Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Summary of cost estimates, sewerage construction in New Jersey

[All estimates are based on 1968 construction dollars]

1. The cost of trunk lines and treatment plants eligible to receive federal and state aid and now required to conform with the statutes, regulations and orders enforced by the State Department of Health.

Facilities already partially funded: Tables 1 and 2.
Certified facilities, not funded: Table 3..

All other needed facilities: Table 4..

Total_

NOTE: Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners needs not included.

$53, 045, 000

49, 848, 000 803, 280, 000

906, 173, 000

2. Local collection systems which will be built to accompany facilities described in Number 1 above and which are ineligible for state aid and for federal aid from Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. These systems may be eligible for limited aid from Department of Housing and Urban Development and other Federal agencies, $225,000,000.

[From the Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger, Aug. 13, 1971] JERSEY MAY NEED A NEW SEWER BOND ISSUE

INFLATION DEFLATES ORIGINAL PRICE TAG

(By Leonard J. Fisher)

Another bond issue will be necessary to complete construction of a statewide regional sewerage system mainly because inflation has eroded as much as 30 percent of the value of the 1969, $271 million Water Conservation Bond issue intended to do the job, it was disclosed yesterday.

For example, even though state authorities call their original price tag on upgrading the Passaic Valley Sewerage Authority's treatment system a "guesstimate," the projected cost of doing the job has skyrocketed in two years from $100 million to a minimum $300 million.

"Sometime in the future we're going to have to have more bond monies," admitted Joseph T. Barber, assistant commissioner of the State Department of Environmental Protection.

How much and how soon the supplemental bond issue will be required has not been figured out yet, state authorities say. One thing is for sure, however, inflation is waiting for no one.

And while inflation may be burning the biggest hole in the state's pocket, it isn't the only factor sending chills up and down budget bureaus throughout the state.

Other factors increasing the cost of the water pollution control project, according to state and local authorities, include changes in the concepts of the original plan-mainly expansion of the projects to meet not only rapid development in New Jersey, but also to satisfy high standards of water quality recently imposed by both state and federal governments.

The widening gap between original state estimates of the project cost and the actual costs alao was attirbuted by one state official to the fact that initial price projections were "way out of whack."

One local sewerage authority engineer also said that personnel shortages within the State Environmental Protection Department which, along with the federal government must approve plans before construction begins, have caused serious delays in the design stages of the project.

As the local engineer has put it to state authorities before, "How can you push pollution control when you are the one's holding it up."

"And time is money," he continued, noting the cost of construction is going up at the rate of 1.2 per cent monthly.

"You never have enough help to get the planning job done," said Assistant Commissioner Barber, who further admitted that personnel "shortages" do exist in the water pollution control sectors of the department.

He said department officials are meeting with budget authorities to see if more manpower may be hired to buttress several Environmental Protection bureaus, especially those concerned with water pollution control.

Barber agreed that original state estimates of the regional sewerage project were off the mark mainly because many New Jersey areas had developed and expanded

"more than expected." This, he added, required changes in plans for facilities to treat wastes from these areas.

Of the $271 million bond issue, $210 million was projected by state authorities two years ago as the state's share of the proposed regional treatment plant network, the total cost of which was estimated at $900 million. The state is counting on the federal government to pay 55 per cent of that and municipalities the remainder.

As it stands now, though, water pollution engineers are figuring the job of cutting back the present 750 local facilities to a more sophisticated regional network of 175 waste treatment plants which will cost more than $1 billion. How much more will not likely be known until the job is actually done.

"There's no question but that runaway inflation has increased the cost of these construction projects by as much as 30 percent during the last two years," said Ernest Segesser, chief of the Control.

"Like everything else," explained Barber, "inflation is eroding away the bond issue." It's a matter of dollars losing their value.

"I think everyone has to learn to live with inflation, no matter what industry, no matter what standard of living you try to maintain, inflation will hurt it."

[From the Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger, May 13, 1972]

DYING RIVERS: JERSEY CLEANUP COST ESTIMATED AT $2 BILLION

(By Gordon Bishop)

New Jersey's rivers will remain polluted until the federal and state governments jointly spend $2 billion this decade to build water treatment plants throughout the state.

That was the price tag placed on the state's massive clean water program yesterday by Charles M. Pike, director of water resources in the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Pike and two other environmental officers-Dr. Alan Mytelka, engineer for the Interstate Sanitation Commission, and Albert Bromberg, surveillance chief for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-spoke on the "Direction of Future Treatment Requirements" at the concluding session of the 57th annual conference of the New Jersey Water Pollution Control Association in Atlantic City.

Pike expressed serious doubt as to the government's ability to provide $200 million a year until 1980 to purge the state's waterways of pollution that has been building up for more than 50 years.

"Without funding, the projects now in the planning stage will come to a halt," Pike told the state sanitary engineers. "Some projects are massive, costing from $100 million to $300 million."

He was referring to the $300 million needed to upgrade the Passaic Valley Sewerage Plant in Newark, the second largest system in the country. The Middlesex County Sewerage plant improvement will cost $100 million.

Pike and the other two officials called upon industry to start recycling their polluted effluent as one immediate solution to the problem.

The officials warned that industry will be forced to recycle their wastes as water becomes more scarce in a few years due to the demand by a soaring population and increasing industrial-commercial-residential development.

Bromberg said the federal government's goal by 1980 is "zero discharge"meaning no contamination of the waterways by any source. He called it a realistic target date that requires the total commitment of government, industry and technology.

The association endorsed a bill in Congress that would provide funds to states based on need rather than on population. A House bill would provide states with $246 billion for water pollution abatement, while a Senate bill would set aside only $20 billion over the next decade. The House bill would fund projects based on need.

The association installed Alexander Lach of South River, plant superintendent · of the Middlesex Se erage Authority, as its new president. Also installed were William Higgins of Ewing-Lawrence Sewerage Authority, first vice president, and Daniel Bigler, supervisor of sewer plants in North Bergen, second vice president.

Mr. JOSEPH STONE,

Executive Director and General Counsel,
National Utility Contractors Association,
Washington, D.C.

A. SHUTTLE & Co., INC.,
Dresher, Pa., May 17, 1972.

DEAR MR. STONE: The following is some data which I trust may be helpful to Mr. Peyton in his scheduled testifying before the House Banking and Currency Committee on Congressman Patman's Bill. The enclosed data that I have prepared merely reflects capacities of our industry. The needs for the pollution program should best be answered by consulting engineers as I have no access to such information at this time.

On April 20, 1972 Lancaster Area Sewer Authority took bids on a Sanitary Sewer program. I have reduced statistics for brevity.

FACTUAL DATA

1. Proposed 16.5 million worth of Sanitary Sewer pipeline facilities only in nine separate contracts.

2. Plans for this work were taken out by thirty-two construction firms representing eight states from as far as Michigan and Minnesota.

3. Twenty-eight construction firms submitted bids from the same eight states. 4. Work was bid in at 15.93 million dollars or 4% under engineers' estimate for all nine contracts.

5. More than 50% of the work in five contracts went to out of state construction firms.

MY OWN INTERPRETATIONS

1. Total aggregate amount of bids submitted for this work-241.8 million dollars. I think it a fair assumption that 161 million could have been handled by the bidders.

2. The scarcity of work in seven other states evidenced by the number of out of state bidders.

3. The total work having been bid in at 4% less than engineers' estimate again reflects the scarcity of work.

I think much can be read from this one area project, in one county, in one state. Properly weighted, we think it obvious of our industry's ability and capacity to handle the proposed large volumes of work awaiting Federal funding. The tremendous improvement to employment should be obvious.

I trust the enclosed will be helpful to Mr. Peyton and if need be, I am in possession of all the supporting data of the enclosed. Good luck and success. Sincerely,

A. J. SHUTTLE, Jr.,
Vice President.

PENNSYLVANIA UTILITY CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Mr. JOHN M. STONE,

National Utility Contractors Association,
Washington, D.C.

Pittsburgh, Pa., May 19, 1972.

DEAR MR. STONE: Upon your request for information to assist Harry Peyton in testifying before the House Banking and Currency Committee, I sent your letter to nine members of PUCA Board of Directors and then called them for their comments. I also talked with several consulting engineers and the South West Regional Planning Commission of Pennsylvania.

The answers to your three questions are as follows:

1. Mr. Albert Speak, Assistant Director of the South West Regional Planning Commission of Pennsylvania, reports to me that, according to their engineering survey for Alleghany, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Washington and Westmoreland Counties, one quarter of a billion dollars will be required for sewers in the next five years in these counties. Mr. Speak reports the need for sewers and water lines in these six counties is desperate and the communities do not have the money to finance these projects.

Enclosed is a copy of an article appearing in the April 28, 1972 issue of the Pittsburgh Press, where nearly 100 communities in Western Pennsylvania have been cited by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for lack of sewage treatment facilities.

2. I talked with several consulting engineers doing sewer and waterline design work. They all stated that they have direct knowledge of many, many communities requiring sewers and waterlines, but cannot proceed due to lack of funds. Contractors interviewed stated the same thing.

3. PUCA board members reported various percentages for labor and material costs for constructing sewers and water lines.

Sewer construction labor costs estimates ranged from 35% on easy large-pipe projects to 75% labor on difficult small-pipe jobs. Average sewer costs for labor on a normal sewer project seem to be 45% to 60%.

Waterline labor costs seem more stable, averaging 40% to 50%.

4. I also asked the contractors, in their opinion, to what capacity the sewer and waterline industry is working right now. They all agreed the industry is working about 50% capacity at the present time.

I hope this information will be of value to Harry Peyton, and if PUCA can be of any further assistance, please let me know.

Sincerely yours,

WILLIAM R. MCQUADE,
Executive Director.

[From the Pittsburgh Press, Apr. 28, 1972]
REGIONAL SEWERAGE ORDERED HERE

INSTALL SYSTEMS BY 1976, STATE SAYS

Harrisburg-Regional waste treatment systems have been ordered by the Shapp administration to be installed by 1976 to serve 70 municipalities in Allegheny, Fayette, Greene, Washington and Westmoreland counties.

The nearly 100 legal actions, either orders from the Environmental Resources Department or the courts, were announced yesterday by Gov. Milton J. Shapp. "If all the communities involved do what is asked of them," said Shapp, "the result will be total compliance with all state and federal sewage regulations in the Mon Valley by 1976."

Stanley R. Wolfe, director of the environmental pollution strike force, said the legal action was "an attempt to solve the problem using the most efficient waste water management theory without regard to political boundaries."

Another advantage of the regional approach, said Walter Lyon, director of the department's water quality management division, is to curb the rising costs of operating individual plants for each municipality.

Lyon said the costs of the regional plants will rise, but not as much as they would if each community continued operating its own plant.

In Allegheny County, Plum Borough and Penn Hills Twp. were ordered to establish a joint sewage treatment plant.

Wall Borough was told to hook up with the system of the Allegheny County Sanitary Authority (Alcosan).

Other orders would combine these municipalities into regional systems: Fallowfield, North Bethlehem and Somerset townships and Bentleyville, Ellsworth and Cokeburg boroughs and Pigeon Creek Sanitary Authority, all in Washington County.

Rostraver Twp., Westmoreland County, Washington Twp., Fayette County, Municipal Authority of Belle Vernon, Fayette County.

Luzerne, Redstone, German and Menallen townships, Fayette County.

Washington Twp., Jefferson Twp. and the Muncipal Authority of the borough of Fayette City, Fayette County.

Fairchance Borough and Georges Twp., Fayette County.

North Union Twp. and the city of Uniontown, Fayette County.

City of Connellsville, Connellsville Twp., Bullskin Twp., Dunbar Borough and the South Connellsville Sewerage Authority, Fayette County.

Dunbar Twp., Dawson Borough and Vanderbilt Borough, Fayette County.
West Bethlehem Twp. and Marianna Borough, Washington County.
Hempfield Twp. and the city of Jeannette, Westmoreland County.
Mount Pleasant Twp. and Mount Pleasant Borough, Westmoreland County.
Hempfield Twp., East Huntingdon Twp., Arona Borough, Mount Pleasant
Twp., Sewickley Twp., South Huntingdon Twp., Hunker Borough, City of Greens-
burg, Southwest Greensburg Borough and South Greensburg Borough, West-
moreland County.

South Huntingdon Twp. and Smithton Borough, Westmoreland County.
Jefferson Twp. and Redstone Twp., Fayette County.

78-367 0-723

Luzerne, Redstone and Brownsville townships and Brownsville Borough, Fayette County.

East Huntingdon and Upper Tyrone townships and the Westmoreland-Fayette Municipal Authority, Westmoreland and Fayette counties.

Perry Twp. and Perryopolis Borough, Fayette County.

Franklin, Salem and Penn townships and Delmont Borough, Westmoreland County.

Carroll Twp. and Monongahela City, Washington County.

The following communities were given Individual orders to construct sewage facilities or join an already existing facility.

Plum Borough, Allegheny County.
North Union Twp., Fayette County.
Georges Twp., Fayette County.

West Pike Run Twp., Washington County.

Rostraver Twp., Westmoreland County.

Unity Twp., Westmoreland County.

Perry Twp., Fayette County.

Jefferson Twp., Fayette County.

Franklin Twp., Westmoreland County.

Carmichaels-Cumberland Joint Sewer Authority, Greene County.

Carroll Twp., Washington County.

Greensboro Borough, Greene County.

Smithton Borough, Westmoreland County.
Smithfield Borough, Fayette County.

West Brownsville Borough, Washington County.

West Newton Borough, Westmoreland County.

Point Merion Borough, Fayette County.

Sutersville Borough, Westmoreland County.
Dunkard Twp., Greene County.

Jefferson Twp., Washington County.
East Bethelhem Twp., Washington County.

Export Borough, Washington County.

Brave Water and Sewer Authority, Greene County.

Some of the municipalities are listed in more than one order. The reason, said the department, was that half of one borough was grouped with a neighbor to the left, while the rest was coupled with a municipality on the right.

ASSOCIATION OF PIPELINE CONTRACTORS
OF CENTRAL NEW YORK, INC.,
Syracuse, N.Y., May 17, 1972.

Mr. HARRY PEYTON, Jr.,

President, National Utility Contractors Association, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PEYTON: Regarding your appearance before the House Banking and Currency Committee on Congressman Patman's bill providing five billion dollars for a program for water and sewer projects, the members of the Association of Pipeline Contractors of Central New York want you to know there is a definite need for projects in this Central N. Y. area as the work now available is only 50% of their capacity.

They find it difficult to provide jobs for minority groups when running on only one half of their capacity.

The releasing of funds for much needed, worthy projects couldn't come at a better time.

At this time we have the Contractors, their equipment, and employees available and the work could begin now.

Further, the need for pollution control in our part of the Country is nearing desperate proportions.

Our estimates reflect that one third of the project cost is labor. Consequently, we feel this figure can be used as a guideline in estimating the total amount of dollars to be paid to labor.

With ever mounting costs, it is obvious that a great deal of money can be saved over any further delays.

Currently, in our area, the unemployment rate is in excess of 10%. We feel we are in dire need of Federal assistance.

Sincerely,

DUANE OLIN, Chairman of the Board.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »