 I(g)( 3 ) of the Act provides that no grant can be awarded after July I, 1973, unless the applicant satisfactorily
demonstrates that the sewer collection system discharging into the proposed treatment works is not subject to “excessive
infiltration”. Section 2O1(g)(4) authorizes Federal assistance for sewer system evaluation studies to determine whether
there is excessive infiltration. Specific definitions and requirements pertaining to excessive infiltration were published
February 23. 1973, in the Federal Register (page 5330, 40 CFR 35.905, 35.925—7).
[ I SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS — ITEMS 2 8a — 28 e I -. .•
28o. The total length of the existing sewer system includes all types of sewers connected to the same system, including
collectors, interceptors, combined, force mains, etc. Report this figure in feet.
b. Each applicant for a grant must show that it has performed or will perform an analysis demonstrating the existence
or nonexistence of excessive infiltration/inflow in each sewer system tributary to the treatment works proposed in
the grant. The aqalysis shall identify the presence, quantity, and type of any infiltration/inflow conditions. Indicate
the status of ihi ’analysis by marking the appropriate box.
c. Record either the actual or the estimated cost of the analysis.
d. If a completed infiltration/inflow analysis shows that the sewer system must be subject to excessive inuilcration/
inflow, a systematic sewer system evaluation survey, must be undertaken, after appr. vaI by he Regional Ac mi,iistra-
tor. This evaluation shall state the specific location, condition, estimated rite of flow, and estimateU cost of
rehabilitation for each identified source of infiltration/inflow into the sewer system. The repbsa shall propoce a
program of rehabilitation to correct those conditions determined to be excessive. Indicate the status of this survey,
where one is required, by marking the appropriate box.
e. Record the actual cost of the Sewer System Evaluation Survey if the survey has been completed. Record the esti-
mated cost if the survey is required but is in some stage short of completion. -
Page 20
-------
Aut’iority and i-acuity NO.
Section IV — CATEGORY II — ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST — Continued
CODES AND DEFINITIONS FOR 1 — Actual contract costs 4 — Cost of previous compariable construction
BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES ) 2 — Bid proposal from completed specifications 5 — Engineer/consultant preliminary estimate
(For use in column 4 below) / 3 — Engineer/consultant firm estimate 6 — PA .supplied cost estimating procedures
I
•
Complete ONLY, if applicable data required
on 25b has been supplied
COSTOF NEEDSTOACFPEVE TREATMENT
LEVEL MORE STRINGENT THAN SECONDARY
TREATMENT -
Existing average
concentration
during month
(1)
Projected design,
average I
concentration
during month
(2)
Cost
Report in
tnousands
-
(3)
Basis for cost
estimate
From above
-
(4)
lnfluent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
-
.
26 a. Phosphorus removal (mg/I)
b. Ammonia removal (mg/I)
c. Nitrate rernoval,(mg/l)
(Mark (X) one box)
d. Organics removal 1 COD 2 TOC
Required capacity
Million gallons
‘
‘
‘
.
...
e. Polishing lagoon
(See instructions for this item)
f. Other — Specify type and unit of measurement
g. Subtotal — Cost of all Category II needs S
I
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATES OF CATEGORY II NEEDS i -
27a. Construction is expected to begin (Year) I 19_
I
b. Construction is expected to be completed (Year) 19_ —
Section V — CATEGORY III — ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR CORRECTION OF INFILTRATIONANFLOW CONDITIONS 1
i
28a. Total length of existing sewer system (Report in feet) I
.1
b. Status of analysis to determine the existence of infiltration/inflow EPA
conditions (Mark (X) one box) USE
ONLY
1 J Detailed analysis not yet started } Complete items 28c
2 J Analysis now underway and j, then continue
3 Analysis completed: no infiltration correction necessary. . with item 30a
4 J Analysis completed: excessive infiltration may exist — Continue with item 28c
c. Cost of analysis (Report in thousands) -
d. Status of cost-effective sewer system evaluation survey (Mark (X) one box) EPA
USE
ONLY
2 Required: plan not yet developed
1 [ J Not required } Complete items 28e and j,
then SKIP to item 30a
Plan developed: survey not yet started
-4 J Survey in progress
5 Survey complet H — Identify this survey and indicate where a copy can be obtained
ITitle/description
I t
Date 1 LocaLion of copy -
e. Cost of evaluation survey (Report in thousands) - -
Page 21
-------
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST — Continued
J’, - SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS — ITEMS 28f— 29b -
28f. Indicate -by marking the appropriate box(es), based upon the results of the completed Sewer
System Evaluation Survey, what actions are necessary to correct infultration/unflowconduuons
in order to meet the requirements of Section 201 and/or 211 of the Act. One or more than one
corrective action may be chosen.
g. Record the estimated cost of the corrective action(s) identified in 28f , boxes 2 through 6.
h. Answer “Yes,” only if the Sewer System Evaluation Survey indicates a need to increase
the treatment capacity of the treatment plant to which these sewers discharge above the
level of capacity provided for in item 17.
( ) Only if 28h is “Yes,” rec rd the additional treatment capacity in millions of gallons
per day.
(2) Only if 28h is “Yes,” record the cost of providing the additional capacity.
i. Answer “Yes,” only if the Sewer System Evaluation Survey indicates that replacement or
major rehabilitation of existing sewer collection system is necessary.
(1) If 28i is marked “Yes,” indicate whether the State has determined that the proposed
replacement or maior rehabilitation is necessary to the total integrity and performance of
the waste treatment works servicing the community. If the State has made such a deter-
mination please describe, in the space provided, the nature of the determination, its date
and where the EPA Regional Office may obtain a copy.
(2) Only f the answers to both 28i and 28i(l) are “Yes,” will there be a cost figure entered
in 28i(2).
j. Summation of costs entered in cost blocks 28c, e, g, h(2), and i(2).
29a. Indicate the year in which construction of these Needs is expected to begin.
b. Indicate the year in which construction of these Needs is expected to be completed,
Page 22
-------
Authority and Facility No.
Section V — CATEGORY III — ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST — Continued
CODES AND DEFINITIONS FOR \ I — Actual contract costs 4 — Cost of previous comparable construction
BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES 2 — Bid proposal from completed specifications 5— Engineer/consultant preliminary estimate
h(2), and 1(2) b.IowP’ / 3 — Engineer consultant firm estimate 6 — EPA-supplied cost estimating procedures
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR CORRECTION OF INFILTRATION/INFLOW CONDITIONS — Continued EPA USE
28f. Based upon the results of the completed sewer system evaluation survey, which of the following - ONLY
corrective acticns are necessary to correct infiltration/inflow conditions in order to meet the —
requirements of Sections 201 and/or 211 of the Act’
D Not known at this time SKIP 28 Change/create flow routing system
i None f Provide flow equalization
2 J Seal off sewer lines 6 J Other corrective actions — Specify—p
3 J Replace/reline sewer sections
Basis for cost
estimate
F om above
g.Cost of required corrective actions identified —
in item 28f (Report in thousands) )
h. Did the completed sewer system evaluation survey indicate that the capacity of the EPA USE
treatment plant to which these sewers discharge must increase above any increase ONLY
in capacity already provided for in item 17?
1 L Yes 2J No — SKIP to item 28j
Gallons per day
(1) What additional treatment capacity above that specified in
item 17 will be required? (Report in millions)
Basis of
cost estimate
From above
(2) What additional costs beyond those identified in item 22 will be
required to provide this capacity’ (Report in thousands) $
i. Did the completed sewer system evaluation survey indicate that replacement or maior EPA USE
rehabilitation of an existing sewage collection system was necessary? ONLY
i Yes 2 J No — SKIP to item 28j
(1) Has the proposed replacement or major rehabilitation of this existing sewage
collection been determined by the State to be necessary to the total integrity
and performance of the waste treatment works servicing this community?
1 J Yes — Indicate determination 2 fl No — SKIP to item 28j
and where a copy can
be obtained —
Date Nature of determination
Location of copy
Basis of cost
estimate
From above
(2) Cost of replacement or major rehabilitation (Report in thousands) $
Subtotal — Cost of Category III needs $
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATES OF CATEGORY III NEEDS
29 a. Construction is expected to begin (Year) 19 — —
b. Construction is expected to be completed (Year) 19 — —
Page 23
-------
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST — Continued
-. -. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS — F EM3O I .
The Act provides for the construction of new collector sewers to correct violations of secondary treatment
requirements caused by raw discharges, seepage to waters from septic tanks, cesspools, etc., and/or to
comply with applicable court orders, permit stipulations, or administrative actions.
Section 211 of the Act provides that new collectors can be funded only in communities existing prior to
the enactment of the Act, October 18, 1972, and then only if the community has sufficient existing or
planned capacity to adequately treat the collected sewage. Sewage collection systems for new commu-
nities, new subdivisions, and newly developed urban areas, are not covered under the construction grant
program. Provision for sewers for such areas are to be included as part of the development costs of the
new construction. If you have any questions as to whether your area is considered to be a new com-
munity or not, contact your State agency. A collector sewer system means one 9 r more sewers connected
to the same interceptor.
SPECIFIC INSTRUCT IONS — ITEMS 30a — 30d
30a, Indicate “Yes,” “No,” or “Not known” by marking the appropriate box.
b. Mark “Yes,”if the treatment plant now has existing or pLanned excess capacity adequate to treat
any additional wastewaters to be transported to it by the proposed collectors.
c. Based on the explanation in the General Instructions above, indicate “Yes” or “No” by marking
the appropriate box.
d. New collector sewers constitute a reportable need under this survey only if items 30a, b, and c were
all marked “Yes.” In this case, indicate by marking the appropriate box the primary reason for
each new collector sewer. (If more than five sewers ore proposed, record the primary reason for
each additional sewer in item 32.)
If reasons 3 through 7 are marked for any proposed sewer, indicate in item 32, the type of order or
permit, its date, the person or agency who authored the document, and the location where the EPA
Regional Office can obtain a copy.
I GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS — ITEM 31
The Act provides for the construction of new interceptor sewers to correct violations of secondary treat-
ment requirements caused by raw discharges, seepage to waters from septic tanks, cesspools, etc. and/or
to comply with applicable court orders, permit stipulations, or administrative actions.
The definition of existing community as described in the General Instructions in 28 above applies to
this item also.
L SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS — ITEMS 31o — 31cJ
3lo. Mark “Yes,” if there is a need for one or more interceptor sewers in the area now served (or expected
to be served) by this treatment plant.
b. Mark “Yes,” if the plant is required or will be required to treat untreated wastewaters now being
collected by a facility under the jurisdiction of another authority.
c. Mark “Yes,” if the treatment plant now has existing or planned excess capacity adequate to treat
any addlticinal wastewaters to be transported to it by the proposed interceptors.
d. Based on the deftnitions In the General Instructions above, indicate “Yes” or “No” by ma,yking the
appropriate box.
Page 24
-------
Authority and.Facility No.
Section VI — CATEGORY IV — ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR NEW
COLLECTOR SEWER SYSTEMS
3 Oa. Is there a need for one or more new
collector sewers in the area now
served (or expected to be served)
by this treatment plant?
Mark (X) appropriate box(es) for each item
EPA USE ONLY
1 E] Yes — Continue with jem 30b
‘
2 p lo v,o
Jr.lr i.O
3 E] Not known at this time item 31a
b. Does this treatment plant now have existing
or planned excess capacity adequate to
treat any additional wastewaters to be
transported to it by the proposed collectors?
1 E] Yes — Continue with item 30c
.
2 U No — SKIP to item 31a
‘ .
c. Do the wastewaters to be transported in the
proposed collectors originate in communities
existing prior of October IS, 1972?
1 E] Yes — Continue with item 30d
.
2 E] No — SKIP to item 31o
d. What is the primary reason for each new
collector sewer needed? (If more than five,
supply same data in item 32.)
(Mark appropriate box(es) and explain
lines 3—7 in item 32.)
(1) Correct violation of secondary treatment
requirement caused by raw discharges • . .
(2) Correct violation of secondary treatment
requirement caused by seepage to waters
from septic tanks, outhouses, etc
(3) Comply with order of health authority . . . .
(4) Comply with State or Federal
court order
(5) Cumpy with State or Federal Permit
or Enforcement Action
(6) Required by EPA-approved plan
(7) Other — Specify _ 7
COLLECTOR_SEWERS
1st
2nd
3rd
—
4th 5th
Longest
2nd
longest
3rd
longest
4th
longest
5th
longest
1
1
1
1
1
— —
ZEJ
2I
2J
2E1
2E1
3 E ]
3 J
UJ
EJ
EJ
4
4
4
4
4 E]
El
El
5
5 El
— —
GUI
GEl
6E]
GE]
GE]
— —
E1
7El
L:l
EJ
L:l
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR NEW
INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
3la. Is there a need for one or more new
interceptor sewers in the area now
served (or expected to be served)
by this treatment plant?
1 E] Yes
2 El No
3 E] Not known at this time
b. Is this plant required (or will it be
required) to treat presently untreated
wastewaters now being collected by
another authority?
El Yes
2 No
3 E] Not known at this time
c. Does this treatment plant r pw have
existing or planned excess capacity
adequate to treat any additional
wastewaters to be transported to it
by the proposed interceptors’
1 E]Yes — Continue with item 31d
.
2 E] No — SKIP to item 33a and/or 35.
.
.
d. Do the wastewaters to be transported in the
proposed interceptors originate from a
— community existing prior to October 18, 1972?
1 E] Yes — Continue with item 31e
2 E] No — SKIP to item 33a and/or 35
—
Page 25
-------
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST — Continued
;; , - ;--, - ‘ ,-•“•
SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS — ITEM 31 e — 32 ‘ ‘!‘ /
3 le. Indicate the basis of the need for each new interceptor sewer. More than one basis for each
need may be chosen.
f. Only if items 31a or b, and c and d are “Yes.” indicate by marking in the appropriate box,
the primary reason for each new interceptor sewer.
If more than five interceptor sewers are proposed, record the primary reason for each addi-
tionai sewer in item 32.
If reasons (2) through (4) are marked for any proposed interceptor sewer, indicate in item
32. the type of order or permit, its date, the person or agency who authorized the document,
and the location where the EPA Regional Office can obtain a copy.
32. This item is to record any additional data which can not fit in the spaces provided for the
individual questions. Be sure to indicate the item number and letter along with the addi-
tional data.
Page 26
-------
i utnority and 1-acuity No.
Section VI — CATEGORY IV — ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST — Continued
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR NEW
INTERCEPTOR SEWERS — Continued
3le. What is the basis for the need(s)
for new interceptors?
(1) To transport untreated wastes from
e isturug collector(s) to treatment plant
(2) To transport untreated wastes from new
collectors to treatment plant
(3) To transport wastes now being treated
at another plant to this plant
Mark (X) appropriate box(es) for each item
i EYes
2 No
EPA USE ONLY
I J Yes
2 No
I Yes
2 No
INTERCEPTORS
Longest
f. What us the primary reason for each new
interceptor sewer need ed (If more than
five, supply same data in stem 32.)
(Mark appropriate box(es) and explain
lines 2—4 in stem 32.)
( ) Correct violations of secondary
treatment requirements
(2) Comply with court order, enforcement
proceedings, etc
(3) Required by EPA-approved plan
(4) Other — Specify —. 7
2nd
longest
3rd
longest
4th
longest
5th
longest
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
i [
cj
‘ : :
‘o
‘ : :
2E
2 [ J
2E
2E
2E
E
D
E
E
E
-
ADDITIONAL DATA ON NEEDS
32. Enter item reference and explanation
Item reference
Explanation
.
‘I
‘.
I
Page 27
-------
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST — Continued
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS — ITEM 33 [ ; . . 1’)
Only costs for new collector and/or interceptor sewers will be entered in this item. Costs for the
rehabilitation of existing sewers should be reported under item 28. Costs for new sewers
to separate combined sewers should be reported under items 35 and 36.
If items 30d and/or 3 1f were ‘Yes.” select the particular item or items required and complete the
corresponding line. Indicate the number required, the length in feet, the estimated cost, and the
basis for the estimate.
j SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS — ITEMS 33a — 34b f i)
33a.thru d. Supply information requested.
e. Sub-total of costs entered in 33a through d.
34o. Indicate the year in which construction of these Needs is expected to begin.
b. Indicate the year in which construction of these Needs is expected to be completed.
Page 28
-------
Authority and Facility No.
Section VI — CATEGORY IV — ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST — Continued
ADDITIONAL DATA ON NEEDS — Continued
32. Enter item reference and explanation — Continued
Item reference
Explanation
—
CODES AND DEFINITIONS FOR \ 1 — Actual contract costs 4 — Cost of previous comparable construction
BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES ) 2 — Bid/proposal from completed specifications 5 — Engineer/consultant preliminary estimate
(For use In column 4 below) 3 — Engineer/consultant firm estimate 6 — EPA .supplied cost estimating procedures
Complete ONLY Ii items 30d and/or 311 were completed
COST OF NEEDS FOR NEW COLLECTOR AND/OR INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
(This category EXCLUDES rehabilitation of existing Number Tota’ feet Total cost Basis of cost
sewers, reportable under items 26 and 28, and new i’equired required Report in estimate
sewers needed to separate combined sewers reportable - thousands From above
under items 35 and 36) (1) (2) (3) (4)
330. New collector sewers $
b. New interceptor sewers
c. New force mains
d. New pumping stations - -
e. Subtotal: Cost of all — - -I
Category IV needs ‘1
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATES OF CATEGORY IV NEEDS b
340. Construction is expected to begin(Yeor) 19 — —
b. Construction is expected to be completed (Year) 19 — —
Page 29
-------
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST — Continued
- . GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS — ITEM 35 - , - - 5 ; C -
- - - -
The Act requires that periodic bypassing of untreated wastes from combined sanitary/storm
sewers to an extent violating the secondary treatment and/or water quality standard effluent
limitations of Section 301, as defined by EPA or an applicable State law, must be eliminated,
Additionally, such correction may be specifically required by a court order, a permit stipulation
or an administrative action binding on the facility.
This item includes questions on the existence of, and types of correction required for, such
violations. Note that the costs of correcting any such conditions can be reported only if an
evaluation has been made of the costs and benefits of the various alternative methods for correc-
tion, which demonstrates’that the Needs reported herein are the most economical and/or efficient
SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS — ITEMS 35a — 3Sf — )
35 a. SeIf-explanotory.
b. In determining the frequency with which bypassing occurs, do not count more than one such
occurrence within any one 24hour period. However, if bypassing persists for a period of
more than 24 hours, count one occurrence for each consecutive period of 24 hours or less.
c. If the correction of violations noted in 35b is specifically required by a water quality plan.
indicate the title of the plan or a description thereof, its date, the person and/or agency who
authored the document and the location where a copy can be obtained by the EPA Regional
Office.
d. If the correction of violations noted in 35b is specifically required by a court order, permit
stipulation or other type of administrative action, indicate the nature of the action, its date,
and the location where a copy can be obtained by the EPA Regional Office.
e, If such a cost/benefit evaluation has been made, identify the name and/or nature of the
evaluation, the person or agency who authored the document, its date, and the locatior\where
a copy can be obtained by the EPA Regional Office.
f. Answer “Yes,” only if the modifications of existing facilities or construction of new
facilities necessary to correct the violations noted in 35b have been determined to be cost
effective in the evaluation cited in 35e.
Page 30
-------
Authority and Facility No.
Section VII — CATEGORY V — ASSESSEMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST _____
d. Is correction of the violations noted
in 35b specifically required by a
State or Federal court order, permit
or license, or other enforcement of
reguiator/ action binding on this
discharge?
f. Are modifications of existing
facilities or construction of
new facilities necessary to
correct the conditions noted
in 35b above, which have been
determined to be cost-effective
in the evaluation cited in 33ev
1 Yes — Continue with item 35 b
2 J No — SKIP to item 38a
lENotknown
2 Does not occur. . . Skip to item 3 8a
E Once a year or lessJ
4 More than once a year — Specify Frequency
average annual frequency
1 No
2 EYes; required by plan approved
by State and EPA
3 Yes; required by plan
approved by State
4 J Yes; required by plan not
yet approved by State
1 No
2 J Order of State court
El Order of Federal court
4 J State Dermit
t:J Federal permit
6 El State enforcement proceeding
7 Federal enforcement proceeding
8 EJ Other — Specify
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS FOR
CORRECTION OF COMBINED SEWERS
35a. Are any of the sewers which comprise
or are connected to this facility
combined sanitary storm sewers?
Mark (X) appropriate boxes
b. With what frequency do such combined
sewers require periodic bypassing of
untreated wastewaters to an extent
violating the secondary treatment and/or
water quality standards effluent
limitations of Section 301 of the Act 7
EPA USE
ONLY
c. Is correction of the violations noted
in 35b, specifically required by a
water quality plan?
Identify pIan_ ,
Title/description Date
Author Authority
Location of copy
:]
5 iaentij-y action— 1
ction
e.
Complete unless response
35c and 35d was “No,”
SKIP to Item 38a
to both Items
In which case,
1 Yes — Identify such
Name/description
analysis
.-
Has an evaluation
costs and benefits
alternative methods
the violations noted
demonstrates that
herein are the most
and/or efficient?
been made of the
of the various
for correction of
in 35b above which
the needs reported
economical
Authority
Date
Location of copy
2 El No such evaluation
has
been
made
— SKIP to item 3&a
i J No — SKIP to item 38
2 El Yes — Continue with item 36a
t
Page 3 I
-------
ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST - Continued
‘: I GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS — ITEM 3 I
Estimated costs should be reported only ii the response to 3Sf is “Yes.”Iri that case, select the corrective
action or actions required and complete the corresponding line(s). Indicate the number required, the length
in feet or volume in million gallons, the estimated cost, the basis for the estimate, and the beginning and
ending construction dates.
- SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS — ITEMS ‘5a — 37b
36o. Indicate which type(s) of sewers are required, considering that the existing combined sewer may be
retained for one type of use.
b. The retention basins or lagoons, reported here are those required to store wastes prior to treatment,
thus preventing bypassing or overloading of the treatment plant. These must be distinguished from
those lagoons reportable in box 3 of 22b(l), which are designed to hoid the effluent after treatment.
c. Costs and supportive data to be entered in this block are only those required to correct combined
sewer overflows, and even then, only if in addition to any treatment capacity data and costs already
reported in items 17 and 22 respectively.
d. Includes costs of any equipment or construction intended to level off peak flows by routing excess
waters in a different manner than ordinarily employed, provided the excess waters are returned for
treatment when peak conditions subside.
e. Identify each type of corrective action not otherwise classifiable, and provide appropriate data.
f. Summation of all costs entered in blocks 36a, b, c, d, and e.
3 7a. Indicate the year in which construction of these Needs is expected to begin.
b. Indicate the year in which construction of these Needs is expected to be completed.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS — ITEM 38 -
This concludingsummation of individual category costs will result in the total cost of all Needs for the
facility. This total, in turn, is used to derive the total cost of all Needs identified by this Authority.
- .••• .. . - - 7
[ - SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS — ITEMS 38a — 38f )
38. Transfer costs of each category, if any, from the indicated cost blocks to item 38. Enter “0” or
“——“ if no costs are required for a particular category. Add numbers to detetj ine the total cost of
Needs for the facility.
Page 32
-------
Authority and Facility No.
Section VII — CATEGORY V — ASSESSEMENT OF NEEDS BY TYPE AND COST —Continued
CODES AND DEFINITIONS FOR
BASIS OF COST ESTIMATES
or use in column 4 below)
complete appropriate items below ONLY if
item 35f was marked “Yes.”
COST OF NEEDS FOR CORRECTION OF
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS ___________
36 a. Construction of new sewers to separate
existing combined sewers
(1) New collectors
(2) New interceptors
(3)New storm sewers
1 — Actual contract costs
) 2 — Bid/proposals from completed specifications
/ 3 — Engineer/consultant firm estimate
4 — Cost of previous compariable constructiqn
5 — Engineer/consultant preliminary estimate
6 — EP -supplied cost estimating procedures
Number
required
Length (Feet) I
or -
volume (Mi !. , gal.)
Total cost
Report in
thousands
Basis of cost
estimate
From above
(1) -I
(2)___________
(3)
(4
$
C.
d.
e.
Construct storage/retention
basins or lagoon
Increase treatment capacity
Provide flow routing or
diversion chambers
Other — SPecifY_P
f. Subtotal — Cost of all
Category V needs S
J7a.
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION DATES OF CATEGORY
Construction is expected to begin (Year)
V NEEDS
‘
19— —
b.
Construction is expected to be completed (Year)
19 — —
Section VIII — SUMMARY OF
COSTS
OF
CATEGORY
NEEDS
38o.
Category I (from item 22 g on page I 7)
Total costs
5
b.
Category II (from item 26g on page 2!)
c.
Category Ill (from item 28j on page 23)
1’
L. d.
T
Category IV (from item 33e on page 29)
.
,
e.
Category V (from item 36f above)
b
t
— f.
GRAND TOTAL (All categories)
s
Page 33
-------
Remarks
I ’ 7.
Page 34
------- |