Economic Analysis of
Shifting Ocean Disposal of
Sewage Sludge from the
A
12-Mile Site to the
106-Mile Site
-------
Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc.
200 Research Drive, P.O. Box 727, Manhattan, Kansas 66502
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SHIFTING OCEAN
DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGE FROM THE
12-MILE SITE TO THE 106-MILE SITE
To
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Analysis and Evaluation
Washington, D.C. 20460
Contract Number
68-01-6745
Work Assignment No. 7
Prepared by
Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc.
in association with
Abt Associates, Inc.
P. 575
April 1984
-------
PREFACE
This document is a contractor's study prepared for the Office of Analysis
and Evaluation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The purpose
of this study is to analyze the costs and economic effects of shifting
ocean disposal by New York/New Jersey sewerage authorities from the site
which is currently used (12-mile site) to a 106-mile site. Therefore, an"
analysis of the sewerage authorities involved, ocean disposal costs at both
sites, and the estimated economic impacts of relocating the disposal site
are included in the ensuing chapters.
The study was prepared with the supervision and review of the Office of
Analysis and Evaluation of EPA. This report was submitted in fulfillment
of Contract No. 68-01-6745 by Development Planning and Research Associates,
Inc. and completed in April 1984.
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE i
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
A. Introduction and Methodology 1-1
B. Sewerage Authority Profiles . 1-2
C. Ocean Disposal Costs 1-4
D. Economic Impacts 1-5
E. Limits of the Analysis 1-8
II. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY II-l
A. Introduction II-l
B. Economic Impact Methodology II-3
III. SEWERAGE AUTHORITY PROFILES III-l'
A. Sludge Management Systems III-l
B. Number of Users III-ll '
B. Community Demographics III-ll
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL COSTS IV-1
A. Background IV-1
B.. Methodology and Assumptions IV-1
C." Disposal Costs IV-2
D. Incremental Ocean Disposal Costs IV-11
V. ECONOMIC IMPACTS V-l
A. Community Baseline Conditions V-l
B. Effects of Residential Users V-3
C. Effects on Industrial Users V-10
D. Capital Availability V-13
VI. LIMITATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS VI-1
A. General Accuracy VI-1
B. Data Availability VI-2
C. Critical Assumptions VI-2
D. Sensitivity Analysis VI-3
REFERENCES
ii
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Introduction and Methodology
The background and purpose of this report are presented in the introduction
summary below. A brief summary of the methodology used to prepare this
report is also included in this section.
1. Introduction
Sewerage authorities in the New York/New Jersey area currently dispose of
sewage sludge at the 12-mile ocean disposal site. There are two
alternative ocean disposal sites approximately 60 miles and 106 miles from
the New York Harbor. The 60-mile site has been used for dumping digester
clean-out sludges and industrial, wastes. All ocean dumping of sewage
sludge was to have stopped in 1981, but has continued under court order.
In 1982, New York/New Jersey sewerage authorities disposed of 7.6 million
wet tons of sewage sludge, at the 12-mile site. The total cost of
transporting sewage sludge to the 12-mile site was $13 million as reported
by New York/New Jersey Publicly Operated Treatment Works (POTW's).
Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 (MPRSA) gives EPA the authority to.designate areas of ocean disposal
of sewage sludge and industrial wastes. The purpose of this study is to
present the costs and economic effects of shifting disposal options from
the 12-mile site to the 106-mile site. Therefore, an analysis of the
sewerage authorities involved, ocean disposal costs at the 12-mile site and
106-mile site, and the estimated impacts of users are included in this
report.
2. Economic Impact Methodology
Methodologies which were used to produce earlier studies by EPA and other
organizations such as the Municipal Finance Officers Association were
employed in the preparation of this report. Some minor alterations were
necessary due to data availability.
'The economic impact methodology consisted of five basic parts, which are
summarized below.
1. Develop community baselines - Secondary data sources were used to
collect the- following information for each community: the volume of "waste .
generated during 1982, the number of users served by each facility by user
type, sewage fees by user group and general demographics.
2. Estimate incremental ocean disposal costs - Transportation costs of
disposal at the 106-mile site were estimated. Cost of disposal at the
12-mile site was then subtracted from the 106-mile site transportation
costs to estimate incremental costs.
1-1
-------
3. Determine residential user effects - The percent increase in user cost
was estimated by dividing incremental 106-mile site costs by baseline
sewage fees to approximate charge increases. Where additional specific
data were available on residential users the following measures of economic
impacts were used as guidelines:
Indicator Threshold level
1. Annual cost (debt service + O&M) per household $200
2. User cost indicator
User Cost
Median income 1%
These guidelines are from the "Financial Capability Guidebook." If costs
or computations exceed the guideline threshold level, economic impacts are
forecast.
4. Determine industrial user effects - Industrial user effects were
established as a percent increase in user fees. In order to compute this
percentage of increase, the current level of sewage charges was established
and incremental costs were divided by existing charges.
A percent price increase for industrial users was then estimated by
dividing incremental 106-mile site costs by the manufacturing value of
shipments for the community from the Census of Manufacturers. A threshold
of a 1.0 percent price increase was used for determining impacts.
5. Assess capital availability for affected communities - An analysis of
each community's financial conditions was performed using bond ratings from
Standard and Poor's guide to bond rating. If recent bond ratings for the
communities were below an A rating, capital availability problems are
indicated.
B. Sewerage Authority Profiles
The sewerage authorities that would be affected by a denial of the
petitions to designate-the 12-mile site in conjunction with the designation
of the 106-mile site are listed below.
New York New York City
Nassau County
Westchester County
New Jersey Bergen County .
Passaic Valley
Middlesex County
Linden/Roselle
Rahway Valley
Joint Meeting
Each of these sewerage authorities currently dispose of their sludge wastes
at the 12-mile site. Linden/Roselle and Rahway Valley have been combined
for the analysis because they treat sludge wastes together.
1-2
-------
1. Sludge Management Systems
The POTW's operated by the sewerage authorities all have secondary
treatment in place. New York City operates eleven POTW's all of which use
ocean disposal for sludge wastes. Nassau County operates eight POTW's and
Westchester County operates four POTW's. The New Jersey sewerage
authorities each operate one POTW.
Over 7 million wet tons of sewage sludge are disposed annually by all of
the sewerage authorities. New York City accounts for about half of this
total at 3.2 million wet tons. Passaic Valley is the next largest
generator of sludge with 1.7 million wet tons per year. Generally the
percentage of solids in the sludge ranges from 2 to 4 percent, though one
New York City POTW has achieved a 9 percent solids content.
Sludge dewatering is one action that sewerage authorities can take to
reduce sludge volumes and thus transportation costs. Several of the New
York and New Jersey sewerage authorities have dewatering in place that is
not used for ocean disposal because of the capacity of pumping equipment
and that dewatered sludge floats causing environmental problems. Most of
the dewatering equipment was installed for use with land-based disposal
alternatives such as; incineration which is currently not feasible due to
air pollution control requirements.
2. Number of Users
Each sewerage authority treats the wastes of several municipalities. The
number of municipalities ranges from five in Nassau County to forty-three
in Bergen County. The municipalities provide local sewer hook-ups for
residential, commercial and industrial users. The number of residents
served by the eight sewerage authorities is about 10 million, nearly half
of which are located in New York City. Passaic Valley with 5,000 has the
most industrial users.
3. Community Demographics
Demographic data for the communities affected are summarized below in
tabular form. The source of this information was the U.S. Census Bureau
Publications and the individual sewerage authorities.
1-3
-------
Sewerage authority
NEW YORK
New York City
Nassau County
Westchester County
NEW JERSEY
Bergen County
Passaic Valley
Middlesex County
Linden/Rose11e/Rahway
Joint Meeting
Total
Residential
users
(thousands]
5,302
889
484
Percent
below
Median poverty
income level
(1979) (1979)
(5)
13,854
26,090
22,725
24,053
17,907
22,826
21,061
18,207
17.2
3.6
5.6
3.1
10.5
4.7
6.0
6.8
Number of
commercial
and
industrial
users
Bond
ratings
N.A.
1,640 est.
1,192
N.A.
,000
,300
,973
1,626
AAA
AAA
AA+
AAA
AA
A
AA
AA
9,798
C. Ocean Disposal Costs
1. Background
This section reviews the development of ocean disposal costs.
Transportation cost components for ocean disposal were collected from
sewerage authorities and sludge transporters and then estimated for the
volume of sludge to be disposed of at the 106-mile site. The methodology
and assumptions used in estimating costs are presented followed by the cost
estimates.
2. Methodology and Assumptions
The cost methodology involved simple aggregations for each sewerage
authority based on its sludge generation rate and the estimated unit cost
of disposing at the 106-mile site. Factors which will influence costs are:
the season of the year, changes in POTW service, and level or type of
treatment or industrial pretreatment.
Currently three types of ocean disposal vessels are used in the study area.
They are:
t vessels owned by the sewerage authorities
barges operated by A&S Transportation Inc.
small tankers operated by General Marine Transport
The methodology assumes that any shortfall of vessel capacity will be made
up with vessels at the same cost as the existing commercial fleet.
1-4
-------
3. Disposal Costs
The estimated costs for the 12-mile and 106-mile sites for each sewerage
authority are shown in Table 1-1. Total transportation costs are $39.4
million. The incremental cost for the 106-mile site is the difference
between the two sites' costs and is $24.4 million for all sewerage
authorities. The incremental annual costs range from $344 thousand for
Linden/Roselle/Rahway up to $11.3 million for New York City.
D. Economic Impacts
The economic impacts of the designation of the 106-mile site are discussed
below. The incremental costs to transport sludge to the 106-mile site were
compared to current baseline sewage treatment and disposal costs to
determine economic effects. The costs of additional sludge storage were
not included in this analysis because storage requirements are unclear and
costs were not available.
1. Community Baseline Conditions
Current sludge disposal transportation costs at the 12-mile site as a
percent of total treatment costs range from 6 percent in New York City to
23 percent at Westchester County. Thus, sludge transport is a significant
portion of total treatment costs. The total sewerage budgets range from
$3.6 million for Joint Meeting to $55.1 million for New York City. .
2. Effects on Residential Users
The percent cost increase in sewage fees to all users when costs to the
106-mile site are added are shown as follows.
Sewerage authority Percent Cost Increase
(T5
New York
New York City 21
Nassau County 13
Westchester County 12
New Jersey
Bergen County 13
Passaic Valley 14
Middlesex County 7
Linden/Roselle/Rahway 4
Joint Meeting ' 15
The average cost increase is 15 percent. A more specific measure of
impacts on residential users can be computed by determining the cost per
user. This measure calculated by dividing the costs by the number of users
is presented in Table 1-2. The incremental cost ranges from $3.51 to
$13.21 per year per household. The total annual cost per household for
sewage disposal ranges from $26.65 to $86.78.
1-5
-------
Table 1-1. Incremental annual costs of moving from the 12-mile
site to the 106-mile site If
Sewerage Authority
NEW YORK
New York City
Nassau
Westchester
NEW JERSEY
Bergen
Passaic
Middlesex
Li nden/Rosel 1 e/Rahway
Joint Meeting
Total
12 -mile site
3,559
622
2,330
792
2,236
1,993
683
699
12,914
106-mile site
^cnoUianu uu i lars,
14,880
3,266
3,555
2,277
7,623
3,159
1,027
1,554
37,341
Incremental cost
11,321
2,644
1,225
1,485
5,387
1,166
344
855
24,427
J7 1982 dollars.
Source: Abt Associates, Inc.
1-6
-------
Table 1-2. Annual baseline and incremental cost per household
Sewerage authority
NEW YORK
New York City
Nassau County
Westchester County
NEW JERSEY
Bergen County
Passaic County
Middlesex County
Li nden/Roselle/Rahway
Joint Meeting
Weighted Average
Annual
baseline cost
64.26
53.56
56.94
76.88
55.68
54.72
54.03
23.13
59.59
Incremental
cost
13.21
7.27
6.99
9.90
8.00
3.61
2.44
3.51
10.16
Total annual
cost per user
77.47
60.83
63.93
86.78
63.68
58.33
56.47
26.65
69.75
Source: DPRA.
1-7
-------
Table 1-3 summarizes the economic effects in residential users based on the
threshold levels presented in the methodology. These costs are below the
$200 threshold indicator presented in the methodology. Also, the user cost
divided by median income indicator shows values from 0.1 percent to 0.6
percent for all sewerage authorities. The economic impact threshold level
for this indicator is 1.0 percent. Based on this analysis a small economic
impact is expected for residential users due to designation of the 106-mile
site.
3. Effects on Industrial Users
Industrial user impacts were assumed to follow the percent cost increase
shown in section 2 above for all users which averaged 15 percent. The
percent price increase for moving to the 106-mile site for industrial users
was estimated by comparing the city or county's manufacturing value of
shipments to the incremental ocean disposal costs for industrial users in
that community. These estimates are shown below:
Sewage Incremental Manufacturing Percent
authority industrial cost value of shipments price increase
(millions of dollars) (mil lions of dollars) ^
New York City 3.1 42,400 .01
Nassau County .3 4,800 .01
Bergen County ..04 6,500 .001
Passaic County 1.9 3,200 .06
The percent price increases shown above are low. Sewage fees would have to
account for at least 10 percent of a firm's total sales before impacts would
be expected in this group.
4. Capital Availability
The sewerage authorities have all made recent bond placements without
incurring high increased costs. Since capital requirements are expected to
be low for switching to the 106-mile site and all sewerage authorities have
bond ratings of A or better, capital availability is not expected to be a
constraint.
E. Limits of the Analysis
This section presents estimates of the general accuracy of the study, data
availability, critical assumptions and sensitivity analysis.
1. General Accuracy
Generally data were complete and accurate for each sewerage authority.
Site visits were conducted to obtain data necessary to complete the
analysis for all sewerage authorities studied. While the accuracy of the
report was enhanced by the cooperation of the sewerage authorities and data
availability, qualitative judgements were involved, thus, the possibility
of errors exists.
1-3
-------
Table 1-3. Summary of economic effects on residential users due to
redesignation of the 106-mile site
Annual cost (debt
service & O&M) User cost
Sewerage authority per household Median income
(threshold 5200)(threshold 1
percent)
NEW YORK
New York City 77.47 .6
Nassau County 60.83 .2
Westchester County 63.93 .3
NEW JERSEY
Bergen County 86.78 .4
Passaic Valley 63.68 .4
Middlesex County 58.33 .3
Linden/Roselle/Rahway 56.47 .3
Joint Meeting 26.65 _.!_
Weighted Average 69.75 .5
Source: DPRA.
1-9
-------
2. Data Availability
Estimates were made to determine the 106-mile site transportation costs.
Information on sludge storage requirements and costs would improve the
accuracy of the report. Also additional data on the technical aspects and
costs of dewatering would clarify the analysis.
3. Critical Assumptions
Assumptions were made concerning future sludge volumes, future
transportation capacity and changes in transportation costs. Variations in
these assumptions would have to be significant to change the low economic
impacts presented in the study. The reduction of sludge volumes by
dewatering was not assumed in the analysis but could reduce disposal costs
depending on its cost-effectiveness for each sewerage authority.
4. Sensitivity Analysis
The effects of changes in estimates of transportation costs, sludge volumes
and baseline sewage costs were evaluated. These changes would not effect
the overall study results.
1-10
-------
II. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
A. Introduction
Under Section 102(c) of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972 (MPRSA), EPA designates areas for ocean disposal of sewage sludge
and industrial wastes. The Office of Water established the Ocean Disposal
Site Designation Task Force to evaluate ocean dumping sites in the New
York/New Jersey area. In 1982, area POTW's disposed of 7.6 million wet
tons of sewage sludge at three ocean disposal sites. These sites, named
for their approximate distance from New York harbor are the 12-mile site,
the 60-mile site and the 106-mile site. Currently all of the sewage sludge
is disposed of at the 12-mile site.
A map showing approximate locations of sludge disposers is presented in
Figure II-l. The total cost in 1982 by all POTW's to transport sludge to
the 12-mile site was $13 million. The ocean dumping of sewage sludge was
to stop by the end of 1981 and land-based disposal alternatives were to be
used. Since then ocean disposal at the 12-mile site has continued under
court order. Construction of incineration facilities was started by
several sewerage authorities as a land-based alternative but was stopped
due to air pollution considerations. The cost of planned land disposal
alternatives to ocean disposal was estimated to cost up to 10 times !_/ more
than ocean disposal and possibly have more serious environmental effects.
A list of the planned land-based alternatives for each of the sewerage
authorities is presented below.
Sewerage authority Land-based alternative 2J
NEW YORK
New York City Dewatering, composting (short-term)
Pyrolysis (long-term)
Nassau Compos ting/1andfi11/i nci neration
Westchester Composting/landfill/incineration
NEW JERSEY
Bergen County Composting
Passaic Valley Storage (short-term)
Incineration (long-term)
Middlesex Landfill (short-term)
Incineration (long-term)
Linden/Roselle/Rahway Landfill (short-term)
Incineration (long-term)
Joint Meeting Incineration
pEconomic Impacts of the Ban on Ocean Disposal of Sludge. 1980 (June).
Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc.
y Source: Ibid.
II-l
-------
4 Hunt's Point s LONG;
Figure II-l. Locations of Sludge Loading Piers in the New York, New Jersey
Port Area.
Source: Table taken from: Temple, Barker and Sloane, Inc., Costs of
Ocean Disposal of Municipal Sewage Sludge and Industrial Pastes,
Office of'Analysis ana Eva-iuation, U.S. environmental Protection
Agency, 1982 (September), p. 1-6.
II-2
-------
The purpose of this study is to present the costs and economic effects of
designation of the 106-mile site as the only municipal sewage sludge
disposal site. Public comments from affected communities, citizens and
interest groups received at site designation hearings and comment periods
estimated that the cost to transport sludge to the 106-mile site would be
three to four times the cost at the 12-mile site and that significant
economic impacts were expected.
The 106-mile site is located off the Continental Shelf and is 450 square
miles in area, ranging in depth from 4,725 to 9,023 feet. Since 1961 both
chemical wastes and digester cleanout have been disposed at this site. The
site's depths are expected to permit rapid dilution and dispersion of
wastes, and will minimize the adverse environmental effects. This study
did not evaluate the environmental effects of changing ocean disposal of
municipal sewage sludge to the 106-mile site. Also the costs and effects
of disposing of industrial wastes at the 106-mile site are not presented.
Presented in subsequent chapters are an analysis of the sewerage
authorities involved, ocean disposal costs at the 12-mile site and 106-mile
site, the estimated economic impacts of users, and limits of the analysis.
The remainder of this chapter presents the methodology used to measure
economic impacts presented in the following chapters.
B. Economic Impact Methodology
A variety of analytical techniques could be used to determine the economic
effects of designation of the 106-mile ocean disposal site. Conceptually,
all methods would produce nearly identical results. However, data
availability was necessarily a requisite consideration in selecting the
methodologies employed.
Considerable work has already been completed by EPA and other organizations
such as the Municipal Finance Officers Association on developing guidelines
for assessing the capability of a given community to finance a particular
treatment system or to assess the impact on the population of that
community in terms of an increase in sewage fees. The methodology
described below follows this previous work with some minor alterations due
to the available data.
The economic impact methodology consisted of five basic parts:
1. Develop community baselines,
2. Estimate incremental ocean disposal costs,
3. Determine residential user effects,
4. Determine industrial user effects, and
5. Assess capital availability for affected communities
1. Community Baseline
A community baseline is defined for each sewerage authority. Economic
impacts are then measured from the baseline. Information included in the
baseline are:
II-3
-------
1. Volume of waste generated for 1982,
2. Number of users served by each facility by type of user,
3. Community demographics,
a. per capita income,
b. household income
c. unemployment,
d. retail sales,
e. manufacturing value of shipments,
f. S&P's bond ratings, and
4. Sewage fees by user group.
Types of data collected for each baseline estimate are further presented in
sections below.
2. Incremental Ocean Disposal Costs
The incremental transportation costs of ocean disposal at the 106-mile site
were estimated from data collected from transporters, sewerage authorities
and secondary data sources. Incremental costs were estimated by
subtracting the total cost at the 12-mile site from the total 106-mile site
cost. Incremental residential and industrial user costs were allocated
based on proportional total baseline costs (shown in Table V-l).
Additional information on the methodology and assumptions used for
estimating costs are presented in Chapter IV.
3. Residential User Effects
The percent increase in user cost was estimated by dividing incremental
106-mile site costs by baseline sewage fees to approximate charge
increases. Where additional specific data were available on residential
users the following measures of economic impacts were used as guidelines:
Indicator Threshold level
1. Annual cost (debt service + O&M) S200
per household
2. User cost indicator
User Cost 1% or
Median income ' 0.75« I/
_!/ One percent is considered a conservative surrogate for the 1", 1.5*
and 1.75* indicators previously used by the agency. The 0.75
indicator is used for new projects when users are already paying a
service charge on existing projects. Government Finance Research
Center and Peat, Warwick, Mitchell and Co., "Financial Capability
Guidebook," (DRAFT)', EPA, May 14, 1982.
II-4
-------
If costs or computations exceed the guideline threshold level, economic
impacts are forecast.
4. Industrial User Effects
Industrial user effects are presented as a percent increase in user fees by
dividing the incremental increase in costs by the baseline sewage charge.
This was completed for the overall community as a proxy for industrial user
effects and where possible, specific industrial group percent increases
were computed.
The following tasks were required for this estimate.
1. Determine current level of sewage charges.
2. Divide the incremental costs by the existing charges to determine the
percentage cost increases.
A percent price increase for industrial users was then estimated by
dividing incremental 106-mile site costs by the manufacturing value of
shipments for the community from the Census of Manufactures. A threshold
of a 1.0 percent price increase was used for determining impacts.
5. Capital Availability
Assessing a community's ability to raise the necessary funds for a capital
intensive project first requires an analysis of the community's financial
conditions. The accomplishment of this analysis will require that four
separate questions are answered:
1. What is the Community's debt history?
2. What is the Community's financial condition?
3. What is the debt capacity of the community?
4. Does the existing debt capacity allow sufficient room to cover
the alternatives under consideration?
Bond ratings from Standard and Poor's were used as an approximation of
these four financial conditions. Bond ratings are based on analysis of the
requirements for specific projects. The determination of ratings is
discussed on page 111-18. For a conservative approach it was assumed that
recent bond ratings, below A would indicate problems with capital
availability.
II-5
-------
Intentionally
-------
III. SEWERAGE AUTHORITY PROFILES
This chapter presents information on the sewerage authorities affected by
the change to the 106-mile site. Eight sewerage authorities and one
municipality (New York City) are listed below.
State Sewerage authority
New York New York City
Nassau County
Westchester County
New Jersey Bergen County Utility Authority
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
Middlesex County Utility Authority
Linden/Roselle Sewerage Authority
Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority
Joint Meeting
Because Linden/Roselle and Rahway sewerage authorities combine their wastes
for transport to the disposal site they are treated as one unit in this
report. Several of the sewerage authorities operate more than one POTW,
with New York City operating eleven POTW's.
The information that were used to develop community baseline conditions are
presented by subject area. First, the sludge management systems are
described in terms of the treatment systems, the waste profiles, the
dewatering practices, storage systems and monitoring, and surveillance
practices. Second, the sewerage authorities are described in terms of the
number of users. Finally, the demographics of the sewerage authority
communities are detailed. This demographic information includes population
characteristics, annual income, employment, retail sales, value of
shipments and municipal bond ratings.
A. Sludge Management Systems
1. Types of Treatment
Table III-l lists the POTW's operated and the waste treatment utilized by
the various sewerage authorities. The types of primary treatment,
secondary treatment, other types of treatment and dewatering facilities are
also included on the table. To date, each sewerage authority has some type
of secondary treatment in place, usually activated sludge. Of the twelve
sewerage authorities with dewatering facilities, nine employ vacuum
filters, two use centrifuges, and one uses a filter press.
In the state of New York, the Mew York City sewerage authority operates
eleven POTW's. Each of these POTW's use activated sludge as a form of
secondary treatment. The Nassau County sewerage authority consists of
III-l
-------
Table III-L. Forms of POTW treatment
Sewerage authority
NEW fORK
New York City
Wards Island
Hunts Point
26th Ward
Coney Island
Owls Heao
Newton Creek
Tallmans Island
3oviery 3ay
^ockaway
Oaxwood 3eacn
Port Richmond
Nassau County
3ay Park
Type of
primary
treatment
Bar screen
Grit removal
Primary sedimentation
Bar screen
Grit removal
Comrinutors
Primary sedimentation
Bar screen
Grit removal
Primary sedimentation
Bar screen
Grit removal
Primary sedimentation
Bar screen
Grit removal
Preaeration
Primary sedimentation
Bar screen
Grit removal
Comminutors
Preaeration
Primary sedimentation
Bar screen
Preaeration
Primary sedimentation
3ar screen
3rimary sedimentation
Bar screen
Grit removal
Preaeration
Primary sedimentation
3ar screen
Preaeration
Primary sedimentation
Bar screen
Preaeration
Primary sedimentation
3ar screen
Grit removal
Ccmminutcrs
Type of
secondary
treatment
Conventional
Activated
Sludge
Conventional
Activated
Sludge
Conventional
Activated
Sludge
Conventional 2/
Activated ~
Sludge
Hign Rate
Activated
Sludge
Conventional 2/
Activated
Sludge
Conventional
Activated
Sludge
Conventional
Activated
S'uace
Conventional
Acti vated
2'udge
Conventional 2J
Activated
5 luage
Conventional
Acti vatea
Sludge
Conventional
Activated
Sludge
Conventional
Acti vated
Sludge
Other types Type of
of dewatering
treatment facilities
Chlor1nat1on Vacuum filter I/
Effluent outfall ~
Anaerobic digestion
Gravity thickening
Effluent outfall Vacuum filter I/
Anaerobic digestion "~
Air drying
Gravity thickening
Chlorination NA
Effluent outfall
Anaerobic digestion
Gravity thickening
Effluent outfall NA
Anaerobic digestion
Gravity thickening
Effluent outfall NA
Anaerobic digestion
Chlorination NA
Effluent outfall
Anaerobic digestion
Air flotation
Effluent outfall Centrifuge I/
Other treatment
Anaerobic digestion
"Heat treatment
Effluent outfall Vacuum filter './
Anaernoic digestion
Other treatment
Gravity thickening
Ef'luent outfal 1 NA
Other treatment
Anaerooic digestion
Gravity thickening
Effluent outfal 1 NA
Anaerobic digestion
Gravity thickening
Effluent outfall NA
Other treatment
Anaerobic digestion
Gravity thickening
Effluent outfall Vacuum 'ilcer 2/
Secalcination
Anaerooic digestion
Primary sedimentation
Air flotation
r T r
1 l ; -
-------
Table III-l Forms of POTW treatment (continued)
Type of
primary
Sewerage authority treatment
Cedar Creek Bar screen
Grit removal
Preaeration
Primary sedimentation
Inwood Sewage Bar screen
Grit removal
Primary sedimentation
3e1 grave NA
Roslyn 3ar screen
Primary sedimentation
West Long Bar screen
Primary sedimentation
Long Beach 3ar screen
Primary sedimentation
City of Glen Cove Bar screen
Grit removal
Primary sedimentation
Type of
secondary
treatment
Conventional
Activated
Sludge
Rock media
Trickling
Filter
NA
Rock media
Trickl ing
Filter
Sock media
Trickl ing'
Filter
Rock media
Trickl ing
Filter
High rate
Activated
Sludge
Other types
of
treatment
Effluent outfall
Recalci nation
Anaerobic digestion
Air flotation
Chlori nation
Effluent outfall
Anaerobic digestion
NA
Chlori nation
Effluent outfall
Gravity thickening
Anaerobic digestion
Chlori nation
Effluent outfall
Anaerobic digestion
Chlorination
Effluent outfall
Anaerobic digestion
neat treatment
Biological
nitrification, £/
Chlorination, ~
Type of
dewatering
facilities
Vacuum fil ter
Vacuum filter
NA
NA
NA
Vacuum filter
Filter sress 5/
t aestchestar bounty
3uc.ianan
-or* ..nester
3ar screen
Grit removal
Praaeration
Comminutors
3r« aeration
3ar screen
Grit removal
3rimary sedimentation
3ar screen
Grit removal
Preaeration
Primary sedimentation
extended
Aeration
Activated
Conventional
Activated
Sludge
Conventional a/
Activated ~
Sludge
31ind 3roo*
3ar screen
Grit removal
3rimary
ion
Conventional 3/
Activated ~
S'ucae
Effluent outfall
Sludge holding tanks
Flotation thickening
Coincineration with
sol id taste
Anaerobic digestion
Gravity thickening
Chlor-'nation (IA
Ef'Tuent outfall
Sludqe lagoons
Air drying
Chlorination Cantrifuqe
Effluent :utfall
Grit --eniovai
Gravity :nicxening
Flotation thickening
Anaerobic digestion
Chlorination /ac'jum '"'
Sludge :rjckad to
mannole for aiscnarge
to Xonners 3TP,
Anaerobic digestion Tj
Heat treatment ~
Gravity thickening
Multi -hearth
Incineration
Chlorinacion Vacuum *;
Sludge trucked to
Tiannole ;3r iiscnrage
to Yonxers 3TP,
Heat treatment
v«et air oxidation 3/
III-3
-------
Table III-l Forms of POTW treatment (continued)
Sewerage authority
Type of
primary
treatment
Type of
secondary
treatment
Other types
of
treatment
Type of
dewatering
facilities
NEVI JERSEY
Bergen County
Passaic Valley
i Middlesex
Linden-Roselle
Rahway Valley
Joint Meeting
(Union 1 Essex)
Bar screen
Grit removal
Primary sedimentation
Contact
Stabilization
Activated
Sludge
Bar screen Pure oxygen
Grit removal Activated
Primary sedimentation _10/ Sludge
Bar screen
Grit removal
Primary sedimentation
Bar screen
Grit removal
Primary sedimentation
Bar screen
Grit removal
Preaeration
Primary sedimentation
Bar screen
Grit removal
Primary sedimentation
Blue oxygen
Activated
Sludge
Conventional
Activated
Sludge
Roughing
Filter
Trickling
Conventional
Activated
Sludge
Conventional
Activated
Sludge
Effluent outfall
Anaerobic digestion
Gravity thickening
Sand filter
Chlorination
Effluent outfall
Gravity thickening
Heat treatment
(Zimpro) ll/
Clori nation
Effluent outfall
Aerobic digestion
Gravity thickening
Effluent outfall
Microstrainers
Recalcitration
Gravity thickening
Anaerobic digestion
Flotation thickening
Chlorination
Chlorination
Effluent outfall
Gravity thickening
Anaerobic digestion
Digested sludge pumped
to storage tanks at
Linden/Roselle STP
Chlorination
Recalcitration
Microstrainers
Effluent outfall
Gravity thickening
Anaerobic digestion
Multiple hearth
incineration
NA
NA
NA
Filter press
Filter press
his
Needs survey data indicates that dewatering facilities are being utilized by NYC treatment plants.
data, however, conflicts with the statement of a New ''ork Department of Environmental Protection
official's comment that no NYC plants are currently dewatering facilities.
"hree NYC treatment plants (Coney Island, Owls Head, Rockaway) utilize preliminary and secondary
treatment, but not primary sedimentation. This treatment technology results in reduced 300 and SS
-emovals, and reduced sludge generation rates.
Meeds survey indicates that this equipment is currently being installed.
Nitrification mode will not be operated until sludge/refuse incineration is completed.
Needs survey shows construction of the 'ollowing facilities: gravity thickening, anaerobic digestion,
dewatering - filter press, coincineration with solid waste. Coincineration facility currently under
construction will burn 25 tons per day sewage sludge (20 * solids).
Needs survey and Westchester County pretreatment suomission indicate that Port Chester STP will be
upgraded viith conventional activated sludge facilities.
Sludge thickening facilities construction is currently underway and scheduled for completion in late
1984. Needs survey indicates use of anaerobic digestion, heat treatment, vacuum filter dewatering ano
gravity thickening at the Port Chester Sludge Thic*ening facility. The facility will also handle 31ind
3rook STP sludge.
Construction of secondary treatment is scheduled 'or completion in late 1983. Start-up is scheduled
1984. Secondary treatment at Blind Brook will not commence until Port Chester STP Sludge facility is
operational.
Needs survey indicates that 31ind Srook will use ^eat treatment, wet air oxidation, and vacuum 'ilter
dewatering. This data entry probaoly refers to 3ort Chester facility. Westchester County plans to
'ncinerate Port Chester and Slind Srook sludge in lieu of discharging to the Yonkers STP
10/ New primary clarifiers are unoer construction and scneduled 'or start-up between mid-1984 and Octooer
ll/ Sludge dewater;ng facilities have been built out are not currently in use.
NA" » Not Available.
III-4
T/
6/
u
3/
9/
or
-------
eight POTW's. Five of these POTW's have dewatering facilities which are in
place or are being constructed. Of the five dewatering facilities, four
are vacuum filters, and one is a filter press. Four POTVJ's comprise the
Westchester County sewerage authority. All four POTW's use activated
sludge for secondary treatment.
In New Jersey, there are six sewerage authorities, each with one POTW.
Each of these POTW's uses activated sludge as a type of secondary
treatment.
2. Waste Profiles
Table III-2 shows the amount of sludge dumped quarterly and annually in
1982 by each sewerage authority. Annual sewage sludge generation ranged
from 268,958 wet tons by Linden/Roselle/Rahway to 3,206,054 wet tons by New
York City.
In most cases, quarterly sludge generation was fairly stable, and a
comparison between sewerage authorities did not produce any conclusions
regarding seasonal highs or lows. Passaic Valley showed the greatest
variation in quarterly sludge generation, ranging from 203,466 wet tons of
sludge in the first quarter to 648,332 wet tons of sludge in the fourth
quarter. This variation is attributed to the addition of secondary
treatment by the Passaic Valley sewerage authority.
Table III-3 shows the percentage of solids for each sewerage authority's
sludge. Middlesex showed the highest percentage of solids at 4.2-4.3
percent. Port Richmond (not shown), a POTW under the New York City
sewerage authority has the highest percentage of solids at 9.1 percent.
Generally, the percentage of solids in the sewage sludge ranged from 2.0 to
4.0 percent.
3. Dewatering
Sludge dewatering is one action that sewerage authorities can take to
reduce sludge volumes prior to ocean disposal. The cost of dewatering and
the amount of dewatering depends on the technology that is used and the
circumstances of the POTW. The appropriate dewatering techniques vary
according to the desired solids content and may be constrained by the
existing wastewater treatment technologies used by the POTW. Land
availability often limits the expansion of a POTW's dewatering efforts to
certain technologies.
The optimum solids content depends on design of the vessels serving the
sewerage authority, the ability of pumps to handle higher solids sludge and
possible environmental effects of dewatered sludge. The amount of
dewatering also depends on the volume reduction that can be attained. Most
of the possible decreases in volume occur between three percent and ten
percent solids, depending on the characteristics of the sludge. A solids
content greater than ten percent causes problems in pumping and ocean
dispersal of -sludges. Finally, the target solids content will reflect the
cost of dewatering and the cost of sludge transportation.
III-5
-------
Table III-2. Amount of sludge generated quarterly and annually, 1982
Sewerage
authority
NEW YORK
New York City
Nassau County
Westchester
County
NEW JERSEY
Bergen County
Passaic Valley
Middlesex
County
Linden/Roselle/
Rahway
Joint Meeting
Total
wet tons
dry tons
wet tons
dry tons
wet tons
dry tons
wet tons
dry tons
wet tons
dry tons
wet tons
dry tons
wet tons
dry tons
wet tons
dry tons
wet tons
dry tons
First
quarter
640,975
18,968
129,000
3,880
46,332
1,529
67,345
2,647
203,466
13,429
199,956
8,358
70,925
1,975
117,153
2,908
1,475,152
53,694
Second
quarter
715,415
23,133
100,000
3,000
106,704
2,913
75,567
2,494
285,532
19,559
194,512
7,107
71,142
2,201
108,762
2,790
1,657,634
63,197
Third
quarter
950,880
26,504
96,800
2,900
146,016
3,212
56,955
1,879
556,764
32,626
203,594
7,642
' 63,509
1,878
92,380
2,317
2,166,898
78,958
Fourth
quarter
898,784
24,148
115,500
3,464
133,584
2,712
88,705
2,892
648,332
39,613
221,893
9,017
63,382
1,776
102,425
2,506
2,272,605
86,128
Year-end
total
3,206,054
92,753
441,300
13,244
432,636
10,366
288,573
9,912
1,694,094
105,227
819,955
32,124
268,958
7,830
420,720
10,521
7,572,290
281,977
Source: Letters from sewerage authorities.
III-6
-------
Table III-3. Solids content of sewage sludge
Sewerage authority
NEW YORK
New York City
Nassau County
Westchester County
NEW JERSEY
Bergen County
Passaic Valley
Middlesex County
Linden/ Rose!! e/Rahway
Joint Meeting
Total
Wet tons
(thousands)
3,206
441
433
289
1,694
820
269
421
7,573
Solids
(%)
2.5-3.0
2.5-3.0
3.0-4.5
3.5-4.0
3.0-4.0
4.2-4.3
2.0-4.0
2.5
2.0-4.0
Source: OPRA site visits to the eight sewerage authorities January 1984.
III-7
-------
Several of the New York and New Jersey sewerage authorities have dewatering
equipment in place that is not used for a variety of reasons. Some cannot
efficiently utilize the dewatering equipment because of such technical
constraints as pumping equipment. Some cannot obtain the necessary permits
needed to incinerate the dewatered sludge. Some dewatered sludge is too
dry to dispose of in the ocean because it floats.
The dewatering equipment of several sewerage authorities is described
below:
Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority has $7 million worth of
dewatering equipment that cannot be used because it cannot obtain
a permit to incinerate the dewatered sludge. The current solids
content is four percent and dewatering ahead of ocean disposal is
not feasible because solids cannot exceed five percent with
present pumping equipment.
Linden/Roselle has a belt filter press, with capital cost of $6
million to $7 million, that is not used.
Joint Meeting has dewatering equipment in place but not in use.
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission has a $16 million filter-press
dewatering facility not in use.
Westchester County has designed but not built a dewatering plant.
Nassau County built a $14 million belt filter-press dewatering
plant to use in a composting system but does not have plans to
use it.
Middlesex County invested in a $40 million facility to incinerate
dewatered sludge and county refuse in an attempt to reduce power
costs. However, the refuse disposal was subsequently awarded to
private contractors and the facility is unused.
4. Storage Facilities
Moving sludge disposal to the 106-mile site has implications for the
sewerage authorities' storage facilities. Unless they dewater sludge, all
sewerage authorities using the 106-mile site will have storage needs
exceeding their existing storage for the 12-mile site. There are three
reasons for the increased storage needs:
t longer voyages cause longer times between pickups,
the higher efficiency of large vessels for disposal at the
106-mile site, and
the higher probability of inclement weather blocking the voyage
to the 106-mile site.
III-8
-------
Actual storage needs depend on the sewerage authority's daily sludge
generation, vessel capacity and the necessary allowances for inclement
weather. The optimum storage capacity should be enough to fill the largest
vessel used by the sewerage authority. However, the possibility of vessel
delays requires larger storage capacity. The only sewerage authority to
report storage cost data was New York City, which estimates annual
incremental costs of sludge storage to be $2.25 million.' This cost
estimate was not included in New York City's total baseline cost (shown in
Table V-l).
5. Monitoring and Surveillance Practices
Monitoring of sludge wastes and surveillance of dumping are required for
both the 12-mile stie and the 106-mile site. Current and proposed
practices are discussed below.
Monitoring is necessary to assess the possible adverse impacts of ocean
dumping on fisheries, public health and marine systems. The basic elements
of a monitoring program would be to identify:
the quantity and characteristics of the waste,
the locations of waste releases,
the fate of the waste constituents,
the effects on yields of harvestable species, and
the body burden of contaminants in harvestable species.
Table III-4 details the parts of a monitoring program and the parties
responsible for each part. An important component omitted from the cost
estimate described in Table III-4 is waste characteristics monitoring.
This monitoring, which must be done by the permittee, is now done quarterly
on conventional pollutants, heavy metals and selected other contaminants.
Surveillance is necessary to ensure that ocean disposal vessels discharge
their cargoes at the proper site at a rate which will not exceed the
limiting permissible concentration (LPC) required by the permit. The
surveillance system which will be required has not been determined but
surveillance could be achieved using the following three different systems:
ship riders
black box navigational systems
examination of ship logs
Ship riders are on-board Coa'st Guard inspectors who ensure proper disposal
procedures are followed. This surveillance approach requires the largest
Coast Guard expense because a ship rider would be necessary for each
voyage. If riders are assigned only to selected vessels to save money,
there is no way to enforce proper procedures on voyages lacking ship
riders. The Coast Guard would probably need to assign two or three ship
riders to each of the vessels engaged in sludge disposal to achieve
complete coverage.
III-9
-------
Table 111-4. Overall monitoring program for 106-mile site
Type of monitoring
Sampling location
and time scale
Purpose
Conducting parties
Compliance Monitoring
Near-field Monitoring
Far-field Monitoring
Marine Resources
Monitoring
Ocean Process
Disposal site; up to 5 hrs.
after disposal operation
Disposal site; at least 24
hours after disposal
operations
Wide geographic area; long-
term, periodic sampling
Wide geographic area; long-
term, periodic sampling
. Wide geographic area; long-
term, periodic sampling
To assure compliance with
permit conditions and LPC
Monitor immediate and
short-term impacts; follow
dispersion and diffusion
characteristics of wastes;
dump site management,
including cumulative impacts
Determine movement of waste
constituents; dump site
management, including
cumulative impacts
Determine long-range impacts
and trends associated with
health/availability of marine
resources
Monitor progressive changes
in physical, chemical,
biological characteristics
Permittee, EPA
Permittee; EPA;
NOAA
EPA; NOAA
NOAA
NOAA
Source: Criteria and Standards, EPA.
-------
The black box system relies on a shore-based transponder that allows the
Coast Guard to monitor continuously the vessel's position. Black boxes
have two advantages over ship riders. First, they are less costly.
Second, it is impossible for the vessel operators to know whether they are
being monitored. The chief disadvantage of the black box is the need for
transponders on each vessel in the ocean disposal fleet.
Ship log audits are the simplest and cheapest surveillance method. This
system relies on the requirement that vessels record their movements in a
log indicating arrivals and departures at each point in the voyage. Even
though vessel operators can falsify the logs, it is possible to verify them
from POTW logs and independent sightings of other vessels. The audit trail
can easily be traced because the time for each leg of a voyage is fairly
constant.
B. Number of Users
Each sewerage authority treats the wastes of several local municipalities
as presented in Table III-5. The number of municipalities ranges from five
in .Nassau County to forty-three in Bergen County. The municipalities
provide local sewer hook-ups, collection and transport to the sewerage
authority trunk lines. Approximately ten million residents and 300
municipalities are served by the eight sewerage authorities shown in Table
III-5. The New York City sewerage authority serves nearly half of this
total with 5.3 million residential users. Nassau County serves 889,000
residents, while Westchester County has 484,000 residential users.
Westchester County also has over one thousand commercial users.
In New Jersey, the Passaic Valley sewerage authority serves the largest
number of residential and commercial users. Five thousand commercial users
and 1.3 million residential users utilize services offered by the Passaic
Valley sewerage authority. The number of Bergen County commercial users
was not available, but there are 476,000 residential users. Middlesex
County is second to Passaic Valley in the number of residential users
served, at 609,000. The Middlesex County sewerage authority also has 1,300
commercial users. The Linden/Roselle/Rahway sewerage authority has the
least number of residential users, at 279,000. However, it serves the
second largest number of commercial users, at 2,973. Joint Meeting has
459,000 residential users and 1,626 commercial users.
C. Community Demographics
Demographic data for the communities in which the sewerage authorities are
located are summarized below. Information was not always available for the
specific populations served by two sewerage authorities, Joint Meeting and
Linden/Roselle/Rahway. Therefore, it was necessary to rely on county data
for these sewerage authorities. The Linden/Roselle/Rahway authority is
located in Union County and segments of both Union County and Essex County
are served by the Joint Meeting sewerage authority. Data for these two
counties are included in the text and tables of this section to represent
the pertinent sewerage authorities.
III-ll
-------
Table 111-5. Number of municipalities, residential and commercial users, 1982
IN}
Sewerage authority
NEW YORK
New York City
Nassau County
Westchester County
NEW JERSEY
Bergen County
Passaic Valley
Middlesex County
L i nden/Rose 1 le/Rahway
Joint Meeting
Total of all sewerage
authorities
Municipal ities
served
NA
5
9
43
29
21
3
12
NA
Residential
users
(thousands)
5,302
889
484
476
1,300
609
279
459
9,798
Households
624
320
156
145
433
203
85
188
2,154
Commercial
and
industrial
users
NA
1,640
1,192
NA
5,000
1,300
2,973
1,626
NA
Significant
industrial
users
NA
200
75
15
355
110
140
NA
NA
NA = Not available.
Source: DPRA site visits to the eight sewerage authorities January 1984.
-------
Demographic data were collected from U.S. Census Bureau publications,
specifically U.S. County Business Patterns and General Social and Economic
Characteristics.
1. Population
The total population for each county and New York City is shown on Table
III-6. As noted on the table, only one county experienced an increase in
population between 1970 and 1980. The population of Middlesex County
increased 2.1 percent. New York City suffered the largest decline in
population from 1970 to 1980 at 10.4 percent.
2. Annual Income
A comparison of the median household income in each county is shown on
Table III-7. Nassau County had the highest median household income in 1979
at $26,090. The lowest median income was $13,854 for households in New
York City.
Fifty-three percent of the households in New York City had an annual income
of less than $15,000. New York City also reported the highest percentage
of families below the poverty level at 17.2 percent. In comparison, Bergen
County reported that only 3.1 percent of its families were below the
poverty level and only 28 percent of the households in the county had an
annual income of less than $15,000.
Per capita income is also shown on Table III-7, and ranges from $7,214 in
Passaic County to $10,603 in Westchester County.
3. Employment
The total number of persons employed, the total annual payroll and the
unemployment rate for New York City and the relevant counties are shown on
Table III-8. Passaic County experienced the highest unemployment rate in
1982 at 11.0 percent, which was 1.3 percent higher than the U.S.
unemployment rate of 9.7 percent. Westchester County experienced the
lowest unemployment rate of the counties shown on the table at 5.4 percent
in 1982.
The number of persons employed in each county during 1980 ranged from
166,000 in Passaic County to 2.9 million in New York City.
4. Sales and Value of Shipments
Retail sales and value of shipments in'1977 are shewn below for New York
City as well as the counties which contain the sewerage authorities studied
in this report.
111-13
-------
Table III-6. Total population
County or city
NEW YORK
New York City
Nassau County
Westchester County
NEW JERSEY
Bergen County
Passaic County
Middlesex County
Essex County
Union County
Total
1970
7,894,862
1,428,080
894,104
898,012
460,782
583,813
929,986
543,116
13,632,755
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
and Economic Characteristics, 1980.
1980
7,071,639
1,321,582
866,599
845,385
447,535
595,893
851,116
504,094
12,503,893
of the Census.
1983 (July).
% change
-10.4
-7.5
-3.1
-5.9
-2.9
2.1
-8.5
-7.2
-8.3
General Social
111-14
-------
Table 111-7. Annual income in 1979
County or city
NEW YORK
New York City
Nassau County
Westchester County
NEW JERSEY
Bergen County
Passaic County
Middlesex County
Essex County
Union County
Total
Source: U.S. DeDartmei
Median
household
i ncome
$13,854
26,090
22,725
24,053
17,907
22,826
16,186
21,625
it of Commerce ,
Less
than
$15,000
1,485
100
97
83
64
56
140
59
2,084
Bureau of
$15,000
to
$24,999
^ LilUUballUb
650
100
70
73
41
54
69
44
1,101
the Census.
$25,000
to
$49,999
of households)-
537
167
98
109
41
74
71
59
1,156
General Social
$50,000
Plus
120
57
43
35
7
13
20
15
310
Per
capita
i ncome
(J)
7,271
9,974
10,603
10,188
7,214
8,357
7,538
9,031
Percent
of families
below
poverty
level
17.2
3.6
5.6
3.1
10.5
4.7
15.2
5.8
and Economic Characteristics,
1980. 1983 (July).
-------
Table III-8. Employment statistics
Total number of Percent
persons employed Total annual unemployment
City or county in 1980 I/ payroll in 1981 2/ in 1982 3/
(1
NEW YORK
New York City
Nassau County
Westchester County
NEW JERSEY
Bergen County
Passaic County
Middlesex County
Essex County
Union County
Total
I/ Source: U.S. Department
,000)
2,918
458
316
358
166
238
323
232
5,009
of Commerce,
Social and Economic Characteristics,
2/ Source: U.S. Department
Business Patterns, 1981.
of Commerce,
1983 (April
(51,000,000)
NA
6,975
5,371
5,985
2,601
4,180
5,520
4,229
NA
Bureau of the Census.
1980. 1983 (July).
Bureau of the Census.
).
9.6
6.0
5.4
6.9
11.0
8.0
9.8
9.3
General
County
3/ Source: Telephone conversation with George Abraham, Bureau of Labor
Statistics. (202) 523-1002.
111-16
-------
Retail sales and manufacturing value of shipments in 1977
Manufacturing
NEW YORK Retail Sales j./ value of shipments 2/
(billions of dollars) (billions of dollars)
New York City 17.2 42.4
Nassau County 5.4 ' 4.8
Westchester County 3.1 3.8
NEW JERSEY
Bergen County 3.5 6.5
Passaic County 1.5 3/ 3.2
Middlesex County 1.9 Jf 6.9
Essex County 2.4 4.8
Union County 1.7 8.9
5. Municipal Bond Ratings
Standard and Poor's was examined for municipal bond ratings of the counties
and cities containing the sewerage authorities examined in this report.
The bond ratings are used as a screening tool for evaluation of economic
impacts on communities due to increased capital costs. Funds from the
bonds are used to pay the cost of any part of the sewerage systems or to
refund outstanding bonds. Bond indebtedness ranged from $10 million at
Rahway Valley to $68 million at Middlesex. The rating system used by
Standard and Poor's is shown below, and is taken directly from the October
1983 Standard and Poor's Bond Guide.
AAA - Bonds rated AAA have the highest rating assigned by Standard
and Poor's. Capacity to pay interest and repay principal is extremely
strong.
AA_ - Bonds rated AA have a very strong capacity to pay interest and
repay principal and differs from the higher rated issues only in small
degree.
^ - Bonds rated A have a strong capacity to pay interest and repay
principal although it is somewhat more susceptible to the adverse
effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than bonds
in higher rated categories.
_!/ Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1977
Census of Retail Trade, Geographic Area Statistics. 1980 (March).
2J Source:U.S. Department of'Conmerce, Bureau of the Census. 1977 '
Census of Manufactures, Geographic Area 'Statistics. 1981 (August).
3/ Coextensive with Paterscn-Ciifton-Passaic, New Jersey, SMSA.
T/ Coextensive with New Brunswick-Perth Amboy-Sayreville, New Jersey,
SMSA.
111-17
-------
BBB - Bonds rated BBB are regarded as having an adequate capacity to
pay interest and repay principal. Whereas they normally exhibit
adequate protection parameters, adverse economic conditions or
changing circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity
to pay interest and repay principal for bonds in this category than
for bonds in higher rated categories.
Plus (+) or Minus (-): The ratings from "AA" to "B" may be modified
by the addition of a plus or minus sign to show relative standing with
the major rating categories.
Standard and Poor's ratings are based on three considerations.
1. Likelihood of default-capacity and willingness of the obligor as
to the timely payment of interest and repayment of principal in
accordance with the terms of the obligation;
2. Nature of and provisions of the obligation;
3. Protection afforded by and relative position of the obligation in
the event of bankruptcy, reorganization or other arrangement
under the laws of bankruptcy and other laws affecting creditors'
rights.
Pertinent municipal bond ratings are summarized below by county.
New York City revenue bonds for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority
have an overall ratirug of AAA from Standard and Poor's. The triple A
rating indicates an extremely strong capacity to pay interest and repay
principal. Although this rating does not correspond to sewerage authority
bond ratings, it was the only one available for the city of New York.
Nassau County general obligation and revenue bond ratings also have an
overall rating of AAA.
Westchester County's general obligation municipal bond has a Standard and
Poor's rating of AA+. The Westchester County revenue bond which was issued
10-1-82 (Serial A), was assigned an AAA rating. Another Westchester County
bond which was issued in 1982 for Resource Recovery has a provisional
rating of A. The provisional rating assumes the successful completion of
the project being financed.
Bergen County sewer authority municipal revenue bonds have an overall
rating of AAA. The bonds issued in 1978 by the Utility Authority have an
AAA rating for the Special Obligation issue and an A+ rating for the
Refunding issue.
Passaic Valley sewer authority revenue bonds which were issued in 1972 and
1977, have an A rating from Standard and Poor's.
111-18
-------
Linden/Rose ne/Ranway Valley sewerage authority revenue bonds have an AAA
rating for those bonds issued in 1970 and 1976. Rahway Valley revenue
bonds issued in 1980 have a Standard and Poor's rating of A. General
obligation bonds for Linden have an AA rating.
Essex County vocational school general municipal bonds have a Standard and
Poor's rating of AA. Essex county is part of the Joint'Meeting sewerage
authority.
Union County general obligation bonds have an AA+ rating from Standard and
Poor's.Union county is part of the Joint Meeting sewerage authority.
Middlesex County general obligation bonds have a Standard and Poor's rating
of AA, while the Middlesex County sewerage authority revenue bond has an A
rating.
111-19
-------
-------
IV. OCEAN DISPOSAL COSTS
A. Background
This chapter reviews the development of ocean disposal costs incurred by
New York and New Jersey sewerage authorities that were used in the economic
impact analysis. In this chapter, the key parts of the methodology and the
important assumptions are reviewed. The costs used in the economic impact
analysis are then presented.
B. Methodology and Assumptions
The methodology involved simple aggregations for each sewerage authority
based on its sludge generation rate and the unit cost of disposing at the
106-mile site. This chapter describes the transportation cost component of
ocean disposal.
Transportation is the largest cost and would be affected the most by moving
from the 12-mile to the 106-mile site. Using the 106-mile site can also
increase storage costs as sludge backlogs wait for tankers or barges to
return from the longer voyages. A discussion of storage costs is presented
in Chapter III.
Transportation costs depend on the demand created by sludge generation and
the supply provided by ocean disposal vessels. Factors on both sides of
the cost determination were included in the methodology of this analysis.
Sludge generation depends on several factors and projections can vary
according to:
the season of the year,
changes in the POTW's service area in terms of square mileage or
number of users,
level or type of treatment, or
industrial pretreatment.
The supply of ocean disposal is equally complex.' First, the availability
of ocean disposal facilities can depend on the size and depth of piers,
pumping capabilities and the types of vessels. Second, the actual vessel
supply consists of contract and city owned barges and tankers. Third,
weather can be an important constraint on the supply of ocean disposal
capacity. Under certain weather conditions, vessels cannot travel to the
disposal site. Moreover, weather can have different effects on tankers and
IV-1
-------
barges. The frequency of inclement weather varies by season, but weather
delays are more common in winter. Fourth, the costs of the actual
transportation include capital costs, operating and maintenance costs and
fuel. Also, transportation costs must absorb the costs of loading and
discharging the sludge. Discharge time can be as high as 16 hours to
prevent exceeding the limiting permissible concentration.
The ocean dumping vessels in the study area can be classified into three
types:
vessels owned by the sewerage authorities
large ocean-going barges operated by A&S Transportation, Inc.
small tankers operated by General Marine Transport.
The ownership and operating arrangements between the fleet and the sewerage
authorities are summarized in matrix form in Table IV-1 for 1982. Changes
in these contractual arrangements have been reported for 1983 and 1984.
New York City has its own tankers and Westchester County has its own barge
but all of the sewerage authorities utilize contractors for sludge
disposal. A&S Transportation serves all the sewerage authorities.
The amount of tanker or barge capacity depends on the vessel payload and
the number of trips it can make. Tables IV-2 and IV-3 summarize the annual
vessel capacities for tankers and barges, respectively. Annual capacities
assume a full utilization of 64 percent for tankers and 50 percent for
barges.
In Table IV-4, the capacity of the ocean dumping fleet is compared to. the
sludge generation rates of the various sewerage authorities. Maximum
capacity is calculated based on the actual payload of the vessels available
to a sewerage authority and the number of trips they can make to the
particular disposal site each year. New York City is listed separately and
the other sewerage authorities are grouped according to whether they use
contract tankers or their own barges. The capacities of all three types of
transports are inadequate to meet the demand for ocean dumping at the
106-mile site. The shortfalls at this level of utilization will range from
23 percent of generated sludge for New York City to over 40 percent for
Nassau and Bergen counties, which rely on tankers.
The methodology of this analysis assumes that any shortfall of capacity due
to moving to the 106-mile site will be made up by the transporters at a
competitive price and will cost the sewerage authorities the same on a per
ton of sludge basis as the existing fleet. Thus, the shortfall will not
raise prices.
C. Disposal Costs
The estimated costs of ocean disposal are the basis of the economic impact
analysis summarized in the following chapter. Transportation costs were
estimated from capital costs and operating and maintenance costs of vessels
obtained from transporters. Costs for each sewerage authority were
developed according to the type of vessels that serve it. The number of
IV-2
-------
lable IV-1. Contractual arrangements of vessels permitted to dump POTU sludge
i
to
Operator:
Vessel :
Type:
User
New York City
Sludge
l)i (jester Cleanout
(106-mile site)
Nassau County
Uestchester County
Cassdk Valley
Bergen County
Sludge
Digester Cleanout
(106-mile site)
Linden Moselle
Joint Meeting
Middlesex County
Ocean Dis-
Cily of New York posal, Inc.
New town Bowery North Owl's Ocean*
Creek Bay River lledd Disposal 11
(I) (I) (I) (I) (B)
X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Klniberly
Ann
(B)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A&S
Lisa
(B)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Transportation
Veronica
Evelyn
(B)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dtna
Marie Maria
(0) (B)
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
General Marine
Susan Rebecca Leo
Frank K Frank
(T) (T) (B)
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
Uestchester
County
Uestco
(B)
X
Key: B = Barge
I = lanker
* Listed as owned by Week Stevedoring Inc.
Source: TBS 1982
-------
Table IV-2. Availability of tanker capacity for dumping at the 12- and 106-mile sites
106-Mile site
Operator and
tanker
New York City
Newton Creek
Bowery Bay
North Rive'r
Owl's Head
TOTAL PER YEAR
TOTAL PER QUARTER
General Marine
(Nassau and Bergen
Counties)
Rebecca K
Susan Frank
TOTAL PER YEAR
TOTAL PER QUARTER
Tanker
pay load
(ton)
3,400
2,100
3,400
2,100
1,600
l,600a
Average Number
of trips per
year
64%
282
132
132
132
828
207
125
120
1,076
269
Thousand tons
of sludge
jier ^ear
64%
958
277
277
277
2,470
618
200
200
400
100
12-Mile
Average number
of trips per
Pay load year
(tons) 64%
3,400 603
2,100 477
3,400 603
2,100 477
2,160
540
1 ,600 386
1,600 386
772
193
site
Thousand tons
of sludge
per year
64%
2,050
1,002
2,050
1,002
6,104
1,526
618
618
1,236
309
Source: TBS 1982, Abt Associates, Inc.
-------
Table IV-3. Availability of barge capacity for dumping at the 12- and 106-mile sites
106-MHe site
Operator and
tanker
Modern (A&S)
transportation
Maria
Kimberly Ann
Lisa
Veronica Evelyn
D1na Marie
Ocean Disposal
General Marine
Leo Frank
Laurie B
Lindsey Frank
Westchester County
Westco
TOTAL PER YEAR
TOTAL PER QUARTER
A
Tanker
pay load
(ton)%
8,000
3,000
8,000
3,000
3,000
5,900
5,740
5,740 a/
5,740 a/
verage Number
of trips per
year
505
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
500
128
Thousand tons
of sludge
per year
50%
520
520
520
195
195
520
373
373
373
--
3,453
363
I
Pay load
(tons)
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
5,900
5,740
5,740
5,740
1,600
12-MHe
Werage number
of trips per
year
30$
160
160
160'
160
160
160
160
160
160
155
1,435
359
site
Thousand tons
of sludge
per vear
50,
1,280
1,280
1,280
480
480
944
918
918
918
248
7,802
1,951
a/ Laurie 3 and Lindsey crank are former industrial waste disposal vessels recently acquired by General
~~ Marine, capacity assumed co be same as Lea Frank.
Source: T3S 1982, Abt Associates, Inc.
IV-5
-------
Table IV-4. Demand and supply for ocean dumping capacity
at the 106-mile site
Communities
New York using contract Communities
City tankers If using barges 21
~ (000 wet tons)
Sludge Generation
Current
Annual 3,206 702 3,659
Maximum Quarter n.a. 205 1,175
Fleet Capacity
Annual 2,470 400 3,453
Quarterly 618 100 863
I/ Bergen and Nassau counties.
2/ Passaic Valley, Middlesex, Joint Meeting, Linden/Roselle/Rahway,
Westchester County.
Source: Abt Associates, Inc.
IV-6
-------
voyages a vessel can make in a year was calculated based on round trip
distance, vessel speed and total voyage time. The total annual cost is
based on the vessel's capital cost and its semi-fixed and variable costs.
Total annual sludge quantities that can be transported are the product of
vessel payload and the number of trips. Total annual cost of the vessel is
divided by total annual sludge quantity to calculate cost per ton. A 15
percent contractor fee or profit is added to this cost per ton to arrive at
the cost to the sewerage authority.
The costs for each sewerage authority in the study area are presented in
Table IV-5. They are based on the sludge generation rates and the unit
disposal cost. These costs do not include storage costs.
1. New York City
The total annual cost for New York City of disposal at the 106-mile site is
estimated to be $14.9 million, based on a unit disposal cost of $4.64 per
wet ton and an annual sludge quantity of 3.2 million wet tons.
Sludge disposal for New York City is considered to be the most complex of
the sewerage authorities. New York City accounts for the largest
percentage of the total sludge disposed of at the 106-mile site. Moreover,
this sludge is generated at 11 different plants. Under current sludge
generation rates and capacity constraints, Mew York will need to make up
its shortfall with contract transporters. The cost of this mix of
city-owned and contract disposal is summarized in detail in Table IV-6.
2. Nassau County
The estimated cost of ocean disposal at the 106-mile site for Nassau County
is $3.3 million, based on a unit disposal cost of $7.41 and an annual
sludge quantity of 441 thousand wet tons.
3. Westchester County
The estimated disposal cost for Westchester County is $3.6 million, based
on a unit disposal cost of $8.21 per wet ton and annual sludge quantity of
433 thousand wet tons.
This is the third highest total ocean disposal cost for any sewerage
authority in the study area. Most of this cost is the result of
Westchester County's high unit disposal cost. One reason for this unit
cost is the county's use of a small county-owned barge and two commercial
tankers. Its use of larger, more economical barges is limited by pier size
and depth. Another reason for the high unit cost is Westchester County's
location, which gives its sludge haulers the longest round trip.
IV-7
-------
Table IV-S. Cost of sludye disposal for New York and New Jersey sewerage authorities at the 106-mile site (assuming no denaturing)
New York
City Nassau
Met Tons of Sludge (000)
Actual 1982 3,206 441
Unit Cost (dollars per wet tons) 4.64 7.41
Total Cost (000 dollars) 14,880 3,266
Linden/
Passalc Roselle/ Joint
Westchester Bergen Valley Middlesex Rahway Meeting Total
433 289 1.694 820 269 421 7,573
8.21 7.88 4.50 3.85 3.82 3.69 5.07
3,555 2,277 7.623 3.159 1,027 1,554 37,341
Source: Abt Associates, Inc.
-------
Table IV-6. Summary of cost of sludge disposal
for New York City
Disposal method
City Tankers
3,400 ton tanker
2,150 ton tanker
Total
Contractor disposal
TOTAL
Volume
(000 wet tons)
1,916
554
T^TQ
736
3,206
Cost per
wet ton
(5)
3.01
6.32
377T
7.62
4.64
Total
cost
(000 dollars)
4,767
3,501
T^l8
3,510
14,880
Source: Abt Associates, Inc.
IV-9
-------
4. Bergen County
The cost of ocean disposal at the 106-mile site for Bergen County is
estimated at $2.3 million, based on a unit disposal cost of $7.88 per wet
ton and annual sludge generation of 289 thousand wet tons.
Bergen County's costs are relatively high because it has the second highest
unit disposal costs of any sewerage authority. This high unit cost
reflects a relatively long round trip to the disposal site and the county's
reliance on contract tankers of General Marine transport. Bergen County
cannot load lower cost barges at its pier under normal circumstances.
5. Passaic Valley Sewerage Authority
The estimated total cost of ocean disposal for Passaic Valley is $7.6
million, based on a unit cost of $4.50 per wet ton and annual sludge
generation of 1.69 million wet tons. Except for New York City, this is the
highest ocean disposal cost incurred by any sewerage authority. The high
total cost is attributable to the large amount of sludge generated by
Passaic Valley. Only New York City generates more. The estimated cost
assumes that Passaic Valley is not yet able to dewater its sludge to 10
percent solids and thus generates the larger amount of sludge.
6. Middlesex County
The cost of ocean disposal at the 106-mile site for Middlesex County is
estimated to be $3.2 million, based on a unit disposal cost of $3.85 per
wet ton and annual sludge generation of 820 thousand wet tons. Middlesex
County has a relatively low unit cost because of its short round trip to
the disposal site.
7. Linden/Roselle/Rahway Sewerage Authority
The estimated cost of ocean disposal for Linden/Roselle/Rahway is slightly
over $1.0 million, based on a unit disposal cost of $3.82 per wet ton and
annual sludge generation of 269 thousand wet tons.
8. Joint Meeting (Essex and Union Counties)
The total cost of ocean disposal for Joint Meeting is an estimated $1.6
million, based on a unit disposal cost of $3.69 per wet ton and annual
sludge generation of 421 thousand wet tons.
Joint Meeting has the lowest unit disposal cost of any. sewerage authority.
This results primarily from its use of low-cost barges for sludge hauling
and its short round trip to the disposal site.
IV-10
-------
D. Incremental Ocean Disposal Costs
The estimated incremental costs to each sewerage authority of moving to the
106-mile site are calculated by subtracting the total cost of the 12-mile
site from the total cost of the 106-mile site. The total cost of the
12-mile site is based on'the 12-mile unit cost and the 1982 sludge
generation rate of the sewerage authority. These data and the incremental
costs are summarized in Table IV-7. Several sewerage authorities reported
a reduction in current (1983-1984) contract costs with transporters. These
costs are shown below along with the 1982 cost presented in Table IV-7.
1983-1984 1982
$ per Wet ton
Middlesex County
Linden/Roselle/Rahway
Joint Meeting
1.21
1.14
1.39
2.43
2.54
1.66
Westchester County reported an increase in sludge disposal costs in 1983 to
$1.81 per wet ton from $1.41 per wet ton.
The estimated incremental costs shown in Table IV-7 range from $344,000 for
Linden/Roselle/Rahway up to $11.3 million for New York City. Passaic
Valley and Nassau County incur the next highest incremental costs of $5.4
million and $2.6 million, respectively. Joint Meeting is the only other
sewerage authority incurring an incremental cost less than $1 million.
IV-11
-------
Table IV-7. Incremental costs of moving from the 12-mile site to the 106-mile site
ro
Sewerage authority
New York
New York City
Nassau County
Westchester County
New Jersey
Bergen County
Passaic Valley
Middlesex County
Linden/Rosel le/Rahway
Joint Meeting
12-Mile
unit cost
($)
1.11
1.41
5.38
2.74
1.32
2.43
2.54
1.66
Sludge
volume
($000)
3,206
441
433
289
1,694
820
269
421
12-Mile
total cost
($000)
3,559
622
2,330
792
2,236
1,993
683
699
106 -Mile
total cost
($000)
14,880
3,266
3,555
2,277
7,623
3,159
1,027
1,554
Incremental
cost
($000)
11,321
2,644
1,225
1,485
5,387
1,166
344
855
Source: Abt Associates, Inc.
-------
V. ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The economic impacts of shifting disposal options from the 12-mile site to
the 106-mile ocean disposal site are presented in this chapter. Basically,
the economic effects are measured by comparison of the incremental cost to
transport sewage sludge to the 106-mile site with community baseline costs.
The methodology used is presented in more detail in Chapter II.
As with the presentation of sewerage authority profiles and ocean disposal
costs, the base year of 1982 was used to depict baseline conditions. The
variables such as sludge quantities are constantly changing but the quality
of data does not warrant more sophisticated dynamic models. Over the past
three years the proposed alternative for disposal of sewage sludge has
changed each year. As of 1982, the treatment systems operated by each
sewerage authority were stable and preliminary sludge quantities for 1983
are similar to the 1982 reported amounts. It is not expected that sludge
quantities will increase in the future. New York City is the only sewerage
authority that has not completed construction of all secondary treatment
facilities.
Baseline information is presented in the next section for each sewerage
authority. The estimates of impacts on residential users and industrial
users are then presented. A capital availability assessment is also made.
A. Community Baseline Conditions
Table V-l shows the annual baseline costs to operate the eight sewerage
authorities. Total annual baseline costs range from $5.6 million for Joint
Meeting to $55.1 million for New York City. Annual baseline costs include
costs to dispose of sludge at the 12-mile site. The total baseline costs
for all eight sewerage authorities is $164 million. In Table V-l annual
baseline costs are allocated to residential users and industrial users
groups. Residential costs account for approximately 75 percent of the
total baseline costs and industrial costs account for the remaining 25
percent for all sewerage authorities. Linden/Roselle/Rahway has the
highest proportion of industrial costs at 40 percent. Each sewerage
authority defines commercial users differently so for comparison purposes
commercial users have been included in the industrial users group.
The baseline sewage treatment costs include all charges by sewerage
authorities to municipalities served. Each municipality incurs additional
sewer collection system maintenance costs to provide sewer service to the
consumer. The magnitutde of this cost depends on where the municipality
hooks up to the sewerage authority trunk line and on the number, location,
and types of users served. The sewerage authorities base the charge to
municipalities on metered water usage and pollutant loadings. For this
purpose, each sewerage authority has developed user formulas by category of
V-l
-------
Table V-l. Annual operating and maintenance and debt service costs
by sewerage authority I/
Residential users Industrial users
Sewerage authority allocation allocation
NEW YORK
New York City
Nassau County
Westchester County
NEW JERSEY
Bergen County
Passaic Valley
Middlesex County
Linden/Roselle/Rahway
Joint Meeting
Total
40,100
17,140
8,883
11,147
24,108
11,109
4,593
4,350
121,430
14,974
2,337
1,098
384
13,044
6,590
3,013
1,294
42,734
Total
baseline
costs
55,074
19,477
9,981
11,531
37,152
17,699
7,606
5,644
164,164
JY 1982 dollars
Source: DPRA site visits to the eight sewerage authorities January 1984.
V-2
-------
users (residential, commercial, and industrial). However, the
municipalities charge users usually on an ad valorem or frontage length
basis which makes the determination of actual sewage charges to the
consumer difficult. The actual cost per household could vary from the
estimated cost due to these differences. Baseline costs presented in Table
V-l and used in the subsequent analysis are based on sewerage authority
charges to the municipalities.
Additional baseline data from Chapter III has been summarized in Table V-2
to facilitate evaluation of economic effects. The number of residential
users is shown and ranges from 279,000 in Linden/Roselle/Rahway to 5.3
million in New York City. Median incomes for households in the communities
varies from $13,854 in New York City to $26,090 in Nassau County. New York
City also has the highest percent of its population below the poverty level
at 17.2 percent. The number of commercial and industrial users ranges from
1,192 in Westchester County to 5,000 in Passaic Valley.
Comparisons of the total baseline sewage costs with the current 12-niile
site charges are presented in Table V-3. In Westchester County the
transport of sludge to the 12-mile site is 23 percent of the total baseline
cost. Nassau County costs to transport to the 12-mile site are the. least
in comparison to total baseline cost at 3 percent. Capital costs for each
facility are subsidized by the federal construction grants program, which
reduces other costs to the facilities while sludge transport is not
subsidized.
. B. Effects on Residential Users
A general measure of residential and industrial impacts can be determined
by estimating the overall cost increase due to the proposed 106-mile site
designation. Table V-4 presents the percent cost increase to all users
when costs to the 106-mile site are added. To summarize, the community of
New York City will experience the largest percent cost increase at 21
percent followed by Joint Meeting at 15 percent. Linden/Roselle/Rahway
only shows a 4 percent increase in costs. The average cost increase for
all sewerage authorities is 15 percent.
A more specific measure of residential impacts can be calculated using the
annual cost for residential users and dividing by the number of users. The
incremental cost increase to residential users in each sewerage authority
is based on the baseline cost proportions shown in Table V-l. This method
assumes that cost increase will be passed back to the users. Table V-5
shows the results of this computation for each sewerage authority. The
average annual sewage cost will increase to $69.75 from $59.59 for the
residential user. The economic effects as measured by the indicators
presented in Chapter II are shown in Table V-6. Briefly, if the annual
cost is over $200 per household or the user cost per median income is over
1 percent an impact is reported. The average annual cost of $69.75 is
below the $200 threshold and at 0.5 percent of median income is below the 1
percent threshold. Based on this analysis a low economic impact is
expected for residential users due to designation of the 106-mile site.
The economic effects experienced by each sewerage authority are presented
below.
V-3
-------
Table V-2. Demographics of sewerage authority users
Sewerage authority
NEW YORK
New York City
Nassau County
Westchester County
NEW JERSEY
Bergen County
Passaic Valley
Middlesex County
Linden/Roselle/Rahway
Joint Meeting
Total
Weighted Average
Residential
users
5,302
889
484
476
1,300
609
279
459
9,798
--
House-
holds
Jbaiiub )
624
320
156
145
433
203
85
188
2,154
--
Median
income
(1979)
13,854
26,090
22,725
24,053
17,907
22,826
21,061
18,207 I/
19,325
Percent
below
poverty
level
(1979)
i
-------
Table V-3. Comparison of total baseline costs and baseline sludge
transport costs at the 12-mile site I/
Total
Sewerage authority baseline cost
NEW YORK
New York City
Nassau County
Westchester County
NEW JERSEY
Bergen County
Passaic Valley
Middlesex County
Linden/Roselle/Rahway
Joint Meeting
Total
(thousand dot
55,074
19,477
9,981
11,531
37,152
17,699
7,606
5,644
164,164
12-mile
baseline
transport '
cost
lars)
3,559
622
2,330
792
2,236
1,993
683
699
12,914
12-mile cost
as a percent of
total baseline
cost
(%)
6
3
23
7
6
11
9
12
8
J./ 1982 dollars.
Source: DPRA.
V-5
-------
Table V-4. Percent cost increase for each sewerage authority
at the 106-mile site
Sewerage authority
Total
baseline cost
Incremental
106-mile cost
Percent
cost increase
NEW YORK
New York City
Nassau County
Westchester County
NEW JERSEY
Bergen County
Passaic Valley
Middlesex County
Linden/Roselle/Rahway
Joint Meeting
Total
55,074
19,477
9,981
11,531
37,152
17,699
7,606
5,644
164,164
"Tare )______
11,321
2,644
1,225
1,485
5,387
1,166
344
855
24,427
21
13
12
13
14
7
4
15
15
Source: DPRA.
V-6
-------
Table V-5. Annual baseline and incremental cost per household
Sewerage authority
NEW YORK
New York City
Nassau County
Westchester County
NEW JERSEY
Bergen County
Passaic County
Middlesex County
Li nden/Rosel 1 e/Rahway
Joint Meeting
Weighted Average
Annual
baseline cost
64.26
53.56
56.94
76.88
55.68
54.72
54.03
23.13
59.59
Incremental
cost
13.21
7.27
6.99
9.90
8.00
3.61
2.44
3.51
10.16
Total annual
cost per user
77.47
60.83
63.93
86.78
63.68
58.33
56.47
26.65
69.75
Source: OPRA.
V-7
-------
Table V-6. Summary of economic effects on residential users due to
redesignation of the 106-mile site
Annual cost (debt
service & O&M) User cost
Sewerage authority per household Median income
(threshold 5200)(threshold 1
percent)
NEW YORK
New York City 77.47 .6
Nassau County 60.83 .2
Westchester County 63.93 .3
NEW JERSEY
Bergen County 86.78 .4
Passaic Valley 63.68 .4
Middlesex County 58.33 .3
Linden/Roselle/Rahway 56.47 .3
Joint Meeting 26.65 ^ __!_
Weighted Average 69.75 .5
Source: DPRA.
V-8
-------
1. New York City
The annual cost per household in New York City will increase from $64.26 to
$77.47 as shown in Table V-5. This is the highest per household increase
shown for all the sewerage authorities. New York City also has the highest
average number of persons per household at eight persons. The average
number of persons per household for the other sewerage authorities ranges
from three to four persons. Table V-6 shows that the $77.47 per household
is below the $200 threshold or indicator of impacts. The user cost per
median income indicator of 0.6 percent is also below the 1 percent
threshold for this indicator. However, this indicator is closer to the
threshold than for the other authorities. A low median income in New York
City partially accounts for the reason this measure is high. The economic
impact of the designation of the 106-mile site is the highest for New York
City, compared to the other sewerage authorities. At a household income of
$7,747 or less, the user cost per median income indicator would surpass the
1 percent threshold.
2. Nassau County
Table V-5 shows that cost per household in Nassau County will increase from
$53.56 to $60.83. This cost is in the middle of other authorities' costs.
The annual cost of $60.83 is below the $200 threshold and the 0.2 percent
indicator is below the 1 percent threshold as shown in Table V-6.
3. Westchester County
Westchester County annual costs (shown in Table V-5) are expected to
increase to $63.93 from $56.94 due to the 106-mile site designation. Table
V-6 shows that both indicators are below the economic effect threshold.
The user cost per median income indicator is 0.3 percent.
4. Bergen County
Table V-5 shows high baseline costs and thus high total annual costs after
adding the incremental 106-mile site cost for Bergen County. The $86.78
annual cost per household which is the highest for all sewerage authorities
is below the $200 threshold. Also the 0.4 percent indicator is below the
threshold.
5. Passaic County
Table V-5 shows an increase in annual cost per household from $55.68 to
$63.68. Both indicators are below the threshold.
6. Middlesex County
Residential users in Middlesex County will experience an increase to'$58.33
per year for sewage disposal from $54.72 (see Table V-5). This increased
cost is below the $200 threshold. The user cost per median income
indicator is 0.3 percent.
V-9
-------
7. Linden/Roselle/Rahway
A cost increase to $56.47 per year from $54.03 per year is estimated for
Linden/Roselle/Rahway in Table V-5. Both economic indicators shown in
Table V-6 are below the threshold.
8. Joint Meeting
Joint Meeting shows the lowest cost of all sewerage authorities in Table
V-5. The user cost per median income indicator is 0.1 percent or ten times
less than the threshold.
C. Effects on Industrial Users
Because only limited data is available on industrial users' baseline costs,
it is assumed the percent cost increases experienced by this user group
will be similar to the estimate of cost increases for all users presented
in Table V-4. This cost increase averages 15 percent. Industrial users in
six of the sewerage authorities will experience sewage disposal cost
increases of over 10 percent. Passaic Valley which has the most industrial
users of the sewerage authorities analyzed shows a 14 percent increase.
The percent price increase for moving to the 106-mile site for industrial
users was estimated by comparing the city or county's manufacturing value
of shipments (shown on page 111-16) to the incremental ocean disposal costs
for industrial users in that community. These estimates are shown below:
Sewage Incremental Manufacturing Percent
authority industrial cost value of shipments price increase
(millions of dollars) (millions of dollars)(T)
New York City 3.1 42,400 .01
Nassau County .3 4,800 .01
Bergen County .04 6,500 .001
Passaic County 1.9 3,200 .06
The percent price increases shown above are low.
Case studies of economic effects due to increases in sewage fees, on
individual firms in Bergen County and Middlesex County are shown in Tables
V-7 and V-8, respectively. Firms in Bergen County showed a 13 percent cost
increase due to the 106-mile site in Table V-4 which is represented by a
$50,000 increase to the 15 industries shown in Table V-7. Individual firm
costs in Bergen County increased from $240 to $21,090. Middlesex County
had a 7 percent increase in cost at the 106-mile site which will increase
total industry sewage costs by $460,000. Middlesex County firms
experienced cost increases in sewage fees ranging from $5,000 to $146,000.
Sewage fees would have to account for at least 10 percent of an individual
firm's total sales before impacts would be expected in this group.
V-10
-------
Table V-7. Bergen county estimated firm effects
Incremental
1982 106-mile Total
Industries costs cost cost
- ($)
Berg Vocational School 1,847 240 2,087
Conrail 1,298 169 1,467
Delaware Valley R. M. 249 32 281
Edax Realty 2,975 387 3,362
Fairleigh Dickinson University 7,632 992 8,624
Federated Store 20,900 2,717 23,617
N.T. Viegeman Company 5,552 722 6,274
Lier Siegler Inc. 1,210 157 1,367
Lincoln Paper Co. 87,494 11,374 98,868
Lowe Paper 77,519 10,077 87,596
Imperial Manor 3,804 495 4,299
NJ Turnpike Authority 1,258 164 1,422
Pan Am 3,234 420 3,654
Pfister CHemical 162,228 21,090 183,318
Public Service Electricity & Gas 7,135 928 8,063
Total Cost 384,335 49,964 434,299
Source: DPRA site visit to the Bergen County Utility Authority January
1984.
v-11
-------
Table V-8. Middlesex county estimated firm effects
Incremental
1982 106-mile Total
Industries costs cost cost
$ thousand
Busch Industrial 1,485 104
Hatco and Company 192 13
Hercules Inc. 1,644 115
N.L. Industries 142 10
Schweitzer U.S. 2,084 146
Sherwin Williams 75 5
Stauffer Chemical 556 39
Superior Air Products 1
Tenneco Chemicals 164 11
Union Carbide 247 17
Total Cost 6,590 460 7,050
Source: DPRA site visit to the Middlesex Utility Authority January 1984.
V-12
-------
D. Capital Availability
As presented in the methodology in Chapter II capital availability is
assessed by using bond ratings. This screening tool is used because
capital requirements are expected to be low for additional sludge storage
and dewatering equipment. Land is available at each sewerage authority for
some additional facilities. Dewatering, which would probably only consist
of increased operating and maintenance cost, would reduce the necessity for
additional sludge storage. The sewerage authorities also have made recent
bond placements without incurring significantly increased costs. All of
the sewerage authorities concerned have bond ratings over A, thus, capital
availability is not expected to be a serious problem.
V.-13
-------
-------
References
Booz, Allen and Hamilton, "Economic Impacts of the Ban on Ocean Disposal of
Sludge," EPA, June 25, 1980.
Booz, Allen and Hamilton, "Environmental Impacts of Ocean Disposal of
Sewage Sludge," EPA, June 25, 1980.
Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc., "Costs, Economic
Effects and Environmental Benefits - An Evaluation of Public Comments
on the Redesignation of the 106-mile Ocean Disposal Site," EPA,
December, 1983.
Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc., "Ocean Dumping - User
Fee System - Phase I," EPA, December, 1982.
Government Finance Research Center and Peat, Marvrick, Mitchell and Co.,
"Financial Capability Guidebook," (DRAFT), EPA, May 14, 1982.
JRB Associates, "Final Report for Technologies and Costs of Ocean Waste
Disposal," EPA, November 8, 1982.
Pope-Reid Associates, Inc., "Cost Analysis of Dewatering of Sewage Sludge,"
EPA, October 22, 1982.
Standard and Poor, "Standard and Poor's Ratings Guide," 1979.
Temple, Barker and Sloane, Inc., "Costs of Ocean Disposal of Municipal
Sewage Sludge and Industrial Wastes," EPA, September 29, 1982.
Wells, Richard et al., "Comparing the Costs and Risks of Ocean Versus
Land-Based Sludge Management Alternatives for Nassau County," EPA.
U.S. Department of Commerce, "County Business Patterns 1981, New Jersey,"
Bureau of the Census, April, 1983.
U.S. Department of Commerce, "County Business Patterns 1981, New York,"
Bureau of the Census, April, 1983.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Needs Survey (1982): Cost Estimates
for Construction of Publicly-Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities,"
December 31, 1982.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Environmental Impact Statement,
Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and
Practices," OSW, September 1979.
-------
Intentionally
-------
VI. LIMITS OF THE ANALYSIS
The chapter presents the general accuracy of the study research, data
availability, critical assumptions and sensitivity analysis of variables.
A. General Accuracy
The sewerage authorities studied are complex in terms of treatment
processes, types of users, sludges generated and disposal methods. In this
study nine different sewerage authorities were evaluated and compared.
Each of the sewerage authorities was different in most aspects. Specific
data was collected from each of the sewerage authorities so that these
differences would be noted. The economic analysis was conducted for each
sewerage authority and then aggregated. Site visits were conducted to
obtain the information necessary to complete the analysis using the
methodology presented.
Throughout the study an effort was made to evaluate the data available and
to update these materials whenever possible. Checks were made with
informed sources in both sewerage authorities and government to help, insure
that data were reliable and representative.
Data used in this report were collected from a wide variety of sources
besides the individual sewerage authorities. Data were collected from
previous EPA reports presented in the references, Region II data and
information from the Construction Grants Program. Each sewerage authority
had a unique set of data available describing it which had to be summarized
and updated for comparison with other sewerage authorities. An example
would be the inflating of sewage costs to the same base year. For most
sewerage authorities actual 1982 data was available while for others 1982
data had to be estimated.
Generally data was very complete and accurate for each sewerage
authority. Baseline sewerage costs were obtained from audited financial
statements and checked with sewerage authority directors. Demographic data
were collected from the Bureau of Census and were also checked with the
individual sewerage authority to determine consistency. Overall the
qualitative estimates of accuracy are presented below:
Community baseline conditions ± 10%
Estimated ocean disposal costs ± 20%
Overall accuracy ± 15%
The accuracy of this report has been enhanced by cooperation and data
availability. However, the complexity of the problem is such that
qualitative judgements were involved, thus, the possibility of errors
exists. Such errors stemmed from a variety of sources,*and collectively
VI-1
-------
may have been additive or offsetting. Possible errors due to data
availability and critical assumptions are discussed below. Then a
sensitivity analysis of several key variables is presented.
B. Data Availability
Incremental costs to dispose of sludge at the 106-mile site were estimated
since only a small amount of wastes have been disposed of at this site.
Costs were estimated based on information from the various transporters and
the sewerage authorities. Actual transport costs would improve the study
results. Costs in 1983 and 1984 for transport of sludge have declined from
the 1982 estimates used in the report. Costs may decline more as the
certainity of ocean disposal regulations increases thus reducing the risk
for transporters.
Better estimates of storage requirements for sludge are needed as are
additional information on the technical aspects and costs of dewatering.
These costs are assumed to be somewhat offsetting but the magnitude of the
cost is unknown. Also, monitoring and surveillance regulations are
currently being revised which may have an effect on the 106-mile site
designation. These factors are not expected to be limiting variables on
the economic analysis, but better information would improve the accuracy of
the report.
Other data such as baseline costs, community demographics and sewerage
treatment plant description were accurate and up-to-date.
C. Critical Assumptions
There are four major critical assumptions used in this analysis which may
effect study results. These assumptions are discussed below.
1. Sludge quantities in 1982 are typical of future volumes - Sludge
quantities have increased over the past ten years in the New York and
New Jersey area but have leveled off in 1982 and 1983. Secondary
treatment systems are now on-line at each of the sewerage authorities
thus major increases in sludge are not expected. An increase in
sludge volumes would increase the economic impacts.
2. Sludge transportation capacity will increase to meet the 106-mile site
dTmand - Sewerage authorities and transporters reported an Increase in
the fleet size to handle sludge wastes after the courts approved ocean
dumping. It is expected that additional transport vessels will be
purchased or built by transporters to meet the 106-mile site demand.
Competition among transporters could cause an oversupply of vessels.
3. Estimated transportation costs are reasonable for the period reviewed
- Transportation cost data were collected from sewerage authorities
and transporters. These costs may increase or decrease in the future
depending on vessel capital costs and changes in operating and
maintenance costs such as fuel. Costs used were reflective of 1983
conditions. The most recent contractual arrangements between
transporters and sewerage authorities have shown a decline in costs
which would reduce economic impacts.
VI-2
-------
4. Sewerage authorities will not dewater to reduce sludge volumes - As
discussed in Chapter HI dewatering could reduce sludge volumes and
thus reduce transportation costs. Some sewerage authorities may chose
this option depending on its cost-effectiveness. The effects of
dewatering on transportation costs is presented in the next section.
D. Sensitivity Analysis
The effects of changes in estimates of transportation costs, sludge volumes
and baseline sewage costs are briefly discussed in this section. Changes
in these variables are not expected to effect the overall results of the
analysis.
Transportation costs to the 106-mile site were estimated by the sewerage
authorities to total $52 million instead of the $37 million used in this
analysis. This estimate by the sewerage authorities was made in 1981 and
was based on estimates from transporters. Since 1981, actual
transportation costs have declined partly due to decreased risk or
uncertainty in the ocean disposal regulations. Other differences can be
explained by sludge volume changes and estimates of capacity utilization.
Some of the authority estimates were made over the telephone without
detailed analysis. Still, the transportation costs used would vary around
the $37 million estimate.
Changes in the type of treatment used by the POTW's could affect sludge
volume estimates significantly. Sludge volumes from New York City could be
reduced by two to three times if they dewater to the maximum feasible
solids content of ten percent. New York City would then gain a savings in
transportation cost of more than $11.0 million per year. It was estimated
that dewatering of sludge to ten percent solids for all sewerage
authorities would reduce 106-mile site costs from $37.3 million to $19.3
million. This would reduce economic impact indicators also by the same
magnitude.
As discussed on page V-l, baseline sewage costs do not include all sewer
collection system maintenance charges. Actual costs based on ad valorem or
frontage length taxes may also include a component for system maintenance
costs incurred by the municipality. This cost might significantly increase
baseline residential costs but would have to be three to five times the
total 106-mile treatment cost to show adverse economic impacts. An
estimate of this limit can be made through use of data supplied by New York
City and Nassau County. Municipal collection costs for these two sewerage
authorities were $36,639,000 and $20,074,000, respectively. These costs
represent 65 percent and 100 percent of the respective authorities baseline
sewage treatment costs shown in Table V-l. Only New York City costs would
then increase close to the one percent threshold level at 0.9 percent but
would remain below the $200 per household threshold at $120.23 per
household. In aggregate New York City, impacts per household would be
greater than for other communities if actual costs per household were
greater than the estimates used. But none of the threshold indicators
would be surpassed for any of the communities.
VI-3
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
CUUfc:
DOCUMENT NO.
DATE
-------
Page Intentionally Biank
-------
INDEX CODE:
------- |