-------
FACILITIES PLANNING 1981
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Program Operations
Facility Reauirements Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
MARCH 1981
-------
ORDER single copies free from:
General Services Administration (8BRC)
Centralized Mailing Lists Services
Building 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colo. 80225
PREPARED BY:
Planning and Environmental Policy Section (WH-595)
Facility Requirements Division
Office of Water Program Operations
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Project Officers: Elaine Stanley, William Kramer
Assistant: Betty Ford
Contractor-Authors:
ESEI; Vienna, Va. 22180
Project Manager: Joseph A. Grieshaber
Assistants: Jane T. Cameron and Michael E. Dorman
ii
-------
FOREWORD
Facilities Planning 1981 (FP 81) is a new approach to guidance on
facilities planning. FP 81 is one of a series of efforts which are underway
to simplify, deregulate, and delegate the construction grants program. It
represents a commitment to reduce the requirements of the facilities
planning process, to publish new requirements only once during a fiscal
year, to avoid imposing retroactive requirements (with the exception of
those specified by law), and to facilitate delegation to the States of the
review and approval of facilities plans.
The purpose of FP 81 is to provide States, grantees, and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional offices with everything to be
said about facilities planning in a single document. The requirements in
this document apply to all step 1 grants awarded during fiscal year 1981.
It is intended that no additional requirements will be applied during the
life of those facilities planning processes initiated in fiscal year 1981 —
even if the original step 1 grant is amended in subsequent fiscal years.
Once a year, priot to the start of the new fiscal year, an updated bound
volume of complete facilities planning guidance will be published. The
updated guidance will include any modifications in requirements which will
apply only to new step 1 grants - those initiating the facilities planning
process — which are awarded during that new fiscal year. Of course, no
grantee will be precluded from voluntarily applying future simplified
procedures to step 1 processes which are already underway.
To simplify the process, several procedural changes were made in
facilities planning for fiscal year 1981. Changes are highlighted by a
heavy line in the margin of facilities planning 1981. Most relate to
block-by-block analysis for septic tanks, infiltration/inflow analysis,
multiple purpose projects, and land treatment. As additional program
improvements are developed, they will be reflected in subsequent annual
facilities planning documents.
I encourage all who use Facilities Planning 1981 to let us know of any
changes you believe would improve its usefulness. Send any comments or
suggestions to the Director, Facility Requirements Division; Office of Water
Program Operations (WH-595); Environmental Protection Agency;
Washington, D.C. 20460.
-.ongesjc II
Deput//Assista/t Administrator
for W«ter Program Operations
ill
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND USER GUIDE —
TEXT V11*
FIGURES AND EXAMPLES, LIST
APPENDIXES
INDEX
Chapter
1. ... BEGINNING FACILITIES PLANNING !
1.1 State Planning Processes i
1.2 Wasteload Allocations
1.3 Delineation of Planning Areas 2
1.4 Water Quality Management (WQM) Plans 3
1.5 State Delegation ,
2. ... PREAPPLICATION
2.1 Preapplication Conference 4
2.2 Special Topics for Discussion 5
3. ... APPLICATION FOR STEP 1 GRANT 6
3.1 Plan of Study
3.2 Public Participation 7
3.3 General Application Requirements 8
3.3.1 Application Form g
3.3.2 Allowable and Unallowable Costs 3
3.3.3 Procurement of Services 9
3.3.4 Clearinghouse Comments 10
4. ... REVIEW, APPROVAL AND AWARD io
5. ... PREPARATION OF FACILITIES PLAN U
5.1 Project Need and Service Areas * " * * 11
Identification
5.2 Effluent Limitations 1?
5.3 Environmental Information Document (EID) 13
5.3.1 Historical and Archeological 14
Sites
5.3.2 Floodplains and Wetlands 15
5.3.2.1 Flood Insurance 15
Requirements
5.3.3 Agricultural Lands 15
5.3.4 Coastal Zone Management 16
IV
-------
Chapter
5 (continued)
5.4
5.5
5.6
Contents (continued)
5.3.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers
5.3.6 Fish and Wildlife Protection
5.3.7 Endangered Species Protection
5.3.8 Air Quality
5.3.9 Water Quality and Quantity
5.3.10 Direct and Indirect Impacts
5.3.11 Decision to Prepare an EIS
Current Situation
5.4.1 Existing Environment of the
Planning Area
5.4.2 Existing Wastewater Flows and
Treatment Systems
5.4.3 Infiltration and Inflow (I/I)
5.4.3.1 State Certification
5.4.3.2 I/I Analysis
5.4.3.3 Sewer System
Evaluation Survey
(SSES) and
Rehabilitation
5.4.3.4 Sewer Maintenance
Program and Sewer
Use Ordinance
Performance of Existing Systems
Economic, and Land
5.4.4
Future Situation
5.5.1 Demographic
Use Projections
5.5.2 Forecasts of Flows and
Wasteloads
5.5.3 Flow and Waste Reduction
5.5.4 Future Environment Without the
Project
Development of Alternatives
5.6.1 Optimum Operation of Existing
Facilities
5.6.2 Regionalization, Individual
Systems and Small Wastewater
Systems
5.6.3 Evaluation of Systems
5.6.3.1 Best Practicable Waste
Treatment Technology
(BPWTT)
5.6.3.2 Innovative and Alternative
(I&A) Technology
5.6.3.3 Evaluation of Sewer
Alignments
5.6.3.4 Ultimate Disposal of
Residuals
16 .
16
17
17
17
18
18
20
20
20
21
21
21*
22*
24*
24
25
25
25*
26
26
26
27
27*
30
30
31
32
33
* section includes simplified requirement
-------
Chapter
Contents (continued)
5. (continued)
5.7
5.9
5.6.3.5 Combined Sewer Overflows
(CSOs) and Stormwater
Discharges
5.6.3.6 Municipal/Industrial
Treatment
Phased Construction
Multiple Purpose Projects
5.6.3.7
5.6.3.8
Evaluation of Alternatives
5.7.1 Evaluation of Monetary Costs
5.7.1.1 Sunk Costs
5.7.1.2
5.7.1.3
5.7.1.4
5.7.1.5
5.7.2
5.7.3
5.7.4
5.7.5
5.7.6
5.7.7
5.7.8
5.7.9
Present Worth and
Equivalent Uniform
Annual Costs
Cost Escalation Factors
For Energy Use
I&A Cost Preference
Multiple Purpose Projects
Financial Impact Evaluation
Environmental Evaluation
Evaluation of Reliability
Energy Requirements
" Implementability
" Recreational
Opportunities
Comparison of Alternatives
Views of the Public and Concerned
Interests
5.8 Selected Plan
5.8,
5.8.
5.8.3
5.8.6
Justification for Plan Selection
Description of Selected Plan
Design of Selected Plan
Cost Estimates for Selected Plan
Energy Requirements of Selected Plan
Environmental Impacts of Selected Plan
5.8.6.1 Description of Impacts
5.8.6.2 Mitigating Adverse Impacts
Arrangements for Implementation
5.9.1 Institutional Responsibilities
Civil Rights Compliance
Site Availability
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
Requirements
Pretreatment Program
Implementation Steps
5.9.2
5.9.3
5.9.4
5.9.5
5.9.6
33
34*
35*
35*
36
36
36
36
37*
37
37*
44
48
48
48*
48
48
49
50
50
51
51
51
51
51*
52
52
52
52
52
53
53
53
54
54
section includes simplified requirement
VI
-------
Chapter
6. .
Contents (continued)
REVIEW, CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL OF PLANS .
6.1 Clearinghouse Comments
6.2 State Review and Certification to EPA
6.3 Revisions to Plans
55
55
56
56
7. ... REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FACILITIES PLANS BY EPA.
7.1 Management of the Facilities Planning
Process
7.2 Pre-Step 2 Application Considerations
7.2.1 State Project Priority List
7.2.2 Engineering Consultant
7.2.3 Intermunicipal Agreements
7.2.4 Other Considerations
User Charge System
Sewer Use Ordinance
Federal Facilities
Relocation
Dredge and Fill Permits
Pretreatment Program
Public Participation
7.2.5 Summary Checklist
57
57
57
57
58
58
58
59
APPENDIXES:
Appendix A. Preambles to EPA Construction Grants
Regulations
" B. List of Other Applicable Federal
Regulations
ii c. List of EPA Publications and Forms
" D. Discontinued or Canceled PRMs and POMs
" E. EPA Offices
61
95
96
103
107
FIGURES AND EXAMPLES:
Procedural Flow Chart for Facilities
Planning (Step 1 Grant). Figure 1.
Nonexcessive Infiltration Rates. Figure 2.
Alternate Justifiable Expenditure Method (AJE).
Figure 3.
Calculating Present Worth and Equivalent Uniform
Annual Costs. Examples 1-3.
Application of I&A Cost Preference. Example 4.
*section includes simplified requirement
22*
45
38
43
VI1
-------
INTRODUCTION AND USER GUIDE
This book describes the Federal
regulations, policies and pro-
cedures that apply to Step 1
facilities planning under the EPA
construction grants program. The
chapters are organized in a pro-
cess sequence. By following the
sequence and completing the re-
quirements for each stage, you
will be able to get your facili-
ties plan approved and your pro-
ject under design as fast as
possible.
Procedural Flow Chart
Figure 1 is a procedural flow
chart that illustrates the princi-
pal stages of the Step 1 grant
process. Note that each major
element on the chart corresponds
to a chapter of text. The chart
relates each chapter of this book
to the overall grant process.
The chart also lists the specific
parts, sections, and subsections
of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) that apply at each stage in
the process. This is important
because many sections of the
principal construction grants
regulations do not apply to a Step
1 grant. The construction grants
regulations are contained in 40
CFR Part 35 Subpart E.
Certain regulations other than
those in Part 35 Subpart E specify
activities to be performed as a
part of a Federal grant program.
A copy of the construction grants
program regulations applicable to
your facilities plan will be
included in your grant application
package. If you find you need
other regulations, contact your
project reviewer.
Reference to Federal Regulations
This book is written to help you
meet the requirements of the
regulations. It is important that
you read these regulations.
References to regulations in this
book are made by citing specific
portions of the appropriate title
of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). Virtually all regulations
applicable to the Step 1 process
are contained in Title 40
(Protection of the Environment);
therefore, most references cite
only the specific subdivisions of
the Title 40 regulations.
For example, a citation for
"35.917-l(a)" means subsection
917-l(a) of Part 35 of Title 40,
while "35 Appendix A.8.a." refers
to subsection 8.a. in Appendix A
to Subpart E, Part 35 of Title 40.
An example of a citation for a
part of Title 40 other than Part
35; e.g. Part 6, would be:
6.507. References to regulations
other than in Title 40 include
citation of the appropriate
title. For example, "10 CFR
2.700" is found in Title 10 Part 2.
When regulations are first publi-
shed in the Federal Register they
may be cited by volume and page;
e.g., 45 FR 2186.
viii
-------
Introduction and User Guide (continued)
Other Guidance
A number of program requirements
memoranda (PRMs) and program
operations memoranda (POMs) have
been discontinued because their
provisions are contained in the
text. They are listed in Appendix
D. While the text is intended to
incorporate all essential policies
and procedures other than referen-
ced regulations, certain important
technical publications have been
cited. You can get copies of
these documents from either the
State or EPA.
Appendixes and Index
A key word index and references
are included in the appendixes at
the end of this book.
The appendixes include reprints of
the preambles to the construction
grants regulations. These pream-
bles discuss the development of
the regulations.
Also listed are applicable parts
and subparts of the Code of Fed-
eral Regulations, other EPA publi-
cations that cover various sub-
jects related to Step 1 grant
activities, discontinued PRMs and
POMs, and addresses of key Federal
offices.
ix
-------
1.
BEOMNMQ
FACLITES PLANNING
/ 2.
PREAPPLICATION
l
86.817-2
STATE RESPONSBN.ITI-8
86.918
STATE PRIORITY SYSTEM
SUBPART G (PART 36)
STATE PLANNING PROCESS
WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
PLANS
86.920-2CA)
PREAPPLICATION ASSISTANCE
SPECIAL TOPICS
/»• 7
/ APPLICATION /
-/ FOR /
/ STEP 1 GRANT /
4.
REVeW, APPROVAL.
AND AWARD
/:EPABAT(ONOF /
/ FACH.ITE8 PLAN /
36.920-3
-------
CHAPTER 1
BEGINNING FACILITIES PLANNING
Your State water pollution control
agency working with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) did much of the groundwork
that resulted in your community's
proposed wastewater facilities
being selected for planning during
the current fiscal year (October 1
- September 30).
The following discussion will
briefly acquaint you with the
processes that have led to your
project getting priority for
planning under the construction
grants program and the context in
which the work will be performed.
1.1
STATE PLANNING
PROCESSES
Several sec-
tions of the
Clean Water
Act have been consolidated into an
integrated water quality management
(WQM) process. Through this pro-
cess State and area agencies
conduct WQM planning to achieve the
water quality goals of the Clean
Water Act.
Each of these agencies develops a
WQM plan that identifies sources
and severity of pollution and
needed programs to control pollu-
tion. Once completed and approved,
the plan becomes the foundation for
the WQM process.
Using information in the plan and
other data, each State annually
assesses current water quality
problems, updates its strategy to
solve problems, prepares and
carries out a work program to
implement solutions, evaluates
performance, and revises the plan.
Implementation may involve building
wastewater treatment facilities,
regulation of point source manage-
ment of nonpoint sources, legisla-
tive initiatives, enforcement, and
other activities to meet water
quality objectives.
The Clean Water Act requires each
State to describe the policies,
procedures and practices for ful-
filling its WQM responsibilities in
a planning document. The document
is submitted to the EPA regional
administrator for approval and is
revised as appropriate through the
annual work program. The completed
annual work program becomes a part
of the State/EPA agreement, a
mutually agreed approach for carry-
ing out the Clean Water Act as well
as other legislation. Incorporated
into the agreement is the State
strategy, which is also annually
updated under the work program.
The State strategy includes:
• Goals for a 5-year period
with estimated costs of activities
to control priority water quality
problems;
• An identification of govern-
ment entities that will be
responsible for conducting the
activities;
• Funding sources for the
strategy period.
The State planning process also
encompasses the State priority
system as described in 35.915,
which results in the State project
priority list for construction
grants funding. The State priority
system is a method used to rank
-------
municipal wastewater treatment
projects eligible for grant assist-
ance based on the following criter-
ia:
• Severity of pollution problem;
• Existing population affected;
• Need for preservation of high
quality waters;
• Other criteria consistent
with regulations.
It is from the State project prior-
ity list that projects are selected
and certified by the State for
Federal funding.
1.2
WASTELOAD
ALLOCATIONS
As a part
of the WQM
process, the
State agency establishes total
maximum daily wasteloads for all
surface waters throughout the
State. The agency classifies
segments of State waters as either
"effluent limited" or "water qual-
ity limited."
To make this distinction, the State
employs mathematical modeling of a
river basin, noting existing point
and nonpoint sources of waste as
well as basic physical and chemical
conditions. Using the assumption
that all municipal point sources
achieve a minimum of secondary
treatment, the model can predict
whether water quality standards can
be met. If standards can be met,
the stream segment is classified as
effluent limited and all municipal
treatment plants need only achieve
secondary treatment.
If the basin model predicts that
water quality standards will not be
met when all municipal point
sources achieve secondary
treatment, the segment is
classified as water quality
limited. Inputs to the model are
then varied to establish wasteload
allocations for each discharge in
the segment. Wasteload allocations
help determine the levels of
treatment beyond secondary that
must be achieved by municipal
treatment plants to meet water
quality standards.
The wasteload allocations are
generally incorporated into the
effluent limitations and compliance
schedule in the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. Thus the ability
of your community's treatment plant
to meet water quality standards and
comply with the NPDES permit may
serve as a factor in the priority
ranking of your project for a
construction grant. The wasteload
allocation performed by your State
is a critical factor in determining
the level of your facilities plan-
ning effort.
Congress requires special consi-
deration of cases that involve
treatment levels greater than
secondary, due to the high costs
and energy requirements associated
with additional processes (section
5.2).
1.3
DELINEATION OF
PLANNING AREAS
Delineation of
the planning
area is init-
ially a responsibility of the State
agency (35.917-2(a)). The geo-
graphic area should be sufficient
to ensure that the most cost-
effective means of achieving the
established water quality goals can
be implemented and that an adequate
evaluation of environmental effects
-------
can be made. The State also has
the responsibility of consulting
with local officials in determining
boundaries and ensuring that the
planning area is large enough to
take advantage of economies of
scale and efficiencies in planning
and management including
decentralized or individual systems.
1.4
WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT (WQM)
PLANS
WQM planning is
conducted by
designated
agencies in
areas where particularly complex
water quality problems exist and by
State agencies in areas outside
designated areas. The State agency
coordinates planning activities by
the designated agencies to achieve
a State strategy. WQM plans are
developed and revised as appro-
priate to address point and
nonpoint pollution problems and
solutions that cover the following
aspects:
• Municipal and industrial
wastewater facilities needs and
information to support subsequent
facilities planning;
• Total maximum daily loads and
wasteload allocations for surface
water segments;
• Programs for control of
pollutants from dredge and fill
material;
• Nonpoint pollutant source
control;
• Urban stormwater control;
• Residuals waste control and
disposal;
• Review and recommendations
for revision of water quality
standards to meet water quality
goals;
• Water conservation needs and
practices.
WQM plans influence the facilities
planning process. In particular,
all wastewater treatment facilities
identified in approved WQM plans
are included in the State's needs
inventory which contributes to the
priority system. The plan also may
include recommendations for loca-
tion, modification, construction,
operation and maintenance of munic-
ipal facilities, suggested regional
or decentralized approaches, and
population data for use in planning.
Once relevant portions of a WQM
plan have been approved, construc-
tion grants may be awarded only to
designated management agencies
identified in the plan. Facilities
planning is based on the wasteload
allocations, delineation of plan-
ning areas, and population pro-
jections and disaggregations in the
approved WQM plan. To ensure
continuity of facilities planning
during the period before final
approval of the WQM plan, EPA
established the following policies
for coordination between the two
processes:
• New facilities plans will be
started and carried out as provided
in the State project priority list.
• The scope and funding of
facilities planning will be suf-
ficient to collect all data and
conduct all analyses necessary for
expeditious completion of the
facilities plan.
-------
• The WQM planning agency is
expected to review the facilities
plan and provide comments.
• After WQM outputs have been
developed and approved by the State
and EPA for the area, new facil-
ities plans must be consistent with
the approved WQM outputs.
The following applies after the WQM
plan has been completed and
approved and the agency to con-
struct and operate the municipal
treatment facilities required by
the plan has been identified:
• All facilities plans underway
at the time of the WQM plan
approval will continue unless the
approved WQM plan clearly justifies
a change in required treatment
levels or alternative approach on
the basis of lower costs or major
changes in environmental impacts.
• The scope and funding of new
facilities plans begun after
approval of the WQM plan will be
sufficient to supplement the data
and analyses in the WQM plan to
provide a complete facilities plan
(35.917).
1.5
STATE DELEGATION EPA is in
the process of
delegating the administration and
management of the construction
grants program to the States. The
amount of delegation varies from
State to State; you should always
check first, however, with your
State water pollution control
agency project reviewer as issues
arise. Subsequent references in
this book to "project reviewer"
mean State project reviewer.
CHAPTER 2
PREAPPLICATION
2.1
PREAPPLICATION Preapplication
CONFERENCE assistance,
including a
preapplication conference, is
specifically encouraged in
35.920- 2(a). While called a
preapplication conference, in some
cases it will come after grant
award but before planning has
progressed substantially.
Generally, the project reviewer
will contact the appropriate
official of your municipality when
your project has received priority
for funding. The reviewer will
advise the official on how to
complete a grant application and
will provide appropriate guidance,
including this book.
The project reviewer will schedule
a conference at which municipal
officials and their consultants
will meet with the State and EPA
reviewers to discuss various
elements of the Step 1 grant and
subsequent steps in the con-
struction grants program.
While a conference may not be
possible for every project, your
municipal officials are entitled to
complete assistance and explan-
ations by the project reviewer
before or soon after initiation of
grant activities.
At the conference, issues relevant
to your facilities planning will be
reviewed and highlighted. Follow-
ing are examples of the subjects
which might be discussed. Regula-
tions and related sections of this
book are referenced in parenthesis:
-------
• Application requirements and
procedures including plan of study
(30.315, 35.917-3(a), 35.920-2(b),
35.920-3(a), section 3);
• Procurement of professional
services, generally architect and
engineering contracts (35.936,
35.937, section 3.3.3);
• Public participation require-
ments for the plan of study and
preparation of the facilities plan
(35.917-5, 35.920-3U), Part 25,
section 3.2);
• Comments by State, local and
Federal agencies using A-95 clear-
inghouse procedures (30.305,
35.920-3(a)(3), section 3.3.4);
• Award of grant and execution
of grant agreement including any
special grant conditions (30.345,
35.930, 35.935, section 4);
• Permit limitations to be met
by proposed facilities (section
5.2);
• Preparation of facilities
plan including scope and detail
(35.917-4), general contents
(35.917-1), pretreatment program
(35.907, Part 403.8), and cost-
effectiveness analysis (35 Appendix
A, and section 5);
• Scope of environmental
information document (BID), evalua-
tion of need for Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), and concur-
rent development of environmental
assessment (EA); i.e., piggybacking
(35.917-l(d)(7), 35.925-8(a), Part
6; sections 5.3, 5.3.11);
• Submission, review and
approval of facilities plan
(sections 6 and 7).
You should not incur costs you
intend to finance by Step 1 grant
funding until the grant has been
awarded to you. EPA does not
reimburse you for facilities plan-
ning work undertaken before grant
award (35.925-18 (a)).
2.2
SPECIAL TOPICS
FOR DISCUSSION
In addition
to the above
items, topics
of particular priority or interest
to EPA, the State or you should be
discussed at the preapplication
conference. These might include:
• Use of a simplified (generic)
facilities plan for small commun-
ities if the screening criteria are
met (section 5.6.2);
• Consideration of innovative
or alternative treatment technol-
ogies particularly appropriate for
your project (section 5.6.3.2);
• Use of a mutually agreed upon
work schedule in your facilities
planning effort (section 6.2);
• Coordination with other
Federal agencies that might partic-
ipate in funding design or con-
struction stages of the project
(especially appropriate for rural
or small communities) (section
5.6.2);
• Techniques for addressing
industrial pretreatment needs
(section 5.9.5);
• Status of accelerated facil-
ity plans (fast track), use of con-
current and midcourse facility plan
reviews (sections 5.7.8, 6.2, 7.1).
-------
CHAPTER 3
APPLICATION
Your municipality is eligible for a
Step 1 grant if it meets the eligi-
bility criteria of 35.917-3(a). If
two or more political jurisdictions
are included in the facilities
planning area, the grant applicant
may be a joint authority that
represents all the jurisdictions, a
designated lead agency, or two or
more eligible jurisdictions. In
these situations, implementation of
the completed plan requires inter-
jurisdictional resolutions or
agreements (35.917-6). The politi-
cal jurisdictions in the. planning
area should consult before the
application process is begun.
The elements of a Step 1 grant
application are listed in
35.920-3(a) and summarized below.
For further information see the
general grant regulations (30.315)
or consult your project reviewer.
3.1
PLAN OF STUDY The plan of
study required
by 35.920-3(a)(l) is a major ele-
ment of the Step 1 application. It
ensures that you, the State and EPA
have a common understanding of the
scope, schedule and costs of the
planning to be undertaken. The
plan of study should provide the
following information (generally in
10 pages or less because the cost
of preparation is not allowable for
grant funding):
• Maps of the planning area
showing boundaries, political
jurisdictions, river basins and
surface water bodies, and service
areas of existing wastewater treat-
ment facilities; NPDES permits; the
existing population (most recent
U.S.-Census); a brief description
of existing wastewater facilities;
and the communities and major
industries served;
• The agencies and jurisdic-
tions involved in the planning.
Include any joint resolutions or
agreements among jurisdictions that
designate a lead agency or official
to serve as applicant;
• The nature and scope of
planning, including a description
of need for the project (such as
water quality problems or changes
in permit conditions or effluent
limitations), and facilities plan-
ning tasks and schedule;
• A list of tasks and schedule
for a public participation program;
• An itemized description of
costs to complete tasks and an
estimate of total cost for the
Step 1 project;
• A brief summary of signifi-
cant public comments received on
the proposed project. Notice and
consultations with the public to
discuss the proposed Step 1 grant
application and plan of study with
local residents is recommended
(35.917-5(b)(2)). Since this is
not an allowable cost you may use
regularly scheduled community
meetings.
For complex planning situations,
more detailed, accurate cost esti-
mates and planning schedules can be
prepared following grant award.
-------
3.2
PUBLIC General
PARTICIPATION regulations for
public partic-
ipation in programs under the Clean
Water Act are included in Part 25.
The specific regulations relating
to public participation as a part
of the Step 1 grant are delineated
in 35.917-5.
Most projects will need a "basic"
public participation program.
However, where a project may
involve advanced wastewater treat-
ment, or will have significant
impacts on matters of public con-
cern, or require preparation of an
environmental impact statement, a
"full scale" program will be
necessary.
Elements of a basic public partici-
pation program are specified in
Part 25 and in 35.917-5(b). They
are:
• Keep the community's
residents informed of project
development (25.4) throughout the
facilities planning process.
• Notify and consult the public
during preparation of the plan of
study.
• Include in the plan of study
a brief outline of the public
participation program (elements,
tasks, budget and schedule).
• Submit to EPA or delegated
State a public participation work
plan and project fact sheet within
45 calendar days of grant accept-
ance or approval to proceed and
distribute copies to the interested
public (25.11).
• Provide one opportunity for
public consultation early in the
planning process before selection
of alternatives with at least 30
days advance notice (25.4).
• Prepare and distribute res-
ponsiveness summaries after each
public meeting and address adverse
or significant views in the facili-
ties plan (25.8).
• Hold public hearing with 45
days advance notice before adoption
of the facilities plan (25.5).
• Include final responsiveness
summary in the facilities plan
(25.8, 35.917-l(g)).
Besides the basic program, a full
scale public participation program
(35.917-5(c))includes:
• A public participation
coordinator to be designated or
hired and an advisory group (25.7).
• A public meeting for consult-
ation early in the planning process
(25.6).
Advice on the performance of public
participation program activities
will be given at the preapplication
conference.
Generally, EPA or the delegated
State will decide the level of
program appropriate to your project
before your submission of the grant
application and plan of study. The
public participation regulations
(Parts 25 and 35) for facilities
planning already provide a great
deal of flexibility in setting the
level of effort for projects that
qualify for the basic program.
Small communities can comply with
the public participation require-
ments through rather inexpensive
means with regional or delegated
-------
State approval. For example, a
one-page plan of study outline,
workplan and fact sheet can be
presented; existing town council
meetings can be used to satisfy
requirements for public consulta-
tion and public hearings; the
notification requirements can be
met through the use of existing
local information channels; e.g.,
town bulletin board, notices in the
library. Further savings for small
communities can be realized by
using local officials or volunteers
to coordinate public participation
efforts and prepare records of
meetings.
Public participation might not end
with the completion of Step 1
work. Based on the results of the
facilities plan and its public
participation program, additional
public participation activities may
be required as elements of subse-
quent grants (35.920-3(b)(10) and
35.920-3(c)(5)). Public participa-
tion requirements also apply to
adoption of a user charge system
(35.929-2(e)).
3.3
GENERAL
APPLICATION
REQUIREMENTS
In addition
to the plan of
study, the
Step 1 grant
application includes the items
described below to complete the
application package.
3.3.1
APPLICATION
FORM
EPA form
5700-32 is the
formal appli-
cation for a construction grant
(30.315). Instructions for comple-
tion of each part are included with
the form. All information in the
application should be consistent
with that in the plan of study.
The name of the applicant, project,
identification number assigned by
the State, project description, and
the amount of the grant should
correspond with the project data on
the State priority list. Contact
the project reviewer to resolve any
discrepancies.
The form is signed by the author-
ized representative of the agency
serving as the "applicant" for the
grant. A resolution designating
the official who may sign the
application accompanies the form.
By signing the form, the applicant
agrees to comply with various laws,
regulations and executive orders
listed in Part V of the form. The
applicant also agrees to pay the
non-Federal costs of the project
and assures that the jurisdiction
has the legal, managerial and
financial capabilities to adequate-
ly construct, operate and maintain
the resulting facilities (35.925-5).
3.3.2
ALLOWABLE AND
UNALLOWABLE COSTS
Allowable
and unallowable
project costs
are described in 35.940. For costs
that are not listed (i.e.; miscel-
laneous costs), determinations are
made on a case-by-case basis as to
whether costs are allowable using
the following criteria (30.705).
Allowable costs are:
• Necessary and reasonable and
not a normal expense of municipal
administration;
• Authorized (or not pro-
hibited) and consistent with
Federal, State and local laws or
regulations;
• Consistent with policies and
regulations applicable to both
-------
Federally assisted and other activ-
ities of the unit of government of
which the grantee is a part;
• Not included in costs covered
by any other Federally financed
program.
3.3.3
PROCUREMENT OF
SERVICES
Contracts with
architectural/
engineering
firms or other consultants for
performance of facilities planning
tasks are considered "subagree-
ments" to the grant agreement
between the EPA and you. Proposed
subagreements or an explanation of
intended methods of awarding con-
tracts are included as "a part of
the Step 1 application
(35.920-3 (a)(2)). Detailed pro-
curement regulations are in 35.936,
35.937 and Part 33.
The regulations set minimum
requirements for procurement of
consultant services and negotiation
of contracts. EPA's objective is
to ensure that procurement results
from open competition and that
simple, clearcut contracts are
negotiated on the basis of demon-
strated competence at a reasonable
and fair price. Acceptable types
of contracts are identified in
35.937-1, with the most common for
Step 1 work being the cost-plus-
fixed-fee type.
The amount of the contract
determines which sections of the
regulations apply. Contracts
totaling $10,000 or less can be
treated as "small purchases" as
stated in 35.936-19. Information
on costs is to be prepared in an
appropriate format (EPA form
5700-41) for negotiated contracts
in excess of $10,000 and submitted
when the contract exceeds $100,000
(35.937-6). Contents of each
engineering contract in excess of
$10,000 are defined in 35.937-9.
Appendix C-l to Part 35 is to be
part of any engineering contract
greater than $10,000.
Contracts totaling more than
$25,000 are subject to the public
notification or prequalified list
requirements of 35.937-2 unless the
population of the municipality
getting the grant is 25,000 or
less. See 35.937-6(b) for proce-
dures when the contract amount
exceeds $100,000.
Consultation with the public in
selecting the professional engineer
is encouraged (35.917-5(b)(2)).
Other elements that affect the
procurement process are EPA's
goal-oriented systems for increased
participation of minority business
enterprises (MBE) (35.936-7 and 35
Appendix C-l.14). Under these
systems each regional EPA office
has the responsibility of estab-
lishing goals. Reasonable costs
associated with MBE liaison
services, as determined by EPA or
the delegated State, are allowable
for funding under the grant
(35.936-20(c)).
The regulations that govern
procurement of consultants and the
goal-oriented policies and proce-
dures for MBE use need careful
consideration. These matters will
be reviewed in detail at the pre-
application conference. Contact
your project reviewer if you have
any questions on the effects of the
goal-oriented MBE policies on your
proposed subagreements.
Do not incur costs that are to be
funded from the grant until the
relationship of the various regula-
tions and policies to your project
has been resolved and a Step 1
grant awarded.
-------
3.3.4
CLEARINGHOUSE Office of
COMMENTS Management and
Budget (OMB)
Circular A-95 calls for inclusion
of comments from State, local and
Federal agencies (by way of State
and areawide clearinghouses) as
part of the application for a Step
1 grant (35.920-3 (a)(3)). Regula-
tions for clearinghouse review are
included in 30.305. Section
30.305-8(b) applies this review to
a Step 1 construction grant
application.
Before submitting a completed Step
1 application to your State water
pollution control agency, provide a
copy of the application, plan of
study and project notification
review system letter of intent to
the State and areawide clearing-
houses in your project area. This
should be done soon enough to
permit timely response by the
clearinghouses and avoid delays in
subsequent application processing.
The plan of study and related
application materials constitute a
notice of intent to apply for
Federal assistance.
The clearinghouses have 30 calendar
days to review the application
materials and return comments to
you. Include these comments in the
application package you submit to
the State. If the clearinghouses
cannot complete their review in the
time allotted, they must so inform
you. In such case, contact your
project reviewer for advice.
Comments will 'indicate the degree
of interest or concern of- other
agencies in your project". You
should review them to identify
sensitive issues for evaluation in
the facilities plan. Where an
agency or clearinghouse makes
adverse comments, include a res-
ponse to the comments as part of
your Step 1 grant application.
Chapter 4
REVIEW, APPROVAL AND AWARD
When you receive the State and
areawide clearinghouse comments on
the application and plan of study
(or if 30 days have passed without
response), submit the grant
application package to the State.
At least one copy of the applica-
tion form must have an original
signature. The State will review
the application and plan of study
with reference to the project
priority list and approved elements
of the WQM plan. The project
reviewer will notify you of errors
or omissions and may request
additional information.
Once the State agency has completed
its review and confirms that award
of grant assistance will not exceed
the State's funding allotment, the
project reviewer will complete a
priority certification (EPA Form
5700-28) for the project. The
State will send the approved
application and priority certifica-
tion form signed by the appropriate
State official to the EPA regional
office. EPA will consider the
application complete only when the
State priority certification form
has been included (35.920-2(b)).
The EPA regional office will con-
duct an independent review or, if
responsibilities have been delega-
ted to the State agency (35.912),
accept the application on the basis
of State certification. Partial
submittals may be made and reviewed
before completion of all applica-
tion requirements, but no final
action can be taken until the
application is complete.
After the State and EPA approve the
grant application the EPA regional
10
-------
office will begin processing the
notification of grant award and the
grant agreement for your project.
First, EPA will complete the grant
agreement (EPA form 5700-20).
Then, EPA headquarters and the ap-
propriate congressional office are
notified; next, information on the
project is recorded in the EPA
data processing and retrieval sys-
tem; and finally, notification is
made to the appropriate State and
areawide clearinghouses.
Modifications to any of the grant
amounts, scope of work, or other
aspects may be made as a result of
the review process. In addition
special conditions based on recom-
mendations from the State agency or
comments from clearinghouses may be
included in the agreement.
The completed grant agreement will
be mailed to you and you will have
3 weeks to accept the grant offer
and to return the signed agreement
to EPA (30.345-3). The person
signing the agreement must be the
authorized representative (usually
the same person who signed the
application form). If there is a
new authorized representative, an
authorizing resolution must be
included with the agreement. Once
signed, the agreement forms a
legally binding contract between
you and the Federal Government.
You should review the agreement
carefully and, if necessary,
discuss any changes from your
application with your project
reviewer. Also, take note of the
special grant conditions that
require attention during facilities
planning and review the payment
schedule included in the agreement.
A brief public participation work
plan should be submitted to EPA or
the State within 45 days of the
date of grant acceptance
(35.917-5 (b)(4) and
35.917-5(c)(3)(v)).
CHAPTER 5
PREPARATION OF FACILITIES PLAN
5.1
PROJECT NEED The State,
AND SERVICE often in
AREAS consultation
IDENTIFICATION with your
community,
designates the facilities planning
area for your project as a part of
its WQM process (35.917-2(a)).
Changes in the geographic scope of
the plan can be made only upon
approval by the EPA regional
administrator after consultation
with State and local officials
(35.917-4). Once the boundaries of
the planning area have been
delineated, your first objective is
to demonstrate the need for
proposed facilities (35.917(b)).
In demonstrating need, recognize
that the primary purpose of the
construction grants program is to
assist municipalities in meeting
the enforceable requirements of the
Clean Water Act (35.901). Emphasis
is placed, therefore, upon the
abatement of existing water quality
problems and compliance with
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit
requirements.
While many facilities plans will
result in complete wastewater
treatment systems, facilities plans
of lesser scope may also be per-
formed under the construction
grants program. Such projects may
involve such things a§ onsite
treatment or collector sewers or
interceptors from an area located
within the delineated service
area. If a project includes sewage
collection system work, the design
and construction may be grant
11
-------
eligible if: (a) it is for re-
placement or rehabilitation of an
existing system (35.927-3); or (b)
it is for a new system in a commun-
ity that meets the requirements of
regulations (35.925-13) and EPA
policies described in this section.
Because the Clean Water Act was
intended primarily to correct
existing water quality problems,
new sewage collection systems are
grant eligible only for communities
that were substantially inhabited
on October 18, 1972, the date
section 211 of the Act was passed.
Substantial habitation means that
at least two-thirds of the design
flow capacity in the proposed sewer
system will be for wastewater
originating from habitations that
existed on October 18, 1972.
Exception: certain systems are
eligible for residences and small
commercial establishments that were
inhabited before December 27, 1977,
(35.918-l(a)).
New collection sewers must be
proven necessary and cost effective
within the facilities plan.
Funding may be provided only when
the existing systems used for
wastewater disposal are causing, or
have a potential to cause, public
health problems, are contaminating
groundwater, or are violating point
source discharge requirements of
the Clean Water Act. If the pro-
posed project will include a new
collection system for a portion of
the planning area, provide the
following information to justify
the need for the project.
• Specific documentation of the
nature and extent of health,
groundwater or discharge problems
associated with existing wastewater
disposal systems;
• Pertinent information (soil
maps, historical data) documenting
physical restrictions to the use of
onsite systems;
• Documentation of the nature,
number, and location of malfunction-
ing onsite systems. A community
survey is recommended and fundable.
Where the need to replace onsite
systems has been determined, show
that a collection system will be
cost effective. The facilities
plan should compare the proposed
sewer system to nonconventional
alternatives such as small-diameter
sewers (35. 918(a) (.5)). EPA's
policies on the evaluation of
alternatives for unsewered communi-
ties are further described in
section 5.6.2.
If the proposed project will not
include a new collection system,
project need should be described in
terms of the location, service
areas, and problems associated with
existing wastewater treatment
facilities. You should discuss the
need for improving or replacing
existing facilities and address
such factors as violations of
effluent limitations, inability of
existing facilities to meet a
discharge compliance schedule, or
potential public health hazards
associated with existing conditions.
5.2
EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS
The facilities
plan includes
effluent
limitations for all discharges
(35.917-l(e)) and the numbers of
all NPDES permits issued to
facilities in the planning area.
Effluent limitations will be based
on wasteload allocations developed
by the State and will indicate the
level of treatment required for
each facility (35.917(e)).
At least secondary treatment
(generally 30-day average not to
12
-------
exceed 30 mg/1 each of biochemical
oxygen demand and suspended solids)
is required for all municipal point
source discharges to surface waters.
Higher levels of treatment
(advanced treatment) may be
required to meet State standards
for water quality limited segments
of receiving waters; however,
Congress requires the EPA to review
projects involving treatment more
stringent than secondary. In such
cases, the advanced treatment
project can be approved only if the
costs attributable to the stricter
limitations are supported by a
demonstration of significant
improvement in receiving water
quality and mitigation of existing
public health problems. The finan-
cial impact of advanced treatment
projects on the community is also
assessed (see section 5.7.2). If
advanced treatment is likely,
contact your project reviewer or
EPA for assistance. Note that, in
response to the Clean Water Act,
EPA requires consideration of land
application systems and reuse/
recycling technologies as a normal
part of facilities planning. These
systems are especially applicable
as alternatives to advanced treat-
ment and discharge.
Construction grant funds may be
used to revise wasteload alloca-
tions applicable in the facilities
planning area. The responsibility
for validity of the wasteload
allocations will remain with the
State. Accountability for the
construction grants funds used for
the water quality analyses neces-
sary to verify the applicable
wasteload allocations will rest
with you as the municipality
preparing the facilities plan;
however, the analyses should be
done independently of you or your
consultant. If this applies to
your project, the EPA and State
reviewers will discuss procedures
with you.
5.3
ENVIRONMENTAL
INFORMATION
DOCUMENT (EID)
The facilities
plan should
provide
sufficient
information to evaluate the
environmental impacts of the alter-
natives and selected plan
(35.917-l(d)(7)). Actions under
the construction grants program are
subject to EPA regulations (Part 6)
and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). EPA cannot
award subsequent grants for design
and construction of the proposed
facilities until either a Finding
of No Significant Impact (FNSI) or
an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) has been issued for the
facilities plan (35.925-8(a)).
An EID should be an integral part
of the facilities plan (6.507 (c)).
It should present the environment-
al analysis conducted throughout
the facilities planning process.
The information in the EID will be
of sufficient scope to enable the
State or EPA to prepare an envi-
ronmental assessment and decide
whether a FNSI or EIS should be
issued.
The following elements of
the facilities plan provide inform-
ation for compliance with the
regulations (6.507):
• Describe the existing
environment of the planning area
and relate it to the analysis of
the alternatives and selection of a
proposed plan. The existing
environmental conditions to be
described in the facilities plan
are listed in section 5.4.1 of this
publication.
13
-------
• Describe the future environ-
ment without the project, i.e., the
"no action" alternative and its
effects on future environmental
conditions in the planning area, as
discussed in section 5.5.4.
• Show the purpose and need for
the proposed project, as discussed
in section 5.1.
• Sources of information used
to describe existing and future
conditions should be properly
referenced. Consultation with
regional, State and Federal agen-
cies responsible for impacts in
various areas should be performed
early during planning.
• As described further in
sections 5.6 and 5.7, develop and
evaluate alternatives within the
plan. Evaluate impacts on the
environment as beneficial or
adverse, direct or indirect, and
long term or short term.
• Consider the Environmental
impacts of the proposed action as
described in section 5.8.6, with
special attention to unavoidable
impacts, tradeoffs, commitments of
resources, and measures to mitigate
adverse effects.
For further assistance in evaluat-
ing environmental impacts during
preparation of the facilities plan,
consult the EPA publication
"Enviromental Assessment of
Construction Grants Projects"
(FRD-5) and your project reviewer.
EPA's decision either to issue a
FNSI or prepare an EIS will be
based on an environmental review
(required by the Part 6 regula-
tions). Moreover, EPA must comply
with procedures of other laws and
executive orders. The following
special topics require consultation
or other procedures during prepara-
tion of the facilities plan to
avoid delay during review. Adverse
impacts in any of these areas may
result in the need for an EIS and
the imposition of special condi-
tions on subsequent grants.
5.3.1
HISTORICAL AND
ARCHEOLOGICAL
SITES
Under section
106 of the
National
Historic
Preservation Act and Executive
Order 11593, EPA must comply with
procedures for consultation and
comment by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation (ACHP) if any
of its actions will affect a prop-
erty listed or eligible for listing
on the National Register of
Historic Places (6.301(a)).
Consult the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) for
information on properties on or
eligible for the National Register
within the facilities planning area
and on the need for any additional
work. The project reviewer can
advise you of specific procedures
for SHPO consultation and review.
In general, planning should be
conducted to avoid direct and
indirect impact by the proposed
facilities on identified properties
or potentially sensitive areas.
Any unavoidable impact will require
evaluation of the identified
historic or cultural property,
providing information on the
property, the potential for effect
by the project and mitigating
measures. Minimally, adequate data
on the property's boundaries,
integrity, and significance will be
necessary to evaluate the eligibil-
ity of the property for listing on
the National Register.
14
-------
Criteria for evaluation and
guidelines for level of
documentation necessary for
requesting a determination of
eligibility from the Secretary of
Interior are available from the
SHPO. Projects affecting proper-
ties on or eligible to be on the
National Register should be
assessed in consultation with the
SHPO and in consideration of the
ACHP's criteria for effect and
adverse effect (36 CFR 800.3).
Cultural resource surveys should be
initiated early in the planning
process and completed before the
Step 3 grant award. The reasonable
cost of EPA-required surveys is
allowable for grant funding.
5.3.2
FLOODPLAINS AND
WETLANDS
EPA's Statement
of Procedures
for Floodplain
Management and Wetlands Protection
(Appendix A to Part 6) requires EPA
to prepare a floodplains/wetlands
assessment for any action under its
programs that will adversely affect
a floodplain or wetland (6.302(a)
and (b)). You should adequately
identify floodplains and wetlands
in the planning area as they re-
late to alternatives in the plan.
Floodplains and flood hazard areas
are shown on maps prepared by the
Federal Emergency Management
Agency. Wetlands may be identi-
fied by consulting the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service or the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Alternatives should be developed or
modified to avoid direct or in-
direct impacts on wetlands and
floodplains wherever possible.
Wastewater treatment service
should not be provided for new
development in floodplain areas.
Measures to minimize adverse
impacts must be evaluated and
described when no practicable
alternative exists. If the project
is located in a wetland or flood-
plain area or in navigable waters,
consult the Corps of Engineers to
determine whether a "404/Section
10" permit for discharge of dredge
and fill material will be needed.
If a permit is necessary the Corps
should identify alternate
locations, if any, to be evaluated,
and which environmental factors
should be addressed when the formal
permit application is submitted for
the selected alternative. (Part
230, 33 CFR Parts 120 and 209).
5.3.2.1
FLOOD INSURANCE
REQUIREMENTS
If the selected
plan proposes
construction
in a flood hazard area, all af-
fected communities may have to
participate in the National Flood
Insurance Program to receive a Step
3 grant (30.405-10). Early coord-
ination among affected communities
will help avoid delays in Step 3
grant approval.
5.3.3
AGRICULTURAL
LANDS
EPA's policy to
protect
environmentally
significant agricultural lands
requires the agency to evaluate the
direct and indirect impacts on
significant agricultural lands of
any actions under its programs.
The policy aims to protect sig-
nificant agricultural lands from
irreversible loss as an environ-
mental or essential food production
resource (section 6.302(c),
35.925-13 (d) and (e) and Appendix
A.8.f(l)). Therefore, the
facilities plan should identify
significant agricultural lands in
the planning area. You may consult
the local office of the Soil
15
-------
Conservation Service of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Environmentally significant agri-
cultural lands identified by EPA
and USDA include the following
categories:
• Prime farmland;
• Unique farmland;
• Additional farmland of State
importance;
• Additional farmland of local
importance;
• Farmlands of waste utili-
zation importance;
• Farmlands with significant
capital investment in erosion
and nonpoint pollution con-
trol plans.
You should evaluate alternatives
that will avoid or minimize adverse
impacts on significant agricultural
lands (6.302(c)). Measures to
mitigate any unavoidable adverse
impacts should be described; e.g.,
as in FRD-5.
5.3.4
COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT
The Coastal
Zone Management
Act requires
all Federal activities to be con-
sistent with approved State coastal
zone management programs to the
extent possible (6.302(d)). If the
project is in a coastal area,
consult the Office of Coastal Zone
Management in the U. S. Department
of Commerce and any appropriate
State agency. Develop and evaluate
alternatives that comply with any
approved State coastal management
programs applicable to the planning
area.
5.3.5
WILD AND To comply
SCENIC RIVERS with the Wild
and Scenic
Rivers Act, EPA ensures that its
actions do not adversely impact any
wild, scenic, or recreational river
area (6.302(e) and 15 WCPD 1353).
During facilities planning you
should identify any inventoried or
designated rivers in the planning
area through consultation with the
Heritage Conservation and Recre-
ation Service of the Department of
Interior. Project alternatives
should then be developed and eval-
uated to avoid or mitigate adverse
impacts on these rivers.
5.3.6
FISH AND WILDLIFE
PROTECTION
The Fish and
Wildlife
Coordination
Act requires that all Federal
actions be undertaken so as to
protect fish and wildlife resources
that may be affected (6.302(f)).
During facilities planning consult
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and any appropriate State agency to
find ways to prevent or lessen
adverse impacts your project could
have on fish and wildlife.
Sewage treatment facilities can
attract birds that pose potential
birdstrike hazards to aircraft at
nearby airports. If locating a
wastewater treatment facility near
an airport, you can coordinate the
location with regional Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA)
officials for civilian airports,
the regional Fish and Wildlife
Service representative, and nearby
military air base commanders.
"Near airports" means locations
within 10,000 feet of any jet
runway, within 5,000 feet of any
16
-------
runway used only by piston aircraft
and within the approach zones
bounded by the conical surfaces as
described in FAA regulations.
5.3.7
ENDANGERED SPECIES EPA and its
PROTECTION grantees must
comply with
the Endangered Species Act
(6.302(g)). If a project affects a
species of plant or wildlife that
the Federal, State, or local gov-
ernment lists as endangered or
threatened, EPA must formally
consult the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Marine Fisheries
Service, or State agency to identi-
fy mitigation measures. Consult
these agencies during facilities
planning to determine whether the
proposed planning area includes the
habitats of a listed species.
Projects should avoid disrupting
such habitats. If a project could
cause such disruption, the facili-
ties plan should suggest mitigation
measures.
5.3.8
AIR QUALITY The Clean Air
Act requires
all Federally funded projects to
conform to approved State Air
Quality Implementation Plans (SIPs)
(6.303). During facilities
planning evaluate the direct and
indirect impacts of the alterna-
tives on air quality. Consult the
State and regional agencies that
monitor SIP compliance. Alterna-
tives should be evaluated for
compliance and include measures to
mitigate adverse affects. As
applicable, these actions should
comply with the policy and
procedures to implement section 316
of the Clean Air Act (45 FR 53382).
5.3.9
WATER QUALITY
AND QUANTITY
Wherever
effluent from
proposed
municipal treatment facilities
would percolate or discharge into
groundwater, the facilities plan
includes information and analyses
showing the impacts on the ground-
water. The plan demonstrates that
the effluent, when mixed with
groundwater used as a public water
supply, will comply with all Fed-
eral, State, and local environ-
mental laws and regulations,
including the standards established
under the Safe Drinking Water Act
and the Best Practicable Waste
Treatment Technology (41 FR 6190,
35.917-l(d), 35.925-14, 35 Appendix
A, and 6.506(a)(6)). The plan for
any facility to be built over the
recharge zone of any aquifer
designated as a sole or principal
source (under Section 1424 (e) of
the Safe Drinking Water Act) should
show that the facility will not
contaminate so as to create a
public health hazard. For a
private, individual system the
facilities plan provides a program
to test water periodically from
existing portable wells in the
area. If there are a significant
number of onsite systems in the
area, checking of aquifers is
required (35.918-l(i)).
Identify and evaluate the potential
for erosion and sedimentation in
the proposed plan.
Special problems include long
slopes, steep grades and highly
erodible soils. Propose special
construction procedures and
constraints to deal with these
problems. For project sites where
dewatering operations are expected
during construction, consider
minimizing adverse effects from the
discharge of silt-laden waters by
means of filtration or sedimenta-
tion basins or similar construction
methods. For projects that involve
land treatment or disposal, methods
of application should be carefully
17
-------
studied and selected to make sure
soil erosion and sediment runoff is
minimized. Specify requirements
for sediment control practices and
maintenance after construction.
Support local and State shoreline
stabilization efforts where appro-
priate.
Consider and discuss with local and
State officials saltwater encroach-
ment, depletion of aquifers, land
subsidence, and other special
problems where they are likely to
occur.
5.3.10
DIRECT AND
INDIRECT
IMPACTS
The facilities
plan assesses
both direct
(primary) and
indirect (secondary) environmental
impacts of the selected plan and
alternatives. Direct impacts
relate to the construction, opera-
tion, and maintenance of the
treatment works and may include
such things as:
• Damage to historical, archeo-
logical, geological, cultural, or
recreational areas during construc-
tion;
• Disturbance of sensitive
ecosystems such as wetlands and
habitats of endangered species
during construction;
• Damage and pollution of
surface waters due to erosion
during construction;
• Displacement of households,
businesses, or services.
Indirect impacts include: (1)
induced changes in land use,
population, and economic growth
resulting from the project;
(2) other environmental impacts of
induced changes. Examples:
• Changes in the rate, density
or type of development, including
residential, commercial, or
industrial, or changes in the use
of open space or other land;
• Air, water, noise, solid
waste, or pesticide pollution from
the induced changes in population
and land use;
• Damage to sensitive
ecosystems (wetlands, habitats of
endangered species) and environmen-
tally protected areas (parks,
historic sites) that result from
changes in population and land use.
The environmental information
document should give special
attention to determining whether
indirect impacts will violate
environmental and land use statutes
or regulations.
5.3.11
DECISION TO
PREPARE AN
EIS
When your
project
received
a Step 1 grant
EPA and the State agency reviewed
your application and plan of study,
WQM plans, and clearinghouse com-
ments, to identify environmentally
sensitive conditions in the facili-
ties planning area (6.507).
Based on that review, EPA may have
included in the grant agreement
special conditions that relate to
the scope of environmental informa-
tion to be provided in your plan.
EPA may also have decided to re-
quire an EIS. If an EIS is
required, EPA will contact you to
discuss the possible use of the
joint EIS/EID approach (piggy-
backing). A piggyback EIS saves
18
-------
considerable time because the EIS
is prepared concurrently with,
rather than subsequent to, the
facilities plan.
Through this method the EIS may be
prepared by a consultant to the
municipality and funded with the
Step 1 grant based on a memorandum
of understanding between EPA and
you. To ensure independent review,
the EIS and the facilities plan are
prepared by different consultants.
Whether a decision to prepare an
EIS is made before, during, or
after completion of the facilities
plan, it can be made only by EPA
based on an environmental review.
EPA must prepare an EIS when any of
the following conditions exist
(6.506):
• The treatment works will
induce significant changes in
industrial, commercial, agricultur-
al, or residential land use con-
centrations or distributions.
Factors that should be considered
in determining if these changes are
significant include: (1) vacant
land subject to increased develop-
ment pressure as a result of the
treatment works; (2) population
increases; (3) faster rate of change
in population or changes in popu-
lation density; (4) potential for
overloading sewage treatment works;
(5) extent to which landowners may
benefit from the areas subject to
increased development; (6) nature
of land use regulations in the
affected area and their potential
effects on development; and (7)
deleterious changes in the avail-
ability or demand for energy.
• The municipal treatment
facilities or collector system will
have significant adverse effects on
wetlands, including indirect ef-
fects, or any major part of the
treatment works will be located on
wetlands.
• The treatment facilities or
collector system will significantly
affect, directly or indirectly, a
habitat identified on the Depart-
ment of the Interior's or a State's
threatened and endangered species
lists.
• Construction of the treatment
facilities or implementation of the
facilities plan may directly cause
or induce changes that significant-
ly: (1) displace population; (2)
alter the character of an existing
residential area; (3) adversely
affect a floodplain; or (4) ad-
versely affect significant amounts
of prime or unique agricultural
land or agricultural operations on
this land as defined in EPA's
policy to protect environmentally
significant agricultural land.
• The treatment works will have
significant adverse direct or
indirect effects on parklands,
other public lands, or areas of
recognized scenic, recreational,
archeological, or historic value.
• The treatment works may
directly or indirectly or through
induced development have a signifi-
cant adverse effect on local am-
bient air quality, local ambient
noise levels, surface or ground-
water quality or quantity, or fish
and wildlife and their natural
habitats.
• The treated effluent is being
discharged into a body of water
where the present classification is
too low to protect present or
recent uses and the effluent will
not be of sufficient quality or
quantity to meet the requirements
of these uses.
19
-------
If EPA determines that an EIS is
needed, a full-scale public parti-
cipation program will be required
(35.917-5(c».
5.4
CURRENT SITUATION
5.4.1
EXISTING
ENVIRONMENT
OF THE PLANNING
AREA
The facilities
plan describes
existing
environmental
conditions in
the planning area for compliance
with 6.507(c)(l). The description
should be sufficient to provide a
basis for analysis of alternatives
and determination of impacts of the
proposed action. The description
addresses:
• Surface and groundwater
hydrology, quantity, quality, and
uses;
• Geology and soils;
• Terrestrial and aquatic plant
and animal communities;
• Air quality and noise;
• Energy production and
consumption;
• Population and socioeconomic
conditions;
• Land use and development;
• Public facilities and
services;
• Related Federal and State
projects in the planning area.
The description should emphasize
environmentally sensitive features
and areas to be avoided or protect-
ed during planning. Consult Fed-
eral, State, and regional agencies
and the public early in the plan-
ning process and follow the spec-
ific procedures identified in
sections 5.3, 5.5, and 5.7. All
sources should be properly
referenced.
5.4.2
EXISTING
WASTEWATER
FLOWS AND
TREATMENT
SYSTEMS
Provide an
inventory of
existing
wastewater
treatment
facilities and
their interrelationships. This
should include onsite systems. The
inventory may indicate conditions
that limit the number of feasible
alternatives and the severity of
the pollution problems. Address
the existing systems and methods of
achieving optimum performance
(section 5.6.1):
• Show the location of indus-
trial and municipal treatment
plants, sludge management areas and
facilities, pretreatment plants,
pumping stations, and sewer service
areas.
• Describe these facilities,
including design capacities, exist-
ing flows and characteristics of
wastes, NPDES permits, and any
overload conditions.
• Show locations of signifi-
cantly developed areas served by
onsite or nonconventional systems.
• Include a discussion and
analysis of average, peak, dry, and
wet-weather flows.
• Show the locations of
bypasses and overflows.
• Describe the extent of any
combined sewer system.
• Describe any flow-reduction
program in effect.
20
-------
5.4.3
INFILTRATION AND Before EPA can
INFLOW (I/I) award a Step 2
or Step 3
grant for the proposed project, the
facilities plan or supporting
documentation (35.917-l(c)) is to
show that each sewer system dis-
charging into the treatment works
is not, or will not be, subject to
excessive infiltration/inflow
(35.927(a)). Procedures for doc-
umentation are described in 35.927.
An infiltration/inflow (I/I) analy-
sis (35.927-1) is normally required
as a part of the facilities plan to
identify excessive I/I on a system-
wide basis.
Where the analysis shows that
excessive I/I may exist, subsequent
evaluation (35.927-2) -and probably
rehabilitation (35.927-3) will be
necessary and may be required
before approval of the facilities
plan and award of a Step 2 grant.
However, if the facilities plan
demonstrates that the treatment
works will not be significantly
changed by subsequent rehabilita-
tion or will be a component part of
the rehabilitated system, EPA may
approve doing the evaluation and
rehabilitation under a Step 2 or
Step 3 grant (35.927~5(c)),
5.4.3.1
STATE
CERTIFICATION
Using informa-
tion you
provide and
other data, the State may certify
that excessive I/I does not exist
and further documentation is not
required in the facilities plan.
If the State certifies that ex-
cessive I/I does exist, no future
grant may be awarded until the
regional administrator is satisfied
that rehabilitation will not sig-
nificantly change the treatment
works design (35.927-5(a)).
5.4.3.2
I/I ANALYSIS The following
procedures
apply to performance of the I/I
analysis (35.927-1) :
• When flow meters at the
treatment plants are determined to
be well maintained and accurate,
determine the quantity of I/I on
the basis of plant flow records
compared with the calculated theo-
retical base flow (based on water
flow records when available). A
subsystem approach for determining
I/I conditions may be advisable in
large systems especially where flow
records for pump stations are
available or where specific prob-
lems are known or suspected.
• To determine quickly if
infiltration in a study area is
excessive refer to Figure 2 on the
following page.
• For separate sanitary sewers,
determine the possible existence of
excessive inflow by performing a
cost-effectiveness analysis.
• A maximum of 30% removal of
total infiltration (the total as
based on the entire system) is
generally used as the basis for the
cost-effectiveness analysis. A
higher infiltration removal rate
can be used if it can be technic-
ally justified. While these limits
do not apply to specific sections
of pipe where infiltration is found
to be excessive, the overall reduc-
tion for the entire system should
be consistent with these limits.
• The results obtained from a
cost-effectiveness study in the I/I
analysis phase are, at best, pre-
liminary and subject to further
verification when possibly exces-
sive I/I exists. Therefore, the
cost-effectiveness analysis should
21
-------
Figure 2. Nonexcessive Infiltration Rate
Length of Sewer Pipe
Nonexcessive
Infiltration Rate
greater than 100,000 ft.
10,000 to 100,000 ft.
less than 10,000 ft.
2000 to 3000 gpd/in/mi
3000 to 6000 gpd/in/mi
6000 to 10,000 gpd/in/mi
The infiltration rate is based on the highest 7-day to 14-day
average infiltration within a 12-month period. The infiltration
allowance determined above applies to both I/I analysis and SSES
(section 5.4.3.3).
be simple and brief and additional
data is not routinely necessary.
o A report summarizing the
results of the above analysis is
required. The report may be pre-
pared and approved separate from
the facilities plan but is incor-
porated into the facilities plan.
The report provides flow data to
substantiate the I/I conclusions.
When I/I is determined to be pos-
sibly excessive, the report con-
tains, in addition to flow data, a
detailed study program and esti-
mated costs for performance of a
sewer system evaluation survey
(SSES) to identify specific
problems.
5.4.3.3
SEWER SYSTEM
EVALUATION
SURVEY (SSES)
AND REHABILITATION
You are
encouraged to
use the excep-
tion clause
under
35.927-5(c) which allows the SSES
to be conducted concurrently with
the Step 2 design work.
Do the SSES and rehabilitation in a
logical and sequential order. I/I
problems should be carefully de-
fined by a systematic flow monitor-
ing program (overall subsystem flow
monitoring followed by flow isola-
tion within subsystems) before
conducting any other field work.
The proposed flow-monitoring pro-
gram accurately identifies and
isolates sewer sections that have
excessive I/I. For systems where
inflow is a primary problem, limi-
ted field work (including physical
inspection and smoke testing) may
be done to allow timely correction
of these inflow problems. Do all
field work, including physical
inspection and smoke testing, only
in areas that have excessive I/I.
You may use smoke testing instead
of flow monitoring to define inflow
problems when it is economical.
Identify I/I problems associated
with service laterals; i.e, the
sewer connecting the building to
the collector sewer, and specifi-
cally address them as a separate
item in the sewer system evaluation
and the proposed rehabilitation
program.
Preferably, determine service
lateral I/I problems through visual
inspection of a representative
sample of joints where service
laterals are connected to collector
sewers. For example, television
(TV) inspection of collector sewers
22
-------
during flow isolation may be used
for estimating I/I at Y - fittings
from service laterals while at the
same time inspecting the internal
conditions of the collector sew-
ers. Quantifying sources of I/I
other than service laterals by
means of TV is generally unaccept-
able. Flow isolation followed by
concurrent pressure testing and
sealing procedures is the preferred
method and should be used where
leaks are to be grouted and concur-
rent test and seal can be used.
After completing the flow monito-
ring, physical inspection, and
smoke testing activities, prepare
an interim SSES report. The report
contains: (1) supporting data; (2)
a proposed rehabilitation program;
(3) a detailed cost estimate for
the proposed rehabilitation pro-
gram; and (4) specifications for
the proposed rehabilitation pro-
gram. For larger sewer systems
where the I/I problem is generally
more complex, this report can be
submitted before completion of the
bidding documents to avoid project
delays. In these cases, prepare
bid documents while the State and
EPA are reviewing the report.
When concurrent sewer testing and
sealing techniques are used, ensure
that the bid package covers sewer
line cleaning, pressure testing,
and grouting. When applicable, the
contract documents should also
include other sewer structural
repairs such as manholes and cov-
ers. Require bidding in unit
prices; e.g., price per foot of
sewer cleaned, price per joint of
sewer pressure tested or chemically
grouted.
Do rehabilitation work through
competitive bidding if the cost of
the rehabilitation work in the
contract exceeds $10,000
(35.936-14). The work must comply
with the procurement requirements
of 35.938 and 35 Appendixes C-l and
C-2. For projects where large
scale pressure test and seal work
is proposed, the recommended ap-
proach is rehabilitating first a
selected sample of sewers or a
small subsystem. Analyze the
results of the pilot rehabilitation
to be sure the benefits are at-
tained before conducting a
full-scale rehabilitation.
To ensure the concurrent pressure
testing and sealing techniques are
effectively applied, isolate sec-
tions of the sewer subject to
excessive infiltration within each
subsystem. Limit sewer grouting to
structurally sound sections of the
sewer that have service line con-
nections in good condition. Before
the actual testing and sealing
process, make a brief internal
inspection by pulling the TV camera
quickly through the sewer line.
When rehabilitation methods other
than grouting are required; i.e.,
limited structural repair, record
these needs and identify the sewer
section. The testing and sealing
process is usually not performed in
sections that need structural
repairs because the structural work
is done in Step 3 and the cost of
mobilizing equipment, etc., is not
justified.
You may perform limited structural
repairs and sewer replacement under
any Step grant when approved by the
State and EPA (35.927-3(a)&(c))
provided the work is not a part of
the municipality's normal operation
and maintenance responsibilities.
Where structural repairs are requi-
red for a substantial portion of
the sewer system, especially in ca-
ses where public hearings are war-
ranted, make repairs later and per-
haps as part of Step 2 and Step 3.
23
-------
Test the performance of the com-
pleted rehabilitation of each
subsystem when the groundwater
level is high, using single point
flow monitoring. Analyze the
results and compare them with the
system flow meter records to assess
the effect of groundwater migra-
tion. Report the results immed-
iately to the project reviewer when
you find that the rehabilitation
program for a particular subsystem
is not producing the projected
result. When the rehabilitation
for the entire system is completed,
send the State and EPA a report
summarizing the results of
postrehabilitation flow monitoring
and analysis for each subsystem.
I Your engineer should inspect reha-
bilitation work. He should have
I experience in sewer rehabilitation.
5.4.3.4
SEWER
MAINTENANCE
PROGRAM AND
SEWER USE
ORDINANCE
The SSES report
addresses and,
whenever
possible,
incorporates an
enforceable
sewer use ordinance. The ordinance
contains a realistic program to
remove existing excessive I/I
sources and illegal connections and
to prohibit future illegal connec-
tions. The ordinance also speci-
fies an acceptable infiltration
rate for new sewers that discharge
into the proposed treatment works
and describes how new connections
should be designed.
The SSES report contains a commit-
ment to a comprehensive and effec-
tive sewer maintenance program.
The proposed maintenance program is
prepared subsequent to Step 1 and
includes:
• Organizational and functional
structure of the proposed mainte-
nance department (inhouse and/or
contract service);
• Equipment and vehicles to
perform the maintenance;
• Staffing;
• Anticipated activity includ-
ing preventive and corrective
programs;
• Recordkeeping;
• Annual budget;
• Schedule of implementation.
5.4.4
PERFORMANCE OF
EXISTING SYSTEMS
Evaluate the
performance of
existing
wastewater treatment facilities,
including onsite disposal systems,
to determine their operational
efficiency. Compare existing
performance with optimum perfor-
mance in terms of effluent quality
and treatment capacity. For decen-
tralized systems describe the
extent, nature, and location of
malfunctions (refer to section 5.1).
When you evaluate the performance
of existing systems, consider:
• Adequacy of the treatment
plant design for the character and
amount of waste treated (compare
with NPDES permit);
• Adequacy of operation and
maintenance program; including
process control methods, mainte-
nance management systems, staffing,
salaries, and replacement funds and
schedules;
24
-------
• Effects of infiltration/
inflow;
• Effects of industrial dis-
charges ;
• Degree of documentation of
problems associated with onsite
systems.
5.5
FUTURE
SITUATION
The planning
period (35
Appendix
A.4.c) is the timespan over which
wastewater management needs are
forecast, facilities planned, and
costs amortized. The facilities
planning period is 20 years beyond
the date the facilities are sched-
uled to begin operation (35
Appendix A.6.b).
The most cost-effective plan may
provide for staging construction of
operable parts of the facilities to
meet changing conditions during the
planning period. Consider building
a plant with capacity to handle
wastewater flows projected for only
part of the 20-year planning per-
iod. The plan could provide more
capacity later to treat the in-
crease in wastewater flows pro-
jected for the rest of the planning
period.
Procedures for staging proposed
treatment plants and interceptors
are given in 35 Appendix A.S.e and
A.S.f.
5.5.1
DEMOGRAPHIC,
ECONOMIC, AND
LAND USE
PROJECTIONS
Wastewater
treatment needs
and design
capacities for
the facilities
planning area will be determined by
future population, land use pat-
terns, and economic growth. Regu-
lations governing the use of
population estimates for facilities
planning are included in 35
Appendix A.8.a. The estimates of
design year population in the
planning area are based on disag-
gregations of State population
projections. The baseline State
population projections were pre-
pared in 1977 by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis of the Department
of Commerce. Deviations should be
justified by supporting documen-
tation.
The facilities plan should be
carefully coordinated with land use
plans. Projected land use patterns
and densities are one basis for
determining the optimum capacity
and location of facilities. Where
land use plans have not been pre-
pared for all or part of the plan-
ning area, you can estimate future
land use patterns and densities in
consultation with existing planning
agencies and zoning commissions.
Lands where development should be
avoided, such as highway rights-
of-way, powerline easements, and
environmentally sensitive areas
(including significant agricultural
lands, parks and historic sites),
are not to be included when esti-
mating future development patterns
and densities.
5.5.2
FORECASTS OF FLOWS
AND WASTELOADS
The facilities
plan should
relate the size
and capacity of facilities to the
needs in the planning area
(35.917-l(d)(D). Wastewater flow
estimates are calculated from
estimated future population, nonex-
cessive infiltration/inflow, and
industrial flows projected accord-
ing to procedures in 35 Appendix
A.S.b and Appendix A.8.d.
Regulations in 35 Appendix A.S.d
identify allowances for future
25
-------
flows from industries and required
documentation. During planning
contact industries served by the
municipal facilities to determine
needs for future capacity. When
estimating future flows and waste-
loads consider:
• Use of approvable population
estimates (35 Appendix A.8.a);
• Use of approvable average
daily base flow (35 Appendix A.S.b);
• Use of approvable allowances
for future industrial flows with
documentation by letters of intent
from industries (35 Appendix
A.8.d(2)). Note: If you have any
industrial sources whose flow
exceeds 50,000 gallons per day
contact your project re'viewer to
determine the impact of the indus-
trial cost exclusion contained in
the recently enacted 1980 Clean
Water Act amendments;
• Analyses of pollutant content
of existing flows;
• Estimates of nonexcessive
infiltration/inflow;
5.5.3
FLOW AND WASTE
REDUCTION
The facilities
plan includes
evaluation of
alternative flow and waste reduc-
tion measures, including nonstruc-
tural methods (35.917-l(d)(2) and
6.507(c)(5)). Unless the existing
average daily base flow is 70
gallons per capita per day (gpcd)
or less or the current population
is under 10,000 (35 Appendix
A.8.C), consider:
• A public information program
to encourage wastewater reduction;
• Changes in water pricing
policies to promote conservation;
• Installation of water meters
and retrofit with water-saving
devices of existing homes and other
buildings;
• Changes in local ordinances
or codes that require installation
of water-saving devices in new
homes and other buildings.
5.5.4
FUTURE ENVIRONMENT
WITHOUT THE
PROJECT
A "no action"
option is to be
evaluated as an
alternative to
any proposed project (6.507(c)(2)).
The plan should discuss the future
environmental conditions without
the project and cover the same
subjects described in section 5.4.1.
5.6
DEVELOPMENT OF
ALTERNATIVES
The prime
objective of
facilities
planning is to develop and evaluate
alternatives (not to be confused
with "alternative technology",
5.6.3.2) and then select the most
cost effective system for
wastewater management in the
planning area. Note, however, that
cost effectiveness is not strictly
a monetary term, and the most
cost-effective alternative need not
necessarily be the lowest cost
alternative. Rather, cost
effectiveness includes
consideration of a variety of
quantitative and qualitative fac-
tors (economic, environmental,
social, institutional), and selec-
tion of the action that meets water
quality objectives, without over-
riding adverse impacts, at the
lowest present-worth cost
(35.917(b)).
Identify the feasible alternative
waste management systems in the
plan (35.917(b), 35 Appendix
A. 5.a). These alternatives are
26
-------
then screened to determine those
that can meet the Federal, State
and local criteria (35 Appendix
A.5.b). Evaluation of these prin-
cipal alternatives is performed
later (section 5.7). Discuss
possible use of simplified
(generic) plans with your project
reviewer.
5.6.1
OPTIMUM OPERATION
OF EXISTING
FACILITIES
The facilities
plan includes
an evaluation
of improved
effluent quality attainable by
improved operation and maintenance
of existing facilities (35.917-l(d)
and (e) and 6.507(c)(5)).
An investigation of existing facil-
ities, including onsite disposal
systems, may reveal that they can
function more efficiently with the
addition of new equipment, opera-
tional changes, or the addition and
training of operating personnel.
Conversely it may be found that the
facilities are already operating at
peak efficiency but other factors
are limiting their ability to meet
applicable standards.
Whatever the results of the inves-
tigation, the optimum operation of
existing facilities will determine
if additions, expansions, or re-
placements must be made, including
better design, operation, and
maintenance of onsite systems, and
the extent to which existing facil-
ities can be converted or used in
lieu of a new system. Consider any
improvements expected as a result
of future pretreatment by indus-
trial contributors, removal of ex-
cessive infiltration/inflow, or
staging of new capacity.
5.6.2
REGIONALIZATION, In delineating
INDIVIDUAL the facilities
SYSTEMS AND planning area,
SMALL ALTERNATIVE the State
SYSTEMS agency was
responsible
for including an area sufficiently
large to allow for efficiencies
through interconnection of waste
treatment systems or collective
management of such systems
(35.917-2(a)(D). Also, where
individual systems are likely to be
cost effective, the area should
have been delineated with suffi-
cient size to allow for economies
of scale in planning and managing
these systems (35.917-2(a)(4) and
(35.918)).
If the facilities planning area
includes several communities, each
served by separate facilities or
systems for wastewater disposal, a
regional planning approach may be
advisable. Such an approach may
have been evaluated or recommended
in an approved WQM plan for the
area.
Regional alternatives for a large
planning area may involve various
arrangements for construction,
operation, maintenance, and mana-
gement. For example, several juris-
dictions may form a regional author-
ity to c6nstruct, operate, and main-
tain a centralized treatment system
for the entire planning area. As
another approach, one jurisdiction
may serve as a lead agency for
construction, operation, and
maintenance of facilities that
serve all the jurisdictions.
Regionalization need not involve
construction of physically connected
27
-------
facilities. Rather, individual
jurisdictions may be responsible for
construction of municipal facilities
while a regional authority may be
formed to consolidate one or more
operation and management functions.
Regional facilities have various
advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages include: savings in
personnel, materials and supplies,
more treatment capability per dol-
lar, higher operator skill levels,
better performance of treatment, and
fewer effluent discharge points.
Fewer discharge points could reduce
direct environmental impacts. Dis-
advantages include: higher costs
due to heavy reliance on techno-
logy, longer design and construction
time, potential for induced growth
and resultant adverse environmental
impacts, depletion of streamflow,
and need for interjurisdictional co-
operation and joint agreements.
The planning area often includes
several jurisdictions or communi-
ties. One or more of those may be
served by individual onsite systems
such as septic tanks or holding
tanks.
Alternatives for onsite or small-
flow wastewater disposal systems
should be considered in facilities
planning, especially for areas not
now served by central systems or
where alternatives are likely to be
more cost effective than collector
and interceptor networks (35.917-1).
Twenty-one alternative systems are
briefly described in an EPA publi-
cation (FRD-10) available from your
project reviewer. Engineers can
get detailed technical descriptions
of many of these systems in EPA'S
manual for onsite systems available
through the EPA. These systems
include:
• Subsurface disposal or mound
systems;
• Dual systems (blackwater/
graywater);
• Cluster systems that serve
several users;
• Small-diameter gravity sewers
(6-inches or less);
• Pressure or vacuum sewers.
As a financial incentive to small
or rural communities, Federal
funding of privately owned alterna-
tive wastewater treatment facili-
ties is permitted where they are
shown to be cost effective
(35.918). A program for inspection
and maintenance to be included in
the facilities plan should provide
for:
• Periodic physical inspection
of all onsite systems in the plan-
ning area;
• Pumpouts, renovation and
replacement as needed;
• Testing of existing, local
potable water wells once a year;
• Additional monitoring of
water supply aquifers, if appro-
priate, where substantial numbers
of onsite systems exist.
Publicly owned systems may qualify
for and use the 15% cost preference
to determine the most cost-
effective alternative for
alternative and innovative
processes; privately owned systems
may not (35 Appendix A.7). Both
types of systems, however, are
eligible for 85% EPA grants rather
than conventional 75% funding if
they qualify as innovative and
28
-------
alternative technology (35 Appendix
E).
To provide additional assistance
for small and rural communities,
EPA has executed an interagency
agreement for rural water and sewer
projects with the Farmers Home
Administration (FmHA), Economic
Development Administration (EDA),
Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), and Community Services
Administration (CSA). These agen-
cies will coordinate efforts to
improve delivery of Federal assis-
tance to small, rural, and semi-
rural communities in the form of
grants, loans, and technical assis-
t anc e.
As discussed in section 5.1, con-
ventional sewage collection systems
for existing unsewered communities
may be eligible for grant funding
if the communities existed on
October 12, 1972, and the system
will not encourage development in
environmentally sensitive areas
(35.925-13). Include documentation
of need in the facilities plan
(section 5.1). The conventional
system should be cost effective.
Where the population density within
the proposed collection system area
is less than 1.5 persons per acre
(one household per 2 acres), col-
lector sewers will be considered
non-cost-effective unless a severe
pollution or public health problem
is documented and collector sewers
are shown to be clearly more cost
effective than any of the alterna-
tives for sparsely populated areas.
In addition, the facilities plan
should show, where population
I density is less than 6 persons per
acre (2 households per acre), that
alternatives are less cost effec-
tive than new gravity collector
sewer construction and centralized
treatment.
The facilities plan should examine
alternatives such as limited sewer
service for a portion of a commu-
nity where applicable. For exam-
ple, septic systems work very well
in many small towns except in one
isolated area, such as a business
district, where open space for
adequate individual onsite disposal
is not available. Consider a
community drainfield or other
alternative solution as well as
limited central collection and
treatment solutions. Consult your
EPA or State reviewer about
"Generic Facilities Plans for a
Small Community" (FRD-18, February
1981).
When considering regional alterna-
tives involving construction of new
interceptors to connect communities
in the planning area or when con-
sidering new collection systems,
evaluate the environmental factors
discussed in section 5.3. Addi-
tional guidance for alternative
interceptor systems is provided in
section 5.6.3.3.
The need for a service agreement to
be completed before award of a Step
2 grant for projects involving more
than one political jurisdiction
will be determined by the regional
administrator (35.920-3(b)(6),
35.917-6). Such agreements cover
the specific items defined in
35.920-3(b)(8); e.g., financial
arrangements, enforcement, user
charge requirements, sewer system
rehabilitation, sewer use ordinan-
ces. Since the agreements often
entail long periods of negotiation,
it is to your advantage to begin
action on them as early as possible
during the development of the
facilities plan.
29
-------
5.6.3
EVALUATION OF When developing
SYSTEMS alternative
wastewater
systems, the facilities plan should
relate the size and capacity of the
facilities to the needs, including
reserve capacity (35.917-l(d)(1)),
based on existing and future condi-
tions (sections 5.4 and 5.5).
The "no action" alternative should
be discussed (6.507)(c)(2)). This
option will frequently be appro-
priate for a portion of the plan-
ning area. The no action alternate
describes the future environment
without the project (section 5.5.4).
Consider each treatment alterna-
tive's flexibility to operate in
various treatment modes and under
different hydraulic and loading
conditions.
5.6.3.1
BEST PRACTICABLE
WASTE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGY
(BPWTT)
BPWTT can be
defined as a
minimum of
secondary
treatment for
discharge to surface waters or
treatment that will meet the pri-
mary drinking water standards after
land application (5.7.4, 5.6.3.5).
To meet the BPWTT requirement,
facilities plans are to evaluate,
at a minimum, alternatives under
the following five waste treatment
management techniques
(35.917-l(d)(5)):
• Biological or physical-
chemical treatment and discharge to
receiving waters;
• Treatment and reuse;
• Land application;
• Systems that generate revenue;
• Onsite and nonconventional
systems.
In evaluating options for treatment
and discharge, consider the later
application of technology providing
for: (1) the reclaiming of waste,
(2) recycling of water, (3) elimi-
nating the discharge of pollutants
by containment to the extent prac-
ticable.
The Clean Water Act encourages the
use of land treatment of municipal
waste where practicable. Design
manuals for the other listed treat-
ment technologies are referenced in
Appendix C of this book.
Land treatment, water reuse and
nonconventional systems qualify as
alternative (as in I&A) technology
and may receive a higher level of
Federal funding. Section 5.6.3.2
provides additional information on
I&A technologies.
The technical design basis for land
treatment alternatives (slow rate,
overland flow, and rapid infil-
tration), is the EPA "Design Manual
on Land Treatment" (EPA
625/1-77-008) and "Costs of Waste-
water Treatment by Land Appli-
cation" (EPA 430/9-75-003, revised
9/79).
The design manual recommends a two-
phase approach to the evaluation of
land treatment alternatives. The
first phase should include enough
detail to establish whether sites
are available, soils suitable, and
the cost of land treatment
competitive. If these conditions
are met, phase two would include an
indepth investigation of sites and
refinement of design factors to
complete the requirements of a
facilities plan. An acceptable
analysis of land treatment includes:
30
-------
• Site selection—A map of the
planning area showing the tracts of
land evaluated as potential land
treatment sites. The plan should
describe the reasons for rejecting
sites as well as the availability
of suitable sites. Categorical
elimination of land treatment for
lack of suitable sites is to be
documented with supporting infor-
mation (soils data, etc.).
• Loading rates and land
area—Values used for these para-
meters that agree with established
ranges in the EPA design manual.
Values outside the established
ranges are to be explained with a
discussion of extenuating circum-
stances.
• Estimated Costs—Compare
approximate costs for land treat-
ment with those in the EPA guidance
on costs, as updated,using local
construction cost indexes. Elimi-
nation of land treatment due to
land costs or transport costs
should be documented by an evalua-
tion of actual costs.
• Preapplication treatment—The
level of treatment before land
application should agree with
guidance in the EPA design manual
for the type of application process
used. EPA will not accept a uni-
versal minimum of secondary treat-
ment before land application with-
out supporting environmental docu-
mentation. Treatment more strin-
gent than recommended in the design
manual should be justified. If
documentation is not acceptable,
EPA may consider the costs of the
additional processes beyond those
recommended in the design manual as
unallowable for grant funding.
• Environmental effects—The
environmental evaluation of a land
treatment system should emphasize
quality and quantity of surface
water and groundwater resources,
energy conservation, pollutant
recycling, and compatibility of
land use. BPWTT criteria are to be
met for protection of groundwater
based on current quality and uses
of the water.
5.6.3.2
INNOVATIVE AND
ALTERNATIVE
(I&A) TECHNOLOGY
The Clean Water
Act clearly
established the
intent of
Congress to encourage the use of
innovative and alternative techno-
logies in the construction grants
program.
The underlying concept of the
regulations for I&A technology
(35.908) is the provision of a
basic monetary incentive through a
grant increase from 75 percent to
85 percent for design and con-
struction of municipal treatment
facilities that represent advance-
ment of current state-of-the-art
(for innovative technology) to meet
national goals for resource recov-
ery, energy conservation, cost
reduction, and improved
environmental management. All
facilities plans are to include
evaluation of I&A technology
(35.917-l(d)(8)).
"Alternative technologies" are
fully proven methods that reclaim
and reuse water, productively
recycle wastewater constituents,
eliminate the discharge of pollu-
tants, or recover energy.
"Innovative technologies" are
methods that have not been fully
proven in the circumstances of
their contemplated use. They may
be alternative technologies or
conventional treatment methods
which have an acceptable level of
risk and corresponding opportunity
31
-------
for significant advancement in the
state-of-the-art.
Specific guidelines and examples of
areas of alternative technologies
are included in 35 Appendixes A &
E. EPA has issued a publication
entitled, "Innovative and Alterna-
tive Technology Assessment Manual"
(MCD-53), which should be consulted
for detailed information.
Wastewater treatment systems to
solve the water pollution problem
are initially classified either as
alternative technology or conven-
tional methods. For those which
are not fully proven, potential for
advancement in the state-of-the-art
is to be evaluated. Systems that
involve some reasonble risk; i.e.,
advancement over proven conven-
tional practices, are then evalua-
ted against six criteria (defined
in 35 Appendix E) to determine
whether they qualify as innova-
tive. Alternative technology
qualifies as innovative if it meets
any one of the six criteria.
The regional administrator may
consider local conditions in deter-
mining a technology innovative (35
Appendix E.6). Conventional me-
thods, however, may be classified
as innovative only if they meet
either the 15 percent life-cycle
cost reduction or the 20 percent
net primary energy reduction cri-
teria.
The remaining feasible alterna-
tives, called principal alterna-
tives, which will be subjected to
cost-effectiveness analysis, are
analyzed to identify the noninnova-
tive system and the least energy
consuming noninnovative system.
The I&A technology projects are
then compared with these noninnova-
tive systems. A 115 percent cost
preference is applied; i.e., the
I&A project may cost 15 percent
more in present worth than the
lowest-cost noninnovative alterna-
tive and still be considered
equal. Further explanations and
examples are provided in section
5.7.1 and MCD-53, Figure 2-2 .
If the I&A project is cost effec-
tive and environmentally sound,
implementable, and acceptable to
the public, subsequent Federal
grants may be increased to 85
percent for the I&A portions of the
project and for costs associated
with preparation of the facilities
plan. Furthermore, grants are
provided for up to 100 percent of
the correction or replacement cost
if the I&A project elements fail to
operate as required within 2 years
of the date of final inspection,
except where failure is caused by
gross negligence.
5.6.3.3
EVALUATION
OF SEWER
ALIGNMENTS
Since the
location and
length of
interceptors
will generally influence growth in
the planning area, plan carefully
the interceptor routes and staging
of construction.
In general, interceptors may be
funded where they eliminate exist-
ing point source discharges and
accommodate flows from existing
communities that violate enforce-
able requirements of the Clean
Water Act.
The following restrictions apply
(35 Appendix A.S.f):
• Do not extend interceptors
into environmentally sensitive areas
32
-------
unless they eliminate existing
discharges or serve existing com-
munities that violate an enforceable
requirement of the Clean Water Act.
• Evaluate direct and indirect
impacts (section 5.3.10) of inter-
ceptors on environmentally sensi-
tive areas such as: floodplains,
wetlands, and significant agricul-
tural lands.
• Where there is no practicable
alternative that avoids impacts on
environmentally sensitive areas,
identify measures to minimize
adverse impacts.
• EPA may impose grant condi-
tions on subsequent grants, includ-
ing restrictions on sewer hookups,
to protect environmentally sensi-
tive areas (section 5.3.2).
The facilities plan should assess
the need for interceptors, areas to
be served, and the existence of
environmentally sensitive areas.
Consider alternative routes for
interceptors in light of the above
factors (6.507(c)(5) and section
5.3).
5.6.3.A
ULTIMATE
DISPOSAL OF
RESIDUALS
The required
analysis of
alternative
methods of
ultimate disposal of residuals
should include an assessment of
potential impacts on ground-water
quality (35.917-l(d)(6),(7) and
6.507(c)(5)). In addition to con-
ventional methods such as landfill
or incineration, consider innova-
tive and alternative technologies
(section 5.6.3.2) and their asso-
ciated economic, environmental,
social and institutional factors
(section 5.7).
For further information refer to "A
Guide to Regulations and Guidance
for the Utilization and Disposal of
Municipal Sludge (MCD-72).
5.6.3.5
COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOWS
(CSOs)
The costs and
benefits from
control of
combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) vary with numerous
environmental and system-related
factors. Decisions relating to
CSOs are made on a case-by-case
basis.
Control of pollution from CSOs
should be considered if application
of BPWTT for dry-weather flows
would not meet water quality stan-
dards (35.917-Kd)(4)). Treatment
or control of CSOs may be given
priority for construction grants
funds only after secondary treat-
ment of all dryweather flows in the
area is assured. (Exception: where
EPA has received an application for
a marine discharge waiver under
section 301(h) of the Clean Water
Act).
Where measures may be proposed for
the control of CSOs, the facilities
plan is to evaluate the following
for the 20-year planning period:
• Alternative control tech-
niques and management practices
that could attain various levels of
pollution control;
• Cost of achieving various
levels of pollution control by each
of the control techniques that
appear to be most feasible and cost
effective;
• Benefits to receiving waters
of a range of pollution control
alternatives during wet-weather
33
-------
conditions. Consult WQM plan as
appropriate;
• Costs and benefits from
addition of advanced wastewater
treatment (AWT) processes for
dry-weather flows in the area as an
alternative to CSO control.
A final alternative selected for
control of CSOs is to meet the
following criteria:
• The analysis demonstrates
that the proposed level of pollu-
tion control is necessary to pro-
tect an attainable beneficial use
of the receiving waters even after
the standards required by the Clean
Water Act for industrial discharges
are met and a. minimum of secondary
treatment is achieved for all
dry-weather municipal discharges in
the area.
• Provision has been made for
funding of secondary treatment of
all dry-weather flows in the area
or an application for a marine
discharge waiver has been received
by EPA.
• The technique proposed for
CSO control is more cost effective
for protecting beneficial uses than
other CSO control techniques plus
higher levels of treatment for
dry-weather municipal flows in the
area.
• The marginal costs of control
are not substantial compared to
marginal benefits.
If portions of the planning area
are served by combined sewers and
an evaluation of CSO abatement is
to be included in the facilities
plan, request additional guidance
from the project reviewer. To
determine what portion of CSO
control costs for a multiple pur-
pose project are grant eligible,
refer to the multipurpose dis-
cussion in section 5.6.3.8.
The Clean Water Act prohibits
funding of costs for control of
pollutant discharges from a sepa-
rate storm sewer system (35.925-21)
5.6.3.6
MUNICIPAL
INDUSTRIAL
TREATMENT
Consider the
issues
mentioned below
when planning
municipal treatment facilities that
will accommodate industrial flows.
The treatment works design capacity
may include allowances for indus-
trial flows (35 Appendix A.S.d and
section 5.5.2). However, the
following costs are not allowable
for grant funding (35.925-15):
• Costs of interceptor or
collector sewers constructed exclu-
sively or almost exclusively to
serve industrial users;
• Costs allocable to the treat-
ment for control or removal of
pollutants introduced solely by
industrial processes.
The 1980 amendments to the Clean
Water Act, (PL 96-483) provided
that:
• Construction costs to collect
or treat industrial flows in excess
of 50,000 gallons per day are not
grant eligible after November 15,
1981, unless the project was ap-
proved to prepare construction
plans and specifications before May
15, 1980.
• Requirements for industrial
cost recovery (ICR) are repealed as
of December 27, 1977. Any ICR
provisions in a grant made since
34
-------
March 1, 1973, are to be removed;
35.928 is no longer in force for
those projects.
Where industries will be served by
the planned facilities, a pretreat-
ment program may be required
(35.907 and 403.8). A pretreatment
program is required (35.907(b))
when:
• The municipal treatment works
serves or is expected to serve
industries subject to pretreatment
standards under the Clean Water Act
(307);
• The WQM plan has not provided
for development of an approvable
pretreatment program.
Section 5.9.6 identifies specific
elements to be included in a pre-
treatment program.
5.6.3.7
PHASED
CONSTRUCTION
Adding capacity
in phases
during the
20-year planning period may be more
cost effective than providing full
capacity in initial construction.
The plant will be more efficient,
effective and economical than if it
runs substantially under capacity.
Information on staging of treatment
plant construction is provided in
35 Appendix A.S.e. Staging of
interceptors is discussed in 35
Appendix A.S.f. Factors to be
considered are:
• Relative cost of providing
full capacity initially compared
with the present worth of deferred
costs for providing capacity when
needed;
• Uncertainties of projecting
long-term wastewater flows and
possible technological advances or
flow- and waste-reduction measures
which may limit need for full
capacity.
Modular development of operable
components of a treatment plant is
advisable in areas where high
growth rates are projected, where
treatment must become more stringent
later in the planning period, or
where existing facilities are to be
used initially but phased out later.
5.6.3.8
MULTIPLE PURPOSE
PROJECTS
A multiple
purpose project
is one that is
designed to meet enforceable
requirements of the Clean Water
Act; i.e., NPDES permit or BPWTT,
but that also has components not
associated with enforceable
requirements of the Act.
Projects designed only to meet an
enforceable requirement are single
purpose. Thus, a project that
includes land application as an
integral part of a wastewater
treatment system to meet effluent
limitations is single purpose.
An agricultural reuse project that
uses effluent which could be dis-
charged to a stream; i.e., discharge
meets NPDES limitations, is multi-
ple purpose.
To reduce costs and conserve energy,
the facilities plan may contain a
broad examination of structural and
nonstructural alternatives that
include multiple purpose options.
Reasonable costs necessary for
screening and evaluating multiple
purpose options are allowable for
Step 1 grant funding.
35
-------
5.7
EVALUATION OF After develop-
ALTERNATIVES ing alterna-
tives as
described in section 5.6, system-
atically screen them to determine
those that can meet Federal, State
and local criteria (35 Appendix
A.5.b). Then analyze the resulting
principal alternatives to identify
those which have cost-effective
potential (35 Appendix A.S.c).
CAPDET, a computer assisted proce-
dure for the design and evaluation
of wastewater treatment systems,
can be used quickly to screen costs
of a large number of alternatives.
The fact sheets in Appendix A of
the I/A Manual (MCD-53) and the
financial impact on a community on
a per household basis can also be
used.
The principal alternatives, which
you will select through this
screening process, should undergo a
thorough cost-effectiveness
analysis. This is described and
outlined in 35 Appendix A.6 and
(6.507(c)(5), (6) and (7)).
Discuss the reasons for the
selection of a prefered alter-
native and the reasons for the
elimination of other alternatives.
5.7.1
EVALUATION OF Procedures
MONETARY COSTS for performing
the cost-
effectiveness analysis are given in
35 Appendix A.6.
There is also a cost preference for
projects involving I&A technologies
(35 Appendix A.7). This section
gives additional guidance and
examples. Section 5.7.1.4
summarizes the procedures for
application of the cost preference
in the analysis. Once the present
worth or equivalent uniform annual
cost are determined for each
principal alternative, the least
costly alternative can be
identified.
5.7.1.1
SUNK COSTS Any investments
or commitments
made before or during facilities
planning are regarded as sunk costs
and not included as monetary costs
in the plan because they are iden-
tical for all alternatives, and the
sunk costs have already been
committed regardless of the alter-
native selected. Such investments
and commitments include:
• Investments in existing waste-
water treatment facilities and
associated lands even though incor-
porated in the plan;
• Outstanding bond indebtedness;
• Cost of preparing the
facilities plan.
5.7.1.2
PRESENT WORTH
AND EQUIVALENT
UNIFORM ANNUAL
COSTS
"Present worth"
may be thought
of as the sum
which, if
invested now
at a given rate, would provide
exactly the funds required to make
all future payments. "Equivalent
uniform annual cost" is the expres-
sion of a nonuniform series of
expenditures as a uniform annual
amount. Either of these methods
may be used (35 Appendix A.6.a).
Detailed procedures for making
these calculations are explained in
most engineering economics text-
books.
Three examples are shown on the
following pages and include: (1) a
simple project assuming constant
36
-------
O&M costs; (2) a project with
varying O&M costs; and (3) a com-
plex project assuming varying O&M,
phased construction, and a positive
salvage value. To follow the
example analyses, you may refer to
the tables in Appendix D of the I&A
Assessment Manual for 7 3/8% com-
pound interest, the rate for fiscal
year 1981; i.e., October 1, 1980,
to September 30, 1981. These
tables may also be found in
engineering economics textbooks.
The discount rate used for facili-
ties planning is published annually
by the United States Water Resources
Council in the Federal Register.
5.7.1.3
COST ESCALATION
FACTORS FOR
ENERGY USE
Energy cost
escalation
factors, for
use at the
grantee's option, were published in
the Federal Register October 3,
1980, page 72984. If necessary,
check with your project reviewer to
find out if final energy factors
have been published.
5.7.1.4
I&A COST
PREFERENCE
If a proposed
system is to
qualify as
innovative based on criteria other
than 15% life-cycle cost savings,
or if it is to qualify as alterna-
tive technology, use the following
procedure (35 Appendix A.7):
a. Calculate the present worth of
the innovative or alternative
components of the proposed system.
b. Using the total present worth
of the innovative or alternative
system, calculate the percentage
that the proposed innovative or
alternative components represent.
c. If the present worth of the
proposed innovative or alternative
is less than 50% of the total
present worth of the innovative or
alternative system:
(1) Calculate the present
worth cost of the least costly
noninnovative system components
being replaced;
(2) Multiply the present worth
cost of (1) by 1.15;
(3) Add the result of (2) to
the present worth of the remaining
components of the least costly
noninnovative system.
Result: The total present worth of
the proposed innovative or
alternative system should be less
than the result of (3) to be con-
sidered cost effective.
d. If the present worth of the
innovative or alternative components
is more than 50% of the total
present worth of the proposed
innovative or alternative system,
multiply the total present worth of
the least costly noninnovative
system by 1.15.
Result: The total present worth of
the proposed innovative or
alternative system should be less
than the result of (d) to be con-
sidered cost effective.
Example 4 shows the application of
the I&A cost preference.
5.7.1.5
MULTIPLE PURPOSE
PROJECTS
Use the
Alternate
Justifiable
Expenditure method (AJE) described
in Figure 3 to determine grant
eligible costs for most multiple
purpose projects. These projects
are defined in section 5.6.3.8.
If a multiple purpose project is
the most cost-effective way of
37
-------
Examples for Calculating Present Worth and Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost
EXAMPLE 1; Constant O&M Costs
Given:
sewage treatment plant #1:
capacity: 10 tngd;
average flow through plant: 9 mgd;
planning period: 20 years;
salvage value at end of 20 years: $0;
capital cost of plant: $3 million;
average annual operation and maintenance cost: $190,000;
discount rate: 7 3/8 %.
Determine: Present worth and equivalent uniform annual cost of this
plant over 20 years.
Method: Present worth equals capital cost plus the present worth of the
operating and maintenance costs. Equivalent uniform annual cost equals
the present worth times the appropriate capital recovery factor.
Step 1:
Capital cost $3,000,000.
Step 2:
Present worth of annual O&M cost equals annual O&M costs times the
uniform series present worth factor @ 7 3/8% for 20 years.
Thus:
$190,000 (10.292) $1,955,500
Step 3:
Sum of figures obtained in above steps yields present worth
capital cost $3,000,000
present worth of O&M cost $1,955,500
PRESENT WORTH $4,955,500
Step 4:
To find equivalent uniform annual cost, multiply present worth obtained
above times the capital recovery factor @ 7 3/8% for 20 years.
Thus:
$5,013,000 (.0972) $ 481,700
38
-------
EXAMPLE 2: Varying O&M Costs
Given:
sewage treatment plant #2:
capacity: 10 mgd;
average flow through plant: increase linearly from 2 mgd to
10 mgd over 20 years;
planning period: 20 years;
salvage value at end of 20 years: $0;
capital cost of plant: $3,000,000;
constant annual O&M cost: £126,000;
variable annual O&M cost: increases
linearly from $0 to $68,000 in year 20;
discount rate: 7 3/8 %.
Determine: Present worth and average equivalent uniform cost of this
plant over 20 years.
Method: Present worth equals the sum of capital cost plus present worth
of constant O&M cost, plus present worth of the gradient series
of variable O&M cost. Equivalent uniform annual cost is derived as in
the first example.
Step 1:
Capital cost $3,000,000
Step 2:
To find present worth of operating costs, calculate the present worths of
constant costs and variable costs separately.
a. Present worth of constant annual costs equals that cost times the
uniform series present worth factor @ 7 3/8% for 20 years.
Thus:
$126,000 (10.292) $1,296,800
b. Present worth of a variable cost increasing linearly is found by
first finding amount of increase per year. This amount is $68,000
divided by 20 years or $3,400 per year. This increase is known as a
gradient series. This series times the correct gradient series
present worth factor @ 7 3/8 % for 20 years yields present worth of
variable cost. Thus:
$3,400 (74.211) $252,300
39
-------
Example 2; Varying O&M Costs (continued)
Step 3:
Sum of figures obtained in steps above yields present worth:
capital cost $3,000,000
present worth of constant O&M costs $1,296,300
present worth of variable O&M costs $ 252.'300
PRESENT WORTH $4,549,100
Step 4:
As before, present worth times capital recovery
? 3/8% f°r 2° yearS WU1 yUld e1uivalent uniform annual cost.
200
$4,549,100 (.0972) $ 442,
EXAMPLE 3: Varying O&M Cost. Phased Construction, and Salvage Vali
Given:
sewage treatment plant #3:
capacity: year 1-10, 5 mgd; years 11-20, 10 mgd;
average flow through plant: increase linearly from 2 mgd to 10 med
over 20 years;
planning period: 20 years;
salvage value at end of 20 years: $750,000;
capital cost of plant (5 mgd): $2,000,000;
future capital cost at year 10 to expand to 10 mgd: $1,500,000-
O&M costs:
a. constant annual O&M cost, years 1-10: $84,000;
b. variable annual O&M cost, years 1-10;
increases linearly from $0-$29,000 in
year 10;
t
c. constant annual O&M cost, years 11-20: $165,000;
d. variable annual O&M cost, years 11-20:
increases linearly from $0-$29,000 in
year 20.
discount rate: 7 3/8 %.
40
-------
Example 3; Varying O&M Costs, Etc, (continued)
Determine: Present worth and annual equivalent uniform cost of plant
over 20 years.
Method: Present worth is derived as in previous example; but this time
calculate O&M costs from year 1 through year 10 and O&M costs for years
11 through 20 separately. Also add present worth of expansion and
subtract present worth of salvage value from present worth of other
costs. Equivalent uniform annual costs are calculated as before.
Step 1:
Initial capital cost *2,000,000
Step 2:
Calculate present worth of O&M costs as follows:
a. Present worth of constant annual cost years 1-10 equals
given cost times uniform series present worth factors @ 7 3/8% for 10
years. Thus:
$84,000 (6.903) * 579,800
b. Present worth of variable O&M costs years 1-10 equals
gradient series ($2,900) times present worth factor of a gradient
series @ 7 3/8% for 10 years.
Thus:
$2,900 (27.047) * 78,400
c. Present worth of constant O&M costs year 11-20 are first calculated
as in (a) above using given cost for years 11-20. This, however,
yields present worth in year 11 which must be converted to present
worth in year 1. This is accomplished by multiplying present worth
(year 11) times single payment present worth factor @ 7 3/8% for 10
years (.4909). Thus, present worth in year 1 equals:
$165,000 (6.903X.4909) $ 559,100
d. Present worth of variable O&M costs years 11-20 are first calculated
as in (b) above using gradient series for years 11-20 which is
$2,900. This yields present worth in year 11 which again must be
converted to present worth in year 1 by multiplying present worth
(year 11) times single payment present worth factor 7 3/8% for 10
years (.4909). Thus:
$2,000 (27.047X.4909) * 38,500
41
-------
Example 3: Varying O&M Costs. Etc, (continued)
Step 3:
Present worth of expansion cost which occurs at year 10, times single
payment present worth factoj (§ 7 3/8% for 10 years. Thus:
$1,500,000 (.4909) $ 736,400
Step 4:
Present worth of salvage value at end of 20 years equals that value times
single payment present worth factor @ 7 3/8% for 20 years. Thus:
$750,000 (.2410) $ 180,800
Step 5:
The sums of values obtained in steps 1, 2, and 3 minus value obtained in
step 4 equals present worth of plant. Thus:
initial capital cost $2,000,000
present worth of constant O&M years
1-10 $ 579,000
present worth of variable O&M years
1-10 $ 78,400
present worth of constant O&M years
11-20 $ 559,100
present worth of variable O&M years
11-20 $ 38,500
present worth of expansion at year 10. ... $ 736.400
Total $3,992,200
Subtract from total the present worth of salvage value:
present worth of salvage value $ 180,800
PRESENT WORTH of plant $3,811,400
Step 6:
As before, present worth just derived times the capital recovery factor @
7 3/8% for 20 years will yield average annual equivalent cost. Thus:
$3,811,400 (.0972) $ 370,500
42
-------
EXAMPLE 4. Application of I&A Cost Preference
Given:
A proposed innovative system has passed the risk test and
fulfills the requirements of 20% energy savings. The primary and
secondary process components are considered innovative.
The present worth costs of the proposed system and the least costly
noninnovative system are shown below:
Least Costly
Noninnovat ive
System
Primary
Secondary
AWT
Capital
Cost
100
720
873
Present
Worth*
110
753
971
Proposed
Innovative
System
Capital
Cost
31
830
873
Present
Worth*
35
905
971
Total $1,693 $1,834 $1,734 $1,911
*Includes O&M.
Determine: Whether innovative system is cost effective by application of
cost-preference procedures described in section 5.7.1.4.
a. $35 + $905 = $940 (total present worth of innovative components).
b. $ 940 = 49% (percentage of total present worth represented by
$1,911 innovative components; note: less than 50%).
c. (1) $110 + $753 = $863 (present worth of replaced components in
least costly noninnovative system).
(2) $863 (1.15) = $992.45 (application of cost preference
multiplier);
(3) $992.45 + $971 = $1,963 (determination of cost ceiling).
Result: $1,911 is less than $1,963; therefore, proposed innovative
system is considered cost effective.
GRANT CALCULATION:
Capital costs of lorA components (85% grant)
$31 + $830 - $861 (.85) $ 731.85
Capital costs of Non-IorA components (75% grant)
$873 (.75) $ 654.75
Total Grant $1,386.60
43
-------
satisfying enforceable requirements
for CSOs, (section 5.6.3.5), it
should be treated as a single
purpose project in determining
grant eligibility. Keep in mind
that I&A portions of projects get a
15% cost preference (section
5.6.3.2). If the project is cost
effective, it is the preferred
alternative regardless of what
other purposes it serves.
Multiple purpose projects that
combine wastewater treatment with
recreation (section 5.7.7) can be
funded at the level of the most
cost-effective, single purpose
alternative. Incremental costs of
the recreation component that
exceed the most cost-effective,
single purpose alternative cannot
be grant funded. To determine what
percentage of a recreation project
is grant eligible, proceed as
follows:
Calculate the grant eligibility
percentage (a), by dividing the
present worth of the cost-effective
pollution control alternative (b),
by the present worth of the
multiple purpose project (c), and
multiplying the result by 100. Or:
(a) = 100 x
Another simpler means of determining
eligibility can be used for proposed
projects that involve clearly
separate recreational components
that are part of an otherwise
single purpose project. Here the
grant-eligible cost simply equals
the total capital cost of the
single purpose components.
The basic principle behind the
Alternative Justifiable Expenditure
(AJE) method is to allocate costs
of a multiple purpose project among
its purposes. Figure 3 describes
the AJE method and illustrates its
use. Grant funding is based on the
cost of the pollution control
component plus a portion of the
joint cost. This policy assumes
that achieving several purposes at
the same time should be less costly
than achieving them separately and
that all purposes should share in
the cost savings. The grant eligi-
bility for multiple purpose proj-
ects of this type will ordinarily
be less than the eligibility of a
single purpose project with the
same pollution-control objectives.
To determine the Step 2 and Step 3
grant amount for each component of
a multiple purpose project, first
multiply the cost of the component
by the grant-eligible percentage
determined in the cost allocation.
The resulting amount is then multi-
plied by 75% for a non-I&A component
and 85% for an I&A component
(section 5.6.3.2). Funding at 85%
for I&A technology is limited to
project portions specifically
identified as I&A unit processes,
I&A unit operations, or other
components uniquely necessary for
proper functioning of the I&A
components.
Guidance on grant increase
eligibility and cost-effectiveness
preference for I&A components is
found in 35 Appendix E, the
Innovative and Alternative
Technology Assessment Manual
(MCD-53), and in section 5.7.1.4.
5.7.2
FINANCIAL IMPACT
EVALUATION
To ensure
proper
construction,
operation, and maintenance of
treatment facilities, the community
must be able to raise sufficient
44
-------
Figure 3
THE ALTERNATIVE JUSTIFIABLE EXPENDITURE METHOD OF COST ALLOCATION
The alternative justifiable expenditure method is fundamentally based
on the justified investment for each function. That justified investment
is taken to be the cost of the most economical alternative single purpose
project which will achieve substantially the same benefits as does that
function in the multiple purpose project. That investment, sometimes
called the alternative justifiable investment, represents the largest
amount which could justifiably be expended on the function in the
multiple purpose project, for, in most instances, no more should be spent
on a purpose than the cost of producing those benefits from the least
expensive alternative source.
The cost allocation steps are:
1. Estimate the costs of most cost-effective, single purpose
projects to obtain the same objectives as those of the multiple purpose
project.
2. Determine the respective specific costs of each purpose in the
multiple purpose project. The specific costs of a purpose are the sum of
costs assignable to each project component exclusively serving that
single purpose. An example of a specific cost would be the cost of a
treatment plant included in a project designed to improve urban drainage
and reduce pollution from combined sewer overflows.
3. Deduct the specific cost of each purpose in the multiple purpose
project from the single purpose project cost.
4. From total cost of multiple purpose project deduct all specific
costs to determine joint costs.
5. Distribute joint costs of the multiple purpose project among
purposes in direct proportion to the remainders found in step 3.
6. T6 obtain allocated costs for each purpose, add the specific and
the distributed joint costs for each purpose.
It should be noted that none of the purposes will be assigned costs
which are greater than the cost of the most cost-effective single purpose
project nor less than the specific cost of the purpose.
45
-------
Figure 3: ALTERNATIVE JUSTIFIABLE EXPENDITURE METHOD (continued)
Single Purpose
Pollution Control
Alternative
Multiple Purpose
Project
Single Purpose
Water Reuse
Alternative
Total Cost (E)
1 Remainder
I (E-B) = F
I
Total Cost (A)
I
I
Specific Cost
Pollution Control
(B)
Joint I Specific Cost
Cost | Water Reuse
(C) | (D)
I
I
Total Cost (G)
* H
Remainder
Cost
(G-D) = H
Pollution Control Allocation = B + / F j X C = J
Water Reuse Allocation = D + ( -2- ) X C = K
\ F+H /
Grant Eligible Fraction
46
-------
capital and operating revenue.
The monetary cost analysis
(section 5.7.1) includes a thorough
evaluation of the costs of various
alternatives. But an explicit
analysis of the financial con-
straints that limit a community's
ability to finance and operate
facilities is not normally included
within the analysis. Financial
capability analysis performed early
in the planning process can be an
effective screening tool in the
cost-effectiveness analysis.
A financial capability analysis
covers three basic areas: (1) the
community's financial character-
istics, (2) an assessment of the
community's ability to support the
project, and (3) cost estimates for
various alternative systems.
Analysis of the financial character-
istics of a community covers
existing debt, revenues, assessed
value of property, median income,
income distribution, rate of popu-
lation growth, bond ratings,
existing sewer system charges,
planned capital expenditures, and
other factors and trends.
Determining whether a community can
support a wastewater project
requires an analysis of the com-
munity's ability to generate
necessary income and an analysis of
the residents' ability to pay for
the project. User charges, which
are included in charges to cus-
tomers, are discussed in section
5.7.8. Tne screening process
should eliminate project alterna-
tives that clearly exceed the
community's ability to pay (see
worksheet: EPA 68-01-4343).
The financial capability analysis
is important in selecting the
appropriate technology. For
example, the analysis may determine
that a community will give weak
support to a facility that has high
operation and maintenance costs.
Here the analysis would show the
need for technologies with low or
fixed operation and maintenance
costs. If the cost-effectiveness
analysis shows two alternatives
with roughly equivalent present
worth, choose the one with the
lower cost impacts on the community.
The financial capibility analysis
is especially important for small
rural or semi-rural communities and
where receiving waters are water
quality limited.
Total annual charges to customers
are estimated after Federal and
other funding is determined. When
total annual charges to customers
for wastewater facilities (includ-
ing debt service, connection costs,
and operation and maintenance)
exceed the following percentages of
annual household median income
(1980 dollars), EPA considers the
project expensive:
• 1.0% when median income is
under $10,000;
• 1.5% when median income is
between $10,000 and $17,000;
• 1.75% when median income
exceeds $17,000.
EPA and the State agency will
intensively review expensive pro-
jects. If the proposed project is
identified as expensive on the
basis of the financial impact
analysis or the above rule-of-thumb:
• Review cost-effectiveness
analysis to ensure estimates are
adequate and accurate (section
5.7.1.2);
• Determine whether high costs
are due to water quality limita-
tions and requirements of advanced
treatment processes. If so,
reconsider alternatives (sections
5.2 and 5.6.3.1);
47
-------
• Review soundness of local
share financing of project
(section 5.9.1);
• Pursue other funding sources.
Rural areas should look at the
Interagency Agreement for Rural
Water and Sewer Projects (see
section 5.6.2).
5.7.3
ENVIRONMENTAL
EVALUATION
When you
evaluate
alternatives,
weigh environmental impacts:
adverse and beneficial, direct and
indirect, long-term and short-term,
irreversible, and induced effects
such as changes in development
(35.917-l(d)(7) and 6.507 (c)(5)).
Weigh carefully potential impacts
on environmentally sensitive areas
described in section 5.3. For
further guidance consult the EPA
publication: "Environmental
Assessment of Construction Grants
Projects" (FRD-5).
5.7.4
EVALUATION OF
RELIABILITY
Evaluate each
alternative for
its ability to
meet and maintain effluent limita-
tions and BPWTT (35.917-l(d)(4)).
The plan must provide a way to meet
these requirements.
5.7.5
EVALUATION
OF ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS
Facilities
plans include
an analysis of
energy require-
ments for each alternative system
considered (35.917-l(d)(9)). The
objective is to select alternatives
that reduce consumption or increase
recovery of energy. Coordinate
evaluation of energy requirements
and I&A technologies discussed in
section 5.6.3.2. Consider State
energy plans in doing this.
5.7.6
EVALUATION OF Evaluate
IMPLEMENTABILITY alternatives
for their
implementability, taking into
account legal, institutional, and
financial constraints (6.507(c)(5)).
Where several jurisdictions are
included in the planning area,
implementation of a selected alter-
native will require intermunicipal
agreements (35.917-6). Evaluate
alternatives as they affect each
jurisdiction in the planning area
to ensure all jurisdictions find
the selected alternative acceptable
and equitable.
5.7.7
EVALUATION OF
RECREATIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES
Include in your
facilities plan
an analysis and
description of
potential opportunities for recre-
ation, open space, and access to
bodies of water (35. 917-K j) ) .
Evaluate the recreational potential
of the selected treatment plant
site and collection system. Base
the analysis on existing data or
evaluation of the sites. The
analysis need not require extensive
new data collection or surveys to
determine suitability. The level
of detail needed to produce a good
recreational use analysis in a
facilities plan depends upon the
size of the community, the facility,
and the suitability of the chosen
site for recreation. Provide
enough detail in the recreational
use analysis to determine the
site's potential recreation uses.
Show you coordinated the recreation
elements of approved water quality
management plans with State and
local recreation programs; e.g.,
State Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan or Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service
48
-------
of the United States Department of
Interior. Potential recreation
benefits associated with wastewater
projects include:
• Use of interceptor rights-of-'
way for running or hiking paths,
bicycling or equestrian trails;
• Use of roadway to facilities
for access to waterways for canoe-
ing, boating, fishing, or swimming;
• Provision of access to natural
areas for camping, photography, or
nature appreciation;
• Use of project sites for
sports such as target shooting or
field sports;
• Use of facilities or sites for
educational or information purposes;
• Recreation opportunities at
offsite locations such as applica-
tion of effluent or sludge to
improve other recreational areas.
While costs for design and con-
struction of separate recreation
facilities are not allowable for
funding, costs associated with
developing the recreational use
evaluation in the plan are. These
costs must be identified in the
plan of study (section 3.1).
Multipurpose projects that include
recreation may also be considered
by coupling facilities planning
activities with recreation
planning. EPA limits the allowable
costs of multipurpose projects to
the costs of the least costly,
single purpose pollution control
project (section 5.7.1.5); but
inclusion of recreation
opportunities in the plan can
effectively enhance public support
while not significantly increasing
the local share of project costs.
5.7.8
COMPARISON OF Review,
ALTERNATIVES summarize, and
graphically
compare the alternatives' costs,
primary energy requirements,
environmental impacts, implementa-
bility, and other significant
factors. See FRD-5, page 12 for
sample format.
This information should be based on
the supporting analyses elsewhere
in the plan. Where quantification
is not possible, brief descriptions
will serve. The visual display
should allow comparison of
alternatives at a glance so it can
be used at required public meetings
(35.917-5(b)(6) and (c)<3)(vii)).
Conduct a midcourse review with EPA
and the delegated State before
selecting the plan to ensure that
all alternatives have been
adequately considered, that the
findings of the environmental
information document or environ-
mental assessment are available,
and that the public information
requirements have been met
(35.917-5(f), 6.507(b),
25.12(a)(2».
The facilities plan includes an
estimate of total project costs and
average charges to customers
(35.917-KD). Charges to customers
include costs for existing debt
service, debt service on the local
share of capital costs, annual
operation and maintenance costs for
the completed project, connection
charges, and other related costs.
These requirements ensure that both
the local government agencies and
residents are aware of their finan-
cial obligations under the proposed
plan. Local jurisdictions must
fully understand these obligations.
The regulations require that local
jurisdictions agree to pay the
49
-------
non-Federal project costs and that
they have the financial capability
to construct, operate, and maintain
the facilities (35.925-5).
The following costs must be
identified for the selected plan,
presented at the public hearing,
and included in the facilities plan:
• Estimated total capital costs
for the recommended treatment works
should be broken down into esti-
mated eligible and ineligible
costs. Indicate the estimated
portions of the project cost to be
borne by the Federal, State, and
local governments and industry.
• Method of local financing and
estimated debt service charge or
taxes on the total local capital
cost of recommended treatment works;
• Estimated annual operation and
maintenance costs broken down into
industrial and local government
shares.
• Estimated monthly charge for
operation and maintenance (user
charge); monthly debt service
charge; service charges from exist-
ing treatment works, both O&M and
debt service; estimated connection
charge; total of above costs; and
the monthly charge to typical
residential customer.
5.7.9
VIEWS OF THE Section 2.2
PUBLIC AND requires a
CONCERNED public
INTERESTS participation
program as
part of facilities planning.
Requirements are also detailed in
35.917-5, Part 25, and are
discussed at the preapplication
conference.
Before facilities planning starts,
EPA and the State
decide whether you need a basic or
full-scale program (section 3.2).
A section or chapter of the facili-
ties plan describes the public
participation program, outlines the
specific coordination tasks com-
pleted, or summarizes the program
(35.917-l(g)). The facilities plan
summarizes public meeting comments
and your responses. Include:
(a) text of the public notices;
(b) evidence of compliance with
notification requirements such as
advertisements or leaflets;
(c) synopses of information presen-
ted at the meetings; and (d) any
significant comments or statements
received. Letters submitted by
individuals, groups or agencies are
included as an appendix to the
plan. Where significant issues
surface at meetings or in corres-
pondence, the plan indicates the
appropriate response or action
taken, justifies controversial
findings, or is revised.
A public hearing is required before
the facilities plan is formally
adopted and submitted to the State
agency, (25.2, 35.917-5(b)(7)).
Present the proposed plan and
alternatives at the hearing for
public review and comment. Also,
submit the draft facilities plan
for review and comment by the State
and areawide clearinghouses
(35.917-l(f)and section 6.1).
After the hearing has been held and
comments received, local officials
may adopt the proposed plan. A
final responsiveness summary and
responses to adverse comments are
included in the final facilities
plan.
5.8
SELECTED
PLAN
Selection of
the preferred
facilities
plan is based on evaluation of
alternatives for cost effectiveness
(economic, environmental, social,
50
-------
and institutional impacts) and
public comments. It includes a
detailed description of the proposed
facilities and addresses items in
this section. It clearly names
project segments, implementing
authority, and approximate
construction dates.
5.8.1
JUSTIFICATION
FOR PLAN
SELECTION
A brief
narrative
summarizes why
the plan was
selected. It demonstrates that the
plan is the most cost effective and
environmentally sound (35.917(b)).
5.8.2
DESCRIPTION OF
SELECTED PLAN
Describe the
treatment works
and the com-
plete wastewater treatment system
in detail. Cover all elements,
including service areas, collection
sewers, interceptors, treatment
works, and ultimate disposal of
effluent and sludge. Use maps to
show locations of major components,
existing and proposed, including
locations of any individual systems
proposed for funding (35.917-l(a)
and (b)).
5.8.3 Present
DESIGN OF preliminary
SELECTED engineering
PLAN data in the
plan to show
all major components of the system
have been included, the cost esti-
mate is adequate and reasonable
(consult MCD-5), and the facilities
can meet effluent limitations.
The level of detail of the pre-
liminary design varies from project
to project. It depends on the
project's complexity. Discuss this
with the project reviewer. For
example, standard package plants
will not require the same degree of
detail as a pure oxygen system with
phosphate removal and sludge
incineration.
Preliminary design data for treat-
ment facilities should include a
simple tabulation (one or two
pages) of information such as:
• A description of the selected
plan's major features;
• Unit processes and sizes;
• A schematic flow diagram for
treatment plants and plant and
pumping station siting;
• Sewer lengths and sizing;
• Proposed design criteria,
including: detention times, over-
flow rates, process loadings,
removal efficiencies, initial
design flow, and reserve capacity.
5.8.4
COST ESTIMATES
FOR SELECTED PLAN
The facilities
plan pro-
vides detailed
cost estimates for design, con-
struction, and operation and main-
tenance of the proposed project
(35.917-l(a)). Include an estimate
of total project costs
(35.917-1(1)) and average
annual charges to customers, as
described in section 5.7.8.
5.8.5
ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS OF
SELECTED PLAN
Describe
features of
the selected
plan that
conserve, recover, or reduce energy
consumption. For systems that
claim innovation on the basis of
the 20% net primary energy reduc-
tion, the plan should contain a
detailed energy analysis
(35.917-l(d)(9)). Refer to 35
Appendix E and the "Innovative and
Alternative Technology Assessment
Manual" (MCD-53) for guidance.
51
-------
5.8.6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
SELECTED PLAN
5.8.6.1
DESCRIPTION
OF IMPACTS
The facilities
plan
describes
relevant direct and indirect
impacts of the proposed action
(6.507(c)(6)). Emphasize:
• The proposed plan's unavoidable
adverse impacts, especially on
environmentally sensitive areas;
• The relationship between local
short-term uses of the environment
and the maintenance and enhancement
of long-term environmental produc-
tivity;
• Irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources.
The evaluation emphasizes indirect
impacts (sections 5.3.10) on
environmentally sensitive areas and
present and future actions to
protect these areas (section 5.3).
Interceptors should conform with
approved Water Quality Management
(WQM) plans and EPA's objectives
for minimizing indirect impacts on
environmentally sensitive areas.
Section 5.6.3.3 discusses this.
5.8.6.2
MITIGATING
ADVERSE
IMPACTS
Discuss alter-
nate measures
to minimize
any adverse
environmental impacts (6.507(c)(7)).
Such measures should include struc-
tural and nonstructural components.
Structural measures may involve:
• Changes in design, size, or
location of facilities;
• Rerouting of interceptors to
avoid sensitive areas;
• Buffer zones or screening for
aesthetic purposes;
• Systems for odor control.
Nonstructural components may
include:
• Development or enforcement of
sewer use regulations;
• Protection of environmentally
sensitive areas by local ordinance.
5.9
ARRANGEMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
5.9.1
INSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES
The authority
that implements
the selected
plan must have the necessary legal,
financial, institutional and mana-
gerial resources to ensure the
construction, operation, and main-
tenance of the proposed facilities
(35.917-l(h)). Where responsibility
for implementation rests with one
or more agencies or jurisdictions,
include in the plan resolutions or
agreements between agencies or
government units assuring that the
plan has been accepted and will be
implemented (35.917-6).
To adequately describe the arrange-
ments for implementation, the plan
should:
• Identify each agency or juris-
diction and its responsibility;
• Demonstrate that each agency
has the ability and authority under
State law (or reasonable expectation
of obtaining such authority) to
finance, design, construct, operate,
and maintain those facilities
within its jurisdiction;
• Identify any referendums or
public elections necessary to
implement the plan;
52
-------
• Include adopted resolutions of
plan acceptance and agreements
among jurisdictions;
• Include proposed method of
allocating estimated O&M costs,
debt service costs, and connection
charges among participating com-
munities and among various users
and user classes;
• Include financial arrangements
that obligate each jurisdiction to
enforce the requirements for user
charges, sewer system rehabilita-
tion, and sewer use ordinance;
• Identify jurisdictions that
oppose or have failed to approve
the plan and describe steps neces-
sary to reach agreement.
In addition to assessing the local
financial resources, alternative
sources of funds should also be
identified.
Some capital expenditures could be
met through creative financing
techniques using special improvement
districts, industry assistance to
local governments, or inter-
governmental agreements. The
institutional arrangements will
have a strong influence on the
feasibility of alternatives. You
should structure those arrangements
to ensure your agency continues to
meet the financial eligibility
requirements of 35.917-l(h).
It may be possible to reduce the
local share of capital costs by
using funds available from State
and Federal agencies, such as
Farmers Home Administration,
Housing and Urban Development, and
Community Services Administration.
Requirements for funding from other
agencies' programs will vary and
some communities may not qualify.
A thorough investigation during
facilities planning of all possible
sources of funding will ensure that
the local share is available.
The financial and institutional
arrangements provide you and the
project reviewer with a starting
point in an overall financial
assessment. A schedule for market-
ing bonds and developing a user
charge system can be developed
during Step 1. These can be
adjusted during subsequent design
and construction.
5.9.2
CIVIL RIGHTS
COMPLIANCE
The facilities
plan needs to
comply with
the requirements of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, Part 7, and
35.917-l(i). Include in the plan
a statement that these requirements
have been met. Where minority
areas are included in the facilities
planning area, show in the plan
that such areas will be served or
excluded from service for cost
effectiveness reasons.
5.9.3
SITE AVAILABILITY Include in the
plan a state-
ment concerning the availability
and estimated costs of sites pro-
posed for facilities (35.917-l(m)).
5.9.4
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE (O&M)
REQUIREMENTS
The facilities
plan includes
basic inform-
ation on the
requirements for adequate operation
and maintenance of the proposed
facilities, such as: sewers, pump
stations, sewage treatment plant.
This information conforms with that
developed for the cost-effectiveness
calculations and demonstrates that
the costs are based on a reasonable
assessment of the staffing, manage-
ment, training, sampling, and
53
-------
analysis requirements essential for
effective operation and maintenance.
5.9.5
PRETREATMENT Development of
PROGRAM a pretreatment
program is
required where the municipal facil-
ities serve or will serve industries
subject to pretreatment standards
under the Clean Water Act
(35.917-l(k), 35.907 and
Part 403.8). Industrial use of
municipal facilities is discussed
in section 5.6.3.6.
A pretreatment program is intended
to control pollutants from non-
domestic sources and to provide for
the reclamation and reuse of wastes
wherever practicable.
The objectives are: (a) To prevent
the introduction into the treatment
plant of pollutants that will
interfere with plant operation, or
disposal or use of municipal sludge;
(b) To prevent the introduction
into the treatment plant of pol-
lutants that will pass through the
plant into receiving waters or that
will be otherwise harmful; (c) When
possible to recycle and reclaim
wastewater and sludge produced by
wastewater treatment.
A document "Municipal Pretreatment
Program Guidance Package" is
available from Municipal Technology
Branch (WH-547), USEPA, Washington,
D.C. 20460; (202) 426-8976.
A complete and approvable pretreat-
ment program includes the following:
• An industrial survey that
identifies system user by type and
location of industry and the char-
acter and volume of pollutants
discharged;
• An evaluation of the legal
authority for control and enforce-
ment, including adequacy of enabling
legislation and selection of mech-
anisms to be used, (e.g., ordin-
ances, codes) ;
• An evaluation of revenue
sources and financial programs to
ensure adequate funding to carry
out the pretreatment programs;
• A determination of technical
information needed to support
development of an industrial waste
enforcement mechanism to ensure
compliance with NPDES permit con-
ditions ;
• The design of enforcement
monitoring programs;
• A determination of pollutant
removals in existing treatment
facilities;
• A preliminary determination of
monitoring equipment required at
the treatment facilities;
• A determination of tolerance
of the treatment facilities to
toxic pollutants;
• A preliminary determination of
the municipal facilities needed for
monitoring or analysis of indus-
trial wastes.
5.9.6
IMPLEMENTATION
STEPS
The facilities
plan should in-
clude a
schedule of specific actions to
implement the plan and to meet its
objectives on schedule. The dates
in this schedule should correspond
to compliance dates specified in
your NPDES permits (if applicable).
Resolve differences that would
result in failure to meet the
compliance schedule, including, if
necessary, a formal request through
the State agency for extension of
compliance dates (35.935-9(b)).
54
-------
CHAPTER 6
REVIEW, CERTIFICATION AND
APPROVAL OF PLANS
REVIEW, CERTIFICA- This chapter
TION AND APPROVAL describes the
OF PLANS administrative
procedures for
submission of a facilities plan,
including review by:
• State and Local A-95
clearinghouses;
• WQM agency (for conformance
with WQM plan);
• State (for compliance with
State and Federal statutory and
regulatory requirements);
•• EPA (where not delegated to a
State, for compliance with Federal
requirements).
6.1
CLEARINGHOUSE
COMMENTS
(A-95 REVIEW)
Include with
the
completed
facilities
plan comments or approvals from
relevant State, local and Federal
agencies, by way of State and
areawide clearinghouses,
(35.917-l(f), section 3.2.4).
Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-95 requires such reviews
(30.305-8(b)(2)).
Before providing a completed facil-
ities plan to the State agency,
send a copy to clearinghouses
designated for your project area.
Do this as soon as possible to
allow time for response by the
clearinghouses and to minimize
delays in subsequent reviews. The
clearinghouses have 30 calendar
days to review the facilities plan
and return comments to you. Once
received, these comments are to be
included in the completed facilities
plan package when it is sent to the
State. If the clearinghouses
cannot complete their review in the
time allotted, they have to inform
you within that time. If this
happens you should contact the
project reviewer for specific
advice. Where an agency or clear-
inghouse makes adverse comments,
include a statement that explains
how the comments were considered.
The draft facilities plan should be
submitted to the A-95 clearinghouse
30 calendar days before the public
hearing on the plan.
If the EPA regional administrator
determines that a public hearing is
not required, the plan should be
submitted to the clearinghouses a
reasonable amount of time before
submission to the State for review.
If the proposed project is sub-
stantially modified as a result of
the facilities plan review by the
State or EPA (described in sections
6.2 and 7), it may be necessary to
obtain clearinghouse comments on
the revised facilities plan again.
However, once A-95 review has been
completed for a facilities plan,
additional review of the Step 2 and
Step 3 applications that will
implement the plan is seldom re-
quired.
Check with the clearinghouses to
ensure that the A-95 review of the
facilities plan will suffice if
other Federal funds; e.g.; from
Farmers Home Administration,
55
-------
Economic Development Admin-
istration, or Housing and Urban
Development, are to supplement EPA
funding of the same project.
6.2
STATE REVIEW AND
CERTIFICATION TO
EPA
Upon receipt of
State and
areawide
clear-
inghouse comment on the completed
facilities plan (or if 30 days pass
without response), submit the
review package with comments to the
State project reviewer. The pack-
age should include:
• The number of copies of the
facilities plan required by the
State;
• 2 copies of all documents
required by OMB Circular A-95 (see
section 6.1);
• 1 original and 1 copy of the
letter from the grantee's authorized
official requesting review and
approval of the facilities plan and
indicating:
—the grantee has met all
requirements for public partici-
pation relating to facilities
planning;
—the names of all jurisdic-
tions within the planning area
which either oppose the plan or
have failed to approve the plan.
The project reviewer will use this
document to review the plan and
contact you if there are any
discrepancies. You are responsi-
ble for providing requested infor-
mation or otherwise responding as
appropriate. Problems between you
and the State should be resolved
before review by EPA unless con-
current review (in nondelegated
States) is included in a
contracted work schedule. EPA
will not approve a facilities plan
without State certification
(35.917-7) that the completed
facilities plan:
• Conforms with the regulatory
requirements described in section
5;
• Has been made available to
the concerned WQM planning agency,
if any, for comment;
• Conforms with completed WQM
plans that have been approved.
Upon completion of the State
review, the project reviewer will
prepare a certification letter for
the project. The State then sends
the approved plan with the certi-
fication letter signed by the
appropriate State official to the
EPA regional office. A copy of
the transmittal letter will notify
you.
6.3
REVISIONS A facilities
OF PLANS plan that has
served as the
basis for award of a Step 2 or
Step 3 grant will be reviewed by
the State before application for
any subsequent Step 2 and Step 3
grant to determine if the plan
needs to be revised.
Revisions to the plan should be
accompanied by a statement on the
status of plan implementation as
of the revision date. The appro-
priate EPA regional administrator,
A-95 clearinghouses, and State
should be notified at least 30
days before you modify the plan.
Processing of revised plans
follows the procedures outlined
above.
56
-------
CHAPTER 7
EPA REVIEW AND APPROVAL
OF FACILITIES PLANS
7.
EPA REVIEW AND
APPROVAL OF
FACILITIES PLANS
EPA will take
final actions
only on
facilities
plans that have State approval and
certification. The State should
send the following documents to
EPA:
• A letter signed by the chief
official of the State water pollu-
tion control agency requesting
review and approval and certifying
that:
—The plan complies with
requirements of the construction
grants regulations;
—The plan conforms to a State
WQM plan;
—The WQM planning agency, if
any, has had an opportunity to
comment on the plan, and the plan
conforms to any approved WQM plan.
• The number of copies of the
plan required by EPA;
• 1 copy of the letter from the
local agency to the State
(required under section 6.2).
Partial submittals may be made and
reviewed before completion of all
requirements, but final action
will not be taken until all re-
quirements are met. You will be
notified when your plan is
approved.
7.1
MANAGEMENT
OF THE FACILITIES
PLANNING PROCESS
EPA in
consultation
with the
States may
designate a selected project as
"fast track" to help priority
projects comply with NPDES permit
conditions or to correct signifi-
cant public health or water qual-
ity problems. Fast-track projects
must have a midcourse review
meeting. EPA's goal is to com-
plete most fast-track facilities
planning in 24 months.
Conversely, if your facilities
planning experiences extensive and
uninterrupted periods when no
progress is made because no fund-
ing for a subsequent step is
scheduled within 5 years, it may
be considered inactive until
subsequent steps are scheduled and
progress resumes.
7.2
PRE-STEP 2
APPLICATION
CONSIDERATIONS
As your Step 1
planning nears
completion,
begin
thinking early about the proce-
dures and requirements for your
Step 2 (design) grant. Some of
these considerations are discussed
in this section.
7.2.1
STATE PROJECT
PRIORITY LIST
Similar to
your
Step 1 grant,
your Step 2 project usually is
listed on the State project prior-
ity list to receive a grant. As
your Step 1 project nears comple-
tion, contact the State to deter-
mine what information is necessary
for your project to be listed on
the priority list. The State will
57
-------
want to know at a minimum when you
expect to submit a Step 2 applica-
tion and your estimated Step 2
cost.
7.2.2
ENGINEERING
CONSULTANT
You will need
a consulting
engineer to
prepare plans and specifications
for the project you selected in
your Step 1 planning.
You have a choice at this point
about your engineering consult-
ant. If you are satisfied with
your present engineer, if your
engineer did all or part of your
Step 1 planning, and if your
engineer has' the capability of
doing the design, you may continue
with the same engineer without
advertising and going through
procurement procedures. The only
requirement is that you negotiate
a new contract and price for the
Step 2 work.
If you want to change engineers,
follow the procurement procedures,
including advertising, receipt of
proposals, and contract negotia-
tions to get competent profes-
sional engineering design services
at a fair and reasonable price.
Whichever choice you make, begin
early to discuss the scope of
services and the type of con-
tract. Do not sign a contract but
proceed up to that point.
7.2.3
INTERMUNICIPAL
AGREEMENTS
If your
project
serves two or
more jurisdictions, you should
have a proposed intermunicipal
agreement at the time of Step 2
application. The agreement
includes financial arrangements, a
user charge system, a sewer-use
ordinance, and any other consider-
ations that constitute a working
agreement among the municipal-
ities. Intermunicipal agreements
are time consuming to negotiate,
so a head start will help prevent
delays.
7.2.4
OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS
Other
requirements
to be satis-
fied during the Step 2 work are:
• User Charge System—The
written procedure you adopt to
collect fees from users of your
treatment system to pay costs of
operation and maintenance.
• Sewer Use Ordinance—A muni-
cipal ordinance that forbids
illegal connections to the sewer
system and specifies other limita-
tions on sewer use.
• Federal Facilities—If a
Federal facility; e.g., Air Force
base, is to be connected to the
wastewater treatment system,
follow special procedures.
Discuss this with the project
reviewer.
• Relocation—If people will be
relocated because of your project,
follow certain procedures. Con-
tact the project reviewer.
• Dredge and Fill Permits—If
your project requires that mate-
rial be removed from or placed in
a body of water, you may need a
determination from the Army Corps
of Engineers that they will issue
a permit before EPA allows the
project to be designed.
• Pretreatment Program—If an
industrial pretreatment program is
required and you have not complet-
ed planning for it during your
58
-------
Step 1 planning, the pretreatment
planning is to be completed during
Step 2. If this is the case, make
arrangements with your engineer to
include this in his scope of work.
• Public Participation—You^may
continue your public participation
program in the Step 2 design phase
if you think it would be helpful.
If you do, include the costs in
your application and decide who
will do the work.
7.2.5
SUMMARY The completion
CHECKLIST of a
facilities
plan is not easy unless a generic
plan is used. However, your
project and its water quality
improvements will be of great
importance to your community. The
time and effort spent in planning
your project is well worthwhile.
We have summarized below the major
items to be considered during and
at the conclusion of Step 1 plan-
ning. Use the checklist to ensure
that all applicable items have
been considered.
• Sign and accept your EPA
grant.
• Finalize other grant or loan
requests as appropriate.
• Arrange for the balance of
the local funds needed.
• Execute an agreement with
your consultants and issue a
notice to begin work.
• Arrange and conduct meetings
with your project team.
• Begin work on your public
participation work plan and submit
to the State within 45 days after
accepting grant.
• Coordinate with WQM agency
if applicable.
Facilities Plan: Periodically
check on progress of:
• Population and flow fore-
casts; obtain State agreement.
• Infiltration/inflow analysis
if applicable. Watch timing and
obtain State agreement of results.
• Possible use of generic plan
for small communities (consult
project reviewer).
• Alternative development:
—Land application;
—Small wastewater systems;
—Centralized treatment;
—Rehabilitation of existing
system;
—Innovative and alternative
technology;
—No action.
• Environmental assessment of
alternatives as integral part of
facilities plan.
• Alternatives evaluation
based on:
—Costs;
—Engineering feasibility;
—Environmental impacts;
—Public acceptance;
—Implementability.
• Public participation pro-
gram. Get public and interest
groups involved.
59
-------
Facilities Plan review by:
• WQM agency;
• Clearinghouse (A-95);
• State agency.
Critical Topics: Be sure the
following areas receive close
attention:
• Detail of facilities plan;
• Coordination with WQM
agencies;
• Procurement of consultants;
• Population and flow
forecasts;
• Public participation;
• Alternatives development and
analysis;
• Effluent limitations;
• Disposal of residuals;
• Intermunicipal agreements;
• Pretreatment program;
• Preliminary cost estimates;
Project Administration: Check on:
• Filing system;
• Accounting records;
• Payment requests;
• Force account.
Pre-Step 2 Application
Considerations: Begin working on
or considering the following items:
• State project priority list
(contact State);
• Engineering consultant's
contract;
• Intermunicipal agreements
(develop proposed
agreements);
• Other considerations:
—User charge system;
—Sewer use ordinance;
—Other Federal facilities;
—Relocation;
—Dredge and fill permits;
—Pretreatment program;
—Public participation
60
-------
APPENDIX A
Preambles to Construction Grants Regulations
(Discussion of Regulation Development)
You should consult the full text of the construction grants regulations
contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the July 1, 1980
edition, as Title 40, Part 35, Subpart E. The preambles which follow are
published here only because they are not included in the CFR.
Preamble to the September 27, 1978, edition of the construction grants
program regulations. Published in the Federal Register, Vol. 43 No. 188,
pages 44022 - 44049.
Preamble to the February 16, 1979, amendments to the construction grants
program regulations on public participation (35.903, 35.917-1, 35.920-3,
35.928-1, 35.929-2 and 35.928-1, 35.929-2 and 35.940-1). Published in
the Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 34, pages 10300 - 10302.
Preamble to the July 5, 1979, miscellaneous amendments to the
Construction Grants Program Regulations (35.910-10, 35.925-15,
35.936-13(a)(l) and (3), and Appendix E, paragraphs 6e. (1) and (2).
Published in the Federal Register, Vol. 44 No. 130, pages 39228 - 39339.
61
-------
44022
[6560-01]
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
CPRL 951-8]
PART 35—STATE AND LOCAL
ASSISTANCE
Subport E—Grant* For Construction
of Treatment Works
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Rule.
SUMMARY: This is a conformed ver-
sion of regulations governing the'con-
struction grants program for munici-
pal wastewater treatment works. The
substantial changes in the regulations
serve several purposes. The majority
of the changes implement amend-
ments to the .Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (FWPCA or the Act) as
amended, contained in the Clean
Water Act of 1977
-------
illations, the final regulations included
both revisions to the technical amend-
ments and editorial changes.
Altogether the Agency circulated
more than 60,000 copies of various
drafts of the regulations. We received
invaluable assistance from the organi-
zations, agencies, and the public at
large. Commenters raised a variety of
issues. The major issues raised during
the official comment period are dis-
cussed below under the appropriate
subject area.
Various related regulations have
been or will be published soon. As re-
quired by statutory deadline, EPA
published two short amendments to
the construction grants program regu-
lations early this year. On January 10,
1978 (43 FR 1597), fiscal years 1978-81
authorizations were allotted. On June
29, 1978 (43 FR 28202), we published a
correction of the section number for
the allotment regulation. It is § 35.910-
8 in this conformed regulation. On
February 23,1978 (43 FR 7426), the re-
imbursement grant regulations (subpt.
D) were revised to extend eligibility
dates. On June 26. 1978 (43 FR 27738),
EPA published final pretreatment reg-
ulations as 40 CFR part 403. Those
regulations establish the responsibil-
ities of Government, industry, and the
public to implement national pretreat-
ment standards to control pollutants
that pass through or interfere with
treatment processes in publicly-owned
treatment works or that may contami-
nate sewage sludge.
On August 7,1978, we published pro-
posed regulations on public participa-
tion in the FEDERAL REGISTER (43 FR
34794). Those regulations implement
section 101(e) of the FWPCA which
requires EPA to provide for, encour-
age, and assist public participation in
EPA programs. The regulations would
replace 40 CFR part 105 (Public Par-
ticipation in Water Pollution Control)
and 40 CFR part 249 (Public Participa-
tion in Solid Waste Management) with
a new 40 CFR part 25.
References to part 25 are inserted hi
this regulation in anticipation of pub-
lication of final public participation
regulations. In the interim any refer-
ence to part 25 in these regulations
should be interpreted as referencing
the current part 105 regulations. The
new part 25 would establish overall
public participation requirements for
programs under the Clean Water Act,
the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. The regulations, in addition,
revise public participation require-
ments in 40 CFR part 35 subpart E,
specifically for the construction grants
program. They focus the public's at-
tention on decisions made during the
planning of the wastewater treatment
facilities. They also provide the oppor-
RULES AND REGULATIONS
tunity for public involvement in later
stages of project development.
EPA published proposed regulations
for the water quality management
program in the FEDERAL REGISTER on
September 12, 1978 (43 FR 40742).
Those regulations replace 40 CFR
parts 130 and 131 and portions of part
35 with a new 40 CFR part 35. subpart
O. The regulations govern the water
quality management program under
sections 106, 208, and 303(e) of the
FWPCA and include changes made to
implement provisions of the 1977 Act.
The regulations require a State/EPA
agreement, which is intended to serve
as the principal management tool for
the water quality management pro-
gram. The State/EPA agreement will
integrate the planning, management,
and implementation of all water qual-
ity management programs under the
Clean Water Act. RCRA, and SDWA
by fiscal year 1980. At a minimum, the
fiscal year 1979 agreement shall cover
programs authorized by sections 106,
205(g), 208, 303, and 314 of the Clean
Water Act. The State/EPA agreement
is distinct from the construction grant
delegation agreements that may be ne-
gotiated under section 205(g) of the
FWPCA, as amended by the 1977 Act.
The water quality management
(WQM)'regulations coordinate the es-
tablishment of State and areawide
WQM agencies' sewage treatment pri-
orities with the construction grants
priority system and lists. WQM plans
are to provide certain facility planning
related information such as planning
area delineations, waste load alloca-
tions, and population projection disag-
gregations. Construction grant facility
plans will have to be based on this in-
formation. Overall the WQM program
regulations link that program and the
construction grants program together
much more closely.
On September 20, 1978 (43 FR 42251)
we published in the FEDERAL REGISTER
final regulations on State management
assistance grants (subpt. F). They
make funds available to States to man-
age the construction grants program
and to hire and train staff needed to
implement delegated functions.
From time to time EPA issues guid-
ance and technical information to sup-
plement regulations and to assist
those participating and interested in
EPA programs. A listing of informa-
tion and copies may be obtained from
the General Services Administration
(8FSS). Centralized Mailing Lists Ser-
vices, Building 41, Denver Federal
Center, Denver, Colo. 80225. (See
§ 35.900(O.)
Discussion of the regulatory changes
being made are grouped by subject
matter. Following the discussion of
each subject area, the preamble identi-
fies those sections in the regulations
related to the subject areas that are
44023
changed. For the technical amend-,
ments each section containing a
change is discussed separately.
STATE PRIORITY
Sections 20 and 40 of the 1977 Act
modified the policy and procedures ap-
plicable to State project priority plan-
ning and clarified the intent of Con-
gress regarding the roles and responsi-
bilities of the States in preparation of
priority lists. These new provisions of
the Act require several modifications
to the procedures used by the States
in managing their priority lists. Estab-
lished priority rating and ranking cri-
teria that are consistent with applica-
ble guidance and these regulations
need not be changed.
The 1977 Act gives the States exclu-
sive authority to rank categories of
projects. The categories specified in
the 1977 Act are those used in the
survey of the cost of needed publicly-
owned treatment works (the needs
survey) and have been defined in
detail in previously published guid-
ance for the survey. The regulations
have been written so that no State is
required to assign a different ranking
to categories of projects, but it may do
so on an optional basis.
States are expected to continue to
use priority criteria based on the se-
verity of the pollution problem, the
existing population affected, and
other related factors necessary to
meet statutory requirements. All pro-
jects on the priority lists, including
those benefiting from the setaside pro-
visions, must be rated according to the
priority criteria and subject to the
management procedures contained in
the approved State priority system.
When preparing their priority lists,
States must take into account the
work completed by designated State
and areawide agencies responsible for
water quality management.
The legislative history of the 1977
Act indicates that State priority list
planning and management must be
closely linked to meeting unfilled
treatment needs before other eligible
treatment works may be funded. The
1977 Act specifically requires, with one
exception, that only projects resulting
in compliance with the enforceable re-
quirements of the Act may be included
on the State's priority list. Projects on
the State list which do not meet this
requirement are to be removed and al-
ternate projects which do meet the re-
quirements added to use available
funds.
Several commenters on the regula-
tions expressed concern that the sec-
tion on State priorities was very long
compared with the relatively short ref-
erence to priorities in the Clean Water
Act. We believe that these comments
result from a misunderstanding of the
role of the priority system and priority
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 188—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
63
-------
44024
Hsti In the construction grants -pro-
cram. The priority system and lists are
the principal mechanisms in the pro-
gram for selecting who will be in line
for grant funds, for scheduling grants,
for planning obligations and outlays of
funds, and for providing information
to justify congressional authorizations
and appropriations. The priority
system and lists are, to short, the man-
agement tools which allow the Feder-
al, State, and local governments to
plan, budget, and oversee the con-
struction grants program.
The 1977 Act complicated the task
of management by imposing new re-
quirements for planning and set-asides
which must be met for the orderly
progress of the grants program. At the
same time, the Congress provided for
State management assistance grants
to increase revenues available to
States to handle added managerial re-
sponsibilities. The grants program will
not be able to maintain a proper bal-
ance and an orderly flow of step 1, 2,
and 3 projects at the rate necessary to
utilize the $24.5 billion authorized by
Congress without a sound managerial
system such as that established for
State priority systems and lists.
Some commenters stated that the
priority system should not have to be
submitted annually to EPA, but rather
only when revised. EPA agrees and
has changed the regulation according-
ly.
Several commenters recommended
additions to the criteria forming the
basis for the State priority system, in-
cluding national priorities, public
health, economic hardship, workers'
health and safety, evidence of past or
present discrimination in the use of
grant funds, and groundwater pollu-
tion. We believe, however, that the cri-
teria selected are those most relevant
to achieve the goals of the Clean
Water Act.
The Council on Environmental
Quality recommended that water im-
provement be reinstated as the main
goal of the priority system. We agree
and have changed the regulation ac-
cordingly.
Enforceable requirements. The en-
forceable requirements of the Act, as
defined in this regulation, are limita-
tions or conditions of a 402 or 404
permit which, if violated, could result
in a civil or criminal action under sec-
tion 309 of the Act Where a permit
has not .been issued, the term includes
any requirement that in the judgment
of the Regional Administrator would
be included in the permit when issued.
Where a permit is not applicable the
term shall include any requirement
which the Regional Administrator de-
termines is necessary to meet applica-
ble criteria tat best practicable waste
treatment technology <(BPWTT).
RINCS AND REGULATIONS
This definition covers municipal pol-
lution of surface water and ground-
water. Permits issued under section
402 of the Act incorporate surface dis-
charge requirements imposed by sec-
tions 301, 403, and 405. Section 301, in
turn, requires BPWTT or any more
stringent level of treatment deter-
mined in the water quality manage-
ment planning process (authorized
under sections 208 and 303) to be nec-
essary to meet water quality stand-
ards. It also requires any more strin-
gent level of treatment found to be
necessary to meet State laws or regula-
tions (under authority preserved by
section 510).
To receive construction grants, mu-
nicipal treatment works are required
under section 201(g)(2)(A) of the Act
to provide for the application of
BPWTT. Information published by
the Agency on BPWTT contains crite-
ria which must be met by grant
funded projects involving land applica-
tion techniques, land utilization prac-
tices and alternatives involving reuse
and recycling. These criteria, designed
to protect groundwater from pollution
by municipal treatment facilities, are
analogous to effluent limitations and
conditions in permits designed to pro-
tect surface waters.
We received several comments re-
questing thajt the definition of en-
forceable requirements list sections
201, 208, 301, 309, 402, and 405 of the
Act. Some comments also suggested a
reference to section 510. We have care-
fully considered these comments but
decided to retain the same definition
used in the interim regulation. As was
discussed above, our definition encom-
passes these other sections of the Act
to the extent they are translated into
specific requirements to protect and
improve ground and surface water
quality. To the extent they are not
translated into such - specif ic require-
ments, grantees, States, and EPA
would have difficulty determining if a
project was necessary to meet them or
not.
A few commenters expressed con-
cern that the definition of enforceable
requirements adopted by EPA would
exclude projects involving reuse and
recycling which were not necessary to
protect ground or surface waters. The
Agency believes that such projects
should be excluded tram the defini-
tion. Federal assistance for publicly
owned treatment works under the Act
is intended to correct and reduce -Qie
backlog of pollution problems.
The Act and Agency policy strongly
encourage reuse and recycling tech-
niques as a means to meet pollutant
discharge requirements. Reuse and re-
cycling projects which are needed to
meet the- enforceable requirements of
tfae Act should be given higher prior-
ity. The lefniatfonx hare numerous
V&U 0, HO. 1M WCTMBPAY.
provisions to encourage reuse and re-
cycling, including changes between the
interim and final versions of ttie cost
effectiveness guidelines to allow addi-
tional projects to qualify for the 115
percent cost preference (see section 7
of appendix A).
Priority list management Priority
list management procedures have been
clarified in the new regulations to
assure that EPA, the States and mu-
nicipalities each know which projects
will be funded with available monies
during the current year, and which
projects may expect funding during
subsequent years. In addition, the new
procedures require documentation and
notification to interested parties of
any changes to the funding plans. The
fundable portion of the priority list
has been defined to include only pro-
jects planned for funding with availa-
ble funds during the first year of the
5-year period. Procedures are estab-
lished to allow a project on the funda-
ble portion of the priority list to be by-
passed when the State documents and
notifies the grant applicant that it
cannot be ready for award during the
current year. Projects that are ranked
highest on the planning portion of the
priority list will replace the project
which is not ready to proceed. In most
cases, the project bypass procedure is
not expected to constitute a signifi-
cant Tevision to the priority list, and
additional public participation should
not be required.
An alternative to the bypass proce-
dure was carefully considered but
eventually rejected. This alternative
would allow a State to include on the
fundable portion all projects that
could conceivably be ready for award
during the funding year without
regard to the limits of available allot-
ments. Bypass procedures would be
unnecessary, as all potential projects
would be included on the fundable
portion of the list. This approach was
rejected because it would potentially
allow high priority projects to go un-
funded even though ready to proceed
during the funding year in favor of
lower priority projects. It also would
create a great deal of uncertainty
about which projects would be ap-
proved during the funding year and
which would not.
There are other priority list manage-
ment procedures required by the new
regulations, most based on existing
policy and guidance. The regulations
require some increase to the project
information included on the priority
list and an improvement to the public
participation process. Supplemental
guidance wffl be issued to further
define these requirements and provide
the phasing necessary to avoid disrup-
tion of State operations.
A few commenters expressed con-
cern that t*ie bypass procedures cr«-
27, MPB
64
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
44025
ated undue administrative difficulties
for the States. We believe, however,
that without such procedures, the goal
of the priority list to insure that fund-
ing is first available to projects with
highest priority, could easily be
thwarted. One commenter stated that
the bypass provisions were too vague
and could be abused. We believe that
they have been defined in sufficient
detail for a regulation. Additional
guidance could be issued if abuses de-
velop.
One commenter stated that adding
and deleting projects to an approved
priority list is very difficult. We agree
that such changes are not easy. Sig-
nificant changes are likely to disrupt
plans for one or more municipalities
and should be made only after careful
consideration and opportunity for
public participation.
Several States recommended
changes to the regulation to restrict
further the role of EPA in review of
the priority list. We disagree with
these recommendations because the
management role of the Agency has
already been reduced to the minimum
necessary to insure equitable imple-
mentation of the Clean Water Act and
related regulations.
Five-year priority list. The interim
regulations for State priority list man-
agement require a 5-year priority list
to ensure that projects are planned
and managed in accordance with an
overall multiple-year operating strate-
gy. In preparing the priority list, con-
sideration must be given to the inven-
tory of all needed publicly owned
treatment works within a State. The
most recent Needs Survey should be
used for this purpose. Sufficient infor-
mation, including cost data, is readily
available from this Survey allowing
the development of a long-term prior-
ity list without undue additional effort
on the part of the State.
Several commenters expressed con-
cern that excessive information was
required on the priority list. EPA
agrees and has revised the regulations
so that requirements for the planning
portion of the list will be detailed in
supplemental guidance. The Agency
will require only the minimum amount
of information commensurate with the
requirements of program management
and public participation. The remain-
ing requirements are essential to
insure orderly development of projects
which will utilize available funds and
set-asides, while meeting the most
critical needs for water pollution con-
trol.
A few commenters said that infor-
mation required on the priority list is
not appropriate for public review. We
believe that the required information
provides the essentials of what is re-
quired for the public, including an ad-
dress where more information may be
obtained on individual projects.
Comments were also received recom-
mending separate priority lists for pro-
jects utilizing set-aside funds for small
communities and for innovative and
alternative technologies. The Agency
has allowed and will continue to allow
a separate priority list for small com-
munities where desired by a State and
where the splitting of funds between
the list for small communities and
other communities is justified on a
sound basis. Our experience is that
such lists are difficult to administer.
The complexity would be compounded
where States could not tell with cer-
tainty whether or not a project might
qualify for a set-aside. The regulation
does allow a higher priority to be
given to projects qualifying for the
set-asides.
Several commenters expressed con-
cern about the relationship between
the needs survey and the priority list.
A few commenters said that EPA
should not expect the States to pre-
pare the needs survey. We would em-
phasize that this was not our intent.
Our interest is in having the priority
list prepared on the basis of the needs
inventory, and to cross reference the
needs inventory so that the Agency
and the States can readily ascertain
which needs are planned to be met
and which are not. Other commenters
stated that there should be no rela-
tionship between the needs inventory
and the priority list. We disagree be-
cause of the critical role the needs in-
ventory plays in the grants program.
The needs inventory includes all exist-
ing and needed treatment works. This
inventory is used for program plan-
ning, oversight, and evaluation. The
needs are, of course, also used by Con-
gress as a basis for allotting grant
funds among the States. When prepar-
ing the priority list. States should
review the needs inventory and give
highest priority to those facilities with
the most critical need. After a new fa-
cility is funded, the needs inventory
will be revised by EPA accordingly.
Pipe-related projects. One exception
to the stipulation that all projects on
the priority list must meet the en-
forceable requirements is provided in
the Act. This exception is for projects
involving major sewer rehabilitation,
interceptor sewers, collector sewers,
and correction of combined sewer
overflows. States may, at-their option,
include on the fundable portion of
their list facilfties in these categories
with a combined estimated EPA share
of as much as 25 percent of the availa-
ble allotment. Facilities in these cate-
gories which would use funds beyond
the 25-percent level may be included
on the list only where they are essen-
tial to meet the enforceable require-
ments of the Act.
Comments on the Agency's interpre-
tation of the 25-percent provision fell
into two groups. One group stated
that all projects must satisfy the test
of being necessary to meet the en-
forceable requirements of the Act
whether or not they fall into the
sewer-related categories. EPA dis-
agrees with this interpretation be-
cause it necessarily results in vitiating
almost all meaning from the 25-per-
cent provision of section 216. More-
over, it would prevent some projects,
such as those necessary to protect
public health but not ground or sur-
face waters, from being retained on
the priority list. Congress clearly did
not intend this result.
The other group of commenters on
the 25-percent provision stated that
we have misconstrued the law by stat-
ing that the 25-percent was a ceiling
rather than a floor for sewer-related
projects in the specified categories. We
would note, however, that the 25-per-
cent ceiling is imposed In our regula-
tions only for sewer-related projects
which cannot be justified as necessary
to meet the enforceable requirements
of the Act. No limitation is placed
upon such projects when necessary to
meet the enforceable requirements of
the Act so long as they are placed on
the priority list in conformance with
the State priority system and are
found to be grant eligible.
The Agency received several com-
ments interpreting the regulations to
imply that all projects placed on the
priority list are automatically eligible
for funding. This is not the case. Pro-
jects should be placed on the priority
list only if they are expected to be eli-
gible. However, there may not be suffi-
cient information available to deter-
mine its eligibility at the time the pri-
ority list is prepared. Projects later
found to be ineligible should be re-
moved from the priority list. This re-
quirement applies to pipe-related pro-
jects placed on the priority list under
the 25-percent provision as well as
other types of projects. A project must
ultimately be determined cost-effec-
tive as well as eligible to receive a con-
struction grant.
New set-asides on priority list. The
Act contains a number of new provi-
sions that require States to set aside
funds for specific purposes. Included
in these set-asides is a reserve for al-
ternatives to conventional treatment
for communities with populations of
3,500 or less, or the sparsely populated
areas of larger communities. Rural
States must set aside 4 percent of
their allotment for such projects.
Other States have the option of set-
ting aside no more than 4 percent of
their allotments for this purpose. In
addition, 2 percent of the allotment
for fiscal year 1979 and fiscal year
1980 and 3 percent of the allotment
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 188—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
65
-------
44026
for fiscal year 1981 must be used only
for grant increases for innovative and
alternative treatment processes. At
least one-half of 1 percent of the allot-
ment (part of the 2 percent) must be
used for grant increases for innovative
technology during these years.
Nothing in this regulation is to
affect existing administrative policy
for the establishment of a separate
funding strategy for small communi-
ties where a State chooses to set aside
a reasonable percentage of its funds
for the projects of such small commu-
nities.
Several commenters recommended
that a higher priority be allowed for
innovative and alternative projects at
the step 3 stage as well as the step 2
stage, and also for projects to pay 100
percent of the costs of replacement
when an innovative or alternative-
project fails. EPA agrees and has re-
vised the regulation accordingly. One
commenter said that the higher prior-
ity at the step 2 stage for innovative
and alternative projects should be
mandatory. EPA disagrees since the
1977 Act clearly leaves it optional.
A few commenters asked for a de-
tailed definition in the regulation of
what would qualify as a sparsely popu-
lated area of a larger community. Any
area where treatment works serving
an individual residence or cluster of
residences are cost-effective will, in all
likelihood, qualify as sparsely populat-
ed.
Public participation. This provision
o'f the new regulation has generated
many comments. These comments are
almost equally divided expressing both
sides of the issue. Public interest
groups and private citizens largely
desire more and better information
and express an interest in sharing in
the decisions which affect their lives
and the well-being of their communi-
ties, while comments from others cite
the additional expense, time delay and
relatively small anticipated benefits to
the public that may be associated with
these new requirements! This issue is
of concern to the Agency. These provi-
sions are being retained as in the in-
terim regulation, but will be moni-
tored to determine if they should be
changed in the future. Regulatory
changes related to State priority plan-
ning and management are limited to
the revision to § 35.915.
INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES
Under the new section 201(g)(5).
after September 30, 1978, grant recipi-
ents are required to analyze innovative
and alternative treatment processes
and techniques for use in wastewater
treatment works. Section 201(i) re-
quires the encouragement of processes
that reduce energy needs. Section
202(a)(2) provides for Federal grants
RULES AND REGULATIONS
for 85 percent of allowable construc-
tion costs for treatment works or sig-
nificant portions of treatment works
that utilize innovative and alternative
treatment processes and techniques.
Section 202
-------
dure for applying for the 100-percent
modification grant. Such procedures
will be the subject of future program
guidance. Grant recipients will initiate
the procedures by giving written noti-
fication of failure within the 2-year
period discussed above to the State
and EPA. Commenters raised some
Questions concerning the ways in
which such grants will be funded. The
priority system will be used with modi-
fication grants being made from gener-
al allotment funds. We are changing
the regulations on priority lists previ-
ously published to allow consideration
of the need for 100-percent modifica-
tion grants in the determination of
State priorities.
A second major area of comment
concerned the reserve to be used for
increasing grants for innovative and
alternative projects from 75 percent to
65 percent. Many commenters were
critical of the proposed Agency inter-
pretation of this reserve as the maxi-
mum amount of allotted funds availa-
ble for such grant increases. The
Agency received and studied thought-
ful analyses of the issue from the
State of California, the Council on En-
vironmental Quality, the League of
Women Voters of the United States
and others. Contrary to the com-
menters, we firmly believe that a thor-
ough analysis of all pertinent provi-
sions of the 1977 Act and its legislative
history leads to the conclusion that
the reserve is the maximum to be used
to increase grants from 75 to 85 per-
cent from funds allotted for fiscal
years 1979 through 1981. This conclu-
sion is bolstered by sound policy and
administrative considerations and by
the Agency's understanding of the
provisions based upon extensive con-
tacts with congressional committees
during the months of preparation
leading to enactment of the 1977 Act.
The 1977 Act establishes what
amounts to a special program within
the construction grants program to
fund innovative and alternative proc-
esses and techniques. The key provi-
sions are in sections 202(a) and 205(1).
They authorize 85-percent grants; es-
tablish a special fund to increase the
grants from 75 to 85 percent; provide a
backup "insurance" grant for failures;
and define the treatment works eligi-
ble for the 85-percent grants. All of
these provisions must be read together
to understand congressional intent on
the question. Legislative history, espe-
cially from the conference committee
report, further substantiates EPA's
conclusion.
Some commenters argued that treat-
ment of the 205(1) reserve as a maxi-
mum runs counter to the promotion of
innovative and alternative technol-
ogies, which should be EPA's policy.
Under the 1977 Act, EPA is Imple-
menting a variety of provisions that
RULES AND REGULATIONS
collectively make the encouragement
of innovative and alternative technol-
ogies a major thrust of the construc-
tion grants and related programs. Nev-
ertheless, EPA must conduct its activi-
ties within the confines of its legisla-
tive mandate.
Akin to the policy argument, one
commenter recommended that EPA
treat the 205(1) reserve as a minimum
amount available because that would
promote the overall objective of the
Act—to maintain the physical, chemi-
cal and biological integrity of the Na-
tion's waters. We believe that treat-
ment of the reserve as a maximum
amount will actually do more to pro-
mote the overall objective. This is so
because EPA's approach allows more
communities to be given grants at the
75-percent level to deal with their
water quality problems.
A few pragmatic considerations were
also raised. Some commenters argued
that the 205(1) reserve is insufficient
to accommodate all innovative and al-
ternative projects and that States
need the financial incentive to encour-
age these projects. Most indications at
present are that a few States may
have more projects than can be
funded from the reserve. Most, howev-
er, will find it difficult to use up the
reserve. The time needed to plan and
design projects will cut significantly
into the 3-year authorization. It is in
part for this reason the EPA is permit-
ting certain 1978 grants that qualify to
be supplemented by 10 percent from
the 1979 reserve. In addition, there is a
major incentive for States to use the
205(i) funds rather than lose them to
reallotment. If a State does not use
the reserve while it is available, it not
only loses the unused funds, but it
cannot share in the overall reallot-
ment of construction grant funds from
States that did not obligate them.
Finally, it was argued with some
merit that the interpretation as a
maximum could cause delays because
communities that cannot get an 85-
percent grant one year may wait until
the ensuing year to apply. This could
occur. Two things militate against it.
Funds are only authorized for 3 years.
Most States will have ample funds the
first year, and no one can delay
beyond the third year of authoriza-
tion. Additionally, delay might cost a
community its position on the priority
list. If any risk is apparent, a commu-
nity is not likely to delay.
For these reasons, EPA is retaining
its interpretation that the 205(1) re-
serve is the maximum amount to be
spent to increase grants from 75 to 85
percent for innovative and alternative
technologies.
Several States and others indicated
that the distribution of the 2-percent
reserve according to the chronological
approval of grants is too inflexible.
44027
EPA agrees. Other approaches recom-
mended, such as use of the priority
system or establishment of criteria to
choose the most desirable projects,
also have serious drawbacks. Recogniz-
ing that States will want to handle the
matter in different ways, EPA has
made chronological approval a general
rule but gives States the option of es-
tablishing a different method in coop-
eration wth the EPA Regional Admin-
istrator.
Commenter made several proposals
for reallotment of any unused portion
of the 2-percent reserve. Some sup-
ported the proposed return of such
funds to the general pool which is di-
vided among States that have used all
their general funds. Others favored
the establishment of a special reserve
that would be reallotted to States that
have used up their 2-percent innova-
tive/alternative set-aside. Another
proposal was that such surpluses be
used to help fund 100-percent modifi-
cation/replacement grants.
Unused portions of the 2-percent re-
serve must be reallotted under section
205(b)(l) of the Act along with all
reallotted funds. The EPA Administra-
tor has some leeway in determining
the manner of distribution of the real-
lotted funds. Under current regula-
tions, reallotted funds are distributed
to States that used their prior year's
full allotment. EPA will reallot the re-
serve in the same manner. It should be
noted that if a State loses funds to
reallotment, whether these funds are
from reserves or from general grant
funds, then the State cannot receive
funds from the overall reallotment.
The establishment of special funds
is constrained ~ by the reallotment pro-
visions in section 205(b)(l). Special
funds would have to be established in
each State that participates in any
reallotment. This would require an
extra set of bureaucratic procedures
that would be too burdensome and un-
warranted for the potential benefits.
Some questions have been raised re-
garding the extent of the 85-percent
grants—whether they will cover the
costs of an entire treatment works or
just that portion of the treatment
works deemed innovative or alterna-
tive. The April 25 proposed rules
adopted a 50-percent cutoff rule.
Under that approach, if the present
worth of innovative or alternative
parts of the treatment works exceeds
50 percent of the total present worth
cost of the non-sewer-related part of
the treatment works, then the entire
treatment works would be eligible for
the 85-percent grant. Otherwise, only
the innovative or alternative parts
would be eligible. Support for this
scheme is based largely upon adminis-
trative grounds.
Many persuasive comments have
argued for an incremental approach,
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 188—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
67
-------
44028
under which only innovative or alter-
native portions of treatment works
would be eligible for 85-percent fund-
ing. The costs of an entire treatment
facility would be covered by such a
grant only if the whole project had
been deemed innovative or alternative.
The relationship between present
worth of innovative or alternative
parts and total present worth would
no longer be important in determining
what portion of a project was eligible
for the 85-percent grant.
There are several grounds for favor-
ing the incremental approach. It
would be only slightly more difficult
to administer than would the 50-per-
cent cutoff approach, which utilizes
the incremental approach on projects
below the 50-percent level. It would
spread the 2-percent reserve to more
innovative and alternative projects
and would use the reserve only on in-
novative and alternative processes and
techniques. It would remove the pres-
sure on consulting engineers to make
every project at least reach the 51-per-
cent mark. It would provide incentives
to engineers and grantees to use as
much innovative and alternative tech-
nology as possible. For these reasons,
EPA is adopting the incremental ap-
proach under which only innovative
and alternative unit processes and
techniques will receive 85-percent
funding.
Some commenters expressed con-
cerns related to criteria in section 6 of
appendix E for identifying innovative
technology. These comments princi-
pally were directed at the cost and
energy reduction criteria. Specifically,
the comments indicated that (1) cost
and energy reduction were not among
the objectives envisioned by the Con-
gress in authorizing specific innovative
and alternative technology; (2) the ac-
curacy of cost and energy analyses in
facility plans is not sufficient to allow
a meaningful comparison; and (3) the
15-percent cost reduction and 20-per-
cent energy reduction criteria are
either too easy or too difficult to
achieve. A related comment suggested
that using the most cost-effective al-
ternative as the basis for comparison
in the case of energy reduction (para-
graph 6.e.(2) of appendix E of the pro-
posed regulations) may not result in
actual energy savings if the cost-effec-
tive noninnovative alternative for a
particular project happens to be
energy intensive.
The Agency disagrees with the com-
ment that cost and energy reduction
are not valid criteria for innovative
technology as envisioned by the Con-
gress. There are numerous references
to cost and energy reduction in the
legislative history of the 1977 Act
which indicate reliance on these fac-
tors for the evaluation of innovative
and alternative technology.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Likewise, no change was made with
respect to the percentage decrease in
cost or energy necessary to qualify a
project as innovative. The Agency be-
lieves that the proposed criteria set
forth substantial, yet achievable, goals
with respect to cost and energy reduc-
tion. In recognition of some of the
comments received, several changes
were incorporated into the final regu-
lations to insure that the cost and
energy benefits claimed as the basis
for designating a project as innovative
are not just "paper savings" but are
savings actually realized by the grant-
ee municipalities.
These changes include: (1) authority
for the Regional Administrator to
deny a 10-percent grant increase for
step 3 projects where one or more of
the criteria upon which the innovative
technology designation was based are
not verified by the plans and specifica-
tions prepared for the project
(§35.930-5(b)); (2) authority for the
Regional Administrator to make an
initial determination on whether a
project is innovative after plans and
specifications prepared for the project
in step 2 are sufficiently completed to
verify conformance with the criteria
for innovative technology (§35.930-
5(b)); (3) a requirement that facility
plans contain analyses in sufficient
detail to substantiate claimed cost or
energy savings when these factors are
proposed as the basis for an innovative
technology designation (§ 35.917-1 and
paragraph 5.a of appendix A); and (4)
comparison with the least net energy.
noninnovative alternative as the basis
for determining whether a process or
technique is innovative on the basis of
energy savings (paragraph 6.e.(2) of
appendix E).
The Agency is also preparing de-
tailed guidance which contains infor-
mation on a wide range of presently
used processes and techniques to assist
in the evaluation of innovative and al-
ternative technology. Additionally, the
Agency recently published a detailed
study of the operational energy re-
quirements for municipal wastewater
treatment plants. The Agency has ini-
tiated another more comprehensive
energy study, which should be availa-
ble next year.
Paragraph 6.a. of appendix E indi-
cates that the Regional Administrator
may consult with EPA Headquarters
as to whether a particular process or
technique is innovative and as to de-
terminations made in other EPA Re-
gions about similar processes and tech-
niques. As part of its implementation
of these provisions, EPA is considering
mechanisms to provide these capabili-
ties to the Regional Offices. One possi-
bility being actively considered is for-
mation of a group or groups of techni-
cal experts to assist in determinations
of innovative technologies both on a
national level and on a regional basis.
The contemplated composition of such
groups would include qualified individ-
uals from both Government and pri-
vate industry. Also being considered is
a data management operation which
would catalog basic technical informa-
tion on the various innovative projects
implemented across the country. The
objective of such an operation would
be to establish and give the EPA Re-
gions access to the pertinent informa-
tion on related projects under consid-
eration or approved elsewhere. More
specific information on these efforts
will be forthcoming in the form of pro-
gram directives issued by the construc-
tion grants program.
Paragraph (b)(3) of §35.908 of the
proposed regulations indicated that
projects or portions of projects which
received step 2, step 3 or step 2+3
grant awards after December 27. 1977,
may receive grant increases from
funds allotted for fiscal year 1979 if
they meet the criteria for innovative
or alternative technologies in appen-
dix E. Comments were received that
the intent of the law to foster imple-
mentation of innovative and alterna-
tive technology by providing financial
and other incentives was not being
achieved by allowing these incentives
to be applied to projects which already
have received step 2 or step 3 grants or
have approved facility plans. Plainly
stated, these comments indicated that
additional incentives in the context of
those provided by the Clean Water
Act of 1977 were not necessary to im-
plement the technology because ap-
proval and acceptance of the project
had already been obtained. The
Agency agrees with these comments
insofar as they apply to innovative
technology projects. Criteria for inno-
vative processes and techniques are
based upon the concept of advance-
ment of technology in comparison to
currently accepted systems. This com-
parison implies a baseline of technol-
ogy against which improvements in
systems will be measured. Treatment
processes and techniques which have
been selected through the evaluation
of alternatives in the facility planning
process prior to initiation of the inno-
vative/alternative technology program
will be considered the baseline of-ac-
cepted technology against which can-
didate innovative technology projects
should be compared. This applies
equally to more recently developed
systems already incorporated into
grant projects by virtue of the fact
that such systems have been success-
fully subjected to the scrutiny of the
construction grant process in order to
receive project approval. As previously
indicated, the Agency is developing
guidance which will aid in making
comparisons of candidate innovative
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 1M—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, I97S
68
-------
technology with accepted "baseline"
technology.
We proposed criteria to identify in-
novative projects on April 25, 1978.
They become effective in final form
on October 1, 1978. Projects reviewed
and approved between December 27,
1977, and October 1, 1978. were not
evaluated on the basis of these crite-
ria. They were approved under then
existing criteria and as such were ap-
proved as accepted conventional or al-
ternative systems.
For these reasons, the reference to
innovative technology has been de-
leted from § 35.908(b)(3). Eligible por-
tions of projects that received step 2,
step 3, or step 2+3 grants after De-
cember 27, 1977, from funds allotted
or reallotted in fiscal year 1978, may
still receive grant increases from funds
allotted for fiscal year 1979 if they
meet the criteria for alternative tech-
nology in appendix E. This extension
of grant increases to certain alterna-
tive technology projects is based upon
the fact that such projects provide for
the reclamation and reuse of
wastewater and wastewater constitu-
ents or recover energy in accordance-
with the principal objective of the in-
novative/alternative technology provi-
sions of the Clean Water Act. Further-
more, designations of these projects as
alternative technology projects do not
in any way depend upon a baseline
comparison with other technology as
is the case with innovative technology.
Also, allowance of supplemental
grants for alternative projects avoids
possible delays in applications for
grants and helps States use their re-
serves for the 10-percent grant in-
crease in fiscal year 1979.
The end result of the Agency's posi-
tion is fairly simple. We will begin
making 85-percent grants for Innova-
tive projects after September 30, 1978,
with fiscal year 1979 funds. Projects
utilizing alternative technology that
received 75-percent grants after De-
cember 27, 1977, from funds allotted
or reallotted for fiscal year 1978, may
receive a 10-percent grant increase
from fiscal year 1979 funds.
A number of comments were re-
ceived as to whether a particular tech-
nology or piece of equipment is Inno-
vative. Similar inquiries asked whether
EPA would certify specific processes
and techniques as innovative. Other
related questions asked how many
times a technology could be funded
through the construction grants pro-
gram before it ceased to be innovative.
In considering the response to these
questions, it is important to note that
the Agency has not in the past adopt-
ed uniform standards or specified
processes and designs to be used In
grant projects. Project approval is
made on a case-by-case basis In accord-
ance with broad evaluation criteria de-
RULES AND REGULATIONS
veloped for the program. In keeping
with this overall program structure,
the Agency will not designate or certi-
fy that a specific process or technique
is innovative. The designation of inno-
vative technology will be applied on a
project-by-project basis. Thus, individ-
ual projects may be determined to be
innovative on the basis of their conf or-
mance with the criteria set forth in
section 6 of appendix E.
As stated in paragraph 6.a. of appen-
dix E, the Regional Administrator
may consider local variations in geo-
graphic or climatic conditions which
affect treatment plant design or oper-
ation in making a determination on in-
novative technology projects. Thus a
particular process or technique may be
considered innovative technology in
one project but not another. Similarly,
it is possible that a novel combination
of processes and techniques, which in-
dividually may not be considered inno-
vative, could qualify a project as inno-
vative if it can be demonstrated that
the project contributes to the advance-
ment of technology and otherwise
achieves the basic objectives of the in-
novative and alternative technology
provisions of the Act.
In accordance with the above discus-
sion, it is not possible to specify how
many projects of a certain type may
be approved before a particular tech-
nology is no longer considered innova-
tive. Furthermore, because the innova-
tive/alternative technology program
authorized by the Clean Water Act
presently extends only for 3 years, it
will often not be possible to verify the
performance of certain innovative
processes and techniques through
actual operation during this 3-year
period. For these reasons, as stated in
paragraph 6.d. of appendix E, it is pos-
sible to fund a number of projects
using the same type of innovative
technology where the potential bene-
fits are great in comparison to the
risks.
We also received comments on the
relationship of patents and bid specifi-
cations to innovative technology. Spe-
cifically, these commenters were con-
cerned that patent and bid specifica-
tion requirements may restrict the im-
plementation of innovative technol-
ogy.
The patent requirements applicable
to construction grant projects are con-
tained in 40 CFR Part 30. The Agency
is presently reviewing these regula-
tions to determine their impact on in-
novative technology projects. If, as a
result of this evaluation, modification
of part 30 appears to be advisable,
such modification will be proposed
separately at a later date. Otherwise,
the matter of patents with respect to
innovative technology will be clarified
by Agency guidance to insure that no
44029
unnecessary impediments are created
due to uncertainty in this area.
Section 204(a)(6) of the Act states in
part, that no bid specification for con-
struction grant projects shall be writ-
ten in such a manner as to contain
proprietary, exclusionary or discrimi-
natory requirements unless such re-
quirements are necessary to test or
demonstrate a specific process or tech-
nique. Accordingly, it is possible that
restrictive bid specifications may be
written for innovative technology pro-
jects when sufficient justification is
provided to substantiate that such
specifications are necessary to test or
demonstrate a specific process. We are
revising §§35.908, 35.936-13 and pro-
gram requirements memorandum 75-5,
which implements this section of the
Act, to clarify this point.
These new program provisions neces-
sitated a minor revision to clause 2 (re-
sponsibility of the engineer) of appen-
dix C-l. We have changed the refer-
ence from "advanced" technology in
§ 35.908 to "innovative" technology.
Regulatory changes relating to inno-
vative or alternative technologies are
made in §§ 35.908. 35.917-l(d), 35.930-
5, 35.935-20, 35-936-13, appendix A,
section 7, appendix C-l, clause 2, and
appendix E.
INDIVIDUAL SYSTEMS
Section 14 of the 1977 Act authorizes
grants for privately-owned treatment
works serving one or more principal
residences or small commercial estab-
lishments constructed prior to and in-
habited on or before December 27,
1977. These systems are intended to
abate an existing water pollution .or
public health problem. A public body
(municipality) must apply on behalf of
a number of such units and certify
that public ownership of such works is
not feasible. The public body must cer-
tify that the treatment works will be
properly maintained and operated.
User charges are required for cost of
operation and maintenance. Commer-
cial users must pay back the Federal
share of the cost of construction with
no moratorium during the industrial
cost recovery study, and the 25,000
gallons per day exemption does not
apply. (See discussion of industrial
cost recovery below.) We have decided
that nonprofit and nongovernmental
institutional entities, such as
churches, schools, hospitals, and chari-
table organizations, for purposes of
this special authority generally should
be treated the same as small commer-
cial establishments. The alternative
selected must be cost-effective.
This section is intended to be uti-
lized to construct alternative or uncon-
ventional treatment works for individ-
ual residences or clusters of resi-
dences. Alternatives include, but are
not limited to, septic tanks and subsur-
HOERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 1M—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
69
-------
44030
face disposal systems, other on-site
systems including dual systems, small
systems serving clusters of households
or commercial users, and pressure and
vacuum sewers. Alternative sy terns can
be innovative. Though small publicly-
owned systems for one or more homes
or small commercial establishments
are not covered under $35.918, they
are covered under regulations govern-
ing grants for publicly-owned treat-
ment works and are grant eligible. Ad-
ditional guidance will be issued on the
conditions under which small publicly-
owned systems may be funded. As al-
ternative systems, these individual sys-
tems are eligible for the 4 percent set
aside. Both publicly-owned and pri-
vately-owned individual systems, as al-
ternatives to conventional technology,
are eligible for an additional 10 per-
cent of the eligible costs for those pro-
jects where funds are available from
the set-aside for innovative and alter-
native technology. However, privately-
owned individual systems are not eligi-
ble for the 115 percent cost preference
for alternative and innovative process-
es and techniques in the cost-effective-
ness analysis.
Acquisition of land for individual
systems is not grant eligible because
there Is no indication in the law or leg-
islative history that Congress intended
the limited funds available to be ex-
pended for what clearly would be a
windfall to private landowners. Con-
struction of individual systems may
supplement other types of wastewater
treatment works, conventional and un-
conventional, in the same planning
area as determined to be cost-effective.
A major issue arising in the course
of preparing the interim regulations
was to what extent monitoring should
be required to ensure ground-water
supplies have not been contaminated
by Individual systems built with con-
struction grants. Because individual
systems will often be widely scattered
and in remote areas, monitoring diffi-
culties and costs could be of large mag-
nitude. The periodic sampling of pota-
ble water wells, selected to represent
the planning area, is deemed to be a
minimum requirement. Careful analy-
sis of the source of contamination is
essential since inadequate well con-
struction can be the primary cause.
Large concentrations of individual sys-
tems which have soil absorption beds
will require additional monitoring
from existing or test wells, depending
on the geology of the area and the lo-
cation of those aquifers which are, or
are likely to become, drinking water
sources.
The monitoring program should be
planned as part of the facility plan.
Criteria for best practicable waste
treatment technology, published by
EPA under section 304(d)<2) of the
Act, shall be met for all individual sys-
RULES AND REGULATIONS
terns. These discharges shall also
comply with State and local require-
ments for control and abatement of
groundwater pollution.
Other Important Issues which arose
follow:
1. Are full construction costs, Includ-
ing major rehabilitation, upgrading,
installing and enlarging, grant eligi-
ble?
Yes. These functions may meet
water pollution control needs in the
most economical and effective manner
provided the work is properly done
and adequate operation and mainte-
nance procedures are arranged.
2. Should this special authority be
used to construct septic tanks serving
single residences when legislative his-
tory contains an indication that this
ordinarily should not be done?
Several statements in the legislative
history of the 1977 Act lead to the
conclusion that septic tanks, with var-
ious further treatment and disposal
features, are to be considered as indi-
vidual systems. The optional solution,
not to make them grant eligible, would
be to eliminate from Federal funding
one of the most frequently used and
successful devices. "Septic tanks"
rarely fail. It is the soil absorption
field which fails if not properly de-
signed, constructed, maintained, and
operated.
Responses to comments received
after issuance of the interim regula-
tions continue below.
Several comments were received that
nonprofit and nongovernmental insti-
tutional entities, such as churches,
schools, hospitals, and charitable orga-
nizations, with flows of less than
25,000 gallons per day should be
exempt from paying back the Federal
share of the cost of construction. The
1977 Act authorizes grants to con-
struct privately-owned treatment
works only to serve principal resi-
dences and commercial establish-
ments. Nonprofit and nongovernmen-
tal institutions are normally not resi-
dences and therefore must fall into
the "commercial" category or be con-
sidered ineligible for grants to build
privately-owned treatement works.
The 1977 Act requires recoupment of
the capital costs of construction from
"commercial" users and specifically
states that such users are not exempt
from the moratorium during the cost
recovery study. Some comments were
of the opinion that it would be diffi-
cult to administer this requirement for
very small facilities in very small com-
munities. EPA believes that the one
user equivalent (generally 300 gallons
per day) exemption will ease the ad-
ministrative burden by exempting the
very small entities from cost recovery.
The industrial cost recovery study now
underway as required by the 1977 Act
will analyze the overall impacts of cost
recovery from commercial users which
receive grants to construct privately-
owned systems.
Comments were received on the de-
sirability of a separate priority list for
projects eligible for the 4 percent set-
aside. The comments are addressed
earlier in this preamble under State
priority.
Several comments pointed out the
impossibility of forming Individual sys-
tems management districts where
~ State laws do not exist to permit such
public bodies'. One commenter asked if
the costs of evaluation and changes in
State codes were grant eligible. Appro-
priate legislation has already been en-
acted by some States without the as-
sistance of grant funds. Generally,
legal fees for such purposes are not
eligible under the 201 grant; however,
some costs of such evaluation may be
eligible for grants under sections 106,
205(g), or 208 of the Act. Where such
organizations are legally possible,
doubt was expressed as to the avail-
ability of manpower with expertise to
handle such districts. The regulations
state that the public body is responsi-
ble for operation and maintenance of
individual systems and the establish-
ment of a comprehensive program for
regulation and inspection of the sys-
tems. The work can be performed by
contract, by commercial firm on an on-
call basis, or by means other than mu-
nicipal forces if desired.
One comment stated individual sys-
tems should be handled as a generic
class for step 1 and specifically de-
signed in step 2 because the planning
effort required is very demanding com-
pared with the population served.
However, individual systems vary
widely in design, operation, and cost,
and really cannot be treated as one
similar generic group. During the fa-
cilities planning stage, various types of
individual systems should be evaluated
for suitability of operation in the
physical setting (soils, slope, etc.) and
for reliability in meeting the needs of
future users; a cost-effectiveness anal-
ysis should be completed for each
system under consideration. The infor-
mation from these and other required
analyses will range greatly and should
be evaluated carefully in the planning
stage before determining which
system should be designed and con-
structed.
Many comments were received ob-
jecting to the requirement for unlimit-
ed access to each individual system at
all times for such purposes as inspec-
tion, monitoring, construction, mainte-
nance, etc. The regulation has been
modified to read "access ... at all rea-
sonable times."
Comments were received Indicating a
fear of costly and restrictive monitor-
ing of groundwater programs. Other
comments recommended Increased
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 188—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
70
-------
monitoring requirements. Still others
concurred with the requirements as
written. EPA has worded the regula-
tions to allow considerable flexibility
in monitoring so that local conditions
can dictate the extent of the require-
ment within limits designed to ensure
that minimum monitoring to protect
the health of the community is re-
quired.
Concern was expressed that best
practicable waste treatment criteria
were not defined. These criteria are
defined in chapter II of "Alternative
Waste Management Techniques for
Best Practicable Waste Treatment,"
EPA-430/9-75-013, MCD-13, under al-
ternatives employing land application
techniques. .
EPA received recommendations that
nonprofit organizations be deemed eli-
gible for grants and for management
of on-site systems. The Act allows
award of grants only to "public
bodies." Nonprofit organizations with
the capability and authority to plan,
design, construct, and operate treat-
ment works for public purposes would
be eligible to function in that capacity
under agreement with the public body.
If the nonprofit organization is consti-
tuted a public body under State law, it
could qualify for consideration for a
grant (e.g., a citizen's association
which is officially constituted as a
sewer district).
One comment asked what is a
"number of individual units," is there
a maximum number of individual
units, and if there is a dollar ceiling
for individual systems. There is no ab-
solute dollar ceiling for individual sys-
tems; the law specifically states a
minimum of "one or more principal
residences or small commercial estab-
lishments." The maximum number of
units would be established through se-
lection of the appropriate alternative
of unconventional technology for indi-
vidual residences or clusters of resi-
dences. Under the definition elsewhere
in the regulation (§35.915-l(e», this
technology would be applied in com-
munities of 3,500 population or less, or
highly dispersed sections of larger
communities.
One comment referred to the state-
ment that all individual systems quali-
fy as alternative systems, yet the cost-
effectiveness guidelines provision for
the 115 percent cost preference for in-
novative and alternative systems does
not apply to individual systems. The
law specifically states privately owned
individual systems must cost less than
the cost of providing a system of col-
lection and central treatment.
Other comments recommended more
coordination between EPA and the
Fanners' Home Administration
(FmHA). Such coordination has al-
ready been initiated; PmHA's final de-
cision on projects is often made pend-
RULES AND REGULATIONS
ing EPA approval of a grant. In addi-
tion, coordination between the two
agencies in areas such as joint applica-
tions, standardization of definitions of
high-cost projects, and other stream-
lining of administrative procedures is
proceeding under the aegis of a White
House working group on rural water
and sewer problems. This coordination
also will be extended to other Federal
agencies through this group.
One comment recommended exten-
sion of grant eligibility to bathroom
fixtures and plumbing utilizing flow
reduction technology. Congressional
intent expressed in the legislative his-
tory is quite clear that commodes or
associated plumbing are not eligible
for grant funding. If eligible, adminis-
trative difficulties and costs would be
very large.
EPA encourages the use of the facili-
ty plan to evaluate every feasible al-
ternative for solution of the water pol-
lution problem whether or not such a
solution involves grant ineligible facili-
ties or methods. Assistance in grants
packaging, construction supervision,
planning and initial training for oper-
ations and maintenance are all gener-
ally grant eligible.
There were several requests to
define terms and concepts more spe-
cifically. This will be done in separate
guidance to be issued at an early date.
Regulatory changes relating to indi-
vidual systems are found in §§ 35.905-
23, 35.917-Kb), 35.917-2(a), 35.918.
35.918-1, 35.918-2, and 35.918-3.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
GUIDELINES AND RESERVE CAPACITY
Background. On February 4. 1977,
EPA published in the FEDERAL REGIS-
TER proposed guidelines to amend and
supplement the Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis Guidelines (Appendix A to 40
CFR, Part 35, Subpart E). That pro-
posed revision was intended to provide
for cost-effective sizes of and suffi-
cient reserve capacity for wastewater
treatment works and, at the same
time, to avoid overdesign. Coverage in-
cluded guidance and alternative proce-
dures for forecasting growth of popu-
lation, for estimating wastewater
flows, for determining cost-effective
construction staging periods, and for
providing extra capacity beyond that
determined to be cost-effective.
Most of the commenters on the pro-
posed revisions, while agreeing in prin-
ciple with the proposal, raised ques-
tions or suggested modifications that
convinced the Agency several changes
were warranted. Also, additional guid-
ance was required to implement sec-
tion 16 (Cost-Effectiveness) and sec-
tion 21 (Reserve Capacity) of the 1977
Clean Water Act. Accordingly, the
EPA revised the Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis Guidelines to incorporate
these changes, and on April 25, 1978.
44031
published them as part of a set of in-
terim regulations to implement the
Clean Water Act. These interim guide-
lines were effective as of June 28.1978.
Commenters on the interim guidelines
suggested revisions that convinced the
Agency to make some additional
changes.
Innovative and alternative technol-
ogies. Section 16 of the 1977 Act en-
courages the use of innovative and al-
ternative wastewater treatment tech-
nologies by extending grant eligibility
to such projects if the life cycle cost
does not exceed that of the most cost-
effective alternative by more than 15
percent. The Agency's interim guide-
lines called for using option 3 of the
following options for calculating the
cost-effectiveness preference:
1. Use the life cycle cost of the
entire proposed waste treatment
system as a base for calculating the
cost difference;
2. Apply the 15 percent increase to
innovative and alternative components
(and other differing portions) as com-
pared with corresponding portions of
the least costly noninnovative alterna-
tive; or
Use, as a base, the entire proposed
waste treatment system where the
system primarily (more than 50 per-
cent of its cost) involves innovative or
alternative technologies. Should inno-
vative or alternative components com-
prise 50 percent or less of the system
cost, the calculation base would be
that for option 2.
Some commenters have expressed a
preference for option 2. The Agency
does not concur because option 2
would be difficult to administer and
would also restrict unnecessarily the
number of projects qualifying for the
15 percent preference. The Agency has
rewritten option 3 to state that all pro-
jects with alternative and innovative
components will qualify for the prefer-
ence, except for those in which alter-
native or innovative unit processes re-
place conventional processes in a
treatment plant and account for less
than 50 percent of the cost. This lan-
guage represents a slight liberalization
of option 3, allowing some additional
projects to qualify for the cost prefer-
ence. This revision also clarifies and
simplifies the old language.
Other commenters noted that collec-
tion systems common to both the con-
ventional option and alternative tech-
nology system should not be included
in the calculation base. The Agency
agrees and has modified the guidelines
accordingly.
Another commenter noted that the
15,percent cost-effectiveness prefer-
ence must be mandatory rather than
permissive. Both the law and these
regulations mandate a 15 percent mon-
etary cost-effectiveness preference lor
all innovative or alternative projects
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43. HO. 188-WEDNESDAY. SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
71
-------
44032
or components thereof that meet the
Agency's criterion for such projects.
However, this does not mean that the
grantee must adopt an option featur-
ing innovative or alternative technol-
ogies wherever their monetary costs
are less than the 15 percent ceiling be-
cause nonmonetary factors must be
taken into account as well.
Discount rate. The Agency consid-
ered raising the discount rate for eval-
uating proposed wastewater treatment
works from that used by the Agency
(currently 6H percent) to 10 percent.
The former rate is used by the Water
Resources Council (WHO to evaluate
the costs and benefits of water re-
sources projects. EPA, as a member
agency, adopted this rate in 1973 when
it published the Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis Guidelines (appendix A of
Construction Grant Regulations), al-
though the construction grants pro-
gram is not covered by the WRC
"principles and standards" for evaluat-
ing water resource projects. The latter
rate (10 percent) is cited in Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) cir-
cular A-94 for use in agency programs
not covered by the WRC "principles
and standards."
The 10-percent rate is believed to ap-
proximate the opportunity cost of cap-
ital. The "Opportunity Cost of Capital
Concept" has the most theoretical eco-
nomic justification for cost-effective-
ness analysis. This concept suggests
the proper discount rate to use for
public investment projects should be
based on the rate of return to private
sector investment (before taxes and
adjusted for inflation). This is because
resources used for public investment
have alternative uses in the produc-
tion of private commodities which so-
ciety foregoes for the sake of the
public investment.
Use of the 10-percent discount rate
would help produce a more economi-
cally efficient distribution of construc-
tion grant funds. The expected result
is that the optimal (cost-effective)
staging period (the number of years
for which the treatment plant is de-
signed to handle a community's
growth in terms of sewerage dis-
charge) will decrease from about 10-20
years to about 9-16 years. These
shorter staging periods will result in
slightly smaller treatment works and
in smaller initial treatment expendi-
tures for each proposed treatment
system. This should permit a some-
what greater number of treatment sys-
tems to be funded.
Despite these considerations, the
Agency has decided against raising the
discount rate to 10 percent. The
higher discount rate would have the
effect of lowering the total present
worth cost of facilities with high oper-
ation and maintenance costs in com-
parison with the total present worth
RULES AND REGULATIONS
cost of capital intensive faculties with
low operation and maintenance costs
such as land treatment and energy re-
covery facilities. This could largely
offset the 15-percent cost-effectiveness
preference given to such measures
under the 1977 Act and these guide-
lines. It would also run counter to the
President's recent decision to retain
the existing discount rate for water re-
sources projects.
Many commenters representing a
wide variety of interests opposed in-
creasing the discount rate (only one
favored such action) primarily because
such actions would tend to disadvan-
tage capital intensive land treatment
and energy recovery alternatives and
would favor operation and mainte-
nance cost intensive options.
The Agency has decided to retain
the WRC discount rate (currently 6%
percent) because this rate is consistent
with the President's water resources
policy and the net programmatic ad-
vantages, if any, of increasing the rate
are not of overriding importance.
Cost escalation. Several commenters
advocated use of a salvage value for
land higher than the prevailing
market price as required in the inter-
im guidelines because of the very high
rate of land value appreciation. The
Agency has analyzed farmland value
appreciation since 1960 and since 1970
and has compared these rates with
cost escalation rates for construction,
energy and labor. The analysis showed
that land values over both the 17-year
and 7-year periods have escalated
roughly 3 percent faster than costs as-
sociated with construction or oper-
ation and maintenance of a treatment
works. On this basis, the final guide-
lines will require, in the calculation of
land salvage value, a land appreciation
rate of 3 percent compounded annual-
ly, unless the grantee justifies a
higher or lower percentage based upon
historical differences between local
land cost escalation and construction
cost escalation. This allowance repre-
sents the estimated difference in rates
between land cost appreciation and
the cost escalation of goods and ser-
vices related to construction.
Several commenters suggested esca-
lation of energy, chemical, and labor
costs in the cost-effectiveness analysis
to account for anticipated high in-
creases in these costs. It should be
noted that the cost effectiveness anal-
ysis procedures call for use of constant
dollars based on prevailing market
prices at the time of the analysis and a
low discount rate which is less than
the inflation-free rate based on the op-
portunity cost of capital concept. This
approach, rather than implying no
future inflation, simply assumes that
the costs of all resources involved in
treatment works construction and op-
eration will increase at about the same
rate on a long-term basis. The results
of the cost-effectiveness analysis
would be distorted, however, if the
prices of certain resource inputs
changed significantly over the plan-
ning period in relation to the prices of
other resources. The Agency has ana-
lyzed historic data on wastewater fa-
cility construction price indexes and
on prices of .various operation and
maintenance components, including
labor, electricity, chemicals, coal, .pe-
troleum distillates, and natural gas.
We also reviewed projections of future
energy use prepared by the Depart-
ment of Energy, Only the historic and
projected Increase in natural gas
prices were found to significantly
exceed (by nearly 4 percent) those for
construction and the average of other
operation and maintenance elements.
Thus, the Agency has revised the
guidelines to require escalation of rela-
tive natural gas prices over the plan-
ning period at a compound rate of 4
percent.annually, unless the grantee
justifies a higher or lower percentage
based upon regional differentials be-
tween historical natural gas price esca-
lation and construction cost escala-
tion.
Reserve capacity. The Clean Water
Act requires the Agency, in determin-
ing the amount of reserve capacity eli-
gible for a grant, to take into account
the projected population presented in
a facility plan. The population must
be based on the latest information
available from the U.S. Department of
Commerce or from the States as EPA
determines appropriate. The interim
guidelines called for population fore-
casts in facility plans to be based upon
disaggregation of State population
totals already developed by the De-
partment of Commerce. Several com-
menters, principally 208 planning
agencies, oppose this approach and
contend that population forecasting 4s
a policy matter that should best be ad-
dressed by local governmental units.
Others, principally environmental
groups and individuals, favor the dis-
aggregation approach as a means of
preventing excessive capacity and re-
sultant secondary impacts.
The Agency believes the disaggrega-
tion approach should be retained be-
cause, to avoid providing excessive re-
serve capacity, forecasts of population
and economic activities for individual
small areas such as facility planning
areas or designated 208 areas should
be reasonably consistent with State
and national projections. This ap-
proach is consonant with the Presi-
dent's urban policy intended to revital-
ize cities and discourage urban sprawl.
The guidelines permit inclusion of
extra capacity in a treatment works at
the expense ef the grantee to accom-
modate local growth policies. The final
guidelines allow reasonable departures
FEDERAL REGISTER. VOL 43, NO. 188-WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
72
-------
from the Department of Commerce
State projections and their disaggrega-
tions to designated 208 areawide plan-
ning areas, where the State or desig-
nated 208 agency has already prepared
projections. The final guidelines
permit use of State projections al-
ready prepared by the State if the
year 2000 State projection does not
exceed that of the Department of
Commerce projection by more than 5
percent. The Administrator may ap-
prove State population projections
that exceed the Department of Com-
merce projections by more than 5 per-
cent if justified by the State. Where a
designated 208 agency has already pre-
pared a population projection for its
area, it may be used if the year 2000
population does not exceed that of the
disaggregation, based on the Depart-
ment of Commerce projection, by
more than 10 percent.
One State suggested allowing a State
prepared population forecast to
exceed the Bureau of Economic Analy-
sis forecast by 10 percent without jus-
tification. The Agency does not concur
because the present 5-percent depar-
ture, is substantial. Also, since the
State may increase its total after the
208 agencies have received their var-
iances up to 10 percent, the total final
State departure from the Bureau of
Economic Analysis projection may al-
ready approach 10 percent or even
more in some cases. Another State
commented that States already having
policies of disaggregating State totals
among counties, even within designat-
ed 208 areas, should be allowed to con-
tinue to do so. The Agency agrees and
has included such a provision in the
final guidelines.
One commenter has suggested that
population projections in 201 and 208
plans should no longer be wedded to
existing zoning ordinances, which may
be exclusionary and forbid immigra-
tion by lower income people. Instead
he suggested that future population
and the resulting reserve capacity for
grant funded projects should rely on
regional population projections and. in
particular, regional allocations of low-
and moderate-income apartment units.
The Agency cannot fully comply with
this suggestion because it believes that
zoning and land-use decisions should
be left primarily with local govern-
mental units, and decisions on cost-ef-
fectiveness should be based on total
and not partial population projections
in an area. However, these regulations
require the local population projec-
tions for 201 plans to fall within ceil-
ings based on disaggregation of State
and regional population totals.
Several commenters advocate a
much more flexible population fore-
casting approach by permitting use of
population projections other than the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. The
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Agency does not concur because use of
various projections would be inequita-
ble and would lead in many instances
to funding excessive reserve capacity
to accommodate growth.
One commenter stated that the pop-
ulation disaggregation approach is too
simplistic for interstate metropolitan
areas where factors influencing popu-
lation change go beyond State bound-
aries. The Agency concedes that such
situations may pose difficult forecast-
ing and disaggregation problems. Nev-
ertheless, the Agency believes the in-
terstate disaggregation problems can
be worked out through consultations
among the concerned States, designat-
ed 208 agencies and other regional
planning agencies.
Some commenters pointed out the
need for public involvement un the
review of the State population disag-
gregations. The Agency agrees that
the public should have an opportunity
to review and comment on the disag-
gregation before Agency review. Ac-
cordingly, the final guidelines now re-
quire the State to hold a public meet-
ing on its disaggregations before sub-
mitting them for Agency review.
The Agency believes that the same
population projections should be used
for both air and water quality plan-
ning. Appendix A now requires, as an
initial step toward implementing this
objective, that States, when disaggre-
gating total State population, consult
with organizations of local officials re-
sponsible for water quality and air
quality planning. In many instances
the organizations certified by Gover-
nors pursuant to section 174(a) of the
Clean Air Act to do air quality plan-
ning are also 208 agencies.
Some commenters have objected to
the per capita flow limitations of 60-80
gallons per capita per day (the second
method of estimating wastewater
flows) as being unrealisticaUy low. The
Agency believes that such dry weather
base flow allowances are adequate for
smaller communities where flow data
are lacking. These allowances exclude
infiltration and inflow. Residential
wastewater flows nationwide average
only 45 gallons per capita per day.
Other commenters favor increasing
future per capita flows over time.
They contend that increasing per
capita flows have been observed
during the past 10 years and that with
increasing affluence this trend will
continue. The Agency agrees that per
capita water usage and wastewater
flows have increased in the past but
believes that this trend is reversing.
This can be attributed to the increase
of personal water conservation habits
encouraged by periodic water short-
ages or higher water supply and sewer-
age costs even in normally water rich
areas. Moreover, plumbing codes.
State laws and ordinances are rapidly
44033
being revised in many areas to require
installation of water-saving fixtures in
new dwellings, hotels, motels, and
other buildings.
Section 21 of the 1977 Act requires
the Agency, in approving the amount
of reserve capacity for a treatment
works, to take into account efforts to
reduce the flow of sewage and unnec-
essary water consumption. The Presi-
dent's water resource policy features
water conservation as its cornerstone
and requires Federal agencies to im-
plement appropriate conservation
measures.
The guidelines require a cost-effec-
tiveness evaluation of flow-reduction
measures such as plastic toilet dams
and low flow showerheads; changes in
laws, ordinances, or plumbing codes re-
quiring installation of water-saving de-
vices in future habitations; and water
pricing changes. The grantee must de-
velop a recommended flow reduction
program featuring a public informa-
tion program plus cost-effective meas-
ures for which the grantee has imple-
mentation authority or can obtain co-
operation from an entity with such au-
thority. Exempted from these require-
ments are those communities with a
population less than 10,000 or with
average daily base flows, excluding in-
filtration/inflow and industrial flows,
for treatment works design of less
than 70 gallons per capita per day or
with ongoing flow reduction programs.
Several commenters have suggested
that small communities should be en-
couraged to conserve water and thus
should not be exempt from the flow
reduction requirements. The Agency
concedes that some water conservation
potential exists for smaller communi-
ties even though such communities
tend to use and waste less water than
the larger, more affluent cities. Never-
theless, the Agency believes that the
limited cost savings obtainable in
small communities from flow reduc-
tion programs may not be commensu-
rate with the administrative burden
imposed. Some commenters have
pointed out that the 70 gallons per
capita per day exemption criterion is
too stringent and have suggested a 100
gallons per capita per day criterion.
The Agency disagrees because the 70
gallons per capita per day figure,
which represents an average dry
weather base flow, is large enough to
exempt most small communities and
water-conserving larger cities. Almost
all communities, including larger
water users, would be exempt if the
suggested 100 gallons per capita per
day criterion were used.
Two commenters objected to the
flow reduction requirements as being
unreasonable for areas with adequate
water supplies. The Agency disagrees.
During the past 20 years, persistent
drought and accompanying water
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. IBS-WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER J7, 1971
73
-------
44034
shortages have plagued many sup-
posedly water-rich areas. Moreover,
the costs of water management, in-
cluding water supply withdrawal and
treatment, distribution, and, finally,
wastewater treatment, are very sub-
stantial even in areas with plentiful
water. Water conservation can mar-
kedly reduce these total water man-
agement costs over the long term.
Three commenters objected to the
construction staging requirements for
treatment plants, particularly noting
that the 10-year period is insufficient
for planning and designing future ex-
pansions in complex metropolitan
areas. The Agency believes that con-
struction of treatment facilities should
be staged, particularly in high growth
areas, to reduce the high construction
and operational costs otherwise attrib-
utable to large amounts of idle reserve
capacity. To achieve this objective, a
staging period as short as 10 years
does not appear unreasonable for
high-growth situations. Another im-
portant related consideration is the
high local cost burden for treatment
facilities, especially for small commu-
nities. Limiting the treatment plant
size to that reasonably necessary to ac-
commodate future growth helps to
reduce this local financial cost burden.
One commenter noted that the tabu-
lated staging periods for small plants
of 1 MOD or less capacity could lead
to designing a treatment plant serving
a high growth rate area for a capacity
less than that for a lower growth rate
area. The Agency agrees with this ob-
servation and has accordingly included
in the final guidelines a 15-year stag-
ing period for the small plants to pre-
clude this transition problem.
Several commenters objected to the
required 20-year staging period for
interceptors which can be increased
only if justified and in compliance
with approved water quality manage-
ment or other environmental plans.
They suggest that sizing a pipe for 40
to 50 years will cost less in the long •
run and will often decrease primary
environmental impacts. The Agency
has found that total present worth
costs of sizing a pipe for 20 years and
adding another pipe 20 years hence
are about the same as providing 40
years of pipe capacity initially. The
difference in primary environmental
impacts will vary. The primary reason
for limiting interceptor sizes to 20
years would be to limit the induced
growth and resultant secondary envi-
ronmental impacts related to larger
pipes.
Interceptor planning. Two com-
menters have suggested changing the
guidelines to permit extension of
interceptors into undeveloped areas
(but not environmentally sensitive
areas) where consistent with growth
management plans. This change would
RULES AND REGULATIONS
be intended to encourage growth in
suitable areas. While this suggestion
has some merit, the Agency believes
the provisions discouraging intercep-
tor extensions into undeveloped areas
should remain unchanged because:
(1) Federal funding of interceptor
extensions into undeveloped areas
could induce very rapid growth with
resultant adverse secondary environ-
mental impacts,
(2) Sewering could be encouraged in
cases where other approaches might
be more cost-effective, and
(3) The Federal subsidization of new
development would mean deferring
Federal assistance for correcting exist-
ing water pollution problems else-
where.
Useful life of a treatment works. The
former guidelines included unneces-
sary and confusing distinctions be-
tween the definitions of "service life"
and "useful life" for treatment works.
The new guidelines drop the former
service life definitions and amend the
useful life definition. This is now
simply the estimated period of time
during which a treatment works or a
component of a waste treatment man-
agement system will be operated.
Other regulation revisions have been
made so that the rest of the regulation
is consistent with this change.
These regulatory changes are made
in appendix A to subpart E.
GRANT ELIGIBLE CATEGORIES
On June 21, 1977, the Agency issued
Program Requirements Memorandum
(PRM) 77-8 concerning the review of
pending new collector sewer projects.
The policy defined in more detail and
required rigorous implementation of
then existing Agency guidance on eli-
gibility and cost-effectiveness of collec-
tor sewer projects. It was intended to
insure that the limited construction
grant funds available are obligated for
collector projects only when needed to
correct a problem of public health or
ground or surface water pollution.'
Specifically, that policy restricted
grant eligibility of collector sewers to
those areas with population densities
of at least 1.7 persons per acre (one
household for every 2 acres) on Octo-
ber 18, 1972. Population density of
those areas was to be evaluated on a
block-by-block basis or, where typical
city blocks do not exist, by areas of 5
acres or less.
Section 36 of the 1977 Act amends
section 211 of FWPCA to preclude use
of the population density criterion in
PRM 77-8 as a test of grant eligibility
for collector sewer projects but per-
mits use of the criterion for evaluating
alternatives. The Agency revised the
policy of PRM 77-8 accordingly and on
March 3, 1978. issued new PRM 78-9
which supersedes PRM 77-8. PRM 78-
9 was published in the FEDERAL REGIS-
TER on April 7, 1978 (43 FR 14722).
The new PRM retains the one house-
hold per 2-acre criterion only for iden-
tifying less closely populated areas
where individual or other small
wastewater treatment systems are
likely to be more cost-effective than
collector sewers and thus must be eval-
uated in detail if collector sewers are
proposed for such areas. The Agency
believes that use of the population
density criterion in this manner will
assist with and simplify the cost-effec-
tiveness analysis for collector sewer
projects.
These final regulations require, as a
basis for eligibility, new collector
sewer projects serve a community In
existence on October 18, 1978, and
define a community as including any
area with substantial'human habita-
tion on October 18, 1972. Also re-
quired, consistent with PRM 78-9, is a
block-by-block evaluation to identify
areas with substantial human habita-
tion on October 18, 1972. The pro-
posed collection system must be cost-
effective and the population density of
the area to be served must be consid-
ered in determining the cost-effective-
ness of the project. In addition, the
proposed collection system must con-
form with approved 208 plans, applica-
ble environmental laws, executive
orders on wetlands and flood plains,
and Agency policy on wetlands and
prime agricultural lands.
Two commenters questioned use of a
block-by-block evaluation to identify
human habitations existing as of Octo-
ber 1972 as a test of grant eligibility
and suggested that the existence of a
community at that time is sufficient to
pass the eligibility test. The Agency
disagrees because Congress clearly In-
tended to prohibit grant funding of
collector sewers to serve new'develop-
ments. The block-by-block evaluation
is necessary for identifying new devel-
opments, principally in community
fringe areas, that should not receive
Federal grant assistance for collector
sewers. One commenter suggested ad-
dition of a provision requiring use of
grant conditions such as restrictions of
sewer hookups where necessary to pro-
tect environmentally sensitive areas
and prime agricultural lands from new
development. The Agency, noting that
this suggestion conforms with existing
Agency guidance, has added the sug-
gested provision to the final regula-
tions.
Section 38 of the 1977 Act further
amended section 211 of the FWPCA to
prohibit the use of authorized con-
struction grant funds for control of
pollutants from separate storm sewers.
Regulatory provisions relating to
grant eligible categories are in
J§ 35.905-23, 35.925-13, and 35.925-21.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 188-WEDNESOAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
74
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
44035
LAND ELIGIBILITY
Section 37 of the 1977 Act amends
the definition of "treatment works"
under section 212(2)(A) of the FWPCA
to include as eligible, under site acqui-
sition of land that will be an integral
part of the treatment process, the land
used for the storage of treated
wastewater in land treatment systems
prior to land application. EPA has in-
terpreted this provision to permit ac-
quisition of land for composting sludge
since such composting can be part of a
treatment process. In order to imple-
ment this amendment, $ 35.905-23 has
been revised to include in the defini-
tion of "treatment works," the land
used for composting of sludge and for
the temporary storage of treated
wastewater in land treatment systems.
Section 35.940-3 has also been revised
to include, among costs allowable if
approved by the Regional Administra-
tor, the land used for composting of
sludges and for the temporary storage
of treated wastewater in land treat-
ment systems prior to land applica-
tion.
Construction grants regulations pro-
mulgated on February 23, 1973, and
February 11, 1974, are applicable to
construction grants awarded between
October 18, 1972, and December 27,
1977. The revised definition of treat-
ment works made pursuant to the 1977
Act is applicable to all projects for
which Agency approval of step 1 facili-
ty plans had not been given before De-
cember 27,1977.
The Agency received comments sup-
porting and opposing the eligibility of
land for composting of sludge. The
final regulations retain the eligibility
because, by encouraging composting, it
furthers the clear congressional intent
to promote beneficial use of sludges on
the land. Composting of sludge and
storage of treated effluent are both
critical stages immediately prior to
land application. Land eligibility pro-
vides a very similar incentive for com-
parable situations.
Changes to the regulations imple-
menting this amendment are made in
§§ 35.905-23 and 35.940-3.
RECREATIONAL USE
Section 201(g)(6) requires that no
wastewater treatment facilities grants
be made after September 30, 1978,
unless the grant applicant has satis-
factorily demonstrated to the Admin-
istrator that potential recreation and
open space opportunities have been
analyzed in the planning of the pro-
posed treatment works. This provision
provides an opportunity for cbmmuni-
ties to obtain important recreational
and open space benefits at relatively
little extra cost.
Commenters generally addressed
two questions. Should the analysis be
required for all projects for which
grants are made after September 30,
1978, or only for projects for which fa-
cility planning begins after that date?
Should construction grants funds
under steps 2 and 3 be used to design
and build recreational facilities? Envi-
ronmental, parks, and recreation
groups argued that the analysis
should be required of new and ongoing
projects and that some funding for
recreational use facilities should be
available under steps 2 and 3. Other
commenters argued to the contrary.
Some pointed out that not all projects
lend themselves to meaningful analy-
ses of recreational use opportunities.
Others indicated that recreational use
considerations are beyond the scope of
the water quality objectives of the
program.
One overriding intention of Con-
gress, often expressed in the legisla-
tive history of the 1977 Act, was that
new planning requirements not delay
ongoing projects needed to meet water
quality objectives. Consequently, the
recreational use analysis will be re-
quired only of new facility plans initi-
ated after September 30, 1978. None-
theless, EPA encourages planning for
recreational and open space opportu-
nities associated with treatment
works. Grantees with ongoing projects
are free to request grant amendments
for extra money to carry out such rec-
reational planning. EPA will look fa-
vorably upon such requests if they do
not delay projects or raise costs signifi-
cantly.
Section 201(g)(6) requires an analy-
sis of potential recreation and open
space opportunities in the planning of
wastewater treatment facilities. It
does not require nor authorize the
funding of the design or construction
of such recreational facilities. Such
costs are not grant eligible under steps
2 and 3. EPA has already taken meas-
ures to prepare program guidance in
coordination with the Heritage Con-
servation and Recreation Service and
in consultation with park associations
to implement this provision. We
intend to aid grantees as much as pos-
sible to avail themselves of funding for
recreation and open space design and
construction from other sources.
The Heritage Conservation and Rec-
reation Service recommended that the
required analysis specifically mention
access to water inasmuch as that is
viewed as the key to deriving recre-
ational benefits in this context. The
final regulation reflects this recom-
mendation.
The question 'of how recreational
use and other nonwater quality consid-
erations will be considered in cost- ef-
fectiveness guidelines will be dealt
with in program guidance. In general,
such factors come into play when
choosing between two otherwise close-
ly matched alternatives.
It was also suggested that the pro-
posed portion of the facility plan de-
scribing measures taken to inform the
public of potential recreation and
open space opportunities be deleted
and that this topic be included in the
general public participation require-
ments. The Agency agrees with this
approach and the extra requirement
has been dropped.
Pertinent regulatory changes have
been made in § 35.917-Kj).
COMBINED GRANTS (STEP 2+3)
Under new provisions added to sec-
tion 203(a) of the FWPCA by section
18 of the 1977 Act, a single grant may
be awarded for the combined Federal
share of the cost of step 2 (prepara-
tion of plans and specifications) and
step 3 (actual construction) for com-
munities of 25,000 or less population if
the total estimated step 3 cost of the
treatment works is $2 million or less—
$3 million in States with unusually
high construction costs. At the present
time, Alaska, California, Hawaii, Illi-
nois, Minnesota, and New York are
designated as having high construc-
tion costs. Based upon needs survey
standard cost curves, costs in these
States were determined to be more
than one standard deviation from the
norm.
EPA awarded step 2+3 grants in the
past, but in 1974 the General Account-
ing Office ruled that they were not al-
lowed under the existing statute. In al-
lowing this new procedure. Congress
intends to accelerate the grant proc-
ess. By providing limited relief from
the step 1-2-3 process to small commu-
nities, the paperwork and attendant
delays incurred by separate grant ap-
plications will be minimized. Ultimate-
ly, the completion time and costs for
these projects should be greatly re-
duced. It is necessary, however, to bal-
ance the intent to streamline these
smaller projects with the minimum
control necessary to assure that an ac-
ceptable pollution abatement facility
is built. Plans and specification ap-
proval prior to advertising for bids on
step 3 construction is necessary for
this purpose.
Formal comments on the step 2 + 3
construction grants regulations were
received from a number of organiza-
tions.
One comment suggested that since
•existing State project priority lists
were developed without the knowledge
that step 2+3 grants were possible,
that portion of the regulation requir-
ing a step 2+3 project to appear on
the approved priority list should be
delayed to take effect for the priority
list for fiscal year 1979 (FY 1979). The
Agency made this provision effective
upon publication of these regulations
as interim final to allow States the op-
portunity to amend their FY 1978 pri-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 188—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
75
-------
44036
ority lists if they chose. The provision
is intended to require that step 2 + 3
projects appear on the priority list be-
ginning with PY 1979.
Another comment suggested that
the regulations use service area popu-
lation rather than the population of
the applicant municipality as the cri-
terion for determining eligibility for a
step 2+3 grant. The concern was that
a regional authority or grantee serving
more than one municipality may
exceed the 25,000 population criterion
though the service area population
was less than 25,000. The regulations
as written use the term, "applicant
municipality," as stated in the statute.
Congress provided the opportunity for
step 2+3 grants to applicants with lim-
ited administrative capability. The
population within the jurisdiction of
the applicant municipality is thought
to be a better indicator of an appli-
cant's likely administrative capability
than the service area population,
which could be more or less than that
which is within the applicant's juris-
diction.
Another comment concerned the
Agency's criterion for determining
areas of high construction cost. The
standard deviation was selected as a
commonly used and appropriate statis-
tical device. As mentioned above,
based upon needs survey standard cost
curves, six States were determined to
be more than one standard deviation
from the norm. (Alaska and Hawaii
were two States mentioned by the con-
gressional conferees as having high
construction costs.)
A comment from a State agency sug-
gested that the regulations should re-
quire a comparison of the cost esti-
mates after step 2 design with those
presented in the facility plan. The ob-
jective of such comparison would be
the elimination of "gold-plating"
which escalates project costs above
those presented in the facility plan.
Since plans and specifications must be
reviewed for conformity with the fa-
cility plan and approved prior to com-
mencement of step 3 work, the neces-
sary authority and checkpoint already
exist. No modification of the step 2+3
regulation was necessary.
The last portion of § 35.909(a), stat-
ing that an existing step 2 grant could
be amended to change it to a step 2+3
grant, has been deleted and paragraph
(b)(3) of that section has been amend-
ed. It was included in the interim regu-
lations to supersede Program Require-
ments Memorandum (PRM) 78-7,
which was to be effective prior to pro-
mulgation of these final regulations
and prohibited amendment of existing
step 2 grants for purposes of convert-
ing to a step 2+3 grant. Since that
PRM is no longer effective, specific
reference to allowing such amendment
RULES AND REGULATIONS
is no longer necessary in the regula-
tion.
Regulatory changes on combined
grants are found in §§ 35.903(b),
35.909, 35.920-3(d), and 35.930-l(a)(4).
§§35.930-lfa)(5), 35.935-4, and 35.935-
9 were deleted.
PRETREATMENT
Regulations implementing a compre-
hensive pretreatment program were
promulgated as 40 CFR Part 403 on
June 26, 1978 (43 CFR 27736). These
regulations relate the construction
grants program to the pretreatment
program. They are intended to (1) es-
tablish pretreatment program develop-
ment as a grant eligible item, (2) allow
funding to be accomplished by amend-
ment of a step 1, 2, or 3 grant which-
ever is most appropriate to the circum-
stances, (3) insure uniform develop-
ment of the pretreatment program by
requiring that certain elements be
completed before the award of a step 2
grant, and other elements tc be com-'
pleted prior to award of a step 3 grant,
(4) withhold grant payment at the 90
percent point in step 3 if the pretreat-
ment program is not approved by that
time, and (5) provide for time phasing
that insures attainment of environ-
mental benefits of the pretreatment
program without severe disruption to
the construction grants prqgram.
Many municipalities have already
developed or are in the process of de-
veloping pretreatment programs
either on their own initiative or in re-
sponse to national pollutant discharge
elimination system permit require-
ments. We do not intend that such
work be duplicated. To the extent that
previous work meets the requirements
of an approvable pretreatment pro-
gram under part 403, it is to be incor-
porated in the program development
under these construction grants regu-
lations. To the degree that additional
work must be done to complete the re-
quirements of an approvable program,
it may be grant eligible. Work done
prior to the effective date of the final
regulations is not grant eligible.
We received a number of formal
comments on the proposed construc-
tion grants pretreatment regulations.
The comments fall into the basic areas
discussed below.
A number of commenters expressed
concern that §35.907(e) of the pro-
posed regulations would not allow as
eligible costs studies to determine pol-
lutant removals and tolerance of mu-
nicipal treatment works. We modified
these regulations to clarify the fund-
ing eligibility of these studies. Cur-
rently such studies are grant eligible
when performed for the purpose of
properly designing the municipal
treatment works and will continue to
be grant eligible for such "purposes.
However, when these studies are per-
formed solely for the purpose of the
municipalities seeking allowances for
removal of pollutants under part 403
of this chapter, they are not grant eli-
gible.
Other comments requested clarifica-
tion of the construction grants pre-
treatment strategy and indicated the
need for a clearer statement. The gen-
eral pretreatment regulations pub-
lished under part 403 of this chapter
on June 26, 1978, contain a compre-
hensive statement of the Agency's
overall pretreatment strategy. The
construction grants component is sum-
marized as follows. Section 35.907 of
these regulations provides that an ex-
isting or pending step 1, 2, or 3 grant
may be modified to provide for devel-
opment of a municipal pretreatment
program where such a program has
not been provided for in a water qual-
ity management plan under section
208 of the Act. The purpose of amend-
ing an existing or pending grant is (1)
to recognize that a large proportion of
the total number of step 1 grants ex-
pected to be made in this program
have already been awarded, and (2) to
insure development of an approvable
pretreatment program at the earliest
possible date. Municipalities that have
not yet entered the grant process will
be required to develop a pretreatment
program as part of the scope of their
step 1 grants.
In order to prevent disruption or
delay in the movement of a project
from step 1 to step 2, or from step 2 to
step 3 because of pretreatment re-
quirements, these regulations allow
submission of the scope of work under
the original or unamended grant upon
its completion independent of the
status of the work to be completed
under the pretreatment grant amend-
ment. To illustrate, if an active step 1
grant at the 90 percent completion
point was modified in December 1978,
to provide for development of a pre-
treatment program, the grantee may
upon completion of the final 10 per-
cent of the original scope of work,
submit that work together with a step
2 application and the step 2 could be
awarded at any time prior to June 30,
1980, without any of the elements of
the pretreatment work being submit-
ted. In order for the step 2 grant to be
awarded after June 30, 1980, however,
the grantee must have completed and
submitted the elements of the pre-
treatment program specified in
§35.920-3(b)(9). The situation would
be similar in going from step 2 to step
3 except that in order to receive a step
3 grant after December 31, 1980, all re-
quired elements of the pretreatment
program must have been submitted.
The process described above provides
phase-in for development of pretreat-
ment program requirements in the
construction grants program since por-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 188—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
76
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
44037
ttons of the pretreatment program
must be developed during each step of
the grant process to be able to meet
application requirements for the sub-
sequent step grant. It also serves to
insure continuous development of a
pretreatment program.
Section 35.935-19 requires that step
3 grant payments be withheld at the
90 percent point unless the pretreat-
ment program is approved. This provi-
sion is intended to ensure that the
grantee complies with the terms of the
grant agreement.
One commerrter objected to the re-
quired use of the user charge system
in implementing an approved pretreat-
ment program. The regulations do not
require use of the user charge system
if the grantee chooses to provide other
funds sufficient to implement the pre-
treatment program.
One commenter disagreed with the
position expressed in the preamble to
the proposed regulations that work
done on pretreatment program devel-
opment prior to the effective date of
these final regulations shall not be
grant eligible or reimbursable. A state-
ment of ineligibility is found on page
VJI-6 of the EPA Handbook of Proce-
dures which states that costs normally
associated with functions of Govern-
ment are not grant eligible. The devel-
opment of regulations or ordinances
are specifically cited as such unallowa-
ble costs. In addition, the proposed
pretreatment regulations published in
the FEDERAL REGISTER on February 2,
1977, stated that grant funding of the
development of municipal pretreat-
ment programs was a new provision of
those proposed regulations. Those
written statements of eligibility reflect
the Agency policy with respect to
funding eligibility for work done prior
to these regulations becoming final.
Comments were received requesting
that costs of sampling and analysis -as-
sociated with the industrial survey re-
quired under §35.907
-------
44038
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. The definition of industrial user
in §35.905 should be changed to ex-
clude residential users or all discharg-
ers of sanitary wastes. Preferably, the
regulations should use the definition
in effect in the construction grant reg-
ulations published in 1974.
In the interim regulations, we de-
fined industrial user in part to include
all users with discharges into publicly-
owned treatment works of more than
25,000 gallons per day of sanitary
waste or its equivalent in process
waste or combined sanitary and proc-
ess waste. This interpretation of the
25,000 gallons per day exemption em-
phasized the volume and character of
waste rather than the type of user. We
recognize that Congress intended for
the 25,000 gallons per day exemption
to reduce administrative burdens on
grantees. The definition in the interim
regulations would have involved less
adminstrative efforts than that re-
quired under the prior definition.
However, it required more administra-
tion than if the prior definition were
used with the addition of the 25.000
gallons per day exemption. Also, it
would have made some large commer-
cial and residential users subject to
ICR for the first time.
We have decided not to adopt the in-
dustrial user definition published in
the interim regulations. Instead, we
will use the prior definition with cer-
tain modifications. Industrial users are
nongovernmental, nonresidential users
of publicly-owned treatment works
that are identified in Standard Indus-
trial Classification Divisions A, B, D,
E, and I, and that discharge more than
the equivalent of 25,000 gallons per
day of sanitary waste. We have added
an. explanation of wastes equivalent to
sanitary waste. A user's domestic
wastes or discharges from sanitary
conveniences may be excluded before
applying the 25,000 gallons per day ex-
emption. For example, a user that dis-
charges 6,000 gallons of process waste
and 20,000 gallons of sanitary waste
would not be subject to industrial cost
recovery if the grantee elects to allow
sanitary wastes to be excluded and the
6,000 gallons of process waste was less
than the equivalent of 25,000 gallons
of domestic waste.
The term "nongovernmental" as
used in the definition of industrial
user is to be interpreted consistently
with the discussion of publicly-owned
facilities in §35.92P-l(b)(4)(ili) regard-
ing approval of user charge systems.
An exception Is that publicly-owned
faculties which discharge nonsanitary
waste, such as hospitals, would be sub-
ject to user charges but not to ICR.
Industrial cost recovery was designed
to collect funds from the private
sector. It would therefore be inconsist-
ent to require a publicly-owned facility
used for public purposes to pay money
back to the public treasury. Assess-
ment of user charges for large govern-
mental users with other than sanitary
wastes, however, will create a strong
incentive to conserve water and reduce
waste water flows, thereby reducing
treatment and sludge handling costs.
This definition will keep the admin-
istrative burden on grantees at a mini-
mum. It does not expand the applica-
bility of ICR payments. It interprets
the statute strictly and essentially
makes minimal changes in the ICR
program until the end of the 18 month
moratorium on collection of ICR pay-
ments. By that time, the congression-
ally mandated study of ICR will be
complete. The report will address the
various options considered by EPA for
the industrial user definitions. The
Agency will publish as a notice docu-
ment in the FEDERAL REGISTER the in-
terim recommendations of the report
and receive comments before the
report is made final and presented to
Congress. With the report providing
substantive information on ICR sys-
tems. Congress can determine whether
changes are needed and what they
should be.
Two other parts of the industrial
user definition in the Interim regula-
tions are now promulgated substan-
tially as they were previously pub-
lished. Industrial users include nongo-
vernmental users that discharge toxic
or other pollutants that contaminate
sludge, interfere with treatment proc-
esses, or create a hazard to people or
animals. We added a reference to the
contamination of sludge in this part of
the definition. Industrial users also in-
clude all commercial users of individu-
al systems built with grants under sec-
tion 201(h) of the Act.
2. Grantees having awarded step 3
grants as of April 25, 1978, but not an
approved ICR system, should be al-
lowed to develop an ICR system using
either the old or new definition of in-
dustrial user.
Several comments expressed the
concern that it would be unfair and
burdensome to require grantees who
already were developing an ICR
system under a step 3 grant prior to
April 25, 1978, to follow the new defi-
nition of industrial users published in
the interim regulations on April 25.
Accordingly. §35.928(b) has been re-
vised to allow grantees awarded step 3
grants under regulations promulgated
on February 11, 1974, the option to
use either the old or new definition of
industrial user in developing their ICR
system. If the grantee chooses to use
the 25.000 gallons per day exemption
then it must incorporate all aspects of
the new definition of Industrial user
into the ICR system.
3. The grantee must submit rates to
the Regional Administrator in order to
obtain approval on an ICR system as
specified in §35.935-15 (b) and (c).
These rates cannot be developed until
construction is completed, yet under
the interim regulations they are re-
quired prior to step 3 grant award.
The concern has been raised that
grantees would have to develop a spec-
ulative rate schedule In order to gain
approval for step 3 grants but would
then have to develop a more accurate
rate schedule when construction Is
completed and the facilities are placed
in operation. EPA has answered this
concern by revising the regulation so
that grant approval is not contingent
upon ICR rate approval.
4. A grantee must calculate ICR on
an industry-by-lndustry basis even If it
will Implement a systemwide ICR pro-
gram. The question was raised wheth-
er EPA requires a grantee that collects
ICR funds systemwide to calculate the
revenue which would be received on>
an industry-by-industry basis for each
project within that system.
EPA does not intend for this to be
done. EPA wants to insure that the
total moneys collected from a system-
wide ICR program would neither
exceed nor fall short of the funds that
would be collected on a project-by-
project basis. This does not necessitate
an industry-by-industry calculation,
nor does EPA require that the rate
structure be calculated on a project-
by-project basis when a systemwide
ICR program is used. We revised
§35.928-l(g) to clarify this misunder-
standing.
5. The wording in §35.928-1(1) con-
cerning inconsistent agreements places
the grantee in an untenable legal posi-
tion because the grantee would renege
on existing contracts.
See comment 3 under the user
charge system discussion in this pre-
amble.
6. The requirements concerning the
use of ICR payments unnecessarily de-
prive the grantees of flexibility in the
use of these payments.
Several comments suggested that
the incremental cost of administration
should be paid first from ICR rev-
enues before distribution of the re-
maining funds. EPA has accepted a
modified version of this suggestion by
revising §35.928-2(a)(2) to allow gran-
tees to use funds from their 50 percent
retained share for the incremental
cost of ICR administration before fur-
ther dividing their 50 percent share to
be useti for the other purposes speci-
fied in the regulation.
7. The requirement that step 1 costs
be recovered through ICR is new and
unwarranted.
A few commenters urged us to delete
the requirement in §35.928-l(a) that
industrial users pay their share of the
step 1 grant over the recovery period.
This requirement is not new and rep-
resents no change in policy. This
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 1M—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 197(
78
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
44039
policy is set forth in Federal guide-
lines, industrial cost recovery systems
(MCD-45). Therefore, EPA disagrees
with this comment and will not alter
the requirement.
Regulatory sections affected by the
£CR amendments are §§35.905-6,
35.905-8, 35.928, 35.928-1, 35.9:*-2.
35.928-3, 35.928-4, and 35.935-15.
USER CHABGES
Section 22 of the 1977 Act amended
the user charge requirements in sec-
tion 204(b) of the FWPCA. This
amendment permits grantees to use
dedicated ad valorem tax systems for
the collection of operation and main-
tenance costs if a portion of the gran-
tee1* ad valorem taxes was dedicated
for such use on December 27, 1977,
and if the grantee's system results in
the distribution of operation and
maintenance costs proportionally
among user classes. Where an ad va-
lorem tax system is used to collect
user charges, users other than residen-
tial and small nonresidential users
must pay charges based upon actual
use.
To implement this amendment we
have made the following changes to
the regulations promulgated on Febru-
ary 11, 1974:
The definition of user charge In
§ 35.905 has been revised to include as
a user charge that portion of the ad
valorem taxes paid by a user for his
share of the cost of operation and
maintenance.
A new series of sections have been
added in §35.929 which describe the
requirements for acceptable user
charge systems, whether based on
actual use or ad valorem taxes. (Simi-
lar requirements in the previous regu-
lations were found in §35.935-13.)
There are no substantial changes to
the requirements for user charge sys-
tems based on actual use.
The requirements for a user charge
system based on ad valorem taxes in-
clude five criteria for evaluating an ad
valorem tax system to determine If it
meets the statutory requirements of
being "dedicated" on December 27.
1977.
The regulations require, to accord-
ance with the statute, that operation
and maintenance costs be distributed
proportionally among the classes of
users, even though ad valorem taxes
may foe used to collect the charge
within the residential user and small
nonresidential user class. Each
member of the industrial and large
commercial user class must pay its
share of the costs of operation and
maintenance based on actual use, but
ad valorem taxes may be used to col-
lect all or part of these user charges
based on actual use.
In accordance with the statute, the
regulations require that each user be
notified at least annually of the por-
tion of the ad valorem taxes attributa-
ble to wastewater treatment services.
The regulations apply this same re-
quirement to user charge systems
based on actual use. A grantee which
has obtained approval of a user charge
system based on actual use may not
now substitute a system based on ad
valorem taxes.
The grant condition requiring grant-
ee development of a user charge
system, a schedule for compliance
with the condition, and sanctions for
noncompliance continue to be found
in § 35.935-13. This section provides
that grants awarded under the previ-
ously promulgated regulations will
continue to be administered under
those regulations unless the grantee
proceeds to develop a user charge
system based on ad valorem taxes
under the new law and these regula-
tions. If the grantee does wish to do
so, it must demonstrate by July 24,
1976, that its ad valorem tax system
was dedicated on December 27,1977. If
it was, any payments being held under
the old regulations will be released (in
accordance with the legislative history
of this provision), but it must com-
plete the user charge system and
submit it to the Regional Administra-
tor in time for approval before July 1,
1979. Failure to comply with this re-
quirement will result in cessation of
all payments under the grant, possible
termination or annulment of the
grant, and no new grant awards.
For grants awarded after the effec-
tive date of these regulations, grantees
must obtain approval of their user
charge systems (whether based on
actual use or ad valorem taxes) by
June 30. 1979, or similar sanctions will
apply. After that date, no step 3 grant
will be awarded unless the grantee's
user charge system has been approved.
The important comments received
on the interim regulations and the
EPA response are summarized below:
1. The requirement for an annual
review of the operation and mainte-
nance charges of a user charge system
is too burdensome on the grantee.
EPA agrees with the comments that
such a requirement may prove finan-
cially, administratively and politically
burdensome on grantees. Therefore,
we have revised § 35.929-2 to require a
biennial review, although we would
prefer a more frequent review if possi-
ble.
2. The notification requirement of
$35.929-2
-------
44040
RULES AND REGULATIONS
able from private schools, which are
funded privately, or other public fa-
cilities, such as hospitals, which re-
ceive part of their income from private
users or discharge other than solely
domestic wastes. In order to minimize
administration of accounting for the
user charges due from publicly owned
facilities performing local governmen-
tal functions, the regulations do not
require the grantee to bill itself for
user charges.
6. Clarify the submissions required
and dates to obtain approval of dedi-
cated ad valorem systems as user
charge systems.
All ad valorem systems must have
been dedicated on December 27, 1977,
in order to be approved. To be consid-
ered dedicated, the systems must
comply with the criteria in §35.929-
l(b). Grantees fall into three catego-
ries. Those with step 3 grants awarded
after February 10, 1974, and before
April 25, 1978, must have submitted
evidence of compliance with the first
three criteria in §35.929-l(b) by July
24, 1978. Subsequently they must meet
the remainder of the criteria to obtain
approval. The July 24, 1978, deadline
only constrains grantees in this cate-
gory. Grantees with step 3 grants
awarded after April 24, 1978, and
before July 1, 1979, must submit evi-
dence of compliance with all of the cri-
teria In § 35.929-Kb) in time to obtain
approval before July 1, 1979. Grantees
with step 3 grants awarded after June
30, 1979, must submit evidence of com-
pliance with all of the criteria in
§ 35.929-Kb) in order to obtain approv-
al before award of the step 3 grant.
7. The requirements to show that an
ad valorem system Is dedicated are re-
dundant and overly complex.
EPA disagrees with this comment.
These criteria are distinct and are the
minimum needed to demonstrate that
an ad valorem system is dedicated. No
commenter has put forth recommen-
dations on how these criteria could be
stated more clearly.
Regulatory sections affected by the
user charge amendments are §§ 35.905-
26, 35.929. 35.929-1, 35.929-2, 35.929-3,
and 35.935-13.
REQUIREMENTS FOR AMERICAN
MATERIALS (Buv AMERICAN)
Section 39 of the 1977 Act amended
the FWPCA by adding a new section
215 which provides that no grant (in-
terpreted to mean step 3 grant) for
which application is received by the
Regional Administrator after Febru-
ary 1, 1978, shall be made unless pref-
erence is given to the use of domestic
construction materials in the construc-
tion of the wastewater treatment
works.
A new paragraph (d) is being added
to §35.936-13 (specifications) which
requires that bidding documents and
construction contracts for affected
projects include a Buy America provi-
sion which requires use of domestic
construction material in preference to
foreign construction material. (Defini-
tions of these terms are provided.) The
regulations also establish those cir-
cumstances under which the Agency
may waive the provision. Domestic
construction material may be given
preference if the domestic material is
priced no more than 6 percent higher
than the bid or offered price of for-
eign materials. In determining wheth-
er to waive the Buy American provi-
sion, the Regional Administrator will
generally use the "protest" procedures
of § 35.939.
Appendix C-2 to subpart E is also
amended by adding a new clause
which implements the Buy American
provision in construction contracts.
Comments received on the Buy
American provision indicate that the
final regulations for this requirement
should be the same as the interim reg-
ulations published on April 25, 1978.
These regulations follow the regula-
tions of the Buy American Act of 1933
which EPA was instructed by the Con-
gress to observe where applicable.
They have the advantage of being rel-
atively simple.' Some commenters
wished for additional guidance on the
application of this provision. Appropri-
ate procedures of other Federal agen-
cies will serve to fulfill this need until
initial experience provides the basis
for specific EPA guidance. Some com-
menters suggested that a separate pro-
test procedure for those adversely af-
fected should be adopted; however,
the designated protest procedures will
resolve Buy American and other issues
more expeditiously than other reme-
dies or procedures that are available.
Some commenters suggested Inclusion
of additional preference requirements
which are contained in the Buy Ameri-
can provisions of some direct procure-
ment agencies. However, most such
provisions have a statutory basis other
than the Buy American Act of 1933.
Since EPA's statutory authority is lim-
ited to Buy American, inclusion of
these provisions would not be appro-
priate, especially since the EPA pro-
gram is a grant rather than direct pro-
curement program. Regulatory
changes on Buy American use are
made in §§35.936-13, 35-938-9, 35-
939(j) and appendix C-2, clause 17.
LOCAL ASSISTANCE
The 1977 Act authorizes EPA to pro-
vide technical and legal assistance to
grantees in the enforcement and ad-
ministration of grantees' contracts re-
lated to EPA-funded wastewater treat-
ment works.
Several commenters suggested that
EPA could intervene in civil actions in-
volving a grantee's contracts only
when requested by the grantee. We
have revised the regulatory language
in § 35.970 to track more closely the
statutory language of section 203(e) so
that both assistance and intervention
under this section occur only at the
grantee's request. While this may be
true for most civil actions which arise
involving contracts in connection with
federally assisted treatment works,
EPA has existing authority through
the U.S. Department of Justice to in-
tervene on behalf of the Federal Gov-
ernment in civil actions when a Feder-
al question arises. In revising the lan-
guage we have also deleted from the
regulation reference to the require-
ment for the Office of General Coun-
sel's concurrence in EPA's interven-
tion in civil actions since this involves
internal EPA procedures and would
occur in the normal course of events.
Two States suggested that the provi-
sion of legal assistance as well as tech-
nical assistance should be delegable to
States under State management assist-
ance grants. To the extent such assist-
ance is for the administration of con-
tractual matters, this is correct and
the regulation has been revised to re-
flect this change. However, in accord-
ance with section 205(g) of the Act,
State management assistance grants
are limited to administrative functions
and do not extend to areas of contract
enforcement or intervention in civil
actions involving such contracts. Fur-
ther, while States may be empowered
to provide legal assistance to munici-
palities, to the extent that such assist-
ance would involve representation in
the Federal Court, only the U.S. De-
partment of Justice is authorized to
represent the Federal interests in such
proceedings.
Questions were raised regarding the
provision of assistance under this au-
thority to grantees with projects
funded prior to the implementation of
this provision. The statute and legisla-
tive history of the provision do not set
time limits on it. Accordingly, such as-
sistance will be provided whenever
considered appropriate to accomplish
the intent of the Act without regard
to the date of grant award.
The suggestion was made that funds
spent as a result of this authority
should be deducted from the construc-
tion grants allotments of the State in
which the grantee is located and that
a contractor should be reimbursed by
EPA for costs incurred in resolving a
dispute if the matter is resolved in the
contractor's favor. Assistance and in-
tervention under this authority will
normally be provided by Federal per-
sonnel and as such will be funded out
of operating budgets. To the extent
that States would provide contract as-
sistance under State management as-
sistance grants, those funds would
come from the State management as-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 188—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
8D
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
44041
sistance grants which are deducted
from the State allotment. EPA does
not have the authority to reimburse
contractors for their costs of conduct-
Ing successful litigation of contract
disputes with grantees even if EPA is
Involved in the dispute.
One commenter suggested that the
reference in the regulation permitting
oral requests for assistance under this
authority in emergency situations is
unnecessary. It is our position that
since written requests for assistance
were mentioned in the regulation as
the proper means of requesting assist-
ance, it is also appropriate to mention
that oral requests will be accepted on
an emergency basis.
Regulatory changes on contract en-
forcement have been made in
§§35.936-5, 35.936-8 and by adding a
new § 35.970.
TRAINING GRANTS
Section 10 of the 1977 Act amends
section 109(b) of the PWPCA to in-
crease the flexibility in the expendi-
ture of grant funds for wastewater
treatment works operation and main-
tenance training. It also increases the
authorization for such grants from
$250,000 to $500,000. Under the provi-
sion, the Administrator may exempt
such grants from the priority list re-
quirement of section 204ta)(3) of the
FWPCA. Agency guidance for applica-
tion and implementation of subsection
109(b) of the 1977 Act, will be distrib-
uted to EPA Regional Administrators
and will be available for State use.
Changes to the regulations imple-
menting this amendment are made in
§! 35.915(a), 35.920(e), and 35.930-l(b).
MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS
The Agency has also received com-
ments and questions on topics not cov-
ered by the categories dealt with
above. One organization asked that
nonprofit agencies be eligible as 201
grantees in rural areas which might
otherwise be neglected by a public
entity. Two sections of the Act pre-
clude such an approach. Section
201(g)U) provides for grants to States,
municipalities or intermunicipal or in-
terstate agencies. Section 204(b)(l)(C)
requires that a grantee have certain
"legal, institutional, managerial, and
financial" capabilities. Without a
change in the law, the Agency cannot
make grants for 201 projects to non-
profit agencies.
A similar response must be made to
those who suggested that the Federal
share of all 201 projects be Increased
to 85 percent or even 100 percent. Sec-
tions 202(a)(l) and 202(a)(2) specify a
Federal share of 75 percent for con-
ventional projects and 85 percent for
eligible innovative and alternative pro-
jects.'
The Urban Environment Conference
asked that these regulations be
aligned with the work of the Agency's
Task Force on Minority Business En-
terprise. The task force has made
policy recommendations which will
apply to Agency grant programs.
These recommendations will be pub-
lished for comment and any decisions
made thereafter will apply to the 201
program. Inclusion of task force find-
Ings would be premature at this junc-
ture. The Urban Environment Confer-
ence also asked that 201 regulations
provide for the" health and safety of
workers during the construction and
operation of a sewage treatment plant.
While the well-being of such workers
is of great concern to the Agency, the
promulgation and enforcement of
worker safety standards is the prov-
ince of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA). The
Agency is not in a position to review or
enforce OSHA regulations.
The New Jersey Department of the
Public Advocate called on the Agency
to include a fair housing review as a
component of the 201 process and to
insure that population projections are
not based on potentially exclusionary
zoning but instead include allocations
for low and moderate income housing.
The Agency is sensitive to its fair
housing obligations and does not want
communities to use 201 policy as an
excuse to perpetuate discriminatory
practices. Yet, there are forceful rea-
sons why a 201 facility plan should not
become an overall community develop-
ment plan. The delay inherent in the
many local issues that might be thus
injected would make the goals set by
the Act impossible to achieve. The
Agency does have guidance insuring
construction grants program compli-
ance with title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. The Agency is also consid-
ering additional administrative meas-
ures to enhance compliance with title
VI.
As for the use of population projec-
tions that may not include an alloca-
tion for low and moderate income
housing or may be based on exclusion-
ary zoning, it should be noted that the
population projection approach out-
lined in the cost-effectiveness analysis
guidelines is a joint Federal/State/
local venture. State population figures
are determined on the Federal level to
insure national consistency. These fig-
ures are then broken down by State
and local agencies. During this disag-
gregation process, local problems and
trade-offs can be considered In some
detail when determining population
figures for a given community or
region. State and local governments
are in a far better position than EPA
to determine the appropriate disaggre-
gation methodologies. Consistent,
overall State totals which provide for
some flexibility best serve the water
quality objectives mandated by the
Act by avoiding plant overdesign and
by spreading resources to as many eli-
gible communities as possible.
The National Marine Fisheries Serv-
ice asked that these regulations pro-
hibit the filling of wetlands and pro-
vide for consultation with the Depart-
ments of Commerce and Interior if
wetlands will be disturbed by a 201
project. Regulations for the construc-
tion grants program refer to environ-
mental requirements in general terms
because so many laws and executive
orders dealing with special environ-
mental matters apply to the program.
It should be noted that Executive
Order 11990, relating to wetland pro-
tection, is explicitly mentioned and
followed in general EPA grant regula-
tions published as final rules in the
FEDERAL REGISTER on June 30,1978 (40
CFR 30.410-5 as found on 43 FR
28486). EPA recently issued a state-
ment of procedures defining policy for
use in assessing the impacts of Agency
actions on floodplains and wetlands.
The construction grants program will
issue its own program guidance to sup-
plement the Agency procedures. It will
also implement the requirements on
wetlands that are expected to be in-
cluded in the upcoming revision of 40
CFR Part 6. Preparation of Environ-
mental Impact Statements.
Finally, it was suggested that these
regulations require preparation of an
economic impact analysis statement
under Executive Order 12044. The
Agency believes that the promulgation
of these regulations does not impose
economic costs large enough to neces-
sitate such an economic impact analy-
sis.
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS
Technical amendments to the con-
struction grants regulations were pro-
posed in the June 2, 1978, issue of the
FEDERAL REGISTER. The purpose of the
technical amendments is to make, in
conjunction with the final promulga-
tion of Clean Water Act changes,
other changes which are necessary to
ease administration of and participa-
tion in the construction grants pro-
gram. These changes include changes
based upon operating experience as re-
flected in program requirements
memoranda; changes based upon devi-
ations from the current regulations
which have been issued by the Direc-
tor, Grants Administration Division;
changes that correct operational prob-
lems or which appear to be adminis-
tratively desirable; and changes which
simplify the language and readability
of the regulations.
The discussion of the major changes
and the public comments which were
received are presented below. We do
not discuss provisions on which no
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 1M—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1971
81
-------
44042
RULES AND REGULATIONS
comments were received or which
remain as proposed. Nor do we discuss
a number of comments of less wide-
spread interest. A fuller discussion of
all sections that were proposed and
other comments can be obtained by
writing to Michael B. Cook at the ad-
dress listed above. This complete dis-
cussion will be mailed to all those who
commented on the technical amend-
ments.
$35.900. This section is promulgated
substantially as proposed. A new para-
gragh (c) has been added to advise
people of the availability of technical
and guidance publications.
§ 35. SOI. For the reasons for the ad-
dition of this new section, see the dis-
cussion below under § 35.93S-1.
§35.903. The second sentence of
paragraph (j) is being revised to clari-
fy which costs should be claimed in
the initial request for payment. This
section is promulgated substantially as
proposed.
Reimbursement and "grandfathered"
planning phase-out (the former
§35.905-4, and §§35.917, 35.925-18).
Revisions to these three sections were
proposed to provide for two related,
new transition rules.
First, we proposed an orderly phas-
ing out of projects previously allowed
to proceed, subject to reimbursement
through grant award at a later date.
(See §35.925-18.) Under the present
rule, most projects do not receive such
reimbursement. The proposed rule
would have required those projects
presently entitled to reimbursement to
obtain the reimbursement through
grant award by March 31. 1979, or
March 31, 1980, in some cases, or be
barred from obtaining the reimburse-
ment. This change is based upon a
major program change made by the
1972 amendments to the Act; while
section 8 of the prior Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) per-
mitted funding on either a reimburs-
able or concurrent basis, the 1972
Amendments limited the Agency's re-
imbursement authority to that reim-
bursement authorized by section 206
of the Act.
Second, we proposed phasing out the
"grandfather" provision for planning
performed before the enunciation of
the new statutory requirements and
implementing administrative proce-
dures now applicable to facility plan-
ning. (See §35.917.) Under the previ-
ous rule, facility planning determined
by the Regional Administrator to have
been initiated before May 1, 1974, is
required to comply with those facility
planning requirements determined ap-
propriate by the Regional Administra-
tor. The proposed rule would require
compliance with all the facility plan-
ning requirements before award of any
step 2 or step & grant. There was an
extension until April 1, 1979, provided
for planning initiated before May 1,
1974. When the subpart first detailed
facility planning requirements in 1974,
the Agency did not wish to require
substantial revision or abandonment
of prior planning efforts, particularly
since that would have entailed a dra-
matic slowdown in grants for neces-
sary projects and the possible loss of
funds by States through the reallot-
ment process. The Agency now desires
all grantees to achieve compliance
with the administrative requirements
which assure attainment of the statu-
tory objectives. Since facility planning
requirements are now more thorough-
ly understood and procedures stream-
lined, this phaseout should result in
minimal delay to projects, particularly
if States and municipalities take the
necessary steps soon to assure funding
for previously planned projects.
About 15 comments were received on
this proposal. Several comments ex-
pressed support for the phasing out of
the planning and reimbursement tran-
sition.
The major comments received con-
cerned the short-time period between
final promulgation of these regula-
tions and the effective dates of the
phaseout, proposed as March 31, 1979
and 1980. The major obstacle to meet-
ing the original dates was the fact that
State priorty lists for fiscal year 1979
are already complete. In States which
do-not utilize a reserve for step 1 or
step 2 assistance, this could pose a sig-
nificant problem. Also, in some cases,
locally financed step 2 work is await-
ing completion of facility planning.
Therefore, we have decided to extend
each of the proposed dates by 1 year.
In other cases, where extenuating
circumstances (such as preparation of
an environmental impact statement
which is underway) prevent award of
grant assistance by the deadline, devi-
ation requests will be considered. In
most cases, however, it is of overriding
importance to bring in and complete
any step 1 work still underway, so that
projects necessary to meet enforceable
requirements of the Act can proceed
through steps 2 and 3 in a manner
consistent with the requirements of
titles III and IV of the Act. States
should utilize the step I/step 2 reserve
to fund facility planning and design al-
ready underway where projects would
not obtain priority for step 3 under
the approved project priority system.
§35.905. This section contains the
definitions of terms applicable to this
subpart. Formerly, each defined term
had its own section number. However,
this made insertion of new definitions
in alphabetical order difficult, since it
necessitated renumbering the other
definitions and correcting cross, refer-
ences. Therefore, in accordance with
guidance issued by the Office of the
Federal Register, the section designa-
tions have been deleted. All definitions
will continue to be shown in §35.905,
with the defined term in italics. All
cross-references to definitions will
refer to § 35.905.
§35.905, definition of "ad valorem
tax." Although we did not propose the
addition of this definition, it is appro-
priate to add it given its importance in
the user charge provisions.
§35.905, definition of "construc-
tion." This proposed amendment de-
letes from the definition of "initiation
of construction" the different defini-
tions which were applicable for work
initiated prior to November 1,1974.
Several commenters questioned the
new definition of initiation of step 1
work, i.e., the approval of a plan of
study, since that action usually takes
place at the same time as step 1 award
and they felt that the more common
action (the grant award) should be
used as the definition. It is true that
the award of step 1 assistance denotes
approval of the plan of study in most
cases; however, there are situations
where step 1 work is begun by gran-
tees following approval of the plan of
study accompanied by the reservation
of funds as authorized in §35.925-
18(a)(l). We would not want to omit
this circumstance from the definition,
thereby making ineligible some step 1
work of thjsse grantees. Since step 1
grant awards should never take place
prior to approval of a plan of study,
and since it usually is the same thing,
we have retained the def intion we pro-
posed.
Two questions were raised about the
problems created in .the transition
before April 1. 1981, by the new defini-
tions of initiation of step 1 and step 2
work. This section is one of the provi-
sions where the old definition will con-
tinue to apply to phaseout situations
until the transition is completed
before April 1, 1981. Until then, assist-
ance will be awarded to the transition
projects under the old definition.
Paragraph B.I. of appendix D will be
applied to new grant awards for the
transition projects under the old defi-
nition.
§35.905, definition of "municipal-
ity. " The Agency proposed a clarifica-
tion of the definition of "municipal-
ity" in this section because the current
definition of the term has raised sever-
al questions regarding the eligibility of
special districts for funding under this
program. This revision clarifies the
Agency's position by expanding the
description of the types of special dis-
tricts which are and are not eligible.
Several comments questioned the defi-
nition as it relates to eligibility of
State agencies for grants. The defini-
tion of municipality does not affect
the eligibility of State agencies. States
and their agencies are eligible in their
own right (see § 35.920-1).
HDfftAL HOISTIR, VOL 43, NO. 1M-WIONISOAY, SIPTIMBM 27, WTO
82
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
44043
In reviewing the comments which
were received on this section, we con-
cluded that paragraphs (b)(2) and
(b)(3) were redundant. Therefore, we
have deleted paragraph (b)(2). The
key difference between an eligible and
ineligible district is whether the dis-
•trict provides services to the surround-
ing community or only for itself. If it
does not serve the surrounding com-
munity, even a special district which
has wastewater treatment facilities
before passage of the 1972 amend-
ments is not grant eligible.
§ 35.910-2. Paragraph (c) of this sec-
tion was revised on January 10, 1978.
That revision inadvertently did not
distinguish between funds deobligated
during their initial allotment period
and funds deobligated after their real-
lotment date. Historically, in this pro-
gram, funds deobligated prior to their
reallotment date are treated as are all
other funds from that allotment (i.e.,
they are subject to reallotment if not
reobligated), and the regulation need
not deal with those funds. However,
we treat other deobligated funds as
section 205(b)<2) of the statute re-
quires for funds "released by the pay-
ment of the final voucher for the proj-
ect." We have revised paragraph (c) to
describe how to treat these deobliga-
tions.
However, it has been brought to our
attention that this statutory require-
ment may create accounting difficul-
ties when funds which originated in
one allotment are subsequently treat-
ed as a later allotment. For this
reason, we intend to examine this pro-
cedure in depth during the next sever-
al months in order to determine what
changes, if any, to the regulations or
statute might be desirable. Individuals
(particularly States) wishing to submit
their views for this study are Invited
to do so by sending them to: Mr.
Harold P. Cahill, Jr., Director, Munici-
pal Construction Division (WH 547),
EPA, 401 M Street SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
$35.912. We have made textual
changes to agree with the new pro-
gram thrust of State management as-
sistance grants and the delegation of
§ 35.913 (which was done with the pro-
mulgation of the interim subpart F on
April 25).
35.917. One commenter questioned
the revision of the final sentence in
paragraph (b), which in effect defines
"cost-effective" as the "most
economical • • * recognizing environ-
mental and social considerations." We
do not believe the word "economical,"
when modified by the reference to en-
vironmental and social considerations,
will mislead the public to think that
the "cheapest" solution is desired. We
believe that the revision of this sen-
tence as proposed is better than the
former regulation in briefly explaining
what cost-effective means. Therefore,
we have retained the language pro-
posed but have added a cross-reference
to appendix A to ease further inter-
pretation.
Questions were raised about the
meaning of paragraph (e) relating to
water quality management and out-
puts. One commenter argued that we
should not withhold construction
grants because the State fails to pro-
duce water quality management out-
puts. It was argued that the provision
ignores typical State/local relation-
ships and further that the unavailabi-
lity of State outputs and case-by-case
determinations would delay the pro-
gram. Section 208(d) of the Act re-
quires EPA to insure that treatment
works conform to approved areawide
plans. The revised paragraph (e) speci-
fies the facility-related information
that must be available and used in
planning treatment works. Coordina-
tion of the two programs, as mandated
by the Act, will induce coordinated
State and local action that will pro-
duce a better overall water quality
effort.
We have deleted the old paragraph
(f) which references the Agency's fa-
cility planning guidance. The new
paragraph §35.900(c) makes appropri-
ate reference to the availability of all
Agency construction grants guidance.
§ 35.917-1. The revision to paragraph
(d) is to clarify the language and to
add a reference to appendix A in
which the cost-effectiveness guidelines
are found. The revision to paragraph
(d)<2) adds mention of nonstructural
methods (see discussion in appendix A,
cost-effectiveness analysis guidelines).
The part of paragraph (d)(5) dealing
with best practicable waste treatment
technology (BPWTT) has been moved
into paragraph (d)(4) to better clarify
the relationship between applicable ef-
fluent limitations and BPWTT. The
previous reference in (d)(4) to not less
than secondary treatment, although
technically correct, is out-of-date in
light of current BPWTT requirements.
In paragraph (e), we have eliminated
the requirement for submission of the
NPDES permit. A commenter suggest-
ed that this be .done in accordance
with our proposal to eliminate the
permit submission requirement from
§35.925-6. The permit number must be
provided.
Paragraph (g) has been revised to re-
quire a summary of public participa-
tion in the development of the facility
plan. The previous regulation required
a summary of meetings. Since public
participation may be achieved through
means other than meetings or hear-
ings, particularly in accordance with
the proposed new requirements in part
25, this revision is appropriate.
A new paragraph (1) incorporates
the requirement for inclusion of total
project costs and estimated charges to
customers in the facility plan. This re-
quirement was established in program
requirements memorandum 76-3
(August 16, 1976).
We have added a new paragraph
(m), based upon public comments re-
ceived on §35.920-3. The new para-
graph requires a statement as to the
availability and estimated costs of the
proposed site(s). See additional discus-
sion under § 35.920-3.
Some commenters also questioned
the effective date of the revised facili-
ty planning requirements in this sec-
tion. The effective date this section is
October 1,1978. Step 1 grants awarded
after September 30, 1978, or facility
planning initiated after September 30
without Federal grant assistance, are
required to comply with these regula-
tions. Note the relationship of the
transition provisions to the effective
dates; no step 2 grant will be awarded
after March 31, 1980, if the facility
planning does not comply with current
requirements.
§ 35.917-3. In the interest of brevity,
we have deleted paragraph (a) from
this section. That paragraph was re-
dundant with other provisions of the
regulations. No change in substantive
requirements is intended. In para-
graph (a), we have added the statutory
requirement that, after a waste treat-
ment management agency has been
designated for an area, only the desig-
nated agency may receive grants. Fur-
ther mention of this requirement is
also in § 35.925-2.
Several commenters felt that 208
planning agencies should be eligible to
receive step 1 grants. This section
allows only agencies which are eligible
to receive step 2 and 3 grants to re-
ceive step 1 grants. We did not propose
to change this provision. We note that
where 208 agencies are the most quali-
fied to conduct all or any part of step
1 planning, a qualified management
agency may be the grantee and may
pass the funds through to the 208
agency via an interagency agreement
to do necessary planning.
Several commenters raised questions
relating primarily to the process for
designation of a management agency
or agencies under the statute. The
water quality management regulations
are being revised and were proposed in
the FEDERAL REGISTER on September
12, 1978 (43 FR 40742). Those regula-
tions provide for designation of man-
agement agencies.
§ 35.920-3. Although we did not pro-
pose changes to paragraph (a), we
have included in paragraph (a)QXiii),
reference to the public participation
program. Though the shape of the
new program is not yet finalized, it is
appropriate to request grantees to de-
scribe their intended program in the
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 188—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
83
-------
44044
RULES AND REGULATIONS
step 1 application, whether the new or
old requirements are applicable.
Paragraph (b) has been rewritten to
improve style, to correct references,
and to add references to the existing
requirements for intermunicipal agree-
ments, allocation of costs to Federal
facilities, project schedules, and sewer
use ordinances. Experience has shown
there are inordinate program delays
unless intermunicipal agreements are
obtained prior to the award of grant
assistance. Inclusion of these refer-
ences here will simplify compliance for
grantees.
Several questions were raised con-
cerning the requirement for a state-
ment as to the availability of the pro-
posed site (paragraph (a)(2)). A few
cornme'nters pointed out that a vague
statement of availability is not suffi-
cient, particularly in the case of land
treatment projects where the feasibil-
ity and cost-effectiveness of the entire
project may depend upon the firm
availability of a particular site. On the
other hand, it would not be appropri-
ate, in most cases, to require fee
simple interest at the step 2 stage,
since most municipalities finance the
purchase through bond proceeds
which are generally not available until
after step 3 award. Therefore, we have
revised this paragraph to require "ade-
quate information regarding the avail-
ability'of the proposed site(s)." Re-
gional offices and States are expected
to use their judgment in determining
what constitutes adequate information
in the particular circumstances. The
facility planning requirements have
also been amended to require a state-
ment of availability and cost of the
site(s) (see § 35.917-l(m)).
Commenters raised several questions
concerning the requirement for sub-
mission of proposed intermunicipal
agreements at the step 2 application
stage (paragraph (b)(6)). They desired
to know the degree of certainty which
would be required at this point. The
degree of finality which is required in
any particular case cannot be de-
scribed with certainty in a regulation
broadly applicable to all cases. We
would expect, however, the proposed
agreement which is submitted to rep-
resent more than just the proposal of
the grantee municipality; it should
represent the product of discussions
between the parties concerned, even if
the agreement is not yet ready to be
signed. In particular cases, where
there are doubts regarding the partici-
pation of municipalities in the project,
the regional office may find it neces-
sary to request more definitive ar-
rangements. Therefore, the require-
ment has been worded to say, "pro-
posed or executed (as determined ap-
propriate by the Regional Administra-
tor) • • V
§35.925-7. Although no revisions to
paragraph (e) were proposed, it has
been revised to delete reference to a
date which has passed, and to empha-
size the current requirements for
BPWTT and reuse/recycle technology.
§35.925-8. The addition of para-
graph (b) is intended to enforce deci-
sions reached in the environmental
review process, consistent with pro-
gram requirements memorandum 75-
26 (formerly program guidance memo-
randum 50, June 6, 1975).
A commenter on this section sug-
gested EPA's denial or conditioning of
award on compliance with environ-
mental assessment conditions address-
ing secondary impacts is an inappro-
priate entry of EPA into land use and
growth control. The commenter rec-
ommended that the program require-
ments memorandum issued in 1975 on
this subject be rescinded as well. EPA
is required by the National Environ-
mental Policy Act to consider second-
ary impacts of its construction grants
projects and we, therefore, could not
accommodate his suggestion.
$35.925-12. See discussion under
§ 35.935-3, below.
$35.925-15. The revision of the first
sentence clarifies the current regula-
tion by making it clear that sewer pro-
jects which are solely for the purpose
of handling industrial wastes are ineli-
gible. This would affect, for example,
a project to extend an interceptor
solely to an industrial park, with no
transport of domestic wastes along the
way. We believe this is consistent with
congressional policy to encourage Joint
treatment, since in the absence of do-
mestic waste there is not a joint aspect
to the project.
The several commenters on this sec-
tion felt, for the most part, that single
purpose, or almost single purpose, pro-
jects should be permitted to proceed.
Some suggested deletion of the
words "almost exclusively" as being
too vague. We have found other ex-
pressions unsatisfactory. We would
not consider an interceptor which
serves a large industrial park, but hap-
pens to pick up domestic wastes from
one residence on its route, to thereby
lose its industrial purpose and become
eligible for the Federal grant. There-
fore, we believe the term "almost ex-
clusively" connotes limited but appro-
priate discretion for the Regional Ad-
ministrator necessary to determine eli-
gibility under the program.
The definition of "waste treatment
system" has been deleted from this
section because the phrase, "complete
waste treatment system" is defined in
§ 35.905.
The references to the pretreatment
regulations in the final sentence have
been corrected. Part 403 contains the
Agency's new pretreatment regulation
published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on
June 26, 1978 (43 FR 27736). § 35.907 is
promulgated in this package.
§35.925-.Tfi. This section deals with
costs allocable to Federal facilities. We
deleted a proposed parenthetical ex-
pression referring to such facilities in
the District of Columbia and other ju-
risdictions receiving direct congres-
sional appropriations. The reference
would create administrative difficul-
ties that we prefer to handle through
the grant deviation process. Other-
wise, this section is promulgated sub-
stantially as proposed.
§35.925-.ZS. Significant revisions
have been made in paragraph (a) of
this section relating to the phaseout of
authority for reimbursement. See the
discussion of this under the heading
reimbursement and "grandfathered"
planning phaseout, above.
We made three changes to para-
graph (b). We have added a reference
to engineering costs associated with
advance acquisition or advance con-
struction to clarify such costs as al-
lowable when prior approval has been
obtained. We have added the cost of
acquisition of an option for the pur-
chase of eligible land to the advanced
work which may be approved. We have
further clarified this paragraph so the
Regional Administrator may not ap-
prove such advance step 3 work unless
an environmental review has been
completed.
Several commenters indicated their
approval of the clarification of eligible
items in paragraph (b). One com-
menter, however, questioned the ne-
cessity for the completion of an envi-
ronmental review before the Regional
Administrator may authorize advance
expenditures. We are advised by coun-
sel that the Regional Administrator's
authorization is a major Federal
action requiring completion of a
review (either negative declaration or
environmental impact statement)
under the National Environmental
Policy Act. However, grantees should
be aware the environmental review
can be narrowed down to a particular
item in cases where there is no contro-
versy over the particular item and the
item is common to all alternatives.
§35.926. Although no changes were
proposed to this section, we revised
paragraph (a) and § 35.920-3 to require
a value engineering commitment,
rather than proposal, with the step 2
application. The actual value engineer-
ing proposal would be submitted
during step 2. The requirement for a
full proposal at the application stage
was inappropriate.
§§ 35.927 et sea. In §§ 35.927, 35.927-1,
35.927-2, and 35.927-3 several changes
were proposed to update the regula-
tions in accordance with current pro-
gram policy. EPA has deleted the spe-
cific content of the infiltration/inflow
(I/I) analysis. Program requirements
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. IBS-WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
84
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
44045
memorandum 78-10, Issued on March
17,1978, established some new options
to the traditional method of I/I analy-
sis in this program. The remainder of
the changes proposed in these sections
complement that memorandum by
providing more flexibility.
Several questions were raised about
the proposed language of
§35.927(b)<3) which appeared to re-
quire the actual rehabilitation to take
place during the sewer system evalua-
tion survey, thereby establishing with
certainty the amount of nonremovable
I/I. We did not intend this and have
revised the language of that sentence
to reference only the program for re-
habilitation as part of the sewer
system survey.
One commenter requested the ratio-
nale for the deletion of the phrase, "in
each sewer system tributary" in
§ 35.927-l(a), indicating that the revi-
sion implied that only the sewer
system owned by an entity is subject
to I/I analysis. If the analysis for non-
owned systems was not conducted, the
utility of the analysis which was con-
ducted would be distorted. We •deleted
this phrase to eliminate the inference
that each minor tributary must be
analyzed separately to determine if it,
individually, was subject to excessive
I/I. Even if more than one jurisdiction
is involved, all parts of the system are
subject to some sort of analysis. The
language has been retained as pro-
posed.
The language of § 35.927-2(a) as pro-
posed included a typographical error
which inadvertently deleted the re-
quirement for a comparison of the post
of transportation versus the cost of re-
habilitation and treatment for each I/
I source. We have corrected this lan-
guage.
Section 35.927-3(a) has been further
revised to indicate minor rehabilita-
tion can be accomplished in any step
under a grant (not just step 1) 'and re-
habilitation work under $10,000 (small
purchase) is not subject to the require-
ment for formal advertising. We have
also revised §35.936-14, relating to
force account work, to include the re-
quirement for the Regional Adminis-
trator's approval of force account
work for sewer rehabilitation during
step 1 and step 2. not just for step 3.
Two commenters questioned the
policy of EPA which prohibits funding
,of sewer system rehabilitation beyond
the "Y" fittings which convey
wastewater from individual structures
or private property. They suggested
we consider as eligible all sewer reha-
bilitation costs for any part of a line
lying in a public easement. EPA con-
siders eligible for new construction
only those parts of the line up to and
including the "Y" fittings..Therefore,
in accordance with the definition of
sewage collection system in §35.905-
19, EPA cannot fund rehabilitation
work beyond the "Y" fittings. Howev-
er, the municipality's costs of treating
the pipe beyond the "Y" fittings up to
the point which the municipality must
fund may be calculated on an incre-
mental, rather than proportional,
basis. A new paragraph (c) has been
added to §35.927-3 to clarify this
point.
§35.930-4. No changes were pro-
posed to this section. However, in the
final regulation, we have deleted refer-
ence to the requirement for BPWTT,
secondary treatment, and effluent
limitations, because those require-
ments are adequately covered in
§§ 35.917-1 and 35.925-7.
§35.935-1. EPA proposed to create
new paragraphs (a) and (b) to describe
the grantee's responsibilities under
these grants.
Paragraph (a) states EPA's position
that EPA review and approval of proj-
ect plans and specifications, under sec-
tion 203 of the Act, does not relieve
the grantee of its rssponsbilities for
the design, construction, or use of the
treatment works.
Paragraph (b) provides an explicit
basis for seeking specific performance
or recoupment of funds from the
grantee, if the grantee fails to make
good faith efforts to meet its obliga-
tions under the grant.
Several comments on paragraphs (a)
and (b) demonstrated to us the need to
explicitly set forth the Agency's policy
assumptions underlying the establish-
ment of paragraphs (a) and (b). These
basic assumptions are set forth in new
§35.901, and paragraphs (a) and (b)
are promulgated as proposed.
§ 35.935-3. We proposed to add a new
§ 35.935-21 (now renumbered § 35.935-
3) because there has been some misun-
derstanding of the applicability of the
real property acquisition regulations
in part 4 of title 40 to this program.
Questions have also been raised about
other property requirements. The ad-
dition of this section does not add any
new requirements; rather, it clarifies
those which have been in effect and
summarizes them in one place. The
provisions in the 1977 amendments re-
lating to land treatment and eligibility
for land purchases make this more im-
portant.
One commenter suggested the re-
quirement in paragraph (b)(l) that
any acquisition be conducted in ac-
cordance with 40 CFR part 4 (and
hence, the Uniform Relocation Assist-
ance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act) represents unnecessary
Federal involvment in local affairs. He
felt that where displacement is not in-
volved, procedures to acquire noneligi-
ble land should be locally determined,
and EPA should require only satisfac-
tory evidence of sufficient interest in
the site prior to award. However, the
Uniform Relocation and Real Proper-
ty Acquisition Policies Act requires
EPA to apply title III of that Act to
the acquisition of any interest in real
property (even easements) to be used
for a federally assisted project. There-
fore, EPA has no discretion in this
matter and must apply the current
statute.
§35.955-9. The revision of this sec-
tion was intended to clarify EPA re-
quirements for prompt initiation of
project work and to integrate the
grant requirements more closely with
the NPDES permit program. The text
was broken into the three paragraphs
for ease of use.
The revision of paragraph (a) clari-
fies the term "project" to mean step 1,
2 or 3. The new second sentence ap-
plies the same sanctions to all three
steps. Several commenters suggested
the final sentence of (a) be revised to
address completion, as well as initi-
ation, of construction. This has been
done. Reference to "any project sched-
ule" has been revised in the final regu-
lation to refer to "the project progress
schedule."
Paragraph (b) explains the grantee's
obligations under the NPDES permit
program as they related to actions the
grantee takes under the grant pro-
gram. We received several comments
on the relationship between grant
dates and.NPDES permit dates. One
commenter suggested that grant dates
rather than permit dates be the gov-
erning dates and that all other sched-
ules requirements be secondary and
subservient to grant dates. Another
commenter noted the present permit
regulations allow such a "floating"
date mechanism to be employed by
EPA and NPDES States. Since the
intent of the Agency is to improve the
extent of municipal compliance with
NPDES permit requirements, it will be
necessary to use selected, fixed dates
in most municipal permits In order to
ensure enforceability in the event of
recalcitrance by grantees with permit
deficiencies. EPA is presently drafting
a policy which delineates new operat-
ing procedures designed to Implement
this permit/grant approach. Conse-
quently, no change has been made to
the revision as proposed.
Paragraph (c) contains the same ter-
mination requirement as the former
regulation, but includes the items
which the Regional Administrator
must consider in making his determi-
nation. This paragraph also clarifies
EPA's expectations as to the time by
which invitations for bids should be
issued.
We received several comments on
this paragraph. One commenter ob-
jected to the statement that invita-
tions for bids are expected to be issued
within 90 to 120 days after award, be-
cause sometimes grantees postpone
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 188—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
85
-------
44046
RULES AND REGULATIONS
work because of too great a demend on
the construction industry in a particu-
lar area. The section provides that is-
suance of the invitation for bids (not
contract award) should occur within
90 to 120 days after award. The use of
the term "should" indicates that those
dates are not mandatory. However, ini-
tiation of construction on all signifi-
cant elements of project work within
12 months is mandatory.
Some commenters raised questions
as to the definitions of "all significant
elements" and "initiation of step 3
construction." "All significant ele-
ments" is not defined because we have
concluded that it is necessary to leave
this to the Regional Administrator, to
decide on a case-by-case basis. What is
essential is that work be progressing
speedily toward completion of con-
struction. The term "initiation of con-
struction" is defined in §35.905. For
step 3, it means issuance of a notice to
proceed under a construction contract
for any segment of step 3 work or if
notice to proceed is not required, ex-
ecution of the construction contract.
That definition is applicable here,
except, under the terms of this sec-
tion, we expect initiation of all signifi-
cant elements within one year.
Two comments on paragraph (c)
urged changes to give the Regional
Administrator more flexibility in ter-
mination of grants. Where flexibility
beyond the 6 months extension is re-
quired, for good cause, the "deviation"
process (see 40 CFR 30.1000 et seq.)
should be used. This will insure that
the termination requirement is con-
sistent nationwide. Where good cause
has existed in the past for exceptions
to the termination requirement, devi-
ations have been granted.
§ 35.935-12. This section has been re-
structured in list form for clarity. Ref-
erence has been made to the NPDES
permit program to Indicate the rela-
tionship with that program. New para-
graphs (d) and (e) implement in the
regulation the class deviation which
was in effect since August 24, 1977,
with respect to the operation and
maintenance manual payment limita-
tions as applied to segmented projects
and multiple faculty projects.
Several commenters requested a pro-
vision for waiver of the 90 percent
payment holding provision for good
cause or where the operation and
maintenance manual cannot be com-
pleted until experience during initial
operation has been achieved. EPA rec-
ognizes (see program requirements
memorandum 77-2) that final revi-
sions to the O&M manual will be
made after the initial start-up period.
However, a manual which is satisfac-
tory for the purpose of beginning
start-up should be available for ap-
proval prior to completion of construc-
tion. If there are other "good causes"
which would reasonably delay submis-
sion and approval of the manual, the
deviation process must be used. EPA
carefully reviews all deviations re-
quests to insure that the situation
truly justifies a waiver of the regula-
tion. A new paragraph (b)(7) has been
added to this section which provides
that the plan of operation must in-
clude an operation and maintenance
program for the sewer system. This re-
quirement is in program requirements
memorandum 78-10 and is included
here for consistency and clarification.
Existing written manuals, policy or
guidance will suffice if they are ade-
quate to meet current EPA require-
ments.
i 35.935-16. This section is promul-
gated as proposed. Paragraphs (c) and
(d) implement in the regulation the
class deviation which has been in
effect since August 24, 1977, with re-
spect to the sewer use ordinance pay-
ment limitations as applied to seg-
mented projects and multiple facility
projects.
§35.936-13. No changes were pro-
posed to this section. However, some
changes have been made on advice of
the Office of General Counsel.
In paragraph (aXl), an addition has
been made to require identification of
the "salient requirements" of items of
equipment when the grantee elects to
procure by the two brand (or trade)
names or equal procedure. In direct
Federal procurement, salient require-
ments must be included in the specifi-
cation itself. We feel that the manda-
tory reference to two items itself sub-
stantially identifies the salient re-
quirements reflected in both and that
while Federal rule reflects the best
practice, it would be unnecessarily
burdensome to grantees. However, the
EPA grantee must be prepared to
identify the salient requirements
when an "or equal" issue arises under
EPA program review or in a bid pro-
test.
In paragraph (b), we are adding a
provision relating to sole source pro-
curement for innovative technology.
See the discussion of this subject
above under Innovative and alterna-
tive technology. We have also added a
cross-reference to §33.500 et seq., for
the applicable procedures to be fol-
lowed when sole source procurement is
used.
Minor revisions have been made to
paragraph (c) to reflect experience ob-
tained in program reviews, protests,
and ilT litigation relating to grantee
"experience" requirements, including
bonds.
In conjunction with the final pro-
mulgation of this section, we are also
proposing two additional changes for
comment The last sentence of para-
graph (a)(l) relates to manufactured
materials, such as pipe. The current
regulation provides that if a single ma-
terial is specified, the grantee must be
prepared to justify this selection of
only one type of material.
However, agency program reviews
and determinations of protests under
§35.939 indicate that the application
of this rule has not corresponded suf-
ficiently with the basic requirement
for competition (see §35.936-3). Pro-
gram requirements memorandum 75-5
(formerly PO 19A, August 8, 1975)
states the interrelationship of these
policies as follows:
"With regard to materials, such as
pipe, it is not mandatory that two or
more different types of material be
specified; however, maximum competi-
tive bidding is encouraged commensu-
rate with sound engineering practice
and requirements. • • * It is preferable
to use performance specifications for
materials based upon accepted nation-
ally known standards such as AWWA,
USAS, ASTM. AASHO and Federal
specifications and standards."
Consideration is being given to
amendment of the regulation to better
achieve competition within and be-
tween types of material (particularly
. pipe), in the interest of affording an
opportunity to compete and insuring
reasonableness of prices, unless there
is a sound engineering justificaton
based upon specific site conditions
which supports any restrictions upon
competition.
In paragraph (c) we propose to add
as a new final sentence the following:
"No experience restriction will be per-
mitted which unjustifiably reduces
competition or innovation." This is in
effect the rule which has been devel-
oped in protests decided under
§ 35.939. We invite public comment on
this proposed addition.
We invite public comment on these
two proposed changes. Comments
should be addressed to the Director,
Grants Administration Division, at the
address given above. The deadline for
receipt of comments on these issues is
November 30, 1978.
§ 35.936-20. Paragraph (c) of this sec-
tion was proposed to be amended to
clarify that costs incurred by the
grantee in complying with §35.937-6
are allowable, even when incurred
prior to award. One commenter sug-
gested EPA should be equally explicit
regarding the grantee's costs of carry-
ing out protest procedures required by
§ 35.939. The paragraph has been fur-
ther amended to do this.
135.936-22. Bonding and insurance
requirements were previously in
§ 35.935-3. Since the publication of the
procurement regulations in §35.936,
we feel the bonding and insurance re-
quirements are more appropriate in
this section. It is promulgated substan-
tially as proposed.
FEDCRA1 REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 188—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 77, 1978
86
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
44047
§ 35.937-2 This section is promulgat-
ed substantially as proposed.
535.937-5. The proposed deletion
from paragraph (b) of the reference to
40 U.S.C. 541-544 (commonly referred
to as the "Brooks bill") concerned con-
sulting engineering firms and several
of their national professional societies.
This amendment was suggested by the
EPA Office of General Counsel on the
basis of the April 25, 1978, decision by
the U.S. Supreme Court in National
Society of Professional Engineers v.
United States (see especially footnote
21). In the opinion of the EPA Gener-
al Counsel, the Supreme Court's deci-
sion resolved any doubt that the pro-
curement of professional engineering
services is subject to general antitrust
requirements unless specifically
exempted by Federal statute, e.g., the
Brooks bill. The Brooks bill is applica-
ble only to direct Federal procure-
ment, i.e., contracts for engineering
and architectural services awarded by
Federal departments and agencies.
There is no Federal statute which
exempts Federal assistance programs
from compliance with Federal anti-
trust laws.
The proposed amendment author-
ized negotiation procedures estab-
lished by State or local law. This pro-
vision has been amplified to state
more clearly the alternatives available
to grantees. If State statutory or local
code procedures exist or are adopted
which are comparable to the negotia-
tion provisions of the Brooks bill, such
procedures may be utilized. Such pro-
cedures can assure reasonableness of
price if the grantee has the staff capa-
bility, or otherwise acquires it (e.g.,
through assistance from another local
or State agency) to develop an inde-
pendent cost estimate to serve as the
basis for price negotiations with the
selected consulting engineering firm.
In connection with the development of
such procedures, local governments
may also wish to review the March 20,
1978, U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Lafayette v. Louisiana Power and
Light Company.
The proposed amendment has also
been amplified to make it clear that if
no State statutory or local code proce-
dures exist, a municipality may adopt
either (1) procedures comparable to
those observed by the Federal Govern-
ment under the Brooks bill or (2)
price-competitive procedures. If a mu-
nicipality wishes to utilize a price-com-
petitive system for negotiation of engi-
neering fees, however, this must be
based upon an objective negotiation
process in which award is based upon
previously announced objective evalu-
ation factors, including price and
other considerations (such as profes-
sional competence and technical
merits of proposals). EPA does-not re-
quire or encourage award of engineer-
ing agreements solely on the basis of
price.
535.937-6. No change was proposed
to this section. However, from time to
time, we have been asked why gran-
tees who are required to comply with
§§35.937-2, 35.937-3 and 35.937-4 are
required to submit documentation of
negotiation methodology used (negoti-
ation is covered by §35.927-5) when
other grantees are not (see paragraph
(a)(2)(i)). We have reviewed the re-
quirement and have concluded that
there is no reason for the difference.
Further, all grantees are required to
document the basis for selection and
basis for the price under §35.936-12.
These records are available for EPA
should we need them. Therefore, we
have deleted the requirement for sub-
mission of the negotiation methodolo-
gy used.
§ 35.937-12. We proposed a new para-
graph to reference the requirement of
§35.936-5(b) regarding the status of
subcontractors when the engineer is
acting for the grantee in the role of
construction manager. The proposed
new paragraph (d) indicates that when
an engineer procures items which are
not covered by the provisions for ar-
chitectural and engineering services
procurements, the appropriate proce-
dures of §35.938 (formal advertising)
or part 33 apply. We also modified
paragraphs (a) and (b).
One comment on paragraph (d) re-
quested we clearly indicate that pro-
fessional services are excluded from
the requirement of the other sections
mentioned. We have specifically ex-
cluded engineering services. However,
professional services other than engi-
neering services would be procured
under part 33. Clarification was also
requested as to what subcontracted
services might be appropriately pro-
cured under these other sections. An
example of services which should be
procured under part 33 regulations is
accounting services for the develop-
ment of user charge and industrial
cost recovery systems. Sewer line
cleaning or construction of a proto-
type unit should be procured under
§ 35.938 et. seq.
Revisions to paragraph (b) were pro-
posed to clarify requirements which
the engineer must comply with in
awarding subcontracts. The proposed
addition of (b)(3) has been revised and
renumbered as (b)(7). Rather than in-
corporating the type of contract provi-
sions of the entire § 35.937-1, we have
included only the prohibition on the
illegal types of contract (i.e., cost-plus-
percentage-of-cost and percentage-of-
construction-cost). Also, references
have been added to the appendix C-l
clauses which are inherently (under
the language of the clause) applicable
to subcontracts.
§35.93S-4(7i). The addition of the
phrase "for good cause" to paragraph
(h)(2) is consistent with program re-
quirements memorandum 78-8, Febru-
ary 13, 1978 (published in the FEDERAL
REGISTER, April 7, 1978. 43 FR 14725).
It is retained here.
The new paragraph (hXS) permits
award of a prime contract when there
are unresolved procurement issues or
protests relating only to the award of
a subcontract or procurement of a su-
bitem. This rule has been developed in
the protest process. Adoption of it in
the regulations will make it legally im-
possible to use this rule in situations
not involving protest, will make it
easier to enforce in the protest proc-
ess, and will expedite the procurement
process.
Another commenter suggested a new
(h)(5)(ii) be created which would state.
"Will not materially affect resolution
of the protest." Although we felt this
concept was implicit, we have no ob-
jection to adding .it and have done so.
This suggestion highlighted a problem
in the proposed regulation, namely,
two different subjects were being ad-
dressed. Therefore, the five items have
now been rearranged into two
groups—those pertaining to award of
the contract and those pertaining to
resolution of the protest.
One commenter asked whether the
final sentence of this paragraph im-
plies that a bid must be rejected as
nonresponsive if a federally required
listing or selection requirement is not
met by the contractor. This sentence
did not imply that. However, we have
decided to delete that sentence due to
current uncertainty about the future
of Federal listing requirements.
$35.938-5. No changes were pro-
posed to be made to this section con-
cerning negotiation of contract
amendments (change orders). Howev-
er, paragraph (dX3) indicated that de-
tailed cost documentation may be re-
quired by EPA when a contractor is
unable to certify that his costs are
complete, current, and accurate, while
the certification on EPA's summary
format (EPA Form 5700-41) requires a
contractor to certify that his cost data
are complete, current, and accurate.
Therefore, paragraph (d)(3) has been
revised to correct this error to indicate
that more detailed cost documentation
may be required when a contractor is
unable to certify that his cost data are
complete, current, and accurate.
EPA's Office of Audit published a
report in April 1978, that addressed
the contract change order procedure
in the construction grants program.
That report recommended deletion of
the reference to a provisional over-
head rate in § 35.938-5(dX3). By defini-
tion, a provisional overhead rate is a
tentative percentage or dollar factor
agreed upon by the grantee and the
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 43, NO. 1M—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
87
-------
44048
contractor. It is negotiated for Interim
reimbursement pending final settle-
ment of the actual allowable overhead
rate. Change orders should be able to
"stand by themselves," and should not
be renegotiated when the change
order work is completed. For this
reason, a final overhead rate should be
negotiated for a change order instead
of a provisional overhead rate. There-
fore, as recommended by the EPA
audit report, we have deleted the last
sentence in paragraph (dX3).
§35.938-6(0). This amendment was
proposed to deal with a problem which
was brought to our attention with
regard to progress payments on spe-
cifically .manufactured equipment.
EPA's primary reason for encouraging
progress payments to equipment man-
ufacturers is to reduce the interest
cost to the manufacturers, thereby re-
ducing the bid price and the costs to
the taxpayer.
An equipment supplier complained
about the additional labor, expense
and paperwork needed to comply with
the recordation requirement, and as-
serted that this diminishes the useful-
ness of progress payments to the com-
panies and increases the cost to EPA.
If elimination of the recordation re-
quirement for items valued at less
than a certain amount is reasonable,
we judge that considerable paperwork
can be eliminated. We proposed a
$200,000 cutoff level and particularly
solicited comment.
Two commenters felt that $200,000
was an appropriate level for applica-
tion of the recordation requirement.
Two other commenters felt that 10
percent of the contract value, but not
less than $300,000, would be appropri-
ate. The amount of the contract value
is not pertinent, since what is Impor-
tant; is the absolute dollar level at
which the Federal Government is will-
ing to risk nonrecordation. In view of
the comments received, we have decid-
ed to retain the $200,000 level.
Some commenters felt that even at
the higher level recordation should be
discretionary with the grantee. An-
other commenter suggested that the
recordation requirement implied a
lack of mutual trust and confidence.
We disagree with both comments. The
recordation requirement was estab-
lished for the purpose of protecting
the interest of the Federal Govern-
ment as to the work performed (as op-
posed to the value of the item) when
progress payments are made on large
equipment purchases.
$35.938-7. No change was proposed
to this section. However, many ques-
tions have been raised over the last
several years and in comments recent-
ly received as to whether the excep-
tion for State law which is mentioned
in $35.938-6 is also applicable to
§35.938-7. We have always responded
RULES AND REGULATIONS
that it is. We decided to add the spe-
cific exception language to this sec-
tion.
S 35.938-9<.b). This section is promul-
gated substantially as proposed with a
corrected citation. We have also added
references to the appendix C-2 clauses
which are inherently (under the lan-
guage of the clause) applicable to sub-
contracts.
$35.939. No changes were proposed
to this section. However, we have
made a series of technical changes to
the language. These are identified in
the supplementary discussion of the
technical amendments. Also, we added
a new paragraph (1) to advise the
public that the EPA General Counsel
periodically publishes an index of Re-
gional Administrator protest determi-
nations.
$35.940-1. Paragraph (q) was pro-
posed to be revised to delete the refer-
ence to allowability of State agency
review costs in accordance with
5§ 35.912 and 35.913 because of the
new authority in subpart F, and to be
replaced with the eligibility of start-up
services. The eligibility of a plan of op-
eration was also specifically added.
Both these additions are in accordance
with program requirements memoran-
da issued on November 29, 1976 (PRM
77-2 and PRM 77-3).
One commenter was concerned
about the deletion of eligibility of fees
under §35.913 until the fee system is
completely phased-out in favor of
State management assistance grants.
In order to avoid the necessity of
amending the regulation next April 25,
the eligibility of fees has been deleted.
However, States which previously in-
stituted fee systems may continue to
charge fees and the grantee's costs in
paying those fees are allowable in the
interim, in order to permit an orderly
phasing-out of the fee system no later
than April 24.1979.
135.940-2. Although no changes
were proposed to this section, we have
made several clarifying additions. It
was brought to our attention that the
fact that the plan of study is an un-
allowable cost should be explicitly
mentioned here. We have done so. We
have also explicitly stated that pri-
vately owned treatment works are un-
allowable, except as authorized in sec-
tion 201(h) of the Act.
$35.940-3. In this section, we pro-
posed to delete paragraph (d), acquisi-
tion of an operable portion of a treat-
ment works. The "Explanation" de-
scribed the limited circumstances
under which such acquisitions might
be approved. However, we have decid-
ed to retain paragraph (d), with clari-
fication. Comments on this topic con-
firm our opinion that more detailed
guidance is needed to clarify when
such costs may be allowable. Since the
factors used to review these requests
are extensive, we have decided to issue
complete guidance instead of increas-
ing the regulations on a matter of lim-
ited and rare applicability.
§ 35.945. The first paragraph of this
section is promulgated as proposed. In
connection with this section and with
§ 35.903, it was suggested that the reg-
ulations be revised to permit use of
letter of credit for construction grants,.
EPA is currently involved in a study
concerning cash management. Feasi-
bility of letter of credit method of pay-
ment for construction grantees is one
of the items being considered.
Although no changes were proposed
to the former paragraph (e), it has
been broken into two paragraphs and
revised. The new paragraph (e) deals
only with final payment. We moved
the provision dealing with assignment
and release to a new paragraph (f). We
deleted the requirement for submis-
sion of separate assignment and re-
lease forms. Instead, the grantee's ac-
ceptance of the final payment const!-
tutues his agreement to the assign-
ment and release. We expect this
change to eliminate considerable un-
necessary paperwork.
$35.960. No changes were proposed
to this section. However, we have
added a new paragraph to advise the
public that the EPA General Counsel
periodically publishes an index of
grant appeals decisions.
Appendix C-2, clause 11. No changes
were proposed to be made to this
clause. However, it has been brought
to our attention that there is an incon-
sistency between the first sentence of
paragraph (a) of this clause and the
parallel clause (clause 10) in appendix
C-l. When these clauses were first
drafted in 1975, they both read. "If
the EPA Project Officer deter-
mines * * '" As a result of public com-
ment, they were both supposed to be
changed to read, "If the owner or EPA
determines • • *" Inadvertently, this
change was not made in the C-2
clause. We are making this change at
this time.
Appendix D, paragraph 65. This sec-
tion is promulgated as proposed with
clarifying language here and in para-
graphs bl, b2 and c. This policy also
applies to grants awarded under Pub.
L. 84-660.
Other sections. Several commenters
proposed that we make changes to sec-
tions, or parts of sections, which had
not been proposed to be changed.
Where we felt that the changes were
truly of a technical nature and could
be made without prior proposal, we
have done so, as is noted in the text
above. In some cases, however, the
suggested changes were significant
and inappropriate for promulgation as
final rules without prior proposal.
These comments will be retained on
file for consideration in any regulatory
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 43, NO. 1M—WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1978
88
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS 44049
changes which may be proposed in the
future.
EDITORIAL CHANGES
Throughout the regulations we have
made editorial changes to simplify the
language. Several should be noted. We
have eliminated the phrase, "but not
limited to" following the word "in-
clude" or "including." We have deleted
titles of cross-referenced sections in
most cases (particularly from the su-
bagreement regulations).
We made editorial changes in app-
pendices C-l and C-2, which contain
clauses for inclusion in subagreements
with engineers and construction con-
tractors. Except for minor changes
mentioned elsewhere in the preamble,
no change in meaning whatsoever- is
intended. Old supplies of appendices
C-l and C-2 may continue to be used.
However, grantees are cautioned that
when using an old edition of appendix
C-2, the new clause 17 (Buy American)
must be added. Some grantees or engi-
neers may prefer to use the new ver-
sion of appendix C-l, because of the
corrected reference to §35.908 in
clause 2.
Effective date: This subpart will be
effective on October 1, 1978, unless
otherwise specified in particular sec-
tions. Good cause exists for an effec-
tive date prior to 30 days after publica-
tion in the FEDERAL REGISTER because
many of the requirements are made
effective by the 1977 act on October 1,
1978, and because of the need to start
these interrelated requirements to-
gether to ensure program continuity.
Dated: September 15.1978.
DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
Administrator.
40 CPR Part 35 is amended by revis-
ing subpart E to read as follows:
Subpart I—Grant* for Conrirvction of
Treatment Works—dean Water Ad
ROCRAL RMISTER, VOL 43, NO. 1M-WEDNESOAY, SIPTIMtlt 27. 1«7t
89
-------
10300
RULES AND REGULATIONS
[6560-01-M]
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL 1041-1A]
PART 35—STATE AND LOCAL
ASSISTANCE
Subpart E—Grants for Construction of
Treatment Works
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency
ACTION: Rule
SUMMARY: These regulations are in-
tended to encourage, provide for, and
assist public participation in the Mu-
nicipal Wastewater Treatment Works
Construction Grants Program carried
out under the Clean Water Act. The
regulations specify that public partici-
pation in that program applies to de-
velopment of the State priority system
and annual list of projects designated
for Federal funding, to development of
plans for wastewater treatment facili-
ties, to development of user charge
and industrial cost recovery systems,
and to the delegation of administra-
tive responsibilities for the Construc-
tion Grants Program to the States.
The regulations establish a two-tier
program of participation in the facili-
ty planning process. This allows EPA,
States, and grantees'to focus their re-
sources and energies, and those of par-
ticipating citizens, on the minority of
projects which have the greatest fi-
nancial environmental impacts and
which will benefit most from active
community involvement. The regula-
tions contain fewer public participa-
tio'n requirements for the large major-
ity of projects expected to be less-
costly or to have less significant im-
pacts. The regulations permit the ex-
emption of projects which involve only
minor upgrading of treatment works
or minor sewer rehabilitation frpm
many of the public participation re-
quirements of these regulations.
DATES: These regulations are effec-
tive on February 16, 1979.
ADDRESSES: Comments submitted
on these regulations may be inspected
at the Public Information Reference
Unit, EPA Headquarters, Room 2922,
Waterside Mall, 401 "M" Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. between 8:00 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m. on business days.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Michael B. Cook, Acting Director,
Facility Requirements Division (WH
595), Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 "M" Street, S.W., Room
1137ET, Washington, D.C. 20460,
telephone 202/426-9404.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
The regulations for public participa-
tion in the Construction Grants Pro-
gram were proposed in the FEDERAL
REGISTER on August 7, 1978, along
with overall public participation regu-
lations which would cover programs
under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act and the Safe Drinking
Water Act, as well as the Clean Water
Act (40 CFR Part 25). The Part 25 reg-
ulations are being published in final
form in the same issue of the FEDERAL
REGISTER as the regulations specific to
the Construction Grants Program.'
The preamble to the overall Part 25
regulations includes a complete discus-
sion of public participation activities
conducted by EPA in the development
of the overall regulations and the Con-
struction Grants Program public par-
ticipation regulations.
RESPONSE To PUBLIC COMMENT
A large volume of comment was re-
ceived on the overall Part 25 regula-
tions and on the regulations specific to
the grants program. Many general
comments were relevant to the .grants
program regulations as well as to
other programs under the three cov-
ered Acts. A full discussion of these
general issues is included in the pre-
amble to 40 CFR Part 25. They in-
clude consistency of public participa-
tion requirements, discretion and
flexibility in the requirements, role of
elected officials, composition and use
of advisory groups, advance notice of
public hearings and meetings, and
others. The sections which follows de-
scribe EPA's response to those more
specific issues and comments which
pertain to the Construction Grants
Program:
1. Delay of Wastewater Treatment
Projects. Many commenters, especially
some State and local governments, ex-
pressed sincere concern that the new
requirements would delay the con-
struction of much needed treatment
facilities. They cited the requirements
for/ additional meetings and public
consultation, the need for earlier
public notice, the additional reporting
requirements, the additional demands
on their staffs, and additional over-
sight and review functions && potential
sources of delay during the Step 1,
facilities planning stage.
Some citizens and public interest
groups who commented on this issue,
however, noted that the most serious
delays came not during the planning,
but during the design and construc-
tion stages. Often it was not until
these later stages that individual citi-
zens and local groups realized signifi-
cant fiscal and growth impacts of ex-
pensive, oversized treatment facilities.
It is the Agency's position thal^ this
is an environmental, not a public
works, program where the fiscal integ-
rity and sound environmental manage-
ment of the program are paramount.
Delays, if any, in facilities planning
due to increased public participation
are anticipated to be more than com-
pensated for by the selection of more
appropriate treatment systems and
more rapid progress in the design and
construction stages.
2. Resources. Federal, State and sub-
state agencies responsible for the Con-
struction Grants Program were seri-
ously concerned about the resource
implications of these requirements.
They were especially concerned about
increased demand for monies and staff
time.
The Agency acknowledges the need
for some additional resources to ade-
quately implement public participa-
tion in the program. All efforts have
been made to minimize these demands
while maintaining the integrity of the
program. The distribution of the
public participation work plan and the
responsiveness summaries will reduce
the need for EPA monitoring by fos-
tering cooperation between grantees
and citizens to ensure high quality
program outputs. Also, the Agency has
conducted a detailed resource analysis
that indicated that the most resource
intensive activity for the States and
EPA is attendance by staff at public
meetings and hearings; the regulations
do not require such attendance,
making this activity strictly discretion-
ary. Since the Full-Scale Public Par-
ticipation Program is more resource
intensive than the Basic Public Par-
ticipation Program, EPA expects that
the Full-Scale Public Participation
Program will be required of approxi-
mately 30 percent of projects.
The Agency is also making new re-
sources available. State management
assistance funds, under section 205(g)
of the Act, and construction grants
funds, under section 201, can be used
by the States and grantees, respective-
ly, to cover public participation costs.
Furthermore, EPA is designating staff
in its regional offices to assist in carry-
ing out these requirements.
3. Criteria for Full-Scale Public Par-
ticipation Program. The Agency re-
ceived a number of comments on the
criteria proposed for use by the Re-
gional Administrator in determining
which projects should have the Full-
Scale Public Participation Program.
Sonic commenters urged that the cri-
teria be made less flexible by the addi-
tion of specific population size and
project cost criteria. The Agency has
decided to continue to allow the Re-
gional Administrators a high level of
discretion in determining which pro-
jects are likely to need additional
public involvement based upon their
assessment of cost, complexity, and po-
tential impacts. In the proposed regu-
lations the Full-Scale Program was
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 44, NO. 34—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1979
.90
-------
mandatory only when it was deter-
mined early in the facilities planning
process stage that an Environmental
Impact Statement would be required,
under 40 CFR Part ft. Recognizing the
public and Congressional concern over
the cost ofradvanced wastewater treat-
ment (AWT> facilities that require
very stringent wastewater treatment,
the Agency has included AWT as a
mandatory criterion for the Pull-Scale
Program. This will enable communi-
ties to give more careful consideration
to less-costly systems and alternative
treatment processes, such as land
treatment.
Other than the EIS and AWT man-
datory criteria, the Regional Adminis-
trator will require the Pull-Scale Pro-
gram only after a project meets two
tests. The Regional Administrator
must determine (1) that the project
has the potential for community
impact, as suggested by criteria listed
in §35.917-5(c)(l)(iii), and (2) that the
existing local decisionmaking process
would benefit from increased opportu-
nities for public involvement. The Re-
gional Administrator will exercise this
discretion in light of the Agency ex-
pectation that approximately 30 per-
cent of the Step 1 projects will be re-
quired to conduct a Pull-Scale Pro-
gram.
4. Content of Futt-Scale Public Par-
ticipation Program. Generally, citi-
zens and public interest groups, as well
as some government agencies, gave
strong support to the content of the
Pull-Scale Program. They particularly
supported the opportunities for public
involvement and consultation early in
facilities planning, the public partici-
pation coordinator, and the advisory
group. Some commenters requested
more discretion in using the advisory
groups. They urged that they be en-
couraged, but not required.
The Agency.has decided to retain
the Pull-Scale Program as initially
proposed. Since it will only apply to
those projects of high complexity or
controversy, the presence of a core
group of informed citizens—the advi-
sory group—is considered particularly
essential. It must be pointed oat that
the Baste Program, which will cover
the large majority of projects, does
not require the advisory group; howev-
er, grantees are at libertry to establish
one at their discretion. The Part 25
regulations have been revised to pro-
vide grantees with significant addi-
tional flexibility in composing the
membership of advisory groups.
5; Small Community Impacts. A
number of commenters expressed con-
cern over the impact of the regulation
on small communities. They suggested
automatic exemptions for small com-
munities form the Pull-Scale Program,
and even the Basic Program.
tMfS AND RfGUtATlONS
The refutations allow the Regional
Administrator extensive discretion in
determining which projects should
nave a "Poll-Scale Program. First, the
Regional Administrator must deter-
mine that one of the criteria suggest-
ing community impact is likely, to be
present and second, having made that
determination, the Regional Adminis-
trator nftist determine that more
active public participation in the form
of the Pull-Scale Program would be of
benefit in the particular community.
In making this second case-by-case de-
termination, the Regional Administra-
tor is free to take* into consideration
the size and nature of the community
where facility planning will occur.
In many cases documented by EPA,
the cost and other . impacts of
wastewater treatment facilities are
most severe in small, rural communi-
ties. The evaluation of less-costly,
more acceptable alternatives may
therefore require more, not less, active
public participation. In many in-
stances this will be best accomplished
by the attention of a core group of in-
terested citizens, with staff support,
which is the cardinal feature of the
Pull-Scale Program. This decision will
be made on a case-by-case basis by the
Regional Administrator.
6. Early Public Involvement. Many
citizens and public interest groups
urged the Agency to require additional
early public involvement, especially
before the Step t grant is awarded and
in the selection of the consulting engi-
neer. Since pre-Step 1 activities are
not grant eligible, the Agency has de-
cided not to impose additional require-
ments beyond the performance stand-
ard for public information and consul-
tation in the development of the plan
of study.
Many private citizens and public in-
terest groups urged EPA to require
public participation in the selection of
the consulting engineer. These com-
menters argued that this would en-
courage the selection of a consultant
able to communicate effectively with
the public and would lead to greater
public confidence and support for the
planning process. EPA agrees in part
with this concept, but does not believe
it is feasible to make consultation in
engineer selection a requirement. Ac-
cordingly, the regulations encourage,
but do not require, public consultation
in the selection of the consulting engi-
neer.
To help stimulate early public inter-
est, the final regulations require the
grantee to provide the public with an
estimate of the additional per house-
hold cost of the proposed facilities.
This cost can be calculated from the
cost and population estimates in the
biennial: Needs Survey if more precise
data are not available.
10301
7. Coordination With Other Pro-
grams. Many commenters stressed the
importance of coordinating the public
participation activities in the Con-
struction Grants Program with public
participation in other programs, espe-
cially the Water Quality Management
Program under 40 CPR Part 35, Sub-
part G.
The Agency concurs and has modi-
fied the requirement by encouraging
coordination of facility planning
public participation activities with
those associated with other related en-
vironmental programs to the project
area.
8. Public Participation in Step 2 and
3. Some local agencies and many
public interest groups expressed ap-
proval of the language in the regula-
tions which indicated that public par-
ticipation activities in Step 2 (design)
and Step 3 (construction) were grant
eligible. Some commenters caned for
mandatory public participation re-
quirements in Steps 2 and 3. With the
exception of requirements to inform
and consult with the public in the de-
velopment and adoption of the user
charge and industrial cost recovery
systems, EPA will not impose public
participation requirements to Steps 2
and 3. However, public participation
activities at these stages are grant eli-
gible provided they are included in a
public participation work plan submit-
ted by the grantee and approved by
EPA.
9. Training. Many citizens and
public Interest groups supported the
requirement that EPA train advisory
groups established under the Pull-
Scale Program. Some States and local
governments pointed out that they
should have a role in training advisory
groups because of their familiarity
with local issues. EPA agrees. The
final regulations require EPA to devel-
op training materials but indicate that
training would be done in cooperation
with the State or grantee.
10. EPA Technical Assistance to Im-
plement the Regulations. Many com-
menters, representing a variety of in-
terests, urged the Agency to provide
technical assistance to implement the
public participation regulations.
The Agency concurs and has taken
the following actions to aid States and
grantees to implement their regula-
tions:
—Made public participation activi-
ties grant eligible for construction
grant funds (section 201 > and State
management assistance funds (sec-
tion 205(g)).
—Begun development of a modular
technical training program on
wastewater treatment facilities
planning for grantees and their ad-
visory groups.
—Begun development of training
courses on how to conduct and
KOBtM meiSUX. VOt 4*. NO. 34-FMOAT, FEHHMRY W, 1977
91
-------
10302 RULES AND REGULATIONS
evaluate public participation activ-
ities for staff from EPA, State and
substate agencies.
—Initiated the development of addi-
tional guidance on the public par-
ticipation regulations, including a
citizen handbook.
—Assigned staff persons in each
EPA regional office with the re-
sponsibility for overseeing public
participation activities.
—Funded five wastewater treatment
facilities planning institutes, one
in each of Regions I, II, III, V, and
VI, to train local citizen decision-
makers.
—Included an expanded presenta-
tion on the public participation
regulations in the Facilities Plan-
ning Training Course available to
State and grantee, staff, consulting
engineers and the public.
—Produced and made available a
wide variety of technical publica-
tions on all aspects of wastewater
treatment.
—Entered into an interagency agree-
ment with the Department of
Labor to provide technical assist-
ance to small, rural communities.
NOTE: The Environmental Protection
Agency has determined that this document
does not contain a major proposal requiring
preparation of an Economic Impact Analy-
sis Statement under Executive Orders
11821, 11949, and 12044 and OMB Circular
A-107
Dated: February 8,1978.
DOUGLAS M. COSTLE,
Administrator.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 44, NO. 34—FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1979
92
-------
39338 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No. 130 / Thursday. July 5.1979 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 35
[FRL-12S6-7]
State and Local Assistance; Grants for
Construction of Treatment Works;
Miscellaneous Amendments-
Note.—The following document was
published Wednesday, June 27,1979 at page
87594. On page 37595, certain amendment
Hem numbers appeared incorrectly in the
middle column, 14th line and in the
amendatory language paragraphs beginning
on that page. Therefore, this document is
republished to reflect those corrected
amendment item numbers.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final Rule. ^^^
SUMMARY: This amendment to the
regulations governing grants for
construction-of treatment works under
Title II of the Clean Water Act makes
•everal miscellaneous changes. One of
the changes makes final a regulation
proposed on September 27,1978; four of
the changes are designed to simplify
requirements and administration of the
program; and the rest of the changes
correct linguistic, typographical, and
punctuation errors. They are being
published together at this time so that
they will be codified in the July 1.1979,
edition of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATES: Amendment Nos. 4,6,
8,9, and 10 are effective October 1,1979.
The remainder are effective June 27,
1979.
ADDRESSES: Comments previously
received on the proposed rules may be
inspected at: Public Information
Reference Unit, Environmental
Protection Agency, Room 2922
Waterside Mall, 401M Street SW.,
Washington, D.C. between 8 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., business days. Comments on
these regulations should be addressed
to: Director, Grants Administration
Division (PM-216), Attention: GPPB/CG
Final, Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Harold P. Cahill, Director, Municipal
Construction Division (WH-547),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460, 202-426-8986.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
September 27,1978 (43 FR 44021), EPA
published final revised and conformed
regulations governing grants for
construction of treatment works
authorized under Title II of the Clean
Water Act, as amended. In that same
document, EPA proposed two changes
to § 35.936-13' (43 FR 44046) and
requested comments through November
30,1978. EPA received 90 letters of
comment on these proposed changes.
The following paragraphs discuss the
action we are taking in the three areas
the comments addressed,
§ 35.936-13(a)(l). manufactured
materials. In the September 27,1978,
publication, EPA proposed to amend the
regulation "to better achieve
competition within and between types
of material (particularly pipe), in the
interest of affording an opportunity to
compete and insuring reasonableness of
prices, unless there is a sound
engineering justification based upon
specific site conditions which supports
any restrictions upon competition."
The many comments which we
received were unanimously opposed to
any revision to the provision relating to
manufactured materials. The comments
indicate to us that virtually all the major
participants in this system—grantees,
engineers, and suppliers—believe that
the market system is working well under
the current regulation and that there is
suffioient competition to ensure
reasonable prices. Based on their
aisurance, EPA does not expect that
there will be many future protests in this
area and has, therefore, decided not to
make the revision to the regulations
which was proposed. Current
requirements will continue to apply,
including the basic requirement for
competition (see § 35.936-3). Program
Requirements Memorandum 75-5
(formerly PG19A, August 8,1975) states
the interrelationship of these policies as
follows:
With regard to materials, such as pipe, it is
not mandatory that two or more different
types of material be specified; however,
maximum competitive bidding is encouraged
commensurate with sound engineering
practice and requirements. * * * It is
preferable to use performance specifications
for materials based upon accepted nationally
known standards such as AWWA, USAS,
ASTM, AASHO [sic] and Federal
specifications and standards.
§ 35.936-13(c) Experience clause
restriction. In the September 27,1978,
publication, EPA proposed to add a new
final sentence to read, "No experience
restriction will be permitted which
unjustifiably reduces competition or
innovation." EPA received only a few
comments on this aspect of our
proposal. The views ranged from
recommending more stringent
restrictions on the use of experience
clauses to recommending that EPA
abandon its proposal.
EPA has decided to promulgate the
proposed change as a final rule with one
minor word change (amendment number
9 below). In order to agree more closely
with OMB's latest proposed revision of
Attachment O to OMB Circular A-102,
we have changed the word
"unjustifiably" in the proposal to
"unnecessarily" in the final. Our
experience with protests under § 35.939
has indicated that this explicit statement
of the Agency policy which has evolved
during the protest process is needed.
One of the commenters suggested that
more detailed requirements be included.
We believe that implementation of this
policy can best be achieved on a case by
case basis and we do not wish to
encumber the regulations with
unnecessary detail. However, we are
aware of at least two types of
experience restrictions which should
normally be considered unnecessarily
restrictive and in violation of the
regulation: (1) an experience clause
restriction that has the effect of
permitting only one equipment
manufacturer to participate in the
bidding without submission of a bond 01
deposit; and (2) an experience clause
restriction which limits competition or
innovation by requiring that the
previous experience be with the exact
size and type of equipment specified.
S 35.93»-13(a)(l}, salient
requirements. In the final rules
promulgated on September 27, we
revised this paragraph to require the
grantee to be prepared to identify (in a
bid protest or program review) the
"salient requirements" of items of
equipment when the grantee elects to
procure by the "two brand names or
equal" procedure. Although this change
was published as a final rule, the Deputy
Comptroller General recommended that
we further amend this section to require
the grantee to specify the salient
characteristics in the solicitation itself
(rather than just for protest or program
review purposes). EPA's brand name or
equal procedure in the construction
grant program differs from that of other
programs.and agencies because of the
unique statutory requirement in Section
204(a)(6) of the Clean Water Act, as
amended. With respect to both the
comments of the Deputy Comptroller
General and the requirements of
Attachment O to OMB Circular A-102,
we feel that the statutorily mandated
reference to two items provides for
adequate identification of the salient
requirements of specified items when
that type of specification is used. We
also find that neither our grantees nor
we have the resources to develop,
review and maintain up-to-date
93
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 44, No. 130 / Thursday, July 5, 1979 / Rules and Regulations 39339
performance or guide specifications for
all procurements. This is particularly
true because of the rapid changes and
innovations occurring in the
marketplace which we don't want to
stifle with outdated requirements in the
specifications. Under the circumstances
involved in the construction grant
program, it is better to permit the
definition of salient requirements by
naming two technologically up-to-date
and acceptable products followed by the
words, "or equal." Even in the absence
of developing or innovative processes or
technology, the identification of two
acceptable items normally would
adequately indicate the acceptability of
an "equal." Finally, the EPA procedure
greatly minimizes the paperwork burden
on grantees, consulting engineers, and
others in the procurement process since
most such procurements are not
disputed. Therefore, we have not
amended this section further.
Other Regulation Changes
Advance purchase of eligible land.
EPA has approved several deviation
requests to allow grantees to acquire
eligible land in advance of Step 3 grant
award, because of the current
availability of a specific site and
generally escalating property values. For
these reasons, and to facilitate
expeditious initiation and completion of
Step 3 construction, we believe that
more widespread use of this practice
may be desirable. Amendments 4 and 6
allow the Regional Administrator to use
his discretion in permitting grantees to
proceed with land acquisition after
approval of the facilities plan in
advance of the normal Step 3 award,
either by (1) award of a Step 3 segment
consisting only of purchase of eligible
land or (2) approval of the grantee's
preaward cost for the purchase of
eligible land. In amendment 8,
compliance with the requirement for
approved user charge/industrial cost
recovery systems prior to step 3 grant
award, operation and maintenance
manuals and sewer use ordinances, is
deferred until the award of the ensuing
step 3 construction assistance, since the
data necessary will be more readily
available at that time.
Advance payment for relocation
costs. On April 27,1979, EPA published
as a Federal Register Notice (44 FR
24926) a class deviation which permits
the Regional Administrator to make
advance payment after grant award for
the payment of relocation costs only
when he determines that it is necessary
for the,expeditious completion of a
project. That Notice gave the legal
background for this change. Amendment
10 below includes that change in the
regulations and supersedes the class
deviation. This amendment does not
permit advance payment for the Federal
share of the actual cost of eligible land.
§ 35.925-15. When the construction
grant regulations were revised on
September 27,1978, the definition of
industrial user was revised, in
accordance with the mandate of the
Clean Water Act, to exclude sources
contributing 25,000 gpd or less to the
treatment works. However, the
regulations continued to use the phrase,
"industrial user" in § 35.925-15 where it
was not the intent of the statute or of the
regulations to exclude any industries
from the requirement that the principal
purpose of the project and system be to
treat domestic wastes. Therefore,
amendment number 5 corrects § 35.925-
15 to replace the words "industrial
users" with "industrial sources" both
times it is used in the section. This
change of words comports with the
Agency's longstanding interpretation
and administration of this section, both
prior to and since the .September 27
publication; no change in meaning is
intended. In addition, in order to comply
with Federal Register format, numbers
(1) and (2) have been changed to (a) and
(b).
Appendix E. The criteria for
determining innovative processes and
techniques found in paragraphs 6.e.(l)
and (2) both incorrectly use the te'rm
"treatment works" in referring to life
cycle costs and energy saving criteria
for innovative technologies, ^he term
"treatment works" as defined in the Act
and § 35.905 includes other facilities
(e.g. sewers, interceptors, outfalls) in
addition to treatment plants. To include
the costs of these in the cost
effectiveness analysis would unfairly
restrict the ability of innovative systems
to qualify under the criteria.
Amendment 13 clarifies our intent by
changing the term "treatment works" to
"eligible portions of the treatment works
excluding conventional sewer lines" in
these two paragraphs.
Corrections. On November 30,1978,
EPA published the allotments of the
fiscal year 1979 appropriation in
§ 35.910-10. Two typographical errors
were made in that publication.
Amendment 1 corrects those errors.
Amendments 2, 3, 7,11, and 12 are for
the purpose of correcting typographical
and punctuation errors in the September
27,1978, publication of final regulations.
Notice. The substantive amendments
(4,6, 8,10) which were not published as
proposed rulemaking are simplifications
of procedure which lessen burdens on
grantees. Therefore, formal notice and
opportunity for comment on these
changes are unnecessary and contrary
to the public interest. However, in
accordance with 40 CFR 30.125, public
comment on grant regulations is
solicited on a continuous basis.
Effective date. Although the effective
date of the substantive regulatory
changes is October 1,1979, the start of
the new Federal fiscal year, and they
apply to all grant assistance (including
subsequent related projects) awarded
on or after that date, Regional
Administrators are authorized to use the
more flexible procedures included in
these regulations in advance of that
date. Where appropriate, special grant
conditions may be used.
-------
APPENDIX B
List of Other Federal Regulations
40 CFR Part 6, "Implementation of Procedures on the National
Environmental Policy Act."
40 CFR Part 25, "Public Participation in Programs under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the
Clean Water Act."
40 CFR Part 30, "General Grants Regulations and Procedures."
40 CFR Part 35, Subpart G, "Grants Water Quality Planning Management
and Implementation."
40 CFR Part 125, "Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements for
Discharges into Marine Waters."
40 CFR Part 133, "Secondary Treatment Information."
40 CFR Part 403, "General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New
Sources of Pollution."
Circular A-95, "Evaluation, Review, and Coordination of Federal and
Federally Assisted Programs and Projects," Federal Register, Vol. 41
pages 2052-2065, January 13, 1976.
95
-------
APPENDIX C
List of EPA Publications and Forms
Publications
Evaluation of Land Application Systems. EPA 430/9-75-001, March 1975.
Generic Facilities Plan for a Small Community: Stabilization Pond and
Oxidation Ditch. February 1981, FRD-18.
Management of Small Waste Flows. EPA 600/2-78-173, September 1978.
Municipal Pretreatment Program Guidance Package.
Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater.
Technology Transfer, EPA 625/1-77-008, October 1977.
Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal. Technology
Transfer, EPA 625/1-79-011, September 1979.
Sludge Treatment and Disposal. Technology Transfer, EPA 625/4-78-012, 2
volumes, October 1978.
Small Wastewater Systems, Alternative Systems for Small
Communities and Rural Areas. January 1980, FRD-10.
(To order other EPA publications, use the order form on the following
pages).
EPA Forms
Grant Agreement/Amendment. Form 5700-20.
Application for Federal Assistance. Form 5700-32,
Cost or Price Summary Format. Form 5700-41.
EPA Worksheet
Procedure and Worksheet for Determining Municipal Financial Capability,
EPA Contract Number 68-01-4343, May 7, 1979.
96
-------
General information and instructions
Use this form to order technical publications concern-
ing the U.S. EPA Construction Grants Program for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works. On the re-
verse of this order form, please sign, indicate type of
employer and type of work, and if appropriate, in-
clude your job title.
General Services Ad-
ministration, Denver, Colorado address should be on
the outside. Include your return address,
affix first class postage, and mail.
Inquiries concerning individual projects or localities
and the Construction Grants Program for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Works should be directed to
the appropriate EPA Regional Office or State Water
Pollution Control Office.
Editor's note: We had to cut the publications order form
described above to print it in "Facilities
Planning 1981" (FP-81). The form covers
five pages of information and fills pages
97-101 of "FP-81."
To order EPA publications fill out the form
as detailed above and mail it to the General
Services Administration address shown on
page 102 of "FP-81."
97
-------
(Type or print name and address to which publications are to be mailed)
Name/Job Title
Organization
Address
City
State
Zip Code
Signature
Telephone No
and Area Code
If you are not currently on the Construction Grants Program mailing list do you want to be added? DYES D NO
Previous Name/Address /If Changed/
2 Type Of Employer
-------
Please send me the following publications-(check appropriate boxes)
Municipal Construction Division Series (MCD)
D MCD-02 Program Requirement Memorandum-
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works Con-
struction Grants Program.
d MCD-03 Handbook of Procedures-Construction
Grants Program for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Works, (Second Edition).
D MCD-04 How to Obtain Federal Grants to Build
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Works, (up-
dated 1980).
d MCD-05 Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electric,
and Fluid System and Component Reliability,
(EPA 430/99-74^)10), July 1974.
D MCD-06 Protection of Shellfish Waters, (EPA
430/9-74-010), July 1974.
D MCD-10 Technical Report: Costs of Wastewater
Treatment by Land Application, (EPA 430/
9-75-003), revised September 1979.
O MCD-13 Alternative Waste Management Tech-
niques for Best Practicable Waste Treatment,
(EPA 430/9-75-013), October 1975.
d MCD-14 Wastewater Treatment Ponds, (EPA 430/
9-74-011), March 1976.
O MCD-17 Technical Report: Cost-Effective Comp-
arison of Land Application and Advanced
Wastewater Treatment. (EPA 430/9-75-016),
November 1975.
D MCD-20 Technical Report: Direct Environmental
Factors at Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Works, (EPA 430/9-76-003), January 1976.
d MCD-21 Disinfection of Wastewater Task Force
Report, (EPA 430/9-75-012), March 1976.
d MCD-23 Construction Inspection Guide, printed
in three volumes, (EPA 430/9-76-005), July
1976.
d MCD-24 Model Plan of Study, Supplement to:
Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan, (EPA
430/9-76-004), March 1976.
d MCD-26 Environmental Changes From Long-
Term Application of Sewage Effluent on Land,
(EPA 430/9-78-003), March 1978.
D MCD-27 V E Formats and Case Studies, (EPA
430/9-77-029). June 1977.
D MCD-28 Municipal Sludge Management Environ-
mental Factors, (EPA 430/9-77-004), October
1977.
D MCD-29 Value Engineering Workbook for Con-
struction Grants Projects, (EPA 430/9-76-008),
July 1976.
D MCD-30 Municipal Sludge Management: EPA
Construction Grants Program, an Overview of
the Sludge Management Situation, (EPA 430/9-
76-009), April 1976.
D MCD-31 Industrial Waste and Pretreatment in the
Buffalo Municipal System, (EPA 600/2-77-
018), January 1977.
D MCD-32 Energy Conservation in Municipal Waste-
water Treatment, (EPA 430/9-77-011), October
1977.
D MCD-33 Application of Sewage Sludge to Crop-
land: Appraisal of Potential Hazards of the
Heavy Metals to Plants and Animals, (EPA
9-76-013), November 1976.
D MCD-34 Wastewater: Is Muskegon's Solution
Your Solution'', (EPA 905/2-76-004), Septem-
ber 1976.
D MCD-35 Application of Sludges and Wastewater
on Agricultural Land: A Planning and Educa-
tional Guide, reprinted with permission of
Ohio State University, March 1978.
D MCD-36 Sludge Handling and Disposal Practices
at Selected Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants, (EPA 430/9-77-O07), April 1977.
D MCD-38 Construction Costs for Wastewater Con-
veyance Systems 1973-1977, (EPA 430/9-77-
014), January 1978.
D MCD-39 Analysis of Operation and Maintenance
Costs for Wastewater Treatment Systems,
(EPA 430/9-77-015). February 1978.
D MCD-40 A History of Land Application as a
Treatment Alternative, (EPA 430/9-79-012),
April 1979
Management and Operation Series (MO)
The Municipal Construction Division. Office of Water
Programs wishes to announce the availability of the
following publications This material, although widely
D MO-1 Estimating Staffing for Municipal Waste-
water Treatment Facilities, March 1973.
D MO-3 Maintaining Clean Water, (EPA 140/8),
March 1979. (pamphlet)
D MO-5 Considerations for preparation of Opera-
tion and Maintenance Manuals, (EPA 430/9-
74-001).
D MO-6 Estimating Laboratory Needs for Muni-
cipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities, (EPA
430/9-74-002), June 1973.
D MO-7 Maintenance Management Systems for
Municipal Wastewater Facilities, (EPA 430/9-
74-004), October 1973
D MO-8 Start-up for Municipal Wastewater Treat-
ment Facilities, (EPA 430/9-74-008), Decem-
ber 1973.
D MO-9 Emergency Planning for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Facilities, (EPA 430/9-
74-013), February 1974.
D MO-10 Aspects of State-wide Emergency Re-
sponse Programs for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Facilities, (EPA 430/9-74-014),
March 1974.
D MO-11 Anaerobic Sludge Digestion-Operations
Manual, (EPA 430/9-76-001), February 1976.
distributed from the Municipal Operations Branch is
considered timely and worthy of your consideration
D MO-12 Package Treatment Plants-Operations
Manual, (EPA 430/9-77-005), April 1977
D MO-14 Process Control Manual for Aerobic Bio-
logical Wastewater Treatment Facilities, (EPA
430/9-77-006), March 1977.
D MO-15 Operations Ponds Stabilization Manual,
(EPA 430/9-77-012), August 1977
D MO-16 Field Manual for Performance Evalua-
tion and Troubleshooting at Municipal Waste-
water Treatment Facilities, (EPA 430/9-78-
001), January 1978.
D MO-19 Sludge Hand/ing and Conditioning, (EPA
430/9-78-002), February 1978
D MO-21 Inspector's Guide for Evaluation of Mun-
icipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, (EPA
430/9-79-010), April 1979
D MO-22 Management of Small-to-Medium Waste-
water Treatment Plants, (EPA 430/9-79-013),
July 1979
D MO-23 A Planned Maintenance Management
System for Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plant, (EPA 600/2-73-004), November 1973.
D MO-24 Evaluation of Flow Equalization in Mun-
icipal Wastewater Treatment, (EPA 600/2-79-
096), May 1979
D MO-25 Chemical Aids Manual for Wastewater
Treatment Facilities, (EPA 430/9-79-018), De-
cember 1979.
99
-------
NOTE: This list is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
D MCD-41 An Approach for Comparing Health
Risks of Wastewater Treatment Alternatives:
A Limited Comparison of Health Risks Be-
tween Slow Hate Land Treatment and Acti-
vated Sludge Treatment and Discharge, (EPA
430/9-79-009), September 1979.
D MCD-42 Upgrading Trickling Filters. (EPA 430/9-
78-004), June 1978.
D MCD-43 Federal Guidelines: State and Local
Pretreatment Programs, three volumes (EPA
430/9-76-017a, b, c), January 1977.
D MCD-44 Construction Grants Program Informa-
tion—Industrial Cost Recovery Systems, No-
vember 1976.
D MCD-47 AH You Need to Know About U.S. en-
vironmental Protection Agency Sewage Treat-
ment Construction Grants, booklet October
1976.
Please Note. This publication was announced
previously but due to unforseen circumstances
printing was delayed.
D MCD-53 Innovative and Alternative Technology
Assessment Manual, (EPA 430/9-78-009), Feb-
ruary 1980.
Thit manual has been designed to aid Federal
and State review authorities in the administra-
tion of the innovative and alternative require-
ments of the Construction Grants Program as
well as providing the same basic methodologi-
cal information to the engineering and planning
personnel preparing facilities plans.
D MCD-54 Wastewater Stabilization Pond Linings.
(reprint of USA CRREL, SR 78-28), November
1978.
D MCD-60 Energy Requirements for Small Flow
Wastewater Treatment Systems, (reprinted with
permission of USA CRREL, SR 79-7), April
1979.
D MCD-61 Evaluation of Sludge Management Sys-
tems: Evaluation Checklist and Supporting
Commentary, (EPA 430/9-80-001), October
1979.
OMCD-62 NPDES Compliance Biomonitormg In-
spection Manual, October 1979.
D MCD-63* Sludge Recycling for Agricultural Use,
(EPA 430/9-80-008), March 1980.
This color brochure provides insight into how
several communities have successfully devel-
oped sludge management programs that involve
the recycling of municipal sludge for agricultu-
ral use.
D MCD-64 Innovative and Alternative Technology—
A New Approach to an Old Problem, March
1980, (a brochure).
D MCD-66 Assessment of Current Information on
.Overland Flow Treatment of Municipal Waste-
water, (EPA/9-80-002), May 1980.
D MCD-67* Aquaculture Systems for Wastewater
Treatment: Seminar Proceedings and Engine-
ering Assessment, (EPA 430/9-80-006), Sep-
tember 1979.
This publication contains an engineering assess-
ment and the proceedings of a seminar held at
the University of California-Davis on September
11-12, 1979, on the use of various aquaculture
systems (wetland processes, aquatic processes)
for the treatment of municipal wastewater.
D MCD-68* Aquaculture Systems for Wastewater
Treatment: An Engineering Assessment, (EPA
430/9-80-007), June 1980.
This report contains The results of an engineer-
ing assessment of the current status of aqua-
culture technologies for wastewater treatment.
D MCD-69* Recommendations from Value Engineer-
ing Studies in Wastewater Treatment Works,
(EPA 430/9-80-010), September 1980.
This publication summarizes the best ideas/
recommendations from 93 value engineering
(VE) reports which were completed under the
EPA mandatory VE program.
D MCD-72* A Guide to Regulations and Guidance
for the Utilization and Disposal of Municipal
Sludge. (EPA 430/9-80-015), September 1980.
This document provides a concise outline of
the different Federal regulations and guidelines
that pertain to each alternative for sludge
utilization and disposal and points out how
these regulations and guidelines should be ad-
dressed.
"THESE PUBLICATIONS HAVE NOT APPEARED
ON PREVIOUS APPLICATION FORMS.
Facility Requirements Series (FRD)
D FRD-2 1978 Needs Survey—Conveyance and
Treatment of Municipal Wastewater in Sum-
maries of Technical Data, (EPA 430/9-79-002),
February 1979.
D FRD-5 Environmental Assessment of Construc-
tion Grant Projects, (EPA 430/9-79-007), Jan-
uary 1979.
D FRD-6 Municipal Wastewater Management—Citi-
zen's Guide to Facility Planning, (EPA 430/9-
79-006). January 1979.
D FRD-7 Municipal Wastewater Management-
Public Involvement Activities Guide, (EPA
9-79-005), January 1979.
D FRD-8 Proceedings—National Conference on
Water Construction and Municipal Wastewater
Flow Reduction, November 28 & 29, 1978-
Chicago, III. (EPA 430/9-79-015), August 1979.
D FRD-9 Determining Wastewater Treatment
Costs for Your Community, October 1979.
D FRD-10 Small Wastewater Systems-Alternative
Systems for Small Communities and Rural
Areas, January 1980. (foldout)
D FRD-11* Construction Costs for Municipal Waste-
water Treatment Plants: 1973-1978 (EPA
430/9-80-003), April 1980.
D FRD-12* The Alternative is Conservation.
This handbook demonstrates water conserva-
tion techniques and devices; copies of an ac-
companying film or video cassette are avail-
able for loan or purchase from the following
address:
User
30 Bates Road
Watertown, MA 02172
D FRD-19* 7976" Needs Survey-Cost Estimates for
Construction of Publicly-Owned Wastewater
Treatment Facilities, (EPA 430/9-81-001), Feb-
ruary 1980.
'THESE PUBLICATIONS HAVE NOT APPEARED
ON PREVIOUS APPLICATION FORMS.
and Sewer Programs
Miscellaneous
D UNA-11.0* Making Water
Work, December 1978.
DUNA-120* Water Wheel-Your Guide to Home
Water Conservation.
D UNA-15.0* Federal Financial Assistance for Pol-
lution Prevention and Control.
This booklet describes the assistance programs
available to affected firms, farms) trade associ-
ations, unions, non-profit development organi-
zations, and State and local governments seek-
ing to reduce the sometimes disruptive effect of
environmental regulations on individual firms
and local economics.
NOTE: A publication entitled, "On-Site Wastewater
Treatment and Disposal Systems" (EPA 625/1-80-
012) may be of interest to your program.
This document provides information on generic types
of on-site wastewater treatment and disposal systems.
The design information presented is intended as tech-
nical guidance reflective of sound professional prac-
tice. The intended audience for the manual includes
those individuals in design, construction, operation,
maintenance and regulation of on-site systems.
Please contact the following office to order this mater-
ial and cite "1012" as a distribution number.
U.S. EPA
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Telephone Number (513) 684-7394
100
•THESE PUBLICATIONS HAVE NOT APPEARED
ON PREVIOUS APPLICATION FORMS.
-------
Effective and economic treatment of municipal
wastewater is a critical element in the effort to
clean — and keep clean — the waterways of the
United States. The Municipal Construction
Division, Office of Water Programs Operations,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, has
issued a wide range of technical publications on
municipal wastewater treatment. We will be
happy to send you copies of any publications
you might need to assist you.
— Municipal Construction Division
xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460
Municipal Construction Division
Office of Water Program Operations
101
-------
ZOl
J9UJ90
S3Z08 00 J9AU9Q
J9AU9Q '
6ui|;e|Aj
Oda 8) uoiiBJisjUjLupv saojAjas |Bjauao
Order Form
Construction Grants Program
Mailing List Application
EPA Form 7500-21 (Rev. 12-80) REPLACES PRE
VIOUS EDITION AND 7500-21A
TAPE
HERE
OOE$ as
jo) Ajpuaj
ssauisng
9ZZ08
J91U8Q \eiapa-j JBAUSQ 'it> 6p|g
S3DIAU3S S1SH 9NHIVW a3ZnVHiN30-VSO O/O
eis paiiun
-------
APPENDIX D
PRMs and POMs Discontinued or Canceled Upon Publication of
"Facilities Planning 1981"
PRMs Canceled :
The following PRMs are canceled for the reasons specified.
75-1 Use of Revenue Sharing Funds for Waste Treatment Projects.
Policy no longer valid. Superseded by 31 CFR 51.40 and
section 4 of P.L. 94-488.
75-2 Experience Clauses for Equipment Suppliers.
Superfluous; policy set forth more completely at 40 CFR
51.40, 35.936-13 (c).
75-3 Waste Stabilization Ponds.
Superfluous; policy set forth in 40 CFR I33.102(c).
75-4 Standarized Construction Grant Documents.
Guidance no longer useful; contained in 40 CFR 35.938-8.
75-5 Nonrestrictive Specification.
Covered by 40 CFR 35.936-13(a) and (b).
75-7 Sewer System Evaluation and Rehabilitation.
Covered by 40 CFR 35.927, 927-1 through 927-5.
75-8 Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. Superseded by PRM
76-5.
75-9 Supplement to PG No. 25; Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973 (P.L. 93-234). Superseded by PRM 76-5.
75-28 Flood Insurance Requirements Effective July 1, 1975.
Superseded by PRM 76-5.
75-10 User Charges and Industrial Cost Recovery System.
75-19 Canceling PG-28 - User Charges and Industrial Cost Recovery
(ICR) System. Superseded by PRM 76-5. New ICR systems
eliminated by P.L.96-483.
75-12 Obligation, Recovery and Reallotment of Contract Authority
Funds. Guidance outdated.
75-15 Class Deviation - Use of Force Account Work on Construction
Grants Projects. Grants deviation from outdated force
account regulations (40 CFR 35.936-2(a) 1972 edition). New
procedures are set forth at 40 CFR 35.936-14.
103
-------
Appendix D (continued)
PRMs and POMs Discontinued or Canceled, Etc.
PRMs Canceled (continued)
75-16 Title II Regulations Concerning Reserve for Step 1 and
Step 2 Projects.
Superseded by 40 CFR 35.915-l(d).
75-20 User Charge Systems.
Covered by revised regulations, 40 CFR 35.925~ll(b),
35.925-13.
75-21 Overruns, Reserves and Priority Lists.
Subject matter no longer an issue; also, more appropriately
Program Operations Memorandum (POM) material.
75-22 Policy Re: Retention of Payments.
Superfluous, policy contained in 40 CFR 35.938-7.
75-23 Escalation Clauses in Construction Grants Projects.
Information obsolete.
75-33 Discount Rate. Current and future discount rate PRMs will
specifically supersede prior discount rate PRMs and include
a table listing the rate for previous years.
78-2 Discount Rate.
79-4 Discount Rate.
80-1 Discount Rate.
75-34 Grants for Treatment & Control of Combined Sewer Overflows &
Stormwater Discharges.Section on stormwater treatment
superseded by section 21l(c) of Act & 40 CFR 35.925-21 which
contain a flat prohibition against funding of separate
stormwater treatment projects. Remainder of PRM integrated
into "Facilities Planning 1981."
75-40 Priority List Supplement to FY 1977 Construction Grants
Guidance.
77-7 Management of State Priority Lists.
78-5 Interim Management of FY 1978 State Priority Lists under the
1977 Amendments.
78-13 Interim Priority List Guidance for the Development and
Management of FY 1979 State Priority Lists.
79-6 Priority List Guidance for the Development and Management of
FY 1980 State Project Priority Lists.
The above five PRMs overlap, and policy in each subsequent
PRM at least partially supersedes the previous issuance.
Future priority list guidance will be issued in POMs.
104
-------
Appendix D (continued)
PRMs and POMs Discontinued or Canceled, Etc.
PRMs Canceled (continued)
76-1 Construction Grant Programs Issuance.
76-2 Cancelation of Certain Program Guidance Memoranda (PGM).
Superseded by PRM 81-1.
76-4 Coordination of Construction Grants Program with EPA-Corps
of Engineers Section 404/Section 10 Permit Programs
Policy integrated into Constructon Grants Handbook of
Procedures and "Facilities Planning 1981."
77-6 Easements.
Expressly superseded by PRM 80-3.
77-8 Funding of Sewage Collection Projects.
Superseded by PRM 78-9.
78-3 Buy American.
Expressly superseded by PRM 80-5.
78-6 ICR - Interim Guidance.
All provisions have been incorporated into regulations,
intended only as interim guidance.
78-7 Combined Step 2 & 3 Construction Grants Awards.
Superseded by 40 CFR 35.903(b) & 40 CFR 35.909. See 43
Federal Register 44036.
80-6 Retroactive Application of Program Requirements.
Limitation now contained in FY81 appropriation bill,
P.L.96-526.
PRMs Integrated into "Facilities Planning 1981."
75-26 Consideration of Secondary Environmental Effects in the
Construction Grants Process.
75-27 Field Surveys to Identify Cultural Resources Affected by EPA
Construction Grants Projects.
75-31 Facilitating EIS Preparation with Joint EIS/Assessments
(Piggybacking).
75-32 Compliance with Title VI in the Construction Grants Program.
75-38 Relationship Between 201 Facility Planning and Water Quality
Management (WQM) Planning.
76-3 Presentation of Local Government Costs of Wastewater
Treatment Works in Facility Plans.
105
-------
Appendix D (continued)
PRMs and POMs Discontinued or Canceled, Etc.
PRMs Integrated in to "Facilities Planning 1981" (continued)
77-4 Cost Allocations for Multiple Purpose Projects.
78-9 Funding of Sewage Collection System Projects.
(NOTE: 40 CFR 35.925-13 will be modified to reflect policy
as conveyed in Facilities Planning 1981.)
78-10 Infiltration/Inflow.
79-3 Revision of Agency Guidance for Evaluation of Land Treatment
Alternatives Employing Surface Application.
79-8 Small Wastewater Systems.
75-34 Grants for Treatment and Control of Combined Sewer Overflows
and Stormwater Discharges.
76-4 Coordination of Construction Grants Program with EPA-Corps
of Engineers Section 404/Section 10 Permit Programs.
PRMs Partially Canceled
(The portions of these PRMs that relate to Step 1 facilities planning
have been incorporated into Facilities Planning 1981, but portions remain
in effect for Steps 2 and 3.)
78-1 Erosion and Sediment Control in the Construction Grants
Program Policy as it Pertains to Facilities Planning,
76-5 Flood Insurance.
POMs Partially Canceled:
77-2 Discount Rate.
78-4 Construction Grants Funding for Lab Testing Equipment.
80-3 Regarding Use of a Computer Assisted Procedure for the
Design and Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Systems
(CAPDET) in Step 1 Facilities Planning.
80-4 The Effect of the Hazardous Waste Regulations on Management
of Municipal Sewage Sludge.
106
-------
APPENDIX E
EPA Offices
REGION 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Room 2203
Boston, Mass. 02203
Phone: FTS - 223-7210
Commercial: 617-223-7210
Hours: 8:00-5:00
States in Region:
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Vermont
Rhode Island
REGION II
26 Federal Plaza
Room 900
New York, New York 10007
Phone: FTS - 264-2525
Commercial: 212-264-2525
Hours: 8:00-5:00
States in Region:
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico*
Virgin Islands*
REGION III
Curtis Building
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Phone: FTS - 597-9814
Commercial: 215-597-9814
Hours: 8:00-4:30
States in Region:
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
District of Columbia*
*Applicant same as State
REGION VI
First International Building
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Phone: FTS - 729-2600
Commercial: 214-767-2600
Hours: 8:00-4:30
State in Region:
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
REGION VII
324 East llth Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
Phone: FTS - 758-5493
Commercial: 816-374-5493
Hours: 7:00-4:30
States in Region:
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
REGION VIII
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80295
Phone: FTS - 327-3895
Commercial: 303-837-3895
Hours: 7:00-5:30
States in Region:
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
107
-------
Appendix E (continued)
EPA Offices
REGION IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Phone: FTS - 257-4727
Commercial: 404-881-4727
Hours: 8:15-4:45
States in Region:
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
REGION V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Phone: FTS -353-2000
Commercial: 312-353-2000
Hours: 8:15-4:45
States in Region:
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
* Applicant same as State
REGION IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Phone: FTS - 556-2320
Commercial: 415-556-2320
Hours: 8:00-4:30
States in Region:
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
American Samoa*
Tr. Terr, of Pac. Islands*
Guam*
REGION X
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Phone: FTS - 399-1220
Commercial: 206-442-1220
Hours: 8:00-4:30
States in Region:
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
EPA Small Wastewater Flows
Clearinghouse
West Virgina University
Morga'ntown, WV 26506 (800) 624-8301
Innovative and Alternative
Technology Clearinghouse
Municipal Research Laboratory
26 W. St. Clair
Cincinnati, OH 45268 (513) 684-7611
Contact State office or EPA regional office for information on other State and
Federal agencies.
108
-------
INDEX
Key
• "1.1", e.g., refers to section 1.1 of Facilities Planning 1981.
• "35.917-l(f)", e.g., refers to the Construction Grants Regulations
in Title 40, Part 35, Subpart E of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
• "Appx.E.4", e.g., refers to Appendix E, paragraph 4 of the
Construction Grants Regulations.
• "appx. A" refers to appendix A of Facilities Planning 1981.
• "Part 25", e.g., refers to Part 25 of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.
• "1508.5", e.g., refers to subpart 5 of Part 1508 of Title 40.
• "(CWA 303(e))", e.g., refers to the Clean Water Act, section 303(e)
• "41 FR 6190", e.g., refers to volume 41 of the Federal Register,
page 6190.
• "15 WCPD 1353", e.g., refers to volume 15 of the Weekly
Compilation of Presidential Documents, page 1353.
• an underlined reference includes a definition.
A-95 clearinghouse comments: 3.3.4, 4, 6.1, 35.917-l(f),
35.920-3(3), 30.305(b)(2), Part 25
access, for operation, etc: 35.917(h)
access, to water: 35.917(j)
advanced wastewater treatment, (AWT): 3.2, 5.2, 5.6.3.5, 5.7.2,
35.917-5(c)(ii)
adverse impacts: 5.8.5.2, 5.8.6.2, 6.507(c)(6)&(7)
ACHP, (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation): 5.3.1
advisory group: 3.2, 35.917-5(c)(3)(iv), 25.7
agricultural land, prime: 5.3.3, 5.3.11, 35.925-13(e) 6.302(c),
6.506(a)(4)(iv)
air quality: 5.3.8, 5.3.10, 5.4.1, 6.303, 6.506(a)(6), 45 FR 53187
airports: 5.3.6
AJE (see alternate justifiable expenditure)
alignments: 5.6.3.3 (see sewer collection systems)
allotments: 4, 35.910-1
allowable costs: 2.1, 3.3.2, 5.3.1., 30.705, 35.925-18(a), 35.936-20(c),
35.940, (see eligible costs)
alternate justifiable expenditure, (AJE): 5.7.1.5, Figure 3, Appx. E
alternative, preferred: 5.7.1.5, 6.507(c)
alternative, selected: (see selected alternative/plan)
alternative systems: 5.6.2, 35.918(a)(5), Appx.E.4, (see innovative and
alternative)
alternatives, comparison of: 5.7.8, 35.917-5(b)(6)&(c)(vii)
alternatives, development of: 5.6, 35.917(b), 35.917-5(b)(5)&(6)
alternatives, evaluation of: 5.3, 5.6, 5.7, 35.917(b),
35.917-l(d)(5), Appx. A.5.b &.6, 6.507(c)(5),(6)and(7)
alternatives, feasible: 5.6, Appx. A.5.a, 35.9l7(b)
alternatives, principal: 5.6, 5.7
amend facilities plan: 6.3, 35.917-9, 35.920-2(a)
annual costs: 5.7.1.2, Appx. A.6.c.(2)
109
-------
applicant, eligible: 3, 3.3.1, 35.917-3(a), 35.925-5
application, contents: 3, 7.2, 35.920-3(a), 30.315
application, form: 3.3.1, 30.315
application procedure: 4, 35.920, 35.920-2, 35.925-18(a)(l)
approval of application: 4
approval of facilities plan: 6, 7, 35.917-8
aquisition of land: 35.918-2(b), (see eligible costs)
aquifer monitoring: 5.3.9, 5.6.2, 35.918-l(i)
aquifer, sole source: Safe Drinking Water Act, subsec. 1424(e)
archeological: 5.3.1, 5.3.10, 6.30l(a)&(b), 6.506(a)(5), 36 CFR 800
authority, eligible: 3.3.1, 4, 5.9.1, 35.917-l(h), 35.917-3(a).
35.920-1, 35.920-3(a)(l)(ii)
authorized representative: 3.3.1, 4
availability, site: 5.9.3, 35.917-l(m)
award of grant: 4, 35.917-5(b)(4), 30.345-5
AWT (see advanced wastewaster treatment)
basic public participation program: 3.2, 35.917-5(b)
basin plan, (CWA (303(e)), 35.917-7(b)
best practicable waste treatment technology, (BPWTT): 5.6.3.1, 5.6.3.5,
5.7.4, 35.917-l(d)(4)&(5), 35.918-3, 41 FR 6190
bidding practices: 3.3.3, 5.4.3.2, 30.415, 35.938, 35.939
biological treatment: 35.917-l(d)(5)(i)
bird strikes: 5.3.6
bonds: 5.7.2
BPWTT (see best practicable wastewater treatment technology)
CAPDET: 5.7
capacity, additional: Appx. A.10
capacity, reserve: 5.6.3, (see reserve capacity)
charges to customers: 5.7.2, 5.7.8, 5.8.4, 35.917-1(1), (see user charges)
chemical treatment: 35.917-l(d)(5)(i)
civil rights: 5.9.2, 35.917-l(i), Part 7
clearinghouse comments: (see A-95)
coastal zone: 5.3.4, 6.302(d)
combined sewer overflows (CSO): 5.6.3.5, 5.7.1.5, 35.917-l(d)(4),
35.925-21
community: 35.925-13
concurrent review: 6.2
conference, preapplication: 2.1
construction schedule: 35.917~l(a)
contracted work schedule: 6.2
contracts: 35.937-1, Appx. C-1&C-2, (see procurement)
conventional collection system: 5.1, 35.918(a)(4)
cost allocation: 5.7.1.5
cost-effectiveness: 5.6, Appx. A.4.b&.d, A.5.c & A.6, 35.917(b),
35.917-2U), 35.917-5(b)(5) & (c)(3)(vi), 35.918-Kb), 35.925-13
cost estimates: 3.1, 5.8.3, 5.8.4, Appx. A.6.a, 35.917~l(a)&(i)
costs, annual: 5.7.1.2, Appx. A.6.c.(2)
current situation: 5.4
110
-------
debt service: 5.7.2
definitions: 35.905, 35.918(a), 35.936-1, 35.937(c), Appx. A.4, 6.101,
6.501, (CWA 1004)
delegation: 1.5, 35.912
demographic projections: 5.5.1, (see population)
design of selected plan: 5.8.3
direct impacts: 5.3.9, 5.8.6.1, 1508.8
disposal of residuals: 5.6.3.4, 35.917-l(d)(6)
discount rate: 5.7.1.2
dredge and fill permits: 1.4, 5.3.2, 7.2.4
easement: 35.918-l(h)
economic projection: 5.5.1
effluent discharge limitations: 1.2, 5.2, 35.917(e), 35.917-l(e),
Appx. A.6.a
effluent limited stream: 1.2
EID (see environmental information document)
EIS (see environmental impact statement)
eligible applicant: 35.920-1, 35.925-5
eligible/ineligible costs: 5.1, 35.918-2, 35.927-3, (see allowable costs)
endangered species: 5.3.7, 5.3.10, 6.302(g)
enforceable requirements: 5.1, 5.6.3.9, 35.901, 35.905, 35.917-l(e)
energy: 5.3.10, 5.6.3.2, 5.7.1.3, 5.7.5, 5.8.5, 35.917-l(d)(8)&(9),
Appx. A.6.a &.d, Appx E
environmental assessment: 5.3, 35.917-l(d)(7), 35.917-2(a), 35.925-8,
35.925-13(d) &-14, Appx. A.6.a, Part 6, FRD-5
environmental description: 5.3, 5.8.6.1, 6.507(c)(1)&(6)
environmental evaluation: 5.3, 5.7.3, 5.8.6, 35.917-l(d)(7), 35.925-8,
6.507(c)(5), FRD-5
environmental impact statement, (EIS): 3.2, 5.3, 5.3.11, 35.925-8(a),
Part 6
environmental information document, (EID): 5.3, 5.3.11, 35.917-l(d)(7),
6.101(d), 6.507, 6.507(c)
environmentally sensitive areas: 5.6.2, 5.7.3, 35.925-13(e)
equivalent uniform annual costs: 5.7.1, 5.7.1.2, Appx. A.6.a
erosion and sediment control: 5.3.9, 5.3.10
existing facilities: 5.4.2, 5.4.4, 5.6.1, 35.917-l(d)&(e), 6.507(c)(5)
existing environment: 5.3, 5.4.1, 6.507(c)(l)
expensive project test: 5.7.2
facilities plan preparation/content: 5, 35.917
fact sheet: 3.2, 35.917-5(b)(4), 25.4(b)(2)
farmland: 5.3.3, (see agricultural land)
fast track: 2.2, 7.1
feasible alternatives: 5.6, (see alternatives, feasible)
Federal facilities: 7.2.4, 35.917-6
financial capability/impact evaluation: 5.2, 5.7, 5.7.2, 35.925-5
financial requirements: 5.7.1, 5.7.2, 5.7.8, 35.925-5
finding of no significant impact, (FNSI): 5.3, 35.925-8(a)
fiscal year: 1.0, 5.7.1.2
111
-------
fish: 5.3.6, 5.3.10, 6.302(f), 6.506(a)(6)
flood insurance: 5.3.2.1, 30.405-10
floodplains: 5.3.2, 5.3.10, 35.925-13(d)&(e), Appx. A.S.f, 6.302(a)&(b),
6.506(a)(4)(iii); Part 6, Appendix A
flows, existing: 5.4.2
flows, forecasted: 5.5.2, 35.917-l(d)(l), Appx. A.8.b&.d
flow and waste reduction: 5.5.3, 35.917-l(d)(2), Appx. A.S.c. & d,
6.507(c)(5)(i)
FNSI (see finding of no significant impact)
force account: 5.4.3.3, 30.645, 35.936-14
fuel cost escalation factors: 5.7.1.3
full scale public participation program: 3.2, 5.3.10, 35.917-5(c)
future situation: 5.3, 5.5, 5.5.4, Appx. A.6.b.
generic facilities plan: 2.2, 5.6.2
grant acceptance: 4, 35.917-5(b)(4) & (c)(3)(v), 30.345-5
grant application: 4, (see application, grant)
grant assistance agreement form: 4
grant award/conditions: 4, 5.3, 35.925-13(e), 35.925~18(a)
groundwater: 5.3.9, 5.3.10, 35.918(i), 35.918-l(f), Appx. A.6.a,
6.506(a)(6)
growth, allowable: 35.925-13 & (a)
habitation: 5.1, 35.925-13
hearings: (see public hearings)
historical properties: 5.3.1, 5.3.10, 5.5.1, 6.30l(a)&(b), 6.506(a)(5),
36 CFR 800
ICR, (see industrial cost recovery): 5.6.3.6
I&A (see innovative and alternative)
I/I (see infiltration/inflow)
implementability: 5.7.6, 5.9, 6.507(c)(5)
implementation agreements: 5.7.6, 5.9, 5.9.1, 35.917-l(h), 35.917-6
implementation steps: 5.9.6
inactive project: 7.1
indirect impacts: 5.3.9, 5.8.6.1, 1508.8
individual systems: 5.6.2, 35.917-2(a)(4), 35.918
industrial: 5.4.2, 5.5.2, 5.6.3.6, 5.9.5, 35.925-15, Appx. A.8.d(2)
industrial cost recovery (ICR): 5.6.3.6, 35.928
infiltration/inflow, (I/I): 5.4.3, 5.4.3.1, 5.4.3.2, Figure 2, 35.905,
35.927 et. seq., 35.927-l&(c), 35.927-5
innovative and alternative technology, (I/A): 5.6.2, 5.6.3, 5.6.3.2,
5.7.1.4, 35.908, 35.917-l(d)(8), Appx. A.5.d & A.7, E.4 &.5
innovative and alternative cost-effective preference: 5.6.3.2,
5.7.1.4, 5.7.1.5, Appx. A.7
inspection and maintance program: 5.6.2, 35.918-l(h)
interjurisdictional agreements: 3, (see joint agreements)
interceptors: 5.6.3.3, 5.6.3.7, Appx. A.S.f
interest rate: 5.7.1.2, (see discount rate)
112
-------
joint agreements/authority: 3, 3.1, 5.6.2, 7.2.3, 5.7.6, 5.9.1,
35.917-3(a), 35.917-6, 35.920-3(b)(6)&(8)
land application: 5.2, 5.6.3.1, 35.917-l(d)(5)(iii)
land treatment: 5.2, 5.6.3.1
land use projections: 5.3.10, 5.5.1
lead agency: 3, 35.917-3(a)
level of treatment: 5.2, 35.918-3
local share: 5.7.2
locations, facilities alternatives: 5.6.3.3, 6.507(c)(5)
maintenance requirements: 5.4.3.4
MBE (see minority business enterprises)
median income: 5.7.2
meetings (see public meetings)
midcourse review: 3.2, 5.7.8, 7.1, 35.917-5(f), 6.507(b), 25.12(a)(2)
minority business enterprises, (MBE): 3.3.3, 35.936-7, 35.936-20(c),
Appx. C-1.14, & C-2.9
mitigation measures: 5.8.6.2, 6.507(c)(6)&(7)
monetary costs: 5.7.1, Appx. A.6.a &.e
monitoring: 5.9.5
multiple purpose projects: 5.6.3.5, 5.6.3.8, 5.7.1.5, 5.7.7
National Environmental Policy Act, (NEPA): 5.3, 5.7.3, 5.8.6,
35.925-8(a), Part 6
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, (NPDES): 1.2, 5.1, 5.2,
5.6.3.8, 35.917-l(e), 35.935-9(b)&(c)(2)
navigable water: 5.3.2
need: 3.1, 5.1, 5.3, 35.917(b), 35.917-5(c)
NEPA (see National Environmental Policy Act)
no action alternative: 5.3, 5.5.4, 5.6.3, 6.507(c)(2)
no discharge: 35.917-l(d)(8)
noise: 5.3.10
notice, public: 25.4(c)
nonconvential collection system: 5.1, 35.918(a)(5)
nonmonetary factors: 5.7.8, Appx A.6.a
NPDES (see National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)
onsite systems: 5.4.4, 5.6.2, 35.917-l(d)(5)(v), (see individual systems)
operation and maintenance requirements (O&M): 5.9.4, 35.905(replacement),
35.917-l(d)(3), 35.918-l(f)&(h), 35.927-3(c), Appx. A.6.c
operation, optimum: 5.6.1, 35.917-l(d)(3), 6.507(c)(5)
payment schedule: 4
permits: 5.3.2, 35.925-6, Part 230, 33 CFR Parts 120 and 209,
(see enforceable requirements)
phased construction: 5.6.3.7, Appx. A.8.e &.f
113
-------
piggyback EIS: 5.3.11
planning area: 1.3, 5.1, 5.6.2, 35.917-2(a), 35.917(e), 35.917-4.
35.917-5(e), 6.507(a), 6.507(c)(l), CWA 201
planning entity: 35.920-3(a) (1) (ii)
planning period: 5.5, Appx. A.4.C & 6.b
planning process: 1.1, Figure 1
plan of study: 3.1. 35.917-l(k), 35.917-5(b)(2) & (c)(3)(ii),
35.920-3(a)(l). 35.925-18(a)(l)&(2)
population: 5.3.10, 5.5.1, Appx. A. 8. a.
population density: 5.3.10, 5.6.2, 35.925-13(c) , Appx. A.S.a,
6.506(a)(4)
POTW (publicly owned treatment works)
preapplication conference: 2.1, 35.920-2(a), 6.507(a)
preferred alternative: 5.7.1.5, (see alternative, prefered)
preliminary design/engineering: 5.8.3
present worth: 5.7.1, 5.7.1.2
pretreatment: 5.6.3.6, 5.7.8, 5.9.5, 7.2.4, 35.907
35.917-l(k), Appx. A. 6. a, Part 403.8, CWA 307
primary impact: 5.3.9, Appx. A. 6. a, Appx. A. 8. f(l)&(2)(a)
principal alternatives: (see alternatives, principal)
principal residence: 35.918(a) (2) , 35.918-l(a)
priority list: 1.1, 1.4, 4, 7.2.1, 35.915. 35.917-2(b), 35.920-2(a)&(b) ,
35.925-3
privately owned systems: 5.6.2, 35.918(a)(l)
procurement of services: 3.3.3, 5.4.3.3, 7.2.2, 35.920-3(a) (2) ,
35.925-20(c), 35.936, 35.937, 35.938, 35.939, Appx. C-l and
C-2, Part 33, (see contracts)
progress reports: 35.917-3(b)
public consultation: 25.4(d)
public hearings/meetings: 3.2, 3.3.3, 5.7.8, 6.1, 25.2. .5&.6. 35.917-5
public participation: 2.2, 3.3.3, 7.2.4, 5.7.9, Part 25. 35.917-l(g),
35.917-5, 35.920-3(a)(l)(iii), 35.920-3(b) (10) , 35.920-3(c) (5) ,
35.925-2(e), 35.940-1
public participation coordinator: 3.2, 35.917~5(c) (3) (iv)
public participation program outline/schedule: 3.2, 35.917-5(b) (3) &
public participation work plan: 3.2, 4, 35.917-5(b) (4) & (c)(3)(v), 25.11
reduction of flows and waste: 5.5.3
recreational opportunities: 5.3.10, 5.5.1, 5.7.1.5, 5.7.7,
5.8.6, 35.917-Kj)
regionalization: 5.6.2, 35.917-2(a)(l)
rehabilitation: 5.4.3.3, 35.918-11, 35.925-13, 35.927-2,-3,-5(b)&(c),
35.935-14
reliability: 5.7.4
relocation/dislocation: 5.3.10, 7.2.4
replacement: 5.9.5, 35.905. 35.917-l(d)(3), 35.918-l(f)&(h),
35.925-13, 35.927-3(c), Appx. A.6.c(2)
reserve capacity: 5.6.3, 35.917-l(d)(l)
residence, principle: 35.918(a)(2), 35.918-l(a)
residuals disposal: 1.4, 5.6.3.2, 5.6.3.4, 35.917-l(d)(6), 6.507(c)(5)
114
-------
responsiveness summary: 3.2, 35.917-5(b)&(c), 25.8
restoration of site: 35.919-2(d)
reuse/recycle: 5.2, 35.917-l(d)(5)(ii), 35.917-l(d)(8), Appx. A.6.a
revenue: 35.917-l(d)(5)(iv), Appx. A.6.c(2)
review of application: 4, 35.925
review of facilities plan: 6, 6.2, 7, 35.917-7, 35.917-8 & 35.917-9
revisions to facilities plans: 6.3, 35.917-9, 35.920-2(a)
rural communities: 5.6.2, 5.7.2, 5.9.1
scenic rivers: 5.3.5, 5.3.10, 6.302(e), 15 WCPD 1353
schedule: 35.917(d)(2), 35.917-l(a), 35.917-3(b), 35.917-5(b)(3),
& (c)(3)(iii), 35.920-3(a)(l)(iii) & (b)(l)
secondary impacts: 5.3.9, Appx. A.6.a, Appx. A.8.f(2)(b)
secondary wastewater treatment: 5.2; Part 133, Appendix C
sediment (see erosion)
selected alternative/plan: 5.7.1, 5.7.2, 5.8, 5.8.1, 5.8.2,
35.917, 35.917-5(b)(6) & (c)(3)(iv)
screening: 35.917-5(b)(5), Appx. A.5.b, (see alternatives evaluation)
service lateral: 5.4.3.3
service area: 5.1, 35.917-2(a)
sewage collection systems: 5.1, 5.6.2, 35.905, 35.925-13
sewer maintance program and ordinance: 5.4.3.4
sewer system evaluation survey, (SSES): 5.4.3.3, 35.927-2,
35.927-5(b)&(c)
sewer use ordinance: 5.4.3.4, 7.2.4
SHPO, (State Historic Preservation Officer): 5.3.1
shoreline stabilization: 5.3.9
site availability: 5.9.3, 35.917-l(m)
SIP, (State Air Implementation Plan): 5.3.8, 6.303, 45 FR 53382
sludge disposal: (see residuals), 35.917-l(d)(6)
small community: 3.2, 35.908(b)(l)(iv)
small purchases: 3.3.3, 35.936-19
small wastewater systems: 5.6.2, 5.9.1
smoke testing: 5.4.3.3
social impacts: 35.917-5(a)(3), Appx. A.6.a
SSES (see sewer system evaluation survey)
staged construction: Appx. A.5.a, Appx. A.8.e&.f, (see phased
construction)
State planning processes: 1.1
storm sewers: 1.4, 5.6.3.6, 35.925-21
subagreements: 3.3.3
substantial habitation: 5.1, 35.918-l(a)
sunk costs: 5.7.1.1
surface water: 5.3.10
television inspection: 5.4.3.3
treatment works: 35.905. 35.917(a)&(b), 35.917-2(a), 35.925-15,
unallowable costs: 3.3.2, (see allowable costs)
undeveloped areas: Appx. A.8.f(l)
unsewered areas: 35.925-13
115
-------
user charges: 5.7.2, 5.7.8, 5.9.1, 35.905, 35.917-1(1),
35.918-l(g), 35.925-11, Appx. B, (see charges to customers)
user charge system: 5.7.2, 7.2.4, 35.918(g), 35.929 et. seq.
upgrading: 35,917-l(d)(3)
value engineering (VE): 35.905. 35.935-18
wasteload allocations: 1.2, 1.4, 5.2, 35.917(e), Part 133
wastewater flows, existing: 5.4.2
wastewater flows, future: 5.5.2
water access: 35.917-Kj), (see recreation)
water quality limited stream: 1.2,
water quality management, (WQM): 1.1, 1.3, 1.4. 35.917(e), 35.925-13(d);
35 Subpart G; CWA 303(e)
wetlands: 5.3.2, 5.3.10, 5.5.1, 35.925-13(d)&(e), Appx. A.S.f,
6.302(a)&(b), 6.506(a)(6); Part 6, Appendix A
wildlife: 5.3.6, 5.3.10, 6.302(f), 6.506(a)(6)
wild rivers: 5.3.5, 5.3.10, 6.302(e), 15 WCPD 1352
WQM (see water quality management plans)
*U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981 341-085/4456
-------
United States Postage and Fan Paid
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency
Aflency FPA-336
Washington DC 20460
Official Business Special
Penalty for Private Use $300 Fourth-Class
Rate
Book
------- |