GUIDELINES FOR 1976 UPDATE OF NEEDS
FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER FACILITIES
FINAL
MARCH 24, 1976
^eo S7i,v
r sj>
r<
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
T Introduction 1
II Responsibilities for Categories I-IV
Estimates 2
III Sequence of Events and Major Deadlines 3
IV flajor Policies 13
V Specific Guidelines for Completing
Forms 19
Appendix I - EPA Adjustments to the
Appendix 2 - Cost Estimating
Appendix 3 - Explanations of Questions
Raised During Regional Briefing Sessions,
i
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
Sections 205(a) and 516(b) of the Federal Water I'oLlution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) require
that the Environmental Protection Agency provide Congress, no
later than February 10, 1977, with an estimate of needed
publicly-owned wastewater treatment works. The provisions of
the law have the dual purpose of obtaining a comprehensive
estimate of the total cost of meeting the goals of the FWPCA,
and of estimating these costs State-by-State as a possible
basis for the allocation of construction grant funds.
B. SCOPE OF 1976 UPDATE
The 1976 Update will involve reviewing, validating
and revising the estimates of needs reported in the 1974
Survey on a facility by facility basis, so that the degree of
confidence in these estimates is enhanced. Two EPA
contractors will assist in the conduct of the 1976 effort -
one to provide an update of facility-by-facility
requirements in Categories I through IV, and another to update
estimates in Categories V and VI. Needs reporting
categories are as follow:
Category I - Secondary Treatment and Best Practicable
Wastewater Treatment Technology
Category II - More Stringent Treatment
Category IIIA - Infiltration/Inflow Correction
Category IIIB - Major Sewer System Rehabilitation
Category IVA - New Collectors and Appurtenances
Category IVB - New Interceptors and Appurtenances
Category V - Correction of Combined Sewer Overflows
Category VI - Treatment and/or Control of Stormwaters
The two main purposes of performing the Update with
contractor assistance are to achieve as high a degree of
National consistency in the final estimates as possible
through uniformly applied guidelines and validation
techniques, and to reduce the amount of State and EPA Regional
construction grant staff involvement from that which has been
diverted in past Needs Surveys.
(1)
-------
The 1974 Survey was influenced significantly by Public
Law 93-243, which was an Amendment to Public Law 92-500. This
Amendment required the reporting of all potential eligible
needs to meet the long-range facility requirements of the Act.
The 1976 Update will involve a basic change in that reported
facility requirements will. be based entirely on effluent
requirements that are related to Water Quality Standard a
current 1. y upprovcd by El' A . (See d e t « L 1 ed definition In Item
2 7.)
This survey is restricted to publicly-owned wastewater
treatment works, which include treatment plants, sewers, and
many other types of related 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. Costs for
facilities built at publicly-owned water treatment plants for
pretreatment, retention or treatment of wastes from water
purification processes are ineligible for grants and should
not be reported .
II. RESPONSIBILITIES FOR CATEGORIES I-IV ESTIMATES
A. CONTRACTOR
The Contractor will assist EPA in a facility-by- facility
Update of the 1974 Needs data of record. This update effort
will be done through the cooperation of EPA Regional and State
personnel. Individual. facility data files will be updated
through an evaluation of the most current information. A
determination will be made between the Contractor,EPA Regions,
and State personnel as to what information sources will most
accurately reflect current facility requirements and where
they are located. The Contractor will assist in securing
and verifying the new information, will prepare initial
revised cost estimates when appropriate within the context of
1976 EPA Update guidance, and will coordinate the review
of updated facility estimates with Regional and State Needs
personnel. Updated information will be entered on the new
Fo rm EPA-1 .
B. STATES
States will participate with the Contractor and EPA
Regions in determining the best available sources of current
facility information and the best scheme for assisting the
Contractor in securing this information. States may review
the contractor estimates and provide further information to
the contractor in support of revisions which they feel are
necessary. States may submit independent estimates if they
disagree with contractor estimates and the difference cannot
be resolved. Each State will have to determine the extent of
its involvement, as the type of interface with the Contractor
and EPA regions may vary considerably.
(2)
-------
C. REGIONS
Some of the Regional responsibilities are included in
paragraphs II, A and B above. The Regions will be a major
source of current facility information, will coordinate
Contractor interface with State Agencies, and will provide
final acceptance of estimates before final processing.
111. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AND MAJOR DEADLINES
A. ESTABLISHMENT OF UPDATE PROCEDURES
Immediately upon award of contract, organizational
meeting(s) will be held between representatives of the
contractor team and EPA staff. These meetings will establish:
1. initial management plan and update procedure concepts
2. necessary communication links
3. a measure of clarity on the contractor's part toward
the full objectives of the update as they apply to
this program
The contractor's next concern will be to review all
"manual" activities with regard to data collection and
validation. Where required, instructions will be prepared
by the contractor. The review will involve all manual
operations performed in Contractor and EPA Headquarters,
Contractor and EPA Regional Offices, and State Offices,
which are necessary for the gathering and updating of
data. Some examples of manual operations for which
procedures need to be developed are:
1. Document Control - the accountability of forms through
the various procedural steps
2. Data Collection - manner in which EPA files will be
used to update and/or verify 1974
Needs data for specific facilities
3. Information Dissemination - reproduction of forms in
various stages of completion and
the transmittal of data to
the functional groups
(3)
-------
Another major task concurrent with this review will be
the analysis of cost curves and other "rules of thumb"
supplied by EPA. Contractor cost analysis engineers will meet
with cognizant EPA engineering staff to review and comment on
the EPA-developed curves and other cost related tools and
methods. Such items as the base from which these estimates
were derived, their applicability to the particular situation
and available data, and their usefulness throughout the entire
geographic area served will be reviewed, and amendments made
where necessary. If required, the contractor will develop any
new cost-estimating procedures necessary to adequately project
facility costs.
The contractor's next major task will be to develop an
operations and training manual to be utilized by contractor
personnel. Copies will be made available to EPA Headquarters
and Regional staff, and State update staff for
informational purposes. The manual may contain
information of the following nature:
1. Background on the 1976 Update objectives
2. Detailed information on the procedures to be used in
update (manual operations, communication lines,etc.)
3. Delineated responsibilities of each labor category
involved in the update
4. Full explanation of all cost-estimating procedures
5. Corporate policies that may impact this program (such
as travel)
B. PROVISION OF DATA-OF-RECORD
EPA Headquarters will print the data-of-record for each
facility in the 197A Needs Survey onto the new 1976 Update
form and provide copies to the Contractor, Regions, and
States. The contractor will use this data as the starting
point for his updating effort.
C. BRIEFING
After the operations manual has been completed and
approved by the Project Officer, the Contractor will commence
training and orientation of participants in the program.
Training can be divided into separate functions: training and
briefing sessions for government personnel, and training for
contractor staff.
(4)
-------
The training and briefing sessions for government
personnel will be conducted in eleven locations; EPA
Headquarters and each of the ten EPA Regional Offices. A
general overview of the update and a philosophy of the method
of approach will be offered. Techniques will be explained at
a level of detail appropriate to the audience.
The1 orientatLon session at Headquarters will lui the first
of the eleven briefings. All personnel attending that meeting
should be either directly involved with the update, or have
input to auxilliary operations. The briefing will be
oriented toward the objective of informing personnel fully
on all facets of the proposed operation.
Sessions held in each of the ten EPA Regional Offices
will be open to both the Regional Update staff and
State personnel to be directly involved in the Update
activities. Arrangements have been made with the contractor to
schedule one meeting per region, with the aid of the EPA
Regional NEEDS Coordinator and/or the Project Officer.
It will be important to have all of the State
representatives at these work sessions.
Concurrent, with EPA training, the contractor will
commence training of all contractor staff members. The main
difference between this training program and those meetings
held for the government's benefit will be the level of
technical detail covered. Contractor staff will not only
receive an overview of the objectives and methods of the
Update, but also training in their own special areas of
endeavor.
The contractor's operations and training manual will be
the primary reference text used for these training sessions
and for the duration of the Update.
(5)
-------
D. INITIAL CONTACTS WITH STATES AND REGIONS
An initial contact will be made by the contractor with
State/Regional personnel concurrent with, or immediately
following, the briefing sessions to:
1. Review with each State Update procedures which will
be specifically carried out in that State. As a
minimum, an understanding should be established in
the following areas:
(a). Establish a plan for which facilities
will receive the major emphasis and/or be
reviewed first. This may be decided on the
basis of the dollar amount of the facility,
expected difficulty of updating needs and
obtaining technical data, or any other
logical basis. A time schedule should be
established from this plan for the entire
Update period to identify major completion
milestone dates.
(b). Establish a basic understanding of coordination
procedures and ground rules for necessary
contractor visits within the State.
(c). The contractor will perform the Update on the
basis of information he obtains. If it is
jointly determined that the most accurate
data sources are elsewhere, then
appropriate arrangements may be made for
their review within the Contractor's time and
resource contraints.
(d). Determine if the State will provide additional
information to the contractor on new facilities
that have been identified since the 1974
Survey. New facility requirements may be the
result of the State adopting a 100 percent
estimate (following the Update policy on this
in paragraph V J ), or may have been
identified by the State for any other reason.
If a State identifies no new facility
requirements there will be no direct attempt
by the contractor to do so - except that his
general review and cross check of existing
facility file data may identify a facility
requirement missed in previous Needs reporting.
(6)
-------
2. Provide a detailed review of the specific
adjustments that will be made to the 1974 Survey
data in tlie 1 976 Update.
i. Obtain an early Indication from the State of the
known unique conditions in each Stale which
would cause contractor estimates made through use
of National cost estimating procedures to be
significantly inaccurate. In this process the States
will be asked to identify any factors that will create
a major impact on contractor cost estimating.
Identification of such factors is essential so
that any potential policy disagreements can be
resolved as early in the updating as possible. The
areas with the highest potential for disagreement
relate to flow per capita, population and abnormal
construction cost conditions. States will be
notified of final or interim decisions on all issues.
E. INITIAL DATA UPDATE
The contractor will perform the first phase of the
updating action by modifying the individual facility data to
reflect grant awards and new needs.
F. ADJUSTMENTS TO FACILITY DATA
The main concern of EPA, relevant to this program, is to
obtain a reasonably accurate picture of the costs necessary to
raise the quality of the effluent from municipal wastewater
treatment facilities to a level of secondary treatment or EPA
approved Water Quality Standards, whichever is more stringent.
A secondary concern is to obtain an accurate overview of all
facilities within the United States and its Territories. Any
approach to the task of data collection for the 1976 NEEDS
Update should be designed to ensure the presentation of a
"complete" inventory of municipal wastewater treatment
facilities. Through this data collection effort the
groundwork should be established for estimating the true needs
of these same facilities.
(7)
-------
The National Commission on Water Quality and its
consultants found the following shortcomings of the previous
Needs Surveys:
1. population estimates (overestimated by States)
2. level of industrial flows (underestimated)
3. unreported needs for sludge handling and disposal
(underestimated)
4. unreliability of discharge requirements that
facilities must meet (overestimated)
5. failure of many facilities to update their 1973 NEEDS
Survey (underestimated)
The contractor should plan to arrive at cost-estimating
procedures which will produce reliable dollar figures and
eliminate or reduce the above mentioned areas of error.
Individual facility data will be reviewed by the
contractor and adjusted as necessary to achieve consistancy
with the 1976 Update policy guidance including such items as
population, flow, effluent requirements, and cost curves. In
performing the update efforts indicated in both this and the
preceeding paragraphs, the contractor will be using
information from Regional data sources such as: the grant
files; O&M files; permit files; priority basin files; state
effluent guidelines and water quality standards; basin, area
and facility plans; any State and local sources agreed on for
use as provided above.
EPA will supply the contractor with an Update form
for each facility that participated in the 1974 Survey.
This form will be pre-printed with data from the NEEDS Survey
data bank. This update form will serve as the only vehicle
for capturing new or more up-to-date information on the
characteristics of the facilities. It will remain in the
process until both the State and Region have agreed to the
1976 cost analysis for the facility, or until the contractor
submits his estimate without State/Regional acceptance. The
contractor will first sort all the forms for a
particular State based on the previously established plan (see
Section III,D,1,(a)), with others entering the process
system as the work flow allows, (approximately 15% of the
reports covering the largest facilities accounted for 85% to
90% of the estimated costs in previous surveys.)
(8)
-------
Both the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System) file and the Construction Grant file will be used for
data gathering purposes. All data extracted from these files
will be inserted in the appropriate areas of the update form,
adjacent to the existing needs data. Where data gathered from
previous surveys appears and is in direct conflict with file
data, the NPDES and Construction Grant file data will
supercede the needs data. The rationale for this is as
follows: (1) the permit data has been gathered for public
display, and by law must be correct, (2) the permit data is at
most 18 months old (about as old as the newest data gathered
during the 1974 Needs Survey), and may be much newer, and (3)
grants data involve public funds and should therefore be quite
accurate.
The Contractor will be facilitated in the above effort by
the "Cross-Reference Index." This cross index will
indicate the NPDES file number and all grant numbers for each
facility covered in the 1974 Needs Survey.
Data will be extracted from the permit application and
the permit itself. Among the critical data elements used
to verify needs from this data source are:
1. population (1990 and present)
2. total flow (avg. and design)
3. industrial flow (avg. and design)
4. B0D5 (avg. and design)
5. suspended solids (avg. and design)
6. phosphorous (avg. and design)
7. total n (avg. and design)
8. treatment procedures and methods
9. sludge handling procedures and methods
10. level of treatment required to meet existing
water quality limitations
The Grant file will be accessed to find out if any grants
have been awarded since May 1974. Grants awarded after May
1974 for which needs were reported in the 1974 Survey will be
reduced by the amount of the grant award.
(9)
-------
After data has been gathered from the Tiles and recorded
011 I lie appropriate forma by the contractor's staff, the forms
will then be given to the contractor's c os t -e s t I ma t 111 g
en y, I u o o r h for cost analysis and technical review. It Is
expected t hut the contractor will conduct several "levels" o f
lor in processing In tills task. Contact with cognizant parties
to request additional information on which to base
decisions will be made at this time. The latter may
involve telephone or letter contact, or personal visits to
States or municipalities. The contractor will maintain
suspense files on specific problem areas and information needs.
As the required cost estimates are being completed for
facilities, the set of forms will be batched and copied.
The size of the batches and method of distribution
will be determined by the Contractor on the basis of a
system that will insure a continuous flow of forms
throughout the Update period, and distribution that is
expeditious but insures document accountability. (A
more complete reference is made to the latter in Section TTT
G.) One complete set will be sent to the State for their
review. A second set wiJ. 1 be maintained in the Regional
Offices for use by both the Contractor's staff and the EPA
Regional Needs personnel. The original. will be retained
by the Contractor in his central processing facility pending
review and comment by the. State.
When the states receive their batched sets of forms, and
have reviewed each facility, they will communicate to the
Contractor those facilities which have acceptable costs (so
the originals may be released for coding and keypunching).
For those facilities whose costs are unacceptable to the
States, it will be incumbent upon the State to formally
communicate those differences (via the State's copies of the
1976 forms) to the Contractor. Those forms submitted as
alternative costs must be signed by the appropriate State
Agent. All state comments in the "form-review" stage must be
made on a facility-by-facilit.y basis. (For example, the
States may not lump individual facilities together when
commenting on category costs.)
It is understood that the above task is a continuing one,
and that the States will be receiving their copies in batch
shipments after they are processed through the Contractor's
technical and cost analysis review. This will allow the
States more time to review contractor estimates of individual
facilities.
(10)
-------
In two cases, facility data must be sought out at the
State level: (1) facilities that are in the planning stage
and that have not been reported in prior NEEDS Surveys, and
(2) facilities that are in the planning stage, that have been
reported in prior NEEDS Surveys, but that have not yet been
issued a permit or grant, i.e., facilities that are known
to the system but on which no data is available In the normal,
sources other than data reported in prior NEEDS Surveys.
The State will be asked to identify all facilities of the
type described in (1) above, and will be asked to supply the
best data available for all of the data elements listed on the
NEEDS form. They will also be asked to carefully review and
update the available NEEDS data on facilities of the type
described in (2) above. Copies of NEEDS forms will be left
with the States for this purpose. Resulting requests for
information should be limited, however, as the possible number
of any such facilities in a State is actually small and of
high current interest in State offices.
Tf the State does not have the manpower available to meet
these requests, the Contractor may arrange to place. one (or
several) of his staff members in the State offices to assist
in preparing the data. It is hoped that the States will
cooperate at least to the extent of giving the Contractor
access to their files, or nothing valid can be done in the
area of new facilities.
When data on a new facility is obtained by the
Contractor, it will be reviewed for completeness and checked
against the Region permit and grant files. A NEEDS
authority/faci1ity number will be assigned and the facility
will be added to the wastewater facility cross index. The
EPA Regional NEEDS Coordinator will be asked to review
the material and add anything he might know about the new
facility. The form will then be sent to the Contractor's
processing facility and handled in the same manner as
all other facilities in the balance of the process.
(11)
-------
G. REGIONAL/STATE REVIEW OF UPDATE
The individual facility forms that have been updated by
the Contractor wi]] be forwarded for State review.
Updated forms will be submitted for review In batches.
The contractor wiJl forward sue li documents to the pertinent
States at frequent intervals to Insure both cout I minus
f J. o w of documents and accountability. The frequency
of distribution should be in accord with the genera], schedule
of facility review that is discussed in paragraph
IIID,l,(a) - which affords an even distribution of work over
the entire estimating period, prevents a massive last minute
resource commitment, and identifies major problems first.
The Contractor will indicate on a cover sheet
transmitting each batch, the date by when the State should
complete their review and perform one of the following
actions:
1. Notify the contractor the facility figures are
acceptable, or
2. Notify the contractor where there is disagreement with
the data and decide with the contractor on any actions
which are. necessary to settle the issue.
Tf disagreements cannot be settled with the Contractor,
the State may provide a separate estimate by returning the
facility forms, marked-up to reflect what is felt by the State
to be the correct data.
This period will provide the State an opportunity to
review the Contractor estimates before the facility data is
entered for final processing and data summarization. Because
of time constraints, the contractor will be able to modify
estimates only during the specified "batch-review" period
which immediately precedes data automation. Any action to
change an estimate beyond this review period will be handled
as in the paragraph above - in which situation the State
estimate would be treated in the final February, 1977 Report
to the Congress as a separate estimate - independent from the
EPA est ima te.
(12)
-------
H. DATA CONVERSION
Conversion of data to machine-readable form will take
place continuously from about the eighth week after initiation
of data collection until all data has been converted. The
Contractor is responsible for designing preliminary
specifications for data entry, including all keyboarding
tasks. Record format and length will be determined, but will
be similar to 1974. Output medium of key-preparation is to be
9 track 800 BPI magnetic tape.
There is provision in the 1976 NEEDS Contract for on-site
programming staff to support EPA during the contract period.
The NEEDS Project Officer will be the sole director of their
activities. EPA will supply all computer time to the project.
IV. MAJOR POLICIES
This section sets forth the major policies of the 1976
Update, and other policies which have general applicability
and do not necessarily relate to specific items in the form.
A. UATA-OF-RKCORD
The starting point of the 1976 Update is the
data-of-record preprinted on Form EPA-1 "Estimate of Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Facility Requirements." The
data-of-record will differ from cost values submitted in 1974
due to processing actions. See EPA adjustments to 1974 Needs
Survey Data Base in Appendix 1 for details. All cost figures
will have been automatically updated to reflect 1976 dollars
(based on the January 1976 construction cost index.)
This data base may be left the same if the
information for a given facility is still accurate; it may be
altered to reflect changed cost requirements for any of the
reported facilities. Any new facility requirement will be
identified by completing a new Form EPA-1. Alterations in the
data base are accomplished by filling out all or part of form
EPA-1 in the shaded spaces provided in each data item number
that is applicable. Data should be corrected or added when
missing even if those changes do not result in changed cost
estimates.
(13)
-------
B. LEVEL OF EFFORT
The contractor will spend more time on the analysis of
estimates relating to the large and/or significant facilities
- possibly visiting these treatment authorities If data from
oilier sources is Inadequate. The requirement for a plan for
how thin is to be accomplished was identified In paragraph
I HI), 1 , (a) .
C. DOLLARS
All costs are to be reported in thousands of dollars.
Hundreds should be rounded to the nearest thousand. Cost
figures should be entered as indicated In the following
example:
If the figure is: $1,283,652,522
It should be reported as 1,283,653.
All costs are to be in current (January, 1976) dollars.
Unchanged needs from 1974 which were reported in 1973 dollars
will be automatically adjusted by inflation multipliers to
1976 dollars (as indicated above) in the Data- of-Record
printed on the individual facility forms.
D. SECONDARY TRKATMKNT
Wherever reference is made to terms relating to
"secondary treatment" it shall be considered for the 1976
Update to be synonymous with the term "Best Practicable Waste
Treatment Technology (BPWTT)." Also for the purposes of this
Update, BPWTT will mean secondary treatment under the
treatment and discharge alternative, unless higher levels of
treatment are required by water quality standards or other
requirements. Nothing in these definitions affects the July
1, 1977 secondary treatment requirements of the Act.
E. DESIGN YEAR
Costs are to be based on the design of facilities which
will serve the projected 1990 resident population. The
composite State-wide 1990 population figures are those used in
the 1974 Survey. If a firm design has been based on a year
beyond 1990, the facility costs should be adjusted to reflect
the 1990 population figures. Adjustments in the cost of
facilities to serve the 1990 population should be made through
the use of appropriate cost curves.
(14)
-------
F. UNITS OF MEASUREMENT
Most data will be collected In English units (feet,
gallons, etc.) of measurement, but may be converted through a
computer program so the Finn! Report can reflect either metric
or English units, or both.
G. COST ESTIMATING
Cost factors have been brought up to date by analysis of
a large number of recent actual bids for grant projects
throughout the country. A series of simplified cost curves
derived from this analysis are attached in Appendix 2 and may
be used in the absence of more detailed engineering estimates.
Appendix 2 also contains policies that will govern the
cost estimating effort in the 1976 Update. The policies will
cover such areas as allowances for existing plants, where
plant expansion costs are being estimated.
H. ALLOWABLE BASTS FOR PLANT ESTIMATES
As indicated in Section I,B the 1976 Update will be
limited to facility requirements that are based on effluent
criteria included in State Water Qualify Standards approved by
EPA as of February 1, 1976. (See detailed definition in Ttem
27. )
Estimates for the Update must also be in accord with
current municipal construction grant eligibility guidelines as
specified in the February 11, 1974 Construction Grant
Regulations and supplemental Program Guidance Memoranda.
I. SAMPLE
The contractor will report needs using the same sample
groups as used by the States in the 1974 Survey. The States
will have the option to go to a 100 percent report basis,
provided that additional requirements have previously been
identified and there is sufficient information to complete a
Form EPA-1 for each facility. States must provide the
contractor with a completed Form EPA-1 for each additional
facility by July 1, 1976. A decision must be made by the
State to go to a 100 percent basis of estimating by March 15,
1976; and written notification of such decision must be
officially sent to the EPA Regional Needs Coordinator. The
contractor will discuss this option with each State in his
initial contacts.
(15)
-------
For all States using a sample, the contractor will
validate the 1974 data. Included in such validation will be a
comparison of the sampled communities used by the State in the
1974 Survey with the communities that should have been
hp Iected In accordance with the sampling procedure contained
In the L 9 7 4 Survey Program ('¦ ul dance.
J. HAS F S OF EST T MATE
The 1976 Update retains the concept that the costs
reported for all needs must indicate the basis on which the
cost estimate was developed, and where available, provide data
to support the reported needs. Cost, estimating procedures are
contained in Appendix 2. Use of these procedures is no longer
optional as it was in the 1974 Survey. The basis of cost
estimates are explained below. If more than one is
applicable, use the code which represents the highest level of
accuracy.
1 - State certification
This relates to certifications by a State where
excessive infiltration/inflow does not exist.
These certifications must be based on stud Lea or
other Information available on the sewer system
before facility planning begins, or gathered In
the course of the. facility plannLng process and
must be acceptable to the. Regional Office. Code
'1' should not be used when a 'Code 2 Analysis' ,
or a 'Code 3 Survey' has been completed.
2 - Analysis completed
The estimate is based on documented cost
analysis, per 40 CFR, Part 35, February 11,
1974. This applies only to Category IIIA.
3 - Evaluation survey completed
This estimate of cost is based on the findings
of a Sewer System Evaluation Survey, completed
pursuant to 40 CFR, Part 35. T. t refers only to
Category IIIA.
4 - Engineer/Consultant firm estimate
The estimate is based on detailed engineering
work including detailed Step II plans and
specifications for construction grant
assistance.
(16)
-------
5 - Cost of previous comparable construction
This estimate is based on the cost of a project
which is similar in size and scope and for which
detailed construction cost data is available.
6 - Engineer/Consultant preliminary estimate
The estimate of cost is based on a completed
Step I Facilities Plan, including a cost
effective analysis, or for ITTA and TUB based
on a completed technical study which provides
sufficient information to estimate cost eligi-
bility and validity.
7 - EPA - supplied cost estimating procedures
The cost is estimated through the use of EPA
cost estimating procedures.
8 - Cost effective analysis
The estimate of cost is derived from comparative
economic evaluation of various alternatives, per
40 CFR, Part 35, but full facilities plans are
not completed.
9 - Rough estimate
The est ima te of
application of
procedures, e.g.
c o 81 is derived
crude and "rule
the cost of a
from the
of thumb"
secondary
treatment plant estimated at one dollar for
every gallon treated.
K. DESIGN FLOWS
A flow per capita per day of up to 125 gallons will be
allowed in the Update as an acceptable value for validation
purposes. Flow values that exceed 125 gallons per capita per
day must be justified on an individual case basis. This flow
value relates to domestic flow and includes an allowable
factor for commercial flows and for infiltration/inflow that
is not considered excessive (e.g., that amount of I/I which
cannot be economically eliminated). The flow figures used in
the Update should relate to design flow. Per capita
domestic/commercial flow does not include industrial flow,
excessive I/I, or the wet weather component of flow in a
combined sewer system. Design population should be used in
calculating per capita figures.
(17)
-------
Industrial flows for existing facilities will be
evaluated on the. basis of the following criteria:
1. Existing flows will be allowed
2 . Future flows will be alio we d to the extent t h» t r lie 1 r
need can be verified through letters of intent or
other documentation that is considered acceptable to
the EPA Regional office under its grant approval
policies.
3. Flows in excess of those validated in 1 and 2 above
will be allowed up to 2 0% of the 1 and 2 flow.
Industrial flows for new facilities (not yet built) will
be the greater of the following:
1. 10% of the design capacity or design pollutant loading
of the new plant, or
2. Actual flow to the extent that the need can be
verified through letters of intent or other
documentation that is considered acceptable to the EPA
Regional Office under its grant approval policLes.
Tf reported industrial flows do not meet the above
criteria, they will be flagged for further evaluations on an
individual case basis.
L. I.NFILTRATION/TNFLOW
Costs for nonexcessive I/T. (I/I which is more cost
e ffective to convey and treat than to eliminate) should be
reported in Category I,II, IVA and IVB as appropriate. Only
costs for correcting excessive i/l should be reported in
Category IIIA.
M. CATEGORY V - CORRECTION OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS AND
CATEGORY VI - TREATMENT AND/OR CONTROL OF STORMWATERS
Categories V and VI facility requirements will be
estimated through a separate Update contract. For this reason
there should not be any needs reported in this Category I-TV
Update for facility costs that are allocable to the control
and abatement of pollution attributable, to the wet weather
component of waste water in combined sewer systems, or costs
for facilities needed to control pollution discharges from
separate storm sewers.
(18)
-------
V. SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING FORMS
This section provides the specific policies which relate
to each item number in Form EPA-1. These individual item
1
descriptions may include an expansion of the "major Policies"
discussed in Section IV.
The form for the collection of data for the 1976 Needs
Update is substantially different in format from the 1974
Survey form, although the information gathered is essentially
identical. The form itself will be printed for each facility
included in the 1974 Survey, and will show for these
facilities the data-of-record from 1974. Space is provided by
each item for updated, new, or changed information. Much of
the form is to be filled out using the coded numbers listed on
the Code Reference Chart printed on the reverse side of the
form. The instructions that follow relate to each Item Number
in Form EPA-1.
ITEM NUMBER 1 Authority-Facility Numbers
In this update, every existing and proposed facility Is
uniquely identified by a combined authority and facility
number. The first two digits of the authority number are the
Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS-5) codes for
States and territories of the United States. The next four
numbers uniquely identify each authority within the State.
The last three numbers identify facilities within the
authority.
In past Needs Surveys, authority numbers were assigned
sequentially by each State agency, using whatever consistent
system was most convenient (i.e., alphabetically,
geographically, at random). For example, the first authority
number in Alabama was designated 01-0001. Facility numbers
were ordinarily assigned by each authority unless the State
agency had a complete inventory of all facilities operated by
each authority and decided to pre-number all questionnaires.
The 1976 Update will provide forms with data-of-record
information for all facilities reported in 1974. These Needs
numbers cannot be changed. The Contractor will be responsible
for assigning new authority and facility numbers for those new
authorities, new facilities, or facilities not reported in
1974. The contractor will work with the State agency in
assigning new authority numbers to insure no numbers are
duplicated and that the numbering system remains consistent
with the State's.
(19)
-------
Under each new authority, or for new facilities under an
authority already defined in the 1974 Survey, numbers should
be assigned to each existing and proposed facility. Do not
change existing numbers.
For all new facilities, the authority-facility number
should be written clearly in the space provided in item 1
and also in the lower right hand corner of the form.
ITEM NUMBER 2 Facility Name
In this Update, a "Treatment Facility" will usually
consist of a wastewater treatment plant, plus all collector
and interceptor sewers, pumping stations, or other auxiliary
facilities which feed into the plant and are under the control
of the same Treatment Authority that operates the treatment
plant. In most cases, therefore, a treatment facility will
consist of an entire wastewater treatment system, and only one
Update form should be completed, no matter how elaborate the
system. Separate forms on each collector sewer, pumping
station, etc., whether existing or proposed, are not required,
except as specified below.
Occasionally, a Treatment Authority operates only a
sewage plant; another authority is responsible for collection.
In this case, a form should be completed for the plant only; a
second form should be completed for the collection system
only. If a single authority has control over more than one
facility, a form should be completed for each facility.
The "Facility name" for a new facility should be the
name most frequently used by the Authority to identify this
facility. The name on the printout of record for facilities
reported in 1974 should not be changed unless considered
completely inappropriate.
ITEM NUMBER 3 Authority Name
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, please identify the unit. (For example,
"Auckland, City of, San. Dept," rather than merely "AUCKLAND"
or "LANCASTER COUNTY.")
(20)
-------
For purposes of this Update, 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 wastewater. 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 town or part of a single city or county; or it may include
all or part of a number of cities, towns, counties or other
places.
In some areas, there may be one Authority responsible for
collection of wastewaters and another Authority responsible
for treating them. In such cases, a form should be submitted
describing the respective functions and eligible needs within
the scope of this Update. Only those sections relevant to
collection need be filled out for an Authority which is only
responsible for collection services, etc.
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, no
forms need to be completed for such counties. However, it is
considered necessary that all populated places above 500
persons should be represented in this survey, either directly
or indirectly through the sampling process.
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:
1. If the area is an incorporated place, then the
government of the place should be considered to be the
Treatment Authority.
2. 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 have modified
the above guidelines for determining Treatment Authorities, if
State law provides for a different residual responsibility,
or, in New England, where the township consitutes the unit of
local government closest to "county."
(21)
-------
ITEM NUMBER 4 NPDES Number
Enter the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
Sybtem (NPDES) permit/application number.
ITEM NUMBER 5 Basin Code
These codes were developed by EPA to show the major/minor
basins where plant effluents are discharged. This information
is part of the data-of-record and will appear on most of the
1976 Update forms.
The contractor will be provided with a list of these
basin codes and will enter the codes for all facilities which
were missed during the 1974 Survey and for all new facilities.
ITEM NUMBER 6 245 Number
The Municipal Waste Facility Inventory (245 File) is an
automated data file which reflects the status,
characteristics, and types of disposal and treatment
facilities in place on January ], 1968. Every facility
included in the 245 data file has an assigned number. Where
this number is part of the 1974 Needs Survey data-of-record it
will be preprinted on the 1976 Update form. When missing, the
contractor will fill in this number by accessing the
cross-reference index.
ITEM NUMBER 7 Sample
If the facility is part of the sample group to be used in
the 1976 Update, check this box.
ITEM NUMBER 8 Facility Location
State:
This two digit number indicates the name of the State.
These numbers are based on the Federal Information
Processing Standard for designating States and outlying
areas of the United States (FIPS-5). The same numbers
are used in the Authority number assigned to each
treatment authority.
County:
This is the FIPS-6 code, which indicates the name of the
county.
(22)
-------
Place:
This number is derived from the "Geographic
Identification Place Scheme" developed by the Census
Bureau for use in the 1970 Censu9. The place code
numbers will be used to identify (on the questionnaire)
each place in which an authority or a facility is
located. The scheme uses the FIPS-5 and FIPS-6 codes
for State and counties. The place code itself is a
4-digit number assigned to each place within a State
which was identified in the Census. Numbers are
assigned in alphabetical order. The combination of the
2-digit State code and the 4-digit place code uniquely
identifies each place in the United States.
ITEM NUMBER 9 Congressional District
Record the number of the Congressional District(s) to
which this facility provides service. (For example, for a
plant which services the third and seventh districts, enter
"03" and "07.")
ITEM NUMBER 10 Submission Code
Indicate the proper code, as follows:
1. No change from data-of-record from 1974 Survey.
2. Facility not reported in 1974. This may include any
newly identified facility requirement, e.g., a
regional treatment plant proposed since the 1974
Survey.
3. Change from 1974
Changes in the 1974 cost data, occurring from such causes
as imposition of additional effluent limitations, designation
of water quality limited segments, or receipt of a grant award
for a previously-reported need should be reported. NOTE:
These causes may result in an increase, decrease, or deletion
of a 1974 need "of record" identified on the form.
ITEM NUMBER 11 City
The name of the city or town in which the facility is
located.
(23)
-------
ITEM NUMBER 12 County
The name of the county or county-equivalent In which the
facility is located.
ITEM NUMBER 13 Zip Code
The official Post Office zip code of the facility.
ITEM NUMBER 14a Facility Status
Indicate the proper code, as follows, for present
operational status of the facility.
1 - in operation
2 - not in operation
ITEM NUMBER 14b Nature of Facility
Indicate the proper code showing the existing (or, if
new, the proposed) type of facility, as follows:
] - A complete wastewater treatment system (includes a
treatment plant, with associated collector and/or interceptor
sewers, and methods for disposal of effluent, under control of
the same treatment authority) with combined sewers.
2 - A complete wastewater treatment system (includes a
treatment plant, with associated collector and/or interceptor
sewers, and methods for disposal of effluent, under control of
the same treatment authority) with separate sewers.
3 - A separate treatment plant. (The sewers which
discharge to this plant are under the control of one or more
different authorities.)
4 - 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.)
5 - A separate combined sewer system. (Includes one or
more interconnected sewers which carry both sanitary
wastewaters and stormwaters, 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.)
(24)
-------
6 - Other
ITEM NUMBER 14c Construction Grant Status
Grants made on needs reported in the 1974 Survey will be
automatically flagged before the start of the 1976 Update. If
there were construction grant funds approved or pending in
1974, the preprinted data-of-record will show the appropriate
code. The contractor will be provided with a supplemental
grant listing which shows all grants awarded under PL 92-500
up to December 31, 1975 and will update each from to show the
current grant status. The codes are as follow:
1 - construction grant funds approved or pending in 1974
2 - no applicable grants
Construction grants are constantly in the process of
being approved by EPA. For purposes of the 1976 Update, all
applications and pending grants should be reported as needs.
Grants made before January 1, 1976 should be subtracted from
the needs of record. All grants awarded after January 1, 1976
should be reported as needs and should not be subtracted from
reported needs.
Cost overruns or other increases in the cost of
construction of facilities which are a part of an approved
grant are excluded from the scope of this Update and should
not be reported as needs. However, costs to upgrade treatment
(e.g., to EPA-defined secondary treatment level) above the
level specified in an approved grant should be included in
this Update.
Facilities which are under construction, or that have
received a grant from EPA but are not under construction,
should be reviewed to determine if their design meets the new
requirements of the law and if the costs are expressed in 1976
dollars. If they do not meet these requirements, a need
exists to the extent that the design must be upgraded to meet
new requirements.
(25)
-------
ITEM NUMBER 14d Projected Change
If there is a projected change for the facility, indicate
the proper code, as follows:
1 - Enlarge
2 - Upgrade
'I - Enlarge and up grade
4 - In s f a 1J In new pj ant (i.e. construct new plant and/or
install in new plant)
5 - Replace
6 - Abandon
7 - No change
8 - Other
ITEM NUMBER 14e Date
If code 6 is used in 14d, indicate the month and year
the facility will be abandoned.
ITEM NUMBER 15 Summary of Category Needs
This section shows the costs for Categories I-IVB. The
Cost of Record (column a), New and/or Revised cost (column b),
and Portion Required to Satisfy Backlog (column c) for each
category will be shown In unshaded and shaded areas as
de.scribed below. Columns (a) and (c) are to be used by
EPA/contractor while the unshaded portion of column (b) is to
be used by the States to report New and/or revised costs.
Only the contractor will write in the shaded areas of Item 15.
Column (a) Unshaded area -- shows preprinted cost from
1974 Survey automatically adjusted for such factors as
inflation and change in population, etc. If the contractor
revises this estimate, he will cross out the preprinted number
and enter the revised figure above it. This space is also to
be used to report the estimate of needs for facilities not
included in the 1974 Survey.
Column (a) Shaded Area — Will show the final cost
estimate after State review, reflecting either
contractor/State agreed estimate or contractor estimate if
agreement with State can not be reached.
Column (b) Unshaded Area — State will review column (a)
data-of-record cost, and/or revisions to it by the contractor,
and will use this unshaded area of Column (b) to enter revised
cost, if it is felt that the data-of-record or contractor's
revision is inaccurate.
(26)
-------
Column (b) Shaded Area — If the contractor an.! t h -"'od to serve the 1975 population will not be
reported as backlog.
4. Category IVA -- Cost of collectors and appurtenant
facilities. Backlog cost for this Category will be
the same as In the shaded area of column (a).
Column (d) -- Refers to Columns (a) and (b) only. It
does not relate to the backlog costs. If the preprinted code
Is different from the basis of estimate for the contractor's
revised estimate, the contractor will cross out the preprinted
code and enter the revised one above it. If the State wishes
to indicate a different code for data it may enter in Column
(b), It may do so by crossing out the contractor's code and
entering the new code, making sure the new code Is also In the
unshaded area. The contractor will enter the basis of
estimate code for the final cost estimate in the shaded area.
(27)
-------
1. Categories I and II
A plant construction cost must be reported as either
a Category I or a Category II plant. All plant
costs must be reported in only one category. The
criteria for selection of the proper category is as
follows:
(a) If the required level of treatment is
restricted to the parameters of Five-Day
BOD, suspended solids, fecal coliform bacteria
and pH, and conforms to the following
definition, then all plant costs should be
reported for a Category I plant.
Biochemical oxygen demand (five-day).
- The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent
samples collected in a period of 30 consecutive
days shall not exceed 30 milligrams per liter.
- The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent
samples collected in a period of seven
consecutive days shall not exceed 45 milligrams
per liter.
- The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent
samples collected in a period of 30 consecutive
days shall not exceed 15 percent of the
arithmetic mean of the values for influent
samples collected at approximately the same
times during the same period (85 percent
removal).
Suspended Solids.
- The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent
samples collected in a period of 30 consecutive
days shall not exceed 30 milligrams per liter.
- The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent
samples collected in a period of seven
consecutive days shall not exceed 45 milligrams
per liter.
- The arithmetic mean of the values for
effluent samples collected in a period of 30
consecutive days shall not exceed 15 percent of
the arithmetic mean of the values for
influent samples collected at approximately
the same times during the same period (85
percent removal).
pH
- The effluent values for pH shall remain
within the limits of 6.0 to 9.0.
(28)
-------
Fecal Coliform
- The geometric mean of the value for effluent
samples collerted In a period of 10 conseen rive
days shall, not exceed 200 per 100 milliliters.
- The geometric mean of the values for effluent
samples rollerred in a period of seven
conser. utlve days shall not exceed 400 per 100
milliliters.
(28a)
-------
(b) If the required level of treatment is more
stringent than defined above, and/or includes
additional limiting parameters for phosphorous,
ammonia, nitrogen, etc., then all plant costs
should be reported for a Category II plant. This
should be true even if secondary type unit process
elements (augmented) are to be utilized in
accomplishing the treatment level.
(c) If land treatment is utilized, it should be so
indicated in Item 29 as code 15, and all costs,
including land purchase, reported as Category IT
or Category T depending upon effluent
limitations required to be met by the
Permit requirements.
Tn a combined sewer system any costs allocable to the
treatment plant capacity utilized to correct periodic
bypasses or overflows should be excluded from Caregory
1 or TT cost and should be reported as a Category V
cost (in a separate effort). Cost of constructing
storage/retention basins or lagoons or other
facilities to control discharge of pollutants from
combined sewer overflows or bypasses should also be
reported in Category V. (See paragraph V M.)
The Eligible Construction Costs should include all
grant eligible costs, i.e. construction contract
costs, design costs, contingencies,
legal-administrative costs, effect of OSHA
requirements, etc. Total plant. costs include
facilities such as administration buildings, shops,
laboratories, landscaping, outside piping, and
utilities. Land costs should not be included except
when land is used as an integral part of the treatment
process or for ultimate disposal of wastes.
2. Category TTTA Tnf il t rat ion/Tn £ 1ow Correction and
Category T I IB Major Sewer System Rehabilitation
Category III deals with sanitary sewer systems
and has been split so that needs can be reported
in 2 sections. The "A" Section deals
with 11 In f il t r a t ion/Inf 1 ow Correction";
necessitated by the provisions of Section 201 of PL
92-500. The "B" Section deals with "Major Sewer
System Rehabilitation," as defined in Section 211 of
PL 92-500, which provides for grants for replacement
or major rehabilitation of an existing sewage
collection system if it is necessary to the total
integrity and performance of the waste treatment
works. The costs of correction of Infiltration/Inflow
in combined sewer systems and the cost of correction
and/or treatment of overflows and bypass flows from
such sewers is not to be reported. (See Paragraph V.
M.) Major rehabilitation or replacement of separate
or combined collection systems may be reported in
Category IIIB when necessary for the overall
integrity and performance of the sewer system.
(29)
-------
Cost estimates should be reported in Category IIIA
or 111B only if the basis of estimate code is 2 , 3 or
6 .
The following costs should be reported Ln Category
1ITA: (a) Tnfiltract on/In flow Analysis (b)
sower System Evaluation Survey, and (c) Correct 1 ve
action to reduce T/f if cost effective.
For the 1974 Needs Survey, if costs were reported in
Category IIIA for correction of excessive I/I
without changing Category I or Category II costs, a
duplication of costs may have occurred. Therefore,
the following guidance is provided to avoid
duplication and allow eligible costs to be reported
correctly:
(a) If overflows in the sanitary sewer system
or bypasses do not occur, and treatment costs were
included in Categories I and II for excessive I/I,
report a cost for I/I correction in IIIA, but
also make an appropriate reduction of Category T
or II costs to account for I/I that is to be
removed from the system.
(b) If overflows occur in the sanitary sewer system
due to I/I, and costs for treatment were not
included in Categories I and/or II in previous
Surveys, such costs for I /1 correction,
satellite overflow treatment facilities, or
storage and pumb back facilities should be
reported in Category ITIA.
All needs reported in Category IITB must reflect
replacement or major rehabilitation costs necessary
to insure total integrity and performance of the waste
treatment works. Normal system operation and
maintenance costs may not be included as a need.
Costs should be reported in category TUB only if the
sewers do not have excessive infiltration/inflow.
All costs for improving sewers with
excessive infi1tration/inf1ow should be reported in
category Ilia in accordance with the guidance for
that category.
(30)
-------
For the purpose of this Update, replacement is defined
as construction of parallel sewers or sewers to
perform the function of existing sewers where
existing sewers are to be abandoned. Major
rehabilitation is defined as exrensive repaLr of
existing sewers beyond the scope of normal
maintenance programs (e.g. cement mortar
lining of deteriorated brick sewers). The cost of
rehabilitation should not exceed replacement costs.
If the "Basis of Estimate" code for an identified
requirement is 2 , 3 or 6 , it may be reported in the
Update. However, if other codes are marked as the
basis for the estimate, the cost will not be
a 11o we d .
The contractor should review with each State, in
their initial discussions, any 1974 needs in these
categories that were reported as other than 2, 3 or 6
costs; and if no analytical work has been done in
the State to further define the requirement, the needs
should be eliminated from the 1976 Update.
3. Category IVA New Collectors and
Category IVB New Interceptors
Category IV has been separated so that requirements
can be reported in either Section "A" for "New
Collectors" or Section "B" for "New Interceptors."
Force mains and pumping stations will be reported
under either A or B - depending on whether their
primary mechanical function relates to the
Collectors or the Interceptors.
Engineering details relating to collectors,
interceptors, and their related force mains and
pumping stations - as well as cost information - will
be identified in Item Number 17. The cost information
will therefore appear in both Item Numbers 15 and
17. Individual costs will be reflected in Item
Number 17 and will be summarized as one total cost
in Item Number 15.
(31)
-------
Costs may be included where there is a need 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 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 communities, new
subdivisions, and newly developed urban areas are
not covered under the construction grant
program. Provisions for sewers for such areas are to
be included as part of the development costs of
the new construction. In accord with "eligibility"
policy - collector needs must comply with the 2/3
existing population rule. The 2/3 rule means no
award may be made for a new sewer system in a
community in existance on October 18, 1972 unless
two-thirds of the flow design capacity through
the sewer system will be for waste waters
originating from the community (Habitation) in
existance on October 18, 1972.
ITEM NUMBER 16 Facility Population
This section shows the population which receives
treatment and/or collection from the facility. It is broken
down by present resident population, present non-resident
population, projected resident population, and projected
non-resident population. Data-of-record for each of these
categories will be listed for those receiving treatment, not
receiving treatment, receiving collection and not receiving
collection. There is additional space for any changes.
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.
(32)
-------
The "area served by this facility" includes not only the
boundaries of the areas actually served, but also any enclaves
whose residents are served by septic tanks, outhouses, etc.
An overall restriction is that the total resident population
projected for 1990 for an entire State cannot exceed the
overall population as reported in the 1974 Needs Survey.
The dutu-of-record on the preprinted t'ormn hIiowh tlui July
1, 197b population as welL as the projected (1990) population,
as adjusted. See appendix 1 for adjustment details.
ITEM NUMBER 17 Need for New Collectors, New Interceptors,
Force Mains and Pumping Stations
As mentioned previously (Item 15 instructions), this
section is used to report the engineering and cost details
relating to segments of collection systems and appurtenances.
Separate lines are provided so that collection system segments
that have similar cost functions can be listed together. For
example, if two to six inch pipe has the same cost factor in
the cost estimating guidelines, the data for all pipe falling
into this size category should be consolidated as one line
entry.
Column "a" is to be used to identify the "type" of item
being listed and the code identifiers are to be obtained from
the Code Reference Chart - Item 17.
The diameter (column b) and length (column c) of the
pipe are to be reported in inches and feet respectively. The
capacity (column c) is used when reporting pumping stations,
and is reported in MGD.
ITEM NUMBER 18 Disposal of Liquid Effluents
More than one entry may be used in this section. For
each entry fill out a, b, and c.
1. Disposal
Indicate by using the appropriate code the
type of disposal now used or required, as follows:
1 - Outfall to surface waters
2 - Ocean outfall
3 - Holding pond
4 - Deep well
5 - Ground water recharge
6 - Other land disposal
7 - Recycling and reuse
8 - Septic tank field
9 - Other
(33)
-------
2. Use
Indicate by using the appropriate code the status
of this disposal, as follows:
1 - Now in use
2 - Under construction or provided for in an
approved liPA grant.
3 - Required, but not yet approved or funded
4 - Not applicable
3. Change
Indicate by using appropriate code the projected
change for this disposal. The codes are as follows:
1 - Enlarge
2 - Upgrade
3 - Enlarge and upgrade
4 - Install in new plant
5 - Replace
6 - Abandon
7 - No change
8 - Other
ITEM NUMBER 19 Required Infiltration/Inflow Correction Action
The basic ground rules for reporting needs in this
Category are covered in Paragraph Section V, Item 15, 2.
Indicate under "code" by using the appropriate code below
what action is necessary to corect infiltration/inflow
conditions to meet the requirements of Section 201 and/or 211
of the FWPCA.
1 - Not known at this time
2 - None
3 - Seal off sewer lines
4 - Replace/reline sewer sections
5 - Change/create flow routing system
6 - Provide flow equalization
7 - Other corrective actions
(34)
-------
If codes 3 through 7 are used, indicate the proper code
below for the basis of estimate:
1 - State certification
2 - Analysis completed
3 - Evaluation survey completed
4 - Engineer/Consultant firm estimate
5 - Cost of previous comparable construction
6 - Engineer/Consultant preliminary estimate
7 - EPA - supplied cost estimating procedures
8 - Cost effective analysis
9 - Rough estimate
Costs are reported under Item IS, Category ITIA.
ITEM NUMBER 20 Estimated I/T Flow Component
If Item 19 is marked using codes 3 through 7, indicate
how much of the flow of the facility is due to
infi1tration/inf1ow. Report in millions of gallons per day.
ITEM NUMBER 21 Major Rehabilitation/Rep1acement Required
To complete this item, refer to the policy set forth in
Section V , Item 15, 2.
Using the same codes listed in number 19, indicate if and
why major rehabiJitation or replacement of the existing sewer
collection system is necessary. If codes 3 through 7 are
used, indicate the proper code for basis of estimate. Report
the cost under Item 15, Category TUB.
ITEM NUMBER 22 Do Wastewaters Originate in Communities
Existing before October 18, 1972?
Indicate by "yes" or "no" the answer to the above
quest ion.
ITEM NUMBER 23 1972 Collection Population
Enter the resident population which existed on October
18, 1972, for which new collector sewers are required, as of
January 1, 1976.
ITEM NUMBER 24 Flows/Concentrations, Monthly Average
Current flow and concentration levels, and present and
projected design specifications will be used to validate
Category I or II costs. Any items which influence facility
design/cost should be entered.
(35)
-------
Existing means the actual average concentration, based on
30 day observations made during 1975, of influent only for
flows and both influent and effluent concentration levels for
5-day BOD and suspended solids. 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.
]. Flow
Total flow means all the wastewaters moving through
the plant; including domestic, commercial,
industrial, and infiltration/inflow. This figure
should be reported in million gallons per day.
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.
2. Composition of Influent and Effluent
Concentrations of the following constituents are to
be designated to provide characterization of plant
influent and effluent - and the basLs for plant
design. Only those constituents significant to
the plant unit process scheme should be listed.
(a) For BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand), use
the conventional definition. This figure should
be reported in milligrams per liter (mg/1).
(b) For suspended solids, use the conventional
definition. This figure should be reported in
milligrams per liter (mg/1).
(c) For phosphorous, use the conventional
definition. This figure should be reported in
milligrams per liter (mg/1).
(d) For ammonia NH3, use the conventional definition.
This figure should be reported in milligrams per
liter (mg/1).
(e) TKN is Total Kjeldehl Nitrogen and should be
expressed in milligrams per liter.
(f) Other should be used for other major constituents
that have a significant influence on the facility
design. (A supplemental Code Chart may be
developed for additional constituents.)
(g) Total Nitrogen should be expressed in
milligrams per liter.
(36)
-------
ITEM NUMBER 25 Does Discharge Meet Secondary?
Answer "yes" or "no" if the discharge meets secondary
treatment standards.
TTliM NUMBER 26 Will Discharge Meet Secondary By July 1,
1 9 7 7 ?
Answer "yes" or "no" if the discharge will meet secondary
treatment by July 1, 1977.
ITEM NUMBER 27. Is Required Treatment Level More Stringent
Than Secondary?
An effluent limitation "more stringent" than secondary
means a requirement for treatment processes, in addition to
secondary treatment processes, necessary to meet an effluent-
limitation specified in an EPA-approved water quality plan, an
administrative or court order, a license, etc., an EPA
approved water quality standard which is binding on the
treatment facility, or a legal 1 y binding State established
effluent limitation. Examples include requirements to remove
phosphorous, ammonia, or organic substances. All limitations
more stringent than secondary must be based on requirements in
effect as of February 1, 1976.
Approved water quality plans are: baa Ln, metropolitan
or regional plans approved by EPA pursuant to Section 30 3(e)
or 201 for the FWPCA.
A body of water is water quality dependent if some or all
of the discharges to it will need treatment "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 discharge levels are designated
by each State as part of its "continuing planning process." A
"yes" or "no" answer must be entered in the box.
(37)
-------
ITEM NUMKER 28 Reasons
If item 2 7 Ih "yes", indicate which reaHon impoHes tlx-
miohL HtrlnnenL rt»t|uI rumunt by uhIiik thr codes below:
0 - A water quality plan which has been approved by EPA
1 - Order of State Court
2 - Order of Federal Court
3 - State permit and license
4 - NPDES permit and license
5 - State enforcement order and proceeding
6 - Federal enforcement order and proceeding
7 - Voluntary agreement which includes a schedule of
compliance or improvements
8 - Other
9 - 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 dis-
solved oxygen or nutrients
ITEM NUMBER 29 Treatment and Sludge Handling
There are three columns in this section. The first
column is for type of treatment and sludge handling; the
second column is for the current use; and the third column
shows projected change. All codes are referred to on the Code
Reference Chart.
(38)
-------
APPENDIX 1
EPA ADJUSTMENTS TO THE 1974 NEEDS SURVEY DATA HASE
I. INTRODUCTION
From the time o£ it s receipt in 1974, and up until the
printing of the 1976 NEEDS Update Data of Record, adjustments
have been made to the 1974 Needs data base, as reflected in
magnetic records on tape. These adjustments have been made for
one or a combination of the following reasons:
1. Data was incorrectly reported
2. Keypunching errors were found
3. EPA edit programs adjusted all costs
4. EPA edit programs adjusted some populations
When comparing the current questionnaire forms with the
data as submitted by the States in 1974, therefore,
differences will exist in all cost figures, and supportive
data may be changed.
The chronology of changes made to the data is as follows:
1. Data received from the States via 1974 Needs
questionnaires was coded and key-prepared into
machinable form.
2. A 1974 Needs Survey master file was created using the
1973 data (for facilities reported as unchanged from
1973) and the key-prepared 1974 data.
3. The 1974 Needs master file was edited for errors, and
corrected where applicable.
4. The 1974 Needs master file was edited for excessive or
unsupported costs and changed appropriately
on a facility-by-facility basis.
5. The 1974 Needs master file was edited for excessive
reported resident populations and reduced on a
facility-by- facility basis, as appropriate
6. 1974 Survey costs (expressed in June 1973 dollars)
were upgraded to January 1, 1976 dollars.
(39)
-------
II. DETAILED EDITS
The following specific data edits were performed on the
1974 Needs Survey master data file:
A. Tdcnf Ifiration l)n ta
Changes to existing identification dnt.i were a» to I I own;
1. A determination of which facilities were incorrectly
reported as "sample" facilities (and visa-versa) was
made, and the facilities were reported correctly.
2. Authority/Faci1ity numbers were checked to determine
accuracy, and changed appropriately.
B. Categories I and II Costs
Plant volume and effluent specifications as reported by
the facility were accepted without question. Categories I and
II reported costs were then fitted to EPA supplied cost
curves, as presented in the Survey Guidance package. Costs
exceeding 110% of the cost curves were reduced to 110% of the
cost curves.
Category I J IA costs were accepted. Category IT IB costs
were reduced to $35.00 per foot of pipe in the entire sewer
system when costs exceeded $35.00 per foot.
D. Category IVA Costs
Collector costs were reduced in all States on a facility-
by-facility basis in three general areas:
1. When the ratio of 1972 resident population to proposed
population sewered by new sewers was less than 2/3,
then Category IVA needs were reduced proportionately
to meet the "2/3 rule."
2. When population to be sewered by new collectors was
zero, Category IVA needs were reduced to zero.
3. When the facility classified itself as a treatment
plant with no collectors or interceptors, Category
IVA needs were reduced to zero.
Category IVA needs in West Virginia were examined
manually, and were reduced to $120.00 per capita.
(40)
-------
E. Category IVB Costs
Category IVB costs were adjusted downward on a facility-
by-facility basis using the following criteria:
1. Where costs exceeded the EPA cost curves by more
than 10%, costs were reduced to 110% of the curves.
2. Where Category IVB needs were given, but no pipe
lengths or diameter were shown, needs were
deleted from Category IVB.
3. Where obvious errors were made in filling
out questionnaires, costs were reduced in est
Virginia, Oklahoma, and Arkansas.
4. Where State reported population was exceeded, Category
IVB costs were reduced proportionally (Alaska,
Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, and
Wyoming).
F. Population
EPA edit programs adjusted some populations for both
1972/73 and 1990 in the 1974 Needs data of record base. These
adjustments were made to resident 1974 and 1990 populations on
a faciltty-by-facility basis for both treatment and
collection. Non-resident populations were accepted for the
1974 needs survey.
Bureau of Census Series P-25 (1975 current population)
and P-26 (1990 projected population) were used as a basis for
determining populations for each of the States. When treatment
and/or collection population totals exceeded the Census
population totals for States, facility totals were reduced
proportionally. This was done for both the 1972/73 and the
1990 resident populations. Stated as a formula, it would be
the following:
Facility Population
designated
for 1974 Survey
Facility Population Census Pop. for State
reported X (divided by)
in 1974 Survey Pop. for State reported
in 1974
Adjustments downward were made for the following States:
California Michigan
Colorado Nevada
Delaware New York
Georgia Pennsylvania
Illinois Wisconsin
Massachusetts
(41)
-------
APPENDIX 2
COST ESTIMATING PROCEDURES
I. INTRODUCTION
Construction cost estimation procedures have been
developed for use in the NEEDS Update for Categories I, II and
IV. For Categories I and II, cost curves are provided, and
are to be used in the absence of or as supplement to other
information developed by and for the contractor. For Category
IV, an estimation scheme is provided which Involves factoring
a basic unit cost by multipliers for population density and
location. All costs calculated using these techniques are
estimated as of January 1976.
II. TREATMENT COSTS
For Categories I and II, treatment plant construction
cost curves are provided as Figure I and Figure 2. Figure 1
is scaled for plants from .01 to 3.0 MGD while Figure 2 is
scaled for larger plants.
Both Figure 1 and Figure 2 show seven cost curves.
Curves 1-6 are estimates of the total grant eligible cost for
construction of sewage treatment works, at increasing levels
of required treatment. Curve one is the estimate of grant
eligible cost for secondary treatment, and curve six estimates
costs at an effluent treatment level of less than 5 for five
day HOI) and suspended solids, with P, NII3, and N03 removal.
Curves two through five are appropriate estimates for effluent
specifications between the extremes as indicated on the graph.
Curve Seven is a subtractive curve, to be used to
estimate the salvage value of a treatment plant as may be
realized in the case of upgrading and/or expansion.
Table A provides a list of multipliers to be applied to
costs determined from the treatment cost curves, depending on
the proximity of the plant to one of those cities. These
multipliers result from different construction costs in
various localities.
To determine treatment costs using the curves, the
reviewer should select the cost from the point defined by the
design average plant flow and the required treatment level.
The salvage value of any existing primary plant should be
determined by its flow from curve seven, and subtracted from
the cost. The resultant cost should then be multiplied by the
city multiplier for the city closest to the proposed
treatment plant.
Costs calculated using curve one should be reported as
category I plants. Plant costs estimated using curves two
through six should be reported as category II plants only if
the required level of treatment is higher than secondary
treatment as defined by EPA.
(42)
-------
Table A
City Multipliers for Treatment Plant Construction
Treatment Plant City
Location Multiplier
ATLANTA, GEORGIA .8347
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 1.0083
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA .8264
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 1.1132
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA .6281
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 1.1570
CINCINNATI, OHIO 1.0331
CLEVELAND, OHIO 1.0744
DALLAS, TEXAS .7934
DENVER, COLORADO .8843
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 1.0083
HOUSTON, TEXAS .8678
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 1.0000
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 1.0578
MIAMI, FLORIDA .8843
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN 1.0331
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA .9091
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA .9256
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 1.3223
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 1.1818
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 1.0413
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 1.1570
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 1.1157
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 1.0330
TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 1.0826
(43)
-------
III. Interceptor and Collector Sewer Costs
Interceptor and collector sewer costs will be estimated
using four elements: 1) the diameter of the pipe; 2) the
length of the pipe; 3) the culture of the place of
installation; A) the location of the project.
These variables are shown in Tables I-III. Table I shows
the gross cost per linear foot of pipe laid in place by
diameter. All appurtenances are included in this cost. The
appropriate unit cost from Table I should be multiplied by the
appropriate factor from Table II - Cultural Modifiers, to aid
in reflecting the cost of different types of cultural areas.
That product must then be multiplied by the appropriate city
factor selected from Table III - City Multipliers. The city
selected should be the city nearest the proposed construction
site. Finally, the resultant unit cost should be multiplied by
the feet of pipe required.
Table IV provides the list of the average interceptor
sewer size for a given design discharge.
(44)
-------
Table I
Gross Per LF Cost of Sewers
By
Diameter including all Appurtenances
Diameter Average Cost
(inches) (dollars)
4 1 1
6 14
8 16
10 19
12 22
15 26
18 30
21 34
24 37
27 40
30 44
36 50
42 57
48 65
54 74
60 84
66 94
72 104
Table II
Culture Modifiers
for
Sewer Construction
Culture Modifier
Open Country .8131
Residential, new, no houses .6033
Residential, established, sparse .6985
Residential, established, dense .7169
Commercial Area, through street .9911
Central City 1.3127
(45)
-------
Table III
City Multipliers
for
Sewer Construction
City Multiplier
Atlanta, Georgia 1.4901
Baltimore, Maryland 1.1006
Birmingham, Alabama 1.2638
Boston, Massachusetts 1.3877
Charlotte, North Carolina .6604
Chicago, Illinois 1.4026
Cincinnati, Ohio 1.2331
Cleveland, Ohio 2.1335
Dallas, Texas 1.0598
Denver, Colorado .6971
Detroit, Michigan 1.7952
Houston, Texas .8996
Kansas City, Missouri 1.2250
Los Angeles, California 1.3922
Miami, Florida .9762
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1.2155
Minneapolis, Minnesota 1.0241
New Orleans, Louisiana .9833
New York, New York 2.3467
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1.4165
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1.5353
St. Louis, Missouri 1.8105
San Francisco, California 1.3380
Seattle, Washington 1.8472
Trenton, New Jersey 1.2920
(46)
-------
Pipe
(Xncl
6
8
10
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
36
42
48
54
60
66
72
84
96
108
120
132
144
] 56
168
180
192
Table IV
Sizing of Interceptor Sewers
Pipe Size Design
(Feet) Discharge Range
(MGD)
0.08 or less
0.08 - 0.17
0.17 - 0.29
1 0.29 - 0.47
0.47 - 0.82
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0.82
- 1 .3
1.3
- 1.9
1 .9
- 2.7
2.7
- 3.8
3.8
- 4.9
4.9
- 8.0
8.0
-11.8
11.8
-17.0
17.0
-22.5
22.5
-29.5
29.5
-37.5
37.5
-48.0
48.0
-72.0
72.0
- 100
100
- 140
140
- 180
180
- 240
240
- 300
300
- 365
365
- 440
440
- 540
540
- 640
(47)
-------
Figure 1
TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION COST CURVES - DESIGN FLOW RATE 0.01 to 3.0 MGD
10
1.0
0.1
Curves _ .Effluent-Limits
BOD/SS P NH NO
, ^ -3
5-19
5H9
i
5J-19
6 t •; <55 • R
R = Remdva-l- [3iequ4^e4 _i
Curve .(7)
, Curv¥ (3) =
Deduction; fjw} E4is.ti.na.
Primary Tjr.eptment...
• ' ' 1 4 - i—
Deduction! fort Existing
Secondly- ijr^a-peftt-
(Estimdte) i j : '
.. . _i _ j -+-]
1 1 1
.01
0.01
0.1
Q, MGD
.0
3.0
(48)
-------
I
Figure 2
TREATMENT PLANT CONSTRUCTION COST CURVES - DESIGN FLOW RATE 3 TO 1000 MGD
1000
"""jhljtlltjent L|nnvfe"
i ¦ -.i- jophs-j' nh
,3 43_j
~FT i 20^|
§ 100
3:
t/i
O
o
c
O
o
3
L.
W
(/)
C
o
o
« 10
CJ)
c
f0
u
(J
^-p9 R R
T-Vl B—i
R =) Removal! [Required
rye:. (1)^
Deduction for Ejn;
P r unary.
reatment
Deducti or for E
(1 £ tl
Secondary
Estimate)
10
100
1000
Q, MGD
(49)
-------
APPENDIX 3
EXPLANATIONS OF QUESTIONS RAISED DURING REGIONAL
BRIEFING SESSIONS, MARCH 1-12, 1976
1. Q. Can the r.ost of pure has Lag an already
operating private]y owned wastewater
treatment plant by a municipality be reported
as a need?
A. The Title II regulations require that all
such acquisitions have the prior approval. of
the EPA Regional Administrator in order to
be eligible for grant funds. Since a decision
on the eligibility of those acquisitions should
be based on facility planning, such costs may be
reported only if a facility plan has
justified the purchase.
2. Q. On what date should a facility,need be considered
satisfied for not reporting it in the Needs
Update?
A. I'd r purposes of the Needs Update, if a grant offer
has been made before January 1, 1976, its need
will be considered to have been fulfilled wliether
or not such grant has been formally accepted by
the municipality.
3. Q. Do the "Treatment Plant Construction Cost Curves"
provided in Figures 1 and 2 of Appendix 2 of the
Guidelines include the cost of disinfecting the
effluent?
A. Costs derived from these curves are national
average grant eligible costs, and therefore
include disinfection.
4 . Q. Which curve should be used to estimate treatment
plant costs when only five-day BOD, suspended
solids and ammonia removals are required without
concurrent removal of phosphorus?
A. Since the incremental cost to remove phosphorus is
a small fraction of the cost of removing ammonia,
it is recommended that curve 4 be used to estimate
the cost of plants expected to provide the above
mentioned level of treatment.
(50)
-------
(}. In a St" a re wlilcli ha h it ec 1 d ed to report ihm' (In on a
1 0U p e r r e n t ha s I 8 I u places o I I eh h C hail I 0 , 0 01)
population and I h outalde Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSA's), what Lh the mini mum
population of a place that should be Included in
t he Upda te?
A. In order for a place outside an SMSA to be
included in the Update on a 100 percent basis, it
should have a minimum population of 500.
Exceptions are possible, and a completed EPA-1
will be accepted for smaller places.
(51)
------- |