Изображения страниц

RESOLUTION No. 5 WHEREAS, a number of members of this Association are not operating at full capacity at the present time, and

WHEREAS, NUCA members employ trained personnel who can readily train other personnel if the need arises, and

WHEREAS, there exists equipment and facilities readily available for additional work, and

WHEREAS, members of this Association are engaged and are fully capable of being engaged in handling sewage treatment works, and

WHEREAS, the called-for expenditure of_27 billion dollars over five years in the House version of the Water Pollution Bill represents, on a yearly basis, less than a 50% increase in the amount of work normally performed,

Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Association voice its vigorous opposition to the testimony given by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William B. Ruckelshaus to the effect that the construction industry cannot handle the large volume of work expected from passage of the House version of the Water Pollution Bill, so as to make it crystal clear to both Houses of Congress and to the Administration that Mr. Ruckelshaus' testimony does not reflect a view with which those most familiar with the industry's capacity can agree.





The New Jersey State Legislature enacted the "State Public Sanitary Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act of 1965” which authorized State participation under the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 and appropriated State funds assist in the construction of wastewater treatment disposal facilities. This legislation authorized the State Department of Health to award grants not to exceed 30% of the construction cost of water pollution control projects which qualify for Federal aid assistance under the “Federal Water Pollution Control Act."

The State legislature appropriated a total of $5,798,200 for Fiscal Years 1968 and 1969 for State Construction Grants. These funds were apportioned in accordance with priorities established by the Department of Health to projects eligible for Federal aid. Ten projects were funded at a rate of 9.2% of the eligible construction cost from Fiscal Year 1968 funds and it is anticipated that ten projects will be funded at a rate of approximately 11% from Fiscal Year 1969 funds.

Under the terms of the federal statute local government is eligible for 30% of the cost of construction of sewage treatment plants and trunk lines. This eligibility can be increased to 55% if the state provides the legal authority and the money to fund 25% of the cost of all such projects.

The state does have such legal authority in the 1965 Act listed above. In fact, however, neither the state nor the federal government has appropriated funds in amounts representing more than a tiny fragment of the needs.

The four-year authorization contained in the federal funding statute would, in accordance with statutory formula, provide New Jersey a total of about $109 million in aid or 12% of the costs described below. However, if the funds appropriated continue for the next two years at the level of the last two years federal aid will amount to less than 3% of the total needs described below.

To date federal and state aid funds that have actually been appropriated have been in such small amount as to have no measurable impact on the pollution control program.

In last year's statement of capital needs and again in this discussion the Department has made as careful an assessment as the facts would allow of the capital costs of constructing regional sewage treatment plants and trunk lines needed to serve the public, to correct pollution of our waterways, and to conform with the treatment regulations and administrative orders described above. Last year's estimates were presented in testimony before the Governor's Commission to Evaluate the Capital Needs of New Jersey. These estimates have now been updated.

The total estimated costs of all facilities now needed is $906,000,000. The cutoff date in this estimate is 1 July 1967.

[ocr errors]

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.

$53, 045, 000 Certified facilities, not funded: Table 3..

49, 848, 000 All other needed facilities: Table 4..

803, 280, 000 Total.--

906, 173, 000 Note: Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners needs not included.

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)


(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]

(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.

A. SHUTTLE & Co., Inc.,

Dresher, Pa., May 17, 1972. Mr. JOSEPH STONE, Executive Director and General Counsel, National Utility Contractors Association, Washington, D.C.

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.


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,


Vice President.


Pittsburgh, Pa., May 19, 1972. Mr. John M. STONE, National Utility Contractors Association, Washington, D.C.

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,


Executive Director.

[From the Pittsburgh Press, Apr. 28, 1972)


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 ional 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 Greensburg, Southwest Greensburg Borough and South Greensburg Borough, Westmoreland County.

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

78-367 04-72-3

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »